PDA

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

Christophera
25th May 2006, 03:19 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?

pgwenthold
25th May 2006, 03:22 PM
The best explanation I've heard is that it WASN'T FREE FALL!

The acceleration rate was only maybe 2/3 of that for a free fall.

There is another maxim that says:
You don't need an explanation for something that didn't happen.

Lamuella
25th May 2006, 03:24 PM
aliens. The aliens did it.

joseph k.
25th May 2006, 03:27 PM
total pulverization?

Gravy
25th May 2006, 03:29 PM
Has anyone seen an explanation for why so many CTs, in 2006, continue to claim that the towers fell at free fall?

Mongrel
25th May 2006, 03:29 PM
It was damned heavy.

Maxim: If I don't know or understand the science behind an explanation am I allowed to cast the explanation into doubt?

The Pig
25th May 2006, 03:31 PM
Total pulverization of his arguments may follow.

Do the CT arguments fall at free-fall or close to free-fall?

Manny
25th May 2006, 03:35 PM
The best explanation I've heard is that it WASN'T FREE FALL!Also, there wasn't "total pulverization of the towers." There was much pulverization, but that's pretty much to be expected as the buildings used a little as possible and it was all horizontal -- there was no reinforced concrete in the structure.

Christophera
25th May 2006, 04:26 PM
Also, there wasn't "total pulverization of the towers." There was much pulverization, but that's pretty much to be expected as the buildings used a little as possible and it was all horizontal -- there was no reinforced concrete in the structure.

Can you prove that with raw images of the towers coming down.

Christophera
25th May 2006, 04:31 PM
It was damned heavy.

Maxim: If I don't know or understand the science behind an explanation am I allowed to cast the explanation into doubt?

Of course but an explanation is needed. So to cast doubt onto one, another must be provided that has a better basis in evidence.

Renfield
25th May 2006, 04:32 PM
Like others have said, it didn't fall at free fall.

And as the engineers have said about the collapse, it was due to something called pancaking, which i'm not going to get into since its easily looked up and the engineers can explain it much better then me.

Once its explained well, it sounds VERY reasonable.

senorpogo
25th May 2006, 04:32 PM
Estimated time of arrival of the "9/11 hijackers still alive!" post: 11:12 p.m.

Christophera
25th May 2006, 04:42 PM
Like others have said, it didn't fall at free fall.

And as the engineers have said about the collapse, it was due to something called pancaking, which i'm not going to get into since its easily looked up and the engineers can explain it much better then me.

Once its explained well, it sounds VERY reasonable.

The engineers believe FEMAs description of the structure and I know it was different so what the engineers have defined is in error.

Is there any web site that uses raw images of the towers coming down to define the structural elements of the them.

senorpogo
25th May 2006, 04:45 PM
The engineers believe FEMAs description of the structure and I know it was different so what the engineers have defined is in error.

Is there any web site that uses raw images of the towers coming down to define the structural elements of the them.

How do you know? And you saying that engineers who have studied the collapse were too stupid to realize that something was wrong with the official story?

American
25th May 2006, 04:49 PM
Of course but an explanation is needed. So to cast doubt onto one, another must be provided that has a better basis in evidence.

No. You pay me \$1000. Now.

No explanation is needed. You do it. It is SCIENTIFIC FACT that you owe me this.

You pay money, or admit complete fallacy of your argument. This has been PROVEN.

Christophera
25th May 2006, 04:49 PM
How do you know? And you saying that engineers who have studied the collapse were too stupid to realize that something was wrong with the official story?

They were too afraid to say there was something wrong with the official story. Taking the money was easiest.

WildCat
25th May 2006, 04:51 PM
Christophera, have you read any of the NIST reports (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/)? Please be specific when describing what issues you have w/ them - give a publication and page number so we can check your work.

Thanks!

senorpogo
25th May 2006, 04:53 PM
[QUOTE=Christophera;1662449]The engineers believe FEMAs description of the structure and I know it was different so what the engineers have defined is in error./QUOTE]

How do you know it was different?

WildCat
25th May 2006, 04:54 PM
They were too afraid to say there was something wrong with the official story. Taking the money was easiest.
You have evidence that money was paid? To every single structural engineer in the world?! Is money paid to new structural engineering college graduates as well to keep them hushed up? How much money do you think is necessary to hush thousands of these engineers?

senorpogo
25th May 2006, 04:54 PM
They were too afraid to say there was something wrong with the official story. Taking the money was easiest.

Are you saying all structural engineers have been bribed?

WildCat
25th May 2006, 04:55 PM
The engineers believe FEMAs description of the structure and I know it was different so what the engineers have defined is in error.

Thanks.

Christophera
25th May 2006, 04:55 PM
Christophera, have you read any of the NIST reports?Please be specific when describing what issues you have w/ them - give a publication and page number so we can check your work.

Thanks!

No. I am aware from other sources exactly how the towers were designed and NIST is a waste of time. They do not explain free fall. They do not explain free fall to the ground of the entire structure. They do not explain how this happened twice and why the impact/fall sequence is backwards/ The wrong tower fell first if itwas a collapse.

They don't explain why the tops of the towers fell the wrong directions according top the sides damaged.

American
25th May 2006, 04:56 PM
Christophera, have you read any of the NIST reports (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/)? Please be specific when describing what issues you have w/ them - give a publication and page number so we can check your work.

So you too deny the IRREFUTABLE FACT that both towers were PULVERIZED to a state of plasma, hotter than the sun. Hotter than ANYTHING possible by muslim terrorist attack.

Without citing a SINGLE photograph for evidence too.... you have made a COMPLETE FOOL of yourself!

tkingdoll
25th May 2006, 04:58 PM
No. I am aware from other sources exactly how the towers were designed and NIST is a waste of time. They do not explain free fall. They do not explain free fall to the ground of the entire structure. They do not explain how this happened twice and why the impact/fall sequence is backwards/ The wrong tower fell first if itwas a collapse.

They don't explain why the tops of the towers fell the wrong directions according top the sides damaged.

From the quality and structure of your writing, you are clearly not very intelligent, so I'm surprised that you consider yourself capable of critically examining and appraising the available evidence, let alone drawing the conclusions that you have.

Or did you watch the Loose Change DVD and get all your opinions from that? Hmm?

Christophera
25th May 2006, 04:59 PM
Without citing a SINGLE photograph for evidence too.... you have made a COMPLETE FOOL of yourself!

No, I've made assertions that are backed by lots of evidence but I cannot post url's here yet.

So you should post the url's to raw images supporting the structure NIST says stood. I've asked others to do this. Why has no one done it?

WildCat
25th May 2006, 05:01 PM
So you should post the url's to raw images supporting the structure NIST says stood. I've asked others to do this. Why has no one done it?
I would, but to tell you the truth I have absolutely no idea what you're asking us to do here.

Is English your second language or something?

Christophera
25th May 2006, 05:01 PM
From the quality and structure of your writing, you are clearly not very intelligent, so I'm surprised that you consider yourself capable of critically examining and appraising the available evidence, let alone drawing the conclusions that you have.

Or did you watch the Loose Change DVD and get all your opinions from that? Hmm?

No. I derive nothing from any of those productions. All of my evidence is gained from raw images and common sense analysis of construction materials and their physical properties.

American
25th May 2006, 05:03 PM
No, I've made assertions that are backed by lots of evidence but I cannot post url's here yet.

So you should post the url's to raw images supporting the structure NIST says stood. I've asked others to do this. Why has no one done it?

I am SUPPORTING you. Don't twist facts around.

These "skeptics" debate endlessly about things like whether the Holocaust even HAPPENED. They are fools.... a preponderance of evidence shows that IT DID. Yet they will continue to assert - like the truth about 9-11 - that history is in error.

Meffy
25th May 2006, 05:04 PM
The engineers believe FEMAs description of the structure and I know it was different so what the engineers have defined is in error.

How do you know it was different?
WAG: RV?

Christophera
25th May 2006, 05:04 PM
I would, but to tell you the truth I have absolutely no idea what you're asking us to do here.

Is English your second language or something?

Perhaps you are feigning confusion.

I've asked here that someone post a url to a site on the web that has a credible, realistic, feasible explanation for free fall or a site that uses raw images to support the structure that NIST says stood.

Christophera
25th May 2006, 05:06 PM
I am SUPPORTING you. Don't twist facts around.

These "skeptics" debate endlessly about things like whether the Holocaust even HAPPENED. They are fools.... a preponderance of evidence shows that IT DID. Yet they will continue to assert - like the truth about 9-11 - that history is in error.

Just trying to determine if the basic structure that NIST says stood shows up during the fall of the towers.

WildCat
25th May 2006, 05:08 PM
No. I derive nothing from any of those productions. All of my evidence is gained from raw images and common sense analysis of construction materials and their physical properties.
So you have no actual training in construction technology, structural engineering, etc?

Well, that certainly qualifies you as an expert in why the WTC buildings collapsed on that day...

Funny how no actual experts have problems w/ the NIST reports. Oh yeah, they were all paid off.

tkingdoll
25th May 2006, 05:09 PM
No. I derive nothing from any of those productions. All of my evidence is gained from raw images and common sense analysis of construction materials and their physical properties.

So you haven't seen the Loose Change DVD? That is what you are saying, correct?

There is no such thing as common-sense analysis. There is only qualified analysis. Are you qualified to analyse construction materials and their physical properties?

Christophera
25th May 2006, 05:11 PM
So you have no actual training in construction technology, structural engineering, etc?

Well, that certainly qualifies you as an expert in why the WTC buildings collapsed on that day...

Funny how no actual experts have problems w/ the NIST reports. Oh yeah, they were all paid off.

You are guessing while not providing links to the sites or images of the basic tower structures that NIST says stood. Nor has a feasible explanation of free fall been linked to or offered.

American
25th May 2006, 05:13 PM
Just trying to determine if the basic structure that NIST says stood shows up during the fall of the towers.

From Holocaust deniers? GOOD LUCK!

Christophera
25th May 2006, 05:14 PM
So you haven't seen the Loose Change DVD? That is what you are saying, correct?

There is no such thing as common-sense analysis. There is only qualified analysis. Are you qualified to analyse construction materials and their physical properties?

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

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

Jon.
25th May 2006, 05:14 PM
Nor has a feasible explanation of free fall been linked to or offered.

Nobody has explained the fact that aliens were seen flying from the windows, either.

WildCat
25th May 2006, 05:14 PM
Perhaps you are feigning confusion.

I've asked here that someone post a url to a site on the web that has a credible, realistic, feasible explanation for free fall or a site that uses raw images to support the structure that NIST says stood.
I've linked the site that has all of the NIST publications (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/) to date. Those publications contain numerous detailed analysis by qualified structural engineers - experts in high-rise building construction. Lots of analysis of pictures taken from the moment the planes struck to the moment of collapse.

You seem uninterested in perusing that enormous wealth of data.

Therefore, my confusion is genuine.

Meffy
25th May 2006, 05:15 PM
[deleted -- misunderstanding]

Christophera
25th May 2006, 05:15 PM
From Holocaust deniers? GOOD LUCK!

But they could do if they wanted to, right?

WildCat
25th May 2006, 05:16 PM
You are guessing while not providing links to the sites or images of the basic tower structures that NIST says stood.
I keep asking you what NIST publication you are referring to, and a page number would be nice also. Can you do that?

Nor has a feasible explanation of free fall been linked to or offered.
None will be offered, as WTC 1, 2, and 7 did not fall at free-fall.

Christophera
25th May 2006, 05:17 PM
I've linkedthe site that has all of the NIST publications to date. Those publications contain numerous detailed analysis by qualified structural engineers - experts in high-rise building construction. Lots of analysis of pictures taken from the moment the planes struck to the moment of collapse.

You seem uninterested in perusing that enormous wealth of data.

Therefore, my confusion is genuine.

I am sorry. I'm very experienced in this subject and have had very zealous suportters utterly fail to produce any raw evidence whatsoever supporting the structure they say stood from their sources in the NIST report. It is subterfuge.

WildCat
25th May 2006, 05:18 PM
Which "skeptics" specifically? Provide citations. Failing that, retract your accusation immediately or learn to distinguish between skeptics and Holocaust deniers. There's a world of difference that you seem not to recognize.
I think he's just pulling the chain of our new CT'er friend.

tkingdoll
25th May 2006, 05:19 PM
Well, considering the "qualified analysts" have failed to explain the exceedingly fast fall rates, the credibility of what our society refers to as "qualified" is VERY much in question.

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

So you are saying you have a better understanding of structural engineering than people who spend years studying and taking exams and working at the job?

Fascinating. Your ego must have really hurt your mother on the way out.

What is really interesting is that there are plenty of highly-qualified people who have provided perfectly rational explanations and demonstrated quite clearly that the buildings did not 'fast fall', but you don't want to believe them because it's not anywhere near as glamorous or exciting as a massive conspiracy theory.

You didn't answer my question: are you saying that you haven't seen the Loose Change DVD? You insinuated that you have come to your conclusions entirely independently - I would like you to confirm that you have not in fact seen the DVD as you claimed.

Christophera
25th May 2006, 05:19 PM
I keep asking you what NIST publication you are referring to, and a page number would be nice also. Can you do that?

None will be offered, as WTC 1, 2, and 7 did not fall at free-fall.

I am not reffering to any NIST material, you are. If it is raw images i consider it raw evidence. Post the link.

Christophera
25th May 2006, 05:21 PM
So you are saying you have a better understanding of structural engineering than people who spend years studying and taking exams and working at the job?

What is really interesting is that there are plenty of highly-qualified people who have provided perfectly rational explanations and demonstrated quite clearly that the buildings did not 'fast fall', but you don't want to believe them because it's not anywhere near as glamorous or exciting as a massive conspiracy theory.

No, I haven't seen that video. I subscribe to no ones theories.

WildCat
25th May 2006, 05:21 PM
I am sorry. I'm very experienced in this subject and have had very zealous suportters utterly fail to produce any raw evidence whatsoever supporting the structure they say stood from their sources in the NIST report. It is subterfuge.
Well then could you just tell us the NIST publication and page number of "the structure that NIST says stood". Then we'll have a better understanding of what you're talking about.

Thanks.

thaiboxerken
25th May 2006, 05:23 PM
The WTC towers would've fell sideways if it was the result of a plane crash, therefore extra-terrestials must've done it.

Christophera
25th May 2006, 05:24 PM
Well then could you just tell us the NIST publication and page number of "the structure that NIST says stood". Then we'll have a better understanding of what you're talking about.

Thanks.

You shall have to find relevant information in that fallacious document. I know better. I've seen raw data showing exactly what kind of structure stood and NIST doesn't use it.

No. I am aware from other sources exactly how the towers were designed and NIST is a waste of time. They do not explain free fall. They do not explain free fall to the ground of the entire structure. They do not explain how this happened twice and why the impact/fall sequence is backwards/ The wrong tower fell first if itwas a collapse.

They don't explain why the tops of the towers fell the wrong directions according top the sides damaged.

Meffy
25th May 2006, 05:24 PM
I think he's just pulling the chain of our new CT'er friend.
Yes, you're right and I've deleted the post.

thaiboxerken
25th May 2006, 05:27 PM
They don't explain why the tops of the towers fell the wrong directions according top the sides damaged.

So, what are your structural engineering credentials?

Christophera
25th May 2006, 05:29 PM
So, what are your structural engineering credentials?

We do not need credentials to identify structural elements in a falling building. Do you have any links that show the structure that NIST says stood using raw images?

tkingdoll
25th May 2006, 05:29 PM
No, I haven't seen that video. I subscribe to no ones theories.

Gosh. So you literally start from scratch and discover everything yourself? What do you do when you're ill then? It took ages to discover germs and antibiotics and x-rays and stuff - you must have a pretty short life expectancy if you need to re-discover all theories from the beginning.

So, as you are asserting that you came across this free-fall theory completely independently, would you please tell us the story of how that happened? I would love to know. What was it? One day you were studying some photos of the towers for no reason, and you suddenly decided that something wasn't quite right, so you went and thought about it really hard and came up with the free-fall theory all by yourself? You subscribe to no-one's theories, right? So that must be how it happened. You must be one smart guy, to have figured out that free-fall thing all by yourself.

In which case, don't you think it's a pretty amazing coincidence that that's the exact same theory the Loose Change people also came up with at the same time? Maybe you have some sort of telepathic ability? You might consider applying for the million-dollar challenge.

Christophera
25th May 2006, 05:30 PM
Yes, you're right and I've deleted the post.

Why did you do that? Did it not have the qualities you desired when you posted it?

thaiboxerken
25th May 2006, 05:31 PM
We do not need credentials to identify structural elements in a falling building.

But it does help your case when you claim to know how those structural elements would behave in an accident. Say, did you have any scientific evidence to support your conspiracy theory? Are you going to publish your data in a peer-reviewed scientific journal?

WildCat
25th May 2006, 05:31 PM
I am not reffering to any NIST material, you are. If it is raw images i consider it raw evidence. Post the link.
The NIST reports contains many photographs of independent photographers who were at the scene on 9/11. And detailed expert analysis of those photos you can compare to your own scholarly work.

Gravy
25th May 2006, 05:31 PM
Just one more shot at your free follies. I'm sure you can seek out the raw versions of these from the photographers or news sources, it they're available.

Yes or no: is debris in these photos falling faster than the bulk of the building?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/879044764b227f0c6.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/879044764b225e18d.jpg

If you say no, would video convince you?

Christophera
25th May 2006, 05:32 PM
You subscribe to no-one's theories, right? So that must be how it happened. You must be one smart guy, to have figured out that free-fall thing all by yourself.

In which case, don't you think it's a pretty amazing coincidence that that's the exact same theory the Loose Change people also came up with at the same time?

What theory do the loose changers have for fre fall?

Metullus
25th May 2006, 05:32 PM
No. I am aware from other sources exactly how the towers were designed and NIST is a waste of time.
What sources? The NIST materials describe construction that is entirely consistant with what I have always understood to be the desighn of the buildings. What do you understand the design to be?
They do not explain free fall. They do not explain free fall to the ground of the entire structure.Do you know what free fall means? What does this have to do with 9/11?
They do not explain how this happened twice and why the impact/fall sequence is backwards/ The wrong tower fell first if itwas a collapse.What do you mean by "the wrong tower fell first"?

They don't explain why the tops of the towers fell the wrong directions according top the sides damaged.What makes you think that this happened?

You make a lot of assertions, but provide no evidence to support them. Neither do you make any attempt to describe your version of events. I doubt you have any understanding of even the basics of construction, building design, or building demolition.

thaiboxerken
25th May 2006, 05:33 PM
Yes or no: is debris in these photos falling faster than the bulk of the building?

Now you're just being bad. We all know that the gravitational acceleration constant for debris is different than for buildings.

tkingdoll
25th May 2006, 05:35 PM
What theory do the loose changers have for fre fall?

They say that the buildings came down at "nearly free fall speed".

Answer my other questions please, otherwise you look evasive and intellectually dishonest. I'm sure you don't want to do appear that way.

Christophera
25th May 2006, 05:36 PM
But it does help your case when you claim to know how those structural elements would behave in an accident. Say, did you have any scientific evidence to support your conspiracy theory? Are you going to publish your data in a peer-reviewed scientific journal?

Since the "qualified' analysts have failed to explain the exceeding high fall rates and extreme uniformity of what is termed "collapse", peer review has really lost it's meaning.

The important thing is an actual explanation for the event. Have you seen one?

Christophera
25th May 2006, 05:38 PM
They say that the buildings came down at "nearly free fall speed".

Answer my other questions please, otherwise you look evasive and intellectually dishonest. I'm sure you don't want to do appear that way.

Well the loosies are right on that.

I was really hoping that you might be able to support the basic NIST structural design with raw images of the towers falling because FEMA lied.

thaiboxerken
25th May 2006, 05:40 PM
Since the "qualified' analysts have failed to explin the exceeding high fall rates and extrem uniformity of what is termed "collapse", peer review has really lost it's meaning.

There are well-accepted explanations and there is no conspiracy. The tower did not free fall, the fact that the debris from higher elevations get to the ground faster is proof of this. The analysts have explained and documented and evidenced the case. You are just some idiotic internet punk that thinks he knows something that the rest of the world doesn't. Stop breathing as you aren't worthy of breath.

tkingdoll
25th May 2006, 05:43 PM
Answer my other questions please, otherwise you look evasive and intellectually dishonest. I'm sure you don't want to do appear that way.

WildCat
25th May 2006, 05:44 PM
Since the "qualified' analysts have failed to explain the exceeding high fall rates and extreme uniformity of what is termed "collapse", peer review has really lost it's meaning.

The important thing is an actual explanation for the event. Have you seen one?
Yes, in the NIST reports (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/).

How do you know they're wrong if you haven't read them? Are you psychic too?

Christophera
25th May 2006, 05:47 PM
They say that the buildings came down at "nearly free fall speed".

Answer my other questions please, otherwise you look evasive and intellectually dishonest. I'm sure you don't want to do appear that way.

Okay, I found them so I can answer them.

So, as you are asserting that you came across this free-fall theory completely independently, would you please tell us the story of how that happened? I would love to know. What was it?

I work as a surveyor and draftsman for a civil engineer. While I've done this for 20 years I've also done drilling and blasting and studied for a blaster license. I've been welding for 33 years. I do layout for steel and concrete structures frequently and also work with material testing laboratories on a regular basis.

In 1990 i saw a documentary called "Construction Of The Twin Towers". It was 2 hours in length and very intimate with the design, materials and sequnce of WTC 1. It took about a year after 9-11 to remember enough to realize what has been done to create the event.

Gravy
25th May 2006, 05:48 PM
Please go to this site, download this very common video, which you must have seen many times if you've been doing this for a while.

If you still cling to your "free fall" nonsense after seeing this, please stop trolling and seek professional help.

Christophera
25th May 2006, 05:49 PM
Yes, in the NIST reports (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/).

How do you know they're wrong if you haven't read them? Are you psychic too?

The truth will explain free fall. None espousing NIST data as explnatory have ever produced anything that relates to the high rates of fall or raw images of the towers falling that depicted the structural design that actually stood.

Christophera
25th May 2006, 05:51 PM
Please go to this site, download this very common video, which you must have seen many times if you've been doing this for a while.

If you still cling to your "free fall" nonsense after seeing this, please stop trolling and seek professional help.

Sorry, no time for another video of the towers. I'm fully satisfied as the visibility is not good enough to apply an accurate time. The fall was way too fast and it went to far down to be a collapse under any definition.

pgwenthold
25th May 2006, 05:51 PM
Well, considering the "qualified analysts" have failed to explain the exceedingly fast fall rates,

Perhaps you can help me out.

Exactly how fast SHOULD the buildings have fallen, assuming they were only under the force of gravity.

You are implying here that they fell too fast, but that suggests that you know how fast they should have fallen.

So how fast should they have fallen, and how did you determine it?

Christophera
25th May 2006, 05:52 PM
total pulverization?

SAND & GRAVEL (http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg)

Christophera
25th May 2006, 05:54 PM
Perhaps you can help me out.

Exactly how fast SHOULD the buildings have fallen, assuming they were only under the force of gravity.

You are implying here that they fell too fast, but that suggests that you know how fast they should have fallen.

So how fast should they have fallen, and how did you determine it?

First absolute. Towers built like those towers do not fall all the way to the ground. Maybe, under much more damage than 1 plane the top would fall off. Two towers doing it as they did identically FORGET IT. Never.

WildCat
25th May 2006, 05:59 PM
I was really hoping that you might be able to support the basic NIST structural design with raw images of the towers falling because FEMA lied.
Try this pdf (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-5Achap9-appdxsDraft.pdf) of a NIST publication. Lots of photos taken by independent photographers and TV news crews, and the NIST analysis of them. But you can ignore the NIST analysis if you like, I eagerly await your expert analysis of these photos and video stills...

Christophera
25th May 2006, 06:01 PM
Yes, in the NIST reports (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/).

How do you know they're wrong if you haven't read them? Are you psychic too?

NIST uses the wrong basic structure and no raw images of the collapse to support the structure they describe.

Here is a page that uses only raw images and links to engineering sites to show the towers as they really stood.

http://concretecore.741.com/

WildCat
25th May 2006, 06:01 PM
First absolute. Towers built like those towers do not fall all the way to the ground.
Please show your math, I am eager to see the construction techniques that can absorb the kinetic energy of the collapse of even the top 20 floors of the WTC...

Roboramma
25th May 2006, 06:01 PM
First absolute. Towers built like those towers do not fall all the way to the ground. Maybe, under much more damage than 1 plane the top would fall off. Two towers doing it as they did identically FORGET IT. Never.
You didn't answer any of his questions...

Sword_Of_Truth
25th May 2006, 06:02 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?

The towers collapsed at a rate substantially slower than free fall.

Ergo, your statement is automatically invalid.

25th May 2006, 06:04 PM
Please provide scientific, third-party verifiable, evidence of what the buildings' rate of collapse was, how this compares to freefall, and why the buildings' rate of collapse is suspicious; or shut up.

Christophera
25th May 2006, 06:05 PM
The engineers believe FEMAs description of the structure and I know it was different so what the engineers have defined is in error[./QUOTE]

How do you know it was different?

I saw a documentary 2 hours in length and found that all the images of the towers coming down support what I remember fully.

Here is the core to WTC 2 halfway to the ground. What is wrong with this picture?

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

Gravy
25th May 2006, 06:07 PM
Christophera,
Obviously this is up to the individual, but I've received two warnings from people I don't know about your posting habits and image spamming. I'm not a mod, just thought these warnings were highly unusual and wanted to let everyone know. Carry on. Or don't.

Christophera
25th May 2006, 06:07 PM
Please provide scientific, third-party verifiable, evidence of what the buildings' rate of collapse was, how this compares to freefall, and why the buildings' rate of collapse is suspicious; or shut up.

Clearly when the base of the towers cannot be seen determining the exact rate of fall is not possible. I'm satisfied that 20 seconds gets all the debris on the ground.

Orb
25th May 2006, 06:08 PM
Sorry? It looks like a picture after it already fell. Is the building in the foreground supposed to be the WTC2?

pgwenthold
25th May 2006, 06:10 PM
First absolute. Towers built like those towers do not fall all the way to the ground.

1) Why not?
2) Did they actually do that? I thought I heard something about how 6 stories of the center shaft remained.

Ducky
25th May 2006, 06:12 PM
Sorry, no time for another video of the towers. I'm fully satisfied as the visibility is not good enough to apply an accurate time. The fall was way too fast and it went to far down to be a collapse under any definition.

You have just admitted that you are not here for any type of honest discussion or reasoned discourse.

Troll elsewhere.

25th May 2006, 06:12 PM
Clearly when the base of the towers cannot be seen determining the exact rate of fall is not possible. I'm satisfied that 20 seconds gets all the debris on the ground.

I'm sorry, science does not work by taking feel-good guesses and running with them. If you can not determine the rate at which the buildings fell, then you can not make the claim that they fell at, or near, free fall speed.

pgwenthold
25th May 2006, 06:13 PM
Clearly when the base of the towers cannot be seen determining the exact rate of fall is not possible.

I'm confused. If you can't determine the exact rate of fall, how did you determine that it fell at free fall?

Christophera
25th May 2006, 06:17 PM
Sorry? It looks like a picture after it already fell. Is the building in the foreground supposed to be the WTC2?

Thanks fellas,

I appreciate your efforts to make a point using no evidence to not propose a feasible explanation for a rate of fall impossible for collapse.

Gotta' explain that rate of fall. Gotta' explain free fall to the ground of the entire structure. Gotta' explain how this happened twice and why the impact/fall sequence is backwards/ The wrong tower fell first if itwas a collapse.

Gotta' explain why the tops of the towers fell the wrong directions according top the sides damaged.

Gotta' get a mercedes alternator adapted to my old 250 amp hobart welder.

Try and find some raw images from the fall of the structure that NIST says stood and spam this thread hard with it okay guys? I'll be back.

Orb
25th May 2006, 06:19 PM
Jeeze, someone needs a nap!

Sword_Of_Truth
25th May 2006, 06:20 PM
Clearly when the base of the towers cannot be seen determining the exact rate of fall is not possible.

So you admit then that the towers did not collapse at free fall?

Why would you make a claim that you already knew was not true?

WildCat
25th May 2006, 06:20 PM
NIST uses the wrong basic structure and no raw images of the collapse to support the structure they describe.

Here is a page that uses only raw images and links to engineering sites to show the towers as they really stood.

http://concretecore.741.com/
There was no load-bearing concrete core to WTC 1 or 2. Vertical support was entirely done by steel columns.

thaiboxerken
25th May 2006, 06:21 PM
What is wrong with this picture?

Nothing.

25th May 2006, 06:24 PM
Gotta' explain that rate of fall.

Show what the rate was, then worry about why.

Gotta' explain free fall to the ground of the entire structure. Gotta' explain how this happened twice and why the impact/fall sequence is backwards/ The wrong tower fell first if itwas a collapse.

Mu. Gambler's fallacy of sorts. The are independent instances. Each tower is under its owner conditions. Just because the broad catalyst (a plane flying in to them) was the same does not mean that every other element was also identical.

Gotta' explain why the tops of the towers fell the wrong directions according top the sides damaged.

No, explain why they fell in the direction they did. You are assigning a qualitative judgement to a quatitative event.

Try and find some raw images from the fall of the structure that NIST says stood and spam this thread hard with it okay guys? I'll be back.
Static images, as evidence, are of limited value and they are _BY NO MEANS THE ONLY EVIDENCE_ available.

Orb
25th May 2006, 06:25 PM
What is wrong with this picture?

A lot of people just tragically died.

SezMe
25th May 2006, 06:25 PM
This guy (and others?) cling to "free-fall" like Xians cling to Jesus! It really does have characteristics of a religious cult.

joseph k.
25th May 2006, 06:34 PM
SAND & GRAVEL[/url]

I'd guess we'd expect quite a bit of pulverization due to the forces at work here, but why would you choose the phrase "total pulverization"? Seems like an embellishment to me. Are you sure you know what total means? How does this picture prove "total pulverization"? Ignore me anyway, you have enough people to refer to about raw pictures, and I'd defer to some of them anyway on the subject of pulverization since I am no expert on what level of pulverization is correct for this situation. Also, pulverization isn't really a cogent argument for your point, whatever that would be, I'd think you'd be trying to prove the structure was what you say it was...and that FEMA lied.

eta:grammar

Pardalis
25th May 2006, 06:37 PM
Thanks fellas,

I appreciate your efforts to make a point using no evidence to not propose a feasible explanation for a rate of fall impossible for collapse.

Gotta' explain that rate of fall. Gotta' explain free fall to the ground of the entire structure. Gotta' explain how this happened twice and why the impact/fall sequence is backwards/ The wrong tower fell first if itwas a collapse.

Gotta' explain why the tops of the towers fell the wrong directions according top the sides damaged.

Gotta' get a mercedes alternator adapted to my old 250 amp hobart welder.

Try and find some raw images from the fall of the structure that NIST says stood and spam this thread hard with it okay guys? I'll be back.

Gotta Getta Gund

Ducky
25th May 2006, 06:43 PM
Thanks fellas,

I appreciate your efforts to make a point using no evidence to not propose a feasible explanation for a rate of fall impossible for collapse.

Gotta' explain that rate of fall. Gotta' explain free fall to the ground of the entire structure. Gotta' explain how this happened twice and why the impact/fall sequence is backwards/ The wrong tower fell first if itwas a collapse.

Gotta' explain why the tops of the towers fell the wrong directions according top the sides damaged.

Gotta' get a mercedes alternator adapted to my old 250 amp hobart welder.

Try and find some raw images from the fall of the structure that NIST says stood and spam this thread hard with it okay guys? I'll be back.

You're telling us that you're going to spam this thread?

You are making the claims about what happened that day. It is your responsibility to provide evidence that it happened the way you say. Everything you have posted has been refuted. Then you say you don't have time to watch a video we reccommend to you, tacitly admitting you are here to troll and nothing else.

If you spam this board you will be subject to moderator action. I am not one of those moderators, but they don't appreciate people needlessly spamming this forum.

now, if you would like, perhaps you could calm down a bit, breathe normally and post one coherent post with supporting evidence to discuss.

Don't spam, don't ignore people offering counterevidence, and don't evade direct questions as you have done so with tkingdoll.

Try to be at least somewhat intellectually honest, unlike the rest of your CT brethren.

pgwenthold
25th May 2006, 06:47 PM
You're telling us that you're going to spam this thread?

You are making the claims about what happened that day. It is your responsibility to provide evidence that it happened the way you say. Everything you have posted has been refuted. Then you say you don't have time to watch a video we reccommend to you, tacitly admitting you are here to troll and nothing else.

If you spam this board you will be subject to moderator action. I am not one of those moderators, but they don't appreciate people needlessly spamming this forum..

I recommend against moderator action.

Just ignore the clown, unless he has anything useful to contribute (I'm not holding my breath).

Actually, considering the contradictory "it was free fall" and "we can't determine how long it took to fall" statements, he has some work to do to regain any semblence of ... coherency.

Ducky
25th May 2006, 06:51 PM
I recommend against moderator action.

Just ignore the clown, unless he has anything useful to contribute (I'm not holding my breath).

Actually, considering the contradictory "it was free fall" and "we can't determine how long it took to fall" statements, he has some work to do to regain any semblence of ... coherency.

I didn't say *I* was going to subject him to moderator action (notice I admit I am not a moderator and can't specifically speak to their actions) but if he spams, someone eventually will report it and there will be action.

I was hoping that he would read the part about intellectual honesty and change his behavior.

American
25th May 2006, 07:22 PM
but if he spams, someone eventually will report it and there will be action.

If?

You people are way too restrained in judgement. He is a 19-28 year old male who is shakey with girls, laughing his ass off that he successfully created 3 pages of people taking themselves seriously over an asinine topic.

And although "he" is not "me".... it takes one to know one.

TjW
25th May 2006, 07:36 PM
You are guessing while not providing links to the sites or images of the basic tower structures that NIST says stood. Nor has a feasible explanation of free fall been linked to or offered.

There's several problems with this statement.

The NIST report does not maintain that the buildings that fell remained standing. It offers a possible sequence of events for how they fell down.
It might be possible to disagree with some of the details, but the best mathematical simulation fits the observed data fairly closely. They even go so far as to tell you about simulations they ran that did not match the observed data.

The buildings did not collapse at free fall speed: the simplest way to see this is in any of the many photographs of fairly early in the collapse(s), where debris ejected from the initial collapse of the top floors is clearly far below the floors it was ejected from. If the building(s) had collapsed at free fall speeds, ejected material would have always been at the same altitude as the floor it was ejected from, since both would be freely falling. Instead, stuff that fell off the building early on hit the ground before the rest of the tower had finished collapsing.

So what exactly are you talking about? That's what has us confused.

Meffy
25th May 2006, 07:39 PM
Why did you do that? Did it not have the qualities you desired when you posted it?
Because I missed the invisible <sarcasm> </sarcasm> tags. My mistake. Inconsequential. Move along.

senorpogo
25th May 2006, 07:47 PM
Anyone here ever read Alan Moore's "Watchmen"?

I find eerie similarities in the way Rorschach and many CTists communicate.

Meffy
25th May 2006, 07:49 PM
Anyone here ever read Alan Moore's "Watchmen"?

I find eerie similarities in the way Rorschach and many CTists communicate.
I haven't, but agree that the use of language is striking. I'm having a hard time not hearing "Did it not have the qualities you desired when you posted it?" in the Comic Book Guy's voice.

Sorry, it had to be told. I'll be good now.

25th May 2006, 07:57 PM
Anyone here ever read Alan Moore's "Watchmen"?

I find eerie similarities in the way Rorschach and many CTists communicate.

One key difference; Rorschach was right.

steve s
25th May 2006, 08:23 PM
This guy's just a troll. There was someone at the LC site trying to round up some people to come over here.

First absolute. Towers built like those towers do not fall all the way to the ground.

Oh ye of little knowledge. Momentum equals mass times velocity. As each floor collapses it adds to the mass of the falling debris field, thus increasing its momentum. It's like a snowball effect; it just keeps getting bigger and bigger and it won't stop till it gets to the bottom.

Likewise, the Kinetic Energy of the collapsing mass equals one-half times the mass times the velocity squared. The energy of the collapse increases along with the momentum.

They do not explain how this happened twice and why the impact/fall sequence is backwards/ The wrong tower fell first if itwas a collapse.

The second plane hit lower than the first one did. This means that the amount of mass above the impact point is much greater in the second one. This means a lot more weight is bearing down on those weakened beams which caused them to fail before the other tower.

Of course but an explanation is needed. So to cast doubt onto one, another must be provided that has a better basis in evidence.

Simply asking the question doesn't cast doubt. You need to supply some evidence, which you haven't done.

Steve S

Christophera
25th May 2006, 09:11 PM
I'm sorry, science does not work by taking feel-good guesses and running with them. If you can not determine the rate at which the buildings fell, then you can not make the claim that they fell at, or near, free fall speed.

There is a decent argument for both, and niether matters much. The towers fell too fast. Many people gerenally see that they fell at free fall rates. Actually forensics do. Intuition guides much of the research in the beginning.

Abbyas
25th May 2006, 09:17 PM
Are we not in agreement that it wasn't a free fall?

Christophera
25th May 2006, 09:52 PM
Are we not in agreement that it wasn't a free fall?

No, it might be, it might not. The important thing is that the issue remains undiminished because they fell WAY TOO fast.

thaiboxerken
25th May 2006, 09:52 PM
Many people gerenally see that they fell at free fall rates. Actually forensics do.

You are a freaking moron. If the towers fell at "free fall" rates, then the debris would not have beat the towers to the ground.

Roboramma
25th May 2006, 09:53 PM
No, it might be, it might not. The important thing is that the issue remains undiminished because they fell WAY TOO fast.
Why do you think so? What evidence do you have to offer to convince us that you're right?
Are you going to do anything other than repeat this assertion?

Sword_Of_Truth
25th May 2006, 09:54 PM
There is a decent argument for both, and niether matters much. The towers fell too fast. Many people gerenally see that they fell at free fall rates. Actually forensics do. Intuition guides much of the research in the beginning.

Why are you trying to prove a point that you already conceded wasn't true.

You've already admitted that the towers didn't "free fall", continuing to press your case in the face of this admission is not an effective debate strategy.

Christophera
25th May 2006, 10:00 PM
Likewise, the Kinetic Energy of the collapsing mass equals one-half times the mass times the velocity squared. The energy of the collapse increases along with the momentum.

The second plane hit lower than the first one did. This means that the amount of mass above the impact point is much greater in the second one. This means a lot more weight is bearing down on those weakened beams which caused them to fail before the other tower.

Simply asking the question doesn't cast doubt. You need to supply some evidence, which you haven't done.

Steve S

There is a huge amount of raw evidence and link data to engineers web sites about the concrete core.

Here is an image from Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992. So far with the Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/oxfordarchcore.jpg), I've posted about 300% more image than those who try to support the FEMA core configuration of steel columns. And gues what, they are already trying to imply that I've spammed boards. It is quite impossible to spam when those of the boards continue to ask for the information by denying it exists or has a meaning that can be rationally defined.

steve s
25th May 2006, 10:36 PM
There is a huge amount of raw evidence and link data to engineers web sites about the concrete core.

Here is an image from Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992. So far with the Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/oxfordarchcore.jpg), I've posted about 300% more image than those who try to support the FEMA core configuration of steel columns. And gues what, they are already trying to imply that I've spammed boards. It is quite impossible to spam when those of the boards continue to ask for the information by denying it exists or has a meaning that can be rationally defined.

Now it's obvious you're just a troll. Your last post had nothing to do with what I wrote and was totally incomprehensible. You've become boring. At least Geggy was amusing.

Steve S.

RSLancastr
25th May 2006, 10:43 PM
I'm having a hard time not hearing "Did it not have the qualities you desired when you posted it?" in the Comic Book Guy's voice.Okay, now THAT made me laugh.

Christophera
25th May 2006, 10:45 PM
Now it's obvious you're just a troll. Your last post had nothing to do with what I wrote and was totally incomprehensible. You've become boring. At least Geggy was amusing.

Steve S.

Hello?

Physics is meaningless if you are analysing the wrong structure.

Christophera
25th May 2006, 10:48 PM
You are a freaking moron. If the towers fell at "free fall" rates, then the debris would not have beat the towers to the ground.

Ah, ...... the debris WAS the tower and it fell from the top at the rates of free fall. Technically 9.2 seconds in a vacuum.

Christophera
25th May 2006, 10:51 PM
Why are you trying to prove a point that you already conceded wasn't true.

You've already admitted that the towers didn't "free fall", continuing to press your case in the face of this admission is not an effective debate strategy.

Considering no one here has posted even one image or link that uses raw evidence to substanciate the FEMA core as anything more than a lie, the free fall issue is very minor which ever way you want it.

Christophera
25th May 2006, 10:53 PM
Why do you think so? What evidence do you have to offer to convince us that you're right?
Are you going to do anything other than repeat this assertion?

I've shown that there are more important issues and free fall is just a technicality that may be controlling and it may not. Most importantly is that they were way too close to free fall, and 2 towers fell almost identically when they had suffered very different damage.

The_Fire
25th May 2006, 10:56 PM
Oh yeah...pulverized indeed.......

http://www.osha.gov/nyc-disaster/photoarchive/image4.jpg
http://www.osha.gov/nyc-disaster/photoarchive/image5.jpg
http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=151

ETA: Removed a PDF which on closer inspection had nothing to do with the bulk mass of the amount of debris from Ground Zero.

ETA2: Discoverd a couple of links of interest for those interested in the amount of debris on Ground Zero.

http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/cepa/pubs/jun02/story1.htm

Not as much about the debris but does have a couple of pictures on the remains of the towers before the cleanup started.
http://www.gisvisionmag.com/vision.php?article=200112%2Ffeature_1.html

Christophera
25th May 2006, 10:57 PM
There's several problems with this statement.

The NIST report does not maintain that the buildings that fell remained standing. It offers a possible sequence of events for how they fell down.
It might be possible to disagree with some of the details, but the best mathematical simulation fits the observed data fairly closely. They even go so far as to tell you about simulations they ran that did not match the observed data.

The buildings did not collapse at free fall speed: the simplest way to see this is in any of the many photographs of fairly early in the collapse(s), where debris ejected from the initial collapse of the top floors is clearly far below the floors it was ejected from. If the building(s) had collapsed at free fall speeds, ejected material would have always been at the same altitude as the floor it was ejected from, since both would be freely falling. Instead, stuff that fell off the building early on hit the ground before the rest of the tower had finished collapsing.

So what exactly are you talking about? That's what has us confused.

What controls the rate of fall and if it can fall like we saw, is the towers construction. So the explanation for the high fall rate is based in that rather than the exact vagaries of the fall rate.

Sword_Of_Truth
25th May 2006, 11:00 PM
Considering no one here has posted even one image or link that uses raw evidence to substanciate the FEMA core as anything more than a lie, the free fall issue is very minor which ever way you want it.

That's not true either.

Either you are deliberately lying, or you haven't been reading the responses you have been recieving.

Would you like some assistance in locating the posts you missed wich contain the information you asked for?

EDIT: YOU do not consider the "free fall" issue to be minor at all. YOU made free fall the the title of this thread and central point of your argument.

Well... until you admitted that there was no free fall.

Timothy
25th May 2006, 11:05 PM
The phrase "too fast" is too vague.

- Time for Tower 1 to collapse (to a precision of 0.1 second) and estimate of accuracy
- Time for Tower 2 to collapse (to a precision of 0.1 second) and estimate of accuracy

This discussion is meaningless without stating the values used in calculations.

- Timothy

Christophera
25th May 2006, 11:15 PM
That's not true either.

Either you are deliberately lying, or you haven't been reading the responses you have been recieving.

Would you like some assistance in locating the posts you missed wich contain the information you asked for?

EDIT: YOU do not consider the "free fall" issue to be minor at all. YOU made free fall the the title of this thread and central point of your argument.

Well... until you admitted that there was no free fall.

Yes, I need assistance. Just go ahead and post your evidence supporting the tower design FEMA presents.

As for the exact rate of fall, free fall or not, we cannot tell, it is not a primary matter, what is primary is HOW the rate of fall, whatever it was, was created.

Christophera
25th May 2006, 11:17 PM
The phrase "too fast" is too vague.

- Time for Tower 1 to collapse (to a precision of 0.1 second) and estimate of accuracy
- Time for Tower 2 to collapse (to a precision of 0.1 second) and estimate of accuracy

This discussion is meaningless without stating the values used in calculations.

- Timothy

Well tim, the end of the fall is vague, so there you have it. The exact time is just not worth discussing. It appears you would rather know that than exactly how the fall rate was created.

Christophera
25th May 2006, 11:20 PM
NIST uses the wrong basic structure and no raw images of the collapse to support the structure they describe.

Here is a page that uses only raw images and links to engineering sites to show the towers as they really stood.

http://concretecore.741.com/

There was no load-bearing concrete core to WTC 1 or 2. Vertical support was entirely done by steel columns.

Classic, I post a link to many images of the structure. You say "no", and post no proof. Typical, this is the only performance I've seen.

Sword_Of_Truth
25th May 2006, 11:23 PM
Yes, I need assistance. Just go ahead and post your evidence supporting the tower design FEMA presents.

As for the exact rate of fall, free fall or not, we cannot tell, it is not a primary matter, what is primary is HOW the rate of fall, whatever it was, was created.

Second page of this thread: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1662593&postcount=57

Gravy provided still images conclusively proving that the towers did not come down at free fall rates, just as you had asked him to do.

If you need further assistance, do not be afraid to ask. This is, after all, a board devoted to truth seekers and asnwering questions.

The_Fire
25th May 2006, 11:24 PM
Well tim, the end of the fall is vague, so there you have it. The exact time is just not worth discussing. It appears you would rather know that than exactly how the fall rate was created.

What a bunch of bovine excrements.

In order to claim that something falls "too fast" you have to have a basis of comparison. That means a little something called "evidence" of the mentioned statement.
Once one have those, THEN the mechanics starts getting interesting.

If one does not have evidence of an event being different than the norm, then there is no reason to start looking for the evidence behind said unnormal event. Because the unnormal event does not exist.

If you really have those pestering "evidence of an unnormal event", then tim's question is not a hard thing to answer.
And if you don't, then its a moot point.

Christophera
25th May 2006, 11:26 PM
Now here is a picture of the one piece of the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) that wasn't blown into SAND & GRAVEL (http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg). There is actually an image of 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) and another htat showsconcrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif). There are other angles on that too.

Roboramma
25th May 2006, 11:29 PM
I've shown that there are more important issues and free fall is just a technicality that may be controlling and it may not. Most importantly is that they were way too close to free fall, and 2 towers fell almost identically when they had suffered very different damage.
No, you have asserted those things. Please reread my post and respond again.

Christophera
25th May 2006, 11:30 PM
In order to claim that something falls "too fast" you have to have a basis of comparison.

I think that we are generally past that in the real world. It is well established that they fell too fast for a collapse, even a normal controlled demolition. What is more important is that they fell all the way to the ground identically. Collapses do not happen like that. No steel building has ever collapsed.

Perhaps you have some evidence that FEMA has described the structure properly, others here seem to be unable to come up with any evidence whatsoever.

The_Fire
25th May 2006, 11:30 PM
Unlike you, I actually posted pictures from Ground Zero itself.

The_Fire
25th May 2006, 11:33 PM
I think that we are generally past that in the real world. What is more important is that they fell all the way to the ground indentically. Collapses do not happen like that. No steel building has ever collapsed.

Perhaps you have some evidence that FEMA has described the structure properly, others here seem to be unable to come up with any evidence whatsoever.

Gee....Could it be that both builings were rammed in the side by an airplane? Could it be that they were constructed identically? Could it be that the structural damage caused by a couple of massive airliners-turned-manmanned-missiles were pretty much the same despite a slight difference in the height of the impact site? Could it be that they were made from the same materials? Could it be that said materials reacted to prolonged heat in the same way?

Timothy
25th May 2006, 11:37 PM
Well tim, the end of the fall is vague, so there you have it. The exact time is just not worth discussing. It appears you would rather know that than exactly how the fall rate was created.
Then tell me how vague. 10.4 sec +/- 2 sec? 15.3 sec +/- 10 sec? If *you* can't tell me what assumptions you're using, how can you make any claim at all?

They fell too fast? Then:

HOW FAST DID THEY FALL?

- Time for Tower 1 to collapse (to a precision of 0.1 second) and estimate of accuracy
- Time for Tower 2 to collapse (to a precision of 0.1 second) and estimate of accuracy

This discussion is meaningless without stating the values used in calculations.

- Timothy (not tim)

The_Fire
25th May 2006, 11:37 PM
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000B7FEB-A88C-1C75-9B81809EC588EF21

Timothy
25th May 2006, 11:39 PM
It is well established that they fell too fast for a collapse, even a normal controlled demolition.
If it's well, established, then you should be able to tell me
HOW FAST DID THEY FALL?

- Timothy

Beleth
25th May 2006, 11:40 PM
It is well established that they fell too fast for a collapse, even a normal controlled demolition.
No it isn't.

What is more important is that they fell all the way to the ground identically. Collapses do not happen like that.
Yes they do.

The_Fire
25th May 2006, 11:47 PM
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20II%20Inferno%20@%20WTC.pdf
http://ben93.livejournal.com/8997.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

26th May 2006, 12:34 AM
Back, and to the left, Christophera. Back, and to the left.

SezMe
26th May 2006, 12:41 AM
What controls the rate of fall and if it can fall like we saw, is the towers construction. So the explanation for the high fall rate is based in that rather than the exact vagaries of the fall rate.
Is there some way I can nominate this for gibberish-of-the-month award?

The_Fire
26th May 2006, 12:44 AM
You can always suggest a thread/feature with that description.....

westphalia
26th May 2006, 12:49 AM
My compliments to you all.

I don't know how you all can entertain this obtuse idiot without ramming your heads through your monitors, as I am want to do.

You folks have the patience of the mythical Job.

Gravy
26th May 2006, 12:50 AM
I'm not involved in this thread, get it. I'm not here. But will somebody tell this moonbat troll that this link (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) he posted that supposedly shows a nonexistent concrete core still standing, actually shows the very real 1 Liberty Plaza building, at Church & Liberty Street, right across from the south tower

eta: scratch that. 1 Liberty is back there but we can't see it. We're looking at the dust plume only. 800' of core did not remain standing. There was no concrete core to the Twin Towers. They did not fall at free-fall speeds, nor did they take "20 seconds" to fall, moonbat troll.

hipparchia
26th May 2006, 12:59 AM
Like others have said, it didn't fall at free fall.

And as the engineers have said about the collapse, it was due to something called pancaking, which i'm not going to get into since its easily looked up and the engineers can explain it much better then me.

Once its explained well, it sounds VERY reasonable.

My mother is a construction engineer. When she watched the towers collapse, her comment was "Those buildings were perfectly calculated, falling only downward. THat's the way a building should fall" About pancaking- we have a type of building block construction in Bulgaria (sort of experimental design) that do pancake- their floors stack up upon each other. Maybe an engineer may explain it better. This is a layman explanation.

Kent1
26th May 2006, 01:09 AM
You can't reason with him.
He was just banned at democraticunderground
He's is a VERY prolific poster.:boxedin:

26th May 2006, 04:32 AM
The exact dimensions are unknown, the construction method itself, is known.

Construction of the towers began in 1968 and was completed in 1972 and 1973. During the period, implementation of an innovative elevator system halved the number of elevator shafts. The express elevators took people to "sky lobbies" on the 44th and 78th floors, where they could board local elevators. Also unique was the grouping of columns into the core and perimeter of the building, a structural system called a "tube".

To meet the challenges of wind load, gravity load and related architectural stresses, the WTC's structural engineers took a then-unusual approach in its construction: instead of employing a traditional grid-like plan with beams evenly spaced throughout a floor, the WTCs columns were grouped in the building's core and perimeter. The core of each tower was a rectangular area 87 by 133 feet (27 by 41 meter) and consisted of steel box columns running from the bedrock to the tops of the tower. The columns tapered to the top, where they transitioned to lightweight H-beams, but the exact dimensions are unknown as the blueprints are under the jurisdiction of the Port Authority and are not public domain. Each tower had 240 steel perimeter columns (from 2.5 inches thick at the bottom tapering to .25 inch at the top [6.3 to 0.6 cm]) placed 14 inches (36 cm) around the perimeter. This signature feature of columns grouped in the core and perimeter allowed large tracts of uninterrupted floorspace, a significant marketing feature for the towers.

Various estimates of collapse times:
The Twin Towers collapsed in about 8 & 10 seconds respectively
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/TwinTowersandGravity.htm

8.4 - 12 seconds
The videos and seismic records show that the time of one structure's destruction was approximately 8.4 seconds though the complete settling of the building lasted slightly longer, perhaps as long as 12 seconds, but not long enough to account for anything but explosives.
http://reopen911.org/Contest.htm

This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

Each WTC building collapse occurred at virtually free-fall speed (approximately 10 seconds or less).
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds...
Page 305, the 9/11 Commission Report

According to testimony provided to the 9-11 Commission, the tower fell in 10 seconds. Other data shows it took closer to 14 seconds. So the towers fell within 0.8-4.8 seconds of freefall in a vacuum. Just like WTC7, this speed seemed impossible if each of the 110 floors had to fail individually.
http://www.physics911.net/closerlook.htm

Each of the Twin Towers totally collapsed in an interval of approximately 14 to 16 seconds.
http://911review.com/errors/wtc/times.html

...video evidence of the North Tower collapse suggests that it took close to 15 seconds for the destruction to reach the ground.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/freefall.html

Each of the Twin Towers totally collapsed in an interval of approximately 14 to 16 seconds.
http://911review.com/errors/wtc/times.html

Both demolitions took place in about 15 seconds, which is about the time it would take for a free-fall from that height.
http://911review.org/Wiki/TwinTowers.shtml

(thanks to 911myths.com for the above summarize info)

http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html analyzes various sources for estimates of collapse times.

We tried looking at the audio of each collapse, and came up with a minimum of 14 seconds in each case (see our South Tower and North Tower pages for more), and the potential for them to have taken several seconds longer. Calculating these times involves far too many judgement calls for us to claim proof of anything, but we do think it adds significantly more support to the 15+ seconds collapse time, and makes the 8.4 second end of the spectrum look particularly unlikely.

We can cross-check this by looking at the seismic evidence. Although often presented as supporting the shortest 8-point-something time, in our view there’s a case for arguing that this, too, indicates the collapse time was much, much longer.

And if you look carefully, then you will find some videos that also back us up. Here’s one indicating to us that the first collapse took more than 13 seconds.

Recognising the disagreement over collapse times, some people say it really doesn’t matter. 15 or 16 seconds aren’t that much more than our 9.22 second freefall-in-a-vacuum rate. Before deciding whether you agree, keep in mind that the freefall calculation involves acceleration, and so a relatively small increase in time is enough to allow a major increase in the distance fallen; if the WTC were twice its height, for instance, the freefall time would only rise from 9.22 to 13.05 seconds.

CurtC
26th May 2006, 05:33 AM
Christophera, your style is very obtuse and uncooperative. I think the implication that you're (very slowly) working toward is that the towers were not actually constructed with a steel core of 47 steel columns, containing all the elvators and stairwells. I think you're saying that the construction diagrams we're all familiar with were invented by FEMA, to explain how the building could have fallen, when actually (you say) there was a very solid concrete core to the buildings instead. This core would not collapse in the manner we saw, so FEMA had to invent the other, weaker, one to explain it. And the photos that you've posted somehow show this concrete core still standing.

Is this summary of your view correct? If that's it, I agree that it's a waste of time for us to talk about free-fall rates, the discussion should be centered around this idea. But you won't actually come out and say it, and that is a very annoying way to be a citizen at a discussion forum.

Hutch
26th May 2006, 06:09 AM
CurtC, you beat me too it by a half-hour, I believe the task for Chrsitophera is to provide firm evidence (he has alluded to a fim he saw during the construction of the WTC) that these were constructed using Concrete cores. I concur that the free fall issue should be tabled for the moment until we get this issue hashed out.

Take another look at the picture he posted (asking what is wrong with this picture?) based on the above to see if one can image a concrete core there (post #80 on page 2)

Edited to add: Looking at the picture, I think (pending confirmation from Christopherea) that he may be arguing that the tall spire in the background behind the dust clouds is the "concrete core". I think that he is wrong, it is another building, but that may be the gist of his argument. However, I am willing to wait for his confirmation or further explanation.

Further: Lets not jump to LC-conclusions folks; they are visiting and registering, but I have not seen this particualr argument at the LC Board--I wonder how it would play there...

CurtC
26th May 2006, 06:24 AM
Edited to add: Looking at the picture, I think (pending confirmation from Christopherea) that he may be arguing that the tall spire in the background behind the dust clouds is the "concrete core". I think that he is wrong, it is another building, but that may be the gist of his argument.
I've seen videos of the South Tower collapse where you can see the core of the building through the dust, then it falls. The picture that Christophera posted is clearer than the videos that I had seen.

brodski
26th May 2006, 06:56 AM
Is there some way I can nominate this for gibberish-of-the-month award? we sometimes have "woo of the week" threads (usually won by Kumar other someone else at H'pathy forums) maybe you could start one.

Manny
26th May 2006, 07:04 AM
I've seen videos of the South Tower collapse where you can see the core of the building through the dust, then it falls. The picture that Christophera posted is clearer than the videos that I had seen.As it happens if indeed the center columns of the lower part of the building survived longer than the floors around them and the exterior of the building that would be as powerful argument against controlled demolition as can be imagined.

Hellbound
26th May 2006, 07:10 AM
Am I the only one getting suspicious when reading the syntax of Christophera's posts?

Perhaps I'm a bit premature, though, but it sounds very similar to someone else that was here a while back.

Of course, all woo starts to sound alike after a while. You can only hear "It's true because I say so!" so many times before tuning it out (which is how you survive when you have a four year old).

Darat
26th May 2006, 07:10 AM
I've seen videos of the South Tower collapse where you can see the core of the building through the dust, then it falls. The picture that Christophera posted is clearer than the videos that I had seen.

Is this "core" what I've tried to highlight in this image:

26th May 2006, 07:10 AM
As it happens if indeed the center columns of the lower part of the building survived longer than the floors around them and the exterior of the building that would be as powerful argument against controlled demolition as can be imagined.

How would that affect the NIST theory of the core failing below the "collapse wave"(1)?

(1) I have no idea what the technical term would be.

26th May 2006, 07:16 AM
How would that affect the NIST theory of the core failing below the "collapse wave"(1)?

(1) I have no idea what the technical term would be.

NM, just thought of an answer on my own. NIST didn't say that the entirety of the core failed, therefore you can still have part of the core (the part attached to the ground) standing even if part of it failed higher up, before the collapse wave reached it.

kookbreaker
26th May 2006, 07:19 AM
NM, just thought of an answer on my own. NIST didn't say that the entirety of the core failed, therefore you can still have part of the core (the part attached to the ground) standing even if part of it failed higher up, before the collapse wave reached it.

Parts at the bottom also would have been thicker and stronger according to the designers of the WTC. So they might well have had a better chance of staying up for a few seconds longer, before giving up themselves.

chipmunk stew
26th May 2006, 07:43 AM
The important thing is an actual explanation for the event. Have you seen one?Photographic Proof of What REALLY Happened:

roger
26th May 2006, 08:01 AM
What controls the rate of fall and if it can fall like we saw, is the towers construction. So the explanation for the high fall rate is based in that rather than the exact vagaries of the fall rate.

Yes, I need assistance. Just go ahead and post your evidence supporting the tower design FEMA presents.

As for the exact rate of fall, free fall or not, we cannot tell, it is not a primary matter, what is primary is HOW the rate of fall, whatever it was, was created.

I think that we are generally past that in the real world. It is well established that they fell too fast for a collapse, even a normal controlled demolition. What is more important is that they fell all the way to the ground identically. Collapses do not happen like that. No steel building has ever collapsed.

Christophera
26th May 2006, 08:10 AM
Unlike you, I actually posted pictures from Ground Zero itself.

Well, ................ I asked for images showing the structure that NIST states existed and you didn't post any and neither did whathistext. Here is 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) that is not supposed to be there, ......... and the steel core columns that you should be able to support are not shown.

26th May 2006, 08:13 AM
Well, ................ I asked for images showing the structure that NIST states existed and you didn't post any and neither did whathistext. Here is 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) that is not supposed to be there, ......... and the steel core columns that you should be able to support are not shown.

Can you indicate what, in the picture specifically, we should be observing?

kookbreaker
26th May 2006, 08:21 AM
Well, ................ I asked for images showing the structure that NIST states existed and you didn't post any and neither did whathistext. Here is 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) that is not supposed to be there, ......... and the steel core columns that you should be able to support are not shown.

That picture does not seem to relate to anything you say.

Christophera
26th May 2006, 08:32 AM
That picture does not seem to relate to anything you say.

It does not show steel core columns and that is what NIST says stood which is what i say so you are wrong. It shows exactly what I say.

How about suppporting NIST, they need help.

Covering for the murderers of 3000 Americans is not easy.

Christophera
26th May 2006, 08:33 AM
Can you indicate what, in the picture specifically, we should be observing?

You see nothing that NIST says should be there. Thank you for confirming this.

Christophera
26th May 2006, 08:38 AM
I'm not involved in this thread, get it. I'm not here. But will somebody tell this moonbat troll that this link (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) he posted that supposedly shows a nonexistent concrete core still standing, actually shows the very real 1 Liberty Plaza building, at Church & Liberty Street, right across from the south tower

eta: scratch that. 1 Liberty is back there but we can't see it. We're looking at the dust plume only. 800' of core did not remain standing. There was no concrete core to the Twin Towers. They did not fall at free-fall speeds, nor did they take "20 seconds" to fall, moonbat troll.

Here is the concrete core of WTC 2 standing a little lower.

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

Christophera
26th May 2006, 08:41 AM
Second page of this thread: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1662593&postcount=57

Gravy provided still images conclusively proving that the towers did not come down at free fall rates, just as you had asked him to do.

If you need further assistance, do not be afraid to ask. This is, after all, a board devoted to truth seekers and asnwering questions.

That provide no proof for the tower that FEMA states existed.

This photo shows the core FEMA says existed was not there.

http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg

That is an interior box column, not inside the cor and NO steel columns show inside the core.

26th May 2006, 08:42 AM
You see nothing that NIST says should be there. Thank you for confirming this.

I confirmed nothing. I asked what elements of the picture we should focus upon. DO NOT CHANGE THE CONTEXT OF MY WORDS.

Christophera
26th May 2006, 08:43 AM
So you admit then that the towers did not collapse at free fall?

Why would you make a claim that you already knew was not true?

It is a claim everybody recognizes because the rate of fall was so close to free fall.

Here is a video of firefighters talking about how it fell that fast.

http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mp

Christophera
26th May 2006, 08:45 AM
Could it be that they were constructed identically?

Clearly you know very little about the Twin towers. They were not identical. The cores were constructed with different hallways.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/images/sf_gallery_04.jpg

26th May 2006, 08:47 AM
It is a claim everybody recognizes because the rate of fall was so close to free fall.

Here is a video of firefighters talking about how it fell that fast.

http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mp

That's odd, because in this post http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1663359#post1663359 I'm pretty sure I provided a number of links showing the estimates at ranging from 8 to 16 seconds, with 16 seconds being 73% greater than the calculated 9.22 seconds for freefall.

26th May 2006, 08:48 AM
Clearly you know very little about the Twin towers. They were not identical. The cores were constructed with different hallways.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/images/sf_gallery_04.jpg

A picture is not evidence that they were constructed with different hallways. Please provide technical evidence that this was the case.

The_Fire
26th May 2006, 08:54 AM
A picture is not evidence that they were constructed with different hallways. Please provide technical evidence that this was the case.

I second that.

kookbreaker
26th May 2006, 09:15 AM
It is a claim everybody recognizes because the rate of fall was so close to free fall.

It was not close to freefall.

Here is a video of firefighters talking about how it fell that fast.

http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mp

So? This is not evidence. That would be likeing saying my commenting that a race car is going fast is evidence that it is going faster than the speed of sound.

Christophera
26th May 2006, 09:17 AM
A picture is not evidence that they were constructed with different hallways. Please provide technical evidence that this was the case.

The NY mayor took all the plans.

http://www.nyclu.org/g_archive020602.html

and will not return them. The picture is an absolute. If you cannot use it, that is your problem.

Christophera
26th May 2006, 09:24 AM
That's odd, because in this post http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1663359#post1663359 I'm pretty sure I provided a number of links showing the estimates at ranging from 8 to 16 seconds, with 16 seconds being 73% greater than the calculated 9.22 seconds for freefall.

Still much to fast and there is no way the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is going to fall like that. No one here has prived a single image of the core NIST says stood.

The inability to produce a raw image of the supposed core columns is underlined by the irrational insistence that the free fall rate must be determined exactly. I'm saying the concrete core is what enabled the fast fall rate and you have no raw evidence to counter that assertion.

strathmeyer
26th May 2006, 09:26 AM
What evidence do you have that the twin towers fell at freefall? I'd like to see it.

Christophera
26th May 2006, 09:26 AM
It was not close to freefall.

So? This is not evidence. That would be likeing saying my commenting that a race car is going fast is evidence that it is going faster than the speed of sound.

Those emergency professionals have witnessed controlled demolition and know what high explosive detonations sound like.

http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg

Come up with some evidence to support your assertions.

Mercutio
26th May 2006, 09:36 AM
Those emergency professionals have witnessed controlled demolition and know what high explosive detonations sound like.
That is only part of the equation. You do not know that they know what the other assorted explosions sound like (as mentioned, everything from fire extinguishers to soda cans, any sort of sealed containers), and whether they can distinguish between these other explosions and "high explosive detonations" amidst the background noise of thousands of panicked people and an out-of-control fire.

Fortunately for you, this is quite testable. Suitable recordings of any of the stimulus materials could be mixed in recordings, and you can ask any firefighter you like to try to distinguish between the two types of explosion.

I would suggest not telling them the purpose of your study, though, or you might find yourself looking around for missing teeth. What you are suggesting is that these firefighters are either bribable or cowardly in their hesitance to come forward with "the truth". The simpler explanation is, of course, that they know the difference between "sounds like an explosion" and "must be high explosive detonations", and have quite thoughtfully dismissed their initial perceptions.

chipmunk stew
26th May 2006, 09:38 AM
Still much to fast and there is no way the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is going to fall like that. No one here has prived a single image of the core NIST says stood.

The inability to produce a raw image of the supposed core columns is underlined by the irrational insistence that the free fall rate must be determined exactly. I'm saying the concrete core is what enabled the fast fall rate and you have no raw evidence to counter that assertion.What the hell are you talking about?

NIST says a core stood? How did they describe this core? Where did they say this? How do your pictures contradict it?

How does this:
Still much to fast and there is no way the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is going to fall like that.
square with this:
I'm saying the concrete core is what enabled the fast fall rate

Why do you keep repeating the same things over and over again, instead of addressing people's responses to them? Why do you keep posting pictures that have no connection to what you are writing? Why do you keep writing things that contradict themselves?

pgwenthold
26th May 2006, 09:39 AM
Still much to fast

So we are back to the question you didn't answer last night.

How long SHOULD it have taken them to fall, and how did you obtain that result.

Timothy
26th May 2006, 09:47 AM
It is a claim everybody recognizes because the rate of fall was so close to free fall.
and
Come up with some evidence to support your assertions.
I'll try this in one syllable words:

HOW FAST DID THEY FALL?

- Time for Tower 1 to collapse (to a precision of 0.1 second) and estimate of accuracy
- Time for Tower 2 to collapse (to a precision of 0.1 second) and estimate of accuracy

This discussion is meaningless, pointless, gibbering nonsense without stating what it is that you're asserting.

- Timothy

Christophera
26th May 2006, 09:48 AM
So we are back to the question you didn't answer last night.

How long SHOULD it have taken them to fall, and how did you obtain that result.

Leave it to a supporter of the murderers of Americans to demand an exact answer which cannot be obtained.

You have no support for the towers NIST said stood. Meaning you are supporting a lie to protect the real murderers.

Christophera
26th May 2006, 09:51 AM
HOW FAST DID THEY FALL?]
- Timothy

Timmy wants the impossible because all that is available is that the towers NIST says existed cannot be evidenced with raw information.

By doing so he supports the lies that the real murderers hide behind.

What about our rights and freedoms Timmy?

Here is how the towers fell so fast.

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

chipmunk stew
26th May 2006, 09:52 AM
Leave it to a supporter of the murderers of Americans to demand an exact answer which cannot be obtained.

You have no support for the towers NIST said stood. Meaning you are supporting a lie to protect the real murderers.What the hell are you talking about?

NIST says a core stood? How did they describe this core? Where did they say this? How do your pictures contradict it?

Why do you keep repeating the same things over and over again, instead of addressing people's responses to them? Why do you keep posting pictures that have no connection to what you are writing? Why do you keep writing things that contradict themselves?

The_Fire
26th May 2006, 09:52 AM
Leave it to a supporter of the murderers of Americans to demand an exact answer which cannot be obtained.

Mind backing that little statement with evidence?

chipmunk stew
26th May 2006, 09:53 AM
Timmy wants the impossible because all that is available is that the towers NIST says existed cannot be evidenced with raw information.

By doing so he supports the lies that the real murderers hide behind.

What about our rights and freedoms Timmy?

Here is how the towers fell so fast.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.htmlWhat the hell are you talking about?

NIST says a core stood? How did they describe this core? Where did they say this? How do your pictures contradict it?

Why do you keep repeating the same things over and over again, instead of addressing people's responses to them? Why do you keep posting pictures that have no connection to what you are writing? Why do you keep writing things that contradict themselves?

Christophera
26th May 2006, 09:54 AM
Why do you keep repeating the same things over and over again, instead of addressing people's responses to them? Why do you keep posting pictures that have no connection to what you are writing? Why do you keep writing things that contradict themselves?

Free fall depends on the strcutural qualities of the towers. That is what I'm posting. An image of the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

If someone here could post raw evidence of the tower that NIST says stood it would bring great credence to your assertions that the towers did not fall at close to free fall rates, but you cannot post that evidence because it doesn't exist.

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

cloudshipsrule
26th May 2006, 09:57 AM

The_Fire
26th May 2006, 09:58 AM
Free fall depends on the strcutural qualities of the towers. That is what I'm posting. An image of the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

If someone here could post raw evidence of the tower that NIST says stood it would bring great credence to your assertions that the towers did not fall at close to free fall rates, but you cannot post that evidence because it doesn't exist.

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

Geezz....You didn't bother reading ANY of the links provided by me or others, did you?

cloudshipsrule
26th May 2006, 10:01 AM
Clearly you know very little about the Twin towers. They were not identical. The cores were constructed with different hallways.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/images/sf_gallery_04.jpg

Clearly you know very little about pumpkins. No two are identical. There are many varieties.

http://www.mycottageinbrittany.com/images/two_rabbits2005.jpg

Doubt
26th May 2006, 10:01 AM
Those emergency professionals have witnessed controlled demolition and know what high explosive detonations sound like.

http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg

Come up with some evidence to support your assertions.

That statement of yours does not address Kookbreaker's point. The sound of an explosion won't tell you how fast a building is falling. Also, knowing what high exposives sound like does not tell anyone if they were used in the WTC. A building falling down is going to make a great deal of noise. If a controlled demolition had happened, the amount of exploisves used would probably not produce enough noise to be heard over all the background noises of the fire and all other forms of hell breaking loose.

There is a chance that you could feel the air press your clothing against your body during an explosion. But I would think having a skysraper collapse close by would also produce the same result.

There are several people on this board who do have experience with military explosives. I can tell you from first hand experience that not all explosions sound the same. Now try to give a real response to Kookbreaker rather than changing the subject.

chipmunk stew
26th May 2006, 10:02 AM
Free fall depends on the strcutural qualities of the towers. That is what I'm posting. An image of the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

If someone here could post raw evidence of the tower that NIST says stood it would bring great credence to your assertions that the towers did not fall at close to free fall rates, but you cannot post that evidence because it doesn't exist.What the hell are you talking about?

NIST says a core stood? How did they describe this core? Where did they say this? How do your pictures contradict it?

kookbreaker
26th May 2006, 10:02 AM
Those emergency professionals have witnessed controlled demolition and know what high explosive detonations sound like.

No they do not. Furthermore, why they say it resembled a demolition, they did not say that it was.

http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg

Come up with some evidence to support your assertions.

Come up with something more substantial than comments by firefighters who do not support your claims.

Christophera
26th May 2006, 10:03 AM
You do not know that they know what the other assorted explosions sound like (as mentioned, everything from fire extinguishers to soda cans, any sort of sealed containers), and whether they can distinguish between these other explosions and "high explosive detonations" amidst the background noise of thousands of panicked people and an out-of-control fire.

http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg

Apparently the candid veracity of this discussion escapes you while you attempt unrelated comparisons.

The real idea here is to see if anyone can support the tower strcutures that NIST says existed. Seems no one can, nor can they understand that is what I'm trying to do.

They seem fixated on determinig the impossible, like the exact fall time. What they totally fail to see is that quite a bit of material went UP before it went down, so even if we could determine the grounding time exactly, the inacuracies caused by high explosives blowing materials up would render the seach for exact times a joke.

Christophera
26th May 2006, 10:05 AM
No they do not. Furthermore, why they say it resembled a demolition, they did not say that it was.

http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg

Come up with something more substantial than comments by firefighters who do not support your claims.

As if they could state it was a demo. it is fully adequate that they say it was like a demo. Tthe fact was is that it was a demolition like no other so they have good reason to be uncertain.

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

chipmunk stew
26th May 2006, 10:06 AM
The real idea here is to see if anyone can support the tower strcutures that NIST says existed. Seems no one can, nor can they understand that is what I'm trying to do.What the hell are you talking about?

How did NIST describe this tower structure? Where did they say this? How do your pictures contradict it?

Timothy
26th May 2006, 10:06 AM
I'm going to put my Christophera Cloak on now for some fun.

Why can't you see? No way those Towers can fall at free fall. It's all there in the raw evidence. You've even posted pictures that show the core standing, so how can the Towers have fallen free fall if there was material standing? I am an engineer and I know these things. There's no way it could have happened. Look at the pictures. It's all there. FEMA and NIST are great and you show no evidence to the contrary. You can't even tell me how fast the Towers fell. They fell way slower than free fall and you provide no evidence. Everyone knows they fell way slower and yet you show no evidence. I say they fell slower, and yet you show me no raw evidence. Everybody recognizes the claim that the Towers were not destroyed by explosive charges, but it's easier for you to take the money and post that they were. Who are you working for? Who are you covering up the real story for? Did you take money to do it? That would have been the easy way, wouldn't it? Who put you up to providing this false information? The government? Everybody knows what happened, and yet you cover up the truth with this conspiracy. You can't even tell me how fast the Towers fell. Everybody knows they didn't fall at free fall, it's a fact, and everyone knows it. They fell way too slow. Show me the raw evidence to the contrary. Here's a bunch of irrelevant photos....

Boy, that felt good!

- Timothy

kookbreaker
26th May 2006, 10:07 AM
[url]The real idea here is to see if anyone can support the tower strcutures that NIST says existed.

First you must establish that NIST said anything like this. You have failed to do so. Please provide the document, page number, and quote where they state what you claim. Plus make certain what it is that you are claiming.

Seems no one can, nor can they understand that is what I'm trying to do.

Being deliriously incoherant will have that effect. Try explaining yourslef and what you are talking about instead of answer one question with the answer of another.

Beleth
26th May 2006, 10:07 AM
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/images/sf_gallery_04.jpg I can see right through the tower on the left. Could you point out where its concrete core is?

It is a claim everybody recognizes because the rate of fall was so close to free fall.
No it wasn't.

Here is a video of firefighters talking about how it fell that fast.
That's nice. Do they say how they know how fast it fell?

pgwenthold
26th May 2006, 10:07 AM
Leave it to a supporter of the murderers of Americans to demand an exact answer which cannot be obtained.

All I'm doing is trying to figure out what you mean when you claim they fell too fast. I don't need an exact answer. Plus or minus a second or two would be plenty, especially if you can explain how you got your number.

If you can't tell us how long it should have taken the buildings to fall, then how can you claim that they fell too fast?

roger
26th May 2006, 10:07 AM
Still much to fast and there is no way the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is going to fall like that. No one here has prived a single image of the core NIST says stood.Please post your math.

Abbyas
26th May 2006, 10:08 AM
As if they could state it was a demo. it is fully adequate that they say it was like a demo. Tthe fact was is that it was a demolition like no other so they have good reason to be uncertain.

Maybe I can make things a little clearer.

I remember feeling that day that the whole thing was LIKE a Jerry Bruckheimer movie. It does not mean that I actually thought that I was in a Jerry Bruckheimer movie.

People use similes all the time to describe something. Does that make more sense now, christophera?

Christophera
26th May 2006, 10:08 AM
What the hell are you talking about?

NIST says a core stood? How did they describe this core? Where did they say this? How do your pictures contradict it?

FEMA said this core stood.

http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/femacore.gif

The BBC still thinks that this core stood.

but there is nowhere for the elevators inside the core. So typically we catch a liar because their story doesn't match.

kookbreaker
26th May 2006, 10:09 AM
As if they could state it was a demo.

it is fully adequate that they say it was like a demo.

No, it is not. My tire on my bike blew out a few weeks ago, I said it sounded like someone threw a firecracker at me. No firecrackers were involved.

Tthe fact was is that it was a demolition like no other so they have good reason to be uncertain.

What exactly is a 'demolition like not other'?

Manny
26th May 2006, 10:09 AM
The real idea here is to see if anyone can support the tower strcutures that NIST says existed. Seems no one can, nor can they understand that is what I'm trying to do.No one knows what you're talking about here, Osama. I've got the main NIST report open on my destop right now. Which report? What page? What "tower structure?" You're using English words, but you're making no sense.

Christophera
26th May 2006, 10:09 AM
Maybe I can make things a little clearer.

I remember feeling that day that the whole thing was LIKE a Jerry Bruckheimer movie. It does not mean that I actually thought that I was in a Jerry Bruckheimer movie.

People use similes all the time to describe something. Does that make more sense now, christophera?

No. That makes less sense because it looks like a high speed series of explosions.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/.site1106.jpg

Abbyas
26th May 2006, 10:09 AM
but there is nowhere for the elevators inside the core. So typically we catch a liar because their story doesn't match.

Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but do we know that the elevators for the wtc went exactly up the middle?

kookbreaker
26th May 2006, 10:10 AM
FEMA said this core stood.

Where did they say this?

The BBC still thinks that this core stood.

Where did they say this?

but there is nowhere for the elevators inside the core. So typically we catch a liar because their story doesn't match.

More typically, we catch a kook because of his strawmen.

kookbreaker
26th May 2006, 10:11 AM
No. That makes less sense because it looks like a high speed series of explosions.

No it doesn't.

cloudshipsrule
26th May 2006, 10:11 AM
Study these two pictures for a moment, then tell me if you really think that the first image shows a core still standing:

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

http://bratislava.usembassy.gov/gal091101/skyline.jpg

Christophera
26th May 2006, 10:13 AM
Still much too fast and there is no way the concrete core is going to fall like that. No one here has provided a single image of the core NIST says stood.

The use of math is a waste of time (that is what you are trying to cause) and I've shown that the towers have a concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif). I've even shown the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) but it seems as no one here has any structural knowledge and just believe everything they are told.

So much for the U.S. Constitution and the rights and freedoms our children might enjoy.

Abbyas
26th May 2006, 10:13 AM
No. That makes less sense because it looks like a high speed series of explosions.

We're talking about three different things here.

A. I know this has been said before, but explosions do not meen explosives. Anything from generators to cans of spray on deoderant explode.

B. We have a series of things bursting from other things. Like when you hit a brick together and dust flies out. Doesn't mean explosives.

C. Reminding someone of a demolition does not mean demolition. It may SEEM like a demolition. Like the sun may SEEM to be a sunflower on fire, but it is not a sunflower on fire.

Does that make things more clear?

tim
26th May 2006, 10:13 AM
OK folks, calm it down. Let's not use words like "liar" and "murderer". Discuss this like adults, please.

Christophera
26th May 2006, 10:14 AM
Study these two pictures for a moment, then tell me if you really think that the first image shows a core still standing:

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

http://bratislava.usembassy.gov/gal091101/skyline.jpg

The first image shows a concrete core and no steel core columns where they should show. The second one shows dust.

Manny
26th May 2006, 10:15 AM
FEMA said this core stood.

http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/femacore.gif

The BBC still thinks that this core stood.

but there is nowhere for the elevators inside the core. So typically we catch a liar because their story doesn't match.Oh, holy crap. The BBC is in error in their story from September 13, 2001 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1540044.stm).

Abbyas
26th May 2006, 10:15 AM
Study these two pictures for a moment, then tell me if you really think that the first image shows a core still standing:

Wait a minute. Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you suggesting that FEMA reported that the entire core stood after the fall?

cloudshipsrule
26th May 2006, 10:15 AM
The first image shows a building obscured by a dust cloud. The second image shows the same building from behind that you think is a core.

kookbreaker
26th May 2006, 10:16 AM
The use of math is a waste of time (that is what you are trying to cause) and I've shown that the towers have a concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

So they had a core. So what?

I've even shown the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) but it seems as no one here has any structural knowledge and just believe everything they are told.

What is your point? You still have yet to make a claim that has been supported. You are babbling like a crank and claiming victory when nobody understands you.

So much for the U.S. Constitution and the rights and freedoms our children might enjoy.

Non sequitor.

roger
26th May 2006, 10:18 AM
The use of math is a waste of time (that is what you are trying to cause) Correct. It is a waste of time.

Because the math shows that the collapse happened as we would predict.

So, yes, using math to prove your counter claim would be a waste, as it would not show what you claim.

But go on making claims without evidence.....

Christophera
26th May 2006, 10:18 AM
OK folks, calm it down. Let's not use words like "liar" and "murderer". Discuss this like adults, please.

Timmy, you've been acting like a child demanding the impossible for awhile now. Are you supporting the lie that murderers hide behind or not? Because you cetinaly have not addressed the issue behind free fall, the structure of the core.

There were murders. And there are lies and it is being proven right here that you folks cannot supprt the NIST info on the towers structure. Meaning you are suporting a lie that murderes depend on to get away with their deeds.

Our governemnt has been infiltrated.

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

Manny
26th May 2006, 10:19 AM
The use of math is a waste of time (that is what you are trying to cause) and I've shown that the towers have a concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif). You've shown an interesting picture. How do you know from what that is contructed? There's no small amount of dust and smoke obscuring a full view.

I've even shown the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) but it seems as no one here has any structural knowledge and just believe everything they are told.I know enough to know that that's not what you think it is. It's a piece of the exterior of the building.

kookbreaker
26th May 2006, 10:21 AM
I know enough to know that that's not what you think it is. It's a piece of the exterior of the building.

Is that what he's on about? I would have through that it being a piece of the exterior was painfully obvious. I was searching the pic for something else.

Geez.

Christophera
26th May 2006, 10:22 AM
Correct. It is a waste of time.

Because the math shows that the collapse happened as we would predict.

So, yes, using math to prove your counter claim would be a waste, as it would not show what you claim.

But go on making claims without evidence.....

You have posted no evidence of any kind. I post evidence of the towers that stood and their concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif). I even show the inner reinforcing bar (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) of the concrete core as evidence and no counter evidence is provided.

By default, I have proven the concrete core. Meaning that the continued efforts to get the impossible, the exact fall time, are but subterfuge and you all are working together to cover the murders of 3000 Americans.

Manny
26th May 2006, 10:22 AM
Timmy...Tim =! Timothy. Hope that helps.

In other news, one of the people who helped design the NIST computer simluation was none other than the very structural engineer who built the towers, Les Robinson (http://www.lera.com/sep11.htm). I'm pretty confident that he's more knowledgable about the contstruction techniques than the BBC was two days after the attacks.

Edited to put the right Tim in.

26th May 2006, 10:24 AM
The NY mayor took all the plans.

http://www.nyclu.org/g_archive020602.html

and will not return them. The picture is an absolute. If you cannot use it, that is your problem.

No, the plans are the property of the Port Authority.

26th May 2006, 10:25 AM
Still much to fast and there is no way the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is going to fall like that. No one here has prived a single image of the core NIST says stood.

The inability to produce a raw image of the supposed core columns is underlined by the irrational insistence that the free fall rate must be determined exactly. I'm saying the concrete core is what enabled the fast fall rate and you have no raw evidence to counter that assertion.

Why is it too fast? Show your math.

PICTURES ARE NOT IN AN OF THEMSELVES EVIDENCE! Get this through your think, conspiratorial skull!

Christophera
26th May 2006, 10:26 AM
I know enough to know that that's not what you think it is. It's a piece of the exterior of the building.

You can see through the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg), how could it be the exterior?

26th May 2006, 10:27 AM
Those emergency professionals have witnessed controlled demolition and know what high explosive detonations sound like.

http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg

Please cite where these professionals have prior experience with demolitions.

Come up with some evidence to support your assertions.
"Pot? Hello, this is kettle. You're black."

Christophera
26th May 2006, 10:28 AM
No, the plans are the property of the Port Authority.

They were, and that was THE PEOPLES property, public information that was taken and the courts won't make the mayor return the information.

http://www.nyclu.org/g_archive020602.html

Dave_46
26th May 2006, 10:28 AM
NIST uses the wrong basic structure and no raw images of the collapse to support the structure they describe.

Here is a page that uses only raw images and links to engineering sites to show the towers as they really stood.

http://concretecore.741.com/

When I clicked on that link I saw, briefly, before the window trying to scare me about a virus a drawing of a concrete COLUMN with steel reinforcing in it. The reinforcing was labelled steel BEAMS. If they can't get something as simple as that right I'm not going to bother to read the rest.

Dave

The_Fire
26th May 2006, 10:29 AM
To make this interesting, I have just written the compagny which build the WTC, Tishman Construction Compagny, asking for, amongst other things, where the orginal blueprints can be obtained.

Stellafane
26th May 2006, 10:29 AM
Hi Christophera. I'll give you credit for not simply posting links and running, and for keeping the discourse reasonably civil (although your recent responses to pgwenthold and Timothy may be indication that your veneer of civility is wearing a bit thin). But I must say your arguments thus far have been incredibly weak, even for CT'ers (and that's saying something). The main thrust of your postings seems to be "I don't agree with the standard 9/11 story, so it's wrong," with no supporting data or experience to back that up. When someone answers one of your questions or challenges a point, you simply dismiss their information, again with the "I don't believe it so it's not true" argument. That may work in some forums, but you'll never change anyone's mind here with those tactics. Ans until you offer a lot more than you have, I see no reason not to dismiss you as just another CT'er who for whatever reason decided 9/11 was an inside job, ignoring the vast preponderance of evidence to the contrary, and are now desperately searching among the stray pixels, shadows, and echoes for proof of your theory. And pixels, shadows, and echoes are all you'll ever have, since reality itself is so stacked against you.

chipmunk stew
26th May 2006, 10:29 AM
FEMA said this core stood.

http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/femacore.gif

The BBC still thinks that this core stood.

but there is nowhere for the elevators inside the core. So typically we catch a liar because their story doesn't match.Ah, now we're getting somewhere. Thank you.

You don't suppose those overly-simplified illustrations intended for mass-consumption are significant, do you?

Here's what NIST really thinks about the construction of the towers:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-1A.pdf

Here's a detailed report on the steel NIST recovered from the towers, including structural members from the core: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf

Using data gathered from the above and other supplemental documents, here's how NIST reconstructed the scenario (includes a lot of information on construction of core): http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1Draft.pdf

This is a picture of one of the towers mid-construction, showing the core columns (reduced version attached): http://www.terrorize.dk/911/images/wtc-1.construction.1.jpg

kookbreaker
26th May 2006, 10:29 AM
You can see through the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg), how could it be the exterior?

Its the exterior. Deal with it. You are seeing this, or seomthing similar to this:

From the side.

26th May 2006, 10:29 AM
Leave it to a supporter of the murderers of Americans to demand an exact answer which cannot be obtained.

You have no support for the towers NIST said stood. Meaning you are supporting a lie to protect the real murderers.

Are you familiar with the terms libel and slander? If not, get familiar as you are treading dangerously close.

n English and American law, and systems based on them, libel and slander are two forms of defamation (or defamation of character), the tort or delict of publishing (to a third party) a false statement that negatively affects someone's reputation.

"Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "libel" and "slander". Libel is defamation that can be seen, such as in writing, printing, effigy, a movie, or a statue. Slander is any defamation that is spoken and heard.

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

Abbyas
26th May 2006, 10:29 AM
You can see through the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS, how could it be the exterior?

I know I'm late to the party, but could someone tell me where in the picture is the rebar? And then why it's supposed to be the interior?

kookbreaker
26th May 2006, 10:32 AM
I know I'm late to the party, but could someone tell me where in the picture is the rebar? And then why it's supposed to be the interior?

Ummm, I think his evidence that it is is that he said it was.

Timothy
26th May 2006, 10:32 AM
Timmy wants the impossible because all that is available is that the towers NIST says existed cannot be evidenced with raw information.

By doing so he supports the lies that the real murderers hide behind.

What about our rights and freedoms Timmy?

Let's see how many things are wrong in three sentences.

1. Using a diminutive of my name as an infantile tactic to try to belittle me. What should I call you now? Chrisofullofit? Christophaker?

2. I don't want the impossible. I ask for your meaning of "too fast", and you do nothing but evade.

3. "The Towers fell too fast, but I can't tell you how fast because I can't interpret some graphics that were in a report and the report is lying anyway."

4. "By doing so he supports the lies that the real murderers hide behind." I think this sums up Christophera's credibility nicely.

5. Rights and freedoms? Well, unfortunately, you still have the right and freedom to insult, make baseless accusations, and carry on like a moron.

- Timothy

Christophera
26th May 2006, 10:34 AM
Please cite where these professionals have prior experience with demolitions.

"Pot? Hello, this is kettle. You're black."

They are emergency personnel in NY, that is enough to accept that there is reasonable doubt that it was a collapse. Particuarly when 2 towers fell identically with very different damages.

Here is the site that explains free fall.

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

The fire fighters know it was a demo because collapses don't pulverize everything.

http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg

dubfan
26th May 2006, 10:37 AM
To make this interesting, I have just written the compagny which build the WTC, Tishman Construction Compagny, asking for, amongst other things, where the orginal blueprints can be obtained.

Ooh! Ooh! I can answer that!

They were the property of the New York City Ports Authority, which, I believe, recently sold them to Louder Than Words (LTW) -- Dylan Avery's production company.

No lie.

roger
26th May 2006, 10:37 AM
Ummm, I think his evidence that it is is that he said it was.And that's his evidence for everything. 'Cause I said so' (not a direct quote). Can't be bothered to do the math, it's a waste of time, because he already said what the conclusion is. Easy peasy.

cloudshipsrule
26th May 2006, 10:38 AM
Here is a link to a series of photos showing the collapse of both towers. If you look at the second tower to fall and it's position relative it's surrounding buildings you can CLEARLY see that the part of the building still standing after the collapse is the EXTERIOR of the building. Not the central core. These photos are towards the bottom of the page.

http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/

I also take back what I previously posted about Christophera's image depicting a concrete core standing. I thought I was seeing a separate building through the dust, but the building I thought I was seeing is not visible in the series of photos posted above. Images 18 and 19 show the before and after of Christophera's image.

Christophera
26th May 2006, 10:39 AM
Let's see how many things are wrong in three sentences.

1. Using a diminutive of my name as an infantile tactic to try to belittle me. What should I call you now? Chrisofullofit? Christophaker?

2. I don't want the impossible. I ask for your meaning of "too fast", and you do nothing but evade.

3. "The Towers fell too fast, but I can't tell you how fast because I can't interpret some graphics that were in a report and the report is lying anyway."

4. "By doing so he supports the lies that the real murderers hide behind." I think this sums up Christophera's credibility nicely.

5. Rights and freedoms? Well, unfortunately, you still have the right and freedom to insult, make baseless accusations, and carry on like a moron.

- Timothy

Actually Tim, you are doing the childish thing just fine and you also are not providing any evidence whereas I've documented the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) quite well. Even to the point where I show the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) as well as the concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif).

Manny
26th May 2006, 10:41 AM
You can see through the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg), how could it be the exterior?You're making that up. In additon to the stuff other people have posted, there is no 3" rebar (or more properly, there wasn't when the towers were going up. Now it's all metric, of course, and there's no ~7.6 cm rebar).

kookbreaker
26th May 2006, 10:42 AM
Actually Tim, you are doing the childish thing just fine and you also are not providing any evidence whereas I've documented the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) quite well. Even to the point where I show the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)as well as the concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif).

Maybe you could hold your breath and the exterior wall will magicly turn into what you think it is.

cloudshipsrule
26th May 2006, 10:46 AM
Christophera, are you saying this:

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

is part of the INTERIOR core?

26th May 2006, 10:48 AM
Here, let me provide an example of why pictures, by themselves, are not evidence.

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9610/10/feynmen/challenger.explosion.lg.jpg

Here we can see the after-effects of Christophera's laser attack on the space shuttle Challenger.

Also, I believe you are breaking rule 4 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=45132) with regards to hotlinking. You may want to desist before the mods have to become involved.

26th May 2006, 10:53 AM
They are emergency personnel in NY, that is enough to accept that there is reasonable doubt that it was a collapse. Particuarly when 2 towers fell identically with very different damages.

Here is the site that explains free fall.

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

The fire fighters know it was a demo because collapses don't pulverize everything.

http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg

Please cite where these professionals have prior experience with demolitions, or justify why their line of work qualifies them as to be able to recognize demolition.

Christophera
26th May 2006, 11:02 AM
Here is a link to a series of photos showing the collapse of both towers. If you look at the second tower to fall and it's position relative it's surrounding buildings you can CLEARLY see that the part of the building still standing after the collapse is the EXTERIOR of the building. Not the central core. These photos are towards the bottom of the page.

http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/

I also take back what I previously posted about Christophera's image depicting a concrete core standing. I thought I was seeing a separate building through the dust, but the building I thought I was seeing is not visible in the series of photos posted above. Images 18 and 19 show the before and after of Christophera's image.

Here is an overlay someone did that shows the exterior with the core outlined.

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f290/pjs501/wtcov3g.jpg

kookbreaker
26th May 2006, 11:03 AM
Here is an overlay someone did that shows the exterior with the core outlined.

Wow! That was totally useless.