• 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.
Perhaps he is referring to an alternative PBS which broadcasts exclusively into his mind?

The documentary was three hours of pure core action, and he couldn't look away.
 
JonnyFive said:
Totally. It's like there's a whole side thread (or five) going alongside the main one. Christophera just kind of ignores everything not related to his quest and whoever is in his sights at a given time, leaving the rest of us free to talk about whatever. It's fun.

I've learned a lot too. Especially about mental illness. You could call it first hand experience, I suppose.

I just starting reading this as a lurker, and got sucked in. Once I joined, I just had to post here... I couldn't help it.
Click to expand...

Abandon all hope ye who post here.

(that's a quote)
 
Christophera said:
Sarcasm aside, the idea was that they had to have welders that they could tell that the rebar was coated with C4 or othrewise a welder might try and cut corners and not remove enough of the coating or not shield the coating properly, ......then ... BOOM, and BOOM, and BOOM, big problem.
Click to expand...

Is this your own speculation, or was this little tidbit mentioned, too ?
 
hcmom said:
Plus, as a bonus, people other than Chris post pictures and links that are sometimes interesting. When I got here, (and I have absolutely no recollection of how that happened!) I had very little CT knowledge, or really any of the facts that they have spun off of. Now I've learned about architecture, explosives, mental illnesses...
Click to expand...

same here, chris is a great resource for debunk noobs. i would recommend all skeptic rookies, as i was a few weeks ago, to browse this thread for good hints on the activity......all the hallmarks of debunkability are here.......unfalsifiability, get-out clauses, embellishment, etc etc.

look at this list from Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit i would bet that most, if not all, are present somewhere in christophera's postings here.

Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric
  • Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
  • Argument from "authority".
  • Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).
  • Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
  • Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
  • Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
  • Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
  • Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).
  • Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)
  • Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").
  • Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
  • Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.
  • Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).
  • Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
  • Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
  • Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
  • Confusion of correlation and causation.
  • Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack..
  • Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
  • Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"
perhaps architect is right, this is all just an art project by mr brown to see how many of the above he can get away with. hasn't done very well though has he?

:-]

BV
 
bonavada said:
same here, chris is a great resource for debunk noobs. i would recommend all skeptic rookies, as i was a few weeks ago, to browse this thread for good hints on the activity......all the hallmarks of debunkability are here.......unfalsifiability, get-out clauses, embellishment, etc etc.

look at this list from Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit i would bet that most, if not all, are present somewhere in christophera's postings here.

Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric
  • Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
  • Argument from "authority".
  • Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).
  • Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
  • Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
  • Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
  • Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
  • Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).
  • Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)
  • Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").
  • Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
  • Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.
  • Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).
  • Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
  • Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
  • Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
  • Confusion of correlation and causation.
  • Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack..
  • Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
  • Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"
perhaps architect is right, this is all just an art project by mr brown to see how many of the above he can get away with. hasn't done very well though has he?

:-]

BV
Click to expand...



I think they leave it here just for that purpose.

Now for really paranoid could one of the mods be Chris?
 
Christophera said:
After the fact interpretation is what words are for, even those who spoke them.
Click to expand...

no in this case his words are for describing what was experienced. he saw smoke and smelt kerosene. you distort his words to support your unprovable speculation.


Christophera said:
I've documented two explosions in different areas at the same time, Here is a third. Remember Phillip Morelli?

http://www.ny1.com/pages/RRR/911special_survivors.html
Construction worker in the WTC Phillip Morelli (37 years old on 9-11-1) describes being thrown to the ground by two explosions while in the fourth subbasement of the North Tower. The first, which threw him to the ground and seemed to coincide with the plane crash, was followed by a larger blast that again threw him to the ground and this time blew out walls. He then made his way to the South Tower and was in the subbasement there when the second plane hit, again associated with a powerful underground blast. This is one of a series of interviews with WTC survivors done by NY1 News: ny1.com/pages/RRR/911special_survivors.htmlRemember
Click to expand...

once again you blatantly cherry-pick and distort given information. have you actually watched the video at that link you give HERE? perhaps you should. and maybe try and digest the full account of morelli. he pointedly speaks of an inital explosion ABOVE the sub-levels and then another explosion which he say he later found out was a frieght-car crashing down to earth. you'll have to do better than this chris your slip is showing.

Christophera said:
Not so interchangeble in the construction/engineering world, particuarly in the demolition world, and given these circumstances, engineers will always borrow the terms from the demo world. A truck load of concrete is never called debris unless it is "concrete debris" or "hard debris" it is always "rubble" which means there may be some bricks and stone in with the concrete. Rubble is actually an old term that referres to permeable hard backfill.
Click to expand...

ETA (I mixed mike pecararo up with another worker):-

pure conjecture about mike pecararos' work experience..................

try googling "earthquake rubble" chris you'll be surprised how many hits you get. i managed 9,730 OMFG the NWO have been busy with that C4 huh?

you could also try these:-

"tornado rubble" 13,700

"tsunami rubble" 1,200

"fire rubble" 242

"hurricane rubble" 163

"landslide rubble" 94

last but not least

"barney rubble" with an astonishing 437,000!!! jeezzus H! so him and fred were in on it too?

WILMA!!!!!!



BV
 
Last edited:
Christophera said:
3rd time I've answered this.

The concrete was pumped up through the core from a small batch plant built onsite.
Click to expand...

Thanks, that must of been 7,078 posts ago

But there was no concrete core so you can relax. Your entire web page is based on lies. Kind of ironic. But so true you are the last one in the entire world who thinks the core is concrete.

You are the only one.

urdeonly1
 
nails said:
this thread is like a novel already, and yes, every single one of his objections has been answered multiple times, usually in picture AND text w/sources sited. its not worth discussing anymore.
Click to expand...

This is a gross error.

My objection to using fictional plans (which of 4 core floors plans applied) with no plan showing how the supposed core columns were tied together and braced, has never been addressed.

My request for images of the ANY of the supposed 47, 1300 foot steel columns from teh demolition showing the columns at some elevations offf thegrouns has NEVER been provided.

My requests for reasonable explanations of what the materials are comprising these structuresIMAGE which look like concrete and can only be concrete HAVE NEVER BEEN reasonably responded to.

I point out that "If there was any raw evidence for the steel core columns someone would make a web site about the them" is answered by a site titled "no concrete core", which shows no steel core columns. There are misrepresented images which show vertical steel but the steel is always minor in size compared to the "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" which did exists ONLY SURROUNDING the concrete core walls.

No images show the supposed core columns inthe core area.
 
beachnut said:
Thanks, that must of been 7,078 posts ago

But there was no concrete core so you can relax. Your entire web page is based on lies. Kind of ironic. But so true you are the last one in the entire world who thinks the core is concrete.

You are the only one.

urdeonly1
Click to expand...

You and Belz can start the "Galactic Psychic Society" and practice your juvenile text hypnosis of steel core columns and sophistery of misrepresentations of images on the few remaining that are willing to believe that steel core columns look like THIS when they are cut with high explosives.

Doh oie yaaaaa!!!!! why all the Sand and gravel, must have been masses of hard stone concrete.
 
Architect said:
Well Chris, there's a small problem there. You see the lift machinery at WTC generally went at the top of the shafts. So there's no point in installing them until you get to the plant level. On construction sites, we use temporary lifts pretty much until the final fitting out stage. Yes, even in tall buildings.
Click to expand...

There were temporary lift motors that were easily rigged and they were placed at the top. Although the biggest had to be installed during construction as it was cast inside the 43rd floor with a pulley system. Placing too much weight over halfway up creates and unstable tower and increases structural requirements. If you study the elevator system you will find only one elevator went all the way to the top from the bottom. The sky lobbies were operated on an elaborte pulley system from one centrally located lift motor and reel set.


Architect said:
Bollocks..
Click to expand...

I'd have to say that closes the case on your architect status. No one has ever questioned the fact that 40 feet is the max height for wood forms and many have supported it over the years.

I'm not even responding to the rest of your nonsense.
 
Christophera said:
You cannot be serious.

Click to expand...

It isn't clear that there is a wall there. The color in between what you are calling the end of the wall and what your are calling hallways is the about the same as the color of the debris cloud to the outside of this area. And where is the top of the wall? There is no clear vertical boundary.

And even if it is a wall, it is no thicker than your "interior box column". This would make it about 2-3 feet wide, right?
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
It isn't clear that there is a wall there. The color in between what you are calling the end of the wall and what your are calling hallways is the about the same as the color of the debris cloud to the outside of this area. And where is the top of the wall? There is no clear vertical boundary.

And even if it is a wall, it is no thicker than your "interior box column". This would make it about 2-3 feet wide, right?
Click to expand...

P.S. There is also no clear boundary beyond what you are calling hallways. So where does your supposed wall end?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom