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

Christophera · 25th May 2006, 03:19 PM

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?

pgwenthold · 25th May 2006, 03:22 PM

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.

Lamuella · 25th May 2006, 03:24 PM

aliens. The aliens did it.

joseph k. · 25th May 2006, 03:27 PM

total pulverization?

Gravy · 25th May 2006, 03:29 PM

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

Mongrel · 25th May 2006, 03:29 PM

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?

The Pig · 25th May 2006, 03:31 PM

Total pulverization of his arguments may follow.

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

Manny · 25th May 2006, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

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.

Christophera · 25th May 2006, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by Manny

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 · 25th May 2006, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by Mongrel

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.

Renfield · 25th May 2006, 04:32 PM

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.

senorpogo · 25th May 2006, 04:32 PM

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

Christophera · 25th May 2006, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by Renfield

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.

senorpogo · 25th May 2006, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by Christophera

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?

American · 25th May 2006, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by Christophera

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.

Christophera · 25th May 2006, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by senorpogo

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.

WildCat · 25th May 2006, 04:51 PM

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!

senorpogo · 25th May 2006, 04:53 PM

[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?

WildCat · 25th May 2006, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by Christophera

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?

senorpogo · 25th May 2006, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by Christophera

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?

WildCat · 25th May 2006, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by Christophera

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.

Christophera · 25th May 2006, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

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.

American · 25th May 2006, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

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!

tkingdoll · 25th May 2006, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by Christophera

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?

Christophera · 25th May 2006, 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by American

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?

WildCat · 25th May 2006, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by Christophera

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?

Christophera · 25th May 2006, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

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.

American · 25th May 2006, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by Christophera

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.

Meffy · 25th May 2006, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by senorpogo

Originally Posted by 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?

WAG: RV?

Christophera · 25th May 2006, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

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 · 25th May 2006, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by American

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.

WildCat · 25th May 2006, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by Christophera

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.

tkingdoll · 25th May 2006, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by Christophera

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?

Christophera · 25th May 2006, 05:11 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

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.

American · 25th May 2006, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by Christophera

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!

Christophera · 25th May 2006, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

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.

Jon. · 25th May 2006, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by Christophera

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.

WildCat · 25th May 2006, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by Christophera

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.

Meffy · 25th May 2006, 05:15 PM

[deleted -- misunderstanding]

Christophera · 25th May 2006, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by American

From Holocaust deniers? GOOD LUCK!

But they could do if they wanted to, right?

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 Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,760

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

25th May 2006, 03:24 PM	#3
Lamuella Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 2,480	aliens. The aliens did it.
Lamuella Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 2,480

25th May 2006, 03:27 PM	#4
joseph k. Scholar Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 86	total pulverization?
joseph k. Scholar Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 86

25th May 2006, 03:29 PM	#5
Gravy Downsitting Citizen 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

25th May 2006, 03:29 PM	#6
Mongrel Begging for Scraps 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

25th May 2006, 03:31 PM	#7
The Pig Thinker 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 Thinker Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 171

25th May 2006, 03:35 PM	#8
Manny Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 3,290	Originally Posted by pgwenthold 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 Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 3,290

25th May 2006, 04:26 PM	#9
Christophera Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,760	Originally Posted by Manny 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 Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,760

25th May 2006, 04:31 PM	#10
Christophera Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,760	Originally Posted by Mongrel 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 Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,760

25th May 2006, 04:32 PM	#11
Renfield Graduate Poster 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/

25th May 2006, 04:32 PM	#12
senorpogo Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 2,100	Estimated time of arrival of the "9/11 hijackers still alive!" post: 11:12 p.m.
senorpogo Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 2,100

25th May 2006, 04:42 PM	#13
Christophera Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,760	Originally Posted by Renfield 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 Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,760

25th May 2006, 04:45 PM	#14
senorpogo Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 2,100	Originally Posted by Christophera 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 Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 2,100

25th May 2006, 04:49 PM	#15
American Guest Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 3,831	Originally Posted by Christophera 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 Guest Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 3,831

25th May 2006, 04:49 PM	#16
Christophera Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,760	Originally Posted by senorpogo 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 Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,760

25th May 2006, 04:51 PM	#17
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator 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!

25th May 2006, 04:53 PM	#18
senorpogo Master Poster 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 Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 2,100

25th May 2006, 04:54 PM	#19
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 59,856	Originally Posted by Christophera 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!

25th May 2006, 04:55 PM	#21
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 59,856	Originally Posted by Christophera 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!

25th May 2006, 04:55 PM	#22
Christophera Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,760	Originally Posted by WildCat 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 Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,760

25th May 2006, 04:56 PM	#23
American Guest Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 3,831	Originally Posted by WildCat 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 Guest Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 3,831

25th May 2006, 04:58 PM	#24
tkingdoll Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 12,382	Originally Posted by Christophera 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?

25th May 2006, 04:59 PM	#25
Christophera Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,760	Originally Posted by American 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 Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,760

25th May 2006, 05:01 PM	#26
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 59,856	Originally Posted by Christophera 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!

25th May 2006, 05:01 PM	#27
Christophera Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,760	Originally Posted by tkingdoll 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 Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,760

25th May 2006, 05:03 PM	#28
American Guest Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 3,831	Originally Posted by Christophera 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 Guest Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 3,831

25th May 2006, 05:04 PM	#29
Meffy Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 4,208	Originally Posted by senorpogo Originally Posted by 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? WAG: RV?
Meffy Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 4,208

25th May 2006, 05:04 PM	#30
Christophera Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,760	Originally Posted by WildCat 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 Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,760

25th May 2006, 05:06 PM	#31
Christophera Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,760	Originally Posted by American 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 Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,760

25th May 2006, 05:08 PM	#32
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 59,856	Originally Posted by Christophera 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!

25th May 2006, 05:09 PM	#33
tkingdoll Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 12,382	Originally Posted by Christophera 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?

25th May 2006, 05:11 PM	#34
Christophera Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,760	Originally Posted by WildCat 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 Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,760

25th May 2006, 05:13 PM	#35
American Guest Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 3,831	Originally Posted by Christophera 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 Guest Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 3,831

25th May 2006, 05:14 PM	#36
Christophera Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,760	Originally Posted by tkingdoll 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 Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,760