• 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.
Christophera said:
No, and you cannot show a single picture tah shows a steel core columns standing in the core area.



Your image shows an interior box column falling towards the core area. The base is obviously of the wall line of interior box columns which are labeled "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" and the rectangel shapes formed by floor beams and interior box columns is easily matched. This the only image that can misinterpreted in this way, so it is not surprising you are trying.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4201&d=1164222728[/qimg]
Click to expand...

This was the picture Iwas refering to.

Oh. BTW you still haven't delt with the lie Gravy called you out on.
 

Attachments

  • 87484562f3ab08d2b.jpg
    87484562f3ab08d2b.jpg
    17.1 KB · Views: 3
Chris,

I agree. This thread has proved that nobody can produce any raw evidence that will convince you. You must also realise that a few people remain here to argue with you no matter what you say. You can post your arguments over and over again and people will still argue.

You can draw your own conclusions about why these people cannot see things the way you see them but I would hope that you'll also see that any lurkers who are amenable to your point of view will already have been convinced by your argument. I think your work here is done.

At 200+ pages, only people who are incapable of seeing things your way will be bothered to even look at this thread. And they will keep arguing, no matter how many times you explain it to them.

Equally, it is clear from viewing any page in this thread that you have never given in and that you do not concede the arguments put against you. The legacy of your position on this is assured, no matter what you do from here on in.

So here's a serious suggestion - take a week off. Don't use the interent if you don't have to. Go for walks. Drive somewhere interesting. Visit friends. Whatever you feel like doing, really.

Come back in a week's time and you'll see that nobody has made any further progress in arguing against you - the history of this thread should tell you that this will be the case, there is nothing new to say.

If, in the unlikely event that you do feel that it's necessary to defend yourself then dive in. Otherwise, take another week off.

If you're worried about your website getting less publicity this way - well this is a fundamentally hostile forum so it's unlikely you're reaching the people you need to reach. Maybe you should print some flyers and hand them out - with serendipity they may find their way into the right hands. In fact, you could just leave them in random places and trust to fate to get them to the right people.

It seems to me that if you're in a deterministic and repressive society you probably need to take a lateral tack to get around the conditioned resistence of the majority. Sort of a Robert Anton Wilson Illuminatus! approach, if you like. Or a Guy Debord situationist attempt to disrupt the society of the spectacle.

Anyway, whatever you decide to do, good luck.

Best wishes

Matthew
 
Last edited:
I suppose you're right...

Gravy said:
In context, then.

Christophera's reply:
And again:
Please note that I'm not pointing out Christophera's delusions for fun. I'm doing it to demonstrate why it is fruitless to argue with someone who is not in touch with reality.

Please let it go, people. He's ill. We can't fix that.
Click to expand...

The arguments remain regardless what we say. We just don't see the same things in the same images. Where I see a slice made by a cut-off saw that rusted, he sees an explosive separation event. I think the more we argue the further apart our visions become.

I tried to see his forest for all the trees but could not. Come to think of it, I don't see the trees, either.

Apparently you can't save them all.

jbs
 
switchtech said:
The arguments remain regardless what we say. We just don't see the same things in the same images. Where I see a slice made by a cut-off saw that rusted, he sees an explosive separation event. I think the more we argue the further apart our visions become.

I tried to see his forest for all the trees but could not. Come to think of it, I don't see the trees, either.

Apparently you can't save them all.

jbs
Click to expand...

give it up

you can't even save yourself.
 
switchtech said:
The arguments remain regardless what we say. We just don't see the same things in the same images. Where I see a slice made by a cut-off saw that rusted, he sees an explosive separation event. I think the more we argue the further apart our visions become.

I tried to see his forest for all the trees but could not. Come to think of it, I don't see the trees, either.

Apparently you can't save them all.

jbs
Click to expand...

A cut off saw that size? Cutting tempered steel? NEVER. Do you know how many columns like that there were? Many were buried with the squared off end stiking out of the debris.

You are wrong.
 
maccy said:
Uruk, Gravy wasn't calling Chris out he was asking people to stop arguing with him.
Click to expand...

Good luck with that.
A weird thing happens when you start responding to Chris. It's akin to morbid curiosity. It's disgusting but you can't tear yourself away. I've tried leaving this thread four times before, but it keeps drawing me back.

It'll get to you too. You'll see.
 
Last edited:
uruk said:
Good luck with that.
A weird thing happens when you start responding to Chris. It's akin to mobid curiosity. It's disgusting but you can't tear yourself away. I've tried leaving this thread four times before, but it keeps drawing me back.

It'll get to you too. You'll see.
Click to expand...

This is possibly the most truthful post here.
 
uruk said:
This was the picture Iwas refering to.

Oh. BTW you still haven't delt with the lie Gravy called you out on.
Click to expand...

I dealt with Gravy's attempt to present mt statement our of context.

The absurd notion that I was trying to say a TV documentary presented the construction of a public building with built in explosives is enough.

Your image shows an interior box column tilting off the line of the wall of interior box columns not a steel core column.

If there were steel core columns they would be protruding from the core of WTC 2 which is totally intact from the 43rd floor or so down.
 
uruk said:
Good luck with that.
A weird thing happens when you start responding to Chris. It's akin to morbid curiosity. It's disgusting but you can't tear yourself away. I've tried leaving this thread four times before, but it keeps drawing me back.

It'll get to you too. You'll see.
Click to expand...

It shows how badly you do not want to know this truth.

The more you argue the more you see the truth, the less you want to know it, the more you have to argue.

It is your unconscious homer.
 
Christophera said:
It shows how badly you do not want to know this truth.

The more you argue the more you see the truth, the less you want to know it, the more you have to argue.

It is your unconscious homer.
Click to expand...

Do you see why I'm suggesting a leteral approach?

You're meeting a lot of resistance going at this head on.
 
jsfisher said:
Maybe images of puppies and kittens will save you.
Click to expand...

If by pictures of puppies you mean pictures of Halle Berry and by pictures of kittens you mean pictures of Rachel Weisz................. Possibly
 
Christophera said:
It shows how badly you do not want to know this truth.

The more you argue the more you see the truth, the less you want to know it, the more you have to argue.

It is your unconscious homer.
Click to expand...

No, it shows how freakishly bad your arguments are and the desire to get you to see reality is hard to resist.
 
Christophera said:
I dealt with Gravy's attempt to present mt statement our of context.
Click to expand...
No you didn't. You tried to spin it.

The absurd notion that I was trying to say a TV documentary presented the construction of a public building with built in explosives is enough.
Click to expand...
Well you were the one who said it.:

Christophera's reply:

Quote:
The RDX 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.

The horizontal bar was tied in and that is what removed the concrete keeping the vertical bar intact. This is the reason the spire exists at all.

And again:

Quote:
The different systems were; Reinforced concrete core had RDX coated rebar, floors had it in the corrugations and there was a special dual plate system that was built into the floors to cut columns, ( EXPLO. shear & torch Cut on columns left shear, right torch. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/archive/inde...7426-p-18.html
Click to expand...


Your image shows an interior box column tilting off the line of the wall of interior box columns not a steel core column.
Click to expand...
Look closer. the three columns that are falling over are within the core area.

If there were steel core columns they would be protruding from the core of WTC 2 which is totally intact from the 43rd floor or so down.
Click to expand...
Which they wouldn't be if there were explosives in a concrete wall behind them.
 
uruk said:
No you didn't. You tried to spin it.

Well you were the one who said it.:
Click to expand...

Yes and it is presented out of context.

Do you think it is credible to say a documentary showed a public building being built with high explosives in side of it?

uruk said:
Look closer. the three columns that are falling over are within the core area.

Which they wouldn't be if there were explosives in a concrete wall behind them.
Click to expand...

The angle of those columns projected downward places them in the same line of interior box columns seen on the left.

The steel wouldn't be damaged by that. The explosives would have to be in direct contact. If there were enough explosives uncontained on the supposed 47 steel core columns to cut them the concrete wouldn't be there. Placing those explosives would not be as easy as you might think either.

Still, have you found a credible, feasible explanation for near free fall and total pulverization that can beat,

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
 
Last edited:
maccy said:
Do you see why I'm suggesting a leteral approach?

You're meeting a lot of resistance going at this head on.
Click to expand...

Okay, you do it head on and I'll come in from the side.


I'm totally aware of what I'm attempting to do, and I believe I'm trying to do it in the right place. Americans have a psychological problem. Why do you think I put my 9-11 demo site in the /psych/ directory?

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

I knew from the beginning that the denial was immense. A psychological monstrosity, but one that must be challenged never the less.

What I said to homer goes for all of you and your inability to let this argument go.

It shows how badly you do not want to know this truth.

The more you argue the more you see the truth, the less you want to know it, the more you have to argue.

It is your unconscious homer.

For me it is different but just as intense. I know how important the truth is for you even though you don't want to know it. This is so because I know it is the truth.

Recall a TV series called the "Marathon Man"? There was a line in it that I will never forget. I do believe that very important information is leaked to us through art, film, literature and music.

"Will you still want to know the truth after you learn it is something you do not want to know?"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom