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

[Big Al]

Chris: why would the US government plan 30 years ahead to destroy the WTC?????[

Are you ever going to answer this, Chris?

 

[Christophera]

Are you ever going to answer this, Chris? Or do you just think it dosn't matter?

Later, after HOW is dealt with.

HOW were 47, 1300 foot steel columns made to fall freely and also disappear from all images of the towers

 

[Big Al]

If you have a simple answer, Chris, why not give it? Go on: one paragraph! I dare you! I double-dare you!

It's a very simple question. After all, you have all the answers, don't you?

 

[Big Al]

Come on, Chris: it's gone quiet. You can spare me thirty seconds to answer that, can't you?

Chris: why would the US government plan 30 years ahead to destroy the WTC?????[

 

[Christophera]

If you have a simple answer, Chris, why not give it? Go on: one paragraph! I dare you! I double-dare you!

It's a very simple question. After all, you have all the answers, don't you?

It a matter of principle Al. I know you are trying to marginalize me by ridiculing my answer, and really what and how is the first thing that is considered in an investigation. Clearly, you cannot rationally handle the answer anyway, so there it serves no purpose I'm interested in at all to answer you erroneous question.

The true US government is prohibited from doing what you suggest. Infiltrators of the government could though.


Seeing as the explanations for free fall you ascribe to are nonsense and don't explain anything, I can reasonably say what happened was a demolition.

Now I need an explanation for how 47, 1300 foot steel columns were severed to create near free fall speeds.

 

[Z]

fezzic, on this point Chris is right. Yes, there is a building at approx. the same location that looks similar; but the angle this photo was taken at is too low to see the building behind it, i.e. the view is looking upward, and the building would be far below the frame to be seen.

Given all available evidence - which consists of construction photographs, available diagrams, eyewitness reports, post-collapse photographs, film clips, and debris analysis - the greatest likelihood is that this is a portion of the lower interior of the building, with a large portion of debris atop it, and some debris on the sides, largely obscured by dust and smoke, suspended on film in mid-collapse. This is consistant with the way buildings collapse - that is, all the debris of the floors above wouldn't simply slip off the sides, a large quantity would likely mound atop whatever stood resistant during the collapse. Further, it is reasonable under a steel core scenario, as the steel supports lower in the building might have survived longer, but were being snapped off at the welds higher up by the extreme pressure of tons of falling debris. These beams weren't spears; they wouldn't have poked through the falling debris and remained upright.

There is a far less likely chance that this is the same thing, but with a concrete core instead. The same mounding of debris would occur, but the chance of this portion of the core collapsing would be vastly less. Further, the debris at the site contained far too little concrete or concrete dust to account for the amount of concrete which Chris believes would have been present. Also, since we know that plastic explosives only have an optimal shelf life of between 10-20 years, and since we know that such explosives exposed to the air, to heat from curing concrete and subsequent moisture, and further exposed to varying temperatures and air qualities since the construction would have a far shorter viable lifespan, we can properly surmise that the concrete was not destroyed by any built-in explosives. This leaves only post-construction demolition, an even less likely theory.

Nonetheless, that's basically what this chunk is - a piece of the collapsing core of the building, with mounds of debris atop it, and some debris choking the floors on the sides, all obscured by smoke and dust. Any discussion of this photograph in terms of steel vs. concrete would be reduced to what evidence existed of either. Chris is simply flat wrong in believing that the steel beams would be poking up in this picture above the fallen debris. He wrongly believes that welded steel becomes all but invincible, and that we basically have 47 1300-foot long adamant beams, where all the debris should have fallen neatly around, leaving a ghastly skeleton of empty steel erect.

Anyone who's ever seen a steel building collapse knows this isn't what happens.

Other than that, all he has are some memories of a documentary which doesn't exist, a clip from a non-existant book, some memories of a non-existant magazine article, and some day-laborer-level experience with construction and demolition, combined with some serious mental health issues, a junior-high-school level of education, an an April Fool's joke letter taken seriously.

So it all boils down to this: unless he can produce images of the concrete during construction, he's lost. PERIOD.

Just in case it got missed at the bottom of the last page.

 

[eeyore1954]

Chris: why would the US government plan 30 years ahead to destroy the WTC?????

Because our the leaders of our real government (the reptillian overlords) come from a planet so far away that if they leave to go to their 7/11 it takes them about 30-40 years . Even though they have mastered traveling through worm holes.

 

[Christophera]

Given all available evidence - which consists of construction photographs, available diagrams, eyewitness reports, post-collapse photographs, film clips, and debris analysis - the greatest likelihood is that this is a portion of the lower interior of the building, with a large portion of debris atop it, and some debris on the sides, largely obscured by dust and smoke, suspended on film in mid-collapse. This is consistant with the way buildings collapse - that is, all the debris of the floors above wouldn't simply slip off the sides, a large quantity would likely mound atop whatever stood resistant during the collapse.

Mounds do not have clean edges and one of the 47 steel columns would protrude. Or later be seen. Such as here, in the shot of the core lower.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcore2stands.gif

No image ever shows the supposed core columns. We do see and end view of what can only be a concrete shear of WTC 1 wall 500 feet off the ground.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg

No steel core columns are seen to the left where they should be.

Further, it is reasonable under a steel core scenario, as the steel supports lower in the building might have survived longer, but were being snapped off at the welds higher up by the extreme pressure of tons of falling debris. These beams weren't spears; they wouldn't have poked through the falling debris and remained upright.

If this is true there will images of the same columns as are shown here with clean square ends, except with severe bends where they were "snapped off"

http://www.parrhesia.com/wtc/wtc066.jpg

There is a far less likely chance that this is the same thing, but with a concrete core instead. The same mounding of debris would occur, but the chance of this portion of the core collapsing would be vastly less. Further, the debris at the site contained far too little concrete or concrete dust to account for the amount of concrete which Chris believes would have been present.

In the below image we see mostly sand and gravel and much large aggregate from high strength concrete.

http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg

The is no evidence from the towers demise of the supposed steel core columns but there is a great deal of evidence for steel reinforced concrete.

Words are easy to type and that is all ZD has done. ZD has shown no evidence to support the steel core columns.

 

[Christophera]

Also, don't forget, folks: Chris is in need of help - he has "issues". That has been amply demonstrated elsewhere in this forum, if you care to look.

This also means his lines or argument are not bound by any rules of logic or sense - he already has "the twoof" in his head, so he works from there backwards to wherever we might be now. And if one route does not work, he simply starts with his "twoof" and works back another way. It makes sense to him!

Personally I suspect he simply isn't even aware that he is moving his own goalposts.

There are other "issues", and people can read about them here.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2240248&posted=1#post2240248

and here,

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69171

and here,

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63738

and here,

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2248014#post2248014

As far as goal posts, from the beginning I've been looking for a realistic explanation for free fall. Got one?

Okay, I guess in 271 pages I can accept that you do not and that mine is still the only one in existance.

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

From the beginning a major goal post I've put out for you is the production of some 9-11 images that show raw evidence of the steel core columns that you cannot misrepresent as you do construction images.

Okay, I guess in 271 pages where such images have not been produced that the only core evidenced by images of 9-11 is a concrete core. So, ........ the real goal posts are exactly the same.

 

[ConspiRaider]

Okay, I guess in 271 pages I can accept that you do not and that mine is still the only one in existance.

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

From the beginning a major goal post I've put out for you is the production of some 9-11 images that show raw evidence of the steel core columns that you cannot misrepresent as you do construction images.

Okay, I guess in 271 pages where such images have not been produced that the only core evidenced by images of 9-11 is a concrete core. So, ........ the real goal posts are exactly the same.

Well. I scanned your thing up above.

So: After all this careful planning going all the way back to planting C4 in the buildings as they were being constructed in the late 1960s:

You're saying the planes hit the wrong towers. How could they make such an incredibly stupid mistake, after all of that intricate and clever planning? Flight 11 was supposed to hit WTC 2? Flight 175 was supposed to hit WTC 1?

This other bit about Flight 93 "wandering around" as a backup plane.

You do realize, Chris, that Flight 93 was DELAYED from taking off as scheduled? By about 45 minutes?

Now had it taken off on time that would have put it somewhere near Chicago at the time of turnback to the East. Instead of Cleveland. So we've got a backup plane about 800 miles away from the WTCs (had it taken off on time) to clean up any unfinished business with the Towers. Again this seems like incredibly dolt-like planning. Let's keep a backup passenger jet at the ready - EIGHT HUNDRED MILES AWAY?!?

None of this seems realistice to me, sorry.

 

[Christophera]

None of this seems realistice to me, sorry.

The realistic aspect referes mostly to an explanation for free fall.

Well. I scanned your thing up above.

So: After all this careful planning going all the way back to planting C4 in the buildings as they were being constructed in the late 1960s:

You're saying the planes hit the wrong towers. How could they make such an incredibly stupid mistake, after all of that intricate and clever planning? Flight 11 was supposed to hit WTC 2? Flight 175 was supposed to hit WTC 1?

Did I ever say the planning of constrcution extended to hijacking and targets for airliners?

No. I never said that.

The intricate and clever planning extended to a comromise, the lesser of to undesireables.

Having a minamally controlled muslim pilot flying the first plane was more diesireable than a well trained remote operator sitting on a tower top a half mile away because he could tlak or be made to talk or investigated and talk, or be linkd, observed. You get the point.

Anonymity was more important than precision.

This other bit about Flight 93 "wandering around" as a backup plane.

You do realize, Chris, that Flight 93 was DELAYED from taking off as scheduled? By about 45 minutes?

Now had it taken off on time that would have put it somewhere near Chicago at the time of turnback to the East. Instead of Cleveland. So we've got a backup plane about 800 miles away from the WTCs (had it taken off on time) to clean up any unfinished business with the Towers. Again this seems like incredibly dolt-like planning. Let's keep a backup passenger jet at the ready - EIGHT HUNDRED MILES AWAY?!?

The delay aspect only increases the potential for inside control as it accomodates the "holding pattern" timing as a back up.

Your hypothetical "IF" wasn't what happened. What happened was more advantageous to what I suggest with the "towers fell in the wrong order" perspective.

 

[DontAskMe]

someone please show me in that pic of the towers where the concrete core is supposed to be, how can that be seen, i am confused, all i see is smoke and buildings

 

[ConspiRaider]

The realistic aspect referes mostly to an explanation for free fall.

Did I ever say the planning of constrcution extended to hijacking and targets for airliners?

No. I never said that.

The intricate and clever planning extended to a comromise, the lesser of to undesireables.

Having a minamally controlled muslim pilot flying the first plane was more diesireable than a well trained remote operator sitting on a tower top a half mile away because he could tlak or be made to talk or investigated and talk, or be linkd, observed. You get the point.

Anonymity was more important than precision.

The delay aspect only increases the potential for inside control as it accomodates the "holding pattern" timing as a back up.

Your hypothetical "IF" wasn't what happened. What happened was more advantageous to what I suggest with the "towers fell in the wrong order" perspective.

Well. Well, well, well.

That "green stuff in the valleys of the corrugated deck" reported in an oral history by a worker: What if it was NOT C-4? How do we know that Linda Blair didn't do her screen test for The Exorcist the night before or something?

C-4 is pretty stable and you really have to kick the living hell out of it to set it off. How? Did this mysterious worker report on blasting caps throughout the "green stuff"? What about wiring to the blasting caps?

Chris you need a new hobby - this one has gone nowhere. Try noodling a bit on solutions to global warming. A non-polluting car. How to get energy from coal with no mercury emissions and no CO2 emissions. Speaking of mercury: Fluorescent lighting is nice in that it uses much less energy than incandescents - but damned if it doesn't have mercury vapor within the bulbs. Pollution hazard. See if you can come up with a non-hazardous alternative to mercury in fluorescents.

This 9/11 stuff of yours isn't making it. Put your calculating brain onto something else, would you please?

 

[Z]

Mounds do not have clean edges and one of the 47 steel columns would protrude. Or later be seen. Such as here, in the shot of the core lower.

Wrong. Mounds can very well have edges as textured as this one is. Wrong. None of the columns would have to protrude. And column remains were seen later.

No image ever shows the supposed core columns. We do see and end view of what can only be a concrete shear of WTC 1 wall 500 feet off the ground.

Wrong. Several images show steel core columns, including construction images and at least one collapse image. Wrong. It can certainly be something other than concrete shear wall.

No steel core columns are seen to the left where they should be.

Wrong. The core columns did not have to be there.

If this is true there will images of the same columns as are shown here with clean square ends, except with severe bends where they were "snapped off"

Wrong. Steel does not always bend before snapping, especially when the steel bends at the welds. In fact, the more rigid the steel, the more likely it is to snap rather than bend.

In the below image we see mostly sand and gravel and much large aggregate from high strength concrete.

As well as the remains of gypsum board. The concrete floors easily account for the concrete recovered. There was insufficient sand, gravel, and aggregate for the cores you suggest existed.

The is no evidence from the towers demise of the supposed steel core columns but there is a great deal of evidence for steel reinforced concrete.

Wrong. There is no evidence of steel reinforced concrete from the towers, either at demise or construction, but there is a great deal of evidence for the steel core, both in construction and after demise.

Words are easy to type and that is all ZD has done. ZD has shown no evidence to support the steel core columns.

ZD doesn't need to show the evidence; it has been shown, time and time and time again.

Chris, however, has shown no construction evidence to support the concrete core.

Unless Christophera can produce images of the concrete core during construction, he has LOST. PERIOD.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Oh no look at this, http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=12383&st=240

David B. Benson

"reasonwhy --- The towers broke into two parts. The top part falls onto the bottom part. So there is no connection between those two parts. Next, the top part hits the beams, etc., at the very top of the bottom part, brutally destroying those. Continued eccentric strikes fracture all welds as the collapse progresses.

Everybody --- Note that I edited my previous post to 2600 lb for an assumed force action distance of 0.1 foot. This is still a rather small mass given all the falling heavy beams and columns.

Everybody should understand this calculation is only approximate for a simplified, idealized model. But using imperfect columns (ones that lean a little) lowers the energy requirements quite a bit. On the other hand, using a nonlinear spring and allowing for linear buckling will up the energy requirements. Lets just say that the model of eccentric, sudden loading of short duration provides a plausible means of fracturing welds without inelastic buckling of core column members... "

I have got to quite telling people what happens in my back yard.

 

[Christophera]

Wrong. Mounds can very well have edges as textured as this one is. Wrong. None of the columns would have to protrude. And column remains were seen later.

Symetrical? Give us a break!

I noticed you forgot to post the evidence of the columns seen later.

Typing is easy. Try something substancial, as in concrete.

Let me show you how.

It is easy when you have evidence.

Part of the concrete core of the top of tower 2 falls on WTC 3​

 

[Z]

Chris - there's no concrete core in that picture.

Maybe you posted the wrong one?

While you're posting all these pictures of the steel columns protruding during collapse, and all these fuzzy pictures showing mounds of collapsing debris, how about posting some construction images showing the concrete core? Because without those, you LOSE. PERIOD.

 

[Christophera]

Chris - there's no concrete core in that picture.

HERE is the image which makes obvious your lie.

Maybe you posted the wrong one?

No. You did the wrong thing, you lied. Normally I don't use that term as homer uses it for instance, but you are blatantly misrepresenting my argument.

While you're posting all these pictures of the steel columns protruding during collapse, and all these fuzzy pictures showing mounds of collapsing debris, how about posting some construction images showing the concrete core? Because without those, you LOSE. PERIOD.

You have stated serious distortions attempting to generalize and minimize the facts presented here, and entire web site that establishes a structure that CAN fall at near free fall.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

The invisisteel contingent has no evidence, only fabrications and misrepresentations. No explanations, nada.

 

[Z]

HERE is the image which makes obvious your lie.

Nope... still no concrete core. I see some of the side panels, and I see some debris which appears to be a mixture of materials, some of which could be concrete from the FLOORS, but no concrete core in this image.

No. You did the wrong thing, you lied. Normally I don't use that term as homer uses it for instance, but you are blatantly misrepresenting my argument.

Either prove I am lying, or retract the argument. Post reported.

You have stated serious distortions attempting to generalize and minimize the facts presented here, and entire web site that establishes a structure that CAN fall at near free fall.

But since it didn't fall at 'near free fall', there's nothing to establish.

And I've stated no distortions.

Either provide images of the concrete core during construction, or you've LOST. PERIOD.

 

[uruk]

HERE is the image which makes obvious your lie.

I thought you said the concrete was totally pulverized. Why would it be coming down in big slotted slabs?

By the way, That's a picture of the steel spandrels falling.

You need to get your lies straight Chris.