Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers? [Archive] - Page 27

Christophera

3rd November 2006, 01:10 AM

Chris, your evidence consists completely of one photo. That is all. Really. The rest is pure fantasy.

And your photo shows absolutely nothing conclusive. Certainly not enough to counter the perponderance of evidence that there was a steel core.

I notice you post no evidence of the steel core.

So it is a real challenge to you to say there are 18 images at this site that anybody can see.

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

And at the bottom of this page are sties with reference that concur with the raw evidence of photos.

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

delphi_ote

3rd November 2006, 02:02 AM

I notice you post no evidence of the steel core.
If such evidence existed, what would it be?

Oliver

3rd November 2006, 04:12 AM

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.

If we suppose that god exist and there is a reason
for everything that happens on this planet, isn´t it
also supposed that we should accept god´s plans
instead criticizing him for the rest of our lifes? :confused:

Oliver

3rd November 2006, 04:17 AM

Of course but an explanation is needed. So to cast doubt onto one, another must be provided that has a better basis in evidence.

Why is an explanation needed that fit´s into your mind?
Did you forget? You already have an explanation for what
happened: C4, Conrete Core, controlled demolition, inside Job.

What else on god´s green earth do you want to know?

You´re 57, right? Maybe time to grow up?

Smiffy

3rd November 2006, 04:51 AM

Chris, how sure are you that you are right? 100%? 99.9%? 95%? Is there any doubt in your mind?

Belz...

3rd November 2006, 05:52 AM

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.

I told you HERE (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2062238&postcount=6450). Use your EYES.

Doh, ......... you forgot to explain how tempered steel columns that were 100% welded got cut like this

They were cut by people for TRANSPORT.

Masonry often referres technically to stonework particuarly in the uk.

I knew you'd say that. But it's nonsensical. NO supertall building has EVER been built with sonework. Why the HELL would the article make that distinction ?

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.

And that is ridiculous.

Is it ? People survived in that stairwell. Why not drywall ?

Oliver

3rd November 2006, 08:42 AM

We all are wrong:

http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/Basic-Physics_3108-9400.html

Leslie E. Robertson
1st April 2006 - 06:33 PM
Christophera is correct in stating that the Twin Towers were constructed with a concrete core. Although in my original design the core was to be a steel framed one that decision was overridden by Minoru Yamasaki the architect.

That core should have resisted the airplane impacts AND the fires. I have said nothing for four and a half years but can remain silent no longer. My belief is that only explosives could have caused WTC 1 & WTC 2 to collapse the way they did on September 11, 2001.

Leslie E. Robertson
Director Leslie E. Robertson Associates, R.L.L.P. and lead engineer of the World Trade Cente

uruk

3rd November 2006, 08:45 AM

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.

With all the evidence been presented, it is probably the steel columns surrounded by the drywall of the elevator shafts, stairwells, and elevator lobbies. All of which is being onscured by tons of falling debris and smoke.

Beyond that you can't tell from a photograph.

uruk

3rd November 2006, 08:50 AM

Masonry often referres technically to stonework particuarly in the uk. Only the WTC and the contractors were not in the U.K.

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.

Yep, rediculous. Drywall could not have possibly survived.

http://army.firststrike.net/nyd/damage/pages/911-damage_393.htm
http://army.firststrike.net/nyd/damage/pages/911-damage_026.htm
Oops! Sorry Chris, Wrong as usual.

Bell

3rd November 2006, 08:56 AM

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

Bolding mine.

And that's coming from you, Alfred? First get your own brain to the garage, before accusing others of mental problems.

Smiffy

3rd November 2006, 09:17 AM

Shsssh... Dont tell Chris, but I have come across the REAL answer! It was a mini-nuke!

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/finn/5/soldier5.htm

Christophera

3rd November 2006, 09:38 AM

Only the WTC and the contractors were not in the U.K.

Yep, rediculous. Drywall could not have possibly survived.

http://army.firststrike.net/nyd/damage/pages/911-damage_393.htm
http://army.firststrike.net/nyd/damage/pages/911-damage_026.htm
Oops! Sorry Chris, Wrong as usual.

Your effort to misrepresent the image is not equalled by your failure to explain why no core columns are vivsble in the fore ground or in this image of the WTC 2 core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) in the core area where they must be seen if they existed.

Your image shows what appears as the hallway openings and their individual floors. The torn drywall covers the concrete wall in you image and it has all been removed in this one. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg)

Christophera

3rd November 2006, 09:44 AM

Bolding mine.

And that's coming from you, Alfred? First get your own brain to the garage, before accusing others of mental problems.

I'm a pioneer in exposing the fraud in the mental health care industry and show that the courts enable the problem by allowing failure to appear on subpoena, and the county counsel interfereing with the appearance of a witness. (http://www.truthasaur.com/local/images/subden.gif).

It is clear that you support unlawful government as you work to conceal the deprivation of duw process in 3000 murders so the willfull neglect of the supposed authorities of mental health are easy to ignore..

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3934&stc=1&d=1162572227

Christophera

3rd November 2006, 09:48 AM

Shsssh... Dont tell Chris, but I have come across the REAL answer! It was a mini-nuke!

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/finn/5/soldier5.htm

Oh Smiffy, you've fallen for the full ploy.

First they obscure the possible then support the impossible so that those desperately seeking a feasible explanation can desperately cling to absurd, poorly understood propositions.

A nuke cannot be delayed and the firefighters here describe high speed delays in the floor by floor detonations.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg

Dave_46

3rd November 2006, 09:48 AM

We all are wrong:

http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/Basic-Physics_3108-9400.html

Johnny Pixels beat you to it, post 720

Dave

uruk

3rd November 2006, 09:55 AM

Your effort to misrepresent the image is not equalled by your failure to explain why no core columns are vivsble in the fore ground or in this image of the WTC 2 core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) in the core area where they must be seen if they existed.
The picture you keep posting doesn't show much of anything. It is too obscured by smoke and debris to show any detail. All you can tell is that it is just a shape. And drywall can have a "rounded" appearance also.

Your image shows what appears as the hallway openings and their individual floors. The torn drywall covers the concrete wall in you image and it has all been removed in this one.this one. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg)
If the concrete was poured around the Box columns, why is the box column infront of the wall?
Also the picture I posted was taken after the picture you are posting. You can tell by the amount of debris in the foreground that has been removed.

You seem to have alot of self-worth worked up in this idea of yours. It's skewing your thinking. It does not make you less of a person to admit your wrong when the evidence is overwhelmingly against you. It makes you less of a person to cling to an idea that is overwhelmingly and obviously wrong.

Are you familiar with the story of Don Quixote?

mortimer

3rd November 2006, 10:06 AM

Chris,

OK, you've presented all the evidence you have of the South tower's alleged concrete core. Now, show me the North tower's concrete core, standing at elevation, from the demo images. Since that is the only evidence you will accept from us regarding the core columns, you should of course hold yourself to the same standards.

So, where are images of the North tower's concrete core, standing at elevation, from the demo images?

Oliver

3rd November 2006, 10:09 AM

Belz...

3rd November 2006, 10:29 AM

It is clear that you support unlawful government as you work to conceal the deprivation of duw process in 3000 murders so the willfull neglect of the supposed authorities of mental health are easy to ignore.

Bell's from the Netherlands, by the way.

Belz...

3rd November 2006, 10:30 AM

uruk

3rd November 2006, 10:49 AM

He does not believe in god, Mortimer. And you
can´t change a 57 year old man... :rolleyes:

He's also admitted to not being here to debate but rather preach. He's not interested in having his ideas challenged. He just want to get his message out.

Judging from the disclosures about his personal life, he seems to have alot of his self-worth tied up in his crusade. He'd rather do this than deal with his problems. Much like an addict runs and withdraws from his/her life.

Oliver

3rd November 2006, 11:02 AM

He's also admitted to not being here to debate but rather preach. He's not interested in having his ideas challenged. He just want to get his message out.

Judging from the disclosures about his personal life, he seems to have alot of his self-worth tied up in his crusade. He'd rather do this than deal with his problems. Much like an addict runs and withdraws from his/her life.

Somehow it´s just sad. :( But what is Belz´s reason
to talk to a wall? Another preacher? Or a Sock-Puppet? :confused:

Powa

3rd November 2006, 11:07 AM

Oliver

3rd November 2006, 11:09 AM

Chris, would you care to point out where in this video is the concrete core? The collapse starts at approximately 01:20. Can you tell me at what time was the still standing concrete core detonated?

OH GOD! :eek: Another 100 pages question... :D

Belz...

3rd November 2006, 01:03 PM

Somehow it´s just sad. :( But what is Belz´s reason
to talk to a wall? Another preacher? Or a Sock-Puppet? :confused:

My reason for debating chris ?

It's simply one of my fundamental principles : "You'll give up before Belz... does."

Belz...

3rd November 2006, 01:07 PM

Smiffy

3rd November 2006, 01:46 PM

Christophera - your sarcasm detectors are malfunctioning, I suggest you have a rest and a nice cup of tea ;)

defaultdotxbe

3rd November 2006, 01:56 PM

Gosh...

How many people were still in WTC2 when it collapsed, anyway ?

from wikipedia:

There were 2,973 fatalities: 246 on the four planes (no one on board any of the hijacked aircraft survived), 2,602 in New York City in the towers and on the ground, and 125 at the Pentagon. Among the fatalities were 343 New York City Fire Department firefighters, 23 New York City Police Department officers, and 37 Port Authority police officers. An additional 24 people remain listed as missing.

World Trade Center - 1366 people died who were at or above the floors of impact in the North Tower (1 WTC); according to the Commission Report, hundreds were killed instantly by the impact while the rest were trapped and died later.

As many as 600 people were killed instantly or trapped at or above the floors of impact in the South Tower (2 WTC). Only about 18 managed to escape in time from above the impact zone and out of the South Tower before it collapsed.

An estimated 200 people jumped to their deaths from the burning towers (as depicted in the photograph "The Falling Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Falling_Man)"), landing on the streets and rooftops of adjacent buildings hundreds of feet below. To witnesses watching, a few of the people falling from the towers seemed to have stumbled out of broken windows. Some of the occupants of each tower above its point of impact made their way upward toward the roof in hope of helicopter rescue, however; no rescue plan existed for such an eventuality, the roof access doors were locked and thick smoke and intense heat would have prevented rescue helicopters from landing

Smiffy

3rd November 2006, 01:59 PM

Johnny Pixels beat you to it, post 720

DaveYeah, Oliver! Get with the program! I've read up to page 62 now so even I was aware of this little gem, along with "algebraic assimilation" (don't ask!)...

Jennie C.

3rd November 2006, 02:30 PM

From Christophera:

3000 capitol crimes

From here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2064258#post2064258

Hmm, is a capitol crime one where you deface the building with the big dome?

(okay, irrelevant, but it tickled my funny bone)

Oliver

3rd November 2006, 03:38 PM

Yeah, Oliver! Get with the program! I've read up to page 62 now so even I was aware of this little gem, along with "algebraic assimilation" (don't ask!)...

You are reading this whole stuff? :confused:

I mean there is no "brain-damage" warning within
this trash-dump. I hope you are aware of this fact. :D

Peephole

3rd November 2006, 04:00 PM

Christophera

3rd November 2006, 04:09 PM

The picture you keep posting doesn't show much of anything. It is too obscured by smoke and debris to show any detail. All you can tell is that it is just a shape. And drywall can have a "rounded" appearance also.

Under the conditions present where the WTC 2 core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) is, drywall would no even exist. It would be stripped away immediately.

If the concrete was poured around the Box columns, why is the box column infront of the wall?
Also the picture I posted was taken after the picture you are posting. You can tell by the amount of debris in the foreground that has been removed.

There is far less debris around the stair/wall/column in my image of the core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) than your, so I it clear that you have it backwards.

You seem to have alot of self-worth worked up in this idea of yours. It's skewing your thinking. It does not make you less of a person to admit your wrong when the evidence is overwhelmingly against you. It makes you less of a person to cling to an idea that is overwhelmingly and obviously wrong.

Are you familiar with the story of Don Quixote?

Overwhelming opposition and odds to not equate to overwhelming evidence. You would like to think it does, it does not. Clearly, if I have enough raw evidence of images to make a site just about the concrete core,

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

which also proves there were no steel core columns, and am still here, my sense of self worth exceeds yours by the factors of evidence I have plus the numbers I oppose.

There is no site using raw evidence to substantiate the steel core columns because there is no raw evidence to construct it from. This is why all the sites that claim steel core columns use diagrams or a pair of misrepresented images.

Christophera

3rd November 2006, 04:12 PM

Chris, why don't you comment about this picture, showing SMOKE and DUST, not concrete, mere seconds away from YOUR picture ?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_60804549e5c54133b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2369)

http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc40.JPG

That is the particulate, sand and gravel, that did not travel outwards from the core blasts before the WTC concrete core

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

Christophera

3rd November 2006, 04:17 PM

Chris, would you care to point out where in this video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=911) the concrete core is? The collapse starts at approximately 01:20. Can you tell me at what time was the still standing concrete core detonated?

This link will answer your question.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1232703

The floor detonations caused enough covering debris to obliterate views of the core. The concrete core explosions (http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8232/wtcsl8.jpg) themselves are actually fairly obvious when floors are not involved.

stateofgrace

3rd November 2006, 04:21 PM

Psssst Chris,

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.

Christophera

3rd November 2006, 04:26 PM

Yeah, Oliver! Get with the program! I've read up to page 62 now so even I was aware of this little gem, along with "algebraic assimilation" (don't ask!)...

Glad you like my use of words. Basiclally it means that if you cannot use evidence, you cannot solve problems, or accomplish the prerequisites to it via "algebraic assimilation".

Smiffy

3rd November 2006, 04:56 PM

You are reading this whole stuff? :confused:

I mean there is no "brain-damage" warning within
this trash-dump. I hope you are aware of this fact. :D
Hehe... I take your point. I see from your posts that you try to really empathise with our rather unusual subject. I admire your attempts, but he's a tough nut to crack!

Powa

3rd November 2006, 05:07 PM

This link will answer your question.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1232703
It was a very simple question about that particular video, Chris. Why are you pointing me to your site?

The floor detonations caused enough covering debris to obliterate views of the core.
Yet you see it in your beloved picture.

The concrete core explosions (http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8232/wtcsl8.jpg) themselves are actually fairly obvious when floors are not involved.
If the explosions are so obvious, how is it then, that no one (except you) sees them?

Anyway, I asked you to point out the detonation of the core in the video I linked. How hard can that be?

Powa

3rd November 2006, 05:09 PM

I see from your posts that you try to really empathise with our rather unusual subject.
You obviously haven't gotten to the part where he had a meltdown. :D

stateofgrace

3rd November 2006, 05:41 PM

Chris, slightly off topic but could you voice your opinion on this core.

http://www.littlerotters.org.uk/images/apple%20core%20copy.jpg
What do you reckon?

Steel?
Concrete?
Organic?

I saw a documentary a while ago that told me what it was, but I have never seen it since, clearly suppressed.

Thanks in advance.

Christophera

3rd November 2006, 05:50 PM

It was a very simple question about that particular video, Chris. Why are you pointing me to your site?

I prefer to let you educate yourself on my time spent once rather than twice.

Yet you see it in your beloved picture.

In the beloved picture of Americans, the one that helps us to preserve our democracy, rights and freedoms (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG), the floors have fallen away and the secondary initiation system of the core takes a few seconds to begin intiations. This was intentional to get the steel out of the way for the heavy detonations of the lower core that are much larger to deal with the thicker core walls which are seen in thelower concrete core explosions (http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8232/wtcsl8.jpg)

If the explosions are so obvious, how is it then, that no one (except you) sees them?

Anyway, I asked you to point out the detonation of the core in the video I linked. How hard can that be?

I am not the only one that sees them. I'm one of the few that speaks of them.

Christophera

3rd November 2006, 05:52 PM

Hehe... I take your point. I see from your posts that you try to really empathise with our rather unusual subject. I admire your attempts, but he's a tough nut to crack!

Believe me. Those who might think they've got what it takes do that do not even try because I have evidence for EVERYTHING I assert, well most everything. More than deniers have by a large factor.

mortimer

3rd November 2006, 06:03 PM

Oliver

3rd November 2006, 06:03 PM

Believe me. Those who might think they've got what it takes do that do not even try because I have evidence for EVERYTHING I assert, well most everything. More than deniers have by a large factor.

I am no denier. There was a cover up at least concerning incompetence. And there was the WMD lie.

But what you´re doing is to find a murderer because you saw a knife once in your live. A clear sign that someone is a murderer. :boggled:

beachnut

3rd November 2006, 06:10 PM

You have based your whole existance on a concrete core, and it was never there.

Bell

3rd November 2006, 06:21 PM

Bell's from the Netherlands, by the way.

Thanks Belz...
Care to comment, Christophera?

Regarding this remark, that is:

It is clear that you support unlawful government as you work to conceal the deprivation of duw process in 3000 murders so the willfull neglect of the supposed authorities of mental health are easy to ignore..

Bell

3rd November 2006, 06:23 PM

My reason for debating chris ?

It's simply one of my fundamental principles : "You'll give up before Belz... does."

And I'm not leaving this forum before Belz... gives up :)

:popcorn2

Oliver

3rd November 2006, 06:33 PM

And I'm not leaving this forum before Belz... gives up :)

:popcorn2

*lol* And i never give up until everybody in here gave up. Beat that! :D

Bell

3rd November 2006, 06:34 PM

*lol* And i never give up until everybody in here gave up. Beat that! :D

*beats Oliver*

uruk

3rd November 2006, 08:28 PM

Under the conditions present where the WTC 2 core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) is, drywall would no even exist. It would be stripped away immediately. Which it was as the core collapsed. But from the photos i posted It shows that drywall did remain attached to the core structure. Deny it all you want But the photos proves you wrong.

There is far less debris around the stair/wall/column in my image of the core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) than your, so I it clear that you have it backwards.
Nope. In the photo I posted it shows one more floor below then one you posted which proves that more debris was cleared out. You can even see a clear path at the base of the core. What is clear is that you are incapable of correctly interpreting photos.

Overwhelming opposition and odds to not equate to overwhelming evidence. You would like to think it does, it does not. Clearly, if I have enough raw evidence of images to make a site just about the concrete corehttp://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

which also proves there were no steel core columns, and am still here, my sense of self worth exceeds yours by the factors of evidence I have plus the numbers I oppose. What opposition. We've been posting pictures and diagrams and websites with descriptions. Far more sources than you have. All you have on your website is conjecture that is backed up by assumptions and misinterpretation.

There is no site using raw evidence to substantiate the steel core columns because there is no raw evidence to construct it from. This is why all the sites that claim steel core columns use diagrams or a pair of misrepresented images.
Why does there need to be a web site dedicated to a single aspect of a buildings architecture when there are hundredes of sites which state the fact that the core was composed of steel and no concrete.

Just because you have a website loaded with conjecture, assumptions, and flatout lies and misinterpretations does make it true.

firecoins

3rd November 2006, 09:16 PM

I am sorry Oliver.

At what point did the Twin Towers core become concrete? Because when the towers were constructed they were steel core so it wasn't than. So it had to be after they were built.

Was it when Copperfield made the SOL disappear?

Christophera

3rd November 2006, 10:04 PM

You have based your whole existance on a concrete core, and it was never there.

So you say with no evidence. If that is the case, what is this (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG).

Christophera

3rd November 2006, 10:17 PM

Which it was as the core collapsed. But from the photos i posted It shows that drywall did remain attached to the core structure. Deny it all you want But the photos proves you wrong..

You wish.

You are wrong. The drywall is attached to a stairway of elevator shaft NOT THE CORE STRUCTURE.

Nope. In the photo I posted it shows one more floor below then one you posted which proves that more debris was cleared out. You can even see a clear path at the base of the core. What is clear is that you are incapable of correctly interpreting photos.

Or, there is the possibility it is not the same piece of the core. There are some major differences in the appearance. It does not make sense that things would be added, only taken away. See if you can tell what I'm getting at.

Do you have the original image link?

What opposition. We've been posting pictures and diagrams and websites with descriptions. Far more sources than you have. All you have on your website is conjecture that is backed up by assumptions and misinterpretation.

Sure, and most, if not all of it doesn't qualify. What is at my site is backed by consistent images showing what can only be concrete and steel core columns are never seen where they must.

Why does there need to be a web site dedicated to a single aspect of a buildings architecture when there are hundredes of sites which state the fact that the core was composed of steel and no concrete.

Just because you have a website loaded with conjecture, assumptions, and flatout lies and misinterpretations does make it true.

Raw evidence of photographs can be and are used to make absolute determinations of fakery all the time. Statements need to be carefully linked to evidence that is consistent with the statement. My site does this with the concrete core and this cannot be done with steel core columns.

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

Garb

3rd November 2006, 10:40 PM

Sure, and most, if not all of it doesn't qualify.

Why? Cause it isn't raw?

Christophera

3rd November 2006, 11:38 PM

Why? Cause it isn't raw?

Because it is not consistent with the raw evidence.

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

Powa

4th November 2006, 02:47 AM

I prefer to let you educate yourself on my time spent once rather than twice.
Evasion noted.

In the beloved picture of Americans, the one that helps us to preserve our democracy, rights and freedoms (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG), the floors have fallen away and the secondary initiation system of the core takes a few seconds to begin intiations. This was intentional to get the steel out of the way for the heavy detonations of the lower core that are much larger to deal with the thicker core walls which are seen in thelower concrete core explosions (http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8232/wtcsl8.jpg)

And that's exactly what I wanted you to point out in my linked video. Because for the life of me I can't see the "detonation" of the core. Or the core standing prior to the "detonation".

I am not the only one that sees them. I'm one of the few that speaks of them.
But if it was all so obvious there would be MILLIONS od people speaking, nay, shouting about it. Me including, believe me.

Oh snap, that's right, we were ALL hypnotised. Never mind.

Jennie C.

4th November 2006, 07:10 AM

I am no denier. There was a cover up at least concerning incompetence. And there was the WMD lie.

What about the New York Times article yesterday from which I have snipped:

Last March, the federal government set up a Web site to make public a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war.

and

The documents, roughly a dozen in number, contain charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building that nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums. For instance, the papers give detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs.

The Times can't have it both ways. Either there was no nuclear program in Iraq or the government was remiss in releasing documents that contained information about it.

mortimer

4th November 2006, 07:12 AM

Christophera

4th November 2006, 10:01 AM

Evasion noted.

I provided an answer and you failed to respond. Typical for a denier to accuse a truth seeker of what the denier is guilty of.

Since you have evaded examining the link which had your answer,

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1232703

I will copy it for you.

Delays and Paths

---------------

The floor delays would be on one circuit and the core on another. The ports accessing the rebar in the core walls were on the inside of the core, protected from the blasts of the floors. Floor circuit delays would be set to count at 75 milliseconds with a possible decreasing delay downward for initiations of consecutive floors to the bottom. Concrete core delay paths would set at 300 milliseconds for each 40 foot concrete pour which had at least one inspection port on each 3" vertical rebar to remove the coating and slow the removal of bearing and lateral support, keeping the floors in position while they detonate.

And that's exactly what I wanted you to point out in my linked video. Because for the life of me I can't see the "detonation" of the core. Or the core standing prior to the "detonation".

But if it was all so obvious there would be MILLIONS od people speaking, nay, shouting about it. Me including, believe me.

Oh snap, that's right, we were ALL hypnotised. Never mind.

Over ten times a second a floor detonates. Three times a second the core sections follow the floor detonations. You don't really think that within that or the dust/particulate you will see the detonations or the core do you?

There is only one opportunity to see the core without any steel around it and that is when the upper core detonation system switches to the lower core system. There is however a video that shows the concrete core with the interior box columns around it, partially. WTC 2 is seen left of WTC 1.

Other than that WTC 1 is shrouded in dust through that phase. WTC 2 provides the only glimpse of the concrete core.

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

Christophera

4th November 2006, 10:04 AM

delphi_ote

4th November 2006, 10:04 AM

There is only one opportunity to see the core without any steel around it and that is when the upper core detonation system switches to the lower core system. There is however a video that shows the concrete core with the interior box columns around it, partially. WTC 2 is seen left of WTC 1.
If the building did not have a concrete core, what kind of evidence would convince you?

Garb

4th November 2006, 10:05 AM

Because it is not consistent with the raw evidence.

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

Care to point out where it isn't consitent instead of giving me a link filled with a bunch of info that I have to sort through to find out the single idea you are trying to get me to belive?

Belz...

4th November 2006, 10:34 AM

from wikipedia:

Interesting. I would've thought MORE people would've been trapped in WTC2 than WTC1 because of the impact point, though I suspect some had already evacuated.

Belz...

4th November 2006, 10:38 AM

Under the conditions present where the WTC 2 core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) is, drywall would no even exist. It would be stripped away immediately.

Only under your demolitions theory. Clearly, the drywall is STILL there in clearer pictures, so there was no detonation. Or do you retract your statement ?

Clearly, if I have enough raw evidence of images to make a site just about the concrete core,

People can make web sites out of non-existent ideas, too. So it doesn't prove a thing.

There is no site using raw evidence evidence that supports my position to substantiate the steel core columns because there is no raw evidence evidence that supports my position to construct it from.

There, fixed that.

Oliver

4th November 2006, 10:38 AM

What about the New York Times article yesterday from which I have snipped:

[SIZE=1]

and

[FONT=Verdana]

The Times can't have it both ways. Either there was no nuclear program in Iraq or the government was remiss in releasing documents that contained information about it.

Ooops. They don´t have to fake evidence anymore
for the public ... now they came along with documents.

Time to go to war, eh? :boggled:

:rolleyes:

ETA:
http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=650000+iraqis&btnG=Google-Suche&meta=

Belz...

4th November 2006, 10:40 AM

That is the particulate, sand and gravel, that did not travel outwards from the core blasts before the WTC concrete core

Excellent. So you admit that dust and smoke CAN and DOES gather near the center of the collapse. Do you ALSO agree that said dust is gray ?

If so, then you have just disproved your own assertion that NOTHING but concrete can explain that picture. Congratulations.

Belz...

4th November 2006, 10:45 AM

Because it is not consistent with the raw evidence.

Who are you to determine what's "raw" or not ? Shouldn't you examine ALL the evidence ? You're basically saying that you have a preference for one type of evidence, namely the one that agrees with you, over the other.

So you admit to beign biased ? Evidence can't be wrong, can it ?

In the beloved picture of Americans, the one that helps us to preserve our democracy, rights and freedoms, the floors have fallen away and the secondary initiation system of the core takes a few seconds to begin intiations. This was intentional to get the steel out of the way for the heavy detonations of the lower core that are much larger to deal with the thicker core walls which are seen in thelower concrete core explosions

Where do you get this information ? How do you know that this was "intentional" or needed or planned this way ? What information do you have to know what happened inside the towers when they "blew" ?

Oliver

4th November 2006, 10:56 AM

If the building did not have a concrete core, what kind of evidence would convince you?

I guess something like this:

http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/games/images/dale_holman_bat.jpg

mortimer

4th November 2006, 10:59 AM

If you check the post above, in reply to powa you will find your answer.

Let me see if I have this straight, Chris. You claim that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition. You claim that both towers had a concrete core. South tower had a section of the concrete core that survived for a time because the detonations in that section didn't go off til later. The North tower was completely pulverized by C4-coated rebar, and thus you would never see a section of the core standing in the demo images.

You have claimed that the only evidence of a steel core you would accept is a view of the steel core intact at elevation in a demo image. Now, Chris, if the towers were indeed destroyed by controlled demolition, why would you expect to see steel standing at elevation during the demo? The columns would have been destroyed by cutting charges and would have fallen along with the rest of the building, so there's no way you'd be able to see steel core columns standing in the North tower during the demo.

So, Chris, will you admit that, using your own standard of a core section standing at elevation during the demo as evidence of the core composition, you have NO evidence that the North tower had a concrete core? If you won't admit that, then please provide RAW evidence of the concrete core in the demo images of the North tower.

Garb

4th November 2006, 11:22 AM

Ooops. They don´t have to fake evidence anymore
for the public ... now they came along with documents.

Time to go to war, eh? :boggled:

:rolleyes:

ETA:
http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=650000+iraqis&btnG=Google-Suche&meta=

Im confused here. Are you saying that if there were WMDs and that the war was "just" that there would be no casulties at all? Cause to me it seems like you are basing this "go to war or not" deal on casulties.

Oliver

4th November 2006, 11:29 AM

Im confused here. Are you saying that if there were WMDs and that the war was "just" that there would be no casulties at all? Cause to me it seems like you are basing this "go to war or not" deal on casulties.

No. I´m saying: No WMD´s = No war. = no casulties.
"If" doesn´t count here.

During the embargo within the nineties x00.000 iraqis died.
I guess they have a good reason to hate the western world.
The faked evidence was another good example to believe that
the western gov´s are a bunch of A*holes. And i agree.

Pretty good job to avoid terror threads and to make iraqis
happy with democracy.

Garb

4th November 2006, 11:34 AM

No. I´m saying: No WMD´s = No war. = no casulties.
"If" doesn´t count here.

During the embargo within the nineties x00.000 iraqis died.
I guess they have a good reason to hate the western world.
The faked evidence was another good example to believe that
the western gov´s are a bunch of A*holes. And i agree.

Pretty good job to avoid terror threads and to make iraqis
happy with democracy.

In all honesty, does it even matter now?

Either way, I saw a dictator that murdered his own people, intimidated to keep himself in power, and was looking to get WMDs and use them on other countries.

Christophera

4th November 2006, 11:44 AM

If the building did not have a concrete core, what kind of evidence would convince you?

This image shows there were no steel core columns. I know for a fact, basically as a witness via a 2 hour documentary that there was a rectangular cast concrete tubular core. Nothing will convince me otherwise.

If you were to competently attempt to convince somebody who was adamant about reason, first you would have to explain why no steel columns show here. Account for the size pieces found at GZ.

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

Realize that if they were cut with explosives that it changes the entire character of the visual and auditory event, and, how could what is seen in the image above exist if explosives had already cut the columns making them fall. Those explosons would have removed the core we see.

Christophera

4th November 2006, 11:49 AM

Christophera

4th November 2006, 11:50 AM

Let me see if I have this straight, Chris. You claim that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition. You claim that both towers had a concrete core. South tower had a section of the concrete core that survived for a time because the detonations in that section didn't go off til later. The North tower was completely pulverized by C4-coated rebar, and thus you would never see a section of the core standing in the demo images.

You have claimed that the only evidence of a steel core you would accept is a view of the steel core intact at elevation in a demo image. Now, Chris, if the towers were indeed destroyed by controlled demolition, why would you expect to see steel standing at elevation during the demo? The columns would have been destroyed by cutting charges and would have fallen along with the rest of the building, so there's no way you'd be able to see steel core columns standing in the North tower during the demo.

So, Chris, will you admit that, using your own standard of a core section standing at elevation during the demo as evidence of the core composition, you have NO evidence that the North tower had a concrete core? If you won't admit that, then please provide RAW evidence of the concrete core in the demo images of the North tower.

If you check the post 2nd above, in reply to delphi_ote you will find your answer.

Powa

4th November 2006, 11:51 AM

I provided an answer and you failed to respond.

Liar (http://Liar).

Typical for a denier to accuse a truth seeker of what the denier is guilty of.

Since you have evaded examining the link which had your answer,

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1232703

I will copy it for you.
I read your link, but it disagrees with the video I linked. I asked you if you could point out the core standing for a few seconds and finally detonating IN THAT VIDEO. Can you do that? Please? No need to link your site again. We've all read it.

Over ten times a second a floor detonates. Three times a second the core sections follow the floor detonations. You don't really think that within that or the dust/particulate you will see the detonations or the core do you?
Whoa, are you saying that the explosions wouldn't disturb the dust at all? That's what I was looking for. I couldn't see it. Oh, and no core still standing after initial "detonations".

There is only one opportunity to see the core without any steel around it and that is when the upper core detonation system switches to the lower core system. There is however a video that shows the concrete core with the interior box columns around it, partially. WTC 2 is seen left of WTC 1.

Other than that WTC 1 is shrouded in dust through that phase. WTC 2 provides the only glimpse of the concrete core.

The video I linked is of WTC 2. So... Where is the core?

Oliver

4th November 2006, 11:56 AM

In all honesty, does it even matter now?

Either way, I saw a dictator that murdered his own people, intimidated to keep himself in power, and was looking to get WMDs and use them on other countries.

Off course it does matter. They are still dying down there.
Saddam was installed by the US-Gov. IMHO the Gov should
care more about their own affairs instead casting the stones
around in the muslim world.

Also IMHO i think they never should have interfere anymore
after the russian invasion was defeated. It´s not the western
world business as long we let them live their lives and accept
the same about the western world.

Powa

4th November 2006, 12:01 PM

No politics in this thread, please. It's long enough as it is.

Now, back to the crazy person.
:popcorn1

bonavada

4th November 2006, 12:09 PM

hey chris, i realise there are lot of questions asked of you here but please could you answer the ones below i posted several days ago?

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

Oliver

4th November 2006, 12:21 PM

No politics in this thread, please. It's long enough as it is.

Now, back to the crazy person.
:popcorn1

You´re right. Back to Alfred.

Here´s the reason for his concrete core. You may
want to study it to understand it. God bless - I didn´t understand it.

http://forum.cygnus-study.com/showthread.php?t=4889&highlight=Unifyer
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_j_072400.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20000617113905/home.earthlink.net/~argus1/personal.html
http://www.truthasaur.com/
http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=argus1%40earthlink.net&btnG=Google-Suche&meta=

Powa

4th November 2006, 01:14 PM

From the thread in Oliver's first link, in response to Chris' paranoid ramblings:

Here's another number for you to add to your list of 21, 22, and 23.

295.30 - it's the DSM-IV diagnosis number for paranoid schizophrenia.

:D

Bell

4th November 2006, 01:16 PM

Christophera, you STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED why the towers' detonation started at the exact spot where the planes hit, allthough the planes hit the wrong towers.

firecoins

4th November 2006, 01:21 PM

Nothing will convince me otherwise.

There we have it ladies and gentlemen. Thread over!

delphi_ote

4th November 2006, 01:58 PM

Nothing will convince me otherwise.
That's what I suspected, but thank you for being honest. Basically, this isn't about research, it's about converting others to your dogma.

Oliver

4th November 2006, 02:21 PM

From the thread in Oliver's first link, in response to Chris' paranoid ramblings:

:D

*lol* Check out the last link... The first one
was just the beginning...

Gravy

4th November 2006, 02:29 PM

There we have it ladies and gentlemen. Thread over!Oh, this thread was over with the second post on this page: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57426

Bell

4th November 2006, 06:25 PM

Christophera, you STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED why the towers' detonation started at the exact spot where the planes hit, allthough the planes hit the wrong towers.

Also Christophera, how do you know the buildings were rigged with uhmplosives? How do you know that the concrete bore had 3" rebar on 4' centers coated with C4 in them? Was this in the documentary as well? You would not have made this up, now would you?

Gravy

4th November 2006, 06:36 PM

Also Christophera, how do you know the buildings were rigged with uhmplosives? How do you know that the concrete bore had 3" rebar on 4' centers coated with C4 in them? Was this in the documentary as well? You would not have made this up, now would you?Of course not! (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1901634&postcount=3209)

Oliver

4th November 2006, 06:52 PM

Of course not! (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1901634&postcount=3209)

Oh god! I missed this one. He actually thinks that he
reminds that the BBC told they placed bombs within
the towers? And he saw it XX years ago? And nobody
recognized it when it was aired but him?

Could it get even worse? :boggled: Don´t say it - it
could and did...

Bell

4th November 2006, 06:58 PM

Of course not! (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1901634&postcount=3209)

Oooh, thanks for edditing that link, Gravy. I didn't understand it the first time :)

So, the 'documentary' showed how the WTC was build with a concrete bore, and packed with uhmplosives? And yet, nobody mind working in the towers? Riiight...

Christophera

4th November 2006, 07:32 PM

Liar (http://Liar).

I read your link, but it disagrees with the video I linked. I asked you if you could point out the core standing for a few seconds and finally detonating IN THAT VIDEO. Can you do that? Please? No need to link your site again. We've all read it.

It is not shown there so I cannot point it out meaning you are wrong.

Whoa, are you saying that the explosions wouldn't disturb the dust at all? That's what I was looking for. I couldn't see it. Oh, and no core still standing after initial "detonations".

The video I linked is of WTC 2. So... Where is the core?

There is only one opportunity to see the core without any steel around it and that is when the upper core detonation system switches to the lower core system. There is however a video that shows the concrete core with the interior box columns around it, partially. WTC 2 is seen left of WTC 1.

Other than that WTC 1 is shrouded in dust through that phase. WTC 2 provides the only glimpse of the concrete core.

The video I mention is from a building top at probably around 500 feet. Yours is from the street and the debris blowing out ward will cover all view to the core.

Oliver

4th November 2006, 07:35 PM

There we have it ladies and gentlemen. Thread over!

*lol*

Christophera

4th November 2006, 07:39 PM

Sorry to butt in, but Chris has also said it was produced by the BBC. He remembers vividly how they described planting the C-4 during construction. Yes, in 1990, the British Broadcasting Corporation produced and aired a documentary which said the Twin Towers were packed with demolitions explosives. Must be true. Chris remembers it vividly (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1895911&postcount=3039).

gravy you are misrepresenting what I've stated. If I said the documentary titled "Construction of the Twin Towers" was produced by BBC I was in error. It was produced by PBS. Also, .......... the documentary di not say "it was packed with demolitions explosives". It said there was a special plastic coating on the rebar which was flammable and that only welders with a security clearance could weld it.

This is true intellectual dishonesty colluding with Bell and Ollie.

Bell

4th November 2006, 07:41 PM

Christophera

4th November 2006, 07:44 PM

Also Christophera, how do you know the buildings were rigged with uhmplosives? How do you know that the concrete bore had 3" rebar on 4' centers coated with C4 in them? Was this in the documentary as well? You would not have made this up, now would you?

The below image shows an event which can only be created by high explosive optimally placed and distributed inside of a uniform mineral based material then exploded in a series of delayed high speed explosions.

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

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3949&stc=1&d=1162694516

Christophera

4th November 2006, 07:47 PM

Care to point out where it isn't consitent instead of giving me a link filled with a bunch of info that I have to sort through to find out the single idea you are trying to get me to belive?

The single piece of info is that the towers had concrete cores and the raw evidence supports that assertion.

Go look. Whadda'ya think, that this is TV?

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

Oliver

4th November 2006, 07:49 PM

The below image shows an event which can only be created by high explosive

BS! The Photo could be a faked one and
i guess Killtown would say the same.

Bell

4th November 2006, 07:51 PM

The below image shows an event which can only be created by high explosive optimally placed and distributed inside of a uniform mineral based material then exploded in a series of delayed high speed explosions.

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

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3949&stc=1&d=1162694516

Yes, you are showing us a picture - an event frozen in time - of a very fast chancing event. From that, you conclude uhmplosives were used. That is not what I asked. I asked for PROOF of uhmplosives. Like Mohawks admitting prepping your 3" rebar on 4' centers with C4. Or uhmplosive factories admitting supplying for the WTC. You do have this evidence, do you?

Oliver

4th November 2006, 07:52 PM

The single piece of info is that the towers had concrete cores and the raw evidence supports that assertion.

Go look. Whadda'ya think, that this is TV?

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

T´wasa comic i guess. 9/11 never happend. It was
just a futuristic documentary you saw some years ago
but you don´t remeber it very well. I can help you:
It´s name was loose change. And it wasn´t real.

TruthSeeker1234

4th November 2006, 07:57 PM

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.

Because they would not have fires to blame for the "collapses". The idea was to minimize casualties, while maximizing psychological impact.

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

because the fires were almost going out in the south tower, while still burning fiercely in the north.

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

No one would believe that outsiders could get access. Also, part of the plan was to take over security at all airports. Without planes, there is no excuse to do this.

Christophera

4th November 2006, 07:57 PM

Under the conditions present where the WTC 2 core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) is, drywall would no even exist. It would be stripped away immediately.

Only under your demolitions theory. Clearly, the drywall is STILL there in clearer pictures, so there was no detonation. Or do you retract your statement ?

Clearly you refer to other pictures. At the distance of the WTC 2 core linked above only the shape and logic is available to determine what the material is. Bascially you commit distortion of the import evidence by not posting the evidence you imply exists.

People can make web sites out of non-existent ideas, too. So it doesn't prove a thing.

Notice no one built a web site to document the steel core columns with raw evidence but I built one (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html) using raw evidence to substantiate the steel reinforced concrete core and it is substantiated and consistent with links to universities, Ph.D's and other credible, disinterested sources.

Bell

4th November 2006, 08:03 PM

Because they would not have fires to blame for the "collapses". The idea was to minimize casualties, while maximizing psychological impact.

2700+ death, yeah, that's minimizing the number of victims.

because the fires were almost going out in the south tower, while still burning fiercely in the north.

Proof of fires in the south tower going out? And don't bring me chief's Palmer quote, he was on the 78th floor, below the hugh fires.

No one would believe that outsiders could get access. Also, part of the plan was to take over security at all airports. Without planes, there is no excuse to do this.

You are contradicting your self. Why would nobody believe outsiders could get access, but believe outsiders where able to bring weapons aboard and hijack planes? You can't have it both ways.

Gravy

4th November 2006, 08:11 PM

because the fires were almost going out in the south tower, while still burning fiercely in the north.Is it necessary to be a howling ignoramus in every post, TruthSeeker1234?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790454d55a16b98c.jpg
7 Minutes Before Collapse

stateofgrace

4th November 2006, 08:21 PM

No one would believe that outsiders could get access. Also, part of the plan was to take over security at all airports. Without planes, there is no excuse to do this.

You come out with some much nonsense now a days TS but could you just explain what on earth you are talking about here?

Taking over the airports?

I am curious for your spin on this one.

mortimer

4th November 2006, 08:37 PM

If you check the post 2nd above, in reply to delphi_ote you will find your answer.

Chris,

We are talking about the North tower, not the South tower. Please pay attention.

Show me RAW evidence of the North tower's concrete core at elevation in demo photos. After all, that is the evidence you demand of us to prove steel core columns.

mortimer

4th November 2006, 08:50 PM

Notice no one built a web site to document the steel core columns with raw evidence but I built one (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html) using raw evidence to substantiate the steel reinforced concrete core and it is substantiated and consistent with links to universities, Ph.D's and other credible, disinterested sources.

Another lie, Chris? This (http://noconcretecore.741.com) website was built to document the steel core columns with raw evidence, and it is substantiated and consistent with links to universities, Ph.D's and other credible, disinterested sources.

mortimer

4th November 2006, 08:54 PM

The below image shows an event which can only be created by high explosive optimally placed and distributed inside of a uniform mineral based material then exploded in a series of delayed high speed explosions.

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

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3949&stc=1&d=1162694516 (http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3949&stc=1&d=1162694516)

Bull. It could also have been created by a progressive collapse of a tall building after severe structural damage caused by airplane crashes and fire.

LashL

4th November 2006, 09:54 PM

Gravy

4th November 2006, 09:58 PM

gravy you are misrepresenting what I've stated. If I said the documentary titled "Construction of the Twin Towers" was produced by BBC I was in error. It was produced by PBS. Also, .......... the documentary di not say "it was packed with demolitions explosives". It said there was a special plastic coating on the rebar which was flammable and that only welders with a security clearance could weld it.

This is true intellectual dishonesty colluding with Bell and Ollie.Thank you for that correction. I apologize for making it necessary. I should have said "Carefully packed with demolitions explosives." I meant to cast no aspersions on the good people who do the dangerous and exacting work of planting explosives in new buildings.

Christophera

4th November 2006, 09:59 PM

Bull. It could also have been created by a progressive collapse of a tall building after severe structural damage caused by airplane crashes and fire.

And you could also be here because the stork brought you.

A progressive collpase has geometric properties as members fall. We have none of that, we have pulverization that obliterates with its separate delay systems of the floor and cores. The floors with their light weight concrete form a light diffusive cloud and hide the blasts occuring inside when the towers are tall.

Here is an aerial of the concrete core explosions (http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8232/wtcsl8.jpg) in the lower section and the heaving heavy particulate is visible from the thicker lower walls.

Here the lower section begins.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3951&stc=1&d=1162702515

Christophera

4th November 2006, 10:04 PM

Dear Christophera:

There were not and never have been concrete cores in the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York.

Please seek the professional help that you so desperately and so obviously require.

Love,
The Rest of the World.

Without evidence you are deluded, accepting a lie as your psyche is dominated by cognitive disonance.

You abandon all reason (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html) in the face of the official corruption of removing evidence from the scene of 3000 capitol crimes as a subversion of our Constitution and due process to satisfy a crusade.

Get rational, be and stand for accountabilite to lawful principles.

We love you too.

Christophera

4th November 2006, 10:06 PM

Thank you for that correction. I apologize for making it necessary. I should have said "Carefully packed with demolitions explosives." I meant to cast no aspersions on the good people who do the dangerous and exacting work of planting explosives in new buildings.

Ya' might check to see if Ollie is up to giving some spam lessons.

TruthSeeker1234

4th November 2006, 10:07 PM

You come out with some much nonsense now a days TS but could you just explain what on earth you are talking about here?

Taking over the airports?

I am curious for your spin on this one.

Prior to 9/11, security at U.S. airports was handled by private companies. The U.S. Federal government took over, and installed the "TSA", Transportation Security Administration.

Gravy

4th November 2006, 10:09 PM

Odd, there isn't a single concrete-pulverizing explosion as the south tower begins to collapse. Not one!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87904548158cd6279.jpg

Christophera

4th November 2006, 10:10 PM

Another lie, Chris? This (http://noconcretecore.741.com) website was built to document the steel core columns with raw evidence, and it is substantiated and consistent with links to universities, Ph.D's and other credible, disinterested sources.

That web site says "no concrete core" because it has nothing to say "steel core columns" except obvious fraudulent info. So it insted works with simple confusion trying to use misintrpretations and selectivity to cut out the solid evidence of the concrete core. (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html)

TruthSeeker1234

4th November 2006, 10:12 PM

Is it necessary to be a howling ignoramus in every post, TruthSeeker1234?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790454d55a16b98c.jpg
7 Minutes Before Collapse

Relative to the north tower, and relative to the fires which had burned initially in WTC2, the fires were in danger of going out. That's one possible explanation of why they had to do WTC2 first.

TruthSeeker1234

4th November 2006, 10:14 PM

Is it necessary to be a howling ignoramus in every post, TruthSeeker1234?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790454d55a16b98c.jpg
7 Minutes Before Collapse

BTW, the molten metal in your picture looks pretty close to white hot in the center.

LashL

4th November 2006, 10:19 PM

Relative to the north tower, and relative to the fires which had burned initially in WTC2, the fires were in danger of going out. That's one possible explanation of why they had to do WTC2 first.

Aw, poor BS1234, reduced to competing with Chris for the "looniest lunatic of the forum" award. I can see why, since the two of you are equally crazy but you have the added point that your music sucks. Maybe Chris can give you some pointers in that regard and level the playing field again. Who knows? He may have received musical training subconsciously centuries ago, and still might give you a run for your money.

:cuckooclo

Gravy

4th November 2006, 10:20 PM

Relative to the north tower, and relative to the fires which had burned initially in WTC2, the fires were in danger of going out. That's one possible explanation of why they had to do WTC2 first.

BTW, the molten metal in your picture looks pretty close to white hot in the center.
A classic combination! You really pack a 1-2 punch, TS!

Is it necessary to be a howling ignoramus in every post, TruthSeeker1234?

uruk

4th November 2006, 11:17 PM

You wish.

You are wrong. The drywall is attached to a stairway of elevator shaft NOT THE CORE STRUCTURE. And what do you think the stairway and elevator shaft is attached to? You really suck at debating. Your attempts at changing reality is truly astounding.

Or, there is the possibility it is not the same piece of the core. There are some major differences in the appearance. It does not make sense that things would be added, only taken away. See if you can tell what I'm getting at.

Do you have the original image link?
It is the same section. The differences are that debris have been removed.
Look closer and compare the two photos. It is the same core just at two different periods of time.
Here's one source of the photos I used. (warning: very large files)
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/
You'll have to hunt out the WTC photos
Here's the link to the specific photo:
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/5435.jpg

Sure, and most, if not all of it doesn't qualify. What is at my site is backed by consistent images showing what can only be concrete and steel core columns are never seen where they must.
Nope. The photo you use are low resolution and inconclusive. Your imagination and desire have filled in what you want to see.

Raw evidence of photographs can be and are used to make absolute determinations of fakery all the time. Statements need to be carefully linked to evidence that is consistent with the statement. My site does this with the concrete core and this cannot be done with steel core columns.

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

Sorry, wrong as usual Chris.

tsig

4th November 2006, 11:33 PM

A classic combination! You really pack a 1-2 punch, TS!

Is it necessary to be a howling ignoramus in every post, TruthSeeker1234?

Really scary having all of this truth thrown on us, when will it start.

Planes and fire and gravity are not enough, we need exposives!

We want them so that we do not need to be afraid.

They said while timoring in the bush.

uruk

4th November 2006, 11:34 PM

BTW, the molten metal in your picture looks pretty close to white hot in the center.

You do know that aluminum burns. ( it's used in solid rocket propellents) The towers were covered in it.

Christophera

4th November 2006, 11:44 PM

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.

Anybody who would do that is not American. They may have no allegiance to any nation. It was not the government, it was infiltrators of the government. The true US government is disabled from doing anything like that. We must treat our government as an ideal and always work to perfect it.

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

First thing to realize. It was a ruse. An elaborate ploy following Herman Goerings formula for incredible credulity.

This link has a full logical explanation for all the questions above.

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

Christophera

4th November 2006, 11:46 PM

Christophera

4th November 2006, 11:48 PM

Really scary having all of this truth thrown on us, when will it start.

Planes and fire and gravity are not enough, we need exposives!

We want them so that we do not need to be afraid.

They said while timoring in the bush.

Reasonably, the event seen below has nothing to do with a structural collapse from plane impacts and fires. You need explosives to explain clouds of debris expanding to those degrees at that speed.

Still or video it doesn't matter. the refined, uniform composition of the debris cloud is conclusive.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3954&stc=1&d=1162709252

Regnad Kcin

5th November 2006, 12:25 AM

This image shows there were no steel core columns. I know for a fact, basically as a witness via a 2 hour documentary that there was a rectangular cast concrete tubular core. Nothing will convince me otherwise...Then go away.

Regnad Kcin

5th November 2006, 12:32 AM

Thank you for that correction. I apologize for making it necessary. I should have said "Carefully packed with demolitions explosives." I meant to cast no aspersions on the good people who do the dangerous and exacting work of planting explosives in new buildings.And thank you for the midnight hot toddy shooting through my nostrils. Invigorating!

Regnad Kcin

5th November 2006, 12:33 AM

Without evidence you are deluded, accepting a lie as your psyche is dominated by cognitive disonance...Sayeth the liar.

Gravy

5th November 2006, 12:47 AM

Chris, why didn't anyone else in the world hear about this 1990 PBS documentary that showed, in detail, how explosives were planted in the towers? I was a PBS member then, and that was definitely NOT n my Program Guide!

Why are you the only one to ever hear of this? Does that give you pause?

Why is there not a single mention of it on the internet, except on your sites? Why does PBS, the Library of Congress, etc. have no knowledge of the documentary?

