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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oliver no offense but constantly saying that over and over is not helping anything.. The only thing that's going to shut chistophera up is if we find evidence that the core of the steel shafts were concrete. What relation this has to the original question in the post, I have no idea; I've already pointed out that the buildings did not fall at free fall speeds, but chris does not care about that, so he's not trying to prove a conspiracy theory obviously. He just wants to prove that there was a concrete core.
 
Skylarks Errors

Skylark said:
You YOURSELF claim that the visibility is not good enough. Now, let me ask you something.

If the central core was made purely of concrete (containing some kind of explosive), how can you prove that? I looked at that absolutely retarded site you posted, and given there are a bunch of his self drawn images, along with INCONCLUSIVE photos of the collapse, and a clip from an article that for all we know he could have PULLED OUT OF HIS ASS.
Click to expand...

Click onthe link I put into your text at "prove that". The image IS a series of high speed delayed explosions. What we see cannot happen any other way.

Above you are conducting "cognitive distortions" labeling to be precise. You are distorting by saying "bunch of" when there are only 2 found on the page.

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

Cutting charges built into the floors

diagram of hallways and interior wall of the WTC 1 steel reinforced concrete core

Both needed to supplement what is available on the structure or actual demolition techniques that will explain events.

What article. There are several. Sky does not say, I have no way to respond to this. An error in communications on Sky's part.

Skylark said:
However, since you are so sure that it is a concrete core, let's assume that it is (for the sake of argument). How does that prove that explosive devices were planted in the core? In fact, your arguments ARE IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION WITH EACH OTHER. You are saying that the explosives used made the building fall that fast; HOWEVER, you are also saying that the thermite was in the concrete core that was somehow STILL STANDING after these explosions tore down the rest of the building (at "free fall" speeds as you say). YOU have yet to explain how YOUR RIDICULOUS THEORY WORKS.
Click to expand...

Your error is in your brain, it is not letting you actually reason with the information of the site. It answers every question.

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

I do not claim thermite was in the concrete core. I claim it was applied to the column bases during the remodel of 1993 bomb blast.

My point about the rate of fall is correct. The buildings fell too fast, exactly how fast cannot be said because the bottom of the fall is obscured by dust.
 
Last edited:
Seriously, did you ever think about the fact that it does not matter what anybody says about controlled demolitons at the wtc site because even if it was a controlled demolition - no one can proof it on hard evidence...

Why?

Because the evidence is destroyed!
 
Skylark said:
Oliver no offense but constantly saying that over and over is not helping anything.. The only thing that's going to shut chistophera up is if we find evidence that the core of the steel shafts were concrete.
Click to expand...

Oliver is melting down because he can't answer the question.

Rephrase your statement at the end, it is very confusing, even for you.
 
Last edited:
Christophera said:
Oliver is melting down because he can't answer the question.

Rephrase your statement at the end, it is very confusing, even for you.
Click to expand...

I'd say that the statement at the end is entirely clear: You aren't going to shut up, ever, until it is proven there was a concrete core in the WTC. Since there was no core, you'll never admit you're wrong and never, no matter how many times you are proven wrong, stop your puerile banter about it.
 
Houston to ADMINS... Houston to ADMINS...

Stop laughing about us earthlings and say something. :D
 
Senor_Pointy said:
I'd say that the statement at the end is entirely clear: You aren't going to shut up, ever, until it is proven there was a concrete core in the WTC. Since there was no core, you'll never admit you're wrong and never, no matter how many times you are proven wrong, stop your puerile banter about it.
Click to expand...

It took you this long to work that out?

The guy's ill, mate. Seriously mentally ill.
 
Architect said:
It took you this long to work that out?

The guy's ill, mate. Seriously mentally ill.
Click to expand...

I was just explaining, in as simple words as I could manage, Skylark's post, above, to him.

I figured it out around page 10, the 60th time he trotted out that "core" picture. :rolleyes:
 
Christophera said:
Click onthe link I put into your text at "prove that". The image IS a series of high speed delayed explosions. What we see cannot happen any other way.
Click to expand...

Well, this is just wrong. You have absolutely no math to back up that the debris could not have been projected like that, but I have math, scientific facts, and images to support that it would OBVIOUSLY happen this way. But keep talking out of your ass; you're quite good at it.

Above you are conducting "cognitive distortions" labeling to be precise. You are distorting by saying "bunch of" when there are only 2 found on the page.
Click to expand...

Wow, so by bunch I meant two? Damn, what a gaping flaw in my argument. You got me there!
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corehallsdoors.gif
Both needed to supplement what is available on the structure or actual demolition techniques that will explain events.
Click to expand...

Blah blah blah... Look, this site is just pointing out that based on visual evidence (which you yourself has said is inconclusive) it looks as the demolitions were used to bring down the towers. It has 0% hard evidence that that is the case. And of course I read the site; why would I respond without doing so?

What article. There are several. Sky does not say, I have no way to respond to this. An error in communications on Sky's part.
Click to expand...

Obviously the article shown on the page you've only linked once on every page in this thread...

Your error is in your brain, it is not letting you actually reason with the information of the site. It answers every question.
Click to expand...

Wow, you're a huge hypocrite.

I do not claim thermite was in the concrete core. I claim it was applied to the column bases during the remodel of 1993 bomb blast.
Click to expand...

Think about that for a second. I don't even have to look up proof to debunk this; how many people would the government have to pay to cover this up? ... meh, this isn't even worth disproving since the buildings did not fall faster, as fast as, or even close to free fall speeds.

My point about the rate of fall is correct. The buildings fell too fast, exactly how fast cannot be said because the bottom of the fall is obscured by dust.
Click to expand...

