JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Tags 911 conspiracy theory , concrete core , free fall , world trade center , wtc core , wtc1 , wtc2

Closed Thread
Old 25th May 2006, 10:56 PM   #121
The_Fire
Unimpressed Female
 
The_Fire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 8th level of Hell - Maleborgia
Posts: 3,196
Oh yeah...pulverized indeed.......

http://www.osha.gov/nyc-disaster/pho...ive/image4.jpg
http://www.osha.gov/nyc-disaster/pho...ive/image5.jpg
http://americanhistory.si.edu/septem...ord.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
http://911da.org/crr/images/CRRDB/Wo...%20Removal.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.p...feature_1.html
__________________
If anyone told you that I'm a nice person, they were either from a different level of existance, lying through their teeth or mentally instable.
"We? That better be you and that invisible aardwarck in your pocket you are talking about, because I KNOW you are not stupid enough to open a giant can of whoop ass by claiming you know what I think."
Stop Sylvia Browne

Last edited by The_Fire; 25th May 2006 at 11:11 PM.
The_Fire is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 10:57 PM   #122
Christophera
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,760
Originally Posted by TjW View Post
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.
Christophera is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 11:00 PM   #123
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,505
Originally Posted by Christophera View Post
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.

Last edited by Sword_Of_Truth; 25th May 2006 at 11:05 PM.
Sword_Of_Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 11:05 PM   #124
Timothy
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 545
The phrase "too fast" is too vague.

Please provide the following information on which you base your assumptions:
- 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
Timothy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 11:15 PM   #125
Christophera
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,760
Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth View Post
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 11:17 PM   #126
Christophera
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,760
Originally Posted by Timothy View Post
The phrase "too fast" is too vague.

Please provide the following information on which you base your assumptions:
- 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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 11:20 PM   #127
Christophera
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,760
Originally Posted by Christophera
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/
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
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.
Christophera is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 11:23 PM   #128
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,505
Originally Posted by Christophera View Post
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...3&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.
Sword_Of_Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 11:24 PM   #129
The_Fire
Unimpressed Female
 
The_Fire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 8th level of Hell - Maleborgia
Posts: 3,196
Originally Posted by Christophera View Post
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.
__________________
If anyone told you that I'm a nice person, they were either from a different level of existance, lying through their teeth or mentally instable.
"We? That better be you and that invisible aardwarck in your pocket you are talking about, because I KNOW you are not stupid enough to open a giant can of whoop ass by claiming you know what I think."
Stop Sylvia Browne
The_Fire is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 11:26 PM   #130
Christophera
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,760
Now here is a picture of the one piece of the core that wasn't blown into SAND & GRAVEL. There is actually an image of 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS and another htat showsconcrete shear wall. There are other angles on that too.
Christophera is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 11:29 PM   #131
Roboramma
Philosopher
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 7,737
Originally Posted by Christophera View Post
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.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 11:30 PM   #132
Christophera
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,760
Originally Posted by The_Fire View Post
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.
Christophera is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 11:30 PM   #133
The_Fire
Unimpressed Female
 
The_Fire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 8th level of Hell - Maleborgia
Posts: 3,196
Unlike you, I actually posted pictures from Ground Zero itself.
That is NOT gravel.
__________________
If anyone told you that I'm a nice person, they were either from a different level of existance, lying through their teeth or mentally instable.
"We? That better be you and that invisible aardwarck in your pocket you are talking about, because I KNOW you are not stupid enough to open a giant can of whoop ass by claiming you know what I think."
Stop Sylvia Browne
The_Fire is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 11:33 PM   #134
The_Fire
Unimpressed Female
 
The_Fire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 8th level of Hell - Maleborgia
Posts: 3,196
Originally Posted by Christophera View Post
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?
__________________
If anyone told you that I'm a nice person, they were either from a different level of existance, lying through their teeth or mentally instable.
"We? That better be you and that invisible aardwarck in your pocket you are talking about, because I KNOW you are not stupid enough to open a giant can of whoop ass by claiming you know what I think."
Stop Sylvia Browne
The_Fire is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 11:37 PM   #135
Timothy
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 545
Originally Posted by Christophera View Post
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?

Please provide the following information on which you base your assumptions:
- 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)
Timothy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 11:37 PM   #136
The_Fire
Unimpressed Female
 
The_Fire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 8th level of Hell - Maleborgia
Posts: 3,196
try taking a look at this article.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...81809EC588EF21
__________________
If anyone told you that I'm a nice person, they were either from a different level of existance, lying through their teeth or mentally instable.
"We? That better be you and that invisible aardwarck in your pocket you are talking about, because I KNOW you are not stupid enough to open a giant can of whoop ass by claiming you know what I think."
Stop Sylvia Browne
The_Fire is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 11:39 PM   #137
Timothy
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 545
Originally Posted by Christophera View Post
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
Timothy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 11:40 PM   #138
Beleth
FAQ Creator
 
Beleth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Not in a cave
Posts: 4,138
Originally Posted by Christophera View Post
It is well established that they fell too fast for a collapse, even a normal controlled demolition.
No it isn't.

Quote:
What is more important is that they fell all the way to the ground identically. Collapses do not happen like that.
Yes they do.
__________________
Administrator Emeritus, The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe Forum
Beleth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 11:47 PM   #139
The_Fire
Unimpressed Female
 
The_Fire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 8th level of Hell - Maleborgia
Posts: 3,196
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfil...%20@%20WTC.pdf
http://ben93.livejournal.com/8997.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html
__________________
If anyone told you that I'm a nice person, they were either from a different level of existance, lying through their teeth or mentally instable.
"We? That better be you and that invisible aardwarck in your pocket you are talking about, because I KNOW you are not stupid enough to open a giant can of whoop ass by claiming you know what I think."
Stop Sylvia Browne
The_Fire is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 12:34 AM   #140
Regnad Kcin
Philosopher
 
Regnad Kcin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The ol' Same place
Posts: 6,905
Back, and to the left, Christophera. Back, and to the left.
__________________
My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.
Regnad Kcin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 12:41 AM   #141
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 18,596
Originally Posted by Christophera View Post
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?
SezMe is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 12:44 AM   #142
The_Fire
Unimpressed Female
 
The_Fire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 8th level of Hell - Maleborgia
Posts: 3,196
You can always suggest a thread/feature with that description.....
__________________
If anyone told you that I'm a nice person, they were either from a different level of existance, lying through their teeth or mentally instable.
"We? That better be you and that invisible aardwarck in your pocket you are talking about, because I KNOW you are not stupid enough to open a giant can of whoop ass by claiming you know what I think."
Stop Sylvia Browne
The_Fire is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 12:49 AM   #143
westphalia
Critical Thinker
 
westphalia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: I am a third-rate intellect.
Posts: 297
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.
__________________
"If it moves, the liberal wants to tax it. If it keeps moving, the liberal wants to regulate it. And if it ever up and stops moving, the liberal wants to subsidize it." - Ronald Reagan
westphalia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 12:50 AM   #144
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: In the argyle
Posts: 17,137
I'm not involved in this thread, get it. I'm not here. But will somebody tell this moonbat troll that this link 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.
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

Last edited by Gravy; 26th May 2006 at 01:16 AM.
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 12:59 AM   #145
hipparchia
Critical Thinker
 
hipparchia's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Bulgaria
Posts: 472
Originally Posted by Renfield View Post
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.
hipparchia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 01:09 AM   #146
Kent1
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,177
You can't reason with him.
He was just banned at democraticunderground
He's is a VERY prolific poster.
Kent1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 04:32 AM   #147
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
 
Arkan_Wolfshade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Making Mytheon come to life
Posts: 7,158
The exact dimensions are unknown, the construction method itself, is known.
Quote:
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaps...d_Trade_Center

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

Quote:
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.
__________________
Amy: You should try homeopathic medicine, Bender. Try some zinc.
Bender: I am forty percent zinc.
Amy: Then take some echinacea, or St. John's Wort.
Professor: Or a big fat placebo. It's all the same crap.
Arkan_Wolfshade is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 05:33 AM   #148
CurtC
Illuminator
 
CurtC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 4,773
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.
CurtC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 06:09 AM   #149
Hutch
A broken man on a Halifax pier, the last of Barrett's Privateers
 
Hutch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: About 7 Miles from the Saturn 5B
Posts: 6,760
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...
__________________
The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history. R.A. Heinlein

Last edited by Hutch; 26th May 2006 at 06:13 AM.
Hutch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 06:24 AM   #150
CurtC
Illuminator
 
CurtC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 4,773
Originally Posted by Hutch View Post
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.
CurtC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 06:56 AM   #151
brodski
Tea-Time toad
 
brodski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 15,522
Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
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.
brodski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 07:04 AM   #152
Manny
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,295
Originally Posted by CurtC View Post
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.
Manny is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 07:10 AM   #153
Hellbound
Abiogenic Spongiform
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Somewhere between the central U.S. and Hades
Posts: 9,959
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).
__________________
Science is like safety testing cars. You don't coddle a new theory; you slam it head-on into other theories. You sideswipe it, rear-end it, and roll it over at 60 mph. If it survives better than the old theory, it's good. And the way it fails, and under what conditions, gives you the information to make the next theory even better.
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 07:10 AM   #154
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 67,657
Originally Posted by CurtC View Post
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:

__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 07:10 AM   #155
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
 
Arkan_Wolfshade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Making Mytheon come to life
Posts: 7,158
Originally Posted by Manny View Post
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.
__________________
Amy: You should try homeopathic medicine, Bender. Try some zinc.
Bender: I am forty percent zinc.
Amy: Then take some echinacea, or St. John's Wort.
Professor: Or a big fat placebo. It's all the same crap.
Arkan_Wolfshade is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 07:16 AM   #156
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
 
Arkan_Wolfshade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Making Mytheon come to life
Posts: 7,158
Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade View Post
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.
__________________
Amy: You should try homeopathic medicine, Bender. Try some zinc.
Bender: I am forty percent zinc.
Amy: Then take some echinacea, or St. John's Wort.
Professor: Or a big fat placebo. It's all the same crap.
Arkan_Wolfshade is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 07:19 AM   #157
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 10,151
Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade View Post
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.
__________________
Thanks for helping me win Best Children's Gifts and Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011 & 2012!

Spectrum Scientifics - My store - Google it people!
kookbreaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 07:43 AM   #158
chipmunk stew
The Spikey Mace of Love and Mercy
 
chipmunk stew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: SE PA
Posts: 7,465
Originally Posted by Christophera View Post
The important thing is an actual explanation for the event. Have you seen one?
Photographic Proof of What REALLY Happened:
Attached Images
File Type: jpg monty_foot.jpg (18.7 KB, 15 views)
__________________

chipmunk stew is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 08:01 AM   #159
roger
Penultimate Amazing
 
roger's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Mountain View, CA
Posts: 11,255
Originally Posted by Christophera View Post
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.
Show your math.

Originally Posted by Christophera
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.
Show your math.

Originally Posted by Christophera
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.
Show your math.
roger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 08:10 AM   #160
Christophera
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,760
Originally Posted by The_Fire View Post
Unlike you, I actually posted pictures from Ground Zero itself.
That is NOT gravel.
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 that is not supposed to be there, ......... and the steel core columns that you should be able to support are not shown.
Christophera is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

JREF Forum » General Topics » Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:22 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.