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

Status
Not open for further replies.
mortimer said:
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?
Click to expand...
Christophera said:
Not quite totally wrong.

I forgot it after the suspension but then remembered and asked Peabody to continue but he ignored it. I've brought it up a couple of times since, to him even. No show.
Click to expand...
Liar.
 
Regnad Kcin said:
Though I had bid you adieu with my last post, I'll address your towers-fell-in-the-wrong-order inaccuracy. I suspect it'll be for naught, but what the hey.

First, I was attempting to walk you through the simple deductive process when I initially engaged you on the matter. But your general unresponsiveness proved continually taxing. Then, when you returned after your suspension (not "ban," as you lied on the physorg forum), you continued your difficult manner.
Click to expand...

Actually the admin forgot to "unsuspend" me for some weeks. Therefore i had no reason to think I was anything but banned.

Regnad Kcin said:
But let's get to it.

The 110-story WTC 1 was struck first by a Boeing 767 at approx. 490 mph. The floors damaged were between 93 and 99. This left 11 undamaged stories above. The tower fell 102 minutes after impact.

The 110-story WTC 2 was subsequently struck by a Boeing 767 at approx. 590 mph. The floors damaged were between 77 and 85. This left 25 undamaged stories above. The tower fell 56 minutes after impact.

Please don't tell me I have to explain this any further.
Click to expand...

Yes, it definitely requires more explanation. Start with the tops of the towers falling the wrong way.
 
Christophera said:
Actually the admin forgot to "unsuspend" me for some weeks. Therefore i had no reason to think I was anything but banned.



Yes, it definitely requires more explanation. Start with the tops of the towers falling the wrong way.
Click to expand...

Yes, the "controlled" explosions should have blown the tops of the towers to planet mars.:boggled:

ETA: AT LEAST!
 
Last edited:
Chris, your credibility is nonexistant here after all the bold faced lies you been comitting.

All your theories have been shown to be without merit or supporting evidence. You are too dellusioal or dishonest to admit it.
ou can continue to repeat your pictures and links to your web site, but they are meaningless. Everybody here knows it so move along, or continue to recieve an intellectual beating.
 
Christophera said:
That is not called "critical thinking", that is called "generalizing" and "minimizing". Cognitive distortions. Exactly the thing that critical thinking exists to counter. Your attempt did not even address the impossibiity of anything but a toppling portion from either damage.



You have again generalized the issue of heat and steel. NOTHING happens to steel columns when exposed to red orange flames for an hour or two. NOTHING. It's all in you head, just where the perps want it.

It was an impressive picture, and .... if it were a wooben tower it would be very meaningful. Red orange flames are relatively cool. If the perimeter columns were set horizontal at an optimum height over such flames for a week, they still would not loose significant strength.

Have you ever used a cutting torch to heat and bend steel? A rosebud tip? Ever tried to build a forge? Bend a horshoe in a fire by resting it in coals?

If you had you would know. Carbon fires and object relation have to absolutely optimized to have any significant effect on steel.

There is no doubt that the top of the building would have fell to the north IF it were going to fall from damage of the event.

The towers were demolished by optimally place and distributed high explosives in a high speed series of delays.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3423&stc=1&d=1160326368
Click to expand...

You accuse me of cognitive distortions? You, who sees concrete cores in grainy pictures and in non-excisting PBS documentaries? You, who says the planes hit the wrong towers, and that is why the tops of the towers fell to the wrong side? You, who claims the concrete core was packed with C4 that blew up the tower but not the concrete core?

ROTFLMAO!!
 
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?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3406&stc=1&d=1160267765
Click to expand...
Do NOT bring Edna Cintron into this, you creepy ghoul.

The fire was above and below her:

wtcimpact.jpg
 
Bell said:
You accuse me of cognitive distortions? You, who sees concrete cores in grainy pictures and in non-excisting PBS documentaries?
Click to expand...

I don't think you know what a cognitive distortion is. Allow me to go through your post and point them out.

Below is an instance of "labeling".

You, who sees concrete cores in grainy pictures

10. Labeling: Instead of understanding errors, over generalization is applied.

Below is an instance of "minimizing".

and in non-excisting PBS documentaries?

4. Minimizing: Perceiving one or opposite experiences (positive or negative) as absolute and maintaining singularity of belief to one or the other.

Bell said:
You, who says the planes hit the wrong towers, and that is why the tops of the towers fell to the wrong side? You, who claims the concrete core was packed with C4 that blew up the tower but not the concrete core?

ROTFLMAO!!
Click to expand...

The above are simple errors that together comprise a "minimizing" of my information.

Yes the planes hit the wrong towers, but that is not why the tops fell the wrong way. The tops fell the right way according to the placement of explosives, the wrong way according to the collapse theory/lie.

How you can say this,

C4 that blew up the tower but not the concrete core? is not really understandable because the concrete is gone in the GZ pictures,

columns cut level
 
Christophera said:
I don't think you know what a cognitive distortion is. Allow me to go through your post and point them out.

Below is an instance of "labeling".

You, who sees concrete cores in grainy pictures

10. Labeling: Instead of understanding errors, over generalization is applied.
Click to expand...

You're the one making an error claiming that this is a concrete core, and fail to recognize this error.

Below is an instance of "minimizing".

and in non-excisting PBS documentaries?

4. Minimizing: Perceiving one or opposite experiences (positive or negative) as absolute and maintaining singularity of belief to one or the other.
Click to expand...

You claim you saw this documentary, but jet have failed top proof that PBS aired it. Why are you maintaining that you did see it?

The above are simple errors that together comprise a "minimizing" of my information.

Yes the planes hit the wrong towers, but that is not why the tops fell the wrong way. The tops fell the right way according to the placement of explosives, the wrong way according to the collapse theory/lie.

How you can say this,

C4 that blew up the tower but not the concrete core? is not really understandable because the concrete is gone in the GZ pictures,

columns cut level
Click to expand...

I can say this, because you keep on saying concrete core.
 
Bell said:
You're the one making an error claiming that this is a concrete core, and fail to recognize this error.
Click to expand...

When you cannot explain what it is if it is not concrete, your assertion is totally without basis.

That you say it is not concrete, by default sayd there were stel core columns as FEMA states but you have nvere produced any image from the demo of the supposed steel columns.

the concrete core is well documented by raw images of the demolition.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

That I can produce image after image showing what can only be concrete and you can produce none of steel columns inside the core makes your claim a joke,

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3424&stc=1&d=1160338739
 

Attachments

  • corewallspirearrows.gif
    corewallspirearrows.gif
    28.9 KB · Views: 1
uruk said:
Chris, your credibility is nonexistant here after all the bold faced lies you been comitting.

All your theories have been shown to be without merit or supporting evidence. You are too dellusioal or dishonest to admit it.
ou can continue to repeat your pictures and links to your web site, but they are meaningless. Everybody here knows it so move along, or continue to recieve an intellectual beating.
Click to expand...

Just becausethe extensive proof of the concrete core found at,

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

is meaningless to those who fearfully believe lies doesn't mean that you, hitting youself on the head repeatedly, gives me an "intellectual beating."

Sow us your intellectual capacity.

If the below image is not the top of tower 2 and its core falling onto WTC 3, what is it.

The core of the top of tower 2 falls on WTC 3
 
Christophera said:
When you cannot explain what it is if it is not concrete, your assertion is totally without basis.

That you say it is not concrete, by default sayd there were stel core columns as FEMA states but you have nvere produced any image from the demo of the supposed steel columns.

the concrete core is well documented by raw images of the demolition.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

That I can produce image after image showing what can only be concrete and you can produce none of steel columns inside the core makes your claim a joke,

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3424&stc=1&d=1160338739
Click to expand...

You say that the concrete core was packed with C4 and blew up the towers, but obviuos it did not blew up the concrete core. So the concrete core exploded but it did not explode?

Kind of like Schrodinger's cat, bot alive and death, allthough only one state can be true.
 
Christophera said:
If the below image is not the top of tower 2 and its core falling onto WTC 3, what is it.
Click to expand...

It appears that you think that unless somebody comes up with an explanation of what your inconclusive picture is, if it isn't a concrete core, your theory wins by default. That makes you are as stupid as you are crazy.

ETA: And that's a LOT
 
Last edited:
Bell said:
You say that the concrete core was packed with C4 and blew up the towers, but obviuos it did not blew up the concrete core. So the concrete core exploded but it did not explode?
Kind of like Schrodinger's cat, bot alive and death, allthough only one state can be true.
Click to expand...

kinda like i've also been thinking while perusing this incredible thread.

Christophera on the elusive PBS documentary:-
The videographers eventually found the big slow down in the construction to be the butt welds in the 3 inch high tensile steel rebar which arrived in 40 foot long sticks and had to be 100% welded, x-rayed, and recoated with the "special anti corrosion, vibration" plastic coating.
Click to expand...

presumably he is alluding here to his pet theory that C4 or some other nasty substance is really what those workers were slapping on willy-nilly in readiness for a covert operation in 30+ YEARS time.....didn't do a very good job those blokes though they huh? seeing he has presented ample "evidence" that the exploded "concrete" core stood while the rest of the building COLLAPSED AROUND IT.

all sort of puts it to bed as far as i'm concerned.

10 marks out of 10 for persistence chris but zero for content.

BV
Swansea Wales UK
 
bonavada said:
kinda like i've also been thinking while perusing this incredible thread.



presumably he is alluding here to his pet theory that C4 or some other nasty substance is really what those workers were slapping on willy-nilly in readiness for a covert operation in 30+ YEARS time.....didn't do a very good job those blokes though they huh? seeing he has presented ample "evidence" that the exploded "concrete" core stood while the rest of the building COLLAPSED AROUND IT.

all sort of puts it to bed as far as i'm concerned.

10 marks out of 10 for persistence chris but zero for content.

BV
Swansea Wales UK
Click to expand...

Welcome to the forums, Bonavada. I wonder why the heck I'm still argueing with Christopher. No one and nothing can make him see that he is completely, 100% wrong. But hey, you give a shot at it, okay? ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom