• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Christophera

Banned
C
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
2,760
Maxim:
If a suppossed explantion does not explain the event, it is not the truth. No explanation that does not explain the event can be the truth.

So far no explanation in existence explains free fall and total pulverization of the towers appears to exist. Has anyone seen one?
 
The best explanation I've heard is that it WASN'T FREE FALL!

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

There is another maxim that says:
You don't need an explanation for something that didn't happen.
 
Has anyone seen an explanation for why so many CTs, in 2006, continue to claim that the towers fell at free fall?
 
Total pulverization of his arguments may follow.

Do the CT arguments fall at free-fall or close to free-fall?
 
pgwenthold said:
The best explanation I've heard is that it WASN'T FREE FALL!
Click to expand...
Also, there wasn't "total pulverization of the towers." There was much pulverization, but that's pretty much to be expected as the buildings used a little as possible and it was all horizontal -- there was no reinforced concrete in the structure.
 
Manny said:
Also, there wasn't "total pulverization of the towers." There was much pulverization, but that's pretty much to be expected as the buildings used a little as possible and it was all horizontal -- there was no reinforced concrete in the structure.
Click to expand...

Can you prove that with raw images of the towers coming down.
 
Mongrel said:
It was damned heavy.

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

Of course but an explanation is needed. So to cast doubt onto one, another must be provided that has a better basis in evidence.
 
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.
 
Estimated time of arrival of the "9/11 hijackers still alive!" post: 11:12 p.m.
 
Renfield said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Is there any web site that uses raw images of the towers coming down to define the structural elements of the them.
 
Christophera said:
The engineers believe FEMAs description of the structure and I know it was different so what the engineers have defined is in error.

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

How do you know? And you saying that engineers who have studied the collapse were too stupid to realize that something was wrong with the official story?
 
Christophera said:
Of course but an explanation is needed. So to cast doubt onto one, another must be provided that has a better basis in evidence.
Click to expand...

No. You pay me $1000. Now.

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

You pay money, or admit complete fallacy of your argument. This has been PROVEN.
 
senorpogo said:
How do you know? And you saying that engineers who have studied the collapse were too stupid to realize that something was wrong with the official story?
Click to expand...

They were too afraid to say there was something wrong with the official story. Taking the money was easiest.
 
Christophera, have you read any of the NIST reports? Please be specific when describing what issues you have w/ them - give a publication and page number so we can check your work.

Thanks!
 
Christophera said:
They were too afraid to say there was something wrong with the official story. Taking the money was easiest.
Click to expand...
You have evidence that money was paid? To every single structural engineer in the world?! Is money paid to new structural engineering college graduates as well to keep them hushed up? How much money do you think is necessary to hush thousands of these engineers?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom