Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers? [Archive] - Page 25

beachnut

24th October 2006, 03:51 AM

I know for absolute certain of the concrete core. I have proof no steel core columns existed and the same documentary that showed me the concrete core also gave me all teh clues I need to assemble the only web site on the planet that actually provides a feasible and realistic explanation for near free fall and total pulverizaton.

The other truth seekers just do not know what I know. If they did, they would be right here with me, well some, the ones with courage.

no concrete core just steel columns!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/12447453ddef493eb8.jpg

still only steel comlumn, wow, those are steel columns

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/12447453de0d71bc23.jpg

no concrete core, just steel columns, as you can see steel column core, the floor, and the sides.

guess your super web site will have to be revised, the story you have was wrong as you can see,

no rebar except on the floors, there is rebar size rods in the floor, those are the things all ripped up in your photos of no concrete core just steel core you keep posting over and over again!

beachnut

24th October 2006, 03:53 AM

I didn't know he was designed for that sort of impact!

Please fix the post and use as needed

the guy was broken up when his building fell

Oliver

24th October 2006, 03:55 AM

no concrete core just steel columns!

no concrete core, just steel columns, as you can see steel column core, the floor, and the sides.

...And Jellyfish... http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/char061.gif

Oliver

24th October 2006, 04:02 AM

he posted this stuff back in may over some place else, found it when I looked up concrete core or lack there of

so as the noted Dr Thermite Jones, who just retired so he can devote his time to 9/11 truth, you must not let him know how the jelly fish eats the rust after gathering Al from the siding and some sulfur from the wall board, then takes this explosive thermate and slimes the core

think this was star trek episode

And you´re sure it was not "Dumb and Dumber"? :D

beachnut

24th October 2006, 04:33 AM

And you´re sure it was not "Dumb and Dumber"? :D

good morning, good night

be sure to give chris the jelly fish core, next time you can

Belz...

24th October 2006, 05:40 AM

So the columns that are not inside the core are connected with horizontal steel.

How exactly did you come to that conclusion based on this:

You might have noticed the horizontal steel connecting the two steel columns. Or does your incredible vision cease to register objects that are wider than 2 pixels ?

Where exactly did I say they weren't inside the core ? THEY WERE THE CORE.

Plenty clear for these purposes.

Chris, if you check the size of the stairwell compared to that of those, you'll see that they can't be 3 inches thick.

Of course, now we're up to 6 inch rebar...

Your words are empty with images. Show us columns inside the core.

I'm sorry, but unlike you, I don't need to see 80% compressed JPEG images in order to understand something.

So here: HOW are you sure that those columns are box columns and not support columns ?

The steel worker was not terrified, he just seemed hesitant to continue with remembering.

"Seemed" ? You'll have to do better than that.

Now engineers are terrified of stating what they see inthe images which show the core.

You read minds, now ?

The rebar was delivered with the coating on it.

And no one in the construction crews noticed ?

The notion that the Indigenous steel workers sabotaged the explosive circuits is entirely mine, but it its logical.

How do you figure ? Why the Mohawks ? Why not any other group or group mix ?

Belz...

24th October 2006, 05:51 AM

Find an image of the towers partially down that show the core colums in the core area. If you cannot find one consider there was a concrete core

Impossible. Even if you were right and the columns were not for support, we still wouldn't see concrete, and we still'd have to explain how the top floors of the WTC stood during construction if the CONCRETE HADN'T BEEN POURED THERE.

I witnessed the construction of the concrete core by watching a 2 hour documentary that aired on channel 10, KCET in southern California in 1990.

And pray tell, why did the evil conspirators allow this documentary to be made ? Mohawks, again ?

I've admitted I do not know which tower this image is from. It doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter that you can't be bothered to check such a simple fact ?

The below image is your image which you have no explanation for. I have shown with annotations and lines to fit it in with another image of WTC 2 from the east and show it is WTC 2.

Chris, in order to prove your hypothesis about light reflexion on the concrete, you might want to provide pictures of ANOTHER example besides WTC. That's work.

Read the survivors accounts and you will see that each tower had special training for the fire marshalls for each floor. The towers cores were so different that specific training for evacuations was required for the the different towers.

Still doesn't say anything about concrete.

You are a child when it comes to knowledge of the mind.

Oh, please enlighten us.

The APA was fonded by a skull and bones member. Hearsay, but I believe it after my continues experiences.

Yes, a friend of mine believes in homeopathy from hearsay, too.

In the punctuation of the below letter, it is implied that the director of the "Ethics Department" left because of my letter and evidence to the APA.

Actually, the only causal link is between the lack of director and you not getting an answer.

You might be able to read, but you are not going to learn anything without reading beteen the lines.

In casual conversation the punctuation would mean that the director of the ethics department left because of what I had written and evidenced.

But this ISN'T a casual conversation, but a letter. There is no "between the lines" here.

My point, which you have conpletely ignored, which my notes underline, is that WHEN the concrete core IS REFERRED to, it is done so consistently.

This contradicts that statement:

NOTE: This page has some confusion mentioning multiple, concrete clad cores.

Are they consistent or not ?

Belz...

24th October 2006, 06:03 AM

You are supporting lawlessness.

Appeal to emotions. That, and the fact that you only have arguments from ignorance on your side, I'd say this case is pretty much closed.

When you say this and do not post the image link you are being lame.

Just check 1 out of 4 of Gravy's posts. You'll see it eventually.

I have proof no steel core columns existed and the same documentary that showed me the concrete core also gave me all teh clues I need

If only you could produce this mysterious documentary.

to assemble the only web site on the planet that actually provides a feasible and realistic explanation for near free fall and total pulverizaton.

Again with that "total pulverisation" bull. Didn't you see the big chunks of concrete I pointed to ?

Do you realize how stupid what you have said sounds when looking at this image?

A column of black stuff engulfed in thick smoke ?

The structure stood for 33 years with its stored gravity equal to 248 tons of TNT. The impacts did not bring the towers down and the fires were not hot enough to bring them down.

Oh, a new claim. Why do you think they were insufficient to bring the towers down ?

Don't try to argue it because that will not be reasonable.

Debating is unreasonable ? I guess that's why you're just spamming, then.

Here is the rebar where some explosives failed and others did the job of removing the concrete leaving the vertical reinforcing bar.

Ah, yes. The 1 pixel wide 500 meters away rebar.

Regnad Kcin

24th October 2006, 09:37 AM

The other truth seekers just do not know what I know. If they did, they would be right here with me, well some, the ones with courage."Right here with [you]," posting on a little Internet discussion board only read by a couple hundred people? Wow, your bravery knows no limits.

You are deluded, if the legal system of checks an balances cannot work, I refer to the destruction of evidence in capitol crimes and the inactivity of checks and balances, you cannot propose that the sociocultural systems are going to be more functional.So instead you post on a little Internet discussion board only read by a couple hundred people. Wow, your dedication to spreading the word far and wide knows no limits.

Darat

24th October 2006, 09:47 AM

"Right here with [you]," posting on a little Internet discussion board only read by a couple hundred people? Wow, your bravery knows no limits.

So instead you post on a little Internet discussion board only read by a couple hundred people. Wow, your dedication to spreading the word far and wide knows no limits.

Hey - it's thousands of people that read this forum!

:)

24th October 2006, 09:59 AM

Besides - he's been banned from most of those other boards already...

Arus808

24th October 2006, 10:07 AM

Architect

24th October 2006, 12:11 PM

Some in the UK still think the WTC tower core was built as shown below. Basically a pre-stressed concrete design. Yamasaki had reviewed the design, and found no contractor that could build a 1,300 foot column of that design. We all know the towers had their stairwells and elevators inside the core. There is no room for that in the core below.

Prestressed? So, like, you mean a precast concrete core assembled on site? I think you actually mean reinforced concrete. Possibly even post-tensioned reinforced concrete. But certainly not prestressed. Trust me! :D

Christophera

24th October 2006, 12:32 PM

How exactly did you come to that conclusion based on this:

Where exactly did I say they weren't inside the core ? THEY WERE THE CORE.

All you need to do now is show that the horizontal bracing existed in the core area.

I can show that floor beams connected the interior box columns together, but they are outside the core.

"MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg)

Christophera

24th October 2006, 12:36 PM

Prestressed? So, like, you mean a precast concrete core assembled on site? I think you actually mean reinforced concrete. Possibly even post-tensioned reinforced concrete. But certainly not prestressed. Trust me! :D

You are focusing on information that is already determined as inconsequential and erroneous. Wht do that when there is plenty of raw evidence for the steel reinforced concrete tubular core. For example, here is the concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) of the core holding up the spire formed of an interio box column.

Garb

24th October 2006, 12:43 PM

Christophera, if you show me those stupid pictures one more time, I am liable to shoot myself...

Christophera

24th October 2006, 12:44 PM

aggh. alright guys, there is just no point already. Christophera has shown that he is a thick as 7' concrete on this subject and is being purposefully obtuse about "learning the truth". He wont budge from his stance, and this thread is only serving as a vehicle to drive traffic to his 1000 times spammed website.

Please, just let this thread die. He isn't going to change his mind, and instead of encouragin him, we should just ignore him and hope that he seeks the medical attention that he so desperately needs.

I have evidence, why should I change anything in what I'm doing?

You do not have evidence for the steel core columns you almost never mention (do we wonder why?)

I have actually used my evidence to construct a web site that fully explains the WTC towers as they actually stood and my evidence is from images of THEM coming apart. (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html)

Seeing as there is no raw evidence for the steel core columns, I am not surprised that no one has built a web site dedicated to documenting them. How embarassing for you.

Christophera

24th October 2006, 12:47 PM

Christophera, if you show me those stupid pictures one more time, I am liable to shoot myself...

Don't do it. Seek the medical care you so desparetly need,

As I've said before, it is not fun being an mkultra victim when the evidence for the concrete core shows up.

Major cognitive dissonance WILL occur. Repeated efforts to dissociate can be very disturbing. I would suggest that you join with the other posters here that say "NO CONCRETE" ad file a class action lawsuit gainst the CIA for destroying the mkultra documents in 1972.

uruk

24th October 2006, 12:49 PM

Been youtube'n found some vids. Maybe they'll help but I doubt it.
A couple of the vids are from CTr's One is even from Dylan so they're going to have some silly stuff in there. But they all agree on the core layout.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE7z4gNh5q4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOD4jJzxgcE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJTbsd9lajo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ryi3fXyKgk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiJUXNM75hI
(cters vid, Dylan's I think)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3qIKVRT4tU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCgPCcIxHNw
(docu-drama follow this docu-drama, it mentions the people who escaped the elevator via digging through drywall)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jsm7dKRUeqM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO4eDv0Y4bo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxJMP1jKy5Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-UZoNqluFs
(* discovery channel doc)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ11i6fi7KQ
(A ctr's anim. has BS about CD)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExmSMU9ls-w
(another ctr has some silly idea about core remaining intact and suggests nukes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKxoC4_T-GA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffx0Tn2wHAI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jhRIkezRZY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2yhWJrMIZA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUU-_toZooE
(pbs docu)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIqf-AKJMKI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XImfLnBbBFQ
(steel at 700 degrees)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vhrt4G3dxzI
(part one of 12 history channel docu)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALhkL7HoFZc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Fnw_et1ka4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JY1u6-68eLw
(eerie, showing first 24 hours after the fall)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzJba52bcsc
(about wtc7)
Sorry if some are repeats.
Still lookin' post more when i find.

Christophera

24th October 2006, 12:56 PM

Wow, your dedication to spreading the word far and wide knows no limits.

Truth, and its function to protect life know no limits.

beachnut

24th October 2006, 01:04 PM

I have evidence, why should I change anything in what I'm doing?

You do not have evidence for the steel core columns you almost never mention (do we wonder why?)

Seeing as there is no raw evidence for the steel core columns, I am not surprised that no one has built a web site dedicated to documenting them. How embarassing for you.

Steel core columns, no concrete

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_12447453ddef493eb8.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2186)

and more steel columns no concrete

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_12447453de0d71bc23.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2188)

the only rebar is in the floors, and all your photos and your web site show the same!

Regnad Kcin

24th October 2006, 01:06 PM

Truth, and its function to protect life know no limits.Sayeth the liar.

firecoins

24th October 2006, 01:08 PM

can we be done with the concrete core b.s. already? It was a steel core building before 9/11 and became a concrete core after its destruction. Weird!:confused:

beachnut

24th October 2006, 01:10 PM

Truth, and its function to protect life know no limits.

how can you be so challenged when it comes to research?

your own photos prove you are telling lies, you use a mistake on a tv show documentary to base your fantasy on

you post a web site full of really dumb conclusions yet the underlying facts disprove your own assertions

You post this tripe in May on another blog and you still think you have something

it has been FIVE years and you still can not figure out how the WTC was constructed, have you failed to achieve what most 5th graders have, a usable mind? (that is a question)

Garb

24th October 2006, 01:12 PM

can we be done with the concrete core b.s. already? It was a steel core building before 9/11 and became a concrete core after its destruction. Weird!:confused:

Please don't make him show the pictures again... :(

beachnut

24th October 2006, 01:15 PM

can we be done with the concrete core b.s. already? It was a steel core building before 9/11 and became a concrete core after its destruction. Weird!:confused:

it is ironic you can find all you need to debunk CT 9/11 truth from other 9/11 truth sites!

The photos from 9/11 truth sites are used to debunk other sites, each site incapable of research to back their pre-conceived conclusions they made up, then find junk to support the conclusion as did Dr Thermite Jones.

Ironic as the name they take 9/11 truth movement.

EugeneAxeman

24th October 2006, 01:37 PM

no concrete core just steel columns!

<images omitted per forum rules>

no concrete core, just steel columns, as you can see steel column core, the floor, and the sides.

guess your super web site will have to be revised, the story you have was wrong as you can see,

no rebar except on the floors, there is rebar size rods in the floor, those are the things all ripped up in your photos of no concrete core just steel core you keep posting over and over again!

Yes, there was no structural concrete other that that used in the foundation and the floor pans.

The concrete in the floors was estimated at around 3 million pounds per level, which may explain why the pancake theory for the collapses was trotted out in less than a week.

But then, it failed to explain why the walls and central column failed as observed, so a few more attempts were made.

If it wasn't for the collapse speeds being so similar, despite the differences in the applied forces and initiations, I probably wouldn't have a lot of trouble wrapping my mind around the official explanations.

As many people saw, the upper 35 floors of the South Tower tilted to over twenty degrees, an event which should have continued and broken through the damaged central core. Instead of toppling over, all four walls suddenly began to collapse, carrying the upper section straight down, as though it was on an express elevator. The core could occassionally be seen through the smoke and dust, but only long enough to see it crumble as well.

These core columns were three feet by one foot, and over two inches thick; and there were 47 of them in each tower, so anything that could damage them that thoroughly is pretty impressive.

The dust cloud generated was also amazing. Apparently the concrete in the floor pans was being pulverized as the building fell, not when it hit the ground. That whole process was over in less than ten seconds. I think FEMA had it clocked at 8.5 seconds. I'll have to look that up again. It works out to over 7 floors per second, starting at the collapse point.

The North Tower collapse was even more amazing, because it began around the 100th floor. I watched a few different videos several times, and each time, just as the antenna mast sank into the roof, the area around the 100th floor began to compress, and then that whole section just came straight down, tossing sections of steel wall out in all directions.

It was like the wall were made out of particle board. I would have expected the upper 10 floors to be destroyed by the impact at the same rate as the rest of the structure, but it just kept rumbling down. I guess the equal and opposite reaction thing doesn't apply for collapsing buildings.

If the steel hadn't been rushed off to Asia without a thorough forensic analysis, the government would look so suspicious.

So I can see why a lot of people around the world are continuing to ask questions and call for further investigations. I'm also not surprised that they don't want the investigations to be run by the Bush Administration.

As for the question about why so many physicists and engineers are going along with whatever the official story of the month is, just consider how important it is for universities and corporations to be on the good side of government. Endowments and contracts are not easy things to come by.

Oh, and nice job on this thread. Over 150 pages. That's more than they have on Colbert's blog.

beachnut

24th October 2006, 01:42 PM

beachnut

24th October 2006, 01:55 PM

Yes, there was no structural concrete other that that used in the foundation and the floor pans.

The concrete in the floors was estimated at around 3 million pounds per level, which may explain why the pancake theory for the collapses was trotted out in less than a week.

But then, it failed to explain why the walls and central column failed as observed, so a few more attempts were made.

If it wasn't for the collapse speeds being so similar, despite the differences in the applied forces and initiations, I probably wouldn't have a lot of trouble wrapping my mind around the official explanations.

As many people saw, the upper 35 floors of the South Tower tilted to over twenty degrees, an event which should have continued and broken through the damaged central core. Instead of toppling over, all four walls suddenly began to collapse, carrying the upper section straight down, as though it was on an express elevator. The core could occassionally be seen through the smoke and dust, but only long enough to see it crumble as well.

These core columns were three feet by one foot, and over two inches thick; and there were 47 of them in each tower, so anything that could damage them that thoroughly is pretty impressive.

The dust cloud generated was also amazing. Apparently the concrete in the floor pans was being pulverized as the building fell, not when it hit the ground. That whole process was over in less than ten seconds. I think FEMA had it clocked at 8.5 seconds. I'll have to look that up again. It works out to over 7 floors per second, starting at the collapse point.

The North Tower collapse was even more amazing, because it began around the 100th floor. I watched a few different videos several times, and each time, just as the antenna mast sank into the roof, the area around the 100th floor began to compress, and then that whole section just came straight down, tossing sections of steel wall out in all directions.

It was like the wall were made out of particle board. I would have expected the upper 10 floors to be destroyed by the impact at the same rate as the rest of the structure, but it just kept rumbling down. I guess the equal and opposite reaction thing doesn't apply for collapsing buildings.

If the steel hadn't been rushed off to Asia without a thorough forensic analysis, the government would look so suspicious.

So I can see why a lot of people around the world are continuing to ask questions and call for further investigations. I'm also not surprised that they don't want the investigations to be run by the Bush Administration.

As for the question about why so many physicists and engineers are going along with whatever the official story of the month is, just consider how important it is for universities and corporations to be on the good side of government. Endowments and contracts are not easy things to come by.

Oh, and nice job on this thread. Over 150 pages. That's more than they have on Colbert's blog.

real engineers and researchers did get to look at the steel from the WTC and are doing real work improving things, it took months to remove debris and the steel was tracked and checked, it appears each piece was marked during construction and that helped understand the failure modes

But you will have to get with the program and pay up to view a lot of the work or at least visit a library where the real journals are kept.

Too bad all the Scholar for 9/11 truth are not useful enough to help improve buildings, but only see CT everywhere. At least only .00067 percent of the United States engineers have a problem researching and have suspended their rational side to join an ironically named truth movement!

your time of collapse appears to be too short also, you could do a whole thesis on the real time of collapse, you could start with the slow movement at the very beginning, etc. ( a whole study in time, or you can stick with the looks like 10 second crowd of picking the quotes to suit the conclusion club)

why do people not research what really happened to the steel and present the actual time it was whisked away to China?

why do people keep saying too short of times for the collapse, and pick the time that suits their conclusion (do I smell a concrete core coming, or is that the cordite, or just concrete being smashed at 500 mph?)?

beachnut

24th October 2006, 02:21 PM

As for the question about why so many physicists and engineers are going along with whatever the official story of the month is, just consider how important it is for universities and corporations to be on the good side of government. Endowments and contracts are not easy things to come by.

It seems to me that proving the government was behind 9/11 would leave that group with the proof being the only group viable for government grants, that being the new government. Instead we have a small percentage of engineers, ie .00067 percent who seem to believe a lynch mob action of lies and false ideas is better than theiir name sake of TRUTH.

There is a Pulitzer Prize for the one who could reveal the truth, and the engineer and the school who can do the best job would gladly point out the emperor clothes! It would be great for an engineer to receive the PP.

you are right, yet wrong, by being correct the school that hits the truth would be the one that gets the grants, as the bad guys are put away, the real truth would be rewarded, the only group who can find the real truth!! They would garner all the money to be had!!

you missed it, it is already happening, the real truth has been running for 5 years, research done by real engineers not biased political hacks with degrees, they have designed and built a new WTC7, with a CONCRETE CORE THIS TIME.

materials, new standards, we are working to be better so when the next terrorist comes, whether he is a Tim Mc, or a religious fanatic, home grown or from over there, we will have better buildings and safety to save more people next time.

So, although you have great idea on motivation, you have it backwards, or at least the engineers I went to school with would tell the truth and by being better would get the big money or rewards such as the Pulitzer Prize which has been dormant for the 9/11 truth movement that is devoid of facts, evidence, and proper conclusions that real truth would lead to.

Architect

24th October 2006, 02:22 PM

You are focusing on information that is already determined as inconsequential and erroneous. Wht do that when there is plenty of raw evidence for the steel reinforced concrete tubular core. For example, here is the concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) of the core holding up the spire formed of an interio box column.

1. I wasn't talking to you.

2. I see it's now a tubular core?! Perhaps you could give me a laugh and tell me what you think that means?

3. That's not a concrete shear wall.

4. I'm only keeping you talking until the MiBs get to you....

Arus808

24th October 2006, 03:01 PM

^^ omg , how long did it take you to compose that? ^_^

Oliver

24th October 2006, 03:05 PM

^^ omg , how long did it take you to compose that? ^_^

5 Minutes.

EugeneAxeman

24th October 2006, 03:24 PM

real engineers and researchers did get to look at the steel from the WTC and are doing real work improving things, it took months to remove debris and the steel was tracked and checked, it appears each piece was marked during construction and that helped understand the failure modes

So each piece was forensically examined to determine why the fireproofing was gone? How much of the central core was recovered? Where are the records of the examination results on this steel located?

But you will have to get with the program and pay up to view a lot of the work or at least visit a library where the real journals are kept.

I'm a big fan of libraries, but am not familiar with any journals relating to forensic analysis of the WTC steel.

I'll check the forums and see if somebody has posted that information.

Too bad all the Scholar for 9/11 truth are not useful enough to help improve buildings, but only see CT everywhere. At least only .00067 percent of the United States engineers have a problem researching and have suspended their rational side to join an ironically named truth movement!

Most of them seem rational, just a bit stressed and frustrated maybe.

I think you may be exaggerating your percentage figure. The 9/11 attacks showed civil engineers that they did not know how to protect buildings from fire damage. If the official explanation is true, virtually every steel-framed building is in danger of collapsing within a couple of hours from fire damage.

My take was that the central column design was flawed because it restricted escape routes to the center of the building. This is why so many people were trapped in the North Tower.

I have yet to see an explanation for the mechanism which caused all four walls to simultaneously fail on each building.

your time of collapse appears to be too short also, you could do a whole thesis on the real time of collapse, you could start with the slow movement at the very beginning, etc. ( a whole study in time, or you can stick with the looks like 10 second crowd of picking the quotes to suit the conclusion club)

Check out FEMA and the 9/11 Commission reports for fall times. If you have a problem with that value, take it up with them.

You could also measure the time by examining video of the collapse.

why do people not research what really happened to the steel and present the actual time it was whisked away to China?

The steel was shipped to holding yards until barges arrived at lower Manhattan.

My understanding is that virtually all of the steel was in Asia by May of 2002, despite only a small amount of it being examined.

Researching what really happened is only as easy as locating a truthful account of activities.

Nonetheless, there was not enough time to examine all pieces of evidence, as is typically done in air disasters.

The investigation was also limited to FEMA-approved scientists and engineers. If they have catalogued every piece of steel and performed a forensic analysis on each one, then I will apologize for my statement.

The 9/11 Commission was not even formed until November of 2002, and did not examine the issue of the towers' collapse personally.

why do people keep saying too short of times for the collapse, and pick the time that suits their conclusion (do I smell a concrete core coming, or is that the cordite, or just concrete being smashed at 500 mph?)?

Again, I am going with official times, although Ihave clocked the video from a couple of news sites. There is some footage taken from across the Hudson which gives a complete view of the collapse.

I'm not sure where you got the 500 mph figure. That was an estimated speed for each airliner. Each plane would have certainly encountered a large amount of conrete as it plowed into the building.

Are you saying that the building was moving at 500 mph when it started to collapse? The dust cloud was generated as soon as the upper section of each tower began to collapse.

Again, my point is that there is no conclusive evidence to explain what happened to bring the towers down, conspiracy theories aside.

The CT crowd appears to be locked in on the PNAC, and GWB admin gang.

For me, I see the need to examine and collect information. We haven't even gotten to the point where proof of anything is required.

That's one of the many problems I have with the Loose Change crowd. They have locked in on a number of unsupportable or fallacious possibilities, and then refuse to clearly examine them.

I realize that there are also a number of people who want to cling to the official explanation, despite the many inconsistencies because it allows them to hate an entire ethnicity.

I'm still waiting to see the proof that al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden were behind the attacks. So far all the feds have provided in that area are a couple of grainy videos, a pristene passport found at ground zero, a bandana (unsinged) at the flight 93 crash site, and a travel bag full of incriminating evidence sitting in an airport.

There just seems to be a little hypocrisy on the standard of proof required by both sides as compared to what each will accept to support their case.

Powa

24th October 2006, 04:11 PM

Hey Oliver, trying to outspam Chris? Good luck with that.

But seriously, your spam is getting in the way. Could you possibly cut it down a little? It's hard enough to wade through Chris' dreck.

Oliver

24th October 2006, 04:16 PM

Hey Oliver, trying to outspam Chris? Good luck with that.

But seriously, your spam is getting in the way. Could you possibly cut it down a little? It's hard enough to wade through Chris' dreck.

PAH! Prove me wrong that my crap is more spam than Chris´s Spam. ;)

Oliver

24th October 2006, 04:17 PM

I would like to see that everyone in this thread starts his own ****-core theory until the tower of crap starts to collapse.

sleahead

24th October 2006, 05:03 PM

Oliver

24th October 2006, 05:06 PM

No, Christophera spammed the old LC board in exactly the same way as he does here. I'm pretty sure they banned him and, in my opinion, it was one of the few understandable bans they carried out.

And it´s the most non-understandable behavior of the Admins here that they don´t do it, too. :D

Beside the FACT that it was a Jellyfish-Core. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1110745204d297d033.gif

Bell

24th October 2006, 05:29 PM

We should all just stop posting in this thread, or at most stop replying to Christophera.

Even you, Belz... ;)

Oliver

24th October 2006, 05:32 PM

We should all just stop posting in this thread, or at most stop replying to Christophera.

Even you, Belz... ;)

Maybe some of the guys in here are "different people" from Chris´s Schizophrenia but in reality it´s only Chris talking to himself? :eek: :D

beachnut

24th October 2006, 05:40 PM

You could also measure the time by examining video of the collapse.

The steel was shipped to holding yards until barges arrived at lower Manhattan.

Nonetheless, there was not enough time to examine all pieces of evidence, as is typically done in air disasters.

The investigation was also limited to FEMA-approved scientists and engineers. If they have catalogued every piece of steel and performed a forensic analysis on each one, then I will apologize for my statement.

Again, I am going with official times, although Ihave clocked the video from a couple of news sites. There is some footage taken from across the Hudson which gives a complete view of the collapse.

I'm not sure where you got the 500 mph figure. That was an estimated speed for each airliner. Each plane would have certainly encountered a large amount of conrete as it plowed into the building.

Again, my point is that there is no conclusive evidence to explain what happened to bring the towers down, conspiracy theories aside.

The air disaster was done on purpose, yet the FBI still used the NTSB for expertise as did they use Boeing to research the crime of killing and hijacking.

The speed of the planes is simple to check, you can use video.

The energy is the big difference and it was about a ton of TNT for each impact. This energy knocked off the fire proofing. The fires started by the 10,000 gallons fo fuel weakened the steel. The building fell and the energy of the towers was released, it is equal to 248 tons of TNT, it crushed the light weight concrete floors, and the tons of wall board, just like when you model in your home, the dust from the wallboard covers everything in the home.

If you have missed what the primary designer said I can get that for you if you do not understand the only real expert who can tell you anything is the creator of the WTC, he said it was the fire!

Now you have problems with physics, I do not, you do not believe others, that is your flaw, you should see a physics teacher and see what they think about your ideas, someone you trust.

I would keep your political bias hidden, it will not help your facts, or lack of facts.

You time of collapse, why even argue with you since you use the Government numbers who are, as you say, behind it, so lets use the government numbers

you CT guys are not too good at this, yes use your video from miles away. but you have to look close the one tower was still falling after 20 seconds or so

I understand where you get your numbers but not why you ignore the all the information

All of your post are thin on facts and can be debunked so to speak

but you have to do it yourself

go research again, if you know you are right now, just relax and join the Scholar for 9/11 truth and send in your money

I think your post is so thin, you have no fact to back up what ever conclusion you are tap dancing around

sorry, but you can do the research if you have an open mind, if not you must be from LC, or the Scholars and you are just stirring the pot

good luck

I think you can debunk all your stuff if you try

Christophera

24th October 2006, 06:16 PM

Ah, yes. The 1 pixel wide 500 meters away rebar.

So typical. You say it cannot be seen but then do not explain what it is while it is oviously visible.

3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)

Bell

24th October 2006, 06:19 PM

We should all just stop posting in this thread, or at most stop replying to Christophera.

Even you, Belz... ;)

..

Oliver

24th October 2006, 06:20 PM

So typical. You say it cannot be seen but then do not explain what it is while it is oviously visible.

3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)

So typical. You say it cannot be seen but then do not explain what it is while it is oviously visible.

The Jellyfish Core (http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107453dca202e856.jpg)

Christophera

24th October 2006, 06:24 PM

The building fell and the energy of the towers was released, it is equal to 248 tons of TNT, it crushed the light weight concrete floors, and the tons of wall board, just like when you model in your home, the dust from the wallboard covers everything in the home.

About the gravitational release of the 248 tons of TNT energy without reason. You haven't provided a history for this phenomena and I've asked you before.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2032203#post2032203

Oliver

24th October 2006, 06:27 PM

About the gravitational release of the 248 tons of TNT energy without reason. You haven't provided a history for this phenomena and I've asked you before.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2032203#post2032203

You´re wrong again - the Jellyfish exploded with the energy of 784 Megatons of depleted TNT. A clear evidence which shows a relation to other evidence and not directly to the crime itself. Guess what - a Jellyfish-Core!

Oliver

24th October 2006, 06:33 PM

..

.... :D

beachnut

24th October 2006, 06:45 PM

About the gravitational release of the 248 tons of TNT energy without reason. You haven't provided a history for this phenomena and I've asked you before.

are you really this dumb?

You have a crazy concrete core, you ignore the other posts, you are behind by a bunch.

no one is this challenged, or are they

how many places do you post this junk?

Oliver

24th October 2006, 06:48 PM

are you really this dumb?

You have a crazy concrete core, you ignore the other posts, you are behind by a bunch.

no one is this challenged, or are they

how many places do you post this junk?

I guess you get a clue about him and this thread... ;)

beachnut

24th October 2006, 06:51 PM

Steel core columns, no concrete

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_12447453ddef493eb8.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2186)

and more steel columns no concrete

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_12447453de0d71bc23.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2188)

the only rebar is in the floors, and all your photos and your web site show the same!

what were you saying about the concrete core that is missing, even in your photos chris.....

Oliver

24th October 2006, 06:52 PM

what were you saying about the concrete core that is missing, even in your photos chris.....

Muhawawawaw... Guess what: It was a concrete core nevertheless... :D

ETA: And you´re both wrong! EXPLOSIVE JELLYFISH!

Christophera

24th October 2006, 07:44 PM

1. I wasn't talking to you.

2. I see it's now a tubular core?! Perhaps you could give me a laugh and tell me what you think that means?

3. That's not a concrete shear wall.

4. I'm only keeping you talking until the MiBs get to you....

Why is it an issue that you were not addressing me? I'm alawys being answered by those other than the one I respond to. i thought it was normal dysfunction fo this place.

It has always been a steel reinforced cast tubular concrete core. Do you not read?

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

Oliver

24th October 2006, 07:46 PM

Why is it an issue that you were not addressing me? I'm alawys being answered by those other than the one I respond to. i thought it was normal dysfunction fo this place.

It has always been a steel reinforced cast tubular concrete core. Do you not read?

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

Do you read? It was a Jellyfish Explosion - just compare at the pictures! :boggled:

Christophera

24th October 2006, 07:49 PM

what were you saying about the concrete core that is missing, even in your photos chris.....

Your aerial image does not show steel columns in the core. Mine is closer and has the "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) annotated. The steel in the core is much smaller because it is elevator guide rail support structure.

Do you still think this (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) image shows drywall? do you really think drywall could survive hundreds of thousands of tons of steel crashing over it?

What is that gray brown material inside the perimeter columns as the top of WTC 2 core falls onto WTC 3 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.gif)

Oliver

24th October 2006, 08:02 PM

Come on, Chris! Give up! It was a Jellyfish-Core, right? :)

Christophera

24th October 2006, 08:29 PM

Clearly when all opposition is absent any evidence and only vacuous text exists as obsufucation by yammering ninnies, the argument is won.

The image of the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) has never been reasonably explained as anythng but concrete.

The shot of the concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) holding up the spire shows what can only be concrete in a well lit but slightly blurry, becomes more conclusive when no explanation for what it is if not concrete, ever is offered.

The Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/oxfordarchcore.jpg) has clear language echoes by every link, albeit some slightly confused but all accounted for at the landwark web site independantly proving the concrete core.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

Oliver

24th October 2006, 08:30 PM

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_11107453dd6295736f.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/Nagasakibomb.jpg/438px-Nagasakibomb.jpg

Please tell me, Christophera. Wich one on the pictures above is a Jellyfish?

DavidJames

24th October 2006, 08:32 PM

Christophera

24th October 2006, 08:57 PM

Hi Chris, have you met Docker?

No, who is docker? Does he have images from the demo of steel core columns?

Oliver

24th October 2006, 08:58 PM

No, who is docker? Does he have images from the demo of steel core columns?

Docker is a Jellyfisher. So be aware - we will convert you soon. ;)

Christophera

24th October 2006, 10:58 PM

Docker is a Jellyfisher. So be aware - we will convert you soon. ;)

So very intelligent. Send the jellyfish to my site.

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

Oliver

24th October 2006, 11:01 PM

So very intelligent. Send the jellyfish to my site.

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

I can´t send you the Jellyfish. It exploded within the towers. Remember? :D

RandFan

24th October 2006, 11:02 PM

So typical. You say it cannot be seen but then do not explain what it is while it is oviously visible.

The Jellyfish Core (http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107453dca202e856.jpg)

:D

Excellent post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2034204#post2034204). I'm damn glad I got to see that. That should definitely be saved.

Really?

Oliver

24th October 2006, 11:09 PM

:D

Excellent post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2034204#post2034204). I'm damn glad I got to see that. That should definitely be saved.

Really?

If you think this was a great post - read Christopheras statements... :D

Summed up here...
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
I can´t believe i´m referring to his site... :boggled:

Christophera

24th October 2006, 11:41 PM

chris Christophera did this with much the same junk over at ATS

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread208594/pg16

there is also signs of infection from him at

http://www.democraticunderground.com

and here

http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/Q.-Why-So-Important-There-Was-No-Concrete-Core_5637-100.html

why is he here? does he work for Dylan at LC or something?

Now ATS is a pit of disinformation if one was ever seen. And democratic underground seeks mediocrity with a passion. physorg.com is actually a fairly good site but they do not know how to deal with trolls, particuarly the ones from JREF. So when I start to do so, it simply puts them into shock.

How about courttv.com where i first started on BB's? They had to set me up with some obnoxious trolls in order to ban me. Nice strategy. Allow the trolls to violate all the rules, then when I violate them back, ban.

Still, it has had little effect. The truth of near free fall and total pulverization cannot be stopped. The people need to know.

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

Oliver

24th October 2006, 11:45 PM

Now ATS is a pit of disinformation if one was ever seen. And democratic underground seeks mediocrity with a passion. physorg.com is actually a fairly good site but they do not know how to deal with trolls, particuarly the ones from JREF. So when I start to do so, it simply puts them into shock.

How about courttv.com where i first started on BB's? They had to set me up with some obnoxious trolls in order to ban me. Nice strategy. Allow the trolls to violate all the rules, then when I violate them back, ban.

Still, it has had little effect. The truth of near free fall and total pulverization cannot be stopped. The people need to know.

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

I still have no idea what your intentions are.
If you are that sure that you´re right, please stop
wasting your and our time in here.

Architect

25th October 2006, 01:28 AM

Why is it an issue that you were not addressing me? I'm alawys being answered by those other than the one I respond to. i thought it was normal dysfunction fo this place.

It has always been a steel reinforced cast tubular concrete core. Do you not read?

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

You don't really know what shear walls and tubulur cores (haha) are, do you?

That's it, I'm joining the Jellyfishers.

Bubbers

25th October 2006, 03:42 AM

but it is a challenge, no not a challenge just what you find when you follow his web site posts and find that they debunk themselves with their own references

but you are correct, each time you hit the truth the next lie tangent pops up and he then tells you there is no core, the PE of the building can't be released, etc, etc etc

It could be a thesis topic to just follow this BS

Good point. It's fairly obvious by now that they will never admit they are wrong, but for some reason many of us enjoy this. It must be the challenge factor. It might be a good idea for a new thread..."Why the hell are we doing this anymore?"

Skibum

25th October 2006, 03:47 AM

You don't really know what shear walls and tubulur cores (haha) are, do you?

That's it, I'm joining the Jellyfishers.

Welcome, we now have two more followers than Chris does.

Powa

25th October 2006, 04:27 AM

Count me in.

Oliver

25th October 2006, 04:47 AM

Okay, i´m back - where´s my Jellyfish?
How much are we?

Belz...

25th October 2006, 05:28 AM

All you need to do now is show that the horizontal bracing existed in the core area.

Well it IS plainly visible on the picture of the "core left standing".

I can show that floor beams connected the interior box columns together, but they are outside the core.

Wait a minute! You said we could SEE concrete on the remains of the core picture. You know, the one with the stairwell. You say that the concrete can be seen on the OUTSIDE of the structure because it HASN'T detonated (because of the Mohawks.) Now you're saying the columns we see there are OUTSIDE the core ? How could we see any concrete, then ?

Belz...

25th October 2006, 05:32 AM

As I've said before, it is not fun being an mkultra victim when the evidence for the concrete core shows up.

Major cognitive dissonance WILL occur. Repeated efforts to dissociate can be very disturbing.

Again, are you a psychologist ? You DO know that this is NOT how hypnosis works, right ?

Oliver

25th October 2006, 05:32 AM

JELLYFISHERS! WE HAVE REBELS IN HERE! :eek:

Skibum

25th October 2006, 05:34 AM

JELLYFISHERS! WE HAVE REBELS IN HERE! :eek:

What exactly would you have us do, we are spineless afterall.

Oliver

25th October 2006, 05:37 AM

What exactly would you have us do, we are spineless afterall.

D@MN! You´re right. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107452129a890f55.gif

But we have hard facts on our side.

Belz...

25th October 2006, 05:37 AM

If it wasn't for the collapse speeds being so similar, despite the differences in the applied forces and initiations, I probably wouldn't have a lot of trouble wrapping my mind around the official explanations.

Please show your calculations as to why this is odd.

As many people saw, the upper 35 floors of the South Tower tilted to over twenty degrees, an event which should have continued and broken through the damaged central core.

"Should have continued" ? How can it continue to tilt without any force to keep it going ? Once the support failed, it could only go down.

Instead of toppling over, all four walls suddenly began to collapse,

Ridiculous. Obviously, since it had started to tilt, SOME of the walls had already failed.

These core columns were three feet by one foot, and over two inches thick; and there were 47 of them in each tower, so anything that could damage them that thoroughly is pretty impressive.

Gotta hand it to gravity.

The dust cloud generated was also amazing. Apparently the concrete in the floor pans was being pulverized as the building fell, not when it hit the ground.

Is that so surprising ? Many huge floors were falling onto it.

That whole process was over in less than ten seconds. I think FEMA had it clocked at 8.5 seconds. I'll have to look that up again. It works out to over 7 floors per second, starting at the collapse point.

Over-simplification. Plus, we can't see the whole collapse on the videos.

It was like the wall were made out of particle board. I would have expected the upper 10 floors to be destroyed by the impact at the same rate as the rest of the structure, but it just kept rumbling down. I guess the equal and opposite reaction thing doesn't apply for collapsing buildings.

Since the whole thing was cloaked in smoke, I doubt you're able to show that the top section wasn't destroyed as it went down.

If the steel hadn't been rushed off to Asia without a thorough forensic analysis, the government would look so suspicious.

That's a lie. It was analysed.

As for the question about why so many physicists and engineers are going along with whatever the official story of the month is, just consider how important it is for universities and corporations to be on the good side of government. Endowments and contracts are not easy things to come by.

Speculation. 3000 dead people on your conscience ? For a few bucks ? I doubt it.

Oliver

25th October 2006, 05:39 AM

He must be Christopheras twin brother! :mad:

Belz...

25th October 2006, 05:44 AM

So each piece was forensically examined to determine why the fireproofing was gone?

You don't need to examine the WHOLE thing, you know. Your standard of evidence if laughable.

How much of the central core was recovered? Where are the records of the examination results on this steel located?

Might want to read the official report, then.

The 9/11 attacks showed civil engineers that they did not know how to protect buildings from fire damage. If the official explanation is true, virtually every steel-framed building is in danger of collapsing within a couple of hours from fire damage.

You might have missed the two 767s that crashed into the buildings.

My take was that the central column design was flawed because it restricted escape routes to the center of the building. This is why so many people were trapped in the North Tower.

That and the huge damage from the 767s you didn't see.

I have yet to see an explanation for the mechanism which caused all four walls to simultaneously fail on each building.

They didn't. See my post above.

Researching what really happened is only as easy as locating a truthful account of activities.

Uh-huh.

Nonetheless, there was not enough time to examine all pieces of evidence, as is typically done in air disasters.

Well, the cause was pretty much known. It's the mechanism that was in question.

The investigation was also limited to FEMA-approved scientists and engineers. If they have catalogued every piece of steel and performed a forensic analysis on each one, then I will apologize for my statement.

Again, your standard of evidence is laughable. Why in the blue HELL would they need to examine EVERY piece of steel ?

Again, I am going with official times, although Ihave clocked the video from a couple of news sites. There is some footage taken from across the Hudson which gives a complete view of the collapse.

Only if you have video x-ray vision like chris.

Again, my point is that there is no conclusive evidence to explain what happened to bring the towers down, conspiracy theories aside.

You might have missed the two 767s that... never mind.

I realize that there are also a number of people who want to cling to the official explanation, despite the many inconsistencies because it allows them to hate an entire ethnicity.

And which ethnicity is that ? Muslims aren't an ethnicity, by the way, just in case thay that's your answer. Personally, I just hate the people that did it, and the ones that would gladly follow in their footsteps.

There just seems to be a little hypocrisy on the standard of proof required by both sides as compared to what each will accept to support their case.

Ever heard the phrase "overwhelming evidence" ?

Powa

25th October 2006, 05:45 AM

Christophera is starting to convince people! I'm sure agents are coming for him as we speak.

Belz...

25th October 2006, 05:46 AM

We should all just stop posting in this thread, or at most stop replying to Christophera.

Even you, Belz... ;)

No, In my opinion only Oliver should stop posting in this thread.

He's the only person I've ever put on ignore, and he's not even a nutter.

Oliver

25th October 2006, 05:46 AM

Christophera is starting to convince people! I'm sure agents are coming for him as we speak.

Well, Christophera is the smaller problem. The bigger ones are the Troll-Feeders. :boggled:

Oliver

25th October 2006, 05:48 AM

No, In my opinion only Oliver should stop posting in this thread.

He's the only person I've ever put on ignore, and he's not even a nutter.

Oooooh yes, Sir. In here i am a nutter! :D

Belz...

25th October 2006, 05:51 AM

So typical. You say it cannot be seen but then do not explain what it is while it is oviously visible.

Again, a 1 pixel wide structure at that distance CANNOT be identified.

About the gravitational release of the 248 tons of TNT energy without reason. You haven't provided a history for this phenomena and I've asked you before.

GRAVITY. It can be impressive, sometimes.

Your aerial image does not show steel columns in the core.

Isn't it convenient to ignore what you can plainly see ?

Mine is closer and has the "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" annotated.

It's not CLOSER, chris. It's zoomed from the SAME IMAGE. And the fact that YOU've annotated it doesn't help YOU.

Belz...

25th October 2006, 05:52 AM

Oliver,

I'm going to take a page out of Hammegk's book and call you a post-whore.

I don't think a single one of your posts for the last 10 pages has said anything useful. Hopefully the lurkers and fence-sitters have you ALSO on ignore.

uruk

25th October 2006, 07:09 AM

here is another youtube vid.
It's done by a CTr so expect some lunacy. But it shows a steel core.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otoh2pJpgY8

Oliver

25th October 2006, 07:18 AM

here is another youtube vid.
It's done by a CTr so expect some lunacy. But it shows a steel core.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otoh2pJpgY8

otoh2pJpgY8

uruk

25th October 2006, 07:50 AM

Thanks oliver.
Now I need to learn how to do that.

Oliver

25th October 2006, 07:54 AM

Thanks oliver.
Now I need to learn how to do that.

It´s easy. You admit that i am right and there
was a Jellyfish-Core and i tell you that you
just need to use the (yt)VideoID(/yt) -Tag. ;)

http://forums.randi.org/misc.php?do=bbcode#yt

Darat

25th October 2006, 08:29 AM

Oliver your behavior in this thread has gone beyond what I will accept as "good natured nose-tweaking" and is now purposefully disruptive. I have deleted several of your posts, continuing to behave in this manner result in further action including suspension and/or banning.

Oliver

25th October 2006, 08:29 AM

Powa

25th October 2006, 08:32 AM

Herr Oliver, stoppen Sie spamen, bitte!

Yes, this is the best German I can botch together.

ETA: Ooh, I see Oliver has been reported!

Oliver

25th October 2006, 08:40 AM

Herr Oliver, stoppen Sie spamen, bitte!

Yes, this is the best German I can botch together.

ETA: Ooh, I see Oliver has been reported!

In german you should say: "Hören Sie bitte auf zu spammen, Herr Oliver". ;)

Powa

25th October 2006, 09:05 AM

Mit tiefer Dankbarkeit!

Oliver

25th October 2006, 09:07 AM

Mit tiefer Dankbarkeit!

Keine Ursache. :D

RandFan

25th October 2006, 09:19 AM

If you think this was a great post - read Christopheras statements... :D

Summed up here...
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
I can´t believe i´m referring to his site... :boggled:I've read it. Believe it or not I've been involved with this thread a few times. I just don't have the ability to stomach such nonsense as Christopheras' for very long so I leave and then come back.

Oliver

25th October 2006, 09:21 AM

I've read it. Believe it or not I've been involved with this thread a few times. I just don't have the ability to stomach such nonsense as Christopheras' for very long so I leave and then come back.

So you enjoy his insanity from time to time? :confused:

RandFan

25th October 2006, 09:28 AM

here is another youtube vid.
It's done by a CTr so expect some lunacy. But it shows a steel core.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otoh2pJpgY8 What parts are lunacy?

uruk

25th October 2006, 09:48 AM

What parts are lunacy?

Was this the one with the blue box with the nuke symbol on it?
If not then, my bad.

I've been youtube'n till my eyes bled and they all blurr into one.

Christophera

25th October 2006, 10:45 AM

Again, a 1 pixel wide structure at that distance CANNOT be identified.

As far as i know if you can see something in an image you stand a chance of identification. In the image of the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) we can see the very fine vertical elements. Since some of them do disappear your point is well made. However, since there are so many so close together, they provide a large enough object to register and we see them.

Meaning it is rebar because the previous image (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) an interior box column which is at least 2 feet wide is clearly visible.
[/QUOTE]

Christophera

25th October 2006, 10:53 AM

There is a Pulitzer Prize for the one who could reveal the truth

Can you prove this? If so then contact them and give them this url.

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

It does explain this (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg) far better than any other explanation in existence,

Christophera

25th October 2006, 11:00 AM

It's not CLOSER, chris. It's zoomed from the SAME IMAGE. And the fact that YOU've annotated it doesn't help YOU.

it is zoomed from the same image perhaps, but I did not annotate it. It came from a site that believed in the steel core columns and they were being honest and only labeled the largest columns as "MASSIVE".

The utter lack of any bracing/connection scheme or consistent floor plan should arouse suspiscion (there are at least 3), then the total abcense of the 47, 1,300 foot columns from all demo images is a clincher.

Christophera

25th October 2006, 11:19 AM

Well it IS plainly visible on the picture of the "core left standing".

Wait a minute! You said we could SEE concrete on the remains of the core picture. You know, the one with the stairwell. You say that the concrete can be seen on the OUTSIDE of the structure because it HASN'T detonated (because of the Mohawks.) Now you're saying the columns we see there are OUTSIDE the core ? How could we see any concrete, then ?

I'm not totally secure with your references to images but the core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) shows the interior box column outside the core wall. The image of the spire and the concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) shows the interior box column outside the core wall.

The image of the spire (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) shows the rectangular framework of floor beams and interior box columns.

The alternate image of the spire (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/shearspirewall.jpg) shows the same rectangular spaces between the interior box columns and floor beams and the lighter colored concrete can be seen behind them.

This is all very consistent.

GlennB

25th October 2006, 11:42 AM

[quote=Christophera;2037681The alternate image of the spire (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/shearspirewall.jpg) shows the same rectangular spaces between the interior box columns and floor beams and the lighter colored concrete can be seen behind them.

This is all very consistent.[/quote]

Christophera - you have never addressed my calculation that shows the combined tonneage of concrete in the two "cores" that you propose would amount to very nearly 1.5 million tonnes. Nor the fact that no amount of explosives could pulverise that much RC , and that therefore we would expect a 100m (+) pile of concrete at GZ, a pile that we don't see. Not even close.

Can you answer?

Christophera

25th October 2006, 12:12 PM

Christophera - you have never addressed my calculation that shows the combined tonneage of concrete in the two "cores" that you propose would amount to very nearly 1.5 million tonnes. Nor the fact that no amount of explosives could pulverise that much RC , and that therefore we would expect a 100m (+) pile of concrete at GZ, a pile that we don't see. Not even close.

Can you answer?

You must be calculating a solid core for that figure. Per tower I think I remember almost 1/2 million CU YD.s with the floors per tower. I stopped trying to callculate volumnes and tons 2 years back because there was no good way to determine how much was a ground zero. We can see that there are massive amounts of http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg
Sand and gravel (http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg) at GZ and that there are no large chunks. I a collapse large pieces (including floors) would be present.

Also, there were only ten floors that had hard stone agregate so there is far too much aggregate visible in that high res image.

Christophera

25th October 2006, 12:25 PM

That's a lie. It was analysed.

When private analysis of steel was blocked it shows that perhaps lies were protected from being exposed.

If towers such as those collaspsed, then many people are in danger from the buildings they occupy. Without a fully open investigatory atmosphere, and images (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg) that show mushrooming clouds of concrete particulate while 2 towers go to the ground nearly identically at speeds near free fall,
it is only logical to suspect that a lie is being hidden.

Arus808

25th October 2006, 12:30 PM

christ, you have yet to provide evidence of what you claim.
please consult with a therapist, as you have continously shown that you are not aware of what is real and what is fake.

They have drugs that you can take that can help you with that.

Oliver

25th October 2006, 12:32 PM

Please protest the Jellyfish-Conspiracy here:

"I Protest Carelessness Of Board-Administration"
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67037

Regnad Kcin

25th October 2006, 12:34 PM

When private analysis of steel was blocked it shows that perhaps lies were protected from being exposed.

If towers such as those collaspsed, then many people are in danger from the buildings they occupy. Without a fully open investigatory atmosphere, and images (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg) that show mushrooming clouds of concrete particulate while 2 towers go to the ground nearly identically at speeds near free fall,
it is only logical to suspect that a lie is being hidden.Sayeth the liar.

Christophera

25th October 2006, 12:41 PM

Sayeth the liar.

The liar haveth not evidence, but I have much evidence, all compiled logically explaining near free fall and total pulverization.

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

Do you have such an explanation based on evidence of the structure that actually stood?

Garb

25th October 2006, 12:42 PM

The liar haveth not evidence, but I have much evidence, all compiled logically explaining near free fall and total pulverization.

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

Do you have such an explanation based on evidence of the structure that actually stood?

Well I haven't seen that yet...

And I don't believe it was freefall OR total pulverisation.

Bell

25th October 2006, 12:43 PM

The liar haveth not evidence, but I have much evidence, all compiled logically explaining near free fall and total pulverization.

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

Do you have such an explanation based on evidence of the structure that actually stood?

Why ask? You either don't care or you are to thick to understand our evidence.

beachnut

25th October 2006, 12:44 PM

Can you prove this? If so then contact them and give them this url.

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

It does explain this (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg) far better than any other explanation in existence,

you post a site that proves you wrong?

you keep doing it

have you notice all the tin foil hat guys post sites that have information to debunk them?

have you ever read that site, it proves you wrong?

Regnad Kcin

25th October 2006, 12:48 PM

The liar haveth not evidence, but I have much evidence, all compiled logically explaining near free fall and total pulverization.

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

Do you have such an explanation based on evidence of the structure that actually stood?The loony detector van (http://www.spectrum-headquarters.com/DetectorVan.GIF) is outside your home gathering evidence at this very moment. Try to sit still, as the equipment is delicately calibrated.

Belz...

25th October 2006, 01:04 PM

As far as i know if you can see something in an image you stand a chance of identification.

That's because you know nothing about interpreting pictures.

In the image of the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) we can see the very fine vertical elements.

Careful, there. You can see ONE vertical element. Because of the resolution, you cannot see what makes it up, and therefore cannot draw any conclusion from it. The much better picture that's been provided to you on this thread shows that it's not thousands of sticks of rebar, but steel columns, whatever you wish to call them.

Oliver

25th October 2006, 01:05 PM

It was a concrete core, Belz. Don´t you [Rule8] get it?

Belz...

25th October 2006, 01:07 PM

it is zoomed from the same image perhaps, but I did not annotate it. It came from a site that believed in the steel core columns and they were being honest and only labeled the largest columns as "MASSIVE".

Okay, so you didn't annotate it. Still, whoever did can't prove what they are simply by labeling them.

The utter lack of any bracing/connection scheme or consistent floor plan should arouse suspiscion (there are at least 3), then the total abcense of the 47, 1,300 foot columns from all demo images is a clincher.

What about the bracing that you can SEE in the pictures of the remains of the core ?

I'm not totally secure with your references to images but the core wall at its base shows the interior box column outside the core wall. The image of the spire and the concrete shear wall shows the interior box column outside the core wall.

You are aware, of course, that the structure in that picture is only a small portion of the whole core, right ?

This is all very consistent.

Indeed.

When private analysis of steel was blocked it shows that perhaps lies were protected from being exposed.

Key word: perhaps.

If towers such as those collaspsed, then many people are in danger from the buildings they occupy. Without a fully open investigatory atmosphere, and images that show mushrooming clouds of concrete particulate while 2 towers go to the ground nearly identically at speeds near free fall, it is only logical to suspect that a lie is being hidden.

Non sequitur of the day.

GlennB

25th October 2006, 01:26 PM

You must be calculating a solid core for that figure. Per tower I think I remember almost 1/2 million CU YD.s with the floors per tower. I stopped trying to callculate volumnes and tons 2 years back because there was no good way to determine how much was a ground zero. We can see that there are massive amounts of http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg
Sand and gravel (http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg) at GZ and that there are no large chunks. I a collapse large pieces (including floors) would be present.

Also, there were only ten floors that had hard stone agregate so there is far too much aggregate visible in that high res image.

Yes, approx 400*25*40 cubic metres per tower. At 2.4 tonnes per cubic metre that's around 1 million tonnes per tower. Allow a good %age for lifts, stairways etc and we arrive at about 1.5 million tonnes total for both Towers, ball-park figures.
This weight would produce a vast pile of broken concrete, even if much were blown to dust. A pyramid of broken concrete 100x100x100m would give a volume of approx 330,00 cubic metres (if packed as densely as the original, much bigger if packed more loosely as would actually happen), or only about 40% the total volume of concrete required for your core theory.

That would be a pile of concrete about 1/4 the height of the original buildings.

Why do we not see that much concrete at GZ, Christopher? Or even anything even remotely close to that volume?

Architect

25th October 2006, 02:13 PM

This is all very consistent.

Indeed: consistently wrong.

Christophera

25th October 2006, 03:11 PM

Yes, approx 400*25*40 cubic metres per tower. At 2.4 tonnes per cubic metre that's around 1 million tonnes per tower. Allow a good %age for lifts, stairways etc and we arrive at about 1.5 million tonnes total for both Towers, ball-park figures.
This weight would produce a vast pile of broken concrete, even if much were blown to dust. A pyramid of broken concrete 100x100x100m would give a volume of approx 330,00 cubic metres (if packed as densely as the original, much bigger if packed more loosely as would actually happen), or only about 40% the total volume of concrete required for your core theory.

That would be a pile of concrete about 1/4 the height of the original buildings.

Why do we not see that much concrete at GZ, Christopher? Or even anything even remotely close to that volume?

As I've said, there is a big problem with figuring out how much is there because the core blew out the basement several levels down and we are not at all sure how much of the basement is involved or absorbing the volume ofhttp://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg
Sand and gravel (http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg).

Did you calc. the proper wall thickness for the core?

GlennB

25th October 2006, 03:20 PM

As I've said, there is a big problem with figuring out how much is there because the core blew out the basement several levels down and we are not at all sure how much of the basement is involved or absorbing the volume ofhttp://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg
Sand and gravel (http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg).

Did you calc. the proper wall thickness for the core?

"several levels down", even if full of "core" concrete, would still leave 100 or so floors-worth of concrete to account for.
Please accept that the basement is a minor issue in this discussion.

Where did all that core concrete go? You need to address this issue if your theory is to make any sense whatsoever.

What is your explanation?

uruk

25th October 2006, 03:58 PM

uruk

25th October 2006, 06:05 PM

Here is a very small smatering of web some 14,000,000 websites that mention a steel core in the World Trade Center:
http://users2.ev1.net/~seymoujs/gunshow/collapse.html
(interesting PBS site with a slide show by the guy who headed the NIST investigation)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/sunder.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/innovation.html
(survivor talks about how he escaped by going through the drywall between the staiwell and the office space. i.e no concrete core between stairwell and office space.)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/above.html
http://www.archive.org/stream/wtc_construction/wtc_construction_256kb.mp4
http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/15m/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/graphics/attack/wtc_2.html
http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2001/graficos/septiembre/semana2/atentados/atentadocaida.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/nation-world/terrorism/collapse_12.html
http://www.skyscraper.org/TALLEST_TOWERS/t_wtc.htm
http://a1022.g.akamai.net/f/1022/6000/5m/www.latimes.com/media/graphic/2001-09/638881.jpg
http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/wtccollapse/frame.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20020526_WTC/
http://www.emporis.com/en/il/pc/?id=100001&aid=10&sro=10
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=131020

Number of websites that mention a concrete core:
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

psst. don't tell Chris but there's still no concrete:
http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=197714
http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=485670
http://army.firststrike.net/nyd/damage/pages/911-damage_082.htm
http://army.firststrike.net/nyd/damage/pages/911-damage_085.htm
http://army.firststrike.net/nyd/damage/pages/911-damage_106.htm

(Wait!...that looks like...I think it is... awww! no It's just drywall.
http://army.firststrike.net/nyd/damage/pages/911-damage_393.htm

http://army.firststrike.net/nyd/damage/pages/911-damage_026.htm (drywall)
http://army.firststrike.net/nyd/damage/pages/911-damage_030.htm (look you can see the C4 on the rebar)

Nope, still not there:

Bell

25th October 2006, 06:08 PM

Uruk, I have to comment you on your effort to try to smack some sense into Christophera's brainlocked grey matter. Not that it will help, though.

Christophera

25th October 2006, 06:17 PM

Why ask? You either don't care or you are to thick to understand our evidence.
Your evidence is misrepresented.

The below image has the only full length columns annotated. The vertical steel in the core is elevator guide rail support.

"MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg)

Arus808

25th October 2006, 06:23 PM

Chris there is no concrete core.
there never was a concrete core.

yoru memory is as poor as swiss cheese, so i suggest to you once again to abandon this thread and seek professional help.

Christophera

25th October 2006, 06:30 PM

Chris there is no concrete core.
there never was a concrete core.

Your evidence is non existent, so i suggest to you once again to abandon the FEMA lie and seek raw evidence to support steel core columns.

Christophera

25th October 2006, 06:34 PM

Christophera

25th October 2006, 06:57 PM

you post a site that proves you wrong?

you keep doing it

have you notice all the tin foil hat guys post sites that have information to debunk them?

have you ever read that site, it proves you wrong?

You are so out of it you think this site says somehthing that proves the concrete core did not exist.

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

That site fully explains near frree fall and total pulverization. Below is the site you think disproves the concrete.

What is ahappening is you are not reading. I realize there is confusion on a few of those sites and I identify that confusion. What I use on those sites is their consistency in reference to the concrete core. You will note that when they start talking about steel cores they are ALL OVER THE PLACE. No consistency.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

The above site has a scan of the Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3764&stc=1&d=1161824223

uruk

25th October 2006, 07:06 PM

Uruk, I have to comment you on your effort to try to smack some sense into Christophera's brainlocked grey matter. Not that it will help, though.

Thanks. I'm not doing it so much to argue against him. I've givin up on that ship. I'm just putting this stuff out for the other brave souls who doing the smackdown on chris.

Fuel for the fire, so to speak.

It's also kind of interesting.

Plus, I ain't got a life.

Arus808

25th October 2006, 07:08 PM

Your evidence is non existent, so i suggest to you once again to abandon the FEMA lie and seek raw evidence to support steel core columns.

YOU have provided NOTHING.

I've linked in several posts here to books written well before 9/11/2001 that all describe the WTC towers as being the first skyscrapers to be built without a concrete core, comment on the extraordinary techniques used to build them, linked to PICTURES depicting a steel core (as other have done so as well), posted links to sites that describe their construction and the like.

Guess what? There is only one site on the ENTIRE internet claiming there was a concrete core.

YOURS.

So, why is there only 1 site, of the thousands about th WTC towers that says there is a concrete core (and using bad images to prove it)? So your site is the ONLY correct site on the entire internet

God forbid should you try to use that as proof in a court of law.

Oh wait, if you feel that you have such "ground breaking "Evidnece, why haven't you brought a civil suit against the the designers, construction workers, and pBS about why they are hiding that there was a concrete core (according to you)>

If you have such great evidence, then in a court yoru arguemtns should be able to prove that they existed right?

So, when can we expect your filing in New York for this lawsuit?

RandFan

25th October 2006, 07:09 PM

Was this the one with the blue box with the nuke symbol on it?
If not then, my bad.

I've been youtube'n till my eyes bled and they all blurr into one.No. It's really a remarkable video. There's no concrete cores. Has Christophera responded to it? I doubt any evidence would convince him. He seems to be of the "I don't need no stinking evidence" crowd.

RandFan

25th October 2006, 07:11 PM

YOU have provided NOTHING.

I've linked in several posts here to books written well before 9/11/2001 that all describe the WTC towers as being the first skyscrapers to be built without a concrete core, comment on the extraordinary techniques used to build them, linked to PICTURES depicting a steel core (as other have done so as well), posted links to sites that describe their construction and the like.

Guess what? There is only one site on the ENTIRE internet claiming there was a concrete core.

YOURS.

So, why is there only 1 site, of the thousands about th WTC towers that says there is a concrete core (and using bad images to prove it)? So your site is the ONLY correct site on the entire internet

God forbid should you try to use that as proof in a court of law.

Oh wait, if you feel that you have such "ground breaking "Evidnece, why haven't you brought a civil suit against the the designers, construction workers, and pBS about why they are hiding that there was a concrete core (according to you)>

If you have such great evidence, then in a court yoru arguemtns should be able to prove that they existed right?

So, when can we expect your filing in New York for this lawsuit? Yes, but this is evidence and facts. Christophera doesn't care about that. He has a simple response. He claims that there is no evidence. If a person believed there was no moon there is nothing you could do to prove it. Nothing.

Arus808

25th October 2006, 07:12 PM

Yes, but this is evidence and facts. Christophera doesn't care about that. He has a simple response. He claims that there is no evidence. If a person believed there was no moon there is nothing you could do to prove it. Nothing.

well he seems to think that the pretty edited and pixelated photos showing nothing is evidence of what he is claiming, so why hasn't he filed suit against those "liars" and people hiding this?

Figure if he is so entrenched in his belief, he should be seeking legal ramifications to get teh "truth" out.

Christophera

25th October 2006, 07:27 PM

YOU have provided NOTHING.

To the contrary. Your post has no evidence whatsoever. With one link I proved many times more raw evidence than what you have,

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

Show us just one image of the steel core columns from the demoliton images.

uruk

25th October 2006, 07:58 PM

I tried to find the survivor account saying that he went from the core into office space through drywall. The word drywall is not on either page, above or below you statement.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/innovation.html
(survivor talks about how he escaped by going through the drywall between the staiwell and the office space. i.e no concrete core between stairwell and office space.)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/above.html

Let me help ya. It's the 24th paragraph down right after the heading in red letters that says "The Rescue"

"The fire escape door had blown away from the wall a bit, but we were able to push the dry wall back and step between the door frame and the dry wall, squeeze onto the 81st floor, which was in darkness, but again I had my flashlight. I scanned the room, and I said, "Who's there? Where are you?" He said, "Oh, I can see your light."

Below is raw evidence of the fact that NO steel croe columns existed in the core area and that a tubular concrete core was at the center of the tower.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

The pictures posted here says otherwise.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2038864&postcount=6136
this one also:
http://www.greatbuildings.com/cgi-bin/gbi.cgi/World_Trade_Center_Images.html/cid_wtc_mya_WTC_const.1.gbi

The pictures clearly show columns being installed within the core.
If those are elevator guide rails, those are the biggest elevator guide rails ever built. Maybe you can show me the info on those guide rails. They are so extrodinarily huge, the manufacture must be proud of them. See if you can find any info on them from the elevator manufaturer that installed them.
Says here that the elevators were installed by Otis.:
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=1worldtradecenter-newyorkcity-ny-usa
here's thier site:
http://www.otis.com/otis/1,1352,CLI79_RES1,00.html

Don't you think it odd that they would install the elevator guide rails before the made the shafts?

Here's an article from an architecture publication that was prasing the Windows on the world resaurant. It has a floor plan. Where's the concrete core?"
http://archrecord.construction.com/news/wtc/archives/windows1977.pdf
http://archrecord.construction.com/news/wtc/archives/windows1977.pdf

uruk

25th October 2006, 08:02 PM

No. It's really a remarkable video. There's no concrete cores. Has Christophera responded to it? I doubt any evidence would convince him. He seems to be of the "I don't need no stinking evidence" crowd.
Nope. Chris ignored it. The guy who made the video showed the concrete being poured into the core foundationd and grillages, but he does not show concrete being formed around the core columns. (because there was no concrete core.) That's probably why Chris ignored it.
He seems to have a habit of ignoring any picture or video that shows no concrete around the core columns.

Christophera

25th October 2006, 08:44 PM

Chris should probably not look at these pictures:

Look at those humoungus elevator guides. There must be some gigantic elevators in that building.
And wow. It's amazing how much the core resembles the floor plan layouts.

Yep. No concrete in these pictures

Yes, all 3 DIFFERENT plans. Recall how liars are caught.

There were very large elevators.

All thos images show elevator guide rail support steel. Here is what the "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) looked like and there is no comparison.

Note that the elevator support steel has an end flange on it which is seen in your images which was used to blot them together. The interior box columns (MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS) were butt welled with 100% welds.

Christophera

25th October 2006, 08:50 PM

Let me help ya. It's the 24th paragraph down right after the heading in red letters that says "The Rescue"

"The fire escape door had blown away from the wall a bit, but we were able to push the dry wall back and step between the door frame and the dry wall, squeeze onto the 81st floor, which was in darkness, but again I had my flashlight. I scanned the room, and I said, "Who's there? Where are you?" He said, "Oh, I can see your light."

So it does not say "offices". It says 81st floor, meaning the hallway of the core where he must have been right next to the opening so he could scan the room which had broken interior walls across from the hall doorway.

Compared to evidence such a 500 foot tall, rounded top core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif), which can only be concrete because steel WILL not erode like that, your misinterpreted surviors statement means nothing.

Christophera

25th October 2006, 08:57 PM

Don't you think it odd that they would install the elevator guide rails before the made the shafts?
.

No it is not odd.

What is odd is that you have not come up with a rational explanation for what this rounded top sihouette is of the WTC 2 core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) and still insist on providing interpretations of construction photos that prove nothing.

The base of the core is down there inside the interior box columns. With WTC 1 they built 3 floors of core before installing the elevator guide rail support steel. WTC 2 had a very different process using what they learned on WTC 1.

They learned from their mistakes, you don't.

Regnad Kcin

25th October 2006, 09:17 PM

Recall how liars are caught.Sayeth the liar.

Christophera

25th October 2006, 09:21 PM

Sayeth the liar.

Your problem is you have no evidence. So, .......... supporting liars against my explanatory evidence (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html) is sort of ridiculous when you are up against and event which is patently not a collapse.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3768&stc=1&d=1161832933

uruk

25th October 2006, 09:28 PM

Yes, all 3 DIFFERENT plans. Recall how liars are caught. What three different plans?

There were very large elevators.
Really? How big were they? Did you look at the Widows on the World pdf? The first page has a picture of the elevator lobby. They look like regular size elevators to me.

All thos images show elevator guide rail support steel. Here is what the "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) looked like and there is no comparison.

Note that the elevator support steel has an end flange on it which is seen in your images which was used to blot them together. The interior box columns (MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS) were butt welled with 100% welds.

Elevator guide rails are nowhere that big. Please find me an elevator guide rail manufacturer that builds them that big.
Compare the images of the guide rail to image of the columns being installed within the core. Do they look the same?
Oh, and Chris. Where's the concrete?

Christophera

25th October 2006, 10:22 PM

What three different plans?

Really? How big were they? Did you look at the Widows on the World pdf? The first page has a picture of the elevator lobby. They look like regular size elevators to me.

Elevator guide rails are nowhere that big. Please find me an elevator guide rail manufacturer that builds them that big.
Compare the images of the guide rail to image of the columns being installed within the core. Do they look the same?
Oh, and Chris. Where's the concrete?

Was' amatta, no research your own bogus information?

Do a search for "steel core columns", you'll see the variety liars provide.

You've posted images of the guide rail not its support steel. Each support member probably had 4 elevator guide rails on it. They were also high speed elevators, almost 60 MPH because the concrete core kept the rails so well aligned.

There were 2 freight elevators if I remember correctly, they were very big, one like 20x20 feet or something with a capacity of 10 tons perhaps.

It has been proven you wouldn't know concrete (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) if you hit yourself in the head with it.

realitybites

25th October 2006, 10:32 PM

The liar haveth not evidence, but I have much evidence, all compiled logically explaining near free fall and total pulverization.
Christophera, get that evidence to the authorities!!

Lives are at stake my friend. I'd hate to see you get charged with Having The Most Earth-Shattering Evidence Of Governmental Mass-Murder And Doing Nothing With It Except Post On Internet Forums.

Fines are steep for that. Jail time is extensive. They might even try it to spin you into being complicit to up the sentence.

uruk

25th October 2006, 10:59 PM

So it does not say "offices". It says 81st floor, meaning the hallway of the core where he must have been right next to the opening so he could scan the room which had broken interior walls across from the hall doorway.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/05/17/stairway.htm
"The elevator equipment room covered more than half the width of the 81st floor. Its size forced the tower's designers to route Stairway A around the machines. The detour moved Stairway A from the center of the building toward the northwest corner"

http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/wtcstairway/frame.htm

http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/NYTimes91801.htm
"For the people on floors above the crash site, there was another critical factor: an ordinary fire would take two or three hours to burn through the gypsum wallboard around .the stairwells --but projectiles of plane wreckage almost certainly pierced through, letting in the fire and smoke. That trapped people on the upper floors."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-091201color.story
"They tried getting out through the main lobby of the firm, but smoke had already filled it, so Heineman led the group back inside the offices, down a stairway at the other end, through the file room. The door was blocked by files that had fallen to the floor. They cleared them and walked out to the emergency stairs."

uruk

25th October 2006, 11:21 PM

.

No it is not odd.

What is odd is that you have not come up with a rational explanation for what this rounded top sihouette is of the WTC 2 core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) and still insist on providing interpretations of construction photos that prove nothing.Why would the rail guides need to be attached to steel that big? the elevators were cable lift type. the guide rails are there for stability not support.
http://www.titanmachine.com/downloads/titanCatalog_full.pdf

You would need the steel columns to support the floor containing the lift machinery. That's why the stairwells had to be re-routed every so many floors to accommodate the elevator machinery.

The base of the core is down there inside the interior box columns. With WTC 1 they built 3 floors of core before installing the elevator guide rail support steel. WTC 2 had a very different process using what they learned on WTC 1.

They learned from their mistakes, you don't.
Can you show ne a source other than you web site that states this?

Christophera

25th October 2006, 11:40 PM

Why would the rail guides need to be attached to steel that big? the elevators were cable lift type. the guide rails are there for stability not support.
http://www.titanmachine.com/downloads/titanCatalog_full.pdf

You would need the steel columns to support the floor containing the lift machinery. That's why the stairwells had to be re-routed every so many floors to accommodate the elevator machinery.

What do you think it takes to hold up 600 feet or 1300 feet of steel? Even if the steel is bolted to the concrete the concrete is not going to hold the weight. The concrete just keeps it aligned straight so it takes the weight without bowing under it. Just like the concrete cores role in keeping the perimeter walls aligned in the maximum load bearing dimensions.

The floor with the big reels and lift motors was the 43rd floor. It was basically solid concrete that also had a role structurally with the moment members and hat truss but there was a lot of structural steel that was cast in the concrete as well as free running steel. The reason it was the 43rd was because towers loose stability when too much weight is over halfway up. Pulley systems distributed cable throughout the core area to service elevators. There was one other lift motor and reel that operated the tourists elevator to the observation deck if I remember correctly. It was very fast but a smaller elevator.

Can you show ne a source other than you web site that states this?

No.

My web site doesn't get into the elevator info. I was interested in the elevators when I saw the documentary so paid attention and I remember a fair amount. We've been ripped off for our information. These were public buildings.

You will discover the fear present when you try to gain information from Otis.

beachnut

26th October 2006, 01:46 AM

Your evidence is misrepresented.

The below image has the only full length columns annotated. The vertical steel in the core is elevator guide rail support.

"MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg)

do not look now but you posted core of just steel again

"MASSIVE STEEL ONLY COLUMNS WTC CORE" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg)

another good site proves there is no concrete core

"no cocrete core just steel COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg)

look here too

"just steel columns" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg)

and here it is again

"no concrete here either, but we have steel columns" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg)

this is another site here

"columns of steel in the core of WTC" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg)

darn and look no concrete at this site also

"could not find concrete in the core of WTC" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg)

proof of steel only core in most of the WTC towers!

thanks for helping me find the proof I needed of the steel only core of the WTC towers finally real facts

they were right steel only core, no wonder wtc failed under the heat of the raging fires

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5370762387415552903&q=bob+and+bri

Belz...

26th October 2006, 05:39 AM

Yes, all 3 DIFFERENT plans. Recall how liars are caught.

I'd rather have 3 slightly different plans than a non-existant concrete core.

All thos images show elevator guide rail support steel. Here is what the "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) looked like and there is no comparison.

How many elevators were there, chris ?

What is odd is that you have not come up with a rational explanation for what this rounded top sihouette is of the WTC 2 core and still insist on providing interpretations of construction photos that prove nothing.

Hint: concrete doesn't bend very well.

So, .......... supporting liars against my explanatory evidence is sort of ridiculous when you are up against and event which is patently not a collapse.

There's that picture again. You don't think that a collapse of that size would send lots of debris flying sideways ?

You've posted images of the guide rail not its support steel.

They're not "box columns" anymore ?

There were 2 freight elevators if I remember correctly, they were very big, one like 20x20 feet or something with a capacity of 10 tons perhaps.

I think you should check your opinions before you state them as fact.

I was interested in the elevators when I saw the documentary so paid attention and I remember a fair amount.

Any luck finding that documentary, chris ?

Skibum

26th October 2006, 06:11 AM

I was interested in the elevators when I saw the documentary so paid attention and I remember a fair amount.

Why so interested in elevators, were you trying to figure out why yours stopped short of the top floor?

26th October 2006, 06:18 AM

. Recall how liars are caught.

...starting with KCET being channel 10, perhaps? When they've been channel 28 since the 1960s, and their logo (for a long time) even had a huge 28 as the background for the KCET letters?

Yes, you have been caught in your own lies.

And if you can't remember something as basic as the station number for PBS in Southern California, why should anyone believe you can remember details about the construction of the towers?

You can't.

You're not even remembering the right video. You may have watched a video on the construction of a building with a concrete core - but it wasn't in 1990 on PBS at 8:00 PM, and it wasn't about the Twin Towers.

You've been caught lying, very badly in fact.

And let's consider the case of the remarkable time-travelling Mohawk you interviewed. He was 64 when you talked to him (some time ago) and 24 when he was working on the towers. If we are generous and assume that 'some time ago' still meant this year, he would have been working on the towers in 1966. So tell me, Chris - when were the foundations laid? When would the core even have started going up?

Yes, a liar has been caught.

YOU.

bonavada

26th October 2006, 06:33 AM

And let's consider the case of the remarkable time-travelling Mohawk you interviewed. He was 64 when you talked to him (some time ago) and 24 when he was working on the towers. If we are generous and assume that 'some time ago' still meant this year, he would have been working on the towers in 1966. So tell me, Chris - when were the foundations laid? When would the core even have started going up?

Yes, a liar has been caught.

YOU.

Q.E.D.
his track record shows he won't answer this beauty. which only leads me to suspect you are correct. he's lying. the mohawk is more than likely a fignemt of his fevered, polluted imagination.
similarly he refuses to answer specific questions about the twisted conclusions he draws from the mike pecararo story.

BV

uruk

26th October 2006, 08:41 AM

What do you think it takes to hold up 600 feet or 1300 feet of steel? Even if the steel is bolted to the concrete the concrete is not going to hold the weight. The concrete just keeps it aligned straight so it takes the weight without bowing under it. Just like the concrete cores role in keeping the perimeter walls aligned in the maximum load bearing dimensions.
Unfortunatly for you, That is not the case. The WTC was designed so that concrete would not be used for support. That what Yamasaki got accolades for. The exterior walls in combination with the floor trusses and the central core columns supported the wieght of the building without the use of concrete which would have been cost prohibited in terms of wieght for a building that high. I believe someone here was trying to get you to realize this by trying to calculate how heavy the building would be if there was a concrete core.

http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html
"In terms of structural system the twin towers departed completely from other high-rise buildings. Conventional skyscrapers since the 19th century have been built with a skeleton of interior supporting columns that supports the structure. Exterior walls of glass steel or synthetic material do not carry any load. The Twin towers are radically different in structural design as the exterior wall is used as the load-bearing wall. (A load bearing wall supports the weight of the floors.) The only interior columns are located in the core area, which contains the elevators. The outer wall carries the building vertical loads and provides the entire resistance to wind."

http://www.ussartf.org/world_trade_center_disaster.htm
read the 6th and 7th paragraphs. Particularly this one:
"Worried that the intense air pressure created by the building high speed elevators might buckle conventional elevator shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core"
And:
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=131020
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
http://architecture.about.com/library/blworldtrade.htm
.....

The floor with the big reels and lift motors was the 43rd floor. It was basically solid concrete that also had a role structurally with the moment members and hat truss but there was a lot of structural steel that was cast in the concrete as well as free running steel. The reason it was the 43rd was because towers loose stability when too much weight is over halfway up. Pulley systems distributed cable throughout the core area to service elevators. There was one other lift motor and reel that operated the tourists elevator to the observation deck if I remember correctly. It was very fast but a smaller elevator.
Wrong. according to the "miracle 81st floor stairwell" article I posted above. elevator equipment was located on the 81st floor that serviced the elevators that went up to the floors below it. That's why stairwell A & B had to be relocated to the outer corners of the core area.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...7/stairway.htm
"The elevator equipment room covered more than half the width of the 81st floor. Its size forced the tower's designers to route Stairway A around the machines. The detour moved Stairway A from the center of the building toward the northwest corner"
also from this site:
http://www.ussartf.org/world_trade_center_disaster.htm
"Otis Elevators developed an express and local system, whereby passengers wuld change at "sky lobbies" on the 44th and 78th floors, halving the number of shaftways."

[/quote]No.

My web site doesn't get into the elevator info. I was interested in the elevators when I saw the documentary so paid attention and I remember a fair amount. We've been ripped off for our information. These were public buildings.

You will discover the fear present when you try to gain information from Otis.[/QUOTE]

Already looked. No fear present.
http://www.otis.com/
http://www.otisworldwide.com/pdf/Otis_Fact_Sheet_2006.pdf
http://www.scripophily.net/otelcom.html
"1967 Install 255 elevators and 71 escalators in the World Trade Center in New York City"
http://www.sterlingelevatorcons.com/history.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otis_Elevator_Company
http://www.otis.com/corp/pdf/AboutElevators.pdf
http://www.otis.com/otis150/section/1,2344,ARC3066_CLI1_RES1_SEC5,00.html

I shot an e-mail request to Otis for info on the model and system used in the WTC. Well see what happens.

Regnad Kcin

26th October 2006, 09:42 AM

You will discover the fear present when you try to gain information from Otis.Which one? The singer (http://musicmoz.org/img/editors/poppyseed/otis-redding.jpg) or the drunk (http://www.moderndrunkardmagazine.com/images/otis.jpg)?

Arus808

26th October 2006, 10:10 AM

To the contrary. Your post has no evidence whatsoever. With one link I proved many times more raw evidence than what you have,
YOUR SITE HAS NO RAW EVIDENCE. IT never has, and by your standards, it will never have raw evidence.

We already explained to you waht raw evidence was.

I've provided 10 times more raw evidence than you have

Christophera

26th October 2006, 10:16 AM

do not look now but you posted core of just steel again

"MASSIVE STEEL ONLY COLUMNS WTC CORE" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg)

another good site proves there is no concrete core

"no cocrete core just steel COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg)

look here too

"just steel columns" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg)

and here it is again

"no concrete here either, but we have steel columns" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg)

this is another site here

"columns of steel in the core of WTC" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg)

darn and look no concrete at this site also

"could not find concrete in the core of WTC" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg)

proof of steel only core in most of the WTC towers!

thanks for helping me find the proof I needed of the steel only core of the WTC towers finally real facts

they were right steel only core, no wonder wtc failed under the heat of the raging fires

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5370762387415552903&q=bob+and+bri

Now there's a liar. Link to my own image multiple tine and pretend it is numerous sites calling out stel core columns. You now have the liars cake.

Christophera

26th October 2006, 10:19 AM

...starting with KCET being channel 10, perhaps? When they've been channel 28 since the 1960s, and their logo (for a long time) even had a huge 28 as the background for the KCET letters?

Yes, you have been caught in your own lies.

And if you can't remember something as basic as the station number for PBS in Southern California, why should anyone believe you can remember details about the construction of the towers?

You can't.

You're not even remembering the right video. You may have watched a video on the construction of a building with a concrete core - but it wasn't in 1990 on PBS at 8:00 PM, and it wasn't about the Twin Towers.

You've been caught lying, very badly in fact.

And let's consider the case of the remarkable time-travelling Mohawk you interviewed. He was 64 when you talked to him (some time ago) and 24 when he was working on the towers. If we are generous and assume that 'some time ago' still meant this year, he would have been working on the towers in 1966. So tell me, Chris - when were the foundations laid? When would the core even have started going up?

Yes, a liar has been caught.

YOU.

Another who doesn't read and follow the thread. Who distorts to protect the lie.

Channel 28 has always been viewed on channel 10 in Santa Barbara and here is a link to my post that proves it.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2031515#post2031515

Christophera

26th October 2006, 10:24 AM

Unfortunatly for you, That is not the case. The WTC was designed so that concrete would not be used for support. That what Yamasaki got accolades for. The exterior walls in combination with the floor trusses and the central core columns supported the wieght of the building without the use of concrete which would have been cost prohibited in terms of wieght for a building that high. I believe someone here was trying to get you to realize this by trying to calculate how heavy the building would be if there was a concrete core.

http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html
"In terms of structural system the twin towers departed completely from other high-rise buildings. Conventional skyscrapers since the 19th century have been built with a skeleton of interior supporting columns that supports the structure. Exterior walls of glass steel or synthetic material do not carry any load. The Twin towers are radically different in structural design as the exterior wall is used as the load-bearing wall. (A load bearing wall supports the weight of the floors.) The only interior columns are located in the core area, which contains the elevators. The outer wall carries the building vertical loads and provides the entire resistance to wind."

http://www.ussartf.org/world_trade_center_disaster.htm
read the 6th and 7th paragraphs. Particularly this one:
"Worried that the intense air pressure created by the building high speed elevators might buckle conventional elevator shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core"
And:
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=131020
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
http://architecture.about.com/library/blworldtrade.htm
.....

Wrong. according to the "miracle 81st floor stairwell" article I posted above. elevator equipment was located on the 81st floor that serviced the elevators that went up to the floors below it. That's why stairwell A & B had to be relocated to the outer corners of the core area.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...7/stairway.htm
"The elevator equipment room covered more than half the width of the 81st floor. Its size forced the tower's designers to route Stairway A around the machines. The detour moved Stairway A from the center of the building toward the northwest corner"
also from this site:
http://www.ussartf.org/world_trade_center_disaster.htm
"Otis Elevators developed an express and local system, whereby passengers wuld change at "sky lobbies" on the 44th and 78th floors, halving the number of shaftways."

No.

My web site doesn't get into the elevator info. I was interested in the elevators when I saw the documentary so paid attention and I remember a fair amount. We've been ripped off for our information. These were public buildings.

You will discover the fear present when you try to gain information from Otis.

Already looked. No fear present.
http://www.otis.com/
http://www.otisworldwide.com/pdf/Otis_Fact_Sheet_2006.pdf
http://www.scripophily.net/otelcom.html
"1967 Install 255 elevators and 71 escalators in the World Trade Center in New York City"
http://www.sterlingelevatorcons.com/history.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otis_Elevator_Company
http://www.otis.com/corp/pdf/AboutElevators.pdf
http://www.otis.com/otis150/section/1,2344,ARC3066_CLI1_RES1_SEC5,00.html

I shot an e-mail request to Otis for info on the model and system used in the WTC. Well see what happens.

But you didn't ask about the core.

You get a drawing titled "system design concept".

Vincent Dunns statement conflicts with that of other fire officials. You appear to have uncovered a group that is complicit with the FEMA lie, to a degree.

Does this mean that you are going to try and say this is drywall over steel core columns.

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

Christophera

26th October 2006, 10:28 AM

YOUR SITE HAS NO RAW EVIDENCE. IT never has, and by your standards, it will never have raw evidence.

We already explained to you waht raw evidence was.

I've provided 10 times more raw evidence than you have

Empty words without your evidence.

When I say concrete core, I have a link to an image that can only be a concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

Evidence, if you posses it, is easy to present on the web.

If you do not posses it, well, you just have to lie and obfuscate.

Christophera

26th October 2006, 10:31 AM

Q.E.D.
his track record shows he won't answer this beauty. which only leads me to suspect you are correct. he's lying. the mohawk is more than likely a fignemt of his fevered, polluted imagination.
similarly he refuses to answer specific questions about the twisted conclusions he draws from the mike pecararo story.

BV

When Mike Pecararo says, "no walls", your entire premise has evaporated.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1205439

realitybites

26th October 2006, 10:37 AM

Christophera, do any of the other One-Fourthers buy into your concrete core theory. I think I remember you having to fervently defend this idea over on LC too.

Is there anyone else on this globe who sides with you on this?

uruk

26th October 2006, 10:48 AM

But you didn't ask about the core.

You get a drawing titled "system design concept".

Vincent Dunns statement conflicts with that of other fire officials. You appear to have uncovered a group that is complicit with the FEMA lie, to a degree.Vincent Dunn is a retired FDNY fire chief.
http://vincentdunn.com/
Does this mean that you are going to try and say this is drywall over steel core columns.
core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)
Nope, It is probably steel, sheetrock, and alot of dust and smoke.

Stankeye

26th October 2006, 10:53 AM

uruk

26th October 2006, 11:06 AM

Ya know, The more I look into this thing, the more I realize how much sense the FEMA and NIST reports make. When you look at all the photos and videos and witness reports. It all fits into place.

26th October 2006, 12:29 PM

Another who doesn't read and follow the thread. Who distorts to protect the lie.

Channel 28 has always been viewed on channel 10 in Santa Barbara and here is a link to my post that proves it.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2031515#post2031515

Ah, so you finally clarify this chesnut.

I'm more than willing to concede this point, Chris - provided there is some actual proof involved. Your posts are not proof of anything, since you have no credibility.

But I did the research and discovered the truth. Yes, in Santa Barbara on limited cable, KCET is broadcast on Channel 10. In most of the rest of California, channel 10 is an ABC affiliate.

And I have no reason to insist on proof that you lived in Santa Barbara in 1990 - I have that much data already.

However, it is appropriate to call it KCET Channel 28, because being shown on channel 10 locally doesn't make the station channel 10.

But let's be generous - there is no reason to go overboard because you misrepresented what channel you watch PBS on.

(BTW - there is no listing for any such documentary at 8:00 PM in 1990 for KCET, period. But that's another story.)

Now - please likewise address the issue of the time-travelling Mohawk?

Regnad Kcin

26th October 2006, 01:24 PM

Evidence, if you posses it, is easy to present on the web.

If you do not posses it, well, you just have to lie and obfuscate.Explains the liar, in regard to his lying behavior.

Skibum

26th October 2006, 03:12 PM

Raw evidence of Chris Lying...
http://cache.consumerist.com/images/2006/03/pantsonfire.jpg

http://www.themissy.com/logo_pants.jpg

Christophera

26th October 2006, 03:23 PM

Ah, so you finally clarify this chesnut.

I'm more than willing to concede this point, Chris - provided there is some actual proof involved. Your posts are not proof of anything, since you have no credibility.

But I did the research and discovered the truth. Yes, in Santa Barbara on limited cable, KCET is broadcast on Channel 10. In most of the rest of California, channel 10 is an ABC affiliate.

And I have no reason to insist on proof that you lived in Santa Barbara in 1990 - I have that much data already.

However, it is appropriate to call it KCET Channel 28, because being shown on channel 10 locally doesn't make the station channel 10.

But let's be generous - there is no reason to go overboard because you misrepresented what channel you watch PBS on.

(BTW - there is no listing for any such documentary at 8:00 PM in 1990 for KCET, period. But that's another story.)

Now - please likewise address the issue of the time-travelling Mohawk?

How about you get serious about 3,000 innocent Americans murders first. Address a critical issue.

Explain why no steel core columns are seen int he core area in this original high res image.

ORIGINAL core IMAGE (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

Bell

26th October 2006, 03:28 PM

Christophera, what is your calculated chance of anyone believing all your idiotic bs about a concrete core? < 0% ?

uruk

26th October 2006, 03:30 PM

Because it's hidden behind tons of falling dust and debris.

Garb

26th October 2006, 06:33 PM

How about you get serious about 3,000 innocent Americans murders first. Address a critical issue.

Explain why no steel core columns are seen int he core area in this original high res image.

ORIGINAL core IMAGE (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

You cannot make a viable assumption based on that photo.

Christophera

26th October 2006, 06:38 PM

You cannot make a viable assumption based on that photo.

It is called a conclusion and it is rational, logical and reasonable. The murders of our fellow Americans demand that, at least.

Are you not up to this?

And, ........ if it is not concrete, what is it.

Christophera

26th October 2006, 06:40 PM

Christophera, what is your calculated chance of anyone believing all your idiotic bs about a concrete core? < 0% ?

By this time even you believe it and are in denial because you are too afraid to admit that our government has been infiltrated and you have a responsibility.

Your question is moot, there is no evidence for anyone to beleive anything else.

They would have to assume the government is truthful and correct.

Garb

26th October 2006, 06:41 PM

It is called a conclusion and it is rational, logical and reasonable. The murders of our fellow Americans demand that, at least.

Are you not up to this?

And, ........ if it is not concrete, what is it.

You cannot make a rational conclusion based on a single picture that doesn't even show you detail of anything.

You can't tell whether it is concrete or not, and judging by the many diagrams that I have seen and the many pictures that do not show a concrete core, I can say it is most defenitely not concrete.

firecoins

26th October 2006, 07:33 PM

155 pages of a concret core fantasy. People stop feeding the toll!

Christophera

26th October 2006, 07:34 PM

You cannot make a rational conclusion based on a single picture that doesn't even show you detail of anything.

You can't tell whether it is concrete or not, and judging by the many diagrams that I have seen and the many pictures that do not show a concrete core, I can say it is most defenitely not concrete.

YOU cannot make a rational conclusion.

I do not need detail on the core walls. I can tell by the sihouette which does have detail on the edge that it is steel reinforced concrete and that it ABSOLUTELY is not structural steel. By default it must be concrete.

I have experience and know what I'm looking at.

Would you like it if others with experience DO NOT get the opportunity to make rational conclusions?

What about those 3000 dead Americans where due process was violated, Are you okay with that? You seem to be avoiding discussion on this, justification for your acceptence of violations of due process in capitol crimes.

Silence on the issue of your responsibility.

No images show steeel core columns but a few do show concrete, to the experienced.

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

Garb

26th October 2006, 07:34 PM

155 pages of a concret core fantasy. People stop feeding the toll!

Let me put it as nicely as I can:

No. :p

Christophera

26th October 2006, 07:35 PM

155 pages of a concret core fantasy. People stop feeding the toll!

Start posting evidence from the demolition of steel core columns.

Garb

26th October 2006, 07:38 PM

YOU cannot make a rational conclusion.

I have experience and know what I'm looking at.

No you don't. You have one, count it, one photo of this so claled concrete core. The only reason your argument continues is because of the lack of detail you can see. Smoke, and a dark object in it.

Would you like it if others with experience DO NOT get the opportunity to make rational conclusions?

That isn't a rational conclusion. It is a guess made by a delusional human being.

What about theose 3000 dead Americans where due process was violated, Are you okay with that?

Im not okay with 3000 dead Americans, but no due process was violeted.

Silence on the issue of your responsibility.

Come again?

No images show steeel core columns but a few do show concrete, to the experienced.

Actually they all do, have you even clicked on the links of steel columns?

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

You sure about that?

firecoins

26th October 2006, 07:42 PM

Start posting evidence from the demolition of steel core columns.
The WTC was unquestionably a steel core building from the 1970'2 until 9/11. The architect, then engineers, the mob filled construction crews all the way to the clean up crews post 9/11 will all attest to the steel core building. People have shown you picture after picture of a steel core.A = A. No more evidence is needed. It is NOT debatable. The twin towers have been proven beyond any doubt whatsoever that they were steel core.

NO MORE TROLLING! NO MORE TROLLING!:dig:

realitybites

26th October 2006, 07:46 PM

Your question is moot, there is no evidence for anyone to beleive anything else.
Once again Christophera...

Who is on your side on this? If no one on this earth has evidence to believe that the towers had anything but a concrete core, surely someone sides with you.

Where are they?

Christophera

26th October 2006, 08:51 PM

Once again Christophera...

Who is on your side on this? If no one on this earth has evidence to believe that the towers had anything but a concrete core, surely someone sides with you.

Where are they?

August Domel, Jr., Ph.D., S.E., P.E. November 2001
http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf

Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation, published in 1992

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3793&stc=1&d=1161917435

Christophera

26th October 2006, 08:53 PM

The WTC was unquestionably a steel core building from the 1970'2 until 9/11. The architect, then engineers, the mob filled construction crews all the way to the clean up crews post 9/11 will all attest to the steel core building. People have shown you picture after picture of a steel core.A = A. No more evidence is needed. It is NOT debatable. The twin towers have been proven beyond any doubt whatsoever that they were steel core.

NO MORE TROLLING! NO MORE TROLLING!:dig:

I've never seen an image of a steel core column. The columns of this image are defined as a "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNs" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) that is actually inside the core area not outside it as the image shows. Those columns are actually called, "interior box columns".

Christophera

26th October 2006, 09:05 PM

YOU cannot make a rational conclusion.

Can you follow rational?

If the core had 47, 1300 foot steel columns in it they would be silhouetted in broken, bent, toppling tangles instead of a nice rounded top appearing as concrete erodes from impacts and abrasions which totally indicate a concrete core core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

No you don't. You have one, count it, one photo of this so claled concrete core. The only reason your argument continues is because of the lack of detail you can see. Smoke, and a dark object in it.

No, I have quite a few. Count them here.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

Here is the core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg). Now, ......... rationally explain WHY no steel creo columns pentrate the stairwell or none are seen to teh left of the stair or in the foreground. And, ...... what is the grey mass about 17 feet thick between the stair and the interior box column?

Im not okay with 3000 dead Americans, but no due process was violeted.

Private investigations were blocked into the supposed structural failures and evidence was removed from the scene and taken overseas. If there were structural failures, why would private engineering investigations be blocked.

Structures that fail need to be as well understood as possible to protect people working in other similar structures. This is rational and logical. Do you have a problem with that conclusion?

Bell

26th October 2006, 09:42 PM

By this time even you believe it and are in denial because you are too afraid to admit that our government has been infiltrated and you have a responsibility.

Your question is moot, there is no evidence for anyone to beleive anything else.

They would have to assume the government is truthful and correct.

How would you know what I believe or don't believe? Are you psychic? And why should I admit your government has been infiltrated? By whom? What is my responsibility?

Christophera

26th October 2006, 11:23 PM

How would you know what I believe or don't believe? Are you psychic? And why should I admit your government has been infiltrated? By whom? What is my responsibility?

You won't like the logic but, ......... you have seen no evidence for the steel core columns, and since you think of yourself as rational and swayed by evidence, you unconsciously know that there was a concrete core. However, since your fear is so great of the the infiltrated factions (which are now more real to you than ever), you will continue to deny that there was a concrete core even though your reasonable responsibility to your country is to seek justice fervently.

Simple. Of course I can't know this for sure but even you can't know your unconscious and what I've laid out is fairly reasonable so it could be true.

firecoins

26th October 2006, 11:43 PM

hellaeon

26th October 2006, 11:45 PM

perhaps a moderator could close this in the interest of sanity?

Christophera

27th October 2006, 12:34 AM

Jesus Christ! CHristopefia, whatever the hell your screen name is. The existance of 2 steel core buildings on the tip of Manhattan until 9/11 is indisputable. There is only evidence of a steel core building. No evidence of a concrete core exists because they weren't. Its that simple.

If what you say is true, why have you not posted raw evidence of the steel core columns?

if you are saying what you are saying it can only be because you know nothing about steel and concrete construction. Realize, the below image shows steel 500 feet off the ground being held up by something white/gray in appearance. How many materials can you list that would be there doing that????

full size image (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg)

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3799&stc=1&d=1161930883

Christophera

27th October 2006, 12:37 AM

perhaps a moderator could close this in the interest of sanity?

Perhaps you could source some raw evidence of the steel core columns to give them a reason.

Powa

27th October 2006, 12:43 AM

Gravy

27th October 2006, 12:47 AM

Ahem

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790453c68cab4cea.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790452c0ed9a19b0.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790452c0ed9d1efb.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790452c0ed979936.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790452c0ef8e8610.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790452c11e07a3ea.jpg

Christophera

27th October 2006, 12:51 AM

Ahem
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790453c68cab4cea.jpg

That is an interesting image. If you could locate it you might have something. Personally I think it is the center stairway meaning the large vertical steel to the right is a major elevator guide rail support member.

ON EDIT:Realize it has no taper as do interior box columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg).

Gravy

27th October 2006, 12:54 AM

That is an interesting image. If you could locate it you might have something. Personally I think it is the center stairway meaning the large vertical steel to the right is a major elevator guide rail support member.You are not well. Please get help.

Christophera

27th October 2006, 12:55 AM

Christophera, when you accuse ALL of us to be cowards you are being incredibly offensive. If I ever saw a concrete core in your blurry photos I would say so. What an insulting and arogant ass you are.

And please stop using the expression "raw evidence" when it's clear you have no idea what it means.

So easy for one who has none to say. You are not cowards, you just do not know what you are doing. This is evidenced by the fact you do not know raw evidence when you look at it.

3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)

Christophera

27th October 2006, 12:56 AM

You are not well. Please get help.

Do you know what you celebrate when you celebrate Halloween?

Powa

27th October 2006, 01:10 AM

So easy for one who has none to say.
Everything has been said already. You've been shown over and over and over again why you're wrong and you just don't want to see. You've decided that there was a concrete core and you will not be swayed by evidence. EVER. It's just the way you are.

You are not cowards, you just do not know what you are doing.
Really? Not one of us? No one on this planet except you? That's a bit arrogant, don't you think?

This is evidenced by the fact you do not know raw evidence when you look at it.
You don't know what "raw evidence" means.

Christophera

27th October 2006, 01:17 AM

Everything has been said already. You've been shown over and over and over again why you're wrong and you just don't want to see. You've decided that there was a concrete core and you will not be swayed by evidence. EVER. It's just the way you are.

What you think is evidence for steel core columns just doesn't have the elements in it that it needs to. The ORIGINAL core IMAGE (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) does have those elements even though there is a littel smoke, it still shows very clearly to any with experience with concrete and steel, concrete. Steel just will NOT ever have that appearance under those conditions.

The reason you don't post your "evidence" (sic) is because it does not have what it needs to be what you say it is.

Really? Not one of us? No one on this planet except you? That's a bit arrogant, don't you think?

Actually I think Truthseeker1234 is getting close to seeing the true event. I'm sure other lurkers are too. They just don't have the courage or surety to jump in and grind on the deniers.

You don't know what "raw evidence" means.

Like I said. So easy to say when you do ont have any raw evidence.

Powa

27th October 2006, 01:33 AM

What you think is evidence for steel core columns just doesn't have the elements in it that it needs to.
That's what you say, because you can't misrepresent it.

The ORIGINAL core IMAGE (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) does have those elements even though there is a littel smoke, it still shows very clearly to any with experience with concrete and steel, concrete.
Very clearly? What are you smoking? There's thick smoke with SOMETHING in it. You've just DECIDED it's concrete.

Steel just will NOT ever have that appearance under those conditions.
Oh, I think anything obscured by smoke would look about the same.

The reason you don't post your "evidence" (sic)...Why the "(sic)"?

Actually I think Truthseeker1234 is getting close to seeing the true event. I'm sure other lurkers are too. They just don't have the courage or surety to jump in and grind on the deniers.
And here we are again with the accusations of cowardice.

Like I said. So easy to say when you do ont have any raw evidence.
Until you explain what you mean by "raw evidence" neither do you.

Bell

27th October 2006, 05:04 AM

You won't like the logic but, .........

It's your logic I don't like.

you have seen no evidence for the steel core columns,

I've seen plenty. However, I've seen no evidence for the concrete core

and since you think of yourself as rational and swayed by evidence, you unconsciously know that there was a concrete core.

Once again, you are wrong in your assumptions.

However, since your fear is so great of the the infiltrated factions (which are now more real to you than ever), you will continue to deny that there was a concrete core even though your reasonable responsibility to your country is to seek justice fervently.

What am I afraid of and why does this involve a non-excisting concrete core?

Simple. Of course I can't know this for sure but even you can't know your unconscious and what I've laid out is fairly reasonable so it could be true.

If I can't know my unconscious, how do you know mine? And what you have laid out is delousional and wrong.

Belz...

27th October 2006, 05:24 AM

It is called a conclusion and it is rational, logical and reasonable.

An oxymoron : "chrisophera is beign rational, logical or reasonable."

The murders of our fellow Americans demand that, at least.

I agree.

if it is not concrete, what is it.

Inconclusive. We'd need pictures from other angles, but then the most likely explanation, to me, is either core elements engulfed in dust, or just dust.

Belz...

27th October 2006, 05:30 AM

By this time even you believe it and are in denial because you are too afraid to admit that our government has been infiltrated and you have a responsibility.

Bell's a netherlander, I think.

They would have to assume the government is truthful and correct.

Not necessarily truthful, but the investigation can be right, especially considering the experts involved, while the government can still go about its lying business.

I do not need detail on the core walls. I can tell by the sihouette which does have detail on the edge that it is steel reinforced concrete and that it ABSOLUTELY is not structural steel. By default it must be concrete.

Default ? Are you really saying that because you cannot see steel columns through the smoke, concrete wins ? I thought it was because you could SEE the concrete.

If the core had 47, 1300 foot steel columns in it they would be silhouetted in broken, bent, toppling tangles instead of a nice rounded top appearing as concrete erodes from impacts and abrasions which totally indicate a concrete core

Actually, they might also have fallen with the building or be hidden by smoke, which would make them extant but non-visible on that picture.

Tell me, chris: if a steel core was engulfed in a large amount of smoke and debris, could it produce the effect seen in that picture. Hypothetically ?

Here is the core wall at its base. Now, ......... rationally explain WHY no steel creo columns pentrate the stairwell or none are seen to teh left of the stair or in the foreground.

That one's easy: you do.

Belz...

27th October 2006, 05:37 AM

since you think of yourself as rational and swayed by evidence, you unconsciously know that there was a concrete core.

That's not what "uncounscious" means.

Realize, the below image shows steel 500 feet off the ground being held up by something white/gray in appearance. How many materials can you list that would be there doing that????

Lots.

That is an interesting image. If you could locate it you might have something.

It's the remains of the core, the same you said shows a 17 foot thick concrete wall. Only in that much MORE detailed picture, there's no concrete to be seen. Only braced steel columns.

Do you know what you celebrate when you celebrate Halloween?

All Hallow's Eve. Why ?

3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS

I thought you said it was 6 inches ?

So easy to say when you do ont have any raw evidence.

Raw evidence doesn't look like your pictures.

Actually I think Truthseeker1234 is getting close to seeing the true event. I'm sure other lurkers are too. They just don't have the courage or surety to jump in and grind on the deniers.

Why ? You truthers are always yammering about the government beign murderous bastards, and yet non of you has died in mysterious circumstances. Perhaps the evil government is feeling remorse ?

it still shows very clearly to any with experience with concrete and steel, concrete. Steel just will NOT ever have that appearance under those conditions.

False dichotomy.

realitybites

27th October 2006, 05:42 AM

August Domel, Jr., Ph.D., S.E., P.E. November 2001
http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf

Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation, published in 1992

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3793&stc=1&d=1161917435
Well thank you for answering the question. However, one guy and an obvious error in a book don't really cut it for something you claim the entire world has evidence to believe.

More please.

Christophera

27th October 2006, 10:21 AM

Well thank you for answering the question. However, one guy and an obvious error in a book don't really cut it for something you claim the entire world has evidence to believe.

More please.

The only error in the below is the use of the term "bundled tube" construction". The correct term is "tube in a tube cubstruction".

http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/wtc/page3.html

The World Trade Center towers were an unusual design, at least at the time they were built. Their support structure is called a 'bundled tube', or in engineering terms, a glass curtain wall structure.
What this means is that the buildings are tubes, made rigid by a lattice of steel beams on the outside walls. These vertical columns are strengthened by horizontal beams, and this design is what helps support the building, and keep it stable in high winds. An inner concrete core houses the elevators, and provides additional vertical load support.

And to term the Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/oxfordarchcore.jpg) and "error" is ridiculous. Do you know how carefully their information is sourced and checked?

Even grade schoolers know that the towers had concrete cores. (http://web.archive.org/web/20041113142351/http://www.ncusd203.org/central/html/what/torsbergweb/2002/1st/hour8/wtc/graphic.html
) and they have done a fairly good job. The only vagary is something that would be used by a deep believer in the innocence of our infiltrated government where it says, "columns encased in concrete". Not core columns, just columns.

There is ample raw evidence of the concretre core from the demo here.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

rwguinn

27th October 2006, 10:24 AM

Once again Christophera...

Who is on your side on this? If no one on this earth has evidence to believe that the towers had anything but a concrete core, surely someone sides with you.

Where are they?

Argumentum ad populum. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum)

"IF 100 million eople believe a wrong thing to be true, it is still wrong."