If you still claim this, then you are, as I stated before, and idiot.

You can't beat solid evidence, dude. As if my last article wasn't proof enough (using the seismic charts that most CT's try to prove the buildings DO fall at free fall, no less!), here's another good article for you to ignore.
 
Skylark said:
Quote:
Both needed to supplement what is available on the structure or actual demolition techniques that will explain events.

Blah blah blah... Look, this site is just pointing out that based on visual evidence (which you yourself has said is inconclusive) it looks as the demolitions were used to bring down the towers. It has 0% hard evidence that that is the case. And of course I read the site; why would I respond without doing so?
Click to expand...

You need to make this clearer. Lost context.

The below also, again. There are a number of articles at,

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


Skylark said:
Quote:
What article. There are several. Sky does not say, I have no way to respond to this. An error in communications on Sky's part.
Click to expand...



Obviously the article shown on the page you've only linked once on every page in this thread...
 
Last edited:
What would it proof if the core was made of concrete? Why don´t you ask someone who was involved into building the towers. Why don´t you ask the Port Authority or Yamasaki? How old are you?
 
Skylark said:
If you still claim this, then you are, as I stated before, and idiot.

You can't beat solid evidence, dude. As if my last article wasn't proof enough (using the seismic charts that most CT's try to prove the buildings DO fall at free fall, no less!), here's another good article for you to ignore.
Click to expand...


Your link You can't beat solid evidence, dude. should have a series of frame of a video that shows all the material ending up onthe ground. If it doesn't have that, it doesn't have the end of the fall. Without the end, the calculations are just rhetorical.

I'm quite sure you do nott know what an idiot is, as you actually exhibit the mental gymnastics required to perform as one.
 
Oliver said:
What would it proof if the core was made of concrete? Why don´t you ask someone who was involved into building the towers. Why don´t you ask the Port Authority or Yamasaki? How old are you?
Click to expand...

It would prove FEMA lied about someting that has a vital determination on analysis of the towers demise.

How old are you?

Yamasakis been dead since the late 1980's, most of the men that worked in knowledgeable positions have died. Again, do you know the origin of the word idiot?

And wtf is the answer to my question?
 
Last edited:
Christophera said:
It would prove FEMA lied about someting that has a vital determination on analysis of the towers demise.

How old are you?

Yamasakis been dead since the late 1980's, most of the men that worked in knowledgeable positions have died. Again, do you know the origin of the word idiot?

And wtf is the answer to my question?
Click to expand...

I did´nt know the origin of the word idiot until i came to this thread. :D

Yamasaki is still in business:

http://www.yamasakiinc.com/

900 Tower Drive, Suite 190
Troy, Michigan 48098
p. 248 267 5300
f. 248 267 5313

http://www.panynj.gov

Corporate Headquarters
The Port Authority of NY & NJ
225 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10003
T: 212-435-7000


Try to bore them for a while, would you?
 
Christophera said:
Your link You can't beat solid evidence, dude. should have a series of frame of a video that shows all the material ending up onthe ground. If it doesn't have that, it doesn't have the end of the fall. Without the end, the calculations are just rhetorical.
Click to expand...

Geez, you don't need to see the debris fall all the way to bottom to know how fast the debris is falling. All you need to do is measure the time the debris passes between two points of a known distance apart.
That's the way gun tachometers work
 
Wow I just read christophera's web site. Ther are is no evidence what so ever. It just Christophera making completely unsubstatiated assumptions and statements. His initial "evidence" is of two images of the center suppport structure of the WTC. One is a detailed image showing the steel structures in the center part of the building the other is a simplified diagram used on some website or magazine showing a solid core. From this he makes a modified drawing of his concrete core bas on the simplified diagram.

I really am begining to feel sorry for this guy

Look at the first picture on christophera's web site:
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

Compare this image from this web site:
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/images/wtc-1.construction.1.jpg

They seem to coincide. Both show the steel support structure in the buildings center. Yet he still denys the steel columns

Wow.. just wow. I had no idea where this guys head is.

I really feel sorry for him
 
Last edited:
uruk said:
Geez, you don't need to see the debris fall all the way to bottom to know how fast the debris is falling. All you need to do is measure the time the debris passes between two points of a known distance apart.
That's the way gun tachometers work
Click to expand...

Hit youself on the head again. We know the rate of free fall, doh!

We do not know when things stopped falling.
 
Welcome Newbie Homer

uruk said:
Wow I just read christophera's web site. Ther are is no evidence what so ever. It just Christophera making completely unsubstatiated assumptions and statements. His initial "evidence" is of two images of the center suppport structure of the WTC. One is a detailed image showing the steel structures in the center part of the building the other is a simplified diagram used on some website or magazine showing a solid core. From this he makes a modified drawing of his concrete core bas on the simplified diagram.

I really am begining to feel sorry for this guy

Look at the first picture on christophera's web site:
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

Compare this image from this web site:
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/images/wtc-1.construction.1.jpg

They seem to coincide. Both show the steel support structure in the buildings center. Yet he still denys the steel columns

Wow.. just wow. I had no idea where this guys head is.

I really feel sorry for him
Click to expand...

Dude,

You are a new comer who has not read the thread. Note: The only "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" are around the outside of the core. The steel inside the core is much smaller and are NOT core columns. That steel is elevator guide rail support structure. Which is why no core columns are seen protruding from the core area in ANY photos. Catch up dude!!!!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3264&stc=1&d=1159154677
 

Attachments

  • interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg
    interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg
    46.7 KB · Views: 5
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom