• 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.
Hasn't the attempt to find a single construction photo of the towers' supposed concrete core failed miserably? All of the construction photos I've seen depict a steel core. No concrete.
 
Is Saying You Are Blind Enough? How Do You Prove It?

cloudshipsrule said:
Hasn't the attempt to find a single construction photo of the towers' supposed concrete core failed miserably? All of the construction photos I've seen depict a steel core. No concrete.
Click to expand...

Ah! you believe that misinterpreted images of construction can triumph over the reasonably intrepreted images of the demolition. How disingenuine, you know very well there are many images of the concrete core
 
Christophera said:
Ah! you believe that misinterpreted images of construction can triumph over the reasonably intrepreted images of the demolition. How disingenuine, you know very well there are many images of the concrete core
Click to expand...

How 'bout showing us even one, then? Shots from 3 miles away across the river can hardly show anything, much less a "concrete core"
 
Mr. Brown:

Welcome back. I look forward to your answer to the following question, which I've asked you numerous times in this thread:

At what level (that is, between what stories) did each airplane strike each WTC tower?
 
Regnad Kcin said:
Mr. Brown:

Welcome back. I look forward to your answer to the following question, which I've asked you numerous times in this thread:

At what level (that is, between what stories) did each airplane strike each WTC tower?
Click to expand...

WTC 1 94th to 96th, WTC 2 74th to 78th.
 
Christophera said:
But lots of baking recipes.
Click to expand...
Just a way of showing disdain for someone with no substance who keeps repeating the same nonsense again and again.

Christophera said:
Whata' bunch of unaccountable, immaterial morons.
Click to expand...
What's unaccountable is your constant whining that anyone who doesn't agree with you is in league with terrorists and murderers. And what's immaterial is your argument. Nothing but speculation, conjecture, misdirection. And a poor performance it is, too.

Christophera said:
Here is how free fall was caused,
Click to expand...
What *is* it with you and that phrase? Do you even know what free fall is? And after your hiatus, I'll bet you won't answer the question posed at the beginning of the thread, "How fast did they fall?"

Same old tired, argument from a gullible, credulous attention seeker.

- Timothy
 
Christophera

I see you are back again.

Yet again, with reference to the image on your website. (see post 480)

1. Do you know the difference between a column and a beam? If so please explain

2. Do you know that 800 C is nowhere near hot enough to melt steel?

Dave

Edited for spelllinge
 
My first accidental double post. It deserved saying twice, so I'll let it stand.

Christophera,

You seem to forget which forums you've spammed with your babboonery. You were here already, Christophera. And just as I did on the ATS forum, I proved you wrong here.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1675546&postcount=592

Try to act like a man. You're childish behavior is unbecoming, even for a troll.
 
Last edited:
Gravy said:
My first accidental double post. It deserved saying twice, so I'll let it stand.

Christophera,

You seem to forget which forums you've spammed with your babboonery. You were here already, Christophera. And just as I did on the ATS forum, I proved you wrong here.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1675546&postcount=592

Try to act like a man. You're childish behavior is unbecoming, even for a troll.
Click to expand...

The images you've uploaded show nothing, mostly not even the twin towers. Your notion this core is dust, is absurd and already disproven when I posted this of the core lower. Then there is the
core wall at base and the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS, but never any steel core columns.

You forgot to argue for the core you assert existed. All you've done is argue against the core that actually stood, and not convincingly at all, even for a monkey
 
Christophera said:
The images you've uploaded show nothing, mostly not even the twin towers. Your notion this core is dust, is absurd and already disproven when I posted this of the core lower. Then there is the
core wall at base and the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS, but never any steel core columns.

You forgot to argue for the core you assert existed. All you've done is argue against the core that actually stood, and not convincingly at all, even for a monkey
Click to expand...
I'm sorry Christophera, but you are obviously trolling. If you were so stupid as to actually believe the WTC had a concrete core, and a pic taken from a mile away shows "3" rebar on 4' centers" (which wouldn't even make sense from a structural point of view) I doubt you'd be able to figure out how to even use a computer.

Though you could be an idiot savant, I suppose... :rolleyes:
 
Christophera said:
The images you've uploaded show nothing, mostly not even the twin towers. Your notion this core is dust, is absurd and already disproven when I posted this of the core lower. Then there is the
core wall at base and the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS, but never any steel core columns.

You forgot to argue for the core you assert existed. All you've done is argue against the core that actually stood, and not convincingly at all, even for a monkey
Click to expand...
Welcome back christophera. We've been asserting that there was a steel core. We've shown you pictures of the steel core during construction. We have therefore proved that the steel core existed. You've even shown us some pictures of the steel core too.

You are claiming there was a second core made of concrete inside the steel core. We cannot prove that this didn't exist because when we show you photos of its non-existence you make up excuses why it wasn't there at the time of the photo. If you think it existed, prove it. Otherwise we throw it in with all the other unproven, unfalsifiable entities, like aliens, bigfoot and ghosts...

Now on a completely unrelated matter can anyone tell me what the triangular shaped object is to the right of the collapsed tower in this picture? It looks like a severely damaged building, but I wasn't aware that any building was so badly damaged by the first collapse.
 
Supporting Lies, No More

Shrinker said:
Welcome back christophera. We've been asserting that there was a steel core. We've shown you pictures of the steel core during construction. We have therefore proved that the steel core existed. You've even shown us some pictures of the steel core too.
Click to expand...

Your construction photos show interior box columns not core columns. Interior box columns ring the concrete core walls. This is very clear when you see the core wall at the base and there are no columns to the right of the stairwell (right side) and none penetrate it, and what is the massive grey block right of the interior box column? That is the concrete core.

You have therefore proved that you support the lie that murderers hide behind and nothing else.
 
Shrinker said:
Now on a completely unrelated matter can anyone tell me what the triangular shaped object is to the right of the collapsed tower in this picture? It looks like a severely damaged building, but I wasn't aware that any building was so badly damaged by the first collapse.
Click to expand...
That's 1 Liberty Plaza, east of what was the south tower across Church St. It's partly obscured by the debris cloud. That cloud is deceptive: it looks translucent due to the strong side-and back light, but it's actually completely opaque.
 
Shrinker said:
Now on a completely unrelated matter can anyone tell me what the triangular shaped object is to the right of the collapsed tower in this picture? It looks like a severely damaged building, but I wasn't aware that any building was so badly damaged by the first collapse.
Click to expand...


it looks to me as if that is an undamaged building partially obscured by smoke. The smoke happens to be about the same color as the background sky, so it looks as if a piece of the building is missing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom