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

Er...do you know what a compound sentence is?

"I ate dinner and had a shower."

That is an example of a compound sentence. For those of you playing at home, a compound sentence is a sentence that contains two or more coordinating clauses, joined by a coordinating conjunction.

The most common conjunction of this type is the lexeme "and".

If you are having trouble writing sentences with the lexeme "and" in them, the you are in SERIOUS trouble.

(By the way, - the other type of conjunction is used in a complex sentence, consisting of a main clause with one or more subordinate clauses. An example of this would be, "I swam to Paul because he was drowning." Just in case anyone was interested.)
 
so your reasoning is:-

no evidence that the steel core columns were cut explosively..........
=
...................proof that steel core columns did not exist!

that argument holds less water than a dead dingo's donger...........

BV

CONGRATULATIONS! :D You did the 7000 mark!
love005.gif
 
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?

That appears to be part of the outer section of the collapsing building. The poor quality and blurring of the "spire" part of that photo, in comparison with the buildings both in the foreground and background which are in focus, suggests that either the "spire" is still in motion (i.e. - collapsing), or that it has been photoshopped in and deliberately blurred to make it seem ambiguous.

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

Another building, the silhouette of which can be seen through the dust cloud created by the collapsed building.
 
Then tell us the name of the documentary. Tell us how we might go about viewing it.

If it is the PBS documentary that has been found by another member, what do you say to the fact that it apparently at no point mentions a concrete core? Or is that a different documentary?

Just tell us the name of the documentary to give us a starting point. Or an approximate air-date.

I think this was tried many pages ago. What followed then was an attempt by several other readers (myself included) to find mention of this documentary in the PBS archives. Needless to say, no such documentary was found.
 
I think this was tried many pages ago. What followed then was an attempt by several other readers (myself included) to find mention of this documentary in the PBS archives. Needless to say, no such documentary was found.

And I repeat...the pain hurts so good.

I'm hoping by posting this again that he might at least give us some clue as to when the documentary aired, what it was called...I dunno.

Perhaps it exists on a higher metaphysical plane.
 
<snip>
Then tell us the name of the documentary. Tell us how we might go about viewing it.

If it is the PBS documentary that has been found by another member, what do you say to the fact that it apparently at no point mentions a concrete core? Or is that a different documentary?

Just tell us the name of the documentary to give us a starting point. Or an approximate air-date.

Take your meds then.

chris can provide no link to anyone else who has produced OR EVEN SEEN the documentary. so far, it seems he is the only person on this planet who has any knowledge of it.
he has been sussed out on any number of inaccuracies and his theory of a concrete core crumbles to dust just like that fantastic concoction does in his fervid imagination.
and.............
he tells blatant lies about mohawk ironworkers:
he implicates thousands of professional experts in his sick conspiracy:
he lies about the basic construction of the towers:
about dodgy pictures he uses as "raw evidence":
he uses statements of survivors of 9/11 and cherry-picks quotes to suit his fallacious intent:
he can provide no reputable reference sources to back up his absurd claims:
most tellingly though he has also stated that NOTHING will ever change his mind........

BV
 
Christophera,

Did your imaginary PBS documentary addressed the explosives that were placed inside the WTC? Did they actually talk about the explosives?
 
<snip>
Another building, the silhouette of which can be seen through the dust cloud created by the collapsed building.

no..that's a natural assumption like i first made, but the series of pictures

HERE

show that there was no building behind to cause it.
so what is it? of course i can't accept chris' assertion that it is evidence of a conctete core, i think the enigmatic phallic shadow is possibly a swirling cloud of dust around the steel core before that also succumbed to gravity?

BV
 
A step forward in my research on how to punch someone through the internet. A woody phallic object could be just the thing I've been missing. Baseball bat, that is.

[sarcasm]
Well, if you have trouble because the "Punch someone
over the internet"-problem... Need an address? :D
[/sarcasm]
 
chris can provide no link to anyone else who has produced OR EVEN SEEN the documentary. so far, it seems he is the only person on this planet who has any knowledge of it.
Apparently, its broadcast was preceded by fnords that made everyone but him go into a trance-like state for the exact length of the film.

he has been sussed out on any number of inaccuracies and his theory of a concrete core crumbles to dust just like that fantastic concoction does in his fervid imagination.
and.............
he tells blatant lies about mohawk ironworkers:
he implicates thousands of professional experts in his sick conspiracy:
he lies about the basic construction of the towers:
about dodgy pictures he uses as "raw evidence":
he uses statements of survivors of 9/11 and cherry-picks quotes to suit his fallacious intent:
he can provide no reputable reference sources to back up his absurd claims:
most tellingly though he has also stated that NOTHING will ever change his mind........

BV
 
That appears to be part of the outer section of the collapsing building. The poor quality and blurring of the "spire" part of that photo, in comparison with the buildings both in the foreground and background which are in focus, suggests that either the "spire" is still in motion (i.e. - collapsing), or that it has been photoshopped in and deliberately blurred to make it seem ambiguous.
Another building, the silhouette of which can be seen through the dust cloud created by the collapsed building.

i think the below may be a close up of that "spire". i'm not absolutely sure, perhaps someone could confirm either way?
anyway. more "raw evidence", as chris would have it, of the 47 columns that composed the steel core of WTC1/2. no evidence of a concrete core there strangely.................


874845533b6969bde.jpg


ETA
below is the image from where the above zoom originated. sorry. i'm a little confused, am i right in thinking this is the NORTH tower? the second tower to collapse?

874845533db236036.jpg

BV
 
Last edited:
over 7000 posts and 170 pages and reality still has not set in.

Well, i guess THIS thread is the true war on terror.
Fighting all stupidity about 9/11...

ADDED:

Chris Alfred B... The mother of all conspiracy-theorists... :D
 
Last edited:
Two pictures both taken from the same camera seconds apart at the same distance. The first shows a 2 foot wide interior box column which establishing the scale at the distance of 7500 feet.
There's your first problem. Your making the asumption that the column seen in the picture is 2 feet wide. If that coulmn is actually one of the "massive" columns, as you put it, Your calculations would be off.
The truth is at the distance the picture was taken (on the New Jersey bank)
That structure is quite a bit larger than 2 feet. Compare the size of the "spire" to the windows in the buildings in the foreground. How wide would you say those windows are? Now realized the the "spire" is even further back than the buildings. Now check your calculations out again. How wide are those columns?

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.
Again, the resolution in the picture is too low to make a definitive conclusion. To me the fine lines look like denser areas in the dust streaming off the columns.
What else besides high tensile rebar of that small size would be standing over 100 feet tall unsupported?
A hundred foot steel box column would be more stable that a hundred foot 3 inch rebar. The four sides of a box column would provide more self support than a circular solid 3 inch steel rebar. That's just common sense. You really don't know much about engineering. Besides it did not stand for more than acouple of seconds.

ON EDIT. 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.
Do you eyeball it or do you use a theodolite? You know one of these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodolite
Because if you do use a theodolite it has a telescope on it. Not to mention it also has laser range finding and GPS. That's if its a recent model. The college where I teach has a surveying class and they teach them how to use theodolites. Maybe you should take a class.

If you eye ball it, well then, now I know why you have so much time to devote to plaguing forums with your lunacy. Your really bad at judging distance and size.
 
Last edited:
That structure is quite a bit larger than 2 feet. Compare the size of the "spire" to the windows in the buildings in the foreground. How wide would you say those windows are? Now realized the the "spire" is even further back than the buildings.

take a look at a few zooms of images from the source below. importantly the same source christophera uses.
it's quite evident that the structure of whatever we see here is much larger than 3" rebar. however there is a plethora of evidence of the steel columns that made up the core. notice also that christophera is very choosy in what he regards as "raw evidence"

8748455348d3ef31c.jpg


8748455348d42d173.jpg


8748455348d45e651.jpg


BV
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom