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

[hellaeon]

Guys - please stop replying to him.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

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.

Please answer with a simple yes or no: Is the rate at which the towers fell important?

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.

Ah, excellent. Could you please give the name of the magazine and the date of the issue in which you saw this? Even an approximate date, like "spring of 1973" would be fine. Thanks.

 

[tsig]

Guys - please stop replying to him.

OK

 

[tsig]

I always have to get steel to like 2750F to make it melt, bending is not easy under 1500F. I cook chicken with wood at 600F, but it burns, so I cut off the air and smoke/bake at 500F.

There were a few places that got around 600-800F in the towers but not much more and that was probably not at all widespread. The coverage of heat to get steel hot enough to bend is really an issue. Bending tubing requires about 270 degress around it getting near cherry red.

On the towers we had 14 inch tempered steel columns 22 inches C to C and getting enough heat to 3 sides on any column to loose significant strength would not be likely. Realize that the top of the columns at each floor is where the majority of the heat will end up. Which makes the issue of the top of WTC 1 falling south a real mystery if collapse is proposed because about 1/2 of the columns on the north side were severed meaning the top should have fallen north, but it fell south.

steel is born in heat thereore it loses strengtth in heat.

 

[Pardalis]

Guys - please stop replying to him.

Seconded.

For his own sake.

 

[delphi_ote]

OK

steel is born in heat thereore it loses strengtth in heat.

 

[Z]

Excuse me.

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

That's because no explanation is required. It didn't fall at free or near free fall.

And the fine clouds of particualte needs explanation,

Gypsum particle board. Drywall. Office furniture. Concrete floors. Etc.

The image, by the way, is of insufficient resolution to determine 'fine particulate' versus 'flying debris'.

No explanation necessary.

and what you are doing is trying to dissmiis the only comprehensive explanation in existence.

A comprehensive explanation for a non-event is still irrelevant.

Meaning your credibility is trashed from the beginning as far as your intentions.

You should speak of credibility... when you're a proven liar and lunatic.

Whatever.

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,

I don't need to. You're the one making an outrageous claim, not I. I know these things to be true; it is incumbent upon you to disprove them.

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.

Not at all. If you had even basic understanding of industrial chemical engineering, you would know that plastic explosives cannot remain effective if 'solvented' by acetone. You also would understand that concrete is absolutely one of the worse things to try to preserve a chemical mixture within.

Again, the burden of proof is on you, moron.

Where as the assertion that such is possible is logical

No, it isn't.

Your issue of 3 inch rebar has alread been proven wrong by this image of 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS.

No it hasn't. The image in question is of insufficient resolution to determine what is being seen. 3" rebar would not even appear in such an image.

It is your interpretation of this image that has been proven false, not the fact that no one makes 3" rebar, and never has.

You cannot provide any evidence of the existance of this imaginary rebar.

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.

You have posted nothing at all.

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

Wrong. This thread is for your personal mental masturbation, and the shameless promotion of your idiotic website.

Luckily, the truth is, this thread exists only to make fun of you.

 

[Z]

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.

Hooo boy another load of malarky.

What magazine, Chris? Month and year, if you please.

Or will this magazine mysteriously disappear like the PBS documentary?

 

[Z]

The shelf life is based on the package life. Concrete lasts longer than cellophane.

Oh my f----ng bob.

You just revealed how stupid you really are.

So if the shelf life of a loaf of bread wrapped in cellophane is one week, but I wrap it in steel mesh, it'll last longer?

Are you that ignorant

You've revealed your idiocy, Chris. Vaya con dios.

 

[Z]

I always have to get steel to like 2750F to make it melt,

Molten steel was not required.

bending is not easy under 1500F.

Ever tried using several tons of force to bend it?

I cook chicken with wood at 600F, but it burns, so I cut off the air and smoke/bake at 500F.

Irrelevant.

There were a few places that got around 600-800F in the towers but not much more and that was probably not at all widespread. The coverage of heat to get steel hot enough to bend is really an issue. Bending tubing requires about 270 degress around it getting near cherry red.

Common household fires can reach 1500 degrees easily.

On the towers we had 14 inch tempered steel columns 22 inches C to C and getting enough heat to 3 sides on any column to loose significant strength would not be likely.

Really? Thought we had concrete. Which is it?

 

[Z]

No.

 

[jsfisher]

No.

I understand the answer completely; however, what was the question?

 

[Christophera]

Why does it say the last post is by jsfisher, but I find Alfred's drivel instead?

ETA: some forum software/hardware screwup I guess. I blame Darat.

Not Darats fault, mine.

But is only happens because the forum software doesn't carry the quotes of the poste quoted. This is causing communication problems for those trying to share truth but helping those trying to dismiss it

 

[Christophera]

Oh my f----ng bob.

You just revealed how stupid you really are.

So if the shelf life of a loaf of bread wrapped in cellophane is one week, but I wrap it in steel mesh, it'll last longer?

Are you that ignorant

You've revealed your idiocy, Chris. Vaya con dios.

You analogy simply exposes your tendancy to "over distort" A foot of concrete will work better than cellophane just like a steel box will..

 

[Christophera]

Posted by me, quoted by Big Les...
When are you going to reply to this, Christophera?

Don't forget to bring raw evidence!

I think I've replied 5 times now. The obsufucators are proficient.

Here is an image of a piece of the top of WTC 2 concrete core hitting WTC 3. The roof is highlighted with lines. This image is larger and the core is more easily identified.

 

[Christophera]

No, I don't believe every reference everywhere could be expunged. Are you telling me that nobody but you have noticed that their data have disappeared.

Actually you are are right. It has not been completely removed. Only the authorities have dispensed with the truth in order to enable the lie.

Here is a Ph.D structural engineer and some others without a special interest.

http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf

http://www.salwen.com/wtc/

http://www.blythe.org/nytransfer-su...lon_Environ.Letter:_Engineers_on_WTC_Collapse

http://www.ussartf.org/world_trade_center_disaster.htm

Here, you will see how information is removed.

http://www.unc.edu/courses/2001fall/plan/006e/001/engineering/index.html

http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/wtc/page3.html

The question is will you believe those with an interest in removing the truth of the concrete core or those who have only an interest in the truth.

 

[Christophera]

No concrete core in WTC. Proof has been shown to you over and over!

The only concrete core in this thread is in your head. If you would take the time you have wasted posting on this thread, you could design the WTC and find out why it was strong enough with a steel core!

There are concrete floors, but no concrete cores in the WTC. You are still wrong since you first posted the concrete core. So just to tell you again, there is no core of concrete, wonder when you will figure it out?

Simply put. Since you cannot produce an image from the demolition that shows any of the 47 steel core columns clearly inside the core at some elevation above the gorund, you believe a lie.

Nobody, not FEMA or NIST has gotten to look at the blueprints used in construction.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html

Add to this that there are 3 different floor plans for the core out there, and you have all that is need to show there is a deception going on. And, ....... it is trying to hide the simple fact that the towers had a steel reinforced, tubular cast concrete core. Not one poster here has ever come up with a descent description for what the core in that image is IF it is not concrete.

 

[Christophera]

Ever tried using several tons of force to bend it?

I've used a press and dies to bend.

Have you ever used a torch to heat and bend steel?

Have you ever built a small forge with forced air and charcoal trying to heat steel enough to bend it or form it.

How much length were you able to involve?

 

[hcmom]

I cook chicken with wood at 600F, but it burns, so I cut off the air and smoke/bake at 500F.

There were a few places that got around 600-800F in the towers but not much more...

Common household fires can reach 1500 degrees easily.

Heck, his BBQ gets as hot as the towers did!

 

[Z]

You analogy simply exposes your tendancy to "over distort" A foot of concrete will work better than cellophane just like a steel box will..

Well, you've just proven my point. You're not only deluded, you're just stupid.

If nothing else, the moisture from the curing process not immediately bonded into the concrete would cause some oxidation of the explosive mixture. This is more problematic for explosives than air. Shrinkage occurs in all concrete, and there would be airspace along the rebar, as well as at joints and connections.

In short, concrete would allow air and moisture into the area around the rebar (evidenced by the fact that used steel-reinforced concrete, when busted, often shows rusted rebar); this would shorten the viability of the explosive compared to airtight, watertight cellophane packaging.

Temperature control inside the concrete wouldn't be too bad, I would think; except that during the curing process, concrete becomes warm. Warmth shortens the viability of explosives as well.

You would know this if you were, in fact, involved with construction at a significant level.

Ergo, exposing plastic explosives to curing concrete would shorten its viable lifespan - perhaps significantly - and definitely to a point where the explosive would be nearly useless forty years down the line.

I await your response, with hard evidence to back your position.