• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oliver your behavior in this thread has gone beyond what I will accept as "good natured nose-tweaking" and is now purposefully disruptive. I have deleted several of your posts, continuing to behave in this manner result in further action including suspension and/or banning.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat
 
Belz... said:
Oliver,

I'm going to take a page out of Hammegk's book and call you a post-whore.

I don't think a single one of your posts for the last 10 pages has said anything useful. Hopefully the lurkers and fence-sitters have you ALSO on ignore.
Click to expand...

Thanks for whining to Darat, Belz. ;)
 
Herr Oliver, stoppen Sie spamen, bitte!

Yes, this is the best German I can botch together.



ETA: Ooh, I see Oliver has been reported!
 
Powa said:
Herr Oliver, stoppen Sie spamen, bitte!

Yes, this is the best German I can botch together.



ETA: Ooh, I see Oliver has been reported!
Click to expand...

In german you should say: "Hören Sie bitte auf zu spammen, Herr Oliver". ;)
 
RandFan said:
I've read it. Believe it or not I've been involved with this thread a few times. I just don't have the ability to stomach such nonsense as Christopheras' for very long so I leave and then come back.
Click to expand...

So you enjoy his insanity from time to time? :confused:
 
Belz... said:
Again, a 1 pixel wide structure at that distance CANNOT be identified.
Click to expand...

As far as i know if you can see something in an image you stand a chance of identification. In the image of the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS we can see the very fine vertical elements. Since some of them do disappear your point is well made. However, since there are so many so close together, they provide a large enough object to register and we see them.

Meaning it is rebar because the previous image an interior box column which is at least 2 feet wide is clearly visible.
[/QUOTE]
 
Belz... said:
It's not CLOSER, chris. It's zoomed from the SAME IMAGE. And the fact that YOU've annotated it doesn't help YOU.
Click to expand...

it is zoomed from the same image perhaps, but I did not annotate it. It came from a site that believed in the steel core columns and they were being honest and only labeled the largest columns as "MASSIVE".

The utter lack of any bracing/connection scheme or consistent floor plan should arouse suspiscion (there are at least 3), then the total abcense of the 47, 1,300 foot columns from all demo images is a clincher.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
Well it IS plainly visible on the picture of the "core left standing".

Wait a minute! You said we could SEE concrete on the remains of the core picture. You know, the one with the stairwell. You say that the concrete can be seen on the OUTSIDE of the structure because it HASN'T detonated (because of the Mohawks.) Now you're saying the columns we see there are OUTSIDE the core ? How could we see any concrete, then ?
Click to expand...

I'm not totally secure with your references to images but the core wall at its base shows the interior box column outside the core wall. The image of the spire and the concrete shear wall shows the interior box column outside the core wall.

The image of the spire shows the rectangular framework of floor beams and interior box columns.

The alternate image of the spire shows the same rectangular spaces between the interior box columns and floor beams and the lighter colored concrete can be seen behind them.

This is all very consistent.
 
Christophera;2037681The [URL="http://algoxy.com/psych/images/shearspirewall.jpg" said:
alternate image of the spire[/url] shows the same rectangular spaces between the interior box columns and floor beams and the lighter colored concrete can be seen behind them.

This is all very consistent.
Click to expand...

Christophera - you have never addressed my calculation that shows the combined tonneage of concrete in the two "cores" that you propose would amount to very nearly 1.5 million tonnes. Nor the fact that no amount of explosives could pulverise that much RC , and that therefore we would expect a 100m (+) pile of concrete at GZ, a pile that we don't see. Not even close.

Can you answer?
 
Last edited:
GlennB said:
Christophera - you have never addressed my calculation that shows the combined tonneage of concrete in the two "cores" that you propose would amount to very nearly 1.5 million tonnes. Nor the fact that no amount of explosives could pulverise that much RC , and that therefore we would expect a 100m (+) pile of concrete at GZ, a pile that we don't see. Not even close.

Can you answer?
Click to expand...

You must be calculating a solid core for that figure. Per tower I think I remember almost 1/2 million CU YD.s with the floors per tower. I stopped trying to callculate volumnes and tons 2 years back because there was no good way to determine how much was a ground zero. We can see that there are massive amounts of http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg
Sand and gravel at GZ and that there are no large chunks. I a collapse large pieces (including floors) would be present.

Also, there were only ten floors that had hard stone agregate so there is far too much aggregate visible in that high res image.
 
Belz... said:
That's a lie. It was analysed.
Click to expand...

When private analysis of steel was blocked it shows that perhaps lies were protected from being exposed.

If towers such as those collaspsed, then many people are in danger from the buildings they occupy. Without a fully open investigatory atmosphere, and images that show mushrooming clouds of concrete particulate while 2 towers go to the ground nearly identically at speeds near free fall,
it is only logical to suspect that a lie is being hidden.​
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom