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

[Christophera]

Answer this question: Are the facts about 9/11 clear OR are they illogical???
You can't have it both ways. Either the facts are clear or they are illogical.

I would say the facts about the CT are clearly illogical. How's that?

moby, you've misrepresented the intent of my statement. The official story is clearly illogical and no facts are involved.

Have you found any raw evidence for he 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns yet?

 

[Christophera]

Well, typos at least aren't important (tho I hate it when I do that). But reallly, Chris, if you want me not to get the giggles every time I see it, please learn the diff between "capital" (crimes) and "capitol."

The latter word stands for a building, and is usually capitalized.

So the murders and failure to provide due process doesn't matter but spelling does?

Okay, .......... so much for your credibility as a person who appreciates truth.

 

[firecoins]

To: Psycho ollie.

The delay system for the core was 2 different systems, the lower one was slower, somwhat unpredictable maybe.

I've explained this perhaps 10 times here. Can you miss it again?

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1232703

your site is crap. your argument is crap. your evidence isn't.

 

[bonavada]

Every third floor makes about the size steel we saw consistently saw being loaded which was also remarked upon by many people. I've given up trying to determine how many interior box columns there were, less than 47 I think. A denier once counted them pretty well and came up with 24, Do the math with that

this begs numerous questions. here's a few:-

now let me get this straight. you contend that at least 24 columns were explosively cut on every third floor? quickly reckoned that's 37x24 steel beams cut this way. correct? thats a ballpark figure of at least ummm 888 cutting charges in each building? when was this work done? how many men did it take to do this mammoth job? under who's orders were these men? how did they manage to do the evil deed unoticed? by thousands of wtc office workers, security staff, maintenance employees etc etc.
and don't steel beams, girders, columns or whatever have to be especially weakened with mecahanical cutting (ie by grinding or oxy-acetylene torches etc) to prep for explosive demolition? isn't this normal practice when demolishing steel fabricated buildings? if so when was this work done?

wouldn't have these explosions have made unmistakeable noises? this is not even considering your C4-rebar. i am sure even above the hellish roar of the collapsing towers someone, somewhere would have heard or recorded such noises.

i don't expect any coherent answers to be forthcomong from you but i feel the questions should be asked just for the sake of everyones sanity. especially yours.........

BV

 

[firecoins]

moby, you've misrepresented the intent of my statement. The official story is clearly illogical and no facts are involved.

Have you found any raw evidence for he 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns yet?

The official story was videotaped and recorded by private individuals and entities from airline employees to evacuees of the WTC and the tens of thousands of eyewitnesses.

No one saw a concrete core, from the people who designed and built the buildings to the people who cleaned it up. No one saw explosives or missles or weird humps on the bottom of "remote controlled" airplanes of grainy photographs. Not a single person. Yet you must be right, there was a hidden invisible concret core with invisible explosives placed there by invisible men working for George W. Bush.

 

[Mobyseven]

So very convienent when you have no evidence of steel core columns when there is qualified evidence of the concrete core.

You have again posted exactly the same link as your 'qualified evidence'. A question: What to you is qualified evidence? Because so far your qualified evidence is: Photographs that have only been interpreted as showing a concrete core by you; a documentary you can't find; a book that doesn't seem to exist; and speculation as to the hijackers psychology.

Even many sites that disagree with the official story don't believe that there were concrete cores - 9-11 Research is an example of one of these sites (I cannot yet post URLs, sorry - just Google them).

The following extract is from architecture.about.com:
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

Construction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers

[/FONT]

• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Tower One was 1,368 feet (414 meters) tall[/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Tower Two was 1,362 feet (412 meters) tall[/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Each tower was 64 m square[/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Each tower stood 411 m above street level[/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Towers rested on solid bedrock and the foundations extended 21 m below grade[/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Towers had a height-to-width ratio of 6.8.[/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Tower facades were constructed of aluminum and steel lattice[/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Each tower used a lightweight tube construction with 244 closely spaced columns on the outer walls[/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A 80 cm tall web joist connected the core to the perimeter at each floor[/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Concrete slabs were poured over the web joists to form the floors[/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]There were no interior columns in the Tower office spaces[/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Each tower contained 104 passenger elevators[/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Each tower had 21,800 windows[/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Each tower weighed about 500,000 tons[/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]About 50,000 people worked in the World Trade Center complex[/FONT]

Note that there is no mysterious 'concrete core' in the towers. There was concrete used to form the floors, but no concrete core.

From the same site:

Structural steel does not easily melt, but it will lose about half its strength at 1,200 degrees F. The steel structure of the Twin Towers was weakened by the extreme heat. The steel also became distorted because the heat was not a uniform temperature. [emphasis mine]

So how is that for 'qualified evidence'?

And by god, if you post the same photos you've posted a thousand times already and say, "OMG - LOOK AT THE PROOF", I will start research on how to slap people through the internet.

So - your turn now.

 

[I less than three logic]

So the murders and failure to provide due process doesn't matter but spelling does?

Okay, .......... so much for your credibility as a person who appreciates truth.

On the contrary, I think that reinforces Jennie C’s credibility as a person that appreciates truth. There is irrefutable evidence that capital, with an “a”, is the true spelling of the word when used as you intended to. While there isn’t much evidence to show that anything you’ve said it true.

Heck, based on past experiences with similar conditions, I’d interpret your frequent use of ridiculous formatting as evidence suggesting that what you’re saying isn’t true. Seems to be a pretty good rule of thumb that if you can’t convince people with a sound argument and creditable evidence, then your best remaining option is to pretend you’re yelling over the Internet… because that always works.

 

[Christophera]

On the contrary, I think that reinforces Jennie C’s credibility as a person that appreciates truth. There is irrefutable evidence that capital, with an “a”, is the true spelling of the word when used as you intended to. While there isn’t much evidence to show that anything you’ve said it true.

Heck, based on past experiences with similar conditions, I’d interpret your frequent use of ridiculous formatting as evidence suggesting that what you’re saying isn’t true. Seems to be a pretty good rule of thumb that if you can’t convince people with a sound argument and creditable evidence, then your best remaining option is to pretend you’re yelling over the Internet… because that always works.

Again no evidence save weak subterfuge while the raw evidence of images is glaring from my pages in competent explanation whereas you have nothing.

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

 

[Christophera]

You have again posted exactly the same link as your 'qualified evidence'. A question: What to you is qualified evidence? Because so far your qualified evidence is: Photographs that have only been interpreted as showing a concrete core by you; a documentary you can't find; a book that doesn't seem to exist; and speculation as to the hijackers psychology.

The qualified evidence of the WTC 2 core is enough to take all the evidence and authority youve tried to assemble and flush it. A few facts without consequence do not a matter make when we have mid air pulverization to explain.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3985&stc=1&d=1162969098

 

[Christophera]

The official story was videotaped and recorded by private individuals and entities from airline employees to evacuees of the WTC and the tens of thousands of eyewitnesses.

No one saw a concrete core, from the people who designed and built the buildings to the people who cleaned it up. No one saw explosives or missles or weird humps on the bottom of "remote controlled" airplanes of grainy photographs. Not a single person. Yet you must be right, there was a hidden invisible concret core with invisible explosives placed there by invisible men working for George W. Bush.

So much for your integrity to reason and reading.

http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf

 

[beachnut]

mistake, i emailed them, soon you will loose another source

but how high does your concrete core go, christophera, or have you lost all of your oxygen after being hypnotized by the concrete core

 

[GlennB]

So very convienent when you have no evidence of steel core columns when there is qualified evidence of the concrete core.

After all this time you still haven't explained where all this demolished concrete went.
In a previous rough calculation I showed it would leave a mound of smashed concrete some 100m high. This didn't happen on 9/11. Where did all the concrete go, Chris?

 

[Bell]

All the time, remember Christophera is a proven liar.

 

[Pidge]

And by god, if you post the same photos you've posted a thousand times already and say, "OMG - LOOK AT THE PROOF", I will start research on how to slap people through the internet.

Hint: Try a whois query for "algoxy.com". That's a starter...

 

[Oliver]

And by god, if you post the same photos you've posted a thousand times already and say, "OMG - LOOK AT THE PROOF", I will start research on how to slap people through the internet.

[sarcasm]

...and don´t forget the additional information
to understand what you will find:

link

[/sarcasm]

 

[Mobyseven]

The qualified evidence of the WTC 2 core is enough to take all the evidence and authority youve tried to assemble and flush it. A few facts without consequence do not a matter make when we have mid air pulverization to explain.

Hang on a second - WHAT qualified evidence? I listed above some of your qualified evidence. To recap: A documentary that doesn't seem to exist; A dictionary that ALSO doesn't seem to exist; Speculation as to the psychology of the hijackers. And photographs. Photographs that show nothing but the collapse of the towers to everyone but you. To you, these photographs seem to show some sort of elaborate conspiracy. To you they show a concrete core - a core that for some reason noone else can see. Not the people who were there on 9/11. Not the people who investigated the event. Not the people who have looked at these photographs since. Hell, not even the people who designed and built the Twin Towers seemed to notice that there was a concrete core!

Why are the facts I presented of 'no consequence'? You seem to have changed the topic rather hastily - you dismiss with no justification the evidence I produce against the concrete core, and then change the topic to '[sic]mid air pulverization'.

Could it be that what you can see in that photo is what happens when the top stories of a massive skyscraper collapse onto the lower floors?

Or would that make too much sense?

 

[Belz...]

*LOL* I like you, really. But this mesage of mine was
not meant as joke. It was a warning. Alfred has a serious
problem. You simply dont seem to understand it. I am 33
years old. May i ask how old you are after seeing your
picture at your member-profile?

You may not.

I'm well aware of Chris' problem.

 

[Belz...]

*lol* So you are saying you are able to convince Alfred
and his concrete core???? People get angry if they are
talking to a wall - what do you suspect?

I'd rather be talking to a wall than to be the wall to which someone talks.

 

[Oliver]

I'd rather be talking to a wall than to be the wall to which someone talks.

Well, you are the wall - you are not able to accept
that it was a conrete core...



BTW: (since popping into my range of vision again...)

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

Yes, it wasn´t Freefall, thank you!

 

[Belz...]

It does not compare in anyway to this evidence of the concrete core of WTC 2. You are presenting a bogus, misrepresentation.

It's a picture of the ruins of the tower. How is it a misrepresentation if it shows what's there ?

Can concrete be fractured to fall instantly?

This assumes the concrete core.

I've given up trying to determine how many interior box columns there were, less than 47 I think.

Just make it up. Seems to work for you, usually.

squibs

Now I KNOW you never did any demolition.

I know what the core was and am simply finding raw evidence that shows what I know existed.

Liar. By your own admission it could be dust. You said so yourself.

but, ......... I remembered MORE first, then the core blew. In order to talk about it I had to lose the fear so, ........ strive for accuracy.

That's not even a sentence, man.

The delay system for the core was 2 different systems, the lower one was slower, somwhat unpredictable maybe.

Maybe ? Aren't you sure about anything ? Which tower was which, which documentary it was, which station aired it, how it was done, by whom. Boy, so far it's a lot of "maybe"s.

Sorry, the thread is well done at over 100k views.

Appeal to popularity.

Have you found any raw evidence for he 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns yet?

You mean you HAVEN'T read this thread yet ?