• 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.
I left this thread about 63 pages ago. In this whole time, Christophera has not budged a millimeter. He still posts one of the same very few pictures every third or fourth post, claiming in exactly the same language that it proves exactly the same thing he was claiming 63 pages ago.

He's the only person in the entire world who (we assume) believes what he's claiming, and he'll never stop professing his belief in it. He'll never make even the most minor adjustment to his arguments, except perhaps to augment them with more grossly misinterpreted images.

This thread is complete lunacy.
 
chipmunk stew said:
I left this thread about 63 pages ago. In this whole time, Christophera has not budged a millimeter. He still posts one of the same very few pictures every third or fourth post, claiming in exactly the same language that it proves exactly the same thing he was claiming 63 pages ago.

He's the only person in the entire world who (we assume) believes what he's claiming, and he'll never stop professing his belief in it. He'll never make even the most minor adjustment to his arguments, except perhaps to augment them with more grossly misinterpreted images.

This thread is complete lunacy.
Click to expand...

Yeah.

I look at it like one of those blow-up punching dummies, the kind that fall over and pop back up after you hit them? You never expect them to stay down, but it's still fun to whack on 'em every now and then. Besides, it's not like they can fight back...

:D
 
Christophera said:
-I will be publishing my theories on toilet paper and offering 100 roll boxes at discount to universities around the globe.
Click to expand...
So you admit you will not be presenting your evidence, such as it is, to anyone in an appropriate academic field or professional discipline. Interesting, but not surprising.

-Will you apologize for yours on me? Recall, I have evidence, you do not.
Click to expand...
You have made repeated, unprovoked, personal attacks on me. I have done nothing of the kind to you. If you believe that a discussion of your evidence, such as it is, is somehow a personal attack, I recommend a course in remedial English.

-Robertson? Heh, ......... I'll leave that to the reader and advise them that it was posted on April 1, 2006 here,

http://forum.physorg.com/Basic-Physics_3108-9400.html
Click to expand...
Instead of "leav[ing] that to the reader," why not withdraw it? You presented it here without comment (such as "April Fool's!"), suggesting you hoped it might bolster your evidence, such as it is. But as it is fraudulent, you are guilty of an attempt at misinformation.

A sure way to gain a bit of credibility is to correct mistakes. Since you will not -- with regard to the "Leslie E. Robertson" bit, nor any other of your entries -- it can deduced you are not interested in debate, but rather are choosing to spread as much misinformation as you can, hoping some of it will take root.

You remain a fascinating study, Mr. Brown. And one can only wonder as to your motives.

-I shall have to go find a few of your distortions and return.
Click to expand...
Good luck with that.
 
Last edited:
Peabody BUSTED Distorting + Non Accountability

Christophera said:
-I shall have to go find a few of your distortions and return.
Click to expand...


Regnad Kcin said:
You remain a fascinating study, Mr. Brown. And one can only wonder as to your motives.

Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

To be fair to flea bag, it must be said that most people do not know when they are distorting, it is a normal dysfunction of our ordinary discussion. The true criteria is WHY the person is distorting and is what matters. Peabody (despite what he says) distorts to obliterate a bonafied, feasible, realistic explanation for rates of fall near free fall and pulverization which was the event responsible for 3000 murders that was later, illegally NOT investigated with due process ignored.

When I use cognitive distortions I do it in the hope of seeing justice in those 3000 capitol crimes, preserving our Constitution, our republic, our freedoms and protecting all of our futures.

Here is the full exchange leading to peabodys distortions.

Beleth said:
Originally Posted by Beleth
...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...


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...

This was very easy to find.

Above Mr. Peabody provides a cognitive distortion with the word "entirely" promoting "all or nothing thinking" when rates of fall are very much in question. The end of the fall is not accurately known. The use of the term "speculative" is a distortion of "minimization". "Hot air" is labelling again. Then he goes on to apply "nonsense" as a method of labelling that promotes "over generalizations". Then with "I want to focus" he implies that he is entitled to more information than is provided here,

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1207667

And, Mr. Peabody was never able to find anything illogical with the assertion that the wrong tower fell first, or did not follow through with whatever he was thinking.

1. All or nothing thinking: Things are placed in black or white categories.

2. Over generalization: Single event is viewed as continuous.

4. Minimizing: Perceiving one or opposite experiences (positive or negative) as absolute and maintaining singularity of belief to one or the other.

10. Labeling: Instead of understanding errors over generalization is applied.

12. Entitlement: Believing that you deserve things you have not earned.


So what is illogical about the assertion that the fall sequence was backwards?
 
I'll compact the entire thread:

Wasn't free fall. The debris fell faster than the collapse.

The second tower struck fell first because it was struck much lower. The damaged portion of the building had to support more weight.

Addressed numerous times. Did you not see them?
 
Oh my, Christophera.

You have just utterly failed to present your case, and pretty well convicted your own reasoning.

He tried to get through the reason why the towers fell in the expected order. INstead of working with him to that, you refused to participate, spammed the thread with the same pictures instead of answering new questions, and then got yourself suspended.

Since you've been back, he's been trying to get you to pick up the discussion, which you have steadfastly refused to do.

You are clueless, Chris. Your pictures are not evidence (higher resolution photos of the same events show your interpretation to be faulty), you have no evidence of a concrete core that is not better and more easily explained by other means, and your entire argument consists of "is too!"
 
When I use cognitive distortions I do it in the hope of seeing justice in those 3000 capitol crimes, preserving our Constitution, our republic, our freedoms and protecting all of our futures.
Click to expand...

How noble of you to use your inability to reason to accuse innocent people.
 
Good catch, KingMerv.

Frankly, Christophera, when the people believe they need you to protect them, I'm sure they will let you know. Until then, you're overstepping your authority.

Frankly, I wouldn't trust you to empty my trash, much less anything important, especially since you've admitted a willingness to distort and decieve as long as it accomplishes your goals.
 
Chris, for the twelfth time:

Would you care to post your own diagram of the hallway configuration for all to see ? This would surely help me understand, as well as others, how this whole thing works.
 
Christophera said:
The true criteria is WHY the person is distorting and is what matters. Peabody (despite what he says) distorts to obliterate a bonafied, feasible, realistic explanation for rates of fall near free fall and pulverization which was the event responsible for 3000 murders that was later, illegally NOT investigated with due process ignored.
Click to expand...

That's many lies in one fell swoop, chris. Making it a hobby, I see.

When I use cognitive distortions I do it in the hope of seeing justice in those 3000 capitol crimes, preserving our Constitution, our republic, our freedoms and protecting all of our futures.
Click to expand...

Speaking of which: exactly when are those freedoms supposed to go ? It's been 5 years...
 
When I use cognitive distortions I do it in the hope of seeing justice in those 3000 capitol crimes, preserving our Constitution, our republic, our freedoms and protecting all of our futures.
Click to expand...


Chris:

Windmills! Windmills everywhere! CHAAAAAAAAARGE!!!!
 
KingMerv00 said:
I'll compact the entire thread:

Wasn't free fall. The debris fell faster than the collapse.

The second tower struck fell first because it was struck much lower. The damaged portion of the building had to support more weight.

Addressed numerous times. Did you not see them?
Click to expand...

OMG!!!!!. Garbage responses are always rejected.

This is choice. Let me rephrase it for KingMerv00. (We now know why the 00)

The falling fell faster than the falling. Or if that won't do, "The debris falling fell faster than the building that wasn't yet falling. Freakin' double speak = 00.


How lame, attempting to equate time to load. If there were 5 years difference in the falls, maybe.
 
Belz... said:
Speaking of which: exactly when are those freedoms supposed to go ? It's been 5 years...
Click to expand...

I guess this explains your perceptional problem as you do not actually do anything requiring a test of rights and freedoms, or reason and evidence and so assume everyone sees things the same as you do without reasoning or evidence.
 
The main portions of the towers fell at "Near" free fall speeds. NIST has addressed questions around this. The accelerated momentum of the top portion on each tower was powerful/extreme enough to overcome what little resistence would be offered by the structure below it. The steel of each floor was designed to hold a static load of the floors above, not a dynamic one.

As for why the 2nd hit tower fell first...yes it was that it was hit lower, but also it was hit more into a corner, causing assymetrical load changes on the area of impact in comparison to the load at the impact area for the 1st building.
 
Christophera said:
OMG!!!!!. Garbage responses are always rejected.
Click to expand...

Not always. We still talk to you.

This is choice. Let me rephrase it for KingMerv00. (We now know why the 00)

The falling fell faster than the falling. Or if that won't do, "The debris falling fell faster than the building that wasn't yet falling. Freakin' double speak = 00.

How lame, attempting to equate time to load. If there were 5 years difference in the falls, maybe.
Click to expand...

I was referring to the debris that was ejected during the collapse.

1) WTC starts to collapse. Debris ejected from the floors due to air pressure.

2) Debris hits the ground well before the collapse is complete.

Therefore the builiding did collapse at free fall speed.


I guess you don't object to the order of the WTC's collapse anymore since you didn't address it?
 
Last edited:
Christophera said:
I guess this explains your perceptional problem as you do not actually do anything requiring a test of rights and freedoms, or reason and evidence and so assume everyone sees things the same as you do without reasoning or evidence.
Click to expand...

What the hell does that mean? :confused:

I think Christophera has changed gear, from "insane" to "even-more-insane".
 
I think he is doing the who Bukakke thing....you know...with stupid.

I guess this explains your perceptional problem as you do not actually do anything requiring a test of rights and freedoms, or reason and evidence and so assume everyone sees things the same as you do without reasoning or evidence.

So what do you suggest we do to "test" rights and freedoms?
So what do you suggeste we do to "test" reason or evidence?
I assume noone thinks the way I do. I doubt KingMerv does either.
 
Teh crazee looms larger than teh stoopid tonight.

Unbelievable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom