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

[hcmom]

You didn't know that I can roll my "r's" with profundity did you?

It's this stuff that makes me want to keep the thread going!

Here in California, the very western part of the US of A,

I'm not real thrilled that he's in the same state I'm in though...

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Okay, I understand now that you have a problem identifying objects. here is the WTC 2 core lower

If the core was 17-foot thick reinforced concrete (and I don't know how anyone can definitively tell what it is with all the smoke), what caused it to continue to collapse? The smoke pattern doesn't indicate explosions near the top of whatever that object is (there are no "squibs" nor is there any debris being blown out).

 

[Christophera]

If the core was 17-foot thick reinforced concrete (and I don't know how anyone can definitively tell what it is with all the smoke), what caused it to continue to collapse? The smoke pattern doesn't indicate explosions near the top of whatever that object is (there are no "squibs" nor is there any debris being blown out).

Uh, that word collapse. does not apply.

That 17 foot thick was only at the very bottom. WTC 1 taperd smoothly and WTC 2 had minor stepping down in dimension every few floors.

It is a still image, so we don't get a sense of time.

Here is another shot of the lower core exploding which takes it about to the ground.

 

[Christophera]

It means that the actual numbers of victims was not known yet or was over looked at the time of publishing.

Which also applies to the core.

I don't know that what you say makes sense in this case. The engineers August Domel, Ph.d SE. PE. was consulting with knew for decades the construction of the core. The actual number of missing persons wasn't determined for perhaps 3 months minimum.

It is absurd to think of a wall 1,300 feet tall that is the same thickness at the top than the bottom.

Why ?

The core walls were not load bearing walls for the most part. With its tapered design, loads tended to acummulate lower as time passed and settling of the main bearing wall, the perimeter walls, ocurred. Meaning that the top of the tower which was much lighter construction than the lower parts, had less weight to apply to the top of the core walls. The core was primarily to absorb lateral loads and torsion.

Yes raw evidence SHOULD be examined by professionals, and when they don't, they've lost their credibility. Their intentions have been compromised.

[...]

Basically we have a situation where professionals are useless.

Even were that true, it wouldn't make laymen more competent in interpreting said evidence.

In one sense, I admit you are right. If professionals were to loose their fear and begin to examine real evidence and provide commentary on it, that would be quite meaningful. However, since they are not, or the only ones doing it are paid to do so on fake structures that did not exist, then laymen providing competent interpretations of the strucutre that DID EXIST are far more useful to the process of sharing truth.

 

[Powa]

I know you are in Slovenia where the contents of shrunken pantaloons are considered raw evidence.

Your insults need more work.

Here in California, the very western part of the US of A, photos ARE considered "raw evidence" in construction matters which this matter of defining demoliton is closely related to.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3923/is_200211/ai_n9342046

Construction: Raw evidence in mediation
Dispute Resolution Journal, Nov 2002-Jan 2003
Find More Results for: "raw evidence "

The California Court of Appeal held that photographs and raw data prepared for or used in connection with mediation were "otherwise admissible evidence" and therefore were not protected from disclosure under the California Evidence Code

Where in that link does it say that pictures are considered raw evidence? Maybe my English is lacking, or I'm stupid (all Slovenians are) so please type slowly so I can understand.

 

[Big Les]

I've dealt with the images as raw evidence issue.

And of course that establishes that I do have raw evidence of the core, and that evidence is redundant.

My redundant evidence has not been resonably explained as anything but concrete, meaning that the core must be concrete by default. This is a fact also because the steel core columns are never seen where they should be.

Okay, it is reasonably established that the core was concrete.

NO. It does NOT mean that. Have you learned nothing in your time here? YOU are making the claim, therefore YOU need to prove that it's concrete rather than the established steel, and YOU have consistently failed to do so to any accepted standard.

And you base your "case" for a concrete core upon on your subjective, heavily biased, layperson's interpretation of low resolution still photographs, and memories of a documentary whose contents you can't show us.

Don't you see the illogic of what you're saying?

 

[Bell]

Christophera, the fact that none in this thread believes in your concrete core conspiracy, that you have not been able to win over anyone, what does that tell you?

Hypnosis you say? Everybody, every single living person on this planet is hypnotized at birth to cover up for the concrete core? Does that sounds even remotely plausible to you?

Forget it, I think I know the answer

 

[Big Al]

Given that the official story is that the core was made of steel, don't you think someone would have noticed that there was way too little steel?

However, I understand over 185,000 tons of structural steel was removed from Ground Zero. That's an awful lot of rebar, even this mythical 3" stuff.

 

[Big Al]

A very interesting site here: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

However, the poor fools still seem to believe in that laughable steel core! They mention that the towers fell in about 10 seconds with a terminal velocity of 200km/h. They also say that in free fall the figures would have been 8 seconds and 300km/h.

The authors were Thomas Eagar (Professor of Materials Engineering at MIT) and Christopher Musso (with a Master's Degree in Materials Science). So I guess you could say these guys might be considered just a little bit knowledgeable about their subjects.

They even use your favourite phrase, "near free fall", Chris, but it doesn't strike them as odd.

Given that these two experts' argument sounds highly plausible to me, can you not accept that your concrete-core C-4-coated-rebar theory is not quite the slam-dunk only-game-in-town you represent it to be?

 

[Z]

What is Chris' evidence of a concrete core?

1) A video in 1990 - one that no one else (except, allegedly, his ex-wife) has ever seen, one that does not exist in the archive records at PBS or at KCET, one that does not even exist in the entire catalogue of TV-Guide for the Santa Barbara area for the year of 1990.

2) An encyclopedia entry written by a person who had, at that point, never even been to the towers, and was writing on assumption, not fact.

3) A fuzzy photograph that shows nothing definite - only an indistinct, rounded shape in the dust cloud that could be concrete, or collapsing debris, or what was left of the steel-core and bedrock-walled core, partially covered with debris from above (explaining the apparent rounded shape)...
4) Deductive reasoning (since no 1300-ft long steel sections were visible during the collapse, they must not have existed). --Which is faulty, considering no 1300-ft long 'MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS' or elevator guide rails were visible, either.

On the other hand, numerous video and photographic evidence shows steel structural columns at the worksite; debris fields show clear evidence of steel support columns, but an insufficient amount of concrete; the most accurate construction plans that are available mention steel, not concrete; and a video documentary from 1983 clearly indicates steel, not concrete.

Why does concrete matter? Because Chris erroneously believes that the steel-reinforced concrete included one additional element: plastic explosives, applied directly to the rebar.

His evidence:

1) the violent collapse pictures showing the ejection of powdery-grey matter at the initiation of collapse - which can be equally accounted for by the presence of drywall, sheetrock, the concrete in the floors themselves, the ash from all that burned office equipment, etc.

2) the apparenty excessive speed of collapse -- which he cannot prove is excessive, nor can he come up with a quantification of what is 'acceptable' versus what is not.

3) 'Total Pulverisation' of the towers - which debris evidence proves is wrong... He equivocates by claiming that observed debris came from the mall, not the towers themselves. But this, too, is wrong.

4) A magazine article in the late 70s which he claims explains the process of returning C4 to slurry state for underwater use - yet he won't divulge what magazine it was, or when he read the article.

Evidence against:

1) Shelf life of plastic explosives under OPTIMAL conditions is only between 15-20 years. He tries to get around this by claiming concrete acted as a better protectant; yet concrete during curing emits heat, is moist, and results in a material which allows more air exchange than cellophane. Further, any such material on the rebar would largely negate one of the purposes of rebar, and such a structure likely would have collapsed under natural stresses long before 2001.

2) Insufficient chemical residue to indicate the existence of plastic explosives, nor of det cord, wiring, or other apparatus.

3) No eyewitnesses over the lifespan of the towers noticed anything odd - considering that wiring for the detonators would have to extend beyond the concrete, and no one ever noticed such wiring.

The only evidence he ever offers in support comes from his own website - owned, operated, and administered by himself from his Isley St. home - and photos which lack clarity and definition, which he also hosts. For all we know, he's doctored those photos. I don't think he has, but he's never offered them in context of the locations he's gotten them from. Meanwhile, he's in flat and open denial of any contraverting evidence, including statements by construction and engineering personnel, photographs of construction, photographs of debris fields, etc. He expounds upon his own 'photographic' memory, but gets details wrong enough to really embarrass himself - if he had any shame, which he doesn't. Why should we trust his memory about concrete cores and magazine articles, when he can't remember the show's name was Ally McBeal, or the age of the mohawk he interviewed, or the station number of KCET, or anything else, really?

His memory is shot - and things he recalls from memory are suspect.

My suggestion to Chris is this: go back to worrying about the available algae contents of your local lakes and rivers. This, at least, is a real problem, with real solutions, and could benefit people. Raving for years on websites has gotten you no where at all, and never will. You're wasting your time here, while the oxygen levels of your home continue to diminish.

My suggestion to all the other participants on this thread: When you feel like replying to Chris, here, just copy and paste this or another of the good summations available, and walk away.

His 'evidence' of a concrete core is invalid. Even the courts in California would say it was insufficient evidence.

(I know - I asked a judge from Santa Monica.)

 

[Powa]

But there's no justice system left. The only judge that can help us now is Judge Dread!

 

[Christophera]

His 'evidence' of a concrete core is invalid. Even the courts in California would say it was insufficient evidence.

(I know - I asked a judge from Santa Monica.)

Did you ask if the steel core columns could be proven if all the information of so called authorities was thrown into question as fraud?

3) 'Total Pulverisation' of the towers - which debris evidence proves is wrong... He equivocates by claiming that observed debris came from the mall, not the towers themselves. But this, too, is wrong.

Can you prove the 8 inch thick concrete is from the towers?

 

[Christophera]

A very interesting site here: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

However, the poor fools still seem to believe in that laughable steel core! They mention that the towers fell in about 10 seconds with a terminal velocity of 200km/h. They also say that in free fall the figures would have been 8 seconds and 300km/h.

The authors were Thomas Eagar (Professor of Materials Engineering at MIT) and Christopher Musso (with a Master's Degree in Materials Science). So I guess you could say these guys might be considered just a little bit knowledgeable about their subjects.

They even use your favourite phrase, "near free fall", Chris, but it doesn't strike them as odd.

Given that these two experts' argument sounds highly plausible to me, can you not accept that your concrete-core C-4-coated-rebar theory is not quite the slam-dunk only-game-in-town you represent it to be?

Eagers first analysis actually left out the floor beams, you know the one with the animations, and he was challenged by the steel workers immediately. Then laughed out of the 9-11 explanation world alltogether. His pancake theory belongs under the hammer theory.

Intellectual garbage

 

[Christophera]

Christophera, the fact that none in this thread believes in your concrete core conspiracy, that you have not been able to win over anyone, what does that tell you?

Hypnosis you say? Everybody, every single living person on this planet is hypnotized at birth to cover up for the concrete core? Does that sounds even remotely plausible to you?

Forget it, I think I know the answer

Are you going to compete with Belz for "All seeing galactic seer" title. And what if I do not expect those unreasonable deniers to "believe" and only expect the readers to "understand" that the deniers have no evidence and simply"believe" whatever".

Your gross exaggeration of what is possible with hypnosis shows your ignorance of the human mind. Societal pressures will create the rest of the denial about the true structure if a few key figures attest to a ficticious core. And that is what we have, FEMA publishing a fraud and the rest afraid to challenge it, then simply jumping on board.

The explanation for near free fall is here.

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

 

[NobbyNobbs]

I know you are in Slovenia where the contents of shrunken pantaloons are considered raw evidence.

Here in California, the very western part of the US of A, photos ARE considered "raw evidence" in construction matters which this matter of defining demoliton is closely related to.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3923/is_200211/ai_n9342046

Construction: Raw evidence in mediation
Dispute Resolution Journal, Nov 2002-Jan 2003
Find More Results for: "raw evidence "

The California Court of Appeal held that photographs and raw data prepared for or used in connection with mediation were "otherwise admissible evidence" and therefore were not protected from disclosure under the California Evidence Code

Christophera, read what you quoted carefully. It says "photographs and raw data", not "photographs are raw data".

Uh, that word collapse. does not apply.

Are you suggesting it did not collapse? Because the alternative is that it is still standing. Do you have evidence (raw or otherwise) for this?

 

[beachnut]

Are you going to compete with Belz for "All seeing galactic seer" title. And what if I do not expect those unreasonable deniers to "believe" and only expect the readers to "understand" that the deniers have no evidence and simply"believe" whatever".

Your gross exaggeration of what is possible with hypnosis shows your ignorance of the human mind. Societal pressures will create the rest of the denial about the true structure if a few key figures attest to a ficticious core. And that is what we have, FEMA publishing a fraud and the rest afraid to challenge it, then simply jumping on board.

The explanation for near free fall is here.

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

[FONT=Courier New,Courier,Monaco]1) The rate equaling that of free fall, inconsistent sequence, direction.[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New,Courier,Monaco]2) Total pulverization of everything but heavier steel[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New,Courier,Monaco]3) The molten steel seen in the basement 2 weeks after 9-11[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New,Courier,Monaco]4) The character and quantity of concrete particulate in the dust.[/FONT]

1 wrong only those items free of the building fell at the rate of a gravity fall, the rest took longer.

2 not everything was pulverized, the damage was all done by building hitting itself.

3 no molten steel, show me?

4 you have no numbers on this

No concrete core, no good ideas, try again, your web page is a redo

 

[Z]

Did you ask if the steel core columns could be proven if all the information of so called authorities was thrown into question as fraud?

Hmmm... recovered structural steel, blueprints, photographic evidence clearly showing structural steel core columns during construction, and the testimony of workers from the construction of the towers, versus one grainy photograph showing an indeterminate grey shape in a dust cloud.

You'd have to prove that the information was fraudulent first - which you cannot do. This is precisely why that documentary is so important - without it, you have absolutely no proof that any of the official records are fraudulent. And since that documentary seems to have vanished into thin air - taking with it all mentions in the TV Guide, all PBS archival records, and all other related records - what do you have?

Before you can prove anything you'll have to produce that documentary. If you can't - you got nothin'.

Which do you think the judge is going to buy into?

Can you prove the 8 inch thick concrete is from the towers?

Can you prove it isn't?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Uh, that word collapse. does not apply.

That 17 foot thick was only at the very bottom. WTC 1 taperd smoothly and WTC 2 had minor stepping down in dimension every few floors.

It is a still image, so we don't get a sense of time.

Here is another shot of the lower core exploding which takes it about to the ground.

It was taller in the first picture than in the second picture, so what happened. Did it shrink because it was exposed to air for the first time in 30 years?

If WTC2 collapsed because there were explosives embedded in the core, why was the core still standing after the rest of the building collapsed?

 

[Architect]

You'd have to prove that the information was fraudulent first - which you cannot do. This is precisely why that documentary is so important - without it, you have absolutely no proof that any of the official records are fraudulent. And since that documentary seems to have vanished into thin air - taking with it all mentions in the TV Guide, all PBS archival records, and all other related records - what do you have?

Now you see what a great conspiracy this is:

1. They hypnotised the entire US population, except maybe Chris, and somehow all of us in other countries too. Whooooweee.

2. They made everyone forget, from construction workers to engineers, forget about all the concrete they poured. Including the magic C4 explsove coated rebar you can't prove existed. And removed all records. And blueprints. Impressive, eh? Thousands of people and tens of thousands of written records.

3. They magicked away a PBS documentary showing a concrete core, despite it perhaps being made by the BBC and hence there were copies outwith the immediate grasp on the US government. Wow.

4. They hid all conclusive photgraphs of the concrete core during both construction and collapse, leaving only a grany image of a "spire". They then whisked away the massive surviving sections of concrete core on site and somehow made sure everyone saw lots of steel beams. Neat.

5. They've got every engineer and architect in the world, except that guy Pegelow, so scared of their job - or criminally incompetent - that after 5-7 years of study each we all believe that it was (a) a steel core and (b) the collapse was consistent with our understanding of catastophic building failure. Cool.

Chris, if you're right, that's the most comprehensive consipracy ever. The power and control exercised by the US Government must be immense. Clearly it can never be resisted. Might as well leave the front doors open and wait for the round-ups to begin......

 

[Architect]

Is there no end to this conspiracy?

Sheesh, they even faked these pictures to make it look 110% like a steel core. That's what I call good!