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

[Bell]

The second shows a fine vertical element BARELY seen. It is seen meaning the pixel calculatons are NOT taking something into account. On the left side many rebar are clustered making a better exposure. Low, on the right the resolution is not adequate to capture the lower part of the rebar meaning the pixel calculations are partially right, proving the small size.

What the hell are you trying to say here? Could you, please, atleast make an effort on making coherent sentences? Jeez, your writing is almost as foggy as your brain.

And where is my requested picture where you point out the rebar?

 

[Jennie C.]

BTW, I am a surveyor and do that all the time with 1.25" range poles and they cannot be seen. I use a 2.5" PVC pipe which is barely visible at that distance.

You're a surveyor too? On top of emptying the wastebaskets at the construction firm and doing demolitions and witnessing demolitions and...

oh darn, I knew I shoulda scanned the thread for all of your occupations, but it's late and Lost is coming to a climax here.

 

[Bell]

You're a surveyor too? On top of emptying the wastebaskets at the construction firm and doing demolitions and witnessing demolitions and...

oh darn, I knew I shoulda scanned the thread for all of your occupations, but it's late and Lost is coming to a climax here.

Let me help. He's also a ditch digger.
It scares me that Bleeding Virgin is operating heavy machinery.

 

[Belz...]

Common sense. Historically most folks here have shown they refuse to use it.

The same common sense that tells you the Earth is flat and heavier objects fall faster ?

I guess your claim that it fell "too fast" is bunk, then.

I noticed the one you support doesn't provide a reasonable explanation for rates of fall near free fall or the fact the towers are pulverized in mid air.

Irrelevant. You've just shown that your "near free fall" argument is based on gut feelings.

Which is undiagnosable because of failure to appear on subpoena which of course doesn't mattter to you because you support lawless governments.

I don't see how believing REAL evidence has anything to do with any government, lawless or otherwise. Argument by association, I guess.

Your medical condition will go down in history as the greatest malady to effect humnity ever.

Yes, chronic back pains can be very annoying.

Also, appeal to emotion.

 

[Belz...]

Those are not core columns. The rectangular frames shown are of the outer frameworks inner wall. The same frames are seen in the image annotated as "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS". Notice that ONLY the columns ringing the core are labeled MASSIVE. Those columns are also the spire.

homer,

You are embarrasing humanity with your constant misrepresentations.

NOTICE: homer has not provided a reasonable explanation for what the fine vertical elements are IF they are not rebar.

Funny. You manage to contradict yourself in two consecutive posts. Guess that solves the question of your memory.

 

[Belz...]

The supposed 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns would require 1,300 + cutting charges to be cut into the lengths found at GZ. That, ........ completely changes the character of what was seen and heard. TOTALLY.

That's because you ASSUME that there were cutting charges, an entirely circular line of reasoning.

Two pictures both taken from the same camera seconds apart at the same distance.

None of which show concrete. You're saying that one shows box columns, and THEN we see rebar ?

 

[Christophera]

Oh, I know it's in vain.

I understand why chris is arguing, here. He's utterly convinced of his ideas. Though I disagree and I suspect, with evidence, that he has some mental problem, his behaviour is expected.

Oliver, on the other hand, I don't get. When a thread ceases to interest me I move on. He seems to linger, and keeps saying things to me although he knows I'm ignoring him. For some reason, he also seems to assume I'm much, much younger than him. He's a weird bird, that man. Cute girlfriend, though.

You are correct. I am convinced, but it is not an idea. And, ....... convinced is not really the right word. The word is, ....... I know.

This is knowledge beyond any shadow of any doubt. I watched the documentary and knew exactly what I was seeing and hearing all through it. I remembered it before I even knew FEMA was trying to tell the world it had steel core columns.

When I found that out, ....... I got a sick feeling about a BIG infiltration into the US government.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

You are correct. I am convinced, but it is not an idea. And, ....... convinced is not really the right word. The word is, ....... I know.

And yet you're wrong. Amazing, innit?

This is knowledge beyond any shadow of any doubt. I watched the documentary and knew exactly what I was seeing and hearing all through it. I remembered it before I even knew FEMA was trying to tell the world it had steel core columns.

And yet the "documentary" doesn't exist, and everything that does refutes your assertions. Amazing, innit?

When I found that out, ....... I got a sick feeling about a BIG infiltration into the US government.

An infiltration so BIG you can't name even one player. Amazing, innit?

 

[NobbyNobbs]

You are correct. I am convinced, but it is not an idea. And, ....... convinced is not really the right word. The word is, ....... I know.

This is knowledge beyond any shadow of any doubt. I watched the documentary and knew exactly what I was seeing and hearing all through it. I remembered it before I even knew FEMA was trying to tell the world it had steel core columns.

When I found that out, ....... I got a sick feeling about a BIG infiltration into the US government.

This reminds me of how the Ufologists know that aliens walk among us, and that there are those who know that the Apollo moon landing was a hoax, and those who know that the Earth is hollow. It'd be interesting for someone with a PET scan to pinpoint which part of the brain is misfiring for someone to be so deadset certain against all available evidence.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Also, and again, Mr. B., you may retract your assertion that I "never responded" here to your "towers fell in the wrong order" claim.

 

[Christophera]

What the hell are you trying to say here? Could you, please, at least make an effort on making coherent sentences? Jeez, your writing is almost as foggy as your brain.

And where is my requested picture where you point out the rebar?

I make compound sentences. Sometimes they don't work. I've got too much to say and too little time to say it.

3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS

 

[Christophera]

Also, and again, Mr. B., you may retract your assertion that I "never responded" here to your "towers fell in the wrong order" claim.

Okay, retracted. However your response did not show that my analysis of the "towers fell in the wrong order" was illogical.

 

[Christophera]

This reminds me of how the Ufologists know that aliens walk among us, and that there are those who know that the Apollo moon landing was a hoax, and those who know that the Earth is hollow. It'd be interesting for someone with a PET scan to pinpoint which part of the brain is misfiring for someone to be so deadset certain against all available evidence.

Understood. However, this image has not yet been logically described as anything but a steel reinforced concrete tybe.

WTC 2 core​

 

[Christophera]

That's because you ASSUME that there were cutting charges, an entirely circular line of reasoning.

That column on the left matches hundreds from GZ. Sheared & Torch Cut Columns

None of which show concrete. You're saying that one shows box columns, and THEN we see rebar ?

This one shows 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS but this one shows concrete shear wall and it is taken while the spire stands, just before the rebar image.

 

[Christophera]

Funny. You manage to contradict yourself in two consecutive posts. Guess that solves the question of your memory.

I don't see the contradictions. You will have to point them out.

Did you attempt to explain what this is if it is not rebar?

How about a logical explanation for what this is if it is not concrete.

 

[Oliver]

I make compound sentences. Sometimes they don't work. I've got too much to say and too little time to say it.

3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS

You have much to say - i agree with that. But you say nothing,
and time is one of your smallest problems.

The picture you posted is a police car or something like that.
So where is this retarded rabar? Under the car?

 

[Oliver]

Okay, retracted. However your response did not show that my analysis of the "towers fell in the wrong order" was illogical.

You did an analysis? Of what? Listen, PAL - you´re whining
all day long about this god d@mned central concrete core
and even if there was such a core, all you Clown are doing
is posting this image that shows a dustclud with a shadow
within.

You remember the 1/4 of americans, do you?

 

[Oliver]

Understood. However, this image has not yet been logically described as anything but a steel reinforced concrete tybe.

WTC 2 core​

Okay, Clown. I will report this message because you are
not able to present any evidence but this ***** image
of the dustcloud over and over again.

 

[Oliver]

That column on the left matches hundreds from GZ. Sheared & Torch Cut Columns
his one shows 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS but this one shows concrete shear wall and it is taken while the spire stands, just before the rebar image.

And? Waht does the cutted columns proof? Maybe that they did
not explode into its atoms after the C4 blew up whole new york?

 

[Oliver]

I don't see the contradictions. You will have to point them out.

Did you attempt to explain what this is if it is not rebar?

How about a logical explanation for what this is if it is not concrete.

There is no need to explain any of those pictures. You can´t tell
for sure what this is on this distance. Even if i can tell what these
pictures say about you. Please show us closer pictures or pictures
from the construction to proof anything but your incompetence,

thank you,
Oliver