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

[uruk]

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.

Sometimes you gotta call a duck a duck.

I think it's mainly due to exasperation than actual emnity.

I think even Gahndi called someone an idiot at one time or another.

 

[Christophera]

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.

There was an air of mystery in the documentary at most. The videograpers were producing almost 20 years after the construction oif WTC 1 using contractors and architects fiml and photos of the construction.

The videographers mentioned "special, anti corrosion, vibration resistant plastic coated rebar"

By examination of the character of the blasts and ground zero I realized that the explosives had to have been perfefctly centered and distributed. After much thought a further realization came to me that the rebar was in the perfect position/distibution, then I remembered the "special plastic coating".

Belz knows these things and they are scattered throughout the thread.

 

[Christophera]

you have failed to convince anyone here.

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.

You are generalizing and your words prove it because you cannot know what you assert, which puts your position in error. Why should I try to justify your error with more than is needed to correct it. If you cannot see the humor in my first answer, then a second any greater than this would be a waste.

 

[Arus808]

You are generalizing and your words prove it because you cannot know what you assert, which puts your position in error. Why should I try to justify your error with more than is needed to correct it. If you cannot see the humor in my first answer, then a second any greater than this would be a waste.

Translation : Im writing this nonsensical paragraph, since you hate one line answers. But in doing so, Im again not making any point nor answering your questions, so please note my sidestepping once again.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You are generalizing and your words prove it because you cannot know what you assert, which puts your position in error. Why should I try to justify your error with more than is needed to correct it. If you cannot see the humor in my first answer, then a second any greater than this would be a waste.

 

[twinstead]

I think even Gahndi called someone an idiot at one time or another.

Hey, I'll tell you the same thing I told him: I didn't mean to dump that plate of vindaloo chicken into his lap. He didn't have to call me names...

 

[tsig]

You are generalizing and your words prove it because you cannot know what you assert, which puts your position in error. Why should I try to justify your error with more than is needed to correct it. If you cannot see the humor in my first answer, then a second any greater than this would be a waste.

You are specializing and your words prove it because you cannot know what you assert, hich puts your position in error. Why should I try to justify your error with more than is needed to correct it. If you cannot see the humor in my first answer, then a second any greater than this would be a waste

 

[Belz...]

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

So because it LOOKS like something, it IS that something ?

No, you are saying that. I'm saying that when it does it looks like it's broken not like it's been sheared .

That was cut during the removal efforts, chris. The fact that YOU can't cut so neatly doesn't mean no one else can. It's been shown to you that demo charges will NOT make so clean a cut.

There was an air of mystery in the documentary at most.

ANOTHER new memory, chris ?

The videographers mentioned "special, anti corrosion, vibration resistant plastic coated rebar"

Their exact words, chris ? 15 years ago ?

By examination of the character of the blasts and ground zero I realized that the explosives had to have been perfefctly centered and distributed.

Not even an expert in explosives could make such a determination. You're eithe lying or deluding yourself.

Belz knows these things and they are scattered throughout the thread.

I know your claims. I also know you refuse to discuss important points when asked to. You call them "minor" or "unimportant" except when YOU use them.

You are generalizing and your words prove it because you cannot know what you assert, which puts your position in error.

Stop talking to yourself, chris. It isn't good for you.

 

[Peter S.]

You are generalizing and your words prove it because you cannot know what you assert, which puts your position in error. Why should I try to justify your error with more than is needed to correct it. If you cannot see the humor in my first answer, then a second any greater than this would be a waste.

How am I generalizing? I do know what I assert because if you had convinced anyone with you evidence they surely would have spoken up by now. No one had, as of yet.

Please address the question:
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?

I really am very eager to hear your answer.

 

[tsig]

You are confused. You actually think we have courts of law.

We are the law. If we cannot agree on the purpose of law, whoever can interpret what "law" is for for their own purposes.

So far they have killed about 6000 if you count the soldiers, they have removed the Constitution and the courts.

How do you feel about this?

I think it;s great! Why haven't they got you

 

[Oliver]

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.

So what is the connection from your post to this thread?
Oh, and welcome on board, Stundie.

 

[Big Al]

There was an air of mystery in the documentary at most. The videograpers were producing almost 20 years after the construction oif WTC 1 using contractors and architects fiml and photos of the construction.

The videographers mentioned "special, anti corrosion, vibration resistant plastic coated rebar"

As I said - they let cameramen in to photograph the exposed rebar coated in explosives? Sounds a little sloppy, conspiracy-wise! And how do you get from there to C4 - a military explosive that hadn't been around for long? Why not another explosive? Yet you stated "C4" with an air suggesting absolute knowledge, not a wild stab in the dark, which it sounds like to me.

By examination of the character of the blasts and ground zero I realized that the explosives had to have been perfefctly centered and distributed. After much thought a further realization came to me that the rebar was in the perfect position/distibution, then I remembered the "special plastic coating".

You can tell all that from all that tangled mess? Wow! You have a good eye, my friend. And you still haven't answered the point about using 40-year old explosives. The shelf life of RDX and its derivatives (of which C4 is one) have a ten-year shelf-life, tops.

And one more vital question: why, just why, would the powers-that-were install explosives in a national architectural icon? For a rainy day? Just in case it came in handy?

And they presumably told each new incumbent of this bizarre fact until the day, forty years on, when George W. Bush said "Hey! Explosives in the WTC? Jest what I need to give me an excuse to invade Eye-rack! Y'all crash a couple airliners into them suckers and let my boys do the rest!"

In the interim, every President resisted the urge to blow the towers for whatever reason, and nobody, but nobody, had the slightest pang of conscience and fessed up on their deathbed?

And not one of those CIA/NSA/Government officials who had to be in the know blew the whistle when the towers came down?

And you wonder why we find your assertions difficult to swallow? The Flying Spaghetti Monster looks pretty convincing next to this.

 

[Arus808]

I decided to do some research, but I want to address this to Christophera, if he honestly believes what he saw back in the 80's:


This is on your assertation that the documentary you watched specifically stated that they used C-4 in the construction of the towers.

However, the term C-4 wasn't in the vocabulary yet, and during the time of WTC towers construction. In fact, it wasn't widely available because of our involvement in the Vietnam War. The first time the term C-4 was ever used was in 1971 (long after North Tower was completed and South Tower was halfway built)

Before that, the only other compound that would have been used would have been Semtex (invented in 1966). Plastic Explosives were a "new" technology during this time. In fact it was in 1966 that the WTC towers construction started.

I've researched this extensively and can't find anything that refers to C-4 before 1970.

Just want Christopher to clarify his position about this so called documentary. How can a documentary claim that the buildings were built with C-4 in it, when the term C-4 didn't exist back then?

Second thing I want Chris to address:
Coating c-4 on whatever structure in the wTc towers would do nothing. In fact, c-4 doesn't "work" unless there is a detonator or blasting cap to set off a charge. Planes crashing into a building would not be enough to set the c-4 off. And after 30 years, the "potency" of such explosives would have deteriorated.

And how can c-4 be coated on anything? Have you ever seen c-4? it can't be "coated" over anything. Its a plastic explosive for a reason.

 

[Christophera]

I decided to do some research, but I want to address this to Christophera, if he honestly believes what he saw back in the 80's:

I've stated no less than 4 times in the last 20 pges that the documentary on mentioned a "special anti corrosion, vibration resistant plastic coating". It stated that the reason only welders witha security clearance could execute teh butt welds on the 3" high tensile steel renar was because the coating was flammable.

I realized that the only way to get this effect with high explosives and concrete is to put the explosives exactly in the center and distribute them optimally throughout the structure.

And how can c-4 be coated on anything? Have you ever seen c-4? it can't be "coated" over anything. Its a plastic explosive for a reason.

Use a solvent like acetone or alcohol, make a slurry, coat the bar, let the solvent evaporate and place the bar in position for forming, then form and pour.

If you had experience as a craftsman you would know these things, if you were reading you would know that the DOC. did not say there were explosives built in.

 

[Arus808]

I've stated no less than 4 times in the last 20 pges that the documentary on mentioned a "special anti corrosion, vibration resistant plastic coating".

And how does this mean that c-4 was used? how did you come to the conlusion that meant this was c-4?

You specifically stated not more than 3 pages ago, that you remember the documentary mentioning c-4. Now are you claiming it didn't?

Why are you flip-flopping?

It stated that the reason only welders witha security clearance could execute teh butt welds on the 3" high tensile steel renar was because the coating was flammable.

Then they wouldn't have used it. This goes to show why yoru claims are nothing more than fabrications. Building materials cannot be flammabe for the reasons you just stated. Becuase of welding.


So, are you claiming now that the documenatry didn't mention c-4 despite not more than 3 pages ago, you said it did?

I realized that the only way to get this effect with high explosives and concrete is to put the explosives exactly in the center and distribute them optimally throughout the structure.

So the documentary didn't mention c-4 then. YOu just came to the conclusion because of a "plastic" coating that it mean c-4?

And by the way, C-4 isn't explosive when hot flame or sparks hit it. So welders (doesn't matter who) and didn't have to be "skilled", could have welded away without affecting it. C-4 when close flame, burns like wood.

 

[switchtech]

Where's the evidence?

Read this switchtech,
Tell your buddy in Afgahnistan that the US government has been INFILTRATED and the infiltrators murdered 3,000 citizens.

I examined your page and many of its links. It took quite a while. I read nothing on your page that proves the US Government has been infiltrated (that isn't to say it hasn't been - but that's another story .

algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg
And ask him if it looks like a collapse.

What is it in this picture that makes you think it is not a collapse? It is quite indicative of collapse in my opinion.

Do you/he agree that due process was violated 3,000 times when evidence was removed from the scene and destroyed befor private investigations were conducted.

No. The attempt to recover living people takes paramount priority in such a circumstance. Imagine waiting for private investigators to go over the scene while rescuers wait in the wings to be able to perform search and rescue operations.

Now the 92 year old granny shot down because the police raided the wrong home - that's another story. Certainly her due process was violated - violently.

If the the infiltrated governemtn says, "Sorry, it is a matter of national security and they are blaiming it on Muslims then they already have what they need to know and THERE IS NO RESON TO LIMIT THE PUBLIC INVESTIGATION.

Period.

You're operating from an assumption for which I see no basis in any of the evidence. Of course I never earned a Beyond-Above-Top-Secret clearance, so perhaps i haven't seen all the information.

Your buddies life is on the line for NOTHING.

You are of course welcome to your opinion - and that is what he fights for - the freedoms you and all in the United States should hold dear. Our enemy is a group of extremists that do not represent their religion well (one hopes). Their goal is the total elimination of the infidel: The United States, the rest of the Western World, most of Asia, and of course, anyone else that doesn't toe the Taliban line.

(And as I stated before, whether this is true in Iraq is another question)

Look, I believe that the government has grown too large, that the politicians spend as if it isn't their money (hey, wait . . . it isn't) and that the best government is the government that governs least (to a point anyway - there would be a point where the government governs too little). But there is a large gulf between (a) believing that all government should be held accountable for its actions and viewed with a some lack of trust (they do require oversight) and with (b) the opinion that the government really is out to get us, the spies are every where, the government really is part of some new world order, and that all hope is lost.

We aren't living in a Tom Clancy novel.

The buildings were built to demolish. Send him and all the GI's here.

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

The should know what well contianed, optimally placed and distributed high explosives look like when detonated in a high speed series of delays.

I still don't see any credible evidence for your charges. Hearsay and unprovable arguments do not count as evidence, credible or otherwise.

The actions of thermite are extraordinarily similar to molten aluminum. If major sections of the aluminum alloy from the aircraft metal melted, as is very likely they did, and then met with the gypsum drywall, some water from broken water pipes and whatever remained of the fire suppression system, concrete or a number of other things molten aluminum alloy 2024 really likes to react with, then the exothermic reactions would have given rise to much higher temperatures, and exactly the damage seen in your video excerpts. Remember, aluminum alloy 2024 melts at 550 degrees C give or take - right in line with burning jet fuel plus available furniture and other combustibles.

We need our soldiers BACK here. We need their courage and expertise. Their commander and chief has already been implicated by blocking invetigations. That part of their oath they can forego.

Focus on the Constitution and lawful performance from the BEGINNING or there will be no more Constitution.

Actually, with this I agree - mostly. I disagree where we are relative to the destruction of the Constitution (especially given the recent elections). We can't just pull the troops now that they've been committed - they have to complete the job - they have to win the war - otherwise they are risking their lives in vain.

jbs

 

[switchtech]

FSM Rules

And you wonder why we find your assertions difficult to swallow? The Flying Spaghetti Monster looks pretty convincing next to this.

Hey, man! Don't be dissin' the FSM!

jbs

 

[Christophera]

How am I generalizing? I do know what I assert because if you had convinced anyone with you evidence they surely would have spoken up by now. No one had, as of yet.

Please address the question:
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?

I really am very eager to hear your answer.

People that can realize the truth about the demolition of the towers are also afraid so do not speak up.

Most people do not want to know they accept any explanation except one that has as a part of it what they do not want to know. They do not want to know because it makes them afraid and also if they knew, and they care about their country they should do somethig about it. That really makes them afraid. They are afraid of their government, they are afraid of the intelligence agencies and they are afraid of what their neighbors and co-workers think.

Your questions are answered. Now answer mine.

Why do you think no one has been able to produce a picture of the steel core columns in the core area at some elevation above the ground from the demolition images?

 

[Arus808]

People that can realize the truth about the demolition of the towers are also afraid so do not speak up.

and that's you generalizing that such people exist. why , five years later are they still afraid?

 

[Christophera]

I've stated no less than 4 times in the last 20 pges that the documentary had only mentioned a "special anti corrosion, vibration resistant plastic coating"

And how does this mean that c-4 was used? how did you come to the conlusion that meant this was c-4?

You specifically stated not more than 3 pages ago, that you remember the documentary mentioning c-4. Now are you claiming it didn't?

I've never stated that. You must prove it.