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

[Big Al]

I don't think you have an appreciation for what the images you show mean.

That, (image with the boots) for all intents and purposes, represents pulverized. So much more than a collapse if you do not know now, you will never know.

So now it's not just "not quite the right speed of fall" but "not quite the right sort of debris".

Christophera, for those of us who do not possess your instant grasp of physical matters, can you say how large the concrete chunks should be after hitting the ground? Despite all your claims of common sense, I can't see anything wrong there.

Can you attach pictures of a similar collapsed skyscraper to demonstrate the anomaly in the debris dimensions?

 

[Big Al]

Why, oh, why, am I so dense and thick-headed as to be unable to see what's so clear, reasonable, obvious, common-sense, undeniable and downright glaring to Christophera.

I must admit, I have no idea what rate a collapsing building should fall, nor how large the rubble tends to be. To my naive mind, the collapse should accelerate rapidly as more and more weight bears on the structure below. At the end, it seems to poor old stupid me, the building should be falling somewhere near 9.81 m/s/s.

After such a titanic impact, I wouldn't expect much to be left, either. I can shatter concrete with a sledgehammer blow, much less than the impact of a skyscraper.

Christopera, can you PLEASE abandon the "it's obvious", "it's undeniable" and "it stands to reason" tags and accept that it's NOT glaringly clear to us mortals. Leave common sense aside in favour of cold, hard facts.

I'd like to reiterate what has been asked many times before:

How fast should a large building fall if it collapses due to an airliner impact?
From what basis is this speed derived?
How is this different from a collapse caused by demolition explosives?
What difference would you expect to see in rubble size between a large building collapsing after an airliner impact and one being demolished?
Again, how do you know this?

In fact, I don't expect you to answer, Crhistophera, because I don't think you have anything. I expect if anything a round of "As any reasonable person could see" and so on.

However, I think I am a reasonable person, and I can't see.

If you won't even have a stab at answering these questions, I call troll. You're just wasting bandwidth with these unsupported, didactic assertions.

 

[Babylon Sister]

You don't know that.

I know that no raw evidence for the steel core columns has ever been posted meaning that of those reading many saw that my opposition had a vacuous, empty argument at best and relied on BS text denials and group pretense of mock ignor ance.

I know that no feasible, realistic explanation for near free fall and total pulverization has been put forth except for mine, found here.

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

Yeah. You just keep telling yourself that. Over and over and over again.

 

[SezMe]

Hey, Chris, there is a presentation on government conspiracies here: Saturday, November 18, 2006 at Vista del Monte, 3 pm. If you don't know, Vista del Monte is on Modoc just west of Las Positas. If you come I'll buy you a beer afterwards! What a deal.

 

[Belz...]

There are no reports of the plaza blowing up.

There are no reports of the towers blowing up, either.

Concrete from the towers is seen as sand and gravel.

Gotcha! I knew you'd say that.

Let me get this straight.

You claim that: All the concrete of WTC1 was blown to sand and gravel.
I say : Look at your own picture, there's non-pulverised concrete.
You say: It doesn't come from the towers.
I say: How do you know ?
You say: It's not in pulverised form.

So basically, your entire argument is based on circular reasoning. You know the tower was pulverised, but not because of the evidence, because the evidence clearly shows non-pulverised concrete. However, you're using your OWN conclusion to explain the "RAW" evidence that CONTRADICTS your claim.

It's like saying this:

Me: ALL dogs have four legs. There ARE no exceptions.
You: Look, Belz... at this picture, there's a three-legged dog!
Me: No, that's NOT a dog.
You: WHAT ? Why not ?
Me: It doesn't have four legs!

 

[Belz...]

The rawest we have Belz.

Pictures ARE NOT raw evidence, chris, no matter if it's the only evidence you have. It's not RAW because it's not first-hand evidence. It's a picture of the evidence.

Talk to your own. They are the ones that asserted fires on the opposite sides were responsible.

Did you not see the pictures (raw evidence, for you) of fires on the opposite side of the tower ?

Both the towers were built with the ground up having 2 explosive circuits each floor of the floor circuit autonoumous from the next. Which is why it took 2 days to rig detonators.

They missed a tower, there.

That, (image with the boots) for all intents and purposes, represents pulverized. So much more than a collapse if you do not know now, you will never know.

"For all intends and purposes" ? Was it pulverised OR NOT ?

You are basically trying to say that the steel core columns on one side of the building were cut by high explosives. The problem is that cutting half of the 47 columns would require a much larger blast than what we see. The interior box columns can be cut within the blast seen

There is no "blast" seen, Chris. You're using a still image to make it SEEM like there is, but on no video is there such an explosion.

I know that no feasible, realistic explanation for near free fall and total pulverization has been put forth except for mine, found here.

Your said yourself that free fall was a minor issue, and that the concrete wasn't pulverised, per se. You also said that the "concrete" in your "core stands" picture could be dust.

I think you no longer have a case, not even to you.

 

[Z]

Christophera said,

That, (image with the boots) for all intents and purposes, represents pulverized. So much more than a collapse if you do not know now, you will never know.

So now by 'total pulverization' and 'sand and gravel' we mean 'large chunks remained behind'.

So 'near free fall' means under two minutes, and 'total pulverization' means large chunks remained, while 'sand and gravel' apparently is comprised of fist-sized or larger rocks.

No wonder it hurts when the kids throw sand!

But all joking aside, with this latest admission, the answer to his question is obvious: that the official explanation perfectly well explains 'near free fall' and 'total pulverization', since both terms have been completely redefined by Christophera. Why, any building in the world that has ever collapsed has fallen at 'near free fall' and resulted in 'total pulverization', so why should we expect any other difference?

ETA:

Let's sum up:

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.

--C claims that 'total pulverization' leading to 'sand and gravel' means that large, fist-sized or larger pieces remain behind.

Anyone else seeing some major intelligence problems revealing themselves here?

 

[bonavada]

I don't want to speak for Bonavada (who has the at the moment), but if it were me, I'd say the raw evidence shown above (photos of ground zero wreckage) disproves the 'total pulverization' nonsense.
Bonavada, are you satisfied?

sorry been away a while.

that there was no "total pulverisation" of the towers is proven.
thanks.

i now pass the socks.

BV

 

[bonavada]

Sum Up

i think it's worth summing up briefly every so often to remind posters of the current progress.

it is so far established:-

that there was no "free-fall of the towers". christophera has no real idea at all of rate of fall of the towers.

that there was "no pulverisation of the towers" as large chunks of concrete and other parts of the structures remained.

christophera does not know the weight of the upper floors of the towers but still insists, whatever the weight was, it wasn't enough to cause the collapse.

is that the "sock score" so far? three questions answered? if i've missed any please feel free to ammend
it may not seem like much of an advance. i know its taken over 6 months but to me it's real progress to have pinned christophera down in this fashion in only a few days.

socks RULE.

may i remind everyone to STAY ON TARGET for the next sockster.

BV

 

[Big Al]

Hey, bonavada, I feel like such a n00b,but what's all this about passing socks?

At first, I thought it was something to do with sock puppets, but the context has thrown that out.

Whadja meen?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Hey, bonavada, I feel like such a n00b,but what's all this about passing socks?

At first, I thought it was something to do with sock puppets, but the context has thrown that out.

Whadja meen?

If I understand correctly, a system has been set up on this thread, whereby whomever has the "socks" smiley has the question that is to be resolved. No tangents, other questions, red herrings, etc will be addressed until the person who has the socks (peace pipe, feather, etc) is satisfied.

 

[Z]

If I understand correctly, a system has been set up on this thread, whereby whomever has the "socks" smiley has the question that is to be resolved. No tangents, other questions, red herrings, etc will be addressed until the person who has the socks (peace pipe, feather, etc) is satisfied.

That's about the size of it. We're all welcome to pitch in - re-asking the question, asking for clarifications on the question - but whoever has the sock, has the question. And that's the question we all focus in on.

Frankly, after disproving both 'free fall' and 'total pulverization', I don't know that there's much left to discuss in this thread.

Reminder - the OP of this thread was...

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

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?

Since free fall and total pulverization of the towers has been proven - even admitted by Chris - to be false, it would seem there's no reason for this thread to exist; however, I would like to see this type of intensly focused session continue with other claims made by Chris.

 

[bonavada]

Hey, bonavada, I feel like such a n00b,but what's all this about passing socks?

At first, I thought it was something to do with sock puppets, but the context has thrown that out.

Whadja meen?

perhaps i proved my "noobery" by not explaining like AW above. sorry.
the socks are a version of the conch shell in "lord of the flies". in case you're unfamiliar with the story it was that whoever held the conch was allowed to speak. it was a device to impose a little order in the anarchy. something this thread desperately needed. i guess someone picked the socks coz there was no conch image/smiley available :-]
anyway i think the socks are "on the floor" now. if someone picks em up they can ask a question of christophera relating to his theory and he will be held to that until he answers satisfactorily. we are hoping by this method to pin chris down and prevent his endemic evasion.

GO FOR IT ;-0

BV

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Great! I'll take the socks then.

Mr. Brown,

You claim that the towers fell in the wrong order. How can you say so when the second jet impacted WTC2 faster (and therefore harder) than the first jet hit WTC1, and did so at a point lower on the building in comparison to the first?

 

[Big Al]

Thanks for the sock explanations, guys. Now I yearn to hold the sacred socks myself, someday ... someday...

 

[Regnad Kcin]

And a quick refresher: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_Trade_Center_9-11_Att.png

- Both planes were identical models
- WTC1 was struck at 490 mph
- There were 11 undamaged stories above WTC1's impact zone
- WTC2 was struck at 590 mph
- There were 25 undamaged stories above WTC2's impact zone

In short, the second tower was hit significantly harder, significantly lower, and fell after a shorter elapsed time, yet Mr. Brown insists it should've fallen second. Seems to me our friend is avoiding applying his vaunted "common sense."

 

[skeptifem]

If I didn't have evidence that would be true.

ok then why would the government pay people to argue at all (this is assuming your evidence is correct)?

 

[uruk]

You are basically trying to say that the steel core columns on one side of the building were cut by high explosives. The problem is that cutting half of the 47 columns would require a much larger blast than what we see. The interior box columns can be cut within the blast seen

Again you show your capacity to misinterpret and get wrong just about everything you percieve.

I was addressing your statement that the top section should have "toppled" over due to the impact of the airplanes. I was trying to illustrate that could not happen to building of that size and architecture from that kind of impact.

Your statement here also shows how narrow and limited your thinking is. You seem to think that only explosives can damage the steel columns. A few of the core columns were severly damaged or broken apart in the initial imact of the plane. That's why the upper section of the building remained standing after the plane impacts.

The structural integrity of the remaing coulmns in that side of the building were reduced by half the heat from the raging fires fed by jet fuel and other flammable materials.

The coulmns were stressed and deformed by the wieght of the upper section of the building and by the steel in the floor section expanding due to the heat. (remember metal expands when heated)

The deformations are well documented and evidenced by photographs and video of the outer wall sections bowing out right before the collapse.

The impact and heat damaged columns finaly gave away in that section of the core and the upper section shifted downward (in the case of WTC2 rotated downward into the lower floors) due to gravity. That shifting of mass introduced momnetum and kinetic energy into the upper sections of the building. That is something the lower floors and support structures were NOT designed to take. And the rest is etched into history.

and if one 40 foot section of the concrete core was detonated with it the top of the tower would tilt as your diagram shows, except no part would be rotating upwards.

Which means that under any circumstances the uppersection would fall straight down into the lower section rather than "topple over" to one side. So I guess we can throw out that "toppleing over" scenario you suggested.

Then, your diagrams completely ignore what happned to the very top of WTC 2 where it fall the opposite direction as the middle part of the tower and lands on top of WTC 3. In [url=http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.gif]this image

well since you like diagrams, take a look at this.

 

[bonavada]

Since free fall and total pulverization of the towers has been proven - even admitted by Chris - to be false, it would seem there's no reason for this thread to exist; however, I would like to see this type of intensly focused session continue with other claims made by Chris.

i must agree, there have been numerous unsubstantiated, unresolved claims made by chris. i think the most important of these should be addressed. i will not list these now as that might start another avalanche. i've relinquished the socks, the floors now open as they say.
it does make me think though, does there come a point where we say that's it chris. enough is enough. you are now totally discredited? (however, as you state AK, it seems evident that this point might already have been reached)
is there a "higher authourity" we can appeal to to stop the merry-go-round once that is so? or does this madness continue for another 6 months?

BV

 

[bonavada]

Great! I'll take the socks then.
Mr. Brown,
You claim that the towers fell in the wrong order. How can you say so when the second jet impacted WTC2 faster (and therefore harder) than the first jet hit WTC1, and did so at a point lower on the building in comparison to the first?

well aimed RK.

also the second tower was impacted by the jet at a different trajectory to the first.

let's have some direct answers to this question chris.

BV