Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers? [Archive] - Page 28

Smiffy

6th November 2006, 12:56 PM

I've been busy reading this thread (yes, every page!). It stops being funny after about page 100 and gets REAL old after that! On the plus side I've had my lingering vague suspicions about CD laid to rest by the excellent debunking efforts of you lot. Also, I learnt this:
The Truthasaur is big. Dinosaurs were large often having long tails and could run and came from history. The truth of the human past is a long tale coming from far back in history that runs on and on.
The truth of our animal mind might be described as "reptilian" in its primordial essence.
Dinosaurs are perceived as giant lizards having a preponderance of mass dominating the environment. The mental environment, our perceptional ability as a group is confronted with a preponderance of evidence in the Truthasaur that documents our unconscious minds as individuals and as a collective.
The truth, as indirectly viewed with attitude (attitude controls perception) formed in our recent past, doesn't exist, cannot, if it did it would be utterly incomprehensible and terrifying beyond description.
The truth of our spiritual existence consists of many small facts spread over a large area comprising a body of information.
The truth can be difficult or painful, making truth a sore.
The truth is extinct?.
Comedy gold!

tsig

6th November 2006, 01:03 PM

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

Chris reads books that were never printed and sees shows that were never shown, yet we should believe him.

Bell

6th November 2006, 01:08 PM

tsig

6th November 2006, 01:15 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

Chris I see a building falling down under gravity.

Honestly, that's all I see I guess you see an explosion and are convinced of it but why keep showing the same thing to the same people. I do not see it we do not see it, mankind has been used!

Smiffy

6th November 2006, 01:30 PM

WOW! You really read all of that? You, my friend, are a hero :)
It was something I, erm, NEEDED to do! I have to hand it to Chris, he is one creative guy, pity he's wasting his time defending the indefensible...

Anyway, Chris, you initially asked for a "realistice" *shudder* explanation for the "free fall" of the towers, which has been duly provided. You clearly reject it, which does not change the fact that it is realistic, so please tell me why you are still here?

Smiffy

6th November 2006, 01:43 PM

Draw your own conclusions...
Cognitive distortion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cognitive therapy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_therapy) and its variants traditionally identify ten cognitive distortions that maintain negative thinking and help to maintain negative emotions. Eliminating these distortions and negative thought is said to improve mood and discourage maladies such as depression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_depression) and chronic anxiety (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anxiety). The process of learning to refute these distortions is called "cognitive restructuring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_restructuring)".

All-or-nothing thinking - thinking of things in absolute terms, like "always", "every" or "never". Few aspects of human behavior are so absolute. (See false dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma)).
Overgeneralization - taking isolated cases and using them to make wide generalizations. (See hasty generalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization)).
Mental filter - Focusing exclusively on certain, usually negative or upsetting, aspects of something while ignoring the rest, like a tiny imperfection in a piece of clothing. (See misleading vividness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misleading_vividness)).
Disqualifying the positive - continually "shooting down" positive experiences for arbitrary, ad hoc reasons. (See special pleading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading)).
Jumping to conclusions - assuming something negative where there is actually no evidence to support it. Two specific subtypes are also identified:
Mind reading - assuming the intentions of others
Fortune telling - guessing that things will turn out badly. (See slippery slope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope)).
Magnification and Minimization - exaggerating negatives and understating positives. Often the positive characteristics of other people are exaggerated and negatives understated. There is one subtype of magnification:
Catastrophizing - focusing on the worst possible outcome, however unlikely, or thinking that a situation is unbearable or impossible when it is really just uncomfortable.
Emotional reasoning - making decisions and arguments based on how you feel rather than objective reality. (See appeal to consequences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences)).
Making should statements - concentrating on what you think "should" or ought to be rather than the actual situation you are faced with, or having rigid rules which you think should always apply no matter what the circumstances are. (See wishful thinking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking)).
Labelling - related to overgeneralization, explaining by naming. Rather than describing the specific behavior, you assign a label to someone or yourself that puts them in absolute and unalterable terms.
Personalization (or attribution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution)) - Assuming you or others directly caused things when that may not have been the case. (See illusion of control (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion_of_control)). When applied to others this is an example of blame

tsig

6th November 2006, 01:43 PM

It was something I, erm, NEEDED to do! I have to hand it to Chris, he is one creative guy, pity he's wasting his time defending the indefensible...

Anyway, Chris, you initially asked for a "realistice" *shudder* explanation for the "free fall" of the towers, which has been duly provided. You clearly reject it, which does not change the fact that it is realistic, so please tell me why you are still here?

I guess chris sees what he says he sees, but while seeing is beliving, figuring is knowing.

The math is clear the buildings must fall.

Smiffy

6th November 2006, 01:49 PM

I don't think we should respond to Chris until he raises a different question because there is nothing more we can contribute.

Smiffy

6th November 2006, 01:53 PM

In fact that numbered list of cognitive distortions I posted applies to ALL his posts in one wayor another.

Architect

6th November 2006, 02:15 PM

If it looks like a nutcase, walks like a nutcase, talks like a nutcase and acts like a nutcase, it is a nutcase.

(edited for accuracy)

Oliver

6th November 2006, 02:23 PM

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?

bump

Smiffy

6th November 2006, 02:47 PM

bumpOliver, have you looked through the truthasaurus.com site? It's a total trip through the whole wacky world of all manner of existential philosophy and alternate realitiies! Truly inspired!! I love his movie reviews - "Minority Report" really did suck, but his interpretation totally floored me!
Ironically I just watched "The Seventh Seal" for the first time so my mind has really been messed around with today...

delphi_ote

6th November 2006, 03:26 PM

Ironically I just watched "The Seventh Seal" for the first time so my mind has really been messed around with today...
Try watching "The Seventh Seal", "Rashomon", and "The Last Temptation of Christ" all in a row.

In the future, I will be more careful about how I order the movies my Netflix queue! :D

Oliver

6th November 2006, 03:26 PM

Oliver, have you looked through the truthasaurus.com site? It's a total trip through the whole wacky world of all manner of existential philosophy and alternate realitiies! Truly inspired!! I love his movie reviews - "Minority Report" really did suck, but his interpretation totally floored me!
Ironically I just watched "The Seventh Seal" for the first time so my mind has really been messed around with today...

Well, i didn´t read everything i found - but the truthasaurus
was one of the more logical things he published in the internet.

And i should read the movie-reviews ... i missed them... :blush:

Hey Alfred! Why is the core still standing after the C4 did it´s job?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778&q=core+wtc

bonavada

6th November 2006, 04:06 PM

the below is very short excerpt from the story of Mickey Kross, one of the remarkable FDNY responders who had a miraculous escape on 9/11.

this man mentions "meteors" raining down on his way to the WTC,

any comment christophera?

v_CmZMkvQ_w

BV

Oliver

6th November 2006, 04:07 PM

bonavada

6th November 2006, 04:15 PM

WOW! This was fast. The video does not exist anymore... :eek:

oooops dunno what happened there........
anyway you can look at the full version. about 2 minutes in he talks about "meteors"
just wondering what chris might think about it :-]

yI7_ftokN6M

BV

Smiffy

6th November 2006, 04:20 PM

Try watching "The Seventh Seal", "Rashomon", and "The Last Temptation of Christ" all in a row.

In the future, I will be more careful about how I order the movies my Netflix queue! :D
Suggestions are noted for the future ;) I've only seen Kurosawa's Ran which is an incredible film BTW, he is undoubtably a genius but somehow I can't really fully connect with his films. I suppose film is off-topic so I shouldn't get too carried away :mad:
Try the triple-play of Possession, Koyaanisqatsi and A Clockwork Orange and then get back to me!!!

Smiffy

6th November 2006, 04:33 PM

Well, i didn´t read everything i found - but the truthasaurus
was one of the more logical things he published in the internet.

And i should read the movie-reviews ... i missed them... :blush:

Hey Alfred! Why is the core still standing after the C4 did it´s job?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778&q=core+wtc
I don't really know what to make of it. It's certainly got a lot of intriguing questions which would be infinitely more interesting to debate than "Groundhog Day" like this thread has become!
BTW one question Oliver - what is the significance of your avatar? Just curious, excuse my impertinence...:blush:

Bell

6th November 2006, 04:38 PM

BTW one question Oliver - what is the significance of your avatar? Just curious, excuse my impertinence...:blush:

That's my future girlfriend. Shame Oliver doesn't know it yet :boxedin:

Oliver

6th November 2006, 04:39 PM

That's my future girlfriend. Shame Oliver doesn't know it yet :boxedin:

*lol* :D

Smiffy

6th November 2006, 05:16 PM

*lol* :DIf that means what I think it does, all I can say is, he's got some competition! ;)

Smiffy

6th November 2006, 05:30 PM

Who would ever imagine a conspiracy thread started by a (how can I put it kindly...) fruitcake would turn into a dating service :eye-poppi

6th November 2006, 05:32 PM

Who would ever imagine a conspiracy thread started by a (how can I put it kindly...) fruitcake would turn into a dating service :eye-poppi

I require evidence that he contains nuts and fruits and is as hard as a rock. Or even that he has been passed around for at least five consecutive holidays.

DanKirby

6th November 2006, 05:40 PM

I require evidence that he contains nuts and fruits and is as hard as a rock. Or even that he has been passed around for at least five consecutive holidays.

Raw evidence, or will plain old un-raw evidence do?

Oliver

6th November 2006, 05:44 PM

Raw evidence, or will plain old un-raw evidence do?

Well, if it's not raw evidence, then it isn't evidence at all.

Right, Chrissy?

Smiffy

6th November 2006, 05:51 PM

Oh no, don't wake him up again! He might finally have given up! Unlikely I know, but hey, it's possible...

Mobyseven

6th November 2006, 05:53 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.

Explosion != Explosives

Besides which:

It doesn't look like an explosion caused by explosives. It looks like (as someone said) the kind of 'explosion' you get when you quickly compress a bag of flour.

It doesn't walk like an explosion. I find explosions have a bit of a swing in their step.

It doesn't talk like an explosion. Explosions talk more like Richard Nixon.

It doesn't act like an explosion. It acts like a collapsing skyscraper. I wonder why that is?

What non-point were you trying to make again?

Dragon

6th November 2006, 05:57 PM

Raw evidence? Huh!
There seems to be an abundance of the cooked sort on his poxy site.

Mobyseven

6th November 2006, 05:57 PM

Oooookay... Who was the first one that made jokes and hijacked this thread?

I believe that would be Christophera.

firecoins

6th November 2006, 06:00 PM

It doesn't look like an explosion caused by explosives. It looks like (as someone said) the kind of 'explosion' you get when you quickly compress a bag of flour.

I thought my blag of flour was rigged because you can see flour going up and over. I guess it had a concret core because steel column flour bags don't collapse so easily.

Smiffy

6th November 2006, 06:05 PM

Oooookay... Who was the first one that made jokes and hijacked this thread? http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107451db56d36f14.gif http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/char118.gif http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107451d93669e73a.gif
Surely you weren't pointing the finger at ME? :confused: If any thread NEEDED derailing, it's this one! But seriously, we should resist the temptation to respond to Chris until he genuinely has something new to say - for the sake of all our sanity :faint: Anyway I need sleep now - catch up at the funny farm tomorrow1

Oliver

6th November 2006, 06:07 PM

I believe that would be Christophera.

*lol* I think so, too - and he did it at the same moment
when he started the free fall garbage dump...

BTW: Did someone recognized this thread (13,871 replies) http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107451da7e781cb2.gif
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=60694

Mobyseven

6th November 2006, 06:21 PM

If this thread makes it to 10,000, I will present Christophera with an award...

A bag of flour with a concrete core.

jsfisher

6th November 2006, 07:17 PM

I don't understand everyone's reluctance to accept the truth.

Let me recount the full history of this foul and vile plot.

As everyone knows, the US government was infiltrated by the new world order some 50 years ago. It was a Tuesday. As we all know, infiltration of the US government is necessary for global domination, but not sufficient. The lynch-pin to the evil master plan had to be complete and utter take-over of, dare I say it, airport security.

It is self-evident that if you can't Xray luggage and run a magnetic wand near someone's crotch, you can't be successful in taking over the world.

JFK discovered the plot, and, well, you know the rest. That's fodder for a different thread.

But I digress. In the late 1960's, a brilliant and diabolical plan was launched. Construction of the World Trade Center was started, and, just according to plan, the entire steel framing was crusted with RDX explosives. A simple *BOOM* and both towers could be dropped.

Proper diabolical plans cannot be rushed, and this one was no exception. Two minor obstacles had to be dealt with before things that go *BOOM*. First, since all the building records had been falsified to indicate an entirely steel constuction, the conspirators would need to wait for the collective memory of all involved in the consturction to forget about the concrete core. Thanks to fluoride in the water supply, about 35 years would prove sufficient.

Second, a PBS documentary produced back when nobody watched PBS needed to "disappear." The production cronicled the towers' construction, including the concrete core and the RDX coating. As fate would have it, though, the popularity of the Tickle-me-Elmo doll coupled with the fact the sole remaining copy was BetaMAX assured its disappearance forever.

With the two obstacles eliminated, all that was needed was "trigger event" that would cause plausible cover for mischief. Buildings don't just fall down for no reason, after all, and if people knew it was blown up (er, down), it would be game over for the crotch wands.

On August 28, 2001, another Tuesday by the way, a top-secret internal document reported the successful conclusion of both the flouride and Tickle-me-Elmo campaigns. Two weeks later, as could have easily been predicted, two large jet airplanes, piloted by religious zealots who each miscalculated turn radii banking over Manhattan taking in a dramatic view of the Hudson River, smacked into the two towers.

Smash, smash, *BOOM, *BOOM*, and the rest is history.

By the way, the reason you need to remove your shoes in airports is because the new world order has invested heavily in Odor Eaters.

What's not to believe?

Blue Mountain

6th November 2006, 08:24 PM

Picking up from page 133 ...

999,988 bottles of beer on the wall, 999,988 bottles of beer,

Take one down, pass it arouns, 999,993 bottles of beer on the wall...

I bought a Six-Pack for some thirsty guys in here. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107452fdd37546bc.gif

999,988 bottles of beer on the wall, 999,988 bottles of beer,

Take one down, pass it around, 999,987 bottles of beer on the wall...

Christophera

6th November 2006, 08:58 PM

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.

Apparently you felt compelled to make a defacto confession that you wouldn't know a lie if you told one. History and facts of the attacks are quite clear and illogical within the officila story.

Mobyseven

6th November 2006, 09:12 PM

History and facts of the attacks are quite clear and illogical.

Language awards aside, I think this should be nominated for "Contradiction of The Week".

How exactly can a fact be both 'clear' and 'illogical'?

And just to pre-empt you, you haven't been taken out of context here. This is your own doing.

Oliver

6th November 2006, 09:30 PM

@BELZ...

Hello, Belz. No kidding here:

If you talk long enough about this
s*it you will someday enter the world
where he lives.

And there is no way back....

Christophera

6th November 2006, 09:33 PM

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

Okay, I answer that now

We need comprehensive logic here. One cannot bite off a select piece of an event and apply logic and expect it to suffice in the case of exposing an infiltrated government and 3000 capitol crimes.

That 2 towers would fall at near free fall speeds almost identically to the ground demands consideration of everything OUTSIDE the official story because due process was violated in dealing with capitol crimes.

The last paragraph justifies the action of NOT attempting to explain events with plane impacts and fires to justifiably determine if an explanation for the identical near free falls can be explained because it is absolutely unheard of, PERIOD.

Making the below sentence preposterous with its implication of collapse.

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

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

Spelling is not important here. The fact that 3000 humans were murdered and a government that is supposed to be dedicated to the well being of its people through lawful performance is what is important.

Complex events are not easy to analyse PARTICUARLY if you do not have enough information. I happen to have more than most people and so can provide logical, comprehensive analysis

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

The consideration of delay was something I had though of because it is an issue and I can only compensate for it logically with the proposition that Atta was indeed an accomplished pilot and decided beforehand and adjusted his flight path accordingly. It was not a last minute consideration.

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..

Are you asking to have it both ways. Atta cannot think of whacking WTC 1 lower and instead hits it further up where it will do less damage, but the other pilot who showed up to find his target on fire had to compensate and in the process cannot get a direct hit and almost misses but is considered by you to be deciding to hit it lower?

It doesn't make sense within human nature and events as they have happened. What does make sense is that the pilots knew each others targets and were told that impacts at certain elevations would do more damage.

No, ............... identical collapse does not make sense to the ground twice, never.

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

There were carefully considered risks. Leaving the planes in the control of bonafied terrorists only exposed the perps to an out of sequence impact/fall sequence. You are helping to cover for that, as they anticipated. The use of not fully controlled pilots or remotes isolated them and maintaining anonymity while reinforcing/creating what appears as true terrorist attacks.

Dust can be many colors. Your point is empty.

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 ?

The dust can only be concrete, oh perhaps some gypsum and asbestos. Most importantly is the materials seen are mineral and the huge quantities of it as well as obvious sand and gravel belie amounts present in steel cored buildings. Not to mention the total absence of severe horizontal blasts needed to cut steel core columns with unconstrained explosions. recall over 1300 of these would be needed and they would not leave cuts that looked like that on the left here. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc.box.shear.torch.gif)

Christophera

6th November 2006, 09:35 PM

Language awards aside, I think this should be nominated for "Contradiction of The Week".

How exactly can a fact be both 'clear' and 'logical'?

And just to pre-empt you, you haven't been taken out of context here. This is your own doing.

I've added to correct what what might be seen as a typo.

Evidence your vague assertion if you still have one.

Christophera

6th November 2006, 09:44 PM

If I look like a fraud, walk like a fraud, talk like a fraud and act like a fraud, I am a fraud because I have no evidence.

(edited for accuracy)

Christophera

6th November 2006, 11:01 PM

Well, if it's not raw evidence, then it isn't evidence at all.

Right, Chrissy?

All things we might deem evidence can be qualified as real evidence by raw evidence which is absolutely real.

As absolute as the raw evidence of images are, it is limited in its use by what can be identified. This I recognize and because of my experience and witnessing the construction of WTC1 via an intimate video produced by PBS (then removed from their archives and their history) in 1987 which I saw in 1990.

Can you twist this into something that justifies ignoring lies that murderers hide behind? Go ahead, give it a try, I know you can do it.

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

Bell

7th November 2006, 01:00 AM

Apparently you felt compelled to make a defacto confession that you wouldn't know a lie if you told one. History and facts of the attacks are quite clear and illogical within the officila story.

So what? Where is your evidence? Like written statements or videotaped confessions or interviews with the pilots? You keep on failing to show us evidence that the planes hit the wrong towers and the wrong tower fell first. And while you're at it, evidence of the fires going out would also be much appreciated. I asked you multiple times before, and you failed to deliver each and every time. Stop sidestepping. Put up or shut up.

Belz...

7th November 2006, 04:28 AM

What is everything Christopheria has ever posted? I'll take nonsense for $300, Alex.

Alex - "It was built to later demolition but has no structural component."

Delphi - "What is the concrete core."

Belz...

7th November 2006, 04:45 AM

We need comprehensive logic here. One cannot bite off a select piece of an event and apply logic and expect it to suffice in the case of exposing an infiltrated government and 3000 capitol crimes.

But that's not what we're trying to do here, chris. We're trying to make sense of your theory, which is self-contradictory. If it bears out, then we can start making a case for your "capitol" crimes.

The last paragraph justifies the action of NOT attempting to explain events with plane impacts and fires to justifiably determine if an explanation for the identical near free falls can be explained because it is absolutely unheard of, PERIOD.

It was shown to you, repeatedly, that the towers did NOT fall at speeds anywhere NEAR "free fall". You can clearly see the debris falling AHEAD of the rest.

Making the below sentence preposterous with its implication of collapse.

No, it isn't. The problem is that you're assuming your conclusion. You're using your conclusion to determine what the evidence means, without actually going through due process, namely to examine the evidence from all possible angles. The only angle you've considered is the concrete.

Spelling is not important here.

I believe it is very important. If one cannot express his thoughts properly, how can that person expect to be understood ?

Complex events are not easy to analyse PARTICUARLY if you do not have enough information.

Yes, and all you have is pictures that you cannot interpret properly and a 15 year-old documentary that you cannot produce, and that you try to recall using a demonstratably faulty memory.

The consideration of delay was something I had though of because it is an issue and I can only compensate for it logically with the proposition that Atta was indeed an accomplished pilot and decided beforehand and adjusted his flight path accordingly. It was not a last minute consideration.

Do you have evidence for this, or is it just further speculation ?

Atta cannot think of whacking WTC 1 lower and instead hits it further up where it will do less damage, but the other pilot who showed up to find his target on fire had to compensate and in the process cannot get a direct hit and almost misses but is considered by you to be deciding to hit it lower?

It's not "considered by me" I simply stated a bare possibility.

Also, "almost misses" is a ridiculous phrase in this instance. The whole plane went into the tower.

What does make sense is that the pilots knew each others targets and were told that impacts at certain elevations would do more damage.

Do you have evidence for this, or is it just further speculation ?

No, ............... identical collapse does not make sense to the ground twice, never.

Argument from personal incredulity. Can you show that they shouldn't have collapsed in the same way ? Can you show that they DID collapse in the same way ? I think they didn't.

There were carefully considered risks. Leaving the planes in the control of bonafied terrorists only exposed the perps to an out of sequence impact/fall sequence.

"hit the tower with the antenna" isn't a complicated command. As I've said, the conspirators are inept. They should've just detonated a bomb in the basement and be done with it.

You are helping to cover for that, as they anticipated.

Mind-reading again ?

the use of not fully controlled pilots or remotes isolated them and maintaining anonymity while reinforcing/creating what appears as true terrorist attacks.

Ridiculous. Live people are MORE risky because they could have been captured and interrogated.

The dust can only be concrete, oh perhaps some gypsum and asbestos.

"Only" concrete... but "perhaps" something else ?

That proves my point, chris. You have NO idea what the dust is made of and you admit that it IS dust. Therefore your solid, pre-detonation concrete core doesn't exist on that picture by your own admission.

Belz...

7th November 2006, 04:47 AM

All things we might deem evidence can be qualified as real evidence by raw evidence which is absolutely real.

This so doesn't make sense.

As absolute as the raw evidence of images are, it is limited in its use by what can be identified. This I recognize and because of my experience and witnessing the construction of WTC1 via an intimate video produced by PBS (then removed from their archives and their history) in 1987 which I saw in 1990.

Speculation, again. Instead of doubting your own, admittedly faulty memory, you decide to trust it 100% and doubt all the REST of the world. Don't you see a problem with that, chris ?

Mobyseven

7th November 2006, 05:04 AM

Apparently you felt compelled to make a defacto confession that you wouldn't know a lie if you told one. History and facts of the attacks are quite clear and illogical within the officila story.

I've added to correct what what might be seen as a typo.

Evidence your vague assertion if you still have one.

Er...so you 'corrected' yourself not by removing the contradicting lexemes, but by tacking on a prepositional phrase that in no way changes the fact that "...clear and illogical [facts]..." is a contradiction.

It is as if I said, "The lake is crystal clear and muddy," and then when someone pointed out the contadiction to change that to, "The lake is crystal clear and muddy on Wednesdays."

Notice how the contradiction hasn't been removed, I've simply tacked on a prepositional phrase. This is exactly what you have done.

Would you like to correct yourself once again? Until you are actually able to express yourself in a precise and logical manner, it is doubtful that you will be taken seriously.

bonavada

7th November 2006, 05:25 AM

This I recognize and because of my experience and witnessing the construction of WTC1 via an intimate video produced by PBS (then removed from their archives and their history) in 1987 which I saw in 1990.

oddly, it seems the same might have happened to your "Encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation" (sic) or will you reply and provide

AN ISBN NUMBER FOR THIS BOOK?

BV

bonavada

7th November 2006, 05:31 AM

I don't understand everyone's reluctance to accept the truth.
Let me recount the full history of this foul and vile plot.

<snip>

What's not to believe?

:-]

BTW dontcha know? the pixies did it!
checkout my sig, all is explained there.

BV

bonavada

7th November 2006, 06:08 AM

Can you twist this into something that justifies ignoring lies that murderers hide behind? Go ahead, give it a try, I know you can do it.

<spam removed> (http://www.spam.removed.com)

YOU have twisted all sorts of evidence in a spectacularly inept, stupid attempt to involve numerous innocent people in your cretinous concrete core conspiracy. as your web of idiocy unwound you have accused (off the top of my head),

US gov:
PBS:
NIST:
FEMA:
American Natives:
NYPA:

and many others i can't remember right now, of direct involvement or of being accessories after the fact in the events of 9/11.

i'm sure that list will grow and grow until it includes the mailman and your next-door neighbours cat. before that chris i'd suggest you go and see a frickin shrink

BV

firecoins

7th November 2006, 06:22 AM

NYPA:

The Port Authority of NY and NJ or simply referred to as the Port Authority. Sorry I have a stick up my behind about agency names.

bonavada

7th November 2006, 06:47 AM

The Port Authority of NY and NJ or simply referred to as the Port Authority. Sorry I have a stick up my behind about agency names.

np thanks

over here we have the "British Port Authority" a government body who, i think, manage all ports in the UK. is the PA a US government agency as such?

BV

Oliver

7th November 2006, 06:50 AM

@BELZ...

Hello, Belz. No kidding here:

If you talk long enough about this
s*it you will someday enter the world
where he lives.

And there is NO WAY OUT....

Just in case you missed it, Belz. I was NOT joking.

Belz...

7th November 2006, 07:05 AM

Just in case you missed it, Belz. I was NOT joking.

Uh-huh.

Any other pertinent thoughts ?

Oliver

7th November 2006, 07:11 AM

Uh-huh.

Any other pertinent thoughts ?

Yes, this discussion is the most senseless i´ve seen
so far in my whole life. And the fact that you know this...

Smiffy

7th November 2006, 07:25 AM

Chris, you really are the master of cognitive distortions. A textbook example.

We need comprehensive logic here. One cannot bite off a select piece of an event and apply logic and expect it to suffice in the case of exposing an infiltrated government and 3000 capitol crimes.

Emotional reasoning - making decisions and arguments based on how you feel rather than objective reality. (See appeal to consequences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences)).

Making should statements - concentrating on what you think "should" or ought to be rather than the actual situation you are faced with, or having rigid rules which you think should always apply no matter what the circumstances are. (See wishful thinking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking)).

That 2 towers would fall at near free fall speeds almost identically to the ground demands consideration of everything OUTSIDE the official story because due process was violated in dealing with capitol crimes.

All-or-nothing thinking - thinking of things in absolute terms, like "always", "every" or "never". Few aspects of human behavior are so absolute. (See false dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma)).

The last paragraph justifies the action of NOT attempting to explain events with plane impacts and fires to justifiably determine if an explanation for the identical near free falls can be explained because it is absolutely unheard of, PERIOD.

Making the below sentence preposterous with its implication of collapse.

Overgeneralization - taking isolated cases and using them to make wide generalizations. (See hasty generalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization)).

Mental filter - Focusing exclusively on certain, usually negative or upsetting, aspects of something while ignoring the rest, like a tiny imperfection in a piece of clothing. (See misleading vividness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misleading_vividness)).

Spelling is not important here. The fact that 3000 humans were murdered and a government that is supposed to be dedicated to the well being of its people through lawful performance is what is important.

Jumping to conclusions - assuming something negative where there is actually no evidence to support it. Two specific subtypes are also identified:
Mind reading - assuming the intentions of others
Fortune telling - guessing that things will turn out badly. (See slippery slope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope)).Magnification and Minimization - exaggerating negatives and understating positives. Often the positive characteristics of other people are exaggerated and negatives understated. There is one subtype of magnification:
Catastrophizing - focusing on the worst possible outcome, however unlikely, or thinking that a situation is unbearable or impossible when it is really just uncomfortable.
Complex events are not easy to analyse PARTICUARLY if you do not have enough information. I happen to have more than most people and so can provide logical, comprehensive analysis

Disqualifying the positive - continually "shooting down" positive experiences for arbitrary, ad hoc reasons. (See special pleading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading)).

The consideration of delay was something I had though of because it is an issue and I can only compensate for it logically with the proposition that Atta was indeed an accomplished pilot and decided beforehand and adjusted his flight path accordingly. It was not a last minute consideration.

Personalization (or attribution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution)) - Assuming you or others directly caused things when that may not have been the case. (See illusion of control (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion_of_control)). When applied to others this is an example of blame.

Are you asking to have it both ways. Atta cannot think of whacking WTC 1 lower and instead hits it further up where it will do less damage, but the other pilot who showed up to find his target on fire had to compensate and in the process cannot get a direct hit and almost misses but is considered by you to be deciding to hit it lower?

It doesn't make sense within human nature and events as they have happened. What does make sense is that the pilots knew each others targets and were told that impacts at certain elevations would do more damage.

Labelling - related to overgeneralization, explaining by naming. Rather than describing the specific behavior, you assign a label to someone or yourself that puts them in absolute and unalterable terms.

No, ............... identical collapse does not make sense to the ground twice, never.

There were carefully considered risks. Leaving the planes in the control of bonafied terrorists only exposed the perps to an out of sequence impact/fall sequence. You are helping to cover for that, as they anticipated. The use of not fully controlled pilots or remotes isolated them and maintaining anonymity while reinforcing/creating what appears as true terrorist attacks.

Well done, in one post you have demonstrated every cognitive distortion that you accuse continually of others! I salute you, sir!

Regnad Kcin

7th November 2006, 07:30 AM

Apparently you felt compelled to make a defacto confession that you wouldn't know a lie if you told one...Sayeth the liar.

Smiffy

7th November 2006, 07:35 AM

Oliver, you never answered my question - is your avatar actually you because I always assumed Oliver was a boys name (I'm English BTW, living in Ireland). I'm confused :confused:

firecoins

7th November 2006, 07:42 AM

np thanks

over here we have the "British Port Authority" a government body who, i think, manage all ports in the UK. is the PA a US government agency as such?

BV
It is not affiliated with the US federal government. It is a quazi interstate government agency between the states on NY and NJ. It controls interstate transportation, bridges & tunnels between NY and NJ and airports and seaports.

http://www.panynj.gov/AboutthePortAuthority/

http://www.panynj.gov/AboutthePortAuthority/FacilitiesandServices/

firecoins

7th November 2006, 07:46 AM

Chris, you really are the master of cognitive distortions. A textbook example.

Emotional reasoning - making decisions and arguments based on how you feel rather than objective reality. (See appeal to consequences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences)).

Making should statements - concentrating on what you think "should" or ought to be rather than the actual situation you are faced with, or having rigid rules which you think should always apply no matter what the circumstances are. (See wishful thinking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking)).

All-or-nothing thinking - thinking of things in absolute terms, like "always", "every" or "never". Few aspects of human behavior are so absolute. (See false dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma)).

Overgeneralization - taking isolated cases and using them to make wide generalizations. (See hasty generalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization)).

Mental filter - Focusing exclusively on certain, usually negative or upsetting, aspects of something while ignoring the rest, like a tiny imperfection in a piece of clothing. (See misleading vividness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misleading_vividness)).

Jumping to conclusions - assuming something negative where there is actually no evidence to support it. Two specific subtypes are also identified:

Mind reading - assuming the intentions of others
Fortune telling - guessing that things will turn out badly. (See slippery slope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope)).Magnification and Minimization - exaggerating negatives and understating positives. Often the positive characteristics of other people are exaggerated and negatives understated. There is one subtype of magnification:

Catastrophizing - focusing on the worst possible outcome, however unlikely, or thinking that a situation is unbearable or impossible when it is really just uncomfortable.Disqualifying the positive - continually "shooting down" positive experiences for arbitrary, ad hoc reasons. (See special pleading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading)).

Personalization (or attribution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution)) - Assuming you or others directly caused things when that may not have been the case. (See illusion of control (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion_of_control)). When applied to others this is an example of blame.

Labelling - related to overgeneralization, explaining by naming. Rather than describing the specific behavior, you assign a label to someone or yourself that puts them in absolute and unalterable terms.

Well done, in one post you have demonstrated every cognitive distortion that you accuse continually of others! I salute you, sir!
He has already stated nothing will convince him.

Oliver

7th November 2006, 07:54 AM

Oliver, you never answered my question - is your avatar actually you because I always assumed Oliver was a boys name (I'm English BTW, living in Ireland). I'm confused :confused:

Oops - Sorry, i thought you knew it from others
in here. It´s my loved girlfriend and i use her as
my Avatar because she´s keeping me friendly if
i talk to guys like pDOH... :)

Smiffy

7th November 2006, 08:07 AM

He has already stated nothing will convince him.
I know, but I just wanted to point out that his favourite term (cognitive distortion) that he loves so much is ironically the exact description of his posts. I figured that using his own terms against him nullifies his personal attacks. Well it might work...

Smiffy

7th November 2006, 08:10 AM

Oops - Sorry, i thought you knew it from others
in here. It´s my loved girlfriend and i use her as
my Avatar because she´s keeping me friendly if
i talk to guys like pDOH... :)
Ah-hah, I see now... :cool:

Christophera

7th November 2006, 08:25 AM

So what? Where is your evidence? Like written statements or videotaped confessions or interviews with the pilots? You keep on failing to show us evidence that the planes hit the wrong towers and the wrong tower fell first. And while you're at it, evidence of the fires going out would also be much appreciated. I asked you multiple times before, and you failed to deliver each and every time. Stop sidestepping. Put up or shut up.

As long as you fail to use common sense you will fail to percieve raw evidence which exists as common knowledge.

Smiffy

7th November 2006, 08:25 AM

What about THIS picture Chris, care to explain it away?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v450/Henkie54/Amsterdam%20update%20pics/2004_080101-08-20040027.jpg

Smiffy

7th November 2006, 08:34 AM

As long as you fail to use common sense you will fail to percieve raw evidence which exists as common knowledge.
Meaningless drivel. Is that really the best you can do? Another cognitive distortion? It's not fooling anybody, not even you...

bonavada

7th November 2006, 08:35 AM

It is not affiliated with the US federal government. It is a quasi interstate government agecy between the states on NY and NJ. It controls interstate transportation, bridges & tunnels between NY and NJ and airports and seaports.

http://www.panynj.gov/AboutthePortAuthority/

http://www.panynj.gov/AboutthePortAuthority/FacilitiesandServices/

tnx

BV

Belz...

7th November 2006, 09:09 AM

As long as you fail to use common sense you will fail to percieve raw evidence which exists as common knowledge.

You mean, the same common sense that tells you the Earth is flat and heavier objects fall faster ?

Belz...

7th November 2006, 09:10 AM

Yes, this discussion is the most senseless i´ve seen
so far in my whole life. And the fact that you know this...

At least what I say has substance, and relevance to the topic, Oliver.

Smiffy

7th November 2006, 09:15 AM

I can't see a concrete core, can you? (http://my.fit.edu/%7Erosiene/1966wtc.jpg)

Oliver

7th November 2006, 09:19 AM

I can't see a concrete core, can you? (http://my.fit.edu/%7Erosiene/1966wtc.jpg)

Hint: He can and never will change his mind.
I know, sick people are strange.

Smiffy

7th November 2006, 09:40 AM

I seem to recall that Chris claimed that the alleged concrete core was poured seven stories behind construction. Take a look at this picture here (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v450/Henkie54/Amsterdam%20update%20pics/2004_080101-08-20040027.jpg)
I haven't seen it in this thread before. Can anyone back up my assertion that this shows construction more than seven stories high on BOTH towers and yet no sign of a concrete core yet? Is it possibly the "smoking gun" to Chris' ficticious construction plan? It could well be...

Bell

7th November 2006, 10:30 AM

As long as you fail to use common sense you will fail to percieve raw evidence which exists as common knowledge.

And how would you know I'll fail to percieve your evidence, as long as you don't show me your evidence of the planes hitting the wrong towers, or the wrong tower falling first, or the fires going out? Oh right, you don't have it! But if you do insist that you have...

Show me the evidence!

... and then we will see if I'm able to use common sense in percieving your raw evidence. Put up or shut up. Last call, Christophera. If you fail this time, it has been proven that you do not posses said evidence, meaning you are lying, and your argument then becomes meaningless.

And it is not just me, you are talking to Christophera. You will be exposing yourself as a liar to all the other posters. That is, the ones that haven't yet decided that you are a liar (hi, Regnad Kcin).

Regnad Kcin

7th November 2006, 10:53 AM

...And it is not just me, you are talking to Christophera. You will be exposing yourself as a liar to all the other posters. That is, the ones that haven't yet decided that you are a liar (hi, Regnad Kcin).Well, I didn't exactly "decide" he is a liar; it is simply self-evident.

How the boy can lie while pretending to be the nation's savior (by way of posting on Internet discussion forums, no less) is fascinating in the extreme.

bonavada

7th November 2006, 11:01 AM

Christophera........re:your "Encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation" (sic) will you reply and provide

AN ISBN NUMBER FOR THIS BOOK?

PLEASE?

BV

Oliver

7th November 2006, 11:33 AM

At least what I say has substance, and relevance to the topic, Oliver.

You are WRONG! The free fall is disproved. PERIOD!

YOU REMEMBER THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD, DO YOU!??? :rolleyes:

Architect

7th November 2006, 11:34 AM

If I look like a fraud, walk like a fraud, talk like a fraud and act like a fraud, I am a fraud because I have no evidence.

That seems very self aware of you, for a change

Jedi_Master

7th November 2006, 11:47 AM

Howdy folks...

FWIW, here is a PBS documentary on the WTC's. I can't post links yet so perhaps someone can fix them for me...

Part 1
youtube.com/watch?v=z2yhWJrMIZA&mode=related&search=

Part 2
youtube.com/watch?v=oUU-_toZooE

Part 3
youtube.com/watch?v=FIqf-AKJMKI

And...I don't see any concrete in the core...

Belz...

7th November 2006, 12:05 PM

You are WRONG! The free fall is disproved. PERIOD!

YOU REMEMBER THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD, DO YOU!???:rolleyes:

You are aware, of course, that I don't actually AGREE with chris, right ?

Oliver

7th November 2006, 12:07 PM

You are aware, of course, that I don't actually AGREE with chris, right ?

You are fading away from my point:

YOU REMEMBER THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD, DO YOU!??? :rolleyes:

Belz...

7th November 2006, 12:08 PM

That it's realistice ?

Oliver

7th November 2006, 12:12 PM

That it's realistice ?

*LOL* :D No, this belongs to another thread...
I was talking about the "Free Fall" and this
issue has passed. Thread accomplished... ;)

Belz...

7th November 2006, 12:14 PM

*LOL* :D No, this belongs to another thread...
I was talking about the "Free Fall" and this
issue has passed. Thread accomplished... ;)

You are aware that threads evolve somewhat, right ? This has been about the concrete core since the begining. So we're still smack in the middle of the subject.

Your posts, however...

Oliver

7th November 2006, 12:21 PM

You are aware that threads evolve somewhat, right ? This has been about the concrete core since the begining. So we're still smack in the middle of the subject.

Your posts, however...

*LOL* :D I like you, really. But this mesage of mine was
not meant as joke. It was a warning. Alfred has a serious
problem. You simply dont seem to understand it. I am 33
years old. May i ask how old you are after seeing your
picture at your member-profile?

7th November 2006, 12:32 PM

If we're gonna derail a thread, can't we stick to recipes and kittens? For Norbert's sake...

Bell

7th November 2006, 12:38 PM

If we're gonna derail a thread, can't we stick to recipes and kittens? For Norbert's sake...

Take two kittens, 1 white, 1 red.
Put said kittens in blender.
Chop for 2 minutes.
Serve cold.

Oliver

7th November 2006, 12:39 PM

If we're gonna derail a thread, can't we stick to recipes and kittens? For Norbert's sake...

No we can NOT derail from the issue. Otherwise Alfred and Belz
will start whining to darat: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57426&page=153

;)

Powa

7th November 2006, 12:48 PM

Oliver

7th November 2006, 12:51 PM

Oliver, it seems this thread is getting to you. If it bothers you so much, may I suggest you not participate in it at least for a while? Relax, man, because you sometimes irritate me more than Chris. And that's saying something. :D

Take a chill pill and call me in the morning.

I´m not reading Alfred´s BS at all but I want to
know Belz´s answer since the initial question of
this thread is answered. I have to apologize if i
irritate you, Powa... :o

Christophera

7th November 2006, 12:59 PM

oddly, it seems the same might have happened to your "Encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation" (sic) and Inovation that was published in 1992 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/oxfordarchcore.jpg) or will you reply and provide

AN ISBN NUMBER FOR THIS BOOK?

BV

It was scanned by seatnineb in a library in England. I have no idea. Ask him.

Meanwhile, do you have any raw evidence from the demolition of the 47, 1,300 foot steel core column?

Christophera

7th November 2006, 01:05 PM

Chris, you really are the master of cognitive distortions. A textbook example.

Emotional reasoning - making decisions and arguments based on how you feel rather than objective reality. (See appeal to consequences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences)).

Making should statements - concentrating on what you think "should" or ought to be rather than the actual situation you are faced with, or having rigid rules which you think should always apply no matter what the circumstances are. (See wishful thinking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking)).

All-or-nothing thinking - thinking of things in absolute terms, like "always", "every" or "never". Few aspects of human behavior are so absolute. (See false dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma)).

Overgeneralization - taking isolated cases and using them to make wide generalizations. (See hasty generalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization)).

Mental filter - Focusing exclusively on certain, usually negative or upsetting, aspects of something while ignoring the rest, like a tiny imperfection in a piece of clothing. (See misleading vividness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misleading_vividness)).

Jumping to conclusions - assuming something negative where there is actually no evidence to support it. Two specific subtypes are also identified:
Mind reading - assuming the intentions of others
Fortune telling - guessing that things will turn out badly. (See slippery slope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope)).Magnification and Minimization - exaggerating negatives and understating positives. Often the positive characteristics of other people are exaggerated and negatives understated. There is one subtype of magnification:
Catastrophizing - focusing on the worst possible outcome, however unlikely, or thinking that a situation is unbearable or impossible when it is really just uncomfortable.
Disqualifying the positive - continually "shooting down" positive experiences for arbitrary, ad hoc reasons. (See special pleading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading)).

Personalization (or attribution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution)) - Assuming you or others directly caused things when that may not have been the case. (See illusion of control (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion_of_control)). When applied to others this is an example of blame.

Labelling - related to overgeneralization, explaining by naming. Rather than describing the specific behavior, you assign a label to someone or yourself that puts them in absolute and unalterable terms.

Well done, in one post you have demonstrated every cognitive distortion that you accuse continually of others! I salute you, sir!

Simply listing cognitive distortions does not suffice. You have to show how you think I am distorting. You have not done that.

You are faking it.

And, ........ you forgot to mention the critical factor.

Why one distorts.

There are absolutely legitimate reasons.

bonavada

7th November 2006, 01:06 PM

It was scanned by seatnineb in a library in England. I have no idea. Ask him.

who TF is seatnineb?

BV

Christophera

7th November 2006, 01:09 PM

Picking up from page 133 ...

999,988 bottles of beer on the wall, 999,988 bottles of beer,

Take one down, pass it around, 999,987 bottles of beer on the wall... (http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org/?Media=PlayFlash)

Help for you.

Christophera

7th November 2006, 01:10 PM

who TF is seatnineb?

BV

Find him at democratic underground. I'm banned there.

Did you find raw evidence of the 47, 1.300 foot core columns?

bonavada

7th November 2006, 01:10 PM

Meanwhile, do you have any raw evidence from the demolition of the 47, 1,300 foot steel core column?

HOWS THIS FOR STARTERS?????

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748454a8c1e46c64.jpg

BV

Christophera

7th November 2006, 01:12 PM

Er...so you 'corrected' yourself not by removing the contradicting lexemes, but by tacking on a prepositional phrase that in no way changes the fact that "...clear and illogical [facts]..." is a contradiction.

It is as if I said, "The lake is crystal clear and muddy," and then when someone pointed out the contadiction to change that to, "The lake is crystal clear and muddy on Wednesdays."

Notice how the contradiction hasn't been removed, I've simply tacked on a prepositional phrase. This is exactly what you have done.

Would you like to correct yourself once again? Until you are actually able to express yourself in a precise and logical manner, it is doubtful that you will be taken seriously.

So, ......... if you understood what I meant, is grammer more important than justice in the case of 3,000 capitol crimes?

Bell

7th November 2006, 01:14 PM

Simply listing cognitive distortions does not suffice. You have to show how you think I am distorting. You have not done that.

You are faking it.

And, ........ you forgot to mention the critical factor.

Why one distorts.

There are absolutely legitimate reasons.

Simply listing absurd claims about concrete cores, planes hitting wrong towers, fires going out and wrong tower falling first does not suffice. You have to show how you think concrete cores, planes hitting wrong towers, fires going out and wrong tower falling first are true. You have not done that.

You are faking it.

And, ........ you forgot to mention the critical factor.

Why one claims absurdities.

There are absolutely legitimate reasons.

Christophera

7th November 2006, 01:14 PM

HOWS THIS FOR STARTERS?????

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748454a8c1e46c64.jpg

BV

It does not compare in anyway to this evidence of the concrete core of WTC 2. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) You are presenting a bogus, misrepresentation. The evidence of the concrete core should show some of the suppposed 47, 1300 steel columns and it does not. No image does.

Christophera

7th November 2006, 01:16 PM

Simply listing absurd claims about concrete cores, planes hitting wrong towers, fires going out and wrong tower falling first does not suffice. You have to show how you think concrete cores, planes hitting wrong towers, fires going out and wrong tower falling first are true. You have not done that.

You are faking it.

And, ........ you forgot to mention the critical factor.

Why one claims absurdities.

There are absolutely legitimate reasons.

What is your reason for supporting the absurdity of collapse?

Bell

7th November 2006, 01:17 PM

What is your reason for supporting the absurdity of collapse?

What is your reason for not showing me the requested evidence?

bonavada

7th November 2006, 01:19 PM

Find him at democratic underground. I'm banned there.

not up to me to establish YOUR source! i think you'll find it's your job.

seems like another non-existent source just like the time-warping mohawk, the "wiped" PBS documentary, and the poor the reticent retired engineer you badgered into signing a vague confession.

you really are scraping the barrel chris. your lies are dumbfounding.

BV

I less than three logic

7th November 2006, 01:21 PM

Oliver

7th November 2006, 01:24 PM

Ridiculous font sizes, colors, or forgetting the caps lock on does not change the meaning of what you write, nor does it make what you say true. It all reads the same. At best, the formatting is ignored, at worst it makes you look silly and incompetent.

*lol* So you are saying you are able to convince Alfred
and his concrete core???? ;) People get angry if they are
talking to a wall - what do you suspect?

bonavada

7th November 2006, 01:27 PM

It does not compare in anyway to this evidence of the concrete core of WTC 2. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) You are presenting a bogus, misrepresentation.

your link is empty........[ETA seems to be working now sorry]

The evidence of the concrete core should show some of the suppposed 47, 1300 steel columns and it does not. No image does.

the image i displayed above shows plenty of evidence of the thousands of tons of steel that made up the core. for your own imbecilic reasons you are blind to it.

you can argue till kingdom come. it will never change the fact that you are WRONG (and a lying toerag to boot)

BV

I less than three logic

7th November 2006, 01:29 PM

*lol* So you are saying you are able to convince Alfred
and his concrete core???? ;) People get angry if they are
talking to a wall - what do you suspect?
Nope. I tend to stay away from the nonsense in the CT area. I just happened to be lurking by and found myself irritated by the formatting abuse being carried out. Thought I'd voice my opinion. ;)

Bell

7th November 2006, 01:29 PM

It was scanned by seatnineb in a library in England. I have no idea. Ask him.

So, you use a piece of 'evidence' and you don't even know where it came from or cared to verify the source? That says a lot about your ways, Christophera.

Christophera copy & past,
Who was in a gleeful daze,
Forgot to check the source,
That claimed the concrete cores.

bonavada

7th November 2006, 01:38 PM

bonavada

7th November 2006, 01:42 PM

Christophera copy & past,
Who was in a gleeful daze,
Forgot to check the source,
That claimed the concrete cores.

:-]

or.........

in his haste
to cut and paste
chris, the dolt
shot his bolt........

BV

Oliver

7th November 2006, 01:53 PM

♫♪♫♫ whether it's concrete
or whether it's horsemeat ♫♪♫
♫♪ we need to know chris´s adress
to make him stop this thread ♫♪♫

♫♪♫♫ whether it's concrete
or whether it's excrete ♫♪♫
♫♪ we need to know chris´s dealer
to make him stop smoking weed ♫♪♫

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107451f109db90e3.gif

Concrete! ... i see concreeeeeeete! .... Muhawawawaw http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/111074527eb9578326.gifhttp://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/111074527eb7755fd3.gif[/qimg][qimg]http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/111074527eb7757f0b.gif http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/111074527eb7759e48.gif

It does not mahahahahtter... In the end you lose... :D

@DARAT: He still did not answer my question concerning this thread:

Why did the core still stand after the C4 exploded????????????????

tsig

7th November 2006, 02:02 PM

That's my future girlfriend. Shame Oliver doesn't know it yet :boxedin:

If he makes her look that happy you ain't got a chance.

Oliver

7th November 2006, 02:07 PM

If he makes her look that happy you ain't got a chance.

*lol* I use to laugh the same way if i see her happy. :o
That´s why i had to smile because Bell´s statement.
And i wish he has the chance for the same feeling of
happiness if he didn´t feel it already. :)

Same goes to everybody in here. Also Alfred. :">

Bell

7th November 2006, 02:10 PM

*lol* I use to laugh the same way if i see her happy. :o
That´s why i had to smile because Bell´s statement.
And i wish he has the chance for the same feeling of
happiness if he didn´t feel it already. :)

Same goes to everybody in here. Also Alfred. :">

Thanks Oliver :o

Christophera

7th November 2006, 02:15 PM

not up to me to establish YOUR source! i think you'll find it's your job.

seems like another non-existent source just like the time-warping mohawk, the "wiped" PBS documentary, and the poor the reticent retired engineer you badgered into signing a vague confession.

you really are scraping the barrel chris. your lies are dumbfounding.

BV

Full compensation for your action of ignoring remains with you.

Not one competent analysis of this (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) yet as to what it might logically be if it is not rebar.

Can concrete be fractured to fall instantly? What about steel? What does that look and sound like?

Bell

7th November 2006, 02:21 PM

Full compensation for your action of ignoring remains with you.

Not one competent analysis of this (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) yet as to what it might logically be if it is not rebar.

Can concrete be fractured to fall instantly? What about steel? What does that look and sound like?

Remember kids, this comes from Christophera, who is LYING about concrete cores, the planes hitting the wrong towers, the fires going out and the wrong tower falling first.

Christophera who is lying,
About 2800 people dying,
Lies about the towers being blown,
Ignores the evidence being shown.

tsig

7th November 2006, 02:21 PM

Find him at democratic underground. I'm banned there.

Did you find raw evidence of the 47, 1.300 foot core columns?

Chris you are looking for "raw evidence " in all the wrong places.

Christophera

7th November 2006, 02:22 PM

christophera.......
concentrating on the steel columns still.
you contend that steel columns were breached using "cutting charges" correct? if so how many of these charges were installed and how many detonated during the collapse of one of the towers?

BV

Every third floor makes about the size steel we saw consistently saw being loaded which was also remarked upon by many people. I've given up trying to determine how many interior box columns there were, less than 47 I think. A denier once counted them pretty well and came up with 24, Do the math with that

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1233383

When they were used specifically rather than gnerally to cut the interior box columns before the core was detonated the charges are referred to as premature explosions (http://mouv4x8.club.fr/11Sept01/A0069b_3_towerexplo1_explosion_below.jpg) or squibs. They were use to direct the fall off the mass in that linked image.

Pardalis

7th November 2006, 02:23 PM

@DARAT: He still did not answer my question concerning this thread:

Why did the core still stand after the C4 exploded????????????????

psst. Christophera is nuts.

Nice graphic work on the post BTW. :D

Christophera

7th November 2006, 02:25 PM

So, you use a piece of 'evidence' and you don't even know where it came from or cared to verify the source? That says a lot about your ways, Christophera.

Christophera copy & past,
Who was in a gleeful daze,
Forgot to check the source,
That claimed the concrete cores.

If I was doing an investigation. Which I am not. I know what the core was and am simply finding raw evidence that shows what I know existed.

I am telling what the core was.

You cannot prove it otherwise, or the core you think was there.

tsig

7th November 2006, 02:28 PM

Full compensation for your action of ignoring remains with you.

Not one competent analysis of this (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) yet as to what it might logically be if it is not rebar.

Can concrete be fractured to fall instantly? What about steel? What does that look and sound like?

Yeh when it fractures it has to fall.

When you get something to fall instantly you can put all of the power plants out of buisness.

tsig

7th November 2006, 02:29 PM

Oliver

7th November 2006, 02:31 PM

Why did the core still stand after the C4 exploded????????????????

Bell

7th November 2006, 02:31 PM

If I was doing an investigation. Which I am not. I know what the core was and am simply finding raw evidence that shows what I know existed.

I am telling what the core was.

You cannot prove it otherwise, or the core you think was there.

You forgot to add that you are LYING. Lying about the planes hitting the wrong towers, for starters. Lying about the fires going out, and lying about the wrong tower falling first.

Christophera is enlightened,
And that makes him very frightened,
He remembers an explosive core,
God help us all if he remembers more.

Christophera

7th November 2006, 02:34 PM

psst. Christophera is nuts.

Nice graphic work on the post BTW. :D

Ohhhhhhh, that's important. I'll remind the next child I meet of Pardalis on randi.org.

Sorry, I don't really mean that. I probably will forget you anyway. That's the way I feel the role you've assumed should be used.

Pardalis

7th November 2006, 02:35 PM

Could you answer this question Christophera?:

Why did the core still stand after the C4 exploded????????????????

Bell

7th November 2006, 02:37 PM

Ohhhhhhh, that's important. I'll remind the next child I meet of Pardalis on randi.org.

Sorry, I don't really mean that. I probably will forget you anyway. That's the way I feel the role you've assumed should be used.

Good luck with trying to get Pardalis out of your photographic memory.

Christophera

7th November 2006, 02:37 PM

You forgot to add that you are LYING. Lying about the planes hitting the wrong towers, for starters. Lying about the fires going out, and lying about the wrong tower falling first.

Christophera is enlightened,
And that makes him very frightened,
He remembers an explosive core,
God help us all if he remembers more.

Lord knows you've missed you calling.

but, ......... I remembered MORE first, then the core blew. In order to talk about it I had to lose the fear so, ........ strive for accuracy.

Christophera

7th November 2006, 02:41 PM

tsig

7th November 2006, 02:42 PM

Pardalis

7th November 2006, 02:42 PM

What a load of crap.

Have a nice day in your fantasy world Christophera.

Christophera

7th November 2006, 02:43 PM

What a load of crap.

Have a nice day in your fantasy world Christophera.

I know I've got it when the cat poops.

Christophera

7th November 2006, 02:45 PM

You keep talking about "raw evidence" please produce it for I am getting hungry.

Sorry, the thread is well done at over 100k views.

Bell

7th November 2006, 02:45 PM

Oliver

7th November 2006, 02:53 PM

I know I've got it when the cat poops.

Well, sometimes i am a clown because i dont take
live as serious like others do in here.

But let me ask you, Christophera - and give me the
chance for an answer that i can understand.

"God´s ways are not understandable" - that´s a german
phrase and if you believe in god you don´t question the
way he does things. Why are you questioning his decisions
nevertheless?

I don´t remember your actual age but if you did not lie
within your posts on the internet, you´re about 58 years
old, wrong?

So if you are in this age - wouldn´t you love to left some
positive things after you left this world? Something positive
that makes it reasonable for your whole existence?

- Oliver :)

beachnut

7th November 2006, 03:04 PM

To: Psycho ollie.

The delay system for the core was 2 different systems, the lower one was slower, somwhat unpredictable maybe.

I've explained this perhaps 10 times here. Can you miss it again?

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

low oxygen water killed the core of the WTC, it dissolved first due to city air, then the fire was able to destroy it!

normally the algae keeps the concrete core protected from the environmental effects of evil city air! But due to low oxygen water, the algae died, exposed the concrete core, the rest is history!

could not of solved this without your web site!!!

Pardalis

7th November 2006, 03:09 PM

Christophera, do you also speak to narwals?

http://www.freinet.org/creactif/riec/exposes/narval.wav

tsig

7th November 2006, 03:24 PM

I know I've got it when the cat poops.

Sorry Chris did not know you were one.

Will carry out immedtly!!

confirmation: The litter has been cleaned.

Christophera

7th November 2006, 03:42 PM

Basicaly all of you have no raw evidence whatsoever for the 47, steel core columns.

What a miserable place to argue from.

GOT EVIDENCE?

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

Pardalis

7th November 2006, 03:47 PM

What a miserable place to argue from.

GOT EVIDENCE?

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

bolding mine

Indeed

Bell

7th November 2006, 03:49 PM

Basicaly all of you have no raw evidence whatsoever for the 47, steel core columns.

What a miserable place to argue from.

GOT EVIDENCE?

<snip spam>

And you are a proven liar.

GOT EVIDENCE?

Christophera is a liar,
Says there was a dying fire,
Added more lies on top of that,
Could not prove them, oh, how sad.

Oliver

7th November 2006, 03:50 PM

Well, sometimes i am a clown because i dont take
live as serious like others do in here.

But let me ask you, Christophera - and give me the
chance for an answer that i can understand.

"God´s ways are not understandable" - that´s a german
phrase and if you believe in god you don´t question the
way he does things. Why are you questioning his decisions
nevertheless?

I don´t remember your actual age but if you did not lie
within your posts on the internet, you´re about 58 years
old, wrong?

So if you are in this age - wouldn´t you love to left some
positive things after you left this world? Something positive
that makes it reasonable for your whole existence?

- Oliver :)

I´m waiting for your response, Chris Alfred...

stateofgrace

7th November 2006, 03:53 PM

Basicaly all of you have no raw evidence whatsoever for the 47, steel core columns.

What a miserable place to argue from.

GOT EVIDENCE?

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html
Chris,I think you are only person on the planet that doesn't believe the Towers had steel core columns.

Even the immensely nutty scholars accept there were 47 steel columns.

Controlled demolition was also suggested by the fact that the collapses were total, with the 110-story Twin Towers collapsing into a pile of rubble only a few stories high. The core of each tower had consisted of 47 massive steel columns, which extended from the basements through the roofs. Even if we ignore all the other problems in the official "pancake" theory of the collapses, those massive steel columns should have still been sticking up a thousand feet in the air. Zelikow’s commission handled this problem with the audacious claim that "[t]he interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft."

http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2005-07-29-pressclub.php

Mobyseven

7th November 2006, 05:34 PM

So, ......... if you understood what I meant, is grammer more important than justice in the case of 3,000 capitol crimes?

Objection - speculation!

I can assure you that I have NO IDEA what you meant. In fact, that was my point.

Answer this question: Are the facts about 9/11 clear OR are they illogical???

You can't have it both ways. Either the facts are clear or they are illogical.

A nice straw-man though - if I lived on a farm I would use it to scare away crows.

As for your new question: Is grammar (once again suggesting that correct spelling is the tool of the government) more important than justice in the case of 3,000 capitol crimes?

Well, for your conspiracy theory to be valid, somewhere in the range of at least a million government employees/WTC employees/military/structural engineers/New World Order Rulers had to be in somehow on the conspiracy.

How would you present that in a simple, succinct sentence? Here are the lexemes for you to use:

"3,000; 1,000,000; deaths; for;of; people; responsible; the; were."

If I don't use correct grammar and word order, I can form those lexemes into this:

"3,000 people were responsible for the deaths of 1,000,000."

Which is semantically VERY different from what was originally intended.

MY POINT BEING

IF YOU CANNOT PRESENT YOUR IDEAS IN A LOGICAL, WELL ORDERED AND CLEAR MANNER, THEN NOONE WILL BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND YOU EVEN IF YOU ARE CORRECT.

AND IF YOU CANNOT PRESENT YOUR IDEAS IN A LOGICAL, WELL ORDERED AND CLEAR MANNER, IT SUGGESTS THAT MAYBE YOU YOURSELF ARE NOT A VERY LOGICAL, CLEAR THINKER. WHICH WOULD CAST YOUR RESULTS INTO DOUBT.

So either learn to express yourself clearly, or learn to lose.

You have repeatedly posted the same photo over and over again. If you could please at least edit the photo to obviously circle the evidence you are supposedly showing - I'm sick of seeing the same link in every second reply you post. Especially when other people are posting counter-evidence in the form of numerous photos.

Christophera

7th November 2006, 06:36 PM

Objection - speculation!

I can assure you that I have NO IDEA what you meant. In fact, that was my point.

Answer this question: Are the facts about 9/11 clear OR are they illogical???

You can't have it both ways. Either the facts are clear or they are illogical.

A nice straw-man though - if I lived on a farm I would use it to scare away crows.

As for your new question: Is grammar (once again suggesting that correct spelling is the tool of the government) more important than justice in the case of 3,000 capitol crimes?

Well, for your conspiracy theory to be valid, somewhere in the range of at least a million government employees/WTC employees/military/structural engineers/New World Order Rulers had to be in somehow on the conspiracy.

How would you present that in a simple, succinct sentence? Here are the lexemes for you to use:

"3,000; 1,000,000; deaths; for;of; people; responsible; the; were."

If I don't use correct grammar and word order, I can form those lexemes into this:

"3,000 people were responsible for the deaths of 1,000,000."

Which is semantically VERY different from what was originally intended.

MY POINT BEING

IF YOU CANNOT PRESENT YOUR IDEAS IN A LOGICAL, WELL ORDERED AND CLEAR MANNER, THEN NOONE WILL BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND YOU EVEN IF YOU ARE CORRECT.

AND IF YOU CANNOT PRESENT YOUR IDEAS IN A LOGICAL, WELL ORDERED AND CLEAR MANNER, IT SUGGESTS THAT MAYBE YOU YOURSELF ARE NOT A VERY LOGICAL, CLEAR THINKER. WHICH WOULD CAST YOUR RESULTS INTO DOUBT.

So either learn to express yourself clearly, or learn to lose.

You have repeatedly posted the same photo over and over again. If you could please at least edit the photo to obviously circle the evidence you are supposedly showing - I'm sick of seeing the same link in every second reply you post. Especially when other people are posting counter-evidence in the form of numerous photos.

So very convienent when you have no evidence of steel core columns when there is qualified evidence of the concrete core.

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

Smiffy

7th November 2006, 06:40 PM

This thread is over for me - it was fun for a while, but by responding to the BS and idiocy we are only reinforcing his belief in it. I'm off to find a non-redundant thread where maybe we could have a meaningful debate.

Adios amigos...

NobbyNobbs

7th November 2006, 07:11 PM

Jennie C.

7th November 2006, 07:17 PM

Spelling is not important here.

Well, typos at least aren't important (tho I hate it when I do that). But reallly, Chris, if you want me not to get the giggles every time I see it, please learn the diff between "capital" (crimes) and "capitol."

The latter word stands for a building, and is usually capitalized.

Christophera

7th November 2006, 07:17 PM

Answer this question: Are the facts about 9/11 clear OR are they illogical???
You can't have it both ways. Either the facts are clear or they are illogical.

I would say the facts about the CT are clearly illogical. How's that?

moby, you've misrepresented the intent of my statement. The official story is clearly illogical and no facts are involved.

Have you found any raw evidence for he 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns yet?

Christophera

7th November 2006, 07:19 PM

Well, typos at least aren't important (tho I hate it when I do that). But reallly, Chris, if you want me not to get the giggles every time I see it, please learn the diff between "capital" (crimes) and "capitol."

The latter word stands for a building, and is usually capitalized.

So the murders and failure to provide due process doesn't matter but spelling does?

Okay, .......... so much for your credibility as a person who appreciates truth.

firecoins

7th November 2006, 08:05 PM

bonavada

7th November 2006, 08:10 PM

Every third floor makes about the size steel we saw consistently saw being loaded which was also remarked upon by many people. I've given up trying to determine how many interior box columns there were, less than 47 I think. A denier once counted them pretty well and came up with 24, Do the math with that

this begs numerous questions. here's a few:-

now let me get this straight. you contend that at least 24 columns were explosively cut on every third floor? quickly reckoned that's 37x24 steel beams cut this way. correct? thats a ballpark figure of at least ummm 888 cutting charges in each building? when was this work done? how many men did it take to do this mammoth job? under who's orders were these men? how did they manage to do the evil deed unoticed? by thousands of wtc office workers, security staff, maintenance employees etc etc.
and don't steel beams, girders, columns or whatever have to be especially weakened with mecahanical cutting (ie by grinding or oxy-acetylene torches etc) to prep for explosive demolition? isn't this normal practice when demolishing steel fabricated buildings? if so when was this work done?

wouldn't have these explosions have made unmistakeable noises? this is not even considering your C4-rebar. i am sure even above the hellish roar of the collapsing towers someone, somewhere would have heard or recorded such noises.

i don't expect any coherent answers to be forthcomong from you but i feel the questions should be asked just for the sake of everyones sanity. especially yours.........

BV

firecoins

7th November 2006, 08:12 PM

moby, you've misrepresented the intent of my statement. The official story is clearly illogical and no facts are involved.

Have you found any raw evidence for he 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns yet?
The official story was videotaped and recorded by private individuals and entities from airline employees to evacuees of the WTC and the tens of thousands of eyewitnesses.

No one saw a concrete core, from the people who designed and built the buildings to the people who cleaned it up. No one saw explosives or missles or weird humps on the bottom of "remote controlled" airplanes of grainy photographs. Not a single person. Yet you must be right, there was a hidden invisible concret core with invisible explosives placed there by invisible men working for George W. Bush.

Mobyseven

7th November 2006, 08:33 PM

So very convienent when you have no evidence of steel core columns when there is qualified evidence of the concrete core.

You have again posted exactly the same link as your 'qualified evidence'. A question: What to you is qualified evidence? Because so far your qualified evidence is: Photographs that have only been interpreted as showing a concrete core by you; a documentary you can't find; a book that doesn't seem to exist; and speculation as to the hijackers psychology.

Even many sites that disagree with the official story don't believe that there were concrete cores - 9-11 Research is an example of one of these sites (I cannot yet post URLs, sorry - just Google them).

The following extract is from architecture.about.com:
Construction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers

Tower One was 1,368 feet (414 meters) tall
Tower Two was 1,362 feet (412 meters) tall
Each tower was 64 m square
Each tower stood 411 m above street level
The Towers rested on solid bedrock and the foundations extended 21 m below grade
The Towers had a height-to-width ratio of 6.8.
The Tower facades were constructed of aluminum and steel lattice
Each tower used a lightweight tube construction with 244 closely spaced columns on the outer walls
A 80 cm tall web joist connected the core to the perimeter at each floor
Concrete slabs were poured over the web joists to form the floors
There were no interior columns in the Tower office spaces
Each tower contained 104 passenger elevators
Each tower had 21,800 windows
Each tower weighed about 500,000 tons
About 50,000 people worked in the World Trade Center complexNote that there is no mysterious 'concrete core' in the towers. There was concrete used to form the floors, but no concrete core.

From the same site:

Structural steel does not easily melt, but it will lose about half its strength at 1,200 degrees F. The steel structure of the Twin Towers was weakened by the extreme heat. The steel also became distorted because the heat was not a uniform temperature. [emphasis mine]

So how is that for 'qualified evidence'?

And by god, if you post the same photos you've posted a thousand times already and say, "OMG - LOOK AT THE PROOF", I will start research on how to slap people through the internet.

So - your turn now.

I less than three logic

7th November 2006, 10:12 PM

So the murders and failure to provide due process doesn't matter but spelling does?

Okay, .......... so much for your credibility as a person who appreciates truth.
On the contrary, I think that reinforces Jennie C’s credibility as a person that appreciates truth. There is irrefutable evidence that capital, with an “a”, is the true spelling of the word when used as you intended to. While there isn’t much evidence to show that anything you’ve said it true.

Heck, based on past experiences with similar conditions, I’d interpret your frequent use of ridiculous formatting as evidence suggesting that what you’re saying isn’t true. Seems to be a pretty good rule of thumb that if you can’t convince people with a sound argument and creditable evidence, then your best remaining option is to pretend you’re yelling over the Internet… because that always works. :rolleyes:

Christophera

7th November 2006, 10:49 PM

On the contrary, I think that reinforces Jennie C’s credibility as a person that appreciates truth. There is irrefutable evidence that capital, with an “a”, is the true spelling of the word when used as you intended to. While there isn’t much evidence to show that anything you’ve said it true.

Heck, based on past experiences with similar conditions, I’d interpret your frequent use of ridiculous formatting as evidence suggesting that what you’re saying isn’t true. Seems to be a pretty good rule of thumb that if you can’t convince people with a sound argument and creditable evidence, then your best remaining option is to pretend you’re yelling over the Internet… because that always works. :rolleyes:

Again no evidence save weak subterfuge while the raw evidence of images is glaring from my pages in competent explanation whereas you have nothing.

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

Christophera

7th November 2006, 10:58 PM

You have again posted exactly the same link as your 'qualified evidence'. A question: What to you is qualified evidence? Because so far your qualified evidence is: Photographs that have only been interpreted as showing a concrete core by you; a documentary you can't find; a book that doesn't seem to exist; and speculation as to the hijackers psychology.

The qualified evidence of the WTC 2 core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) is enough to take all the evidence and authority youve tried to assemble and flush it. A few facts without consequence do not a matter make when we have mid air pulverization to explain.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3985&stc=1&d=1162969098

Christophera

7th November 2006, 11:01 PM

The official story was videotaped and recorded by private individuals and entities from airline employees to evacuees of the WTC and the tens of thousands of eyewitnesses.

No one saw a concrete core, from the people who designed and built the buildings to the people who cleaned it up. No one saw explosives or missles or weird humps on the bottom of "remote controlled" airplanes of grainy photographs. Not a single person. Yet you must be right, there was a hidden invisible concret core with invisible explosives placed there by invisible men working for George W. Bush.

So much for your integrity to reason and reading.

http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf

beachnut

7th November 2006, 11:30 PM

mistake, i emailed them, soon you will loose another source

but how high does your concrete core go, christophera, or have you lost all of your oxygen after being hypnotized by the concrete core

GlennB

8th November 2006, 12:34 AM

So very convienent when you have no evidence of steel core columns when there is qualified evidence of the concrete core.

After all this time you still haven't explained where all this demolished concrete went.
In a previous rough calculation I showed it would leave a mound of smashed concrete some 100m high. This didn't happen on 9/11. Where did all the concrete go, Chris?

Bell

8th November 2006, 01:23 AM

All the time, remember Christophera is a proven liar.

Pidge

8th November 2006, 01:41 AM

And by god, if you post the same photos you've posted a thousand times already and say, "OMG - LOOK AT THE PROOF", I will start research on how to slap people through the internet.

Hint: Try a whois query for "algoxy.com". That's a starter...

Oliver

8th November 2006, 02:13 AM

And by god, if you post the same photos you've posted a thousand times already and say, "OMG - LOOK AT THE PROOF", I will start research on how to slap people through the internet.

...and don´t forget the additional information
to understand what you will find:

link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia)

Mobyseven

8th November 2006, 04:24 AM

The qualified evidence of the WTC 2 core is enough to take all the evidence and authority youve tried to assemble and flush it. A few facts without consequence do not a matter make when we have mid air pulverization to explain.

Hang on a second - WHAT qualified evidence? I listed above some of your qualified evidence. To recap: A documentary that doesn't seem to exist; A dictionary that ALSO doesn't seem to exist; Speculation as to the psychology of the hijackers. And photographs. Photographs that show nothing but the collapse of the towers to everyone but you. To you, these photographs seem to show some sort of elaborate conspiracy. To you they show a concrete core - a core that for some reason noone else can see. Not the people who were there on 9/11. Not the people who investigated the event. Not the people who have looked at these photographs since. Hell, not even the people who designed and built the Twin Towers seemed to notice that there was a concrete core!

Why are the facts I presented of 'no consequence'? You seem to have changed the topic rather hastily - you dismiss with no justification the evidence I produce against the concrete core, and then change the topic to '[sic]mid air pulverization'.

Could it be that what you can see in that photo is what happens when the top stories of a massive skyscraper collapse onto the lower floors?

Or would that make too much sense?

Belz...

8th November 2006, 04:25 AM

*LOL* :D I like you, really. But this mesage of mine was
not meant as joke. It was a warning. Alfred has a serious
problem. You simply dont seem to understand it. I am 33
years old. May i ask how old you are after seeing your
picture at your member-profile?

You may not.

I'm well aware of Chris' problem.

Belz...

8th November 2006, 04:29 AM

*lol* So you are saying you are able to convince Alfred
and his concrete core???? ;) People get angry if they are
talking to a wall - what do you suspect?

I'd rather be talking to a wall than to be the wall to which someone talks.

Oliver

8th November 2006, 04:33 AM

I'd rather be talking to a wall than to be the wall to which someone talks.

Well, you are the wall - you are not able to accept
that it was a conrete core... ;)

BTW: (since popping into my range of vision again...)

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

Yes, it wasn´t Freefall, thank you!

Belz...

8th November 2006, 04:35 AM

It does not compare in anyway to this evidence of the concrete core of WTC 2. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) You are presenting a bogus, misrepresentation.

It's a picture of the ruins of the tower. How is it a misrepresentation if it shows what's there ?

Can concrete be fractured to fall instantly?

This assumes the concrete core.

I've given up trying to determine how many interior box columns there were, less than 47 I think.

Just make it up. Seems to work for you, usually.

squibs

Now I KNOW you never did any demolition.

I know what the core was and am simply finding raw evidence that shows what I know existed.

Liar. By your own admission it could be dust. You said so yourself.

but, ......... I remembered MORE first, then the core blew. In order to talk about it I had to lose the fear so, ........ strive for accuracy.

That's not even a sentence, man.

The delay system for the core was 2 different systems, the lower one was slower, somwhat unpredictable maybe.

Maybe ? Aren't you sure about anything ? Which tower was which, which documentary it was, which station aired it, how it was done, by whom. Boy, so far it's a lot of "maybe"s.

Sorry, the thread is well done at over 100k views.

Appeal to popularity.

Have you found any raw evidence for he 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns yet?

You mean you HAVEN'T read this thread yet ?

Belz...

8th November 2006, 04:37 AM

Well, you are the wall - you are not able to accept
that it was a conrete core... ;)

BTW: (since popping into my range of vision again...)

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

Yes, it wasn´t Freefall, thank you!

Well, that's the last time I check posts from someone on my ignore list.

Bye.

Oliver

8th November 2006, 04:41 AM

So you are still whining???

Powa

8th November 2006, 05:11 AM

Oliver, are you actively trying to make this thread even more unpleasant? Because if so, you're doing a wonderful job.

Oliver

8th November 2006, 05:52 AM

Oliver, are you actively trying to make this thread even more unpleasant? Because if so, you're doing a wonderful job.

No, i was talking with him. This is part
of a discussion. What problem is it you
have?

Chris annoys me, i annoy you, Belz annoys
both of us and the rest is annoyed, too.
(okay, the admins laugh)

This is all that this thread is about. Just
because i don´t stop posting to this thread
does not mean that someone will ever stop
this crap in here. BTW: Why are U reading it?

And the most wonderful job are the ones
to try to talk to Alfred. There is no discussion
at all since it´s going round and round and
round... and the inital question is solved.

Belz knwos this - and he gives a **it about
other peoples mood in his young, ignorant life.

You may stop posting to this thread if you
want to disturb the discussion or if it annoys
you too much.

Oliver

8th November 2006, 06:09 AM

Okay, back to the Free Fall issue...
@Alfred: It was no free fall. What makes
you think this way nevertheless and what
does this has to do with the concrete core?

Peace,
Oliver :)

fuelair

8th November 2006, 06:15 AM

That would still be a yes - official report. Try taking a few chemistry, engineering and physics course. They would prove invaluable.

Powa

8th November 2006, 07:14 AM

No, i was talking with him. This is part of a discussion.
Of course. By all means discuss. But try not to be too annoying.

What problem is it you have?
I have a problem with people who instead of contributing to the discussion at hand try to annoy someone into giving up.

Chris annoys me, i annoy you, Belz annoys both of us and the rest is annoyed, too.
Chris' excuse is mental illness. What's yours?

(okay, the admins laugh)
I doubt it.

This is all that this thread is about. Just because i don´t stop posting to this thread does not mean that someone will ever stop
this crap in here.
If anything, we need LESS crap, not more.

BTW: Why are U reading it?
Why do people watch traffic accidents? I can't stop.

And the most wonderful job are the ones to try to talk to Alfred. There is no discussion at all since it´s going round and round and round... and the inital question is solved.
Cats play with dead mice. It's still fun.

Belz knwos this - and he gives a **it about other peoples mood in his young, ignorant life.
If he pisses you off so much, why don't you take it to Flame Wars? I, on the other hand, find Belz... to have patience of a saint. He's tirelessly debating Chris, despite the fact that we all know it's in vain.

You may stop posting to this thread if you want to disturb the discussion or if it annoys you too much.
I don't want to disturb this discussion. From time to time I even contribute. BTW, the biggest annoyance to me right now is not Chris.

Look, if you want to make fun of loons or anyone else, by all means do it. Have a laugh. But don't try to be as annoying as you can be. It gets old soon.

Oliver

8th November 2006, 07:23 AM

Sorry, too much text. Could you sum it up, please?
BTW: You seem to be offtopic. And the feeling you
have is a well known to me because this thread.

And no, in my humble opinion it was no conctrete
core. It does not make sense to me. Please explain
it one more time, Alfred.

Peace,
Oliver :)

Jennie C.

8th November 2006, 08:33 AM

That 2 towers would fall at near free fall speeds almost identically to the ground demands consideration of everything OUTSIDE the official story because due process was violated in dealing with capitol crimes.

The last paragraph justifies the action of NOT attempting to explain events with plane impacts and fires to justifiably determine if an explanation for the identical near free falls can be explained because it is absolutely unheard of, PERIOD.

Are you still on the free-fall thing? I thought you agreed that it might not be so and/or that it wasn't all that relevant.

Here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1663001#post1663001

and Here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1663057#post1663057

Belz...

8th November 2006, 09:15 AM

If he pisses you off so much, why don't you take it to Flame Wars? I, on the other hand, find Belz... to have patience of a saint. He's tirelessly debating Chris, despite the fact that we all know it's in vain.

Oh, I know it's in vain.

I understand why chris is arguing, here. He's utterly convinced of his ideas. Though I disagree and I suspect, with evidence, that he has some mental problem, his behaviour is expected.

Oliver, on the other hand, I don't get. When a thread ceases to interest me I move on. He seems to linger, and keeps saying things to me although he knows I'm ignoring him. For some reason, he also seems to assume I'm much, much younger than him. He's a weird bird, that man. Cute girlfriend, though.

Powa

8th November 2006, 09:22 AM

Are you still on the free-fall thing? I thought you agreed that it might not be so and/or that it wasn't all that relevant.

Here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1663001#post1663001 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1663001#post1663001)

and Here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1663057#post1663057 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1663057#post1663057)
Chris has photographic memory, which can only mean he's lying again.

beachnut

8th November 2006, 09:39 AM

So much for your integrity to reason and reading.

http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf (http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf)
Concrete core? Sorry Chirs your core is not concrete

oops in my letter to the author he says it is in error, no concrete core!!!

Keith-

NCSEA forwarded your question to me. I was the author of the document you are questioning.
You are correct that the twin towers did not have a concrete core. However, they, did have a well-defined core consisting of conventional steel framing supported by steel columns. Generally, horizontal framing in the core was not moment-resisting framing, though semi-rigid (type PR) connections were used for some of this framing. Thus, the statement that the core structure was not designed for lateral resistance.

The core framing did play a significant role in resisting collapse, however, after the aircraft impacts and initial damage sustained by these impacts. The core, ultimately, also played a significant role in the collapse. If you would like more information, you may obtain detailed reports at www.nist.gov/wtc (http://www.nist.gov/wtc)

Regards,
Ron Hamburger

Your own proof has become; no concrete core. Your source is wrong,and he said so. Your TV documentary made a mistake, your source on the web made a mistake.

Christophera

8th November 2006, 10:16 AM

Are you still on the free-fall thing? I thought you agreed that it might not be so and/or that it wasn't all that relevant.

Here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1663001#post1663001

and Here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1663057#post1663057

I though you agreed that spelling was more important than the 3,000 murders. I spell capitol right. Aren't you going to comment?

And, I said "near" free fall because there is no real way to know the exact rate. Close is good enough it is all way too fast.

At least there is a logical explanation somewhere.

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

Christophera

8th November 2006, 10:21 AM

Concrete core? Sorry Chirs your core is not concrete

oops in my letter to the author he says it is in error, no concrete core!!!

Your own proof has become; no concrete core. Your source is wrong,and he said so. Your TV documentary made a mistake, your source on the web made a mistake.

Yes Oops is correct,

August Domel is the author not Ron Hamburger.

Does he or can you provide a reasonable explanation for what this (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) is if it is not concrete.

Christophera

8th November 2006, 10:24 AM

Oh, I know it's in vain.

I understand why chris is arguing, here. He's utterly convinced of his ideas. Though I disagree and I suspect, with evidence, that he has some mental problem, his behaviour is expected.

You cannot reasonably assert what you do when you have not provided a reasonable explanation for these fine vertical elements (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) if they are not rebar.

beachnut

8th November 2006, 10:28 AM

This document was prepared by Dr. August Domel, Jr.

beachnut

8th November 2006, 10:29 AM

that means he used his team, oops

This document was prepared by Dr. August Domel, Jr.

Prepared, not author of the statement, oops

beachnut

8th November 2006, 10:45 AM

Yes Oops is correct,

August Domel is the author not Ron Hamburger.

Does he or can you provide a reasonable explanation for what this (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) is if it is not concrete.

sorry but again you ignore real facts and jump into the fire

Domel prepared the document and used Ron's work; he explains here for those who do not read their own source or understand what and who really did it!!!!!!!

1.4 Source Material
The information presented in this document was obtained from two sources. Much of the
information was obtained from discussions with structural engineering teams that worked at
Ground Zero. The other source was the author’s own opinions based on working at Ground
Zero.
Nothing in this document should be interpreted as a criticism of any of the structural engineers or
structural engineering organizations involved with any aspect of the emergency response. Any
questions regarding this issue should be resolved by referring to Chapter 11 of this document.

Ron was on the team!!!!! he told us in the letter you ignored

Thanks so much Chris for taking the time to ignore the work I did for you

Thanks Chris for being so kind and taking the time to ignore my work to correct your source.

Thank you

Powa

8th November 2006, 10:51 AM

I spell capitol right.
Main Entry: cap·i·tol http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?capito01.wav=capitol'))
Pronunciation: 'ka-p&-t&l, 'kap-t&l
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin Capitolium, temple of Jupiter at Rome on the Capitoline hill
1 a : a building in which a state legislative body meets b : a group of buildings in which the functions of state government are carried out
2 capitalized : the building in which the United States Congress meets at Washington

I agree, you spell it right, but I don't think it means what you think it means.

Main Entry: 2capital
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin capitalis, from capit-, caput
2 a : punishable by death <a capital crime> b : involving execution <capital punishment> c : most serious <a capital error>

Now that you know the difference, I trust you'll be using the correct spelling in the future?

And, I said "near" free fall because there is no real way to know the exact rate. Close is good enough it is all way too fast.
Way too fast? Compared to what? How do you know they fell too fast? We've still not seen your calculations.

At least there is a logical explanation somewhere.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
Somewhere, yes. But not on your site.

Jennie C.

8th November 2006, 10:59 AM

Yet you must be right, there was a hidden invisible concret core with invisible explosives placed there by invisible men working for George W. Bush.

Who was about 21-23 at the time the towers were constructed. Probably still in the Harvard School of Business :)

Jennie C.

8th November 2006, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by Jennie C. http://forums.randi.org/helloworld/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2077887#post2077887)
Well, typos at least aren't important (tho I hate it when I do that). But reallly, Chris, if you want me not to get the giggles every time I see it, please learn the diff between "capital" (crimes) and "capitol."

The latter word stands for a building, and is usually capitalized.

So the murders and failure to provide due process doesn't matter but spelling does?

Okay, .......... so much for your credibility as a person who appreciates truth.

Well, you've proved my point without knowing that I was making one.

You have no sense of humor.

A sense of humor is very close to a sense of proportion (about what is important and what is not).

This has nothing to do with your arguments about 9/11, obviously that event was important.

But it does make you scary.

Bell

8th November 2006, 11:04 AM

You cannot reasonably assert what you do when you have not provided a reasonable explanation for these fine vertical elements (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) if they are not rebar.

Christophera is LYING again. We have shown you a picture that clearly shows (that bit was even enlarged in the picture) the steel core exposed during the collapse. You have a photographic memory, you know what picture I am talking about. How someone can look at a steel core from that distance in your picture, and claim it is 3" rebar on 4' centers is beyond me. You truely lack any ability to analyze pictures. But we have explained that many, many times before, but you are to thick to see and accept logic.

Belz...

8th November 2006, 11:04 AM

And, I said "near" free fall because there is no real way to know the exact rate. Close is good enough it is all way too fast.

"Way too fast" as shown by what ?

At least there is a logical explanation somewhere.

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

Ah, yes. If you can't find it, make it up yourself.

You cannot reasonably assert what you do when you have not provided a reasonable explanation for these fine vertical elements if they are not rebar.

What does this have to do with your alledged medical condition ?

Oliver

8th November 2006, 11:21 AM

Yes Oops is correct,

August Domel is the author not Ron Hamburger.

Does he or can you provide a reasonable explanation for what this (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) is if it is not concrete.

Yes, he also explained what this (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) and this (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) and this (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) is. PARANOIA! BTW: this (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG), too.

uruk

8th November 2006, 11:38 AM

Christophera is LYING again. We have shown you a picture that clearly shows (that bit was even enlarged in the picture) the steel core exposed during the collapse. You have a photographic memory, you know what picture I am talking about. How someone can look at a steel core from that distance in your picture, and claim it is 3" rebar on 4' centers is beyond me. You truely lack any ability to analyze pictures. But we have explained that many, many times before, but you are to thick to see and accept logic.

Here they are.

uruk

8th November 2006, 11:56 AM

You cannot reasonably assert what you do when you have not provided a reasonable explanation for these fine vertical elements (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) if they are not rebar.

See my post above.

I can't believe that you actually think that those spires are 3 inch rebar. 3 inch rebar from the distance the picture was taken would be undetectable.
This proves yet again that you are incapable of interpreting images. You can't even judge distance and measurments correctly. And this says alot about your reasoning capabilities.

The lengths that you are willing to go to hold on to your incorrect assumptions and beliefs is just plain pathetic and pathalogical.

Please stop posting Chris. Your just embarrasing yourself with each post.

Christophera

8th November 2006, 12:10 PM

"Way too fast" as shown by what ?

Common sense. Historically most folks here have shown they refuse to use it.

Ah, yes. If you can't find it, make it up yourself.

I noticed the one you support doesn't provide a reasonable explanation for rates of fall near free fall or the fact the towers are pulverized in mid air. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg)

What does this have to do with your alledged medical condition ?

Which is undiagnosable because of failure to appear on subpoena (http://algoxy.com/law/images/subden.gif) which of course doesn't mattter to you because you support lawless governments.

Your medical condition will go down in history as the greatest malady to effect humnity ever.

Christophera

8th November 2006, 12:19 PM

Here they are.

Homer,

Those are not core columns. The rectangular frames shown are of the outer frameworks inner wall. The same frames are seen in the image annotated as "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg). Notice that ONLY the columns ringing the core are labeled MASSIVE. Those columns are also the spire (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg).

You are misrepresenting the images (again) homer.

For an accurate documentation of the towers see;

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

Christophera

8th November 2006, 12:21 PM

See my post above.

I can't believe that you actually think that those spires are 3 inch rebar. 3 inch rebar from the distance the picture was taken would be undetectable.
This proves yet again that you are incapable of interpreting images. You can't even judge distance and measurments correctly. And this says alot about your reasoning capabilities.

The lengths that you are willing to go to hold on to your incorrect assumptions and beliefs is just plain pathetic and pathalogical.

Please stop posting Chris. Your just embarrasing yourself with each post.

homer,

You are embarrasing humanity with your constant misrepresentations.

NOTICE: homer has not provided a reasonable explanation for what the fine vertical elements (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) are IF they are not rebar.

Bell

8th November 2006, 12:30 PM

uruk

8th November 2006, 12:35 PM

Homer,

Those are not core columns. The rectangular frames shown are of the outer frameworks inner wall. The same frames are seen in the image annotated as "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg). Notice that ONLY the columns ringing the core are labeled MASSIVE. Those columns are also the spire (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg).

You are misrepresenting the images (again) homer.

For an accurate documentation of the towers see;

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

You still don't get it. The image is of a portion of the columns that make up the core. The core of the towers were steel columns. That what was so unique about thier architecture. That's what Yamasaki got all those accolades for.

Your willingness to deny the evidence is pathological.

Bell

8th November 2006, 12:50 PM

Homer,

Those are not core columns. The rectangular frames shown are of the outer frameworks inner wall. The same frames are seen in the image annotated as "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg). Notice that ONLY the columns ringing the core are labeled MASSIVE. Those columns are also the spire (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg).

You are misrepresenting the images (again) homer.

For an accurate documentation of the towers see;

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

You are calling the steel core in that picture BOTH rebar AND massive box columns??? Could you take your picture (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) and WRITE on it where exactly the rebar is? We don't see it. I asume if you cannot produce such a picture, you are once again lying, about the rebar in the picture.

You did notice, btw, that both your and uruk's picture are made at approxemately the same moment, and both show the same steel core, not rebar?

uruk

8th November 2006, 12:55 PM

homer,

You are embarrasing humanity with your constant misrepresentations.

NOTICE: homer has not provided a reasonable explanation for what the fine vertical elements (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) are IF they are not rebar.

You still don't get it. The picture your posting is a low resolution, compressed image taken from a point several hundred yards from the building. 3 inch rebar would be undetectable from that distance. The only thing those spires could be is the columns seen in the higher resolution photos.

If you don't believe me. Get a 3 inch rebar stand it up in the ground. drive away from it about a quarter mile and take a picture of it with a 6 megapixel (heck try even using a 12 megapixel camera) camera and let me know if you can see it. As a matter of fact post the picture when you've made it.

There, I've just given you a method to prove me wrong. Let me know how it works out.

bonavada

8th November 2006, 02:24 PM

Christophera:-

now let me get this straight. you contend that at least 24 columns were explosively cut on every third floor? quickly reckoned that's 37x24 steel beams cut this way. correct? thats a ballpark figure of at least ummm 888 cutting charges in each building? when was this work done? how many men did it take to do this mammoth job? under who's orders were these men? how did they manage to do the evil deed unoticed? by thousands of wtc office workers, security staff, maintenance employees etc etc.
and don't steel beams, girders, columns or whatever have to be especially weakened with mecahanical cutting (ie by grinding or oxy-acetylene torches etc) to prep for explosive demolition? isn't this normal practice when demolishing steel fabricated buildings? if so when was this work done?

wouldn't these explosions have made unmistakeable noises? this is not even considering your C4-rebar. i am sure even above the hellish roar of the collapsing towers someone, somewhere would have heard or recorded such noises.

i don't expect any coherent answers to be forthcomong from you but i feel the questions should be asked just for the sake of everyones sanity. especially yours.........

BV

ANSWER PLEASE?

BV

Arus808

8th November 2006, 04:01 PM

Does he or can you provide a reasonable explanation for what this (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) is if it is not concrete.

it looks like a big dark phallis hidden behind a cloud of dust and smoke...nothng more.

Christophera

8th November 2006, 06:01 PM

sorry but again you ignore real facts and jump into the fire

Domel prepared the document and used Ron's work; he explains here for those who do not read their own source or understand what and who really did it!!!!!!!

1.4 Source Material
The information presented in this document was obtained from two sources. Much of the
information was obtained from discussions with structural engineering teams that worked at
Ground Zero. The other source was the author’s own opinions based on working at Ground
Zero.
Nothing in this document should be interpreted as a criticism of any of the structural engineers or
structural engineering organizations involved with any aspect of the emergency response. Any
questions regarding this issue should be resolved by referring to Chapter 11 of this document.

Ron was on the team!!!!! he told us in the letter you ignored

Thanks so much Chris for taking the time to ignore the work I did for you

Thanks Chris for being so kind and taking the time to ignore my work to correct your source.

Thank you

You are suggesting we become victims of a bogus batch of text that does not explain this (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) when a concrete core does? And, the concrete is also seen here (no steel core columns), (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) and what is this if it is not rebar (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg).

No one has explained those fine vertical elements logically, so your team is really neglecting an important aspect.

Bell

8th November 2006, 06:06 PM

http://www.fullerton.edu/emergencypreparedness/images/ambulance.jpg

Christophera

8th November 2006, 06:16 PM

it looks like a big dark phallis hidden behind a cloud of dust and smoke...nothng more.

If it's your birfday I ain't saying nothing about sex.

I will only say that drywall will not survive the crash of hunderds of thousands of tons of steel around it. So, if there were steel core columns and drywallwas fastened to them, the ddrywall would be stripped off and the columns would be showing and would look something like this.
(http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) whic is a column, but NOT a core column. It is an interior box column which ringed the core outside the concrete shear wall of the concrete tubular core and was massive. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg)

Christophera

8th November 2006, 06:33 PM

this begs numerous questions. here's a few:-

now let me get this straight. you contend that at least 24 columns were explosively cut on every third floor? quickly reckoned that's 37x24 steel beams cut this way. correct? thats a ballpark figure of at least ummm 888 cutting charges in each building? when was this work done? how many men did it take to do this mammoth job? under who's orders were these men? how did they manage to do the evil deed unoticed? by thousands of wtc office workers, security staff, maintenance employees etc etc.
and don't steel beams, girders, columns or whatever have to be especially weakened with mecahanical cutting (ie by grinding or oxy-acetylene torches etc) to prep for explosive demolition? isn't this normal practice when demolishing steel fabricated buildings? if so when was this work done?

wouldn't have these explosions have made unmistakeable noises? this is not even considering your C4-rebar. i am sure even above the hellish roar of the collapsing towers someone, somewhere would have heard or recorded such noises.

i don't expect any coherent answers to be forthcomong from you but i feel the questions should be asked just for the sake of everyones sanity. especially yours.........

BV

this begs numerous questions. here's a few:-

now let me get this straight. you contend that at least 24 columns were explosively cut on every third floor? quickly reckoned that's 37x24 steel beams cut this way. correct? thats a ballpark figure of at least ummm 888 cutting charges in each building? when was this work done? how many men did it take to do this mammoth job? under who's orders were these men? how did they manage to do the evil deed unoticed? by thousands of wtc office workers, security staff, maintenance employees etc etc.

My site deals with much of this issue, here.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1233383

The special cutting charges were built into the floors at construction. The C4 was place just prior to pouring the concrete on the floor pans. The documentary, "The Construction of the Twin Towers" mentioned that the completion of the floors was the one part they were unable to find photos of

and don't steel beams, girders, columns or whatever have to be especially weakened with mecahanical cutting (ie by grinding or oxy-acetylene torches etc) to prep for explosive demolition? isn't this normal practice when demolishing steel fabricated buildings? if so when was this work done? .

No such preparation is needed when conducting explosive shear to the piece being cut. Plenty of special stuff needs to be positioned/afixed etc. around it. Depending on the thickness and size of the steel.

wouldn't have these explosions have made unmistakeable noises? this is not even considering your C4-rebar. i am sure even above the hellish roar of the collapsing towers someone, somewhere would have heard or recorded such noises..

Absolutely. The only reason the cutting of the massive interior box columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) are not obvious is that they were contained in the floors cast concrete which muffled the blast and made the cutting charge much more effective. This issue of the severe sharp crack noise made by uncontained high explosives is one that I use to argue against the steel core columns. Very important point and your recognition of that is very reasonable.
The supposed 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns would require 1,300 + cutting charges to be cut into the lengths found at GZ. That, ........ completely changes the character of what was seen and heard. TOTALLY.

i don't expect any coherent answers to be forthcomong from you but i feel the questions should be asked just for the sake of everyones sanity. especially yours.........

BV

Sorry I missed that the first time and thanks for bring it up again,

Once again, reasonable questions lost in the deletrious of psycholliegy. Your post was actually a very logical set of conclusions as basis for query.

Christophera

8th November 2006, 06:39 PM

You still don't get it. The picture your posting is a low resolution, compressed image taken from a point several hundred yards from the building. 3 inch rebar would be undetectable from that distance. The only thing those spires could be is the columns seen in the higher resolution photos.

If you don't believe me. Get a 3 inch rebar stand it up in the ground. drive away from it about a quarter mile and take a picture of it with a 6 megapixel (heck try even using a 12 megapixel camera) camera and let me know if you can see it. As a matter of fact post the picture when you've made it.

There, I've just given you a method to prove me wrong. Let me know how it works out.

Two pictures both taken from the same camera seconds apart at the same distance. The first shows a 2 foot wide interior box column which establishing the scale at the distance of 7500 feet.

The second shows a fine vertical element BARELY seen. It is seen meaning the pixel calculatons are NOT taking something into account. On the left side many rebar are clustered making a better exposure. Low, on the right the resolution is not adequate to capture the lower part of the rebar meaning the pixel calculations are partially right, proving the small size.

What else besides high tensile rebar of that small size would be standing over 100 feet tall unsupported?

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

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

ON EDIT. BTW, I am a surveyor and do that all the time with 1.25" range poles and they cannot be seen. I use a 2.5" PVC pipe which is barely visible at that distance.

Bell

8th November 2006, 06:51 PM

The second shows a fine vertical element BARELY seen. It is seen meaning the pixel calculatons are NOT taking something into account. On the left side many rebar are clustered making a better exposure. Low, on the right the resolution is not adequate to capture the lower part of the rebar meaning the pixel calculations are partially right, proving the small size.

What the hell are you trying to say here? Could you, please, atleast make an effort on making coherent sentences? Jeez, your writing is almost as foggy as your brain.

And where is my requested picture where you point out the rebar?

Jennie C.

8th November 2006, 06:58 PM

BTW, I am a surveyor and do that all the time with 1.25" range poles and they cannot be seen. I use a 2.5" PVC pipe which is barely visible at that distance.

You're a surveyor too? On top of emptying the wastebaskets at the construction firm and doing demolitions and witnessing demolitions and...

oh darn, I knew I shoulda scanned the thread for all of your occupations, but it's late and Lost is coming to a climax here.

Bell

8th November 2006, 07:01 PM

You're a surveyor too? On top of emptying the wastebaskets at the construction firm and doing demolitions and witnessing demolitions and...

oh darn, I knew I shoulda scanned the thread for all of your occupations, but it's late and Lost is coming to a climax here.

Let me help. He's also a ditch digger.
It scares me that Bleeding Virgin is operating heavy machinery.

Belz...

8th November 2006, 07:04 PM

Common sense. Historically most folks here have shown they refuse to use it.

The same common sense that tells you the Earth is flat and heavier objects fall faster ?

I guess your claim that it fell "too fast" is bunk, then.

I noticed the one you support doesn't provide a reasonable explanation for rates of fall near free fall or the fact the towers are pulverized in mid air. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg)

Irrelevant. You've just shown that your "near free fall" argument is based on gut feelings.

Which is undiagnosable because of failure to appear on subpoena (http://algoxy.com/law/images/subden.gif) which of course doesn't mattter to you because you support lawless governments.

I don't see how believing REAL evidence has anything to do with any government, lawless or otherwise. Argument by association, I guess.

Your medical condition will go down in history as the greatest malady to effect humnity ever.

Yes, chronic back pains can be very annoying.

Also, appeal to emotion.

Belz...

8th November 2006, 07:06 PM

Those are not core columns. The rectangular frames shown are of the outer frameworks inner wall. The same frames are seen in the image annotated as "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS". Notice that ONLY the columns ringing the core are labeled MASSIVE. Those columns are also the spire.

homer,

You are embarrasing humanity with your constant misrepresentations.

NOTICE: homer has not provided a reasonable explanation for what the fine vertical elements (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) are IF they are not rebar.

Funny. You manage to contradict yourself in two consecutive posts. Guess that solves the question of your memory.

Belz...

8th November 2006, 07:08 PM

The supposed 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns would require 1,300 + cutting charges to be cut into the lengths found at GZ. That, ........ completely changes the character of what was seen and heard. TOTALLY.

That's because you ASSUME that there were cutting charges, an entirely circular line of reasoning.

Two pictures both taken from the same camera seconds apart at the same distance.

None of which show concrete. You're saying that one shows box columns, and THEN we see rebar ?

Christophera

8th November 2006, 07:33 PM

Oh, I know it's in vain.

I understand why chris is arguing, here. He's utterly convinced of his ideas. Though I disagree and I suspect, with evidence, that he has some mental problem, his behaviour is expected.

Oliver, on the other hand, I don't get. When a thread ceases to interest me I move on. He seems to linger, and keeps saying things to me although he knows I'm ignoring him. For some reason, he also seems to assume I'm much, much younger than him. He's a weird bird, that man. Cute girlfriend, though.

You are correct. I am convinced, but it is not an idea. And, ....... convinced is not really the right word. The word is, ....... I know.

This is knowledge beyond any shadow of any doubt. I watched the documentary and knew exactly what I was seeing and hearing all through it. I remembered it before I even knew FEMA was trying to tell the world it had steel core columns.

When I found that out, ....... I got a sick feeling about a BIG infiltration into the US government.

Regnad Kcin

8th November 2006, 08:07 PM

You are correct. I am convinced, but it is not an idea. And, ....... convinced is not really the right word. The word is, ....... I know.And yet you're wrong. Amazing, innit?

This is knowledge beyond any shadow of any doubt. I watched the documentary and knew exactly what I was seeing and hearing all through it. I remembered it before I even knew FEMA was trying to tell the world it had steel core columns.And yet the "documentary" doesn't exist, and everything that does refutes your assertions. Amazing, innit?

When I found that out, ....... I got a sick feeling about a BIG infiltration into the US government.An infiltration so BIG you can't name even one player. Amazing, innit?

NobbyNobbs

8th November 2006, 08:22 PM

You are correct. I am convinced, but it is not an idea. And, ....... convinced is not really the right word. The word is, ....... I know.

This is knowledge beyond any shadow of any doubt. I watched the documentary and knew exactly what I was seeing and hearing all through it. I remembered it before I even knew FEMA was trying to tell the world it had steel core columns.

When I found that out, ....... I got a sick feeling about a BIG infiltration into the US government.

This reminds me of how the Ufologists know that aliens walk among us, and that there are those who know that the Apollo moon landing was a hoax, and those who know that the Earth is hollow. It'd be interesting for someone with a PET scan to pinpoint which part of the brain is misfiring for someone to be so deadset certain against all available evidence.

Regnad Kcin

8th November 2006, 08:24 PM

Also, and again, Mr. B., you may retract your assertion that I "never responded" here to your "towers fell in the wrong order" claim.

Christophera

8th November 2006, 10:34 PM

What the hell are you trying to say here? Could you, please, at least make an effort on making coherent sentences? Jeez, your writing is almost as foggy as your brain.

And where is my requested picture where you point out the rebar?

I make compound sentences. Sometimes they don't work. I've got too much to say and too little time to say it.

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

Christophera

8th November 2006, 10:37 PM

Also, and again, Mr. B., you may retract your assertion that I "never responded" here to your "towers fell in the wrong order" claim.

Okay, retracted. However your response did not show that my analysis of the "towers fell in the wrong order" (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1207667) was illogical.

Christophera

8th November 2006, 10:39 PM

This reminds me of how the Ufologists know that aliens walk among us, and that there are those who know that the Apollo moon landing was a hoax, and those who know that the Earth is hollow. It'd be interesting for someone with a PET scan to pinpoint which part of the brain is misfiring for someone to be so deadset certain against all available evidence.

Understood. However, this image has not yet been logically described as anything but a steel reinforced concrete tybe.

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

Christophera

8th November 2006, 10:42 PM

That's because you ASSUME that there were cutting charges, an entirely circular line of reasoning.

That column on the left matches hundreds from GZ. Sheared & Torch Cut Columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc.box.shear.torch.gif)

None of which show concrete. You're saying that one shows box columns, and THEN we see rebar ?

This one shows 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) but this one shows concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) and it is taken while the spire stands, just before the rebar image.

Christophera

8th November 2006, 10:45 PM

Funny. You manage to contradict yourself in two consecutive posts. Guess that solves the question of your memory.

I don't see the contradictions. You will have to point them out.

Did you attempt to explain what this (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) is if it is not rebar?

How about a logical explanation for what this (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) is if it is not concrete.

Oliver

8th November 2006, 11:21 PM

I make compound sentences. Sometimes they don't work. I've got too much to say and too little time to say it.

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

You have much to say - i agree with that. But you say nothing,
and time is one of your smallest problems.

The picture you posted is a police car or something like that.
So where is this retarded rabar? Under the car?

Oliver

8th November 2006, 11:24 PM

Okay, retracted. However your response did not show that my analysis of the "towers fell in the wrong order" (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1207667) was illogical.

You did an analysis? Of what? Listen, PAL - you´re whining
all day long about this god d@mned central concrete core
and even if there was such a core, all you Clown are doing
is posting this image that shows a dustclud with a shadow
within.

You remember the 1/4 of americans, do you?

Oliver

8th November 2006, 11:26 PM

Understood. However, this image has not yet been logically described as anything but a steel reinforced concrete tybe.

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

Okay, Clown. I will report this message because you are
not able to present any evidence but this ***** image
of the dustcloud over and over again.

Oliver

8th November 2006, 11:33 PM

That column on the left matches hundreds from GZ. Sheared & Torch Cut Columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc.box.shear.torch.gif)
his one shows 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) but this one shows concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) and it is taken while the spire stands, just before the rebar image.

And? Waht does the cutted columns proof? Maybe that they did
not explode into its atoms after the C4 blew up whole new york?

Oliver

8th November 2006, 11:36 PM

I don't see the contradictions. You will have to point them out.

Did you attempt to explain what this (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) is if it is not rebar?

How about a logical explanation for what this (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) is if it is not concrete.

There is no need to explain any of those pictures. You can´t tell
for sure what this is on this distance. Even if i can tell what these
pictures say about you. Please show us closer pictures or pictures
from the construction to proof anything but your incompetence,

thank you,
Oliver

Oliver

8th November 2006, 11:41 PM

You are correct. I am convinced, but it is not an idea. And, ....... convinced is not really the right word. The word is, ....... I know.

This is knowledge beyond any shadow of any doubt. I watched the documentary and knew exactly what I was seeing and hearing all through it. I remembered it before I even knew FEMA was trying to tell the world it had steel core columns.

When I found that out, ....... I got a sick feeling about a BIG infiltration into the US government.

The documentary again. One of my personal favorites, Alfred.
So when did you see that documentary - are you sure it was
not a porno? Or maybe it was a comic - or a medical book
you was reading while waiting in a waiting room of a psychologist,
or somethig like that?

How many years is this ago that you saw the "documentary".
Did you start a search within the internet to see how many
"documentaries" were made about the towers?

Are you sure they showed all the explosives and how they
were installed during the construction?

Are you sure it was no psychical kind of mental defect. Such
paranoia exist - nothing personal.

Oliver

8th November 2006, 11:43 PM

Oh, I know it's in vain.

I understand why chris is arguing, here. He's utterly convinced of his ideas. Though I disagree and I suspect, with evidence, that he has some mental problem, his behaviour is expected.

Oh, I know it's in vain.

I understand why belz is arguing, here. He's utterly convinced of his ideas. Though I disagree and I suspect, with evidence, that he has some mental problem, his behaviour is expected

Oliver

8th November 2006, 11:50 PM

The same common sense that tells you the Earth is flat and heavier objects fall faster ?

Please stop your personal insults. Chris may have a serious
psychic probem but he never said that the earth is flat.

I guess your claim that it fell "too fast" is bunk, then.

Maybe it fell to fast because the camera did recorder did
not work correctly. So the video plays faster than in real time.

Irrelevant.

Yes, indeed. Irrelevant.

You've just shown that your "near free fall" argument is based on gut feelings.

And, What´s wrong with it, clown? All theories are based on
some lousy facts combined with a gut feeling. Have a problem
with it? See you in another thread.

I don't see how believing REAL evidence has anything to do with any government, lawless or otherwise.

Could you explain what you didm´t understand about it?

Argument by association, I guess.

Guessing does not help at all when argumenting. Please stop it.

Yes, chronic back pains can be very annoying.

So why do you know something about it in your young life?

Also, appeal to emotion.

Dito.

Oliver

8th November 2006, 11:52 PM

Funny. You manage to contradict yourself in two consecutive posts. Guess that solves the question of your memory.

I think this was just a mistake of him so you shouldn´t
criticize him for this simple lack of his attention.

Oliver

8th November 2006, 11:53 PM

That's because you ASSUME that there were cutting charges, an entirely circular line of reasoning.

None of which show concrete. You're saying that one shows box columns, and THEN we see rebar ?

I see rebar, too. What´s wrong with that?

Oliver

8th November 2006, 11:59 PM

If it's your birfday I ain't saying nothing about sex.

BTW: When was your day of birt, Alfred?

http://people.tribe.net/5fe7438a-f90c-4902-b7af-ff4eaf90d737
Age 53 (true?)
I am a spirit warrior using the instincts of love as a force compelled with understanding to inspire creations that have divine potentials which focus us in our potentials.

Oliver

9th November 2006, 12:00 AM

What the hell are you trying to say here? Could you, please, atleast make an effort on making coherent sentences? Jeez, your writing is almost as foggy as your brain.

And where is my requested picture where you point out the rebar?

*lol* Shall we bet which Picture (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) he will show you ... TO PROOF ANYTHING (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) - EVEN GOD (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)? :D

:p

Oliver

9th November 2006, 12:09 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.

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

Okay, Alfred. Please define your initial statement again
after we discussed the issue long enough. Is it still the
same question you have?

Oliver

9th November 2006, 12:14 AM

BTW, Alfred.

I just found another LIE of you:
http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?boardID=1052&discussionID=257204

You do not beliefe in god, definitively. Otherwise you wouldn´t
torture his creations and cast doubt on his decisions.

ETA: Do you still believe in the free fall thing? You could sum up
all the crap you believe so far. Thank you.

Bell

9th November 2006, 02:32 AM

I make compound sentences. Sometimes they don't work. I've got too much to say and too little time to say it.

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

Yes, and now draw arrows on that picture that point to the alleged rebar? I asked this before.

Oliver

9th November 2006, 02:41 AM

Yes, and now draw arrows on that picture that point to the alleged rebar? I asked this before.

*BUMB* Just in case Bell is on your ignore list.

gumboot

9th November 2006, 02:50 AM

I can't believe you people are still posting in this thread.

Unbelievable. You must be suckers for punishment. :p I bet whn you get home at night you dress in leather and hang yourself from the ceiling via hooks.

I mean, Belz, I can understand. He's Satan. That sort of self-torture is a given (though always better if someone ELSE is doing the hook-hanging!). But the rest of you? I'm surprised.

;)

Carry on.

-Gumboot

Bell

9th November 2006, 02:53 AM

Okay, retracted. However your response did not show that my analysis of the "towers fell in the wrong order" (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1207667) was illogical.

Alas, since you are lying about the wrong tower falling first - you failed to show us evidence, only your own 'analysis' - there is nothing to respond to.

Bell

9th November 2006, 02:54 AM

Oliver

9th November 2006, 02:56 AM

twinstead

9th November 2006, 02:57 AM

So, for the millionth time, no Chris there is NOT a "realistice" explanation of for the free fall of the towers, because they DID NOT FALL FREE FALL.

Oliver

9th November 2006, 02:58 AM

So, for the millionth time, no Chris there is NOT a "realistice" explanation of for the free fall of the towers, because they DID NOT FALL FREE FALL.

And i say there is nothing like freefall because it
depends on how your brain does interprets it... :D

Mobyseven

9th November 2006, 05:16 AM

ON EDIT. BTW, I am a surveyor and do that all the time with 1.25" range poles and they cannot be seen. I use a 2.5" PVC pipe which is barely visible at that distance.

So, you are admitting that the 3" rebar you claim is in the photo would in fact NOT show up at the distance and with the resolution that your 'evidence' photo was taken at. Just in case you missed it the first time:

...1.25" range poles and they cannot be seen...

...2.5" PVC pipe which is barely visible at that distance

Mobyseven

9th November 2006, 05:27 AM

You are correct. I am convinced, but it is not an idea. And, ....... convinced is not really the right word. The word is, ....... I know.

I know a lot of things. I know that the Earth orbits the sun. I know that cyanide makes for bad milkshake flavouring. I know that if you double the frequency of a note you will get same note one octave higher.

I know these things because they have been empirically tested and have stood up to all tests so far. They are believable beyond reasonable doubt. If all of a sudden they failed an empirical test, then I would have reason to doubt these things until another explanation is found. I would not, however, know what that explanation is, only that a better one exists.

I also believe a number of things. I believe in God. I do not believe in the concept of hell, or eternal damnation. (I'm Jewish by the way). I have no evidence to support these metaphysical assertions, I can only say, 'I believe.'

Your hypothesis falls under the category of 'beliefs' until you can find some empirical evidence to back up your theory.

This is knowledge beyond any shadow of any doubt. I watched the documentary and knew exactly what I was seeing and hearing all through it. I remembered it before I even knew FEMA was trying to tell the world it had steel core columns.

Then tell us the name of the documentary. Tell us how we might go about viewing it.

If it is the PBS documentary that has been found by another member, what do you say to the fact that it apparently at no point mentions a concrete core? Or is that a different documentary?

Just tell us the name of the documentary to give us a starting point. Or an approximate air-date.

When I found that out, ....... I got a sick feeling about a BIG infiltration into the US government.

Take your meds then.