IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 911 conspiracy theory , concrete core , free fall , world trade center , wtc core , wtc1 , wtc2

Closed Thread
Old 25th May 2006, 03:19 PM   #1
Christophera
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,760
Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers?

Maxim:
If a suppossed explantion does not explain the event, it is not the truth. No explanation that does not explain the event can be the truth.

So far no explanation in existence explains free fall and total pulverization of the towers appears to exist. Has anyone seen one?
Christophera is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 03:22 PM   #2
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 20,762
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.
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 03:24 PM   #3
Lamuella
Master Poster
 
Lamuella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,480
aliens. The aliens did it.
Lamuella is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 03:27 PM   #4
joseph k.
Scholar
 
joseph k.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 86
total pulverization?
joseph k. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 03:29 PM   #5
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,078
Has anyone seen an explanation for why so many CTs, in 2006, continue to claim that the towers fell at free fall?
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 03:29 PM   #6
Mongrel
Begging for Scraps
 
Mongrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UK, suburbia. 20 minutes in the future
Posts: 2,148
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?
__________________
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.” - Charles Darwin

...like so many contemporary philosophers he especially enjoyed giving helpful advice to people who were happier than he was. - Tom Lehrer
Mongrel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 03:31 PM   #7
The Pig
Thinker
 
The Pig's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 171
Total pulverization of his arguments may follow.

Do the CT arguments fall at free-fall or close to free-fall?
The Pig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 03:35 PM   #8
Manny
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,290
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
The best explanation I've heard is that it WASN'T FREE FALL!
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.
Manny is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 04:26 PM   #9
Christophera
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,760
Originally Posted by Manny View Post
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.
Can you prove that with raw images of the towers coming down.
Christophera is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 04:31 PM   #10
Christophera
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,760
Originally Posted by Mongrel View Post
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?
Of course but an explanation is needed. So to cast doubt onto one, another must be provided that has a better basis in evidence.
Christophera is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 04:32 PM   #11
Renfield
Graduate Poster
 
Renfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,055
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.
__________________
If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large deposit in my name in a Swiss bank.

-Woody Allen (1935 -

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/deist1999/
Renfield is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 04:32 PM   #12
senorpogo
Master Poster
 
senorpogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,100
Estimated time of arrival of the "9/11 hijackers still alive!" post: 11:12 p.m.
senorpogo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 04:42 PM   #13
Christophera
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,760
Originally Posted by Renfield View Post
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.
The engineers believe FEMAs description of the structure and I know it was different so what the engineers have defined is in error.

Is there any web site that uses raw images of the towers coming down to define the structural elements of the them.
Christophera is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 04:45 PM   #14
senorpogo
Master Poster
 
senorpogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,100
Originally Posted by Christophera View Post
The engineers believe FEMAs description of the structure and I know it was different so what the engineers have defined is in error.

Is there any web site that uses raw images of the towers coming down to define the structural elements of the them.
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?
senorpogo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 04:49 PM   #15
American
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,831
Originally Posted by Christophera View Post
Of course but an explanation is needed. So to cast doubt onto one, another must be provided that has a better basis in evidence.
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.
American is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 04:49 PM   #16
Christophera
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,760
Originally Posted by senorpogo View Post
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?
They were too afraid to say there was something wrong with the official story. Taking the money was easiest.
Christophera is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 04:51 PM   #17
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
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!
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 04:53 PM   #18
senorpogo
Master Poster
 
senorpogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,100
[quote=Christophera;1662449]The engineers believe FEMAs description of the structure and I know it was different so what the engineers have defined is in error./QUOTE]

How do you know it was different?
senorpogo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 04:54 PM   #19
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by Christophera View Post
They were too afraid to say there was something wrong with the official story. Taking the money was easiest.
You have evidence that money was paid? To every single structural engineer in the world?! Is money paid to new structural engineering college graduates as well to keep them hushed up? How much money do you think is necessary to hush thousands of these engineers?
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 04:54 PM   #20
senorpogo
Master Poster
 
senorpogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,100
Originally Posted by Christophera View Post
They were too afraid to say there was something wrong with the official story. Taking the money was easiest.
Are you saying all structural engineers have been bribed?
senorpogo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 04:55 PM   #21
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by Christophera View Post
The engineers believe FEMAs description of the structure and I know it was different so what the engineers have defined is in error.
Which FEMA description are you talking about? Please list (or better yet link to) the publication so we can check your work.

Thanks.
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 04:55 PM   #22
Christophera
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,760
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
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. I am aware from other sources exactly how the towers were designed and NIST is a waste of time. They do not explain free fall. They do not explain free fall to the ground of the entire structure. They do not explain how this happened twice and why the impact/fall sequence is backwards/ The wrong tower fell first if itwas a collapse.

They don't explain why the tops of the towers fell the wrong directions according top the sides damaged.
Christophera is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 04:56 PM   #23
American
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,831
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
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.
So you too deny the IRREFUTABLE FACT that both towers were PULVERIZED to a state of plasma, hotter than the sun. Hotter than ANYTHING possible by muslim terrorist attack.

Without citing a SINGLE photograph for evidence too.... you have made a COMPLETE FOOL of yourself!
American is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 04:58 PM   #24
tkingdoll
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 12,382
Originally Posted by Christophera View Post
No. I am aware from other sources exactly how the towers were designed and NIST is a waste of time. They do not explain free fall. They do not explain free fall to the ground of the entire structure. They do not explain how this happened twice and why the impact/fall sequence is backwards/ The wrong tower fell first if itwas a collapse.

They don't explain why the tops of the towers fell the wrong directions according top the sides damaged.
From the quality and structure of your writing, you are clearly not very intelligent, so I'm surprised that you consider yourself capable of critically examining and appraising the available evidence, let alone drawing the conclusions that you have.

Or did you watch the Loose Change DVD and get all your opinions from that? Hmm?
tkingdoll is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 04:59 PM   #25
Christophera
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,760
Originally Posted by American View Post
Without citing a SINGLE photograph for evidence too.... you have made a COMPLETE FOOL of yourself!
No, I've made assertions that are backed by lots of evidence but I cannot post url's here yet.

So you should post the url's to raw images supporting the structure NIST says stood. I've asked others to do this. Why has no one done it?
Christophera is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 05:01 PM   #26
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by Christophera View Post
So you should post the url's to raw images supporting the structure NIST says stood. I've asked others to do this. Why has no one done it?
I would, but to tell you the truth I have absolutely no idea what you're asking us to do here.

Is English your second language or something?
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 05:01 PM   #27
Christophera
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,760
Originally Posted by tkingdoll View Post
From the quality and structure of your writing, you are clearly not very intelligent, so I'm surprised that you consider yourself capable of critically examining and appraising the available evidence, let alone drawing the conclusions that you have.

Or did you watch the Loose Change DVD and get all your opinions from that? Hmm?
No. I derive nothing from any of those productions. All of my evidence is gained from raw images and common sense analysis of construction materials and their physical properties.
Christophera is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 05:03 PM   #28
American
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,831
Originally Posted by Christophera View Post
No, I've made assertions that are backed by lots of evidence but I cannot post url's here yet.

So you should post the url's to raw images supporting the structure NIST says stood. I've asked others to do this. Why has no one done it?
I am SUPPORTING you. Don't twist facts around.

These "skeptics" debate endlessly about things like whether the Holocaust even HAPPENED. They are fools.... a preponderance of evidence shows that IT DID. Yet they will continue to assert - like the truth about 9-11 - that history is in error.
American is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 05:04 PM   #29
Meffy
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,208
Originally Posted by senorpogo View Post
Originally Posted by Christophera View Post
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?
WAG: RV?
Meffy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 05:04 PM   #30
Christophera
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,760
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
I would, but to tell you the truth I have absolutely no idea what you're asking us to do here.

Is English your second language or something?
Perhaps you are feigning confusion.

I've asked here that someone post a url to a site on the web that has a credible, realistic, feasible explanation for free fall or a site that uses raw images to support the structure that NIST says stood.
Christophera is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 05:06 PM   #31
Christophera
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,760
Originally Posted by American View Post
I am SUPPORTING you. Don't twist facts around.

These "skeptics" debate endlessly about things like whether the Holocaust even HAPPENED. They are fools.... a preponderance of evidence shows that IT DID. Yet they will continue to assert - like the truth about 9-11 - that history is in error.
Just trying to determine if the basic structure that NIST says stood shows up during the fall of the towers.
Christophera is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 05:08 PM   #32
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by Christophera View Post
No. I derive nothing from any of those productions. All of my evidence is gained from raw images and common sense analysis of construction materials and their physical properties.
So you have no actual training in construction technology, structural engineering, etc?

Well, that certainly qualifies you as an expert in why the WTC buildings collapsed on that day...

Funny how no actual experts have problems w/ the NIST reports. Oh yeah, they were all paid off.
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 05:09 PM   #33
tkingdoll
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 12,382
Originally Posted by Christophera View Post
No. I derive nothing from any of those productions. All of my evidence is gained from raw images and common sense analysis of construction materials and their physical properties.

So you haven't seen the Loose Change DVD? That is what you are saying, correct?

There is no such thing as common-sense analysis. There is only qualified analysis. Are you qualified to analyse construction materials and their physical properties?
tkingdoll is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 05:11 PM   #34
Christophera
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,760
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
So you have no actual training in construction technology, structural engineering, etc?

Well, that certainly qualifies you as an expert in why the WTC buildings collapsed on that day...

Funny how no actual experts have problems w/ the NIST reports. Oh yeah, they were all paid off.
You are guessing while not providing links to the sites or images of the basic tower structures that NIST says stood. Nor has a feasible explanation of free fall been linked to or offered.
Christophera is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 05:13 PM   #35
American
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,831
Originally Posted by Christophera View Post
Just trying to determine if the basic structure that NIST says stood shows up during the fall of the towers.
From Holocaust deniers? GOOD LUCK!
American is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 05:14 PM   #36
Christophera
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,760
Originally Posted by tkingdoll View Post
So you haven't seen the Loose Change DVD? That is what you are saying, correct?

There is no such thing as common-sense analysis. There is only qualified analysis. Are you qualified to analyse construction materials and their physical properties?
Well, considering the "qualified analysts" have failed to explain the exceedingly fast fall rates, the credibility of what our society refers to as "qualified" is VERY much in question.

I've enjoyed providing you with a common sense analysis of what "qualifications" have become.
Christophera is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 05:14 PM   #37
Jon.
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,450
Originally Posted by Christophera View Post
Nor has a feasible explanation of free fall been linked to or offered.
Nobody has explained the fact that aliens were seen flying from the windows, either.
Jon. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 05:14 PM   #38
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by Christophera View Post
Perhaps you are feigning confusion.

I've asked here that someone post a url to a site on the web that has a credible, realistic, feasible explanation for free fall or a site that uses raw images to support the structure that NIST says stood.
I've linked the site that has all of the NIST publications to date. Those publications contain numerous detailed analysis by qualified structural engineers - experts in high-rise building construction. Lots of analysis of pictures taken from the moment the planes struck to the moment of collapse.

You seem uninterested in perusing that enormous wealth of data.

Therefore, my confusion is genuine.
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 05:15 PM   #39
Meffy
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,208
[deleted -- misunderstanding]

Last edited by Meffy; 25th May 2006 at 05:24 PM.
Meffy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 05:15 PM   #40
Christophera
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,760
Originally Posted by American View Post
From Holocaust deniers? GOOD LUCK!
But they could do if they wanted to, right?
Christophera is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:04 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.