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

[Christophera]

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.

If it were a ship, the entire harbor whould have heard a series of blasts, tourists took video of water blowing hundreds of feet away from the ship, and the vessal would have been on the bottom in seconds.

The good ol' boys would'a showed up a few weeks later and said"

All those people are hearing things, their video simply shows bubbles, clearly, the ship sprung a leak, it's on the bottom now.

Obvious plumes of ejected concrete particulate

Obvious uniform explosions of concrete

Obvious "steering" charges" ahead of major detonations.

Below, the only feasible. realistic, comprehensive explanation on the web for near free fall and total pulverization of everything but heavy steel.

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

 

[Christophera]

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!

Donn, da, Donn, Donn

Abandon thread, cogntive dissonance! We are beginning to know what we do not want to know.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4429&stc=1&d=1165506574

 

[Bell]

Hey listen forks, adherents of this anti-conspiracy forum, you guys really got to think.
When i stated obvious facts, i stated it in regards to the many buildings that have burned around the world, I have yet to see a total collapse of three buildings due to fire. Oh you say you have one......show it to me. Please dont post any woodern structures. Or structures with fallen roofs. My request is simply ........a collapse metal structure fallen on its own foot print due to a 4 hour long fire.
In regards to the titanic......bad analogy.......really bad analogy. The world is full of sunken metal ships that have gone down because of flotsam. In fact when i was in the Puerto Plata, Dominican Republic a metal ship went down just because the rust broke thru the hull.
You guys are not thinking, you are just posting without any regards to somekind of intelligent conversation. I think you are just doing that to keep this forum alive... No one can be that dumb!

Could you provide us with the number of 110 skycrapes have been hit by planes flying at full speed, loaded with jetfuel? Also provide us with the number of 47-story buildings that had a 110-story building crashing into it. Beside those on 9/11 ofcourse.

I await your reply.

 

[Bell]

I think that OPERATION NORTHWOOD is exemplary of some of what the government / private sector is capable of. Plant bombs in American cities, hurt american citizens, shoot missiles to cuban refugees floating on the water, all so that americans populace support a war. What else can i say.....it is very simple.
If Operation Northwood had indeed taken place, I could just see you people arguing that the plane over cuba was really full of students. Most of you anti-conspiracy people just dont think. You are really a danger to our freedom!

Also... could you please bugger off out of this thread and start your own Northwood thread? Much appreciated.

 

[Christophera]

Christopher, what the hell was the use for a concrete core anyway? The pictures posted by Uruk, Bonavada and others show the towers could stand without a concrete core. So why cast such as a core... 7 floors behind the rest of the building?

homer and BV and others have utterly failed to show the supposed steel core columns from the images which SHOW ALL THE MAJOR STRCUTURAL ELEMENTS as the towers are coming apart and down.

The concrte core was vital to the towers stability and safety.

Steel flexes WAY TOO MUCH in those proportions.

Here is a steel suspension bridge in a 42 MPH wind a few hundred feet off a river.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8849554834285920420&q=tacoma+narrows+bridge&hl=en

Imagine the tower faces to the wind and those opposite. Do you know how a wing flies? It is not so much the pressure below holding the wing up. it is the low pressure above lifting, just tlike the sail on a boat.

The towers faces "flew" or "sailed" slightly caused a twisting. Along witht he bending and the load on the towers, the narrow proportions caused deformations potentially resulting in catastrophic that the architect who certified the tower safe COULD NOT ACCEPT and so the steel core columns originally concieved of were rejected in favor of a steel reinforced, tubular, cast concrete core.

 

[Z]

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.

And you never give a reason why you believe this to be true.
The building was collapsing. There's no reason that welded beams would remain standing while the thousands of tons of debris was falling around it - none whatsoever. It's not like they were indestructible, single-piece 1300ft long steel beams - they were multisectioned, welded steel, some of which had suffered intensely from fire damage and all of which were suffering from massive dammage from the building collapsing around it. Added to the fact that the cross-bracing of the vertical elements was completely disintegrating, there's no reason any of the columns would have stood, at all.

So there's nothing to explain on our parts. Construction images adequately and clearly show steel core columns. Debris clearly and adequately shows the remains of steel core columns. All of this aligns quite neatly to the official story, and makes sense to those who understand physics, construction materials, and how the real world works.

It is you who are, therefore, making an extraordinary claim - one you can only support with a single fuzzy photograph, innumerable erroneous statements about the construction photos, and a lot of made up lies, like documentaries, time-travelling mohawks, etc.

Let us stick with the simple stuff.

You're a stupid liar.

 

[Christophera]

Also... could you please bugger off out of this thread and start your own Northwood thread? Much appreciated.

Finally, someone responds to se7ensnakes, query. I would doubt the response is a surprise.

However, se7ensnakes is on topic here and just "wondered" what some might think of the historically documented, unexecuted plan which show the propensity of the infiltrated US government to conduct deceptive, false flag operations on American soil to manipulatate opinion in support of offensive military actions.

Bell, do you like having an infiltrated government that kills innocent people to use your tax dollars to conduct war?

 

[JonnyFive]

All those people are hearing things, their video simply shows bubbles, clearly, the ship sprung a leak, it's on the bottom now.

You, ironically, are not relying on video evidence but still images.

Hey, I've got an idea, how about you post videos instead of stills so we can compare them to known controlled explosions to see if they're actually similar in some way.

Or, perhaps, you can answer some of our questions by doing something other than insulting us and posting the same four (six?) images that obviously aren't sufficient to convince anyone here except Mr. snakes.

So, which weighs more:
-11 pieces of 3" rebar on 4' centers.
-25 pieces of 3" rebar on 4' centers.

And could you provide some evidence for a few of your assertions:
-Walls got thinner higher up.
-Workers were not in the union.
-Secret clearance was required to work at the site.
-C4 is still viable after 30 years or is preserved by concrete.
-There was a PBS documentary showing a core.

If you are so sure of these things, you must have evidence, right? But you haven't shown us one piece of evidence for any of these things.

You know what, I think that's because you're incorrect. I don't think you have any evidence for any of this, and those are things you can't easily claim some vague image supports. After all, those claims are ones which require definitive, obvious proof (like, say, a manufacturer's web site claiming a shelf life of 30 years for their brand of C4 which was available in 1966).

Your "evidence" of a concrete core and controlled demolition has to be supported by something other than a few images. Reality is determined by converging lines of evidence from different areas. You claim your pictures show some kind of explosion and a concrete core, but you have provided no other line of evidence with which to check that.

So, show us some construction photos, or address some of my above points, or any of the dozens of other questions from the other posters here.

Putting the word "obvious" in front of the same tired old picture doesn't improve it.

Go ahead and call me stupid, because you seem to think that's the best way to argue with us. It's not really working, but that doesn't seem to phase you.

 

[Z]

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 what are your qualifications for this opinion? Because, oddly enough, experts in controlled demolitions, construction, physicists, etc. all disagree with you.

 

[JonnyFive]

Steel flexes WAY TOO MUCH in those proportions.

Here is a steel suspension bridge in a 42 MPH wind a few hundred feet off a river.

How do you explain the many, many steel suspension bridges that do not flex unacceptably in the wind? Do they have concrete cores?

And why is it that you think tall buildings do not move slightly in the wind?

You are, of course, saying that there are concrete cores in all tall buildings, then, as you claim it is needed for stability? Could you please cite a source for this assumption or stop making it.

 

[Z]

milesalpha
Never need an expert...........

Then you're an idiot.

 

[Christophera]

And you never give a reason why you believe this to be true.
The building was collapsing. There's no reason that welded beams would remain standing while the thousands of tons of debris was falling around it - none whatsoever.

They were core columns which are of the strongest elements in any tall structure. Of the 47, 1300 foot columns a few MUST be seen, bending, leaning, toppling from the core area when the core area is so clearly seen in images. When they are not seen and images such as this show the outside dimensions of the core intact, wherein the core columns if the existed would be intact, and NO PROTRUDING core columns are seen, one can only conclude the columns did not exist. This is logical.

Do you do logic? Can you accept logic? Or, is the conclusion simply something you do not want to know?

You're a stupid liar.

Or, are you pretending to be stupid and upset that I cannot pretend to be stuid and so accuse me of lying in order to protect the lie you want to believe instead of the truth because you do not want to know the truth?

 

[Z]

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

Yep - and that ain't one of them.

 

[Christophera]

How do you explain the many, many steel suspension bridges that do not flex unacceptably in the wind? Do they have concrete cores?

And why is it that you think tall buildings do not move slightly in the wind?

You are, of course, saying that there are concrete cores in all tall buildings, then, as you claim it is needed for stability? Could you please cite a source for this assumption or stop making it.

You are trying to imply I am conducting cognitive distortions whn that is EXACTLY what you are doing.


All-or-nothing thinking - Thinking of things in absolute terms, like "always", "every" or "never". Few aspects of human behavior are so absolute. (See false dilemma.)

Overgeneralization - Taking isolated cases and using them to make wide generalizations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_distortion



bridges do flex in the wind.

The twin towers moved slightly in the wind, 3 to 7 feet at the top was acceptable and within design.

All towers of the propostions of the twin towers have steel reinforced tubular cast concrete cores. The have to, otherswise they felx TOO MUCH like the Tacoma narrows bridge did.

 

[Z]

Finally, someone responds to se7ensnakes, query. I would doubt the response is a surprise.

However, se7ensnakes is on topic here and just "wondered" what some might think of the historically documented, unexecuted plan which show the propensity of the infiltrated US government to conduct deceptive, false flag operations on American soil to manipulatate opinion in support of offensive military actions.

Bell, do you like having an infiltrated government that kills innocent people to use your tax dollars to conduct war?

Don't know about Bell, but I'm fine with our government.

Let's see:

Medicine: Check.
Freedom of speech: Check.
Creature comforts: Check.
Freedom to live where I want: Check.
Freedom to love who I want: Mostly.
---Restrictions to freedom enforced? Never.

Yeah, I'm happy. The government works as incompetently as it has my whole entire life. Innocent people die in wars every single day. Oh well.

And I always get my tax dollars back. I just don't make enough money to worry 'bout it.

 

[Bell]

homer and BV and others have utterly failed to show the supposed steel core columns from the images which SHOW ALL THE MAJOR STRCUTURAL ELEMENTS as the towers are coming apart and down.

They, and a lot of other members, have shown you. The fact that you are too stuborn, ignorant or just plain nuts, does not result in a failing on our side, but a failing on yours.

The concrte core was vital to the towers stability and safety.

Steel flexes WAY TOO MUCH in those proportions.

Here is a steel suspension bridge in a 42 MPH wind a few hundred feet off a river.

<spam>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8849554834285920420&q=tacoma+narrows+bridge&hl=en

Imagine the tower faces to the wind and those opposite. Do you know how a wing flies? It is not so much the pressure below holding the wing up. it is the low pressure above lifting, just tlike the sail on a boat.

The towers faces "flew" or "sailed" slightly caused a twisting. Along witht he bending and the load on the towers, the narrow proportions caused deformations potentially resulting in catastrophic that the architect who certified the tower safe COULD NOT ACCEPT and so the steel core columns originally concieved of were rejected in favor of a steel reinforced, tubular, cast concrete core.

And this was, what, in your alleged documentary, for which there excists NO PROOF it was ever broadcast, let alone made? Also, why the hell would they show the construction of the alleged concrete core, WHEN IT WAS SUPPOSED TO REMAIN A SECRET FOR ALL OF THE WORLD?!

 

[Bell]

Finally, someone responds to se7ensnakes, query. I would doubt the response is a surprise.

Please Chris, go and talk to him, ask him how he thinks the towers were blown up.

However, se7ensnakes is on topic here and just "wondered" what some might think of the historically documented, unexecuted plan which show the propensity of the infiltrated US government to conduct deceptive, false flag operations on American soil to manipulatate opinion in support of offensive military actions.

Shifting goalposts, Chris?

Bell, do you like having an infiltrated government that kills innocent people to use your tax dollars to conduct war?

I'm from The Netherlands, it says so right under my avatar. I have also said this to you before. So much for your photographic memory.

 

[Bell]

ALSO! I would like to know what you have to say about this post?

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

For the so-many-th time...

 

[Z]

They were core columns which are of the strongest elements in any tall structure. Of the 47, 1300 foot columns a few MUST be seen, bending, leaning, toppling from the core area when the core area is so clearly seen in images. When they are not seen and images such as this show the outside dimensions of the core intact, wherein the core columns if the existed would be intact, and NO PROTRUDING core columns are seen, one can only conclude the columns did not exist. This is logical.

No it isn't. The core columns were segments of steel, welded together, which were then faced with extreme stresses. As soon as horizontal or diagonal bracing was destroyed by falling debris, the columns would have collapsed, snapping into smaller segments, under the force of debris from above.

You're assuming the columns would have punched through hundreds of tons of debris to remain standing without horizontal or diagonal support.

That is not logical.

Do you do logic? Can you accept logic? Or, is the conclusion simply something you do not want to know?

Actually I score extremely well in logic tests and maxed my logic scores on the ASVAB test. My complete psych eval from the military shows me to be almost entirely logical-analytical oriented, and my abilities in logic-related fields - mathematics, chemistry, physics, geometry, analytical geometry, trigonometry, calculus, etc - resulted in almost straight A grades in all logic-oriented fields of study.

The conclusion is that you're an unschooled halfwit with a massive ego problem, who probably has to have help making sure the skidmarks are in the back of his underpants.

Or, are you pretending to be stupid and upset that I cannot pretend to be stuid

No, it doesn't upset me one bit... you don't have to pretend. You just are.

and so accuse me of lying in order to protect the lie you want to believe instead of the truth because you do not want to know the truth?

The only lies here involve documentaries that never existed, time-travelling Mohawks, etc.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

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

This non-sense doesn't even remotely address my point.