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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Belz... said:
Oh, now you add lying to your repertoire. You know full well that my comments were directed at your 90% JPEG compression image. You can clearly see in Oliver's picture that there is NO concrete. Unless you care to identify the concrete in his picture.



Even if we didn't see any support columns, which we do, it wouldn't make you right. That's the part of the investigation process you don't understand.



Nuh-huh. Rebar couldn't possibly survive an explosive force that pulverizes concrete. That's part of the problem with YOUR group.

And stop posting your debunked pictures. Deal with ours, if you please.
Click to expand...

I do not think that Olivers image is better than mine, in fact it is worse.

I there were any steel croe columns at an elevation over the ground in demo images, I'm sure you would have posted them.

Since you haven't, and just "say" there are, it is quite clear you are arguing without evidence.

I've said this numerous times. The image showing 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS onlky shows that rebar because the C4 coating on the vertical bar did not detonate. The C4 on the much smaller horizontal bar did detonate as it was fresh when concrete was poured wheras the vertical bar sat through bad weather in the winter and lost it's viability.

Never once has a sensical explanation for what those fine vertical elements are if they are not rebar, been offered.

I've debunked your pitiful misrepresentations over and over and you have still not dealt with mine adequately, reasonably, logically and rationally.
 
Bell said:
Bolding mine.

Funny you should say that. You lack the ability to critical thinking in every department. Your proof consists of grainy pictures and a documentary seen 15 years ago, which has since been taken away by the NWO. Yeah, critical thinking is a bitch.
Click to expand...

Criticize my critical thinking huh?

Who was it, Peabody I think, who said that my explanation for the backwards fall sequence lacked logic. He never did back that up and I called him on it several times.

How about you give it a try just to show that you are an expert on "critical thinking" and have the natural authority to criticize mine.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1207667

Prepare yourself, this requires some in depth knowledege of what happened where on that day. The site back all of it with images and logic.
 
Christophera said:
I there were any steel croe columns at an elevation over the ground in demo images, I'm sure you would have posted them.

Since you haven't, and just "say" there are, it is quite clear you are arguing without evidence.
Click to expand...

You mean like how you haven't been able to produce any evidence of this supposed PBS documentary that showed the fictional concrete core? Oh wait, that's right. The Hypnotoad got to everyone who ever saw, worked on, distributed, or programmed that video!
 

Attachments

  • Hypnotoad_animated.gif
    Hypnotoad_animated.gif
    15.4 KB · Views: 98
Oliver said:
Yes Chris, i see the concrete core, too. But beside that - that´s all you have. No juridical evidence at all. So please stop spamming the board, will you? :D
Click to expand...

If you are implying that we actually have a nation "under law", you are sadly mistaken.

I have raw evidence, hard evidence, of which you have none.

What is that light colored surface behind the interior box columns?

Oh, logically, after viewing from 90 degrees to the left we can see that the light colored surface behind the interior box columns is a concrete wall which happens to be holding up the spire.
 
Christophera said:
Criticize my critical thinking huh?

Who was it, Peabody I think, who said that my explanation for the backwards fall sequence lacked logic. He never did back that up and I called him on it several times.
Click to expand...


Uh no, Chris. You never responded after you were suspended. You were asked to discuss the "wrong order" but you completely ignored it. On purpose, I assume.

How many others have you convinced of this mystical concrete core?
 
Christophera said:
If you are implying that we actually have a nation "under law", you are sadly mistaken.

I have raw evidence, hard evidence, of which you have none.

What is that light colored surface behind the interior box columns?

Oh, logically, after viewing from 90 degrees to the left we can see that the light colored surface behind the interior box columns is a concrete wall which happens to be holding up the spire.
Click to expand...

Okay, so why do you destroy my nerves if you could sue Bush&Co. COWARD? :D
 
Excuse my n00bness.

But is this a thread dedicated to an argument about the elevator-riddled "core" of the WTC being an indestructible, concrete, core?

While every paper and book about WTC PRIOR to 9/11 stated the novel structural plan of the building, never once mentioning a "core" in the respect of "steel/concrete"- while the WTC designer ot massive crap for the hasardous design of Corporate tower?

I just don't get the arguments validity.

(any "s"-s that should be "z"s... tell me about them. My English tends to lack some, sometimes.)
 
Blue Mountain said:
In response to questions about how a worker was able to escape from an jammed elevator by chipping through drywall with a squeegee, I've attached to this post the plan of the 95th floor of WTC-1. It's from the FEMA report, and I've added to it (in blue) where Christophera's concrete core would have been, had it existed.

I see 13 elevators in the drawing: number 50 marked in purple, numbers 89-92 marked in yellow and numbers 93-98 marked in blue. Note that all the elevators are within the core but none of them are adjacent to the (non-existant) concrete wall.

I can draw two conclusions from this:
1. The story of the worker escaping from the elevator by chipping through drywall does not invalidate the idea of a concrete core.

2. Christophera has done no research at all into this issue, otherwise he would not have made the statement:

It appears all the elevators had drywall front and back.

Christophera: Do you have a source for the "second" story of a worker trying to chip through drywall in a stairwell (with a squeegee, no less) and encountering concrete?
Click to expand...

No I don't have that source. I wish now I had tracked the snip I saw on a message board that had it over a year ago. I had actully seen it once but was looking for other stuff and forgot to copy it and its url.

Yes, the elevators could have easily had drywall on all sides. However, since that diagram does not show the core it is a pre Yamasaki diagram and the space inthe core was seriosuly reduced by the thickness of the concrete core, meaning there probably was no room for that. I would bet that elevators were even redesigned so they could be closer together.
 
Christophera said:
Criticize my critical thinking huh?

Who was it, Peabody I think, who said that my explanation for the backwards fall sequence lacked logic. He never did back that up and I called him on it several times.

How about you give it a try just to show that you are an expert on "critical thinking" and have the natural authority to criticize mine.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1207667

Prepare yourself, this requires some in depth knowledege of what happened where on that day. The site back all of it with images and logic.
Click to expand...

To start with backwards fall, look at this picture of WTC1. See all of the fire at the south side?

WTC1.jpg
 
mortimer said:
Chris, at what elevation do you need to see core columns during the collapse to convince you?
Click to expand...

This image of the core is the 43rd floor I believe. Much lower and their will not be enough contrast to see them, or too much dust, So at that elevation or above would be acceptable.
 
Christophera said:
I have raw evidence, hard evidence, of which you have none.
Click to expand...

Sue Bush! COWARD?
11107451d93669e73a.gif
 
alexg said:
No way, no way even the engines are going through 17 feet of re. concrete. I7 feet! Re-enforced? You'd prolly need a MOAB or a nuke! 17 feet of re-enforced concrtete.

And how could you even accpet those animations which show all kinds of airplane parts going through your core? A core BTW which is not even in those animations. Laughable, all of it.:D
Click to expand...

I accept the animations because the trajectories and positions of impacts are basically okay.

The core of WTC 1 was 17 feet thick at the base, narrow side, and 2 feet thick at the top. Meaning the engine had to puncture perhaps a 2.5 foot thick core wall. BTW, I've explained this a number of times on this thread.
 
Christophera said:
Visible fire does not equal a loss of suppport in a steel structure. The entry of a 767 jetliner does.

You might want to pass on the critical thinking challenge
Click to expand...

Fire = Heat.
Heat = Loss of strength in steel support columns.
 
Christophera said:
Visible fire does not equal a loss of suppport in a steel structure. The entry of a 767 jetliner does.

You might want to pass on the critical thinking challenge
Click to expand...

So heat from fire doesn't weaken steel? No building on fire would collapse unless an airplane crashes into it?
 
Oliver said:
Sue Bush! COWARD? [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/11107451d93669e73a.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

gwb is a puppet. I sue puppeteers if anyone.

What is hilarious is that you actually think this nation has courts of law. So far, I've not seen that in many years of failing lawsuits.

Law has one purpose, to protect life with reason. Our courts here are not measuring up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom