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

[Christophera]

Dear Christopher Alfred B.

I protested your thread in here over at the community-forum and i took the time to get a better picture about you.

I´ve read about some forums where you had posted, i read about Truthasaur, about hypnosis, failure to child support, prison, missing court files, the concrete core, mind control, christianity, trials and so on.

There are some importand issues in your heart and somehow everything seems to interrelate with each other.

Maybe i´m to blind to see it - why are you wasting time in a place that does not have the answers you are searching for, Christopher?

Sincerely,
Oliver

I am not looking for answers. I am looking to share functional knowledge, I know what I'm doing and I know why I'm doing it.

There is nothing more boring that communicating with a bunch of people that agree with one, nor is there anything more dysfunctional if one seeks to compel others to work for a specific change. There are a few people here that care deeply about the US Constitution, rights and freedoms as well as their children and what I'm doing supports them, whether they know it or not.

I've learned that our society is a fraud and simply seek to show exactly how and what damages the deception is causing.

[Christophera]

That image, nor your argument, proves anything.

The image mus be explained before the explanation is proven. My site,

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

Explains this.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3809&stc=1&d=1162010178

[Oliver]

I am not looking for answers. I am looking to share functional knowledge, I know what I'm doing an I know why I'm doing it.

There is nothing more boring that communicating with a bunch of people that agree with one, nor is there anything more dysfunctional if one seeks to compel others to work for a specific change. There are a few people here that care deeply about the US Constitution, rights and freedoms as well as their children and what I'm doing supports them, whether they know it or not.

I've learned that our society is a fraud and simply seek to show exactly how and what damages the deception is causing.


Dear Christopher Alfred B.


I´m glad to see that your efforts are to move something to make
this world a better place. I also have this dream and i guess, most
people share such interests in their heart.

The inner problems of the united states isn´t really my pair of shoes
because i live somethousand miles away from you but i also would like
to see some more positive things over there.

Maybe you´re right and there are a lot of people who share your interests
about the US-Constitution in here, but talking about the concrete core
annoys the people and they don´t listen to you anymore after a while.

After reading that you lost your license because the child support incident,
i also don´t know the relation to QUOTE: "as well as their children and what
I'm doing supports them".

You say "I know what I'm doing".

Would you be so honest and explain it to the rest of the readers that
don´t understand what your fight for a better america has to do with
a concrete core?


Sincerely,
Oliver

[firecoins]

This is an exercise in futility. We had 2 steel core buildings. This was known before 9/11 by many people. It was not a secret. The construction didn't happen at Area 51. They were built in the most highly populated city in the US. The steel core is crystal clear in Gravy's construction pics.

Were these magic cores? Did they convert to concrete when an airplane hit them? Did Copperfield change them to concrete in the 80's when he made the Statue of Liberty disappear?

How did explosives get into the WTC? They weren't there in Feb 2001. I was there. Thousands of evacuees never saw them. Firefighters, police and other resuce workers didn't see them. Many firefighters quit after 9/11. None admit to seeing any and are not afraid of saying so if there were.

[missyvanwinkle]

You don't happen to have any of those other sites that agree with you handy do you?

I mean, I fully expected you to say there were other who agreed, but I was wondering if you could lead me in their direction, just so I can kinda' poke around.

[Christophera]

Dear Christopher Alfred B.


I´m glad to see that your efforts are to move something to make
this world a better place. I also have this dream and i guess, most
people share such interests in their heart.

The inner problems of the united states isn´t really my pair of shoes
because i live somethousand miles away from you but i also would like
to see some more positive things over there.

Maybe you´re right and there are a lot of people who share your interests
about the US-Constitution in here, but talking about the concrete core
annoys the people and they don´t listen to you anymore after a while.

After reading that you lost your license because the child support incident,
i also don´t know the relation to QUOTE: "as well as their children and what
I'm doing supports them".

You say "I know what I'm doing".

Would you be so honest and explain it to the rest of the readers that
don´t understand what your fight for a better america has to do with
a concrete core?


Sincerely,
Oliver

What we saw is impossible with steel core columns.

If one tries to prove the impossible they will most often fail. My childrens futures depend on success in this case.

Without the truth of 9-11, America is a historical notion. Gone, over, barely a memory.

If they don't listen, half the time it is because they know it is true and don't need to any listen any longer.

[Christophera]

This is an exersice in futility. We had 2 steel core buildings. This was known before 9/11 by many people. It was not a secret. The construction didn't happen at Area 51. They were built in the most highly populated city in the US. The steel core is crystal clear in Gravy's construction pics.

Were these magic cores? Did they convert to concrete when an airplane hit them? Did Copperfield change them to concrete in the 80's when he made the Statue of Liberty disappear?

How did explosives get into the WTC? They weren't there in Feb 2001. I was there. Thousands of evacuees never saw them. Firefighters, police and other resuce workers didn't see them. Many firefighters quit after 9/11. None admit to seeing any and are not afraid of saying so if there were.

How you expect to get anything done without evidence is a mystery. Maybe you think you text is compelling for some reason. You cannot even provide a link to a site dedicated to proving the steel core columns with raw evidence of images, construction of otherwise.

All of that in the face of many images that actually show concrete or structure that can only be concrete.

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

The core area is not even seen in one of gravys images and the other one is far from clear. What is clear is that the vertical steel seen is far smaller than the "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) that ring the core.

In order to be of consequence information must provide explanation (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html) when there is a mystery.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3810&stc=1&d=1162013246

[Christophera]

You don't happen to have any of those other sites that agree with you handy do you?

I mean, I fully expected you to say there were other who agreed, but I was wondering if you could lead me in their direction, just so I can kinda' poke around.

I thought I may have made a bookmark on one but did not. If you search with "concrete core" you should find at least 2, and there's another that has copied all my stuff.

[Oliver]

What we saw is impossible with steel core columns.

If one tries to prove the impossible they will most often fail. My childrens futures depend on success in this case.

Without the truth of 9-11, America is a historical notion. Gone, over, barely a memory.

If they don't listen, half the time it is because they know it is true and don't need to any listen any longer.


Dear Christopher Alfred B.


As a german citizen i saw the buildings collapse after planes hit
them and after seeing that there were fires within the towers.
I didn´t even know about all the fantastic theories before i saw
Loose Change some months ago.

But let me ask you: If the towers were blown up, why didn´t they
fall starting from the bottom - why did they collapse starting from
the impact zones and why is the C4-concrete core still visible for
some seconds after the collapse?

And:

To what extent is it important for your 2 children that there is a
concrete core and may i ask you do you give them child support
today?


Sincerely,
Oliver

[Christophera]

Dear Christopher Alfred B.


As a german citizen i saw the buildings collapse after planes hit
them and after seeing that there were fires within the towers.
I didn´t even know about all the fantastic theories before i saw
Loose Change some months ago.

But let me ask you: If the towers were blown up, why didn´t they
fall starting from the bottom - why did they collapse starting from
the impact zones and why is the C4-concrete core still visible for
some seconds after the collapse?

And:

To what extent is it important for your 2 children that there is a
concrete core and may i ask you do you give them child support
today?


Sincerely,
Oliver

First, I had a feeling you were being deceptive and working towards evoking emotional reasoning within the viewers of this thread from the beginning by pretending to have concrerns for the many vital issues I focus on that have to do with all of our futures.

Understand the exwife has a drug problem and I wouldn't tolerate it. Her family is wealthy but for some reason she was able to get welfare anyway while living at the small family estate. She used the money for extra pharmacueticals. Then of course I owed child support. Some might find it interesting that the laws used to collect that originate with TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 7 > SUBCHAPTER IV > Part D > § 666
(http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00000666----000-.html). I consider it to be the final infiltration/subversion of the family now that I understand it.

If the County of Santa Barbara had appeared on subpoena in 1998 instead of Failing to appear on subpoena or interfering with the appearance of a witness. (http://www.truthasaur.com/local/images/subden.gif), the child support would have all been paid by 1999. I would be wealthy and making films, selling books and my music. The world would be a better place.

The kids are both over 18 now, there was only one that was involved anyway.

I think you must be a very sick individual to make that an issue of this after 3000 Americans were murdered and I actually provide a feasible and realistic explanation of the event. (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html) I sort of picked up that you were demented anyway with the character of your spam.

Back to 9-11

The pilots knew what elevations to strike the towers at to cause the most damage. Or they were told there were explosives on those approximate floors and they knew each others targets. Of course the demoliton were set to cause failures that mimicked what would happen from plane collisions at those points. See my explanations for the tops of the towers falling the wrong directions and the wrong tower falling first.

The detonation system was different for the lower porton of the core and took a few seconds to catch up so left the lower half standing. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

[Oliver]

First, I had a feeling you were being deceptive and working towards evoking emotional reasoning within the viewers of this thread from the beginning by pretending to have concrerns for the many vital issues I focus on that have to do with all of our futures.

Understand the exwife has a drug problem and I wouldn't tolerate it. Her family is wealthy but for some reason she was able to get welfare anyway while living at the small family estate. She used the money for extra pharmacueticals. Then of course I owed child support. Some might find it interesting that the laws used to collect that originate with TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 7 > SUBCHAPTER IV > Part D > § 666
(http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00000666----000-.html). I consider it to be the final infiltration/subversion of the family now that I understand it.

If the County of Santa Barbara had appeared on subpoena in 1998 instead of Failing to appear on subpoena or interfering with the appearance of a witness. (http://www.truthasaur.com/local/images/subden.gif), the child support would have all been paid by 1999. I would be wealthy and making films, selling books and my music.

The kids are both over 18 now, there was only one that was involved anyway.

I think you must be a very sick individual to make that an issue of this after 3000 Americans were murdered and I actually provide a feasible and realistic explanation of the event. (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html) i sort of picked up that you were demented anyway with the character of your spam.

Back to 9-11

The pilots knew what elevations to strike the towers at to cause the most damage. Or they were told there were explosives on those approximate floors and they knew each others targets. Of course the demoliton were set to cause failures that mimicked what would happen from plane collisions at those points. See my explantons for the tops of the towers falling the wrong directions and the wrong tower falling first.

The detonation system was different for the lower porton of the core and took a few seconds to catch up so left the lower half standing. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)



Dear Christopher,


It was never my intention to be deceptive beside my anger caused by
your ignorance against the people who honestly try to understand you.

I read about the problems your ex-wife has and i´m also able to under-
stand that you were not willing to support her addiction because the
child would see none of the child support. On the other side it was illegal
and you lose your licence. But i´m not willing to convict you because this
incident. Nevertheless i guess it may be interesting to understand your
intentions.

In germany - for example - the youth welfare center does interact if the
mother is not able to support their children the way they deserve. What
did the authority do about this problem?

I´m very honest to you that if i compare 3000 dead american citizens to
X00,000 dead iraqis, the american drama is a very, very small one compared
to the iraqi drama, isn´t it?

Okay, back to 9/11:

Well, i know for fact that the spain, the madrid-cell did a video within the
towers to spy for possible targets some years before 9/11. I saw this tape.
Off course it was a long planned attack and off course their intention was to
create as much damage as possible. The difference to your theory is, that
there are many provable circumstances that it was indeed the plan of terrorists.

But i still miss any documents or reports that the government was involved.

And i am the last one who likes the iraq-liars. Maybe you can give me a reason
to think otherwise regarding the evidence that proves the connection from the
gov to 9/11.

The terrorists WTC video from 1996 is available here:
http://rapidshare.de/files/37406735/Title_1__VOB_-Chapter_1-0.avi

(Press the "Free" button, wait until the countdown is over and insert the
numbers on the picture that appears after the countdown is over)

Sincerely,
Oliver

[mortimer]

I think you must be a very sick individual to make that an issue of this after 3000 Americans were murdered and I actually provide a feasible and realistic explanation of the event. (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html)

No you don't, because you still haven't explained how pourous concrete can preserve C4 past it's useful lifetime.

[Z]

Hey Chris - how about your Hallowe'en theory? I'd actually like to hear that one.

[Christophera]

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


There are at least 3 different sets of floor plans for the steel core columned core.

That you accept that is illogical and unethical because 3000 human being have been murdered.

The site that documentst the concrete core has raw evidence of images of 9-11 which show concrete directly or by conclusion, becuase mothing elese could exist in that position of a structure logically. Most importantly is that NO STEEL CORE COLUMNS are seen ever.

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

In the many pages of this thread there is not one logical explanation for near free fall and total pulverization except for what is contained in this link.

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

And until a logical explanation for this
(http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg) none here will be acting with integrity to reason in their denial.

[Christophera]

Hey Chris - how about your Hallowe'en theory? I'd actually like to hear that one.

If you can explain the true reasons for the crusades and the inquisitions you deserve an explanation. Actually on the last page there is an explanation.

[Christophera]

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


Of course and the image of the core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) shows an interior box column clearly outside the core area. It also clearly shows a taper to the interior box column.

there is still no explanation for what that thick gray block is to the right of the interior box columns or why no steel core column pentetrate the stairwell and none are seen to the right or inthe foreground.

[defaultdotxbe]

If you can explain the true reasons for the crusades and the inquisitions you deserve an explanation. Actually on the last page there is an explanation.
yeah dragon, you have to know the truth to get the truth, thats how chris here remains the only person on the planet who knows whats REALLY going on, and the secrets of the cosmos will die with with him and the rest of us can live out the rest of our lives in blissful ignorance

[Z]

If you can explain the true reasons for the crusades and the inquisitions you deserve an explanation. Actually on the last page there is an explanation.


That wasn't an explanation - it was a hint.

But let's hear the whole shebang - what is your explanation for the crusades, the inquisition, and Hallowe'en?

AFAIK - and I'm no history buff - the Crusades were, on the surface, about reclaiming the Holy Land - that is, this is the excuse commonly offered. Deeper in, the actual motivations are timeless tales of greed - the quest for power, for land, for resources, etc. Certainly, the greed of the church fathers played a far larger role than faith did.

As for the Inquisition, I don't honestly know much about it. It seemed like an extended 'witch hunt', where a few sick bastards got off on tormenting innocent people, and used the Church as a convenient excuse. But I have no idea what the rest was about.

As for Hallowe'en - the modern holiday has little to do with ANY of the historical antecedents, really. It's a liberal mixture of folk superstition, religious practice, political subversion, and genuine human interest in the supernatural. It has origins in Catholic traditions, Old World paganism, etc.

Samhain - ah, now that was a festival! The New Year Cometh!!! Yay!!!

;)

[Architect]

Samhain - ah, now that was a festival! The New Year Cometh!!! Yay!!!

;)


It's still called Oidhche Shamhain in Gaelic .

When my parents were young, pre-tv, the old tradition of the parent's doing the guising still went on. And playing lots of tricks on others. And so on.

Hey - maybe Chris is a stranded sprite.....maybe the 31st is his last chance to cross over to join the rest of the Sidh and he's just going on a final spamfest (I can but dream). :eek:

[Z]

Somehow, I don't see the Sidhe taking much interest in him. The bian'sidhe, maybe...

[Jennie C.]

I just want to point out that under international law there is no such thing as an "illegal" war. The UN Charter and UN Resolutions are not law. Even international laws are not binding unless they have been ratified by the signatory nation and included in their own legislation. For example some aspects of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are in direct contradiction to Privacy Acts in New Zealand. While New Zealand is signatory to the universal declaration, we have not ratified all parts of it. If New Zealand breaches those parts of the declaration that have not been ratified, no laws has been broken.

The international laws of armed conflict (ILAC) dictate *how* war can be fought, but it is the sovereign right of every state to use military force at any time they consider appropriate.

Violation of any UN resolutions or Charters *are* breaking the rules of that particular organisation, of course, and in theory could result in expolsion from the organisation (Hah! Like that would ever happen) but it is not "illegal" any more than it is "illegal" for a student at a school to wear items that violate the uniform regulations for that school.

In addition individual states may have domestic laws dictating when and how they are allowed to go to war, and breaking these would make the act of war illegal domestically.

However, in an international setting, "illegal law" refers to the way in which war is fought (i.e. in breach of the ILAC), NOT the status of the war itself.

Just thought I would clear that common misconception up.

-Andrew

I'm still reading some of these older threads and just ran across this, Andrew. I think that I realized your points about international law without being conscious of it, but your concise description brought it all to mind.

(I had mistyped above as "interational law," but the idea of anything in international law's being "rational," would be laughable.)

In fact, didn't our beloved Slick Willie actually sign the Kyoto treaty? But Congress didn't ratify it, so that's a moot point.

A bit of a derailment (someone had asserted that the Iraq war was "illegal"), but I wanted to thank Gumboot for a bit of insight and education. Maybe that's why I keep reading this: there are gems among the CT-rubble.

[Christophera]

yeah dragon, you have to know the truth to get the truth,

CORRECTION:
You have to be able to accept the truth to know the truth.

thats how chris here remains the only person on the planet who knows whats REALLY going on, and the secrets of the cosmos will die with with him and the rest of us can live out the rest of our lives in blissful ignorance

You will be surprised at how quick and complete the deaths of the ignorant will be without the truth because the truth will protect them. Their ignorance is recognized by millions and they have been justifiably fearful of the ignorant for centuries.

Many know what is going on with our unconscious but are too afraid to speak of it.

[Belz...]

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.

Yes, Freud. The father of psychoanalysis. WHO DIED IN 1939. You DO know that psychology has evolved since then ?

And forget the present stages of psychology and their definitions of the unconscious, they have not proven their case anywhere.

And Freud proved HIS ? He was a loon.

Of course and there are none. Your answer demonstrates intellectual dishonesty.

You can't think of a SINGLE material used in construction that could appear of that colour during demolition ? Really ? Who's dishonest now ?

Absolutely not the same structure.

Ridiculous. From the aerial pictures you can see there's only one significant structure remaining that looks even remotely like that. It looks EXACTLY the same. For someone who can identify rebar from a single pixel, you're not very good with high-resolution.

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.

Again, that's not how memory works. Traumatic experiences are remembered with much more clarity than non-traumatic ones. See : holocaust and rape victims.

I've said it was 6 inch as some have pointed out here. They were right.

Actually they were just saying that it couldn't be rebar, but you ignored that and decided that the fact they said it had to be much more than 3 inches meant that it had to be LARGER rebar, otherwise your theory would be false. Also, you said that the 3" rebar couldn't be bent, but now your 6" rebar is clearly bent on your picture. So which is it ?

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.

You mean you fabricated that memory over the course of months of trying to remember something that would support your hypothesis. Now THAT works in psychology.

Replacing the special plastic coating at the weldment took additional time. Welders with a security clearance all the way through.

Source ?

Picture are raw evidence

Not really, because they are only images of the raw evidence, which is physical evidence. Pictures are not physical evidence. They are second-hand. And when they are low-resolution, they are BAD second-hand 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.

Here's that false dichotomy again. Who ever said it was steel ? I said dust.

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.

Replace "box columns" with "support columns" and you'll see them, too.

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.

That's insane. An operation of that magnitude carries a huge amount of risk. A single "accident" to a certain Mr Brown would not. So how come you stil live ?

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.

Doesn't look very uniform to me. Draw a line.

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

Okay you obviously don't know what that means. You're trying to make it seem like steel and concrete are the only two things that could explain the picture. I've named a third, but you ignore it. You've also failed to consider that that structure could be the remains of the steel core engulfed in smoke and dust, which would explain your alleged uniformity as well as the colour. It doesn't require a complicated conspiracy, and I think Mr Ockham would agree.

[Belz...]

Yes, and the grade schoolers are more credible as well

They're more credible to you because they agree with you.

One simple fact remains so true that the steel core proposition has been abandoned slowly, but that is increasing at a healthy rate.

Oh, don't mind me. Please send us links to people who agree with you.

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.

And here we have ANOTHER false dichotomy. You should change your name to dichotomera, instead. You're still assuming that the building was demolished. Under the "planes crashed into the building and fires brought it down" scenario, there's no need for explosives. Just gravity.

First, I had a feeling you were being deceptive and working towards evoking emotional reasoning within the viewers of this thread from the beginning

"You are supporting the lie that murderers hide behind". Does that appeal to emotion remind you of something, chris ?

There are at least 3 different sets of floor plans for the steel core columned core.

Good. Show them. Let's compare.

That you accept that is illogical and unethical because 3000 human being have been murdered.

Yes, they have. And I know who the culprits are.

In the many pages of this thread there is not one logical explanation for near free fall and total pulverization except for what is contained in this link.

That one's easy: there was no free fall, there was no total pulverization. Ergo, no one needs to explain them.

And until a logical explanation for this

The building fell down. You DO know that there was lots of WALLS in that building and that there WAS concrete in the floors, right ? Wouldn't that produce a fair amount of gray smoke ?

If you can explain the true reasons for the crusades and the inquisitions you deserve an explanation.

Oh, humour me.

Of course and the image of the core wall at its base shows an interior box column clearly outside the core area.

"Clearly outside" the core area ? Chris, you can't even get the tower right. How can you tell anything else ?

You will be surprised at how quick and complete the deaths of the ignorant will be without the truth because the truth will protect them.

How exactly does the truth protect against bullets or machettes ?

Many know what is going on with our unconscious but are too afraid to speak of it.

That's a very convenient way to shield yourself from logic. No matter how hard others argue against you, you can convince yourself that, deep down, they agree with you.

[Belz...]

I can't believe this thread is still alive... :eek:

Alive ? No. I'm expending energy to keep it undead indefinitely.

[defaultdotxbe]

CORRECTION:
You have to be able to accept the truth to know the truth.

but in order to accept the "truth" we have to know it (how can you accept something you dont know?) but you wont tell us the "truth" so we cant accept it

admit it, you just want to to pretend your neo

[Christophera]

They're more credible to you because they agree with you.

The school children agree with the raw evidence. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) I simply recognize their consistency with reality making them more credible to any reasonable person who is aware of the raw evidence which has the ultimate veracity in this situation.

[Garb]

Alive ? No. I'm expending energy to keep it undead indefinitely.

So its like, a vampire now?

[Oliver]

Alive ? No. I'm expending energy to keep it undead indefinitely.

Well, shall we speculate who´s dumber?
"Concrete" or "Not"?

[Oliver]

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.

Why did the core still stand for some seconds if the
core was blown up, Chris?

[Oliver]

Dear Christopher Alfred B.


It was never my intention to be deceptive beside my anger caused by
your ignorance against the people who honestly try to understand you.

I read about the problems your ex-wife has and i´m also able to under-
stand that you were not willing to support her addiction because the
child would see none of the child support. On the other side it was illegal
and you lose your licence. But i´m not willing to convict you because this
incident. Nevertheless i guess it may be interesting to understand your
intentions.

In germany - for example - the youth welfare center does interact if the
mother is not able to support their children the way they deserve. What
did the authority do about this problem?

I´m very honest to you that if i compare 3000 dead american citizens to
X00,000 dead iraqis, the american drama is a very, very small one compared
to the iraqi drama, isn´t it?

Okay, back to 9/11:

Well, i know for fact that the spain, the madrid-cell did a video within the
towers to spy for possible targets some years before 9/11. I saw this tape.
Off course it was a long planned attack and off course their intention was to
create as much damage as possible. The difference to your theory is, that
there are many provable circumstances that it was indeed the plan of terrorists.

But i still miss any documents or reports that the government was involved.

And i am the last one who likes the iraq-liars. Maybe you can give me a reason
to think otherwise regarding the evidence that proves the connection from the
gov to 9/11.

The terrorists WTC video from 1996 is available here:
http://rapidshare.de/files/37406735/Title_1__VOB_-Chapter_1-0.avi

(Press the "Free" button, wait until the countdown is over and insert the
numbers on the picture that appears after the countdown is over)

Sincerely,
Oliver

Christopher?

[Architect]

Somehow, I don't see the Sidhe taking much interest in him. The bian'sidhe, maybe...


Tha sin Ban (air beurla fair), chan eil Bain.

Maybe that's what dorve him bonkers. All the keening from the roof? :eek:

[Z]

Tha sin Ban (air beurla fair), chan eil Bain.

Maybe that's what dorve him bonkers. All the keening from the roof? :eek:

That would be so much funnier if I understood the first line. :D

(I just know a few words - not even that well, as indicated by spelling)

[Christophera]

That's because you know nothing about interpreting pictures.

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.

According to someones calculations here the smallest thing that can be seen is 2-3 feet across at the distance the images are taken from.

This is an interior box column known as the "spire" (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg). It is about 2 feet wide and is very well captured by the available pixels.

This is 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) and it can be seen that in the right, lower portion te pixels are indeed losing their capture of the rebar.

Between the upper image link and the lower is fundamental proof that the lower image indeed portrays many, many pbjects that are on the edge of being visible for the available resolution. On the left side of the image there must be many because the exposure is more complete.

The image link at top was taken a second before the lower image. Clearly Belz is wrong in his analysis of the images.

[Christophera]

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

You are using ambigous terms.

Clearly, any column is a "supporting' member, so the term is indistinct.

I use the term "interior box column" which was emphasized in the 1990 docuementary and the term "core column" was explained as NOT being correct. The interior box column is named so becuase the towers were "tube in a tube constrcution" and the interior box columns were the inside wall of the outer tube. The perimeter columns were the outside.

The documentary also noted that some people involved with the project also made the same mistake and explained that the reason was because the tower had initially been concieved by Roberston with steel core columns. It was mostly people from his offices that made that mistake. It went on to explain that when Yamasaki got a hold of the design, the core columns disappeared because they simply flexed too much and he could not certify the towers as safe under conditions.

Box columns simply denote a rectangular column. In the case of the towers they were tubular and hand fabricated at the lower levels because the wall were just too thick to extrude. At higher levels they were extruded.

Below is an image that shows the interior box columns which surrounded the concrete core. The core was cast after at least 40 feet of interior columns were fabricated. Meaning, unfortunately, that the core was rarely photographed and the FEMA deception quite easy one the available images of construction were filtered to remove the few images that did show the concrete. The inside face of the interior box columns supported the wooden form boards that formed the outside wall of the inner tube, the concrete core.


http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3824&stc=1&d=1162069525

[Christophera]

Or, you know, you could completely ignore the link I posted which even shows photos of a cross section of a core column (one of the 44-47 used in the entire core structure) - made completely, 100% FROM STEEL.

You know, ignoring evidence is a good way to prove your argument, isn't it?

You have yet to post proof that there is in fact this "concrete core" which is the basis of your theory. (You know, that theory that the buildings fell at "free fall" speeds, which I already proved they didn't.)

Since you continue to ignore evidence I will continue to ignore your posts (which seem to consist of the same thing every time you post). Arguing with a CT isn't so annoying if they don't cling to their argument despite it being debunked over and over and over.

You have posted an image which has been misinterpreted many times as a core column. It is not a column located in the core area and the page it comes from, http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html does not have an image showing columns in the core area. The column below is an interior box column which is shown here in place, outside and fastened to the thick concrete wall of the core at its base. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg)

Base of box columns (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/docs/corebase1.jpg)

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3826&stc=1&d=1162073952

[Christophera]

your local physics teacher can tell you how potential energy and kinetic energy work.

The real problem with this notion is that anything was moving. The fires were going out and nothing was moving.

Consider this.

The north tower was hit on the north side but the top fell south,

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

[Bell]

The real problem with this notion is that anything was moving. The fires were going out and nothing was moving.

Consider this.

The north tower was hit on the north side but the top fell south,

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

???

[twinstead]

You have posted an image which has been misinterpreted many times as a core column. It is not a column located in the core area and the page it comes from, http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html does not have an image showing columns in the core area.

You are wrong. You have been wrong about this since it was first shown to you. Claiming over and over and over again that the image posted was 'misinterpreted' does NOT make you right. It just makes you look crazy.

I realize you are completely sure of yourself. I'm sure you think you are totally right.

Sadly, you are not, and we all know it. We have an advantage over you in this debate, at least when it comes to lurkers and others reading this debate; we are right, everybody but you knows we are right, yet you keep arguing your case blissfully.

It just makes you look like a crazy person talking gibberish on the street corner.

I say that with all due respect, Chris, but it's the truth.

[Christophera]

Go here (http://www.fcc.gov/mb/video/tvq.html). Enter KCET. Select detailed output. Get this:

Mon Oct 23 22:25:23 2006 Eastern time

Search Parameters Callsign: KCET State: CA Record type: Lower Channel 2 Upper Channel 69


Next Record (http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/tvq?state=CA&call=KCET&arn=&city=&chan=&cha2=69&serv=&type=0&facid=&list=0&dist=&dlat2=&mlat2=&slat2=&dlon2=&mlon2=&slon2=&size=9#10001)KCET CA LOS ANGELES USA Licensee: COMMUNITY TELEVISION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Service Designation: TV NTSC (analog) television station Channel: 28 554 - 560 MHz Licensed File No.: BLET-19820607LE Facility ID number: 13058 CDBS Application ID No.: 43885 34° 13' 26.00" N Latitude Site in Mexican Border Zone
118° 03' 44.00" W Longitude (NAD 27) Polarization: Horizontal (H) Effective Radiated Power (ERP):2450.kW ERP Antenna Height Above Average Terrain:926.meters HAAT Antenna Height Above Mean Sea Level:1825.5meters AMSL Antenna Height Above Ground Level:100.6meters AGL TV Zone: 2 Frequency Offset: 0 (zero) Directional Antenna ID No.: 17555 Pattern Rotation: 0.00 Antenna Make: AND Antenna Model: 35E4 Relative Field values for directional antenna Relative Field polar plot (http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/polarplot?temp=17555&rotate=0.00&p0=0.863&p10=0.973&p20=0.973&p30=0.759&p40=0.544&p45=0.500&p50=0.459&p60=0.576&p70=0.833&p80=0.964&p90=0.905&p100=0.669&p110=0.455&p120=0.403&p130=0.499&p135=0.540&p140=0.564&p150=0.569&p160=0.545&p170=0.483&p180=0.515&p190=0.568&p200=0.568&p210=0.515&p220=0.483&p225=0.511&p230=0.545&p240=0.582&p250=0.577&p260=0.505&p270=0.408&p280=0.467&p290=0.697&p300=0.919&p310=1.000&p315=0.931&p320=0.854&p330=0.552&p340=0.484&p350=0.673&p360=0.863&) Relative field values do not include any pattern rotation that may be indicated above. 0° 0.863 60° 0.576 120° 0.403 180° 0.515 240° 0.582 300° 0.919 10° 0.973 70° 0.833 130° 0.499 190° 0.568 250° 0.577 310° 1.000 20° 0.973 80° 0.964 140° 0.564 200° 0.568 260° 0.505 320° 0.854 30° 0.759 90° 0.905 150° 0.569 210° 0.515 270° 0.408 330° 0.552 40° 0.544 100° 0.669 160° 0.545 220° 0.483 280° 0.467 340° 0.484 50° 0.459 110° 0.455 170° 0.483 230° 0.545 290° 0.697 350° 0.673 Additional azimuths: 45° 0.500
135° 0.540
225° 0.511
315° 0.931
Additional Individual Tower Information from the Antenna Structure Registration database. (Use the Registration Number link for detailed information.) ASRN
Site
Elevation
(meters)Overall Height
Above Ground
(meters)Overall Height
Above Mean Sea
Level (meters)NAD 83 Tower Coordinates
-----------------------------------------------Convert to
NAD 27Latitude Longitude 1012244 (http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSearch/asrRegistration.jsp?regKey=116097) 1724.8 110.6 1835.4 N 34°13'26.0" W 118°3'47.0" To NAD27 (http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/nadcon.prl?DIRECTION=83to27&LATITUDE=34,13,26.00&LONGITUDE=118,3,47.00&TYPE=SINGLE)
FAA: Obstruction/Airport Airspace searches (https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaaEXT/portal.jsp) CDBS: Station Info (http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/sta_list.pl?Facility_id=13058) Application Info (http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/app_det.pl?Application_id=43885) Mailing Address (http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/callsign/prod/query.hts?Call_Sign=KCET) Assignments and Transfers (http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/altc_list.pl?Facility_id=13058) Application List (http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/app_list.pl?Facility_id=13058) CDBS Search Page (http://www.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/audio/cdbs-public-access.html) Ownership Info (http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/own_list.pl?Facility_id=13058) EEO (http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/eeob_list.pl?Facility_id=13058) Call Sign Changes (http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/call_hist.pl?Facility_id=13058&Callsign=KCET) Site: Region Map (http://tiger.census.gov/cgi-bin/mapgen/gif?lon=-118.062222&lat=34.223889&iwd=750&iht=750&mark=-118.062222,34.223889,bluestar,KCET_LOS ANGELES_CA&on=water,miscell,counties,places,CITIES,&off=streets,GRID,shorelin&ht=1.5&wid=1.5) Area Map (http://tiger.census.gov/cgi-bin/mapgen/gif?lon=-118.062222&lat=34.223889&iwd=750&iht=750&mark=-118.062222,34.223889,bluestar,KCET_LOS ANGELES_CA&on=water,miscell,counties,places,CITIES,&off=streets,GRID,shorelin&ht=0.5&wid=0.5) Local Map (http://tiger.census.gov/cgi-bin/mapgen/gif?lon=-118.062222&lat=34.223889&iwd=750&iht=750&mark=-118.062222,34.223889,bluestar,KCET_LOS ANGELES_CA&on=water,miscell,counties,places,CITIES,&off=streets,GRID,shorelin&ht=.05&wid=.05) Area: Service Contour Map (64 dBu) (http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/FMTV-service-area?x=TV43885.html) Alternate Map Link (http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/FMTV-service-area?n=TV43885.html) ULS: Related facilities in ULS (http://forums.randi.org/)
Previous Record (http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/tvq?state=CA&call=KCET&arn=&city=&chan=&cha2=69&serv=&type=0&facid=&list=0&dist=&dlat2=&mlat2=&slat2=&dlon2=&mlon2=&slon2=&size=9#10000) -- Next Record (http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/tvq?state=CA&call=KCET&arn=&city=&chan=&cha2=69&serv=&type=0&facid=&list=0&dist=&dlat2=&mlat2=&slat2=&dlon2=&mlon2=&slon2=&size=9#10002)KCET CA LOS ANGELES USA (Digital) Licensee: COMMUNITY TELEVISION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Service Designation: DT Digital television station Channel: 59 740 - 746 MHz Modification of Construction Permit File No.: BMPEDT-20000428ADF Facility ID number: 13058 CDBS Application ID No.: 502823 34° 13' 26.00" N Latitude Site in Mexican Border Zone
118° 03' 44.00" W Longitude (NAD 27) Polarization: Horizontal (H) Effective Radiated Power (ERP):340.kW ERP Antenna Height Above Average Terrain:913.meters HAAT Antenna Height Above Mean Sea Level:1812.meters AMSL Antenna Height Above Ground Level:87.meters AGL TV Zone: 2 Directional Antenna ID No.: 33524 Pattern Rotation: 0.00 Relative Field values for directional antenna Relative Field polar plot (http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/polarplot?temp=33524&rotate=0.00&p0=0.276&p10=0.304&p20=0.304&p30=0.276&p40=0.257&p50=0.314&p60=0.453&p70=0.625&p80=0.790&p90=0.916&p100=0.986&p105=1.000&p110=0.996&p120=0.953&p130=0.875&p140=0.782&p150=0.692&p160=0.618&p170=0.562&p180=0.525&p190=0.507&p200=0.507&p210=0.525&p220=0.562&p230=0.618&p240=0.692&p250=0.782&p260=0.875&p270=0.953&p280=0.996&p285=1.000&p290=0.986&p300=0.916&p310=0.790&p320=0.625&p330=0.453&p340=0.314&p350=0.257&p360=0.276&) Relative field values do not include any pattern rotation that may be indicated above. 0° 0.276 60° 0.453 120° 0.953 180° 0.525 240° 0.692 300° 0.916 10° 0.304 70° 0.625 130° 0.875 190° 0.507 250° 0.782 310° 0.790 20° 0.304 80° 0.790 140° 0.782 200° 0.507 260° 0.875 320° 0.625 30° 0.276 90° 0.916 150° 0.692 210° 0.525 270° 0.953 330° 0.453 40° 0.257 100° 0.986 160° 0.618 220° 0.562 280° 0.996 340° 0.314 50° 0.314 110° 0.996 170° 0.562 230° 0.618 290° 0.986 350° 0.257 Additional azimuths: 105° 1.000
285° 1.000
Additional Individual Tower Information from the Antenna Structure Registration database. (Use the Registration Number link for detailed information.) ASRN
Site
Elevation
(meters)Overall Height
Above Ground
(meters)Overall Height
Above Mean Sea
Level (meters)NAD 83 Tower Coordinates
-----------------------------------------------Convert to
NAD 27Latitude Longitude 1012244 (http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSearch/asrRegistration.jsp?regKey=116097) 1724.8 110.6 1835.4 N 34°13'26.0" W 118°3'47.0" To NAD27 (http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/nadcon.prl?DIRECTION=83to27&LATITUDE=34,13,26.00&LONGITUDE=118,3,47.00&TYPE=SINGLE)
FAA: Obstruction/Airport Airspace searches (https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaaEXT/portal.jsp) CDBS: Station Info (http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/sta_list.pl?Facility_id=13058) Application Info (http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/app_det.pl?Application_id=502823) Mailing Address (http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/callsign/prod/query.hts?Call_Sign=KCET) Assignments and Transfers (http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/altc_list.pl?Facility_id=13058) Application List (http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/app_list.pl?Facility_id=13058) CDBS Search Page (http://www.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/audio/cdbs-public-access.html) Ownership Info (http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/own_list.pl?Facility_id=13058) EEO (http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/eeob_list.pl?Facility_id=13058) Call Sign Changes (http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/call_hist.pl?Facility_id=13058&Callsign=KCET) Site: Region Map (http://tiger.census.gov/cgi-bin/mapgen/gif?lon=-118.062222&lat=34.223889&iwd=750&iht=750&mark=-118.062222,34.223889,bluestar,KCET_LOS ANGELES_CA&on=water,miscell,counties,places,CITIES,&off=streets,GRID,shorelin&ht=1.5&wid=1.5) Area Map (http://tiger.census.gov/cgi-bin/mapgen/gif?lon=-118.062222&lat=34.223889&iwd=750&iht=750&mark=-118.062222,34.223889,bluestar,KCET_LOS ANGELES_CA&on=water,miscell,counties,places,CITIES,&off=streets,GRID,shorelin&ht=0.5&wid=0.5) Local Map (http://tiger.census.gov/cgi-bin/mapgen/gif?lon=-118.062222&lat=34.223889&iwd=750&iht=750&mark=-118.062222,34.223889,bluestar,KCET_LOS ANGELES_CA&on=water,miscell,counties,places,CITIES,&off=streets,GRID,shorelin&ht=.05&wid=.05) Area: Service Contour Map (41 dBu) (http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/FMTV-service-area?x=DT502823.html) Alternate Map Link (http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/FMTV-service-area?n=DT502823.html) ULS: Related facilities in ULS (http://forums.randi.org/)
Previous Record (http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/tvq?state=CA&call=KCET&arn=&city=&chan=&cha2=69&serv=&type=0&facid=&list=0&dist=&dlat2=&mlat2=&slat2=&dlon2=&mlon2=&slon2=&size=9#10001) -- Next Record (http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/tvq?state=CA&call=KCET&arn=&city=&chan=&cha2=69&serv=&type=0&facid=&list=0&dist=&dlat2=&mlat2=&slat2=&dlon2=&mlon2=&slon2=&size=9#10003)KCET CA LOS ANGELES USA (Digital) Licensee: COMMUNITY TELEVISION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Service Designation: DT Digital television station Channel: 59 740 - 746 MHz Licensed File No.: BLEDT-20000626AFV Facility ID number: 13058 CDBS Application ID No.: 506339 34° 13' 26.00" N Latitude Site in Mexican Border Zone
118° 03' 44.00" W Longitude (NAD 27) Polarization: Horizontal (H) Effective Radiated Power (ERP):190.kW ERP Antenna Height Above Average Terrain:913.meters HAAT Antenna Height Above Mean Sea Level:1812.meters AMSL Antenna Height Above Ground Level:87.meters AGL TV Zone: 2 Directional Antenna ID No.: 33524 Pattern Rotation: 0.00 Antenna Make: DIE Antenna Model: TFU-10DSC-RC170 Relative Field values for directional antenna Relative Field polar plot (http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/polarplot?temp=33524&rotate=0.00&p0=0.276&p10=0.304&p20=0.304&p30=0.276&p40=0.257&p50=0.314&p60=0.453&p70=0.625&p80=0.790&p90=0.916&p100=0.986&p105=1.000&p110=0.996&p120=0.953&p130=0.875&p140=0.782&p150=0.692&p160=0.618&p170=0.562&p180=0.525&p190=0.507&p200=0.507&p210=0.525&p220=0.562&p230=0.618&p240=0.692&p250=0.782&p260=0.875&p270=0.953&p280=0.996&p285=1.000&p290=0.986&p300=0.916&p310=0.790&p320=0.625&p330=0.453&p340=0.314&p350=0.257&p360=0.276&) Relative field values do not include any pattern rotation that may be indicated above. 0° 0.276 60° 0.453 120° 0.953 180° 0.525 240° 0.692 300° 0.916 10° 0.304 70° 0.625 130° 0.875 190° 0.507 250° 0.782 310° 0.790 20° 0.304 80° 0.790 140° 0.782 200° 0.507 260° 0.875 320° 0.625 30° 0.276 90° 0.916 150° 0.692 210° 0.525 270° 0.953 330° 0.453 40° 0.257 100° 0.986 160° 0.618 220° 0.562 280° 0.996 340° 0.314 50° 0.314 110° 0.996 170° 0.562 230° 0.618 290° 0.986 350° 0.257 Additional azimuths: 105° 1.000
285° 1.000
Additional Individual Tower Information from the Antenna Structure Registration database. (Use the Registration Number link for detailed information.) ASRN
Site
Elevation
(meters)Overall Height
Above Ground
(meters)Overall Height
Above Mean Sea
Level (meters)NAD 83 Tower Coordinates
-----------------------------------------------Convert to
NAD 27Latitude Longitude 1012244 (http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSearch/asrRegistration.jsp?regKey=116097) 1724.8 110.6 1835.4 N 34°13'26.0" W 118°3'47.0" To NAD27 (http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/nadcon.prl?DIRECTION=83to27&LATITUDE=34,13,26.00&LONGITUDE=118,3,47.00&TYPE=SINGLE)
FAA: Obstruction/Airport Airspace searches (https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaaEXT/portal.jsp) CDBS: Station Info (http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/sta_list.pl?Facility_id=13058) Application Info (http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/app_det.pl?Application_id=506339) Mailing Address (http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/callsign/prod/query.hts?Call_Sign=KCET) Assignments and Transfers (http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/altc_list.pl?Facility_id=13058) Application List (http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/app_list.pl?Facility_id=13058) CDBS Search Page (http://www.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/audio/cdbs-public-access.html) Ownership Info (http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/own_list.pl?Facility_id=13058) EEO (http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/eeob_list.pl?Facility_id=13058) Call Sign Changes (http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/call_hist.pl?Facility_id=13058&Callsign=KCET) Site: Region Map (http://tiger.census.gov/cgi-bin/mapgen/gif?lon=-118.062222&lat=34.223889&iwd=750&iht=750&mark=-118.062222,34.223889,bluestar,KCET_LOS ANGELES_CA&on=water,miscell,counties,places,CITIES,&off=streets,GRID,shorelin&ht=1.5&wid=1.5) Area Map (http://tiger.census.gov/cgi-bin/mapgen/gif?lon=-118.062222&lat=34.223889&iwd=750&iht=750&mark=-118.062222,34.223889,bluestar,KCET_LOS ANGELES_CA&on=water,miscell,counties,places,CITIES,&off=streets,GRID,shorelin&ht=0.5&wid=0.5) Local Map (http://tiger.census.gov/cgi-bin/mapgen/gif?lon=-118.062222&lat=34.223889&iwd=750&iht=750&mark=-118.062222,34.223889,bluestar,KCET_LOS ANGELES_CA&on=water,miscell,counties,places,CITIES,&off=streets,GRID,shorelin&ht=.05&wid=.05) Area: Service Contour Map (41 dBu) (http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/FMTV-service-area?x=DT506339.html) Alternate Map Link (http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/FMTV-service-area?n=DT506339.html) ULS: Related facilities in ULS (http://forums.randi.org/)
First Record (http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/tvq?state=CA&call=KCET&arn=&city=&chan=&cha2=69&serv=&type=0&facid=&list=0&dist=&dlat2=&mlat2=&slat2=&dlon2=&mlon2=&slon2=&size=9#10000)

*** 3 Records Retrieved ***




So, tell us again what channel KCET uses.

Well, as I said, I haven't watched TV for 7 years so I only remembered which channel I saw it on, or forgot that indeed thy do refer to themselves as channel 28. However, once and for all this will show that we are both correct.

http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Jerome_Al_19651539.aspx
...
Al Jerome, president of KCET (Cox Cable Channel 10), grapples with these issues every day. A former NBC executive, Mr. Jerome has been running Southern California's pre-eminent public television station for the past nine years. Last week, while in Santa Barbara for a board of directors retreat, he took time to discuss the challenges his station is facing, and propose some creative solutions.

[Christophera]

???

The top of WTC 1 fell south when the NORTH PERIMETER WALL was the side damaged. Absolutely opposite of what would logically happen.

How can you question this?

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3828&stc=1&d=1162076269


http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3829&stc=1&d=1162076408

[Christophera]

You are wrong. You have been wrong about this since it was first shown to you. Claiming over and over and over again that the image posted was 'misinterpreted' does NOT make you right. It just makes you look crazy.

I realize you are completely sure of yourself. I'm sure you think you are totally right.

Sadly, you are not, and we all know it. We have an advantage over you in this debate, at least when it comes to lurkers and others reading this debate; we are right, everybody but you knows we are right, yet you keep arguing your case blissfully.

It just makes you look like a crazy person talking gibberish on the street corner.

I say that with all due respect, Chris, but it's the truth.

Say that with due respect all you like but you have no evidence that column,

Base of box columns (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/docs/corebase1.jpg)

was anywhere except outside the core area adjacent to the concrete core wall as shown here (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg). That image absolutely locates the column whereas gravys bogus image shows a column with parallel sides and there is no way to know where it is located.

You have no evidence.

[Bell]

The top of WTC 1 fell south when the NORTH PERIMETER WALL was the side damaged. Absolutely opposite of what would logically happen.

How can you question this?

<snip> redundant links

Remarkable sidestepping, Christophera. I was commenting on your claim about the fires going out, you reply with your claim that the planes hit the wrong towers. Again Chris:

The real problem with this notion is that anything was moving. The fires were going out and nothing was moving.

Bolding mine <-- added for clearity

???

[Architect]

Tha sin Ban (air beurla fair), chan eil Bain.

Maybe that's what dorve him bonkers. All the keening from the roof? :eek:

It's "ban" (in English, fair), not Bain. Which I think is French for the bath.

So fair elf, basically, but it could be a play on the feminine Ban Righ (lit, fair king), which actually means queen. Note in passing that the bilingual signs at Glasgow Queen Street now read Glaschu Sraid Ban Righ.

[Christophera]

Remarkable sidestepping, Christophera. I was commenting on your claim about the fires going out, you reply with your claim that the planes hit the wrong towers. Again Chris:



Bolding mine <-- added for clearity

???

The fire in WTC 2 is well known to have been dying out. I've seen statements from observers that flames were reduced in WTC 1. I'll see if I can find them.


http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/audiotape.html

Seven minutes before the collapse, battalion chief Palmer is heard to say "Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines." The widow of Chief Palmer was allowed to hear the tape before excerpts were released by the Times. She said:

I didn't hear fear, I didn't hear panic. When the tape is made public to the world, people will hear that they all went about their jobs without fear, and selflessly.
Palmer called for a pair of engine companies to fight the fires. The fact that veteran firefighters showed no sign of fear or panic, and had a coherent plan for fighting the fire, contradicts the official explanation of the collapses that the fires were so hot and extensive that they weakened the steel structure.

[Bell]

The fire in WTC 2 is well known to have been dying out. I've seen statements from observers that flames were reduced in WTC 1. I'll see if I can find them.


http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/audiotape.html

Seven minutes before the collapse, battalion chief Palmer is heard to say "Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines." The widow of Chief Palmer was allowed to hear the tape before excerpts were released by the Times. She said:

I didn't hear fear, I didn't hear panic. When the tape is made public to the world, people will hear that they all went about their jobs without fear, and selflessly.
Palmer called for a pair of engine companies to fight the fires. The fact that veteran firefighters showed no sign of fear or panic, and had a coherent plan for fighting the fire, contradicts the official explanation of the collapses that the fires were so hot and extensive that they weakened the steel structure.

Chief Orio Palmer was on the 78th floor when he made that call. Moments before the tower fell. Can you tell from this picture where the 78th floor is?

http://www.melbourne.indymedia.org/uploads/fig9-76.jpg

[Christophera]

Chief Orio Palmer was on the 78th floor when he made that call. Moments before the tower fell. Can you tell from this picture where the 78th floor is?

http://www.melbourne.indymedia.org/uploads/fig9-76.jpg

I would guess that your point is that there are more than 2 fires showing. I can only say that firefighters in the building would have a better assesment of what was really happening than anyone viewing the outside of the building.

These links provide a quality analysis of the fire. The information of the core on this site is in error however. Notes below show why.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/fires/index.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/fema.html

The BPAT lacked subpoena power, hence was unable to obtain access to important documents such as engineering drawings of the buildings. 2

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/official/hsy77747_0.htm

why was important information such as building design plans was by and large unavailable,

[Z]

It's "ban" (in English, fair), not Bain. Which I think is French for the bath.

So fair elf, basically, but it could be a play on the feminine Ban Righ (lit, fair king), which actually means queen. Note in passing that the bilingual signs at Glasgow Queen Street now read Glaschu Sraid Ban Righ.

I've also seen it 'Bian' as in 'bian sidhe' (or Banshee).

But that's one language I have no clue about...

My wife took a name - Aine - that's pronounced (apparently) 'Aw-nee'. So don't ask me.

[Christophera]

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.

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?

But did you use the proper wall thickness for the volume calculations of the walls? And what thickness did you use for the floors?

[Oliver]

Dear Christopher Alfred B.


Well, i know for fact that the spain, the
madrid-cell did a video within the towers
to spy for possible targets some years
before 9/11. I saw this tape.

Off course it was a long planned attack
and off course their intention was to
create as much damage as possible. The
difference to your theory is, that there
are many provable circumstances that it
was indeed the plan of terrorists.

And i am the last one who likes the
iraq-liars. Maybe you can give me a reason
to think otherwise regarding the evidence
that proves the connection from the gov
to 9/11.

The terrorists WTC video from 1996 is
available here:

http://rapidshare.de/files/37406735/Title_1__VOB_-Chapter_1-0.avi



Sincerely,
Oliver

[Belz...]

The school children agree with the raw evidence. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) I simply recognize their consistency with reality making them more credible to any reasonable person who is aware of the raw evidence which has the ultimate veracity in this situation.

Thanks for confirming what I said. You take them as credible because these children agree with you.

Or, more to the point, because they don't know what they're talking about. Surely, NONE of them saw the pictures you keep posting here and they're simply wrong about the facts.

Of course, you don't consider that.

[Oliver]

By the way, Christopher: Do your children buy the conrete core theory? :confused:

[Belz...]

According to someones calculations here the smallest thing that can be seen is 2-3 feet across at the distance the images are taken from.

Ergo, it is impossible to see them, individually, and any interpretation of those pictures is bound to be in error. Thanks.

This is an interior box column known as the "spire". It is about 2 feet wide and is very well captured by the available pixels.

That's not the same picture, you dork. Obviously, since it shows more detail, we can see better.

This is 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS and it can be seen that in the right, lower portion te pixels are indeed losing their capture of the rebar.

Unfortunately, although it is a different picture than the previous one, it was taken mere moments apart, so it is showing the same structure. How can you possibly, with a straight face, tell me that one shows box columns and the other shows rebar ?

Between the upper image link and the lower is fundamental proof that the lower image indeed portrays many, many pbjects that are on the edge of being visible for the available resolution.

What ? You claim they don't even show the same thing. How can one be proof of the other, then ?

The image link at top was taken a second before the lower image. Clearly Belz is wrong in his analysis of the images.

I may be inclined to agree, IF Belz... made ANY analysis of those images, which he didn't.

I use the term "interior box column" which was emphasized in the 1990 docuementary and the term "core column" was explained as NOT being correct.

Are you sure you remember all those details ? It seems as you're making that documentary up as you go.

The documentary also noted that some people involved with the project also made the same mistake and explained that the reason was because the tower had initially been concieved by Roberston with steel core columns.

Do you have a photographic memory ? I find it highly dubious that you can remember specific sentences and information but took MONTHS to remember about the documentary itself.

Below is an image that shows the interior box columns which surrounded the concrete core. The core was cast after at least 40 feet of interior columns were fabricated.

I'm still waiting for your explanation as to why someone would construct a building in this way. Concrete core buildings are built with the core standing way above the rest of the building. Why would the WTC be built any other way ?

[Belz...]

The real problem with this notion is that anything was moving. The fires were going out and nothing was moving.

The fires were raging. What channel were you watching, anyway ?

Nothing was moving ? So when something isn't moving it can't possibly collapse ? Are you saying that nothing can alter another object's momentum ?

The top of WTC 1 fell south when the NORTH PERIMETER WALL was the side damaged. Absolutely opposite of what would logically happen.

Logically ? You're assuming that the south wall wasn't damaged by the impact. Do you have any proof of this ?

The fire in WTC 2 is well known to have been dying out.

I would guess that your point is that there are more than 2 fires showing. I can only say that firefighters in the building would have a better assesment of what was really happening than anyone viewing the outside of the building.

Tell me, chris. At which floor was the fireman who made the call ? Can you now tell me at which floors the plane impacted ? Do you see a problem, here ?

[Oliver]

Ergo, it is impossible to see them, individually, and any interpretation of those pictures is bound to be in error. Thanks.

This is not the point. The point is that C.A.B is free to see whatever he wants. :mad:

That's not the same picture, you dork. Obviously, since it shows more detail, we can see better.

Hey, please don´t scold him. :mad:

Unfortunately, although it is a different picture than the previous one, it was taken mere moments apart, so it is showing the same structure.

That does not matter at all. Don´t you get it? :boggled:

How can you possibly, with a straight face, tell me that one shows box columns and the other shows rebar ?

See my first reply.

What ? You claim they don't even show the same thing. How can one be proof of the other, then ?

Does C.A.B need proofs? Since when? :confused:

I may be inclined to agree, IF Belz... made ANY analysis of those images, which he didn't.

So why don´t you make some anal
lysis

Are you sure you remember all those details ? It seems as you're making that documentary up as you go.

Why don´t you believe him. He already said he remembers very well.

Do you have a photographic memory ? I find it highly dubious that you can remember specific sentences and information but took MONTHS to remember about the documentary itself.

Good Question. Chris, do you have a photographic memory beside your knowledges in NLP?

I'm still waiting for your explanation as to why someone would construct a building in this way. Concrete core buildings are built with the core standing way above the rest of the building. Why would the WTC be built any other way ?

This is easy. You have to build it with a concrete core to place the explosives within the core. He said this onethousand times within this thread. May i ask you if you have no memory at all? :confused:

[Bell]

I would guess that your point is that there are more than 2 fires showing. I can only say that firefighters in the building would have a better assesment of what was really happening than anyone viewing the outside of the building.

These links provide a quality analysis of the fire. The information of the core on this site is in error however. Notes below show why.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/fires/index.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/fema.html

The BPAT lacked subpoena power, hence was unable to obtain access to important documents such as engineering drawings of the buildings. 2

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/official/hsy77747_0.htm

why was important information such as building design plans was by and large unavailable,

So, chief Orio Palmer, taking a look at (part?) of the 78th floor had a better view on the number of all of the fires on all of the floors in all of the tower, compared to a view from outside?

I agree from the picture it is impossible to tell what exactly is going on inside the tower, but totally impossible for chief Palmer to tell.

[Oliver]

The fires were raging. What channel were you watching, anyway ?

I guess he does not watch much TV at all. Shall we bet?

Nothing was moving ? So when something isn't moving it can't possibly collapse ? Are you saying that nothing can alter another object's momentum ?

