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

[Mobyseven]

The offical story would explainthe photo as a sculpture, static and frozen in whatever way they would want you to believe.

You are a joke.

The official story explains nothing and has no proof. I have raw evidence and I do explain near free fall and pulverization.

An explanation IS the whole story.

Explain exactly what is happening in the picture or shutup.

This is analogous to what you are trying to do with your 9/11 conspiracy. You are analysing photographs with no supporting evidence, and presenting your findings as unfalsifyable gospel.

 

[tsig]

se7ensnakes,

You've got it!

That is why they all think alike and pay no attention to raw evidence, they are all tuned to the same channel with their silvery cranial antennas.

Chris you have never been on a construction site.

Have you ever held a tool?

Do you know what a job is?

 

[mortimer]

I don't have to imagine, you've said it all, but you also have no raw evidence.

If the steel core columns are never seen as the towers come apart but what can only be concrete is seen, your inability to explain what appears as concrete in any reasonable fashion indicates that the steel columns never existed.

Chris,

We have more "raw" evidence than you do. You have one photo. We have dozens. Your inability to explain what appears to be steel core and the absence of a concrete core in construction photos indicates that the concrete core never existed.

 

[Bell]

The view is partly blocked on the right side as if concrete forms are being built or the core, which was divided in 2 on the long axis by a central shear wall made into part of the cells by the floors, meaning the core could be built 1 side at a time.

So now the concrete core is still under construction, some 40 (estimate) floors behind the top of the building.

The documentary was about WTC 1 so explaining what is going on in the right image of WTC 2 is not inherently easy.

For you, nothing is inherently easy. But if the alleged documentary (for which you have no proof) only showed WTC1, then you have no proof of special coating in the core of WTC2.

WTC core was very different having 2 hallways in each direction and from the other images of it under construction, I get the impression that the process of casting the combined cell/shearwall core was also quite different. Often, it appears, allowing more floors before requiring the core catch up. Certainly that would add speed to construction and we know WTC went faster. So that is probably what we are seeing

So the tower stood without a concrete core. Only then they built the concrete core because...?

Since you have no reasonable explanation for the image of the <spam> WTC core, it is not like my inability to completely explain your image actually says there was no concrete core.

Certainly there is no proof for the steel core columns in anything you have posted.


Below is an explanation of the hallways of WTC 2 looking to the south which matches the southward view you've posted.

<spam>

Emphasis added throughout your post. You are one very unsecure person, Chris. And you are wrong.

WOT? NO CONCRETE?

 

[uruk]

Chris still hasen't been able to reconcile the the age discrepancy of the Mohawk story or been able to show the concrete core being built ahead of the steel work as described by Tony Jebson.
He's ignoring these facts because they show him to be wrong. His type of dilusion wont allow him to admit to being wrong because it would introduce self doubt.

 

[Belz...]

I see no columns in the core.

I see no "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" in the core area.

That's the blood in your avatar's eyes.

There is CLEARLY diagonal bracing in those three pictures. That is what you asked for. Diagonal bracing. Stop with the lie, you make baby Jezus cry.

Yes, cry tears of blood.

They were built despite this public rejection. The things our government has been doing just don't make sense. That we pay for it makes less sense.

Isn't it ALWAYS the taxpayers who pay ?

You are truly a common sense individual with respect for reason.

Those are mutually exclusive.

Yamasaki abandoned the steel core columns and utilized the steel reinforced cast concrete core as it handed lateral displacements better and dealt very well with the torsion issue.

If he's still alive you might want to ask him.

The cross supports you indicate are a part of the crane platform.

REALLY ? Then what are they doing right outside of it ?

Prove it.

http://images.wisconsinhistory.org/w...99004225-l.jpg

Elevator guide rail support steel.

Using Uruk's own photo doesn't PROVE anything.

Gosh, you really think pictures are the end-all of all arguments, don't you ?

Here is a totally unexplainable event without demolitions

Argument from incredulity noted.

All your images are over 4 floors and the steel surrounded the concrete core after that.

Hint: you can see through the spaces in BETWEEN the steel.

You need to show the diagonal braces of the interior box columns from the demo images.

Goalpost moving at its finest. Wasn't it YOU who asked proof from the construction images ? Now we have to limit ourselves to the DESTRUCTION, where no bracing could've survived ?

Now you're plain dishonest.

 

[Belz...]

The only realistic explanation of the fall of the three WTC structures are a control demolition. You dont even need to read any expert ......it is all so evident. Three buildings falling down due to an open fire just dont cut it.

Yes, who needs experts when you can just use your ignorance as a bludgeon ?

 

[Bell]

If he's still alive you might want to ask him.

Alas, he's not. But I'm sure Chris can contact him ala Sylvia Browne. He's of such high intelligence and has supernatural powers

 

[JonnyFive]

The answer is 42. It's obvious.

Damn, you figured us out. We sit around drinking coffee and laughing all day, and everyone's rate is 42!

I love my job.

Yes, and it is not the same proportions.

I must be psychic, because I had this feeling that you would say that. Exactly what is so critical about the proportions of the twin towers that they needed a concrete core?

The Sears Tower is even higher and is not dramatically thicker, so how come a steel core is good for that, but not the twin towers?

I made up a song, just for that:

"Oh, there's no pleading like special pleading it's the happiest pleading in the land... there's no pleading like special pleading so won't you take my hand?"

Sung roughly to the tune of the "There's no Canada like French Canada" song in South Park.

 

[se7ensnakes]

denials vs truthers

I dont argue with denials on the facts.........because no matter what you say.....it wont sink in......
For example, I never argue with a christian fundamentalist about bible fallacy because it just dont work. However, if i noticed that there is an individual that is actually is sincere about the topic, where I could learn from him/her or he could learn from me...that person I will debate. But i have listened to the total made up ******** in this forum to know that i will be wasting my time.

 

[Powa]

se7ensnakes, why don't you post your theory of what happened on 9/11 and then we can debate.

 

[uruk]

Chris still hasen't been able to reconcile the the age discrepancy of the Mohawk story or been able to show the concrete core being built ahead of the steel work as described by Tony Jebson.
He's ignoring these facts because they show him to be wrong. His type of dilusion wont allow him to admit to being wrong because it would introduce self doubt.

Sorry to quote myself but I forgot to add something before the edit time was up.

Not to mention his blatant, contrarian denial of the diagnol bracing of the columns.

It's like holding a ball infront of someone eyes and they deny the ball being there. It's absolutly childish and immature.

 

[uruk]

I dont argue with denials on the facts.........because no matter what you say.....it wont sink in......
For example, I never argue with a christian fundamentalist about bible fallacy because it just dont work. However, if i noticed that there is an individual that is actually is sincere about the topic, where I could learn from him/her or he could learn from me...that person I will debate. But i have listened to the total made up ******** in this forum to know that i will be wasting my time.

Then why are you wasting your time here?

Your obviousely a joker or a troll, otherwise the alternative is that you are ignorant and you have no idea what you're pratteling on about and too lazey to research your own claims enough to debate it here.

So which is it? So far all you have done is to make unsubstatiated claims. Simply mouthing off for no reason simply makes you a jacka$$.
Say something meaningfull and put your money where your mouth is or go back to playing your Playstation 3

 

[beachnut]

I dont argue with denials on the facts.........because no matter what you say.....it wont sink in......
For example, I never argue with a christian fundamentalist about bible fallacy because it just dont work. However, if i noticed that there is an individual that is actually is sincere about the topic, where I could learn from him/her or he could learn from me...that person I will debate. But i have listened to the total made up ******** in this forum to know that i will be wasting my time.

You have no facts, you can not argue, and you do not know the difference between faith and facts. You are the one using you faith in the cult of 9/11 non truth and you think you have logic and facts; you have failed.

You are not wasting your time, you are a waste of time.

You have problems with logic, having real facts, and the ability to research 9/11.

 

[Christophera]

I have used your photos to show everyone the steel Core

I use you photos of the WTC to prove the core is steel!

Curious, I just noticed again you did not post any images of the supposed steel core columns. If you continue to try to assert with text that you have images available which show the steel core columns but do not use them, you loose credibility.

Use images from the demolition showing some of the supposed 47, 1300 foot steel columns inthe creo area at an elevation above the ground.

I have a number of images which show what can only bee concrete. There is, for example, a quality image of the top of WTC 2 showing the concrete core inside the perimeter columns about to crash into the top of WTC 3.

 

[Christophera]

Exactly what is so critical about the proportions of the twin towers that they needed a concrete core?

I've said numerous times. The twin towers were narrow and very tall. If I have to explain that to you, ................ clearly you are not capable of logical discussion on the matter.

 

[Bell]

Curious, I just noticed again you did not post any images of the supposed steel core columns. If you continue to try to assert with text that you have images available which show the steel core columns but do not use them, you loose credibility.

Use images from the demolition showing some of the supposed 47, 1300 foot steel columns inthe creo area at an elevation above the ground.

I have a number of images which show what can only bee concrete. There is, for example, a quality image of the <spam> top of WTC 2 showing the concrete core inside the perimeter columns about to crash into the top of WTC 3.

Please provide us with...

- Raw evidence of the PBS documentary
- Raw evidence of the C4
- Raw evidence of the planes hitting the wrong towers

... just for starters.

Raw evidence IS NOT your assumptions or conclusions. We are awaiting your reply.

 

[Arus808]

Chris still hasen't been able to reconcile the the age discrepancy of the Mohawk story or been able to show the concrete core being built ahead of the steel work as described by Tony Jebson.
He's ignoring these facts because they show him to be wrong. His type of dilusion wont allow him to admit to being wrong because it would introduce self doubt.

that's nothing new.
he still hasn't explained how he claims it was C4 that was used to coat the rebar, when C-4 wasn't a term that was used back when the building were being built.

 

[Belz...]

Let's stick wth the simple stuff.

Ah, yes. The simple stuff.

The demo scenario I've assembled is for the experts, and they are terrified or paid off.

What, because they disagree with your common sense ?

I've been asking for a site that simply substantiates the FEMA core of 47, 1300 foot columns, for over six months now. I mean there are 4 different floor plans, no structural plans showing how the supposed core columns were connected or braced, nothing on this falacious structure.

Except all those pictures and videos you keep ignoring. Well, you don't ignore those YOU provide, or the video no one ELSE saw.

Sure, .......... there have been many attempts to pass off misinterpretations of construction images as "core columns", but if there were steel core columns, they would be easy to see in the images of the towers coming down, but they never are.

No, Adamantium is too expensive for high-rise skyscraper construction.

Wow, a breath of fresh air. Simple logic, how refreshing, dynamic even. reaching to human nature, psychology and simple sociology.

Translation for the non-chris speaking: "Wow, he agrees with me."

The charge is designed so that the metal in the inside of the V-shape is converted to a hot vaporized metal gas that does the actual cutting. Explosive coated the outside of a cylinder would not have the same effect since it completely surrounds the cylinder. It might vaporize the rebar, but then there would not be any rebar left to be photographed. So if that is the case the picture you keep saying is a picture of rebar would be incorrectly interpreted.

So your rebar can't possibly BE rebar unless your theory is wrong.

Isn't reality annoying, like that ?

 

[Belz...]

conspiracies are normal

Not conspiracies that involve thousands of people in highly risky, dare I say insane operations, and NONE of which speak out, ever, about killing thousands.

No, these conspiracies are NOT normal, and neither are those positing their existence.

It is really obvious that there was somekind of controlled demolition - buildings do not collapse due to open fire --------- it is just utterly rediculous to even think that.

Never ? Ever ? Ever, ever, ever ?

You might want to check that one.

So i am mostly trying to understand these people that believe otherwise. People that believe the official version remind of christians..........no matter what evidence you bring forth they weasel their way out of it and go home more resolute about their beliefs than ever.

CTers remind me of christians, too. The way they invent evidence that doesn't exist in order to support their own pre-conceived notions.

I am really curious what these people think of Operation Northwood............

The same thing they thought the last 1000 times someone asked.

I plainly said that it the control demolition is obvious and for that you dont need an expert...........like a ship that has sunk, you dont need an expert to tell you it has sunk.

No, but you might need one to tell you why.