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

[Christophera]

That appears to be part of the outer section of the collapsing building. The poor quality and blurring of the "spire" part of that photo, in comparison with the buildings both in the foreground and background which are in focus, suggests that either the "spire" is still in motion (i.e. - collapsing), or that it has been photoshopped in and deliberately blurred to make it seem ambiguous.

Another building, the silhouette of which can be seen through the dust cloud created by the collapsed building.

You did not show a contradiction.

Here is the WTC 2 core lower

 

[Christophera]

take a look at a few zooms of images from the source below. importantly the same source christophera uses.
it's quite evident that the structure of whatever we see here is much larger than 3" rebar. however there is a plethora of evidence of the steel columns that made up the core. notice also that christophera is very choosy in what he regards as "raw evidence"

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/8748455348d3ef31c.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/8748455348d42d173.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/8748455348d45e651.jpg[/qimg]

BV

Your images above show the same interior box columns or "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" as the spire before the horizontal rebar detonates and the interior box columns fall away from the core detonations below. We may be looking at 2 interior box columns at a corner diagonally which might have a viewed width of a little over 3 feet. Note the proportions of the interior box columns and floor beams in the aerial image.

You really should try and support your assertions that there were steel core columns in the core area because I show a concrete shear wall at that phase of the demoition.

 

[firecoins]

http://www.stuntgrunts.com/sections/photo_gallery/bunny.jpghttp://www.stuntgrunts.com/sections/photo_gallery/bunny.jpg

 

[Christophera]

There's your first problem. Your making the asumption that the column seen in the picture is 2 feet wide. If that coulmn is actually one of the "massive" columns, as you put it, Your calculations would be off.
The truth is at the distance the picture was taken (on the New Jersey bank)
That structure is quite a bit larger than 2 feet. Compare the size of the "spire" to the windows in the buildings in the foreground. How wide would you say those windows are? Now realized the the "spire" is even further back than the buildings. Now check your calculations out again. How wide are those columns?

Note the reactangles formed by the interior box column and the floor beams.

"MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS"

This matches the rectangles seen here.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/8748455348d45e651.jpg[/qimg]

Establishing that the image shows interior box columns. Yes the size could be a little larger than 2 feet as the corners had 2 columns joined as can be seen in the aerial on the right. Depending on the angle.

Again, the resolution in the picture is too low to make a definitive conclusion. To me the fine lines look like denser areas in the dust streaming off the columns.
A hundred foot steel box column would be more stable that a hundred foot 3 inch rebar. The four sides of a box column would provide more self support than a circular solid 3 inch steel rebar. That's just common sense. You really don't know much about engineering. Besides it did not stand for more than acouple of seconds..

A hundred foot box column would be stronger, which proves nothing as the image showing it depicts a taller element. The image with the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS is lower.

You might recall I'm the one that has consistency with images and a web site documenting the concrete core. How are you so savvy about engineering when you continue to (fail to) assert that supposed steel core columns you cannot evidence with raw images actually existed in the core area?

Do you eyeball it or do you use a theodolite? You know one of these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodolite
Because if you do use a theodolite it has a telescope on it. Not to mention it also has laser range finding and GPS. That's if its a recent model. The college where I teach has a surveying class and they teach them how to use theodolites. Maybe you should take a class.

If you eye ball it, well then, now I know why you have so much time to devote to plaguing forums with your lunacy. Your really bad at judging distance and size.

Of course I use the naked eye in that evaluation because i have to point the 30x telesope of my 1 second electronic theodolite somehow. And the target is a white piece of PVC silhouetted against a blue sky not a slightly wider black piece of steel.

 

[Christophera]

i think the below may be a close up of that "spire". i'm not absolutely sure, perhaps someone could confirm either way?
anyway. more "raw evidence", as chris would have it, of the 47 columns that composed the steel core of WTC1/2. no evidence of a concrete core there strangely.................

This linked image of the the concrete blowing up leaves the interior box columns standing shown in your image. The core area in your image is empty.

You have no evidence of steel core columns.

 

[Christophera]

Christophera,

Did your imaginary PBS documentary addressed the explosives that were placed inside the WTC? Did they actually talk about the explosives?

Absolutely not. They only mentioned a "special, anti corrosion, anti vibration" plastic coating that was also flammable. Something a welding contractor learned in trying to get justification for the requirement that all welders welding the reba of the core walls must have a security clearance.

The documentary did gain a mysterious "air" regarding the "special plastic" coated rebar as well as the mysterious floor evacuations prior to the stages of pouring concrete.

 

[Bell]

Absolutely not. They only mentioned a "special, anti corrosion, anti vibration" plastic coating that was also flammable. Something a welding contractor learned in trying to get justification for the requirement that all welders welding the reba of the core walls must have a security clearance.

The documentary did gain a mysterious "air" regarding the "special plastic" coated rebar as well as the mysterious floor evacuations prior to the stages of pouring concrete.

Okay, thanks. The PBS documentary does not prove the explosives that were build right into the tower.

So what source do you have that does proof those explosives? Are there schematics? Blueprints? I'm confused, because I know that without hard evidence, you would not make such a bold statement. I mean, you must be able to show us more than your logical conclusions?

It is like you would not take our word for it if we told you, for example, there was no concrete core? You would also be demanding evidence.

I'm very excited about the kind of evidence for the explosives that you have. This is very important!

 

[Jennie C.]

This reminds me of how the Ufologists know that aliens walk among us, and that there are those who know that the Apollo moon landing was a hoax, and those who know that the Earth is hollow. It'd be interesting for someone with a PET scan to pinpoint which part of the brain is misfiring for someone to be so deadset certain against all available evidence.

"Imagine what you'll know tomorrow." "K" (as played by Tommy Lee Jones)

 

[Christophera]

Chris,

The site in question, http://noconcretecore.741.com has just as much evidence as your site. Please show how the info is "fraudulent". Hint: you can't use your site as evidence that this site is fraudulent. You need evidence that wasn't dreamed up by you.

p.s. Chris, have you ever thought that possibly YOU were hypnotized to believe in the concrete core, and not the other billions of people in the world who were hypnotized to think the core was steel? It certainly would be easier to hypnotize one person than billions, and you can't find another person who thinks the core was concrete, nor find a single other person who saw the PBS documentary you claim to have seen.

The assertion that there was no concrete core is fraudulent because the towers did have a core and steel core columns cannot be evidenced from raw sources.

As I've said. I've found at least 3 people who saw documentaries that used the same clips having the concrete core construction.

This image shows what can only be concrete shear wall.

Here is the core of WTC 2 falling onto the top of WTC 3

 

[Christophera]

Okay, thanks. The PBS documentary does not prove the explosives that were build right into the tower.

So what source do you have that does proof those explosives? Are there schematics? Blueprints? I'm confused, because I know that without hard evidence, you would not make such a bold statement. I mean, you must be able to show us more than your logical conclusions?

It is like you would not take our word for it if we told you, for example, there was no concrete core? You would also be demanding evidence.

I'm very excited about the kind of evidence for the explosives that you have. This is very important!

If you knew anything about blasting the below image would be all the proof you need to know that high explosives were optimally placed and distributed inside of concrete containment. What is seen cannot happen any other way.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3998&stc=1&d=1163096431

 

[Bell]

If you knew anything about blasting the below image would be all the proof you need to know that high explosives were optimally placed and distributed inside of concrete containment. What is seen cannot happen any other way.

Well, that was not what I asked. This is your assumption by looking at that picture. Which is a fraction of a second of what was a highly evolving event. To me it looks like a 110 story building is in the midst of a collapse.

But hey, I'm sure you have real evidence of explosives in the towers? Like blueprints? Taped confessions? Pictures of said explosives being put in place?

 

[Christophera]

I think this was tried many pages ago. What followed then was an attempt by several other readers (myself included) to find mention of this documentary in the PBS archives. Needless to say, no such documentary was found.

It is only logical that if 2 1,300 hundred towers can be built with explosives in side their cast concrete, then a documentary of their construction can be removed from the PBS archives and all record of it as well.

Do you approve of that?

 

[Christophera]

Well, that was not what I asked. This is your assumption by looking at that picture. Which is a fraction of a second of what was a highly evolving event. To me it looks like a 110 story building is in the midst of a collapse.

But hey, I'm sure you have real evidence of explosives in the towers? Like blueprints? Taped confessions? Pictures of said explosives being put in place?

Like I said. You do not know enough about the uses of explosives and how difficult it is to attain breakage as is seen to evaluate the event.

Are you really naive enough to think that professionals are going to risk anything to support the truth of demolition?

 

[firecoins]

I think aliens blew up the WTC. They did it create more conspiracy theories and the lack of intelligence that goes with it.

 

[Christophera]

So, for the millionth time, no Chris there is NOT a "realistice" explanation of for the free fall of the towers, because they DID NOT FALL FREE FALL.

One additional time,

I have aquiesed that the exact time cannot be asertained therefore I use the term "near free fall."

 

[uruk]

Note the reactangles formed by the interior box column and the floor beams.

"MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS"

This matches the rectangles seen here.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/8748455348d45e651.jpg[/qimg]

Establishing that the image shows interior box columns. Yes the size could be a little larger than 2 feet as the corners had 2 columns joined as can be seen in the aerial on the right. Depending on the angle.

Could be!? If you look at the construction films as well as the debris removal pictures you will notice that they are at least 4 feet wide.

A hundred foot box column would be stronger, which proves nothing as the image showing it depicts a taller element. The image with the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS is lower.

Well nice to see that reality is seeping in. And it does prove that the spire has to be one of the columns.
a 3 inch steel rebar that length could not possibly stand up unsupported.
But hey try it out your self. Show us a video of what happens.

You might recall I'm the one that has consistency with images and a web site documenting the concrete core. How are you so savvy about engineering when you continue to (fail to) assert that supposed steel core columns you cannot evidence with raw images actually existed in the core area?

Consistanly wrong you mean.
I don't know how you define evidence. You post a picture and call that evidence, we post a picture and you don't call it evidence. You seem to be imploying a double standard. Not very honest of you. I am savvy enough to know that that spire cannot possibly be a 3 inch rebar. Anybody with common sense can tell that. I am savvy enough to see hundreds of tons of steel columns littered about the ground zero debris field. Something which you seem to blind to. Just look at the photos in the website.
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/

 

[Christophera]

Alas, since you are lying about the wrong tower falling first - you failed to show us evidence, only your own 'analysis' - there is nothing to respond to.

You are making an error in your choice of words. I would not be "lying" about the wrong tower falling first, I would be "in error".

However, according to logic, the wrong tower did fall first, and ....... the tops of both towers fell in the wrong directions according to logic.

So, ........ you have just made 2 errors and an oversight.

 

[Bell]

Like I said. You do not know enough about the uses of explosives and how difficult it is to attain breakage as is seen to evaluate the event.

Are you really naive enough to think that professionals are going to risk anything to support the truth of demolition?

So? No evidence then?

Okay, I've added it to the list:

1.) Explosives placed inside the towers during construction - NO evidence
2.) Airplanes hitting the wrong towers - NO evidence
3.) The fires inside the towers going out - NO evidence
4.) The wrong tower falling first - NO evidence

And the concrete core? - NO evidence, beside a misprint in a book, a faulty diagram from the BBC website on 9/12/01 and a grainy picture that shows nothing more but a dark shape behind dustclouds.

You are doing swell, Christophera

 

[Bell]

You are making an error in your choice of words. I would not be "lying" about the wrong tower falling first, I would be "in error".

However, according to logic, the wrong tower did fall first, and ....... the tops of both towers fell in the wrong directions according to logic.

So, ........ you have just made 2 errors and an oversight.

Okay, then you are in error. That's one error on my side.

After that, you keep on making errors: I am not in error about the wrong tower falling first (that would be you) and I did not have oversighted the tops falling in the wrong direction. Here, once again, it is your logic that is in error.

For further errors in your logic, see my other post, above.

 

[beachnut]

Maxim:
If a suppossed explantion does not explain the event, it is not the truth. No explanation that does not explain the event can be the truth.

So far no explanation in existence explains free fall and total pulverization of the towers appears to exist. Has anyone seen one?

Has anyone seen one? NO (there was not total pulverization)

NO

Parts of the WTC falling and not hitting other objects on the way down did free fall.

Parts of the WTC that hit other parts of the WTC and contributed to the collaspse of the WTC did not free fall.

There was not total pulverization of the WTC.

There was damage to the WTC due to aircraft impact (energy of a ton of TNT)

There was fire damage from fuel and building contents (energy greater than 350 tons of TNT)

There was collapse of the WTC towers (energy greater than 500 tons of TNT)

But you question is faulty and thus the only answer is, NO

NO