Why is there not a single news report, anywhere, about one of the biggest stories in US history?

And Chris, if you worked on or in those buildings, don't you think you'd be a wee bit upset that you were sitting on thousands of pounds of high explosives?

Don't you think that after the 1993 bombing people would have said, "Were those the built-in explosives that were featured in that TV show, or were they new explosives?"

Please answer! Inquiring minds want to know!

Christophera

5th November 2006, 01:57 AM

Then go away.

But you still have not explained why you think my explanation for "the wrong tower fell first" is not logical.

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

What has been, ......... about 130 pages since you said it was not logical and then never explained why.

Aristides

5th November 2006, 03:26 AM

But you still have not explained why you think my explanation for "the wrong tower fell first" is not logical.

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

What has been, ......... about 130 pages since you said it was not logical and then never explained why.

Your failure to realize the validity of an explanation doesn't mean that it never existed. It all hinges on your definition of logic, which must be a relative one.

(I do realize given the nature of Christophera that such a comment is pointless; I really just wanted do get my foot in the door for what must become a legendary thread)

tsig

5th November 2006, 03:26 AM

Oliver

5th November 2006, 03:49 AM

Chris is has been tried and many have died.

But in the end we will beat him. I mean he´s about 57 years
old and most of us are much younger... :D

Ya' might check to see if Ollie is up to giving some spam lessons.

Muhahawawaw... Your thread was my guide to learn what spam means.... :D

Bell

5th November 2006, 05:40 AM

But you still have not explained why you think my explanation for "the wrong tower fell first" is not logical.

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

What has been, ......... about 130 pages since you said it was not logical and then never explained why.

And you still have not explained why the collapse of the towers started at the point of impact of the planes, even though the planes hit the wrong towers.

You also failed to give us proof of explosives placed in the towers, proof like some people admitting planting it there.

Oliver

5th November 2006, 06:01 AM

*snip* .... proof like some people admitting planting it there.

All his splitted personalities did agree with him. So there
are a lot, i mean A LOT of people who agree with him. :D

firecoins

5th November 2006, 06:25 AM

Maxim:
So far no explanation in existence explains free fall and total pulverization of the towers appears to exist. Has anyone seen one?
This is way back from post #1. So no explaination exists, not even a concrete core.

bonavada

5th November 2006, 07:03 AM

Notice no one built a web site to document the steel core columns with raw evidence but I built one (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html) using raw evidence to substantiate the steel reinforced concrete core and it is substantiated and consistent with links to universities, Ph.D's and other credible, disinterested sources.

i think everyone should check out the site below. it has astonishing information regarding the true core composition.........

LOOK HERE NOW! (http://www.bonavada.com/index.html)

:-}

BV

Bell

5th November 2006, 07:14 AM

i think everyone should check out the site below. it has astonishing information regarding the true core composition.........

LOOK HERE NOW! (http://www.bonavada.com/index.html)

:-}

BV

:dl:

Skibum

5th November 2006, 07:21 AM

Big Chief Running Gerbil is my uncle, he has gone missing since he made that statement.

bonavada

5th November 2006, 07:55 AM

Big Chief Running Gerbil is my uncle, he has gone missing since he made that statement.

sorry i think he's doing 5-10 in rikers for aggravated pixiecide.

BV

Regnad Kcin

5th November 2006, 10:50 AM

Christophera

5th November 2006, 10:53 AM

If the concrete was poured around the Box columns, why is the box column infront of the wall?

The interior box columns were only encased in concrete for the first three levels of basement.

Christophera

5th November 2006, 10:58 AM

Though I had bid you adieu with my last post, I'll address your towers-fell-in-the-wrong-order inaccuracy. I suspect it'll be for naught, but what the hey.

First, I was attempting to walk you through the simple deductive process when I initially engaged you on the matter. But your general unresponsiveness proved continually taxing. Then, when you returned after your suspension (not "ban," as you lied on the physorg forum), you continued your difficult manner.

Curious how an administrative error or oversite in unsuspending me after a 3 day suspension which looks to me after a couple of weeks like a ban, is suddenly my fault and I am a liar.

It certainly appears as though you are distorting the situation.

But let's get to it.

The 110-story WTC 1 was struck first by a Boeing 767 at approx. 490 mph. The floors damaged were between 93 and 99. This left 11 undamaged stories above. The tower fell 102 minutes after impact.

The 110-story WTC 2 was subsequently struck by a Boeing 767 at approx. 590 mph. The floors damaged were between 77 and 85. This left 25 undamaged stories above. The tower fell 56 minutes after impact.

Please don't tell me I have to explain this any further.

OMG!

You totally left out that WTC 2 was more seriously damaged by impact and fire than was WTC 1. That is not logical. It is logical that WTC one would fall first.

Christophera

5th November 2006, 11:00 AM

i think everyone should check out the site below. it has astonishing information regarding the true core composition.........

LOOK HERE NOW! (http://www.bonavada.com/index.html)

:-}

BV

It is astounding what the supporters of lies will do when they have no evidence to support their lies..

Christophera

5th November 2006, 11:02 AM

This is way back from post #1. So no explaination exists, not even a concrete core.

Fireloins,

What factures to fall instantly easiest, concrete or steel.

Architect

5th November 2006, 11:03 AM

Curious how an administrative error or oversite in unsuspending me after a 3 day suspension which looks to me after a couple of weeks like a ban, is suddenly my fault an I am a liar.

That's liar spellt N-U-T-S

You totally left out that WTC 2 was more seriously damaged by impact and fire than was WTC 1. That is not logical. It is logical that WTC one would fall first.

You're in no position to question anyone else's grasp of logic, mate.

THere's not a single person here who agrees with you. Hell, you can't find a single person anywhere to agree. So either you're a unique genius (aye, right!) or nuts. Make your own mind up; I know that we all have.

Architect

5th November 2006, 11:04 AM

Christophera

5th November 2006, 11:10 AM

And you still have not explained why the collapse of the towers started at the point of impact of the planes, even though the planes hit the wrong towers.

As was peabodys illogical answer lost in the deniers spam, my answer to the above question was lost.

Even though the planes hit the wrong towers, the pilots knew each others targets and they were told that explosives were planted on those floors which would cause more damage if hit. Pilots knowing each others targets is S.O.P.

You also failed to give us proof of explosives placed in the towers, proof like some people admitting planting it there.

Due to secrecy the addmissions you request will not be forthcoming. However, forensically, with logic, we can conclude that only optimally placed and optimally distributed high explosives detonated in a high speed series could create this event.

Cutting steel core columns would appear completely different as the density of steel requires massive charges.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3957&stc=1&d=1162750071

Christophera

5th November 2006, 11:16 AM

That's liar spellt N-U-T-S

You're in no position to question anyone else's grasp of logic, mate.

THere's not a single person here who agrees with you. Hell, you can't find a single person anywhere to agree. So either you're a unique genius (aye, right!) or nuts. Make your own mind up; I know that we all have.

If you can conduct logic you failed to do so when you didn't explain how steel core columns resist torsion more than a square frame of shear walls and how steel core columns can logically be an improvement on the stability of a tower with a 6.5:1 height to base ratio. Therefore you lost credibility as actually being an architect.

Maybe you can get a job in a deli. There are plenty of recipes in this thread left by deniers witout evidence working to obsufucate.

bonavada

5th November 2006, 11:49 AM

It is astounding what the supporters of lies will do when they have no evidence to support their lies..

YOU SAID IT!

BV

Oliver

5th November 2006, 11:51 AM

It is astounding what the supporters of lies will do when they have no evidence to support their lies..

*lol* See this thread for another example:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57426

tsig

5th November 2006, 11:55 AM

But in the end we will beat him. I mean he´s about 57 years
old and most of us are much younger... :D

Muhahawawaw... Your thread was my guide to learn what spam means.... :D

But at what a cost of bandwidth.

bonavada

5th November 2006, 11:58 AM

Chris; given the date, a bit of advice - do play near the bonfire, and do return to fireworks once they're lit......
(poor taste, I know, but it would get us some peace).
OMG! C4 Coated fireworks!!! (boom)

the gunpowder plot........now that was a REAL conspiracy. poor old guy, burned to death a million times every november. as if he didn't suffer enough already.

BV

tsig

5th November 2006, 12:00 PM

If you can conduct logic you failed to do so when you didn't explain how steel core columns resist torsion more than a square frame of shear walls and how steel core columns can logically be an improvement on the stability of a tower with a 6.5:1 height to base ratio. Therefore you lost credibility as actually being an architect.

Maybe you can get a job in a deli. There are plenty of recipes in this thread left by deniers witout evidence working to obsufucate.

Had a job in a deli, din't like the sauces.

Talking torsion and shear is a real come on.

Square peg in a round hole, no?

defaultdotxbe

5th November 2006, 12:01 PM

wow 100,000 views

has christophera actually convinced anyone there was a concrete core?

tsig

5th November 2006, 12:03 PM

the gunpowder plot........now that was a REAL conspiracy. poor old guy, burned to death a million times every november. as if he didn't suffer enough already.

BV

Guy Falks day?

stateofgrace

5th November 2006, 12:24 PM

wow 100,000 views

has christophera actually convinced anyone there was a concrete core?

Not yet, it's a slow painful process. One set to go on and on and on and........

tsig

5th November 2006, 12:52 PM

All his splitted personalities did agree with him. So there
are a lot, i mean A LOT of people who agree with him. :D

It must be nice to have a majority of oneself.

Bell

5th November 2006, 12:53 PM

As was peabodys illogical answer lost in the deniers spam, my answer to the above question was lost.

Even though the planes hit the wrong towers, the pilots knew each others targets and they were told that explosives were planted on those floors which would cause more damage if hit. Pilots knowing each others targets is S.O.P.

:dl:

Your answers get more ridicolous the harder you try to worm your way out of all the stupid claims you make. What you just said, makes no sence whatsoever.

http://www.projectrebirth.org/albums/album006_world-trade-center/wtc_Empire_State_view.jpg

Note to self: Hit the tower on the left. But if you accidentaly hit the tower on the right,
please do so whilst aiming the plane some 15 floors higher.

Yes, Christophera, very likely... not!

Due to secrecy the addmissions you request will not be forthcoming. However, forensically, with logic, we can conclude that only optimally placed and optimally distributed high explosives detonated in a high speed series could create this event.

Cutting steel core columns would appear completely different as the density of steel requires massive charges.

If it is so secret, what RAW evidence do you have of explosives in the towers? Evidence like people admitting to have planted the explosives. No pictures accompanied with your assumptions.

You demand raw evidence of us, I demand it of you. If you cannot provide such evidence, then you are lying. Are you lying, Christophera?

tsig

5th November 2006, 12:54 PM

It is astounding what the supporters of lies will do when they have no evidence to support their lies..

They impac and pancake to the ground

Powa

5th November 2006, 12:57 PM

wow 100,000 views

has christophera actually convinced anyone there was a concrete core?
Any day now.

tsig

5th November 2006, 01:01 PM

i think everyone should check out the site below. it has astonishing information regarding the true core composition.........

LOOK HERE NOW! (http://www.bonavada.com/index.html)

:-}

BV

Fantasic some of us have too much talent and time on our hands!

bonavada

5th November 2006, 01:05 PM

Guy Falks day?

dats da guy! :-}

fawkes..but no matter.

gunpowder, treason and plot. (http://www.bonefire.org/guy/)

it's about the peak of the celebration right now. a cacophony (sp?) of noise and light all around the city. great fun for the young (and not so young) kids. me, i'd rather buy a six-pack and watch time-team.....

although i'd love to see a high altitude/satellite pic of the UK tonight. eire would be much darker though, they don't celebrate it. old guy was a cafflick you see.......

BV

tsig

5th November 2006, 01:11 PM

dats da guy! :-}

fawkes..but no matter.

Let us return to the drawing and quartering of C.

Never liked the horse thing.

Belz...

5th November 2006, 01:30 PM

This image shows there were no steel core columns. I know for a fact, basically as a witness via a 2 hour documentary that there was a rectangular cast concrete tubular core.

You are a witness via a documentary ? Not sure that qualifies.

Also, there should be OTHER witnesses. So far, zilch.

Nothing will convince me otherwise.

Not even reality ? You've just admitted to beign closed-minded.

Realize that if they were cut with explosives that it changes the entire character of the visual and auditory event, and, how could what is seen in the image above exist if explosives had already cut the columns making them fall. Those explosons would have removed the core we see.

Still doesn't explain why such a structure wasn't seen with WTC1. We only have your a posteriori analysis, with no evidence, that the sequence of detonations was as you claim.

It said there was a special plastic coating on the rebar which was flammable and that only welders with a security clearance could weld it.

And NO ONE found that odd ? Gosh, I'd love it if you could produce that documentary, or SOMEONE who's also seen it and could confirm your story.

The below image shows an event which can only be created by high explosive optimally placed and distributed inside of a uniform mineral based material then exploded in a series of delayed high speed explosions.

Why ? Why is it the only explanation ?

I submit that your knowledge of physics and demolitions is insufficient to make such a statement.

Clearly you refer to other pictures. At the distance of the WTC 2 core linked above only the shape and logic is available to determine what the material is. Bascially you commit distortion of the import evidence by not posting the evidence you imply exists.

The "other" pictures show the remains of the core and drywall can clearly be seen. Ergo, your claim that it desintegrated is false.

Notice no one built a web site to document the steel core columns with raw evidence

Under your definition of "raw", no. Pictures of the construction, however, are plenty of evidence for the existence of those columns.

A progressive collpase has geometric properties as members fall. We have none of that, we have pulverization that obliterates with its separate delay systems of the floor and cores.

Sorry, chris. You can't use your conclusion about explosives to interpret the evidence you have and REACH your conclusion. That's called circular.

The floors with their light weight concrete form a light diffusive cloud and hide the blasts occuring inside when the towers are tall.

It's worth nothing that the amount of explosives required to do this would have obliterated much of the neighborhood.

Belz...

5th November 2006, 01:34 PM

Without evidence you are deluded, accepting a lie as your psyche is dominated by cognitive disonance.

You abandon all reason (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html) in the face of the official corruption of removing evidence from the scene of 3000 capitol crimes as a subversion of our Constitution and due process to satisfy a crusade.

Get rational, be and stand for accountabilite to lawful principles.

We love you too.

Your theory doesn't even hold on its own merit, chris.

You stated that the CORE was built with C4-coated rebar. You stated that the presence of the plastic was mentioned in a DOCUMENTARY. No one noticed this but you.

You stated that the core was blown, but since you claim it is still standing after WTC2 collapses, you had to make up an excuse, namely that the rest of the building was detonated first, although this requires a second set of explosives.

You seem to imply that this plan was already underway when the towers were built, which raises an interesting question. If they were planning to destroy the towers when they built them, and planes wouldn't do the trick because concrete is sturdier than steel, which is the whole reason why you're claiming this, then WHY didn't they just use STEEL and RAM PLANES into the buildings ? It would've been less complicated, and they would've had to reveal their plans on TV.

Does any of this make sense to anyone else ?

Belz...

5th November 2006, 01:44 PM

Because they would not have fires to blame for the "collapses". The idea was to minimize casualties, while maximizing psychological impact.

3000 dead ? Minimising ? You must be mad.

because the fires were almost going out in the south tower, while still burning fiercely in the north.

Untrue. You can clearly see how bad things were in WTC2 just moments before it collapsed. You are lying.

Also, part of the plan was to take over security at all airports. Without planes, there is no excuse to do this.

And to what end ?

Relative to the north tower, and relative to the fires which had burned initially in WTC2, the fires were in danger of going out. That's one possible explanation of why they had to do WTC2 first.

No, that's circular reasoning. You're using your conclusion to explain your conclusion. Try again. You can't think of a single reason why WTC2 fell before the north tower ?

Belz...

5th November 2006, 01:45 PM

But you still have not explained why you think my explanation for "the wrong tower fell first" is not logical

You totally left out that WTC 2 was more seriously damaged by impact and fire than was WTC 1. That is not logical.

The fact that WTC2 was hit lower, at greater speed, and sustained more damage is not logical ?

It is astounding what the supporters of lies will do when they have no evidence to support their lies..

I thought you said we didn't realise what we were doing ?

Even though the planes hit the wrong towers, the pilots knew each others targets and they were told that explosives were planted on those floors which would cause more damage if hit. Pilots knowing each others targets is S.O.P.

That one's a nugget. Tell me, chris. No, convince me that that last paragraph isn't sheer speculation. So the pilots DID commit suicide ? They were THAT dedicated ? But they hit the WRONG towers ?

Also, please answer my point here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2068392&postcount=6572).

Oliver

5th November 2006, 01:51 PM

Let´s bet!

I bet that Belz will lose versus "the Wall".
Who places a bet on Belz?

Christophera

5th November 2006, 02:25 PM

You totally left out that WTC 1 was more seriously damaged by impact and fire than was WTC 2. That is not logical.

The fact that WTC2 was hit lower, at greater speed, and sustained more damage is not logical ?

I thought you said we didn't realise what we were doing ?

No you know what you are doing. You are getting me to repeatedly answering the same questions so I will make lame errors in typing. Otherwise you do not know what you are doing.

I have corrected my post to say WTC 1 was more damaged by WTC 2.

Even though the planes hit the wrong towers, the pilots knew each others targets and they were told that explosives were planted on those floors which would cause more damage if hit. Pilots knowing each others targets is S.O.P.

That one's a nugget. Tell me, chris. No, convince me that that last paragraph isn't sheer speculation. So the pilots DID commit suicide ? They were THAT dedicated ? But they hit the WRONG towers ?

Also, please answer my point here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2068392&postcount=6572).

Okay, I answer that now

Yes it is speculation but it does provide some reasoning for the fact that the towers fell approximately at the impact floors. Realize the tops of both towers fell in the wrong directions as well.

It is a reasonable explanation for the factor of "the wrong tower fell first". Further speculation is that the the pilot of flight 11 saw the north face of the north tower as a more spiritually significant target and so abandoned his orders. Note the severe downward turn of flight 175. The pilot was willfully seeking a specific elevation for some reason. The south side of WTC 2 was not a clear shot at the average approach elevation whereas WTC 1 was on the south side and WTC 2 was clear on the west side at the impact elevation right over WTC 3.

Both tower tops fell in the wrong directions and the wrong tower fell first.

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

That is the particulate, sand and gravel, that did not travel outwards from the core blasts before the WTC concrete core
Excellent. So you admit that dust and smoke CAN and DOES gather near the center of the collapse. Do you ALSO agree that said dust is gray ? If so, then you have just disproved your own assertion that NOTHING but concrete can explain that picture. Congratulations.

Dust can be many colors. Your point is empty. Whereas what I've said above about the pilots impact elevations and the fact that plane impacts had nothing to do with the demise of the towers is completely supported by this image which shows columns being cut and floors being blown out (http://mouv4x8.club.fr/11Sept01/A0069b_3_towerexplo1_explosion_below.jpg) well ahead of what you call a collapse. it is what caused the body of WTC 2 to fall east.

Bell

5th November 2006, 03:01 PM

Okay, I answer that now

Yes it is speculation but it does provide some reasoning for the fact that the towers fell approximately at the impact floors. Realize the tops of both towers fell in the wrong directions as well.

It is a reasonable explanation for the factor of "the wrong tower fell first". Further speculation is that the the pilot of flight 11 saw the north face of the north tower as a more spiritually significant target and so abandoned his orders. Note the severe downward turn of flight 175. The pilot was willfully seeking a specific elevation for some reason. The south side of WTC 2 was not a clear shot at the average approach elevation whereas WTC 1 was on the south side and WTC 2 was clear on the west side at the impact elevation right over WTC 3.

Both tower tops fell in the wrong directions and the wrong tower fell first.

Speculation, reasonable explanation, further speculation... hmmm, I see.

But we demand raw evidence, not speculation, Christophera. We are only being fair to you, since all that YOU accept from us, is raw evidence. So, show us raw evidence that the pilots hit the wrong towers, and also show us raw evidence of explosives in the towers.

No speculations, no reasonable explanations, no assumptions... raw evidence. Put up or shut up.

tsig

5th November 2006, 03:24 PM

No you know what you are doing. You are getting me to repeatedly answering the same questions so I will make lame errors in typing. Otherwise you do not know what you are doing.

I have corrected my post to say WTC 1 was more damaged by WTC 2.

Okay, I answer that now

Yes it is speculation but it does provide some reasoning for the fact that the towers fell approximately at the impact floors. Realize the tops of both towers fell in the wrong directions as well.

It is a reasonable explanation for the factor of "the wrong tower fell first". Further speculation is that the the pilot of flight 11 saw the north face of the north tower as a more spiritually significant target and so abandoned his orders. Note the severe downward turn of flight 175. The pilot was willfully seeking a specific elevation for some reason. The south side of WTC 2 was not a clear shot at the average approach elevation whereas WTC 1 was on the south side and WTC 2 was clear on the west side at the impact elevation right over WTC 3.

Both tower tops fell in the wrong directions and the wrong tower fell first.

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

Dust can be many colors. Your point is empty. Whereas what I've said above about the pilots impact elevations and the fact that plane impacts had nothing to do with the demise of the towers is completely supported by this image which shows columns being cut and floors being blown out (http://mouv4x8.club.fr/11Sept01/A0069b_3_towerexplo1_explosion_below.jpg) well ahead of what you call a collapse. it is what caused the body of WTC 2 to fall east.

Who will you bevie me or your lyning eyes

mortimer

5th November 2006, 03:33 PM

Christophera

5th November 2006, 03:35 PM

wow 100,000 views

has christophera actually convinced anyone there was a concrete core?

Many people are convinced but the fact is stigmatized because people do not wnat to know their gov has been infiltrated and do not want to unify and take action.

mortimer

5th November 2006, 03:37 PM

[quote=Christophera;2069451]A progressive collpase has geometric properties as members fall. We have none of that, we have pulverization that obliterates with its separate delay systems of the floor and cores. The floors with their light weight concrete form a light diffusive cloud and hide the blasts occuring inside when the towers are tall.]/quote]

Prove it, Chris. Show me a "progressive collapse (that) has geometric properties as members fall."

Prove that the "light weight concrete" floors "form a light diffusive cloud", and that said "light diffusive cloud" was not some other material, such as drywall material. Prove it, Chris. Evidence. Not photos. Evidence.

Oliver

5th November 2006, 03:38 PM

Many people are convinced

*lol* See? :D

ETA: How many? http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107451ef9fc0fca9.gif

firecoins

5th November 2006, 03:40 PM

Fireloins,

What factures to fall instantly easiest, concrete or steel.
it doesn't mature. According to you, no explaination exists. Nothing will convince you of anything that you don't want it too.

mortimer

5th November 2006, 03:41 PM

That web site says "no concrete core" because it has nothing to say "steel core columns" except obvious fraudulent info. So it insted works with simple confusion trying to use misintrpretations and selectivity to cut out the solid evidence of the concrete core. (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html)

Chris,

The site in question, http://noconcretecore.741.com has just as much evidence as your site. Please show how the info is "fraudulent". Hint: you can't use your site as evidence that this site is fraudulent. You need evidence that wasn't dreamed up by you.

p.s. Chris, have you ever thought that possibly YOU were hypnotized to believe in the concrete core, and not the other billions of people in the world who were hypnotized to think the core was steel? It certainly would be easier to hypnotize one person than billions, and you can't find another person who thinks the core was concrete, nor find a single other person who saw the PBS documentary you claim to have seen.

Christophera

5th November 2006, 03:51 PM

Chris,

We are talking about the North tower, not the South tower. Please pay attention.

Show me RAW evidence of the North tower's concrete core at elevation in demo photos. After all, that is the evidence you demand of us to prove steel core columns.

The towers were twins except for some diferences in the concrete cores. WTC 1 unfortunately 1 didn't have opportunity for the whole core.

We do have an image of the concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) and no steel core columns are seen. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg)

The WTC 2 core image (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) is adequate to prove concrete.

Christophera

5th November 2006, 03:53 PM

Chris,

The site in question, http://noconcretecore.741.com has just as much evidence as your site. Please show how the info is "fraudulent". Hint: you can't use your site as evidence that this site is fraudulent. You need evidence that wasn't dreamed up by you.

p.s. Chris, have you ever thought that possibly YOU were hypnotized to believe in the concrete core, and not the other billions of people in the world who were hypnotized to think the core was steel? It certainly would be easier to hypnotize one person than billions, and you can't find another person who thinks the core was concrete, nor find a single other person who saw the PBS documentary you claim to have seen.

Your plagerized misrepresentations do not show steel core columns, which is my point.

Garb

5th November 2006, 03:55 PM

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

I see no concrete, only steel.

Bell

5th November 2006, 03:58 PM

Conviniently stepping over my post, Christopher?

post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2070900&postcount=6677)

Christophera

5th November 2006, 03:58 PM

A progressive collpase has geometric properties as members fall. We have none of that, we have pulverization that obliterates with its separate delay systems of the floor and cores. The floors with their light weight concrete form a light diffusive cloud and hide the blasts occuring inside when the towers are tall.

Prove it, Chris. Show me a "progressive collapse (that) has geometric properties as members fall."

Prove that the "light weight concrete" floors "form a light diffusive cloud", and that said "light diffusive cloud" was not some other material, such as drywall material. Prove it, Chris. Evidence. Not photos. Evidence.

How about you find your own image of a progressive collapse. I document demolitions (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg) with high explosive and concrete core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) towers

Garb

5th November 2006, 03:59 PM

http://www.dukesgloballinks.com/untitled1.jpg

Concrete?

firecoins

5th November 2006, 03:59 PM

I am still not sure why anyone is trying to prove reality to Christophera. He has already stated nothing will convince him.

Oliver

5th November 2006, 04:02 PM

I am still not sure why anyone is trying to prove reality to Christophera. He has already stated nothing will convince him.

That´s the problem: Belz said he never
stops until he DID convinced him. Let´s
see who dies first. Literally. :D

:popcorn2

Christophera

5th November 2006, 04:04 PM

:dl:

Your answers get more ridicolous the harder you try to worm your way out of all the stupid claims you make. What you just said, makes no sence whatsoever.

Yes, Christophera, very likely... not!

If it is so secret, what RAW evidence do you have of explosives in the towers? Evidence like people admitting to have planted the explosives. No pictures accompanied with your assumptions.

You demand raw evidence of us, I demand it of you. If you cannot provide such evidence, then you are lying. Are you lying, Christophera?

Typical, a denier accusing a truther of what they are doing.

The pilot of flight 11 decided to disobey orders and hit WTC 1 on the north side rather than 2 on the west.

Logical explanation.

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

Garb

5th November 2006, 04:08 PM

Christophera

5th November 2006, 04:10 PM

http://www.dukesgloballinks.com/untitled1.jpg

Concrete?

Garb,

Do you have what it takes to know which direction the core is and where the camera is pointed?

Bell

5th November 2006, 04:11 PM

Typical, a denier accusing a truther of what they are doing.

The pilot of flight 11 decided to disobey orders and hit WTC 1 on the north side rather than 2 on the west.

Logical explanation.

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

WHAT??!!! AA11 was supposed to hit the south tower on the WEST side? Excuse me, but once again I have to use the laughing dog...

:dl:

I'm still waiting for RAW evidence, Christophera. Show me the raw evidence that the pilot disobeyed his orders, Show me raw evidence that he was supposed to hit the south tower. Like a written order, a video confession. No assumptions or conclusions. Put up or shut up.

Garb

5th November 2006, 04:13 PM

Garb,

Do you have what it takes to know which direction the core is and where the camera is pointed?

You failed to comment on my other picture that shows the entire core. No concrete.

Mancman

5th November 2006, 04:19 PM

I thought i'd repost this exchange from a few months back. Because it's funny.

If there was a hefty concrete core within the WTC in addition to all those steel core columns, how was this landing gear able to go through straight through the centre of WTC1 and take out a perimeter column tree on the south side of the building?
http://killtown.911review.org/images/wtc-gallery/7-70_tire-embedded-wtc1-panel.jpg

The engines and the landing gear are very close to each other and one engine from each plane punctured the concrete core, both walls as the only projectiles hard enough with enough mass to go through the concrete, The landing gear followed the engine through.

What you were reasonably supposed to do you have not done.

Post an image from the demolitions that shows a steel core column in the core area above ground level.

Christophera, since you seem to love diagrams, I'm sure you'll like this. It took me an entire 4 minutes. :mad:
http://i8.tinypic.com/25fn3n7.jpg
As would have to happen for your theory to be correct.

Your 'following the engine through' theory is ridiculous.
The landing gear alone could not smash through 3 concrete walls and still have the energy to take out the perimeter columns.

Your concrete core theory is null, void. It was a non starter. I hope you can now re-evaluate 9/11, and get on with your life.

The engine punches a hole and there are high strength steel structural elements that connect the engine to the landing gear. The engine drags the landing gear through the hole.

mortimer

5th November 2006, 04:27 PM

The towers were twins except for some diferences in the concrete cores. WTC 1 unfortunately 1 didn't have opportunity for the whole core.

We do have an image of the concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) and no steel core columns are seen. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg)

The WTC 2 core image (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) is adequate to prove concrete.

So you cannot prove that the North tower had a concrete core from RAW demo images. Noted.

Using your logic, since there are no images of a concrete core in the North tower from the demo, then there is no concrete core in the North tower.

mortimer

5th November 2006, 04:28 PM

Your plagerized misrepresentations do not show steel core columns, which is my point.

Mine? Plagerized? Huh?

You cannot show a concrete core in North tower.

mortimer

5th November 2006, 04:30 PM

How about you find your own image of a progressive collapse. I document demolitions (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg) with high explosive and concrete core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) towers

Chris,

No, Chris, you claimed progressive collapses have certain properties. It's your responsibility to prove it. Please do so.

Christophera

5th November 2006, 06:56 PM

Chris,

No, Chris, you claimed progressive collapses have certain properties. It's your responsibility to prove it. Please do so.

If you had proven that the structure you claim existed did exist, your request might be valid. You have not proven this with qualified information. Meaning raw evidence of images showing the the core area with steel columns at an elevation above the ground.

As it is, what you are doing is evasion.

Christophera

5th November 2006, 06:58 PM

So you cannot prove that the North tower had a concrete core from RAW demo images. Noted.

Using your logic, since there are no images of a concrete core in the North tower from the demo, then there is no concrete core in the North tower.

Because no one has provided a competent explanation of what this image (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) shows if it does not show rebar, and the image also does not show the supposed steel core columns, I have provided adequate evidence as the towers were twins and here is the south.

WTC 2 core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

Oliver

5th November 2006, 06:59 PM

If you had proven that the structure you claim existed did exist, your request might be valid. You have not proven this with qualified information. Meaning raw evidence of images showing the the core area with steel columns at an elevation above the ground.

As it is, what you are doing is evasion.

What was the name of the documentary?
How old were you when you watched it?
When was it aired.
Did you researched how many documentaries
are out there about the WTC-construction?

firecoins

5th November 2006, 07:00 PM

can someone prove that there was in fact 2 buildings in NYC called the Twin Towers? I am not sure they even existed even though I was inside them.

Christophera

5th November 2006, 07:03 PM

You failed to comment on my other picture that shows the entire core. No concrete.

Okay, so you do ont know what you've posted a picture of and just believe whatever you read.

The other picture would have to be the aerial that shows the elevator guide rail supports in the core area.

For your information, the image you posted shows the core area on the left side and does not look into the core. The camera looks past it. The concrete was up to 40 feet below the top floor average.

Christophera

5th November 2006, 07:05 PM

WHAT??!!! AA11 was supposed to hit the south tower on the WEST side? Excuse me, but once again I have to use the laughing dog...

:dl:

I'm still waiting for RAW evidence, Christophera. Show me the raw evidence that the pilot disobeyed his orders, Show me raw evidence that he was supposed to hit the south tower. Like a written order, a video confession. No assumptions or conclusions. Put up or shut up.

The story you support make no sense at all. I make sense of it.

The fact the wrong tower fell first is evidence. The fact the tops of the towers fell the wrong directions is raw evidence. Common knowledge.

All very carefully explained here.

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

Oliver

5th November 2006, 07:06 PM

can someone prove that there was in fact 2 buildings in NYC called the Twin Towers? I am not sure they even existed even though I was inside them.

Well, since Chris Alfred proved that god can not
exist i guess there is no way to proof that there
ever was a wtc in new york...

Gravy

5th November 2006, 07:07 PM

firecoins

5th November 2006, 07:14 PM

How do you explain these discrepancies, Chris?
He can't! the thread is dead!

Christophera

5th November 2006, 07:18 PM

Once again:

Chris, why didn't anyone else in the world hear about this 1990 PBS documentary that showed, in detail, how explosives were planted in the towers? I was a PBS member then, and that was definitely NOT n my Program Guide!

Why are you the only one to ever hear of this? Does that give you pause?

Why is there not a single mention of it on the internet, except on your sites? Why does PBS, the Library of Congress, etc. have no knowledge of the documentary?

Why is there not a single news report, anywhere, about one of the biggest stories in US history?

And Chris, if you worked on or in those buildings, don't you think you'd be a wee bit upset that you were sitting on thousands of pounds of high explosives?

Don't you think that after the 1993 bombing people would have said, "Were those the built-in explosives that were featured in that TV show, or were they new explosives?"

How do you explain these discrepancies, Chris?

Wow,

You checked with everybody in the whole world. Man, are you thorough.

I've encounterd at least 3 people that saw the video or clips from it that know of the core. Your statement is misrepresenting what I've said because I have not ever said the documentary stated there were explosives were built into the towers.

I have deduced this fact along with many thousands of others that know what explosions look like by simply viewing the many images that appear as the below does..

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3962&stc=1&d=1162779447

Gravy

5th November 2006, 07:27 PM

Wow,

You checked with everybody in the whole world. Man, are you thorough.

I've encounterd at least 3 people that saw the video or clips from it that know of the core.You're lying or delusional. No one has seen that video because it never existed.

Your statement is misrepresenting what I've said because I have not ever said the documentary stated there were explosives were built into the towers.You're lying or delusional.

The RDX on the vertical bar was exposed for months due to bad weather, the documentary actually had this information

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1895911&postcount=3039So which is it, Chris? Are you lying or delusional?

tsig

5th November 2006, 08:17 PM

Wow,

You checked with everybody in the whole world. Man, are you thorough.

I've encounterd at least 3 people that saw the video or clips from it that know of the core. Your statement is misrepresenting what I've said because I have not ever said the documentary stated there were explosives were built into the towers.

I have deduced this fact along with many thousands of others that know what explosions look like by simply viewing the many images that appear as the below does..

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3962&stc=1&d=1162779447

I can tell what things are just by looking at them.

I am so good that the police often ask fo my help.

delphi_ote

5th November 2006, 08:23 PM

You checked with everybody in the whole world. Man, are you thorough.
Impossible. This is why you are supposed to present the evidence supporting your claim. Point us to the documentary. We're not taking your word for it.

tsig

5th November 2006, 09:08 PM

Christophera

5th November 2006, 10:12 PM

The RDX on the vertical bar was exposed for months due to bad weather, the documentary actually had this information, and the concrete was poured before the "special plastic anti corrosion/vibration coating" was tested. After testing it was determined that it was no longer viable as a protectant. Removal of the concrete was considered but the cost and delay was too much so constrcution continued.

Bolding mine.

That's it for me. I'll buy you a beer, Regnad.

ETA: please get help, Christophera. You are not well.

The BBC as producer is a typo. Basically your tactic is to ask me the same questions enough time so I make a typo then you only refer to that.

Intellectual dishonesty is common.

The documentary only had this information.

vertical bar was exposed for months due to bad weather

not the part about the RDX.

You are being selective with my words.

Which is all you can do because you have no evidence and no explanations.

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

Christophera

5th November 2006, 10:14 PM

Knowing the orders makes you part af the conspiricy, are you part of the cover-up?

The ability to use logic does not make one a part of anything except the human race. Are you working to make yourself an exception?

The purpose of reason is to protect life. Would you like to defeat that?

Christophera

5th November 2006, 10:16 PM

Impossible. This is why you are supposed to present the evidence supporting your claim. Point us to the documentary. We're not taking your word for it.

The documentary will only be found by citizens using logic and demanding the truth.

Meanwhile you still have to prove that the tower was constructed as FEMA said it was with steel core columns. And I have proven it was constructed with a concrete core here,

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

Christophera

5th November 2006, 10:19 PM

You're lying or delusional. No one has seen that video because it never existed.

How could I possible interpret the images of this web site so consistently if I did not have the real information.

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

You're lying or delusional.

So which is it, Chris? Are you lying or delusional?

Clearly you support liars and wish I was delusional.

You forgot the
Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/oxfordarchcore.jpg). There is a great deal of support for th truth as much as you do not like it.

tsig

5th November 2006, 10:22 PM

The ability to use logic does not make one a part of anything except the human race. Are you working to make yourself an exception?

The purpose of reason is to protect life. Would you like to defeat that?

Hi Chris

I was not aware that most humans used logic.

You may be the exception.

Reason and life are not compatible!

Gravy

5th November 2006, 10:38 PM

How could I possible interpret the images of this web site so consistently if I did not have the real information.
1) You say there's a 1990 documentary that was aired on television, but no one has ever heard of it besides you, and no records of it exist.

2) You claim the documentary shows how the Twin Towers contained built-in explosives, but no one else in the world remembers this, particularly not the people who built or worked in the towers.

3) You then deny that the documentary says that the towers had explosives in them.

4) I show you that you did make that claim.

You can't even keep your claims straight about a nonexistent documentary, on which your whole concrete hypothesis is built.

Which is it, Chris? Are you lying or delusional? Your scheme has failed. You have made contradictory claims. You claim very specific memories of this documentary, then deny that you made those claims.

Please explain why you have done this.

Gravy

5th November 2006, 10:44 PM

vertical bar was exposed for months due to bad weather

not the part about the RDX.

You are being selective with my words.This one is very easy. You are lying, as I've already demonstrated. You even quote the documentary:

The RDX on the vertical bar was exposed for months due to bad weather, the documentary actually had this information, and the concrete was poured before the "special plastic anti corrosion/vibration coating" was tested. After testing it was determined that it was no longer viable as a protectant. Removal of the concrete was considered but the cost and delay was too much so constrcution continued.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=3039 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1895911&postcount=3039)It's very silly for an adult to lie so blatantly. Please accept responsiblilty for your actions. It's not our fault that you make things up. Help is available for your problems if you should desire it.

tsig

5th November 2006, 10:47 PM

1) You say there's a 1990 documentary that was aired on television, but no one has ever heard of it besides you, and no records of it exist.

2) You claim the documentary shows how the Twin Towers contained built-in explosives, but no one else in the world remembers this, particularly not the people who built or worked in the towers.

3) You then deny that the documentary says that the towers had explosives in them.

4) I show you that you did make that claim.

You can't even keep your claims straight about a nonexistent documentary, on which your whole concrete hypothesis is built.

Which is it, Chris? Are you lying or delusional? Your scheme has failed. You have made contradictory claims. You claim very specific memories of this documentary, then deny that you made those claims.

Please explain why you have done this.

hi gravy

you work the reality end and I'll take on the delusional ones.

Thanks for all the work but we phycos sometimes have to step up to the plate.

Christophera

6th November 2006, 12:44 AM

Christophera

6th November 2006, 12:46 AM

1) You say there's a 1990 documentary that was aired on television, but no one has ever heard of it besides you, and no records of it exist.

You are conducting cognitive distortions.

All or nothing thinking and over generalizations rather than understanding. An effort to minimize the import of evidence, when you have none.

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

Bell

6th November 2006, 01:55 AM

The story you support make no sense at all. I make sense of it.

The fact the wrong tower fell first is evidence. The fact the tops of the towers fell the wrong directions is raw evidence. Common knowledge.

All very carefully explained here.

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

You couldn't make sense of anything if it jumped up and bit you in your @ss.

Please provide evidence the wrong tower fell first. Evidence like a written statement that says the north tower had to fall first. Or a video convession should do.

Please provide evidence the towers fell the wrong way. Evidence like a written statement that says the towers had to fall the other way. Or a video convession should do.

Not your assumptions, conclussions or dillusions. REAL evidence. If you cannot provide real evidence, evidence that is indisputable, you are lying. Put up or shut up.

bonavada

6th November 2006, 03:51 AM

You forgot the Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/oxfordarchcore.jpg). There is a great deal of support for th truth as much as you do not like it.

hey chris.........
i've googled and amazon'ed this book, and searched OU press. even after adjusting for your bad spelling:- "Oxford Encyclopaedia of Technology and Innovation" i can find no trace.
is this the exact title?
please have you got the ISBN number for the book?

BV

bonavada

6th November 2006, 04:12 AM

This one is very easy. You are lying, as I've already demonstrated. You even quote the documentary:

It's very silly for an adult to lie so blatantly. Please accept responsiblilty for your actions. It's not our fault that you make things up. Help is available for your problems if you should desire it.

i think chris needs to recharge the batteries in his photographic mem-cam.
to be fair though i think he only IMPLIES the use of explosives on the rebar on his alpoxy site. where he has slipped up is in embellishing the lies on this thread here. not that it makes much difference he's been found out more times than a columbo script

BV

Belz...

6th November 2006, 05:37 AM

I have corrected my post to say WTC 1 was more damaged by WTC 2.

So the fact that WTC2 was hit lower, at greater speed doesn't get factored in ?

Okay, I answer that now

Yes it is speculation but it does provide some reasoning for the fact that the towers fell approximately at the impact floors.

You mean, as expected if they collapsed DUE to the impacts and subsequent fires ?

Realize the tops of both towers fell in the wrong directions as well.

Not unless you have a very simplistic (or is it simplistice ?) perception of reality. Complex events aren't always easy to analyse, chris.

Further speculation is that the the pilot of flight 11 saw the north face of the north tower as a more spiritually significant target and so abandoned his orders.

Spiritually significant ? He came from that angle, he couldn't have hit any other face without considerable delay.

Note the severe downward turn of flight 175. The pilot was willfully seeking a specific elevation for some reason.

Speculation. I can't see a "severe" downward turn; and even if that were the case he simply might have decided to pick a lower target, thinking that the greater weight of the section above the damage would do the trick. Who knows ? I'm no telepath.

Both tower tops fell in the wrong directions and the wrong tower fell first.

Even IF you were correct, it would only make the conspirators completely inept. There goes THAT global domination scam.

Dust can be many colors. Your point is empty.[/QUOTE]

No it isn't. You admitted that it was dust. You admit, now, that dust can be "many colors", presumably including gray. This refutes your assertion that what we see in your picture can ONLY be concrete, because your only "evidence" for that is the colour of the "structure", namely gray.

Are you retracting your statement, or not ?

Belz...

6th November 2006, 05:45 AM

The pilot of flight 11 decided to disobey orders and hit WTC 1 on the north side rather than 2 on the west.

Speculation.

For your information, the image you posted shows the core area on the left side and does not look into the core. The camera looks past it. The concrete was up to 40 feet below the top floor average.

Illogical. The core HAD to support those floors above itself as well.

The fact the wrong tower fell first is evidence.

How do you know it wasn't MEANT to happen this way ?

The fact the tops of the towers fell the wrong directions is raw evidence.

I thought "raw evidence" were pictures ?

I've encounterd at least 3 people that saw the video or clips from it that know of the core.

Did you record your conversations with them or have any proof that they exist ?

I have deduced this fact along with many thousands of others that know what explosions look like by simply viewing the many images that appear as the below does..

Unfortunately, too many people think of themselves as experts in video or image interpretation. "Look like" is not good enough.

The ability to use logic does not make one a part of anything except the human race.

What does that make you ?

tsig

6th November 2006, 05:55 AM

You are conducting cognitive distortions.

All or nothing thinking and over generalizations rather than understanding. An effort to minimize the import of evidence, when you have none.

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

evidence, we don't need no stinking evideces

tsig

6th November 2006, 05:57 AM

Get real. You have no evidence and are desparate to malign my work and efforts. A despicable task.

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

I would love to malign your work if I ever saw any.

mortimer

6th November 2006, 06:55 AM

If you had proven that the structure you claim existed did exist, your request might be valid. You have not proven this with qualified information. Meaning raw evidence of images showing the the core area with steel columns at an elevation above the ground.

As it is, what you are doing is evasion.

Evasion is you requiring "raw evidence of images showing the the core area with steel columns at an elevation above the ground" for steel core, yet you cannot produce such evidence for the North tower.

mortimer

6th November 2006, 07:00 AM

Because no one has provided a competent explanation of what this image (http://home.comcast.net/%7Ejeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) shows if it does not show rebar, and the image also does not show the supposed steel core columns, I have provided adequate evidence as the towers were twins and here is the south.

WTC 2 core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

Your first linked image does not show a concrete core.

You are unable to produce a raw image of the North tower showing the concrete core at elevation from the demo images. Provide such an image or retract your claim.

Mobyseven

6th November 2006, 07:06 AM

stateofgrace

6th November 2006, 07:14 AM

"The abstract painting was an explosion of colour."

"The creature in Alien seems to explode from the chest of the character."

Notice how the first sentence is a metaphor. Notice how the second sentence is a simile. Notice how neither of them are literally 'explosions'.

Notice how 90% of the 'evidence' for explosives put forward is based on people's use of hyperbolic simile and metaphor, mostly in the midst of a chaotic, noisy and terrible tragedy...

What you say is perfectly true. What sounds or is described as an explosion is not necessary caused by explosives. This has been pointed out numerous times to the cters but falls on deaf ears.

Example.

http://www.okgeosurvey1.gov/atoka.html

The earthquake was felt widely in Bryan County and Atoka County. It was also felt in Coleman, Johnston County. It usually sounded like an explosion or sonic boom, sometimes accompined or followed by a slight shaking and rattling of dishes and/or windows. Flower pots were knocked off a shelf (or porch railing nine miles South of Bently. Much information was reported by Amber in the Brian Co., Sheriff's office, and Pam Ridgeway in the Atoka Co. Sheriff's office. Pam had some callers who were concerned that the loud boom might have been a terrorist explosion.
First floor watching tv sounded like some one ran into my home sounded like [an explosion] house shook just a tremble did not know what it was.
First floor Sitting down, watching TV. We heard a rumble,and then what sounded like an explosion, then a little more rumble.
First floor. Sitting down and watching TV Sounded like an explosion.House shook throughout.second story watching the TV sounded like a distant rumble and I heard something exploded

firecoins

6th November 2006, 07:30 AM

Nothing will convince Chirstophera of anything, not even reality.

tsig

6th November 2006, 07:38 AM

Nothing will convince Chirstophera of anything, not even reality.

reality is the least of Chris's problems.

Christophera

6th November 2006, 10:55 AM

You failed to comment on my other picture that shows the entire core. No concrete.

In the deletrious contributed by willfully ignorant deniers was my comment regarding the the aerial photo showing the top floor of the tower and ELEVATOR GUIDE RAIL SUPPORTS in the core area, not core columns, whch has been obscured by the trash.

The concrete is usually 40 feet lower.

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

Christophera

6th November 2006, 10:57 AM

Nothing will convince Chirstophera of anything, not even reality (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG).

reality (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) is the least of Chris's problems.

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

Christophera

6th November 2006, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by Mobyseven
"The abstract painting was an explosion of colour."

"The creature in Alien seems to explode from the chest of the character."

Notice how the first sentence is a metaphor. Notice how the second sentence is a simile. Notice how neither of them are literally 'explosions'.

Notice how 90% of the 'evidence' for explosives put forward is based on people's use of hyperbolic simile and metaphor, mostly in the midst of a chaotic, noisy and terrible tragedy...
What you say is perfectly true. What sounds or is described as an explosion is not necessary caused by explosives. This has been pointed out numerous times to the cters but falls on deaf ears.

Example.

http://www.okgeosurvey1.gov/atoka.html

Quote:
The earthquake was felt widely in Bryan County and Atoka County. It was also felt in Coleman, Johnston County. It usually sounded like an explosion or sonic boom, sometimes accompined or followed by a slight shaking and rattling of dishes and/or windows. Flower pots were knocked off a shelf (or porch railing nine miles South of Bently. Much information was reported by Amber in the Brian Co., Sheriff's office, and Pam Ridgeway in the Atoka Co. Sheriff's office. Pam had some callers who were concerned that the loud boom might have been a terrorist explosion.
Quote:
First floor watching tv sounded like some one ran into my home sounded like [an explosion] house shook just a tremble did not know what it was.
Quote:
First floor Sitting down, watching TV. We heard a rumble,and then what sounded like an explosion, then a little more rumble.
Quote:
First floor. Sitting down and watching TV Sounded like an explosion.House shook throughout
.
Quote:
second story watching the TV sounded like a distant rumble and I heard something exploded

If it looks like an explosion, walks like an explosion, talks like an explosion and acts like an explosion, it is an explosion.

Your attempt to paint reality as a distortion IS a distortion.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3966&stc=1&d=1162836009

Jennie C.

6th November 2006, 11:47 AM

If it looks like an explosion, walks like an explosion, talks like an explosion and acts like an explosion, it is an explosion.

Possibly true. But not all explosions are caused by explosives. Over-inflating a balloon causes an explosion, albeit a small one. Burning up things like fire extinguishers, microwaves and air conditioning units, plus many other things cause bigger ones.

beachnut

6th November 2006, 11:51 AM

If it looks like an explosion, walks like an explosion, talks like an explosion and acts like an explosion, it is an explosion.

Your attempt to paint reality as a distortion IS a distortion.

If you watch the video there are no explosions. Everything is moving down.

Only when you freeze the frame do you imagine an explosion, but they are gravity collapse of a building. Too simple?

Gravity collapse with just the energy of the failed building!

Energy you can calculate if you are not insane.

1,000,000,000,000 Joules. Try real science an math, forget the concrete core, and stop making up stuff.

Simple advice, good luck.

Miss Anthrope

6th November 2006, 12:00 PM

If it looks like an explosion, walks like an explosion, talks like an explosion and acts like an explosion, it is an explosion.

Your attempt to paint reality as a distortion IS a distortion.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3966&stc=1&d=1162836009

What is so funny about your photo, and this insistence, is that I can get the same effect from a bag of flour, no explosions necessary.

Regnad Kcin

6th November 2006, 12:10 PM

Curious how an administrative error or oversite in unsuspending me after a 3 day suspension which looks to me after a couple of weeks like a ban, is suddenly my fault and I am a liar.You posted on the physorg forum, shortly after your suspension here, that you were banned from the JREF. Not "a couple of weeks" afterwards. Moreover, you did not issue a correction at that forum when your lie was pointed out.

And that episode was only one of your lies.

It certainly appears as though you are distorting the situation.No. You are a liar. That's the long and short of it.

OMG!

You totally left out that WTC 2 was more seriously damaged by impact and fire than was WTC 1. That is not logical. It is logical that WTC one would fall first.Never mind the above sentence is confusing, I'd like you to first retract your assertion that I "never responded" here to your "towers fell in the wrong order" claim.

uruk

6th November 2006, 12:12 PM

If it looks like an explosion, walks like an explosion, talks like an explosion and acts like an explosion, it is an explosion.

Your attempt to paint reality as a distortion IS a distortion.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3966&stc=1&d=1162836009

Not all explosions are caused by explosives. Air pressure, Failing material under stress, impacts are all other causes of exlosion like effects.

The still image may look like an explosion, but if you look at the video you will see that it is just falling debris and dust billowing due to air pressure and movement.