• 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.
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.
Click to expand...

Maybe I can make things a little clearer.

I remember feeling that day that the whole thing was LIKE a Jerry Bruckheimer movie. It does not mean that I actually thought that I was in a Jerry Bruckheimer movie.

People use similes all the time to describe something. Does that make more sense now, christophera?
 
chipmunk stew said:
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?
Click to expand...

FEMA said this core stood.

http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/femacore.gif

The BBC still thinks that this core stood.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1540000/images/_1540044_world_trade_structure300.gif

but there is nowhere for the elevators inside the core. So typically we catch a liar because their story doesn't match.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Christophera said:
As if they could state it was a demo.
Click to expand...

English please.

it is fully adequate that they say it was like a demo.
Click to expand...

No, it is not. My tire on my bike blew out a few weeks ago, I said it sounded like someone threw a firecracker at me. No firecrackers were involved.

Tthe fact was is that it was a demolition like no other so they have good reason to be uncertain.
Click to expand...

What exactly is a 'demolition like not other'?
 
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...
No one knows what you're talking about here, Osama. I've got the main NIST report open on my destop right now. Which report? What page? What "tower structure?" You're using English words, but you're making no sense.
 
Abbyas said:
Maybe I can make things a little clearer.

I remember feeling that day that the whole thing was LIKE a Jerry Bruckheimer movie. It does not mean that I actually thought that I was in a Jerry Bruckheimer movie.

People use similes all the time to describe something. Does that make more sense now, christophera?
Click to expand...

No. That makes less sense because it looks like a high speed series of explosions.

.site1106.jpg
 
but there is nowhere for the elevators inside the core. So typically we catch a liar because their story doesn't match.
Click to expand...

Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but do we know that the elevators for the wtc went exactly up the middle?
 
Study these two pictures for a moment, then tell me if you really think that the first image shows a core still standing:

southcorestands.gif


skyline.jpg
 
Christophera; said:
Still much too fast and there is no way the concrete core is going to fall like that. No one here has provided a single image of the core NIST says stood.
Click to expand...

roger said:
Please post your math.
Click to expand...

The use of math is a waste of time (that is what you are trying to cause) and I've shown that the towers have a concrete core. I've even shown the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS but it seems as no one here has any structural knowledge and just believe everything they are told.

So much for the U.S. Constitution and the rights and freedoms our children might enjoy.
 
No. That makes less sense because it looks like a high speed series of explosions.
Click to expand...

We're talking about three different things here.

A. I know this has been said before, but explosions do not meen explosives. Anything from generators to cans of spray on deoderant explode.

B. We have a series of things bursting from other things. Like when you hit a brick together and dust flies out. Doesn't mean explosives.

C. Reminding someone of a demolition does not mean demolition. It may SEEM like a demolition. Like the sun may SEEM to be a sunflower on fire, but it is not a sunflower on fire.

Does that make things more clear?
 
OK folks, calm it down. Let's not use words like "liar" and "murderer". Discuss this like adults, please.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: tim
 
cloudshipsrule said:
Study these two pictures for a moment, then tell me if you really think that the first image shows a core still standing:

[qimg]http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif[/qimg]

[qimg]http://bratislava.usembassy.gov/gal091101/skyline.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

The first image shows a concrete core and no steel core columns where they should show. The second one shows dust.
 
Study these two pictures for a moment, then tell me if you really think that the first image shows a core still standing:
Click to expand...

Wait a minute. Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you suggesting that FEMA reported that the entire core stood after the fall?
 
The first image shows a building obscured by a dust cloud. The second image shows the same building from behind that you think is a core.
 
Christophera said:
The use of math is a waste of time (that is what you are trying to cause) and I've shown that the towers have a concrete core.
Click to expand...

So they had a core. So what?

I've even shown the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS but it seems as no one here has any structural knowledge and just believe everything they are told.
Click to expand...

What is your point? You still have yet to make a claim that has been supported. You are babbling like a crank and claiming victory when nobody understands you.


So much for the U.S. Constitution and the rights and freedoms our children might enjoy.
Click to expand...

Non sequitor.
 
Christophera said:
The use of math is a waste of time (that is what you are trying to cause)
Click to expand...
Correct. It is a waste of time.

Because the math shows that the collapse happened as we would predict.

So, yes, using math to prove your counter claim would be a waste, as it would not show what you claim.

But go on making claims without evidence.....
 
tim said:
OK folks, calm it down. Let's not use words like "liar" and "murderer". Discuss this like adults, please.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: tim
Click to expand...

Timmy, you've been acting like a child demanding the impossible for awhile now. Are you supporting the lie that murderers hide behind or not? Because you cetinaly have not addressed the issue behind free fall, the structure of the core.

There were murders. And there are lies and it is being proven right here that you folks cannot supprt the NIST info on the towers structure. Meaning you are suporting a lie that murderes depend on to get away with their deeds.

Our governemnt has been infiltrated.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom