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

[defaultdotxbe]

wow 100,000 views

has christophera actually convinced anyone there was a concrete core?

 

[tsig]

the gunpowder plot........now that was a REAL conspiracy. poor old guy, burned to death a million times every november. as if he didn't suffer enough already.

BV

Guy Falks day?

 

[stateofgrace]

wow 100,000 views

has christophera actually convinced anyone there was a concrete core?

Not yet, it's a slow painful process. One set to go on and on and on and........

 

[tsig]

All his splitted personalities did agree with him. So there
are a lot, i mean A LOT of people who agree with him.

It must be nice to have a majority of oneself.

 

[Bell]

As was peabodys illogical answer lost in the deniers spam, my answer to the above question was lost.

Even though the planes hit the wrong towers, the pilots knew each others targets and they were told that explosives were planted on those floors which would cause more damage if hit. Pilots knowing each others targets is S.O.P.

Your answers get more ridicolous the harder you try to worm your way out of all the stupid claims you make. What you just said, makes no sence whatsoever.

Note to self: Hit the tower on the left. But if you accidentaly hit the tower on the right,
please do so whilst aiming the plane some 15 floors higher.

Yes, Christophera, very likely... not!

Due to secrecy the addmissions you request will not be forthcoming. However, forensically, with logic, we can conclude that only optimally placed and optimally distributed high explosives detonated in a high speed series could create this event.

Cutting steel core columns would appear completely different as the density of steel requires massive charges.

If it is so secret, what RAW evidence do you have of explosives in the towers? Evidence like people admitting to have planted the explosives. No pictures accompanied with your assumptions.

You demand raw evidence of us, I demand it of you. If you cannot provide such evidence, then you are lying. Are you lying, Christophera?

 

[tsig]

It is astounding what the supporters of lies will do when they have no evidence to support their lies..

They impac and pancake to the ground

 

[Powa]

wow 100,000 views

has christophera actually convinced anyone there was a concrete core?

Any day now.

 

[tsig]

i think everyone should check out the site below. it has astonishing information regarding the true core composition.........

LOOK HERE NOW!

:-}

BV

Fantasic some of us have too much talent and time on our hands!

 

[bonavada]

Guy Falks day?

dats da guy! :-}

fawkes..but no matter.

gunpowder, treason and plot.

it's about the peak of the celebration right now. a cacophony (sp?) of noise and light all around the city. great fun for the young (and not so young) kids. me, i'd rather buy a six-pack and watch time-team.....

although i'd love to see a high altitude/satellite pic of the UK tonight. eire would be much darker though, they don't celebrate it. old guy was a cafflick you see.......

BV

 

[tsig]

dats da guy! :-}

fawkes..but no matter.

Let us return to the drawing and quartering of C.

Never liked the horse thing.

 

[Belz...]

This image shows there were no steel core columns. I know for a fact, basically as a witness via a 2 hour documentary that there was a rectangular cast concrete tubular core.

You are a witness via a documentary ? Not sure that qualifies.

Also, there should be OTHER witnesses. So far, zilch.

Nothing will convince me otherwise.

Not even reality ? You've just admitted to beign closed-minded.

Realize that if they were cut with explosives that it changes the entire character of the visual and auditory event, and, how could what is seen in the image above exist if explosives had already cut the columns making them fall. Those explosons would have removed the core we see.

Still doesn't explain why such a structure wasn't seen with WTC1. We only have your a posteriori analysis, with no evidence, that the sequence of detonations was as you claim.

It said there was a special plastic coating on the rebar which was flammable and that only welders with a security clearance could weld it.

And NO ONE found that odd ? Gosh, I'd love it if you could produce that documentary, or SOMEONE who's also seen it and could confirm your story.

The below image shows an event which can only be created by high explosive optimally placed and distributed inside of a uniform mineral based material then exploded in a series of delayed high speed explosions.

Why ? Why is it the only explanation ?

I submit that your knowledge of physics and demolitions is insufficient to make such a statement.

Clearly you refer to other pictures. At the distance of the WTC 2 core linked above only the shape and logic is available to determine what the material is. Bascially you commit distortion of the import evidence by not posting the evidence you imply exists.

The "other" pictures show the remains of the core and drywall can clearly be seen. Ergo, your claim that it desintegrated is false.

Notice no one built a web site to document the steel core columns with raw evidence

Under your definition of "raw", no. Pictures of the construction, however, are plenty of evidence for the existence of those columns.

A progressive collpase has geometric properties as members fall. We have none of that, we have pulverization that obliterates with its separate delay systems of the floor and cores.

Sorry, chris. You can't use your conclusion about explosives to interpret the evidence you have and REACH your conclusion. That's called circular.

The floors with their light weight concrete form a light diffusive cloud and hide the blasts occuring inside when the towers are tall.

It's worth nothing that the amount of explosives required to do this would have obliterated much of the neighborhood.

 

[Belz...]

Without evidence you are deluded, accepting a lie as your psyche is dominated by cognitive disonance.


You abandon all reason in the face of the official corruption of removing evidence from the scene of 3000 capitol crimes as a subversion of our Constitution and due process to satisfy a crusade.

Get rational, be and stand for accountabilite to lawful principles.

We love you too.

Your theory doesn't even hold on its own merit, chris.

You stated that the CORE was built with C4-coated rebar. You stated that the presence of the plastic was mentioned in a DOCUMENTARY. No one noticed this but you.

You stated that the core was blown, but since you claim it is still standing after WTC2 collapses, you had to make up an excuse, namely that the rest of the building was detonated first, although this requires a second set of explosives.

You seem to imply that this plan was already underway when the towers were built, which raises an interesting question. If they were planning to destroy the towers when they built them, and planes wouldn't do the trick because concrete is sturdier than steel, which is the whole reason why you're claiming this, then WHY didn't they just use STEEL and RAM PLANES into the buildings ? It would've been less complicated, and they would've had to reveal their plans on TV.

Does any of this make sense to anyone else ?

 

[Belz...]

Because they would not have fires to blame for the "collapses". The idea was to minimize casualties, while maximizing psychological impact.

3000 dead ? Minimising ? You must be mad.

because the fires were almost going out in the south tower, while still burning fiercely in the north.

Untrue. You can clearly see how bad things were in WTC2 just moments before it collapsed. You are lying.

Also, part of the plan was to take over security at all airports. Without planes, there is no excuse to do this.

And to what end ?

Relative to the north tower, and relative to the fires which had burned initially in WTC2, the fires were in danger of going out. That's one possible explanation of why they had to do WTC2 first.

No, that's circular reasoning. You're using your conclusion to explain your conclusion. Try again. You can't think of a single reason why WTC2 fell before the north tower ?

 

[Belz...]

But you still have not explained why you think my explanation for "the wrong tower fell first" is not logical

You totally left out that WTC 2 was more seriously damaged by impact and fire than was WTC 1. That is not logical.

The fact that WTC2 was hit lower, at greater speed, and sustained more damage is not logical ?

It is astounding what the supporters of lies will do when they have no evidence to support their lies..

I thought you said we didn't realise what we were doing ?

Even though the planes hit the wrong towers, the pilots knew each others targets and they were told that explosives were planted on those floors which would cause more damage if hit. Pilots knowing each others targets is S.O.P.

That one's a nugget. Tell me, chris. No, convince me that that last paragraph isn't sheer speculation. So the pilots DID commit suicide ? They were THAT dedicated ? But they hit the WRONG towers ?

Also, please answer my point here.

 

[Oliver]

Let´s bet!

I bet that Belz will lose versus "the Wall".
Who places a bet on Belz?

 

[Christophera]

You totally left out that WTC 1 was more seriously damaged by impact and fire than was WTC 2. That is not logical.

The fact that WTC2 was hit lower, at greater speed, and sustained more damage is not logical ?

I thought you said we didn't realise what we were doing ?

No you know what you are doing. You are getting me to repeatedly answering the same questions so I will make lame errors in typing. Otherwise you do not know what you are doing.

I have corrected my post to say WTC 1 was more damaged by WTC 2.

Even though the planes hit the wrong towers, the pilots knew each others targets and they were told that explosives were planted on those floors which would cause more damage if hit. Pilots knowing each others targets is S.O.P.

That one's a nugget. Tell me, chris. No, convince me that that last paragraph isn't sheer speculation. So the pilots DID commit suicide ? They were THAT dedicated ? But they hit the WRONG towers ?

Also, please answer my point here.

Okay, I answer that now

Yes it is speculation but it does provide some reasoning for the fact that the towers fell approximately at the impact floors. Realize the tops of both towers fell in the wrong directions as well.

It is a reasonable explanation for the factor of "the wrong tower fell first". Further speculation is that the the pilot of flight 11 saw the north face of the north tower as a more spiritually significant target and so abandoned his orders. Note the severe downward turn of flight 175. The pilot was willfully seeking a specific elevation for some reason. The south side of WTC 2 was not a clear shot at the average approach elevation whereas WTC 1 was on the south side and WTC 2 was clear on the west side at the impact elevation right over WTC 3.

Both tower tops fell in the wrong directions and the wrong tower fell first.

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

That is the particulate, sand and gravel, that did not travel outwards from the core blasts before the WTC concrete core
Excellent. So you admit that dust and smoke CAN and DOES gather near the center of the collapse. Do you ALSO agree that said dust is gray ? If so, then you have just disproved your own assertion that NOTHING but concrete can explain that picture. Congratulations.

Dust can be many colors. Your point is empty. Whereas what I've said above about the pilots impact elevations and the fact that plane impacts had nothing to do with the demise of the towers is completely supported by this image which shows columns being cut and floors being blown out well ahead of what you call a collapse. it is what caused the body of WTC 2 to fall east.

 

[Bell]

Okay, I answer that now

Yes it is speculation but it does provide some reasoning for the fact that the towers fell approximately at the impact floors. Realize the tops of both towers fell in the wrong directions as well.

It is a reasonable explanation for the factor of "the wrong tower fell first". Further speculation is that the the pilot of flight 11 saw the north face of the north tower as a more spiritually significant target and so abandoned his orders. Note the severe downward turn of flight 175. The pilot was willfully seeking a specific elevation for some reason. The south side of WTC 2 was not a clear shot at the average approach elevation whereas WTC 1 was on the south side and WTC 2 was clear on the west side at the impact elevation right over WTC 3.

Both tower tops fell in the wrong directions and the wrong tower fell first.

Speculation, reasonable explanation, further speculation... hmmm, I see.

But we demand raw evidence, not speculation, Christophera. We are only being fair to you, since all that YOU accept from us, is raw evidence. So, show us raw evidence that the pilots hit the wrong towers, and also show us raw evidence of explosives in the towers.

No speculations, no reasonable explanations, no assumptions... raw evidence. Put up or shut up.

 

[tsig]

No you know what you are doing. You are getting me to repeatedly answering the same questions so I will make lame errors in typing. Otherwise you do not know what you are doing.

I have corrected my post to say WTC 1 was more damaged by WTC 2.






Okay, I answer that now

Yes it is speculation but it does provide some reasoning for the fact that the towers fell approximately at the impact floors. Realize the tops of both towers fell in the wrong directions as well.

It is a reasonable explanation for the factor of "the wrong tower fell first". Further speculation is that the the pilot of flight 11 saw the north face of the north tower as a more spiritually significant target and so abandoned his orders. Note the severe downward turn of flight 175. The pilot was willfully seeking a specific elevation for some reason. The south side of WTC 2 was not a clear shot at the average approach elevation whereas WTC 1 was on the south side and WTC 2 was clear on the west side at the impact elevation right over WTC 3.

Both tower tops fell in the wrong directions and the wrong tower fell first.

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



Dust can be many colors. Your point is empty. Whereas what I've said above about the pilots impact elevations and the fact that plane impacts had nothing to do with the demise of the towers is completely supported by this image which shows columns being cut and floors being blown out well ahead of what you call a collapse. it is what caused the body of WTC 2 to fall east.

Who will you bevie me or your lyning eyes

 

[mortimer]

If you check the post 2nd above, in reply to delphi_ote you will find your answer.

Chris,

We are talking about the North tower, not the South tower. Please pay attention.

Show me RAW evidence of the North tower's concrete core at elevation in demo photos. After all, that is the evidence you demand of us to prove steel core columns.

 

[Christophera]

wow 100,000 views

has christophera actually convinced anyone there was a concrete core?

Many people are convinced but the fact is stigmatized because people do not wnat to know their gov has been infiltrated and do not want to unify and take action.