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

[chipmunk stew]

Actually Tim, you are doing the childish thing just fine and you also are not providing any evidence whereas I've documented the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) quite well. Even to the point where I show the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)as well as the concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif).Ghosts really do exist. I've documented it quite well: here you see a ghost orb (http://www.burlingtonghostwalks.ca/bigorb2.jpg), which clearly demonstrates that this house is haunted. Don't tell me it's just a speck of dust--you can see right through it. There's no other explanation.

Now I'll show you a sinking ship (http://www.uscg.mil/lantarea/iip/Photo_Gallery/Icebergs_Images/distant%20iceberg%20sunset.jpg) made of pine. I think I've documented it quite well. People who call it an iceberg support baby-eating devil-worshippers.

[Christophera]

Please cite where these professionals have prior experience with demolitions, or justify why their line of work qualifies them as to be able to recognize demolition.

I cannot cite that but I have shown what they think they witnessed, a controlled demolition.

http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg

Please show where another steel building has collapsed.

Please show that the structure NIST depicts is correct by using raw images of the towers during the fall. I show that the NIST structure never appears.

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

[kookbreaker]

I cannot cite that but I have shown what they think they witnessed, a controlled demolition.

They said that it was like a controlled demolition. Stop being dishonest.


Please show where another steel building has collapsed.


Please show where another building has had a fuel-laden jet hit it at top speed.


Please show that the structure NIST depicts is correct by using raw images of the towers during the fall. I show that the NIST structure never appears.


Please show that what you have here is anything other than a smoke covered delusions of yours.

[Christophera]

Ghosts really do exist. I've documented it quite well: here you see a ghost orb (http://www.burlingtonghostwalks.ca/bigorb2.jpg), which clearly demonstrates that this house is haunted. Don't tell me it's just a speck of dust--you can see right through it. There's no other explanation.

Now I'll show you a sinking ship (http://www.uscg.mil/lantarea/iip/Photo_Gallery/Icebergs_Images/distant%20iceberg%20sunset.jpg) made of pine. I think I've documented it quite well. People who call it an iceberg support baby-eating devil-worshippers.

This appears as obfuscation. If you cannot support the tower structure NIST says existed, why not just say so.

I've shown that the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) of the tower is concrete by default at the least, because you cannot show the steel core columns NIST calls for. They did not exist.

So are you trying to dimiss the information of the concrete core so that the NIST analysis is more credible?

[Abbyas]

Please show where another steel building has collapsed.

Just as soon as you show me another skyscaper hit by a very large airplane at full speed.

Just because something didn't happen before doesn't mean it didn't happen. Especially when circumstances are so radically different from normal.

An example: say I have a bicycle. I push it off a cliff and the wheels fall off. My bike never had the wheels fall off before, but I had never pushed it off of a cliff before. Make sense why we can't rule it out because it never happened?

[kookbreaker]

This appears as obfuscation. If you cannot support the tower structure NIST says existed, why not just say so.


Still, nobody knows what you are talking about.


I've shown that the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) of the tower is concrete by default at the least, because you cannot show the steel core columns NIST calls for. They did not exist.

No, you have not.


So are you trying to dimiss the information of the concrete core so that the NIST analysis is more credible?

I am dismissing your claim that a smoke covered picture is proof of anything you claim.

[cloudshipsrule]

Is this image

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg

the interior?

Because the same site calls it a corner spire when viewed from another angle.

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

Which is it? Corner spire or interior core.

[Christophera]

Please show where another building has had a fuel-laden jet hit it at top speed.


A building not hit by a jet falls at free fall. WTC 7

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y248/koshira/wtc-7-small.gif

Here is the page that has links to engineers web sites that describe the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

http://concretecore.741.com/

[Abbyas]

Please show that the structure NIST depicts is correct by using raw images of the towers during the fall. I show that the NIST structure never appears.

See, the reason you won't see that is because we know that raw pictures aren't enough. They can be manipulated, and with all the dust, we can't say we are seeing an interior core. The NIST certainly didn't rely on raw pictures. Anyone studying the situation would be negligient to rely on raw pictures.

[Curnir]

I've shown that the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) of the tower is concrete by default at the least,
Umm No....

because you cannot show the steel core columns NIST calls for.
you either can't take the time to read the stuff... or you can't read the stuff.They did not exist.

Yes they did.

[Christophera]

Is this image

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg

the interior?

Because the same site calls it a corner spire when viewed from another angle.

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

Which is it? Corner spire or interior core.

It is an interior box column. The interior box columns were attached but outside the concrete shear wall. This image shows it outside the core area.

http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg

Realize that no image shows the steel core columns per the OFFICIAL TOWER STRUCTURE (http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/femacore.gif) that were supposed to be inside the core.

[chipmunk stew]

I cannot cite that but I have shown what they think they witnessed, a controlled demolition.

http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg

Please show where another steel building has collapsed.

Please show that the structure NIST depicts is correct by using raw images of the towers during the fall. I show that the NIST structure never appears.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif Forget the fact that you're completely wrong for a moment.

How does a concrete core support the controlled demolition theory?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I cannot cite that but I have shown what they think they witnessed, a controlled demolition.

Which is an anecdote and, therefore, not evidence


Please show where another steel building has collapsed.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1647154&postcount=4293
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1485306&postcount=25


Please show that the structure NIST depicts is correct by using raw images of the towers during the fall. I show that the NIST structure never appears.

Pictures are not evidence in, and of, themselves.

[Abbyas]

It is an interior box column. The interior box columns were attached but outside the concrete shear wall. This image shows it outside the core area.

Christophera, is it really possible to be both an interior box column and a corner spire?

[kookbreaker]

A building not hit by a jet falls at free fall. WTC 7


Good. Now find one that had a fire burn for 7 hours without any firefighting efforts, and also had two of the three tallest buildings in the United States fall on top of them.

I'm waiting.

[chipmunk stew]

This appears as obfuscation. If you cannot support the tower structure NIST says existed, why not just say so.

I've shown that the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) of the tower is concrete by default at the least, because you cannot show the steel core columns NIST calls for. They did not exist.

So are you trying to dimiss the information of the concrete core so that the NIST analysis is more credible?
I'm just trying to figure out why you're trying so hard to see a concrete core that isn't there. What does it mean to you if you're right? Does it somehow support a controlled demolition argument?
Ah, now we're getting somewhere. Thank you.

You don't suppose those overly-simplified illustrations intended for mass-consumption are significant, do you?

Here's what NIST really thinks about the construction of the towers:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-1A.pdf

Here's a detailed report on the steel NIST recovered from the towers, including structural members from the core: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf

Using data gathered from the above and other supplemental documents, here's how NIST reconstructed the scenario (includes a lot of information on construction of core): http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1Draft.pdf

This is a picture of one of the towers mid-construction, showing the core columns (reduced version attached): http://www.terrorize.dk/911/images/wtc-1.construction.1.jpg

[Katachresis]

I can't follow this thread anymore without asking Christophera a few simple questions.

Are you saying that the WTC's were not constucted the way it is reported in the NIST report?

Are you saying that hijacked passenger planes were not the direct cause of the towers' collapse?

Do you plan on staying on this thread long enough to maybe convince someone that your theories are valid?

All simple questions that I would really appreciate you answering.

Thanks.

[cloudshipsrule]

Christophera, look at these images and read carefully.

This image you just showed:

http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg

DOES NOT SHOW AN INTERIOR BOX COLUMN.

Look at this image and the distance that the WTC is from the building on the left:

http://www.shabru.com/WTC%20at%20Night.jpg


Please tell me that you can see that the image you showed shows the EXTERIOR of the WTC, not an interior box column. LOOK AT THE DISTANCES.

If this is the basis for you argument, you need to start over.

[chipmunk stew]

Please show that the structure NIST depicts is correct by using raw images of the towers during the fall.I showed you the structure during construction. Did they swap it out with a different core sometime between construction and collapse?

[Ersby]

This picture

http://kiewit.oregonstate.edu/images/wtc_sunrise.jpg

allows a fairly clear view through the WTC at sunrise. There's no single core that runs the length of the building.

(It's also very pretty.)

[Christophera]

Christophera, are you saying this:

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

is part of the INTERIOR core?

Yes, that is a section of the concrete shear wall which WAS the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif). The steel is clearly flexing and the end of the broken concrete wall can be seen. Most importantly, no steel core columns are seen insied the core and they would dominate that image IF they existed, they did not.

This is the face of the wall where interior box columns are sihouetted against the concrete wall.

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

[Katachresis]

I will follow this thread until Christophera answers a few simple questions.

Are you saying that the WTC's were not constucted the way it is reported in the NIST report?

Are you saying that hijacked passenger planes were not the direct cause of the towers' collapse?

Do you plan on staying on this thread long enough to maybe convince someone that your theories are valid?

All simple questions that I would really appreciate you answering.

Thanks.

[Christophera]

This picture

http://kiewit.oregonstate.edu/images/wtc_sunrise.jpg

allows a fairly clear view through the WTC at sunrise. There's no single core that runs the length of the building.

(It's also very pretty.)

I explain that photo and the other here,

http://concretecore.741.com/

The Concrete Core And Its Hallways

Below on the left is WTC 1 at sunrise. The view is not looking down the hallways, we look nearly along the long axis of the towers core. The vertical line of light in the lower segment is created by sunlight reflecting off the inner core walls then shining out the core hallway.

The North Tower had a core oriented east and west. The camera perspective is not aligned with the hallway as can be seen by the orientation of the south towers roof indicating an oblique view. The light is reflected off the inner south shear wall at a hallway level where there is no doorway interrupting. Notice the very slight interruptions, dark streaks, whole dark floors. The nature of light under these conditions is to blend, blur and obscure solid areas between the light.

We see no light on the left side because the doorways on the north face do not align with the doors on the east. Above that, or the top sky lobby floor, the top floors had a different scheme with some halls on one floor crossing both directions.



The core of the south tower above is oriented north south with its long axis and had 2 halls crossing the short axis. We see no light through it because the doors on our face only reveal a shadowed inner concrete wall corner. See the 2 vertical, central lines in the image below.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/images/sf_gallery_04.jpg

Tower on right, the north tower. The interior box columns followed the slight taper of the concrete core to a point then had to continue vertically plumb to the roof as the interior wall of the outside tube of the steel framework. The purpose of this section and photo is to show the space between the interior box columns and the tapering core face at the upper floors. The north tower had hallways crossing perpendicularly every other floor. This picture of the towers is looking due south through the towers.

The north tower core was oriented east west, so we are looking at the wide side. On the right tower fr then project that dddistance down to a cross section. We see, from right to left; a light space from the out side to a dark column which represents the floor space to the interior box column, then there is another narrow light space left of that. That is the space between the interior box column and the concrete core face. Going leftward we see the facing concrete shear wall, then the hallway crossing the narrow axis, then the core face again, then the space between the east core face, then interior box column, then floor space to the east side of the building.

[Katachresis]

These are really easy questions,

Are you saying that the WTC's were not constucted the way it is reported in the NIST report?

Are you saying that hijacked passenger planes were not the direct cause of the towers' collapse?

Do you plan on staying on this thread long enough to maybe convince someone that your theories are valid?

All simple questions that I would really appreciate you answering.

Thanks.

[Ersby]

I explain that photo and the other here,

http://concretecore.741.com/
This is your web site?

[Christophera]

These are really easy questions,

Are you saying that the WTC's were not constucted the way it is reported in the NIST report?

Absolutely. And all posting here have failed to support the FEMA structure that NIST uses.

Are you saying that hijacked passenger planes were not the direct cause of the towers' collapse?

Absolutely, the planes were a cover for the fact that the building were built to be demolished and scheduled for 9-11.

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

Do you plan on staying on this thread long enough to maybe convince someone that your theories are valid?

I've already shown that the official theory (lie) is invalid. The structure that NIST says was there cannot be supported by raw images.

All simple questions that I would really appreciate you answering.
Thanks.

It should be simple to support the towers that NIST states existed, but no one has provided one single image showing the steel core columns in the center of the core.

[cloudshipsrule]

Absolutely, the planes were a cover for the fact that the building were built to be demolished and scheduled for 9-11.

This is the single, most ridiculous theory I have heard yet.

You think that individuals involved in the design of the WTC's designed them for the purpose of destroying them easier in the future?

Are you taking any prescription drugs? You should be.

[kookbreaker]

Absolutely. And all posting here have failed to support the FEMA structure that NIST uses.


Wheras you have failed to establish anything for your hysterical claims.


Absolutely, the planes were a cover for the fact that the building were built to be demolished and scheduled for 9-11.

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


Utter nonsense and complete demonstrating a lack of knowledge of explosives.


I've already shown that the official theory (lie) is invalid. The structure that NIST says was there cannot be supported by raw images.


You have not done what you say.

[Meffy]

Attention all passengers... We have just left the Twilight Zone and are rapidly passing the Outer Limits. Destination: Unknown!

[chipmunk stew]

Absolutely. And all posting here have failed to support the FEMA structure that NIST uses.

Absolutely, the planes were a cover for the fact that the building were built to be demolished and scheduled for 9-11.
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

I've already shown that the official theory (lie) is invalid. The structure that NIST says was there cannot be supported by raw images.

It should be simple to support the towers that NIST states existed, but no one has provided one single image showing the steel core columns in the center of the core.Now we're getting to the crux of it:


The only way to reconcile ab analysis inclusive of the 4 Glaring Inconsistencies is that the thick coatings of the rebar of the cast concrete support core and foundation were actually made of plastic explosive C4. This would put enough explosive force in direct contact with the most concrete at high enough pressures and enable the instantaneous structural collapse of each floor consecutively to the ground that we saw, as well as the resulting particulate. Attempting to apply explosives to the exterior of the concrete would have created too much external explosion and made the demo obvious without achieving a fraction of what we saw or see in the sand and gravel of the photos linked above.

The Notion of no concrete core and of cutting the supposed steel core columns with anything other than shape charges, not developed as they are today, would have changed the character of the event witnessed. Below is a diagram [ http://www.ribbands.co.uk/prdpages/C4.htm ]

This was technology invented in the cold war to make self destruct missile silos and submarine bases, perfect for preplanned demolition. The C4 protected the steel from corrosion before the sea water was evacuated by the incoming concrete into the forms. The C4 was encapsulated in the concrete and its 10 year average shelf life extended by many times.
(bolding mine)

edited to fix link

[Regnad Kcin]

...Come up with some evidence to support your assertions.Irony Alert! Danger, Danger! Irony Alert!

[Sword_Of_Truth]

A building not hit by a jet falls at free fall. WTC 7

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y248/koshira/wtc-7-small.gif

Here is the page that has links to engineers web sites that describe the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

http://concretecore.741.com/

BINGO!!!

We have officially reached the point where the tin-foiler retreats to WTC7.

Can we have an offical policy where all 9-11 threads are locked as soon as WTC7 is mentioned?

[kookbreaker]

OK, so where did they hide all the detcord, caps, and other materials required for explosives?

This is a person with only Hollywood understanding of explosives..and Hollywood would tell him to stuff it for such idiotic nonsense.

[Meffy]

=@.@= Heavens above and below. I'm having one of those "don't know whether to laugh or cry, but whichever it is it'll be nigh unto uncontrollable" moments.

[Pardalis]

Absolutely, the planes were a cover for the fact that the building were built to be demolished and scheduled for 9-11.


Man, you are INSANE.

Are you saying the 9/11 events were 30 YEARS IN THE MAKING???????????????

[Wally]

Man, you are INSANE.

Are you saying the 9/11 events were 30 YEARS IN THE MAKING???????????????


That means Nixon was in on it!!! Now it make so much sence!:eek:

[Lamuella]

I cannot cite that but I have shown what they think they witnessed, a controlled demolition.

http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg

Please show where another steel building has collapsed.

Please show that the structure NIST depicts is correct by using raw images of the towers during the fall. I show that the NIST structure never appears.

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

wouldn't a much more likely explanation for that shape in the background be that there's another building there?

Take a look at this picture, from a very slightly different angle from yours:

http://www.ridgewoodcameraclub.org/Photo%20Gallery/Twin-Towers-2.jpg

See the building behind the right-hand tower? That's what is causing the shadow in your picture.

[Hellbound]

Just to point this out for those who might still be waiting at the depot instead of riding the straight-jacket express....


C-4 does have a shelf life. It doesn't stay good forever. After several decades of being encased in concrete (and without an obvious detonation method..unless you claim radio, but let's not go there) I doubt even half would still go off.

[Kiwiwriter]

Man, you are INSANE.

Are you saying the 9/11 events were 30 YEARS IN THE MAKING???????????????


...that is what he said. :boggled:

Which does not explain how the 1993 bombing fits in to this scenario. And that was extremely real and not planned by any conspiracy. It killed six people, including a woman who was seven months pregnant.

If my pal Mike Sheridan, who was the operations manager of the World Trade Center, was alive -- he died of cancer earlier this year -- he'd laugh. Then he'd cry. Then he'd punch you in the nose.

The World Trade Center was not a controlled demolition.

But it's a good story.

[Regnad Kcin]

...So much for the U.S. Constitution and the rights and freedoms our children might enjoy.Your freedom is but an international plane ticket away. Be sure to send us a postcard now and then.

[Katachresis]

Are you saying that the WTC's were not constucted the way it is reported in the NIST report?

Are you saying that hijacked passenger planes were not the direct cause of the towers' collapse?

Do you plan on staying on this thread long enough to maybe convince someone that your theories are valid?



Absolutely. And all posting here have failed to support the FEMA structure that NIST uses.

Absolutely, the planes were a cover for the fact that the building were built to be demolished and scheduled for 9-11.

I've already shown that the official theory (lie) is invalid. The structure that NIST says was there cannot be supported by raw images.

It should be simple to support the towers that NIST states existed, but no one has provided one single image showing the steel core columns in the center of the core.

Thank you for answering my questions, except the last one, for which I no longer need an answer.

[Dave_46]

Here is the page that has links to engineers web sites that describe the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

http://concretecore.741.com/

When I clicked on that link I saw, briefly, before the window trying to scare me about a virus a drawing of a concrete COLUMN with steel reinforcing in it. The reinforcing was labelled steel BEAMS. If they can't get something as simple as that right I'm not going to bother to read the rest.

Dave

[Meffy]

When I clicked on that link I saw, briefly, before the window trying to scare me about a virus a drawing of a concrete COLUMN with steel reinforcing in it. The reinforcing was labelled steel BEAMS. If they can't get something as simple as that right I'm not going to bother to read the rest.
Pardon a dumb Q from a non-structural engineer, but: columns are vertical, beams are horizontals whose ends rest atop columns, right?

[kookbreaker]

Just to point this out for those who might still be waiting at the depot instead of riding the straight-jacket express....


C-4 does have a shelf life. It doesn't stay good forever. After several decades of being encased in concrete (and without an obvious detonation method..unless you claim radio, but let's not go there) I doubt even half would still go off.

Indeed. Its not just C4. I recall that one of the major unadvertised shortcomings of the former Soviet Cold War Army is that they tended to stockpile shells & ammo and rarely use them since they couldn't depend on their suppliers to gear up to resupply in time.

By contrast, NATO armies shot the stuff and replaced it. The result being that the soldiers could train with the live stuff, and fresh ammo was kept in supply.

Some commented that a lot of artillery and tank ammo on the Soviet side would be a bit failure-prone had a shooting war broken out.

[Dave_46]

Meffy

The image I saw (briefly) was a drawing of a column only, showing reinforcing. I saw no indication of a beam being attached. So, to see vertical reinforcing members called beams made me decide it wasn't worth trying to clear the spam and view the site.

I am not a structural engineer, but I do sometimes work with them. I am a technician involved in fire testing, and sometimes the tests are on buildings (which can be steel or concrete).

Dave

[Timothy]

Man, you are INSANE??????.

Well, there's some pretty compelling evidence that he's seriously disturbed.

PM me if you're interested in seeing the documentation.

- Timothy

[Christophera]

Man, you are INSANE.

Are you saying the 9/11 events were 30 YEARS IN THE MAKING???????????????

35 years.

Are you saying that there are no organizations that can keep secrets that well?

[cloudshipsrule]

I saw that on his website also, Timothy. I thought it was part of the conspiracy??

[Sword_Of_Truth]

35 years.

Are you saying that there are no organizations that can keep secrets that well?

"You are stuck on stupid."
- Lt. General Russel Honore, United States Army

[Stellafane]

...Absolutely, the planes were a cover for the fact that the building were built to be demolished and scheduled for 9-11...

I'll say this as delicately as I can, with all the tact and diplomacy your comment merits.

You are nuts.

[Pardalis]

35 years.

Are you saying that there are no organizations that can keep secrets that well?

2001-1969= 32 years

ETA: I'm saying no organisation can have a specific plan that spans that long in history.

[Beleth]

35 years.
Okay, so let's see if I got this straight.

There was a central concrete core.

The rebar in it was coated in C4 when it was built.

The C4 was detonated on 9/11, and planes were flown into the WTC to provide an excuse for the destruction.

So far so good?

Assuming it is, the plan must have been:
1) Crash planes into towers, let fire burn for a few minutes
2) Detonate C4, destroying the concrete core
3) Towers fall due to concrete core collapse.

And yet, there's that picture you posted, of a concrete core which had not collapsed until after the tower fell.

So I'm wondering how you resolve that discrepancy.

[kookbreaker]

35 years.

Are you saying that there are no organizations that can keep secrets that well?

Not in the construction industry, no.

[Stellafane]

2001-1969= 32 years

Ah, but not in Christophera's universe, where anything is possible. For example, a giant skyscraper gets built, but in a way that it can be easily demolished (you know, just in case we need a handy excuse for starting a war someday) and no one mentions it through what, 6 changes of administration and countless government turnover? Shucks, Carter could have blown up the WTC and blamed it on Iran, who was giving him fits with the hostages and all. And Reagan, he must have been very tempted to use WTC to nuke the Russians and start WW3 like everyone knew he wanted. And George the First could have availed himself of the "WTC option" to get rid of Saddam during Desert Storm. And Clinton, well he really wasn't all that mad at anyone at the time, but it would have made a hell of a diversion from Kneepads Lewinsky and the whole impeachment thing.

You see, in Christophera's universe, all this is entirely possible. So what's three years in the great scheme of things? Traditional math doesn't apply -- neither does traditional sanity.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

[devil's advocate]
Saying that the buildings were built to collapse is nuts, is an argument to incredulity and not good critical thinking.
[/devil's advocate]

That said, it most definitely qualifies as an Extraordinary Claim and most certainly require Extraordinary Evidence.

[Pardalis]

And Clinton, well he really wasn't all that mad at anyone at the time, but it would have made a hell of a diversion from Kneepads Lewinsky and the whole impeachment thing.

Yeah but would he have risked yet another phallic symbolism?

edited for english

[Stellafane]

[devil's advocate]
Saying that the buildings were built to collapse is nuts, is an argument to incredulity and not good critical thinking.
[/devil's advocate]

I don't agree at all. Christophera's statement is in my opinion staggeringly ridiculous, stupid, and insane. Saying as much is simply pointing out the elephant in the room (or the 800 pound gorilla if you prefer). I see nothing at all faulty in doing so, nor is it indicative of poor critical thinking.

[Pardalis]

I don't agree at all. Christophera's statement is in my opinion staggeringly ridiculous, stupid, and insane. Saying as much is simply pointing out the elephant in the room (or the 800 pound gorilla if you prefer). I see nothing at all faulty in doing so, nor is it indicative of poor critical thinking.

He is the devil's advocate...;)

[gfunkusarelius]

um, can we close this thread? this person is obviously just egging you all on.

[Katachresis]

Given others have uploaded pictures, here's is what I look for when I see a troll or someone that is self-deluded:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/572144775e7c3744e.jpeg

and

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/572144775e8a59165.jpeg



Not much time to do any research.

[Ersby]

I won't post on this thread again.

Christopher needs help.

[kookbreaker]

I won't post on this thread again.

Christopher needs help.

Ditto. He is in my ignore file.

[juryjone]

It should be simple to support the towers that NIST states existed, but no one has provided one single image showing the steel core columns in the center of the core.

Well, no one but Chipmunk Stew, who showed the core as it was being built in post #233. So, did you just lie or was this another manifestation of your delusion?

[The_Fire]

Ditto. He is in my ignore file.

He also just made mine.

[ChaoticLimbs]

Christophera-
Do you deny that the buildings were on fire?
Do you deny that fire is hot?
Do you deny that steel becomes softer as temperature is increased?
Do you deny that when an intermediate floor's support structure fails that all floors above it must fall?
Do you deny that falling floors made of concrete are heavy?
Do you deny that heavy falling objects transfer energy to objects and structures below them?
There are rational explanations why a building which had been on fire for quite a while would fall down. This is true no matter what you build them of.
Why look for conspiracies until you have some sort of evidence for conspiracy? What's the method? Motive? Evidence?
You see, you've got it quite backwards- it is not the job of the skeptic to prove that the rational and logical explanation is what truly happened, since what we claim is fairly likely and in line with physics.
What has to happen is that those who purport to have inside information of some incredible event prove or at least conclusively demonstrate that such an event truly occurred the way they claim.
Fire is hot. Water is wet. Hot things eventually melt if they get hot enough. But long before they melt they lose their rigidity and strength. They turn "plastic" at MUCH lower temperatures than the burning temperature of jet fuel, furniture and carpeting in an enclosed space.
I hate to break it to ya, but marching in here and proclaiming that something extraordinary is true without backing yourself up with anything at all which can be verified under the scientific method is not going to win over anyone.
You have to have the facts and evidence to back it up.
And no, I do not work for the CIA. Let's get that out of the way.

[Trifikas]

Okay, Just to see if I have this clear.

The problem is that the picture here:

http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/femacore.gif

From his site, Of fema's version of the core of the WTC (simplified)
was changed from this picture:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1540000/images/_1540044_world_trade_structure300.gif

(Link also found on his site)


And both show something different than this diagram:

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

(again, his site).



And the problem is that the Live pics that were shown, show his pictures design, and not fema's? Is that what this is all about?

Trifikas.

ETA: Hmm...thought I figured out how to get the pictures to show instead of links. guess not...

[chipmunk stew]

Okay, Just to see if I have this clear.

The problem is that the picture here:

http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/femacore.gif

From his site, Of fema's version of the core of the WTC (simplified)
was changed from this picture:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1540000/images/_1540044_world_trade_structure300.gif

(Link also found on his site)

And both show something different than this diagram:

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

(again, his site).

And the problem is that the Live pics that were shown, show his pictures design, and not fema's? Is that what this is all about?
I think it's about something much simpler.

It's about Christophera trying to PROOV an idea he woke up with one night that he can't let go of.

[Christophera]

Just to point this out for those who might still be waiting at the depot instead of riding the straight-jacket express....


C-4 does have a shelf life. It doesn't stay good forever. After several decades of being encased in concrete (and without an obvious detonation method..unless you claim radio, but let's not go there) I doubt even half would still go off.

If you would read, you would learn that in the manufacturers package the shelf life is 10 years.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1154643

The manufacturere doesn't say how long it will last encapsulated in a couple of feet of concrete.

[Christophera]

I think it's about something much simpler.

It's about Christophera trying to PROOV an idea he woke up with one night that he can't let go of.

How about someone from this forum PROOV that the NIST strcuture actually existed by finding some pieces of it as it is falling in the demolition photos.

[Christophera]

You're making that up. In additon to the stuff other people have posted, there is no 3" rebar (or more properly, there wasn't when the towers were going up. Now it's all metric, of course, and there's no ~7.6 cm rebar).

Okay, I'm making it up that you can see through 3 inch rebar on 4 foot centers. Then, ....why can you see through so easy?

http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg

Yes, lots have people have said "NO" to lots of stuff but really have produced ZERO proof of anything. The above is prrof there was some big, super strong rebar in the concrete shear walls of the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

[Donks]

If you would read, you would learn that in the manufacturers package the shelf life is 10 years.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1154643

The manufacturere doesn't say how long it will last encapsulated in a couple of feet of concrete.
Everybody knows that C4 encapsulated in 1 feet of concrete lasts 33 years, but 1 more foot reduces that to 31 years, making your "theory" implausible.

[Katachresis]

How about someone from this forum PROOV that the NIST strcuture actually existed by finding some pieces of it as it is falling in the demolition photos.

A rather more difficult question:

From whom would you accept this evidence?

[Christophera]

Okay, Just to see if I have this clear.

The problem is that the picture here:

http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/femacore.gif

From his site, Of fema's version of the core of the WTC (simplified)
was changed from this picture:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1540000/images/_1540044_world_trade_structure300.gif[/q i m g]]

(Link also found on his site)


And both show something different than this diagram:

[url]http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corehallsdoors.gif

(again, his site).



And the problem is that the Live pics that were shown, show his pictures design, and not fema's? Is that what this is all about?

Trifikas.


Wow,
You got it figured out, the core issue. Right on! Reminds me of one of my favorite thread titles "Why is it so important there is NOT a concrete core".

If you take the "q" in the tag out upon quoting, the image will post.

[Lamuella]

The above is prrof there was some big, super strong rebar in the concrete shear walls of the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

As I said before: that's a building behind the Tower. I even linked you to a photo where you could see this for yourself.

[Manny]

Okay, I'm making it up that you can see through 3 inch rebar on 4 foot centers. You're making it up that there's such a thing as 3" rebar. There's not. You're making it up that that is the interior of the building -- it is the exterior. You're making it up that there was a concrete core. There was not. Tens of thousands of people came down the stairways that very day and not a single one of them saw a concrete core. If there were a concrete core, more people would have survived, as the stairways would not have become impassible at the areas where the airplanes (remember them?) struck.

And of course you're making it up that thousands of ironworkers handled rebar somehow coated with C-4 and every single one of them confused it with, I guess, waterproof epoxy and that none of them experienced the ill skin effects of casual handling of the explosive.

[Lamuella]

the University of Sydney has a very interesting page on why and how the WTC collapsed:

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

[Katachresis]

How about someone from this forum PROOV that the NIST strcuture actually existed by finding some pieces of it as it is falling in the demolition photos.

You were kind enough to answer my first 2 questions. It would be great if you answered this:

A rather more difficult question:

From whom would you accept this evidence?

[ExitDose]

I'm failing to understand how the planes figure into this conspiracy theory. If you've set up explosives in the WTC, why hit it with planes right before you detonate them? Why wouldn't you just detonate the bombs and blame their presence on terrorists?

[Katachresis]

I'm failing to understand how the planes figure into this conspiracy theory. If you've set up explosives in the WTC, why hit it with planes right before you detonate them? Why wouldn't you just detonate the bombs and blame their presence on terrorists?

This is not a failure, it's a sharp mind using logic. Good point.

[Christophera]

As I said before: that's a building behind the Tower. I even linked you to a photo where you could see this for yourself.

Sorry, you are wrong. Here is the same core lower, nothing behind.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcore2stands.gif

[Tricky]

Sorry, you are wrong. Here is the same core lower, nothing behind.
That is the radio tower from WTC1.
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/wtc-bldg7.jpg

Here's another view of it.
http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/wtc-4small.jpg

[Lamuella]

nothing behind... except for a building whose spire is visible in the second photo?

[Katachresis]

You were kind enough to answer my first 2 questions. It would be great if you answered this:



Care to answer this?

You have said you do not trust the NIST. Is it a picture that will satisfy your request?

[juryjone]

If you would read, you would learn that in the manufacturers package the shelf life is 10 years.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1154643

The manufacturere doesn't say how long it will last encapsulated in a couple of feet of concrete.

Oh, please...please argue some more with Huntsman about explosives.

Also, please answer my question about your statement that no one has posted a picture showing the steel columns, when Chipmunk Stew did just that in post 233.

[Christophera]

I'm failing to understand how the planes figure into this conspiracy theory. If you've set up explosives in the WTC, why hit it with planes right before you detonate them? Why wouldn't you just detonate the bombs and blame their presence on terrorists?

Really, you can consider that secret elements of government are going to chance that their construction project is to blame rather than some other likely perpetrator? Because ONLY optimaly placed and distributed explosives can do what happened. Consider the release of toxins. And the considerations for all that oil being available under the watchful eyes of only your military as we rush to get the villans, can you ignore that too?

We have been decieved for many, many decades. Some want to be decieved and can ignore our murdered brothers and sisters easily.

[Lamuella]

but if they're blaming this on Osama Bin Laden anyway, why not just say he bombed the towers a second time? Why go to the trouble of hiring people to hijack a bunch of planes?

[Tricky]

We have been decieved for many, many decades. Some want to be decieved and can ignore our murdered brothers and sisters easily.
How many people are in on this "deception"?

[Katachresis]

Oh, please...please argue some more with Huntsman about explosives.

Also, please answer my question about your statement that no one has posted a picture showing the steel columns, when Chipmunk Stew did just that in post 233.

What, this one?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/57214477798b9aac6.jpeg

[Christophera]

That is the radio tower from WTC1.
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/wtc-bldg7.jpg


Yes that is the antenna from WTC 1, but it has nothing to do with WTC 2's core here,

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcore2stands.gif

Which is slightly lower than the same core here in the shot just prior.

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

proving that we are looking at the WTC 2 core and not a building behind it.

[Christophera]

What, this one?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/57214477798b9aac6.jpeg

The interior box columns,

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

encircled the core up to 7 floors over the top of the concrete core. Meaning the concrete was almost never visible by helicopter. Even the documentary noted a couple of times that the core was hard to find good pictures of.

Inside the core area are elevator guide rail support structures. One of the reasons the elevators in the WTC were so fast is that the concrete core provided constant rigid alignment.

[Shrinker]

Really, you can consider that secret elements of government are going to chance that their construction project is to blame rather than some other likely perpetrator? Because ONLY optimaly placed and distributed explosives can do what happened. Consider the release of toxins. And the considerations for all that oil being available under the watchful eyes of only your military as we rush to get the villans, can you ignore that too?

We have been decieved for many, many decades. Some want to be decieved and can ignore our murdered brothers and sisters easily.

What was wrong with the sniffer dogs that were active in the WTC a few weeks before the attacks? Did they all have colds? Could they not smell a building made of C4?

[Katachresis]

...decieved...decieved...

It's usually I before E, except after C, and then something about neighbors and weigh. Maybe you should start there.

[Christophera]

How many people are in on this "deception"?

Well, we can add you. And probably your father and your grandfather.



It is a dynamic deception and not the subject of this thread.

[Christophera]

It's usually I before E, except after C, and then something about neighbors and weigh. Maybe you should start there.

Now we know what is important.

Shine the murders on. Forget the Constitution. Yep, ....... that is how the deception works.

[Meffy]

It's usually I before E, except after C, and then something about neighbors and weigh. Maybe you should start there.
I... E... C... as in International Explosion Conspiracy? Spooky how all evidence points the same direction, isn't it?

[Timothy]

Christophera,

What prompted you to these mind-numbingly stupid and paranoid conclusions?

Was it your father's 38 years of "harmful hypnotic telepathy"? Was the "use of his eyes to perform hypnotic deepening techniques" by "blinking intensely" and by making "circular motions with his head accompanying the use of his eyes" that led you to this bizarre state?

You want us to produce evidence? The same amount of evidence that the California Superior Court found you provided in your suit? The one where they said "PLAINTIFF HAD NO RELEVANT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIM" except for "spectral" evidence? Or evidence that "plaintiff intends to introduce that has not been deemed relevant in any American court since the Salem witch trials according to the plaintiff's own legal research."

Or when Bonnie Baker of the Santa Barbara District Attorney's office said "This is the first time in the history of this office that an insanity defense was offered in a child support matter"? Or her sworn asserton that "if defendent actually believes what he says in his declaration, it would be a matter of public interest and safety to keep him off the highway altogether"?

Or was it the shock that so many of your custody documents were filed exactly one year before, on September 11, 2000?

Perhaps you need some of your own hypnosis and nitrous oxide to cure your condition.

Your written record of attempts to get the court, mental health services, and social services to buy into your lame conspiracy theories is a perfect companion to the drivel you shovel here.

I hope that Wade doesn't turn out to inherit your illness and delusions.

Seek help from a professional.

- Timothy

[Katachresis]

Again...

A rather more difficult question:

From whom would you accept any evidence?

From whom will you accept any evidence. Please tell us.

[Christophera]

What was wrong with the sniffer dogs that were active in the WTC a few weeks before the attacks? Did they all have colds? Could they not smell a building made of C4?

It was only 3 days before 9-11 that WTC 2 was powered down on the upper 48 floors for 38 hours for a cable upgrade.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1212053

The building wasn't made of C4. The steel rebar inside the concrete was coated with a small, engineered amount of C4. Parafin plugs were cast on the inside of the core to fill inspection ports on the rebar. the presence of the ports were in the documentary I saw in 1990.

Recall that after the lease of the WTC there were major complaints from people trying to get to lower floors because they had to go up, change elevators and come down to get around the elevator work. The core was very thick at the base and getting detonators to the rebar would be a big job, but the holes made to get to the bar could be refilled with parafin.

[Katachresis]

Originally Posted by Katachresis http://www.randi.org/forumlive/images/misc/backlink.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57426&page=7#post1664962):
Again...

A rather more difficult question:


From whom will you accept any evidence. Please tell us.
__________________

[Christophera]

Christophera,

What prompted you to these mind-numbingly stupid and paranoid conclusions?

Was it your father's 38 years of "harmful hypnotic telepathy" (http://algoxy.com/law/nojustice2/images/telehyp2.jpeg)? Was the "use of his eyes to perform hypnotic deepening techniques" by "blinking intensely" and by making "circular motions with his head accompanying the use of his eyes" that led you to this bizarre state?

You want us to produce evidence? The same amount of evidence that the California Superior Court found you provided in your suit? The one where they said "PLAINTIFF HAD NO RELEVANT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIM" except for "spectral" evidence? Or evidence that "plaintiff intends to introduce that has not been deemed relevant in any American court since the Salem witch trials (http://algoxy.com/law/nojustice2/images/telehyp3.jpeg) according to the plaintiff's own legal research."

Or when Bonnie Baker of the Santa Barbara District Attorney's office said "This is the first time in the history of this office that an insanity defense was offered in a child support matter"? Or her sworn asserton that "if defendent actually believes what he says in his declaration, it would be a matter of public interest and safety to keep him off the highway altogether"?

Or was it the shock that so many of your custody documents were filed exactly one year before, on September 11, 2000?

Perhaps you need some of your own hypnosis and nitrous oxide to cure your condition.

Your written record of attempts to get the court, mental health services, and social services to buy into your lame conspiracy theories is a perfect companion to the drivel you shovel here.

I hope that Wade doesn't turn out to inherit your illness and delusions.

Seek help from a professional. (http://algoxy.com/law/nojustice2/images/aparesponse.jpg)

- Timothy

Very good Tim,

you are actually studying some of what is happening. It is true, we do not know everything about the human mind (not as much as we used to) But all of that is off topic.

And remember, when you attack me, rather than my evidence and the scenario of the WTC based upon the evidence, you show how weak your argument is.

[Curnir]

Anyone got a good recipe for shepherds pie?

I was thinking of making that tomorrow, and my usual recipe is so plain.

[Curnir]

And remember, when you attack me, rather than my evidence and the scenario of the WTC based upon the evidence, you show how weak your argument is.

You have evidence???

[Regnad Kcin]

We have been decieved for many, many decades. Some want to be decieved and can ignore our murdered brothers and sisters easily.I implore you to personally devote whatever remaining decades or years you have left to live on this topic. Do it. Don't hold back in the slightest.

"Back, and to the left."

[ExitDose]

Really, you can consider that secret elements of government are going to chance that their construction project is to blame rather than some other likely perpetrator? Because ONLY optimaly placed and distributed explosives can do what happened. Consider the release of toxins. And the considerations for all that oil being available under the watchful eyes of only your military as we rush to get the villans, can you ignore that too?

We have been decieved for many, many decades. Some want to be decieved and can ignore our murdered brothers and sisters easily.
Yeah...I'm not following your logic there. Anyone care to help me out? Is it just me?

[Meffy]

Christophera, you have it backwards. YOU have made extraordinary claims. YOU must supply the argument, the evidence, the proof. Not anyone else. You. Please try to remember how this works or I'll have to demand you explain that miniature orange hippopotamus you keep hidden behind your left ear.

[Timothy]

Very good Tim,

you are actually studying some of what is happening. It is true, we do not know everything about the human mind (not as much as we used to) But all of that is off topic.

It's Timothy, not Tim. Tim is a different user, and a moderator here.

I have no argument. From the beginning I have only wanted one thing. For you to answer one question about your original post. You evade and evade and evade. I make no claim. I ask you for a simple answer. And you evade and evade.

It's not off topic. It shows your documented record as a delusional paranoid loony.

And remember, when you attack me, rather than my evidence and the scenario of the WTC based upon the evidence, you show how weak your argument is.

Hypocrite! As I recall, you accused me of supporting murderers.

Timmy wants the impossible because all that is available is that the towers NIST says existed cannot be evidenced with raw information.

By doing so he supports the lies that the real murderers hide behind.


P.S. If you're going to be so paranoid, you really should keep your name, address, telephone number, driver's license number, and family members' name a little more secure.

[Katachresis]

I have never ignored anyone, probably never will.

And I'll keep the subsciption to this thread, and delete them all.

This thread is like a brush fire, and will burn itself out in a short while.

Sadly, others will replace it, and I quess it's our job to man the watch tower, volunteer to give out time and resources, and be ever vigilant to protect the facts, to use our skills to end the flames of ignorance.

I just hate getting my hands dirty doing it.

[Trifikas]

Wow,
You got it figured out, the core issue. Right on! Reminds me of one of my favorite thread titles "Why is it so important there is NOT a concrete core".

If you take the "q" in the tag out upon quoting, the image will post.



....because, if that's the case, the Fema image and yours are NOT incompatable. they're both simplified in different ways, but they both show the hallway through the core. Look at the Layer labled "Floor Plan" on the Fema Shot. The corridor is there, through the Colums, the yellow path in the middle of them. You even have the same number of Colums along the edges of the core in both pictures, you just elected not to show the ones in the middle.

Someone with a better skill at image software can draw the lines to match up the colums in both pictures, but images are both showing the same thing...

Trifikas

ETA: I just realized I shouldn't say they're "Your" pictures, I don't know if you drew them or if they're from others. it's somewhat moot since they're still the pictures you're advancing as part of your argument.

[Manny]

Anyone got a good recipe for shepherds pie?

I was thinking of making that tomorrow, and my usual recipe is so plain.I think the simplicity is the charm of a shepherd's pie.

That said, a local restaurant (http://www.agaveny.com/menu_dinner.html) serves what it calls a "Santa Fe Shephard's (sic) Pie." Chile mac instead of the ground beef and jack cheese instead of parm. Maybe slice up a jalapeno or two?

[Tricky]

Well, we can add you. And probably your father and your grandfather.

It is a dynamic deception and not the subject of this thread.
I mean, how many people knew beforehand that it was going to happen? We need to trace the evidence back to these criminals.

[jj]

Anyone got a good recipe for shepherds pie?

I was thinking of making that tomorrow, and my usual recipe is so plain.

50% ground lamb, 50% ground beef. Equal quantity of chopped onions. Fry it all up. Turn meat into bowl. Deglaze pan with a pint of guinness, reduce it until you have a nice gravy. Usually have to add a touch of roux to it. Season gravy a bit strongly with salt and pepper, remembring you didn't do that to the meat.

Put meat in casserole. Add some chopped carrots. Pour gravy over just to cover meat. Cover with mashed potatos.

Bake until done.

Eat.

[Christophera]

....because, if that's the case, the Fema image and yours are NOT incompatable. they're both simplified in different ways, but they both show the hallway through the core. Look at the Layer labled "Floor Plan" on the Fema Shot. The corridor is there, through the Colums, the yellow path in the middle of them. You even have the same number of Colums along the edges of the core in both pictures, you just elected not to show the ones in the middle.

Someone with a better skill at image software can draw the lines to match up the colums in both pictures, but images are both showing the same thing...

Trifikas

ETA: I just realized I shouldn't say they're "Your" pictures, I don't know if you drew them or if they're from others. it's somewhat moot since they're still the pictures you're advancing as part of your argument.

I took the original FEMA drawing and added the core and hallways. WTC 1 only.

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

[Christophera]

I mean, how many people knew beforehand that it was going to happen? We need to trace the evidence back to these criminals.

There are bigger problems that have to dealt with first. We are afraid of our unconscious existence. They operate there.

[Shrinker]

It was only 3 days before 9-11 that WTC 2 was powered down on the upper 48 floors for 38 hours for a cable upgrade.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1212053

The building wasn't made of C4. The steel rebar inside the concrete was coated with a small, engineered amount of C4. Parafin plugs were cast on the inside of the core to fill inspection ports on the rebar. the presence of the ports were in the documentary I saw in 1990.

Recall that after the lease of the WTC there were major complaints from people trying to get to lower floors because they had to go up, change elevators and come down to get around the elevator work. The core was very thick at the base and getting detonators to the rebar would be a big job, but the holes made to get to the bar could be refilled with parafin.
Agh, I've stepping in something really unpleasant here haven't I? Could you explain why only one tower needed to be powered down? After skimming your website I've no doubt at all that you'll have an interesting story. Not that I'll believe it, but I figure the more time you spend typing, the less hands you'll have available for self harm.

[Tricky]

There are bigger problems that have to dealt with first. We are afraid of our unconscious existence. They operate there.
What? You aren't interested in finding and punishing these people? You want to leave them free to do it again? That is of primary importance.

So again I ask, how many (roughly) knew about this beforehand? Who (in general) were they? Politicians? Engineers? Airline executives? Media outlets?

[Stellafane]

Anyone got a good recipe for shepherds pie?

I was thinking of making that tomorrow, and my usual recipe is so plain.

A little paprika sprinkled on the top does it for me. You'd be surprised how much that gussies up an otherwise bland shepard's pie (and the red is a nice touch).

And for God's sake, don't make it too watery -- I hate that.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/ArkanWolfshade/qq_kitty.jpg

[ExitDose]

What? You aren't interested in finding and punishing these people? You want to leave them free to do it again? That is of primary importance.

So again I ask, how many (roughly) knew about this beforehand? Who (in general) were they? Politicians? Engineers? Airline executives? Media outlets?
You're OBVIOUSLY too afraid of your unconscious existence to understand. It's the magic Stalin atoms, man, follow the money.;)

[Beleth]

ONLY optimaly placed and distributed explosives can do what happened. But as I showed in reply 302, even that doesn't explain the visual evidence. If explosives in the core were required to knock down the building, then the core would not have been left standing after the rest of the building collapsed. Yet a standing core surrounded by the collapsed rest of the tower is exactly what is in the photo you like to refer to so much.


We have been decieved for many, many decades. Some want to be decieved and can ignore our murdered brothers and sisters easily. About as easily as you are ignoring my simple debunking of your entire thesis, eh?

[Christophera]

You're making it up that there's such a thing as 3" rebar. There's not. You're making it up that that is the interior of the building -- it is the exterior.

This is the steel reinforced tubular cast concrete core. No steel core columns are seen ever in pictures of the towers falling.

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

Here is its rebar. If it is not rebar, we all know it is not a perimeter column box column (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc32.1corealign.jpg),

http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg

I'm not making up the images, I understand them. I'm using my understanding of them to assemble a scenario, a picture of what really happened, and it works. It can be disturbing for people. There are some profound things that happened and they need explaining.

Remember, just because an infiltration into a government has occured, and those infiltrating have dark purposes, the inherent goodness of our Constitution and its amendments, justice serving a principle of life, our governmetn still has many, many good people in it.

We have all been lulled by media, academia, corporate power and taught fears that keep us from cooperating.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/ArkanWolfshade/__hr_bigcatnose.jpg

[Mercutio]

I wanted to respond to this at the time, but we had a power outage. Your response, though, speaks volumes.
http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg

Apparently the candid veracity of this discussion escapes you while you attempt unrelated comparisons.
You apparently know nothing about the scientific study of sensation and perception. That's okay; most people don't. But most people aren't trying to accuse folks of murder based on their misunderstanding of it.

It is very easy to demonstrate that the sincerity with which someone believes their eyewitness account is independent of its veracity. You are overly impressed by testimony which simply cannot be taken at face value. As I said before (which you ignored, because it did not fit your preconceived notions), the accuracy of their eyewitness accounts could easily be tested. You could show me that your witnesses are as credible as you think they are. But you have no interest in doing so, because you do not believe your story either.

The real idea here is to see if anyone can support the tower strcutures that NIST says existed. Seems no one can, nor can they understand that is what I'm trying to do.
This had nothing to do with my post. Do you typically change the subject when someone asks you a question you cannot answer?

They seem fixated on determinig the impossible, like the exact fall time. What they totally fail to see is that quite a bit of material went UP before it went down, so even if we could determine the grounding time exactly, the inacuracies caused by high explosives blowing materials up would render the seach for exact times a joke.And you seem fixated on ignoring relevant questions. Your pretense of searching for evidence is more promise than reality; if you really want evidence, you must critically examine it as it comes in. If you treat the rest of your evidence as you treat the reports of explosions, your search for evidence is doomed from the start.

Why do you not wish to empirically validate the statements you rely on from the firefighters? Why do you allow such a crucial part of your "evidence" to remain so easily cast in doubt?

[LordoftheLeftHand]

(For the OP - Has anyone seen a realistic explanation for free fall of the towers?)

Uhh gravity? (http://www.physics.org/Results/displaysite.asp?id=5496)


(For everyone else)
http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=cute+kitten (http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=cute+kitten)

LLH

[bob_kark]

Hmmm... I finally get to the end of the thread and there's nothing else to say. How disappointing.

[Mercutio]

Anyone got a good recipe for shepherds pie?

I was thinking of making that tomorrow, and my usual recipe is so plain.I have two excellent recipes, but both are in Greek, so they may make too much more sense than the rest of this thread. PM me if you want them.

[Christophera]

Do you typically change the subject when someone asks you a question you cannot answer?


The real idea here is to see if anyone can support the tower structures that NIST says existed.

[Meffy]

I think that's a "yes," Mercutio.

[Christophera]

But as I showed in reply 302, even that doesn't explain the visual evidence. If explosives in the core were required to knock down the building, then the core would not have been left standing after the rest of the building collapsed. Yet a standing core surrounded by the collapsed rest of the tower is exactly what is in the photo you like to refer to so much.

About as easily as you are ignoring my simple debunking of your entire thesis, eh?

This should cover the answer.http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1232703

The floors were set to go off about 40 feet ahead of the core. Somewhere around 40 floors, the core stopped momentarily and the thermite in the basement went off, severing the bases of many columns. The floors continued down, this took the steel to the ground, then the core went off in 40 foot sections every 300 milliseconds.

[Mercutio]

The real idea here is to see if anyone can support the tower structures that NIST says existed.
I thought you said you did not read the NIST report. In post 17 of this thread you are specifically asked if you have read it, and in post 22 you reply in the negative.

Please provide a citation. If you say NIST says the tower structure existed, surely they must have written it somewhere. If you did not read the NIST report, as you say, then it must be somewhere else. Please enlighten us. Perhaps you are in possession of evidence no one else here has seen.

Again, my post asked you specifics about a claim you made about an eyewitness report. Specifically, I do not think the report can stand scrutiny, because you do not demonstrate that the firefighters (even if I give you "they can recognise explosive detonations") can discriminate, in chaotic conditions, between explosive detonations and other incidental explosions. Should I take this post as a "yes, I do typically change the subject when asked a question I cannot answer"? Because you are doing it again...


edited for superfluous "d"

[Mercutio]

I think that's a "yes," Mercutio.
I thought so; thanks for the confirmation.

[Mercutio]

This should cover the answer.http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1232703

The floors were set to go off about 40 feet ahead of the core. Somewhere around 40 floors, the core stopped momentarily and the thermite in the basement went off, severing the bases of many columns. The floors continued down, this took the steel to the ground, then the core went off in 40 foot sections every 300 milliseconds.
The thing about fire...it is oxidation. It leaves evidence. If you have the amount of thermite needed to do what you are saying here, it will be evident to any investigator...let alone a herd of investigators.

Once again, I am getting the distinct feeling that someone is having fun, and does not believe a word of what he himself is posting. Actually, I rather hope this is the case, having read some posts suggesting a more....pathological... explanation.

[Christophera]

You apparently know nothing about the scientific study of sensation and perception.


http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg

These are trained professionals with experience. I know a high speed series of detonations when I see them.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/.site1106.jpg

[Christophera]

The thing about fire...it is oxidation. It leaves evidence. If you have the amount of thermite needed to do what you are saying here, it will be evident to any investigator...let alone a herd of investigators.

The herd invstigators was kept away from the gate. A few photograpers got images of molten steel in the basement. Others had cameras taken from that at ground zero.

Not one person has come up with a credible explnation for WHY the supposed steel core columns of the WTC report are not seen in this image and others.

Here is rebar. No core columns tho.

http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg

[Beleth]

This should cover the answer.http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1232703

The floors were set to go off about 40 feet ahead of the core. Somewhere around 40 floors, the core stopped momentarily and the thermite in the basement went off, severing the bases of many columns. The floors continued down, this took the steel to the ground, then the core went off in 40 foot sections every 300 milliseconds.
Wait, I thought the explosive was around the rebar in the concrete core. Now you're saying that there was explosive-wrapped rebar in the (non-concrete) floors too?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg

These are trained professionals with experience. I know a high speed series of detonations when I see them.

None of the firefighters in that video said that there were explosives.

And no, you appearantly don't know anything about high speed detonations.

[Christophera]

Hmmm... I finally get to the end of the thread and there's nothing else to say. How disappointing.

What can I say Bob? Oh, ....... I already said it. Sure am glad you've recognized it tho.

I could say this is the top of WTC 2 getting ready to slam WTC 3 and you can see the brown/gray concrete core inside.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.gif

Christophera--as per Rule 4 of the membership agreement, do not "hotlink" images.

[Trifikas]

I took the original FEMA drawing and added the core and hallways. WTC 1 only.

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



Isn't that more points in favor of the FEMA drawing? Sure, they simplified it since all they wanted to show was the colums, and as I said they showed in the floor plan that the Hallway was there. but the Hallways don't have to break up the Colums - It appears they'd have no problem going between them. Most of the schematics I've seen show that they are not evenly spaced, Either.

That being the case, the "Live" pictures, agree with your picture, wich agrees with FEMA's picture.

[Beleth]

From this web page (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1232703).

1) The rate equaling that of free fall, inconsistent sequence, direction.
2) Total pulverization of everything but heavier steel
3) The molten steel seen in the basement 2 weeks after 9-11
4) The character and quantity of concrete particulate in the dust.


1) has been thoroughtly debunked. It can't be said to "equal free fall" if there is no good measurement of the exact time it took, and it has been shown that large differences in velocity will result in only small differences intotal time anyway.


2) isn't backed up by any evidence I saw presented on that page. It is not enough to show that C4 reduces things to rubble that way; that is our old friend the Confirming the Precedent fallacy. It needs to be shown that falling down due to an airplane strike could not possibly have reduced everything to rubble that way. If that evidence is on that page, I didn't see it.


3) has been debunked so many times over in the Loose Change thread that I have lost count. First off, there is no evidence that it was molten steel. It was far more likely to be molten aluminum, which has a far lower melting point. Second, there is no evidence that the fires which would have resulted from burning jet fuel and burning offices supplies couldn't melt aluminum. In fact, it's extremely likely that they did.


4) has the same refutation as 2) did.



Now is the point where Christophera takes these criticisms and makes changes to his hypothesis that are even more outlandish than the ones he has already. Or did that happen on page 8?

[Gravy]

This should cover the answer.http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1232703

The floors were set to go off about 40 feet ahead of the core. Somewhere around 40 floors, the core stopped momentarily and the thermite in the basement went off, severing the bases of many columns. The floors continued down, this took the steel to the ground, then the core went off in 40 foot sections every 300 milliseconds.

Down, Huntsman, down!

[Gravy]

http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg

These are trained professionals with experience. I know a high speed series of detonations when I see them.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/.site1106.jpg

That second one is a photo of a volcano in the Phillipines. I remember it from an ABC After School Special in 1978.

[Mercutio]

http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg

These are trained professionals with experience. I know a high speed series of detonations when I see them.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/.site1106.jpg
When have you seen them? Please, I am very serious. You are, once again, comparing a claim of something seen to an assumption of something seen.

Trained professionals with experience may or may not be able to distinguish controlled demolitions from other explosions. That is precisely my question, and precisely the thing you are trying to gloss over. The evidence is not on your side on this question, but it does remain an empirical question. Can you cite even one source in which these trained professionals have been tested on this question? (I did a thorough EBSCOHOST search and did not find one, but you may have other sources.)

Your photo is, of course, utterly irrelevant to this question.

Once again, your actions are completely consistent with changing the subject when someone asks you a question you cannot answer.

[Mercutio]

These are trained professionals with experience. Are any of them willing to be tested? Do any of them support your view?

[cloudshipsrule]

I've come to two conclusions after reading through this thread.

One, christophera has much better eyesight than me.
Two, christophera is not from this planet.

Christophera, you do realize that your theory is just as plausible as saying this:

It was actually aliens that downed the Towers with some type frequency modulation device. The device is so precise it will calculate the exact resonance frequency of a large structure in a matter of seconds, then send out pulses that subsequently destroy it. It is also able to be so precisely controlled that the aliens were able to make it look like the building fell at free fall speeds simply by using the gravity-multiplier ray option from the Intergalactic Arms Association. They knew the near free-fall speed would catch the eyes of a select group of individuals who would go on to make money writing books about it pinning the crime on the US government.

The aliens command of mind control was used over 30 years ago when they implanted the design for the towers in a few individuals heads, knowing that about 30 years after construction they would revisit earth and force unwilling Muslims to highjack planes and fly them into the buildings, which would become an oh-too-convenient alibi for the aliens. (Notice how no one except me has figured out that aliens were behind the entire thing!)

A certain race of aliens ( I will not go into discussion about that here) have been avid baseball fans for decades. When the Dodgers beat the Yankees 4-0 in 1963, the aliens knew something was up. Their investigation ultimately led to the discovery that the game was fixed, and a few 'elite' people were behind it. These same people were involved in land development deals around Manhattan, and guess what project they were about to start work on????

Yup! The WTC's.

That pretty much sums it up. The aliens were pissed at a few individuals, and decided to take revenge. But wait, it gets a little creepier.

Why 30 years later? I'm glad you asked. This same race of aliens is know for it's ability to see into the future, but not more than 35 to 40 years, which turned out to be plenty of time. The aliens saw that a parcicular decendent, whom I will not name here, of one of those 'elite' idividuals would discover an actual starship in a cloud by viewing it from a telescope from the 84th floor of WTC1, ON SEPT 12TH, 2001. Not only would this individual make the discovery, but the individuals involved in the fixed game would be in the towers on the very same day.

This individual who would have discovered the ship on Sept 12th 2001 had an injury which prevented the aliens from using their mind control abilities. The metal plate in his head simply didn't allow it to work.

So what better way to take revenge on those responsible for the fixed game in 1963, and prevent the discovery of one of their numerous starships, than to destroy WTC1 with the discoverer inside? Problem is a clerical error caused them to take down the wrong building first, hence the delay before actually taking down the correct building. I don't have to tell you that during that delay plenty of aliens lost their jobs on that one!

I couldn't tell you what happened to WTC7, it's just too strange an event.

[strathmeyer]

What can I say Bob? Oh, ....... I already said it. Sure am glad you've recognized it tho.

I could say this is the top of WTC 2 getting ready to slam WTC 3 and you can see the brown/gray concrete core inside.

Do you have any evidence that the towers free fell?

[Meffy]

Second, there is no evidence that the fires which would have resulted from burning jet fuel and burning offices supplies couldn't melt aluminum. In fact, it's extremely likely that they did.
Definitely. A tenant on my family's land burned down the house he'd been staying in rent-free for months -- a dinky building built mostly of non-combustible cinder block. Not exactly a huge inferno. In the rubble I found lumps of aluminum molten to little puddles by the fire's heat. Window frames. (Some were just partly melted.)

[Christophera]

From this web page (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1232703).

1) The rate equaling that of free fall, inconsistent sequence, direction.
2) Total pulverization of everything but heavier steel
3) The molten steel seen in the basement 2 weeks after 9-11
4) The character and quantity of concrete particulate in the dust.


1) has been thoroughtly debunked. While ignoring exactly how the towers were designed. 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, Why the wrong tower fell first if it was a collapse. They don't explain why the tops of the towers fell the wrong directions according top the sides damaged. (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html)



2) isn't backed up by any evidence I saw presented on that page unless high explosives centralized and distributed throughout cast concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) would cause all that SAND & GRAVEL (http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg). Without identifying the correct design of the tower, the issue of pulverization cannot be analyzed.


3) has been debunked so many times over in the Loose Change thread that I have lost count. To the misfits trying to debunk, it is suffcient to simply announce it as "debunked" with no proof whatsoever. Of course they still can't show that the tower NIST analyzed was the actual structure that stood but I will confirm that they have pronounced a great deal that 9-11 theories have been "debunked" popular Mechanics" even did it. Notice, they didn't even mention the concrete core


4) has the same requirement that you selectively view the universe to avoid feeling like you know what is going on in it.refutation as 2) did.



I will note that popular mechanics did well on the pod, the hologram, remotes, the nuke etc, of course they were supposed to because the same people that invented those theories are the ones behind PM.

Still, ................ no raw images of the strcutural elements that NIST/FEMA say existed for the cores of the towers. Meaning that the only images of the towers core show concrete or air.

Are you guys trying to say there was no core. Are you supporting the "AIR CORE".

[Christophera]

I've come to two conclusions after reading through this thread.
|
|
Wow - big BLAH
|
|
I couldn't tell you what happened to WTC7, it's just too strange an event.

I'm still waiting for someone to post a raw image of the steel core columns that FEMA says existed.

Got Core?

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

Only concrete here.

[Gravy]

I'm still waiting for someone to post a raw image of the steel core columns that FEMA says existed.

Got Core?

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

Only concrete here.

Christophera,
Please email me at itmatters@mail.com with the RAW image file of the above photo. Thanks.

Also, you've been asked not to hotlink images. Use the VB Image Host feature in the menu at the top of this page.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

We're still waiting for proof of your hallucinatory concrete core.

[chipmunk stew]

I don't have the recipe, but I just had the most delicious strawberry rhubarb tart I've ever tasted for dessert tonight.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I'd give away a Klondike Bar™ for a bowl of Rolo™ ice cream right now.

[Meffy]

I don't have the recipe, but I just had the most delicious strawberry rhubarb tart I've ever tasted for dessert tonight.
o/~ There's one thing
Can revive a guy
And that is a piece of
Rhubarb pie.

Serve it up
Nice and hot.
Maybe things aren't as
Bad as you thot. o/~
-- Garrison Keillor and the Guy's Shoe Band, on A Prairie Home Companion

(This musical theme is played at the end of a weekly segment, after a longish story the details of which vary but in which the protagonist's luck gets worse by the minute [much like certain threads {how 'bout that?}]; the claim is that no matter how numerous and severe the tribulations, rhubarb pie is a sovereign remedy. I don't care for the stuff so can't vouch for that.)

[Mercutio]

I don't have the recipe, but I just had the most delicious strawberry rhubarb tart I've ever tasted for dessert tonight.
As a pie person above all else, I am compelled to request that you find out the recipe. Ask your host, or the restaurant, or take somebody hostage, but dammit, we are talking pie here...(seriously, if you find it, PM me...)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I'm Henry the eighth I am
Henry the eighth I am, I am
I got married to the widow next door
She's been married seven times before
And every one was an Henry (Henry)
She wouldn't have a Willy or a Sam (no Sam)
I'm her eighth old man, I'm Henry
Henry the eighth I am
Second verse same as the first
I'm Henry the eighth I am
Henry the eighth I am, I am
I got married to the widow next door
She's been married seven times before
And every one was an Henry (Henry)
She wouldn't have a Willy or a Sam (no Sam)
I'm her eighth old man, I'm Henry
Henry the eighth I am

I'm Henry the eighth I am
Henry the eighth I am, I am
I got married to the widow next door
She's been married seven times before
And every one was an Henry (Henry)
She wouldn't have a Willy or a Sam (no Sam)
I'm her eighth old man, I'm Henry
Henry the eighth I am
H-E-N-R-Y
Henry (Henry)
Henry (Henry)
Henry the eighth I am, I am
Henry the eighth I am
Yeah!

-Herman's Hermits

[Regnad Kcin]

...1) The rate equaling that of free fall, inconsistent sequence, direction....has been thoroughtly debunked...While ignoring exactly how the towers were designed. 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, Why the wrong tower fell first if it was a collapse. They don't explain why the tops of the towers fell the wrong directions according top the sides damaged.Never mind your continued use of the entirely debunked "free fall" nonsense, as well as other speculative hot air, I want to focus on this portion of your assertion:

"...the imact/fall sequence is backwards..."

I know why you're wrong. I want you to tell me why you think you're correct.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Never mind your continued use of the entirely debunked "free fall" nonsense, as well as other speculative hot air, I want to focus on this portion of your assertion:

"...the imact/fall sequence is backwards..."

I know why you're wrong. I want you to tell me why you think you're correct.


Ooh! Ooh! I know! I know! The buildings should have fallen first, which would mean that the planes wouldn't have struck them, so Christophera weighs the same as a duck, and is therefore a witch!

Sorry ND, I'll stop derailing now. :boxedin:

[thaiboxerken]

Christophera is now on ignore, he's just a troll and not very original.

[SRW]

http://us.a2.yahoofs.com/users/43d11104z999f814b/c59f/__sr_/e65cre2.jpg?phAU9dEBvriJLnZK


Well then explain this!

[Trifikas]

I'm still waiting for someone to post a raw image of the steel core columns that FEMA says existed.

Got Core?

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

Only concrete here.


I think the problem is you're showing this picture of a shadowy, dust-obscured shape in this picture, and everyone is wondering how you can tell whether it's Concrete, Concrete reinforced by steel, or a building behind partially obscured by smoke.

If you could explain how we could tell, it would probably go a long way to more understanding of your claim.

[Christophera]

There are bigger problems that have to dealt with first. We are afraid of our unconscious existence. They operate there.

What? You aren't interested in finding and punishing these people? You want to leave them free to do it again? That is of primary importance.

So again I ask, how many (roughly) knew about this beforehand? Who (in general) were they? Politicians? Engineers? Airline executives? Media outlets?

How did you ever get the idea that we would allow them to do it again?

Apparently you didn't understand what I said which is not surprising. Anyhow, if you ignore what I've said, no matter who you lock up, it WILL happen again.

I ain't talkin' about "who", until "how" is covered.

[Christophera]

I think the problem is you're showing this picture of a shadowy, dust-obscured shape in this picture, and everyone is wondering how you can tell whether it's Concrete, Concrete reinforced by steel, or a building behind partially obscured by smoke.

If you could explain how we could tell, it would probably go a long way to more understanding of your claim.

I have experience with these materials. I know what they look like under given conditions of failure. When they fail, how. It is not rocket science. A core made of multiple steel columns would never have this appearance.

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

[Christophera]

Christophera is now on ignore, he's just a troll and not very original.

The only explanaton that is feasible for free fall and it's not original? Ahhhhh, maybe cartoons will help.

[Christophera]

Never mind your continued use of the entirely debunked "free fall" nonsense, as well as other speculative hot air, I want to focus on this portion of your assertion:

"...the imact/fall sequence is backwards..."

I know why you're wrong. I want you to tell me why you think you're correct.

Read it here,

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1207667

[treble_head]

I'd give away a Klondike Bar™ for a bowl of Rolo™ ice cream right now. I think the question should be: WWJD for a Klondike Bar?

[Christophera]

When have you seen them? Please, I am very serious. You are, once again, comparing a claim of something seen to an assumption of something seen.

Trained professionals with experience may or may not be able to distinguish controlled demolitions from other explosions. That is precisely my question, and precisely the thing you are trying to gloss over. The evidence is not on your side on this question, but it does remain an empirical question. Can you cite even one source in which these trained professionals have been tested on this question? (I did a thorough EBSCOHOST search and did not find one, but you may have other sources.)

Your photo is, of course, utterly irrelevant to this question.

Once again, your actions are completely consistent with changing the subject when someone asks you a question you cannot answer.

No bogus questions until someone here finds away to support the NIST structure with raw images.

[Christophera]

A rather more difficult question:

From whom would you accept this evidence?

I would accept it from anyone but it must be consistent with other evidence of the same type.

[Christophera]

Christophera, you have it backwards. YOU have made extraordinary claims. YOU must supply the argument, the evidence, the proof. Not anyone else. You.

So you have been made to think that huh?

NIST is the one that has made outrageous claims. To think what we saw was a collapse is inane and utterly unacceptable. You believe them and I can show the structure they use for analysis is wrong. The core was concrete.

http://concretecore.com

Your turn to come up with evidence supporting the tower core you think stood. That is the place to start.

[Christophera]

You evade and evade and evade. I make no claim. I ask you for a simple answer. And you evade and evade.


Your disinfo secret murder supporting buddies got this place so trashed with the spam, I have not even seen your question Timmy.

[Christophera]

...that is what he said. :boggled:

Which does not explain how the 1993 bombing fits in to this scenario. And that was extremely real and not planned by any conspiracy. It killed six people, including a woman who was seven months pregnant.

If my pal Mike Sheridan, who was the operations manager of the World Trade Center, was alive -- he died of cancer earlier this year -- he'd laugh. Then he'd cry. Then he'd punch you in the nose.

The World Trade Center was not a controlled demolition.

But it's a good story.

You should read my page, it does explain how the 1993 bombing fits into 9-11.

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

The remodel in the basement is when the thermite was applied to the columns. The trial of the bobmber brought out the fact the FBI knew and actually set the bomber up to use real explosives. The original plan was to park the van next to the core, but the FBI told them to move it. Had they not done that the entri tower could have popped at once. Seriously. They saved it to install delays and make it appear as a collapse and get more out of the event. Your government has been infitrated. Stop helping the infiltrators with their secret.

Consider this. If I talk about our rights and freedoms, do you think I'm faking it so that patriotic people will be fooled into believeing what I say? Notice that of all those here saying "no" (without evidence) have no web site where they document their beliefs with evidence. Notice my site, algoxy.com is about the environment. About how an oxygen additive caused southern California coastal creeks to lose their total dissolved oxygen. All the frogs, birds and animals took off. Notice all those people saying "no" stand for nothing. Yes, nothing except for a basket of fear that says, "ridicule what you don't understand" and a littel voice that tells them, "You already know the truth, don't listen to anyone."

Your friend Mike would be amazed at what I know about the towers construction and look at images of the demolition and he would would know it was true. The towers were way too strong to even topple at the impact point from what happened. The degree of confusion Americans feel is immense on this issue, it is understandable. The natural thing for Americans to do is what has happened, they were led into it. They have been manipulated and decieved and not just about 9-11.

[Trifikas]

I have experience with these materials. I know what they look like under given conditions of failure. When they fail, how. It is not rocket science. A core made of multiple steel columns would never have this appearance.

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

Okay, but you aren't the only one with experience with those materials, how they were constructed into WTC, and knows what happens to them when they fail. Heck, the person who used those Materials to actually BUILD the world trade center does not share your misgivings about the NIST Report.

Dr. Thomas Eagar, A professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Doesn't believe explosives were used for the buildings to fall as they did:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html


Plus, as you stated on your web site, it's Concrete Reinfoced by steel. It's reasonable to believe the a structure standing temporarily during the collapse would behave like concrete instead of steel, giving the shape you claim is only concrete.


So it's a question now of which experts to believe. And the only way to determine that is Corroborating evidence.

[Regnad Kcin]

Read it here,

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1207667Thank you. I read a bit, looking for what you say it contains: the reason why the "impact/fall sequence is backwards." Here's all I can locate:

"The fact that both towers fell almost identically and the tops fell in the wrong directions relating to the faces they were struck on are major factors that indicate the controlling aspects of the towers fall was completely separate from plane collisions and fires and that they were a demolition, controlled by timers.

Viewed from the east, here is the top of the north tower falling to the south when the tower was hit hard on the north side. Damage there logically causes a failure there having the tower fall to the north.

In addition to the above, it is completely illogical that this building, hit first, hit hardest, burnt worst, would fall last, without demolition's being involved." (Bolding mine.)

I'll not ask you to support your claims regarding "hit hardest, burnt worst [sic]" at the moment, Mr. Brown. I just want to be sure I understand you. So, for clarity's sake, let me make a list covering all the reasons you say "it is completely illogical that this building [the north tower]...would fall last." The north tower was hit first (undisputed) The north tower was hit hardest The north tower burnt worse
Have I left anything out? Is there anything you'd like to add?

[Christophera]

2001-1969= 32 years

ETA: I'm saying no organisation can have a specific plan that spans that long in history.

Our populatons have been dumbed down, made ignorant of how information is made stable in time in the human mind, perpetuated. We do not know everything about the mind.

[Pardalis]

Our populatons have been dumbed down, made ignorant of how information is made stable in time in the human mind, perpetuated. We do not know everything about the mind.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????

I know something about your mind, YOU'RE NUTS.

[Regnad Kcin]

Incidentally, Mr. Brown, is this you (http://www.me.wpi.edu/MFE/brown.html)?

[Christophera]

Do you deny that steel becomes softer as temperature is increased?


You have just achieved the dumbed down discovery award. That is why the core lie exists. Steel does that, but not nearly enough to cause what happened if it had a steel core, which it did not. It was concrete.

Now, if someone would just post one image of the structure NIST states existed, you all wouldn't be so guilty of disinformation.

[Christophera]

How does a concrete core support the controlled demolition theory?

Concrete can be fractured to fall instantly by a small amount of explosives that are located centrally.

[Christophera]

Incidentally, Mr. Brown, is this you (http://www.me.wpi.edu/MFE/brown.html)?

Not me.

[Gravy]

Christophera, I checked my email and that RAW image file isn't there. Since you're online now, please send now. itmatters@mail.com

[Christophera]

Christophera, is it really possible to be both an interior box column and a corner spire?

Absolutely. There was an interior box column on each face very near the corner. They geometrically matched the truncation of the tower corners.

The towers were not built with a "corner spire". The lattice plane of interior box columns and floor beams, with some shear wall bracing it near the top, could be demolished in a way, intentionally or inadvertantly, to leave one corner interior box column stand exactly as we see.

[Gravy]

Did you send the image, Chrstophera?

[Timothy]

Your disinfo secret murder supporting buddies got this place so trashed with the spam, I have not even seen your question Timmy.
Well that settles it. You're a liar.

You've seen my question "HOW FAST DID THEY FALL?" several times. If you didn't see it, why did you respond to, and evade it here?

Well tim, the end of the fall is vague, so there you have it. The exact time is just not worth discussing. It appears you would rather know that than exactly how the fall rate was created.

And respond to, and evade it here?

Timmy wants the impossible because all that is available is that the towers NIST says existed cannot be evidenced with raw information.

Your delusional fantasies about being the focus of a Chumash Medicine people conspiracy have dulled your senses. You can't even get my name right after being corrected several times.

You're a fool, a stooge, a farce, a joke. And a liar.

Get professional mental health help.

- Timothy

[Christophera]

This is the single, most ridiculous theory I have heard yet.

You think that individuals involved in the design of the WTC's designed them for the purpose of destroying them easier in the future?

Are you taking any prescription drugs? You should be.

No, I have provided the only realistic and feasible explantion for rates of fall near free fall and the total pulverization of the contents of the tower.

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

No one has ever produced a single image, raw evidence, of a steel core column. We start there. Back up what you believe stood. C'mon!

[Gravy]

I don't know, Timothy. It could be he is insane, but not a liar.

[Gravy]

No, I have provided the only realistic and feasible explantion for rates of fall near free fall and the total pulverization of the contents of the tower.

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

No one has ever produced a single image, raw evidence, of a steel core column. We start there. Back up what you believe stood. C'mon!

Christophera, where's that RAW image?
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1665419&postcount=398
Please send it now, or explain why you are unable to.

[Christophera]

http://concretecore.741.com

This is your web site?

It is.

[Gravy]

Why haven't you sent the image, Christophera? It only takes a minute to do.
itmatters@mail.com

[Pardalis]

What's a "raw" image anyways?

[Gravy]

What's a "raw" image anyways?
I'm waiting to see if Christophera knows what the RAW format is. He's been demanding raw images from us again and again. We'll see if he's been using raw images.

[Christophera]

Okay, but you aren't the only one with experience with those materials,

Plus, as you stated on your web site, it's Concrete Reinfoced by steel. It's reasonable to believe the a structure standing temporarily during the collapse would behave like concrete instead of steel, giving the shape you claim is only concrete.

Have you ever examined the reinforcing grid and form system for a concrete wall, cast in place?

Do you know how flexible steel is when in long pieces, even when trussed heavily? The proportions of the towers made them unstable made with all steel. The steel reinforced concrete tube made a wonderful partnering of materials. The steel had fantastic load bearing capacity but would deform with weight. Also winds and weight together can really move it around. Deformations of the shear planes occur and failures happen. The concrete core takes a lot of lateral loads from the steel, torsion, deformations. The concrete keeps the steel aligned in it's maximum loadbearing form. The concrete tube is relatively light considering the performance in stiffining the tower.

Why do ya' think the new tower has a concrete core, cause the old one worked so good. We have been scammed, our nation hijacked.

[Regnad Kcin]

Not me.Fine.

Now will you go back and respond to my post #421?

[Christophera]

I'm waiting to see if Christophera knows what the RAW format is. He's been demanding raw images from us again and again. We'll see if he's been using raw images.

My error. I don't care about format. Simple images of evidence are what I mean. This is raw evidence of high explosives detonating in maximum containment. Lots of dust from high pressures and material heaving with velocity for distances.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1plumecascade.jpg

[Gravy]

Still running, Christophera?

I'm giving you the chance to prove you're not a fraud.

If I don't get that file in the next 5 minutes, that settles it, and you'd best take your show elsewhere.

[Christophera]

Thank you. I read a bit, looking for what you say it contains: the reason why the "impact/fall sequence is backwards." Here's all I can locate:

"The fact that both towers fell almost identically and the tops fell in the wrong directions relating to the faces they were struck on are major factors that indicate the controlling aspects of the towers fall was completely separate from plane collisions and fires and that they were a demolition, controlled by timers.

Viewed from the east, here is the top of the north tower falling to the south when the tower was hit hard on the north side. Damage there logically causes a failure there having the tower fall to the north.

In addition to the above, it is completely illogical that this building, hit first, hit hardest, burnt worst, would fall last, without demolition's being involved." (Bolding mine.)

I'll not ask you to support your claims regarding "hit hardest, burnt worst [sic]" at the moment, Mr. Brown. I just want to be sure I understand you. So, for clarity's sake, let me make a list covering all the reasons you say "it is completely illogical that this building [the north tower]...would fall last." The north tower was hit first (undisputed) The north tower was hit hardest The north tower burnt worse
Have I left anything out? Is there anything you'd like to add?

No.

[Gravy]

Got it, fraud. What a pathetic person.

[westphalia]

Our populatons have been dumbed down, made ignorant of how information is made stable in time in the human mind, perpetuated. We do not know everything about the mind.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/84434477f539c27e7.gif

[Pardalis]

Christophera, have you ever seen any "raw" video footage of the collapse, or just these still "raw" images?

Do you like sushi BTW?

[treble_head]

My error. I don't care about format. Simple images of evidence are what I mean. This is raw evidence of high explosives detonating in maximum containment. Lots of dust from high pressures and material heaving with velocity for distances.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1plumecascade.jpg
wow. you know nothing of how dust settles do you? especially when compressed by a falling object... If debris is falling quickly, (heavy) and dust and debris are falling slower (light), do you know what that means? It makes light objects fall slower and makes it look like they're falling at different speeds.

Do you know why? Because they are! It's called friction and gravity!!! Dust spreads rubble doesn't. Wanna know why? Gravity, wind, simple math...

dust spreads because lighter objects (i.e. the dust) flow faster in the air than heavier objects. It's not a detonation, It's f-ing physics!

[Regnad Kcin]

No.Thank you.

Now then, at what level (that is, between what stories) did each airplane strike each tower?

[Shrinker]

Christophera call me stupid if you wish but I'm having trouble exactly picturing what you are describing inside the towers. From your diagram...

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corehallsdoors.gif
That's a single solid concrete box on the inside of the core there? Spanning the entire width of the core? You also describe some extra supporting features near the corners of the towers.

Absolutely. There was an interior box column on each face very near the corner. They geometrically matched the truncation of the tower corners.

Forgive me but I'm having trouble locating either of these notions in this photograph...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/36174478028b77d6c.jpg

[Sword_Of_Truth]

So you have been made to think that huh?

NIST is the one that has made outrageous claims. To think what we saw was a collapse is inane and utterly unacceptable. You believe them and I can show the structure they use for analysis is wrong. The core was concrete.

http://concretecore.com

Your turn to come up with evidence supporting the tower core you think stood. That is the place to start.

Actually, it is you and you alone who has to cough up the evidence, here.

Under the US legal system, the burden of proof lies with the accuser and you are accusing unspecified persons of crimes including; high treason, crimes against the constitution and roughly 3,000 counts of first degree murder.

Prove it or shut it.

[Shrinker]

Picture taken inside the WTC during construction. Is that steel columns on the right there there? No sign of a concrete core. Bit late to put one in too.

http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=197710

View from above during construction. No sign of a concrete core here either.

http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=197707

Or here:

http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=197704

And here you can see though the outer shell to, you guessed it, a steel core.

http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=197717

[Shrinker]

And the most damning of all, at your own site...

http://concretecore.741.com/images/silhouettenoontosouth.jpg

The picture shows a complete absence of a solid concrete core.

The babblings on that site seem to be offering some kind of explanation but it makes no sense at all. Are you saying the WTC was built without a core, then one was added secretly later? Since the building stood perfectly well without it, why add it? Why add it secretly? So it could leave a vaguely suspicious shadow 30 years later?

[Beleth]

From this web page (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1232703).

1) The rate equaling that of free fall, inconsistent sequence, direction.
2) Total pulverization of everything but heavier steel
3) The molten steel seen in the basement 2 weeks after 9-11
4) The character and quantity of concrete particulate in the dust.


1) has been thoroughtly debunked. While ignoring exactly how the towers were designed. 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, Why the wrong tower fell first if it was a collapse. They don't explain why the tops of the towers fell the wrong directions according top the sides damaged. (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html)



2) isn't backed up by any evidence I saw presented on that page unless high explosives centralized and distributed throughout cast concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) would cause all that SAND & GRAVEL (http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg). Without identifying the correct design of the tower, the issue of pulverization cannot be analyzed.


3) has been debunked so many times over in the Loose Change thread that I have lost count. To the misfits trying to debunk, it is suffcient to simply announce it as "debunked" with no proof whatsoever. Of course they still can't show that the tower NIST analyzed was the actual structure that stood but I will confirm that they have pronounced a great deal that 9-11 theories have been "debunked" popular Mechanics" even did it. Notice, they didn't even mention the concrete core


4) has the same requirement that you selectively view the universe to avoid feeling like you know what is going on in it.refutation as 2) did.

1) Composition of the tower is irrelevant. You can't say both that something fell at free fall and that you don't know the time it took to fall.

2) remains unsupported by evidence provided on that Web page.

3) remains debunked, as Christophera tries to divert the issue from the molten aluminum back to the concrete core, which was somehow both destroyed to make the building collapse and remained standing after the building collapsed.

4) still same as 2) with the added note that Christophera is getting less coherent.

[Beleth]

Our populatons have been dumbed down, made ignorant of how information is made stable in time in the human mind, perpetuated. We do not know everything about the mind. Compare and contrast:

Educators altered your mind,
You cannot think opposite of
what you were taught to think.
You have a cyclop perspective
and taught android mentality =
lobotomized analytical ability.
Educated singularity stupid -
You can't think 4 corner days.

[tim]

Timmy, you've been acting like a child demanding the impossible for awhile now. Are you supporting the lie that murderers hide behind or not? Because you cetinaly have not addressed the issue behind free fall, the structure of the core.

There were murders. And there are lies and it is being proven right here that you folks cannot supprt the NIST info on the towers structure. Meaning you are suporting a lie that murderes depend on to get away with their deeds.

Our governemnt has been infiltrated.

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

I am particularly annoyed by this comment, and have sent this person the following PM -

"I find this deeply offensive -
"Timmy, you've been acting like a child demanding the impossible for awhile now. Are you supporting the lie that murderers hide behind or not? Because you cetinaly (sic) have not addressed the issue behind free fall, the structure of the core.

There were murders. And there are lies and it is being proven right here that you folks cannot supprt (sic) the NIST info on the towers structure. Meaning you are suporting a lie that murderes (sic) depend on to get away with their deeds."

I am not involved in this discussion except as a moderator trying to keep a little calm. You accuse me of "Meaning you are suporting a lie that murderes (sic)depend on to get away with their deeds."
That is not only wrong, it is dishonourable. You should be deeply ashamed.
Tim"

Apart from anything else, it's not my government...... :D

[bob_kark]

Oh, you're still going on about it... I had assumed you would have decided to turn away. I suppose I could ask you a few more questions that have been asked before that seem to disprove about everything you've claimed.

1. If you don't know how fast the WTC collapsed, how do you know it was "too fast?"

2. If the building is collapsing at free fall speed, why does the debris field overtake the collapse?

3. If there was a concrete core packed with C4, why is it still standing in your picture?

4. How would you time a collapse from a C4 demolition with a thermite demolition on the ground floor and have it look like a natural collapse?

5. If the Globalists, for lack of a better term, were so careful and thoughtful to plan the demolition of the WTC several decades in the past, why weren't they thoughtful enough to plant the thermite in the basement?

6. How are you able to claim that the structure as described in the NIST report is a sham if you never read the NIST report?

[Meffy]

Christophera, if you truly believe that crimes of this magnitude have been committed, it would be highly unethical of you not to report your "findings" to law enforcement officials, and to keep at it until justice is served. It seems to me that by not reporting them to appropriate authorities you have become an accessory to the crimes you're ranting about. Every minute you spend bothering us on this forum is another minute you have wasted while the perpetrators go free, laughing at you.

Oh, I know. You can't go to the authorities because "they're ALL in on the conspiracy," right? *patpat* Mmm-hm. Right.

[edited to correct an ill-chosen phrasing]

[westphalia]

5. If the Globalists, for lack of a better term, were so careful and thoughtful to plan the demolition of the WTC several decades in the past, why weren't they thoughtful enough to plant the thermite in the basement?

You're supposed to be telling us how you did it, Globalist Henchman 43.

And what about my application for membership? It's been almost a year now.

[Darat]

To anyone wishing to use in-line images in their posts please check Rule 4 of your Membership Agreement. I've edited quite a few posts in this thread that I believe breached Rule 4 and I have not so far issued any warnings regarding those breaches however if Members continue to breach Rule 4 I will start to issues warnings which could lead to further action being taken including suspension or banning.

If you are unsure whether an image is copyrighted and/or not available for general use or whether a particular site does explicitly allow hotlinking then I suggest you play safe and merely include a link to the image you wish to draw Members' attention to.

[bob_kark]

You're supposed to be telling us how you did it, Globalist Henchman 43.

And what about my application for membership? It's been almost a year now.

Ugh... You submitted an application? How do you expect to be approved?

[Meffy]

Your turn to come up with evidence supporting the tower core you think stood. That is the place to start.
No. You have come to this forum and made a claim that you are unable to support with evidence. You've evaded, failed to address questions, provided as "evidence" photos that do not represent what you claim they represent (volcano in Philippines, good one), and even tried to irritate a forum member by continuing to address him with a diminutive after having been told this was inappropriate and just plain wrong.

Now I'm going to have to ask you to explain the tiny orange hippo that's behind your ear. If you try to dodge this by saying that I'm the one making the extraordinary claim, I'll just tell you that your denying the hippo's existence is the extraordinary claim, and that it's up to you to disprove it.

Hello... Is any of this beginning to sink through that skull? Or are we dealing with an impermeable medium here?

[Correa Neto]

OK, can someone please tell me what are supposed to be the links between pyroclastic flows and WTC collapse's dust cloud other than CT's abysmal ignorance and data cherry-picking?

These are the only similarities:
(1) Both were gravity-driven density flows
(2) Both are gray

[Gravy]

Christophera,

In your sad, delusional ramblings you have accused people here of supporting the murders of thousands because we do not believe your concrete core idea. You have provided photos of a smoke and dust cloud, and of a piece of exterior wall, and claimed that these were parts of the concrete core you believe existed. You have demanded to see photographic evidence that refutes your claim.

It has been pointed out to you that when you make an extraordinary claim, it is your responsibility to provide evidence to support it. But I'll let that go for now.

I have ample photographic evidence that proves there was no concrete core in the twin towers, and that the north tower "spire" seen in your photos is not part of the interior of the building.

I will provide this evidence if you will promise the following:

1) That you will apologize to the people here who you've accused of supporting murderers.

2) That you never again mention this "concrete core" issue on internet forums.

I await your reply.

Originally Posted by Christophera
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.

The engineers believe FEMAs description of the structure and I know it was different so what the engineers have defined is in error.

So you should post the url's to raw images supporting the structure NIST says stood. I've asked others to do this. Why has no one done it?

No. I derive nothing from any of those productions. All of my evidence is gained from raw images and common sense analysis of construction materials and their physical properties.

Just trying to determine if the basic structure that NIST says stood shows up during the fall of the towers.

You are guessing while not providing links to the sites or images of the basic tower structures that NIST says stood.

I am not reffering to any NIST material, you are. If it is raw images i consider it raw evidence. Post the link.

You shall have to find relevant information in that fallacious document. I know better. I've seen raw data showing exactly what kind of structure stood and NIST doesn't use it.

No. I am aware from other sources exactly how the towers were designed and NIST is a waste of time.

We do not need credentials to identify structural elements in a falling building. Do you have any links that show the structure that NIST says stood using raw images?

Try and find some raw images from the fall of the structure that NIST says stood and spam this thread hard with it okay guys? I'll be back.

Physics is meaningless if you are analysing the wrong structure.

Considering no one here has posted even one image or link that uses raw evidence to substanciate the FEMA core as anything more than a lie, the free fall issue is very minor which ever way you want it.

Yes, I need assistance. Just go ahead and post your evidence supporting the tower design FEMA presents.

Classic, I post a link to many images of the structure. You say "no", and post no proof. Typical, this is the only performance I've seen.

Now here is a picture of the one piece of the core that wasn't blown into SAND & GRAVEL. There is actually an image of 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS and another htat showsconcrete shear wall. There are other angles on that too.

Perhaps you have some evidence that FEMA has described the structure properly, others here seem to be unable to come up with any evidence whatsoever.

Well, ................ I asked for images showing the structure that NIST states existed and you didn't post any and neither did whathistext. Here is 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS that is not supposed to be there, ......... and the steel core columns that you should be able to support are not shown.

It does not show steel core columns and that is what NIST says stood which is what i say so you are wrong. It shows exactly what I say.

You see nothing that NIST says should be there. Thank you for confirming this.

That provide no proof for the tower that FEMA states existed.

This photo shows the core FEMA says existed was not there.

The inability to produce a raw image of the supposed core columns is underlined by the irrational insistence that the free fall rate must be determined exactly. I'm saying the concrete core is what enabled the fast fall rate and you have no raw evidence to counter that assertion.

Free fall depends on the strcutural qualities of the towers. That is what I'm posting. An image of the concrete core.

If someone here could post raw evidence of the tower that NIST says stood it would bring great credence to your assertions that the towers did not fall at close to free fall rates, but you cannot post that evidence because it doesn't exist.

The real idea here is to see if anyone can support the tower strcutures that NIST says existed. Seems no one can, nor can they understand that is what I'm trying to do.

The use of math is a waste of time (that is what you are trying to cause) and I've shown that the towers have a concrete core. I've even shown the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS but it seems as no one here has any structural knowledge and just believe everything they are told.

The first image shows a concrete core and no steel core columns where they should show. The second one shows dust.

You have posted no evidence of any kind. I post evidence of the towers that stood and their concrete core. I even show the inner reinforcing bar of the concrete core as evidence and no counter evidence is provided.

By default, I have proven the concrete core. Meaning that the continued efforts to get the impossible, the exact fall time, are but subterfuge and you all are working together to cover the murders of 3000 Americans.

You can see through the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS, how could it be the exterior?

Actually Tim, you are doing the childish thing just fine and you also are not providing any evidence whereas I've documented the core quite well. Even to the point where I show the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS as well as the concrete shear wall.

Please show that the structure NIST depicts is correct by using raw images of the towers during the fall. I show that the NIST structure never appears.

I've shown that the core of the tower is concrete by default at the least, because you cannot show the steel core columns NIST calls for. They did not exist.

So are you trying to dimiss the information of the concrete core so that the NIST analysis is more credible?

It is an interior box column. The interior box columns were attached but outside the concrete shear wall. This image shows it outside the core area.

Yes, that is a section of the concrete shear wall which WAS the concrete core. The steel is clearly flexing and the end of the broken concrete wall can be seen. Most importantly, no steel core columns are seen insied the core and they would dominate that image IF they existed, they did not.

This is the face of the wall where interior box columns are sihouetted against the concrete wall.

I've already shown that the official theory (lie) is invalid. The structure that NIST says was there cannot be supported by raw images.

How about someone from this forum PROOV that the NIST strcuture actually existed by finding some pieces of it as it is falling in the demolition photos.

Okay, I'm making it up that you can see through 3 inch rebar on 4 foot centers. Then, ....why can you see through so easy?

You got it figured out, the core issue. Right on! Reminds me of one of my favorite thread titles "Why is it so important there is NOT a concrete core".

Sorry, you are wrong. Here is the same core lower, nothing behind.

Yes that is the antenna from WTC 1, but it has nothing to do with WTC 2's core here,

Which is slightly lower than the same core here in the shot just prior.

proving that we are looking at the WTC 2 core and not a building behind it.

encircled the core up to 7 floors over the top of the concrete core. Meaning the concrete was almost never visible by helicopter. Even the documentary noted a couple of times that the core was hard to find good pictures of.

Inside the core area are elevator guide rail support structures. One of the reasons the elevators in the WTC were so fast is that the concrete core provided constant rigid alignment.

The core was very thick at the base and getting detonators to the rebar would be a big job, but the holes made to get to the bar could be refilled with parafin.

I took the original FEMA drawing and added the core and hallways. WTC 1 only.

This is the steel reinforced tubular cast concrete core. No steel core columns are seen ever in pictures of the towers falling.

The floors were set to go off about 40 feet ahead of the core. Somewhere around 40 floors, the core stopped momentarily and the thermite in the basement went off, severing the bases of many columns. The floors continued down, this took the steel to the ground, then the core went off in 40 foot sections every 300 milliseconds.

Not one person has come up with a credible explnation for WHY the supposed steel core columns of the WTC report are not seen in this image and others.

Here is rebar. No core columns tho.

I could say this is the top of WTC 2 getting ready to slam WTC 3 and you can see the brown/gray concrete core inside.

Still, ................ no raw images of the strcutural elements that NIST/FEMA say existed for the cores of the towers. Meaning that the only images of the towers core show concrete or air.

Are you guys trying to say there was no core. Are you supporting the "AIR CORE".

I'm still waiting for someone to post a raw image of the steel core columns that FEMA says existed.

Got Core?

Only concrete here.

I have experience with these materials. I know what they look like under given conditions of failure. When they fail, how. It is not rocket science. A core made of multiple steel columns would never have this appearance.

No bogus questions until someone here finds away to support the NIST structure with raw images

NIST is the one that has made outrageous claims. To think what we saw was a collapse is inane and utterly unacceptable. You believe them and I can show the structure they use for analysis is wrong. The core was concrete.

Your turn to come up with evidence supporting the tower core you think stood. That is the place to start.

Your friend Mike would be amazed at what I know about the towers construction and look at images of the demolition and he would would know it was true.

Now, if someone would just post one image of the structure NIST states existed, you all wouldn't be so guilty of disinformation.

Absolutely. There was an interior box column on each face very near the corner. They geometrically matched the truncation of the tower corners.

The towers were not built with a "corner spire". The lattice plane of interior box columns and floor beams, with some shear wall bracing it near the top, could be demolished in a way, intentionally or inadvertantly, to leave one corner interior box column stand exactly as we see.

No, I have provided the only realistic and feasible explantion for rates of fall near free fall and the total pulverization of the contents of the tower.

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

No one has ever produced a single image, raw evidence, of a steel core column. We start there. Back up what you believe stood. C'mon!

Have you ever examined the reinforcing grid and form system for a concrete wall, cast in place?

Do you know how flexible steel is when in long pieces, even when trussed heavily? The proportions of the towers made them unstable made with all steel. The steel reinforced concrete tube made a wonderful partnering of materials. The steel had fantastic load bearing capacity but would deform with weight. Also winds and weight together can really move it around. Deformations of the shear planes occur and failures happen. The concrete core takes a lot of lateral loads from the steel, torsion, deformations. The concrete keeps the steel aligned in it's maximum loadbearing form. The concrete tube is relatively light considering the performance in stiffining the tower.

Why do ya' think the new tower has a concrete core, cause the old one worked so good. We have been scammed, our nation hijacked.

[Gravy]

OK, can someone please tell me what are supposed to be the links between pyroclastic flows and WTC collapse's dust cloud other than CT's abysmal ignorance and data cherry-picking?

These are the only similarities:
(1) Both were gravity-driven density flows
(2) Both are gray

You got it! You now qualify to be a "Scholar for Truth!"

[Shrinker]

OK, can someone please tell me what are supposed to be the links between pyroclastic flows and WTC collapse's dust cloud other than CT's abysmal ignorance and data cherry-picking?

These are the only similarities:
(1) Both were gravity-driven density flows
(2) Both are gray

They both look like giant rapidly growing cauliflowers. Therefore using the CTs well-known "Law of Similies", they are both giant cauliflowers. Thus implicating a race of cauliflower beings in both 9/11 and the destruction of Naples.

[cloudshipsrule]

Where's the concrete?

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11%20Picture5.jpg

Hmm, none around here either:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11%20Picture6.jpg

[Correa Neto]

oooooooooooooooooh!
Think me is learning to think...

Pyroclastic flows are gray and gravity-driven (lets keep the 900 degrees Celsius temperature of a pyroclastic flow aside as a small unimportant detail). Pyroclastic flows are created by explosive volcanic eruptions, quite often with what can be described as the IMPLOSION or COLLAPSE of the volcano (lets keep aside the fact there are no volcanoes at WTC site as a small unimportant detail). WTC COLLAPSE generated a gray cloud of dust. Gray clouds are pyroclastic flows. Thus, materialism is denied, I mean, WTC collapse was caused by controlled explosions...

And, above all, gray dust, gray aliens!

[Correa Neto]

OooooooOOOOOOOoooooooooH!

Another connection!!!
WTC was sort of cubic! What brings us to TEH TIMECUBE!!!

[Darat]

oooooooooooooooooh!
Think me is learning to think...

Pyroclastic flows are gray and gravity-driven (lets keep the 900 degrees Celsius temperature of a pyroclastic flow aside as a small unimportant detail). Pyroclastic flows are created by explosive volcanic eruptions, quite often with what can be described as the IMPLOSION or COLLAPSE of the volcano (lets keep aside the fact there are no volcanoes at WTC site as a small unimportant detail). WTC COLLAPSE generated a gray cloud of dust. Gray clouds are pyroclastic flows. Thus, materialism is denied, I mean, WTC collapse was caused by controlled explosions...

And, above all, gray dust, gray aliens!

No volcanoes at the WTC site? I wouldn't be too sure: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/10/1008_031008_tvvolcanosimulation.html

...snip...

In a windowless laboratory at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, scientists are simulating the conditions that caused two of recent history's most explosive volcanic eruptions.

James Webster, a geochemist and curator of mineral deposits at the museum, and his colleague Charles Mandeville, a volcanologist, are recreating the chemistry of the magma chambers of the volcanoes—the massive underground cauldrons of liquid rock that fuel an eruption.


...snip...


Bit of a "coincidence" eh?

[Christophera]

Christophera, have you ever seen any "raw" video footage of the collapse, or just these still "raw" images?

Do you like sushi BTW?

Seen plenty of raw evidence in video. Can you produce some showing the supposed steel core columns?

[Christophera]

Where's the concrete?


Where's the steel core columns?

Here is the concrete. To the left of the spire, concrete shear wall. No steel core columns left of it. The center of the core.

http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1065.jpg

[Christophera]

Christophera,

In your sad, delusional ramblings you have accused people here of supporting the murders of thousands because we do not believe your concrete core idea. You have provided photos of a smoke and dust cloud, and of a piece of exterior wall, and claimed that these were parts of the concrete core you believe existed. You have demanded to see photographic evidence that refutes your claim.


Wrong. I have demanded to see photographic evidence that supports the NIST/FEMA claim of steel core columns. No apologies to those saying "NO" without evidence. Get evidence supporting NIST or,...........








Apologize to me.

[Shrinker]

Wrong. I have demanded to see photographic evidence that supports the NIST/FEMA claim of steel core columns. No apologies to those saying "NO" without evidence. Get evidence supporting NIST or,...........

This debate could run and run. If we agree the side with the most extraordinary claim has to stump up the evidence first, then maybe we should analyse the extraordinariness of each position:

Christophera: your claim is extraordinary because:

It requires 35 years of secrecy amongst most of the individuals and agencies involved in the construction, maintenance, demolition and clear-up of the WTC. That amounts to bribery and blackmail of probably tens of thousands of civilians, and a few sniffer-dogs.
All the photographs and video of the construction phase fail to show a concrete core.
Nobody found evidence of explosives at ground zero.
It requires the most elaborate and precise demolition ever performed with gignatic penalties if anything went wrong.
None of the 20,000 or so people who got out alive has testified to this suspicous half-million tonnes of concrete hidden in the building. NIST/Whoever: your claim is extraordinary because:

A single photograph captured an indistinct dark shape amongst the most photographed dust cloud in history. The dark shape is not incompatible with part of a concrete core. Feel free to add more if you have them.

[Meffy]

Christophera, did you not read the warning from a moderator reminding you of the terms you agreed to when signing up for this forum? Specifically, the rule you're still violating?

[Christophera]

No. You have come to this forum and made a claim that you are unable to support with evidence.

Wrong. I've come to this forum with redundant evidence of the concrerte core.

http://concretecore.741.com

Asking for one piece of evidence supporting the NIST strucuture analysis and not one piece of evidence has been produced.

You are trying to make white into black.

Think about the young children who lost parent on 9-11 at the WTC. Say a 5 year old who knew their parent well but couldn't understand why they never came home from work. Do they wonder how the parent died? Jumping from the roof, breathing smoke, crushed in a series of massive high speed detonations.

Now they are 10. They understand that when people are murdered an investigation must take place. They understand there was none and instead, other children in other parts of the world are attacked and killed.

How do they feel about the sytem you are supporting?

[Regnad Kcin]

Mr. Brown, post #448 please?

[Shrinker]

Asking for one piece of evidence supporting the NIST strucuture analysis and not one piece of evidence has been produced.

I've shown you two pictures, both from YOUR SITE, that clearly show both towers, full height, with daylight showing through where your solid concrete core should be.

If you want to make the staggering, bizarre claim that a redundant concrete core was added AFTER the contruction was complete YOU need to back that up.

[chipmunk stew]

No one has ever produced a single image, raw evidence, of a steel core column. We start there. Back up what you believe stood. C'mon!
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1663865#post1663865

[joseph k.]

Think about the young children who lost parent on 9-11 at the WTC. Say a 5 year old who knew their parent well but couldn't understand why they never came home from work. Do they wonder how the parent died? Jumping from the roof, breathing smoke, crushed in a series of massive high speed detonations.

Now they are 10. They understand that when people are murdered an investigation must take place. They understand there was none and instead, other children in other parts of the world are attacked and killed.

How do they feel about the sytem you are supporting?

Can you stick to the "debate" and not use these peoples' pain to attempt some emotional connection to your crackpot theories. I think you are already insulting enough people in this thread.

[Dave_46]

Christophera

In post 435 you confirmed that site http://concretecore.741.com was yours.

I refer to the image headed "WORLD TRADE CENTER STRUCTURE" on that website.

You show vertical steel reinforcing bars in a concrete column. You have them labelled as "Steel Beams". Do you know the difference between a column and a beam?

Also in that image you have the sentence "Fire reaches 800 C- hot enough to melt steel floor supports". Do you know that 800 C is nowhere near hot enough to melt steel?

Given these two simple errors near the top of your page I hope you understand why I have not read the rest.


insert degree symbol

Dave

p.s. I do know that 800 C is hot enough to seriously weaken steel, but you said melt.

[Meffy]

How do they feel about the sytem you are supporting?
You're making yet another baseless assumption / accusation. I've not said a word concerning what "system I support." I have demanded that you back up your claims with credible evidence. You have failed.

Goodbye.

[chipmunk stew]

As a pie person above all else, I am compelled to request that you find out the recipe. Ask your host, or the restaurant, or take somebody hostage, but dammit, we are talking pie here...(seriously, if you find it, PM me...)I wish I could give you something with measurements and all. My wife made it, and when I asked her, she said she just made it up as she went along. She just cooked up the strawberry & rhubarb with some sugar and a little water until it was mushy, set it aside to cool, lined some tart tins with pre-made pie crust dough (Pillsbury or something) and pre-cooked the crusts, then filled the tarts with the strawberry mixture blended with a bit of quick-cooking tapioca powder, and cooked it until it set. She served it warm topped with vanilla bean ice cream. Really simple, but mmmm! it was delicious!

[Shrinker]

I wish I could give you something with measurements and all. My wife made it, and when I asked her, she said she just made it up as she went along. She just cooked up the strawberry & rhubarb with some sugar and a little water until it was mushy, set it aside to cool, lined some tart tins with pre-made pie crust dough (Pillsbury or something) and pre-cooked the crusts, then filled the tarts with the strawberry mixture blended with a bit of quick-cooking tapioca powder, and cooked it until it set. She served it warm topped with vanilla bean ice cream. Really simple, but mmmm! it was delicious!

Typical woo evasions and anecdotes...:mad:

[thaiboxerken]

Jamaican chocolate tower cake recipe:

For cake
2 1/4 cups sifted cake flour
1 3/4 cups sugar
3 teaspoons baking powder
1 teaspoon salt
6 eggs, separated
1/2 cup liquid shortening
3/4 cup water
2 teaspoons vanilla
3 unsweetened chocolate squares
1/2 teaspoon cream of tartar
For filling and frosting
3/4 cup margarine
1 egg
3 unsweetened chocolate squares
3 tablespoons hot water
6 cups sifted powdered sugar
2 teaspoons rum flavoring
1 teaspoon vanilla
1 dash salt
10-12 servings Change size or US/metric
Change to: servings US Metric
1 hour 40 minutes 20 mins prep





1. Sift cake flour, 1 c of the sugar, baking powder and salt into a medium size bowl.
2. Beat egg whites with cream of tartar until foamy white in a large bowl, beat in remaining 3/4 c sugar, 1 t at a time until meringue forms soft peaks.
3. Blend liquid shortening, water, vanilla and egg yolks into flour mixture.
4. Add melted chocolate, beat one minute with electric mixer at low speed or 75 strokes by hand.
5. Fold into meringue until no streaks of white remain.
6. Pour into ungreased 10 inch angel food cake pan.
7. Bake in 325 oven for 1 hour and 20 minutes or until top springs back.
8. Turn pan upside down and set on a bottle.
9. Cool cake completely.
10. Turn onto a wire rack.
11. Split cooled cake into 3 layers.
12. Prepare frosting by melting butter and chocolate in large saucepan.
13. Remove from heat.
14. Beat in powdered sugar gradually with all remaining ingredients until frosting is smooth and creamy.
15. Put cake layers back together with frosting.
16. Spread remaining frosting on sides and tops.

[chipmunk stew]

Typical woo evasions and anecdotes...:mad:You support baby-eaters.

[treble_head]

You support baby-eaters.

why do you hate America?

[Christophera]

You're making yet another baseless assumption / accusation. I've not said a word concerning what "system I support." I have demanded that you back up your claims with credible evidence. You have failed.

Goodbye.


Apparently you are unable to recognize or to use credible evidence because this site is loaded with nothing but credible evidence.

http://concretecore.741.com

You are irresponsible, lacking in integrity and unaccountable.

[chipmunk stew]

why do you hate America?You haven't even produced a RAW image of a kitten. Why do you worship satan?

edit: Apparently you are unable to recognize or to use credible evidence because this site is loaded with nothing but credible evidence.

http://kittens.sytes.org/

You are irresponsible, lacking in integrity and unaccountable.

[senorpogo]

Apparently you are unable to recognize or to use credible evidence because this site is loaded with nothing but credible evidence.

http://concretecore.741.com

You are irresponsible, lacking in integrity and unaccountable.

One of your sources is a UNC class project.

"The class divided into three teams. The first team completed a report
on the World Trade Center project. The second team compiled information
on the impacts that the project had on Lower Manhattan. The third team
examined the architectural, engineering, and real estate aspects of the
project. "

[senorpogo]

Apparently you are unable to recognize or to use credible evidence because this site is loaded with nothing but credible evidence.

http://concretecore.741.com

You are irresponsible, lacking in integrity and unaccountable.

In your MSNBC article Leslie Robertson makes no comments about any concrete core. It's also interesting to see that he agrees with the official version, fire caused the collapse.

"As the fire raged it got hotter and hotter and the steel got weaker and weaker"

[bob_kark]

Hmmm... Maybe if i post it again.

Oh, you're still going on about it... I had assumed you would have decided to turn away. I suppose I could ask you a few more questions that have been asked before that seem to disprove about everything you've claimed.

1. If you don't know how fast the WTC collapsed, how do you know it was "too fast?"

2. If the building is collapsing at free fall speed, why does the debris field overtake the collapse?

3. If there was a concrete core packed with C4, why is it still standing in your picture?

4. How would you time a collapse from a C4 demolition with a thermite demolition on the ground floor and have it look like a natural collapse?

5. If the Globalists, for lack of a better term, were so careful and thoughtful to plan the demolition of the WTC several decades in the past, why weren't they thoughtful enough to plant the thermite in the basement?

6. How are you able to claim that the structure as described in the NIST report is a sham if you never read the NIST report?

[Dave_46]

Apparently you are unable to recognize or to use credible evidence because this site is loaded with nothing but credible evidence.

http://concretecore.741.com

You are irresponsible, lacking in integrity and unaccountable.

"...nothing but credible evidence."

See my post 480

Dave

[Regnad Kcin]

Mr. Brown, you've now responded five times to posters who have made entries since my post #448. This now is the second time I'm asking for you to answer my question as written there.

For your convenience, here is a direct link to post #448: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1665717&postcount=448post

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Wrong. I've come to this forum with redundant evidence of the concrerte core.

http://concretecore.741.com

Asking for one piece of evidence supporting the NIST strucuture analysis and not one piece of evidence has been produced.

You are trying to make white into black.

Think about the young children who lost parent on 9-11 at the WTC. Say a 5 year old who knew their parent well but couldn't understand why they never came home from work. Do they wonder how the parent died? Jumping from the roof, breathing smoke, crushed in a series of massive high speed detonations.

Now they are 10. They understand that when people are murdered an investigation must take place. They understand there was none and instead, other children in other parts of the world are attacked and killed.

How do they feel about the sytem you are supporting?

You lied about the rate at wich the towers collapsed.

You lied about the shelf life of C-4.

You lied about the content of the pictures you posted.

You lied about your own qualifications and experience.

You lied about easily verifiable historical facts such as the make-up of the core of the WTC.

Such a clear pattern of dishonesty, given the subject matter, makes it clear that you are operating as an agent of Al-Queada with orders to disrupt the public disourse here on "the home front" and weaken the nations resolve to fight the enemy.

I have just three questions for you:

1. What are you recieving from your new masters that it's worth betraying your country?

2. What would you say to the families of the 9-11 victims and to the families of fallen soldiers?

3. Are you aware that offering aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war is a DEATH PENALTY offense in America?

(See? We can engage in hyperbole and hysterical, logically shoddy accusations too.)

[senorpogo]

Apparently you are unable to recognize or to use credible evidence because this site is loaded with nothing but credible evidence.

http://concretecore.741.com

You are irresponsible, lacking in integrity and unaccountable.

You cite this (http://www.blythe.org/nytransfer-subs/2001-Environment/Gallon_Environ.Letter:_Engineers_on_WTC_Collapse) article as supporting your claims.

At the end of that article, a link is cited Here. (http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.htm#why)

From the source of your article-
"The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry. Worried that the intense air pressure created by the buildings' high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core..."

Also, the author dismisses the controlled demolition theory. He also states that "even though the steel didnt melt, the type of temperatures in the fire would have roughly halved its strength."

[Pardalis]

Now they are 10.

Are you one of them?

[Pardalis]

http://kittens.sytes.org/


Thanks for the link! How sooothing:)

[senorpogo]

Apparently you are unable to recognize or to use credible evidence because this site is loaded with nothing but credible evidence.

http://concretecore.741.com

You are irresponsible, lacking in integrity and unaccountable.

This source (http://salwen.com/wtc) quotes a passage from a book called "Essential New York". Despite no mention being made of any concrete core in the quoted material, the autor of the article sums up the passage by saying - "In other words, [the towers] were held up by it's reinforced concrete core".

As a matter of fact, nowhere in the entry for the WTC in Tauranac's "Essential New York" is there mention of a concrete core. Instead, there is only the ambiguous mention of "cores of the building rising first".

The mention of the concrete core does not come from the source material, but rather from the author's misinterpretation of that material.

(edited for clarity)

[Pardalis]

You cite this (http://www.blythe.org/nytransfer-subs/2001-Environment/Gallon_Environ.Letter:_Engineers_on_WTC_Collapse) article as supporting your claims.

At the end of that article, a link is cited Here. (http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.htm#why)

From the source of your article-
"The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry. Worried that the intense air pressure created by the buildings' high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core..."

Also, the author dismisses the controlled demolition theory. He also states that "even though the steel didnt melt, the type of temperatures in the fire would have roughly halved its strength."

From the same site http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

One demolition expert on the day of the collapse said it looked like implosion but this is not very strong evidence. Implosion firstly requires a lot of explosives placed in strategic areas all around the building. When and how was this explosive placed in the building without anyone knowing about it. Second, implosion required more than just explosives. Demolition experts spend weeks inside a derelict building planning an event. Many of the beams are cut through by about 90% so that the explosion only has to break a small bit of steel. In this state the building is highly dangerous, and there is no way such a prepared building could still be running day to day like WTC was.

[XXX]

In your MSNBC article Leslie Robertson makes no comments about any concrete core.

That is true, the author says that part but no quote from Leslie that says that. May have simply been a wrong assumption when writing that part.

Also interesting to note is that Leslie Robertson helped out with both the FEMA and NIST investigations (as well as helping the rescue workers at ground zero by providing some of the WTC plans). So if he helped the NIST with their report, and he is the WTC engineer on record, then it must have just slipped his mind that the buildings actually had a concrete core...:confused: (unless you want to bust out the old standbye of "he's lying" in which case he joins the mass of other ranks that are allegedly lying about 9/11, and he has given many lectures about this topic since then. You'd think he'd have had plenty of time in any of them to say "The core I built was not the core in the NIST report!".