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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Christophera said:
What is being disrespectful about stating she was alive?

I recognize what you are saying about the conditions. However, bright red-ornage flames do not generate the kind of heat required to cause structural failures in tempered steel, .......... ever with the configuration of those panels.

Check the critical thinking meter.
Click to expand...

Christophera said:
Clearly, what ever the minimal fire might have done, it bears no comparison to this damage. She's alive on the 94th floor. is that where your fire was?
Click to expand...

You're the one who talks about minimal fire. And no, 'my' fire wasn't there, it was on the other side of the building, as shown in the picture I linked to.

Stating that Edna Cintron was alive is not disrespectful. Using that fact to prove the fires where not hot enough to weaken the metal is.
 
Bell said:
You're the one who talks about minimal fire. And no, 'my' fire wasn't there, it was on the other side of the building, as shown in the picture I linked to.

Stating that Edna Cintron was alive is not disrespectful. Using that fact to prove the fires where not hot enough to weaken the metal is.
Click to expand...

Pssst, hey Bell: He allready said that he has hard facts. So let´s nail him on that one... ;)

Christophera said:
I have raw evidence, hard evidence, of which you have none.
Click to expand...
 
Christopher,

Critical thinkers would have to find physical evidence of high explosives before concluding they were used. Where's your physical evidence of high explosives?

Simply saying that high explosives are the only way to explain how it happened is not evidence.
 
Bell said:
You're the one who talks about minimal fire. And no, 'my' fire wasn't there, it was on the other side of the building, as shown in the picture I linked to.

Stating that Edna Cintron was alive is not disrespectful. Using that fact to prove the fires where not hot enough to weaken the metal is.
Click to expand...

Certainly not equal to the disrespect her memory and murder hinge upon to using red-orange flames within "critical thinking" as compared to a gaping hole in the opposite side of the tower.
 
Lisa? Would you mind if i kill him before you ban him? :D
 
Last edited:

Attachments

  • corefacesexplodinglines.jpg
    corefacesexplodinglines.jpg
    43.5 KB · Views: 1
mortimer said:
That image does not hold ANY physical evidence of high explosives. The building simply collapsing could cause what you are seeing. Gnomes could have gnawed through your concrete core to begin the collapse.
Click to expand...

Pssst, hey Mortimer: He allready said that he has hard facts. So let´s nail him on that one... ;)

Christophera said:
I have raw evidence, hard evidence, of which you have none.
Click to expand...
 
Bell is having a very hard time with the first and most fundamental aspect of the logic asserted here,

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

which defines exactly why the first tower hit, burnt worst fell last. A totally illogical sequence for collapse considering conditions and events.

I want the viewer to note that he has not even approached the "backwards sequence" question and is totally stumbling on the "tower top" direction fall issue.

The critical thinking club would question his motives about now.
 
Has anyone seen a realistice explanation for Chris's monomania on this concrete core business?

The only one I can see is total insanity.

Just a few posts above he says that his concrete core would have stopped the plane from causing the collapse from happening in the way that it did. He then uses this as proof that the core is real. Most rational people would conclude that the core simply was not there in the first place.

If the core is real, then it must have been rigged to explode. If it was rigged to explode, then everyone connected with the concrete must have been hypnotised to forget about it. How this mass hypnosis was achieved is never explained.

If everyone who denies the concrete was hypnotised, then hypnotists have worked their mesmerism on almost everyone in the whole world except Chris.

These hypnotists have been active for several millennia and have still not managed to control the world, despite being able to sneak into every house on the planet to plant false memories in the minds of several billion people.

So I say to Chris again: You are being delusional and I think you should seek help from someone you trust. Don't believe me if you don't want to, but please think of your kids and at least consider that they would be better off with a dad who spent more time caring for them than the WTC's concrete core.

Cheers.
 
Christophera said:
Consider that my statement of "or" frieght elevator landing support and guide rail supports covers the issue.

Seeing as you still have not come up with ONE image of the supposed 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns at elevation from the demo images, your issue is tiny.

What is this if it is not the concrete core?
Click to expand...

The elevators used a suspended cable system, including any "frieght elevators. Anyhoo, there would be only a few frieght elevators in comparison to all the passenger elevators. all those columns in the picture could not possibly justify them being used for frieght elevators.
Here is a picture of the elevator cable wench:
http://web.mit.edu/activities/safe/wtc/wtc069_1024x768.jpg

Take alook at pictures from this site:
http://www.mit.edu/activities/safe/wtc/wtc-photos.htm
They contain picture of the core in question from different angles. Where is the concrete wall?

Your simply making things up as you go along. your backed into a corner trying to gab at very flimsy threads.
 

Attachments

  • wtc035_1024x768.jpg
    wtc035_1024x768.jpg
    134.4 KB · Views: 93
  • wtc044_1024x768.jpg
    wtc044_1024x768.jpg
    121.1 KB · Views: 4
Oliver said:
Pssst, hey DHR: He allready said that he has hard facts. So let´s nail him on that one... ;)
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply,

The only facts he has is his vision, if he can't see it then it dosen't exist.

Chris would not acnowledge gravity as he fell off a cliff.

Why this bothers me so I do not know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom