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

[uruk]

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.

The very definition of circular reasoning.

No steel core columns? Then what were you talking about here?:

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

"MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS"

This matches the rectangles seen here.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting...348d45e651.jpg

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.

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

Who are these people?

This image shows what can only be concrete shear wall.

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

In the first image Your pointing into empty space. The arrow is poitned at a cloud.

All you can see in the second picture are the spandrells and what looks like a floor section.

But then well a know how accurate you were about size and distance.

 

[beachnut]

I answered the question what is the prize?

(hope it is not a concrete core, or depleted oxygen hypnotized dead trees)

 

[Belz...]

You are correct. I am convinced, but it is not an idea. And, ....... convinced is not really the right word. The word is, ....... I know.

Unfortunately, there are millions of people who "know" God talks to them, who "know" they've been abducted by aliens, who "know" they can read auras, etc.

Knowing is not as reliable as you think.

This is knowledge beyond any shadow of any doubt.

Doubtless knowledge is less reliable than doubted knowledge.

I watched the documentary and knew exactly what I was seeing and hearing all through it. I remembered it before I even knew FEMA was trying to tell the world it had steel core columns.

Seeing how unreliable human memory is, I'm going to assume that you may have remembered wrong until you can produce either the video or several witnesses that ALSO saw it.

When I found that out, ....... I got a sick feeling about a BIG infiltration into the US government.

Unfortunately, that feeling is not borne out by evidence. Even if your concrete core existed and the explosives existed, to which there is NO evidence, it still would say nothing about the alleged conspirators and their plot.

 

[Belz...]

Oh, I know it's in vain.

I understand why belz is arguing, here. He's utterly convinced of his ideas. Though I disagree and I suspect, with evidence, that he has some mental problem, his behaviour is expected

Post-whore.

 

[Belz...]

I mean, Belz, I can understand. He's Satan. That sort of self-torture is a given (though always better if someone ELSE is doing the hook-hanging!). But the rest of you? I'm surprised.

Satan's another guy with another job, I'm Belz...!

And it's not self-torture. I'm debating with a wall, that's all.

I'm also beign bombarded by an idiot, which happens to be a poster who's NOT christophera. Go figure. The man should spend more time with his girl.

 

[Belz...]

Okay, retracted. However your response did not show that my analysis of the "towers fell in the wrong order" was illogical.

It wasn't necessarily illogical. Just wrong.

That column on the left matches hundreds from GZ. Sheared & Torch Cut Columns

It's been shown to you that cutter charges would not produce such a clean cut.

This one shows 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS but this one shows concrete shear wall and it is taken while the spire stands, just before the rebar image.

Where's the rebar in the first picture, then ? How did it magically appear ? The concrete was, supposedly, already gone, though somehow the "box" columns hadn't been cut in that area, but the rebar survived ?

I don't see the contradictions. You will have to point them out.

Unless you can conclusively show that one picture shows something different than the other one, namely the CORE columns, precisely as seen in the diagrams and the pictures of the remains of the core, I'll consider that you have a contradiction on your hands.

Did you attempt to explain what this is if it is not rebar?

Yes, I did many pages ago. I said they were the same columns, core or box, that we see in the OTHER picture. They're just too far away to make them out properly on such a low-resolution picture.

How about a logical explanation for what this is if it is not concrete.

You've already admitted that it could also be dust, so your question has been answered by you.

Here is the WTC 2 core lower

And still un-detonated ?

 

[bonavada]

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.

there is nothing, NO-THING, ZILCH, NOWT, in that picture that could be described with even a minute amout of certainty as a CONCRETE SHEAR WALL. all i can see is a badly pixellated image of what i presume to be steel forms and SMOKE and DUST.
sometimes what is not seen is there chris but what is not there is not seen.
you are blind to everything bar your own fallacies chris.

toodle-pip

BV

 

[Bell]

Where's the rebar in the first picture, then ? How did it magically appear ? The concrete was, supposedly, already gone, though somehow the "box" columns hadn't been cut in that area, but the rebar survived ?

I've asked Christophera a couple of times to put arrows in that picture, pointing to the alleged rebar. Thus far, he failed to do so. Why is that, Christophera? Is it because you know there is no rebar to show? Are you in error again? Or is it lying, this time?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Also, and again, Mr. B., you may retract your assertion that I "never responded" here to your "towers fell in the wrong order" claim.

Okay, retracted.

Thank you. It's no small thing to see you admit error.

However your response did not show that my analysis of the "towers fell in the wrong order" was illogical.

Leading a horse (that is, you) to water, I hoped he would do his own drinking.

To review (and simplify), tower 1 was hit at a certain speed (and therefore with certain force) at a particular spot. Tower 2 was hit at a greater speed (and therefore with greater destructive force) at a spot lower.

- Think of ten men holding aloft ten tons of material.

Now...

- Think of four men holding aloft ten tons of material.

Which group of equally strong individuals is going to weaken and drop their material first?

 

[Mobyseven]

no..that's a natural assumption like i first made, but the series of pictures

HERE

show that there was no building behind to cause it.
so what is it? of course i can't accept chris' assertion that it is evidence of a conctete core, i think the enigmatic phallic shadow is possibly a swirling cloud of dust around the steel core before that also succumbed to gravity?

BV

That site gave me goosebumps.

It does show that there was no building behind the tower - thanks for correcting me on that one.

Your idea then is one of the more likely ones. Among other things the dust cloud simply could have been much denser in the center producing the effect that we see.

 

[Mobyseven]

You did not show a contradiction.

Here is the WTC 2 core lower

Um...was I trying to show a contradiction? I didn't actually respond to that part of your post. The parts I responded to were:

Did you attempt to explain what this is if it is not rebar?

...and...

How about a logical explanation for what this is if it is not concrete.

Now, in my answer to the second question it has already been shown that I was incorrect, so a few new ideas were suggested.

How about actually replying to my posts rather than just saying, "You did not show a contradiction."

We'll focus on one thing at a time, how's that? What do you have to say about this:

...this...

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.

I await your reply.

 

[Mobyseven]

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?

It is quite difficult to take pictures of the core of a building when you have, you know, the exterior of the building in your line of sight. If only I had vision like Superman, but I don't.

It is also rather tricky to take a photo of a standing steel core after the building has collapsed. The laws of physics and all that.

However, you have numerous time on this site been shown photos of the steel core DURING CONSTRUCTION of the towers. Why is that not enough proof for you?

 

[Mobyseven]

One additional time,

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

Well, could you please not use this term? Find a more appropriate one.

Because unless you can give an estimate of how long it would have taken the towers to fall in free fall, and then can give us an approximation of how the it actually did take the towers to fall, you can't logically infer anything as to whether the towers fell at or near 'free fall' speeds.

So - what new term will you be using?

 

[Gravy]

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.

I normally stay out of this insanity, but I think it's important on occasion to point out how insane, and how much of a liar, Christophera is.

Yes, he has claimed, several times, that the PBS (and sometimes he says BBC) documentary explicitly shows explosives being planted in the towers during construction in the 1960's. He even "quotes" the documentary's detailed description of that process.

I mentioned this recently. Chris must have forgotten.

 

[Mobyseven]

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.

Um - according to what logic did the wrong tower fall first?

For all us simpletons on this site (as it seems we all must be except for you), could you please simplify your argument into a series of propositions leading to a conclusion? I won't even ask you to justify your propositions yet (I will once I know what they are.)

An example in case you aren't sure what I mean:

P1 - If I attack someone for no reason, I will be punished.
P2 - I just attacked George for no reason.

Conc - I will be punished.
​

Understand? That is a formal logical argument boiled down to its simplest form. Please express your 'the wrong tower fell first' hypothesis in this form. Note that you are not limited to two propositions.

 

[Christophera]

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.

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.

Down near the ground they were 52 inches but not at that height.

I have always said that the spire​

is an interior box column. You are intentionally pretending there was confusion. Very dishonest, basically a lie.

Meaning you have not explained what these very fine vertical elements are that are standing free IF they are not rebar.[/center]

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 just proved you are not only wrong and incapable of explaining what I know to be rebar but I also showed you are dishonest.

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/

homer,

The above is pure bunk. You knew there was a difference between the image http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg and http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg 60 pages back. You are trying to pretend there is confusion to evade providing a real answer.

Time for you to actually do something. Like come up with an image of the steel core columns inside the core area at some elevation above the ground.

Or, if you cannot do that try explaining what this image of the WTC 2 core shows if it is NOT concrete.

 

[Christophera]

Um - according to what logic did the wrong tower fall first?

For all us simpletons on this site (as it seems we all must be except for you), could you please simplify your argument into a series of propositions leading to a conclusion? I won't even ask you to justify your propositions yet (I will once I know what they are.)

An example in case you aren't sure what I mean:

P1 - If I attack someone for no reason, I will be punished.
P2 - I just attacked George for no reason.

Conc - I will be punished.
​

Understand? That is a formal logical argument boiled down to its simplest form. Please express your 'the wrong tower fell first' hypothesis in this form. Note that you are not limited to two propositions.

Simple logic says that the first tower hit, hit hardest, burned worst, will fall first IF PLANE IMPACTS AND FIRES ARE RESPONSIBLE.

Maybe you cannot not do this.

 

[Arus808]

Simple logic says that the first tower hit, hit hardest, burned worst, will fall first IF PLANE IMPACTS AND FIRES ARE RESPONSIBLE.

Maybe you cannot not do this.

then your logic is faulty
first tower was hit head on by the airplane
the second twoer, was hit nearly on its side, thereby putting more weight and pressure on a highly weakened area of the building.

that's why the south tower collapsed first.

 

[Garb]

Simple logic says that the first tower hit, hit hardest, burned worst, will fall first IF PLANE IMPACTS AND FIRES ARE RESPONSIBLE.

Maybe you cannot not do this.

You seem to forget the position that the south tower was hit in.

And funny, if they had power over which tower would fall first, why did they choose the second when apparently it is common knowledge that the north should have collapsed.

 

[Mobyseven]

Simple logic says that the first tower hit, hit hardest,

Proof? As I understand it the second tower was hit 'harder' (read - faster and at a different angle) to the first tower.

burned worst,

Again, proof?

will fall first IF PLANE IMPACTS AND FIRES ARE RESPONSIBLE.

Maybe you cannot not do this.

Maybe you are an evasive moron.

Why are you ignoring my other posts? Especially the ones where I've specifically asked for a reply?