I agree with Chris on this one. In the case of the towers, off course.

Logically ? You're assuming that the south wall wasn't damaged by the impact. Do you have any proof of this ?

Do you have any proof that it was damaged?

Tell me, chris. At which floor was the fireman who made the call ? Can you now tell me at which floors the plane impacted ? Do you see a problem, here ?

Good question. Where was the impact zone?

[Oliver]

So, chief Orio Palmer,

Links to this claim?

taking a look at (part?) of the 78th floor had a better view on the number of all of the fires on all of the floors in all of the tower, compared to a view from outside?

I guess he had a much better picture than people from the outside.

I agree from the picture it is impossible to tell what exactly is going on inside the tower, but totally impossible for chief Palmer to tell.

Why is this impossible to tell from his view?

[Christophera]

So, chief Orio Palmer, taking a look at (part?) of the 78th floor had a better view on the number of all of the fires on all of the floors in all of the tower, compared to a view from outside?

I agree from the picture it is impossible to tell what exactly is going on inside the tower, but totally impossible for chief Palmer to tell.

Most important to the purposes of our discussion is that Palmer knew what was going on below the 78th floor. Heat goes up.

Did you ever find any images from the demo that show steel core columns?

I still have this perfectly awesome image of the WTC 2 concrete core.
(http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG).

[Oliver]

First, I had a feeling you were being deceptive and working towards evoking emotional reasoning within the viewers of this thread from the beginning by pretending to have concrerns for the many vital issues I focus on that have to do with all of our futures.

I was angry about your ignorance and i still have problems to understand your point of view since i´ve read a lot about you and your theories. All other issues you followed are much more important then the concrete core. And what does it have to do with hypnosis at all?

Understand the exwife has a drug problem and I wouldn't tolerate it. Her family is wealthy but for some reason she was able to get welfare anyway while living at the small family estate.

How is this possible? I mean here in europe you don´t get support if you are wealthy. Off course you have to prove it.

She used the money for extra pharmacueticals. Then of course I owed child support. Some might find it interesting that the laws used to collect that originate with TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 7 > SUBCHAPTER IV > Part D > § 666
(http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00000666----000-.html).

Sorry, i didn´t understand this one because the sentence is interrupted.
"Some might find interesting, that..."?

I consider it to be the final infiltration/subversion of the family now that I understand it.

What final infiltration? Sorry, i feel like i missed "it".

If the County of Santa Barbara had appeared on subpoena in 1998 instead of Failing to appear on subpoena or interfering with the appearance of a witness. (http://www.truthasaur.com/local/images/subden.gif), the child support would have all been paid by 1999.

So you think they didn´t appear at the court because they wanted to harm you?

I would be wealthy and making films, selling books and my music. The world would be a better place.

Why didn´t you write books or make movies nevertheless. What had this to do with the child-support?

The kids are both over 18 now, there was only one that was involved anyway.

Another reason to get rid of this old story, don´t you agree? I´m also unreconcilably in some cases but after a while it´s over and i don´t think about it anymore - especially if it´s over anyway.

I think you must be a very sick individual to make that an issue of this after 3000 Americans were murdered and I actually provide a feasible and realistic explanation of the event. (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html) I sort of picked up that you were demented anyway with the character of your spam.

I already answered this one. Whatever happend on 9/11. The murderer on X000000 iraqis is the worst one.

Back to 9-11

The pilots knew what elevations to strike the towers at to cause the most damage.

I know. They trained very long. Also in real simulators and light airplanes.
It´s very well documented and no secret at all.

Or they were told there were explosives on those approximate floors and they knew each others targets.

I don´t believe this one because i know from simulators how hard it is to hit a desired target at the floor you wish to hit. Try it in a simulator.

Of course the demoliton were set to cause failures that mimicked what would happen from plane collisions at those points.

Same answer. Or do you expect they placed the C4 at the level were the planes hit? And they planed this exact impact zone even before the beginning of the construction works? Sorry, this sounds like a movie i wouldn´t watch to it´s end with such a story...

See my explanations for the tops of the towers falling the wrong directions and the wrong tower falling first.

Could you give me the exact location of your explanation?

The detonation system was different for the lower porton of the core and took a few seconds to catch up so left the lower half standing. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

Well, in my humble opinion there was no way to blow the rest of the core separately after the rest was gone. Or do you expect they did use wireless detonators? Somebody at the construction work should have seen these devices, shouldn´t they?

[Bell]

Most important to the purposes of our discussion is that Palmer knew what was going on below the 78th floor. Heat goes up.

Did you ever find any images from the demo that show steel core columns?

I still have this perfectly awesome image of the WTC 2 concrete core.
(http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG).

Nice sidestepping - again - Christophera. But for now, drop the concrete core allready. No pun intended.

Yes, chief Palmer knew what was going on below the 78th floor. Yes, heat goes up. How does this proof your claim about the fires going out?

Chief Palmer's report on the fires on the 78th floor does not represent the fires in the rest of the building above. The picture from the NIST report clearly shows multiple fires on multiple floors. I also don't see the fires going out in the picture of WTC 1 which I showed you.

[Christophera]

According to someones calculations here the smallest thing that can be seen is 2-3 feet across at the distance the images are taken from.

2 foot wide spire (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg)

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

Okay, it is impossible to see them, then any interpretation is in error, then they aren't the same picture, then it shows more detail so we can see it better.

Ergo, it is impossible to see them, individually, and any interpretation of those pictures is bound to be in error. Thanks.

That's not the same picture, you dork. Obviously, since it shows more detail, we can see better.

Unfortunately, although it is a different picture than the previous one, it was taken mere moments apart, so it is showing the same structure. How can you possibly, with a straight face, tell me that one shows box columns and the other shows rebar ?

What ? You claim they don't even show the same thing. How can one be proof of the other, then ?

It seems at this point I should say something like, "make up your mind" "or you can't have it both ways" or "either you can see them or you cannot see them".

Whoever attempted to calculate what a pixel was at that distance was obviously wrong because obviously we see the 2 foot wide column and then a second later we can also see what is almost not captured by the resolution of the camera.

How can the latter, lower structure be the "same structure" they are obviously different. One is large and well defined the other sketchy and part (lower right) is pixelated out altogether.


I may be inclined to agree, IF Belz... made ANY analysis of those images, which he didn't.

I realize that. It was HCR I think.

Are you sure you remember all those details ? It seems as you're making that documentary up as you go.

Do you have a photographic memory ? I find it highly dubious that you can remember specific sentences and information but took MONTHS to remember about the documentary itself.

Yes it could seem as if i was making it up as I go and it took over a year to remember anything at all. Memory is a tricky thing, we all know this.

The last significant recall I had was about the 6 inch rebar. I remember marvelling at the amount of work in tight difficult spaces in order to weld 6 inch think deep fillets that were round. A night mare. A zillion passes and chipping runs. No wonder the core foundation took so long went through my mind. The constant objection to my call of 3 inches of the rebar coiled up on top of the core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) bothered me because the thickness really did look larger. then some images of tight intersections of huge rebar popped into my brain from my memory adn the words followed describing the fact that the 6 inch rebar of the foundation had to be welded because it was too thick to bend.

Prior to that was the built in cutting charges (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/steelbeamcuttingfloors.gif) of the floors that cut the interior box columns so perfectly people who should know better say they sheared at the site or cut at the mill. Demo clean up shear offs, if such thick, tempered steel could be sheared, is ugly. The notion they were cut at the mill is absurd if one insists they were core columns. "Core" implies all one piece. The interior box columns were hand welded at the mill in 40 foot pieces and then 100% welded in position to form virtual one piece columns. My photographic memory kept calling back an image that matched one in that 18 minute celebratory video that everybody posts a link to thinking it might be the one I saw which showed floor panels being lowered into position a couple floors below the top and I remembered that the documentary had what was probably exactly the same shot, then I remembered the narration mentioning the 2 tempered steel plates that were placed around the interior box column to fill in the truncated corner of the floor panel. I remembered that te PA objected to the videographers sourcing the independent engineering contractore drawing details, then relenting when the filmakers asked "why?".

My study of linear shape charges in my 9-11 research had educated me as to what was required to explosively shear steel, suddenly I knew how the box columns were cut (explsive shear on left) (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc.box.shear.torch.gif) into neat 40 foot pieces.

I'm still waiting for your explanation as to why someone would construct a building in this way. Concrete core buildings are built with the core standing way above the rest of the building. Why would the WTC be built any other way ?

I've explained this before but perhaps it was lost in the copius spam.

Towers with smaller cores are constructed, as you say, by building the core first, above the steel framework. The reason is that the steel reinforced concrete core absorbs the lateral loading and the amount of steel used can be reduced making the tower lighter and therefore taller.

With larger cores the steel is expended in order to create a framework to support the outer formwork for the core. Erecting that formwork free standing is quite tricky and requires extensive, braced scaffolding which must be erected and taken down over and over. very expensive. By building the outer steel framework and using it as scaffold the expense of the temporary scaffold is eliminated as the floors provide work space and interior box columns support the outer core forms.

Now can you reasonably accept that this (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) is the steel reinforced core of WTC 2?

[Oliver]

I still have this perfectly awesome image of the WTC 2 concrete core.
(http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG).

For me it looks like a huge p*nis. No kidding here.

[Powa]

I'm sick of this picture. Is there really no video from the same angle? It would be great to see the "concrete core" in motion.

[Christophera]

Nice sidestepping - again - Christophera. But for now, drop the concrete core allready. No pun intended.

Yes, chief Palmer knew what was going on below the 78th floor. Yes, heat goes up. How does this proof your claim about the fires going out?

Chief Palmer's report on the fires on the 78th floor does not represent the fires in the rest of the building above. The picture from the NIST report clearly shows multiple fires on multiple floors. I also don't see the fires going out in the picture of WTC 1 which I showed you.

The point about the fires going out only says that after they are out, surviors above can be rescued.

If structure below is uneffected by fire the top falls off or cascades off the side in a scenario that WOULD NOT HAPPEN. This is only logical and it is correct without exception. The lower part of a tower is stronger because it needs to be. Failures above do not present loads below that were never present before. No time or distance for momentum is present so collapse is absurd.

[Bell]

The point about the fires going out only says that after they are out, surviors above can be rescued.

If structure below is uneffected by fire the top falls off or cascades off the side in a scenario that WOULD NOT HAPPEN. This is only logical and it is correct without exception. The lower part of a tower is stronger because it needs to be. Failures above do not present loads below that were never present before. No time or distance for momentum is present so collapse is absurd.

Well, the fires DID NOT go out, and everybody (bar 18) who where above the fires did not survive. What is your point?

I agree that the top falling of or cascading off the side is a scenario that WOULD NOT HAPPEN.

But I guess you mean the top should have fallen over and tumbled down? Did I miss the giant lumberjack who chopped of the top part?

[uruk]

The only way the towers would have toppled to one side is if there was a huge source of lateral thrust to move all that mass. The building was over 1,300 feet high and 200,000 tons. It's not freakin' tree.

[rwguinn]

The only way the towers would have toppled to one side is if there was a huge source of lateral thrust to move all that mass. The building was over 1,300 feet high and 200,000 tons. It's not freakin' tree.
Not quite--All you had to do was move the center of mass 100 feet laterally...

[Christophera]

Well, the fires DID NOT go out, and everybody (bar 18) who where above the fires did not survive. What is your point?

I agree that the top falling of or cascading off the side is a scenario that WOULD NOT HAPPEN.

But I guess you mean the top should have fallen over and tumbled down? Did I miss the giant lumberjack who chopped of the top part?

Yes it would not happen because there was not enough damage. And, ...... the people didn't survive because the towers were demolished.

Given, WTC 1 might have had so much smoke and even heat that no one may have survived. Those people weren't jumping because they thought they might survive. However, temperatures that are not survivable are also not necessarily anything that would cause collapse.

[Christophera]

The only way the towers would have toppled to one side is if there was a huge source of lateral thrust to move all that mass. The building was over 1,300 feet high and 200,000 tons. It's not freakin' tree.

No, if all the bearing support on one side is removed it will fall that direction. Without fail, I've demoed a number of small structures and this is how I control where the material ends up. It is absolutely predictable. wich is a mjor reason to see demolition on 9-11 because the towers fell the opposite way of the damage.

One thing it does not do is crumble all the vertical support which has been supporting it historically. If that was the case we would'nt need demolition and collapses would be common place. I, and most people would live in a tent because it would be the only safe structure as it wouldn't do much damage when it fell reguarly.

[Powa]

Failures above do not present loads below that were never present before. No time or distance for momentum is present so collapse is absurd.
And this right here is the proof that you've never worked in construction and never did demolitions. Are you really saying that the lower floors should be able to withstand the top FALLING on them? Oh, dear.

[Oliver]

Arghh! Double post... :boggled:

[Oliver]

No, if all the bearing support on one side is removed it will fall that direction. Without fail, I've demoed a number of small structures and this is how I control where the material ends up. It is absolutely predictable. wich is a mjor reason to see demolition on 9-11 because the towers fell the opposite way of the damage.

One thing it does not do is crumble all the vertical support which has been supporting it historically. If that was the case we would'nt need demolition and collapses would be common place. I, and most people would live in a tent because it would be the only safe structure as it wouldn't do much damage when it fell reguarly.

Collapses on 9/11? ... S*hit happens!

When do you get over it and try it with another theory
that is believable and will be supported by ANYone??? :boggled:

[Christophera]

And this right here is the proof that you've never worked in construction and never did demolitions. Are you really saying that the lower floors should be able to withstand the top FALLING on them? Oh, dear.

Obviously, when viewing the WTC 2 core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG), that the lower portions were able to withstand the top portons falling on them. They only continued to the ground from high explosives as seen here when the concrete core of WTC 1 detonates (http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8232/wtcsl8.jpg).

[Powa]

Obviously, when viewing the WTC 2 core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG), that the lower portions were able to withstand the top portons falling on them.
So are you now claiming that the buildings were designed to withstand the top portion falling on lower floors? Seriously? Also in that picture you keep posting there is no evidence of concrete. Except for you. And nobody else.

They only continued to the ground from high explosives as seen here when the concrete core of WTC 1 detonates (http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8232/wtcsl8.jpg).
You assume that the buildings were designed to withstand the top portion falling on the lower floors. Thank god you're not in construction.

ETA: can you tell us how the collapse should have looked without "explosions"?

[Bell]

Yes it would not happen because there was not enough damage. And, ...... the people didn't survive because the towers were demolished.

Given, WTC 1 might have had so much smoke and even heat that no one may have survived. Those people weren't jumping because they thought they might survive. However, temperatures that are not survivable are also not necessarily anything that would cause collapse.

Christophera, I ask you to take a look at this videoclip (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546), especially the first few seconds. The inward buckling of the tower is very recognizable, just before the tower begins to fall. Also, the collapse starts first, then we see the smoke and dust rushing out. Not very consistent with a controlled demolition.

And here's a chilling phone conversation with Kevin Cosgrove (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE9TLgCVLBM), a the time of the collapse :(
BTW, don't read the retarded replies on that page :mad:

Also, you still did not directly reply to the pictures I posted. Were the fires in the two towers going out, yes or no?

ETA:

ETA: can you tell us how the collapse should have looked without "explosions"?

Pretty much like in the video I linked to above, Christophera.

[bonavada]

My study of linear shape charges in my 9-11 research had educated me as to what was required to explosively shear steel, suddenly I knew how the [spam was] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITeuaqcpckc) cut into neat 40 foot pieces.


please would you care to show us the workings of your study of linear shape charges? perhaps you could educate us as well.
i don't mean just a link to a couple of paint-shop line drawings.
also could you supply substantive details with corroborative sources about who manufactured/supplied the explosives? what type of detonation was used? when the charges were installed onsite? and by who? how many seperate charges of this kind were used? etc etc etc..................................

BV

[Oliver]

Okay, Guys. Let´s try it again:

Maxim:
If a suppossed explantion does not explain the event, it is not the truth. No explanation that does not explain the event can be the truth.

So far no explanation in existence explains free fall and total pulverization of the towers appears to exist. Has anyone seen one?

No, i´m sorry. What do you think was the reason for the free fall? :confused:

[Bell]

Okay, Guys. Let´s try it again:



No, i´m sorry. What do you think was the reason for the free fall? :confused:

The towers did not fall at free fall speed. The towers did not totally pulverize. Debunked. Thread closed.

[bonavada]

The towers did not fall at free fall speed.

putting my pedants hat on.........

how can something fall not at free fall?

failing other forces, falling fragments fall at free fall while falling.

;-]

BV

[Belz...]

Most important to the purposes of our discussion is that Palmer knew what was going on below the 78th floor. Heat goes up.

Yes, indeed. And that fact doesn't help you.

It seems at this point I should say something like, "make up your mind" "or you can't have it both ways" or "either you can see them or you cannot see them".

Here's that reading comprehension again. You're the one who seems to claim it isn't the same structure. You say one's rebar, and the other box columns. But they are clearly the same. The higher resolution picture shows columns, so that's the one I'm trusting. The other one shows pixels that we can't make out. Only you call it rebar.

How can the latter, lower structure be the "same structure" they are obviously different. One is large and well defined the other sketchy and part (lower right) is pixelated out altogether.

You've obviously never used a digital camera nor handled digital pictures, chris. The two pictures haven't the same resolution. That's why it looks different. Sheesh. I knew that back when I was 17. And that was in the early 90s!

Yes it could seem as if i was making it up as I go and it took over a year to remember anything at all. Memory is a tricky thing, we all know this.

I'm encouraged by the fact you admit this. Do you also admit that memory can be terribly wrong about details one thinks one remembers ?

The last significant recall I had was about the 6 inch rebar. I remember marvelling at the amount of work in tight difficult spaces in order to weld 6 inch think deep fillets that were round.

The un-bendable rebar that you also claim was bent ?

Prior to that was the built in cutting charges of the floors that cut the interior box columns so perfectly people who should know better say they sheared at the site or cut at the mill.

I'm fairly certain that cutting charges could never produce such a clean cut. Seriously.

My photographic memory

So you DO have it. Of course, I'd like some proof.

Towers with smaller cores are constructed, as you say, by building the core first, above the steel framework. The reason is that the steel reinforced concrete core absorbs the lateral loading and the amount of steel used can be reduced making the tower lighter and therefore taller.

With larger cores the steel is expended in order to create a framework to support the outer formwork for the core. Erecting that formwork free standing is quite tricky and requires extensive, braced scaffolding which must be erected and taken down over and over. very expensive. By building the outer steel framework and using it as scaffold the expense of the temporary scaffold is eliminated as the floors provide work space and interior box columns support the outer core forms.

I'll be waiting for someone in construction to confirm this. Architect ?

Now can you reasonably accept that this is the steel reinforced core of WTC 2?

No, because I can't make out what it is. Your claim that it can only be concrete seems dubious to me, because if I can't make out what's in there, I doubt you can. I've already explained alternative explanations, though I don't claim to actually know what I'm seeing. A video of this shot would help.

[Belz...]

No, if all the bearing support on one side is removed it will fall that direction. Without fail, I've demoed a number of small structures and this is how I control where the material ends up.

The key word is small. At the size of the WTC, even if only one side fails at one time, the rest is going to follow soon enough, and there won't be any significant amount of toppling.

One thing it does not do is crumble all the vertical support which has been supporting it historically. If that was the case we would'nt need demolition and collapses would be common place. I, and most people would live in a tent because it would be the only safe structure as it wouldn't do much damage when it fell reguarly.

How about the 767s that rammed them ?

As Bell said, there was significant, visible buckling BEFORE the collapse.

[Christophera]

The key word is small. At the size of the WTC, even if only one side fails at one time, the rest is going to follow soon enough, and there won't be any significant amount of toppling.



How about the 767s that rammed them ?

As Bell said, there was significant, visible buckling BEFORE the collapse.

Whoa................ (can hardly believe this is coming from you)

I've said I control the direction of fall in a demo by damaging the support on the side I want it to fall. This S.O.P in the business, everyone knows it. Common sense. Bell said there was significant buckling and you said what about the planes ramming the towers.

Another point of common sense:

Taller structures are MORE prone to toppling.

In all it means that the tops of the towers would definitely fall the in the directions of the side they were damaged.

Meaning when you say;

"and there won't be any significant amount of toppling."

you are anti logical PARTICUARLY with structures the size of the WTC towers.

Oh, the buckling seen was the aluminum facade.

[Powa]

Oh, the buckling seen was the aluminum facade.
Um, why was it buckling prior to "detonations".

[Skibum]

Um, why was it buckling prior to "detonations".

Also, how would the facade buckle inwards several feet without the steel beams behind it not?

[Oliver]

By the way, Belz.

Are you a sock of christophera or the other way?
I simply don´t get your agendas here.

[Bell]

Whoa................ (can hardly believe this is coming from you)

I've said I control the direction of fall in a demo by damaging the support on the side I want it to fall. This S.O.P in the business, everyone knows it. Common sense. Bell said there was significant buckling and you said what about the planes ramming the towers.

Another point of common sense:

Taller structures are MORE prone to toppling.

In all it means that the tops of the towers would definitely fall the in the directions of the side they were damaged.

Meaning when you say;

"and there won't be any significant amount of toppling."

you are anti logical PARTICUARLY with structures the size of the WTC towers.

Oh, the buckling seen was the aluminum facade.

Christophera, do you not look at the pictures we post here? Have you not seen the picture - posted twice - of WTC 1 with the HUGE FRIKKING fires at the southside? What do you think that does to the steel beams? That's right, it weakens them. Then they loose the strenght to support the top of the tower and the top falls. Southward.

Oh, the buckling seen were the steel outer columns. Or do you believe the towers only had aluminium siding? No steel behind it?

[tsig]

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

Clearly by now you should know that the concrete core is being poured

seven stories below what we see.

Sorry Chris, but after 3" Rebar on 4' centers, well.

[uruk]

Not quite--All you had to do was move the center of mass 100 feet laterally...

Fair enough. What would have the effect of shifting the center of mass 100 feet laterally?

I would imagine that if you took out the spandrels and box columns on one side near the base. But I think the stress of shifting that much mass that much distance lateraly, and givin the method they used to attach the floors, would cause the building to come apart and fall straight down in much the same way it did.

but then I'm no rocket scientist and I could be wrong.

[rwguinn]

Fair enough. What would have the effect of shifting the center of mass 100 feet laterally?

I would imagine that if you took out the spandrels and box columns on one side near the base. But I think the stress of shifting that much mass that much distance lateraly, and givin the method they used to attach the floors, would cause the building to come apart and fall straight down in much the same way it did.

but then I'm no rocket scientist and I could be wrong.

Well, I was one,and you are correct...

[uruk]

Christophera, I ask you to take a look at this videoclip (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546), especially the first few seconds. The inward buckling of the tower is very recognizable, just before the tower begins to fall. Also, the collapse starts first, then we see the smoke and dust rushing out. Not very consistent with a controlled demolition.

And if you notice when the upper section started to fall it did not move lateraly. It rotated on its center of mass in the direction of the rupturing heat damaged spandrels and box columns and fell straight down. There was no lateral shift of center of mass.

[uruk]

Well, I was one,and you are correct...

Wow! Where did you work? Your in Texas so I'm assuming JSC perhaps?
or did you work for a subcontractor? McDonald Douglas? Lockheed Martin? General Dynamics? What was your field of work?

I gots respect for the Rocket Scientists!

[rwguinn]

[quote=uruk;2054191]Wow! Where did you work? Your in Texas so I'm assuming JSC perhaps?
or did you work for a subcontractor? McDonald Douglas? Lockheed Martin? General Dynamics? What was your field of work?

I gots respect for the Rocket Scientists![/quote

spent 4years cooping at NASA, Edwards AFB, and 20 years at Martin Marietta (now Lockheed Martin) in Denver on Titan III, Titan34D, and, of course, STS.
Now I do structural analysis on whatever comes along. Airplanes, at present]

[uruk]

(Quoted by Christphera)The last significant recall I had was about the 6 inch rebar. I remember marvelling at the amount of work in tight difficult spaces in order to weld 6 inch think deep fillets that were round. A night mare. A zillion passes and chipping runs. No wonder the core foundation took so long went through my mind. The constant objection to my call of 3 inches of the rebar coiled up on top of the core wall at its base bothered me because the thickness really did look larger. then some images of tight intersections of huge rebar popped into my brain from my memory adn the words followed describing the fact that the 6 inch rebar of the foundation had to be welded because it was too thick to bend.

I wonder how safe it was to weld rebar coated with C4? You figgure there would have been an accidental ignition or two.

[Mancman]

Oh, the buckling seen was the aluminum facade.

Impossible. The facade was directly attached to the steel. It could not bow inward unless the steel columns it was attached were bowing.

[Skibum]

I wonder how safe it was to weld rebar coated with C4? You figgure there would have been an accidental ignition or two.

Especially after they start hitting the fresh welds with a slag hammer.

[beachnut]

now with the RDX buried in the Concrete core that does not exist, does this mean the RDX does not exist?

[uruk]

spent 4years cooping at NASA, Edwards AFB, and 20 years at Martin Marietta (now Lockheed Martin) in Denver on Titan III, Titan34D, and, of course, STS.
Now I do structural analysis on whatever comes along. Airplanes, at present]
Awesome! The new Delta4 is something to behold.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6743383/

Any opinions on the CEV?

[rwguinn]

Awesome! The new Delta4 is something to behold.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6743383/

Any opinions on the CEV?
/deail, continued (At least there's no concrete here--yet)
I may have tho oportunity to work on it--probably in systems, if there are openings...
But personally?
We got to get away from this obsession with vertical launch.
Maybe we could use cristophanoid's invisicrete to build a catapault in the Rockies that wouldn't be an environmental disaster?:D
(sorry--I had to have some part of the thread in there, for continuity..)\derail

[beachnut]

just add concrete wings on a rail V-1 style

[uruk]

/deail, continued (At least there's no concrete here--yet)
I may have tho oportunity to work on it--probably in systems, if there are openings...
But personally?
We got to get away from this obsession with vertical launch.
Maybe we could use cristophanoid's invisicrete to build a catapault in the Rockies that wouldn't be an environmental disaster?:D
(sorry--I had to have some part of the thread in there, for continuity..)\derail

You mean something like the system used in the movie "When Worlds Collide"?
Would something like that work for heavy payloads like C4 coated rebar and invisicrete?

(We might have to move this to a new thread in a different section if it warrants interest.)

[rwguinn]

You mean something like the system used in the movie "When Worlds Collide"?
Would something like that work for heavy payloads like C4 coated rebar and invisicrete?

(We might have to move this to a new thread in a different section if it warrants interest.)
I was thinking more like electromagnetic, ala R.A. Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"

[Arus808]

why is thread still goin?

[uruk]

why is thread still goin?
morbid curiosity

[uruk]

I was thinking more like electromagnetic, ala R.A. Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"

You mean like? http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/01/03/maglev.launches/index.html

[rwguinn]

You mean like? http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/01/03/maglev.launches/index.html

yup.
The problem is "getting through this pesky atmosphere", and vertical launch is the shortest way through it.
A MAGLEV-type launcherwould have to be a long sucker, though, to keep from the g-levels what kill folks and wreck sensitive electronics (Although random vibration levels would go away, almost!). So, you need a long launch ramp, and aimed awau from the ground, to build up sufficient velocity to punch through the atmosphere.Probably need a rocket boost after leaving the ramp, still--but considerably less of one than now...

[uruk]

yup.
The problem is "getting through this pesky atmosphere", and vertical launch is the shortest way through it.
A MAGLEV-type launcherwould have to be a long sucker, though, to keep from the g-levels what kill folks and wreck sensitive electronics (Although random vibration levels would go away, almost!). So, you need a long launch ramp, and aimed awau from the ground, to build up sufficient velocity to punch through the atmosphere.Probably need a rocket boost after leaving the ramp, still--but considerably less of one than now...

How about a combination of propulsion systems.
Use a maglev catapult to achieve the initial velocity. Balance out the acceleration to G-force requirements to achive the minmal rail length then use a laser propulsion system ( http://www.islandone.org/Propulsion/Lsrprp1.gif ) to kick it to escape velocity while still in the atmosphere then switch to liquid propulsion for obit parking. The laser propulsion system would cutdown on the amount of fuel needed to be carried.

But I know. Too much plumbing will get Murphy involved.

[Z]

I wonder how safe it was to weld rebar coated with C4? You figgure there would have been an accidental ignition or two.

Not too likely. C4 explodes under heat AND pressure, not heat alone. Or through electrical ignition.

My dad used to cook with the tiniest bit of C4. Then he'd have the n00b lieutenants or whoever stomp it out...

hehehehe

[Z]

Especially after they start hitting the fresh welds with a slag hammer.

Only if those 'fresh welds' were still burning.

Still - a fine point.

[Skibum]

Or through electrical ignition.




If thats the case wouldn't the electrcal arc ignite it?

[uruk]

Not too likely. C4 explodes under heat AND pressure, not heat alone. Or through electrical ignition.

My dad used to cook with the tiniest bit of C4. Then he'd have the n00b lieutenants or whoever stomp it out...

hehehehe

Don't they use electricty to weld steel? As in arc welders. Or do they use a different method for building construction? www.monoarc.com/mild-steel-electrodes.html

There'a similar joke we would play on new technicians. We would charge up a 10,000 microfarad cap and toss it to the unsuspecting tech. ZZZZAP!!!!.

[Christophera]

Impossible. The facade was directly attached to the steel. It could not bow inward unless the steel columns it was attached were bowing.

Tom Scott Gordon has documented the bi-metal corrosion at the fasteners of the aluminum facade. In inages you can see facade pieces coming loose at one end with a warp to them. If the bottom fastener comes off and the bottom warps out, it looks bowed inward.

[Christophera]

Especially after they start hitting the fresh welds with a slag hammer.

The speed of an electric arc is enough to initiate a high explosive. The PA cited their concerns for the "flammability" of the "special plastic coating" on the rebar, in the documentary as their reason for allowing only welders with a security clearance to weld on the rebar of the core and its foundation.

In reality the welders with a security clearance were the only ones they could tell that the coating was flammable, but also explosive which would MAKE SURE the welders removed all the coating and shielded the areas near their welds from sparks.

[Bell]

Christophera, care to comment on this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2053119#post2053943)?

Thanks.

[Z]

Don't they use electricty to weld steel? As in arc welders. Or do they use a different method for building construction? www.monoarc.com/mild-steel-electrodes.html

There'a similar joke we would play on new technicians. We would charge up a 10,000 microfarad cap and toss it to the unsuspecting tech. ZZZZAP!!!!.

Well there you go. Shows what I know about welding. :D

Yeah - arc-welding C4 = BAD IDEA.

[Oliver]

Oh my god. 3000 people died and were murdered by the gov! :(

50.000 iraqis died because a lie....

Oh my god. 3000 people died and were murdered by the gov! :(

100.000 iraqis died because a lie....

Oh my god. 3000 people died and were murdered by the gov! :(

150.000 iraqis died because a lie....

Oh my god. 3000 people died and were murdered by the gov! :(

200.000 iraqis died because a lie....

Oh my god. 3000 people died and were murdered by the gov! :(

250.000 iraqis died because a lie....

Oh my god. 3000 people died and were murdered by the gov! :(

300.000 iraqis died because a lie....

Oh my god. 3000 people died and were murdered by the gov! :(

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Oh my god. 3000 people died and were murdered by the gov! :(

STOP WHINING!

:mad: :boggled:

[Christophera]

Christophera, do you not look at the pictures we post here? Have you not seen the picture - posted twice - of WTC 1 with the HUGE FRIKKING fires at the southside? What do you think that does to the steel beams? That's right, it weakens them. Then they loose the strenght to support the top of the tower and the top falls. Southward.

Oh, the buckling seen were the steel outer columns. Or do you believe the towers only had aluminium siding? No steel behind it?


HUGE FRIKKING fires do not equate to weakened columns. The flames can only effectively get to one face. Evenl then only a small piece of that face is going to get vey hot, and that is not going to e hot enough. The temperature of carbon fires just is not hot enough to do this to columns of that size even under optimum conditions of exposure with forced air.

Have you ever used an oxy/acetlence rosebud and tried to heat a significant amount of a structural member to make a bend? Have you ever tried to make a forge for bending an forming stee? Have you ever taken a campfire and tried to make steel tools, knives?

I have and it it very difficult to get any amount of steel hot enough to lose any significant amount of steel to a temperature where you can bend it.

If the top of the towers was going to fall anywhere it would be where 1/2 the perimeter columns were cut by an airplane travelling about the speed of a 45 caliber pistol round. But it didn't, it fell the other way where all of the columns were intact and probably hot enough to cook burgers on, for part of their surfaces.

Now, there are pictures of white hot areas near the corners of a tower. That, I believe is the C4 in the floors which has ignited and can burn in excess of 3000 degrees C, melting steel. The steel seen melting is not the columns however which are not in contact. The floor pan is melting or even burning.

[Christophera]

And this right here is the proof that you've never worked in construction and never did demolitions. Are you really saying that the lower floors should be able to withstand the top FALLING on them? Oh, dear.

Why do you insist on presenting a floor supported all the way around and in the middle as being capable of free falling 10 feet to the floor below. There is resistence in a collapse, ...... period.

I don't have pictures of my brain working doing layout of concrete structures but I do have an image of my feet at work doing grading last year (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/belmonte_exdown2.jpg) going down a 2:1 in an excavator.

[Z]

Ah... so you're a ditch digger.

That explains a lot.

[Bell]

HUGE FRIKKING fires do not equate to weakened columns. The flames can only effectively get to one face. Evenl then only a small piece of that face is going to get vey hot, and that is not going to e hot enough. The temperature of carbon fires just is not hot enough to do this to columns of that size even under optimum conditions of exposure with forced air.

Have you ever used an oxy/acetlence rosebud and tried to heat a significant amount of a structural member to make a bend? Have you ever tried to make a forge for bending an forming stee? Have you ever taken a campfire and tried to make steel tools, knives?

I have and it it very difficult to get any amount of steel hot enough to lose any significant amount of steel to a temperature where you can bend it.

If the top of the towers was going to fall anywhere it would be where 1/2 the perimeter columns were cut by an airplane travelling about the speed of a 45 caliber pistol round. But it didn't, it fell the other way where all of the columns were intact and probably hot enough to cook burgers on, for part of their surfaces.

Now, there are pictures of white hot areas near the corners of a tower. That, I believe is the C4 in the floors which has ignited and can burn in excess of 3000 degrees C, melting steel. The steel seen melting is not the columns however which are not in contact. The floor pan is melting or even burning.

http://killtown.911review.org/images/wtc-gallery/nist1d/6-46_wtc1-96floor-temps.jpg

http://killtown.911review.org/images/wtc-gallery/nist1d/6-47_wtc2-81floor-temps.jpg

[Bell]

Why do you insist on presenting a floor supported all the way around and in the middle as being capable of free falling 10 feet to the floor below. There is resistence in a collapse, ...... period.

I don't have pictures of my brain working doing layout of concrete structures but I do have an image of my feet at work doing grading last year (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/belmonte_exdown2.jpg) going down a 2:1 in an excavator.

I'm kind of worried you operate heavy machinery.

[uruk]

HUGE FRIKKING fires do not equate to weakened columns. The flames can only effectively get to one face. Evenl then only a small piece of that face is going to get vey hot, and that is not going to e hot enough. The temperature of carbon fires just is not hot enough to do this to columns of that size even under optimum conditions of exposure with forced air.

Have you ever used an oxy/acetlence rosebud and tried to heat a significant amount of a structural member to make a bend? Have you ever tried to make a forge for bending an forming stee? Have you ever taken a campfire and tried to make steel tools, knives?

I have and it it very difficult to get any amount of steel hot enough to lose any significant amount of steel to a temperature where you can bend it.

If the top of the towers was going to fall anywhere it would be where 1/2 the perimeter columns were cut by an airplane travelling about the speed of a 45 caliber pistol round. But it didn't, it fell the other way where all of the columns were intact and probably hot enough to cook burgers on, for part of their surfaces.

Now, there are pictures of white hot areas near the corners of a tower. That, I believe is the C4 in the floors which has ignited and can burn in excess of 3000 degrees C, melting steel. The steel seen melting is not the columns however which are not in contact. The floor pan is melting or even burning.

I believe in blacksmithing the forge uses a heat source with air forced into the flames to increase the heat of the fire. In the WTC you had both. You had fires fueled by jet fuel and office furniture,..etc. and hugh source of wind blowing into the building from gapping hole. Plus you don't need to get the steel to the melting point before it deforms. The steel just had to get to the tempurature at which it looses half its strength. 300 to 600 dgrees centigrade. The wieght and stress did the rest.

[rwguinn]

I believe in blacksmithing the forge uses a heat source with air forced into the flames to increase the heat of the fire. In the WTC you had both. You had fires fueled by jet fuel and office furniture,..etc. and hugh source of wind blowing into the building from gapping hole. Plus you don't need to get the steel to the melting point before it deforms. The steel just had to get to the tempurature at which it looses half its strength. 300 to 600 dgrees centigrade. The wieght and stress did the rest.
As an "for funsies" blacksmith, I agree-
Note on "Mythbusters" they heated a gunbarrel (this is stout steel, folks--180ksi stuff) on a charcoal fire, with a hairdyrer blower, to cherry, put it in a vice, smacked it with a sword, and bent it 90 degrees-right where I expected it, at the max moment point--at the vice (also where it was the thickest, with the most area).
very simple to do, no problem.

[Christophera]

Ah... so you're a ditch digger.

That explains a lot.

I've had to dig a few, even by hand (long ago) instead of a hydraulic excavator. I do what is available and pays well. That was last year and I've spent a week on machines since then.

Mostl, yI'm helping contractors get references present on their projects for the dimensions of the structures they build andthings like this are present while my brain works (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/nikon2dtm551.jpg).

Of course, as far as we know, you do nothing at all except try to put people down.

[Christophera]

http://killtown.911review.org/images/wtc-gallery/nist1d/6-46_wtc1-96floor-temps.jpg

http://killtown.911review.org/images/wtc-gallery/nist1d/6-47_wtc2-81floor-temps.jpg


Sorry Bell, it is way too easy to fake diagrams and information such as this. There may have been a few areas that reached 675c but I cannot imagine that more than a few feet of any column ever got to that temperature.

Jet fuel and office furnishings just do not burn that hot.

And, how is anyone going to know what the temperature is 60 feet from the perimeter walls?

[rwguinn]

As an "for funsies" blacksmith, I agree-
Note on "Mythbusters" they heated a gunbarrel (this is stout steel, folks--180ksi stuff) on a charcoal fire, with a hairdyrer blower, to cherry, put it in a vice, smacked it with a sword, and bent it 90 degrees-right where I expected it, at the max moment point--at the vice (also where it was the thickest, with the most area).
very simple to do, no problem.

too much time around troofers..
That should be vise, not vice...

[twinstead]

Sorry Bell, it is way too easy to fake diagrams and information such as this. There may have been a few areas that reached 675c but I cannot imagine that more than a few feet of any column ever got to that temperature.

Jet fuel and office furnishings just do not burn that hot.

And, how is anyone going to know what the temperature is 60 feet from the perimeter walls?

Is that all you have? You "can't imagine", and "it's way too easy to fake diagrams and information"?

Well touché! LOL

[Christophera]

I believe in blacksmithing the forge uses a heat source with air forced into the flames to increase the heat of the fire. In the WTC you had both. You had fires fueled by jet fuel and office furniture,..etc. and hugh source of wind blowing into the building from gapping hole. Plus you don't need to get the steel to the melting point before it deforms. The steel just had to get to the tempurature at which it looses half its strength. 300 to 600 dgrees centigrade. The wieght and stress did the rest.

The air is forced into the BOTTOM of the FUEL, not the flames.

The wind was hardly blowing at all. The building was built 6 times stronger than it needed to be. Loose 1/2 the strength in a few columns over a few feet, no problem.

[rwguinn]

Is that all you have? You "can't imagine", and "it's way too easy to fake diagrams and information"?

Well touché! LOL
but he has such a vivid imagination!

[Christophera]

As an "for funsies" blacksmith, I agree-
Note on "Mythbusters" they heated a gunbarrel (this is stout steel, folks--180ksi stuff) on a charcoal fire, with a hairdyrer blower, to cherry, put it in a vice, smacked it with a sword, and bent it 90 degrees-right where I expected it, at the max moment point--at the vice (also where it was the thickest, with the most area).
very simple to do, no problem.

I gues you do not realize how optimized their conditions were compared to the WTC. No comparison.

KEYWORDS:

Charcoal

Over

Blower

And they bent it where it was cherry, not in the 300 to 600 c areas.

You need myth busters to be able to post this?

[Oliver]

The air is forced into the BOTTOM of the FUEL, not the flames.

The wind was hardly blowing at all. The building was built 6 times stronger than it needed to be. Loose 1/2 the strength in a few columns over a few feet, no problem.

Oh my god. 3000 people died and were murdered by the gov! :(

...650,000 iraqis since the war...and counting...
http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=%22650000%22+iraqi&btnG=Suche&meta=

[uruk]

The air is forced into the BOTTOM of the FUEL, not the flames.

The wind was hardly blowing at all. The building was built 6 times stronger than it needed to be. Loose 1/2 the strength in a few columns over a few feet, no problem.

Riiiight. The winds were hardly blowing. That's why the column of smoke was billowing straight up rather than sideways.
http://www.maxho.com/wtc/images/WTC-SmokeOverChelseaPiers.jpg
Ooops! wrong Chris.

You also forget that metal expands when heated adding to the stress on the steel.

[azazal]

I gues you do not realize how optimized their conditions were compared to the WTC. No comparison.

KEYWORDS:

Charcoal

Over

Blower

And they bent it where it was cherry, not in the 300 to 600 c areas.

You need myth busters to be able to post this?

Guess you missed the part where they took the temp of the barrel, approx 1600 F or 871 C

[Christophera]

Guess you missed the part where they took the temp of the barrel, approx 1600 F or 871 C

Duh. You can't bend it unless it's that hot. Max for charcoal.

[Christophera]

Riiiight. The winds were hardly blowing. That's why the column of smoke was billowing straight up rather than sideways.
http://www.maxho.com/wtc/images/WTC-SmokeOverChelseaPiers.jpg
Ooops! wrong Chris.

You also forget that metal expands when heated adding to the stress on the steel.

The breeze is inconsequential. Not nearly enough even if the fuel was positioned right.

Consider a demolition (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html).

[rwguinn]

Guess you missed the part where they took the temp of the barrel, approx 1600 F or 871 C

I've had Cristophanut on ignore for a long time--
The temp was taken when they took it off the heat--they then moved it to the vise, clamped it, then got in the bunker, then activated the swing arm.
Took some time, that did.--and the barrel was loosing heat all the time. temp at smack was probably in te range of 650-750C

[Oliver]

Duh. You can't bend it unless it's that hot. Max for charcoal.

Ever tried to break a frozen block of chocolate and
another one which had room-temperature? :boggled:

[azazal]

I've had Cristophanut on ignore for a long time--
The temp was taken when they took it off the heat--they then moved it to the vise, clamped it, then got in the bunker, then activated the swing arm.
Took some time, that did.--and the barrel was loosing heat all the time. temp at smack was probably in te range of 650-750C

True, looking back on the original statement, I see I misread what was said. However, Chris did shoot himself in the foot. The barrel, by his admission was below the critical stage of weakness in steel, approx 1000 f - And they bent it where it was cherry, not in the 300 to 600 c areas. So Chris has just admitted that steel can bend pretty easily when cherry red. Hmm wonders how he weasels out of that?

[Belz...]

Whoa................ (can hardly believe this is coming from you)

Yes truth does seem to be a problem to you.

I've said I control the direction of fall in a demo by damaging the support on the side I want it to fall. This S.O.P in the business, everyone knows it.

They don't damage a single side of a single floor, though. They break everything that needs to be broken in order for the collapse to occur as needed. If you just ram a jet plane into a building, it doesn't garantee that the collapse will occur on the same side as the jet entered. In fact, there is no way to know, a priori, the extent of the damage on the opposite side.

Common sense.

Useless.

Bell said there was significant buckling and you said what about the planes ramming the towers.

There WAS significant buckling. You can see it in the pictures and videos. EVEN low-resolution ones, which you should like. That indicates that the building's structure was compromised.

Taller structures are MORE prone to toppling.

Can you provide evidence for this ?

In all it means that the tops of the towers would definitely fall the in the directions of the side they were damaged.

I guess you can't. You just make an assertion and stick to it as though just saying it was proof enough.

"and there won't be any significant amount of toppling."

you are anti logical PARTICUARLY with structures the size of the WTC towers.

You might need to build a scale model of the tower in order to understand how this works.

As I've said, there won't be significant toppling before the top section crashes through the rest of the building, loses the rest of its support and comes straight down.

Oh, the buckling seen was the aluminum facade.

Oh, you can tell that the steel it was covering was NOT bent ?

[Belz...]

HUGE FRIKKING fires do not equate to weakened columns. The flames can only effectively get to one face.

You might have missed the fact that a certain portion of the planes came out on the opposite side of the building. Plenty of air to feed the fires.

Evenl then only a small piece of that face is going to get vey hot, and that is not going to e hot enough. The temperature of carbon fires just is not hot enough to do this to columns of that size even under optimum conditions of exposure with forced air.

Are you just saying that, or do you have actual numbers ?

If the top of the towers was going to fall anywhere it would be where 1/2 the perimeter columns were cut by an airplane travelling about the speed of a 45 caliber pistol round. But it didn't, it fell the other way where all of the columns were intact and probably hot enough to cook burgers on, for part of their surfaces.

That is in direct contradiction with the official report. How do you know better than the experts how hot the fires got ?

And how do you know how much damage there was to the opposite side ? In fact, one might argue that the fires on the side that was hit were less intense, allowing the remaining columns to stand, and that those on the other side caused enough damage to get that side to fail.

Now, there are pictures of white hot areas near the corners of a tower. That, I believe is the C4 in the floors which has ignited and can burn in excess of 3000 degrees C, melting steel.

Of course, this is just based on your speculation that there WAS C4.

[Belz...]

Sorry Bell, it is way too easy to fake diagrams and information such as this. There may have been a few areas that reached 675c but I cannot imagine that more than a few feet of any column ever got to that temperature.

Argument from personnal incredulity.

Jet fuel and office furnishings just do not burn that hot.

The experts disagree.

The wind was hardly blowing at all.

Perhaps, but you might know that fire actually creates air movement...

[Regnad Kcin]

Sorry Bell, it is way too easy to fake diagrams and information such as this.Says the guy whose website is filled with "diagrams and information."

[Powa]

The experts disagree.
If experts disagree with Christophera they are a priori wrong. Duh.

[Dave_46]

<snip>
Have you ever used an oxy/acetlence rosebud and tried to heat a significant amount of a structural member to make a bend? Have you ever tried to make a forge for bending an forming stee? Have you ever taken a campfire and tried to make steel tools, knives?

I have and it it very difficult to get any amount of steel hot enough to lose any significant amount of steel to a temperature where you can bend it.

<snip>

I can't believe I'm replying to him again.

You are making a common error in thinking that there is enough heat in a gas torch to simulate what happens in a building fire. Although the temperature MAY be higher than a building fire (but not necessarily) there is far less heat.

I have seen people who should have known better be very surprised by the fire exposure of their test specimens in a fire resistance test.

Dave

[Z]

A fully developed room fire can reach over 1100 degrees farenheit.

Source: http://www.snohomishcounty.redcross.org/index.php?pr=Household_Fires

Where they got the figure, I don't know.

But having cleaned up the mess from an office fire, I know that it was hot enough to melt almost every metal object in the room, including a cast iron wall decoration and a steel-framed display cabinet.

[luvhumility]

I can't believe I'm replying to him again.

You are making a common error in thinking that there is enough heat in a gas torch to simulate what happens in a building fire. Although the temperature MAY be higher than a building fire (but not necessarily) there is far less heat.

I have seen people who should have known better be very surprised by the fire exposure of their test specimens in a fire resistance test.

Dave

Dave, I think I tend to agree, the focus being Total heat energy being absorbed by the structure over x time...

wow! busy busy thread...Although on the one hand I would not be suprised of anything man would do to cover lies and create a healthy shot in the arm to any industrial military complex... I also tend to agree that the TOTAL BTU'S of energy in all the burning wreckage, the initial force damage, other misc. fuel and burning aircraft material for that length of time "could have" caused thermal stresses and structural weakening of both cement and steel.

I may "lean" to one explanation that fits well. I still am not completely sure one way or ther other...some day we may or may not know...? who knows!
I just know it got pretty hot in there...over time. refer to AW's post http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2033977#post2033977

[Dave_46]

A fully developed room fire can reach over 1100 degrees farenheit.

Source: http://www.snohomishcounty.redcross.org/index.php?pr=Household_Fires

<snip>

That figure is way too low. In my experience a fully developed (flashed over) room fire will be at least 800C (1500F) (round figures)

Dave

[GlennB]

That figure is way too low. In my experience a fully developed (flashed over) room fire will be at least 800C (1500F) (round figures)

Dave

Yep

"Of interest, however, is the peak fire temperature normally associated with room fires. The peak value is governed by ventilation and fuel supply characteristics [12] and so such values will form a wide frequency distribution. Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. "

from : http://www.doctorfire.com/flametmp.html

There are many other sources out there, all in rough agreement.


http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l131/Ignatz_CT/WTC1latefires.jpg

[uruk]

OOOO, Hey Chris! Look at the gentle breeze blowin' all that smoke.

[luvhumility]

That figure is way too low. In my experience a fully developed (flashed over) room fire will be at least 800C (1500F) (round figures)

Dave

Dave, I agree... and also: (although I could be wrong)..!

1. What are the chances of someone planting(in advance) then detonating explosives at the exact location (at the right time) where the aircraft actually hit the building? I don't know but WTC1 seems to go down starting at those floors first...

Yes, CT is possible but...well, they did a good cover up if it is true.
I'm not yet leaning that way on face evaul.

2. It appears (in some video) assuming its accurate, that the WTC1 actually started to fall at or around the impact point. This is in allignment with what a structure would do with this collapse occuring in the structurally weakened area. (both core and perimeter).

3. WT7 collapse looks "strange/suspicious" on video at first glance, but given all the structurally transferred low to mid frequency stresses moving through and into its foundational + structure faults from the surrounding collapse's it is possible for it to also collapse.

If CT's were right here it would not suprise me either. (nothing much does suprise me anymore)

I tend to lean the other way (away from CT) now, but have learned its easy to be fooled!

lh

[Bell]

OOOO, Hey Chris! Look at the gentle breeze blowin' all that smoke.

And the fires going out. Doesn't look hot to me.

[luvhumility]

Ohh, another point:

Cement can cause concentration of the heat due to its higher thermal insulation properties (low thermal conductivity). Steel on the other hand conducts the heat quickly. So I bet at the junctions some thermal deviations were pretty wide. That causes stressing and cracking etc...

like granite rocks poping in a camp fire...but worse> and HOTTER!!

plus trapped moisture expansion.....


lh

[Christophera]

And the fires going out. Doesn't look hot to me.

Correct, the fires were going out. In a steel and concrete structure, after the intitial flare, how can a fire spread?

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

[Christophera]

Says the guy whose website is filled with "diagrams and information."

There is one diagram of hallways and interior walls of the WTC 1 steel reinforced concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corehallsdoors.gif). That diagram matches the image, raw evidence, of the WTC 2 core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) and the other diagram from FEMA (http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/femacore.gif) does not. That diagram doesn't match any of the raw evidence of the towers coming apart at,

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

So peabody, when you use the term filled with "diagrams and information" you are minimizing the fact that the raw information does not lie, and is used to show that the one diagram I've made besides the one that shows the column cutting charges (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/steelbeamcuttingfloors.gif) actually fits the raw evidence.

This is intellectually dishonest when you haven't provided an explanation for the image of the core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) or the concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) let alone the WTC core linked above. Please explain the fact the steel core columns are never seen.

You are generalizing rather than understanding the raw evidence.

[Christophera]

Ohh, another point:

Cement can cause concentration of the heat due to its higher thermal insulation properties (low thermal conductivity). Steel on the other hand conducts the heat quickly. So I bet at the junctions some thermal deviations were pretty wide. That causes stressing and cracking etc...

like granite rocks poping in a camp fire...but worse> and HOTTER!!

plus trapped moisture expansion.....


lh

It takes a grat deal of heat to do that and it onl effects the surface.

[Powa]

...raw evidence... ...raw evidence... ...raw information... ...raw evidence... ...raw evidence.
Christophera sure likes the word "raw". It's a shame he doesn't have any idea what it means.

[twinstead]

Christophera sure likes the word "raw". It's a shame he doesn't have any idea what it means.

According to Chris, 'raw' means stuff that can even be remotely considered to support his position. All other 'non-raw' evidence, the stuff that directly contradicts his position and of which there is tons of, he just ignores.

[luvhumility]

It takes a grat deal of heat to do that and it onl effects the surface.

wrong,

And furthermore:

1. What are the chances of someone planting (in advance) then detonating explosives at the exact location (and at the right time) about an hour after the aircraft actually hits the building in that exact spot (see the videos) possibly severing the charge detonation cables? It clearly colappses in the same spot the plane hit!!!! how can you refute this unless you are very
slanted!


WTC1 seems to go down starting at those floors first hit by the aircraft and severely weakened ... including fire in that area... WHAT ARE THE probabilities? Very LOW that it was also a CD (controlled demo) job....

Come on! Use basic logic, reason aand common sence!! (maybe not)!
doez appears (in video) that the WTC1 actually started to fall at or around the planes impact point. This is in allignment with what a structure would do with this collapse occuring in the structurally weakened areas. (both core and perimeters).

3. WT7 collapse looks "strange/suspicious" on video at first glance, but given all the structurally transferred low to mid frequency stresses moving through and into the foundational + structure faults from the surrounding collapse's it is possible for it to also collapse.


hard to refute physicsl evidence!

lh

[Bell]

Correct, the fires were going out. In a steel and concrete structure, after the intitial flare, how can a fire spread?

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

Wrong, the fires were burning bigger then before. In a steel structure, after the initial flare, there's a lot of office furniture left to burn.

ETA: Shamelessly picked from a post by Mancman (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2036423&postcount=121).

Where and how are the fires going out?
Note to Christophera: the second picture is after the crash, the top picture is much later (after WTC 2 collapsed I guess).

http://i14.tinypic.com/2z5ue08.jpg

[bonavada]

too much time around troofers..
That should be vise, not vice...

here in wales it's vice........:-}

"We're up against the barrier of a common language" Dylan Thomas.

BV

[Belz...]

Where and how are the fires going out?
Note to Christophera: the second picture is after the crash, the top picture is much later (after WTC 2 collapsed I guess).

That's very clear. Chris, you might want to notice the damage to the BACK of the tower just after the crash. See that gaping hole on the opposite wall ?

[Belz...]

Correct, the fires were going out.

Not on this picture:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_6080454892c10a786.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2336)

That diagram doesn't match any of the raw evidence of the towers coming apart at,

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

Of course they don't. That's not raw evidence. Learning anything, yet ?

This is intellectually dishonest when you haven't provided an explanation for the image of the core wall at its base or the concrete shear wall let alone the WTC core linked above.

Not as dishonest as claiming you have a photographic memory while beign incapable of identifying the right tower in those pictures.

Tell me, chris. At which floor was the fireman who made the call ? Can you now tell me at which floors the plane impacted ? Do you see a problem, here ?

Still waiting, chris.

According to Chris, 'raw' means stuff that can even be remotely considered to support his position. All other 'non-raw' evidence, the stuff that directly contradicts his position and of which there is tons of, he just ignores.

That's true. He said so, here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2044604&postcount=6222):

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.

[Bell]

That's very clear. Chris, you might want to notice the damage to the BACK of the tower just after the crash. See that gaping hole on the opposite wall ?

Oh, wait, let me point it out to you, Christophera:

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/wtc-gallery/nist1-5fd/6-16_wtc1-south-face.jpg

What's this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8KBiym4Yd8)? Footage from AA11 crashing into WTC 1, showing a huge fireball erupting from the southside of the tower?

