Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers? [Archive] - Page 15

R.Mackey

10th September 2006, 09:07 PM

Oh yeah, black holes have no hair... and mass is mass of course. Have you read my reply why those collapse times match pretty well ? Because all baby powder is assumed to travel in the same direction, in fact this is a theoretical model where the whole collapse occurs in a space

[0,A] x [0,B] x [0,C]

And the upperblock perfectly fits in it and doesn't allow the baby powder to escape.

Even in this model there wil be scattering (some particles do, some don't), it will bounce back but Greening assumes it just merges and the speed is in the same directory and then we get da funny growin' block again

I would not like it if I get such a block on my head, however if you empty a bucket baby powder on my head, with particles reaching terminal speed quickly I'm fine.

It's a desperate remedy to explain the collapse time.
Desperate nothing. I've already told you and reminded you how to compute an estimate of collapse time with load shedding as it progresses. You'll find it makes little difference.

And for the fourth time, "terminal speed" is irrelevant. The upper block is landing on structure, not falling through a large space of still air. There is no meaningful wind resistance.

einsteen

10th September 2006, 09:51 PM

Take a bucket of baby powder, drive 60 mph with your car, open your window and throw it out of your car. What will happen do you think ?

Do you really think that after a distance of 3.7 meter (distance between 2 floors) the momentum of the powder is the same as in the bucket in your car, in fact that will be the case in vacuum, in air a solid block can approach that.

If you think that you should really follow some primary physics lessons.

Greening does not take into account

1) The above
2) Mass loss of the blocks due to scattering
3) Mass loss of the initial falling block, we all agree of the huge amount of energie, it's obvious that there is loss of mass of that thing also
?)...

Of course 1,2 and 3 will only increase the collapse time

WildCat

10th September 2006, 09:54 PM

R.Mackey

10th September 2006, 10:00 PM

Take a bucket of baby powder, drive 60 mph with your car, open your window and throw it out of your car. What will happen do you think ?

That would be throwing it into a free-stream. Not a good model for WTC 1 and 2. This is the fifth and last time I will state this.

Brainache

10th September 2006, 10:11 PM

So R.Mackey a scientist from NASA needs to learn basic physics?

Granted this problem isn't rocket science.
Maybe we should be looking for answers from a brain surgeon.

Christophera

10th September 2006, 10:29 PM

Nope, you can't get off the hook that easily, liar. You said you saw a BBC/PBS documentary that proves there was a concrete core. No such documentary exists. Therefore you are a liar. Never mind what you think we have or haven't proved. The evidence that you are a liar is stark and unambiguous. You lied, therefore you are a liar -- it's as simple as that. And liars have no credibility at all. Thus Chris, nothing that you say has any significance. That's the price you pay for being a liar. You should have thought of that before you decided to lie.

A triple, ram jammer, magnum lie.

Curious how the guilty will find backwards kinds of ways to admit it. Sorta' sociopathic, but I guess they get to be burdensome.

Christophera

10th September 2006, 11:22 PM

You know, it occurs to me that all this talk of concrete cores, explosives, etc. is a smokescreen to disguise the REAL conspiracy going on: that the towers were impacted by commercial aircraft and fell as the official report says is not nearly as significant as who bin Laden and his terrorists might have really been working for!

IOW, why are all the conspiracies focused on such fantastical, nonsensical concepts such as nonexistent concrete cores and rapid-placed invisible C-4, when very potentially valid concepts like bin Laden being a pawn of the government is simply flatly ignored?

... Just sayin'...

Such is not ignored, it just does not explain this, which needs an explanation.

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

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3017&stc=1&d=1157952135

Arkan_Wolfshade

10th September 2006, 11:23 PM

Stellafane

10th September 2006, 11:25 PM

A triple, ram jammer, magnum lie.

Curious how the guilty will find backwards kinds of ways to admit it. Sorta' sociopathic, but I guess they get to be burdensome.

Oooh, look, Chris's argument has degenerated to "I know you are, but what am I?" Then again, maybe "degenerated" isn't the right word, since it implies his argument was at some point at a higher level.

Unfortunately for you, Chris, you and I aren't the only ones in this thread who can read. You said you saw a BBC and/or PBS documentary on the building of the WTC in which they showed a concrete core. It was a critical cornerstone to your entire argument on this thread. Now it has been shown that no such documentary has run on BBC or PBS. That makes you a liar.

Kinda sucks right now, doesn't it? Unlike the LC forum, you can't get one of your little mod buddies to ban me and remove my posts, or edit them so it looks like I'm saying something ridiculous so you can thrash me for hours after I'm banned and can't reply. It's out here for all to see. You're a liar, Chris. And liars don't have any credibility.

gumboot

10th September 2006, 11:26 PM

Take a bucket of baby powder, drive 60 mph with your car, open your window and throw it out of your car. What will happen do you think ?

Are you saying the WTC was made out of baby powder?

Now wonder it fell down! :eye-poppi

-Andrew

Sword_Of_Truth

10th September 2006, 11:27 PM

Good lord... 88 pages of nothing but "3 inch rebar on 4 foot centers" ad nauseum.

Is this thread going to be split a'la the monster LC thread or can we have it properly euthanized when it hits 100?

Mince

10th September 2006, 11:42 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?

Hmmm. Freefall. Well, if the buildings in the following videos are falling at freefall speed, at which speed is the clearly visible debris falling? If the buildings are falling at freefall speed, what is propelling the debris to fall at greater than freefall speed?

yourfilelink.com/get.php?fid=108995

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2638975558038550089&q=fall+of+wtc&hl=en

Since I cannot, at this point, post URLs, you must add w.w.w or h.t.t.p:// to the above links.

R.Mackey

10th September 2006, 11:43 PM

Welcome, Mince. I agree with your argument, and we've brought it up before.

Please don't be disappointed if Christophera doesn't give you a thoughtful reply. There are others here who are far more reasonable.

Christophera

11th September 2006, 12:18 AM

Oooh, look, Chris's argument has degenerated to "I know you are, but what am I?" Then again, maybe "degenerated" isn't the right word, since it implies his argument was at some point at a higher level.

Unfortunately for you, Chris, you and I aren't the only ones in this thread who can read. You said you saw a BBC and/or PBS documentary on the building of the WTC in which they showed a concrete core. It was a critical cornerstone to your entire argument on this thread. Now it has been shown that no such documentary has run on BBC or PBS. That makes you a liar.

Kinda sucks right now, doesn't it? Unlike the LC forum, you can't get one of your little mod buddies to ban me and remove my posts, or edit them so it looks like I'm saying something ridiculous so you can thrash me for hours after I'm banned and can't reply. It's out here for all to see. You're a liar,
Chris. And liars don't have any credibility.

You must be very naive to believe that PBS would actually still know it had such a documentary.

So you believe in Santa Claus too?

We can all believe in the images of the demolition. They show the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif). Curious how your side has never been able to produce an image of even one of the 47 supposed steel core columns. You've shown interior box columns which are not inside the core. The core area is void of anything whatsoever the spire is outside the concrete core wall. Here the interior box are silouetted against the concrete wall. column[/url].http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3018&stc=1&d=1157955748

Brainache

11th September 2006, 12:24 AM

You must be very naive to believe that PBS would actually still know it had such a documentary.

So you believe in Santa Claus too?

We can all believe in the images of the demolition. They show the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif). Curious how your side has never been able to produce an image of even one of the 47 supposed steel core columns. You've shown interior box columns which are not inside the core. The core area is void of anything whatsoever the spire is outside the concrete core wall. Here the interior box are silouetted against the concrete wall. column[/url].http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3018&stc=1&d=1157955748

Maybe the dosage is wrong Chris. Talk to your doctor. There might be a better medication for you.

LashL

11th September 2006, 12:35 AM

Christophera,

Your ridiculous posts are even more offensive than usual today. Why don't you just slink back to the LC board or some other conspiracy forum and peddle your nonsense to the idiots who inhabit those boards instead of embarrassing yourself further here?

At least on the LC forum and other conspiracy sites that you have not yet been banned from, you stand half a chance at encountering people stupid enough to be fooled momentarily by your BS. You won't find anyone that stupid here.

William Rea

11th September 2006, 01:54 AM

[slight derail]Mr. Rea, do you mind if I ask you to describe "high temperature non-ferrous superalloys"

Nothing sinister in my question, I assure you. I'm just not used to the term "superalloy" mostly. A couple of examples would probably satisfy my curiousity.[/derail]

Sure, mainly exotic nickel or cobalt based alloys, with the main alloying elements of chromium, aluminium and titanium.

Predominant alloys in the field are IN738LC, FSX414, MARM247, IN939, IN713, CMSX4 and CM247. The Aerospace guys on here will recognise most of these but the main feature of these alloys is high temperature strength and creep resistance as well as excellent corrosion resistance in some cases.

MetalPig

11th September 2006, 03:50 AM

This is my first and probably last contribution to this topic. (Unless this is still going 5 years from today.)

Here's a picture of what some people call 'total pulverization':

http://static.flickr.com/96/240283343_8ca29a9315_o.jpg

Architect

11th September 2006, 06:17 AM

You must be very naive to believe that PBS would actually still know it had such a documentary.

Yeah, like, duh, because PBS and the BBC are in on the plot too......

Architect

11th September 2006, 06:25 AM

Curious how your side has never been able to produce an image of even one of the 47 supposed steel core columns.

Voila

einsteen

11th September 2006, 06:26 AM

I'm really sorry then if I said 'basic physics' to a NASA scientist, apologies.

I didn't start the baby powder discussion, I only wanted to say that between the 3.7 meters in a floor the air is still not in the same movement as the bulk above, there is even furniture and other crap. But it's obvious that the Greening model is a mathematical model and no realistic physical model. But let's stop the baby powder discussion.

Anyone seen my new wtc7 video, this is brand new from TV yesterday.

Architect

11th September 2006, 06:29 AM

Et voila une autre fois.......

So chris, I see a lot of steel and no concrete: Discuss.

Stellafane

11th September 2006, 08:38 AM

You must be very naive to believe that PBS would actually still know it had such a documentary.

So you believe in Santa Claus too?

Let me get this straight -- you're suggesting that PBS simply forgot they produced the video?

Wow.

You cannot possibly have any idea of how utterly ridiculous you look. The fact that you'e a liar has been established beyond all doubt, but now it appears that something else is seriously lacking. Beyond that, there's really nothing else I can say.

KingMerv00

11th September 2006, 08:50 AM

Let me get this straight -- you're suggesting that PBS simply forgot they produced the video?

Wow.

You cannot possibly have any idea of how utterly ridiculous you look. The fact that you'e a liar has been established beyond all doubt, but now it appears that something else is seriously lacking. Beyond that, there's really nothing else I can say.

Funny ain't it? PBS forgot but Chris remembers.

Dave_46

11th September 2006, 09:50 AM

Belz...

11th September 2006, 10:05 AM

Which fallacy is it when you attack an argument that someone has not made?

A strawman. Except he didn't mention any argument of yours, he accused you of bossing people around, plain and simple. That's not a strawman.

The problem that everyone is dancing around is that the central core which was designed to withstand considerable compressive stress should pancake.

Vertical columns don't pancake. THAT was a strawman.

Belz...

11th September 2006, 10:21 AM

Exactly. "A big pile of baby powder" would not do the same job as large chunks of concrete+steel, *except* in calculations that only consider total mass.

Why wouldn't you consider total mass ? The thing's falling on a FLOOR. It weighs the same, doesn't it ?

Belz...

11th September 2006, 10:22 AM

9/11 and those towers falling seemed all alittle staged but who really knows. It seemed like a demolition job. I would think that an airplane exploding into a building would demo more than they actually did. I thought the tops of the buildings would fall off in one peice like a tree falling when cut. The whole building just came down like a demo job though. I find that strange. I find the whole darn thing strange, even the Pentagon. What the heck happened to the airplane that supposedly went into the side of the building? What about the aftermath? Everything is so strange and everyone was so evasive?

Nothing is strange when you understand the physics involved. The tree analogy had been debunked extensively.

Belz...

11th September 2006, 10:23 AM

Even in this model there wil be scattering (some particles do, some don't), it will bounce back but Greening assumes it just merges and the speed is in the same directory and then we get da funny growin' block again

Where are all those particles going to go ? Only those with lateral freedom of movement are going to be significantly ejected. The others are going straight down. Weight and all.

I would not like it if I get such a block on my head, however if you empty a bucket baby powder on my head, with particles reaching terminal speed quickly I'm fine.

If the particles remain in one, tighly-packed group with nowhere to go but down, you WON'T be.

Belz...

11th September 2006, 10:25 AM

We can all believe in the images of the demolition. They show the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif). Curious how your side has never been able to produce an image of even one of the 47 supposed steel core columns. You've shown interior box columns which are not inside the core. The core area is void of anything whatsoever the spire is outside the concrete core wall. Here the interior box are silouetted against the concrete wall. column[/url].http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3018&stc=1&d=1157955748

Maybe you should look at the pictures, again, and at the videos linked that clearly show the steel columns failing, with no concrete in sight, and your oft-vaunted "concrete core" invisible, in every way..

Ducky

11th September 2006, 11:04 AM

You must be very naive to believe that PBS would actually still know it had such a documentary.

Well, people want to slam Christophera for saying this, but it very well could be that an affiliate produced a show that is in the PBS system but not well known. All shows archive themselves (Nova has an extensive library of all 35 or 36 seasons) but there is not central library or archive. The woman I spoke to said that problem is ongoing as the PBS works as a network of affiliates, not as a central network such as CBS and autonomy among affiliates is standard and they have not made a national central archive.

But to slam dunk this one, I called pbs and asked them specifically about your documentary. You can contact the foundation from the info on this page. (http://www.pbs.org/aboutpbs/pbsfoundation/)

here is what I asked:

1) How does PBS catalog and archive old productions, and how far back does the current PBS library of archives go?

A: There is no central archive. For archives of shows, it is best to contact that show directly, as they produce themselves independantly.

2) Is there anyone familiar with a production on how the twin towers were built that may have been produced in the early 90s?

A: Yes Allison Winchell, she works in programming/scheduling.

I left Allison a message to call me back today about the program. It was indicated that there was a production of how the twin towers were built, and I expect her to get back to me on it.

So Christophera, when I have PBS saying directly the opposite of your claims, will you acknowledge you were wrong?

Ducky

11th September 2006, 11:58 AM

Well, people want to slam Christophera for saying this, but it very well could be that an affiliate produced a show that is in the PBS system but not well known. All shows archive themselves (Nova has an extensive library of all 35 or 36 seasons) but there is not central library or archive. The woman I spoke to said that problem is ongoing as the PBS works as a network of affiliates, not as a central network such as CBS and autonomy among affiliates is standard and they have not made a national central archive.

But to slam dunk this one, I called pbs and asked them specifically about your documentary. You can contact the foundation from the info on this page. (http://www.pbs.org/aboutpbs/pbsfoundation/)

here is what I asked:

1) How does PBS catalog and archive old productions, and how far back does the current PBS library of archives go?

A: There is no central archive. For archives of shows, it is best to contact that show directly, as they produce themselves independantly.

2) Is there anyone familiar with a production on how the twin towers were built that may have been produced in the early 90s?

A: Yes Allison Winchell, she works in programming/scheduling.

I left Allison a message to call me back today about the program. It was indicated that there was a production of how the twin towers were built, and I expect her to get back to me on it.

So Christophera, when I have PBS saying directly the opposite of your claims, will you acknowledge you were wrong?

I got a call from Rosie in Viewer Services and she has tracked down the only construction video/documentary they can find and it was done in 1983, and was for the Port Authority.

I have requested a copy be sent to me.

However from the discussion with the programming folks (and being bounced around the phones a bit) that footage was re-used in many of the 911 documentaries since. It also doesn't show what Christophera describes.

Now, Christophera:

I have put to rest once and for all that PBS did NOT produce what you said. Therefore you may now retract your inaccurate statements.

Bell

11th September 2006, 12:05 PM

The only concrete I have ever seen in documentaries about the Twin Towers, was the concrete poured atop the trusses, as a basis for the floors.

The concrete we haven't seen, the concrete for the core was poured in from the top, only after the towers where completed. That's why the towers were so high, so they could wait until the tops were covered in fog, and nobody would notice.

Ducky

11th September 2006, 12:09 PM

Bell

11th September 2006, 12:13 PM

Before I go any further I would appreciate knowing whether that was a sarcastic post or not.

It is hard to tell sometimes with the new folks.

Sorry, I thought it was pretty clear :o

Yes, I should have used the [sarcasm] tag.

Ducky

11th September 2006, 12:21 PM

Sorry, I thought it was pretty clear :o

Yes, I should have used the [sarcasm] tag.

Fair enough. :)

Honestly, what threw me was that it was about as plausible as the rest fo the crap I've seen them spew. So I was like "dude, like they totally controlled the weather like after they built all those floors and like it was poured from the top by like black helicopters in some like heavy fog man!"

Then I considered making a "documentary" called "LOOSE AIR"

Then I realized I hadn't smoked nearly enough crack for that to make sense...

Bell

11th September 2006, 12:38 PM

Fair enough. :)

Honestly, what threw me was that it was about as plausible as the rest fo the crap I've seen them spew. So I was like "dude, like they totally controlled the weather like after they built all those floors and like it was poured from the top by like black helicopters in some like heavy fog man!"

Then I considered making a "documentary" called "LOOSE AIR"

Then I realized I hadn't smoked nearly enough crack for that to make sense...

:D Except for the weather controlling thing, the government does control it, that's why the skies where blue that day. Made it easier to put in a CGI airplane.

But seuriously, I really don't understand how all of you keep your cool with all these deniers, and asking questions and answering questions time and again. Must feel like talking to a brick wall?

Ducky

11th September 2006, 12:50 PM

:D Except for the weather controlling thing, the government does control it, that's why the skies where blue that day. Made it easier to put in a CGI airplane.

But seuriously, I really don't understand how all of you keep your cool with all these deniers, and asking questions and answering questions time and again. Must feel like talking to a brick wall?

It's what we do.

Where else on the net will you find people that when unsupported claims are made, will actively search for evidence to support or disprove?

All of my socks are banned now at the LC forum (except the three I gave away) so I haven't been over there in a while, but I would bet you will find no one actually quoting source documents. Everything is a copy of a copy of a photoshopped copy and no one making any claims about NIST or PBS would go directly to the source and get those documents.

That's why it is easy to keep our cool. It is easy to get facts from the source and make people look like idiots.

All that said, Gravy has the patience of a saint. I don't post much in these threads anymore because I kept having to replace my displays after punching them due to offensive, stupid and ridiculous statements made by CTers.

Nothing pisses me off more than seeing Avery laugh and get catty about victims on the planes. The part where he makes fun of the phone calls home from the victims on a particular flight is so horrifyingly offensive he'd better hope we never meet in a dark alley.

Christophera

11th September 2006, 02:48 PM

Maybe you should look at the pictures, again, and at the videos linked that clearly show the steel columns failing, with no concrete in sight, and your oft-vaunted "concrete core" invisible, in every way..

DUH, typical. Steel columns are NOT "core columns"

I know steel columns are seen falling. I know that they are interior box columns which surround the core. Nto "core columns".

Christophera

11th September 2006, 02:53 PM

I got a call from Rosie in Viewer Services and she has tracked down the only construction video/documentary they can find and it was done in 1983, and was for the Port Authority.

I have requested a copy be sent to me.

However from the discussion with the programming folks (and being bounced around the phones a bit) that footage was re-used in many of the 911 documentaries since. It also doesn't show what Christophera describes.

Now, Christophera:

I have put to rest once and for all that PBS did NOT produce what you said. Therefore you may now retract your inaccurate statements.

What wishful thinking.

The video Rosie refers to was also mentioned in the 1990 video which was 2 hours in length. It was refered to as a "celebratory" video of the completed construction, not an intimate documentary of the constrcution.

I knew on 9-11 that the documentary I saw was gone.

If you beleive that PBS was no infiltrated before 9-11 and the video I saw removed from their records, you are also capable of believing in Santa.

You real problem is that the supposed steel core columns are never seen in the demo images, not that you cannot find a copy of the documentary I viewed in 1990.

Bell

11th September 2006, 03:03 PM

What wishful thinking.

The video Rosie refers to was also mentioned in the 1990 video which was 2 hours in length. It was refered to as a "celebratory" video of the completed construction, not an intimate documentary of the constrcution.

I knew on 9-11 that the documentary I saw was gone.

If you beleive that PBS was no infiltrated before 9-11 and the video I saw removed from their records, you are also capable of believing in Santa.

You real problem is that the supposed steel core columns are never seen in the demo images, not that you cannot find a copy of the documentary I viewed in 1990.

Let me get this right. The video you aledgely saw on PBS or BBC or wherever was confiscated by the government? And you say WE are capable of believing in Santa? :boggled:

KingMerv00

11th September 2006, 03:11 PM

What wishful thinking.

The video Rosie refers to was also mentioned in the 1990 video which was 2 hours in length. It was refered to as a "celebratory" video of the completed construction, not an intimate documentary of the constrcution.

I knew on 9-11 that the documentary I saw was gone.

If you beleive that PBS was no infiltrated before 9-11 and the video I saw removed from their records, you are also capable of believing in Santa.

You real problem is that the supposed steel core columns are never seen in the demo images, not that you cannot find a copy of the documentary I viewed in 1990.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

*Sigh*

Am I the only one getting the image of Navy Seals storming the PBS archives?

Belz...

11th September 2006, 03:24 PM

DUH, typical. Steel columns are NOT "core columns"

I know steel columns are seen falling. I know that they are interior box columns which surround the core. Nto "core columns".

It must be fun, making all those unsupported assertions without ever bothing to verify them.

They seem pretty damn thick for box columns. Are you SURE they're not steel columns ?

Peephole

11th September 2006, 03:27 PM

Belz...

11th September 2006, 03:27 PM

I knew on 9-11 that the documentary I saw was gone.

If you beleive that PBS was no infiltrated before 9-11 and the video I saw removed from their records, you are also capable of believing in Santa.

:jaw-dropp

So... you think the evil gubmint ninjas stormed PBS and took the documentary from them because... it would... tip... structural engineers... around the globe to the fact that... there was a... concrete core ?

Why ?

You real problem is that the supposed steel core columns are never seen in the demo images, not that you cannot find a copy of the documentary I viewed in 1990.

Just like there is NO, I repeat, NO concrete in THIS image.

At all.

Alareth

11th September 2006, 03:37 PM

Alareth

11th September 2006, 03:40 PM

Troother: 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!!! WE HAVE THE EVIDENCE!!!!!

Skeptic: So where is the evidence?

Troother: IT WAS CONFISCATED BY THE GOVERNMENT!!!!!!

Skeptic:So you have no evidence?

Troother: Errr.... LOOK OVER THERE, 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS !!!!!1111

Skeptic: We have verifed, undeniable evidence that says you are wrong.

CT: There is absoulutely no evidence to prove our claims. Thats proof it was destroyed to cover it up.

chipmunk stew

11th September 2006, 03:53 PM

If you beleive that PBS was no infiltrated before 9-11 and the video I saw removed from their records, you are also capable of believing in Santa.
I'm on the edge of my seat here--tell me about your daring escape from the mind-erasers!

This quote is all anyone ever needs to read to understand Christophera.
If I had room, I'd add it to my sig.

Dave_46

11th September 2006, 03:54 PM

chipmunk stew

11th September 2006, 03:55 PM

At this point I'm not sure what I believe:

A: Christophera is simply a troll trying to see how long he can string this thing on just for laughs

or

B: He really is so completely deluded that he belives what he says.

I really hope it's option A because for it to be otherwise is truely too depressing and pathetic to contemplate.
Apparently he's been doing this for like five years or something. Don't you think the joke would get old? Especially if no one else is laughing?

I'm afraid it's B.

Architect

11th September 2006, 04:25 PM

Told you

Dave

Sigh.....you were right, m8.

I'd love to know why he thinks you'd need a concrete core and inner steel columns.

Well, okay, I wouldn't.

Bell

11th September 2006, 04:32 PM

Sigh.....you were right, m8.

I'd love to know why he thinks you'd need a concrete core and inner steel columns.

Well, okay, I wouldn't.

Because else his picture which shows something standing up within the cloud of debris can't be labeled as a concrete core.

Architect

11th September 2006, 04:33 PM

Don't you mean Invisicrete tm ?

Bell

11th September 2006, 04:35 PM

Don't you mean Invisicrete tm ?

Yes! Exactly!

I was in the WTC three months prior to 9/11 and have seen the Invicicrete my self. Or actualy, I didn't see it, because... ehm... it was invicible.

Architect

11th September 2006, 04:37 PM

Yes! Exactly!

I was in the WTC three months prior to 9/11 and have seen the Invicicrete my self. Or actualy, I didn't see it, because... ehm... it was invicible.

Didn't notice anybody planting, like, tonnes and tonnes of invisible explosive did you?

Mr. Skinny

11th September 2006, 04:37 PM

Sigh.....you were right, m8.

I'd love to know why he thinks you'd need a concrete core and inner steel columns.

Well, okay, I wouldn't.
:) Always wondered that myself, Architect.

And no, I don't want to hear his explaination either.

Bell

11th September 2006, 04:41 PM

Didn't notice anybody planting, like, tonnes and tonnes of invisible explosive did you?

The only oddity I noticed at the WTC was that me and my father were able to get into a turbo elevator to the 110th floor, even though the liftshafts were hermetical sealed. :confused:

Architect

11th September 2006, 04:46 PM

You know, Chris is like one of the loons on the Google Video link posted on that other thread:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4162315283354424113&hl=en

Bell

11th September 2006, 04:50 PM

You know, Chris is like one of the loons on the Google Video link posted on that other thread:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4162315283354424113&hl=en

Saw that video just tonight. Great one. You got to admire that guy with the cap in the beginning for not punshing those deniers in the face.

Christophera

11th September 2006, 05:30 PM

Voila

That vertical steel is much smaller than the box columns that ring the core area. My image is better and shows a huge size difference.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3031&stc=1&d=1158017347

Christophera

11th September 2006, 05:31 PM

Yeah, like, duh, because PBS and the BBC are in on the plot too......

It seems you to are naive, or would like people to think such is not possible by the infiltrators of our government.

Christophera

11th September 2006, 05:33 PM

Et voila une autre fois.......

So chris, I see a lot of steel and no concrete: Discuss.

We see exactly what I would expect. The helicopter photos will not see the core as it was almost always 40 feet below the top and the one looking across a floor does not look into the core. We see columns on the edge of the core area.

Christophera

11th September 2006, 05:35 PM

Belz...

11th September 2006, 05:54 PM

Because else his picture which shows something standing up within the cloud of debris can't be labeled as a concrete core.

I'm not sure if his problem is rooted in a misunderstanding of the oft-vaunted documentary he "saw", or if his predisposition to believe the controlled demolition theory made him reinterpret that documentary.

Belz...

11th September 2006, 05:55 PM

It seems you to are naive, or would like people to think such is not possible by the infiltrators of our government.

They're not robots, you know.

Bell

11th September 2006, 05:57 PM

The concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) of WTC 2. Note, no steel core columns.

Here you come again with the same old picture of something clouded by the debrise of the collapse of WTC 2.

Could you please explane why this picture shows a concrete core? I agree there is something standing up, but concrete? Just because it looks like the core is solid, you determine the core is concrete?

Oh, I forgot the imagenary documentary on PBS. Or BBC. Or whereever. The one the MIB confiscated. Just before 9/11 happened.

Christophera

11th September 2006, 06:05 PM

Architect.

He's seen those pictures, or some similar ones before. What a sensible person calls the core columns he calls interior box columns, or something similar. They are apparently there to support the formwork for the concrete, which is poured seven storeys behind the rest of the construction (yes, I know its crap).

Dave

Quite capable at cognitive distortions aren't you

The interior box columns are called "interior' because the are the inner wall of the outer tube of the "tube in a tube" construction. They were USED to support forms for the concrete core, the INNER tube of the "tube in a tube" construction.

The concrete is poured a minimum of 4 floors below the top floor because the interior box columns support the framework and it must be in place pour whic is a maximum of 40 foot vertical.

The steel was not allowed to extend more thatn 7 stories over the top of the concrete because engineers were worried that the lifting capacity of the kangaroo cranes could subject the steel framework to more load than it could handle without the concrete core resisting lateral forces.

Told you
Dave

Here is the core, exposed by the demolition. Notice, no core columns, just concrete (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)

DUH, typical. Steel columns are NOT "core columns"

I know steel columns are seen falling. I know that they are interior box columns which surround the core. Not "core columns".

Here again we see the concrete shear wall left of an interio box column, the spire.

concrete shearwall holding up the spire. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/shearspirewall.jpg)

Christophera

11th September 2006, 06:07 PM

Here you come again with the same old picture of something clouded by the debrise of the collapse of WTC 2.

Could you please explane why this picture shows a concrete core? I agree there is something standing up, but concrete? Just because it looks like the core is solid, you determine the core is concrete?

Oh, I forgot the imagenary documentary on PBS. Or BBC. Or whereever. The one the MIB confiscated. Just before 9/11 happened.

Guess what. Not one poster here has ever ventured to explain what that is standing 40 stories high after 1,000's of tons of steel crashed over it. What else but concrete could survive that?

The the C4 encapsulated in the concrete detonated and it went away.

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

einsteen

11th September 2006, 06:10 PM

Bell

11th September 2006, 06:22 PM

Guess what. Not one poster here has ever ventured to explain what that is standing 40 stories high after 1,000's of tons of steel crashed over it. What else but concrete could survive that?

The the C4 encapsulated in the concrete detonated and it went away.

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

I'll venture if you desperately want to. I'll say it is the core. Tada! But not your Invicicrete (TM) core, but the actual, real world, steel beam core.

There are pictures (excuse me for not having links, even though I know you 9/11 deniers lurv pictures) of the lower parts of the core standing up amidts the rubble of the collapsed towers.

Guess what? The rescuers even pulled out survivors from those little parts of (real world) core that still stood.

Regnad Kcin

11th September 2006, 06:30 PM

It seems you to are naive, or would like people to think such is not possible by the infiltrators of our government.Tsk, tsk. You previously admitted you couldn't name them. Why go on about these invisible nonentities again?

T.A.M.

11th September 2006, 06:35 PM

Crashing into the pentagon using a flight simulator

Scroll to 28 minutes

mms://streams.omroep.nl/tv/vara/zembla/bb.20060910.asf

Especially for Gravy's debunking site, I don't know if he follows the same route precisely (and how the G-forces work) but he crashes into it. Good debunking news, the bad news is that the controlled demolition expert agrees that wtc7 is such a demolition.

I do not understand german, so please give me the name of the "Demolition" expert on this film that agrees that WTC7 was a demolition, so I may do a search for his credentials.

TAM

Bell

11th September 2006, 06:44 PM

I do not understand german, so please give me the name of the "Demolition" expert on this film that agrees that WTC7 was a demolition, so I may do a search for his credentials.

TAM

Actual, that's Dutch (as am I). But it's close to German.

Anyhow, they show this CD expert a clip of WTC 7, which he didn't know collapsed on 9/11. They also didn't tell him the building was heavely damaged and burning on multiple floors.

He made his judgement only on that one piece of film, without any other information.

When they told him it was on 9/11, and many floors were burning, he said he didn't understand how this could happen.

Somewhere there's a Youtube video of this, with English subtitles, but I don't know where.

einsteen

11th September 2006, 06:50 PM

I posted the video before and spent hours for the damned subtitles. Here it is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uqrn5x2_f6Q

About the wtc1 and wtc2 he said it is impossible that they used explosives, it goes from top to down and he noticed that the one with the
larger block went first although hit later by the plane and also that it started at those points of impact. He said that if you have to place them at those buildinng it would maybe take a year. Further he said that explosives would immediately burn because of fire in the building and he mentioned 320 degrees celsius, I don't know what kind of explosives he means ?

T.A.M.

11th September 2006, 07:42 PM

yes...I guess what I want to know is, did he say "That was a controlled Demolition" or did he say "It looks like a controlled demolition".

It is interesting though, that they did not give him the circumstances surrounding the collapse, which are of vital importance.

Christophera

11th September 2006, 08:55 PM

I'll venture if you desperately want to. I'll say it is the core. Tada! But not your Invicicrete (TM) core, but the actual, real world, steel beam core.

There are pictures (excuse me for not having links, even though I know you 9/11 deniers lurv pictures) of the lower parts of the core standing up amidts the rubble of the collapsed towers.

Guess what? The rescuers even pulled out survivors from those little parts of (real world) core that still stood.

I believe you mean "columns"

Here is a picture of the stairwell where the survivors were found. The concrete core wall to the left of it saved them.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3034&stc=1&d=1158029642

Christophera

11th September 2006, 08:58 PM

Tsk, tsk. You previously admitted you couldn't name them. Why go on about these invisible nonentities again?

As if I did anything different, I did not. 3000 capitol crimes would have never been denied due process by the US government proper, so it must be infiltrated.

Is that okay with you?

Bell

11th September 2006, 09:02 PM

I believe you mean "columns"

Here is a picture of the stairwell where the survivors were found. The concrete core wall to the left of it saved them.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3034&stc=1&d=1158029642

Sorry if I don't quite use the proper words, my native language is not English...

So. where do you see a concrete wall? I see the side of... something... might as well be wall of marshmallows.

As of yet, you still failed to provide evidence of a concrete core.

But that's unfair of me to say, since the MIB took away all the evidence.

Christophera

11th September 2006, 10:55 PM

Sorry if I don't quite use the proper words, my native language is not English...

So. where do you see a concrete wall? I see the side of... something... might as well be wall of marshmallows.

As of yet, you still failed to provide evidence of a concrete core.

But that's unfair of me to say, since the MIB took away all the evidence.

Between the interior box column on the left and the crushed stairwell on the right is a thick gray block. Notice the rounded the corners characteristic of concrete which has been impacted heavily.

Notice that no steel columns penetrate the stairwell where they should if they existed.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3034&stc=1&d=1158029642http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3045&stc=1&d=1158036572

Architect

11th September 2006, 11:51 PM

Chris, you are completely incapable of interpreting photographs in any cogent manner. For the last time (1) that isn't structural concrete, and (2) those aren't reinforcing bars.

By the way, even if it was concrete you wouldn't use such massive columns to support the formwork (note the proper term), and there would be no reason for it to extend 40 ft (yawn) above each lift (note the proper term) at the time of casting.

You are, in short, talking out of your beam end.

Architect

11th September 2006, 11:53 PM

Actual, that's Dutch (as am I). But it's close to German.

Dutch is nothing like German!

MortFurd

12th September 2006, 12:22 AM

Dutch is nothing like German!
"I don't speak Dutch, I speak German. But it's the same thing if you speak loud enough."

A margarine dildo to the first caller to identify that quote.

Belz...

12th September 2006, 05:28 AM

The interior box columns are called "interior' because the are the inner wall of the outer tube of the "tube in a tube" construction. They were USED to support forms for the concrete core, the INNER tube of the "tube in a tube" construction.

Interesting, if unsupported, assertion. Of course, it would help if you could produce your documentary. Oh, sorry. The ninjas ate it.

The concrete is poured a minimum of 4 floors below the top floor because the interior box columns support the framework and it must be in place pour whic is a maximum of 40 foot vertical.

All this from memory. You're good.

Here is the core, exposed by the demolition. Notice, no core columns, just concrete (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)

Sorry, you said the demolition targeted the core first. You lose. Do not pass go, do not collect 160 billion in gold.

Belz...

12th September 2006, 05:32 AM

Guess what. Not one poster here has ever ventured to explain what that is standing 40 stories high after 1,000's of tons of steel crashed over it. What else but concrete could survive that?

Steel. Smoke. Adamantium.

The the C4 encapsulated in the concrete detonated and it went away.

I SAID DON'T PASS GO!

Here is a picture of the stairwell where the survivors were found. The concrete core wall to the left of it saved them.

Those are pixels, chris. Pixels.

chipmunk stew

12th September 2006, 05:52 AM

It seems you to are naive, or would like people to think such is not possible by the infiltrators of our government.
Oh, it's possible all right. It's also possible that they wiped clean the memories of everyone who had anything to do with the documentary, as well as everyone who ever saw it--with the exception of one man, destined to become the savior of humanity, escaping from the Mind Erasers, using his unique insight into skyscraper construction and explosives, and unravelling a sinister plot going back generations. The perps thought they had every base covered. But there was one thing they didn't count on...CHRISTOPHERA!!!

12th September 2006, 05:57 AM

1) Chris is a known liar.
2) Why would they pour concrete into an already constructed building, 40 feet below the current construction level, if the concrete was supposed to be the primary support of the building? (This I ask out of pure ignorance; it seems to me that if you build a steel frame first, then add concrete, that at best, you're simply re-inforcing the existing support structure, not creating the primary support structure.)
3) C4 lacks sufficient shelf-life to have been planted during construction; any C4 (especially mixed with concrete) would have been inert or unstable a LONG time ago.
4) Pictures of smoke, ash, twisted metal remnants, and ruins that are being posted are of insufficient quality to be used as evidence for or against anything. However, all of these pictures are irrelevant anyway, because all available evidence (in the form of structural drawings, blueprints, etc.) is that these buildings were supported by the exterior steel facings as well as the interior steel columns. At the time, a concrete core for such a huge building was considered completely impractical, for a number of reasons.
5) Chris is a known, proven liar. And now he's a paranoid, proven liar, too. It's interesting that Chris claims the government raided the archives of PBS and removed this alleged video; apparently, they also raided the entire internet, as well as any private archivists. The one video which DOES exist from the time period he mentions has the wrong name and does NOT support his theory; in fact, this video kind of shoots down his theory. And it exists all over the place - internet, private archives, etc.

For that matter, a LOT of pro- and anti- CT videos are all over the place, and the government does nothing against any of them. Why this video, Chris, and no other? Because this video never existed in the first place.

CHRISTOPHERA IS A LIAR.

Brainache

12th September 2006, 06:11 AM

Hey you know what? I think this Christophera fellow may be being slightly less than totally honest with us.
What does everyone else think?

12th September 2006, 06:21 AM

Hey you know what? I think this Christophera fellow may be being slightly less than totally honest with us.
What does everyone else think?

:hb: :explode

Stellafane

12th September 2006, 07:13 AM

Hey you know what? I think this Christophera fellow may be being slightly less than totally honest with us.
What does everyone else think?

What? Chris less than honest?? How can that be, when his avatar includes such symbols of honesty such as the scales of justice, the American flag, and the Holy Mother Herself?? If he were caught lying, why that would make him a liar and a hypocrite!

Who would have ever guessed? Just when you think you know a person...

KingMerv00

12th September 2006, 07:39 AM

Hellbound

12th September 2006, 08:26 AM

Yes, I do. The earlier reference to a building that just sat there after the ground floor was CD'd was of course irrelevant as the remaining structure was perched on solid ground, not the upper 90 storeys of a skyscraper.

I'd also say your earlier reference to a building standing on the ground after CD initiation is also a highly unlikely event. I'll bet a paycheck that the engineers and demolition experts present were suprised as he|| at that result :).

I presume the 90% you quote is a typo and should read 10%. Yes, 10 floors is roughly 10%. But assuming that then, yes, once the collapse was initiated the building would collapse to the ground. I'm not disputing that. The rate of fall, though, would depend on the rate of loss of material at each floor impact. Can you elaborate?(The acceleration observed in the collapse has been explained by an accumulating mass of material that impacts each successive floor, causing that to collapse quicker than the previous floor. If I'm misunderstanding that principle then I'm very happy to be put straight)

Um...if you think having more mass means it accelerates more quickly then yes, you are massively misunderstanding not only their statement, but basic physics.

Gravity accelerates equally regardless of mass. The only thing that needs to be considered is how quickly the amount of mass falling causes a single floor to fail. IF a single floor does not offer significant resistence to ten floor impacting it, then it doesn't make a difference even assuming 90% of the material was ejected. The initial chunk of floors falls from rest, a distance of about one floor, into the floor below (simplifying slightly). Unless this floor can bring that upper portion to a dead stop, then assuming any ejection rate less than 90% of material means that the mass impacting each floor will grow. The distance fallen is equivalent. Each floor hit will make less of a difference to the falling mass than the floor before it did, because the amount of mass falling has increased.

I believe that by looking at the photos of the aftermath, and considering the statements of witnesses and clean-up crews, we can say that far less than 90% of the material was ejected. One point that has often been made by those positing explosives or CD is how the building "fell within it's own footprint". This means most of the material stayed inside the perimeters of the building and fell down through it. This also means a less than 90% ejection rate.
This is what einsteen is trying to establish, and coming in for unwarranted slagging off (as we say in the UK) while he's attempting reasonable debate.

While some may have been rude, to call it unwarranted simply underlines the hostility I presented to you in my first post. We have a person who takes a highly sensitive event, and immediately begins to posit ridiculous theories about it, without doing research into the matter. Watching loose change and reading a few debunking guides is a start, but it isn't research. We have untrained, inexperienced people who think they know demolition techniques and effects, structural engineering, physics, jet aircraft capabilities, passenger aircraft capabilities, material strengths, etc better than the vast majority of recognized experts in the field, based on misinterpretatitons and ignorance (used in the actual meaning of the word-lack of knowledge). We have people who latch onto one or two unclear staements from a several-hundred page report, or a single still photo from a poor angle of one of the buildings, and wave it around as if it were "proof" of anything beyond their inability to interpret photos and videos and their ability to ignore the totality of evidence. We get people who come on here and make the exact same arguments that have been debunked several times already, but the truth apparantly doesn't mean enough to them to read a few pages where these issues have already been discussed.

So yes, many of us get frustrated. We get frustrated at the arrogance, at the ignorance, at the willful blindness, and at the desperate desire to believe despite evidence.

But you know what? The truth doesn't stop being the truth if I call you an jacka*s, or a saint. The evidence is no less valid if presented in a cow pie than if presented on a chocolate-raspberry layer cake. The facts don't change whether they are screamed or discussed.

And so far, the only evidence that's been put forth to support any theory of CD or government involvement is "I think" and "I don't think"...logical fallacies known as arguments from ignorance. Either that or we get either/or fallacies (it wasn't exactly like they said, so it's CD!), or an unreasonable and inconsistent standard of evidence (someone making a typo in an official document is reason to throw out the entire thing, yet the mere hint of something that might, possibly, if you stretch it and put it together with these twenty other pieces of unproven speculation, be evidence that someone other than 19 fundamentalist highjackers was involved is regarded as a 'smoking gun'). You can complain about how rude we all are, but it doesn't support your argument even if we all said f*ck every other word and called everyone intellectually-stunted smurf-molesters. The evidence, the facts, are what matter.

Cuddles

12th September 2006, 08:34 AM

Between the interior box column on the left and the crushed stairwell on the right is a thick gray block. Notice the rounded the corners characteristic of concrete which has been impacted heavily.

Notice that no steel columns penetrate the stairwell where they should if they existed.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3034&stc=1&d=1158029642http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3045&stc=1&d=1158036572

I must say I'm extremely impressed that someone can identify things 17 feet across and 3 inches across at the same distance in the same photo.

Bell

12th September 2006, 08:41 AM

I must say I'm extremely impressed that someone can identify things 17 feet across and 3 inches across at the same distance in the same photo.

Image analysis these days is done with pirated copies of Photoshop. The troof is in the pixels!!1

Regnad Kcin

12th September 2006, 08:51 AM

Huntsman:

The second half of your post above (#3594) is very well put.

Christophera

12th September 2006, 08:56 AM

Chris has demonstrated why CTism never dies, it is indestructable.

He was confronted with evidence that his memory about a documentary 16 years ago might be flawed. Chris, unable to believe he is mistaken about anything, is forced to add another layer of intrigue. The conspiracy just gets bigger. The conspiracy ALWAYS gets bigger because that is the only way to explain the lack of physical evidence.

Chris, you are obviously unaware of how rational inquiry works. Let me help you out:

What evidence do you have that the government infiltrated *giggle* PBS *snicker*?

Edit: Oh and if you are a troll...you're actually more pathetic than I thought.

To the contrary ,I would suggest that this post demonstrates the ineptitude that is typical with those that inadvertantly support lies hiding the Murders of 3000 Americans, or the juvenile mentality that must be occupied to accept the lies.

PBS is a government operated broadcast system. Our government has been infiltrated.

Prove I'm mistaken and I'll admit it.

This is physical evidence your mentality cannot even approach with explanation, and it has not.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3056&stc=1&d=1158072944

Hellbound

12th September 2006, 08:58 AM

Huntsman:

The second half of your post above (#3594) is very well put.

Thank you. It's been something that's really been getting under my skin lately.

chipmunk stew

12th September 2006, 08:59 AM

PBS is a government operated broadcast system. Our government has been infiltrated.
And everyone's minds have been wiped...except yours.

Regnad Kcin

12th September 2006, 09:05 AM

...PBS is a government operated broadcast system. Our government has been infiltrated.

Prove I'm mistaken and I'll admit it.Like you admitted you are mistaken with your towers-fell-in-the-wrong-order claim after that was proved wrong? Wait, you didn't, did you?

chipmunk stew

12th September 2006, 09:07 AM

Like you admitted you are mistaken with your towers-fell-in-the-wrong-order claim after that was proved wrong? Wait, you didn't, did you?
Or like he admitted he was mistaken about the spire showing 3" rebar on 4' centers after that was proven wrong.

MortFurd

12th September 2006, 09:12 AM

PBS is a government operated broadcast system. Our government has been infiltrated.

PBS is not government operated. (http://www.pbs.org/aboutpbs/aboutpbs_corp.html)

PBS in Brief

* A private, nonprofit corporation founded in 1969 whose members are America's public TV stations.
* Provides quality TV programming and related services to 354 noncommercial stations serving all 50 states, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa.
* PBS oversees program acquisition and provides program distribution and promotion; education services; new media ventures; fundraising support; engineering and technology development; and video marketing.

Bell

12th September 2006, 09:16 AM

Or like he admitted he was mistaken about the spire showing 3" rebar on 4' centers after that was proven wrong.

While we're at it...

Or like he admitted he was lying about the PBS documentary.

KingMerv00

12th September 2006, 09:20 AM

PBS is not government operated. (http://www.pbs.org/aboutpbs/aboutpbs_corp.html)

Heh...I love this forum. Chris says the sky is blue and we check.

Way to be wrong again Chris.

MortFurd

12th September 2006, 09:22 AM

:D

If Christophera says water is wet, I'm gonna go dump a bucket on my feet and make sure.

12th September 2006, 09:23 AM

T.A.M.

12th September 2006, 09:23 AM

Chris:

You are the one making the assertion about PBS and the government, therefore the burden of proof is upon you.

Prove:
1. PBS is government CONTROLLED
2. The USG has been infiltrated, and by who
3. How even if 1 and 2 are correct, that this means you cannot trust what you see on PBS

TAM

Oliver

12th September 2006, 09:25 AM

SkeptiKilt

12th September 2006, 09:26 AM

We have untrained, inexperienced people who think they know demolition techniques and effects, structural engineering, physics, jet aircraft capabilities, passenger aircraft capabilities, material strengths, etc better than the vast majority of recognized experts in the field, based on misinterpretatitons and ignorance (used in the actual meaning of the word-lack of knowledge). We have people who latch onto one or two unclear staements from a several-hundred page report, or a single still photo from a poor angle of one of the buildings, and wave it around as if it were "proof" of anything beyond their inability to interpret photos and videos and their ability to ignore the totality of evidence. We get people who come on here and make the exact same arguments that have been debunked several times already, but the truth apparantly doesn't mean enough to them to read a few pages where these issues have already been discussed.

Well put, sir. It's like "debating" anti-evolutionists; you can't reason a person out of a position he didn't reason himself into in the first place. There's an aphorism about trying to teach a pig to sing that's relevant as well.

Christophera

12th September 2006, 09:27 AM

We now await your admission of incorrectness, Chrisliar.

PBS is not the BBS - Apparently, your ignorance of even the simplest and most common organizations is just as broad as your ignorance on EVERY OTHER TOPIC.

How did you graduate from school?

Apparently a typo is more important to you than the lives of 3000 innocent people murdered. Let alone the subversion of the US Constitution and global immerson in war.

Thankfully I am self educated and have mostly escaped the dogmatic ignorance government educated people suffer from.

Christophera

12th September 2006, 09:29 AM

nonprofit corporation

What entity authorizes the corporation?

How much do you know about ancient sunworship, secret societies, and control over the US government?

PBS Content Policy Committee(O/E)
2100 Crystal Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22202 (http://truthasaur.com)

Bindamel

12th September 2006, 09:30 AM

:D

If Christophera says water is wet, I'm gonna go dump a bucket on my feet and make sure.

Bah. Anecdotal. :p

SkeptiKilt

12th September 2006, 09:31 AM

Thankfully I am self educated

:jaw-dropp Well, knock ME over with a feather . . .

Christophera

12th September 2006, 09:31 AM

PBS is not government operated. (http://www.pbs.org/aboutpbs/aboutpbs_corp.html)

What entity authorizes the corporation? Is the notion of infiltration beyond your mental capacity?

Does the notion of PBS justifiably documenting the excessive expenditures of the WTC construction costs escape you?

Did you totally miss the inherent corruption of the government that culminated in the early 1990's r the fact that government control over media escalated including PBS in the 1990's?

Do you think Santa is coming down your chimmney this Christmas?

T.A.M.

12th September 2006, 09:31 AM

Thank god you're not a doctor:

Patient: So where did you go to med school?

Dr. Christophera: Oh I didn't. I just picked up a list of the textbooks, and I taught myself. then when I was done I just started seeing patients and learned from my mistakes.

Patient: silence, followed by a scream and running to the door.

Get real.

T.A.M.

12th September 2006, 09:33 AM

Who authorizes the corporation?

government authorizes all corporations, that does not mean they are owned or controlled by government. Prove this is not true.

chipmunk stew

12th September 2006, 09:45 AM

nonprofit corporation

What entity authorizes the corporation?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/51224506d5b6aa454.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1441)

SATAN???

R.Mackey

12th September 2006, 09:48 AM

How much do you know about ancient sunworship, secret societies, and control over the US government?
I think that about says it all, right there.

Christophera

12th September 2006, 09:49 AM

government authorizes all corporations, that does not mean they are owned or controlled by government. Prove this is not true.

The proof is in the putting.

http://truthasaur.com/secreticons.html

We have 2 lives, one is unconscious but it controls us.

Christophera

12th September 2006, 09:51 AM

I think that about says it all, right there.

Your form of denial is so typical that it proves your ignorance of your own past, your ancestors and all that they stood for.

Do you know why stonehenge has the physical accuracy it does to the winter Soltice sunrise?

R.Mackey

12th September 2006, 09:51 AM

The proof is in the putting.

We have 2 lives, one is unconscious but it controls us.
I think you've quintuple-bogeyed this one.

"You only live twice, Mister Bond."

kevin

12th September 2006, 09:53 AM

government authorizes all corporations, that does not mean they are owned or controlled by government. Prove this is not true.

I thought corporations in the US incorporated under STATE laws not the federal gov't. And as someone that had to dig into the tax regulations for non-profits a few years ago there are limitations on what you can do if you're not paying taxes (a big one -- can't promote particular politicians) but you there are several ways of dealing with those. and these have nothing to do with being a corporation, they affect you only if you want to get out of paying taxes.

http://www.irs.gov/charities/index.html

Matthew Best

12th September 2006, 09:53 AM

Golly.

Christophera

12th September 2006, 09:53 AM

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/51224506d5b6aa454.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1441)

SATAN???

I would have to conclude you are educated by television which is controlled by secret government.

Spend 1 hour reading this website.

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

kevin

12th September 2006, 09:54 AM

Do you know why stonehenge has the physical accuracy it does to the winter Soltice sunrise?

because druids knew more science than you.

Christophera

12th September 2006, 09:55 AM

I think you've quintuple-bogeyed this one.

"You only live twice, Mister Bond."

Yes, you like your ignorance as do most who are weened by secrecy and media titillation.

http://truthasaur.com

chipmunk stew

12th September 2006, 09:56 AM

The proof is in the putting.

http://truthasaur.com/secreticons.html

We have 2 lives, one is unconscious but it controls us.
"pudding"

Zowie! No wonder you were able to avoid the Mind Erasers! The Force is strong with this one!

http://truthasaur.com/

12th September 2006, 09:56 AM

Apparently a typo is more important to you than the lives of 3000 innocent people murdered. Let alone the subversion of the US Constitution and global immerson in war.

That's no typo, you lying hypocrite. And the more than 3000 innocent lives taken by terrorist activity are quite important. So important, in fact, that I readily take on those who would divert attention away from their murders. While you're busy making up fairy tales about PBS documentaries and 3" rebar and long-duration explosives, what are you actually doing for those innocent lives? Nothing. Worse - you're defacating on their memories.

As to the subversion of the U.S. Constitution - that happened a while ago. About the time the government inserted "Under God" and "In God We Trust" into our Pledge of Allegiance and our money, respectively. Now, I do agree that certain persons in our Government are using this situation to further subvert the Constitution, but using a situation to your advantage is hardly the same as creating a situation to set up an advantage... which, while it might have happened that way, there is little evidence for.

Thankfully I am self educated and have mostly escaped the dogmatic ignorance government educated people suffer from.

That you are self-educated is apparent - 'cuz you don't know ANYTHING. You are ignorant, Chris. Deluded. Just plain stupid.

chipmunk stew

12th September 2006, 09:58 AM

I would have to conclude you are educated by television which is controlled by secret government.
It would be consistent with your other conclusions.

Spend 1 hour reading this website.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
I've read it, thanks. It's almost as coherent as this one:
http://truthasaur.com/

LashL

12th September 2006, 09:59 AM

I thought corporations in the US incorporated under STATE laws not the federal gov't.

Yes, there's a reason that Delaware has more corporations than residents :D

Mr. Skinny

12th September 2006, 09:59 AM

The proof is in the putting.
The proof of the putting is in the taste. Get it right, man! :)

I love watching a good meltdown.

ETA: dang you Zaaydragon!

rwguinn

12th September 2006, 10:00 AM

:dl: because druids knew more science than you.

MortFurd

12th September 2006, 10:00 AM

Apparently a typo is more important to you than the lives of 3000 innocent people murdered. Let alone the subversion of the US Constitution and global immerson in war.

Thankfully I am self educated and have mostly escaped the dogmatic ignorance government educated people suffer from.
Not any where close to a simple typo.

The BBC is in the UK and is supported by money collected by law from anyone who owns a TV or radio.

The PBS is a private, nonprofit corporation which survives on donations and provides programming to several hundred independent member stations. These stations then do their own scheduling and broadcasting. Are you now trying to claim that all of the hundreds of stations have been infiltrated too?

So, "Governement educated" applies to all of the foreign posters here as well? Whose government?

12th September 2006, 10:01 AM

I would have to conclude you are educated by television which is controlled by secret government.

Spend 1 hour reading this website.

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

I think this says a lot about Chris - if he can't digest that 10 minutes worth of garbage in less than an hour.

Chris - you're stupid, a liar, a hypocrite, a lunatic, crazy, ignorant, and full of [that which fertilizes the plants and is aromatic].

PBS is no more government controlled than the local Kwik-E-Mart.
Ancient sun worshipping societies have nothing to do with 9-11.
The Druids didn't build Stonehenge, but did use it for ceremonies.

There is no concrete core.

There was no PBS video that describes such a core.

You're wrong. A liar on all counts.

Carry on.

LashL

12th September 2006, 10:02 AM

Arus808

12th September 2006, 10:03 AM

kevin

12th September 2006, 10:03 AM

I would have to conclude you are educated by television which is controlled by secret government.

You're the one quoting a TV documentary as evidence of a WTC cover up.

Christophera

12th September 2006, 10:04 AM

Not any where close to a simple typo.

The BBC is in the UK and is supported by money collected by law from anyone who owns a TV or radio.

The PBS is a private, nonprofit corporation which survives on donations and provides programming to several hundred independent member stations. These stations then do their own scheduling and broadcasting. Are you now trying to claim that all of the hundreds of stations have been infiltrated too?

So, "Governement educated" applies to all of the foreign posters here as well? Whose government?

Yes, any government today is a part of the global government to a degree.

I am aware of the differences between the BBC and PBS and the typo was a simple mistake.

The magnitude of your mistake for ignoring the unconscious connections of corporations of ANY kind to gevernment is massive, permanent and destructive to life of all forms to a degree no easily described.

MortFurd

12th September 2006, 10:06 AM

Your form of denial is so typical that it proves your ignorance of your own past, your ancestors and all that they stood for.

Do you know why stonehenge has the physical accuracy it does to the winter Soltice sunrise?
Yeah. Stonehenge was built over a period of nearly a thousand years, giving the folks plenty of time to correct things and get them lined up like they wanted them.
German Wikipedia so that you can see that it isn't a US Gov shill site. (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehenge)

English Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehenge)

British Stonehenge site. (http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.1914)

chipmunk stew

12th September 2006, 10:07 AM

Guys, this is 90 pages of Chris shown to be a liar. I think its time to put this thread to bed, cause when you prove him wrong, he find soemthing else to niggle at. He is a classic kook/troll, displaying such characteristics. Its nice to see you guys debate him, but you are pretty much repeating things ad nauseum.
Yes, but on how many forums does he abandon defending this:
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
in favor of this:
http://truthasaur.com/ ?

Christophera

12th September 2006, 10:09 AM

You're the one quoting a TV documentary as evidence of a WTC cover up.

Yes, there are exceptions, and the documentary I saw in 1990, "The Construction Of The Twin Towers" identified itself as such by describing the resistence they found in obtaining their grant money and gaining the information from the public agencies obligated to provide the information.

Their reasoning compelling the grant money was that the extreme cost over runs of the Twin Towers justified a ful public accounting and the PBS system was dedicated to inform the public and information of government expenditures rated FIRST in that. They had to fight hard to get their funding.

It was probably the production of the highest integrity to the purposes of PBS EVER produced.

Arus808

12th September 2006, 10:09 AM

if he abandons them, then it only shows what kind of character he is. a troll. nothing more. trolls are best to be left ignored, as their "speeches" are indicative of the lunacy they hold.

Belz...

12th September 2006, 10:11 AM

To the contrary ,I would suggest that this post demonstrates the ineptitude that is typical with those that inadvertantly support lies hiding the Murders of 3000 Americans, or the juvenile mentality that must be occupied to accept the lies.

So, in your view no one could possibly disagree with you without beign government shills ?

PBS is a government operated broadcast system. Our government has been infiltrated.

By whom ?

Prove I'm mistaken and I'll admit it.

No, I don't think you will.

R.Mackey

12th September 2006, 10:11 AM

Yes, there are exceptions, and the documentary I saw in 1990, "The Construction Of The Twin Towers" identified itself as such by describing the resistence they found in obtaining their grant money and gaining the information from the public agencies obligated to provide the information.

Their reasoning compelling the grant money was that the extreme cost over runs of the Twin Towers justified a ful public accounting and the PBS system was dedicated to inform the public and information of government expenditures rated FIRST in that. They had to fight hard to get their funding.

It was probably the production of the highest integrity to the purposes of PBS EVER produced.
You sure seem to know a lot of details about this "documentary" that PBS says doesn't exist. Did you produce it, or something? Was the premiere screening in your bedroom? Did black helicopters take your copy away from you?

Arus808

12th September 2006, 10:12 AM

haha prove that he's mistaken? he's been proven wrong in 92 pages.

Christophera

12th September 2006, 10:12 AM

Yes, but on how many forums does he abandon defending this:
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
in favor of this:
http://truthasaur.com/ ?

Since you imposters can defend nothing, your question is moot, but this,

http://truthasaur.com

explains how this,

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

Can happen.

Are you trying to say you only have half a brain? (http://members.tripod.com/truthasaur/twominds1.html)

Belz...

12th September 2006, 10:12 AM

Yes, there are exceptions, and the documentary I saw in 1990, "The Construction Of The Twin Towers" identified itself as such by describing the resistence they found in obtaining their grant money and gaining the information from the public agencies obligated to provide the information.

Their reasoning compelling the grant money was that the extreme cost over runs of the Twin Towers justified a ful public accounting and the PBS system was dedicated to inform the public and information of government expenditures rated FIRST in that. They had to fight hard to get their funding.

It was probably the production of the highest integrity to the purposes of PBS EVER produced.

Considering how much conspiracy theories are popular, don't you think SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE would have a copy or recording of this documentary ? If so, why don't you simply dig it up ? It would surely help convince everyone here, myself included.

MortFurd

12th September 2006, 10:12 AM

It was probably the production of the highest integrity to the purposes of PBS EVER produced.
Which they then destroyed. Leaving no copies anywhere at any of the affiliated stations and no private copies. Right.

Christophera

12th September 2006, 10:15 AM

haha prove that he's mistaken? he's been proven wrong in 92 pages.

In 92 pages not one imposter here has explained what the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is if it is not concrete.

You may wish to re examine your ignorance.

Christophera

12th September 2006, 10:16 AM

Which they then destroyed. Leaving no copies anywhere at any of the affiliated stations and no private copies. Right.

That is what happens to truth in secret societies.

Consider, you know nothing of your unconscious existence, yet you live it every day.

Belz...

12th September 2006, 10:16 AM

R.Mackey

12th September 2006, 10:17 AM

Self-educated ? So you're a drop-out ?
I'd vote for "Educational Mushrooms," myself. Seen lots of the type.

12th September 2006, 10:17 AM

Oh come on, folks - this guy is just a liar. Probably mid to late teens, acne, the whole nine yards.

There was no PBS documentary. There was no massive cover-up. And he's not 'self-taught'. Either he's in some regular Brick-And-Mortar school, or he's a homeschooled kid - in which case, his parents should be arrested for criminal negligence. IF he's out of school, he's either unemployed and living off of welfare, or he works a joe-job, requiring no education.

Or he's a regular, average, College-grad student who lies and is a hypocrite.

It's not that hard to figure out. Chris is a liar.

Pardalis

12th September 2006, 10:17 AM

Why study science and engeneering when you can come up with your own stuff yourself?

Belz...

12th September 2006, 10:19 AM

Your form of denial is so typical that it proves your ignorance of your own past, your ancestors and all that they stood for.

Do you know why stonehenge has the physical accuracy it does to the winter Soltice sunrise?

:jaw-dropp

Holy crap. You ARE mad!

I wouldn't want the people who made stonehenge to build my house, let alone calculate anything important with precision.

chipmunk stew

12th September 2006, 10:21 AM

Since you imposters can defend nothing, your question is moot, but this,

http://truthasaur.com

explains how this,

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

Can happen.
I know. I can see the clear connection between this

http://truthasaur.com/misc/aliens.html

and 9/11.

Are you trying to say you only have half a brain? (http://members.tripod.com/truthasaur/twominds1.html)
Given your condition (http://www.mvps.org/st-software/Movie_Collection/images/2677f.jpg), I guess it might look like that to you.

Christophera

12th September 2006, 10:22 AM

Self-educated ? So you're a drop-out ?

No, a kick out. A teacher tried to use me as an example by psychogically abusing me for three months. Finally, one morning she was going to do it again. I was 13. I had been analyzing her feeble methods of doing this, understanding her, how inadequate she really was and quietly absorbing the abuse.

On that last morning she started with the same crap, I calmly interrupted and explained her to herself and the entire class listened, respecting what I said because they unconsciously knew the truth too. Because they listened, I was permanently expelled from the Santa Barbara High School system.

The school authorities did not want any leadership such as myself becoming established in the school system.

Belz...

12th September 2006, 10:22 AM

I would have to conclude you are educated by television which is controlled by secret government.

Yes, any government today is a part of the global government to a degree.

The magnitude of your mistake for ignoring the unconscious connections of corporations of ANY kind to gevernment is massive, permanent and destructive to life of all forms to a degree no easily described.

You're not getting any better, chris. Seeing a psychiatrist might be a good move, on your part.

Pardalis

12th September 2006, 10:23 AM

Christophera, what was the argument about?

Belz...

12th September 2006, 10:24 AM

That is what happens to truth in secret societies.

Consider, you know nothing of your unconscious existence, yet you live it every day.

WOW! Just BEIGN part of a secret society allows you to defy the laws of physics and logic ? I want in !!

Christophera

12th September 2006, 10:25 AM

I know. I can see the clear connection between this

http://truthasaur.com/misc/aliens.html

and 9/11.

Given your condition (http://www.mvps.org/st-software/Movie_Collection/images/2677f.jpg), I guess it might look like that to you.

Hmmmm, so you believe we know everything about the universe huh?

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

12th September 2006, 10:27 AM

No, a kick out. A teacher tried to use me as an example by psychogically abusing me for three months. Finally, one morning she was going to do it again. I was 13. I had been analyzing her feeble methods of doing this, understanding her, how inadequate she really was and quietly absorbing the abuse.

On that last morning she started with the same crap, I calmly interrupted and explained her to herself and the entire class listened, respecting what I said because they unconsciously knew the truth too. Because they listened, I was permanently expelled from the Santa Barbara High School system.

The school authorities did not want any leadership such as myself becoming established in the school system.

Uh-huh.

And what year was this, Chris? I mean, you don't mind if I verify these facts, right?

Pardalis

12th September 2006, 10:29 AM

A teacher tried to use me as an example

What was the argument about?

MortFurd

12th September 2006, 10:31 AM

In 92 pages not one imposter here has explained what the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is if it is not concrete.

You may wish to re examine your ignorance.
You have yet to PROVE that that picture is concrete. The object in the photo you keep posting is in the wrong position to be the core, and the photo itself is no where near clear enough to tell what material it is made of.
Given the alignment visible in the photos here, (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/) it would appear to be part of the corner of the tower.

Arus808

12th September 2006, 10:39 AM

if he is so sure that its concrete, why hasn't he contacted those who built the towers? The businesses who built them are still in business. the Architects are still in business and are easy to find.

Why, a simple call to them will get his answer./ Why must we prove something (we know that is not there anyway) when all he hast to do is make a phone call?

Please. guys. 92 pages, and he still wont believe. Sorry, but unless he puts his foot forward and do things himself, we shouldn't be answerhing his questions since he doesn't like our answers.

I suggest that we respond with every post that he replies with the contact number to those who were involved in the construction of the towers, and let it be.

12th September 2006, 10:41 AM

OK Arus - we'll appoint you to get that together, and Pardalis can find us 19 socks.

Er... sorry, not my job. You will be contacted the usual way, of course. I don't exist.

gumboot

12th September 2006, 10:42 AM

No, a kick out. A teacher tried to use me as an example by psychogically abusing me for three months. Finally, one morning she was going to do it again. I was 13. I had been analyzing her feeble methods of doing this, understanding her, how inadequate she really was and quietly absorbing the abuse.

On that last morning she started with the same crap, I calmly interrupted and explained her to herself and the entire class listened, respecting what I said because they unconsciously knew the truth too. Because they listened, I was permanently expelled from the Santa Barbara High School system.

The school authorities did not want any leadership such as myself becoming established in the school system.

I wonder if it really happened like that...

-Andrew

Arus808

12th September 2006, 10:43 AM

I wonder if it really happened like that...

-Andrew

by that posting alone, we know that Chris is living in a hollywood world of his own making.

Regnad Kcin

12th September 2006, 10:45 AM

No, a kick out. A teacher tried to use me as an example by psychogically abusing me for three months.What subject did this teacher teach? No need to provide her name, however.

Finally, one morning she was going to do it again. I was 13. I had been analyzing her feeble methods of doing this, understanding her, how inadequate she really was and quietly absorbing the abuse.What do you mean by "abuse?"

On that last morning she started with the same crap...Such as?

...I calmly interrupted and explained her to herself and the entire class listened, respecting what I said because they unconsciously knew the truth too.What is it you said?

Because they listened, I was permanently expelled from the Santa Barbara High School system.One does not follow another.

Also, I would wager one is not "permanently expelled" from a public school except under the most extreme of cases. Even then, a minor would be placed under some jurisdiction, such as a hospital.

Also, none of this would take place without a record of its occurrence. Can you provide it?

The school authorities did not want any leadership such as myself becoming established in the school system.Sigh. What "leadership?"

Disrupting class, infringing on the rights of other students to be given a day's education, and challenging teachers is not how a 13-year-old should comport himself.

If you had a problem with a particular teacher, there would be plenty of avenues to rectify the situation. The public school system would choose one of them for you, but "permanently expelling" you is not one of them.

KingMerv00

12th September 2006, 10:49 AM

How much do you know about ancient sunworship, secret societies, and control over the US government?

Nothing. That is to say, I know more than you.

KingMerv00

12th September 2006, 10:50 AM

Troll or not, it is kinda fun ain't it guys?

Metullus

12th September 2006, 10:51 AM

"Fun" is one word for it, yeah. Fun.

Christophera

12th September 2006, 10:52 AM

You're not getting any better, chris. Seeing a psychiatrist might be a good move, on your part.

Yea, right. After this I'm going to seek the help of quacks. Be sure to check their follow up.

http://members.tripod.com/truthasaur/2emo13.html

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3057&stc=1&d=1158079856

KingMerv00

12th September 2006, 10:53 AM

"Fun" is one word for it, yeah. Fun.

Well, he's fun like a haunted house is fun.

Christophera

12th September 2006, 10:53 AM

Nothing. That is to say, I know more than you.

So please explain why you did not show us some of what you know?

Christophera

12th September 2006, 10:55 AM

What subject did this teacher teach? No need to provide her name, however.

What do you mean by "abuse?"

Such as?

What is it you said?

One does not follow another.

Also, I would wager one is not "permanently expelled" from a public school except under the most extreme of cases. Even then, a minor would be placed under some jurisdiction, such as a hospital.

Also, none of this would take place without a record of its occurrence. Can you provide it?

Sigh. What "leadership?"

Disrupting class, infringing on the rights of other students to be given a day's education, and challenging teachers is not how a 13-year-old should comport himself.

If you had a problem with a particular teacher, there would be plenty of avenues to rectify the situation. The public school system would choose one of them for you, but "permanently expelling" you is not one of them.

Mr. Peabody,

Today, that teacher and the school system could be successfully sued for what was done. If we had raeasonable courts, which we do not. At least it helps explain why our world is so screwed up by graduates of the educational system.

She taught math, her name was Millinerich. She was disrupting her own class.

It was psychological abuse.

I explained her problems to her. I was very nice about it. She had been trying to provoke me.

I WAS permanently expelled and the vice principal, before leaving told my mother and I, "By state law you have 14 days to be enrolled in school or you will be in violation and appropriate measures will be taken."

Santa Barbara County destroys all records that are embarassing.

The kind of leadership that will use reason to serve its purpose. To protect life.

Check my math.

http://truthasaur.com/my_22/my22nine.html

I predict that next you are going to pretend that our educational system, our society, knows everything about the human mind.

Pardalis

12th September 2006, 10:55 AM

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3057&stc=1&d=1158079856

Keep tryin' Chris. You need help.

KingMerv00

12th September 2006, 10:57 AM

So please explain why you did not show us some of what you know?

Ok, I said I know nothing. Here's a sample of nothing:

______________. ______________________________. ____________?_____________________________________ _____________!!1!!!

www.________.com

MortFurd

12th September 2006, 10:58 AM

No, a kick out. A teacher tried to use me as an example by psychogically abusing me for three months. Finally, one morning she was going to do it again. I was 13. I had been analyzing her feeble methods of doing this, understanding her, how inadequate she really was and quietly absorbing the abuse.

On that last morning she started with the same crap, I calmly interrupted and explained her to herself and the entire class listened, respecting what I said because they unconsciously knew the truth too. Because they listened, I was permanently expelled from the Santa Barbara High School system.

The school authorities did not want any leadership such as myself becoming established in the school system.
So, at 13, you left school and never went back. Your parents didn't try to get you into another school in another district?

kevin

12th September 2006, 10:59 AM

if he is so sure that its concrete, why hasn't he contacted those who built the towers? The businesses who built them are still in business. the Architects are still in business and are easy to find.

Why, a simple call to them will get his answer./ Why must we prove something (we know that is not there anyway) when all he hast to do is make a phone call?

because they are all in on it. they've changed the plans, they doctored the photos and deleted the documentaries. The only evidence left is pictures of dust and Chris' memory.

juryjone

12th September 2006, 11:00 AM

On that last morning she started with the same crap, I calmly interrupted and explained her to herself and the entire class listened, respecting what I said because I had a gun. Because I had a gun, I was permanently expelled from the Santa Barbara High School system.

The school authorities did not want any leadership such as myself becoming established in the school system.
Edited for clarity.

Regnad Kcin

12th September 2006, 11:02 AM

Mr. Peabody,

Today, that teacher and the school system could be successfully sued for what was done. At least it helps explain why our world is so screwed up by graduates of the educational system.Which does not answer even one of my numerous questions. Please try again.

Belz...

12th September 2006, 11:02 AM

No, a kick out. A teacher tried to use me as an example by psychogically abusing me for three months. Finally, one morning she was going to do it again. I was 13. I had been analyzing her feeble methods of doing this, understanding her, how inadequate she really was and quietly absorbing the abuse.

On that last morning she started with the same crap, I calmly interrupted and explained her to herself and the entire class listened, respecting what I said because they unconsciously knew the truth too. Because they listened, I was permanently expelled from the Santa Barbara High School system.

Unconsciously, eh ? How could you tell, then ?

The school authorities did not want any leadership such as myself becoming established in the school system.

Martyr syndrome.

Belz...

12th September 2006, 11:03 AM

Yea, right. After this I'm going to seek the help of quacks. Be sure to check their follow up.

http://members.tripod.com/truthasaur/2emo13.html

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3057&stc=1&d=1158079856

Holy **** you ARE certifiable. Who knew ?

KingMerv00

12th September 2006, 11:05 AM

R.Mackey

12th September 2006, 11:06 AM

The school authorities did not want any leadership such as myself becoming established in the school system.

We have an expression where I work -- "Be careful not to step in the leadership!"

KingMerv00

12th September 2006, 11:09 AM

Martyr syndrome.

Narcissism really.

Christophera

12th September 2006, 11:10 AM

Keep tryin' Chris. You need help.

The reverse is true. The murders of 3000 innocent people on 9-11 and the length of this thread prove that.

KingMerv00

12th September 2006, 11:13 AM

The reverse is true. The murders of 3000 innocent people on 9-11 and the length of this thread prove that.

You win by argumentum ad nauseum?

MortFurd

12th September 2006, 11:15 AM

Holy **** you ARE certifiable. Who knew ?

I don't know about certifiable, but at some point he sure seems to have had a problem with insanity. (http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_j_061200.htm)

I'm not sure what to make of this one. (http://www.countyofsb.org/cao/cob/hearings/board/980224.htm)

In both cases, search the page for Christopher. You'll find a Chrisopher A. Brown from Santa Barbara.

And a third link. (http://www.solariactionnetwork.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=278&start=0&sid=e6c2e4bf726aa333a6fc60a12c1ebe5f) Considering the concerns about the "overinformatiohighway" mentioned on that site, I find it curious that Christophera gives out so much personal information.

chipmunk stew

12th September 2006, 11:19 AM

Check my math.

http://truthasaur.com/my_22/my22nine.html

The secret societies know, unconsciously, that I have observed winter solstice sunrises and are compelled by the Native American spiritual interests to confirm our temporal alignment by providing me with tangible examples of their unconscious awareness.
More classic examples from my personal life indicating that the secret societies have been influenced to provide me with paper having the numbers 21, 22 & 23 on them.
Have you read A Beautiful Mind?

MortFurd

12th September 2006, 11:22 AM

So you have a complaint about a hypnotist?
Christophera seems to have had a go around with insanity and the Santa Barbara court system. I have no way to tell if they unfairly accused him of insanity and locked him up or if there really was a problem that hasn't been really cured and whose effects we see here. If he was unfairly accused, then those letters (see also the tripod site) could be taken to mean that he thinks his current instability is due to hypnotic and/or mind control treatment he underwent at court orders. Otherwise, he is just unstable and spouting paranoid drivel.

Christophera

12th September 2006, 11:35 AM

Christophera seems to have had a go around with insanity and the Santa Barbara court system. I have no way to tell if they unfairly accused him of insanity and locked him up or if there really was a problem that hasn't been really cured and whose effects we see here. If he was unfairly accused, then those letters (see also the tripod site) could be taken to mean that he thinks his current instability is due to hypnotic and/or mind control treatment he underwent at court orders. Otherwise, he is just unstable and spouting paranoid drivel.

Clearly, the insane are those that sit around spouting inanities, errors, while their fellow humans are murdered in order to create an excuse to wage war and murder more people.

Arus808

12th September 2006, 11:38 AM

since we didn't need to kill our own people to go to war (war was already at out doorstep, as proven by several documentaries and inside communications in the governemtn concerning obl), your paranoia is seriously becoming your crutch.

chipmunk stew

12th September 2006, 11:40 AM

Clearly, the insane are those that sit around spouting inanities, errors, while their fellow humans are murdered...
Indeed.

How many murders have your ideas and actions prevented?

Christophera

12th September 2006, 11:41 AM

Have you read A Beautiful Mind?

I saw the movie and recognize it as an attempt by secret societies to mock my awareness of our unconscious existence.

MortFurd

12th September 2006, 11:42 AM

If you don't feel you have a problem, then why were you asking for help in determining just what the therapy you've had could do? From the letter, you seem convinced that you were given some kind of hypnotic or mind control therapy that has changed you in some way that you don't like.

Insanity is pushing an extraordinarily complicated explanation for the murder of 3000 people. Insanity is pushing a single, fuzzy, misinterpreted photo as proof of an enormous conspiracy.

KingMerv00

12th September 2006, 11:42 AM

Clearly, the insane are those that sit around spouting inanities, errors, while their fellow humans are murdered in order to create an excuse to wage war and murder more people.

Well let's see:

1) You say inane things.
2) You make errors. (BOY do you make errors.)
3) You presumably want to overthrow the corrupt world government. Many would die in that war.

Yup, you're insane.

chipmunk stew

12th September 2006, 11:43 AM

I saw the movie and recognize it as an attempt by secret societies to mock my awareness of our unconscious existence.
It was created just to mock you or to mock everyone who is aware of this (assuming there are others)?

KingMerv00

12th September 2006, 11:45 AM

I saw the movie and recognize it as an attempt by secret societies to mock my awareness of our unconscious existence.

(There are no words)

Edit: I never saw that movie. Any good? I take it that you give it a "thumbs down"?

Pardalis

12th September 2006, 11:46 AM

I saw the movie and recognize it as an attempt by secret societies to mock my awareness of our unconscious existence.

How can you be aware of the unconscious? Isn't "being aware' mean being conscious? I know about the unconscious, I've read Jung, but even he couldn't say he knew the unconscious for sure, he only was aware of it indirectly.

CurtC

12th September 2006, 11:48 AM

MortFurd

12th September 2006, 11:49 AM

Clearly, the insane are those that sit around spouting inanities, errors, while their fellow humans are murdered in order to create an excuse to wage war and murder more people.
Which would point to you being insane.
There you sit, convinced beyond doubt that people were murdered to provide an excuse for war, and you spout inanities. If you have proof, you have yet to show it. Reposting the same photo over and over again is certainly inane.

Metullus

12th September 2006, 11:52 AM

Well, he's fun like a haunted house is fun.Exactly.

KingMerv00

12th September 2006, 11:55 AM

I look at this thread every several days or so, and I keep asking this: why are forum regulars even participating in this? It's just sad. Christophera is a disturbed person who should be getting help, and you all know it. Please let this thread die.

Yea, the deeper I get the worse I feel. You are probably right. I think the Beautiful Mind thing was my limit.

Pardalis

12th September 2006, 12:01 PM

I guess it's a lost cause to try and make Christopher see he has a problem.

Just for the sake of it Chris, why don't you try and call a professional therapist? What do you have to lose? Maybe you don't trust people who are professionals, but give it a try anyways and see how it goes?

Wouldn't you agree that it would be alot more constructive than to post on a forum where obviously noone agrees with your views, and never will?

I agree with Curt C and KingMerv, this is my last post here.

Metullus

12th September 2006, 12:02 PM

Christophera is clearly disturbed. CurtC is right: there is nothing to be gained by continuing this thread. Let it die.

KingMerv00

12th September 2006, 12:07 PM

I feel kinda crummy now. I don't think I realized the extend of his problems until now. For what it is worth Chris, sorry for the glibness.

I'm out of here for real this time.

Christophera

12th September 2006, 12:10 PM

Indeed.

How many murders have your ideas and actions prevented?

The courts, governments and corporations have not allowed me to prevent any murders or disasters with my actions and have done so.

First example of lawlessness allowed by courts depriving people of their right to information. A letter admitting to failure to appear on subpoena in a civil action against the county for failure to preserve records.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3061&stc=1&d=1158084665

chipmunk stew

12th September 2006, 12:13 PM

Yea, the deeper I get the worse I feel. You are probably right. I think the Beautiful Mind thing was my limit.
Yeah. I brought it up because the quote from the page he linked to really reminded me of John Nash believing that a secret government group was sending him coded messages through the newspaper. His response convinces me once and for all that Christophera is no troll. My follow-up question is out of sincere curiosity, though.

If you don't mind answering Christopher:
Was A Beautiful Mind created just to mock you or to mock everyone who is aware of our unconscious existence?

(BTW, the book is MUCH better than the movie.)

chipmunk stew

12th September 2006, 12:17 PM

The courts, governments and corporations have not allowed me to prevent any murders or disasters with my actions and have done so.
What do you hope to gain by future attempts? Do you expect different results? If not, why not just join the happy herd and enjoy life?

Belz...

12th September 2006, 01:06 PM

Today, that teacher and the school system could be successfully sued for what was done. If we had raeasonable courts, which we do not. At least it helps explain why our world is so screwed up by graduates of the educational system.

Anti-elitist.

I predict that next you are going to pretend that our educational system, our society, knows everything about the human mind.

No, Belz... knows enough to call someone's BS, though.

Clearly, the insane are those that sit around spouting inanities, errors, while their fellow humans are murdered in order to create an excuse to wage war and murder more people.

Yes, that would be you.

Belz...

12th September 2006, 01:07 PM

I saw the movie and recognize it as an attempt by secret societies to mock my awareness of our unconscious existence.

The MOVIE was an attempt to mock you ?

I'm going to have to retract my insanity accusation and move to TROLL.

Architect

12th September 2006, 01:50 PM

I saw the movie and recognize it as an attempt by secret societies to mock my awareness of our unconscious existence.

You're David Icke, aren't you?

Seriously m8, you're either unstable - seriously unstable - or a troll. Taking pot shots at your kooky ideas is like shooting ducks in a barrel.

As the old British joke goes, we're not laughing with you......

MortFurd

12th September 2006, 01:58 PM

The MOVIE was an attempt to mock you ?

I'm going to have to retract my insanity accusation and move to TROLL.
Belz and Architect, seriously. Something is way out of line with Christophera.

From Christophera:
http://members.tripod.com/truthasaur/2emo13.html
http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3057&stc=1&d=1158079856
http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3061&stc=1&d=1158084665
Note the requested dates 1876-1879

One I turned up (search the page for Christopher: )
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_j_061200.htm

I'm done arguing with Christophera. Whatever is wrong, and whatever the cause, I am not qualified to judge or handle.

Arus808

12th September 2006, 02:01 PM

So I guess the free fall theory is now put to rest? That they didn't fall at "free fall" and the evidence doesn't support it at all?

Cool. Now that we have settled that, and the thread actually diverged into the mental state of Chris, I do believe that the thread has run its course.

SkeptiKilt

12th September 2006, 03:19 PM

Godwin's Law without the swastikas.

[unsubscribe]

Architect

12th September 2006, 03:29 PM

Belz and Architect, seriously. Something is way out of line with Christophera.

From Christophera:
http://members.tripod.com/truthasaur/2emo13.html
http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3057&stc=1&d=1158079856
http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3061&stc=1&d=1158084665
Note the requested dates 1876-1879

One I turned up (search the page for Christopher: )
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_j_061200.htm

I'm done arguing with Christophera. Whatever is wrong, and whatever the cause, I am not qualified to judge or handle.

Whoah! Woo-woo.

Sorry, Chris, you do have serious mental health problems. You're not helping yourself here, mate. Get some professional help, and get it now.

Lads (i.e. the rest of us), we need to stop laying into this guy or engaging in his distrubed arguments. This is an ill man we have here.

Christophera

12th September 2006, 03:36 PM

So you have finally figured out I'm not going along with your modern delusion of supremacy. Perhaps now you are informed enough to realize that there are methods of creating secrecy sufficient to design towers to be demolished.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/sheep4.gif

Belz and Architect, seriously. Something is way out of line with Christophera.

From Christophera:
http://members.tripod.com/truthasaur/2emo13.html
http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3057&stc=1&d=1158079856
http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3061&stc=1&d=1158084665
Note the requested dates 1876-1879

One I turned up (search the page for Christopher: )
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_j_061200.htm

I'm done arguing with Christophera. Whatever is wrong, and whatever the cause, I am not qualified to judge or handle.

So very fine that all of you can spew so much but have ZERO proof of anything, either about the towers or my mental state.

All that is proven is that I am doing things to try make our live better and you don't like it. Or that I believe that there are secrets and there are things we don't know about the universe and our minds, and you don't like it/

Basically I've prove here, with your gracious help that you are ignorant uncaring people and work very hard to try an bring others into the herd (flock.
http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3065&stc=1&d=1158096865

Christophera

12th September 2006, 03:38 PM

You're David Icke, aren't you?

Seriously m8, you're either unstable - seriously unstable - or a troll. Taking pot shots at your kooky ideas is like shooting ducks in a barrel.

As the old British joke goes, we're not laughing with you......

Seriously, coming from a guy that cannot understand simple questions about structures who uses the handle of "Architect, " and the forces inherent with them, you have done nothing while supporting the lies that murderers hide behind, you have no credibility. None.

A vocal moron, a fraud.

Stop the personal attacks. Argue the point, not the poster. If you cannot, posts will be moved to AAH.

Architect

12th September 2006, 03:40 PM

Chris

You're ill mate. Get professional help.

Architect

Sword_Of_Truth

12th September 2006, 03:43 PM

A vocal moron, a fraud.

This pinhead has had 80+ pages to pull his head from his ass but obviously isn't interested. I'm just going to start reporting every post that breaches the rules. Like the name-calling quoted above.

With any luck, this pointless waste of bandwidth will die.

Architect

12th September 2006, 03:46 PM

This pinhead has had 80+ pages to pull his head from his ass but obviously isn't interested. I'm just going to start reporting every post that breaches the rules. Like the name-calling quoted above.

With any luck, this pointless waste of bandwidth will die.

Unfair; the lad's got serious issues. He should get medical assistance or, alternatively, consider a career in politics.

Architect

12th September 2006, 03:48 PM

Actually, I wonder if we're going to read about him in the papers one day....you know, the day after he picks up the gun or whatever and turns lots of innocent people (or alternatively politicians) into history.

Bell

12th September 2006, 04:09 PM

Architect

12th September 2006, 04:11 PM

You know, I really find that scary.

Let's hope not.

Unless its politicians, of course?

I've just watched this and my heavens, it's depressing. I think Chris would have trouble with it, but perhaps not given his state of mind:

http://www.revver.com/view.php?id=59686

Bell

12th September 2006, 04:15 PM

Unless its politicians, of course?

I asume that was sarcasm? :confused:

Architect

12th September 2006, 04:17 PM

I asume that was sarcasm? :confused:

Yes. And in very poor taste, too....

Bell

12th September 2006, 04:23 PM

Yes. And in very poor taste, too....

Good. I thought it was. Sarcasm that is. Not the poor taste thing.

Anyhow, that movie... chilling. All the firetrucks, police and ambulances screaming towards the WTC. And then you look at the scale. Those were pretty small cars, compared to the HUGE buildings. What could they do at all? Seems pretty helpless from the start :(

Regnad Kcin

12th September 2006, 04:33 PM

For anyone who never visited, I would suspect it's fairly difficult to imagine how large each tower was. From a human perspective, of course.

Arus808

12th September 2006, 04:34 PM

I have photos from my cousins visit the year prior (2000) and it was of him taken outside of the buildings.

no need to imagine how ominous these buildings were. Just standing next to them, as he quoted, took his breath away.

Bell

12th September 2006, 04:36 PM

I stood ontop WTC 2 three months before it happened :(

12th September 2006, 04:46 PM

Christophera

12th September 2006, 05:16 PM

OK, Chris - it's true. You're nuts. AND a liar. AND delusional.

This is my last post in this thread, too. However, my sig will stand (once edited) as a reminder to those who might encounter this lunatic moron...

Curiously, no one has any proof (or my proof drives you off) and you prefer willful ignorance. Check the new thread I've started in this forum.

The fact remains that this web site.

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

if the only feasible and realistic explanation for near free fall and total pulverization.

einsteen

12th September 2006, 05:26 PM

What a shocking video, did you notice that she said it was a military plane ? at 12 min 14

T.A.M.

12th September 2006, 05:29 PM

ding ding ding!!!!

Our first person with a CT sway (not full blown CT) who did exactly as we said they would early in this post....

You win the prize Einsteen....

TAM

Architect

12th September 2006, 05:31 PM

What a shocking video, did you notice that she said it was a military plane ? at 12 min 14

She also thought it hit the same tower as the first plane; it's a good example about why one has to substantiate eye-witness evidence with physical or other evidence. Except Chris, of course, who can't substantiate anything beyond a delusional interpretation of one or two photographs....

Architect

12th September 2006, 05:33 PM

Curiously, no one has any proof (or my proof drives you off) and you prefer willful ignorance. Check the new thread I've started in this forum.

.

Get professional psychiatric help, mate, and get it now.

einsteen

12th September 2006, 05:42 PM

ding ding ding!!!!

Our first person with a CT sway (not full blown CT) who did exactly as we said they would early in this post....

You win the prize Einsteen....

TAM

Man, I'm quite realistic, i don't believe you can draw conclusions from this, I've heard a lot of people talking "it was no AA" or things like that, but people can say a lot. Did you know that there are even sites with complete ghostplanes and sites that are sure that some CNN movies are faked, I don't know what I have to think about that, I'm more a person of small steps, step-by-step. Although the strange anomalie also never got much attention.

And of course I am sure that the ultimate truth should be found in the laws of physics, the laws of physics never lie, never.

Christophera

12th September 2006, 05:45 PM

Unless its politicians, of course?

I've just watched this and my heavens, it's depressing. I think Chris would have trouble with it, but perhaps not given his state of mind:

http://www.revver.com/view.php?id=59686

Bad scene, the lady is right.

When you people going to wake up?

T.A.M.

12th September 2006, 05:49 PM

Man, I'm quite realistic, i don't believe you can draw conclusions from this, I've heard a lot of people talking "it was no AA" or things like that, but people can say a lot. Did you know that there are even sites with complete ghostplanes and sites that are sure that some CNN movies are faked, I don't know what I have to think about that, I'm more a person of small steps, step-by-step. Although the strange anomalie also never got much attention.

And of course I am sure that the ultimate truth should be found in the laws of physics, the laws of physics never lie, never.

Ya i know Einsteen; it was just a little fun poke. Early in this thread, the first few of us who watched the video picked up on her line about a "Military Plane" and we all said "watch the CTers run with her saying it was a military plane", and you were the first CT leaning person who actually mentioned it...

TAM:D

Architect

12th September 2006, 05:52 PM

Bad scene, the lady is right.

When you people going to wake up?

Put the keyboard down, Chris, and call for medical assistance. You are not well.

einsteen

12th September 2006, 05:53 PM

That's true, there is still CT in me

Skibum

12th September 2006, 05:55 PM

And of course I am sure that the ultimate truth should be found in the laws of physics, the laws of physics never lie, never.

Perhaps, but when the laws of physics are totally misunderstood and incorrectly applied by a group of nitwits, they may as well be a lie.

einsteen

12th September 2006, 06:00 PM

Perhaps, but when the laws of physics are totally misunderstood and incorrectly applied by a group of nitwits, they may as well be a lie.

You mean the die-hard CT'ers ?

It may take a while. We are just at the beginning of the show my friend, believe me, the show just started.

Christophera

12th September 2006, 06:12 PM

Put the keyboard down, Chris, and call for medical assistance. You are not well.

Architect, considering you cannot understand questions about load bearing capacities related to deformations of bearing structure, you hardly have any credibility, or no more than anybody else with a keyboard.

I can see no inherent respect for human values, reason and principles or the capacity to use an idea that would protect children, life, now and in the future, such as justice with truth, protecting rights and freedoms. You demonstrate far less awareness of principles than others here do.

In the realm of reason you suffer badly.

You have not shown in a way meeting simple and logical criteria for consistency with raw evidence of photographic nature from the scene, to support a position you actually have never made and rarely mention. The steel columns, remember? You could never produce a photo of the core that actually showed the same size of vertical steel as the obvious heavy columns around the outside of the core. What comprises the spire, held up there by the remnants of concrete shear wall.

What you and yours produced were misrepresented construction photos showing NO heavy columns in the core. Or the shot with the core to the left, on the top floor with interior box columns on the left. The shot is not loking out into the core.

Here is genuine evidence showing a concrete shearwall holding up a sagging steel column.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif

Hard, raw evidence Archie.

Architect

12th September 2006, 06:15 PM

Architect, considering you cannot understand questions about load bearing capacities related to deformations of bearing structure, you hardly have any credibility, or no more than anybody else with a keyboard.

I can see no inherent respect for human values, reason and principles or the capacity to use an idea that would protect children, life, now and in the future, such as justice with truth, protecting rights and freedoms. You demonstrate far less awareness of principles than others here do.

In the realm of reason you suffer badly.

You have not shown in a way meeting simple and logical criteria for consistency with raw evidence of photographic nature from the scene, to support a position you actually have never made and rarely mention. The steel columns, remember? You could never produce a photo of the core that actually showed the same size of vertical steel as the obvious heavy columns around the outside of the core. What comprises the spire, held up there by the remnants of concrete shear wall.

What you and yours produced were misrepresented construction photos showing NO heavy columns in the core. Or the shot with the core to the left, on the top floor with interior box columns on the left. The shot is not loking out into the core.

Here is genuine evidence showing a concrete shearwall holding up a sagging steel column.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif

Hard, raw evidence Archie.

Chris.

Everyone has either stopped talking to you or is now taking the piss at your expense. You have become a complete joke. Even the CTers are avoiding you like a bad smell.

Take it from us. You aren't well. I'm sufficiently worried that I'm thinking of taking the matter to the mods, because you need to get off this computer and get help

Cheers,

Architect.

ps I am postgraduate qualified in fields such as structures. Don't waste my time.