Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers? [Archive] - Page 33

Powa

21st November 2006, 09:57 AM

Good to see you all have given up on facts, you couldn't handle them anyway.
Keep telling yourself everyone else is crazy but you. Whatever helps, buddy.

Curious how the murders of 3,000 Americans just do not matter and one mans struggle for justice benefitting all people is a real problem for ya.
No, reality is a real problem for ya. You two just don't mix.

Oh well, .... takes all kinds.
True. For example, you're kinda... crazy.

Meanwhile, there is a BIG lie that needs straightening out. It's about 1,300 feet tall and 80 x 120 feet on the inside.
Then 'straighten' it out already! Why are you wasting time here while someone is getting away with 3,000 capital murders? Do 3,000 murdered Americans matter to you at all?

The liars say there were 47, 1300 foot steel columns in the center of those towers, but none of then can come up with a single image of those huge steel members from the demolition images which expose the entire structure.
If you're not considered legally blind, you should be.

There is no problem coming up with the true core of the tower though. They were steel reinforced cast concrete tubes and when the exterior steel framework fell away, the core of WTC 2 (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) was plain to see
Plain to see? Your definition of 'plain' must be very different from everybody else's.

realitybites

21st November 2006, 10:00 AM

This thread is proof positive that there is indeed life (201 pages and counting) after death (Christophera's OP).

Christophera

21st November 2006, 10:05 AM

Except they weren't all Americans, Mr. Brown. You'd think your "photographic memory" would retain such a simple fact.

It's very cute when a liar such as yourself calls others liars.

No one to my knowledge claims "there were 47, [sic] 1300 foot steel columns in the center of those towers;." that is another of your inventions. Any column that reached to any significant length of the towers was composed of smaller pieces. You will not ever find something if it didn't exist in the first place, wouldn't you agree?

You're doing a heckuva job, Brownie.

Curious how you have no evidence and make no sense even tho you excell in puffery.

The spire is basically one piece. (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) When pieces are butt welded together with 100% welds they become as one.

All the liars say "core", The term implies continuous and one piece is strength is the goal. Notice Architect never answered my questions about multiple teel columns added to the center of a square of perimeter shear walls making greater resistence to torsion.

The core was concrete because the towers in the proportions they were built at would flex too much and deformations of the shear walls would cause failures. The concrete held the perimeter walls and interior box columns, the outer framework in the optimum position for maximum loads.

Christophera

21st November 2006, 10:07 AM

Keep telling yourself everyone else is crazy but you. Whatever helps, buddy.

Ironic when you have presented no evidence and I have two entire websites filled with evidence (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html) and reason (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html).

Bell

21st November 2006, 10:12 AM

Got any good attorney jokes?

I have a feasible, credible comprehensive explanation for free fall and pulverization. (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html)

Then take your evidence to court, Christophera! Don't let the perpetrators go unpunnished. 3000 poor soules died that die. Their families are depening on you. Don't fail them.

Powa

21st November 2006, 10:41 AM

Ironic when you have presented no evidence and I have two entire websites filled with evidence (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html) and reason (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html).
And yet you are too lazy to do anything about it. You say you struggle for justice, but in reality what do you do? You argue ad nauseam for 6 months with sceptics who you haven't been able to persuade of anything in all this time. You're helping the 'infiltrators' get away with 3,000 murders.

'They' have you right where they want you. Sitting on your ass, doing nothing.

firecoins

21st November 2006, 10:49 AM

The NYC coroner just identified 3 people from American Flight 11 that hit the North Tower. More remains were found in a drainage pipe outside the footprints of either tower. Remains were found on the Deutche Bank building which was damaged on 9/11.

The buildings were indeed hit by the 2 hijacked aircraft. The collpase of the towers damaged surrounding buildinggs including WTC 7.

No concrete cores have ever been found. Not 1 piece.

OBL has admitted being behind the attacks

Those are the facts.

Big Al

21st November 2006, 10:53 AM

Ironic when you have presented no evidence and I have two entire websites filled with evidence (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html) and reason (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html).

I have diligently looked at all your "evidence" and listened to your circular "reasoning", and I'm not impressed. Therefore, I will not be running off to badger U.S. politicians about their wilful destruction of one of their proudest symbols. It's so "obvious" that I can't see it.

However, if you believe like you say you do, what do you intend to do apart from running a website that, to a layman like me, looks no different from other "conspiracy" sites, all with different takes on the situation but the same basic insistence that EVERYBODY is lying.

Does not one of the thousands of people in on this monstrous conspiracy have a conscience? Has not one structural engineer confessed all on his deathbed? Does not one disgraced politician in the know want to dish the dirt on his former colleagues? Why does some WTC construction worker not come forward and make a mint out of revealing the deliberate flaws built into the WTC? Does absolutely none of the conspirators cavil at the deliberate murder of 3,000 innocent people?

Huge conspiracies just canNOT stay watertight forever. Such a necessarily vast and decades-spanning conspiracy would have cracked by now.

If you think you have the ammo, it'd be criminal to let it languish on the Web. I can't believe that not one lawyer, not one newspaper, not one politician would be interested if you've got such potent proof. What about the Democrats? Wouldn't they just yearn to put their hands on such political dynamite?

Oliver

21st November 2006, 11:24 AM

Curious how you have no evidence and make no sense even tho you excell in puffery.

Could you make me the favor to let the slang beside?
How should i present evidence if i´m not able to understand
what your talking about?

The spire is basically one piece. (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) When pieces are butt welded together with 100% welds they become as one.

Are you kidding? The cores were made of many pieces and
were held by bolts. So if a pressure or force to jointed parts
is strong enough, the bolts and joints will fail. And BTW: They
did NOT fail! So there were no C4 within the buildings, genius.

All the liars say "core", The term implies continuous and one piece is strength is the goal. Notice Architect never answered my questions about multiple (s?)teel columns added to the center of a square of perimeter shear walls making greater resistence to torsion.

Are you sure there were steel colums added to the center?
Maybe there were none of these cross beams because they
needed the space for the elevators???

The core was concrete because the towers in the proportions they were built at would flex too much and deformations of the shear walls would cause failures. The concrete held the perimeter walls and interior box columns, the outer framework in the optimum position for maximum loads.

BS! The Towers were built to flex because the forces
of wind. So what´s your problem with that? A concrete
core would have avoided this flexibility.

Peter S.

21st November 2006, 11:49 AM

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

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

Darn, I was hoping to get more than a one liner from you. Not only do you give me one line, but what you say is very wrong; we all want to know the truth.

I think I can speak for most of the people here when I say that any of us, given compelling evidence, would be willing to change our minds.

I really want you to think about this and give me a well thought out answer.

Also, again I ask you not to post any more links, we have seen them all already. Repetition does not make your arguments stronger.

Belz...

21st November 2006, 12:09 PM

Got any good attorney jokes?

If courts cannot solve this issue, and no expert can be trusted, why the hell do you bother ?

I have a feasible, credible comprehensive explanation for free fall and pulverization.

Aren't those unimportant points ?

Ironic when you have presented no evidence and I have two entire websites filled with evidence and reason.

The same evidence to points you claim are "minor" ?

Christophera

21st November 2006, 12:33 PM

Then 'straighten' it out already! Why are you wasting time here while someone is getting away with 3,000 capital murders? Do 3,000 murdered Americans matter to you at all?

Good to see your naivete is intact.

The liars say there were 47, 1300 foot steel columns in the center of those towers, but none of then can come up with a single image of those huge steel members from the demolition images which expose the entire structure.

If you're not considered legally blind, you should be.

Notived you didn't post any evidence.

Steven Jones removed his misinterpretations, soon everybody else will. Then you'll be supporting liars all by yourself.

Hey, you can make a website about your battle for truth here.

Then link to mine.
(http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html)

Arus808

21st November 2006, 12:35 PM

Good to see your naivete is intact.
it seems that you dont know what you are talking about

I asked these same questions of you about 30 pages back.
If you have such convincing evidence, why haven't you brought a lawsuite?

Christophera

21st November 2006, 12:36 PM

If courts cannot solve this issue, and no expert can be trusted, why the hell do you bother ?

Mo good attorney jokes and no evidence, Typical.

Because I know and I love my country and my children. Why do you bother?

Aren't those unimportant points ?

To explain not argue about.

The same evidence to points you claim are "minor" ?

Minor as far as the exactness, major as far as explanation. (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html)

Christophera

21st November 2006, 12:39 PM

I asked these same questions of you about 30 pages back.
If you have such convincing evidence, why haven't you brought a lawsuite?

Great, you and bell can have a party and celebrate your rights and freedom.

Oliver

21st November 2006, 12:47 PM

Could you make me the favor to let the slang beside?
How should i present evidence if i´m not able to understand
what your talking about?

Are you kidding? The cores were made of many pieces and
were held by bolts. So if a pressure or force to jointed parts
is strong enough, the bolts and joints will fail. And BTW: They
did NOT fail! So there were no C4 within the buildings, genius.

Are you sure there were steel colums added to the center?
Maybe there were none of these cross beams because they
needed the space for the elevators???

BS! The Towers were built to flex because the forces
of wind. So what´s your problem with that? A concrete
core would have avoided this flexibility.

Well??? :confused:

Bell

21st November 2006, 01:03 PM

Great, you and bell can have a party and celebrate your rights and freedom.

Christophera, I don't understand how you can life with yourself. 3000 poor victims were murdered by your government. You have ALL the evidence to proof so. It is your PATRIOTIC duty to take the evidence to court. You are failing all the families of those victims. You are denying those families from justice done. Why are you denying them from justice done? Shame on you, Christophera!

Arus808

21st November 2006, 01:04 PM

Great, you and bell can have a party and celebrate your rights and freedom.

so you're not going to answer the question?

Thes are the same "rights" and "freedoms" you have as well.

So, when do we expect you to file a lawsuite? Please give us a date, time, and jurisdiction you plan on doing so.

Powa

21st November 2006, 01:13 PM

Then 'straighten' it out already! Why are you wasting time here while someone is getting away with 3,000 capital murders? Do 3,000 murdered Americans matter to you at all?Good to see your naivete is intact.
I didn't think your non-answers could get any worse, but there you go. Maybe I AM naive, expecting from you anything but evasion from tough questions.

Notived you didn't post any evidence.
I don't feel a need to spam this thread with the same evidence over and over again, like you. It was posted here so many times it's not even funny. Besides, you said that nothing will convince you, so why bother.

Steven Jones removed his misinterpretations, soon everybody else will. Then you'll be supporting liars all by yourself.
Can you give me an ETA on that? Because you haven't convinced anyone here with your 'obvious' evidence in six months.

Hey, you can make a website about your battle for truth here.
Debating you is no more a battle than taking candy from a retarded child is.

Then link to mine.
(http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html)
I'm going to put your site in my sig. Howzat? Everybody needs a good laugh now and then.

beachnut

21st November 2006, 02:24 PM

I didn't think your non-answers could get any worse, but there you go. Maybe I AM naive, expecting from you anything but evasion from tough questions.

I don't feel a need to spam this thread with the same evidence over and over again, like you. It was posted here so many times it's not even funny. Besides, you said that nothing will convince you, so why bother.

Can you give me an ETA on that? Because you haven't convinced anyone here with your 'obvious' evidence in six months.

Debating you is no more a battle than taking candy from a retarded child is.

I'm going to put your site in my sig. Howzat? Everybody needs a good laugh now and then.

That should do it. Smile when you read about the C-4 in the floor.

But I was thinking about doing line by line rebuttal on his site but I can not read more than a small bit before I have to go read something else!

Christophera

21st November 2006, 02:26 PM

I didn't think your non-answers could get any worse, but there you go. Maybe I AM naive, expecting from you anything but evasion from tough questions.

Your awareness of our socioculturalpolitical condition equals that of the last cat image posted.

Three generatons of media manipulation has rendered our populations unable to even recognize the difference between black and white, figuratively speaking. You appear one of the few unaware of this as you consider your question valid.

If I was average I would have given up immediately as soon as I realized that FEMA was trying to present steel core columns.

Arus808

21st November 2006, 02:32 PM

Three generatons of media manipulation has rendered our populations unable to even recognize the difference between black and white, figuratively speaking. You appear one of the few unaware of this as you consider your question valid.

Well, it surely has affected you since you are claiming that a non-existent pbs special aired in the 80's about the construction of the WTC towers when only 2 years prior, they had already made a special about the WTC towers. PBS doesn't waste money like that.

So, when are we going to expect you to file your lawsuite? You said you have evidence, that means it should be able to stand up in court. Please provide the date, and jurisidction you plan on filing.

Oliver

21st November 2006, 02:34 PM

Your awareness of our socioculturalpolitical condition equals that of the last cat image posted.

Three generatons of media manipulation has rendered our populations unable to even recognize the difference between black and white, figuratively speaking. You appear one of the few unaware of this as you consider your question valid.

If I was average I would have given up immediately as soon as I realized that FEMA was trying to present steel core columns.

Could you make me the favor to let the slang beside?
How should i present evidence if i´m not able to understand
what your talking about?

Are you kidding? The cores were made of many pieces and
were held by bolts. So if a pressure or force to jointed parts
is strong enough, the bolts and joints will fail. And BTW: They
did NOT fail! So there were no C4 within the buildings, genius.

Are you sure there were steel colums added to the center?
Maybe there were none of these cross beams because they
needed the space for the elevators???

BS! The Towers were built to flex because the forces
of wind. So what´s your problem with that? A concrete
core would have avoided this flexibility.

Weeeeeeeeeeeell??? :confused: :confused: :confused:

jsfisher

21st November 2006, 02:57 PM

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?
If there is a statement you can attribute to me with which you have a question, please have at it. However, with respect to you and your statements...

So, did you or did you not do that in an opening statement in court?

Christophera

21st November 2006, 03:04 PM

i have.
quite a few times:-

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748453c042018e89.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87484562f3ab08d2b.jpg

BV

Clearly you do not know what you are looking at. Those are interior box columns, labeled as "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) and not inside the core area. The surround the core.

Examine the rectangles in the aerial image and you will see that they are the same proportions as the rectangles in the frames of you posted image. The single column falling has its base located in the same wall line which is around the outside of the core.

The only reason you could find one is that is the only image that might be misinterpreted as "core columns".

If such columns existed they would be seen here BIGTIME (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) because the lower core is totally intact.

Nice try, better than text nonsense, although the image has been posted probably 5 times in this thread and explained for what it really is every time.

Christophera

21st November 2006, 03:07 PM

If there is a statement you can attribute to me with which you have a question, please have at it. However, with respect to you and your statements...

So, did you or did you not do that in an opening statement in court?

I have never produced an opening statement in court. No evidence is recognized anywhere if I bring it.

Christophera

21st November 2006, 03:09 PM

You said you have evidence, that means it should be able to stand up in court.

An epidemic of naivete has struck JREF. Quick, get the proctoscope.

Oliver

21st November 2006, 03:11 PM

Your awareness of our socioculturalpolitical condition equals that of the last cat image posted.

Three generatons of media manipulation has rendered our populations unable to even recognize the difference between black and white, figuratively speaking. You appear one of the few unaware of this as you consider your question valid.

If I was average I would have given up immediately as soon as I realized that FEMA was trying to present steel core columns.

Could you make me the favor to let the slang beside?
How should i present evidence if i´m not able to understand
what your talking about?

Are you kidding? The cores were made of many pieces and
were held by bolts. So if a pressure or force to jointed parts
is strong enough, the bolts and joints will fail. And BTW: They
did NOT fail! So there were no C4 within the buildings, genius.

Are you sure there were steel colums added to the center?
Maybe there were none of these cross beams because they
needed the space for the elevators???

BS! The Towers were built to flex because the forces
of wind. So what´s your problem with that? A concrete
core would have avoided this flexibility.

Alfred? I know you´re reading so give me an answer.

Christophera

21st November 2006, 03:13 PM

Can you give me an ETA on that? Because you haven't convinced anyone here with your 'obvious' evidence in six months.

Next time I need the advice of a psychic I'll look up the kitty in the last cat pic in this thread.

My evidence is absolute (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html) for any who know structural steel and concrete.

Debating you is no more a battle than taking candy from a retarded child is.

Be sure to kick them after you get the goods other wise they may manipulate you into providing a back rub.

TellyKNeasuss

21st November 2006, 03:18 PM

The liars say there were 47, 1300 foot steel columns in the center of those towers, but none of then can come up with a single image of those huge steel members from the demolition images which expose the entire structure.

You were expecting that there would be 1300 foot columns remaining after the towers collapsed??? Do you think that steel is completely unbreakable?

Bell

21st November 2006, 03:25 PM

Christophera

21st November 2006, 03:27 PM

Well, it surely has affected you since you are claiming that a non-existent pbs special aired in the 80's about the construction of the WTC towers when only 2 years prior, they had already made a special about the WTC towers. PBS doesn't waste money like that.

The 18 minute celebratory video you refer to was released in 1983.

The 2 hour documentary I viewed "The Construction of the Twin Towers" started production in 1987 and aired in 1990.

The videograpers explained that they applied for a grant, not necessarily from PBS for the purposes of documenting HOW the public money was spent, because the towers were so costly.

In the beginning they mentioned the 18 minute video that is still available and differentiated their intimate, techinical production from it.

From it I learned that the C4 coating on some of the rebar was exposed to bad weather over the winter months before concrete could be poured. The concrete contractor poured immediately as soon as it warmed enough for the concrete to cure, before it was determined that the "special plastic, anti vibration, anti corrosion coating" had become non viable.

The cost and delay was too great to remove the concrete so constrcution continued.

The reason the concrete was blown away from the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) is because the horiziontal rebar tied to the vertical was fresh and it popped the concrete off the vertical bar seen in the linked image.

How would I know that if i hadn't seen the doc, how would I know that?

Regnad Kcin

21st November 2006, 03:29 PM

...How would I know that if i hadn't seen the doc, how would I know that?Must. Resist. Impulse.

Arus808

21st November 2006, 03:38 PM

An epidemic of naivete has struck JREF. Quick, get the proctoscope.

i dont think you understand what naivete means.
what is naive about you filing a lawsuit?

again, if your "evidence" is so "concrete" then you should have no problem in filing that lawsuit

So, please tell us when you plan on doing so and in which jurisdiction.

Peter S.

21st November 2006, 04:17 PM

Darn, I was hoping to get more than a one liner from you. Not only do you give me one line, but what you say is very wrong; we all want to know the truth.

I think I can speak for most of the people here when I say that any of us, given compelling evidence, would be willing to change our minds.

I really want you to think about this and give me a well thought out answer.

Also, again I ask you not to post any more links, we have seen them all already. Repetition does not make your arguments stronger.

I hope your delay in answering my question is because you are working on a well thought out reply of more than a sentence or two.

tsig

21st November 2006, 04:27 PM

How would I know that if i hadn't seen the doc, how would I know that?

How did you know what no one else knows, and become wise amoung men and able to dispense this wisdom and how may I become enlighteed.

Wait for it, wait,, here comes the website.

Big Al

21st November 2006, 04:37 PM

From it I learned that the C4 coating on some of the rebar was exposed to bad weather over the winter months before concrete could be poured.

You mean they left it in plain view? I'd have thought some building workers might have noticed it. Or was every single worker in on the conspiracy?

The concrete contractor poured immediately as soon as it warmed enough for the concrete to cure

Concrete doesn't need a given temperature to set. It's an exothermic reaction, i.e. it gives off heat as it sets.

How would I know that if i hadn't seen the doc, how would I know that?

Complete and utter non sequitur. I could just as easily say I saw a documentary saying the Wicked Witch of the West demolished the towers; and how would I know that if I hadn't seen the documentary?

You cite the documentary as proof of your claims, and then you cite your claims as evidence of the existence of the documentary. Talk about a circular argument!

Big Al

21st November 2006, 04:54 PM

From it I learned that the C4 coating on some of the rebar was exposed to bad weather over the winter months before concrete could be poured. The concrete contractor poured immediately as soon as it warmed enough for the concrete to cure, before it was determined that the "special plastic, anti vibration, anti corrosion coating" had become non viable.

So the U.S. Government deleted all records of this documentary after 9/11. I'm surprised they didn't think the revelation that the WTC had been lined with C4 plastique was damaging enough. Why did they allow it to air in the first place?

TellyKNeasuss

21st November 2006, 05:16 PM

So the U.S. Government deleted all records of this documentary after 9/11.

Compared to changing all the books and websites, erasing a documentary would have been easy. Good thing that the Ministry of Truth is so efficient (though they did forget to plant WMDs in Iraq).

delphi_ote

21st November 2006, 05:26 PM

Compared to changing all the books and websites, erasing a documentary would have been easy. Good thing that the Ministry of Truth is so efficient (though they did forget to plant WMDs in Iraq).
They were too busy erasing all of the information about the WTC from all of the resources all around the world. The only thing they forgot to wipe out was Christopheria's memory.

NobbyNobbs

21st November 2006, 05:57 PM

Christophera, I don't understand how you can life with yourself. 3000 poor victims were murdered by your government. You have ALL the evidence to proof so. It is your PATRIOTIC duty to take the evidence to court. You are failing all the families of those victims. You are denying those families from justice done. Why are you denying them from justice done? Shame on you, Christophera!

Well, Christophera, hypocretera, are you going to have justice done in name of the 3000 poor victims or what? You are sitting on this evidence for atleast half a year. The longer you wait, the more the government is getting away with this conspiracy.

You are providing all of your evidence to have justice done, don't you? You want to persons responsible for killing 3000 poor victims to go to jail? Because if you do, your only option is to go to court with all of your incredible evidence. It would be criminal if you took no such action.

Isn't it a criminal action to have solid evidence about a criminal case but not bring it to the authorities? Christophera, aren't you as guilty in keeping this information from the authorities as those are who perpetuated the acts?

Never mind whether you think the authorities will believe you or not...isn't it your duty to at least try? What have you done?

Suppose you've convinced me. Suppose I agree that the core was concrete, that the official theory can't be right. What next? What am I to do with this information? You rail about how an injustice has been done to 3000 lives, yet you suggest nothing to correct that injustice.

I've skipped a few pages, and don't know whether the "sock solution" is still in play, but if it is, I respectfully request possession of the socks until the above questions are answered.

:socks:

delphi_ote

21st November 2006, 06:12 PM

Isn't it a criminal action to have solid evidence about a criminal case but not bring it to the authorities? Christophera, aren't you as guilty in keeping this information from the authorities as those are who perpetuated the acts?

Never mind whether you think the authorities will believe you or not...isn't it your duty to at least try? What have you done?

Suppose you've convinced me. Suppose I agree that the core was concrete, that the official theory can't be right. What next? What am I to do with this information? You rail about how an injustice has been done to 3000 lives, yet you suggest nothing to correct that injustice.

I've skipped a few pages, and don't know whether the "sock solution" is still in play, but if it is, I respectfully request possession of the socks until the above questions are answered.

:socks:
I think we're on the choirboys' side of the island now...

jsfisher

21st November 2006, 06:16 PM

I have never produced an opening statement in court.
So, in the transcript posted on your site, page 8: lines 8-12, the Mr. Brown being his opening statement per the judge's request must not be you, then. Is that correct?
THE COURT: Well, what is your case? Tell me what it is -- maybe you better make an opening statement, tell me what that case was about.

MR. BROWN: There's an ancient organization that is controlling the defendant and myself.

No evidence is recognized anywhere if I bring it.
I do not think many, here, would challenge the truth of this statement.

mortimer

21st November 2006, 07:12 PM

switchtech

21st November 2006, 07:21 PM

No, nor do Australians, at least those here. So come up with a realistic explanation for free fall.

I don't believe we need to come up with an explanation for free fall. The. Towers. Did. Not. Free. Fall.

jbs

Christophera

21st November 2006, 07:44 PM

Guess what, Christopher? I lived in Santa Barbara all of 1990 while attending UCSB (well, ok, Isla Vista). I watched PBS religiously. It was the only channel I received clearly with rabbit ears in my dorm room (Santa Rosa, if you must know). That documentary never aired. Sorry. You are wrong.

My ex wife watched it with me and remebers it, sorry.

Have you any evidence of the steel core columns?

I have lots of evidence for the concrete core. Here is the top of WTC 2 falling onto WTC 3, The concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg)

Christophera

21st November 2006, 07:48 PM

So, in the transcript posted on your site, page 8: lines 8-12, the Mr. Brown being his opening statement per the judge's request must not be you, then. Is that correct?

Okay, a verbal statement labeled by the judge. He should have known from the pleadings but was just defending the defendant and trying to confuse the issues.

We have had mass murders here since that time becasue the County will not follow laws and the courts will not recognize, follow or uphold them.

Do you approve of lawless government?

switchtech

21st November 2006, 07:58 PM

Curious how the murders of 3,000 Americans just do not matter and one mans struggle for justice benefitting all people is a real problem for ya.

Perhaps you've heard about a place called Afghanistan? I have a friend serving there right now. You may ask why he'd be in such a place, and I'd have to answer: "To struggle for justice benefitting all people regarding the murder of 3,000 of the world's citizens - many of whom were American, some were not."

Anyone claiming we do not care about the murder of innocents is seriously off their rocker. What we do care about is extracting justice from the appropriate quarters. The American government may be many bad things, but it did not murder the occupants of the World Trade Center, the passengers and crew of those airline jets, nor any of the people in the Pentagon. A group in Afghanistan took credit for the actions, all the credible evidence points to this same group, and a great deal of money has been spent there in an attempt to take care of this problem.

Whether we're in Iraq for the right reasons is another issue, but the actions in Afghanistan, as far as I can tell, were justified.

Your ranting about a concrete column and a government conspiracy to erase all records and references to a seemingly non-existant television show will not bring justice for the deaths on September 11, 2001. Trying to see things that just do not exist in photographs in distant objects, seeing things no one else can and expecting us to fall in line with claims of how the World Trade Center should have fallen and how it seemed to fall too fast and more damage than two five hundred mile an hour aircraft with almoust 70000 pounds of fuel (and probably near full gross weight: well over 200,000 pounds) could have done doesn't serve anyone's justice.

A fantasy world has been created where the United States government is evil beyond all measure and purposely destroyed two of the most important icons in the free world just so they could go to war in a far off land. Once created this world feeds on the lack of evidence to support it. The lack of evidence is proof of the conspiracy to destroy the evidence. This is circular and fatal logic and will not lead to any kind of truth. The truth is out there and the NIST did their best to publish it.

While we may not have all the evidence we would like to support our convictions, we do have real and tangible evidence. Experts called in to investigate the issue wrote a report. The report is available to anyone caring to read it. It was excruciatingly detailed, exhaustive, and careful. Certain aspects that did not offer credible hope for progress were not followed because more and better leads were available.

We get passionate about the truth so that when we prosecute someone it is the right someone. We feel insulted when accused of not caring about the murder of three thousand people just because we don't buy into a fantasy world view. We don't buy into the fantasy world view precisely because it is fantasy. We do care about the fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, sons and daughters that will never come home. We care so much it hurts. But we are not willing to shred reality for some home grown fantasy, with no supporting evidence, no probability it could have happened, and no logical reason any sane person should believe it.

Objectivity and a dispassionate approach are a tool used to filter fiction from truth. No wild eyed tilting at dragons will ever make dragons real, no wild eyed tilting at concrete cores will make them real.

Never, ever, accuse anyone of not caring about the three thousand lives lost that day. Not for not believing your version of the world. It isn't right.

jbs

tsig

21st November 2006, 08:40 PM

Okay, a verbal statement labeled by the judge. He should have known from the pleadings but was just defending the defendant and trying to confuse the issues.

We have had mass murders here since that time becasue the County will not follow laws and the courts will not recognize, follow or uphold them.

Do you approve of lawless government?

Why do you not file lawsuites?

tsig

21st November 2006, 08:44 PM

mortimer

21st November 2006, 09:15 PM

My ex wife watched it with me and remebers it, sorry.

Have you any evidence of the steel core columns?

I have lots of evidence for the concrete core. Here is the top of WTC 2 falling onto WTC 3, The concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg)

Chris, after asking you numerous times if you have found someone else who saw it, you finally fess up?

May we contact her in a non-intrusive way? Say, by email?

And, yes, I have plenty of evidence of a steel core. The steel you keep saying is "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" and outside the core, is actually "STEEL CORE COLUMNS" and is inside the core. Since it is inside the core, there's no way there could have been a concrete core. Ain't circular logic grand?

Christophera

21st November 2006, 09:59 PM

Chris, after asking you numerous times if you have found someone else who saw it, you finally fess up?

May we contact her in a non-intrusive way? Say, by email?

She remembers nothing of it only that we watched it.

And, yes, I have plenty of evidence of a steel core. The steel you keep saying is "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) and outside the core, is actually "STEEL CORE COLUMNS" and is inside the core. Since it is inside the core, there's no way there could have been a concrete core. Ain't circular logic grand?

If you were correct those steel core columns would be protruding from the core area of the WTC2 CORE (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) and they are not, so, ......... you are wrong. My claim is corroborated yours is not.

What you see inside the core is steel, it is vertical, but it is not a "core column" because if it was it would be protruding. That steel is elevator guide rail support. The elevators were written into the various contracts. The general contractor had to be sure the elevators went as far up as possible. To do this the contractor gave them a priority. Meaning that all work might wait to get those guide rail support in position and aligned. there was just too many contract dependant on that.

Flat out. You are mistaken. You have no evidence to back your assertions and no rational. I have both because I saw the documentary and understood EVERY word of it. Construction process is my forte. Admitted, I do not build skyscrapers, but when I watch a documentary about the construction of one, I understand the reasoning, I am educated by the process.

As a welder for 35 years, I understand what is meant and entailed in executing 100% fillet welds. As an equipment operator I understand cranes, at least a little. As a surveyor and draftsman for a civil engineer I understand loading on partially completed strcutures.

I'm no expert but I do have experience and work with experts fairly often and they find my abilities adequate and appreciate that I understand the specialties they have and my ability to integrat in the processes they control.

Christophera

21st November 2006, 10:01 PM

I don't approve af anything.

Especially lawless government?

Bell

21st November 2006, 10:03 PM

Especially lawless government?

You seem to aprove of it, since you fail to take any step to bring them to justice. Remember the 3000 poor victims that died, Christophera. Do it for them, go to court!

Christophera

21st November 2006, 10:11 PM

The American government may be many bad things, but it did not murder the occupants of the World Trade Center, the passengers and crew of those airline jets, nor any of the people in the Pentagon.

Read this switchtech,

Tell your buddy in Afgahnistan that the US government has been INFILTRATED and the infiltrators murdered 3,000 citizens.

If the oath he took as a soldier is taken seriously then he can at least consider facts.

Send him this image

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg

And ask him if it looks like a collapse.

Do you/he agree that due process was violated 3,000 times when evidence was removed from the scene and destroyed befor private investigations were conducted. The relatives of vistims have an unequivicol right to a proper investigation and if they feel that any official agency is not doing an appropriate job or if they are worried that the proper job is not being done, they have a right to conduct their own invesitgation.

If the the infiltrated governemtn says, "Sorry, it is a matter of national security and they are blaiming it on Muslims then they already have what they need to know and THERE IS NO RESON TO LIMIT THE PUBLIC INVESTIGATION.

Period.

Your buddies life is on the line for NOTHING.

The buildings were built to demolish. Send him and all the GI's here.

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

The should know what well contianed, optimally placed and distributed high explosives look like when detonated in a high speed series of delays.

We need our soldiers BACK here. We need their courage and expertise. Their commander and chief has already been implicated by blocking invetigations. That part of their oath they can forego.

Focus on the Constitution and lawful performance from the BEGINNING or there will be no more Constitution.

Christophera

21st November 2006, 10:13 PM

The American government may be many bad things, but it did not murder the occupants of the World Trade Center, the passengers and crew of those airline jets, nor any of the people in the Pentagon.

Read this switchtech,

Tell your buddy in Afgahnistan that the US government has been INFILTRATED and the infiltrators murdered 3,000 citizens. I know that the US government is disabled from doing that by law. When laws are broken by those pretending to be government, they just lost their position. They are no longer government. Our soldiers are ultimately following the orders of infiltrators.

If the oath he took as a soldier is taken seriously then he can at least consider facts.

Send him this image

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg

And ask him if it looks like a collapse.

Do you/he agree that due process was violated 3,000 times when evidence was removed from the scene and destroyed befor private investigations were conducted. The relatives of vistims have an unequivicol right to a proper investigation and if they feel that any official agency is not doing an appropriate job or if they are worried that the proper job is not being done, they have a right to conduct their own invesitgation.

If the the infiltrated governemtn says, "Sorry, it is a matter of national security" and they are blaiming it on Muslims then they already have what they need to know and THERE IS NO REASON TO LIMIT THE PUBLIC INVESTIGATION.

Period.

Your buddies life is on the line for NOTHING.

The buildings were built to demolish. Send him and all the GI's here.

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

The should know what well contained, optimally placed and distributed high explosives look like when detonated in a high speed series of delays.

We need our soldiers BACK here. We need their courage and expertise. Their commander and chief has already been implicated by blocking invetigations. That part of their oath they can forego.

Focus on the Constitution and lawful performance from the BEGINNING or there will be no more Constitution.

Save your "dispassionate" sermon for folks that don't know about high explosives, concrete and steel. I do.

Christophera

21st November 2006, 10:19 PM

You seem to aprove of it, since you fail to take any step to bring them to justice. Remember the 3000 poor victims that died, Christophera. Do it for them, go to court!

Come on, you must know at least one good attorney joke.

maccy

21st November 2006, 10:27 PM

Come on, you must know at least one good attorney joke.

I like that! More of that please!

Chris, I know we aren't going to convince you of anything and I really do wish you well.

Please realise that you're also not going to convince us.

All the information you have is here, and probably doesn't need repeating. Any lurkers who are around will have got it by now.

Unfortunately people around here will keep arguing with you if you keep posting here, it's the nature of this forum.

I honestly think that you can call it a day and stop posting here and it won't make a difference - your argument is out there and this thread stands as a testament to the fact that you didn't give in or back down.

You've spent six months of your life here arguing with people who won't give in.

I humbly suggest that you could use the time over the next six months on a more enjoyable way.

All the best.

Matthew

Bell

21st November 2006, 10:33 PM

Come on, you must know at least one good attorney joke.

You are the joke, Christophera.

Now answer the question:

- Are you going to take your evidence to court, yes or no?

If not, you are going to fail the families of the 3000 poor victims. Can you life with that burden?

Now answer, and stop sidestepping.

hcmom

21st November 2006, 10:34 PM

Come on, you must know at least one good attorney joke.

I was worried. I don't think I got anything good from Chris yesterday!

Powa

21st November 2006, 11:12 PM

Your awareness of our socioculturalpolitical condition equals that of the last cat image posted.
If you're talking about American 'socioculturalpolitical condition' I have to disapoint you. I'm not American.

Three generatons of media manipulation has rendered our populations unable to even recognize the difference between black and white, figuratively speaking.
Here you go again. Everyone is a stupid zombie except you. And you don't find that odd? Why are you not manipulated? Or hypnotized? Why are you so special?

You appear one of the few unaware of this as you consider your question valid.
Yes, I'm unaware of 300 million stupid Americans. Minus one Chris A. Brown, of course.

If I was average I would have given up immediately as soon as I realized that FEMA was trying to present steel core columns.
No, average you're not.

SezMe

22nd November 2006, 12:25 AM

We have had mass murders here since that time becasue the County will not follow laws and the courts will not recognize, follow or uphold them.

I have started a new thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2117847#post2117847) to test Chris on this so as to not derail this one too much.

Christophera

22nd November 2006, 12:25 AM

i dont think you understand what naivete means.
what is naive about you filing a lawsuit?

You are confused. You actually think we have courts of law.

We are the law. If we cannot agree on the purpose of law, whoever can interpret what "law" is for for their own purposes.

So far they have killed about 6000 if you count the soldiers, they have removed the Constitution and the courts.

How do you feel about this?

Christophera

22nd November 2006, 12:33 AM

You are the joke, Christophera.

Now answer the question:

- Are you going to take your evidence to court, yes or no?

If not, you are going to fail the families of the 3000 poor victims. Can you life with that burden?

Now answer, and stop sidestepping.

It is you that fail to engage the purpose of reason, not I. I bring evidence and seek your ability to reason so we might enforce the law of the land together. But you do not seem to recognize the purpose of reason or law and how evidence might be used to recover some of each.

I've filed my lawsuits, I know what is happening and what is not. As far as I can tell you've done nothing but excercise your right to be unreasonable, and, ..... without evidence to boot.

I know what I saw on TV in 1990 on channel 10 (KCET 28) in the documentary called "The Construction of the Twin Towers" and what I saw helps me to correctly interpret the images of the demo and build a web site that documents the concrete core.

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

You have no evidence for what you assert and you have no reason to assert it.

Can you even tell us why you continue to try to assert the towers had 47 steel core columns at their center?

Big Al

22nd November 2006, 03:08 AM

She remembers nothing of it only that we watched it.

You mean she doesn't remember hearing how the main structural supports of a major U.S. architectural icon were deliberately filled with high explosives? I'd have thought that would be the kind of detail that would stick in one's mind. She didn't think this was strange?

How very inconvenient.

For my part, I'm still trying to imagine;

a) The foresight of authority figures who knew in 1966 that they might one day have to blow up the WTC.

b) The confidence of said evil planners in sweaty, degraded 40-year old C4 to explode perfectly right on cue. It's only a wonder it didn't blow up long before - which might have been a teensy little embarrassment.

c) How a documentary that revealed this skulduggery ever went to air.

d) Why such a documentary didn't provoke a HUGE public outcry at the time, and flood the Internet with references to it. And yet it seems you're the only person who can remember it in any detail.

Mobyseven

22nd November 2006, 03:35 AM

You are confused. You actually think we have courts of law.

Anyone convicted of a crime in the years since 9/11 will be surprised to hear that they were actually NOT convicted, as the courts they were supposed to be convicted in don't exist. I would further postulate that they will be rather happy about this news.

We are the law. If we cannot agree on the purpose of law, whoever can interpret what "law" is for for their own purposes.

Quite the philosopher there, Chris. You should write a book or something. "We are the law" - sounds somewhat like the sort of justification the KKK would use to justify their lynching. When things fail to go the way you want them to, try to incite a mob metality.

Could you please submit a contact email for your ex-wife, as well as an independant referee to confirm that we are in fact contacting your ex-wife?

I would like to have a second person who remembers seeing the documentary (even if this is a possibly biased witness). It doesn't matter if she doesn't remember the content of the documentary, just that said documentary exists.

mortimer

22nd November 2006, 06:41 AM

She remembers nothing of it only that we watched it.

Well, that's awfully convenient for your little story, just like the rest of your story, isn't it?

If you were correct those steel core columns would be protruding from the core area of the WTC2 CORE (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) and they are not, so, ......... you are wrong. My claim is corroborated yours is not.

If you were correct there would be construction photos showing the concrete core, yet there are only construction photos showing the steel core. You are wrong. My claim is corroborated yours is not.

Belz...

22nd November 2006, 07:05 AM

Mo good attorney jokes and no evidence, Typical.

Please point to the attorney joke I made.

Because I know and I love my country and my children. Why do you bother?

But you DON'T bother, chris. You waste your time in a skeptics' forum when you should be trying to prove your case. You claim that courts are ineffective, that experts are lying to protect themselves and that the entire world is hypnotised to forget the facts.

It seems as though you can't win. So why bother ? And if you DO bother, why do it here ?

To explain not argue about.

Sorry, but if those points are important then they should be important enough for you to explain, for if others don't understand your points they can't argue about them very well, can they ?

Minor as far as the exactness, major as far as explanation.

In science, exactness is everything. You're trying to prove something very important. You should be expected to give very precise answers.

Belz...

22nd November 2006, 07:08 AM

Three generatons of media manipulation has rendered our populations unable to even recognize the difference between black and white, figuratively speaking. You appear one of the few unaware of this as you consider your question valid.

That's called a claim, chris, not an explanation.

If such columns existed they would be seen here BIGTIME because the lower core is totally intact.

Why should we see them through what you admitted could be dust ?

An epidemic of naivete has struck JREF. Quick, get the proctoscope.

Chris is deluded. Quick, get the straightjacket.

My evidence is absolute for any who know structural steel and concrete.

Or dust.

Belz...

22nd November 2006, 07:16 AM

The 2 hour documentary I viewed "The Construction of the Twin Towers" started production in 1987 and aired in 1990.

How did you come across the 1987 date ? When was it mentionned, by anyone, when this documentary was made ?

In the beginning they mentioned the 18 minute video that is still available and differentiated their intimate, techinical production from it.

That's new. I'm going to assume that you're making it up as you go, this time. You never mentioned this, and now you suddenly "remember" this information ?

From it I learned that the C4 coating on some of the rebar was exposed to bad weather over the winter months before concrete could be poured.

You never said they mentioned C4, chris. YOU think it was C4, but you claimed the documentary never said so.

How would I know that if i hadn't seen the doc, how would I know that?

See above.

My ex wife watched it with me and remebers it, sorry.

Perhaps you could help us contact her and validate this claim ?

If you were correct those steel core columns would be protruding from the core area of the WTC2 CORE and they are not, so, ......... you are wrong. My claim is corroborated yours is not.

That's easy. You made up something that was impossible. Of course, the impossible doesn't happen, but it doesn't mean you're right, because what you claimed wasn't true to begin with.

You are confused. You actually think we have courts of law.

We are the law. If we cannot agree on the purpose of law, whoever can interpret what "law" is for for their own purposes.

So far they have killed about 6000 if you count the soldiers, they have removed the Constitution and the courts.

Again, those are called claims, not proof.

It is you that fail to engage the purpose of reason, not I. I bring evidence and seek your ability to reason so we might enforce the law of the land together.

You're going to go for a revolution ?

I know what I saw on TV in 1990 on channel 10 (KCET 28) in the documentary called "The Construction of the Twin Towers" and what I saw helps me to correctly interpret the images of the demo and build a web site that documents the concrete core.

Bolding mine. Interesting.

Big Al

22nd November 2006, 07:40 AM

So, a documentary Chris saw 16 years ago about work done 40 years ago gives him blinding insight.

About that long ago, I saw a horrifying documentary about a nuclear accident at a reactor called "SL-1", in which some guys died in rather horrible circumstances. The name stuck with me, but I couldn't for the life of me build a website from the information.

There are a few websites about the accident now, so at least I know I wasn't dreaming it.

Another thought - why did the evil WTC builders allow documentary makers access to a structure being wrapped in C4? Even if the explosives weren't specifically mentioned in the documentary (which isn't clear to me), surely somebody might have asked awkward questions about the white cladding on the still-exposed rebar waiting for concrete infill?

And as I've said before, concrete doesn't need to wait for dry or warm weather to go off as "materials expert" Chris asserted - it's an exothermic reaction and can even set under water. The Hoover Dam had concrete poured into it in all conditions, and I believe it's still setting in parts.

Big Al

22nd November 2006, 08:36 AM

And as I've said before, concrete doesn't need to wait for dry or warm weather to go off as "materials expert" Chris asserted - it's an exothermic reaction and can even set under water. The Hoover Dam had concrete poured into it in all conditions, and I believe it's still setting in parts.

I rebuke myself and withdraw that remark. I see that very low temperatures can lead to weakened concrete. Sorry, Chris. :covereyes

However, I do stand by the rest of the post.

Big Al

22nd November 2006, 08:42 AM

And as I've said before, concrete doesn't need to wait for dry or warm weather to go off as "materials expert" Chris asserted - it's an exothermic reaction and can even set under water. The Hoover Dam had concrete poured into it in all conditions, and I believe it's still setting in parts.

I rebuke myself and withdraw that comment, having checked my facts. I now know that very cold temperatures can lead to uneven setting. I apologise, Chris.

However, I stand behind the rest of the post.

Big Al

22nd November 2006, 08:46 AM

There you are. I'm so mortified at having made a contrafactual statement that I repeated myself!

Bindamel

22nd November 2006, 08:47 AM

No, that is not the documentary I saw. That documentary was mentioned in the one I saw which was 2 hours in length. The 18 minute film was referred to in the beginning as a "Celebratory Documentary" relating to the completion of the WTC.

[snip]

That's new. I'm going to assume that you're making it up as you go, this time. You never mentioned this, and now you suddenly "remember" this information ?

Not that it means much, Belz, but it's certainly not new. The above quote is the first mention I've found of him saying the longer video referenced the 18 minute version, made back in early October.

stundie

22nd November 2006, 08:56 AM

I've always admired James Randi Education Foundation as I've always believed that there is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

I've been reading these posts in here and I'm ABSOLUTELY AMAZED by the child like attitude of some of the bloggers in here. As I was expecting more intelligence than the name calling which seems to run throughout these posts.

I actually believed the official story until I noticed certain things that didn't add up. The final straw was the NORAD Tapes which prove that the Pentagon lied to the commission but thats is not why I am here.

Here some food for thought?

Far be it from me to quibble with established authority figures about WTC 1, 2 & 7, (Don't tell me I'm dishonouring the memory of 9/11., or that I hate America) but could somebody please reconcile the following contradictory analyses & statements for me?

The first one is a NIST statement denying the pancake hypothesis for WTC collapse, while the second is a quote from this Popular Mechanics book 'Debunking 9/11 Myths', p. 44.

NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers. Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

Popular Mechanics 'Debunking 9/11 Myths', p. 44:
"Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, the floor failed, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process pancaking.

A) NIST is correct - and the "meticulous and scientific analysis" of PM is wrong after their pomposity about how careful and thorough they are in their "debunking". So can we trust them?

or:

(b) Popular Mechanics is correct - and NIST, after 3 years of work, millions dollars, hundreds of experts & simulations, is wrong?

or:

(c) Neither is correct - as both sets of baffled "experts" desperately grasp at straws hide the fact that they have no idea how the Towers fell.

The funny things is, those who disagree with the Controlled Demolition theory are always asking for evidence of this, so let me reverse the question and ask you for EVIDENCE to suggest that the floors failed and they collapsed as either NIST or Popular Mechanics state?

As far as I'm aware, there is no proof because of the major clean up operation, which would suggest that both NIST and Popular Mechanics are THEORIES too?

Yes I maybe a tin hat wearing idiot, but that still doesn't answer the question? So I look forward to some serious debate.

BTW Other tin hat wearers who don't buy the official story are: -

Rep. Curt Weldon – Vice Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Vice Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Ten-term Republican Congressman from Pennsylvania.
Senator Max Cleland – Former member of the 9/11 Commission, resigned in December 2003. Currently serves on the board of directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States. U.S. Senator from Georgia 1996 - 2002. Secretary of State of Georgia 1982 - 1996. Administrator of the U.S. Veterans Administration 1977 - 1981. Captain, U.S. Army awarded Silver Star and Bronze Star for bravery in Viet Nam. Triple amputee from war injuries
Senator Bob Graham – Former U.S. Senator from Florida 1987 - 2005. Former Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Co-Chairman of the Joint House-Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (JICI) that investigated the events of 9/11. Former Governor of Florida 1979 - 1986
Senator Mark Dayton – Senate Committee on Armed Services, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Services. U.S. Senator from Minnesota.
Louis Freeh – Director of the FBI, 1993 - 2001. Former U.S. District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York, appointed by President George H.W. Bush. Former Deputy United States Attorney in New York. Former FBI agent. Former officer in the United States Army JAG Corps Reserve.
Edward L. Peck – Deputy Director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism under Ronald Reagan. Former Deputy Coordinator, Covert Intelligence Programs at the State Department. U.S. Ambassador and Chief of Mission to Iraq (1977 - 1980). 32-year veteran of the Foreign Service.
Paul Craig Roberts, PhD – Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury under Ronald Reagan, "Father of Reaganomics", Former Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. Currently Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the independent institute.
Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret) – Commanding General of the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, 1981 - 1984. Also commanded the U.S. Army’s Electronic Research and Development Command and the U.S. Army’s Intelligence School and Center. Former head of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence. 32-year Army career.
Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps (ret) – Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense during the Reagan Administration and a highly decorated Vietnam veteran (two Silver Stars, a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart). Appointed by President George H.W. Bush to serve on the American Battle Monuments Commission (1990 - 1994), and on the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces. From 1990 through 1994, he served as Military Historian and Deputy Director of Field Operations for the U.S. Marine Corps Historical Center, Washington, D.C.
Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and Carter. U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. (PhD in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Cal Tech).
Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Former Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. Commercial pilot for Pan Am and United Airlines

maccy

22nd November 2006, 09:30 AM

Welcome to the forums Stundie.

Briefly, Popular Mechanics are talking in more general laymen's terms and NIST are being specific and technical. NISTs contentention, as I understand it, is that this is a progressive collapse - pancaking being a reasonable description of what happens after the collapse initiation but not suffiecient to describe the whole process.

Additionally, even if you can find something that is not fully explained, it does not validate an alternative theory - this is a god of the gaps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps) type of argument.

I suggest you find another thread about this and bounce it or start a new thread. This thread (despite its slightly misleading title) concerns itself with Christophera's theory that the towers were built with a concrete core that was prewired with C4 explosive during constructions.

Trying to talk about anything else here will just muddle things even more.

Here are a few suggestions for posting here:

1. Familiarise yourself with the sites listed in the links page (http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=17) if you haven't already done so

2. Pick a subject to discuss and try and stick to that subject as much as possible; don't sidetrack into other subjects unless they are directly related; be methodical

3. to avoid repetition, use the search function to find threads that already address your subject - bump them or quote from them if you still have something to discuss

4. don't assume anything about the political views of the people here, or their reasons for arguing the way they do

5. political arguments are best taken to the politics forum

6. don't confuse arguing about the general plausibility of a hypothesis with arguing about the specific evidence of a phenomenom; for more about what I mena by this, see this post: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...99#post2098499 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2098499#post2098499)

7. lastly, try not get sucked into personal disputes, posters can use some pretty blunt language in discussions, but in the main they are attacking the ideas; try and stick to reasoning and evidence. You can report serious personal attacks if necessary.

Once again, welcome!

ETA: The tone of your opening post is extremely confrontational, I suggest you tone things down and stick to the facts.

Belz...

22nd November 2006, 09:42 AM

bonavada

22nd November 2006, 09:44 AM

ETA below questions removed.....just read maccys good advice above.

welcome to the forums stundie from me too.

if you start another thread i'll repost my questions there....except the last :-]

Stundie.......What do you think of the OP's (christophera's) concrete core/embedded c4 theory?

BV

Belz...

22nd November 2006, 09:45 AM

Not that it means much, Belz, but it's certainly not new. The above quote is the first mention I've found of him saying the longer video referenced the 18 minute version, made back in early October.

Chris keeps adding stuff to what he "remembers" of this alledged video. That reminds me of schizophreniacs who keep adding stuff to their reality to protect their delusions.

Suddenly the documentary didn't only mention the concrete core, but also the C4, then the problems with this and that that "proves" the rebar thing, then when we corner him about the other doc, the 1990 one mentioned it, so in his universe he can believe it's been debunked, etc.

Belz...

22nd November 2006, 09:51 AM

I've been reading these posts in here and I'm ABSOLUTELY AMAZED by the child like attitude of some of the bloggers in here. As I was expecting more intelligence than the name calling which seems to run throughout these posts.

200+ pages of arguing with the unreasonable will do that to you, too.

I actually believed the official story until I noticed certain things that didn't add up. The final straw was the NORAD Tapes which prove that the Pentagon lied to the commission but thats is not why I am here.

What maccy said: this is a god of the gaps argument.

NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers. Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

So Popular Mechanics' explanation is not exact ? How does this point to a conspiracy ?

(c) Neither is correct - as both sets of baffled "experts" desperately grasp at straws hide the fact that they have no idea how the Towers fell.

An interesting, and leading, third point. Obviously this is the one you picked, for no other reason, ostensibly, that it makes things more interesting.

The funny things is, those who disagree with the Controlled Demolition theory are always asking for evidence of this, so let me reverse the question and ask you for EVIDENCE to suggest that the floors failed and they collapsed as either NIST or Popular Mechanics state?

Read the NIST report, and read through the various threads here. I find it annoying when people on a forum tell me to search for information instead of giving it to me, but in this case there's just so much of it, you're bound to find your answers rather quickly... ASSUMING you're interesting in really finding out the truth, not confirming your bias.

As far as I'm aware, there is no proof because of the major clean up operation, which would suggest that both NIST and Popular Mechanics are THEORIES too?

Would you rather they left the whole pile of debris there ?

Yes I maybe a tin hat wearing idiot, but that still doesn't answer the question?

IF you ARE a tin foil hat wearing idiot, that DOES answer the question, because the questions don't make sense.

BTW Other tin hat wearers who don't buy the official story are: -

Argument from popularity, argument from authority.

maccy

22nd November 2006, 09:54 AM

(NIST vs Popular mechanics stuff)

I've opened a new thread to discuss this here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=69197

maccy

22nd November 2006, 10:29 AM

I've opened a new thread to discuss this here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=69197

And here's a thread to discuss stundie's list of people who don't buy the official story:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=69198

Big Al

22nd November 2006, 10:33 AM

At least Stundie isn't hitting us over the head with "undeniable" and "obvious" evidence that isn't.

Christophera

22nd November 2006, 10:40 AM

Additionally, even if you can find something that is not fully explained, it does not validate an alternative theory - this is a god of the gaps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps) type of argument.

So eager to find a dismissing label.

Examine the appearance of well contained blasts used in mountain top removal for a matching appearance to what happenned to the towers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPixjCneseE

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4199&stc=1&d=1164220794

uruk

22nd November 2006, 10:43 AM

As a welder for 35 years, I understand what is meant and entailed in executing 100% fillet welds. As an equipment operator I understand cranes, at least a little. As a surveyor and draftsman for a civil engineer I understand loading on partially completed strcutures.

So, are you saying that welded steel won't come apart under severe stress?
Are you saying that steel wont break?

maccy

22nd November 2006, 10:44 AM

Christophera

22nd November 2006, 10:54 AM

So, are you saying that welded steel won't come apart under severe stress?
Are you saying that steel wont break?

No, you are saying that. I'm saying that when it does it looks like it's broken not like it's been sheared (http://www.parrhesia.com/wtc/wtc066.jpg). And, .......... before it breaks it bends whereupon it become visisble in a collapse which exposes a core supposedly haveing steel columns inside of it.

We see none.
(http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

maccy

22nd November 2006, 10:54 AM

Chris I wasn't arguing with you at all. I was responding to stundie's post about NIST - before encouraging him to discuss it outside of this thread.

I no longer have any argument with you as I know I cannot convince you. I am happy for you to believe in a concrete core.

My only concern is that you are wasting your time here by trying to argue with us.

and I think my previous post bears repeating:

Chris, I know we aren't going to convince you of anything and I really do wish you well.

Please realise that you're also not going to convince us.

All the information you have is here, and probably doesn't need repeating. Any lurkers who are around will have got it by now.

Unfortunately people around here will keep arguing with you if you keep posting here, it's the nature of this forum.

I honestly think that you can call it a day and stop posting here and it won't make a difference - your argument is out there and this thread stands as a testament to the fact that you didn't give in or back down.

You've spent six months of your life here arguing with people who won't give in.

I humbly suggest that you could use the time over the next six months on a more enjoyable way.

All the best.

Matthew

uruk

22nd November 2006, 11:02 AM

So eager to find a dismissing label.

Examine the appearance of well contained blasts used in mountain top removal for a matching appearance to what happenned to the towers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPixjCneseE

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4199&stc=1&d=1164220794

That is not an explosion (caused by explosives)*. You see that is the problem with just looking at still images. They can be decieving. If you look at the video you would have noticed that the trails appear to arc upward and out from the center because the debris collapsing in the core area sucked the air down toward the center. Look at the videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rsXvK7-l9E
In this video the dust trail looks like it is actuall rolling back toward the center.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFtzTQKRspY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRakw3hwPls
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCSXco-bPNo

In each of those videos notice how all the smoke, dust and debris in the center of the building actually gets sucked down in toward the center thus giving the appearance of debris being shot out upward and out from the center.

Do you see now the problem with just interpreting still images?

* I added this because not all explosions are caused by explosives

uruk

22nd November 2006, 11:12 AM

No, you are saying that. I'm saying that when it does it looks like it's broken not like it's been sheared (http://www.parrhesia.com/wtc/wtc066.jpg). And, .......... before it breaks it bends whereupon it become visisble in a collapse which exposes a core supposedly haveing steel columns inside of it.

We see none.
(http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

Chris, that sheared (http://www.parrhesia.com/wtc/wtc066.jpg) steel obviously has been cut by workmen for removal from the site. It been cut to a uniform length and is already stacked for moving. Further example of you inability to properly interpret images.

Here we see them:

Peter S.

22nd November 2006, 11:13 AM

Chris, back a few pages ago I asked you this:

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?

You gave me a one line answer. I asked if you could give me a little more than one line. Please think about this and give me a well thought out answer. I'm still waiting.

uruk

22nd November 2006, 11:27 AM

I've been reading these posts in here and I'm ABSOLUTELY AMAZED by the child like attitude of some of the bloggers in here. As I was expecting more intelligence than the name calling which seems to run throughout these posts.

Sometimes you gotta call a duck a duck.

I think it's mainly due to exasperation than actual emnity.

I think even Gahndi called someone an idiot at one time or another.

Christophera

22nd November 2006, 11:42 AM

Another thought - why did the evil WTC builders allow documentary makers access to a structure being wrapped in C4? Even if the explosives weren't specifically mentioned in the documentary (which isn't clear to me), surely somebody might have asked awkward questions about the white cladding on the still-exposed rebar waiting for concrete infill?

Whistleblowers, I guess.

There was an air of mystery in the documentary at most. The videograpers were producing almost 20 years after the construction oif WTC 1 using contractors and architects fiml and photos of the construction.

The videographers mentioned "special, anti corrosion, vibration resistant plastic coated rebar"

By examination of the character of the blasts and ground zero I realized that the explosives had to have been perfefctly centered and distributed. After much thought a further realization came to me that the rebar was in the perfect position/distibution, then I remembered the "special plastic coating".

Belz knows these things and they are scattered throughout the thread.

Christophera

22nd November 2006, 11:47 AM

you have failed to convince anyone here.

You gave me a one line answer. I asked if you could give me a little more than one line. Please think about this and give me a well thought out answer. I'm still waiting.

You are generalizing and your words prove it because you cannot know what you assert, which puts your position in error. Why should I try to justify your error with more than is needed to correct it. If you cannot see the humor in my first answer, then a second any greater than this would be a waste.

Arus808

22nd November 2006, 11:50 AM

You are generalizing and your words prove it because you cannot know what you assert, which puts your position in error. Why should I try to justify your error with more than is needed to correct it. If you cannot see the humor in my first answer, then a second any greater than this would be a waste.

Translation : Im writing this nonsensical paragraph, since you hate one line answers. But in doing so, Im again not making any point nor answering your questions, so please note my sidestepping once again.

Arkan_Wolfshade

22nd November 2006, 11:52 AM

twinstead

22nd November 2006, 11:57 AM

I think even Gahndi called someone an idiot at one time or another.

Hey, I'll tell you the same thing I told him: I didn't mean to dump that plate of vindaloo chicken into his lap. He didn't have to call me names...

tsig

22nd November 2006, 12:06 PM

You are generalizing and your words prove it because you cannot know what you assert, which puts your position in error. Why should I try to justify your error with more than is needed to correct it. If you cannot see the humor in my first answer, then a second any greater than this would be a waste.

You are specializing and your words prove it because you cannot know what you assert, hich puts your position in error. Why should I try to justify your error with more than is needed to correct it. If you cannot see the humor in my first answer, then a second any greater than this would be a waste

Belz...

22nd November 2006, 12:07 PM

Examine the appearance of well contained blasts used in mountain top removal for a matching appearance to what happenned to the towers.

So because it LOOKS like something, it IS that something ?

No, you are saying that. I'm saying that when it does it looks like it's broken not like it's been sheared .

That was cut during the removal efforts, chris. The fact that YOU can't cut so neatly doesn't mean no one else can. It's been shown to you that demo charges will NOT make so clean a cut.

There was an air of mystery in the documentary at most.

ANOTHER new memory, chris ?

The videographers mentioned "special, anti corrosion, vibration resistant plastic coated rebar"

Their exact words, chris ? 15 years ago ?

By examination of the character of the blasts and ground zero I realized that the explosives had to have been perfefctly centered and distributed.

Not even an expert in explosives could make such a determination. You're eithe lying or deluding yourself.

Belz knows these things and they are scattered throughout the thread.

I know your claims. I also know you refuse to discuss important points when asked to. You call them "minor" or "unimportant" except when YOU use them.

You are generalizing and your words prove it because you cannot know what you assert, which puts your position in error.

Stop talking to yourself, chris. It isn't good for you.

Peter S.

22nd November 2006, 12:13 PM

You are generalizing and your words prove it because you cannot know what you assert, which puts your position in error. Why should I try to justify your error with more than is needed to correct it. If you cannot see the humor in my first answer, then a second any greater than this would be a waste.

How am I generalizing? I do know what I assert because if you had convinced anyone with you evidence they surely would have spoken up by now. No one had, as of yet.

Please address the question:
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 really am very eager to hear your answer.

tsig

22nd November 2006, 02:00 PM

You are confused. You actually think we have courts of law.

We are the law. If we cannot agree on the purpose of law, whoever can interpret what "law" is for for their own purposes.

So far they have killed about 6000 if you count the soldiers, they have removed the Constitution and the courts.

How do you feel about this?

I think it;s great! Why haven't they got you

Oliver

22nd November 2006, 02:03 PM

Big Al

22nd November 2006, 04:19 PM

There was an air of mystery in the documentary at most. The videograpers were producing almost 20 years after the construction oif WTC 1 using contractors and architects fiml and photos of the construction.

The videographers mentioned "special, anti corrosion, vibration resistant plastic coated rebar"

As I said - they let cameramen in to photograph the exposed rebar coated in explosives? Sounds a little sloppy, conspiracy-wise! And how do you get from there to C4 - a military explosive that hadn't been around for long? Why not another explosive? Yet you stated "C4" with an air suggesting absolute knowledge, not a wild stab in the dark, which it sounds like to me.

By examination of the character of the blasts and ground zero I realized that the explosives had to have been perfefctly centered and distributed. After much thought a further realization came to me that the rebar was in the perfect position/distibution, then I remembered the "special plastic coating".

You can tell all that from all that tangled mess? Wow! You have a good eye, my friend. And you still haven't answered the point about using 40-year old explosives. The shelf life of RDX and its derivatives (of which C4 is one) have a ten-year shelf-life, tops.

And one more vital question: why, just why, would the powers-that-were install explosives in a national architectural icon? For a rainy day? Just in case it came in handy?

And they presumably told each new incumbent of this bizarre fact until the day, forty years on, when George W. Bush said "Hey! Explosives in the WTC? Jest what I need to give me an excuse to invade Eye-rack! Y'all crash a couple airliners into them suckers and let my boys do the rest!"

In the interim, every President resisted the urge to blow the towers for whatever reason, and nobody, but nobody, had the slightest pang of conscience and fessed up on their deathbed?

And not one of those CIA/NSA/Government officials who had to be in the know blew the whistle when the towers came down?

And you wonder why we find your assertions difficult to swallow? The Flying Spaghetti Monster looks pretty convincing next to this.

Arus808

22nd November 2006, 04:38 PM

I decided to do some research, but I want to address this to Christophera, if he honestly believes what he saw back in the 80's:

This is on your assertation that the documentary you watched specifically stated that they used C-4 in the construction of the towers.

However, the term C-4 wasn't in the vocabulary yet, and during the time of WTC towers construction. In fact, it wasn't widely available because of our involvement in the Vietnam War. The first time the term C-4 was ever used was in 1971 (long after North Tower was completed and South Tower was halfway built)

Before that, the only other compound that would have been used would have been Semtex (invented in 1966). Plastic Explosives were a "new" technology during this time. In fact it was in 1966 that the WTC towers construction started.

I've researched this extensively and can't find anything that refers to C-4 before 1970.

Just want Christopher to clarify his position about this so called documentary. How can a documentary claim that the buildings were built with C-4 in it, when the term C-4 didn't exist back then?

Second thing I want Chris to address:
Coating c-4 on whatever structure in the wTc towers would do nothing. In fact, c-4 doesn't "work" unless there is a detonator or blasting cap to set off a charge. Planes crashing into a building would not be enough to set the c-4 off. And after 30 years, the "potency" of such explosives would have deteriorated.

And how can c-4 be coated on anything? Have you ever seen c-4? it can't be "coated" over anything. Its a plastic explosive for a reason.

Christophera

22nd November 2006, 06:20 PM

I decided to do some research, but I want to address this to Christophera, if he honestly believes what he saw back in the 80's:

I've stated no less than 4 times in the last 20 pges that the documentary on mentioned a "special anti corrosion, vibration resistant plastic coating". It stated that the reason only welders witha security clearance could execute teh butt welds on the 3" high tensile steel renar was because the coating was flammable.

I realized that the only way to get this effect with high explosives and concrete (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg) is to put the explosives exactly in the center and distribute them optimally throughout the structure.

And how can c-4 be coated on anything? Have you ever seen c-4? it can't be "coated" over anything. Its a plastic explosive for a reason.

Use a solvent like acetone or alcohol, make a slurry, coat the bar, let the solvent evaporate and place the bar in position for forming, then form and pour.

If you had experience as a craftsman you would know these things, if you were reading you would know that the DOC. did not say there were explosives built in.

Arus808

22nd November 2006, 06:25 PM

I've stated no less than 4 times in the last 20 pges that the documentary on mentioned a "special anti corrosion, vibration resistant plastic coating".

And how does this mean that c-4 was used? how did you come to the conlusion that meant this was c-4?

You specifically stated not more than 3 pages ago, that you remember the documentary mentioning c-4. Now are you claiming it didn't?

Why are you flip-flopping?

It stated that the reason only welders witha security clearance could execute teh butt welds on the 3" high tensile steel renar was because the coating was flammable.
Then they wouldn't have used it. This goes to show why yoru claims are nothing more than fabrications. Building materials cannot be flammabe for the reasons you just stated. Becuase of welding.

So, are you claiming now that the documenatry didn't mention c-4 despite not more than 3 pages ago, you said it did?

I realized that the only way to get this effect with high explosives and concrete (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg) is to put the explosives exactly in the center and distribute them optimally throughout the structure.So the documentary didn't mention c-4 then. YOu just came to the conclusion because of a "plastic" coating that it mean c-4?

And by the way, C-4 isn't explosive when hot flame or sparks hit it. So welders (doesn't matter who) and didn't have to be "skilled", could have welded away without affecting it. C-4 when close flame, burns like wood.

switchtech

22nd November 2006, 06:28 PM

Read this switchtech,
Tell your buddy in Afgahnistan that the US government has been INFILTRATED and the infiltrators murdered 3,000 citizens.

I examined your page and many of its links. It took quite a while. I read nothing on your page that proves the US Government has been infiltrated (that isn't to say it hasn't been - but that's another story ;).

algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg
And ask him if it looks like a collapse.

What is it in this picture that makes you think it is not a collapse? It is quite indicative of collapse in my opinion.

Do you/he agree that due process was violated 3,000 times when evidence was removed from the scene and destroyed befor private investigations were conducted.

No. The attempt to recover living people takes paramount priority in such a circumstance. Imagine waiting for private investigators to go over the scene while rescuers wait in the wings to be able to perform search and rescue operations.

Now the 92 year old granny shot down because the police raided the wrong home - that's another story. Certainly her due process was violated - violently.

If the the infiltrated governemtn says, "Sorry, it is a matter of national security and they are blaiming it on Muslims then they already have what they need to know and THERE IS NO RESON TO LIMIT THE PUBLIC INVESTIGATION.

Period.

You're operating from an assumption for which I see no basis in any of the evidence. Of course I never earned a Beyond-Above-Top-Secret clearance, so perhaps i haven't seen all the information.

Your buddies life is on the line for NOTHING.

You are of course welcome to your opinion - and that is what he fights for - the freedoms you and all in the United States should hold dear. Our enemy is a group of extremists that do not represent their religion well (one hopes). Their goal is the total elimination of the infidel: The United States, the rest of the Western World, most of Asia, and of course, anyone else that doesn't toe the Taliban line.

(And as I stated before, whether this is true in Iraq is another question)

Look, I believe that the government has grown too large, that the politicians spend as if it isn't their money (hey, wait . . . it isn't) and that the best government is the government that governs least (to a point anyway - there would be a point where the government governs too little). But there is a large gulf between (a) believing that all government should be held accountable for its actions and viewed with a some lack of trust (they do require oversight) and with (b) the opinion that the government really is out to get us, the spies are every where, the government really is part of some new world order, and that all hope is lost.

We aren't living in a Tom Clancy novel.

The buildings were built to demolish. Send him and all the GI's here.

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

The should know what well contianed, optimally placed and distributed high explosives look like when detonated in a high speed series of delays.

I still don't see any credible evidence for your charges. Hearsay and unprovable arguments do not count as evidence, credible or otherwise.

The actions of thermite are extraordinarily similar to molten aluminum. If major sections of the aluminum alloy from the aircraft metal melted, as is very likely they did, and then met with the gypsum drywall, some water from broken water pipes and whatever remained of the fire suppression system, concrete or a number of other things molten aluminum alloy 2024 really likes to react with, then the exothermic reactions would have given rise to much higher temperatures, and exactly the damage seen in your video excerpts. Remember, aluminum alloy 2024 melts at 550 degrees C give or take - right in line with burning jet fuel plus available furniture and other combustibles.

We need our soldiers BACK here. We need their courage and expertise. Their commander and chief has already been implicated by blocking invetigations. That part of their oath they can forego.

Focus on the Constitution and lawful performance from the BEGINNING or there will be no more Constitution.

Actually, with this I agree - mostly. I disagree where we are relative to the destruction of the Constitution (especially given the recent elections). We can't just pull the troops now that they've been committed - they have to complete the job - they have to win the war - otherwise they are risking their lives in vain.

jbs

switchtech

22nd November 2006, 06:36 PM

And you wonder why we find your assertions difficult to swallow? The Flying Spaghetti Monster looks pretty convincing next to this.

Hey, man! Don't be dissin' the FSM!

jbs

Christophera

22nd November 2006, 06:39 PM

How am I generalizing? I do know what I assert because if you had convinced anyone with you evidence they surely would have spoken up by now. No one had, as of yet.

Please address the question:
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 really am very eager to hear your answer.

People that can realize the truth about the demolition of the towers are also afraid so do not speak up.

Most people do not want to know they accept any explanation except one that has as a part of it what they do not want to know. They do not want to know because it makes them afraid and also if they knew, and they care about their country they should do somethig about it. That really makes them afraid. They are afraid of their government, they are afraid of the intelligence agencies and they are afraid of what their neighbors and co-workers think.

Your questions are answered. Now answer mine.

Why do you think no one has been able to produce a picture of the steel core columns in the core area at some elevation above the ground from the demolition images?

Arus808

22nd November 2006, 06:41 PM

People that can realize the truth about the demolition of the towers are also afraid so do not speak up.

and that's you generalizing that such people exist. why , five years later are they still afraid?

Christophera

22nd November 2006, 06:43 PM

I've stated no less than 4 times in the last 20 pges that the documentary had only mentioned a "special anti corrosion, vibration resistant plastic coating"

And how does this mean that c-4 was used? how did you come to the conlusion that meant this was c-4?

You specifically stated not more than 3 pages ago, that you remember the documentary mentioning c-4. Now are you claiming it didn't?

I've never stated that. You must prove it.

Christophera

22nd November 2006, 06:45 PM

and that's you generalizing that such people exist. why , five years later are they still afraid?

Because there is no realistic, feasible. comprehesive explanation for what happened and people would rather support a war based on lies than confront the truth.

Christophera

22nd November 2006, 06:47 PM

Suddenly the documentary didn't only mention the concrete core, but also the C4, then the problems with this and that that "proves" the rebar thing, then when we corner him about the other doc, the 1990 one mentioned it, so in his universe he can believe it's been debunked, etc.

You will have to prove this or be guilty of misrepresentation. Come back with links please.

Christophera

22nd November 2006, 06:49 PM

Christophera

22nd November 2006, 06:53 PM

I examined your page and many of its links. It took quite a while. I read nothing on your page that proves the US Government has been infiltrated (that isn't to say it hasn't been - but that's another story ;).

What is it in this picture (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg) that makes you think it is not a collapse? It is quite indicative of collapse in my opinion.

Collapses have large intact pieces falling away from not yet collapsed portions and the dust doesn't happen to any great degree until things hit the ground. What you are seeing is pulverized plumes of sand, gravel, dust trailing and a few larger chunks of debris flying outward and up.

Christophera

22nd November 2006, 06:55 PM

That is not an explosion (caused by explosives)*. You see that is the problem with just looking at still images. They can be decieving. If you look at the video you would have noticed that the trails appear to arc upward and out from the center because the debris collapsing in the core area sucked the air down toward the center. Look at the videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rsXvK7-l9E
In this video the dust trail looks like it is actuall rolling back toward the center.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFtzTQKRspY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRakw3hwPls
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCSXco-bPNo

In each of those videos notice how all the smoke, dust and debris in the center of the building actually gets sucked down in toward the center thus giving the appearance of debris being shot out upward and out from the center.

Do you see now the problem with just interpreting still images?

* I added this because not all explosions are caused by explosives

None of the pulverized debris seen in videos should be seen until material hit the ground. And then no where near as much would be seen.

Christophera

22nd November 2006, 06:59 PM

Chris, that sheared (http://www.parrhesia.com/wtc/wtc066.jpg) steel obviously has been cut by workmen for removal from the site. It been cut to a uniform length and is already stacked for moving. Further example of you inability to properly interpret images.

Here we see them:

Come up with the method used for cutting them. I'm familiar with every method that exists and what is seen is far too smooth for any of them under those conditions. Then, after you find that method, and there are 1 or 2, show that demolition crews use them.

They do not. The methods are far too slow and require large amounts of set up time and are only used for cutting pieces prior to fabrication.

The image you post does not show columns that are inside the core area. It shows interior box columns which are outside the concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) of the core and fastened to it.

I'm telling you this to save you time, but go look anyway.

maccy

22nd November 2006, 07:01 PM

Chris,

10 posts a day for six months. Is it really worth it?

Gravy

22nd November 2006, 07:03 PM

Christophera

22nd November 2006, 07:06 PM

It stated that the reason only welders with a security clearance could execute the butt welds on the 3" high tensile steel rebar was because the coating was flammable.

Then they wouldn't have used it. This goes to show why yoru claims are nothing more than fabrications. Building materials cannot be flammabe for the reasons you just stated. Becuase of welding.

Welders with a security clearance can be told that the coating is a high explosive and they will keep the secret. It is safe to weld the steel after scraping the C4 off and shielding the C4 off the margin with woven stainless steel fabric over steel foil.

So, are you claiming now that the documenatry didn't mention c-4 despite not more than 3 pages ago, you said it did?

Prove this. Post a link.

Christophera

22nd November 2006, 07:07 PM

tsig

22nd November 2006, 07:12 PM

[QUOTE=Christophera]
You are generalizing and your words prove it because you cannot know what you assert, which puts your position in error. Why should I try to justify your error with more than is needed to correct it. If you cannot see the humor in my first answer, then a second any greater than this would be a waste.[/QUOTE

We are so impressed by your articulation.

yeh I like his bones too.

hellaeon

22nd November 2006, 07:27 PM

is there a way to ignore threads and not just people?

HAHAHAHA I just noticed 'realistice' is one of the tags for this thread

Peter S.

22nd November 2006, 07:31 PM

People that can realize the truth about the demolition of the towers are also afraid so do not speak up.

Most people do not want to know they accept any explanation except one that has as a part of it what they do not want to know. They do not want to know because it makes them afraid and also if they knew, and they care about their country they should do somethig about it. That really makes them afraid. They are afraid of their government, they are afraid of the intelligence agencies and they are afraid of what their neighbors and co-workers think.

Your questions are answered. Now answer mine.

Why do you think no one has been able to produce a picture of the steel core columns in the core area at some elevation above the ground from the demolition images?

Asking that question at the end of your post makes me think you have not been paying attention. I have not, and will not discuss your theories. I leave that for others to debate. I have no interest in arguing those things with you. I am trying to get some other things from you and I thank you for your answer.

So you believe that it is fear that is keeping us from accepting your explanations of the pictures you keep posting? Interesting. Do you really think that everyone here is that terrified? We are skeptics here, and the word skeptic is not a synonym for naysayer. I'm willing to bet that most of us here would be willing to give up our most cherished ideas if we were given compelling evidence that we are wrong. You give us everything you have, you fail to convince us, and you think it is because we are afraid. Perhaps you should see if you can come up with some more compelling evidence.

TellyKNeasuss

22nd November 2006, 07:35 PM

switchtech

22nd November 2006, 07:37 PM

Asking that question at the end of your post makes me think you have not been paying attention.

I think the funny bit revolves around the compelling evidence for a steel core on his very own web site.

jbs

Christophera

22nd November 2006, 07:43 PM

Asking that question at the end of your post makes me think you have not been paying attention. I have not, and will not discuss your theories. I leave that for others to debate. I have no interest in arguing those things with you. I am trying to get some other things from you and I thank you for your answer.

So you believe that it is fear that is keeping us from accepting your explanations of the pictures you keep posting? Interesting. Do you really think that everyone here is that terrified? We are skeptics here, and the word skeptic is not a synonym for naysayer. I'm willing to bet that most of us here would be willing to give up our most cherished ideas if we were given compelling evidence that we are wrong. You give us everything you have, you fail to convince us, and you think it is because we are afraid. Perhaps you should see if you can come up with some more compelling evidence.

If you cannot observe, or explain why my opposition in this discussion of a feasible and realistic explanation for near free fall has no evidence of the structure they assert stood which has everything to do with near the rate of fall, then this discussion with you is over.

Christophera

22nd November 2006, 07:47 PM

I apologize for jumping into this thread after not reading the first 199 pages, but do I understand correctly that there was a top secret project to coat the rebar with plastic explosives that they let a documentary film crew photograph and show on public television???

I do not beleive that the architects and contractors knew about the explosives and so had cameramen documenting the construction.

The documentary mentioned nothing about the explosives. I understand explosives and that THIS (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg) cannot be caused in any other way except for optimally contained, placed and distributed explosives throughout concrete.

Christophera

22nd November 2006, 07:49 PM

I think the funny bit revolves around the compelling evidence for a steel core on his very own web site.

jbs

It's only compelling if you ignore the fact that no image of the steel core columns exists and the images of the concrete are many and the statements about the concrete core from uninterested sources.

Your brain is being selective.

TellyKNeasuss

22nd November 2006, 07:57 PM

I do not beleive that the architects and contractors knew about the explosives and so had cameramen documenting the construction.

And whoever it was who planted the explosives knew that none of the architects or contractors knew anything about explosives and would recognize the plastic explosives, so "they" had no problem leaving the explosives exposed? And "they" knew that none of the architects and contractors would ever mention this funny plastic coating to anyone who might recognize that they were describing plastic explosives?

jsfisher

22nd November 2006, 08:00 PM

Christophera

22nd November 2006, 08:05 PM

And whoever it was who planted the explosives knew that none of the architects or contractors knew anything about explosives and would recognize the plastic explosives, so "they" had no problem leaving the explosives exposed? And "they" knew that none of the architects and contractors would ever mention this funny plastic coating to anyone who might recognize that they were describing plastic explosives?

There was nothing "exposed" about the explosives. The site had heavy security and the rebar was kept in its own locked container with a security guard, That was a part of the video. I'm sure teh architect and contractors did mention the "special plastic coating". So what? It's a government building and everybody knows the crazy specs that are imposed on government construction projects.

The videograpers did impart a sense of mystery about the coating on the rebar and the initially un announced evacuations of the flor before concrete was due to be poured.

Christophera

22nd November 2006, 08:07 PM

TellyKNeasuss, You are letting yourself get sucked into this morass. Save yourself; turn back now; or at least post images of small, furry creatures.

Are you trying to induce a mysterious fear in a poster who asks reasonable questions?

uruk

22nd November 2006, 08:11 PM

None of the pulverized debris seen in videos should be seen until material hit the ground. And then no where near as much would be seen.

Right. Like stressed steel breaking and colliding with each other isin't going to break apart drywall, concrete, ceiling tile, ceramic tile, insulation, not to mention 40 years worth of dust and dirt build up in plenums and air ducts.

You really need to some thinking Chris.

Peter S.

22nd November 2006, 08:12 PM

If you cannot observe, or explain why my opposition in this discussion of a feasible and realistic explanation for near free fall has no evidence of the structure they assert stood which has everything to do with near the rate of fall, then this discussion with you is over.

That is a shame. I was looking forward to a spirited discussion about why we interpret your evidence differently than you do, (without actually debating the evidence itself).

Perhaps I can interest you in discussing another topic. Have you read "The Carlos Swett Affair" (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=33&highlight=the+carlos+swett+affair)? It's an older thread which you probably have not stumbled upon. It's a little hard to read now since some of the people who posted there, including Carlos himself, have had their accounts removed. Still, it's an interesting read.

Do you see any similarities between that thread and this one?

hcmom

22nd November 2006, 08:15 PM

Christophera

22nd November 2006, 08:15 PM

Ahem.

People, I implore you not to continue this. It does not appear to be a healthy situation for anyone.

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

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1895911&postcount=3039

The link doesn't work to the post. What I've said is relating to the reason this rebar (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) is staill standing while the concreete has obviously been blown off of it. Some poster was asking why. I explained that the rebar had been left exposed for months and the "special, anti corrosion, virbration resistent plastic coating" had ost its viability and the documentary actually had that information, not that the coating was explosive. I didn't actually qualify which of that information was in the documentary.

You can present misinterpretations of people statements out of context when those persons are forced to produce unreasonable amounts of explanation. That is what you are attempting.

Gravy

22nd November 2006, 08:17 PM

As an example of why people shouldn't try to argue with Chris Brown, I present this reminder from the page you're reading. Please don't encourage Chris. He's not acting.

The documentary mentioned nothing about the explosives.
The RDX [explosive] on the vertical bar was exposed for months due to bad weather, the documentary actually had this information, and the concrete was poured before the "special plastic anti corrosion/vibration coating" was tested. After testing it was determined that it was no longer viable as a protectant. Removal of the concrete was considered but the cost and delay was too much so constrcution continued.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1895911&postcount=3039 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=3039)

uruk

22nd November 2006, 08:18 PM

Come up with the method used for cutting them. I'm familiar with every method that exists and what is seen is far too smooth for any of them under those conditions. Then, after you find that method, and there are 1 or 2, show that demolition crews use them.

They do not. The methods are far too slow and require large amounts of set up time and are only used for cutting pieces prior to fabrication.

The image you post does not show columns that are inside the core area. It shows interior box columns which are outside the concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) of the core and fastened to it.

I'm telling you this to save you time, but go look anyway.

Tell you what you show me pictures of rebar coated with C4 and workers installing detonators , and while your at it show me pictures of workers pouring the cement in the core. Think about that for awhile.

The picture does show colums from inside the core. Look at the position of the columns that are falling over to the right.
But that's beside the point. the picture shows Steel columns in the core and no concrete. The steel colums wouln't be there at all if there was a concrete wall behind them filled with C4 that exploded.

jsfisher

22nd November 2006, 08:19 PM

Are you trying to induce a mysterious fear in a poster who asks reasonable questions?
Most of the questions asked, here, have been reasonable. The responses, however, from you have not.

uruk

22nd November 2006, 08:23 PM

As an example of why people shouldn't try to argue with Chris Brown, I present this reminder from the page you're reading. Please don't encourage Chris. He's not acting.

Chris caught in an outright lie. Proof of his dishonesty.
Thanks Gravy!

Christophera

22nd November 2006, 08:23 PM

I've read this over and over, and it seems like there's a real contradiction.

"Come up with the method used for cutting them." -- Chris would like to be told what method would produce the results shown in picture...

"I'm familiar with every method that exists..." -- Chris is stating that there are no other existing methods...

"...what is seen is far too smooth for any of them under those conditions." -- None of the existing methods would produce these results...

"Then, after you find that method, and there are 1 or 2,..." -- Funny, there weren't any just one sentence ago...

People who know nothing about salvage, construction and steel work can easily mistake my effort to be efficient with words for contradictions.

There are 2 ways you might produce a cut that smooth in tempered steel.

1. A bandsaw. There will be teeth marks and a very square edge. We see a slightly rounded edge, no teeth marks and a curious red tint indicating high heat.

2. A plasma cutter on a mechanised cutting table. This method can leave a cut very similar to what is seen with not quite as much rounding to the edge. It will not leave the red tint and is completely cost prohibitive for demoliton salvage. Never. This cutting method is used in large fabrication facilities to cut plate, just about exclusively.

The methods used for cutting thick tempered steel in tube form is always a hand held cutting torch.

Explosive shear on left, torch cut on right.
Sheared & Torch Cut Columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc.box.shear.torch.gif)

maccy

22nd November 2006, 08:25 PM

Chris, I don't understand what you're getting out of arguing with everybody else.

Everybody else, I don't understand what you're getting out of arguing with Chris.

Christophera

22nd November 2006, 08:27 PM

Ahem.

People, I implore you not to continue this. It does not appear to be a healthy situation for anyone.

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

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1895911&postcount=3039

The link doesn't work to the post. What I've said is relating to the reason this rebar (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) is still standing while the concreete has obviously been blown off of it. Some poster was asking why. I explained that the rebar had been left exposed for months and the "special, anti corrosion, virbration resistent plastic coating" had lost its viability and the documentary actually had that information, not that the coating was explosive. I didn't actually qualify which of that information was in the documentary. The horizontal rebar tied to the vertical later blew the concrete off.

You can present misinterpretations of people statements out of context when those persons are forced to produced unreasonable amounts of explanation. That is what you are attempting.

Gravy

22nd November 2006, 08:28 PM

The link doesn't work to the post. What I've said is relating to the reason this rebar (http://home.comcast.net/%7Ejeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) is staill standing while the concreete has obviously been blown off of it. Some poster was asking why. I explained that the rebar had been left exposed for months and the "special, anti corrosion, virbration resistent plastic coating" had ost its viability and the documentary actually had that information, not that the coating was explosive. I didn't actually qualify which of that information was in the documentary.

You can present misinterpretations of people statements out of context when those persons are forced to produce unreasonable amounts of explanation. That is what you are attempting.The link is fixed.

Consider:
If you are going to design an exploding building and build it safely you build it so that it is segmented and one segment does not detonate an adjoining segement. If one goes off, it stops there. You have to make each segment have separate detonators.

The different systems were; Reinforced concrete core had RDX coated rebar, floors had it in the corrugations and there was a special dual plate system that was built into the floors to cut columns, ( EXPLO. shear & torch Cut on columns left shear, right torch. http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-57426-p-18.html

The RDX on the vertical bar was exposed for months due to bad weather, the documentary actually had this information... http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1895911&postcount=3039

People, do you see why it's not a good idea to argue with a mentally ill person?

uruk

22nd November 2006, 08:32 PM

The link doesn't work to the post. What I've said is relating to the reason this rebar (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) is still standing while the concreete has obviously been blown off of it. Some poster was asking why. I explained that the rebar had been left exposed for months and the "special, anti corrosion, virbration resistent plastic coating" had lost its viability and the documentary actually had that information, not that the coating was explosive. I didn't actually qualify which of that information was in the documentary. The horizontal rebar tied to the vertical later blew the concrete off.

You can present misinterpretations of people statements out of context when those persons are forced to produced unreasonable amounts of explanation. That is what you are attempting.

Terrible attempt at spin. You were caught Chris. Be a man and fess up.

Christophera

22nd November 2006, 08:32 PM

Tell you what you show me pictures of rebar coated with C4 and workers installing detonators , and while your at it show me pictures of workers pouring the cement in the core. Think about that for awhile.

No, and you cannot show a single picture tah shows a steel core columns standing in the core area.

The picture does show colums from inside the core. Look at the position of the columns that are falling over to the right.

Your image shows an interior box column falling towards the core area. The base is obviously of the wall line of interior box columns which are labeled "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) and the rectangel shapes formed by floor beams and interior box columns is easily matched. This the only image that can misinterpreted in this way, so it is not surprising you are trying.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4201&d=1164222728

Christophera

22nd November 2006, 08:40 PM

The link is fixed.

People, do you see why it's not a good idea to argue with a mentally ill person?

You are presenting the statement out of context intentionally. Very dishonest.

I did not qualify which information I was referring to as being presented by the documentary and in context it was clear I was referring to the fact the documentary was describing the fact special plastic coating protectant had lost it's viability.

It is ridiculous to suggest a documentary about the construction of a public building would reveal that explosives were built in and I have not done so, you are distorting and misrepresenting what I wrote.

Gravy

22nd November 2006, 08:47 PM

You are presenting the statement out of context intentionally. Very dishonest.

I did not qualify which information I was referring to as being presented by the documentary and in context it was clear I was referring to the fact the documentary was describing the fact special plastic coating protectant had lost it's viability.

It is ridiculous to suggest a documentary about the construction of a public building would reveal that explosives were built in and I have not done so, you are distorting and misrepresenting what I wrote.

In context (http://forums.randi.org/forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1895662#post1895662), then.

This was no ordinary RDX, oh no, this was super-secret RDX that can only explode in one direction -- away from the rebar. Jeez are you dense? Christophera's reply (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1895911&postcount=3039):
The RDX on the vertical bar was exposed for months due to bad weather, the documentary actually had this information, and the concrete was poured before the "special plastic anti corrosion/vibration coating" was tested. After testing it was determined that it was no longer viable as a protectant. Removal of the concrete was considered but the cost and delay was too much so constrcution continued.

The horizontal bar was tied in and that is what removed the concrete keeping the vertical bar intact. This is the reason the spire exists at all.And again:
The different systems were; Reinforced concrete core had RDX coated rebar, floors had it in the corrugations and there was a special dual plate system that was built into the floors to cut columns, ( EXPLO. shear & torch Cut on columns left shear, right torch. http://forums.randi.org/archive/inde...7426-p-18.html (http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-57426-p-18.html)Please note that I'm not pointing out Christophera's delusions for fun. I'm doing it to demonstrate why it is fruitless to argue with someone who is not in touch with reality.

Please let it go, people. He's ill. We can't fix that.

hcmom

22nd November 2006, 08:47 PM

People who know nothing about salvage, construction and steel work...
You got me there. I know nothing about salvage, construction and steel work.
...can easily mistake my effort to be efficient with words for contradictions.I'm pretty good with words. I can twist and manipulate them about as good as you do facts. I didn't misunderstand your effort. You said something that was a contradiction. You may have meant something other than what you wrote, but that's not all that efficient then...

FramerDave

22nd November 2006, 08:52 PM

It's a government building and everybody knows the crazy specs that are imposed on government construction projects.

Such as? Include links please, and photos if at all possible. Raw data, you know.

uruk

22nd November 2006, 08:57 PM

No, and you cannot show a single picture tah shows a steel core columns standing in the core area.

Your image shows an interior box column falling towards the core area. The base is obviously of the wall line of interior box columns which are labeled "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) and the rectangel shapes formed by floor beams and interior box columns is easily matched. This the only image that can misinterpreted in this way, so it is not surprising you are trying.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4201&d=1164222728

This was the picture Iwas refering to.

Oh. BTW you still haven't delt with the lie Gravy called you out on.

maccy

22nd November 2006, 08:58 PM

Chris,

I agree. This thread has proved that nobody can produce any raw evidence that will convince you. You must also realise that a few people remain here to argue with you no matter what you say. You can post your arguments over and over again and people will still argue.

You can draw your own conclusions about why these people cannot see things the way you see them but I would hope that you'll also see that any lurkers who are amenable to your point of view will already have been convinced by your argument. I think your work here is done.

At 200+ pages, only people who are incapable of seeing things your way will be bothered to even look at this thread. And they will keep arguing, no matter how many times you explain it to them.

Equally, it is clear from viewing any page in this thread that you have never given in and that you do not concede the arguments put against you. The legacy of your position on this is assured, no matter what you do from here on in.

So here's a serious suggestion - take a week off. Don't use the interent if you don't have to. Go for walks. Drive somewhere interesting. Visit friends. Whatever you feel like doing, really.

Come back in a week's time and you'll see that nobody has made any further progress in arguing against you - the history of this thread should tell you that this will be the case, there is nothing new to say.

If, in the unlikely event that you do feel that it's necessary to defend yourself then dive in. Otherwise, take another week off.

If you're worried about your website getting less publicity this way - well this is a fundamentally hostile forum so it's unlikely you're reaching the people you need to reach. Maybe you should print some flyers and hand them out - with serendipity they may find their way into the right hands. In fact, you could just leave them in random places and trust to fate to get them to the right people.

It seems to me that if you're in a deterministic and repressive society you probably need to take a lateral tack to get around the conditioned resistence of the majority. Sort of a Robert Anton Wilson Illuminatus! approach, if you like. Or a Guy Debord situationist attempt to disrupt the society of the spectacle.

Anyway, whatever you decide to do, good luck.

Best wishes

Matthew

maccy

22nd November 2006, 08:59 PM

Oh. BTW you still haven't delt with the lie Gravy called you out on.

Uruk, Gravy wasn't calling Chris out he was asking people to stop arguing with him.

switchtech

22nd November 2006, 09:02 PM

In context (http://forums.randi.org/forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1895662#post1895662), then.

Christophera's reply (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1895911&postcount=3039):
And again:
Please note that I'm not pointing out Christophera's delusions for fun. I'm doing it to demonstrate why it is fruitless to argue with someone who is not in touch with reality.

Please let it go, people. He's ill. We can't fix that.

The arguments remain regardless what we say. We just don't see the same things in the same images. Where I see a slice made by a cut-off saw that rusted, he sees an explosive separation event. I think the more we argue the further apart our visions become.

I tried to see his forest for all the trees but could not. Come to think of it, I don't see the trees, either.

Apparently you can't save them all.

jbs

tsig

22nd November 2006, 09:21 PM

The arguments remain regardless what we say. We just don't see the same things in the same images. Where I see a slice made by a cut-off saw that rusted, he sees an explosive separation event. I think the more we argue the further apart our visions become.

I tried to see his forest for all the trees but could not. Come to think of it, I don't see the trees, either.

Apparently you can't save them all.

jbs

give it up

you can't even save yourself.

Christophera

22nd November 2006, 09:32 PM

uruk

22nd November 2006, 09:33 PM

Uruk, Gravy wasn't calling Chris out he was asking people to stop arguing with him.

Good luck with that.
A weird thing happens when you start responding to Chris. It's akin to morbid curiosity. It's disgusting but you can't tear yourself away. I've tried leaving this thread four times before, but it keeps drawing me back.

It'll get to you too. You'll see.

jsfisher

22nd November 2006, 09:35 PM

I've tried leaving this thread four times before, but it keeps drawing me back.
Maybe images of puppies and kittens will save you.

hcmom

22nd November 2006, 09:36 PM

Good luck with that.
A weird thing happens when you start responding to Chris. It's akin to mobid curiosity. It's disgusting but you can't tear yourself away. I've tried leaving this thread four times before, but it keeps drawing me back.

It'll get to you too. You'll see.

This is possibly the most truthful post here.

Christophera

22nd November 2006, 09:38 PM

This was the picture Iwas refering to.

Oh. BTW you still haven't delt with the lie Gravy called you out on.

I dealt with Gravy's attempt to present mt statement our of context.

The absurd notion that I was trying to say a TV documentary presented the construction of a public building with built in explosives is enough.

Your image shows an interior box column tilting off the line of the wall of interior box columns not a steel core column.

If there were steel core columns they would be protruding from the core of WTC 2 (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) which is totally intact from the 43rd floor or so down.

Christophera

22nd November 2006, 09:40 PM

Good luck with that.
A weird thing happens when you start responding to Chris. It's akin to morbid curiosity. It's disgusting but you can't tear yourself away. I've tried leaving this thread four times before, but it keeps drawing me back.

It'll get to you too. You'll see.

It shows how badly you do not want to know this truth.

The more you argue the more you see the truth, the less you want to know it, the more you have to argue.

It is your unconscious homer.

maccy

22nd November 2006, 09:43 PM

It shows how badly you do not want to know this truth.

The more you argue the more you see the truth, the less you want to know it, the more you have to argue.

It is your unconscious homer.

Do you see why I'm suggesting a leteral approach?

You're meeting a lot of resistance going at this head on.

uruk

22nd November 2006, 09:45 PM

Maybe images of puppies and kittens will save you.

If by pictures of puppies you mean pictures of Halle Berry and by pictures of kittens you mean pictures of Rachel Weisz................. Possibly

delphi_ote

22nd November 2006, 09:47 PM

Please let it go, people. He's ill. We can't fix that.
You're right, Gravy. You really are.

Maybe we're ill in our own way, too. These 200+ pages aren't the product of one mind.

uruk

22nd November 2006, 09:47 PM

It shows how badly you do not want to know this truth.

The more you argue the more you see the truth, the less you want to know it, the more you have to argue.

It is your unconscious homer.

No, it shows how freakishly bad your arguments are and the desire to get you to see reality is hard to resist.

uruk

22nd November 2006, 09:55 PM

I dealt with Gravy's attempt to present mt statement our of context.
No you didn't. You tried to spin it.

The absurd notion that I was trying to say a TV documentary presented the construction of a public building with built in explosives is enough. Well you were the one who said it.:

Christophera's reply:

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

The horizontal bar was tied in and that is what removed the concrete keeping the vertical bar intact. This is the reason the spire exists at all.

And again:

Quote:
The different systems were; Reinforced concrete core had RDX coated rebar, floors had it in the corrugations and there was a special dual plate system that was built into the floors to cut columns, ( EXPLO. shear & torch Cut on columns left shear, right torch. http://forums.randi.org/archive/inde...7426-p-18.html

Your image shows an interior box column tilting off the line of the wall of interior box columns not a steel core column. Look closer. the three columns that are falling over are within the core area.

If there were steel core columns they would be protruding from the core of WTC 2 (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) which is totally intact from the 43rd floor or so down.
Which they wouldn't be if there were explosives in a concrete wall behind them.

Christophera

22nd November 2006, 10:03 PM

No you didn't. You tried to spin it.

Well you were the one who said it.:

Yes and it is presented out of context.

Do you think it is credible to say a documentary showed a public building being built with high explosives in side of it?

Look closer. the three columns that are falling over are within the core area.

Which they wouldn't be if there were explosives in a concrete wall behind them.

The angle of those columns projected downward places them in the same line of interior box columns seen on the left.

The steel wouldn't be damaged by that. The explosives would have to be in direct contact. If there were enough explosives uncontained on the supposed 47 steel core columns to cut them the concrete wouldn't be there. Placing those explosives would not be as easy as you might think either.

Still, have you found a credible, feasible explanation for near free fall and total pulverization that can beat,

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

uruk

22nd November 2006, 10:09 PM

You're right, Gravy. You really are.

Maybe we're ill in our own way, too. These 200+ pages aren't the product of one mind.

Alright! alright. I'll go into rehab.

Christophera

22nd November 2006, 11:00 PM

Do you see why I'm suggesting a leteral approach?

You're meeting a lot of resistance going at this head on.

Okay, you do it head on and I'll come in from the side.

I'm totally aware of what I'm attempting to do, and I believe I'm trying to do it in the right place. Americans have a psychological problem. Why do you think I put my 9-11 demo site in the /psych/ directory?

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

I knew from the beginning that the denial was immense. A psychological monstrosity, but one that must be challenged never the less.

What I said to homer goes for all of you and your inability to let this argument go.

It shows how badly you do not want to know this truth.

The more you argue the more you see the truth, the less you want to know it, the more you have to argue.

It is your unconscious homer.

For me it is different but just as intense. I know how important the truth is for you even though you don't want to know it. This is so because I know it is the truth.

Recall a TV series called the "Marathon Man"? There was a line in it that I will never forget. I do believe that very important information is leaked to us through art, film, literature and music.

"Will you still want to know the truth after you learn it is something you do not want to know?"

delphi_ote

22nd November 2006, 11:31 PM

Americans have a psychological problem.
All of them?

hcmom

22nd November 2006, 11:33 PM

All of them?
OMG!! I think he can see me!

NobbyNobbs

23rd November 2006, 12:46 AM

stundie

23rd November 2006, 01:45 AM

Stundie.......What do you think of the OP's (christophera's) concrete core/embedded c4 theory?

If Christophera really believes that, then he is one of the few who have let the conspiracy goto his head. I certainly do not think that this is the case. I believe that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition but they were not planted in the construction. Put Scott Forbes & William Rodriguez into too google to find out more on that Theory.

Big Les

23rd November 2006, 03:36 AM

If Christophera really believes that, then he is one of the few who have let the conspiracy goto his head. I certainly do not think that this is the case. I believe that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition but they were not planted in the construction. Put Scott Forbes & William Rodriguez into too google to find out more on that Theory.

I don't know, in a way I'd rather listen to Chris' arguments. They're so much more pure of intention and innocent than those of the (arguably) more sane members of your "movement". I guess I'm repelled by calculating social inadequates with an agenda, more than I am by someone who is genuinely suffering from paranoid delusions and should be afforded help by medical professionals.

PerryLogan

23rd November 2006, 03:47 AM

Judging from his last post, Chris can even read minds. The belief that they can read people's minds seems to be common amongst conspiracy folks.

I once heard Alex Jones say he knew what people were going to say before they finished speaking. No wonder we can't get through to these people.

OFFICIAL END OF THREAD

Belz...

23rd November 2006, 04:53 AM

I realized that the only way to get this effect with high explosives and concrete (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg) is to put the explosives exactly in the center and distribute them optimally throughout the structure.

You realised wrong. Stop looking at still pictures.

Use a solvent like acetone or alcohol, make a slurry, coat the bar, let the solvent evaporate and place the bar in position for forming, then form and pour.

If you had experience as a craftsman you would know these things, if you were reading you would know that the DOC. did not say there were explosives built in.

Are you sure you can do that with C4 ?

Belz...

23rd November 2006, 05:01 AM

You will have to prove this or be guilty of misrepresentation. Come back with links please.

Sorry, chris. YOUR claim. You're the one that claims this documentary exists and YOU're the one that keeps adding new stuff to it. Either prove it exists or retract your claim. I don't give a damn if I'm guilty of anything in your mind.

You have just totally misrepresented stundie's post.

I was beign sarcastic. Boy you ARE dense.

What you are seeing is pulverized plumes of sand, gravel, dust trailing and a few larger chunks of debris flying outward and up.

On that still, sure. Watch the video, instead.

I'm familiar with every method that exists and what is seen is far too smooth for any of them under those conditions.

Other people also familiar with those methods have disagreed with you on this thread.

Your brain is being selective.

:i:

Belz...

23rd November 2006, 07:09 AM

I think the funny bit revolves around the compelling evidence for a steel core on his very own web site.

It's only compelling if you ignore the fact that no image of the steel core columns exists and the images of the concrete are many and the statements about the concrete core from uninterested sources.

Or dust.

There was nothing "exposed" about the explosives. The site had heavy security and the rebar was kept in its own locked container with a security guard, That was a part of the video.

So, no architect objected to having highly-flammable material as part of the structure ?

Your image shows an interior box column falling towards the core area.

What, no rebar ? How can rebar APPEAR in the following picture ?

Still, have you found a credible, feasible explanation for near free fall and total pulverization

Minor points.

It shows how badly you do not want to know this truth.

The more you argue the more you see the truth, the less you want to know it, the more you have to argue.

That doesn't even make sense.

maccy

23rd November 2006, 08:23 AM

Okay, you do it head on and I'll come in from the side.

I'm totally aware of what I'm attempting to do, and I believe I'm trying to do it in the right place. Americans have a psychological problem. Why do you think I put my 9-11 demo site in the /psych/ directory?

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

I knew from the beginning that the denial was immense. A psychological monstrosity, but one that must be challenged never the less.

What I said to homer goes for all of you and your inability to let this argument go.

It shows how badly you do not want to know this truth.

The more you argue the more you see the truth, the less you want to know it, the more you have to argue.

It is your unconscious homer.

For me it is different but just as intense. I know how important the truth is for you even though you don't want to know it. This is so because I know it is the truth.

Recall a TV series called the "Marathon Man"? There was a line in it that I will never forget. I do believe that very important information is leaked to us through art, film, literature and music.

"Will you still want to know the truth after you learn it is something you do not want to know?"

I just don't think you're going to do much about this denial by arguing directly with a bunch of skeptics - the stubbornest people on the planet. Also directly confronting people makes them defensive. Perhaps your efforts are best directed at people who are likely to be susceptable? And that by gentle persuasion and storytelling rather than hitting them head on with arguments that they can only rationalise to be crazy. Surely imparting the information a little at a time will give them a chance to become aware of what's what?

That's why I thought random flyers would be a good idea, keep it simple, put one or two things on the flyer that will give a gentle push to peoples consciousness. Leave the flyers in random places - cafes, busses, libraries etc - try and get a wide distribution. Because you're not confronting people directly - all the will see is an intersting looking piece of paper, lying somewhere. This means that they will approach it in a spirit of curiosity rather than a spirit of confrontation - and be more receptive to the ideas that it contains.

Another way would be storytelling - people are naturally inclined to suspend their resistence and to believe in a story, that is the way to enoy it. If you worte fictional stoies that nevertheless describe the truth and got them into magazines, fanzines and webzines then people would read them and absorb the ideas within them. That way, when, confonted with the facts they are more likely to resist them because of what society expects.

By arguing here you are trying persaude maybe 20 people who are determined not to believe you. There's a whole world out there, perhaps your energies would be more productively used elsewhere?

Peter S.

23rd November 2006, 08:28 AM

I think I have to agree with Gravy. Enough is enough. Christophera is sick, and there's not much we can do to help him. In fact, even though I know it's not generally JREF policy, I'm wondering if an admin shouldn't close this thread. I know Christophera will view that as a victory of sorts, and I'm ok with that. But come on, people, please stop feeding the animals, especially when they're rabid.

There is precedent for closing down threads such as this. I had asked Chris to take a look at "The Carlos Swett Affair" (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=33&highlight=the+carlos+swett+affair) thread, which bears striking similarities to this one. That thread was closed, and it only went for 35 pages.

Chris, have you read that thread? I would be interested in hearing what you think about it before the admins shut down this one too!

maccy

23rd November 2006, 08:31 AM

There is precident for closing down threads such as this. I had asked Chris to take a look at "The Carlos Swett Affair" (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=33&highlight=the+carlos+swett+affair) thread, which bears striking similarities to this one

I think that if this thread is closed down then Chris will just open another one. The only way I can see this ending is if

1. Chris stops posting;

2. everybody else stops posting; or

3. Chris is banned.

3 is not going to happen, and nor should it.

I think it's in Chris' best ineterests to stop posting on this thread and I hope that eveyone else can aid in this by not arguing with him.

And, with that, I'm out.

Belz...

23rd November 2006, 09:04 AM

I just don't think you're going to do much about this denial by arguing directly with a bunch of skeptics - the stubbornest people on the planet.

Actually, I think skeptics are the least stubborn ones, because they lean where the evidence points; instead of sticking with preconceived notions.

Also directly confronting people makes them defensive.

This thread is a prime example.

Perhaps your efforts are best directed at people who are likely to be susceptable?

You're not helping, maccy. This disease need not be spread.

billydkid

23rd November 2006, 09:17 AM

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

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

My understanding (and I could be wrong) is that two large aircraft crashed into them.

Christophera

23rd November 2006, 09:49 AM

All of them?

No, that IS a generalization. Those who cannot use evidence showing a concrete core (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html) but have no evidence of 47 1,300 foot steel core columns from images of the demolition are the leadership.

Christophera

23rd November 2006, 09:50 AM

You realised wrong. Stop looking at still pictures.

Are you sure you can do that with C4 ?

Nearly all plastics are soluable in some solvent. Acetone I believe will cut it.

Christophera

23rd November 2006, 09:54 AM

That doesn't even make sense.

The unconscious does not make sense.

Garb

23rd November 2006, 09:56 AM

The unconscious does not make sense.

That had nothing to do with the unconscious mind.

Christophera

23rd November 2006, 10:02 AM

My understanding (and I could be wrong) is that two large aircraft crashed into them.

That only explains holes in the towers and fires, perhaps at the most the top falling off of a tower.

The towers were built much stronger than FEMA and NIST assert. They do not use images of the demolition to explain the event, which is not logical because that is the forensic evidence of the event.

The images are totally incongruent with the official explanation.

The image at bottom shows fine particulate from concrete being thrown out in a heavy, uniform wave hundreds of feet. A collapse has structural members, still connected separating from others and falling off the side or, the entire tower toppling.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4237&stc=1&d=1164304905

Garb

23rd November 2006, 10:07 AM

That only explains holes in the towers and fires, perhaps at the most the top falling off of a tower.

Where would this momentum come from that would be able to push a part of the tower sideways?

The towers were built much stronger than FEMA and NIST assert. They do not use images of the demolition to explain the event, which is not logical because that is the forensic evidence of the event.
That isn't forensic evidence.

The images are totally incongruent with the official explanation.
Sure, with the images that you cherrypick. You use maybe 5 images total, and you do not use any other pictures from that day, or video.

The image at bottom shows fine particulate from concrete being thrown out in a heavy, uniform wave hundreds of feet. A collapse has structural members, still connected separating from others and falling off the side or, the entire tower toppling.
You cannot tell whether is it fine powder, let alone if that powder is concrete.

Christophera

23rd November 2006, 10:10 AM

It shows how badly you do not want to know this truth.

The more you argue the more you see the truth, the less you want to know it, the more you have to argue.

It is your unconscious homer.

That doesn't even make sense.

The unconscious does not make sense.

That had nothing to do with the unconscious mind.

You are not reading, or you do not make sense.

Garb

23rd November 2006, 10:14 AM

You are not reading, or you do not make sense.

How is not wanting to know the truth in your unconsious mind?

Does everyone here have this problem? Is that the only reason none of your theories can stand up to the facts?

Christophera

23rd November 2006, 10:26 AM

Where would this momentum come from that would be able to push a part of the tower sideways?

Your understanding of the event is deficient. "Push" is not possible or needed. Tilt and topple are the words. Tilt from the structure on one side being damaged losing its bearing capacity adn toppling is the normal, expected event.

That isn't forensic evidence.

The images of the demo are as close as you and I are going to get.

Sure, with the images that you cherrypick. You use maybe 5 images total, and you do not use any other pictures from that day, or video.

There are about 17 images that i use to make my point. Seven are from 9-11. Video just is not needed and too difficult to use, except for tis one where emergency personel present at the scene on 9-11 describe detonations "as if it were a demolition".

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

You cannot tell whether is it fine powder, let alone if that powder is concrete.

Are you trying to say that I or anyone should believe steel will be turned to the dust, sand and gravel we know was present?

Big Al

23rd November 2006, 11:01 AM

Are you trying to say that I or anyone should believe steel will be turned to the dust, sand and gravel we know was present?

Are you trying to say that I or anyone should believe that a country should spend countless millions of dollars designing a fantastic structure but deliberately build in a self-destruct system for some unspecified time in the future when they might just need it as an excuse to invade some unknown country?

hcmom

23rd November 2006, 11:42 AM

The towers were built much stronger than FEMA and NIST assert.

Huh? According to you, they were built basically to be able to self-destruct. That would be a weakness in my book....

Belz...

23rd November 2006, 12:04 PM

Nearly all plastics are soluable in some solvent. Acetone I believe will cut it.

You "believe" ?

The unconscious does not make sense.

It also doesn't exist.

That only explains holes in the towers and fires, perhaps at the most the top falling off of a tower.

Let's just say I don't trust your expertise in terms of building demolitions.

The towers were built much stronger than FEMA and NIST assert.

I do believe that's the whole point, isn't it ? Something snapped when you saw the towers collapse. Somehow you're convinced that they couldn't possibly collapse, and the concrete core idea came along to compensate.

Belz...

23rd November 2006, 12:07 PM

Your understanding of the event is deficient. "Push" is not possible or needed. Tilt and topple are the words.

You must've failed your physics classes. In order for it to topple, something has to work against it going downwards.

The images of the demo are as close as you and I are going to get.

Just like they're "close" to beign "raw" evidence ?

Video just is not needed and too difficult to use

Of course. Once you watch the videos the fact that it's a simple collapse seems more obvious.

Are you trying to say that I or anyone should believe steel will be turned to the dust, sand and gravel we know was present?

No one said the steel was turned to dust. We can see lots of it among the rubble.

Belz...

23rd November 2006, 12:08 PM

Huh? According to you, they were built basically to be able to self-destruct. That would be a weakness in my book....

No, no, no! The towers were built to be VERY strong, MUCH MUCH stronger than the NIST claims. Obviously, since they collapsed, they had to have been demolished, which means they were BUILT with self-destruct capabilities to compensate for their great strength!

Of course, why the conspirators didn't just build them with steel and have pig planes crash into them is beyond me.

Powa

23rd November 2006, 12:16 PM

Of course, why the conspirators didn't just build them with steel and have pig planes crash into them is beyond me.
Planes full of pigs? Now that's crazy. I think you've been debating Chris for too long. :D

hcmom

23rd November 2006, 12:21 PM

No, no, no! The towers were built to be VERY strong, MUCH MUCH stronger than the NIST claims. Obviously, since they collapsed, they had to have been demolished, which means they were BUILT with self-destruct capabilities to compensate for their great strength!

Of course, why the conspirators didn't just build them with steel and have pig planes crash into them is beyond me.

Hmmmmm...ok, let me see if I get it...

The towers were built so strong that they had to have self-destruct capabilities built in so they'd be weak enough 40 some odd years later, so that a guy who was 20 years old when they were built would be able to orchestrate the biggest prank ever?

Christophera

23rd November 2006, 01:09 PM

How is not wanting to know the truth in your unconsious mind?

Your unconscious controls you. Even the thoughts you have that say otherwise, giving it more control.

Does everyone here have this problem?

Everyone here has an unconscious mind that controls them, mostly. It is very hard to go against it. You, nobody wants to do that. Often we NEED to.

Is that the only reason none of your theories can stand up to the facts?

You do not want to know the truth so your unconscious has created an attitude for you to percieve from. All of your perceptions are processed by an attitude that your unconscious controls then your conscious fits your perceptions in to that (according to the pre established priorities of the unconscious has created) to make you comfortable with what you think your existence is.

