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

[tsig]

Thanks mom. Actually, team mates would be better than cheerleaders.

Chris I might join your team if I had any idea what game you are playing.

 

[Powa]

No, really... what are you going to do about all this?

Why, he's going to present his evidence before the International Court of Justice or The International Criminal Court in The Hague.

 

[hcmom]

The Justice League would be more fun...

 

[tsig]

fireloins,

I've massacred your post because it was the easiest way to answer accurately.

Acurate = massacre

 

[Powa]

Chris, if you're not going to do anything with your evidence for 3,000 murders, all of this looks more and more like your hobby. I find that extrememly disrespectful to the victims. So, are you just messing around or are you going to actually do something to bring the perpetrators to justice?

 

[Big Les]

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.

Think of it as a sort of "care in the community" exercise. If he's on here arguing with us, he's not walking the streets arguing with pigeons.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

I refer to the smell soldiers have noted of C4.

How do you go from "smell of C-4" to "evidence of acetone"?

I find it astounding that Gravy mirepresents my post trying to assert that i think that ANYONE would believe that I saw a documentary which stated a public building was built with high explosives in it. The documentary only stated that the "special plastic coating" had deteriorated through winter weather not that "RDX" had.

....

It is absurd to think that TV would present a documentary about the constrcution of a tower built with high explosive in it. I whttp://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4240&stc=1&d=1164390081ould never present that. I would reasonably explain how I DETERMINED that the "special plastic coatnig" had to be high explosives becuase the below image shows a tower being taken out from the top down through total pulverization by optimally contained, placed and distributed high explosives.

Ah. So the documentary never mentions explosives. You determined that from a photo of the collapse. So...

-you know the way it collapsed is from the explosives, and
-you know there were explosives because of the way it collapsed.

Can you say "circular argument"?

IF there was a drop, which there was not, it would not be symetrical, and the assymetry would favor the side with the physical damage not the impossible damage to steel by mere fuel fires having inadequate ventilation to develop higher heat. As if that heat was enough under optimum, impossible conditions.

No drop? Two stories taken out...that's about 20 feet of drop.

Can you point to a single controlled demolition that was absolutely symmetrical? I'd love to see that.

 

[Big Al]

The videographers didn't film anything in 1987 during production. They compiled 16mm film and stills that the architects and contractors had taken during constrcution. There were no shots of the rebar specifically, it was a part of general shots regarding the concrete core. The videographers learned by various means of the security regarding the rebar with the "special plastic coating".

Now, Chris, the official line is that the WTC had a steel core - I've seen several documentaries that mentioned that. So:

1) Why on Earth did the builders feel the need to lie about this? Freedom Tower, the monument to the WTC victims, is stated to have a concrete core right from the start. What was so important about concealing this "fact" about the WTC? Why didn't they just say, "The WTC has a concrete core"?

2) If it was so all-fired important to lie about the concrete core, why did the architects and contractors provide shots showing it to the doc crew? If all records of the doc really needed to be erased for fear of revealing the concrete core, why was it allowed to go out in the first place?

3) Sounds a pretty boring documentary to me if it keeps going on about a "special plastic coating" on simple rebar. By what "means" did they find out about this coating? If the authorities were trying to cover up the fact that the reinforcement was coated in C-4, why did they even mention it? I've seen a lot of documentaries on buildings that mention reinforced concrete, and I don't think one has bothered to even mention the rebar directly - maybe just its function, and the difference between pre-and post-stressed concrete.

4) Didn't the documentary crew think it bizarre that ordinary, simple rebar was under lock and key and only installed by welders with security clearance? Is this at all common in a public building? But then again, you said the reinforcement was already in place, waiting for suitable weather for the concrete pour. Are you asking to believe me that they just said off the cuff, "Oh, yeah, the rebar with the special anti-vibration, anti-corrosion coating was held under lock and key before we had top-secret-cleared welders to put it in place."? I'm pretty sure if I'd ever seen a documentary like that, I'd smell a rat, especially since the steel core was meant to be an architectural feature. I'm pretty sure thousands of other people would have thought the same.

 

[Christophera]

I refer to the smell soldiers have noted of C4.

How do you go from "smell of C-4" to "evidence of acetone"?

I know that often strong chemical smells of plastics often indicate that acetone is the solvent. You can be sue there is a solvent. My best guess is acetone.

I find it astounding that Gravy mirepresents my post trying to assert that i think that ANYONE would believe that I saw a documentary which stated a public building was built with high explosives in it. The documentary only stated that the "special plastic coating" had deteriorated through winter weather not that "RDX" had.
....

It is absurd to think that TV would present a documentary about the constrcution of a tower built with high explosive in it. I whttp://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4240&stc=1&d=116439008 1ould never present that. I would reasonably explain how I DETERMINED that the "special plastic coatnig" had to be high explosives becuase the below image shows a tower being taken out from the top down through total pulverization by optimally contained, placed and distributed high explosives.

Ah. So the documentary never mentions explosives. You determined that from a photo of the collapse. So...

-you know the way it collapsed is from the explosives, and
-you know there were explosives because of the way it collapsed.

Can you say "circular argument"?

Of course I can say that, but the circularity is your doing not mine. I simply deduced that such and event could only be effected by explosives.

IF there was a drop, which there was not, it would not be symetrical, and the assymetry would favor the side with the physical damage not the impossible damage to steel by mere fuel fires having inadequate ventilation to develop higher heat. As if that heat was enough under optimum, impossible conditions.

No drop? Two stories taken out...that's about 20 feet of drop.

Can you point to a single controlled demolition that was absolutely symmetrical? I'd love to see that.

You imply that 2 stories were completely removed. This is a complete error and not possible under any condition. We know there was not even enough heat to get a piece of steel cherry red in one small area let alone over 4 sides. These are fantastic suppositions.

Why do I have to point to a symetrical demolition when we both know they normally don't work like that. I assert the towers were built to demolish and we know that buildings that have been demoished were not built to demolish.

How about you come up with alternative explanation for near free fall and total pulverization which is supported by images of the demolition in all ways such as I have here,

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

 

[tsig]

I know that often strong chemical smells of plastics often indicate that acetone is the solvent. You can be sue there is a solvent. My best guess is acetone.





Of course I can say that, but the circularity is your doing not mine. I simply deduced that such and event could only be effected by explosives.






You imply that 2 stories were completely removed. This is a complete error and not possible under any condition. We know there was not even enough heat to get a piece of steel cherry red in one small area let alone over 4 sides. These are fantastic suppositions.

Why do I have to point to a symetrical demolition when we both know they normally don't work like that. I assert the towers were built to demolish and we know that buildings that have been demoished were not built to demolish.

How about you come up with alternative explanation for near free fall and total pulverization which is supported by images of the demolition in all ways such as I have here,

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

The fall was not free and we are paying for it now all the dust was predicted as in dust thou art and dust you shall become. Do you not believe the Bible.

 

[Bell]

How about you come up with alternative explanation for near free fall and total pulverization which is supported by images of the demolition in all ways such as I have here,

<spam snipped>

Why? The towers did not fall near free fall, nor did they totally pulverize. Get realistice!

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Why do I have to point to a symetrical demolition when we both know they normally don't work like that. I assert the towers were built to demolish and we know that buildings that have been demoished were not built to demolish.

Ok, I'm a little confused. Are you saying the collapse was too symmetrical to be the official theory? Or are you saying it was too assymetrical to be the official theory?

 

[Garb]

I assert the towers were built to demolish and we know that buildings that have been demoished were not built to demolish.

Then that must mean that your entire theory is false.

 

[Bell]

Ok, I'm a little confused. Are you saying the collapse was too symmetrical to be the official theory? Or are you saying it was too assymetrical to be the official theory?

YOU are confused

 

[hcmom]

Ok, I'm a little confused. Are you saying the collapse was too symmetrical to be the official theory? Or are you saying it was too assymetrical to be the official theory?

You're probably

mistake[ing] [Chris'] effort to be efficient with words for contradictions.

 

[stateofgrace]

To the brave souls that battle on.....

´Why do you linger here when there is no hope?´

 

[Christophera]

Now, Chris, the official line is that the WTC had a steel core - I've seen several documentaries that mentioned that. So:

All of those were since 9-11 I will bet.

1) Why on Earth did the builders feel the need to lie about this?

It was not the builders that lied. They are goiing along with the lie

Freedom Tower, the monument to the WTC victims, is stated to have a concrete core right from the start.

The same thing was stated about the WTC when it was built.

What was so important about concealing this "fact" about the WTC? Why didn't they just say, "The WTC has a concrete core"?

Two reasons.
(A)Fire does not effect concrete like it does metal. Americans have been dumbed down and are more likely to accept metal weakened by heat than concrete.
(B.)If everyone knew it was a concrete core and it collapsed, they would REALLY wonder why there were no masssive chunks of concrete.

2) If it was so all-fired important to lie about the concrete core, why did the architects and contractors provide shots showing it to the doc crew? If all records of the doc really needed to be erased for fear of revealing the concrete core, why was it allowed to go out in the first place?

It was a public building. They HAD TO PROVIDE the data. The Port Authority HAD to as well. PBS has granting sources and they can be approached independently. The videographers noted that there was some resistance to their requests and I believe they used the F.O.I.A. for some of them. Not sure on that. Maybe they just threatened too but didn't have to.

3) Sounds a pretty boring documentary to me if it keeps going on about a "special plastic coating" on simple rebar.

For a documentary doing what it was doing is was pretty exciting. My wife was bored though because she didn't understand much of it. They didn't talk about the "special plastic coating" in the way you suggest it was simply mentioned perhaps 6 to 8 times in relation to the construction of the core.

3)By what "means" did they find out about this coating? If the authorities were trying to cover up the fact that the reinforcement was coated in C-4, why did they even mention it? I've seen a lot of documentaries on buildings that mention reinforced concrete, and I don't think one has bothered to even mention the rebar directly - maybe just its function, and the difference between pre-and post-stressed concrete.

As I said before the building was a public building and therefore the documentary makers had access to many things they wouldn't have with a private buildings.

4) Didn't the documentary crew think it bizarre that ordinary, simple rebar was under lock and key and only installed by welders with security clearance?

Yes. The strangeness of the security around the rebar was noted as well as the unannounced evacuations of floors by workers just before concrete was poured.

Is this at all common in a public building? But then again, you said the reinforcement was already in place, waiting for suitable weather for the concrete pour. Are you asking to believe me that they just said off the cuff, "Oh, yeah, the rebar with the special anti-vibration, anti-corrosion coating was held under lock and key before we had top-secret-cleared welders to put it in place."? I'm pretty sure if I'd ever seen a documentary like that, I'd smell a rat, especially since the steel core was meant to be an architectural feature. I'm pretty sure thousands of other people would have thought the same.

Yes, I got a eerie feeling when considering the special security around the rebar and other security measures and the makers of the documentary also had those feeling which were lightly voiced.

On 9-11 watching WTC fall I KNEW that documentary was long gone from PBS. Not because I rememebred all of the data about the rebar and security issues but I realized that information about the construction of the towers would be something that would be highly regulated.

 

[Christophera]

Why? The towers did not fall near free fall, nor did they totally pulverize. Get realistice!

The rate of fall is not particuarly important to me. NIST apprently accepts 10 and 11 seconds whic is c@mm close to free fall.

You are in error.

The towers fell at near free fall.

Why are familys complaining that the ground up remains of victims being buried in landfills. Do you recall the firefighters who had testimony about their esperiences trying to find remains?

 

[tsig]

It was damned heavy.

Maxim: If I don't know or understand the science behind an explanation am I allowed to cast the explanation into doubt?

Come out back I've got some scraps.

 

[Christophera]

Ok, I'm a little confused. Are you saying the collapse was too symmetrical to be the official theory? Or are you saying it was too assymetrical to be the official theory?

Yes, the fall, not collapse, of materials, not buildings (because they were already pulverized when falling) was too symetrical for the official story.

Collapses are assymetrical because only a few, key structural elements in one area fail at a given time. So the building fails only in that area which become assymetrical.