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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Chris it's okay. We know you're insane. We feel your pain, bro. No need to keep up with your charade; your posting of a single inconclusive picture and declaring it 's a concrete core when you know sane people simply cannot determine that from your picture, then sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring the very plausible explanations given you. It's sad and beneath you, my man.

It's okay, dude. We understand. Just consider your tenure here at JREF to be sort of an intervention. Sort of like the first step of your 12 step road to better mental health.

We love you and only want the best for our little Christopher.

Now give us a big hug, little man!
 
alexg said:
Assume for a moment that the picture of the mysterious box in the cloud, rising above the just collapsed tower, so oft displayed by Christophera as proof of said core, is in fact a 1300 ft tall, 15 to 17 ft. thick, concrete core, 80ft x 120 ft., as described by Chris. Then what?

Then it must be about to blow up at any second, why? Because, according to Chris, that concrete core encases enough c4 to blow it into microscopic dust - c4 planted by the government during construction over 30 years ago for the purpose of blowing up the WTC as needed at some future date, yet c4 which has yet to blow in that picture of the ‘core’ rising above the already collapsed tower.

So assumed, now:

1. What caused the tower to collapse, if not the yet to blow c4?

2. And this is the kicker. How is it there is no auditory or visual evidence of such an explosion, no, cataclysm! A cataclysm capable of reducing a nearly 100 floor, 15 to 17 foot thick, block of reinforced concrete, reinforced with custom, massive rebar, 80 x 120 ft, into mini dust?

Ok, here we go – Chris’s answer to this last question was to post a picture of the collapsing WTC tower! and say ‘here’s an explosion’.


Therefore, bless his sweet heart, the man is GONzo!
Click to expand...

You still have not explained what this if it is not the concrete core.

Here's an explosion.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc341coreblast.jpg
 
as I thought . . no answer to the question I posed - there can be no answer, ever

eta: OK, say it's your core, assuming that IS YOUR CORE!!! Then what next? Show me c4 blowing your core in the cloud, don't show me the initial collapse and say 'there's an explosion! Thats lunacy. This is your problem, if you are right and that is your core then you are still wrong about everything else

eta: ASSUMING YOUR CORE is standing in the cloud of the collapsed tower, what caused said tower to collapse?????
 
Last edited:

Attachments

  • corefacesexplodinglines.jpg
    corefacesexplodinglines.jpg
    43.5 KB · Views: 6
Last edited:
BS!!!! That's a picture of the collapsing tower!!! Your core will still be standing when that one is down. Liar!
 
twinstead said:
Chris it's okay. We know you're insane.
Click to expand...

I would be surprised if you knew the original definition of insane.

What is sad is that you have proven you are irrational by not explaining what this is if it is not the concrete core of the WTC2.

This is important because there are other images that show what can only be concrete shear wall.

The images support each other. You are irratonal because you fail to admit that when you can come up with no alternatives of reason or evidence but continue to deny that the core was concrete.
 
Oliver said:
We all should tell these Chris/TS1234 Stereotypes, that we also believe in the controlled demolition and the thermite-crap. So they might start to think what they want to do next with this information... NOTHING! It´s worth- and sensleless... :boggled:


BTW: is this the same christophera like "ours"?
http://www.ninjaproxy.com/cgiproxy/...oose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=7&st=30
Click to expand...

That is me.

How can an the only feasible and common sense explanation for near free fall and total pulverization be worthless?


Do you always use cognitive distortions like labeling?

Thermite was only used in the basement as far as the evidence shows. Other wise this must be close to what what used to cut the interior box columns that were outside of and fastened to the concrete shear wall.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3239&stc=1&d=1159071733
 

Attachments

  • steelbeamcuttingfloors.jpg
    steelbeamcuttingfloors.jpg
    24.2 KB · Views: 13
Last edited:
alexg said:
BS!!!! That's a picture of the collapsing tower!!! Your core will still be standing when that one is down. Liar!
Click to expand...

The core stopped detonations right after that. The thermite in the basement and the floors detonations were enough to bring the steel to the ground and expose the core for a second or two.

The detonation system would have been different and not so precise as the lower core was set with detonators long before 9-11. There is a gas flame system that uses plastic tubing with a flammable gas that won't be set off inadvertantly by radio waves.
 
Last edited:
Christophera said:
The core stopped detonations right after that. The thermite in the basement and the floors detonations were enough to bring the steel to the ground and expose the core for a second or two.

The detonation system would have been different and not so precise as the lower core was set with detonators long before 9-11. There is a gas flame system that uses plastic tubing with a flammable gas that won't be set off inadvertantly by radio waves.
Click to expand...

WOW! Your just making this stuff up as you go along.
 
Is there any chance of this thread reaching a conclusion sometime this decade? It just seems to be going around in circles perpetually.

Hmmm... Would this thread classify as a perpetual-motion device for the JREF prize?
 
I still can't post links but chris there is a very well researched site to be found at www (a period here) 911myths (and another) com which has rebuttals for your silly questions; questions that you have been repeating over and over again with seemingly no other point besides to increase your post count.

There is substantial proof (if you click on the button labelled "WTC (demolition)" and then go to the link labelled "The towers fell at free fall speeds") that the towers did NOT fall at free fall speeds, so you can cut that crap out right now.

Secondly, the point at which the towers were hit has little bearing on the actual time at which they fell, if you'd be so kind as to click on WTC (other) then "Fire wouldn't have brought down one tower so much quicker than the other".

I'll leave it to you to explore that site. However, I think honestly that anyone arguing here further is rather pointless, since noone is going to change their points of view; but chris, I believe your view is rather dogmatic. Everyone could have gone about this a bit more rationally though - if someone ignores your post and continues to ask about theories that you have already debunked, then he is clearly just a senseless troll, and therefore is not looking for answers anyway. He has clearly disregarded any evidence contrary to his beliefs, and has blatantly ignored video evidence in some cases (I cannot say he did so for the entire thread, because I am not going to read ~100 pages of this garbage).

Fact - he is just a troll, so ignore him. He will never change his views, nor will he change ours. The difference is, while he's arguing with noone, you could be reading a book, working on a project, masterbating, etc. You all get my drift?

EDIT: Garnos: Yeah, that's kind of my point. Chris keeps bringing up points, people prove that those points are completely invalid, and chris just ignores these proofs and reposts his questions. These people, in Australia (as you would know) are often labelled, quite correctly, idiots.
 
Last edited:
Christophera said:
So if this is not the concrete core what is it?
Click to expand...

What difference will it make if you are right and it is a concrete core?

What difference would it be if it was a controlled demoliton?

What do you really want to know?

All your discussions and attemps will bring you there >>> Dead End! <<<

So why are you fooling everone in here? :confused:
 
Christophera said:
It did exist and still does, but PBS won't know it.
Click to expand...

I thought you said PBS lied...

If you really want to see the video realize that the lack of images from the demo indicate that there were no steel core columns and that the core must have been concrete.
Click to expand...

Argument from ignorance and false dichotomy. Just because you don't SEE something doesn't mean that something ELSE you don't see is there.

Given time and the support of reasonable people that appreciate reason, logic and evidence, a copy of the documentary will surface, that is what I suggested all along.
Click to expand...

Not if they're ALL hypnotised.
 
Christophera said:
The red line shows the valley formed by the two perpindicuarly opposed exploding planes of the precision built core. The yellow line shows the thickness and the approximate squareness of the debri cloud as it originates with the concrete core wall.
Click to expand...

Oh, that was hilarious, chris. Squareness of the debris cloud! Of course, this doesn't explain how your core is still standing AFTER you say it was detonated.

The core stopped detonations right after that.
Click to expand...

Of course, this doesn't explain how your core is still standing AFTER you say it was detonated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom