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

[Big Al]

And as I've said before, concrete doesn't need to wait for dry or warm weather to go off as "materials expert" Chris asserted - it's an exothermic reaction and can even set under water. The Hoover Dam had concrete poured into it in all conditions, and I believe it's still setting in parts.

I rebuke myself and withdraw that comment, having checked my facts. I now know that very cold temperatures can lead to uneven setting. I apologise, Chris.

However, I stand behind the rest of the post.

 

[Big Al]

There you are. I'm so mortified at having made a contrafactual statement that I repeated myself!

 

[Bindamel]

No, that is not the documentary I saw. That documentary was mentioned in the one I saw which was 2 hours in length. The 18 minute film was referred to in the beginning as a "Celebratory Documentary" relating to the completion of the WTC.

[snip]

That's new. I'm going to assume that you're making it up as you go, this time. You never mentioned this, and now you suddenly "remember" this information ?

Not that it means much, Belz, but it's certainly not new. The above quote is the first mention I've found of him saying the longer video referenced the 18 minute version, made back in early October.

 

[stundie]

Contradiction

I've always admired James Randi Education Foundation as I've always believed that there is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

I've been reading these posts in here and I'm ABSOLUTELY AMAZED by the child like attitude of some of the bloggers in here. As I was expecting more intelligence than the name calling which seems to run throughout these posts.

I actually believed the official story until I noticed certain things that didn't add up. The final straw was the NORAD Tapes which prove that the Pentagon lied to the commission but thats is not why I am here.


Here some food for thought?

Far be it from me to quibble with established authority figures about WTC 1, 2 & 7, (Don't tell me I'm dishonouring the memory of 9/11., or that I hate America) but could somebody please reconcile the following contradictory analyses & statements for me?

The first one is a NIST statement denying the pancake hypothesis for WTC collapse, while the second is a quote from this Popular Mechanics book 'Debunking 9/11 Myths', p. 44.

NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers. Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

Popular Mechanics 'Debunking 9/11 Myths', p. 44:
"Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, the floor failed, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process pancaking.

A) NIST is correct - and the "meticulous and scientific analysis" of PM is wrong after their pomposity about how careful and thorough they are in their "debunking". So can we trust them?

or:

(b) Popular Mechanics is correct - and NIST, after 3 years of work, millions dollars, hundreds of experts & simulations, is wrong?

or:

(c) Neither is correct - as both sets of baffled "experts" desperately grasp at straws hide the fact that they have no idea how the Towers fell.

The funny things is, those who disagree with the Controlled Demolition theory are always asking for evidence of this, so let me reverse the question and ask you for EVIDENCE to suggest that the floors failed and they collapsed as either NIST or Popular Mechanics state?

As far as I'm aware, there is no proof because of the major clean up operation, which would suggest that both NIST and Popular Mechanics are THEORIES too?

Yes I maybe a tin hat wearing idiot, but that still doesn't answer the question? So I look forward to some serious debate.

BTW Other tin hat wearers who don't buy the official story are: -

Rep. Curt Weldon – Vice Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Vice Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Ten-term Republican Congressman from Pennsylvania.
Senator Max Cleland – Former member of the 9/11 Commission, resigned in December 2003. Currently serves on the board of directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States. U.S. Senator from Georgia 1996 - 2002. Secretary of State of Georgia 1982 - 1996. Administrator of the U.S. Veterans Administration 1977 - 1981. Captain, U.S. Army awarded Silver Star and Bronze Star for bravery in Viet Nam. Triple amputee from war injuries
Senator Bob Graham – Former U.S. Senator from Florida 1987 - 2005. Former Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Co-Chairman of the Joint House-Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (JICI) that investigated the events of 9/11. Former Governor of Florida 1979 - 1986
Senator Mark Dayton – Senate Committee on Armed Services, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Services. U.S. Senator from Minnesota.
Louis Freeh – Director of the FBI, 1993 - 2001. Former U.S. District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York, appointed by President George H.W. Bush. Former Deputy United States Attorney in New York. Former FBI agent. Former officer in the United States Army JAG Corps Reserve.
Edward L. Peck – Deputy Director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism under Ronald Reagan. Former Deputy Coordinator, Covert Intelligence Programs at the State Department. U.S. Ambassador and Chief of Mission to Iraq (1977 - 1980). 32-year veteran of the Foreign Service.
Paul Craig Roberts, PhD – Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury under Ronald Reagan, "Father of Reaganomics", Former Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. Currently Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the independent institute.
Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret) – Commanding General of the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, 1981 - 1984. Also commanded the U.S. Army’s Electronic Research and Development Command and the U.S. Army’s Intelligence School and Center. Former head of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence. 32-year Army career.
Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps (ret) – Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense during the Reagan Administration and a highly decorated Vietnam veteran (two Silver Stars, a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart). Appointed by President George H.W. Bush to serve on the American Battle Monuments Commission (1990 - 1994), and on the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces. From 1990 through 1994, he served as Military Historian and Deputy Director of Field Operations for the U.S. Marine Corps Historical Center, Washington, D.C.
Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and Carter. U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. (PhD in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Cal Tech).
Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Former Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. Commercial pilot for Pan Am and United Airlines

 

[maccy]

Welcome to the forums Stundie.

Briefly, Popular Mechanics are talking in more general laymen's terms and NIST are being specific and technical. NISTs contentention, as I understand it, is that this is a progressive collapse - pancaking being a reasonable description of what happens after the collapse initiation but not suffiecient to describe the whole process.

Additionally, even if you can find something that is not fully explained, it does not validate an alternative theory - this is a god of the gaps type of argument.

I suggest you find another thread about this and bounce it or start a new thread. This thread (despite its slightly misleading title) concerns itself with Christophera's theory that the towers were built with a concrete core that was prewired with C4 explosive during constructions.

Trying to talk about anything else here will just muddle things even more.

Here are a few suggestions for posting here:

1. Familiarise yourself with the sites listed in the links page if you haven't already done so

2. Pick a subject to discuss and try and stick to that subject as much as possible; don't sidetrack into other subjects unless they are directly related; be methodical

3. to avoid repetition, use the search function to find threads that already address your subject - bump them or quote from them if you still have something to discuss

4. don't assume anything about the political views of the people here, or their reasons for arguing the way they do

5. political arguments are best taken to the politics forum

6. don't confuse arguing about the general plausibility of a hypothesis with arguing about the specific evidence of a phenomenom; for more about what I mena by this, see this post: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.p...99#post2098499

7. lastly, try not get sucked into personal disputes, posters can use some pretty blunt language in discussions, but in the main they are attacking the ideas; try and stick to reasoning and evidence. You can report serious personal attacks if necessary.

Once again, welcome!

ETA: The tone of your opening post is extremely confrontational, I suggest you tone things down and stick to the facts.

 

[Belz...]

Another thought - why did the evil WTC builders allow documentary makers access to a structure being wrapped in C4? Even if the explosives weren't specifically mentioned in the documentary (which isn't clear to me), surely somebody might have asked awkward questions about the white cladding on the still-exposed rebar waiting for concrete infill?

Whistleblowers, I guess.

 

[bonavada]

ETA below questions removed.....just read maccys good advice above.

welcome to the forums stundie from me too.

if you start another thread i'll repost my questions there....except the last :-]


Stundie.......What do you think of the OP's (christophera's) concrete core/embedded c4 theory?


BV

 

[Belz...]

Not that it means much, Belz, but it's certainly not new. The above quote is the first mention I've found of him saying the longer video referenced the 18 minute version, made back in early October.

Chris keeps adding stuff to what he "remembers" of this alledged video. That reminds me of schizophreniacs who keep adding stuff to their reality to protect their delusions.

Suddenly the documentary didn't only mention the concrete core, but also the C4, then the problems with this and that that "proves" the rebar thing, then when we corner him about the other doc, the 1990 one mentioned it, so in his universe he can believe it's been debunked, etc.

 

[Belz...]

I've been reading these posts in here and I'm ABSOLUTELY AMAZED by the child like attitude of some of the bloggers in here. As I was expecting more intelligence than the name calling which seems to run throughout these posts.

200+ pages of arguing with the unreasonable will do that to you, too.

I actually believed the official story until I noticed certain things that didn't add up. The final straw was the NORAD Tapes which prove that the Pentagon lied to the commission but thats is not why I am here.

What maccy said: this is a god of the gaps argument.

NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers. Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

So Popular Mechanics' explanation is not exact ? How does this point to a conspiracy ?

(c) Neither is correct - as both sets of baffled "experts" desperately grasp at straws hide the fact that they have no idea how the Towers fell.

An interesting, and leading, third point. Obviously this is the one you picked, for no other reason, ostensibly, that it makes things more interesting.

The funny things is, those who disagree with the Controlled Demolition theory are always asking for evidence of this, so let me reverse the question and ask you for EVIDENCE to suggest that the floors failed and they collapsed as either NIST or Popular Mechanics state?

Read the NIST report, and read through the various threads here. I find it annoying when people on a forum tell me to search for information instead of giving it to me, but in this case there's just so much of it, you're bound to find your answers rather quickly... ASSUMING you're interesting in really finding out the truth, not confirming your bias.

As far as I'm aware, there is no proof because of the major clean up operation, which would suggest that both NIST and Popular Mechanics are THEORIES too?

Would you rather they left the whole pile of debris there ?

Yes I maybe a tin hat wearing idiot, but that still doesn't answer the question?

IF you ARE a tin foil hat wearing idiot, that DOES answer the question, because the questions don't make sense.

BTW Other tin hat wearers who don't buy the official story are: -

Argument from popularity, argument from authority.

 

[maccy]

(NIST vs Popular mechanics stuff)

I've opened a new thread to discuss this here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69197

 

[maccy]

I've opened a new thread to discuss this here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69197

And here's a thread to discuss stundie's list of people who don't buy the official story:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69198

 

[Big Al]

At least Stundie isn't hitting us over the head with "undeniable" and "obvious" evidence that isn't.

 

[Christophera]

Additionally, even if you can find something that is not fully explained, it does not validate an alternative theory - this is a god of the gaps type of argument.

So eager to find a dismissing label.

Examine the appearance of well contained blasts used in mountain top removal for a matching appearance to what happenned to the towers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPixjCneseE

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4199&stc=1&d=1164220794

 

[uruk]

As a welder for 35 years, I understand what is meant and entailed in executing 100% fillet welds. As an equipment operator I understand cranes, at least a little. As a surveyor and draftsman for a civil engineer I understand loading on partially completed strcutures.

So, are you saying that welded steel won't come apart under severe stress?
Are you saying that steel wont break?

 

[maccy]

So eager to find a dismissing label.

Examine the appearance of well contained blasts used in mountain top removal for a matching appearance to what happenned to the towers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPixjCneseE

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4199&stc=1&d=1164220794

Chris I wasn't arguing with you at all. I was responding to stundie's post about NIST - before encouraging him to discuss it outside of this thread.

I no longer have any argument with you as I know I cannot convince you. I am happy for you to believe in a concrete core.

My only concern is that you are wasting your time here by trying to argue with us.

 

[Christophera]

So, are you saying that welded steel won't come apart under severe stress?
Are you saying that steel wont break?

No, you are saying that. I'm saying that when it does it looks like it's broken not like it's been sheared . And, .......... before it breaks it bends whereupon it become visisble in a collapse which exposes a core supposedly haveing steel columns inside of it.

We see none.

 

[maccy]

Chris I wasn't arguing with you at all. I was responding to stundie's post about NIST - before encouraging him to discuss it outside of this thread.

I no longer have any argument with you as I know I cannot convince you. I am happy for you to believe in a concrete core.

My only concern is that you are wasting your time here by trying to argue with us.

and I think my previous post bears repeating:

Chris, I know we aren't going to convince you of anything and I really do wish you well.

Please realise that you're also not going to convince us.

All the information you have is here, and probably doesn't need repeating. Any lurkers who are around will have got it by now.

Unfortunately people around here will keep arguing with you if you keep posting here, it's the nature of this forum.

I honestly think that you can call it a day and stop posting here and it won't make a difference - your argument is out there and this thread stands as a testament to the fact that you didn't give in or back down.

You've spent six months of your life here arguing with people who won't give in.

I humbly suggest that you could use the time over the next six months on a more enjoyable way.

All the best.

Matthew

 

[uruk]

So eager to find a dismissing label.

Examine the appearance of well contained blasts used in mountain top removal for a matching appearance to what happenned to the towers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPixjCneseE

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4199&stc=1&d=1164220794

That is not an explosion (caused by explosives)*. You see that is the problem with just looking at still images. They can be decieving. If you look at the video you would have noticed that the trails appear to arc upward and out from the center because the debris collapsing in the core area sucked the air down toward the center. Look at the videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rsXvK7-l9E
In this video the dust trail looks like it is actuall rolling back toward the center.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFtzTQKRspY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRakw3hwPls
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCSXco-bPNo

In each of those videos notice how all the smoke, dust and debris in the center of the building actually gets sucked down in toward the center thus giving the appearance of debris being shot out upward and out from the center.

Do you see now the problem with just interpreting still images?


* I added this because not all explosions are caused by explosives

 

[uruk]

No, you are saying that. I'm saying that when it does it looks like it's broken not like it's been sheared . And, .......... before it breaks it bends whereupon it become visisble in a collapse which exposes a core supposedly haveing steel columns inside of it.

We see none.

Chris, that sheared steel obviously has been cut by workmen for removal from the site. It been cut to a uniform length and is already stacked for moving. Further example of you inability to properly interpret images.

Here we see them:

 

[Peter S.]

Chris, back a few pages ago I asked you this:

Christophera, when someone is right about something it's usually pretty easy to convince others you are right, especially when the people who you are trying to convince are more than willing to look at your evidence. People here have looked at your evidence, (again, please don't post it yet another time - we've all seen it), and you have failed to convince anyone here. Why do you think that is? Why do you think everyone here is more willing to accept alternate explinations for the pictures you have posted than what you say they represent?

You gave me a one line answer. I asked if you could give me a little more than one line. Please think about this and give me a well thought out answer. I'm still waiting.