• 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.
Ohh, another point:

Cement can cause concentration of the heat due to its higher thermal insulation properties (low thermal conductivity). Steel on the other hand conducts the heat quickly. So I bet at the junctions some thermal deviations were pretty wide. That causes stressing and cracking etc...

like granite rocks poping in a camp fire...but worse> and HOTTER!!

plus trapped moisture expansion.....


lh
 
Regnad Kcin said:
Says the guy whose website is filled with "diagrams and information."
Click to expand...

There is one diagram of hallways and interior walls of the WTC 1 steel reinforced concrete core. That diagram matches the image, raw evidence, of the WTC 2 core and the other diagram from FEMA does not. That diagram doesn't match any of the raw evidence of the towers coming apart at,

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

So peabody, when you use the term filled with "diagrams and information" you are minimizing the fact that the raw information does not lie, and is used to show that the one diagram I've made besides the one that shows the column cutting charges actually fits the raw evidence.

This is intellectually dishonest when you haven't provided an explanation for the image of the core wall at its base or the concrete shear wall let alone the WTC core linked above. Please explain the fact the steel core columns are never seen.

You are generalizing rather than understanding the raw evidence.
 
Last edited:
luvhumility said:
Ohh, another point:

Cement can cause concentration of the heat due to its higher thermal insulation properties (low thermal conductivity). Steel on the other hand conducts the heat quickly. So I bet at the junctions some thermal deviations were pretty wide. That causes stressing and cracking etc...

like granite rocks poping in a camp fire...but worse> and HOTTER!!

plus trapped moisture expansion.....


lh
Click to expand...

It takes a grat deal of heat to do that and it onl effects the surface.
 
Powa said:
Christophera sure likes the word "raw". It's a shame he doesn't have any idea what it means.
Click to expand...

According to Chris, 'raw' means stuff that can even be remotely considered to support his position. All other 'non-raw' evidence, the stuff that directly contradicts his position and of which there is tons of, he just ignores.
 
Christophera said:
It takes a grat deal of heat to do that and it onl effects the surface.
Click to expand...

wrong,

And furthermore:

1. What are the chances of someone planting (in advance) then detonating explosives at the exact location (and at the right time) about an hour after the aircraft actually hits the building in that exact spot (see the videos) possibly severing the charge detonation cables? It clearly colappses in the same spot the plane hit!!!! how can you refute this unless you are very
slanted!


WTC1 seems to go down starting at those floors first hit by the aircraft and severely weakened ... including fire in that area... WHAT ARE THE probabilities? Very LOW that it was also a CD (controlled demo) job....

Come on! Use basic logic, reason aand common sence!! (maybe not)!
doez appears (in video) that the WTC1 actually started to fall at or around the planes impact point. This is in allignment with what a structure would do with this collapse occuring in the structurally weakened areas. (both core and perimeters).

3. WT7 collapse looks "strange/suspicious" on video at first glance, but given all the structurally transferred low to mid frequency stresses moving through and into the foundational + structure faults from the surrounding collapse's it is possible for it to also collapse.


hard to refute physicsl evidence!

lh
 
Christophera said:
Correct, the fires were going out. In a steel and concrete structure, after the intitial flare, how can a fire spread?

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

Wrong, the fires were burning bigger then before. In a steel structure, after the initial flare, there's a lot of office furniture left to burn.

ETA: Shamelessly picked from a post by Mancman.

Where and how are the fires going out?
Note to Christophera: the second picture is after the crash, the top picture is much later (after WTC 2 collapsed I guess).

2z5ue08.jpg
 
Last edited:
Bell said:
Where and how are the fires going out?
Note to Christophera: the second picture is after the crash, the top picture is much later (after WTC 2 collapsed I guess).
Click to expand...

That's very clear. Chris, you might want to notice the damage to the BACK of the tower just after the crash. See that gaping hole on the opposite wall ?
 
Christophera said:
Correct, the fires were going out.
Click to expand...

Not on this picture:



That diagram doesn't match any of the raw evidence of the towers coming apart at,

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html
Click to expand...

Of course they don't. That's not raw evidence. Learning anything, yet ?

This is intellectually dishonest when you haven't provided an explanation for the image of the core wall at its base or the concrete shear wall let alone the WTC core linked above.
Click to expand...

Not as dishonest as claiming you have a photographic memory while beign incapable of identifying the right tower in those pictures.

Belz... said:
Tell me, chris. At which floor was the fireman who made the call ? Can you now tell me at which floors the plane impacted ? Do you see a problem, here ?
Click to expand...

Still waiting, chris.

Twinstead said:
According to Chris, 'raw' means stuff that can even be remotely considered to support his position. All other 'non-raw' evidence, the stuff that directly contradicts his position and of which there is tons of, he just ignores.
Click to expand...

That's true. He said so, here:

Dichotomera said:
Picture ARE raw evidence. It is WHAT the image shows that determines the type evidence, Since no steel core columns are ever seen in any of the demo images and objects that really only be concrete are seen, it is obvious that the raw evidence shows concrete because the towers did have a core.
Click to expand...
 
Belz... said:
That's very clear. Chris, you might want to notice the damage to the BACK of the tower just after the crash. See that gaping hole on the opposite wall ?
Click to expand...

Oh, wait, let me point it out to you, Christophera:

6-16_wtc1-south-face.jpg


What's this? Footage from AA11 crashing into WTC 1, showing a huge fireball erupting from the southside of the tower?
 
hey chris......you've been at this a very long time now, but there are some basic general questions i think need answering by you.

you believe the WTC was destroyed not by islamic extremists but by americans? i'll take that as read.

so please, why would these people:-

wait so long after the planes crashed before setting off the C4? why not explode the charges immediately following the impacts? this would have caused many more casualties = even greater outrage = more excuses for overseas adventurism.

allow the south tower to collapse first? why not blow the north tower as this was hit first?

and:-
why bother steering a jet plane into each prior to CD anyway? if the buildings were so effectively rigged for CD as you insist, why the overkill? why not the government/whoever "simply" concoct evidence that terrorists planted bombs in the buildings prior to 9/11?


BV
 
bonavada said:
<snip>

allow the south tower to collapse first? why not blow the north tower as this was hit first?

<snap>
Click to expand...

No no no, the planes hit the wrong towers! AA11 was supposed to hit WTC 2, UA175 was supposed to hit WTC 1 :rolleyes:

Which brings me to another question, Christophera. If the planes hit the wrong towers, how come the uhmplosions to bring them down started at the exact floor the airplanes hit? If AA11 was supposed to hit WTC 2, surely the demolition of the south tower should have started at around floor 97?
 
GlennB said:
Yep

"Of interest, however, is the peak fire temperature normally associated with room fires. The peak value is governed by ventilation and fuel supply characteristics [12] and so such values will form a wide frequency distribution. Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. "

from : http://www.doctorfire.com/flametmp.html

There are many other sources out there, all in rough agreement.


[qimg]http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l131/Ignatz_CT/WTC1latefires.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...


Yes. I did talk about minimum temperature, and your quoted temperatures are very reasonable.

The article you referenced was written by Dr. Babrauskas, and I attended a talk given by him twenty something years ago, in the UK. Looking at the references I found some names I recognise. Geoff Cox and Richard Chitty I have been known to have a beer with, and Debbie Smith I also worked with.

Dave
 
twinstead said:
According to Chris, 'raw' means stuff that can even be remotely considered to support his position. All other 'non-raw' evidence, the stuff that directly contradicts his position and of which there is tons of, he just ignores.
Click to expand...

I noticed you did not post any evidence.
 
Christophera said:
Correct, the fires were going out. In a steel and concrete structure, after the intitial flare, how can a fire spread?

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

Ummmmmm. I dunno, maybe wood (furniture, doors, etc), plastic (computers, copiers, telephones, knick-knacks, etc), upolstery, paper, drywall, carpet, carpet padding, cleaning fluids, wallpaper, furnishings, wire insulation, wall insulation, ceiling tiles, aluminum, ductwork, PVC conduit, office cubicle dividers, clothes, bodies, oils, hydrolic fluids, oxygen generators, rubber, alcohol.
just about anything you would find in an office building.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom