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

[jsfisher]

A minor point of order, here.

The now belong to Oliver. The question posed was: Do you know how much weight was on top of the impact zones, you know - above the damaged and heated zones?


Note to new comers: If you are brave enough to read this entire thread, you may notice for all but the most recent posts you could shuffle the posts at will and not really change the discussion. It circles and dodges and weaves. So, in an effort to keep things a bit more focussed, only one specific question is allowed at a time. Until the question is answered, we do not move to another. Whoever last grabbed the gets to ask the question, and that is Oliver for now.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

If it were a collapse caused by plane impacts it would appear completely different and therefore have a completly different duration. Basically, givern the actual damage and actual towers structure that stood, no collapse whatsoever would have happened.

How do you know? Based on what?

Had any occured only the floors above would have fallen off.

Ok, ok, I know with the above question I put a hole in the socks. But now I'm back on topic (I think). Oliver wants to know what the upper floors weighed. I think a related question, a part B to it, if you will, is this:

Christophera, do you have any idea how much energy it would take to have the upper floors "fall off" to the side? Do you have any idea how much energy those floors, in falling down, impart to the structure below them?

 

[delphi_ote]

The now belong to Oliver.

Just to run it by everyone again if you want to help us keep focused, the socks rules I pulled out of my concrete core at free fall.

Someone should be in charge of the . That person asks one question, and we all stick to that one question until the questioner is satisfied. Then they pass the to the next person to request it, and that person asks one question. One topic, one issue, until we get to the bottom of it. We ignore any tangents from Chris. Laser focus. Tunnel vision. Discipline.

If someone strays, remind them in big letters to "Stay on Target," and make your best Star Wars nerd reference when you do so for extra style.

Drop it at the end of your post to let people know you have it. e.g.

Has the

ETA

The question posed was: Do you know how much weight was on top of the impact zones, you know - above the damaged and heated zones?

So if we can all focus on that for a while, we'll try and get to the bottom of it!

 

[Christophera]

That's quite a bold assumption. Is the entirety of the NIST report a fabrication? Who fabricated it? Why would they do that?

No, parts of the NIST report are factual. Entirely false fabrications are most oftem easily detected.

It was caused to be fabricated by individuals associated with the infiltration of the US government. It was ultimately done because they were too afraid to do anything else. The purpose of the fabrication was to conceal the true event at the WTC.

Want proof: Study high explosives and collapses which occurr with both steel cored towers and tubular concrete cores, the image below and the NIST report. The complete inconsistency of the NIST report of collaspse with the image and the images inconsistency with any collapse will be obvious.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4082&stc=1&d=1163651408

 

[Christophera]

How do you know? Based on what?

Based on the fact that if the towers were going to collapse they would have done it at impact, or shortly therafter, and only the portion above would have fallen.

Based on common sense.

Ok, ok, I know with the above question I put a hole in the socks. But now I'm back on topic (I think). Oliver wants to know what the upper floors weighed. I think a related question, a part B to it, if you will, is this:

Christophera, do you have any idea how much energy it would take to have the upper floors "fall off" to the side? Do you have any idea how much energy those floors, in falling down, impart to the structure below them?

They do not have enough energy to crush more than a floor or 2 before the mass decentralizes, especially considering the fact the damege was on one side, and rolls off to the side.

 

[jsfisher]

No, parts of the NIST report are factual. Entirely false fabrications are most oftem easily detected.

Perhaps that is an issue we can explore very soon, but the current question is:

Do you know how much weight was on top of the impact zones, you know - above the damaged and heated zones?

(And just so we don't get lost in yes/no responses, if the answer would be "yes", please provide an idea of what the weight would be.)

Thank you for your attention.

 

[Christophera]

A minor point of order, here.

The now belong to Oliver. The question posed was: Do you know how much weight was on top of the impact zones, you know - above the damaged and heated zones?


Note to new comers: If you are brave enough to read this entire thread, you may notice for all but the most recent posts you could shuffle the posts at will and not really change the discussion. It circles and dodges and weaves. So, in an effort to keep things a bit more focussed, only one specific question is allowed at a time. Until the question is answered, we do not move to another. Whoever last grabbed the gets to ask the question, and that is Oliver for now.

Why do deniers think their collusive attempts at organizing their ranks can defeat logic? The misconception that many asking the same bogus questions have more right to an answer?

How does this add up compared to many ignoring the same evidence?

 

[Christophera]

Perhaps that is an issue we can explore very soon, but the current question is:

Do you know how much weight was on top of the impact zones, you know - above the damaged and heated zones?

(And just so we don't get lost in yes/no responses, if the answer would be "yes", please provide an idea of what the weight would be.)

Thank you for your attention.

No idea. Intuitive parameters for loading and bearing capacities are at the basis of the algabraic origin of the formulas used to determine such things. It is sufficient for the needs here to say that there is no where near enough loading to do this.

hah!

 

[defaultdotxbe]

No idea. Intuitive parameters for loading and bearing capacities are at the basis of the algabraic origin of the formulas used to determine such things. It is sufficient for the needs here to say that there is no where near enough loading to do this.

hah!

no, its not sufficient, please post numbers. i dont trust your intuition any more than i expect you to trust mine

 

[jsfisher]

Why do deniers think their collusive attempts at organizing their ranks can defeat logic?

The purpose, my dear Christopher, is to help everyone. If we stick to a single question at a time, then you are not distracted by hundreds of asides and alternate issues. If we stick to a single question at a time, then we can get a better understanding of your views, reasoning, and logic.

This is really a win-win proposition.

Edited to remove the already answered question.

 

[delphi_ote]

Why do deniers think their collusive attempts at organizing their ranks can defeat logic? The misconception that many asking the same bogus questions have more right to an answer?

How does this add up compared to many ignoring the same evidence?

You'd think the guy would appreciate efforts to focus the thread and deal with the facts. If you're right about these things, this is the best way to convince us, Chris. Besides, isn't it nice to be able to concentrate on one thing at a time?

 

[Bell]

No idea. Intuitive parameters for loading and bearing capacities are at the basis of the algabraic origin of the formulas used to determine such things. It is sufficient for the needs here to say that there is no where near enough loading to do this.

hah!

Monk, you indeed have no idea. Throughout you dodging the question about the collapse time, and now again with the question about the weight of the building above the impact points, you demonstrate that you are unable to back up your woo woo claims with facts and figures. But carry on, Monk, if that is what it takes to convince yourself. You won't convince the world, though. And that is because either the world is crazy, or you are.

But back to the question. What was the weight of the parts of the buildings above the impact points?

 

[NobbyNobbs]

No idea. Intuitive parameters for loading and bearing capacities are at the basis of the algabraic origin of the formulas used to determine such things. It is sufficient for the needs here to say that there is no where near enough loading to do this.

hah!

Wait..you claim that the weight of the upper floors was insufficient to create the damage seen, yet you have no idea what the weight of those floors are?

And your second sentence is an absolute fabrication. Structural engineers do not come up with their numbers through intuition. They get them through experience and careful calculation.

To sum up:

--C doesn't know how long it took the towers to collapse, but intuition tells him that anything shorter than 2 minutes is too fast.

--C doesn't know how much weight the upper floors represent, but intuition tells him that it wasn't sufficient to create the damage seen.

 

[Christophera]

Wait..you claim that the weight of the upper floors was insufficient to create the damage seen, yet you have no idea what the weight of those floors are?

And your second sentence is an absolute fabrication. Structural engineers do not come up with their numbers through intuition.

Wait a minute dude. You ain't reading. "Algabraic origins" does not constitute what you suggest I've said it does.

Engineers definately gain an intuitive sense of loading and evaluate things with rather amazing accuracy in minutes, if not seconds and often their calcs bear the intuition out.

I just now sent some emails to an engineer on a job where he had to retro engineer some retaining walls built without a permit. His first guess was very close to his final calcs.

You freakin' nerds have no clue.

Get some raw evidence of somthing, sometime or get out of the way.

 

[Christophera]

You'd think the guy would appreciate efforts to focus the thread and deal with the facts. If you're right about these things, this is the best way to convince us, Chris. Besides, isn't it nice to be able to concentrate on one thing at a time?

You mean like me answering the same lame questions a bunch of times for bozos who have to pretend like it's okay to ask over and over because they have no raw evidence of anything they fail to assert.

Get real, then seek evidence.

The towers had a steel reinforced tubular cast concrete core.

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

 

[delphi_ote]

Engineers definately gain an intuitive sense of loading and evaluate things with rather amazing accuracy in minutes, if not seconds and often their calcs bear the intuition out.

Then calculations should bear out your claims. They don't.

 

[delphi_ote]

You mean like me answering the same lame questions a bunch of times for bozos who have to pretend like it's okay to ask over and over because they have no raw evidence of anything they fail to assert.

That's just it. You only have to answer each question once. If you'd just explain the bits of your theory we don't understand or doubt, we might actually start getting somewhere. Instead, you insist on these little diversions.

 

[hcmom]

Wait a minute dude. You ain't reading. "Algabraic origins" does not constitute what you suggest I've said it does.

Engineers definately gain an intuitive sense of loading and evaluate things with rather amazing accuracy in minutes, if not seconds and often their calcs bear the intuition out.

I just now sent some emails to an engineer on a job where he had to retro engineer some retaining walls built without a permit. His first guess was very close to his final calcs.

You freakin' nerds have no clue.

Get some raw evidence of somthing, sometime or get out of the way.

You mean like me answering the same lame questions a bunch of times for bozos who have to pretend like it's okay to ask over and over because they have no raw evidence of anything they fail to assert.

Get real, then seek evidence.

The towers had a steel reinforced tubular cast concrete core.

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

I think that the most amazing thing about this entire amazing thread is that Chris manages coherence every now and then. He remains evasive in the extreme, but at least it's possible to tell he's avoiding the issue...

 

[beachnut]

You mean like me answering the same lame questions a bunch of times for bozos who have to pretend like it's okay to ask over and over because they have no raw evidence of anything they fail to assert.

Get real, then seek evidence.

The towers had a steel reinforced tubular cast concrete core.

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

there is no concrete core

there was never a concrete core

there will never be a concrete core

your theory of a concrete core is wrong

you will never know it did not have a concrete core

you show pictures of the steel only core, and you have no clue

you should have a really good weekend, you have no idea what is going on

 

[Z]

OK, everyone, stay focused.

Oliver, as current owner of the socks, does this post by Nobby sum up the answers so far?

To sum up:

--C doesn't know how long it took the towers to collapse, but intuition tells him that anything shorter than 2 minutes is too fast.

--C doesn't know how much weight the upper floors represent, but intuition tells him that it wasn't sufficient to create the damage seen.

Shall the socks now pass to another, Ollie?