• 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.
Christophera said:
Error:
No, never said the BBC, that is the bogus prestressed concrete core. PBS is who produced it and I do not expect anyone to find it from PBS,
Click to expand...

Bolding mine.

Could that perhaps be because you are making it up to support your irrational claims? You've already created false quotes from one of the buildings designers so it's not unreasonable to believe that this is also a false statement.

Or, will you claim that all copies of this and references to it to have been destroyed as part of a grand coverup?

I'm in favor of the first one.
 
ffs Christophera, why do you continue to make such a fool of yourself. You still arrogantly refuse to be corrected or even better correct yourself.

Jeebus.

Dont throw any stones at the glass windows while your there...
 
hellaeon said:
ffs Christophera, why do you continue to make such a fool of yourself. You still arrogantly refuse to be corrected or even better correct yourself.

Jeebus.

Dont throw any stones at the glass windows while your there...
Click to expand...

How can you correct that which you will not acknowledge? Either one, what you pretend to correct or, ..... what it is after you say you have corrected it.

PHONEY
 
Christophera said:
3000 dead. Evidence destroyed and my typo is an issue. Must be that reptilian thing.
Click to expand...

That wasn't a typo mate. You culpably misrepresented evidence. And you got caught.

Why should any of us waste any more time on you, if you just fabricate "facts" and hand-wave away cogent arguments?

Get help, and get it fast.
 
Christophera said:
Error:
No, never said the BBC, that is the bogus prestressed concrete core. PBS is who produced it and I do not expect anyone to find it from PBS,
Click to expand...

Actually you DID say BBC:

"In 1990 I saw the best documentation besides the construction plans. A very intimate video documentary produced by BBC called "The Construction Of the twin Towers". It was 2 hours in length and mostly about the concrete core because it was the most difficult aspect of the construction. "

ETA: "3000 dead. Evidence destroyed and my typo is an issue. Must be that reptilian thing."

TYPO ? Reptilian ? What the hell ?


Error and Distortion:
The DOC didn't describe building the towers with C4 coated rebar. It did describe a special plastic coating that turned out to be flammable.
Click to expand...

"The World Trade Center was designed poorly. See, here how the rebar is coated in a special plastic substance that happens to be flammable. Of course, we're not engineers, but ...woah! That wall just collapsed." :rolleyes:
 
Epoxy coatings of rebar was invented in the early 60's. Apparently it took 7 years to figure out it was flammable? And it was allowed in the building codes all that time without testing. Yeah, right.

And why would PBS know nothing about this documentary they created?
 
Belz... said:
Pardalis meant he's a separatist, Huntsman. In other words, an ANARCHIST !!! ;)
Click to expand...
They're on our side, too. Didn't you get the memo? I wrote it on the cardboard in the middle of your roll of duct tape (on the side beneath the tape, of course.)
 
Pardalis said:
It's called a spam, Einsteen. :rolleyes:

ETA: let's predict Einsteen will come back to us in a few hours with a conclusion taken out of his ass that will state something like there couldn't have been a plane hitting the Pentagon.
Click to expand...

Ok, spam..

plane + special absorbing wall = dust
plane + traditional non absorbing wall = hole + wreckage etc.

then plane + pentagon is a kind of combination of it, ok but that's no real science.. I think I wait for my conclusions after the release of the video, I just was thinking a little bit.
 
Belz... said:
No, it isn't, unless you start with your conclusion. From that point of view, anything is extremely unlikely. Ever studied statistics ?
Click to expand...
A reasonable amount. But of course I agree you cannot take real conclusions at this stage.
 
delphi_ote said:
Can we take it easy on einsteen and not be negative about things he hasn't even done yet? The guy has been willing to listen and learn. He's also been humble enough to admit some of his own mistakes, and we all know that isn't an easy thing to do. Maybe we're not all on the same page yet, but einstein seems to be trying to apply some critical thinking to his own ideas. Let's give him a chance.
Click to expand...
Thanks..
 
Christophera said:
3000 dead. Evidence destroyed and my typo is an issue. Must be that reptilian thing.
Click to expand...

Your typo?

You said you saw documentary produced by the BBC (or PBS) that supported your claim for a concrete core for the WTC, the central theme upon which this long, sordid thread is based. No such documentary exists. Therefore I'm calling it:

You are a liar.

On an internet forum, where credibility and veracity is basically all you have, being proved a liar excludes you from any further respect or response.

It's there for all to see, folks, illuminated by the evidence of his own words. Christophera is a proven liar.
 
Pardalis said:
How about:

lay person + disinformation = conspiracy belief
Click to expand...
I think einsteen is saying he understands the point that was made about why the crash in the video is different than a plane crashing into a building, and that maybe the Pentagon crash was a little in between the two. He said this wasn't exactly science, and in a sense I don't think it is. The idea that the re-enforced walls in the Pentagon would've done a lot of damage to the plane is definitely a logical argument, but I could see where you might hold off on some proof somewhere along the line if you were being conservative.
I think I wait for my conclusions after the release of the video
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what video he's waiting for, though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom