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

[Dog Town]

Chris. Dude. My irony meter just broke. Thanks a lot!


Let me help!!
3161

Hell blew mine up!

[TheGrunion]

No evidence, no reason, no brains, only improperly phrased questions.

No wonder the government was infiltrated and so few realized.

Can you explain to me what rebar is?

If so, will you explain to me what rebar is?

[einsteen]

I did a small start to reproduce Greening's end velocity, it is tough if you also have a normal life but here is a first start, I need some physicists to check it

http://members.lycos.nl/einsteen/

[Architect]

Can you explain to me what rebar is?

If so, will you explain to me what rebar is?

Its the Reinforcing BARs used in structural concrete work, to resist tension loads.

[Piggy]

Sorry, can't wade thru all 5 gazillion pages, but in answer to the OP, I presume somebody surely has posted this link (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm) already?

6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

So the answer is, yes, someone has seen a realistic explanation.

Are we done, then?

[TheGrunion]

Its the Reinforcing BARs used in structural concrete work, to resist tension loads.

Thanks, I'm a civil engineer. I was just looking for a response from Christophera.

[chipmunk stew]

Here, read the assumptions

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/844/image2ee7.gif
Greening's "block" is nothing like the solid block you drew in your picture. Read the sentence containing your second highlight again, and pay close attention to the following term: non-elastic collision.

Your illustration is a complete misrepresentation of his model.

[Blue Mountain]

Sorry, can't wade thru all 5 gazillion pages, but in answer to the OP, I presume somebody surely has posted this link (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm) already?

So the answer is, yes, someone has seen a realistic explanation.

Are we done, then?
Certainly, once Christophera agrees with NIST report, which was compiled by a team of experts in the field with access to powerful computers running advanced modelling software.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Come back next year. He may have left by then.

[Brainache]

Certainly, once Christophera agrees with NIST report, which was compiled by a team of experts in the field with access to powerful computers running advanced modelling software.
:


You mean it wasn't compiled by slaves hypnotised in their childhood by Circassian Druids working for the UN World Government?

You haven't offered any proof...

Chris has proof.

My dad was a copper, therefore everything Chris says must be true.

I think it's medication time again.:covereyes

[Piggy]

Here's my theory....

Are you ready, cause it's a doozy....

The leaders of the movements claiming that Bush orchestrated 9/11... are on the Bush payroll.

They're like that guy Nixon once paid to dress as a hippie and picket the Whitehouse in order to make Nixon's opponents appear to be allied with radical kooks.

These guys were given money and provided doctored footage. Their experts are on the Bush payroll, too. And their mission is to recruit a bunch of wackos to make a huge ruckus, and make the anti-Bush crowd appear to be complete idiots.

[Regnad Kcin]

Way ahead of you (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1607031&postcount=2032), Piggy.

[Piggy]

I figured others must have already seen the light as well.

But we need to get the word out, y'know. Critical mass, that's what it's about.

And to make sure we're taken seriously, we need lots of big text, and some colored text, and a whole warehouse full of exclamation points!!!!!!!

[gumboot]

I figured others must have already seen the light as well.

But we need to get the word out, y'know. Critical mass, that's what it's about.

And to make sure we're taken seriously, we need lots of big text, and some colored text, and a whole warehouse full of exclamation points!!!!!!!


You're missing something...

:) :D :o ;) :p :( :confused: :mad: :rolleyes: :cool: :eek: :blush: :boggled: :eye-poppi :jaw-dropp :boxedin: :covereyes :crowded:

-Andrew

[William Rea]

I've decided to make it easy for you...

The reason common sense makes you say what you do above is because you're applying common sense to what you're seeing as an outside observer.

This is a bad idea. You need to apply common sense to the SYSTEM involved, and what is happening to it...

Apply common sense to each of these pictures:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_10153450d3ba45e8e2.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1503)

Note:

In the first picture, it really doesn't look like such a solid object could collapse on itself from such small amount of damage, does it?

But then look at the second...

Makes a difference doesn't it?

No, these are not meant as accurate representations, they are intended to show to you, in a clear graphic way, how much difference it makes depending on whether you apply common sense to what you can SEE, or to what is ACTUALLY HAPPENING.

-Andrew

OK, I'll restate it again.

1. I understand that it is a structure and not a solid object as I have done from the start of my posts so I don't understand why you persist with making this point.

2. As I have said on numerous occasions you are attacking the analogy for behaviours and properties that I have already stated it does not extend to. I have already demonstrated that the density of a material is not on its own an indicator of its strength or toughness. Likewise with the overall density of a structure (mass/volume space occupied by the boundaries of the overall structure).

3. The underlying structure of the building was designed with several multiples of safety facor and redundancy and it simply does not make sense that a progressive collapse would undermine that, even taking into account the roof trusses and the trussed floors collapsing.

4. Unfortunately I am unable to obtain a view of the building core but to put your picture in perspective I have attached a more accurate view of the structure and superimposed as you have. Tells quite a different story doesn't it (the drawing is an extract from the PA drawing).

[William Rea]

Will shows a complete and utter disregard for structural issues. It's almost impressive.

Not as impressive as some peoples complete inability or unwillingness to absorb the information from previous posts and move on, maybe then we can discuss the structure.

I guess I need to put a couple of pages of caveats to each and every post if this thing is going to flow.

[William Rea]

If we should use 'common sense' I would expect the block wouldn't fall and if it does it takes the way of least resistance, i.e. through air (after breaking some floors) and not through the building itself. But common sense is no science.

Let's have a look of the common sense of the offical report,

http://members.lycos.nl/einsteen/greening-model.gif

I can't believe people believe this utter-nonsense as a model and stop
thinking because it has been written black on white in a report.

Apparently, bullets don't ricochet Einsteen!

[einsteen]

Greening's "block" is nothing like the solid block you drew in your picture. Read the sentence containing your second highlight again, and pay close attention to the following term: non-elastic collision.

Your illustration is a complete misrepresentation of his model.

No it isn't. Please provide me a picture and I am willing to replace it. This is what Greening assumes,each mass is in fact a point mass, although with an area and no height. I'm talking about the first stage of collapse.

[einsteen]

ricochet ???

[Mince]

einsteen, you betray your name!

[einsteen]

That's why I used steen, because I am a McDonald's employee and no Einstein

[William Rea]

ricochet ???

Bullets ricochet because they take the path of least resistance, a common trait of most processes in Science and Engineering.

[einsteen]

Thanks William, never heard that word.

[Belz...]

You not condtioned to that degree, but you are conditioned.

So they condition Canadians, too ?

If you were not conditioned you would be responsive to raw evidence and reason

Funny you should say that. How about you beign responsive to dozens of pictures of steel columns you fancifuly label "box columns" ?

and when unable to explain what this (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is or why the steel core columns are not seen, you would aquiese and admit that the steel core columns probably not exist.

See above.

[Belz...]

If we should use 'common sense' I would expect the block wouldn't fall and if it does it takes the way of least resistance, i.e. through air (after breaking some floors) and not through the building itself. But common sense is no science.

Yes. And you DO know that most of the building WAS air, right ?

I can't believe people believe this utter-nonsense as a model and stop
thinking because it has been written black on white in a report.

I can't believe people think the universe is so simplistic that they know better than thousands of experts in their own field.

I can't believe it's not butter, either.

[Powa]

So they condition Canadians, too ?

It's worldwide. I'm from Slovenia. :eye-poppi

[Belz...]

I haven't said it has been done, I haven't said it was done on WTC

Irrelevant. You said it was reasonable. Considering the amount of damage the WTC caused, your notion is ludicrous.

so quit with analysing my psychosis and detach yourself before you disappear up somewhere dark in your bid to try to undermine me!

Can I consider this a threat ?

People don't always do reasonable or logical things because they find them difficult to deal with.

Wiring a building to explode that might go off when people are working inside it is not reasonable. Only a bad fiction writer would consider this a good plot element.

I am putting forward a notion based upon damage limitation that it would preserve the maximum amount of life and real estate if a building were wired to be demolished in case of a disaster that would result in a catastrophic failure.

So you ARE saying that you'd consider it yourself.

If you were trapped in the adjacent building waiting for a tower to topple on you which would you prefer?

Running down the stairs.

Like I said no matter how distasteful you find it my logic is sound.

No, it's not, because you're assuming that nothing can happen to the explosives in the meantime.

In fact you hit the nail on the head, why isn't what we observed logical? I could suggest that the FEMA report is framed to fit what was observed

That's what science usually does.

I've been reading FEMA as directed by several on here and they say there was an imbalance of the forces, they even provide a diagram. Can't have it both ways? Are you agreeing with me now that the official story is wrong?

No, I'm saying that it would've taken much more "imbalance" for the thing to topple. Again, your reading ability is in question.

I know what you're saying and tend to agree but sometimes you've got to put something ridiculous out there to wake people up from this dream that governments act morally ALL the time.

False dichotomy.

I understand that it is a structure and not a solid object as I have done from the start of my posts so I don't understand why you persist with making this point.

Because you keep treating it as such.

The underlying structure of the building was designed with several multiples of safety facor and redundancy and it simply does not make sense that a progressive collapse would undermine that, even taking into account the roof trusses and the trussed floors collapsing.

No, skyscrapers aren't usually designed to handle 20 floors falling onto them.

Bullets ricochet because they take the path of least resistance, a common trait of most processes in Science and Engineering.

REALLY ? Well that's new to me. Admittedly, skin is harder than air. By your logic, no human beign could ever be killed by gunshot. Do you even stop to read your posts ?

[Belz...]

The photo of he rebar is taken from 7500 feet. The image of the spire (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) is taken by the same camera one second before so the scale and size of the rebar is apparent.

I'm sure SOMEONE here can calculate how wide a 3" object would appear from that distance, and I'm pretty sure it'd be too small for it to even register on the picture.

[Z]

William, here's what I'm trying to understand:

Are you suggesting that the horizontal elements of the upper sections are so heavily reinforced and rigid, that there's no chance of them breaking up as the upper sections tilt into the damaged area of the building? Because that seems to be exactly what you are suggesting.

As I understand it - and I fully admit I might be mistaken - the aircraft destroyed several support columns from the inner box, while creating a hole in the outer support. From the diagrams and photographs, my guess is that the total damage on the interior was proportionally larger than the total damage to the exterior. Since the interior was designed to support more weight than the exterior, it's fairly safe to suggest that the exterior facing could not be expected to hold the upper stories safely in place; but at the same time, since the interior was seriously compromised by initial impact and subsequent plasticizing due to fire, the interior was not likely to support the upper stories for long, either.

Now, bear with me here... if the interior supports did give - and, from reading and watching about other building collapses, it's safe to assume that the time between initial column failure and final column failure for the interior was one or two seconds apart at best - then what's keeping the upper floors from sagging in the middle and collapsing into the damaged region? You've made the suggestion, whether intentional or not, that each floor is like a rigid plate that would stay whole whether falling, sliding, or tilting; when, in fact, each floor is made of a variety of materials and, once free from its support, would be likely to suffer torsion damage and failure of cross members in numerous places.

So the interior columns fail. The floors, no longer supported, begin to sag and, ultimately, collapse downward. The outer columns, receiving less damage proportionally, hold up the outer edges of the floors momentarily, but also fail due to increased stress. The result would be a cave-in, essentially. The upper sections, it seems to me, would simply drop into the damaged area - not whole, but as a collection of debris of fairly large size.

The images we see of the collapse are misleading in one way: as the collapse begins, we see what we think are entire, whole floors dropping in sync into the damage zone; but what are we really witnessing? The drop of outer support members, as stresses in the damage zone cause catastrophic failure of those outer supports at that level, allowing those above it to slide down, into the damaged area.

In your concept, if I understand correctly, you suggest that the weight of the upper portions remains evenly distributed around the building in spite of the loss of columns, and that the upper sections remain fixed and rigid during structural failure; that those columns not damaged could continue to support their share of the load even as the building top fell, causing it to hinge into the damaged area, and slide through the damage, toward the ground, without significantly damaging the lower portions of the building. Is that about right? I hope you'll correct me, because that makes no sense at all - but that seems to me to be what you're claiming.

As for why the core isn't still standing, isn't it pretty understandable? I mean, there's a pretty good reason we don't build cores like that first, then make the building around them. Without their cross-supports, they topple and crush themselves under their own weight in the wind. Anyone who says otherwise never tried stacking LEGO when they were kids. :D

[ArmillarySphere]

As for why the core isn't still standing, isn't it pretty understandable? I mean, there's a pretty good reason we don't build cores like that first, then make the building around them. Without their cross-supports, they topple and crush themselves under their own weight in the wind. Anyone who says otherwise never tried stacking LEGO when they were kids. :D
The wind wouldn't be needed.

The floor trusses have two ends - outer and inner. As the progressive collapse moves downwards, each failing floor pulls the wall columns inwards and the core columns outwards. The core columns are heavier and have more stability, so remain standing a little longer. However, they weren't intended to be stable on their own, so the bracing against lateral forces is limited. Add the outwards wrench from the main collapse, and they're bound to go. Which they did.

[William Rea]

William, here's what I'm trying to understand:
Are you suggesting that the horizontal elements of the upper sections are so heavily reinforced and rigid, that there's no chance of them breaking up as the upper sections tilt into the damaged area of the building? Because that seems to be exactly what you are suggesting.


Do you mean vertical here? Just clarifying.

[William Rea]

The wind wouldn't be needed.

The floor trusses have two ends - outer and inner. As the progressive collapse moves downwards, each failing floor pulls the wall columns inwards and the core columns outwards. The core columns are heavier and have more stability, so remain standing a little longer. However, they weren't intended to be stable on their own, so the bracing against lateral forces is limited. Add the outwards wrench from the main collapse, and they're bound to go. Which they did.

What lateral forces?

[Z]

Do you mean vertical here? Just clarifying.


No, horizontal. The floors, and their braces.

[William Rea]

Can I consider this a threat ?

REALLY ? Well that's new to me. Admittedly, skin is harder than air. By your logic, no human beign could ever be killed by gunshot. Do you even stop to read your posts ?

You can consider it what you like but I would find it unlikely that I could force you to disappear up your own backside! Especially when you voluntarily do it so well.

I think you need to learn to read other people's posts more thoroughly and think before replying. If you did you might notice I didn't mention skin anywhere, try considering the observation of a bullet ricocheting off of a wall.

BTW, smartass sarcasm requires an element of truth about the subject to be effective, so I suggest you read posts and think before trying to belittle someone so errantly to massage your own ego.

[ArmillarySphere]

I'm obviously guesstimating here, but my hypothesis is that the falling trusses pulled the core columns outwards, so that they're no longer perfectly vertical. Gravity will then introduce a component that's not oriented along the columns' length. Even a small shift would be enough, given that the entire support structure now went down. Welds and rivets can only hold so much force.

[Ziggurat]

No. I am aware from other sources exactly how the towers were designed and NIST is a waste of time. They do not explain free fall. They do not explain free fall to the ground of the entire structure. They do not explain how this happened twice and why the impact/fall sequence is backwards/ The wrong tower fell first if itwas a collapse.

The second tower to be hit was hit much lower down. The weight of the tower above the damaged part on the second tower was therefore MUCH greater, and so it is not, in fact, at all surprising that it collapsed sooner. You are an idiot.

P.S. I used to work at NIST. I drove by the building where they did the analysis on the steel girders, and I saw those twisted I-beams every single day. I don't know the people who did that work personally, but I know NIST. And you're basically calling my former colleagues liars and accomplices to murder. You can go to hell.

[Z]

EDIT: Never mind. My ASCII skills suck.

Anyway, the question remains.

[William Rea]

No, horizontal. The floors, and their braces.

OK, thanks for making such a considered reply.

I'll need a little time before replying.

[Z]

No problem - not like I have a life anyway. :p

[Belz...]

I think you need to learn to read other people's posts more thoroughly and think before replying. If you did you might notice I didn't mention skin anywhere, try considering the observation of a bullet ricocheting off of a wall.

Unfortunately I seem to understand the implications of your own posts better than you do:

Bullets ricochet because they take the path of least resistance, a common trait of most processes in Science and Engineering.

You said that bullets ricochet BECAUSE they take the path of least resistance. I objected, because even when the bullet hits someone's skin, the path of least resistance is STILL the air. Obviously, the bullet doesn't ricochet, so your assertion is wrong.

BTW, smartass sarcasm requires an element of truth about the subject to be effective, so I suggest you read posts and think before trying to belittle someone so errantly to massage your own ego.

Unlike you, at least I adressed your points. Have you anything besides insults ? 'Cause I can dish out those all day.

[Christophera]

The wind wouldn't be needed.

The floor trusses have two ends - outer and inner. As the progressive collapse moves downwards, each failing floor pulls the wall columns inwards and the core columns outwards. The core columns are heavier and have more stability, so remain standing a little longer. However, they weren't intended to be stable on their own, so the bracing against lateral forces is limited. Add the outwards wrench from the main collapse, and they're bound to go. Which they did.


What lateral forces?

Yea,

and what core columns?

http://concretecore.741.com

[Belz...]

What lateral forces?

You DO know what lateral forces are, right ?

[ktesibios]

I'm sure SOMEONE here can calculate how wide a 3" object would appear from that distance, and I'm pretty sure it'd be too small for it to even register on the picture.

The angle it would subtend is pretty easy to figure. If w=width of the object and d= distance to the object, its angular width would be 2*arctan(w/(2*d)). For a 3" object and a 7500' distance, that works out to 0.0019 degree or about 6.875 arc-seconds.

Using the 644.5 foot height of 2 World Financial Center as a yardstick, I make the horizontal field of view of that picture to be between 1220 and 1230 feet at the distance to 2 WFC. Using a 7000 foot distance from the camera to WFC2 (using Google maps to estimate that the WFC would be about 500 feet closer to the camera than the towers), the picture's angular field of view would be just about 10 degrees.

To achieve a 3" resolution the horizontal resolution of the picture would have to be 10/0.0019 or a little over 5000 pixels wide. Even 10 Mp digital cameras typically have horizontal resolutions of no more than 3600-odd pixels.

Using a ruler on my monitor, the image of WFC2 is 4.5" high. The skinny thing sticking up near the middle of the "spire", which I assume is that Chris is calling 3" rebar, is about 1/64" wide. So that's ((1/64)/4.5)*644.5 or 2.23 feet wide.

Putting a ruler up to the monitor is no way to get precise measurements, but it's enough to make it obvious that the purported 3" rebar is nearly 9 times as thick as Chris claims.

ETA: I just noticed that the Web page image is 640 pixels wide (that was only staring at me from the browser title bar; nothing obvious, eh?). Since it's easy to work out that the field of view at the WTC complex is a bit over 1200 feet wide, nothing much narrower than 2 feet could possibly be resolved at all.

[gumboot]

I'm sure SOMEONE here can calculate how wide a 3" object would appear from that distance, and I'm pretty sure it'd be too small for it to even register on the picture.


If someone can spot for me where the photograph was taken (google earth screen cap or something?) I can roughly calculate the pixel-scale of the photo. It won't be overly accurate, but I suspect the answer is going to be metres, not inches, so it won't matter about accuracy.

-Andrew

[gumboot]

I'm sure SOMEONE here can calculate how wide a 3" object would appear from that distance, and I'm pretty sure it'd be too small for it to even register on the picture.


I did a rough calculation based on my best-guess for the location of the photograph. I don't know NYC at all so a more accurate calculation will need to await someone else's info. The distance from my chosen location to the North Tower was about 1.2 miles.

Horizontal distance across width of frame at the point of the North Tower came up to be 15,369.83 inches (I kept it in inches since that's what is being debated).

Divided by the picture width of 640 pixels gives us:

1 pixel in that photo, at the distance of the North Tower, is approximately 24 inches squared (or 4 sq ft) (assuming a square pixel).

In other words it is quite simply photographically impossible for that image to depict an object 3" in size.

-Andrew

[ktesibios]

I got very similar numbers. In fact, since the width of the picture in pixels is known and there's an object of known size at very nearly the same distance as the "spire", it isn't even necessary to know the distance to the camera. It comes down to a simple exercise in proportions. I doubt that the error involved in doing it that way will be significantly worse than the error involved in trying to estimate distances from online maps.

The building to the left of the spire, with the domed top, is 2 World Financial Center. It's 196.5 meters tall (just about 644.5 feet). Measuring the picture width in WFC2 height units gives a horizontal field of view very close to what you calculated. That means that one pixel is close to two feet wide at the "spire" (I get just about 23 inches).

[gumboot]

The building to the left of the spire, with the domed top, is 2 World Financial Center. It's 196.5 meters tall (just about 644.5 feet). Measuring the picture width in WFC2 height units gives a horizontal field of view very close to what you calculated. That means that one pixel is close to two feet wide at the "spire" (I get just about 23 inches).


In this event it doesn't make much difference, but it can do. You need the camera location to calculate the angle of view. Depending on the focal length used for the photograph, measuring objects on a closer or more distant horizontal plane could produce widely different numbers.

The wider the lens, the greater this difference will be.

-Andrew

[ktesibios]

I think I see. If you measure the width of the picture in proportion to an object of known size, like the height of 2WFC, you can figure what the linear field of view was at the plane in which your reference object lies. If you know the distance between the camera and that plane, you can figure the angular field of view with simple trig. If you then measure the width of some other object in proportion to the width of the picture, you can figure what angle it subtended at the camera. If you know that and the distance from the camera to the object, you can figure out its size with a bit more simple trig.

Is that more or less correct?

[firecoins]

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?

gravity

[Christophera]

gravity

Dang, someone should of thought of that.

I guess we did and it explains how all the material that were blasted out of position as part of th towers got to the ground.

Amazing thing gravity. Hasn't failed us yet.

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

[Christophera]

I got very similar numbers. In fact, since the width of the picture in pixels is known and there's an object of known size at very nearly the same distance as the "spire", it isn't even necessary to know the distance to the camera. It comes down to a simple exercise in proportions. I doubt that the error involved in doing it that way will be significantly worse than the error involved in trying to estimate distances from online maps.

The building to the left of the spire, with the domed top, is 2 World Financial Center. It's 196.5 meters tall (just about 644.5 feet). Measuring the picture width in WFC2 height units gives a horizontal field of view very close to what you calculated. That means that one pixel is close to two feet wide at the "spire" (I get just about 23 inches).

A two foot column at 7500 feet. (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg)


One second later from the same camera, vertical, flexible structure, fine elements a little lower is seen. (What happens when you look down a line of 100 ,slightly obliquely at 7500 feet, and they are 3 inches in diameter, then a row takes off at 90 degrees across the line of sight?) (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)

To help with analysis:
That is the north tower, here is the south tower a little further up, what is seen here (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)?

[gumboot]

I think I see. If you measure the width of the picture in proportion to an object of known size, like the height of 2WFC, you can figure what the linear field of view was at the plane in which your reference object lies. If you know the distance between the camera and that plane, you can figure the angular field of view with simple trig. If you then measure the width of some other object in proportion to the width of the picture, you can figure what angle it subtended at the camera. If you know that and the distance from the camera to the object, you can figure out its size with a bit more simple trig.

Is that more or less correct?


Yeah... pretty much. :)

I tend to process visually, so I prefer to use the photograph itself to determine "edge of frame" lines on an accurate plan image of the site (such as an aerial photograph). You can then determine the width of the frame at any given plane perpendicular to the centre-line of the frame by measuring the distance between the edge-of-frame lines at that plane (technically the plane is actually an arc, not a straight line, but it's close enough not to worry). Dividing by the image resolution will give you the pixel-scale at that given plane.

As the image is clearly taken on a long lens, the variation in pixel-scale for 2WFC and WTC1 are not going to be very significant.

Of course a precise calculation would require us to know the resolution of the CCD in the camera that took the photo as well as the CCD cell shape and quality, AND the focal length at the time. These will affect how sharp the photo is, and how much data is originally captured. If either of these is below a level that could detect a 3" object, it's irrelevant what resolution the photo itself is, the photo will not display the object accurately.

Lastly, the air between WTC1 and the camera is going to have a lot of dust in it from the two collapses. Though potentially invisible to the naked eye, they will diffuse light reflected off the "spire", thus further impairing any ability to take accurate readings from the photo.

And they wonder why we don't give their photographic interpretation skills much credit... :rolleyes:

-Andrew

[gumboot]

A two foot column at 7500 feet. (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg)


One second later from the same camera, vertical, flexible structure, fine elements a little lower is seen. (What happens when you look down a line of 100 ,slightly obliquely at 7500 feet, and they are 3 inches in diameter, then a row takes off at 90 degrees across the line of sight?) (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)


The pixel-scale on this image is even lower than the other one. You cannot see a 3 inch object in this photograph. It is technically impossible. You are a liar. Stop lying.

-Andrew

[Belz...]

(What happens when you look down a line of 100 ,slightly obliquely at 7500 feet, and they are 3 inches in diameter, then a row takes off at 90 degrees across the line of sight?)

Oh! So you think that, after the core is pulverized by thousands of kilos of C4, the rebar remains, largely intact ?

[Hellbound]

4. Unfortunately I am unable to obtain a view of the building core but to put your picture in perspective I have attached a more accurate view of the structure and superimposed as you have. Tells quite a different story doesn't it (the drawing is an extract from the PA drawing).

Well, just to be really accurate and give a view that isn't misleading about the amount of damage, try this picture:

[chipmunk stew]

Well, just to be really accurate and give a view that isn't misleading about the amount of damage, try this picture:
Actually, I prefer something more like this:
http://www.suvi.org/NYattack/wtc_attack/hole_in_tower1.jpg

[TK0001]

Personally, I think we really did land on the moon.

[Bell]

Personally, I think we really did land on the moon.

No, you shill! Where are the stars?! (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo11/lores/as11_40_5903.jpg)

[TK0001]

No, you shill! Where are the stars?! (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo11/lores/as11_40_5903.jpg)

Well hot damn, I guess we didn't land on the moon.

We need to vote LBJ out of office TOOT SWEET!!!@#

[Hellbound]

Actually, I prefer something more like this:
http://www.suvi.org/NYattack/wtc_attack/hole_in_tower1.jpg

Yeah.

But when people show a pic, model, or drawing of the whole with the entire building, it does look like a little bitty hole that couldn't drop a big building like that.

When you view it as if the top of the building is a seperate building on it's own, as the damaged floors rest on the lower structure and support the higher as a building rests on the ground, then it clears it up a bit. Don't consider it as a few floors of a 100 story building damaged, but as the bottem few floors of a smaller building (just the parts from the damaged areas up). It suddenly becomes much more understandable how this caused a collapse, and why it wouldn't topple.

[alexg]

I have followed this thread from page 1 through about 40 pages and I am dying to know if any definitive answer has been given to the issue of the supposed concrete core - and specifically if anything was received from the architectural firm Chris quoted.


Thanks!

[Bell]

I have followed this thread from page 1 through about 40 pages and I am dying to know if any definitive answer has been given to the issue of the supposed concrete core - and specifically if anything was received from the architectural firm Chris quoted.


Thanks!

The short answer would be 'no' :boxedin:

[Alareth]

I have followed this thread from page 1 through about 40 pages and I am dying to know if any definitive answer has been given to the issue of the supposed concrete core - and specifically if anything was received from the architectural firm Chris quoted.


Thanks!

Christophera is apparently the only single living person on the planet who knows that there was a concrete core and everyone else including the architects and construction workers have been hypnotized into forgetting about it.

[Brainache]

Christophera is apparently the only single living person on the planet who knows that there was a concrete core and everyone else including the architects and construction workers have been hypnotized into forgetting about it.

Don't forget that people who live on the other side of the world with no connection to the whole event were also hypnotised in their childhood to deny the existence of a concrete core.

The reason for this is that the druids who built stone henge have been trying to take over the world for 5000 years. And the court officials in Santa Barbara are refusing to release witness statements from the 1870s.

All clear now?

[MortFurd]

Christophera is apparently the only single living person on the planet who knows that there was a concrete core and everyone else including the architects and construction workers have been hypnotized into forgetting about it.

Starting more or less here and running for several pages. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57426&page=92) Christophera explains to us the nature of the world and that we've all (including the people on the other side of the planet) been hypnotized in school to ignore the REAL world.

[alexg]

Christophera is apparently the only single living person on the planet who knows that there was a concrete core and everyone else including the architects and construction workers have been hypnotized into forgetting about it.


This has no doubt been noted already, but there is an impenetrable concrete core between his ears.

[Architect]

This has no doubt been noted already, but there is an impenetrable concrete core between his ears.

Actually, I think you'll find that it's Invisicrete tm although the C4 coated rebar unfortuantely hasn't stopped him using the internet.

But leave him alone, he's ill.

[jskowron]

I really liked the way that two of the four sentences in your OP didn't contain any grammatical errors.

[Alareth]

I really liked the way that two of the four sentences in your OP didn't contain any grammatical errors.

I guess there is some hope for salvaging this thread after all. :)

[Christophera]

Christophera is apparently the only single living person on the planet who knows that there was a concrete core and everyone else including the architects and construction workers have been hypnotized into forgetting about it.


Alareth is apparently is not the only single living person on the planet who fails to read competent documents by engineers, Ph.d's, (http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf)showing that there was a concrete core and everyone else including the architects and construction workers have been hypnotized into forgetting about it.

[Christophera]

I have followed this thread from page 1 through about 40 pages and I am dying to know if any definitive answer has been given to the issue of the supposed concrete core - and specifically if anything was received from the architectural firm Chris quoted.


Thanks!

Having followed this thread from page 1 through about 40 pages you are dead if you don't know if any definitive answer has been given to the issue of the supposed steel core columns, particuarly from images of the demolition - and specifically if any answer to my questions about "why the steel columns are unseen" has ever been produced.


Welcome!

[Christophera]

The angle it would subtend is pretty easy to figure. If w=width of the object and d= distance to the object, its angular width would be 2*arctan(w/(2*d)). For a 3" object and a 7500' distance, that works out to 0.0019 degree or about 6.875 arc-seconds.

Using the 644.5 foot height of 2 World Financial Center as a yardstick, I make the horizontal field of view of that picture to be between 1220 and 1230 feet at the distance to 2 WFC. Using a 7000 foot distance from the camera to WFC2 (using Google maps to estimate that the WFC would be about 500 feet closer to the camera than the towers), the picture's angular field of view would be just about 10 degrees.

To achieve a 3" resolution the horizontal resolution of the picture would have to be 10/0.0019 or a little over 5000 pixels wide. Even 10 Mp digital cameras typically have horizontal resolutions of no more than 3600-odd pixels.

Using a ruler on my monitor, the image of WFC2 is 4.5" high. The skinny thing sticking up near the middle of the "spire", which I assume is that Chris is calling 3" rebar, is about 1/64" wide. So that's ((1/64)/4.5)*644.5 or 2.23 feet wide.

Putting a ruler up to the monitor is no way to get precise measurements, but it's enough to make it obvious that the purported 3" rebar is nearly 9 times as thick as Chris claims.

ETA: I just noticed that the Web page image is 640 pixels wide (that was only staring at me from the browser title bar; nothing obvious, eh?). Since it's easy to work out that the field of view at the WTC complex is a bit over 1200 feet wide, nothing much narrower than 2 feet could possibly be resolved at all.

Leaving out the information that on the left side many rebar are in a row and that on the right side they may be moving more than 2 feet. Notice on the right that some have pixelated out. Notice no alternative explanation is provided other than "We are not seeing what we are seeing." (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)

[Brainache]

Why does that document say there were more than 5000 casualties?
Is that including the people injured? If so wouldn't the figure be even higher?

[twinstead]

Having followed this thread from page 1 through about 40 pages you are dead if you don't know if any definitive answer has been given to the issue of the supposed steel core columns, particuarly from images of the demolition - and specifically if any answer to my questions about "why the steel columns are unseen" has ever been produced.



I would submit any sane person who has read this entire thread can only come to the conclusion that anybody who suggests that it has been proved the WTC had a solid concrete core is, well, with all due respect Chris, and I mean this in the most respectful way, simply not sane.

Or something like that.

[Belz...]

Notice on the right that some have pixelated out. Notice no alternative explanation is provided other than "We are not seeing what we are seeing."

Oh, we ARE seeing what we're seeing: steel columns.

[alexg]

What page in that document Chris?

ETA: is the part about the concrete core?

[alexg]

Don't forget that people who live on the other side of the world with no connection to the whole event were also hypnotised in their childhood to deny the existence of a concrete core.

The reason for this is that the druids who built stone henge have been trying to take over the world for 5000 years. And the court officials in Santa Barbara are refusing to release witness statements from the 1870s.

All clear now?

Somehow I think maybe you are not joking?

[Alareth]

Somehow I think maybe you are not joking?

Sadly, no.

[Christophera]

I would submit any sane person who has read this entire thread can only come to the conclusion that anybody who suggests that it has been proved the WTC had a solid concrete core is, well, with all due respect Chris, and I mean this in the most respectful way, simply not sane.

Or something like that.

You represent my words as if I'd said the towers had a solid concrete core.

I've never said that.

The tower had a hollow or tubular concrete core.

As I show here,

http://concretecore.741.com

You have attempted a disinfo tactic to the MAX and been apprehended.

[Christophera]

Oh, we ARE seeing what we're seeing: steel columns.

Classic, .............. and you don't post the image. (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) Juvenile denial.


Hey, that rhymes.

[Arus808]

Classic, .............. and you don't post the image. (http://home.comcast.net/%7Ejeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) Juvenile denial.


Hey, that rhymes.


and you post an image that clearly shows nothing of a concrete core. you defeat your own argument.

[Bell]

Christopher... 3" rebar on 4' center (http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Med/Oppgrov2big.jpg)

[alexg]

That "spire" structure still standing briefly in the dust_3.jpg clearly looks to be exterior wall, exterior wall which, as we all know, was built to support much of the building, explaining why it could still stand after the floors tore away from it.

Does anyone know if the mysterious object in the dust cloud, from Chris's other picture, might have been the same thing? I.E. A large section of exterior wall standing briefly, behind the cloud, giving the cloud that rectangular shape?

[Bell]

That "spire" structure still standing briefly in the dust_3.jpg clearly looks to be exterior wall, exterior wall which, as we all know, was built to support much of the building, explaining why it could still stand after the floors tore away from it.

Does anyone know if the mysterious object in the dust cloud, from Chris's other picture, might have been the same thing? I.E. A large section of exterior wall standing briefly, behind the cloud, giving the cloud that rectangular shape?

I'm not sure what that is. It could be the core. There was this documentary (Why The Towers Fell - I think) that showed, after the dustclouds started to flow down, the core still standing after the top of WTC 2 fell down.

[Christophera]

That "spire" structure still standing briefly in the dust_3.jpg clearly looks to be exterior wall, exterior wall which, as we all know, was built to support much of the building, explaining why it could still stand after the floors tore away from it.

Does anyone know if the mysterious object in the dust cloud, from Chris's other picture, might have been the same thing? I.E. A large section of exterior wall standing briefly, behind the cloud, giving the cloud that rectangular shape?

This spire? (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg)

[Christophera]

and you post an image that clearly shows nothing of a concrete core. you defeat your own argument.

The only opposition the asserton that the image shows rebar that what is plainly seen, cannot be seen. Whoa!.... stand back, logic at work!!

What are those fine elements if they are not rebar (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) and if there was rebar and there was a concrete core there should be images of the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif), is that not what the issue is?

[alexg]

yes, (eta. that spire) . .

[Metullus]

I have, for reasons that escape even me, reread this entire thread. When I was following the thread in real-time I came to the conclusion that Christophera was merely an unreasonable and irrational proponent of a weird CT. I believed that he was consciously ignoring the overwhelming evidence that has been presented that rebutted his premises; that he was, for whatever reason, married to his theories and just unwilling to let go.

This was my take on things until a week or so ago. Around 12 September Chris began making posts that gave me reason to reconsider my opinion. I have reread the thread with these posts in mind.

It is now my belief that Chris actually does see in the pictures what it is that he describes to us; that when he describes 3” rebar on 4’ centers in a photo he is actually seeing 3” inch rebar, when he says he sees a concrete core he actually sees concrete and aggregate and resteel. I think that he literally sees in the photos he presents detail and elements that are not there.

If I am correct, then no amount of evidence will change his mind, because to him the discussion of the photographs and what they contain is not a question of differing interpretations of possibly ambiguous images, rather it is a matter of patently clear and unambiguous images and objective fact.

[Christophera]

yes, (eta. that spire) . .

Th structure below the spire cannot be perimeter wall because it does not have 22 inch spacing.

Floor beams form large rectangles with the interior box columns (2 feet wide) which were fastened to the concrete shear wall to left of interior box column, the "spire" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg)

This image (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) shows vertical elements much too small to be perimeter box columns which were 14 inchs wide and on 22 inch centers. Scale is provided by the first spire shot I posted of a 24 inch wide interior box column, the spire (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) taken from the same camera one second earlier.

[Christophera]

I have, for reasons that escape even me, reread this entire thread. When I was following the thread in real-time I came to the conclusion that Christophera was merely an unreasonable and irrational proponent of a weird CT. I believed that he was consciously ignoring the overwhelming evidence that has been presented that rebutted his premises; that he was, for whatever reason, married to his theories and just unwilling to let go.

This was my take on things until a week or so ago. Around 12 September Chris began making posts that gave me reason to reconsider my opinion. I have reread the thread with these posts in mind.

It is now my belief that Chris actually does see in the pictures what it is that he describes to us; that when he describes 3” rebar on 4’ centers in a photo he is actually seeing 3” inch rebar, when he says he sees a concrete core he actually sees concrete and aggregate and resteel. I think that he literally sees in the photos he presents detail and elements that are not there.

If I am correct, then no amount of evidence will change his mind, because to him the discussion of the photographs and what they contain is not a question of differing interpretations of possibly ambiguous images, rather it is a matter of patently clear and unambiguous images and objective fact.

If this is not the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) of WTC 2, how many opportunities have you missed to explain what it is and explain why the supposed 47 1300 foot columns are not seen?

[Belz...]

Classic, .............. and you don't post the image. (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) Juvenile denial.

Why would I post YOUR image ? We've seen it hundreds of times already.

[Belz...]

The only opposition the asserton that the image shows rebar that what is plainly seen, cannot be seen. Whoa!.... stand back, logic at work!!

That's right. Just like you can't see rebar here.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_608045127bcb3fe09.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1557)

Th structure below the spire cannot be perimeter wall because it does not have 22 inch spacing.

You have infra-pixel vision, my friend.

[NobbyNobbs]

I have, for reasons that escape even me, reread this entire thread. When I was following the thread in real-time I came to the conclusion that Christophera was merely an unreasonable and irrational proponent of a weird CT. I believed that he was consciously ignoring the overwhelming evidence that has been presented that rebutted his premises; that he was, for whatever reason, married to his theories and just unwilling to let go.

This was my take on things until a week or so ago. Around 12 September Chris began making posts that gave me reason to reconsider my opinion. I have reread the thread with these posts in mind.

It is now my belief that Chris actually does see in the pictures what it is that he describes to us; that when he describes 3” rebar on 4’ centers in a photo he is actually seeing 3” inch rebar, when he says he sees a concrete core he actually sees concrete and aggregate and resteel. I think that he literally sees in the photos he presents detail and elements that are not there.

If I am correct, then no amount of evidence will change his mind, because to him the discussion of the photographs and what they contain is not a question of differing interpretations of possibly ambiguous images, rather it is a matter of patently clear and unambiguous images and objective fact.


Perhaps he was hypnotized at an early age to see rebar where there is none. I leave it to others to develop the reason for this. I'm only feeling partially creative today.

[Christophera]

That's right. Just like you can't see rebar here.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_608045127bcb3fe09.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1557)



You have infra-pixel vision, my friend.

Can you identify 22 inch spacing between columns here?

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3214&stc=1&d=1158860783

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

And just because I haven't used Google Earth or analyzed a pic in the last week:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/75834512d86123a16.jpg

[Belz...]

Can you identify 22 inch spacing between columns here?

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3214&stc=1&d=1158860783

I would never claim to be able to. Arkan has made a good illustration of the problems involved.

Care to comment on that ?

[bob_kark]

If this is not the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) of WTC 2, how many opportunities have you missed to explain what it is and explain why the supposed 47 1300 foot columns are not seen?

Concrete core eh? Looks like, well, anything to me. How can you determine what it is made out of from this picture?

[Architect]

Concrete core eh? Looks like, well, anything to me. How can you determine what it is made out of from this picture?

That's Invisicrete tm you fool!

[alexg]

Chris, why is it so critically important to you that there be a concrete core? Is it because that would be the only place to hide the c4 that you say was planted there thirty some years ago?

If so, then why is the structure still intact in that picture you keep showing - the one with the box in the cloud? Wouldn't it have been blown to smitherenes? Instead, the box, whatever it is, appears to be merely collapsing. And if this concrete core is simply collapsing then how does it end up pulverized, if, as you claim, a mere collapse cannot turn the concrete to dust?

ETA Also, what were the dimensions of this concrete core?

[Blue Mountain]

Chris, why is it so critically important to you that there be a concrete core? Is it because that would be the only place to hide the c4 that you say was planted there thirty some years ago?

ETA Also, what were the dimensions of this concrete core?
I'm pretty sure Chris has answered these questions.

Somewhere in this thread.

All you have to do is read the posts and find them ...

... should only take two or three days ...

Okay, you're better off asking!

[Christophera]

And just because I haven't used Google Earth or analyzed a pic in the last week:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/75834512d86123a16.jpg

Okay, I guess you cannot identify any spacing anywhere. Or understand simple questions or notice that the question was directed at alexg not you.

[Christophera]

I would never claim to be able to. Arkan has made a good illustration of the problems involved.

Care to comment on that ?

Yes, arkan has wasted his time doing something unrelated to what I asked. I'm surprised you did not notice that.

Below is what the 22 inch spacing looks like of the perimeter walls. Do you see that spacing here where the spire is shown? (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg)

alexg can probably do a much better job of answering the questions directed at him than you can.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3219&stc=1&d=1158876904

[realitybites]

Chris, why is it so critically important to you that there be a concrete core? Is it because that would be the only place to hide the c4 that you say was planted there thirty some years ago?

If so, then why is the structure still intact in that picture you keep showing - the one with the box in the cloud? Wouldn't it have been blown to smitherenes? Instead, the box, whatever it is, appears to be merely collapsing. And if this concrete core is simply collapsing then how does it end up pulverized, if, as you claim, a mere collapse cannot turn the concrete to dust?

ETA Also, what were the dimensions of this concrete core?
Chris desperately clings to the concrete core because if the buildings had one, it's highly improbably either tower would've completely collapsed. In his world, where this core exists, the fact the towers DID completely collapse means explosives.

I believe this is also the guy who is under the impression the concrete floors of the towers were built with explosives already in them. Way back in the 60s.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Yes, arkan has wasted his time doing something unrelated to what I asked. I'm surprised you did not notice that.

Below is what the 22 inch spacing looks like of the perimeter walls. Do you see that spacing here where the spire is shown? (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg)

alexg can probably do a much better job of answering the questions directed at him than you can.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3219&stc=1&d=1158876904

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/75834513126268b83.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/7583451312622da63.jpg

[Christophera]

Chris, why is it so critically important to you that there be a concrete core? Is it because that would be the only place to hide the c4 that you say was planted there thirty some years ago?

If so, then why is the structure still intact in that picture you keep showing - the one with the box in the cloud? Wouldn't it have been blown to smitherenes? Instead, the box, whatever it is, appears to be merely collapsing. And if this concrete core is simply collapsing then how does it end up pulverized, if, as you claim, a mere collapse cannot turn the concrete to dust?

ETA Also, what were the dimensions of this concrete core?

Before I answer, let me get this question in again. Do you see the perimeter wall 22 inch spacing in this image of the spire? (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg)

First I know that the towers had a concrete core. It is important that the towers structural description be accurate. This should be important to all Americans who honor truth, justice and the rights and freedoms they protect. It is important that the 9-11 event have a bonafied explanation that is logical and consistent with images and effects of the event. Optimally placed and distributed explosives are requisite to defining the causes of the images we have showing amazing uniformity (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg)

The structure (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is still intact because it is extremely strong steel reinforced cast concrete and the explosives encapsulated in it have not yet detonated. When those explosives detonate the core is reduced to particulate. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc341coreblast.jpg)

The core was 80 x 120 feet inside x 1300 + feet tall. The walls at the base of WTC 1 were 17 feet thick on the narrow axis end walls and 15 on the long side walls at the base as I remember. The top edge was 2 foot thick. WTC 2 walls at the base were a little narrower.

[Bell]

Christopher. Maybe I missed it somewhere in the 100+ pages allready, but if there was a concrete core, and that core was rigged with C4 when it was build, what was the purpose of that? Why start building two 110 story skyscrapers in 1966, and blow them up in 2001?

[Christophera]

Christopher. Maybe I missed it somewhere in the 100+ pages allready, but if there was a concrete core, and that core was rigged with C4 when it was build, what was the purpose of that? Why start building two 110 story skyscrapers in 1966, and blow them up in 2001?

Do recall the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq? Accepted (somewhat) by the US people because of 9-11.

Nuf said.

[defaultdotxbe]

Do recall the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq? Accepted (somewhat) by the US people because of 9-11.

Nuf said.
35 years before?

[Bell]

Do recall the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq? Accepted (somewhat) by the US people because of 9-11.

Nuf said.

What Defaultdotxbe said. 35 years in the planning?

Christopher, not everybody in the world is evil. Some people are evil, like the 19 men who flew the planes into the buildings and into the ground.

The government may be inadequate, corrupt, or what have you, they are not evil. People don't plan on blowing up buildings 35 years in the future, killing nearly 3000 civilians and rescueworkers, to invade some country.

[Brainache]

OK Chris, time to come clean. This is just some form of performance art isn't it?
You have been using the medium of the internet forum to communicate the idea of consensus reality and it's consequences.

By continually posting the same picture and claiming it depicts something which it clearly doesn't, even changing your own interpretation of what it shows several times, you are challenging the viewer to confront their own perceptions of reality.

It is my opinion that this art of yours is intended to depict a minority view of reality and show how observation is irrelevant to reality. I think you've made your point.

A sufficiently biased observer is capable of seeing whatever he wants.

If the observer wants to start with the premise that everyone in the world has been hypnotised to believe a sinister sect is NOT in control of everything, then that observer is obliged to conclude that the sinister sect IS responsible for everything. From Stonehenge to 9/11 and beyond.

The fact that the premise is so absurd is what makes it art I suppose. Given what else passes for art these days I'd have to say yours is nothing special, although I would suggest that you try to make it a bit more amusing than you have, or you will forever remain obscure.

Anyway I hope to see more of your work in the future, maybe you can mount an exhibition somewhere.
Cheers.

[alexg]

"First I know that the towers had a concrete core." - Chris

This just weakens your argument. Your sources for this knowledge are questionable, to say the least. One assumes that much of your certanty for the rest of it is coming from this a priori assumption and not from a sober look at the evidence in hand.

So, the explsives had yet to detonate? Your theory is therefore bogus. Such an explosion would have been clearly, massively, unmistakably, visible and audible. End of story.

Plus, if the c4 has yet to blow, what caused the preceding event? Why blow the core at all for that matter if the part of the building with the people in it is already down?

To answer your question: the distance and angle of that photo make any judgement about the spacing pretty much a guess, at least for a layman like me. Even if the spacing is off that could be explained by collapsing floors having ripped away from it therby tearing the exterior walls to pieces. I'll give you this: to my eye there is no clear match to my expectation for exterior wall. It could be steel members of the core stucture. But what I DO NOT see is any concrete or rebar. I see a shell of some sort in a cloud of smoke and debris.

I'm still thinking it's exterior wall because from the many videos and stills (incl. the newly released "what we saw on 9/11") it looks to be in the right spot for wall and not for core. Also, some exterior wall remained standing long after the collapse, further supporting the idea that it wanted to stand by itself even without the help of the trusses.

[alexg]

Incidentally in that new video (sept 11, 2001: what we saw) debris from the top of the building is nearly to the ground when the leading edge of the collapse appears to be roughly half way down.

[Christophera]

"First I know that the towers had a concrete core." - Chris

This just weakens your argument. Your sources for this knowledge are questionable, to say the least. One assumes that much of your certanty for the rest of it is coming from this a priori assumption and not from a sober look at the evidence in hand.


assumption? Bogus. Weak argument. No, ..... weak society. Fear does not equal open acceptance of truth.

Hey, .......... I sat for hours watching the documentary. An hour of it was about the concrete core mostly. Focus on the difficult challenge of building project. You can understand this.

What can I say? Do you have a problem with me knowing how this building was constructed and using that to help people make sense of images? When I use what I know to say. "Hey look, here is the base of on of the shear walls of the concrete core" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg), and then producce an image showing a grey mass with rounded corners sitting between massive columns and a stairwell, what is "assumption" about that??

Your sober look found your inability to make common deductions about structural elements, their visual properties and materials. Or you pretending you can't tell the difference. I vote "latter".

If I say "I know that the towers had a concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)." and people wonder why this thread is 103 pages long, they know 2 things.

1,) That I really believe, even know that the towers had a concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif). In the 103 pages they saw a lot of building materials that never looked like the 47 steel columns certain folks without evidence assert were at the .

Those folks said to themselves, "Hey. that looked more like concrete than anything else".

Meaning they probably believe it was a concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

2.) That somebody pays folks to argue against obvious facts proven by evidence and logical definition and those folks work together and use techno tricks and other forms of discrimination to assail the efforts to share facts that will expose lies protecting people futures with truth.

[defaultdotxbe]

assumption? Bogus. Weak argument. No, ..... weak society. Fear does not equal open acceptance of truth.
weak society because yiour the only one who remmeber the core? i remember you quoting a construction worker saying there was no concrete core

Hey, .......... I sat for hours watching the documentary. An hour of it was about the concrete core mostly. Focus on the difficult challenge of building project. You can understand this.
and yet you still cant seem to remember the name of it or find anyone else who saw it

What can I say? Do you have a problem with me knowing how this building was constructed and using that to help people make sense of images?
why does no one who actualy BUILT the WTC agree with you?

When I use what I know to say. "Hey look, here is the base of on of the shear walls of the concrete core" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg), and then producce an image showing a grey mass with rounded corners sitting between massive columns and a stairwell, what is "assumption" about that??
there was no concrete core, hence that picture cannot be of a concrete core

Your sober look found your inability to make common deductions about structural elements, their visual properties and materials. Or you pretending you can't tell the difference. I vote "latter".
either thousands of people are wrong or you are wrong, i vote "latter"

[alexg]

and . . . the missing explosion?









eta: this question must be invisible?

[alexg]

Plus, if the c4 has yet to blow, what caused the preceding event? Why blow the core at all for that matter if the part of the building with the people in it is already down?

[Brainache]

2.) That somebody pays folks to argue against obvious facts proven by evidence and logical definition and those folks work together and use techno tricks and other forms of discrimination to assail the efforts to share facts that will expose lies protecting people futures with truth.

People are getting paid for this? I'm not. I argue with you on a strictly voluntary basis in the interest of asking you to seek medical help.

I can't see how proposing a sinister cult of hypnotists roaming the Earth mesmerising pre-school children to ignore concrete is helping anyone safeguard the future.

I still hope you are actually some kind of performance artist, although I think your dogged persistance is beginning to alienate your audience.

[Belz...]

Yes, arkan has wasted his time doing something unrelated to what I asked. I'm surprised you did not notice that.

Below is what the 22 inch spacing looks like of the perimeter walls. Do you see that spacing here where the spire is shown? (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg)

alexg can probably do a much better job of answering the questions directed at him than you can.

Don't sleaze your way out of this, chris. Answer the question. His pic WAS related to what you said. It's pretty easy: there's no way for you to see, from that distance and on that poor-quality picture, 22" spacing.

[Belz...]

The structure (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is still intact because it is extremely strong steel reinforced cast concrete and the explosives encapsulated in it have not yet detonated. When those explosives detonate the core is reduced to particulate. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc341coreblast.jpg)

So... what brought the towers down, then ?

[Oliver]

assumption? Bogus. Weak argument. No, ..... weak society. Fear does not equal open acceptance of truth.

Yesterday i made a walk with my dog. We walked to this hill here outside my town and guess what: I looked around me, to every possible direction. I made handstands and i even jumped up and down, but guess what i saw? The whole planet is a disc! All these lies about the sphere-theory - and people still believe in this Nasa-Gov-Zionist-Conspiracy. :jaw-dropp

uuuuuunbeeeelieeeevaaable!
:covereyes :eek: :mad: :boggled: :eye-poppi

[bob_kark]

assumption? Bogus. Weak argument. No, ..... weak society. Fear does not equal open acceptance of truth.
truth? What do you know about truth?

Hey, .......... I sat for hours watching the documentary. An hour of it was about the concrete core mostly. Focus on the difficult challenge of building project. You can understand this.
Perhaps during one of these many hours you could have remembered the title of the documentary. Even if it existed and the information you remember was accurate, how does this prove that the information was accurate? If they had taken such great care to hide the concrete core during the construction of the WTC, why would they allow a documentary to devote an entire hour to it?

What can I say? Do you have a problem with me knowing how this building was constructed and using that to help people make sense of images? When I use what I know to say. "Hey look, here is the base of on of the shear walls of the concrete core" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg), and then producce an image showing a grey mass with rounded corners sitting between massive columns and a stairwell, what is "assumption" about that??
YOUR ASSUMPTION IS THAT THIS IS CONCRETE AND REBAR! How can you possibly determine what this is made of from this picture? Which is unclear at best I might add.

Your sober look found your inability to make common deductions about structural elements, their visual properties and materials. Or you pretending you can't tell the difference. I vote "latter".

If I say "I know that the towers had a concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)." and people wonder why this thread is 103 pages long, they know 2 things.
That this is a picture of an object, or a shadow, or well anything...

1,) That I really believe, even know that the towers had a concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif). In the 103 pages they saw a lot of building materials that never looked like the 47 steel columns certain folks without evidence assert were at the .

Those folks said to themselves, "Hey. that looked more like concrete than anything else".

Meaning they probably believe it was a concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).
Now we care about beliefs? How about facts? Do you have... any?

2.) That somebody pays folks to argue against obvious facts proven by evidence and logical definition and those folks work together and use techno tricks and other forms of discrimination to assail the efforts to share facts that will expose lies protecting people futures with truth.
Please, please Christophera. Tell me how I can get paid to argue against obvious misconceptions proven by hopes, dreams, and pictures of... something.

[Oliver]

We all should tell these Chris/TS1234 Stereotypes, that we also believe in the controlled demolition and the thermite-crap. So they might start to think what they want to do next with this information... NOTHING! It´s worth- and sensleless... :boggled:


BTW: is this the same christophera like "ours"?
http://www.ninjaproxy.com/cgiproxy/nph-proxy.pl/001110A/http/s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=7&st=30

[Powa]

We all should tell these Chris/TS1234 Stereotypes, that we also believe in the controlled demolition and the thermite-crap. So they might start to think what they want to do next with this information... NOTHING! It´s worth- and sensleless... :boggled:
Or...

We could start agreeing with him until he starts to become suspicious. We are all paid by US government after all (by the way, can I receive future payments in Euros rather than Dollars? Thank you). If we (the disinfos) agree that there was a concrete core, it means there wasn't.

[Bell]

Christophera,

Where is the concrete core (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4334991174539603857) ?

Could it, maybe, possibly, be that you are mistaking about that PBS documentary, and that what you think was an hour long section about a concrete core, was actually about the retaining wall, surrounding the WTC foundation?

[longfellow]

My apologies if this has been posted already.

It seems that Christophera is butting heads over at LC over his non-existent concrete core:

s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=12935

And as has been noted on this board previously, the LC crowd can come up with very lucid arguments if something goes against their 'belief'.

Wouldn't it be something if they would apply that kind of logical thinking to Do-Over's Mockumentary?

Hey, I'm just asking questions. ;)

[alexg]

And the missing explosion? Chris.

[Christophera]

Christophera,

Where is the concrete core (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4334991174539603857) ?

Could it, maybe, possibly, be that you are mistaking about that PBS documentary, and that what you think was an hour long section about a concrete core, was actually about the retaining wall, surrounding the WTC foundation?

Not a chance and, ........ the raw evidence supports concrete but not steel columns.

core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)

[defaultdotxbe]

could you at least post som enew pictures of the core, those 2 are getting boring

[Bell]

Not a chance and, ........ the raw evidence supports concrete but not steel columns.

core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)

Christopher, a small and vague picture of some shape hidden behind the dustclouds is not raw evidence.

Blueprint are. Testimonies by engineers or constructors are. The PBS documentary could be. You fail to provide any of this.

But let us take it the other way. Instead of you trying to convince us that indeed the Trade Towers had a concrete core, what does it take for us to convince you that they had not?

[Christophera]

My apologies if this has been posted already.

It seems that Christophera is butting heads over at LC over his non-existent concrete core:

s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=12935

And as has been noted on this board previously, the LC crowd can come up with very lucid arguments if something goes against their 'belief'.

Wouldn't it be something if they would apply that kind of logical thinking to Do-Over's Mockumentary?

Hey, I'm just asking questions. ;)

There isn't anybody there competent enough that also beleives that deeply in what FEMA has to say about the core to butt heads with. One lone idiot has tried to interpret construction photos and inadvertantly provided me with evidence. Giving me a picture that actually shows the top of the footing for the concrete core wall.

The bozo though it was the perimeter wall even though that is 70 foot more in elevation of the elevator pit and 60 + feet further out. Doh!!

I believe they post here as they quoted JREF posts over there. This figures.

I've corrected the notations of it.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/elev.pits.core.footing.CORR.jpg

[Christophera]

Christopher, a small and vague picture of some shape hidden behind the dustclouds is not raw evidence.

Blueprint are. Testimonies by engineers or constructors are. The PBS documentary could be. You fail to provide any of this.

But let us take it the other way. Instead of you trying to convince us that indeed the Trade Towers had a concrete core, what does it take for us to convince you that they had not?

Actually I show you where the blueprints are. Go get 'em!

http://www.nyclu.org/g_archive020602.html

In this way you will discover, we don't have courts either!

The documentary is called "The Construction Of The Twin Towers" Go get it!
Yea, PBS lies. I'm sure the liars haven't been there long enough to know tho. In this way you will find out how infiltrated the .org is.

You cannot convince me that the towers had steel core columns. I know for absolute certain that the core was concrete. Forget it, a waste of your time.

Images are raw evidence, and they are clear enough to reveal gross strcutural features adn they do. I have all of the raw evidence. You have nothing but lies, believe them if you like. Try and share them and I will be there to challenge you.

concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif)

[Christophera]

could you at least post som enew pictures of the core, those 2 are getting boring

Sorry, go watch TV. They always have something new and exciting.

I only have so much evidence and its only boring because your counterparts here cannot accept it or show it to be wrong.

[alexg]

while you are here . . .the missing explosion? . . .of the mysterious box in the cloud? why nobody saw or heard such a cataclysm? and I never did understand how the towers fell?

[Bell]

Actually I show you where the blueprints are. Go get 'em!

http://www.nyclu.org/g_archive020602.html

In this way you will discover, we don't have courts either!

The documentary is called "The Construction Of The Twin Towers" Go get it!
Yea, PBS lies. I'm sure the liars haven't been there long enough to know tho. In this way you will find out how infiltrated the .org is.

You cannot convince me that the towers had steel core columns. I know for absolute certain that the core was concrete. Forget it, a waste of your time.

Images are raw evidence, and they are clear enough to reveal gross strcutural features adn they do. I have all of the raw evidence. You have nothing but lies, believe them if you like. Try and share them and I will be there to challenge you.

concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif)

Bolding mine.

Well, I guess this discussion has come to an end, then? We cannot convince you, you cannot convince us. Dead end.

[bob_kark]

The documentary is called "The Construction Of The Twin Towers" Go get it!
Yea, PBS lies. I'm sure the liars haven't been there long enough to know tho. In this way you will find out how infiltrated the .org is.

Got a link for that?

imdb (http://www.imdb.com/find?s=all&q=The+Construction+Of+The+Twin+Towers)

PBS (http://www.pbs.org/search/search_results.html?q=The+Construction+Of+The+Twin +Towers&neighborhood=none&btnG.x=7&btnG.y=8)

[Christophera]

Bolding mine.

Well, I guess this discussion has come to an end, then? We cannot convince you, you cannot convince us. Dead end.

Most important is that you cannot produce images from the demolition that show ANY of the supposed steel core columns, but I can show you images of what can only be concrete as the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) itself or segments of concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg)

Your argument has come to an end. You cannot support the steel core columns without resorting to documentaton that is suspect or misinterpreting construction photos.

I have the proof. It is eternal, but you don't WANT to recognize it so you are giving up on trying to prove your point.

[Christophera]

Got a link for that?

imdb (http://www.imdb.com/find?s=all&q=The+Construction+Of+The+Twin+Towers)

PBS (http://www.pbs.org/search/search_results.html?q=The+Construction+Of+The+Twin +Towers&neighborhood=none&btnG.x=7&btnG.y=8)


No, I don't waste time and I don't need the documentary. You want it, go for it. File a F.O.I.A then test the courts.

All I need is informed folks with open minds that are interested in the truth. w t f I'm posting here, I don't know.

[Christophera]

while you are here . . .the missing explosion? . . .of the mysterious box in the cloud? why nobody saw or heard such a cataclysm? and I never did understand how the towers fell?

Here is an explosion.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3229&stc=1&d=1158972622

Here is another (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg)

[defaultdotxbe]

Sorry, go watch TV. They always have something new and exciting.

I only have so much evidence and its only boring because your counterparts here cannot accept it or show it to be wrong.
you only have so much evidence because youve only found 2 pictures that can be properly misinterpreted

seriously, dont you think if the WTC had a concrete core thered be more pictures of it during contruction?

maybe if you can find that documentary you saw you can get some screenshots

[Christophera]

you only have so much evidence because youve only found 2 pictures that can be properly misinterpreted

Hey, no one here has ever tried a logical interpretation other than what I provide of the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

I've asked, they won't do it. I've asked why the supposed "steel core columns" are not seen. No logical answers.

Better look again.

http://concretecore.741.com

There are a lot more than 2 images showing concrete. There are none from the construction showing steel columns IN THE CORE.

seriously, dont you think if the WTC had a concrete core thered be more pictures of it during contruction?

maybe if you can find that documentary you saw you can get some screenshots

Not after seeing the documentary. The videographers had a hard time finding good pictures of it amongst the thousands of stills and hundreds of reels of 16mm film. Why? It was 35 to 60 feet from the perimeter and always in shadow, or covered with forms inside and out and almost always 40 feet below the top floor. The demolition images provide the best view ever.

They would of the steel core columns too, if they existed and they did not.

[alexg]

chris, the pictures you posted were OF the collapse itself, the so-called core in the cloud picture is taken AFTER the collapse and AFTER the pictures you posted. This is a preposterous answer, this is lunacy - you have no answer to the questions!! There would have been a massive explosion AFTER the towers collapsed in your model. Have you ever even watched a video of the collapse yourself? I don't think so. I think you are getting all of this from photos.

eta And how did the towers fall again, the things surrounding the 'core' (the box in the cloud thats still standing tall in your picture, after the towers are in rubble?) I must have missed that part of the thread sorry, long thread. A different set of explosives or the planes? It's got to be one or the other, right? Then what was the use of the c4 again? Just to kill off the core?

[defaultdotxbe]

Hey, no one here has ever tried a logical interpretation other than what I provide of the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).
youve been given several answers in this thread

I've asked, they won't do it. I've asked why the supposed "steel core columns" are not seen. No logical answers.
you shoudl look up the definition of "logical" because, again, youve been given several

There are a lot more than 2 images showing concrete. There are none from the construction showing steel columns IN THE CORE.
youve been shown several picture of the steel core in this thread

Not after seeing the documentary. The videographers had a hard time finding good pictures of it amongst the thousands of stills and hundreds of reels of 16mm film. Why? It was 35 to 60 feet from the perimeter and always in shadow, or covered with forms inside and out and almost always 40 feet below the top floor. The demolition images provide the best view ever.
so your telling me the whole time they wre building the tower no one ever took a flash camera inside and took a picture of the core to document how its coming along? ive worked on construction sites, i can assure you that core would have been photographed on a daily basis, any cracks that appeared in the concrete would have been documented

also, why cant you find anyone who worked on the contruction that can tell you about the core? i remember you citing one guy who said there WASNT a concrete core

furthermore, if the core was 40 feet below the progress of the floors, what were the floors attached to? how were they attached to the core when it rose up to meet them? it must be very difficult to keep couplings like that steady in wet concrete

They would of the steel core columns too, if they existed and they did not.
again, youve been shown several pictures of them

[Christophera]

Hey, no one here has ever tried a logical interpretation other than what I provide of the core.


youve been given several answers in this thread

you shoudl look up the definition of "logical" because, again, youve been given several

youve been shown several picture of the steel core in this thread

Actualy I cannot recall one interpretation of the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) that actually was logical. Attempts yes, but not a done deal or even close to it.

No one ever supported the images with logic consistant and related to the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif). Consistency with raw evidence of the demoliton is mandatory.

[uruk]

What's all the fuss? The WTC had a hollow concrete service core surrounded by 244 steel box collumns. All the pictures posted show this structure.
The steel box columns go all the way down just like the concrete core. They both supported the wieght of the floors and building. But what does that have to with anything? You fly a plane filled with fuel in to that structure your going to get quite a bit of damage to both colums and core.

[bob_kark]

No, I don't waste time and I don't need the documentary. You want it, go for it. File a F.O.I.A then test the courts.

All I need is informed folks with open minds that are interested in the truth. w t f I'm posting here, I don't know.
But you do waste time! Why stop at wasting ours?

So, other than a documentary that for all intents and purposes does not exist and the same two photos used over and over again, what evidence do you have?

BTW, evidence is where gullibility ends and open mindedness begins.

[uruk]

forgot to post some pics


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wtc_nist1.gif
http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/xcgal/displayimage.php?pid=49&album=lastup&cat=&pos=6
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-wtcphotos0519,0,4762530.photogallery?index=36
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-wtcphotos0519,0,4762530.photogallery?index=36
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-wtcphotos0519,0,4762530.photogallery?index=36
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-wtcphotos0519,0,4762530.photogallery?index=36
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-wtcphotos0519,0,4762530.photogallery?index=36
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-wtcphotos0519,0,4762530.photogallery?index=36
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-wtcphotos0519,0,4762530.photogallery?index=36
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-wtcphotos0519,0,4762530.photogallery?index=36
http://www.ajy.net/jmb/graphics/wtc-undercon.jpg

The newsday photos show the steel columns going all the way down too sub-basment level

[Christophera]

But you do waste time! Why stop at wasting ours?

So, other than a documentary that for all intents and purposes does not exist and the same two photos used over and over again, what evidence do you have?

BTW, evidence is where gullibility ends and open mindedness begins.

Your time is wasted because you won't use it with reason. If you knew what I know you would realize that it is not a waste of my time to get you to stop wasting yours.

If this is not true, or will no longer be true, reasonably explain what that is to the left of the spire if it is not the concrete shear wall of the concrete core. btw, the statement, "I don't know", will not suffice.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3232&stc=1&d=1159047063

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3233&stc=1&d=1159047345

[bob_kark]

Your time is wasted because you won't use it with reason. If you knew what I know you would realize that it is not a waste of my time to get you to stop wasting yours.
That's what I'm asking you. How do you know what you claim to know? Other than a few pictures from over a mile away and a non-existent documentary, what do you have as proof? You talk of reason, but all you have is speculation. To gain reason, you need to found your arguments with evidence instead.

If this is not true, or will no longer be true, reasonably explain what that is to the left of the spire if it is not the concrete shear wall of the concrete core. btw, the statement, "I don't know", will not suffice.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3232&stc=1&d=1159047063
I can't reasonably explain it because you can't provide me with enough information to make a proper judgement. You are deluding yourself if you think that you can know that the item in that horribly pixelated photograph is definately made of concrete. That is absolutely impossible.

The fact that you can't recognize this is proof that you're too close to this, you're no longer being objective. I would seriously recommend re-evaluating your work from a more objective viewpoint.

[uruk]

The structures in the spire look like the steel box collumn supports but it is hard to tell from 2 dimensional photographs that have been highly compressed with jpeg

[qarnos]

No, I don't waste time and I don't need the documentary. You want it, go for it. File a F.O.I.A then test the courts.

Are you seriously suggesting that we file a F.O.I.A. request for a PBS documentary which may not even exist? :jaw-dropp

[Belz...]

You cannot convince me that the towers had steel core columns. I know for absolute certain that the core was concrete. Forget it, a waste of your time.

I have all of the raw evidence.

I have the proof. It is eternal, but you don't WANT to recognize it so you are giving up on trying to prove your point.

Getting out of hand, isn't it ?

[jhunter1163]

I think that Christophera is suffering heavy metal poisoning from eating too much raw evidence.

[Christophera]

Are you seriously suggesting that we file a F.O.I.A. request for a PBS documentary which may not even exist? :jaw-dropp

It did exist and still does, but PBS won't know it. If you really want to see the video realize that the lack of images from the demo indicate that there were no steel core columns and that the core must have been concrete. Given time and the support of reasonable people that appreciate reason, logic and evidence, a copy of the documentary will surface, that is what I suggested all along.

Some fool actually thought PBS knew what was going on and could tell us.

[Oliver]

It did exist and still does, but PBS won't know it. If you really want to see the video realize that the lack of images from the demo indicate that there were no steel core columns and that the core must have been concrete. Given time and the support of reasonable people that appreciate reason, logic and evidence, a copy of the documentary will surface, that is what I suggested all along.

Some fool actually thought PBS knew what was going on and could tell us.

Come to a point, CHRIS. You have something? Okay - give it to us and we will debunk it.

PS: I´m not talking about evidence of you in form of any speculations. So think bevore posting your evidence...

[Christophera]

That's what I'm asking you. How do you know what you claim to know? Other than a few pictures from over a mile away and a non-existent documentary, what do you have as proof? You talk of reason, but all you have is speculation. To gain reason, you need to found your arguments with evidence instead.


You didn't explain what this is if it is not the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) you are not being reasonable and you are wasting our time.

[Christophera]

Come to a point, CHRIS. You have something? Okay - give it to us and we will debunk it.

PS: I´m not talking about evidence of you in form of any speculations. So think bevore posting your evidence...

Where are the supposed steel core columns in this image (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg). Why are they not seen penetrating the stairwell or right of the stairwell or in the foreground.

These are reasonable questions, it is not reasonable to NOT answer them.

[Christophera]

Getting out of hand, isn't it ?

Yea, you guys are finally giving up on reason because you have no evidence and reasoning with mine defeats your argument.

[Oliver]

Where are the supposed steel core columns in this image (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg). Why are they not seen penetrating the stairwell or right of the stairwell or in the foreground.

These are reasonable questions, it is not reasonable to NOT answer them.

This is not what i asked. Do you have some hard evidence instead of Pics, Videos, Seismics or something else?

Regards,
Oliver

[GlennB]

Yea, you guys are finally giving up on reason because you have no evidence and reasoning with mine defeats your argument.

Chris, you are absolutely correct.
The entire core was built of reinforced concrete.
Finally, we all agree on this. You were right all along and in the end your evidence was overwhelming.

regards

[Mancman]

You didn't explain what this is if it is not the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) you are not being reasonable and you are wasting our time.

It's a steel core.

There, solved. You can get on with your life now.

[alexg]

Assume for a moment that the picture of the mysterious box in the cloud, rising above the just collapsed tower, so oft displayed by Christophera as proof of said core, is in fact a 1300 ft tall, 15 to 17 ft. thick, concrete core, 80ft x 120 ft., as described by Chris. Then what?

Then it must be about to blow up at any second, why? Because, according to Chris, that concrete core encases enough c4 to blow it into microscopic dust - c4 planted by the government during construction over 30 years ago for the purpose of blowing up the WTC as needed at some future date, yet c4 which has yet to blow in that picture of the ‘core’ rising above the already collapsed tower.

So assumed, now:

1. What caused the tower to collapse, if not the yet to blow c4?

2. And this is the kicker. How is it there is no auditory or visual evidence of such an explosion, no, cataclysm! A cataclysm capable of reducing a nearly 100 floor, 15 to 17 foot thick, block of reinforced concrete, reinforced with custom, massive rebar, 80 x 120 ft, into mini dust?

Ok, here we go – Chris’s answer to this last question was to post a picture of the collapsing WTC tower! and say ‘here’s an explosion’.


Therefore, bless his sweet heart, the man is GONzo!

[twinstead]

Chris it's okay. We know you're insane. We feel your pain, bro. No need to keep up with your charade; your posting of a single inconclusive picture and declaring it 's a concrete core when you know sane people simply cannot determine that from your picture, then sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring the very plausible explanations given you. It's sad and beneath you, my man.

It's okay, dude. We understand. Just consider your tenure here at JREF to be sort of an intervention. Sort of like the first step of your 12 step road to better mental health.

We love you and only want the best for our little Christopher.

Now give us a big hug, little man!

[Christophera]

Assume for a moment that the picture of the mysterious box in the cloud, rising above the just collapsed tower, so oft displayed by Christophera as proof of said core, is in fact a 1300 ft tall, 15 to 17 ft. thick, concrete core, 80ft x 120 ft., as described by Chris. Then what?

Then it must be about to blow up at any second, why? Because, according to Chris, that concrete core encases enough c4 to blow it into microscopic dust - c4 planted by the government during construction over 30 years ago for the purpose of blowing up the WTC as needed at some future date, yet c4 which has yet to blow in that picture of the ‘core’ rising above the already collapsed tower.

So assumed, now:

1. What caused the tower to collapse, if not the yet to blow c4?

2. And this is the kicker. How is it there is no auditory or visual evidence of such an explosion, no, cataclysm! A cataclysm capable of reducing a nearly 100 floor, 15 to 17 foot thick, block of reinforced concrete, reinforced with custom, massive rebar, 80 x 120 ft, into mini dust?

Ok, here we go – Chris’s answer to this last question was to post a picture of the collapsing WTC tower! and say ‘here’s an explosion’.


Therefore, bless his sweet heart, the man is GONzo!

You still have not explained what this (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) if it is not the concrete core.

Here's an explosion.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc341coreblast.jpg

[Christophera]

This is not what i asked. Do you have some hard evidence instead of Pics, Videos, Seismics or something else?

Regards,
Oliver

So if this is not the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) what is it?

[alexg]

as I thought . . no answer to the question I posed - there can be no answer, ever

eta: OK, say it's your core, assuming that IS YOUR CORE!!! Then what next? Show me c4 blowing your core in the cloud, don't show me the initial collapse and say 'there's an explosion! Thats lunacy. This is your problem, if you are right and that is your core then you are still wrong about everything else

eta: ASSUMING YOUR CORE is standing in the cloud of the collapsed tower, what caused said tower to collapse?????

[Christophera]

And the missing explosion? Chris.

The red line shows the valley formed by the two perpindicuarly opposed exploding planes of the precision built core. The yellow line shows the thickness and the approximate squareness of the debri cloud as it originates with the concrete core wall.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3238&stc=1&d=1159070625

[alexg]

BS!!!! That's a picture of the collapsing tower!!! Your core will still be standing when that one is down. Liar!

[Christophera]

Chris it's okay. We know you're insane.

I would be surprised if you knew the original definition of insane.

What is sad is that you have proven you are irrational by not explaining what this (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is if it is not the concrete core of the WTC2.

This is important because there are other images that show what can only be concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif).

The images support each other. You are irratonal because you fail to admit that when you can come up with no alternatives of reason or evidence but continue to deny that the core was concrete.

[alexg]

you have supplanted the original definition of 'insane' - I'm calling Websters now.

[Christophera]

We all should tell these Chris/TS1234 Stereotypes, that we also believe in the controlled demolition and the thermite-crap. So they might start to think what they want to do next with this information... NOTHING! It´s worth- and sensleless... :boggled:


BTW: is this the same christophera like "ours"?
http://www.ninjaproxy.com/cgiproxy/nph-proxy.pl/001110A/http/s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=7&st=30

That is me.

How can an the only feasible and common sense explanation for near free fall and total pulverization be worthless?


Do you always use cognitive distortions like labeling?

Thermite was only used in the basement as far as the evidence shows. Other wise this must be close to what what used to cut the interior box columns that were outside of and fastened to the concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif).


http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3239&stc=1&d=1159071733

[Christophera]

BS!!!! That's a picture of the collapsing tower!!! Your core will still be standing when that one is down. Liar!

The core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) stopped detonations right after that. The thermite in the basement and the floors detonations were enough to bring the steel to the ground and expose the core for a second or two.

The detonation system would have been different and not so precise as the lower core was set with detonators long before 9-11. There is a gas flame system that uses plastic tubing with a flammable gas that won't be set off inadvertantly by radio waves.

[uruk]

You still have not explained what this (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) if it is not the concrete core.

Here's an explosion.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc341coreblast.jpg

That's air being released from the lower basement through the center service core

[uruk]

The core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) stopped detonations right after that. The thermite in the basement and the floors detonations were enough to bring the steel to the ground and expose the core for a second or two.

The detonation system would have been different and not so precise as the lower core was set with detonators long before 9-11. There is a gas flame system that uses plastic tubing with a flammable gas that won't be set off inadvertantly by radio waves.

WOW! Your just making this stuff up as you go along.

[Brainache]

WOW! Your just making this stuff up as you go along.
I still think it's Chris's idea of performance art.

[qarnos]

Is there any chance of this thread reaching a conclusion sometime this decade? It just seems to be going around in circles perpetually.

Hmmm... Would this thread classify as a perpetual-motion device for the JREF prize?

[Skylark]

I still can't post links but chris there is a very well researched site to be found at www (a period here) 911myths (and another) com which has rebuttals for your silly questions; questions that you have been repeating over and over again with seemingly no other point besides to increase your post count.

There is substantial proof (if you click on the button labelled "WTC (demolition)" and then go to the link labelled "The towers fell at free fall speeds") that the towers did NOT fall at free fall speeds, so you can cut that crap out right now.

Secondly, the point at which the towers were hit has little bearing on the actual time at which they fell, if you'd be so kind as to click on WTC (other) then "Fire wouldn't have brought down one tower so much quicker than the other".

I'll leave it to you to explore that site. However, I think honestly that anyone arguing here further is rather pointless, since noone is going to change their points of view; but chris, I believe your view is rather dogmatic. Everyone could have gone about this a bit more rationally though - if someone ignores your post and continues to ask about theories that you have already debunked, then he is clearly just a senseless troll, and therefore is not looking for answers anyway. He has clearly disregarded any evidence contrary to his beliefs, and has blatantly ignored video evidence in some cases (I cannot say he did so for the entire thread, because I am not going to read ~100 pages of this garbage).

Fact - he is just a troll, so ignore him. He will never change his views, nor will he change ours. The difference is, while he's arguing with noone, you could be reading a book, working on a project, masterbating, etc. You all get my drift?

EDIT: Garnos: Yeah, that's kind of my point. Chris keeps bringing up points, people prove that those points are completely invalid, and chris just ignores these proofs and reposts his questions. These people, in Australia (as you would know) are often labelled, quite correctly, idiots.

[Oliver]

So if this is not the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) what is it?

What difference will it make if you are right and it is a concrete core?

What difference would it be if it was a controlled demoliton?

What do you really want to know?

All your discussions and attemps will bring you there >>> Dead End! <<<

So why are you fooling everone in here? :confused:

[Belz...]

It did exist and still does, but PBS won't know it.

I thought you said PBS lied...

If you really want to see the video realize that the lack of images from the demo indicate that there were no steel core columns and that the core must have been concrete.

Argument from ignorance and false dichotomy. Just because you don't SEE something doesn't mean that something ELSE you don't see is there.

Given time and the support of reasonable people that appreciate reason, logic and evidence, a copy of the documentary will surface, that is what I suggested all along.

Not if they're ALL hypnotised.

[Belz...]

The red line shows the valley formed by the two perpindicuarly opposed exploding planes of the precision built core. The yellow line shows the thickness and the approximate squareness of the debri cloud as it originates with the concrete core wall.

Oh, that was hilarious, chris. Squareness of the debris cloud! Of course, this doesn't explain how your core is still standing AFTER you say it was detonated.

The core stopped detonations right after that.

Of course, this doesn't explain how your core is still standing AFTER you say it was detonated.

[Architect]

Of course, this doesn't explain how your core is still standing AFTER you say it was detonated.

Maybe they forgot to put the invisible C4 coated rebar in the Invisicrete tm ?

[Hellbound]

Hmmm... Would this thread classify as a perpetual-motion device for the JREF prize?

Only if you could actually use it to produce energy or work.

So far, it only seems to destroy work, producing nothing. Doesn't seem to be perpetual motion, but it does appear to be a violation of conservation laws.

[Belz...]

Only if you could actually use it to produce energy or work.

So far, it only seems to destroy work, producing nothing. Doesn't seem to be perpetual motion, but it does appear to be a violation of conservation laws.

:D

[Christophera]

Oh, that was hilarious, chris. Squareness of the debris cloud! Of course, this doesn't explain how your core is still standing AFTER you say it was detonated.



Of course, this doesn't explain how your core is still standing AFTER you say it was detonated.

No need to repeat yourself.

The concept of separate, delayed detonations explains why the lower part of the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) stands momentarily.

[Christophera]

What difference will it make if you are right and it is a concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)?

What difference would it be if it was a controlled demoliton?

What do you really want to know?

All your discussions and attemps will bring you there >>> Dead End! <<<

So why are you fooling everone in here? :confused:

Thanks for demonstrating the generic, typical (non) explanation

Concrete can fracture to fall instantly (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html)

[uruk]

No need to repeat yourself.

The concept of separate, delayed detonations explains why the lower part of the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) stands momentarily.

Why on earth would they use delayed detonation? why not just detonate everything all at once?

[Christophera]

Why on earth would they use delayed detonation? why not just detonate everything all at once?

Consider the insurance companies did not want to totally replace 8 square blocks of NYC in addition to the WTC.

[T.A.M.]

Christophera:

So your theory is that Silverstein got permission from the insurance companies to blow up the WTCs, just as long as didn't ruin the "whole block" so to speak. They drew the line there.

OMG that is so insane.

TAM

[Christophera]

That's what I'm asking you. How do you know what you claim to know? Other than a few pictures from over a mile away and a non-existent documentary, what do you have as proof? You talk of reason, but all you have is speculation. To gain reason, you need to found your arguments with evidence instead.


I can't reasonably explain it because you can't provide me with enough information to make a proper judgement. You are deluding yourself if you think that you can know that the item in that horribly pixelated photograph is definately made of concrete. That is absolutely impossible.

The fact that you can't recognize this is proof that you're too close to this, you're no longer being objective. I would seriously recommend re-evaluating your work from a more objective viewpoint.

http://concretecore.741.com

Has plenty of evidence. You do not want to make a proper judgment.

[Christophera]

Christophera:

So your theory is that Silverstein got permission from the insurance companies to blow up the WTCs, just as long as didn't ruin the "whole block" so to speak. They drew the line there.

OMG that is so insane.

TAM


Your notion, your problem.


I never said anything like that.

Our daily lesson in presumption.

[uruk]

Consider the insurance companies did not want to totally replace 8 square blocks of NYC in addition to the WTC.

So your saying the insurance companies were in on the conspiracy? What did the insurance companies have to gain? CharginghHigher premium rates and dealing with customer complaints and migration to thier competitors?
A business that is conspiring to payout cash rather than making cash is a bit too much for credability.

Anyhoo that's a lame excuse. all the explosive going off at the same time would not cause an more or less damage than if they were delayed. total release of energy would all add up to be the same.

[Christophera]

Is there any chance of this thread reaching a conclusion sometime this decade? It just seems to be going around in circles perpetually.

Hmmm... Would this thread classify as a perpetual-motion device for the JREF prize?


No.

Perpetual-NOTION device

It is not my notion, I USE (http://concretecore.741.com/) evidence. The deniers here ABUSE (http://noconcretecore.741.com/) evidence.

They do this because they have a fear driven obsession, an erroneous notion that lies can serve our human purposes.

[Christophera]

So your saying the insurance companies were in on the conspiracy? What did the insurance companies have to gain? CharginghHigher premium rates and dealing with customer complaints and migration to thier competitors?
A business that is conspiring to payout cash rather than making cash is a bit too much for credability.

Anyhoo that's a lame excuse. all the explosive going off at the same time would not cause an more or less damage than if they were delayed. total release of energy would all add up to be the same.

Hit your head again homer.

Because the delays are over time so you don't use addition to observe effects of each small detonation.

[Senor_Pointy]

Your notion, your problem.


I never said anything like that.

Our daily lesson in presumption.

No, Chris, the "concrete core" is your "notion." (As well as the "Insurance companies were in on it," and "The towers were built to be destroyed")

This has ceased to be productive, funny, on even tolerable. You need to get help. :(

[T.A.M.]

Consider the insurance companies did not want to totally replace 8 square blocks of NYC in addition to the WTC.

You're such a f&*king liar. Look above. In response to someone asking you why "they" didn't detonate everything at once, you responded with the comment quoted above.

That statement, your statement, makes claim that the insurance companies did not want replace 8 blocks in addition to the WTCs, and that is why they didn't detonate everything at once.

Make no wonder started ignoring you. What has gotten into me, to actually acknowledge even one of your insane statements.

Carry on whacko!!!

TAM

[uruk]

Answer the question about the insurance companies. Your post directly implied that the insurance companies did not want to " totaly replace 8 square blocks of NYC". That means you are saying that the insurance companies had knowledge of or were impicated in the destruction of the WTC.
So how about it? Are you saying that the insurance companies were involved? Show your evidence.

Because the delays are over time so you don't use addition to observe effects of each small detonation
I'm not sure what your saying here. I don't think you phrased the statement correctly. Can you rephrase the statement so that I may understand what it is you are saying?

[Christophera]

Answer the question about the insurance companies. Your post directly implied that the insurance companies did not want to " totaly replace 8 square blocks of NYC". That means you are saying that the insurance companies had knowledge of or were impicated in the destruction of the WTC.
So how about it? Are you saying that the insurance companies were involved? Show your evidence.


I'm not sure what your saying here. I don't think you phrased the statement correctly. Can you rephrase the statement so that I may understand what it is you are saying?

homer, if you cannot understand what I've posted, the concept is beyond you. Which figures or you wouldn't have made the error to begin with.



As far as the insurance issue, I can only say that the association between the insurance companies and the folks that set the detonators is something which is also beyond you. You will just have to continue your life in ignorance.

Unless some the brighter "black lights" here can find away to explain it.

[Christophera]

I still can't post links but chris there is a very well researched site to be found at www (a period here) 911myths (and another) com which has rebuttals for your silly questions; questions that you have been repeating over and over again with seemingly no other point besides to increase your post count.

There is substantial proof (if you click on the button labelled "WTC (demolition)" and then go to the link labelled "The towers fell at free fall speeds") that the towers did NOT fall at free fall speeds, so you can cut that crap out right now.

Secondly, the point at which the towers were hit has little bearing on the actual time at which they fell, if you'd be so kind as to click on WTC (other) then "Fire wouldn't have brought down one tower so much quicker than the other".

I'll leave it to you to explore that site. However, I think honestly that anyone arguing here further is rather pointless, since noone is going to change their points of view; but chris, I believe your view is rather dogmatic. Everyone could have gone about this a bit more rationally though - if someone ignores your post and continues to ask about theories that you have already debunked, then he is clearly just a senseless troll, and therefore is not looking for answers anyway. He has clearly disregarded any evidence contrary to his beliefs, and has blatantly ignored video evidence in some cases (I cannot say he did so for the entire thread, because I am not going to read ~100 pages of this garbage).

Fact - he is just a troll, so ignore him. He will never change his views, nor will he change ours. The difference is, while he's arguing with noone, you could be reading a book, working on a project, masterbating, etc. You all get my drift?

EDIT: Garnos: Yeah, that's kind of my point. Chris keeps bringing up points, people prove that those points are completely invalid, and chris just ignores these proofs and reposts his questions. These people, in Australia (as you would know) are often labelled, quite correctly, idiots.

I've seen that site and they do not have the images i use on the site, so there can hardly be answers to my questons about them there.

I would be surprised if you actually know the meaning of the word "idiot". Like twinstead doesn't actually know the origin of "insane".

[Christophera]

as I thought . . no answer to the question I posed - there can be no answer, ever

eta: OK, say it's your core, assuming that IS YOUR CORE!!! Then what next? Show me c4 blowing your core in the cloud, don't show me the initial collapse and say 'there's an explosion! Thats lunacy. This is your problem, if you are right and that is your core then you are still wrong about everything else

eta: ASSUMING YOUR CORE is standing in the cloud of the collapsed tower, what caused said tower to collapse?????

The word collapse is post tense. Things do break after collapsing. What is in this image is beyond broken, it is pulverized. Nothing has hit the ground yet.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3254&stc=1&d=1159128271

[Oliver]

Thanks for demonstrating the generic, typical (non) explanation

Concrete can fracture to fall instantly (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html)

Thank you, too - for "non-answering" good questions. :D

[Christophera]

What difference would it be if it was a controlled demoliton?

What do you really want to know?

All your discussions and attemps will bring you there >>> Dead End! <<<

So why are you fooling everone in here? :confused:

It would make a different world.

I want to know if folks are still capable of responding with an understanding of love and courage.

Not a dead end, a long journey. You don't have the vision to see where it leads nor the determination/concern/courage to arrive at the destination.

I had to think about my answers and did not post them because of your post above this one which evaded, again, my question. Think about your answers to my question then try and provide them.

[uruk]

homer, if you cannot understand what I've posted, the concept is beyond you. Which figures or you wouldn't have made the error to begin with.



As far as the insurance issue, I can only say that the association between the insurance companies and the folks that set the detonators is something which is also beyond you. You will just have to continue your life in ignorance.

Unless some the brighter "black lights" here can find away to explain it.

HOOWEE! What a copout! You still havent answered the question.

Your not answering the question. It requires a simple response. Yes or no.
Do you believe that the insurance companies were involved. If so, What is your evidence.

If you mean bad grammer is beyond my comprehension then I agree. In fact your response is still filled with applingly bad grammer.
I asked for clarification because of your use of the english language somewhat rudimenary. The way in which you orderd the words in your statement is incomprehensible. Or is that your debate tatics. "If you can't dazzle them with facts, baffle them with gibberish."

If english is not your primary language, Then I apologise. In which case; can someone tell me what Christophera means by "Because the delays are over time so you don't use addition to observe effects of each small detonation"?

[Christophera]

Thank you, too - for "non-answering" good questions. :D

I know by now that you have conveinently forgotton what my question was, so I'm reposting it for you. Can you be reasonable?



Come to a point, CHRIS. You have something? Okay - give it to us and we will debunk it.

PS: I´m not talking about evidence of you in form of any speculations. So think bevore posting your evidence...

Where are the supposed steel core columns in this image (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg). Why are they not seen penetrating the stairwell or right of the stairwell or in the foreground.

These are reasonable questions, it is not reasonable to NOT answer them.

[Oliver]

It would make a different world.

I want to know if folks are still capable of responding with an understanding of love and courage.

Not a dead end, a long journey. You don't have the vision to see where it leads nor the determination/concern/courage to arrive at the destination.

Okay, i see you gave it a try. I do know that people are still able to respond with an understanding of love and courage. What´s the question?
ETA: Where do you come from that you have this kind of question?

But let me ask: You´re digging so deep in the CD-theorie - what hard proof would you have if it was a controlled demolition? Do the theorists have any hard proofs beside some pics or videos or seismologic data?

The data of Dr. Steven Jones is trash - he even can not proof if whatever he found is from the collapse, from a CD or from the destruction work on ground zero. He even does not have a proof that his samples are from ground zero.

So why in god greens earth would someone try it nevertheless? This sounds stupid to me, sensless, wasting time.

If you believe in a Gov-conspiracy, dig that deep into the political and involvement side - there might be somthing left for my impression.

[Oliver]

Please don´t reply - i want a serious answer from Christophera.

[Christophera]

Please don´t reply - i want a serious answer from Christophera.

I want one from you too. And my question is more reasonable to the topic this thread. I have not evaded, you still are. I answered the first one relevant to my thread immediately (Concrete can fracture to fall instantly (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html)) This board is designed with its quote debility to make unaccountibility. Here are your questions, you figure it out. Then answer my question.

What difference will it make if you are right and it is a concrete core?

What difference would it be if it was a controlled demoliton?

What do you really want to know?

All your discussions and attemps will bring you there >>> Dead End! <<<

So why are you fooling everone in here? :confused:

Oh, the last one I didn't answer. I will now. You are your own fools I'm just making it obvious to those reading

[Oliver]

I want one from you too. And my question is more rasonable to the topic this thread. I have not evaded, you still are. This board is designed with its quote debility to make unaccountibility. here are your questions, you figure it out. Then answer my question.

What is the topic of this thread?
"How to beat a dead horse into a volcanic cloud of dust to say it was a controlled demolition"? Serious! :boggled:

What is the question you have to fade away from mine?

[Skylark]

I've seen that site and they do not have the images i use on the site, so there can hardly be answers to my questons about them there.

I would be surprised if you actually know the meaning of the word "idiot". Like twinstead doesn't actually know the origin of "insane".

Haha, you really are good. You are provided with SCIENTIFIC FACTS and you don't agree with them because there are no pretty pictures that you've PROBABLY ALREADY SEEN?

You won't even look at video evidence; when someone posted hard VISUAL evidence, you said (and I quote):

Sorry, no time for another video of the towers. I'm fully satisfied as the visibility is not good enough to apply an accurate time. The fall was way too fast and it went to far down to be a collapse under any definition.

Let me highlight something for you:

Sorry, no time for another video of the towers. I'm fully satisfied as the visibility is not good enough to apply an accurate time. The fall was way too fast and it went to far down to be a collapse under any definition.


You YOURSELF claim that the visibility is not good enough. Now, let me ask you something.

If the central core was made purely of concrete (containing some kind of explosive), how can you prove that? I looked at that absolutely retarded site you posted, and given there are a bunch of his self drawn images, along with INCONCLUSIVE photos of the collapse, and a clip from an article that for all we know he could have PULLED OUT OF HIS ASS.

However, since you are so sure that it is a concrete core, let's assume that it is (for the sake of argument). How does that prove that explosive devices were planted in the core? In fact, your arguments ARE IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION WITH EACH OTHER. You are saying that the explosives used made the building fall that fast; HOWEVER, you are also saying that the thermite was in the concrete core that was somehow STILL STANDING after these explosions tore down the rest of the building (at "free fall" speeds as you say). YOU have yet to explain how YOUR RIDICULOUS THEORY WORKS.

Now, for some citations. On the page I linked, the author made the following statements about the "free fall" of the towers:

The rate of free fall in a vacuum, at least, is easier to define. The towers were around 417 metres tall (excluding the spire), giving 417 = 0.5 gt^2, so with g = 9.8m/s^2 that gives a time of about 9.22 seconds. So if you dropped a ball off the roof, and there were no air resistance, then that’s the time it would take to reach the ground.

So that is the speed of free fall in a vacuum, which is what you're trying to prove that the towers fell at, correct?

Okay, now ignoring the fact that quite obviously the debris was falling at a much higher rate than the building (which by the way COMPLETELY DEBUNKS YOUR THEORY), let's look at the siesmic evidence:

There is one way to try and resolve this. We know the start time of the graph (9:28:30 in New York), and we also know from LDEO that it took about 17 seconds for the signal to travel through the ground, therefore if the start time of the North Tower collapse can be determined by another means, then we’ll be able to see how the seismic record relates to other evidence.

And as it happens, we can do just that. 9-11 Research point out that a CNN video recorded the moment of the collapse, and we calculate that their clock turns from 10:27 to 10:28 around 24 seconds before the tower began to fall. That is, the collapse began around 10:28:24; adding 17 seconds for the signal to reach the LDEO station gives us 10:28:41; and that’s 11 seconds from the start of the chart.

The chart then indicates that the fall took approximately 15.5 seconds, which is quite a bit slower than your "free fall". QED Your original question has been answered on that site (with verifiable scientific facts AND images). If you actually bother going to the site I pointed out, you can find many references, pictures, links etc to BACK THIS UP.

So will you please just shut up and properly research the BS you're spouting before you start preaching nonsense? How about instead of trying to prove that the government killed thousands of innocent people (for no apparent reason, unless you believe in that Unocal ****, which is also handled on that site), you respect those that died and just accept that something terrible happened on 9/11, that will hopefully never happen again.

[uruk]

There's a growing belief that Christophera may be ill.
In which case he may be pathologicaly incapable of answering questions.

He seems to be resorting to gibberish quite a bit.

[Skylark]

You are your own fools I'm just making it obvious to those reading

I'm sorry, but I just have to point out that your dogmatic views coupled with your inability to accept ANY evidence provided WHATSOEVER leads me to believe that you are simply a troll.

[Oliver]

I want one from you too. And my question is more rasonable to the topic this thread. I have not evaded, you still are. This board is designed with its quote debility to make unaccountibility. here are your questions, you figure it out. Then answer my question.

What is the topic of this thread?
"How to beat a dead horse into a volcanic cloud of dust to say it was a controlled demolition"? Serious! :boggled:

Okay, i see you gave it a try. I do know that people are still able to respond with an understanding of love and courage. What´s the question?
ETA: Where do you come from that you have this kind of question?

But let me ask: You´re digging so deep in the CD-theorie - what hard proof would you have if it was a controlled demolition? Do the theorists have any hard proofs beside some pics or videos or seismologic data?

The data of Dr. Steven Jones is trash - he even can not proof if whatever he found is from the collapse, from a CD or from the destruction work on ground zero. He even does not have a proof that his samples are from ground zero.

So why in god greens earth would someone try it nevertheless? This sounds stupid to me, sensless, wasting time.

If you believe in a Gov-conspiracy, dig that deep into the political and involvement side - there might be somthing left for my impression.

What is the question you have to fade away from mine?

[Brainache]

I would suggest to people who want an insight into where Chris is coming from to read this thread from page 91:

http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=57426&page=91

[Skylark]

ETA: Where do you come from that you have this kind of question?

No offense but he already answered this:

I work as a surveyor and draftsman for a civil engineer. While I've done this for 20 years I've also done drilling and blasting and studied for a blaster license. I've been welding for 33 years. I do layout for steel and concrete structures frequently and also work with material testing laboratories on a regular basis.

In 1990 i saw a documentary called "Construction Of The Twin Towers". It was 2 hours in length and very intimate with the design, materials and sequnce of WTC 1. It took about a year after 9-11 to remember enough to realize what has been done to create the event.

Anyway I think my bigass post a little ways up this page basically covers everything. If he ignores that, then I'm not going to come back to this thread anymore, because it will confirm my suspicion that he is just a troll, and it is a waste of time debating (lol) with him.

[uruk]

Well that explains alot. Especially the gibberish

[Oliver]

Houston to Lisa... Houston to Lisa...

Stop laughing about us earthlings and say something. :D

[Christophera]

What is the topic of this thread?
"How to beat a dead horse into a volcanic cloud of dust to say it was a controlled demolition"? Serious! :boggled:

What is the question you have to fade away from mine?

OMG!

I repeat the question for him and he cannot find it! And then he continues with the same garbage that makes this thread so long.

That is the very purpose of all the nonsense posts, is to obscure the ones that have quality that show up on this board as soon as one starts trying to deal with difficult truths.

My question is the last quote of myself in the top post of this page.

[Oliver]

"Where are the supposed steel core columns in this image. Why are they not seen penetrating the stairwell or right of the stairwell or in the foreground."

My answer to your question is:
Where is Ronny the Clown on this image?

...it´s a DEAD END!

[Skylark]

Yappari...

You completely ignored my post. Well, I'm out of this thread then. See you guys; it's a waste of time, trust me.

[Christophera]

I've seen that site and they do not have the images i use on the site, so there can hardly be answers to my questons about them there.

I would be surprised if you actually know the meaning of the word "idiot". Like twinstead doesn't actually know the origin of "insane".

Haha, you really are good. You are provided with SCIENTIFIC FACTS and you don't agree with them because there are no pretty pictures that you've PROBABLY ALREADY SEEN?

You won't even look at video evidence; when someone posted hard VISUAL evidence, you said (and I quote):


The site you linked to doesn't address the concrete core issue which is intrinsic to the entire analysis.

I'm only dealing with this one aspect of your post here. This board has such crappy quoting capacity it is just too difficult to address multiple subjects.

[Christophera]

"Where are the supposed steel core columns in this image. Why are they not seen penetrating the stairwell or right of the stairwell or in the foreground."

My answer to your question is:
Where is Ronny the Clown on this image?

...it´s a DEAD END!

Okay, I can translate. You cannot answer the queston without showing that there are no steel core columns where they should be. Try emoticons, they will make your posts look more intelligent.

[Skylark]

Okay, so you obviously didn't read all of my post then... (otherwise you would have noticed this:

If the central core was made purely of concrete (containing some kind of explosive), how can you prove that? I looked at that absolutely retarded site you posted, and given there are a bunch of his self drawn images, along with INCONCLUSIVE photos of the collapse, and a clip from an article that for all we know he could have PULLED OUT OF HIS ASS.

However, since you are so sure that it is a concrete core, let's assume that it is (for the sake of argument). How does that prove that explosive devices were planted in the core? In fact, your arguments ARE IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION WITH EACH OTHER. You are saying that the explosives used made the building fall that fast; HOWEVER, you are also saying that the thermite was in the concrete core that was somehow STILL STANDING after these explosions tore down the rest of the building (at "free fall" speeds as you say). YOU have yet to explain how YOUR RIDICULOUS THEORY WORKS.
)

The quoting mechanism on this board is fine. See a normal person would take what they want to quote, copy all the quotes into notepad, then just put the quote tags around each individual section. Not hard.

[Oliver]

...hard Evidence Is Destroyed...
Dead End!

This Is All I Have To Know.

[Skylark]

Oliver no offense but constantly saying that over and over is not helping anything.. The only thing that's going to shut chistophera up is if we find evidence that the core of the steel shafts were concrete. What relation this has to the original question in the post, I have no idea; I've already pointed out that the buildings did not fall at free fall speeds, but chris does not care about that, so he's not trying to prove a conspiracy theory obviously. He just wants to prove that there was a concrete core.

[Christophera]

You YOURSELF claim that the visibility is not good enough. Now, let me ask you something.

If the central core was made purely of concrete (containing some kind of explosive), how can you prove that? (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg) I looked at that absolutely retarded site you posted, and given there are a bunch of his self drawn images, along with INCONCLUSIVE photos of the collapse, and a clip from an article that for all we know he could have PULLED OUT OF HIS ASS.

Click onthe link I put into your text at "prove that". The image IS a series of high speed delayed explosions. What we see cannot happen any other way.

Above you are conducting "cognitive distortions" labeling to be precise. You are distorting by saying "bunch of" when there are only 2 found on the page.

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

Cutting charges built into the floors (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1233383)

diagram of hallways and interior wall of the WTC 1 steel reinforced concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corehallsdoors.gif)

Both needed to supplement what is available on the structure or actual demolition techniques that will explain events.

What article. There are several. Sky does not say, I have no way to respond to this. An error in communications on Sky's part.

However, since you are so sure that it is a concrete core, let's assume that it is (for the sake of argument). How does that prove that explosive devices were planted in the core? In fact, your arguments ARE IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION WITH EACH OTHER. You are saying that the explosives used made the building fall that fast; HOWEVER, you are also saying that the thermite was in the concrete core that was somehow STILL STANDING after these explosions tore down the rest of the building (at "free fall" speeds (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1plumecascade.jpg) as you say). YOU have yet to explain how YOUR RIDICULOUS THEORY WORKS.


Your error is in your brain, it is not letting you actually reason with the information of the site. It answers every question.

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

I do not claim thermite was in the concrete core. I claim it was applied to the column bases during the remodel of 1993 bomb blast.

My point about the rate of fall is correct. The buildings fell too fast, exactly how fast cannot be said because the bottom of the fall is obscured by dust.

[Oliver]

Seriously, did you ever think about the fact that it does not matter what anybody says about controlled demolitons at the wtc site because even if it was a controlled demolition - no one can proof it on hard evidence...

Why?

Because the evidence is destroyed!

[Christophera]

Oliver no offense but constantly saying that over and over is not helping anything.. The only thing that's going to shut chistophera up is if we find evidence that the core of the steel shafts were concrete.

Oliver is melting down because he can't answer the question.

Rephrase your statement at the end, it is very confusing, even for you.

[uruk]

Here are the pictures of the steel columns in the core structre of the WTC

These pictures show that the sipres in your pictures are the steel support structures in the core of the building. Look closely at the size and spacing

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/images/w...truction.1.jpg
http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2002-05/3121225.jpg

In the first picture notice the color of the concrete on the floor section, now note the color of veretical support beam. concrete-white, steel-dark

[Senor_Pointy]

Oliver is melting down because he can't answer the question.

Rephrase your statement at the end, it is very confusing, even for you.

I'd say that the statement at the end is entirely clear: You aren't going to shut up, ever, until it is proven there was a concrete core in the WTC. Since there was no core, you'll never admit you're wrong and never, no matter how many times you are proven wrong, stop your puerile banter about it.

[Oliver]

Houston to ADMINS... Houston to ADMINS...

Stop laughing about us earthlings and say something. :D

[Oliver]

Oliver is melting down

No, i will explode in a controlled demolition because your ignorance about the truth.

[Architect]

I'd say that the statement at the end is entirely clear: You aren't going to shut up, ever, until it is proven there was a concrete core in the WTC. Since there was no core, you'll never admit you're wrong and never, no matter how many times you are proven wrong, stop your puerile banter about it.

It took you this long to work that out?

The guy's ill, mate. Seriously mentally ill.

[Senor_Pointy]

It took you this long to work that out?

The guy's ill, mate. Seriously mentally ill.

I was just explaining, in as simple words as I could manage, Skylark's post, above, to him.

I figured it out around page 10, the 60th time he trotted out that "core" picture. :rolleyes:

[Skylark]

Click onthe link I put into your text at "prove that". The image IS a series of high speed delayed explosions. What we see cannot happen any other way.

Well, this is just wrong. You have absolutely no math to back up that the debris could not have been projected like that, but I have math, scientific facts, and images (http://www.911myths.com/html/explosive_force.html) to support that it would OBVIOUSLY happen this way. But keep talking out of your ass; you're quite good at it.

Above you are conducting "cognitive distortions" labeling to be precise. You are distorting by saying "bunch of" when there are only 2 found on the page.

Wow, so by bunch I meant two? Damn, what a gaping flaw in my argument. You got me there!
[/URL]
Both needed to supplement what is available on the structure or actual demolition techniques that will explain events.

Blah blah blah... Look, this site is just pointing out that based on visual evidence (which you yourself has said is inconclusive) it looks as the demolitions were used to bring down the towers. It has 0% hard evidence that that is the case. And of course I read the site; why would I respond without doing so?

What article. There are several. Sky does not say, I have no way to respond to this. An error in communications on Sky's part.

Obviously the article shown on the page you've only linked once on every page in this thread...

Your error is in your brain, it is not letting you actually reason with the information of the site. It answers every question.

Wow, you're a huge hypocrite.

I do not claim thermite was in the concrete core. I claim it was applied to the column bases during the remodel of 1993 bomb blast.

Think about that for a second. I don't even have to look up proof to debunk this; how many people would the government have to pay to cover this up? ... meh, this isn't even worth disproving since the buildings did not fall faster, as fast as, or even close to free fall speeds.

My point about the rate of fall is correct. The buildings fell too fast, exactly how fast cannot be said because the bottom of the fall is obscured by dust.

If you still claim this, then you are, as I stated before, and idiot.

[url=http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm]You can't beat solid evidence, dude. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corehallsdoors.gif) As if my last article wasn't proof enough (using the seismic charts that most CT's try to prove the buildings DO fall at free fall, no less!), here's another good article for you to ignore.

[Christophera]

Quote:
Both needed to supplement what is available on the structure or actual demolition techniques that will explain events.

Blah blah blah... Look, this site is just pointing out that based on visual evidence (which you yourself has said is inconclusive) it looks as the demolitions were used to bring down the towers. It has 0% hard evidence that that is the case. And of course I read the site; why would I respond without doing so?

You need to make this clearer. Lost context.

The below also, again. There are a number of articles at,

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



Quote:
What article. There are several. Sky does not say, I have no way to respond to this. An error in communications on Sky's part.



Obviously the article shown on the page you've only linked once on every page in this thread...

[Oliver]

What would it proof if the core was made of concrete? Why don´t you ask someone who was involved into building the towers. Why don´t you ask the Port Authority or Yamasaki? How old are you?

[Christophera]

If you still claim this, then you are, as I stated before, and idiot.

You can't beat solid evidence, dude. (http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm) As if my last article wasn't proof enough (using the seismic charts that most CT's try to prove the buildings DO fall at free fall, no less!), here's another good article for you to ignore.


Your link You can't beat solid evidence, dude. (http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm) should have a series of frame of a video that shows all the material ending up onthe ground. If it doesn't have that, it doesn't have the end of the fall. Without the end, the calculations are just rhetorical.

I'm quite sure you do nott know what an idiot is, as you actually exhibit the mental gymnastics required to perform as one.

[Christophera]

What would it proof if the core was made of concrete? Why don´t you ask someone who was involved into building the towers. Why don´t you ask the Port Authority or Yamasaki? How old are you?

It would prove FEMA lied about someting that has a vital determination on analysis of the towers demise.

How old are you?

Yamasakis been dead since the late 1980's, most of the men that worked in knowledgeable positions have died. Again, do you know the origin of the word idiot?

And wtf is the answer to my question?

[Oliver]

It would prove FEMA lied about someting that has a vital determination on analysis of the towers demise.

How old are you?

Yamasakis been dead since the late 1980's, most of the men that worked in knowledgeable positions have died. Again, do you know the origin of the word idiot?

And wtf is the answer to my question?

I did´nt know the origin of the word idiot until i came to this thread. :D

Yamasaki is still in business:

http://www.yamasakiinc.com/

900 Tower Drive, Suite 190
Troy, Michigan 48098
p. 248 267 5300
f. 248 267 5313

http://www.panynj.gov

Corporate Headquarters
The Port Authority of NY & NJ
225 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10003
T: 212-435-7000


Try to bore them for a while, would you?

[uruk]

Your link You can't beat solid evidence, dude. (http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm) should have a series of frame of a video that shows all the material ending up onthe ground. If it doesn't have that, it doesn't have the end of the fall. Without the end, the calculations are just rhetorical.


Geez, you don't need to see the debris fall all the way to bottom to know how fast the debris is falling. All you need to do is measure the time the debris passes between two points of a known distance apart.
That's the way gun tachometers work

[uruk]

Wow I just read christophera's web site. Ther are is no evidence what so ever. It just Christophera making completely unsubstatiated assumptions and statements. His initial "evidence" is of two images of the center suppport structure of the WTC. One is a detailed image showing the steel structures in the center part of the building the other is a simplified diagram used on some website or magazine showing a solid core. From this he makes a modified drawing of his concrete core bas on the simplified diagram.

I really am begining to feel sorry for this guy

Look at the first picture on christophera's web site:
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

Compare this image from this web site:
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/images/wtc-1.construction.1.jpg

They seem to coincide. Both show the steel support structure in the buildings center. Yet he still denys the steel columns

Wow.. just wow. I had no idea where this guys head is.

I really feel sorry for him

[Christophera]

Geez, you don't need to see the debris fall all the way to bottom to know how fast the debris is falling. All you need to do is measure the time the debris passes between two points of a known distance apart.
That's the way gun tachometers work

Hit youself on the head again. We know the rate of free fall, doh!

We do not know when things stopped falling.

[Christophera]

Wow I just read christophera's web site. Ther are is no evidence what so ever. It just Christophera making completely unsubstatiated assumptions and statements. His initial "evidence" is of two images of the center suppport structure of the WTC. One is a detailed image showing the steel structures in the center part of the building the other is a simplified diagram used on some website or magazine showing a solid core. From this he makes a modified drawing of his concrete core bas on the simplified diagram.

I really am begining to feel sorry for this guy

Look at the first picture on christophera's web site:
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

Compare this image from this web site:
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/images/wtc-1.construction.1.jpg

They seem to coincide. Both show the steel support structure in the buildings center. Yet he still denys the steel columns

Wow.. just wow. I had no idea where this guys head is.

I really feel sorry for him

Dude,

You are a new comer who has not read the thread. Note: The only "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" are around the outside of the core. The steel inside the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is much smaller and are NOT core columns. That steel is elevator guide rail support structure. Which is why no core columns are seen protruding from the core area in ANY photos. Catch up dude!!!!

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3264&stc=1&d=1159154677

[Skylark]

Your link You can't beat solid evidence, dude. (http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm) should have a series of frame of a video that shows all the material ending up onthe ground. If it doesn't have that, it doesn't have the end of the fall. Without the end, the calculations are just rhetorical.

I'm quite sure you do nott know what an idiot is, as you actually exhibit the mental gymnastics required to perform as one.

Did you yourself not state:

Clearly when the base of the towers cannot be seen determining the exact rate of fall is not possible. I'm satisfied that 20 seconds gets all the debris on the ground.

This is clearly a LOT longer than free fall would have taken - more than twice as long, in fact. So by your own evidence (which is far less factual than the evidence I have provided) the buildings did not fall at "free fall" speeds.

Therefore your question is answered so you can stop.

[uruk]

Hit youself on the head again. We know the rate of free fall, doh!

We do not know when things stopped falling.

Great. Now what is the rate of fall with air resistance? You know, Terminal velocity.

Anyhoo The speed of falling debris from CD or explosively cut supports would also fall at terminal velocity, Remebeer the explosive would just knock out the support. gravity still does the job of bringing down the building.

[Skylark]

Enough with the concrete core BS already... (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html)

[Brainache]

Dude,

You are a new comer who has not read the thread. Note: The only "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" are around the outside of the core. The steel inside the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is much smaller and are NOT core columns. That steel is elevator guide rail support structure. Which is why no core columns are seen protruding from the core area in ANY photos. Catch up dude!!!!

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3264&stc=1&d=1159154677


The massive box collumns are the core, you dingbat!

[uruk]

Dude,

You are a new comer who has not read the thread. Note: The only "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" are around the outside of the core. The steel inside the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is much smaller and are NOT core columns. That steel is elevator guide rail support structure. Which is why no core columns are seen protruding from the core area in ANY photos. Catch up dude!!!!

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3264&stc=1&d=1159154677

Look closer at the picture you posted. the support columns are distributed throughout the core.

Look at the floor diagram on this site:
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_ch2.htm
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_ch2.htm#fig-2-1

Notice the red squares in the core structure. those are the support columns distributed throughout the core. The elevater shafts are located near the columns but none are used as "rail guides". Elevators are usually shaft and cable suspension type.

[Christophera]

Did you yourself not state:



This is clearly a LOT longer than free fall would have taken - more than twice as long, in fact. So by your own evidence (which is far less factual than the evidence I have provided) the buildings did not fall at "free fall" speeds.

Therefore your question is answered so you can stop.

Two towers to the ground in 20 seconds is WAY TOO FAST. I'm calling it demolition. A collapse would never go to the ground, it would stop a floor below the impact damage, done deal.

[LashL]

To those of you who may be relatively new to christophera, he really is seriously mentally ill. You can find links to his various sites that prove this unconditionally in this very thread (search the time frame around 2-3 weeks ago in this thread and you'll find everything you need to know about him).

But in light of that reality, it is probably best not to engage with him over the same two posts and the same two photos that he's been spouting here for the past few months and that he's been spouting for the past few years on various forums. Just read the links and you will understand. Personally, I'd prefer that when his ultimate meltdown occurs, it is on a forum other than JREF.

As annoying as he is, as obvious as it is that his theories are indefensible and nonsensical, as apparent as it is that he's the only person on the face of the earth who believes that the twin towers had concrete cores, he really is seriously mentally ill. No joke. So, please, take the high road and let this thread die despite the temptation to respond to his nonsensical posts.

[Nightlord]

Two towers to the ground in 20 seconds is WAY TOO FAST. I'm calling it demolition. A collapse would never go to the ground, it would stop a floor below the impact damage, done deal.

This is getting too sad. I was reluctant to leave the thread because there are other people that seems to be much more rational and there could be some usefulness in cheking the evidence that they say they have for a CT, but I have to agree that by now this thread is just not fun anymore.

[William Rea]

You DO know what lateral forces are, right ?

I'm sure you'll try to lecture and educate me anyway.

Read it again, I am surprised you missed this as you claim to have some sort of ESP about my posts!!! The comment "What lateral forces?" is asking what lateral forces were present on the day.

[William Rea]

Yeah.

But when people show a pic, model, or drawing of the whole with the entire building, it does look like a little bitty hole that couldn't drop a big building like that.

When you view it as if the top of the building is a seperate building on it's own, as the damaged floors rest on the lower structure and support the higher as a building rests on the ground, then it clears it up a bit. Don't consider it as a few floors of a 100 story building damaged, but as the bottem few floors of a smaller building (just the parts from the damaged areas up). It suddenly becomes much more understandable how this caused a collapse, and why it wouldn't topple.

Look at the aspect ratio Huntsman.

I didn't show the whole building to try to reduce the visual impact of the damage. I did it to show the density (as this seems to be such a big deal) and extent of the sound structure BENEATH the damage (Assuming that structure is not made of skin).

If the top of the building is seperate on its own as you say then why didn't it just topple off above the damage rather than plummet through all that relatively sound structure? In effect the top should "ricochet" or take the path of least resistance off the top of the building, kind of like trying to balance a block on the end of a broomstick (Go on Belz, take that analogy beyond its boundaries, I dares ya).