• 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.
stateofgrace said:
Originally Posted by Mobyseven
"The abstract painting was an explosion of colour."

"The creature in Alien seems to explode from the chest of the character."

Notice how the first sentence is a metaphor. Notice how the second sentence is a simile. Notice how neither of them are literally 'explosions'.

Notice how 90% of the 'evidence' for explosives put forward is based on people's use of hyperbolic simile and metaphor, mostly in the midst of a chaotic, noisy and terrible tragedy...
What you say is perfectly true. What sounds or is described as an explosion is not necessary caused by explosives. This has been pointed out numerous times to the cters but falls on deaf ears.

Example.

http://www.okgeosurvey1.gov/atoka.html

Quote:
The earthquake was felt widely in Bryan County and Atoka County. It was also felt in Coleman, Johnston County. It usually sounded like an explosion or sonic boom, sometimes accompined or followed by a slight shaking and rattling of dishes and/or windows. Flower pots were knocked off a shelf (or porch railing nine miles South of Bently. Much information was reported by Amber in the Brian Co., Sheriff's office, and Pam Ridgeway in the Atoka Co. Sheriff's office. Pam had some callers who were concerned that the loud boom might have been a terrorist explosion.
Quote:
First floor watching tv sounded like some one ran into my home sounded like [an explosion] house shook just a tremble did not know what it was.
Quote:
First floor Sitting down, watching TV. We heard a rumble,and then what sounded like an explosion, then a little more rumble.
Quote:
First floor. Sitting down and watching TV Sounded like an explosion.House shook throughout
.
Quote:
second story watching the TV sounded like a distant rumble and I heard something exploded
Click to expand...

If it looks like an explosion, walks like an explosion, talks like an explosion and acts like an explosion, it is an explosion.

Your attempt to paint reality as a distortion IS a distortion.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3966&stc=1&d=1162836009
 

Attachments

  • corefacesexplodinglines.jpg
    corefacesexplodinglines.jpg
    43.5 KB · Views: 2
Christophera said:
If it looks like an explosion, walks like an explosion, talks like an explosion and acts like an explosion, it is an explosion.
Click to expand...

Possibly true. But not all explosions are caused by explosives. Over-inflating a balloon causes an explosion, albeit a small one. Burning up things like fire extinguishers, microwaves and air conditioning units, plus many other things cause bigger ones.
 
Christophera said:
If it looks like an explosion, walks like an explosion, talks like an explosion and acts like an explosion, it is an explosion.

Your attempt to paint reality as a distortion IS a distortion.
Click to expand...

If you watch the video there are no explosions. Everything is moving down.

Only when you freeze the frame do you imagine an explosion, but they are gravity collapse of a building. Too simple?

Gravity collapse with just the energy of the failed building!

Energy you can calculate if you are not insane.

1,000,000,000,000 Joules. Try real science an math, forget the concrete core, and stop making up stuff.

Simple advice, good luck.
 
Christophera said:
Curious how an administrative error or oversite in unsuspending me after a 3 day suspension which looks to me after a couple of weeks like a ban, is suddenly my fault and I am a liar.
Click to expand...
You posted on the physorg forum, shortly after your suspension here, that you were banned from the JREF. Not "a couple of weeks" afterwards. Moreover, you did not issue a correction at that forum when your lie was pointed out.

And that episode was only one of your lies.

It certainly appears as though you are distorting the situation.
Click to expand...
No. You are a liar. That's the long and short of it.

OMG!

You totally left out that WTC 2 was more seriously damaged by impact and fire than was WTC 1. That is not logical. It is logical that WTC one would fall first.
Click to expand...
Never mind the above sentence is confusing, I'd like you to first retract your assertion that I "never responded" here to your "towers fell in the wrong order" claim.
 
Christophera said:
If it looks like an explosion, walks like an explosion, talks like an explosion and acts like an explosion, it is an explosion.

Your attempt to paint reality as a distortion IS a distortion.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3966&stc=1&d=1162836009
Click to expand...

Not all explosions are caused by explosives. Air pressure, Failing material under stress, impacts are all other causes of exlosion like effects.

The still image may look like an explosion, but if you look at the video you will see that it is just falling debris and dust billowing due to air pressure and movement.
 
Christophera, can I assume you have NO EVIDENCE WHAT SOEVER of the planes hitting the wrong towers, and the wrong tower falling first? Evidence like written statements, video confessions, interviews with the perpetrators? NO EVIDENCE? Chris, are you lying about these things? If not, show us the requested evidence. And remember (you're good at remembering, are you not?) none of your assumptions, expectations or interpretations from some pictures.
 
Originally Posted by Christophera
You forgot the Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992. There is a great deal of support for th truth as much as you do not like it.
Click to expand...

hey chris.........
i've googled and amazon'ed this book, and searched OU press. even after adjusting for your bad spelling:- "Oxford Encyclopaedia of Technology and Innovation" i can find no trace.
is this the exact title?
please have you got the ISBN number for the book?

BV
 
I've been busy reading this thread (yes, every page!). It stops being funny after about page 100 and gets REAL old after that! On the plus side I've had my lingering vague suspicions about CD laid to rest by the excellent debunking efforts of you lot. Also, I learnt this:
The Truthasaur is big. Dinosaurs were large often having long tails and could run and came from history. The truth of the human past is a long tale coming from far back in history that runs on and on.
The truth of our animal mind might be described as "reptilian" in its primordial essence.
Dinosaurs are perceived as giant lizards having a preponderance of mass dominating the environment. The mental environment, our perceptional ability as a group is confronted with a preponderance of evidence in the Truthasaur that documents our unconscious minds as individuals and as a collective.
The truth, as indirectly viewed with attitude (attitude controls perception) formed in our recent past, doesn't exist, cannot, if it did it would be utterly incomprehensible and terrifying beyond description.
The truth of our spiritual existence consists of many small facts spread over a large area comprising a body of information.
The truth can be difficult or painful, making truth a sore.
The truth is extinct?.
Click to expand...

Comedy gold!

 
bonavada said:
hey chris.........
i've googled and amazon'ed this book, and searched OU press. even after adjusting for your bad spelling:- "Oxford Encyclopaedia of Technology and Innovation" i can find no trace.
is this the exact title?
please have you got the ISBN number for the book?

BV
Click to expand...

Chris reads books that were never printed and sees shows that were never shown, yet we should believe him.
 
Smiffy said:
I've been busy reading this thread (yes, every page!). It stops being funny after about page 100 and gets REAL old after that! On the plus side I've had my lingering vague suspicions about CD laid to rest by the excellent debunking efforts of you lot. Also, I learnt this:

Comedy gold!
Click to expand...

WOW! You really read all of that? You, my friend, are a hero :)
 
Christophera said:
If it looks like an explosion, walks like an explosion, talks like an explosion and acts like an explosion, it is an explosion.

Your attempt to paint reality as a distortion IS a distortion.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3966&stc=1&d=1162836009
Click to expand...

Chris I see a building falling down under gravity.

Honestly, that's all I see I guess you see an explosion and are convinced of it but why keep showing the same thing to the same people. I do not see it we do not see it, mankind has been used!
 
Bell said:
WOW! You really read all of that? You, my friend, are a hero :)
Click to expand...
It was something I, erm, NEEDED to do! I have to hand it to Chris, he is one creative guy, pity he's wasting his time defending the indefensible...

Anyway, Chris, you initially asked for a "realistice" *shudder* explanation for the "free fall" of the towers, which has been duly provided. You clearly reject it, which does not change the fact that it is realistic, so please tell me why you are still here?
 
Draw your own conclusions...
Cognitive distortion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cognitive therapy and its variants traditionally identify ten cognitive distortions that maintain negative thinking and help to maintain negative emotions. Eliminating these distortions and negative thought is said to improve mood and discourage maladies such as depression and chronic anxiety. The process of learning to refute these distortions is called "cognitive restructuring".

  1. All-or-nothing thinking - thinking of things in absolute terms, like "always", "every" or "never". Few aspects of human behavior are so absolute. (See false dilemma).
  2. Overgeneralization - taking isolated cases and using them to make wide generalizations. (See hasty generalization).
  3. Mental filter - Focusing exclusively on certain, usually negative or upsetting, aspects of something while ignoring the rest, like a tiny imperfection in a piece of clothing. (See misleading vividness).
  4. Disqualifying the positive - continually "shooting down" positive experiences for arbitrary, ad hoc reasons. (See special pleading).
  5. Jumping to conclusions - assuming something negative where there is actually no evidence to support it. Two specific subtypes are also identified:
    • Mind reading - assuming the intentions of others
    • Fortune telling - guessing that things will turn out badly. (See slippery slope).
  6. Magnification and Minimization - exaggerating negatives and understating positives. Often the positive characteristics of other people are exaggerated and negatives understated. There is one subtype of magnification:
    • Catastrophizing - focusing on the worst possible outcome, however unlikely, or thinking that a situation is unbearable or impossible when it is really just uncomfortable.
  7. Emotional reasoning - making decisions and arguments based on how you feel rather than objective reality. (See appeal to consequences).
  8. Making should statements - concentrating on what you think "should" or ought to be rather than the actual situation you are faced with, or having rigid rules which you think should always apply no matter what the circumstances are. (See wishful thinking).
  9. Labelling - related to overgeneralization, explaining by naming. Rather than describing the specific behavior, you assign a label to someone or yourself that puts them in absolute and unalterable terms.
  10. Personalization (or attribution) - Assuming you or others directly caused things when that may not have been the case. (See illusion of control). When applied to others this is an example of blame
Click to expand...
 
Smiffy said:
It was something I, erm, NEEDED to do! I have to hand it to Chris, he is one creative guy, pity he's wasting his time defending the indefensible...

Anyway, Chris, you initially asked for a "realistice" *shudder* explanation for the "free fall" of the towers, which has been duly provided. You clearly reject it, which does not change the fact that it is realistic, so please tell me why you are still here?
Click to expand...

I guess chris sees what he says he sees, but while seeing is beliving, figuring is knowing.

The math is clear the buildings must fall.
 
I don't think we should respond to Chris until he raises a different question because there is nothing more we can contribute.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom