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

[Jennie C.]

Originally Posted by Jennie C.
Well, typos at least aren't important (tho I hate it when I do that). But reallly, Chris, if you want me not to get the giggles every time I see it, please learn the diff between "capital" (crimes) and "capitol."

The latter word stands for a building, and is usually capitalized.

So the murders and failure to provide due process doesn't matter but spelling does?

Okay, .......... so much for your credibility as a person who appreciates truth.

Well, you've proved my point without knowing that I was making one.

You have no sense of humor.

A sense of humor is very close to a sense of proportion (about what is important and what is not).

This has nothing to do with your arguments about 9/11, obviously that event was important.

But it does make you scary.

 

[Bell]

You cannot reasonably assert what you do when you have not provided a reasonable explanation for these fine vertical elements if they are not rebar.

Christophera is LYING again. We have shown you a picture that clearly shows (that bit was even enlarged in the picture) the steel core exposed during the collapse. You have a photographic memory, you know what picture I am talking about. How someone can look at a steel core from that distance in your picture, and claim it is 3" rebar on 4' centers is beyond me. You truely lack any ability to analyze pictures. But we have explained that many, many times before, but you are to thick to see and accept logic.

 

[Belz...]

And, I said "near" free fall because there is no real way to know the exact rate. Close is good enough it is all way too fast.

"Way too fast" as shown by what ?

At least there is a logical explanation somewhere.

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

Ah, yes. If you can't find it, make it up yourself.

You cannot reasonably assert what you do when you have not provided a reasonable explanation for these fine vertical elements if they are not rebar.

What does this have to do with your alledged medical condition ?

 

[Oliver]

Yes Oops is correct,

August Domel is the author not Ron Hamburger.

Does he or can you provide a reasonable explanation for what this is if it is not concrete.

Yes, he also explained what this and this and this is. PARANOIA! BTW: this, too.

 

[uruk]

Christophera is LYING again. We have shown you a picture that clearly shows (that bit was even enlarged in the picture) the steel core exposed during the collapse. You have a photographic memory, you know what picture I am talking about. How someone can look at a steel core from that distance in your picture, and claim it is 3" rebar on 4' centers is beyond me. You truely lack any ability to analyze pictures. But we have explained that many, many times before, but you are to thick to see and accept logic.

Here they are.

 

[uruk]

You cannot reasonably assert what you do when you have not provided a reasonable explanation for these fine vertical elements if they are not rebar.

See my post above.

I can't believe that you actually think that those spires are 3 inch rebar. 3 inch rebar from the distance the picture was taken would be undetectable.
This proves yet again that you are incapable of interpreting images. You can't even judge distance and measurments correctly. And this says alot about your reasoning capabilities.

The lengths that you are willing to go to hold on to your incorrect assumptions and beliefs is just plain pathetic and pathalogical.

Please stop posting Chris. Your just embarrasing yourself with each post.

 

[Christophera]

"Way too fast" as shown by what ?

Common sense. Historically most folks here have shown they refuse to use it.

Ah, yes. If you can't find it, make it up yourself.

I noticed the one you support doesn't provide a reasonable explanation for rates of fall near free fall or the fact the towers are pulverized in mid air.

What does this have to do with your alledged medical condition ?

Which is undiagnosable because of failure to appear on subpoena which of course doesn't mattter to you because you support lawless governments.

Your medical condition will go down in history as the greatest malady to effect humnity ever.

 

[Christophera]

Here they are.

Homer,

Those are not core columns. The rectangular frames shown are of the outer frameworks inner wall. The same frames are seen in the image annotated as "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS". Notice that ONLY the columns ringing the core are labeled MASSIVE. Those columns are also the spire.

You are misrepresenting the images (again) homer.

For an accurate documentation of the towers see;

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

 

[Christophera]

See my post above.

I can't believe that you actually think that those spires are 3 inch rebar. 3 inch rebar from the distance the picture was taken would be undetectable.
This proves yet again that you are incapable of interpreting images. You can't even judge distance and measurments correctly. And this says alot about your reasoning capabilities.

The lengths that you are willing to go to hold on to your incorrect assumptions and beliefs is just plain pathetic and pathalogical.

Please stop posting Chris. Your just embarrasing yourself with each post.

homer,

You are embarrasing humanity with your constant misrepresentations.

NOTICE: homer has not provided a reasonable explanation for what the fine vertical elements are IF they are not rebar.

 

[Bell]

homer,

You are embarrasing humanity with your constant misrepresentations.

NOTICE: homer has not provided a reasonable explanation for what the fine vertical elements are IF they are not rebar.

Bleeding Virgin,

You have a lot of nerve accusing uruk of misrepresentations, while it has been proven time and again you have zero skill to even judge scale and distance in photo's.

NOTICE: Bleeding Virgin is lying and has not provided evidens for his false claims, as requested by me. He also cites sources which he does not verify.

 

[uruk]

Homer,

Those are not core columns. The rectangular frames shown are of the outer frameworks inner wall. The same frames are seen in the image annotated as "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS". Notice that ONLY the columns ringing the core are labeled MASSIVE. Those columns are also the spire.

You are misrepresenting the images (again) homer.

For an accurate documentation of the towers see;

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

You still don't get it. The image is of a portion of the columns that make up the core. The core of the towers were steel columns. That what was so unique about thier architecture. That's what Yamasaki got all those accolades for.

Your willingness to deny the evidence is pathological.

 

[Bell]

Homer,

Those are not core columns. The rectangular frames shown are of the outer frameworks inner wall. The same frames are seen in the image annotated as "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS". Notice that ONLY the columns ringing the core are labeled MASSIVE. Those columns are also the spire.

You are misrepresenting the images (again) homer.

For an accurate documentation of the towers see;

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

You are calling the steel core in that picture BOTH rebar AND massive box columns??? Could you take your picture and WRITE on it where exactly the rebar is? We don't see it. I asume if you cannot produce such a picture, you are once again lying, about the rebar in the picture.

You did notice, btw, that both your and uruk's picture are made at approxemately the same moment, and both show the same steel core, not rebar?

 

[uruk]

homer,

You are embarrasing humanity with your constant misrepresentations.

NOTICE: homer has not provided a reasonable explanation for what the fine vertical elements are IF they are not rebar.

You still don't get it. The picture your posting is a low resolution, compressed image taken from a point several hundred yards from the building. 3 inch rebar would be undetectable from that distance. The only thing those spires could be is the columns seen in the higher resolution photos.

If you don't believe me. Get a 3 inch rebar stand it up in the ground. drive away from it about a quarter mile and take a picture of it with a 6 megapixel (heck try even using a 12 megapixel camera) camera and let me know if you can see it. As a matter of fact post the picture when you've made it.

There, I've just given you a method to prove me wrong. Let me know how it works out.

 

[bonavada]

Christophera:-

now let me get this straight. you contend that at least 24 columns were explosively cut on every third floor? quickly reckoned that's 37x24 steel beams cut this way. correct? thats a ballpark figure of at least ummm 888 cutting charges in each building? when was this work done? how many men did it take to do this mammoth job? under who's orders were these men? how did they manage to do the evil deed unoticed? by thousands of wtc office workers, security staff, maintenance employees etc etc.
and don't steel beams, girders, columns or whatever have to be especially weakened with mecahanical cutting (ie by grinding or oxy-acetylene torches etc) to prep for explosive demolition? isn't this normal practice when demolishing steel fabricated buildings? if so when was this work done?

wouldn't these explosions have made unmistakeable noises? this is not even considering your C4-rebar. i am sure even above the hellish roar of the collapsing towers someone, somewhere would have heard or recorded such noises.

i don't expect any coherent answers to be forthcomong from you but i feel the questions should be asked just for the sake of everyones sanity. especially yours.........

BV

ANSWER PLEASE?

BV

 

[Arus808]

Does he or can you provide a reasonable explanation for what this is if it is not concrete.

it looks like a big dark phallis hidden behind a cloud of dust and smoke...nothng more.

 

[Christophera]

sorry but again you ignore real facts and jump into the fire

Domel prepared the document and used Ron's work; he explains here for those who do not read their own source or understand what and who really did it!!!!!!!

1.4 Source Material
The information presented in this document was obtained from two sources. Much of the
information was obtained from discussions with structural engineering teams that worked at
Ground Zero. The other source was the author’s own opinions based on working at Ground
Zero.
Nothing in this document should be interpreted as a criticism of any of the structural engineers or
structural engineering organizations involved with any aspect of the emergency response. Any
questions regarding this issue should be resolved by referring to Chapter 11 of this document.​

Ron was on the team!!!!! he told us in the letter you ignored​

Thanks so much Chris for taking the time to ignore the work I did for you​

Thanks Chris for being so kind and taking the time to ignore my work to correct your source.​

Thank you​

You are suggesting we become victims of a bogus batch of text that does not explain this when a concrete core does? And, the concrete is also seen here (no steel core columns), and what is this if it is not rebar.

No one has explained those fine vertical elements logically, so your team is really neglecting an important aspect.

 

[Bell]

 

[Christophera]

it looks like a big dark phallis hidden behind a cloud of dust and smoke...nothng more.

If it's your birfday I ain't saying nothing about sex.

