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

[The Almond]

All we need to know is they fell too fast and there is no question about that.

Here's where the problem with this argument lies. You're attempting to start a discussion wherein the opponents of your theory are asked to make a major concession supporting your theory without evidence. That's no basis for a reasonable exchange of ideas. Can you imagine an argument between a theist and an athiest that starts out, "Ok, the first thing we have to agree on is that God does not exist."

Explanations are the point of the thread not minutia of free fall.

Again, your argument rests on the assumption that the towers did indeed fall too fast, which people here have challenged. This is part of a specific logicall fallacy known as "Begging the question" wherein you attempt to prove the correctness of your assumptions as the basis for asking the question, "Why did the towers fall too fast?" In assuming that they did, you make a fallacial argument.

I contend that after you solve (sic) you non existent issue of exactly "how fast", and "what is free fall anyway",

Why should we solve the problem? If your claim is that they fell too fast, prove that they did. You make the claims, you provide the proof.

you still won't be able to prove it could happen with the core you so often fail to provide proof for, so after you waste our time with "how fast", and "what is free fall anyway",

Ok, I'm still a little fuzzy on this argument. You believe that the WTC towers contained a concrete core of some type that would have slowed the collapse of the towers to speeds well below those achieved with free fall. The only way to achieve the free fall speeds, you claim, is to prematurely destroy the core itself so as to provide instantaneous collapse.

It would follow that your argument then diagrams like this:
If the towers were brought down by controlled demolitions
Then they would have experienced free fall collapse
And if a concrete core existed in tact
Then free fall collapse cannot exist
Q1: Collapse of the towers was too fast
P1: A concrete core exists
By Q1, If A
Then B
By P1, And if C
Then Not B

What you have is called a Non-Sequitor fallacy where you're attempting to imply a causal relationship between A and B by disproving Not B. You can't make an inference such that If A Then B, Not B, Therefore Not A. That means you can't logically prove that a concrete core would have prevented free fall collapse in the same argument where you prove that the towers fell too quickly as means to prove controlled demolition. Furthermore, it has been shown that your postulates Q and P are false, though you seem unwilling to yield to the evidence.

you are still lost because you don't have the correct structure.

I don't think anyone here is lost.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

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...

I'd like to revisit the "towers-fell-in-the-wrong-order" claim, when it comes time.

 

[Z]

Stay on target...

 

[bonavada]

it's very simple chris, you have now ammended the "free-fall of the towers" insistence in the OP to ambiguous phrases such as "way too fast" we are now stuck because you, with this assertion, fail to provide any argument as to the rate of fall or even guidance as to what you would expect the rate of fall would/should be.
as i stated before, i could argue that the towers collapse began right at the instant of the plane impacts. by this reckoning the towers took 58 and 103 minutes to fall. you state this argument is "bogus" but give no reason why you think it is. why is that argument bogus? why is it not reasonable for me to think that might be the case?
why is it so difficult for you to offer your analysys + estimation of the time it took for each tower to fall?

please put up or shut up.

BV

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Stay on target...

No prob. Just placing my order.

 

[bonavada]

I'd like to revisit the "towers-fell-in-the-wrong-order" claim, when it comes time.

i believe "total pulverisation" must be hot on the agenda. this goes back a long way to the OP i think.

who's the sockmiester anyway? if it's not already decided, i nominate ZD.

BV

 

[Z]

who's the sockmiester anyway? if it's not already decided, i nominate ZD.

BV

It seems so - I keep forgetting to show off the . Keeping my feet warm, you see.

And I've sworn to relinquish the socks when either a) he retracts the notion that the towers 'fell too fast', or b) defines/demonstrates the rate at which they fell, and a thoughtful and mathematically correct rate at which they ought to have fallen.

Given his track record so far, the most reasonable point would be to concede the rate of fall issue and move on; however, since we know his reasoning skills are deficient, I expect he's going to waffle some more, shout some accusations about those magical 1300 foot long solid pieces of steel that ought to exist, and maybe, eventually, tell us that the fall rate was 17 seconds, or mu, or some other number/symbol that does not actually represent a rate of acceleration. Then he'll waffle some more, claim that the rate of fall isn't an issue, backtrack to 'near free fall', make some more accusations, and desperately try to get everyone to forget he made a specific claim without backing it up. Oh, and let us not forget - posting his links to one of his websites, since surely that will up his traffic.

There ought to be a rule against posting a specific link too many times, but there's not.

 

[bonavada]

Given his track record so far, the most reasonable point would be to concede the rate of fall issue and move on; however, since we know his reasoning skills are deficient, I expect he's going to waffle some more, shout some accusations about those magical 1300 foot long solid pieces of steel that ought to exist, and maybe, eventually, tell us that the fall rate was 17 seconds, or mu, or some other number/symbol that does not actually represent a rate of acceleration.

and i did try to get him to expound. i played an opening gambit of 10 and 20 metres per minute :-;

so what's it to be chris?

put up or shut up?

BV

 

[Christophera]

Again, your argument rests on the assumption that the towers did indeed fall too fast.

There are a number of related aspects that simply will not fit into the title feild for a thread.

he first part of th thread title is;

"Has Anyone Seen A Realistic Explanation", the term free fall simply references a rate of fall which is obviously too fast. if you cannto accept that then you are not capable of engaging the discussion.

Go find a thread dedicated to "Did the towers fall at free fall?"

This thread IS about explanations for the strictly incredible rates of fall IF the event was supposed to be a collapse.

Auxilary, and not included in the thread title is "How could 2 towers with completely differnet damages fall in nearly identical ways to the ground?" The explanation to that question would be the same as to the free fall question.

I have provided a credible, feasible and realistic explanation, here,

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

If you have other credible explanations, and collapse has already been deemed INCREDEBLE, post them. Otherwise if you wish to change the topic, start a new thread.

 

[Christophera]

But there IS a question about that, Chris. HOW FAST did it fall, and HOW FAST would you EXPECT IT to fall ?

Realistically, as a hypothetical alternative to demolition, or a collapse, I would expect only the top of the towers above the impact pints to fall and they would topple with that piece falling at near free fall.

A collapse doe not go all the way to the ground unless the structure topples.

What we saww was not a collapse and this image clearly shows it was not. The image shows what can only be a high speed series of well contained detonations by high explosives which are optimally placed and dsitributed which progresses from the top down.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4079&stc=1&d=1163622674

 

[Christophera]

and i did try to get him to expound. i played an opening gambit of 10 and 20 metres per minute :-;

so what's it to be chris?

put up or shut up?

BV

PLAYED, key word here. 3,000 Americans dead, due process violated in as many capital crimes and you are playing.

You collusive subterfuge in attempts to derail the true subject are easily noted.

 

[gumboot]

Realistically, as a hypothetical alternative to demolition, or a collapse, I would expect only the top of the towers above the impact pints to fall and they would topple with that piece falling at near free fall.

I think Chris just told us what he expected to see.

Amazing. And it only took 189 pages for him to do so.

Well done Chris.

-Gumboot

 

[Christophera]

I think Chris just told us what he expected to see.

Amazing. And it only took 189 pages for him to do so.

Well done Chris.

-Gumboot

I've explained that at least twice in this thread but your groups collusive obsufucation has obscured it.

Ther is only one explanation on the entire internet to the near free fall and pulverization of the twin towers which is comprehesive to all factors and it is found here.

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

 

[beachnut]

PLAYED, key word here. 3,000 Americans dead, due process violated in as many capital crimes and you are playing.

You collusive subterfuge in attempts to derail the true subject are easily noted.

For normal people 19 terrorist attacked us, the last terrorist plane failed and heroes from the US destroyed the terrorist on board flight 93.

They had guts and took action. You are telling lies and fail to see real evidence, you use a concrete core, and we have to use that as a metaphor for your brain functions. Have you failed to realize we were attacked and you live in a fantasy land making light of 3000 killed by terrorist who think you deserve to die as soon as possible because you do not believe in their religion and they just do not like us anyway.

Simple facts you will never grasp. The NIST report tells you how the WTC collapse could happen, and as we saw, it did happen. No explosives and you ideas on the explosive place during construction are so wrong, they could never happen.

 

[delphi_ote]

You collusive subterfuge in attempts to derail the true subject are easily noted.

THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD IS "HAS ANYONE SEEN A REALISTICE EXPLAINATION FOR THE FREE FALL OF THE TOWERS?"

We're laser focused on this issue. We even tried to set up rules to concentrate on one subject at a time. You are dancing away from answering the simple question of how fast the towers fell.

 

[Mobyseven]

Realistically, as a hypothetical alternative to demolition, or a collapse, I would expect only the top of the towers above the impact pints to fall and they would topple with that piece falling at near free fall.

Stay on target Chris! This is not an answer to the question. You were not asked about the type of collapse, you were asked about the rate.

So, once again: How fast did the towers fall? How fast should they have fallen?

 

[The Almond]

There are a number of related aspects that simply will not fit into the title feild for a thread.

he first part of th thread title is;

"Has Anyone Seen A Realistic Explanation", the term free fall simply references a rate of fall which is obviously too fast.

Obvious to whom? You're the only one supporting this claim.

if you cannto accept that then you are not capable of engaging the discussion.

Once again, I'm not going to begin, or in this instance, barge into a debate where I'm asked to conceed a point as a pretense to discussion. I demand that we begin from neutral grounds with each party bringing in evidence to support each claim. That's simply not been done here.

Go find a thread dedicated to "Did the towers fall at free fall?"

Would you care to post an instance where you have provided evidence for, and conclusively proven that the towers fell, in their entirety, at free fall acceleration. For the last 15 pages of this thread, people have been asking you to produce direct evidence that the towers fell at a particular acceleration or speed, and you've been doging the question.

This thread IS about explanations for the strictly incredible rates of fall IF the event was supposed to be a collapse.

So, rather than providing direct evidence for your first postulate, you seek now to engage in a debate where everyone conceeds the point to you? Why should we do that?

Auxilary, and not included in the thread title is "How could 2 towers with completely differnet damages fall in nearly identical ways to the ground?"

Would you care to define the term "nearly identical" as it relates to this discussion? See, when you attach qualifiers to an event, you need to give some specificity. For instance, "Most of the concrete on I-95 is not cracked or damaged" is not as conclusive as the term "60% of the concrete on I-95 is not cracked or damaged." How do you define "nearly"? How do you relate the damage? Similarly, how do you define completely different? A plane hit both towers, stripped off fireproofing and ignited secondary fires. Is the damage not then similar? Are they nearly identical?
The explanation to that question would be the same as to the free fall question.

If you have other credible explanations, and collapse has already been deemed INCREDEBLE, post them. Otherwise if you wish to change the topic, start a new thread.

I've got a credible explanation. But I'll need you to conceed the point that the NIST report is factually accurate before we can begin a discussion. If you conceed the factual accuracy of the NIST report, I'll conceed that the towers fell at near free fall speeds.

 

[Christophera]

Obvious to whom? You're the only one supporting this claim.

True, I'm the only one employing common sense here.

Once again, I'm not going to begin, or in this instance, barge into a debate where I'm asked to conceed a point as a pretense to discussion.

Okay, very good then. You are out of the discussion.

 

[Christophera]

THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD IS "HAS ANYONE SEEN A REALISTICE EXPLAINATION FOR THE FREE FALL OF THE TOWERS?"

We're laser focused on this issue. We even tried to set up rules to concentrate on one subject at a time. You are dancing away from answering the simple question of how fast the towers fell.

Yes, and it has been explained that the thread title field doesn't have room for qualifying the statement with more complexity.

The thread is about explanations for the rate of fall which common sence dictates is far to fast. If this simple form of mental activity is beyond you capacity you should abstain from participating.

 

[Christophera]

Stay on target Chris! This is not an answer to the question. You were not asked about the type of collapse, you were asked about the rate.

So, once again: How fast did the towers fall? How fast should they have fallen?

You are in error.

But there IS a question about that, Chris. HOW FAST did it fall, and HOW FAST would you EXPECT IT to fall ?

Those are fundamental questions. Without an answer to them we cannot proceed logically.

Within the descriptions the type of fall dictates how fast and I've stated that when toppling the falling portion falls at free fall.

An explanation for what appears as a series of explosions is found here,

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

and that explains near free fall adequately. Do you have any competent explanations?