[bonavada]

hey chris......you've been at this a very long time now, but there are some basic general questions i think need answering by you.

you believe the WTC was destroyed not by islamic extremists but by americans? i'll take that as read.

so please, why would these people:-

wait so long after the planes crashed before setting off the C4? why not explode the charges immediately following the impacts? this would have caused many more casualties = even greater outrage = more excuses for overseas adventurism.

allow the south tower to collapse first? why not blow the north tower as this was hit first?

and:-
why bother steering a jet plane into each prior to CD anyway? if the buildings were so effectively rigged for CD as you insist, why the overkill? why not the government/whoever "simply" concoct evidence that terrorists planted bombs in the buildings prior to 9/11?


BV

[Bell]

<snip>

allow the south tower to collapse first? why not blow the north tower as this was hit first?

<snap>

No no no, the planes hit the wrong towers! AA11 was supposed to hit WTC 2, UA175 was supposed to hit WTC 1 :rolleyes:

Which brings me to another question, Christophera. If the planes hit the wrong towers, how come the uhmplosions to bring them down started at the exact floor the airplanes hit? If AA11 was supposed to hit WTC 2, surely the demolition of the south tower should have started at around floor 97?

[Dave_46]

Yep

"Of interest, however, is the peak fire temperature normally associated with room fires. The peak value is governed by ventilation and fuel supply characteristics [12] and so such values will form a wide frequency distribution. Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. "

from : http://www.doctorfire.com/flametmp.html

There are many other sources out there, all in rough agreement.


http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l131/Ignatz_CT/WTC1latefires.jpg


Yes. I did talk about minimum temperature, and your quoted temperatures are very reasonable.

The article you referenced was written by Dr. Babrauskas, and I attended a talk given by him twenty something years ago, in the UK. Looking at the references I found some names I recognise. Geoff Cox and Richard Chitty I have been known to have a beer with, and Debbie Smith I also worked with.

Dave

[Christophera]

According to Chris, 'raw' means stuff that can even be remotely considered to support his position. All other 'non-raw' evidence, the stuff that directly contradicts his position and of which there is tons of, he just ignores.

I noticed you did not post any evidence.

[Dave_46]

Correct, the fires were going out. In a steel and concrete structure, after the intitial flare, how can a fire spread?

URL snipped

Building contents

Dave

[uruk]

Correct, the fires were going out. In a steel and concrete structure, after the intitial flare, how can a fire spread?

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

Ummmmmm. I dunno, maybe wood (furniture, doors, etc), plastic (computers, copiers, telephones, knick-knacks, etc), upolstery, paper, drywall, carpet, carpet padding, cleaning fluids, wallpaper, furnishings, wire insulation, wall insulation, ceiling tiles, aluminum, ductwork, PVC conduit, office cubicle dividers, clothes, bodies, oils, hydrolic fluids, oxygen generators, rubber, alcohol.
just about anything you would find in an office building.

[Belz...]

Oh, wait, let me point it out to you, Christophera:

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/wtc-gallery/nist1-5fd/6-16_wtc1-south-face.jpg

That's the south tower, actually. I was referring to WTC1.

[Bell]

That's the south tower, actually. I was referring to WTC1.

Ehm, nope Belz... :)
It's the north tower, with the south tower in the foreground.

But it's allright you mixed them up. So did Christophera's pilots ;)

[bonavada]

SO WHY?????:-


wait so long after the planes crashed before setting off the C4? why not explode the charges immediately following the impacts? this would have caused many more casualties = even greater outrage = more excuses for overseas adventurism.

allow the south tower to collapse first? why not blow the north tower as this was hit first?

and:-
why bother steering a jet plane into each prior to CD anyway? if the buildings were so effectively rigged for CD as you insist, why the overkill? why not the government/whoever "simply" concoct evidence that terrorists planted bombs in the buildings prior to 9/11?


answer please chris???

BV

[Regnad Kcin]

There is one diagram of hallways and interior walls of the WTC 1 steel reinforced concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corehallsdoors.gif). That diagram matches the image, raw evidence, of the WTC 2 core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) and the other diagram from FEMA (http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/femacore.gif) does not. That diagram doesn't match any of the raw evidence of the towers coming apart at,

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

So peabody, when you use the term filled with "diagrams and information" you are minimizing the fact that the raw information does not lie, and is used to show that the one diagram I've made besides the one that shows the column cutting charges (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/steelbeamcuttingfloors.gif) actually fits the raw evidence.

This is intellectually dishonest when you haven't provided an explanation for the image of the core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) or the concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) let alone the WTC core linked above. Please explain the fact the steel core columns are never seen.

You are generalizing rather than understanding the raw evidence.:words:

[Belz...]

Ehm, nope Belz... :)
It's the north tower, with the south tower in the foreground.

But it's allright you mixed them up. So did Christophera's pilots ;)

Are you sure about that ?

If that's WTC2 in the foreground, it looks remarkable smoke-free.

[Christophera]

Building contents

Dave

Consider that the only connection between the floors was in the core so the floor actaully has to heat to the point where there is spontanious combustion. It is concievable that a conflagration which is intitiated by jet fuel on one floor would heat the floor above enough for it to ignite, but the floor above that, perhaps not.

And, none of it burns hot enough under those conditions, and none of the steel is optimally positioned over the flames to weaken; meaning that collapse by fire is just about impossible.

Realitically, demolition is the only feasible scenario.

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

[Skibum]

Realitically

Realistice

Are these some sort of freudian slips? Do you have something against the word realistic, some sort of aversion to reality maybe?

[Dave_46]

Consider that the only connection between the floors was in the core so the floor actaully has to heat to the point where there is spontanious combustion. It is concievable that a conflagration which is intitiated by jet fuel on one floor would heat the floor above enough for it to ignite, but the floor above that, perhaps not.

And, none of it burns hot enough under those conditions, and none of the steel is optimally positioned over the flames to weaken; meaning that collapse by fire is just about impossible.

Realitically, demolition is the only feasible scenario.

URL snipped

The compartmentation in the buildings was severely compromised. Remember, they were hit by aircraft at high speed causing mechanical damage. The fuel burning in the early stages will create pressure waves, causing who knows what damage, locally and on other floors - likely to include damage to fire resisting doors opening onto the core area, and other damage to lift shaft protection, who knows. Fire tends to spread upwards - hot gases - so would easily travel to higher floors by this route. I understand that fuel got into the lift shafts or stairs. This when ignited will burn up the chimney of the lift shafts and/or stairwells. The fire does not have to burn through the floors to progress upwards, it can go round the floors, although this doesn't rule out the possibility that it burnt through the floors in places. Remember what I said about compartmentation being compromised.

The building contents will burn hot enough to weaken steel. This has been pointed out many times.

Realistically, demolition is a non starter. (I refrained from rule 8 there)

Dave

[bonavada]

Are these some sort of freudian slips? Do you have something against the word realistic, some sort of aversion to reality maybe?

in a similar vein...........the pic below, from christophera's site, has enormous phallic symbolism. herr freud would loved it.
BTW what is the provenance of this particular pic chritophera?
what was your original source for this image?
i'd like to see a high-res version of this picture. seems our chris has an odious habit of only using highly compressed versions of images on his site and, i believe, even adjusting aspects of "raw" images to suit his nefarious purposes.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748454924fb7fbfa.jpg

BV

[Smiffy]

Christophera, are you familiar with the principles of conservation of momentum and energy? If you can explain it WITHOUT referring to Wikipedia I might be convinced that you have any credibility in discussing building collapses.

[Gravy]

Are you sure about that ?

If that's WTC2 in the foreground, it looks remarkable smoke-free.Yep. The smoke was blowing towards the camera and to the right (to the southeast).

[Gravy]

in a similar vein...........the pic below, from christophera's site, has enormous phallic symbolism. herr freud would loved it.
BTW what is the provenance of this particular pic chritophera?
what was your original source for this image?
i'd like to see a high-res version of this picture. seems our chris has an odious habit of only using highly compressed versions of images on his site and, i believe, even adjusting aspects of "raw" images to suit his nefarious purposes.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748454924fb7fbfa.jpg

BVAman Zafar's photos are here: http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/index.shtm
Click on each for a high-res version. It's a stunning sequence, and includes dramatic shots of WTC 7 smoke and damage later in the day. Some of his descriptions are off. For instance, the time between photos of each collapse is much shorter than the 10 seconds he believes. The clock in the foreground wasn't working.

[Christophera]

The compartmentation in the buildings was severely compromised. Remember, they were hit by aircraft at high speed causing mechanical damage. The fuel burning in the early stages will create pressure waves, causing who knows what damage, locally and on other floors - likely to include damage to fire resisting doors opening onto the core area, and other damage to lift shaft protection, who knows. Fire tends to spread upwards - hot gases - so would easily travel to higher floors by this route. I understand that fuel got into the lift shafts or stairs. This when ignited will burn up the chimney of the lift shafts and/or stairwells. The fire does not have to burn through the floors to progress upwards, it can go round the floors, although this doesn't rule out the possibility that it burnt through the floors in places. Remember what I said about compartmentation being compromised.

The building contents will burn hot enough to weaken steel. This has been pointed out many times.

Realistically, demolition is a non starter. (I refrained from rule 8 there)

Dave

That is very realistic. Still, given the history if steel structures. The notion of what appears as a nicely contained explosion from the center of some uinform mineral material intrinsic to the strength of the tower; as having anything to do with a geometric collapse is idiotic.

Do you know what an Id is?





We shouldn't be talking about architectural details, but, instead about your dissociative capacity and how long it has been a problem for you.

Explained near free fall and pulverization.

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

[Christophera]

in a similar vein...........the pic below, from christophera's site, has enormous phallic symbolism. herr freud would loved it.
BTW what is the provenance of this particular pic chritophera?
what was your original source for this image?
i'd like to see a high-res version of this picture. seems our chris has an odious habit of only using highly compressed versions of images on his site and, i believe, even adjusting aspects of "raw" images to suit his nefarious purposes.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748454924fb7fbfa.jpg

BV

Since I have to actually post this on request it is evidence that bonavada does not follow links. But, ....... you do read and recognize "raw evidence".

http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG

[bonavada]

Aman Zafar's photos are here: http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/index.shtm
Click on each for a high-res version. It's a stunning sequence, and includes dramatic shots of WTC 7 smoke and damage later in the day. Some of his descriptions are off. For instance, the time between photos of each collapse is much shorter than the 10 seconds he believes. The clock in the foreground wasn't working.

thanks.
i have seen that sequence before but lost the link.
i was interested because i really don't trust christophera to post as "raw" an image as is available. he is very choosy as to his selection of pix and has even, i believe, adjusted pictures to suit his agenda. ie take a look at the two picures below. the first is exhibited on his site the second stored in his /psych/images folder situated HERE (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/). (tut tut. christophera forgets a basic rule of web authoring and hasn't indexed all the folders at his site)

i have to wonder why he elects to use the first image, which as can be seen has had contrast/gamma or similar adjustments made, when the second (original? raw?) much sharper, clearer image is there at his disposal????

christophera has whined and bleated continuously about the use of "raw" images to "prove" a point. so how does he explain the need to use an adjusted image as he does on his site?

strange.............

THE "ADJUSTED" PIC CHRISTOPHERA USES
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87484549459bf09b9.jpg

IMAGE FROM http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtccoreshilouette.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87484549459bbc9ed.jpg


i'm not really expecting an answer as christophera refuses to/cannot answer the most difficult questions, just thought i'd reveal his duplicity.

BV

[Christophera]

Aman Zafar's photos are here: http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/index.shtm
Click on each for a high-res version. It's a stunning sequence, and includes dramatic shots of WTC 7 smoke and damage later in the day. Some of his descriptions are off. For instance, the time between photos of each collapse is much shorter than the 10 seconds he believes. The clock in the foreground wasn't working.

I've always been unsure of how long that image of WTC 2 was present. You may be talking of my descriptions of WTC 1 at about the same phases.

Early descriptions of the spire (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) of WTC 1 mention 10 seconds. This could vary depnding on where the witness was, 4 seconds on the videos.

[Christophera]

thanks.
i have seen that sequence before but lost the link.
i was interested because i really don't trust christophera to post as "raw" an image as is available. he is very choosy as to his selection of pix and has even, i believe, adjusted pictures to suit his agenda. ie take a look at the two picures below. the first is exhibited on his site the second stored in his /psych/images folder situated HERE (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtccoreshilouette.jpg). (tut tut. christophera forgets a basic rule of web authoring and hasn't indexed all the folders at his site)

i have to wonder why he elects to use the first image, which as can be seen has had contrast/gamma or similar adjustments made, when the second (original? raw?) much sharper, clearer image is there at his disposal????

christophera has whined and bleated continuously about the use of "raw" images to "prove" a point. so how does he explain the need to use an adjusted image as he does on his site?

strange.............

THE "ADJUSTED" PIC CHRISTOPHERA USES
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87484549459bf09b9.jpg

IMAGE FROM http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtccoreshilouette.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87484549459bbc9ed.jpg


i'm not really expecting an answer as christophera refuses to/cannot answer the most difficult questions, just thought i'd reveal his duplicity.

BV


The first image you show is the first one I found. I had looked past that to find another that had the WTC 1 antenna on the roof 2.5 years ago as it seemed silly to exclude that as a photograph. I never found one better/.

About 2 months ago somebody here posted the second one which I immediately downloaded and changed on my site.

[uruk]

Here is a steel building that collapsed due to fire. A toilet paper fire. ALOT of toilet paper.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hereford/worcs/6105942.stm

No imagine that multiplied 110 times. The steel structure not the toilet paper.

From this thread.:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67656

[uruk]

The first image you show is the first one I found. I had looked past that to find another that had the WTC 1 antenna on the roof 2.5 years ago as it seemed silly to exclude that as a photograph. I never found one better/.

About 2 months ago somebody here posted the second one which I immediately downloaded and changed on my site.

So you admit to having crappy pictures on yiur website.

[uruk]

http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/03/wtc1-demolition-4.avi

Note in the video how the fires are still burning right before the collapse.

[bonavada]

The first image you show is the first one I found. I had looked past that to find another that had the WTC 1 antenna on the roof 2.5 years ago as it seemed silly to exclude that as a photograph. I never found one better/.

About 2 months ago somebody here posted the second one which I immediately downloaded and changed on my site.

are you confused?
you haven't changed the pic. you still use this pic:-

from conc/images/wtccoreshilouette.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87484549459bf09b9.jpg

when, oddly, you have a much better version available here:-

from psych/images/wtccoreshilouette.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87484549459bbc9ed.jpg

so which is more "raw"?

also, where did you find the cropped and adjusted pic? you should have no problem recalling the source given your photographic memory right?
so are you stating you didn't alter the pic yourself? if when you found the second image why didnt you place it on your site?

BV

[bonavada]

Here is a steel building that collapsed due to fire. A toilet paper fire. ALOT of toilet paper.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hereford/worcs/6105942.stm

No imagine that multiplied 110 times. The steel structure not the toilet paper.

From this thread.:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67656

"Intense heat buckled the steel girders holding the roof"

who would have thought it? not semtex but fuggin andrex!

bet our chris has seen the docu on this one too. The Great WCT (Water Closet Tissue) Conspiracy........

BV

[Christophera]

are you confused?
you haven't changed the pic. you still use this pic:-

from conc/images/wtccoreshilouette.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87484549459bf09b9.jpg

when, oddly, you have a much better version available here:-

from psych/images/wtccoreshilouette.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87484549459bbc9ed.jpg

so which is more "raw"?

also, where did you find the cropped and adjusted pic? you should have no problem recalling the source given your photographic memory right?
so are you stating you didn't alter the pic yourself? if when you found the second image why didnt you place it on your site?

BV

I don't remember image urls.

The second pic is on my site like I said it was.

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

Why don't you read?

[bonavada]

I don't remember image urls.

The second pic is on my site like I said it was.

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

Why don't you read?

you don't remember urls? have you forgotten your photographic memory? is it only one "picture" at a time like a battered old polaroid instamatic? try sticking a lobe under your arm to warm it up a bit. it might develop quicker.

as for the image, doesn't it make a mockery of your campaign for "raw image" use when you refuse to display a much improved pic on your site? in a very prominent place near the top of your main page?
seems very odd, inconsistent, dare i say even, duplicitous?

BV

[Bell]

Christophera, you seem to have forgotten to address my posts about the fires.

Here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2059234&postcount=6409)
And here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2059304&postcount=6413) (also look at the footage linked to at the bottom of that post.

Also, explain why the towers started to collapse at the point where the planes crashed, even though they hit the wrong towers.

Here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2059352&postcount=6415).

[Christophera]

Wrong, the fires were burning bigger then before. In a steel structure, after the initial flare, there's a lot of office furniture left to burn.

ETA: Shamelessly picked from a post by Mancman (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2036423&postcount=121).

Where and how are the fires going out?
Note to Christophera: the second picture is after the crash, the top picture is much later (after WTC 2 collapsed I guess).

http://i14.tinypic.com/2z5ue08.jpg

We see one area of flame in one image and a good bit of smoke from a number of floors. Every place you do not see flames we may have a fire going nearly going out.

[Christophera]

you don't remember urls? have you forgotten your photographic memory? is it only one "picture" at a time like a battered old polaroid instamatic? try sticking a lobe under your arm to warm it up a bit. it might develop quicker.

as for the image, doesn't it make a mockery of your campaign for "raw image" use when you refuse to display a much improved pic on your site? in a very prominent place near the top of your main page?
seems very odd, inconsistent, dare i say even, duplicitous?

BV

It has been changes on one of 2 pages of the demo site. The image deals with an auxilary issue.

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

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57426&page=161

I have yet gotten around to changing the image here.

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

It is not a critical issue and the clarity doesn't help all that much in identifying the reflected light off the interior core wall.

[Christophera]

you don't remember urls? have you forgotten your photographic memory? is it only one "picture" at a time like a battered old polaroid instamatic? try sticking a lobe under your arm to warm it up a bit. it might develop quicker.

as for the image, doesn't it make a mockery of your campaign for "raw image" use when you refuse to display a much improved pic on your site? in a very prominent place near the top of your main page?
seems very odd, inconsistent, dare i say even, duplicitous?

BV

Considering you forgot to find an image of the 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns, an integral part of the argument you forgot to make, the urls are nothing.

[Bell]

Considering you forgot to find an image of the 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns, an integral part of the argument you forgot to make, the urls are nothing.

Considering we showed you lot of images of the 47, 1.300 foot steel colums, an integral part of the WTC towers, your ability to comprehend is nothing.

[Bell]

We see one area of flame in one image and a good bit of smoke from a number of floors. Every place you do not see flames we may have a fire going nearly going out.

Bolding mine.

So it is quite possible - accurate actually - that the fires were still burning. I showed you other pictures of the fires as well, you know the one with the HUGE FRIKKING fire? The fires were not going out. They were not fought. There were enough items left inside the towers to fuel the fires.

[Belz...]

