• 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,
Obviously this is up to the individual, but I've received two warnings from people I don't know about your posting habits and image spamming. I'm not a mod, just thought these warnings were highly unusual and wanted to let everyone know. Carry on. Or don't.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
Please provide scientific, third-party verifiable, evidence of what the buildings' rate of collapse was, how this compares to freefall, and why the buildings' rate of collapse is suspicious; or shut up.
Click to expand...

Clearly when the base of the towers cannot be seen determining the exact rate of fall is not possible. I'm satisfied that 20 seconds gets all the debris on the ground.
 
Sorry? It looks like a picture after it already fell. Is the building in the foreground supposed to be the WTC2?
 
Christophera said:
Sorry, no time for another video of the towers. I'm fully satisfied as the visibility is not good enough to apply an accurate time. The fall was way too fast and it went to far down to be a collapse under any definition.
Click to expand...



You have just admitted that you are not here for any type of honest discussion or reasoned discourse.

Troll elsewhere.
 
Christophera said:
Clearly when the base of the towers cannot be seen determining the exact rate of fall is not possible. I'm satisfied that 20 seconds gets all the debris on the ground.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, science does not work by taking feel-good guesses and running with them. If you can not determine the rate at which the buildings fell, then you can not make the claim that they fell at, or near, free fall speed.
 
Orb said:
Sorry? It looks like a picture after it already fell. Is the building in the foreground supposed to be the WTC2?
Click to expand...

Thanks fellas,

I appreciate your efforts to make a point using no evidence to not propose a feasible explanation for a rate of fall impossible for collapse.

Gotta' explain that rate of fall. Gotta' explain free fall to the ground of the entire structure. Gotta' explain how this happened twice and why the impact/fall sequence is backwards/ The wrong tower fell first if itwas a collapse.

Gotta' explain why the tops of the towers fell the wrong directions according top the sides damaged.

Gotta' get a mercedes alternator adapted to my old 250 amp hobart welder.

Try and find some raw images from the fall of the structure that NIST says stood and spam this thread hard with it okay guys? I'll be back.
 
Christophera said:
NIST uses the wrong basic structure and no raw images of the collapse to support the structure they describe.

Here is a page that uses only raw images and links to engineering sites to show the towers as they really stood.

http://concretecore.741.com/
Click to expand...
There was no load-bearing concrete core to WTC 1 or 2. Vertical support was entirely done by steel columns.
 
Christophera said:
Gotta' explain that rate of fall.
Click to expand...
Show what the rate was, then worry about why.

Gotta' explain free fall to the ground of the entire structure. Gotta' explain how this happened twice and why the impact/fall sequence is backwards/ The wrong tower fell first if itwas a collapse.
Click to expand...
Mu. Gambler's fallacy of sorts. The are independent instances. Each tower is under its owner conditions. Just because the broad catalyst (a plane flying in to them) was the same does not mean that every other element was also identical.

Gotta' explain why the tops of the towers fell the wrong directions according top the sides damaged.
Click to expand...
No, explain why they fell in the direction they did. You are assigning a qualitative judgement to a quatitative event.

Try and find some raw images from the fall of the structure that NIST says stood and spam this thread hard with it okay guys? I'll be back.
Click to expand...
Static images, as evidence, are of limited value and they are _BY NO MEANS THE ONLY EVIDENCE_ available.
 
This guy (and others?) cling to "free-fall" like Xians cling to Jesus! It really does have characteristics of a religious cult.
 
Christophera said:
SAND & GRAVEL[/url]
Click to expand...

I'd guess we'd expect quite a bit of pulverization due to the forces at work here, but why would you choose the phrase "total pulverization"? Seems like an embellishment to me. Are you sure you know what total means? How does this picture prove "total pulverization"? Ignore me anyway, you have enough people to refer to about raw pictures, and I'd defer to some of them anyway on the subject of pulverization since I am no expert on what level of pulverization is correct for this situation. Also, pulverization isn't really a cogent argument for your point, whatever that would be, I'd think you'd be trying to prove the structure was what you say it was...and that FEMA lied.



eta:grammar
 
Christophera said:
Thanks fellas,

I appreciate your efforts to make a point using no evidence to not propose a feasible explanation for a rate of fall impossible for collapse.

Gotta' explain that rate of fall. Gotta' explain free fall to the ground of the entire structure. Gotta' explain how this happened twice and why the impact/fall sequence is backwards/ The wrong tower fell first if itwas a collapse.

Gotta' explain why the tops of the towers fell the wrong directions according top the sides damaged.

Gotta' get a mercedes alternator adapted to my old 250 amp hobart welder.

Try and find some raw images from the fall of the structure that NIST says stood and spam this thread hard with it okay guys? I'll be back.
Click to expand...

Gotta Getta Gund
 
Christophera said:
Thanks fellas,

I appreciate your efforts to make a point using no evidence to not propose a feasible explanation for a rate of fall impossible for collapse.

Gotta' explain that rate of fall. Gotta' explain free fall to the ground of the entire structure. Gotta' explain how this happened twice and why the impact/fall sequence is backwards/ The wrong tower fell first if itwas a collapse.

Gotta' explain why the tops of the towers fell the wrong directions according top the sides damaged.

Gotta' get a mercedes alternator adapted to my old 250 amp hobart welder.

Try and find some raw images from the fall of the structure that NIST says stood and spam this thread hard with it okay guys? I'll be back.
Click to expand...


You're telling us that you're going to spam this thread?

You are making the claims about what happened that day. It is your responsibility to provide evidence that it happened the way you say. Everything you have posted has been refuted. Then you say you don't have time to watch a video we reccommend to you, tacitly admitting you are here to troll and nothing else.

If you spam this board you will be subject to moderator action. I am not one of those moderators, but they don't appreciate people needlessly spamming this forum.

now, if you would like, perhaps you could calm down a bit, breathe normally and post one coherent post with supporting evidence to discuss.

Don't spam, don't ignore people offering counterevidence, and don't evade direct questions as you have done so with tkingdoll.

Try to be at least somewhat intellectually honest, unlike the rest of your CT brethren.
 
fowlsound said:
You're telling us that you're going to spam this thread?

You are making the claims about what happened that day. It is your responsibility to provide evidence that it happened the way you say. Everything you have posted has been refuted. Then you say you don't have time to watch a video we reccommend to you, tacitly admitting you are here to troll and nothing else.

If you spam this board you will be subject to moderator action. I am not one of those moderators, but they don't appreciate people needlessly spamming this forum..
Click to expand...

I recommend against moderator action.

Just ignore the clown, unless he has anything useful to contribute (I'm not holding my breath).

Actually, considering the contradictory "it was free fall" and "we can't determine how long it took to fall" statements, he has some work to do to regain any semblence of ... coherency.
 
pgwenthold said:
I recommend against moderator action.

Just ignore the clown, unless he has anything useful to contribute (I'm not holding my breath).

Actually, considering the contradictory "it was free fall" and "we can't determine how long it took to fall" statements, he has some work to do to regain any semblence of ... coherency.
Click to expand...


I didn't say *I* was going to subject him to moderator action (notice I admit I am not a moderator and can't specifically speak to their actions) but if he spams, someone eventually will report it and there will be action.

I was hoping that he would read the part about intellectual honesty and change his behavior.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom