• 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.
Mr Brown

In the course of this thread I have tried to explain some things to you, including, but not necessarily limited to:

How you can't see details on pictures that are smaller than one pixel in size on the image.

How the heat in a fire is much greater than what is attained by a gas torch.

How fire might spread within a building, and the temperature levels that can be attained with normal building contents (an office fire).

I did this because you appeared to not know much about these subjects.

I did this in, I hope, a reasonably polite manner.

Then I get this reply from you.

Christophera said:
<snip>
We shouldn't be talking about architectural details, but, instead about your dissociative capacity and how long it has been a problem for you.

<snip>
Click to expand...

I have tried to help you understand things, but, because I don't subscribe to the idiotic ideas you are propounding I am insulted.

You sir are a disgrace.

You are a disgrace to your country.

You are a disgrace to the human race.


I'm finished with you
 
Dave_46 said:
Mr Brown
http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/emomem175.jpeg
In the course of this thread I have tried to explain some things to you, including, but not necessarily limited to:

http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg
How you can't see details on pictures that are smaller than one pixel in size on the image.

http://www.parrhesia.com/wtc/wtc066.jpg
How the heat in a fire is much greater than what is attained by a gas torch.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html
How fire might spread within a building, and the temperature levels that can be attained with normal building contents (an office fire).

I did this because you appeared to not know much about these subjects.

I did this in, I hope, a reasonably polite manner.

Then I get this reply from you.
Click to expand...

Christophera said:
<snip>
We shouldn't be talking about architectural details, but, instead about your dissociative capacity and how long it has been a problem for you.

<snip>
Click to expand...

Dave_46 said:
I have tried to help you understand things, but, because I don't subscribe to the idiotic ideas you are propounding I am insulted.

You sir are a disgrace.

You are a disgrace to your country.

You are a disgrace to the human race.


I'm finished with you
Click to expand...

You are finished with pretending to be logical or reasonably showing why justice should not be provided on 3,000 capitol crimes in order to retain our rights and freedoms.

I have added url's to you post that relate to helping you to deal with your mental problem and remembering what happened.

You explain nothing. You have no evidence and have posted none. I explain near free fall and total pulverization.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
 
Christophera said:
Considering you forgot to find an image of the 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns, an integral part of the argument you forgot to make, the urls are nothing.
Click to expand...

how can anyone forget the terrible series of images:-

HERE

which this link posted ages ago. are these "raw" enough?
as a reminder mr kodakbrain, here's a zoom of one:-

8748454a8c1e46c64.jpg


lots of steel core columns there mate.
you can count 'em though.

BV
 
Last edited:
Arus808 said:
Just so you know. I read all 110+ pages in all four threads on Loose Change found here, prior to signing up and then posting..

Took me a month to do so.

When i joined this thread had only 80 pages. Now its at 163 pages. AND yes, I've read them all...

seriously, what the hell is wrong with me?
Click to expand...

You simply are trying to argue without evidence. It is futile and costs you credibility.

I have an entire website full of raw evidence of the concrete core, oh, ... except for the bogus BBC core diagram and my efforts to provide a diagram explaining what is actually seen in the photographic evidence.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html
 
bonavada said:
how can anyone forget the terrible series of images:-

HERE

which this link posted ages ago. are these "raw" enough?
as a reminder mr kodakbrain, here's a zoom of one:-

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/8748454a8c1e46c64.jpg[/qimg]

lots of steel core columns there mate.
you can count 'em though.

BV
Click to expand...

Doh, ......... you forgot to explain how tempered steel columns that were 100% welded got cut like this
 
http://www.skyscraper.org/TALLEST_TOWERS/t_wtc.htm

Also unique to the engineering design were its core and elevator system. The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry. Worried that the intense air pressure created by the buildingsâ high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core. For the elevators, to serve 110 stories with a traditional configuration would have required half the area of the lower stories be used for shaftways. Otis Elevators developed an express and local system, whereby passengers would change at "sky lobbies" on the 44th and 78th floors, halving the number of shaftways.
Click to expand...

The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry. Worried that the intense air pressure created by the buildingsâ high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core.

The Towers did not have concrete cores.
 
Christophera said:
Doh, ......... you forgot to explain how tempered steel columns that were 100% welded got cut like this
Click to expand...

no. YOU forget to even source that picture. or adequately explain ANYTHING at all about the circumstances surrounding those two pieces of metal. how do you know they are tempered steel for instance? how do you know when/how they were cut? do you know where the two pieces originated?

BV
 
stateofgrace said:
The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry. Worried that the intense air pressure created by the buildingsâ high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core.

The Towers did not have concrete cores.
Click to expand...

he of course knows all this.

he refuses to take heed of anything that disagrees with his madcap beliefs.

his claims are totally unfalsifiable. its the "tower of turtles" syndrome i read about somewhere (stephen hawking?)

he lies about an imaginary documentary he claims to have seen, and mohawk windwalkers he has never met. he shamelessly uses these as a crutch for his "multiple out" strategies when backed into a corner.

he uses duplicitously adjusted images on his site to vainly attempt to mask the truth or decieve.

he refuses to answer reasonable, direct, specific questions preferring to resort to ad hominemisms, chidish obtuseness and strawman tactics to lamely try and divert attention away from his ineptitude.

he is happily indifferent to the ridicule heaped upon him from all quarters, even by the most rabid peers in the CT movement.

one does wonder how much longer this thread can go?
even the mighty amazon ends somewhere.

BV
 
Christophera said:
You simply are trying to argue without evidence. It is futile and costs you credibility.
Click to expand...

hmm sorry>? but i have hundreds of publications, one pbs documentary (a real one) and thousands of engineers who know that the WTC towers were built without a concrete core.

The implosionworld article even addresses this.

Credibility is only earned if what you say is true. But so far, you have provided only lies
 
Arus808 said:
hmm sorry>? but i have hundreds of publications, one pbs documentary (a real one) and thousands of engineers who know that the WTC towers were built without a concrete core.

The implosionworld article even addresses this.

Credibility is only earned if what you say is true. But so far, you have provided only lies
Click to expand...
No no. You have to show him the WTC without concrete cores. You have to travel back in time, get the original towers, and then transfer them bit by bit to his house over the internet. Unless you can do that, it proves the towers did have concrete cores. QED
 
Chris, I am a little confused by this phrase from your site:
The usenet has been searched and messages by people found that describe the concrete core who saw it being constructed or knew for other reasons, the true tower core design.
Click to expand...
What are these 'other reasons' you speak of? I'm curious...
 
Hey, I'm currently trawling the archives of this thread and I've got to say it's compelling stuff! I'm only up to page 35. I know I should stop but I'm addicted...
 
Smiffy said:
Hey, I'm currently trawling the archives of this thread and I've got to say it's compelling stuff! I'm only up to page 35.
Click to expand...
Gee, if you made it all the way through pages 1 to 35, then you've read everything in this thread at least 4 times.

It is not just history that repeats itself.
 
stateofgrace said:
http://www.skyscraper.org/TALLEST_TOWERS/t_wtc.htm



The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry. Worried that the intense air pressure created by the buildingsâ high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core.

The Towers did not have concrete cores.
Click to expand...

Masonry often referres technically to stonework particuarly in the uk.

If that is not true then you are asserting that the image of the WTC 2 core shows drywall that has survived hundreds of thousands of tons of steel crashing over it.


And that is ridiculous.
 
Smiffy said:
Hey, I'm currently trawling the archives of this thread and I've got to say it's compelling stuff! I'm only up to page 35. I know I should stop but I'm addicted...
Click to expand...

Great Smiffy,

You will probably notice that the deniers posting here have never posted any raw evidence of the steel core columns they (weakly) assert stood.

You've robably also noted that when they do post evidence it is something easily faked or simply not qualified by comparison to raw images of the demolition found here.

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

Regarding the concrete core. Or here,

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

Regarding the demolition.


But most importantly what they post never explains any part of the phenomena 0f 9-11. In fact they do all that they can to be sure that competent, comprehensive explanations are dismissed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom