• 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.
chipmunk stew said:
I don't have the recipe, but I just had the most delicious strawberry rhubarb tart I've ever tasted for dessert tonight.
Click to expand...
o/~ There's one thing
Can revive a guy
And that is a piece of
Rhubarb pie.

Serve it up
Nice and hot.
Maybe things aren't as
Bad as you thot. o/~
-- Garrison Keillor and the Guy's Shoe Band, on A Prairie Home Companion

(This musical theme is played at the end of a weekly segment, after a longish story the details of which vary but in which the protagonist's luck gets worse by the minute [much like certain threads {how 'bout that?}]; the claim is that no matter how numerous and severe the tribulations, rhubarb pie is a sovereign remedy. I don't care for the stuff so can't vouch for that.)
 
chipmunk stew said:
I don't have the recipe, but I just had the most delicious strawberry rhubarb tart I've ever tasted for dessert tonight.
Click to expand...
As a pie person above all else, I am compelled to request that you find out the recipe. Ask your host, or the restaurant, or take somebody hostage, but dammit, we are talking pie here...(seriously, if you find it, PM me...)
 
I'm Henry the eighth I am
Henry the eighth I am, I am
I got married to the widow next door
She's been married seven times before
And every one was an Henry (Henry)
She wouldn't have a Willy or a Sam (no Sam)
I'm her eighth old man, I'm Henry
Henry the eighth I am
Second verse same as the first
I'm Henry the eighth I am
Henry the eighth I am, I am
I got married to the widow next door
She's been married seven times before
And every one was an Henry (Henry)
She wouldn't have a Willy or a Sam (no Sam)
I'm her eighth old man, I'm Henry
Henry the eighth I am

I'm Henry the eighth I am
Henry the eighth I am, I am
I got married to the widow next door
She's been married seven times before
And every one was an Henry (Henry)
She wouldn't have a Willy or a Sam (no Sam)
I'm her eighth old man, I'm Henry
Henry the eighth I am
H-E-N-R-Y
Henry (Henry)
Henry (Henry)
Henry the eighth I am, I am
Henry the eighth I am
Yeah!

-Herman's Hermits
 
Beleth said:
...1) The rate equaling that of free fall, inconsistent sequence, direction....has been thoroughtly debunked...
Click to expand...
Christophera said:
While ignoring exactly how the towers were designed. They do not explain free fall to the ground of the entire structure. They do not explain how this happened twice and why the impact/fall sequence is backwards, Why the wrong tower fell first if it was a collapse. They don't explain why the tops of the towers fell the wrong directions according top the sides damaged.
Click to expand...
Never mind your continued use of the entirely debunked "free fall" nonsense, as well as other speculative hot air, I want to focus on this portion of your assertion:

"...the imact/fall sequence is backwards..."

I know why you're wrong. I want you to tell me why you think you're correct.
 
Last edited:
Regnad Kcin said:
Never mind your continued use of the entirely debunked "free fall" nonsense, as well as other speculative hot air, I want to focus on this portion of your assertion:

"...the imact/fall sequence is backwards..."

I know why you're wrong. I want you to tell me why you think you're correct.
Click to expand...


Ooh! Ooh! I know! I know! The buildings should have fallen first, which would mean that the planes wouldn't have struck them, so Christophera weighs the same as a duck, and is therefore a witch!

Sorry ND, I'll stop derailing now. :boxedin:
 
e65cre2.jpg



Well then explain this!
 
Christophera said:
I'm still waiting for someone to post a raw image of the steel core columns that FEMA says existed.

Got Core?

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

Only concrete here.
Click to expand...


I think the problem is you're showing this picture of a shadowy, dust-obscured shape in this picture, and everyone is wondering how you can tell whether it's Concrete, Concrete reinforced by steel, or a building behind partially obscured by smoke.

If you could explain how we could tell, it would probably go a long way to more understanding of your claim.
 
Christophera : said:
There are bigger problems that have to dealt with first. We are afraid of our unconscious existence. They operate there.
Click to expand...

Tricky said:
What? You aren't interested in finding and punishing these people? You want to leave them free to do it again? That is of primary importance.

So again I ask, how many (roughly) knew about this beforehand? Who (in general) were they? Politicians? Engineers? Airline executives? Media outlets?
Click to expand...

How did you ever get the idea that we would allow them to do it again?

Apparently you didn't understand what I said which is not surprising. Anyhow, if you ignore what I've said, no matter who you lock up, it WILL happen again.

I ain't talkin' about "who", until "how" is covered.
 
Got Experience?

Trifikas said:
I think the problem is you're showing this picture of a shadowy, dust-obscured shape in this picture, and everyone is wondering how you can tell whether it's Concrete, Concrete reinforced by steel, or a building behind partially obscured by smoke.

If you could explain how we could tell, it would probably go a long way to more understanding of your claim.
Click to expand...

I have experience with these materials. I know what they look like under given conditions of failure. When they fail, how. It is not rocket science. A core made of multiple steel columns would never have this appearance.

southcorestands.gif
 
Bogus Q.

Mercutio said:
When have you seen them? Please, I am very serious. You are, once again, comparing a claim of something seen to an assumption of something seen.

Trained professionals with experience may or may not be able to distinguish controlled demolitions from other explosions. That is precisely my question, and precisely the thing you are trying to gloss over. The evidence is not on your side on this question, but it does remain an empirical question. Can you cite even one source in which these trained professionals have been tested on this question? (I did a thorough EBSCOHOST search and did not find one, but you may have other sources.)

Your photo is, of course, utterly irrelevant to this question.

Once again, your actions are completely consistent with changing the subject when someone asks you a question you cannot answer.
Click to expand...

No bogus questions until someone here finds away to support the NIST structure with raw images.
 
Meffy said:
Christophera, you have it backwards. YOU have made extraordinary claims. YOU must supply the argument, the evidence, the proof. Not anyone else. You.
Click to expand...

So you have been made to think that huh?

NIST is the one that has made outrageous claims. To think what we saw was a collapse is inane and utterly unacceptable. You believe them and I can show the structure they use for analysis is wrong. The core was concrete.

http://concretecore.com

Your turn to come up with evidence supporting the tower core you think stood. That is the place to start.
 
Timothy said:
You evade and evade and evade. I make no claim. I ask you for a simple answer. And you evade and evade.
Click to expand...

Your disinfo secret murder supporting buddies got this place so trashed with the spam, I have not even seen your question Timmy.
 
Kiwiwriter said:
...that is what he said. :boggled:

Which does not explain how the 1993 bombing fits in to this scenario. And that was extremely real and not planned by any conspiracy. It killed six people, including a woman who was seven months pregnant.

If my pal Mike Sheridan, who was the operations manager of the World Trade Center, was alive -- he died of cancer earlier this year -- he'd laugh. Then he'd cry. Then he'd punch you in the nose.

The World Trade Center was not a controlled demolition.

But it's a good story.
Click to expand...

You should read my page, it does explain how the 1993 bombing fits into 9-11.

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

The remodel in the basement is when the thermite was applied to the columns. The trial of the bobmber brought out the fact the FBI knew and actually set the bomber up to use real explosives. The original plan was to park the van next to the core, but the FBI told them to move it. Had they not done that the entri tower could have popped at once. Seriously. They saved it to install delays and make it appear as a collapse and get more out of the event. Your government has been infitrated. Stop helping the infiltrators with their secret.

Consider this. If I talk about our rights and freedoms, do you think I'm faking it so that patriotic people will be fooled into believeing what I say? Notice that of all those here saying "no" (without evidence) have no web site where they document their beliefs with evidence. Notice my site, algoxy.com is about the environment. About how an oxygen additive caused southern California coastal creeks to lose their total dissolved oxygen. All the frogs, birds and animals took off. Notice all those people saying "no" stand for nothing. Yes, nothing except for a basket of fear that says, "ridicule what you don't understand" and a littel voice that tells them, "You already know the truth, don't listen to anyone."

Your friend Mike would be amazed at what I know about the towers construction and look at images of the demolition and he would would know it was true. The towers were way too strong to even topple at the impact point from what happened. The degree of confusion Americans feel is immense on this issue, it is understandable. The natural thing for Americans to do is what has happened, they were led into it. They have been manipulated and decieved and not just about 9-11.
 
Last edited:
Christophera said:
I have experience with these materials. I know what they look like under given conditions of failure. When they fail, how. It is not rocket science. A core made of multiple steel columns would never have this appearance.

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

Okay, but you aren't the only one with experience with those materials, how they were constructed into WTC, and knows what happens to them when they fail. Heck, the person who used those Materials to actually BUILD the world trade center does not share your misgivings about the NIST Report.

Dr. Thomas Eagar, A professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Doesn't believe explosives were used for the buildings to fall as they did:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html


Plus, as you stated on your web site, it's Concrete Reinfoced by steel. It's reasonable to believe the a structure standing temporarily during the collapse would behave like concrete instead of steel, giving the shape you claim is only concrete.


So it's a question now of which experts to believe. And the only way to determine that is Corroborating evidence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom