• 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.
Your hypocrisy is showing
Christophera said:
It is a claim everybody recognizes because the rate of fall was so close to free fall.
Click to expand...
and
Christophera said:
Come up with some evidence to support your assertions.
Click to expand...
I'll try this in one syllable words:

[size=+10]HOW FAST DID THEY FALL?[/size]

I'm not even going to ask you to come up with evidence for your asserions. I'm just asking WHAT your assertions are!

Please provide the following information on which you base your assumptions:
- Time for Tower 1 to collapse (to a precision of 0.1 second) and estimate of accuracy
- Time for Tower 2 to collapse (to a precision of 0.1 second) and estimate of accuracy

This discussion is meaningless, pointless, gibbering nonsense without stating what it is that you're asserting.

- Timothy
 
pgwenthold said:
So we are back to the question you didn't answer last night.

How long SHOULD it have taken them to fall, and how did you obtain that result.
Click to expand...

Leave it to a supporter of the murderers of Americans to demand an exact answer which cannot be obtained.

You have no support for the towers NIST said stood. Meaning you are supporting a lie to protect the real murderers.
 
Christophera said:
Leave it to a supporter of the murderers of Americans to demand an exact answer which cannot be obtained.

You have no support for the towers NIST said stood. Meaning you are supporting a lie to protect the real murderers.
Click to expand...
What the hell are you talking about?

NIST says a core stood? How did they describe this core? Where did they say this? How do your pictures contradict it?

Why do you keep repeating the same things over and over again, instead of addressing people's responses to them? Why do you keep posting pictures that have no connection to what you are writing? Why do you keep writing things that contradict themselves?
 
Christophera said:
Timmy wants the impossible because all that is available is that the towers NIST says existed cannot be evidenced with raw information.

By doing so he supports the lies that the real murderers hide behind.

What about our rights and freedoms Timmy?

Here is how the towers fell so fast.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
Click to expand...
What the hell are you talking about?

NIST says a core stood? How did they describe this core? Where did they say this? How do your pictures contradict it?

Why do you keep repeating the same things over and over again, instead of addressing people's responses to them? Why do you keep posting pictures that have no connection to what you are writing? Why do you keep writing things that contradict themselves?
 
chipmunk stew said:
Why do you keep repeating the same things over and over again, instead of addressing people's responses to them? Why do you keep posting pictures that have no connection to what you are writing? Why do you keep writing things that contradict themselves?
Click to expand...

Free fall depends on the strcutural qualities of the towers. That is what I'm posting. An image of the concrete core.

If someone here could post raw evidence of the tower that NIST says stood it would bring great credence to your assertions that the towers did not fall at close to free fall rates, but you cannot post that evidence because it doesn't exist.

Here is the explanation for free fall I promised.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
 
Last edited:
Christophera said:
Free fall depends on the strcutural qualities of the towers. That is what I'm posting. An image of the concrete core.

If someone here could post raw evidence of the tower that NIST says stood it would bring great credence to your assertions that the towers did not fall at close to free fall rates, but you cannot post that evidence because it doesn't exist.

Here is the explanation for free fall I promised.

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

Geezz....You didn't bother reading ANY of the links provided by me or others, did you?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Christophera said:
Those emergency professionals have witnessed controlled demolition and know what high explosive detonations sound like.

http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg

Come up with some evidence to support your assertions.
Click to expand...

That statement of yours does not address Kookbreaker's point. The sound of an explosion won't tell you how fast a building is falling. Also, knowing what high exposives sound like does not tell anyone if they were used in the WTC. A building falling down is going to make a great deal of noise. If a controlled demolition had happened, the amount of exploisves used would probably not produce enough noise to be heard over all the background noises of the fire and all other forms of hell breaking loose.

There is a chance that you could feel the air press your clothing against your body during an explosion. But I would think having a skysraper collapse close by would also produce the same result.

There are several people on this board who do have experience with military explosives. I can tell you from first hand experience that not all explosions sound the same. Now try to give a real response to Kookbreaker rather than changing the subject.
 
Christophera said:
Free fall depends on the strcutural qualities of the towers. That is what I'm posting. An image of the concrete core.

If someone here could post raw evidence of the tower that NIST says stood it would bring great credence to your assertions that the towers did not fall at close to free fall rates, but you cannot post that evidence because it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...
What the hell are you talking about?

NIST says a core stood? How did they describe this core? Where did they say this? How do your pictures contradict it?
 
Mercutio said:
You do not know that they know what the other assorted explosions sound like (as mentioned, everything from fire extinguishers to soda cans, any sort of sealed containers), and whether they can distinguish between these other explosions and "high explosive detonations" amidst the background noise of thousands of panicked people and an out-of-control fire.
Click to expand...

http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg

Apparently the candid veracity of this discussion escapes you while you attempt unrelated comparisons.

The real idea here is to see if anyone can support the tower strcutures that NIST says existed. Seems no one can, nor can they understand that is what I'm trying to do.

They seem fixated on determinig the impossible, like the exact fall time. What they totally fail to see is that quite a bit of material went UP before it went down, so even if we could determine the grounding time exactly, the inacuracies caused by high explosives blowing materials up would render the seach for exact times a joke.
 
kookbreaker said:
No they do not. Furthermore, why they say it resembled a demolition, they did not say that it was.

http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg

Come up with something more substantial than comments by firefighters who do not support your claims.
Click to expand...

As if they could state it was a demo. it is fully adequate that they say it was like a demo. Tthe fact was is that it was a demolition like no other so they have good reason to be uncertain.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
 
Christophera said:
The real idea here is to see if anyone can support the tower strcutures that NIST says existed. Seems no one can, nor can they understand that is what I'm trying to do.
Click to expand...
What the hell are you talking about?

How did NIST describe this tower structure? Where did they say this? How do your pictures contradict it?
 
I'm going to put my Christophera Cloak on now for some fun.

Why can't you see? No way those Towers can fall at free fall. It's all there in the raw evidence. You've even posted pictures that show the core standing, so how can the Towers have fallen free fall if there was material standing? I am an engineer and I know these things. There's no way it could have happened. Look at the pictures. It's all there. FEMA and NIST are great and you show no evidence to the contrary. You can't even tell me how fast the Towers fell. They fell way slower than free fall and you provide no evidence. Everyone knows they fell way slower and yet you show no evidence. I say they fell slower, and yet you show me no raw evidence. Everybody recognizes the claim that the Towers were not destroyed by explosive charges, but it's easier for you to take the money and post that they were. Who are you working for? Who are you covering up the real story for? Did you take money to do it? That would have been the easy way, wouldn't it? Who put you up to providing this false information? The government? Everybody knows what happened, and yet you cover up the truth with this conspiracy. You can't even tell me how fast the Towers fell. Everybody knows they didn't fall at free fall, it's a fact, and everyone knows it. They fell way too slow. Show me the raw evidence to the contrary. Here's a bunch of irrelevant photos....

Boy, that felt good!

- Timothy
 
Last edited:
Christophera said:
Leave it to a supporter of the murderers of Americans to demand an exact answer which cannot be obtained.
Click to expand...

All I'm doing is trying to figure out what you mean when you claim they fell too fast. I don't need an exact answer. Plus or minus a second or two would be plenty, especially if you can explain how you got your number.

If you can't tell us how long it should have taken the buildings to fall, then how can you claim that they fell too fast?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom