• 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.
Regnad Kcin said:
And a quick refresher: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_Trade_Center_9-11_Att.png

- Both planes were identical models
- WTC1 was struck at 490 mph
- There were 11 undamaged stories above WTC1's impact zone
- WTC2 was struck at 590 mph
- There were 25 undamaged stories above WTC2's impact zone

In short, the second tower was hit significantly harder, significantly lower, and fell after a shorter elapsed time, yet Mr. Brown insists it should've fallen second. Seems to me our friend is avoiding applying his vaunted "common sense."
Click to expand...

No, Chris is applying his own brand of "common sense". First building hit should have been the first building to fall. But since the "wrong building" fell first means the pilots got the order wrong. So you figure the guy with the finger on the switch to the detonators could have corrected the sequence.
 
Last edited:
The Evil world-spanning, era-spanning conspiracy members must also perform a monologue detailing thier evil world spanning, era-spanning plan to thier arch-nemesis just before leaving them alone to die in an unecessarily slow and easily escapable killing device.
 
Lies and distortions of zaayrdragon

zaayrdragon said:
Ah, yes... high school. Isn't that where you pulled the gun on your teacher, then walked out, never completing a basic education?

But I digress...
Click to expand...

No, you lie and distort and you know it. It is an ad hominum attack based on information I divulged to communicate my position with regard to our system of education and law.

It was junior high school and I simply told a teacher off. She had been psychologically abusing me for 3 months in front of the entire class. She finally ran out of things to say so I started talking about her, her motives, that she was abusing me, all of us and that she should retire and make room for a younger teacher that was serious about teaching us from a positon of respect for us.

There was not even any yelling, I was nice.

I was suspended for 3 days then permanantly expelled from the Santa Barbara high school system, not for what I said, but the fact that THE CLASS LISTENED and respected me.
 
How much meters per second does something fall
at freefall-speed if it´s made of metal or concrete? :confused:

And does metal fall faster than conrete, Alfred? :confused:
 
Big Al said:
So now it's not just "not quite the right speed of fall" but "not quite the right sort of debris".

Christophera, for those of us who do not possess your instant grasp of physical matters, can you say how large the concrete chunks should be after hitting the ground? Despite all your claims of common sense, I can't see anything wrong there.

Can you attach pictures of a similar collapsed skyscraper to demonstrate the anomaly in the debris dimensions?
Click to expand...

I see 8" concrete slab and the tower had none of that. The site did have many 8" wall and slab.
 
Oliver! You don't have the socks! Stay focussed!

Here's where we're up to:

bonavada said:
sorry been away a while.

that there was no "total pulverisation" of the towers is proven.
thanks.

i now pass the socks.

BV
Click to expand...

bonavada said:
i think it's worth summing up briefly every so often to remind posters of the current progress.

it is so far established:-

that there was no "free-fall of the towers". christophera has no real idea at all of rate of fall of the towers.

that there was "no pulverisation of the towers" as large chunks of concrete and other parts of the structures remained.

christophera does not know the weight of the upper floors of the towers but still insists, whatever the weight was, it wasn't enough to cause the collapse.

is that the "sock score" so far? three questions answered? if i've missed any please feel free to ammend
it may not seem like much of an advance. i know its taken over 6 months but to me it's real progress to have pinned christophera down in this fashion in only a few days.

socks RULE.

may i remind everyone to STAY ON TARGET for the next sockster.

BV
Click to expand...

Regnad Kcin said:
Great! I'll take the socks then.

Mr. Brown,

You claim that the towers fell in the wrong order. How can you say so when the second jet impacted WTC2 faster (and therefore harder) than the first jet hit WTC1, and did so at a point lower on the building in comparison to the first?
Click to expand...

Regnad Kcin said:
And a quick refresher: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_Trade_Center_9-11_Att.png

- Both planes were identical models
- WTC1 was struck at 490 mph
- There were 11 undamaged stories above WTC1's impact zone
- WTC2 was struck at 590 mph
- There were 25 undamaged stories above WTC2's impact zone

In short, the second tower was hit significantly harder, significantly lower, and fell after a shorter elapsed time, yet Mr. Brown insists it should've fallen second. Seems to me our friend is avoiding applying his vaunted "common sense."
Click to expand...
 
maccy said:
Oliver! You don't have the socks! Stay focussed!

Here's where we're up to:
Click to expand...

Oops, i missed the focus. What are we talking about - the dust?

Mmmmhkay:

Alfred, why was the dust so pale if it should
be more dark like in a controlled demolition? :confused:
 
Oliver said:
Oops, i missed the focus. What are we talking about - the dust?
Click to expand...

No, this is the current socks question:

Regnad Kcin said:
Great! I'll take the socks then.

Mr. Brown,

You claim that the towers fell in the wrong order. How can you say so when the second jet impacted WTC2 faster (and therefore harder) than the first jet hit WTC1, and did so at a point lower on the building in comparison to the first?
Click to expand...
 
maccy said:
No, this is the current socks question:
Click to expand...

Mmmhkay... :D Alfred: Why did the second plane hit the building
harder and faster? Was it part of the plan to bring it down faster?
And why do you think it was the wrong order??? :confused:
 
ETA: What is your evidence of the buildings falling in the wrong order? Raw evidence, like a purpetrator's confesion, or a copy of the written orders that says which tower should fall first.
 
Belz... said:
Pictures ARE NOT raw evidence, chris, no matter if it's the only evidence you have. It's not RAW because it's not first-hand evidence. It's a picture of the evidence.
Click to expand...

It will suffice under conditions.

Belz... said:
Did you not see the pictures (raw evidence, for you) of fires on the opposite side of the tower ?
Click to expand...

Steel will not get significantly heated under those conditions to fail in the way images show.

Do you approve of inflitrations of governments and their lawless performance?
 
Last edited:
rwguinn said:
Stay...on....target....
Click to expand...

8748455e1cdba49b0.jpg


:-]

BV
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom