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

[Bell]

Yes, flight 175. You have corrected my typo.

TWO typos.

[Oliver]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107455fa0e7328d8.jpg

[maccy]

You are not reading.

READ here (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1207667)

Once again.

From your link:

In addition to the above, it is completely illogical that this building, hit first, hit hardest, burnt worst, would fall last, without demolition's being involved.
Do you stand by this statement?

You still haven't responded to the question that's relevant to this:

Mr. Brown:

You claim that the World Trade Center towers fell in the wrong order. How can you say this when the second jet impacted WTC2 faster (and therefore harder) than the first jet hit WTC1, and did so at a point lower on the building in comparison to the first?

And a quick refresher: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_Trade_Center_9-11_Att.png

- Both planes were identical models
- WTC1 was struck at 490 mph
- There were 11 undamaged stories above WTC1's impact zone
- WTC2 was struck at 590 mph
- There were 25 undamaged stories above WTC2's impact zone

In short, the second tower was hit significantly harder, significantly lower, and fell after a shorter elapsed time, yet you, Mr. Brown, insist it should've fallen second. How can this be?

Note to any new posters - Regnad has the socks. In other words we should stick with this question until Regnad is satisfied with Chris' answer.

Then somebody else can have the socks - they will pose a question which we will stick until they are satisfied with the answer.

In this way we should have a point-by-point analysis of Chris' claim, eventually.

[maccy]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107455fa0e7328d8.jpg

Oliver I'm going to suggest you take a break from this thread (and possibly your computer) and think nice thoughts for a bit. :):)

I hope it isn't getting to you...

:)

[Oliver]

Oliver I'm going to suggest you take a break from this thread (and possibly your computer) and think nice thoughts for a bit. :):)

I hope it isn't getting to you...

:)

I´m very relaxed... yet... :)

[maccy]

I´m very relaxed... yet... :)

Good.

I'd hate to see you getting wound up by this thread.

:)

[Oliver]

Good.

I'd hate to see you getting wound up by this thread.

:)

It is not the thread, it is:

Yes, i say that one fourth of americans are retarded.

[Oroborus]

:dig:

[Christophera]

Mr. Brown:

You claim that the World Trade Center towers fell in the wrong order. How can you say this when the second jet impacted WTC2 faster (and therefore harder) than the first jet hit WTC1, and did so at a point lower on the building in comparison to the first?

And a quick refresher: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:W...r_9-11_Att.png

- Both planes were identical models
- WTC1 was struck at 490 mph
- There were 11 undamaged stories above WTC1's impact zone
- WTC2 was struck at 590 mph
- There were 25 undamaged stories above WTC2's impact zone

In short, the second tower was hit significantly harder, significantly lower, and fell after a shorter elapsed time, yet you, Mr. Brown, insist it should've fallen second. How can this be?

Once again.

From your link:


Do you stand by this statement?

You still haven't responded to the question that's relevant to this:



Note to any new posters - Regnad has the socks. In other words we should stick with this question until Regnad is satisfied with Chris' answer.

Then somebody else can have the socks - they will pose a question which we will stick until they are satisfied with the answer.

In this way we should have a point-by-point analysis of Chris' claim, eventually.

I've dealt with the question, shown that that plane speeds, impact elevations had nothing to do with the sequence.

The issue of the tops falling the wrong way according to impact location indicates impacts had nothing to do with the towers coming down. Meaning sequence of the issue of the tops going the wrong way. There is no way around this factor.

I've shown Reggie that WTC 2's impact, fall doesn't make sense or have anything to do with where the top ended up.

[jsfisher]

I've dealt with the question, shown that that plane speeds, impact elevations had nothing to do with the sequence.
So, why was the order of the towers falling not correct?

[Christophera]

So, why was the order of the towers falling not correct?

I feel sorry for those who have a readling disability

"towers fell in the wrong order" (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1207667)


The fact that both towers fell almost identically and the tops fell in the wrong directions relating to the faces they were struck on are major factors that indicate the controlling aspects of the towers fall was completely separate from plane collisions and fires and that they were a demolition, controlled by timers.

Viewed from the east, here is the top of the north tower falling to the south when the tower was hit hard on the north side. Damage there logically causes a failure there having the tower fall to the north.

In addition to the above, it is completely illogical that this building, hit first, hit hardest, burnt worst, would fall last, without demolition's being involved.

[Christophera]

From your link:



Do you stand by this statement?

In addition to the above I do.

[jsfisher]

I feel sorry for those who have a readling disability
You really need to stop waving your hands as a substitute for explanation.

What facts do you rely upon to support your notion the towers fell in the wrong order?

[delphi_ote]

You really need to stop waving your hands as a substitute for explanation.

What facts do you rely upon to support your notion the towers fell in the wrong order?
If Chris actually knew about a conspiracy controlling the world, he'd be the most irresponsible person alive. Think about it, he's getting all his kicks here with name calling and insulting instead of presenting evidence to people asking legitimate questions. He could just answer them, but instead he says, "Ha ha... I know about the one world order coming to kill us all, and you're too stupid. Nyah nyah!"

I've said it before and I'll say it again. These people don't believe their own BS.

[Christophera]

You really need to stop waving your hands as a substitute for explanation.

What facts do you rely upon to support your notion the towers fell in the wrong order?

Sorry, I guess your problem is worse than a reading diability.

[Oliver]

Who got the socks right now and what is the mainquestion? :(

[Christophera]

If Chris actually knew about a conspiracy controlling the world, he'd be the most irresponsible person alive. Think about it, he's getting all his kicks here with name calling and insulting instead of presenting evidence to people asking legitimate questions. He could just answer them, but instead he says, "Ha ha... I know about the one world order coming to kill us all, and you're too stupid. Nyah nyah!"

I've said it before and I'll say it again. These people don't believe their own BS.

I've answered all these questions many times. Now they are not even observing the answers, just asking again.

The one thing I've asked for over and over and never gotten is an image showing the steel core columns from the demo images at some elevaton over the ground which means that al lthose here are basically fake.

I can prove the concrete core,

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

And because I can, all the bogus questions getting asked over and over are meaningless.

I can also explain near free fall and total pulverization.

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

[delphi_ote]

Who got the socks right now and what is the mainquestion? :(
No doubt. We need some more order around here.
Note to any new posters - Regnad has the socks. In other words we should stick with this question until Regnad is satisfied with Chris' answer.

Then somebody else can have the socks - they will pose a question which we will stick until they are satisfied with the answer.

In this way we should have a point-by-point analysis of Chris' claim, eventually.
That's the last mention I find of the :socks: in the thread. His question was about the order the towers fell.
You claim that the towers fell in the wrong order. How can you say so when the second jet impacted WTC2 faster (and therefore harder) than the first jet hit WTC1, and did so at a point lower on the building in comparison to the first?
But since he hasn't been around in a couple days, and I invented the :socks:, I'll pass them to the next person who would like them. We'll leave his question in play until someone brings up the next one, though.

[delphi_ote]

I've answered all these questions many times. Now they are not even observing the answers, just asking again.
That's just it. You're not answering them clearly. If there was such a conspiracy, I'd think you'd take informing us seriously enough to directly answer questions about how it happened.

It seems like we've run this sequence question into the ground over the past few days. I'll leave a very simple question out there for you while we wait for someone else to pick up the socks.

How did you first come upon your theory about the concrete cores, etc? When did you first believe 9/11 was a conspiracy? At what moment did you say, "Aha! This was a demolition"? Were you watching TV, talking to a friend, reading a newspaper, taking a walk? When did it dawn on you and what was that experience like?

[Oliver]

That's just it. You're not answering them clearly. If there was such a conspiracy, I'd think you'd take informing us seriously enough to directly answer questions about how it happened.

It seems like we've run this sequence question into the ground over the past few days. I'll leave a very simple question out there for you while we wait for someone else to pick up the socks.

How did you first come upon your theory about the concrete cores, etc? When did you first believe 9/11 was a conspiracy? At what moment did you say, "Aha! This was a demolition"? Were you watching TV, talking to a friend, reading a newspaper, taking a walk? When did it dawn on you and what was that experience like?

Yeah, Alfred - and don´t come up with your lousy
links again. Say it in your own words! :mad:

[uruk]

Seems to me you illustrated the opposite and ignored the fact that almost half of the columns on the left side of (1.) (WTC1) were severed by the plane impact. On WTC 2 the damage was on the south east corner not the east face.
Good god, your an idiot. Either you can't interpret anything correctly or your purposefully being dense inorder to ofuscate.


You cannot even prove with raw evidence the core columns existed let alone that they were damaged. The concrete core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) is well evidenced.
We've more than proved the existance of the steel core. We backed up with photos and reputable sources. Your simply acting like a contrary child willfully ignoring the facts before you.
You have not come anywhere close to proving a concrete core. No photos, no relibles sources. Just your unsubstantiated conjecture.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bfe0Hbgq1HY

Your use of the term "raging" is a cognitive distortion.

6. Magnification and Minimization - Exaggerating negatives and understating positives. Often the positive characteristics of other people are exaggerated and negatives understated. There is one subtype of magnification:
It was beyond obvious that the fires were burning at suffucient temperature to weaken and distort steel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRakw3hwPls
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqBrq3qGGFY
Look at the fires.Those are pretty big fires.

The photos show the aluminum facade loosening.
The aluminum was attched to the stell the facade pieces would not have bent and bowed if the steel wasn't also bowing and distroting.


This rotation occurred on the east face when the plane only impacted the south east corner.
Are you sure? Look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoTEEkF2GrA
It looks to me that the building collapsed in the same direction as the damage. Notice the rotation. Notice the bowing at the point of collapse.

homer you are distorting again.

1. All-or-nothing thinking - Thinking of things in absolute terms, like "always", "every" or "never". Few aspects of human behavior are so absolute. (See false dilemma.)

2. Overgeneralization - Taking isolated cases and using them to make wide generalizations. (See hasty generalization.) Are you sure your not describing yourself?



Correct, there was no toppling because of the detonations of high explosives. I brought up the toppling issue because you said that only the section above the plane impact would topple over if it was just the plane imapcts alone. I was telling you that's a rediculous idea because a building that size would not topple over unless there was a large force or hugh shift in mass to one side. It showed how bad your thought process was.

You are completely ignoring the concrete core inside the perimeter columns and the concrete roof can be seen falling to the west intact on WTC 3 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.gif)

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4105&d=1163778081
I am completely ignoring a concrete core because there was no concrete core. All the reputable sources never mention a concrete core.

[uruk]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107455fa0e7328d8.jpg

Wow, that's cool. It looks like WTC 2 is blowing chunks in orbit.

[uruk]

I've dealt with the question, shown that that plane speeds, impact elevations had nothing to do with the sequence.

The issue of the tops falling the wrong way according to impact location indicates impacts had nothing to do with the towers coming down. Meaning sequence of the issue of the tops going the wrong way. There is no way around this factor.

I've shown Reggie that WTC 2's impact, fall doesn't make sense or have anything to do with where the top ended up.

Are you certain they fell in the wrong direction? This video seems to go against what you say.:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoTEEkF2GrA

[Oliver]

Wow, that's cool. It looks like WTC 2 is blowing chunks in orbit.

Sorry, the image-link was broken. And yes, with all the
C4 they blew the buildings and pieces of it all over the
solar system...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107455fff15b5c8a.jpg

[Christophera]

Are you certain they fell in the wrong direction? This video seems to go against what you say.:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoTEEkF2GrA

The north tower was hit on the north side and the top fell south.

The south tower was hit on the south east corner and the body fell east while the top fell west.

This has been studied and confirmed years ago.

[Christophera]

Good god, your an idiot. Either you can't interpret anything correctly or your purposefully being dense inorder to ofuscate.

Looks like your unwillingness to use evidence is exposing you.

Wrong, I just used your 1st diagram twice because it looked more like WTC 1 than 2 as it was labeled. There are bigger issues than that tho.

You have not explained why the top of WTC 2 went west. And of course this image (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.gif) proves the concrete core, ONE MORE TIME.

We've more than proved the existance of the steel core. We backed up with photos and reputable sources. Your simply acting like a contrary child willfully ignoring the facts before you.
You have not come anywhere close to proving a concrete core. No photos, no relibles sources. Just your unsubstantiated conjecture.


The conspicous lack of links gives your lie away.

This is a concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) holding up the stpire which is formed by an interior box column. NOTICE: No core columns in the core area to the left. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg)

Then, the legendary WTC 2 concrete core. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

And what about the 17 foot thick concrete core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) AGAIN, no steel core columns where they should be, like protruding from the stairwell, right of the stairwell, in the fore ground.

[hcmom]

Sorry, I guess your problem is worse than a reading diability.

I think I'll start making a daily post of something Chris says (types) that would make me like him, if he were anyone other than Chris, and this wasn't his thread....

[Bell]

The north tower was hit on the north side and the top fell south.

The south tower was hit on the south east corner and the body fell east while the top fell west.

This has been studied and confirmed years ago.

Ahum! The top of the south tower fell to the east...

http://physics911.ca/gallery2/d/6004-2/wtc17.jpg

http://physics911.ca/gallery2/d/6014-2/site1101.jpg

[The Almond]

You have not explained why the top of WTC 2 went west. And of course this image (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.gif) proves the concrete core, ONE MORE TIME.

Ok, I'm really having a hard time understanding what your image is supposedly proving. I see a whole bunch of debris and large chunks of the exterior wall of the WTC falling down. I don't see how this proves a concrete core. Images that would prove a concrete core include:
Unobstructed views of the entirety of the WTC during its construction
Noterized blue-prints calling for a concrete core
Published specifications naming one specifically


This is a concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) holding up the stpire which is formed by an interior box column. NOTICE: No core columns in the core area to the left. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg)

Then, the legendary WTC 2 concrete core. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

And what about the 17 foot thick concrete core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) AGAIN, no steel core columns where they should be, like protruding from the stairwell, right of the stairwell, in the fore ground.

It's time to nip this claim. Do you believe that there was no steel holding up the WTC towers? If that's true, let's redesign the building without a steel frame:

At 210ft per side and a live load of (250lb/ft^2 *1.6 + 100lb/ft * 1.2) (ASCE 6) I get a load of 70E3 kips per floor. Now, the WTC towers were a cantilevered structure, meaning that the majority of the load was transferred from the outer edges to the center of the structure via a series of moment connections at each floor. For a beam spacing of 10 feet on center, I get a distributed loading of 16kips per linear foot. That means a moment connection of wL^2/2 or (16kips*210^2)/2 or 352,800ft-kips. The thickness required for a cantilevered beam whose moment connection is 352,800ft-kips with an area of steel equal to the maximum 1.81% is 4653 feet. Oops, seems a little odd, eh?

Ok, so clearly there was some steel in the flooring system. A steel box frame eliminates one of the big problems with using reinforced concrete which is that you can't just put as much steel as you want in there in order to meet the design codes.

Alright, let's look at the shear wall. Buildings with load bearing exterior walls, including mid-range high-rises require vertical shear reinforcement as a protection primarily against wind. The NIST report lists a load sharing system between both internal and external support columns. It is interesting to note that the external columns, in the case of the WTC, acted in both a shear and gravity load bearing capacity.

Now to a little bit of structural mechanics. The capacity of a shear wall is governed by the addition of the shear capacity of the steel and the concrete. The concrete shear capacity is governed by the length of the wall and it's (assumed) horizontal width. See ACI Section 11.10.3 for the set of governing equations.

If the shear capacity of the structure in the WTC towers were governed exclusively by a shear wall at the center of the complex (assuming no steel in the outer structure), let's take a look at your 17 foot value for the base of the structure. Using my equations, I find the shear capacity of a 17 foot thick shear wall to be 65,000 kips or the equivalent wind loading from a storm producing 230 psf of pressure on one face of the WTC. Using Bernouli's equation for static pressure load, I get a wind velocity of 304 miles per hour. Those calculations are, of course, neglecting the 3 inch thick steel you've also claimed to see. If I add your steel to the concrete core, I get 1311 mile per hour winds. Seems a bit, well, overdone, don't you think?

Here's the kicker, shear walls don't change their width as the building progresses higher, they only change the spacing of the steel, so if you're seeing 17 feet at the base, you've also got that to the highest part of the building.

For the sake of argument, let's take the 17 foot thick core wall and calculate the load capacity and see if it's actually thick enough to hold the building up. The wall is basically doing the work of a column by supporting vertical loads, so let's split the wall up into columns. At 17 ft thick and let's say 102 ft/side of the core, that gives us a nice round 6 columns. We'll asssume they're square, even though that makes the geometry impossible. A 17ft thick column with a series of 100 3 inch bars has an area of steel of 300 square inches and a gross area of 41,616 square inches meaning that the maxiumum design load according to ACI Equation 10-2 is 7.3 billion pounds per column times the 6 columns is 43 billion pounds. Using my earlier calculation of 70,000,000 pounds per floor * 110 floors, I get 7.7 billion pounds or a factor of safety of 5.58. It's way too much, not to mention space consuming.

Let's review, the shear wall you've got is way too thick and you've got 5 times more concrete than you need to hold the structure up. Let's also not forget that reinforcing bar sizes only go up to 18, or a diameter of about 2.2 inches. Anything else would be too large for the iron workers to safely lift and weld into place.

If you've got more concrete than you need, why put any steel in in the first place?

Here's the point, since I'm pretty sure you're not going to read most of that: If the concrete existed, why would the designers have added steel to the structure? You've got 2.254 million cubic feet of concrete that no one has ever claimed existed including the structural engineers and general contractors. That concrete takes up all of the space for the steel and would have required a vastly different workforce. Concrete workers instead of steel workers, ready-mix trucks instead of steel loaders. The bill of materials would have included the concrete, along with the reinforcing steel, formwork and truck work. Why, then, do you insist on providing blurry photographic evidence? If a massive cover-up existed on the part of the contractors more than 30 years ago, why didn't anyone notice?

If no one is going to take the socks, I'm going to take them for a while until I get a response to this post.

[Christophera]

Ahum! The top of the south tower fell to the east...

http://physics911.ca/gallery2/d/6004-2/wtc17.jpg

http://physics911.ca/gallery2/d/6014-2/site1101.jpg

What is seen here is clearly the top and the roof slab of the core.

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

[Christophera]

Ok, I'm really having a hard time understanding what your image is supposedly proving.

You've got 2.254 million cubic feet of concrete that no one has ever claimed existed including the structural engineers and general contractors.

Wrong in more than one way.

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

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.

Dr. Domel received a Ph.D. from the University of Illinois at Chicago in 1988 and a Law Degree from Loyola University in 1992. He is a licensed Structural Engineer and Attorney at Law in the .State of Illinois and a Professional Engineer in twelve states

http://www.didyouknow.org/terrorism.htm

Each of the WTC towers had a double-strength structure consisting of a concrete core supported by a steel structure around the outside.

[Alt+F4]

http://www.didyouknow.org/terrorism.htm

Each of the WTC towers had a double-strength structure consisting of a concrete core supported by a steel structure around the outside.

A website run by a poet. Come on, you can do better than that!

[maccy]

Wrong in more than one way.

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

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.

Dr. Domel received a Ph.D. from the University of Illinois at Chicago in 1988 and a Law Degree from Loyola University in 1992. He is a licensed Structural Engineer and Attorney at Law in the .State of Illinois and a Professional Engineer in twelve states


That document descibes the rescue operation and the role of strcutural engineers in it. It is not a report about the construction of the towers. The quote that you choose is in the introduction and does not site any other document.

The docuement has no authority.

It also doesn't descibe a core as you claim it to be and it doesn't answer TheAlmond's questions.

[The Almond]

Wrong in more than one way.

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

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.


Ok, so why do you continually post about the non-existence of a steel framed core? I didn't claim that there was no concrete in the core, but rather that your claim that there was no steel was ludicrous. And what's with the picture? What are you trying to prove with the picture?

As for your link. Read in context, the report does not state that there were no steel columns at the core. Also, noting that the core carried "only gravity loads" would prove, quite to the contrary, that the concrete core you described was never used as a shear wall.


http://www.didyouknow.org/terrorism.htm

Each of the WTC towers had a double-strength structure consisting of a concrete core supported by a steel structure around the outside. Yet another group acknowledging the steel core. Why did you post that one?

[Architect]

To be honest, I'm amazed you guys keep trying to talk to this loon....

[maccy]

More information about the Domel paper.

Beachnut wrote to the NCSEA about it, and got this reply:

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

Regards,
Ron Hamburger

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2079372#post2079372

Domel is a lawyer specialising in structural engineering, so it seems likely that Ron Hamburger supplied the information for his introduction.

As a lawyer, Domel's details are public, so if anybody feels like contact him and asking what he thinks the core was made of:

August W. Domel Jr.
Firm: Domel, August W. Jr.
Address: P.O. Box 981
Dundee, IL 60118-0481
Phone: (630) 213-7800

[delphi_ote]

Anyone want the :socks:? Maybe we could try to get this discussion focused a bit?

(For those not in the know, the :socks: are like the conch in Lord of the Flies. Whoever has them gets to ask one question or bring up one issue, and we all pursue it until we reach a conclusion. They are currently up for grabs, so do let me know.)

[Christophera]

Ok, so why do you continually post about the non-existence of a steel framed core? I didn't claim that there was no concrete in the core, but rather that your claim that there was no steel was ludicrous. And what's with the picture? What are you trying to prove with the picture?

Which picture?

This one of the concrete core of WTC 2 (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

As for your link. Read in context, the report does not state that there were no steel columns at the core. Also, noting that the core carried "only gravity loads" would prove, quite to the contrary, that the concrete core you described was never used as a shear wall.

There is a great deal of confusion about the core because the plans were taken by the ex NYC mayor and hidden in his personal warehouse. Courts will not compell their return.

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

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


http://www.didyouknow.org/terrorism.htm

Each of the WTC towers had a double-strength structure consisting of a concrete core supported by a steel structure around the outside.

Yet another group acknowledging the steel core. Why did you post that one?

As I said, the confusion caused by the missing blueprints MUST allow description that DO identify the concrete core.

And btw. Normally shear walls are as you say, not tapered. The WTC was very CUSTOM and optimized in every way for strength, 17 foot thick on the narrow axis at the base and 2 foot at the top.

[maccy]

To be honest, I'm amazed you guys keep trying to talk to this loon....

At the moment I'm quite interested in this attempt to go through things point by point, methodically. I'll probably be out of here again soon, I shouild think.

[maccy]

Anyone want the :socks:? Maybe we could try to get this discussion focused a bit?

(For those not in the know, the :socks: are like the conch in Lord of the Flies. Whoever has them gets to ask one question or bring up one issue, and we all pursue it until we reach a conclusion. They are currently up for grabs, so do let me know.)

TheAlmond has requested them. I think a brief version of his question is:
why is the concrete core, as you describe it, several times stronger than it needs to be to support the tower?

I was just weighing with some background information about the document that Chris referenced in his reply to this question.

Edited to add:

this is TheAlmond's question post:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2109349#post2109349

[delphi_ote]

At the moment I'm quite interested in this attempt to go through things point by point, methodically. I'll probably be out of here again soon, I shouild think.
It's very interesting, but it's a bit like herding cats... very tempermental cats... on meth.

[Bell]

What is seen here is clearly the top and the roof slab of the core.

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

You are 100% wrong!

The top of the south tower fell to the east...

http://physics911.ca/gallery2/d/6004-2/wtc17.jpg

http://physics911.ca/gallery2/d/6014-2/site1101.jpg

[maccy]

It's very interesting, but it's a bit like herding cats... very tempermental cats... on meth.

It's easier than trying to persuade everybody to ignore chris though.

I'm hoping that we'll end up with a nice summary list of chris' points and how he can't back them up. Which people can post every now and again to save new people the trouble of getting embroiled in all this.

If anybody thinks Chris is gong to be persuaded to change his mind, I offer the following court transcript from one of his websiies as evidence that he won't:

http://algoxy.com/missingknowledge/220trans0.html

[Bell]

If anybody thinks Chris is gong to be persuaded to change his mind, I offer the following court transcript from one of his websiies as evidence that he won't:

http://algoxy.com/missingknowledge/220trans0.html

Yup, there's some crazy stuff in that transcipt!

[delphi_ote]

TheAlmond has requested them. I think a brief version of his question is:
why is the concrete core, as you describe it, several times stronger than it needs to be to support the tower?
Rock. Almond has the :socks:.

[The Almond]

Which picture?

This one of the concrete core of WTC 2 (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

So you believe that there was a concrete core whose thickness was 17 feet which was supported by 3 inch thick steel rebar. Yes or no.


And btw. Normally shear walls are as you say, not tapered.

Source? My design experience has been that shear walls are never tapered. Argument for the special case.

The WTC was very CUSTOM and optimized in every way for strength, 17 foot thick on the narrow axis at the base and 2 foot at the top.

Ok, my analysis shows that 17 feet was way too thick, given the design loadings for the towers. If the building was optimized, they wouldn't have used a factor of safety of 5 for the structure thickness.

[delphi_ote]

I'm hoping that we'll end up with a nice summary list of chris' points and how he can't back them up. Which people can post every now and again to save new people the trouble of getting embroiled in all this.
That was exactly my hope as well. Or at least get to the bottom of some of the things he is talking about.

[Christophera]

So you believe that there was a concrete core whose thickness was 17 feet which was supported by 3 inch thick steel rebar. Yes or no.

Since annotation of that image I've recalled the foundation had 6 inch rebar. I am unsure of exactly where it changed but deniers have pointed out that the tightly coiled steel looks larger than 3 inch. I have to agree with this and so suspect there was an over lap, as that rebar in the base of the core wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) appears larger than what I know continued to the top.

Source? My design experience has been that shear walls are never tapered. Argument for the special case.

Have you ever seen a 1300 foot wall? I know if I was designing one I would taper it.


Ok, my analysis shows that 17 feet was way too thick, given the design loadings for the towers. If the building was optimized, they wouldn't have used a factor of safety of 5 for the structure thickness.

Considering the liability I would specify designs to the absolute maximum strength. There are occasional hurricane force winds there.

The 1990 documentary detailed Yamasakis testing of core designs and the steel core version that Robertson had proposed began to fail as a model at 75 MPH wind speed.

The final call lies with the fact that not one single image from the demolition shows one of the supposed 1,300 foot steel core columns at an elevation over the ground. However, what I know to have existed is shown.

Here is a segment of concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) holding up the spire which is an interior box column located outside the core area and fastened to the concrete shear wall.

[Christophera]

Yup, there's some crazy stuff in that transcipt!

You are bascially trying to say that we know everything about the mind.

This site actually touches on the realities of what is possible.

http://www.hypnos.co.uk/hypnomag/peltbook/chapter4p4.htm

[The Almond]

Since annotation of that image I've recalled the foundation had 6 inch rebar.

Once again, rebar goes from #3 to #18 in size, with #18 being 2.257 inches in diameter and 4 inches in cross-sectional area. There's no such thing as a 6 inch diameter piece of rebar. And why, if you've now recalled the truth, do you still post that image as late as today? Does it take pages worth of mathematics to convince you to check your own work and assumptions? Why?

I am unsure of exactly where it changed but deniers have pointed out that the tightly coiled steel looks larger than 3 inch.

Since you're uninterested in mathematics, I won't bother proving that "tightly coiling" steel that's 3 inches thick would remove most of its structural integrity. Just say the word, however, and I'll produce the mathematics.

I have to agree with this and so suspect there was an over lap, as that rebar in the base of the core wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) appears larger than what I know continued to the top.

You suspect something that you know from your analysis of some fuzzy pictures? Why not find some pictures of the overlap?


Have you ever seen a 1300 foot wall?

Yep, one was on the outside of the WTC towers.

I know if I was designing one I would taper it.

What? If you were designing one? Is this that common sense coming through, or are you actually using your years of acquired design experience and degree in civil engineering?

Considering the liability I would specify designs to the absolute maximum strength. There are occasional hurricane force winds there.

What hurricanes produce 1000 mile per hour winds? What hurricanes produce sustained winds over 300 miles per hour? I'll remind you that a category 5 hurricane produces winds above 156 miles per hour, and that only 3 have hit the US in the 20th century, none in New York.


The 1990 documentary detailed Yamasakis testing of core designs and the steel core version that Robertson had proposed began to fail as a model at 75 MPH wind speed.

This statement disproves your thesis. If Yamasakis were testing for 75mph winds, the shear forces on the building would have been nowhere near large enough to require a 17 foot thick shear wall.

The final call lies with the fact that not one single image from the demolition shows one of the supposed 1,300 foot steel core columns at an elevation over the ground.

So you want an image of a 1300 foot long steel column?


Here is a segment of concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) holding up the spire which is an interior box column located outside the core area and fastened to the concrete shear wall.

How thick is that shear wall? What is the size of the reinforcing steel and how far apart is it placed?

[Christophera]

Once again, rebar goes from #3 to #18 in size, with #18 being 2.257 inches in diameter and 4 inches in cross-sectional area. There's no such thing as a 6 inch diameter piece of rebar.

Do you agree the Twin Towers were unique, custom structures?

I clearly remember the narrator stating that the foundation rebar was so heavy that it could not be bent and must be welded. It is logical that the foundation would have reinforcing rod that was oversize.

Recall the cost of the towers. This was one of the reasons the documentary was made was to show the public that pais for them, WHY they cost so much.

There is plenty of raw evidence of images showing what can only be concrete and NONE showing steel core columns in the core area.

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

[The Almond]

Do you agree the Twin Towers were unique, custom structures?

Congratulations on dodging the question. I'll ask again:
Do you believe that there was a concrete core whose thickness was 17 feet which was supported by 3 inch thick steel rebar. Yes or no.


I clearly remember the narrator stating that the foundation rebar was so heavy that it could not be bent and must be welded.

And from this you deduce the size of 3 inches? How?

It is logical that the foundation would have reinforcing rod that was oversize.

No, it is logical that the foundation had thick reinforcing steel, but not 3 inches thick.

Recall the cost of the towers. This was one of the reasons the documenatry was made was to show the public that pais for them, WHY they cost so much.

You're attempting to redirect the argument. Red herring.

[The Almond]

There is plenty of raw evidence of images showing what can only be concrete and NONE showing steel core columns in the core area.

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

Raw evidence, which you seem to define as "Evidence stored on and annotated on my website." Would you care to define "raw" for us?

[Big Al]

You are bascially trying to say that we know everything about the mind.

This site actually touches on the realities of what is possible.

http://www.hypnos.co.uk/hypnomag/peltbook/chapter4p4.htm

Which has ... what to do with the WTC?

If I undergo hypnosis, do you think it will help me to believe that the US Gubment blew it up?. Are you going to show me another blurry photo of the rubble? Bell's example is the best of the best, and exactly what I would expect to see. With you, all I see is billowing clouds that prove nothing.

I don't want the socks any more. You'll find me barefoot in another thread. Bye-bye, Mr. Troll.

[Christophera]

Which has ... what to do with the WTC?

If I undergo hypnosis, do you think it will help me to believe that the US Gubment blew it up?. Are you going to show me another blurry photo of the rubble? Bell's example is the best of the best, and exactly what I would expect to see. With you, all I see is billowing clouds that prove nothing.

I don't want the socks any more. You'll find me barefoot in another thread. Bye-bye, Mr. Troll.

It has to do with the secrecy that covers the "designed to demolish" aspect.

I believe the US government has bee infiltrated using hypsosis throught he intelligence communities.

Are you going to stand by while the infiltrators kill your countrypeople and destroy your rights and freedoms? How about protecting the government, purifying it?

This,

http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg

is not a blurry photo and it shows a much more comprehensive scene than any I've examined.

[Christophera]

Raw evidence, which you seem to define as "Evidence stored on and annotated on my website." Would you care to define "raw" for us?

No deflection of the point, the images are as close to raw as we can get. Some of those images are not on my website, I link to them. I found the other images and people offered them on forums knowing that they showed concrete and no steel core columns.

Your post does not address what the images show.

[Christophera]

Congratulations on dodging the question. I'll ask again:
Do you believe that there was a concrete core whose thickness was 17 feet which was supported by 3 inch thick steel rebar. Yes or no.


Your question was too simplistic. I qualified my answer.

[The Almond]

Your post does not address what the images show.

What do the images show? Do they show a 17ft thick concrete shear wall with 3 inch thick reinforcing steel?

[The Almond]

Your question was too simplistic. I qualified my answer.

Nice try. You did not qualify your answer; rather, you posed an alternative question for me to answer before you got around to answering mine. That's deflection. Stay on target: Do you believe that there was a concrete core whose thickness was 17 feet which was supported by 3 inch thick steel rebar. Yes or no.

[Christophera]

What do the images show? Do they show a 17ft thick concrete shear wall with 3 inch thick reinforcing steel?

I answer questions

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2109497#post2109497

in detail and they are ignored.

Facts of raw evidence are ignored. This is not a rational, logical place.

[Pardalis]

Hi Christophera.

[The Almond]

I answer questions

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2109497#post2109497

in detail and they are ignored.

Facts of raw evidence are ignored. This is not a rational, logical place.

Is that a yes or a no?

[Christophera]

Do you believe that there was a concrete core whose thickness was 17 feet which was supported by 3 inch thick steel rebar. Yes or no.

Yes, with qualifing detail, 17 foot thick at the bottom and 2 foot thick at the top. Except for the foundation and base of the core the shear walls were reinforced with 3 inch high tensile steel rebar.

[maccy]

I answer questions

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2109497#post2109497

in detail and they are ignored.

wrong. The Almond address that post, point by point, two posts later:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2109540#post2109540

Facts of raw evidence are ignored. Everything you have presented has been analysed and found wanting.

This is not a rational, logical place.It's you against the world, who could possibly be wrong?

[Pardalis]

Doing OK Christophera?

[The Almond]

Yes, with qualifing detail

Why didn't these qualifying details come up during the nearly 200 pages in this thread? Am I providing new evidence or simply disproving your old hypothesis?

, 17 foot thick at the bottom and 2 foot thick at the top.

Why does it taper, and how do you know that?

Except for the foundation and base of the core the shear walls were reinforced with 3 inch high tensile steel rebar.
Given my analysis showing that 3 inch reinforcing steel would provide shear reinforcement equal to a wind load of over 1000 miles per hour on one face of the building, how do you reconcile the extra reinforcing steel with this statement:
And btw. Normally shear walls are as you say, not tapered. The WTC was very CUSTOM and optimized in every way for strength,


How does overdesigning the shear wall at the base optimize the structure?

[Big Les]

I believe the US government has bee infiltrated using hypsosis throught he intelligence communities.

I'm covered in bees!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are out of your mind, my friend. Seek help.

[Pardalis]

Seriously Chris, do you feel OK?

If so, why do you care about what other people think?

If not, please seek help.

[Christophera]

I'm covered in bees!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are out of your mind, my friend. Seek help.


Good luck finding proof.

I do not even have to prove that 3,000 captial crimes did not recieve due process and that evidence was removed from the scene to be destroyed.

[Christophera]

Why didn't these qualifying details come up during the nearly 200 pages in this thread? Am I providing new evidence or simply disproving your old hypothesis?

Why does it taper, and how do you know that?

Given my analysis showing that 3 inch reinforcing steel would provide shear reinforcement equal to a wind load of over 1000 miles per hour on one face of the building, how do you reconcile the extra reinforcing steel with this statement:


You imply you've read the entire thread which is a lie because I've stated that the core was tapered from 17 foot to 2 foot at least twice.

I know it from the 1990 docuemntary called "Constrcution of the Twin Towers", and, it makes sense that a wall that tall would be tapered.

I don't need to reconcile anything if youcannot show images of the supposed 47, 1,300 foot steeel core columns from images of the demolition.

How about a realistic explanation for near free fall and near total pulverization.

How does overdesigning the shear wall at the base optimize the structure?

After the above we can be sure that common sense escapes you.

[uruk]

The north tower was hit on the north side and the top fell south.

The south tower was hit on the south east corner and the body fell east while the top fell west.

This has been studied and confirmed years ago.

you've been proved wrong.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6.pdf
Read page 56
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2108878&postcount=7778
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2109455&postcount=7792

Looks like your unwillingness to use evidence is exposing you.

Wrong, I just used your 1st diagram twice because it looked more like WTC 1 than 2 as it was labeled. There are bigger issues than that tho.

You have not explained why the top of WTC 2 went west. And of course this image proves the concrete core, ONE MORE TIME.
Wrong again, thw top of WTC2 fell to the east by south east.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6.pdf
Read page 56
"There was aproximately a 3 to 4 degree tilt to the south and a 7 to 8 degree tilt to the east prior to significant downward movement of the upper building section."

The conspicous lack of links gives your lie away.
Oh my, how you convienently forget things. let me refresh your memory
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2090420&postcount=7319
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

This is a concrete shear wall holding up the stpire which is formed by an interior box column. NOTICE: No core columns in the core area to the left.

Then, the legendary WTC 2 concrete core.

And what about the 17 foot thick concrete core wall at its base AGAIN, no steel core columns where they should be, like protruding from the stairwell, right of the stairwell, in the fore ground..
Chris those pictures do not show what you think they show. You interpretations have been repeatedly debunked. Just review this whole thread. But then you have a very selective memory, only remembering the things you want to and inventing the rest.

[The Almond]

You imply you've read the entire thread which is a lie because I've stated that the core was tapered from 17 foot to 2 foot at least twice.

And yet, I had to ask the question 4 times to get you to respond. Why didn't you just post a link or respond immediately? And I never said I read the entire thread, skimmed it would be a better word.

I know it from the 1990 docuemntary called "Constrcution of the Twin Towers", and, it makes sense that a wall that tall would be tapered.

Not if that wall were a shear wall. If it were a gravity load supporting wall, it would make perfect sense to taper it. But then you'd have to answer the question of where the shear support was coming from. You'd have to admit the presence of steel. Once you admit that there was steel on the outside of the building to act as shear support, we return to the concrete wall to determine if it was strong enough to support the gravity load at the top of the building. I'll spare you the math, but it's not sufficient unless you account for 47 interior steel columns as reported by the designers, contractors, NIST and the ASCE.

I don't need to reconcile anything

Why not? Are you not attempting to produce a coherent, logical argument? If you're making contradictory statements, are you not responsible for reconciling them in an attempt to produce a better argument?

if youcannot show images of the supposed 47, 1,300 foot steeel core columns from images of the demolition.

I'm not going to show images. I'm going to show mathematical proof for 47 interior columns and show that they were necessary for the structural integrity of the building. To put it a different way, I need you to produce an image of a photon, an atom, a proton and a neutron in order to prove that they exist. Also, I need photographs for Julius Ceasar and ones showing the Norman Invasion of 1066.

How about a realistic explanation fo near free fall and near total pulverization.

If you intend to continue with this childish nay-saying and redirection, we can do that, too. Are you going to respond to my points, or are you going to simply plug your ears and hum while I explain them to everyone else?

[Pardalis]

Chris, why don't you accept the fact that nobody here will ever agree with your views? Why don't you just move on?

[delphi_ote]

I do not even have to prove that 3,000 captial crimes did not recieve due process and that evidence was removed from the scene to be destroyed.
So what is the problem here? You don't believe you have to present evidence when you make accusations. Shouldn't you be happy living under the imaginary police state you rant about so much? Your standards of evidence are the same.

[delphi_ote]

Chris, why don't you accept the fact that nobody here will ever agree with your views? Why don't you just move on?
I'd be willing to eat crow and agree with his views if he presented a logical case and backed it up with evidence.

Oh. Right. I'll never agree with his views.

[uruk]

What is seen here is clearly the top and the roof slab of the core.

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

Still avoiding the truth. Your using your typical tatic of changing the subject.

[maccy]

I know it from the 1990 docuemntary called "Constrcution of the Twin Towers", and, it makes sense that a wall that tall would be tapered..

Just in passing, I'll point out that there is no evidence that this documentary ever existed.

[delphi_ote]

Still avoiding the truth. Your using your typical tatic of changing the subject.
Which was why we came up with the :socks:.

[Pardalis]

Chris, if you are afraid of your government, why don't you just move to another country? (preferably not Canada)

Wouldn't that solve all of your problems?

[delphi_ote]

Just in passing, I'll point out that there is no evidence that this documentary ever existed.
Do a Google search for:

"The Construction of the Twin Towers" AND 1990 AND documentary

All that comes up is Chris (http://9-11.meetup.com/86/members/3158544/) posting on other forums.

[uruk]

Do a Google search for:

"The Construction of the Twin Towers" AND 1990 AND documentary

All that comes up is Chris (http://9-11.meetup.com/86/members/3158544/) posting on other forums.

He claims that the government erased all knowledge of the documentary, except for his famous photographic memory and replaced all tv guides time period.

[Christophera]

Still avoiding the truth. Your using your typical tatic of changing the subject.

What I'm doing is provin your subject is bogus and that you do not know wnough about it ti apply substancial questions.

If this is not true then produce images of the supposed 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns.

I have no problem producing images of the concrete core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) so therefore my disqualifying your question is only logical.

Besides, logically the notion that 47, 1300 foot steel columns could actually be cut as many times as needed or fail within what we saw is strictly incredible.

[Christophera]

Just in passing, I'll point out that there is no evidence that this documentary ever existed.

As I watched WTC 1 fall on 9-11 I KNEW the documentary would be gone as well as all reference to it.

Logically anybody that can build a 1,300 foot tower to demolish and do it secretly can easily remove an 11 year old video tape and record of it.

[The Almond]

Logically anybody that can build a 1,300 foot tower to demolish and do it secretly can easily remove an 11 year old video tape and record of it.

Begging the question.

[Powa]

Logically anybody that can build a 1,300 foot tower to demolish and do it secretly can easily remove an 11 year old video tape and record of it.
You really don't understand how the Internet works, do you? :rolleyes: Do you really think someone can erase something on countless servers across the world?

[hcmom]

It's very interesting, but it's a bit like herding cats... very tempermental cats... on meth.

I'm more fortunate than you. I wasn't drinking anything when I read this...

[hcmom]

I believe the US government has bee infiltrated using hypsosis throught he intelligence communities.


I'm covered in bees!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are out of your mind, my friend. Seek help.

I really did think when I first read what Chris wrote that he was now disclosing a hypnosis technique using bees...

I'm hoping it's just a typo.

[twinstead]

As I watched WTC 1 fall on 9-11 I KNEW the documentary would be gone as well as all reference to it.

Logically anybody that can build a 1,300 foot tower to demolish and do it secretly can easily remove an 11 year old video tape and record of it.

OMG how circular can you get Chris? You haven't proved anybody demolished anything, yet are using that 'fact' to declare those same people removed an 11 year old tape.

Chris, I like you better when you are just crazy, not crazy AND stupid, okay?

[Oliver]

Chris, why don't you accept the fact that nobody here will ever agree with your views? Why don't you just move on?

*LOL* :D

[Z]

OK, I've missed it somewhere... who has the socks now?

If no one else has them, I'll take a stab:

Chris:

Do you honestly think a 1300-ft long steel beam can be created in such a manner that it can stand vertically, unsupported, without shattering?

:socks: (provisional)

[The Almond]

OK, I've missed it somewhere... who has the socks now?

If no one else has them, I'll take a stab:

Chris:

Do you honestly think a 1300-ft long steel beam can be created in such a manner that it can stand vertically, unsupported, without shattering?

:socks: (provisional)

I got the socks sometime about two pages ago. But I think I've reached the end of the "scientific argument" portion of this thread. I give them up to you.

Take thee, and remove thine provisions, yea, come into the fullness of true sockholdinghood.

[Oliver]

I got the socks sometime about two pages ago. But I think I've reached the end of the "scientific argument" portion of this thread. I give them up to you.

Take thee, and remove thine provisions, yea, come into the fullness of true sockholdinghood.

So what´s the current issue? Free fall? :confused:

[The Almond]

So what´s the current issue? Free fall? :confused:

Wer kann das wissen? The focus of this thread is lost in the many, many, many months of back and forth arguments.

[Oliver]

Wer kann das wissen? The focus of this thread is lost in the many, many, many months of back and forth arguments.

Hey, cool. :D Hast du Lust ein paar Alu-Hüte zu ärgern?
http://mosaik911.foren-city.de/

[delphi_ote]

:socks::socks:zaayrdragon has the socks:socks::socks:
The current question is:
Do you honestly think a 1300-ft long steel beam can be created in such a manner that it can stand vertically, unsupported, without shattering?
:socks::socks:zaayrdragon has the socks:socks::socks:

[Oliver]

:socks::socks:zaayrdragon has the socks:socks::socks:
The current question is:

:socks::socks:zaayrdragon has the socks:socks::socks:

Shouldn´t they have made sure that the core was
destroyed first to bring the towers down? Did they
sleep while they built the C4-towers?

[Peter S.]

Do a Google search for:

"The Construction of the Twin Towers" AND 1990 AND documentary

All that comes up is Chris (http://9-11.meetup.com/86/members/3158544/) posting on other forums.

I did find this:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/sf_building.html

Christophera, look at the clip and tell us if that is the video you remember.

[Oliver]

I did find this:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/sf_building.html

Christophera, look at the clip and tell us if that is the video you remember.

I don´t think it was this famous documentary. You have
to consider that the documentary may not exist outside
"Barney Bears world"

No kidding here.

[The Almond]

Hey, cool. :D Hast du Lust ein paar Alu-Hüte zu ärgern?
http://mosaik911.foren-city.de/

Vielleicht, aber ich spreche nur Unterhaltungsdeutscher. Heute nacht werde ich ihren website duchlesen. Wenn Sie mir begegnen, hilfen Sie mir bitte!

[Peter S.]

I don´t think it was this famous documentary. You have
to consider that the documentary may not exist outside
"Barney Bears world"

No kidding here.

I don't think he will acknowledge this as the video because it shows the building had steel core columns. I sort of hoped that looking at it might jog his photographic memory and make him admit he has been wrong, but I'm way too optimistic!

BTW, although I have not posted here before I have been following this thread closely. Call me nuts, but I find this thread very entertaining, just like I found Carlos' paranormal hat entertaining. It's the first thread I visit every day! I think this thread is just what the JREF needs: An educational look into the mind of a believer. Eternal optimist that I am, I keep hoping that someone will find a way to get through to the mind of this poor deluded soul. Somewhere out there there is someone who can find the right words to make it click in his head just how wrong he is.

No one, not even Christophera, is unreachable. Don't be discouraged; keep up the fight. I applaud all of you all for sticking with this thread.

[Oliver]

Vielleicht, aber ich spreche nur Unterhaltungsdeutscher. Heute nacht werde ich ihren website duchlesen. Wenn Sie mir begegnen, hilfen Sie mir bitte!

No problem. In this case you learn how hard it is
to argue in a foreign language - but it´s always
good to evolve your skills. :)

And it would be a pleasure to help you with the
translations. :)

[delphi_ote]

I don't think he will acknowledge this as the video because it shows the building had steel core columns. I sort of hoped that looking at it might jog his photographic memory and make him admit he has been wrong, but I'm way too optimistic!
Good find! An interesting bit of history there. What that video says definitely contradicts Chris, though.

Also, it is called Building the World Trade Center and came out in 1983.

The companion material (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/innovation.html) on the PBS site is very nice, too.
The World Trade Center's tube-style construction, with steel columns found only along the exterior wall and within a central core, freed up nearly an acre of space on each floor for offices.
Oops.

ETA
Previous high-rises had relied for their structural integrity on a forest of supporting columns on each floor. Typically, architects spaced these 30 feet apart throughout the interior. The exterior walls of such buildings were merely curtain walls, which let light in and kept weather out but provided little support.

Such was not the case in the World Trade Center. Consulting engineers Leslie Robertson and John Skilling invented an entirely new method of construction. The forest of interior columns vanished; such columns only appeared in and around the central core of elevator shafts, stairwells, and bathrooms. Then it was nothing but open space—60 feet of it on two sides, 35 on the other two sides—before one reached the outside walls. These were not curtain walls but cages of steel columns spaced just over a yard apart, with 22 inches of glass in between.
Oops again.

[switchtech]

It's amazing - following this thread.

The argument starts with the apparently vital premise that the towers fell at a free fall rate. By my estimate and watching the video: Free fall should take just under 10 seconds - the towers took somewhere between 15 and 20 (guesstimating since the top of the building becomes obscured by the dust cloud before reaching bottom and the initial half second or so of movement (about 1 meter) downward might be hard to see on the zoomed out image). Of course the collapse actually happened many tens of meters from the top, which might actually shorten the time required in a free fall state.

There was also the alleged total pulverization of the buildings. This didn't happen either. It took months to haul the debris away. Some was in fact pulverized. A bunch wasn't - several stories of debris lay at the foundation obviously not pulverized, well crunched, but not pulverized.

When those arguments are obliterated, which ostensibly were core of the conspiracy theory, other arguments take their place - such as the respiratory issues encountered. Seeing all the dust in the air following the collapse I'd be surprised if the cleanup workers didn't have problems!

They cry that no other building before or since has collapsed due to fire. No other buildings before or since had nearly 100,000 pounds of jet fuel poured down their support structure and then lit on fire. The steel weakened until the weight above exceeded the remaining strength - the steel didn't need to melt - and the expected temperatures are sufficient for weakening.

Then it's that the roof didn't fall the right way. How do you know what the right way is? The puncture to the windows only marginally influence which direction the structure will collapse, and for the most part, it came straight down, perhaps the top slightly off center (and I don't care where the puncture was relative to the falling debris - it isn't relevant to the actual collapse).

They ask, "how about that plasma cloud?" What? Where did that come from. Regardless: proof no plasma cloud, blazing hotter than the surface of the sun, existed? Said cloud would shine equally as bright or brighter than our star. No alien death ray, or even New World Order death ray, need apply.

OK, then perhaps it was a controlled demolition. No, the demolitions experts can stay home. I've seen a few controlled demolitions - they don't fall exactly the way the towers did and saying they do doesn't make it so. A couple of jet aircraft full of fuel can, and did, do the job.

Of course, at this point, the argument turns to a discussion of the construction of the building and why such a building wouldn't fall just from the impact of a jet. Never mind their descriptions of the building don't match the evidence left after the collapse, nor the demonstrated actual construction of the buildings. Rather than cite documents demonstrably true, they post circular links to other sites claiming the buildings were built some other way, never actually arriving at real proof (or that we're even discussing the same building!) - it's incestuous and recursive.

Plus the evidence the CT believer presents as a concrete core seems to me to present the steel exoskeleton (what the windows were mounted to) with the detail (for evidence of 3 inch re-bar on 4 foot centers) being well below the resolution level available in the image.

However, once a CT zealot becomes convinced by the initial, invalid, arguments, there's no turning back. As every argument is ground finer than the dust coating the lungs of the rescue workers, the CT adherent must find other "proof" - but the proof continues to become crazier and crazier. The opportunity to admit defeat becomes more and more remote. More interestingly, they quickly claim their initial point was pointless and their current point is the one to consider - never mind that the initial point was required to get to the current one.

Once convinced the Government did it, no government reports prove otherwise. It's a death-spiral. Once in this feedback loop, no way out exists.

I find truly amazing how often the CT advocate claims to have developed these theories on their own before finding the other sites that agree with them. So many experts wasting their talents in other fields!

{CT MODE}
I've been soldering and assembling solid state circuits for decades - that qualifies me as an expert super-computer designer - and when one fails I can explain in exquisite detail what went wrong...
{/CT MODE}
Yeah, right.

{CT MODE}
Oh, and I can tell from a grainy photo taken from 2 miles away at wide angle, which model of mini-frame computer was rack mounted next to it. I've worked on many types of electronic devices and can tell from even the tiniest pixel exactly which is which...
{/CT MODE}
Yeah, right.

On the other hand, the term Troll seems appropriate for many CT posts I've seen.

jbs

[Christophera]

I don't think he will acknowledge this as the video because it shows the building had steel core columns. I sort of hoped that looking at it might jog his photographic memory and make him admit he has been wrong, but I'm way too optimistic!

BTW, although I have not posted here before I have been following this thread closely. Call me nuts, but I find this thread very entertaining, just like I found Carlos' paranormal hat entertaining. It's the first thread I visit every day! I think this thread is just what the JREF needs: An educational look into the mind of a believer. Eternal optimist that I am, I keep hoping that someone will find a way to get through to the mind of this poor deluded soul. Somewhere out there there is someone who can find the right words to make it click in his head just how wrong he is.

No one, not even Christophera, is unreachable. Don't be discouraged; keep up the fight. I applaud all of you all for sticking with this thread.

That video shows the elevator guide rail support steel in the core area. Not "core columns." The steel in the core area is much smaller than that surrounding the core which dis exist.

The "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) were not inside the core only ringing the core area. If there were columns of that size inside the core they would be seen in many images and they are never seen.

Here is an image of what can only be a steel reinforced cast concrete core. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

[maccy]

That video shows the elevator guide rail support steel in the core area. Not "core columns." The steel in the core area is much smaller than that surrounding the core which dis exist.

The "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) were not inside the core only ringing the core area. If there were columns of that size inside the core they would be seen in many images and they are never seen.

Here is an image of what can only be a steel reinforced cast concrete core. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

Why doesn't the documentary mention a concrete core? Or show it being poured?

[Christophera]

There was also the alleged total pulverization of the buildings. This didn't happen either. It took months to haul the debris away. Some was in fact pulverized. A bunch wasn't - several stories of debris lay at the foundation obviously not pulverized, well crunched, but not pulverized.


There were no large pieces of concrete and a 1300 foot steel reinforced cast concrete tube would leave massive pieces of concrete.

This image shows pulverized concrete.

http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg

The term "Digging Out" was used for what happened at GZ. This referes to diging steel out of sand and gravel. The steel of course was no pulverized.

Have you forgotten the many bodies shredded and buried in the local dump?

Collapses have bodies intact afterwards. There were very few. Nothing short of heavy steel and bent, buckled and blackened floor pan was left. No desks, file cabinets, no chairs no computers were found.

This essentially, for all intents and purposes IS "total pulverization".

[delphi_ote]

AHA! I got it.

I bet Chris actually did see this documentary and is confusing the concrete retaining wall with core columns. The documentary makes a big deal out of both. Let years pass in a head full of muddled memories and POOF. Concrete core columns!

ETA The documentary mentions that the concrete retaining walls were steel reenforced. I really think I can explain what's happening in his addled brain.

[delphi_ote]

Chris, please stop posting here and watch that video. It will show you footage of the steel core columns. Lots of it. Nothing more quickly and easily refutes everything you've said here. You're wrong. So wrong. The video shows you're wrong. The core columns were steel. Steel steel steel. Go see for yourself. Watch the cranes on top of the steel columns lifting steel columns into place.

[Christophera]

AHA! I got it.

I bet Chris actually did see this documentary and is confusing the concrete retaining wall with core columns. The documentary makes a big deal out of both. Let years pass in a head full of muddled memories and POOF. Concrete core columns!

ETA The documentary mentions that the concrete retaining walls were steel reenforced. I really think I can explain what's happening in his addled brain.

Consider I spent 1 hour per night for 2 consecutive night watching "The Construction Of The Twin Towers." It mentioned the 18 minuite video and referred to it as a "Clelebratory Video" and differentiated itself as an "Intimat look at the construction process", and it was. Very detailed. No comparison to the 18 minute show.

[Oliver]

Call me nuts, but I find this thread very entertaining, just like I found Carlos' paranormal hat entertaining.

Nuts!



:p

[Christophera]

Chris, please stop posting here and watch that video. It will show you footage of the steel core columns. Lots of it. Nothing more quickly and easily refutes everything you've said here. You're wrong. So wrong. The video shows you're wrong. The core columns were steel. Steel steel steel. Go see for yourself. Watch the cranes on top of the steel columns lifting steel columns into place.

There were no "steel core columns" and you cannot produce an image from the demolition that shows any of the supposed 47, 1300 foot columns. Which, ... ABSOLUTELY would be very visible..

There were "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) which encircled the concrete core walls. The interior box columns provided the support for the outer forms of the concrete shear walls.

Here is the core of the towers. It was a steel reinforced cast concrete tube. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

[delphi_ote]

Consider I spent 1 hour per night for 2 consecutive night watching "The Construction Of The Twin Towers." It mentioned the 18 minuite video and referred to it as a "Clelebratory Video" and differentiated itself as an "Intimat look at the construction process", and it was. Very detailed. No comparison to the 18 minute show.
Watch. The. Footage. You. Are. Wrong.

You're arguing with your own eyes now. Those are steel core columns. Watch them get put into place. If you can't face that level proof against your claim, there's really no hope for you. No low resolution blurred images of the collapse here. This is high quality video of steel columns. Watch it. Stop reading this and go watch it.

[Oliver]

What do you think about this documentary about the
construction of the towers and the STEEL-core? FAKED?????

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/sf_building.html

[delphi_ote]

This video (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/sf_building.html) has the :socks:

Seriously. Readily available footage of the steel columns through the entire construction of the towers. What more could we possibly ask? Short of constructing a time machine, nothing more readily shows how utterly wrong Chris is. He now has to argue with his own eyes. No other point or question could possibly make him look more foolish than video evidence against his claim.

We're done here, Chris. You're wrong. Totally wrong. No concrete core. Watch the video. It's really that simple.

[Christophera]

This video (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/sf_building.html) has the :socks:

Seriously. Readily available footage of the steel columns through the entire construction of the towers. What more could we possibly ask? Short of constructing a time machine, nothing more readily shows how utterly wrong Chris is. He now has to argue with his own eyes. No other point or question could possibly make him look more foolish than video evidence against his claim.

We're done here, Chris. You're wrong. Totally wrong. No concrete core. Watch the video. It's really that simple.

I noticed you did not post any evidence.

I've seen the 18 minute video and it alread served its purpose to remind me of the documentary and certain details regarding the tempered steel plates put into the floors which had extremely tight tolerences that I realized were there to make custom cutting charges (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1233383) to cut the interior box columns.

Sheared Columns (http://www.parrhesia.com/wtc/wtc066.jpg)

[uruk]

What I'm doing is provin your subject is bogus and that you do not know wnough about it ti apply substancial questions.

If this is not true then produce images of the supposed 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns.

I have no problem producing images of the concrete core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) so therefore my disqualifying your question is only logical.

Besides, logically the notion that 47, 1300 foot steel columns could actually be cut as many times as needed or fail within what we saw is strictly incredible.
What!?!?!? you want to see a 1300 foot steel column? You can't show me a 1300 foot concrete column. Just a hugh dark indistiguishable dark area in a hugh cloud of dust and debris.

The columns were built in sections, of course they're going to break apart during the collapse.

[switchtech]

Collapses have bodies intact afterwards. There were very few. Nothing short of heavy steel and bent, buckled and blackened floor pan was left. No desks, file cabinets, no chairs no computers were found.

This essentially, for all intents and purposes IS "total pulverization".

So how is this evidence the United States government used explosives to bring down the World Trade Center? I don't think there are many 100-plus story occupied building collapses to compare with to see just how much devastation should be expected from a structural failure caused by burning jet fuel and other consumables versus collapse caused by demolition.

jbs

[uruk]

As I watched WTC 1 fall on 9-11 I KNEW the documentary would be gone as well as all reference to it.

Logically anybody that can build a 1,300 foot tower to demolish and do it secretly can easily remove an 11 year old video tape and record of it.

How about changing a multitude of TV Guides?

[The Almond]

There were "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) which encircled the concrete core walls. The interior box columns provided the support for the outer forms of the concrete shear walls.


We've been through this one buddy, there were no shear walls. They weren't necessary.

[Christophera]

Why doesn't the documentary mention a concrete core? Or show it being poured?

Probably because they didn't want to celebrate concrete, just a completed tower. Besides, the concrete was 60 to 35 feet from the perimeter walls and very dar. Hard to get good images of it and teh docementary I saw made note of that and had a few minutes where carefully selected stills that had better light were shown of the concrete because the rest of the 16mm film only had about 15 seconds of good, well lit images of the concrete core.

I remember one in particular that teh narrator identified as the only film they had where the concrete was actaully at the top floor. I think it was after the 43rd floor was done, which was basically all solid concrete walls as it was mostly heavy elevator equipment

[The Almond]

What!?!?!? you want to see a 1300 foot steel column? You can't show me a 1300 foot concrete column. Just a hugh dark indistiguishable dark area in a hugh cloud of dust and debris.


Said dark area is another building. See NIST NCSTAR1 Figure 1-2 on page 4 of the report. I figured someone else posted this so I didn't bother to address the claim.

[delphi_ote]

I noticed you did not post any evidence.
The video (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/sf_building.html). Of the steel core columns. Being put into the tower. They are there through the entire construction. There is no concrete.

[uruk]

I did find this:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/sf_building.html

Christophera, look at the clip and tell us if that is the video you remember.

Some people, including myself, posted this video a while back. He said that that was not it.
I'm relativly positive that it is but his "unique" memory probably distorted it into what ever he needs it to be. It pretty funny to follow this thread where he mentions the information he remembers about the documentary. It keeps changing with whatever argument he's engaged in. Kind of a deus ex machina.

[uruk]

AHA! I got it.

I bet Chris actually did see this documentary and is confusing the concrete retaining wall with core columns. The documentary makes a big deal out of both. Let years pass in a head full of muddled memories and POOF. Concrete core columns!

ETA The documentary mentions that the concrete retaining walls were steel reenforced. I really think I can explain what's happening in his addled brain.

Nail hit on head. But hold your breath for Chris to admit that.

[uruk]

There were no "steel core columns" and you cannot produce an image from the demolition that shows any of the supposed 47, 1300 foot columns. Which, ... ABSOLUTELY would be very visible..

There were "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) which encircled the concrete core walls. The interior box columns provided the support for the outer forms of the concrete shear walls.

Here is the core of the towers. It was a steel reinforced cast concrete tube. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

Your being silly asking to see a 1300 foot steel column standing or lieing on the ground. The columns were built in sections and would come apart in sections.

[uruk]

Probably because they didn't want to celebrate concrete, just a completed tower. Besides, the concrete was 60 to 35 feet from the perimeter walls and very dar. Hard to get good images of it and teh docementary I saw made note of that and had a few minutes where carefully selected stills that had better light were shown of the concrete because the rest of the 16mm film only had about 15 seconds of good, well lit images of the concrete core.

I remember one in particular that teh narrator identified as the only film they had where the concrete was actaully at the top floor. I think it was after the 43rd floor was done, which was basically all solid concrete walls as it was mostly heavy elevator equipment

They mentioned the "bathtub" retaining wall, they mentioned and showed the steel column support system, they mention the floor assembly. You'd think they would mention a concrete core especially since it would have been the tallest concrete wall in the world.

[Christophera]

They mentioned the "bathtub" retaining wall, they mentioned and showed the steel column support system, they mention the floor assembly. You'd think they would mention a concrete core especially since it would have been the tallest concrete wall in the world.

There were a lot of firsts with the Twin Towers. Why mention something in a celebratory video if you can't show it.

The videographers of the "Construction Of The Twin Towers" said they combed thousands of still images to find about 4 or 5 that really showed the concrete core. I remember them identifying what they considered the best that they had found besides that 15 seconds of film at the top floor.

It was a black and white that was taken after the interior, "breakdown" steel form was removed but only a few sheets of plywood were taken off of the outside forms. The camera was positioned at a core corner and almost looking right along the top of one core wall. The heavy exposed aggregate of the core concrete with the huge 3" rebar protruding was sticking out. The shot was also used to emphasize that the concrete pours were not made level. The concrete was mounded inside the forms upward from one corner to a peak near another corner then back down agan. This was to gain a sawtooth joint and strengthen the connection between the lower and upper casting. The rebar was welded on the same slope which is why the tops of the rebar in the THIS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) image are shown with a slope.

[Christophera]

Your being silly asking to see a 1300 foot steel column standing or lieing on the ground. The columns were built in sections and would come apart in sections.

The 40 foot max length was delivered and put inplace to be 100% welded.

Here is one connected to floor beams being salvaged,

salvage of interior box column (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/docs/image5.jpg)

Just to the right and above the joint with the floor beams is an area with a different texture/color/reflectivity. That is a butt weld which has been ground so that it will not interfere with the joint if the joint were to fall at that position and you can see it is close. The butt welds were staggered so there was no line of welds horizontally across the building.

That is an interior box column from very far up in the tower. There are several things that tell us this. One, it is square, two it is extruded rather than hand fabbed. Three, there are floor beams intersecting in four directions meaning that the core had tapered up and away from the interior box column which had to remain plumb.

In the mid day silhouette (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/silhouettenoontosouth.jpg) we can see from the right to the left near the top of the tower; the outside face, the floor space, the interior box columns, then a narrow bright space which is, elevationwise, about where that box column was located as determined by the longer floor beams keeping it away from the core wall face.

[The Almond]

The heavy exposed aggregate of the core concrete with the huge 3" rebar protruding was sticking out.

There's that 3 inch rebar again. Aside from the fact that it doesn't need to exist, it's too heavy to weld into place and it's not in any of the specifications, what else to you have to prove that it's three inches in diameter?

[Christophera]

The video (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/sf_building.html). Of the steel core columns. Being put into the tower. They are there through the entire construction. There is no concrete.

That video doesn't show concrete because it is up to 80 feet below the top of the tower. The elevator guide rail support steel was fairly good sized even though it was fastened to the inside of the concrete core because the core could not take the weight of the guide rail support and was only used to keep it aligned.

This image is properly annotated even though it came from a site that believed in the steel core columns. They were honest and labeled the only "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) that could eb seen and they were OUTSIDE the core area.

To the contrary, there were no steel core columns and this is proven because NO steel is seen protruding from the top of the core area.

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

If you believe they existed, why are they not seen in that image? Heavy steel columns would absolutely be silhouetted there.

Then, what is that standing there if it is not concrete? What material could stand 500 feet off the ground and appear as that does?

[Christophera]

There's that 3 inch rebar again. Aside from the fact that it doesn't need to exist, it's too heavy to weld into place and it's not in any of the specifications, what else to you have to prove that it's three inches in diameter?

It is certainly not smaller than 3 inches as that would not even resolve in the photo at the distance this was taken.

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

The below image shows a column (photo taken from same camera 1 second before the above) which is about 2 feet and the image was taken just before the above which established the size quite well.

The spire formed by an interior box column (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg)

And, what makes you think 3 inches is too big to weld in place?

the concrete core is well documented.

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

[The Almond]

It is certainly not smaller than 3 inches as that would not even resolve in the photo at the distance this was taken.

Ta-dah! That means...it's not rebar! You're drawing specific conclusions from universal premises. If you're making a valid inference, I should be able to retrace the logic from specific principles to universal ones. Hence, if your photographic evidence shows 3 inch bars at 4 feet on center, I should be able to calculate the shear capacity of the wall, right? When I calculated it out, the design wind load was well over 1000 miles per hour. Please explain to me how this does not invalidate your conclusion.


And, what makes you think 3 inches is too big to weld in place?

Edited to remove pretention.

Let's have a look at the math, shall we? ASTM provides weights in lbs/ft for all of the bar sizes currently made in the world. Naturally, they didn't include 3" diameter rebars. That not withstanding, we can linearly interpolate from #18 bars at 13 lbs/ft to 17.3 lbs/ft for 3" bars. So at 4 feet long, you've got rebar too heavy for one person to lift into place. But if you're going to just lift everything in 4 foot sections, you're going to make 325 welds per bar, for the entirety of the 25 bars per side, 4 sides in total, or a grand total of 32,500 welds for the concrete core alone.

Long story short, do you have any concept of how heavy steel is?

[Regnad Kcin]

Hello, friends. I've been away for a couple days and am catching up on the thread (where I'm currently on page 194). I'll wager our Mr. Brown has yet to answer my question, however. Why oh why does he want me to keep possession of the socks?

[delphi_ote]

That video doesn't show concrete because it is up to 80 feet below the top of the tower.
What is up to 80 feet below the top of the tower? The concrete or the film? You're wrong in either case. The video shows no concrete from the initial stages of construction to the top. Steel core columns. No concrete. As plain and simple as it could possibly be.

Watch. The. Video (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/sf_building.html). You. Are. Wrong.

[delphi_ote]

Hello, friends. I've been away for a couple days and am catching up on the thread (where I'm currently on page 194). I'll wager our Mr. Brown has yet to answer my question, however. Why oh why does he want me to keep possession of the socks?
We played around with the socks a bit in your absence. But we can leave both yours and zaayrdragon's in play.

[Regnad Kcin]

Well, I see in my absence the socks were ripped from my sweaty mitts. I could swear all were supposed to stay on the topic/question raised by the each stockingholder, but alas. And Mr. Brown was THIS close to cracking.

Ah well, back to enjoying the show.

[Regnad Kcin]

Well, delphi, I'm not optimistic our friend Mr. B will ever concede a point; he's just not wired for it. So my question re: the towers-fell-in-the-wrong-order claim is withdrawn.

[Christophera]

Edited to remove pretention.


The kangaroo cranes lowered the bar into fixtures that held it for the welders. DUH.

Given the fact that you don't recognize the advantage of a tapered 1,300 foot wall, your calculations can be discarded. Sorry, I know you put a lot of work into them but they do not help explain the final event.

[Regnad Kcin]

Again, for those new to the discussion:

Our friend, Christopher A. Brown, asserts the Twin Towers were originally constructed with explosive materials secretly built into each with the intent for them to be someday demolished.

And the reason you laugh and scoff at this idea? As a child, and without your knowledge, you were hypnotized.

[Christophera]

What is up to 80 feet below the top of the tower? The concrete or the film? You're wrong in either case. The video shows no concrete from the initial stages of construction to the top. Steel core columns. No concrete. As plain and simple as it could possibly be.

Watch. The. Video (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/sf_building.html). You. Are. Wrong.

Read my post,

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2110671#post2110671

You are misinterpreting the crappy showpiece video. The final call goes to all of the images found at,

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

[switchtech]

It's amazing - following this thread.

Then it's that the roof didn't fall the right way. How do you know what the right way is? The puncture to the windows only marginally influence which direction the structure will collapse, and for the most part, it came straight down, perhaps the top slightly off center (and I don't care where the puncture was relative to the falling debris - it isn't relevant to the actual collapse).


Yeah, I'm answering myself.

I made an error. The hole in the exterior wall did influence the collapse. In fact, without the exterior damage and damage to the heat resistant covering of the central structure (caused by the impact of large, fast jet), the resulting fire (which of course wouldn't have started in the first place because how else do you get a jet plane load of jet fuel in?) would probably not have caused this type of collapse.

How do I know? I just read the NIST report! Well, certain portions of it, anyway.

The damaged allowed the supporting structures inside the building to pull away from the external structure and the internal damage allowed the heat to affect the central steel core to weaken.

Another odd point: Christophera is apparently correct that the central core collapsed slower than the rest of the building. The NIST report indicates the core stood for a bit after the rest of the building began collapsing - but the ensuing damage caused by fire and impact at its base caused it also to collapse in short order (if I read the report correctly).

Direct quote from NIST FAQ:Answers to Frequently Asked Questions

...From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

...

To see the report for yourself - visit wtc dot nist dot gov (since I'm a newbie - I don't' think I can post links yet). (I apparently need some sort of parenthetic intervention, half my post is inside parenthesis!)

jbs

[delphi_ote]

You are misinterpreting the crappy showpiece video.
Showpiece? I guess this video was pre-faked, just like the towers were pre-built with explosives? They knew they were going to blow up the towers 20 years later and designed an entirely false video?

Nevermind that you can actually watch the tower being built. Never mind that it makes a complete fool of you. Nevermind that you yourself use a documentary you can't even prove exists as your sole piece of evidence for your horrible accusations. :rolleyes:

[Christophera]

Showpiece? I guess this video was pre-faked, just like the towers were pre-built with explosives? They knew they were going to blow up the towers 20 years later and designed an entirely false video?

Nevermind that you can actually watch the tower being built. Never mind that it makes a complete fool of you. Nevermind that you yourself use a documentary you can't even prove exists as your sole piece of evidence for your horrible accusations. :rolleyes:

Yea, never mind that in 198 pages of me asking for ONE image of steel columns in the core area from a demo image showing them at an elevation off the ground, not one image has been produced.

All the while I'm producing image (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) after image (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) showing what can only be concrete (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg).

You folks have been deceived by authority.

[LashL]

Someone once told me that invoking the bunny with a pancake on its head was a surefire way of euthanizing a thread.

This thread seems to be long overdue for euthanasia, so here goes:

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g115/Jazz99/bunny-pancake.jpg

[Christophera]

Someone once told me that invoking the bunny with a pancake on its head was a surefire way of euthanizing a thread.

This thread seems to be long overdue for euthanasia, so here goes:

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g115/Jazz99/bunny-pancake.jpg

OMG!

That explains how 110 floors pancaked. We all know how quickly bunnies propagate.

[hcmom]

OMG!

That explains how 110 floors pancaked. We all know how quickly bunnies propagate.

Today's "Sometimes Chris can be intentionally funny and I like him when he is" post was easy this time...

[maccy]

Chris,

How about we accept that both sides don't have anything more to say on this matter and just post pictures and chat for a bit?

I like it when you tell jokes.

Matthew

:bunpan

[Z]

You know, there should be a rule: that once an OP is answered, the thread gets closed.

This OP was answered: there was nothing to explain. End of story.

But the thread goes on and on and on...

[delphi_ote]

Yea, never mind that in 198 pages of me asking for ONE image of steel columns in the core area from a demo image showing them at an elevation off the ground, not one image has been produced.
Watch the steel columns get put into place in the video. Was the video faked?

[hcmom]

Watch the steel columns get put into place in the video. Was the video faked?
This may not be the stupidest question asked on this thread, but asking it may be one of the stupidest things posted...

[delphi_ote]

This may not be the stupidest question asked on this thread, but asking it may be one of the stupidest things posted...
I'm not asking to get information. I'm asking to be entertained. "Tell us another story, Uncle Chris!"

[hcmom]

Duh... Sorry, 2 a.m. isn't my most critical thinking hour...

[delphi_ote]

Duh... Sorry, 2 a.m. isn't my most critical thinking hour...
It's 5:40AM here. Insomnia sucks.

[hcmom]

It's 5:40AM here. Insomnia sucks.

Yep. Good thing they invented the internet!

[Bell]

It is certainly not smaller than 3 inches as that would not even resolve in the photo at the distance this was taken.

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

The below image shows a column (photo taken from same camera 1 second before the above) which is about 2 feet and the image was taken just before the above which established the size quite well.

The spire formed by an interior box column (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg)

And, what makes you think 3 inches is too big to weld in place?

the concrete core is well documented.

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

You still failed to produce a picture on which you point out exactly where your so called 3" rebar on 4' centers is. Is that because it isn't there? You claim that in the picture we should be able to see it. Therefor you should have no problem pointing it out.

Use this picture:
http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg
and draw an arrow on it. Sim-ple.

And don't sidestep around this request with arrogant remarks that I cannot comprehend the 'raw evidence' you provide. Point it out, or retrack your claim.

[Belz...]

This (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg), is quite basically a report from very credible individuals.

Ever heard of a simile ?

And the image below shows an explosion. Political supression of facts is an issue.

If you look at the actual video, it's obvious that it's not an explosion. Of course, you know this, as you specialise in using stills to obfuscate the issue.

It will suffice under conditions.

It could suffice in absence of raw evidence, but it is NOT raw evidence itself. Agreed ?

Steel will not get significantly heated under those conditions to fail in the way images show.

What temperatures did the fires reach on that side of the building, chris ?

Do you approve of inflitrations of governments and their lawless performance?

Leading question. You haven't shown lawless performance in this particular case.

Your explanation for why the wrong tower fell first is about as bad as your explanation for why they both fell the wrong way. Actually you never did explain why WTC 2 fell the wrong way and never did explain why the body fo WTC 2 went east while the top went west.

An interesting way to dodge Reg's question. How is his explanation bad ? The second plane hit lower and faster. Do you deny this ?

[Belz...]

Where were you when the firefighters were mystified because they could find no remains, when the largest piece of anything found which was recognizable to a firefighter was 1/2 of a phone key pad out of all 100's of the desks, chairs, file cabinets and computers in the towers?

I do believe that's either a lie or an exaggeration.

This, is not a collapse, it is a high speed series of explosions contained within a uniform mineral material.

Shouldn't you have a similar picture of WTC2 that shows such a pattern for your claim to hold at all ?

I've proven the question has no bearing on the event.

No, you said the explanation was bad. Period. You didn't actually prove anything.

Correct, there was no toppling because of the detonations of high explosives.

Circular reasoning.

I've dealt with the question, shown that that plane speeds, impact elevations had nothing to do with the sequence.

That's a lie, chris. You said this :

In addition to the above, it is completely illogical that this building, hit first, hit hardest, burnt worst, would fall last, without demolition's being involved.

"Hit hardest". Doesn't that have anything to do with plane speed, at the very least ?

[Belz...]

[i]The fact that both towers fell almost identically and the tops fell in the wrong directions relating to the faces they were struck on are major factors that indicate the controlling aspects of the towers fall was completely separate from plane collisions and fires and that they were a demolition, controlled by timers.

Non sequitur.

Wrong, I just used your 1st diagram twice because it looked more like WTC 1 than 2 as it was labeled.

It was a simple rectangle, chris. Stop trying to use your powers of picture-interpretation.

Which picture?

This one of the concrete core of WTC 2

No points, chris. You said yourself it could be dust.

As I said, the confusion caused by the missing blueprints MUST allow description that DO identify the concrete core.

Argument from ignorance.

The 1990 documentary detailed Yamasakis testing of core designs and the steel core version that Robertson had proposed began to fail as a model at 75 MPH wind speed.

The final call lies with the fact that not one single image from the demolition shows one of the supposed 1,300 foot steel core columns at an elevation over the ground. However, what I know to have existed is shown.

Such precision from a guy who can't get the tower or the flight number right.

It has to do with the secrecy that covers the "designed to demolish" aspect.

Of course, any group capable of carrying out such an insane plan would've instead built a steel structure and rammed jets into it. Simpler, and we know it works. So why didn't they, chris ?

the images are as close to raw as we can get.

There we go. Now an admission that your evidence isn't raw.

Consider I spent 1 hour per night for 2 consecutive night watching "The Construction Of The Twin Towers."

Once. Fifteen years ago.

There were a lot of firsts with the Twin Towers. Why mention something in a celebratory video if you can't show it.

Because they could. They showed the rest of the construction.

The 40 foot max length was delivered and put inplace to be 100% welded.

Didn't someone have an image showing bolts during cleanup ?

Yea, never mind that in 198 pages of me asking for ONE image of steel columns in the core area from a demo image showing them at an elevation off the ground, not one image has been produced.

Plenty have been produced by you!

[Big Al]

Dammit, I vowed to stay out of this troll-thread, but the "designed to be demolished" bit takes the biscuit. I ROFL when I read that.

Construction of the WTC began in 1966 - forty years ago. What sort of conditions would explosives and detonators be in if stored for so long?

[maccy]

Dammit, I vowed to stay out of this troll-thread, but the "designed to be demolished" bit takes the biscuit. I ROFL when I read that.

Construction of the WTC began in 1966 - forty years ago. What sort of conditions would explosives and detonators be in if stored for so long?

I'll answer that. The rebar was coated in C4. Encasing it in concrete somehow got around C4's 10 year shelf life. Having a gap between the rebar and the concrete that is filled with a soft plastic doesn't cause any structural integrity problems.

The there's something about removable caps and detonaters that were wired a few days before 9/11. Some of the detonators were sabotaged by friendly Mohawks who worked on the construction - which is why there weren't uniform collapses.

Also the concrete core was demolished in two halves, top first - which is why you can see a vague grey shadow in a dust cloud in one photo.

This isn't an argument about logic and evidence it's a tussle with one man's unshakable delusion.

[uruk]

Said dark area is another building. See NIST NCSTAR1 Figure 1-2 on page 4 of the report. I figured someone else posted this so I didn't bother to address the claim.

Thanks. "Mystery" solved.
But don't hold your breath for Chris.

[The Almond]

The kangaroo cranes lowered the bar into fixtures that held it for the welders. DUH.

Show me photographic evidence of this happening. "Raw" evidence, as you would put it.

Given the fact that you don't recognize the advantage of a tapered 1,300 foot wall, your calculations can be discarded.

So, because my calculations based on logic, education and design experience do not support your crackpot theory, they can be discarded? You're too much to believe.

Sorry, I know you put a lot of work into them but they do not help explain the final event.
I sure am glad we have the mighty Christophera to tell us what calculations are meaningful and what ones aren't. Anything that has any kind of math or science involved is simply incapable of explaining the final event. How could I have been so blind?

OK, I'm done with this thread. It was fun to do the structural calculations, but I've got buildings to design.

[uruk]

The 40 foot max length was delivered and put inplace to be 100% welded. Show me proof.

Here is one connected to floor beams being salvaged,

salvage of interior box column (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/docs/image5.jpg)

Just to the right and above the joint with the floor beams is an area with a different texture/color/reflectivity. That is a butt weld which has been ground so that it will not interfere with the joint if the joint were to fall at that position and you can see it is close. The butt welds were staggered so there was no line of welds horizontally across the building.

That is an interior box column from very far up in the tower. There are several things that tell us this. One, it is square, two it is extruded rather than hand fabbed. Three, there are floor beams intersecting in four directions meaning that the core had tapered up and away from the interior box column which had to remain plumb.
The link you posted does not show any photographs

In the mid day silhouette (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/silhouettenoontosouth.jpg) we can see from the right to the left near the top of the tower; the outside face, the floor space, the interior box columns, then a narrow bright space which is, elevationwise, about where that box column was located as determined by the longer floor beams keeping it away from the core wall face.
The picture you linked to here disproves your statement about the concrete wall being poured 80 feet below construction. The tower on the left clearly has no concrete walls well below 80 feet.

[Big Al]

I'll answer that. The rebar was coated in C4. Encasing it in concrete somehow got around C4's 10 year shelf life. Having a gap between the rebar and the concrete that is filled with a soft plastic doesn't cause any structural integrity problems.

The there's something about removable caps and detonaters that were wired a few days before 9/11. Some of the detonators were sabotaged by friendly Mohawks who worked on the construction - which is why there weren't uniform collapses.

Also the concrete core was demolished in two halves, top first - which is why you can see a vague grey shadow in a dust cloud in one photo.

This isn't an argument about logic and evidence it's a tussle with one man's unshakable delusion.

I bet they weren't betting on a shrewd structural engineer of Christophera's calibre coming along to spot their little game!

Chris, have you sent all your so-convincing evidence to your local Senator or the Department of Justice? If you're so convinced about all this, it'd be criminal not to, wouldn't it?

[Belz...]

Here's a summary of chris' admissions concerning the various points of his theory.

Here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2067089&postcount=6539)and here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2070842&postcount=6676)he admits that the structure on his "core stands" picture could also be dust.

Here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2094104&postcount=7459)he admits that the "free fall" issue is unimportant, although it's part of the title of this thread.

Here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2108333&postcount=7759)and here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2108567&postcount=7761)he makes contradictory statements as to whether plane speed is relevant to the building's collapse, relative to his contention that the wrong tower fell first.

Here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2109655&postcount=7806)he finally admits that his pictures aren't "raw" evidence, but only the closest thing to "raw" evidence.

In this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2102130&postcount=7637)he exposes his own circular reasoning by trying to argue that the large chunks of concrete we see, unpulverized, are from another building, with no other reason than they're not pulverized.

Here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2077429&postcount=6881)he makes very clear that he has no idea about the explosives he claims were in the two towers.

And, of course, who can forget his admission (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2068510&postcount=6579)of close-mindedness. NOTHING can change his mind, not even reality.

-------------------
Let's not forget that chris claims that the CORE of the towers was built with C4-coated rebar. He saw this in a documentary that no one else has ever seen, in 1990. A documentary that claims the core of the towers was made of concrete, although every other source says it was steel columns. His only support is a grade-school website in Canada. Quite the expert opinion. Of course, many have suggested that Chris' demonstratably faulty memory (he gets the towers mixed up and can't even get the flight numbers right; this from someone with an alledgedly photographic memory) may have mixed up information from the concrete wall that surrounds the WTC complex and that was mentioned in an earlier, easy-to-find documentary.

Why, does he claim, is the existence of this concrete core hidden from the public ? Well, the conspirators built the towers in order to demolish them, thirty years later, to launch a war for oil, or something. Chris argues, I think, that if the buildings were made with concrete cores, they couldn't have collapsed; which is why they had to be blown up after the planes hit, and why the existence of the core must be kept secret. Why, oh why, didn't the conspirators build the towers with steel cores to make sure the planes WOULD destroy them is beyond anyone else here.

When called on the fact that no one from the construction crews remembers the concrete core, he either claims that they are terrified to speak out, a fact supported only by his "impression" of their testimony, or goes on about the fact that, apparently, every person in the world, EXCEPT himself, has been hypnotised by the evil conspirators to forget about it. Now, if everyone's hypnotised, why did they need to blow up people in order to convince us to go to war ? They own everybody, already!

And, of course, all these claims are based on chris' application of "common sense" for things that are "obvious".

--------------------
With all the admissions and contradictions above, not to to mention an insanely-convoluted theory, there's little doubt that our friend is not beign completely honest with us. I don't know if, as many have claimed, he is mentally unstable or not, but those examples above reek of dishonesty and, to use one of chris' favourite words, obfuscation.

[uruk]

Chris, you really need to read chapters 1-4 on this report.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf

Of particular note:
pg. 62 on the pdf - pg. 12 of the report: Look at fig 1-8
note the location of the doors in the core area wall.
also read the 2nd and 3rd paragraph on the page.

pg. 66 on the pdf - pg 16 of the report: note how the floor plan layouts differ from floor to floor. One configuration would be impossible if there was a concrete core.

Ah! who am I kidding. This is a waste of time. Chris ignores anything that goes against what he believes.

[bonavada]

hmmmmm. away for a couple of days and anarchy rules again. what happened to the friggin' conchsocks? is piggy hiding them?

thinking about it though, those "lord of the flies" kids had much more fun after all semblance of law and order was abandoned. but didn't it all end in tears and murderous mayhem.................

jack: (sharpening rebar) kill the pig! kill the pig!

ralph: no! let's talk to him quietly and usher him gently into a corner from where he can't escape.

piggy: i'm off!

sam'n'eric: alright boys! who's just pulverised piggy with a huge lump of concrete core?

piggy: (dying) it's society wot did it guvnor.....i saw it on pbs....urgh.

:-]

BV

[bonavada]

This (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg), is quite basically a report from very credible individuals.

so if those guys are CD experts....

is this bloke an astrophysicist?????????

v_CmZMkvQ_w


credentials here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/oneyearon/interview/0,,788979,00.html)


BV

[Christophera]

Watch the steel columns get put into place in the video. Was the video faked?


Again, I KNOW the core was concrete. You BELIEVE the official story. The images SHOW what can only be concrete and DO NOT show steel core columns.

The fact that the images of the demo here,

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

SHOW what I describe and do not show what the official story says is basically enough for any reasonable person. Paticuarly with consideraton of the fact that evidence was removed from the scene and destroyed violating due process in 3000 capital crimes.

Then, add to this the fact that this site,

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

actually provides a feasible, realistic and comprehensive explanation for the event (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg) makes the continues opposition unreasonable.

The 18 minute might be fake, it might be in error. It doesn't matter.

[Pardalis]

Oh boy, Christophera is back for his morning pee...

[Bell]

Christophera, why don't you take all of your evidence to court?

[Pardalis]

Seriously Chris, it's been almost 200 pages of this nonsense, do you really expect anything will change?

[Oliver]

Can someone quote me, please? I guess Alfred has me
on ignore by accident.

What do you think about this documentary about the
construction of the towers and the STEEL-core? FAKED?????

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/sf_building.html

[Regnad Kcin]

What's remarkable is that, were there some actual involvment by anyone other than bin Laden and his merry men, JREFers (and others on other boards) would, by way of intellectual rigor (with a dash of humor), be serving to help refine the arguments and filter out the waste in pursuit of the answers.

That our Mr. Brown can't fathom why his position is not exactly bolstered by offerings on a par with 'the moon is made of Swiss cheese' is just a bit astounding.

[Christophera]

Seriously Chris, it's been almost 200 pages of this nonsense, do you really expect anything will change?

I know quite a few minds have changed.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I know quite a few minds have changed.

Multiple personalities don't count.

[Powa]

I know quite a few minds have changed.
You "know" a lot, don't you?

[Pardalis]

Name one, that has changed in your favor.

[Oliver]

[deleted -- misunderstanding]

*LOL* There is nothing like a misunderstanding
in this thread because it IS one big misundertanding. :D

@Alfred: If the towers fell in 15 seconds. Wouldn´t you
be the first one who would say "they fell to slow"???

[Christophera]

Here, are Belz distortions and misrepresentations of my posts and statements.

Here's a summary of chris' admissions concerning the various points of his theory.

Here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2067089&postcount=6539)and here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2070842&postcount=6676)he admits that the structure on his "core stands" picture could also be dust.

Here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2094104&postcount=7459)he admits that the "free fall" issue is unimportant, although it's part of the title of this thread.

Here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2108333&postcount=7759)and here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2108567&postcount=7761)he makes contradictory statements as to whether plane speed is relevant to the building's collapse, relative to his contention that the wrong tower fell first.

Here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2109655&postcount=7806)he finally admits that his pictures aren't "raw" evidence, but only the closest thing to "raw" evidence.

In this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2102130&postcount=7637)he exposes his own circular reasoning by trying to argue that the large chunks of concrete we see, unpulverized, are from another building, with no other reason than they're not pulverized.

Here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2077429&postcount=6881)he makes very clear that he has no idea about the explosives he claims were in the two towers.

And, of course, who can forget his admission (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2068510&postcount=6579)of close-mindedness. NOTHING can change his mind, not even reality.

-------------------
Let's not forget that chris claims that the CORE of the towers was built with C4-coated rebar. He saw this in a documentary that no one else has ever seen, in 1990. A documentary that claims the core of the towers was made of concrete, although every other source says it was steel columns. His only support is a grade-school website in Canada. Quite the expert opinion. Of course, many have suggested that Chris' demonstratably faulty memory (he gets the towers mixed up and can't even get the flight numbers right; this from someone with an alledgedly photographic memory) may have mixed up information from the concrete wall that surrounds the WTC complex and that was mentioned in an earlier, easy-to-find documentary.

Why, does he claim, is the existence of this concrete core hidden from the public ? Well, the conspirators built the towers in order to demolish them, thirty years later, to launch a war for oil, or something. Chris argues, I think, that if the buildings were made with concrete cores, they couldn't have collapsed; which is why they had to be blown up after the planes hit, and why the existence of the core must be kept secret. Why, oh why, didn't the conspirators build the towers with steel cores to make sure the planes WOULD destroy them is beyond anyone else here.

When called on the fact that no one from the construction crews remembers the concrete core, he either claims that they are terrified to speak out, a fact supported only by his "impression" of their testimony, or goes on about the fact that, apparently, every person in the world, EXCEPT himself, has been hypnotised by the evil conspirators to forget about it. Now, if everyone's hypnotised, why did they need to blow up people in order to convince us to go to war ? They own everybody, already!

And, of course, all these claims are based on chris' application of "common sense" for things that are "obvious".

--------------------
With all the admissions and contradictions above, not to to mention an insanely-convoluted theory, there's little doubt that our friend is not beign completely honest with us. I don't know if, as many have claimed, he is mentally unstable or not, but those examples above reek of dishonesty and, to use one of chris' favourite words, obfuscation.

What is amazing is that most of the distortons and misrepresntations do not make sense.

[Oliver]

I know quite a few minds have changed.

Are you kidding? Evidence for this claim, please.

[Gravy]

Said dark area is another building. See NIST NCSTAR1 Figure 1-2 on page 4 of the report. I figured someone else posted this so I didn't bother to address the claim.Actually, it's not. The cloud is far too opaque to show buildings behind it, and no tall building lines up with the dark area (1 Liberty Plaza is just visible to the right of the cloud, and the Millenium Hotel is to the left).

I believe the dark area is smoke from the fire that's been drawn down by the collapse. In the videos we can see this happening. Were it a huge section of the core, it's collapse would have been very obvious, because it would have produced another huge wave of dust, and rumbling that would have been obvious to seismometers. Were it a huge section of concrete core – thousands of tons – its collapse would have been cataclysmic and would have produced much more noise, dust, and seismic disturbance. None of this happened. The dark area has dissipated in the next photo, taken seconds later.

I appeal to everyone to let this drop. Christophera is ill. Playing games with him accomplishes nothing.

[Powa]

Then, add to this the fact that this site,

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html...
It's funny how you refer to your own site as "this site" as if it's not yours. Are you trying to hide the fact that the only site that supports your fantasies is yours?

[Oliver]

Christophera is ill. Playing games with him accomplishes nothing.

Well, we have all his personal details. Is there in america
also a way to send him serious help from the authority?

[Christophera]

You still failed to produce a picture on which you point out exactly where your so called 3" rebar on 4' centers is. Is that because it isn't there? You claim that in the picture we should be able to see it. Therefor you should have no problem pointing it out.

Use this picture:
http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg
and draw an arrow on it. Sim-ple.

And don't sidestep around this request with arrogant remarks that I cannot comprehend the 'raw evidence' you provide. Point it out, or retrack your claim.

The spire is taller. (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) The rebar is inside, adjacent the interior box columns which form the spire. After the steel falls the rebar is exposed.

The red encircles the rebar.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4151&stc=1&d=1164051299

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Well, we have all his personal details. Is there in america
also a way to send him serious help from the authority?

Not really. The conditions that need to be met in order for psychological treatment to be forced on to a person are very strict.

[Oliver]

Not really. The conditions that need to be met in order for psychological treatment to be forced on to a person are very strict.

Well, if someone would claim there were C4 installed
in public buildings, this would be a good reason to let
him ask some questions to a psychatric from our
ministry of health. No kidding.

[delphi_ote]

The 18 minute might be fake, it might be in error. It doesn't matter.
It shows the steel core columns being put into place. You can watch them. It can't be an error. It's either fake or you're wrong. Which is it?

[Belz...]

Here, are Belz distortions and misrepresentations of my posts and statements.

What is amazing is that most of the distortons and misrepresntations do not make sense.

Did you not admit that dust could be gray ? That dust WAS present on the picture ?

Did you not say that part of your OP, namely the rate of fall, was unimportant ?

Didn't you say, just a few posts ago, that your pictures were the "closest thing to raw evidence" (paraphrase), and therefore not raw, per se ?

Didn't you admit that NOTHING could convince you ?

Didn't you say that WTC was hit hardest whilst also claiming that plane speed wasn't important ?

Doesn't that post of mine summarise your theory, Chris ? Or can you put it more succintly ?

[uruk]

The spire is taller. (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) The rebar is inside, adjacent the interior box columns which form the spire. After the steel falls the rebar is exposed.

The red encircles the rebar.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4151&stc=1&d=1164051299

How quickly you forget.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2085620&postcount=7180

[Peter S.]

I know I don't have the socks. I think they may have been lost in the dryer.

I'm going to try a different tack here. Everyone here is just repeating themselves - especially Christophera, (Chris, please don't post those pictures anymore as we have all seen them). Let's see if we can approach this from a different angle. I want to see if we can ask questions that will make Christophera give us something we have not heard already.

Christophera, when someone is right about something it's usually pretty easy to convince others you are right, especially when the people who you are trying to convince are more than willing to look at your evidence. People here have looked at your evidence, (again, please don't post it yet another time - we've all seen it), and you have failed to convince anyone here. Why do you think that is? Why do you think everyone here is more willing to accept alternate explinations for the pictures you have posted than what you say they represent?

[delphi_ote]

I know I don't have the socks. I think they may have been lost in the dryer.
Get Bob_Kark in here. If anyone can them, it's my best person of hench!
Why do you think everyone here is more willing to accept alternate explinations for the pictures you have posted than what you say they represent?
I'll second this question. Why don't we see it Chris? Why do we see steel core columns plain as day in the video?

[Peter S.]

... Why do we see steel core columns plain as day in the video?

You ask it like that and you are just going to get him to repeat himself again! Yes, it's fun to make the monkey jump, but I want to see if I can get something new and different from him.

[Gravy]

Didn't you admit that NOTHING could convince you ?Yes, Chris did say that, but it was patently obvious long before he made the statement. I think he should be taken at his word.

That's why arguing with him is a fruitless pursuit, and possibly only reinforces his "look how successfully I'm battling everyone who's against me" paranoia.

I think it's important to remember that there is no "concrete core" movement out there. Christophera is the only person in the world who you're trying to convince, and that's not going to happen. You're arguing with a sole person who has a personal, unchangeable delusion.

If a mentally ill person stood at a streetcorner near you and spouted the same delusional gibberish every day, would you stand there every single day and argue?



ETA: the recent posts make it seem as if this 18-minute video issue is new to Chris. It isn't.

[Peter S.]

That's why I'm not trying to argue with him. I want to try to get him to answer some other questions. I'm trying to get him to think.

[delphi_ote]

You ask it like that and you are just going to get him to repeat himself again! Yes, it's fun to make the monkey jump, but I want to see if I can get something new and different from him.
I thought I was basically asking the same question you were. Why do we see one thing and he sees another?

[Gravy]

That's why I'm not trying to argue with him. I want to try to get him to answer some other questions. I'm trying to get him to think.I understand completely. Ed knows I've put in my time here trying to do the same. But 6 months and nearly 8,000 posts into this thread, I think it's clear that we're not going to cure Chris of his illness.

Does anyone disagree?

Does anyone think that Chris is wrong when he says that nothing will change his mind?

[delphi_ote]

I understand completely. Ed knows I've put in my time here trying to do the same. But 6 months and nearly 8,000 posts into this thread, I think it's clear that we're not going to cure Chris of his illness.

Does anyone disagree?

Does anyone think that Chris is wrong when he says that nothing will change his mind?
At this point, I'm just in it for the stories. He's the Picasso of excuses.

ETA But still not as good as a ninja (http://askaninja.com/node/940).

[Bell]

The spire is taller. (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) The rebar is inside, adjacent the interior box columns which form the spire. After the steel falls the rebar is exposed.

The red encircles the rebar.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4151&stc=1&d=1164051299

I have taken the liberty to enlarge that picture. Please point out the pixels that are supposed to be rebar? It must be somewhere there within all the fuzzy grey pixels?

[jsfisher]

Christophera, why don't you take all of your evidence to court?
Ooooh, I know, I know.

ChristopherA already has court room experience. Please consider following this llink if you haven't already:

http://algoxy.com/missingknowledge/220trans0.html

Please read the entire transcript. I found it most enlightening.

[Bell]

Ooooh, I know, I know.

ChristopherA already has court room experience. Please consider following this llink if you haven't already:

http://algoxy.com/missingknowledge/220trans0.html

Please read the entire transcript. I found it most enlightening.

Yes, I have. I guess the transcript doesn't include all the laughters by the judge, jury, bailiff and audience? That would take up twice as much space.

[Big Al]

Chris, why are you here instead of taking your "obvious", "common sense", "undeniable" evidence to the highest courts in the land?

I'm not American. I don't work for the US Government, the Illuminati, the New World Order, and I haven't been offered multi-million bribes to keep my mouth shut.

I saw the towers fall on the 11th September, 2001 via the Internet in England. It was the most heinous, shocking, horrifying act of evil I have ever seen or want to see, I'd cheerfully strangle the guys that did it with my bare hands, if I didn't know they died in the act.

I'm an engineer, and I KNOW you have talked the biggest load of garbage I have ever heard. You argue for the sake of arguing, and your words are empty, vacuous and irritating.

You KNOW so much, but you can't back up what you say with more than "it's obvious".

It AIN'T obvious to me, or anyone else here. Put up or shut up. You are a know-nothing troll who gets his kicks out of talking crap about a serious crime.

If you really believe the U.S. Government, the CIA or any other U.S. official body is behind it, you shouldn't be wasting your time telling us, you should be telling the authorities. If you go public with "undeniable" evidence, somebody will take the case on. Send all the "evidence" to the newspapers under a pseudonym if you're scared that you'll be rubbed out.

Still, you won't. You don't believe this. You're just arguing for the sake of it. This is a bloody joke.

[Peter S.]

I thought I was basically asking the same question you were. Why do we see one thing and he sees another?

You were asking the same thing, it's just the wording. By bringing up the steel core you are inviting him to post that damn picture again and start talking about the core. I want him to discuss why he thinks no one believes his "evidence".

[Big Les]

This video (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/sf_building.html) has the :socks:

Seriously. Readily available footage of the steel columns through the entire construction of the towers. What more could we possibly ask? Short of constructing a time machine, nothing more readily shows how utterly wrong Chris is. He now has to argue with his own eyes. No other point or question could possibly make him look more foolish than video evidence against his claim.

We're done here, Chris. You're wrong. Totally wrong. No concrete core. Watch the video. It's really that simple.

I admit I'm mostly quoting this post so I can also repost the following and go:

WHOOP, WHOOP; NUTTER ALERT!!! (http://algoxy.com/missingknowledge/220transp56.html)

But the quote above is a very valid thing to quote. I suggest that anyone replying to this thread in future simply quotes a similar post referring to that video, as it destroys Chris' argument completely. The other option is to deny him the oxygen of attention and stop replying, which is what I'm about to test my willpower with.

[Christophera]

Name one, that has changed in your favor.

Minds that do not use information cannot change so you wouldn't recognize them.

[Garb]

Minds that do not use information cannot change so you wouldn't recognize them.

So basically, you have nothing.

[Christophera]

I know I don't have the socks. I think they may have been lost in the dryer.

I'm going to try a different tack here. Everyone here is just repeating themselves - especially Christophera, (Chris, please don't post those pictures anymore as we have all seen them). Let's see if we can approach this from a different angle. I want to see if we can ask questions that will make Christophera give us something we have not heard already.

Christophera, when someone is right about something it's usually pretty easy to convince others you are right, especially when the people who you are trying to convince are more than willing to look at your evidence. People here have looked at your evidence, (again, please don't post it yet another time - we've all seen it), and you have failed to convince anyone here. Why do you think that is? Why do you think everyone here is more willing to accept alternate explinations for the pictures you have posted than what you say they represent?

It is very simple, they do not want to know the truth.

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

[Christophera]

I admit I'm mostly quoting this post so I can also repost the following and go:

WHOOP, WHOOP; NUTTER ALERT!!! (http://algoxy.com/missingknowledge/220transp56.html)

But the quote above is a very valid thing to quote. I suggest that anyone replying to this thread in future simply quotes a similar post referring to that video, as it destroys Chris' argument completely. The other option is to deny him the oxygen of attention and stop replying, which is what I'm about to test my willpower with.

One image destroys the video misrepresentation/misinterpretation.

If the 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns existed they would be seen protruding from the center of the WTC 2 core. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) They are not so therefore did not exist.

The demo image expose the true structure in a way that construction phoots never made possible. What is seen in the core area in the construction aerial photos are elevator guide rail supports which fell immediately as soon as debris from above crashed down the core which was a hollow concrete tube.

[Christophera]

Chris, why are you here instead of taking your "obvious", "common sense", "undeniable" evidence to the highest courts in the land?


You are obviously uninformed. The Americans have relinquished their courts of law and no longer require a Constitution. They now have TV.

[delphi_ote]

You were asking the same thing, it's just the wording. By bringing up the steel core you are inviting him to post that damn picture again and start talking about the core. I want him to discuss why he thinks no one believes his "evidence".
Ah. Sorry. :boxedin:

[delphi_ote]

You are obviously uninformed. The Americans have relinquished their courts of law and no longer require a Constitution. They now have TV.
So take it to The People's Court!

[Christophera]

Yes, I have. I guess the transcript doesn't include all the laughters by the judge, jury, bailiff and audience? That would take up twice as much space.

Obviously you have no experince with law. No truth makes it past pre trial motion these days.

The judges did confirm their alliance with ancient sun worship however. I doubt you appreciate this since all truth escapes you. I however see that they are true to their ancestors.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4159&stc=1&d=1164069875

[Z]

Page 200 - W00T!!

I've decided he's right. Yep. The courts are full of sun-worshippers now. The truth gets buried by lawyers long before ever reaching trial.

This, of course, means that every single convict is innocent, and every man who walks free is guilty. Makes perfect sense now.

I've also decided that the all-powerful NWO has eliminated every copy of the PBS documentary, as well as every available mention of it. It's a simple-enough task - sometime near 9/11 they just opened up a .DOS superwindow and typed "del Construction of the Twin Towers.mov" - thereby erasing all existing copies anywhere on Earth, as well as all mentions of said movie.

Further, I have now decided that the explosive used wasn't C-4 - whose shelf-life is too limited to be of use - but a top-secret explosive referred to as Tornadium D-19. With a shelf-stable life of over 50 years, it would be perfect; plus, it's about the same consistancy as finished concrete, but in plasmid form. So it would blend right in and no one would notice.

On the other hand, I still think there's no evidence of a concrete-cast tube core; the D-19 was, instead, in the coating on the steel core columns. The detonations were activated by hypersonic tachyon emissions. It's all obvious, of course.

[delphi_ote]

No truth makes it past pre trial motion these days.
So would the satement, "This statement will make it past pre-trial" make it past pre-trail? Oh ****. I just unmade the universe.

[Bell]

Obviously you have no experince with law. No truth makes it past pre trial motion these days.

The judges did confirm their alliance with ancient sun worship however. I doubt you appreciate this since all truth escapes you. I however see that they are true to their ancestors.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4159&stc=1&d=1164069875

Jeez, could you make that image any smaller? I can barely read the text. And what the hell is this supposed to tell me anyway?

Also, how about the 3" rebar = 4 pixels image I enlarged?

[tsig]

Are you kidding? Evidence for this claim, please.

He didn't say which way they changed.

[Christophera]

This, of course, means that every single convict is innocent, and every man who walks free is guilty.

Totally ignoring that it is a civil action where a citizen is trying to make a municipality accountable to following state laws and the Constitution.

[Christophera]

Did you not admit that dust could be gray ? That dust WAS present on the picture ?

Did you not say that part of your OP, namely the rate of fall, was unimportant ?

Didn't you say, just a few posts ago, that your pictures were the "closest thing to raw evidence" (paraphrase), and therefore not raw, per se ?

Didn't you admit that NOTHING could convince you ?

Didn't you say that WTC was hit hardest whilst also claiming that plane speed wasn't important ?

Doesn't that post of mine summarise your theory, Chris ? Or can you put it more succintly ?

Correct, minor variances in those factors have nothing to do with how THIS happened. You love pi$$ing away time on meaningless details do you not. We have the proof now. Do not attempt to deny it.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4166&stc=1&d=1164079130

[hcmom]

Totally ignoring that it is a civil action where a citizen is trying to make a municipality accountable to following state laws and the Constitution.


I know that this is completely and totally all the way of the subject, (but heck, it's not like there's any progress being made in that direction either...) but how does the Ninth Circuit Court affirming a judgement against you show that Santa Barbara wasn't following state laws and the Constitution?

[jsfisher]

I know that this is completely and totally all the way of the subject, (but heck, it's not like there's any progress being made in that direction either...) but how does the Ninth Circuit Court affirming a judgement against you show that Santa Barbara wasn't following state laws and the Constitution?
You must not have noticed the telling "21", "22", and "23" in the dates prominently displayed.

[hcmom]

I must have missed something somewhere...

Please don't make me go back there and try to find it... What's with "21" "22" and "23"?

[jsfisher]

The judges did confirm their alliance with ancient sun worship however.
Is this another of your proofs by assumption?

Chris, in all that you have posted here and all that you have posted on your own web sites, it really is apparent that you start by assuming something to be true, then construct the reality around it to support your belief.

And your concept of logic is not just reversed; it is often, well, bizarre. Wasn't it you who in an opening statement to the judge in a law suit stated that you could not prove your case--even with all the evidence you had hoped to have had but didn't--but did not see that as a problem?

[jsfisher]

I must have missed something somewhere...

Please don't make me go back there and try to find it... What's with "21" "22" and "23"?

Begin here: http://www.truthasaur.com/my_22/my22.html

[Christophera]

Is this another of your proofs by assumption?

Chris, in all that you have posted here and all that you have posted on your own web sites, it really is apparent that you start by assuming something to be true, then construct the reality around it to support your belief.

And your concept of logic is not just reversed; it is often, well, bizarre. Wasn't it you who in an opening statement to the judge in a law suit stated that you could not prove your case--even with all the evidence you had hoped to have had but didn't--but did not see that as a problem?

You do not know what you are talking about and we already know you have no problem with a lawless government which is infiltrated, allowing the infiltrators to kill citizens by the thousands. So give up on trying to analyse my efforts to gain lawful performance from my local municipality to protect lives.

Don't even try.

This thread is about whether or not you've seen a realsitic explanation for free all or not. I happen to have created a web site using actual evidence to form a comprehensive explanation. (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html) What have you done lately?

[jsfisher]

...So give up on trying to analyse my efforts to gain lawful performance from my local municipality to protect lives...
So, did you or did you not do that in an opening statement in court?

[mortimer]

This thread is about whether or not you've seen a realsitic explanation for free all or not. I happen to have created a /removed gratuitous overpromotion of own website/ What have you done lately?

Wait, have you come full circle, from free fall, to near free fall, to "too fast", back to free fall???

[Z]

That's exactly it - totally circular.

Oh, let's face it - he's spent his whole life trying to get something for nothing.

If he were really serious about this, do you think he'd waste time making a website? Whoop-D-Do. Does he really think a lawless government cares one bit about his pathetic claims and weak excuse for evidence? Of course not - because he does nothing with it.

Until I hear about him petitioning the federal government, or making some extreme action to bring his 'evidence' to the public light, I'm just going to treat him as if he's joking. Which he is.

After a fashion.

After all, the original post has been answered; all relevant questions have been answered; and Chris still goes in circles. Meanwhile, the moderators don't give a snap what is said here, so long as 'it doesn't break the rules' - for example, I can't tell Chris to 'take a long walk off a short pier', but I can keep arguing the same point ad infinitum, no matter how much bandwidth this useless debate takes up.

So why don't we just have some fun, and for a while patronize his silly beliefs?

In other words, Chris, now that 'we know the truth', what should we do about it?

[Christophera]

So, did you or did you not do that in an opening statement in court?

So did you or did you not produce an image from the demo of at least one of the supposed, 47, 1,300 foot steel columns in the core area, at some elevation above the ground in this thread, on jref?

Was it you who continually expected me to answer questions not related to the explanation for what appears as a masive series of explosions in an attemtp to assert that the explosions were a collapse?

[hcmom]

Begin here: http://www.truthasaur.com/my_22/my22.html

Well, that for sure tells me one thing.

I'd put money on Chris not really believing this. He may be weird and all, but he's not stupid. And that is just plain stupid.

[Christophera]

Does he really think a lawless government cares one bit about his pathetic claims and weak excuse for evidence? Of course not - because he does nothing with it.

No, nor do Australians, at least those here. So come up with a realistic explanation for free fall.

After all, the original post has been answered; all relevant questions have been answered; and Chris still goes in circles.

Yes, my evidence is relevant and all of your obsufucation is for naught. You cannot even prove the structure the murdering infiltrators of the US government lie existed.

Whereas the proof of the concrete core is redundant.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg

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

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg

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

[Z]

No, just your posting of those links is redundant.

But, anyway, so now that we 'know the truth', Chris, what should we do with it?

[Bell]

This thread is about whether or not you've seen a realsitic explanation for free all or not.

Christophera, here's just a random post by you from some 20 pages back...

As I say in my post to Nobby, the issue of free fall is minor.

... now, are you full of sh#t or what?

[Christophera]

Christophera, here's just a random post by you from some 20 pages back...

... now, are you full of sh#t or what?

You are easily confused or just prone to taking things out of context, or worse, presenting things out of context.

The issue of free fall or twice the rate of free fall is minor because this thread is about a realistic, feasible and comprehensive explanation for free fall or what ever it was, which was very close.

How about it? Got one, or are you just here to distort and confuse things?

[hcmom]

How about it? Got one, or are you just here to distort and confuse things?

Gotta love him...

[Christophera]

No, just your posting of those links is redundant.

But, anyway, so now that we 'know the truth', Chris, what should we do with it?

Do you expect I should believe you really care or I really think you woul ddo anything constructive with it.

How about a realistic explanation for free fall or something d@mm close or just help promote the site that does provide an explanation.

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

I didn't think so. Give something manipulative a try for a change, HAH!

[Christophera]

Wait, have you come full circle, from free fall, to near free fall, to "too fast", back to free fall???

It's all too fast fo you. What have you done lately?

[Bell]

You are easily confused or just prone to taking things out of context, or worse, presenting things out of context.

The issue of free fall or twice the rate of free fall is minor because this thread is about a realistic, feasible and comprehensive explanation for free fall or what ever it was, which was very close.

How about it? Got one, or are you just here to distort and confuse things?

Well, we can start THAT whole discussion again, but would it matter?

You talk about free fall and realistice, but you fail to show us how long it took for the towers to fall and how long they should have taken. Therefor this discussion is a non starter.

[Christophera]

it really is apparent that you start by assuming something to be true, then construct the reality around it to support your belief.


Isn't that what the last 200 pages has been about. You and yours assuming the official story is true then working to construct a reality based on unsupported text of numbers saying "NO" over and over because you believe the official lie?

I use evidence rationally and 200 pages of garbage has only made it shine.

[Bell]

It's all too fast fo you. What have you done lately?

What have you done lately? Calculated yet how long the towers took to collapse and compared that to how long it should have taken?

So, how long did it take for the towers to collapse?

"To fast" is not the right answer.

I like to see some times, in seconds preferably.

[tsig]

Isn't that what the last 200 pages has been about. You and yours assuming the official story is true then working to construct a reality based on unsupported text of numbers saying "NO" over and over because you believe the official lie?

I use evidence rationally and 200 pages of garbage has only made it shine.

Shining garbage not a bad image for your ....

[tsig]

Do you expect I should believe you really care or I really think you woul ddo anything constructive with it.

How about a realistic explanation for free fall or something d@mm close or just help promote the site that does provide an explanation.

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

I didn't think so. Give something manipulative a try for a change, HAH!

free fall just means it dosen't cost anything.

[tsig]

You are easily confused or just prone to taking things out of context, or worse, presenting things out of context.

The issue of free fall or twice the rate of free fall is minor because this thread is about a realistic, feasible and comprehensive explanation for free fall or what ever it was, which was very close.

How about it? Got one, or are you just here to distort and confuse things?


d@c is our basiv tactic. How have you not understood theis

[Christophera]

What have you done lately? Calculated yet how long the towers took to collapse and compared that to how long it should have taken?

So, how long did it take for the towers to collapse?

"To fast" is not the right answer.

I like to see some times, in seconds preferably.

The other day I was looking for the famous Steven Jones misrepresentation of the core columns where the interior box columns are off to the left side and camera is not even looking into the core and I kept running into 10 seconds. I think 1 and 12 came up once and then 15 or 17 or 20, but 10 and 11 were the most common.

Apparently NIST used 10. All of it is way too fast, but too the ground. Absolutely unbelievable for collapse, forget it.

Only this explains it

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

[gumboot]

Apparently NIST used 10. All of it is way too fast, but too the ground. Absolutely unbelievable for collapse, forget it.


NIST's estimated collapse time is from initiation until FIRST DEBRIS HIT THE GROUND. It is not an estimated time for the ENTIRE collapse.

As video clearly shows, debris hit the ground well before the "collapse front" on the building.

-Gumboot

[einsteen]

This thread still not dead...

The too fast argument is simply

"if the tower falls faster than the theoretical fastest possible value" then there is sum ting wong.

[gumboot]

This thread still not dead...

The too fast argument is simply

"if the tower falls faster than the theoretical fastest possible value" then there is sum ting wong.


And since they didn't, there isn't.

-Gumboot

[Belz...]

It is very simple, they do not want to know the truth.

Telepathy, again ?

If the 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns existed they would be seen protruding from the center of the WTC 2 core.

That's your claim. Why do you think they should ?

The Americans have relinquished their courts of law and no longer require a Constitution. They now have TV.

Please point to the legal document that says so.

The judges did confirm their alliance with ancient sun worship however.

Again, please provide evidence for this.

[Belz...]

Correct, minor variances in those factors have nothing to do with how THIS happened.

Minor ?

Your entire claim is based on the pictures you show, chris. The ones you call "raw" evidence, though you admitted they are not raw.

You keep coming back to those pictures. They are the only ones that support your theory, even to you. So when you say that a structure you claimed was concrete for 200 pages could be dust, after all, what does that say ? Is that "minor" ?

Your OP is all about free fall rates and pulverisation. You then claim that free fall is unimportant, twice at least, and then use a picture that clearly shows un-pulverised concrete. Your excuse that it doesn't come from the WTC towers is ludicrous, because those pieces aren't labeled. You think this is "minor" ?

You said nothing could convince you. NOTHING. Even if presented with irrefutable evidence, you'd still talk about concrete. This means reasonable debate with you is impossible. Am I to believe this is "minor" ?

You said plane speed wasn't important, but when whining about the towers falling in the wrong order you talk about WTC1 beign "hit hardest", meaning the plane hit it faster and in a more damaging way, so now speed is important ? That's anoter "minor" point ?

And doesn't my post summarise your position, chris ? If not, could you do it in a better way ? What's wrong about my description ? And if it's accurate, do you think such a theory makes sense ? If not, how is that "minor" ?

[Belz...]

You do not know what you are talking about and we already know you have no problem with a lawless government which is infiltrated, allowing the infiltrators to kill citizens by the thousands.

Actually, we would have a problem with it if you could prove it.

This thread is about whether or not you've seen a realsitic explanation for free all or not.

You mean, the unimportant "minor" point of free fall ?

Apparently NIST used 10. All of it is way too fast, but too the ground. Absolutely unbelievable for collapse, forget it.

You should know by now that argument from personnal incredulity doesn't work, here.

[bonavada]

So did you or did you not produce an image from the demo of at least one of the supposed, 47, 1,300 foot steel columns in the core area, at some elevation above the ground in this thread, on jref?

i have.
quite a few times:-

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748453c042018e89.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87484562f3ab08d2b.jpg

BV