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

[uruk]

I would think when newcomers arrive at this forum and constantly see this thread at the top it reflects badly on this forum. Will you continue to debate chris for the next ten years? He will continue to reply if you do.
It'll all depend on Chris. As long as he keeps bumping his thread to the first page. Someone will no doubt respond to it. Primarily newcomers.

I had stopped for quite awhile before I started responding again. Everybody comes back to this thread at one time or another.
It was a newbie who posted someting about elevators I think. It generated alot of material showing how wrong Chris was on yet another issue. And it's all there for the record. If anybody cares to slog through it.

If you want to get the thread taken down, talk to the administrators.
But I think they already made thier opinions clear.
Thier respons to the request is several pages back when the thread hit 10,000 posts.

As long as Chris does not violate the membership agreements his thread stays.

I've already used the argument that Chris is really just using this thread as a avenue to advertise his websites and push his agenda; seeing as he posts links to his website on just about every page. He is not here to debate.
I have already pointed that out. But his thread is still here.

Newbies will see Chris for what he is. The issues he brought up have all been thouroghly debunked and addressed. They'll lose thier interest and move on.
Then they'll repost from time to time with the usual statement of how incredulous they find it that this thread has continued.

And this thread will continue wether we decide to post in it or not. Because Chris has made it his mission to bump it up.

And people will pop in and read and post thier indignation because they really just can't deny thier morbid curiosity.

But if it'll make you happy. This will be my last post.......... yet again..............till next time.

[Christophera]

Chris ain't going to let his thread go quietly.


I ain't letting my Constitution go quietly. That is what this is about.

The opposition to the truth of the core of the twin towers is lagging on coming up with reasonable information.

We should know that this nation has a problem with secrecy, information. My last post in reply to gravy shows this.

So when I ask for a description of 47 1300 foot columns are cut to enable free fall, and I do this in an environment where people KNOW evidence was removed and destroyed in 3000 capital crimes, and get UNREASONABLE repeated demands for information I've stated I don't have, and those unreasonable demands become an issue rather than observance of laws violated, or noticing unlawful government, I seriously wonder if my opposition ARE Americans.

When I ask for a reasonable description of what this is IF IT IS NOT CONCRETE and I get answers like, "core columns clogged with debris" while I have a number of other images that DO NOT show the supposed steel core columns, I wonder.

For all I know you could be subversives intent on destabilizing public American organization to protect the Constitution.

Few here beside myself even mention that document. In fact, I only remember one who admitted that they unequivocally stand for its protection. And, ........ you know what, .... that gave me a good feeling.

[Big Al]

a description of 47 1300 foot columns are cut to enable free fall

They weren't, and it wasn't free fall. Simple as that. Why do we have to now explain how the steel columns were cut with explosives when we say it wasn't a demolition job?

I seriously wonder if my opposition ARE Americans.

Well, I'm not, for a start. Does that make me some evil fascist alien warlord from the planet Zung?

When I ask for a reasonable description of what this is IF IT IS NOT CONCRETE and I get answers like, "core columns clogged with debris" while I have a number of other images that DO NOT show the supposed steel core columns, I wonder.

Chris, we ALL agree there WAS concrete in the buildings - they had concrete floors. Those billowing clouds could be concrete. But I have seen no signs of a solid concrete core. If there had been one, and it had been "pulveriised" in an instant with high explosives, I'd expect to see PLENTY of signs of that in the collapse footage. And I don't.

For all I know you could be subversives intent on destabilizing public American organization to protect the Constitution.

Errr... well, I'm not. I'm English, and there are enough problems to worry about in my own country, thank you very much. And if the UK were to go under, I'd want to move to America pretty much as it is, anyway.

As far as subversion goes, I call accusing the highest levels of the U.S. Government of the brutal mass murder of thousands of its own citizens (and also about 70 people from my country) pretty subversive.

Few here beside myself even mention that document. In fact, I only remember one who admitted that they unequivocally stand for its protection. And, ........ you know what, .... that gave me a good feeling.

I have to say, Chris, if the fate of the U.S. Constitution rests in your hands... GAWD HELP THE UNITED STATES!

[Christophera]

a description of 47 1300 foot columns are cut to enable free fall

They weren't, and it wasn't free fall. Simple as that. Why do we have to now explain how the steel columns were cut with explosives when we say it wasn't a demolition job?

The explanations for free fall (too close to nitpick there) via collapse are nonsense. If the event was a collapse the supposed steel core columns would be seen here, .... and they are not.

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

I just trashed your reply using facts (NIST admits to 10seconds+-) and evidence.


I seriously wonder if my opposition ARE Americans.

Well, I'm not, for a start. Does that make me some evil fascist alien warlord from the planet Zung?

Okay, so you are part of the problem that is also obsessed with fantasy.


When I ask for a reasonable description of what this is IF IT IS NOT CONCRETE and I get answers like, "core columns clogged with debris" while I have a number of other images that DO NOT show the supposed steel core columns, I wonder.

Chris, we ALL agree there WAS concrete in the buildings - they had concrete floors. Those billowing clouds could be concrete. But I have seen no signs of a solid concrete core. If there had been one, and it had been "pulveriised" in an instant with high explosives, I'd expect to see PLENTY of signs of that in the collapse footage. And I don't.

What kind of nonsense is this, "there was concrete" then "Those billowing clouds could be concrete", How about some consistency?

Here is an image that proves a massive explosion of a concrete container of high explosives.

concrete core explosions (http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8232/wtcsl8.jpg)

Here is the pulverised concrete, now sand and gravel. Gee, ....... look how much there is, look at all that large aggregate. The WTC concrete schedule for floors (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/archconcreteschedwtc.jpg) only shows ten floors with hard stone aggregate.

Al, your post is getting put into the dirt with evidence.


For all I know you could be subversives intent on destabilizing public American organization to protect the Constitution.

Errr... well, I'm not. I'm English, and there are enough problems to worry about in my own country, thank you very much. And if the UK were to go under, I'd want to move to America pretty much as it is, anyway.

As far as subversion goes, I call accusing the highest levels of the U.S. Government of the brutal mass murder of thousands of its own citizens (and also about 70 people from my country) pretty subversive.

You are right on that, you've got as many problems in your country as here, but it is unlikely you will be able to notice the causes and only be capable of seeing the symptoms.

I guess you do not read. And you've been in this thread long enough to see what I say about the US government. I'm making this extra large print for you as you seem extra ignorant of important statements.

The infiltrators of the US government murdered US citizens not the US government.

Limey, stop supporting the subversives.


Few here beside myself even mention that document. In fact, I only remember one who admitted that they unequivocally stand for its protection. And, ........ you know what, .... that gave me a good feeling.

I have to say, Chris, if the fate of the U.S. Constitution rests in your hands... GAWD HELP THE UNITED STATES!

Yes, alone it is going to be difficult. It appears the rest of the Americans are completely deceived or too fearful to even talk about the problems.

Hey, if the US goes down, an it is, YOU ARE NEXT.

[Aphelion]

[quote=Big Al;2366361]They weren't, and it wasn't free fall. quote]


Yes it was freefall, as the NIST report admits itself.

[Oliver]

The infiltrators of the US government murdered US citizens not the US government.



And? What are you gonna do to expose them? Posting in here? :boggled:

[Chedda]

Yes it was freefall, as the NIST report admits itself.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! Please make the stupidity go away!!

Wasn't that answered 11,000 posts ago?

[Christophera]

They weren't, and it wasn't free fall.


Yes it was freefall, as the NIST report admits itself.

Well said.

My last post had an error. There appears to be at least one American who is not too deceived and fearful to post in defense of the US Constitution.

[hcmom]

I am making a huge step (for me). I am unsubscribing from this thread.

If anything good happens, could someone please send me a PM, so that I'll know to come see?

[uruk]

[quote=Big Al;2366361]They weren't, and it wasn't free fall. quote]


Yes it was freefall, as the NIST report admits itself.

Can you show where in the NIST report it says that?

Hey BTW, I though you said bumping this thread to the front page would reflect badly on this forum?
Why are you posting here?
To enjoy the sport of watching the loonies go at it?

[Aphelion]

[quote=Aphelion;2367480]

Can you show where in the NIST report it says that?

Hey BTW, I though you said bumping this thread to the front page would reflect badly on this forum?
Why are you posting here?
To enjoy the sport of watching the loonies go at it?

I didn't intend to post, and you'll notice I don't reply to Chris, but i'm just sick of seeing the freefall lie.

Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1 says:


Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.


Emphasis added.

[uruk]

=Aphelion;2367658

I didn't intend to post, and you'll notice I don't reply to Chris, but i'm just sick of seeing the freefall lie.
Well, we tell ourselves all sorts of things. I've done it myself on many occasions.
And believe there is a saying about roads leading to a very hot place being paved with "good intentions".

Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1 says:

Quote:
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.


Emphasis added.
"essentially" to the untrained eye means "the same as".
But it does not.
Look up any dictonary. "essentially" does not mean "same as".
In colloquial usage it means "so close that it might as well be"

There is a difference.
It might be a matter of splitting hairs, but in science, a split hair makes all the difference.

NIST even admitts that accuracy concerning the collapse sequence time was a little difficult to establish due to the material they were working with. But they had good enough info for a simulation to come pretty close to what was observed

Read section 6.1 in http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6.pdf

[Christophera]

I didn't intend to post, and you'll notice I don't reply to Chris, but i'm just sick of seeing the freefall lie.
.

Have I mistaken you for a person that loves the US Constitution and is not deceived or afraid?

Anything as close to free fall as was the fall of the towers is justifiably referred to as free fall.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

The important fact is that the provided explanation is nonsense.

The notion that such an event continued all the way to the ground is a "collapse" is strictly incredible.

[Aphelion]

[quote=Aphelion;2367658]

Have I mistaken you for a person that loves the US Constitution and is not deceived or afraid?

Anything as close to free fall as was the fall of the towers is justifiably referred to as free fall.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

The important fact is that the provided explanation is nonsense.

The notion that such an event continued all the way to the ground is a "collapse" is strictly incredible.


Chris the problem you have is the outlandish stuff you are claiming. People might think that the freefall is reason for suspicion but when you claim that c4 was placed in the tower 40 years ago, nobody is going to listen. I believe in an inside job but I have never encountered anyone who believes in the C4 thing.

[Christophera]

[quote=Christophera;2368414]


Chris the problem you have is the outlandish stuff you are claiming. People might think that the freefall is reason for suspicion but when you claim that c4 was placed in the tower 40 years ago, nobody is going to listen. I believe in an inside job but I have never encountered anyone who believes in the C4 thing.

Okay, explain how this happens.

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8232/wtcsl8.jpg

Or this,

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

All the way to the ground.

Here are some typical collapses afterwards.

http://www.jansenkiener.com/BuildingCollapse-Tonawanda.jpg

http://www.sheepoverboard.com/articles/img/building-collapse.jpg

http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/060304/collapse.jpg

http://www.indiavarta.com/gallery/images/2005/aug/23a/mum8.jpg

http://www.efremlukatsky.com/images/material-gallery/1173/55-0.jpg

Structural steel buildings do not collapse. Partial folding, buckling and toppling are what they do. The result at the WTC did NOT resemble a collapse.

[Christophera]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! Please make the stupidity go away!!

Wasn't that answered 11,000 posts ago?

Some here wished what was proffered as an answer was accepted. It was not reasonable and it was rejected.

When 3,000 people are murdered and the fact used to justify wars and serious compromises to our Constitution, a minor generalization such as "free fall" is totally justified. Particuarly as it was very nearly free fall. Basically a COMPLETE impossibility within the notion of "collapse".

[Christophera]

And? What are you gonna do to expose them? Posting in here? :boggled:

Your post gives a sense of proportion to the serious problem of denial America has with certain issues. And because that denial is so deep. media is able to avoid those issues. Of course leadership (sic) encourages that because so many of them are at the heart. cause or practice of the issues.

Exposure has to start somewhere, and, with difficult issues, a message board is a reasonable place. The substance of the difficulty becomes tested and proven, its difficulty felt by those concerned with it.

9-11 is not the heart of the problem, the secrecy that enabled it is. That secrecy is difficult because of religious issues. We just made a full circle to there to the religious war enabled by 9-11.

[Z]

In other words, yeah, he's pretty much just gonna post here, and that's about all that will ever happen.

Of course, even the most cursory glance shows that there's nothing to worry about... :)

Posted into this post to avoid bumping the thread.

Anyone wishing to participate in this thread should bear in mind my previous warnings regarding bumping this thread for "entertainment" reasons.

[cloudshipsrule]

Chris said:

Okay, explain how this happens.

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8232/wtcsl8.jpg

Or this,

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

All the way to the ground.

Here are some typical collapses afterwards.

http://www.jansenkiener.com/Building...-Tonawanda.jpg

http://www.sheepoverboard.com/articl...g-collapse.jpg

http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturd...4/collapse.jpg

http://www.indiavarta.com/gallery/im...g/23a/mum8.jpg

http://www.efremlukatsky.com/images/.../1173/55-0.jpg

Here are some more typical collapses afterwards which should help your case tremendously, as they are just as relevent, if not more so, as your posted links:

http://static.flickr.com/117/259513074_7fe9cbdb0c_m.jpg
http://myweb.lmu.edu/gvarieschi/chimney/glasgow.JPG
http://infomotions.com/gallery/brown-county/Images/DSCN3530.jpg
http://www.barncoalition.com/images/BrochureBarnFalling2.jpg
http://www.phoenixleisure.co.uk/images/54jenga2.gif
http://www.toadking.com/6x9=42/jenga.jpg

[T.A.M.]

Could this be the end of the longest thread ever started and maintained by a CTer....

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=79711

TAM:)

[qarnos]

Could this be the end of the longest thread ever started and maintained by a CTer....

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=79711

TAM:)

This truly is the end of an era.

[mortimer]

Mr. Brown obviously has some severe mental issues. I wish the best for him.

[David Wong]

Mr. Brown obviously has some severe mental issues. I wish the best for him.

I want to make it clear to those uninitiated, references to his "mental issues" was not an insult or a snide debate tactic. He posted some things about his personal life that were very troubling, and lots of us stopped confronting him at that point.

I sincerely do hope he gets help, because there IS help available for people in his situation and too often people don't get it. I don't want anyone to live that way.

The 9/11 stuff was just one of his symptoms, it appears. Not like the other people who do it as a hobby or out of some warped worldview that skews to the paranoid.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

May this thread decay in whatever digital hell the 'net has to offer. May its utter waste of bandwidth suck up no more bytes of backup tape. May whatever bits and bytes this thread's taint may have corrupted be sent on to the great hereafter of dev/null.

EOF

[beachnut]

Ironic - posts of denial from Chris telling others they are in denial.

Who sent Chris a post or email and said it was from Robertson and his concrete core was real, was a CT? However it would not matter, Chris will always have a concrete core. Who else has a concrete core theory?

I did see the news sources and a paper mention a concrete core by mistake.

Bye Chris

9999

[defaultdotxbe]

ah yes, a fond farewell to chrisa's incredibly dense concrete core, and a toast to dense cores everywhere
http://www.heerosferret.com/toast_pik_toast2.gif

return(0)

[LashL]

-30-

[Mobyseven]

A Eulogy

Incredible...I am strangely speechless. In a strange way, a battle is finally over.

We didn't necessarily win, as Chris will always be...Chris. But at least this battle is over. A war is there to be won still in the minds of all the fence-sitters, but this thread will always serve as a reminder that there are some people who are truly beyond saving.


"This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper."
T.S. Eliot.

[JimBenArm]

This was the first thread I posted in. Chris posted some nonsense about C-4 in submarines and sub bases, and I just had to set him straight. Well, try to set him straight.

It's all very sad. I too hope he gets the help he needs.

[Oliver]

This may be a dumb question - and I apologize if I missed his banning in my absence:

Where is Christopher? Did someone spotted him anywhere else?

[Metullus]

:eye-poppi :eek: NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

Don't remove the stake! NEVER REMOVE THE STAKE!!!!! OHHHHHH NOOOOOO!:jaw-dropp

[JonnyFive]

This may be a dumb question - and I apologize if I missed his banning in my absence:

Where is Christopher? Did someone spotted him anywhere else?

He was banned a while ago for breaching his membership agreement (see here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=79711)). It just wasn't realistice to expect he would last here.

Apparently he's on some other forum peddling his nonsense. Someone spotted him a few days ago, but I don't remember the link.

[Mince]

Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation Why This Abominable Thread Was Resurrected?

[Blue Mountain]

Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation Why This Abominable Thread Was Resurrected?
Because it has a concrete core reinforced with 3" rebar on 4 foot centres. I know it's true becase I saw a documentary on the making of this thread (but don't bother going looking for it; the NWO has removed all references to it everywhere.) :p

[SpitfireIX]

:eye-poppi :eek: NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

Don't remove the stake! NEVER REMOVE THE STAKE!!!!! OHHHHHH NOOOOOO!:jaw-dropp


Too late.


http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/MMPH/B72732~Bela-Lugosi-Posters.jpg

[MIKILLINI]

I didn't go through the whole thread, since this is a very long thread, but this question is directed at chris; What do you believe happened to the 2 towers?

[Metullus]

Christophera is no longer among us. Read the thread. It'll do your soul good.

[Alareth]

He was banned a while ago for breaching his membership agreement (see here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=79711)). It just wasn't realistice to expect he would last here.

Apparently he's on some other forum peddling his nonsense. Someone spotted him a few days ago, but I don't remember the link.

He's sowing the seeds of stupidity in the fertile grounds of MySpace.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=86616

[tsig]

Christophera is no longer among us. Read the thread. It'll do your soul good.

But it will rot your brain.

[Oliver]

But it will rot your brain.


I thought exactly the same: At least here in Germany you will get into deep legal Doo-Doo for
"setting up a trap for someone who's unaware of the serious mental risks". :D

[jsfisher]

I thought exactly the same: At least here in Germany you will get into deep legal Doo-Doo for
"setting up a trap for someone who's unaware of the serious mental risks". :D

Isn't that why Europeans invented Amsterdam?

[MIKILLINI]

You mean it's worse than PDoh, Lyte Trip, Ace, and M Kirkman?

[SezMe]

'Jes read the thread, MIKILLINI. I dares ya!

[fezzic]

Basically (IIRC) the contention was that the WTC towers had reinforced concrete core (think of a wall around the elevator and utility core) which required that demolition be used to bring the towers down.

The reinforced concrete sections were 12 and 17 feet thick and reinforced with 3 inch rebar on 4 foot centers. The concrete sections wrapped around the elevator core.

One of the primary bases for the contention was the claim that it was all revealed in a 2 hour documentary on the two towers from the 1980's (I think) shown on PBS and no longer available.

Did I get it mostly right?

:)

[Mobyseven]

You guys are freakin' sadists.

[qarnos]

This thread is a graveyard of sanity.

[JonnyFive]

He's sowing the seeds of stupidity in the fertile grounds of MySpace.

Aye, that's the stuff!

I can't resist this thread, now that I don't have to risk feeding Chris' mental illness with it. This was my first exposure to the unadulterated insanity the Truth movement is capable of.

Telling me not to post here is like telling a cocaine addict not to snort coke when you're wearing a suit of cocaine, shoes made of crack, and drive a cocaine car that runs on pure Columbian cocaine.

ARGH!



And the "PBS documentary" was from the "early 1990's," I believe. Also, when I say "PBS documentary" I mean "s**t that Christophera made up in his head."

[grmcdorman]

Basically (IIRC) the contention was that the WTC towers had reinforced concrete core (think of a wall around the elevator and utility core) which required that demolition be used to bring the towers down.

The reinforced concrete sections were 12 and 17 feet thick and reinforced with 3 inch rebar on 4 foot centers. The concrete sections wrapped around the elevator core.

One of the primary bases for the contention was the claim that it was all revealed in a 2 hour documentary on the two towers from the 1980's (I think) shown on PBS and no longer available.

Did I get it mostly right?

:)Mostly. Christophera also contended that the rebar was coated in C4 explosive, and that the masses were hypnotized into ... well, obedience, I guess. Oh, and the documentary was intentionally "vanished" by the Powers That Be. (Including any copies in people's home video libraries, apparently.)

Among other things, it was repeatedly pointed out that rebar isn't available in that size, that C4 has a shelf life of ten years (and less deployed), that rebar coated with it wouldn't provide appropriate structural support, that no construction photographs show this alleged concrete core, that pictures show the setting sun shining through the towers ... His response was basically to post the same two pictures. Over and over again. Repeatedly. With CONCRETE CORE and 3" REBAR ON 4" CENTERS in the text.

[Miss Anthrope]

Why god why?!?!?!?!?

[Belz...]

Can someone explain to me why this dreadful thread was allowed back into our lives ?

[Metullus]

You need to ask Oliver. He removed the godamn stake...

[MIKILLINI]

Holy Woo s***. That has to be the most bizarre, delusional person I have seen yet. Or one of the most over/under medicated subjects to type on a computer I have ever read. Sand and gravel..lmao..see that sand and gravel, that's pulverized concrete. Oh Brother...put the stake back in.

[Mobyseven]

You know what? I reckon that this thread should be required reading for anyone new to the CT forum. This thread is responsible for many of the personalities in this forum today (and also responsible for the departure of some people, who used to post here but became conspicuously absent from CT after this thread).

This thread allows those lucky post-Christopheraians to get a glimpse at those of us who are veterans of the Realistice War.

[MIKILLINI]

You know what? I reckon that this thread should be required reading for anyone new to the CT forum. This thread is responsible for many of the personalities in this forum today (and also responsible for the departure of some people, who used to post here but became conspicuously absent from CT after this thread).

This thread allows those lucky post-Christopheraians to get a glimpse at those of us who are veterans of the Realistice War.

I can see the point of directing Cters to that thread, just to show the extreme beliefs people grasp and hang onto. Believing their own common sense (Using common sense in the term of their reasoning, based in their perception of this does not look like anything I have ever seen before) and coming across conspiracy sites that link to other sites just as ridiculous, if not more, it becomes absolute lunacy.
I can understand why some people have ceased the CT bit, they certainly don't want to have any association with that kind of mental instability.
As you say, it does give Me a glimpse of how the realstice war has shaped attitudes toward CTers. It all makes perfect sense in that regard.

[Miss Anthrope]

I've thrown holy water at my screen, and the gun shop selling silver bullets doesn't open until tomorrow morning.

Again, WHY GOD WHY?!?!?!

[Metullus]

Yanking the stake on this one should be a bannable offense.

[applecorped]

You know what? I reckon that this thread should be required reading for anyone new to the CT forum. This thread is responsible for many of the personalities in this forum today (and also responsible for the departure of some people, who used to post here but became conspicuously absent from CT after this thread).

This thread allows those lucky post-Christopheraians to get a glimpse at those of us who are veterans of the Realistice War.

Bump for the new woo.

[yodaluver28]

OMG, it's alive! Alive!

[pomeroo]

Bump for the new woo.


No. NO! NO!!!

It's dead, I tell you--dead!!

But, it can't die. It isn't dead.


EEEYAAHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

[ElMondoHummus]

Apple... dear God, what have you done?? Bumping this is like putting people through the Black Plague to make them understand AIDS. :boggled:

[applecorped]

It had to be done........I'm so sorry.

[alexg]

In my mind his thread is legendary and probably a case study of some sort - internet behavior, mental illness, etc. Only the power of a strong obsession could have fueled this thing and Chris sure had that.

[alexg]

Mostly. Christophera also contended that the rebar was coated in C4 explosive, and that the masses were hypnotized into ... well, obedience, I guess. Oh, and the documentary was intentionally "vanished" by the Powers That Be. (Including any copies in people's home video libraries, apparently.)

Among other things, it was repeatedly pointed out that rebar isn't available in that size, that C4 has a shelf life of ten years (and less deployed), that rebar coated with it wouldn't provide appropriate structural support, that no construction photographs show this alleged concrete core, that pictures show the setting sun shining through the towers ... His response was basically to post the same two pictures. Over and over again. Repeatedly. With CONCRETE CORE and 3" REBAR ON 4" CENTERS in the text.


And the Mohawks. Don't forget the Mohawks!

[applecorped]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_23915486841994dcc0.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=12803)

[TheRedWorm]

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/9118/necrolf5.jpg

[T.A.M.]

If anyone has time to read this entire thread, they need to get a job, full time or over the summer, and follow it up with getting a life.

Dear God!

TAM:)

[1337m4n]

Why is this 277 pages long?

[Wildy]

Who in their right mind would bump this thread. I know that I link to it, but I would never bump it.

[pomeroo]

In my mind his thread is legendary and probably a case study of some sort - internet behavior, mental illness, etc. Only the power of a strong obsession could have fueled this thing and Chris sure had that.


There are certain people who are so spectacularly, breathtakingly, bat-guano bonkers that to label them as mere liars doesn't begin to do them justice.

[NickUK]

The day they create a device that allows me to attack you with a hammer over TCP/IP, Apple, you'd better start running!

:D

[JonnyFive]

Bump for the new woo.

Hey, March '08... maybe you haven't cottoned onto this quite yet, but there are some things we just don't talk about around here.

Except when we do talk about those things.

But let me tell you, if you talk about something what we don't talk about when we aren't talking about it or talking about talking about it, you're going to get it!

What... what was I talking about? Concrete cores? Did you know it's been over two years and we still haven't seen any proof of anything Chris said? True Fact!

[Myriad]

Okay, I've waited until this thread is in the top slot, so that posting to it could not cause any further bumping damage.

I think the most interesting thing in this thread, coming several hundred pages in like the climax of a Tolstoy epic, was ChristopherA's matter-of-fact assertion that any brain surgeon who discovered a medical treatment so superior as to make all future brain surgery unnecessary would keep it a secret to protect his or her job. Not, mind you, some particularly evil example of a brain surgeon, but any brain surgeon at all. And this was stated, not as a surprising revelation, but as it it were a simple fact that any ordinary person would immediately agree with.

That, to greater and lesser degrees depending on the individuals, is the heartbreakingly sad view of human nature that underlies 9/11 conspiracy theory thinking. Not that we all have the capacity for doing evil -- that is well known, and being aware of it is simple wisdom -- but that we all would routinely and knowingly choose to do evil for the slightest personal gain.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Wildy]

What... what was I talking about? Concrete cores? Did you know it's been over two years and we still haven't seen any proof of anything Chris said? True Fact!

Well there are two good reasons for that. Firstly, because he is banned, but mostly because he is banned. I know that is the same reason, but I thought that it was such an important one that it had to be mentioned twice.

[JonnyFive]

Well there are two good reasons for that. Firstly, because he is banned, but mostly because he is banned. I know that is the same reason, but I thought that it was such an important one that it had to be mentioned twice.

Your stated reason has not, however, affected p'doh's ability to post nonsensical ramblings.

[Wildy]

Your stated reason has not, however, affected p'doh's ability to post nonsensical ramblings.

The thing is though Christopera seems to use bannings more as a "badge of honour" or that the reason that he was banned was because "they couldn't beat me".

In his mind being banned means that he has won.

Funnily enough he does seem to be haunting certain threads less and less on Myspace. I think that might be more because it's virtually impossible to get banned on there (unless you post religion in the Science forum, granny does make sure of that...), and that the debunkers over there don't really care about what he has to say any more. That's what he gets for resetting the argument.

[Calcas]

I think the most interesting thing in this thread, coming several hundred pages in like the climax of a Tolstoy epic, was ChristopherA's matter-of-fact assertion that any brain surgeon who discovered a medical treatment so superior as to make all future brain surgery unnecessary would keep it a secret to protect his or her job. Not, mind you, some particularly evil example of a brain surgeon, but any brain surgeon at all. And this was stated, not as a surprising revelation, but as it it were a simple fact that any ordinary person would immediately agree with.
Respectfully,
Myriad

Yup.

And ANY cancer researcher who discovered a cure would keep it secret to protect their job. Not a particularly evil researcher, but any researcher.:jaw-dropp

[JonnyFive]

The thing is though Christopera seems to use bannings more as a "badge of honour" or that the reason that he was banned was because "they couldn't beat me".

In his mind being banned means that he has won.

Funnily enough he does seem to be haunting certain threads less and less on Myspace. I think that might be more because it's virtually impossible to get banned on there (unless you post religion in the Science forum, granny does make sure of that...), and that the debunkers over there don't really care about what he has to say any more. That's what he gets for resetting the argument.

Well, I was just saying that the banning isn't necessarily reason enough for Chris not to come back on here and give a last hurrah before being roundly banned again for sock-puppetry. P'doh was chosen for name recognition, but I certainly could have picked someone else. :)

He does seem to regard it as some kind of mark of "winning" the debate. It's kind of like davidjayjordan in that way - he saw the banning as being a kind of "hah, told you they couldn't handle the truth" thing.

Whatever.

[Furi]

ARRRGH! lvl 18 Threadromancy.... must...... drink........ to...... forget......
Drive it towards the Windmill, Kill it with fire and spiders,

This thread has been brought to you by the Subliminal Union of Rebar manufacturers advertising company, the number 3, 4, and GlaxoSmithKline "Making the meds for you, with the effects you want."

[applecorped]

The day they create a device that allows me to attack you with a hammer over TCP/IP, Apple, you'd better start running!

:D

I am still running! :D

[Metullus]

Put a stake through it, already.

Jeeze...

[applecorped]

Put a stake through it, already.

Jeeze...


Awww, c'mon, you know with sequels nothing truly dies.

[PhantomWolf]

Someone call Buffy, the undead are rising again....

[jsfisher]

We need a warning sign:


Go back!!! Do not post here.

[jaydeehess]

Bump for the new woo.

Where to next apple? Going to ressurect a Paul-is-dead thread in general conspiracies?

[Dave Rogers]

Terry seems to think all the 10,000+ threads are closed. Just checking.

Dave

[twinstead]

Wow. This thread is a legend. I'm proud to be able to post a sample of my special brand of meaningless blather on it!

[1337m4n]

Go back!!! Do not post here.

Ayup

[Terry]

Terry seems to think all the 10,000+ threads are closed. Just checking.

Dave

Darn you! Darn you to heck!!


* Terry shambles off to re-examine the list of ridiculice threadlengths

[LashL]

Terry,

While you're at it, this thread needs straight-jacketing, not mere locking. I hope you have a protocol for that.

[Mobyseven]

BANANAS! BANANA MONKEYS FULL OF FRUUUUUUUUUUUUITCAKE!!!



They watch us from every suitcase.

bOOM?

[Caustic Logic]

We need a warning sign:


Go back!!! Do not post here.

not even to say "okay?"

bOOM? indeed. I hear Lytebrite promoted the realistice cores as well.

[Hokulele]

I am posting in this thread before it is locked, just so I can say I have posted in this thread. This is my only post here. Thank you, thank you very much.

[DC]

the towers came down in freefall?

[fitzgibbon]

the towers came down in freefall?

Silly me. I thought they came down in New York. Teach me to trust the MSM again........oh......wait a sec! I'm PART of the MSM. Never mind! :D

[DC]

Silly me. I thought they came down in New York. Teach me to trust the MSM again........oh......wait a sec! I'm PART of the MSM. Never mind! :D

yeah the MSM spreading woo in coorporation with Dr. Sunder :)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html

11 and 9 seconds :rolleyes:

[Damien Evans]

THE MONKEY IS OFF ITS LEASH! REPEAT: THE MONKEY IS OFF ITS LEASH!

Aw crap, now it's flinging poo everywhere.

[Dave Rogers]

11 and 9 seconds :rolleyes:

"... for the first exterior panels to hit the ground", i.e. free-falling debris that fell away from the towers. Check the NIST report. It's a standard truth movement lie to claim that this was a statement by NIST that these were the complete collapse times. 12-16 seconds is a more realistice estimate.

Dave

[gumboot]

I like purple cabbage.

[DC]

"... for the first exterior panels to hit the ground", i.e. free-falling debris that fell away from the towers. Check the NIST report. It's a standard truth movement lie to claim that this was a statement by NIST that these were the complete collapse times. 12-16 seconds is a more realistice estimate.

Dave

no need to tell ME that, tell it Dr. Sunder, listen carefully what he says in the interview, he really says they collapsed in that time, he didnt use the sentence they used in the NIST FAQ.

i prefer collapse times of above 15 seconds :)

[PhantomWolf]

Other than getting 11,111 replies, is there a reason to leave this thread alive? Someone stick a fork in this thread, it's done.

[Dave Rogers]

no need to tell ME that, tell it Dr. Sunder, listen carefully what he says in the interview, he really says they collapsed in that time, he didnt use the sentence they used in the NIST FAQ.

Newsflash: Apparently People Sometimes Get Things Wrong.

On page 2: Pope a Catholic, Bear Poops In Woods, Franco Still Dead.

Dave

[Caustic Logic]

I like purple cabbage.

Too bad you live on the other side of the pacific. :)

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/DSCN0253.jpg

[DC]

Newsflash: Apparently People Sometimes Get Things Wrong.

On page 2: Pope a Catholic, Bear Poops In Woods, Franco Still Dead.

Dave

ah i see, a few posts ago you told me this is a TM lie, but now that Dr. Sunder told it, it was simply a misstake :)

Truthers are never misstaken, they are all liars, but government contractors not, they never lie, they are misstaken or have based theyr oppinion on not so solid information.......

OT: Did Cheney, Bush and Blair lie about WMD's? or was they misstaken?

[Dave Rogers]

ah i see, a few posts ago you told me this is a TM lie, but now that Dr. Sunder told it, it was simply a misstake

Yes. There's a subtle but effective way to tell the difference. When it's claimed once, it could well be a mistake. When it's claimed, corrected and withdrawn, it's usually a mistake. When it's claimed, corrected and repeated, it's probably a lie. When it's claimed, corrected, repeated, corrected, repeated, corrected, repeated, corrected, repeated... get the point?

Of course, the TM has a much simpler method. If it refutes the conspiracy theory, it's a lie. If it seems at first sight to disagree with the "official theory", it's unimpeachable truth, and it supports the conspiracy theory, even if it doesn't make sense. Remind me, therefore, why Sunder getting the collapse times wrong proves an inside job. If it doesn't, why are you blathering about it on this forum?

OT: Did Cheney, Bush and Blair lie about WMD's? or was they misstaken?

Very OT, as, had the 9/11 attacks been the pretext for the invasion of Iraq, there would have been no need to mention WMD. Personally, I think they lied to themselves because they desperately wanted to believe something that wasn't true. They have a lot in common with the truth movement.

Dave

[The_Fire]

Oh...my....Ed......
:jaw-dropp

[DC]

Yes. There's a subtle but effective way to tell the difference. When it's claimed once, it could well be a mistake. When it's claimed, corrected and withdrawn, it's usually a mistake. When it's claimed, corrected and repeated, it's probably a lie. When it's claimed, corrected, repeated, corrected, repeated, corrected, repeated, corrected, repeated... get the point?

Of course, the TM has a much simpler method. If it refutes the conspiracy theory, it's a lie. If it seems at first sight to disagree with the "official theory", it's unimpeachable truth, and it supports the conspiracy theory, even if it doesn't make sense. Remind me, therefore, why Sunder getting the collapse times wrong proves an inside job. If it doesn't, why are you blathering about it on this forum?



Very OT, as, had the 9/11 attacks been the pretext for the invasion of Iraq, there would have been no need to mention WMD. Personally, I think they lied to themselves because they desperately wanted to believe something that wasn't true. They have a lot in common with the truth movement.

Dave

oh i didnt know Sunder ever corrected that misstake :)

[JimBenArm]

Yes, it was definitely the C-4 coated rebar that did the towers in. I've since discovered all tall buildings are made with this to facilitate their destruction should we need to create a diversion. Also, flying monkeys kidnapped my baby sister and her dog, too.
Oh, look, here's the nice nurse with my pills. They taste like green. I don't like green, but they make the chipmunks quit screaming at me.

[Dave Rogers]

oh i didnt know Sunder ever corrected that misstake :)

Thank you for making it perfectly clear that you have no intention of debating any issue honestly.

Dave

[Undesired Walrus]

What is it that is so utterly wonderful about the spelling mistake in the title? Brilliant.

[funk de fino]

oh i didnt know Sunder ever corrected that misstake :)

What was the date of the interview with sunder?

[twinstead]

In truther world nobody EVER makes a mistake, and threads NEVER EVER die.

[Disbelief]

Yes, I would like to tell you all a little about myself...what? You mean this isn't a "Get to know you" thread? Sorry, I thought with over 11K posts, it just had to be one. Carry on.

[DC]

What was the date of the interview with sunder?

Interview conducted on August 3, 2006 and edited by Susan K. Lewis, editor of NOVA online

[funk de fino]

Interview conducted on August 3, 2006 and edited by Susan K. Lewis, editor of NOVA online

NIST FAQ's, 30th August 2006 correct the "mistake"

[Metullus]

The stars at night are big and bright
(clap, clap, clap, clap),
Deep in the heart of Texas.

[pomeroo]

ah i see, a few posts ago you told me this is a TM lie, but now that Dr. Sunder told it, it was simply a misstake :)

Truthers are never misstaken, they are all liars, but government contractors not, they never lie, they are misstaken or have based theyr oppinion on not so solid information.......

OT: Did Cheney, Bush and Blair lie about WMD's? or was they misstaken?


Did the intelligence services of France, Germany, Russia, China, Jordan, Israel, Italy, Turkey, and Egypt lie when they concluded that Saddam still retained at least a portion of the WMD the U.N. catalogued in 1995 or was [sic] they mistaken?

(Dictator Cheney has been nailed to the wall on this canard many, many times, but who could resist taking a chance on supplying the very last post in this monstrosity?)

Oh, just to stay on topic, NIST and hundreds of serious researchers have provided realistice [sic] explanations for the non-free fall of the Towers, and most of us have seen and been persuaded by those explanations.

[Caustic Logic]

Does this latest DC-led side-talk have any direct relevance to the thread? As I see it, all that should be said now is nonsense graffiti or summations or epitaphs prior to closing. Any further actual discussion is softly a statement of the worth of the thread, it's like picking the dead guy up out of the coffin to join in discussions and dancing and smearing cake on his face, just as the casket's set to be lowered.

Just my .01

JELLYBEANS!

[pomeroo]

Does this latest DC-led side-talk have any direct relevance to the thread?


No.



As I see it, all that should be said now is nonsense graffiti or summations or epitaphs prior to closing. Any further actual discussion is softly a statement of the worth of the thread, it's like picking the dead guy up out of the coffin to join in discussions and dancing and smearing cake on his face, just as the casket's set to be lowered.

Just my .01


JELLYBEANS![/quote]


Tag!

[A W Smith]

Just because we all disagreed with ChristophrA. And know that the towers had no concrete core. Doesn't make us Anti Cementic (http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=79812#1448977)

[DC]

Did the intelligence services of France, Germany, Russia, China, Jordan, Israel, Italy, Turkey, and Egypt lie when they concluded that Saddam still retained at least a portion of the WMD the U.N. catalogued in 1995 or was [sic] they mistaken?

(Dictator Cheney has been nailed to the wall on this canard many, many times, but who could resist taking a chance on supplying the very last post in this monstrosity?)

Oh, just to stay on topic, NIST and hundreds of serious researchers have provided realistice [sic] explanations for the non-free fall of the Towers, and most of us have seen and been persuaded by those explanations.

According to Hans Blix yes, they all sexed up theyr intel.

i have my doubts you ever nailed something :)

[gumboot]

The good thing about soggy biscuits is you can digest them more rapidly.

Oh My God! Look out for the spider-snail!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's EATING MY eYEbals!11!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!

[twinstead]

So, that must mean that if Blix is right, all the world was in on it. I mean if the US sexed up its intel to cover up for its planned acts of aggression, what reason would the rest of the world have for it?

Evil bastards!

[NobbyNobbs]

I've got a lovely bunch of coconuts
(Tiddley-dee!)
Look at them, all standing in a row.....

[DC]

So, that must mean that if Blix is right, all the world was in on it. I mean if the US sexed up its intel to cover up for its planned acts of aggression, what reason would the rest of the world have for it?

Evil bastards!

you seem to live in a very very small world, the rest of the world??????

get real pls :)

[HawksFan]

(/Cleese voice on) Ahem. And now for something...completely different. (/Cleese voice off)

[Metullus]

you seem to live in a very very small world, the rest of the world??????

get real pls :)But... but it is a small world after all!

It's a world of laughter, a world of tears,
It's a world of hopes and a world of fears,
There's so much that we share,
It is time we're aware.
It's a small small world.

It's a small world after all,
It's a small world after all,
There's so much that we share,
It is time we're aware.
It's a small small world.

[DC]

But... but it is a small world after all!

It's a world of laughter, a world of tears,
It's a world of hopes and a world of fears,
There's so much that we share,
It is time we're aware.
It's a small small world.

It's a small world after all,
It's a small world after all,
There's so much that we share,
It is time we're aware.
It's a small small world.

:D

[Metullus]

Hey, DC, when you are right you are right. :)

[pomeroo]

According to Hans Blix yes, they all sexed up theyr intel.

i have my doubts you ever nailed something :)


No, I'm afraid we don't believe you. France, Germany, Russia, and China were Saddam's trading partners. They were openly flouting the U.N. sanctions and making a mockery of the sixteen resolutions passed prior to No. 1441.

Show us where Blix claimed that Saddam's de facto allies "sexed up" the reports of their own intelligence agencies. Please attempt to make sense of this extraordinary claim by explaining why the countries that worked so actively to throw roadblocks in Bush's path produced intelligence supportive of the conclusions reached by the U.S. and the U.K.

Oh, yeah: lots of people have seen a realistice explanation for the non-free fall of the Towers. Only agenda-driven cranks have trouble accepting it.

[DC]

No, I'm afraid we don't believe you. France, Germany, Russia, and China were Saddam's trading partners. They were openly flouting the U.N. sanctions and making a mockery of the sixteen resolutions passed prior to No. 1441.

Show us where Blix claimed that Saddam's de facto allies "sexed up" the reports of their own intelligence agencies. Please attempt to make sense of this extraordinary claim by explaining why the countries that worked so actively to throw roadblocks in Bush's path produced intelligence supportive of the conclusions reached by the U.S. and the U.K.

Oh, yeah: lots of people have seen a realistice explanation for the non-free fall of the Towers. Only agenda-driven cranks have trouble accepting it.

can you show me those "intel" from those countrys that you claim provided "reports"?

the german "intel" was used ignoring the warnings from the BND, that this info came from one single source and they have very strong doubts about that informant. I hope you atleast agree that tenet, cheney and co are not sceptics :)
they start war based on hearsay....

atleast we agree that there was no freefall collapse.

[Darat]

Silly folk - thread closed.

[DC]

thread closed

disinfo !!!! :d

[Wildy]

Want to understand Christophera better, but don't want to turn into a babbling wreck through reading this thread?

Then why not look at this link to my blog that I am whoring. (http://wildyms.blogspot.com/2008/06/christophera-and-his-phenomena.html)