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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I can't post the URL yet, but it is hard to argue with the credentials or independence of the authors. It's a well written and persuasive document.
 
Hey, Chris *whistles*! Read this little snippet from said document:
ASSERTION #1
“The towers’ collapse looked exactly like explosive demolitions.”
PROTEC COMMENT: No they didn’t. It’s the “where.”

When discussing similarities between the towers’ collapse and an explosive demolition,
many people overlook the single question most central to any objective investigation. It
is not “how” or “when” the buildings failed, but “where” they failed. That answer holds
the key to understanding almost everything that occurred at Ground Zero.

Since their inception in the late 1800s, blasting engineers have understood that building
implosions work best when the forces of gravity are maximized. This is why blasters
always concentrate their efforts on the lowest floors of a structure. While smaller
supplemental charges can be placed on upper floors to facilitate breakage and maximize
control as the structure collapses, every implosion ever performed has followed the
basic model of obliterating structural supports on the bottom few floors first, “to get the
structure moving.”

This was not the case with the collapse of Towers 1 and 2. Close examination of these
events from every video and photographic angle available does not indicate failure
originating from the lowest floors, rather clearly shows each building beginning to fail at
precisely the point where the respective planes struck. That is, no floors above or below
the impact points ever move until the structural elements within the impact zone begin to
collapse (WTC 7 collapsed differently, which we will cover later).

Furthermore, there are no independent failures present while the structures are
collapsing (we’re not talking dust plumes or debris, but actual structural failure). All
lower floors remained completely intact until they were consumed by the collapse from
above.

Because countless images confirm this assessment and none contradict it, we believe
this fact to be visually indisputable.

Therefore, for explosives to be considered as a primary or supplemental catalyst, one
would have to accept that either, a) dozens of charges were placed on those exact
impact floors in advance and survived the violent initial explosions and 1100+ degree
Fahrenheit fires, or b) while the fires were burning, charges were installed undetected
throughout the impact floors and wired together, ostensibly by people hiding in the
buildings with boxes of explosives. There is no third choice that could adequately
explain explosives causing failure at the exact impact points.

The chemical properties of explosives and their reaction to heat render scenario A
scientifically impossible and scenario B remarkably unlikely, as we know of no explosive
compound that could withstand such force and/or heat without detaching from the
columns or simply burning off prior to detonation.

There are other problems with both scenarios: Given the consistent weight distribution
around the outer perimeter of each structure, one would have needed access to a
prohibitively large quantity of load-bearing I-beam columns to allow “cutter charges” to
initiate failure. Those columns would have needed extensive preparation, also known as
“pre-burning”, to allow the explosives to perform their function. And in order to prepare
the columns you first had to be able to see the columns, which means at least partially
removing the outer-perimeter interior walls of all blast floors, including furniture,
plumbing and conduit lines, insulation, etc.

All of this would have been performed within the 55 minutes between plane impact and
collapse – working in an environment of unspeakable heat and destruction – or have
been performed completely undetected, in advance, on multiple floors in both buildings,
while suffering no adverse effects from the planes’ impact with these same areas.

This is impossible.
Click to expand...
 
Hi smiffy, the implosionworld article has been posted to this thread (a long while ago) and talked about in several threads here. Christophera is being purposefully obtuse about everything we've presented thus far, so posting it again and point out specifics just flies over his head, since he will ignore it anyway.

No amount of expert testimony or witnesses will disuade his delusions or "memories" of what he thought he saw 20 some odd years ago.

Link to implosionworld:
http://www.implosionworld.com/news.htm#1
 
Arus808 said:
Hi smiffy, the implosionworld article has been posted to this thread (a long while ago) and talked about in several threads here. Christophera is being purposefully obtuse about everything we've presented thus far, so posting it again and point out specifics just flies over his head, since he will ignore it anyway.

No amount of expert testimony or witnesses will disuade his delusions or "memories" of what he thought he saw 20 some odd years ago.
Click to expand...
Apologies for re-posting, this thread is so long that I've not read it all. I still think it needs to be circulated more widely as it doesn't mince words. I'm also well aware of Chris' unique interpretation of physics. I should know better, but he's either a great troll or a genius! Look Chris, a false dichotomy for you! You like those!
 
Smiffy said:
Apologies for re-posting, this thread is so long that I've not read it all. I still think it needs to be circulated more widely as it doesn't mince words. I'm also well aware of Chris' unique interpretation of physics. I should know better, but he's either a great troll or a genius! Look Chris, a false dichotomy for you! You like those!
Click to expand...

Well, you really should not jump into a thread like that.
 
Smiffy said:
Are you serious?! You expect me to read through 162 pages before I can comment? Surely you jest! I am on dial-up you know...
Click to expand...

If not, how can you refute all of Christophera's RAW evidence?

Just kidding, Smiffy :D
But be careful, after a few of Christophera's answers, you might feel the urge to do this: :bwall
 
Smiffy said:
Are you serious?! You expect me to read through 162 pages before I can comment? Surely you jest! I am on dial-up you know...
Click to expand...

Just so you know. I read all 110+ pages in all four threads on Loose Change found here, prior to signing up and then posting..

Took me a month to do so.

When i joined this thread had only 80 pages. Now its at 163 pages. AND yes, I've read them all...

seriously, what the hell is wrong with me?
 
Slogging throught this thread is like decending through the heart of darkness.
Only instead of Marlon Brando you get a concrete core.
 
Bell said:
But be careful, after a few of Christophera's answers, you might feel the urge to do this: :bwall
Click to expand...

Or this:
11107451db56d36f14.gif
 
Arus808 said:
Just so you know. I read all 110+ pages in all four threads on Loose Change found here, prior to signing up and then posting..

Took me a month to do so.

When i joined this thread had only 80 pages. Now its at 163 pages. AND yes, I've read them all...

seriously, what the hell is wrong with me?
Click to expand...

Well, judging by your ever changing avatar, you suffer MPD :D
 
I've got some catching up to do then...

His page is almost incomprehensible and ugly as hell, my head is STILL spinning from the tortuous 'logic'.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom