• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
se7ensnakes said:
The only realistic explanation of the fall of the three WTC structures are a control demolition. You dont even need to read any expert ......it is all so evident. Three buildings falling down due to an open fire just dont cut it.
One added thought........Conspiracies are how criminals work....Criminals do not go around openly claiming what they are going to do........they work in secrecy, they hide things. Conspiracies are a normal part of human nature.
Most of the anti-conspiracy people are really not about the obvious but about a problem with their personalities. Some of them doubt that Operation Northwood ever existed or that it is just exageration, or that there really is a law that requires most people to pay income tax. Their kind of world is very restrictive. Be very careful with these people.
Click to expand...

Wow, a breath of fresh air. Simple logic, how refreshing, dynamic even. reaching to human nature, psychology and simple sociology.

Thanks for your words here!

Christopher
 
Christophera said:
Let's stick wth the simple stuff. The demo scenario I've assembled is for the experts, and they are terrified or paid off. Later you will get what you ask for.

I've been asking for a site that simply substantiates the FEMA core of 47, 1300 foot columns, for over six months now. I mean there are 4 different floor plans, no structural plans showing how the supposed core columns were connected or braced, nothing on this falacious structure.

Guess what, there is no web site supporting this official lie, still. You would think some of the competent people here would have assembled images of the towers demise showing clearly, many columns in the core area, bent, falling shattered, toppling, leaning etc. NOT EVEN ONE IMAGE of the supposed steel core columns has ever been produced. What do the people here produce? A sites called noconcrete core. Why? Because they cannot prove the steel core columns. They produce ridicule ad nauseum, but no proof from the best opportunity ever to get images of the steel core columns.

Sure, .......... there have been many attempts to pass off misinterpretations of construction images as "core columns", but if there were steel core columns, they would be easy to see in the images of the towers coming down, but they never are.

Let us stick with the simple stuff.

What is seen is concrete and America has been lied to. The site documenting the concrete core would show the steel core coumns if they existed, but they did not.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html
Click to expand...

So, in other words you have no corroborating evidence outside of your own myopian world?
 
uruk said:
The link you provided does not show a picture, just the welcome page.

Your moving the goal posts again. The pictures available of the core structure after the collapse only shows a small portion of the whole structure. So, as you put it, your request is unreasonable and a shining example of your avoidance of the facts.
Click to expand...

This link goes directly to an image for me.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/ssm/dsc00169.jpg

There are many, many images of the demise of the towers. You should be able to find exactly what you are looking for, if it existed.
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
By your own estimate, what you claim to be the concrete core wall is about 4 feet thick. Yet 500 feet is at only little more than a third the height of the tower. Would the core really taper from 17 feet to 4 feet in the bottom third of the tower?
Click to expand...

At the 43rd floor the core walls got thinner because the walls below that level supported the heavy mechanical room at the 43rd. That image is probably around 100 feet over the 43rd. WTC 1 came down with much irregularity compared to WTC 2 and so the spire and that concrete shear wall was left standing.
 
JimBenArm said:
NobbyNobbs said:
My wife's cousin was commander of the first nuclear sub (I forget the name of it).

quote]

That would have been the USS Nautilus SSN-571. It's actually a floating museum piece in Groton, CT, part of the Submarine Force Museum.
Click to expand...

That's the one. He's offered me a personal tour, but I haven't been up there in awhile.

Christophera said:
Do you have a reason to know about secret, self destruct policy? Can you docuement this?
Click to expand...


Same question, right back at you.
Click to expand...
 
Christophera said:
Guess what, there is no web site supporting this official lie, still. You would think some of the competent people here would have assembled images of the towers demise showing clearly, many columns in the core area, bent, falling shattered, toppling, leaning etc. NOT EVEN ONE IMAGE of the supposed steel core columns has ever been produced. What do the people here produce? A sites called noconcrete core. Why? Because they cannot prove the steel core columns. They produce ridicule ad nauseum, but no proof from the best opportunity ever to get images of the steel core columns.
Click to expand...

Am I the only one who sees steel columns in Christophera's images?

I'm still interested in how they managed to get a 400 foot core wall into a 218 foot building. I'm sure this was all covered in the documentary, so you should have no trouble explaining this.
 
Last edited:
Christophera said:
At the 43rd floor the core walls got thinner because the walls below that level supported the heavy mechanical room at the 43rd. That image is probably around 100 feet over the 43rd. WTC 1 came down with much irregularity compared to WTC 2 and so the spire and that concrete shear wall was left standing.
Click to expand...

This explanation is totally ridiculous. The core still would have had to support something approximating half the weight of the building. And "100 feet over the 43rd" would not be at around 500 feet AGL.
 
Christophera said:
This link goes directly to an image for me.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/ssm/dsc00169.jpg

There are many, many images of the demise of the towers. You should be able to find exactly what you are looking for, if it existed.
Click to expand...

Everytime i click on the link I get sent to this page:
http://911research.wtc7.net/re911/welcome.html

But all that is beside the point. The diagnal cross beams are clearly visible in the pictures posted. You asking me to show you pictures of the cross beams in the portion that remains from the collapse is silly. Your clearly tring to dance around the facts.
 
You also haven't finished adressing this issue:

Originally Posted by Christophera
All your images are over 4 floors and the steel surrounded the concrete core after that. A person on the street would not have been able to see anything happening.

You forgot to post an image of some of the 47, 1300 foot steel core columns inside the core area at some elevation over the ground from the demo images. Do that soon please.
Click to expand...

So then are you saying that Joberson was wrong?
According to Tony Jebson and you WTC 1 had the concrete core go up several floors ahead of the steel. The construction pictures of WTC 1 show no concrete core ahead of the steel work.

Quite obfuscating and dancing, I'm not talking about interior steel core columns at the moment in this post. I'm talking about Joberson's e-mail.
 
Christophera said:
What do you think a linear shape charge is?
Click to expand...
These are linear shaped charges:
http://www.corelab.com/owen/Products/Linear.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaped_charge

The charge is designed so that the metal in the inside of the V-shape is converted to a hot vaporized metal gas that does the actual cutting. Explosive coated the outside of a cylinder would not have the same effect since it completely surrounds the cylinder. It might vaporize the rebar, but then there would not be any rebar left to be photographed. So if that is the case the picture you keep saying is a picture of rebar would be incorrectly interpreted.
 
Last edited:
TellyKNeasuss said:
Am I the only one who sees steel columns in Christophera's images?
Click to expand...

In fact, in frames 12-16 of the "North Tower collapse from west" video there is something that appears to be a column sticking up above the debris cloud near the center where the core should be. Which one of the videos shows a concrete core?
 
Last edited:
Mobyseven said:
So, in other words you have no corroborating evidence outside of your own myopian world?
Click to expand...

The fact that you identify with a proven fallacy makes your evaluation meaningless.

If the fallacy is not proven, then show us images of steel core columns exposed during the demise of the towers.
 
uruk said:
These are linear shaped charges:
http://www.corelab.com/owen/Products/Linear.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaped_charge

The charge is designed so that the metal in the inside of the V-shape is converted to a hot vaporized metal gas that does the actual cutting. Explosive coated the outside of a cylinder would not have the same effect since it completely surrounds the cylinder. It might vaporize the rebar, but then there would not be any rebar left to be photographed. So if that is the case the picture you keep saying is a picture of rebar would be incorrectly interpreted.
Click to expand...

My point is that linear shape charges work and the amount of explosive is very small with the explosive connectivity folowing the shape of the metal reflective container. A coating around a cylinder would be perfect for fracturing and pulverizing a uniform mineral material around it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom