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

[hcmom]

... refusing to be reasonable in the recognition of redundant evidence ...

It had been a day or two since Chris made me smile...

 

[Bell]

It had been a day or two since Chris made me smile...

I'm pretty sure he is suffering from MPD.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Or in his reality words have different meanings.

Of course. Remember, "pulverization" means fist-sized chunks, and "near free-fall" means less than 2 minutes.

Hey, these firefighters are discussing, testifying about a delay system working floor by floor,

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg

We neen an explanation for this and COLLAPSE is NOT logical

Inside the core security is going to find them? No. they are not looking at all, let alone from the roof of an elevator.

No, the ports were potted in paraffin or something like that looking like part of the construction, and they were.
After the lease there were news reports of people on lower floors having to take elevators over their floor then come back down on other elevators. The plugs were very thick and took serious work to dig through to get the caps next to the rebar, as well as stripping off C4 to create delays. Although judging from the shape and size of this explosion, I don't think three was much delay. i need to see a video to make a call on that. Stripping off the C4, 4 feet inside a wall at the bottom of an inspection port doesn't sound easy, let alone connecting a delay with det cord.
This works was causing delays and the fact made the news. I did not personally see/hear this on the TV but read the fact on another message board a couple of years back. Others confirmed it.

On the floor panels there was probably a sheet metal cover near the core wall that had a couple of screws in it and under it was security phone lines. Under the lines was concrete except for a paraffin plug. 4-5 inches through the plug was C4. Insert a cap and rest the delay circuit on floor, connect it into the color coded phone circuit designated for detonators, replace the cover and continue to the next one.

The delays in the detonation system created these early blasts to steer the top of WTC 2 to the east.

Please note what I've bolded. Nice, definitive evidence there.

I still maintain that Christophera is an al Qaeda shill, here to spread disinfo about the WTC collapse and shift blame onto the US government. As "RAW EVIDENCE" , I submit the past 219 pages of this thread, plus the following image:

3" x 4" rebar

 

[Bell]

I submit the past 219 pages of this thread, plus the following image:

3" x 4" rebar

CUUUTE!!!

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

For example, this is the concrete core wall base.

Man, I've just got to make an appointment with the eye doctor. I just can't see 17-foot thick concrete in that picture.

 

[Big Al]

I understand this, but them I also know you are refusing to be reasonable in the recognition of redundant evidence documenting the concrete core.

<Yawn>

I've seen that before, and it's...

Ah, what's the point?

What told the builders to put C-4 in the WTC towers 33 years before it "needed" to be cut down?

Will you EVER answer that?

 

[Big Al]

Perhaps not, you TROLL! You don't have an answer to that, do you?

 

[Christophera]

<Yawn>

I've seen that before, and it's...

Ah, what's the point?

What told the builders to put C-4 in the WTC towers 33 years before it "needed" to be cut down?

Will you EVER answer that?

That information is more than this thread is designated for.

We talk "EXPLANATION" here, for "FREE FALL" or speeds near it. I wouldn't want to stress anyone unnecessarily by trying to expain "why" when "how" has not been addressed.

It took over 200 pages for the "near" part of free fall to soak in. Now, since the structure that existed is very much going to determine the rate of fall, the type of fall, etc. we are working on that.

I estimate, considering the unwillingness to utilize available information, that this process will take another 600 pages.

Keep in mind, that not one denier of the concrete core has come up with a rational explanation of what that material is to the left of the spire IF it is not a concrete shear wall.

 

[Bell]

That information is more than this thread is designated for.

We talk "EXPLANATION" here, for "FREE FALL" or speeds near it. I wouldn't want to stress anyone unnecessarily by trying to expain "why" when "how" has not been addressed.

It took over 200 pages for the "near" part of free fall to soak in. Now, since the structure that existed is very much going to determine the rate of fall, the type of fall, etc. we are working on that.

I estimate, considering the unwillingness to utilize available information, that this process will take another 600 pages.

Keep in mind, that not one denier of the concrete core has come up with a rational explanation of what that material is to the left of the spire IF it is not a concrete shear wall.

You. Are. Wrong.

Seek professional help, Chris. Ask your children for help. I mean it.

 

[Christophera]

CUUUTE!!!

I suggest that the basic evidence you are presenting has as much validity as that contained in the shrunken pantaloons of Bell and his brother Belz.

Despite this fact, and that one is an alien, their basic rights are still worth defending.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4331&stc=1&d=1165020216

 

[Christophera]

It had been a day or two since Chris made me smile...

You didn't know that I can roll my "r's" with profundity did you?

 

[Christophera]

I suggest that the basic evidence you are presenting has as much validity as that contained in the shrunken pantaloons of Bell and his brother Belz.

Despite this fact, and that one is an alien, their basic rights are still worth defending.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4331&stc=1&d=1165020216

I should admit that I'm 6 months overdue for an eye exam and there might be a big concrete core right in the middle of the picture that I just can't see.

Yes, after 6 months you can count on the contents of the Bel brothers shrunken pantaloons being concrete, similar to your evidence for steel core columns.

 

[Bell]

Yes, after 6 months you can count on the contents of the Bel brothers shrunken pantaloons being concrete, similar to your evidence for steel core columns.

Geewiz, Christophera. If only you could put all your energy in comedy like this. You CAN be entertaining

 

[Christophera]

Yes, but how many people have you convinced of your concrete core? With evidence so obvious and the concrete core plain to see, surelly, millions by now.

Oh, that's right, we've been all hypnotised. Why bother then?


At no point have I said NO to reality. You, on the other hand, reject reality and substitute your own.

And for the love of all that's good in this world, please, PLEASE, look up "raw evidence" because you're using it all wrong. It's been explained to you dozens of times, yet you insist on making a fool of yourself by misusing it.

I know you are in Slovenia where the contents of shrunken pantaloons are considered raw evidence.

Here in California, the very western part of the US of A, photos ARE considered "raw evidence" in construction matters which this matter of defining demoliton is closely related to.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3923/is_200211/ai_n9342046

Construction: Raw evidence in mediation
Dispute Resolution Journal, Nov 2002-Jan 2003
Find More Results for: "raw evidence "

The California Court of Appeal held that photographs and raw data prepared for or used in connection with mediation were "otherwise admissible evidence" and therefore were not protected from disclosure under the California Evidence Code

 

[beachnut]

I know you are in Slovenia where the contents of shrunken pantaloons are considered raw evidence.

Here in California, the very western part of the US of A, photos ARE considered "raw evidence" in construction matters which this matter of defining demoliton is closely related to.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3923/is_200211/ai_n9342046

Construction: Raw evidence in mediation
Dispute Resolution Journal, Nov 2002-Jan 2003
Find More Results for: "raw evidence "

The California Court of Appeal held that photographs and raw data prepared for or used in connection with mediation were "otherwise admissible evidence" and therefore were not protected from disclosure under the California Evidence Code

Good work Chris insult the guy who know you are wrong.

Still wrong, I use your web site to prove you wrong everyday. Even grade school kids know the WTC had a steel only core. No Concrete and 10 year olds can figure it out with real research!

Good luck Chris as we test the web engine to contain this thread

 

[Christophera]

Good work Chris insult the guy who know you are wrong.

Still wrong, I use your web site to prove you wrong everyday. Even grade school kids know the WTC had a steel only core. No Concrete and 10 year olds can figure it out with real research!

Good luck Chris as we test the web engine to contain this thread

Lying to children is dispicable.

The ones in Canada that knew of the concrete core had it right tho. Posters here did not like that and made fun of the fact so I removed the childrens information from my web site.

 

[jsfisher]

Do we get to the "and they lived happily ever after" soon, or does this fairy tale continue?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Many people have no problem with identifying a solid strcuture in that image. Perhaps you have no idea what concrete or solid object appear as or the difference between them and dust. There is very clearly a solid obect in the exact area of the WTC 2 core in that image.

I assumed that it was another building, since it appears to be behind all the smoke and debris. It certainly isn't clear enough to determine what it is or what's it's made of.

 

[Christophera]

I assumed that it was another building, since it appears to be behind all the smoke and debris. It certainly isn't clear enough to determine what it is or what's it's made of.

Okay, I understand now that you have a problem identifying objects. here is the WTC 2 core lower

 

[Christophera]

B) Your "WHY the lie" is sheer speculation, because you don't have a motive or any proof of explosives or anything, EVEN IF you had proof of the core.

I've dealt with the images as raw evidence issue.

And of course that establishes that I do have raw evidence of the core, and that evidence is redundant.

My redundant evidence has not been resonably explained as anything but concrete, meaning that the core must be concrete by default. This is a fact also because the steel core columns are never seen where they should be.

Okay, it is reasonably established that the core was concrete.

Next, the issue of near free fall and pulverization.

The image of a pulverized concrete debris wave is irrefutable as it completely obliterates any view of what a collapse would look like which is a series of toppling events having a geometric quality based on the dimensions of the structural elements.

Since almost nothing was identifiable in the ground zero debris, the issue of pulverization is quite absolute. Then there numerous events where explosions are clearly seen out the sides of the towers way ahead of the erroneously termed "collapse".