• 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.
DHR said:
Stay in this thread and you will believe that you hvave instsalled the rebar.

It was simple I just swilled the rebar in the hot ecplosive mixture, then planted it.

Confession is good.
Click to expand...

And I was the one who mixed up the batch of C4 from an old recipe my mother handed down to me from her mother and so forth.

And, of course, you know what the secret ingrediant is, don't you?


That's right.....love.
 
DHR said:
Confession is good.
Click to expand...

Has anyone seen a realistice explanation for free fall of my pants?

I know there is a concrete core. I heard explosions, it must be c4. I have raw evidence that you cannot refute.

PANTS CORE STILL STANDS

I saw a PBS documentary on pants in 1990 that showed pantscrete. My ex-cat saw it as well. ARE YOU QUALIFIED TO EVALUATE PANTS? Answer in the next 2 nanoseconds or you are being evasive.
 
Last edited:
For the asplosion nutters in this thread: How did the demolition firms (or USG for that matter) demolish buildings in the early 60's? Did they use C4 or other asplosives? Or a large steel ball? I'd like to know.
 
JonnyFive said:
Has anyone seen a realistice explanation for free fall of my pants?

I know there is a concrete core. I heard explosions, it must be c4. I have raw evidence that you cannot refute.

PANTS CORE STILL STANDS

I saw a PBS documentary on pants in 1990 that showed pantscrete. My ex-cat saw it as well. ARE YOU QUALIFIED TO EVALUATE PANTS? Answer in the next 2 nanoseconds or you are being evasive.
Click to expand...

JonnyFive has employed COGNITIVE DISTORTION concerning the structure of the core of the pants. (probably due to hypmotizim by Hungarian Gerbils) The picture he posted is incorrect and does not show the proper core. I have modified his picture to show how the core really is. This drawing was confirmed by his ex-girl friend who is an hindu indian with a mohawk.
 

Attachments

  • GapBlueJeans_revised.JPG
    GapBlueJeans_revised.JPG
    15.6 KB · Views: 107
Last edited:
TellyKNeasuss said:
If what you called '3" rebar' in 'THE REBAR' section of your web page really is only 3 inches wide, those men in the foreground must have toothpicks for legs.
Click to expand...

In addition, based on the size of the image and the height of the buildings, the resolution of this image at the distance the buildings are from the camera is at best 1 pixel/foot, and probably is worse. At that resolution, even 6-inch rebar would be at most half a pixel wide. 3-inch rebar would be a quarter of a pixel wide or less. How could something that small be as clearly visible as what's in the image?
 
uruk said:
The picture he posted is incorrect and does not show the proper core. I have modified his picture to show how the core really is. This drawing was confirmed by his ex-girl friend who is an hindu indian with a mohawk.
Click to expand...

you is disinfo...
that image are not raw evidence and are fake. here is the original.

87484574a3d313aa2.jpg


BV
 
<Snorts in a disdainful manner>

TellyKNeasuss said:
In addition, based on the size of the image and the height of the buildings, the resolution of this image at the distance the buildings are from the camera is at best 1 pixel/foot, and probably is worse. At that resolution, even 6-inch rebar would be at most half a pixel wide. 3-inch rebar would be a quarter of a pixel wide or less. How could something that small be as clearly visible as what's in the image?
Click to expand...

Du-uh! So it was 1-foot rebar! Whatever! That doesn't change the undeniable reality of some puffs of dust from collapsing floors . . . I mean, C-4 explosions pulverising concrete! :rolleyes:

Besides, that was recorded on film, not digital media. The resolution's much better on film . . . and the digitisation . . . sorta captured that resolution and then . . . sorta de-resolved it, leaving the essential homeopathic essence of the rebar in the emulsion, or the digitalisification, or whatever it was. :boggled:

Anyway, you're wrong. Chris is THE MAN!
 
Just dropped by to say Hi!

So has the hypnotism worn off yet Chris?

Or is my evil plan to make you see concrete cores where there are none still in effect?

Look into my eyes not around the eyes.....:hypnodisk :hypnodisk .....And when you wake you will know the cores were made of pancake bunnies.
:bunpan
:bunpan
:bunpan
:bunpan
:bunpan

Like so.
 
Big Al said:
Bonavada, you've not become a filthy, unbelieving disiformationist, have you?
That picture is a total fake! Those legs are really made of concrete, as you well know! Shame on you!
Click to expand...

i show you raw evidence of gusset supports that FEMA says still stood after pant collapse.
the brownish scrote particulate is irrefutable.
you care not that your government is involved in the covert removal of 3000 american skidmarks. skidmarks that could only be facilitated by explosive ejection of pulverised C4 coated vindaloo
your support of pantycide is noted.

87484574a3d313aa2.jpg


BV
 
Last edited:
Wow, almost an entire day without "the man" himself responding.

Could it be the end finally?
 
bonavada said:
i show you raw evidence of gusset supports that FEMA says still stood after pant collapse.
the brownish scrote particulate is irrefutable.
you care not that your government is involved in the covert removal of 3000 american skidmarks. skidmarks that could only be facilitated by explosive ejection of pulverised C4 coated vindaloo
your support of pantycide is noted.

BV
Click to expand...

Well let's hope it was just pulverized C4 coated vindaloo that was explosively ejected.
 
Arus808 said:
why doesn't chris realize that that "thin" of a concrete core wouldn't be able to last/survive the immense wind speeds for a building that tall? That there would have been no way to install the hundreds of elevators in the buildings because the center would needed to be "concrete" through and through?

that is why what he claims is pure fantasy.
Click to expand...


First its too thick then its too thin. Two foot thick at the top and 17 feet thick at the bottom.

I can only guess you do not understand the flex of steel. In the proportions of the tower the flex would be fatal to the structure.

This is the core of WTC 2 and it can only be concrete. Not one reasonable explanation of what it is if it is NOT concrete has ever been offered.

No reasonable explanation for WHY the supposed steel core columns do not protrude in some way from the top has ever been offered.
 
uruk said:
And I was the one who mixed up the batch of C4 from an old recipe my mother handed down to me from her mother and so forth.

And, of course, you know what the secret ingrediant is, don't you?


That's right.....love.
Click to expand...

Yes who do you think was pissing into the pot next to you?
 
Brainache said:
Just dropped by to say Hi!

So has the hypnotism worn off yet Chris?

Or is my evil plan to make you see concrete cores where there are none still in effect?

Look into my eyes not around the eyes.....:hypnodisk :hypnodisk .....And when you wake you will know the cores were made of pancake bunnies.
:bunpan
:bunpan
:bunpan
:bunpan
:bunpan

Like so.
Click to expand...

First all atempts to produce reasonable evidence are abandoned, even the sadly misrepresented kind.

Then all efforts at reasonable discussion are abandoned. All in support of a sad lie.
 
uruk said:
JonnyFive has employed COGNITIVE DISTORTION concerning the structure of the core of the pants. (probably due to hypmotizim by Hungarian Gerbils) The picture he posted is incorrect and does not show the proper core. I have modified his picture to show how the core really is. This drawing was confirmed by his ex-girl friend who is an hindu indian with a mohawk.
Click to expand...

For the love of humanity, put them back!!
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
In addition, based on the size of the image and the height of the buildings, the resolution of this image at the distance the buildings are from the camera is at best 1 pixel/foot, and probably is worse. At that resolution, even 6-inch rebar would be at most half a pixel wide. 3-inch rebar would be a quarter of a pixel wide or less. How could something that small be as clearly visible as what's in the image?
Click to expand...

Trying to convince people they are not seeing what is there to see?

This is the 3 inch rebar which is probably moving around quite a bit, which would make you pixel arguement null and void.. Also, over a hundred of them are in a line or nearly so, and that will be larger than a pixel.

Clearly this image of and interior box column "the spire" which is just over 2 feet wide, perhaps there are 2, one slightly behind the other, was taken a second before that of the rebar, so the scale is correct and we are looking at 3 inch rebar.

What should not be over looked, is that there are NO STEEL core columns in the core area.
 
once again chris................


..........you interviewed an ironworker/windwalker in 2002 (you have stated previously that he was 64 years old at that time) and that he was 24 when he worked at the WTC. there's a 40 year gap there. so are you stating that the man was working at the WTC in 1962?


BV
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom