• 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.
Seriously Chris, it's been almost 200 pages of this nonsense, do you really expect anything will change?
 
What's remarkable is that, were there some actual involvment by anyone other than bin Laden and his merry men, JREFers (and others on other boards) would, by way of intellectual rigor (with a dash of humor), be serving to help refine the arguments and filter out the waste in pursuit of the answers.

That our Mr. Brown can't fathom why his position is not exactly bolstered by offerings on a par with 'the moon is made of Swiss cheese' is just a bit astounding.
 
Meffy said:
[deleted -- misunderstanding]
Click to expand...

*LOL* There is nothing like a misunderstanding
in this thread because it IS one big misundertanding. :D

@Alfred: If the towers fell in 15 seconds. Wouldn´t you
be the first one who would say "they fell to slow"???
 
Compilation Of Belz's Distortions And Misrepresentations

Here, are Belz distortions and misrepresentations of my posts and statements.

Belz... said:
Here's a summary of chris' admissions concerning the various points of his theory.

Here and here he admits that the structure on his "core stands" picture could also be dust.

Here he admits that the "free fall" issue is unimportant, although it's part of the title of this thread.

Here and here he makes contradictory statements as to whether plane speed is relevant to the building's collapse, relative to his contention that the wrong tower fell first.

Here he finally admits that his pictures aren't "raw" evidence, but only the closest thing to "raw" evidence.

In this post he exposes his own circular reasoning by trying to argue that the large chunks of concrete we see, unpulverized, are from another building, with no other reason than they're not pulverized.

Here he makes very clear that he has no idea about the explosives he claims were in the two towers.

And, of course, who can forget his admission of close-mindedness. NOTHING can change his mind, not even reality.

-------------------
Let's not forget that chris claims that the CORE of the towers was built with C4-coated rebar. He saw this in a documentary that no one else has ever seen, in 1990. A documentary that claims the core of the towers was made of concrete, although every other source says it was steel columns. His only support is a grade-school website in Canada. Quite the expert opinion. Of course, many have suggested that Chris' demonstratably faulty memory (he gets the towers mixed up and can't even get the flight numbers right; this from someone with an alledgedly photographic memory) may have mixed up information from the concrete wall that surrounds the WTC complex and that was mentioned in an earlier, easy-to-find documentary.

Why, does he claim, is the existence of this concrete core hidden from the public ? Well, the conspirators built the towers in order to demolish them, thirty years later, to launch a war for oil, or something. Chris argues, I think, that if the buildings were made with concrete cores, they couldn't have collapsed; which is why they had to be blown up after the planes hit, and why the existence of the core must be kept secret. Why, oh why, didn't the conspirators build the towers with steel cores to make sure the planes WOULD destroy them is beyond anyone else here.

When called on the fact that no one from the construction crews remembers the concrete core, he either claims that they are terrified to speak out, a fact supported only by his "impression" of their testimony, or goes on about the fact that, apparently, every person in the world, EXCEPT himself, has been hypnotised by the evil conspirators to forget about it. Now, if everyone's hypnotised, why did they need to blow up people in order to convince us to go to war ? They own everybody, already!

And, of course, all these claims are based on chris' application of "common sense" for things that are "obvious".

--------------------
With all the admissions and contradictions above, not to to mention an insanely-convoluted theory, there's little doubt that our friend is not beign completely honest with us. I don't know if, as many have claimed, he is mentally unstable or not, but those examples above reek of dishonesty and, to use one of chris' favourite words, obfuscation.
Click to expand...

What is amazing is that most of the distortons and misrepresntations do not make sense.
 
The Almond said:
Said dark area is another building. See NIST NCSTAR1 Figure 1-2 on page 4 of the report. I figured someone else posted this so I didn't bother to address the claim.
Click to expand...
Actually, it's not. The cloud is far too opaque to show buildings behind it, and no tall building lines up with the dark area (1 Liberty Plaza is just visible to the right of the cloud, and the Millenium Hotel is to the left).

I believe the dark area is smoke from the fire that's been drawn down by the collapse. In the videos we can see this happening. Were it a huge section of the core, it's collapse would have been very obvious, because it would have produced another huge wave of dust, and rumbling that would have been obvious to seismometers. Were it a huge section of concrete core – thousands of tons – its collapse would have been cataclysmic and would have produced much more noise, dust, and seismic disturbance. None of this happened. The dark area has dissipated in the next photo, taken seconds later.

I appeal to everyone to let this drop. Christophera is ill. Playing games with him accomplishes nothing.
 
Gravy said:
Christophera is ill. Playing games with him accomplishes nothing.
Click to expand...

Well, we have all his personal details. Is there in america
also a way to send him serious help from the authority?
 
Bell said:
You still failed to produce a picture on which you point out exactly where your so called 3" rebar on 4' centers is. Is that because it isn't there? You claim that in the picture we should be able to see it. Therefor you should have no problem pointing it out.

Use this picture:
http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg
and draw an arrow on it. Sim-ple.

And don't sidestep around this request with arrogant remarks that I cannot comprehend the 'raw evidence' you provide. Point it out, or retrack your claim.
Click to expand...

The spire is taller. The rebar is inside, adjacent the interior box columns which form the spire. After the steel falls the rebar is exposed.

The red encircles the rebar.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4151&stc=1&d=1164051299
 

Attachments

  • 3rebar.on4centers.circ.jpg
    3rebar.on4centers.circ.jpg
    36.1 KB · Views: 8
Last edited:
Oliver said:
Well, we have all his personal details. Is there in america
also a way to send him serious help from the authority?
Click to expand...

Not really. The conditions that need to be met in order for psychological treatment to be forced on to a person are very strict.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
Not really. The conditions that need to be met in order for psychological treatment to be forced on to a person are very strict.
Click to expand...

Well, if someone would claim there were C4 installed
in public buildings, this would be a good reason to let
him ask some questions to a psychatric from our
ministry of health. No kidding.
 
Christophera said:
Here, are Belz distortions and misrepresentations of my posts and statements.

What is amazing is that most of the distortons and misrepresntations do not make sense.
Click to expand...

Did you not admit that dust could be gray ? That dust WAS present on the picture ?

Did you not say that part of your OP, namely the rate of fall, was unimportant ?

Didn't you say, just a few posts ago, that your pictures were the "closest thing to raw evidence" (paraphrase), and therefore not raw, per se ?

Didn't you admit that NOTHING could convince you ?

Didn't you say that WTC was hit hardest whilst also claiming that plane speed wasn't important ?

Doesn't that post of mine summarise your theory, Chris ? Or can you put it more succintly ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom