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

[Christophera]

ON EDIT:

The website
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/index.html

Lists Hamburger with;

Experts on Parade

A bunch of frauds

Let me add that Hamburger promotes the;
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/collapse/piledriver.html

The Pile-Driver Theory

The Tops of the Towers as Giant Sledgehammers

Fraud.

Here is the only feasible and realistic explanation for near free fall and total pulverization.

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

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Now then, Mr. Brown, since you evaded my question regarding the relative weight of two stacks of books, let me ask this:

Which is heavier:

A) 11 stories of a World Trade Center tower
B) 25 stories of a World Trade Center tower

Take your pick. I know you can do it.

You are not explaining total pulverization therefore you must explain why WTC 1 fell south when 2/3 of the perimeter wall on the north was destroyed.

No, .......... fire will not explain it. EVER. No way can enough heat be concentrated on the perimeter columns to equal 2/3 removal on the opposite side.

Please stop evading and answer the question. Which of the two choices is heavier, A or B?

 

[Christophera]

Please stop evading and answer the question. Which of the two choices is heavier, A or B?

Stupid question. You know the answer. My questions are more pertinent.

GET REAL DOGGIE

 

[delphi_ote]

Let me add that Hamburger promotes the;
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/collapse/piledriver.html

The Pile-Driver Theory

The Tops of the Towers as Giant Sledgehammers

Fraud.

Here is the only feasible and realistic explanation for near free fall and total pulverization.

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

Internet rule of argument number 513: bigger font = more true.

 

[Christophera]

Internet rule of argument number 513: bigger font = more true.

No, bigger font = more relative to issue. The truth is in the words. and the raw evidence.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

The fact is that Hambuger is phoney. Piledriver OMG!

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Stupid question. You know the answer. My questions are more pertinent.

GET REAL DOGGIE

Oh, I'm real.

Now why don't you answer the question.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

And again:

Your continued spamming of this thread (and others) with links to your site is in direct violation of your membership agreement. Is it your wish to be once again suspended from this forum?

 

[Christophera]

Oh, I'm real.

Now why don't you answer the question.

But it was murder of 3,000 people and due process was deprived. My questions are more pertinent. Yours are a waste of time. You already know the answers, we both do.

I could say the same thing and my questions are more pertinent to the issue which is not collapse.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4006&stc=1&d=1163141190

 

[Christophera]

Internet rule of argument number 513: bigger font = more true.

And the issue is fraud.

 

[beachnut]

Let me add that Hamburger promotes the;
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/collapse/piledriver.html

The Pile-Driver Theory

The Tops of the Towers as Giant Sledgehammers

Fraud.

Here is the only feasible and realistic explanation for near free fall and total pulverization.

www.iaminsane.com

you go to a CT site produced by a software engineer, (is that guy on crank when he wrote his site, he never fixes his errors), to discredit a real structural engineer?

software engineer vs structural engineer

i would have to think 100,000 tons of building falling 10 feet would be like a pile driver, but then I am not the expert structural engineer, are you

you seem to be unable to find errors in your work or others work.

So why do you disagree with structural engineers and pick a software engineer to do your thinking?

Have you found the errors on the web site published by the software engineer?

 

[tsig]

What does "raw evidence" mean?

Not cooked by Chris.

 

[Mobyseven]

Hmm, that was belz, non accountability.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2081431#post2081431

Er...I KNOW that you were talking to Belz when you first mentioned the contradiction. That is why I only responded to the two questions regarding your photographic 'evidence'.

Looks like your teams obsufucations are working. I should say that you "should read the thread" because this is already answered at least 3 times.

Hang on a second - you asked for an explanation of what we are looking at in the photographs, and I gave you a possible explanation - one that is supported by what we know about the construction of the WTC.

And you are telling me to "read the thread because this is already answered at least 3 times." ???

Well, if it has already been answered, then don't ask us what it is.

YOU may have thought you were asking a rhetorical question, but you weren't. So don't get pissed off when someone answers it and you don't like the answer.

This is the ring of columns called interior box columns which are just out side the core. The perimeter box columns are unmistakeable for any familiar with the WTC.

So you admit that we cannot see a concrete core in that photo?

 

[Mobyseven]

If I have to show you where rebar is located inside of a concrete shear wall you are not competent to conduct this discussion.

If you aren't able to provide evidence of your blatant rhetoric, you are not competent to conduct this discussion. I doubt you're competent enough to conduct electricity.

 

[Mobyseven]

If you do not know what would be rebar remnants from a 1,300 foot tall shear wall in the below linked image, you should withdraw from the discussion.

3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS​

I was having trouble spotting the rebar in this picture, especially as the picture was taken from so far away. One could almost be mistaken in thinking that at such low resolution and from such a long distance, it would be impossible to actually SEE the rebar in a photograph.

But you know better.

So here is the picture you link to above. I've zoomed in on the section you say shows the 3" rebar.

Would you mind pointing it out for us now? Which pixels are they?

 

[Mobyseven]

ANd WTC 2 was hardly damaged compared to WTC 1. The very top of WTC 2 fell west

Non sequiter.

And you have no evidence for your first statement. In fact, you've ignored the evidence presented to you as to how badly damaged WTC 2 was.

 

[Mobyseven]

Give the same brothers respective numbers of sheets of toilet paper and have a mosquito bite them on the elbow and knee respectively. Ask the same question.

Give the same brothers respective numbers of sheets of cardboard.

Then bash them with a sledgehammer in the ribs, and knee respectively.

Then light their shirt and pants on fire, respectively.

Who will drop the books first?

 

[Mobyseven]

Is that why no one survived above impact on WTC 1?

That would probably be because the tower collapsed, actually. I highly doubt that anything that occured to WTC 2 affected the chances of survival for those above the impact floors in WTC 1.

 

[Mobyseven]

Observe. The core of the top of tower 2 falls on WTC 3

Observe. Parts of the building fall onto WTC 3. No core is observable. Perhaps that is because the core would be in the centre of the building and not on the outside, if there was in fact a concrete core. Which there wasn't.

 

[Mobyseven]

Gawd, ......... if you just would have read the thread.

It was aired in 1990, production began in 1987. It was called "the Construction Of the twin Towers", it was 2 hours in length on 2 consecutive nights. Viewed on channel 28, (cahnnel 10 in Santa Barbara), produced by PBS, since removed from their archives and records as existent by those that can build 1,300 foot towers with explosive cast into the concrete.

Okay, good.

Now, can you produce anyone else who has seen this documentary to verify what you have said?

 

[Belz...]

Simple logic says that the first tower hit, hit hardest, burned worst, will fall first IF PLANE IMPACTS AND FIRES ARE RESPONSIBLE.

Yes. But in REALITY, the SECOND tower was hit hardest and LOWEST.

If I have to show you where rebar is located inside of a concrete shear wall you are not competent to conduct this discussion.

You have to show that there was a concrete wall to begin with.

ANd WTC 2 was hardly damaged compared to WTC 1.

The experts disagrees with you. Please provide evidence that this is so.

At least forty feet was detonated from the top.

Nuh-huh. You show two images of the "core", which you admitted could be dust, the second one beign lower than the other. Since you claim 100% pulverization, you shouldn't be able to see the core in the second image, since it seems to retain its general shape.

So which is it ? You can't have it both ways, chris.

I may have said there was also dust in the image, but I'm not sure of which image you refer to.

That one:

I don't have to think because I know and have evidence which matches what I know

Let me get this straight: you don't have to THINK because you KNOW and you have evidence to match what you KNOW ?

This is exactly what I was talking about. Bigfoot buffs KNOW that their pet creature exists, and they have "evidence" that matches what they KNOW. OF course they do! They interpret the evidence in a way that suits them and ignore the evidence that doesn't agree with them. They don't have to THINK, either.

But you ALWAYS have to think, chris.