Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers? [Archive] - Page 9

Hellbound

23rd June 2006, 11:00 PM

I understand how it is computationally simpler, but still erroneously presented, and I see how he would adjust the load choosing a given height with it's related area between that of the bottom and the top (not given intitially).

Please specify my error, precisely. No one else seemed to have trouble understanding this except you.

However, the figure of 455 tons of high explosive is ridiculous for concrete.

So show your math. Prove me wrong. YOU have an utter failing of imagination in trying to understand exactly how much reinforced concrete you're proposing.

Perhaps less than a tenth of that for well contained high density explosives.

Yeah, if you just want to knock it over an don't want it pulverized, you could get by with less. But then you have to allow that the pulverization occured simply from the force of the fall, something that could happen with any type of core, and you undercut your own theory.

been 17 years since I used those type calcs, and never originated the K, material value, just used those provided; been trying to remember what those values were.

I also used the K value provided, I didn't originate it. If you could understand written English you'd know this.

Reinforced concrete has a K value that depends on the thickness you're trying to break through, which depends on how far you need your blast radius to go. Your K value is on the chart. For a 2' radius (using your 4' rebar as charge locations) that value was .96, which I listed.

Like I said, go look it up. Show me your math where I'm wrong. Point out my errors, specifically, and show why they invalidate my conclusion.

Until then, you're doing nothing but adding to global warming.

Gravy

23rd June 2006, 11:04 PM

I can show you some older documentaries that are still available, even online.

Now please stop dancing around the issue. I'm still waiting for you to adequately explain the floor space issue I brought up and the fact that your pictures don't show a concrete core that narrows from bottom to top, as it should according to your claim.
I've asked Christophera to check out Ric Burns' "New York," which has two hours on the WTC, including lots of construction footage, all of which shows the steel core, none of which shows a concrete core.

That documentary is available everywhere, but since he refuses to look at the photos we post here, there's no way he has the attention span for a documentary.

realitybites

23rd June 2006, 11:04 PM

WTC 1 is silhouetted to south (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/images/sf_gallery_04.jpg)

The space between the interior box column and the core face is visible.

From the right side on the top moving left to the center.

The floor space. Then the interior box column, then the open space between the interior box column and the concrete core. Then the core wall, then a hallway at the center.

I believe this to be the south tower north side (narrowest side) Lobby (http://tinyurl.com/htl77)
I don't know about you, but I can't see any tapering whatsoever within the interior concrete core. And I certainly can't comprehend how a solid, uniform 17' concrete core would give the impression of three separate and distinct structures.

Apollyon

23rd June 2006, 11:11 PM

I've asked Christophera to check out Ric Burns' "New York," which has two hours on the WTC, including lots of construction footage, all of which shows the steel core, none of which shows a concrete core.

That documentary is available everywhere, but since he refuses to look at the photos we post here, there's no way he has the attention span for a documentary.
It's become obvious that Christophera doesn't want to see anything that destroys his delusion of a concrete core. His claim has been thoroughly debunked to everyone with a brain though.

Gravy

23rd June 2006, 11:13 PM

I don't know about you, but I can't see any tapering whatsoever within the interior concrete core. And I certainly can't comprehend how a solid, uniform 17' concrete core would give the impression of three separate and distinct structures.
Stay tuned: Christophera is going to diagram the multiple moving hallways in the towers...real soon. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1723493&postcount=1891

Woody-

23rd June 2006, 11:16 PM

What about addressing the issue of size in the interior box columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg). the steel inside is much too small.

The size of the columns decreased as the towers got taller, becoming I beams near the top. That picture must of been taken near the upper part of the building where they didnt need to be as thick.

And what about the lack of steel columns by the core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg). There should be columns all over the place, there are none except those outside the concrete core wall.

Umm, they fell down and are laying on the ground there in the forground at an angle.

Pardalis

23rd June 2006, 11:18 PM

I notice you don't identify them. Your attempt at locating the tower core wall at base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) was ridiculous. I know the structures we are looking at, that is all I really need to know to competently assert what I do about the concrete core with the evidence used.

BS

Gravy CLEARLY established that your "tower core wall at base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg)", is a part of WTC1.

Regnad Kcin

23rd June 2006, 11:30 PM

7 and 42, respectively.

And I've been waiting to hear whats not logical about the timer scenario.Mr. Brown:

Thank you for your response. Now then...

I asked earlier, "At what level (that is, between what stories) did each airplane strike each WTC tower?" You responded, "WTC 1 94th to 96th, WTC 2 74th to 78th." I next asked you, "How many undamaged stories were above the impacted stories in WTC 1 and WTC 2?" Your answer (as quoted above) is "7 and 42, respectively."

So: your uppermost damaged floor in WTC 1 is the 96th. Add to that your figure of 7 and the result is 103 stories total for that tower. Your uppermost damaged floor in WTC 2 is the 78th. Add to that your figure of 42 and the result is 120 stories for that tower.

Before I progress with the point I am hoping to make, I must ask how you reconcile these figures (103 stories and 120 stories) with two towers that were each 110 stories tall?

Gravy

23rd June 2006, 11:36 PM

Before I progress with the point I am hoping to make, I must ask how you reconcile these figures (103 stories and 120 stories) with two towers that were each 110 stories tall?
That's a lie promoted by the government that murdered 3,000 innocent people. Everyone with two eyes and a brain can see that the towers were 103 and 120 stories tall, and had concrete cores surrounded by nougat.

Pardalis

23rd June 2006, 11:51 PM

That's a lie promoted by the government that murdered 3,000 innocent people. Everyone with two eyes and a brain can see that the towers were 103 and 120 stories tall, and had concrete cores surrounded by nougat.

Nougat...
http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8886449cd2c955228.gif

Christophera

24th June 2006, 12:11 AM

You mean like the TV "documentary" you watched that got you started on this?

The one you still can't provide any proof of it existing?

Edit: btw, the pictures you linked show the "core" going straight up. The walls are not inclined as they would be when narrowing from 17' thick at the bottom to 2' at the top. How do you explain that?

The right side of the right tower shows a wider space beween the core face and the interior box column at the top compared to the bottom. in the WTC 1 silhouetted to south (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/images/sf_gallery_04.jpg). Either the 43rd or the 48th floor also had a dimensional change of some kind.

RandFan

24th June 2006, 12:12 AM

I must ask how you reconcile these figures (103 stories and 120 stories) with two towers that were each 110 stories tall?Regnad Kcin,

Tsk, tsk, tsk...

You are forgetting the algebraic assimilation of the evidence that occurs before the math.

It means to "take the evidence of the problem to be solved and consider with it the optimization of your arrangement of variables for your first try at the analytical approach". Or to put it another way,

“It's so simple, maybe you need a refresher course! It's all ball bearings nowadays!” --Fletch

Christophera

24th June 2006, 12:16 AM

That's a lie promoted by the government that murdered 3,000 innocent people. Everyone with two eyes and a brain can see that the towers were 103 and 120 stories tall, and had concrete cores surrounded by nougat.

Our government would never do that. Infiltrators would.

You can tell the difference by who supports the truth and lawful performance by government or not.

Christophera

24th June 2006, 12:18 AM

Regnad Kcin,
“It's so simple, maybe you need a refresher course! It's all ball bearings nowadays!” --Fletch

Well I'm too busy to try and flush this diaper thread like I've been doing and waiting for reggie to explain himself is distracting.

Christophera

24th June 2006, 12:22 AM

Mr. Brown:

Thank you for your response. Now then...

I asked earlier, "At what level (that is, between what stories) did each airplane strike each WTC tower?" You responded, "WTC 1 94th to 96th, WTC 2 74th to 78th." I next asked you, "How many undamaged stories were above the impacted stories in WTC 1 and WTC 2?" Your answer (as quoted above) is "7 and 42, respectively."

So: your uppermost damaged floor in WTC 1 is the 96th. Add to that your figure of 7 and the result is 103 stories total for that tower. Your uppermost damaged floor in WTC 2 is the 78th. Add to that your figure of 42 and the result is 120 stories for that tower.

Before I progress with the point I am hoping to make, I must ask how you reconcile these figures (103 stories and 120 stories) with two towers that were each 110 stories tall?

Hmmm, ....... bad arithmatic. Try 32. Thats what happens while tiring of waiting to hear whats not logical about the timer scenario.

RandFan

24th June 2006, 12:29 AM

Hmmm, ....... bad arithmatic. Bad programing? You are talking about Grace Hoppers A3 programing language, right? ...or do you mean arithmetic?

RandFan

24th June 2006, 12:31 AM

Well I'm too busy to try and flush this diaper thread like I've been doing and waiting for reggie to explain himself is distracting.Oh, the BS is Regnad's fault, gotcha.

Regnad Kcin

24th June 2006, 12:42 AM

Hmmm, ....... bad arithmatic. Try 32. Thats what happens while tiring of waiting to hear whats not logical about the timer scenario.You say you're tired, yet I had to wait for 145 posts of yours to this thread after I asked (and before you answered) my simple question.

Now that you've corrected your math to get one tower to 110 stories, what of the one that is still at 103? I'll need your response before we continue.

By the way, the reason I am drawing you out in this fashion is to engage you in a dialogue, rather than simply post and counter-post. I appreciate your understanding and cooperation.

TheFeds

24th June 2006, 12:43 AM

that however will never make up for the fact that you have not yet shown with raw evidence the steel core columns you must support (although hardly mention) to be reasonable.You realize, that everyone here stipulates that the "interior box columns" are the "steel core columns" (when referring to the largest vertical steel support members in the central area of the structure). Note that architectural diagrams indicating this fact have been provided to you. Note also that photographs documenting these columns, both at construction and in the aftermath, have been provided for you. Unless you can come up with either a high-resolution photograph of the core structure (see below), or an engineering drawing depicting a different configuration, your evidence is insufficient. It is logical to accept that others have provided far clearer pictures than you ever have, and that all of their pictures, without exception, depict something that you do not believe exists, based on your lower-resolution photographs.

Or, ......... are you going to join Woody and the "air core" crew that cannot support the steel core columns but say there was NO concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif), meaning that you say there was no core?Christophera, for your information, there's a secret that I think you should know. They're being facetious. That means, they're lying, in a condescending way. Probably because you haven't been able to point out a concrete core in the construction photos, and in your destruction and aftermath photos, the surface texture of what you claim to be a concrete core is indistinguishable at that resolution from either dirty fire-resistant drywall, or the concrete which was used in copious quantities in the floor.

Let me remind you that it is also physically impossible to distinguish 3" rebar on 4' centres in the mid-collapse photograph, if your photograph has a resolution of approximately 3' per pixel. Let's consider what a pixel is: it is, a portion of the image created by the light incident on one element of a digital camera's CCD. Or, in the case of a film photograph which has been digitized for the internet, it is a similar portion of the light incident on the scanner element, from the hard copy photograph. In both cases, the smallest object that can ever be distinguished is precisely one pixel in size. By definition, you may not indicate the existence of things smaller than one pixel in a digital image, because the information that would have been available to the eye was destroyed in the digitization process. Therefore, if the rebar is 3" in diameter, it is not possible to see its thickness in a picture with resolution of 3' per pixel. What you will see is a pixel which incorporates the average colour of all of the photons incident upon that CCD element in the camera—this is an electrical process which is well-understood and designed to function in exactly this fashion. This means, there will be photons reflected off of the rebar, if it exists, and they will contribute approximately 1/12 the reflected light to the CCD element (3" is 1/12 of 3'). The remaining 11/12 of the reflected light will come from other sources in the field of view of that single CCD element (in this case, the dust cloud, or debris). This means that even the average colour will not be a giveaway, because there is no distinct colouration of rebar, and even if there were, it would have to be so distinct as to overwhelm the other 11/12 of the incident light, which is uniformly the colour of the dust cloud. So, in summary, one pixel cannot show one piece of rebar at that distance.

Now, since adjacent pixels represent regions of space 3' wide, rebar on 4' centres would still place (on average) approximately one piece of rebar per pixel. Since the rebar is uniform and indistinguishable, as demonstrated above, you cannot compare adjacent pixels on the basis of whether or not they contain rebar. In fact, since rebar would only occupy 2/24 of any two adjacent pixels, you cannot make any conclusions as to the actual object that is represented there.

Christophera

24th June 2006, 12:44 AM

Oh, the BS is Regnad's fault, gotcha.

Yea, he must be good for something if he cannot substantiate his assertions that the tower fall/impact scenario (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1207667) is not logical or has an error. Quite a few people have complimented me on that one.

Regnad Kcin

24th June 2006, 12:44 AM

Also:

By the way, Mr. Brown, are you still standing by the authenticity of this:

Leslie E. Robertson
Posted: Apr 1 2006, 06:33 PM
Unregistered

Christophera is correct in stating that the Twin Towers were constructed with a concrete core. Although in my original design the core was to be a steel framed one that decision was overridden by Minoru Yamasaki the architect.

That core should have resisted the airplane impacts AND the fires. I have said nothing for four and a half years but can remain silent no longer. My belief is that only explosives could have caused WTC 1 & WTC 2 to collapse the way they did on September 11, 2001.

Leslie E. Robertson
Director Leslie E. Robertson Associates, R.L.L.P. and lead engineer of the World Trade Center

Get real. I don't know. But if it is from Robertson, he's done about what I would do in his situation given his position.
I ask you for the third time, if you "don't know," why did you present it here?

Christophera

24th June 2006, 12:47 AM

You realize, that everyone here stipulates that the "interior box columns" are the "steel core columns"

Stop right there. No more BS.

Show the steel core columns in the center of the core area at elevation and on the ground.

Christophera

24th June 2006, 12:49 AM

BS

Gravy CLEARLY established that your "tower core wall at base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg)", is a part of WTC1.

His presentation was so poor, and you did nothing but make it worse, that it was not clear at all.

Christophera

24th June 2006, 12:53 AM

By the way, the reason I am drawing you out in this fashion is to engage you in a dialogue, rather than simply post and counter-post. I appreciate your understanding and cooperation.

Hah!

You are trying to make something inconsequential seem important. The planes don't matter at all to what happened to the towers.

You are just trying another method of distortion and distraction because you cannot show that there is an error in my logic with the tower fall/impact scenario (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1207667).

Christophera

24th June 2006, 12:54 AM

Also:
I ask you for the third time, if you "don't know," why did you present it here?

So you would have somethng to do that would make you feel important while you couldn't substantiate your BS assertion that there was an error in my logic with the tower fall/impact scenario (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1207667).

Christophera

24th June 2006, 12:59 AM

That means, they're lying, in a condescending way. Probably because you haven't been able to point out a concrete core in the construction photos, and in your destruction and aftermath photos, the surface texture of what you claim to be a concrete core is indistinguishable at that resolution from either dirty fire-resistant drywall, or the concrete which was used in copious quantities in the floor.

The shape of the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is unmistakeable. I've shown it, but you folks are not acknowledging it. You are colluding to dissmiss information.

Now, since adjacent pixels represent regions of space 3' wide, rebar on 4' centres (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) would still place (on average) approximately one piece of rebar per pixel. Since the rebar is uniform and indistinguishable, as demonstrated above, you cannot compare adjacent pixels on the basis of whether or not they contain rebar. In fact, since rebar would only occupy 2/24 of any two adjacent pixels, you cannot make any conclusions as to the actual object that is represented there.

Okay, so you can't see what everybody else can see because the math doesn't work reggie should be interested in this.

gumboot

24th June 2006, 01:01 AM

How do you people have the patience? Christophera quite clearly is operating on a different plane of reality to everyone else. N'er 'tween shall meet.

-Andrew

TheFeds

24th June 2006, 01:47 AM

Stop right there. No more BS.

Show the steel core columns in the center of the core area at elevation and on the ground.Using your own pictures, see attached.

Notice that your photo on the left depicts a rectangular series of vertical columns in the positions specified in the architectural drawing shown earlier. Ignore the crane towers, which are between the outer wall (shown in segments) and the core; they were, of course, removed.

Notice on your right-side picture, an interior column attached to what you claim to be core concrete. Irrespective of the concrete, we agree that this is the core.

This is proof, using your own images, that there are "steel core columns", both "at elevation and on the ground". If these columns aren't what I claim that they are, what are they, and which documents can you point to that specify this? (Recall that I and others pointed earlier to the document which gave positions of core columns, and discussed their general layout and size.) I caution you, do not invent terminology to describe something which already has a name.

TheFeds

24th June 2006, 01:56 AM

The shape of the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is unmistakeable. I've shown it, but you folks are not acknowledging it. You are colluding to dissmiss information.Are you accusing us of conspiracy? Isn't that a pattern of behaviour on your part? (And of course, realize that I have not communicated with any of the participants of this thread except for my publicly visible comments in the thread.)

Alternatively, you can choose to believe that we confer in secret to determine methods of persecuting you, and of making you stay here to entertain us. But you know what that makes you, right?

Okay, so you can't see what everybody else can see because the math doesn't work reggie should be interested in this.You claimed that rebar was visible in that picture. You were the only one who believed that assertion. Therefore, I'm seeing exactly what everyone else is seeing. Why are you the only one who sees things that aren't visible? Especially when I've used that math to demonstrate your fallacy. If I'm wrong, go ahead and attempt to use your math to disprove my math, since you failed to draw the dimension lines which were an empirical version of the same process.

Johnny Pixels

24th June 2006, 02:11 AM

I'm a bit confused, and we may have covered this already, but to be honest that seems to be the general theme of this thread.

Why are there huge "interior box columns" that are large enough to support a building, if there is a concrete core? Wouldn't the concrete be enough to hold up the building? What are these columns for?

gumboot

24th June 2006, 02:31 AM

Either the 43rd or the 48th floor also had a dimensional change of some kind.

That would be where it changes to the 12th dimension - the dimension of banana men.

I read about it... :rolleyes: somewhere.

-Andrew

Gravy

24th June 2006, 02:36 AM

His presentation was so poor, and you did nothing but make it worse, that it was not clear at all.
Which portion was "so poor" or "unclear?"

–My description of who the photographer was and the date the photos were taken?
–My description of where the photographer was standing?
–My inclusion of an aerial overview with the core structure pointed out by a big yellow arrow and the WTC buildings clearly labeled?
–My inclusion of a ground photo by the same photographer on the same day showing the core in context with other structures, and showing that it does not belong to the tower you thought it belonged to?

Please be specific about which part of my presentation was poor.

At left below is the core as shown in my "poor presentation." At right is the core you've been talking about, which you believe belongs to the south tower. Please explain how you think these two photos do not show the same structure.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8790449cf8ae98324.jpg

Darat

24th June 2006, 03:10 AM

Chrisophera has been suspended for three days, see: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1724293#post1724293

asmodean

24th June 2006, 04:00 AM

I notice you don't use images to make your point. I do.

Yeah, and so does the MAS collective. Big deal. Fact is, you images is low-res, taken from vast distance, jpeg-compressed on a collapsing building obscured by smoke, dust and debris. And you think this is evidence?

asmodean

24th June 2006, 04:09 AM

Using 3 World Financial Center for scale the spire that is visible above the dust cloud is aprox 16 stories tall, ie 160 ft. In the pic you keep using there the spire visible above the dust is also about 50 pixels high. That means each pixel is aprox 3 feet. Please explain how you can "see" 3" rebar on 4' centers when each pixel covers 3 feet.

Some pixels get it, some don't. Isn't that what we see,

Please think about this, if only for a little while. What Woody is trying to tell you is that a single pixel represent about 3feet in reality. How can you see *details* in size of 3"? or 4' for that matter? a 4' x 3" will, in your image, be one pixel. How do you differentiate your 3"x4' pixel from compression artifacts? Debris?

Frankly, your images are about as much worth as evidence as the ones the MAS collective used to spam.

kookbreaker

24th June 2006, 07:33 AM

Chrisophera has been suspended for three days, see: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1724293#post1724293

"Repeated misuse of the 'report' button"? That's gotta be a new one.

twinstead

24th June 2006, 07:41 AM

I didn't know the report button was actually a paranoid panic button when ones theories are being challenged by actual facts.

Learn something new every day ;)

Apollyon

24th June 2006, 07:43 AM

Hellbound

24th June 2006, 09:14 AM

Stop right there. No more BS.

Show the steel core columns in the center of the core area at elevation and on the ground.

*sigh*

So this is your argument? If they aren't in the center, they can't be core columns?

Rather weak, sorry.

What you are calling "Interior Box Columns" were the large steel core columns that ringed the core. The smaller calumns inside were also parts of the steel core columns. A steel core is not a single column, or asingle bundle of columns. It's a framework of beams and interconnects among multiple steel columns, just like the photos you've been shown.

There were about 24 large exterior columns, each about 52" by 22", made of 5" steel. The interior columns were smaller, and made of 2" steel. This arrangement is what was claimed when the towers were built, it's what was claimed after the towers were built, and it's what's seen in the construction photos.

It's the "tube in a tube" structure that has become a standard for tall buildings. The outer columns (on the outside wall of the building) provide support for floors, and an inner tube of large steel columns provide the other side of the floor support and stabalize the towers. The cross-bracing and beams tie the core columns together, providing resistence from lateral forces. Inside this inner ring are smaller steel core columns, that add to the core support and also support the floor installed in the core (the floor of the core was supported by the core itself, seperate from the rest of the building).

You have a photograph of 3" rebar on 4' centers that does not have a resolution to distinguish inches (and barely enough to distinguish a 4 foot difference), and you have a picture of smoke/dust that looks kinda like a column. None of the collapse videos show a colum left when the building falls. Why not get a video? That would be MUCH clearer than the still photos that have convinced no one.

There are so many ways you could esily prove this to everyone. A video of the collapse showing clearly that the structure you claim is a core is just that, rather than dust. Your mathematics on how much explosive you'd need to pulverize your core (compared concrete and steel, because steel would be much easier to cut with less explosive). Construction photos clearly showing the concrete core, or workers pouring the concrete core.

But you offer nothing. You cling to your pet theory like like a dog with a chew-toy, and won't listen or consider anything else. Contrary evidence is "obviously" the work of dis-information agents, an dyou jsut wave your hands and pretend it isn't there.

Notice a difference? When YOU present evidence, we examine it and try to point out the errors, give logical explanations as to why you are mis-interpreting your photos, or why your statements do not make sense, or where you have the logical errors. When we present evidence, you stick your fingers in your ears and come back with "Nuh-Uh! Disinfo agent! Rumsfield lackey!". And then you point to your OWN website, which adds nothing new, but simply remakes the arguments you've tried here.

Your arguments are not good enough, Chris They don't prove anything except that you can speculate. THAT'S why we ask for sources, and why your self-authored website doesn't count.

So can you refute the contrary evidence? OR will you continue to simply deny that anything contrary exists? Will you continue to use post hoc reasoning to justify whatever ridiculous scenario you have to so you can continue to cling to a concrete core?

Think about. Someone here is not open-minded, someone here is not considering the evidence. Think very carefully about the reactions on this thread. I doubt you'll be able to see it, but most others will.

Belz...

24th June 2006, 09:17 AM

We do not need resolution to see that the steel core columns which are supposed to be there, are not there.

Holy sleazing weasels! How about the CONCRETE that we should see on the picture ? If we had better RESOLUTION we might see it. Which we DON'T.

Hellbound

24th June 2006, 09:21 AM

I did a quick and dirty calculation on the amount of floor space wasted using Christophera's concrete core vs. core columns. One reason the tube within a tube design was used was to maximized usable floor space. A core column design would do that. A concrete core that was much thicker on the bottom than the top would take up more space, and the bottom floors would have had less usable square footage.

Anyway, I based the calculations on an 80' x 140' core dimension. Christopher claims his concrete started at 17' thick and narrowed to 2' at the top. That's a 15' gradient. So halving that to get an average:

(140 * 2) + (80 * 2) * 7.5 = 3300 sq ft. average per floor. Multiplied by 110 stories that's 363,000 sq ft. of wasted space by using a concrete core instead of a steel column core. Multiply that by the rental price per square foot of office space in Manhattan, and that's some significant money.

That's pretty close to my calculations for the area taken up by the core (the same as the horizontal cross-section). I think mine was about 3,500 per floor, but I used this to determine the volume of concrete.

So yeah, that's two average houses worth of floor space per floor.

Of course, beyond that (and the point of my calculations), Chris has to explain how (assuming best case scenario for demolition) each foot of rebar was coated with 2 lbs. of C-4 and:

A. No one noticed
B. The reinforced concrete was able to maintain structural stability, despite the rebar sitting in holes that were twice it's diameter.

Belz...

24th June 2006, 09:23 AM

What is so hard about coming up with an image of a steel core column. I have no problem coming up with images of concrete.

We HAVE shown you support columns. The problem is you keep mislabeling them as "box" columns.

Hah. After you fail to produce 1 image of steel core columns from the demolition photos, do you think you can be taken seriously enough by anyone to try and disprove your calculations.

What does this have to do with that ? How does presenting an image of something affect the precision of one's calculations ?

Hellbound

24th June 2006, 09:29 AM

We HAVE shown you support columns. The problem is you keep mislabeling them as "box" columns.

Yeah, apparently, unless they are in the center of the building, they can't be core columns. This is not only another example of Chris's bias, but also adds a little more doubt to his claims of being involved in civil engineering.

Unless he builds roads. That's civil engineering, right? So maybe he's the guy you see with the shovel spreading asphalt...

What does this have to do with that ? How does presenting an image of something affect the precision of one's calculations ?

Exactly my point. I was working off the principle fo "Proof by Contradiction"...well, disproof. Apparently Chris can't understand that.

I was disproven his assertion that steel would require more explosives to cut (and thus, his implication that it couldn't be steel). I have shown that steel would require much less to be cut, and also shown that his idea of "rebar coated C-4" could not possibly exist, because it enough C-4 to take out the core would weaken it to the point hat it wouldn't be structurally stable...and little enough C-4 to maintain structural stability would not be enough to destroy the core.

Thus, to remain logically consistent, Chirs must either:

1. Show that my calculations are incorrect and point out the erros (simply saying they are wrong without anythign to back that up doesn't work)
2. Change his theory to a demolition of a steel cored building (which brings up new questions of it's own)
or
3. Maintain a concrete core, but drop the demolition idea (or maintain that the demo was brough tin after construction, along with a reasonable explanation as to how 4 tons of C-4 per floor of the building was put in place and no one noticed).

So, essentially, he's in a bind. But it's obvious that something must be done, or his theory is finsihed right here.

Of course, he ignores my calls to prove me wrong. It'd be so easy, too (if he were right). Go figure.

:)

Belz...

24th June 2006, 09:31 AM

From you this is an admission of guilt.

???

You're delusional.

I'm being selective because the infiltrators of the government you support violated laws.

You're cherry-picking images because of your pre-conceived conclusion ? Thanks. I didn't know you'd actually admit it.

What laws did the 3000 dead violate that you would be so prejudice againts them or against I who simply seeks to see that it does not happen again by using the truth as I can show it?

BO-RING.

Sorry. The infiltrators of the government that have killed innocent Americans removed the few pictures of the core during construction before 9-11 because they knew that people wouldn't believe the imapct/fire/collapse lie if they knew there was a concrete core.

How convenient. If you can't show the concrete core during construction, then I'm going to assume it doesn't exist.

I clearly see a program of marginalization collusively executed wherein the group of deniers...

Idiot. If we wanted to maginalise you couldn't we just ban you ?

Typical rumsfeld failure.

Was it controlled ?

Apollyon

24th June 2006, 09:35 AM

That's pretty close to my calculations for the area taken up by the core (the same as the horizontal cross-section). I think mine was about 3,500 per floor, but I used this to determine the volume of concrete.

So yeah, that's two average houses worth of floor space per floor.

Of course, beyond that (and the point of my calculations), Chris has to explain how (assuming best case scenario for demolition) each foot of rebar was coated with 2 lbs. of C-4 and:

A. No one noticed
B. The reinforced concrete was able to maintain structural stability, despite the rebar sitting in holes that were twice it's diameter.
I guess I could have used a vertical cross-section as well, so Chris would understand the calculations. ;)

btw, does he claim the rebar in the floors were coated as well? The construction video sure doesn't show any coating on the rebar.

Stellafane

24th June 2006, 09:39 AM

"Repeated misuse of the 'report' button"? That's gotta be a new one.

But it makes perfect sense when you think about it. How do they handle logic and reason and skepticism in the LC forum? How else -- they get the mods to suspend you. Chris just figured the same mechanism must work here. After all, questioning the utterly unarguable fact that 9/11 was an inside job has got to be a bannable offense everywhere, right?

Belz...

24th June 2006, 09:39 AM

16+2 = 18 / 2 = 9 feet as the average thickness of one side of the core. 9 x 1300 (height) = 11700 SQ. FT. x 2 (walls) = 23,400.0 SQ. FT. for the total cross sectional area of the core.

I'm stopping with the calculations.

No, you calculated the footprint of the wall and called it a cross section. When there is no designation "horizontal" it is standard that the term "cross section" refer to a vertical section.

But most importantly, not one of the steel core camp has produced on photo of the supposed steel core columns while the cnocrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is obvious to see.

Do you have any idea WHAT you're saying ?

Belz...

24th June 2006, 09:49 AM

No, .............. you can't recognize core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)s and other evidence because you support the infiltrators of the govenment.

Why the hell would I do that ?

The conclusive image of the core wall at base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) shows CONCRETE with high tensile rebar and, GUESS WHAT, no steel core columns.

No, no no. Those aren't rebar, man. They're long Tarrasque hair. See, I can make stuff up, too!

Face it, you guys are either agents in rumsfelds new anti blog campaign or duped by them. Or just plain supporting the lie because of very deep social fears.

You're still assuming everyone here lives in the US, aren't you ?

You totally forget that I KNOW exactly what the core was made of and how it was made

Yes, from a documentary that doesn't seem to exist.

What you call "core columns are actually interior box columns (http://tinyurl.com/fuept)

How can you tell the difference ?

Meffy

24th June 2006, 09:52 AM

"Repeated misuse of the 'report' button"? That's gotta be a new one.
I do not want to know which posts were "reported"... no, really, I couldn't care less. *nodnod* Mmm-hm. It's true. =^_^=

Belz...

24th June 2006, 09:55 AM

The wall is.

So the base is really thick.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2294&stc=1&d=1151119938

Pointing arrows in a picture doesn't make things true.

Belz...

24th June 2006, 10:01 AM

Stop right there. No more BS.

Show the steel core columns in the center of the core area at elevation and on the ground.

Moving goalposts, are we ?

His presentation was so poor, and you did nothing but make it worse, that it was not clear at all.

He... he showed an annoted picture showing clearly which tower was which, and we can CLEARLY see your CORE right there...

How can you say that ?

Belz...

24th June 2006, 10:06 AM

I do not want to know which posts were "reported"... no, really, I couldn't care less. *nodnod* Mmm-hm. It's true. =^_^=

I want to know.

Apparently, chris has never seen a thread in the politics forum...

NobbyNobbs

24th June 2006, 10:09 AM

Either the 43rd or the 48th floor also had a dimensional change of some kind.

Wow, now you're just randomly making stuff up, aren't you? Where'd you get *this* idea from? Why those floors? Why aren't you sure which floor it is? By "change" do you mean "charge", or do you mean that those floors warped?

BTW, what is "suspension for misuse of the report button"? What is the report button? That's a new one for me.

WildCat

24th June 2006, 10:13 AM

Meffy

24th June 2006, 10:17 AM

BTW, what is "suspension for misuse of the report button"? What is the report button? That's a new one for me.
It's the little ! in a red triangle button on the left, under the poster's nick and avatar and such. Supposed to be used to report just posts that violate forum rules, I should think, not to whine about those with whom one disagrees. I'm guessing Christophera used it to whine.

kevin

24th June 2006, 10:23 AM

Chrisophera has been suspended for three days, see: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1724293#post1724293

Can we get a list of who he reported? It would be an honor to have been reported by him!

Gravy

24th June 2006, 10:31 AM

It's the little ! in a red triangle button on the left, under the poster's nick and avatar and such. Supposed to be used to report just posts that violate forum rules, I should think, not to whine about those with whom one disagrees. I'm guessing Christophera used it to whine.
I called him an idiot a couple of times, but only in response to him actually being an idiot.

Meffy

24th June 2006, 10:33 AM

(Okay, so I lied when I said I didn't want to see a list. Agree about the honor but doubt I earned it.)

sat556

24th June 2006, 10:36 AM

Either the 43rd or the 48th floor also had a dimensional change of some kind.

Maybe he doesn't mean with regard to area and such. It's probably some parallell universe type thing...

realitybites

24th June 2006, 10:49 AM

I'm guessing Christophera was the one behind my warning, which, in all fairness did violate a couple forum rules (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1723957).

Not at all professional on my part, but something I needed to get off my chest.

Can we get a "Warned by Christophera" badge? Kinda' along the same lines as the "Banned From Loose Change" one?

bob_kark

24th June 2006, 11:19 AM

NobbyNobbs

24th June 2006, 11:36 AM

I'm sitting here listening to my kids in the next room. They are watching a movie, and it suddenly became clear to me exactly who is responsible for the collapse of the WTC. Here's the dialogue from the movie (actual dialogue):

Mrs. Incredible: You knocked down a building?!
Mr. Incredible: It was on fire. It was structurally unsound. It was coming down anyway.

See! It's obvious that one of the law firms inside the WTC, during the investigation of one of their cases, had uncovered Mr. Incredible's secret identity. In an effort to keep it secret, he threw 2 planes into the towers. They weren't drones, and they weren't piloted. They were thrown. In the aftermath, he realized that this wasn't enough, as the law firms were located safely behind a concrete core that wasn't damaged by the fire. So he went in himself (all the while pretending to be a rescuer) and knocked the buildings down.

The existence of Mr. Incredible on the scene is obvious from the many photos Christophera has kindly posted.

Mystery solved. You can all go about your daily lives now. You're welcome.

Meffy

24th June 2006, 01:30 PM

2 planes
The rest of your theory is sounder than Christophera's but this must not go unchallenged. Show your calculation!

Blue Mountain

24th June 2006, 01:44 PM

I looked closer at the concrete spec document provided by Christophera and have serious doubts as to its authenticity. Part of the problem stems from the very Rathergate-ish fact that the document uses proportional fonts instead of monospaced fonts. A document this old would have been done on a typewriter. There's the very precise centering of the text in the title blocks (something virtually impossible to do on a typewriter), a two-column layout, precise use of tab stops (not impossible but very cumbersome and difficult to do on a typewriter), and the underlined heading text. Everything I see indicates that this was done on a computer. Nor would any respectable secretary in an engineering firm have allowed the word "mehtod" to have been passed along in an official company specification. At the very least it would have been whited out and typed over.
While I don't want to support Christopera's increasingly wild assertions, I suspect the document he attached to post #1321 could very well have been done on a typewriter of the 1960s (or 1970, which is the last date on the document). Especially if the typewriter was an IBM Selectric.

I've used these in the past and remember a few things about their operation. In the Selectric the type element moved, not the paper and roller mechanism, making for much more accurate vertical and horizontal positioning. It supported user settable tab stops and had a tab key to move the type element to the next stop.

Centering could also be done with some ease, even in a text box. Look at this picture of the Selectric's type element (http://www.selectric.org/selectric/manual/page07.jpg) [selectric.org] and note the highlighted clear plastic "Clear View Card Holder". The card holder had a horizontal line painted on it to show where the baseline of your typed text would appear, and a vertical line at the top to show exactly where the character would appear.

To centre text in a box, the typist would position the type element in the middle of the box, using the "card holder" to help in eyeballing this process. Indeed, after typing many of these pages he/she might know exactly which column that was on. This was made possible by the fact the Selectric had a guide to help insert pages into the typewriter at the same horizontal position every time, and a visual marker to show which column the type element was on. The typist would press the "backspace" key once for every two letters that needed to be typed, then type the text.

The text as shown in the attacment is monospaced, not proportional. Take a look at paragraph 1 and the text "except where specifically modified", then the text "or superseded by the Specifications" immediately beneath it. Note that all the characters on the two lines align exactly, especially where the "m" of "modified" on the upper line is the same width as the "i" in "Specifications" on the lower line.

I see nothing in the document that supports the idea it could not have been produced by an experienced typist on a good typewriter in 1970.

realitybites

24th June 2006, 02:15 PM

What, because you advised him to drive a VW Bus due to their legendary reputation for being fun to drive? Doesn't seem so bad to me.
See, Bob? Exactly.... That's all I was saying.

Drivers wanted.

:D

kevin

24th June 2006, 02:22 PM

Ducky

24th June 2006, 02:37 PM

deleted. double post.

Ducky

24th June 2006, 02:40 PM

I see Christophera didn't address any of my questions.

Typical.

I'll repost just in case when he isn't suspended he can answer them:

Let's skip your needling and nitpicking of small details and go right to the big one:

Why do you believe what you do about the twin towers?

Were you ever at the twin towers? were you in the area on 9/11?

Let's boil this down to one last question:

What would it take for you to change your views? Think real hard about that before you answer.

NobbyNobbs

24th June 2006, 04:56 PM

The rest of your theory is sounder than Christophera's but this must not go unchallenged. Show your calculation!

Although calculations are not necessary (it is obvious from the photos what is going on), I will perform them anyway, as soon as I have finished my algebraic assimilation of the volatile variables.

Hellbound

24th June 2006, 05:00 PM

Although calculations are not necessary (it is obvious from the photos what is going on), I will perform them anyway, as soon as I have finished my algebraic assimilation of the volatile variables.

Don't forget to hyper-correlate the undulating byproduct with the integral of the established quantumality before you diversify the paradigm interpretation.

NobbyNobbs

24th June 2006, 05:25 PM

Don't forget to hyper-correlate the undulating byproduct with the integral of the established quantumality before you diversify the paradigm interpretation.

Huntsman--

Thanks for the hint, but you have obviously forgotten that hyper-correlation with respect to the parabiological enzymatic quarto-state is utterly unnecessary when dealing with multibolic interpretations of the fundamental quantities.

Geez, man, haven't you *ever* taken a course in basic 5th dimensional quantum fluctuations?

tsig

24th June 2006, 06:15 PM

Meffy

24th June 2006, 06:16 PM

Although calculations are not necessary (it is obvious from the photos what is going on), I will perform them anyway, as soon as I have finished my algebraic assimilation of the volatile variables.
Fair enough. Do this away from sparks and open flames.

Apollyon

24th June 2006, 07:15 PM

While I don't want to support Christopera's increasingly wild assertions, I suspect the document he attached to post #1321 could very well have been done on a typewriter of the 1960s (or 1970, which is the last date on the document). Especially if the typewriter was an IBM Selectric.

I've used these in the past and remember a few things about their operation. In the Selectric the type element moved, not the paper and roller mechanism, making for much more accurate vertical and horizontal positioning. It supported user settable tab stops and had a tab key to move the type element to the next stop.

Centering could also be done with some ease, even in a text box. Look at this picture of the Selectric's type element (http://www.selectric.org/selectric/manual/page07.jpg) [selectric.org] and note the highlighted clear plastic "Clear View Card Holder". The card holder had a horizontal line painted on it to show where the baseline of your typed text would appear, and a vertical line at the top to show exactly where the character would appear.

To centre text in a box, the typist would position the type element in the middle of the box, using the "card holder" to help in eyeballing this process. Indeed, after typing many of these pages he/she might know exactly which column that was on. This was made possible by the fact the Selectric had a guide to help insert pages into the typewriter at the same horizontal position every time, and a visual marker to show which column the type element was on. The typist would press the "backspace" key once for every two letters that needed to be typed, then type the text.

The text as shown in the attacment is monospaced, not proportional. Take a look at paragraph 1 and the text "except where specifically modified", then the text "or superseded by the Specifications" immediately beneath it. Note that all the characters on the two lines align exactly, especially where the "m" of "modified" on the upper line is the same width as the "i" in "Specifications" on the lower line.

I see nothing in the document that supports the idea it could not have been produced by an experienced typist on a good typewriter in 1970.
After further review I agree the text is monospaced.

I agree it also could have been produced by an experienced typist with the proper equipment.

But a few things still bother me:

One, that such an experienced typist would permit the word "method" to be mis-typed as "mehtod" and not have gone back and corrected the error. There were error correcting IBM Selectrics as well. Even if one wasn't available, there was still correction tape and, as a last resort, white-out.

Two, that document seems to be in fine shape for a piece of paper that's so aged. That may be a result of faxing it and a bit of image enhancement. Then again, it may not.

Third, Christophera refused to disclose its provenance. I asked him multiple times.

RandFan

24th June 2006, 07:20 PM

Either the 43rd or the 48th floor also had a dimensional change of some kind. Sorry folks, he's right. I saw this in a documentary... I think it was on PBS.

Oh, wait, I remember now (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120601/).

gumboot

24th June 2006, 07:41 PM

It's the "tube in a tube" structure that has become a standard for tall buildings.

I just wanted to put in a plug for my countrymen. :D

New Zealand sits on a very volatile faultline at the Pacific Rim, so we get lots of earthquakes. As a result we build skyscrapers that are considered the most earthquake proof in the world.

We have been building steel tube-in-tube buildings for decades, because they survive earthquakes much better (a concrete core will shatter).

:)

-Andrew

Johnny Pixels

24th June 2006, 07:44 PM

I just wanted to put in a plug for my countrymen. :D

New Zealand sits on a very volatile faultline at the Pacific Rim, so we get lots of earthquakes. As a result we build skyscrapers that are considered the most earthquake proof in the world.

We have been building steel tube-in-tube buildings for decades, because they survive earthquakes much better (a concrete core will shatter).

:)

-Andrew

That's because you're not using 3" rebar on 4' centres. Them babies'll hold anything up. It's just the integral c4 coating that makes them a bit of a liability really.

Meffy

24th June 2006, 07:50 PM

<sarc> Why do you New Zealanders hate freedom? Why can't you live according to the United States Constitution like the rest of the world? </sarc>

Foster Zygote

24th June 2006, 08:07 PM

So... What are we getting at? I'm not aware of the conspiracy angle here? Now when a non-expert claims that the Apollo astronauts couldn't manipulate their instruments in a pressurized suit because of the pressure differential and then builds a vacuum chamber complete with glove to demonstrate the effect of a 15 PSI difference I at least know where he's coming from. (I also know that the astronauts suits were only pressurized to a fraction of Earths sea-level average, nowhere near 15 PSI.) So I'm naturally curious as to what significance is attached to this "free fall claim". Are we being shielded from the ugly knowledge that the towers were actually constructed from cardboard and paper towel tubes? Or were they simply lowered into subterranean chambers like giant Otis elevators? I sure hope it has something to do with alien particle beams!

Steven

kevin

24th June 2006, 08:09 PM

One, that such an experienced typist would permit the word "method" to be mis-typed as "mehtod" and not have gone back and corrected the error.

I'm of two minds about this. I work with engineers, I used to be an engineer, I would totally expect these type of mistakes from engineers. However I'm from the recent time period where since the computer came out more and more engineers are typing their own documents (and not using spell check very well.) If the documents were typed by a professional rather than an engineer than I might agree.

BTW, the license number on the seal is the correct number for Leslie Robertson -- a level of detail that would surprise me from these people.

gumboot

24th June 2006, 08:13 PM

Sorry folks, he's right. I saw this in a documentary... I think it was on PBS.

Oh, wait, I remember now (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120601/).

Could it possibly be the "dimensional change" on the "43rd or 48th floor" is actually the sky lobby?

What floor was the sky lobby on?

-Andrew

Blue Mountain

24th June 2006, 08:13 PM

After further review I agree the text is monospaced.

I agree it also could have been produced by an experienced typist with the proper equipment.
Whee, you changed your mind! Such is the difference between thinking people and those who cling wildly to theories despite mountains of evidence.

But a few things still bother me:

One, that such an experienced typist would permit the word "method" to be mis-typed as "mehtod" and not have gone back and corrected the error. There were error correcting IBM Selectrics as well. Even if one wasn't available, there was still correction tape and, as a last resort, white-out.
I agree with you on that; it certainly seems out of place. Although I know one lady who says that as a legal secretary she once typed, had signed, and mailed a letter to a Mr. Glenn Fry but on the inside address spelled his name Mr. Green Fly. Apparently he was not amused.

Two, that document seems to be in fine shape for a piece of paper that's so aged. That may be a result of faxing it and a bit of image enhancement. Then again, it may not.
Archives do a wonderful job preserving paper, unless it was made with a process that leaves traces of acid in the paper and slowly destroys it over time (50-100 years, IIRC). I have two books at home over 100 years old in excellent shape. My birth certificate is older than the document we're discussing and is very much readable. Same for some letters my dad wrote to my mother when they were courting.

Indeed, the world is awash in old paper in good shape: letters written 300 years ago can still be read, soldiers' diaries from wars fought in the 18th and 19th centuries are in good condition, etc. I find it no surprise at all that a 36 year old piece of paper is in excellent shape.

See also The Deterioration and Preservation of Paper: Some Essential Facts (http://www.loc.gov/preserv/deterioratebrochure.html) [Library of Congress].

Third, Christophera refused to disclose its provenance. I asked him multiple times.
That's certainly troubling and weakens his already non-existant case. Not to mention the fact the document says nothing about a concrete core with 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS.

kevin

24th June 2006, 08:19 PM

Could it possibly be the "dimensional change" on the "43rd or 48th floor" is actually the sky lobby?

What floor was the sky lobby on?

-Andrew

There were 2 sky lobbies. One on the forty-forth floor, another on the seventy-eighth floor. Below each sky lobby was a technical services room not open to the public (probably housed the elevator motors for the elevators banks below that level, plus A/C and electrical stuff.)

The way the elevator system worked is there was one express elevator straight to each sky lobby, then you took local elevators from the sky lobby to your destination.

This means you never had to take more than 2 elevators to get somewhere, plus they could stack the shafts for the local elevators on top of each other reducing the total volume of the elevator shafts in the building.

Belz...

24th June 2006, 08:24 PM

Don't forget to hyper-correlate the undulating byproduct with the integral of the established quantumality before you diversify the paradigm interpretation.

Don't forget to modify the phase variance.

Belz...

24th June 2006, 08:29 PM

Apollyon

24th June 2006, 08:42 PM

I'm of two minds about this. I work with engineers, I used to be an engineer, I would totally expect these type of mistakes from engineers. However I'm from the recent time period where since the computer came out more and more engineers are typing their own documents (and not using spell check very well.) If the documents were typed by a professional rather than an engineer than I might agree.

BTW, the license number on the seal is the correct number for Leslie Robertson -- a level of detail that would surprise me from these people.
As someone who also works with engineers and writes technical manuals based on their input (I work for WDI, if anyone knows what that particular acronym stands for.), I agree with you wholeheartedly concerning today's environment.

However, I'm also a product of the 70s and 80s and used typewriters fairly frequently, including IBM Selectrics. The layout on that document, if done on a Selectric, would require someone pretty intimately familiar with its use.

Most engineers today won't put in the time to get a basic grasp of the layout requirements of a word processor on a computer. I seriously doubt any engineer is going to put in the time to garner the knowledge necessary to create the layout of that document on a typewriter. I'm not saying it's impossible, just highly unlikely. Besides, back in the 60s, a company worth its salt would very likely have had a typing pool churning out those kinds of documents. Typing (and steno) pools were common back then.

Additionally, since this document is basically an internal company specification and part & parcel of the drawing package, it would have been proofed and any mistakes should have been red-lined and submitted for correction before it was signed-off on by the responsible engineer. That basic engineering/documentation procedure hasn't changed in decades.

I also feel that if this document had any pedigree, Chris wouldn't have hesitated to prove its provenance.

RandFan

24th June 2006, 08:49 PM

Could it possibly be the "dimensional change" on the "43rd or 48th floor" is actually the sky lobby?

What floor was the sky lobby on?

-Andrew That's good question. I don't know. I do know that I hate that "dimensional change" stuff.

kevin

24th June 2006, 08:50 PM

But a few things still bother me:

One, that such an experienced typist would permit the word "method" to be mis-typed as "mehtod" and not have gone back and corrected the error. There were error correcting IBM Selectrics as well. Even if one wasn't available, there was still correction tape and, as a last resort, white-out.

Two, that document seems to be in fine shape for a piece of paper that's so aged. That may be a result of faxing it and a bit of image enhancement. Then again, it may not.

Third, Christophera refused to disclose its provenance. I asked him multiple times.

I found the source of the document. It's from the NIST report, probably why Christophera didn't want to fess up where it came from. I believe he made a post saying the NIST report was a lie on every page (or something like that).

go here:
http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-1index.htm
download the Design and Construction of Structural Systems PDF. It's on PDF page 87 (document page 51).

Meffy

24th June 2006, 08:53 PM

Actually, the twin towers were built by HAND by Bob_Kark and Delphi_Ote using nothing but newspaper clippings and bazooka joe chewing gum ...
I can vouch for this much: No paper towel tubes were used as structural elements. But! If we're to believe a past avatar, Arkan employs them as martial arts equipment. Coincidence? Or conspiracy?

I found the source of the document. It's from the NIST report, probably why Christophera didn't want to fess up where it came from. I believe he made a post saying the NIST report was a lie on every page (or something like that).
Again with the irony... *tsk*

Apollyon

24th June 2006, 09:14 PM

I found the source of the document. It's from the NIST report, probably why Christophera didn't want to fess up where it came from. I believe he made a post saying the NIST report was a lie on every page (or something like that).

go here:
http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-1index.htm
download the Design and Construction of Structural Systems PDF. It's on PDF page 87 (document page 51).
Nice sleuthing. I respectfully withdraw my suspicion.

It definitely explains why Christophera didn't want to say where he got it from, because it would demonstrate a penchant for cherry picking evidence.

And thanks for the link. I hadn't read that particular report yet and it contains some nicely detailed information about the construction.

Foster Zygote

24th June 2006, 09:38 PM

Thanks, Belz. There was no way in Hell (no offense, I hear the summers are lovely) I was going to read through a thousand posts looking that info but you've cleared it all up for me. =0)

Thanks
Steven

PS Errrrm... do you know me? Or are you a part of the great Steve Conspiracy too? I haven't seen you at any of the meetings.

kevin

24th June 2006, 10:17 PM

And thanks for the link. I hadn't read that particular report yet and it contains some nicely detailed information about the construction.

I thought this was entertaining (hopefully it's readable).

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/5789449e0dc873bc7.gif

Yeah, the floor of the core is everything inside the columns, not everything inside the 17' invisicrete wall.

There is also a nice floor plan they forgot to put the 17' wall on.

CptColumbo

24th June 2006, 10:25 PM

"A person angry, or laughing, or terrified, or jealous, will go stubbornly on into extremes of behavior impossible at another time[.]"

"Fear is the relinquishment of logic, the willing relinquishment of reasonable patterns. We yield to it or we fight it, but we cannot meet it halfway."

-Shirley Jackson

"With public opinion on your side you cannot fail, without it you cannot succeed."

-Abraham Lincoln

Blue Mountain

24th June 2006, 10:49 PM

Blue Mountain

24th June 2006, 11:01 PM

As someone who also works with engineers and writes technical manuals based on their input (I work for WDI, if anyone knows what that particular acronym stands for.), I agree with you wholeheartedly concerning today's environment.

However, I'm also a product of the 70s and 80s and used typewriters fairly frequently, including IBM Selectrics. The layout on that document, if done on a Selectric, would require someone pretty intimately familiar with its use.

Most engineers today won't put in the time to get a basic grasp of the layout requirements of a word processor on a computer. I seriously doubt any engineer is going to put in the time to garner the knowledge necessary to create the layout of that document on a typewriter. I'm not saying it's impossible, just highly unlikely. Besides, back in the 60s, a company worth its salt would very likely have had a typing pool churning out those kinds of documents. Typing (and steno) pools were common back then.
To me, typing/steno pool == experienced typists.

Additionally, since this document is basically an internal company specification and part & parcel of the drawing package, it would have been proofed and any mistakes should have been red-lined and submitted for correction before it was signed-off on by the responsible engineer. That basic engineering/documentation procedure hasn't changed in decades.
It would be interesting to see if Leslie Robertson would comment on signing a document with such an obvious typo. But I would be amazed if he even remembers that one sheet of paper. It was from 36 years ago, and he must have signed hundreds, if not thousands, of them.

gumboot

24th June 2006, 11:12 PM

I can vouch for this much: No paper towel tubes were used as structural elements.

Hah! Asserting something will not make it assimilated. You must provide photo evidence during collapse of this lack of paper towel tubes, otherwise I win by default. If there is no paper towel tube, why does it appear in this photo of the core (http://www.ntua.gr/posdep/logos/Kitten+Gun.jpg)?

-Andrew

Belz...

25th June 2006, 06:08 AM

I can vouch for this much: No paper towel tubes were used as structural elements. But! If we're to believe a past avatar, Arkan employs them as martial arts equipment. Coincidence? Or conspiracy?

Conspiradence... or Coinciracy!!

Arkan_Wolfshade

25th June 2006, 07:45 AM

Meffy

25th June 2006, 07:55 AM

If there is no paper towel tube, why does it appear in this photo of the core?
You have misidentified a kitten as a so-called "paper towel tube." Kittens were also not directly used in the construction of the WTC, though statistics (which unfortunately have been made secret by the U.S. Government Department of Pointless Secrecy and Constitution-Thwarting) strongly suggest that one or more of the people working on the towers did in fact keep kittens at their dwellings.

Seemingly more supportive of your contention, some people call paper towel tubes "cores." But nice, decent folks don't speak to that kind of person.

Now I'm off to cast corporate horoscopes for the world's three top manufacturers of Invisicrete. I anticipate discovering many valuable clues, and if not I'll have something to shred and put into the compost heap along with all the rest.

cloudshipsrule

25th June 2006, 08:26 AM

No one has mentioned the obvious. In the mid 70's two government agencies were experimenting with C4-impregnated toilet tissue 'tubes'. When examining the evidence of 911, there are mysterious elements that can only be explained by assuming some of the C4-impregnated toilet tissue tube technology was used to construct the WTC buildings. There is no denying this, as evidenced by photographic proof:

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

Apollyon

25th June 2006, 08:51 AM

I thought this was entertaining (hopefully it's readable).

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/5789449e0dc873bc7.gif

Yeah, the floor of the core is everything inside the columns, not everything inside the 17' invisicrete wall.

There is also a nice floor plan they forgot to put the 17' wall on.
Hehe. Yeah, I've read through the document twice now. No wonder Christophera dismisses it. The report destroys what he claims to "KNOW."

Does he also claim that the documents included and referenced within were all forgeries created by NIST?

Many of the documents are attributed to the Port Authority as well, including references to information from drawings. Yet Christophera claims that Giuliani has them firmly under his complicitous thumb. Maybe those documents are part of the dimensional change he speaks of since they can exist in two places at once?

Woody-

25th June 2006, 04:14 PM

Looks like Christophera has found a new place to haunt over at the PhysOrgForum http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=idx

He says this

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5637&st=30

Just got banned from randi.org. What an amazing 36 hours. Never seen more disinfos on one forum so well aligned, but some of them wern't and they didn't know it. Fortunately I'd seen every argument about 20 times and was totally prepared. After 250 posts in the thread they resorted to posted baking recipes, reciting "Henry the Eighth I am" posting pictures of fruit and cats.

It was astounding, not one single image of the structure NIST says existed was produced in 350 posts to support that the core was made of steel columns. Then the mods decided; after a few posters started realizing that I was answering every question with logic and reasoning consistent with all the construction technique/knowledge they knew and began asking good quetions, showing they were really understanding that the tower cores were concrete; that my links and image posts were violations and banned me.

I guess I'll have to lurk there for a bit to get some chuckles.

Meffy

25th June 2006, 06:17 PM

Has he actually been banned? Or just suspended as it says below his nick, and he's trying for Bonus Martyr Brownie Points(tm)?

Ducky

25th June 2006, 06:28 PM

He wasn't banned, he was suspended for 3 days for abusing the "report post" button. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=58899)

Apparently his ansswer to being totally torn to shreds is to purposely martyr himself and go brag/lie about how well he did here.

kevin

25th June 2006, 06:42 PM

Looks like Christophera has found a new place to haunt over at the PhysOrgForum http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=idx

I guess I'll have to lurk there for a bit to get some chuckles.

If you decide to go out of lurk mode there, feel free to post this whenever he links to his concretecore.741.com site.

Your site proves nothing, see here:
http://NoConcreteCore.741.com/

I put that up at a really close URL to his just to annoy him, I'm sorry about the pop-ups. I'll find a beter site to put it at another time.

I'd do it myself but typing that all up and actually hunting things down instead of pulling them out of my butt like he does has taken too much of my time. I really need to start working on real things instead his imaginary crap.

CptColumbo

25th June 2006, 06:53 PM

Fortunately I'd seen every argument about 20 times and was totally prepared.

Of course you saw it twenty times, we were answering your same question twenty times.

CptColumbo

25th June 2006, 07:09 PM

At http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5637&st=45
NCBuff posted

Concerning the claim that there was no rebar in the floors, here's a video that shows the construction of the WTC. In part two you can plainly seeing them tieing rebar over the floors and subsequently pouring concrete.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeat..._pop_01_qt.html

And Christophera. I read that thread over at the Randi forums, and it's a long one. Those guys worked you over pretty thoroughly. You did a lousy job of proving anything related to your claim and you looked pretty dumb in the process too.
I can't wait to see chris' response.

Ducky

25th June 2006, 07:13 PM

At http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5637&st=45
NCBuff posted

Someone send that guy the link to Christophera's suspension so that can be on the record over there too.

Christophera makes it look like he was "banned" for not agreeing with us. The truth is much more pathetic.

CptColumbo

25th June 2006, 07:25 PM

Someone already did.

Here:http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5637&st=30

He seems to being as well there as here.

Ducky

25th June 2006, 07:41 PM

Someone already did.

Here:http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5637&st=30

He seems to being as well there as here.

His reply is hysterical.

Let me get this right.

I'm supposed to follow forum rules but the US government does not have to follow laws of due process automatic to the commision of capitol crimes, and if I choose to not pay any attention to the forum rules and simply do the best I can to be sure that no more capitol crimes occur, that I should instead, not share information which may protect life because I'm breakng forum rules.

You are using a congnitive distrotion called "entitlement".

Truly he has a dizzying intellect.

That's the biggest steaming pile of non-sequitur I have ever read.

Meffy

25th June 2006, 07:42 PM

*read*

*jawdrop*

Hey, kids -- we're all psyop agents! I want a jet backpack and a cool trench coat. [edit] With a heat-resistant tail shield.

CptColumbo

25th June 2006, 07:50 PM

At first I was thinking that one of us should head over there to tell our side, but they seem to be suffering as we did. I thought this would be another CT site that he would retreat to and become a martyr. Thankfully they seem capable of seeing through BS.

To any of the folks at that site who might be reading this. Hi. Good job. We empathize and sympathize. Consider joining us here, we could always use new blood for some of our discussions. We talk about more than just 9-11.

Ducky

25th June 2006, 07:52 PM

I had to get a response in over there to show his childish games:

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5637&st=45&#entry102445

Gravy

25th June 2006, 07:58 PM

I had to get a response in over there to show his childish games:

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5637&st=45&#entry102445
Fowlsound, you show up as "Unregistered" there. What happened?

Christophera is too funny. Here's his take on us: (http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5637&view=findpost&p=95489)
THX,

Appreciate the explanation of their system. Sounds like a real pain. I only detected maybe 3 open minds from the group. They've got the message now.

Disinfo is an action not a name. Murder is an action not a name. Lying is an action not a name. Support for a lie hiding murder is an action.

I call it like I see the action and when they start ganging up on me with their denial and support for lies hiding murder, their collective actions reach new lows exhibited by choice individuals who have attained the level of scum. A life dynamic of the most disgusting properties of the actions above. They are being human scum, an action. Certainly a dehumanizing thing if it's entertained at all so when I sense it, I try to identify it.

And ...... to boot, randi.org is anti sentient. No wanna' evolve.

Whoever here has the "Open minds" he refers to, be very, very worried.

Ducky

25th June 2006, 07:59 PM

I didn't bother to register. You can post as unregistered there.

Apollyon

25th June 2006, 08:26 PM

Woah! Christophera has an open mind detector?

Well he didn't get to me because I know how to evade his aluminum* foiling equipment.

*aluminium to you for-in-nerds. :p

Meffy

25th June 2006, 08:30 PM

Woah! Christophera has an open mind detector?
It's easier than you might think. If the mind is sufficiently open, an ear candle doubles as a sensitive draft detector.

Well he didn't get to me because I know how to evade his aluminum* foiling equipment.
Curses! You-know-whatted again.

Apollyon

25th June 2006, 09:23 PM

It's easier than you might think. If the mind is sufficiently open, an ear candle doubles as a sensitive draft detector.
Only if a concrete core doesn't impede the flow. :)

Regnad Kcin

25th June 2006, 11:02 PM

...Truly he has a dizzying intellect.I totally agree, there is a massive psyop going on. I see it on a scale that is huge

What I'm acutely aware of is groupings. The psyops works to create grouping of people that believe in one aspect or another then feed their assumption that their information, perception, theory is correct AND the right direction for discussion. Keeping discussion away from actual descitions of what happened. Certainly the impression that the group exists is intitially created by just a few. By using misinformation and ridicule they "herd the cats", over a period of time into a group that has its own perspective that is self verified. The group, finally comprised of a mix of truth seekers and psyop agents, gains a degree of credibility that is tangible to the uniformed viewer. The truth seekers of the group feel a loyalty to the group belief and seek to maintian the shared paradigm just to avoid being rejected, ridiculed rather than hinging their support on hard, relevant facts and unifying only on those as they support the actual event witnessed.Remarkable.

Gravy

25th June 2006, 11:09 PM

It's easier than you might think. If the mind is sufficiently open, an ear candle doubles as a sensitive draft detector.
:D

Gravy

25th June 2006, 11:13 PM

Originally Posted by Christophera @ physorg :
tangible to the uniformed viewer.
The postman always rings twice.
Then knocks three times.
Then says the secret password.

celestrin

26th June 2006, 03:25 AM

Hello everybody. I've been following Randi's column for years now and have occasionally also popped in the forum for additional doses of debunking. It's provided a fine ride in a world infested with superstitions, demons, healing waters with selective memory, machines, which are able to light a flourescent lamp by tapping into zero point energy, while being plugged into the electric mains, pyramid sellers and spoon benders, gifted people who can read from cards, feel from stars, see from remote or hear from beyond... In short, world infested with a complete lack of critical thinking.

I've just read through all Loose Change threads. It took me over a month. Nice job, you rascally ninja wave globalist waves you!

A few points to add about this topic.
This is where Christophera got his concrete core photos.

amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/

Those pics provide enough visual clues to figure out exactly where they were taken from and it was more than 2km away. Those pics cannot show 3" rebar, even if it was more concrete than Christophera's figment of imagination, since they lack the needed resolution.

Pics wtc34.JPG-wtc37.JPG also provide close up views of the "spire". Christophera's 3" rebar suddenly transforms itself into full-sized steel core columns, or, as Christophera affectionately calls them, interior box columns and elevator guide rails. Not perimeter wall, but core columns. But that's about all Christophera got right, I guess.

Christophera, you keep asking for a picture of steel core columns.

If you decide to come back after the suspension, could you tell me, please, how would you recognize steel core columns? What sets them apart from interior box columns and elevator guide rails and whatnot?

What is the property of interior box columns, which allows you to identify them as such?

What is the property of elevator guide rails, which allows you to identify them as such?

What is the property of FEMA-style steel core columns, which would allow you to identify them as such, if I showed them to you?

Do you expect any other type of steel columns on the Ground Zero site except for the exterior columns, internal box columns and guide rail columns? How would you recognize those?

Ducky

26th June 2006, 03:34 AM

Welcome celestrin. Please introduce yourself in the "welcome new posters" thread in the community subforum.

Meffy

26th June 2006, 05:54 AM

Only if a concrete core doesn't impede the flow. :)
No troubles. When the angle of sunrise is correct, sunlight streams right through.

[edit] Hi, celestrin. Don't hold your breath waiting for answers, but the questions are good.

tacodaemon

26th June 2006, 06:01 AM

This thread has been going on for 54 pages now and I'm still waiting for a realistic explanation of the spelling "realistice".

Meffy

26th June 2006, 06:07 AM

This thread has been going on for 54 pages now and I'm still waiting for a realistic explanation of the spelling "realistice".
Brand of consumer sound equipment sold by Radioe Shacke.

aggle-rithm

26th June 2006, 06:49 AM

Don't forget to hyper-correlate the undulating byproduct with the integral of the established quantumality before you diversify the paradigm interpretation.

Great! I miss one meeting of the Govt. Shill Association, and now I'm totally lost...

aggle-rithm

26th June 2006, 06:56 AM

This thread has been going on for 54 pages now and I'm still waiting for a realistic explanation of the spelling "realistice".

I just assumed he was French Canadian.

Regnad Kcin

26th June 2006, 07:38 AM

I had to get a response in over there to show his childish games:

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5637&st=45&#entry102445I would press him on his claim that he was "banned" here. If the gentleman can't be counted on to display honesty and integrity with regard to such a small matter, why should his greater claims be given any consideration?

kevin

26th June 2006, 07:52 AM

A few points to add about this topic.
This is where Christophera got his concrete core photos.

amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/

Those pics provide enough visual clues to figure out exactly where they were taken from and it was more than 2km away. Those pics cannot show 3" rebar, even if it was more concrete than Christophera's figment of imagination, since they lack the needed resolution.

Welcome to the board! And excellent find!

One of Christophera's pictures claims to show the outline of a concrete core. on my page (just to prove I can link as much as he: http://noconcretecore.741.com) I speculate that it is actually the outline of One Liberty Plaza.

Take a look here:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/5789449fe6853f968.jpg

I do believe after the dust clears you clearly see One Liberty Plaza.

azazal

26th June 2006, 07:56 AM

Mojo

26th June 2006, 08:14 AM

Well now, take a weekend off and I see Chris is out for a bit and of trying to be a martyr. Funny, if it had been a reverse situation - a real truth seeker on a CT loon board, I wonder how long it would have taken for the banning, not suspension, to happen. Something around 2 posts maybe? Oh-well, bring on the next chew toyHas there been any comment about SBrown's suspension yet? He/she had to work quite hard for it (always assuming he/she wasn't just too lazy to read the forum rules before agreeing to them, or too stupid to understand them...).

Johnny Pixels

26th June 2006, 08:19 AM

Has there been any comment about SBrown's suspension yet? He/she had to work quite hard for it (always assuming he/she wasn't just too lazy to read the forum rules before agreeing to them, or too stupid to understand them...).

I got a PM from him, and I've know idea who he is and never commented on any of his threads, so I'm guessing he sent them out in bulk to random people.

tacodaemon

26th June 2006, 08:27 AM

Take a look here:
forums.randi.org/imagehost/5789449fe6853f968.jpg

I do believe after the dust clears you clearly see One Liberty Plaza.

Actually that's the Millennium Hilton in the middle there; One Liberty Plaza is hidden behind 1WFC on the right from that angle.

This image I made in Google Earth shows how far it is just to the Jersey shore from the WTC in the viewing direction shown in Christophera's "spire" picture (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg). I can't but think that that is much farther than Christophera thinks it is.

http://i5.tinypic.com/15qdgck.jpg

Yeah, Christophera thinks he can spot three-inch-wide rebar in a compressed jpg taken from more than 1.14 miles away. And that's just ground distance, not counting the more than 750-800 feet or so up to the top of the "spire". (Note that the spire is taller than both the 645-foot 2WFC (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=115594) and the 739-foot 3WFC (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=115595) in Christophera's picture (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg).)

Belz...

26th June 2006, 08:36 AM

the U.S. Government Department of Pointless Secrecy and Constitution-Thwarting

also known as GoDePoSCoTH

Belz...

26th June 2006, 08:38 AM

Of course you saw it twenty times, we were answering your same question twenty times.

Only 20 ?

Belz...

26th June 2006, 08:42 AM

That's the biggest steaming pile of non-sequitur I have ever read.

Christophera could be used as an example in a debate against the merits of democracy.

If HE can vote, then what ? ;)

Meffy

26th June 2006, 08:43 AM

Yeah, Christophera thinks he can spot three-inch-wide rebar in a compressed jpg taken from more than 1.14 miles away.
Are you kidding? Why, I can find entire alien cities in a compressed jpg photo of Randi's face!

Belz...

26th June 2006, 08:46 AM

Remarkable.

The truth seekers of the group feel a loyalty to the group belief and seek to maintian the shared paradigm just to avoid being rejected, ridiculed rather than hinging their support on hard, relevant facts and unifying only on those as they support the actual event witnessed.

Oh... I'm SO in need of support from you guys, I couldn't possibly disagree with anything you said. Deep down, Gravy, I KNOW that LC is right... deep down, I worship mister Avery. But... I ... Just can't show it here... I feel repressed.

What a dork.

Belz...

26th June 2006, 08:48 AM

Hello everybody. I've been following Randi's column for years now and have occasionally also popped in the forum for additional doses of debunking.

Welcome, Celestrin. And don't listen to Fowlsound about the community forum. It's just a plot to brainwash you into our Globalist organisation.

Meffy

26th June 2006, 08:51 AM

Globalist organisation.
Wash all you want, my brain's too small ever to be convinced the world isn't flat. "Globalism" indeed, feh.

Belz...

26th June 2006, 08:51 AM

I just assumed he was French Canadian.

Sorry, in French that would be "réaliste".

One of Christophera's pictures claims to show the outline of a concrete core. on my page (just to prove I can link as much as he: http://noconcretecore.741.com) I speculate that it is actually the outline of One Liberty Plaza.

I do believe after the dust clears you clearly see One Liberty Plaza.

Does ANYONE have an actual video in which we could see exactly what that is ? I'm SOooo tired of seeing it from this angle...

Belz...

26th June 2006, 08:52 AM

Wash all you want, my brain's too small ever to be convinced the world isn't flat. "Globalism" indeed, feh.

Well, "the world is round-ish" is yet ANOTHER one of our clever plots.

After all, who would want to fall himself a "platalist" ?

Meffy

26th June 2006, 09:18 AM

*ponder*

... erm, Plato? :-}

Belz...

26th June 2006, 09:21 AM

From Kevin's link to PBS:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/sf_building_pop_01_qry.html

SOMEONE should tell chris to check out the first few minutes of part 2. We CLEARLY see the core during construction, they actually mention and SHOW core columns, and we can actually see THROUGH the core, which means there was no concrete already in place, contrary to chris' assertion.

Belz...

26th June 2006, 09:22 AM

*ponder*

... erm, Plato? :-}

No. Plate. As opposed to globe.

Meffy

26th June 2006, 09:27 AM

Nono. Plato is the answer to "who would want to call himself a platalist?"

Gravy

26th June 2006, 09:27 AM

Welcome to the board! And excellent find!

One of Christophera's pictures claims to show the outline of a concrete core. on my page (just to prove I can link as much as he: http://noconcretecore.741.com) I speculate that it is actually the outline of One Liberty Plaza.

Take a look here:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/5789449fe6853f968.jpg

I do believe after the dust clears you clearly see One Liberty Plaza.
After first ruling out 1 Liberty Plaza as the source of that shadowy outline, I've said that I think Christophera's photo shows a region of dark, warm, less dene smoke within the debris cloud. In several videos you can see that when the towers collapsed, they dragged a column of black smoke down with them. The photo below, taken from the east, shows that central black column. If it were part of the building's core, no matter what that was made of, it's collapse would have been a spectacular event.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8790449ffa2318feb.jpg

Belz...

26th June 2006, 09:38 AM

Nono. Plato is the answer to "who would want to call himself a platalist?"

You're misrepresenting the data, here. I guess this is what geggy meant by frontal lobe problems.

Belz...

26th June 2006, 09:39 AM

After first ruling out 1 Liberty Plaza as the source of that shadowy outline, I've said that I think Christophera's photo shows a region of dark, warm, less dene smoke within the debris cloud. In several videos you can see that when the towers collapsed, they dragged a column of black smoke down with them. The photo below, taken from the east, shows that central black column. If it were part of the building's core, no matter what that was made of, it's collapse would have been a spectacular event.

That was my first idea too: smoke column, though it's possible shadows had something to do with the effect on chris' photo.

Pardalis

26th June 2006, 09:43 AM

Or maybe there was some residual structure that kept standing just a few seconds after the initial collapse, like for the second collapse. That doesn't mean necesserally that it was a concrete core.

CptColumbo

26th June 2006, 09:45 AM

Only 20 ?
Just using his numbers, that were of course wrong.

Mancman

26th June 2006, 09:45 AM

Yeah, Christophera thinks he can spot three-inch-wide rebar in a compressed jpg taken from more than 1.14 miles away. And that's just ground distance, not counting the more than 750-800 feet or so up to the top of the "spire". (Note that the spire is taller than both the 645-foot 2WFC and the 739-foot 3WFC in Christophera's Picture.

There's a video on youtube entitled 'WTC North Tower Collapse'(which I cannot yet link to) on which you can measure up the full height of the 'spire'. It was about the height of the 78th floor skylobby, approx 970ft.

I wonder why such a large, random piece of building would be present in a controlled demolition, how did it survive all those C4 and basement detonations? :rolleyes:

Meffy

26th June 2006, 09:47 AM

You're misrepresenting the data, here. I guess this is what geggy meant by frontal lobe problems.
Pish and Tosh. Marley, even. I'll even show you my calculations!

<declaim> O great calculator, what power is behind all the evil in the world today? </declaim>

*punches in numbers, turns calculator upside down, shows cute result*

See? "SHELLOIL" -- that one always cracks me up...

azazal

26th June 2006, 09:50 AM

Does ANYONE have an actual video in which we could see exactly what that is ? I'm SOooo tired of seeing it from this angle...

Back in Post 1845 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1723181&postcount=1845) I liked a video from a different CT nut's site that shows the central spire collapsing

Belz...

26th June 2006, 10:01 AM

Pish and Tosh. Marley, even. I'll even show you my calculations!

<declaim> O great calculator, what power is behind all the evil in the world today? </declaim>

*punches in numbers, turns calculator upside down, shows cute result*

See? "SHELLOIL" -- that one always cracks me up...

That's it! I'm calling my lawyers!!

The skunk's going down!

Meffy

26th June 2006, 10:20 AM

My personal life is no business of yours. Now, you wanted a lawyer. How do you do? My business card.

Meffy Ellis

Not a Lawyer
But I Play One on Television

I work at reasonable rates and in case of client hardship will accept yacht deeds, gold bullion, and cottages in the Hamptons as payment.

kevin

26th June 2006, 10:26 AM

After first ruling out 1 Liberty Plaza as the source of that shadowy outline, I've said that I think Christophera's photo shows a region of dark, warm, less dene smoke within the debris cloud.

These are the two images I was comparing:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/578944a009bdd8faf.gif
http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/5789449fe6853f968.jpg

Not convinced myself at the moment the smoke one isn't just dark smoke, but the two are shot from different angles so that might account for the differences.

Pardalis

26th June 2006, 10:27 AM

Here is my personal take on what could be the mysterious shadow in Chris's picture.

This is a screen shot from a video on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJig1wj7oLI&search=WTC%20Collapse

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/888644a009671f6af.png
(at about 1 minute into the video)

The yellow arrow is the angle from Christophera's photo.

The red line is what could possibly be a "structure" (maybe an outer wall or interior columns) that collapsed after the initial collapse.

Of course, this is inconclusive either way, but just another take on it.

CptColumbo

26th June 2006, 10:33 AM

It's getting depressing to look at these photos. Knowing that there are still people inside those buildings trying to get out. A friend of mine knows someone who worked in tower two. She got out, and only talked to him once about the panic of the people trying to get out. It's not something that can be told second or third hand.

It's even more depressing the way people like SBrown, Roxdog, and Christophera see this as a game. I may not treat them seriously, but I will always treat the events of 9-11 seriously.

Meffy

26th June 2006, 10:36 AM

It's getting depressing to look at these photos. Knowing that there are still people inside those buildings trying to get out. A friend of mine knows someone who worked in tower two. She got out, and only talked to him once about the panic of the people trying to get out. It's not something that can be told second or third hand.
That gets to me too. Between the pranking ghouls (SBrown, IMO) and the wild-eyed belief addicts it can get wearing even for someone who doesn't dig deeply into the topic as the real debunkers have done.

[edit] How 'bout that -- your edit covered what I said. No surprises there.

CptColumbo

26th June 2006, 10:41 AM

[edit] How 'bout that -- your edit covered what I said. No surprises there.
Yeah, sorry about that. I guess it's true about great minds.

What pisses me off is when the CTers try to say they're doing it for the victims. They ain't doing it for the victims (at least a majority of them), they're doing it to feed their egos.

Mancman

26th June 2006, 10:42 AM

Not convinced myself at the moment the smoke one isn't just dark smoke, but the two are shot from different angles so that might account for the differences.

You can see Liberty Plaza in the 'core' photo, on the far left, obscured by a diagonal plume of smoke. The dark shape IS the core.

Meffy

26th June 2006, 10:44 AM

@Columbo: Exactly so. :-(

Pardalis

26th June 2006, 10:49 AM

You can see Liberty Plaza in the 'core' photo, on the far left, obscured by a diagonal plume of smoke. The dark shape IS the core.

I think you are correct. Liberty Plaza isn't tall enough to make such a shadow anyway.

kevin

26th June 2006, 10:56 AM

These are the two images I was comparing:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/578944a009bdd8faf.gif
http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/5789449fe6853f968.jpg

Not convinced myself at the moment the smoke one isn't just dark smoke, but the two are shot from different angles so that might account for the differences.

Here's an export from Google Earth. I highlighted in green the buildings that were directly behind the WTC buildings. I believe all 3 were present on 9/11.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/578944a0118f8ed8e.jpg

Mancman

26th June 2006, 11:01 AM

The dark shape isn't the Hilton, Liberty Plaza or a plume of smoke. It is a genuine piece of core that resisted the collapse.
But more to the point of this thread, there is absolutely no way anyone could accurately conclude that it is constructed of concrete from that photo. The fact that this is christophera's biggest piece of 'evidence' gives an indication of how weak the basis of his theory is.

Pardalis

26th June 2006, 11:02 AM

Respectfully Kevin, I don't think any of these buildings are tall enough to have cast such a shadow. Unless the light source is extremely low, a building can't make a taller shadow than itself. :)

kevin

26th June 2006, 11:21 AM

Respectfully Kevin, I don't think any of these buildings are tall enough to have cast such a shadow. Unless the light source is extremely low, a building can't make a taller shadow than itself. :)

I don't disagree, I haven't convinced myself. I'm just showing some of the stuff I'm going through to come to a real conclusion. Christophera just spouts off whatever happens to make the picture agree with his already formed conclusions.

but the picture with the smoke is taken from a lower angle and closer up, which would make for a bigger shadow....

Pardalis

26th June 2006, 11:30 AM

I think we're all doing what Christophera should have been doing a long time ago, wich is to analyse and sort through the data.

Clearly Chris hasn't ever tried to figure out where his "core base" evidence was situated (Gravy finally showed it was a piece of WTC1 rubble). And he has never tried to explain what that shadow could be, other than his concrete core".

Even though, Kevin, I think in this case you are mistaken, at least you're doing real research, and it's all to your credit. ;)

Pardalis

26th June 2006, 12:29 PM

Ducky

26th June 2006, 12:32 PM

Look again pardalis, you also see one standing upright on the right.

tacodaemon

26th June 2006, 12:36 PM

Here's an export from Google Earth. I highlighted in green the buildings that were directly behind the WTC buildings. I believe all 3 were present on 9/11.

Just for the record, the three buildings in question are (left to right) the Millennium Hilton (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=114208), 22 Cortlandt Street (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=114609), and One Liberty Plaza (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=115454), and yes they were all there at the time.

kevin

26th June 2006, 12:42 PM

Has anyone seen this picture of WTC1 rubble before the clean up ?

http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/engineering/engineering_damage_03.html

I'm no engeneer but I think I see a big steel column leaning on an angle.

ETA: another interesting picture http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/engineering/engineering_rescue_07.html

Christophera has been shown similar photos all the time. His contention is that the concrete core had exterior steel columns on it and that is what you're seeing. Further he contends the amount of concrete in rubble piles would be half of what is shown if there had been no concrete core. Of course he has refused to show calculations proving a) the amount of concrete in the building according to his design, b) the amount of concrete in the rubble piles.

kevin

26th June 2006, 12:43 PM

Oh yeah, there is a cleaner floor plan in the NIST structural engineering report, although it's a different floor than that one (elevator hallways are in different positions.)

I really wish the NIST report had higher res scans.

Belz...

26th June 2006, 12:50 PM

My personal life is no business of yours. Now, you wanted a lawyer. How do you do? My business card.

I work at reasonable rates and in case of client hardship will accept yacht deeds, gold bullion, and cottages in the Hamptons as payment.

Ooh !! OOhh! Let's work together on this case. You can help be sue Meffy (you) for posting misrepresented information!!

...wait a minute...

(and what's the deal about your personnal life ?)

Belz...

26th June 2006, 12:53 PM

You can see Liberty Plaza in the 'core' photo, on the far left, obscured by a diagonal plume of smoke. The dark shape IS the core.

What core ? It should've collapsed with the rest of the building, anyway. If it's not a shadow, I say (again) that it's just a smoke column. I'm no demolitions expert, but I'd expect that from such a collapse.

Mancman

26th June 2006, 01:05 PM

What core ? It should've collapsed with the rest of the building, anyway. If it's not a shadow, I say (again) that it's just a smoke column. I'm no demolitions expert, but I'd expect that from such a collapse.

The core did stand for a few seconds, and if anything, it's an indication of an extremely choatic, unplanned event. It provides further credence for the observed collapse times, as it demonstrates that not everything was pancaked and ripped apart, some of it simply toppled over presumably due to having debris smash into it close to it's base.

I can't post URLs yet, so I'll have to direct you to this; Google 'BBC horizon world trade', look at the first hit and read the transcript of the documentary, particularly this part:

"NARRATOR: Since that day, investigators have poured over hundreds of hours of video images trying to find out exactly why the South Tower failed. The man in charge of the official inquiry is structural engineer Gene Corley. He noticed something in pictures taken by a nearby firm of architects. It shows that much of the core, which supported most of the downward weight of the building, was intact when the tower fell.

GENE CORLEY: It comes down. Looks like part of the core still showing there and the size and the spacing of the columns it looks like it must have been the core.

NARRATOR: IF so much of the core was standing the suggestion must be that it was not responsible for starting the collapse."

But most important of all - THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR A CONCRETE CORE!

Pardalis

26th June 2006, 01:08 PM

Here's is a very unprofessional analysis of the shadow. So feel free to criticize it :D

This is Christophera's picture, to wich I added the red lines to show how tall the shadow is compared to 2 WFC. (not very scientific though)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/888644a02dfdc33b3.jpg

And here's the same picture superimposed on a larger view of the scene, taken from the same angle. Luckily, the two pictures match perfectly.
(from http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/888644a038afb5f72.jpg

Now the only building tall enough and near enough that could have made this shadow is Liberty Plaza. But the shadow is about the same size. Unless the sun was at a direct 90 degree angle, I don't see how that could be possible, given the distance.

But I could very well be wrong.

ETA: the direction of the light from the sun seems to come from behind the buildings, maybe from the right, but I am not sure.

Mancman

26th June 2006, 01:10 PM

Just a note: You've labelled 1 Chase Manhattan Plaza as 1 Liberty Plaza.

Meffy

26th June 2006, 01:11 PM

Ooh !! OOhh! Let's work together on this case. You can help be sue Meffy (you) for posting misrepresented information!!
Great, we'll both be rich...
(and what's the deal about your personnal life ?)
Terribly lame innuendo, nemmind.

Arkan_Wolfshade

26th June 2006, 01:14 PM

Great, we'll both be rich...

Terribly lame innuendo, nemmind.

"He said I'd blown a seal. I said, 'Fix the d@mn thing and keep my private life out of it, okay pal."

Meffy

26th June 2006, 01:15 PM

badda-BOOMP! tssssch

Pardalis

26th June 2006, 01:25 PM

Just a note: You've labelled 1 Chase Manhattan Plaza as 1 Liberty Plaza.

Oh, so where is Liberty Plaza?

Mancman

26th June 2006, 01:29 PM

Oh, so where is Liberty Plaza?

It's the black box directly below the 'shadow' of your 'mysterious shadow' text, partly obscured by smoke.

Pardalis

26th June 2006, 01:35 PM

It's the black box directly below the 'shadow' of your 'mysterious shadow' text, partly obscured by smoke.

Ah, got it! Thanks

azazal

26th June 2006, 02:47 PM

Oh, so where is Liberty Plaza?

It's the black box directly below the 'shadow' of your 'mysterious shadow' text, partly obscured by smoke.

Ah, got it! Thanks

Something Chris will never understand, peer review and correction in action.

Sal The Butcher

26th June 2006, 04:04 PM

kevin

26th June 2006, 05:08 PM

for whoever said there was a concrete core

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZS5a7je5Vs (PART 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fm7B1vvkXnQ (PART 2)
(THE BUILDING OF THE WTC, PRODUCED LOOOOOONG BEFORE 911)

I already linked to those over on the american experience section on PBS. Can't remember if he ever even commented on them.

there should be a part 3 too, unless these are longer clips.

CptColumbo

26th June 2006, 09:24 PM

It will be interesting to read how Chris explains his lies on the other forum, once he returns here. If he returns.

Chris,
Why should we trust your evidence, when you're a proven liar (or extreme exaggerater)?

MEB-SG

Regnad Kcin

26th June 2006, 09:53 PM

From NOVA Online: Why the Towers Fell (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/) contains a short but interesting interview (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html) with Dr. Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at MIT.

Conducted in December of 2001, he chats in simple-to-access language about several pertinent points, including the one that started this thread:

NOVA: I've read that the collapse was a near free-fall.

Eagar: Yes. That's because the forces, it's been estimated, were anywhere from 10 to 100 times greater than an individual floor could support. First of all, you had 10 or 20 floors above that came crashing down. That's about 10 or 20 times the weight you'd ever expect on one angle clip. There's also the impact force, that is, if something hits very hard, there's a bigger force than if you lower it down very gently.Psst: no mention of a concrete core whatsoever.

asmodean

27th June 2006, 01:29 AM

*read*

*jawdrop*

Hey, kids -- we're all psyop agents! I want a jet backpack and a cool trench coat. [edit] With a heat-resistant tail shield.

Oooh. Always wanted to be a PsyOp agent. I'm just worried that it will cause problems with my current assignemtns within EAC and as a Globalist. I mean, this wont force me to stop from burying fake fossiles to lure christians to belive evilution and thus go straight to hell? I kinda like that part of the job. Oh, and I won't get my black helicopter allowance cut, will I?

Belz...

27th June 2006, 04:57 AM

Great, we'll both be rich...

Mouahahahaaha!

Terribly lame innuendo, nemmind.

Yeah I think I got it just as I was clicking the "Submit reply" button.

Shame... SHAME on you!!

Hellbound

27th June 2006, 07:15 AM

Oooh. Always wanted to be a PsyOp agent. I'm just worried that it will cause problems with my current assignemtns within EAC and as a Globalist. I mean, this wont force me to stop from burying fake fossiles to lure christians to belive evilution and thus go straight to hell? I kinda like that part of the job. Oh, and I won't get my black helicopter allowance cut, will I?

Don't worry, the Gloablists have a partnership with the PsyOps agents, and we do a work-trade program with EAC.

And we all use black helicopters.

Meffy

27th June 2006, 07:22 AM

Wow, UPS just arrived to deliver my trench coat and jet pack -- with metal blast shield so my tail doesn't get incinerated! There's a postcard in one pocket of the coat suggesting I should sign up for psychic espionage courses... PsiPsySpyOps? Coooool. *fills it out*

Being in PsyOps is every bit as good as I'd imagined. And my imagination is pretty vigorous.

Belz...

27th June 2006, 09:26 AM

And my imagination is pretty vigorous.

I thought we should'nt be talking about your private life ?

Mancman

27th June 2006, 09:37 AM

*read*

*jawdrop*

Hey, kids -- we're all psyop agents! I want a jet backpack and a cool trench coat. [edit] With a heat-resistant tail shield.

My last two cheques from the CIA bounced, what can I do? :eek:

azazal

27th June 2006, 09:45 AM

gumboot

27th June 2006, 09:46 AM

And we all use black helicopters.

Black helicopters are compulsory.

-Andrew

Meffy

27th June 2006, 11:20 AM

I thought we should'nt be talking about your private life ?
Just so. My imagination is public, as is the OP's. :-}

Mancman

27th June 2006, 11:48 AM

After first ruling out 1 Liberty Plaza as the source of that shadowy outline, I've said that I think Christophera's photo shows a region of dark, warm, less dene smoke within the debris cloud. In several videos you can see that when the towers collapsed, they dragged a column of black smoke down with them. The photo below, taken from the east, shows that central black column. If it were part of the building's core, no matter what that was made of, it's collapse would have been a spectacular event.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8790449ffa2318feb.jpg

Check out the last photo in that series: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp7.html

Meffy

27th June 2006, 12:14 PM

Black helicopters are compulsory.
Well, only for formal evening wear.

tacodaemon

27th June 2006, 12:17 PM

Check out the last photo in that series: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp7.html

Interesting, I see what you're referring to. What do you reckon?

Pardalis

27th June 2006, 12:20 PM

Interesting, I see what you're referring to. What do you reckon?

It shows that some structure briefly kept standing. Don't you think?

tacodaemon

27th June 2006, 12:27 PM

It shows that some structure briefly kept standing. Don't you think?
I think so. I'm not 100% sure it's not smoke swirls, but it does look like there's a piece of the tower still standing briefly.

Pardalis

27th June 2006, 12:30 PM

Of course, with that in mind, the paranoid individual swiftly jumps to the conclusion of a conspiracy. ;)

Apollyon

27th June 2006, 01:23 PM

Mancman

27th June 2006, 01:44 PM

Something interesting I just saw. Watch this ABC video of the south tower collapse:

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc2_abc_3.mpg

Notice that at one point, right about 6 - 7 second into the video, the black smoke swirls into this eerie looking black square shape, then kind of dissipates (go frame by frame and it's very obvious). Could that be the "core" that Christophera claims to be seeing?

Look above WTC7 in the last half of the video, an intact structure is barely visible through the smoke.

The same structure is also barely visible in this video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5966372298268949677&q=wtc+hudson

It's the core.

http://i3.tinypic.com/15ychfo.jpg

Johnny Pixels

27th June 2006, 01:58 PM

It shows that some structure briefly kept standing. Don't you think?

That looks like (from the colour) to be a section of the outer wall. But if it is the core, then that's one in the eye for CT, because the demolition didn't go too well if the floors stripped away from the core and left the core standing.

Apollyon

27th June 2006, 02:29 PM

Look above WTC7 in the last half of the video, an intact structure is barely visible through the smoke.

The same structure is also barely visible in this video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5966372298268949677&q=wtc+hudson

It's the core.

http://i3.tinypic.com/15ychfo.jpg
Hard to tell what that is. There are other anomolies in that collapse video as well that are difficult to identify due to the smoke. If I had to guess, though, I'd say it was a portion of the exterior tube of the building - the outer walls.

Beleth

27th June 2006, 02:52 PM

Interesting, I see what you're referring to. What do you reckon?
I reckon some weird aliasing issues in those pictures. Look at the gray building on the right edge.

TjW

27th June 2006, 08:36 PM

Black helicopters are compulsory.

-Andrew
They may have to make an exception for a white stripe for Meffy's.

Gravy

27th June 2006, 08:54 PM

Check out the last photo in that series: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp7.html
Thanks. I didn't know that was part of a series. Definitely some part of the building there. Christophera's photo was many seconds after the collapse, as we can tell from the dust cloud that's reaching the Hudson. From the videos I've seen it doesn't appear that such a large piece of the south tower is standing then, but that's an intriguing photo.

Regnad Kcin

28th June 2006, 09:29 AM

Any luck, fowlsound?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1727847&postcount=2139

Meffy

28th June 2006, 11:25 AM

They may have to make an exception for a white stripe for Meffy's.
Heh, wouldn't mind... heraldry's always been a hobby of mine... sable, a bend argent.

Ducky

28th June 2006, 01:42 PM

Any luck, fowlsound?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1727847&postcount=2139

Yeah you should read the thread over there. he's taken to task pretty hard for his lies about everything.

It is pretty funny to read.

CptColumbo

28th June 2006, 03:19 PM

Unless I'm mistaken and the Mods can correct me if I am, but his suspension was up yesterday.

Ducky

28th June 2006, 03:27 PM

yeah he has failed to return to address his reasons for being suspended or to address any of the questions put to him.

In short, he ran home to mommy.

Meffy

28th June 2006, 03:32 PM

To be fair, it would be awfully hard coming back after so thoroughly humiliating himself on two boards (at least). I can't blame him. Not for being afraid to return, anyway -- for all the lies and distortion and refusal to discuss the facts honestly, full blame.

CptColumbo

28th June 2006, 04:08 PM

Here are some other forums he's on:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread208023/pg8#pid2254940

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread208594/pg1

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=49321&mesg_id=52445

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=70623&st=75

Anyone want to go over to the last one and invite Eggy to join us, if he/she hasn't already.

It's scary the number of people who agree with Chris, and those that believe he/she is a gov't agent.

Meffy

28th June 2006, 04:48 PM

Here are some other forums he's on:
Ohhh dear... Christophera is an amateur psychiatrist with an astounding treatment that will revolutionize the world? Any day now, aaaaany day.

Thanks for the links. Pretty revealing stuff there.

Regnad Kcin

28th June 2006, 11:21 PM

Yeah you should read the thread over there. he's taken to task pretty hard for his lies about everything.

It is pretty funny to read.Well, done. Including CptColumbo's invitation to return to the JREF and discuss the "banning" falsehood.

CptColumbo

29th June 2006, 07:53 PM

I'm not going to budge or reply to anything else until he answers that question.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5637&st=75

gumboot

29th June 2006, 08:09 PM

I think so. I'm not 100% sure it's not smoke swirls, but it does look like there's a piece of the tower still standing briefly.

If it is a structural element, the surface texture clearly indicates a series of narrow vertical pillars... say... core columns? Kind of destroys Christopher's concrete core theory.

-Andrew

EDT. It also seems to have very similar texture to the outside of the other tower... so just as likely the outside of the building (which makes sense as the standing spire tells us parts of the outside didn't collapse). Whatever it is, it certainly doesn't look like a solid block of concrete.

Regnad Kcin

30th June 2006, 12:02 AM

I'm not going to budge or reply to anything else until he answers that question.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5637&st=75The gent seems to not understand what lie you are referring to. That is, the one where he claims he was "banned" at the JREF (for whatever reasons).

CptColumbo

30th June 2006, 12:05 AM

The gent seems to not understand what lie you are referring to. That is, the one where he claims he was "banned" at the JREF (for whatever reasons).
Yeah, I was just pointing that out to him. Unfortunately, don't have the capability to post pictures on the web (I'm not very good with computers), so I would end up linking to this thread.

CptColumbo

1st July 2006, 09:41 AM

Holy [Rule 8], check out his response to "Why lie about [being banned]?"

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5637&st=75

Okay,

We don't get to find out who/what they are or how they prove me wrong.

I tell you who lied to you, JREF forum. Yea, ........ the admin at http://forums.randi.org/ lied to you. I'm still banned.

And now I'm banned at http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/. They really objected to me linking to my sites.

http://concretecore.741.com

and the only site on the web that has a feasible, realistic explanation for rates of fall near free fall and total pullverization for the contents of the WTC towers.

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

So it appears the sites that espouse a larger appreciation for truth, or exposure of secrets are actually very much against it. ats is probably the worst offender. Here I try to get the mods to acknowledge the difficulty in dealing with covertly organized groups who work to gether to obscure information.

(post id: 2303803)
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread213589/pg5

I guess that pissed them off. They really want to contain the spread of truths.

Some forums are fake in their support of truth or understanding of the difficult aspects of our world. I used to think that way about this forum but I've changed my mind. Time and the tests I've applied seem to have been reasonably heeded.

I'm still able to make a vital point about the WTC towers. They did not have steel cores as FEMA core says they do. They have a tubular, steel reinforced concrete core and the clowns at randi.org have NEVER produced an image from the demolition that showed the supposed FEMA steel core columns.

No one ever has. FEMA lied about the strcuture of the Twin Towers, meaning that all analysis of their demise is erroneous.

Is he banned now? I didn't see it in the public notices section.

Otherwise that's another lie.

ETA change name of thread to public notices.

Regnad Kcin

1st July 2006, 09:52 AM

I'd put a c-note on a wager he was not and is not banned. I suspect the gentleman is merely bluffing.

CptColumbo

1st July 2006, 09:56 AM

Is anyone here registered at Above Top Secret, and can check to see if he was banned there and why?

Darat

1st July 2006, 02:22 PM

As admin

Christophera has not been banned from here, however I have only just lifted his suspension, which was remiss of me as it was only a three day suspension. (The reason being my primary PC went down and I lost about a weeks worth of stuff - and therefore lost the "unsuspend" notice I put in my calendar to remind me to unsuspend him.)

I have sent him a PM to inform him of this and to apologise for being late in the lifting of the suspension.

CptColumbo

2nd July 2006, 12:13 PM

Words almost fail me.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5637&st=75

Now I'm the liar.

Regnad Kcin

4th July 2006, 09:36 PM

Our friend seems almost as if he's programmed to play the same ol' tune (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Toyota_Robot_at_Toyota_Kaikan.jpg).

hellaeon

5th July 2006, 12:27 AM

what an absolute boring dribbling mess ol chrissy is...

Regnad Kcin

9th July 2006, 12:33 PM

Words almost fail me.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5637&st=75

Now I'm the liar.He seems to have abandoned that thread. Perhaps the forum, too?

WildCat

9th July 2006, 01:50 PM

Words almost fail me.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5637&st=75

Now I'm the liar.
Have you and Gravy both been banned from that forum, while Christophera still plods onward?

Gravy

9th July 2006, 05:14 PM

Have you and Gravy both been banned from that forum, while Christophera still plods onward?
No, we show as "unregistered" because it isn't necessary to register to post there.

CptColumbo

9th July 2006, 07:34 PM

I think Chris has left that site, since his credibility is destroyed there, and will pop-up on another. He probably won't mention other sites he was on (since that worked out so well last time) and will most likely not use the same name again.

WildCat

9th July 2006, 07:40 PM

kevin

9th July 2006, 08:04 PM

Regnad Kcin

29th July 2006, 06:33 PM

Browsing around, thanks to Google, I came across this site (http://yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=47&page=8&pp=10) (see post #72), dated February 13, 2005:

I consider the SAND & GRAVEL to be knowledge directly available and it raises two very big questions.

1. Where did the double volume come from? In construction/demo terms this is a huge mystery if the building was constructed as the OFFICIAL TOWER STRUCTURE shows. However, if it were constructed with a concrete core as I know it was from watching a documentary made from 16mm film shot by the architects and contractors of the towers, the volume is explained. Also the towers official design shows that the only concrete above the foundation was lightweight concrete, unless the SECOND OFFICIAL TOWER STRUCTURE ???????? is correct then an unknown type of concrete was present. Now this is a mystery. Why 2 cores? Somebody can't get their story straight? Can we notice?

What is present matches exactly what I would expect as I know the towers had concrete cores.

Then photos of remnants of the towers are not mysterious. In them are seen obvious structural elements, massive in size and strength. The character and nature of those is obvious to people having experience with the materials and techniques of construction used with them.

The OFFICIAL TOWER STRUCTURE WILL leave massive vertical columns protruding upward. The absence of those in this photo of the WTC 2 CORE after the steel has fallen away from the concrete inner tube, proves the concrete core, it shows it. It establishes quite strongly on its own that the official structure is a lie contrived to explain what was a demolition as a collapse because there are no heavy steel vertical elements pointing upwardly.

Here is a picture of the INTERIOR BOX COLUMNS which establishes what was the inner framework of the outer tube of the "tube in a tube" design. The WTC 2 CORE FALLING shows the exterior framework of the outer tube. The perimeter steel is seen as the tower top falls. The brown grey roof of the concrete core is seen inside the upside down element before falling on WTC 3.

Having accounted for all of the elements that I have so far described, there is one more structural element that is shown that the OFFICIAL TOWER STRUCTURE will not explain. The official structure has only very heavy vertical steel elements whereas the core I saw being built in the video documentary was steel reinforced cast concrete with 3" high tensile steel reinforcing bar, butt welded by specification in a series AT A SLOPING ANGLE reversing on opposite sides to create the strongest possible concrete tube.

I have just proven FEMA intentionally fabricated a deception upon the public wherin 2,800 lost their lives.

That lie shows that the SAND & GRAVEL filling the basement came from a massive concrete tower in a tower.

It is impossible to reduce that concrete to anything but big chunks by the use of high explosives UNLESS the explosive is perfectly placed and distributed. Meaning either as a sheet or a grid which is place in the center of the casting.

Where is steel reinforcing bar located in cast concrete and how is reinforcing bar distributed in concrete, what configuration is it installed with?

I've proven my point with raw evidence and no one has ever come up with a shred of the ame type evidence to contradict this scenario.

I've done the same with mind control but people are generally less informed on that subject which has a social taboo to begin with. Those most spooked by it are generally those influenced by it, they know. Even if that knowing is unconscious, they know.

Curously the knowledge of these dark areas of the past exist in our common racial histories and in the written history to a degree, meaning that the mind control via unconscious hypnosis, somnambulism, aspect is more easily accepted than the C4 coated rebar scenario creating the sand and gravel.

Most reasonable people accept quite easily that we do not know everything about the mind.

I don't talk about "why 9-11" because I know why and it is more fantastic than C4 coated rebar and has exactly the same problems with peoples ability to use existing information in simple inference with uniformity proportional to need.

The demolition is certain, by what the images show, the scenario I've defined is the only possible explanation.

Now ................. here's a mystery for you Jon.

"Why won't anyone at Let's Roll support a contest for the best over all explanation for some comprehensive scenario of 9-11?"

Planes, I generally don't talk about planes, here is why. boeing 757's and '67's are hydraulic over hydraulic controls and the pilot has a complete override. Retro fitting to remote is not at all simple or easy. Remote flights into towers mean bumble plane activity to swap out the commercial airliners. Much more chance of something going wrong. I do believe that 77 was bumbled out and a supersonic cruise missile was tested on the pentagon which is how the passengers of 77 are still alive.

Pilots do report that in simulators they could not complete the last turn of flight 175. My appraisal is that empty jetliner flights by powerful governments supporting terrorism can be used to train people to do things with airliners US pilots do not ever do.

Planes are red herrings, we don't know a lot about the flights, we can't find out about them. We depend on official accountability for everything.

With the towers, it is different.Bolding mine.

Aside from the same ol'-same ol', I rather enjoyed the extra element of woo.