Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers? [Archive] - Page 42

View Full Version : Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers?

Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 [42] 43 44 45

twinstead

22nd December 2006, 07:19 PM

The record for the longest thread by an op who was demonstrably wrong before the end of the first page.

Call Guinness.

Or drink it. Whatever.

Curnir

22nd December 2006, 07:31 PM

True, but it also mean 15 times stronger at that level which is why the towers stood for 33 years. All structures logically must be designed this way. They were built 6 times stronger than they needed to be if I remember correctly.

The concrete core was there to resist torsion from the occasional hurricane force winds which justified the high strength.

I'm sorry but that made no sense at all.

Christophera

22nd December 2006, 10:08 PM

I'm sorry but that made no sense at all.

At least twinstead the muse is drunk, he has an excuse. You haven't even provided a simpletons explanation.

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

Christophera

22nd December 2006, 10:20 PM

so your sayign the concrete core of your got thicker as it went down? (or rather thinne as it went up)

Yes. There was a serious sacrifice of floor space to accomodate the concrete core with its 17 foot thick walls (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) (on the narrow axis end, 12 on the long axis). At the top it was only 2 feet thick as this image showing 1/4 of the core footprint from the top of tower 2 as it falls on WTC 3 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg)

NARROW AXIS SIDE
http://www-ifm.math.uni-hannover.de/~kadir/images/tradeben.jpg
LONG AXIS SIDE
http://misheli.image.pbase.com/o2/78/583378/1/52419073.wtclobby.jpg
http://www.newyork-net.de/images/WorldTradeCenter_Lobby.jpg

chacal

22nd December 2006, 10:51 PM

Arus808

22nd December 2006, 11:06 PM

May I remind those still arguing with Chris, that within 10,000 posts he has presented nothing that supports his claims. So please, no more.

Cats and recipes only

http://www.arus.org/album/albums/userpics/10001/balloons-aj.jpg

Cause you're boring Max
http://www.arus.org/album/albums/userpics/10001/normal_DCP_0302.JPG

Christophera

23rd December 2006, 01:12 AM

I haven't followed this thread because I think it should be moved to a psychology subforum. Can I ask you Christophera are there any other persons in the world that would agree or support your concretecorism? Anybody other than you alone?

For those who are not familiar with 17feet = 5.1816m. I didn't find that wall in your photo's Chris.

Considering we've passed 10k posts and 150k views; and there still is not one image of a steel core column at some elevation above ground in the core area shown in an image from the demo; there is a good chance about 50k people do but it's still unconscious for them.

They keep seeing these cat pictures and stupid posts of the deniers and realize, sheeit there IS NO EVIDENCE for steel core columns so the naysayers are just working to bury the truth in garbage.

maccy

23rd December 2006, 01:16 AM

I haven't looked into this thread for ages, but I'm glad to see that it's on its way out, finally.

If anybody wants to ignore this thread completely, you can go to the user cp in the menu above and click "Edit Options" from the side menu. Under "Thread Display Options" there's an option to "Hide Threads by Members on your Ignore List". If you change that option to yes and add Christophera to your ignore list, this thread will disappear.

I find it much easier to not get involved, this way.

The Doc

23rd December 2006, 01:18 AM

They keep seeing these cat pictures and stupid posts of the deniers and realize, sheeit there IS NO EVIDENCE for steel core columns so the naysayers are just working to bury the truth in garbage.

I am not reading 240+ pages worth of posts - so I'll ask directly. Do you really believe that the core was concrete and not steel?

I may have misread you but it looks like that's what you're saying...

maccy

23rd December 2006, 01:26 AM

I am not reading 240+ pages worth of posts - so I'll ask directly. Do you really believe that the core was concrete and not steel?

I may have misread you but it looks like that's what you're saying...

I'm going to put this thread on ignore again soon, but before I go I'll say that this is indeed what Chris believes and also that it was built for demolition with C4 coated rebar. Chris also believes in a lot of other strange things (including that the illuminati are revealing themselves to him by putting the numbers 22, 23 and 24 in receipts and correspondence and suchlike).

It is clear that he will not change his mind on the matter of the concrete core.

Many of us have come to the conclusion that Chris has a mental illness and that confronting him cannot help.

I strongly suggest that you don't engage Chris in an argument.

There's a shorter thread that gives some insight into Chris' state of mind here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=69171

The Doc

23rd December 2006, 01:33 AM

Thanks Maccy :)

I won't bother with a response. Why should we bother proving the obvious eh?

Chris, if you're so delirious you believe that - good luck to you.

Architect

23rd December 2006, 10:32 AM

This Thread Is Dead: Leave Poor, Ill Chris Alone

Christophera

23rd December 2006, 07:53 PM

I am not reading 240+ pages worth of posts - so I'll ask directly. Do you really believe that the core was concrete and not steel?

I may have misread you but it looks like that's what you're saying...

Yes, the core of the towers was a steel reinforced, rectangular, tubular cast concrete core. Here it is.

The concrete core of WTC 2, no steel core columns visible. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

Here it is after another section of the concrete detonated. (http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8232/wtcsl8.jpg)

The concrete core of WTC 2, no steel core columns visible. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc42.JPG)

The evidence speaks for itself. The unreasonable, ........... will hear nothing.

alexg

23rd December 2006, 08:02 PM

This thread would die if the idiots who keep posting here would just stop, oops, nevermind:D

Arus808

23rd December 2006, 09:25 PM

Yes, this thread put poor max to sleep

http://www.arus.org/album/albums/userpics/10001/normal_MAXCOUCH2.JPG

Christophera

23rd December 2006, 11:26 PM

I'm going to put this thread on ignore again soon, but before I go I'll say that this is indeed what Chris believes and also that it was built for demolition with C4 coated rebar. Chris also believes in a lot of other strange things (including that the illuminati are revealing themselves to him by putting the numbers 22, 23 and 24 in receipts and correspondence and suchlike).

It is clear that he will not change his mind on the matter of the concrete core.

Many of us have come to the conclusion that Chris has a mental illness and that confronting him cannot help.

I strongly suggest that you don't engage Chris in an argument.

There's a shorter thread that gives some insight into Chris' state of mind here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=69171

You have shown very well that you approve of unlawful government and ignore evidence. Your advice is irresponsible and aiding and abbetting the evasion of law in 3,000 capital crimes.

Cease and desist if you cannot produce at least raw evidence to support the supposed 47, 1300 foot steel columns FEMA states were in the core area.

I can produce law evidence which shows the 47 steel core columns did not exist while adequately documenting that there was a steel reinforced concrete core and have responsibly organized it for the public to examine.

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

You actions are reprehensible. Generations of Americans depend on you ability to use reason to support lawful performance.

Architect

24th December 2006, 07:01 AM

Chris: take a break, it's Xmas.

Christophera

24th December 2006, 10:10 AM

Chris: take a break, it's Xmas.

For Christs sake, it's Christmas. Support the truth (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html) you fraud.
What would Jesus do?

24th December 2006, 10:23 AM

What would Jesus do?

Well, for one thing, he wouldn't lie about documentaries, books, and magazine articles. For another, he'd be smart enough to recognize that a lack of concrete in construction photos far outweighs a lack of steel column photos 'at elevation' during a total structural failure, since his architectual background would tell him that welded steel members under extreme stress would shatter apart, not bend or remain standing.

Of course, if J.C. were around today, the point would be moot, since there'd be no Muslim terrorists to fly planes into the towers anyway.

Christophera

24th December 2006, 10:55 AM

Well, for one thing, he wouldn't lie about documentaries, books, and magazine articles. For another, he'd be smart enough to recognize that a lack of concrete in construction photos far outweighs a lack of steel column photos 'at elevation' during a total structural failure, since his architectual background would tell him that welded steel members under extreme stress would shatter apart, not bend or remain standing.

Of course, if J.C. were around today, the point would be moot, since there'd be no Muslim terrorists to fly planes into the towers anyway.

But you have no raw evidence and I have a web site with a great deal of proof.

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

Which makes your invokation of Jesus's intents applied a very dark implimentation.

24th December 2006, 11:05 AM

But you have no raw evidence...

Of course not. I've never been to New York.

Wait a minute - for that matter, neither do you. No raw evidence, that is.

... and I have a web site with a great deal of proof.

Really? Where? All I've seen is this one you linked to below...

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

which is nothing but conjecture, bad science, poor photographs, lies, and stupidity. I didn't know you had a GOOD website somewhere...

Which makes your invokation of Jesus's intents applied a very dark implimentation.

What, if anything, does that mean?

I wish you'd stayed in school, at least long enough to learn English.

Arus808

24th December 2006, 11:10 AM

zaayrdragon (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=2549) , please dont encourage him. We've pointed that out to him in 10,000 posts and he still doesn't get it.

remember, this thread put my cat to sleep.

http://www.arus.org/album/albums/userpics/10001/normal_MAXCURLED.JPG

He's wishing he had a remote control to turn off the thread.

http://www.arus.org/album/albums/userpics/10001/normal_DCP_0501.JPG

24th December 2006, 11:11 AM

Do you mind, Arus? I'm giving him a X-man... er, I mean, X-mas present.

hcmom

24th December 2006, 11:45 AM

What would Jesus do?

Take the week off for Christmas.

Christophera

24th December 2006, 11:50 AM

Of course not. I've never been to New York.

Meaning you won't recognize available evidence.

Wait a minute - for that matter, neither do you. No raw evidence, that is.

Confirming what I've said above because this site is available and it has many raw examples of raw evidence.

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

Really? Where? All I've seen is this one you linked to below...

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

And you will not recognize what is there because you have no integrity to the purpose of reason.

which is nothing but conjecture, bad science, poor photographs, lies, and stupidity. I didn't know you had a GOOD website somewhere...

Nice cluster of labels, cognitive distortions you hope the reader will assume. Not much regard for the readres intelligence.

Which makes your invokation of Jesus's intents applied a very dark implimentation.

What, if anything, does that mean?

I wish you'd stayed in school, at least long enough to learn English.

It is clear what I meant. What your post mean is that either all those years in school you would expect us to believe you expereinced were wasted, or you simply did;nt learn where comma's should be placed.

My post also means I forgot the comma.

There is a deeper, darker meaning.
That a missing comma is more important than the truth of 3,000 murders to you, or that you would expect others to place the value of a comma over that truth.

Arus808

24th December 2006, 12:28 PM

Christophera

24th December 2006, 01:00 PM

zaayrdragon , you're only repeating what we've asked of him several times. after 10,000 posts, he hasn't presented any shred of proof. what makes you think he will now?

we've already proven that he referenced a non existent "encyclopedia:
we've already proven that there was no PBS documentary
we've already prove that there was no concrete core
we've already proven that c4 wasn't a term used back in 1967

christophera is a certifiably mentally unstable. and arguing with people are unstable only leads to them becoming more unstable.

let it go.

You have only proven that;

The establishments of academia are in on the cover up. I can show this here with a link to the university of north carolina that DID have a link about the concrete core, but since I make the text an active link on the page, it is now a 404.

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

Public Broadcasting is a governmentally controlled organization and so removing the documentary as well of recortd of it is easy, given some time, which the perps had.

The only proof from raw evidence for any core whatsoever is for a concrete core (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html), so you are really out of it for that one.

The article I read was written in 1972-3 perhaps, so whatever you've proved there is useless.

Since you continue posting in denial of tangible evidence of SO MUCH fact.

My stability, including the documentation of the total inability of the leading institution of psychology to deal with historical research and facts of human behavior reasonably is a verified fact (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=69171) and your lack of respect for life and law is also verified.

Glad you are not an American.

Architect

24th December 2006, 01:00 PM

This Thread Is Dead

Chris Lost

Let It Lie

AND DON'T ENCOURAGE HIM

Mobyseven

24th December 2006, 01:08 PM

What would Jesus do?

GET BORN!!!

Or so I'm told by my Christmas friends...

REGARDLESS! Everybody have a Merry Christmas!

To the birth of Santa! And to the final death of the thread!!!

Christophera

24th December 2006, 01:26 PM

GET BORN!!!

Or so I'm told by my Christmas friends...

REGARDLESS! Everybody have a Merry Christmas!

To the birth of Santa! And to the final death of the thread!!!

Uh, he's already here but the ignorance is too great and is Jesus is locked in a mental institution on forced meds because he won't stop talking about truth and justice and really doesn't have any evidence that such things exist.
I'm trying to create enough understanding in this society about what LOVE really means to us and how truth and justice serve love and what our human psychology really is so they can rediagnose him and he can get out.

Christophera

24th December 2006, 01:27 PM

This Thread Is Dead

Chris Lost

Let It Lie

AND DON'T ENCOURAGE HIM

Oh, ........ shut up.

And get some knowledge on the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html).

Architect

24th December 2006, 01:29 PM

Chris,

You Lost. You just don't know it.

firecoins

24th December 2006, 01:38 PM

That's right! This from a spam I received! This is awesome!
Hi firecoins@aol.com ,

Sam's Club, the members-only warehouse, is now offering health insurance to small-business members. The company is touting savings of at least 20 percent and as much as 50 percent off group rates for small employers.
Check your local store for details and pass this exciting news to your company!

If you're seeking an individual or family plan, we have provided the link below to help you determine the best plan with the lowest price available from top health insurance Providers.

Please click here for more information.

http://www.maildai.com/insurance/?aff=2763&uid=ugmnf

Please don't post commercial advertisements.

Christophera

24th December 2006, 02:34 PM

Merry Christmas all!

Here is my present to you. Raw evidence of images showing that there was indeed a concrete core at the center of the towers.

I know it is a grim present but truth has the purpose of protecting life. So be it, use it and live. Pretect your childrens futures by standing it with it in the preservation of the principles of the Constitution of this great nation.

The one thing you won't find here is any sign of steel core columns in the core area. THAT is a lie from FEMA. (you won't sign of those any where else either)

The evidence is presented from the ground upwards.

Here is an annotated image showing where the FOOTINGS OF THE CORE WALL (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/elev.pits.core.footing.CORR.jpg) were located.

This is an image of the thick concrete core wall between the interior box column and a stairwell (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg).

This high RES image of the WTC 2 core standing at around 500 feet can only be concrete. Concrete is the only material that could survive the crashing heavy steel of 500 feet of tower over it which has all ready fallen past. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

Here is the core after a little more core was removed by explosives. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcore2stands.gif)

This image shows the concrete shear wall to left of interior box column, the "spire" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg)

Here is a close up that is annotated of the concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif)

Finally a image of 1/4 of the core of the top of tower 2 as it falls on WTC 3 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg). The concrete core colored brown/grey can be sen inside the perimeter walls.

Christmas is about unity based in love, love protects life and needs truth to do it.

A prayer:

God, let us be unified in our understanding and acceptance of truth in the protection of your beloved children in this great land that you have brought us together in which our forefathers made such great sacrifices to secure for us. Amen.

Architect

24th December 2006, 02:36 PM

Chris,

Seriously, mate - you lost. Give up.

But have a good Xmas.

Quad4_72

24th December 2006, 02:39 PM

Wait I'm confused...I thought those pictures were supposed to prove a concrete core...

Architect

24th December 2006, 02:56 PM

Let it lie.

firecoins

24th December 2006, 03:21 PM

Nazis still at work
http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/norway-threatened-by-wwii-era-submarine/20061220222809990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

firecoins

24th December 2006, 03:23 PM

That's right! This from a spam I received! This is awesome!

Please don't post commercial advertisements.
The "commercials" I post are satire and NOT a violation of the membership agreement.

uruk

24th December 2006, 04:11 PM

On the first page of this thread, Chris gave to us; an argument from ignorance.

somebody take it!

Bell

24th December 2006, 06:07 PM

On the first page of this thread, Chris gave to us; an argument from ignorance.

somebody take it!

On the second page of this thread,
Christophera gave to us,
two concrete cores,
and an argument from ignorance.

RickGonja

24th December 2006, 07:24 PM

I have been reading this thread for awhile and think it is definitely time to walkaway from Chris and his fantasy concrete core.
Ok actually run!!!!!!!!!!!!

Or perhaps Chris is right,and everyone here is obviously the victim of some vast mind wipe. They have reprogrammed our memories so that we remember information about the steel frame construction techniques used in the towers. Those dirty New World Order pukes have stolen our memories. Quick get my tin foil hat.

Christophera

24th December 2006, 08:09 PM

Wait I'm confused...I thought those pictures were supposed to prove a concrete core...

If you don't understand construction processes, materials, techniques, equipment and technology, you could be confused.

However, I know you didn't see any steel core columns, so if you cannot produce any raw evidence of images showing some of the 47, 1300 steel core columns, then you still have no proof of steel core columns.

Which means that what you said comes from a BELIEF that was created by authority. I know that what authority used to create that belief was fabricated or misrepresented.

What i've presented is raw evidence logically and consistently related to the reality.

jsfisher

24th December 2006, 08:10 PM

Welcome to the forums, RickGonja. You picked one heck of a thread in which to first post.

uruk

24th December 2006, 08:39 PM

On the second page of this thread,
Christophera gave to us,
two concrete cores,
and an argument from ignorance.
on the third page of this thread, Chris gave to us
three 3" rebar on 4' centers

two concrete cores

and one argument from ingnorance.

jsfisher

24th December 2006, 09:03 PM

on the third page of this thread, Chris gave to us
three 3" rebar on 4' centers

two concrete cores

and one argument from ingnorance.

On the fourth page of this thread, Chris gave to us,

Four Mohawk welders,
Three 3" rebar on 4' centers,
Two concrete cores,
and one argument from ignorance.

On the fifth page of this thread, Chris gave to us,

Five unconscious states.
Four Mohawk welders,
Three 3" rebar on 4' centers,
Two concrete cores,
and one argument from ignorance.

24th December 2006, 10:46 PM

This is my parting post to you, in this thread (I reserve the right to respond in other threads), Chris.

I want you to think about this in ten years, when you're still fighting a losing battle, when you've not one single person who believes your lies, when even JREFers won't talk to you. I want you to remember that I predict that you'll waste years on this garbage, and still never get anywhere. You're a loser, and you'll always, always be one. Willful ignorance supported by psychosis is a terrible thing to suffer; I hope one day someone with the authority to do so commits you, for your own good, and forces you to get help.

Then I hope you go back to school and get your GED.

After that, I hope the world opens its arms to you.

But until then, I'm content, realizing that the average American has twice the brain power you do, and can see how glaringly stupid and inconclusive your cute little website actually is. I'm content knowing you can fret and strut across the stage and no one will ever care.

See ya around, and merry X-mas (since Christ never existed in the first place)!

Christophera

24th December 2006, 11:15 PM

Christophera

24th December 2006, 11:51 PM

For those who are not familiar with 17feet = 5.1816m. I didn't find that wall in your photo's Chris.

This photo has the wall annotated.

The thick core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) is between the interio box coumns and the stair.

Also notice there are no steel core columns in the core are penetrating the stair well as floor plans show there should be.

firecoins

25th December 2006, 02:05 AM

firecoins

25th December 2006, 02:06 AM

Does Santa go down concrete core chimneys or just the hollow ones?

firecoins

25th December 2006, 10:31 AM

Along with Elvis Presley (javascript:;) , Bob Dylan (javascript:;) and a handful of others, Brown was one of the major musical influences of the past 50 years. At least one generation idolized him, and sometimes openly copied him. His rapid-footed dancing inspired Mick Jagger (javascript:;) and Michael Jackson (javascript:;) among others. Songs such as David Bowie (javascript:;) 's "Fame," Prince (javascript:;) 's "Kiss," George Clinton's "Atomic Dog" and Sly and the Family Stone's "Sing a Simple Song" were clearly based on Brown's rhythms and vocal style.

If Brown's claim to the invention of soul can be challenged by fans of Ray Charles (javascript:;) and Sam Cooke, then his rights to the genres of rap, disco and funk are beyond question. He was to rhythm and dance music what Dylan was to lyrics: the unchallenged popular innovator.

"James presented obviously the best grooves," rapper Chuck D of Public Enemy once told The Associated Press. "To this day, there has been no one near as funky. No one's coming even close."

Christophera

25th December 2006, 10:51 AM

Does Santa go down concrete core chimneys or just the hollow ones?

Is it possible fireloins has not figured out that my page,

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

states the following regarding the image at bottom.

Some in the UK still think the WTC tower core was built as shown below. Basically a pre-stressed concrete design. Yamasaki had reviewed the design, and found no contractor that could build a 1,300 foot column of that design. We all know the towers had their stairwells and elevators inside the core. There is no room for that in the core below.

And that he has not discerned that if elevators cannot travel up and down its solidness, that jolly dudes with large satchels cannot either?

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4703&stc=1&d=1167068626

Arus808

25th December 2006, 10:53 AM

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4703&stc=1&d=1167068626

Why do you continue to use this artist rendition when it was RETRACTED by the BBC when they were alerted that it was erroneous?

YOu do realize that the artist who made that image had no idea as to how the buildings were made?

gyah...what am i doing

MORe CATS!! please!

uruk

25th December 2006, 10:53 AM

On the fourth page of this thread, Chris gave to us,

Four Mohawk welders,
Three 3" rebar on 4' centers,
Two concrete cores,
and one argument from ignorance.

On the fifth page of this thread, Chris gave to us,

Five unconscious states.
Four Mohawk welders,
Three 3" rebar on 4' centers,
Two concrete cores,
and one argument from ignorance.

On the sixth page of this thread, Chris gave to us.
six ad homonims

five unconcious states
four mohawk welders
three 3" rebar on 4' centers
two concrete cores
and one argument from ignorance

NickUK

25th December 2006, 10:58 AM

Merry Christmas all!

Here is my present to you. Raw evidence of images showing that there was indeed a concrete core at the center of the towers.

Boll*x to you, Chris! I wanted a nintendo :(

Christophera

25th December 2006, 11:53 AM

On the sixth page of this thread, Chris gave to us.
six ad homonims

five unconcious states
four mohawk welders
three 3" rebar on 4' centers
two concrete cores
and one argument from ignorance

On Christmas homer gave us 5 errors.

1. Homer didn't go into trance, only zlizard did. The usual denial trance.

2. The Mohawks are steel erectors and I only brougth one.

3. There were 30, 3" rebar on 4 foot center. (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)

4. Only one concrete core, WTC 2, is seen intact at 1/2 its total height (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) has been presetned. The other inferred.

5. Every piece of misrepresented evidence brought to me of the supposed steel core columns has been resonably been explained as NOT being what it it was presented as.

The only ignorance present is from the deniers of the concrete core who have no evidence and ignore THE evidence of the core which is abundant and located where anybody can access it at any time.

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

Christophera

25th December 2006, 12:00 PM

Why do you continue to use this artist rendition when it was RETRACTED by the BBC when they were alerted that it was erroneous?

YOu do realize that the artist who made that image had no idea as to how the buildings were made?

gyah...what am i doing

MORe CATS!! please!

Yippee, Merry Christmas!!! Presents from arus.

The image was a preliminary proposed design for the towers core and Yamasaki rejected it because no concrete contractor could figure out how to build it.

BBC has retracted nothing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1540044.stm

The image I use is still on their server.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1540000/images/_1540044_world_trade_structure300.gif

THX for the present. I already had many similar, but one more proving your ignorance and inattention to detail is great!

If you really cared about what you were doing (or thought you were doing), this wouldn't happen nearly so often.

Arus808

25th December 2006, 12:06 PM

BBC has retracted nothing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1540044.stm
[/quote
The image I use is still on their server.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1540000/images/_1540044_world_trade_structure300.gif

YOU really dont understand how new services have to keep an archive of stories they do, because it would be wholy dishonest of them not to keep it up. There's a story done by my local paper that is still found on their website, but the correction artcile was published the day after. So you can both find the erroneous article, and the correction article on the same server.

'seeing as that you have been proven wrong over and over again, and Im falling back into this stupid trap, Im ending it with a picture of my cat

http://www.arus.org/album/albums/userpics/10001/normal_DCP_0314.JPG

firecoins

25th December 2006, 02:10 PM

British, Iraqi troops raid Basra police station

British and Iraqi soldiers raided an Iraqi police station Monday in the southern city of Basra where they suspected a rogue police unit was planning to kill 76 prisoners.
"The serious crimes unit themselves were guilty of serious crimes," said British Maj. Charlie Burbridge.
Burbridge said the rogue unit "would take people in the middle of the night and they would never appear again."
Monday's raid, involving 1,000 troops, was ordered based on information the police were "likely to start executing the prisoners, so we had to move fast," he said. Seven gunmen were killed as the forces advanced on the station.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki authorized the raid through the Basra city security coordinator, Burbridge said.
The action was made easier by the earlier arrests of key leaders of the police unit, he said.
After the prisoners were removed, the soldiers destroyed the Jamiyat police station, Burbridge said.

Powa

25th December 2006, 02:34 PM

Firecoins why are you spamming this thread?

Architect

25th December 2006, 02:47 PM

this thread is dead - let it lie!

jsfisher

25th December 2006, 02:52 PM

I just want to know how Arus808 got that cat to stick to the ceiling like that.

Christophera

25th December 2006, 03:19 PM

YOU really dont understand how new services have to keep an archive of stories they do, because it would be wholy dishonest of them not to keep it up. There's a story done by my local paper that is still found on their website, but the correction artcile was published the day after. So you can both find the erroneous article, and the correction article on the same server.

'seeing as that you have been proven wrong over and over again, and Im falling back into this stupid trap, Im ending it with a picture of my cat

http://www.arus.org/album/albums/userpics/10001/normal_DCP_0314.JPG

You post shows us the general quality of assertion here by deniers.

If this is not true, direct us to the correction article rather than spewing about it. Or, you have no proof, (as usual).

I found my proof with a google search that did NOT end up in an archive.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1540044.stm

Arus808

25th December 2006, 03:21 PM

sorry chris, but your thread is dead.

here's another pic of my cat

see how bored he is

http://www.arus.org/album/albums/userpics/10001/normal_MAXCURLED2.JPG

firecoins

25th December 2006, 04:34 PM

Firecoins why are you spamming this thread?
why not? nothing on it makes sense.

Christophera

25th December 2006, 07:14 PM

sorry chris, but your thread is dead.

here's another pic of my cat

see how bored he is

http://www.arus.org/album/albums/userpics/10001/normal_MAXCURLED2.JPG

True, your cat is bored. However, your cat lives with you not with me, so, ...... you get my point. Forget it, you've proven simple concepts (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html) escape you. Poor kitty.

Christophera

25th December 2006, 07:56 PM

TEISENNAU RHYTHON

1qtCockles
1 oz butter
1oz Oatmeal
1 egg
Cooking fat
2 pt water
3ozFlour salt

Leave the cockles to stand in slightly salted water sprinkled with oatmeal overnight. Drain and scrub thoroughly to remove grit and dirt. Place in a saucepan ot salted water and boil for 3 minutes until the shells open. When coo! remove the coekles from their shells. Rub the butter into the flour and add a pinch of salt. Separate the egg yolk and beat lightly. Add the egg yolk and water to the flour and beat until the batter is smooth. Heat the cooking fat in a deep pan and using a spoon dip the cockles one at a time in the batter and drop into the fat. When golden brown and crisp all over, remove from fat. Serve with brown bread and slices of lemon.

BV

The above is a good example of what people who believe that they know something, but have no evidence to support it; do in order to distract from what people who do know something and do have evidence to support it, are trying to do to share that information and its related evidence.

OBFUSCATION it is called

That information is.

The Twin Towers had a steel reinforced cast concrete tubular core.

And this image of the WTC 2 core staing at 500 foot hieght proves the core was concrete, and also prove there were no steel core columns inthe core area. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

If there were steel core columns in the core area they would be seen protruding from the top of the core.

Herein in is a bit of a quandry. Those such as the evidence deficient quoted poster have 3 things to explain which noe has ever done reasonably.

1. What is that material standing inthe core area at 500 foot height.

2. Why are no steel core columns seen protruding fromthe core area?

3. Curiously relateing 1. & 2. The only reasonable answer to number 2 is thatthe steel core columns were cut. The only possible way to cut them is with high explosives. If that was done inside of the core seen
(http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) it would have destroyed that core becasuse the amount of explosives required to cut the supposed 47 steel core columns certainly would have destroyed what ever the material is standing at 500 feet, even concrete??????

So, it kind of makes you wonder, why is it so important that there is no concerete core. I mean the fool that posts such OBFUSCATION is sacrificing his reputation to impede an obviously rational explanation for what is seen in the image. Plus there are many more images of the concrete core here,

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

Christophera

25th December 2006, 08:49 PM

I just want to know how Arus808 got that cat to stick to the ceiling like that.

Cats lose weight when they become bored. I know, ...... that cat looks mildly over fed, but cats have amazing physical capacity you know. Anyway if they get very bored, and I happen to know that the particular cats owner keeps that cat from sleeping by taking pictures of it at all hours, then will not play with it, instead over feeding it and ignoring it, ....... anyway, the cat has become lighter than air. Yes, defying gravity.

You've seen how well they jump right? Well cats are mostly bored and require intensly focused companionship that can handle complex concepts like concrete cores (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html) in towers which are the key to demolishing them to fall at near free fall rates. If a cats owner can remain focused on evidence of such simple physical concepts, they have everything required to play with a normal, active kitty.

hcmom

26th December 2006, 01:04 AM

Once again, Chris proving that he has a core that might be fun to know...

Gravy

26th December 2006, 06:48 AM

To all who are still posting in this thread:

For a while, I thought that Christopher Brown was a particularly insistent internet troll. I was wrong about that. Many months ago Christopher provided documentary proof of his mental illness.

Since then, many people have continued to try to reason with him, to argue with him, and to taunt him.

I have said this before: I don't think that any of you would stand on a street corner every single day and rehash the same argument with a mentally ill person. The fact that this is so easily done on the internet does not make it a more sensible or a more honorable pursuit.

Seeing this thread grow, week after week, is terribly saddening. I have no authority to compel you to do anything. I just wish you would stop.

Belz...

26th December 2006, 10:31 AM

Of course there are different lengths dummy, but look how many are the same.

Well, that's amazing considering they were all BUILD THE SAME SIZE

True, but it also mean 15 times stronger at that level which is why the towers stood for 33 years. All structures logically must be designed this way. They were built 6 times stronger than they needed to be if I remember correctly.

Uh-huh. Please remind me NOT to ask your advice when I build my house.

so your sayign the concrete core of your got thicker as it went down? (or rather thinne as it went up)

Yes. There was a serious sacrifice of floor space to accomodate the concrete core with its 17 foot thick walls

AH! Excellent! So you'll have no trouble finding people who can attest to the fact the the lower floors had less office space ?

Considering we've passed 10k posts and 150k views; and there still is not one image of a steel core column at some elevation above ground in the core area shown in an image from the demo; there is a good chance about 50k people do but it's still unconscious for them.

No, no and no. But since you've admitted that you MIGHT be seeing the steel core columns, that whole paragraph can be ignored!!

What would Jesus do?

Unlike the thread, he would die.

Belz...

26th December 2006, 10:38 AM

Seeing this thread grow, week after week, is terribly saddening. I have no authority to compel you to do anything. I just wish you would stop.

Well, I will anyway.

Chris has admitted that he's not sure about the concrete he keeps seeing, the "box column" nonsense, and etc, etc. So basically he's just resashing his old argument, hoping people will forget that he DID abdicate.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2198816&postcount=10239

So, as far as I'm concerned, I'll lay off from those one, pretty much.

Christophera

26th December 2006, 12:01 PM

"Pieces of concrete". Would you please alter the image so as to point to each individual "piece", please ? If you can't, it's because you can't see the "pieces".

[QUOTE=Belz...;2198816]Of course, all this is academic since you've admitted that dust could produce the same effect.

Certainly you've twisted a statement of mine as you did not quote it for us to prove your contention.

Dust cannot produce the structural elements seen in this image showing theconcrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif).

You said that they could be indistinguishable from box columns. And since you've identified box columns just about everywhere in the collapse and construction pictures, the rest is a no brainer.

Don't cry.

Again you distort and fail to provide a quote that is adequate. This interior box column (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) could be taken for a core columns except IT IS NOT IN THE CORE AREA, it is outside the core area.

Your wish is my command.

Here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2187967&postcount=10103) you said you didn't know how thick the core columns were, after saying numerous times that the columns we were seeing were too thin to be core columns.

Afterwards, you said this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2193629&postcount=10135). Now, I think this solves this problem.

Now, do you ALSO want me to dig up the one where you said it could be dust ? I already did not long ago.

And I showed where I had actually said that there was ALSO dust inthe image. Misrepresentation are all you have, evidence of my words.

Christophera

26th December 2006, 12:02 PM

Well, I will anyway.

Chris has admitted that he's not sure about the concrete he keeps seeing, the "box column" nonsense, and etc, etc.

That is not true and you definitely cannot prove it. This IS a 500 foot tall concrete tube and that is why it still stands.

Concrete Core Of WTC 2 (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

No reasonable alternative explanation has ever been provided.

Arus808

26th December 2006, 12:05 PM

belz its useless. stop.

Rabbit

26th December 2006, 12:32 PM

I apologize for not reading all the past 10,000+ post before this.

Maybe Christophera can answer a small question I have.

Which tower fell first, and why? I always get the North Tower mixed up with the South Tower, and actually don't know which was WTC1 and which was WTC2. I should know, but don't, so any help would be appreciated.
WTC 2, the south tower fell first although WTC 1 was hit first on the north side, it fell north. The first tower hit was hit near center with most of the fuel entering the tower to burn. The second tower to be hit, WTC 2, was almost missed, being hit on the south east corner, only one engine contacted the concrete core and most of the fuel burned outside of the tower in a midair firebal, the tower fell east.

Thanks, Christophera, I’ll remember now.

But you never did say why WTC 2 fell first. I’m just curious.

Belz...

26th December 2006, 01:05 PM

:words:

Covered. And Done.

That is not true and you definitely cannot prove it.

No need. You've admitted it yourself.

JonnyFive

26th December 2006, 01:19 PM

Methinks it's really time to just let this thread rest in peace.

Christophera

26th December 2006, 01:20 PM

No need. You've admitted it yourself.

That you cannot prove while I can prove there was a concrete core to any who know constrcution, and, I can do it with one image.

Concrete Core Of WTC 2 (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

All you are capable of doing is misrepresenting construction images in attempts to prove the steel core columns. This, while the image I lnk to above show not steel croe columns when it absolutely should.

Christophera

26th December 2006, 04:11 PM

Well, that's amazing considering they were all BUILD THE SAME SIZE

I have problems with the sentence strcuture and context. I realize my sentences are less that perfect at times, but this, ............... well, ahem.

What are they?

We are talking about columns and we see many kinds and "they" were not built all the same size.

Perimeter columns were built in irregular panels and delievered to be bolted and welded in.

Interior box columns were delivered in 40 foot pieces and 100% butt welded in place.

Since you said "they" you are including everything in this image.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4032&d=1163315538

Uh-huh. Please remind me NOT to ask your advice when I build my house..

As long as you promise to help when I builT my next sentence.

eddyk

26th December 2006, 04:27 PM

If the US government did 9/11, surely they could easily now fake the discovery and killing on Osama Bin Laden.

Instant popularity rise.

tsig

26th December 2006, 06:36 PM

If the US government did 9/11, surely they could easily now fake the discovery and killing on Osama Bin Laden.

Instant popularity rise.

Do you enjoy poking at dead dogs?

Christophera

26th December 2006, 06:58 PM

If the US government did 9/11, surely they could easily now fake the discovery and killing on Osama Bin Laden.

Instant popularity rise.

I believe that the US gov has been infiltrated. If that were the case, there is minimal control and exercise of it must be done very carefully because there are still many, many good Americans in government service.

There was agreat deal of pressure against the destruction of evidence and blocking investigations. Persidentual directive did what was done, but that doesn't even mean the president had anything to do with taking the buildings down, it only means he assisted in the coverup.

firecoins

26th December 2006, 07:59 PM

I believe that the US gov has been infiltrated. If that were the case, there is minimal control and exercise of it must be done very carefully because there are still many, many good Americans in government service..

Are you saying good Americans have infiltrated the government? OH NO!:eek: I'll get to work solving that problem!:mad:

Christophera

26th December 2006, 08:33 PM

Are you saying good Americans have infiltrated the government? OH NO!:eek: I'll get to work solving that problem!:mad:

You facetious b*stard. Your supposed to be glad and want to help 'em.

How ya' gonna have a happy new year being all confused like that?

Christophera

26th December 2006, 09:13 PM

You said that they could be indistinguishable from box columns. And since you've identified box columns just about everywhere in the collapse and construction pictures, the rest is a no brainer.

Don't cry.

You support the existence of steel core columns. I show an image of something that can only be concrete.

Concrete Core Of WTC 2 (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

and the steel columns you claim exist are NOT protruding from the top, If that steel of a smaller size that what I think "core columns" would be is not seen, it is because they did not have the strength to survive the event and fell in a pile in the bottom of the core. That concrete tube in the linked image above.

You are the one that believes they existed. Why don't you have plans showing them, showing their dimensions? They were supposedly braced. Where is this braced assembly?

You are the one that says they existed, you document their sizes. I now they did not and instead there was a concrete core with shear wall. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif)

Here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2187967&postcount=10103) you said you didn't know how thick the core columns were, after saying numerous times that the columns we were seeing were too thin to be core columns.

Afterwards, you said this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2193629&postcount=10135). Now, I think this solves this problem.

Now, do you ALSO want me to dig up the one where you said it could be dust ? I already did not long ago.

The columns that are shown as "core columns" (bottom) laying inside a building, are "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg), but as you can see, those are not inside the core area, and IF they were that big they would have survived to be seen in the following attached image. The puny steel from the above linked image of the overhead of the core area, is also not seen where rebar is. (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4728&stc=1&d=1167192699

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4729&stc=1&d=1167192788

hcmom

26th December 2006, 09:35 PM

...Many months ago Christopher provided documentary proof of his mental illness.
...Since then, many people have continued to try to reason with him, to argue with him, and to taunt him.
...I have no authority to compel you to do anything. I just wish you would stop.

Methinks it's really time to just let this thread rest in peace.

While I really haven't tried to reason, argue or even taunt Chris, somehow what Gravy said manages to feel more realistice than saying Chris lost, or cat pictures or others saying that Chris has mental problems.

I guess part of my problem with quitting here is that I didn't want Chris to be mentally ill, because I truly like it when he's funny/clever.

But I think I'll make this part of my stop-trying-to-change-things-that-can't-be-changed New Year's resolution, and leave this thread alone.

Big Al

27th December 2006, 01:30 AM

Yep, I'm outa here, too. Happy New Year, all, see you in some other thread.

Belz...

27th December 2006, 05:43 AM

:words:

Sorry, you lose.

Bye chris.

Rabbit

27th December 2006, 07:53 AM

Christophera

27th December 2006, 01:18 PM

I only have one question I want answered. Depending on how Christophera answers, if he does, then I will decide whether or not to stay.

I apologize for not reading all the past 10,000+ post before this.Maybe Christophera can answer a small question I have.Which tower fell first, and why? I always get the North Tower mixed up with the South Tower, and actually don't know which was WTC1 and which was WTC2. I should know, but don't, so any help would be appreciated.

WTC 2, the south tower fell first although WTC 1 was hit first on the north side, it fell north. The first tower hit was hit near center with most of the fuel entering the tower to burn. The second tower to be hit, WTC 2, was almost missed, being hit on the south east corner, only one engine contacted the concrete core and most of the fuel burned outside of the tower in a midair firebal, the tower fell east.

Thanks, Christophera, I’ll remember now.But you never did say why WTC 2 fell first. I’m just curious.

The timing of the towers fall had nothing to do with planes impacts and fires because the planes were on timers. They did have vibration detectors of radio proximity detectors which sensed the planes proximity to trigger explosions inthe basement and elsewhere.
(http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1205439)

These links to sections of my site explain in detail.
Basic timing
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1201803
Plane impact, fall sequence and timers.
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1207667

The reason for this was to divide up seismic amplitude. The USGS will not provide the raw digital seismometer data for 9-11 in NYC. The reason why is they that a "Fast Forurier Transform" moveing measurement data from the amplitude domain into the frequency doamin where the characteristic signature frequency of high explosives would be seen. Simple comparision to quarry blast and such would show identical frequencies generated.

The reason I included the sides of impact and directions of fall in my response you quoted was to show the basic impossibility of the collapses as attributed to plane impacts. Structures with shear wall constrcution will always fail on the side impacted.

Poster here insist that fires onthe opposite sides were responsible for the opposite direction falls. This is pure nonsense because they have never shown that the type fires burning can cause enough heat to be attibuted to the failures they assert occured.

The logic of timers is comprehensive and consistent with the event in all ways. My site is actually the only site in existence that provides a logical explanation for the reversed fall sequence from impact sequence. It is also the only site that provides a realistic explanation for near free fall and total pulverization.

The issue of remotes as related to timers is solidly addressed by relation to events and rference to simple human nature. I rule out remotes because IF they were used, the antural compulsion of a human being conducting an important ruse is to use all possible control to make the ruse perfect, or as perfect as possible.

The issue of the wrong tower falling first is a glaring inconsistency with simple logic, IF one knows that fires cannot cause the collaspse directions to reverse from the shear wall destruction side. If one recognizes that black smoke from kerosine and carpet fires cannot cause enough heat to weaken perimeter walls of the weight present in the towers, the suggestion that the event pictured below is a collapse of any kind is ludicrious.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4746&stc=1&d=1167250495

Rabbit

27th December 2006, 02:24 PM

Christophera

27th December 2006, 04:40 PM

Christophera, thank you for answering my question.

While I said I hadn't read all 10,000+ posts, that might have been a bit disingenuous. I have read most of them, and followed various links, and have read most of your site regarding the WTC towers.

I won’t reference any particular poster, or site, but will tell you this. You are wrong, but I don’t think you mean any harm (or maybe I just hope you don’t). In fact, you are causing harm. To me, and everyone else that lost loved ones that day, and other days too numerous to list. I think you have drawn a conclusion, and look for evidence to prove that conclusion. The fact is that trained terrorist hijacked planes and used them to terrorize the American people.

You are right about one thing, I don't mean any harm.

I do know high explosives and construction. That image I posted does show a high speed series of delayed explosions, it bears no resemblance to a collapse whatsoever.

I've been thanked too many times for what I'm doing here to consider that I'm actaully doing harm to any person who lost a loved one on 9-11. Perhaps I'm reminding them of a painful truth, but that is their problem if they cannot see the benefit of using truth to protect life, our democracy, rights and freedoms.

I think I’d enjoy a debate with you, but doubt that I could ever sway you from your current position. Others have tried. The US government is just a group of people, some nice, some not nice. Some are smart, others not so smart. Are there conspiracies in the world? Yes.

No, you wouldn't enjoy a debate with me. Debating with me when you have no evidence for your position is a lose, lose proposition. I mean look at this thread. They, dozens of them, post cat pictures and baking recipes in gangs and still do nothing but damage their own credibility. A lot of people know there is something very wrong with 9-11 and support the quest for truth and they do nothing but read and shake their head in wonder at the disrepect for the dead, law, and the principles of this nation that the deniers here foist upon these pages..

I simply don’t understand how you can not see that what happened on 9/11/01 was a conspiracy, in which a group of people planned for years to take out the towers, but they were not Americans. Most were Saudis, a few Kuwaitis, and maybe a Pakistani or 2.

There was a conspiracy and the pilots were Muslims and it was its own conspiracy in use by a larger conspiracy, as far as I can tell. Those masterminding the construction of the towers to be demolished as they were, definitely not Americans. They did use many Americans behind the veils of secrecy that are possible. That we have allowed such secrecy is nothing but shame on us.

So I’ll say goodbye, and hope that someday you realize that this attack originated beyond US borders, by people that hate much of what we here take for granted. Speech, religious freedom, showing our face in public.

Christophera, I hope you realize that your freedom to post here, to express yourself, would get you beaten, if not killed, in other parts of the world. So post away, use the freedom that others have fought for with there lives. Me, I’m just going to keep reading, listening, and watching the world go by, hoping that my kids don’t die for these freedoms, though I know that they would if asked.

It originated beyond the state of mind required to support the principles that are required to support the US Constitution, that is for sure. The rest you say is probably wrong, as sad as it is.

When it comes to rights and freedoms, use 'em or lose 'em. So that is what I'm doing.

When it comes t the core of the towers though, there IS NO PROOF from raw evidence for any core other than the concrete core.

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

Christophera

27th December 2006, 07:20 PM

Chris also believes in a lot of other strange things (including that the illuminati are revealing themselves to him by putting the numbers 22, 23 and 24 in receipts and correspondence and suchlike).

There you go making up a bunch of nonsense.

What I believe is that our unconscious, that collective thing (telepathic cats use it to compel foolish deniers to provide free publicity) is trying to tell us something about the number, or it's relation to time, the DATE as it relates to ancient sunworship.

And the twin towers had a concrete core.

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

Christophera

27th December 2006, 07:43 PM

Of course not. Just post pictures of cats crawling is some woman's bra

Don't forget the alternative news service, stuff no one needs to know.

Totally the opposite of the only page on the planat that actually has a realistic explanation for near free fall and total pulverization.

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

Not to mention the only sensical explanation for why the wrong tower fell first.

Christophera

27th December 2006, 07:49 PM

Several core columns at elevation from the collapse. Don't even try to tell me they are massive box columns.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4512&d=1166158057

Seeing as they are not inside the core, it is easily seen that the spire is the same structure as is seen from the other side and below (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) looking across the river, yes, they are "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) and that is clear.

It is clear that the spire in the linked image I provided above is not inside the core but is at a corner outside the core and it is clear that the rectangular shapes formed by the "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) and the floor beams are the same at the walls in the image you post.

Christophera

27th December 2006, 08:14 PM

What first book?

This one? (Lifetide by Lyall Watson who came up with the term Hundredth Monkey):
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0671246895/sr=8-1/qid=1166126418/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-9173614-2104808?ie=UTF8&s=books

Lyall Watson did not coin that term. One of the 23 Japanese biologists who was studying the Macaca Fuscata on the Island of Koshimi did. And it was, to all of their ability to determine, correctly that right around the time the "hundredth monkey" began to wash the sand off of potatoes, that one morning, all the monkeys woke up and began washing their sweet potatoes in water before eating them.

Here is the basic story that was imparted through the original 1962 book.

The bios had been watching the monkeys for many years and had come to know them so well that they had names for them. One year there was a tremendous period of storms lasting over three months. The monkeys inhabited a valley that mouthed at the sea in a cove. There was a wide floodway that emptied near the center of the cove.
On one side of the cove there was large stand of trees bearing fruit that was the major food source for the monkeys. That side had no water. The other side had a spring and some fruit trees but not as much food generally.
It had been very dry and most of the monkeys were spending their nights on the side with the spring so water was available in the morning. later they would cross the small valley and harvest fruit to return later in the day for water.
One night the storms began with a exceedingly heavy downpour. So much rain fell that the monkeys could not cross in the morning to the side with food. The monkeys searched out what food they could find. This was not the most plentiful time of year. The biologists worried about the large population on the side with little food and projected that the food would not last long.
After about two weeks the monkeys were starving and the rain continued every few days or so keeping the flood channel 2 to 3 feet deep and flowing 15 to 20 mph. In this period the bios had decided to break their primary rule. To feed the monkeys interfering with the validity of their research. They reasoned they had been their for years and learned most of what was valuable about the behavior of their subjects while watching with telescopes from their floating barge blinds just beyond the gentle waves. They were able to see well enough to tell individuals apart and had developed names for them to distinguish them in their notes. They had become attached to their subjects and had affection for them. This sentiment overcame the strict scientific attitude of no interference and it was decided to help the monkeys to survive.
Sweet potatoes had been ordered up for the bios because they kept well and there were many on hand. A method of delivery had been devised that kept the bios hidden and actually provided a new type of observational study of the monkeys. In the night a raft was dispatched from a barge and taken into the mouth of the fresh water outlet. Beaching in fresh water flow, the bags of sweet potatoes would be dipped in the fresh water to remove what human smell could be washed away. The potatoes were then thrown by the bios onto the sand, spreading them out providing opportunity for the diverse group to be separate in the discoveries of the food in the hopes to reduce squabbling. When the wet potatoes hit the sand and rolled the sand stuck to them thickly.
The monkeys on the side with plentiful food still had plenty. A week or two went by and the bios watched the monkeys gather and eat the potatoes. They did not like the sand on them. Some nights it was raining still and they were washed on one side. The monkeys enjoyed them more. Around this time the routine of waking up in the middle of the night became tiresome and everyone was taking turns. The heavy rainfall gathered on the wide flat beach and formed a puddle during one particularly heavy rain. The puddle broke over the edge of the fresh water creek flowing to the ocean lowering the average 2 foot bank and created an eddy area where the bios could get closer to adjacent banks to distribute some of the potatoes. A few days after the potatoes were distributed there the first potatoes was washed.
One morning a baby female monkey with her aunt was near the fresh water eddy handling a sandy potatoes. The baby went down the easy slope to the fresh water and rinsed it off before eating it. The bios had several observation barges and one had a diagonal view upstream to the eddy. Through the powerful telescope they could see the baby enjoyed the clean potato much more than the gritty one. This continued for over a week.
Suddenly one morning the aunt, after the baby female washed her potato, took hers to the fresh water and followed the actions of the baby. Within a day or two her mate had mimicked the behavior. After a week and a half the practice had spread to the extended family of perhaps 15 to 20 monkeys. Slowly over the next 3 weeks up to 70 or 80 monkeys were washing potatoes in fresh water. The bios were having no trouble counting the monkeys involved with the practice until the numbers reached this point. They did their best comparing notes and they moved a barge to give a better view of an up stream area where a few monkeys had taken potatoes to eat. Around this time it was decided to distribute most of the potatoes nearer the ocean so they could observe and count the monkeys who were washing the potatoes better.
Sometime just before this the monkeys on the other side were beginning to starve. They had depleted all of the food growing naturally there and the bios had no trouble in deciding to break their rule a second time. One had decided to leave the island and explain to a higher authority why they needed such an increase in potatoes. They explained that they had garnered all the usable information they could from the monkeys over the last for or five years when the monkeys were living in a natural state and that there was a new opportunity to study the learning structures in the community of monkeys by feeding them. Larger quantities of potatoes were delivered.

(note) In the original book telling this story there was a break from the account of the monkeys behavior to note that there was a distance of perhaps three hundred feet between the two banks of the fresh water creeks and that the monkeys could not see each other or did not even pay any attention to the monkeys on the other side. Only in the upstream areas where the channel was narrower did the monkeys even notice their counterparts on the opposite banks. There was a mention that predators existed in the thicker vegetation and the monkeys liked to stay in the open near between few trees for sanctuary if needed. It was stated in this portion that because of what happened next that the bios realized that the retelling of the story, as it had happened, might be questioned due to the possibility that the monkeys on one side had learned from watching the monkeys on the other. The original story emphasized that the monkeys on one side almost never even noticed the monkeys on the other side. It was speculated that the monkeys could not see well at those distances. This realization contributed to the bios decision to distribute the potatoes closer to the ocean to improve the counting of the potato washing. In the beginning they had worried that the monkeys that rarely spent time by the ocean might notice the barges floating at the back edge of the waves while collecting potatoes nearer the ocean. it was also stated that the fresh water channel widened some making it very unlikely that monkeys near the ocean could see at all, monkeys on the other side.

At a point when about 90 monkeys were washing potatoes in fresh water the original baby monkey to first wash its potato went to the ocean to do do. It was speculated by the bios that the move of the potato distribution took the baby monkey away from its area of easy access to the fresh water and forced the baby to go to the ocean to rinse its potato. The bios noticed that the baby relished its potato greatly after rinsing in salt water. A few days later after washing the potato in salt water the aunt noticed the increased pleasure of the baby eating somewhat more potato than it had and going back and forth to the ocean for rinsing. the aunt again learned from the baby female and followed her to the ocean to rinse her food.
The learning spread quicker, the count the bios had been struggling to keep was approaching 100. At this time the monkeys on the other side were still eating sandy potatoes. One morning all of the monkeys on the side where the feeding began went to the ocean to rinse their potatoes. A few days later the all of the monkeys on the other side did the same.
the bios were astounded and immediately documented independent of the funding source what they had observed and wrote the original book titled, “the Hundredth Monkey” because by their very best count it was right at 100 when all of the monkeys on the side first fed began to rinse their food in fresh water. the bios noted that for a time prior to that a number of mostly older monkeys did not learn to wash potatoes at all even though they had tasted the food washed in fresh water.

Arus808

27th December 2006, 08:17 PM

Guys ,this Thread Is Dead.

firecoins

27th December 2006, 10:29 PM

Guys ,this Thread Is Dead.
it was dead on post 1!

mortimer

27th December 2006, 10:39 PM

Thread's dead, baby. Thread's dead.

Architect

28th December 2006, 06:21 AM

Lads, I go away for a few days and suddenly this thread has loadsa new posts.

Let it Lie. The Thread is Dead. Chris is, unfortunately, Ill.

bonavada

28th December 2006, 07:00 AM

somehow, this reminds me of chris' posts in this thread............

UX93wNMhDFI

:-]

BV

Christophera

28th December 2006, 09:54 AM

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." - Sherlock Holmes

What is said here is that since the assertion is that the vertical steel seen surrounded by "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) are "core columns" which must be very strong to be considered "cores", other wise they would serve no purpose, then they must appear after exterio protions of the strcuture fall away.

In the below image showing what appears as the Concrete Core Of WTC 2 (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) the supposed "core columns" are unseen. It is impossible that none of the supposed 47 1300 foot columns are seen in that image when they are supposed to be of the strongest elements of the tower.

Again, none of the supposed 47 steel core columns is seen in the core area toppling and falling (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) as they must be if they existed.

Conclusion:

Since it is impossible that they be completely unseen in any form when the exterior falls away, the supposed steel core columns never existed and instead are a fabrication intented to conceal the true nature of the towers and the demise of them.

Christophera

28th December 2006, 01:24 PM

Soooo... first you ask us to show you images of the steel columns. We do that,

I ask for core columns and you show me interior box columns "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) which are not inside the core. The steel you show inside the core is elevator guide rail support and I reasonably explain why.

so you ask us to show images from "some elevation above ground." We do that, so now it's "some elevation above ground from the demo images."

Man, you must be a killer at soccer defense. You can move the goalposts and everything.

Then you show an image of a wall formed of interior box columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/overspirezoom.gif)

Architect

28th December 2006, 02:13 PM

Let it Lie. The thread is dead.

A W Smith

28th December 2006, 02:22 PM

Yeah, yeah...
Uh huh...
Thread is dead.
That's what I said...
Let the man rap a plan; 'said he'd send him home.
But his hope was a rope, and he should have known.
It's hard to understand; there was love in this man.
I'm sure all would agree, that his misery,
was his woman and things.
This thread is dead.
That's what I said...
Everybody's misused him; ripped him off and abused him.
Another junkie playin'; pushin' dope for the man.
A terrible blow, but that's how it go...
Chris is on the corner now... if you wanna be a junkie, wow...
Remember, Thread is dead...
We're all built up with progress,
but sometimes I must confess,
we can deal with rockets and dreams,
but reality... what does it mean? Ain't nothing said.
This thread is dead.

HyJinX

28th December 2006, 02:28 PM

...nuff said

bonavada

28th December 2006, 02:46 PM

my friend..............

20yyKTN5Gu0

BV

Christophera

28th December 2006, 05:25 PM

I doubt that anyone will be able to determine what is pictured in his "WTC2 core image". But I don't think that there is much left to discuss about the rest of his "evidence". And obviously he will never concede, so I don't see much point in keeping this going.

The only ones who cannot easily see what the image shows,

Concrete Core Of WTC 2 (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

are ignorant of steel and concrete construction. The materials, their relative strengths and appearances. So any who do not have experience in those areas, your input is likely to be less than useful to making competent determinations.

There is another group that perhpas has knowledge, but they do not have intergity towards defining what must be true.

Basically both groups have been run into the dirt by more facts than they can reasonably oppose. So bring on some truly knowledge people that also have intergrity?

HyJinX

28th December 2006, 05:33 PM

Dead Thread

Christophera

28th December 2006, 06:42 PM

It is completely logical that a number of columns would snap at about the same height.

And then leave some 3 to 4 hundred foot columns lying around. Show us the images. Show us the images of the snapped columns. All I can find are these column ends that are cut square and clean as if a shear did them.
(http://www.parrhesia.com/wtc/wtc066.jpg) but ubes can't be sheared in that thickness.

In other words, you made up the numbers. There was no documentary; why can't you comprehend that we all know this.

How would I be able to define that this is rebar if I did not know there was a concrete core?.

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

How would I know there was a concrete core if no such source had been televised?

Others who believe that there were steel core columns are totally without an explanation that is reasonable for this

Concrete Core Of WTC 2 (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

they are also without evidence for the steel core columns.

and I explain the above image reasonably and logically as a concrete core. How do I do that completely consitent with images of concrete shear walls (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif)?

Woody-

28th December 2006, 08:22 PM

nd then leave some 3 to 4 hundred foot columns lying around. Show us the images. Show us the images of the snapped columns. All I can find are these column ends that are cut square and clean as if a shear did them.
but ubes can't be sheared in that thickness.

They are square because they were made that way. You seem to be missing the concept that the columns were not connected in a way that would make them continuous 1300 foot pieces. When you weld around the outside of two columns butted together and the walls of the columns are several inches thick there is no way to penetrate the weld enough to match the strength of the columns. The splices created by these welds are weak spots, when the towers collapsed the horizontal stresses applied to the columns caused them to fail at their weakest points, where the welds were made. It would of been more suspicious if the columns didnt fail at these points.

In the pic you linked to the broken welds are evident. The bottom column has some loose material in it, some of that material has dribbled out and you can see it has collected on the lip of a broken weld. You can also see this "lip" on the lower edge of the top column.

http://www.parrhesia.com/wtc/wtc066.jpg

BTW To everyone else, I know this post is like talking to a wall but I wanted to get rid of my. "Hello Woody- it appears that you have not posted on our forums in several weeks, why not take a few moments to ask a question, help provide a solution or just engage in a conversation with another member in any one of our forums?"

hcmom

28th December 2006, 08:41 PM

BTW To everyone else, I know this post is like talking to a wall but I wanted to get rid of my. "Hello Woody- it appears that you have not posted on our forums in several weeks, why not take a few moments to ask a question, help provide a solution or just engage in a conversation with another member in any one of our forums?"

Woody...I understand your reasoning, but this is now a save Chris from himself thread, and we can only succeed if we all go away.

Christophera

28th December 2006, 09:10 PM

They are square because they were made that way. You seem to be missing the concept that the columns were not connected in a way that would make them continuous 1300 foot pieces. When you weld around the outside of two columns butted together and the walls of the columns are several inches thick there is no way to penetrate the weld enough to match the strength of the columns. The splices created by these welds are weak spots, when the towers collapsed the horizontal stresses applied to the columns caused them to fail at their weakest points, where the welds were made. It would of been more suspicious if the columns didnt fail at these points."

I've been a welder for 35 years Woody. Butt welds are made full depth by beveling and multiple passes. The weld itself is stronger than the adjacent steel typically.

In the pic you linked to the broken welds are evident. The bottom column has some loose material in it, some of that material has dribbled out and you can see it has collected on the lip of a broken weld. You can also see this "lip" on the lower edge of the top column.

http://www.parrhesia.com/wtc/wtc066.jpg

Broken welds are VERY ragged as the molten puddle of the weldment intrudes into the steel irreguarly. The consistency of that road base near the center shows that the stuff is just caked up on the smooth surface because of the depth the column dug in when being tilted to be set on the stickers that are separating the columns.

BTW To everyone else, I know this post is like talking to a wall but I wanted to get rid of my. "Hello Woody- it appears that you have not posted on our forums in several weeks, why not take a few moments to ask a question, help provide a solution or just engage in a conversation with another member in any one of our forums?"

Not a wall Woody. Good comments but basically you are talking directly in one of my areas of greater expertise.

The wall is those folks that post cat pic and baking recipes to obscure honest discussion such as what you have posted.

If you knew what I knew, you wouldn't bother with anything else (much) like I do.

Christophera

28th December 2006, 10:02 PM

When you weld around the outside of two columns butted together

BTW, where is the weld around these columns?

http://www.parrhesia.com/wtc/wtc066.jpg

Christophera

28th December 2006, 11:40 PM

This picture here: http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg Shows the spandrel sections falling onto the building below. I do not see any concrete in that photo. You going to have to point it out to me.

The grey brown area inside the perimeter columns can only be concreteThe core of the top of tower 2 falls on WTC 3 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg). Here is an image that has the 1/4 piece of the core top oultined.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/WTC2coreonto3lines.gif

Do you really think that a few steel frames would smash 20 stories through WTC 3? Look at the piles of gravel in front.

Jennie C.

29th December 2006, 10:40 AM

Do what we did; everything metric except miles and pints!

It comes in pints??:)

Jennie C.

29th December 2006, 11:08 AM

Unlike the thread, he would die.

Fortunately, he would rise again.

As does this thread, unfortunately.

Jennie C.

29th December 2006, 11:25 AM

That's a complex question.

Some of the spellings reflect American use of 17th and 18th century UK spellings, but the vast majority are deliberate attempts by the US in the 20th century to simplify spelling. Colour/color is a classic example.

Interestingly, Canadians tend to stick with most UK spellings especially where they're influenced by Francophone grammar.

Trivia fact: UK and US spellings are both acceptable in Scrabble.

I can't quote his source (because it's going-on 35 years since I was graduated from high school), but my high-school history teacher told us something about Noah Webster's wanting to make a more "American" English than "English" English and that he was the one who changed the spellings. Maybe both are true: maybe he changed some of them but not all.

I can never find anyone who wants to play Scrabble with me. Or Cribbage for that matter.

Rabbit

29th December 2006, 12:44 PM

bonavada, dude, you are totally blowing my mind!

In high school, me in my best friend would argue over who was better, Pink Floyd:
somehow, this reminds me of chris' posts in this thread............

UX93wNMhDFI

:-]

BV
or The Doors: my friend..............

20yyKTN5Gu0

BV

We decided they were both great at what they did.

Christophera

29th December 2006, 01:52 PM

BTW I'm still hypnotised to believe that the WTC had a steel core and that it was destroyed by a bunch of pissed off muslim hijackers. I guess there is no help for me.:hypnodisk :hypnodisk :hypnodisk

Can you recomend a good Muslim demolition contractor to take down an old gravel plant? There happens to be some old UGT's that still have a lot of diesel, similar to jet fuel in them. From what you indicate, that should be able to get all the steel on the ground huh?

Otherwise, there probably is no hope for you.

Christophera

29th December 2006, 02:49 PM

[de(elevator)rail]
Loot? LOOT? You've been out in the fog too long. You can have whatever share of our national debt you want. :)
[de(elevator)rail]

In all seriousness, I agree. Everybody knows Chris is not going to present any useful evidence. No new, relevant information has been put on the table for at least 100 pages. Its gotten to be a very old dance. I'm gonna hang in till we hit 10000 posts just for the heck of it, then I, for one, am outta here.

Clearly, the deniers inability or unwillingness to use relevant information is being presented as reason for expecting new evidence.

The vertical steel in the core area that the deniers present as "core columns"

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

is clearly elevator guide rail support steel because the steel does not survive to be seen after the top of the tower and the exterior framework is gone.

Concrete Core Of WTC 2 (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

Christophera

29th December 2006, 04:08 PM

The WTC tower's steel "tube with in tube" and floor truss was designed to resist the wind load.
http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/small/eng-news-record.htm
Scroll down to where it says:
HOW COLUMNS WILL BE DESIGNED FOR 110-STORY BUILDINGS

homer,

There is no statement in that part of the page which actually says the towers were built that way. It states the early design considerations.

And, where are these steel core columns if they existed. clearly, none of the high strength columns they describe protrude from the core area.

Concrete Core Of WTC 2 (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

firecoins

29th December 2006, 04:17 PM

we have a dead posting!

Oliver

29th December 2006, 04:29 PM

we have a dead posting!

I wonder when this statement appeared at the
first time within this thread ... 100 pages ago? :p

Christophera

29th December 2006, 05:22 PM

Nobby

Quick, get Sergeant Colon and Captain Carrot of the disinfo squad onto this.

Now

Dave

Perhaps you haven't been following the thread. That is Captain Colon and Sargeant Carrot. And, ....... I am ever watchful of their grubby little paws getting near the truth.

For example, had they had the opportunity to silence these firefighters who describe "detonations" as resembling the event at the TWC, they certainly would have kept us all from knowing this vital information.

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

WilliamSeger

29th December 2006, 05:39 PM

ktesibios

29th December 2006, 05:40 PM

Chris, I wish you a happy New Year and a quick and complete recovery from your mental illness.

Happy Trails to you.

alexg

29th December 2006, 05:53 PM

Christophera

29th December 2006, 07:30 PM

Well, since this thread will never die anyway, what the heck... I just came across this pic while looking for info on the kangaroo cranes:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/images/sf_gallery_04.jpg

Nope, don't see any concrete core there. (What this pic does show, BTW, is that the fully cross-braced crane towers you see in a lot of pics are just the section that climbed up the elevator shafts. Below those are just the core columns with perhaps some cross bracing every few floors.)

I cannot see any cross bracing that is not of the crane towers on WTC 2 (left). The concrete is the 3 dark vertical streaks in WTC 2. At the bottom is an analysis of the hallways of WTC 2 from a photo that looks diagonally through the door ways. The thick blue lines are complete openings and the thin blue lines are the edges of openings.

Below is a sunrise sihouette of WTC 1. (From my page, http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11corexplosions.html)

The view is not looking down the hallways, we look nearly along the long axis of the towers core. The vertical line of light in the lower segment is created by sunlight reflecting off the inner core walls then shining out the core hallway.

The North Tower had a core oriented east and west. The camera perspective is not aligned with the hallway as can be seen by the orientation of the south towers roof indicating an oblique view. The light is reflected off the inner south shear wall at a hallway level where there is no doorway interrupting. Notice the very slight interruptions, dark streaks, whole dark floors. The nature of light under these conditions is to blend, blur and obscure solid areas between the light.

We see no light on the left side because the doorways on the north face do not align with the doors on the east face as they are on a different floor so no direct light and no reflective surfaces are at the proper angle. Above that, or the top sky lobby floor, the top floors had a different scheme with halls on one floor crossing in both directions allowing direct light

The sunrise silhouette (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtccoreshilouette.jpg)

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4790&stc=1&d=1167445151

firecoins

29th December 2006, 07:35 PM

I wonder when this statement appeared at the
first time within this thread ... 100 pages ago? :p
I have said it a hundred or so pages ago. Its still relevant!:eye-poppi :jaw-dropp :boggled: :crowded: :covereyes

Christophera

29th December 2006, 07:45 PM

You see no concrete core there? It's all in the angle of view my friend!

Seriously, this picture alone should have killed this thing a long time ago.

There is NOTHING which will EVER convince this monomanical madman!

I've explained the silhouette that William posted. The tower on the right of that mid day silouette (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/silhouettenoontosouth.jpg) is WTC 1 and its single hallway from the 75th floor up is easily seen.

Seriously, this picture alone should have killed this thing a long time ago.

Concrete Core Of WTC 2 (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

You guys have no evidence of steel core columns. The above link shows a 500 foot tall concrete tube, the core of WTC 2.

Zep

29th December 2006, 08:10 PM

Get help, Chris. You know you need it. No-one will think the lesser of you if you do. In fact, quite the opposite.

Oliver

29th December 2006, 08:23 PM

I have said it a hundred or so pages ago. Its still relevant!:eye-poppi :jaw-dropp :boggled: :crowded: :covereyes

I see - that´s a pretty good argument. I will
join your protest on page 300, promised. :D

Christophera

29th December 2006, 10:26 PM

On what do you base this idea, that a building suffering catastrophic structural failure should fall in two minutes or more? Do you, maybe, have some video footage of buildings falling at this much slower rate, that were suffering from total catastrophic structural failure? Or documentation of buildings collapsing due to impacts that took proportionate lengths of time? Or is this more 'common-sense' judgement?

There really is no basis. It is simply a comparison to buildings that have collapsed to the ground following serious earthquake damage where loads accumulate and cause progressive failures.

A building such as the twin towers will not collapse below the point of the plane impacts. Fire burns upwards so all the damage is inherently above that point. The notion that it would go all the way to the ground in a collapse is ABSURD.

And yes, that is common sense.

Belz...

30th December 2006, 07:44 AM

Fortunately, he would rise again.

As does this thread, unfortunately.

Unfortunately, in both cases, methinks.

Architect

30th December 2006, 07:50 AM

Dead Thread

Christophera

30th December 2006, 12:42 PM

So take it to The People's Court!

But that is small claims court. Would 1300 foot towers weighing hundreds of thousands of tons exceed the maximum claim? Waht about the loss of life?

What kind of pills are those you are taking after you chug that seagrams?

Christophera

30th December 2006, 03:19 PM

Your claim that the steel core should have remained upright after the collapse implies a belief that steel is unbreakable. If steel (or even just the welds) are breakable, the paucity of upright columns could be explained as being due to the columns being snapped.

You imply that there was "one steel core". There were supposed to be by the official story 47 steel core columns. That is 47 opportunities for snapped or bent columns to be visible. They are not seen in ANY image from the demolition. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg)

But what can only be concrete is seen.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4801&stc=1&d=1167517150

Oliver

30th December 2006, 03:36 PM

Christophera

30th December 2006, 09:58 PM

Hello Christopher. :)

I know you talked the whole year about the concrete
core and the healthcare issue but wouldn´t you like
to come out of this thread for a while and share your
views about the other issues on this board? :)

I've been talking for the last 10 years about the issue of mental health care, or more appropriately that psychology give appropriate recognition to the unconscious mind.

I've talked for the last 5 years about the concrete core. If you knew the truth and how important 9-11 is, you wouldn't stop talking about it either.

Literally, the other issues of the board are not going to matter if 9-11 is not dealt with. They are already diminishing in importance as the long term effects of 9-11 take hold and push there importance out of the picture. It is too slow for most people to notice as they are distracted by media.

It's all a part of boiling live frogs successfully. The infiltrators of the US government are good at it.

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

Oliver

30th December 2006, 10:05 PM

I've been talking for the last 10 years about the issue of mental health care, or more appropriately that psychology give appropriate recognition to the unconscious mind.

I've talked for the last 5 years about the concrete core. If you knew the truth and how important 9-11 is, you wouldn't stop talking about it either.

Literally, the other issues of the board are not going to matter if 9-11 is not dealt with. They are already diminishing in importance as the long term effects of 9-11 take hold and push there importance out of the picture. It is too slow for most people to notice as they are distracted by media.

It's all a part of boiling live frogs successfully. The infiltrators of the US government are good at it.

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

Well, but maybe there are other smoking guns than
the concrete core, too. You´re stuck in this single
9/11 theory concering controlled demolitions. Why
don´t you talk to other CT´ists like "28th Kingdom"
or "RemoveBush" on this board about their and your
views?

Christophera

30th December 2006, 10:37 PM

Well, but maybe there are other smoking guns than
the concrete core, too. You´re stuck in this single
9/11 theory concering controlled demolitions. Why
don´t you talk to other CT´ists like "28th Kingdom"
or "RemoveBush" on this board about their and your
views?

Sure they are smoking. Peoples ignorance make them think that the smoke is WAY thicker than it really is with those issues trying to distract from more important issues.

Smokescreens.

Can you believe how important it is that there is NO CONCRETE CORE.

All those people saying "NO CONCRETE CORE" got to have a reason. but, .... they will never tell you why.

Curnir

30th December 2006, 10:41 PM

alexg

30th December 2006, 11:08 PM

Chris IS the concrete core! No core no chris, no chris no core!

Oliver

30th December 2006, 11:14 PM

Sure they are smoking. Peoples ignorance make them think that the smoke is WAY thicker than it really is with those issues trying to distract from more important issues.

Smokescreens.

Can you believe how important it is that there is NO CONCRETE CORE.

All those people saying "NO CONCRETE CORE" got to have a reason. but, .... they will never tell you why.

Well, to be honest: I have no clue what difference
it would make between a concrete or non-concrete
core. If you ever watched controlled demolition videos,
you should know that the "drum roll"-like explosions
are pretty loud and always audible in these Vidoes.
Yet i never heard something like that from any footage
that was shot close to the collapsing towers.

What do you think is the reason for this? And why
didn´t they brought down the Towers in 93 if the
explosives were already installed within the cores? :confused:

Pardalis

30th December 2006, 11:17 PM

This thread is still going on???

JREF should publish it.

Oliver

30th December 2006, 11:33 PM

This thread is still going on???

JREF should publish it.

In my opinion the Pythons should publish it and i
guess JREF is about to publish it, too - but we
all have to wait for the happy end first. :boxedin:

Christophera

31st December 2006, 12:35 AM

Well, to be honest: I have no clue what difference
it would make between a concrete or non-concrete
core.

The major difference is that concrete can be fractured to fall instantly. Steel is very difficult to cut with high explosives. The nearest estimate I can get is about 40 LBS of plastic explosive per cut. That is a minimum. To cut 47 1,300 foot columns into 40 foot pieces, the avergae size of the heavy box columns at ground zero, taht is around 1300 cuts.

That is 26 tons of high explosive and you haven't taken out the floors yet.

Those explosives would not be contained. They would be basically going off in open air inside the core. High explosives make very sharp bangs when uncontained. Contained explosions do more of a rumble.

Here are 2 recordings.

http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/southtower.trinity.avi

http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/southtower-tinity1.aif

Here are the firefighters talkng about what they saw and heard.

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

If you ever watched controlled demolition videos,
you should know that the "drum roll"-like explosions
are pretty loud and always audible in these Vidoes.
Yet i never heard something like that from any footage
that was shot close to the collapsing towers.

There are a couple. The first of the 2 links above (which I couldn't play this time, did before) is a distinct rumbling as the blast wave descends.

What do you think is the reason for this? And why
didn´t they brought down the Towers in 93 if the
explosives were already installed within the cores? :confused:

If you look at the testimony of the FBI as the terrorists defense was implicating them in his act you will see they directed the terrorist to first use dummy explosives then use real ones then move the van away from the core.

Had the van gone off next to the core it might have initated the entire height of the building at once. Like a giant firecracker. All they wanted to do was create a good reason for a remodel so the thermite could be installed on the first level basement and first floor.

I remember anews caster saysing near the end of the remodel, "Special fireproofing was added to the columns in case of further terrorism." Seriously.

This is similar to the "special plastic anti corrosion anti vibration coating" on the rebar that was stated in the 1990 documentary.

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

Oliver

31st December 2006, 01:11 AM

Christophera

31st December 2006, 12:27 PM

Sorry for the delay, Christopher - i was looking for the
original footage of your links. This is the video on google
but i´m searching for the "camera-planet" footage some-
where in my collection of 9/11 clips...

http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546&q=collapse+tower

Looks like your samples are faked because i can´t hear
these explosions on the original footage - but i try to
find the better version on my computer now...

Good links, better than mine. I remember seeing that one a couple of years back.

Rather than faked I think they have suffered degradation in copying or been altered to reduce the audio gain.

There was one from the base of a tower, quite close, (perhaps the first link I gave you was the same but audio tracks diminshed greatly) and the audio was so loud with booming explosions that it was somewhat shocking to play. Your link is similar but the one I remember had a pink cast to the visual such as the first I posted.

Christophera

31st December 2006, 01:27 PM

Christophera sure likes the word "raw". It's a shame he doesn't have any idea what it means.

Powa sure dislikes the words "raw evidence", probably because he doesn't have any and must confront mine with reason, which he cannot do.

Arus808

31st December 2006, 01:42 PM

Again This Thread Is Dead!

Christophera

31st December 2006, 01:50 PM

Again This Thread Is Dead!

Wishful thinking.

The thread is alive and well.

It is your spirit and desire for justice and freedom that is dead.

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

Powa

31st December 2006, 02:24 PM

Powa sure dislikes the words "raw evidence", probably because he doesn't have any...
No, I don't have any raw evidence because I've never been to Ground Zero to collect it. Have you? All I can show you is images and videos. But this is not raw evidence. It has been explained to you more than once. You really should try to use correct terms in debates.

... and must confront mine with reason, which he cannot do.
Correct. No one can reason with you.

Again This Thread Is Dead!
I know, I'm sorry. I really tried to stay out of this but Chris quoted me from way back.

ETA: In fact, I posted that 100 pages ago! :eye-poppi

firecoins

31st December 2006, 03:21 PM

From Post 1!

Maxim:
If a suppossed explantion does not explain the event, it is not the truth. No explanation that does not explain the event can be the truth.
The suppossed explaination does in fact explain the event. This thread was dead in post #1

So far no explanation in existence explains free fall and total pulverization of the towers appears to exist. Has anyone seen one?Some how this applies to Chris's theoires more than anyone else's theory.

Architect

31st December 2006, 04:02 PM

Dead Thread

Christophera

31st December 2006, 04:14 PM

No, I don't have any raw evidence because I've never been to Ground Zero to collect it. Have you? All I can show you is images and videos. But this is not raw evidence. It has been explained to you more than once. You really should try to use correct terms in debates.

Correct. No one can reason with you.

I know, I'm sorry. I really tried to stay out of this but Chris quoted me from way back.

ETA: In fact, I posted that 100 pages ago! :eye-poppi

I said "images of raw evidence" back there, sometimes I leave it out because you know what I mean. Still you have none. if you gave a crap about the future of this country and its Constitution you would hang around and at least "try" to reason. Poor thing.

For example. You could take this queston on.

If this is not concrete, what is it?

Concrete Core Of WTC 2 (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

Drywall and gyprock fastened to steel core columns just is NOT reasonable. Hundreds of thousands of tons of heavy steel wreakagae has crashed around that and it still stands at 500 feet or so.

RandFan

31st December 2006, 04:16 PM

Dead ThreadYeah. The evidence presented is just too great. But hey, if one doesn't want to accept it then there is nothing more that can be done.

Christophera

31st December 2006, 04:50 PM

Yeah. The evidence presented is just too great. But hey, if one doesn't want to accept it then there is nothing more that can be done.

Besides add more evidence in hopes that those who are reasonable will be empowered to acknowlege that indeed there was a steel reinforced concrete core.

here is an image of what can only be a concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) holding up the steel spire formed by an interior box column.

Here is the un zoomed original to show that no steel core columns are seen to the left where they should be. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg)

RandFan

31st December 2006, 05:34 PM

here is an image of what can only be a concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) holding up the steel spire formed by an interior box column.No. Just because you say that the photo is concrete shear wall doesn't make it so.

Let me demonstrate, here's a photo of a dog (http://www.3d-screensaver-downloads.com/images/free-cat-screensaver/big1.jpg).

Christophera

31st December 2006, 05:57 PM

No. Just because you say that the photo is concrete shear wall doesn't make it so.

Let me demonstrate, here's a photo of a dog (http://www.3d-screensaver-downloads.com/images/free-cat-screensaver/big1.jpg).

Your staement is either an outright lie.

A facetious joke.

Or such a grave error that you do not deserve this response. I choose to deem it a facetious joke, as so many in
is thread love to play in their shameless obsfucations.

Your image is clearly that of a CAT (http://www.3d-screensaver-downloads.com/images/free-cat-screensaver/big1.jpg) and anybody with eyes and common knowledge can verify the fact.

Whereas the image of the concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) is not so easily verified. It will take some experience with steel and concrete.

However, it is easily verified that there are no steel core columns and hat all which is seen is a light colored wall to left of interior box column, the "spire" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg)

Christophera

31st December 2006, 08:01 PM

wrong,

And furthermore:

1. What are the chances of someone planting (in advance) then detonating explosives at the exact location (and at the right time) about an hour after the aircraft actually hits the building in that exact spot (see the videos) possibly severing the charge detonation cables? It clearly colappses in the same spot the plane hit!!!! how can you refute this unless you are very
slanted!

The pilots were simply told that there were explosives planted on certain floors and they were informed about each others targets. You haven't shown that the explosions started on the exact floors of impact. From what I've seen and heard, it appears the explosions started 4 to 5 floors away.

WTC1 seems to go down starting at those floors first hit by the aircraft and severely weakened ... including fire in that area... WHAT ARE THE probabilities? Very LOW that it was also a CD (controlled demo) job....

Come on! Use basic logic, reason aand common sence!! (maybe not)!
doez appears (in video) that the WTC1 actually started to fall at or around the planes impact point. This is in allignment with what a structure would do with this collapse occuring in the structurally weakened areas. (both core and perimeters).

You forgot to note that WTC was hit on the north side but the top falls south. Exactly the opposite direction of what would be logically expected.

hard to refute physicsl evidence!

that is what I say. Both towers fell in different direction s than they should of. WTC 1 was hit hard on the north side and burned hard but the top fell to the south,

WTC 2 was hardly hit on the south east corner, the core punctured on the south side, but the tower body fell east. And, part of the top fell west, something only possible with explosives which are precision controlled.

1/4 of the concrete core inside the perimeter columns of tower 2 falls on WTC 3. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg).

Yea, evidence is good.

RandFan

31st December 2006, 08:09 PM

Your staement is either an outright lie.

A facetious joke.

Or such a grave error that you do not deserve this response. None of the above. It's an example to demonstrate that declaring a dog a cat doesn't make it true (a rose by anyother name is still a rose).

Whereas the image of the concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) is not so easily verified. It will take some experience with steel and concrete.That you declare that it is so does not make it so.

However, it is easily verified that there are no steel core columns and hat all which is seen is a light colored wall to left of interior box column, the "spire" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg)That you declare it so does not make it so.

Christophera

31st December 2006, 08:57 PM

here is an image of what can only be a concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) holding up the steel spire formed by an interior box column.

None of the above. It's an example to demonstrate that declaring a dog a cat doesn't make it true (a rose by anyother name is still a rose).

That you declare that it is so does not make it so.

Understood. However, there is fairness in closure.

To say, "That you declare that it is so does not make it so." does not create closure or finality in the debate. There is no product that can be useful. To allow fairness to bring usefulness is only reasonable if our uses of language are to be productive.

Wherein I am fully justified in demanding that you explain WHAT IT IS, if it is not concrete.

When you fail to do that logically, the chances it is concrete are greater.

When someone else also fails, the odds that it is concrete increase even more.

In this thread alone I've asked probably 50 times for an explanation of what it is if not concrete, and not one person has even tried to provide an alternative definition.

What this says is that people know it is concrete and they don't want to fail in their logic so they fail to offer an alternative.

So much for integrity to the purposes of reason.

Arus808

31st December 2006, 11:49 PM

RANDFAN,, this thread is DEAD.. please.... chris was much more funny when he was replying to old posts as if they were new ones.

let it go RAndfan. He lives in fantasyland..let him live there.

Christophera

1st January 2007, 12:22 PM

So the columns that are not inside the core are connected with horizontal steel.

[QUOTE=Belz]How exactly did you come to that conclusion based on this:

The columns labeled "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) surround the core area and are connected by floor beams.

The vertical steel inside the core area is much smaller. It is elevator guide rail support steel and does not have the strength to survive any part of the demolition to stand, which is why the image of the Concrete Core Of WTC 2 (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) has no steel protruding from the center of it.

defaultdotxbe

1st January 2007, 12:37 PM

RANDFAN,, this thread is DEAD.. please.... chris was much more funny when he was replying to old posts as if they were new ones.

let it go RAndfan. He lives in fantasyland..let him live there.
the horse has died, decayed, fossilized, been dug up, cleaned, mounted and put on display in a museum and chris is still beating it

Christophera

1st January 2007, 03:16 PM

Don't you think it odd that they would install the elevator guide rails before the made the shafts?

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3758&d=1161813486

Do you not recall what the shaft walls were made of homer? Drywall and gyprock fastened to something???? That would be the guide rail support steel. The steel in the core area with the bolt flanges. Those are not :core columns"

And, if that vertical steel in the above image did show the supposed "core columns" instead of guide rail support steel, the columns would have survived the demise of the tower above it and be seen protruding from the core in the linked image below.

Concrete Core Of WTC 2 (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

What is that core standing 500 feet inthat image made of anyway????

Here is is seen that an interior box column has survived and stands alone. (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) But it is outside the core area, surrounding the core. Why do no core columns stand inside the core area?

firecoins

1st January 2007, 04:18 PM

I am sorry Chris but the whole "fireloins" thing is dead. Move on!

Christophera

1st January 2007, 04:37 PM

The guy who made the video showed the concrete being poured into the core foundationd and grillages, but he does not show concrete being formed around the core columns. (because there was no concrete core.) That's probably why Chris ignored it.
He seems to have a habit of ignoring any picture or video that shows no concrete around the core columns.

There were no core columns. If there were, they would be seen protruding from the core area in many photos including this one.

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

Instead what is seen is free standing vertical rebar that was inadvertantly left with non viable explosive after the horizontal rebar's viable coating removed the concrete.

What i do have is an image which was found by a denier or the concrete core, jackx from the LC forum, who had misinterpreted the image. I examined it carefully and finally made sense of it (his misinterpretations did not make sense) after re annotating the image the area for footings between the piers of the interior box columns and the elevator pits is easily seen.

FOOTING ZONE OF THE CORE WALL (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/elev.pits.core.footing.CORR.jpg)

uruk

1st January 2007, 05:56 PM

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3758&d=1161813486

Do you not recall what the shaft walls were made of homer? Drywall and gyprock fastened to something???? That would be the guide rail support steel. The steel in the core area with the bolt flanges. Those are not :core columns" Then those columns would not be railguides. the elevator would have to be in direct contact with the rails to provide stability and a contact surface for the rollers and emergency break system. That can't happen when there's drywall and sheetrock between the elevator and those columns.
The steel structures in the photograph are columns and they are in the core area, therefore that makes them core columns.
Those columns are not meant to support the building (that's done by the spandrells,floor trusses and the core box colums) but rather to support the floors, machinery and elevator equipment in the core area.

And, if that vertical steel in the above image did show the supposed "core columns" instead of guide rail support steel, the columns would have survived the demise of the tower above it and be seen protruding from the core in the linked image below.

Concrete Core Of WTC 2 (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

What is that core standing 500 feet inthat image made of anyway????

Here is is seen that an interior box column has survived and stands alone. (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) But it is outside the core area, surrounding the core. Why do no core columns stand inside the core area?

You said it yourself; the core columns were covered with drywall and sheetrock. That's why you can't see them in the picture.

Christophera

1st January 2007, 06:27 PM

Check what I said homer, here,

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2220125#post2220125

That would be the guide rail support steel.

Then those columns would not be railguides. the elevator would have to be in direct contact with the rails to provide stability and a contact surface for the rollers and emergency brake system. That can't happen when there's drywall and sheetrock between the elevator and those columns.

Just to make it clear. The guide rails are fastened to the guide rail support steel and so is the drywall and gyprock elevator shaft.

The steel structures in the photograph are columns and they are in the core area, therefore that makes them core columns.
Those columns are not meant to support the building (that's done by the spandrells and the core box colums) but rather to support the floors, machinery and elevator equipment in the core area.

There were no floors (except for hallways) in the core area, it was for elevators and stairs. There were perhaps 2 floors in the entire tower that were in the core covering PART of the core area where elevator lift motors and reels were housed.

The spandrel plates connected the perimeter columns on the outside of the tower. Interior box columns outside the concrete core walls were a part of the exo skeleton and supported floors.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3069641/

Leslie Robertson, Architect Of The World Trade Center Towers

Still, Robertson, whose firm is responsible for three of the six tallest buildings in the world, feels a sense of pride that the massive towers, supported by a steel-tube exoskeleton and a reinforced concrete core,

The elevator guide rail support steel also provided the structure that the elevator shaft covering was fastened to.

Do you not recall what the shaft walls were made of homer? Drywall and gyprock fastened to something???? That would be the guide rail support steel. The steel in the core area with the bolt flanges. Those are not "core columns"

You said it yourself; the core columns were covered with drywall and sheetrock. That's why you can't see them in the picture.

If you read what I said above I did not say "core columns", I said "guide rail support steel" and it was not very strong certainly not "core columns" even though it is vertical and it is inside the core area.

The really strong steel box columns were the "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) which show their strength by standing free perhaps 200 hundred feet unsupported.known as the spire (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg). They were not inside the core, they were surrounding the concrete core.

If the vertical steel inside the core area you call "core columns" were actually that strong, it would be protruding out the top of the core. It is not because it was structurally very insubstantial and laterally aligned by being fastened to the inside of the concrete core walls which kept the elevator guide rails very straight. This is why the Twin towers had such fast elevators, perfect alignment and tolerence of rails is needed for high speed.

Concrete Core Of WTC 2 (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

uruk

1st January 2007, 08:12 PM

Check what I said homer, here,

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2220125#post2220125

Just to make it clear. The guide rails are fastened to the guide rail support steel and so is the drywall and gyprock elevator shaft.The elevator rail guides did not have to be attached to the steel because they were cable suspention type.
here's a website from otis. notice the picture of the technicians installing the elevator equipment. Notice you can see all the way to the windows:
http://www.otis.com/otis150/section/1,2344,ARC3066_CLI1_RES1_SEC5,00.html

There were no floors (except for hallways) in the core area, it was for elevators and stairs. There were perhaps 2 floors in the entire tower that were in the core covering PART of the core area where elevator lift motors and reels were housed. How did the people on each floor access the elevators and stairwells unless there was a lobby area within the core area? You know each floor had several elevator shafts.

If you read what I said above I did not say "core columns", I said "guide rail support steel" and it was not very strong certainly not "core columns" even though it is vertical and it is inside the core area.

The really strong steel box columns were the "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) which show their strength by standing free perhaps 200 hundred feet unsupported.known as the spire (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg). They were not inside the core, they were surrounding the concrete core.

If the vertical steel inside the core area you call "core columns" were actually that strong, it would be protruding out the top of the core. It is not because it was structurally very insubstantial and laterally aligned by being fastened to the inside of the concrete core walls which kept the elevator guide rails very straight. This is why the Twin towers had such fast elevators, perfect alignment and tolerence of rails is needed for high speed.

Concrete Core Of WTC 2 (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

The steel structures are columns and they are in the core area, therefore they are core columns. You labeling them "guide rail support steel" makes no difference. (anyhoo you called them "elevator rail guides" in previous posts, you changed the name for some reason) They supported the equipment and floor space within the core area.
You can't deny that or provide evidence to the contrary. They are steel columns and they are in the core area.

Anyhoo, I don't want to get back into a shouting match with someone who's not intellectualy honest.
See ya

Blue Mountain

1st January 2007, 08:47 PM

Then those columns would not be railguides. the elevator would have to be in direct contact with the rails to provide stability and a contact surface for the rollers and emergency break system.
I sure hope you're referring to an emergency brake system. I wouldn't want to ride in an elevator designed to break in an emergency. :D

Christophera

1st January 2007, 08:54 PM

The elevator rail guides did not have to be attached to the steel because they were cable suspention type.
here's a website from otis. notice the picture of the technicians installing the elevator equipment. Notice you can see all the way to the windows:
http://www.otis.com/otis150/section/1,2344,ARC3066_CLI1_RES1_SEC5,00.html

All elevators are cable suspension in very tall buildings.

Guide rails are not suspended by cables, elevator cars are.

Elevator guide rail support steel was installed over the casting and forming of the concrete core as I've been saying and the images show this so naturally you will be able to see out to the perimeter walls.

There were no floors (except for hallways) in the core area, it was for elevators and stairs. There were perhaps 2 floors in the entire tower that were in the core covering PART of the core area where elevator lift motors and reels were housed.

How did the people on each floor access the elevators and stairwells unless there was a lobby area within the core area? You know each floor had several elevator shafts.

Check what I've said above, "HALLWAYS". There were no lobbies in the core although there were areas off the core where many elevators terminated were called "sky lobbies". You do not block the core and potential elevator shafts unless it is absolutely needed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_lobby
Sky lobbies are intermediate floors where people can change from an express elevator that only stops at the sky lobbies to a local elevator which stops at every floor within a segment of the building. When designing very tall (supertall) buildings supplying enough elevators is a problem.

• 1 World Trade Center (Two sky lobbies at 44th and 78th floors) in New York City
• 2 World Trade Center (Two sky lobbies at 44th and 78th floors) in New York City

Anyhoo, I don't want to get back into a shouting match with someone who's not intellectualy honest.
See ya

You cannot say I'm intellectually dishonest. It can be said that I am misunderstood.

Christophera

1st January 2007, 09:00 PM

I sure hope you're referring to an emergency brake system. I wouldn't want to ride in an elevator designed to break in an emergency. :D

If you will look at my post responding to homer, you will see I spotted that typo and corrected it.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2220611#post2220611

homer tries really hard to get these things nailed down. I admit, they are complex. If I hadn't been involved with mechanics, fabrication, welding and construction generally for most of my life, I would find the task of defining the many aspects of the towers very challenging. They are challenging anyway.
I give him credit for dredging up amazing detail at times, although, unfortunately for his side of the argument, he doesn't always use the information properly. He is VERY persistent and I admire him for that.

He has actually made my point for me a number of times tho.

Arus808

1st January 2007, 11:19 PM

URUK!! Thread is dead!! come on....

firecoins

1st January 2007, 11:36 PM

Can someone just lock the thread?

Oliver

1st January 2007, 11:41 PM

Can someone just lock the thread?

There is no chance and no hope coming from the administration...
I tried it some months ago... :(

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66877

Belz...

2nd January 2007, 05:39 AM

The major difference is that concrete can be fractured to fall instantly. Steel is very difficult to cut with high explosives.

<Giggle>

I said "images of raw evidence" back there, sometimes I leave it out because you know what I mean.

I smell pants on fire.

Architect

2nd January 2007, 05:41 AM

The major difference is that concrete can be fractured to fall instantly. Steel is very difficult to cut with high explosives.

Seriously, how does that work with the welded 3" reinforcement then?

But come Belz, let the thread lie. It's dead. Flogging a dead horse.

Now you must know how the Scotland football manager feels all the time.....

Belz...

2nd January 2007, 05:42 AM

Can someone just lock the thread?

But everyone is having so much fun !!

Belz...

2nd January 2007, 05:43 AM

Don't worry, Architect. I'm not arguing with chris, anymore. He's admitted defeat, so why bother ?

I'm just giggling and prancing around like an idiot, as I often do.

Move along. Nothing to see.

bonavada

2nd January 2007, 12:11 PM

TOTAL TRUTH OF TOWER TAKEDOWN!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748459aab4cb066d.jpg

BV

uruk

2nd January 2007, 12:29 PM

I sure hope you're referring to an emergency brake system. I wouldn't want to ride in an elevator designed to break in an emergency. :D

D'OH!!!

uruk

2nd January 2007, 12:38 PM

URUK!! Thread is dead!! come on....

I know, I know. I just couldn't help it. I wanted to point out how Chris changed his description of the core columns from "elevator rail guides" to "elevator rail guide support steel". It was his desparate attempt to reconcile the fact and undeniable evidence that there were steel columns within the core. As if renaming them would change this fact.

Christophera

2nd January 2007, 01:26 PM

The major difference is that concrete can be fractured to fall instantly. Steel is very difficult to cut with high explosives.

<Giggle>

Here is a url that describes what it takes to cut steel. Pages 8 thru 14. Cutting steel is very difficult.

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:euG5PfgJkgIJ:www.fortliberty.org/military-library/fm5-250/ch3.pdf+demolition+%22high+explosives%22+%22cuttin g+steel%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=55

I said "images of raw evidence" back there, sometimes I leave it out because you know what I mean.

I smell pants on fire.

Another purpose of obsfucation is to create enough response so that typos and ommisions can be used to weaken the appearance of an opponents argument.

Do you feel better about what you and the deniers of concrete are doing?

Architect

2nd January 2007, 01:40 PM

But Chris, what about cutting the reinforcement then?

Anyway, DEAD THREAD

bonavada

2nd January 2007, 02:14 PM

Seriously, how does that work with the welded 3" reinforcement then?

But come Belz, let the thread lie. It's dead. Flogging a dead horse.

Now you must know how the Scotland football manager feels all the time.....

and john toshack as well while you're at it.......

BV

Christophera

2nd January 2007, 02:39 PM

Seriously, how does that work with the welded 3" reinforcement then?

It does not cut it, it tends to curl it up. The thin coating subjects the rebar to considerable stress and heat. The other falling debris bends it and breaks it. Some can be seen in the mass quantities of Sand and gravel (http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg) at ground zero.

Some vertical rebar was left exposed to weather while work was shut down and was undamaged by adjacent, smaller horizontal rebar detonating and stands, leaning (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)

Very heavy (6 inch rebar) used in the foundaton which extends into the core wall base, I mis labeled as 3 inch can be seen curled up on top of the thick core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg).

Christophera

2nd January 2007, 02:48 PM

I know, I know. I just couldn't help it. I wanted to point out how Chris changed his description of the core columns from "elevator rail guides" to "elevator rail guide support steel". It was his desparate attempt to reconcile the fact and undeniable evidence that there were steel columns within the core. As if renaming them would change this fact.

As if anything but a description of how the supposed columns would be cut would suffice to explain why they are not seen here.

Concrete Core Of WTC 2 (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) What is that thing standing at 500 feet taking up the limits of the core area anyway?

Here

http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg

Here

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg

Here

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif[

Here

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

And here.

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/3396/gjswtc30pt4.jpg

Christophera

2nd January 2007, 03:23 PM

Correct. No one can reason with you.

The above is unreasonable.

It is completely reasonable for me to ask "How were the supposed steel core columns cut if the are unseen in any of the demolition images.

Concrete Core Of WTC 2 (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

It is also reasonable for me to ask for a definition of the methods that they were cut because the ends of columns seen at ground zero are square and very smooth. Both conditions are VERY unusual for the event no matter what kind it is described as.

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

It is however unreasonable for you to continue to assert that steel core columns existed IF you DO NOT PROVIDE THE requested explanation or that explanation is NOT LOGICAL.

Arus808

2nd January 2007, 03:44 PM

DEAD THREAD STOP RESPONDING PEOPLE. ... pretty please....

Architect

2nd January 2007, 04:43 PM

Agreed: Dead Thread

firecoins

2nd January 2007, 04:53 PM

But everyone is having so much fun !!
Thats is what I was told 5000 posts ago.

Woody-

2nd January 2007, 07:35 PM

But I like seeing the same few pictures over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

JimBenArm

2nd January 2007, 07:36 PM

hcmom

2nd January 2007, 07:50 PM

JimBenArm

2nd January 2007, 07:55 PM

You know those pictures where if you kinda cross your eyes you can see a 3D image or something in it?

I think I can see a concrete core up there....hehehe

Oh, no, now I see it too! I can't get it out of my head. AAAHHHHH!

Christophera

2nd January 2007, 08:49 PM

Mobyseven

2nd January 2007, 09:20 PM

(http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)Concrete Core Of WTC 2 (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)
(http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

...and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and...

Christophera

2nd January 2007, 10:31 PM

There is no evidence for explosives. That pretty much kills the "excellent" out of the paper.

Very good Belz, I'm surprised at your sudden ability to reason.

This image show high explosives at work which provides an excellent reason for near free fall.

A well contained, high speed series of detonations of high explosives. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg)

LashL

2nd January 2007, 11:00 PM

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11103459b2e0a63b36.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3459)

Indisputably, thoroughly, utterly dead thread.

beachnut

2nd January 2007, 11:12 PM

Very good Belz, I'm surprised at your sudden ability to reason.

This image show high explosives at work which provides an excellent reason for near free fall.

A well contained, high speed series of detonations of high explosives. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg)

Sorry; your photo proves the WTC came down due to gravity!

Darn, if explosives were used it would fall more uniform; not in such a messed up all over the place gravity destruction activity you have posted on your web site.

Darn; you whole web site proves there were no explosives used.

This could be a problem; did you mean to have so much evidence that explosives were not used?

Happy New Year

Big Al

3rd January 2007, 04:18 AM

Please,guys, I've been tying my fingers in knots trying to resist feeding the troll. :covereyes

Please, please just KILL THE THREAD!

It's like a sick addiction...

Belz...

3rd January 2007, 05:29 AM

Another purpose of obsfucation is to create enough response so that typos and ommisions can be used to weaken the appearance of an opponents argument.

Do you feel better about what you and the deniers of concrete are doing?

Sorry chris. Towel's on the floor. You lose.

Belz...

3rd January 2007, 05:30 AM

Please,guys, I've been tying my fingers in knots trying to resist feeding the troll. :covereyes

Please, please just KILL THE THREAD!

It's like a sick addiction...

Proof is: You're still here.

Christophera

3rd January 2007, 12:00 PM

Sorry; your photo proves the WTC came down due to gravity!

Duh. ........ As if al lthings didn't go down because of gravity. If I were to be very specific I would have to say the towers were blown apart by high explosives then fell, yes, ........... of course, due to gravity. (http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8232/wtcsl8.jpg)

Darn, if explosives were used it would fall more uniform;

Ahem, ....................... as far as i know, gravity is UNIFORM no matter where or how it is enacted.

not in such a messed up all over the place gravity destruction activity you have posted on your web site.

Yes, high explosives do tend to revert concrete into it's particulate components. Curious how gravity, directly, only makes things go down, but in this image we have a plume of grey concrete particulate travelling out perhaps 400 feet horizontal. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1plumecascade.jpg) Is that how gravity works in beachNUT world?

Darn; you whole web site proves there were no explosives used.

Wrong web site NUT. That web site only proves there was a concrete core.

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

Go to this one for proof of high explosives. This page at the bottom really says it well.

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

[QUOTE=beachnut;2223859]This could be a problem; did you mean to have so much evidence that explosives were not used?

Happy New Year

Like I said, you are looking at the wrong site, This site only proves that there was a concrete core.

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

Christophera

3rd January 2007, 12:05 PM

Please,guys, I've been tying my fingers in knots trying to resist feeding the troll. :covereyes

Please, please just KILL THE THREAD!

It's like a sick addiction...

Yea, when humans realize there brothers and sisters were murdered, there is a compulsion to make accountability, even if there is a great deal of fear involved. This is because we have instincts to protect our children and the ones we love.

You are acting like a junkie who is trying to intevene in his addiction by using a fork to dig out the vein. At least apply the pure unadulterated drug of denial.

I would recomend you "one up" the "no planers". Something like, There were no towers. It was all a fabrication of media.

bomavanados would approve of this method.

Oliver

3rd January 2007, 01:21 PM

Yea, when humans realize there brothers and sisters were murdered, there is a compulsion to make accountability, even if there is a great deal of fear involved. This is because we have instincts to protect our children and the ones we love.

You are acting like a junkie who is trying to intevene in his addiction by using a fork to dig out the vein. At least apply the pure unadulterated drug of denial.

I would recomend you "one up" the "no planers". Something like, There were no towers. It was all a fabrication of media.

bomavanados would approve of this method.

Hello Christopher, :)

wouldn´t you like to make some more threads concerning
your other conspiracy theories since this one is discussed
to death?

Cheers,
Oliver

Christophera

3rd January 2007, 01:22 PM

you don't remember urls? have you forgotten your photographic memory?

The reason I know why there is a slope to the top of the rebar in this image is because I remember an image from the documentary showing the sloping concrete inside the forms. The narrator was explaining that engineers required that the concrete joints not be on a horizontal plane to increase the resistence to torsion and that the butt weld of rebar were on the same slope.

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

when you refuse to display a much improved pic on your site?

No refusal at all. I always use the best images I can find and upgrade as soon as I find better.

I believe you refer to this image of the a part of the top of WTC 2 as it falls onto WTC 3 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg)

firecoins

3rd January 2007, 01:53 PM

Is this the right thread for an argument?

Architect

3rd January 2007, 01:53 PM

Hello Christopher, :)

wouldn´t you like to make some more threads concerning
your other conspiracy theories since this one is discussed
to death?

Cheers,
Oliver

OR go to the pub, get a hobby, do charitable work, and a host of other worthwhile pursuits!

bonavada

3rd January 2007, 02:03 PM

Is this the right thread for an argument?

i already told you once!

BV

firecoins

3rd January 2007, 02:28 PM

i already told you once!

BV
Is that the 100 posts or the full 20,000 posts?

Oliver

3rd January 2007, 02:36 PM

OR go to the pub, get a hobby, do charitable work, and a host of other worthwhile pursuits!

Mhmm - it would be a nasty idea but also funny to see a
Hardfire-discussion between Christopher and Gravy... http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107451d93669e73a.gifhttp://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107451d93669e73a.gifhttp://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107451d93669e73a.gif

Or Gravy vs Killtown... :popcorn2
or Killtown vs Christopher... :D

Christophera

3rd January 2007, 04:58 PM

Is this the right thread for an argument?

If you had one.

But you don't. You do not even have evidence. Only lies and misrepresentations, and that, ............. is before you get ahold of it, ................... whereupon it becomes

pitiful.

with regard to integrity to reason.

Get some spine, stand for your Constitution, ............ our Constitution.

Stand for something. Try using your real name.

hcmom

3rd January 2007, 05:03 PM

Mhmm - it would be a nasty idea but also funny to see a
Hardfire-discussion between Christopher and Gravy... http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107451d93669e73a.gifhttp://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107451d93669e73a.gifhttp://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107451d93669e73a.gif

Or Gravy vs Killtown... :popcorn2
or Killtown vs Christopher... :D

Oliver...by then it would have sunk so far into fantasy land there would be no returning.

Hmmmmmmmm.......

Oliver

3rd January 2007, 05:27 PM

Oliver...by then it would have sunk so far into fantasy land there would be no returning.

Hmmmmmmmm.......

Well, you might be right but it would be entertaining nevertheless. :D
I like Christopher - he just has to be a littlebit more openminded. :">

Christophera

3rd January 2007, 05:30 PM

Well, you might be right but it would be entertaining nevertheless. :D
I like Christopher - he just has to be a littlebit more openminded. :">

Ever hear that the truth is the strangest thing of all?

Okay, .......... if I accepted the truth, how strange would that be to you? And,...... if I did that would I already have had an open mind as least adequate to grasp the strangest possible thing?

Consistency, ............ consistency is very important.

hcmom

3rd January 2007, 05:38 PM

Well, you might be right but it would be entertaining nevertheless. :D
I like Christopher - he just has to be a littlebit more openminded. :">

I've confessed several times to liking Chris. And no matter how hard I try, I still end up checking in here...

Oliver

3rd January 2007, 05:49 PM

Ever hear that the truth is the strangest thing of all?

Okay, .......... if I accepted the truth, how strange would that be to you? And,...... if I did that would I already have had an open mind as least adequate to grasp the strangest possible thing?

Consistency, ............ consistency is very important.

I heard about the "Reality is the strangest thing of all"-issue
and i also expierienced this cognition in my life. My problem
is that you´re not able to back up your believes. Such things
like finding the inital documentary you use to cite. It must
be somewhere - or at least a mention of it, don´t you think?

Christophera

3rd January 2007, 07:15 PM

I heard about the "Reality is the strangest thing of all"-issue
and i also expierienced this cognition in my life. My problem
is that you´re not able to back up your believes. Such things
like finding the inital documentary you use to cite. It must
be somewhere - or at least a mention of it, don´t you think?

My biggest point about disinformation against the core is that those against it are working to keep the core from being a common public issue. The entire campaign of "no concrete" is specifically designed to disallow an environment where more people are encouraged to start looking for tape copy of documentary. They exist and I know it, so do those that are arguing "no concrete".

As long as readers are confused, they won't call up their local 9-11 activist buddy and say, "Hey, we better start making noise about this concrete core issue, we could really be missing an important point here."

Disinformation has created social fear of publically accepting concepts. First, by introducing concepts that sound quasi rational and citing a slew of authority which has been falsely authorized. Then a big crew of blow hards come in and makes it look stupid by citing a bunch of special interest "science" or simply "prepositioned science" and shoot it down, supporting each others perceptions and ridiculing any random supporters with lots of rude emoticons.

That makes a gate.

Conduct that operation a few times in front of an internet crowd, then send in somebody with a completely solid and rational proposal having raw evidence logically verified. Guess what happens when there is a little criticism for their concepts from the gatekeepers?

The gatekeepers only let useslesss information through.

Oliver

3rd January 2007, 07:24 PM

My biggest point about disinformation against the core is that those against it are working to keep the core from being a common public issue. The entire campaign of "no concrete" is specifically designed to disallow an environment where more people are encouraged to start looking for tape copy of documentary. They exist and I know it, so do those that are arguing "no concrete".

As long as readers are confused, they won't call up their local 9-11 activist buddy and say, "Hey, we better start making noise about this concrete core issue, we could really be missing an important point here."

Disinformation has created social fear of publically accepting concepts. First, by introducing concepts that sound quasi rational and citing a slew of authority which has been falsely authorized. Then a big crew of blow hards come in and makes it look stupid by citing a bunch of special interest "science" or simply "prepositioned science" and shoot it down, supporting each others perceptions and ridiculing any random supporters with lots of rude emoticons.

That makes a gate.

Conduct that operation a few times in front of an internet crowd, then send in somebody with a completely solid and rational proposal having raw evidence logically verified. Guess what happens when there is a little criticism for their concepts from the gatekeepers?

The gatekeepers only let useslesss information through.

Well, but i´m certainly no disinfo agent because i don´t understand
why a conrete- or non-concrete core couldn't damage the towers
the same was it happened. I see no difference - beside the fact
that a concrete core would be even heavier and accelerate the
collapse because it´s weight.

Where did your documentary go - did "they" delete every mention
of it on the internet? :confused:

bonavada

3rd January 2007, 08:19 PM

Is that the 100 posts or the full 20,000 posts?

This thread is no more. It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet its maker. This is a late thread. It's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace. If you hadn't nailed it to the forum it would be pushing up the daisies. It's run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible.
THIS IS AN EX-THREAD!!!

n5xuoguHxCg

BV

Christophera

3rd January 2007, 10:01 PM

Well, but i´m certainly no disinfo agent because i don´t understand
why a conrete- or non-concrete core couldn't damage the towers
the same was it happened. I see no difference - beside the fact
that a concrete core would be even heavier and accelerate the
collapse because it´s weight.

Concrete can be easily fractured with a relatively small amount of high explosive and it will fall instantly. Steel cannot.

If everybody knew the towers had a 80x120 foot concrete core 1300 foot tall & 17 foot thick walls at the base, and then everybody looked at ground zero for chunks of concrete and found only sand and gravel (http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg), do you think this might raise some questions??????

Where did your documentary go - did "they" delete every mention
of it on the internet? :confused:

It existed as a TV documentary.

Undoubtedly it was copied to tape. That was before the internet was in common use. .com didn't even exist then.

Then the web existed for ten years after that and the only special thing about the WTC was that it had the tallest towers which had been bombed once. Which doesn't have any thing to do with the documentary about the towers.

So there may never have been any mention of it on the web until I started posting about and made a web site.

Christophera

4th January 2007, 10:15 AM

This thread is no more. It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet its maker. This is a late thread. It's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace. If you hadn't nailed it to the forum it would be pushing up the daisies. It's run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible.
THIS IS AN EX-THREAD!!!

BV

Are you a gatekeeper bv?

You really put a lot of ridicule into the concrete core concept and have never adequately supported the steel core columns with explanations of how free fall was enabled with them in position while they are ALSO NEVER seen in images of the towers demise.

Belz...

4th January 2007, 10:21 AM

Chris reminds me of Appolo in Rocky IV...

Throw the damn towel, already.

Christophera

4th January 2007, 11:40 AM

Chris reminds me of Appolo in Rocky IV...

Throw the damn towel, already.

When one has evidence as good as this.

Concrete Core Of WTC 2 (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

with much more good evidence here,

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

and also KNOWS FOR CERTAIN that the core was concrete, is there a reason to give up? I mean my childrens futures and the future of my nation depend on the truth, perhaps even the world.

Does the great god of fiends, Belz, advocate cowardice?

Garb

4th January 2007, 11:45 AM

When one has evidence as good as this.

Concrete Core Of WTC 2 (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

with much more good evidence here,

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

and also KNOWS FOR CERTAIN that the core was concrete, is there a reason to give up? I mean my childrens futures and the future of my nation depend on the truth, perhaps even the world.

Does the great god of fiends, Belz, advocate cowardice?

That still scares the crap out of me.

bonavada

4th January 2007, 11:58 AM

Are you a gatekeeper bv?

the gate's bolted and chained chris. take a look..............

k64CB9ngXrM

BV

Dave_46

4th January 2007, 12:49 PM

Derail

Architect.

I suspect that you are watching this thread, and I would like some information from you, if you can give it. It seems like a good use for a dead thread.

In the 1970's and 1980's I worked for TRADA, and sometimes had to give advice on fire related matters over the phone. Our experience (me and a couple of colleagues) was that architects that rang us very often had little knowledge of fire matters. So, my question is, have you any idea what sort of fire related instruction would have been given to the architects ringing us then, and what is it like today.

Thanks in advance
Dave

ps I probably won't see any reply tonight, as I'm off to a meeting of my Thursday Night Beer Drinkers Association

Architect

4th January 2007, 12:56 PM

Aha, the heady days of the 1970s when I was at primary school........

Anyway, fire engineering is still covered but to be honest not in the same depth as structures or services. When I joined the civil service in 93 in order to work on post-Windsor fire plans for government sites, I got a stack of additional training in order to equip me with a better understanding.

Enjoy the beer club, you lucky sod.

Architect

4th January 2007, 01:40 PM

Christophera

4th January 2007, 05:22 PM

That still scares the crap out of me.

Okay, I guess you've got a good reason for saying "no concrete".

But, do you not realize that saying there is concrete, actually says no more than that. Or are you unable to disregard the implications?

Christophera

4th January 2007, 05:29 PM

the gate's bolted and chained chris. take a look..............

k64CB9ngXrM

BV

So then you have no use for the US Constitution, law or government that is lawful and you support the lie that murderers hide behind?

Architect

4th January 2007, 05:34 PM

Just as a matter of interest Chris, how many kids have you got and what ages? Do you see them often?

Architect

4th January 2007, 05:35 PM

So then you have no use for the US Constitution, law or government that is lawful and you support the lie that murderers hide behind?

Incidentally, the answer of the 40% of posters who are not American would automatically be "no" to this. We don't give a monkeys about US law or anything.

Christophera

4th January 2007, 06:16 PM

Just as a matter of interest Chris, how many kids have you got and what ages? Do you see them often?

I have 2, I saw my son today, he's 20. We went for a hike. My daughters older and out of state.

Parents have a responsibility to stay in communication with each other and share understandings of the world their children live in. To allow corporate media to do this for us is very responsible and can lead to disasters such as the current political one that exists on a mass level.

uruk

4th January 2007, 06:20 PM

It seems that mabe there are some people who are unwilling to let Chris have the last word.

If we all abandon this thread like some posters are advocating, Chris will no doubt be having the last word in this thread. (as meaningless as those last words will be) and no boubt he will be bumping his thread in order to goad us into responding to his nonsense that has been easily debunked and refuted countless times by practicaly everyone here.

Chris is the communal bike. Everybody's had a ride.

Everyone here knows how he resorts to repeating his debunked lies and fantasy as if it were new and not thouroghly addressed in previous posts.

Lord knows I've been guilty of letting Chris goad me into responding to his meaninless drivel time and time again. So I'm not trying to be high and mighty here. I admit to being a hypocrite in that respect. I admit that I've had my fun poking at the crazy guy, but it's time to move on.

The only way this thread is going to die and fade away is if we all make that new years resolution and not respond.
I'm even going to try and not even read this thread anymore. We've heard all of his stuff before over and over again. He's got nothing new!

Chris's lies and fantasy are way too self evident for any noob to be confused and a quick google or search will show them how wacky Chris's stuff is.
To date, I don't think there is anyone who has read and responded to this thread has ever been swayed by Chris.

Anyhoo, hopefully with any amount of self-control, This will be my last post in this wacked thread.

Hope you guys do the same.

Architect

4th January 2007, 06:22 PM

Agreed.

Oliver

4th January 2007, 06:50 PM

Agreed

Christophera

4th January 2007, 07:02 PM

It seems that mabe there are some people who are unwilling to let Chris have the last word.

Since I have the only raw evidence of images from the demolition it is only fair and fitting that I continue to apply words of reason to define the evidence.

The only evidence presented by homer and otehrs is misinterpreted and I've logically proven it everytime they dare present it. For example, every denier has tried to pass off images of ELEVATOR GUIDE RAIL SUPPORT (http://images.wisconsinhistory.org/whi_images_new/700099990250/9999004225-l.jpg) as core columns.

Unforunately for their argument they COMPLETELY fail to rationally come up with a reason for that vertical steel, they erroneously term "core columns" which would be SUPER strong, if they existed, to not be visible in any of teh demolition images. NO IMAGE OF THE TOWERS demise shows that vertical steel. That is because it is only vertical steel used to support elevator guide rails. If it were strong enough to be a core column it would be seen here.

Concrete Core Of WTC 2 (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

And with the "interior box column" called the "spire" (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) heavy steel columns that did exist and were strong enough to stand (if they weren't cut, and I explain how) but were outside the core area.

The supposed steel core columns are never seen, the vertical steel MISINTERPREATED by the deniers of the concrete core, is too strcuturally unsubstancial to stand on its own.

The concrete core has so much documentation that a medium sized web site is easily filled with it.

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

There is NO web site about the "steel core columns", how could there be, there is no evidence to build it with.

bonavada

4th January 2007, 07:22 PM

It seems that mabe there are some people who are unwilling to let Chris have the last word <snip>

agreed

BV

Christophera

4th January 2007, 08:14 PM

What is odd is that you have not come up with a rational explanation for what this rounded top sihouette is of the WTC 2 core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) and still insist on providing interpretations of construction photos that prove nothing.

Hint: concrete doesn't bend very well.

Exactly why the Twin towers had the fastest elevators in the world. The alignment of the elevator guide rails was so consistent they could be run faster than most for heights that tall.

Exactly why the towers stood for 33 years. The high winds caused the sides of the towers to "fly" steel flexes way too much, so concrete had to be used.

Here is a bridge flying, then falling. Only 42 MPH wind.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=tacoma%20narrows%20bridge&btnG=Google+Search&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv

Imagine how a vertically loaded tower would perform in a 110 MPH wind, which did happen a few times in the 33 years they stood.

Christophera

4th January 2007, 11:30 PM

Further, can you provide evidence as to how the literally thousands of people investigating the events of September 11 and the collapse of the WTC towers--the 9/11 Commission, FEMA, and NIST--all managed to miss something as completely obvious such as the materials used in their construction? Especially with access to things like people, plans, and blueprints?

It is well known that FEMA nor anyone had access to the blueprints.

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

The ex NYC mayor took the WTC documents, put them in his wherehouse and will not return them. Courts will not compel a return.

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

It is clear that you are missing something as obvious as a massive coverup.

Gamolon

5th January 2007, 12:34 AM

maccy

5th January 2007, 12:48 AM

Christophera,

Where are you getting the information that the core used 3" diameter rebar on 4' centers?

My understanding is that the architect wanted to keep the core design light so he encased it with Sheetrock.

I worked for the Army Corp of Engineers some time ago and had the pleasure of working on-site at the Toole, Utah military site where they built a facility to incinerate nerve gas. The incineration part on the plant had 4' thick walls designed to hold up to an explosion. They used nowhere near 3" diameter rebar for the construction.

Where are you getting this information from and what documentary did you see about the construction process?

Gamolon, I know you're new here but please don't be tempted to reason with Chris on this. This thread has been running since May 2006, all the evidence and reasoning has been presented several times. Chris has not changed his position even slightly and keeps posting the same image and links from his website.

There really is no point in debating Chris and his argument (based on his memory of a non-existent documentary) that the towers were pre-built with c4-coated rebar and then detonated 30 years later is too ridiculous to require further counter-argument.

Should you be tempted to argue for the sake of amusement or as an abstract exercise I would suggest that you give serious consideration to the idea that Chris has a mental illness. If this is the case, then arguing with him will not help his condition.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Chris is a deeply troubled man, here is just one section of one of his websites:

http://truthasaur.com/my_22/my22.html

The consensus of long-time posters on this thread is that it is better for it to be left to die.