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

[roger]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Timothy

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 quite well. Even to the point where I show the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS as well as the concrete shear wall.

[Manny]

Originally Posted by Christophera

You can see through the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS, 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]

Originally Posted by Christophera

Actually Tim, you are doing the childish thing just fine and you also are not providing any evidence whereas I've documented the core quite well. Even to the point where I show the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERSas well as the concrete shear wall.

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

[cloudshipsrule]

Christophera, are you saying this:



is part of the INTERIOR core?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Here, let me provide an example of why pictures, by themselves, are not evidence.

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9610/10/feyn...plosion.lg.jpg

Quote:

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.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Originally Posted by Christophera

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]

Originally Posted by cloudshipsrule

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.

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by Christophera

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

Wow! That was totally useless.

[chipmunk stew]

Originally Posted by Christophera

Actually Tim, you are doing the childish thing just fine and you also are not providing any evidence whereas I've documented the core quite well. Even to the point where I show the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERSas well as the concrete shear wall.

Ghosts really do exist. I've documented it quite well: here you see a ghost orb, which clearly demonstrates that this house is haunted. Don't tell me it's just a speck of dust--you can see right through it. There's no other explanation.

Now I'll show you a sinking ship made of pine. I think I've documented it quite well. People who call it an iceberg support baby-eating devil-worshippers.

[Christophera]

Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade

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.

I cannot cite that but I have shown what they think they witnessed, a controlled demolition.

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

Please show where another steel building has collapsed.

Please show that the structure NIST depicts is correct by using raw images of the towers during the fall. I show that the NIST structure never appears.

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by Christophera

I cannot cite that but I have shown what they think they witnessed, a controlled demolition.

They said that it was like a controlled demolition. Stop being dishonest.

Quote:

Please show where another steel building has collapsed.

Please show where another building has had a fuel-laden jet hit it at top speed.

Quote:

Please show that the structure NIST depicts is correct by using raw images of the towers during the fall. I show that the NIST structure never appears.

Please show that what you have here is anything other than a smoke covered delusions of yours.

[Christophera]

Originally Posted by chipmunk stew

Ghosts really do exist. I've documented it quite well: here you see a ghost orb, which clearly demonstrates that this house is haunted. Don't tell me it's just a speck of dust--you can see right through it. There's no other explanation.

Now I'll show you a sinking ship made of pine. I think I've documented it quite well. People who call it an iceberg support baby-eating devil-worshippers.

This appears as obfuscation. If you cannot support the tower structure NIST says existed, why not just say so.

I've shown that the core of the tower is concrete by default at the least, because you cannot show the steel core columns NIST calls for. They did not exist.

So are you trying to dimiss the information of the concrete core so that the NIST analysis is more credible?

[Abbyas]

Quote:

Please show where another steel building has collapsed.

Just as soon as you show me another skyscaper hit by a very large airplane at full speed.

Just because something didn't happen before doesn't mean it didn't happen. Especially when circumstances are so radically different from normal.

An example: say I have a bicycle. I push it off a cliff and the wheels fall off. My bike never had the wheels fall off before, but I had never pushed it off of a cliff before. Make sense why we can't rule it out because it never happened?

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by Christophera

This appears as obfuscation. If you cannot support the tower structure NIST says existed, why not just say so.

Still, nobody knows what you are talking about.

Quote:

I've shown that the core of the tower is concrete by default at the least, because you cannot show the steel core columns NIST calls for. They did not exist.

No, you have not.

Quote:

So are you trying to dimiss the information of the concrete core so that the NIST analysis is more credible?

I am dismissing your claim that a smoke covered picture is proof of anything you claim.

[cloudshipsrule]

Is this image



the interior?

Because the same site calls it a corner spire when viewed from another angle.



Which is it? Corner spire or interior core.

[Christophera]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

Please show where another building has had a fuel-laden jet hit it at top speed.

A building not hit by a jet falls at free fall. WTC 7



Here is the page that has links to engineers web sites that describe the concrete core.

http://concretecore.741.com/

[Abbyas]

Quote:

Please show that the structure NIST depicts is correct by using raw images of the towers during the fall. I show that the NIST structure never appears.

See, the reason you won't see that is because we know that raw pictures aren't enough. They can be manipulated, and with all the dust, we can't say we are seeing an interior core. The NIST certainly didn't rely on raw pictures. Anyone studying the situation would be negligient to rely on raw pictures.

[Curnir]

Originally Posted by Christophera

I've shown that the core of the tower is concrete by default at the least,

Umm No....

Quote:

because you cannot show the steel core columns NIST calls for.

you either can't take the time to read the stuff... or you can't read the stuff.

Quote:

They did not exist.

Yes they did.

[Christophera]

Originally Posted by cloudshipsrule

Is this image

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

the interior?

Because the same site calls it a corner spire when viewed from another angle.

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

Which is it? Corner spire or interior core.

It is an interior box column. The interior box columns were attached but outside the concrete shear wall. This image shows it outside the core area.



Realize that no image shows the steel core columns per the OFFICIAL TOWER STRUCTURE that were supposed to be inside the core.

[chipmunk stew]

Originally Posted by Christophera

I cannot cite that but I have shown what they think they witnessed, a controlled demolition.

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

Please show where another steel building has collapsed.

Please show that the structure NIST depicts is correct by using raw images of the towers during the fall. I show that the NIST structure never appears.

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

Forget the fact that you're completely wrong for a moment.

How does a concrete core support the controlled demolition theory?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Originally Posted by Christophera

I cannot cite that but I have shown what they think they witnessed, a controlled demolition.

Which is an anecdote and, therefore, not evidence

Quote:

Please show where another steel building has collapsed.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=4293
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...6&postcount=25

Quote:

Please show that the structure NIST depicts is correct by using raw images of the towers during the fall. I show that the NIST structure never appears.

Pictures are not evidence in, and of, themselves.

[Abbyas]

Quote:

It is an interior box column. The interior box columns were attached but outside the concrete shear wall. This image shows it outside the core area.

Christophera, is it really possible to be both an interior box column and a corner spire?

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by Christophera

A building not hit by a jet falls at free fall. WTC 7

Good. Now find one that had a fire burn for 7 hours without any firefighting efforts, and also had two of the three tallest buildings in the United States fall on top of them.

I'm waiting.

[chipmunk stew]

Originally Posted by Christophera

This appears as obfuscation. If you cannot support the tower structure NIST says existed, why not just say so.

I've shown that the core of the tower is concrete by default at the least, because you cannot show the steel core columns NIST calls for. They did not exist.

So are you trying to dimiss the information of the concrete core so that the NIST analysis is more credible?

I'm just trying to figure out why you're trying so hard to see a concrete core that isn't there. What does it mean to you if you're right? Does it somehow support a controlled demolition argument?

Originally Posted by chipmunk stew

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/w...truction.1.jpg

[Katachresis]

I can't follow this thread anymore without asking Christophera a few simple questions.

Are you saying that the WTC's were not constucted the way it is reported in the NIST report?

Are you saying that hijacked passenger planes were not the direct cause of the towers' collapse?

Do you plan on staying on this thread long enough to maybe convince someone that your theories are valid?

All simple questions that I would really appreciate you answering.

Thanks.

[cloudshipsrule]

Christophera, look at these images and read carefully.

This image you just showed:



DOES NOT SHOW AN INTERIOR BOX COLUMN.

Look at this image and the distance that the WTC is from the building on the left:




Please tell me that you can see that the image you showed shows the EXTERIOR of the WTC, not an interior box column. LOOK AT THE DISTANCES.

If this is the basis for you argument, you need to start over.

[chipmunk stew]

Originally Posted by Christophera

Please show that the structure NIST depicts is correct by using raw images of the towers during the fall.

I showed you the structure during construction. Did they swap it out with a different core sometime between construction and collapse?

[Ersby]

This picture

http://kiewit.oregonstate.edu/images/wtc_sunrise.jpg

allows a fairly clear view through the WTC at sunrise. There's no single core that runs the length of the building.

(It's also very pretty.)

[Christophera]

Originally Posted by cloudshipsrule

Christophera, are you saying this:



is part of the INTERIOR core?

Yes, that is a section of the concrete shear wall which WAS the concrete core. The steel is clearly flexing and the end of the broken concrete wall can be seen. Most importantly, no steel core columns are seen insied the core and they would dominate that image IF they existed, they did not.

This is the face of the wall where interior box columns are sihouetted against the concrete wall.

[Katachresis]

I will follow this thread until Christophera answers a few simple questions.

Are you saying that the WTC's were not constucted the way it is reported in the NIST report?

Are you saying that hijacked passenger planes were not the direct cause of the towers' collapse?

Do you plan on staying on this thread long enough to maybe convince someone that your theories are valid?

All simple questions that I would really appreciate you answering.

Thanks.

[Christophera]

Originally Posted by Ersby

This picture

http://kiewit.oregonstate.edu/images/wtc_sunrise.jpg

allows a fairly clear view through the WTC at sunrise. There's no single core that runs the length of the building.

(It's also very pretty.)

I explain that photo and the other here,

http://concretecore.741.com/

The Concrete Core And Its Hallways

Below on the left is WTC 1 at sunrise. The view is not looking down the hallways, we look nearly along the long axis of the towers core. The vertical line of light in the lower segment is created by sunlight reflecting off the inner core walls then shining out the core hallway.

The North Tower had a core oriented east and west. The camera perspective is not aligned with the hallway as can be seen by the orientation of the south towers roof indicating an oblique view. The light is reflected off the inner south shear wall at a hallway level where there is no doorway interrupting. Notice the very slight interruptions, dark streaks, whole dark floors. The nature of light under these conditions is to blend, blur and obscure solid areas between the light.

We see no light on the left side because the doorways on the north face do not align with the doors on the east. Above that, or the top sky lobby floor, the top floors had a different scheme with some halls on one floor crossing both directions.



The core of the south tower above is oriented north south with its long axis and had 2 halls crossing the short axis. We see no light through it because the doors on our face only reveal a shadowed inner concrete wall corner. See the 2 vertical, central lines in the image below.



Tower on right, the north tower. The interior box columns followed the slight taper of the concrete core to a point then had to continue vertically plumb to the roof as the interior wall of the outside tube of the steel framework. The purpose of this section and photo is to show the space between the interior box columns and the tapering core face at the upper floors. The north tower had hallways crossing perpendicularly every other floor. This picture of the towers is looking due south through the towers.

The north tower core was oriented east west, so we are looking at the wide side. On the right tower fr then project that dddistance down to a cross section. We see, from right to left; a light space from the out side to a dark column which represents the floor space to the interior box column, then there is another narrow light space left of that. That is the space between the interior box column and the concrete core face. Going leftward we see the facing concrete shear wall, then the hallway crossing the narrow axis, then the core face again, then the space between the east core face, then interior box column, then floor space to the east side of the building.

[Katachresis]

These are really easy questions,

Are you saying that the WTC's were not constucted the way it is reported in the NIST report?

Are you saying that hijacked passenger planes were not the direct cause of the towers' collapse?

Do you plan on staying on this thread long enough to maybe convince someone that your theories are valid?

All simple questions that I would really appreciate you answering.

Thanks.

[Ersby]

Originally Posted by Christophera

I explain that photo and the other here,

http://concretecore.741.com/

This is your web site?

[Christophera]

Originally Posted by Katachresis

These are really easy questions,

Are you saying that the WTC's were not constucted the way it is reported in the NIST report?

Absolutely. And all posting here have failed to support the FEMA structure that NIST uses.

Originally Posted by Katachresis

Are you saying that hijacked passenger planes were not the direct cause of the towers' collapse?

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

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

Originally Posted by Katachresis

Do you plan on staying on this thread long enough to maybe convince someone that your theories are valid?

I've already shown that the official theory (lie) is invalid. The structure that NIST says was there cannot be supported by raw images.

Originally Posted by Katachresis

All simple questions that I would really appreciate you answering.
Thanks.

It should be simple to support the towers that NIST states existed, but no one has provided one single image showing the steel core columns in the center of the core.

[cloudshipsrule]

Quote:

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

This is the single, most ridiculous theory I have heard yet.

You think that individuals involved in the design of the WTC's designed them for the purpose of destroying them easier in the future?

Are you taking any prescription drugs? You should be.

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by Christophera

Absolutely. And all posting here have failed to support the FEMA structure that NIST uses.

Wheras you have failed to establish anything for your hysterical claims.

Quote:

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

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

Utter nonsense and complete demonstrating a lack of knowledge of explosives.

Quote:

I've already shown that the official theory (lie) is invalid. The structure that NIST says was there cannot be supported by raw images.

You have not done what you say.

[Meffy]

Attention all passengers... We have just left the Twilight Zone and are rapidly passing the Outer Limits. Destination: Unknown!

[chipmunk stew]

Originally Posted by Christophera

Absolutely. And all posting here have failed to support the FEMA structure that NIST uses.

Absolutely, the planes were a cover for the fact that the building were built to be demolished and scheduled for 9-11.
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

I've already shown that the official theory (lie) is invalid. The structure that NIST says was there cannot be supported by raw images.

It should be simple to support the towers that NIST states existed, but no one has provided one single image showing the steel core columns in the center of the core.

Now we're getting to the crux of it:

Originally Posted by Christophera's link

The only way to reconcile ab analysis inclusive of the 4 Glaring Inconsistencies is that the thick coatings of the rebar of the cast concrete support core and foundation were actually made of plastic explosive C4. This would put enough explosive force in direct contact with the most concrete at high enough pressures and enable the instantaneous structural collapse of each floor consecutively to the ground that we saw, as well as the resulting particulate. Attempting to apply explosives to the exterior of the concrete would have created too much external explosion and made the demo obvious without achieving a fraction of what we saw or see in the sand and gravel of the photos linked above.

The Notion of no concrete core and of cutting the supposed steel core columns with anything other than shape charges, not developed as they are today, would have changed the character of the event witnessed. Below is a diagram [ http://www.ribbands.co.uk/prdpages/C4.htm ]

This was technology invented in the cold war to make self destruct missile silos and submarine bases, perfect for preplanned demolition. The C4 protected the steel from corrosion before the sea water was evacuated by the incoming concrete into the forms. The C4 was encapsulated in the concrete and its 10 year average shelf life extended by many times.

(bolding mine)

edited to fix link