• 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.
The Almond said:
Once again, rebar goes from #3 to #18 in size, with #18 being 2.257 inches in diameter and 4 inches in cross-sectional area. There's no such thing as a 6 inch diameter piece of rebar.
Click to expand...

Do you agree the Twin Towers were unique, custom structures?

I clearly remember the narrator stating that the foundation rebar was so heavy that it could not be bent and must be welded. It is logical that the foundation would have reinforcing rod that was oversize.

Recall the cost of the towers. This was one of the reasons the documentary was made was to show the public that pais for them, WHY they cost so much.

There is plenty of raw evidence of images showing what can only be concrete and NONE showing steel core columns in the core area.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html
 
Last edited:
Christophera said:
Do you agree the Twin Towers were unique, custom structures?
Click to expand...
Congratulations on dodging the question. I'll ask again:
Do you believe that there was a concrete core whose thickness was 17 feet which was supported by 3 inch thick steel rebar. Yes or no.

I clearly remember the narrator stating that the foundation rebar was so heavy that it could not be bent and must be welded.
Click to expand...
And from this you deduce the size of 3 inches? How?
It is logical that the foundation would have reinforcing rod that was oversize.
Click to expand...
No, it is logical that the foundation had thick reinforcing steel, but not 3 inches thick.
Recall the cost of the towers. This was one of the reasons the documenatry was made was to show the public that pais for them, WHY they cost so much.
Click to expand...

You're attempting to redirect the argument. Red herring.
 
Christophera said:
You are bascially trying to say that we know everything about the mind.

This site actually touches on the realities of what is possible.

http://www.hypnos.co.uk/hypnomag/peltbook/chapter4p4.htm
Click to expand...

Which has ... what to do with the WTC?

If I undergo hypnosis, do you think it will help me to believe that the US Gubment blew it up?. Are you going to show me another blurry photo of the rubble? Bell's example is the best of the best, and exactly what I would expect to see. With you, all I see is billowing clouds that prove nothing.

I don't want the socks any more. You'll find me barefoot in another thread. Bye-bye, Mr. Troll.
 
Big Al said:
Which has ... what to do with the WTC?

If I undergo hypnosis, do you think it will help me to believe that the US Gubment blew it up?. Are you going to show me another blurry photo of the rubble? Bell's example is the best of the best, and exactly what I would expect to see. With you, all I see is billowing clouds that prove nothing.

I don't want the socks any more. You'll find me barefoot in another thread. Bye-bye, Mr. Troll.
Click to expand...

It has to do with the secrecy that covers the "designed to demolish" aspect.

I believe the US government has bee infiltrated using hypsosis throught he intelligence communities.

Are you going to stand by while the infiltrators kill your countrypeople and destroy your rights and freedoms? How about protecting the government, purifying it?

This,

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

is not a blurry photo and it shows a much more comprehensive scene than any I've examined.
 
The Almond said:
Raw evidence, which you seem to define as "Evidence stored on and annotated on my website." Would you care to define "raw" for us?
Click to expand...

No deflection of the point, the images are as close to raw as we can get. Some of those images are not on my website, I link to them. I found the other images and people offered them on forums knowing that they showed concrete and no steel core columns.

Your post does not address what the images show.
 
The Almond said:
Congratulations on dodging the question. I'll ask again:
Do you believe that there was a concrete core whose thickness was 17 feet which was supported by 3 inch thick steel rebar. Yes or no.
Click to expand...

Your question was too simplistic. I qualified my answer.
 
Christophera said:
Your question was too simplistic. I qualified my answer.
Click to expand...

Nice try. You did not qualify your answer; rather, you posed an alternative question for me to answer before you got around to answering mine. That's deflection. Stay on target: Do you believe that there was a concrete core whose thickness was 17 feet which was supported by 3 inch thick steel rebar. Yes or no.
 
The Almond said:
Do you believe that there was a concrete core whose thickness was 17 feet which was supported by 3 inch thick steel rebar. Yes or no.
Click to expand...

Yes, with qualifing detail, 17 foot thick at the bottom and 2 foot thick at the top. Except for the foundation and base of the core the shear walls were reinforced with 3 inch high tensile steel rebar.
 
Christophera said:
I answer questions

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2109497#post2109497

in detail and they are ignored.
Click to expand...

wrong. The Almond address that post, point by point, two posts later:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2109540#post2109540

Facts of raw evidence are ignored.
Click to expand...
Everything you have presented has been analysed and found wanting.

This is not a rational, logical place.
Click to expand...
It's you against the world, who could possibly be wrong?
 
Christophera said:
Yes, with qualifing detail
Click to expand...
Why didn't these qualifying details come up during the nearly 200 pages in this thread? Am I providing new evidence or simply disproving your old hypothesis?
, 17 foot thick at the bottom and 2 foot thick at the top.
Click to expand...
Why does it taper, and how do you know that?
Except for the foundation and base of the core the shear walls were reinforced with 3 inch high tensile steel rebar.
Click to expand...
Given my analysis showing that 3 inch reinforcing steel would provide shear reinforcement equal to a wind load of over 1000 miles per hour on one face of the building, how do you reconcile the extra reinforcing steel with this statement:
And btw. Normally shear walls are as you say, not tapered. The WTC was very CUSTOM and optimized in every way for strength,
Click to expand...

How does overdesigning the shear wall at the base optimize the structure?
 
Seriously Chris, do you feel OK?

If so, why do you care about what other people think?

If not, please seek help.
 
Big Les said:
I'm covered in bees!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are out of your mind, my friend. Seek help.
Click to expand...


Good luck finding proof.

I do not even have to prove that 3,000 captial crimes did not recieve due process and that evidence was removed from the scene to be destroyed.
 
Last edited:
The Almond said:
Why didn't these qualifying details come up during the nearly 200 pages in this thread? Am I providing new evidence or simply disproving your old hypothesis?

Why does it taper, and how do you know that?

Given my analysis showing that 3 inch reinforcing steel would provide shear reinforcement equal to a wind load of over 1000 miles per hour on one face of the building, how do you reconcile the extra reinforcing steel with this statement:
Click to expand...

You imply you've read the entire thread which is a lie because I've stated that the core was tapered from 17 foot to 2 foot at least twice.

I know it from the 1990 docuemntary called "Constrcution of the Twin Towers", and, it makes sense that a wall that tall would be tapered.

I don't need to reconcile anything if youcannot show images of the supposed 47, 1,300 foot steeel core columns from images of the demolition.

How about a realistic explanation for near free fall and near total pulverization.

The Almond said:
How does overdesigning the shear wall at the base optimize the structure?
Click to expand...

After the above we can be sure that common sense escapes you.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom