• 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.
Christophera said:
The WTC concrete core was probably about twice the size. Casting the concrete inside the steel saves forming costs.
Click to expand...

Wrong. the comcast building is going to be 975 feet tall. That's roughly 2/3 the the hight of the WTC towers. Not half.
Each floor of the Comcast building has aproximately 23,000 square foot of rentable space. Each floor of the WTC building had 40,000 square feet of rentable floor space. and that is out 43,000 square feet of total floor space. So the core was actually smaller in relation to the floor space on WTC towers than in the Comcast building.

Anyhoo, in post8960 you said that Jebson was right about the WTC1 core being cast first before the steel work.
Try again Chris.
 
Last edited:
JonnyFive said:
I'm pretty sure that the documentary mentioned the Comcast building. They were specifically talking about how the WTC towers were so much different and also made using magic.
Click to expand...

So.... is there any word on what the documentary might have said about tomorrow's lottery numbers? Ya know....just askin'
 
uruk said:
So.... is there any word on what the documentary might have said about tomorrow's lottery numbers? Ya know....just askin'
Click to expand...
You should have asked back in 1990 when it was all fresh and new in his mind.
 
christophera said:
You have not explained how these cuts were done at ground zero if they are NOT cuts from high explosive shear inthe demolition.
Click to expand...

8748457d94126448c.jpg



bonavada said:
i can explain........see below.
Click to expand...


8748456afaafc24c4.jpg


christophera said:
So where is the explanation?
Click to expand...

<sigh> i would have thought the picures were self-explanatory chris. the cuts at ground zero in the top image could have been done in a similar fashion to the cuts in the bottom image. is that concept to difficult for you to grasp?

or do you have evidence that the steel in the bottom image was cut with "high explosive shear in the demolition"?????


8748457c7ea70c448.jpg


BV
 
SezMe said:
This is a question for the reality-based community, not Chris. Which building is the brown building in the bottom right portion of this picture?
Click to expand...

errrrm the one that "shouldn't have fallen down because it was never even damaged or hardly on fire"?

BV
 
JonnyFive said:
And yet you have yet to provide any proof of this at all. You can't even tell us the name of the documentary.

Here's one for you: Who narrated the documentary?
Click to expand...

If you haven't read the documentary name yet I know you are not reading.

You are a waste of time.

You read the entire thread if you want another answer from me.
 
bonavada said:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/8748457d94126448c.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/8748456afaafc24c4.jpg[/qimg]

<sigh> i would have thought the picures were self-explanatory chris. the cuts at ground zero in the top image could have been done in a similar fashion to the cuts in the bottom image. is that concept to difficult for you to grasp?

or do you have evidence that the steel in the bottom image was cut with "high explosive shear in the demolition"?????


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/8748457c7ea70c448.jpg[/qimg]

BV
Click to expand...

So, .......... I have to answer my own question because you are too manipulative?

Those are torch cuts.

In order to say "NO" reasonably, you must come up with a close up of the surface of the cut.
 
Christophera said:
If you haven't read the documentary name yet I know you are not reading.

You are a waste of time.

You read the entire thread if you want another answer from me.
Click to expand...

No, you can tell us the real name of the documentary, or provide proof it exists under the title you gave. Or you could admit it exists only in your mind.

Because we searched for it, and found no trace.

Remember the mountain, Chris.
 
Christophera said:
So, .......... I have to answer my own question because you are too manipulative?
Click to expand...


that's ripe, you calling me manipulative....

anyway i think i answered your question. i showed you a picture of the remains of WTC steel and explained as you requested that they may have been cut by the same method as the steel in your image. you have offered no evidence of otherwise except:-

Christophera said:
Those are torch cuts.
Click to expand...

quite possibly they are. so please explain why your image may not also show "torch cuts" or are we are to take as irrefutable every thing you write? you, unqualified in any aspect of building construction, design, salvage or demolition? give me one good reason why i should take your word for anything relevant here chris.

Christophera said:
In order to say "NO" reasonably, you must come up with a close up of the surface of the cut.
Click to expand...

no chris that's your job. you are the one making extraordinary claims.
you argue that the cuts in your image could only be made with "high explosive shear"..........howz about you show another image demonstrating that such "high explosive shear" WOULD MAKE SUCH A CUT in steel. but show us an image of a similar cut in steel from an actual controlled demolition by "high explosive shear" chris.
and i mean a real corroborated CD not more pics of steel from the WTC.
show us that chris.
just one image will do. please

BV
 
Last edited:
I just wanted to make sure that Chris doesn't forget about this:
Originally Posted by Christophera
Smaller concrete cores are cast ahead of the steel so their strength can add to the tower which reduces the towers weight.

The WTC concrete core was probably about twice the size. Casting the concrete inside the steel saves forming costs.


Cast Concrete Core Of WTC 2

Try being a HUMAN and admit you have no evidence.
Click to expand...

That was a pretty lame tap dance Chris.
It doesn't matter the size of the building. Jebson could have seen a concrete core from street level if there was a concrete core. The pictures of the Comcast building prove it. Which means that the explination you gave me about the error you made concerning the Jebson e-mail is solid crap.
Besides in post 8960 you said that WTC1 was built with the concrete core going up first.

Try again Chris. You're not weasling out of it. Own up to it or be labeled the liar we all know that you are.

Oh and while you're at it. try to explain the mistake you made in misinterpreting the picture of WTC1's sub basment structure.
Just incase you missed it, here it is:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=9799
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
I ran your image thru ImageMagick's edge detection algorithm, and it didn't detect a vertical boundary. Therefore, it's pretty certain that this is not a picture of a wall.
Click to expand...

I think it detected that the image has not been photoshopped.

It is not the clearest of images, but adequate for the human eye and brain (critical part) to know that we are looking at a concrete wall adjacent to a steel column.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom