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

Status
Not open for further replies.
uruk said:
Here is a steel building that collapsed due to fire. A toilet paper fire. ALOT of toilet paper.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hereford/worcs/6105942.stm

No imagine that multiplied 110 times. The steel structure not the toilet paper.

From this thread.:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67656
Click to expand...

"Intense heat buckled the steel girders holding the roof"

who would have thought it? not semtex but fuggin andrex!

bet our chris has seen the docu on this one too. The Great WCT (Water Closet Tissue) Conspiracy........

BV
 
Last edited:
bonavada said:
are you confused?
you haven't changed the pic. you still use this pic:-

from conc/images/wtccoreshilouette.jpg

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/87484549459bf09b9.jpg[/qimg]

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

from psych/images/wtccoreshilouette.jpg

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/87484549459bbc9ed.jpg[/qimg]

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
Click to expand...

I don't remember image urls.

The second pic is on my site like I said it was.

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

Why don't you read?
 
Christophera said:
I don't remember image urls.

The second pic is on my site like I said it was.

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

Why don't you read?
Click to expand...

you don't remember urls? have you forgotten your photographic memory? is it only one "picture" at a time like a battered old polaroid instamatic? try sticking a lobe under your arm to warm it up a bit. it might develop quicker.

as for the image, doesn't it make a mockery of your campaign for "raw image" use when you refuse to display a much improved pic on your site? in a very prominent place near the top of your main page?
seems very odd, inconsistent, dare i say even, duplicitous?

BV
 
Christophera, you seem to have forgotten to address my posts about the fires.

Here
And here (also look at the footage linked to at the bottom of that post.

Also, explain why the towers started to collapse at the point where the planes crashed, even though they hit the wrong towers.

Here.
 
Last edited:
Bell said:
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).

[qimg]http://i14.tinypic.com/2z5ue08.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

We see one area of flame in one image and a good bit of smoke from a number of floors. Every place you do not see flames we may have a fire going nearly going out.
 
bonavada said:
you don't remember urls? have you forgotten your photographic memory? is it only one "picture" at a time like a battered old polaroid instamatic? try sticking a lobe under your arm to warm it up a bit. it might develop quicker.

as for the image, doesn't it make a mockery of your campaign for "raw image" use when you refuse to display a much improved pic on your site? in a very prominent place near the top of your main page?
seems very odd, inconsistent, dare i say even, duplicitous?

BV
Click to expand...

It has been changes on one of 2 pages of the demo site. The image deals with an auxilary issue.

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

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57426&page=161

I have yet gotten around to changing the image here.

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

It is not a critical issue and the clarity doesn't help all that much in identifying the reflected light off the interior core wall.
 
bonavada said:
you don't remember urls? have you forgotten your photographic memory? is it only one "picture" at a time like a battered old polaroid instamatic? try sticking a lobe under your arm to warm it up a bit. it might develop quicker.

as for the image, doesn't it make a mockery of your campaign for "raw image" use when you refuse to display a much improved pic on your site? in a very prominent place near the top of your main page?
seems very odd, inconsistent, dare i say even, duplicitous?

BV
Click to expand...

Considering you forgot to find an image of the 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns, an integral part of the argument you forgot to make, the urls are nothing.
 
Christophera said:
Considering you forgot to find an image of the 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns, an integral part of the argument you forgot to make, the urls are nothing.
Click to expand...

Considering we showed you lot of images of the 47, 1.300 foot steel colums, an integral part of the WTC towers, your ability to comprehend is nothing.
 
Christophera said:
We see one area of flame in one image and a good bit of smoke from a number of floors. Every place you do not see flames we may have a fire going nearly going out.
Click to expand...

Bolding mine.

So it is quite possible - accurate actually - that the fires were still burning. I showed you other pictures of the fires as well, you know the one with the HUGE FRIKKING fire? The fires were not going out. They were not fought. There were enough items left inside the towers to fuel the fires.
 
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...

The picture just before christophera's pet image shows pretty clearly that much of the "structure" he sees there is dust.

 
There's an excellent paper here that you all should read at ImplosionWorld.com:

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN
EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT

By Brent Blanchard
August 8, 2006

PURPOSE

The purpose of this analysis is to explore the possibility of explosives or similar
supplemental catalysts causing or contributing to the collapse of World Trade Center
Towers 1, 2 and 7 in New York on September 11, 2001 through examination of known
facts as they relate to scientific principles of gravity, explosives, and structural failure.
To our knowledge, this is the first analysis conducted by experts in the field of explosive
demolition, as well as the first with observations and commentary from personnel directly
responsible for the removal of debris from Ground Zero.

Some topics that do not relate to such analysis -- and thus receive no practical
consideration here -- include:

Who owned the buildings
Who insured the buildings
What types of documents were stored in the buildings
Motives for destroying the buildings

The significance of the above points (among countless others) can be debated forever,
but none relate to the specific actions required to execute a successful explosive
demolition.

Nor will we be rendering opinions on the NIST, FEMA or 9/11 Commission Reports, as
they did not make specific comments regarding explosives.
It is further acknowledged that many family members of WTC victims have embraced --
and in some cases aligned with -- those who question the ``official'' version of events that
occurred on 9/11. This report will not, nor is it intended to, address the much wider
scope of unanswered questions regarding those events. Rather this is a reasoned,
factual analysis of a single group of questions and allegations that fall within our specific
area of expertise. To that end, we hope this report will be of benefit to all interested
parties.


ABOUT THE AUTHORS

This report is authored by Brent Blanchard, Senior Editor for Implosionworld.com and
Director of Field Operations at Protec Documentation Services, Inc., Rancocas, New Jersey. Additional contributions and
research assistance was provided by Protec employees Earl Gardner, Gary McGeever,
Michael Golden and John Golden.
Click to expand...
 
I did read Chistophera's 'analysis' and almost went blind... After I picked myself off the floor and stopped laughing, I had to find a document that would authoratively 'demolish' his theory.
 
Also, you didn't address my question about the towers being blown up at the exact same spot the airplanes hit, even though the airplanes hit the wrong towers. Explain away, please.

Bell said:
Also, explain why the towers started to collapse at the point where the planes crashed, even though they hit the wrong towers.

Here.
Click to expand...
 
Smiffy said:
I did read Chistophera's 'analysis' and almost went blind... After I picked myself off the floor and stopped laughing, I had to find a document that would authoratively 'demolish' his theory.
Click to expand...

Bolding mine.

Good luck with that. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom