Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers?

[Christophera]

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

You haven't demonstrated sufficient mastery of this concept to be using it to draw conclusions.

You haven't demonstrated anything but an internet connection. If this is not true you will be able link to your web site demonstrating commen sense in analysis and explanation of this.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2951&stc=1&d=1157386298

 

[Christophera]

Christophera believes that acting in a stupid manner somehow mocks the skeptics on this board. However, it merely shows him to be a buffoon. His behavior is another example of CTs lying for the 'truth'.

If a pixel covers 3 feet and an object is 3 inches (12-to-1), the object isn't going to show up. Christophera, I'm shocked that you don't understand this basic rule that even a middle school student would be familiar with. Is your life so meaningless that you are driven to create fake letters, documentaries, and dictionary passages? Place the 3,000 victims ahead of your desire for self-esteem.

If an object is 3 inches and there are 100 of them in a line, viewed slightly off but basically along the line, then your entire premise proves that the image shows rebar. Thank you.

 

[MortFurd]

Common sense.

"Common sense" says the towers fell after being smashed and set on fire by crashing a couple of big airplanes into them.

The gibberish you come up with is completely non-sensical.

You have yet to show proof of your concrete core.
Explosives would not have retained their strength if placed when the towers were built.
Explosives could not have been placed after the towers were built due to the amount of work needed to place the charges. You can't just chuck 'em in a corner and hope for the best. Check on REAL controlled demolitions, and you will find that there is a preparation period of months, with professionals working all day every workday on the task.
As mentioned many times, the photos you point to couldn't possibly show 3" rebar. A 3" object would be pretty much invisible at the resolution of the photos you have shown.
As noted by more knowledgeable people, rebar isn't made in 3" diameter. It is possible that 3" rebar was special made for the WTC, but you have yet to show any proof of that.


If you need attention so badly, then why don't you just go streaking? That would be far less disgusting than spewing the garbage you have posted here and on your site.

 

[MortFurd]

If an object is 3 inches and there are 100 of them in a line, viewed slightly off but basically along the line, then your entire premise proves that the image shows rebar. Thank you.

It proves nothing of the sort.

That such a row of objects would be visible from the correct angle under the correct conditions is true, but has nothing to do with the statement made.

I'd give you a clue, but I seriously doubt you'd know what to do with it.

 

[MortFurd]

Not porous enough to allowed continued oxidation. It is a far better seal over long periods of time than cellophane.

I think we're all going to have to all kick in a few bucks and send Chrisophera to an engineering school.

Water seeps through concrete. Basements have to have special sealants used to keep out the water in places where the water table is too high. If water can get through, then air can seep through. Concrete SUCKS as a sealant.

Concrete is NOT air tight. It will not prevent oxidation. Go out and have a look at a piace of rebar taken out of a piece of concrete. It will be rusted.

One more little tip:
Have you ever seen concrete poured? I have. Pouring concrete would pretty much strip anything as soft as C4 right off of the rebar.

All of this ignoring, of course, that you've yet to prove that there was a concrete core - let alone a concrete core with explosive coated 3" rebar. Where'd the custom made 3" rebar (that can't be seen in your photos) come from?

This is what "social promotion" in school gets you.

 

[Gravy]

The rebar is lower and is obviously comprised of many fine elements compared to the heavy structural steel.

Then you retract your claim that it's visible in your photo, correct?

Again, for comparison:

 

[Gravy]

If an object is 3 inches and there are 100 of them in a line, viewed slightly off but basically along the line, then your entire premise proves that the image shows rebar.

So, you see a solid mass of...something. You claim that, although you can't see it, inside that...something there must be 3" rebar on 4' centers, hundreds of feet of which was somehow left standing when every bit of of the millions of pounds of concrete that encased it magically dissolved. Is that correct, Chris?

 

[CptColumbo]

Common sense.

COMMON SENSE!!??

Common sense, led you to ignore the building's design?

Common sense, led you to ignore the photographic evidence from before during and after the construction of the twin towers?

Common sense, led you to ignore the reports of the builders?

Common sense, led you to ignore eyewitness accounts of the building from before it was finished, after it was finished, and after it's collapse?

Common sense, led you to ignore the chemical properties of explosives?

Common sense, led you to ignore the logistics of what you propose?

Common sense, led you to ignore the laws of physics?

Common sense, led you to ignore to ignore the evidence provided to you here and at the other sites you have frequented?

Common sense, led you to ignore evidence that you confirm at first, than deniy when you discover it disproves your theory?

Christophera,
As you are unable and unwilling to engage in a honest discussion of the events of 9-11-01, I see no point to continuing this dialogue. I leave this thread with some observations of your behavior that have led me to compile this profile of you. Usually in my profession I do this face to face, but since I have no desire to meet you I must depend on your writings here and on other sites. There is no point in you answering it, as I doubt you could be honest with yourself let alone with us, and I will not be back to read it anyway.

1. You are a white male. The common race and sex of CTers, based on the conferences I have attended and seen coverage of.

2. You are between the ages of 18-25. You may be older, but this is based on your maturity level and your social skills. If you are older than this something happened in your past that stunted your emotional growth. Also, your use of the Internet as your sole source of research indicates that you are from a more recent generation.

3. You were raised primarily by one guardian. This is not to mean, your parents were divorced or one died, one or both could have been traveling and absent from the house. Your penchant for sensational statements has led me to believe this. Bids for attention. Also, your lack of social skills indicates to me that you didn't have many different people to interact with growing up.

4. You had either one or no siblings, if you had one he/she was older and most likely a female. For the reasons I stated above, it is likely you didn't have many people to interact with, and that wouldn't interact with you.

5. The lack of social skills also leads me to believe that you grew up either in the suburbs, or moved around often.

6. Your education might go beyond High School, but not by much. Your lack of vocabulary and knowledge of the classics, leads me to think that if you went beyond high school it was probably a technical college. Also, your dependence on the Internet for your research, rather than reference books and other sources (as well as the Internet) indicates to me that you haven't done much studying.

7. If you act with your friends the way you do on the Internet, you probably don't have many. You would most likely have one or two close friends, who have friends that include you in their circle. If you were to alienate yourself from the primary they all would reject you.

8. Your job is hard to place, but it is possibly in the service industry. You seem to keep random hours for some one with a white-collar job, and don't seem the type to sit still for industrial work.

Again, these are guesses based on your writings on the forums I have read. If you act very differently off-line I would be very surprised.

MEB-SG

PS if others here have anything further to add, feel free. PM me if you have any questions.

 

[Gravy]

One more little tip:
Have you ever seen concrete poured? I have. Pouring concrete would pretty much strip anything as soft as C4 right off of the rebar.

You're forgetting the sooper seekrit epoxy coating the Chris claims was over the C-4, epoxy that was made to withstand the weight of milliions of pounds of concrete pressing it into the squishy C-4. After all, we can't have all that rebar wiggling around inside the concrete, now, can we? If that happened, the concrete would immediately collapse under its own weight. The special epoxy prevented that.

Oh, wait a minute. If there was C-4 on the rebar, why is the rebar still standing, and how did the concrete dissolve around it? Chris will have to fill us in on that.

I think we're making progress. Slowly, but we're getting there.

 

[R.Mackey]

2. You are between the ages of 18-25. You may be older, but this is based on your maturity level and your social skills. If you are older than this something happened in your past that stunted your emotional growth. Also, your use of the Internet as your sole source of research indicates that you are from a more recent generation.

Pure speculation here, but I think your age estimate is low. He claims to have been "fighting" Sept. 11th since 1999. Admittedly his ability to distinguish past years is impaired (i.e. "watched a video in ... when was it again?"), but certainly he claims he started before 2001, thus a minimum of six years of his crusade against reality. I don't see a kid 11-19 years old diving into this nonsense. I would guess some kind of mental break, probably as a young adult, triggered all of this.

Seven years wasted, utterly wasted in hallucination, antagonism, and fear. The human tragedy is enough to make one weep.

 

[einsteen]

@Gravy

I did my homework, there are definitely two towers standing

Do you agree with that fact or do you disagree and think that there is one tower standing because someone cut and pasted an other image over the two towers at the debunking site.

Do I have to explain the pictures with aspect ratios, I'm sure Gravy that you are intelligent enough to see that there are two towers standing.

 

[Belz...]

But isn't that the classical pancaking that NIST also rejects now ?

Do you deny that the air had to go somewhere ?

I've seen hours of Steven E. Jones (I don't know what his reputation is but he is no crackpot or something like that and a respected scientist as fas as I know)

Guess again.

and he calculated about 4000kg that should be placed, 10 strong people can do that in 10 times.

Ridiculous. Hunstman made the calculation, too, and the resulting amount was ludicrously high. 4 tons to demolish a 110-storey building ? I'd like to see some calculations for that.

I cannot post URLs but there was a power-down also once, and what about damned wtc7 that is admitted to be a CD (this starts at the bottom of course)

With this I mean a domino-effect transfers it's energy with a limited speed, it can not be faster than a free-fall speed,

You might have missed the part where I said that free-fall isn't a speed.

to be more mathematical the group speed of the effect vg cannot be larger than a point mass you drop, i.e. vg(t) <= v_free(t). If the ploom is part of the effect this is violated.

The last time I saw really big things collapse, they usually do so in a very chaotic way. You claim to know how that should've happened ?

even if there is no structural resistance it will be delayed because of the laws of conservation of momentum and energy.

Before quoting the first law of thermodynamics to people here, you might want to actually calculate how much time it took for the whole thing to collapse.

If no explosives cause the ploom what then is the reason ? It's definitely no air, because it's gray *****. Therefore the effect is in fact faster than free fall.

It's faster than "free fall" because of its colour ? I don't get that part.

Correct me if I'm wrong but what they do is postulating a kind of collapse theory and claim it must behave in a way that is consistent with the empirical data, that's the other way around.

Well, theory HAS to agree with data.

Alright then. It carried the load for 30 years and 50 minutes...

A non-moving load. Let's build a diagram.

------------------------
|                      |
|                      |
|                      |
|                      |
|                      |
|                      |
|                      |
------------------------

Assuming all these dashes are external support columns, and I take out about 25% of them, and many of the rest are subjected to intense heat, do you think they can handle the same load they handled for the past 30 years ? Once ONE floor collapses, do you think the floors below are built to handle a moving mass of 32 floors ? I'd like an answer to both these questions, please.

 

[Belz...]

Is there any way to contact him and confirm his story ?

Not for you.

Well, that's very convenient. Unfortunately, for me it means your story is unvalidated, and therefore useless.

I'm not a theorist, I have facts about all of my assertions and because things are so screwed up, they need explanations so theory falls short of describing my explanations of possibilities.

It doesn't matter if you have facts or not, which you don't. The point is it's your theory, and it's about a conspiracy, making you a conspiracy theorist and your website about that conspiracy theory a CONSPIRACY THEORY SITE. Ergo, you lied.

 

[Belz...]

Correct no rebar shown there. But here there is rebar.

The concrete is the dust. The rebar would be behind the rectangles formed by the interior box colums and the floor beams.

So you DON'T see it, yourself ? And you've been claiming to see it all along in that other, far fuzzier picture you keep posting ? AND NOW you say it "would" be there ?

You are one dishonest debated, chris.

obsfucational

You're going to need to find a new pet word.

 

[kevin]

ETA: Damn! The diagram doesn't work. Imagine that's a square. Damn software.

put code markers around it and adjust the spaces for a true fixed spaced font, then I believe it will work:

------------------------
|                      |
|                      |
|                      |
|                      |
|                      |
|                      |
|                      |
------------------------

 

[Belz...]

I at least have an image of the concrete core.

Nope. You have an image of something you THINK is the concrete core. Boy, I wonder what you would've done if that plume of smoke didn't get caught on film.

No I didn't forget. You forgot my explanation. Or, dissociateed it

You're a psychologist, now ?

What is your basis for making this claim?

Common sense.

Common sense tells you the earth is flat, chris.

The rebar is lower and is obviously comprised of many fine elements compared to the heavy structural steel.

Chris, that's because the PICTURE IS SMALLER.

 

[kevin]

Oh, wait a minute. If there was C-4 on the rebar, why is the rebar still standing, and how did the concrete dissolve around it? Chris will have to fill us in on that.

This was no ordinary RDX, oh no, this was super-secret RDX that can only explode in one direction -- away from the rebar. Jeez are you dense?

 

[Belz...]

1. You are a white male

2. You are between the ages of 18-25.

3. You were raised primarily by one guardian

4. You had either one or no siblings, if you had one he/she was older and most likely a female. For the reasons I stated above, it is likely you didn't have many people to interact with, and that wouldn't interact with you.

5. The lack of social skills also leads me to believe that you grew up either in the suburbs, or moved around often.

6. Your education might go beyond High School, but not by much.

As usual, Columbo, I find broad generalisations insulting to the extreme. We don't know anything about this person, other than the poor logic skills he has. Please refrain from lumping him together with people that might belong to those categories as well.

 

[Belz...]

If an object is 3 inches and there are 100 of them in a line, viewed slightly off but basically along the line, then your entire premise proves that the image shows rebar.

Non sequitur, I do believe.

Not porous enough to allowed continued oxidation.

You've never actually SEEN rebar after a few years, have you ?

 

[Christophera]

Nope. You have an image of something you THINK is the concrete core. Boy, I wonder what you would've done if that plume of smoke didn't get caught on film.



You're a psychologist, now ?



Common sense tells you the earth is flat, chris.



Chris, that's because the PICTURE IS SMALLER.

So now the core is smoke. You need glasses.

I'm better than I psychologist, I use truth.

No, your damaged brain tells YOU it is flat.

Compare the height of the building to the left moron. The tallest rebar is at the corner of the core and hiding behind the spire.

It is clear from your post you have ZERO integrity.

Stop the personal attacks. Do not use name calling to argue your point.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson