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

Status
Not open for further replies.
William Rea said:
I didn't realise I was entering a closed shop where we were all time served apprentices not able to speak until we have done our time. I thought it was an open forum however, If the forum owner doesn't want me here expanding the membership of the forum and eliciting further posts I will happily leave. It seems that already I have generated some traffic from the hostile time servers on the forum.
Click to expand...

A simple perusal of the other posts on this board should assuage your fears; the only way, other than of course breaking the forum rules, to loose respect on this forum is to repeatedly claim things without legitimate evidence.
 
William Rea said:
I was simply making it clear that his post was not welcome and he/she would not elicit a flamed response from me either now or in the future. Quite simple protocol which I didn't realise meant that I should be anything other than firm, would flowery language have made the offence I seem to have caused any less?

Seems like everyone is an amateur moderator on here just itching to intervene.

I didn't realise I was entering a closed shop where we were all time served apprentices not able to speak until we have done our time. I thought it was an open forum however, If the forum owner doesn't want me here expanding the membership of the forum and eliciting further posts I will happily leave. It seems that already I have generated some traffic from the hostile time servers on the forum.
Click to expand...

"I didn't realise I was entering a closed shop where we were all time served apprentices not able to speak until we have done our time. I thought it was an open forum however," and then you have the gall to complain when other people reply to your posts in a manner for which you don't care? :boggle: Anyone abiding by the stated rules is welcome here; viewpoints regardless. That said, don't expect to be welcomed by everyone in the same way because the open policy applies to all sides and all points of view.
 
For those looking for the best shots of the spire during the collapse, I would recommend A&E Trapped in the Towers: The Elevators of 9/11.
 
You know, at this point even a brick wall would have given up.

You really have to admire the sheer tenacity of sticking with such a laughable lost cause.
 
I have to hand it to Chris; sticking with C4 coated rebar (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html) when he can't actually prove that such a material exists. :covereyes

Here's my theory; they screwed up the order and got chocolate coated rebar instead; the heat of the fire caused melting and shear on the chocolate/concrete line and the towers failed.

No evidence? Hell, I got just as much as Chris has.......:)
 
twinstead said:
A simple perusal of the other posts on this board should assuage your fears; the only way, other than of course breaking the forum rules, to loose respect on this forum is to repeatedly claim things without legitimate evidence.
Click to expand...

If I was in any way interested in gaining your respect then that would bother me.
 
William Rea said:
If I was in any way interested in gaining your respect then that would bother me.
Click to expand...
What's that matter? Do you forsee a problem in providing evidence that can stand up to scrutiny?

So far, all evidence provided by CTists has tended to evaporate when investigated. Most specifically, Christphera has failed to provide proof of his claimed concrete core and has lost himself in contradication when asked for more information in order to track down the documentary he claism to have seen.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
"I didn't realise I was entering a closed shop where we were all time served apprentices not able to speak until we have done our time. I thought it was an open forum however," and then you have the gall to complain when other people reply to your posts in a manner for which you don't care? :boggle: Anyone abiding by the stated rules is welcome here; viewpoints regardless. That said, don't expect to be welcomed by everyone in the same way because the open policy applies to all sides and all points of view.
Click to expand...

Putting up strawman arguments that I somehow expect different treatment is absurd, I answered a peurile post with a simple direct response. Subsequently I was subjected to a barrage of interventions from amateur moderator wannabe people who had no need to be involved and had no other response than to tell me how rude and like a young upstart I was to answer in such a direct and honest way. I have to ask myself is that really because of a "tone " in the post that simply isn't there? Who is really having the gall? I am looking forward to the similar interventions against Belz for the unecessary flaming post seeing as we are all so fair on here.

I have no problem with opposing points of view but I do not lie down and take **** from idiots without reply. Ah ****, Belz isn't flaming because his/her posts agree with the status quo and a Professional Engineer like myself just deserves everything he gets for being a skeptic. Lol, enjoy the ride.

Are we going to return to the thread topic or is this crap going to continue until a Mod intervenes?
 
MortFurd said:
What's that matter? Do you forsee a problem in providing evidence that can stand up to scrutiny?

So far, all evidence provided by CTists has tended to evaporate when investigated. Most specifically, Christphera has failed to provide proof of his claimed concrete core and has lost himself in contradication when asked for more information in order to track down the documentary he claism to have seen.
Click to expand...

I already said in previous posts that I hadn't visited many sites on this subject so you guys have the upper hand over me in knowing all the CT stuff. You all obviously know the arguments from all the CT sites, if you care to read ALL my posts you will notice I am putting forward a personal opinion based upon what I know about Engineering.

I have made no claims about a concrete core, I am not Christophera. I am exploring this subject as we go along. Now the question is are you really open minded enough to make a journey or are you going to spew dogma at me?
 
William Rea said:
You are as irrelevant to me as your posts. I have no interest in corresponding with you.
Click to expand...

My statement stands: you seem to have an overly simplified view of how buildings are built and demolished. Can you defend your assertion ?

I have no idea who Judy Wood is but she is probably saying that if you saw the top of a tree off it topples off because the underlying support is sound. I would not argue with that since the damage to the towers would be akin to cutting them off at the top.
Click to expand...

Yes, that it exactly what I am refering to.
 
William Rea said:
I have no problem with opposing points of view but I do not lie down and take **** from idiots without reply.
Click to expand...

Actually you do. You didn't reply to my post.

Ah ****, Belz isn't flaming because his/her posts agree with the status quo and a Professional Engineer like myself just deserves everything he gets for being a skeptic. Lol, enjoy the ride.
Click to expand...

You are vastly exaggerating the "flame" in my post. If you truly do believe that the buildings should have toppled like a tree, then you have a cartoon-like vision of what reality is, pure and simple. That's not a flame, that's a statement of fact.

[...] if you care to read ALL my posts you will notice I am putting forward a personal opinion based upon what I know about Engineering.
Click to expand...

Which isn't much, admittedly.
 
William:

I guess I wrongfully expected you to act like most people do when they join a board to discuss things. I was not "acting" like an "amateur moderator wannabe" but that insult is in keeping with your behaviour, so I will accept it as such. Civility and politeness go along way, but play it your way, damned if I give a shiate now.



TAM
 
Belz... said:
Actually you do. You didn't reply to my post.

You are vastly exaggerating the "flame" in my post. If you truly do believe that the buildings should have toppled like a tree, then you have a cartoon-like vision of what reality is, pure and simple. That's not a flame, that's a statement of fact.

Which isn't much, admittedly.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant.
 
T.A.M. said:
William:

I guess I wrongfully expected you to act like most people do when they join a board to discuss things. I was not "acting" like an "amateur moderator wannabe" but that insult is in keeping with your behaviour, so I will accept it as such. Civility and politeness go along way, but play it your way, damned if I give a shiate now.



TAM
Click to expand...

When you say I should act like most people you say I should show deference to the time servers on here? BS.

Civility and politeness are a two way thing. Apparently not extended to those who disagree with the status quo of the forum. You only have to look at Belz follow ups to see politeness forwarded to someone who has worked as a Professional Engineer for the last 20 years.

As no one else here is able to rise above this I guess the newbie will have to take the lead and return to the thread topic.
 
Last edited:
William Rea said:
Irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I'm going to correct that, for you:

William Rea said:
Irrelevant I don't like to read posts that disagree with me.
Click to expand...

Again: If you truly do believe that the buildings should have toppled like a tree, then you have a cartoon-like vision of what reality is, pure and simple. That's not a flame, that's a statement of fact.
 
Belz... said:
Sorry, I'm going to correct that, for you:



Again: If you truly do believe that the buildings should have toppled like a tree, then you have a cartoon-like vision of what reality is, pure and simple. That's not a flame, that's a statement of fact.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom