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

[Christophera]

CHRIS, GET HELP!
[qimg]http://www.terrorize.dk/911/images/wtc-1.construction.1.jpg[/qimg]
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/images/wtc-1.construction.1.jpg

I have a picture of what is inside that steel exterior framework, which means you are the one that needs help because you have no explanation for free fall and I do.

Concrete can be fractured to fall instantly, steel cannot. This is a 500 foot steel reinforced concrete tube that WAS surrounded by structural steel.

Concrete Core Of WTC 2​

 

[Christophera]

I lead you to it. So read it.

Words are too easily falsified.

I show you the concrete core.

Concrete Core Of WTC 2​

So you produce an image of the steel core columns from the demo which DOES expose the entire tower and SHOW me the steel core columns.

It is that simple. Written words can never offer proof only images can and if NIST has 'em, you find 'em and post 'em.

 

[Christophera]

I was thinking

Correction:

you were spewing your inanities.

 

[Christophera]

We've read your website. We've read all you posts.
Have some honesty and read the NIST report.

As I've said. No written words can prove this point. You must find the appropriate images and post them.

I have images of concrete which I post for you that prove concrete. If you are unwilling to use them then find your own images of stel core columns and post them.

Part of the concrete core of the top of tower 2 falls on WTC 3

 

[Christophera]

Two nuts at work; please do not disturb!

When Darat talks about a mess he means the kind of posts beachnut has made. I only claim responsiblity for the reasonable posts that logically use evidence of the concrete core.

 

[Christophera]

U R stupid;

Robertson did not post that; it was someone teasing you!

R U stupid?

I can prove the concrete core.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

and one image proves high explosives.

concrete exploding




Now, who is stupid?

 

[Christophera]

The best explanation I've heard is that it WASN'T FREE FALL!

The acceleration rate was only maybe 2/3 of that for a free fall.

There is another maxim that says:
You don't need an explanation for something that didn't happen.

Apparently it did happen. Even NIST admits to a 10 second fall time. Meaning your post is a compulsive effort to cover up a disturbing truth.

Seek mental health care before your nation turns into a prison.

 

[Christophera]

aliens. The aliens did it.

Another compulsive reaction seeking to deny the truth. You have been deceived by media. Endeavor to use actual information wherever you may find it.

Endeavor to use reason.

Endeavor to use both information and reason to preserve your rights and freedoms as secured by the US Constitution.

 

[Christophera]

total pulverization?

The firefighter at the scene describes 2, 100 story towers turned to dust.

Argue with him.

I just have a realistic explanation for how it can be done.

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse update/Engine-7.htm

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse update/collapsed to dust.mpg

 

[Christophera]

Has anyone seen an explanation for why so many CTs, in 2006, continue to claim that the towers fell at free fall?

Gravy,

The only explanation is that the fall rate was so cloe to free fall that it is functionally accurate to say the fell at that speed.

I have a realistic explanation for that fact, here.

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

 

[Christophera]

It was damned heavy.

Maxim: If I don't know or understand the science behind an explanation am I allowed to cast the explanation into doubt?

That is a question not a maxim?

The official explnations do not even get close to explaining how 2 towers go ALL THE WAY TO THE GROUND.

No collpase of a steel framed building can do this, let alone one that has a steel reinforced cast concrete core.

There is however a competent explanation.

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

But, .......... you will have to capable of using reason and logic with images depicting raw evidence and realizing that the towers were BUILT TO DEMOLISH.

 

[Christophera]

Total pulverization of his arguments may follow.

Do the CT arguments fall at free-fall or close to free-fall?

No.

But Americans will lose their rights and freedoms if they fail to reasonably use facts. This has already been proven since 9-11. Pigs rarely care about such things and just do not want to end up as bacon. You however, are so stupid you are probably already digested and eliminated.

However, all porcine deserve a chance at self improvement before slaughter.

In which case examine the facts here.

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

 

[Christophera]

Also, there wasn't "total pulverization of the towers." There was much pulverization, but that's pretty much to be expected as the buildings used a little as possible and it was all horizontal -- there was no reinforced concrete in the structure.

Firstly, you have not established credibility.

REQUIREMENTS OF CREDIBILITY:We know there was a core, if one core didn't exist, then the other did.

For anybody posting who presents a purpose or reason for saying "no concrete", in order for them to be credible, the post must also explain HOW the supposed 47 steel core columns were cut to create near free fall which ALSO explains why they are NEVER seen in images of the demolition.

Second, watch the video of the firefighter describing what IS NOT found.

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse update/collapsed to dust.mpg

Third, realize you are wrong.

 

[Christophera]

Like others have said, it didn't fall at free fall.

And as the engineers have said about the collapse, it was due to something called pancaking, which i'm not going to get into since its easily looked up and the engineers can explain it much better then me.

Once its explained well, it sounds VERY reasonable.

It only sounds reasonable if you can believe that 2 towers can fall identically at rates so close to that of free fall that it would be indistinguishable to onlookers.

Add to that the towers, which have a steel exterior framework, fell all the way to the ground and you have basically described an impossibility if you insist on the term COLLAPSE.

There is only one reasonable explanation and that is DEMOLITION. And amongst the many incomplete and illogical suppositions, none of which actually describe a realistic scenario where towers such as those could fall as those did, there is only one site that even gets close.

And it does so because it recognizes that the towers had a steel reinforced concrete core, which it proves by the use of images of raw evidence.

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

 

[Christophera]

Estimated time of arrival of the "9/11 hijackers still alive!" post: 11:12 p.m.

Your prediction fails. No one to my recolection has ever posted about the hijackers in this thread.

Personally I believe some of the identities were wrong but that all the planes were flown by hijackers.

However, that had nothing to do with the towers falling at a rate comparable to free fall. Only demolitions can do that.

 

[Christophera]

How do you know? And you saying that engineers who have studied the collapse were too stupid to realize that something was wrong with the official story?

I'm saying that they never even had the plans for the towers.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html

You are saying they were SO stupid they thought they could fool everybody by going along with the official story rather than using the truth.

 

[Christophera]

No. You pay me $1000. Now.

No explanation is needed. You do it. It is SCIENTIFIC FACT that you owe me this.

You pay money, or admit complete fallacy of your argument. This has been PROVEN.

Sorry. Hand over your rights and freedoms to the infiltrated government, the one you support with your nonsense. Oh, give up your childrens rights and freedoms too.

It is simple reason to state that this is a steel and reinforced concrete statnding at 500 foot.

Concrete Core Of WTC 2​

That there was a concrete core is really the only thing that has been proven.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

 

[Christophera]

Christophera, have you read any of the NIST reports? Please be specific when describing what issues you have w/ them - give a publication and page number so we can check your work.

Thanks!

No. If you will notice homer tries to pawn that PDF on the hopelessly gullible.

Realistically, as it is only a digital file, it cannot even be used as toilet paper. AND, it is certainly not worth printing to even pick up cat poop, which your post equals in every way.

I recomend you get ringworm then eat a rat that has been poisoned. Perhaps you will see the CONCRETE fact.

Concrete Core Of WTC 2​

 

[Christophera]

The engineers believe FEMAs description of the structure and I know it was different so what the engineers have defined is in error.

How do you know it was different?

The engineers describe a tower that had steel core columns when the demo images only show steel reinforced concrete.

Concrete Core Of WTC 2​

 

[jsfisher]

--posted deleted.