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

[delphi_ote]

This may not be the stupidest question asked on this thread, but asking it may be one of the stupidest things posted...

I'm not asking to get information. I'm asking to be entertained. "Tell us another story, Uncle Chris!"

 

[hcmom]

Duh... Sorry, 2 a.m. isn't my most critical thinking hour...

 

[delphi_ote]

Duh... Sorry, 2 a.m. isn't my most critical thinking hour...

It's 5:40AM here. Insomnia sucks.

 

[hcmom]

It's 5:40AM here. Insomnia sucks.

Yep. Good thing they invented the internet!

 

[Bell]

It is certainly not smaller than 3 inches as that would not even resolve in the photo at the distance this was taken.

3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS​

The below image shows a column (photo taken from same camera 1 second before the above) which is about 2 feet and the image was taken just before the above which established the size quite well.

The spire formed by an interior box column​

And, what makes you think 3 inches is too big to weld in place?

the concrete core is well documented.

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

You still failed to produce a picture on which you point out exactly where your so called 3" rebar on 4' centers is. Is that because it isn't there? You claim that in the picture we should be able to see it. Therefor you should have no problem pointing it out.

Use this picture:
http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg
and draw an arrow on it. Sim-ple.

And don't sidestep around this request with arrogant remarks that I cannot comprehend the 'raw evidence' you provide. Point it out, or retrack your claim.

 

[Belz...]

This, is quite basically a report from very credible individuals.

Ever heard of a simile ?

And the image below shows an explosion. Political supression of facts is an issue.

If you look at the actual video, it's obvious that it's not an explosion. Of course, you know this, as you specialise in using stills to obfuscate the issue.

It will suffice under conditions.

It could suffice in absence of raw evidence, but it is NOT raw evidence itself. Agreed ?

Steel will not get significantly heated under those conditions to fail in the way images show.

What temperatures did the fires reach on that side of the building, chris ?

Do you approve of inflitrations of governments and their lawless performance?

Leading question. You haven't shown lawless performance in this particular case.

Your explanation for why the wrong tower fell first is about as bad as your explanation for why they both fell the wrong way. Actually you never did explain why WTC 2 fell the wrong way and never did explain why the body fo WTC 2 went east while the top went west.

An interesting way to dodge Reg's question. How is his explanation bad ? The second plane hit lower and faster. Do you deny this ?

 

[Belz...]

Where were you when the firefighters were mystified because they could find no remains, when the largest piece of anything found which was recognizable to a firefighter was 1/2 of a phone key pad out of all 100's of the desks, chairs, file cabinets and computers in the towers?

I do believe that's either a lie or an exaggeration.

This, is not a collapse, it is a high speed series of explosions contained within a uniform mineral material.

Shouldn't you have a similar picture of WTC2 that shows such a pattern for your claim to hold at all ?

I've proven the question has no bearing on the event.

No, you said the explanation was bad. Period. You didn't actually prove anything.

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

Circular reasoning.

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

That's a lie, chris. You said this :

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.

"Hit hardest". Doesn't that have anything to do with plane speed, at the very least ?

 

[Belz...]

The fact that both towers fell almost identically and the tops fell in the wrong directions relating to the faces they were struck on are major factors that indicate the controlling aspects of the towers fall was completely separate from plane collisions and fires and that they were a demolition, controlled by timers.

Non sequitur.

Wrong, I just used your 1st diagram twice because it looked more like WTC 1 than 2 as it was labeled.

It was a simple rectangle, chris. Stop trying to use your powers of picture-interpretation.

Which picture?

This one of the concrete core of WTC 2

No points, chris. You said yourself it could be dust.

As I said, the confusion caused by the missing blueprints MUST allow description that DO identify the concrete core.

Argument from ignorance.

The 1990 documentary detailed Yamasakis testing of core designs and the steel core version that Robertson had proposed began to fail as a model at 75 MPH wind speed.

The final call lies with the fact that not one single image from the demolition shows one of the supposed 1,300 foot steel core columns at an elevation over the ground. However, what I know to have existed is shown.

Such precision from a guy who can't get the tower or the flight number right.

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

Of course, any group capable of carrying out such an insane plan would've instead built a steel structure and rammed jets into it. Simpler, and we know it works. So why didn't they, chris ?

the images are as close to raw as we can get.

There we go. Now an admission that your evidence isn't raw.

Consider I spent 1 hour per night for 2 consecutive night watching "The Construction Of The Twin Towers."

Once. Fifteen years ago.

There were a lot of firsts with the Twin Towers. Why mention something in a celebratory video if you can't show it.

Because they could. They showed the rest of the construction.

The 40 foot max length was delivered and put inplace to be 100% welded.

Didn't someone have an image showing bolts during cleanup ?

Yea, never mind that in 198 pages of me asking for ONE image of steel columns in the core area from a demo image showing them at an elevation off the ground, not one image has been produced.

Plenty have been produced by you!

 

[Big Al]

Dammit, I vowed to stay out of this troll-thread, but the "designed to be demolished" bit takes the biscuit. I ROFL when I read that.

Construction of the WTC began in 1966 - forty years ago. What sort of conditions would explosives and detonators be in if stored for so long?

 

[maccy]

Dammit, I vowed to stay out of this troll-thread, but the "designed to be demolished" bit takes the biscuit. I ROFL when I read that.

Construction of the WTC began in 1966 - forty years ago. What sort of conditions would explosives and detonators be in if stored for so long?

I'll answer that. The rebar was coated in C4. Encasing it in concrete somehow got around C4's 10 year shelf life. Having a gap between the rebar and the concrete that is filled with a soft plastic doesn't cause any structural integrity problems.

The there's something about removable caps and detonaters that were wired a few days before 9/11. Some of the detonators were sabotaged by friendly Mohawks who worked on the construction - which is why there weren't uniform collapses.

Also the concrete core was demolished in two halves, top first - which is why you can see a vague grey shadow in a dust cloud in one photo.

This isn't an argument about logic and evidence it's a tussle with one man's unshakable delusion.

 

[uruk]

Said dark area is another building. See NIST NCSTAR1 Figure 1-2 on page 4 of the report. I figured someone else posted this so I didn't bother to address the claim.

Thanks. "Mystery" solved.
But don't hold your breath for Chris.

 

[The Almond]

The kangaroo cranes lowered the bar into fixtures that held it for the welders. DUH.

Show me photographic evidence of this happening. "Raw" evidence, as you would put it.

Given the fact that you don't recognize the advantage of a tapered 1,300 foot wall, your calculations can be discarded.

So, because my calculations based on logic, education and design experience do not support your crackpot theory, they can be discarded? You're too much to believe.

Sorry, I know you put a lot of work into them but they do not help explain the final event.

I sure am glad we have the mighty Christophera to tell us what calculations are meaningful and what ones aren't. Anything that has any kind of math or science involved is simply incapable of explaining the final event. How could I have been so blind?

OK, I'm done with this thread. It was fun to do the structural calculations, but I've got buildings to design.

 

[uruk]

The 40 foot max length was delivered and put inplace to be 100% welded.

Show me proof.

Here is one connected to floor beams being salvaged,

salvage of interior box column​

Just to the right and above the joint with the floor beams is an area with a different texture/color/reflectivity. That is a butt weld which has been ground so that it will not interfere with the joint if the joint were to fall at that position and you can see it is close. The butt welds were staggered so there was no line of welds horizontally across the building.

That is an interior box column from very far up in the tower. There are several things that tell us this. One, it is square, two it is extruded rather than hand fabbed. Three, there are floor beams intersecting in four directions meaning that the core had tapered up and away from the interior box column which had to remain plumb.

The link you posted does not show any photographs

In the mid day silhouette we can see from the right to the left near the top of the tower; the outside face, the floor space, the interior box columns, then a narrow bright space which is, elevationwise, about where that box column was located as determined by the longer floor beams keeping it away from the core wall face.

The picture you linked to here disproves your statement about the concrete wall being poured 80 feet below construction. The tower on the left clearly has no concrete walls well below 80 feet.

 

[Big Al]

I'll answer that. The rebar was coated in C4. Encasing it in concrete somehow got around C4's 10 year shelf life. Having a gap between the rebar and the concrete that is filled with a soft plastic doesn't cause any structural integrity problems.

The there's something about removable caps and detonaters that were wired a few days before 9/11. Some of the detonators were sabotaged by friendly Mohawks who worked on the construction - which is why there weren't uniform collapses.

Also the concrete core was demolished in two halves, top first - which is why you can see a vague grey shadow in a dust cloud in one photo.

This isn't an argument about logic and evidence it's a tussle with one man's unshakable delusion.

I bet they weren't betting on a shrewd structural engineer of Christophera's calibre coming along to spot their little game!

Chris, have you sent all your so-convincing evidence to your local Senator or the Department of Justice? If you're so convinced about all this, it'd be criminal not to, wouldn't it?

 

[Belz...]

Summary

Here's a summary of chris' admissions concerning the various points of his theory.

Here and here he admits that the structure on his "core stands" picture could also be dust.

Here he admits that the "free fall" issue is unimportant, although it's part of the title of this thread.

Here and here he makes contradictory statements as to whether plane speed is relevant to the building's collapse, relative to his contention that the wrong tower fell first.

Here he finally admits that his pictures aren't "raw" evidence, but only the closest thing to "raw" evidence.

In this post he exposes his own circular reasoning by trying to argue that the large chunks of concrete we see, unpulverized, are from another building, with no other reason than they're not pulverized.

Here he makes very clear that he has no idea about the explosives he claims were in the two towers.

And, of course, who can forget his admission of close-mindedness. NOTHING can change his mind, not even reality.

-------------------
Let's not forget that chris claims that the CORE of the towers was built with C4-coated rebar. He saw this in a documentary that no one else has ever seen, in 1990. A documentary that claims the core of the towers was made of concrete, although every other source says it was steel columns. His only support is a grade-school website in Canada. Quite the expert opinion. Of course, many have suggested that Chris' demonstratably faulty memory (he gets the towers mixed up and can't even get the flight numbers right; this from someone with an alledgedly photographic memory) may have mixed up information from the concrete wall that surrounds the WTC complex and that was mentioned in an earlier, easy-to-find documentary.

Why, does he claim, is the existence of this concrete core hidden from the public ? Well, the conspirators built the towers in order to demolish them, thirty years later, to launch a war for oil, or something. Chris argues, I think, that if the buildings were made with concrete cores, they couldn't have collapsed; which is why they had to be blown up after the planes hit, and why the existence of the core must be kept secret. Why, oh why, didn't the conspirators build the towers with steel cores to make sure the planes WOULD destroy them is beyond anyone else here.

When called on the fact that no one from the construction crews remembers the concrete core, he either claims that they are terrified to speak out, a fact supported only by his "impression" of their testimony, or goes on about the fact that, apparently, every person in the world, EXCEPT himself, has been hypnotised by the evil conspirators to forget about it. Now, if everyone's hypnotised, why did they need to blow up people in order to convince us to go to war ? They own everybody, already!

And, of course, all these claims are based on chris' application of "common sense" for things that are "obvious".

--------------------
With all the admissions and contradictions above, not to to mention an insanely-convoluted theory, there's little doubt that our friend is not beign completely honest with us. I don't know if, as many have claimed, he is mentally unstable or not, but those examples above reek of dishonesty and, to use one of chris' favourite words, obfuscation.

 

[uruk]

Chris, you really need to read chapters 1-4 on this report.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf

Of particular note:
pg. 62 on the pdf - pg. 12 of the report: Look at fig 1-8
note the location of the doors in the core area wall.
also read the 2nd and 3rd paragraph on the page.

pg. 66 on the pdf - pg 16 of the report: note how the floor plan layouts differ from floor to floor. One configuration would be impossible if there was a concrete core.

Ah! who am I kidding. This is a waste of time. Chris ignores anything that goes against what he believes.

 

[bonavada]

hmmmmm. away for a couple of days and anarchy rules again. what happened to the friggin' conchsocks? is piggy hiding them?

thinking about it though, those "lord of the flies" kids had much more fun after all semblance of law and order was abandoned. but didn't it all end in tears and murderous mayhem.................

jack: (sharpening rebar) kill the pig! kill the pig!

ralph: no! let's talk to him quietly and usher him gently into a corner from where he can't escape.

piggy: i'm off!

sam'n'eric: alright boys! who's just pulverised piggy with a huge lump of concrete core?

piggy: (dying) it's society wot did it guvnor.....i saw it on pbs....urgh.

:-]

BV

 

[bonavada]

This, is quite basically a report from very credible individuals.

so if those guys are CD experts....

is this bloke an astrophysicist?????????




credentials here


BV

 

[Christophera]

Reality Check

Watch the steel columns get put into place in the video. Was the video faked?

Again, I KNOW the core was concrete. You BELIEVE the official story. The images SHOW what can only be concrete and DO NOT show steel core columns.

The fact that the images of the demo here,

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

SHOW what I describe and do not show what the official story says is basically enough for any reasonable person. Paticuarly with consideraton of the fact that evidence was removed from the scene and destroyed violating due process in 3000 capital crimes.

Then, add to this the fact that this site,

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

actually provides a feasible, realistic and comprehensive explanation for the event makes the continues opposition unreasonable.

The 18 minute might be fake, it might be in error. It doesn't matter.

 

[Pardalis]

Oh boy, Christophera is back for his morning pee...