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

[Mobyseven]

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.

Explosion != Explosives

Besides which:

It doesn't look like an explosion caused by explosives. It looks like (as someone said) the kind of 'explosion' you get when you quickly compress a bag of flour.

It doesn't walk like an explosion. [sarcasm]I find explosions have a bit of a swing in their step.[/sarcasm]

It doesn't talk like an explosion. [sarcasm]Explosions talk more like Richard Nixon.[/sarcasm]

It doesn't act like an explosion. It acts like a collapsing skyscraper. I wonder why that is?

What non-point were you trying to make again?

 

[Dragon]

Raw evidence? Huh!
There seems to be an abundance of the cooked sort on his poxy site.

 

[Mobyseven]

Oooookay... Who was the first one that made jokes and hijacked this thread?

I believe that would be Christophera.

 

[firecoins]

It doesn't look like an explosion caused by explosives. It looks like (as someone said) the kind of 'explosion' you get when you quickly compress a bag of flour.

I thought my blag of flour was rigged because you can see flour going up and over. I guess it had a concret core because steel column flour bags don't collapse so easily.

 

[Smiffy]

Oooookay... Who was the first one that made jokes and hijacked this thread? http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/11107451db56d36f14.gif http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/char118.gif http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/11107451d93669e73a.gif

Surely you weren't pointing the finger at ME? If any thread NEEDED derailing, it's this one! But seriously, we should resist the temptation to respond to Chris until he genuinely has something new to say - for the sake of all our sanity Anyway I need sleep now - catch up at the funny farm tomorrow1

 

[Oliver]

I believe that would be Christophera.

*lol* I think so, too - and he did it at the same moment
when he started the free fall garbage dump...

BTW: Did someone recognized this thread (13,871 replies)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60694

 

[Mobyseven]

If this thread makes it to 10,000, I will present Christophera with an award...

A bag of flour with a concrete core.

 

[jsfisher]

I don't understand everyone's reluctance to accept the truth.

Let me recount the full history of this foul and vile plot.

As everyone knows, the US government was infiltrated by the new world order some 50 years ago. It was a Tuesday. As we all know, infiltration of the US government is necessary for global domination, but not sufficient. The lynch-pin to the evil master plan had to be complete and utter take-over of, dare I say it, airport security.

It is self-evident that if you can't Xray luggage and run a magnetic wand near someone's crotch, you can't be successful in taking over the world.

JFK discovered the plot, and, well, you know the rest. That's fodder for a different thread.

But I digress. In the late 1960's, a brilliant and diabolical plan was launched. Construction of the World Trade Center was started, and, just according to plan, the entire steel framing was crusted with RDX explosives. A simple *BOOM* and both towers could be dropped.

Proper diabolical plans cannot be rushed, and this one was no exception. Two minor obstacles had to be dealt with before things that go *BOOM*. First, since all the building records had been falsified to indicate an entirely steel constuction, the conspirators would need to wait for the collective memory of all involved in the consturction to forget about the concrete core. Thanks to fluoride in the water supply, about 35 years would prove sufficient.

Second, a PBS documentary produced back when nobody watched PBS needed to "disappear." The production cronicled the towers' construction, including the concrete core and the RDX coating. As fate would have it, though, the popularity of the Tickle-me-Elmo doll coupled with the fact the sole remaining copy was BetaMAX assured its disappearance forever.

With the two obstacles eliminated, all that was needed was "trigger event" that would cause plausible cover for mischief. Buildings don't just fall down for no reason, after all, and if people knew it was blown up (er, down), it would be game over for the crotch wands.

On August 28, 2001, another Tuesday by the way, a top-secret internal document reported the successful conclusion of both the flouride and Tickle-me-Elmo campaigns. Two weeks later, as could have easily been predicted, two large jet airplanes, piloted by religious zealots who each miscalculated turn radii banking over Manhattan taking in a dramatic view of the Hudson River, smacked into the two towers.

Smash, smash, *BOOM, *BOOM*, and the rest is history.

By the way, the reason you need to remove your shoes in airports is because the new world order has invested heavily in Odor Eaters.


What's not to believe?

 

[Blue Mountain]

Picking up from page 133 ...

999,988 bottles of beer on the wall, 999,988 bottles of beer,

Take one down, pass it arouns, 999,993 bottles of beer on the wall...

I bought a Six-Pack for some thirsty guys in here. [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/11107452fdd37546bc.gif[/qimg]

999,988 bottles of beer on the wall, 999,988 bottles of beer,

Take one down, pass it around, 999,987 bottles of beer on the wall...

 

[Christophera]

You couldn't make sense of anything if it jumped up and bit you in your @ss.

Please provide evidence the wrong tower fell first. Evidence like a written statement that says the north tower had to fall first. Or a video convession should do.

Please provide evidence the towers fell the wrong way. Evidence like a written statement that says the towers had to fall the other way. Or a video convession should do.

Not your assumptions, conclussions or dillusions. REAL evidence. If you cannot provide real evidence, evidence that is indisputable, you are lying. Put up or shut up.

Apparently you felt compelled to make a defacto confession that you wouldn't know a lie if you told one. History and facts of the attacks are quite clear and illogical within the officila story.

 

[Mobyseven]

History and facts of the attacks are quite clear and illogical.

Language awards aside, I think this should be nominated for "Contradiction of The Week".

How exactly can a fact be both 'clear' and 'illogical'?

And just to pre-empt you, you haven't been taken out of context here. This is your own doing.

 

[Oliver]

@BELZ...

Hello, Belz. No kidding here:

If you talk long enough about this
s*it you will someday enter the world
where he lives.

And there is no way back....

​

​

 

[Christophera]

So the fact that WTC2 was hit lower, at greater speed doesn't get factored in ?

Okay, I answer that now

We need comprehensive logic here. One cannot bite off a select piece of an event and apply logic and expect it to suffice in the case of exposing an infiltrated government and 3000 capitol crimes.

That 2 towers would fall at near free fall speeds almost identically to the ground demands consideration of everything OUTSIDE the official story because due process was violated in dealing with capitol crimes.

The last paragraph justifies the action of NOT attempting to explain events with plane impacts and fires to justifiably determine if an explanation for the identical near free falls can be explained because it is absolutely unheard of, PERIOD.

Making the below sentence preposterous with its implication of collapse.

You mean, as expected if they collapsed DUE to the impacts and subsequent fires ?

Not unless you have a very simplistic (or is it simplistice ?) perception of reality. Complex events aren't always easy to analyse, chris.

Spelling is not important here. The fact that 3000 humans were murdered and a government that is supposed to be dedicated to the well being of its people through lawful performance is what is important.

Complex events are not easy to analyse PARTICUARLY if you do not have enough information. I happen to have more than most people and so can provide logical, comprehensive analysis

Spiritually significant ? He came from that angle, he couldn't have hit any other face without considerable delay.

The consideration of delay was something I had though of because it is an issue and I can only compensate for it logically with the proposition that Atta was indeed an accomplished pilot and decided beforehand and adjusted his flight path accordingly. It was not a last minute consideration.

Speculation. I can't see a "severe" downward turn; and even if that were the case he simply might have decided to pick a lower target, thinking that the greater weight of the section above the damage would do the trick. Who knows ? I'm no telepath..

Are you asking to have it both ways. Atta cannot think of whacking WTC 1 lower and instead hits it further up where it will do less damage, but the other pilot who showed up to find his target on fire had to compensate and in the process cannot get a direct hit and almost misses but is considered by you to be deciding to hit it lower?

It doesn't make sense within human nature and events as they have happened. What does make sense is that the pilots knew each others targets and were told that impacts at certain elevations would do more damage.

No, ............... identical collapse does not make sense to the ground twice, never.

Even IF you were correct, it would only make the conspirators completely inept. There goes THAT global domination scam..

There were carefully considered risks. Leaving the planes in the control of bonafied terrorists only exposed the perps to an out of sequence impact/fall sequence. You are helping to cover for that, as they anticipated. The use of not fully controlled pilots or remotes isolated them and maintaining anonymity while reinforcing/creating what appears as true terrorist attacks.

Dust can be many colors. Your point is empty.

No it isn't. You admitted that it was dust. You admit, now, that dust can be "many colors", presumably including gray. This refutes your assertion that what we see in your picture can ONLY be concrete, because your only "evidence" for that is the colour of the "structure", namely gray.

Are you retracting your statement, or not ?

The dust can only be concrete, oh perhaps some gypsum and asbestos. Most importantly is the materials seen are mineral and the huge quantities of it as well as obvious sand and gravel belie amounts present in steel cored buildings. Not to mention the total absence of severe horizontal blasts needed to cut steel core columns with unconstrained explosions. recall over 1300 of these would be needed and they would not leave cuts that looked like that on the left here.

 

[Christophera]

Language awards aside, I think this should be nominated for "Contradiction of The Week".

How exactly can a fact be both 'clear' and 'logical'?

And just to pre-empt you, you haven't been taken out of context here. This is your own doing.

I've added to correct what what might be seen as a typo.

Evidence your vague assertion if you still have one.

 

[Christophera]

If I look like a fraud, walk like a fraud, talk like a fraud and act like a fraud, I am a fraud because I have no evidence.

(edited for accuracy)

 

[Christophera]

Well, if it's not raw evidence, then it isn't evidence at all.

Right, Chrissy?

All things we might deem evidence can be qualified as real evidence by raw evidence which is absolutely real.

As absolute as the raw evidence of images are, it is limited in its use by what can be identified. This I recognize and because of my experience and witnessing the construction of WTC1 via an intimate video produced by PBS (then removed from their archives and their history) in 1987 which I saw in 1990.

Can you twist this into something that justifies ignoring lies that murderers hide behind? Go ahead, give it a try, I know you can do it.

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

 

[Bell]

Apparently you felt compelled to make a defacto confession that you wouldn't know a lie if you told one. History and facts of the attacks are quite clear and illogical within the officila story.

So what? Where is your evidence? Like written statements or videotaped confessions or interviews with the pilots? You keep on failing to show us evidence that the planes hit the wrong towers and the wrong tower fell first. And while you're at it, evidence of the fires going out would also be much appreciated. I asked you multiple times before, and you failed to deliver each and every time. Stop sidestepping. Put up or shut up.

 

[Belz...]

What is everything Christopheria has ever posted? I'll take nonsense for $300, Alex.

Alex - "It was built to later demolition but has no structural component."

Delphi - "What is the concrete core."

 

[Belz...]

We need comprehensive logic here. One cannot bite off a select piece of an event and apply logic and expect it to suffice in the case of exposing an infiltrated government and 3000 capitol crimes.

But that's not what we're trying to do here, chris. We're trying to make sense of your theory, which is self-contradictory. If it bears out, then we can start making a case for your "capitol" crimes.

The last paragraph justifies the action of NOT attempting to explain events with plane impacts and fires to justifiably determine if an explanation for the identical near free falls can be explained because it is absolutely unheard of, PERIOD.

It was shown to you, repeatedly, that the towers did NOT fall at speeds anywhere NEAR "free fall". You can clearly see the debris falling AHEAD of the rest.

Making the below sentence preposterous with its implication of collapse.

No, it isn't. The problem is that you're assuming your conclusion. You're using your conclusion to determine what the evidence means, without actually going through due process, namely to examine the evidence from all possible angles. The only angle you've considered is the concrete.

Spelling is not important here.

I believe it is very important. If one cannot express his thoughts properly, how can that person expect to be understood ?

Complex events are not easy to analyse PARTICUARLY if you do not have enough information.

Yes, and all you have is pictures that you cannot interpret properly and a 15 year-old documentary that you cannot produce, and that you try to recall using a demonstratably faulty memory.

The consideration of delay was something I had though of because it is an issue and I can only compensate for it logically with the proposition that Atta was indeed an accomplished pilot and decided beforehand and adjusted his flight path accordingly. It was not a last minute consideration.

Do you have evidence for this, or is it just further speculation ?

Atta cannot think of whacking WTC 1 lower and instead hits it further up where it will do less damage, but the other pilot who showed up to find his target on fire had to compensate and in the process cannot get a direct hit and almost misses but is considered by you to be deciding to hit it lower?

It's not "considered by me" I simply stated a bare possibility.

Also, "almost misses" is a ridiculous phrase in this instance. The whole plane went into the tower.

What does make sense is that the pilots knew each others targets and were told that impacts at certain elevations would do more damage.

Do you have evidence for this, or is it just further speculation ?

No, ............... identical collapse does not make sense to the ground twice, never.

Argument from personal incredulity. Can you show that they shouldn't have collapsed in the same way ? Can you show that they DID collapse in the same way ? I think they didn't.

There were carefully considered risks. Leaving the planes in the control of bonafied terrorists only exposed the perps to an out of sequence impact/fall sequence.

"hit the tower with the antenna" isn't a complicated command. As I've said, the conspirators are inept. They should've just detonated a bomb in the basement and be done with it.

You are helping to cover for that, as they anticipated.

Mind-reading again ?

the use of not fully controlled pilots or remotes isolated them and maintaining anonymity while reinforcing/creating what appears as true terrorist attacks.

Ridiculous. Live people are MORE risky because they could have been captured and interrogated.

The dust can only be concrete, oh perhaps some gypsum and asbestos.

"Only" concrete... but "perhaps" something else ?

That proves my point, chris. You have NO idea what the dust is made of and you admit that it IS dust. Therefore your solid, pre-detonation concrete core doesn't exist on that picture by your own admission.

 

[Belz...]

All things we might deem evidence can be qualified as real evidence by raw evidence which is absolutely real.

This so doesn't make sense.

As absolute as the raw evidence of images are, it is limited in its use by what can be identified. This I recognize and because of my experience and witnessing the construction of WTC1 via an intimate video produced by PBS (then removed from their archives and their history) in 1987 which I saw in 1990.

Speculation, again. Instead of doubting your own, admittedly faulty memory, you decide to trust it 100% and doubt all the REST of the world. Don't you see a problem with that, chris ?