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

[Belz...]

My memory often works better with images and then they trigger recall of verbal.

Are you aware of how unreliable memory can be ?

The same shot was in the 2 hour documentary I saw in 1990. it kept bothering me, as if there was something important about it.

Are you aware that, because of this, you might have "constructed" that memory ? Happens to ME.

If you had any evidence at all you might be able to pretend what you do have compromises the scenario which is assembled that does explain near free fall and total pulverization.

There was no near free fall. This has been explained before. Also, no total pulverization, or can't you see the large chunks of floor concrete in the pictures ?

Your emotional responses to death and lawlessness are inappropriate.

Says the one who appeals to emotion more times than I care to count.

I've been investigating the field of psychology and I've discovered deep negligence and unreasonable, debilitating fears within their ranks. Here is basic evidence proving that.

Convenient. So psychologists are unreliable, therefore you can't consider seeing one.

If NIST states that one fell at just over 10 seconds, to say they fell at near free fall is most accurate. To say We can't determine at what rate the towers fell" is not comprehensive and therefore not accurate.

It was an estimate. We can't see through the dust. Well, I know YOU can.

it is a very minor issue when two towers of that nature fell basically identically completely to the ground with concrete turned to sand and gravel and dust and the heavyest steel in the buildings cut into neat equal lengths.

It's worth mentioning that they were BUILT in neat equal lenghts. When they failed, isn't it reasonable to assume that they'd break BACK into their original size ?

The fact that they did so identically to the ground is ASTOUNDING.

Why ? They were similarily damaged and almost identically constructed. What's so astounding ?

Keep in mind every psychologist I've presented it to admitted I had made a valid INFERENCE. I asked each one to sign a declaration formally stating what that had just informally agreed to and none would. I detected FEAR in their response.

With your mind-probe ?

 

[bonavada]

thank zd and the others for some order to the "debate" here.
chris it's not that complicated at the moment:-
your quote

The thread is also about "realistic explanations" for the rate of fall, what ever it was

(my bold)

to find "realistic explanations for the rate of fall" we must first deduce what the rate of fall was. how can the debate continue otherwise?
are you saying now that it doesn't matter what the rate of fall was?

BV

 

[Belz...]

Free fall, near free fall, too fast, ......... all are appropriate descriptions, no retractions.

And yet you say that it's a minor issue, when it's the whole point of the thread.

btw, no one here has ever produced raw evidence from the images of the demoltion of the supposed 47, 1300 foot steel core columns, the core you say (rarely) you think existed.

Irrelevant. Even if said evidence didn't exist, YOU would have the burden of proof to show that the concrete core existed. Unfortunately for you, you've admitted it could be DUST, and not just concrete. Your proof is, therefore, inconclusive.

http://www.hypnos.co.uk/hypnomag/peltbook/chapter4p4.htm

From that site:

There is magic in the mind but it is only to be found in your own mind. With hypnosis, hypnotherapy and self hypnosis we can begin to use that magic for our own good ...

MAGIC ?

 

[Big Al]

to find "realistic explanations for the rate of fall" we must first deduce what the rate of fall was. how can the debate continue otherwise?
are you saying now that it doesn't matter what the rate of fall was?
BV

Don't you just love seeing the woosters trip themselves up, bonavada? It's interesting that making bizarre, unbelievable assertions and then making abrupt, angry U-turns is a hallmark of paranoid schizophrenia...

 

[bonavada]

It's interesting that making bizarre, unbelievable assertions and then making abrupt, angry U-turns is a hallmark of paranoid schizophrenia...

yep christophera's big problem now is during an angry u-turn he's going to meet high-speed well directed traffic coming the other way.
nice to see zd, maccy, + jsfisher injecting some "sanity" into the proceedings. if we can all stick to the guns and hold the format i cannot see how chris can wriggle out the way he has been for months.

no more side tracking chris......will you now retract free-fall/near free-fall?

a decent straight answer would be wonderful. something sadly missing for hundreds of pages

BV

 

[delphi_ote]

Either support your "47, steel core column" claim or retract it.

Consider this, far better raw evidence exists to prove the towers fell at rates nearly equal to free fall than does for the 47, steel core columns as being extant.

We're not talking about that right now, Chris, and I never made that claim anyway. One subject at a time. We can get to the columns later. Only one issue at a time. We're talking about "near free fall" now.

 

[delphi_ote]

Consider that it is actually unimportant as to the exact rate of fall. What is importnat is the explanation as to HOW they fell that fast, however fast it was.

Okay. Shall we review, Chris?

This thread is about towers falling near free fall.

If NIST states that one fell at just over 10 seconds, to say they fell at near free fall is most accurate.

It is most accurate to say the towers fell at near free fall because the exact moment they stopped falling cannot be exactly determined.

If you had any evidence at all you might be able to pretend what you do have compromises the scenario which is assembled that does explain near free fall and total pulverization.

I know enough about the uses of high explosives to know that IF there were steel core columns the event of the towers falling at near free fall would have looked and sounded completely different than they did.

Here is the only feasible and realistic explanation for near free fall and total pulverization.

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.

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.

That 2 towers would fall at near free fall speeds almost identically to the ground demands consideration of everything OUTSIDE the official story because due process was violated in dealing with capitol crimes.

I explain near free fall and total pulverization.

Explained near free fall and pulverization.

In the many pages of this thread there is not one logical explanation for near free fall and total pulverization except for what is contained in this link.

The liar haveth not evidence, but I have much evidence, all compiled logically explaining near free fall and total pulverization.

And I could keep going. It seems to me you think that "near free fall" is important, so we're discussing it first before we move on to anything else.

 

[Gravy]

Apologies to all, but I think we can engage a reasonable discussion on this point - if we move slowly and carefully.

zaayr, you are far in the lead for the Most Optimistic Post in the History of the Internet Award.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

I've said I consider 20 seconds to be "near free fall" and that the issue is unimportant compared to the near identical events.

Are you trying to focus on unimportant issues?

Are you now claiming that the rate of fall is an unimportant issue? If so, I'm awfully confused, because your original post is

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?

It seems that your entire reason for starting this thread was to address reasons for the rate of fall. If that is the case and those reasons are to be addressed, then the rate of fall is of primary importance to the discussion.


And thank you to whoever thought up the socks, and to everyone who is keeping this on track. It'd be nice if we could extend this policy to other threads.....

 

[jsfisher]

I've done this once on each of the 2 previous pages.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2093905#post2093905

Just to be clear, these two prior posts are not responsive answers to the question at hand. They both included a pointer to an off-forum web page and the directions (in effect) "go look here" with no clue for what one would be looking.

Admittedly, the page topic was the physics of gravity, but they did not provide any guidance whatsoever as to what you, Christopher, mean by "near free fall."

 

[Z]

Heh - the socks idea IS pretty brilliant. I believe that was Delphi who came up with it?

Meanwhile (though I'm sure there's another answer), it seems as if Chris is somewhat intimidated by being held to one point at a time.

Chris... stay with us, man!

 

[delphi_ote]

Heh - the socks idea IS pretty brilliant. I believe that was Delphi who came up with it?

Well, the inspiration came from jsfisher, actually.

May I suggest a more focussed approach, then. I think the "free-for-all" we have had has given Christophera maximum wiggle room. Facts and rebuttals go ignored because there's always that next post to which Christophera can recycle old claims.

He was right. This thread either needed to get focused or suffer death by mass kittening. I appreciate everyone taking part in this little experiment. It seems like this tactic might work out nicely when we're dealing with someone suffering from a sort of tourette's sydrome with claims.

ETA If we can keep this up to more than one question, I'll try and keep a summary of the questions asked and the answers received. Even if the questioner gives up, it would still be good to let everyone know that the question had already been asked and Chris just refused to answer it. Hopefully that's not the case with this question.

 

[Z]

Well, the inspiration came from jsfisher, actually.

I sit corrected.

If we can keep this up to more than one question, I'll try and keep a summary of the questions asked and the answers received. Even if the questioner gives up, it would still be good to let everyone know that the question had already been asked and Chris just refused to answer it. Hopefully that's not the case with this question.

I would have already passed the socks, except that this is the PRIMARY reason this thread even exists. Understanding this point is essential; and if Chris is withdrawing this point, there's no reason this thread needs to be open. He can certainly start a new thread...

And maybe spell 'Realistic' right this time...

 

[Christophera]

And yet you say that it's a minor issue, when it's the whole point of the thread.

Wrong, the explanation for the rate of fall is the point of the thread. If it is not exactly free fall, this is a minor issue. the rate of fall was way too fast.

The official explanation is grossly inadequate and does not make sense.

There is only a limited amount of room in the title field to delineate this.

Cut the selectivity and attempts to derail the point of the thread.

 

[Z]

Wrong, the explanation for the rate of fall is the point of the thread. If it is not exactly free fall, this is a minor issue. the rate of fall was way too fast.

The official explanation is grossly inadequate and does not make sense.

There is only a limited amount of room in the title field to delineate this.

Cut the selectivity and attempts to derail the point of the thread.

OK, so we can clearly dispense with 'near free fall'... now the claim is 'rate of fall was way too fast'.

I can live with this adjustment, as far as it goes.

Now, what, exactly, is the rate of fall (by which I mean, what is the rate of downward acceleration of main structure members), and what rate of fall is expected during a total structural collapse of this building?

And please hurry - these are getting stinky....

ETA: I propose the thread title be edited by a moderator to ;'Has Anyone Seen A Realistic Explanation For The Rate Of Collapse Of The Towers', or similar, as a result of his retraction of the 'free fall' and 'near free fall' claims.

 

[Christophera]

Just to be clear, these two prior posts are not responsive answers to the question at hand. They both included a pointer to an off-forum web page and the directions (in effect) "go look here" with no clue for what one would be looking.

Admittedly, the page topic was the physics of gravity, but they did not provide any guidance whatsoever as to what you, Christopher, mean by "near free fall."

It is not realistic that this should be an issue. This is selectivty which is designed to distract from the point of the thread which is the EXPLANATION.

My web site;

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

Provides a realistic explnation for the high rates of fall.

Have you seen a realistic explanation for this phenomena? That is what the threads point is.

 

[Arus808]

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

we are asking you by how you came to that conclusion. What mathematic basis do you have behind your claim?

please post your calculations in this thread.

 

[Christophera]

OK, so we can clearly dispense with 'near free fall'... now the claim is 'rate of fall was way too fast'.

I can live with this adjustment, as far as it goes.

Now, what, exactly, is the rate of fall (by which I mean, what is the rate of downward acceleration of main structure members), and what rate of fall is expected during a total structural collapse of this building?

And please hurry - these are getting stinky....

ETA: I propose the thread title be edited by a moderator to ;'Has Anyone Seen A Realistic Explanation For The Rate Of Collapse Of The Towers', or similar, as a result of his retraction of the 'free fall' and 'near free fall' claims.

As I've said, the title field only accomodates a certain amount of text. You are attempting to make a non issue, an issue.

It is not your role to decide what is most important in what I ask. Clearly, an explanation is the point not the exact rate.

Clearly, if you read the thread, that the historical posts in the thread accept that I have retracted "free fall" and adjusted it to "nearly free fall" and reasonably so because we simply do not know when the debris stopped falling.

This is not a physics discussion. If I intended it to be such I would have titled the thread, "What is free fall and did the towers do that?" Or something like that.

More pertinant to the gist of the issue is the strcuture that fell too fast. I'm certain FEMA lied. If you knew about materials you would know that steel core columns cannot be cut to fall instantly.

the underlying issue is the concrete core,

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

because concrete can be fractured to fall instantly. THSI FACTOR can EXPLAIN the high rate of fall. So the thread has been anturally an properly focused and your attempts to re focus it are diversionary tactic.

 

[Christophera]

we are asking you by how you came to that conclusion. What mathematic basis do you have behind your claim?

please post your calculations in this thread.

It is not mathematical and it does not need to be. In fact, that would be tremendously involved. None of us could handle it.

It is common sense and knowledge. If you've got it and can use it you may be capable of arguing reasonably here.

 

[Christophera]

He was right. This thread either needed to get focused or suffer death by mass kittening.

That is a spam threat.