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

[Christophera]

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.

Perhaps you do not know a primary rule of tower design.

Keep the major weight BELOW the mid point of the tower to avoid instability​

The structural design for the associated loads necessarily is adjusted for the reduced weight above.

 

[Christophera]

homers "moment frame"

To be totaly honest this picture may show what Chris is calling the "moment frame" but the picture also clearly shows the cross connect beams.

The diagonal braced vertical in the middle leeft is the moment frame.

No we have proff that you do not have a clue about structural elements of the WTC towers.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4428&stc=1&d=1165471286

 

[Arus808]

i dont know why we even continue. I think that its REALLY time to just close and end this thread.

NO one buys into Christophera's fantasy claims. Even normal joe schmoes on the street know that there was never a concrete core in the World Trade Center buildings.

WE really shoud stop aruging with someone who has been proven to have some mental deficiency.

And its really a non issue, since concrete core or not, the buildings collapsed. they are gone, and there is a big hole currently at the site where they once stood.

Since no one believes his claims, that means we REALLY do not have antyhing to worry about. And to the public at large, they really dont give a rat's booty whether or not the building had a concrete core, swiss cheese as a core, or were made of jello.

 

[se7ensnakes]

conspiracies are normal

I have been showing a whole lot of people the whole 9/11 argument, and have been observing personalities. I have seen many people make-up stuff on the fly without any evidence. I have seen people that want to argue without even knowing the basic facts of the day. Worse, i have seen people that would not even consider the idea that an alternative explanation could exist.
It is really obvious that there was somekind of controlled demolition - buildings do not collapse due to open fire --------- it is just utterly rediculous to even think that.
So i am mostly trying to understand these people that believe otherwise. People that believe the official version remind of christians..........no matter what evidence you bring forth they weasel their way out of it and go home more resolute about their beliefs than ever.
I am really curious what these people think of Operation Northwood............

 

[se7ensnakes]

milesalpha
Never need an expert..........I think you need to improve your comprehension skills.....I plainly said that it the control demolition is obvious and for that you dont need an expert...........like a ship that has sunk, you dont need an expert to tell you it has sunk.

 

[SezMe]

I am really curious what these people think of Operation Northwood............

Welcome to the fora, se7ensnakes. I suggest that you state what YOU think of Operation Northwood so the rest of us can speak directly to your thoughts. Discussions on these here fora seem to go much better when specific, concrete ideas are being discussed rather than just, "what do you think" posts.

 

[Christophera]

You claim that the explosives were small enough that the explosives in the floors didn't damage the core; instead the core had it's own explosives. But you also claim that these huge debris clouds were generated by explosions. Which is it?

It is both depending on the timing, delays and phase of the demo. Not a simple matter, very complex.

 

[Christophera]

WE really shoud stop aruging with someone who has been proven to have some mental deficiency.

Alright, you and homer just stay out of the arugment.

 

[Christophera]

Do you have a reason to know about secret, self destruct policy? Can you document this?

Same question, right back at you.

No problem, can you understand an image of self destruction in action?

 

[Christophera]

Dude, there is no concrete structure there. I see only steel. There were probbably block walls to fireproof the stairwells, and maybe precast concrete stairs.

My turn to position the drywall and gypsum in the core area. The elevator shafts and stairwells were separated by drywall and gypsum panels.

This however, is not drywall or gypsum. All that stuff was sent to the bottom of the core with the elevator guide rail supports with the heavy steel and concrete particulate from the explosive demolitions above crashing down the core area.

 

[Arus808]

milesalpha
Never need an expert..........I think you need to improve your comprehension skills.....I plainly said that it the control demolition is obvious and for that you dont need an expert...........like a ship that has sunk, you dont need an expert to tell you it has sunk.

you're wrong on several points;
1) the buildings did not look like Controlled demotlions
2) there were no prior explosions or series of explosions, that would have been needed in order to cause these towers to collapse
3) a ship can sink, but we are talking about what caused it to sink.

but, please move your question or make a new thread to discuss this issue, or please use the search function on this forun as we have discussed this ad nauseum.


For eERYONE ELSE Please abandon this thread. there is no use in continuing or entertaining someone who has admitted that he has a mental deficiency. HIS claims are not believed by anyone in the public, and that's all that matters.

 

[Karl Johannes]

but its so close to 10,000 posts

 

[Donn]

Abandon thread - abandon thread - Skeptics and children first! We have hit a Woo-berg and it's going down..

Was it a controlled disaster - we will never know!

Abandon thread!

 

[milesalpha]

milesalpha
Never need an expert..........I think you need to improve your comprehension skills.....I plainly said that it the control demolition is obvious and for that you dont need an expert...........like a ship that has sunk, you dont need an expert to tell you it has sunk.

My comprehension is fine. Another has already pointed out the weakness in your argument. The fact that there are virtually no experts who agree with your assessment speaks volumes. That is the only thing that is obvious.

 

[Dave_46]

<snip>
It is really obvious that there was somekind of controlled demolition - buildings do not collapse due to open fire --------- it is just utterly rediculous to even think that.
<snip>

However, with large, uncontrolled fires burning in buildings which have had their loadbearing capacity severely compromised by being hit by airliners, it is utterly ridiculous to think that they would survive.

 

[Bell]

Chris, will you respond to these two posts allready?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2145385&postcount=8839
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2152796&postcount=9078

 

[Bell]

The top of WTC 1 fell south when over half of the vertical support was wiped out on the north side. The fires present on the south side simply did not have enough heat long enough over enough area of enough columns to cause this failure.

So, the collapse was NOT symmetrical? Also, provide proof of fires being not hot enough?

<spam><spam>There are detonations shown on the towers that exemplify explosions used to "steer" the fall of parts of the towers.

Here is a totally unexplainable event without demolitions, <spam> the core of the top of tower 2 falls on WTC 3 and is seen inside the perimeter walls.

Unexplainable TO YOU. God knows we have tried.

 

[bonavada]

From LetsRollForums
I interviewed a Mohawk who was 24 when the towers were built. He couldn't say he remembered the concrete core. But he did remember they could only go 7 floors over the core with steel. He still had 2 friends that worked with him on the towers that were living. I asked him to speak with them about the core to see if they could revive each others memory.
When I explained that the FEMA said it was made with steel core columns, he became afraid. He was 64 years of age at that time. I could try him again. Maybe the fact I'm stilll alive will encourage him.

so............... chris, you state that you interviewed the mohawk who was "64 years of age at that time" and "24 when the towers were built" you have also stated elsewhere that you interviewed this worker in 2002

64-24=40

2002-40=1962

btw the construction of the towers began in 1969-70 i think......

so which one is it?

1. you are wrong?
2. is the mohawk wrong?
3. or is it all ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊?

keep wriggling.

BV

 

[bonavada]

People that believe the official version remind of christians..........no matter what evidence you bring forth they weasel their way out of it and go home more resolute about their beliefs than ever.

I plainly said that it the control demolition is obvious and for that you dont need an expert...........like a ship that has sunk, you dont need an expert to tell you it has sunk.

ahem.......... ^

like the titanic on it's maiden voyage, your ship has sunk too.


BV

 

[Big Al]

ahem.......... ^

like the titanic on it's maiden voyage, your ship has sunk too.


BV

Hmmm... It was "obvious" that the iceberg tore a huge hole in the Titanic's side, but it didn't. It just rumpled the hull plates so there were gaps.

Likewise, someone could say "Everyone said the Titanic was unsinkable. Therefore a simple iceberg couldn't have sunk it. It must have been sabotage. And this is how they did it..."

That's what's going on here.