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

[Christophera]

And whoever it was who planted the explosives knew that none of the architects or contractors knew anything about explosives and would recognize the plastic explosives, so "they" had no problem leaving the explosives exposed? And "they" knew that none of the architects and contractors would ever mention this funny plastic coating to anyone who might recognize that they were describing plastic explosives?

There was nothing "exposed" about the explosives. The site had heavy security and the rebar was kept in its own locked container with a security guard, That was a part of the video. I'm sure teh architect and contractors did mention the "special plastic coating". So what? It's a government building and everybody knows the crazy specs that are imposed on government construction projects.

The videograpers did impart a sense of mystery about the coating on the rebar and the initially un announced evacuations of the flor before concrete was due to be poured.

 

[Christophera]

TellyKNeasuss, You are letting yourself get sucked into this morass. Save yourself; turn back now; or at least post images of small, furry creatures.

Are you trying to induce a mysterious fear in a poster who asks reasonable questions?

 

[uruk]

None of the pulverized debris seen in videos should be seen until material hit the ground. And then no where near as much would be seen.

Right. Like stressed steel breaking and colliding with each other isin't going to break apart drywall, concrete, ceiling tile, ceramic tile, insulation, not to mention 40 years worth of dust and dirt build up in plenums and air ducts.

You really need to some thinking Chris.

 

[Peter S.]

If you cannot observe, or explain why my opposition in this discussion of a feasible and realistic explanation for near free fall has no evidence of the structure they assert stood which has everything to do with near the rate of fall, then this discussion with you is over.

That is a shame. I was looking forward to a spirited discussion about why we interpret your evidence differently than you do, (without actually debating the evidence itself).

Perhaps I can interest you in discussing another topic. Have you read "The Carlos Swett Affair"? It's an older thread which you probably have not stumbled upon. It's a little hard to read now since some of the people who posted there, including Carlos himself, have had their accounts removed. Still, it's an interesting read.

Do you see any similarities between that thread and this one?

 

[hcmom]

Come up with the method used for cutting them. I'm familiar with every method that exists and what is seen is far too smooth for any of them under those conditions. Then, after you find that method, and there are 1 or 2, show that demolition crews use them.

I've read this over and over, and it seems like there's a real contradiction.

"Come up with the method used for cutting them." -- Chris would like to be told what method would produce the results shown in picture...

"I'm familiar with every method that exists..." -- Chris is stating that there are no other existing methods...

"...what is seen is far too smooth for any of them under those conditions." -- None of the existing methods would produce these results...

"Then, after you find that method, and there are 1 or 2,..." -- Funny, there weren't any just one sentence ago...

 

[Christophera]

Ahem.
​

People, I implore you not to continue this. It does not appear to be a healthy situation for anyone.

The RDX [explosive] on the vertical bar was exposed for months due to bad weather, the documentary actually had this information, and the concrete was poured before the "special plastic anti corrosion/vibration coating" was tested. After testing it was determined that it was no longer viable as a protectant. Removal of the concrete was considered but the cost and delay was too much so construction continued.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1895911&postcount=3039

The link doesn't work to the post. What I've said is relating to the reason this rebar is staill standing while the concreete has obviously been blown off of it. Some poster was asking why. I explained that the rebar had been left exposed for months and the "special, anti corrosion, virbration resistent plastic coating" had ost its viability and the documentary actually had that information, not that the coating was explosive. I didn't actually qualify which of that information was in the documentary.

You can present misinterpretations of people statements out of context when those persons are forced to produce unreasonable amounts of explanation. That is what you are attempting.

 

[Gravy]

As an example of why people shouldn't try to argue with Chris Brown, I present this reminder from the page you're reading. Please don't encourage Chris. He's not acting.

The documentary mentioned nothing about the explosives.

The RDX [explosive] on the vertical bar was exposed for months due to bad weather, the documentary actually had this information, and the concrete was poured before the "special plastic anti corrosion/vibration coating" was tested. After testing it was determined that it was no longer viable as a protectant. Removal of the concrete was considered but the cost and delay was too much so constrcution continued.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1895911&postcount=3039

 

[uruk]

Come up with the method used for cutting them. I'm familiar with every method that exists and what is seen is far too smooth for any of them under those conditions. Then, after you find that method, and there are 1 or 2, show that demolition crews use them.

They do not. The methods are far too slow and require large amounts of set up time and are only used for cutting pieces prior to fabrication.

The image you post does not show columns that are inside the core area. It shows interior box columns which are outside the concrete shear wall of the core and fastened to it.

I'm telling you this to save you time, but go look anyway.

Tell you what you show me pictures of rebar coated with C4 and workers installing detonators , and while your at it show me pictures of workers pouring the cement in the core. Think about that for awhile.

The picture does show colums from inside the core. Look at the position of the columns that are falling over to the right.
But that's beside the point. the picture shows Steel columns in the core and no concrete. The steel colums wouln't be there at all if there was a concrete wall behind them filled with C4 that exploded.

 

[jsfisher]

Are you trying to induce a mysterious fear in a poster who asks reasonable questions?

Most of the questions asked, here, have been reasonable. The responses, however, from you have not.

 

[uruk]

As an example of why people shouldn't try to argue with Chris Brown, I present this reminder from the page you're reading. Please don't encourage Chris. He's not acting.



http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=3039

Chris caught in an outright lie. Proof of his dishonesty.
Thanks Gravy!

 

[Christophera]

I've read this over and over, and it seems like there's a real contradiction.

"Come up with the method used for cutting them." -- Chris would like to be told what method would produce the results shown in picture...

"I'm familiar with every method that exists..." -- Chris is stating that there are no other existing methods...

"...what is seen is far too smooth for any of them under those conditions." -- None of the existing methods would produce these results...

"Then, after you find that method, and there are 1 or 2,..." -- Funny, there weren't any just one sentence ago...

People who know nothing about salvage, construction and steel work can easily mistake my effort to be efficient with words for contradictions.

There are 2 ways you might produce a cut that smooth in tempered steel.

1. A bandsaw. There will be teeth marks and a very square edge. We see a slightly rounded edge, no teeth marks and a curious red tint indicating high heat.

2. A plasma cutter on a mechanised cutting table. This method can leave a cut very similar to what is seen with not quite as much rounding to the edge. It will not leave the red tint and is completely cost prohibitive for demoliton salvage. Never. This cutting method is used in large fabrication facilities to cut plate, just about exclusively.

The methods used for cutting thick tempered steel in tube form is always a hand held cutting torch.

Explosive shear on left, torch cut on right.
Sheared & Torch Cut Columns​

 

[maccy]

Chris, I don't understand what you're getting out of arguing with everybody else.

Everybody else, I don't understand what you're getting out of arguing with Chris.

 

[Christophera]

Ahem.
​

People, I implore you not to continue this. It does not appear to be a healthy situation for anyone.

The RDX [explosive] on the vertical bar was exposed for months due to bad weather, the documentary actually had this information, and the concrete was poured before the "special plastic anti corrosion/vibration coating" was tested. After testing it was determined that it was no longer viable as a protectant. Removal of the concrete was considered but the cost and delay was too much so construction continued.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1895911&postcount=3039

The link doesn't work to the post. What I've said is relating to the reason this rebar is still standing while the concreete has obviously been blown off of it. Some poster was asking why. I explained that the rebar had been left exposed for months and the "special, anti corrosion, virbration resistent plastic coating" had lost its viability and the documentary actually had that information, not that the coating was explosive. I didn't actually qualify which of that information was in the documentary. The horizontal rebar tied to the vertical later blew the concrete off.

You can present misinterpretations of people statements out of context when those persons are forced to produced unreasonable amounts of explanation. That is what you are attempting.

 

[Gravy]

The link doesn't work to the post. What I've said is relating to the reason this rebar is staill standing while the concreete has obviously been blown off of it. Some poster was asking why. I explained that the rebar had been left exposed for months and the "special, anti corrosion, virbration resistent plastic coating" had ost its viability and the documentary actually had that information, not that the coating was explosive. I didn't actually qualify which of that information was in the documentary.

You can present misinterpretations of people statements out of context when those persons are forced to produce unreasonable amounts of explanation. That is what you are attempting.

The link is fixed.

Consider:
If you are going to design an exploding building and build it safely you build it so that it is segmented and one segment does not detonate an adjoining segement. If one goes off, it stops there. You have to make each segment have separate detonators.

The different systems were; Reinforced concrete core had RDX coated rebar, floors had it in the corrugations and there was a special dual plate system that was built into the floors to cut columns, ( EXPLO. shear & torch Cut on columns left shear, right torch. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-57426-p-18.html

The RDX on the vertical bar was exposed for months due to bad weather, the documentary actually had this information... http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1895911&postcount=3039

People, do you see why it's not a good idea to argue with a mentally ill person?

 

[uruk]

The link doesn't work to the post. What I've said is relating to the reason this rebar is still standing while the concreete has obviously been blown off of it. Some poster was asking why. I explained that the rebar had been left exposed for months and the "special, anti corrosion, virbration resistent plastic coating" had lost its viability and the documentary actually had that information, not that the coating was explosive. I didn't actually qualify which of that information was in the documentary. The horizontal rebar tied to the vertical later blew the concrete off.

You can present misinterpretations of people statements out of context when those persons are forced to produced unreasonable amounts of explanation. That is what you are attempting.

Terrible attempt at spin. You were caught Chris. Be a man and fess up.

 

[Christophera]

Tell you what you show me pictures of rebar coated with C4 and workers installing detonators , and while your at it show me pictures of workers pouring the cement in the core. Think about that for awhile.

No, and you cannot show a single picture tah shows a steel core columns standing in the core area.

The picture does show colums from inside the core. Look at the position of the columns that are falling over to the right.

Your image shows an interior box column falling towards the core area. The base is obviously of the wall line of interior box columns which are labeled "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" and the rectangel shapes formed by floor beams and interior box columns is easily matched. This the only image that can misinterpreted in this way, so it is not surprising you are trying.

 

[Christophera]

The link is fixed.

People, do you see why it's not a good idea to argue with a mentally ill person?

You are presenting the statement out of context intentionally. Very dishonest.

I did not qualify which information I was referring to as being presented by the documentary and in context it was clear I was referring to the fact the documentary was describing the fact special plastic coating protectant had lost it's viability.

It is ridiculous to suggest a documentary about the construction of a public building would reveal that explosives were built in and I have not done so, you are distorting and misrepresenting what I wrote.

 

[Gravy]

You are presenting the statement out of context intentionally. Very dishonest.

I did not qualify which information I was referring to as being presented by the documentary and in context it was clear I was referring to the fact the documentary was describing the fact special plastic coating protectant had lost it's viability.

It is ridiculous to suggest a documentary about the construction of a public building would reveal that explosives were built in and I have not done so, you are distorting and misrepresenting what I wrote.

In context, then.

This was no ordinary RDX, oh no, this was super-secret RDX that can only explode in one direction -- away from the rebar. Jeez are you dense?

Christophera's reply:

The RDX on the vertical bar was exposed for months due to bad weather, the documentary actually had this information, and the concrete was poured before the "special plastic anti corrosion/vibration coating" was tested. After testing it was determined that it was no longer viable as a protectant. Removal of the concrete was considered but the cost and delay was too much so constrcution continued.

The horizontal bar was tied in and that is what removed the concrete keeping the vertical bar intact. This is the reason the spire exists at all.

And again:

The different systems were; Reinforced concrete core had RDX coated rebar, floors had it in the corrugations and there was a special dual plate system that was built into the floors to cut columns, ( EXPLO. shear & torch Cut on columns left shear, right torch. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/archive/inde...7426-p-18.html

Please note that I'm not pointing out Christophera's delusions for fun. I'm doing it to demonstrate why it is fruitless to argue with someone who is not in touch with reality.

Please let it go, people. He's ill. We can't fix that.

 

[hcmom]

People who know nothing about salvage, construction and steel work...

You got me there. I know nothing about salvage, construction and steel work.

...can easily mistake my effort to be efficient with words for contradictions.

I'm pretty good with words. I can twist and manipulate them about as good as you do facts. I didn't misunderstand your effort. You said something that was a contradiction. You may have meant something other than what you wrote, but that's not all that efficient then...

 

[FramerDave]

It's a government building and everybody knows the crazy specs that are imposed on government construction projects.

Such as? Include links please, and photos if at all possible. Raw data, you know.