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

[Mobyseven]

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

Er...do you know what a compound sentence is?

"I ate dinner and had a shower."

That is an example of a compound sentence. For those of you playing at home, a compound sentence is a sentence that contains two or more coordinating clauses, joined by a coordinating conjunction.

The most common conjunction of this type is the lexeme "and".

If you are having trouble writing sentences with the lexeme "and" in them, the you are in SERIOUS trouble.

(By the way, - the other type of conjunction is used in a complex sentence, consisting of a main clause with one or more subordinate clauses. An example of this would be, "I swam to Paul because he was drowning." Just in case anyone was interested.)

[Oliver]

so your reasoning is:-

no evidence that the steel core columns were cut explosively..........
=
...................proof that steel core columns did not exist!

that argument holds less water than a dead dingo's donger...........

BV

CONGRATULATIONS! :D You did the 7000 mark! http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/love005.gif

[Mobyseven]

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?

That appears to be part of the outer section of the collapsing building. The poor quality and blurring of the "spire" part of that photo, in comparison with the buildings both in the foreground and background which are in focus, suggests that either the "spire" is still in motion (i.e. - collapsing), or that it has been photoshopped in and deliberately blurred to make it seem ambiguous.

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

Another building, the silhouette of which can be seen through the dust cloud created by the collapsed building.

[NobbyNobbs]

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.




I think this was tried many pages ago. What followed then was an attempt by several other readers (myself included) to find mention of this documentary in the PBS archives. Needless to say, no such documentary was found.

[Mobyseven]

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.

The pain hurts so good...

:eek:

[Mobyseven]

I think this was tried many pages ago. What followed then was an attempt by several other readers (myself included) to find mention of this documentary in the PBS archives. Needless to say, no such documentary was found.

And I repeat...the pain hurts so good.

I'm hoping by posting this again that he might at least give us some clue as to when the documentary aired, what it was called...I dunno.

Perhaps it exists on a higher metaphysical plane.

[bonavada]

<snip>
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.

Take your meds then.

chris can provide no link to anyone else who has produced OR EVEN SEEN the documentary. so far, it seems he is the only person on this planet who has any knowledge of it.
he has been sussed out on any number of inaccuracies and his theory of a concrete core crumbles to dust just like that fantastic concoction does in his fervid imagination.
and.............
he tells blatant lies about mohawk ironworkers:
he implicates thousands of professional experts in his sick conspiracy:
he lies about the basic construction of the towers:
about dodgy pictures he uses as "raw evidence":
he uses statements of survivors of 9/11 and cherry-picks quotes to suit his fallacious intent:
he can provide no reputable reference sources to back up his absurd claims:
most tellingly though he has also stated that NOTHING will ever change his mind........

BV

[Oliver]

he has also stated that NOTHING will ever change his mind........

BV

Try this one... :D

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

[Mobyseven]

Try this one... :D

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

A step forward in my research on how to punch someone through the internet. A woody phallic object could be just the thing I've been missing. Baseball bat, that is.

[Bell]

Christophera,

Did your imaginary PBS documentary addressed the explosives that were placed inside the WTC? Did they actually talk about the explosives?

[bonavada]

<snip>
Another building, the silhouette of which can be seen through the dust cloud created by the collapsed building.

no..that's a natural assumption like i first made, but the series of pictures

HERE (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/)

show that there was no building behind to cause it.
so what is it? of course i can't accept chris' assertion that it is evidence of a conctete core, i think the enigmatic phallic shadow is possibly a swirling cloud of dust around the steel core before that also succumbed to gravity?

BV

[Oliver]

A step forward in my research on how to punch someone through the internet. A woody phallic object could be just the thing I've been missing. Baseball bat, that is.


Well, if you have trouble because the "Punch someone
over the internet"-problem... Need an address? :D

[Trigood]

chris can provide no link to anyone else who has produced OR EVEN SEEN the documentary. so far, it seems he is the only person on this planet who has any knowledge of it.
Apparently, its broadcast was preceded by fnords that made everyone but him go into a trance-like state for the exact length of the film.

he has been sussed out on any number of inaccuracies and his theory of a concrete core crumbles to dust just like that fantastic concoction does in his fervid imagination.
and.............
he tells blatant lies about mohawk ironworkers:
he implicates thousands of professional experts in his sick conspiracy:
he lies about the basic construction of the towers:
about dodgy pictures he uses as "raw evidence":
he uses statements of survivors of 9/11 and cherry-picks quotes to suit his fallacious intent:
he can provide no reputable reference sources to back up his absurd claims:
most tellingly though he has also stated that NOTHING will ever change his mind........

BV

[firecoins]

over 7000 posts and 170 pages and reality still has not set in.

[bonavada]

That appears to be part of the outer section of the collapsing building. The poor quality and blurring of the "spire" part of that photo, in comparison with the buildings both in the foreground and background which are in focus, suggests that either the "spire" is still in motion (i.e. - collapsing), or that it has been photoshopped in and deliberately blurred to make it seem ambiguous.
Another building, the silhouette of which can be seen through the dust cloud created by the collapsed building.

i think the below may be a close up of that "spire". i'm not absolutely sure, perhaps someone could confirm either way?
anyway. more "raw evidence", as chris would have it, of the 47 columns that composed the steel core of WTC1/2. no evidence of a concrete core there strangely.................


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/874845533b6969bde.jpg

ETA
below is the image from where the above zoom originated. sorry. i'm a little confused, am i right in thinking this is the NORTH tower? the second tower to collapse?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/874845533db236036.jpg
BV

[Oliver]

over 7000 posts and 170 pages and reality still has not set in.

Well, i guess THIS thread is the true war on terror.
Fighting all stupidity about 9/11...

ADDED:

Chris Alfred B... The mother of all conspiracy-theorists... :D

[GrnMtSkeptic]

Further review makes me think not.

[uruk]

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. There's your first problem. Your making the asumption that the column seen in the picture is 2 feet wide. If that coulmn is actually one of the "massive" columns, as you put it, Your calculations would be off.
The truth is at the distance the picture was taken (on the New Jersey bank)
That structure is quite a bit larger than 2 feet. Compare the size of the "spire" to the windows in the buildings in the foreground. How wide would you say those windows are? Now realized the the "spire" is even further back than the buildings. Now check your calculations out again. How wide are those columns?

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. Again, the resolution in the picture is too low to make a definitive conclusion. To me the fine lines look like denser areas in the dust streaming off the columns.
What else besides high tensile rebar of that small size would be standing over 100 feet tall unsupported? A hundred foot steel box column would be more stable that a hundred foot 3 inch rebar. The four sides of a box column would provide more self support than a circular solid 3 inch steel rebar. That's just common sense. You really don't know much about engineering. Besides it did not stand for more than acouple of seconds.

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.
Do you eyeball it or do you use a theodolite? You know one of these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodolite
Because if you do use a theodolite it has a telescope on it. Not to mention it also has laser range finding and GPS. That's if its a recent model. The college where I teach has a surveying class and they teach them how to use theodolites. Maybe you should take a class.

If you eye ball it, well then, now I know why you have so much time to devote to plaguing forums with your lunacy. Your really bad at judging distance and size.

[uruk]

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.
;)

Carry on.

-Gumboot
Doesn't everybody?

[bonavada]

That structure is quite a bit larger than 2 feet. Compare the size of the "spire" to the windows in the buildings in the foreground. How wide would you say those windows are? Now realized the the "spire" is even further back than the buildings.

take a look at a few zooms of images from the source (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/) below. importantly the same source christophera uses.
it's quite evident that the structure of whatever we see here is much larger than 3" rebar. however there is a plethora of evidence of the steel columns that made up the core. notice also that christophera is very choosy in what he regards as "raw evidence"

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748455348d3ef31c.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748455348d42d173.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748455348d45e651.jpg

BV

[Christophera]

That appears to be part of the outer section of the collapsing building. The poor quality and blurring of the "spire" part of that photo, in comparison with the buildings both in the foreground and background which are in focus, suggests that either the "spire" is still in motion (i.e. - collapsing), or that it has been photoshopped in and deliberately blurred to make it seem ambiguous.

Another building, the silhouette of which can be seen through the dust cloud created by the collapsed building.

You did not show a contradiction.

Here is the WTC 2 core lower (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcore2stands.gif)

[Christophera]

take a look at a few zooms of images from the source (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/) below. importantly the same source christophera uses.
it's quite evident that the structure of whatever we see here is much larger than 3" rebar. however there is a plethora of evidence of the steel columns that made up the core. notice also that christophera is very choosy in what he regards as "raw evidence"

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748455348d3ef31c.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748455348d42d173.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748455348d45e651.jpg

BV

Your images above show the same interior box columns or "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) as the spire before the horizontal rebar detonates and the interior box columns fall away from the core detonations below. We may be looking at 2 interior box columns at a corner diagonally which might have a viewed width of a little over 3 feet. Note the proportions of the interior box columns and floor beams in the aerial image.

You really should try and support your assertions that there were steel core columns in the core area because I show a concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) at that phase of the demoition.

[firecoins]

http://www.stuntgrunts.com/sections/photo_gallery/bunny.jpg

[Christophera]

There's your first problem. Your making the asumption that the column seen in the picture is 2 feet wide. If that coulmn is actually one of the "massive" columns, as you put it, Your calculations would be off.
The truth is at the distance the picture was taken (on the New Jersey bank)
That structure is quite a bit larger than 2 feet. Compare the size of the "spire" to the windows in the buildings in the foreground. How wide would you say those windows are? Now realized the the "spire" is even further back than the buildings. Now check your calculations out again. How wide are those columns?

Note the reactangles formed by the interior box column and the floor beams.

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

This matches the rectangles seen here.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748455348d45e651.jpg

Establishing that the image shows interior box columns. Yes the size could be a little larger than 2 feet as the corners had 2 columns joined as can be seen in the aerial on the right. Depending on the angle.

Again, the resolution in the picture is too low to make a definitive conclusion. To me the fine lines look like denser areas in the dust streaming off the columns.
A hundred foot steel box column would be more stable that a hundred foot 3 inch rebar. The four sides of a box column would provide more self support than a circular solid 3 inch steel rebar. That's just common sense. You really don't know much about engineering. Besides it did not stand for more than acouple of seconds..

A hundred foot box column would be stronger, which proves nothing as the image showing it depicts a taller element. The image with the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) is lower.

You might recall I'm the one that has consistency with images and a web site documenting the concrete core. (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html) How are you so savvy about engineering when you continue to (fail to) assert that supposed steel core columns you cannot evidence with raw images actually existed in the core area?


Do you eyeball it or do you use a theodolite? You know one of these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodolite
Because if you do use a theodolite it has a telescope on it. Not to mention it also has laser range finding and GPS. That's if its a recent model. The college where I teach has a surveying class and they teach them how to use theodolites. Maybe you should take a class.

If you eye ball it, well then, now I know why you have so much time to devote to plaguing forums with your lunacy. Your really bad at judging distance and size.

Of course I use the naked eye in that evaluation because i have to point the 30x telesope of my 1 second electronic theodolite (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/nikon2dtm551.jpg) somehow. And the target is a white piece of PVC silhouetted against a blue sky not a slightly wider black piece of steel.

[Christophera]

i think the below may be a close up of that "spire". i'm not absolutely sure, perhaps someone could confirm either way?
anyway. more "raw evidence", as chris would have it, of the 47 columns that composed the steel core of WTC1/2. no evidence of a concrete core there strangely.................


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/874845533b6969bde.jpg



This linked image of the the concrete blowing up (http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8232/wtcsl8.jpg) leaves the interior box columns standing shown in your image. The core area in your image is empty.

You have no evidence of steel core columns.

[Christophera]

Christophera,

Did your imaginary PBS documentary addressed the explosives that were placed inside the WTC? Did they actually talk about the explosives?

Absolutely not. They only mentioned a "special, anti corrosion, anti vibration" plastic coating that was also flammable. Something a welding contractor learned in trying to get justification for the requirement that all welders welding the reba of the core walls must have a security clearance.

The documentary did gain a mysterious "air" regarding the "special plastic" coated rebar as well as the mysterious floor evacuations prior to the stages of pouring concrete.

[Bell]

Absolutely not. They only mentioned a "special, anti corrosion, anti vibration" plastic coating that was also flammable. Something a welding contractor learned in trying to get justification for the requirement that all welders welding the reba of the core walls must have a security clearance.

The documentary did gain a mysterious "air" regarding the "special plastic" coated rebar as well as the mysterious floor evacuations prior to the stages of pouring concrete.

Okay, thanks. The PBS documentary does not prove the explosives that were build right into the tower.

So what source do you have that does proof those explosives? Are there schematics? Blueprints? I'm confused, because I know that without hard evidence, you would not make such a bold statement. I mean, you must be able to show us more than your logical conclusions?

It is like you would not take our word for it if we told you, for example, there was no concrete core? You would also be demanding evidence.

I'm very excited about the kind of evidence for the explosives that you have. This is very important!

[Jennie C.]

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.

"Imagine what you'll know tomorrow." "K" (as played by Tommy Lee Jones)

[Christophera]

Chris,

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

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


The assertion that there was no concrete core is fraudulent because the towers did have a core and steel core columns cannot be evidenced from raw sources.

As I've said. I've found at least 3 people who saw documentaries that used the same clips having the concrete core construction.

This (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) image shows what can only be concrete shear wall.

Here is the core of WTC 2 falling onto the top of WTC 3 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.gif)

[Christophera]

Okay, thanks. The PBS documentary does not prove the explosives that were build right into the tower.

So what source do you have that does proof those explosives? Are there schematics? Blueprints? I'm confused, because I know that without hard evidence, you would not make such a bold statement. I mean, you must be able to show us more than your logical conclusions?

It is like you would not take our word for it if we told you, for example, there was no concrete core? You would also be demanding evidence.

I'm very excited about the kind of evidence for the explosives that you have. This is very important!

If you knew anything about blasting the below image would be all the proof you need to know that high explosives were optimally placed and distributed inside of concrete containment. What is seen cannot happen any other way.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3998&stc=1&d=1163096431

[Bell]

If you knew anything about blasting the below image would be all the proof you need to know that high explosives were optimally placed and distributed inside of concrete containment. What is seen cannot happen any other way.

Well, that was not what I asked. This is your assumption by looking at that picture. Which is a fraction of a second of what was a highly evolving event. To me it looks like a 110 story building is in the midst of a collapse.

But hey, I'm sure you have real evidence of explosives in the towers? Like blueprints? Taped confessions? Pictures of said explosives being put in place?

[Christophera]

I think this was tried many pages ago. What followed then was an attempt by several other readers (myself included) to find mention of this documentary in the PBS archives. Needless to say, no such documentary was found.

It is only logical that if 2 1,300 hundred towers can be built with explosives in side their cast concrete, then a documentary of their construction can be removed from the PBS archives and all record of it as well.

Do you approve of that?

[Christophera]

Well, that was not what I asked. This is your assumption by looking at that picture. Which is a fraction of a second of what was a highly evolving event. To me it looks like a 110 story building is in the midst of a collapse.

But hey, I'm sure you have real evidence of explosives in the towers? Like blueprints? Taped confessions? Pictures of said explosives being put in place?

Like I said. You do not know enough about the uses of explosives and how difficult it is to attain breakage as is seen to evaluate the event.

Are you really naive enough to think that professionals are going to risk anything to support the truth of demolition?

[firecoins]

I think aliens blew up the WTC. They did it create more conspiracy theories and the lack of intelligence that goes with it.

[Christophera]

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.

One additional time,

I have aquiesed that the exact time cannot be asertained therefore I use the term "near free fall."

[uruk]

Note the reactangles formed by the interior box column and the floor beams.

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

This matches the rectangles seen here.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748455348d45e651.jpg

Establishing that the image shows interior box columns. Yes the size could be a little larger than 2 feet as the corners had 2 columns joined as can be seen in the aerial on the right. Depending on the angle.
Could be!? If you look at the construction films as well as the debris removal pictures you will notice that they are at least 4 feet wide.


A hundred foot box column would be stronger, which proves nothing as the image showing it depicts a taller element. The image with the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) is lower. Well nice to see that reality is seeping in. And it does prove that the spire has to be one of the columns.
a 3 inch steel rebar that length could not possibly stand up unsupported.
But hey try it out your self. Show us a video of what happens.

[quote]You might recall I'm the one that has consistency with images and a web site documenting the concrete core. (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html) How are you so savvy about engineering when you continue to (fail to) assert that supposed steel core columns you cannot evidence with raw images actually existed in the core area?[quote] Consistanly wrong you mean.
I don't know how you define evidence. You post a picture and call that evidence, we post a picture and you don't call it evidence. You seem to be imploying a double standard. Not very honest of you. I am savvy enough to know that that spire cannot possibly be a 3 inch rebar. Anybody with common sense can tell that. I am savvy enough to see hundreds of tons of steel columns littered about the ground zero debris field. Something which you seem to blind to. Just look at the photos in the website.
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/

[Christophera]

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.

You are making an error in your choice of words. I would not be "lying" about the wrong tower falling first, I would be "in error".

However, according to logic, the wrong tower did fall first, and ....... the tops of both towers fell in the wrong directions according to logic.

So, ........ you have just made 2 errors and an oversight.

[Bell]

Like I said. You do not know enough about the uses of explosives and how difficult it is to attain breakage as is seen to evaluate the event.

Are you really naive enough to think that professionals are going to risk anything to support the truth of demolition?

So? No evidence then?

Okay, I've added it to the list:

1.) Explosives placed inside the towers during construction - NO evidence
2.) Airplanes hitting the wrong towers - NO evidence
3.) The fires inside the towers going out - NO evidence
4.) The wrong tower falling first - NO evidence

And the concrete core? - NO evidence, beside a misprint in a book, a faulty diagram from the BBC website on 9/12/01 and a grainy picture that shows nothing more but a dark shape behind dustclouds.

You are doing swell, Christophera :rolleyes:

[Bell]

You are making an error in your choice of words. I would not be "lying" about the wrong tower falling first, I would be "in error".

However, according to logic, the wrong tower did fall first, and ....... the tops of both towers fell in the wrong directions according to logic.

So, ........ you have just made 2 errors and an oversight.

Okay, then you are in error. That's one error on my side.

After that, you keep on making errors: I am not in error about the wrong tower falling first (that would be you) and I did not have oversighted the tops falling in the wrong direction. Here, once again, it is your logic that is in error.

For further errors in your logic, see my other post, above.

[beachnut]

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?

Has anyone seen one? NO (there was not total pulverization)

NO

Parts of the WTC falling and not hitting other objects on the way down did free fall.

Parts of the WTC that hit other parts of the WTC and contributed to the collaspse of the WTC did not free fall.

There was not total pulverization of the WTC.

There was damage to the WTC due to aircraft impact (energy of a ton of TNT)

There was fire damage from fuel and building contents (energy greater than 350 tons of TNT)

There was collapse of the WTC towers (energy greater than 500 tons of TNT)

But you question is faulty and thus the only answer is, NO

NO

[uruk]

The assertion that there was no concrete core is fraudulent because the towers did have a core and steel core columns cannot be evidenced from raw sources. The very definition of circular reasoning.

No steel core columns? Then what were you talking about here?:

Note the reactangles formed by the interior box column and the floor beams.

"MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS"

This matches the rectangles seen here.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...348d45e651.jpg

Establishing that the image shows interior box columns. Yes the size could be a little larger than 2 feet as the corners had 2 columns joined as can be seen in the aerial on the right. Depending on the angle.


As I've said. I've found at least 3 people who saw documentaries that used the same clips having the concrete core construction.
Who are these people?

This image shows what can only be concrete shear wall.

Here is the core of WTC 2 falling onto the top of WTC 3
In the first image Your pointing into empty space. The arrow is poitned at a cloud.

All you can see in the second picture are the spandrells and what looks like a floor section.

But then well a know how accurate you were about size and distance.

[beachnut]

I answered the question what is the prize?

(hope it is not a concrete core, or depleted oxygen hypnotized dead trees)

[Belz...]

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.

Unfortunately, there are millions of people who "know" God talks to them, who "know" they've been abducted by aliens, who "know" they can read auras, etc.

Knowing is not as reliable as you think.

This is knowledge beyond any shadow of any doubt.

Doubtless knowledge is less reliable than doubted knowledge.

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.

Seeing how unreliable human memory is, I'm going to assume that you may have remembered wrong until you can produce either the video or several witnesses that ALSO saw it.

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

Unfortunately, that feeling is not borne out by evidence. Even if your concrete core existed and the explosives existed, to which there is NO evidence, it still would say nothing about the alleged conspirators and their plot.

[Belz...]

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

Post-whore.

[Belz...]

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.

Satan's another guy with another job, I'm Belz...!

And it's not self-torture. I'm debating with a wall, that's all.

I'm also beign bombarded by an idiot, which happens to be a poster who's NOT christophera. Go figure. The man should spend more time with his girl.

[Belz...]

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.

It wasn't necessarily illogical. Just wrong.

That column on the left matches hundreds from GZ. Sheared & Torch Cut Columns

It's been shown to you that cutter charges would not produce such a clean cut.

This one shows 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS but this one shows concrete shear wall and it is taken while the spire stands, just before the rebar image.

Where's the rebar in the first picture, then ? How did it magically appear ? The concrete was, supposedly, already gone, though somehow the "box" columns hadn't been cut in that area, but the rebar survived ?

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

Unless you can conclusively show that one picture shows something different than the other one, namely the CORE columns, precisely as seen in the diagrams and the pictures of the remains of the core, I'll consider that you have a contradiction on your hands.

Did you attempt to explain what this is if it is not rebar?

Yes, I did many pages ago. I said they were the same columns, core or box, that we see in the OTHER picture. They're just too far away to make them out properly on such a low-resolution picture.

How about a logical explanation for what this is if it is not concrete.

You've already admitted that it could also be dust, so your question has been answered by you.

Here is the WTC 2 core lower

And still un-detonated ?

[bonavada]

You really should try and support your assertions that there were steel core columns in the core area because I show a concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) at that phase of the demoition.

there is nothing, NO-THING, ZILCH, NOWT, in that picture that could be described with even a minute amout of certainty as a CONCRETE SHEAR WALL. all i can see is a badly pixellated image of what i presume to be steel forms and SMOKE and DUST.
sometimes what is not seen is there chris but what is not there is not seen.
you are blind to everything bar your own fallacies chris.

toodle-pip

BV

[Bell]

Where's the rebar in the first picture, then ? How did it magically appear ? The concrete was, supposedly, already gone, though somehow the "box" columns hadn't been cut in that area, but the rebar survived ?

I've asked Christophera a couple of times to put arrows in that picture, pointing to the alleged rebar. Thus far, he failed to do so. Why is that, Christophera? Is it because you know there is no rebar to show? Are you in error again? Or is it lying, this time?

[Regnad Kcin]

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.Thank you. It's no small thing to see you admit error.

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.Leading a horse (that is, you) to water, I hoped he would do his own drinking.

To review (and simplify), tower 1 was hit at a certain speed (and therefore with certain force) at a particular spot. Tower 2 was hit at a greater speed (and therefore with greater destructive force) at a spot lower.

- Think of ten men holding aloft ten tons of material.

Now...

- Think of four men holding aloft ten tons of material.

Which group of equally strong individuals is going to weaken and drop their material first?

[Mobyseven]

no..that's a natural assumption like i first made, but the series of pictures

HERE (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/)

show that there was no building behind to cause it.
so what is it? of course i can't accept chris' assertion that it is evidence of a conctete core, i think the enigmatic phallic shadow is possibly a swirling cloud of dust around the steel core before that also succumbed to gravity?

BV

That site gave me goosebumps.

It does show that there was no building behind the tower - thanks for correcting me on that one.

Your idea then is one of the more likely ones. Among other things the dust cloud simply could have been much denser in the center producing the effect that we see.

[Mobyseven]

You did not show a contradiction.

Here is the WTC 2 core lower (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcore2stands.gif)

Um...was I trying to show a contradiction? I didn't actually respond to that part of your post. The parts I responded to were:

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

...and...

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

Now, in my answer to the second question it has already been shown that I was incorrect, so a few new ideas were suggested.

How about actually replying to my posts rather than just saying, "You did not show a contradiction."

We'll focus on one thing at a time, how's that? What do you have to say about this:

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

That appears to be part of the outer section of the collapsing building. The poor quality and blurring of the "spire" part of that photo, in comparison with the buildings both in the foreground and background which are in focus, suggests that either the "spire" is still in motion (i.e. - collapsing), or that it has been photoshopped in and deliberately blurred to make it seem ambiguous.

I await your reply.

[Mobyseven]

How are you so savvy about engineering when you continue to (fail to) assert that supposed steel core columns you cannot evidence with raw images actually existed in the core area?

It is quite difficult to take pictures of the core of a building when you have, you know, the exterior of the building in your line of sight. If only I had vision like Superman, but I don't.

It is also rather tricky to take a photo of a standing steel core after the building has collapsed. The laws of physics and all that.

However, you have numerous time on this site been shown photos of the steel core DURING CONSTRUCTION of the towers. Why is that not enough proof for you?

[Mobyseven]

One additional time,

I have aquiesed that the exact time cannot be asertained therefore I use the term "near free fall."

Well, could you please not use this term? Find a more appropriate one.

Because unless you can give an estimate of how long it would have taken the towers to fall in free fall, and then can give us an approximation of how the it actually did take the towers to fall, you can't logically infer anything as to whether the towers fell at or near 'free fall' speeds.

So - what new term will you be using?

[Gravy]

Christophera,
Did your imaginary PBS documentary addressed the explosives that were placed inside the WTC? Did they actually talk about the explosives?

Absolutely not. They only mentioned a "special, anti corrosion, anti vibration" plastic coating that was also flammable. Something a welding contractor learned in trying to get justification for the requirement that all welders welding the reba of the core walls must have a security clearance.

The documentary did gain a mysterious "air" regarding the "special plastic" coated rebar as well as the mysterious floor evacuations prior to the stages of pouring concrete.I normally stay out of this insanity, but I think it's important on occasion to point out how insane, and how much of a liar, Christophera is.

Yes, he has claimed, several times, that the PBS (and sometimes he says BBC) documentary explicitly shows explosives being planted in the towers during construction in the 1960's. He even "quotes" the documentary's detailed description of that process.

I mentioned this recently. Chris must have forgotten. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2071966&postcount=6722)

[Mobyseven]

You are making an error in your choice of words. I would not be "lying" about the wrong tower falling first, I would be "in error".

However, according to logic, the wrong tower did fall first, and ....... the tops of both towers fell in the wrong directions according to logic.

So, ........ you have just made 2 errors and an oversight.

Um - according to what logic did the wrong tower fall first?

For all us simpletons on this site (as it seems we all must be except for you), could you please simplify your argument into a series of propositions leading to a conclusion? I won't even ask you to justify your propositions yet (I will once I know what they are.)

An example in case you aren't sure what I mean:
P1 - If I attack someone for no reason, I will be punished.
P2 - I just attacked George for no reason.

Conc - I will be punished.
Understand? That is a formal logical argument boiled down to its simplest form. Please express your 'the wrong tower fell first' hypothesis in this form. Note that you are not limited to two propositions.

[Christophera]

Could be!? If you look at the construction films as well as the debris removal pictures you will notice that they are at least 4 feet wide.

Well nice to see that reality is seeping in. And it does prove that the spire has to be one of the columns.
a 3 inch steel rebar that length could not possibly stand up unsupported.
But hey try it out your self. Show us a video of what happens.

Down near the ground they were 52 inches but not at that height.

I have always said that the spire (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) is an interior box column. You are intentionally pretending there was confusion. Very dishonest, basically a lie.

Meaning you have not explained what these very fine vertical elements (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) are that are standing free IF they are not rebar.[/center]


You might recall I'm the one that has consistency with images and a web site documenting the concrete core. (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html) How are you so savvy about engineering when you continue to (fail to) assert that supposed steel core columns you cannot evidence with raw images actually existed in the core area?


Consistanly wrong you mean.

I just proved you are not only wrong and incapable of explaining what I know to be rebar but I also showed you are dishonest.

I don't know how you define evidence. You post a picture and call that evidence, we post a picture and you don't call it evidence. You seem to be imploying a double standard. Not very honest of you. I am savvy enough to know that that spire cannot possibly be a 3 inch rebar. Anybody with common sense can tell that. I am savvy enough to see hundreds of tons of steel columns littered about the ground zero debris field. Something which you seem to blind to. Just look at the photos in the website.
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/

homer,

The above is pure bunk. You knew there was a difference between the image http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg and http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg 60 pages back. You are trying to pretend there is confusion to evade providing a real answer.

Time for you to actually do something. Like come up with an image of the steel core columns inside the core area at some elevation above the ground.

Or, if you cannot do that try explaining what this image of the WTC 2 core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) shows if it is NOT concrete.

[Christophera]

Um - according to what logic did the wrong tower fall first?

For all us simpletons on this site (as it seems we all must be except for you), could you please simplify your argument into a series of propositions leading to a conclusion? I won't even ask you to justify your propositions yet (I will once I know what they are.)

An example in case you aren't sure what I mean:
P1 - If I attack someone for no reason, I will be punished.
P2 - I just attacked George for no reason.

Conc - I will be punished.
Understand? That is a formal logical argument boiled down to its simplest form. Please express your 'the wrong tower fell first' hypothesis in this form. Note that you are not limited to two propositions.

Simple logic says that the first tower hit, hit hardest, burned worst, will fall first IF PLANE IMPACTS AND FIRES ARE RESPONSIBLE.

Maybe you cannot not do this.

[Arus808]

Simple logic says that the first tower hit, hit hardest, burned worst, will fall first IF PLANE IMPACTS AND FIRES ARE RESPONSIBLE.

Maybe you cannot not do this.

then your logic is faulty
first tower was hit head on by the airplane
the second twoer, was hit nearly on its side, thereby putting more weight and pressure on a highly weakened area of the building.

that's why the south tower collapsed first.

[Garb]

Simple logic says that the first tower hit, hit hardest, burned worst, will fall first IF PLANE IMPACTS AND FIRES ARE RESPONSIBLE.

Maybe you cannot not do this.

You seem to forget the position that the south tower was hit in.

And funny, if they had power over which tower would fall first, why did they choose the second when apparently it is common knowledge that the north should have collapsed.

[Mobyseven]

Simple logic says that the first tower hit, hit hardest, Proof? As I understand it the second tower was hit 'harder' (read - faster and at a different angle) to the first tower. burned worst, Again, proof?will fall first IF PLANE IMPACTS AND FIRES ARE RESPONSIBLE.

Maybe you cannot not do this.

Maybe you are an evasive moron.

Why are you ignoring my other posts? Especially the ones where I've specifically asked for a reply?

[Regnad Kcin]

Simple logic says that the first tower hit, hit hardest, burned worst, will fall first IF PLANE IMPACTS AND FIRES ARE RESPONSIBLE.Except...

The first tower was not "hit hardest;" please retract your assertion.

The second tower was hit lower than the first, leaving a greater weight above the damage.

The towers' collapse sequence as traspired adheres not only to "simple logic" but physics as well.

[beachnut]

the second plane was going faster also

[Regnad Kcin]

You also skipped past my response to this:

...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.Please provide one infiltrator's name.

[stateofgrace]

Simple logic says that the first tower hit, hit hardest, burned worst, will fall first IF PLANE IMPACTS AND FIRES ARE RESPONSIBLE.

Maybe you cannot not do this.

Chris this is wrong.

WTC 2 was hit lower; some 15 floors lower than WTC 1. The damage above crash site in WTC 1 was some 15 floors; the damage above the crash site in WTC 2 was some 30 floors.

And WTC 2 stood for approx half the time WTC 1 did.

[Bell]

Christophera, with your photographic memory, why are you not answering the different (or difficult for you) questions that are posted here? Why do you fail to produce a picture with arrows drawn on it to show us where you believe the rebar is in the WTC core?

[Bell]

Chris this is wrong.

WTC 2 was hit lower; some 15 floors lower than WTC 1. The damage above crash site in WTC 1 was some 15 floors; the damage above the crash site in WTC 2 was some 30 floors.

And WTC 2 stood for approx half the time WTC 1 did.

Wait?! Do you mean that the mass above the point of impact of the south tower was roughly twice as much as the mass above the point of impact of the north tower? [/sarcasm]

If so, would it not be LOGICAL that the south tower collapsed first?

[Christophera]

Um...was I trying to show a contradiction? I didn't actually respond to that part of your post. The parts I responded to were:

Hmm, that was belz, non accountability.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2081431#post2081431

Looks like your teams obsufucations are working. I should say that you "should read the thread" because this is already answered at least 3 times.


Now, in my answer to the second question it has already been shown that I was incorrect, so a few new ideas were suggested.

How about actually replying to my posts rather than just saying, "You did not show a contradiction."

We'll focus on one thing at a time, how's that? What do you have to say about this.


That appears to be part of the outer section of the collapsing building. The poor quality and blurring of the "spire" part of that photo, in comparison with the buildings both in the foreground and background which are in focus, suggests that either the "spire" is still in motion (i.e. - collapsing), or that it has been photoshopped in and deliberately blurred to make it seem ambiguous.

I await your reply.

This is the ring of columns called interior box columns which are just out side the core. (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) The perimeter box columns are unmistakeable for any familiar with the WTC.

[Christophera]

Christophera, with your photographic memory, why are you not answering the different (or difficult for you) questions that are posted here? Why do you fail to produce a picture with arrows drawn on it to show us where you believe the rebar is in the WTC core?

If I have to show you where rebar is located inside of a concrete shear wall you are not competent to conduct this discussion.

[Arus808]

If I have to show you where rebar is located inside of a concrete shear wall you are not competent to conduct this discussion.

well you claimed it, so you have to prove its thre.

imagine if it was someone who has never seen rebar, so how would they know what to look for.

so, where in that image is the rebar?

[Bill Thompson]

This is about 177 pages and I have not read them all. So someone might have already posted this. But the towers did NOT FREE FALL. This is obvious in the fact that that as dust blew out of each floor and away from the towers the debris and dust that was ejected away from the towers were falling faster than the towers themselves.

[Christophera]

well you claimed it, so you have to prove its thre.

imagine if it was someone who has never seen rebar, so how would they know what to look for.

so, where in that image is the rebar?

If you do not know what would be rebar remnants from a 1,300 foot tall shear wall in the below linked image, you should withdraw from the discussion.

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

[Christophera]

This is about 177 pages and I have not read them all. So someone might have already posted this. But the towers did NOT FREE FALL. This is obvious in the fact that that as dust blew out of each floor and away from the towers the debris and dust that was ejected away from the towers were falling faster than the towers themselves.

I cannot believe you didn't see that I've revised my statement of the rate of fall to "near free fall".

You have just said that the dust is falling faster than the towers that are not falling.

[Christophera]

Chris this is wrong.

WTC 2 was hit lower; some 15 floors lower than WTC 1. The damage above crash site in WTC 1 was some 15 floors; the damage above the crash site in WTC 2 was some 30 floors.

And WTC 2 stood for approx half the time WTC 1 did.

ANd WTC 2 was hardly damaged compared to WTC 1. The very top of WTC 2 fell west (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.gif)

[Christophera]

You also skipped past my response to this:

Please provide one infiltrator's name.

This thread is about towers falling near free fall.

Please provide raw evidence for the steel core columns you have failed to substantiate.

[Christophera]

Except...

The first tower was not "hit hardest;" please retract your assertion.

The second tower was hit lower than the first, leaving a greater weight above the damage.

The towers' collapse sequence as traspired adheres not only to "simple logic" but physics as well.

You can distort anything you choose but you cannot provide raw evidence to support your rarely made assertion that the towers had steel core columns inthe core.

I document the concrete core with raw evidence.

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

[Alt+F4]

You can distort anything you choose but you cannot provide raw evidence to support your rarely made assertion that the towers had steel core columns inthe core.

I document the concrete core with raw evidence.

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

What does "raw evidence" mean?

[Christophera]

You seem to forget the position that the south tower was hit in.

No, I do not. You seem to forget that it was hit on the south east corner and the very top fell west and the body fell east.

Here is an image that shows the steering charges going off ahead of the main demoliton to shift the descent of the debris.

steering charges (http://mouv4x8.club.fr/11Sept01/A0069b_3_towerexplo1_explosion_below.jpg)

And funny, if they had power over which tower would fall first, why did they choose the second when apparently it is common knowledge that the north should have collapsed.

The towers were on timers to create anonymity for the perps.

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

[jsfisher]

no..that's a natural assumption like i first made, but the series of pictures

...URL omitted due to inadequate post count...

show that there was no building behind to cause it.
Agreed.

Look at the sequence again using the building directly in front of the collapsing tower as a reference. To me, the spire is too right of center to be alleged concrete core. Could it possibly be a remnant of the outer wall, after the floors have been sheared away, but before the wall's final collapse?

[Regnad Kcin]

This thread is about towers falling near free fall.

Please provide raw evidence for the steel core columns you have failed to substantiate.Is that what this thread is "about?" So any and all other topics are off-limits? Why then do you discuss them?

You can distort anything you choose but you cannot provide raw evidence to support your rarely made assertion that the towers had steel core columns inthe core.

I document the concrete core with raw evidence.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.htmlI'm really not interested in your fledgling skills at fiction writing, thanks.

And I note your evasion with regard to the towers-fell-in-the-wrong-sequence claim.

[Christophera]

Is that what this thread is "about?" So any and all other topics are off-limits? Why then do you discuss them?

I'm really not interested in your fledgling skills at fiction writing, thanks.

And I note your evasion with regard to the towers-fell-in-the-wrong-sequence claim.

There are periphery subjects that are legitimate to engage temporarily.

How can I be evading when I've replied to your weak effor to show the scenario preesnted here,

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

logically showing how and why the wrong tower fell first.

[Christophera]

Agreed.

Look at the sequence again using the building directly in front of the collapsing tower as a reference. To me, the spire is too right of center to be alleged concrete core. Could it possibly be a remnant of the outer wall, after the floors have been sheared away, but before the wall's final collapse?

You are way off. With estimation skills like that you'll get nowhere.

The spire (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) is the left corner of the interior box columns that surounded the core.

Try this,

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc32.1corealign.jpg

realize that you are looking at the narrow west end of WTC 1's core.

Check this too.

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

[Arus808]

If you do not know what would be rebar remnants from a 1,300 foot tall shear wall in the below linked image, you should withdraw from the discussion.

3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/%7Ejeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)


ludicrous, christ. we dont have to prove anything to you. ITs your job to prove what you claim to us.
We have reality on our side.

Why should I withdraw from a discussion that apparently proves you wrong?

Assume that someone doesn't know what rebar is, illustrate for us where in that image where the rebar is.

[Arus808]

ANd WTC 2 was hardly damaged compared to WTC 1. The very top of WTC 2 fell west (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.gif)


oh? it seems to me that a plane hit wtc 1 and WTC 2. the damge was more severe to WTC 2 since the plane hit it more on the side then straight on.

[Arus808]

You can distort anything you choose but you cannot provide raw evidence to support your rarely made assertion that the towers had steel core columns inthe core.

I document the concrete core with raw evidence.

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

you do not have raw evidence on that page.

Please define , what "raw" evidnece is to you because it seems thta You dont understand what raw is.

[Regnad Kcin]

There are periphery subjects that are legitimate to engage temporarily.Nice try.

How can I be evading when I've replied to your weak effor to show the scenario preesnted here, [spam link removed] logically showing how and why the wrong tower fell first.Your "reply:"

Simple logic says that the first tower hit, hit hardest, burned worst, will fall first IF PLANE IMPACTS AND FIRES ARE RESPONSIBLE.And my response:

Except...

The first tower was not "hit hardest;" please retract your assertion.

The second tower was hit lower than the first, leaving a greater weight above the damage.

The towers' collapse sequence as transpired adheres not only to "simple logic" but physics as well.You may retract your assertions and correct your website. You will, won't you?

[Regnad Kcin]

Mr. Brown:

Say someone hands Bob ten 300 page, hardcover books, and his twin brother Tony one hundred volumes of the same. Whose legs will give out first?

[hcmom]

Mr. Brown:

Say someone hands Bob ten 300 page, hardcover books, and his twin brother Tony one hundred volumes of the same. Whose legs will give out first?
The one the government planted bombs in.

[Christophera]

And still un-detonated ?

At least forty feet was detonated from the top.

You didn't explain where I contradicted myself. Show me the images and what descriptions/explanations you think I applied.

No one has shown me that the cutting charges detailed here (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1233383) would not produce the cuts shown.

You find your answer about how the rebar and interior box columns survived here.

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

I may have said there was also dust in the image, but I'm not sure of which image you refer to. i do not post images of just dust.

[Christophera]

The one the government planted bombs in.

The infiltrators of the US government built the towers to demolish.

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

Are you going to help them get away with it?

[Christophera]

Mr. Brown:

Say someone hands Bob ten 300 page, hardcover books, and his twin brother Tony one hundred volumes of the same. Whose legs will give out first?


Give the same brothers respective numbers of sheets of toilet paper and have a mosquito bite them on the elbow and knee respectively. Ask the same question.

[Christophera]

you do not have raw evidence on that page.

Please define , what "raw" evidnece is to you because it seems thta You dont understand what raw is.

I know raw core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) evidence and you have no evidence at all.

[Christophera]

oh? it seems to me that a plane hit wtc 1 and WTC 2. the damge was more severe to WTC 2 since the plane hit it more on the side then straight on.

Is that why no one survived above impact on WTC 1?

[Christophera]

ludicrous, christ. we dont have to prove anything to you. ITs your job to prove what you claim to us.
We have reality on our side.

Why should I withdraw from a discussion that apparently proves you wrong?

Assume that someone doesn't know what rebar is, illustrate for us where in that image where the rebar is.

Because you have no evidence and know nothing about construction and cannot support the bogus official story which does not explained towers pulverized in mid air.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4005&stc=1&d=1163126859

[Christophera]

Unfortunately, there are millions of people who "know" God talks to them, who "know" they've been abducted by aliens, who "know" they can read auras, etc.

Knowing is not as reliable as you think.

I don't have to think because I know and have evidence which matches what I know, whereas you have no evidence so must think overtime on how to distort the evidence which exists.

[Trigood]

I cannot believe there are over 7000 replies on this thread.

Doesn't it just boil down to this:

Christophera: There were concrete cores in the towers. I know this, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. So there! :xtongue

JREFer X: There is no evidence there were concrete cores. Wake up from your insanity-drenched hallucination.

Truly, what is there to talk about for 7000+ posts????

I would read it to put myself to sleep except that Alfred's avatar (well, 1/3rd of it) gives me MAJOR creeps.

[hcmom]

The infiltrators of the US government built the towers to demolish.

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

Are you going to help them get away with it?

Yes, if my only two choices are you and them.

[Christophera]

there is nothing, NO-THING, ZILCH, NOWT, in that picture that could be described with even a minute amout of certainty as a CONCRETE SHEAR WALL. all i can see is a badly pixellated image of what i presume to be steel forms and SMOKE and DUST.
sometimes what is not seen is there chris but what is not there is not seen.
you are blind to everything bar your own fallacies chris.

toodle-pip

BV

With great certainty all images which should show the steel core columns if they existed do not show steel core columns.

Here (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg) is the full sized image. No steel core colums and there is that concrete shear wall holding up the spire formed of the interior box column.

[Christophera]

Yes, if my only two choices are you and them.

Dark flowers die if you bring them into the light.

[Christophera]

I would read it to put myself to sleep except that Alfred's avatar (well, 1/3rd of it) gives me MAJOR creeps.

Our nation and all that it stands for wil never know justice again after the blood of innocent people was mixed with the sand and gravel of the exploding concrete core. Mothers will weep for many millenia and their children will be murdered over and over again.

[jsfisher]

You are way off. With estimation skills like that you'll get nowhere.

Hey, genius, you are looking at the wrong tower. My post and the post I quoted both referred to the first tower's collapse.

I know it's tough, but please try to keep up.

May be this will be easier to absorb: The phantom spire appearing in a cloud of dust during the first tower's collapse is in the wrong place to by your illusive concrete core. It is, however, right about where a remnant of the outer wall might have been.

[hcmom]

Dark flowers die if you bring them into the light.

There is something I'd love to say here, but since it's very close to purely mean, without much funny in it (except to me...) I'm satisfying myself by saying that I want to say it.

[Christophera]

That site gave me goosebumps.

It does show that there was no building behind the tower - thanks for correcting me on that one.

Your idea then is one of the more likely ones. Among other things the dust cloud simply could have been much denser in the center producing the effect that we see.

Observe. The core of the top of tower 2 falls on WTC 3 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.gif)

[jsfisher]

You are way off. With estimation skills like that you'll get nowhere.
And, by the way, nothing in my post merited your snide barb. Keep your unwarranted ad hom attacks to yourself, please.

[Christophera]

Hey, genius, you are looking at the wrong tower. My post and the post I quoted both referred to the first tower's collapse.

I know it's tough, but please try to keep up.

May be this will be easier to absorb: The phantom spire appearing in a cloud of dust during the first tower's collapse is in the wrong place to by your illusive concrete core. It is, however, right about where a remnant of the outer wall might have been.

The WTC core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcore2stands.gif)

[Christophera]

Hey, genius, you are looking at the wrong tower. My post and the post I quoted both referred to the first tower's collapse.

I know it's tough, but please try to keep up.

May be this will be easier to absorb: The phantom spire appearing in a cloud of dust during the first tower's collapse is in the wrong place to by your illusive concrete core. It is, however, right about where a remnant of the outer wall might have been.

The WTC 2 core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcore2stands.gif) and the spire of WTC 1 (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) are 2 different towers and cannot be correlated except for the phase of the demo.

[Christophera]

And I repeat...the pain hurts so good.

I'm hoping by posting this again that he might at least give us some clue as to when the documentary aired, what it was called...I dunno.

Perhaps it exists on a higher metaphysical plane.

Gawd, ......... if you just would have read the thread.

It was aired in 1990, production began in 1987. It was called "the Construction Of the twin Towers", it was 2 hours in length on 2 consecutive nights. Viewed on channel 28, (cahnnel 10 in Santa Barbara), produced by PBS, since removed from their archives and records as existent by those that can build 1,300 foot towers with explosive cast into the concrete.

[Christophera]

over 7000 posts and 170 pages and reality still has not set in.

Yes, you guys are have a real problem using raw evidence showing concrete.

The core of the top of tower 2 falls on WTC 3 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.gif)

[Christophera]

Originally Posted by Christophera
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.

Originally Posted by Christophera
homer,
You are embarrasing humanity with your constant misrepresentations.

NOTICE: homer has not provided a reasonable explanation for what the fine vertical elements are IF they are not rebar.
Funny.

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

So where did I contradict myself?

[Regnad Kcin]

Give the same brothers respective numbers of sheets of toilet paper and have a mosquito bite them on the elbow and knee respectively. Ask the same question.Evasion noted.

[Christophera]

Evasion noted.

One bad evasion deserves a good one. Your basic explanation does not fit the event and you are not addressing the factors of the towers falling in the wrong directions compared to the faces impacted.

I at least have a permanent statement which is comprehensive to all those factors and others.

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

[Christophera]

And, by the way, nothing in my post merited your snide barb. Keep your unwarranted ad hom attacks to yourself, please.

Sorry.

Have you ever tried to defend common sense backed with quality evidence against overwhelming odds having no evidence?

[Regnad Kcin]

One bad evasion deserves a good one.Nonsense.

Your basic explanation does not fit the event and you are not addressing the factors of the towers falling in the wrong directions compared to the faces impacted.I am not "addressing the factors" apart from the ones I choose. For instance, your claim that the towers fell in the wrong sequence. Let's get back to that.

I at least have a permanent statement which is comprehensive to all those factors and others.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1207667Your continued spamming of this thread (and others) with links to your site is in direct violation of your membership agreement. Is it your wish to be once again suspended from this forum?

[jsfisher]

The WTC 2 core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcore2stands.gif) and the spire of WTC 1 (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) are 2 different towers and cannot be correlated except for the phase of the demo.
Perhaps the word, 'spire', is the source of confusion, here. However, praise be to the forum gods, for now I can post URL's.

This is the spire/tower/whatever to which I refer: http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG. It is in the wrong place to be your "concrete core." It is in the right place to be an outer wall, as can be seen in the related sequence of pictures here: http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/

[Regnad Kcin]

Now then, Mr. Brown, since you evaded my question regarding the relative weight of two stacks of books, let me ask this:

Which is heavier:

A) 11 stories of a World Trade Center tower
B) 25 stories of a World Trade Center tower

Take your pick. I know you can do it.

[beachnut]

Sorry.

Have you ever tried to defend common sense backed with quality evidence against overwhelming odds having no evidence?

the expert was


chief structural engineer and senior vice president of ABS Consulting Inc. in Oakland, Calif., Hamburger is a member of an engineering team commissioned by the Structural Engineers Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) to assess the performance of the WTC and surrounding buildings in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks.


My letter was to check the report a guy with concrete core in his head has posted saying concrete core. I asked them why they had the concrete core. They replied, and the guy who wrote that section with the error said:


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


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

just in case a CT is too smart and rants the following note is added


the report was prepared by August Domel, Jr., Ph.D., S.E., P.E. who used the work of others in the preparation (just a note to the, Ron did not write the report CT rant, no CT ranters, Ron's information was used when August prepared the report!)


ignore real stuff and relax

[Christophera]

Now then, Mr. Brown, since you evaded my question regarding the relative weight of two stacks of books, let me ask this:

Which is heavier:

A) 11 stories of a World Trade Center tower
B) 25 stories of a World Trade Center tower

Take your pick. I know you can do it.

You are not explaining total pulverization therefore you must explain why WTC 1 fell south when 2/3 of the perimeter wall on the north was destroyed.

No, .......... fire will not explain it. EVER. No way can enough heat be concentrated on the perimeter columns to equal 2/3 removal on the opposite side.

[Christophera]

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.

I quote your expert. Now come up with where the "well-defined core" is documented beside the paper he wrote that contradicts what he says and his name is not on the paper.

The PDF clearly says;


By:
August Domel , Jr., Ph.D., SE.,P.E
November 2001

CHAPTER 2: GROUND ZERO OPERATIONS AT THE WORLD
TRADE CENTER
2.1 General
Groundbreaking for construction of the World Trade Center took place on August 5, 1966. Tower One, standing 1368 feet high, was completed in 1970, and Tower Two, at 1362 feet high, was completed in 1972. The structural design for the World Trade Center Towers was done by Skilling, Helle, Christiansen and Robertson. It was designed as a tube building that included a perimeter moment-resisting frame consisting of steel columns spaced on 39-inch centers. The load carrying system was designed so that the steel facade would resist lateral and gravity forces and the interior concrete core would carry only gravity loads.

Any more of this and you are going to be guilty along with Hamburger, of fraud.

There is NO raw evidence whatsoever for the steel core columns. But, there is this, which cannot be anything but concrete substantiating the Domel report.

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

ON EDIT:

The website
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/index.html

Lists Hamburger with;

Experts on Parade

A bunch of frauds

[Christophera]

Perhaps the word, 'spire', is the source of confusion, here. However, praise be to the forum gods, for now I can post URL's.

This is the spire/tower/whatever to which I refer: http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG. It is in the wrong place to be your "concrete core." It is in the right place to be an outer wall, as can be seen in the related sequence of pictures here: http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/

Your link shows the core in the core position of WTC 2.

[jsfisher]

Your link shows the core in the core position of WTC 2.
Nope, it's too far to the right.

[Christophera]

Nope, it's too far to the right.

You would be the first person to question that.

[Christophera]

ON EDIT:

The website
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/index.html

Lists Hamburger with;

Experts on Parade

A bunch of frauds

Let me add that Hamburger promotes the;
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/collapse/piledriver.html

The Pile-Driver Theory

The Tops of the Towers as Giant Sledgehammers

Fraud.

Here is the only feasible and realistic explanation for near free fall and total pulverization.

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

[Regnad Kcin]

Now then, Mr. Brown, since you evaded my question regarding the relative weight of two stacks of books, let me ask this:

Which is heavier:

A) 11 stories of a World Trade Center tower
B) 25 stories of a World Trade Center tower

Take your pick. I know you can do it.You are not explaining total pulverization therefore you must explain why WTC 1 fell south when 2/3 of the perimeter wall on the north was destroyed.

No, .......... fire will not explain it. EVER. No way can enough heat be concentrated on the perimeter columns to equal 2/3 removal on the opposite side.Please stop evading and answer the question. Which of the two choices is heavier, A or B?

[Christophera]

Please stop evading and answer the question. Which of the two choices is heavier, A or B?


Stupid question. You know the answer. My questions are more pertinent.

GET REAL DOGGIE

[delphi_ote]

Let me add that Hamburger promotes the;
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/collapse/piledriver.html

The Pile-Driver Theory

The Tops of the Towers as Giant Sledgehammers

Fraud.

Here is the only feasible and realistic explanation for near free fall and total pulverization.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
Internet rule of argument number 513: bigger font = more true.

[Christophera]

Internet rule of argument number 513: bigger font = more true.

No, bigger font = more relative to issue. The truth is in the words. and the raw evidence.

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

The fact is that Hambuger is phoney. Piledriver OMG!

[Regnad Kcin]

Stupid question. You know the answer. My questions are more pertinent.

GET REAL DOGGIEOh, I'm real.

Now why don't you answer the question.

[Regnad Kcin]

And again:

Your continued spamming of this thread (and others) with links to your site is in direct violation of your membership agreement. Is it your wish to be once again suspended from this forum?

[Christophera]

Oh, I'm real.

Now why don't you answer the question.

But it was murder of 3,000 people and due process was deprived. My questions are more pertinent. Yours are a waste of time. You already know the answers, we both do.

I could say the same thing and my questions are more pertinent to the issue which is not collapse.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4006&stc=1&d=1163141190

[Christophera]

Internet rule of argument number 513: bigger font = more true.

And the issue is fraud.

[beachnut]

Let me add that Hamburger promotes the;
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/collapse/piledriver.html

The Pile-Driver Theory

The Tops of the Towers as Giant Sledgehammers

Fraud.

Here is the only feasible and realistic explanation for near free fall and total pulverization.

www.iaminsane.com (http://www.iaminsane.com)

you go to a CT site produced by a software engineer, (is that guy on crank when he wrote his site, he never fixes his errors), to discredit a real structural engineer?

software engineer vs structural engineer

i would have to think 100,000 tons of building falling 10 feet would be like a pile driver, but then I am not the expert structural engineer, are you

you seem to be unable to find errors in your work or others work.

So why do you disagree with structural engineers and pick a software engineer to do your thinking?

Have you found the errors on the web site published by the software engineer?

[tsig]

What does "raw evidence" mean?

Not cooked by Chris.

[Mobyseven]

Hmm, that was belz, non accountability.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2081431#post2081431

Er...I KNOW that you were talking to Belz when you first mentioned the contradiction. That is why I only responded to the two questions regarding your photographic 'evidence'.

Looks like your teams obsufucations are working. I should say that you "should read the thread" because this is already answered at least 3 times.

Hang on a second - you asked for an explanation of what we are looking at in the photographs, and I gave you a possible explanation - one that is supported by what we know about the construction of the WTC.

And you are telling me to "read the thread because this is already answered at least 3 times." ???

Well, if it has already been answered, then don't ask us what it is.

YOU may have thought you were asking a rhetorical question, but you weren't. So don't get pissed off when someone answers it and you don't like the answer.

This is the ring of columns called interior box columns which are just out side the core. (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) The perimeter box columns are unmistakeable for any familiar with the WTC.

So you admit that we cannot see a concrete core in that photo?

[Mobyseven]

If I have to show you where rebar is located inside of a concrete shear wall you are not competent to conduct this discussion.

If you aren't able to provide evidence of your blatant rhetoric, you are not competent to conduct this discussion. I doubt you're competent enough to conduct electricity.

[Mobyseven]

If you do not know what would be rebar remnants from a 1,300 foot tall shear wall in the below linked image, you should withdraw from the discussion.


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


I was having trouble spotting the rebar in this picture, especially as the picture was taken from so far away. One could almost be mistaken in thinking that at such low resolution and from such a long distance, it would be impossible to actually SEE the rebar in a photograph.

But you know better.

So here is the picture you link to above. I've zoomed in on the section you say shows the 3" rebar.

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q308/Mobyseven/CT%20for%20JREF/FOS1.gif

Would you mind pointing it out for us now? Which pixels are they?

[Mobyseven]

ANd WTC 2 was hardly damaged compared to WTC 1. The very top of WTC 2 fell west (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.gif)

Non sequiter.

And you have no evidence for your first statement. In fact, you've ignored the evidence presented to you as to how badly damaged WTC 2 was.

[Mobyseven]

Give the same brothers respective numbers of sheets of toilet paper and have a mosquito bite them on the elbow and knee respectively. Ask the same question.

Give the same brothers respective numbers of sheets of cardboard.

Then bash them with a sledgehammer in the ribs, and knee respectively.

Then light their shirt and pants on fire, respectively.

Who will drop the books first?

[Mobyseven]

Is that why no one survived above impact on WTC 1?

That would probably be because the tower collapsed, actually. I highly doubt that anything that occured to WTC 2 affected the chances of survival for those above the impact floors in WTC 1.

[Mobyseven]

Observe. The core of the top of tower 2 falls on WTC 3 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.gif)

Observe. Parts of the building fall onto WTC 3. No core is observable. Perhaps that is because the core would be in the centre of the building and not on the outside, if there was in fact a concrete core. Which there wasn't.

[Mobyseven]

Gawd, ......... if you just would have read the thread.

It was aired in 1990, production began in 1987. It was called "the Construction Of the twin Towers", it was 2 hours in length on 2 consecutive nights. Viewed on channel 28, (cahnnel 10 in Santa Barbara), produced by PBS, since removed from their archives and records as existent by those that can build 1,300 foot towers with explosive cast into the concrete.

Okay, good.

Now, can you produce anyone else who has seen this documentary to verify what you have said?

[Belz...]

Simple logic says that the first tower hit, hit hardest, burned worst, will fall first IF PLANE IMPACTS AND FIRES ARE RESPONSIBLE.

Yes. But in REALITY, the SECOND tower was hit hardest and LOWEST.

If I have to show you where rebar is located inside of a concrete shear wall you are not competent to conduct this discussion.

You have to show that there was a concrete wall to begin with.

ANd WTC 2 was hardly damaged compared to WTC 1.

The experts disagrees with you. Please provide evidence that this is so.

At least forty feet was detonated from the top.

Nuh-huh. You show two images of the "core", which you admitted could be dust, the second one beign lower than the other. Since you claim 100% pulverization, you shouldn't be able to see the core in the second image, since it seems to retain its general shape.

So which is it ? You can't have it both ways, chris.

I may have said there was also dust in the image, but I'm not sure of which image you refer to.

That one:

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

I don't have to think because I know and have evidence which matches what I know

Let me get this straight: you don't have to THINK because you KNOW and you have evidence to match what you KNOW ?

This is exactly what I was talking about. Bigfoot buffs KNOW that their pet creature exists, and they have "evidence" that matches what they KNOW. OF course they do! They interpret the evidence in a way that suits them and ignore the evidence that doesn't agree with them. They don't have to THINK, either.

But you ALWAYS have to think, chris.

[Belz...]

Perhaps the word, 'spire', is the source of confusion, here. However, praise be to the forum gods, for now I can post URL's.

This is the spire/tower/whatever to which I refer: http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG. It is in the wrong place to be your "concrete core." It is in the right place to be an outer wall, as can be seen in the related sequence of pictures here: http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/

Actually, the "spire" does seem to be from the WTC1 core area, more specifically some of the core columns survived the collapse, which is an impressive demonstration of the towers' resiliency.

[Belz...]

Our nation and all that it stands for wil never know justice again after the blood of innocent people was mixed with the sand and gravel of the exploding concrete core. Mothers will weep for many millenia and their children will be murdered over and over again.

What is this, the Gospel of Chris ?

It was aired in 1990, production began in 1987. It was called "the Construction Of the twin Towers", it was 2 hours in length on 2 consecutive nights. Viewed on channel 28, (cahnnel 10 in Santa Barbara), produced by PBS, since removed from their archives and records as existent by those that can build 1,300 foot towers with explosive cast into the concrete.

...and stupid enough to make a documentary about their plans.

So where did I contradict myself?

I explained it to you already. Photographic memory ?

Of course, you explained it away by claiming that both pictures didn't show the same thing when in fact they MUST show the same thing. You're trying to have ONE show box columns and the OTHER rebar. It's obvious to everyone except you that both pictures show the same thing.

No, .......... fire will not explain it. EVER. No way can enough heat be concentrated on the perimeter columns to equal 2/3 removal on the opposite side.

Did you already forgot that the PLANE impact ALSO damaged the OPPOSITE side ?

bigger font = more relative to issue.

Alright, then.

YOU ARE WRONG, CHRIS.

[Belz...]

So here is the picture you link to above. I've zoomed in on the section you say shows the 3" rebar.

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q308/Mobyseven/CT%20for%20JREF/FOS1.gif

Would you mind pointing it out for us now? Which pixels are they?

It's so obvious that it's the same structure from the other picture, now toppling.

Ugh...

[Z]

Gawd, ......... if you just would have read the thread.

It was aired in 1990, production began in 1987. It was called "the Construction Of the twin Towers", it was 2 hours in length on 2 consecutive nights. Viewed on channel 28, (cahnnel 10 in Santa Barbara), produced by PBS, since removed from their archives and records as existent by those that can build 1,300 foot towers with explosive cast into the concrete.

You forgot that the same people also managed to gain access to every obsessive-compulsive TV Guide collector in Southern California and replaced those issues from 1990 with copies which don't mention this video at all. Further, that it apparently ONLY aired on Channel 10 in Santa Barbara, but no one in Santa Barbara was watching except Chrissy here.

Mr. Photographic Memory, in what month was it aired / did you see it?

I'm calling you out right here, right now: if you don't tell us what the date was that you saw this special, you will be admitting you have no such 'photographic' memory, and that everything you claim to remember may very well be wrong.

Oh, and tell us again about that Mohawk worker you interviewed, the one who was working on the towers before they were built?

[Z]

Sorry.

Have you ever tried to defend common sense backed with quality evidence against overwhelming odds having no evidence?

Have you? So far, you're trying to defend a personal delusion backed with poor evidence against overwhelming evidence to a contrary and more realistic position.

[Z]

You are not explaining total pulverization

There was no total pulverization.

therefore you must explain why WTC 1 fell south when 2/3 of the perimeter wall on the north was destroyed.

No, .......... fire will not explain it. EVER. No way can enough heat be concentrated on the perimeter columns to equal 2/3 removal on the opposite side.

Incorrect. Normal household fires can get hot enough to melt steel. Not weaken - melt. All the fires in the WTC had to do was weaken steel in the steel core. After all, explosives wouldn't have lasted long enough to be viable by 9/11.

You have not addressed how explosives planted in the '60s could have lasted so long. And, no, being mixed with or sheathed in porous, breathable concrete will NOT extend the shelf-life of any explosive; it will, in fact, vastly shorten the shelf-life.

Nor could explosives have been planted at any point recently enough for the explosives to be stable, as the towers have been in more or less continual use for the last twenty years of their existence.

You have also not addressed how concrete added AFTER the steel framework could do anything more than support floor structures, or how concrete could be successfully pumped against gravity to the required floor; or, barring this imaginary, self-cleaning, waste-free concrete pump tube, where the lift mechanisms were to bring the required equipment to the floor in question.

But don't bother, since you're also a proven liar and con-man. Luckily for the rest of the world, you're about the worst liar and con-man on the planet, and no one is buying your crap anymore.

[maccy]

Dear all,

I think it's clear to all by now that Christophera is seriously deluded and that his arguments won't convince anybody. It's also clear that he will never change his mind.

I'm concerned that continuing to argue with him only serves to fuel his delusions so I'm suggesting that everybody stops replying to this thread, if only for Christophera's sake.

If we ignore him, maybe there's a chance he'll seek the help that he so obviously needs.

So, please please stop posting and let this thread die.

[stateofgrace]

ANd WTC 2 was hardly damaged compared to WTC 1. The very top of WTC 2 fell west (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.gif)

Withdrawn

ETA , you are correct Maccy, consider this my last post in this thread.

[Z]

It won't matter, guys. You two will stop, and a dozen more will start. Chris is counting on that fact.

I called for everyone to stop quite a while ago. So have several other people. But that's not going to happen, and our slow-witted moderators are unwilling to stop this Christophera spamfest; so we might as well all have fun agitating the little psychotic liar, and maybe get him to have a total meltdown. Ultimately, it would be for his own good.

BTW, Chrissy, you never did explain the whole Hallowe'en thing. And what do you think about the Xenobian Conference?

[Gravy]

Observe. The core of the top of tower 2 falls on WTC 3 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.gif)
False. That's the exterior wall. And if it were part of the core, why isn't it made of concrete?

[Gravy]

ANd WTC 2 was hardly damaged compared to WTC 1. The very top of WTC 2 fell west (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.gif)False. Flight 175 flew directly into WTC 2's core. The photo you linked to is one small section, and you have no idea how high on the building it came from.

[Regnad Kcin]

Which is heavier:

A) 11 stories of a World Trade Center tower
B) 25 stories of a World Trade Center tower

Take your pick. I know you can do it.But it was murder of 3,000 people and due process was deprived. My questions are more pertinent. Yours are a waste of time. You already know the answers, we both do.Simply choose A or B, Mr. Brown.

I could say the same thing and my questions are more pertinent to the issue which is not collapse.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4006&stc=1&d=1163141190Your continued spamming of this thread (and others) with the same links (including those to your site) is in direct violation of your membership agreement. Is it your wish to be once again suspended from this forum?

[Oliver]

I was having trouble spotting the rebar in this picture, especially as the picture was taken from so far away. One could almost be mistaken in thinking that at such low resolution and from such a long distance, it would be impossible to actually SEE the rebar in a photograph.

But you know better.

So here is the picture you link to above. I've zoomed in on the section you say shows the 3" rebar.

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q308/Mobyseven/CT%20for%20JREF/FOS1.gif

Would you mind pointing it out for us now? Which pixels are they?

He´s talking about the thermite-pixel.

That can be seen here:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/111074546250154fa6.gif

Notice the melting rebar that inidicates the concrete core.

[Bell]

If I have to show you where rebar is located inside of a concrete shear wall you are not competent to conduct this discussion.

If you cannot show me where the rebar is your raw evidence is not competent. Why are you affraid to point it out to us? Because it is not there?

[Bell]

This thread is about towers falling near free fall.

Please provide raw evidence for the steel core columns you have failed to substantiate.

Please provide evidence for the time it took for the complete building to collapse. How long did it take?

[Bell]

You can distort anything you choose but you cannot provide raw evidence to support your rarely made assertion that the towers had steel core columns inthe core.

I document the concrete core with raw evidence.

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

Christophera's raw evidence list:

1.) Explosives placed inside the towers during construction - NO evidence
2.) Airplanes hitting the wrong towers - NO evidence
3.) The fires inside the towers going out - NO evidence
4.) The wrong tower falling first - NO evidence

And the concrete core? - NO evidence, beside a misprint in a book, a faulty diagram from the BBC website on 9/12/01 and a grainy picture that shows nothing more but a dark shape behind dustclouds.

You are still doing swell, Christophera :rolleyes:

[Bell]

<snip>
The towers were on timers to create anonymity for the perps.
<spam>

Please provide us with evidence of said timers.

[Bell]

At least forty feet was detonated from the top.

You didn't explain where I contradicted myself. Show me the images and what descriptions/explanations you think I applied.

No one has shown me that the cutting charges detailed here (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1233383) would not produce the cuts shown.

You find your answer about how the rebar and interior box columns survived here.

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

I may have said there was also dust in the image, but I'm not sure of which image you refer to. i do not post images of just dust.

How about you showing us some evidence?


Christophera's raw evidence list:

1.) Explosives placed inside the towers during construction - NO evidence
2.) Airplanes hitting the wrong towers - NO evidence
3.) The fires inside the towers going out - NO evidence
4.) The wrong tower falling first - NO evidence

And the concrete core? - NO evidence, beside a misprint in a book, a faulty diagram from the BBC website on 9/12/01 and a grainy picture that shows nothing more but a dark shape behind dustclouds.

You are still doing swell, Christophera :rolleyes:

[Bell]

Is that why no one survived above impact on WTC 1?

All three staircases where blocked of by the plane's impact. That was the cause nobody was able to escape from above the impact damage at the norrth tower. Common knowledge.

[Bell]

Because you have no evidence and know nothing about construction and cannot support the bogus official story which does not explained towers pulverized in mid air.

<spam>[/url]

Don't make me show the 'Christophera's missing evidence list' again. Hypocrite!

[Bell]

I don't have to think because I know and have evidence which matches what I know, whereas you have no evidence so must think overtime on how to distort the evidence which exists.

That's quite evident.

[Bell]

Gawd, ......... if you just would have read the thread.

It was aired in 1990, production began in 1987. It was called "the Construction Of the twin Towers", it was 2 hours in length on 2 consecutive nights. Viewed on channel 28, (cahnnel 10 in Santa Barbara), produced by PBS, since removed from their archives and records as existent by those that can build 1,300 foot towers with explosive cast into the concrete.

DAMN! >.< Forgot that one on the list...


Christophera's raw evidence list:

1.) PBS documentary "The Construction Of the twin Towers" - NO evidence
2.) Explosives placed inside the towers during construction - NO evidence
3.) Airplanes hitting the wrong towers - NO evidence
4.) The fires inside the towers going out - NO evidence
5.) The wrong tower falling first - NO evidence

And the concrete core? - NO evidence, beside a misprint in a book, a faulty diagram from the BBC website on 9/12/01 and a grainy picture that shows nothing more but a dark shape behind dustclouds.

You are still doing swell, Christophera :rolleyes:

[twinstead]

That's quite evident.

Sometimes I almost envy the rock-solid and unshakable self assurance of the truly insane

[Bell]

Sorry.

Have you ever tried to defend common sense backed with quality evidence against overwhelming odds having no evidence?

We are trying and trying and trying. Thanks for asking, though...

[Christophera]

How about you showing us some evidence?


Christophera's raw evidence list:

1.) Explosives placed inside the towers during construction - NO evidence
2.) Airplanes hitting the wrong towers - NO evidence
3.) The fires inside the towers going out - NO evidence
4.) The wrong tower falling first - NO evidence

And the concrete core? - NO evidence, beside a misprint in a book, a faulty diagram from the BBC website on 9/12/01 and a grainy picture that shows nothing more but a dark shape behind dustclouds.

You are still doing swell, Christophera :rolleyes:


How about you practicing selectivity in another area of life? Oh, and get some evidence for the steel core columns you consistenty don't support and have always failed to support?

Talk about cognitive distortions!! Well, actually, some are just errors. Like 2. 3. & 4. These are factors not evidence.

But, the last paragraph are Overgeneralizations - taking isolated cases and using them to make wide generalizations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_distortions

Misprint?
9. Labelling - related to overgeneralization, explaining by naming.


faulty diagram?
9. Labelling - related to overgeneralization, explaining by naming.


dark shape? These are generalizations
6. Magnification and Minimization - exaggerating negatives and understating positives.

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

[twinstead]

We are trying and trying and trying. Thanks for asking, though...

LOL yea, I think we know exactly how Chris feels...

[Christophera]

Sometimes I almost envy the rock-solid and unshakable self assurance of the truly insane

Well spoken, without evidence.

[maccy]

OK, a new page so I'm going to say it again:

Dear all,

I think it's clear to all by now that Christophera is seriously deluded and that his arguments won't convince anybody. It's also clear that he will never change his mind.

I'm concerned that continuing to argue with him only serves to fuel his delusions so I'm suggesting that everybody stops replying to this thread, if only for Christophera's sake.

If we ignore him, maybe there's a chance he'll seek the help that he so obviously needs.

So, please please stop posting and let this thread die.


I really don't get why people are still bothering with this thread...

[Christophera]

All three staircases where blocked of by the plane's impact. That was the cause nobody was able to escape from above the impact damage at the norrth tower. Common knowledge.

Oh yea, WTC 1 was hit harder and burned worse. Common knowledge.

[Christophera]

OK, a new page so I'm going to say it again:

I really don't get why people are still bothering with this thread...


Clearly, you haven't read it.

They have no evidence and must spam it continually with unsupported denial.

[Bell]

How about you practicing selectivity in another area of life? Oh, and get some evidence for the steel core columns you consistenty don't support and have always failed to support?

I will, after you have provided evidence for all the claims you make.

Talk about cognitive distortions!! Well, actually, some are just errors. Like 2. 3. & 4. These are factors not evidence.

Errors on your behalve? Are you thus willing to retract those statements?

But, the last paragraph are Overgeneralizations - taking isolated cases and using them to make wide generalizations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_distortions

Misprint?
9. Labelling - related to overgeneralization, explaining by naming.


faulty diagram?
9. Labelling - related to overgeneralization, explaining by naming.


dark shape? These are generalizations
6. Magnification and Minimization - exaggerating negatives and understating positives.

<spam>

How's about spending so time and draw some arrows on your concrete core picture to show us where the rebar is instead of looking up what is wrong with you on Wikipedia. You could have produced said picture in the time it took you too search and quote Wikipedia.

[Bell]

Oh yea, WTC 1 was hit harder and burned worse. Common knowledge.

WRONG

(bigger font = more relative to issue)

[Bell]

Clearly, you haven't read it.

They have no evidence and must spam it continually with unsupported denial.

Christophera's raw evidence list:

1.) PBS documentary "The Construction Of the twin Towers" - NO evidence
2.) Explosives placed inside the towers during construction - NO evidence
3.) Airplanes hitting the wrong towers - NO evidence
4.) The fires inside the towers going out - NO evidence
5.) The explosives were on timers - NO evidence
6.) The wrong tower falling first - NO evidence

And the concrete core? - NO evidence, beside a misprint in a book, a faulty diagram from the BBC website on 9/12/01 and a grainy picture that shows nothing more but a dark shape behind dustclouds.

You are still doing swell, Christophera :rolleyes:

[maccy]

Christophera's raw evidence list:

1.) PBS documentary "The Construction Of the twin Towers" - NO evidence
2.) Explosives placed inside the towers during construction - NO evidence
3.) Airplanes hitting the wrong towers - NO evidence
4.) The fires inside the towers going out - NO evidence
5.) The explosives were on timers - NO evidence
6.) The wrong tower falling first - NO evidence

And the concrete core? - NO evidence, beside a misprint in a book, a faulty diagram from the BBC website on 9/12/01 and a grainy picture that shows nothing more but a dark shape behind dustclouds.

You are still doing swell, Christophera :rolleyes:

Bell, why do you continue with this?

[bonavada]

christophera, i think this may have been asked before but it's a question worth repeating:-

what are your motives in defending your position here?

you have steadfastly reiterated every aspect of your site many many times for months now here. in that time you have failed to convert anyone to your cause. why aren't you out there "bullhorning" this (what would be) world-shattering information to everyone, the mass-media, local polititians academics etc etc? why stick around here where you are unceasingly battered from pillar to post?

don't you realise this thread has now run it's course? its over mate accept it. move on FFS.............

or is it as simple as just a way to bump up the hits on your site? BTW how many hits have you had since you started this thread? and how many hits prior to it?

BV

[Bell]

Bell, why do you continue with this?

To remind Christophera that he has no evidence of his wacked out claims. And as long as he is spamming with the same pictures and links to his website again and again, I see no reason why I should not do so with this list ;)

I'm gonna take a shower now, freshen up a bit. Hope that relaxes me a bit :)

[maccy]

To remind Christophera that he has no evidence of his wacked out claims. And as long as he is spamming with the same pictures and links to his website again and again, I see no reason why I should not do so with this list ;)

I'm gonna take a shower now, freshen up a bit. Hope that relaxes me a bit :)

Have you considered that maybe Christophera is paranoid and that by confronting him you are exacerbating his condition?

Therapists who want to maintain a working alliance with a paranoid patient must avoid becoming the object of projection. They should provide models of non-paranoid behavior, and not allow themselves to become either an aggressor or a victim. The therapist must build trust gradually, without trying to be too friendly, and avoid showing of anger or defensiveness. Complete honesty is essential because people with paranoid tendencies are highly sensitive to deception and holding back.

Disputing or otherwise directly confronting paranoid beliefs is ineffective, and interpretations will be regarded mainly as accusations. Instead, the therapist must help patients acknowledge the feelings they have been defending themselves against.

http://hmiworld.org/hmi/issues/Jan_Feb_2005/around_paranoia.html emphasis mine.

I think that:

a. you will never convince Christophera that there is no evidence for what he is saying (in fact, you will only reinforce his delusions by confronting him); and

b. Christophera's evidence is so weak that it will convince nobody other than him.

Therefore continuing to argue with Christophera in this thread is pointless and quite probablt damaging to his mental health.

[Powa]

I'm gonna take a shower now, freshen up a bit. Hope that relaxes me a bit :)
Good idea Bell. You don't want to have an emotional meltdown like a certain someone in this thread. :D

cough*Oliver*cough

[firecoins]

Bell

Were beyond showing Chis that there is no evidence because there is evidence to the contrary

[uruk]

Meaning you have not explained what these very fine vertical elements (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) are that are standing free IF they are not rebar.[/center]






I just proved you are not only wrong and incapable of explaining what I know to be rebar but I also showed you are dishonest.



homer,

The above is pure bunk. You knew there was a difference between the image http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg and http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg 60 pages back. You are trying to pretend there is confusion to evade providing a real answer.

Time for you to actually do something. Like come up with an image of the steel core columns inside the core area at some elevation above the ground.

Or, if you cannot do that try explaining what this image of the WTC 2 core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) shows if it is NOT concrete.

Ok, lets take a closer look at what those fine elements are.
If you look at the photos below you will see that what you point as rebar is actually JPEG compression errors and dust trails.
The following video confirms the dust trail following the columns.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eO2cQOC7hxY
Look at 00:37 for the dust trail following the column
and look at 00:46 and 00:47 to see the "spire" falling straight down which also corresponds with the pictures.

[Bell]

Thanks all. Yes, maybe I should stop posting in this thread for a while. I get so bloody anoyed by him.

[Belz...]

Oh yea, WTC 1 was hit harder and burned worse. Common knowledge.

If it's common knowledge, why does no one believe this except you ?

Did you read anything about the impacts ?

Do you have any idea how much of a difference a few extra floors worth of weight makes ?

[Belz...]

Ok, lets take a closer look at what those fine elements are.
If you look at the photos below you will see that what you point as rebar is actually JPEG compression errors and dust trails.
The following video confirms the dust trail following the columns.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eO2cQOC7hxY
Look at 00:37 for the dust trail following the column
and look at 00:46 and 00:47 to see the "spire" falling straight down which also corresponds with the pictures.

That's quite a colossal effort on your part, Uruk.

[twinstead]

If it's common knowledge, why does no one believe this except you ?


Dude. Don't get him started on the whole 'we are all hyponitized' thing again...

[sackett]

Thank you, maccy. Your post describes Chrisophorous well.

Further, it helps me understand my own feelings of discomfort when contemplating this awful thread. I think that uninstructed laymen (i.e., people like me) often feel fear when facing a paranoid. There’s a folk-belief that such people are physically dangerous, and apparently even here in cyber-world we can experience that uneasy prickling of the back hairs.

Your suggestions are well taken too. Responding to this poor loonie does no good, and it probably does harm. Some would say that they don’t mind doing harm to an odious object like Christo, but I think it’s safer just to leave him alone. After all, those instinctive feelings of menace might have some basis in reality.

[uruk]

Time for you to actually do something. Like come up with an image of the steel core columns inside the core area at some elevation above the ground.


I have, but your memory is amazinly selective. But I'll repost or direct you to some of my previous posts:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2033615&postcount=6032
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1956562&postcount=4315
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2027988&postcount=5755

[uruk]

That's quite a colossal effort on your part, Uruk.
Thanks. It just goes to show what alot of free time I have to waste on this lunatic.

[Overman]

I can't believe this thread is still going...

[Pardalis]

I can't believe this thread is still going...

... and going... and going... and going...

[maccy]

Thanks. It just goes to show what alot of free time I have to waste on this lunatic.

What do you hope to achieve by this?

At the end of the month it will have been 6 months snce Christophera first posted about a theory which is self-evidently absurd and which has been proven wrong every day since then.

I don't think that he is ever going to admit that he is deluded.

Your replies have been brilliant, rigorous and surprisingly patient - I'd love to see that talent applied where it will actually make a difference.

[Christophera]

What do you hope to achieve by this?

At the end of the month it will have been 6 months snce Christophera first posted about a theory which is self-evidently absurd and which has been proven wrong every day since then.

Certainly an outright lie when not one image of any of the supposed 47, 1,300 fot steel core columns has been produced while prodigious evidence for the concrete core, also disproving steel core columns has been consistently provided. (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html)

And this provision of raw evidence has always been done in an effort to provide knowledge which can be used to establish lawful government and protect life, while,........... the opposition will not even state their reasons for opposing what must be the truth.

[Arus808]

I know raw core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) evidence and you have no evidence at all.


that isn't a "raw" evidence of anything but a dark structure, that is unclear, behind a cloud of smoke

Like we aksed you before, please provide images of the cores from their time of construction.

[Arus808]

Is that why no one survived above impact on WTC 1?


they survived until the building collapsed. since wtc 1 was impacted straight on, this also cut off the stairwell access for the floors above the impact area and prevented people from escaping.

[Christophera]

that isn't a "raw" evidence of anything but a dark structure, that is unclear, behind a cloud of smoke

Like we aksed you before, please provide images of the cores from their time of construction.

The perpetrators of 9-11 removed that information prior to 9-11. We still have good information on the concrete core tho but NOT for steel core columns.

Like I've always asked. Please provide raw evidence of any of the 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns at some elevation ove rthe ground as I have of the core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) and its concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif).

And if you cannot provide that please explain WHY you persist in denying competent raw evidence of deception by FEMA when it is common knowledge that due process was violated in 3000 capiol crimes.

[Christophera]

I can't believe this thread is still going...

I can't believe the deniers are still trying to support the infiltrators of the noble US government with no evidence on behalf of the FEMA lie.

[Garb]

The perpetrators of 9-11 removed that information prior to 9-11. We still have good information on the concrete core tho but NOT for steel core columns.

Like I've always asked. Please provide raw evidence of any of the 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns at some elevation ove rthe ground as I have of the core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) and its concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif).

And if you cannot provide that please explain WHY you persist in denying competent raw evidence of deception by FEMA when it is common knowledge that due process was violated in 3000 capiol crimes.

Raw evidence is actually having the cores available. You do not have this. You have pictures from far away with low resolution that do not prove any concrete.

Why do you ignore the pictures of the WTC beign contructed with the steel core?

[delphi_ote]

I can't believe the deniers are still trying to support the infiltrators of the noble US government with no evidence on behalf of the FEMA lie.
I can't believe that's a sentence in English.

[firecoins]

Is it safe to say the Christophera has a concrete case? :D

[Arus808]

The perpetrators of 9-11 removed that information prior to 9-11. We still have good information on the concrete core tho but NOT for steel core columns.

so you going to ingnore books and publications including testimony by those involved in the construction and design of the twin towers in the 80's.

Are you claiming that the "perpetrators" of 9/11 (al Queda) knew back then that they were going to attack the twin towers?


Like I've always asked. Please provide raw evidence of any of the 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns at some elevation ove rthe ground as I have of the core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) and its concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif).


funny that's what we've been asking from you for the past 180 pages of this thread.

AGain, what you have is not raw evidence of any sort.

RAW evidence we want from you
1) the blueprints
2) the testimony of workers who were involved
3) images taken during their construction untouched and altered by anyone.

If you cannot provide these above, then you have shown yourself to be intellectually dishonest (oh what a surprise)

[uruk]

What do you hope to achieve by this?

At the end of the month it will have been 6 months snce Christophera first posted about a theory which is self-evidently absurd and which has been proven wrong every day since then.

I don't think that he is ever going to admit that he is deluded.

Your replies have been brilliant, rigorous and surprisingly patient - I'd love to see that talent applied where it will actually make a difference.

It's like cocaine. I try to stay away. BUT I KEEP COMING BACK FOR MORE!!!!

[uruk]

Certainly an outright lie when not one image of any of the supposed 47, 1,300 fot steel core columns has been produced while prodigious evidence for the concrete core, also disproving steel core columns has been consistently provided. (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html) One website with conjecture and assumptions as opposed to thousands of websites backed up with research and facts. I think you need to look up the definition of "prodigious".

And this provision of raw evidence has always been done in an effort to provide knowledge which can be used to establish lawful government and protect life, while,........... the opposition will not even state their reasons for opposing what must be the truth.
We'll add delusions of grandure to the list.

[maccy]

If you cannot provide these above, then you have shown yourself to be intellectually dishonest (oh what a surprise)

I disagree, by not providnig the things you list, for 180 pages (and for the best part of six months), Christophera is merely demonstrating that he has a mental illness and is impervious to reason - seeing all confrontation as justification for his paranoid fantasies.

I really don't understand why people keep trying to get Christophera to accept their arguments, there is absolutely no reason to expect that he ever will.

Christophera has already lost the argument - everybody sees this except for him. Trying to force him to admit this loss is therefore pointless and I don't believe it's helping him with his illness.

Christophera doesn't have the self-awareness to be intellectually dishonest and any kind of confrontation, argument or insult is not going to help him gain this awareness.

The best that we can hope is that if we leave this thread alone, Christophera will devote less time to repeating his delusions and may, in a moment of refelection, seek help for his condition.

Christophera's ideas are too ridiculous to influence anybody and have, at any rate, been debunked several times on this thread. Reason has already prevailed, there is nothing to be gained from continuing to argue.

Edited to add:

As we've rolled over another page - and that seems to be a groudhog day like process of everybody repeating themselves - here's my paranoia quote once more:

Therapists who want to maintain a working alliance with a paranoid patient must avoid becoming the object of projection. They should provide models of non-paranoid behavior, and not allow themselves to become either an aggressor or a victim. The therapist must build trust gradually, without trying to be too friendly, and avoid showing of anger or defensiveness. Complete honesty is essential because people with paranoid tendencies are highly sensitive to deception and holding back.

Disputing or otherwise directly confronting paranoid beliefs is ineffective, and interpretations will be regarded mainly as accusations. Instead, the therapist must help patients acknowledge the feelings they have been defending themselves against.

http://hmiworld.org/hmi/issues/Jan_F..._paranoia.html emphasis mine.

[bonavada]

Agreed.

Look at the sequence again using the building directly in front of the collapsing tower as a reference. To me, the spire is too right of center to be alleged concrete core. Could it possibly be a remnant of the outer wall, after the floors have been sheared away, but before the wall's final collapse?

sorry been away from the madness for a while....

i've puzzled many times over this exact question. i have quite a few vids of the apperance of the spire during collapse and i must say it does seem, in most of them, that what we/you suspect seems very possible. in particular there is long-distance footage (shot by CNN i think) which graphically illustrates this. i'll hunt it down and you-tube it here. tomorrow that'll be though.....

BV

[Christophera]

Christophera's raw evidence list:

1.) PBS documentary "The Construction Of the twin Towers" - NO evidence
2.) Explosives placed inside the towers during construction - NO evidence
3.) Airplanes hitting the wrong towers - NO evidence
4.) The fires inside the towers going out - NO evidence
5.) The explosives were on timers - NO evidence
6.) The wrong tower falling first - NO evidence

And the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html)? - NO evidence, beside a misprint in a book, a faulty diagram from the BBC website on 9/12/01 and a grainy picture that shows nothing more but a dark shape behind dustclouds.

You are still doing swell, Christophera :rolleyes:

Uh, ....... we don't have anything to make a raw evidence list for the deniers of the concrete core unless it were a number of misrepresentations used in rare attempts.

Let us see, ........

There is the picture not looking at the core where some poor decieved canadian says "Look at the core columns"

Or there is the aerial photo which shows the interior box columns ringing the core, but none of the same large columns inside the core, where some pitifully duped german says, "Look at the core columns". When really the image shows elevator guide rail supports.

Their favorite is the interior box column laying on the ground with floor beams conneted to it getting scrapped out where they say, "Look at the core columns"

The entire time never showing an image of one of the 47, 1,300 steel columns actually inside the core let alone providing a logical explanaton for this (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg)

[Christophera]

One website with conjecture and assumptions as opposed to thousands of websites backed up with research and facts. I think you need to look up the definition of "prodigious".


We'll add delusions of grandure to the list.

We can say that thousands of websites that do not explain what must be the worlds most sophisticated Demolition (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html).

[stateofgrace]

Chris I ask this in all seriousness,

Is there anything and I mean anything that will anybody could offer up that would convince you that the Towers were not demolished and did not have concrete cores?

[stateofgrace]

http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p178/stateofgrace_photos/cuttingTheBeams.jpg

Any comment Chris?

[delphi_ote]

Chris I ask this in all seriousness,

Is there anything and I mean anything that will anybody could offer up that would convince you that the Towers were not demolished and did not have concrete cores?
Earlier, he explicitly stated that nothing would change his mind.

[twinstead]

People who are crazy don't know they are crazy. According to them the rest of the world is crazy.

We will never convince Chris he is wrong. He could be sent back in time and be shown the entire construction holding hands with the ghost of Christmas past, see NO concrete core being poured, and I would bet every penny I have ( I have about 423) Chris would not believe it.

It's the nature of the affliction.

[Christophera]

Chris I ask this in all seriousness,

Is there anything and I mean anything that will anybody could offer up that would convince you that the Towers were not demolished and did not have concrete cores?

I know enough about the uses of high explosives to know that IF there were steel core columns the event of the towers falling at near free fall would have looked (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg) and sounded completely different than they did.

I sat for 2 hours watching a documentary about the construction of WTC 1 and over an hour of it focused on the difficult construction of the worlds largest, steel reinforced cast concrete tubular core.
(http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

I know that well contained, optimally placed and distributed high explosives can cause concrete to pulverize the concrete to its particulate components instantly to fall.

There is nothing to offer. No alternatives that are reasonable and logical. The explanation was done as documented with evidence and logic here. (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html)

[Christophera]

People who are crazy don't know they are crazy. According to them the rest of the world is crazy.

We will never convince Chris he is wrong. He could be sent back in time and be shown the entire construction holding hands with the ghost of Christmas past, see NO concrete core being poured, and I would bet every penny I have ( I have about 423) Chris would not believe it.

It's the nature of the affliction.

Speak of delusions of granduer. You can't even come up with a single image of a steel core column in the core area.

[Christophera]

http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p178/stateofgrace_photos/cuttingTheBeams.jpg

Any comment Chris?

We have 2 interior box columns on the left with torch cut ends and some men working with a salvage lance on the right. Note the cut on the end of the piece they work on is way smotter than any torch cut. Note there are no bolt holes or plates, flanges or any other sign of how that column end was joind with another.

That column end was cut with cutting charges built into the floors (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1233383)

[Christophera]

I disagree, by not providnig the things you list, for 180 pages (and for the best part of six months), Christophera is merely demonstrating that he has a mental illness and is impervious to reason - seeing all confrontation as justification for his paranoid fantasies.


Classic BS. in those 180 pages there has not been one image of the steel core columns the deniers mostly fail to support as existent.

The evidence I provide of the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html) also provides proof there were no steel core columns. So it is no wonder you clutter up this thread with baseless denial and then apply ad hominum attack. There is nothing else you can do.

[Arus808]

The evidence I provide of the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html) also provides proof there were no steel core columns. So it is no wonder you clutter up this thread with baseless denial and then apply ad hominum attack. There is nothing else you can do.

what you have is not evidence.

[stateofgrace]

I know enough about the uses of high explosives to know that IF there were steel core columns the event of the towers falling at near free fall would have looked (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg) and sounded completely different than they did.

I sat for 2 hours watching a documentary about the construction of WTC 1 and over an hour of it focused on the difficult construction of the worlds largest, steel reinforced cast concrete tubular core.
(http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

I know that well contained, optimally placed and distributed high explosives can cause concrete to pulverize the concrete to its particulate components instantly to fall.

There is nothing to offer. No alternatives that are reasonable and logical. The explanation was done as documented with evidence and logic here. (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html)

No is sufficient Chris.

[jsfisher]

You would be the first person to question that.

...and your point is?

[twinstead]

Speak of delusions of granduer. You can't even come up with a single image of a steel core column in the core area.

Well, you've been shown DOZENS of pictures of just that, DURING CONSTRUCTION for Christ's sake.

You can't talk to a psycho like a normal human being...

[Christophera]

Well, you've been shown DOZENS of pictures of just that, DURING CONSTRUCTION for Christ's sake.

You can't talk to a psycho like a normal human being...

How come I always post proof of the concrete core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)but you always SAY there's; tons, lots, dozens, many, etc. and then not post any?

Then I have to post what you THINK is your evidence and explain it to you. What you think is an image showing steel core columns is actually showing "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) which are not in the core area. What is in the core area are much smaller and are not "core columns" the are elevator guide rail supports.

[Christophera]

what you have is not evidence.

Clearly, you wouldn't know evidence of something you do not want to know.

The concrete core (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html) is well established but folks don't want to know of it because then it would mean they should unify and purify their government of the infiltrators that killed 3,000 on 9-11.

People do not want to do that and have become so ignorant of their needs that they do not know they need to do that in order to preserve the comfort and security they really cherish (not to mention their rights and freedoms they take for granted) they must get over the false divisions media has created over the last few generations.

Then again some of them draw a handsome salary to come here and obfuscate quality evidence and try and confuse the average reader with naseless denial and misrepresentations of fraudulent evidence trying to sunstantiate towers that never existed.

[twinstead]

Then again some of them draw a handsome salary to come here and obfuscate quality evidence and try and confuse the average reader with naseless denial and misrepresentations of fraudulent evidence trying to sunstantiate towers that never existed.

