• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Christophera said:
The gonzo people think this is drywall

Your rested case has been crushed by knowledgeable anslysis using raw evidence.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3495&stc=1&d=1160705047
Click to expand...

HA HA. I showed what that is. It's smoke and dust, no details of hidden structure, if any, are visible. And on top, that's likely debris stuffed into core top.

And you still have shown no non-comic explanation of how that standing cloud blew up with the c4. You showed a picture of collapsing n tower, not yet fully down, your supposed upward explosions was just the plume from the collapse. The one above needs to blow up, now, if you say it blows after it's on the ground, as you did say, you make no sense - the c4 is supposed to CAUSE the collapse.

Chris it's over, not even the CTs give you any credence, not 1 person believes you here, there is no hope ever of anyone buying your story, unless they buy it for comedy or as a case study of delusion. Come to think of it, this whole thread could be a classic study of delusion and it's endless capacity to go on functioning in the face of obvious refutation.
 
Last edited:
you have convinced me Chris. I was in the tower 1 in Feb 2001 and even though everything you said so far doesn't have any basis in reality, I believe you. :covereyes
 
Christophera said:
I answered this a few pages back which means the obfuscatiors efforts are effective.

To illustrate it I posted an animated gif,

WTC 1 animated gif of the impact.

WTC 2 animated gif of the impact.

The obfuscatiors, cried, "That doesn't show the core." and my answer was lost in what followed.

The core of Tower one was holed all the way through by the right engine of flight 11, fuel flowed it through and spread fuel through the core. The central stair and the western stair were destroyed. The engine bounced off the inside of the farside perimeter walls not exiting the tower. The left engine hit interior walls and stayed inside the core on the east half. Falling debris had partially blocked the east stairwell and the fuel exploded making the environment full of smoke and fire, uninhabitable. The core was protection from the aluminum plane but not the engine. It was about 2.5 thick at impact height.

The core of tower 2 was holed by the left engine of flight 175 which was traveling 100 MPH faster than 11 and the core was about 4 feet thick at that elevation. Smaller amounts of fuel were in WTC 2 as much of the fuel burned outside the east wall at impact. Tower 2 had 2 functioning stairwells and little smoke in the core.

Flight 11 made a solid hit and only the engines penetrated. That is pretty good protection, but the fire issue made the environment uninhabitable.
Click to expand...
Overall, a good summary of the events. A couple of comments:
1) In WTC1, it seems implausible that the two wheels could make it through 5 feet of reinforced concrete, with a couple still travelling with enough force to exit the building through the south wall. (Then again, it appears that the engines didn't make it through at all. That I'm puzzled about.)

2) The NIST report indicates all three stairwells in WTC were destroyed by the impact, while you indicate the east one survived. The NIST report is based on extensive study, engineering expertise, and computer simulations. Please indicate on what you base your conclusion that one stairwell survived.

3) I'm interested in finding out where you got the numbers for the core thickness at the various levels. If you've had to compute them yourself, please give us a rough idea if how you went about your calculations. Detailed calculations would be great.
 
Christophera said:
What i said is that some elevator equipment was inside the core itself at the 43rd and one other above serving elevators with cable and that those elevator shafts, above and below were separated.

Logic says that if the heavy elevator motors were at the top there would be perhaps too much weight. The 43 floor is known as the mechanical floor, in the right place for stability. The pulley systems in elevators such as those require the reels to be very close to the load. There were parts of the core that were not continuous for good reason, to get the cable out into the core area going up to pulleys that in turn led down.

All that made the 43rd floor very complex structurally. My point is that the top of the core is that area or perhaps just below it, very strong to take the weight.
Click to expand...
BZZT! Wrong answer.

You keep getting the floor numbers wrong. In neither building was the 43rd floor a "mechanical" floor!

If you can't get something this simple correct, why should we believe anything other conclusion you come to?
 
zaayrdragon said:
WHY does anyone talk to this liar, anyway?

...We've now caught him in two obvious, plain, simple lies...
Click to expand...
I know of at least two others: 1) posting on the physorg forum that he was banned from the JREF when he was only briefly suspended, and 2) claiming just a couple pages ago that I had not earlier responded to his towers-fell-in-the-wrong-order inanity.
 
zaayrdragon said:
WHY does anyone talk to this liar, anyway?

What do you all hope to achieve?

(remainder trimmed)
Click to expand...
I'm doing for a few reasons:
  • To sharpen my research skills
  • To improve my debating skills
  • To try to get Chris to explain some of the more improbable parts of his story (it's the "give a man enough rope" theory)
  • To see what manner of whacky ideas Chris can come up with on-the-fly
  • To educate myself and others here on some of the more obscure aspects of the construction of the WTC
  • To see if Chris is overall a coherent person with the exception of this one idea. So far he's doing not too badly, except when he's defending his idea.
I'm certainly not doing this in an attempt to get Chrisophera to change his mind. This is perhaps a textbook example of idee fixee. It's certainly a real-life example of Winston Churchill's famous definition: "A fanatic is somone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
 
Oliver said:
96 bottles of beer on the wall, 96 bottles of beer...
Take one down, pass it around, 95 bottles of beer on the wall......
111074527eb7755fd3.gif
Click to expand...

95 bottles of beer on the wall, 95 bottles of beer...
Take one down, pass it around, 94 bottles of beer on the wall......
 
The Atheist said:
:dl:
I really don't know which is funnier - you, Christophera, with your unbelievably thick-skinned inability to assimilate FACTS placed in front of you, or the other posters who have caused this thread to grow to over 5000 posts!

I think it's well past time this thread was moved to humour, because boy are you guys humouring this dumbo #####!
Click to expand...

I just want to see how far this will go before a mod or admin finally gets sick ant tired and kill this farce.
 
I want Chris to tell us again about how the mass hypnosis of millions of people all over the world was achieved. How they programmed us all to deny the existence of concrete.

I'd also like to hear again how the film "A Beautiful Mind" was produced specifically to mislead Christopher A Brown.

A bit more about Stonehenge and the Circassian Druids might also be amusing.

How about the etymology of the word "circa"? That was a hoot.

This thread has gotten bogged down with all this tech talk. Let's get back to the wild and wacky world of woo that is Christopheraland.
 
Brainache, Errors & Corruption

Brainache said:
I want Chris to tell us again about how the mass hypnosis of millions of people all over the world was achieved. How they programmed us all to deny the existence of concrete.

I'd also like to hear again how the film "A Beautiful Mind" was produced specifically to mislead Christopher A Brown.

A bit more about Stonehenge and the Circassian Druids might also be amusing.

How about the etymology of the word "circa"? That was a hoot.

This thread has gotten bogged down with all this tech talk. Let's get back to the wild and wacky world of woo that is Christopheraland.
Click to expand...

Brainy, I see you made as many errors as possible.

The error that costs us our futures is the one about the concrete.

Clearly if you are doing this ad hominem thing it is because you do not have any evidence but still must somehow support the lie that the murderers hide behind. Some fear that would be hard to understand no doubt.

And, ....... you will not use your abilities to reason to protect the lives of the children. Sad how corrupted humans have become.

At least I have evidence. It is far more than you can understand, or wish to undertstand from your deeply corrupted state, but it is evidence and it's good evidence. It also explains near free fall and total pulverization, which are important. The raw evidence of the concrete core is immense compared to the fraudulent documents and misintrerpreted documents you and yours rely on.
 
Another bag of rice felt in china this morning. :eek: :eye-poppi :covereyes

cnn_bag_rice_sack_reis.jpg


11107452f26531f71b.gif
 
Last edited:
Christophera said:
So sad that you cannot logic what a fact is.

There have been so few real facts presented by the deniers here that it should be easy for you to actually post one.

Below is raw evidence and the fact is that to the left of the steel spire, an interior box column outside the core, is concrete.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3496&stc=1&d=1160705248
Click to expand...

Raw evidence means nothing till you soak it in paranoia then add a garlic of true belief.


Flavor to taste.
 
Christophera said:
Brainy, I see you made as many errors as possible.

The error that costs us our futures is the one about the concrete.

Clearly if you are doing this ad hominem thing it is because you do not have any evidence but still must somehow support the lie that the murderers hide behind. Some fear that would be hard to understand no doubt.

And, ....... you will not use your abilities to reason to protect the lives of the children. Sad how corrupted humans have become.

At least I have evidence. It is far more than you can understand, or wish to undertstand from your deeply corrupted state, but it is evidence and it's good evidence. It also explains near free fall and total pulverization, which are important. The raw evidence of the concrete core is immense compared to the fraudulent documents and misintrerpreted documents you and yours rely on.
Click to expand...

No Chris, what I am doing with the ad hominem thing is putting your concrete core in context with some of the other things you have said in this thread.

If even you think that those things sound crazy, then maybe it's time you reassessed the basis of your argument.

I don't claim to have evidence. I'm just an unemployed TV professional in Australia. I leave issues of structural engineering to the experts. Likewise with issues of demolition. I believe claiming knowledge in areas where I have none would be dishonest and disrespectful to those people who have studied for years to earn their qualifications.

So I'm happy to sit in the peanut gallery and mock people like you who think they know more than the experts. People like you who are fixated on a delusion and who refuse to even consider the possibility that they may be mistaken.

Time for you to wake up and smell the medication Chris. Get help.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom