Z
Variable Constant
Don't forget - since you insist on feeding this trolloc - the question as to how C4 encased in concrete has a greater shelf life than C4 in its original packaging...
Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers?
- Thread starter Christophera
- Start date
- Status
Don't forget - since you insist on feeding this trolloc - the question as to how C4 encased in concrete has a greater shelf life than C4 in its original packaging...
Chris may answer but I think he says the triggers were added later by a small army of infiltrators who somehow managed to go un-noticed by the WTC staff
I forgot what he said about the original planting of the c4. If anybody noticed who wasn't supposed to they were likely hypnotised to forget.
Just like they all forgot there was a concrete core.Proof you say! Of the c4, none but the fact that it appears to Chris to be the only viable explanation.
And were they planning 9/11/2001 back in 68? Sort of, they thought they might need some sort of false flag operation someday and cooked up this one should the need arise.
So why have we humored this madman for 136 pages?
Metullus
Forum ¾-Wit Pro Tem
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 5,248
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,408
No, you're 100%. It is sad that I cannot logic a fact.
Even more a pity that you cannot understand what either logic or facts are. Let me help:
This:
needs to be placed in here:
Problem solved.
5 pages since I last came in for a look, that's pretty good in a couple of days, I must congratulate you on doing an excellent job, Christophera. I have you in front on points at this stage. Despite the fact that you know nothing, you're hanging in there and still getting people to debate with you. Unbelievable.
Well played.
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,408
Over 300 posts in three days, that's exceptional. Most threads dont get to 300 posts, total!
For fear of repeating what others may have already stated, and even more fearful of actually entering into a dialogue with christophera, weren't the stairwells constructed with rc walls, at least at ground floor level?
The stairwells would have been a protected escape route so fireproofing of these would be more stringent than partition walls elsewhere in the building.
As for pre-placed explosives though....puhlease!
Apart from the absurdity of expecting construction workers to be involved in such a dangerous scenario, what insurance company would insure a building that had explosive demolition charges built in to main structural members?
Don't answer....please...please don't answer.
The stairwells would have been a protected escape route so fireproofing of these would be more stringent than partition walls elsewhere in the building.
As for pre-placed explosives though....puhlease!
Apart from the absurdity of expecting construction workers to be involved in such a dangerous scenario, what insurance company would insure a building that had explosive demolition charges built in to main structural members?
Don't answer....please...please don't answer.
Last edited:
I realize there was no C4 in the towers, which did not have a concrete core. Plane hits building. Building burns. Building falls. Sim-ple...
And clearly you forgot (comfortably?) to answer these questions.
AFAIK it was dry wall all the way. There was much lamenting over the fact that concrete was NOT used, (see the PBS documentary 'why the towers fell") because all but one starirway was wiped out by the planes, the one stairway that survived was on the South tower and it made it only because the plane angled away from it. Only a few people above the damage escaped because of this.
If you have something about RC in the stairwells please provide a source. We'll survive.
Plese note: there are a few references out there to a concrete core, in an erroneous BBC documentary I believe and a few others, also erroneous, some have admited it too (the abovetop secret stuff, Chris).
Last edited:
Christophera
Banned
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 2,760
Steel columns would be protruding and silhouetted no matter what material joined them unless is was the same size steel. the steel woul dhave to be a 2 foot thick sold wall to appear like that, but since the columns were vertical it wouldn't. Pieces would be bent and broken sticking out.
Concrete will get ground down as steel debris falls over it to appear axactly as we see..
Explosive Sheared left) & Torch Cut Columns (right)
But didn't some people survive the collapse due to being in the starwell... witness the oliver stone film?
It would not be uncommon for the stairwell to be RC at lower levels...depending on the layout of the lobby and other aesthetic considerations. Nothing sinister.
It would not be uncommon for the stairwell to be RC at lower levels...depending on the layout of the lobby and other aesthetic considerations. Nothing sinister.
The cops in WTC were not in either tower, but in an underground connecting concourse, IIRC.
Christophera
Banned
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 2,760
My posts are getting cut off so I'll answer these questions in another.
Obviously this segment of core wall at its base did not detonate. That saved those trapped. After that, the mass of the concrete wall kept the falling debris from crushing the stairwell.
Steel reinforced concrete does has some flexibility. I've done demolition where I've picked up a 6 inch thinck piece of slab with the corner tooth of a crawler loader and continued to lift until the lifting capactiy of the 32 ton machine was exceeded. Pehaps 3 foot of arc over 50 feet was seen. To break it ,a piece of concrete debris about 2 x 2 feet is placed under it then the machine driven on top of the unsupported are adjacent to fractire it.
Obviously this segment of core wall at its base did not detonate. That saved those trapped. After that, the mass of the concrete wall kept the falling debris from crushing the stairwell.
Steel reinforced concrete does has some flexibility. I've done demolition where I've picked up a 6 inch thinck piece of slab with the corner tooth of a crawler loader and continued to lift until the lifting capactiy of the 32 ton machine was exceeded. Pehaps 3 foot of arc over 50 feet was seen. To break it ,a piece of concrete debris about 2 x 2 feet is placed under it then the machine driven on top of the unsupported are adjacent to fractire it.
uruk
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
What did I do that is different then what you did when you redrew the core diagram. Oh, I know, Mine is based on reality and fact.
Further proof of your hypocracy, lies and obfuscation. If you saw the pictures you would find the shot shows one building straight on and the other at an angle. the models I superimosed reflect this but your not ony are you a liar but your stupid enough to think that nobody else sees that.
There were some others who survived in the stairwell. They were just a few stories above ground. We think the core fell seperately from the towers, the pictures and videos indicate this, so they were not in the big pancake. I don't think concrete saved them however. They just lucked out. GZ shows a few story hunk of core that never did collapse. Perhaps they were in that. Chris thinks that remaining hunk of core has concrete around it but he is wrong.
Last edited:
If you want to bring down a building it is best to start at the bottom and work up. That way you avoid any embarassing stalling of the collapse as the weakened upper structure grinds to a halt against a resistant lower structure.
Weaken the structure at ground level and let gravity do the work for you.
To plan a demolition any other way would be absurd, so the suggestion that the rc section of the building (if indeed any existed) was left 'un-detonated' would be introducing a variable into the scenario which a plot would hardly be likely to chance. (OMG I can't believe I am actually engaging this person....stop me someone!!)
Oh BTW your description of picking up a slab after demolition sounds suspiciously like something you poached off someone else. I would stop now if I were you, or google might get overloaded!
Weaken the structure at ground level and let gravity do the work for you.
To plan a demolition any other way would be absurd, so the suggestion that the rc section of the building (if indeed any existed) was left 'un-detonated' would be introducing a variable into the scenario which a plot would hardly be likely to chance. (OMG I can't believe I am actually engaging this person....stop me someone!!)
Oh BTW your description of picking up a slab after demolition sounds suspiciously like something you poached off someone else. I would stop now if I were you, or google might get overloaded!
- Status