Christophera

27th October 2006, 10:44 AM

That's not what "uncounscious" means.

Actually we are capable of knowing things unconsciously that are almost completely opposite of what we think we know consciously, but unconsciously you will be prevented form knowing that. Which of course is how it works.

Lots.

To be credible you are supposed to list the materials that could stand 500 feet of the ground as this concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) does which holds up the spire.

It's the remains of the core, the same you said shows a 17 foot thick concrete wall. Only in that much MORE detailed picture, there's no concrete to be seen. Only braced steel columns.

The real problem is that the column shown has no taper and this image showing an interior box column outside the core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) has an easily seen taper and it is adjacent to a gray mass aprox. 17 feet thick. The previously linked image IS located and the image you refer to is not.

All Hallow's Eve. Why ?

Well I didn't ask you but since the truth of Halloween is mostly unconscious I will answer you. When we celebrate Halloween we celebrate the senseless murders of some of the most evolved human beings that can exist. We celebrate their murders by fearful people afraid to know the truth of the unconscious mind.

I thought you said it was 6 inches ?

You refer to the core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) image. Since I annotated that I've recalled that there was 6 inch rebar used low or in the foundation areas of the core.

Raw evidence doesn't look like your pictures.

Picture ARE raw evidence. It is WHAT the image shows that determines the type evidence, Since no steel core columns are ever seen in any of the demo images and objects that really only be concrete are seen, it is obvious that the raw evidence shows concrete because the towers did have a core.

Why ? You truthers are always yammering about the government beign murderous bastards, and yet non of you has died in mysterious circumstances. Perhaps the evil government is feeling remorse ?

You are over generalizing and erroneous. Our government has 2 potentials. One is an ideal which we should never lose sight of and is perpetually disabled from harming its citizens. The other is a reality which we must always protect from infiltration. if we are to be good citizens.

ORIGINAL core IMAGE (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

False dichotomy.

There is no dichotomy. The evidence only shows one thing and because no heavy steel columns protrude, bent, tangled and toppling and it is rounded, eroded as only an aggregate will do, it must be concrete. You wish there was a dichotomy that would excuse Americans from unifying and creating accountability.

Christophera

27th October 2006, 10:46 AM

Argumentum ad populum. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum)

"IF 100 million eople believe a wrong thing to be true, it is still wrong."

Try, Do you still want to know the truth after you learn it is something you do not want to know?

uruk

27th October 2006, 11:14 AM

Hey chis, WHy do you keep using this crappy, fuzzy, low resolution image,
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg
everybody here knows it crappy and fuzzy and low resolution.

When we've provided so many higher resolution images of the same core from several different angles. Humor me. Put your photoshop skill to use and using the aformentioned pictures we provided and point out the 17 foot thick concrete core. If you don't do it, all those lurkers who are on the fence post about this are going to think that your scared and a liar.

Go ahead. Show me the concrete, but use the picture we provided. show us that our evidence is wrong.

BTW posting your picture again will not be counted as a refutiation.

defaultdotxbe

27th October 2006, 11:18 AM

i havent been following this thread, is chris getting some "genetic memory" trip now?

uruk

27th October 2006, 11:20 AM

Try, Do you still want to know the truth after you learn it is something you do not want to know?
Sounds like something you should be telling yourself.

Skibum

27th October 2006, 11:24 AM

If you don't do it, all those lurkers who are on the fence post about this are going to think that your scared and a liar.

LOL, honestly, do you really think anyone is on the fence on this one?

Theres Chris, then there is everyone else.

realitybites

27th October 2006, 11:26 AM

Argumentum ad populum. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum)

"IF 100 million eople believe a wrong thing to be true, it is still wrong."
Good point. Although I wasn't trying to use that to disprove his theory. I was just genuinely interested in who else bought into this BS.

27th October 2006, 11:49 AM

Photos on the internet are not raw evidence, no matter what they show.

Period.

uruk

27th October 2006, 11:50 AM

LOL, honestly, do you really think anyone is on the fence on this one?

Theres Chris, then there is everyone else.

SSHHH! I'm trying to goad him.

I know it, you know it, but he actually thinks there are.

Actually I think Truthseeker1234 is getting close to seeing the true event. I'm sure other lurkers are too. They just don't have the courage or surety to jump in and grind on the deniers.

uruk

27th October 2006, 11:57 AM

The only error in the below is the use of the term "bundled tube" construction". The correct term is "tube in a tube cubstruction".

http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/wtc/page3.html

The World Trade Center towers were an unusual design, at least at the time they were built. Their support structure is called a 'bundled tube', or in engineering terms, a glass curtain wall structure.
What this means is that the buildings are tubes, made rigid by a lattice of steel beams on the outside walls. These vertical columns are strengthened by horizontal beams, and this design is what helps support the building, and keep it stable in high winds. An inner concrete core houses the elevators, and provides additional vertical load support.

Hey moron, That's a Canadian Highschool website!http://www.worsleyschool.net/ Are you saying that a Canadian highschool is a more reputable site then all those architectural and historical sites?
(No offence to any Canadians here, particularly anyone who went to Worsley Hi. GO BIG RED ANIMAL THING!!)

Belz...

27th October 2006, 01:14 PM

Actually we are capable of knowing things unconsciously that are almost completely opposite of what we think we know consciously, but unconsciously you will be prevented form knowing that. Which of course is how it works.

No. "Uncounscious" refers to the non-conscious processes of your brain, namely language interpretation, breathing, basic knowledge, etc. Your "unconscious" does not have its own opinions. It's just a collection of processes that you don't control CONSCIOUSLY, unless you choose to (in some cases).

To be credible you are supposed to list the materials that could stand 500 feet of the ground as this concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) does which holds up the spire.

You're in construction and you can't think of those by yourself ?

The previously linked image IS located and the image you refer to is not.

Come on, chris. Can't you see it's the same damn structure ? You can even see the stairwell.

Well I didn't ask you but since the truth of Halloween is mostly unconscious I will answer you. When we celebrate Halloween we celebrate the senseless murders of some of the most evolved human beings that can exist. We celebrate their murders by fearful people afraid to know the truth of the unconscious mind.

Okay, that made no sense. Are you trying to make some sense ?

You refer to the core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) image. Since I annotated that I've recalled that there was 6 inch rebar used low or in the foundation areas of the core.

Well, was it 6 or 3 ?

Picture ARE raw evidence.

Maybe. But raw evidence pictures don't look like YOUR pictures.

It is WHAT the image shows that determines the type evidence, Since no steel core columns are ever seen in any of the demo images and objects that really only be concrete are seen, it is obvious that the raw evidence shows concrete because the towers did have a core.

So... basically you're saying that because the image agrees with you, it's raw ? That fits pretty well with the definition of "raw" I thought up for you.

You are over generalizing and erroneous. Our government has 2 potentials. One is an ideal which we should never lose sight of and is perpetually disabled from harming its citizens. The other is a reality which we must always protect from infiltration. if we are to be good citizens.

That so has nothing to do with what I said. I said that your supposedly murderous government, which happens to NOT be mine, has apparently a lot of problems eliminating the likes of you, who keep blowing their cover. You'd think they'd do that if they didn't mind killing 3000 people.

There is no dichotomy.

Of course there is. You seem to imply that if it's not steel, it HAS to be concrete. But that's not true; there are other possibilities. Dust, for instance, which happens to be mostly gray or black.

The evidence only shows one thing and because no heavy steel columns protrude, bent, tangled and toppling and it is rounded, eroded as only an aggregate will do, it must be concrete.

See ? Here you do it again. If it isn't steel it has to be concrete. That's a FALSE dichotomy.

You wish there was a dichotomy that would excuse Americans from unifying and creating accountability.

You don't know what a dichotomy is, do you ?

Architect

27th October 2006, 02:45 PM

Do you know what you celebrate when you celebrate Halloween?

Yes. All Hallow's Eve, in English. It's the old New Year, and dark creatures come out to play. We dress up to scare them off. :covereyes

I hear that whittering on about non-existent concrete cores does the same thing, so at least you don;t have to worry about the ol' demonic possession, eh?

27th October 2006, 02:55 PM

I'd love to hear his take on Hallowe'en.

Especially after his circa fiasco.

The willful ignorant are so much fun...

Belz...

27th October 2006, 06:13 PM

I'm sure it ties in with his hypnosis hypothesis.

Everything else seems to.

Christophera

27th October 2006, 06:28 PM

No. "Uncounscious" refers to the non-conscious processes of your brain, namely language interpretation, breathing, basic knowledge, etc. Your "unconscious" does not have its own opinions. It's just a collection of processes that you don't control CONSCIOUSLY, unless you choose to (in some cases).

From a medical perspective you would be correct, but not from a psychoanlytical perspective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscious_mind

For Freud, the unconscious was a depository for socially unacceptable ideas, wishes or desires, traumatic memories, and painful emotions put out of mind by the mechanism of psychological repression. However, the contents did not necessarily have to be solely negative. In the psychoanalytic view, the unconscious is a force that can only be recognized by its effects - it expresses itself in the symptom.

And forget the present stages of psychology and their definitions of the unconscious, they have not proven their case anywhere.

To be credible you are supposed to list the materials that could stand 500 feet of the ground as this concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) does which holds up the spire.

You're in construction and you can't think of those by yourself ?

Of course and there are none. Your answer demonstrates intellectual dishonesty. Shall you remain that way or will you list the materials I cannot think of which you think this (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) are instead of concrete.

Come on, chris. Can't you see it's the same damn structure ? You can even see the stairwell.

Absolutely not the same structure. The towers had 3 stairwells each and one was located inthe middle completely away from the cast concret ecore wall. The image I' post, the
core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg), shows an interior box column which has a visible taper. The image Gravy has posted has dead parallel sides. I've made this point very well already.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2043804#post2043804

Okay, that made no sense. Are you trying to make some sense ?

I suppose you could be totally ignorant and not know of the crusades and the inquisitions, or you could have dissocitaed or repressed the knowledge See "unconscious" at top.

Well, was it 6 or 3 ?

I've said it was 6 inch as some have pointed out here. They were right. Which promted me to think aboutit for some months whereupon I remembered a segment of the documentary which talked about the foundations and rebar so massive that it could not be bent and had to be fabricated in place which took months. Replacing the special plastic coating at the weldment took additional time. Welders with a security clearance all the way through.

Maybe. But raw evidence pictures don't look like YOUR pictures.

Picture are raw evidence and this evidence (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) shows a cast concrete core because steel just will not leave that appearance when it is damaged.

So... basically you're saying that because the image agrees with you, it's raw ? That fits pretty well with the definition of "raw" I thought up for you.

The images agree with other within the description of a concrete core. That verifies them all, and, ........... eliminates the possibility of steel core columns because they are never seen.

That so has nothing to do with what I said. I said that your supposedly murderous government, which happens to NOT be mine, has apparently a lot of problems eliminating the likes of you, who keep blowing their cover. You'd think they'd do that if they didn't mind killing 3000 people.

They had cover for the first 3000 capitol crimes. They are hoping your crew will make a single capitol crime unneeded because they can't get away with that under conditions and it will blow their cover.

Of course there is. You seem to imply that if it's not steel, it HAS to be concrete. But that's not true; there are other possibilities. Dust, for instance, which happens to be mostly gray or black.

There is no light what so ever seen and the shape is too uniform in exactly the core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) poistion.

See ? Here you do it again. If it isn't steel it has to be concrete. That's a FALSE dichotomy.

What is happening again is intellectual dishonesty, labelling what is materially supported logic, a dichotomy

You don't know what a dichotomy is, do you ?

Yes I do. Apprently you would like to distort logic, a comparison between 2 proposals describing one piece of evidence, into a dichotomy. Like i said, intellectual disonesty.

1.division into two parts, kinds, etc.; subdivision into halves or pairs.2.division into two mutually exclusive, opposed, or contradictory groups: a dichotomy between thought and action

missyvanwinkle

27th October 2006, 06:39 PM

TheFeds

27th October 2006, 08:22 PM

Hey moron, That's a Canadian Highschool website!http://www.worsleyschool.net/ Are you saying that a Canadian highschool is a more reputable site then all those architectural and historical sites?
(No offence to any Canadians here, particularly anyone who went to Worsley Hi. GO BIG RED ANIMAL THING!!)I pointed out that fact to him about 15 pages ago, with a picture of the kids, and everything...amazing that he still uses it as a source.

Christophera, this is exactly what I mean about so many of your sources being not only illegitimate, but in this case, ridiculous as well.

From a medical perspective you would be correct, but not from a psychoanlytical perspective.You realize that nobody in professional psychology takes Freud very seriously anymore? He's a relic of the past, remembered for his wacky ideas rather than his few successes.

Originally Posted by Belz... http://www.randi.org/forumlive/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2045126#post2045126)
See ? Here you do it again. If it isn't steel it has to be concrete. That's a FALSE dichotomy.
What is happening again is intellectual dishonesty, labelling what is materially supported logic, a dichotomy

Originally Posted by Belz... http://www.randi.org/forumlive/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2045126#post2045126)
You don't know what a dichotomy is, do you ?
Yes I do. Apprently you would like to distort logic, a comparison between 2 proposals describing one piece of evidence, into a dichotomy. Like i said, intellectual disonesty.

1.division into two parts, kinds, etc.; subdivision into halves or pairs.2.division into two mutually exclusive, opposed, or contradictory groups: a dichotomy between thought and actionActually, a false dichotomy is a specific case of logical fallacy. I don't care whether you think it's "materially supported" or not; that has no bearing on the fact that you presented a false dichotomy. You offered choice 1, 'it was steel'; you offered choice 2, 'it was concrete'; you stated that 'since it was not steel, it must have been concrete'. That is a false dichotomy, because you drew a conclusion that didn't take into account choice 3, 'it was something that looked essentially identical to concrete in the blurry photograph'. Even if you eliminate number one, you have not produced evidence to differentiate between 2 and 3. So, unless you do so, you are committing a logical fallacy, and your argument is grossly incomplete.

xqby

27th October 2006, 08:37 PM

You realize that nobody in professional psychology takes Freud very seriously anymore? He's a relic of the past, remembered for his wacky ideas rather than his few successes.

This is because the Illuminati are trying to hide the truth.

twinstead

27th October 2006, 08:41 PM

So, unless you do so, you are committing a logical fallacy, and your argument is grossly incomplete.

What else is new?

WildCat

27th October 2006, 08:43 PM

I can't believe this thread is still alive... :eek:

beachnut

27th October 2006, 08:45 PM

only one thing could

concrete core by concrete core brain

concrete

Christophera

27th October 2006, 08:51 PM

Garb

27th October 2006, 08:54 PM

Yes, and the grade schoolers are more credible as well. The fact is that concrete can be fractured to fall instantly with a small amount of high explosives and steel cannot.

What explosives?

Christophera

27th October 2006, 08:56 PM

I know someone has already pointed out that if a zillion people agreed with you, that wouldn't be accepted as evidence per se, but I am curious.

You know how a bunch of people around here seem to be like-minded?

Well, I was wondering if there is a group supporting the concrete core theory. I mean, I've seen your website, but I haven't explored the web for others. Is there a network out there of concrete core people? This is the only forum I've gone to and got hooked on this thread (like rubber-necking at a wreck I guess.)

Missy

Yes, a very large group agree with me and have for some time. You will probably find a a number of sites that agree, now. Up until about the end of 2005 mine was the only site.

One simple fact remains so true that the steel core proposition has been abandoned slowly, but that is increasing at a healthy rate.

Concrete can be fractured to fall instantly by a relatively small amount of explosives but steel cannot. Meaning, basically, that what we saw is IMPOSSIBLE with steel core columns, literally. it cannot have haapened.

Which by default make the concrete core the only possible core because this image exists.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3808&stc=1&d=1162004198