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

[Oliver]

First, I had a feeling you were being deceptive and working towards evoking emotional reasoning within the viewers of this thread from the beginning by pretending to have concrerns for the many vital issues I focus on that have to do with all of our futures.

Understand the exwife has a drug problem and I wouldn't tolerate it. Her family is wealthy but for some reason she was able to get welfare anyway while living at the small family estate. She used the money for extra pharmacueticals. Then of course I owed child support. Some might find it interesting that the laws used to collect that originate with TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 7 > SUBCHAPTER IV > Part D > § 666
. I consider it to be the final infiltration/subversion of the family now that I understand it.

If the County of Santa Barbara had appeared on subpoena in 1998 instead of Failing to appear on subpoena or interfering with the appearance of a witness., the child support would have all been paid by 1999. I would be wealthy and making films, selling books and my music.

The kids are both over 18 now, there was only one that was involved anyway.

I think you must be a very sick individual to make that an issue of this after 3000 Americans were murdered and I actually provide a feasible and realistic explanation of the event. i sort of picked up that you were demented anyway with the character of your spam.

Back to 9-11

The pilots knew what elevations to strike the towers at to cause the most damage. Or they were told there were explosives on those approximate floors and they knew each others targets. Of course the demoliton were set to cause failures that mimicked what would happen from plane collisions at those points. See my explantons for the tops of the towers falling the wrong directions and the wrong tower falling first.

The detonation system was different for the lower porton of the core and took a few seconds to catch up so left the lower half standing.

Dear Christopher,


It was never my intention to be deceptive beside my anger caused by
your ignorance against the people who honestly try to understand you.

I read about the problems your ex-wife has and i´m also able to under-
stand that you were not willing to support her addiction because the
child would see none of the child support. On the other side it was illegal
and you lose your licence. But i´m not willing to convict you because this
incident. Nevertheless i guess it may be interesting to understand your
intentions.

In germany - for example - the youth welfare center does interact if the
mother is not able to support their children the way they deserve. What
did the authority do about this problem?

I´m very honest to you that if i compare 3000 dead american citizens to
X00,000 dead iraqis, the american drama is a very, very small one compared
to the iraqi drama, isn´t it?

Okay, back to 9/11:

Well, i know for fact that the spain, the madrid-cell did a video within the
towers to spy for possible targets some years before 9/11. I saw this tape.
Off course it was a long planned attack and off course their intention was to
create as much damage as possible. The difference to your theory is, that
there are many provable circumstances that it was indeed the plan of terrorists.

But i still miss any documents or reports that the government was involved.

And i am the last one who likes the iraq-liars. Maybe you can give me a reason
to think otherwise regarding the evidence that proves the connection from the
gov to 9/11.

The terrorists WTC video from 1996 is available here:
http://rapidshare.de/files/37406735/Title_1__VOB_-Chapter_1-0.avi

(Press the "Free" button, wait until the countdown is over and insert the
numbers on the picture that appears after the countdown is over)

Sincerely,
Oliver

 

[mortimer]

I think you must be a very sick individual to make that an issue of this after 3000 Americans were murdered and I actually provide a feasible and realistic explanation of the event.

No you don't, because you still haven't explained how pourous concrete can preserve C4 past it's useful lifetime.

 

[Z]

Hey Chris - how about your Hallowe'en theory? I'd actually like to hear that one.

 

[Christophera]

I'd rather have 3 slightly different plans than a non-existant concrete core.

There are at least 3 different sets of floor plans for the steel core columned core.

That you accept that is illogical and unethical because 3000 human being have been murdered.

The site that documentst the concrete core has raw evidence of images of 9-11 which show concrete directly or by conclusion, becuase mothing elese could exist in that position of a structure logically. Most importantly is that NO STEEL CORE COLUMNS are seen ever.

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

In the many pages of this thread there is not one logical explanation for near free fall and total pulverization except for what is contained in this link.

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

And until a logical explanation for this
none here will be acting with integrity to reason in their denial.

 

[Christophera]

Hey Chris - how about your Hallowe'en theory? I'd actually like to hear that one.

If you can explain the true reasons for the crusades and the inquisitions you deserve an explanation. Actually on the last page there is an explanation.

 

[Christophera]

You are aware, of course, that the structure in that picture is only a small portion of the whole core, right ?

Of course and the image of the core wall at its base shows an interior box column clearly outside the core area. It also clearly shows a taper to the interior box column.

there is still no explanation for what that thick gray block is to the right of the interior box columns or why no steel core column pentetrate the stairwell and none are seen to the right or inthe foreground.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

If you can explain the true reasons for the crusades and the inquisitions you deserve an explanation. Actually on the last page there is an explanation.

yeah dragon, you have to know the truth to get the truth, thats how chris here remains the only person on the planet who knows whats REALLY going on, and the secrets of the cosmos will die with with him and the rest of us can live out the rest of our lives in blissful ignorance

 

[Z]

If you can explain the true reasons for the crusades and the inquisitions you deserve an explanation. Actually on the last page there is an explanation.

That wasn't an explanation - it was a hint.

But let's hear the whole shebang - what is your explanation for the crusades, the inquisition, and Hallowe'en?

AFAIK - and I'm no history buff - the Crusades were, on the surface, about reclaiming the Holy Land - that is, this is the excuse commonly offered. Deeper in, the actual motivations are timeless tales of greed - the quest for power, for land, for resources, etc. Certainly, the greed of the church fathers played a far larger role than faith did.

As for the Inquisition, I don't honestly know much about it. It seemed like an extended 'witch hunt', where a few sick bastards got off on tormenting innocent people, and used the Church as a convenient excuse. But I have no idea what the rest was about.

As for Hallowe'en - the modern holiday has little to do with ANY of the historical antecedents, really. It's a liberal mixture of folk superstition, religious practice, political subversion, and genuine human interest in the supernatural. It has origins in Catholic traditions, Old World paganism, etc.

Samhain - ah, now that was a festival! The New Year Cometh!!! Yay!!!

 

[Architect]

Samhain - ah, now that was a festival! The New Year Cometh!!! Yay!!!

It's still called Oidhche Shamhain in Gaelic .

When my parents were young, pre-tv, the old tradition of the parent's doing the guising still went on. And playing lots of tricks on others. And so on.

Hey - maybe Chris is a stranded sprite.....maybe the 31st is his last chance to cross over to join the rest of the Sidh and he's just going on a final spamfest (I can but dream).

 

[Z]

Somehow, I don't see the Sidhe taking much interest in him. The bian'sidhe, maybe...

 

[Jennie C.]

Thanks, Gumboot !!

I just want to point out that under international law there is no such thing as an "illegal" war. The UN Charter and UN Resolutions are not law. Even international laws are not binding unless they have been ratified by the signatory nation and included in their own legislation. For example some aspects of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are in direct contradiction to Privacy Acts in New Zealand. While New Zealand is signatory to the universal declaration, we have not ratified all parts of it. If New Zealand breaches those parts of the declaration that have not been ratified, no laws has been broken.

The international laws of armed conflict (ILAC) dictate *how* war can be fought, but it is the sovereign right of every state to use military force at any time they consider appropriate.

Violation of any UN resolutions or Charters *are* breaking the rules of that particular organisation, of course, and in theory could result in expolsion from the organisation (Hah! Like that would ever happen) but it is not "illegal" any more than it is "illegal" for a student at a school to wear items that violate the uniform regulations for that school.

In addition individual states may have domestic laws dictating when and how they are allowed to go to war, and breaking these would make the act of war illegal domestically.

However, in an international setting, "illegal law" refers to the way in which war is fought (i.e. in breach of the ILAC), NOT the status of the war itself.

Just thought I would clear that common misconception up.

-Andrew

I'm still reading some of these older threads and just ran across this, Andrew. I think that I realized your points about international law without being conscious of it, but your concise description brought it all to mind.

(I had mistyped above as "interational law," but the idea of anything in international law's being "rational," would be laughable.)

In fact, didn't our beloved Slick Willie actually sign the Kyoto treaty? But Congress didn't ratify it, so that's a moot point.

A bit of a derailment (someone had asserted that the Iraq war was "illegal"), but I wanted to thank Gumboot for a bit of insight and education. Maybe that's why I keep reading this: there are gems among the CT-rubble.

 

[Christophera]

CORRECTION for defaultdotxbe

yeah dragon, you have to know the truth to get the truth,

CORRECTION:
You have to be able to accept the truth to know the truth.

thats how chris here remains the only person on the planet who knows whats REALLY going on, and the secrets of the cosmos will die with with him and the rest of us can live out the rest of our lives in blissful ignorance

You will be surprised at how quick and complete the deaths of the ignorant will be without the truth because the truth will protect them. Their ignorance is recognized by millions and they have been justifiably fearful of the ignorant for centuries.

Many know what is going on with our unconscious but are too afraid to speak of it.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Yes, Freud. The father of psychoanalysis. WHO DIED IN 1939. You DO know that psychology has evolved since then ?

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

And Freud proved HIS ? He was a loon.

Of course and there are none. Your answer demonstrates intellectual dishonesty.

You can't think of a SINGLE material used in construction that could appear of that colour during demolition ? Really ? Who's dishonest now ?

Absolutely not the same structure.

Ridiculous. From the aerial pictures you can see there's only one significant structure remaining that looks even remotely like that. It looks EXACTLY the same. For someone who can identify rebar from a single pixel, you're not very good with high-resolution.

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.

Again, that's not how memory works. Traumatic experiences are remembered with much more clarity than non-traumatic ones. See : holocaust and rape victims.

I've said it was 6 inch as some have pointed out here. They were right.

Actually they were just saying that it couldn't be rebar, but you ignored that and decided that the fact they said it had to be much more than 3 inches meant that it had to be LARGER rebar, otherwise your theory would be false. Also, you said that the 3" rebar couldn't be bent, but now your 6" rebar is clearly bent on your picture. So which is it ?

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.

You mean you fabricated that memory over the course of months of trying to remember something that would support your hypothesis. Now THAT works in psychology.

Replacing the special plastic coating at the weldment took additional time. Welders with a security clearance all the way through.

Source ?

Picture are raw evidence

Not really, because they are only images of the raw evidence, which is physical evidence. Pictures are not physical evidence. They are second-hand. And when they are low-resolution, they are BAD second-hand evidence.

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

Here's that false dichotomy again. Who ever said it was steel ? I said dust.

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.

Replace "box columns" with "support columns" and you'll see them, too.

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.

That's insane. An operation of that magnitude carries a huge amount of risk. A single "accident" to a certain Mr Brown would not. So how come you stil live ?

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

Doesn't look very uniform to me. Draw a line.

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

Okay you obviously don't know what that means. You're trying to make it seem like steel and concrete are the only two things that could explain the picture. I've named a third, but you ignore it. You've also failed to consider that that structure could be the remains of the steel core engulfed in smoke and dust, which would explain your alleged uniformity as well as the colour. It doesn't require a complicated conspiracy, and I think Mr Ockham would agree.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, and the grade schoolers are more credible as well

They're more credible to you because they agree with you.

One simple fact remains so true that the steel core proposition has been abandoned slowly, but that is increasing at a healthy rate.

Oh, don't mind me. Please send us links to people who agree with you.

Concrete can be fractured to fall instantly by a relatively small amount of explosives but steel cannot. Meaning, basically, that what we saw is IMPOSSIBLE with steel core columns, literally. it cannot have haapened.

And here we have ANOTHER false dichotomy. You should change your name to dichotomera, instead. You're still assuming that the building was demolished. Under the "planes crashed into the building and fires brought it down" scenario, there's no need for explosives. Just gravity.

First, I had a feeling you were being deceptive and working towards evoking emotional reasoning within the viewers of this thread from the beginning

"You are supporting the lie that murderers hide behind". Does that appeal to emotion remind you of something, chris ?

There are at least 3 different sets of floor plans for the steel core columned core.

Good. Show them. Let's compare.

That you accept that is illogical and unethical because 3000 human being have been murdered.

Yes, they have. And I know who the culprits are.

In the many pages of this thread there is not one logical explanation for near free fall and total pulverization except for what is contained in this link.

That one's easy: there was no free fall, there was no total pulverization. Ergo, no one needs to explain them.

And until a logical explanation for this

The building fell down. You DO know that there was lots of WALLS in that building and that there WAS concrete in the floors, right ? Wouldn't that produce a fair amount of gray smoke ?

If you can explain the true reasons for the crusades and the inquisitions you deserve an explanation.

Oh, humour me.

Of course and the image of the core wall at its base shows an interior box column clearly outside the core area.

"Clearly outside" the core area ? Chris, you can't even get the tower right. How can you tell anything else ?

You will be surprised at how quick and complete the deaths of the ignorant will be without the truth because the truth will protect them.

How exactly does the truth protect against bullets or machettes ?

Many know what is going on with our unconscious but are too afraid to speak of it.

That's a very convenient way to shield yourself from logic. No matter how hard others argue against you, you can convince yourself that, deep down, they agree with you.

 

[Belz...]

I can't believe this thread is still alive...

Alive ? No. I'm expending energy to keep it undead indefinitely.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

CORRECTION:
You have to be able to accept the truth to know the truth.

but in order to accept the "truth" we have to know it (how can you accept something you dont know?) but you wont tell us the "truth" so we cant accept it

admit it, you just want to to pretend your neo

 

[Christophera]

They're more credible to you because they agree with you.

The school children agree with the raw evidence. I simply recognize their consistency with reality making them more credible to any reasonable person who is aware of the raw evidence which has the ultimate veracity in this situation.

 

[Garb]

Alive ? No. I'm expending energy to keep it undead indefinitely.

So its like, a vampire now?

 

[Oliver]

Alive ? No. I'm expending energy to keep it undead indefinitely.

Well, shall we speculate who´s dumber?
"Concrete" or "Not"?

 

[Oliver]

Yes, and the grade schoolers are more credible as well. The fact is that concrete can be fractured to fall instantly with a small amount of high explosives and steel cannot.

Why did the core still stand for some seconds if the
core was blown up, Chris?