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

[rwguinn]

Once again Christophera...

Who is on your side on this? If no one on this earth has evidence to believe that the towers had anything but a concrete core, surely someone sides with you.

Where are they?

Argumentum ad populum.

"IF 100 million eople believe a wrong thing to be true, it is still wrong."

 

[Christophera]

That's not what "uncounscious" means.

Actually we are capable of knowing things unconsciously that are almost completely opposite of what we think we know consciously, but unconsciously you will be prevented form knowing that. Which of course is how it works.

Lots.

To be credible you are supposed to list the materials that could stand 500 feet of the ground as this concrete shear wall does which holds up the spire.

It's the remains of the core, the same you said shows a 17 foot thick concrete wall. Only in that much MORE detailed picture, there's no concrete to be seen. Only braced steel columns.

The real problem is that the column shown has no taper and this image showing an interior box column outside the core wall at its base has an easily seen taper and it is adjacent to a gray mass aprox. 17 feet thick. The previously linked image IS located and the image you refer to is not.

All Hallow's Eve. Why ?

Well I didn't ask you but since the truth of Halloween is mostly unconscious I will answer you. When we celebrate Halloween we celebrate the senseless murders of some of the most evolved human beings that can exist. We celebrate their murders by fearful people afraid to know the truth of the unconscious mind.

I thought you said it was 6 inches ?

You refer to the core wall at its base image. Since I annotated that I've recalled that there was 6 inch rebar used low or in the foundation areas of the core.

Raw evidence doesn't look like your pictures.

Picture ARE raw evidence. It is WHAT the image shows that determines the type evidence, Since no steel core columns are ever seen in any of the demo images and objects that really only be concrete are seen, it is obvious that the raw evidence shows concrete because the towers did have a core.

Why ? You truthers are always yammering about the government beign murderous bastards, and yet non of you has died in mysterious circumstances. Perhaps the evil government is feeling remorse ?

You are over generalizing and erroneous. Our government has 2 potentials. One is an ideal which we should never lose sight of and is perpetually disabled from harming its citizens. The other is a reality which we must always protect from infiltration. if we are to be good citizens.

ORIGINAL core IMAGE​

False dichotomy.

There is no dichotomy. The evidence only shows one thing and because no heavy steel columns protrude, bent, tangled and toppling and it is rounded, eroded as only an aggregate will do, it must be concrete. You wish there was a dichotomy that would excuse Americans from unifying and creating accountability.

 

[Christophera]

Argumentum ad populum.

"IF 100 million eople believe a wrong thing to be true, it is still wrong."

Try, Do you still want to know the truth after you learn it is something you do not want to know?

 

[uruk]

Hey chis, WHy do you keep using this crappy, fuzzy, low resolution image,
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg
everybody here knows it crappy and fuzzy and low resolution.

When we've provided so many higher resolution images of the same core from several different angles. Humor me. Put your photoshop skill to use and using the aformentioned pictures we provided and point out the 17 foot thick concrete core. If you don't do it, all those lurkers who are on the fence post about this are going to think that your scared and a liar.

Go ahead. Show me the concrete, but use the picture we provided. show us that our evidence is wrong.

BTW posting your picture again will not be counted as a refutiation.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

i havent been following this thread, is chris getting some "genetic memory" trip now?

 

[uruk]

Try, Do you still want to know the truth after you learn it is something you do not want to know?

Sounds like something you should be telling yourself.

 

[Skibum]

If you don't do it, all those lurkers who are on the fence post about this are going to think that your scared and a liar.

LOL, honestly, do you really think anyone is on the fence on this one?

Theres Chris, then there is everyone else.

 

[realitybites]

Argumentum ad populum.

"IF 100 million eople believe a wrong thing to be true, it is still wrong."

Good point. Although I wasn't trying to use that to disprove his theory. I was just genuinely interested in who else bought into this BS.

 

[Z]

Photos on the internet are not raw evidence, no matter what they show.

Period.

 

[uruk]

LOL, honestly, do you really think anyone is on the fence on this one?

Theres Chris, then there is everyone else.

SSHHH! I'm trying to goad him.

I know it, you know it, but he actually thinks there are.

Actually I think Truthseeker1234 is getting close to seeing the true event. I'm sure other lurkers are too. They just don't have the courage or surety to jump in and grind on the deniers.

 

[uruk]

The only error in the below is the use of the term "bundled tube" construction". The correct term is "tube in a tube cubstruction".


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

The World Trade Center towers were an unusual design, at least at the time they were built. Their support structure is called a 'bundled tube', or in engineering terms, a glass curtain wall structure.
What this means is that the buildings are tubes, made rigid by a lattice of steel beams on the outside walls. These vertical columns are strengthened by horizontal beams, and this design is what helps support the building, and keep it stable in high winds. An inner concrete core houses the elevators, and provides additional vertical load support.

Hey moron, That's a Canadian Highschool website!http://www.worsleyschool.net/ Are you saying that a Canadian highschool is a more reputable site then all those architectural and historical sites?
(No offence to any Canadians here, particularly anyone who went to Worsley Hi. GO BIG RED ANIMAL THING!!)

 

[Belz...]

Actually we are capable of knowing things unconsciously that are almost completely opposite of what we think we know consciously, but unconsciously you will be prevented form knowing that. Which of course is how it works.

No. "Uncounscious" refers to the non-conscious processes of your brain, namely language interpretation, breathing, basic knowledge, etc. Your "unconscious" does not have its own opinions. It's just a collection of processes that you don't control CONSCIOUSLY, unless you choose to (in some cases).

To be credible you are supposed to list the materials that could stand 500 feet of the ground as this concrete shear wall does which holds up the spire.

You're in construction and you can't think of those by yourself ?

The previously linked image IS located and the image you refer to is not.

Come on, chris. Can't you see it's the same damn structure ? You can even see the stairwell.

Well I didn't ask you but since the truth of Halloween is mostly unconscious I will answer you. When we celebrate Halloween we celebrate the senseless murders of some of the most evolved human beings that can exist. We celebrate their murders by fearful people afraid to know the truth of the unconscious mind.

Okay, that made no sense. Are you trying to make some sense ?

You refer to the core wall at its base image. Since I annotated that I've recalled that there was 6 inch rebar used low or in the foundation areas of the core.

Well, was it 6 or 3 ?

Picture ARE raw evidence.

Maybe. But raw evidence pictures don't look like YOUR pictures.

It is WHAT the image shows that determines the type evidence, Since no steel core columns are ever seen in any of the demo images and objects that really only be concrete are seen, it is obvious that the raw evidence shows concrete because the towers did have a core.

So... basically you're saying that because the image agrees with you, it's raw ? That fits pretty well with the definition of "raw" I thought up for you.

You are over generalizing and erroneous. Our government has 2 potentials. One is an ideal which we should never lose sight of and is perpetually disabled from harming its citizens. The other is a reality which we must always protect from infiltration. if we are to be good citizens.

That so has nothing to do with what I said. I said that your supposedly murderous government, which happens to NOT be mine, has apparently a lot of problems eliminating the likes of you, who keep blowing their cover. You'd think they'd do that if they didn't mind killing 3000 people.

There is no dichotomy.

Of course there is. You seem to imply that if it's not steel, it HAS to be concrete. But that's not true; there are other possibilities. Dust, for instance, which happens to be mostly gray or black.

The evidence only shows one thing and because no heavy steel columns protrude, bent, tangled and toppling and it is rounded, eroded as only an aggregate will do, it must be concrete.

See ? Here you do it again. If it isn't steel it has to be concrete. That's a FALSE dichotomy.

You wish there was a dichotomy that would excuse Americans from unifying and creating accountability.

You don't know what a dichotomy is, do you ?

 

[Architect]

Do you know what you celebrate when you celebrate Halloween?

Yes. All Hallow's Eve, in English. It's the old New Year, and dark creatures come out to play. We dress up to scare them off.

I hear that whittering on about non-existent concrete cores does the same thing, so at least you don;t have to worry about the ol' demonic possession, eh?

 

[Z]

I'd love to hear his take on Hallowe'en.

Especially after his circa fiasco.

The willful ignorant are so much fun...

 

[Belz...]

I'm sure it ties in with his hypnosis hypothesis.

Everything else seems to.

 

[Christophera]

No. "Uncounscious" refers to the non-conscious processes of your brain, namely language interpretation, breathing, basic knowledge, etc. Your "unconscious" does not have its own opinions. It's just a collection of processes that you don't control CONSCIOUSLY, unless you choose to (in some cases).

From a medical perspective you would be correct, but not from a psychoanlytical perspective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscious_mind

For Freud, the unconscious was a depository for socially unacceptable ideas, wishes or desires, traumatic memories, and painful emotions put out of mind by the mechanism of psychological repression. However, the contents did not necessarily have to be solely negative. In the psychoanalytic view, the unconscious is a force that can only be recognized by its effects - it expresses itself in the symptom.

And forget the present stages of psychology and their definitions of the unconscious, they have not proven their case anywhere.

To be credible you are supposed to list the materials that could stand 500 feet of the ground as this concrete shear wall does which holds up the spire.

You're in construction and you can't think of those by yourself ?

Of course and there are none. Your answer demonstrates intellectual dishonesty. Shall you remain that way or will you list the materials I cannot think of which you think this are instead of concrete.

Come on, chris. Can't you see it's the same damn structure ? You can even see the stairwell.

Absolutely not the same structure. The towers had 3 stairwells each and one was located inthe middle completely away from the cast concret ecore wall. The image I' post, the
core wall at its base, shows an interior box column which has a visible taper. The image Gravy has posted has dead parallel sides. I've made this point very well already.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2043804#post2043804

Okay, that made no sense. Are you trying to make some sense ?

I suppose you could be totally ignorant and not know of the crusades and the inquisitions, or you could have dissocitaed or repressed the knowledge See "unconscious" at top.

Well, was it 6 or 3 ?

I've said it was 6 inch as some have pointed out here. They were right. Which promted me to think aboutit for some months whereupon I remembered a segment of the documentary which talked about the foundations and rebar so massive that it could not be bent and had to be fabricated in place which took months. Replacing the special plastic coating at the weldment took additional time. Welders with a security clearance all the way through.

Maybe. But raw evidence pictures don't look like YOUR pictures.

Picture are raw evidence and this evidence shows a cast concrete core because steel just will not leave that appearance when it is damaged.

So... basically you're saying that because the image agrees with you, it's raw ? That fits pretty well with the definition of "raw" I thought up for you.

The images agree with other within the description of a concrete core. That verifies them all, and, ........... eliminates the possibility of steel core columns because they are never seen.

That so has nothing to do with what I said. I said that your supposedly murderous government, which happens to NOT be mine, has apparently a lot of problems eliminating the likes of you, who keep blowing their cover. You'd think they'd do that if they didn't mind killing 3000 people.

They had cover for the first 3000 capitol crimes. They are hoping your crew will make a single capitol crime unneeded because they can't get away with that under conditions and it will blow their cover.

Of course there is. You seem to imply that if it's not steel, it HAS to be concrete. But that's not true; there are other possibilities. Dust, for instance, which happens to be mostly gray or black.

There is no light what so ever seen and the shape is too uniform in exactly the core poistion.

See ? Here you do it again. If it isn't steel it has to be concrete. That's a FALSE dichotomy.

What is happening again is intellectual dishonesty, labelling what is materially supported logic, a dichotomy

You don't know what a dichotomy is, do you ?

Yes I do. Apprently you would like to distort logic, a comparison between 2 proposals describing one piece of evidence, into a dichotomy. Like i said, intellectual disonesty.

1.division into two parts, kinds, etc.; subdivision into halves or pairs.2.division into two mutually exclusive, opposed, or contradictory groups: a dichotomy between thought and action

 

[missyvanwinkle]

A quick question to you, Chris

I know someone has already pointed out that if a zillion people agreed with you, that wouldn't be accepted as evidence per se, but I am curious.

You know how a bunch of people around here seem to be like-minded?

Well, I was wondering if there is a group supporting the concrete core theory. I mean, I've seen your website, but I haven't explored the web for others. Is there a network out there of concrete core people? This is the only forum I've gone to and got hooked on this thread (like rubber-necking at a wreck I guess.)

Missy

 

[TheFeds]

Hey moron, That's a Canadian Highschool website!http://www.worsleyschool.net/ Are you saying that a Canadian highschool is a more reputable site then all those architectural and historical sites?
(No offence to any Canadians here, particularly anyone who went to Worsley Hi. GO BIG RED ANIMAL THING!!)

I pointed out that fact to him about 15 pages ago, with a picture of the kids, and everything...amazing that he still uses it as a source.

Christophera, this is exactly what I mean about so many of your sources being not only illegitimate, but in this case, ridiculous as well.

From a medical perspective you would be correct, but not from a psychoanlytical perspective.

You realize that nobody in professional psychology takes Freud very seriously anymore? He's a relic of the past, remembered for his wacky ideas rather than his few successes.

Originally Posted by Belz...
See ? Here you do it again. If it isn't steel it has to be concrete. That's a FALSE dichotomy.
What is happening again is intellectual dishonesty, labelling what is materially supported logic, a dichotomy


Originally Posted by Belz...
You don't know what a dichotomy is, do you ?
Yes I do. Apprently you would like to distort logic, a comparison between 2 proposals describing one piece of evidence, into a dichotomy. Like i said, intellectual disonesty.

1.division into two parts, kinds, etc.; subdivision into halves or pairs.2.division into two mutually exclusive, opposed, or contradictory groups: a dichotomy between thought and action

Actually, a false dichotomy is a specific case of logical fallacy. I don't care whether you think it's "materially supported" or not; that has no bearing on the fact that you presented a false dichotomy. You offered choice 1, 'it was steel'; you offered choice 2, 'it was concrete'; you stated that 'since it was not steel, it must have been concrete'. That is a false dichotomy, because you drew a conclusion that didn't take into account choice 3, 'it was something that looked essentially identical to concrete in the blurry photograph'. Even if you eliminate number one, you have not produced evidence to differentiate between 2 and 3. So, unless you do so, you are committing a logical fallacy, and your argument is grossly incomplete.

 

[xqby]

You realize that nobody in professional psychology takes Freud very seriously anymore? He's a relic of the past, remembered for his wacky ideas rather than his few successes.

This is because the Illuminati are trying to hide the truth.

 

[twinstead]

So, unless you do so, you are committing a logical fallacy, and your argument is grossly incomplete.

What else is new?