• 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.
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
Can you explain why you ignore every piece of evidence presented previously in this thread?
Click to expand...

Of course. The evidence is msirepresented and the demolition shows the concrete core very well from a number of angles. Also, I know for CERTAIN that the core was concrete while the images I link to never, ever show the steel core columns that were supposed to exist.

can you explain why the steel core columns never appear in the demo images?
 
Christophera said:
How about you produce an image of the steel core columns from the demolition to show they exist? I can show the rectangular, tubular, steel reinforced concrete core and that no steel columns ever appear in the core area. The inside dimensions of the core were 80 x 120 feet.
Click to expand...
No, you can't. There is no evidence of concrete in the image you posted. There are, however, thousands of photos of the steel core columns.

87904496cf2e77fcd.jpg

87904495b879af0d4.jpg


Tell me, Christophera, what is the recipe for invisible concrete?​
 
Your Turn! Provide Images Of DEMO Showing Steel Core Columns

Apollyon said:
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You made the claim, you provide proof to back it up.
Click to expand...

I have backed it up with redundant evidence, and none of it shows the steel core columns where they should show. I have proven my point and disproven yours.

Your turn.
 
Christophera said:
In the face of our 3000 dead Americans, you have silliness. Typical. Do you have a good explanation for near free fall yet (no pancakes on my plate please)?
Click to expand...

"Please convince me that your theory is wrong, but DON'T MENTION YOUR THEORY!!"

I have the only explanation on the web for rates of fall near that speed.
Click to expand...

Gravy and others have done a fine job of explaining to you that the towers did NOT FALL AT FREE FALL SPEEDS. I mean, LOOK:

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/wtc_collapse.jpg

How can the towers fall at free fall speeds if the debris falls faster ?

Christophera said:
Yes and yes. Do you know what rebar looks like?
Click to expand...

HAAHAHAHAH!! That's circular reasoning if I ever saw one. You're using this picture to show that there was rebar on the site... and when asked to show that you know what it looks like, you pose the SAME picture!!!

Pulverization is explain while the timing mimicked by those[...]
Click to expand...

Christophera said:
There were terrorists flying the planes, but that had nothing to do with the Twin Towers falling at near free fall, identically into a pile of SAND & GRAVEL and steel.
Click to expand...

Funny how we can see non-pulverised concrete in that picture, eh ?

The 1990 documentary explained that very well. Robertson had originally proposed a core of steel columns but Yamasaki discovered it simply flexed too much and so investigated concrete in varying forms. A reject design for a pre stressed concrete core was rejected because no one could build it. It still hangs around helping to expose the lie. The BBC core, by it's simple existence, shows the inconsistency of the information on the structural design of 2 of the worlds most prominant towers.
Click to expand...

Woah!! I mean if the BBC said so, it MUST be true...
 
Hey, in those pictures you can actually see through the building being built. How can that be possible if there was a solid concrete core?
 
Gravy said:
No, you can't. There is no evidence of concrete in the image you posted. There are, however, thousands of photos of the steel core columns.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehost/87904496cf2e77fcd.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehost/87904495b879af0d4.jpg[/qimg]

Tell me, Christophera, what is the recipe for invisible concrete?​
Click to expand...

The concrete was totally fractured instantly to fall as SAND & GRAVEL.

Those are interior box columns and images of them above ground are what you need to show. Something similar to what I show of the concrete core at 400 feet off the ground. Similar to this image of the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS which also happens to fully show the core area and ther are not steel columns.

Your tower silhouette image shows the tubular cast concrete core inside with its hallways letting light through.
 
Christophera said:
Of course. The evidence is msirepresented and the demolition shows the concrete core very well from a number of angles. Also, I know for CERTAIN that the core was concrete while the images I link to never, ever show the steel core columns that were supposed to exist.

can you explain why the steel core columns never appear in the demo images?
Click to expand...
Do you know what argumentum ad nauseum means, Christophera? It's the logical fallacy that arguing the same point over and over makes you right. It doesn't. Evidence does. You don't have any. We do. This is the "concrete core" that Christophera goes on about ad nauseum.

87904496d16e39a49.jpg
 
Christophera said:
Which pictures?

In this image you cannot see through the core and you cannot see any steel columns either.
Click to expand...

I am sick of seeing that ONE picture, the only shred of evidence you have, over and over and over again.

The picture is inconclusive. It is not good evidence. None of your evidence stands up to objective scrutiny. You can't see that because I am beginning to suspect you have, with all due respect, a few screws loose.
 
Regnad Kcin said:
Aside from your error that that WTC 1 was "hit hardest" (and the corresponding mistake that it was the more damaged) do you see the error in your logic regarding the sequence of the collapses, or do I have to point it out to you?
Click to expand...

Still waiting for your definition of my error Regnad Kcin.
 
Christophera said:
I didn't see spacings for 3 inch on that site. Very big and it was high tensile steel, very custom concrete. If it is not (note curvature of ALL the pieces) 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS what is it?
Click to expand...

You're systematically ignoring Gravy's posts on the matter.

Christophera said:
The concrete core is visible in a number of images, people just do not know what to look for. For instance the only thing this can be is concrete shear wall next to the spire which is shown again from another angel where box columns are silhouetted.
Click to expand...

Even assuming that you're right about the core, Chris, it still doesn't change anything about 9/11.
 
The Core Was Often 7 Stories Below The Top OF The Tower

Gravy said:
Come again?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehost/87904495b879cb1fb.jpg[/qimg]​
Click to expand...

Your image proves nothing. This image of the core proves that there was a concrete core because nothing else could survive and have that appearance. The image also proves there were not steel core columns.
 
Christophera said:
You had better leave the discussion after asking that lame question.
Click to expand...

Is it physically painful to be as stupid as you are? Seriously. Do you have a beeper to remind you to breath, because I'm not seeing enough brain function out of your posts to suggest that you even have an autonomic nervous system.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom