• 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 said:
The engineers believe FEMAs description of the structure and I know it was different so what the engineers have defined is in error.
Click to expand...
Which FEMA description are you talking about? Please list (or better yet link to) the publication so we can check your work.

Thanks.
 
WildCat said:
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!
Click to expand...

No. I am aware from other sources exactly how the towers were designed and NIST is a waste of time. They do not explain free fall. They do not explain free fall to the ground of the entire structure. They do not explain how this happened twice and why the impact/fall sequence is backwards/ The wrong tower fell first if itwas a collapse.

They don't explain why the tops of the towers fell the wrong directions according top the sides damaged.
 
WildCat said:
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.
Click to expand...

So you too deny the IRREFUTABLE FACT that both towers were PULVERIZED to a state of plasma, hotter than the sun. Hotter than ANYTHING possible by muslim terrorist attack.

Without citing a SINGLE photograph for evidence too.... you have made a COMPLETE FOOL of yourself!
 
Christophera said:
No. I am aware from other sources exactly how the towers were designed and NIST is a waste of time. They do not explain free fall. They do not explain free fall to the ground of the entire structure. They do not explain how this happened twice and why the impact/fall sequence is backwards/ The wrong tower fell first if itwas a collapse.

They don't explain why the tops of the towers fell the wrong directions according top the sides damaged.
Click to expand...

From the quality and structure of your writing, you are clearly not very intelligent, so I'm surprised that you consider yourself capable of critically examining and appraising the available evidence, let alone drawing the conclusions that you have.

Or did you watch the Loose Change DVD and get all your opinions from that? Hmm?
 
American said:
Without citing a SINGLE photograph for evidence too.... you have made a COMPLETE FOOL of yourself!
Click to expand...

No, I've made assertions that are backed by lots of evidence but I cannot post url's here yet.

So you should post the url's to raw images supporting the structure NIST says stood. I've asked others to do this. Why has no one done it?
 
Christophera said:
So you should post the url's to raw images supporting the structure NIST says stood. I've asked others to do this. Why has no one done it?
Click to expand...
I would, but to tell you the truth I have absolutely no idea what you're asking us to do here.

Is English your second language or something?
 
tkingdoll said:
From the quality and structure of your writing, you are clearly not very intelligent, so I'm surprised that you consider yourself capable of critically examining and appraising the available evidence, let alone drawing the conclusions that you have.

Or did you watch the Loose Change DVD and get all your opinions from that? Hmm?
Click to expand...

No. I derive nothing from any of those productions. All of my evidence is gained from raw images and common sense analysis of construction materials and their physical properties.
 
Christophera said:
No, I've made assertions that are backed by lots of evidence but I cannot post url's here yet.

So you should post the url's to raw images supporting the structure NIST says stood. I've asked others to do this. Why has no one done it?
Click to expand...

I am SUPPORTING you. Don't twist facts around.

These "skeptics" debate endlessly about things like whether the Holocaust even HAPPENED. They are fools.... a preponderance of evidence shows that IT DID. Yet they will continue to assert - like the truth about 9-11 - that history is in error.
 
WildCat said:
I would, but to tell you the truth I have absolutely no idea what you're asking us to do here.

Is English your second language or something?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you are feigning confusion.

I've asked here that someone post a url to a site on the web that has a credible, realistic, feasible explanation for free fall or a site that uses raw images to support the structure that NIST says stood.
 
American said:
I am SUPPORTING you. Don't twist facts around.

These "skeptics" debate endlessly about things like whether the Holocaust even HAPPENED. They are fools.... a preponderance of evidence shows that IT DID. Yet they will continue to assert - like the truth about 9-11 - that history is in error.
Click to expand...

Just trying to determine if the basic structure that NIST says stood shows up during the fall of the towers.
 
Christophera said:
No. I derive nothing from any of those productions. All of my evidence is gained from raw images and common sense analysis of construction materials and their physical properties.
Click to expand...
So you have no actual training in construction technology, structural engineering, etc?

Well, that certainly qualifies you as an expert in why the WTC buildings collapsed on that day...

Funny how no actual experts have problems w/ the NIST reports. Oh yeah, they were all paid off.
 
Christophera said:
No. I derive nothing from any of those productions. All of my evidence is gained from raw images and common sense analysis of construction materials and their physical properties.
Click to expand...


So you haven't seen the Loose Change DVD? That is what you are saying, correct?

There is no such thing as common-sense analysis. There is only qualified analysis. Are you qualified to analyse construction materials and their physical properties?
 
WildCat said:
So you have no actual training in construction technology, structural engineering, etc?

Well, that certainly qualifies you as an expert in why the WTC buildings collapsed on that day...

Funny how no actual experts have problems w/ the NIST reports. Oh yeah, they were all paid off.
Click to expand...

You are guessing while not providing links to the sites or images of the basic tower structures that NIST says stood. Nor has a feasible explanation of free fall been linked to or offered.
 
tkingdoll said:
So you haven't seen the Loose Change DVD? That is what you are saying, correct?

There is no such thing as common-sense analysis. There is only qualified analysis. Are you qualified to analyse construction materials and their physical properties?
Click to expand...

Well, considering the "qualified analysts" have failed to explain the exceedingly fast fall rates, the credibility of what our society refers to as "qualified" is VERY much in question.

I've enjoyed providing you with a common sense analysis of what "qualifications" have become.
 
Christophera said:
Perhaps you are feigning confusion.

I've asked here that someone post a url to a site on the web that has a credible, realistic, feasible explanation for free fall or a site that uses raw images to support the structure that NIST says stood.
Click to expand...
I've linked the site that has all of the NIST publications to date. Those publications contain numerous detailed analysis by qualified structural engineers - experts in high-rise building construction. Lots of analysis of pictures taken from the moment the planes struck to the moment of collapse.

You seem uninterested in perusing that enormous wealth of data.

Therefore, my confusion is genuine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom