• 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.
christ, you have yet to provide evidence of what you claim.
please consult with a therapist, as you have continously shown that you are not aware of what is real and what is fake.

They have drugs that you can take that can help you with that.
 
Christophera said:
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.​
Click to expand...
Sayeth the liar.
 
Christophera said:
Can you prove this? If so then contact them and give them this url.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

It does explain this far better than any other explanation in existence,
Click to expand...

you post a site that proves you wrong?

you keep doing it

have you notice all the tin foil hat guys post sites that have information to debunk them?

have you ever read that site, it proves you wrong?
 
Christophera said:
As far as i know if you can see something in an image you stand a chance of identification.
Click to expand...

That's because you know nothing about interpreting pictures.

In the image of the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS we can see the very fine vertical elements.
Click to expand...

Careful, there. You can see ONE vertical element. Because of the resolution, you cannot see what makes it up, and therefore cannot draw any conclusion from it. The much better picture that's been provided to you on this thread shows that it's not thousands of sticks of rebar, but steel columns, whatever you wish to call them.
 
Christophera said:
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".
Click to expand...

Okay, so you didn't annotate it. Still, whoever did can't prove what they are simply by labeling them.

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.
Click to expand...

What about the bracing that you can SEE in the pictures of the remains of the core ?

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.
Click to expand...

You are aware, of course, that the structure in that picture is only a small portion of the whole core, right ?

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

Indeed.

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

Key word: perhaps.

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.
Click to expand...

Non sequitur of the day.
 
Christophera said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, approx 400*25*40 cubic metres per tower. At 2.4 tonnes per cubic metre that's around 1 million tonnes per tower. Allow a good %age for lifts, stairways etc and we arrive at about 1.5 million tonnes total for both Towers, ball-park figures.
This weight would produce a vast pile of broken concrete, even if much were blown to dust. A pyramid of broken concrete 100x100x100m would give a volume of approx 330,00 cubic metres (if packed as densely as the original, much bigger if packed more loosely as would actually happen), or only about 40% the total volume of concrete required for your core theory.

That would be a pile of concrete about 1/4 the height of the original buildings.

Why do we not see that much concrete at GZ, Christopher? Or even anything even remotely close to that volume?
 
GlennB said:
Yes, approx 400*25*40 cubic metres per tower. At 2.4 tonnes per cubic metre that's around 1 million tonnes per tower. Allow a good %age for lifts, stairways etc and we arrive at about 1.5 million tonnes total for both Towers, ball-park figures.
This weight would produce a vast pile of broken concrete, even if much were blown to dust. A pyramid of broken concrete 100x100x100m would give a volume of approx 330,00 cubic metres (if packed as densely as the original, much bigger if packed more loosely as would actually happen), or only about 40% the total volume of concrete required for your core theory.

That would be a pile of concrete about 1/4 the height of the original buildings.

Why do we not see that much concrete at GZ, Christopher? Or even anything even remotely close to that volume?
Click to expand...

As I've said, there is a big problem with figuring out how much is there because the core blew out the basement several levels down and we are not at all sure how much of the basement is involved or absorbing the volume ofhttp://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg
Sand and gravel.

Did you calc. the proper wall thickness for the core?
 
Christophera said:
As I've said, there is a big problem with figuring out how much is there because the core blew out the basement several levels down and we are not at all sure how much of the basement is involved or absorbing the volume ofhttp://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg
Sand and gravel.

Did you calc. the proper wall thickness for the core?
Click to expand...

"several levels down", even if full of "core" concrete, would still leave 100 or so floors-worth of concrete to account for.
Please accept that the basement is a minor issue in this discussion.

Where did all that core concrete go? You need to address this issue if your theory is to make any sense whatsoever.

What is your explanation?
 
Chris should probably not look at these pictures:


Look at those humoungus elevator guides. There must be some gigantic elevators in that building.
And wow. It's amazing how much the core resembles the floor plan layouts.

Yep. No concrete in these pictures
 

Attachments

  • 9999004211-l.jpg
    9999004211-l.jpg
    35.2 KB · Views: 10
  • 9999004220-l.jpg
    9999004220-l.jpg
    33.7 KB · Views: 7
  • 9999004225-l.jpg
    9999004225-l.jpg
    53.5 KB · Views: 142
Here is a very small smatering of web some 14,000,000 websites that mention a steel core in the World Trade Center:
http://users2.ev1.net/~seymoujs/gunshow/collapse.html
(interesting PBS site with a slide show by the guy who headed the NIST investigation)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/sunder.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/innovation.html
(survivor talks about how he escaped by going through the drywall between the staiwell and the office space. i.e no concrete core between stairwell and office space.)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/above.html
http://www.archive.org/stream/wtc_construction/wtc_construction_256kb.mp4
http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/....com/wp-srv/nation/graphics/attack/wtc_2.html
http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2001/graficos/septiembre/semana2/atentados/atentadocaida.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/nation-world/terrorism/collapse_12.html
http://www.skyscraper.org/TALLEST_TOWERS/t_wtc.htm
http://a1022.g.akamai.net/f/1022/6000/5m/www.latimes.com/media/graphic/2001-09/638881.jpg
http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/wtccollapse/frame.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20020526_WTC/
http://www.emporis.com/en/il/pc/?id=100001&aid=10&sro=10
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=131020

Number of websites that mention a concrete core:
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

psst. don't tell Chris but there's still no concrete:
http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=197714
http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=485670
http://army.firststrike.net/nyd/damage/pages/911-damage_082.htm
http://army.firststrike.net/nyd/damage/pages/911-damage_085.htm
http://army.firststrike.net/nyd/damage/pages/911-damage_106.htm

(Wait!...that looks like...I think it is... awww! no It's just drywall.
http://army.firststrike.net/nyd/damage/pages/911-damage_393.htm

http://army.firststrike.net/nyd/damage/pages/911-damage_026.htm (drywall)
http://army.firststrike.net/nyd/damage/pages/911-damage_030.htm (look you can see the C4 on the rebar)

Nope, still not there:
 

Attachments

  • GON001_FALLEN2.jpg
    GON001_FALLEN2.jpg
    58.7 KB · Views: 6
Uruk, I have to comment you on your effort to try to smack some sense into Christophera's brainlocked grey matter. Not that it will help, though.
 
Chris there is no concrete core.
there never was a concrete core.

yoru memory is as poor as swiss cheese, so i suggest to you once again to abandon this thread and seek professional help.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom