• 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.
kookbreaker said:
Ummm, I think his evidence that it is is that he said it was.
Click to expand...
And that's his evidence for everything. 'Cause I said so' (not a direct quote). Can't be bothered to do the math, it's a waste of time, because he already said what the conclusion is. Easy peasy.
 
Here is a link to a series of photos showing the collapse of both towers. If you look at the second tower to fall and it's position relative it's surrounding buildings you can CLEARLY see that the part of the building still standing after the collapse is the EXTERIOR of the building. Not the central core. These photos are towards the bottom of the page.

http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/

I also take back what I previously posted about Christophera's image depicting a concrete core standing. I thought I was seeing a separate building through the dust, but the building I thought I was seeing is not visible in the series of photos posted above. Images 18 and 19 show the before and after of Christophera's image.
 
Timothy said:
Let's see how many things are wrong in three sentences.

1. Using a diminutive of my name as an infantile tactic to try to belittle me. What should I call you now? Chrisofullofit? Christophaker?

2. I don't want the impossible. I ask for your meaning of "too fast", and you do nothing but evade.

3. "The Towers fell too fast, but I can't tell you how fast because I can't interpret some graphics that were in a report and the report is lying anyway."

4. "By doing so he supports the lies that the real murderers hide behind." I think this sums up Christophera's credibility nicely.

5. Rights and freedoms? Well, unfortunately, you still have the right and freedom to insult, make baseless accusations, and carry on like a moron.

- Timothy
Click to expand...

Actually Tim, you are doing the childish thing just fine and you also are not providing any evidence whereas I've documented the core quite well. Even to the point where I show the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS as well as the concrete shear wall.
 
Last edited:
Christophera, are you saying this:

corewallspirearrows.gif


is part of the INTERIOR core?
 
Christophera said:
They are emergency personnel in NY, that is enough to accept that there is reasonable doubt that it was a collapse. Particuarly when 2 towers fell identically with very different damages.

Here is the site that explains free fall.

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

The fire fighters know it was a demo because collapses don't pulverize everything.

http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg
Click to expand...

Please cite where these professionals have prior experience with demolitions, or justify why their line of work qualifies them as to be able to recognize demolition.
 
cloudshipsrule said:
Here is a link to a series of photos showing the collapse of both towers. If you look at the second tower to fall and it's position relative it's surrounding buildings you can CLEARLY see that the part of the building still standing after the collapse is the EXTERIOR of the building. Not the central core. These photos are towards the bottom of the page.

http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/

I also take back what I previously posted about Christophera's image depicting a concrete core standing. I thought I was seeing a separate building through the dust, but the building I thought I was seeing is not visible in the series of photos posted above. Images 18 and 19 show the before and after of Christophera's image.
Click to expand...

Here is an overlay someone did that shows the exterior with the core outlined.

wtcov3g.jpg
 
Christophera said:
Actually Tim, you are doing the childish thing just fine and you also are not providing any evidence whereas I've documented the core quite well. Even to the point where I show the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERSas well as the concrete shear wall.
Click to expand...
Ghosts really do exist. I've documented it quite well: here you see a ghost orb, which clearly demonstrates that this house is haunted. Don't tell me it's just a speck of dust--you can see right through it. There's no other explanation.

Now I'll show you a sinking ship made of pine. I think I've documented it quite well. People who call it an iceberg support baby-eating devil-worshippers.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
Please cite where these professionals have prior experience with demolitions, or justify why their line of work qualifies them as to be able to recognize demolition.
Click to expand...

I cannot cite that but I have shown what they think they witnessed, a controlled demolition.

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

Please show where another steel building has collapsed.

Please show that the structure NIST depicts is correct by using raw images of the towers during the fall. I show that the NIST structure never appears.

southcorestands.gif
 
Christophera said:
I cannot cite that but I have shown what they think they witnessed, a controlled demolition.
Click to expand...

They said that it was like a controlled demolition. Stop being dishonest.

Please show where another steel building has collapsed.
Click to expand...

Please show where another building has had a fuel-laden jet hit it at top speed.

Please show that the structure NIST depicts is correct by using raw images of the towers during the fall. I show that the NIST structure never appears.
Click to expand...

Please show that what you have here is anything other than a smoke covered delusions of yours.
 
chipmunk stew said:
Ghosts really do exist. I've documented it quite well: here you see a ghost orb, which clearly demonstrates that this house is haunted. Don't tell me it's just a speck of dust--you can see right through it. There's no other explanation.

Now I'll show you a sinking ship made of pine. I think I've documented it quite well. People who call it an iceberg support baby-eating devil-worshippers.
Click to expand...

This appears as obfuscation. If you cannot support the tower structure NIST says existed, why not just say so.

I've shown that the core of the tower is concrete by default at the least, because you cannot show the steel core columns NIST calls for. They did not exist.

So are you trying to dimiss the information of the concrete core so that the NIST analysis is more credible?
 
Please show where another steel building has collapsed.
Click to expand...

Just as soon as you show me another skyscaper hit by a very large airplane at full speed.

Just because something didn't happen before doesn't mean it didn't happen. Especially when circumstances are so radically different from normal.

An example: say I have a bicycle. I push it off a cliff and the wheels fall off. My bike never had the wheels fall off before, but I had never pushed it off of a cliff before. Make sense why we can't rule it out because it never happened?
 
Christophera said:
This appears as obfuscation. If you cannot support the tower structure NIST says existed, why not just say so.
Click to expand...

Still, nobody knows what you are talking about.

I've shown that the core of the tower is concrete by default at the least, because you cannot show the steel core columns NIST calls for. They did not exist.
Click to expand...

No, you have not.

So are you trying to dimiss the information of the concrete core so that the NIST analysis is more credible?
Click to expand...

I am dismissing your claim that a smoke covered picture is proof of anything you claim.
 
Is this image

wtc1spirecorewall.jpg


the interior?

Because the same site calls it a corner spire when viewed from another angle.

wtccornerspireclose.gif


Which is it? Corner spire or interior core.
 
Please show that the structure NIST depicts is correct by using raw images of the towers during the fall. I show that the NIST structure never appears.
Click to expand...

See, the reason you won't see that is because we know that raw pictures aren't enough. They can be manipulated, and with all the dust, we can't say we are seeing an interior core. The NIST certainly didn't rely on raw pictures. Anyone studying the situation would be negligient to rely on raw pictures.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom