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

[Christophera]

and that's you generalizing that such people exist. why , five years later are they still afraid?

Because there is no realistic, feasible. comprehesive explanation for what happened and people would rather support a war based on lies than confront the truth.

 

[Christophera]

Suddenly the documentary didn't only mention the concrete core, but also the C4, then the problems with this and that that "proves" the rebar thing, then when we corner him about the other doc, the 1990 one mentioned it, so in his universe he can believe it's been debunked, etc.

You will have to prove this or be guilty of misrepresentation. Come back with links please.

 

[Christophera]

I've been reading these posts in here and I'm ABSOLUTELY AMAZED by the child like attitude of some of the bloggers in here. As I was expecting more intelligence than the name calling which seems to run throughout these posts.

200+ pages of arguing with the unreasonable will do that to you, too.

You have just totally misrepresented stundie's post. Viewers, check this for yourselves.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2118440#post2118440

 

[Christophera]

I examined your page and many of its links. It took quite a while. I read nothing on your page that proves the US Government has been infiltrated (that isn't to say it hasn't been - but that's another story .

What is it in this picture that makes you think it is not a collapse? It is quite indicative of collapse in my opinion.

Collapses have large intact pieces falling away from not yet collapsed portions and the dust doesn't happen to any great degree until things hit the ground. What you are seeing is pulverized plumes of sand, gravel, dust trailing and a few larger chunks of debris flying outward and up.

 

[Christophera]

That is not an explosion (caused by explosives)*. You see that is the problem with just looking at still images. They can be decieving. If you look at the video you would have noticed that the trails appear to arc upward and out from the center because the debris collapsing in the core area sucked the air down toward the center. Look at the videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rsXvK7-l9E
In this video the dust trail looks like it is actuall rolling back toward the center.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFtzTQKRspY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRakw3hwPls
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCSXco-bPNo

In each of those videos notice how all the smoke, dust and debris in the center of the building actually gets sucked down in toward the center thus giving the appearance of debris being shot out upward and out from the center.

Do you see now the problem with just interpreting still images?


* I added this because not all explosions are caused by explosives

None of the pulverized debris seen in videos should be seen until material hit the ground. And then no where near as much would be seen.

 

[Christophera]

Chris, that sheared steel obviously has been cut by workmen for removal from the site. It been cut to a uniform length and is already stacked for moving. Further example of you inability to properly interpret images.

Here we see them:

Come up with the method used for cutting them. I'm familiar with every method that exists and what is seen is far too smooth for any of them under those conditions. Then, after you find that method, and there are 1 or 2, show that demolition crews use them.

They do not. The methods are far too slow and require large amounts of set up time and are only used for cutting pieces prior to fabrication.

The image you post does not show columns that are inside the core area. It shows interior box columns which are outside the concrete shear wall of the core and fastened to it.

I'm telling you this to save you time, but go look anyway.

 

[maccy]

Chris,

10 posts a day for six months. Is it really worth it?

 

[Gravy]

So the documentary didn't mention c-4 then. YOu just came to the conclusion because of a "plastic" coating that it mean c-4?

I've never stated that. You must prove it.

You will have to prove this or be guilty of misrepresentation. Come back with links please.

I've stated no less than 4 times in the last 20 pges that the documentary had only mentioned a "special anti corrosion, vibration resistant plastic coating"

Ahem.
​

The RDX [explosive] on the vertical bar was exposed for months due to bad weather, the documentary actually had this information, and the concrete was poured before the "special plastic anti corrosion/vibration coating" was tested. After testing it was determined that it was no longer viable as a protectant. Removal of the concrete was considered but the cost and delay was too much so constrcution continued.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1895911&postcount=3039

People, I implore you not to continue this. It does not appear to be a healthy situation for anyone.

 

[Christophera]

It stated that the reason only welders with a security clearance could execute the butt welds on the 3" high tensile steel rebar was because the coating was flammable.

Then they wouldn't have used it. This goes to show why yoru claims are nothing more than fabrications. Building materials cannot be flammabe for the reasons you just stated. Becuase of welding.

Welders with a security clearance can be told that the coating is a high explosive and they will keep the secret. It is safe to weld the steel after scraping the C4 off and shielding the C4 off the margin with woven stainless steel fabric over steel foil.

So, are you claiming now that the documenatry didn't mention c-4 despite not more than 3 pages ago, you said it did?

Prove this. Post a link.

 

[Christophera]

You are generalizing and your words prove it because you cannot know what you assert, which puts your position in error. Why should I try to justify your error with more than is needed to correct it. If you cannot see the humor in my first answer, then a second any greater than this would be a waste.

We are so impressed by your articulation.

 

[tsig]

You are generalizing and your words prove it because you cannot know what you assert, which puts your position in error. Why should I try to justify your error with more than is needed to correct it. If you cannot see the humor in my first answer, then a second any greater than this would be a waste.[/QUOTE



We are so impressed by your articulation.

yeh I like his bones too.

 

[hellaeon]

is there a way to ignore threads and not just people?

HAHAHAHA I just noticed 'realistice' is one of the tags for this thread

 

[Peter S.]

People that can realize the truth about the demolition of the towers are also afraid so do not speak up.

Most people do not want to know they accept any explanation except one that has as a part of it what they do not want to know. They do not want to know because it makes them afraid and also if they knew, and they care about their country they should do somethig about it. That really makes them afraid. They are afraid of their government, they are afraid of the intelligence agencies and they are afraid of what their neighbors and co-workers think.

Your questions are answered. Now answer mine.

Why do you think no one has been able to produce a picture of the steel core columns in the core area at some elevation above the ground from the demolition images?

Asking that question at the end of your post makes me think you have not been paying attention. I have not, and will not discuss your theories. I leave that for others to debate. I have no interest in arguing those things with you. I am trying to get some other things from you and I thank you for your answer.

So you believe that it is fear that is keeping us from accepting your explanations of the pictures you keep posting? Interesting. Do you really think that everyone here is that terrified? We are skeptics here, and the word skeptic is not a synonym for naysayer. I'm willing to bet that most of us here would be willing to give up our most cherished ideas if we were given compelling evidence that we are wrong. You give us everything you have, you fail to convince us, and you think it is because we are afraid. Perhaps you should see if you can come up with some more compelling evidence.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

There was an air of mystery in the documentary at most. The videograpers were producing almost 20 years after the construction oif WTC 1 using contractors and architects fiml and photos of the construction.

The videographers mentioned "special, anti corrosion, vibration resistant plastic coated rebar"

By examination of the character of the blasts and ground zero I realized that the explosives had to have been perfefctly centered and distributed. After much thought a further realization came to me that the rebar was in the perfect position/distibution, then I remembered the "special plastic coating".

I apologize for jumping into this thread after not reading the first 199 pages, but do I understand correctly that there was a top secret project to coat the rebar with plastic explosives that they let a documentary film crew photograph and show on public television???

 

[switchtech]

Asking that question at the end of your post makes me think you have not been paying attention.

I think the funny bit revolves around the compelling evidence for a steel core on his very own web site.

jbs

 

[Christophera]

Asking that question at the end of your post makes me think you have not been paying attention. I have not, and will not discuss your theories. I leave that for others to debate. I have no interest in arguing those things with you. I am trying to get some other things from you and I thank you for your answer.

So you believe that it is fear that is keeping us from accepting your explanations of the pictures you keep posting? Interesting. Do you really think that everyone here is that terrified? We are skeptics here, and the word skeptic is not a synonym for naysayer. I'm willing to bet that most of us here would be willing to give up our most cherished ideas if we were given compelling evidence that we are wrong. You give us everything you have, you fail to convince us, and you think it is because we are afraid. Perhaps you should see if you can come up with some more compelling evidence.

If you cannot observe, or explain why my opposition in this discussion of a feasible and realistic explanation for near free fall has no evidence of the structure they assert stood which has everything to do with near the rate of fall, then this discussion with you is over.

 

[Christophera]

I apologize for jumping into this thread after not reading the first 199 pages, but do I understand correctly that there was a top secret project to coat the rebar with plastic explosives that they let a documentary film crew photograph and show on public television???

I do not beleive that the architects and contractors knew about the explosives and so had cameramen documenting the construction.

The documentary mentioned nothing about the explosives. I understand explosives and that THIS cannot be caused in any other way except for optimally contained, placed and distributed explosives throughout concrete.

 

[Christophera]

I think the funny bit revolves around the compelling evidence for a steel core on his very own web site.

jbs

It's only compelling if you ignore the fact that no image of the steel core columns exists and the images of the concrete are many and the statements about the concrete core from uninterested sources.

Your brain is being selective.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

I do not beleive that the architects and contractors knew about the explosives and so had cameramen documenting the construction.

And whoever it was who planted the explosives knew that none of the architects or contractors knew anything about explosives and would recognize the plastic explosives, so "they" had no problem leaving the explosives exposed? And "they" knew that none of the architects and contractors would ever mention this funny plastic coating to anyone who might recognize that they were describing plastic explosives?

 

[jsfisher]

And whoever it was who planted the explosives knew that none of the architects or contractors knew anything about explosives and would recognize the plastic explosives, so "they" had no problem leaving the explosives exposed? And "they" knew that none of the architects and contractors would ever mention this funny plastic coating to anyone who might recognize that they were describing plastic explosives?

TellyKNeasuss, You are letting yourself get sucked into this morass. Save yourself; turn back now; or at least post images of small, furry creatures.