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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Show me the video evidence of that cataclysmic event.

Show me your evidence that the seismic reports are wrong.

Show me a photo of your mystery core.

Why are you posting here? Why don't you get some evidence to back your claims, or adjust your theories if you don't have evidence?

You cannot be serious. You with no evidence acuse me with 2 web sites having a great deal of evidence of having no evidence. And you are the same poeter who cannot come up with an alternative explanation for what must obviously be 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS. Exactly what i would expect, but not what you need to assert steel core columns because none are shown where you say they should be.
 
You cannot be serious. You with no evidence acuse me with 2 web sites having a great deal of evidence of having no evidence. And you are the same poeter who cannot come up with an alternative explanation for what must obviously be 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS. Exactly what i would expect, but not what you need to assert steel core columns because none are shown where you say they should be.
Websites do not an argument make. You don't understand that you need evidence that supports your claims. You don't have any. Your websites and posts here are solid drivel. You've been shown to be wrong every single time. For that claim, I have abundant evidence.

Every single time, Christophera. You haven't been right once.

And you still think you're right. You're a very sad, delusional person. Please get help.


edit: grammar
 
Last edited:
Could all this be possible without the use of explosives and the existence of a concrete core? Could some parts of the internal core of the tower have withstood the initial collapse for a few seconds then gave way? Could this be possible?

That lower part of the core was so strong that even a demo had to wait a second to get the steel out of the way.

btw, In answer to your earlier question, I think I skipped answering, the outer tube is a steel framework and the inner is a concrete tube.
 
That lower part of the core was so strong that even a demo had to wait a second to get the steel out of the way.

OK, but where do you get that? How have you come to this conclusion?

btw, In answer to your earlier question, I think I skipped answering, the outer tube is a steel framework and the inner is a concrete tube.

I'm just wondering if "tube" is an apropriate term. Does it have a special meaning in engeneering?
 
Christophera said:
You cannot be serious. You with no evidence acuse me with 2 web sites having a great deal of evidence of having no evidence. And you are the same poeter who cannot come up with an alternative explanation for what must obviously be 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS. Exactly what i would expect, but not what you need to assert steel core columns because none are shown where you say they should be.

Websites do not an argument make. You don't understand that you need evidence that supports your claims. You don't have any. Your websites and posts here are solid drivel. You've been shown to be wrong every single time.

Every single time, Christophera. You haven't been right once.

And you still think you're right. You're a very sad, delusional person. Please get help.

You think youv'e conducted an argument.

A thought alone, because you've produced no qualified evidence and your reasoning in attempt to dismiss raw evidence is flawed and deceptive. Your disatisfaction makes clear, that you are not a gracious loser.
 
Maybe Huntsman can explain what it takes to get 47 tempered steel columns to lose all their strength and fall freely instantly.

Here is a clue. Which is most dense?

I can, actually.

Because the columns were tack welded together, so the joins were weaker than the steel.

The steel gave when several floors fell onto the damaged sections, and from there it's like toppling building blocks.

You can do an experiment at home. Take a board, and stack ten wooden blocks (the rectangular kind) up longways to make columns. Support your board on theose columns. Add weight to the top. If you have it balanced right, the columns are fairly sturdy because of the weight pressing them together. You really only need very light support (small pieces of tape, say) just to make sure the wooden blocks are lined up with each other.

Now, get a coupl eof the blocks (say the ones about 80% of the way up) and replace them with something else, rolls of paper, say, to simulate the damaged steel columns. Then put your weight back on.

Let me know what happens.

Now, your reinforced concrete is a whole different story. That's more like using columns made of modeling clay, wrapped with chicken wire.

The steel columns are, typically, less likely to fail due to most causes, but when they fail, that's it. It's gone.
 
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2283&stc=1&d=1151007490

The hallways of the towers clearly show they were different. A single hall across the narrow axis of WTC 1 and 2 hallways across WTC 2 long axis is seen.

I remember the documentary explaining how difficult it was to rent space in WTC 1 because access across the core was so bad.

Um, you realize the pic you posted here does not suppor thte idea of a hallway?

Do the scaling.

That "single central hallway" you mention is the same all the way to the top (where you can still see the steel core columns above the current upper level). Not to mention that that single hallway would be on the order of 20 feet across.
 
And you are the same poeter who cannot come up with an alternative explanation for what must obviously be 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS. Exactly what i would expect, but not what you need to assert steel core columns because none are shown where you say they should be.
Take that picture, at its current size, and draw on it a dimenson arrow indicating 4', positioned as if it were at the distance of the WTC building. To demonstrate, I'll draw a dimension arrow for the vehicle in the foreground (it's very close to 6.25' tall), so that you know how to draw dimension marks. You draw a dimension mark across the 4' rebar-centres, or, if they're not visible in the photograph, draw a 4' dimension positioned where they would have been (if the tower were not collapsing).
 

Attachments

  • spire_dust-3.jpg
    spire_dust-3.jpg
    34.5 KB · Views: 10
I can, actually.

Because the columns were tack welded together, so the joins were weaker than the steel.

Below is a 100% butt weld joining an interior box column. To the right and above the floor beam intersection is an area discolored from being heated then ground level with the surrounding columns face.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2287&stc=1&d=1151031086

That is actually laughable. They couldn't be called core columns because they are not continuos.
 

Attachments

  • image5.jpg
    image5.jpg
    31.4 KB · Views: 14
Christophera said:
Why not use common sense? That is what REAL analysis starts with. Oh ,...... sorry, I forgot, that's why you are having a problem.

Let me give you what I wrote in another forum on the subject of common sense.

Me said:
And here is exactly the problem with this "innate sense": it doesn't work. If someone tried to explain quantum physics to you, it defies common sense. Yet experiments again and again bear out the theory.

You mention centrifugal motion. This is a perfect example. Someone traveling in a curved line could swear that there's a force pushing or pulling them outward. Their "innate sense" that leads them to understand this is a law of physics is leading them wrong. There is no force pushing them outward, despite that "feeling". This is why science doesn't depend on feelings or innate senses....it depends on experimental data.


Later on....
Christophera said:
The information I trust is an image of a concrete stairway and I haven't checked the rest of site out much

Why do you trust that image in particular? What about it makes it trustworthy?

Later still....
christophera said:
2) There are visual and seismic records. You are seeing a visual record in the above link and the USGS has original digital seismic files they refuse to release.

If they haven't released these files, how do you know they exist?
 
Take that picture, at its current size, and draw on it a dimenson arrow indicating 4', positioned as if it were at the distance of the WTC building. To demonstrate, I'll draw a dimension arrow for the vehicle in the foreground (it's very close to 6.25' tall), so that you know how to draw dimension marks. You draw a dimension mark across the 4' rebar-centres, or, if they're not visible in the photograph, draw a 4' dimension positioned where they would have been (if the tower were not collapsing).

This sounds like a fun nonsensical project. Consider that the lines viewed are not their true length. Meaning you've just invented a "photoshop moment", if one is into wasting time.
 
This sounds like a fun nonsensical project. Consider that the lines viewed are not their true length. Meaning you've just invented a "photoshop moment", if one is into wasting time.
??? Are you serious. Here you make all of the claims of how big things are based on looking at them and now you are saying that is not possible? Wow, that's quite an admission.
 
Why do you trust that image in particular? What about it makes it trustworthy?

Can we believe noobers is asking this? I trust the image of a concrete stair to be a concrete stair. Simple thing.

If they haven't released these files, how do you know they exist?

I have associates that are scientists who tried to get the raw seismic files. they were able to get USGS seismometer output files of quarry blasts but not 9-11.
 
Take that picture, at its current size, and draw on it a dimenson arrow indicating 4', positioned as if it were at the distance of the WTC building. To demonstrate, I'll draw a dimension arrow for the vehicle in the foreground (it's very close to 6.25' tall), so that you know how to draw dimension marks. You draw a dimension mark across the 4' rebar-centres, or, if they're not visible in the photograph, draw a 4' dimension positioned where they would have been (if the tower were not collapsing).
That's a good empirical way to demonstrate size. The vehicle gives us scale. This would be allowed in a court of law.
 
No.

REAL analysis starts with evidence, then does the math.

Common Sense is, at best, only a starting point, and even then it's often not the best one.

You are forgetting the algebraic assimilation of the evidence that occurs before the math.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom