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

[hcmom]

Hmmmm...I'd never noticed the guy up there at the top of the WTC...

 

[beachnut]

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

Seems like you have joined the nut cases. Col Bowman is nuts, just plain nuts on 9/11.

You would have to present each of these guys ideas and then you can explain why they are nuts or have a case.

 

[Bell]

Hmmmm...I'd never noticed the guy up there at the top of the WTC...

I don't want to derail this thread, but in the FDNY radio dispatches, at one moment there is a report of a man in the antenna ontop WTC1. But I presume that was part of the overall confusion.

Carry on...

 

[Christophera]

Wrong.

You said 'less than a couple of minutes' was near free fall. Nope. That's just normal collapse time.

You said that large chunks of debris constitutes 'total pulverisation'. Nope. Pulverisation means reducing to dust and fine debris. Given the size of many of the remaining fragments, 'total pulverisation' just didn't happen.

The longest shelf life of any military explosive, in its original sealed packaging, is 20 years. C4 has considerably less. Covering it in concrete, or worse, mixing it with acetone, would REDUCE that shelf life considerably. Ergo, C4 planted in the late 1960s would be inert by 2001.

No plastic explosive can be 'cut' with solvents. Try it some time. Go ahead. It's been tried. So no slurry of C4 and acetone would have exploded - especially not sufficiently to cut steel and 'pulverise' concrete.

There is not now, nor was there in the 1960s, 3" rebar. 3" rebar would have been almost impossible to work with, and far too large for the job anyway.

For you to prove that this is wrong, you need to provide the following:

1) A clear definition of 'near free fall' which is also not 'nearly normal collapse time'.
2) Clear evidence that all matter in the towers was completely pulverised into fine dust and gravel - gravel being, of course, particulate matter, not fist-sized and often larger chunks of debris.
3) Clear evidence of the existence of any explosive capable of demolishing buildings of this scale that could remain viable for 40+ years, exposed to air and mixed with other chemicals.
4) Your chemical calculations for the results of softening/liquifying C4 or other plastic explosives with acetone or other solvents, proving that the explosive would still react to electrical stimulation or other means of detonation.
5) Clear evidence of the existence of 3" rebar - by which I mean, a catalogue entry, technical journal entry, invoice, anything, which shows 3" rebar existed.

As for your snide comment at the end, I'll let it slide. After all, I welcome our new NWO masters! My personal standard of living has never been higher. Besides, who's the real callous and uncaring American - the one who simply disbelieves fairy tale theories about magical explosives, missing documentaries, and 40-year plans involving destroying national icons, or the one who 'knows the truth', yet does absolutely nothing useful or practical with that knowledge?

Hint: A crappy website full of crackpot theories and a thread on a limited-viewership skeptics' board does NOT constitute 'informing the public', any more than a fuzzy picture of 'something' inside a dust cloud constitutes 'raw evidence'.

Fact: You could post another couple of hundred pages here, and a year from now, nothing will have changed. In fact, you could do what you're doing now, for the rest of your life, and on your deathbed, you'll have accomplished nothing.

That's why I keep asking you what you're going to do about it. If it were really that important, you'd be doing something other than wasting time posting on internet forums.

In a way, this reminds me of that antichrist guy who thinks it was a sign because he posted some nonsense about terrorism as post 666 on an internet forum. SO he goes around posting his 'revelation' on internet forums. And this does what, exactly?

So, Antichrist Guy, got any better plans for overthrowing the NWO than wasting time posting to the only internet forum that hasn't banned you for fatal stupidity?

Excuse me.

You didn't provide a feasible explanation for free fall, or near free fall.

And the fine clouds of particualte needs explanation, and what you are doing is trying to dissmiis the only comprehensive explanation in existence. Meaning your credibility is trashed from the beginning as far as your intentions.

You haven't provided any proof whatsoever of your assertion that no explosive will last past 20 years. You have not shown that a foot of concrete is NOT a better seal against evaporaton and oxidization,

You haven't provided any proof that C4 cannot be solvented by acetone or another chemical. It is logical that a plastic explosive can be cut, rebar dipped in a sluury then the sovent allowed to evaporate to the original consistency then cast in concrete and preserved.

Where as the assertion that such is possible is logical and helps explain this/url], which happened twice, almost identicall to the ground.

Your issue of 3 inch rebar has alread been proven wrong by this image of [url=http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg]3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS. It certainlky is not smaller than 3 inches, and it is not interio box column which, from the same camera/distance is shown as much larger.

I have just posted 200% more evidence than you have in defense of the only existing credible explanation for what happened to the towers on 9-11.

This thread is not about saying NO, to feasible explanations it is about producing one and collapse just is not credible.

 

[Bell]

Excuse me.

You didn't provide a feasible explanation for free fall, or near free fall.

<snip>
<snap>

Excuse me.

Didn't you say the rate of fall isn't important?

 

[Christophera]

THE TOP OF THE SOUTH TOWER FELL TO THE EAST. THE MARRIOTT WAS ON THE WEST SIDE!!

As seen in this sequence.

And the below images:

[qimg]http://www.in-forum.com/specials/attack/images/p.gif[/qimg]

[qimg]http://gulnarasamoilova.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/wtc17.jpg[/qimg]

Frames 163 through 211 of this sequence show explosions on the west side which must be breaking the top, or a piece away to fall to the west. Which explains how the top of WTC 2 can fall westward, It is perhaps just a piece of the top but the roof of the concrete core is easily identified.

 

[Christophera]

Excuse me.

Didn't you say the rate of fall isn't important?

Correct, free fall is not the issue here, explanations for it or a rate of fall near it are.

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

 

[Bell]

Excuse me.

Didn't you say the rate of fall isn't important?

Correct, free fall is not the issue here, explanations for it or a rate of fall near it are.

<spam>

 

[Christophera]

Is the rate important or not? If not, why keep mentioning it?

Just a sec. Didn't you say the collapse was too symmetrical? That only demolition collapses are symmetrical like this? And now you say that part went one way and part went another....doesn't sound very symmetrical to me. Doesn't sound like any controlled demolition I've seen either..

Chris gets to have his data raw, cooked or any way he wants it.

What I meant to say was" only a demolition could be as symetrical as we saw."

Both events, having one part go one way and another part go another way are not possible in collapse without obvious cause which would be visible in a collaspse not obscured by the dust and particualte of explosions; and the final symetrical, uniform series of high speed detonations are indicative of some for m of demolition.

 

[Oliver]

Did you ever saw how fast dominoes fall once you start the reaction, Alfred?

 

[Bell]

Frames 163 through 211 of this sequence show explosions on the west side which must be breaking the top, or a piece away to fall to the west. Which explains how the top of WTC 2 can fall westward, It is perhaps just a piece of the top but the roof of the concrete core is easily identified.

The top fell to the east. Period. Below is raw evidence of it falling to the east. You don't have raw evidence of it falling to the west.

Please explain how some 30 floors of the WTC fell to one side, and suddenly turned around and fell to the other side?

 

[Oliver]

The top fell to the east. Period. Below is raw evidence of it falling to the east. You don't have raw evidence of it falling to the west.

Please explain how some 30 floors of the WTC fell to one side, and suddenly turned around and fell to the other side?

[qimg]http://gulnarasamoilova.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/wtc17.jpg[/qimg]

Pdoherty´s theory is that they "bombed" the tipping tower back
in place while it was falling. Let´s see what alfreds version
of the tipping tower is...

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Excuse me.

You didn't provide a feasible explanation for free fall, or near free fall.

Make up your mind. Either the rate of fall is important or it's not. If it isn't, stop mentioning it. If it is, then we need to know the rate of fall. You ask for an explanation for the rate of fall. That means we first need to know what the rate of fall is, don't we? Different rates would require different explanations. So decide, is it important or isn't it?

You haven't provided any proof whatsoever of your assertion that no explosive will last past 20 years. You have not shown that a foot of concrete is NOT a better seal against evaporaton and oxidization,

You haven't provided any proof that C4 cannot be solvented by acetone or another chemical. It is logical that a plastic explosive can be cut, rebar dipped in a sluury then the sovent allowed to evaporate to the original consistency then cast in concrete and preserved.

[/QUOTE]


It should not be difficult to find out what the specs on C-4 are. Are you suggesting you've developed this whole theory without even knowing for sure about the details of C-4, how long it lasts, and whether it can be added to a solvent?

Doesn't seem like you've really done your homework. Please show proof how C-4 can last 40 years in a slurry form enveloped in concrete and still be effective. Your theory requires these conditions, therefore it is up to you to verify these conditions to prove your theory. If you can do so, you'll have gone a long way towards convincing me that you've actually got something.

Want to influence the public? Show that your theory is scientifically and chemically possible.

 

[Christophera]

Yes if you do not have real information you are most likely misinformed.

Is real information like raw data? Can it be cooked?

Sure, you can cook anything, but it will not be useful for reasoning if it is information to begin with. Cooking raw data properly works well, improperly most often ends up unreasonable.

 

[Oliver]

Sure, you can cook anything, but it will not be useful for reasoning if it is information to begin with. Cooking raw data properly works well, improperly most often ends up unreasonable.

WHAT IS YOUR RAW EVIDENCE, ALFRED?

 

[tsig]

Correct, free fall is not the issue here, explanations for it or a rate of fall near it are.

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

so freefall is not important, but the rate of freefall is?

It's gravity Chris.

 

[tsig]

What I meant to say was" only a demolition could be as symetrical as we saw."

Both events, having one part go one way and another part go another way are not possible in collapse without obvious cause which would be visible in a collaspse not obscured by the dust and particualte of explosions; and the final symetrical, uniform series of high speed detonations are indicative of some for m of demolition.

I used to think that English was my native language.

But I belive you said that you can look thru dust.

 

[tsig]

WHAT IS YOUR RAW EVIDENCE, ALFRED?

Cooked.

 

[tsig]

Sure, you can cook anything, but it will not be useful for reasoning if it is information to begin with. Cooking raw data properly works well, improperly most often ends up unreasonable.

Cooking the books is generally frowned on.

Data eaten raw can produce tapeworms in the brain.

 

[Christophera]

Make up your mind. Either the rate of fall is important or it's not. If it isn't, stop mentioning it. If it is, then we need to know the rate of fall. You ask for an explanation for the rate of fall. That means we first need to know what the rate of fall is, don't we? Different rates would require different explanations. So decide, is it important or isn't it?

I don't discuss the rate of fall. But menton of the higgh rate of fall, whatever it is happens to be integral to the thread becase that is what we are trying to feasibly explain.

Rates of fall are one thing, how they are created is another. A building with a single story could be blown up and the rate of fall would not be an issue due to elevation because the visual explosion would rule.

In the case of a tower the visual event is also important and can influence understanding the rate of fall as well as the determination of collapse or demolition.

It should not be difficult to find out what the specs on C-4 are. Are you suggesting you've developed this whole theory without even knowing for sure about the details of C-4, how long it lasts, and whether it can be added to a solvent?

They tell us "at least ten years" here.

http://www.ribbands.co.uk/prdpages/C4.htm

Doesn't seem like you've really done your homework. Please show proof how C-4 can last 40 years in a slurry form enveloped in concrete and still be effective. Your theory requires these conditions, therefore it is up to you to verify these conditions to prove your theory. If you can do so, you'll have gone a long way towards convincing me that you've actually got something.

Want to influence the public? Show that your theory is scientifically and chemically possible.

It is not a theory.

The C4 is not encapsulated in a slurry form. I feel that C4 would not detonate in that form. A slurry is created from CC4, the rebar dipped in it and then hung to dry. Once the excess solvent has evaporated, returning it to viable explosive form, it is then cast into concrete.

I learned of the process from a magazine article published in the early 1970's which described how navy seal divers discovered and used the process without orders to stay off the bottom using a jack hammer knocking a hole in a sub base wall that engineers were trying to keep secret by not putting on the first set of plans.

They were caught setting off ordinanace without orders, gave up their information to an investigating officer who then handed it to explosives engineers who then developed it into a widespread construction method for self destruct sub bases and missle silos.