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

[T.A.M.]

I am sure this is off present topic, but it relates to the title of the thread.

Any of you count how long it took the towers to fall on 9/11 revisited. I am sure when I did the count for one of them, it was like 34 seconds. The reason, is that from the other angles the smoke cloud covers everything, but from his angle from the pier, you can see that parts of the tower are still falling way after 10 seconds, or am i misreading it...anyone care to take a look and give me an opinion?

[kevin]

I am sure this is off present topic, but it relates to the title of the thread.

Any of you count how long it took the towers to fall on 9/11 revisited. I am sure when I did the count for one of them, it was like 34 seconds. The reason, is that from the other angles the smoke cloud covers everything, but from his angle from the pier, you can see that parts of the tower are still falling way after 10 seconds, or am i misreading it...anyone care to take a look and give me an opinion?

gotta link to a particular video?

[T.A.M.]

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=65460757734339444&q=9%2F11+eyewitness

sorry i misquoted the name, it is 9/11 witness.

Video 2 of 3... from around th 6:30 to 7:30 mark

[gumboot]

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=65460757734339444&q=9%2F11+eyewitness

sorry i misquoted the name, it is 9/11 witness.

Video 2 of 3... from around th 6:30 to 7:30 mark


Excellent discovery. You're absolutely right. I got close to 30 seconds, and I started my count a little late. The North Tower, at least, didn't fall even remotely close to "free-fall".

Another thing I really find staggering from this footage... the volume of smoke coming out of the North Tower, and the extent of "blackened" floors.

One thing I discovered was a FDNY report of a collapse on a floor in the 60's a while before total collapse occured. This was way below impact, and always was interesting to me - how did floors so far away collapse like that?

From this footage, you can see an enormous section of the building is engulfed in flames. Yet fires don't usually spread down. Are we talking about partial internal collapses before total collapse? That would certainly spread the fire through floors beneath the impact point.

It's clear from this footage, to me, that the north tower was doomed. The volume of smoke coming out of that building was just incredible.

Thanks for the great find.

-Andrew

[T.A.M.]

np.

I have no doubt that a large portion of the building went down quickly, but you can clearly see form it, that the top part of the building came down atop the rest as it colapsed, and then it colapsed, after the fact, a time much longer than 10 seconds.

Any you are right. From this angle the amount of fire, smoke, clearly points to much greater fire damage then any of the CT sites or references would have you believe.

[kevin]

fall starts at 6:53. A big chunk of the interior columns falls out of the plume at 7:13. So at least 20 seconds for the bottom of that interior section to hit bottom. Looks like there is still debris falling after that, you get what appears to be a hole in the plume with blue sky behind it about 7:22. So 20 seconds would be shortest guess, 30 seconds would be longest. Both significantly longer than a "free fall".

[T.A.M.]

Absolutely. I mean I think we'd have to get someone with more expertese to verfiy, and I am not calling it smoking gun, but it is probably the best footage yet to dispute the claim.

[gumboot]

Yup... after timing it with my trusty stop watch I got similar numbers:

00:18:55 for main building collapse
00:33:74 for last visible collapse of exterior wall section

10 seconds flat...uh huh... But we all know the buildings should have taken 7 minutes to collapse... slow motion multi-angle style. Think about it. Nothing happens that fast. It takes a few seconds to properly cover a single fatal gunshot wound in the movies...

-Andrew

[StoatBringer]

The only possible explanation is that George Bush snuck into the towers the night before and hacksawed through most of the main support girders, and placed remote control transmitters in the towers to guide the planes into them.

I mean, come on people, it's SO OBVIOUS!!!1!1!!!

[Mancman]

Yup... after timing it with my trusty stop watch I got similar numbers:

00:18:55 for main building collapse
00:33:74 for last visible collapse of exterior wall section

10 seconds flat...uh huh... But we all know the buildings should have taken 7 minutes to collapse... slow motion multi-angle style. Think about it. Nothing happens that fast. It takes a few seconds to properly cover a single fatal gunshot wound in the movies...

-Andrew

The huge section of structure that remains after the collapse is most likely a piece of the core, rather than exterior columns:
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1dem5/1-064.jpghttp://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1dem5/1-528.jpg

[T.A.M.]

If you look at ground zero just after the collapse (I remember in another video, 9/11 revisited, some guy with a video camera is there), ther eis nothing more than 3 or 4 storey high left.

Yet, well into the 20 second mark of this collapse, you can see parts still coming down above the height of the buildings in the foreground, which are way more than 3-4 storeys, so core or other wise, it is still FALLING well after 10 seconds.

[SezMe]

From this footage, you can see an enormous section of the building is engulfed in flames. Yet fires don't usually spread down. Are we talking about partial internal collapses before total collapse? That would certainly spread the fire through floors beneath the impact point.
If I remember correctly from the Commission report, elevator doors were blown out far down the elevator shafts by the initial explosion. It would stand to reason that fires were started at several different floors below the crash level, not due to buring down but due to the initial blast being directed downward.

[jhunter1163]

Anyone wanna post this little tidbit over at LC? No, wait, they'd filter it, nevermind...

[kevin]

If I remember correctly from the Commission report, elevator doors were blown out far down the elevator shafts by the initial explosion. It would stand to reason that fires were started at several different floors below the crash level, not due to buring down but due to the initial blast being directed downward.

Not sure which report but one had fuel not consumed in the initial blast running down the elevator shafts and starting fires on lower floors.

And fires will burn in any direction fuel is available. They burn faster up, but both matches and candles will burn down.

[kevin]

If you look at ground zero just after the collapse (I remember in another video, 9/11 revisited, some guy with a video camera is there), ther eis nothing more than 3 or 4 storey high left.


I've lost my link to the source, but the debris pile was reported at 6 stories tall.

eta: that's above ground level, the pile extended down into the underground sections.

[kevin]

The only possible explanation is that George Bush snuck into the towers the night before and hacksawed through most of the main support girders, and placed remote control transmitters in the towers to guide the planes into them.

I mean, come on people, it's SO OBVIOUS!!!1!1!!!

Nah, it had to be Cheney. Bush can't do anything right after all.

[Regnad Kcin]

Ah, a golden oldie (http://mysite.verizon.net/vze1xa8h/quirked/images/bb05.jpg).

[T.A.M.]

That is an awesome pic.

As for the heigh, it may have been six storeys. Even at 6 storeys, if you watch how long it takes even to see things settle at the 6 storey level, it is much longer than 10 seconds from this angle, unless I am missing or misinterpreting something.

[kevin]

That is an awesome pic.

As for the heigh, it may have been six storeys. Even at 6 storeys, if you watch how long it takes even to see things settle at the 6 storey level, it is much longer than 10 seconds from this angle, unless I am missing or misinterpreting something.

nope, it's at least 20 seconds, probably closer to 30 seconds. The 6 stories just takes the time that much further away from free fall. If you subtract out the 6 stories of height the fall time would be even shorter for a free fall.

[Christophera]

Words almost fail me.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5637&st=75

Now I'm the liar.

Yup, liar with no evidence.

[SezMe]

Christophera is back. Woo-hoo! Let the fun begin.

[Dazed]

I think it should be pretty obvious by now that whoever started this whole 'Towers are in freefall' bit was a moron. I think it may have been Steven Jones himself, but a quick glance at any video of the event will show debris which is actually in free-fall, falling much more rapidly than the collapsing tower.

I have yet to see any convincing math from the CT-side showing that the structure of the tower would have slowed the fall more than was observed.

[gumboot]

I think it should be pretty obvious by now that whoever started this whole 'Towers are in freefall' bit was a moron. I think it may have been Steven Jones himself, but a quick glance at any video of the event will show debris which is actually in free-fall, falling much more rapidly than the collapsing tower.

I have yet to see any convincing math from the CT-side showing that the structure of the tower would have slowed the fall more than was observed.


Not to mention I've seen footage of WTC1 collapsing that took closer to 30 seconds...

-Andrew

[CurtC]

I think it should be pretty obvious by now that whoever started this whole 'Towers are in freefall' bit was a moron. I think it may have been Steven Jones himself, but a quick glance at any video of the event will show debris which is actually in free-fall, falling much more rapidly than the collapsing tower.
Have you seen Judy Woods' explanation of this? It took me a little while to get exactly what she is saying, because it didn't occur to me at first that anyone could be that dumb. That avalanche of destruction going down the towers as they collapsed? That's not the debris falling down that you're seeing. The debris can't fall that fast. She proved it with her billiard ball analogy: if you had a person holding a billiard ball out the window on every floor of a 110-story building, and the person on top dropped his, then the person on floor 109 dropped his the instant the first ball came by him, then the person on 108 dropped his the instant that 109's came past him, etc., it would take almost a full minute before the person of floor 2 dropped his. Ergo, the towers could not have fallen anywhere near that fast due to top-down collapse. We're not talking about the differenc between 9.2 seconds and 12 seconds, or even 20 seconds. It would take almost 60 seconds to come down.

No, what you're seeing is a wave of timed explosives, which started at the top, and works its way to the ones at the bottom exploding ten seconds later.

It's a most ingenious solution to the problem.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Have you seen Judy Woods' explanation of this? It took me a little while to get exactly what she is saying, because it didn't occur to me at first that anyone could be that dumb. That avalanche of destruction going down the towers as they collapsed? That's not the debris falling down that you're seeing. The debris can't fall that fast. She proved it with her billiard ball analogy: if you had a person holding a billiard ball out the window on every floor of a 110-story building, and the person on top dropped his, then the person on floor 109 dropped his the instant the first ball came by him, then the person on 108 dropped his the instant that 109's came past him, etc., it would take almost a full minute before the person of floor 2 dropped his. Ergo, the towers could not have fallen anywhere near that fast due to top-down collapse. We're not talking about the differenc between 9.2 seconds and 12 seconds, or even 20 seconds. It would take almost 60 seconds to come down.

No, what you're seeing is a wave of timed explosives, which started at the top, and works its way to the ones at the bottom exploding ten seconds later.

It's a most ingenious solution to the problem.

Err, would the ball from floor 110 need to strike the ball at 109 (to start 109's motion) if you're even trying to at all simulate the collapse; as the KE from floor/ball 110 is added to floor/ball 109 so floor/ball 109 accelerates faster (initially) than freefall? Or am I completely off base here?

[twinstead]

Err, would the ball from floor 110 need to strike the ball at 109 (to start 109's motion) if you're even trying to at all simulate the collapse; as the KE from floor/ball 110 is added to floor/ball 109 so floor/ball 109 accelerates faster (initially) than freefall? Or am I completely off base here?

I was thinking the same thing. How would the famous billiard ball example be changed to actually reflect real life?

[gumboot]

There's also no reason to believe the lower floors with remain absolutely still until the above weight hits them.

They're part of an overall structure. You'd probably end up with sections collapsing together and out of sequence.

-Andrew

[twinstead]

There's also no reason to believe the lower floors with remain absolutely still until the above weight hits them.

They're part of an overall structure. You'd probably end up with sections collapsing together and out of sequence.



Ah, I see. Much more chaotic than a simple billiard ball example.

So you could have floor 105 falling on floor 104, but at the same time 102 has just failed on top of 101, causing 103 to collapse before 104 hits it, and so on all the way down?

[Belz...]

Yup, liar with no evidence.

Yeah, yeah, I know.

Concrete core

Concrete shear wall

3" rebar on 4' centers

Blah blah blah

Move along, nothing and NO ONE to see here.

[kevin]

There's also no reason to believe the lower floors with remain absolutely still until the above weight hits them.

They're part of an overall structure. You'd probably end up with sections collapsing together and out of sequence.

-Andrew

Not sure about the interior columns, but the exterior columns were panels 3 stories tall, they were staggered when assembled so there wouldn't be a continuous joint around the building. This means if the panels tended to fail at joints 1/3 of the columns on the 3 floors below would also be failing at the same time.

[kevin]

Err, would the ball from floor 110 need to strike the ball at 109 (to start 109's motion) if you're even trying to at all simulate the collapse; as the KE from floor/ball 110 is added to floor/ball 109 so floor/ball 109 accelerates faster (initially) than freefall? Or am I completely off base here?

Yes, not to mention that balls 110 and 109 would have to hit 108, and so on down the line. Each time an initial velocity would be imparted to the ball being hit. And the force striking it would grow as the mass striking it grew.

[Johnny Pixels]

Yes, not to mention that balls 110 and 109 would have to hit 108, and so on down the line. Each time an initial velocity would be imparted to the ball being hit. And the force striking it would grow as the mass striking it grew.

I had an argument over this on the LC forum, and one of their guys even made a spreadsheet of my claims. I'll see if I can find it, although I have a suspicion it was in the skeptics forum.

[Johnny Pixels]

Got it:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6884&view=findpost&p=5603383

Although the link to the spreadsheet is gone. It took in account momentum from each floor hitting the next etc, and gave a collapse time of 15.5 seconds. I also suggested that 75% of the energy might be lost at each stage (I picked a big number), and this gave a collapse time of 20 seconds.

The formula wasn't perfect, and there's other stuff to take into account, like each floor didn't just collapse as the one above hit, but there could've been sections that cam down together, but it wasn't bad.


And holy carp! My warn level has been reduced to 2% after all this time. I think I might be able to post on there again, but I don't know if I should risk it and just get banned by JDX. Unless maybe I claim to have been swayed by their arguments and join the CT crowd, so I can get a look in the Pentagon FDR forum.

ETA: No, my posting permissions are still removed, so I remain in limbo over there.

[CurtC]

Err, would the ball from floor 110 need to strike the ball at 109 (to start 109's motion) if you're even trying to at all simulate the collapse; as the KE from floor/ball 110 is added to floor/ball 109 so floor/ball 109 accelerates faster (initially) than freefall? Or am I completely off base here?
Yes, you would need to consider that the balls get combined in order to simulate the collapse, which Judy didn't do. You would conserve momentum at the collision, not energy, and there would be energy leftover for things such as breaking the balls, and heat.

Here's something I just threw together in Excel. I'll try to explain a little what I did. In this billiard ball model, you can figure what speed it finishes at, based on the speed it started at, and the gravitational potential energy it acquires during its 12.3 foot fall. I apologize for the English units:

Vf = Sqrt( V0^2 + 2*g*h )

A close approximation of the time for each floor to fall would be the distance of 12.3 feet, divided by the average of the initial velocity and the ending velocity for that floor. This would be a little off for the first few floors, but would be pretty accurate through most of the fall. A good approximation for 110 floors.

The initial velocity for each floor would be the final velocity of the floor above it, adjusted down by the conservation of momentum of adding one more ball to the mass. For example, if 20 balls are falling at speed V from above, then by conservation of momentum the 21 balls should start their fall at V*20/21.

That's pretty much all you need to know, now just let Excel do the figuring floor-by-floor:
floor #balls V0 Vf Vavg time cuml. time
110 1 0.00 28.06 14.03 0.88 0.88
109 2 14.03 31.37 22.70 0.54 1.42
108 3 20.91 34.99 27.95 0.44 1.86
107 4 26.24 38.42 32.33 0.38 2.24
106 5 30.73 41.62 36.18 0.34 2.58
105 6 34.68 44.61 39.64 0.31 2.89

...

7 104 164.00 166.39 165.20 0.07 14.54
6 105 164.80 167.17 165.99 0.07 14.62
5 106 165.60 167.96 166.78 0.07 14.69
4 107 166.39 168.74 167.56 0.07 14.76
3 108 167.17 169.51 168.34 0.07 14.84
2 109 167.96 170.28 169.12 0.07 14.91
1 110 168.74 171.05 169.89 0.07 14.98


So by this model, the collapse should have taken 15 seconds, with plenty of energy left over for destroying the material. This kind of analysis is not hard to do, but I guess beyond the grasp of a PhD in ME.

[CurtC]

By the way, this simple model is assuming that the collapse started with floor 110. If it started at 88, or 70, it would change the results. That would get a little more complicated, but anyone competent in classical physics should be able to do that in a couple of hours. Maybe that's too much time for the "scholars" to invest in a "peer-reviewed" journal. Or maybe, just maybe, they're not competent in classical physics.

[kevin]

3" rebar on 4' centers


I was digging around the NIST report and ran into a diagram of the floor truss that had an interesting number in it.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/578944d8c5ecbb3db.png

Notice the truss rod penetrates the concrete at 3'-4" centers. I think that's as close to having a right number as he is going to get. Of course the units are wrong. And this is the floor not a wall. And the rod is only 1" thick. But hey, close enough for CT work.

[CptColumbo]

Yup, liar with no evidence.
Post and run. Typical CT tactic, especially when they have no credibility.

[Joytown]

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=65460757734339444&q=9%2F11+eyewitness

sorry i misquoted the name, it is 9/11 witness.

Video 2 of 3... from around th 6:30 to 7:30 mark

Not to stray too far offtopic here, but another interesting thing to note on that video is how badly WTC7 is pelted with debris from WTC1. While you can't actually see the piece hit, there is a very large chunk of debris that is falling with a trajectory that is obviously going to cream WTC7 dead on.

Back on topic, it's also interesting to note that there is a large chunk of facade that falls rather quickly, I'd say approx 9-10 seconds from the collapse initiation to it disappearing - close to freefall estimates - far ahead of the rest of the tower.

Yet they still claim WTC1 came down at freefall (or faster) speeds. Were there two sets of gravitational fields at the WTC Complex?

-Joytown

[skeptigirl]

NOVA - Why the Towers Fell (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/)

Nuff said.

[Joytown]

NOVA - Why the Towers Fell (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/)

Nuff said.

As an addendum to this, I posted this in the LC3 thread, but I'm sure it got buried, there's an new NOVA program called "Building on Ground Zero" that follows onto Why the Towers Fell

From an L.A. Time article:
One reason PBS decided to revisit its 2002 documentary on "Why the Towers Fell" with "Building on Ground Zero" (which is scheduled to air Sept. 5) is new technical information that has surfaced on the causes of the towers' collapse, said Paula Apsell, the senior executive producer of "Nova." Because information contained in the first documentary was used to revise building codes, the corrections need to be reported, she said

(Source: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/tv/la-et-tourtalk28jul28,1,6957507.story?coll=la-entnews-tv )

Be interesting to see what new information it provides.

-Joytown

[defaultdotxbe]

NOVA - Why the Towers Fell (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/)

Nuff said.
great program, i have a copy of it on my PC lol

[fuelair]

One of them was 'cause Frodo managed to get the Ring back in Mt. Doom. I think the other one is still supposed to be standing - at least at the end of the movie.

[defaultdotxbe]

One of them was 'cause Frodo managed to get the Ring back in Mt. Doom. I think the other one is still supposed to be standing - at least at the end of the movie.
and the other was attcked by trees.....and judy wood says the towers were like trees....judy WOOD...trees....OMG!!! IT ALL MAKES SENSE!!!!!!!!!

[Meffy]

And the Yoo Ess Gummint secretly has been bugging people's phone lines -- the study of bugs is entomology -- ENT-omology... It all fits.

[gumboot]

And the giant EAGLES that come in and rescue the evil covert operatives Frodo and Sam before anyone knows...

EAGLES. AMERICA. OMFG BLACK HELICOPTERS!!!!1111

AND who write it all, huh? JRR TOLKIEN! TOLKIEN? Don't you mean TONKIN? False flag!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

TEH CONSPIRAT0R@!

Ahem.

-Andrew

[Meffy]

Gee... I hope Christophera hasn't copied and pasted these "arguments" to the LC forums or whatever. Given the lack of critical thinking skills -- worse even than my own, which are pretty feeble -- in evidence, I can't help thinking someone might believe there's some truth to them. =>_<=

Every time I think I've come up with a claim too absurd for any being above the level of -- oh, say, clams or ginkgo fruit -- to believe, it turns out someone's already thought of it... and sometimes they're making money off it.

[Christophera]

I was digging around the NIST report and ran into a diagram of the floor truss that had an interesting number in it.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/578944d8c5ecbb3db.png

Notice the truss rod penetrates the concrete at 3'-4" centers. I think that's as close to having a right number as he is going to get. Of course the units are wrong. And this is the floor not a wall. And the rod is only 1" thick. But hey, close enough for CT work.

Sad that you don't have any real evidence.

Here is an image showing what can only be the 3" HIGH TENSILE STEEL REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) from the 1990 documentary called "Construction of the Twin Towers."

[DavidJames]

Sad that you don't have any real evidence.

Here is an image showing what can only be the 3" HIGH TENSILE STEEL REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) from the 1990 documentary called "Construction of the Twin Towers."You're crazy, it's perfectly clear in that picture the the rebar 2.5" and on 3'6" centers. Anyone who can't see that is either blind, a government shill, or their underwear is riding up.

[Regnad Kcin]

Mr. Brown:

Welcome back. Would you like to pick up where we left off?

[azazal]

Sad that you don't have any real evidence.

Here is an image showing what can only be the 3" HIGH TENSILE STEEL REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) from the 1990 documentary called "Construction of the Twin Towers."


And the lying continues, why am I not surprised?

[Johnny Pixels]

Sad that you don't have any real evidence.

Here is an image showing what can only be the 3" HIGH TENSILE STEEL REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/%7Ejeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) from the 1990 documentary called "Construction of the Twin Towers."

Have you got macros set up for that phrase?

[gumboot]

Here is an image showing what can only be the 3" HIGH TENSILE STEEL REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) from the 1990 documentary called "Construction of the Twin Towers."


Christophera... think about this..

That is a photo of the building from after it collapsed, on September 11, 2001. How did such an image make it into the 1990 documentary "Construction of the Twin Towers" as you claim above?

That is absurd.

-Andrew

[Darth Rotor]

Sad that you don't have any real evidence.

Here is an image showing what can only be the 3" HIGH TENSILE STEEL REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) from the 1990 documentary called "Construction of the Twin Towers."
That's a picture taken from across the river. It shows a lot of dust behind standing buildings.

"I don't think that picture shows what you think it shows, Vizzini!" ;)

DR

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

That's a picture taken from across the river. It shows a lot of dust behind standing buildings.

"I don't think that picture shows what you think it shows, Vizzini!" ;)

DR

Crud. DR, check the first part of this thread before wading into that tar baby.

[Meffy]

That is a photo of the building from after it collapsed, on September 11, 2001. How did such an image make it into the 1990 documentary "Construction of the Twin Towers" as you claim above?
Proof it's a conspiracy reaching to the highest depths of Thuh Gummint! Who else besides top spooks would have access to time machines?

[Regnad Kcin]

One other thing, Mr. Brown:

Will you be retracting the following statement, as posted at http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5637&st=30, page 3?

Just got banned from randi.org. What an amazing 36 hours. Never seen more disinfos on one forum so well aligned, but some of them wern't and they didn't know it. Fortunately I'd seen every argument about 20 times and was totally prepared. After 250 posts in the thread they resorted to posted baking recipes, reciting "Henry the Eighth I am" posting pictures of fruit and cats.

It was astounding, not one single image of the structure NIST says existed was produced in 350 posts to support that the core was made of steel columns. Then the mods decided; after a few posters started realizing that I was answering every question with logic and reasoning consistent with all the construction technique/knowledge they knew and began asking good quetions, showing they were really understanding that the tower cores were concrete; that my links and image posts were violations and banned me.

[Christophera]

One other thing, Mr. Brown:

Will you be retracting the following statement, as posted at http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5637&st=30, page 3?

I certainly don't have a reason to, because what I said is true.

In my abscense no one piece of raw evidence has been posted to support the denial here.

[Blue Mountain]

In my abscense no one piece of raw evidence has been posted to support the denial here.
You are so correct on that point!

Everything one needs to see or know to refute your concrete core idea was posted long before you were suspended.

</TalkingToBrickWall>

[Gravy]

Christophera must hold the record: 557 posts, and how many have had any accurate information? Maybe two or three? Maybe none?

Hey, Christophera, figure out which tower your core photo belongs to yet?

Please seek professional help for your mental problems.

[Regnad Kcin]

I certainly don't have a reason to, because what I said is true...So if this, dated May 27, '06, is true:

Just got banned from randi.org.How is it that you are able to post?

[CptColumbo]

I certainly don't have a reason to, because what I said is true.

In my abscense no one piece of raw evidence has been posted to support the denial here.
You still haven't answered the question posted on this forum and the physorg forum. Why did you lie?

[Regnad Kcin]

In addition,

It was astounding, not one single image of the structure NIST says existed was produced in 350 posts to support that the core was made of steel columns. Then the mods decided; after a few posters started realizing that I was answering every question with logic and reasoning consistent with all the construction technique/knowledge they knew and began asking good quetions, showing they were really understanding that the tower cores were concrete; that my links and image posts were violations and banned me.Do you know this for a fact, or are you simply speculating?

(Bolding mine.)

[Gravy]

I certainly don't have a reason to, because what I said is true.

In my abscense no one piece of raw evidence has been posted to support the denial here.
You mean "In my abcess," don't you? Because dozens of people have posted the evidence that comprehensively refutes your claims. I've removed them because I needed to make room in my VB Image Host box, but if anyone new here is interested, I have numerous photos that prove the core was steel and not concrete.

[Christophera]

You mean "In my abcess," don't you? Because dozens of people have posted the evidence that comprehensively refutes your claims. I've removed them because I needed to make room in my VB Image Host box, but if anyone new here is interested, I have numerous photos that prove the core was steel and not concrete.

By all means. I've been waiting years to see proof of the steel core columns from deniers of the concrete (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/shearspirewall.jpg) core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

Why not make a web page about the steel core of the towers like I have with the concrete core (http://concretecore.741.com) site?

What is typically produced is mis identified photos from constructon that show the interior box columns. You most likely have more of those.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

By all means. I've been waiting years to see proof of the steel core columns from deniers of the concrete (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/shearspirewall.jpg) core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

Why not make a web page about the steel core of the towers like I have with the concrete core (http://concretecore.741.com) site?

What is typically produced is mis identified photos from constructon that show the interior box columns. You most likely have more of those.

Unless you can bring something to the table aside from your same, overused, misinterpreted photos then please, by all means, STFU.

[defaultdotxbe]

concrete (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/shearspirewall.jpg) core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

i would like to know how, from these pictures, you are able to tell steel from concrete from paper mache?

[Woody-]

Why not make a web page about the steel core of the towers like I have with the concrete core (http://concretecore.741.com) site?



Well there is this one about no concrete core.

http://noconcretecore.741.com/

[Regnad Kcin]

Mr. Brown:

Again, how is it that you are able to post if you have been banned?

[CptColumbo]

I would also again like to ask, why did you lie?

[Christophera]

Well there is this one about no concrete core.

http://noconcretecore.741.com/

Remarkable. An entire website trying to document something that didn't exist and doing so by misrepresenting images of the WTC towers during construction when the page they are trying to counter that uses images of demolition explains that the concrete core, being inside the steel framework, was not generally visible during construction.

What is great is the page authors found an archive to a site that shows even grade schoolers know that the towers had concrete cores.

(2) The concrete core acted as the building's vertebrate. But it only carried the dead load of the elevators and stairwells within. In both towers, the planes came very close to crashing directly into the core. Any closer, and the buildings would have collapsed in no time.

(5) Concrete Core - central column supports much of building's weight

Smart kids!

http://web.archive.org/web/20041113142351/http://www.ncusd203.org/central/html/what/torsbergweb/2002/1st/hour8/wtc/graphic.html

Good work guys, you are real good losers.

[gumboot]

Good work guys, you are real good losers.

:mrocks

Whatever you say...

-Andrew

[kevin]

Why not make a web page about the steel core of the towers like I have with the concrete core (http://concretecore.741.com) site?

http://noconcretecore.741.com/

you really should update your own page if you claim to have remembered the name of the documentary. A link to proof of the existance of the documentary would be nice too.

BTW, do you still claim that a 1990 documentary had photos of an exploding world trade center in it? How do explain the time travel required?

[kookbreaker]

Oh look, a building that actually has a concrete core

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g157/kookbreaker/ComcastTower2.jpg

Funny how they build that part first, so its kinda noticeable in the construction photos.

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g157/kookbreaker/ComcastTower1.jpg

[CptColumbo]

Remarkable. An entire website trying to document something that didn't exist and doing so by misrepresenting images of the WTC towers during construction ...
Sometimes irony can be pretty ironic.

BTW why did you lie?

[kevin]

Oh look, a building that actually has a concrete core

Oh yeah, this reminds me. Christophera - you claim that the core was being built 7 stories below the floor under construction. Out of curiorsity -- what did they attach the 7 stories between the supposed core and the top of construction to? Did they just hang them out in space?

[kevin]

(2) The concrete core acted as the building's vertebrate. But it only carried the dead load of the elevators and stairwells within.

This directly contradicts the claim on your page: Distribution of gravity loads was; perimeter walls 50%, interior core columns 30% core 20%.

so are you wrong or are the grade school kids wrong?

(5) Concrete Core - central column supports much of building's weight

Smart kids!


Very smart since that comes from the section on New Safety Design Features that are "IMPROVING UPON THE ORIGINAL DESIGN" and not the section about the construction of the world trade centers.

[kevin]

Christophera - Please explain how a window squeegee can dig through a concrete core.

http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=35

[CptColumbo]

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5637&st=90

Chris has found a friend or a sock puppet.

[Regnad Kcin]

Mr. Brown:

For the third time, how is it you are able to post if you have been banned?

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Could thermite have caused the free fall?

[MarkyX]

Could thermite have caused the free fall?

Just a quickie, but same Crazy Chainsaw on MySpace?

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Ya same one.

The one with some of the answers, but making you wait.

[Metullus]

Could thermite have caused the free fall?
Well, given that the WTC buildings did not collapse at "free fall" I would say that the answer is "no".

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Well, given that the WTC buildings did not collapse at "free fall" I would say that the answer is "no".

There may be a little more to this than most know something totally new something discovered by Dr. Greening and a nut with a chainsaw who likes to drop hammers in his back yard.

[Regnad Kcin]

Yes, that was certainly clear.

[Metullus]

There may be a little more to this than most know something totally new something discovered by Dr. Greening and a nut with a chainsaw who likes to drop hammers in his back yard.
Err... and your point is...? :confused:

[Foolmewunz]

Questions to the Community (not you Christophera... I mean the community of the sensible).

Post 1612 isn't that the EXTERNAL (Chris - that would be "external" as in "outside" or "not inside" or "no friggin' part of no core, dude") stairway that came down from the northern edges of the plaze to run down to Vesey street? (Next to an escalator that's clearly missing...) There were several (I can think of two or three...) such outdoor stairways. I assume Gravy has the best local "lay of the land" and will know.

I think what CC is referring to is actually a fairly nice analysis (which from my lay perspective could be so much mumbo-jumbo) of the possibility of thermite having been created from the reaction of the molten aluminum and other substances; even causing explosions of a sort. Has anyone vetted this for accuracy? I can't post links yet but it's under 911 Myths / Other Contributions / the guy's name is Greening, I think.

(I'm a newbie - apologies if these have been answered/addressed, already.)

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Err... and your point is...? :confused:

Oh I just think a link has been found to all three buildings, something that makes aluminum burn, forms explosive thermite compounds, and causes reactions is steel. Just it is so simple that no one except myself, and Dr.Greening ever thought about it before.
IT was also not involved in the Experiment DR. Jones did, and without it thermites can not form.
I Know that there is no interest in new Information here so I guess I should just move on.

[Doubt]

I Know that there is no interest in new Information here so I guess I should just move on.

There is a great deal of interest here in new information. But many here have little tolerance for people who say they have information and then don't reveal it. That is what you have been doing.

Maybe if you offered a reason for withholding information, somebody could take you seriously. Or better yet, spill the beans and just tell us what you think you have. Until then, you come off much like the cranks with perpetual energy machines who say they cannot tell us how it works.

If you wish to be taken seriously, then drop the games and tell us what you know.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I promised Prof. Eagar I would not reveal it until his brother publishes the article, in the paper he works for however I did not promise not to leave clues and let smart intelligent people figure it out for themselves.

[Doubt]

I promised Prof. Eagar I would not reveal it until his brother publishes the article, in the paper he works for however I did not promise not to leave clues and let smart intelligent people figure it out for themselves.

Then you are playing a game. Do yourself a favor and stop until the paper is out.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I need 15 posts so I can post a link to the article, once that is done I will stop, but I think that someone here has already figured it out from the clues, I left.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You can post the url sans the http://www. I will then relink it for you.

[Foolmewunz]

I tried to post this a minute ago using quote properly and the message seemed to disappear into the fabled ether.... I'll try again, paraphrasing.

I think Greening is pretty accurately covered in 911 Myths as I mentioned in an earlier post. (He also didn't leave breadcrumbs for us poor sparrows!)
I also believe he identified no mystery substance that could cause the melting, unless you mean "fire". What he did identify is that all the malarky about molten steel was likely molten aluminum (if anything), and that Al, depending on its mixture with other alloys, will go molten at between 600 and 800 C.

[Metullus]

Oh I just think a link has been found to all three buildings, something that makes aluminum burn, forms explosive thermite compounds, and causes reactions is steel. Just it is so simple that no one except myself, and Dr.Greening ever thought about it before. IT was also not involved in the Experiment DR. Jones did, and without it thermites can not form.
So, lets see it then.

I Know that there is no interest in new Information here so I guess I should just move on.We are always interested in new information here, as you would well know if you read this or just about any other thread in this forum.

What we have little tolerance for are people who claim to have secret information that proves a point but refuse to post that information. I am not saying that this applies to you; I am only stating the fact. It is easy enough for you to post a link...

[Crazy Chainsaw]

So, lets see it then.

We are always interested in new information here, as you would well know if you read this or just about any other thread in this forum.

What we have little tolerance for are people who claim to have secret information that proves a point but refuse to post that information. I am not saying that this applies to you; I am only stating the fact. It is easy enough for you to post a link...

I will post a link when the article is ready then, I hope it will be in Tuesdays edition, of this paper. mauinews.com/default.aspx

The timing of the article depends on when Dr. Greening is ready, and when Mr. Eagar is able to get the article in. Since this will be breaking news I will not have much time for posting after it is made public.
Imagine some one accidently dropping a hammer and Molten Aluminum on a steel plate, nearly frying my privates, though stupidity, on a farm in Kentucky, and figuring out what happened in the world trade center on 9/11/2001.
Do you Ladies and Gentilemen think anyone will believe it, even though it is true?

[DavidJames]

Do you Ladies and Gentilemen think anyone will believe it, even though it is true?People here will be very receptive of something if it's "true". But be wary of calling something "true" which substitutes speculation for evidence (please see the various Loose Change videos).

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I know about loose change, once I told Dr. Greening he figured out that it is known science, and it also causes steel to become more reactive to carbon dioxide and sulfur.
I can not say more Or I will give it away, I want the CTers to think I am crazy, because that way they are unprepared for the finding.
Can some one post these for me, chainsawsanders.com/thermitea.JPG,
chainsawsanders.com/Iron1.JPG.
I can make thermite reactions on command dance to Music, if it is the right music.
Sorry you will now have to wait for the article to learn more.

[chacal]

http://www.chainsawsanders.com/Iron1.JPG
http://www.chainsawsanders.com/thermitea.JPG

[Crazy Chainsaw]

http://www.chainsawsanders.com/Iron1.JPG
http://www.chainsawsanders.com/thermitea.JPG

The first picture is of a pelt of Iron left from an Iron oxide inclusion in molten aluminum about the size of a large marble going though a thematic reaction.
The second one is a thermite reaction, form impact of an aluminum bullet with a metal plate.
I wish I still had the picture of the combined hydrogen thermite reaction I got from beef liver.
Dr. Greening always had the loaded gun, all I did was found the trigger, and installed it for him. Thermites had to form because of the way they are triggered in nature. Also there is a new type of thermite, one that has never been thought of involved.
Oh and thermites are named because of the thematic reaction of highly reactive metals they can be any combinations of metals and oxidants that form the reaction.
Gee I though I was the dumb one here, dumb enough to play with this stuff until I figured it out. LOL
Dr. Steven Jones has no Idea the true nature of thermites, if you read the article you will see what I mean, I am right now testing to see if his thermatic devices can survive the trigger mechagnism that causes natural thermites to form and react.
So far they have not been able to survive, without premature detination making controlled Demolition almost impossible, I could probably do it, but you will never pin it on me I have never been to New York City.
I hope this will help solve this because I do not know if my eyes will ever heal, completely, I missed judged the strength of what I discovered.

[Christophera]

Mr. Brown:

For the third time, how is it you are able to post if you have been banned?

I already know you are ignorant and stupid, so you are forgiven. A little reading on the referenced message boards would clear it up.

I was suspended for 3 days but they forgot to unban me so it appeared I was banned. Maybe 2 weeks later the suspension was lifted.

Meanwhile, on topic.

Can thermite do this?

Cut Columns (torch cut on right) (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc.box.shear.torch.gif)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

...
Meanwhile, on topic.

Can thermite do this?

Cut Columns (torch cut on right) (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc.box.shear.torch.gif)

No.

[twinstead]

LOL Chris, you realize that there was lots of steel beam cutting going on during recovery operations, right?

Speaking as one of the many lurkers on both this forum and LOOSE CHANGE, I must insist that regardless of what your deluded brain thinks, your theories are TOTALLY bogus.

Seriously. Any rational adult thinks you are completely insane. What makes it funny is that you don't even see it.

[Regnad Kcin]

I already know you are ignorant and stupid, so you are forgiven.Spare my your sanctimony. I have been nothing but considerate and patient with you here. You, on the other hand, would rather be an ass. Well, press on.

I was suspended for 3 days but they forgot to unban me so it appeared I was banned. Maybe 2 weeks later the suspension was lifted.You were never banned, you were suspended after being warned regarding linking to certain images. This was pointed out to you in the physorg forum shortly after you made the claim of banishment. Rather than accept your infraction, you attempted to use your "ban" as evidence of some attempt to silence you here.

Judging by this thread (as well as your posts in other forums), you seem to have an enormous amount of difficulty in admitting error. It's a shame, but, not being a therapist, I can't help you.

Now then, would you like to pick up where we left off in regard to the two airplane impact points at the WTC?

[Christophera]

Spare my your sanctimony. I have been nothing but considerate and patient with you here. You, on the other hand, would rather be an ass. Well, press on.

You were never banned, you were suspended after being warned regarding linking to certain images. This was pointed out to you in the physorg forum shortly after you made the claim of banishment. Rather than accept your infraction, you attempted to use your "ban" as evidence of some attempt to silence you here.

Judging by this thread (as well as your posts in other forums), you seem to have an enormous amount of difficulty in admitting error. It's a shame, but, not being a therapist, I can't help you.Now then, would you like to pick up where we left off in regard to the two airplane impact points at the WTC?


Look, I forgave you.

Airplanes had nothing to do with 2, 1300 foot towers falling to the ground at near free fall rates, identically, in the wrong order if planes had anything to do with it, which they didn't.

What is astounding is that this is the only core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) that can be evidenced and it can be fractured to fall at high rates of speed because it is concrete, but that doesn't mean anything to folks who are supporting the lie that murderers hide behind.

So forgive me for trying to convince you when I well know, you do not want the truth.

[kevin]

So forgive me for trying to convince you when I well know, you do not want the truth.

why are there no facts behind your "truth"?

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Airplanes had nothing to do with 2, 1300 foot towers falling to the ground at near free fall rates, identically, in the wrong order if planes had anything to do with it, which they didn't.

Since Controlled Demolition is soon to be shown impossible with the devices Dr. Jones proposes, how do you explain the collapse of the buildings then.
The devices and the theory are not sound physics even mice can set off Dr. Jones's devices.
I predict now to make his theory work he will design a new thermite device that has a near total vacuum around it.
This by the way is a Scientific prediction, not a metaphysical prediction.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1524959

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Christophera,

Unless you can bring something to the table aside from your same, overused, misinterpreted photos then please, by all means, STFU.

[NobbyNobbs]

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1524959

Great article.

Now please explain what on earth ultrasonic vocalizations have to do with thermite?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Great article.

Now please explain what on earth ultrasonic vocalizations have to do with thermite?

Out of defference to CC and Dr. Eager I won't say much (I've come to understand the direction they are looking) beyond saying that waves of any type (light, microwave, etc) will impart quanta of energy to the material with which they interact and (stable) incendiary devices require an ignition source (blasting caps for TNT, a magnesium fuse for thermite grenades, etc).

[Darth Rotor]

Crud. DR, check the first part of this thread before wading into that tar baby.
Oh, I guess the link isn't the link that I thought it was. ;)

Off to the Fire Swamp I go, looking for RUS's: Rubes of Unusual Silliness.

Thanks for the nudge.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

What is astounding is that this is the only core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) that can be evidenced and it can be fractured to fall at high rates of speed because it is concrete.
Even if we presume that the current administration, or the Mossad, or MI 5, or the Chinese Communists, or Fidel Castro, or someone was behind the plot to ram aircraft into the twin towers . . .

rocks and metal fall under the influence of gravity at the same velocity, under the same acceleration.

How is it that you assert that a fracture will impart added velocity to a macro structure. What agent will first sheer a material at its base & connecting point, and then instantaneously accelerates it to greater than the acceleration of gravity (a booster pack as it were.) I am curious.

Do you have a schematic for such a demolition tool?

DR

[Belz...]

Look, I forgave you.

Airplanes had nothing to do with 2, 1300 foot towers falling to the ground

Nothing ? Are you saying no planes hit the towers now ?

at near free fall rates

I'm not sure what you think this means.

identically

No, they didn't. South tower tilted while the north one fell pretty much straight down; both weren't hit at the same floor, also, so they are in no way identical.

in the wrong order if planes had anything to do with it, which they didn't.

If they didn't, then why do you bother mentioning it ? Also, you seem to have forgotten an oft-repeated fact about the south tower beign hit much LOWER than the north one.

What is astounding is that this is the only core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) that can be evidenced and it can be fractured to fall at high rates of speed because it is concrete,

I guess you're so deluded that you can't see anything else in that picture. You must see that one in your sleep.

but that doesn't mean anything to folks who are supporting the lie that murderers hide behind.

Circular, circular, circular.

So forgive me for trying to convince you when I well know, you do not want the truth.

You're not trying to convince us. You're just claiming something.

[Christophera]

why are there no facts behind your "truth"?

The only facts in existence support the truth of the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif). Ignoring them will not make them go away.

[Christophera]

Nothing ? Are you saying no planes hit the towers now ?

Pretending you do not understand will not obscure your retorical ignorance. The concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) would have survived that and the fires. No toppling would have even occured. If anything severe would have happened, that would have been it.

Identical means in this case the fact that the towers went to the ground. Unheard of in collapse.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

The only facts in existence support the truth of the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif). Ignoring them will not make them go away.

Christophera,

Unless you can bring something to the table aside from your same, overused, misinterpreted photos then please, by all means, STFU.

[Pardalis]

Ignoring them will not make them go away.

And repeating enldessly the same flawed data will not make it true.

[Metullus]

The only facts in existence support the truth of the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif). Ignoring them will not make them go away.
Ignoring the first 2364 posts in this thread won't make your "facts" any more factual, your core any more concrete, your invisicretetm any more substantal, your C4 any more real, or your 3" resteel on 4' centers any less ridiculous.

Nope. It won't.

[Regnad Kcin]

Look, I forgave you.Whatever makes you feel good.

Airplanes had nothing to do with 2, 1300 foot towers falling to the ground at near free fall rates, identically, in the wrong order if planes had anything to do with it, which they didn't.Yes, the "wrong order," which we were previously discussing before you were suspended (not banned). Shall we pick up where we left off?

And incidentally, though it seems apparent you will not ever concede a point or admit an error, the "near free fall rates" suggestion has been debunked time after time.

So forgive me for trying to convince you when I well know, you do not want the truth.Do you "know" this? Really? Your mind-reading skills are on a par with the analytical abilities you've demonstrated: poor.
Anyway, fine, forget me then, since I'm a lost cause. Why not take all of your evidence, such as it is, to several structural engineers? Be certain to include the part about how explosives were planted in the towers while they were being constructed. And please report back afterwards what their response was.

[Belz...]

Pretending you do not understand will not obscure your retorical ignorance. The concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) would have survived that and the fires.

Except you claim it was desintegrated FIRST using explosives...

Identical means in this case the fact that the towers went to the ground.

That's an oversimplification if I ever heard one.

Unheard of in collapse.

Irrelevant.

[twinstead]

Why not take all of your evidence, such as it is, to several structural engineers? Be certain to include the part about how explosives were planted in the towers while they were being constructed. And please report back afterwards what their response was.

Good suggestion. Engineers work hard. I'm sure there are some who seriously need a giggle.

[Johnny Pixels]

So were the elevator shafts built into the concrete core, or chiseled out by hand afterwards?

[CptColumbo]

At this site:http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5637&st=105&#entry115781

I'm trying to come up with a list of other possible things that may have burned in the WTC, that may have been hotter than jet fuel, that may have contributed to the collapse. Can anyone think of anything else, on the plane or in the WTC, that I can add.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I don't know what the ignition, continued, temps of PC equipment would be, but monitors, cases, motherboards are all flammable.

[Cuddles]

There is no "temperature at which things burn". There is an ignition temperature, but once something is lit the final temperature only depends on how much energy is given out and how easy it is for the energy to escape. It doesn't really matter what was burning, as long as there was enough of it and the heat could not escape as fast as it was produced.

Wood used to be used to forge iron and steel. Clearly jet fuel burns better than this.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

There is no "temperature at which things burn". There is an ignition temperature, but once something is lit the final temperature only depends on how much energy is given out and how easy it is for the energy to escape. It doesn't really matter what was burning, as long as there was enough of it and the heat could not escape as fast as it was produced.

Wood used to be used to forge iron and steel. Clearly jet fuel burns better than this.
No jet fuel does not burn better than wood, wood is a more concentrated source of carbon than jet fuel. Jet fuel burns quicker but wood also forms charcoal as it burns pure carbon burning in air so it produces a higher energy coefficient than petroleum sources.

[rwguinn]

No jet fuel does not burn better than wood, wood is a more concentrated source of carbon than jet fuel. Jet fuel burns quicker but wood also forms charcoal as it burns pure carbon burning in air so it produces a higher energy coefficient than petroleum sources.
??????????
:jaw-dropp
sigh...

[Crazy Chainsaw]

??????????
:jaw-dropp
sigh...

Simple jet fuel being liquid is easier to ignite, but wood being able to from solid carbon black has a higher heat potential.
Graphite another form of carbon is used as a shield on Oxygen lances to remove the slag, on deep cuts in iron and concrete.
IT burns slowly at 6000 degrees.
Diamonds well how well do they burn? and they do burn into carbon dioxide.
The temperature at which carbon burns depends directly on the strength of the chemical bond, and the energy it takes to break it.
That is why life can theoretically be only carbon or silicon based both the elements have similar features.

[defaultdotxbe]

so burning wood can weaken or even melt steel, good to know

point to ponder: what is office furniture made out of?

[Crazy Chainsaw]

so burning wood can weaken or even melt steel, good to know

point to ponder: what is office furniture made out of?

It would be more important to ask what paper was made from, as files are still stored in office buildings as paper.
The strongest combustion comes from burning metals.

[rwguinn]

It would be more important to ask what paper was made from, as files are still stored in office buildings as paper.
The strongest combustion comes from burning metals.

so close to the truth, yet so far away.
Chainsaw, like many others before you, you know just enough to be dangerous, but not enough to understand why you're dangerous...

[RenaissanceBiker]

I'm a licensed professional engineer in 4 states. I have a Master's degree in Civil Engineering. I knew about the basic structure of the WTC towers from school and other technical seminars on structural engineering. On 9/11 I was in my office when a co-worker told me to come and see what was on television. After hearing the announcers mention that the planes were fully loaded for long flights the term "jet fuel" would not leave my mind. I watched the smoke for about a minute and said, "Those towers are going to fall." Jet fuel burns much hotter than the fire protection on the structural steel was designed for. Additionally, I figured the impact may have knocked some of it off. Those around me were surprised and asked if I should call someone. I said, "Surely they know that." It was horrible to think that maybe they didn't. They fell exactly how I pictured it. There is no coverup. The burning jet fuel caused the towers to collapse. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

American, Nobody paid me. I don't think you know what a "plasma" is.

[Belz...]

It would be more important to ask what paper was made from, as files are still stored in office buildings as paper.
The strongest combustion comes from burning metals.

New contender for silliest thing I've heard this month : "burning metals".

[Hellbound]

New contender for silliest thing I've heard this month : "burning metals".

Well, it's not out of the realm of possibility.

Aluminum will burn, for example. The M-113 Armored Personnel Carriers the military has are covered with 2" cast aluminum armor. I've seen one burn. Essentially, it's a rapid oxidation reaction. Rust is burning iron, and is actually what's used for those disposable "hand warmers" you can buy in a sporting goods stores.

Not that I support any of his theories (he hasn't been coherent enough to make a determination of what he's actually saying), but the idea of metal burning is not, in itself, silly.

[Deus Ex Machina]

Well, considering the "qualified analysts" have failed to explain the exceedingly fast fall rates, the credibility of what our society refers to as "qualified" is VERY much in question.

You have not, as yet, managed to define "exceedingly fast fall rates". What is the normal "fall rate" for a building the size of the WTC? How many have been brought down? What was the measured speed?

What is your experience in the subject other than reading what other people say?


I've enjoyed providing you with a common sense analysis of what "qualifications" have become.

thus far you have provided copious amounts of drivel. Not sure what you think that proves.

[CurtC]

I watched the smoke for about a minute and said, "Those towers are going to fall."
The Loose Change crowd quotes Mark Loizeaux (sp?) as predicting that the towers would fall, and conclude that he was therefore a participant in their demolition, because, of course, no steel highrise building had ever collapsed due to fire.

[defaultdotxbe]

The Loose Change crowd quotes Mark Loizeaux (sp?) as predicting that the towers would fall, and conclude that he was therefore a participant in their demolition, because, of course, no steel highrise building had ever collapsed due to fire.

just goes to show how CTers treat evidence

first they say "no one ver expected the towers to collapse"

then we see lots of knowledgable peopel who figured they would

so all those people must be "in" on it


ockhams snowball

[Crazy Chainsaw]

New contender for silliest thing I've heard this month : "burning metals".


Thermite is Iron oxide and aluminum it burns at twice the surface temperature of the sun so I would say either you know nothing.
Aluminum is the main fuel in thermite. Aluminum was in the planes and Aluminum does burn in molten form. PS. Steel also burns.
PS. I will tell rocket scientist to stop using it as fuel then since Aluminum and other metals do not by what you say, burn.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/propulsion/q0246.shtml

[Christophera]

Mr. Peabody,

it is absolutely unreasonable to conside 2 towers going to the ground from plane impacts. I realize you are out to lunch. Wipe your face off and come back after the bell rings.


And incidentally, though it seems apparent you will not ever concede a point or admit an error, the "near free fall rates" suggestion has been debunked time after time.


bats of bellfree,

Don't you love how coherent this board quotes. U are full of crap, not evidence like exists for the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)

Except you claim it was desintegrated FIRST using explosives...

That's an oversimplification if I ever heard one.

Irrelevant.

Consider lauging at the 11 year old child that was five when their mother was killed. Nice joke. It was a tubular concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)

So were the elevator shafts built into the concrete core, or chiseled out by hand afterwards?

biker dude,

I cannot imagine that an engineer would make such statements and the term plasma just doesn't apply here. You are fake.

I'm a licensed professional engineer in 4 states.
American, Nobody paid me. I don't think you know what a "plasma" is.

Where you been twice machine?

If you have to question fall rates as lamely as you've have, check what I posted for Mr. Peabody above.

Unlike you I have provided e (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/shearspirewall.jpg)v (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)i (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg)d (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc.box.shear.torch.gif)ence.


You have not, as yet, managed to define "exceedingly fast fall rates". What is the normal "fall rate" for a building the size of the WTC? How many have been brought down? What was the measured speed?

What is your experience in the subject other than reading what other people say?

thus far you have provided copious amounts of drivel. Not sure what you think that proves.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

so close to the truth, yet so far away.
Chainsaw, like many others before you, you know just enough to be dangerous, but not enough to understand why you're dangerous...

I know, because when I talked to Dr. Jones in 2005 I knew what was screwed up in his experiments and did you know he tried to get hydrogen form aluminum by spraying it with water, he had no clue what he was doing.
He knows nothing about what he is talking or the key to natural themite formation because there is a critical energy form he has left totally out of the equation.

It is not hard to figure out what happened in a dynamic situation like 9/11/2001, but you will never find the answer with static tests in a lab, because you would destroy the lab doing the real tests, you need say a farm in the country where you can do active muti Dynamic tests blow a few things up, to find out what went wrong that day. 18 archers in Kentucky worked for me.

PS. Dr Greening now has the answers he needed.

[Cuddles]

Simple jet fuel being liquid is easier to ignite, but wood being able to from solid carbon black has a higher heat potential.

Have you ever seen wood burn? It's quite hard to make charcoal and involves cutting off the air supply so that the carbon can't fully oxidise.

Density of kerosene = 898.64 kgm-3
Density of wood = 200-700 kgm-3

Kerosene contains only hydrogen and carbon and will fully oxidise to water and CO2. Wood contains many longer hydrocarbons and also many other elements in extremely complex molecules that do not burn easily, which is why it leaves ash when burned. So kerosene is a denser source of fuel, and for a given mass more of it will burn than wood. Your statement that "wood is a more concentrated source of carbon than jet fuel...so it produces a higher energy coefficient than petroleum sources." is complete and utter bollocks.

Graphite another form of carbon is used as a shield on Oxygen lances to remove the slag, on deep cuts in iron and concrete.
IT burns slowly at 6000 degrees.

Irrelevant.

Diamonds well how well do they burn? and they do burn into carbon dioxide.

They burn at around 600oC, but is quite hard to ignite. Also irrelevant unless you propose the towers were built out of diamond.

The temperature at which carbon burns depends directly on the strength of the chemical bond, and the energy it takes to break it.
That is why life can theoretically be only carbon or silicon based both the elements have similar features.

Life depends on long chain molecules, which only carbon can form. Silicon can form chains with alternating silicon and oxygen, but they become unstable as they get longer and probably could not form long enough or with enough variety to support life. Again, completely irrelevant.

I suggest you learn some basic school chemistry before you try lecturing me about it in the future.

[Cuddles]

Where you been twice machine?

If you have to question fall rates as lamely as you've have, check what I posted for Mr. Peabody above.

Unlike you I have provided e (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/shearspirewall.jpg)v (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)i (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg)d (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc.box.shear.torch.gif)ence.

deus ex ma·chi·na (ĕks mä'kə-nə, -nä', măk'ə-nə) pronunciation
n.

1. In Greek and Roman drama, a god lowered by stage machinery to resolve a plot or extricate the protagonist from a difficult situation.
2. An unexpected, artificial, or improbable character, device, or event introduced suddenly in a work of fiction or drama to resolve a situation or untangle a plot.
3. A person or event that provides a sudden and unexpected solution to a difficulty.

[New Latin deus ex māchinā : Latin deus, god + Latin ex, from + Latin māchinā, ablative of māchina, machine (translation of Greek theos apo mēkhanēs).]

Before you try to appear clever by "translating" people's names it might be worth finding the correct meaning. Especially with something as well known as this.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Mr. Peabody,

it is absolutely unreasonable to conside 2 towers going to the ground from plane impacts. I realize you are out to lunch. Wipe your face off and come back after the bell rings.



bats of bellfree,

Don't you love how coherent this board quotes. U are full of crap, not evidence like exists for the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)

Consider lauging at the 11 year old child that was five when their mother was killed. Nice joke. It was a tubular concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)



biker dude,

I cannot imagine that an engineer would make such statements and the term plasma just doesn't apply here. You are fake.



Where you been twice machine?

If you have to question fall rates as lamely as you've have, check what I posted for Mr. Peabody above.

Unlike you I have provided e (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/shearspirewall.jpg)v (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)i (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg)d (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc.box.shear.torch.gif)ence.



Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place. Of course, it is not a fallacy to state the truth again and again; what is fallacious is to expect the repitition alone to substitute for real arguments.

Nonetheless, this is a very popular fallacy in debate, and with good reason: the more times you say something, the more likely it is that the judge will remember it. The first thing they'll teach you in any public speaking course is that you should "Tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em, then tell 'em, and then tell 'em what you told 'em." Unfortunately, some debaters think that's all there is to it, with no substantiation necessary! The appropriate time to mention argumentum ad nauseam in a debate round is when the other team has made some assertion, failed to justify it, and then stated it again and again. The Latin wording is particularly nice here, since it is evocative of what the opposition's assertions make you want to do: retch. "Sir, our opponents tell us drugs are wrong, drugs are wrong, drugs are wrong, again and again and again. But this argumentum ad nauseam can't and won't win this debate for them, because they've given us no justification for their bald assertions!"

source: http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20nauseam

[Darth Rotor]

Where you been twice machine?

If you have to question fall rates as lamely as you've have, check what I posted for Mr. Peabody above.

Unlike you I have provided e (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/shearspirewall.jpg)v (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)i (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg)d (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc.box.shear.torch.gif)ence.
If you weren't such a lazy person, you would calculate the "fall rate" as an iterative equation. (floor by floor) You could graph it if you had a brain, and an education, and most importantly the will to actually solve the equation.

Start with initial velocity of zero.

Velocity will increase over time by the acceleration due to gravity, minus the resistance due to obstacles on the way down, to arrival upon the ground. (Total displacement would, in the case of the top of the building, could be reasonably modeled as height of the building.)

Show me your work, if you think you have an answer. Then, show me how you accelerate material falling off of a building beyond the acceleration of gravity.

Where is the booster pack on the falling debris?

None of your assertions in this entire thread account for your claim of where all parts of any falling building accelerate in excess of gravitational acceleration, which would require the building to have had a motive force acting on the structure, and the debris, from the top down.

Laws of Physics much?

DR

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Have you ever seen wood burn? It's quite hard to make charcoal and involves cutting off the air supply so that the carbon can't fully oxidise.

Density of kerosene = 898.64 kgm-3
Density of wood = 200-700 kgm-3

Kerosene contains only hydrogen and carbon and will fully oxidise to water and CO2. Wood contains many longer hydrocarbons and also many other elements in extremely complex molecules that do not burn easily, which is why it leaves ash when burned. So kerosene is a denser source of fuel, and for a given mass more of it will burn than wood. Your statement that "wood is a more concentrated source of carbon than jet fuel...so it produces a higher energy coefficient than petroleum sources." is complete and utter bollocks.



Irrelevant.



They burn at around 600oC, but is quite hard to ignite. Also irrelevant unless you propose the towers were built out of diamond.



Life depends on long chain molecules, which only carbon can form. Silicon can form chains with alternating silicon and oxygen, but they become unstable as they get longer and probably could not form long enough or with enough variety to support life. Again, completely irrelevant.

I suggest you learn some basic school chemistry before you try lecturing me about it in the future.

Sorry I was reading an article on flame chemistry and misunderstood that it related to heat radiation do to carbon and soot formation radiating more heat than in fuel oils, and gas fires.
Wood and coal fires are hotter than liquids or gasses not because they have more fuel potential, but because the soots retain more of the heat.
I am having trouble with my vission, sorry your right I confused heat retention with fuel potential.

[Johnny Pixels]

Consider lauging at the 11 year old child that was five when their mother was killed. Nice joke. It was a tubular concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)


Sorry, I forgot what it was like to talk to you. I won't do it again.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Mr. Peabody,

it is absolutely unreasonable to conside 2 towers going to the ground from plane impacts. I realize you are out to lunch. Wipe your face off and come back after the bell rings.



bats of bellfree,

Don't you love how coherent this board quotes. U are full of crap, not evidence like exists for the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)



Consider lauging at the 11 year old child that was five when their mother was killed. Nice joke. It was a tubular concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)



biker dude,

I cannot imagine that an engineer would make such statements and the term plasma just doesn't apply here. You are fake.



Where you been twice machine?

If you have to question fall rates as lamely as you've have, check what I posted for Mr. Peabody above.

Unlike you I have provided e (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/shearspirewall.jpg)v (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)i (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg)d (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc.box.shear.torch.gif)ence.

I just want to ask you a simple question, Christophera if you do not mind,
since I have personally tested devices similar to Dr. Jones's, and they could not survive mild impact on steel beams without going off, how will they survive the impact of the PLANES?
Controlled Demolition is not possible with unshielded thermite devices!
I could build new devices that would survive and I emailed Dr. Jones how to do it but they would not be able to make neat little cuts on beams because they have to go though so much shielding first.
Also they are hard to hide, as they do not fit in mail carts, and hard to put in place as they have to be precisely designed to fit on the beams and then bolted in place.
Also I still doubt if the shielding would hold and allow the device to be bolted to the beam and not go off when the plane impacted the top of the structure.
Plus how do you shield them against the burning aluminum at well over
2500c
So how was it done, do you have any answers for that?

[anor277]

Well, it's not out of the realm of possibility.

Aluminum will burn, for example. The M-113 Armored Personnel Carriers the military has are covered with 2" cast aluminum armor. I've seen one burn. Essentially, it's a rapid oxidation reaction. Rust is burning iron, and is actually what's used for those disposable "hand warmers" you can buy in a sporting goods stores.

Not that I support any of his theories (he hasn't been coherent enough to make a determination of what he's actually saying), but the idea of metal burning is not, in itself, silly.

Magnesium will also burn and quite intensely, and you can even ignite it with a match. Someone once told me that the old VW engines had magnesium engine casings and disastrous results ensued when someone tried to weld them.

I once took freshly deposited aluminum (approx. 200 mg) out of a metal vapour deposition reactor - without the aluminum oxide passivation (that coats normal aluminum) the flames were quite impressive.

[rwguinn]

Have you ever seen wood burn? It's quite hard to make charcoal and involves cutting off the air supply so that the carbon can't fully oxidise.

Density of kerosene = 898.64 kgm-3
Density of wood = 200-700 kgm-3

Kerosene contains only hydrogen and carbon and will fully oxidise to water and CO2. Wood contains many longer hydrocarbons and also many other elements in extremely complex molecules that do not burn easily, which is why it leaves ash when burned. So kerosene is a denser source of fuel, and for a given mass more of it will burn than wood. Your statement that "wood is a more concentrated source of carbon than jet fuel...so it produces a higher energy coefficient than petroleum sources." is complete and utter bollocks.



Irrelevant.



They burn at around 600oC, but is quite hard to ignite. Also irrelevant unless you propose the towers were built out of diamond.



Life depends on long chain molecules, which only carbon can form. Silicon can form chains with alternating silicon and oxygen, but they become unstable as they get longer and probably could not form long enough or with enough variety to support life. Again, completely irrelevant.

I suggest you learn some basic school chemistry before you try lecturing me about it in the future.

The reason solids are so hard to ignite, and why they generally burn cooler than liquids (and gasses) given the same oxygen conditions is that it takes a lot of energy to get them to gaseous form so that they willburn.
Wood doesn't burn. The vapors do.

[TjW]

Magnesium will also burn and quite intensely, and you can even ignite it with a match. Someone once told me that the old VW engines had magnesium engine casings and disastrous results ensued when someone tried to weld them.

Yep. Years ago, our evening bonfires in the LZ included the occasional VW case.
Don't try to put out magnesium with water.

[defaultdotxbe]

Yep. Years ago, our evening bonfires in the LZ included the occasional VW case.
Don't try to put out magnesium with water.

heh, theres a vid of a guy doing like 10 of them at burning man

[Regnad Kcin]

Mr. Peabody,

it is absolutely unreasonable to conside 2 towers going to the ground from plane impacts. I realize you are out to lunch. Wipe your face off and come back after the bell rings.Are you all right? Seriously. Is all this getting to you?

If you should feel well enough to continue, let's once again address your buildings-fell-in-the-wrong-order claim, which we had been discussing before you were suspended (not banned) here. Would you like to?

Also, what are your plans for presenting your various materials to one or more structural engineers?

[Christophera]

I just want to ask you a simple question, Christophera if you do not mind,
since I have personally tested devices similar to Dr. Jones's, and they could not survive mild impact on steel beams without going off, how will they survive the impact of the PLANES?
Controlled Demolition is not possible with unshielded thermite devices!
I could build new devices that would survive and I emailed Dr. Jones how to do it but they would not be able to make neat little cuts on beams because they have to go though so much shielding first.
Also they are hard to hide, as they do not fit in mail carts, and hard to put in place as they have to be precisely designed to fit on the beams and then bolted in place.
Also I still doubt if the shielding would hold and allow the device to be bolted to the beam and not go off when the plane impacted the top of the structure.
Plus how do you shield them against the burning aluminum at well over
2500c
So how was it done, do you have any answers for that?

I have an entire web page of answers. But first let me say it is only certain there was thermite in the basement. The columns above were largely severed by cutting charges built into the floors. (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1233383) Not enough time and molten metal falling for significant amounts of thermite up high. Perhaps a little to cause tipping or some other effect.

[Pardalis]

The columns above were largely severed by cutting charges built into the floors.

Come on... Are you serious? Explosives were set in place in the floors of the WTC towers in the sixties, remained there for 30 years, and then got suddenly activated on 9/11?

[CardZeus]

I think far too much space has been dedicated to the crazed ramblings of this lunatic Christophera. This thread should be locked and Christophera should be locked up

[celestrin]

I have an entire web page of answers.
Excellent. You'll have no trouble answering mine then. You may've missed this from a few pages back. Let me repeat myself.

Can you tell me how would you recognize steel core columns? What sets them apart from interior box columns and elevator guide rails and whatnot?

What is the property of interior box columns, which allows you to identify them as such?

What is the property of elevator guide rails, which allows you to identify them as such?

What is the property of FEMA-style steel core columns, which would allow you to identify them as such, if I showed them to you?

Do you expect any other type of steel columns on the Ground Zero site except for the exterior columns, internal box columns and guide rail columns? How would you recognize those?

[Cuddles]

The reason solids are so hard to ignite, and why they generally burn cooler than liquids (and gasses) given the same oxygen conditions is that it takes a lot of energy to get them to gaseous form so that they willburn.
Wood doesn't burn. The vapors do.

Yes. Was there a point to this?

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I have an entire web page of answers. But first let me say it is only certain there was thermite in the basement. The columns above were largely severed by cutting charges built into the floors. (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1233383) Not enough time and molten metal falling for significant amounts of thermite up high. Perhaps a little to cause tipping or some other effect.

You do no that is now impossible the energy that triggers thermite reactions, was too powerful in the crash, your web pages are utter BS. because you do not know what form of energy triggers thermite.
How Could you Dr. Jones also made the same critical mistake.
Your explosives would not survive especially not when the sonic load shock of the impact hit the basement, and was reflected back.
Your explosives would be triggered as soon as the plane hit the building, if they were attached to the beams, or built into any part of the building.
So why did your explosives wait when it was impossible for them not to be triggered in the impact?
Controlled Demolition using thermite, is now virtually impossible.
You need to come up with something else, or give it up.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I have an entire web page of answers. But first let me say it is only certain there was thermite in the basement. The columns above were largely severed by cutting charges built into the floors. (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1233383) Not enough time and molten metal falling for significant amounts of thermite up high. Perhaps a little to cause tipping or some other effect.

You do no that is now impossible the energy that triggers thermite reactions, was too powerful in the crash, your web pages are uttter BS. because you do not know what form of energy triggers thermite.
How Could you Dr. Jones also made the same critical mistake.
Your explosives would not survive especially not when the sonic load shock of the impact hit the basement, and was reflected back.

[Belz...]

Well, it's not out of the realm of possibility.

Aluminum will burn, for example. The M-113 Armored Personnel Carriers the military has are covered with 2" cast aluminum armor. I've seen one burn. Essentially, it's a rapid oxidation reaction. Rust is burning iron, and is actually what's used for those disposable "hand warmers" you can buy in a sporting goods stores.

Well, I suppose if you consider any burning the same as oxydation, yeah. But I'm suddenly reminded of an episode of XL-5 where they shoot a missile on a planet and set it on fire, along with the string...

[Belz...]

Consider lauging at the 11 year old child that was five when their mother was killed. Nice joke.

I don't see how this relates, in any way, to what I said.

It was a tubular concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)

Argumentum ad nauseam.

[gumboot]

Does Christophera remind anyone of Baghdad Bob (http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/#quotes)?

On steel core columns:
"There are no [steel column] infidels in [WTC core]. Never!"

"I triple guarantee you, there are no [steel cores] in [WTC]."

On the mutitude of diagrams showing steel core:
"The American press is all about lies! All they tell is lies, lies and more lies!"

On FEMA:
"I have detailed information about the situation...which completely proves that what they allege are illusions . . . They lie every day."

On the NIST report:
"I can assure you that those villains will recognize, will discover in appropriate time in the future how stupid they are and how they are pretending things which have never taken place."

When presented with a photo of the steel core:
"...they are nowhere (pause)...they are nowhere, really"

On the JREF ninjas:
"Whenever [I] attack, they retreat. When [I] pound them with [photos] and [my website], they retreat even deeper. But when [I] stopped pounding, they [posted photos of the steel core] for propaganda purposes.''

-Andrew

[Belz...]

Magnesium will also burn and quite intensely, and you can even ignite it with a match. Someone once told me that the old VW engines had magnesium engine casings and disastrous results ensued when someone tried to weld them.

I once took freshly deposited aluminum (approx. 200 mg) out of a metal vapour deposition reactor - without the aluminum oxide passivation (that coats normal aluminum) the flames were quite impressive.

Okay, okay. I take it back. I was just seeing someone trying to set steel on fire and forgot about all the other metals. Guess that's what CTers do when they hear about "molten" metal, too! ;)

[Belz...]

I have an entire web page of answers.

I'm sorry. You have a web page full of questions.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Ok Christophera, I confess I did it I blew up the towers and building 7, I built the thermite charges here in Kentucky then used my (teleporter) every Kentuckian has one, to transport the charges in place after the planes hit.
Only way they survive!
I did it because I have a fear of heights and tall buildings scare me, since the twin towers were a symbol of for tall building they are just the first to go.
One day all that will be left is single story houses nice safe single story houses.
All I need is enough aluminum, and Iron Oxide, and to buy enough 9 volt batteries to run the transporter on. Then all multi story buildings in the world will be gone.
I can confess it now, because you will never stop me, because I just bought rechargeable batteries and a recharger.

[CurtC]

Is there anyone here who really thinks Christophera should be engaged in this? He's obviously a disturbed person, who should be getting help. It seems to me that engaging him in a debate is a little cruel. Why don't you just let this thread quietly die?

[Cuddles]

Does Christophera remind anyone of Baghdad Bob (http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/#quotes)?



-Andrew

Baghdad Bob? I though he was called Comical Ali.

[gumboot]

Baghdad Bob? I though he was called Comical Ali.

He has a few nicknames. He's that kinda guy.

Al-Sahaf is probably most known for his daily press briefings in Baghdad during the 2003 Iraq War, where his lies, fantasies, and colourful description of his enemies reached meteoric heights as the war progressed and caused him to be nicknamed Baghdad Bob (in the style of "Hanoi Hannah" or "Seoul City Sue") by commentators in the United States and Comical Ali (an allusion to Chemical Ali, the nickname of former Iraqi Defence Minister Ali Hassan al-Majid) by commentators in the United Kingdom.

From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad_Bob)


-Andrew

[RenaissanceBiker]

biker dude,

I cannot imagine that an engineer would make such statements and the term plasma just doesn't apply here. You are fake.


Really? The fact that you cannot imagine it makes it untrue? Attention everyone, the physical universe is limited to only that which Christophera can imagine. The accreditted engineering degrees I have earned from a major metropolitan university and the professional engineering licenses I have been granted by 4 states are therefore nullified.

Now that I have no qualifications whatsoever to make any statements at all about structures, what evidence would you accept that would nullify your claim?

[rwguinn]

Yes. Was there a point to this?
as much a one as the original, I guess.
Solids burn hotter than gasses, which is why we all drive wood-burning steam cars...

[Darth Rotor]

I'm a licensed professional engineer in 4 states. I have a Master's degree in Civil Engineering. I knew about the basic structure of the WTC towers from school and other technical seminars on structural engineering. On 9/11 I was in my office when a co-worker told me to come and see what was on television. After hearing the announcers mention that the planes were fully loaded for long flights the term "jet fuel" would not leave my mind. I watched the smoke for about a minute and said, "Those towers are going to fall." Jet fuel burns much hotter than the fire protection on the structural steel was designed for. Additionally, I figured the impact may have knocked some of it off. Those around me were surprised and asked if I should call someone. I said, "Surely they know that." It was horrible to think that maybe they didn't. They fell exactly how I pictured it. There is no coverup. The burning jet fuel caused the towers to collapse. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

I am going to nit pick your last comment, as there is no evidence to suggest a sustained supply of jet fuel lasting 56 and 102 minutes respectively.

The Jet fuel in each crash was most likely consumed within the first 5-10 minutes of the fire. The containers holding the fuel were destroyed, so the fuel was either part of the initial fire ball, or was dispersed in the direction of travel and in response to the compression wave of the initial explosion.

The rapid spread of the initial phases of the fire was doubtless linked to the dispersion of the fuel, which (along with other flammable things) distributed itself throughout the impact zone.

Your statement is technically incorrect. Everything that the jet fuel set fire to, and the fire that kept burining Everything Else, is what weakened over time the various damaged and whole load bearing structures, which caused the towers various members to lose the ability hold the loads in floors above the impact and fire damaged zone, and thus collapse. :D Cumulative dynamic loading explains the follow on destructive collapse.

For those who prefer a condensed version: The Jet Fuel began the big fire, but was consumed and thus could not sustain the fire for the time it was observed to burn. There was plenty else to burn once the temperatures were raised sufficiently to complete and sustain the fire triangle.

DR

[rwguinn]

I am going to nit pick your last comment, as there is no evidence to suggest a sustained supply of jet fuel lasting 56 and 102 minutes respectively.

The Jet fuel in each crash was most likely consumed within the first 5-10 minutes of the fire. The containers holding the fuel were destroyed, so the fuel was either part of the initial fire ball, or was dispersed in the direction of travel and in response to the compression wave of the initial explosion.

The rapid spread of the initial phases of the fire was doubtless linked to the dispersion of the fuel, which (along with other flammable things) distributed itself throughout the impact zone.

Your statement is technically incorrect. Everything that the jet fuel set fire to, and the fire that kept burining Everything Else, is what weakened over time the various damaged and whole load bearing structures, which caused the towers various members to lose the ability hold the loads in floors above the impact and fire damaged zone, and thus collapse. :D Cumulative dynamic loading explains the follow on destructive collapse.

For those who prefer a condensed version: The Jet Fuel began the big fire, but was consumed and thus could not sustain the fire for the time it was observed to burn. There was plenty else to burn once the temperatures were raised sufficiently to complete and sustain the fire triangle.

DR

The jet fuel was likely the cause of the fire protection coating on the steel failing (in addition to the collision stripping some coating off), in the first few minutes. After that, the end was unavoidable. I think that is what he meant, from the context.

[kookbreaker]

ENGINEER FIGHT!!!

Aww, you guys are no fun.

[RenaissanceBiker]

The jet fuel was likely the cause of the fire protection coating on the steel failing (in addition to the collision stripping some coating off), in the first few minutes. After that, the end was unavoidable. I think that is what he meant, from the context.

Yep, thanks for expanding on it, Darth Rotor. I just made it as simple as possible for Christophera. It really doesn't matter though. He can't imagine someone with real credentials that would disagree with him.

[rwguinn]

Yep, thanks for expanding on it, Darth Rotor. I just made it as simple as possible for Christophera. It really doesn't matter though. He can't imagine someone with real credentials that would disagree with him.
Hey--That was ME
Now, I'm only registered in 1 state, and a lowly ME (and only a BS at that!) to boot, but, gosh, Mr. Edison, can I get a little credit?:D

edited to fix bold

[RenaissanceBiker]

I didn't mean to leave you out. I quoted you and agreed, then I thanked Darth Rotor for expanding the explanation. Thanks to you, rwguinn, for clarifying my post.

My father and brother are both MEs. They joke that MEs design weapons and CEs design targets. I like to reply that civil engineers design civilizations.

edit: Yes, we do put wastewater pipes through recreational areas for a reason.

[rwguinn]

I didn't mean to leave you out. I quoted you and agreed, then I thanked Darth Rotor for expanding the explanation. Thanks to you, rwguinn, for clarifying my post.

My father and brother are both MEs. They joke that MEs design weapons and CEs design targets. I like to reply that civil engineers design civilizations.

edit: Yes, we do put wastewater pipes through recreational areas for a reason.

My youngest brother is a CE. The middle brother is a ChE. We both razz him unmercifully...
One doesn't believe in Force. One believes that Forces sum to zero. Only I know the truth.:D
ChE's design bombs. ME's design delivery systems. CE's design targets.

[Darth Rotor]

The jet fuel was likely the cause of the fire protection coating on the steel failing (in addition to the collision stripping some coating off), in the first few minutes. After that, the end was unavoidable. I think that is what he meant, from the context.
Does not compute, in my brain.

I didn't read in NIST's report any comment on Jet Fuel dissolving the fire protective coating on the structural members.did I miss some details? Big report.

I am not smart enough on chemistry to know if the fireproofing would be rapidly dissolved by aerosol Jet A fuel, but I have my doubts. My expectation is that most of a thin/splashed layer of jet fuel would ignite as the temperature rapidly increased once the fire started, and burn off before it could dissolve the coating.

Happy to be corrected.

DR

RenaissanceBiker: I was just tweaking your nose. A friend of mine was an Army Combat Engineer (Civil Engineering degree in college) who used this line when chatting with fellow alums. "You guys build bridges? I blow them up. My job's more fun." :)

[RenaissanceBiker]

The jet fuel didn't dissolve the protection, it just burned hotter than the insulation was designed to protect against. Once the steel got hot enough (and weak enough) and began to deform, the insulation would fall off and the process would accelerate. The impact probably knocked a good bit of the protection off as well. I think the WTC designers assumed that fire suppression systems would limit the amount of time the structure would be exposed to heat. Sadly this was not the case with a fire of this magnitude. Your term "cumulative dynamic loading" describes the subsequent method of structural failure perfectly.

I had 2 weeks of combat engineer training as part of my Army AIT (62J). Demolitions was fun, landmine removal was scary, and installing concertina wire was a pain. Later, the only one I got to use in an actual operation was the concertina wire.

[rwguinn]

The jet fuel didn't dissolve the protection, it just burned hotter than the insulation was designed to protect against. Once the steel got hot enough (and weak enough) and began to deform, the insulation would fall off and the process would accelerate. The impact probably knocked a good bit of the protection off as well. I think the WTC designers assumed that fire suppression systems would limit the amount of time the structure would be exposed to heat. Sadly this was not the case with a fire of this magnitude. Your term "cumulative dynamic loading" describes the subsequent method of structural failure perfectly.

I had 2 weeks of combat engineer training as part of my Army AIT (62J). Demolitions was fun, landmine removal was scary, and installing concertina wire was a pain. Later, the only one I got to use in an actual operation was the concertina wire.

Designing for the failure of all 4 major systems simultaneously would have been a real stretch. Under what circumstances do you anticipate 1) Major structural damage, 2) failure of passive protective systems, 3) failure of active protective systems, and 4) loss of evacuation/rescue corridors, all occurring pretty much simultaneously, and 7-800 feet up in the building?

Talk about 5-Sigma events!

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Just thought I would add the fire ball of jet fuel had a sand blasting effect because it carried pieces of the plane and building plus anything else in the building with it. That is how the fire proofing was destroyed.
The heat of the fuel had nothing to do with the stripping of the insulation it was what the fireball carried with it.

[RenaissanceBiker]

I haven't read the NIST report, but that sounds resonable. Then I'm sure the fireball-pancake fairies began jumping up and down all at once. There isn't an LRFD factor that covers that so the building would fail, right Christophera? Hello?

[Darth Rotor]

Designing for the failure of all 4 major systems simultaneously would have been a real stretch. Under what circumstances do you anticipate 1) Major structural damage, 2) failure of passive protective systems, 3) failure of active protective systems, and 4) loss of evacuation/rescue corridors, all occurring pretty much simultaneously, and 7-800 feet up in the building?

Talk about 5-Sigma events!
From NIST and the dynamics of impact/Kinetic Energy Transfer, the blunt trauma/'sandblasting'/imperfect thickness causal factor of thermal barrier damage reduced structural steel's resistance to heat prematurely. So long as the fire was burning, thermal stress was going to accrue, and creep. The thermal barrier break down was always an issue, based in the NIST comments, and could only prevent thermal stress for "X" hours in any event.

Heat protection itself was, in the NIST tests, withstood the 2 h standard and beyond, as I read the report. The report clearly spelled out that without the initial damage to the structural members, the thermal stress alone would not have done the deed, and without the added thermal stress, as we saw, the impact alone tore a hole in but did not cause structural failure beyond the local areas effected.

DR

[gumboot]

Just thought I would add the fire ball of jet fuel had a sand blasting effect because it carried pieces of the plane and building plus anything else in the building with it. That is how the fire proofing was destroyed.
The heat of the fuel had nothing to do with the stripping of the insulation it was what the fireball carried with it.


And don't forget, the Jet Fuel was passing through the building at 500 MPH. In the Pentagon simulations they determined that the Jet Fuel itself had severed a lot of the steel columns, simply because of the enormous speed of the liquid.

So the Jet Fuel in the WTC that didn't ignite acted like a super-mega sand blaster and the fire proofing didn't stand a chance.

-Andrew

[kevin]

The jet fuel didn't dissolve the protection, it just burned hotter than the insulation was designed to protect against. Once the steel got hot enough (and weak enough) and began to deform, the insulation would fall off and the process would accelerate. The impact probably knocked a good bit of the protection off as well. I think the WTC designers assumed that fire suppression systems would limit the amount of time the structure would be exposed to heat.

The protection was knocked off by impact. Additionally some columns were not protected on all faces and quite a bit of the spray on protection was unevenly applied (also some of the protection failed to adhere properly, the NIST report has several pictures from inspections that show bare joists).

NIST tested all these scenarios and on properly applied, fully applied non-blown off protection probably would've been sufficient to last long enough for fire fighters to get the fires under control.

If you refer to sprinklers for fire suppression, then I don't believe the designers would consider them as limiting the structure exposure to heat. Sprinklers are generally hung below the joists and under the drop ceiling. There is no way for the water to spray back up and cool the joists and columns are usually hidden behind drywall. I don't think the cooling effect on the floor would be significant either (mostly due to the limitation that sprinklers only go off in the area where there is heat, not across a whole room or floor). The primary effect that would limit heat is sprinklers putting the fire out, but I'm not sure you should design around the fire being short duration due to sprinklers.

I'm also not sure the WTC had sprinklers. In the 60's those weren't as pushed by fire codes as they are today.

BTW, one of the towers had a significant fire in it in the 70's. I believe it lasted several hours. It should've been as hot as the main fires in 9/11. The protection did not burn off at that time, nor was the structure affected.

[kevin]

christophera - you claim the concrete core of the WTC was being build 7 floors beneath the top floor being worked on. Please explain what the floors were attached too while they waited for the core to catch up to them.

[Christophera]

A tiny bit of flex is always going to exist. Steel deforming from designed dimensions caused failures of steel shear walls. Concrete shear walls hold the shape, steel then carrys the loads.


christophera - you claim the concrete core of the WTC was being build 7 floors beneath the top floor being worked on. Please explain what the floors were attached too while they waited for the core to catch up to them.

The floors were attached to the interior box columns and perimeter box columns by the floor beams fastened to the columns. The Concrete Core (http://concretecore.741.com/) brought rigidity and stability to the steel structure as it advanced.




The significance of the concrete core is seen here.

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

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

A tiny bit of flex is always going to exist. Steel deforming from designed dimensions caused failures of steel shear walls. Concrete shear walls hold the shape, steel then carrys the loads.




The floors were attached to the interior box columns and perimeter box columns by the floor beams fastened to the columns. The Concrete Core (http://concretecore.741.com/) brought rigidity and stability to the steel structure as it advanced.




The significance of the concrete core is seen here.

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

Christopera,

I believe this (http://www.johnmreese.net/911truth.htm) fully addresses your "concrete core".

[Crazy Chainsaw]

A tiny bit of flex is always going to exist. Steel deforming from designed dimensions caused failures of steel shear walls. Concrete shear walls hold the shape, steel then carrys the loads.




The floors were attached to the interior box columns and perimeter box columns by the floor beams fastened to the columns. The Concrete Core (http://concretecore.741.com/) brought rigidity and stability to the steel structure as it advanced.




The significance of the concrete core is seen here.

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

The core was a feature in all tube frame buildings that is true, I have seen the original designs the core allowed the building to sway only eight inches in a 100 mile per hour wind, the only problem the core was designed only to resist side loading, not compression load.
Plus you main problem is not what would destroy the core, the weight of the building will do that, but what would make an explosive survive the intense sonic shock of the plane striking the inner columns.
Concrete is fragile it was not enforced to hold the building, but so it could hold up its own weight. Add to much weight on top, and it is gone.
PS. people are confusing the design of the high speed elevator shaft which had a drywall board construction with the main Central core, which was designed as a movement arrester with out it the building would have made people sea sick from oscillation in the wind.

[twinstead]

The significance of the concrete core is seen here.

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

Yikes. If only you held yourself and your 'investigation' to the same standards you do the official story. Your site has so much disinformation, conjecture held as fact, lies, bad science, rabid ideological bias, and out-and-out lunacy as to be funny--if it wasn't so sad.

What you have is the standard 'crazy person' site that is ubiquitous on the internet. Just another paranoid schizophrenic and a web hosting account with his internet provider.

Got to hand it to you though; at least you stick by your beliefs no matter what, being totally wrong in a bad way included.

[Christophera]

Your site has so much disinformation, conjecture held as fact, lies, bad science, rabid ideological bias, and out-and-out lunacy as to be funny--if it wasn't so sad.


I notice you post no evidence when I posted an entire web page of evidence.

Here is another, filled with hard evidence, raw photos of the Demolition (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html).

[Belz...]

The significance of the concrete core is seen here.

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

Where it simply CLAIMS that the concrete diagram is the right one.

[Belz...]

I notice you post no evidence when I posted an entire web page of evidence.


I'll echo what twinstead said: your didn't post an entire web page of evidence, but an entire web page of "disinformation, conjecture held as fact, lies, bad science, rabid ideological bias, and out-and-out lunacy as to be funny--if it wasn't so sad."

[MortFurd]

I notice you post no evidence when I posted an entire web page of evidence.

Here is another, filled with hard evidence, raw photos of the Demolition (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html).

What I see on your site is a pile of conjecture and vague retellings of "I saw a documentary once." There are no facts, damn few numbers of any significance, and conjecture piled upon inuendo.

[MortFurd]

I notice you post no evidence when I posted an entire web page of evidence.

Here is another, filled with hard evidence, raw photos of the Demolition (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html).

Have you ever heard a building brought down by demolition?
Listen to the sound on this video. (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=7883839035399786485) There are plenty of videos of the towers collapsing, but none of the audio tracks actually includes the SOUND of EXPLOSIONS. Explain that please. Since your site claims C4 was used, it's no fair to weasel out and stammer thermite.

For comparison, a video of WTC 7 collapsing:
From MSNBC (http://msnbc.com/modules/interactive.asp?fmt=frame&id=n_banfield_sevenwtc_010911&type=v)

And another one:
Naudet (http://physics911.ca/video/2001/naudet_wtc7.mpg)

A REAL analysis of the collapse:
answers.com (http://www.answers.com/topic/collapse-of-the-world-trade-center)

[MortFurd]

More Videos of WTC 7 collapsing. (http://www.physics911.ca/gallery2/v/videos/WTC7/)

[TK0001]

I didn't read this entire thread, but since it's only 62 pages long, I'm fairly postive that I'm the first one to mention the following:

They didn't free fall.

Thank you very much for your time. The mods may lock this thread now.

[realitybites]

In response to the question posed in the title of this thread:

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

I give you.... JOOS.

[Regnad Kcin]

Mr. Brown:

If you should feel well enough to continue, let's once again address your buildings-fell-in-the-wrong-order claim, which we had been discussing before you were suspended (not banned) here*. Would you like to?

Also, what are your plans for presenting your various materials to one or more structural engineers?

*In addition, an admission that you were mistaken when you claimed on the phsyorg forum that you were banned, not to mention an apology to me for your unprovoked personal attacks, would be appropriate, don't you think?

[MortFurd]

I didn't read this entire thread, but since it's only 62 pages long, I'm fairly postive that I'm the first one to mention the following:

They didn't free fall.

Thank you very much for your time. The mods may lock this thread now.
Since its only 62 pages, I calculate (via the patented "Killtown rectal extraction" method) that the statement "they didn't freefall" has been made 600 times.

[ghost707]

OK, I started reading this thread and stopped when I saw this:



Absolutely, the planes were a cover for the fact that the building were built to be demolished and scheduled for 9-11.


Thanks for saving me a bunch of time Mr. Brown.
You are clearly not a serious person.

[Christophera]

More Videos of WTC 7 collapsing. (http://www.physics911.ca/gallery2/v/videos/WTC7/)

Notice, that in all the posts criticizing my web site with its prolific uses of raw evidence, the is not one piece of evidence used. All just words.

Her are some words from firefighters that I will believe, because their brothers were killed in a high speed series of detonations that raced to the ground at a rate just slightly faster than free fall.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg

Watch the critics try to twist the words of these good men speaking the truth, and they will do so with no evidence again and again. The thousands of innocent Americans that died on 9-11 are nothing to them. The tens of thousands who have died in the wars illegally waged and paid for by more innocent Americans, . . . . YOU, . . . . . . are nothing to them.

They act on some great fear hidden deep inside themselves. A fear of the truth, knowing it or allowing anybody else to know it.

[Foolmewunz]

Watch the critics try to twist the words of these good men speaking the truth, and they will do so with no evidence again and again. The thousands of innocent Americans that died on 9-11 are nothing to them. The tens of thousands who have died in the wars illegally waged and paid for by more innocent Americans, . . . . YOU, . . . . . . are nothing to them.

They act on some great fear hidden deep inside themselves. A fear of the truth, knowing it or allowing anybody else to know it.

Whoa, Chris. You're frothing at the mouth, fella! I think you've watched Network too many times. What the Hell does this ridiculous soap-box speech have to do with this discussion. Yet another diversionary tactic.

[MortFurd]

Notice, that in all the posts criticizing my web site with its prolific uses of raw evidence, the is not one piece of evidence used. All just words.

Her are some words from firefighters that I will believe, because their brothers were killed in a high speed series of detonations that raced to the ground at a rate just slightly faster than free fall.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg

Watch the critics try to twist the words of these good men speaking the truth, and they will do so with no evidence again and again. The thousands of innocent Americans that died on 9-11 are nothing to them. The tens of thousands who have died in the wars illegally waged and paid for by more innocent Americans, . . . . YOU, . . . . . . are nothing to them.

They act on some great fear hidden deep inside themselves. A fear of the truth, knowing it or allowing anybody else to know it.
Listen to what those men actually said. "As if it had detonated." Not "It was detonated."
Learn to hear reality, not just your wishful thinking.

Why are there no recordings of the sound of detonations?

[gumboot]

Whoa, Chris. You're frothing at the mouth, fella! I think you've watched Network too many times. What the Hell does this ridiculous soap-box speech have to do with this discussion. Yet another diversionary tactic.


Oh don't mind Chris. He just has to have an emotionally charged rant every now and then. It's just his thing.

Don't worry he will return to spamming links to his website and photos that clearly show 3" rebar on 4' centres pretty soon.

-Andrew

[Belz...]

Her are some words from firefighters that I will believe, because their brothers were killed in a high speed series of detonations that raced to the ground at a rate just slightly faster than free fall.

How would that work ? And how "fast" is free fall ?

Watch the critics try to twist the words of these good men speaking the truth

Sounds like bible-thumping to me.

[Hellbound]

Notice, that in all the posts criticizing my web site with its prolific uses of raw evidence, the is not one piece of evidence used. All just words.

Her are some words from firefighters that I will believe, because their brothers were killed in a high speed series of detonations that raced to the ground at a rate just slightly faster than free fall.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg

Watch the critics try to twist the words of these good men speaking the truth, and they will do so with no evidence again and again. The thousands of innocent Americans that died on 9-11 are nothing to them. The tens of thousands who have died in the wars illegally waged and paid for by more innocent Americans, . . . . YOU, . . . . . . are nothing to them.

They act on some great fear hidden deep inside themselves. A fear of the truth, knowing it or allowing anybody else to know it.

Notice how Christophera has nothing to rely on except the ambiguous comments made immediately after the incident. Notice how Christophera has not contacted any of these firefighters to ask them if they actually believe it was demolitions or not. Notice how Christophera simply chooses the parts of evidence that are consistent (in his mind) with the theory of CD and a concrete core, and ignores the gigantic, WTC tower-sized pile of evidence that is not.

[kevin]

Christophera - Please explain how someone can break through a concrete core with a squeegee.

http://www.ukrweekly.com/Archive/2002/260204.shtml

[Foolmewunz]

Notice .... Notice ..... Notice......

I'll tell you what I just noticed.... There's a newbie over on the "Welcome New Meat" thread. Christopher7. (I was relatively polite....)

What worries me is that if we've been talking to (at?) ChristopherA and the new guy's Christopher7, are we going to encounter ChristopherB through Z and then Christopher1 through 6?

Arrrrgggghhhh!:D

[aggle-rithm]

For comparison, a video of WTC 7 collapsing:
From MSNBC (http://msnbc.com/modules/interactive.asp?fmt=frame&id=n_banfield_sevenwtc_010911&type=v)


This video was very telling. In contrast to the CTer's who insist it's a big mystery as to why WTC7 fell, no one in this video seemed surprised. Horrified, of course, but it was clearly not unexpected.

I guess they didn't have the benefit of all the CT websites to do "research", or they would have known it wasn't badly damaged and shouldn't have fallen...

[fuelair]

Maxim:
If a suppossed explantion does not explain the event, it is not the truth. No explanation that does not explain the event can be the truth.

So far no explanation in existence explains free fall and total pulverization of the towers appears to exist. Has anyone seen one?

You keep saying this has been explained to you. What idiots explained it - I ask because they clearly have no knowledge of physics, materials design/ structural analysis, physics/chemistry of explosives/flammables etc. that are integral to studying this (on the other hand , there were similar incompetants arguing that the OK City blast could not have occurred as stated either). I used two words with negative connotation in my text. Unless you are a troll, in which the phrase useless slime would need to be added to the list, think over the two AND learn enough to not be misled/falsely used by those who are those words so you won't be them.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :jaw-dropp

[kevin]

I'll tell you what I just noticed.... There's a newbie over on the "Welcome New Meat" thread. Christopher7. (I was relatively polite....)

What worries me is that if we've been talking to (at?) ChristopherA and the new guy's Christopher7, are we going to encounter ChristopherB through Z and then Christopher1 through 6?

Arrrrgggghhhh!:D

if we're lucky maybe they're in hex -- christopher1 thorough F

[Christophera]

"The walls are blowing up." He had skin and burnt flesh hanging from him.

There were explosions in the basement at plane impact, WTC 1 (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1205439)



Christophera - Please explain how someone can break through a concrete core with a squeegee.

http://www.ukrweekly.com/Archive/2002/260204.shtml

Kevin, please find the other account where the surviors broke through the drywall to find concrete.

Some stairwells had elevators on the outside the drywall on one wall with concrete outside on another wall. One stairwell per tower had elevators or hallways on 3 sides of the well the other 2 had elevators or hallways on 2 sides.

[MortFurd]

"The walls are blowing up." He had skin and burnt flesh hanging from him.

There were explosions in the basement at plane impact, WTC 1 (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1205439)

Kevin, please find the other account where the surviors broke through the drywall to find concrete.

Some stairwells had elevators on the outside the drywall on one wall with concrete outside on another wall. One stairwell per tower had elevators or hallways on 3 sides of the well the other 2 had elevators or hallways on 2 sides.
Your site provides no proof. Where is a cite to back up the text you have posted? Did you personally interview these people? Did you get the quotes from a newspaper, an interview on TV, where did they come from?


Christophera:
Refer to "The Presidents of the United States of America," album by the same name, track 2, refrain.

[Regnad Kcin]

Notice, that in all the posts criticizing my web site with its prolific uses of raw evidence, the is not one piece of evidence used. All just words.

Her are some words from firefighters that I will believe, because their brothers were killed in a high speed series of detonations that raced to the ground at a rate just slightly faster than free fall.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg

Watch the critics try to twist the words of these good men speaking the truth, and they will do so with no evidence again and again. The thousands of innocent Americans that died on 9-11 are nothing to them. The tens of thousands who have died in the wars illegally waged and paid for by more innocent Americans, . . . . YOU, . . . . . . are nothing to them.

They act on some great fear hidden deep inside themselves. A fear of the truth, knowing it or allowing anybody else to know it.Again, are you well? I'll guess it can be frustrating to find one's cherished hypotheses so discredited and dismissed, but there's no need to let it affect your health.

Whenever you're feeling up to it, let's once again address your buildings-fell-in-the-wrong-order claim, which we had been discussing before you were suspended (not banned) here*. Wouldn't that be pleasant?

Also, I remain curious as to your plans for presenting your various materials to one or more professional structural engineers.

*In addition, an admission that you were mistaken when you claimed on the phsyorg forum that you were banned, not to mention an apology to me for your unprovoked personal attacks, would be appropriate, don't you think?

[kevin]

Kevin, please find the other account where the surviors broke through the drywall to find concrete.

Some stairwells had elevators on the outside the drywall on one wall with concrete outside on another wall. One stairwell per tower had elevators or hallways on 3 sides of the well the other 2 had elevators or hallways on 2 sides.

I'm sorry, you're the one claiming these exist. Please provide proof that this was the elevator layout.

[Belz...]

"The walls are blowing up." He had skin and burnt flesh hanging from him.

Well, I guess explosions mean bombs, every time. Of course, it has been explained to you many times.

Are you a posting-bot ?

Kevin, please find the other account where the surviors broke through the drywall to find concrete.

You want US to do YOUR research ?

Some stairwells had elevators on the outside the drywall on one wall with concrete outside on another wall. One stairwell per tower had elevators or hallways on 3 sides of the well the other 2 had elevators or hallways on 2 sides.

You mean invisicrete(tm)*


*: Can someone tell me how you put letters as exponents ?

[Christophera]

You want US to do YOUR research ?


No, I already did it, I ust ask that you complete yours.

Basically until you show that there were steel core columns inside the core from images of the demolition from an elevation above ground, you have no credibility except as disinformationalists. The more you post without evidence, the more certain that is.

I have the evidence of the Concrete Core (http://concretecore.741.com/) all assembled for you and everyone else.

FEMA lied and you are supporting their lie. How's it feel?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

No, I already did it, I ust ask that you complete yours.

Basically until you show that there were steel core columns inside the core from images of the demolition from an elevation above ground, you have no credibility except as disinformationalists. The more you post without evidence, the more certain that is.

I have the evidence of the Concrete Core (http://concretecore.741.com/) all assembled for you and everyone else.

FEMA lied and you are supporting their lie. How's it feel?
Argumentum ad ignorantiam and argumentum ad nauseum.

[Gravy]

You mean invisicrete(tm)*


Invisicrete!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044e6c65e64d34.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044e6c6b81fcef.jpg

[MortFurd]

No, I already did it, I ust ask that you complete yours.

Basically until you show that there were steel core columns inside the core from images of the demolition from an elevation above ground, you have no credibility except as disinformationalists. The more you post without evidence, the more certain that is.

I have the evidence of the Concrete Core (http://concretecore.741.com/) all assembled for you and everyone else.

FEMA lied and you are supporting their lie. How's it feel?

You have a bunch drawings that you (or your cohorts) have produced that are of such low quality as to embarass a high school student who has just begun learning CAD.

You accuse others of lying, when your only proof comes from your own fantasies. How's it feel?


Did you look up the reference?

[Belz...]

No, I already did it, I ust ask that you complete yours.

Chris. You didn't DO research. You just remembered a documentary you've seen 20 years ago.

Basically until you show that there were steel core columns inside the core from images of the demolition from an elevation above ground, you have no credibility except as disinformationalists.

Well, we HAVE shown you those columns, but you keep mislabeling them. Must have something to do with your knee-jerk reflex to call any and all unidentified pixels in an image "concrete".

FEMA lied and you are supporting their lie. How's it feel?

Yet another appeal to emotion ?

[CptColumbo]

FEMA lied and you are supporting their lie. How's it feel?
BTW, why did you lie?

[kevin]

No, I already did it, I ust ask that you complete yours.

I did, there are no stories of people running into concrete walls after escaping from elevators through drywall. There are no floor plans showing elevators outside of the core. There are no plans showing a concrete core. There is no documentary claiming there is a concrete core.

Basically until you show that there were steel core columns inside the core from images of the demolition from an elevation above ground, you have no credibility except as disinformationalists. The more you post without evidence, the more certain that is.

Pictures have been shown. Structural plans have been shown. Quotes from the structural engineer have been provided. Until you provide real evidence, not memories of a non-existent documentary, not pictures of drywall installations claiming concrete, not pictures of smoke, you're nothing but a liar.


I have the evidence of the Concrete Core (http://concretecore.741.com/) all assembled for you and everyone else.

You have no evidence there. See http://noconcrete.741.com

FEMA lied and you are supporting their lie. How's it feel?

It's a good thing I go by the NIST report not the FEMA report. And it certainly shows you out to be the liar. Hows it feel to be a liar?

[Christophera]

You have a bunch drawings that you (or your cohorts) have produced that are of such low quality as to embarass a high school student who has just begun learning CAD.

You accuse others of lying, when your only proof comes from your own fantasies. How's it feel?


Did you look up the reference?

Notice that what I have is many times more than what you have.

3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)

[Christophera]

Concrete!http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044e6c65e64d34.jpg

That must be WTC 2, and the concrete core is there. WTC 2 had 2 hallways in each direction whereas WTC only had 1 hallway in one direction on every other floor.

Concrete!http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044e6c6b81fcef.jpg

Notice that only 7 floors show light through. I know that only 7 floors weer allowed over the top of the concrete core. Notice that ther are no multiple steel core columns with the density and size FEMA shows in the core area,

Your unidentified images show a mass in the core area. No doubt of that.

This image shows the solid areas of the core in a mid day silouette (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/silhouettenoontosouth.jpg), which celarly is not the multiple steel core column that FEMA states were there.

But, ......... most telling of all of the abscence of the steel core columns is this photo of the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) that you love so much.

Since you post in support of no concrete as the core, but never adequately support the steel core columns, it is beginning to look as though you suppor tno core what so ever, an AIR CORE.

[Belz...]

3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)

That one made me laught out loud. I expected to see that damn pixellised picture of the bottom of the core post-collapse. I forgot how good you were at spotting 3 inch-thick rebar from a mile away.

[Belz...]

That must be WTC 2, and the concrete core is there. WTC 2 had 2 hallways in each direction whereas WTC only had 1 hallway in one direction on every other floor.

Notice that only 7 floors show light through. I know that only 7 floors weer allowed over the top of the concrete core. Notice that ther are no multiple steel core columns with the density and size FEMA shows in the core area,

How can you see something that's invisible ? Damn! You're good.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Notice that what I have is many times more than what you have.

3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)

I vaguely remember promising violence to myself or some form of severe peoperty damage if I ever saw that phrase again.

Any suggestions?

[Gravy]

That must be WTC 2, and the concrete core is there. WTC 2 had 2 hallways in each direction whereas WTC only had 1 hallway in one direction on every other floor.
:dl:
Wrong, again, Chris. As I always ask and you never answer, please provide a hallway diagram that fits it the photos. Your diagram will need to be of multiple MOVING hallways on each floor. Remember, these are stills from VIDEO. The "hallways" move when the camera does! I think you've had enough time to provide that diagram. What? You don't remember that? Allow me to refresh your memory (This is for the benefit of Chris and newcomers. My apologies to others):

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1712749&postcount=793
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1712773&postcount=804
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1713039&postcount=846
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1713237&postcount=888
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1713278&postcount=900
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1720811&postcount=1608
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1723540&postcount=1897
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1723969&postcount=1952
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1724021&postcount=1972
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1724029&postcount=1976
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1724042&postcount=1980


Notice that only 7 floors show light through. I know that only 7 floors weer allowed over the top of the concrete core.
No, Chris, the top photo shows 18 floors with light coming through at many spots on each floor. Unless you're claiming the concrete core was constructed starting at the top. Is that what you're claiming, Chris? Please respond.

Since you post in support of no concrete as the core, but never adequately support the steel core columns, it is beginning to look as though you suppor tno core what so ever, an AIR CORE.
No, Chris, I've posted the core photos about a dozen times on this thread. Remember this one?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044e76299ec2b2.jpg

Say, Chris? Why is it that you ask to see a photo of the core columns (as above) "above ground level?" As you know, there are many photos of the core columns from below ground level, taken during construction and during cleanup. What do you have against those photos? And why isn't your concrete core there? Are you claiming that the concrete core was only in the middle of the buildings, not at the bottom and top? That sure would be strange, wouldn't it, Chris?

You claim that a tower of concrete, thousands of tons worth reaching a height of about 700 feet, stood after the south tower collapse. Where is the photographic, audio, seismic or eyewitness accounts of those millions of pounds of concrete crashing down from 700 feet?

You've been asked these questions many times. You refuse to answer them. Again, I'm just pointing this out for the newcomers.

Now I see that you're emailing prominent "truthers" about this pressing issue and pointing them to two websites that tell the whole story of the concrete core. Lo and behold! They're your websites! Good luck with that program.

Please provide your diagram of the multiple moving hallways now. You've had a few months to put it together.

Finally, Chris, what is the recipe for Invisicrete?

[kevin]

Notice that what I have is many times more than what you have.

3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)

You have crap. See http://noconcretecore.741.com

[MortFurd]

I vaguely remember promising violence to myself or some form of severe peoperty damage if I ever saw that phrase again.

Any suggestions?
Yes. Target Christophera with an ICBCB4*

Inter Continental Ballistic Clue By 4

[kevin]

of the core in a mid day silouette (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/silhouettenoontosouth.jpg), which celarly is not the multiple steel core column that FEMA states were there.

I can see the steel core in that photo. You're just wrong. http://noconcretecore.741.com


But, ......... most telling of all of the abscence of the steel core columns is this photo of the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) that you love so much.

except of course that isn't concrete.

[kevin]

The floors were attached to the interior box columns and perimeter box columns by the floor beams fastened to the columns. The Concrete Core (http://concretecore.741.com/) brought rigidity and stability to the steel structure as it advanced.


So they had 7 floors of un-rigid and unstable steel structure until the concrete could catch up with them? Bwahahaha. No building inspector in the world would allow that.

Also the floor trusses were much tighter spacing than your supposed box columns. What were the trusses between columns attached too?

[kevin]

PS. people are confusing the design of the high speed elevator shaft which had a drywall board construction with the main Central core, which was designed as a movement arrester with out it the building would have made people sea sick from oscillation in the wind.

In most buildings with a central core this is true, however the World Trade Center was specifically designed to take lateral loads on the face of the building and NOT transfer those loads to the core. That is why they installed the visco-elastic dampers in the floor joists, to keep wind load from transferring to the core.

This was to reduce the number of columns needed in the core and increase rentable space. Also if you'll check the floor plans in the NIST report you'll see they called for covering the core in drywall (for aesthetic reasons, they were going to leave the columns exposed.)

[Regnad Kcin]

Mr. Brown, why do you do what you do? What is to be gained by lies, insults, innuendo, prevarication, and other sundry tactics? Are you proud of your methods?

Why, Mr. Brown? Why?

[Foolmewunz]

Mr. Brown, why do you do what you do? What is to be gained by lies, insults, innuendo, prevarication, and other sundry tactics? Are you proud of your methods?

Why, Mr. Brown? Why?

Is it possible to nominate a body of work for the TLA? Regnad Kcin's kindly Doctor Marcus Welby in this string is bordering on priceless! (Although the veneer does seem to be slipping in this last one.)

[Regnad Kcin]

Thanks for both the compliment and the idea for a new me!

[Foolmewunz]

Thanks for both the compliment and the idea for a new me!

Cool! (Not sure if that works with "Nick Danger Backwards" - but maybe, yeah... Doc Welby would just about be the opposite of Nick!)

[Christophera]

So they had 7 floors of un-rigid and unstable steel structure until the concrete could catch up with them? Bwahahaha. No building inspector in the world would allow that.

Also the floor trusses were much tighter spacing than your supposed box columns. What were the trusses between columns attached too?

Hmmm, ..... you distort what I said. The steel would flex with the loads of the kangaroo cranes.



The trusses were attached to floor beams and they can be seen here (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/shearspirewall.jpg) and
below the spire (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg)

[Pardalis]

Christophera, at least give yourself an avatar of a cute chick for god's sakes!

Childlike Empress got that right away.

[kevin]

Hmmm, ..... you distort what I said. The steel would flex with the loads of the kangaroo cranes.

The kangroo cranes were not attached to building steel. they had their own jacks. Makes it hard to dismantle if you attach them to building steel.

And flexing steel is un-rigid and unstable (hence the word "flex"). You don't attach floors to flexing steel, you attach them rigidly supported steel or (in other buildings) rigidly supported concrete. Your entire proposed building construction phasing is wrong, the building would've fallen over before they began.

[Christophera]

The kangroo cranes were not attached to building steel. they had their own jacks. Makes it hard to dismantle if you attach them to building steel.

The kangaroo cranes had their own platform, the heavily trussed assembly that fit inside the core and attached to the interio box columns. The entire platform and individual cranes could be jacked up and down.

Note there are no Massive Columns inside the core area. the steel that is there is support for elevator guide rails.

Crane platform and interior box columns ringing the core "Massive columns" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg)

here an interior box column is seen outside the concrete core or the concrete shear wall to left of interior box column, the "spire" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg).

[Christophera]

Christophera, at least give yourself an avatar of a cute chick for god's sakes!

Childlike Empress got that right away.

Happy now?

[Gravy]

Christophera, your mental problems are sad. Please seek professional help.

By the way, have you finished that diagram of the multiple moving diagonal hallways that run through each floor of your concrete core? You promised me that months ago. Please provide it now.

You didn't address the questions in this post. Please do so now. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1858464&postcount=2481

[Christophera]

Christophera, your mental problems are sad. Please seek professional help.

By the way, have you finished that diagram of the multiple moving diagonal hallways that run through each floor of your concrete core? You promised me that months ago. Please provide it now.

You didn't address the questions in this post. Please do so now. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1858464&postcount=2481

My diagram of hallways and interior walls of the WTC 1 steel reinforced concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corehallsdoors.gif) stays as it is and is as finished as it will be.

Please provide some evidence of the steel core columns that is not mistinterpretations of construction photos or WYC report lies. Something like images from the demoliton that do not lie.

[Mancman]

My diagram of hallways and interior walls of the WTC 1 steel reinforced concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corehallsdoors.gif) stays as it is and is as finished as it will be.

Please provide some evidence of the steel core columns that is not mistinterpretations of construction photos or WYC report lies. Something like images from the demoliton that do not lie.

If there was a hefty concrete core within the WTC in addition to all those steel core columns, how was this landing gear able to go through straight through the centre of WTC1 and take out a perimeter column tree on the south side of the building?
http://killtown.911review.org/images/wtc-gallery/7-70_tire-embedded-wtc1-panel.jpg

[Gravy]

My diagram of hallways and interior walls of the WTC 1 steel reinforced concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corehallsdoors.gif) stays as it is and is as finished as it will be.

I don't see multiple diagonal hallways on each floor in your diagram. Please explain.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044ea70174f256.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044e6c65e64d34.jpg

[Pardalis]

Happy now?

I guess I should have known better than to give ideas to a madman.

That one's my fault... :o

Now I got twice as much reasons not to read your posts, Christophera.