I will only say that drywall will not survive the crash of hunderds of thousands of tons of steel around it. So, if there were steel core columns and drywallwas fastened to them, the ddrywall would be stripped off and the columns would be showing and would look something like this.
whic is a column, but NOT a core column. It is an interior box column which ringed the core outside the concrete shear wall of the concrete tubular core and was massive.

 

[Christophera]

this begs numerous questions. here's a few:-

now let me get this straight. you contend that at least 24 columns were explosively cut on every third floor? quickly reckoned that's 37x24 steel beams cut this way. correct? thats a ballpark figure of at least ummm 888 cutting charges in each building? when was this work done? how many men did it take to do this mammoth job? under who's orders were these men? how did they manage to do the evil deed unoticed? by thousands of wtc office workers, security staff, maintenance employees etc etc.
and don't steel beams, girders, columns or whatever have to be especially weakened with mecahanical cutting (ie by grinding or oxy-acetylene torches etc) to prep for explosive demolition? isn't this normal practice when demolishing steel fabricated buildings? if so when was this work done?

wouldn't have these explosions have made unmistakeable noises? this is not even considering your C4-rebar. i am sure even above the hellish roar of the collapsing towers someone, somewhere would have heard or recorded such noises.

i don't expect any coherent answers to be forthcomong from you but i feel the questions should be asked just for the sake of everyones sanity. especially yours.........

BV

this begs numerous questions. here's a few:-

now let me get this straight. you contend that at least 24 columns were explosively cut on every third floor? quickly reckoned that's 37x24 steel beams cut this way. correct? thats a ballpark figure of at least ummm 888 cutting charges in each building? when was this work done? how many men did it take to do this mammoth job? under who's orders were these men? how did they manage to do the evil deed unoticed? by thousands of wtc office workers, security staff, maintenance employees etc etc.

My site deals with much of this issue, here.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1233383

The special cutting charges were built into the floors at construction. The C4 was place just prior to pouring the concrete on the floor pans. The documentary, "The Construction of the Twin Towers" mentioned that the completion of the floors was the one part they were unable to find photos of

and don't steel beams, girders, columns or whatever have to be especially weakened with mecahanical cutting (ie by grinding or oxy-acetylene torches etc) to prep for explosive demolition? isn't this normal practice when demolishing steel fabricated buildings? if so when was this work done? .

No such preparation is needed when conducting explosive shear to the piece being cut. Plenty of special stuff needs to be positioned/afixed etc. around it. Depending on the thickness and size of the steel.

wouldn't have these explosions have made unmistakeable noises? this is not even considering your C4-rebar. i am sure even above the hellish roar of the collapsing towers someone, somewhere would have heard or recorded such noises..

Absolutely. The only reason the cutting of the massive interior box columns are not obvious is that they were contained in the floors cast concrete which muffled the blast and made the cutting charge much more effective. This issue of the severe sharp crack noise made by uncontained high explosives is one that I use to argue against the steel core columns. Very important point and your recognition of that is very reasonable.
The supposed 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns would require 1,300 + cutting charges to be cut into the lengths found at GZ. That, ........ completely changes the character of what was seen and heard. TOTALLY.

i don't expect any coherent answers to be forthcomong from you but i feel the questions should be asked just for the sake of everyones sanity. especially yours.........

BV

Sorry I missed that the first time and thanks for bring it up again,

Once again, reasonable questions lost in the deletrious of psycholliegy. Your post was actually a very logical set of conclusions as basis for query.

 

[Christophera]

You still don't get it. The picture your posting is a low resolution, compressed image taken from a point several hundred yards from the building. 3 inch rebar would be undetectable from that distance. The only thing those spires could be is the columns seen in the higher resolution photos.

If you don't believe me. Get a 3 inch rebar stand it up in the ground. drive away from it about a quarter mile and take a picture of it with a 6 megapixel (heck try even using a 12 megapixel camera) camera and let me know if you can see it. As a matter of fact post the picture when you've made it.

There, I've just given you a method to prove me wrong. Let me know how it works out.

Two pictures both taken from the same camera seconds apart at the same distance. The first shows a 2 foot wide interior box column which establishing the scale at the distance of 7500 feet.

The second shows a fine vertical element BARELY seen. It is seen meaning the pixel calculatons are NOT taking something into account. On the left side many rebar are clustered making a better exposure. Low, on the right the resolution is not adequate to capture the lower part of the rebar meaning the pixel calculations are partially right, proving the small size.

What else besides high tensile rebar of that small size would be standing over 100 feet tall unsupported?

the spire

3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS​

ON EDIT. BTW, I am a surveyor and do that all the time with 1.25" range poles and they cannot be seen. I use a 2.5" PVC pipe which is barely visible at that distance.