No Realistic Explanations For Creations Of Free Fall Offered - I Have One

[Christophera]

I started a thread asking,

Found Any Realistic Explanations For Free Fall, Anywhere, Ever?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=85665&mesg_id=85665


and there was not ONE realistic explanation for how free fall could be created. There was a great deal of denial there that free fall occured, most sincere seekers of 9-11 truth know how fast it was and have no problem. Even at twice the rate of fall it is still too fast for collapse that cannot happen under conditions.

I used the term "realistic" in the thread title because I wanted a description of a method by which what we saw,



could be created.

I left it open so feasability was not an issue. (I could have titled it "feasible Explanations") Really I was just looking for some description of how the effects seen could be recreated even if it was infeasable. NOT ONE suggestion of any kind was put forth, meaning that what I've noticed is probably true.

There is only one web site in the world that actually, realistically explains the free fall of the Twin Towers.

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

The only thing some people have a problem with in this scenario is that the towers have to be built to demolish. I personally know they were from watching a 1990 documentary on the construction of WTC 1 and am looking for others who saw the 2 hour special that aired on PBS 'because 100,000 people probably saw it and of those about 2000 can remember that the towers had a concrete core inside them. Concrete can be made to fracture and fall instantly by a small amount of explosive placed in the center of it.

[sabbat hunter]

1. will you please

stop referring to something that doesn't exist (your 1999 video) so far no one, NO ONE else collaborates your video. if it actually existed ever then it still does somewhere. teachers always tape stuff like that, they must have it. i am sure PBS sold the original video, if it ever existed, on one of their pledge drives.


you sir are the only one that has seemed to see this mysterious video. so one can only conclude that it only existed in your imagination.

[Christophera]

3. Might Not Exist Now, But Did: How Do You Think I Am Able To ID Structural

elements? I knew about as much then about structural stel and concrete as I do now. I understod every thing in the documentary, it was very well made. Certainly the best on any structure I've seen.

For example: There are many columns that have these square cut end (left, right is torch cut)s.



I don't know if you know the difference between tempered steel and mild steel and what it takes to cut one of those like that. It is amazing, erie. But what is more weird is that I actually remember the docuementary mentioning that they had found information describing excessively tight tolerences on plates that were set in the concrete around the interior box columns.

The documentary got into the cost of the towers at numerous times and the plates were a later (in the doc) observation on high cost for uncertain reasons. They seemed to be doing kind of an accounting of what the public got for their buck. Any way, in thinking about how columns could be cut like that I remembered a visual of what was happening and the narration about the plates that had like a .035 inch max clearance or something ridiculous for a building, with a questionable structural purpose to begin with. The videographers, experienced with construction, had to ask to find out and the answer was not very consistent with the other information they had.

This is a method for cutting the columns that will work. The plates are completely encapsulated in concrete creating a massive cutting plane of high pressure gasses and shearing the column like butter. The documentary mentioned and showed forced evacuations of floors just before concrete was poured. Phil Jayhan of Let's Roll heard about the evacations of the floors too.



Certainly somebody taped the documentary. They would have pulled it out by now and offered it up if the core had been made an issue. it has not. I am the sole person talking about it as far as I know. I've found a number of people that saw a documentary that showed the concrete core (PBS sold clips). They didn't know that FEMA claimed steel core columns for the core.

PBS is a governmental agency. All of those have been infiltrated and sifted for info that might strengthen us and weaken those in power who manipulate events.

[Make7]

2. First things first.

Posted by Christophera:

There was a great deal of denial there that free fall occured, most sincere seekers of 9-11 truth know how fast it was and have no problem. Even at twice the rate of fall it is still too fast for collapse that cannot happen under conditions.

Have you established that "free-fall" occurred? That might be a good place to start. Give a detailed explanation including the actual collapse times that you are basing this on and how those times are indeed "free-fall" times. Try using math. And facts. Things of that nature.

Perhaps the "denial" of "free-fall" is caused by the fact that it simply does not appear to be supported by the evidence.

- Make7

[Christophera]

4. First Things Covered, Towers Fell To Fast, I Explain It

Sorry, I do not do pointless math. I can intuitively tell that the towers fell to fast.

When they do it identically, there is absolutely NO way it is a collapse.

I cover the free fall issue in what you quote of my post. I could accept 20 seconds as the fall time, depending on when you stop counting. There are definitely things still settling, going down, for a period. We cannot tell what the exact fall time is and it is a waste of time to try and determine it. The most functional use of fall time is an intuitive one.

Intuition says one tower cannot do what we saw without high explosives and 2 definitely cannot.

It is simple logic our unconscious memory experiences can confirm for us with common sense if we are familiar with structures and physical limits..

[Christophera]

14. Already Done, On 9-11. Intuition Said It Was Too Fast. I Moved Onto More

critical aspects confident that free fall basically happened.

If you need a good mathematical breakdown, bmcatt did it here,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=90003&mesg_id=90082

The topic of this thread is "How was free fall created?" Built in high explosive encapsulated in concrete appears the only possible way to rig a tower to demo as we saw.

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

[LARED]

15. What part of faulty premise is unclear to you? (n/t)

[Christophera]

16. Check Differences Between "Unclear" and "Ignorance". You Ignore Facts

The premise of free fall is widely acknowledged. Your ignorance disables rational processes in discussion which is why your post had no text. Sorry for your problem.

[LARED]

17. The premise of free fall is widely acknowledged by whom?

Your ignorance disables rational processes in discussion which is why your post had no text. Sorry for your problem.

Speaking of disabled rational processes.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LARED]

19. Sorry to interrupt you arguments with facts.

All videos show the towers collapsing somewhere around 14 to 18 seconds. (maybe longer)

At 14 seconds you are 50% slower free-fall, At 18 seconds you are 100% slower than free fall.

Neither is close to free-fall.

[Christophera]

20. At 20 Seconds The Towers Fell Too Fast: Identical Falls, Get Serious, 3000

Americans have been mudered and there was no investigation, no due process, illegal wars waged, our Constitution is compromised, rights and freedoms diminishing.

Because we cannot see the bottom in the videos your point is moot. Twenty seconds is way to fast for the impossible to happen anyway, if you are trying to use the official explanation for collapse (sic).






Do you consider yourself American?

[LARED]

21. Christophera, lets skip the "are you an America" tripe

How do you know 20 seconds is too fast?

Please don't tell me you just know. Do you have any actual science to back up your claim?

[Christophera]

22. Get Real, Collapse Impossible Under Conditions, Common Knowledge

What exists is denial. You got it bad. My authority is a 78 grandma and common sense.

I mentoned that the towers fell too fast to a 78 year old woman.

She said, "Yes."

I said, "They were demolished".

She said, "Probably".

Basically in a collapse, what we saw would NEVER happen ever, given 20 YEARS to collapse it wouldn't happen. It will not go all the way to the ground. Everybody knows it inside they are just too afraid to face it.

Oh shit, sorry, you're not American, you don't give a crap about the truth in this case.

[LARED]

23. Translation

You have zero evidence. BTW, I am born and raised in America.

[Christophera]

24. Do You Have Proof You Are American? Your Actions Say, "Not"

What I've delineated in my last post clearly states that everyone has all the evidence reasonably need to know the towers fell way too fast, identically, impossibly as collapses, EXCEPT YOU.

And it is in Americas best interests to use truth to make decisions, this is true with any people. So you cannot be an American who loves their rights and freedoms, you've adequately proven the reverse by supporting the system that took 3000 of our lives..

[Jazz2006]

26. Do You Realize That You Are The Only Person Who Claims To

See A Concrete Core Where 99.9% Of The People Looking At Your Supposedly Amazing Photos Do Not See Any Such Thing?

And That Your Gazillion Posts Notwithstanding, It Is Simply Not True That Everyone Sees Things The Way You Do?

And That It Is Wholly Untrue That Everyone But Lared Sees Things The Way You Do?

And How Fucking Annoying It Is To Read Posts Or Even Subject Lines With Every Word Capitalized?

And How Stupid It Is To Suggest That If Someone Doesn't Agree With You, That They Must Not Be American?

And How Much That Sounds Like Bush's "With Us Or Against Us"?

Jesus.

(Edited To Capitalize A Word That I Missed Capitalizing)

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jazz2006]

42. I wish we all had x-ray vision, too, but

alas, Superman seems to have a monopoly on that.

We mere mortals work with facts and evidence.

[LARED]

43. I wish you would answer my question instead of name calling

How did you arrive at the notion the even at 20 seconds the towers fell to fast?

[Christophera]

44. How Can A Impossible Collapse To Ground Level, TWICE, Qualify For Justific

ation for any impossible fall rate?

The proportion of ignorance you feign reeks of death spouting collusion.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Christophera]

47. Wrong: You Missed Point Entirely In Your Selectivity, Fall Rate Moot

This is not a collapse.



Confront your non credibility.

[LARED]

48. So neither WTC towers collapsed?

Are you sure you want to stick with that story?

[Jazz2006]

49. Wow...

There must have been a shitstorm above, given the host of "deleted messages".

I haven't checked in to this thread regularly, but I see that my posts are still standing, so I take it that the deleted ones were probably those of the OP and someone else with the good sense to call him on his nonsense even if it got a bit out of hand. Just a guess.

But to the matter at hand....

Did someone really suggest that neither of the WTC towers collapsed?

[Jazz2006]

50. Oops... thought I'd posted in the wrong spot because it didn't

shift to the right.

But it appears, now that I've posted it again, that it's a screen width issue, and that after a certain point, the posts align directly underneath, rather than to the right.

So, kindly disregard the duplicate.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sabbat hunter]

46. not at free fall

the towers didnt fall at free fall, nor at near free fall. the times took 50% to 100% more time than free fall.

so how do you justify your original post when it is obviously in error?
please use logic and evidence. we know what the times of the collapses really were. they were not at free fall or anywhere near free fall.

please justify how your original post verifies a concrete core if the times were NOT at free fall.
and please do so without resorting to using the same pictures you have posted hundreds of times already.

[jwtravel]

25. Everybody knows it inside???

I'm part of "everybody" and I don't KNOW IT INSIDE. Watching and re-watching the collapses, not one part of my "common sense" told me that anything was wrong with what I was seeing. I'm a mechanical engineer and not a civil engineer, so I'm no trained expert. However, my "senses" told me "Big heavy plane slams into building really fast, causes major structural damage and fires, some of the fires began to weaken the steel, building can't take it anymore and starts to collapse. Once the collapse gets going, there is nothing that was going to stop or slow down that much fricking weight.

[Christophera]

29. You Are Distorting, Minimizing An Event-See This Image!

In order to dissociate from the seriousness of what has happened, human being minimize, distort the situation. Unconsciously you know, you just convienently forgot, along with 250 million others.



The event above cannot reasonably be termed a collapse. EVER!

[rman]

5. docu: "Building the World Trade Center" (1983) - no concrete core

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4334991174539603857&pl=true

[Christophera]

6. The 1990 DOC. Mentioned That Video-Not A Construction Documentary

That video celebrated the completion of the towers not the actual construction. The 2 hour documentary called "The Construction Of The Twin Towers was an intimate look at materials, design and construction sequence and in the beginning they metioned that video.

The concrete core was inside the steel frame work and not very visible by any standard. The DOC. I saw mentioned this fact and the difficulty the videographers has in finding good 16mm film footage of the core. There was actually only one 15 second clip that showed the top of the concrete pour with rebar protruding at the top floor level. Normally the top of the concrete was 40 feet below the top floor because the outer steel framwork was used to support the concrete forms. The only shot from lower in the tower that showed the core well was a still black and white. There were few opportunities where access, perspective and light were all good for photography.

The below image shows the concrete core. No way is there any structural steel in that image.



In order to justify the statement "no concrete core" one MUST come up with images that show the supposed steel core columns and that must be an image showing steel core columns at least 500 feet off the ground. The official core cannot fall at free fall rates within the event witnessed so we must endeavor to verify it before assuming it is true.

[rman]

7. that image is not clear

it requires quite a bit of imagination to see a concrete core in it.

[Christophera]

8. It Requires A Hallucination To See Steel Core Columns

It is plenty clear for our purposes. Only steel reinforced concrete can stand like that with that appearance.

Here is the single remaining piece of the core at ground level.



There are no columns piercing the stairwell. They must be there according to the FEMA diagram.



I have just proved that the core was concrete. It may require more experience than you have to use this information. Consider that not one explanation for free fall was ever produced in the thread I link to in the original post of this thread but what I porpose here,

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

Does. The truth WILL explain free fall everything elese must be dismissed.

[rman]

9. That's a different image

If this second image shows concrete, it is only at ground level, and it does not prove that the first image shows a concrete core.

[Christophera]

10. Analysis Requires Experience With Structural Concrete And Steel

I do not expect anyone who is not familiar with concrete and steel construction to be able to absolutely identify these images that show concrete in various forms as the core.

This image shows no structural steel and by obvious appearance can only be concrete. If you do not have experience with the types of construction used, you won't be able to know that for sure. So give up trying if that is the case. Seek someone with experience to consult with.



This image shows the base of one wall. The thickness of the concrete is there for a reason. It is the base of a 1300 foot tall shear wall. No steel core columns are seen protruding from the stairwell where they would be seen if they existed.



Below is an image of the box columns silhouetted against the concrete shear wall. They are adjacent to the spire formed by an interior box column. Steel core columns are not seen in this image behind the wall where they should be.



Below is a zoom of the same wall viewed from the left side. The interior box column of the spire can be seen just outside the concrete shear wall.



rman,

You really need to use raw EVIDENCE to say "no". If you are not using raw evidence and saying no you are acting JUST LIKE A DISINFO AGENT. That is what they do.

Here is your only evidence as far as I can tell. A diagram created by FEMA. Where are the supposed core columns in the images above? They must be seen in images such as the above as they were supposedly the strongest elements of the tower.



If you can come up with no raw images that show the steel core columns, you must come up with an explanation for their disappearance. Some way they were cut, feasibly, to make them disappear, within the event witnessed on 9-11.

[DoYouEverWonder]

13. Is some info that I haven't seen before

that you might be interested in.



With technological advances paving the way for unprecedented building heights, the first of World Trade Center's Twin Towers – the south tower – is topped off. The Towers are the first skycrapers ever built without the use of masonry. Instead, engineers use a drywall system reinforced by steel cores.


http://www.projectrebirth.org/rebuild/tourGZero/wtc/1966.html

[Christophera]

11. Critical Factor Is The Instant Fracturing Of Concrete That Is Possible

Meaning that all resistence could be removed from under all the tower loads leaving them to just fall.

Also, this picture,



Notice the faces of the buildings have their own distinct explosive waves of debris, none at the corner. The walls of the core are exploding outwardly and away from the corner, so there is no expanding material in the corner. It is hollow, like a slot between the debris waves.

[Christophera]

12. "Feel Good" Publicity Piece, Not Documentary. Video Shows No Core At All

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4334991174539603857&pl=true


The one thing it does show is the 1 x 3 foot "I" beams connecting the interior box columns to the perimeter wall.

eager leaves that out of his pancake fantasy. I do not rate it a theory even.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

33. So how do you explain post 13?

You can see right through your so called concrete core. That one picture from 1971 is more telling than all your dust covered, concrete core pictures. Oh wait, nevermind I meant to say your ONE dustcovered concrete core picture, depsite all the footage that was shot on that day focused on the WTC Towers.

Are we now down to another tried and true debate tactic of ignoring evidence that goes against your theory?

[Make7]

37. Welcome to DU.

I have a feeling you won't be disappointed.

:hi: Make7