Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers? [Archive] - Page 34

Belz...

24th November 2006, 01:10 PM

IF there was a drop, which there was not,

There had to be, chris. Physical laws, remember ?

it would not be symetrical, and the assymetry would favor the side with the physical damage not the impossible damage to steel by mere fuel fires having inadequate ventilation to develop higher heat.

Of course it would favour the damaged sites. But at the scale of the WTC it wouldn't make much of a difference: The other sides would fail before significant toppling would occur, and the whole thing would fall downwards again. This is exactly what we observe with WTC2.

Get real. This was the most sophisticated demolition to ever take place. So sophisticated that people hardly recognize the uses of high explosives. Stop supporting the obvious infiltration of the US government.

How can you reconcile "So sophisticated that people hardly recognize the uses" with "obvious infiltration" ?

You've forgotton how hitler and goering used the riechstag.

No, I haven't. But they didn't BUILD the reichstag, did they ?

The improved the technique and built a bigger and better "custom" event.

Are you saying that the people who built and demolished the WTC are the same people who caused WWII ?? And how bad ARE they at making things happen, anyway ?

You are too easy to fool, believing the "bigger lie" more "outrageos lie" as herman goering asserted human nature would dictate. Predictable. You are another form of puppet.

That would be true if I believed the things I believe in simply because I was told to. Since I tend to doubt what people tell me, even when it makes sense, simply because I'm a cynical bastard, your claim is false.

tsig

24th November 2006, 01:13 PM

The engineers believe FEMAs description of the structure and I know it was different so what the engineers have defined is in error.

Is there any web site that uses raw images of the towers coming down to define the structural elements of the them.

Try taking "Statics and Strengths of Materiels I & II."

Then we may talk on an equal level

Christophera

24th November 2006, 01:20 PM

Wha? :confused:

Timble is accusing me of doing what Timble is doing.

Christophera

24th November 2006, 01:21 PM

Try taking "Statics and Strengths of Materiels I & II."

Then we may talk on an equal level

Try some raw images of steel core columns first.

Here is the steel reinforced tubular concrete core of WTC 2 (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

Christophera

24th November 2006, 01:25 PM

That would be true if I believed the things I believe in simply because I was told to. Since I tend to doubt what people tell me, even when it makes sense, simply because I'm a cynical bastard, your claim is false.

You don't have the official construction plans for the towers. nobody does, (explain that???) and you have no raw evidence of images of steel core columns from the demo showing any of the supposed 47, 1300 foot tempered stel core columns at some elevation abover ground clearly showing the columns in the core area.

Who is the "believer" and who has material facts?

Christophera

24th November 2006, 01:27 PM

If so, would you take the perpetrators to court?

What court? Show me a functional court that can take a civil action and treat it lawfully, rightfully.

Show me a DA that will make an information for prosecution based on evidence.

tsig

24th November 2006, 01:33 PM

Try some raw images of steel core columns first.

Here is the steel reinforced tubular concrete core of WTC 2 (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

Steel yields. It is not universally strong.

Bell

24th November 2006, 01:33 PM

What court? Show me a functional court that can take a civil action and treat it lawfully, rightfully.

Hell if I know. I don't live in the US, remember? Take it to the supreme court, for all I know. A case this big belongs to be handled there, I guess.

Show me a DA that will make an information for prosecution based on evidence.

Well, you have all the raw evidence that proves an inside job. No DA can deny that, and therefor is bound to make a case.

tsig

24th November 2006, 01:34 PM

What court? Show me a functional court that can take a civil action and treat it lawfully, rightfully.

Show me a DA that will make an information for prosecution based on evidence.

I think most courts in the USA are funcional, the one you went to worked.

Bell

24th November 2006, 01:38 PM

I think most courts in the USA are funcional, the one you went to worked.

lol

tsig

24th November 2006, 01:38 PM

Try some raw images of steel core columns first.

Here is the steel reinforced tubular concrete core of WTC 2 (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

Eat'em raw. Nothing like evaporated steel in the morning.

tsig

24th November 2006, 01:41 PM

lol

Hi Bell,

We seem to be the only ones left.

Are we at one with Chris?

delphi_ote

24th November 2006, 01:52 PM

Are we at one with Chris?
I won't let you guys get trapped in here forever! This is too much for your minds to endure. Get out while you still can! Here... I'll distract him while you make a break for it.

Hey, Chris. Do you have any proof that there were concrete cores?

Quickly now. Run for freedom!

Powa

24th November 2006, 01:54 PM

What court? Show me a functional court that can take a civil action and treat it lawfully, rightfully.

Show me a DA that will make an information for prosecution based on evidence.
Then FFS call CNN or FOX or someone! By doing nothing you're denying the 3,000 victims justice! Can you really live with yourself being too lazy to do something? How will you explain to your children why daddy did nothing to protect their rights and freedom?

Christophera

24th November 2006, 02:13 PM

I won't let you guys get trapped in here forever! This is too much for your minds to endure. Get out while you still can! Here... I'll distract him while you make a break for it.

Hey, Chris. Do you have any proof that there were concrete cores?

Quickly now. Run for freedom!

Yes, way more than you do for steel core columns. And mine is RAW EVIDENCE of images from the demolition exposing all the major elements of the towers.

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

Do you have a web site using RAW EVIDENCE of inages from the demo PROVING stel croe columms?

Christophera

24th November 2006, 02:15 PM

Then FFS call CNN or FOX or someone! By doing nothing you're denying the 3,000 victims justice! Can you really live with yourself being too lazy to do something? How will you explain to your children why daddy did nothing to protect their rights and freedom?

Basically I see you are ignorant of the true condition of our legal systems and law enforcement and will not be educated, then ask me to go use dysfunctional systems.

Get real. I've been there and done that. Now it's your turn unless, ........... you support the infiltration and murder of innocent people, then you'll do nothing other than what you have been doing.

Christophera

24th November 2006, 02:18 PM

I think most courts in the USA are funcional, the one you went to worked.

Do you call a judge allowingfailure to appear on subpoena (http://algoxy.com/law/nojustice2/images/subden.gif) by a defendant in a case where it is alleged lives were lost because of the defendants neglect "working".

So much for your interlligence and ability to recognize societal function.

tsig

24th November 2006, 02:21 PM

I won't let you guys get trapped in here forever! This is too much for your minds to endure. Get out while you still can! Here... I'll distract him while you make a break for it.

Hey, Chris. Do you have any proof that there were concrete cores?

Quickly now. Run for freedom!

It was a valiant effort, but the cores ore irrevalnt. Thanks, but the monster will consume us all. NEVER>>>NEVETR

tsig

24th November 2006, 02:26 PM

Yes, way more than you do for steel core columns. And mine is RAW EVIDENCE of images from the demolition exposing all the major elements of the towers.

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

Do you have a web site using RAW EVIDENCE of inages from the demo PROVING stel croe columms?

RAW EVIDENCE tastes best cooked. With sauce.

mortimer

24th November 2006, 02:40 PM

Your unconscious controls you. Even the thoughts you have that say otherwise, giving it more control.

Chris,

Does the unconscious only control us, or does it control you as well?

Powa

24th November 2006, 02:50 PM

Basically I see you are ignorant of the true condition of our legal systems and law enforcement and will not be educated, then ask me to go use dysfunctional systems.
OK, if I get this straight, according to you:
- there is no justice system left
- the media are all in on it
- no one sees the truth because we are all a) too afraid to see it, b) hypnotized in order not to see it and c) brainwashed by the education system.

So, I have to ask, what is it that you're trying to accomplish here? What have you accomplished in the past 6 months?

Get real. I've been there and done that. Now it's your turn unless, ........... you support the infiltration and murder of innocent people, then you'll do nothing other than what you have been doing.
Do you have any evidence of the infiltration? If so, produce it and then we can talk about it. Meanwhile you're wasting time while the "infiltrators" are getting away with 3,000 murders. Some of them may even be reading this thread, laughing at your incompetence.

ETA: Have you considered presenting your evidence before the International Court of Justice or The International Criminal Court? Or are they also corrupt?

firecoins

24th November 2006, 02:53 PM

firecoins

24th November 2006, 02:54 PM

TellyKNeasuss

24th November 2006, 02:54 PM

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".

If the rebar was kept locked in a container, how did the videographers film it?

Oliver

24th November 2006, 03:06 PM

If the rebar was kept locked in a container, how did the videographers film it?

X-Ray-Cameras. :boggled:

Christophera

24th November 2006, 03:06 PM

If the rebar was kept locked in a container, how did the videographers film it?

The videographers didn't film anything in 1987 during production. They compiled 16mm film and stills that the architects and contractors had taken during constrcution. There were no shots of the rebar specifically, it was a part of general shots regarding the concrete core. The videographers learned by various means of the security regarding the rebar with the "special plastic coating".

Bell

24th November 2006, 03:08 PM

Hi Bell,

We seem to be the only ones left.

Are we at one with Chris?

Hmm, dunno... he does have a very compelling case...

... in his mind.

Bell

24th November 2006, 03:12 PM

Christophera

24th November 2006, 03:14 PM

OK, if I get this straight, according to you:
- there is no justice system left
- the media are all in on it
- no one sees the truth because we are all a) too afraid to see it, b)hypnotized in order not to see it and c) brainwashed by the education system.

you got it!:covereyes

Fireloins,

You are commenting a little early, I have not yet answered powa's post which mistates my post.

- there is no justice system left (No civil justice w/regard to citizens correcting goverments neglect, corruption or malfeasance.

- the media are all in on it (probably not 100%, but close to it)

- no one sees the truth because we are all a) too afraid to see it, b)hypnotized in order not to see it and c) brainwashed by the education system.(You generalize with the term "all too afraid to see it". b)you are in error. c) you have correct.

hcmom

24th November 2006, 03:15 PM

Then FFS call CNN or FOX or someone! By doing nothing you're denying the 3,000 victims justice! Can you really live with yourself being too lazy to do something? How will you explain to your children why daddy did nothing to protect their rights and freedom?

Get real. I've been there and done that. Now it's your turn unless, ........... you support the infiltration and murder of innocent people, then you'll do nothing other than what you have been doing.

Chris wants us to all join hands and do this as a team...:cheerleader5

Christophera

24th November 2006, 03:21 PM

And from special plastic coating you concluded 3" rebar on 4' centers packed with C4... how exactly?

Your term "packed" is a distortion.

The rebar was coated with C4,the special "plastic coating: mentioned a number of times in the 1990 documentary called "The Construction of the Twin Towers"

I understand high explosives and went through all the processes needed to create the effect seen here (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg) with the concrete core and determined that the explosives had to have been exactly centered and optimally distributed.

The is NO OTHE WAY to get that effect. What we see is termed "breakage" by blasters and it is MORE perfect and complete that I have ever seen.

Christophera

24th November 2006, 03:22 PM

Chris wants us to all join hands and do this as a team...:cheerleader5

Thanks mom. Actually, team mates would be better than cheerleaders.

Christophera

24th November 2006, 03:24 PM

fireloins,

I've massacred your post because it was the easiest way to answer accurately.

We have no proof and just refuse to accept reality.

Bell

24th November 2006, 03:26 PM

Your term "packed" is a distortion.

The rebar was coated with C4,the special "plastic coating: mentioned a number of times in the 1990 documentary called "The Construction of the Twin Towers"

I understand high explosives and went through all the processes needed to create the effect seen here (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg) with the concrete core and determined that the explosives had to have been exactly centered and optimally distributed.

The is NO OTHE WAY to get that effect. What we see is termed "breakage" by blasters and it is MORE perfect and complete that I have ever seen.

So again, the only evidence of C4 in the towers is in your mind. No concrete -pardon the pun- evidence.

hcmom

24th November 2006, 03:46 PM

Thanks mom. Actually, team mates would be better than cheerleaders.
Yeah, but I have to work with what's available...

Powa

24th November 2006, 04:04 PM

- there is no justice system left (No civil justice w/regard to citizens correcting goverments neglect, corruption or malfeasance.
How do you know this?

- the media are all in on it (probably not 100%, but close to it)
Do you have any evidence of this?

- no one sees the truth because we are all a) too afraid to see it, b)hypnotized in order not to see it and c) brainwashed by the education system.(You generalize with the term "all too afraid to see it".You've been asked a number of times why no one agrees with you and this is one of the explanations you came up with.
b)you are in error.
Wait... So now we weren't all hypnotized?
c) you have correct.
Do you mean the American education system or all the education systems in the world?

tsig

24th November 2006, 04:07 PM

Fireloins,

You are commenting a little early, I have not yet answered powa's post which mistates my post.

- there is no justice system left (No civil justice w/regard to citizens correcting goverments neglect, corruption or malfeasance.

- the media are all in on it (probably not 100%, but close to it)

- no one sees the truth because we are all a) too afraid to see it, b)hypnotized in order not to see it and c) brainwashed by the education system.(You generalize with the term "all too afraid to see it". b)you are in error. c) you have correct.

If no one sees the truth, how are you able to if you are someone, are you human?

Have you came from another planet?

Does your mother know?

24th November 2006, 04:07 PM

Make an aussie airhead look like a fool helping infiltrating murderers of Americans infiltrate even further to continue to damage global diplomatic relations.

No, really... what are you going to do about all this?

tsig

24th November 2006, 04:11 PM

Thanks mom. Actually, team mates would be better than cheerleaders.

Chris I might join your team if I had any idea what game you are playing.

Powa

24th November 2006, 04:14 PM

No, really... what are you going to do about all this?
Why, he's going to present his evidence before the International Court of Justice or The International Criminal Court in The Hague.

hcmom

24th November 2006, 04:16 PM

The Justice League would be more fun...

tsig

24th November 2006, 04:24 PM

fireloins,

I've massacred your post because it was the easiest way to answer accurately.

Acurate = massacre

Powa

24th November 2006, 04:25 PM

Chris, if you're not going to do anything with your evidence for 3,000 murders, all of this looks more and more like your hobby. I find that extrememly disrespectful to the victims. So, are you just messing around or are you going to actually do something to bring the perpetrators to justice?

Big Les

24th November 2006, 04:25 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.

Think of it as a sort of "care in the community" exercise. If he's on here arguing with us, he's not walking the streets arguing with pigeons.

NobbyNobbs

24th November 2006, 04:43 PM

I refer to the smell soldiers have noted of C4.

How do you go from "smell of C-4" to "evidence of acetone"?

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.

....

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.

Ah. So the documentary never mentions explosives. You determined that from a photo of the collapse. So...

-you know the way it collapsed is from the explosives, and
-you know there were explosives because of the way it collapsed.

Can you say "circular argument"?

IF there was a drop, which there was not, it would not be symetrical, and the assymetry would favor the side with the physical damage not the impossible damage to steel by mere fuel fires having inadequate ventilation to develop higher heat. As if that heat was enough under optimum, impossible conditions.

No drop? Two stories taken out...that's about 20 feet of drop.

Can you point to a single controlled demolition that was absolutely symmetrical? I'd love to see that.

Big Al

24th November 2006, 05:32 PM

The videographers didn't film anything in 1987 during production. They compiled 16mm film and stills that the architects and contractors had taken during constrcution. There were no shots of the rebar specifically, it was a part of general shots regarding the concrete core. The videographers learned by various means of the security regarding the rebar with the "special plastic coating".

Now, Chris, the official line is that the WTC had a steel core - I've seen several documentaries that mentioned that. So:

1) Why on Earth did the builders feel the need to lie about this? Freedom Tower, the monument to the WTC victims, is stated to have a concrete core right from the start. What was so important about concealing this "fact" about the WTC? Why didn't they just say, "The WTC has a concrete core"?

2) If it was so all-fired important to lie about the concrete core, why did the architects and contractors provide shots showing it to the doc crew? If all records of the doc really needed to be erased for fear of revealing the concrete core, why was it allowed to go out in the first place?

3) Sounds a pretty boring documentary to me if it keeps going on about a "special plastic coating" on simple rebar. By what "means" did they find out about this coating? If the authorities were trying to cover up the fact that the reinforcement was coated in C-4, why did they even mention it? I've seen a lot of documentaries on buildings that mention reinforced concrete, and I don't think one has bothered to even mention the rebar directly - maybe just its function, and the difference between pre-and post-stressed concrete.

4) Didn't the documentary crew think it bizarre that ordinary, simple rebar was under lock and key and only installed by welders with security clearance? Is this at all common in a public building? But then again, you said the reinforcement was already in place, waiting for suitable weather for the concrete pour. Are you asking to believe me that they just said off the cuff, "Oh, yeah, the rebar with the special anti-vibration, anti-corrosion coating was held under lock and key before we had top-secret-cleared welders to put it in place."? I'm pretty sure if I'd ever seen a documentary like that, I'd smell a rat, especially since the steel core was meant to be an architectural feature. I'm pretty sure thousands of other people would have thought the same.

Christophera

24th November 2006, 06:39 PM

I refer to the smell soldiers have noted of C4.

How do you go from "smell of C-4" to "evidence of acetone"?

I know that often strong chemical smells of plastics often indicate that acetone is the solvent. You can be sue there is a solvent. My best guess is acetone.

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.
....

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=116439008 1ould 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.

Ah. So the documentary never mentions explosives. You determined that from a photo of the collapse. So...

-you know the way it collapsed is from the explosives, and
-you know there were explosives because of the way it collapsed.

Can you say "circular argument"?

Of course I can say that, but the circularity is your doing not mine. I simply deduced that such and event could only be effected by explosives.

IF there was a drop, which there was not, it would not be symetrical, and the assymetry would favor the side with the physical damage not the impossible damage to steel by mere fuel fires having inadequate ventilation to develop higher heat. As if that heat was enough under optimum, impossible conditions.

No drop? Two stories taken out...that's about 20 feet of drop.

Can you point to a single controlled demolition that was absolutely symmetrical? I'd love to see that.

You imply that 2 stories were completely removed. This is a complete error and not possible under any condition. We know there was not even enough heat to get a piece of steel cherry red in one small area let alone over 4 sides. These are fantastic suppositions.

Why do I have to point to a symetrical demolition when we both know they normally don't work like that. I assert the towers were built to demolish and we know that buildings that have been demoished were not built to demolish.

How about you come up with alternative explanation for near free fall and total pulverization which is supported by images of the demolition in all ways such as I have here,

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

tsig

24th November 2006, 06:46 PM

I know that often strong chemical smells of plastics often indicate that acetone is the solvent. You can be sue there is a solvent. My best guess is acetone.

Of course I can say that, but the circularity is your doing not mine. I simply deduced that such and event could only be effected by explosives.

You imply that 2 stories were completely removed. This is a complete error and not possible under any condition. We know there was not even enough heat to get a piece of steel cherry red in one small area let alone over 4 sides. These are fantastic suppositions.

Why do I have to point to a symetrical demolition when we both know they normally don't work like that. I assert the towers were built to demolish and we know that buildings that have been demoished were not built to demolish.

How about you come up with alternative explanation for near free fall and total pulverization which is supported by images of the demolition in all ways such as I have here,

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

The fall was not free and we are paying for it now all the dust was predicted as in dust thou art and dust you shall become. Do you not believe the Bible.

Bell

24th November 2006, 06:49 PM

How about you come up with alternative explanation for near free fall and total pulverization which is supported by images of the demolition in all ways such as I have here,

<spam snipped>

Why? The towers did not fall near free fall, nor did they totally pulverize. Get realistice!

NobbyNobbs

24th November 2006, 06:50 PM

Why do I have to point to a symetrical demolition when we both know they normally don't work like that. I assert the towers were built to demolish and we know that buildings that have been demoished were not built to demolish.

Ok, I'm a little confused. Are you saying the collapse was too symmetrical to be the official theory? Or are you saying it was too assymetrical to be the official theory?

Garb

24th November 2006, 06:55 PM

I assert the towers were built to demolish and we know that buildings that have been demoished were not built to demolish.

Then that must mean that your entire theory is false.

Bell

24th November 2006, 06:55 PM

Ok, I'm a little confused. Are you saying the collapse was too symmetrical to be the official theory? Or are you saying it was too assymetrical to be the official theory?

YOU are confused :confused:

hcmom

24th November 2006, 07:01 PM

Ok, I'm a little confused. Are you saying the collapse was too symmetrical to be the official theory? Or are you saying it was too assymetrical to be the official theory?

You're probably mistake[ing] [Chris'] effort to be efficient with words for contradictions.

stateofgrace

24th November 2006, 07:11 PM

To the brave souls that battle on.....

http://cache.kotaku.com/gaming/elrond-kl.jpg

´Why do you linger here when there is no hope?´

Christophera

24th November 2006, 07:30 PM

Now, Chris, the official line is that the WTC had a steel core - I've seen several documentaries that mentioned that. So:

All of those were since 9-11 I will bet.

1) Why on Earth did the builders feel the need to lie about this?

It was not the builders that lied. They are goiing along with the lie

Freedom Tower, the monument to the WTC victims, is stated to have a concrete core right from the start.

The same thing was stated about the WTC when it was built.

What was so important about concealing this "fact" about the WTC? Why didn't they just say, "The WTC has a concrete core"?

Two reasons.
(A)Fire does not effect concrete like it does metal. Americans have been dumbed down and are more likely to accept metal weakened by heat than concrete.
(B.)If everyone knew it was a concrete core and it collapsed, they would REALLY wonder why there were no masssive chunks of concrete.

2) If it was so all-fired important to lie about the concrete core, why did the architects and contractors provide shots showing it to the doc crew? If all records of the doc really needed to be erased for fear of revealing the concrete core, why was it allowed to go out in the first place?

It was a public building. They HAD TO PROVIDE the data. The Port Authority HAD to as well. PBS has granting sources and they can be approached independently. The videographers noted that there was some resistance to their requests and I believe they used the F.O.I.A. for some of them. Not sure on that. Maybe they just threatened too but didn't have to.

3) Sounds a pretty boring documentary to me if it keeps going on about a "special plastic coating" on simple rebar.

For a documentary doing what it was doing is was pretty exciting. My wife was bored though because she didn't understand much of it. They didn't talk about the "special plastic coating" in the way you suggest it was simply mentioned perhaps 6 to 8 times in relation to the construction of the core.

3)By what "means" did they find out about this coating? If the authorities were trying to cover up the fact that the reinforcement was coated in C-4, why did they even mention it? I've seen a lot of documentaries on buildings that mention reinforced concrete, and I don't think one has bothered to even mention the rebar directly - maybe just its function, and the difference between pre-and post-stressed concrete.

As I said before the building was a public building and therefore the documentary makers had access to many things they wouldn't have with a private buildings.

4) Didn't the documentary crew think it bizarre that ordinary, simple rebar was under lock and key and only installed by welders with security clearance?

Yes. The strangeness of the security around the rebar was noted as well as the unannounced evacuations of floors by workers just before concrete was poured.

Is this at all common in a public building? But then again, you said the reinforcement was already in place, waiting for suitable weather for the concrete pour. Are you asking to believe me that they just said off the cuff, "Oh, yeah, the rebar with the special anti-vibration, anti-corrosion coating was held under lock and key before we had top-secret-cleared welders to put it in place."? I'm pretty sure if I'd ever seen a documentary like that, I'd smell a rat, especially since the steel core was meant to be an architectural feature. I'm pretty sure thousands of other people would have thought the same.

Yes, I got a eerie feeling when considering the special security around the rebar and other security measures and the makers of the documentary also had those feeling which were lightly voiced.

On 9-11 watching WTC fall I KNEW that documentary was long gone from PBS. Not because I rememebred all of the data about the rebar and security issues but I realized that information about the construction of the towers would be something that would be highly regulated.

Christophera

24th November 2006, 07:34 PM

Why? The towers did not fall near free fall, nor did they totally pulverize. Get realistice!

The rate of fall is not particuarly important to me. NIST apprently accepts 10 and 11 seconds whic is c@mm close to free fall.

You are in error.

The towers fell at near free fall.

Why are familys complaining that the ground up remains of victims being buried in landfills. Do you recall the firefighters who had testimony about their esperiences trying to find remains?

tsig

24th November 2006, 07:36 PM

It was damned heavy.

Maxim: If I don't know or understand the science behind an explanation am I allowed to cast the explanation into doubt?

Come out back I've got some scraps.

Christophera

24th November 2006, 07:38 PM

Ok, I'm a little confused. Are you saying the collapse was too symmetrical to be the official theory? Or are you saying it was too assymetrical to be the official theory?

Yes, the fall, not collapse, of materials, not buildings (because they were already pulverized when falling) was too symetrical for the official story.

Collapses are assymetrical because only a few, key structural elements in one area fail at a given time. So the building fails only in that area which become assymetrical.

tsig

24th November 2006, 07:38 PM

Can you prove that with raw images of the towers coming down.

Why yes you have put them out there all the time.

Christophera

24th November 2006, 07:40 PM

Then that must mean that your entire theory is false.

No, it means when buildings that are built to be demolished they look different than when they are not.

Like this.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4245&stc=1&d=1164422417

Christophera

24th November 2006, 07:42 PM

tsig

24th November 2006, 07:42 PM

The engineers believe FEMAs description of the structure and I know it was different so what the engineers have defined is in error.

Is there any web site that uses raw images of the towers coming down to define the structural elements of the them.

You know it is different than the engineers? Are you a shill? You must be if you know the design. Watch carefully the MIB are close behind.

maccy

24th November 2006, 07:45 PM

For anybody that's interested, if you go to your "User CP" and click on "Edit Options" and scroll down to "Thread Display Options" there's a section with the title "Hide threads by Members on your Ignore List" this is what it says:

Setting this to "Yes" will completely hide any threads started by any Member(s) you have placed on your ignore list. (Links to hidden threads will still work and they will still appear in any searches.)People who feel they shouldn't be here and yet they can't resist may want to consider using this feature.

tsig

24th November 2006, 07:47 PM

So you have no actual training in construction technology, structural engineering, etc?

Well, that certainly qualifies you as an expert in why the WTC buildings collapsed on that day...

Funny how no actual experts have problems w/ the NIST reports. Oh yeah, they were all paid off.

Everybody is just pissing in thier pants afraid. Don't you get it

tsig

24th November 2006, 07:50 PM

I'm gettin information to the American public so they can create justice.

Are you trying to impede me?

We and the and the American people are one so talk to me.

firecoins

24th November 2006, 07:52 PM

Fireloins,

You are commenting a little early, I have not yet answered powa's post which mistates my post.

- there is no justice system left (No civil justice w/regard to citizens correcting goverments neglect, corruption or malfeasance.

- the media are all in on it (probably not 100%, but close to it)

- no one sees the truth because we are all a) too afraid to see it, b)hypnotized in order not to see it and c) brainwashed by the education system.(You generalize with the term "all too afraid to see it". b)you are in error. c) you have correct.

Commenting early? what page is this?

Yes I am sure we are hypnotized into seeing a steel core where a steel core was built. I was brainwashed into looking at evidence. I am afraid you have yet to present a bit of reality. I can see through your arguments and because of the hypnotism I can see right through you.

Christophera

24th November 2006, 09:27 PM

Chris I might join your team if I had any idea what game you are playing.

Well, its' not a game. It does have its rewards in knowing that you're are working for the right ends with real information.

And, realisitically we are really, for the most part on the same team, but the presence of false information has us working against each other. You are already involved, and, if your post is sincere, you've seen that I'm working with real information applied to an independant, comprehensive, feasible and realistic explantion for what happened to the towers, and have realized that working without real information is a losing proposition in many ways.

Christophera

24th November 2006, 09:36 PM

Commenting early? what page is this?

Yes I am sure we are hypnotized into seeing a steel core where a steel core was built. I was brainwashed into looking at evidence. I am afraid you have yet to present a bit of reality. I can see through your arguments and because of the hypnotism I can see right through you.

So you BELIEVE in the 47, 1300 foot steel core columns but can produce no evidence from raw sources of images to support their existence.

I'm glad you realize you were hypnotized into believing that the inadequate, contradictory drawings presented by FEMA. I'm very sorry that you cannot recognize reality yet.

Try thinking about a Concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg), you are looking at an end view which is to the left of an interior box column, the "spire" that is actually holding up the spire.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4246&stc=1&d=1164429257

Garb

24th November 2006, 09:40 PM

So you BELIEVE in the 47, 1300 foot steel core columns but can produce no evidence from raw sources of images to support their existence.

I'm glad you realize you were hypnotized into believing that the inadequate, contradictory drawings presented by FEMA. I'm very sorry that you cannot recognize reality yet.

Try thinking about a Concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg), you are looking at an end view which is to the left of an interior box column, the "spire" that is actually holding up the spire.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4246&stc=1&d=1164429257

Images are not raw sources.

Stop saying that.

24th November 2006, 10:01 PM

Images are not raw sources.

Stop saying that.

Nor did the towers fall at 'near free fall'.

Nor was there 'total pulverisation'.

Nor does C-4 - or any plastic explosive - last long enough to have been built into the structure in the late 1960s.

Nor does C-4 remain effective when mixed with solvent. In fact, creating a slurry like you suggest would result in a useless, inert paste.

Nor was there any time whatsoever to plant sufficient explosives to create the 9-11 effect.

Nor is there any such thing as 3" rebar. Nonexistant. Never been made. Never been used. End of story.

Ergo, your website does not, in fact, contain a feasible, realistic explanation for anything. First, there's nothing unusual to explain; second, your explanations require the existence of a) a nonexistant documentary; b) chemical explosives that don't exist; and c) all new laws of physics.

But we've been through all that before.

Considering that this tiny website hardly reaches any public at all, your claims of trying to get the info to the public are bullsquat too.

So what are you going to do with this information?

Christophera

24th November 2006, 10:08 PM

We and the and the American people are one so talk to me.

That is what I've been doing, and showng you raw evidence in the form of images of the towers.

Understanding the structures that actually stood is the first past of the information that Americans need.

This IMAGE (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) of the WTC core shows us something which is absolute. The total abcense of protruding steel core columns is substantial evidence that the steel core columns did not exist. Combined with other images that also do not show the steel core columns, it fully discounts the FEMA assertion of 47 1,300 foot steel columns existing in the core area.

We know the tower had a core.

The linked IMAGE (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) shows the core and that material, of all the materials that might be there, can only be concrete because only concrete would survive the massive loads crashing around it to stand with that rounded shape.

It may seem simplistic and counter to all of your tendancies, but concrete is evidenced and the steel core columns are not. The only support they have are a few drawings of a core floor plan that happen to differ from each other, and the statements found an multiple web sites that "there were 47, steel columns in the core." Those sites NEVER offer competant raw evidence of images from the demolition which DO expose the tower structures quite completely.

Christophera

24th November 2006, 10:19 PM

Nor did the towers fall at 'near free fall'.

Nor was there 'total pulverisation'.

Nor does C-4 - or any plastic explosive - last long enough to have been built into the structure in the late 1960s.

Nor does C-4 remain effective when mixed with solvent. In fact, creating a slurry like you suggest would result in a useless, inert paste.

Nor was there any time whatsoever to plant sufficient explosives to create the 9-11 effect.

Nor is there any such thing as 3" rebar. Nonexistant. Never been made. Never been used. End of story.

Ergo, your website does not, in fact, contain a feasible, realistic explanation for anything. First, there's nothing unusual to explain; second, your explanations require the existence of a) a nonexistant documentary; b) chemical explosives that don't exist; and c) all new laws of physics.

But we've been through all that before.

Considering that this tiny website hardly reaches any public at all, your claims of trying to get the info to the public are bullsquat too.

So what are you going to do with this information?

You have the below correct. Otherwise you have everything else almost exactly wrong, backwards. Congratulations!

"Nor was there any time whatsoever to plant sufficient explosives to create the 9-11 effect."

"But we've been through all that before."

It is being put to use right now for the American people whom you have no reason to give a squat for ever.

twinstead

24th November 2006, 10:23 PM

You have the below correct. Otherwise you have everything else almost exactly wrong, backwards. Congratulations!

BS he has a point and you know it.

Don't just say he has everything else wrong. PROVE IT.

delphi_ote

24th November 2006, 10:33 PM

It was a valiant effort, but the cores ore irrevalnt. Thanks, but the monster will consume us all. NEVER>>>NEVETR
You were supposed to run. I gave you a chance with my distraction. My sacrifice means nothing now!

delphi_ote

24th November 2006, 10:41 PM

To the brave souls that battle on.....

http://cache.kotaku.com/gaming/elrond-kl.jpg

´Why do you linger here when there is no hope?´
I tried to pull one of these moves (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2123822#post2123822):

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i133/delphi_ote/balrogvsgandalf.jpg
but everyone stood around gawking.

Let's try it again, shall we?

Hey, Chris. Do you think you could post more images of the concrete core?

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i133/delphi_ote/fotr1222.jpg
FLY YOU FOOLS!

Christophera

24th November 2006, 11:14 PM

Hey, Chris. Do you think you could post more images of the concrete core?

Well, ....... okay, one more. But you kids have really had enough reality for tonight, I can tell. Time for bed now.

Imagine a mighty tower with a concrete core 1,300 feet tall, 17 foot thick walls at the base and 2 foot thick at the top. Here is a picture of the top of the core inside the outer walls falling onto WTC 3. Poor little #3, it gets badly squished.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4247&stc=1&d=1164435081

hcmom

24th November 2006, 11:41 PM

Well, ....... okay, one more. But you kids have really had enough reality for tonight, I can tell. Time for bed now.

Imagine a mighty tower with a concrete core 1,300 feet tall, 17 foot thick walls at the base and 2 foot thick at the top. Here is a picture of the top of the core inside the outer walls falling onto WTC 3. Poor little #3, it gets badly squished.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4247&stc=1&d=1164435081

Dang it Chris, would you please knock it off with the occasional intentional funny?!

I really have better things to do, but I read through here every day, just to get a glimpse of that...

Ok, I don't really have anything better to do. But still...

delphi_ote

25th November 2006, 12:16 AM

But you kids have really had enough reality for tonight, I can tell...
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i133/delphi_ote/gandalfbalrog2.jpg

mortimer

25th November 2006, 01:12 AM

Well, ....... okay, one more. But you kids have really had enough reality for tonight, I can tell. Time for bed now.

Imagine a mighty tower with a concrete core 1,300 feet tall, 17 foot thick walls at the base and 2 foot thick at the top. Here is a picture of the top of the core inside the outer walls falling onto WTC 3. Poor little #3, it gets badly squished.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4247&stc=1&d=1164435081

Mind 'shopping an arrow into that photo that points to the concrete core?

Oh, yeah, earlier you said our unconscious controls us. Did you mean just us, or did you mean yourself as well?

mortimer

25th November 2006, 01:21 AM

Saw an interesting documentary on Discovery Times. It has been sitting on my Tivo for a month or so now. Anatomy of a Collapse: Lessons From 9/11. Interesting tidbits:

- About 5 minutes of footage of the steel columns being inspected (looks like at Fresh Kills)
- Still photos of the asbestos inspection that took place in the mid-90's (mostly photos of the floor trusses)
- Some footage looking at the actual architectural plans (or duplicates)

Powa

25th November 2006, 02:07 AM

I'm gettin information to the American public so they can create justice.
How do you hope to create justice when there's no justice system left and the media are (close to 100%) in on it?

25th November 2006, 02:14 AM

You have the below correct. Otherwise you have everything else almost exactly wrong, backwards. Congratulations!

"Nor was there any time whatsoever to plant sufficient explosives to create the 9-11 effect."

"But we've been through all that before."

It is being put to use right now for the American people whom you have no reason to give a squat for ever.

Wrong.

You said 'less than a couple of minutes' was near free fall. Nope. That's just normal collapse time.

You said that large chunks of debris constitutes 'total pulverisation'. Nope. Pulverisation means reducing to dust and fine debris. Given the size of many of the remaining fragments, 'total pulverisation' just didn't happen.

The longest shelf life of any military explosive, in its original sealed packaging, is 20 years. C4 has considerably less. Covering it in concrete, or worse, mixing it with acetone, would REDUCE that shelf life considerably. Ergo, C4 planted in the late 1960s would be inert by 2001.

No plastic explosive can be 'cut' with solvents. Try it some time. Go ahead. It's been tried. So no slurry of C4 and acetone would have exploded - especially not sufficiently to cut steel and 'pulverise' concrete.

There is not now, nor was there in the 1960s, 3" rebar. 3" rebar would have been almost impossible to work with, and far too large for the job anyway.

For you to prove that this is wrong, you need to provide the following:

1) A clear definition of 'near free fall' which is also not 'nearly normal collapse time'.
2) Clear evidence that all matter in the towers was completely pulverised into fine dust and gravel - gravel being, of course, particulate matter, not fist-sized and often larger chunks of debris.
3) Clear evidence of the existence of any explosive capable of demolishing buildings of this scale that could remain viable for 40+ years, exposed to air and mixed with other chemicals.
4) Your chemical calculations for the results of softening/liquifying C4 or other plastic explosives with acetone or other solvents, proving that the explosive would still react to electrical stimulation or other means of detonation.
5) Clear evidence of the existence of 3" rebar - by which I mean, a catalogue entry, technical journal entry, invoice, anything, which shows 3" rebar existed.

As for your snide comment at the end, I'll let it slide. After all, I welcome our new NWO masters! My personal standard of living has never been higher. Besides, who's the real callous and uncaring American - the one who simply disbelieves fairy tale theories about magical explosives, missing documentaries, and 40-year plans involving destroying national icons, or the one who 'knows the truth', yet does absolutely nothing useful or practical with that knowledge?

Hint: A crappy website full of crackpot theories and a thread on a limited-viewership skeptics' board does NOT constitute 'informing the public', any more than a fuzzy picture of 'something' inside a dust cloud constitutes 'raw evidence'.

Fact: You could post another couple of hundred pages here, and a year from now, nothing will have changed. In fact, you could do what you're doing now, for the rest of your life, and on your deathbed, you'll have accomplished nothing.

That's why I keep asking you what you're going to do about it. If it were really that important, you'd be doing something other than wasting time posting on internet forums.

In a way, this reminds me of that antichrist guy who thinks it was a sign because he posted some nonsense about terrorism as post 666 on an internet forum. SO he goes around posting his 'revelation' on internet forums. And this does what, exactly?

So, Antichrist Guy, got any better plans for overthrowing the NWO than wasting time posting to the only internet forum that hasn't banned you for fatal stupidity?

Oliver

25th November 2006, 02:15 AM

I'm gettin information to the American public so they can create justice.

Are you trying to impede me?

As far i see it, Alfred, you spend some years on this
concrete core issue and nothing happend but all the
cool patriot- acts and suchlike acts. Research and
waste some more years until no more of your freedoms
and rights are left. :D

So relax and enjoy the time in here. :)

tsig

25th November 2006, 02:15 AM

Well, its' not a game. It does have its rewards in knowing that you're are working for the right ends with real information.

And, realisitically we are really, for the most part on the same team, but the presence of false information has us working against each other. You are already involved, and, if your post is sincere, you've seen that I'm working with real information applied to an independant, comprehensive, feasible and realistic explantion for what happened to the towers, and have realized that working without real information is a losing proposition in many ways.

Yes if you do not have real information you are most likely misinformed.

Is real information like raw data? Can it be cooked?

Big Al

25th November 2006, 02:47 AM

It was not the builders that lied. They are goiing along with the lie.

And you know this ... how? Presumably not stated in this documentary of yours?

The same thing was stated about the WTC when it was built.

Then why is it that if I Google WTC "concrete core" I only get:

1) Statements by your good self
2) Conspiracy sites like Above Top Secret perpetuating said statements by your good self
3) Official sites about Freedom Tower.

I presume we can assume that Freedom Tower's rebar is the non-C4 coated sort.

But, for me, the big, BIG questions:

WHY ON EARTH did whoever-it-was decide to load up the WTC with explosives, just in case they decided to blow it up at some time in the future?
How did they get round C-4's ten-year shelf life? If they had some special preservative to overcome that to, say, thirty years, how did they know they would need to use it within thirty years? This is utterly, utterly nonsensical.

(B.)If everyone knew it was a concrete core and it collapsed, they would REALLY wonder why there were no masssive chunks of concrete..

And they knew this RIGHT from the start? Ah, c'mon. This is INCREDIBLY paranoid.

Yes. The strangeness of the security around the rebar was noted as well as the unannounced evacuations of floors by workers just before concrete was poured.

This documentary aired in, what, 1989? Did the authorities just volunteer this information? Did the documentary crew ask if any special security precautions were taken over bog-standard reinforcing rebar (notwithstanding the fact that the WTC was supposed to have a steel core, in fact famous for it).

Unannounced evacuations? Didn't they know when they were going to pour? Are you saying the builders were allowed to wander around the explosive-coated rebar, but were cleared out when the concrete was poured, covering up the evidence?

Bell

25th November 2006, 02:55 AM

The rate of fall is not particuarly important to me. NIST apprently accepts 10 and 11 seconds whic is c@mm close to free fall.

You are in error.

The towers fell at near free fall.

NIST stated that the first pieces of debris hit the ground in about 10 seconds. Well before the rest of the towers had completely collapsed.

And again, if the rate of fall is not important, then why start a thread about it, and bring it up time and again. Either it is important and you have to state how long it took for the towers to collapse, and howlong it should have taken in your book, or you stop talking about free fall.

Why are familys complaining that the ground up remains of victims being buried in landfills. Do you recall the firefighters who had testimony about their esperiences trying to find remains?

Do you recall the tons of debris covering GZ for months? The towers didn't totally pulverize. The content (desks, computers... HUMANS) where crushed under all the weight of the falling building, but remains were found, not just dust.

Bell

25th November 2006, 02:59 AM

Well, ....... okay, one more. But you kids have really had enough reality for tonight, I can tell. Time for bed now.

Imagine a mighty tower with a concrete core 1,300 feet tall, 17 foot thick walls at the base and 2 foot thick at the top. Here is a picture of the top of the core inside the outer walls falling onto WTC 3. Poor little #3, it gets badly squished.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4247&stc=1&d=1164435081

THE TOP OF THE SOUTH TOWER FELL TO THE EAST. THE MARRIOTT WAS ON THE WEST SIDE!!

tsig

25th November 2006, 03:02 AM

NIST stated that the first pieces of debris hit the ground in about 10 seconds. Well before the rest of the towers had completely collapsed.

And again, if the rate of fall is not important, then why start a thread about it, and bring it up time and again. Either it is important and you have to state how long it took for the towers to collapse, and howlong it should have taken in your book, or you stop talking about free fall.

Do you recall the tons of debris covering GZ for months? The towers didn't totally pulverize. The content (desks, computers... HUMANS) where crushed under all the weight of the falling building, but remains were found, not just dust.

Remains are still being found, just not where Chris lives. You know under the sky of green beneath the sea of blue, rebel without a clue.

tsig

25th November 2006, 03:05 AM

As far i see it, Alfred, you spend some years on this
concrete core issue and nothing happend but all the
cool patriot- acts and suchlike acts. Research and
waste some more years until no more of your freedoms
and rights are left. :D

So relax and enjoy the time in here. :)

We all seem to be in some gothic death wish.

Oliver

25th November 2006, 03:11 AM

We all seem to be in some gothic death wish.

Not really ... Somehow Alfred reminds me to Alfred E. Neuman
from the MAD magazine... :D

http://www.dccomics.com/mad/?action=ask_mad

Big Al

25th November 2006, 06:17 AM

Not really ... Somehow Alfred reminds me to Alfred E. Neuman
from the MAD magazine... :D

http://www.dccomics.com/mad/?action=ask_mad

An appropriate reference, Ollie! :)

tsig

25th November 2006, 06:53 AM

Not really ... Somehow Alfred reminds me to Alfred E. Neuman
from the MAD magazine... :D

http://www.dccomics.com/mad/?action=ask_mad

What, me worry?

Christophera

25th November 2006, 10:30 AM

THE TOP OF THE SOUTH TOWER FELL TO THE EAST. THE MARRIOTT WAS ON THE WEST SIDE!!

Now you are starting to get a handle on how bizarre the event was. The below IS the very top of WTC 2 falling on WTC 3. The roof of the core is seen. Only with demolition is it possible to have the body of a tower go one way THEN have the top go another.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4252&stc=1&d=1164475744

Garb

25th November 2006, 10:32 AM

Now you are starting to get a handle on how bizarre the event was. The below IS the very top of WTC 2 falling on WTC 3. The roof of the core is seen. Only with demolition is it possible to have the body of a tower go one way THEN have the top go another.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4252&stc=1&d=1164475744

If a tower leans to a certain side during collapse, can it be symmetrical?

NobbyNobbs

25th November 2006, 10:52 AM

The rate of fall is not particuarly important to me.

....

The towers fell at near free fall.

Is the rate important or not? If not, why keep mentioning it?

Now you are starting to get a handle on how bizarre the event was. The below IS the very top of WTC 2 falling on WTC 3. The roof of the core is seen. Only with demolition is it possible to have the body of a tower go one way THEN have the top go another.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4252&stc=1&d=1164475744

Just a sec. Didn't you say the collapse was too symmetrical? That only demolition collapses are symmetrical like this? And now you say that part went one way and part went another....doesn't sound very symmetrical to me. Doesn't sound like any controlled demolition I've seen either.

tsig

25th November 2006, 12:49 PM

Bell

25th November 2006, 12:58 PM

Now you are starting to get a handle on how bizarre the event was. The below IS the very top of WTC 2 falling on WTC 3. The roof of the core is seen. Only with demolition is it possible to have the body of a tower go one way THEN have the top go another.

<spam>

THE TOP OF THE SOUTH TOWER FELL TO THE EAST. THE MARRIOTT WAS ON THE WEST SIDE!!

As seen in this sequence (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/stc_frames.html).

And the below images:

http://www.in-forum.com/specials/attack/images/p.gif

http://gulnarasamoilova.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/wtc17.jpg

delphi_ote

25th November 2006, 01:14 PM

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i133/delphi_ote/0934.jpg

hcmom

25th November 2006, 01:34 PM

Hmmmm...I'd never noticed the guy up there at the top of the WTC...

beachnut

25th November 2006, 01:59 PM

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

Seems like you have joined the nut cases. Col Bowman is nuts, just plain nuts on 9/11.

You would have to present each of these guys ideas and then you can explain why they are nuts or have a case.

Bell

25th November 2006, 02:00 PM

Hmmmm...I'd never noticed the guy up there at the top of the WTC...

I don't want to derail this thread, but in the FDNY radio dispatches, at one moment there is a report of a man in the antenna ontop WTC1. But I presume that was part of the overall confusion.

Carry on...

Christophera

25th November 2006, 02:15 PM

Wrong.

You said 'less than a couple of minutes' was near free fall. Nope. That's just normal collapse time.

You said that large chunks of debris constitutes 'total pulverisation'. Nope. Pulverisation means reducing to dust and fine debris. Given the size of many of the remaining fragments, 'total pulverisation' just didn't happen.

The longest shelf life of any military explosive, in its original sealed packaging, is 20 years. C4 has considerably less. Covering it in concrete, or worse, mixing it with acetone, would REDUCE that shelf life considerably. Ergo, C4 planted in the late 1960s would be inert by 2001.

No plastic explosive can be 'cut' with solvents. Try it some time. Go ahead. It's been tried. So no slurry of C4 and acetone would have exploded - especially not sufficiently to cut steel and 'pulverise' concrete.

There is not now, nor was there in the 1960s, 3" rebar. 3" rebar would have been almost impossible to work with, and far too large for the job anyway.

For you to prove that this is wrong, you need to provide the following:

1) A clear definition of 'near free fall' which is also not 'nearly normal collapse time'.
2) Clear evidence that all matter in the towers was completely pulverised into fine dust and gravel - gravel being, of course, particulate matter, not fist-sized and often larger chunks of debris.
3) Clear evidence of the existence of any explosive capable of demolishing buildings of this scale that could remain viable for 40+ years, exposed to air and mixed with other chemicals.
4) Your chemical calculations for the results of softening/liquifying C4 or other plastic explosives with acetone or other solvents, proving that the explosive would still react to electrical stimulation or other means of detonation.
5) Clear evidence of the existence of 3" rebar - by which I mean, a catalogue entry, technical journal entry, invoice, anything, which shows 3" rebar existed.

As for your snide comment at the end, I'll let it slide. After all, I welcome our new NWO masters! My personal standard of living has never been higher. Besides, who's the real callous and uncaring American - the one who simply disbelieves fairy tale theories about magical explosives, missing documentaries, and 40-year plans involving destroying national icons, or the one who 'knows the truth', yet does absolutely nothing useful or practical with that knowledge?

Hint: A crappy website full of crackpot theories and a thread on a limited-viewership skeptics' board does NOT constitute 'informing the public', any more than a fuzzy picture of 'something' inside a dust cloud constitutes 'raw evidence'.

Fact: You could post another couple of hundred pages here, and a year from now, nothing will have changed. In fact, you could do what you're doing now, for the rest of your life, and on your deathbed, you'll have accomplished nothing.

That's why I keep asking you what you're going to do about it. If it were really that important, you'd be doing something other than wasting time posting on internet forums.

In a way, this reminds me of that antichrist guy who thinks it was a sign because he posted some nonsense about terrorism as post 666 on an internet forum. SO he goes around posting his 'revelation' on internet forums. And this does what, exactly?

So, Antichrist Guy, got any better plans for overthrowing the NWO than wasting time posting to the only internet forum that hasn't banned you for fatal stupidity?

Excuse me.

You didn't provide a feasible explanation for free fall, or near free fall.

And the fine clouds of particualte needs explanation (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg), and what you are doing is trying to dissmiis the only comprehensive explanation in existence. Meaning your credibility is trashed from the beginning as far as your intentions.

You haven't provided any proof whatsoever of your assertion that no explosive will last past 20 years. You have not shown that a foot of concrete is NOT a better seal against evaporaton and oxidization,

You haven't provided any proof that C4 cannot be solvented by acetone or another chemical. It is logical that a plastic explosive can be cut, rebar dipped in a sluury then the sovent allowed to evaporate to the original consistency then cast in concrete and preserved.

Where as the assertion that such is possible is logical and helps explain this/url], which happened twice, almost identicall to the ground.

Your issue of 3 inch rebar has alread been proven wrong by this image of [url=http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg]3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1plumecascade.jpg). It certainlky is not smaller than 3 inches, and it is not interio box column which, from the same camera/distance is shown as much larger (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg).

I have just posted 200% more evidence than you have in defense of the only existing credible explanation for what happened to the towers on 9-11.

This thread is not about saying NO, to feasible explanations it is about producing one and collapse just is not credible.

Bell

25th November 2006, 02:18 PM

Excuse me.

You didn't provide a feasible explanation for free fall, or near free fall.

<snip>
<snap>

Excuse me.

Didn't you say the rate of fall isn't important? :rolleyes:

Christophera

25th November 2006, 02:23 PM

THE TOP OF THE SOUTH TOWER FELL TO THE EAST. THE MARRIOTT WAS ON THE WEST SIDE!!

As seen in this sequence (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/stc_frames.html).

And the below images:

http://www.in-forum.com/specials/attack/images/p.gif

http://gulnarasamoilova.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/wtc17.jpg

Frames 163 through 211 of this sequence (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/stc_frames.html) show explosions on the west side which must be breaking the top, or a piece away to fall to the west. Which explains how the top of WTC 2 can fall westward, It is perhaps just a piece of the top but the roof of the concrete core is easily identified. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg)

Christophera

25th November 2006, 02:27 PM

Excuse me.

Didn't you say the rate of fall isn't important? :rolleyes:

Correct, free fall is not the issue here, explanations for it or a rate of fall near it are.

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

Bell

25th November 2006, 02:32 PM

Excuse me.

Didn't you say the rate of fall isn't important? :rolleyes:

Correct, free fall is not the issue here, explanations for it or a rate of fall near it are.

<spam>

:confused:

Christophera

25th November 2006, 02:33 PM

Is the rate important or not? If not, why keep mentioning it?

Just a sec. Didn't you say the collapse was too symmetrical? That only demolition collapses are symmetrical like this? And now you say that part went one way and part went another....doesn't sound very symmetrical to me. Doesn't sound like any controlled demolition I've seen either..

Chris gets to have his data raw, cooked or any way he wants it.

What I meant to say was" only a demolition could be as symetrical as we saw."

Both events, having one part go one way and another part go another way are not possible in collapse without obvious cause which would be visible in a collaspse not obscured by the dust and particualte of explosions; and the final symetrical, uniform series of high speed detonations are indicative of some for m of demolition.

Oliver

25th November 2006, 02:37 PM

Did you ever saw how fast dominoes fall once you start the reaction, Alfred? :confused:

Bell

25th November 2006, 02:41 PM

Frames 163 through 211 of this sequence (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/stc_frames.html) show explosions on the west side which must be breaking the top, or a piece away to fall to the west. Which explains how the top of WTC 2 can fall westward, It is perhaps just a piece of the top but the roof of the concrete core is easily identified. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg)

The top fell to the east. Period. Below is raw evidence of it falling to the east. You don't have raw evidence of it falling to the west.

Please explain how some 30 floors of the WTC fell to one side, and suddenly turned around and fell to the other side?

http://gulnarasamoilova.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/wtc17.jpg

Oliver

25th November 2006, 02:46 PM

The top fell to the east. Period. Below is raw evidence of it falling to the east. You don't have raw evidence of it falling to the west.

Please explain how some 30 floors of the WTC fell to one side, and suddenly turned around and fell to the other side?

http://gulnarasamoilova.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/wtc17.jpg

Pdoherty´s theory is that they "bombed" the tipping tower back
in place while it was falling. :boggled: Let´s see what alfreds version
of the tipping tower is...

NobbyNobbs

25th November 2006, 02:56 PM

Excuse me.

You didn't provide a feasible explanation for free fall, or near free fall.

Make up your mind. Either the rate of fall is important or it's not. If it isn't, stop mentioning it. If it is, then we need to know the rate of fall. You ask for an explanation for the rate of fall. That means we first need to know what the rate of fall is, don't we? Different rates would require different explanations. So decide, is it important or isn't it?

You haven't provided any proof whatsoever of your assertion that no explosive will last past 20 years. You have not shown that a foot of concrete is NOT a better seal against evaporaton and oxidization,

You haven't provided any proof that C4 cannot be solvented by acetone or another chemical. It is logical that a plastic explosive can be cut, rebar dipped in a sluury then the sovent allowed to evaporate to the original consistency then cast in concrete and preserved.
[/QUOTE]

It should not be difficult to find out what the specs on C-4 are. Are you suggesting you've developed this whole theory without even knowing for sure about the details of C-4, how long it lasts, and whether it can be added to a solvent?

Doesn't seem like you've really done your homework. Please show proof how C-4 can last 40 years in a slurry form enveloped in concrete and still be effective. Your theory requires these conditions, therefore it is up to you to verify these conditions to prove your theory. If you can do so, you'll have gone a long way towards convincing me that you've actually got something.

Want to influence the public? Show that your theory is scientifically and chemically possible.

Christophera

25th November 2006, 03:01 PM

Yes if you do not have real information you are most likely misinformed.

Is real information like raw data? Can it be cooked?

Sure, you can cook anything, but it will not be useful for reasoning if it is information to begin with. Cooking raw data properly works well, improperly most often ends up unreasonable.

Oliver

25th November 2006, 03:06 PM

Sure, you can cook anything, but it will not be useful for reasoning if it is information to begin with. Cooking raw data properly works well, improperly most often ends up unreasonable.

WHAT IS YOUR RAW EVIDENCE, ALFRED? :rolleyes:

tsig

25th November 2006, 04:07 PM

Correct, free fall is not the issue here, explanations for it or a rate of fall near it are.

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

so freefall is not important, but the rate of freefall is?

It's gravity Chris.

tsig

25th November 2006, 04:11 PM

What I meant to say was" only a demolition could be as symetrical as we saw."

Both events, having one part go one way and another part go another way are not possible in collapse without obvious cause which would be visible in a collaspse not obscured by the dust and particualte of explosions; and the final symetrical, uniform series of high speed detonations are indicative of some for m of demolition.

I used to think that English was my native language.

But I belive you said that you can look thru dust.

tsig

25th November 2006, 04:13 PM

WHAT IS YOUR RAW EVIDENCE, ALFRED? :rolleyes:
Cooked.

tsig

25th November 2006, 04:17 PM

Christophera

25th November 2006, 04:49 PM

Make up your mind. Either the rate of fall is important or it's not. If it isn't, stop mentioning it. If it is, then we need to know the rate of fall. You ask for an explanation for the rate of fall. That means we first need to know what the rate of fall is, don't we? Different rates would require different explanations. So decide, is it important or isn't it?

I don't discuss the rate of fall. But menton of the higgh rate of fall, whatever it is happens to be integral to the thread becase that is what we are trying to feasibly explain.

Rates of fall are one thing, how they are created is another. A building with a single story could be blown up and the rate of fall would not be an issue due to elevation because the visual explosion would rule.

In the case of a tower the visual event is also important and can influence understanding the rate of fall as well as the determination of collapse or demolition.

It should not be difficult to find out what the specs on C-4 are. Are you suggesting you've developed this whole theory without even knowing for sure about the details of C-4, how long it lasts, and whether it can be added to a solvent?

They tell us "at least ten years" here.

http://www.ribbands.co.uk/prdpages/C4.htm

Doesn't seem like you've really done your homework. Please show proof how C-4 can last 40 years in a slurry form enveloped in concrete and still be effective. Your theory requires these conditions, therefore it is up to you to verify these conditions to prove your theory. If you can do so, you'll have gone a long way towards convincing me that you've actually got something.

Want to influence the public? Show that your theory is scientifically and chemically possible.

It is not a theory.

The C4 is not encapsulated in a slurry form. I feel that C4 would not detonate in that form. A slurry is created from CC4, the rebar dipped in it and then hung to dry. Once the excess solvent has evaporated, returning it to viable explosive form, it is then cast into concrete.

I learned of the process from a magazine article published in the early 1970's which described how navy seal divers discovered and used the process without orders to stay off the bottom using a jack hammer knocking a hole in a sub base wall that engineers were trying to keep secret by not putting on the first set of plans.

They were caught setting off ordinanace without orders, gave up their information to an investigating officer who then handed it to explosives engineers who then developed it into a widespread construction method for self destruct sub bases and missle silos.

jsfisher

25th November 2006, 05:28 PM

I don't discuss the rate of fall. But menton of the higgh rate of fall, whatever it is happens to be integral to the thread becase that is what we are trying to feasibly explain.
You're gonna get dizzy if you keep spinning like that.

It is not a theory....I learned of the process from a magazine article published in the early 1970's....
You are correct. It is not a theory; it is just another of your convenient fabrications.

Christophera

25th November 2006, 05:37 PM

How do you hope to create justice when there's no justice system left and the media are (close to 100%) in on it?

The Americans can do it quickly, they just need information.

Would you rather they do not have it?

here is information on the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html).

Bell

25th November 2006, 05:38 PM

Why does it say the last post is by jsfisher, but I find Alfred's drivel instead?

ETA: some forum software/hardware screwup I guess. I blame Darat.

tsig

25th November 2006, 05:42 PM

I don't discuss the rate of fall. But menton of the higgh rate of fall, whatever it is happens to be integral to the thread becase that is what we are trying to feasibly explain.

Rates of fall are one thing, how they are created is another. A building with a single story could be blown up and the rate of fall would not be an issue due to elevation because the visual explosion would rule.

In the case of a tower the visual event is also important and can influence understanding the rate of fall as well as the determination of collapse or demolition.

They tell us "at least ten years" here.

http://www.ribbands.co.uk/prdpages/C4.htm

It is not a theory.

The C4 is not encapsulated in a slurry form. I feel that C4 would not detonate in that form. A slurry is created from CC4, the rebar dipped in it and then hung to dry. Once the excess solvent has evaporated, returning it to viable explosive form, it is then cast into concrete.

I learned of the process from a magazine article published in the early 1970's which described how navy seal divers discovered and used the process without orders to stay off the bottom using a jack hammer knocking a hole in a sub base wall that engineers were trying to keep secret by not putting on the first set of plans.

They were caught setting off ordinanace without orders, gave up their information to an investigating officer who then handed it to explosives engineers who then developed it into a widespread construction method for self destruct sub bases and missle silos.

Just how many secrets do you know?

And you found them out just by watching TV and reading public articles?

Guess the whole CIA thing was a real waste.

Warning!! I worked in missle silos.

Christophera

25th November 2006, 05:44 PM

Mind 'shopping an arrow into that photo that points to the concrete core?

the next image down from where this link takes you has the core outlined with a full description.

Oh, yeah, earlier you said our unconscious controls us. Did you mean just us, or did you mean yourself as well?

We are all controlled by our unconscious. Being aware of that make some less controllable because reason can sometimes take over.

Bell

25th November 2006, 05:45 PM

Just how many secrets do you know?

And you found them out just by watching TV and reading public articles?

Guess the whole CIA thing was a real waste.

Warning!! I worked in missle silos.

Christophera has not watched TV for the last eight years. Or so he claims.

Big Les

25th November 2006, 05:51 PM

The top fell to the east. Period. Below is raw evidence of it falling to the east. You don't have raw evidence of it falling to the west.

Please explain how some 30 floors of the WTC fell to one side, and suddenly turned around and fell to the other side?

http://gulnarasamoilova.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/wtc17.jpg

Hello, Chris - care to make something up to explain this away, just as you have the C4 issue? I'm sure you read a pamphlet on it about 80 years ago that subsequently combusted so that we can't read it too. Or something.

Christophera

25th November 2006, 06:02 PM

It was not the builders that lied. They are goiing along with the lie.

And you know this ... how? Presumably not stated in this documentary of yours?

Your question does not make sense. I'll do my best with it. The documentary had only to do with what was known about the construction in 1987 when the only core that was known was the concrete core. I can tell from the lack of communication to the public regarding the misinformation from architects and builders they are not the liars but are only going along with the lie

The same thing was stated about the WTC when it was built.

Then why is it that if I Google WTC "concrete core" I only get:

1) Statements by your good self
2) Conspiracy sites like Above Top Secret perpetuating said statements by your good self
3) Official sites about Freedom Tower.

I presume we can assume that Freedom Tower's rebar is the non-C4 coated sort.

The information has been removed from our society, that's why. If you don't think this is possible? You are exactly what the perps are counting on.

But, for me, the big, BIG questions:

WHY ON EARTH did whoever-it-was decide to load up the WTC with explosives, just in case they decided to blow it up at some time in the future?
How did they get round C-4's ten-year shelf life? If they had some special preservative to overcome that to, say, thirty years, how did they know they would need to use it within thirty years? This is utterly, utterly nonsensical.

The shelf life is based on the package life. Concrete lasts longer than cellophane. The building was supposed to last 75 years but some areas, particuarly floors could have leaked air which would have caused a deterioration sooner. Some did not go off. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/overspirezoom.gif) That was all on one side where heat from sunlight perhaps was most intense.

(B.)If everyone knew it was a concrete core and it collapsed, they would REALLY wonder why there were no masssive chunks of concrete.

And they knew this RIGHT from the start? Ah, c'mon. This is INCREDIBLY paranoid.

The above question/statement does not make sense. I said that "If the public knew from the start that the towers had a concrete core then they would really wonder why there were no massive chunks of concrete."

Yes. The strangeness of the security around the rebar was noted as well as the unannounced evacuations of floors by workers just before concrete was poured.

This documentary aired in, what, 1989? Did the authorities just volunteer this information? Did the documentary crew ask if any special security precautions were taken over bog-standard reinforcing rebar (notwithstanding the fact that the WTC was supposed to have a steel core, in fact famous for it).

The above questions are absurd because the documentary crew ONLY knew of the actual concrete core. The steel core is a fabrication that has been in place since 9-11. What is "bog-standard" reinforcing bar?

Unannounced evacuations? Didn't they know when they were going to pour? Are you saying the builders were allowed to wander around the explosive-coated rebar, but were cleared out when the concrete was poured, covering up the evidence?

You are referring to my information about the forced evacuations of the workers on the floors. I remember that the workers in the first instances where there was no announcement were placed in one floor area to wait. After the contractor threatened to sue for the wages he ad to pay out while none were working they compensated him and allowed him to work out a schedule where workers would be moved from one floor area to another. The workers running through the shadowy core hallways was actually shown.

beachnut

25th November 2006, 06:10 PM

Your question does not make sense. I'll do my best with it. The documentary had only to do with what was known about the construction in 1987 when the only core that was known was the concrete core. I can tell from the lack of communication to the public regarding the misinformation from architects and builders they are not the liars but are only going along with the lie

The shelf life is based on the package life. Concrete lasts longer than cellophane. The building was supposed to last 75 years but some areas, particuarly floors could have leaked air which would have caused a deterioration sooner. Some did not go off. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/overspirezoom.gif) That was all on one side where heat from sunlight perhaps was most intense.

The above question/statement does not make sense. I said that "If the public knew from the start that the towers had a concrete core then they would really wonder why there were no massive chunks of concrete."

The above questions are absurd because the documentary crew ONLY knew of the actual concrete core. The steel core is a fabrication that has been in place since 9-11. What is "bog-standard" reinforcing bar?

.

No concrete core in WTC. Proof has been shown to you over and over!

The only concrete core in this thread is in your head. If you would take the time you have wasted posting on this thread, you could design the WTC and find out why it was strong enough with a steel core!

There are concrete floors, but no concrete cores in the WTC. You are still wrong since you first posted the concrete core. So just to tell you again, there is no core of concrete, wonder when you will figure it out?

tsig

25th November 2006, 06:11 PM

Christophera has not watched TV for the last eight years. Or so he claims.

Then how how did he see the famous documentary?

Bell

25th November 2006, 06:14 PM

Then how how did he see the famous documentary?

Somewhere in the early 90's I guess. After that, he threw away his TV, because he couldn't handle the fact that the WTC was rigged with uhmplosives. And this is a logical explanation.

tsig

25th November 2006, 06:16 PM

Your question does not make sense. I'll do my best with it. The documentary had only to do with what was known about the construction in 1987 when the only core that was known was the concrete core. I can tell from the lack of communication to the public regarding the misinformation from architects and builders they are not the liars but are only going along with the lie

The information has been removed from our society, that's why. If you don't think this is possible? You are exactly what the perps are counting on.

The shelf life is based on the package life. Concrete lasts longer than cellophane. The building was supposed to last 75 years but some areas, particuarly floors could have leaked air which would have caused a deterioration sooner. Some did not go off. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/overspirezoom.gif) That was all on one side where heat from sunlight perhaps was most intense.

The above question/statement does not make sense. I said that "If the public knew from the start that the towers had a concrete core then they would really wonder why there were no massive chunks of concrete."

The above questions are absurd because the documentary crew ONLY knew of the actual concrete core. The steel core is a fabrication that has been in place since 9-11. What is "bog-standard" reinforcing bar?

You are referring to my information about the forced evacuations of the workers on the floors. I remember that the workers in the first instances where there was no announcement were placed in one floor area to wait. After the contractor threatened to sue for the wages he ad to pay out while none were working they compensated him and allowed him to work out a schedule where workers would be moved from one floor area to another. The workers running through the shadowy core hallways was actually shown.

Shadowy hallways and running workers does it get any better?

maybe that's where you met the indian?

twinstead

25th November 2006, 06:19 PM

Chris, you have forced almost 8500 posts for an untenable position.

Bravo

tsig

25th November 2006, 06:20 PM

Somewhere in the early 90's I guess. After that, he threw away his TV, because he couldn't handle the fact that the WTC was rigged with uhmplosives. And this is a logical explanation.

You are right Cris style.

Somewhere there must be some sanity, but we monkeys don't seem to find it.

I wish my hair was thicker so I wondn't have to buy clothes.

Big Al

25th November 2006, 06:21 PM

The information has been removed from our society, that's why. If you don't think this is possible? You are exactly what the perps are counting on.

No, I don't believe every reference everywhere could be expunged. Are you telling me that nobody but you have noticed that their data have disappeared.

The shelf life is based on the package life. Concrete lasts longer than cellophane.

But C-4 doesn't.

The above question/statement does not make sense. I said that "If the public knew from the start that the towers had a concrete core then they would really wonder why there were no massive chunks of concrete."

But they didn't say "They'll wonder where the steel core went"?

The above questions are absurd because the documentary crew ONLY knew of the actual concrete core. The steel core is a fabrication that has been in place since 9-11. What is "bog-standard" reinforcing bar?

Bog-standard is a British phrase meaning boring, ordinary and basic.

I saw a documentary about the WTC well before 9/11 - unlike you, I can't remember the year. I DO remember it mentioning the steel core. Also, websites predating 9/11 mention the steel core - or have they been altered without their webmasters noticing?

You are referring to my information about the forced evacuations of the workers on the floors. I remember that the workers in the first instances where there was no announcement were placed in one floor area to wait. After the contractor threatened to sue for the wages he ad to pay out while none were working they compensated him and allowed him to work out a schedule where workers would be moved from one floor area to another. The workers running through the shadowy core hallways was actually shown.

The documentary had only to do with what was known about the construction in 1987

Yet they also covered labour disputes? How did the info about the subcontractor threatening to sue come out? That wouldn't be evident from still pictures, and the authorities would hardly be likely to divulge it out of the blue.

Bell

25th November 2006, 06:26 PM

The top fell to the east. Period. Below is raw evidence of it falling to the east. You don't have raw evidence of it falling to the west.

Please explain how some 30 floors of the WTC fell to one side, and suddenly turned around and fell to the other side?

http://gulnarasamoilova.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/wtc17.jpg

Posted by me, quoted by Big Les...
When are you going to reply to this, Christophera?

Don't forget to bring raw evidence!

tsig

25th November 2006, 06:45 PM

Posted by me, quoted by Big Les...
When are you going to reply to this, Christophera?

Don't forget to bring raw evidence!

Raw evidence grilled to perfection

Nothing like good BBQ.

Really the fact that steel weakens under heat seems plain, but not to some.

Christophera

25th November 2006, 07:20 PM

Really the fact that steel weakens under heat seems plain, but not to some.

I always have to get steel to like 2750F to make it melt, bending is not easy under 1500F. I cook chicken with wood at 600F, but it burns, so I cut off the air and smoke/bake at 500F.

There were a few places that got around 600-800F in the towers but not much more and that was probably not at all widespread. The coverage of heat to get steel hot enough to bend is really an issue. Bending tubing requires about 270 degress around it getting near cherry red.

On the towers we had 14 inch tempered steel columns 22 inches C to C and getting enough heat to 3 sides on any column to loose significant strength would not be likely. Realize that the top of the columns at each floor is where the majority of the heat will end up. Which makes the issue of the top of WTC 1 falling south a real mystery if collapse is proposed because about 1/2 of the columns on the north side were severed meaning the top should have fallen north, but it fell south.

tsig

25th November 2006, 07:47 PM

I always have to get steel to like 2750F to make it melt, bending is not easy under 1500F. I cook chicken with wood at 600F, but it burns, so I cut off the air and smoke/bake at 500F.

There were a few places that got around 600-800F in the towers but not much more and that was probably not at all widespread. The coverage of heat to get steel hot enough to bend is really an issue. Bending tubing requires about 270 degress around it getting near cherry red.

On the towers we had 14 inch tempered steel columns 22 inches C to C and getting enough heat to 3 sides on any column to loose significant strength would not be likely. Realize that the top of the columns at each floor is where the majority of the heat will end up. Which makes the issue of the top of WTC 1 falling south a real mystery if collapse is proposed because about 1/2 of the columns on the north side were severed meaning the top should have fallen north, but it fell south.

Steel does not have to melt to lose strength

The steel was not tempered but quite mild mannered.

hcmom

25th November 2006, 09:02 PM

I always have to get steel to like 2750F to make it melt,...

So if it prefers other temperatures you're screwed, huh?

hellaeon

25th November 2006, 09:10 PM

Guys - please stop replying to him.

NobbyNobbs

25th November 2006, 09:29 PM

I don't discuss the rate of fall. But menton of the higgh rate of fall, whatever it is happens to be integral to the thread becase that is what we are trying to feasibly explain.

Rates of fall are one thing, how they are created is another. A building with a single story could be blown up and the rate of fall would not be an issue due to elevation because the visual explosion would rule.

Please answer with a simple yes or no: Is the rate at which the towers fell important?

The C4 is not encapsulated in a slurry form. I feel that C4 would not detonate in that form. A slurry is created from CC4, the rebar dipped in it and then hung to dry. Once the excess solvent has evaporated, returning it to viable explosive form, it is then cast into concrete.

I learned of the process from a magazine article published in the early 1970's which described how navy seal divers discovered and used the process without orders to stay off the bottom using a jack hammer knocking a hole in a sub base wall that engineers were trying to keep secret by not putting on the first set of plans.

They were caught setting off ordinanace without orders, gave up their information to an investigating officer who then handed it to explosives engineers who then developed it into a widespread construction method for self destruct sub bases and missle silos.

Ah, excellent. Could you please give the name of the magazine and the date of the issue in which you saw this? Even an approximate date, like "spring of 1973" would be fine. Thanks.

tsig

25th November 2006, 09:40 PM

Guys - please stop replying to him.
OK

tsig

25th November 2006, 09:45 PM

I always have to get steel to like 2750F to make it melt, bending is not easy under 1500F. I cook chicken with wood at 600F, but it burns, so I cut off the air and smoke/bake at 500F.

There were a few places that got around 600-800F in the towers but not much more and that was probably not at all widespread. The coverage of heat to get steel hot enough to bend is really an issue. Bending tubing requires about 270 degress around it getting near cherry red.

On the towers we had 14 inch tempered steel columns 22 inches C to C and getting enough heat to 3 sides on any column to loose significant strength would not be likely. Realize that the top of the columns at each floor is where the majority of the heat will end up. Which makes the issue of the top of WTC 1 falling south a real mystery if collapse is proposed because about 1/2 of the columns on the north side were severed meaning the top should have fallen north, but it fell south.

steel is born in heat thereore it loses strengtth in heat.

Pardalis

25th November 2006, 10:00 PM

Guys - please stop replying to him.

Seconded.

For his own sake.

delphi_ote

25th November 2006, 10:13 PM

OK
steel is born in heat thereore it loses strengtth in heat.
:confused:

25th November 2006, 10:22 PM

Excuse me.

You didn't provide a feasible explanation for free fall, or near free fall.

That's because no explanation is required. It didn't fall at free or near free fall.

And the fine clouds of particualte needs explanation (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg),

Gypsum particle board. Drywall. Office furniture. Concrete floors. Etc.

The image, by the way, is of insufficient resolution to determine 'fine particulate' versus 'flying debris'.

No explanation necessary.

and what you are doing is trying to dissmiis the only comprehensive explanation in existence.

A comprehensive explanation for a non-event is still irrelevant.

Meaning your credibility is trashed from the beginning as far as your intentions.

You should speak of credibility... when you're a proven liar and lunatic.

Whatever.

You haven't provided any proof whatsoever of your assertion that no explosive will last past 20 years. You have not shown that a foot of concrete is NOT a better seal against evaporaton and oxidization,

I don't need to. You're the one making an outrageous claim, not I. I know these things to be true; it is incumbent upon you to disprove them.

You haven't provided any proof that C4 cannot be solvented by acetone or another chemical. It is logical that a plastic explosive can be cut, rebar dipped in a sluury then the sovent allowed to evaporate to the original consistency then cast in concrete and preserved.

Not at all. If you had even basic understanding of industrial chemical engineering, you would know that plastic explosives cannot remain effective if 'solvented' by acetone. You also would understand that concrete is absolutely one of the worse things to try to preserve a chemical mixture within.

Again, the burden of proof is on you, moron.

Where as the assertion that such is possible is logical

No, it isn't.

Your issue of 3 inch rebar has alread been proven wrong by this image of 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg).

No it hasn't. The image in question is of insufficient resolution to determine what is being seen. 3" rebar would not even appear in such an image.

It is your interpretation of this image that has been proven false, not the fact that no one makes 3" rebar, and never has.

You cannot provide any evidence of the existance of this imaginary rebar.

I have just posted 200% more evidence than you have in defense of the only existing credible explanation for what happened to the towers on 9-11.

You have posted nothing at all.

This thread is not about saying NO, to feasible explanations it is about producing one and collapse just is not credible.

Wrong. This thread is for your personal mental masturbation, and the shameless promotion of your idiotic website.

Luckily, the truth is, this thread exists only to make fun of you.

25th November 2006, 10:25 PM

I learned of the process from a magazine article published in the early 1970's which described how navy seal divers discovered and used the process without orders to stay off the bottom using a jack hammer knocking a hole in a sub base wall that engineers were trying to keep secret by not putting on the first set of plans.

They were caught setting off ordinanace without orders, gave up their information to an investigating officer who then handed it to explosives engineers who then developed it into a widespread construction method for self destruct sub bases and missle silos.

Hooo boy another load of malarky.

What magazine, Chris? Month and year, if you please.

Or will this magazine mysteriously disappear like the PBS documentary?

25th November 2006, 10:30 PM

The shelf life is based on the package life. Concrete lasts longer than cellophane.

Oh my f----ng bob.

You just revealed how stupid you really are.

So if the shelf life of a loaf of bread wrapped in cellophane is one week, but I wrap it in steel mesh, it'll last longer?

Are you that ignorant

You've revealed your idiocy, Chris. Vaya con dios.

25th November 2006, 10:36 PM

I always have to get steel to like 2750F to make it melt,

Molten steel was not required.

bending is not easy under 1500F.

Ever tried using several tons of force to bend it?

I cook chicken with wood at 600F, but it burns, so I cut off the air and smoke/bake at 500F.

Irrelevant.

There were a few places that got around 600-800F in the towers but not much more and that was probably not at all widespread. The coverage of heat to get steel hot enough to bend is really an issue. Bending tubing requires about 270 degress around it getting near cherry red.

Common household fires can reach 1500 degrees easily.

On the towers we had 14 inch tempered steel columns 22 inches C to C and getting enough heat to 3 sides on any column to loose significant strength would not be likely.

Really? Thought we had concrete. Which is it?

25th November 2006, 10:38 PM

No.

jsfisher

25th November 2006, 10:45 PM

No.
I understand the answer completely; however, what was the question?

Christophera

25th November 2006, 10:50 PM

Why does it say the last post is by jsfisher, but I find Alfred's drivel instead?

ETA: some forum software/hardware screwup I guess. I blame Darat.

Not Darats fault, mine.

But is only happens because the forum software doesn't carry the quotes of the poste quoted. This is causing communication problems for those trying to share truth but helping those trying to dismiss it

Christophera

25th November 2006, 10:53 PM

Oh my f----ng bob.

You just revealed how stupid you really are.

So if the shelf life of a loaf of bread wrapped in cellophane is one week, but I wrap it in steel mesh, it'll last longer?

Are you that ignorant

You've revealed your idiocy, Chris. Vaya con dios.

You analogy simply exposes your tendancy to "over distort" A foot of concrete will work better than cellophane just like a steel box will..

Christophera

25th November 2006, 10:58 PM

Posted by me, quoted by Big Les...
When are you going to reply to this, Christophera?

Don't forget to bring raw evidence!

I think I've replied 5 times now. The obsufucators are proficient.

Here is an image of a piece of the top of WTC 2 concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/WTC2coreonto3lines.gif) hitting WTC 3. The roof is highlighted with lines. This image (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg) is larger and the core is more easily identified.

Christophera

25th November 2006, 11:05 PM

No, I don't believe every reference everywhere could be expunged. Are you telling me that nobody but you have noticed that their data have disappeared.

Actually you are are right. It has not been completely removed. Only the authorities have dispensed with the truth in order to enable the lie.

Here is a Ph.D structural engineer and some others without a special interest.

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

http://www.salwen.com/wtc/

http://www.blythe.org/nytransfer-subs/2001-Environment/Gallon_Environ.Letter:_Engineers_on_WTC_Collapse

http://www.ussartf.org/world_trade_center_disaster.htm

Here, you will see how information is removed.

http://www.unc.edu/courses/2001fall/plan/006e/001/engineering/index.html

http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/wtc/page3.html

The question is will you believe those with an interest in removing the truth of the concrete core or those who have only an interest in the truth.

Christophera

25th November 2006, 11:40 PM

No concrete core in WTC. Proof has been shown to you over and over!

The only concrete core in this thread is in your head. If you would take the time you have wasted posting on this thread, you could design the WTC and find out why it was strong enough with a steel core!

There are concrete floors, but no concrete cores in the WTC. You are still wrong since you first posted the concrete core. So just to tell you again, there is no core of concrete, wonder when you will figure it out?

Simply put. Since you cannot produce an image from the demolition that shows any of the 47 steel core columns clearly inside the core at some elevation above the gorund, you believe a lie.

Nobody, not FEMA or NIST has gotten to look at the blueprints used in construction.

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

Add to this that there are 3 different floor plans for the core out there, and you have all that is need to show there is a deception going on. And, ....... it is trying to hide the simple fact that the towers had a steel reinforced, tubular cast concrete core. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) Not one poster here has ever come up with a descent description for what the core in that image is IF it is not concrete.

Christophera

25th November 2006, 11:42 PM

Ever tried using several tons of force to bend it?

I've used a press and dies to bend.

Have you ever used a torch to heat and bend steel?

Have you ever built a small forge with forced air and charcoal trying to heat steel enough to bend it or form it.

How much length were you able to involve?

hcmom

26th November 2006, 12:33 AM

I cook chicken with wood at 600F, but it burns, so I cut off the air and smoke/bake at 500F.

There were a few places that got around 600-800F in the towers but not much more...

Common household fires can reach 1500 degrees easily.

Heck, his BBQ gets as hot as the towers did!

26th November 2006, 02:01 AM

You analogy simply exposes your tendancy to "over distort" A foot of concrete will work better than cellophane just like a steel box will..

Well, you've just proven my point. You're not only deluded, you're just stupid.

If nothing else, the moisture from the curing process not immediately bonded into the concrete would cause some oxidation of the explosive mixture. This is more problematic for explosives than air. Shrinkage occurs in all concrete, and there would be airspace along the rebar, as well as at joints and connections.

In short, concrete would allow air and moisture into the area around the rebar (evidenced by the fact that used steel-reinforced concrete, when busted, often shows rusted rebar); this would shorten the viability of the explosive compared to airtight, watertight cellophane packaging.

Temperature control inside the concrete wouldn't be too bad, I would think; except that during the curing process, concrete becomes warm. Warmth shortens the viability of explosives as well.

You would know this if you were, in fact, involved with construction at a significant level.

Ergo, exposing plastic explosives to curing concrete would shorten its viable lifespan - perhaps significantly - and definitely to a point where the explosive would be nearly useless forty years down the line.

I await your response, with hard evidence to back your position.

26th November 2006, 02:10 AM

I've used a press and dies to bend.

And how close to the weight of the collapsing towers could you put into that effort? Was this a 100+ ton press? Did you attain temperatures of over 1500 degrees, which can and do occur in normal building fires?

Have you ever used a torch to heat and bend steel?

Have you ever built a small forge with forced air and charcoal trying to heat steel enough to bend it or form it.

Admittedly, no. My knowledge of such processes has been gained solely from researching the available information. Nevertheless, conditions in the towers were more than suitable to soften, bend, and even break steel. A 1300-ft lenght of steel, consisting of numerable members bound together, suffering extreme conditions of heat and unexpected, dynamic stress, without suitable cross-supports, could easily shatter into sections.

You've posted a few pics of steel beams which were most likely seen after cutting had begun for cleanup operations. Do you have pics of all the available steel? Do you have solid evidence that all of the alleged structural steel suffered identical more-than-perfect cuts, which you have claimed, and that no steel in the wreckage was warped, twisted, broken, or bent?

That's a significant request, one I don't expect anyone can fulfill. But a couple of pics of a couple of beams that happen to support one of your theories is insufficient evidence, Chris.

Having seen other steel structures collapse as a result of intense fires, I definitely would not expect 47 1300-ft long steel beams to stand while thousands of tons of matter falls around them. Why you do is beyond my understanding.

William Rea

26th November 2006, 02:32 AM

Ok, if we're going to be sensible and focussed and the usual monkey brains aren't going to keep chipping in with their inane contributions I'll kick off...

Free fall means falling ONLY under the influence of gravity with no other forces being involved. In this pure state the object will fall at 9.81 metres per second squared regardless of mass. It will continue to accelerate at this rate unless acted upon by any other force.

If anyone wants to come forward with the actual value of g for the New York District we could be more precise but I think 9.81 metres per second squared is an adequate approximation. The actual value for New York is 9.802 metres per second so the time to free fall would actually be 9.158 seconds.

If you were to take a weight and drop it in a vacuum from the height of the roof of the WTC at 411 metres from the ground then it will take 9.15 seconds to hit the ground.

Those are facts and a suitable benchmark to start from.

How can we establish how long it took the tower to fall from the point at which near free fall conditions occurred, anyone want to chip in with the video evidence?

It would appear that the monkeys aren't able to wind their necks in and will continue with their inane interjections but I'll persevere.

It is important to know if the towers achieved near free fall conditions because it gives an insight into the possibilities of how the collapse proceeded after initiation. If the timing is 9.15 seconds then this implies that the underlying structure offered no resistance to the fall.

We have to keep in mind that 9.15 seconds does not include any natural resistance to falling such as wind resistance. Another factor is that although there is a lot of energy available to accelerate the collapse, this does not imply that all this energy can do useful work.

A timing greater than that expected for free fall implies that the underlying structure of the towers offered some resistance but the real question is how much resistance was there and how much should we have expected? I would intitially define near free fall timing as being a time that is close enough to 9.15 seconds to imply that the forces resisting the collapse were not as substantial as might be expected. I will not start to do any further analysis until you guys have established a definitive time for the collapse as defined below...

Taking into account the New York local variation for g I have told you what the timing is for a free fall from initiation to the top of the tower hitting the ground (9.15 seconds). Could all you pseudo-skeptics (aka political bloggers) tell me what the total time for collapse was from intitiation of the top of the tower falling to completion of the fall?

For future reference...

Potential Energy (PE) = mass x g x height (mgh)
Kinetic Energy (KE) = 0.5 x mass x velocity squared (0.5mv^2)

PE is a potential difference of energy based states upon an arbitrary frame of reference. The Earth's surface is generally considered the zero PE point despite the fact that the gravity acts between the centres of masses.

Dave_46

26th November 2006, 02:59 AM

Molten steel was not required.

<snip>

Common household fires can reach 1500 degrees easily.

Really? Thought we had concrete. Which is it?

zaayrdragon

The explanation about the temperatures that you gave has been given to him before.

He doesn't listen.

Dave

Bell

26th November 2006, 03:11 AM

I think I've replied 5 times now. The obsufucators are proficient.

Here is an image of a piece of the top of WTC 2 concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/WTC2coreonto3lines.gif) hitting WTC 3. The roof is highlighted with lines. This image (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg) is larger and the core is more easily identified.

I showed you raw evidence of the top of the south tower falling to the east. You still have not explained how some 30 floors of that tower fell one way, turned and then fell the other way.

btw, the picture you posts shows big pieces of the EXTERIOR COLUMNS falling down.

Christophera

26th November 2006, 11:12 AM

And how close to the weight of the collapsing towers could you put into that effort? Was this a 100+ ton press? Did you attain temperatures of over 1500 degrees, which can and do occur in normal building fires?

Those temperatures are not ambient throughout the fire and are only attained in a few places for a short period. The number is more accurately expressed "parts to attain" termpertures up to 1500F.

Admittedly, no. My knowledge of such processes has been gained solely from researching the available information. Nevertheless, conditions in the towers were more than suitable to soften, bend, and even break steel. A 1300-ft lenght of steel, consisting of numerable members bound together, suffering extreme conditions of heat and unexpected, dynamic stress, without suitable cross-supports, could easily shatter into sections.

You've posted a few pics of steel beams which were most likely seen after cutting had begun for cleanup operations. Do you have pics of all the available steel? Do you have solid evidence that all of the alleged structural steel suffered identical more-than-perfect cuts, which you have claimed, and that no steel in the wreckage was warped, twisted, broken, or bent?

That's a significant request, one I don't expect anyone can fulfill. But a couple of pics of a couple of beams that happen to support one of your theories is insufficient evidence, Chris.

Having seen other steel structures collapse as a result of intense fires, I definitely would not expect 47 1300-ft long steel beams to stand while thousands of tons of matter falls around them. Why you do is beyond my understanding.

Those extra pictures you say should be posted but not by me. They were posted to show "core columns". There was one in particular. An aerial, I think homer posted it. I immediately commented that the cut columns were not box columns and of course homre can produce no images of the columns in situ at some elevation above ground. But the most striking thing was that there was enough reolution to show that virtually all of the column pieces had square cut ends.

Generally, in this type of discussion, it is assumed a person has familiarity with the images of the event, 9-11, and knows what images are out there and does not argue points that can be refuted easily. Generally people have their pet theory and have perused all the images to find ones that support their theory.

What happens most of the time, and I'm generalizing here to typify the 9-11 exchange process, is that the person gets so involved that they sort of forget that such and such image exists and shows something contrary to what they've come to believe, and another poster has to remind them that there are images that show something that contradicts there position irrefutably. When that poster is reminded, and if they are sincere in seeking the truth, they change their mind. Their perspective is modified.

When this does not occur something is wrong. The person is not being reasonable, they are not using the evidence.

Meaning, ........... that you've been here all along, you've seen the images. If you do not scrutinize them to note everything distinct that is to be seen, then it is your responsibility to use the available information and go find them. They are about 15 pages back and posted perhaps 3 times.

As far as the columns standing.

No, they would not stand at 1300 feet, but they could not be cut within what was seen and heard so they would be there exposed. Under the conditions very long columns would be seen leaning, bending, falling. They will snap but they bend first under most conditions of collapse.

Most of the bent and broken steel seen is perimeter column not interior box column.

btw, there has been a discussion on cutting of columns on site and no one here seemed familiar enough to even suggest viable cutting methods (all too expensive for salavege) so I had to provide the information. There was no rebuttals. Perhaps 10 pages back. You will see a stack of columns with clean cut ends a few times and the image I use that shows explosive shear and a torch cut.

Christophera

26th November 2006, 11:20 AM

I showed you raw evidence of the top of the south tower falling to the east. You still have not explained how some 30 floors of that tower fell one way, turned and then fell the other way.

btw, the picture you posts shows big pieces of the EXTERIOR COLUMNS falling down.

Yes there are large assemblies of panels in the image. But inside, right where I would expect it is the concrete core.

There is some explanation here.
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1152280

Below we see a very large floppy segment of perimeter column falling ahead of the piece of the top and core. In order for the top to fall off thw body of the tower while the body is leaning in the earlier images posted, a large piece of the perimeter wall on the west would have to be taken out BELOW the top causing it to tilt independant of the body shown in the photo taken from the east. That piece of wall would begin to fall first and would land first. The image below shows a part of that wall removed to gain the radical tilt required to get the piece of the top seen to fall west.

Demolitions, delays and the explosive circuits present in the floors and core are capable of this.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4262&stc=1&d=1164564832

Christophera

26th November 2006, 11:38 AM

Then how how did he see the famous documentary?

I saw the documentary in 1990 which has been stated maybe 15 times in the last 40 pages.

beachnut

26th November 2006, 11:46 AM

I saw the documentary in 1990 which has been stated maybe 15 times in the last 40 pages.

Too bad the documentary got the core wrong, now you are the only person in the world with a concrete core because idiots researched it wrong.

Now they know they are wrong leaving you the only wrong person in the world!

The only one, you are it! good job

Christophera

26th November 2006, 11:47 AM

Chris, you have forced almost 8500 posts for an untenable position.

Bravo

If what you say was true, then images of the supposed steel core columns from the demo at some elevation off the ground would have been posted somewhere in the last 200+ pages. No such images have been posted.

Meaning that the unreasonableness of the deniers of the concrete core and those without feasible, realistic, comprehensive explanations for rates of fall near that of free fall are responsible for FORCING 8500 posts, not I.

I simply support a reasonable and well evidenced "scenario" for free fall and pulverization.

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

Bell

26th November 2006, 11:55 AM

I simply support a reasonable and well evidenced "scenario" for free fall and pulverization.

:dl:

Anybody care to put that line in his sig?

Christophera

26th November 2006, 11:56 AM

Too bad the documentary got the core wrong, now you are the only person in the world with a concrete core because idiots researched it wrong.

Now they know they are wrong leaving you the only wrong person in the world!

The only one, you are it! good job

Too bad those sneaky architects and contractors got together and built a model of new york to do a fake construction of the Twin Towers in so the thousands of still and hundreds of reels of 16mm film could be created then left convienently where those gullible videograpers would find it and believe the towers were built with a steel reinforced, tubular cast concrete core.

I wonder why the steel core columns NEVER show up in the images of the demo of the real towers?

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

Bell

26th November 2006, 11:56 AM

Yes there are large assemblies of panels in the image. But inside, right where I would expect it is the concrete core.

There is some explanation here.
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1152280

Below we see a very large floppy segment of perimeter column falling ahead of the piece of the top and core. In order for the top to fall off thw body of the tower while the body is leaning in the earlier images posted, a large piece of the perimeter wall on the west would have to be taken out BELOW the top causing it to tilt independant of the body shown in the photo taken from the east. That piece of wall would begin to fall first and would land first. The image below shows a part of that wall removed to gain the radical tilt required to get the piece of the top seen to fall west.

Demolitions, delays and the explosive circuits present in the floors and core are capable of this.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4262&stc=1&d=1164564832

Making up stuff to explain events that did not happen, doesn't make those events true.

Really Christophera, are you making up all this stuff as you go?

delphi_ote

26th November 2006, 12:45 PM

Pete and Repeat are sitting on a log. Pete fell off. Who was left?

beachnut

26th November 2006, 12:48 PM

Too bad those sneaky architects and contractors got together and built a model of new york to do a fake construction of the Twin Towers in so the thousands of still and hundreds of reels of 16mm film could be created then left convienently where those gullible videograpers would find it and believe the towers were built with a steel reinforced, tubular cast concrete core.

I wonder why the steel core columns NEVER show up in the images of the demo of the real towers?

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

So sad you saw a mistake and now are the only one, the only one who can not see the errors and make corrections.

You are the last one to cling to a concrete core. I have proved to others and they have corrected or admitted their mistake.

When will you?

bonavada

26th November 2006, 01:21 PM

I wonder why the steel core columns NEVER show up in the images of the demo of the real towers?

spam (http://spam.com/conc/core.html) removed

try this:-

o4u9i62bMXQ

or this:-

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748453043bd77e28.jpg

and this:-

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87484549459bbc9ed.jpg

this:-

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

or perhaps this:-

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

and there's this:-

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

what about this:-

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87484569f60feb777.jpg

and last but not least this:-

ZYPco_Pr5Sw

:-]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748455e1cdba49b0.jpg

BV

Big Al

26th November 2006, 03:04 PM

Sorry, bonavada. Nice try indeed, but I rather suspect Chris will ignore it all.

Powa

26th November 2006, 03:22 PM

Hey, who knows. Maybe this time he'll admit he's wrong.

*crosses fingers*

Dave_46

26th November 2006, 03:38 PM

Sorry, bonavada. Nice try indeed, but I rather suspect Chris will ignore it all.

Again.

Dave

alexg

26th November 2006, 03:38 PM

Hey, who knows. Maybe this time he'll admit he's wrong.

*crosses fingers*

ha, ha, not even after another 8 and a half thousand posts - this is a major pathological obcession we are seeing here.

delphi_ote

26th November 2006, 04:20 PM

ha, ha, not even after another 8 and a half thousand posts - this is a major pathological obcession we are seeing here.
I'm starting to suspect that pathological obsession lies on both sides here. Chris's mind isn't going to change.

Christophera

26th November 2006, 04:22 PM

Your first image,

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748453043bd77e28.jpg

Shows the interior box columns ("MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS") (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) on the left side of the tower. The group on the far left can be easily identified as interior box columns which are not inside the the core as shown in the previously linked image where the floor beams comprise rectangles which are of exactly the same proportions as shown in the aerial. The single box column falling off to the right is literally the only image that could be realistically interpreted as a "core column". It is not however. Projecting the column vertical angle downward makes it a part of the wall of interior box columns. The central core area is to the right more and no columns are seen there where they should be along with the "lattice work" that fraud Gene Corely presents later in your post. The lattice work is not seen.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87484549459bbc9ed.jpg

The above image shows the concrete core and light reflected off the interior of the shear walls. The breakdown steel forms leave a very smooth shiny surface on concrete which will easily reflect light at low angles of incidence. This image and other silhouettes are dealt with completely here,

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

The third image down, same image.

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

The above image is dealt with on the same page,

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

at the bottom. The image shows the interior box columns standing AFTER the concrete boles up. This image, taken part of a seconds before shows the concrete blowing up. (http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8232/wtcsl8.jpg), The steel on that side of the building is only partially compromised by cutting charges (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1233383) due to exposure and the loss of viability of the built in explosives.

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

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

Both of the above are interior box columns that have been cut by the cutting charges and are falling out of the line of interior box columns. No image clearly shows steel core columns in the core area at an elevation because the steel core columns did not exist.

What existed is obvious as concrete to anybody that knows construction and has the courage and integrity to acknowledge that concrete is the only structure (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) that can stand and appear as linked under those conditions

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87484569f60feb777.jpg

Unseen in the above image is the concrete core which is just below the un cored area of the tower. Notice, the supposed steel core columns are also not seen.

Nice video celebrating my web site,

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

which has the only comprehensive, feasible, realistic explanation for the 9-11 WTC event on the internet.

All those that doubt this, please realize that there is no web site supporting the steel core columns with raw evidence of images from the demolition and that the massive amount of opposition to my assertion that the most common building material in the world, concrete, supported by copius evidence of photos and links to various un interested sites (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html) shows that the steel core crowd has no evidence and must resort to elaborate ad hominem attacks upon the messenger.

There is no evidence for the steel core columns. only fraudulent fabrications easily debunked by images of the demolition which bare the entire structure at various points.

Christophera

26th November 2006, 04:23 PM

I'm starting to suspect that pathological obsession lies on both sides here. Chris's mind isn't going to change.

If you didn't so easily recognize evidence (or the lack of it) I'd say you were psychic.

Christophera

26th November 2006, 04:27 PM

ha, ha, not even after another 8 and a half thousand posts - this is a major pathological obcession we are seeing here.

Obsessed with my childrens futures and awareness of your deep denial/delusion and my commitment to the principles of the US Constitution with the inherent value of the American people, as deceived as they may be,

is more like it..

But you do not want to know that from your isolated cave.

Bell

26th November 2006, 04:29 PM

If you didn't so easily recognize evidence (or the lack of it) I'd say you were psychic.

That could win you a million dollars, you know?

Christophera

26th November 2006, 04:29 PM

So sad you saw a mistake and now are the only one, the only one who can not see the errors and make corrections.

You are the last one to cling to a concrete core. I have proved to others and they have corrected or admitted their mistake.

When will you?

Come up with evidence for the steel core columns of a raw nature and explain what looks like concrete here (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html) and you stand a chance.

Architect

26th November 2006, 04:44 PM

I'm starting to suspect that pathological obsession lies on both sides here. Chris's mind isn't going to change.

I can't believe they're still going at it.

But hell what do I know, unlike Chris I'm only trained in building construction and work on tall buildings projects........

...or is that the hypnosis kicking in? :confused:

bonavada

26th November 2006, 05:14 PM

Come up with evidence for the steel core columns of a raw nature and explain what looks like concrete here (http://spamremoved.com/conc/core.html) and you stand a chance.
[my bold]

looks like? LOOKS LIKE?

does this look like concrete?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748456a2b88dfc40.jpg

how do you reconcile this image with your oft spammed one on your site christophera? do you still insist there is evidence in this "raw image" of a 17' thick concrete structure? if so please be kind enough to indicate where it is?

btw apologies to the OP of this image i can't give credit as i don't know who it was. but it does the job it was meant to do. perfectly

hcmom

26th November 2006, 07:06 PM

Pete and Repeat are sitting on a log. Pete fell off. Who was left?

You and me, to name two...

hcmom

26th November 2006, 07:16 PM

Those temperatures are not ambient throughout the fire and are only attained in a few places for a short period. The number is more accurately expressed "parts to attain" termpertures up to 1500F.
"Parts to attain" being loosely translated to mean "currently burning"?

Generally, in this type of discussion, it is assumed a person has familiarity with the images of the event, 9-11, and knows what images are out there and does not argue points that can be refuted easily. Generally people have their pet theory and have perused all the images to find ones that support their theory.

What happens most of the time, and I'm generalizing here to typify the 9-11 exchange process, is that the person gets so involved that they sort of forget that such and such image exists and shows something contrary to what they've come to believe, and another poster has to remind them that there are images that show something that contradicts there position irrefutably.Yes, we've noticed...

When that poster is reminded, and if they are sincere in seeking the truth, they change their mind. Their perspective is modified.Well, you did say you were generalizing. There's no way we'd expect you to be part of the norm...

When this does not occur something is wrong. The person is not being reasonable, they are not using the evidence.Yes, we've noticed...

Christophera

26th November 2006, 08:03 PM

"Parts to attain" being loosely translated to mean "currently burning"?

Yes, we've noticed...

Well, you did say you were generalizing. There's no way we'd expect you to be part of the norm...

Yes, we've noticed...

In over 200 pages not one image of steel core columns has been produced by many, many deniers of the concrete core. The two images that have been produced that might be credibly misinterpreted have been explained and fit reasonably into images of the demo which also show the concrete core.

All this while no image showing concrete has been equitably explained.

So, everybody has noticed, .................... mostly, ....... that you have not provided a feasible explanation while unreasonbly trying to dismiss an explanation and the core structure it depends on, ............. while you have no evidence for the core you, and FEMA and NIST assert exists.

Christophera

26th November 2006, 08:06 PM

[my bold]

looks like? LOOKS LIKE?

does this look like concrete?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748456a2b88dfc40.jpg

how do you reconcile this image with your oft spammed one on your site christophera? do you still insist there is evidence in this "raw image" of a 17' thick concrete structure? if so please be kind enough to indicate where it is?

btw apologies to the OP of this image i can't give credit as i don't know who it was. but it does the job it was meant to do. perfectly

The sheetrock covers a hallway on WTC 2. Why the sheerock still exists attests to the efficiency of the C4 coated rebar.

Remember William Rodriugez and the cracking walls, remember the explosions in the basement.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1205439

NobbyNobbs

26th November 2006, 08:16 PM

In over 200 pages not one image of steel core columns has been produced by many, many deniers of the concrete core. The two images that have been produced that might be credibly misinterpreted have been explained and fit reasonably into images of the demo which also show the concrete core.

All this while no image showing concrete has been equitably explained.

So, everybody has noticed, .................... mostly, ....... that you have not provided a feasible explanation while unreasonbly trying to dismiss an explanation and the core structure it depends on, ............. while you have no evidence for the core you, and FEMA and NIST assert exists.

Post #8455, last image. I would have put it here, but I'm not really sure how.

And Chris, I'd still like to know more about this magazine article. Simply the name of the magazine and the year the article was published would be fine.

beachnut

26th November 2006, 08:16 PM

Come up with evidence for the steel core columns of a raw nature and explain what looks like concrete here (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html) and you stand a chance.

you show proof of no concrete core

your post is sad, you show a steel core, sorry but you are still wrong, try again

Admiral

26th November 2006, 09:04 PM

Christophera

26th November 2006, 09:37 PM

This is a stupid question, but if Chris's mind isn't going to change (and it very clearly isn't, despite the mountains of evidence against him), why do you keep posting on this thread? (This is a question for anyone on this thread).

I admire your perseverance, but not your optimism...

Admiral, welcome,

As commander of the fleet of justice you must be very upset by the 3,000 violations of due process and the destruction of evidence.

Aparently you have been taken in by the misrepresentations and deceptions. Can you point to any actual evidence against the concrete core which qualifies via comparison to raw evidence of images?

Christophera

26th November 2006, 09:40 PM

you show proof of no concrete core

your post is sad, you show a steel core, sorry but you are still wrong, try again

My post shows the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html) website which has redundant evidence for the truth core of the Twin Towers.

What is sad is that you are so deceived that you cannot tell the difference between evidence of a concrete core and no evidence for steel core columns.

Christophera

26th November 2006, 09:43 PM

This is a stupid question, but if Chris's mind isn't going to change (and it very clearly isn't, despite the mountains of evidence against him), why do you keep posting on this thread? (This is a question for anyone on this thread).

I admire your perseverance, but not your optimism...

Admiral, welcome,

As commander of the fleet of justice you must be very upset by the 3,000 violations of due process and the destruction of evidence.

Aparently you have been taken in by the misrepresentaions and deceptions. Can you point to any actual evidence for steel core columns or against the concrete core which qualifies via comparison to raw evidence of images?

firecoins

26th November 2006, 09:52 PM

Admiral, welcome,

As commander of the fleet of justice you must be very upset by the 3,000 violations of due process and the destruction of evidence.

Aparently you have been taken in by the misrepresentaions and deceptions. Can you point to any actual evidence for steel core columns or against the concrete core which qualifies via comparison to raw evidence of images?
You have stated you will NOT be convinced despite all the evidence contradicting your concrete core theory. The steel core has been proven as fact beyond ANY doubt. Your opinion is on this matter is no longer relevant.

hellaeon

26th November 2006, 09:53 PM

I concur Admiral. I say lets talk about something else and treat Chris as he does the evidence - non existant.

I propose we talk about Australia smashing England in the first test in the ashes. Any takers?

My Dream team has Pieterson and bell, but not Collingwood who carved up yesterday. I picked Harmison but he was as usefull as evidence in this thread.
Ponting is a total uberlord.

hcmom

26th November 2006, 10:15 PM

So, everybody has noticed, .................... mostly, ....... that you have not provided a feasible explanation while unreasonbly trying to dismiss an explanation and the core structure it depends on, ............. while you have no evidence for the core you, and FEMA and NIST assert exists.

I bet that most everybody has noticed.......except apparently you......that I haven't even attempted to provide an explanation that you wouldn't believe, no matter how feasible it is...

hcmom

26th November 2006, 10:19 PM

why do you keep posting on this thread? (This is a question for anyone on this thread).

It's a curious mix of masochism, addiction, and entertainment...

I admire your perseverance, but not your optimism...Well, so far it's remained entertaining. I'm not sure I'd pay money for it, and I think I'd be able to ignore it if it stops entertaining me...

Orphia Nay

26th November 2006, 11:12 PM

Yes, as entertainment goes, this thread is right up there with reality tv... so bad, it's good, and you can take it or leave it.

Hellaeon, your cricket suggestion gives me an idea. Perhaps we need a streaker or two.

* Orphia Nay streaks through the thread with a probably-not-going-to-be-around-long new avatar.

Oh, and what happened to the socks? I gather Christophera hasn't agreed any questions have been answered.

hcmom

26th November 2006, 11:24 PM

* orphia nay;2128300 streaks through the thread with a probably-not-going-to-be-around-long new avatar.

I hope you aren't trying to start a new trend. I jump on an awful lot of band wagons, but I'm not so sure about that one...

Orphia Nay

26th November 2006, 11:52 PM

Ah, hcmom, but that's the beauty of streaking. Not many people do it, hence its (er, supposed) effect.

I forgot to say, YAY, Admiral's here! Perhaps he can be our Arthur to pull the sword from Christophera's stone(walling), since this thread has reached mythical proportions. :rolleyes:

And, bonavada, you've made so many great posts in this thread, and your site is so hilarious, I think you deserve a medal of honour: :medalofho
Er, not that I'm authorised to give those out in this war, but on behalf of the ninjas, and the Humour Revolution, accept my thanks.

Christophera

27th November 2006, 12:21 AM

hcmom

27th November 2006, 12:29 AM

Spod will bop you with his ballast if evidence is not produced soon, you know how animals are.

For anyone who wants to know why I'm here, that's why.

(Not to be bopped by ballast hehehehehehehe but because of Chris' occaisional choice to be funny)

Orphia Nay

27th November 2006, 02:57 AM

Lots of off topic babble, but who has some qualified raw evidence fro the supposed steel core columns?

Images from the demo will do. The last batch of interior box columns cannot be seen as core columns so that won't suffice.

How about a feasible explanation for free fall (near) or total pulverization?

CTist Rorschach test time: what do you see here, Chris?

http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/disasters/index_low.jsp?id=911
(Pic at top right sidebar; click to enlarge.)

Spod will bop you with his ballast if evidence is not produced soon, you know how animals are.

Hahahaha! Funny, he said the same thing to me about you. He's a contrary sort, that Spod, but are you sure your unconscious wasn't hearing that instead?

Bell

27th November 2006, 04:07 AM

How about a feasible explanation for free fall (near) or total pulverization?

Could you please take a stand on the free fall issue?

Either it is not important, as you said before, so stop bringin it up.

Or it is important, and ifso, you have to provide times for both the total collapse of the towers and the time it should have taken, according to you.

Which is it, Christophera?

Also, the towers did not totally pulverize. GZ was coverd with debris for months.

bonavada

27th November 2006, 05:02 AM

The sheetrock covers a hallway on WTC 2. Why the sheerock still exists attests to the efficiency of the C4 coated rebar.

Remember William Rodriugez and the cracking walls, remember the explosions in the basement.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1205439

i must pin you down here.

are you now admitting that the image shows only sheetrock and not your 17' concrete structure? if not can you please indicate where that concrete structure is on the image.

BV

Belz...

27th November 2006, 05:29 AM

Try some raw images of steel core columns first.

Sorry, chris. Since you admitted they weren't raw, every comment of yours calling them raw can now safely be ignored.

You don't have the official construction plans for the towers. nobody does, (explain that???)

Er... they're beign withheld. Boy, that was hard.

and you have no raw evidence of images of steel core columns from the demo showing any of the supposed 47, 1300 foot tempered stel core columns at some elevation abover ground clearly showing the columns in the core area.

That one's easy: images aren't raw evidence, therefore I cannot have "raw evidence of images".

What court? Show me a functional court that can take a civil action and treat it lawfully, rightfully.

Show me a DA that will make an information for prosecution based on evidence.

Cynicism won't take you anywhere. Why should we believe that EVERY court, EVERYwhere is ineffective ?

And mine is RAW EVIDENCE of images from the demolition exposing all the major elements of the towers.

So, that wasn't a typo ? "Raw evidence OF images" ? Well, yeah. You have raw evidence OF images, but the images AREN'T raw evidence. Add to that the fact that the images don't show what you claim they show, except when you admit that what we see could be dust, and you pretty much don't have a case.

Belz...

27th November 2006, 05:37 AM

Basically I see you are ignorant of the true condition of our legal systems and law enforcement and will not be educated, then ask me to go use dysfunctional systems.

An easy non-answer.

Now it's your turn unless, ........... you support the infiltration and murder of innocent people, then you'll do nothing other than what you have been doing.

Appeal to emotions, again.

The videographers didn't film anything in 1987 during production. They compiled 16mm film and stills that the architects and contractors had taken during constrcution. There were no shots of the rebar specifically, it was a part of general shots regarding the concrete core. The videographers learned by various means of the security regarding the rebar with the "special plastic coating".

How very indirect. How can you be certain that they were correct if they didn't show it ?

You are commenting a little early, I have not yet answered powa's post which mistates my post.

Yes, you tend to use that word, "mistate", often.

But that IS your position, right ? That the court system is ineffective ?

Now, if that's the case, and everybody but you is hypnotised, and nothing you'll ever do will change anything, why bother, again ? If you KNOW you can't make a difference, which you've pretty much admitted, why bother at all, love for your country or not ?

I understand high explosives and went through all the processes needed to create the effect seen here with the concrete core and determined that the explosives had to have been exactly centered and optimally distributed.

The is NO OTHE WAY to get that effect.

Watch the video, chris.

You imply that 2 stories were completely removed. This is a complete error and not possible under any condition. We know there was not even enough heat to get a piece of steel cherry red in one small area let alone over 4 sides. These are fantastic suppositions.

Curious how the people who really know this stuff all disagree with you and the only ones who see it your way are laymen.

How about you come up with alternative explanation for near free fall and total pulverization which is supported by images of the demolition in all ways such as I have here,

I don't need to. They are unimportant.

Belz...

27th November 2006, 05:52 AM

All of those were since 9-11 I will bet.

The same thing was stated about the WTC when it was built.

No, there was one from 1983, or did you forget ?

It was not the builders that lied. They are goiing along with the lie

Now why would they do that, exactly ?

(A)Fire does not effect concrete like it does metal. Americans have been dumbed down and are more likely to accept metal weakened by heat than concrete.

But you said so, yourself. Doesn't that make YOU dumbed down, too ?

(B.)If everyone knew it was a concrete core and it collapsed, they would REALLY wonder why there were no masssive chunks of concrete.

Just like Truthseeker1234, but they'd be wrong. Considering the scale of the collapse, there SHOULDN'T be large chunks of concrete left.

It was a public building. They HAD TO PROVIDE the data. The Port Authority HAD to as well. PBS has granting sources and they can be approached independently.

They HAD TO, but now they don't ? And if they were trying to cover up this fact, you'd think they'd manage to circumvent what they HAD TO do.

The videographers noted that there was some resistance to their requests and I believe they used the F.O.I.A. for some of them. Not sure on that. Maybe they just threatened too but didn't have to.

That's some mighty speculation, there.

Yes. The strangeness of the security around the rebar was noted as well as the unannounced evacuations of floors by workers just before concrete was poured.

Poured or pumped ?

Yes, I got a eerie feeling when considering the special security around the rebar and other security measures and the makers of the documentary also had those feeling which were lightly voiced.

Oh, you remember that now ?

On 9-11 watching WTC fall I KNEW that documentary was long gone from PBS. Not because I rememebred all of the data about the rebar and security issues but I realized that information about the construction of the towers would be something that would be highly regulated.

I thought you said you realised how they fell many months later ? You should keep track of your lies, chris.

The rate of fall is not particuarly important to me.

Then why do you ask for an explanation for it ?

Yes, the fall, not collapse, of materials, not buildings (because they were already pulverized when falling) was too symetrical for the official story.

Really, this (http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4245&stc=1&d=1164422417) doesn't look symmetrical.

I'm gettin information to the American public so they can create justice.

But they're all hypnotised, right ? How are you going to succeed ?

The linked IMAGE shows the core and that material, of all the materials that might be there, can only be concrete because only concrete would survive the massive loads crashing around it to stand with that rounded shape.

Or dust.

Imagine a mighty tower with a concrete core 1,300 feet tall, 17 foot thick walls at the base and 2 foot thick at the top. Here is a picture of the top of the core inside the outer walls falling onto WTC 3. Poor little #3, it gets badly squished.

Where's the concrete ?

bonavada

27th November 2006, 05:54 AM

And, bonavada, you've made so many great posts in this thread, and your site is so hilarious, I think you deserve a medal of honour: :medalofho
Er, not that I'm authorised to give those out in this war, but on behalf of the ninjas, and the Humour Revolution, accept my thanks.

<blush>much humble thanks orphia</blush>

now let me get my uniform on before you pin that to my heaving breast.....

BV

Belz...

27th November 2006, 06:00 AM

And the fine clouds of particualte needs explanation (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg), and what you are doing is trying to dissmiis the only comprehensive explanation in existence.

Unfortunately from this distance, you can't tell the size of the particles.

You haven't provided any proof that C4 cannot be solvented by acetone or another chemical. It is logical that a plastic explosive can be cut, rebar dipped in a sluury then the sovent allowed to evaporate to the original consistency then cast in concrete and preserved.

It's logical that the sun revolves around the Earth, too, until you actually start to learn.

Your issue of 3 inch rebar has alread been proven wrong by this image of 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg). It certainlky is not smaller than 3 inches

Those are still box columns, by your account.

Correct, free fall is not the issue here, explanations for it or a rate of fall near it are.

Uh-huh. But what if we could show that "free fall" isn't a problem at all ? It wouldn't require an explanation then, would it ? Wouldn't that mean that it IS an issue ?

The C4 is not encapsulated in a slurry form. I feel that C4 would not detonate in that form.

Come again ? You FEEL ???

I learned of the process from a magazine article published in the early 1970's which described how navy seal divers discovered and used the process without orders to stay off the bottom using a jack hammer knocking a hole in a sub base wall that engineers were trying to keep secret by not putting on the first set of plans.

They were caught setting off ordinanace without orders, gave up their information to an investigating officer who then handed it to explosives engineers who then developed it into a widespread construction method for self destruct sub bases and missle silos.

You're sure you didn't read it in a novel, instead ?

NobbyNobbs

27th November 2006, 06:18 AM

Oh, and what happened to the socks? I gather Christophera hasn't agreed any questions have been answered.

If the socks are still a viable resource, I'd like to pick them up, but I'm divided on what to ask. We could either discuss

a) this magazine article Christophera has come up with

or

b) something totally unrelated to the thread

It might be interesting to see how dedicated Chris is to discussing 3x4 rebar when nobody else even mentions anything related to 9/11.

bonavada

27th November 2006, 06:30 AM

If the socks are still a viable resource, I'd like to pick them up, but I'm divided on what to ask. We could either discuss

a) this magazine article Christophera has come up with

or

b) something totally unrelated to the thread

It might be interesting to see how dedicated Chris is to discussing 3x4 rebar when nobody else even mentions anything related to 9/11.

if:
a) then ok, come on chris! magazine title, publication date etc pronto. with chris' highly efficient memcam this should be easy.

if:
b) then ok, what's worse? warm beer or cheeky kids?

BV

twinstead

27th November 2006, 06:31 AM

Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of This Thread?

Big Al

27th November 2006, 06:44 AM

bonavada

27th November 2006, 07:25 AM

I'd like to ask why Chris reveals all these (as he thinks) slam-dunk revelations only after so much fruitless wrangling.

First, this mythical PBS documentary...
Then, that his ex-wife remembers it...
"Oh! She can't actually remember anything about it..."
"Well, of course, "they" wiped out all references to it"
"Hey! I'm really a structural engineer and explosives expert!"
"Well, virtually..."
"I read a magazine article about Navy SEALs slurrying C-4 in the 1970s!" (No doubt, all reference to this article has now been expunged, too: I spent ten minutes trying every Google combination I could think of to support this solvent slurrying and found nothing).Chris still hasn't explained how they got round C-4's 10-year life other than implying that having it encased in concrete would do the trick. He hasn't responded to the fact that reinforcing rebar revealed when reinforced concrete is cracked open is always rusty - I've often noticed that - or just why the authorities would load skyscrapers full of explosives just in case they might want to blow them up later.

And I don't think he ever will.

i'd like to add:

the time-shifting mohawk
mike pecararo's "sucked off" fire-door
the drywall that "looks like" concrete
the 3" rebar "seen" at long distance in a .jpg image
the rate of fall that doesn't matter but we must explain it
the total pulverisation that didn't happen but we must explain it
the involvement of scores of official/independent agencies with hundreds of employees yet not one whistleblower after 5+ years
a comprehensive plausible NIST report that christophera refuses to readthere are many more but i finally add to this christophera's statement that NOTHING will EVER change his mind.
so, from all this i think we can safely say that chris is errrrrr rather set in his beliefs. i for one though do not think what we do here is a lost cause. if only if we manage to prevent kooks like chris propagating this moronic drivel to a less "turned on" audience.

BV