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

[Architect]

This is obviously a fake phot too, eh Chris? I mean, looks pretty much like a photo of part of the steel core to me.....

 

[bonavada]

Here is a video of firefighters discussing what they perceived as "detonations". http://algoxy.com/psych/images/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg

And they, of course, are experts in demolition systems.

this is worth pointing out again, watch this firefighter



hey! wait a minute mickey?! METEORS????!!..........oh shiesser! he's like using a simile right? had me going for a minute there. phew..........

although a 9/11 meteor strike scenario would be much more likely than C4 coated rebar, phallic dust clouds, mass-hypnosis and time-warping mohawk saboteurs.

:-]

BV

 

[bonavada]

look at the two pics below, both from during the constuction of the WTC.
look at the remarkable similarity in position and alignment of the two core columns arrowed in the first image to those two arrowed in the second.
i believe we are looking at the same general area of the tower.

i can safely asume then that the other columns in the second picture are those that composed the core of that building. also notice that the floor of this storey has been laid in the second picture.

i have to ask christophera how TF did the builders manage to constuct a concrete core through the plainly visible floor in this image???

also those columns beyond the arrowed centre columns in the second image do not look like elevator guide rails to me. they look the same or very similar to those on the perimeter.

explain away chris

BV

 

[hcmom]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/87484572049646846.jpg
explain away chris

BV

It wouldn't appear that we can explain him away... lots of people have certainly given it a shot, but he's still here...

 

[jhunter1163]

Ed knows we've tried to explain him away...

ETA: Clever avatar Hcmom. Took me a minute to get it...

 

[The Almond]

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.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHA!

*breathes*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!

 

[NobbyNobbs]

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

I would love an explanation for this, Chris. The C-4 was embedded in the concrete. The concrete comprised the core. The rest of the building surrounds the core. The C-4 detonates, which takes down the outside of the building, but not the core in which it is embedded? How does this work?

 

[rwguinn]

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHA!

*breathes*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!

May I join you in that excess of mirth?
Why build a 17' thick wall if not to bear loads? there was too much open space around, and like Kansas and the other Great Plains areas, "people won't be able to live there", so they put in a non-functional, couple hundred million dollar "space occupying wall"??
I have had crispy-fried brain on ignore for some time, but I appreciate your quoting it..

 

[Christophera]

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

Okay, I have no problem with that. Photographs are basically equal to raw data but considered to be different. Both admissable as evidence.

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?

THIS is not a collapse.

 

[JonnyFive]

The C-4 detonates, which takes down the outside of the building, but not the core in which it is embedded? How does this work?

Magic.

It's magic C4 that lasts for three decades and magically destroys the twin towers in a way that looks exactly like they collapsed due to weakened structural steel and immense damage due to a plane crash.

Also, there are no photos of the concrete core during construction because it's magic concrete! It magically appeared when magic magic magic magic magic magic!

This thead is fun.

 

[Bell]

Are you going to compete with Belz for "All seeing galactic seer" title.

At least Belz... (you forgot the periods) and I see more clearly than you do.

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".

We have plenty of evidence. The fact that your thick skull can't comprehend the way the towers were built, so you have to make up a BS story about how those towers collapsed, says a lot about your simple believe.

Your gross exaggeration of what is possible with hypnosis shows your ignorance of the human mind.

So not everybody on this planet was hypnotized at birth? Then why do we still know there was a steel core?

Societal pressures will create the rest of the denial about the true structure if a few key figures attest to a ficticious core.

You are talking about yourself in multiple?

And that is what we have, FEMA publishing a fraud and the rest afraid to challenge it, then simply jumping on board.

That is slander, and slander is a crime. Are you a criminal?

The explanation for near free fall is here.

WTF? Can you please take a freaking stand on this? Either the rate of collapse is not important, and if so then STFU about it, or it is important, and if so, provide us with data about the collapse times, and the times the towers should have taken to fall.

<spam>

 

[Christophera]

also those columns beyond the arrowed centre columns in the second image do not look like elevator guide rails to me. they look the same or very similar to those on the perimeter.

explain away chris

BV

They appear quite a bit smaller as those in the distance on the perimeter appear about the same size but are perhaps 3 times the distance away. Still, if they were the same, why do they not stand as does the interior box column or the "spire" and why are none seen inside the core area within the interior box columns standing. Or protruding from the intact core of the WTC 2 .

You have certainly found the best image to date with columns in the core are that appear close to the same size.

The image of the "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" shows more of the columns and the downward angle allow a better evaluation of the end sections which show a smaller vertical piece of steel.

The issue of the core core columns logically being of the strongest elements of the towers but not showing up in the demo images is a problem for the case you try to make despite what images you produce showing vertical steel in the core area.

But I must say, that is the best image yet.

 

[Christophera]

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

I would love an explanation for this, Chris. The C-4 was embedded in the concrete. The concrete comprised the core. The rest of the building surrounds the core. The C-4 detonates, which takes down the outside of the building, but not the core in which it is embedded? How does this work?

You fellows are not reading my web site.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1232703

The first sentence.

The floor delays would be on one circuit and the core on another.

There were 2 totally separate explosive systems. The floors and the core. The floors were detonated first because the detonation system for the core was inside the core area. Detonating the core first would destroy the floor detonation circuits whereas the thick core walls protected the C4 cast inside themas well as the initiation circuits inside.

In the image of WTC 2 core, the floors have already been detonated and there is a slightly longer delay it seems for the lower section of core to initiate.

I speculate the thicker lower core walls were set with detonators in the first few weeks of the lease. There were reports of long delays at elevators due to maintenace on the elevators required by insurance. Workers had to take elevators over theri floors and return downward on another elevator.

The detonation system that sits for 3 months is NOT going to be electric caps. They can be detonated by radio waves. There is a gas flame system that uses a cap similar to an old fuse cap which is very stable but has a somewhat unpredictable delay on the distributon of intiation.

Two days before 9-11 there was a powerdown wherein electric caps were set probably on most of the floors which had a minimal dealy of 75 milliseconds and so had to be the precision electrical caps and digital delay counters..

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1212053

 

[Z]

But that was in only one tower, and not sufficient time for wiring that much explosives and concealing the handiwork.

BTW - why would we assume that steel columns would protrude during a catastrophic building collapse? Maybe if you explain your reasoning there, we can identify and understand the confusion you're suffering from.

Over the last few days I've reviewed footage from a dozen or so steel core building collapses - most CDs, one collapse during an earthquake, and one spontaneous structural failure; of those, I'd say two of them were sufficiently like what was proposed for the architecture of 9/11 to exhibit some similar failure patterns.

None of them had steel cores protruding from the wreckage.

Neither during collapse, nor after.

Sorry, Chris - that's just how buildings collapse. If the cores were standing, they might have held up part of the building; but once the building starts collapsing, the steel shatters into small beams - usually right at the weld points. They almost never protrude above the top of the visible wreckage.

 

[Christophera]

This is obviously a fake phot too, eh Chris? I mean, looks pretty much like a photo of part of the steel core to me.....

You and BV need to get on the same page. The H-Beams here,

are not the same core columns he claims to show in his previous posts. Some web sites show H-beams in the uppper core areas. Liars should get their stories straight.

Then there is this which refutes you both, and it is "official"

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
Establishing the true nature of the core structures is of great importance given that the most widely read document on the World Trade Center attack -- the 9/11 Commission Report -- denies their very existence, claiming the towers' cores were "hollow steel shaft:"

 

[Christophera]

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?

If I watched the concrete core being constructed for an hour on TV in 1990 while the narattor described it. Should I think it is illogical to say there was a concrete core now because you believe the official story?

Consider, the official act also includes destruction of evidence and blocking investigations, and the construction bluprints have never been made available to anyone.

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

I suggest you rethink what logic is to you?

 

[Arus808]

Chris, i asked oh so manh times already. Sinec you have all this earth shattering evidence, why haven't you brought a lawsuite against those involved?

If you aren't going to bring a lawsuite, then you are as guilty of hindering prosecution and also should be tried for treason for not bringing this evidence forward

so put up or shut up. repeating everythin over 8000 posts in one thread isn't going to prove anything to us. You say your evidence is strong, then put it out there for thsoe qualified to test it. namely, please file a lawsuite.

 

[Powa]

Chris, since you believe that there's no justice system left in the USA, my advice is to file your lawsuit at the International Court of Justice. The other option would be the International Criminal Court, but it can only prosecute crimes that were committed on or after 1 July 2002 (the date its founding treaty entered into force).

So, if I were you, I'd hire a lawyer who specializes in international law. He will help you with proper procedures and paperwork.

I hope you'll put your lawsuit in motion as soon as possible, because, as you claim, the 3,000 victims have been denied justice for too long.

 

[Architect]

are not the same core columns he claims to show in his previous posts. Some web sites show H-beams in the uppper core areas. Liars should get their stories straight.

1. Have a look at what it's welded to on the "inner" end

2. For someone who claims to know so much about building construction, I think you should know that they're NOT called "H" beams.

 

[Architect]

I speculate

That's the point, isn't it Chris. You speculate. Wildly, as it happens.

BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO SUBSTANTIVE (look it up) EVIDENCE