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

[Powa]

Failures above do not present loads below that were never present before. No time or distance for momentum is present so collapse is absurd.

And this right here is the proof that you've never worked in construction and never did demolitions. Are you really saying that the lower floors should be able to withstand the top FALLING on them? Oh, dear.

 

[Oliver]

Arghh! Double post...

 

[Oliver]

No, if all the bearing support on one side is removed it will fall that direction. Without fail, I've demoed a number of small structures and this is how I control where the material ends up. It is absolutely predictable. wich is a mjor reason to see demolition on 9-11 because the towers fell the opposite way of the damage.

One thing it does not do is crumble all the vertical support which has been supporting it historically. If that was the case we would'nt need demolition and collapses would be common place. I, and most people would live in a tent because it would be the only safe structure as it wouldn't do much damage when it fell reguarly.

Collapses on 9/11? ... S*hit happens!

When do you get over it and try it with another theory
that is believable and will be supported by ANYone???

 

[Christophera]

And this right here is the proof that you've never worked in construction and never did demolitions. Are you really saying that the lower floors should be able to withstand the top FALLING on them? Oh, dear.

Obviously, when viewing the WTC 2 core, that the lower portions were able to withstand the top portons falling on them. They only continued to the ground from high explosives as seen here when the concrete core of WTC 1 detonates.

 

[Powa]

Obviously, when viewing the WTC 2 core, that the lower portions were able to withstand the top portons falling on them.

So are you now claiming that the buildings were designed to withstand the top portion falling on lower floors? Seriously? Also in that picture you keep posting there is no evidence of concrete. Except for you. And nobody else.

They only continued to the ground from high explosives as seen here when the concrete core of WTC 1 detonates.

You assume that the buildings were designed to withstand the top portion falling on the lower floors. Thank god you're not in construction.

ETA: can you tell us how the collapse should have looked without "explosions"?

 

[Bell]

Yes it would not happen because there was not enough damage. And, ...... the people didn't survive because the towers were demolished.

Given, WTC 1 might have had so much smoke and even heat that no one may have survived. Those people weren't jumping because they thought they might survive. However, temperatures that are not survivable are also not necessarily anything that would cause collapse.

Christophera, I ask you to take a look at this videoclip, especially the first few seconds. The inward buckling of the tower is very recognizable, just before the tower begins to fall. Also, the collapse starts first, then we see the smoke and dust rushing out. Not very consistent with a controlled demolition.

And here's a chilling phone conversation with Kevin Cosgrove, a the time of the collapse
BTW, don't read the retarded replies on that page

Also, you still did not directly reply to the pictures I posted. Were the fires in the two towers going out, yes or no?

ETA:

ETA: can you tell us how the collapse should have looked without "explosions"?

Pretty much like in the video I linked to above, Christophera.

 

[bonavada]

My study of linear shape charges in my 9-11 research had educated me as to what was required to explosively shear steel, suddenly I knew how the [spam was] cut into neat 40 foot pieces.

please would you care to show us the workings of your study of linear shape charges? perhaps you could educate us as well.
i don't mean just a link to a couple of paint-shop line drawings.
also could you supply substantive details with corroborative sources about who manufactured/supplied the explosives? what type of detonation was used? when the charges were installed onsite? and by who? how many seperate charges of this kind were used? etc etc etc..................................

BV

 

[Oliver]

Okay, Guys. Let´s try it again:

Maxim:
If a suppossed explantion does not explain the event, it is not the truth. No explanation that does not explain the event can be the truth.

So far no explanation in existence explains free fall and total pulverization of the towers appears to exist. Has anyone seen one?

No, i´m sorry. What do you think was the reason for the free fall?

 

[Bell]

Okay, Guys. Let´s try it again:



No, i´m sorry. What do you think was the reason for the free fall?

The towers did not fall at free fall speed. The towers did not totally pulverize. Debunked. Thread closed.

 

[bonavada]

The towers did not fall at free fall speed.

putting my pedants hat on.........

how can something fall not at free fall?

failing other forces, falling fragments fall at free fall while falling.

;-]

BV

 

[Belz...]

Most important to the purposes of our discussion is that Palmer knew what was going on below the 78th floor. Heat goes up.

Yes, indeed. And that fact doesn't help you.

It seems at this point I should say something like, "make up your mind" "or you can't have it both ways" or "either you can see them or you cannot see them".

Here's that reading comprehension again. You're the one who seems to claim it isn't the same structure. You say one's rebar, and the other box columns. But they are clearly the same. The higher resolution picture shows columns, so that's the one I'm trusting. The other one shows pixels that we can't make out. Only you call it rebar.

How can the latter, lower structure be the "same structure" they are obviously different. One is large and well defined the other sketchy and part (lower right) is pixelated out altogether.

You've obviously never used a digital camera nor handled digital pictures, chris. The two pictures haven't the same resolution. That's why it looks different. Sheesh. I knew that back when I was 17. And that was in the early 90s!

Yes it could seem as if i was making it up as I go and it took over a year to remember anything at all. Memory is a tricky thing, we all know this.

I'm encouraged by the fact you admit this. Do you also admit that memory can be terribly wrong about details one thinks one remembers ?

The last significant recall I had was about the 6 inch rebar. I remember marvelling at the amount of work in tight difficult spaces in order to weld 6 inch think deep fillets that were round.

The un-bendable rebar that you also claim was bent ?

Prior to that was the built in cutting charges of the floors that cut the interior box columns so perfectly people who should know better say they sheared at the site or cut at the mill.

I'm fairly certain that cutting charges could never produce such a clean cut. Seriously.

My photographic memory

So you DO have it. Of course, I'd like some proof.

Towers with smaller cores are constructed, as you say, by building the core first, above the steel framework. The reason is that the steel reinforced concrete core absorbs the lateral loading and the amount of steel used can be reduced making the tower lighter and therefore taller.

With larger cores the steel is expended in order to create a framework to support the outer formwork for the core. Erecting that formwork free standing is quite tricky and requires extensive, braced scaffolding which must be erected and taken down over and over. very expensive. By building the outer steel framework and using it as scaffold the expense of the temporary scaffold is eliminated as the floors provide work space and interior box columns support the outer core forms.

I'll be waiting for someone in construction to confirm this. Architect ?

Now can you reasonably accept that this is the steel reinforced core of WTC 2?

No, because I can't make out what it is. Your claim that it can only be concrete seems dubious to me, because if I can't make out what's in there, I doubt you can. I've already explained alternative explanations, though I don't claim to actually know what I'm seeing. A video of this shot would help.

 

[Belz...]

No, if all the bearing support on one side is removed it will fall that direction. Without fail, I've demoed a number of small structures and this is how I control where the material ends up.

The key word is small. At the size of the WTC, even if only one side fails at one time, the rest is going to follow soon enough, and there won't be any significant amount of toppling.

One thing it does not do is crumble all the vertical support which has been supporting it historically. If that was the case we would'nt need demolition and collapses would be common place. I, and most people would live in a tent because it would be the only safe structure as it wouldn't do much damage when it fell reguarly.

How about the 767s that rammed them ?

As Bell said, there was significant, visible buckling BEFORE the collapse.

 

[Christophera]

The key word is small. At the size of the WTC, even if only one side fails at one time, the rest is going to follow soon enough, and there won't be any significant amount of toppling.



How about the 767s that rammed them ?

As Bell said, there was significant, visible buckling BEFORE the collapse.

Whoa................ (can hardly believe this is coming from you)

I've said I control the direction of fall in a demo by damaging the support on the side I want it to fall. This S.O.P in the business, everyone knows it. Common sense. Bell said there was significant buckling and you said what about the planes ramming the towers.

Another point of common sense:

Taller structures are MORE prone to toppling.

In all it means that the tops of the towers would definitely fall the in the directions of the side they were damaged.

Meaning when you say;

"and there won't be any significant amount of toppling."

you are anti logical PARTICUARLY with structures the size of the WTC towers.

Oh, the buckling seen was the aluminum facade.

 

[Powa]

Oh, the buckling seen was the aluminum facade.

Um, why was it buckling prior to "detonations".

 

[Skibum]

Um, why was it buckling prior to "detonations".

Also, how would the facade buckle inwards several feet without the steel beams behind it not?

 

[Oliver]

By the way, Belz.

Are you a sock of christophera or the other way?
I simply don´t get your agendas here.

 

[Bell]

Whoa................ (can hardly believe this is coming from you)

I've said I control the direction of fall in a demo by damaging the support on the side I want it to fall. This S.O.P in the business, everyone knows it. Common sense. Bell said there was significant buckling and you said what about the planes ramming the towers.

Another point of common sense:

Taller structures are MORE prone to toppling.

In all it means that the tops of the towers would definitely fall the in the directions of the side they were damaged.

Meaning when you say;

"and there won't be any significant amount of toppling."

you are anti logical PARTICUARLY with structures the size of the WTC towers.

Oh, the buckling seen was the aluminum facade.

Christophera, do you not look at the pictures we post here? Have you not seen the picture - posted twice - of WTC 1 with the HUGE FRIKKING fires at the southside? What do you think that does to the steel beams? That's right, it weakens them. Then they loose the strenght to support the top of the tower and the top falls. Southward.

Oh, the buckling seen were the steel outer columns. Or do you believe the towers only had aluminium siding? No steel behind it?

 

[tsig]

what were you saying about the concrete core that is missing, even in your photos chris.....

Clearly by now you should know that the concrete core is being poured

seven stories below what we see.

Sorry Chris, but after 3" Rebar on 4' centers, well.

 

[uruk]

Not quite--All you had to do was move the center of mass 100 feet laterally...

Fair enough. What would have the effect of shifting the center of mass 100 feet laterally?

I would imagine that if you took out the spandrels and box columns on one side near the base. But I think the stress of shifting that much mass that much distance lateraly, and givin the method they used to attach the floors, would cause the building to come apart and fall straight down in much the same way it did.

but then I'm no rocket scientist and I could be wrong.

 

[rwguinn]

Fair enough. What would have the effect of shifting the center of mass 100 feet laterally?

I would imagine that if you took out the spandrels and box columns on one side near the base. But I think the stress of shifting that much mass that much distance lateraly, and givin the method they used to attach the floors, would cause the building to come apart and fall straight down in much the same way it did.

but then I'm no rocket scientist and I could be wrong.

Well, I was one,and you are correct...