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

[Belz...]

Perhaps the word, 'spire', is the source of confusion, here. However, praise be to the forum gods, for now I can post URL's.

This is the spire/tower/whatever to which I refer: http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG. It is in the wrong place to be your "concrete core." It is in the right place to be an outer wall, as can be seen in the related sequence of pictures here: http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/

Actually, the "spire" does seem to be from the WTC1 core area, more specifically some of the core columns survived the collapse, which is an impressive demonstration of the towers' resiliency.

 

[Belz...]

Our nation and all that it stands for wil never know justice again after the blood of innocent people was mixed with the sand and gravel of the exploding concrete core. Mothers will weep for many millenia and their children will be murdered over and over again.

What is this, the Gospel of Chris ?

It was aired in 1990, production began in 1987. It was called "the Construction Of the twin Towers", it was 2 hours in length on 2 consecutive nights. Viewed on channel 28, (cahnnel 10 in Santa Barbara), produced by PBS, since removed from their archives and records as existent by those that can build 1,300 foot towers with explosive cast into the concrete.

...and stupid enough to make a documentary about their plans.

So where did I contradict myself?

I explained it to you already. Photographic memory ?

Of course, you explained it away by claiming that both pictures didn't show the same thing when in fact they MUST show the same thing. You're trying to have ONE show box columns and the OTHER rebar. It's obvious to everyone except you that both pictures show the same thing.

No, .......... fire will not explain it. EVER. No way can enough heat be concentrated on the perimeter columns to equal 2/3 removal on the opposite side.

Did you already forgot that the PLANE impact ALSO damaged the OPPOSITE side ?

bigger font = more relative to issue.

Alright, then.

YOU ARE WRONG, CHRIS.

 

[Belz...]

So here is the picture you link to above. I've zoomed in on the section you say shows the 3" rebar.

[qimg]http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q308/Mobyseven/CT%20for%20JREF/FOS1.gif[/qimg]

Would you mind pointing it out for us now? Which pixels are they?

It's so obvious that it's the same structure from the other picture, now toppling.

Ugh...

 

[Z]

Gawd, ......... if you just would have read the thread.

It was aired in 1990, production began in 1987. It was called "the Construction Of the twin Towers", it was 2 hours in length on 2 consecutive nights. Viewed on channel 28, (cahnnel 10 in Santa Barbara), produced by PBS, since removed from their archives and records as existent by those that can build 1,300 foot towers with explosive cast into the concrete.

You forgot that the same people also managed to gain access to every obsessive-compulsive TV Guide collector in Southern California and replaced those issues from 1990 with copies which don't mention this video at all. Further, that it apparently ONLY aired on Channel 10 in Santa Barbara, but no one in Santa Barbara was watching except Chrissy here.

Mr. Photographic Memory, in what month was it aired / did you see it?

I'm calling you out right here, right now: if you don't tell us what the date was that you saw this special, you will be admitting you have no such 'photographic' memory, and that everything you claim to remember may very well be wrong.

Oh, and tell us again about that Mohawk worker you interviewed, the one who was working on the towers before they were built?

 

[Z]

Sorry.

Have you ever tried to defend common sense backed with quality evidence against overwhelming odds having no evidence?

Have you? So far, you're trying to defend a personal delusion backed with poor evidence against overwhelming evidence to a contrary and more realistic position.

 

[Z]

You are not explaining total pulverization

There was no total pulverization.

therefore you must explain why WTC 1 fell south when 2/3 of the perimeter wall on the north was destroyed.

No, .......... fire will not explain it. EVER. No way can enough heat be concentrated on the perimeter columns to equal 2/3 removal on the opposite side.

Incorrect. Normal household fires can get hot enough to melt steel. Not weaken - melt. All the fires in the WTC had to do was weaken steel in the steel core. After all, explosives wouldn't have lasted long enough to be viable by 9/11.

You have not addressed how explosives planted in the '60s could have lasted so long. And, no, being mixed with or sheathed in porous, breathable concrete will NOT extend the shelf-life of any explosive; it will, in fact, vastly shorten the shelf-life.

Nor could explosives have been planted at any point recently enough for the explosives to be stable, as the towers have been in more or less continual use for the last twenty years of their existence.

You have also not addressed how concrete added AFTER the steel framework could do anything more than support floor structures, or how concrete could be successfully pumped against gravity to the required floor; or, barring this imaginary, self-cleaning, waste-free concrete pump tube, where the lift mechanisms were to bring the required equipment to the floor in question.

But don't bother, since you're also a proven liar and con-man. Luckily for the rest of the world, you're about the worst liar and con-man on the planet, and no one is buying your crap anymore.

 

[maccy]

Dear all,

I think it's clear to all by now that Christophera is seriously deluded and that his arguments won't convince anybody. It's also clear that he will never change his mind.

I'm concerned that continuing to argue with him only serves to fuel his delusions so I'm suggesting that everybody stops replying to this thread, if only for Christophera's sake.

If we ignore him, maybe there's a chance he'll seek the help that he so obviously needs.

So, please please stop posting and let this thread die.

 

[stateofgrace]

ANd WTC 2 was hardly damaged compared to WTC 1. The very top of WTC 2 fell west

Withdrawn

ETA , you are correct Maccy, consider this my last post in this thread.

 

[Z]

It won't matter, guys. You two will stop, and a dozen more will start. Chris is counting on that fact.

I called for everyone to stop quite a while ago. So have several other people. But that's not going to happen, and our slow-witted moderators are unwilling to stop this Christophera spamfest; so we might as well all have fun agitating the little psychotic liar, and maybe get him to have a total meltdown. Ultimately, it would be for his own good.

BTW, Chrissy, you never did explain the whole Hallowe'en thing. And what do you think about the Xenobian Conference?

 

[Gravy]

Observe. The core of the top of tower 2 falls on WTC 3

False. That's the exterior wall. And if it were part of the core, why isn't it made of concrete?

 

[Gravy]

ANd WTC 2 was hardly damaged compared to WTC 1. The very top of WTC 2 fell west

False. Flight 175 flew directly into WTC 2's core. The photo you linked to is one small section, and you have no idea how high on the building it came from.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Which is heavier:

A) 11 stories of a World Trade Center tower
B) 25 stories of a World Trade Center tower

Take your pick. I know you can do it.

But it was murder of 3,000 people and due process was deprived. My questions are more pertinent. Yours are a waste of time. You already know the answers, we both do.

Simply choose A or B, Mr. Brown.

I could say the same thing and my questions are more pertinent to the issue which is not collapse.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4006&stc=1&d=1163141190

Your continued spamming of this thread (and others) with the same links (including those to your site) is in direct violation of your membership agreement. Is it your wish to be once again suspended from this forum?

 

[Oliver]

I was having trouble spotting the rebar in this picture, especially as the picture was taken from so far away. One could almost be mistaken in thinking that at such low resolution and from such a long distance, it would be impossible to actually SEE the rebar in a photograph.

But you know better.

So here is the picture you link to above. I've zoomed in on the section you say shows the 3" rebar.

Would you mind pointing it out for us now? Which pixels are they?

He´s talking about the thermite-pixel.

That can be seen here:

Notice the melting rebar that inidicates the concrete core.

 

[Bell]

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

If you cannot show me where the rebar is your raw evidence is not competent. Why are you affraid to point it out to us? Because it is not there?

 

[Bell]

This thread is about towers falling near free fall.

Please provide raw evidence for the steel core columns you have failed to substantiate.

Please provide evidence for the time it took for the complete building to collapse. How long did it take?

 

[Bell]

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

Christophera's raw evidence 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 still doing swell, Christophera

 

[Bell]

<snip>
The towers were on timers to create anonymity for the perps.
<spam>

Please provide us with evidence of said timers.

 

[Bell]

At least forty feet was detonated from the top.

You didn't explain where I contradicted myself. Show me the images and what descriptions/explanations you think I applied.

No one has shown me that the cutting charges detailed here would not produce the cuts shown.

You find your answer about how the rebar and interior box columns survived here.

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

I may have said there was also dust in the image, but I'm not sure of which image you refer to. i do not post images of just dust.

How about you showing us some evidence?


Christophera's raw evidence 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 still doing swell, Christophera

 

[Bell]

Is that why no one survived above impact on WTC 1?

All three staircases where blocked of by the plane's impact. That was the cause nobody was able to escape from above the impact damage at the norrth tower. Common knowledge.

 

[Bell]

Because you have no evidence and know nothing about construction and cannot support the bogus official story which does not explained towers pulverized in mid air.

<spam>[/url]

Don't make me show the 'Christophera's missing evidence list' again. Hypocrite!