• 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.
jsfisher said:
Or, put another way, ChristopherA's words mean exactly what he wants the to mean. Nothing more, nothing less.

By "free fall", he means "near free fall", and by "near free fall" he means "too fast", and by "too fast" he means less than "less than two minutes".

By "total pulverization" he means "rubble"

By "wrong order" he means either order.

So, the towers collapsed, first one then the other, in less than two minutes each into a pile of rubble -- proof positive of a conspiracy.
Click to expand...

And such words as you have written are proven all subterfuge when you cannot produce raw evidence from the demolition images at some elevation above ground of the supposed 47, steel core columns that the entities you rely on for evidence use to analyse the event of 9-11 at the WTC.

The towers had massive steel reinforced rectangular, tubular cast concrete cores (tiny rubble constitutes for all intents and purposes, pulverized) which is fully substantiated with many forms of evidence both raw and that of testimony of web pages and reports by Ph.d engineers. Here.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html
 
Christophera said:
And such words as you have written are proven all subterfuge when you cannot produce raw evidence from the demolition images at some elevation above ground of the supposed 47, steel core columns that the entities you rely on for evidence use to analyse the event of 9-11 at the WTC.

The towers had massive steel reinforced rectangular, tubular cast concrete cores (tiny rubble constitutes for all intents and purposes, pulverized) which is fully substantiated with many forms of evidence both raw and that of testimony of web pages and reports by Ph.d engineers. Here.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html
Click to expand...

I'm sure we'll get onto the other points of your argument in time. But on the first four points you have been questioned on you have been shown not to have an argument or evidence.
 
maccy said:
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.

christophera asserts that the towerss fell in the "wrong order" but cannot say why this is and furthermore states that "the question has no bearing on the event"


I'm sure we'll get onto the other points of your argument in time. But on the first four points you have been questioned on you have been shown not to have an argument or evidence.
Click to expand...

I know they fell close too free fall, which matters little in comparison to the fact they went all the way to the ground, an impossibility.

This image,

http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg

and ones you and yours have posted prove pulverization of the 1,300 foot tall concrete core.

You and yours still have not proven the towers core you assert existed which has everything to do with thw weight. I have proven many times that the tower had a cast concrete core.

You ar not paying attention and completely missed the explanation to the fact that the "towers fell in the wrong order"
 
Christophera said:
<snip>

Flight 176 hit the south east corner of WTC 2.

<snap>
Click to expand...

You mean flight 175?

Christophera said:
<snip>

Flight 176 hit the south east corner of WTC 2.

<snap>
Click to expand...

You mean flight 175?

If you can't even get the basic facts right, how are we to be convinced of your BS theories? Looks like your photographic memory isn't doing well in the numbers department, Monk.
 
Bell said:
You mean flight 175?

You mean flight 175?

If you can't even get the basic facts right, how are we to be convinced of your BS theories? Looks like your photographic memory isn't doing well in the numbers department, Monk.
Click to expand...

Flight 175 is the ghost plane. Flight 176 is the plane
that hit the WRONG tower and Flight 177 is still
fling it´s rounds within the concrete core brain. :boggled:
 
uruk said:
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.
Click to expand...

Seems to me you illustrated the opposite and ignored the fact that almost half of the columns on the left side of (1.) (WTC1) were severed by the plane impact. On WTC 2 the damage was on the south east corner not the east face.

uruk said:
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.
Click to expand...

You cannot even prove with raw evidence the core columns existed let alone that they were damaged. The concrete core is well evidenced.

uruk said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your use of the term "raging" is a cognitive distortion.

6. Magnification and Minimization - Exaggerating negatives and understating positives. Often the positive characteristics of other people are exaggerated and negatives understated. There is one subtype of magnification:

uruk said:
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.
Click to expand...

The photos show the aluminum facade loosening.

uruk said:
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
Click to expand...

This rotation occurred on the east face when the plane only impacted the south east corner.

uruk said:
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.
Click to expand...

homer you are distorting again.

1. All-or-nothing thinking - Thinking of things in absolute terms, like "always", "every" or "never". Few aspects of human behavior are so absolute. (See false dilemma.)

2. Overgeneralization - Taking isolated cases and using them to make wide generalizations. (See hasty generalization.)

uruk said:
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. well since you like diagrams, take a look at this.
Click to expand...

Correct, there was no toppling because of the detonations of high explosives.

You are completely ignoring the concrete core inside the perimeter columns and the concrete roof can be seen falling to the west intact on WTC 3

attachment.php
 
Last edited:
Bell said:
You mean flight 175?



You mean flight 175?

If you can't even get the basic facts right, how are we to be convinced of your BS theories? Looks like your photographic memory isn't doing well in the numbers department, Monk.
Click to expand...

Yes, flight 175. You have corrected my typo.
 
Christophera said:
You are not reading.

READ here
Click to expand...

Once again.

From your link:

In addition to the above, it is completely illogical that this building, hit first, hit hardest, burnt worst, would fall last, without demolition's being involved.
Click to expand...
Do you stand by this statement?

You still haven't responded to the question that's relevant to this:

Regnad Kcin said:
Mr. Brown:

You claim that the World Trade Center towers fell in the wrong order. How can you say this 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?

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 you, Mr. Brown, insist it should've fallen second. How can this be?
Click to expand...

Note to any new posters - Regnad has the socks. In other words we should stick with this question until Regnad is satisfied with Chris' answer.

Then somebody else can have the socks - they will pose a question which we will stick until they are satisfied with the answer.

In this way we should have a point-by-point analysis of Chris' claim, eventually.
 
maccy said:
Oliver I'm going to suggest you take a break from this thread (and possibly your computer) and think nice thoughts for a bit. :):)

I hope it isn't getting to you...

:)
Click to expand...

I´m very relaxed... yet... :)
 
Reggie said:
Mr. Brown:

You claim that the World Trade Center towers fell in the wrong order. How can you say this 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?

And a quick refresher: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:W...r_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 you, Mr. Brown, insist it should've fallen second. How can this be?
Click to expand...

maccy said:
Once again.

From your link:


Do you stand by this statement?

You still haven't responded to the question that's relevant to this:



Note to any new posters - Regnad has the socks. In other words we should stick with this question until Regnad is satisfied with Chris' answer.

Then somebody else can have the socks - they will pose a question which we will stick until they are satisfied with the answer.

In this way we should have a point-by-point analysis of Chris' claim, eventually.
Click to expand...

I've dealt with the question, shown that that plane speeds, impact elevations had nothing to do with the sequence.

The issue of the tops falling the wrong way according to impact location indicates impacts had nothing to do with the towers coming down. Meaning sequence of the issue of the tops going the wrong way. There is no way around this factor.

I've shown Reggie that WTC 2's impact, fall doesn't make sense or have anything to do with where the top ended up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom