• 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.
Bell said:
Yes, I have. I guess the transcript doesn't include all the laughters by the judge, jury, bailiff and audience? That would take up twice as much space.
Click to expand...

Obviously you have no experince with law. No truth makes it past pre trial motion these days.

The judges did confirm their alliance with ancient sun worship however. I doubt you appreciate this since all truth escapes you. I however see that they are true to their ancestors.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4159&stc=1&d=1164069875
 

Attachments

  • 9thcirc02_5528judge22.jpg
    9thcirc02_5528judge22.jpg
    28 KB · Views: 50
Page 200 - W00T!!

I've decided he's right. Yep. The courts are full of sun-worshippers now. The truth gets buried by lawyers long before ever reaching trial.

This, of course, means that every single convict is innocent, and every man who walks free is guilty. Makes perfect sense now.

I've also decided that the all-powerful NWO has eliminated every copy of the PBS documentary, as well as every available mention of it. It's a simple-enough task - sometime near 9/11 they just opened up a .DOS superwindow and typed "del Construction of the Twin Towers.mov" - thereby erasing all existing copies anywhere on Earth, as well as all mentions of said movie.

Further, I have now decided that the explosive used wasn't C-4 - whose shelf-life is too limited to be of use - but a top-secret explosive referred to as Tornadium D-19. With a shelf-stable life of over 50 years, it would be perfect; plus, it's about the same consistancy as finished concrete, but in plasmid form. So it would blend right in and no one would notice.

On the other hand, I still think there's no evidence of a concrete-cast tube core; the D-19 was, instead, in the coating on the steel core columns. The detonations were activated by hypersonic tachyon emissions. It's all obvious, of course.
 
Christophera said:
Obviously you have no experince with law. No truth makes it past pre trial motion these days.

The judges did confirm their alliance with ancient sun worship however. I doubt you appreciate this since all truth escapes you. I however see that they are true to their ancestors.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4159&stc=1&d=1164069875
Click to expand...

Jeez, could you make that image any smaller? I can barely read the text. And what the hell is this supposed to tell me anyway?

Also, how about the 3" rebar = 4 pixels image I enlarged?
 
zaayrdragon said:
This, of course, means that every single convict is innocent, and every man who walks free is guilty.
Click to expand...

Totally ignoring that it is a civil action where a citizen is trying to make a municipality accountable to following state laws and the Constitution.
 
Belz... said:
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 ?
Click to expand...

Correct, minor variances in those factors have nothing to do with how THIS happened. You love pi$$ing away time on meaningless details do you not. We have the proof now. Do not attempt to deny it.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4166&stc=1&d=1164079130
 

Attachments

  • corefacesexploding.jpg
    corefacesexploding.jpg
    33.8 KB · Views: 3
Christophera said:
Totally ignoring that it is a civil action where a citizen is trying to make a municipality accountable to following state laws and the Constitution.
Click to expand...


I know that this is completely and totally all the way of the subject, (but heck, it's not like there's any progress being made in that direction either...) but how does the Ninth Circuit Court affirming a judgement against you show that Santa Barbara wasn't following state laws and the Constitution?
 
hcmom said:
I know that this is completely and totally all the way of the subject, (but heck, it's not like there's any progress being made in that direction either...) but how does the Ninth Circuit Court affirming a judgement against you show that Santa Barbara wasn't following state laws and the Constitution?
Click to expand...
You must not have noticed the telling "21", "22", and "23" in the dates prominently displayed.
 
I must have missed something somewhere...

Please don't make me go back there and try to find it... What's with "21" "22" and "23"?
 
Christophera said:
The judges did confirm their alliance with ancient sun worship however.
Click to expand...
Is this another of your proofs by assumption?

Chris, in all that you have posted here and all that you have posted on your own web sites, it really is apparent that you start by assuming something to be true, then construct the reality around it to support your belief.

And your concept of logic is not just reversed; it is often, well, bizarre. Wasn't it you who in an opening statement to the judge in a law suit stated that you could not prove your case--even with all the evidence you had hoped to have had but didn't--but did not see that as a problem?
 
jsfisher said:
Is this another of your proofs by assumption?

Chris, in all that you have posted here and all that you have posted on your own web sites, it really is apparent that you start by assuming something to be true, then construct the reality around it to support your belief.

And your concept of logic is not just reversed; it is often, well, bizarre. Wasn't it you who in an opening statement to the judge in a law suit stated that you could not prove your case--even with all the evidence you had hoped to have had but didn't--but did not see that as a problem?
Click to expand...

You do not know what you are talking about and we already know you have no problem with a lawless government which is infiltrated, allowing the infiltrators to kill citizens by the thousands. So give up on trying to analyse my efforts to gain lawful performance from my local municipality to protect lives.

Don't even try.

This thread is about whether or not you've seen a realsitic explanation for free all or not. I happen to have created a web site using actual evidence to form a comprehensive explanation. What have you done lately?
 
Christophera said:
This thread is about whether or not you've seen a realsitic explanation for free all or not. I happen to have created a /removed gratuitous overpromotion of own website/ What have you done lately?
Click to expand...

Wait, have you come full circle, from free fall, to near free fall, to "too fast", back to free fall???
 
That's exactly it - totally circular.

Oh, let's face it - he's spent his whole life trying to get something for nothing.

If he were really serious about this, do you think he'd waste time making a website? Whoop-D-Do. Does he really think a lawless government cares one bit about his pathetic claims and weak excuse for evidence? Of course not - because he does nothing with it.

Until I hear about him petitioning the federal government, or making some extreme action to bring his 'evidence' to the public light, I'm just going to treat him as if he's joking. Which he is.

After a fashion.

After all, the original post has been answered; all relevant questions have been answered; and Chris still goes in circles. Meanwhile, the moderators don't give a snap what is said here, so long as 'it doesn't break the rules' - for example, I can't tell Chris to 'take a long walk off a short pier', but I can keep arguing the same point ad infinitum, no matter how much bandwidth this useless debate takes up.

So why don't we just have some fun, and for a while patronize his silly beliefs?

In other words, Chris, now that 'we know the truth', what should we do about it?
 
jsfisher said:
So, did you or did you not do that in an opening statement in court?
Click to expand...

So did you or did you not produce an image from the demo of at least one of the supposed, 47, 1,300 foot steel columns in the core area, at some elevation above the ground in this thread, on jref?

Was it you who continually expected me to answer questions not related to the explanation for what appears as a masive series of explosions in an attemtp to assert that the explosions were a collapse?
 
zaayrdragon said:
Does he really think a lawless government cares one bit about his pathetic claims and weak excuse for evidence? Of course not - because he does nothing with it.
Click to expand...

No, nor do Australians, at least those here. So come up with a realistic explanation for free fall.

zaayrdragon said:
After all, the original post has been answered; all relevant questions have been answered; and Chris still goes in circles.
Click to expand...

Yes, my evidence is relevant and all of your obsufucation is for naught. You cannot even prove the structure the murdering infiltrators of the US government lie existed.

Whereas the proof of the concrete core is redundant.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg

http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom