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

[Christophera]

Where we stand:

Chris, I think your answer is something of an evasion. The opening post for this thread hinges on free fall. Also, to say you cannot determine the time for one collapse doesn't seem consistent with the claim both towers took the same time to come down.

So, I think the question hasn't yet been fully answered.

Also, realize that this issue has been fully dealt with already in this thread (read it) and I've agreed to use the term "near free fall" for good reason. It is the most accurate term that can be selected.

 

[Z]

Also, realize that this issue has been fully dealt with already in this thread (read it) and I've agreed to use the term "near free fall" for good reason. It is the most accurate term that can be selected.

If you have already defined 'near free fall', giving a rate of downward acceleration, please repost it here (a simple copy/paste or quote function). Otherwise, please define 'near free fall', or retract this claim.

ETA: A time (20 seconds) is not a rate of downward acceleration. Hence, saying '20 seconds is near free fall' is inaccurate.

 

[jsfisher]

Also, realize that this issue has been fully dealt with already in this thread (read it) and I've agreed to use the term "near free fall" for good reason. It is the most accurate term that can be selected.

Chris, please understand the goal, here, is to give the discussion some focus. The thousands of posts that precede this one have an extremely low signal-to-noise ratio. We are simply trying to explore your reasoning and arguments without the asides into other issues or the "proof is left as an exercise for the reader" sort of links.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but the opening post connotes your belief the towers came down in a free fall. One recent post says, no, not free fall, but near free fall. Yet another post says you don't know how fast they came down, and the rate is unimportant.

There are not consistent statements.

So, to resolve the current question, you need to either (a) retract the near free fall claim or (b) provide some guidance as to what you mean by near free fall.


ETA a Rule #2 contribution:

 

[uruk]

Perhaps you didn't notice. There are at least 6 completely different websites an perhaps 500 web pages altogether. You are wrong.

Five times nothing is still nothing.

Finding those that accuse others of what they are guilty of is common. On the websites you were to lazy to examine you will find that there are details of perhaps 5 different lawsuits.

Filing a frivolous lawsuite is worse than doing nothing. It's tieing up the legal system with patent absurdity. That's probably why your lawsuits keep getting thrown out.
This page from your website proves what I'm saying:
http://algoxy.com/law/nojustice2/telepath2.html
http://algoxy.com/law/nojustice2/telepath3.html
The court document keeps repeating "Facts stated do not constitute a cause of action" and "plaintif has no relevent evidence to support his claim"

This seems to be a recurring theme on your research.

Sorry to hear you upbringing was so difficult and that your family has been so badly impacted. You might consider using my evidence to file a lawsuit.

My upbring was fine, The situation around me was deplorable. But it did not adversly affect my imidiate family. Our experiances made us more closle knit. My uncles dived into thier alcoholisim whole heartedly. Even after they were diagnosed with cirrosis they continued to drink. That has to do more with learned behaviour than hypnosis.

And who would I sue? For what? My uncle's ignorance and willfull stubborness? Other peoples' lazyness and unwillingness to change thier situation in life?

Further down that the experimental treatment I proposed, I believe has the potential to CHANGE the way a person feels and want to be "saved". Perhaps this is not ethical in all cases but in many it is.

Hypnotherapy has been tried on sex offenders in the past with less than spectacular results:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FGV/is_1_2/ai_65014124

This page from your website http://algoxy.com/psych/2hypno1.html has a scan that says ( under the text box "who can be hypmotized") "This is because only someone who wants to be hypmotized and who trusts the therapist can truly achieve a trance state. That would seem to contradict you belief that a person can be hypmotized against thier will. Why do you have that on your web site?

I will not pretend that my anxiety is not off the scale. That is the price of knowledge.

Then change your personal situation.

Your appraisal of "wrong things and wasting time" or what is "correct" is deficient. Obviously so because you have not read enough, or correctly to inform yourself.

From what I've seen so far of your "research" you rely on outdated materials and use sources that contradicts your thoeries. You seem to need to take the advice your giving me.

confirmation of a meeting with the director of the Santa Barbara County Mental Health Department and statement of intent to provide the response of the State Mental Health Departments response to their request to teh State for permission to administer an experimental treatment.

The letter states that the institution could not perform experimental proceedures.
quote from the letter you posted:
"As we told you we are not able to try experimental treatments.."

They cannot for legal reasons. The administering of experimantal treatments has to go according to state laws.
Try looking here before you go pestering the wrong organization:
http://www.picosearch.com/cgi-bin/ts.pl?index=117525&query=experimental+treatments

Firstly, that letter is not from me it is to me from the custodian of records at the Santa Barbara County Sherifs Department.

I know. I gathered from the Sheriff's response to you that you were asking for documents that were over a hundred years old. As I have said before, for reason concerning practicality and office space, records that old are usually archived at a historical facility such as a university or museum.
I ought to know. I used to work partime for a local historical society while I was going to college. We cataloged and archived documents dating back as recent as 75 years ago from many different sources including the police, sherriff and city govt.

This is a link to a scan of a Declaration from person who saw the suboenaed records in the law library at the county jail one year before they were subpoenaed Meaning I knew exactly where the records were before I subpoenaed them.

I'm sorry but the link is broken. I think it's highly unlikely that the sherriff's department would hang on to 150 year old documents.

I've determined the universities have the same problems as the other official entities. I've discovered that psychology has forgotten about forgetting, and memory controls our behaviors to a large degree. Dissociation is a phenomena of memory and MUST, reasonably be in the index of this book titled "Human Memory"

Wishfull thinking isn't going to get you anywhere. The books you are refrencing are outdated. The Roberta Klazky book was published in 1979 (2nd ED) The Hawley book you quote from dates back to the 1930's One of the doctors who responed to you even stated that your sources were out of date. Science has advanced in the years the books you use as source were first printed. You should try to update you research once in a while. As time goes on knowleged advances. If you did keep up with research you would know that experimental hypnotic therapy has already been tried on sex offenders with less that expected results. Please try to keep up.

Again homer, read the letter from the Santa Barbara County Mental Health Department and you will see they are looking for permission from the State to administer the experimental treatment.

No it doesn't. it only states that they would pass your request along to the state and that they would discuss the matter further with "representatives form the SDMH" The letter itself does not state that they are asking for permission. If it is stated on another letter, you'll have to show me.

Examine California Health and Safety Code Section 1370.4l(b) at http://law.onecle.com/california/health/1370.4.htm and you will see that by law the counties operating under a state health plan MUST conduct experimental treatments under proper conditions. In this case the County Mental health Department Director AND the chief medical doctor for the department elected to work directly with me and my information. It was their superiors that stopped them and failed to respond to the Freedom Of Information Act request, which is why myself and 3 others are suing in Federal court.

The link you provided does not show the document you are referring to.

That is true, but that is not what I'm using it to request. I use the Freedom of Information Act to get the response from the State Mental Health Department as promised inthe letter from the County Mental Health Department below, no response. which is simple information already (or should be) produced. A point you missed, which doesn't matter is that the FOIA does not apply technically to any agencies except for federal agencies. I've discovered that the courts DO apply it to any governmental agency despite what the law reads. You might note that the defendants have not tried to say it does not apply but instead imply, erroneously, that I did not respond within the tolling of time in the process. A person has 20 days to appeal the denial of information AFTER the denial. The county never denied the request so my charges are valid.

Then I'm sure you've read the FOIA site http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/index.html where it states:
"However, agencies may withhold information pursuant to nine exemptions and three exclusions contained in the statute. The FOIA applies only to federal agencies and does not create a right of access to records held by Congress, the courts, or by state or local government agencies. Each state has its own public access laws that should be consulted for access to state and local records."
Anyway, they cannot produce what does not exist. The SDMH probably gave your idea all the consideration it was due. Nothing.
Especially since it was tried before:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FGV/is_1_2/ai_65014124

It should be clear that you do not know what you are doing. Stop trying to critique any of my actions. You are too lazy to research them deeply enough to do so. Also, your reading comprehension is not up to it. My anxiety is my only problem, and you are no help. You are a waste of time, but if I don't answer it might look like you know what you are talking about. You don't. So stop wasting my time.

If you want to help, save the links to the documents regarding the experimental treatment and find some alcoholics or their families and explain to the them how negligent psychology is. Then research your states laws to see if a law exists like 1370.4 (b) and use it to compel the local mental health department to administer the treatment.

It is clear from your websites that you are indeed busy. Unfortunately it is efforts clearly wasted on absolutely frivolous, misguided, outdated, and poorly researched ideas. Besides. Nobody can be hypmotized without thier knowlege or constent.
http://www.brooksidecenter.com/hypnosis_faq.htm
http://www.hypnos.co.uk/hypnomag/whiawiin.htm
http://www.quaysclinic.co.uk/faq.htm
http://www.realhypnosis.com/html-pages/myths&misconceptions.htm
http://www.drcarlbarrister.com/faq.html
http://www.hypnosisgroup.com/hypnosis/index.html

 

[uruk]

I'm just asking him to use uruk's own screenname, instead of Homer. What's wrong with that?

That's alright. He can call me whatever he wants. It makes no difference to me. It's just a tactic that he thinks is effective. It's just a effective as all his efforts so far to convice people of hypno-telepathic boogie men and concrete cores.

Thanks for your concern though.

 

[Z]

You didn't have the .



Chris, please - either define 'near free fall' or retract this claim.

Thank you.

 

[uruk]

Oops! I took so long to respond that I did not know there was a system going on here.
Anyhoos, After reading his websites about the hypnotizim garbage I think it's best to let this thing go. His delusion are pretty deep and tangled.

 

[Christophera]

You didn't have the .



Chris, please - either define 'near free fall' or retract this claim.

Thank you.

ZD, either produce raw evidence to support the steel core columns from the images of the demolition or stop trying to focus on unimportant issues. Thank you.

The thread is also about "realistic explanations" for the rate of fall, what ever it was.

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

I have mine, do you have yours

 

[Christophera]

Oops! I took so long to respond that I did not know there was a system going on here.
Anyhoos, After reading his websites about the hypnotizim garbage I think it's best to let this thing go. His delusion are pretty deep and tangled.

I have proof of Hyper amnesia, do you have proof the research is garbage? I've made an inference from that research that basically implies proof of my claims, can you show my inference is garbage.

Keep in mind every psychologist I've presented it to admitted I had made a valid INFERENCE. I asked each one to sign a declaration formally stating what that had just informally agreed to and none would. I detected FEAR in their response.

http://members.fortunecity.com/nojustice2/2emo6.html

 

[bonavada]

The thread is also about "realistic explanations" for the rate of fall, what ever it was.

(my bold)

seems like a tacit implication that free-fall/near free-fall is retracted

BV

 

[uruk]

I have proof of Hyper amnesia, do you have proof the research is garbage?

The book is 45 years out of date.
You mean post hypnotic amnesia?
http://www.hypnos.co.uk/hypnomag/peltbook/chapter4p4.htm
"Post-hypnotic amnesia is not always complete, even after a deep trance, and there is some evidence to show that it is not real. Scientific tests show that subjects still react to conditioned reflexes, which have been set up during deep hypnosis, in the waking state. If the amnesia were real, they would have forgotten all about them and so remained indifferent."

Sorry for the inadvertant derailing guys. Last post from me untill Chris answers your question. I promise.

Chris Please answer thier question. we'll pick this up later.

 

[jsfisher]

seems like a tacit implication that free-fall/near free-fall is retracted

I would agree, but Chris needs to agree, too.

By the way, Chris, "near free fall" is a vague term. For it to have meaning, you would need to define it. Otherwise, you should retract the claim that used the term.


ETA the important word, 'but', and an example of non-free fall:

 

[Z]

ZD, either produce raw evidence to support the steel core columns from the images of the demolition or stop trying to focus on unimportant issues. Thank you.

The thread is also about "realistic explanations" for the rate of fall, what ever it was.

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

I have mine, do you have yours

So, is that a retraction of the claim 'near free fall'? If so, I pass the socks. If not, please define 'near free fall'.

 

[Christophera]

(my bold)

seems like a tacit implication that free-fall/near free-fall is retracted

BV

Free fall, near free fall, too fast, ......... all are appropriate descriptions, no retractions.

btw, no one here has ever produced raw evidence from the images of the demoltion of the supposed 47, 1300 foot steel core columns, the core you say (rarely) you think existed.

If you say there was no concrete core, and don't say there was a steel core, then you basically say there was no core at all. You support the "air core".

Here is what can only be concrete.

core wall at its base​

 

[Christophera]

The book is 45 years out of date.
You mean post hypnotic amnesia?
http://www.hypnos.co.uk/hypnomag/peltbook/chapter4p4.htm
"Post-hypnotic amnesia is not always complete, even after a deep trance, and there is some evidence to show that it is not real. Scientific tests show that subjects still react to conditioned reflexes, which have been set up during deep hypnosis, in the waking state. If the amnesia were real, they would have forgotten all about them and so remained indifferent."

homer, you forgot to copy and paste this line which follows your copied paragraph! Very imporatant to my point. Good research but poor documentation.
"Nevertheless, after a very deep trance the patient usually maintains that he has no memory of the events"

Sorry for the inadvertant derailing guys. Last post from me untill Chris answers your question. I promise.

Chris Please answer thier question. we'll pick this up later.

Their question was answered 140 pages back.

What you are describing actually says the opposite of what you think it does and supports what I'm saying.

Conditional instructions.

That link is very good, one of the best I've ever seen,

http://www.hypnos.co.uk/hypnomag/peltbook/chapter4p4.htm

"Many apparently ‘occult’ phenomena depend upon these hallucinations."

"Post-hypnotic suggestions may keep their full force for years, and cases have been reported as responding to the suggestion after even twenty years."

"Another important phenomenon of hypnosis is amnesia. The very deep trance is usually followed by amnesia, although this is not always so. It is more likely to occur if suggested by the hypnotist. In any subsequent trance full memory of all that occurred in the first can be obtained. By constant probing and questioning, memory can often be brought back even in the waking state. It was this fact that led Freud to develop psycho-analysis."

INFERENCE ONE​

thank you homer!

 

[Z]

Stay on target.

So, Chris, since you seem to be claiming that you're not retracting the 'near free fall' portion - please define what the rate of downward acceleration is for 'near free fall'.

 

[delphi_ote]

btw, no one here has ever produced raw evidence from the images of the demoltion of the supposed 47, 1300 foot steel core columns, the core you say (rarely) you think existed.

We're not getting side tracked. Either discuss your "near free fall" claim or retract it.

STAY ON TARGET!!!

 

[Christophera]

Stay on target.

So, Chris, since you seem to be claiming that you're not retracting the 'near free fall' portion - please define what the rate of downward acceleration is for 'near free fall'.

I've done this once on each of the 2 previous pages.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2093905#post2093905

But you still haven't produced any raw evidence from the demoliton images of the supposed 47, 1,300 foot columns. Whereas I've shown that they are never seen but concrete shear wall is.

Is the word "FAIRNESS" wasted on you?

 

[Christophera]

Either discuss your "near free fall" claim or retract it.

Either support your "47, steel core column" claim or retract it.

Consider this, far better raw evidence exists to prove the towers fell at rates nearly equal to free fall than does for the 47, steel core columns as being extant.

 

[Z]

I've done this once on each of the 2 previous pages.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2093905#post2093905

But you still haven't produced any raw evidence from the demoliton images of the supposed 47, 1,300 foot columns. Whereas I've shown that they are never seen but concrete shear wall is.

Is the word "FAIRNESS" wasted on you?

Chris, acceptable answers are:

1) Define 'near free fall', giving a rate of downward acceleration for comparison.
2) Retract 'near free fall', which eliminates the question in the title of this thread and half of your OP question.

Please, stay on target.

We will NOT discuss any other issues until you have acceptably answered this question, though I will point out that this thread contains more evidence and explanation for the fate of the steel columns than it does explanation of what you mean by 'near free fall'.

Your main tactic appears to be changing the subject when cornered. From now on, that tactic will no longer work.

I'm a Taurus; I'm stubborn. I can go another 188 pages asking you the same question.

This was your initial claim; there is no reason to proceed until that claim has been satisfactorily discussed. Either support your initial claim, or retract it.