Oh great, the old 'paid government shill' argument. The average reader? The average reader thinks, like we do, that you are full of CRAP.

Chris, do you have any idea how much of a cliche that is? "draw a handsome salary"? LOL Jesus dude everybody else in the world, even those who think 911 was an inside job, disagrees with you. I mean EVERYBODY.

What does that tell you?

[hcmom]

Chris, do you have any idea how much of a cliche that is? "draw a handsome salary"? LOL Jesus dude everybody else in the world, even those who think 911 was an inside job, disagrees with you. I mean EVERYBODY.

What does that tell you?

If I had to guess, I'd say that he thinks it makes him a progressive free-thinker...

[delphi_ote]

I'm starting to get the impression that the entire economy is based around confusing people about 9/11.

[Christophera]

Oh great, the old 'paid government shill' argument. The average reader? The average reader thinks, like we do, that you are full of CRAP.

Chris, do you have any idea how much of a cliche that is? "draw a handsome salary"? LOL Jesus dude everybody else in the world, even those who think 911 was an inside job, disagrees with you. I mean EVERYBODY.

What does that tell you?


Firstly, again, you didn't post even one of the DOZENS of contruction photos showing the supposed steel core columns.

Then, you are generalizing as if you know what everybody thinks.

Actually, because of you and others that are doing what you are doing, paid or not, hypnotized or not, those reading often don't know what to think.

Because of me and the fact that I actually have evidence and I have a website (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html)that does provide a comprehensive explanation for this event. They may think that there is a way to understand what happened on 9-11 and that your behavior is bizarre because you actually have no evidence.

The official story is so incredible that many people just divorce themselves from any responsibility to thinking about it at all and have just gone on with their lives.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4019&stc=1&d=1163225981attachmentid=4018&stc=1&d=1163225844

[Christophera]

so you going to ingnore books and publications including testimony by those involved in the construction and design of the twin towers in the 80's.

Are you claiming that the "perpetrators" of 9/11 (al Queda) knew back then that they were going to attack the twin towers?

funny that's what we've been asking from you for the past 180 pages of this thread.

AGain, what you have is not raw evidence of any sort.

RAW evidence we want from you
1) the blueprints
2) the testimony of workers who were involved
3) images taken during their construction untouched and altered by anyone.

If you cannot provide these above, then you have shown yourself to be intellectually dishonest (oh what a surprise)

Blueprints are not raw evidence. The NYC mayor took them and courts will not force their return.

http://www.nyclu.org/g_archive020602.html

Testimony of anyone is not raw evidence. It is witness and it must be consistent with raw evidence.

Construction images are filtered and those showing the concrete core are gone. Those showing interior box columns that might be misintrepreted are still extant. Aerials that show elevator guide rails supports that can be misinterpreted are extant.

That you are so brazen with blatant selectivity belies reason and your unwillingness to accept the available raw evidence of demo images shows you are dissociating their obvious value.

The raw images of the demo are far more revealing than any constrcution photos when it comes to the concrete core, but one has to know something about steel and concrete construction.

This is not TV and thinking is not done for you.

[Christophera]

Agreed.

Look at the sequence again using the building directly in front of the collapsing tower as a reference. To me, the spire is too right of center to be alleged concrete core. Could it possibly be a remnant of the outer wall, after the floors have been sheared away, but before the wall's final collapse?

Here is a superimpositon that some denier made to show another denier that I was right about the WTC 1 spire being located at the corner of the core.

They actually did an excellent job.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4020&stc=1&d=1163229806

[Powa]

Then again some of them draw a handsome salary to come here and obfuscate quality evidence and try and confuse the average reader with naseless denial and misrepresentations of fraudulent evidence trying to sunstantiate towers that never existed.
Chris, since you're the only one with "raw" evidence of the concrete core, wouldn't it be cheaper and easier for the "infiltrators" to just kill you and be done with it? Why pay people to debate you?

With all this "raw" evidence you think you have, why are you not calling CNN? It's your duty to expose the biggest conspiracy in human history. Instead, you debate people on some forum for 181 pages. For months.

Why do you hate America?

[Architect]

Chris

Just as a matter of interest, given your complete lack of success in convincing anyone here at all of your case, what do you think you've achieved and what do you believe you stand to achieve by continuing?

[Mobyseven]

I'm sick of it, and I'm going to take the good advice that was given and stop posting in this thread. Hopefully Christophaka will eventually do the same.

However, I will say this: I am willing to publicly debate on this matter. I am located in Australia, which should be safer for you anyway, as it won't be as easy for the US government to make you disappear if you come here.

PM me if you are interested in the above offer.

[bonavada]

sorry been away from the madness for a while....

i've puzzled many times over this exact question. i have quite a few vids of the apperance of the spire during collapse and i must say it does seem, in most of them, that what we/you suspect seems very possible. in particular there is long-distance footage (shot by CNN i think) which graphically illustrates this. i'll hunt it down and you-tube it here. tomorrow that'll be though.....

BV

as promised, here's a short sequence of images taken from some well-aired CNN footage.
the first is from which i took an overlay and applied it to the last.
the second image shows the spire without the overlay, albeit not very clearly. i think the overlay is accurately placed. well as near as dammit.

looking at it it's quite inconclusive as to the origin of the spire. although if pushed, i would tend to agree it is actually the core. so our chris could be right about this being the actual core we see. is this a first?



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87484555ba193ceca.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87484555ba196ff00.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87484555ba19a2b4e.jpg

BV

[Mancman]

It is the core.

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1dem5/1-064.jpghttp://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1dem5/1-528.jpg

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1dem7/avalanche.3.4.jpg

[Architect]

Looks like the core to me, I have to admit, and it wouldn't be a surprise that at least some stayed up for a few seconds. But there's a big difference between teetering and instability.

Chris, for example, clearly suffers from instability....

[maccy]

On the off-chance, that anybody still participating in this thread is under the impression that they are arguing with a fundamentally rational person who is just being stubborn and needs more evidence to convince him that he is wrong, I suggest you check out some of Christophera's other writings:

Mainly the pages in this folder:

http://www.truthasaur.com/my_22/

But if that's not sufficent:

Here's an early post questioning his sanity:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...86#post1665086

Here's a thread he started about mas brainwashing via hypnosis:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63738

also, christophera's webpages in general:

http://algoxy.com/law/nojustice2/psychosite.html

http://www.angelfire.com/ca5/nojustice/

http://algoxy.com/

http://truthasaur.com/

[Mancman]

On the off-chance, that anybody still participating in this thread is under the impression that they are arguing with a fundamentally rational person who is just being stubborn and needs more evidence to convince him that he is wrong, I suggest you check out some of Christophera's other writings:

Mainly the pages in this folder:

http://www.truthasaur.com/my_22/


Good lord. :jaw-dropp

"The secret societies know, unconsciously, that I have observed winter solstice sunrises and are compelled by the Native American spiritual interests to confirm our temporal alignment by providing me with tangible examples of their unconscious awareness.

More classic examples from my personal life indicating that the secret societies have been influenced to provide me with paper having the numbers 21, 22 & 23 on them."

I never realised he was such a big fan of suing people.

[Bell]

Good lord. :jaw-dropp

"The secret societies know, unconsciously, that I have observed winter solstice sunrises and are compelled by the Native American spiritual interests to confirm our temporal alignment by providing me with tangible examples of their unconscious awareness.

More classic examples from my personal life indicating that the secret societies have been influenced to provide me with paper having the numbers 21, 22 & 23 on them."

I never realised he was such a big fan of suing people.

And to think Christopher Alfred Brown is 22 letters long!

[jsfisher]

Agreed.

Look at the sequence again using the building directly in front of the collapsing tower as a reference. To me, the spire is too right of center to be alleged concrete core. Could it possibly be a remnant of the outer wall, after the floors have been sheared away, but before the wall's final collapse?
Here is a superimpositon that some denier made to show another denier that I was right about the WTC 1 spire being located at the corner of the core.

They actually did an excellent job.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4020&stc=1&d=1163229806

I feel honored.

My post, the one you have now cited twice, was in reference to the first tower collapse. You have even specifically acknowledged that fact. Yet, you persist in misrepresenting it as referring to the second.

Excellent technique!! Keep up the good work, and under no circumstances let the facts dissuade your from the truth.

[skeptifem]

Clearly, you wouldn't know evidence of something you do not want to know.

The concrete core (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html) is well established but folks don't want to know of it because then it would mean they should unify and purify their government of the infiltrators that killed 3,000 on 9-11.

People do not want to do that and have become so ignorant of their needs that they do not know they need to do that in order to preserve the comfort and security they really cherish (not to mention their rights and freedoms they take for granted) they must get over the false divisions media has created over the last few generations.

Then again some of them draw a handsome salary to come here and obfuscate quality evidence and try and confuse the average reader with naseless denial and misrepresentations of fraudulent evidence trying to sunstantiate towers that never existed.


lol. why do people post in this thread anymore? If you disagree with this guy you are either get paid to post propaganda or you're a mindless patriotic sheep.

I dont think anyone would need to pay the government to refute you. from the beginning you needed people to help you explain what you were actually asserting, even after you had build a whole website about it. That pretty much shows how much thought goes into your assertions.

[Christophera]

Chris, since you're the only one with "raw" evidence of the concrete core, wouldn't it be cheaper and easier for the "infiltrators" to just kill you and be done with it? Why pay people to debate you?

With all this "raw" evidence you think you have, why are you not calling CNN? It's your duty to expose the biggest conspiracy in human history. Instead, you debate people on some forum for 181 pages. For months.

Why do you hate America?

Do you realize how much credibility assasination would bring? You are naive.

Do you really think mass media is here to support the sacred principles of America? You are naive.

Do you think that even the average American has the courage to use their ability to reason with logic, make a commitment and expose a secret of that magnitude. You are naive.

Why do support the secret infiltration of our government and usurpation of our Constitution, the loss of our rights and freedoms?

[Christophera]

lol. why do people post in this thread anymore? If you disagree with this guy you are either get paid to post propaganda or you're a mindless patriotic sheep.

I dont think anyone would need to pay the government to refute you. from the beginning you needed people to help you explain what you were actually asserting, even after you had build a whole website about it. That pretty much shows how much thought goes into your assertions.

Your deep confusion is evident in your post.

[Christophera]

Good lord. :jaw-dropp

"The secret societies know, unconsciously, that I have observed winter solstice sunrises and are compelled by the Native American spiritual interests to confirm our temporal alignment by providing me with tangible examples of their unconscious awareness.

More classic examples from my personal life indicating that the secret societies have been influenced to provide me with paper having the numbers 21, 22 & 23 on them."

I never realised he was such a big fan of suing people.

You, obviously have no idea of how important reason and law are. They are worth testing, even here.

[Powa]

Do you realize how much credibility assasination would bring? You are naive.
Do you think "they" couldn't make you disappear? You are naive.

Do you really think mass media is [sic] here to support the sacred principles of America? You are naive.
Actually I don't. Mass media (especially in America) support whatever brings them the best ratings.

Do you think that even the average American has the courage to use their ability to reason with logic, make a commitment and expose a secret of that magnitude. You are naive.
Are you accusing all average Americans to be cowards? Oh dear.

ETA: What about us non-Americans? Do you realize there are probably more non-Americans than Americans on this forum? Why have you not succeeded in persuading even one of us non-Americans of your "concrete" core? Are we also afraid of the infiltration of YOUR government?

Why do support the secret infiltration of our government and usurpation of our Constitution, the loss of our rights and freedoms?
I don't. Where have I said that? BTW, what rights have you lost since 911?

[delphi_ote]

Do you think that even the average American has the courage to use their ability to reason with logic, make a commitment and expose a secret of that magnitude. You are naive.
As has been said before, the conspiracy theorist believes what he believes because it makes him feel special. Who is Christopheria to look down on the entire population of this country with contempt? Why, he's a member of the Truth Movement, of course! What has he done that makes him better than anyone else? Believe in the Truth!

If it sounds like a cult, that's because it is a cult.

[Christophera]

As has been said before, the conspiracy theorist believes what he believes because it makes him feel special. Who is Christopheria to look down on the entire population of this country with contempt? Why, he's a member of the Truth Movement, of course! What has he done that makes him better than anyone else? Believe in the Truth!

If it sounds like a cult, that's because it is a cult.

Sounds like you have contempt for the principles of America, courage and truth. I understand that the average American has been subjected to generations of manipulation from media as it is controlled by other factions.

They have to have information that makes sense before their courage will awaken. It appears you do not want them to have that.

[beachnut]

wrong again

[beachnut]

This concrete core thing, you mean the foors in the core were concrete

Is this what you mean concrete cult truth member?

[Christophera]

Do you think "they" couldn't make you disappear? You are naive.


Of course they could, but I'm not trying to harm them. Have you not been following the links maccy provided on the preceding page?

I understand them, that they are controlled by unreasonable fear which endangers their children as well as ours. I'm trying to help them to recover from the manipulations which have caused their fear.

You sound rather like "they" have appointed you.

[Christophera]

This concrete core thing, you mean the foors in the core were concrete

Is this what you mean concrete cult truth member?

Does this (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) look like a floor? Does it look like steel core columns?

[beachnut]

floor

[beachnut]

dust from wall board and the steel core!

[delphi_ote]

Sounds like you have contempt for the principles of America, courage and truth.
You sound like George Bush! Are you going to "stay the course" with your concrete core hypothesis?
They have to have information that makes sense before their courage will awaken. It appears you do not want them to have that.
Again, you sound just like our moron president. Man... propaganda is funny. It all sounds exactly the same.

[skeptifem]

wow! I missed all that stuff about native american spirits and numbers and all that good stuff.

dude is crazy.