• 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:
Another erroneous diagram by homer.

The one on the left shows the right side of the tower going up. This may occur to a very small degree but very little. The left side would crush and go downward to a degree where the mass would rotate off the supporting tower and then fall.

The diagram on the right shows the left side of the tower going inside, to the right, meaning that the core would have to shear off, rightward, something that is not going to happen in a natural collapse. That happened but was caused by explosions which are captured on video and in stills.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4089&d=1163697308[/qimg]
Click to expand...

The drawing on the right illustrates what the video shows. The upper section rotated and collapsed straight into the floors below which is exactly what would happen if the steel columns on one side of the core had given away and allowed the mass to move thus gaining momentum. You can't accept it because it goes against your concrete core hypothesis, which, btw, is not backed up by any reliable source.

Your delusion keep you from seeing reality.
 
Christophera said:
Considering all of the experts (or at least enough of them to impress you) are too terrified to come forward, we have to rely on our own experience.
Click to expand...

This is "conpsiracy theorist" talk .

that is a lie (as we know you are a liar). the Experts (thousands of them, you can start at the website http://www.asce.org ) have weighed in an agreed that the official reports accurately describe the events that lead to the buildings collapse.

They've provided their calculations based on their exeperience and knowledge in structural engineering, physics and fire safety.

What do you do for a living? What is your experience?
Click to expand...

And what does that have to do with anything? Aren't we discussing what the experts have already weighed in on?

Recall tognazzini who worked for the PA saying the towers could sustain multiple plane impacts without failure.
Click to expand...

Of course, he was making a "comment". He wasn't basing that on anything scientific or concrete. He also believed that the planes wouldn't be going "at full" speed, nor be fully loaded with jet fuel.
 
Christophera said:
Another erroneous diagram by homer.

The one on the left shows the right side of the tower going up. This may occur to a very small degree but very little. The left side would crush and go downward to a degree where the mass would rotate off the supporting tower and then fall.
Click to expand...

Have you ever, in your entire life, seen, taken or produced an engineering diagram? Do you understand the concept of moment couples? The arc you're refering to is not a movement arc, it's a moment arc showing a force.
 
Belz... said:
I'd like to see numbers for that.
Click to expand...

Since you haven't produced raw evidence of the steel core columns I am relieved of any responsibility for unreasonable requests for supporting calculations for common sense statements.

The fact I have proven to any reasonable, experienced accountable person that FEMA has lied about the design and construction of the towers renders all of your arguments nullified. All the deniers here.


That you are still here arguing belies common sense. You have no evidence.
 
Christophera said:
Since you haven't produced raw evidence of the steel core columns I am relieved of any responsibility for unreasonable requests for supporting calculations for common sense statements.
Click to expand...

What a pathetic cop out. The only ones having common sense here has been everyone but you.
 
OK, what happened to 'stay on target', guys?

Chris, when you claim the towers were 'totally pulverized', what you are actually saying was that all the concrete was reduced to dust, right?

What about photographic evidence of large chunks of concrete? What do you have to say about that?

Remember, Bonavada still has the :socks:...
 
zaayrdragon said:
Bonavada has the socks; the topic now is 'total pulverization' of the towers.

By Yahoo Dictionary:

TOTAL {ADJECTIVE}:

Of, relating to, or constituting the whole; entire. See Synonyms at whole.
Complete; utter; absolute: total concentration; a total effort; a total fool.

PULVERIZE {VERB}:
tr.

To pound, crush, or grind to a powder or dust.
To demolish.

So we have four possible meanings:

1. The entire tower was crushed into powder or dust.
2. The entire tower was demolished.
3. The towers were utterly crushed into dust.
4. The towers were utterly demolished.

Now, Chris, in keeping with Bonavada's question, what do you mean by 'total pulverisation', and what is your evidence?

Thanks again!

Everyone else:

STAY ON TARGET....
Click to expand...

QFE
 
Arus808 said:
What a pathetic cop out. The only ones having common sense here has been everyone but you.
Click to expand...

How can this be true when the only explanation for the tops of the towers falling the wrong way is based on the assertion that fires on the opposite sides caused weakening there when fuel/carbon fires do not get anywhere near hot enough to cause failures of the type asserted in steel?

You folks are not connecting with the obvious reality. The below image is absolutely a high speed series of explosions which are well contained by a mineral mass.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4090&stc=1&d=1163707527

You have attached that exact same file to multiple posts - repeating it a few times is OK in context however repeatedly doing so is just wasting the Forum's bandwidth & storage - you can always just use the URL link to one of the other attachments.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Christophera said:
All of the concrete of the tower was reduced to its particulate components. Pulverized.
Click to expand...

When the World Trade Center towers collapsed, those inside were buried under the now seven-story pile of knotted steel and pulverized concrete[/i].
Click to expand...

Well, golly. If the news outlets say it, it MUST be true.

By the way, what are those chunks of concrete doing in your picture ?

 
Christophera said:
How can this be true when the only explanation for the tops of the towers falling the wrong way is based on the assertion that fires on the opposite sides caused weakening there when fuel/carbon fires do not get anywhere near hot enough to cause failures of the type asserted in steel?
Click to expand...

And how did you come to this conclusion? that the fires were on the opposite side? do you have proof?

But, you still have a question to answer:

Bonavada has the socks; the topic now is 'total pulverization' of the towers.

By Yahoo Dictionary:

TOTAL {ADJECTIVE}:

Of, relating to, or constituting the whole; entire. See Synonyms at whole.
Complete; utter; absolute: total concentration; a total effort; a total fool.

PULVERIZE {VERB}:
tr.

To pound, crush, or grind to a powder or dust.
To demolish.

So we have four possible meanings:

1. The entire tower was crushed into powder or dust.
2. The entire tower was demolished.
3. The towers were utterly crushed into dust.
4. The towers were utterly demolished.

Now, Chris, in keeping with Bonavada's question, what do you mean by 'total pulverisation', and what is your evidence?

Thanks again!

Everyone else:

STAY ON TARGET....
Click to expand...
 
Christophera said:
You folks are not connecting with the obvious reality. The below image is absolutely a high speed series of explosions which are well contained by a mineral mass.
Click to expand...

I have problems with people who use words like "obvious" and "absolutely". They tend to sound like they're trying to convince me of something they have no evidence of reasoning for.

Care to break the mould ?
 
Christophera said:
It is noticed that you posted no evidence. You post text I always post raw evidence.
Click to expand...

Um, evidence has been posted numerous times through this thread. Why must i repost what is already here?

And that, of course is a nother cop out.

YOU want to prove to us what you claim, that means you provide evidence and facts to support your claim.

Thus far, you've provided jack squat. And your site does not contain any evidence.

You still have this to resolve:

Bonavada has the socks; the topic now is 'total pulverization' of the towers.

By Yahoo Dictionary:

TOTAL {ADJECTIVE}:

Of, relating to, or constituting the whole; entire. See Synonyms at whole.
Complete; utter; absolute: total concentration; a total effort; a total fool.

PULVERIZE {VERB}:
tr.

To pound, crush, or grind to a powder or dust.
To demolish.

So we have four possible meanings:

1. The entire tower was crushed into powder or dust.
2. The entire tower was demolished.
3. The towers were utterly crushed into dust.
4. The towers were utterly demolished.

Now, Chris, in keeping with Bonavada's question, what do you mean by 'total pulverisation', and what is your evidence?

Thanks again!

Everyone else:

STAY ON TARGET....
Click to expand...
 
Did they planted the C4 exactly at the impact zones?
I mean was this part of the plan when the buildings were built?
You know the buildings collapses would have started from the
bottom if they were blown, don´t you? :confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom