Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers?

[MetalPig]

This is my first and probably last contribution to this topic. (Unless this is still going 5 years from today.)

Here's a picture of what some people call 'total pulverization':

 

[Architect]

You must be very naive to believe that PBS would actually still know it had such a documentary.

Yeah, like, duh, because PBS and the BBC are in on the plot too......

 

[Architect]

Curious how your side has never been able to produce an image of even one of the 47 supposed steel core columns.

Voila

 

[einsteen]

I'm really sorry then if I said 'basic physics' to a NASA scientist, apologies.

I didn't start the baby powder discussion, I only wanted to say that between the 3.7 meters in a floor the air is still not in the same movement as the bulk above, there is even furniture and other crap. But it's obvious that the Greening model is a mathematical model and no realistic physical model. But let's stop the baby powder discussion.


Anyone seen my new wtc7 video, this is brand new from TV yesterday.

 

[Architect]

Et pleuseurs......

Et voila une autre fois.......

So chris, I see a lot of steel and no concrete: Discuss.

 

[Stellafane]

You must be very naive to believe that PBS would actually still know it had such a documentary.

So you believe in Santa Claus too?

Let me get this straight -- you're suggesting that PBS simply forgot they produced the video?

Wow.

You cannot possibly have any idea of how utterly ridiculous you look. The fact that you'e a liar has been established beyond all doubt, but now it appears that something else is seriously lacking. Beyond that, there's really nothing else I can say.

 

[KingMerv00]

Let me get this straight -- you're suggesting that PBS simply forgot they produced the video?

Wow.

You cannot possibly have any idea of how utterly ridiculous you look. The fact that you'e a liar has been established beyond all doubt, but now it appears that something else is seriously lacking. Beyond that, there's really nothing else I can say.

Funny ain't it? PBS forgot but Chris remembers.

 

[Dave_46]

Architect.

He's seen those pictures, or some similar ones before. What a sensible person calls the core columns he calls interior box columns, or something similar. They are apparently there to support the formwork for the concrete, which is poured seven storeys behind the rest of the construction (yes, I know its crap).

Dave

 

[Belz...]

Which fallacy is it when you attack an argument that someone has not made?

A strawman. Except he didn't mention any argument of yours, he accused you of bossing people around, plain and simple. That's not a strawman.

The problem that everyone is dancing around is that the central core which was designed to withstand considerable compressive stress should pancake.

Vertical columns don't pancake. THAT was a strawman.

 

[Belz...]

Exactly. "A big pile of baby powder" would not do the same job as large chunks of concrete+steel, *except* in calculations that only consider total mass.

Why wouldn't you consider total mass ? The thing's falling on a FLOOR. It weighs the same, doesn't it ?

 

[Belz...]

9/11 and those towers falling seemed all alittle staged but who really knows. It seemed like a demolition job. I would think that an airplane exploding into a building would demo more than they actually did. I thought the tops of the buildings would fall off in one peice like a tree falling when cut. The whole building just came down like a demo job though. I find that strange. I find the whole darn thing strange, even the Pentagon. What the heck happened to the airplane that supposedly went into the side of the building? What about the aftermath? Everything is so strange and everyone was so evasive?

Nothing is strange when you understand the physics involved. The tree analogy had been debunked extensively.

 

[Belz...]

Even in this model there wil be scattering (some particles do, some don't), it will bounce back but Greening assumes it just merges and the speed is in the same directory and then we get da funny growin' block again

Where are all those particles going to go ? Only those with lateral freedom of movement are going to be significantly ejected. The others are going straight down. Weight and all.

I would not like it if I get such a block on my head, however if you empty a bucket baby powder on my head, with particles reaching terminal speed quickly I'm fine.

If the particles remain in one, tighly-packed group with nowhere to go but down, you WON'T be.

 

[Belz...]

We can all believe in the images of the demolition. They show the concrete core. Curious how your side has never been able to produce an image of even one of the 47 supposed steel core columns. You've shown interior box columns which are not inside the core. The core area is void of anything whatsoever the spire is outside the concrete core wall. Here the interior box are silouetted against the concrete wall. column[/url].http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3018&stc=1&d=1157955748

Maybe you should look at the pictures, again, and at the videos linked that clearly show the steel columns failing, with no concrete in sight, and your oft-vaunted "concrete core" invisible, in every way..

 

[Ducky]

You must be very naive to believe that PBS would actually still know it had such a documentary.

Well, people want to slam Christophera for saying this, but it very well could be that an affiliate produced a show that is in the PBS system but not well known. All shows archive themselves (Nova has an extensive library of all 35 or 36 seasons) but there is not central library or archive. The woman I spoke to said that problem is ongoing as the PBS works as a network of affiliates, not as a central network such as CBS and autonomy among affiliates is standard and they have not made a national central archive.

But to slam dunk this one, I called pbs and asked them specifically about your documentary. You can contact the foundation from the info on this page.

here is what I asked:

1) How does PBS catalog and archive old productions, and how far back does the current PBS library of archives go?

A: There is no central archive. For archives of shows, it is best to contact that show directly, as they produce themselves independantly.

2) Is there anyone familiar with a production on how the twin towers were built that may have been produced in the early 90s?

A: Yes Allison Winchell, she works in programming/scheduling.

I left Allison a message to call me back today about the program. It was indicated that there was a production of how the twin towers were built, and I expect her to get back to me on it.

So Christophera, when I have PBS saying directly the opposite of your claims, will you acknowledge you were wrong?

 

[Ducky]

Well, people want to slam Christophera for saying this, but it very well could be that an affiliate produced a show that is in the PBS system but not well known. All shows archive themselves (Nova has an extensive library of all 35 or 36 seasons) but there is not central library or archive. The woman I spoke to said that problem is ongoing as the PBS works as a network of affiliates, not as a central network such as CBS and autonomy among affiliates is standard and they have not made a national central archive.

But to slam dunk this one, I called pbs and asked them specifically about your documentary. You can contact the foundation from the info on this page.

here is what I asked:

1) How does PBS catalog and archive old productions, and how far back does the current PBS library of archives go?

A: There is no central archive. For archives of shows, it is best to contact that show directly, as they produce themselves independantly.

2) Is there anyone familiar with a production on how the twin towers were built that may have been produced in the early 90s?

A: Yes Allison Winchell, she works in programming/scheduling.

I left Allison a message to call me back today about the program. It was indicated that there was a production of how the twin towers were built, and I expect her to get back to me on it.

So Christophera, when I have PBS saying directly the opposite of your claims, will you acknowledge you were wrong?

I got a call from Rosie in Viewer Services and she has tracked down the only construction video/documentary they can find and it was done in 1983, and was for the Port Authority.

I have requested a copy be sent to me.

However from the discussion with the programming folks (and being bounced around the phones a bit) that footage was re-used in many of the 911 documentaries since. It also doesn't show what Christophera describes.


Now, Christophera:

I have put to rest once and for all that PBS did NOT produce what you said. Therefore you may now retract your inaccurate statements.

 

[Bell]

The only concrete I have ever seen in documentaries about the Twin Towers, was the concrete poured atop the trusses, as a basis for the floors.

The concrete we haven't seen, the concrete for the core was poured in from the top, only after the towers where completed. That's why the towers were so high, so they could wait until the tops were covered in fog, and nobody would notice.

 

[Ducky]

The only concrete I have ever seen in documentaries about the Twin Towers, was the concrete poured atop the trusses, as a basis for the floors.

The concrete we haven't seen, the concrete for the core was poured in from the top, only after the towers where completed. That's why the towers were so high, so they could wait until the tops were covered in fog, and nobody would notice.

Before I go any further I would appreciate knowing whether that was a sarcastic post or not.

It is hard to tell sometimes with the new folks.

 

[Bell]

Before I go any further I would appreciate knowing whether that was a sarcastic post or not.

It is hard to tell sometimes with the new folks.

Sorry, I thought it was pretty clear

Yes, I should have used the [sarcasm] tag.

 

[Ducky]

Sorry, I thought it was pretty clear

Yes, I should have used the [sarcasm] tag.

Fair enough.

Honestly, what threw me was that it was about as plausible as the rest fo the crap I've seen them spew. So I was like "dude, like they totally controlled the weather like after they built all those floors and like it was poured from the top by like black helicopters in some like heavy fog man!"

Then I considered making a "documentary" called "LOOSE AIR"


Then I realized I hadn't smoked nearly enough crack for that to make sense...

 

[Bell]

Fair enough.

Honestly, what threw me was that it was about as plausible as the rest fo the crap I've seen them spew. So I was like "dude, like they totally controlled the weather like after they built all those floors and like it was poured from the top by like black helicopters in some like heavy fog man!"

Then I considered making a "documentary" called "LOOSE AIR"


Then I realized I hadn't smoked nearly enough crack for that to make sense...

Except for the weather controlling thing, the government does control it, that's why the skies where blue that day. Made it easier to put in a CGI airplane.

But seuriously, I really don't understand how all of you keep your cool with all these deniers, and asking questions and answering questions time and again. Must feel like talking to a brick wall?