The Greeks had a structure that worked with this in some ways, the Ego and the Id. The Ego serves the Id.

Christophera

23rd November 2006, 01:12 PM

Are you trying to say that I or anyone should believe that a country should spend countless millions of dollars designing a fantastic structure but deliberately build in a self-destruct system for some unspecified time in the future when they might just need it as an excuse to invade some unknown country?

First, the people of New York voted it down perhaps 3 times. Rockefeller pushed it and got it built.

The purposes of the demolition were many.

Christophera

23rd November 2006, 01:17 PM

Huh? According to you, they were built basically to be able to self-destruct. That would be a weakness in my book....

No. Weak would incur liability. Something not under control. The plan is all about control.

Your book was written by them. Trash it. Open your eyes and mind to the truth of the past. Rewrite your book to serve YOU.

tsig

23rd November 2006, 01:17 PM

Your unconscious controls you. Even the thoughts you have that say otherwise, giving it more control.

Everyone here has an unconscious mind that controls them, mostly. It is very hard to go against it. You, nobody wants to do that. Often we NEED to.

You do not want to know the truth so your unconscious has created an attitude for you to percieve from. All of your perceptions are processed by an attitude that your unconscious controls then your conscious fits your perceptions in to that (according to the pre established priorities of the unconscious has created) to make you comfortable with what you think your existence is.

The Greeks had a structure that worked with this in some ways, the Ego and the Id. The Ego serves the Id.

How can you fight aginst the unconscious? We are all doomed. Mankind is doomed. Why argue when we have no choice?

Is this my Ego or my Id?

William Rea

23rd November 2006, 01:19 PM

Where would this momentum come from that would be able to push a part of the tower sideways?

Loss of equilibrium is sufficient to create a sideways movement.

Christophera

23rd November 2006, 01:31 PM

You "believe" ?

Yes, or alcohol. The notable smell which I've read about indicates probably acetone.

It also doesn't exist.

The next time you cannot remember something, tell yourself that again, if you can remember.

I do believe that's the whole point, isn't it ? Something snapped when you saw the towers collapse. Somehow you're convinced that they couldn't possibly collapse, and the concrete core idea came along to compensate.

No, nothing snapped. I recognized a demolition immediately as I've done enough demolition of buildings to know what collapses look like. I bumped them in the right place and they collapsed.

Planes and fires did not pulverize the towers from the top down.

Christophera

23rd November 2006, 01:35 PM

You must've failed your physics classes. In order for it to topple, something has to work against it going downwards.

The tower below the impact point because nothing goes down in a collapse until support is removed. The event went from the top down after it started, go watch a video. Any impression otherwise is intended.

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

hcmom

23rd November 2006, 01:48 PM

No. Weak would incur liability. Something not under control. The plan is all about control.

Your book was written by them. Trash it. Open your eyes and mind to the truth of the past. Rewrite your book to serve YOU.

If it were my book to rewrite, I would have written it to begin with.

This is only my opinion here, but exhorting people to rewrite books to serve themselves is not going to improve the situation any...

tsig

23rd November 2006, 02:20 PM

Yes, or alcohol. The notable smell which I've read about indicates probably acetone.

The next time you cannot remember something, tell yourself that again, if you can remember.

No, nothing snapped. I recognized a demolition immediately as I've done enough demolition of buildings to know what collapses look like. I bumped them in the right place and they collapsed.

Planes and fires did not pulverize the towers from the top down.

WOW Chris the giant destroyer of buildings. Do you do nuecs also?

hcmom

23rd November 2006, 02:27 PM

No, nothing snapped. I recognized a demolition immediately as I've done enough demolition of buildings to know what collapses look like. I bumped them in the right place and they collapsed.

WOW Chris the giant destroyer of buildings. Do you do nuecs also?

I couldn't help but envision something like this... (http://www.iproject.com/softblocks/softblocks.html)

Christophera

23rd November 2006, 02:41 PM

If it were my book to rewrite, I would have written it to begin with.

This is only my opinion here, but exhorting people to rewrite books to serve themselves is not going to improve the situation any...

The past we think we have was rewritten about 50-60 years ago.

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

Something else people don't want to know. Media has been telling them they know the truth all their lives.

Christophera

23rd November 2006, 02:44 PM

How can you fight aginst the unconscious? We are all doomed. Mankind is doomed. Why argue when we have no choice?

Is this my Ego or my Id?

If you think it is your Ego, you are right. Your unconscious knows otherwise and it is in control.

Big Les

23rd November 2006, 02:50 PM

If you think it is your Ego, you are right. Your unconscious knows otherwise and it is in control.

Riiight. So you're saying that as well as everyone else being "in on it", now you are as well? Mate, if you're conspiring with the NWO against yourself, I think you should probably stop resisting; just run with it, you know, see how it works out. At least you'll get your christmas ham delivered by black helicopter; beats the grocery guy.

hcmom

23rd November 2006, 03:34 PM

Your book was written by them. Trash it. Open your eyes and mind to the truth of the past. Rewrite your book to serve YOU.The past we think we have was rewritten about 50-60 years ago.

So what makes you think I'd do a better job?

Christophera

23rd November 2006, 04:30 PM

So what makes you think I'd do a better job?

By serve I mean your needs. Your needs are very similar to everyone elses. Begin by agreeing with them on what is shared. In doing this you create the basis for what NEEDS to be in the re wrtten book. If you/we begin there we cannot go wrong.

Personally, I know the first thing we need is our lives. This is why the first of this short list that is in the position it is, "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happness."

On 9-11 3,000 lost their first need and our infiltrated government stopped due process which engagers now, our need. The truth will protect us.

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

hcmom

23rd November 2006, 04:40 PM

By serve I mean your needs. Your needs are very similar to everyone elses. Begin by agreeing with them on what is shared. In doing this you create the basis for what NEEDS to be in the re wrtten book. If you/we begin there we cannot go wrong.

I know what's being served. I'm curious as to why you think it's ok to rewrite something based on personal needs. You have no way of knowing if my needs are even in the same ballfield as everyone else's.

Christophera

23rd November 2006, 05:11 PM

I know what's being served. I'm curious as to why you think it's ok to rewrite something based on personal needs. You have no way of knowing if my needs are even in the same ballfield as everyone else's.

Those are wants. You will find our needs on a basic level are almost identical.

You have articulated the confusion our educational system and media have created.

NobbyNobbs

23rd November 2006, 05:44 PM

I can't help it. I have to post. It's like a bad addiction.

Yes, or alcohol. The notable smell which I've read about indicates probably acetone.

Isn't acetone flammable? Wouldn't it have burned up when the C-4 went, leaving no trace to smell?

No, nothing snapped. I recognized a demolition immediately as I've done enough demolition of buildings to know what collapses look like. I bumped them in the right place and they collapsed.

Planes and fires did not pulverize the towers from the top down.

You bumped them? What, just back up in your pickup truck and tap them with the bumper?

The tower below the impact point because nothing goes down in a collapse until support is removed. The event went from the top down after it started, go watch a video.

Nothing? Ever? Try this: build a tower out of children's wooden blocks. Then drop a dictionary on the top. The resulting collapse was not due to the removal of supports directly, but to the large amount of energy added to the top...much like when the upper stories collapsed onto the lower ones.

tsig

23rd November 2006, 05:50 PM

Those are wants. You will find our needs on a basic level are almost identical.

I most sincerly hope not.

Christophera

23rd November 2006, 07:18 PM

Those are wants. You will find our needs on a basic level are almost identical.

I most sincerly hope not.

Like I said, the confusion is severe.

Christophera

23rd November 2006, 07:22 PM

Isn't acetone flammable? Wouldn't it have burned up when the C-4 went, leaving no trace to smell?

I refer to the smell soldiers have noted of C4.

You bumped them? What, just back up in your pickup truck and tap them with the bumper?

Very funny. A hydraulic excavator or crawler loader.

Nothing? Ever? Try this: build a tower out of children's wooden blocks. Then drop a dictionary on the top. The resulting collapse was not due to the removal of supports directly, but to the large amount of energy added to the top...much like when the upper stories collapsed onto the lower ones.

You are the first proponent of a space based giant book weapon.

Can you understand that the building took the load historically and there was no space for acceleration so there was no energy added?

tsig

23rd November 2006, 07:26 PM

Like I said, the confusion is severe.

The fog is thick but if you listen for the bell it will work out.

It was gravity, or gravy whatever.

tsig

23rd November 2006, 07:29 PM

I refer to the smell soldiers have noted of C4.

Very funny. A hydraulic excavator or crawler loader.

You are the first proponent of a space based giant book weapon.

Can you understand that the building took the load historically and there was no space for acceleration so there was no energy added?

The space for acceleration happened when the planes destroyed the steel and the fire weakened it.

Christophera

23rd November 2006, 07:40 PM

The space for acceleration happened when the planes destroyed the steel and the fire weakened it.

And, if that happened it was not symetrical and the way it did happen was major weakening would have been on the side where the perimeter walls were cut by plane impact meaning the top would have fallen that way but both tops fell another direction.

Your notion does not make sense.

Christophera

23rd November 2006, 09:34 PM

Chris,

I agree. This thread has proved that nobody can produce any raw evidence that will convince you.

Correct, basically they have no evidence at all. They do have some misrepresented or misunderstood evidence.

Basically, this thread has proven that there is no raw evidence for any core except the steel reinforced, tubular cast concrete core. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

jsfisher

23rd November 2006, 09:51 PM

Basically, this thread has proven that there is no raw evidence for any core except the steel reinforced, tubular cast concrete core. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)
Oh, gee. I thought it had proven that we are all hypnotized by the long-dead Antap who impressed the numbers 21, 22, and 23 on our unconscious (as opposed to subconscious) minds voiding us of free thought and wiping all memory of a emmy-winning 2-hour documentary.

The Antap are headquartered in Santa Barbara, CA.

You live near there, Chris, don't you?

Do the Antap have a concrete core?

Christophera

23rd November 2006, 10:52 PM

Oh, gee. I thought it had proven that we are all hypnotized by the long-dead Antap who impressed the numbers 21, 22, and 23 on our unconscious (as opposed to subconscious) minds voiding us of free thought and wiping all memory of a emmy-winning 2-hour documentary.

The Antap are headquartered in Santa Barbara, CA.

You live near there, Chris, don't you?

Do the Antap have a concrete core?

Yea, we're hard core.

Got evidence of steel core columns?

You need evidence to be reasonable. I have evidence and it prove my point.

Do you know what a concrete wall looks like viewd from one end? Here is a a concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) that happens to be holding up the spire which is formed by an interio box column, not a "core column" like fools who enjoy being decieved believe in.

hcmom

24th November 2006, 12:23 AM

Like I said, the confusion is severe.

Ain't that the truth!

hcmom

24th November 2006, 12:26 AM

Yea, we're hard core.

I think I know why I keep coming back... I've become obsessed with figuring out which is the real Chris.

Big Al

24th November 2006, 01:13 AM

First, the people of New York voted it down perhaps 3 times. Rockefeller pushed it and got it built.

The purposes of the demolition were many.

Such as? Give me one plausible reason why on Earth Yamasaki-san, PANYNJ, NSA or whoever thought it would be a great idea to build two huge skyscrapers lined with explosive. :confused:

Give me one reason why they thought they needed to lie from Day 1 about the concrete-cored construction of the towers: http://www.skyscraper.org/TALLEST_TOWERS/t_wtc.htm is just one site that repeats this supposed fallacy about the steel core. I've visited perhaps twenty other sites about the WTC, and they all follow this party line. Why would it have been so damaging to reveal the concrete core of the WTC?

The WTC memorial, Freedom Tower, is stated to have a concrete core from the start. Perhaps that means it must really have a steel core! :D

However, the relevant powers let some PBS documentary cameramen in to expose this lie? Did nobody else on seeing this documentary say: "Hold on, I thought the big thing about the WTC was that it had a steel core! What are they playing at?"

Mobyseven

24th November 2006, 01:30 AM

We've moved on from critiquing his arguments to mocking his disabilities. Time for this thread to die I feel.

tsig

24th November 2006, 04:00 AM

We've moved on from critiquing his arguments to mocking his disabilities. Time for this thread to die I feel.

One last post just give one last post.

tsig

24th November 2006, 04:03 AM

Correct, basically they have no evidence at all. They do have some misrepresented or misunderstood evidence.

Basically, this thread has proven that there is no raw evidence for any core except the steel reinforced, tubular cast concrete core. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

My evidence is so raw it's bloody.

Belz...

24th November 2006, 09:31 AM

Everyone here has an unconscious mind that controls them, mostly. It is very hard to go against it. You, nobody wants to do that. Often we NEED to.

The only thing unconscious in your mind is your respiratory regulation, language interpretation and so on. There's no such thing as an unconscious "mind".

The Greeks had a structure that worked with this in some ways, the Ego and the Id. The Ego serves the Id.

The Greek. Two thousand years ago ?

Freud ? The ninteenth century ?

Come back to the 21st, please.

Belz...

24th November 2006, 09:36 AM

First, the people of New York voted it down perhaps 3 times. Rockefeller pushed it and got it built.

So, they built it to be demolished because the people voted it down ? Why build it in the first place ?

Your mind is convoluted, to say the least. Your conscious mind, that is.

The purposes of the demolition were many.

And yet none that someone can explain in a satisfactory manner.

No. Weak would incur liability. Something not under control. The plan is all about control.

The plan ? And you know of this plan how ?

The notable smell which I've read about indicates probably acetone.

So you "believe" ?

The next time you cannot remember something, tell yourself that again, if you can remember.

You do know that memories are rearranged all the time, right ? It's not a recording, or anything similar. And the fact that you forget sometimes simply means that... you've forgotten.

I recognized a demolition immediately as I've done enough demolition of buildings to know what collapses look like.

Yes, but how many high-rise buildings collapsed after beign hit with big planes before 9/11 ? NONE! So how can you make the comparison ?

Planes and fires did not pulverize the towers from the top down.

Good, because they weren't pulverized.

The tower below the impact point because nothing goes down in a collapse until support is removed.

So NO building EVER collapsed EXCEPT during a controlled demolition ? Woah! That's reassuring.

The past we think we have was rewritten about 50-60 years ago.

So people older than 60 don't exist ?

The truth will protect us.

Makes you feel all cozy inside, right ?

Belz...

24th November 2006, 09:40 AM

Can you understand that the building took the load historically and there was no space for acceleration so there was no energy added?

Ah! So you don't think that 20 floors dropping 2 floors can add enough energy ?

You need to check the calculations, there. If that's your only problem with it, then your work's been done for you, already.

And, if that happened it was not symetrical

Most things aren't.

and the way it did happen was major weakening would have been on the side where the perimeter walls were cut by plane impact meaning the top would have fallen that way but both tops fell another direction.

You did see the damage on the opposite side, right ?

this thread has proven that there is no raw evidence for any core except the steel reinforced, tubular cast concrete core.

No, no. You've admitted that that wasn't "raw" evidence, either. Don't cry.

Christophera

24th November 2006, 09:44 AM

So the documentary didn't mention c-4 then. YOu just came to the conclusion because of a "plastic" coating that it mean c-4?

I've never stated that. You must prove it.

You will have to prove this or be guilty of misrepresentation. Come back with links please.

I've stated no less than 4 times in the last 20 pges that the documentary had only mentioned a "special anti corrosion, vibration resistant plastic coating"

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

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1895911&postcount=3039

Ahem.

People, I implore you not to continue this. It does not appear to be a healthy situation for anyone.

I find it astounding that Gravy mirepresents my post trying to assert that i think that ANYONE would believe that I saw a documentary which stated a public building was built with high explosives in it. The documentary only stated that the "special plastic coating" had deteriorated through winter weather not that "RDX" had. One poster asks for explanations over and over, finally I explain and make a compound sentence for efficiency and other supporters of murderers infiltrating our gov exploit it by misrepresentation.

This is how the supporters of the infiltrators of the US government work. Suporting the lies with deceit, subterfuge and collusion. No wonder nazi Germany became so powerful with such sick potential for human behavior.

It is only logical with such dominate social fear and NO EVIDENCE that homer and gravy would resort to this sort of thing.

It is absurd to think that TV would present a documentary about the constrcution of a tower built with high explosive in it. I whttp://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4240&stc=1&d=1164390081ould never present that. I would reasonably explain how I DETERMINED that the "special plastic coatnig" had to be high explosives becuase the below image shows a tower being taken out from the top down through total pulverization by optimally contained, placed and distributed high explosives.

The precision constructed exploding planes of the core even leave telltale shapes in the expanding debris waves.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4240&stc=1&d=1164390081