Look at this collapse

Docker

Banned
D
Joined
Oct 23, 2006
Messages
742
Look at this simple gravity driven collapse. The steel simply weakened. There are no explosions involved. The concrete wasn't turned to dust.

site1106.jpg



Now as an analogy look at this posterior. It is certainly not an elbow and has no characteristics of an elbow.

http://web1.d25.k12.id.us/home/hhs/sportsmed/elbow%201.gif
 
Last edited by a moderator:
omg. are you now christophera's twin?
Why aren't you addressing questions you left in the other threds.

before moving on to make a new thread, you may want to first address those threads you've abandoned, as you have yet to provide evidence, sources and facts to back your claims.
 
Arus808 said:
omg. are you now christophera's twin?
Why aren't you addressing questions you left in the other threds.

before moving on to make a new thread, you may want to first address those threads you've abandoned, as you have yet to provide evidence, sources and facts to back your claims.
Click to expand...

Docker has made 270 posts in a day and a half. He could not be nearly so prolific if he ever provided evidence, sources or facts to back up his claims.

No, this is all a game to him.

My suggestion: let this thread die.
 
LashL said:
Docker has made 270 posts in a day and a half. He could not be nearly so prolific if he ever provided evidence, sources or facts to back up his claims.

No, this is all a game to him.

My suggestion: let this thread die.
Click to expand...

Rough translation: oh dear, docker has a point
 
why not state your ideas

simple ideas on how you think 9/11 happened

you have had five years to think of something

what about your burnt cars, how did that turn out?

now you have still frame showing every thing falling down

you will not offer facts, just questions, even though the CT truth movement boast the top minds, all they have are questions, lucky the Apollo program was not run by these truth experts we would still be questioning the program, oops is this another CT?

good luck closing your burnt car issue,
 
Docker said:
Rough translation: oh dear, docker has a point
Click to expand...


your translation skills are atrocious.
real translation: docker in an attempt to troll this board, continues to post without addressing questions and concerns he has raised with his wild claims. So he creates new threads, hoping that the users/members here will forget that he didn't answer our questions.
 
we already have enough ongoing threads about the collapse and concret cores and general stupidity. Untils Dockers provides more infor on his thoughts or his backround its best not to reply.
 
ats25069_bowing1.jpg



1. What is causing the walls to bow inward?

2. Since we know the floor trusses are connected to the exterior walls it follows that the floors are sagging, no?

3. Now tell me why this isn't about to collapse?
 
another useless thread.

Docker, why don't you post some more pictures of Manhattan so that us natives can debunk them?
 
between 95 and 99. Go ahead, tell me that isn't bowing. I dare you. I double dare you.
 
Last edited:
Docker said:
Living in manhattan makes you an expert on building collapses? Maybe I should move there.
Click to expand...

it surely dones't make you an expert since you dont live there.

and thanks for quoting me (out of context btw) in your sig. Its not appreciated one bit.
 
Docker said:
I see a man with a good body which you envy.
Click to expand...

Hey look his number two tell! Sound familiar? This guy sure sounds like, the new improved version of someone banned from here. Hmm, same hero, same pet phrases...
 
There is a small amount of bowing. Now tell me how that bowing leads to the huge explosions shown in my photo.
 
I trust you have seen the bowing by now? Why isn't that building about to collapse? It's still burning. How much more sagging can those trusses take before they go?
 
Docker said:
There is a small amount of bowing. Now tell me how that bowing leads to the huge explosions shown in my photo.
Click to expand...

cameras can lie; anyone who's used a telephoto lens can tell you how much is loss by taking pictures with it.
 
Dog Town said:
Hey look his number two tell! Sound familiar? This guy sure sounds like, the new improved version of someone banned from here. Hmm, same hero, same pet phrases...
Click to expand...

Show your proof or retract your assertion.
 
Pardalis said:
Look at this douchebag.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/8886453e89ed57aef.jpg[/qimg]

I see a narcissistic megalomaniac.
Click to expand...

Ok, look again at the above picture.

Now look at Jones in this video:

http://www.911blogger.com/files/images/showbiztonight2_2.jpg

Compare the chiseled features on the above picture with the real Jones in the video clip. The real Alex Jones has a much rounder face indicating a much higher body fat content.

The only weightlifting the real Alex Jones does is burritos and beer mugs. :p
 
alexg said:
I trust you have seen the bowing by now? Why isn't that building about to collapse? It's still burning. How much more sagging can those trusses take before they go?
Click to expand...

At worst the top portion should break of. That beautifully vertical demolition wave would not occur.
 
docker, remove my quote from your sig. Its out of context, and like a CT'er you quote mined it to suit your conclusion. REmove it, as you are presenting it as it means a totally different thing.
 
Docker said:
Look at this simple gravity driven collapse. The steel simply weakened. There are no explosions involved. The concrete wasn't turned to dust.
Click to expand...
I agree. There are no explosions in the photo. Not all the concrete turned to dust, but there sure was a lot of other material that did (although I am sure at least some of that dust is concrete). Gravity, in an atmosphere such as ours, could easily cause a plume of smoke and material to billow like that, even in a gravity-driven collapse. You can't see the steel from here, but knowing that the building was hit by a passenger jet full of fuel, I'd say it would be dang likely much of that steel must of weakened.

So, what's your point, again?


Oh, right, the elbow analogy. Well, that picture wasn't even a good photo of an elbow, anyway.
 
Docker said:
At worst the top portion should break of. That beautifully vertical demolition wave would not occur.
Click to expand...

If there are no lateral forces being applied to the portion of building above the impact points, why would it "break of(sic)"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom