• 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.
Belz... said:
That's the south tower, actually. I was referring to WTC1.
Click to expand...

Ehm, nope Belz... :)
It's the north tower, with the south tower in the foreground.

But it's allright you mixed them up. So did Christophera's pilots ;)
 
SO WHY?????:-

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?
Click to expand...

answer please chris???

BV
 
Christophera said:
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.
Click to expand...
:words:
 
Dave_46 said:
Building contents

Dave
Click to expand...

Consider that the only connection between the floors was in the core so the floor actaully has to heat to the point where there is spontanious combustion. It is concievable that a conflagration which is intitiated by jet fuel on one floor would heat the floor above enough for it to ignite, but the floor above that, perhaps not.

And, none of it burns hot enough under those conditions, and none of the steel is optimally positioned over the flames to weaken; meaning that collapse by fire is just about impossible.

Realitically, demolition is the only feasible scenario.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
 
Christophera said:
Consider that the only connection between the floors was in the core so the floor actaully has to heat to the point where there is spontanious combustion. It is concievable that a conflagration which is intitiated by jet fuel on one floor would heat the floor above enough for it to ignite, but the floor above that, perhaps not.

And, none of it burns hot enough under those conditions, and none of the steel is optimally positioned over the flames to weaken; meaning that collapse by fire is just about impossible.

Realitically, demolition is the only feasible scenario.

URL snipped
Click to expand...

The compartmentation in the buildings was severely compromised. Remember, they were hit by aircraft at high speed causing mechanical damage. The fuel burning in the early stages will create pressure waves, causing who knows what damage, locally and on other floors - likely to include damage to fire resisting doors opening onto the core area, and other damage to lift shaft protection, who knows. Fire tends to spread upwards - hot gases - so would easily travel to higher floors by this route. I understand that fuel got into the lift shafts or stairs. This when ignited will burn up the chimney of the lift shafts and/or stairwells. The fire does not have to burn through the floors to progress upwards, it can go round the floors, although this doesn't rule out the possibility that it burnt through the floors in places. Remember what I said about compartmentation being compromised.

The building contents will burn hot enough to weaken steel. This has been pointed out many times.

Realistically, demolition is a non starter. (I refrained from rule 8 there)

Dave
 
Skibum said:
Are these some sort of freudian slips? Do you have something against the word realistic, some sort of aversion to reality maybe?
Click to expand...

in a similar vein...........the pic below, from christophera's site, has enormous phallic symbolism. herr freud would loved it.
BTW what is the provenance of this particular pic chritophera?
what was your original source for this image?
i'd like to see a high-res version of this picture. seems our chris has an odious habit of only using highly compressed versions of images on his site and, i believe, even adjusting aspects of "raw" images to suit his nefarious purposes.

8748454924fb7fbfa.jpg


BV
 
Last edited:
Christophera, are you familiar with the principles of conservation of momentum and energy? If you can explain it WITHOUT referring to Wikipedia I might be convinced that you have any credibility in discussing building collapses.
 
bonavada said:
in a similar vein...........the pic below, from christophera's site, has enormous phallic symbolism. herr freud would loved it.
BTW what is the provenance of this particular pic chritophera?
what was your original source for this image?
i'd like to see a high-res version of this picture. seems our chris has an odious habit of only using highly compressed versions of images on his site and, i believe, even adjusting aspects of "raw" images to suit his nefarious purposes.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/8748454924fb7fbfa.jpg

BV
Click to expand...
Aman Zafar's photos are here: http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/index.shtm
Click on each for a high-res version. It's a stunning sequence, and includes dramatic shots of WTC 7 smoke and damage later in the day. Some of his descriptions are off. For instance, the time between photos of each collapse is much shorter than the 10 seconds he believes. The clock in the foreground wasn't working.
 
Dave_46 said:
The compartmentation in the buildings was severely compromised. Remember, they were hit by aircraft at high speed causing mechanical damage. The fuel burning in the early stages will create pressure waves, causing who knows what damage, locally and on other floors - likely to include damage to fire resisting doors opening onto the core area, and other damage to lift shaft protection, who knows. Fire tends to spread upwards - hot gases - so would easily travel to higher floors by this route. I understand that fuel got into the lift shafts or stairs. This when ignited will burn up the chimney of the lift shafts and/or stairwells. The fire does not have to burn through the floors to progress upwards, it can go round the floors, although this doesn't rule out the possibility that it burnt through the floors in places. Remember what I said about compartmentation being compromised.

The building contents will burn hot enough to weaken steel. This has been pointed out many times.

Realistically, demolition is a non starter. (I refrained from rule 8 there)

Dave
Click to expand...

That is very realistic. Still, given the history if steel structures. The notion of what appears as a nicely contained explosion from the center of some uinform mineral material intrinsic to the strength of the tower; as having anything to do with a geometric collapse is idiotic.

Do you know what an Id is?





We shouldn't be talking about architectural details, but, instead about your dissociative capacity and how long it has been a problem for you.

Explained near free fall and pulverization.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
 
bonavada said:
in a similar vein...........the pic below, from christophera's site, has enormous phallic symbolism. herr freud would loved it.
BTW what is the provenance of this particular pic chritophera?
what was your original source for this image?
i'd like to see a high-res version of this picture. seems our chris has an odious habit of only using highly compressed versions of images on his site and, i believe, even adjusting aspects of "raw" images to suit his nefarious purposes.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/8748454924fb7fbfa.jpg[/qimg]

BV
Click to expand...

Since I have to actually post this on request it is evidence that bonavada does not follow links. But, ....... you do read and recognize "raw evidence".

http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG
 
Gravy said:
Aman Zafar's photos are here: http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/index.shtm
Click on each for a high-res version. It's a stunning sequence, and includes dramatic shots of WTC 7 smoke and damage later in the day. Some of his descriptions are off. For instance, the time between photos of each collapse is much shorter than the 10 seconds he believes. The clock in the foreground wasn't working.
Click to expand...

thanks.
i have seen that sequence before but lost the link.
i was interested because i really don't trust christophera to post as "raw" an image as is available. he is very choosy as to his selection of pix and has even, i believe, adjusted pictures to suit his agenda. ie take a look at the two picures below. the first is exhibited on his site the second stored in his /psych/images folder situated HERE. (tut tut. christophera forgets a basic rule of web authoring and hasn't indexed all the folders at his site)

i have to wonder why he elects to use the first image, which as can be seen has had contrast/gamma or similar adjustments made, when the second (original? raw?) much sharper, clearer image is there at his disposal????

christophera has whined and bleated continuously about the use of "raw" images to "prove" a point. so how does he explain the need to use an adjusted image as he does on his site?

strange.............

THE "ADJUSTED" PIC CHRISTOPHERA USES
87484549459bf09b9.jpg


IMAGE FROM http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtccoreshilouette.jpg
87484549459bbc9ed.jpg



i'm not really expecting an answer as christophera refuses to/cannot answer the most difficult questions, just thought i'd reveal his duplicity.

BV
 
Last edited:
Gravy said:
Aman Zafar's photos are here: http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/index.shtm
Click on each for a high-res version. It's a stunning sequence, and includes dramatic shots of WTC 7 smoke and damage later in the day. Some of his descriptions are off. For instance, the time between photos of each collapse is much shorter than the 10 seconds he believes. The clock in the foreground wasn't working.
Click to expand...

I've always been unsure of how long that image of WTC 2 was present. You may be talking of my descriptions of WTC 1 at about the same phases.

Early descriptions of the spire of WTC 1 mention 10 seconds. This could vary depnding on where the witness was, 4 seconds on the videos.
 
bonavada said:
thanks.
i have seen that sequence before but lost the link.
i was interested because i really don't trust christophera to post as "raw" an image as is available. he is very choosy as to his selection of pix and has even, i believe, adjusted pictures to suit his agenda. ie take a look at the two picures below. the first is exhibited on his site the second stored in his /psych/images folder situated HERE. (tut tut. christophera forgets a basic rule of web authoring and hasn't indexed all the folders at his site)

i have to wonder why he elects to use the first image, which as can be seen has had contrast/gamma or similar adjustments made, when the second (original? raw?) much sharper, clearer image is there at his disposal????

christophera has whined and bleated continuously about the use of "raw" images to "prove" a point. so how does he explain the need to use an adjusted image as he does on his site?

strange.............

THE "ADJUSTED" PIC CHRISTOPHERA USES
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/87484549459bf09b9.jpg[/qimg]

IMAGE FROM http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtccoreshilouette.jpg
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/87484549459bbc9ed.jpg[/qimg]


i'm not really expecting an answer as christophera refuses to/cannot answer the most difficult questions, just thought i'd reveal his duplicity.

BV
Click to expand...


The first image you show is the first one I found. I had looked past that to find another that had the WTC 1 antenna on the roof 2.5 years ago as it seemed silly to exclude that as a photograph. I never found one better/.

About 2 months ago somebody here posted the second one which I immediately downloaded and changed on my site.
 
Christophera said:
The first image you show is the first one I found. I had looked past that to find another that had the WTC 1 antenna on the roof 2.5 years ago as it seemed silly to exclude that as a photograph. I never found one better/.

About 2 months ago somebody here posted the second one which I immediately downloaded and changed on my site.
Click to expand...

So you admit to having crappy pictures on yiur website.
 
Christophera said:
The first image you show is the first one I found. I had looked past that to find another that had the WTC 1 antenna on the roof 2.5 years ago as it seemed silly to exclude that as a photograph. I never found one better/.

About 2 months ago somebody here posted the second one which I immediately downloaded and changed on my site.
Click to expand...

are you confused?
you haven't changed the pic. you still use this pic:-

from conc/images/wtccoreshilouette.jpg

87484549459bf09b9.jpg


when, oddly, you have a much better version available here:-

from psych/images/wtccoreshilouette.jpg

87484549459bbc9ed.jpg


so which is more "raw"?

also, where did you find the cropped and adjusted pic? you should have no problem recalling the source given your photographic memory right?
so are you stating you didn't alter the pic yourself? if when you found the second image why didnt you place it on your site?

BV
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom