• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Christophera said:
Simple logic says that the first tower hit, hit hardest, burned worst, will fall first IF PLANE IMPACTS AND FIRES ARE RESPONSIBLE.
Click to expand...
Except...

The first tower was not "hit hardest;" please retract your assertion.

The second tower was hit lower than the first, leaving a greater weight above the damage.

The towers' collapse sequence as traspired adheres not only to "simple logic" but physics as well.
 
You also skipped past my response to this:

Christophera said:
...This is knowledge beyond any shadow of any doubt. 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.

When I found that out, ....... I got a sick feeling about a BIG infiltration into the US government.
Click to expand...
Please provide one infiltrator's name.
 
Christophera said:
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.
Click to expand...

Chris this is wrong.

WTC 2 was hit lower; some 15 floors lower than WTC 1. The damage above crash site in WTC 1 was some 15 floors; the damage above the crash site in WTC 2 was some 30 floors.

And WTC 2 stood for approx half the time WTC 1 did.
 
Christophera, with your photographic memory, why are you not answering the different (or difficult for you) questions that are posted here? Why do you fail to produce a picture with arrows drawn on it to show us where you believe the rebar is in the WTC core?
 
stateofgrace said:
Chris this is wrong.

WTC 2 was hit lower; some 15 floors lower than WTC 1. The damage above crash site in WTC 1 was some 15 floors; the damage above the crash site in WTC 2 was some 30 floors.

And WTC 2 stood for approx half the time WTC 1 did.
Click to expand...

Wait?! Do you mean that the mass above the point of impact of the south tower was roughly twice as much as the mass above the point of impact of the north tower? [/sarcasm]

If so, would it not be LOGICAL that the south tower collapsed first?
 
Mobyseven said:
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:
Click to expand...

Hmm, that was belz, non accountability.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2081431#post2081431

Looks like your teams obsufucations are working. I should say that you "should read the thread" because this is already answered at least 3 times.

Mobyseven said:
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.
Click to expand...

Mobyseven said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is the ring of columns called interior box columns which are just out side the core. The perimeter box columns are unmistakeable for any familiar with the WTC.
 
Bell said:
Christophera, with your photographic memory, why are you not answering the different (or difficult for you) questions that are posted here? Why do you fail to produce a picture with arrows drawn on it to show us where you believe the rebar is in the WTC core?
Click to expand...

If I have to show you where rebar is located inside of a concrete shear wall you are not competent to conduct this discussion.
 
Christophera said:
If I have to show you where rebar is located inside of a concrete shear wall you are not competent to conduct this discussion.
Click to expand...

well you claimed it, so you have to prove its thre.

imagine if it was someone who has never seen rebar, so how would they know what to look for.

so, where in that image is the rebar?
 
This is about 177 pages and I have not read them all. So someone might have already posted this. But the towers did NOT FREE FALL. This is obvious in the fact that that as dust blew out of each floor and away from the towers the debris and dust that was ejected away from the towers were falling faster than the towers themselves.
 
Arus808 said:
well you claimed it, so you have to prove its thre.

imagine if it was someone who has never seen rebar, so how would they know what to look for.

so, where in that image is the rebar?
Click to expand...

If you do not know what would be rebar remnants from a 1,300 foot tall shear wall in the below linked image, you should withdraw from the discussion.

 
Bill Thompson said:
This is about 177 pages and I have not read them all. So someone might have already posted this. But the towers did NOT FREE FALL. This is obvious in the fact that that as dust blew out of each floor and away from the towers the debris and dust that was ejected away from the towers were falling faster than the towers themselves.
Click to expand...

I cannot believe you didn't see that I've revised my statement of the rate of fall to "near free fall".

You have just said that the dust is falling faster than the towers that are not falling.
 
Regnad Kcin said:
Except...

The first tower was not "hit hardest;" please retract your assertion.

The second tower was hit lower than the first, leaving a greater weight above the damage.

The towers' collapse sequence as traspired adheres not only to "simple logic" but physics as well.
Click to expand...

You can distort anything you choose but you cannot provide raw evidence to support your rarely made assertion that the towers had steel core columns inthe core.

I document the concrete core with raw evidence.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html
 
Garb said:
You seem to forget the position that the south tower was hit in.
Click to expand...

No, I do not. You seem to forget that it was hit on the south east corner and the very top fell west and the body fell east.

Here is an image that shows the steering charges going off ahead of the main demoliton to shift the descent of the debris.

steering charges

Garb said:
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.
Click to expand...

The towers were on timers to create anonymity for the perps.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1207667
 
bonavada said:
no..that's a natural assumption like i first made, but the series of pictures

...URL omitted due to inadequate post count...

show that there was no building behind to cause it.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

Look at the sequence again using the building directly in front of the collapsing tower as a reference. To me, the spire is too right of center to be alleged concrete core. Could it possibly be a remnant of the outer wall, after the floors have been sheared away, but before the wall's final collapse?
 
Last edited:
Christophera said:
This thread is about towers falling near free fall.

Please provide raw evidence for the steel core columns you have failed to substantiate.
Click to expand...
Is that what this thread is "about?" So any and all other topics are off-limits? Why then do you discuss them?

Christophera said:
You can distort anything you choose but you cannot provide raw evidence to support your rarely made assertion that the towers had steel core columns inthe core.

I document the concrete core with raw evidence.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html
Click to expand...
I'm really not interested in your fledgling skills at fiction writing, thanks.

And I note your evasion with regard to the towers-fell-in-the-wrong-sequence claim.
 
Regnad Kcin said:
Is that what this thread is "about?" So any and all other topics are off-limits? Why then do you discuss them?

I'm really not interested in your fledgling skills at fiction writing, thanks.

And I note your evasion with regard to the towers-fell-in-the-wrong-sequence claim.
Click to expand...

There are periphery subjects that are legitimate to engage temporarily.

How can I be evading when I've replied to your weak effor to show the scenario preesnted here,

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1207667

logically showing how and why the wrong tower fell first.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom