• 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:
35 years.
Click to expand...
Okay, so let's see if I got this straight.

There was a central concrete core.

The rebar in it was coated in C4 when it was built.

The C4 was detonated on 9/11, and planes were flown into the WTC to provide an excuse for the destruction.

So far so good?

Assuming it is, the plan must have been:
1) Crash planes into towers, let fire burn for a few minutes
2) Detonate C4, destroying the concrete core
3) Towers fall due to concrete core collapse.

And yet, there's that picture you posted, of a concrete core which had not collapsed until after the tower fell.

So I'm wondering how you resolve that discrepancy.
 
Pardalis said:
2001-1969= 32 years
Click to expand...

Ah, but not in Christophera's universe, where anything is possible. For example, a giant skyscraper gets built, but in a way that it can be easily demolished (you know, just in case we need a handy excuse for starting a war someday) and no one mentions it through what, 6 changes of administration and countless government turnover? Shucks, Carter could have blown up the WTC and blamed it on Iran, who was giving him fits with the hostages and all. And Reagan, he must have been very tempted to use WTC to nuke the Russians and start WW3 like everyone knew he wanted. And George the First could have availed himself of the "WTC option" to get rid of Saddam during Desert Storm. And Clinton, well he really wasn't all that mad at anyone at the time, but it would have made a hell of a diversion from Kneepads Lewinsky and the whole impeachment thing.

You see, in Christophera's universe, all this is entirely possible. So what's three years in the great scheme of things? Traditional math doesn't apply -- neither does traditional sanity.
 
[devil's advocate]
Saying that the buildings were built to collapse is nuts, is an argument to incredulity and not good critical thinking.
[/devil's advocate]

That said, it most definitely qualifies as an Extraordinary Claim and most certainly require Extraordinary Evidence.
 
Stellafane said:
And Clinton, well he really wasn't all that mad at anyone at the time, but it would have made a hell of a diversion from Kneepads Lewinsky and the whole impeachment thing.
Click to expand...

Yeah but would he have risked yet another phallic symbolism?

edited for english
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
[devil's advocate]
Saying that the buildings were built to collapse is nuts, is an argument to incredulity and not good critical thinking.
[/devil's advocate]
Click to expand...

I don't agree at all. Christophera's statement is in my opinion staggeringly ridiculous, stupid, and insane. Saying as much is simply pointing out the elephant in the room (or the 800 pound gorilla if you prefer). I see nothing at all faulty in doing so, nor is it indicative of poor critical thinking.
 
Stellafane said:
I don't agree at all. Christophera's statement is in my opinion staggeringly ridiculous, stupid, and insane. Saying as much is simply pointing out the elephant in the room (or the 800 pound gorilla if you prefer). I see nothing at all faulty in doing so, nor is it indicative of poor critical thinking.
Click to expand...

He is the devil's advocate...;)
 
Given others have uploaded pictures, here's is what I look for when I see a troll or someone that is self-deluded:
572144775e7c3744e.jpeg


and

572144775e8a59165.jpeg




Not much time to do any research.
 
Last edited:
Christophera said:
It should be simple to support the towers that NIST states existed, but no one has provided one single image showing the steel core columns in the center of the core.
Click to expand...

Well, no one but Chipmunk Stew, who showed the core as it was being built in post #233. So, did you just lie or was this another manifestation of your delusion?
 
Christophera-
Do you deny that the buildings were on fire?
Do you deny that fire is hot?
Do you deny that steel becomes softer as temperature is increased?
Do you deny that when an intermediate floor's support structure fails that all floors above it must fall?
Do you deny that falling floors made of concrete are heavy?
Do you deny that heavy falling objects transfer energy to objects and structures below them?
There are rational explanations why a building which had been on fire for quite a while would fall down. This is true no matter what you build them of.
Why look for conspiracies until you have some sort of evidence for conspiracy? What's the method? Motive? Evidence?
You see, you've got it quite backwards- it is not the job of the skeptic to prove that the rational and logical explanation is what truly happened, since what we claim is fairly likely and in line with physics.
What has to happen is that those who purport to have inside information of some incredible event prove or at least conclusively demonstrate that such an event truly occurred the way they claim.
Fire is hot. Water is wet. Hot things eventually melt if they get hot enough. But long before they melt they lose their rigidity and strength. They turn "plastic" at MUCH lower temperatures than the burning temperature of jet fuel, furniture and carpeting in an enclosed space.
I hate to break it to ya, but marching in here and proclaiming that something extraordinary is true without backing yourself up with anything at all which can be verified under the scientific method is not going to win over anyone.
You have to have the facts and evidence to back it up.
And no, I do not work for the CIA. Let's get that out of the way.
 
Okay, Just to see if I have this clear.

The problem is that the picture here:

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

From his site, Of fema's version of the core of the WTC (simplified)
was changed from this picture:

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

(Link also found on his site)


And both show something different than this diagram:

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corehallsdoors.gif

(again, his site).



And the problem is that the Live pics that were shown, show his pictures design, and not fema's? Is that what this is all about?

Trifikas.

ETA: Hmm...thought I figured out how to get the pictures to show instead of links. guess not...
 
Last edited:
Trifikas said:
Okay, Just to see if I have this clear.

The problem is that the picture here:

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

From his site, Of fema's version of the core of the WTC (simplified)
was changed from this picture:

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

(Link also found on his site)

And both show something different than this diagram:

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corehallsdoors.gif

(again, his site).

And the problem is that the Live pics that were shown, show his pictures design, and not fema's? Is that what this is all about?
Click to expand...
I think it's about something much simpler.

It's about Christophera trying to PROOV an idea he woke up with one night that he can't let go of.
 
Huntsman said:
Just to point this out for those who might still be waiting at the depot instead of riding the straight-jacket express....


C-4 does have a shelf life. It doesn't stay good forever. After several decades of being encased in concrete (and without an obvious detonation method..unless you claim radio, but let's not go there) I doubt even half would still go off.
Click to expand...

If you would read, you would learn that in the manufacturers package the shelf life is 10 years.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1154643

The manufacturere doesn't say how long it will last encapsulated in a couple of feet of concrete.
 
chipmunk stew said:
I think it's about something much simpler.

It's about Christophera trying to PROOV an idea he woke up with one night that he can't let go of.
Click to expand...

How about someone from this forum PROOV that the NIST strcuture actually existed by finding some pieces of it as it is falling in the demolition photos.
 
Manny said:
You're making that up. In additon to the stuff other people have posted, there is no 3" rebar (or more properly, there wasn't when the towers were going up. Now it's all metric, of course, and there's no ~7.6 cm rebar).
Click to expand...

Okay, I'm making it up that you can see through 3 inch rebar on 4 foot centers. Then, ....why can you see through so easy?

spire_dust-3.jpg


Yes, lots have people have said "NO" to lots of stuff but really have produced ZERO proof of anything. The above is prrof there was some big, super strong rebar in the concrete shear walls of the core.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom