PDA

View Full Version : Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers?

Arus808
14th November 2006, 05:36 PM
It is not mathematical and it does not need to be. In fact, that would be tremendously involved. None of us could handle it.

It is common sense and knowledge. If you've got it and can use it you may be capable of arguing reasonably here.

You are making claim that the buildings fell "near free fall speeds"
well, the only way to deterine what is free fall is through math, so any calculations that would be close to what free fall is, would be considered "near free fall".

Now in science, to be close to something you'd have to off by only a very minute measurement (ie in time, you'd have to be off by on a fraction of a second to beconsidered "close" or near)

jsfisher
14th November 2006, 05:53 PM
Here's how I see it:

--------------------------

Question #1:
Why do you think it was freefall?

A: It is most accurate to say the towers fell at near free fall because the exact moment they stopped falling cannot be exactly determined.

Conclusion: Substitute "near free fall" for "free fall" in all claims.

--------------------------

Question #2:
What is near free fall? Would that include a rate of fall that takes air resistance into account? Or is there a +/- value you can give us that separates near free fall from some other category of fall?

A1: The issue of free fall is minor. If they took 20 seconds is doesn't matter to me. The fact that they did so identically to the ground is ASTOUNDING. Defying logic totally if described as "collapse".

A2: Consider that it is actually unimportant as too the exact rate of fall. What is importnat is the explanation as to HOW they fell that fast, however fast it was.

A3: The explanation for the rate of fall is the point of the thread. If it is not exactly free fall, this is a minor issue. the rate of fall was way too fast.

A4: The historical posts in the thread accept that I have retracted "free fall" and adjusted it to "nearly free fall" and reasonably so because we simply do not know when the debris stopped falling.

Proposed conclusion: Substitute "rate of fall was way too fast" for all claims regarding "free fall" and "near free fall".

--------------------------

Question #3:
What, exactly, is the rate of fall (by which I mean, what is the rate of downward acceleration of main structure members), and what rate of fall is expected during a total structural collapse of this building?

--------------------------

ChristopherA clings to a term to which he will give no meaning, so I propose we accept it as unanswered, then move to the next question.

Smiffy
14th November 2006, 06:08 PM
This new approach is interesting, in that it shows the evasiveness we're up against. If we can't even agree terms Chris, you can hardly expect an adequate answer to your question now, can you?

NobbyNobbs
14th November 2006, 07:34 PM
Christopher, let me see if I can explain to you everyone's dilemma here. You claim that the topic at hand is an explanation for why the towers fell at the rate that they did (whether that rate is "too fast", "near free fall", or whatever). Fine, we'll discuss possible reasons. But to do so, we first need to know at what rate you think the towwers fell.

You understand why this is necessary, don't you? If they fell at one rate, there might be one explanation. If they fell at another rate, there might be another explanation. So to pin down the correct explanation, we first need to pin down at what rate you think they fell. Does that make sense?

Z
14th November 2006, 08:56 PM
As I've said, the title field only accomodates a certain amount of text. You are attempting to make a non issue, an issue.

And you are waffling.

s not your role to decide what is most important in what I ask. Clearly, an explanation is the point not the exact rate.

But without understanding the rate, no explanation can be forthcoming.

If the rate were, say, 14 m/s/s, obviously no normal rational explanation could cover such a rate of acceleration; if, however, the rate were, say, closer to 5 m/s/s, the rational explanation is that the structure of the building failed, and the tower suffered overall collapse.

Consider this analogy:

A: "Why were you speeding?"
B: "What do you mean speeding? How fast was I going?"
A: "The important thing isn't how fast you were going, it's why you were going as fast as you were."
B: "And how fast was that? If I was doing 45mph I wasn't speeding; if I was doing 95mh I probably was; so how fast was I going?"
A: "Well, you were nearly speeding; why?"
B: "What is nearly speeding?"
.... and so on.

You're saying something is wrong, but refusing to define what, exactly, is wrong!

Clearly, if you read the thread, that the historical posts in the thread accept that I have retracted "free fall" and adjusted it to "nearly free fall" and reasonably so because we simply do not know when the debris stopped falling.

Problem being that A) you haven't defined what 'near free fall' means; and B) you don't need to know when the debris stopped falling; all you need is to be able to calculate where the debris was over a set of times, say, every 1/10th of a second, and determine the rate of downward acceleration.

This is not a physics discussion.

WRONG! THIS IS EXACTLY A PHYSICS DISCUSSION!!! ONLY PHYSICS CAN DEAL WITH A QUESTION ABOUT THE RATE OF FALL!!!!

If I intended it to be such I would have titled the thread, "What is free fall and did the towers do that?" Or something like that.

And so you did.

More pertinant to the gist of the issue is the strcuture that fell too fast.

So what does 'too fast' mean?

This is EXACTLY the problem, Chris. You're throwing the term out and not telling anyone what that means. It's meaningless, Chris.

I'm certain FEMA lied.

And we're certain you're lying. You've already demonstrated a piss-poor memory for details and facts, and a willingness to make up lies on the fly. So why should we believe you over anyone else?

If you knew about materials you would know that steel core columns cannot be cut to fall instantly.

And that the towers didn't fall 'instantly'. Instantly would mean that the time between the beginning of the fall and the subsequent settling would be effectively zero, which we can tell it was not. However, since you have a problem with how fast the towers fell, the first thing you need to do is tell us how fast the towers fell, and how fast they should have fallen.

the underlying issue is the concrete core,

The underlying issue is irrelevant until the initial question is properly defined. Period.

http://algoxy.com/i'matotalasshat.html

More attention-whoring for your crap website. Quit the nonsense, Chris, and deal with the question.

because concrete can be fractured to fall instantly.

Unlikely.

THSI FACTOR can EXPLAIN the high rate of fall.

WHICH WAS WHAT, CHRIS???

So the thread has been anturally an properly focused and your attempts to re focus it are diversionary tactic.

The only diversionary tactic being employed at the moment is by you.

FACT: You initially ask for an explanation for how the towers fell at free fall.

FACT: You have changed this to 'near free fall'.

FACT: You have now changed this to 'falling way too fast'.

FACT: You have NEVER, not ONCE, properly defined what you mean by either 'near free fall' nor by 'falling way too fast'. Until you can define these terms, we can neither agree nor disagree and cannot examine ANY explanation for ANY of these phenomenae. I could just as easily claim the towers fell 'way too slow', and demand an explanation.

So, quit the idiotic diversionary tactic, and address the question at hand:

What does 'falling too fast' mean? What was the rate of downward acceleration?

If you refuse to exactly define what you mean, I will counter that the towers fell exactly as fast as they should have fallen, consistant with a steel core building suffering structural failure from impact and subsequent thermal damage, and point out that any disagreement from you is irrelevant until you define how fast the towers fell, and compare that collapse rate to the expected rate of collapse of the towers.

So please, Chris, stay on target: what is 'way too fast'?

delphi_ote
14th November 2006, 09:29 PM
That is a spam threat.
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i133/delphi_ote/Porkins.jpg
You seem to be having a little difficulty backing up your own claims.

14th November 2006, 10:30 PM
christophera, let's approach it this way.

i could contend that the towers started falling at 08:47 and 09:03 on 9/11 (wtc north tower and wtc south tower respectively) and took 103 and 58 minutes to fall. i could then argue that (the rate of fall) was (roughly) 10 metres per minute in the first case and 20 metres per minute in the last case. removing the tongue from my cheek, i could then ask you whether you think my calculations are correct. couldn't i? then we could agree or disagree or even compromise on a solution and then perhaps move on. right?

BV

Christophera
15th November 2006, 01:22 AM
Christopher, let me see if I can explain to you everyone's dilemma here. You claim that the topic at hand is an explanation for why the towers fell at the rate that they did (whether that rate is "too fast", "near free fall", or whatever). Fine, we'll discuss possible reasons. But to do so, we first need to know at what rate you think the towwers fell.

You understand why this is necessary, don't you? If they fell at one rate, there might be one explanation. If they fell at another rate, there might be another explanation. So to pin down the correct explanation, we first need to pin down at what rate you think they fell. Does that make sense?

All we need to know is they fell too fast and there is no question about that. Your disinformation tactic of selectivity is tremendously obvious.

Explanations are the point of the thread not minutia of free fall.

I explain how rates of free fall might be attained. (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html)

I contend that after you solve (sic) you non existent issue of exactly "how fast", and "what is free fall anyway", you still won't be able to prove it could happen with the core you so often fail to provide proof for, so after you waste our time with "how fast", and "what is free fall anyway", you are still lost because you don't have the correct structure.

Christophera
15th November 2006, 01:24 AM
christophera, let's approach it this way.

i could contend that the towers started falling at 08:47 and 09:03 on 9/11 (wtc north tower and wtc south tower respectively) and took 103 and 58 minutes to fall. i could then argue that (the rate of fall) was (roughly) 10 metres per minute in the first case and 20 metres per minute in the last case. removing the tongue from my cheek, i could then ask you whether you think my calculations are correct. couldn't i? then we could agree or disagree or even compromise on a solution and then perhaps move on. right?

BV

Bogus.

I've already said that in the case of 3,000 murders and as many violations of due process it is not reasonable to play your game.

We need explanation not tennis.

Get with it and get real.

Christophera
15th November 2006, 01:27 AM
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i133/delphi_ote/Porkins.jpg
You seem to be having a little difficulty backing up your own claims.

You ask me to back a claim that does not need backing. It is obvious that the towers fell to fast.

More obvius than that they fell identically to the ground. Impossible for a collapse.

Your insistence on making the free fall claim an issue is simple collusion in an attempt to make unreasonable selectivity appear reasonable.

Big Al
15th November 2006, 01:45 AM
Your insistence on making the free fall claim an issue is simple collusion in an attempt to make unreasonable selectivity appear reasonable.

So two towers, built in the same way, hit by identical airliners at about the same height, fell in the same way? WOW!

If they'd reacted differently, I bet you'd be using that as proof of evil machinations.

Powa
15th November 2006, 02:22 AM
All we need to know is they fell too fast and there is no question about that.
They fell too fast compared to what? How fast did you expect them to fall? Did you do any calculations at all?

Your disinformation tactic of selectivity is tremendously obvious.
We are asking relevant questions. We select points that are obviously very important to you.

Explanations are the point of the thread not minutia of free fall.
First you must show that the towers fell too fast, and only then try to explain it. If it didn't happen there's no need to explain it. Don't you agree?

I contend that after you solve (sic) you non existent issue of exactly "how fast", and "what is free fall anyway",

...you still won't be able to prove it could happen with the core you so often fail to provide proof for, so after you waste our time with "how fast", and "what is free fall anyway", you are still lost because you don't have the correct structure.

Mobyseven
15th November 2006, 03:10 AM
Now in science, to be close to something you'd have to off by only a very minute measurement (ie in time, you'd have to be off by on a fraction of a second to beconsidered "close" or near)

That's not quite right.

What is considered 'close' would depend on (a) the order of accuracy you have measured to (represented by significant figures) and (b) the magnitude of the phenomenon being measured.

An example of (a) would be - if you are measuring, say, the time it takes someone to run 5km (or miles, but I'm in Australia), and you used two different stopwatches. Say the average time is 30mins.

The first stopwatch has divisions in minutes, the second in groups of 5 minutes. Measured on the first stopwatch, you could report a measurement of 26 +-1 minutes, and you could say that this is NOT close to average, it is considerably faster. Measured on the second stopwatch, you could report a measurement of approx. 25 +-5 minutes, and the argument could be made that at such an order of accuracy, this IS close to the average.

An example of (b) is geological time. This time scale often talks of hundreds of millions of years. On this scale, 10000 years (which seems like an incredible period of time to a normal person) is considered a VERY SHORT period of time.

Christophera: Stay on target. Once this question has been dealt with, the socks will be passed on and we will focus on another part of your hypothesis. This is not about evasion, it is about being systematic.

15th November 2006, 03:57 AM
Bogus.

I've already said that in the case of 3,000 murders and as many violations of due process it is not reasonable to play your game.

We need explanation not tennis.

Get with it and get real.

ahhhh. don't you see chris? this is where you fall every time.
you are not in YOUR domain here. HERE things are a lot more democratic. your one-party state over at algoxy means nothing.
you're correct we need explanation but not JUST your dictat. to proceed you must join in the process. otherwise eventually you burn in your bunker.

so, go on, admit it, you have no idea what rate the towers fell at.

BV

Belz...
15th November 2006, 04:45 AM
Wrong, the explanation for the rate of fall is the point of the thread. If it is not exactly free fall, this is a minor issue. the rate of fall was way too fast.

Okay, but if we're going to focus on the explanation for the rate of fall, don't you think we should FIRST establish the ACTUAL rate of fall and determine if, indeed, it is "way too fast" ?

Belz...
15th November 2006, 04:47 AM
It is common sense and knowledge. If you've got it and can use it you may be capable of arguing reasonably here.

Oh, "common sense" again.

You mean, the same common sense that tells you the Earth is flat and that heavier objects fall faster ?

Do you deny that common sense tells you these things until someone teaches you otherwise ?

Belz...
15th November 2006, 04:51 AM
All we need to know is they fell too fast and there is no question about that.

But there IS a question about that, Chris. HOW FAST did it fall, and HOW FAST would you EXPECT IT to fall ?

Those are fundamental questions. Without an answer to them we cannot proceed logically.

You ask me to back a claim that does not need backing. It is obvious that the towers fell to fast.

Same questions. HOW FAST did it fall, and HOW FAST would you EXPECT IT to fall ?

I contend that after you solve (sic) you non existent issue of exactly "how fast", and "what is free fall anyway", you still won't be able to prove it could happen with the core you so often fail to provide proof for, so after you waste our time with "how fast", and "what is free fall anyway", you are still lost because you don't have the correct structure.

One step at a time, now. HOW FAST did it fall, and HOW FAST would you EXPECT IT to fall ?

delphi_ote
15th November 2006, 04:55 AM
You ask me to back a claim that does not need backing. It is obvious that the towers fell to fast.
It isn't so simply because you say it is, Chris. Either back up your claim or retract it.

NobbyNobbs
15th November 2006, 05:27 AM
All we need to know is they fell too fast and there is no question about that. Your disinformation tactic of selectivity is tremendously obvious.

Ok, so we need to know they fell too fast. So how do we know that? You say there is no question about it, but it seems there is. Pretend you are explaining it to someone who can't analyze te video on their own. Suppose you were explaining it to a child. You say "It fell too fast." They say "How do you know?" What's your next response?

You ask me to back a claim that does not need backing. It is obvious that the towers fell to fast.

More obvius than that they fell identically to the ground. Impossible for a collapse.

Your insistence on making the free fall claim an issue is simple collusion in an attempt to make unreasonable selectivity appear reasonable.

I don't think it's unreasonable for you to say "They fell too fast" and for us to respond "Prove it". You say it's obvious. It isn't obvious to us. If it's so incredibly obvious, it ought to be incredibly easy to prove.

I think, generally speaking, people on here would be more than happy to discuss reasons for the rate of fall, once the rate of fall is established. We are not trying to avoid discussion...just proceed along it point by point, logically.

Would you accept a ticket for speeding withhout proof from the cop that you were actually speeding?

Z
15th November 2006, 05:37 AM
What is the rate of fall, Chris, and what is the expected rate of fall? Saying it 'obviously fell too fast' won't cut the cheese here, Chris. It didn't obviously fall too fast; it obviously fell just perfectly. It's up to you to demonstrate, using mathematics and physics, how the towers cannot have fallen at the rate they did (which requires you to show the rate of downward acceleration of the towers, as well as the expected rate of their descent). This is your claim; the burden of proof is on you.

I think, for once in this board's life, we have a consensus to discuss NO OTHER ISSUE with you in this thread until you either retract your claims that the towers fell too fast, or provide the rate at which the towers fell, and an expected rate of collapse.

That's the current state of affairs, Chris. Deal with the initial issue in your post, and we'll move on. I'm sure there are plenty here who want to discuss 'total pulverisation', 'identical collapse', 'to the ground', etc. BUT NO ONE WILL DISCUSS ANYTHING ELSE UNTIL YOU DEAL WITH THE COLLAPSE RATE ISSUE.

Welcome to the new order, Chris.

The Almond
15th November 2006, 08:28 AM
All we need to know is they fell too fast and there is no question about that.

Here's where the problem with this argument lies. You're attempting to start a discussion wherein the opponents of your theory are asked to make a major concession supporting your theory without evidence. That's no basis for a reasonable exchange of ideas. Can you imagine an argument between a theist and an athiest that starts out, "Ok, the first thing we have to agree on is that God does not exist."

Explanations are the point of the thread not minutia of free fall.

Again, your argument rests on the assumption that the towers did indeed fall too fast, which people here have challenged. This is part of a specific logicall fallacy known as "Begging the question" wherein you attempt to prove the correctness of your assumptions as the basis for asking the question, "Why did the towers fall too fast?" In assuming that they did, you make a fallacial argument.

I contend that after you solve (sic) you non existent issue of exactly "how fast", and "what is free fall anyway",

Why should we solve the problem? If your claim is that they fell too fast, prove that they did. You make the claims, you provide the proof.

you still won't be able to prove it could happen with the core you so often fail to provide proof for, so after you waste our time with "how fast", and "what is free fall anyway",

Ok, I'm still a little fuzzy on this argument. You believe that the WTC towers contained a concrete core of some type that would have slowed the collapse of the towers to speeds well below those achieved with free fall. The only way to achieve the free fall speeds, you claim, is to prematurely destroy the core itself so as to provide instantaneous collapse.

If the towers were brought down by controlled demolitions
Then they would have experienced free fall collapse
And if a concrete core existed in tact
Then free fall collapse cannot exist
Q1: Collapse of the towers was too fast
P1: A concrete core exists
By Q1, If A
Then B
By P1, And if C
Then Not B

What you have is called a Non-Sequitor fallacy where you're attempting to imply a causal relationship between A and B by disproving Not B. You can't make an inference such that If A Then B, Not B, Therefore Not A. That means you can't logically prove that a concrete core would have prevented free fall collapse in the same argument where you prove that the towers fell too quickly as means to prove controlled demolition. Furthermore, it has been shown that your postulates Q and P are false, though you seem unwilling to yield to the evidence.

you are still lost because you don't have the correct structure.

I don't think anyone here is lost.

15th November 2006, 08:52 AM
ETA If we can keep this up to more than one question, I'll try and keep a summary of the questions asked and the answers received...I'd like to revisit the "towers-fell-in-the-wrong-order" claim, when it comes time.

Z
15th November 2006, 09:07 AM
Stay on target...

:D

15th November 2006, 09:17 AM
it's very simple chris, you have now ammended the "free-fall of the towers" insistence in the OP to ambiguous phrases such as "way too fast" we are now stuck because you, with this assertion, fail to provide any argument as to the rate of fall or even guidance as to what you would expect the rate of fall would/should be.
as i stated before, i could argue that the towers collapse began right at the instant of the plane impacts. by this reckoning the towers took 58 and 103 minutes to fall. you state this argument is "bogus" but give no reason why you think it is. why is that argument bogus? why is it not reasonable for me to think that might be the case?
why is it so difficult for you to offer your analysys + estimation of the time it took for each tower to fall?

please put up or shut up.

BV

15th November 2006, 09:20 AM
Stay on target...

:DNo prob. Just placing my order.

15th November 2006, 09:25 AM
I'd like to revisit the "towers-fell-in-the-wrong-order" claim, when it comes time.

i believe "total pulverisation" must be hot on the agenda. this goes back a long way to the OP i think.

who's the sockmiester anyway? if it's not already decided, i nominate ZD.

BV

Z
15th November 2006, 09:51 AM
who's the sockmiester anyway? if it's not already decided, i nominate ZD.

BV

It seems so - I keep forgetting to show off the :socks:. Keeping my feet warm, you see.

And I've sworn to relinquish the socks when either a) he retracts the notion that the towers 'fell too fast', or b) defines/demonstrates the rate at which they fell, and a thoughtful and mathematically correct rate at which they ought to have fallen.

Given his track record so far, the most reasonable point would be to concede the rate of fall issue and move on; however, since we know his reasoning skills are deficient, I expect he's going to waffle some more, shout some accusations about those magical 1300 foot long solid pieces of steel that ought to exist, and maybe, eventually, tell us that the fall rate was 17 seconds, or mu, or some other number/symbol that does not actually represent a rate of acceleration. Then he'll waffle some more, claim that the rate of fall isn't an issue, backtrack to 'near free fall', make some more accusations, and desperately try to get everyone to forget he made a specific claim without backing it up. Oh, and let us not forget - posting his links to one of his websites, since surely that will up his traffic.

There ought to be a rule against posting a specific link too many times, but there's not.

15th November 2006, 10:22 AM
Given his track record so far, the most reasonable point would be to concede the rate of fall issue and move on; however, since we know his reasoning skills are deficient, I expect he's going to waffle some more, shout some accusations about those magical 1300 foot long solid pieces of steel that ought to exist, and maybe, eventually, tell us that the fall rate was 17 seconds, or mu, or some other number/symbol that does not actually represent a rate of acceleration.

and i did try to get him to expound. i played an opening gambit of 10 and 20 metres per minute :-;

so what's it to be chris?

put up or shut up?

BV

Christophera
15th November 2006, 12:26 PM
Again, your argument rests on the assumption that the towers did indeed fall too fast.

There are a number of related aspects that simply will not fit into the title feild for a thread.

he first part of th thread title is;

"Has Anyone Seen A Realistic Explanation", the term free fall simply references a rate of fall which is obviously too fast. if you cannto accept that then you are not capable of engaging the discussion.

Go find a thread dedicated to "Did the towers fall at free fall?"

This thread IS about explanations for the strictly incredible rates of fall IF the event was supposed to be a collapse.

Auxilary, and not included in the thread title is "How could 2 towers with completely differnet damages fall in nearly identical ways to the ground?" The explanation to that question would be the same as to the free fall question.

I have provided a credible, feasible and realistic explanation, here,

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

If you have other credible explanations, and collapse has already been deemed INCREDEBLE, post them. Otherwise if you wish to change the topic, start a new thread.

Christophera
15th November 2006, 12:31 PM
But there IS a question about that, Chris. HOW FAST did it fall, and HOW FAST would you EXPECT IT to fall ?

Realistically, as a hypothetical alternative to demolition, or a collapse, I would expect only the top of the towers above the impact pints to fall and they would topple with that piece falling at near free fall.

A collapse doe not go all the way to the ground unless the structure topples.

What we saww was not a collapse and this image clearly shows it was not. The image shows what can only be a high speed series of well contained detonations by high explosives which are optimally placed and dsitributed which progresses from the top down.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4079&stc=1&d=1163622674

Christophera
15th November 2006, 12:34 PM
and i did try to get him to expound. i played an opening gambit of 10 and 20 metres per minute :-;

so what's it to be chris?

put up or shut up?

BV

PLAYED, key word here. 3,000 Americans dead, due process violated in as many capital crimes and you are playing.

You collusive subterfuge in attempts to derail the true subject are easily noted.

gumboot
15th November 2006, 12:36 PM
Realistically, as a hypothetical alternative to demolition, or a collapse, I would expect only the top of the towers above the impact pints to fall and they would topple with that piece falling at near free fall.

:jaw-dropp :eye-poppi :eek:

I think Chris just told us what he expected to see.

Amazing. And it only took 189 pages for him to do so.

Well done Chris.

-Gumboot

Christophera
15th November 2006, 12:39 PM
:jaw-dropp :eye-poppi :eek:

I think Chris just told us what he expected to see.

Amazing. And it only took 189 pages for him to do so.

Well done Chris.

-Gumboot

I've explained that at least twice in this thread but your groups collusive obsufucation has obscured it.

Ther is only one explanation on the entire internet to the near free fall and pulverization of the twin towers which is comprehesive to all factors and it is found here.

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

beachnut
15th November 2006, 12:41 PM
PLAYED, key word here. 3,000 Americans dead, due process violated in as many capital crimes and you are playing.

You collusive subterfuge in attempts to derail the true subject are easily noted.

For normal people 19 terrorist attacked us, the last terrorist plane failed and heroes from the US destroyed the terrorist on board flight 93.

They had guts and took action. You are telling lies and fail to see real evidence, you use a concrete core, and we have to use that as a metaphor for your brain functions. Have you failed to realize we were attacked and you live in a fantasy land making light of 3000 killed by terrorist who think you deserve to die as soon as possible because you do not believe in their religion and they just do not like us anyway.

Simple facts you will never grasp. The NIST report tells you how the WTC collapse could happen, and as we saw, it did happen. No explosives and you ideas on the explosive place during construction are so wrong, they could never happen.

delphi_ote
15th November 2006, 12:45 PM
You collusive subterfuge in attempts to derail the true subject are easily noted.
THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD IS "HAS ANYONE SEEN A REALISTICE EXPLAINATION FOR THE FREE FALL OF THE TOWERS?"

We're laser focused on this issue. We even tried to set up rules to concentrate on one subject (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2093936#post2093936) at a time. You are dancing away from answering the simple question of how fast the towers fell.

Mobyseven
15th November 2006, 12:52 PM
Realistically, as a hypothetical alternative to demolition, or a collapse, I would expect only the top of the towers above the impact pints to fall and they would topple with that piece falling at near free fall.

So, once again: How fast did the towers fall? How fast should they have fallen?

The Almond
15th November 2006, 12:55 PM
There are a number of related aspects that simply will not fit into the title feild for a thread.

he first part of th thread title is;

"Has Anyone Seen A Realistic Explanation", the term free fall simply references a rate of fall which is obviously too fast.

Obvious to whom? You're the only one supporting this claim.

if you cannto accept that then you are not capable of engaging the discussion.

Once again, I'm not going to begin, or in this instance, barge into a debate where I'm asked to conceed a point as a pretense to discussion. I demand that we begin from neutral grounds with each party bringing in evidence to support each claim. That's simply not been done here.

Go find a thread dedicated to "Did the towers fall at free fall?"

Would you care to post an instance where you have provided evidence for, and conclusively proven that the towers fell, in their entirety, at free fall acceleration. For the last 15 pages of this thread, people have been asking you to produce direct evidence that the towers fell at a particular acceleration or speed, and you've been doging the question.

This thread IS about explanations for the strictly incredible rates of fall IF the event was supposed to be a collapse.

So, rather than providing direct evidence for your first postulate, you seek now to engage in a debate where everyone conceeds the point to you? Why should we do that?

Auxilary, and not included in the thread title is "How could 2 towers with completely differnet damages fall in nearly identical ways to the ground?"

Would you care to define the term "nearly identical" as it relates to this discussion? See, when you attach qualifiers to an event, you need to give some specificity. For instance, "Most of the concrete on I-95 is not cracked or damaged" is not as conclusive as the term "60% of the concrete on I-95 is not cracked or damaged." How do you define "nearly"? How do you relate the damage? Similarly, how do you define completely different? A plane hit both towers, stripped off fireproofing and ignited secondary fires. Is the damage not then similar? Are they nearly identical?
The explanation to that question would be the same as to the free fall question.

If you have other credible explanations, and collapse has already been deemed INCREDEBLE, post them. Otherwise if you wish to change the topic, start a new thread.

I've got a credible explanation. But I'll need you to conceed the point that the NIST report is factually accurate before we can begin a discussion. If you conceed the factual accuracy of the NIST report, I'll conceed that the towers fell at near free fall speeds.

Christophera
15th November 2006, 01:42 PM
Obvious to whom? You're the only one supporting this claim.

True, I'm the only one employing common sense here.

Once again, I'm not going to begin, or in this instance, barge into a debate where I'm asked to conceed a point as a pretense to discussion.

Okay, very good then. You are out of the discussion.

Christophera
15th November 2006, 01:45 PM
THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD IS "HAS ANYONE SEEN A REALISTICE EXPLAINATION FOR THE FREE FALL OF THE TOWERS?"

We're laser focused on this issue. We even tried to set up rules to concentrate on one subject (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2093936#post2093936) at a time. You are dancing away from answering the simple question of how fast the towers fell.

Yes, and it has been explained that the thread title field doesn't have room for qualifying the statement with more complexity.

The thread is about explanations (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html) for the rate of fall which common sence dictates is far to fast. If this simple form of mental activity is beyond you capacity you should abstain from participating.

Christophera
15th November 2006, 01:49 PM

So, once again: How fast did the towers fall? How fast should they have fallen?

You are in error.

But there IS a question about that, Chris. HOW FAST did it fall, and HOW FAST would you EXPECT IT to fall ?

Those are fundamental questions. Without an answer to them we cannot proceed logically.

Within the descriptions the type of fall dictates how fast and I've stated that when toppling the falling portion falls at free fall.

An explanation for what appears as a series of explosions is found here,

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

and that explains near free fall adequately. Do you have any competent explanations?

The Almond
15th November 2006, 01:53 PM
True, I'm the only one employing common sense here.

According to whom?

Okay, very good then. You are out of the discussion.

Do you find this response at all childish?

The thread is about explanations for the rate of fall which common sence dictates is far to fast. If this simple form of mental activity is beyond you capacity you should abstain from participating.
Again, common sense according to whom? How do you judge common sense in the context of this argument? Is it that there no physical data that can quantifiably prove your point, so you instead have to appeal to plurality?

NobbyNobbs
15th November 2006, 01:55 PM
The first part of th thread title is;

"Has Anyone Seen A Realistic Explanation", the term free fall simply references a rate of fall which is obviously too fast. if you cannto accept that then you are not capable of engaging the discussion.

This thread IS about explanations for the strictly incredible rates of fall IF the event was supposed to be a collapse.

Please indulge us. In what way is it "obvious"? In what way are these rates "incredible"?

Ther is only one explanation on the entire internet to the near free fall and pulverization of the twin towers which is comprehesive to all factors and it is found here.

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

So are you back to saying it is "near free fall"? If so, how near?

The thread is about explanations (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html) for the rate of fall which common sence dictates is far to fast. If this simple form of mental activity is beyond you capacity you should abstain from participating.

Again, please indulge us. In what way does "common sense" tell us that the towers fell too fast?

Chris, you are asking us to agree to an assumption and then explain a cause for that situation. First we need to make sure it is a valid assumption. What you are doing is very similar to saying, "Since it is obvious the Titanic was not sunk by an iceberg, we need to explain how it was sunk."

defaultdotxbe
15th November 2006, 01:55 PM
The thread is about explanations (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html) for the rate of fall which common sence dictates is far to fast. If this simple form of mental activity is beyond you capacity you should abstain from participating.
how can common sense dictate how fast a skyscraper should fall? are skyscraper collapses at all common?

Christophera
15th November 2006, 01:58 PM
Have you failed to realize we were attacked and you live in a fantasy land making light of 3000 killed by terrorist

Have you failed to realize that due process was violated in 3000 captal crimes? Evidence was destroyed and independent investigations were blocked.

The NIST report tells you how the WTC collapse could happen, and as we saw, it did happen. No explosives and you ideas on the explosive place during construction are so wrong, they could never happen.

Below is what we saw. In no way does it resemble a collapse which automatically renders the NIST report as a waste of taxpayers money designed to conceal the true event. What I assert here (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html) must have happened because that is the ONLY way what is seen below could have happened.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4081&stc=1&d=1163627762

Christophera
15th November 2006, 02:02 PM
how can common sense dictate how fast a skyscraper should fall? are skyscraper collapses at all common?

Common sense dictates that in a collapse that plumes of totally pulverized concrete (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1plumecascade.jpg) do not project horizontally 300 feet or that the top of a tower descend, pulverized enroute and rates approaching free fall in a uniform mushroom shape. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg)

The Almond
15th November 2006, 02:03 PM
Below is what we saw. In no way does it resemble a collapse which automatically renders the NIST report as a waste of taxpayers money designed to conceal the true event.

That's quite a bold assumption. Is the entirety of the NIST report a fabrication? Who fabricated it? Why would they do that?

defaultdotxbe
15th November 2006, 02:05 PM
Common sense dictates that in a collapse that plumes of totally pulverized concrete (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1plumecascade.jpg) do not project horizontally 300 feet or that the top of a tower descend, pulverized enroute and rates approaching free fall in a uniform mushroom shape. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg)
thats an awfully obscure statement to attribute to common sense, common sense is liek, you dont put your fingers in an electrical outlet, because most people come in contact with both fingers and outlets on a daily basis

building collapses (thankfully) dont fall into the realm of the "common" so an attempt to apply common sense to them is rather fallacious

Bell
15th November 2006, 02:13 PM
Yes, and it has been explained that the thread title field doesn't have room for qualifying the statement with more complexity.

Should of given it another title then. You did not use LOGIC in this title, it seems.

The thread is about explanations (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html) for the rate of fall which common sence dictates is far to fast. If this simple form of mental activity is beyond you capacity you should abstain from participating.

How fast should the towers have fallen? How much slower is this compared to the Twin Towers?

You say 'to fast', what is to fast, how many seconds?

maccy
15th November 2006, 02:14 PM
Common sense dictates that in a collapse that plumes of totally pulverized concrete (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1plumecascade.jpg) do not project horizontally 300 feet or that the top of a tower descend, pulverized enroute and rates approaching free fall in a uniform mushroom shape. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg)

To stay focussed, are you retracting your claim that the towers fell too fast? Or at least admitting that you do not know how fast they ought to have fallen?

Before we can discuss pulverisation, plumes and mushroom shapes you have to:

a. concede that the rate of fall is irrelevant to your thesis; or

b. produce evidence that the rate of fall is too fast to indcate a collapse.

Once we have dealt with the issue of the rate of fall, we can move on to other issues.

Oliver
15th November 2006, 02:56 PM
How "fast" should the buildings have fallen that you have
never believed in explosives, Alfred? In slow motion?

BTW: Do you know how much weight was on top of the
impact zones, you know - above the damaged and heated
zones?

William Rea
15th November 2006, 03:17 PM
Ok, if we're going to be sensible and focussed and the usual monkey brains aren't going to keep chipping in with their inane contributions I'll kick off...

Free fall means falling ONLY under the influence of gravity with no other forces being involved. In this pure state the object will fall at 9.81 metres per second squared regardless of mass. It will continue to accelerate at this rate unless acted upon by any other force.

If anyone wants to come forward with the actual value of g for the New York District we could be more precise but I think 9.81 metres per second squared is an adequate approximation. The actual value for New York is 9.802 metres per second so the time to free fall would actually be 9.158 seconds.

If you were to take a weight and drop it in a vacuum from the height of the roof of the WTC at 411 metres from the ground then it will take 9.15 seconds to hit the ground.

Those are facts and a suitable benchmark to start from.

How can we establish how long it took the tower to fall from the point at which near free fall conditions occurred, anyone want to chip in with the video evidence?

jsfisher
15th November 2006, 03:26 PM
Let's everyone stay on topic, here. The (compound) question on the floor is at what rate did the buildings fall and at what rate should they have fallen?

Whether clarification comes from physics, one particular poster's common sense, or mystic forces from Planet X matters not one twit. A value range or value and margin of error can be a sufficient response to frame the notion of "too fast", by the way.

Arus808
15th November 2006, 03:33 PM
How can we establish how long it took the tower to fall from the point at which near free fall conditions occurred, anyone want to chip in with the video evidence?

there is really no "concrete" way to establish how long it took since much of the collapses were obscured by the debris and dust from teh buildings.

NIST measured the collapse from time they saw the start of collapse to when they couldn't see it anymore (meaning the dust/debris/cloud of smoke obscured what they couldn't measure).

unless someon was there physically that day with a stop watch and watched the entire thing unfold and measured it, there is no evidence of the actual length for each collapse.

hellaeon
15th November 2006, 03:36 PM
Well if you want to be realistice *nyuk nyuk ah im so funny* you would need to pinpoint all the individual debree. You cant treat the tower as a whole when there would be meters of difference between some lower ejecting debree and the top most in the 'debree' field if thats what I could call it.

at what rate did the buildings fall and at what rate should they have fallen?

they may have fallen at X seconds but surely for an overall guide to eliminate error is to focus one at a time on many pieces, and record the time they begin to fall. Discounting the ejection where some materials went outwards, wouldnt we want to specifically measure the time when they fell? It would depend on what your comparing it to.

edit: then get an average time for the pieces you specifically measured

If you compare it to dropping something, am I correct in thinking you cant measure it from when it begins ejection but from when the horizontal trajectory is 0?

jsfisher
15th November 2006, 03:42 PM
unless someon was there physically that day with a stop watch and watched the entire thing unfold and measured it, there is no evidence of the actual length for each collapse.
I'd accept a reasonable time range, say, based on observations and stated assumptions of some cited video.

(By the way, of the videos I've found on the web, the north tower videos are more useful for this exercise.)

But the question on the floor still is: How fast was it and how fast should it have been?

Arus808
15th November 2006, 03:54 PM
But the question on the floor still is: How fast was it and how fast should it have been?

as yet to be answered by chris

nist estimation of WTC 2 collapse was around 12 seconds.
Nist estimation of WTC 1 collapse was around 10 seconds.

Which in definition is nowhere near free fall (around 9.1 seconds)

uruk
15th November 2006, 04:27 PM
I think it obvious that Chris is not interested in scientific fact. He goes by what he feels is right or what he thinks is common sense. Read his web site. It is not backed up by anything only assumptions and conjecture.

Chris, I have news for you. The world does not operate by what we think is "common sense". "Common sense" had us thinking the world was flat or that the planets and the sun circled the Earth for hundreds of years. Quantum mechanics is another example. Just because you think something is a certain way does not mean that it is so. You say the the building collapsed way too fast but you can't define why. You can't give us proofe that it did otherwise you would have answered the question easily and quickly. Your attempts at delay and changing the subject just verifies that you don't really know.

Christophera
15th November 2006, 04:28 PM
there is really no "concrete" way to establish how long it took since much of the collapses were obscured by the debris and dust from teh buildings.

NIST measured the collapse from time they saw the start of collapse to when they couldn't see it anymore (meaning the dust/debris/cloud of smoke obscured what they couldn't measure).

unless someon was there physically that day with a stop watch and watched the entire thing unfold and measured it, there is no evidence of the actual length for each collapse.

This is logical and bascially my position.

The Almond
15th November 2006, 04:28 PM
as yet to be answered by chris

nist estimation of WTC 2 collapse was around 12 seconds.
Nist estimation of WTC 1 collapse was around 10 seconds.

Which in definition is nowhere near free fall (around 9.1 seconds)

To be very clear on this fact, the towers did not entirely collapse in 12 seconds. NIST very specifically states that portions of both towers are known to have remained standing for 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation. The dust and debris ejected during the collapse obscured the view of this.

Christophera
15th November 2006, 04:29 PM
I think it obvious that Chris is not interested in scientific fact. He goes by what he feels is right or what he thinks is common sense. Read his web site. It is not backed up by anything only assumptions and conjecture.

My website is backed by raw evidence, something the WTC report and the NIST lack.

Chris, I have news for you. The world does not operate by what we think is "common sense".

You got that right.

Christophera
15th November 2006, 04:33 PM
To be very clear on this fact, the towers did not entirely collapse in 12 seconds. NIST very specifically states that portions of both towers are known to have remained standing for 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation. The dust and debris ejected during the collapse obscured the view of this.

Both of those numbers are VERY acceptable and so close ot free fall that it underlines the phenomena which NIST fails to explain. The elements that remain standing, out of site do so for for acceptable estimated periods.

The issue is explanation of the event.

The Almond
15th November 2006, 04:33 PM
My website is backed by raw evidence, something the WTC report and the NIST lack.

I beg your pardon, but NIST has warehouses full of raw evidence. The equations, calculations and references as well as reports of the raw evidence are contained in no less than 42 companion reports. NIST conducted 1200 first person interviews (NIST NCSTAR 1 Abstract xiii). How is that not raw evidence?

Arus808
15th November 2006, 04:34 PM
This is logical and bascially my position.

then your claims of "near free fall" and "common sense, its near free fall" are without merit, and you resind this claim?

Arus808
15th November 2006, 04:38 PM
Both of those numbers are VERY acceptable and so close ot free fall that it underlines the phenomena which NIST fails to explain.

Sorry, but NIST has explained it fully in their report, and by your posting here, its evident that you never read it.

Near free fall means the buildingds would have to have fallen completely within hundreths of seconds of 9.1 seconds. The fact taht the NIST state that it could have taken 10 , 12 or as much as 25 seconds proves that it wasn't "near free fall"

Christophera
15th November 2006, 04:39 PM
I
But the question on the floor still is: How fast was it and how fast should it have been?

If we do ont what struutre stood the nature of how the towers cannot be determined in a menaingful way.

A collapse of a tower with those proportions with steel core columns will have the core columns toppling and bending/breaking usually in one direction as they were mostly damaged on one side. Core columns of those dimensions will be VERY visible and would be seen toppling then bending/breaking while attached to outer framework which drags them down destroying them. Columns in the center may stand at great heights after outer framework has fallen away.

They will never appear as this (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) does.

Christophera
15th November 2006, 04:40 PM
corrected that statement for you.

Can refer to the NIST report and some of its raw evidence?

The Almond
15th November 2006, 04:40 PM
Both of those numbers are VERY acceptable and so close ot free fall

Ok, let's do the math:

12 seconds for 1368 feet to fall to the ground. That's an average velocity of 114 ft/s. In a gravity collapse, it would take 9.2 seconds or an average of 148 ft/s. The difference between the two answers is 23.4%. That's nowhere near my definition for "close to free fall" just like 30.8 miles per hour was not sufficient for the cop who pulled me over for speeding in a 25 mph school zone.

that it underlines the phenomena which NIST fails to explain. The elements that remain standing, out of site do so for for acceptable estimated periods.

Acceptable according to whom?

Christophera
15th November 2006, 04:41 PM
Sorry, but NIST has explained it fully in their report, and by your posting here, its evident that you never read it.

Near free fall means the buildingds would have to have fallen completely within hundreths of seconds of 9.1 seconds. The fact taht the NIST state that it could have taken 10 , 12 or as much as 25 seconds proves that it wasn't "near free fall"

Twice and even three times the rate of free fall is still too fast and the entire event had the wrong appearance for a "collapse". The proper appearance would have taken minutes. What happened was fully comparable to free fall.

The Almond
15th November 2006, 04:47 PM
Can refer to the NIST report and some of its raw evidence?

http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm

I would suggest starting with the 8 companion volumes to the NCSTAR1 report. Of particular interest to you would be 1-2 and 1-3. They contain large amounts of raw data.

The Almond
15th November 2006, 04:52 PM
Twice and even three times the rate of free fall is still too fast

I think you might mean half and one third the rate of free fall. Anyway, how is that still "too fast?" What criteria are you using to judge what's too fast?

and the entire event had the wrong appearance for a "collapse".
This statement astounds me. The wrong appearance for a collapse? It collapsed. Theories aside, it did collapse.

The proper appearance would have taken minutes.
Even Judy Wood disagrees with you. Her analysis shows that the collapse couldn't have taken longer than 96.7 seconds.

Z
15th November 2006, 05:13 PM
Twice and even three times the rate of free fall is still too fast and the entire event had the wrong appearance for a "collapse". The proper appearance would have taken minutes. What happened was fully comparable to free fall.

Bolding mine.

I can live with this answer to the question. He doesn't expect it to collapse in less than two minutes. Hence, anything under two minutes is 'near free fall' or 'way too fast'.

And given such an answer, I'm not bothering with 'how can we measure the rate of collapse' - the point being, according to Chris here, that ANY rate of collapse resulting in the total failure of the building in under two minutes is wrong.

Now, let's imagine a building where pieces are falling away, slowly crumbling like an eroding mountain, taking three or four minutes to fall...

Nope. Can't imagine it. Neither can most of you.

But Chris here can.

Now, I'll pass the socks, but before I do I have one small, related question:

On what do you base this idea, that a building suffering catastrophic structural failure should fall in two minutes or more? Do you, maybe, have some video footage of buildings falling at this much slower rate, that were suffering from total catastrophic structural failure? Or documentation of buildings collapsing due to impacts that took proportionate lengths of time? Or is this more 'common-sense' judgement?

I actually don't expect Chris to answer this one. I expect him to offer some lame waffle about his qualifications (ditch-digger and picture-maker) and experience, while avoiding the subject of hard, raw evidence.

Therefore, I pass the socks. The first non-Chris who posts gets them.

(Sorry they stink...)

gumboot
15th November 2006, 05:21 PM
The proper appearance would have taken minutes.

:jaw-dropp

Well now I've heard everything.

I'm actually trying to imagine a skyscraper collapsing over a period of two minutes, and I can't, unless I imagine it happening in slow motion.

-Gumboot

jaydeehess
15th November 2006, 05:39 PM
The two minutes reference is probably from Judy Woods' calculations, though even she does not go as far as two minutes. However in her calculations the collapseing portion must come to a complete stop as it hits the next floor before collapse is initiated at this level. That is obviously not what was taking place and she makes very little in the way of justification as to why it should be that way.

a 10 second collapse(and the estimates run from 10 to 16 seconds for boith towers) for a fall of 415 meters this meansmeans an average acelleration of 8.3 meters per sec2
That is 15% less than free fall acceleration.

So far very few CT's have even tried to explain just how long the collpase should have taken. Judy Woods did but as I said her calculations are laughable.

The Almond
15th November 2006, 05:43 PM
The two minutes reference is probably from Judy Woods' calculations, though even she does not go as far as two minutes. However in her calculations the collapseing portion must come to a complete stop as it hits the next floor before collapse is initiated at this level. That is obviously not what was taking place and she makes very little in the way of justification as to why it should be that way.

That was what struck me about Wood's calculations. That's a rather laughable simplification of the model. Even if you used a two mass collapse theory, the derivative of the position curves at the lower floors should approach the free fall line as the damping coefficient approaches 1. I think someone ran a computer simulation in the "Judy Wood's Math" thread in Python that takes momentum into effect.

uruk
15th November 2006, 05:50 PM
My website is backed by raw evidence, something the WTC report and the NIST lack.
Your so called "raw" evidence is just you guessing and conjecturing what think is going on. You can't even define what is "too fast". You can't quantify it. You can't even articulate it properly.

Christophera
15th November 2006, 06:13 PM
Your so called "raw" evidence is just you guessing and conjecturing what think is going on. You can't even define what is "too fast". You can't quantify it. You can't even articulate it properly.

I do fine. Perhaps you cannot or willnot understand it. Firstly, those here attempt to term what happened to the twni towers as a collapse. That is so erroneous that no estimate of wat it should be is possible. If it were a collapse caused by plane impacts it would appear completely different and therefore have a completly different duration. Basically, givern the actual damage and actual towers structure that stood, no collapse whatsoever would have happened. Had any occured only the floors above would have fallen off.

meaning the entire premise for your post is fallacious and without basis as you cannot prove the structure that you so often fail to assert existed, actually did exist.

I do not have that problem. Here is concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif).

Here is the concrete core of WTC 2 falling onto WTC 3. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.gif)

Then the concrete core of WTC 2IMAGE (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) stands, celarly NOT steel core columns.

You have no evidence.

Oliver
15th November 2006, 06:14 PM
Do you know how much weight was on top of the
impact zones, you know - above the damaged and heated
zones? :confused:

Alt+F4
15th November 2006, 06:18 PM
If it were a collapse caused by plane impacts it would appear completely different.

Would it? Has there been another incident where a large, almost fully fueled passenger jet liner crashed into a building over 100 stories?

Arus808
15th November 2006, 06:30 PM
Twice and even three times the rate of free fall is still too fast and the entire event had the wrong appearance for a "collapse". The proper appearance would have taken minutes. What happened was fully comparable to free fall.

Here you show once again, you fail to understand what you post

twice or three times the rate of free fall speed means YOU ARE CLAIMING THEY ARE FALLING FASTER THAN FREE FALL

15th November 2006, 07:27 PM
The proper appearance would have taken minutes.:jaw-dropp

Well now I've heard everything.

I'm actually trying to imagine a skyscraper collapsing over a period of two minutes, and I can't, unless I imagine it happening in slow motion.A small quibble, if I may:

I would suggest the collapse began when each airplane struck each building. At those points the respective structures were reduced in their ability to maintain relative integrity against gravity's relentless pull.

So, each "collapse" did take quite some time. I know that people are referring here to each building's "fall" from its erect state to a pile of scrap, but I think the clarification is worth making.

jsfisher
15th November 2006, 07:34 PM
A minor point of order, here.

The :socks: now belong to Oliver. The question posed was: Do you know how much weight was on top of the impact zones, you know - above the damaged and heated zones?

Note to new comers: If you are brave enough to read this entire thread, you may notice for all but the most recent posts you could shuffle the posts at will and not really change the discussion. It circles and dodges and weaves. So, in an effort to keep things a bit more focussed, only one specific question is allowed at a time. Until the question is answered, we do not move to another. Whoever last grabbed the :socks: gets to ask the question, and that is Oliver for now.

NobbyNobbs
15th November 2006, 08:24 PM
If it were a collapse caused by plane impacts it would appear completely different and therefore have a completly different duration. Basically, givern the actual damage and actual towers structure that stood, no collapse whatsoever would have happened.

How do you know? Based on what?

Had any occured only the floors above would have fallen off.

Ok, ok, I know with the above question I put a hole in the socks. But now I'm back on topic (I think). Oliver wants to know what the upper floors weighed. I think a related question, a part B to it, if you will, is this:

Christophera, do you have any idea how much energy it would take to have the upper floors "fall off" to the side? Do you have any idea how much energy those floors, in falling down, impart to the structure below them?

delphi_ote
15th November 2006, 08:29 PM
The :socks: now belong to Oliver.
Just to run it by everyone again if you want to help us keep focused, the socks rules I pulled out of my concrete core at free fall.
Someone should be in charge of the :socks:. That person asks one question, and we all stick to that one question until the questioner is satisfied. Then they pass the :socks: to the next person to request it, and that person asks one question. One topic, one issue, until we get to the bottom of it. We ignore any tangents from Chris. Laser focus. Tunnel vision. Discipline.

If someone strays, remind them in big letters to "Stay on Target," and make your best Star Wars nerd reference when you do so for extra style.

Drop it at the end of your post to let people know you have it. e.g.

Has the :socks:
ETA
The question posed was: Do you know how much weight was on top of the impact zones, you know - above the damaged and heated zones?
So if we can all focus on that for a while, we'll try and get to the bottom of it!

Christophera
15th November 2006, 08:30 PM
That's quite a bold assumption. Is the entirety of the NIST report a fabrication? Who fabricated it? Why would they do that?

No, parts of the NIST report are factual. Entirely false fabrications are most oftem easily detected.

It was caused to be fabricated by individuals associated with the infiltration of the US government. It was ultimately done because they were too afraid to do anything else. The purpose of the fabrication was to conceal the true event at the WTC.

Want proof: Study high explosives and collapses which occurr with both steel cored towers and tubular concrete cores, the image below and the NIST report. The complete inconsistency of the NIST report of collaspse with the image and the images inconsistency with any collapse will be obvious.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4082&stc=1&d=1163651408

Christophera
15th November 2006, 08:36 PM
How do you know? Based on what?

Based on the fact that if the towers were going to collapse they would have done it at impact, or shortly therafter, and only the portion above would have fallen.

Based on common sense.

Ok, ok, I know with the above question I put a hole in the socks. But now I'm back on topic (I think). Oliver wants to know what the upper floors weighed. I think a related question, a part B to it, if you will, is this:

Christophera, do you have any idea how much energy it would take to have the upper floors "fall off" to the side? Do you have any idea how much energy those floors, in falling down, impart to the structure below them?

They do not have enough energy to crush more than a floor or 2 before the mass decentralizes, especially considering the fact the damege was on one side, and rolls off to the side.

jsfisher
15th November 2006, 08:36 PM
No, parts of the NIST report are factual. Entirely false fabrications are most oftem easily detected.
Perhaps that is an issue we can explore very soon, but the current question is:

Do you know how much weight was on top of the impact zones, you know - above the damaged and heated zones?

(And just so we don't get lost in yes/no responses, if the answer would be "yes", please provide an idea of what the weight would be.)

Christophera
15th November 2006, 08:40 PM
A minor point of order, here.

The :socks: now belong to Oliver. The question posed was: Do you know how much weight was on top of the impact zones, you know - above the damaged and heated zones?

Note to new comers: If you are brave enough to read this entire thread, you may notice for all but the most recent posts you could shuffle the posts at will and not really change the discussion. It circles and dodges and weaves. So, in an effort to keep things a bit more focussed, only one specific question is allowed at a time. Until the question is answered, we do not move to another. Whoever last grabbed the :socks: gets to ask the question, and that is Oliver for now.

Why do deniers think their collusive attempts at organizing their ranks can defeat logic? The misconception that many asking the same bogus questions have more right to an answer?

How does this add up compared to many ignoring the same evidence? (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html)

Christophera
15th November 2006, 08:44 PM
Perhaps that is an issue we can explore very soon, but the current question is:

Do you know how much weight was on top of the impact zones, you know - above the damaged and heated zones?

(And just so we don't get lost in yes/no responses, if the answer would be "yes", please provide an idea of what the weight would be.)

No idea. Intuitive parameters for loading and bearing capacities are at the basis of the algabraic origin of the formulas used to determine such things. It is sufficient for the needs here to say that there is no where near enough loading to do this. (http://mouv4x8.club.fr/11Sept01/A0069b_3_towerexplo1_explosion_below.jpg)

hah!

defaultdotxbe
15th November 2006, 08:46 PM
No idea. Intuitive parameters for loading and bearing capacities are at the basis of the algabraic origin of the formulas used to determine such things. It is sufficient for the needs here to say that there is no where near enough loading to do this. (http://mouv4x8.club.fr/11Sept01/A0069b_3_towerexplo1_explosion_below.jpg)

hah!
no, its not sufficient, please post numbers. i dont trust your intuition any more than i expect you to trust mine

jsfisher
15th November 2006, 08:46 PM
Why do deniers think their collusive attempts at organizing their ranks can defeat logic?
The purpose, my dear Christopher, is to help everyone. If we stick to a single question at a time, then you are not distracted by hundreds of asides and alternate issues. If we stick to a single question at a time, then we can get a better understanding of your views, reasoning, and logic.

This is really a win-win proposition.

delphi_ote
15th November 2006, 08:48 PM
Why do deniers think their collusive attempts at organizing their ranks can defeat logic? The misconception that many asking the same bogus questions have more right to an answer?

How does this add up compared to many ignoring the same evidence? (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html)
You'd think the guy would appreciate efforts to focus the thread and deal with the facts. If you're right about these things, this is the best way to convince us, Chris. Besides, isn't it nice to be able to concentrate on one thing at a time?

Bell
15th November 2006, 09:43 PM
No idea. Intuitive parameters for loading and bearing capacities are at the basis of the algabraic origin of the formulas used to determine such things. It is sufficient for the needs here to say that there is no where near enough loading to do this. (http://mouv4x8.club.fr/11Sept01/A0069b_3_towerexplo1_explosion_below.jpg)

hah!

Monk, you indeed have no idea. Throughout you dodging the question about the collapse time, and now again with the question about the weight of the building above the impact points, you demonstrate that you are unable to back up your woo woo claims with facts and figures. But carry on, Monk, if that is what it takes to convince yourself. You won't convince the world, though. And that is because either the world is crazy, or you are.

But back to the question. What was the weight of the parts of the buildings above the impact points?

NobbyNobbs
15th November 2006, 09:58 PM
No idea. Intuitive parameters for loading and bearing capacities are at the basis of the algabraic origin of the formulas used to determine such things. It is sufficient for the needs here to say that there is no where near enough loading to do this. (http://mouv4x8.club.fr/11Sept01/A0069b_3_towerexplo1_explosion_below.jpg)

hah!

Wait..you claim that the weight of the upper floors was insufficient to create the damage seen, yet you have no idea what the weight of those floors are?

And your second sentence is an absolute fabrication. Structural engineers do not come up with their numbers through intuition. They get them through experience and careful calculation.

To sum up:

--C doesn't know how long it took the towers to collapse, but intuition tells him that anything shorter than 2 minutes is too fast.

--C doesn't know how much weight the upper floors represent, but intuition tells him that it wasn't sufficient to create the damage seen.

Christophera
15th November 2006, 10:09 PM
Wait..you claim that the weight of the upper floors was insufficient to create the damage seen, yet you have no idea what the weight of those floors are?

And your second sentence is an absolute fabrication. Structural engineers do not come up with their numbers through intuition.

Wait a minute dude. You ain't reading. "Algabraic origins" does not constitute what you suggest I've said it does.

Engineers definately gain an intuitive sense of loading and evaluate things with rather amazing accuracy in minutes, if not seconds and often their calcs bear the intuition out.

I just now sent some emails to an engineer on a job where he had to retro engineer some retaining walls built without a permit. His first guess was very close to his final calcs.

You freakin' nerds have no clue.

Get some raw evidence of somthing, sometime or get out of the way.
(http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html)

Christophera
15th November 2006, 10:13 PM
You'd think the guy would appreciate efforts to focus the thread and deal with the facts. If you're right about these things, this is the best way to convince us, Chris. Besides, isn't it nice to be able to concentrate on one thing at a time?

You mean like me answering the same lame questions a bunch of times for bozos who have to pretend like it's okay to ask over and over because they have no raw evidence of anything they fail to assert.

Get real, then seek evidence.

The towers had a steel reinforced tubular cast concrete core.

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

delphi_ote
15th November 2006, 10:22 PM
Engineers definately gain an intuitive sense of loading and evaluate things with rather amazing accuracy in minutes, if not seconds and often their calcs bear the intuition out.
Then calculations should bear out your claims. They don't.

delphi_ote
15th November 2006, 10:27 PM
You mean like me answering the same lame questions a bunch of times for bozos who have to pretend like it's okay to ask over and over because they have no raw evidence of anything they fail to assert.
That's just it. You only have to answer each question once. If you'd just explain the bits of your theory we don't understand or doubt, we might actually start getting somewhere. Instead, you insist on these little diversions.

hcmom
15th November 2006, 10:29 PM
Wait a minute dude. You ain't reading. "Algabraic origins" does not constitute what you suggest I've said it does.

Engineers definately gain an intuitive sense of loading and evaluate things with rather amazing accuracy in minutes, if not seconds and often their calcs bear the intuition out.

I just now sent some emails to an engineer on a job where he had to retro engineer some retaining walls built without a permit. His first guess was very close to his final calcs.

You freakin' nerds have no clue.

Get some raw evidence of somthing, sometime or get out of the way.
(http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html)

You mean like me answering the same lame questions a bunch of times for bozos who have to pretend like it's okay to ask over and over because they have no raw evidence of anything they fail to assert.

Get real, then seek evidence.

The towers had a steel reinforced tubular cast concrete core.

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

I think that the most amazing thing about this entire amazing thread is that Chris manages coherence every now and then. He remains evasive in the extreme, but at least it's possible to tell he's avoiding the issue...

beachnut
15th November 2006, 10:33 PM
You mean like me answering the same lame questions a bunch of times for bozos who have to pretend like it's okay to ask over and over because they have no raw evidence of anything they fail to assert.

Get real, then seek evidence.

The towers had a steel reinforced tubular cast concrete core.

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

there is no concrete core

there was never a concrete core

there will never be a concrete core

your theory of a concrete core is wrong

you will never know it did not have a concrete core

you show pictures of the steel only core, and you have no clue

you should have a really good weekend, you have no idea what is going on

Z
15th November 2006, 10:52 PM
OK, everyone, stay focused.

Oliver, as current owner of the socks, does this post by Nobby sum up the answers so far?

To sum up:

--C doesn't know how long it took the towers to collapse, but intuition tells him that anything shorter than 2 minutes is too fast.

--C doesn't know how much weight the upper floors represent, but intuition tells him that it wasn't sufficient to create the damage seen.

Shall the socks now pass to another, Ollie?

Oliver
15th November 2006, 11:20 PM
OK, everyone, stay focused.

Oliver, as current owner of the socks, does this post by Nobby sum up the answers so far?

Shall the socks now pass to another, Ollie?

Huh??? What socks? Whoīs Nobby? What sumīs up?
I guess i missed the train...

Iīm sorry. I just post a dumb question from time to
time without any meaning. I thought this is what this

Take the socks - i have no use for them... :boxedin:

Big Al
16th November 2006, 01:55 AM
There would be no sideways movement of the upper floors. The impact of the airliners had been spent some time before. The only force then acting on the upper floors would be gravity - which acts downwards only.

I saw a film of the 1968 Ronan Point tower block collapse in this country (U.K.), caused by an initial gas explosion. The fire weakened the upper structure in one part of the building, and the floors began to collapse. The top one fell onto the next lower, which fell onto the next... it was all over very quickly, it fell vertically and there was an impresive debris plume. The building was perhaps 10 storeys, absolutely nowhere near the size of the WTC, so the acting forces were much less.

The building was constructed of post-stressed steel-reinforced concrete, which expanded and shattered with the heat of the gas fire. The collapse led to a change in legislation.

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

That article even mentions the WTC!

OK, so I know the buildings are dissimilar, but my point is that a relatively small initial blast (gas/airliner) caused a catastrophic and VERY fast collapse.

Bell
16th November 2006, 02:04 AM
You mean like me answering the same lame questions a bunch of times for bozos who have to pretend like it's okay to ask over and over because they have no raw evidence of anything they fail to assert.

Get real, then seek evidence.

The towers had a steel reinforced tubular cast concrete core.

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

Monk, it looks like you're getting aggitated. But Monk, we would not be asking the same justiviable questions over and over again, if you cared to address them, instead of ignorantly evading them.

16th November 2006, 03:43 AM
A small quibble, if I may:

I would suggest the collapse began when each airplane struck each building. At those points the respective structures were reduced in their ability to maintain relative integrity against gravity's relentless pull.

So, each "collapse" did take quite some time. I know that people are referring here to each building's "fall" from its erect state to a pile of scrap, but I think the clarification is worth making.

i have to agree. call it pedantry if you like but like you i think collapse initiated at the time of impacts and the towers were both doomed at that point. collapse began with the shifting of loads onto the remaining capable load-bearing elements, the load bearing capabilities of these was then further lessened over time by the resultant fires. the steady deterioration continued until the catastophic failure brought the structures down. the basic answers are straight-forward.

the sad problem is that CT'ers like christophera abhor this simplicity and must weave a web of tangled falsehoods around what is essentially an uncomplicated sequence of events.

BV

16th November 2006, 03:58 AM
who's got the socks?
if no-one then i'm grabbing them and quoting christophera's OP:-

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

please show evidence of the "total pulverisation of the towers"

BV

Belz...
16th November 2006, 04:49 AM
Realistically, as a hypothetical alternative to demolition, or a collapse, I would expect only the top of the towers above the impact pints to fall and they would topple with that piece falling at near free fall.

A collapse doe not go all the way to the ground unless the structure topples.

Now, why do you think a building cannot collapse the way the WTC towers did ? You claim it would have had to topple, but my question is this : once 20+ floors fall onto the rest of the building, what's going to stop it ?

What we saww was not a collapse and this image clearly shows it was not. The image shows what can only be a high speed series of well contained detonations by high explosives which are optimally placed and dsitributed which progresses from the top down.

That is not obvious at all unless you can answer my above question.

Belz...
16th November 2006, 04:59 AM
A collapse of a tower with those proportions with steel core columns will have the core columns toppling and bending/breaking usually in one direction as they were mostly damaged on one side. Core columns of those dimensions will be VERY visible and would be seen toppling then bending/breaking while attached to outer framework which drags them down destroying them. Columns in the center may stand at great heights after outer framework has fallen away.

They will never appear as this (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) does.

That's dust. You said so yourself.

I'm the only one employing common sense here.

And it fails you miserably.

The proper appearance would have taken minutes.

This alone shows your ignorance of buildings and demolitions. A chain-reaction collapse CANNOT take minutes. If it was going to take minutes, it wouldn't be happening at all.

If it were a collapse caused by plane impacts it would appear completely different and therefore have a completly different duration.

I'd like to see your version of what should have happened and your calculations that support it. No "common sense" appeal, here. Common sense cannot tell you how complex collapses can occur.

After all, it tells you that the Earth is flat and that heavier objects fall faster.

Based on the fact that if the towers were going to collapse they would have done it at impact, or shortly therafter, and only the portion above would have fallen.

Based on common sense.

Common sense again. How about the fires ? Do you claim they can't possibly have damaged the structure further ?

They do not have enough energy to crush more than a floor or 2 before the mass decentralizes, especially considering the fact the damege was on one side, and rolls off to the side.

You're assuming a tower of LEGO blocks, now. The whole thing breaks apart as it falls. It doesn't stay in one block. How can it possibly "roll" to the side ?

Intuitive parameters for loading and bearing capacities are at the basis of the algabraic origin of the formulas used to determine such things. It is sufficient for the needs here to say that there is no where near enough loading to do this.

So, you're saying that your layman observation is better than actual calculations ? You don't "need" calculations because you think you're right, but in order to be right, you should have something to back your conclusion.

skeptifem
16th November 2006, 07:21 AM
if the people arguing with you are paid by the government to refute you arent you just helping them confuse people by continuing to argue?

Hellbound
16th November 2006, 07:24 AM
.

cheese

16th November 2006, 07:44 AM
...But back to the question. What was the weight of the parts of the buildings above the impact points?

If others are allow to provide answers, which can be agreed or disagreed with;

http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch2.pdf Section
2.2.1.1
American Airlines Flight 11 struck the north face of WTC 1 approximately between the 94th and
98th floors
2.2.1.5
Construction of WTC 1 resulted in the storage of more than 4x10^11 joules of potential energy over the
1,368-foot height of the structure. Of this, approximately 8x10^9 joules of potential energy were stored in the
upper part of the structure, above the impact floors, relative to the lowest point of impact.
2.2.2.1
United Airlines Flight 175 struck the south face of WTC 2 approximately between the 78th and 84th
floors.

For WTC 1, the top 12 floors of the tower translates into 8x10^9 joules of the total 4x10^11 joules. So, the top ~10.9% of WTC 1 contained ~2% of the entire PE of WTC 1. Extrapolating this on to WTC 2 (since the above mentioned report does not specify the amount PE contained above the WTC 2 impact point) we get the following:
WTC 2 => top 26 floors => ~23.6% of WTC 2.
If ~10.9% of WTC 1 translates into 8x10^9 joules PE
Then ~23.6% of WTC 2 translates into N joules PE
Therefore 10.9/8*10^9 = 23.6/N
=> 10.9*N/8*10^9 = 23.6
=> 10.9*N = 23.6*(8*10^9)
=> N = 23.6*(8*10^9)/10.9
=> N = 17321100917.431192660550458715596
=> N = 17.3*10^9 joules PE
=> ~34.7% of the entire PE of WTC 2
What does this mean? It means for WTC 1, that ~2% (8x10^9 joules) of PE was converted to KE almost instantaneously upon structural failure at floors 94-98. It means for WTC 2, that ~34.7% (17.3*10^9 joules) of PE was converted to KE almost instantaneously upon structural failure at floors 78-84.

milesalpha
16th November 2006, 07:57 AM
Wait a minute dude. You ain't reading. "Algabraic origins" does not constitute what you suggest I've said it does.

Engineers definately gain an intuitive sense of loading and evaluate things with rather amazing accuracy in minutes, if not seconds and often their calcs bear the intuition out.

Get some raw evidence of somthing, sometime or get out of the way.
(http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html)

Your analysis of engineer's "intuition" seems pretty far off to me. They may "guess" at a loading but you would have to qualify this as an "educated guess". Somehow it seems a lot more likely that they apply some basic calculations and methodology to a situation to come up with a quick answer. You may call that intuition but it's really just a product of years of advanced education . Science tends to trump intuition and common sense (a funny term to use in a debate like this since its completely subjective).

uruk
16th November 2006, 08:17 AM
I do fine. Perhaps you cannot or willnot understand it. Firstly, those here attempt to term what happened to the twni towers as a collapse. That is so erroneous that no estimate of wat it should be is possible. If it were a collapse caused by plane impacts it would appear completely different and therefore have a completly different duration. Basically, given the actual damage and actual towers structure that stood, no collapse whatsoever would have happened. Had any occured only the floors above would have fallen off.

See, this is exactly my point as to the quality and nature of your "raw" evidence. Here you are making unsubstantiated claims without backing them up. How do you know that a plane impact on the twin tower would have looked or behaived differently? On what evidence or previous data do you base that claim on. What other 1,300 foot building with the same architecture as the towers had passenger liners crash into them?
The fact is that you don't know. We all don't know. This is the first time it happened.
The bomber crash on the Empire State building does not apply because the bomber was smaller, slower and lighter than the 767s and the architecture of the building was different.

All we have to go on is whatever information we can obtain from data such as the parameters and characteristics of the plane, fuel, architecture and materials that were present and the laws of physics and compare them the outcome that we observed (building collapse).
That is something that the NIST did.
and MIT: http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/ ..Who is not a government agency btw.

The truth is you have no data, you have no facts, you do not have any credible or reliable sources for your info. Your use of a Canadian highschool web site as a source is one example and constanlty refering to a documenatary for which there is no evidence of ever existing is another.
This is also the reason your court cases keep getting dissmissed. The court papers you posted on web site repeatedly state that you have no evidence.
And because of this cronic lack of evidence you resort to creating or inventing evidence. Your drawing of the ficticious concrete core which you say is based on the aformentioned ficticious documentary is an example of how you make up evidence not to mention pointing to empty spaces and smudges in low resolution and blurry pictures.

Z
16th November 2006, 08:27 AM
who's got the socks?
if no-one then i'm grabbing them and quoting christophera's OP:-

please show evidence of the "total pulverisation of the towers"

BV

Bonavada has the socks; the topic now is 'total pulverization' of the towers.

By Yahoo Dictionary:

Of, relating to, or constituting the whole; entire. See Synonyms at whole.
Complete; utter; absolute: total concentration; a total effort; a total fool.

PULVERIZE {VERB}:
tr.

To pound, crush, or grind to a powder or dust.
To demolish.

So we have four possible meanings:

1. The entire tower was crushed into powder or dust.
2. The entire tower was demolished.
3. The towers were utterly crushed into dust.
4. The towers were utterly demolished.

Now, Chris, in keeping with Bonavada's question, what do you mean by 'total pulverisation', and what is your evidence?

Thanks again!

Everyone else:

STAY ON TARGET....

uruk
16th November 2006, 09:15 AM
Based on the fact that if the towers were going to collapse they would have done it at impact, or shortly therafter, and only the portion above would have fallen.

Based on common sense. That is not a fact. when has this happened before? You still haven't explained how or why this owould happen. Your just mearly making a statement and asking us to "just" accept it. Sorry but that is not evidence, fact or even reasoning.

They do not have enough energy to crush more than a floor or 2 before the mass decentralizes, especially considering the fact the damege was on one side, and rolls off to the side. Again, how do you know?
What was the wieght of the floors above the impact/failure sites? Were the floors below capable of sustaining an impact of that much mass in movement?
The mass did not become decentralized. Look at the video the top floors rotated about its center of mass before it fell into the floors below.
It did not toppel over it rotated.

Christophera
16th November 2006, 09:20 AM
See, this is exactly my point as to the quality and nature of your "raw" evidence. Here you are making unsubstantiated claims without backing them up. How do you know that a plane impact on the twin tower would have looked or behaived differently?

Considering all of the experts (or at least enough of them to impress you) are too terrified to come forward, we have to rely on our own experience.

What do you do for a living? What is your experience?

Recall tognazzini who worked for the PA saying the towers could sustain multiple plane impacts without failure.

Christophera
16th November 2006, 09:25 AM
The truth is you have no data, you have no facts, you do not have any credible or reliable sources for your info. Your use of a Canadian highschool web site as a source is one example and constanlty refering to a documenatary for which there is no evidence of ever existing is another.

Compared to you I have massive evidence. All you have is words of denial which support lawless government and the unaccountable murder of innocent people.

My site has many citations of credible, uninterested websites that support the concrete core.

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

Christophera
16th November 2006, 09:35 AM
The mass did not become decentralized. Look at the video the top floors rotated about its center of mass before it fell into the floors below.
It did not toppel over it rotated.

Another erroneous diagram by homer.

The one on the left shows the right side of the tower going up. This may occur to a very small degree but very little. The left side would crush and go downward to a degree where the mass would rotate off the supporting tower and then fall.

The diagram on the right shows the left side of the tower going inside, to the right, meaning that the core would have to shear off, rightward, something that is not going to happen in a natural collapse. That happened but was caused by explosions which are captured on video and in stills. (http://mouv4x8.club.fr/11Sept01/A0069b_3_towerexplo1_explosion_below.jpg)

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4089&d=1163697308

uruk
16th November 2006, 09:37 AM
Considering all of the experts (or at least enough of them to impress you) are too terrified to come forward, we have to rely on our own experience. Where's your proof of this? The experts not agreeing with you could mean that you are simply wrong, not that they are frightened or coerced. Simply saying something does not make what you say true. You have to back it up with evidence before anyone will accept it.

What do you do for a living? What is your experience?
I teach electronics and computer maintenance and networking at a community college.

[/quote]Recall tognazzini who worked for the PA saying the towers could sustain multiple plane impacts without failure.[/QUOTE]

Well, it looks like he was proven wrong. Being an expert in something does not make you immune to being wrong.

Belz...
16th November 2006, 09:40 AM
Considering all of the experts (or at least enough of them to impress you) are too terrified to come forward, we have to rely on our own experience.

Unfortunately, you don't have any proof of that either. Your only piece of evidence that they are "terrified" is that they "seem" to be terrified, TO YOU.

The diagram on the right shows the left side of the tower going inside, to the right, meaning that the core would have to shear off, rightward, something that is not going to happen in a natural collapse.

I'd like to see numbers for that.

Christophera
16th November 2006, 09:41 AM
Now, Chris, in keeping with Bonavada's question, what do you mean by 'total pulverisation', and what is your evidence?

All of the concrete of the tower was reduced to its particulate components. Pulverized.

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

From the beginning news reports commented on the pulverization particuarly the shredding of human bodies wich resulted in DNA testing for identification.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/custom/attack/bal-te.dna20sep20,0,1068295.story?coll=bal-attack-utility

When the World Trade Center towers collapsed, those inside were buried under the now seven-story pile of knotted steel and pulverized concrete.

uruk
16th November 2006, 09:43 AM
Another erroneous diagram by homer.

The one on the left shows the right side of the tower going up. This may occur to a very small degree but very little. The left side would crush and go downward to a degree where the mass would rotate off the supporting tower and then fall.

The diagram on the right shows the left side of the tower going inside, to the right, meaning that the core would have to shear off, rightward, something that is not going to happen in a natural collapse. That happened but was caused by explosions which are captured on video and in stills. (http://mouv4x8.club.fr/11Sept01/A0069b_3_towerexplo1_explosion_below.jpg)

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4089&d=1163697308

The drawing on the right illustrates what the video shows. The upper section rotated and collapsed straight into the floors below which is exactly what would happen if the steel columns on one side of the core had given away and allowed the mass to move thus gaining momentum. You can't accept it because it goes against your concrete core hypothesis, which, btw, is not backed up by any reliable source.

Your delusion keep you from seeing reality.

Arus808
16th November 2006, 09:45 AM
Considering all of the experts (or at least enough of them to impress you) are too terrified to come forward, we have to rely on our own experience.

This is "conpsiracy theorist" talk .

that is a lie (as we know you are a liar). the Experts (thousands of them, you can start at the website http://www.asce.org ) have weighed in an agreed that the official reports accurately describe the events that lead to the buildings collapse.

They've provided their calculations based on their exeperience and knowledge in structural engineering, physics and fire safety.

What do you do for a living? What is your experience?

And what does that have to do with anything? Aren't we discussing what the experts have already weighed in on?

Recall tognazzini who worked for the PA saying the towers could sustain multiple plane impacts without failure.

Of course, he was making a "comment". He wasn't basing that on anything scientific or concrete. He also believed that the planes wouldn't be going "at full" speed, nor be fully loaded with jet fuel.

Arus808
16th November 2006, 09:46 AM
Compared to you I have massive evidence. All you have is words of denial which support lawless government and the unaccountable murder of innocent people.

YOU. HAVE. NO Evidence.

The Almond
16th November 2006, 09:46 AM
Another erroneous diagram by homer.

The one on the left shows the right side of the tower going up. This may occur to a very small degree but very little. The left side would crush and go downward to a degree where the mass would rotate off the supporting tower and then fall.

Have you ever, in your entire life, seen, taken or produced an engineering diagram? Do you understand the concept of moment couples? The arc you're refering to is not a movement arc, it's a moment arc showing a force.

Christophera
16th November 2006, 09:48 AM
I'd like to see numbers for that.

Since you haven't produced raw evidence of the steel core columns I am relieved of any responsibility for unreasonable requests for supporting calculations for common sense statements.

The fact I have proven to any reasonable, experienced accountable person that FEMA has lied about the design and construction of the towers renders all of your arguments nullified. All the deniers here.
(http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html)

That you are still here arguing belies common sense. You have no evidence.

Arus808
16th November 2006, 09:49 AM
Since you haven't produced raw evidence of the steel core columns I am relieved of any responsibility for unreasonable requests for supporting calculations for common sense statements.

What a pathetic cop out. The only ones having common sense here has been everyone but you.

Z
16th November 2006, 10:28 AM
OK, what happened to 'stay on target', guys?

Chris, when you claim the towers were 'totally pulverized', what you are actually saying was that all the concrete was reduced to dust, right?

What about photographic evidence of large chunks of concrete? What do you have to say about that?

Remember, Bonavada still has the :socks:...

16th November 2006, 10:35 AM
Bonavada has the socks; the topic now is 'total pulverization' of the towers.

By Yahoo Dictionary:

Of, relating to, or constituting the whole; entire. See Synonyms at whole.
Complete; utter; absolute: total concentration; a total effort; a total fool.

PULVERIZE {VERB}:
tr.

To pound, crush, or grind to a powder or dust.
To demolish.

So we have four possible meanings:

1. The entire tower was crushed into powder or dust.
2. The entire tower was demolished.
3. The towers were utterly crushed into dust.
4. The towers were utterly demolished.

Now, Chris, in keeping with Bonavada's question, what do you mean by 'total pulverisation', and what is your evidence?

Thanks again!

Everyone else:

STAY ON TARGET....

QFE

Christophera
16th November 2006, 12:05 PM
What a pathetic cop out. The only ones having common sense here has been everyone but you.

How can this be true when the only explanation for the tops of the towers falling the wrong way is based on the assertion that fires on the opposite sides caused weakening there when fuel/carbon fires do not get anywhere near hot enough to cause failures of the type asserted in steel?

You folks are not connecting with the obvious reality. The below image is absolutely a high speed series of explosions which are well contained by a mineral mass.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4090&stc=1&d=1163707527

You have attached that exact same file to multiple posts - repeating it a few times is OK in context however repeatedly doing so is just wasting the Forum's bandwidth & storage - you can always just use the URL link to one of the other attachments.

Belz...
16th November 2006, 12:07 PM
All of the concrete of the tower was reduced to its particulate components. Pulverized.

When the World Trade Center towers collapsed, those inside were buried under the now seven-story pile of knotted steel and pulverized concrete[/i].

Well, golly. If the news outlets say it, it MUST be true.

By the way, what are those chunks of concrete doing in your picture ?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_6080455cc4f23bf8d.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2641)

Arus808
16th November 2006, 12:08 PM
How can this be true when the only explanation for the tops of the towers falling the wrong way is based on the assertion that fires on the opposite sides caused weakening there when fuel/carbon fires do not get anywhere near hot enough to cause failures of the type asserted in steel?

And how did you come to this conclusion? that the fires were on the opposite side? do you have proof?

But, you still have a question to answer:

Bonavada has the socks; the topic now is 'total pulverization' of the towers.

By Yahoo Dictionary:

Of, relating to, or constituting the whole; entire. See Synonyms at whole.
Complete; utter; absolute: total concentration; a total effort; a total fool.

PULVERIZE {VERB}:
tr.

To pound, crush, or grind to a powder or dust.
To demolish.

So we have four possible meanings:

1. The entire tower was crushed into powder or dust.
2. The entire tower was demolished.
3. The towers were utterly crushed into dust.
4. The towers were utterly demolished.

Now, Chris, in keeping with Bonavada's question, what do you mean by 'total pulverisation', and what is your evidence?

Thanks again!

Everyone else:

STAY ON TARGET....

Christophera
16th November 2006, 12:09 PM
YOU. HAVE. NO Evidence.

It is noticed that you posted no evidence. You post text I always post raw evidence.

This (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) can only be the concrete core of WTC 2 because no protruding steel core columns are seen in sihouette.

This can only be a concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif), again no steel core columns are seen.

Belz...
16th November 2006, 12:10 PM
You folks are not connecting with the obvious reality. The below image is absolutely a high speed series of explosions which are well contained by a mineral mass.

I have problems with people who use words like "obvious" and "absolutely". They tend to sound like they're trying to convince me of something they have no evidence of reasoning for.

Care to break the mould ?

Christophera
16th November 2006, 12:10 PM
Well, golly. If the news outlets say it, it MUST be true.

By the way, what are those chunks of concrete doing in your picture ?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_6080455cc4f23bf8d.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2641)

The plaza had slabs and walls without C4 coated rebar.

Belz...
16th November 2006, 12:11 PM
It is noticed that you posted no evidence. You post text I always post raw evidence.

Pictures are not raw evidence, chris.

Belz...
16th November 2006, 12:12 PM
The plaza had slabs and walls without C4 coated rebar.

How do you know ?

And how can you tell the difference between concrete from the plaza and concrete from the towers ?

Christophera
16th November 2006, 12:15 PM
How do you know ?

There are no reports of the plaza blowing up.

And how can you tell the difference between concrete from the plaza and concrete from the towers ?

Doh!*#`

Concrete from the towers is seen as sand and gravel.

Christophera
16th November 2006, 12:16 PM
Pictures are not raw evidence, chris.

The rawest we have Belz.

Arus808
16th November 2006, 12:18 PM
It is noticed that you posted no evidence. You post text I always post raw evidence.

Um, evidence has been posted numerous times through this thread. Why must i repost what is already here?

And that, of course is a nother cop out.

YOU want to prove to us what you claim, that means you provide evidence and facts to support your claim.

Thus far, you've provided jack squat. And your site does not contain any evidence.

You still have this to resolve:

Bonavada has the socks; the topic now is 'total pulverization' of the towers.

By Yahoo Dictionary:

Of, relating to, or constituting the whole; entire. See Synonyms at whole.
Complete; utter; absolute: total concentration; a total effort; a total fool.

PULVERIZE {VERB}:
tr.

To pound, crush, or grind to a powder or dust.
To demolish.

So we have four possible meanings:

1. The entire tower was crushed into powder or dust.
2. The entire tower was demolished.
3. The towers were utterly crushed into dust.
4. The towers were utterly demolished.

Now, Chris, in keeping with Bonavada's question, what do you mean by 'total pulverisation', and what is your evidence?

Thanks again!

Everyone else:

STAY ON TARGET....

Oliver
16th November 2006, 12:18 PM
Did they planted the C4 exactly at the impact zones?
I mean was this part of the plan when the buildings were built?
You know the buildings collapses would have started from the
bottom if they were blown, donīt you? :confused:

Christophera
16th November 2006, 12:19 PM
And how did you come to this conclusion? that the fires were on the opposite side? do you have proof?

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Talk to your own. They are the ones that asserted fires on the opposite sides were responsible.

Arus808
16th November 2006, 12:20 PM
OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Talk to your own. They are the ones that asserted fires on the opposite sides were responsible.

Another cop out, yet again

Bonavada has the socks; the topic now is 'total pulverization' of the towers.

By Yahoo Dictionary:

Of, relating to, or constituting the whole; entire. See Synonyms at whole.
Complete; utter; absolute: total concentration; a total effort; a total fool.

PULVERIZE {VERB}:
tr.

To pound, crush, or grind to a powder or dust.
To demolish.

So we have four possible meanings:

1. The entire tower was crushed into powder or dust.
2. The entire tower was demolished.
3. The towers were utterly crushed into dust.
4. The towers were utterly demolished.

Now, Chris, in keeping with Bonavada's question, what do you mean by 'total pulverisation', and what is your evidence?

Thanks again!

Everyone else:

STAY ON TARGET....

rwguinn
16th November 2006, 12:34 PM
And how did you come to this conclusion? that the fires were on the opposite side? do you have proof?

But, you still have a question to answer:
Hang in there, but
STAY ON TARGET!!!

Z
16th November 2006, 12:54 PM
Ah, yes... high school. Isn't that where you pulled the gun on your teacher, then walked out, never completing a basic education?

But I digress...

How do you explain the large sections of concrete visible in various photographs of the debris?

Hint: Not all of that was concrete 'from the plaza' - a large portion was concrete from the towers.

Hence, no total pulverization occured.

So you can either retract 'total pulverization', or explain the larger-than-sand-and-gravel sized debris visible in MANY pictures of Ground Zero.

Jennie C.
16th November 2006, 06:38 PM
No, parts of the NIST report are factual. Entirely false fabrications are most oftem easily detected.

It was caused to be fabricated by individuals associated with the infiltration of the US government.

Just curious. Do you know who it is that has infiltrated our (i am a people on this thread who is american) government? Care to name names? Nationalities? Planets of origin?

Jennie C.
16th November 2006, 06:56 PM
Did they planted the C4 exactly at the impact zones?
I mean was this part of the plan when the buildings were built?
You know the buildings collapses would have started from the
bottom if they were blown, donīt you? :confused:

Couldn't have planted it exactly at the impact zones because the planes hit the wrong towers. Remember? :rolleyes:

Christophera
16th November 2006, 07:06 PM
if the people arguing with you are paid by the government to refute you arent you just helping them confuse people by continuing to argue?

If I didn't have evidence (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html) that would be true.

Christophera
16th November 2006, 07:17 PM
Just curious. Do you know who it is that has infiltrated our (i am a people on this thread who is american) government? Care to name names? Nationalities? Planets of origin?

No, you haven't progressed far enough in your appreciation of truth.

Christophera
16th November 2006, 07:18 PM
Ah, yes... high school. Isn't that where you pulled the gun on your teacher, then walked out, never completing a basic education?

But I digress...

How do you explain the large sections of concrete visible in various photographs of the debris?

Hint: Not all of that was concrete 'from the plaza' - a large portion was concrete from the towers.

Hence, no total pulverization occured.

So you can either retract 'total pulverization', or explain the larger-than-sand-and-gravel sized debris visible in MANY pictures of Ground Zero.

You just are not reading, they must have you busy on other forums or mailing lists.

beachnut
16th November 2006, 07:29 PM
Amazing, are you two pretending to not be able to read and remember? Well I guess Jen just can't read because all of this has been answered a couple of times in this thread.

Both the towers were built with the ground up having 2 explosive circuits each floor of the floor circuit autonoumous from the next. Which is why it took 2 days to rig detonators. (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1200758)

The pilots knew each others targets, as is normal in air attacks, and were told that to hit at certain elevations assured more damage because explosives were planted there.

Here is the final seconds of the South spire shown in the earlier photo. A violent shock wave from below knocks the remnants of concrete from an area of core wall next to the steel dropping the spire as seen here in an animated gif.

The concrete core is officially top secret, you are not in vilolation of all ethically and moral laws of the land and will be hunted down by the anti-concrete core police. Do not answer the door, move to a concrete building so we can evapoate you!

16th November 2006, 07:30 PM
Amazing, are you two pretending to not be able to read and remember? Well I guess Jen just can't read because all of this has been answered a couple of times in this thread.
Attack the argument, not the person.

Both the towers were built with the ground up having 2 explosive circuits each floor of the floor circuit autonoumous from the next. Which is why it took 2 days to rig detonators. (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1200758)
This is not relevant to your claims of total pulverization.

The pilots knew each others targets, as is normal in air attacks, and were told that to hit at certain elevations assured more damage because explosives were planted there.
This is not relevant to your claims of total pulverization.

16th November 2006, 07:31 PM
No, you haven't progressed far enough in your appreciation of truth.

Evasion noted.

jsfisher
16th November 2006, 07:44 PM
Stay on target; stay on target; stay on target.

This is just a friendly nudge to some of the new (and returning) posters to this thread. In an effort to maintain some level focus to the discussion, we are only allowing one question at a time. That way, we can try to drive towards some sort of conclusion without all the circular arguments, diversions, random asides, and personal attacks.

If I recall correctly, Oliver still has the :socks: and so Oliver's question is still the question, the only question, up for discussion. Once Oliver is satisfied with question has been addressed (at least as best it is going to be), then Oliver will pass the :socks: to whomever asks the next question.

So, with everyone's cooperation, we may get though this. So, please: Stay on target; stay on target; stay on target.

beachnut
16th November 2006, 07:58 PM
All of the concrete of the tower was reduced to its particulate components. Pulverized.

...under the now seven-story pile of knotted steel and pulverized concrete.

Wrong, all the concrete of the tower was not pulverized!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/124474551a1838e01c.jpg

Wrong, all the concrete of the tower was not pulverized!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/12447455d310a46501.jpg

All the concrete of the tower was not pulverized! Why are you telling lies?

Look at the core columns, they have wallboard on them, just wallboard no concrete.

You just are not looking, you must have you busy on other forums or mailing lists.

You have not progressed far enough in your ability to find the truth. You have fallen for the concrete core lies of the government, due to the lack of oxygen in your water. You better watch out or you will miss the truth.

Z
16th November 2006, 08:28 PM
I don't want to speak for Bonavada (who has the :socks: at the moment), but if it were me, I'd say the raw evidence shown above (photos of ground zero wreckage) disproves the 'total pulverization' nonsense.

jsfisher
16th November 2006, 08:40 PM
I don't want to speak for Bonavada (who has the :socks: at the moment)....

Christophera
16th November 2006, 11:16 PM
Wrong, all the concrete of the tower was not pulverized!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/124474551a1838e01c.jpg

Wrong, all the concrete of the tower was not pulverized!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/12447455d310a46501.jpg

All the concrete of the tower was not pulverized! Why are you telling lies?

Look at the core columns, they have wallboard on them, just wallboard no concrete.

You just are not looking, you must have you busy on other forums or mailing lists.

You have not progressed far enough in your ability to find the truth. You have fallen for the concrete core lies of the government, due to the lack of oxygen in your water. You better watch out or you will miss the truth.

I don't think you have an appreciation for what the images you show mean.

That, (image with the boots) for all intents and purposes, represents pulverized. So much more than a collapse if you do not know now, you will never know.

The other image does not look like concrete from the core or the floors. Site walls probably.

Christophera
16th November 2006, 11:20 PM
[de-lurk mode] Ya know what Chris? I have been following this thread from the beginning. It been going nearly 6 months, has nearly 7700 posts and 193 pages and you have not made one single convert. If you haven't made any progress after this much time, don't you think it's time to re-evaluate your goals? [/de-lurk mode]

You don't know that.

I know that no raw evidence for the steel core columns has ever been posted meaning that of those reading many saw that my opposition had a vacuous, empty argument at best and relied on BS text denials and group pretense of mock ignor ance.

I know that no feasible, realistic explanation for near free fall and total pulverization has been put forth except for mine, found here.

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

Christophera
16th November 2006, 11:26 PM
The drawing on the right illustrates what the video shows. The upper section rotated and collapsed straight into the floors below which is exactly what would happen if the steel columns on one side of the core had given away and allowed the mass to move thus gaining momentum. You can't accept it because it goes against your concrete core hypothesis, which, btw, is not backed up by any reliable source.

Your delusion keep you from seeing reality.

You are basically trying to say that the steel core columns on one side of the building were cut by high explosives (http://mouv4x8.club.fr/11Sept01/A0069b_3_towerexplo1_explosion_below.jpg). The problem is that cutting half of the 47 columns would require a much larger blast than what we see. The interior box columns can be cut within the blast seen
(http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1233383) and if one 40 foot section of the concrete core was detonated with it the top of the tower would tilt as your diagram shows, except no part would be rotating upwards.

Then, your diagrams completely ignore what happned to the very top of WTC 2 where it fall the opposite direction as the middle part of the tower and lands on top of WTC 3. In this image (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.gif)

Christophera
17th November 2006, 12:39 AM
that is a lie (as we know you are a liar). the Experts (thousands of them, you can start at the website http://www.asce.org ) have weighed in an agreed that the official reports accurately describe the events that lead to the buildings collapse.

Here is what your experts say,

http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/grwk/event_release.cfm?uid=1584

The team also concluded that fireproofing materials adhered to the steel structure during construction were likely blown off by the impact of planes and thus left the structure more vulnerable to the heat of the fire.

if not for the intense fire ignited by the thousands of pounds of fuel carried by the planes, and fueled by the contents of the buildings, the towers likely would have stood indefinitely. However, the two events occurring simultaneously led to the collapse.

"Likely blown off" Wow, ....... that is really accurate. And wow!, look at all the raw evidence they impliment.

Your reference is not credible and looks like they are blindly supporting the official story whereas my site utilizes raw evidence to prove there was a concrete core and then shows how it was used as a container for plastic explosives that was apart of explosives circuits (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html) which actually explains the event seen.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4102&stc=1&d=1163752719

Big Al
17th November 2006, 12:48 AM
I don't think you have an appreciation for what the images you show mean.

That, (image with the boots) for all intents and purposes, represents pulverized. So much more than a collapse if you do not know now, you will never know.

So now it's not just "not quite the right speed of fall" but "not quite the right sort of debris".

Christophera, for those of us who do not possess your instant grasp of physical matters, can you say how large the concrete chunks should be after hitting the ground? Despite all your claims of common sense, I can't see anything wrong there.

Can you attach pictures of a similar collapsed skyscraper to demonstrate the anomaly in the debris dimensions?

Big Al
17th November 2006, 02:43 AM
Why, oh, why, am I so dense and thick-headed as to be unable to see what's so clear, reasonable, obvious, common-sense, undeniable and downright glaring to Christophera.

I must admit, I have no idea what rate a collapsing building should fall, nor how large the rubble tends to be. To my naive mind, the collapse should accelerate rapidly as more and more weight bears on the structure below. At the end, it seems to poor old stupid me, the building should be falling somewhere near 9.81 m/s/s.

After such a titanic impact, I wouldn't expect much to be left, either. I can shatter concrete with a sledgehammer blow, much less than the impact of a skyscraper.

Christopera, can you PLEASE abandon the "it's obvious", "it's undeniable" and "it stands to reason" tags and accept that it's NOT glaringly clear to us mortals. Leave common sense aside in favour of cold, hard facts.

I'd like to reiterate what has been asked many times before:

How fast should a large building fall if it collapses due to an airliner impact?
From what basis is this speed derived?
How is this different from a collapse caused by demolition explosives?
What difference would you expect to see in rubble size between a large building collapsing after an airliner impact and one being demolished?
Again, how do you know this?

In fact, I don't expect you to answer, Crhistophera, because I don't think you have anything. I expect if anything a round of "As any reasonable person could see" and so on.

However, I think I am a reasonable person, and I can't see.

If you won't even have a stab at answering these questions, I call troll. You're just wasting bandwidth with these unsupported, didactic assertions.

Babylon Sister
17th November 2006, 04:01 AM
You don't know that.

I know that no raw evidence for the steel core columns has ever been posted meaning that of those reading many saw that my opposition had a vacuous, empty argument at best and relied on BS text denials and group pretense of mock ignor ance.

I know that no feasible, realistic explanation for near free fall and total pulverization has been put forth except for mine, found here.

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

Yeah. You just keep telling yourself that. Over and over and over again.

SezMe
17th November 2006, 04:04 AM
Hey, Chris, there is a presentation on government conspiracies here: Saturday, November 18, 2006 at Vista del Monte, 3 pm. If you don't know, Vista del Monte is on Modoc just west of Las Positas. If you come I'll buy you a beer afterwards! What a deal.

Belz...
17th November 2006, 04:30 AM
There are no reports of the plaza blowing up.

There are no reports of the towers blowing up, either.

Concrete from the towers is seen as sand and gravel.

Gotcha! I knew you'd say that.

Let me get this straight.

You claim that: All the concrete of WTC1 was blown to sand and gravel.
I say : Look at your own picture, there's non-pulverised concrete.
You say: It doesn't come from the towers.
I say: How do you know ?
You say: It's not in pulverised form.

So basically, your entire argument is based on circular reasoning. You know the tower was pulverised, but not because of the evidence, because the evidence clearly shows non-pulverised concrete. However, you're using your OWN conclusion to explain the "RAW" evidence that CONTRADICTS your claim.

It's like saying this:

Me: ALL dogs have four legs. There ARE no exceptions.
You: Look, Belz... at this picture, there's a three-legged dog!
Me: No, that's NOT a dog.
You: WHAT ? Why not ?
Me: It doesn't have four legs!

Belz...
17th November 2006, 04:36 AM
The rawest we have Belz.

Pictures ARE NOT raw evidence, chris, no matter if it's the only evidence you have. It's not RAW because it's not first-hand evidence. It's a picture of the evidence.

Talk to your own. They are the ones that asserted fires on the opposite sides were responsible.

Did you not see the pictures (raw evidence, for you) of fires on the opposite side of the tower ?

Both the towers were built with the ground up having 2 explosive circuits each floor of the floor circuit autonoumous from the next. Which is why it took 2 days to rig detonators.

They missed a tower, there.

That, (image with the boots) for all intents and purposes, represents pulverized. So much more than a collapse if you do not know now, you will never know.

"For all intends and purposes" ? Was it pulverised OR NOT ?

You are basically trying to say that the steel core columns on one side of the building were cut by high explosives. The problem is that cutting half of the 47 columns would require a much larger blast than what we see. The interior box columns can be cut within the blast seen

There is no "blast" seen, Chris. You're using a still image to make it SEEM like there is, but on no video is there such an explosion.

I know that no feasible, realistic explanation for near free fall and total pulverization has been put forth except for mine, found here.

Your said yourself that free fall was a minor issue, and that the concrete wasn't pulverised, per se. You also said that the "concrete" in your "core stands" picture could be dust.

I think you no longer have a case, not even to you.

Z
17th November 2006, 04:57 AM
Christophera said,
That, (image with the boots) for all intents and purposes, represents pulverized. So much more than a collapse if you do not know now, you will never know.

So now by 'total pulverization' and 'sand and gravel' we mean 'large chunks remained behind'.

So 'near free fall' means under two minutes, and 'total pulverization' means large chunks remained, while 'sand and gravel' apparently is comprised of fist-sized or larger rocks.

No wonder it hurts when the kids throw sand!

But all joking aside, with this latest admission, the answer to his question is obvious: that the official explanation perfectly well explains 'near free fall' and 'total pulverization', since both terms have been completely redefined by Christophera. Why, any building in the world that has ever collapsed has fallen at 'near free fall' and resulted in 'total pulverization', so why should we expect any other difference?

ETA:

Let's sum up:

To sum up:

--C doesn't know how long it took the towers to collapse, but intuition tells him that anything shorter than 2 minutes is too fast.

--C doesn't know how much weight the upper floors represent, but intuition tells him that it wasn't sufficient to create the damage seen.

--C claims that 'total pulverization' leading to 'sand and gravel' means that large, fist-sized or larger pieces remain behind.

Anyone else seeing some major intelligence problems revealing themselves here?

17th November 2006, 05:31 AM
I don't want to speak for Bonavada (who has the :socks: at the moment), but if it were me, I'd say the raw evidence shown above (photos of ground zero wreckage) disproves the 'total pulverization' nonsense.

sorry been away a while.

that there was no "total pulverisation" of the towers is proven.
thanks.

i now pass the socks.

BV

17th November 2006, 06:19 AM
i think it's worth summing up briefly every so often to remind posters of the current progress.

it is so far established:-

that there was no "free-fall of the towers". christophera has no real idea at all of rate of fall of the towers.

that there was "no pulverisation of the towers" as large chunks of concrete and other parts of the structures remained.

christophera does not know the weight of the upper floors of the towers but still insists, whatever the weight was, it wasn't enough to cause the collapse.

is that the "sock score" so far? three questions answered? if i've missed any please feel free to ammend
it may not seem like much of an advance. i know its taken over 6 months but to me it's real progress to have pinned christophera down in this fashion in only a few days.

socks RULE.

may i remind everyone to STAY ON TARGET for the next sockster.

BV

Big Al
17th November 2006, 06:51 AM
Hey, bonavada, I feel like such a n00b,but what's all this about passing socks?

At first, I thought it was something to do with sock puppets, but the context has thrown that out.

17th November 2006, 06:54 AM
Hey, bonavada, I feel like such a n00b,but what's all this about passing socks?

At first, I thought it was something to do with sock puppets, but the context has thrown that out.

If I understand correctly, a system has been set up on this thread, whereby whomever has the "socks" smiley has the question that is to be resolved. No tangents, other questions, red herrings, etc will be addressed until the person who has the socks (peace pipe, feather, etc) is satisfied.

Z
17th November 2006, 07:03 AM
If I understand correctly, a system has been set up on this thread, whereby whomever has the "socks" smiley has the question that is to be resolved. No tangents, other questions, red herrings, etc will be addressed until the person who has the socks (peace pipe, feather, etc) is satisfied.

That's about the size of it. We're all welcome to pitch in - re-asking the question, asking for clarifications on the question - but whoever has the sock, has the question. And that's the question we all focus in on.

Frankly, after disproving both 'free fall' and 'total pulverization', I don't know that there's much left to discuss in this thread.

Reminder - the OP of this thread was...

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

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?

Since free fall and total pulverization of the towers has been proven - even admitted by Chris - to be false, it would seem there's no reason for this thread to exist; however, I would like to see this type of intensly focused session continue with other claims made by Chris.

17th November 2006, 07:18 AM
Hey, bonavada, I feel like such a n00b,but what's all this about passing socks?

At first, I thought it was something to do with sock puppets, but the context has thrown that out.

perhaps i proved my "noobery" by not explaining like AW above. sorry.
the socks are a version of the conch shell in "lord of the flies". in case you're unfamiliar with the story it was that whoever held the conch was allowed to speak. it was a device to impose a little order in the anarchy. something this thread desperately needed. i guess someone picked the socks coz there was no conch image/smiley available :-]
anyway i think the socks are "on the floor" now. if someone picks em up they can ask a question of christophera relating to his theory and he will be held to that until he answers satisfactorily. we are hoping by this method to pin chris down and prevent his endemic evasion.

GO FOR IT ;-0

BV

17th November 2006, 07:19 AM
Great! I'll take the socks then.

Mr. Brown,

You claim that the towers fell in the wrong order. How can you say so when the second jet impacted WTC2 faster (and therefore harder) than the first jet hit WTC1, and did so at a point lower on the building in comparison to the first?

Big Al
17th November 2006, 07:24 AM
Thanks for the sock explanations, guys. Now I yearn to hold the sacred socks myself, someday ... someday...

17th November 2006, 07:30 AM

- Both planes were identical models
- WTC1 was struck at 490 mph
- There were 11 undamaged stories above WTC1's impact zone
- WTC2 was struck at 590 mph
- There were 25 undamaged stories above WTC2's impact zone

In short, the second tower was hit significantly harder, significantly lower, and fell after a shorter elapsed time, yet Mr. Brown insists it should've fallen second. Seems to me our friend is avoiding applying his vaunted "common sense."

skeptifem
17th November 2006, 07:40 AM
If I didn't have evidence (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html) that would be true.

ok then why would the government pay people to argue at all (this is assuming your evidence is correct)?

uruk
17th November 2006, 07:42 AM
You are basically trying to say that the steel core columns on one side of the building were cut by high explosives (http://mouv4x8.club.fr/11Sept01/A0069b_3_towerexplo1_explosion_below.jpg). The problem is that cutting half of the 47 columns would require a much larger blast than what we see. The interior box columns can be cut within the blast seen

Again you show your capacity to misinterpret and get wrong just about everything you percieve.

I was addressing your statement that the top section should have "toppled" over due to the impact of the airplanes. I was trying to illustrate that could not happen to building of that size and architecture from that kind of impact.

Your statement here also shows how narrow and limited your thinking is. You seem to think that only explosives can damage the steel columns. A few of the core columns were severly damaged or broken apart in the initial imact of the plane. That's why the upper section of the building remained standing after the plane impacts.

The structural integrity of the remaing coulmns in that side of the building were reduced by half the heat from the raging fires fed by jet fuel and other flammable materials.

The coulmns were stressed and deformed by the wieght of the upper section of the building and by the steel in the floor section expanding due to the heat. (remember metal expands when heated)

The deformations are well documented and evidenced by photographs and video of the outer wall sections bowing out right before the collapse.

The impact and heat damaged columns finaly gave away in that section of the core and the upper section shifted downward (in the case of WTC2 rotated downward into the lower floors) due to gravity. That shifting of mass introduced momnetum and kinetic energy into the upper sections of the building. That is something the lower floors and support structures were NOT designed to take. And the rest is etched into history.

and if one 40 foot section of the concrete core was detonated with it the top of the tower would tilt as your diagram shows, except no part would be rotating upwards. Which means that under any circumstances the uppersection would fall straight down into the lower section rather than "topple over" to one side. So I guess we can throw out that "toppleing over" scenario you suggested.

Then, your diagrams completely ignore what happned to the very top of WTC 2 where it fall the opposite direction as the middle part of the tower and lands on top of WTC 3. In [url=http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.gif]this image (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1233383[/url)
well since you like diagrams, take a look at this.

17th November 2006, 07:46 AM
Since free fall and total pulverization of the towers has been proven - even admitted by Chris - to be false, it would seem there's no reason for this thread to exist; however, I would like to see this type of intensly focused session continue with other claims made by Chris.

i must agree, there have been numerous unsubstantiated, unresolved claims made by chris. i think the most important of these should be addressed. i will not list these now as that might start another avalanche. i've relinquished the socks, the floors now open as they say.
it does make me think though, does there come a point where we say that's it chris. enough is enough. you are now totally discredited? (however, as you state AK, it seems evident that this point might already have been reached)
is there a "higher authourity" we can appeal to to stop the merry-go-round once that is so? or does this madness continue for another 6 months?

BV

17th November 2006, 07:55 AM
Great! I'll take the socks then.
Mr. Brown,
You claim that the towers fell in the wrong order. How can you say so when the second jet impacted WTC2 faster (and therefore harder) than the first jet hit WTC1, and did so at a point lower on the building in comparison to the first?

well aimed RK.

also the second tower was impacted by the jet at a different trajectory to the first.

let's have some direct answers to this question chris.

BV

uruk
17th November 2006, 09:11 AM

- Both planes were identical models
- WTC1 was struck at 490 mph
- There were 11 undamaged stories above WTC1's impact zone
- WTC2 was struck at 590 mph
- There were 25 undamaged stories above WTC2's impact zone

In short, the second tower was hit significantly harder, significantly lower, and fell after a shorter elapsed time, yet Mr. Brown insists it should've fallen second. Seems to me our friend is avoiding applying his vaunted "common sense."

No, Chris is applying his own brand of "common sense". First building hit should have been the first building to fall. But since the "wrong building" fell first means the pilots got the order wrong. So you figure the guy with the finger on the switch to the detonators could have corrected the sequence.

Belz...
17th November 2006, 09:14 AM
No. Evil world-spanning, era-spanning conspiracy members must ALWAYS make the stupidest mistakes.

It's part of the job description.

uruk
17th November 2006, 09:36 AM
The Evil world-spanning, era-spanning conspiracy members must also perform a monologue detailing thier evil world spanning, era-spanning plan to thier arch-nemesis just before leaving them alone to die in an unecessarily slow and easily escapable killing device.

rwguinn
17th November 2006, 10:02 AM
ok then why would the government pay people to argue at all (this is assuming your evidence is correct)?

Stay...on....target....

Christophera
17th November 2006, 11:03 AM
Ah, yes... high school. Isn't that where you pulled the gun on your teacher, then walked out, never completing a basic education?

But I digress...

No, you lie and distort and you know it. It is an ad hominum attack based on information I divulged to communicate my position with regard to our system of education and law.

It was junior high school and I simply told a teacher off. She had been psychologically abusing me for 3 months in front of the entire class. She finally ran out of things to say so I started talking about her, her motives, that she was abusing me, all of us and that she should retire and make room for a younger teacher that was serious about teaching us from a positon of respect for us.

There was not even any yelling, I was nice.

I was suspended for 3 days then permanantly expelled from the Santa Barbara high school system, not for what I said, but the fact that THE CLASS LISTENED and respected me.

Oliver
17th November 2006, 11:06 AM
How much meters per second does something fall
at freefall-speed if itīs made of metal or concrete? :confused:

And does metal fall faster than conrete, Alfred? :confused:

Christophera
17th November 2006, 11:06 AM
So now it's not just "not quite the right speed of fall" but "not quite the right sort of debris".

Christophera, for those of us who do not possess your instant grasp of physical matters, can you say how large the concrete chunks should be after hitting the ground? Despite all your claims of common sense, I can't see anything wrong there.

Can you attach pictures of a similar collapsed skyscraper to demonstrate the anomaly in the debris dimensions?

I see 8" concrete slab and the tower had none of that. The site did have many 8" wall and slab.

Oliver
17th November 2006, 11:08 AM
I see 8" concrete slab and the tower had none of that. The site did have many 8" wall and slab.

What is a concrete slab for us non-americans that
are not familiar with " and such things? :confused:

ETA:

..., Alfred?

maccy
17th November 2006, 11:13 AM
Oliver! You don't have the socks! Stay focussed!

Here's where we're up to:

sorry been away a while.

that there was no "total pulverisation" of the towers is proven.
thanks.

i now pass the socks.

BV

i think it's worth summing up briefly every so often to remind posters of the current progress.

it is so far established:-

that there was no "free-fall of the towers". christophera has no real idea at all of rate of fall of the towers.

that there was "no pulverisation of the towers" as large chunks of concrete and other parts of the structures remained.

christophera does not know the weight of the upper floors of the towers but still insists, whatever the weight was, it wasn't enough to cause the collapse.

is that the "sock score" so far? three questions answered? if i've missed any please feel free to ammend
it may not seem like much of an advance. i know its taken over 6 months but to me it's real progress to have pinned christophera down in this fashion in only a few days.

socks RULE.

may i remind everyone to STAY ON TARGET for the next sockster.

BV

Great! I'll take the socks then.

Mr. Brown,

You claim that the towers fell in the wrong order. How can you say so when the second jet impacted WTC2 faster (and therefore harder) than the first jet hit WTC1, and did so at a point lower on the building in comparison to the first?

- Both planes were identical models
- WTC1 was struck at 490 mph
- There were 11 undamaged stories above WTC1's impact zone
- WTC2 was struck at 590 mph
- There were 25 undamaged stories above WTC2's impact zone

In short, the second tower was hit significantly harder, significantly lower, and fell after a shorter elapsed time, yet Mr. Brown insists it should've fallen second. Seems to me our friend is avoiding applying his vaunted "common sense."

Oliver
17th November 2006, 11:16 AM
Oliver! You don't have the socks! Stay focussed!

Here's where we're up to:

Oops, i missed the focus. What are we talking about - the dust?

Mmmmhkay:

Alfred, why was the dust so pale if it should
be more dark like in a controlled demolition? :confused:

maccy
17th November 2006, 11:19 AM
Oops, i missed the focus. What are we talking about - the dust?

No, this is the current socks question:

Great! I'll take the socks then.

Mr. Brown,

You claim that the towers fell in the wrong order. How can you say so when the second jet impacted WTC2 faster (and therefore harder) than the first jet hit WTC1, and did so at a point lower on the building in comparison to the first?

Oliver
17th November 2006, 11:25 AM
No, this is the current socks question:

Mmmhkay... :D Alfred: Why did the second plane hit the building
harder and faster? Was it part of the plan to bring it down faster?
And why do you think it was the wrong order??? :confused:

Bell
17th November 2006, 11:58 AM
ETA: What is your evidence of the buildings falling in the wrong order? Raw evidence, like a purpetrator's confesion, or a copy of the written orders that says which tower should fall first.

Belz...
17th November 2006, 12:03 PM
Might want to adress my posts, here, chris:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2103794&postcount=7665

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2103804&postcount=7666

Christophera
17th November 2006, 12:26 PM
There are no reports of the towers blowing up, either.

This (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg), is quite basically a report from very credible individuals.

And the image below shows an explosion. Political supression of facts is an issue.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4108&stc=1&d=1163795561

Oliver
17th November 2006, 12:28 PM
This (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg), is quite basically a report from very credible individuals.

And the image below shows an explosion. Political supression of facts is an issue.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4108&stc=1&d=1163795118

What is a "supression"? My translator does not know
this word... :confused:

Christophera
17th November 2006, 12:35 PM
Pictures ARE NOT raw evidence, chris, no matter if it's the only evidence you have. It's not RAW because it's not first-hand evidence. It's a picture of the evidence.

It will suffice under conditions.

Did you not see the pictures (raw evidence, for you) of fires on the opposite side of the tower ?

Steel will not get significantly heated under those conditions to fail in the way images show.

Do you approve of inflitrations of governments and their lawless performance?

17th November 2006, 12:36 PM
Stay...on....target....

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748455e1cdba49b0.jpg

:-]

BV

Christophera
17th November 2006, 12:37 PM
Oliver! You don't have the socks!

If you do not have a leg to stand on, what do you need socks for?

maccy
17th November 2006, 12:39 PM
What is a "supression"? My translator does not know
this word... :confused:

supression is a noun used to denote the results of the verb "to supress", in this case in the following meaning:

2 : to keep from public knowledge: as a : to keep secret b : to stop or prohibit the publication or revelation of <suppress the test results>

http://www.webster.com/dictionary/suppress

also

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=suppression

Oliver
17th November 2006, 12:39 PM
It will suffice under conditions.

Steel will not get significantly heated under those conditions to fail inthe way image show.

So how hot was the steel in Tower 1, 2 and WTC7???

Do you approve of inflitrations of governments and their lawless performance?

No, i don`t because many people who are NOT members
of the NWO or the GOV should have seen any strange
operations at the buildings.

maccy
17th November 2006, 12:40 PM
If you do not have a leg to stand on, what do you need socks for?

You put a tangerine in them at Christmas.

17th November 2006, 12:40 PM
Great! I'll take the socks then.
Mr. Brown,
You claim that the towers fell in the wrong order. How can you say so when the second jet impacted WTC2 faster (and therefore harder) than the first jet hit WTC1, and did so at a point lower on the building in comparison to the first?

BV

Oliver
17th November 2006, 12:41 PM
supression is a noun used to denote the results of the verb "to supress", in this case in the following meaning:
http://www.webster.com/dictionary/suppress

also

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=suppression

*lol* Okay, you and he meant suppress with two "p"īs... Sorry,
sometimes itīs hard to translate the misspelling... :o

17th November 2006, 12:45 PM
You put a tangerine in them at Christmas.

jeez that takes me back along time. i'm filling up here mate :-]

tangerines an apple and a handful of sweets...i always used to wonder where santa kept all those socks. musta been some sweet smelling sleigh.........

BV

maccy
17th November 2006, 12:48 PM
We're getting off target, again.

Here is what has been established so far by asking Chris one question at a time and sticking with it:

it is so far established:-

that there was no "free-fall of the towers". christophera has no real idea at all of rate of fall of the towers.

that there was "no pulverisation of the towers" as large chunks of concrete and other parts of the structures remained.

christophera does not know the weight of the upper floors of the towers but still insists, whatever the weight was, it wasn't enough to cause the collapse.

Here is the question that we are supposed to be sticking to now.

Great! I'll take the socks then.

Mr. Brown,

You claim that the towers fell in the wrong order. How can you say so when the second jet impacted WTC2 faster (and therefore harder) than the first jet hit WTC1, and did so at a point lower on the building in comparison to the first?

beachnut
17th November 2006, 12:52 PM
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 have been waiting for a long time and the answer is;

NO, the buildings did fall; but there was not total pulverization.

No, you can not answer the question because it did not happen, end of thread, end of question.

No ---- because there was not total pulverizaton.

17th November 2006, 02:38 PM
Mr. Brown:

You claim that the World Trade Center towers fell in the wrong order. How can you say this when the second jet impacted WTC2 faster (and therefore harder) than the first jet hit WTC1, and did so at a point lower on the building in comparison to the first?

- Both planes were identical models
- WTC1 was struck at 490 mph
- There were 11 undamaged stories above WTC1's impact zone
- WTC2 was struck at 590 mph
- There were 25 undamaged stories above WTC2's impact zone

In short, the second tower was hit significantly harder, significantly lower, and fell after a shorter elapsed time, yet you, Mr. Brown, insist it should've fallen second. How can this be?

Christophera
17th November 2006, 03:42 PM
Mr. Brown:

You claim that the World Trade Center towers fell in the wrong order. How can you say this when the second jet impacted WTC2 faster (and therefore harder) than the first jet hit WTC1, and did so at a point lower on the building in comparison to the first?

- Both planes were identical models
- WTC1 was struck at 490 mph
- There were 11 undamaged stories above WTC1's impact zone
- WTC2 was struck at 590 mph
- There were 25 undamaged stories above WTC2's impact zone

In short, the second tower was hit significantly harder, significantly lower, and fell after a shorter elapsed time, yet you, Mr. Brown, insist it should've fallen second. How can this be?

Your explanation for why the wrong tower fell first is about as bad as your explanation for why they both fell the wrong way. Actually you never did explain why WTC 2 fell the wrong way and never did explain why the body fo WTC 2 went east while the top went west.

Basically you and your bsufucating group are trying to cover your evasion with repetitive questioning,

Explain why the top of WTC 2 went west and the body went east. BTW, the concrete core is easily seen inside the perimeter columns just before connecting with WTC 3.
(http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.gif)

Christophera
17th November 2006, 03:44 PM
You have been waiting for a long time and the answer is;

NO, the buildings did fall; but there was not total pulverization.

No, you can not answer the question because it did not happen, end of thread, end of question.

No ---- because there was not total pulverizaton.

Tell that to the families that have to live with their relaitves that were ground up being buried in a land fill.

Oliver
17th November 2006, 03:46 PM
Your explanation for why the wrong tower fell first is about as bad as your explanation for why they both fell the wrong way. Actually you never did explain why WTC 2 fell the wrong way and never did explain why the body fo WTC 2 went east while the top went west.

...And you never explained why the wrong tower was
hit. Do you have any valid sources for your claim???

Basically you and your bsufucating group are trying to cover your evasion with repetitive questioning,

"bsufucating" WHAT???

Explain why the top of WTC 2 went west and the body went east. BTW, the concrete core is easily seen inside the perimeter columns just before connecting with WTC 3.
(http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.gif)

There is no conrete core. All i see is a big Bratwurst.
No kidding here...

Oliver
17th November 2006, 03:47 PM
Tell that to the families that have to live with their relaitves that were ground up being buried in a land fill.

Well, why donīt you tell the families they should stop
forgetting their losses and explain your concrete core
to them. Letīs see how much teeth they left... ;)

firecoins
17th November 2006, 03:59 PM
Tell that to the families that have to live with their relaitves that were ground up being buried in a land fill.
at least their ground up family members lived. :boggled: Most have to live without family members because they died in a plane crash, fire, a suicide to avoid a fire or a building collpase cause by a weakened steel core

Thunder
17th November 2006, 04:18 PM
i watched "screw loose change" last night. it was very long...but it convinced me of what i have known for a long time. the 19 hijackers were most likely the ones who flew the planes. the wtc collapsed due to structural damage and weakened steel. the pentagon was hit by a plane....as was the field in PA. i dont know what convinced me most...maybe its the fact that no structural engineers believe the conspiracy thoery. maybe the whole b.s. about cell phone calls at 30,000 feet when even LC calls them "airphone calls". maybe its the mention of the fbi flyers with a crosshair on the wtc...to suggest a future attack on the wtc was planned.

its just all silly to me now. and intensally paranoid. CTists talk about the neo-cons and the media spreading fear to control the masses...well what do you call all the claims about a zionist/illuminati/freemason/pnac/cfr/cia/federal reserve plot for world domination? i personally feel the fear spread by alex jones is 100% worse then what bush does (the neo-cons and bush also spread b.s.).

most importantly....whether i agree with them or not...muslems do have a motive for attacking us. we have been messing with their nations and politics for so long..is it that hard to believe they would hit back? CTists seem to think that either radical muslems really dont hate us, dont even exist, or dont have the means to hijack an airplane (been done hundreds of times). the arabs invented algebra, i think they can take over a plane and pilot it into the three largest buildings in the usa.

uruk
17th November 2006, 07:51 PM
Your explanation for why the wrong tower fell first is about as bad as your explanation for why they both fell the wrong way. Actually you never did explain why WTC 2 fell the wrong way and never did explain why the body fo WTC 2 went east while the top went west.

Basically you and your bsufucating group are trying to cover your evasion with repetitive questioning,

You've never provided evidence proving that there was a proper sequence or direction for the collapse of the buildings. Your making claims without any substantiation. Your just making things up as you go along.

beachnut
17th November 2006, 09:02 PM
Tell that to the families that have to live with their relaitves that were ground up being buried in a land fill.

The already know it, you disrespectful concrete core liar.

You have been waiting for a long time and the answer is;

NO, the buildings did fall; but there was not total pulverization.

No, you can not answer the question because it did not happen, end of thread, end of question.

No ---- because there was not total pulverization.

hcmom
17th November 2006, 09:43 PM
If you do not have a leg to stand on, what do you need socks for?

Every now and then, you gotta think, "Wow, he can make sense!"

Christophera
17th November 2006, 10:00 PM
The already know it, you disrespectful concrete core liar.

You have been waiting for a long time and the answer is;

NO, the buildings did fall; but there was not total pulverization.

No, you can not answer the question because it did not happen, end of thread, end of question.

No ---- because there was not total pulverization.

Where were you when the firefighters were mystified because they could find no remains, when the largest piece of anything found which was recognizable to a firefighter was 1/2 of a phone key pad out of all 100's of the desks, chairs, file cabinets and computers in the towers?

Do you suppose that whole bodies were over looked by grief striken rescue personel? Do you suppose families stood by while intact remains were hauled off in trucks to be buried in land fills. Do you suppose they created a masive stink about their loved ones being buried in a dump because the hundreds of searchers just missed the bodies in all their searches?

Deny for as long as you can stand it.

All the evidence is against you on this one. I've posted the links that show it is common knowledge that the towers were pulverized and I've authored a page that explains it.

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

Christophera
17th November 2006, 10:07 PM
i watched "screw loose change" last night.

You are new to this thread. You don't know that I believe some deeply manipulated Muslims did fly planes.

You have not provided a logical explanation for this (http://mouv4x8.club.fr/11Sept01/A0069b_3_towerexplo1_explosion_below.jpg), which IN NO WAY represents a collapse.

Plane hit the towers and there were fires but that had nothing to do with the towers coming down.

If you think they did then find one image of the steel core columns that were supposedly in the center of the towers, but first, try reading the last 190 pages and you will find that not one image of those core columns from the demolition at some elevation above ground has ever been posted.

That is because FEMA lied and the towers had a steel reinforced cast concrete core.

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

And it was built with high explosives centered and distributed throughout and encapsulated in concrerte to protect it for 33 years so detonators could be planted to initiate the demolition of 9-11 (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html)

delphi_ote
17th November 2006, 10:10 PM
Where were you when the firefighters were mystified because they could find no remains, when the largest piece of anything found which was recognizable to a firefighter was 1/2 of a phone key pad out of all 100's of the desks, chairs, file cabinets and computers in the towers?
Reality.

Oliver
17th November 2006, 10:11 PM
You are new to this thread. You don't know that I believe some deeply manipulated Muslims did fly planes.

You have not provided a logical explanation for this (http://mouv4x8.club.fr/11Sept01/A0069b_3_towerexplo1_explosion_below.jpg), which IN NO WAY represents a collapse.

Plane hit the towers and there were fires but that had nothing to do with the towers coming down.

If you think they did then find one image of the steel core columns that were supposedly in the center of the towers, but first, try reading the last 190 pages and you will find that not one image of those core columns from the demolition at some elevation above ground has ever been posted.

That is because FEMA lied and the towers had a steel reinforced cast concrete core.

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

And it was built with high explosives centered and distributed throughout and encapsulated in concrerte to protect it for 33 years so detonators could be planted to initiate the demolition of 9-11 (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html)

Bell
17th November 2006, 10:20 PM
Your explanation for why the wrong tower fell first is about as bad as your explanation for why they both fell the wrong way. Actually you never did explain why WTC 2 fell the wrong way and never did explain why the body fo WTC 2 went east while the top went west.

Basically you and your bsufucating group are trying to cover your evasion with repetitive questioning,

Explain why the top of WTC 2 went west and the body went east. BTW, the concrete core is easily seen inside the perimeter columns just before connecting with WTC 3.
(http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.gif)

Mr. Brown:

You claim that the World Trade Center towers fell in the wrong order. How can you say this when the second jet impacted WTC2 faster (and therefore harder) than the first jet hit WTC1, and did so at a point lower on the building in comparison to the first?

And a quick refresher: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:W...r_9-11_Att.png

- Both planes were identical models
- WTC1 was struck at 490 mph
- There were 11 undamaged stories above WTC1's impact zone
- WTC2 was struck at 590 mph
- There were 25 undamaged stories above WTC2's impact zone

In short, the second tower was hit significantly harder, significantly lower, and fell after a shorter elapsed time, yet you, Mr. Brown, insist it should've fallen second. How can this be?

Big Al
18th November 2006, 01:19 AM
I love this. Supposedly the number one indicator of evil conspiracy is that the towers fell at free-fall accelerations, i.e. as fast as possible.

Now the claim is that they fell out of sequence - implying that one fell faster than the other!

Perhaps the complex chain of demolition explosives didn't work in WTC1, Christophera, meaning that it fell at the "proper rate", whatever that is?

You can't have it both ways: The buildings both fell as fast as is physically possible / one building fell faster than the other. What the...?

Are you man enough to admit that these two statements are mutually exclusive?

Oliver
18th November 2006, 01:24 AM
I love this. Supposedly the number one indicator of evil conspiracy is that the towers fell at free-fall accelerations, i.e. as fast as possible.

Now the claim is that they fell out of sequence - implying that one fell faster than the other!

Perhaps the complex chain of demolition explosives didn't work in WTC1, Christophera, meaning that it fell at the "proper rate", whatever that is?

You can't have it both ways: The buildings both fell as fast as is physically possible / one building fell faster than the other. What the...?

Are you man enough to admit that these two statements are mutually exclusive?

Well, ask Pdoherty. He said that the tipping top of
the tower only could have been stopped by using
explosives. So somehow the goverment managed it
to juggle the buildings with explosives while they were
falling. :boggled: :covereyes

beachnut
18th November 2006, 01:26 AM
Where were you when the firefighters were mystified because they could find no remains, when the largest piece of anything found which was recognizable to a firefighter was 1/2 of a phone key pad out of all 100's of the desks, chairs, file cabinets and computers in the towers?

Do you suppose that whole bodies were over looked by grief striken rescue personel? Do you suppose families stood by while intact remains were hauled off in trucks to be buried in land fills. Do you suppose they created a masive stink about their loved ones being buried in a dump because the hundreds of searchers just missed the bodies in all their searches?

Deny for as long as you can stand it.

All the evidence is against you on this one. I've posted the links that show it is common knowledge that the towers were pulverized and I've authored a page that explains it.

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

I saw bodies and large pieces of concrete.

But no concrete core, you have made that up and are telling lies now and you are disrespecting the heroes of 9/11 by making up lies. Bad idea.

As for your question of this thread, you have wasted tons of post because the only answer is:

You still are a disrespectful concrete core liar.

You have been waiting for a long time and the answer is;

NO, the buildings did fall; but there was not total pulverization.

No, you can not answer the question because it did not happen, end of thread, end of question.

No ---- because there was not total pulverization.

Christophera
18th November 2006, 01:32 AM
Wait..you claim that the weight of the upper floors was insufficient to create the damage seen, yet you have no idea what the weight of those floors are?

And your second sentence is an absolute fabrication. Structural engineers do not come up with their numbers through intuition. They get them through experience and careful calculation.

To sum up:

--C doesn't know how long it took the towers to collapse, but intuition tells him that anything shorter than 2 minutes is too fast.

--C doesn't know how much weight the upper floors represent, but intuition tells him that it wasn't sufficient to create the damage seen.

Are you tying to assert that you know what kind of structure stood and therefore know how long it should have taken to fall?

If that is the case you will post an image of some of the 47 1,300 foot core columns at an elevation over the ground from the demo images. If you cannot do this, well, you just don't know what you are talking about.

Whereas I can show you the concrete core. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

Oliver
18th November 2006, 01:35 AM
Are you tying to assert that you know what kind of structure stood and therefore know how long it should have taken to fall?

If that is the case you will post an image of some of the 47 1,300 foot core columns at an elevation over the ground from the demo images. If you cannot do, well, you just don't know what you are talking about.

Whereas I can show you the concrete core. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

Forget it, Chris. Iīm pretty sure you donīt want to
leave this planet as an isolated, lonesome idiot. You
are in an age where you should think about it.

Christophera
18th November 2006, 01:52 AM
I saw bodies and large pieces of concrete.
[/COLOR]

That, .............. IS a lie.

delphi_ote
18th November 2006, 02:42 AM
That, .............. IS a lie.
Even Levar Burton didn't make me take his word for it. Why is it you always insist I take yours?

18th November 2006, 08:33 AM
Mr. Brown:

You claim that the World Trade Center towers fell in the wrong order. How can you say this when the second jet impacted WTC2 faster (and therefore harder) than the first jet hit WTC1, and did so at a point lower on the building in comparison to the first?

And a quick refresher: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:W...r_9-11_Att.png

- Both planes were identical models
- WTC1 was struck at 490 mph
- There were 11 undamaged stories above WTC1's impact zone
- WTC2 was struck at 590 mph
- There were 25 undamaged stories above WTC2's impact zone

In short, the second tower was hit significantly harder, significantly lower, and fell after a shorter elapsed time, yet you, Mr. Brown, insist it should've fallen second. How can this be?
Your explanation for why the wrong tower fell first is about as bad as your explanation for why they both fell the wrong way.Why?

Actually you never did explain why WTC 2 fell the wrong way and never did explain why the body fo WTC 2 went east while the top went west.That's correct, Mr. Brown, I did not explain "why WTC 2 fell the wrong way;" it is not a particular point I'm concerning myself with at the moment. I'm asking you, the auto mechanic, to look at the black smoke coming out from under my hood, not the malfunctioning trunk latch.

Basically you and your bsufucating group are trying to cover your evasion with repetitive questioning,

Explain why the top of WTC 2 went west and the body went east. BTW, the concrete core is easily seen inside the perimeter columns just before connecting with WTC 3.
(http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.gif)Basically you are trying to cover your evasion with repetitive spamming of your website.

Answer the questions, Mr. Brown, and people will not need to repeat them.

Z
18th November 2006, 09:20 AM
No, you lie and distort and you know it. It is an ad hominum attack based on information I divulged to communicate my position with regard to our system of education and law.

It was junior high school and I simply told a teacher off. She had been psychologically abusing me for 3 months in front of the entire class. She finally ran out of things to say so I started talking about her, her motives, that she was abusing me, all of us and that she should retire and make room for a younger teacher that was serious about teaching us from a positon of respect for us.

There was not even any yelling, I was nice.

I was suspended for 3 days then permanantly expelled from the Santa Barbara high school system, not for what I said, but the fact that THE CLASS LISTENED and respected me.
I apologize - I may have been wrong about the gun.

However - you would not have been permanently expelled from high school for talking calmly in junior high.

Produce evidence of this claim, or admit you're lying.

Christophera
18th November 2006, 09:45 AM
Sorry, but NIST has explained it fully in their report, and by your posting here, its evident that you never read it.

Near free fall means the buildingds would have to have fallen completely within hundreths of seconds of 9.1 seconds. The fact taht the NIST state that it could have taken 10 , 12 or as much as 25 seconds proves that it wasn't "near free fall"

The only part you got right is that I've never read it.

Your grasp of proportions is pitiful, for both strength and relative times for structures of a given strength to fail. Actually it's worse than that, you haven't a clue as to the difference between an explosion and a collapse.

Whasa'a'matta, grow up underground or something?

Example = explosion.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4120&stc=1&d=1163871911

Christophera
18th November 2006, 09:49 AM
Why?
Answer the questions, Mr. Brown, and people will not need to repeat them.

Respect the evidence and logic and you will not have to repeat the questions.

Flight 176 hit the south east corner of WTC 2. The body of the tower fell East and the top fell west. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.gif) . The brown/gray concrete core can be seen inside the perimeter walls.

Not only did the towers fall in the wrong order the tops fell impossibly in the wrong directions and clearly, if the top 10 floors of the tower is falling west, impacts and fires 20 floors lower and on the perpindicuarly opposite side of the building had nothing to do with the demise of these super strong structures.

Christophera
18th November 2006, 09:55 AM
Why?
Answer the questions, Mr. Brown, and people will not need to repeat them.

Respect the evidence and logic and you will not have to repeat the questions.

Flight 176 hit the south east corner of WTC 2. The body of the tower fell East and the top fell west. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.gif)

18th November 2006, 10:03 AM
Respect the evidence and logic and you will not have to repeat the questions.

Flight 176 hit the south east corner of WTC 2. The body of the tower fell East and the top fell west. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.gif)

Christophera
18th November 2006, 12:43 PM
I think you might mean half and one third the rate of free fall. Anyway, how is that still "too fast?" What criteria are you using to judge what's too fast?
This statement astounds me. The wrong appearance for a collapse? It collapsed. Theories aside, it did collapse.
Even Judy Wood disagrees with you. Her analysis shows that the collapse couldn't have taken longer than 96.7 seconds.

How could Judy Wood correctly calculate the proper collapse time if she did not know the true design and strcuture that stood?

The towers had a steel reinforced cast concrete core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) and no other core can be substantiated from raw evidence. If nothing else, this 194 page thread has PROVEN that.

The collapse of a steel reinforced concrete core to the ground, in order to happen in 3 times free fall would have to be a toppling or series of toppling elements which would leave HUGE chunks of concrete.

This, is not a collapse, it is a high speed series of explosions contained within a uniform mineral material.

(Apparently my ability to graphically demonstrate my poin in my posts has been reduced as this image has always worked before)

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4121&stc=1&d=1163882540

Christophera
18th November 2006, 12:45 PM

I've proven the question has no bearing on the event. What you suggest is unreasonable. 3,000 people were murdered and due process was violated as many times. Do you support lawless government?

maccy
18th November 2006, 12:50 PM
I've proven the question has no bearing on the event.

So you've conceded that the order that the towers fell is irrelevant?

So here are the points of your argument so far:

that there was no "free-fall of the towers". christophera has no real idea at all of rate of fall of the towers.

that there was "no pulverisation of the towers" as large chunks of concrete and other parts of the structures remained.

christophera does not know the weight of the upper floors of the towers but still insists, whatever the weight was, it wasn't enough to cause the collapse.

christophera asserts that the towerss fell in the "wrong order" but cannot say why this is and furthermore states that "the question has no bearing on the event"

jsfisher
18th November 2006, 01:20 PM
So here are the points of your argument so far....

Or, put another way, ChristopherA's words mean exactly what he wants the to mean. Nothing more, nothing less.

By "free fall", he means "near free fall", and by "near free fall" he means "too fast", and by "too fast" he means less than "less than two minutes".

By "total pulverization" he means "rubble"

By "wrong order" he means either order.

So, the towers collapsed, first one then the other, in less than two minutes each into a pile of rubble -- proof positive of a conspiracy.

Christophera
18th November 2006, 01:29 PM
Attack the argument, not the person.

This is not relevant to your claims of total pulverization.

This is not relevant to your claims of total pulverization.

Christophera
18th November 2006, 01:35 PM
Or, put another way, ChristopherA's words mean exactly what he wants the to mean. Nothing more, nothing less.

By "free fall", he means "near free fall", and by "near free fall" he means "too fast", and by "too fast" he means less than "less than two minutes".

By "total pulverization" he means "rubble"

By "wrong order" he means either order.

So, the towers collapsed, first one then the other, in less than two minutes each into a pile of rubble -- proof positive of a conspiracy.

And such words as you have written are proven all subterfuge when you cannot produce raw evidence from the demolition images at some elevation above ground of the supposed 47, steel core columns that the entities you rely on for evidence use to analyse the event of 9-11 at the WTC.

The towers had massive steel reinforced rectangular, tubular cast concrete cores (tiny rubble constitutes for all intents and purposes, pulverized) which is fully substantiated with many forms of evidence both raw and that of testimony of web pages and reports by Ph.d engineers. Here.

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

maccy
18th November 2006, 01:39 PM
And such words as you have written are proven all subterfuge when you cannot produce raw evidence from the demolition images at some elevation above ground of the supposed 47, steel core columns that the entities you rely on for evidence use to analyse the event of 9-11 at the WTC.

The towers had massive steel reinforced rectangular, tubular cast concrete cores (tiny rubble constitutes for all intents and purposes, pulverized) which is fully substantiated with many forms of evidence both raw and that of testimony of web pages and reports by Ph.d engineers. Here.

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

I'm sure we'll get onto the other points of your argument in time. But on the first four points you have been questioned on you have been shown not to have an argument or evidence.

Christophera
18th November 2006, 01:41 PM
christophera asserts that the towerss fell in the "wrong order" but cannot say why this is and furthermore states that "the question has no bearing on the event"
[/B]

maccy
18th November 2006, 01:43 PM

In addition to the above, it is completely illogical that this building, hit first, hit hardest, burnt worst, would fall last, without demolition's being involved.

Do you stand by this statement?

Christophera
18th November 2006, 01:48 PM
that there was no "free-fall of the towers". christophera has no real idea at all of rate of fall of the towers.

that there was "no pulverisation of the towers" as large chunks of concrete and other parts of the structures remained.

christophera does not know the weight of the upper floors of the towers but still insists, whatever the weight was, it wasn't enough to cause the collapse.

christophera asserts that the towerss fell in the "wrong order" but cannot say why this is and furthermore states that "the question has no bearing on the event"

I'm sure we'll get onto the other points of your argument in time. But on the first four points you have been questioned on you have been shown not to have an argument or evidence.

I know they fell close too free fall, which matters little in comparison to the fact they went all the way to the ground, an impossibility.

This image,

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

and ones you and yours have posted prove pulverization of the 1,300 foot tall concrete core.

You and yours still have not proven the towers core you assert existed which has everything to do with thw weight. I have proven many times that the tower had a cast concrete core.

You ar not paying attention and completely missed the explanation to the fact that the "towers fell in the wrong order" (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1207667)

Oliver
18th November 2006, 03:10 PM

Well? :confused:

Bell
18th November 2006, 03:51 PM
<snip>

Flight 176 hit the south east corner of WTC 2.

<snap>

You mean flight 175?

<snip>

Flight 176 hit the south east corner of WTC 2.

<snap>

You mean flight 175?

If you can't even get the basic facts right, how are we to be convinced of your BS theories? Looks like your photographic memory isn't doing well in the numbers department, Monk.

Oliver
18th November 2006, 03:55 PM
You mean flight 175?

You mean flight 175?

If you can't even get the basic facts right, how are we to be convinced of your BS theories? Looks like your photographic memory isn't doing well in the numbers department, Monk.

Flight 175 is the ghost plane. Flight 176 is the plane
that hit the WRONG tower and Flight 177 is still
fling itīs rounds within the concrete core brain. :boggled:

Christophera
18th November 2006, 03:58 PM
I was addressing your statement that the top section should have "toppled" over due to the impact of the airplanes. I was trying to illustrate that could not happen to building of that size and architecture from that kind of impact.

Seems to me you illustrated the opposite and ignored the fact that almost half of the columns on the left side of (1.) (WTC1) were severed by the plane impact. On WTC 2 the damage was on the south east corner not the east face.

Your statement here also shows how narrow and limited your thinking is. You seem to think that only explosives can damage the steel columns. A few of the core columns were severly damaged or broken apart in the initial imact of the plane. That's why the upper section of the building remained standing after the plane impacts.

You cannot even prove with raw evidence the core columns existed let alone that they were damaged. The concrete core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) is well evidenced.

The structural integrity of the remaing coulmns in that side of the building were reduced by half the heat from the raging fires fed by jet fuel and other flammable materials.

Your use of the term "raging" is a cognitive distortion.

6. Magnification and Minimization - Exaggerating negatives and understating positives. Often the positive characteristics of other people are exaggerated and negatives understated. There is one subtype of magnification:

The coulmns were stressed and deformed by the wieght of the upper section of the building and by the steel in the floor section expanding due to the heat. (remember metal expands when heated)

The deformations are well documented and evidenced by photographs and video of the outer wall sections bowing out right before the collapse.

The photos show the aluminum facade loosening.

The impact and heat damaged columns finaly gave away in that section of the core and the upper section shifted downward (in the case of WTC2 rotated downward

This rotation occurred on the east face when the plane only impacted the south east corner.

into the lower floors) due to gravity. That shifting of mass introduced momnetum and kinetic energy into the upper sections of the building. That is something the lower floors and support structures were NOT designed to take. And the rest is etched into history.

homer you are distorting again.

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

2. Overgeneralization - Taking isolated cases and using them to make wide generalizations. (See hasty generalization.)

Which means that under any circumstances the uppersection would fall straight down into the lower section rather than "topple over" to one side. So I guess we can throw out that "toppleing over" scenario you suggested. well since you like diagrams, take a look at this.

Correct, there was no toppling because of the detonations of high explosives.

You are completely ignoring the concrete core inside the perimeter columns and the concrete roof can be seen falling to the west intact on WTC 3 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.gif)

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4105&d=1163778081

Christophera
18th November 2006, 03:59 PM
You mean flight 175?

You mean flight 175?

If you can't even get the basic facts right, how are we to be convinced of your BS theories? Looks like your photographic memory isn't doing well in the numbers department, Monk.

Yes, flight 175. You have corrected my typo.