Aman Zafar's photos are here: http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/index.shtm
Click on each for a high-res version. It's a stunning sequence, and includes dramatic shots of WTC 7 smoke and damage later in the day. Some of his descriptions are off. For instance, the time between photos of each collapse is much shorter than the 10 seconds he believes. The clock in the foreground wasn't working.

The picture just before christophera's pet image shows pretty clearly that much of the "structure" he sees there is dust.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_60804549e5c54133b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2369)

[Belz...]

I don't remember image urls.

I thought you had photographic memory ?

[Belz...]

We see one area of flame in one image and a good bit of smoke from a number of floors. Every place you do not see flames we may have a fire going nearly going out.

Key word: may.

You DO know that smoke can hide the fire, right ?

The image deals with an auxilary issue.

It deals with your ONLY issue, namely the concrete core.

[Smiffy]

There's an excellent paper here that you all should read at ImplosionWorld.com:


A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN
EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT

By Brent Blanchard
August 8, 2006

PURPOSE

The purpose of this analysis is to explore the possibility of explosives or similar
supplemental catalysts causing or contributing to the collapse of World Trade Center
Towers 1, 2 and 7 in New York on September 11, 2001 through examination of known
facts as they relate to scientific principles of gravity, explosives, and structural failure.
To our knowledge, this is the first analysis conducted by experts in the field of explosive
demolition, as well as the first with observations and commentary from personnel directly
responsible for the removal of debris from Ground Zero.

Some topics that do not relate to such analysis -- and thus receive no practical
consideration here -- include:

Who owned the buildings
Who insured the buildings
What types of documents were stored in the buildings
Motives for destroying the buildings

The significance of the above points (among countless others) can be debated forever,
but none relate to the specific actions required to execute a successful explosive
demolition.

Nor will we be rendering opinions on the NIST, FEMA or 9/11 Commission Reports, as
they did not make specific comments regarding explosives.
It is further acknowledged that many family members of WTC victims have embraced --
and in some cases aligned with -- those who question the ``official'' version of events that
occurred on 9/11. This report will not, nor is it intended to, address the much wider
scope of unanswered questions regarding those events. Rather this is a reasoned,
factual analysis of a single group of questions and allegations that fall within our specific
area of expertise. To that end, we hope this report will be of benefit to all interested
parties.


ABOUT THE AUTHORS

This report is authored by Brent Blanchard, Senior Editor for Implosionworld.com and
Director of Field Operations at Protec Documentation Services, Inc., Rancocas, New Jersey. Additional contributions and
research assistance was provided by Protec employees Earl Gardner, Gary McGeever,
Michael Golden and John Golden.

[Belz...]

There's an excellent paper here that you all should read at ImplosionWorld.com:

There is no evidence for explosives. That pretty much kills the "excellent" out of the paper.

[Smiffy]

There is no evidence for explosives. That pretty much kills the "excellent" out of the paper.

That's exactly the point of the paper!

[Powa]

But if the paper doesn't provide evidence for explosives, it's not "raw".

[Smiffy]

I did read Chistophera's 'analysis' and almost went blind... After I picked myself off the floor and stopped laughing, I had to find a document that would authoratively 'demolish' his theory.

[Smiffy]

But if the paper doesn't provide evidence for explosives, it's not "raw".
Oh yeah, I forgot!

[Bell]

Also, you didn't address my question about the towers being blown up at the exact same spot the airplanes hit, even though the airplanes hit the wrong towers. Explain away, please.

Also, explain why the towers started to collapse at the point where the planes crashed, even though they hit the wrong towers.

Here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2059352&postcount=6415).

[Bell]

I did read Chistophera's 'analysis' and almost went blind... After I picked myself off the floor and stopped laughing, I had to find a document that would authoratively 'demolish' his theory.

Bolding mine.

Good luck with that. ;)

[Smiffy]

Bolding mine.

Good luck with that. ;)
Oh I'm sure it will not meet his astonishingly high standard level of proof that, curiously, is not applied to his own pet theory...

[Belz...]

That's exactly the point of the paper!

Serves me right for not reading beyond the first line.

[Hellbound]

Serves me right for not reading beyond the first line.

As punishment, your quota of gathered souls is increased by fifty this week.
Let that be a lesson.

:D

[Smiffy]

I can't post the URL yet, but it is hard to argue with the credentials or independence of the authors. It's a well written and persuasive document.

[Hellbound]

I can't post the URL yet, but it is hard to argue with the credentials or independence of the authors. It's a well written and persuasive document.

You should be able to post it without the "http" and "www" parts :)

[Smiffy]

Hey, Chris *whistles*! Read this little snippet from said document:
ASSERTION #1
“The towers’ collapse looked exactly like explosive demolitions.”
PROTEC COMMENT: No they didn’t. It’s the “where.”

When discussing similarities between the towers’ collapse and an explosive demolition,
many people overlook the single question most central to any objective investigation. It
is not “how” or “when” the buildings failed, but “where” they failed. That answer holds
the key to understanding almost everything that occurred at Ground Zero.

Since their inception in the late 1800s, blasting engineers have understood that building
implosions work best when the forces of gravity are maximized. This is why blasters
always concentrate their efforts on the lowest floors of a structure. While smaller
supplemental charges can be placed on upper floors to facilitate breakage and maximize
control as the structure collapses, every implosion ever performed has followed the
basic model of obliterating structural supports on the bottom few floors first, “to get the
structure moving.”

This was not the case with the collapse of Towers 1 and 2. Close examination of these
events from every video and photographic angle available does not indicate failure
originating from the lowest floors, rather clearly shows each building beginning to fail at
precisely the point where the respective planes struck. That is, no floors above or below
the impact points ever move until the structural elements within the impact zone begin to
collapse (WTC 7 collapsed differently, which we will cover later).

Furthermore, there are no independent failures present while the structures are
collapsing (we’re not talking dust plumes or debris, but actual structural failure). All
lower floors remained completely intact until they were consumed by the collapse from
above.

Because countless images confirm this assessment and none contradict it, we believe
this fact to be visually indisputable.

Therefore, for explosives to be considered as a primary or supplemental catalyst, one
would have to accept that either, a) dozens of charges were placed on those exact
impact floors in advance and survived the violent initial explosions and 1100+ degree
Fahrenheit fires, or b) while the fires were burning, charges were installed undetected
throughout the impact floors and wired together, ostensibly by people hiding in the
buildings with boxes of explosives. There is no third choice that could adequately
explain explosives causing failure at the exact impact points.

The chemical properties of explosives and their reaction to heat render scenario A
scientifically impossible and scenario B remarkably unlikely, as we know of no explosive
compound that could withstand such force and/or heat without detaching from the
columns or simply burning off prior to detonation.

There are other problems with both scenarios: Given the consistent weight distribution
around the outer perimeter of each structure, one would have needed access to a
prohibitively large quantity of load-bearing I-beam columns to allow “cutter charges” to
initiate failure. Those columns would have needed extensive preparation, also known as
“pre-burning”, to allow the explosives to perform their function. And in order to prepare
the columns you first had to be able to see the columns, which means at least partially
removing the outer-perimeter interior walls of all blast floors, including furniture,
plumbing and conduit lines, insulation, etc.

All of this would have been performed within the 55 minutes between plane impact and
collapse – working in an environment of unspeakable heat and destruction – or have
been performed completely undetected, in advance, on multiple floors in both buildings,
while suffering no adverse effects from the planes’ impact with these same areas.

This is impossible.

[Smiffy]

You should be able to post it without the "http" and "www" parts :)OK, try implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

[Smiffy]

Or google "A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS"

[Arus808]

Hi smiffy, the implosionworld article has been posted to this thread (a long while ago) and talked about in several threads here. Christophera is being purposefully obtuse about everything we've presented thus far, so posting it again and point out specifics just flies over his head, since he will ignore it anyway.

No amount of expert testimony or witnesses will disuade his delusions or "memories" of what he thought he saw 20 some odd years ago.

Link to implosionworld:
http://www.implosionworld.com/news.htm#1

[Smiffy]

Hi smiffy, the implosionworld article has been posted to this thread (a long while ago) and talked about in several threads here. Christophera is being purposefully obtuse about everything we've presented thus far, so posting it again and point out specifics just flies over his head, since he will ignore it anyway.

No amount of expert testimony or witnesses will disuade his delusions or "memories" of what he thought he saw 20 some odd years ago.
Apologies for re-posting, this thread is so long that I've not read it all. I still think it needs to be circulated more widely as it doesn't mince words. I'm also well aware of Chris' unique interpretation of physics. I should know better, but he's either a great troll or a genius! Look Chris, a false dichotomy for you! You like those!

[Bell]

Apologies for re-posting, this thread is so long that I've not read it all. I still think it needs to be circulated more widely as it doesn't mince words. I'm also well aware of Chris' unique interpretation of physics. I should know better, but he's either a great troll or a genius! Look Chris, a false dichotomy for you! You like those!

Well, you really should not jump into a thread like that.

[Smiffy]

Well, you really should not jump into a thread like that.Are you serious?! You expect me to read through 162 pages before I can comment? Surely you jest! I am on dial-up you know...

[Skibum]

Are you serious?! You expect me to read through 162 pages before I can comment? Surely you jest! I am on dial-up you know...

Times a wasting, its not going to read itself you know. :D

[Bell]

Are you serious?! You expect me to read through 162 pages before I can comment? Surely you jest! I am on dial-up you know...

If not, how can you refute all of Christophera's RAW evidence?

Just kidding, Smiffy :D
But be careful, after a few of Christophera's answers, you might feel the urge to do this: :bwall

[Arus808]

Are you serious?! You expect me to read through 162 pages before I can comment? Surely you jest! I am on dial-up you know...

Just so you know. I read all 110+ pages in all four threads on Loose Change found here, prior to signing up and then posting..

Took me a month to do so.

When i joined this thread had only 80 pages. Now its at 163 pages. AND yes, I've read them all...

seriously, what the hell is wrong with me?

[Belz...]

As punishment, your quota of gathered souls is increased by fifty this week.

I own them all.

[uruk]

Slogging throught this thread is like decending through the heart of darkness.
Only instead of Marlon Brando you get a concrete core.

[Oliver]

But be careful, after a few of Christophera's answers, you might feel the urge to do this: :bwall

Or this: http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107451db56d36f14.gif

[Bell]

Just so you know. I read all 110+ pages in all four threads on Loose Change found here, prior to signing up and then posting..

Took me a month to do so.

When i joined this thread had only 80 pages. Now its at 163 pages. AND yes, I've read them all...

seriously, what the hell is wrong with me?

Well, judging by your ever changing avatar, you suffer MPD :D

[Smiffy]

I've got some catching up to do then...

His page is almost incomprehensible and ugly as hell, my head is STILL spinning from the tortuous 'logic'.

[Dave_46]

Mr Brown

In the course of this thread I have tried to explain some things to you, including, but not necessarily limited to:

How you can't see details on pictures that are smaller than one pixel in size on the image.

How the heat in a fire is much greater than what is attained by a gas torch.

How fire might spread within a building, and the temperature levels that can be attained with normal building contents (an office fire).

I did this because you appeared to not know much about these subjects.

I did this in, I hope, a reasonably polite manner.

Then I get this reply from you.

<snip>
We shouldn't be talking about architectural details, but, instead about your dissociative capacity and how long it has been a problem for you.

<snip>

I have tried to help you understand things, but, because I don't subscribe to the idiotic ideas you are propounding I am insulted.

You sir are a disgrace.

You are a disgrace to your country.

You are a disgrace to the human race.


I'm finished with you

[twinstead]

I have tried to help you understand things, but, because I don't subscribe to the idiotic ideas you are propounding I am insulted.


Welcome to the wonderful world of debating crazy people.

[Christophera]

Mr Brown
http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/emomem175.jpeg
In the course of this thread I have tried to explain some things to you, including, but not necessarily limited to:

http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg
How you can't see details on pictures that are smaller than one pixel in size on the image.

http://www.parrhesia.com/wtc/wtc066.jpg
How the heat in a fire is much greater than what is attained by a gas torch.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html
How fire might spread within a building, and the temperature levels that can be attained with normal building contents (an office fire).

I did this because you appeared to not know much about these subjects.

I did this in, I hope, a reasonably polite manner.

Then I get this reply from you.


<snip>
We shouldn't be talking about architectural details, but, instead about your dissociative capacity and how long it has been a problem for you.

<snip>

I have tried to help you understand things, but, because I don't subscribe to the idiotic ideas you are propounding I am insulted.

You sir are a disgrace.

You are a disgrace to your country.

You are a disgrace to the human race.


I'm finished with you

You are finished with pretending to be logical or reasonably showing why justice should not be provided on 3,000 capitol crimes in order to retain our rights and freedoms.

I have added url's to you post that relate to helping you to deal with your mental problem and remembering what happened.

You explain nothing. You have no evidence and have posted none. I explain near free fall and total pulverization.

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

[Christophera]

Welcome to the wonderful world of debating crazy people.

Hey, you don't have any evidence either nor have you provided a reasonable explanation of what this (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) is if it is not concrete.

[bonavada]

Considering you forgot to find an image of the 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns, an integral part of the argument you forgot to make, the urls are nothing.

how can anyone forget the terrible series of images:-

HERE (http://www.zombietime.com/wtc_9-13-2001/)

which this link posted ages ago. are these "raw" enough?
as a reminder mr kodakbrain, here's a zoom of one:-

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748454a8c1e46c64.jpg

lots of steel core columns there mate.
you can count 'em though.

BV

[Christophera]

Just so you know. I read all 110+ pages in all four threads on Loose Change found here, prior to signing up and then posting..

Took me a month to do so.

When i joined this thread had only 80 pages. Now its at 163 pages. AND yes, I've read them all...

seriously, what the hell is wrong with me?

You simply are trying to argue without evidence. It is futile and costs you credibility.

I have an entire website full of raw evidence of the concrete core, oh, ... except for the bogus BBC core diagram and my efforts to provide a diagram explaining what is actually seen in the photographic evidence.

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

[Christophera]

how can anyone forget the terrible series of images:-

HERE (http://www.zombietime.com/wtc_9-13-2001/)

which this link posted ages ago. are these "raw" enough?
as a reminder mr kodakbrain, here's a zoom of one:-

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748454a8c1e46c64.jpg

lots of steel core columns there mate.
you can count 'em though.

BV

Doh, ......... you forgot to explain how tempered steel columns that were 100% welded got cut like this (http://www.parrhesia.com/wtc/wtc066.jpg)

[bonavada]

I explain near free fall and total pulverization.


my bold and highlight

i refer you to the picture i posted above

BV

[stateofgrace]

http://www.skyscraper.org/TALLEST_TOWERS/t_wtc.htm


Also unique to the engineering design were its core and elevator system. The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry. Worried that the intense air pressure created by the buildingsâ high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core. For the elevators, to serve 110 stories with a traditional configuration would have required half the area of the lower stories be used for shaftways. Otis Elevators developed an express and local system, whereby passengers would change at "sky lobbies" on the 44th and 78th floors, halving the number of shaftways.


The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry. Worried that the intense air pressure created by the buildingsâ high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core.

The Towers did not have concrete cores.

[bonavada]

Doh, ......... you forgot to explain how tempered steel columns that were 100% welded got cut like this (http://www.parrhesia.com/wtc/wtc066.jpg)

no. YOU forget to even source that picture. or adequately explain ANYTHING at all about the circumstances surrounding those two pieces of metal. how do you know they are tempered steel for instance? how do you know when/how they were cut? do you know where the two pieces originated?

BV

[bonavada]

The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry. Worried that the intense air pressure created by the buildingsâ high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core.

The Towers did not have concrete cores.

he of course knows all this.

he refuses to take heed of anything that disagrees with his madcap beliefs.

his claims are totally unfalsifiable. its the "tower of turtles" syndrome i read about somewhere (stephen hawking?)

he lies about an imaginary documentary he claims to have seen, and mohawk windwalkers he has never met. he shamelessly uses these as a crutch for his "multiple out" strategies when backed into a corner.

he uses duplicitously adjusted images on his site to vainly attempt to mask the truth or decieve.

he refuses to answer reasonable, direct, specific questions preferring to resort to ad hominemisms, chidish obtuseness and strawman tactics to lamely try and divert attention away from his ineptitude.

he is happily indifferent to the ridicule heaped upon him from all quarters, even by the most rabid peers in the CT movement.

one does wonder how much longer this thread can go?
even the mighty amazon ends somewhere.

BV

[Arus808]

You simply are trying to argue without evidence. It is futile and costs you credibility.

hmm sorry>? but i have hundreds of publications, one pbs documentary (a real one) and thousands of engineers who know that the WTC towers were built without a concrete core.

The implosionworld article even addresses this.

Credibility is only earned if what you say is true. But so far, you have provided only lies

[delphi_ote]

hmm sorry>? but i have hundreds of publications, one pbs documentary (a real one) and thousands of engineers who know that the WTC towers were built without a concrete core.

The implosionworld article even addresses this.

Credibility is only earned if what you say is true. But so far, you have provided only lies
No no. You have to show him the WTC without concrete cores. You have to travel back in time, get the original towers, and then transfer them bit by bit to his house over the internet. Unless you can do that, it proves the towers did have concrete cores. QED

[Smiffy]

Chris, I am a little confused by this phrase from your site:
The usenet has been searched and messages by people found that describe the concrete core who saw it being constructed or knew for other reasons, the true tower core design.What are these 'other reasons' you speak of? I'm curious...

[twinstead]

...you can't debate crazy people...

[Smiffy]

Hey, I'm currently trawling the archives of this thread and I've got to say it's compelling stuff! I'm only up to page 35. I know I should stop but I'm addicted...

[jsfisher]

Hey, I'm currently trawling the archives of this thread and I've got to say it's compelling stuff! I'm only up to page 35.
Gee, if you made it all the way through pages 1 to 35, then you've read everything in this thread at least 4 times.

It is not just history that repeats itself.

[Christophera]

http://www.skyscraper.org/TALLEST_TOWERS/t_wtc.htm



The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry. Worried that the intense air pressure created by the buildingsâ high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core.

The Towers did not have concrete cores.

Masonry often referres technically to stonework particuarly in the uk.

If that is not true then you are asserting that the image of the WTC 2 core shows drywall that has survived hundreds of thousands of tons of steel crashing over it.

WTC 2 core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

And that is ridiculous.

[Christophera]

Hey, I'm currently trawling the archives of this thread and I've got to say it's compelling stuff! I'm only up to page 35. I know I should stop but I'm addicted...

Great Smiffy,

You will probably notice that the deniers posting here have never posted any raw evidence of the steel core columns they (weakly) assert stood.

You've robably also noted that when they do post evidence it is something easily faked or simply not qualified by comparison to raw images of the demolition found here.

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

Regarding the concrete core. Or here,

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

Regarding the demolition.


But most importantly what they post never explains any part of the phenomena 0f 9-11. In fact they do all that they can to be sure that competent, comprehensive explanations are dismissed.

[David Wong]

6,500 posts of this and the discussion hasn't progressed even one inch.