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

[Christophera]

I don't approve af anything.

Especially lawless government?

 

[Bell]

Especially lawless government?

You seem to aprove of it, since you fail to take any step to bring them to justice. Remember the 3000 poor victims that died, Christophera. Do it for them, go to court!

 

[Christophera]

The American government may be many bad things, but it did not murder the occupants of the World Trade Center, the passengers and crew of those airline jets, nor any of the people in the Pentagon.

Read this switchtech,

Tell your buddy in Afgahnistan that the US government has been INFILTRATED and the infiltrators murdered 3,000 citizens.

If the oath he took as a soldier is taken seriously then he can at least consider facts.

Send him this image

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

And ask him if it looks like a collapse.

Do you/he agree that due process was violated 3,000 times when evidence was removed from the scene and destroyed befor private investigations were conducted. The relatives of vistims have an unequivicol right to a proper investigation and if they feel that any official agency is not doing an appropriate job or if they are worried that the proper job is not being done, they have a right to conduct their own invesitgation.

If the the infiltrated governemtn says, "Sorry, it is a matter of national security and they are blaiming it on Muslims then they already have what they need to know and THERE IS NO RESON TO LIMIT THE PUBLIC INVESTIGATION.

Period.


Your buddies life is on the line for NOTHING.

The buildings were built to demolish. Send him and all the GI's here.

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

The should know what well contianed, optimally placed and distributed high explosives look like when detonated in a high speed series of delays.

We need our soldiers BACK here. We need their courage and expertise. Their commander and chief has already been implicated by blocking invetigations. That part of their oath they can forego.

Focus on the Constitution and lawful performance from the BEGINNING or there will be no more Constitution.

 

[Christophera]

The American government may be many bad things, but it did not murder the occupants of the World Trade Center, the passengers and crew of those airline jets, nor any of the people in the Pentagon.

Read this switchtech,

Tell your buddy in Afgahnistan that the US government has been INFILTRATED and the infiltrators murdered 3,000 citizens. I know that the US government is disabled from doing that by law. When laws are broken by those pretending to be government, they just lost their position. They are no longer government. Our soldiers are ultimately following the orders of infiltrators.

If the oath he took as a soldier is taken seriously then he can at least consider facts.

Send him this image

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

And ask him if it looks like a collapse.

Do you/he agree that due process was violated 3,000 times when evidence was removed from the scene and destroyed befor private investigations were conducted. The relatives of vistims have an unequivicol right to a proper investigation and if they feel that any official agency is not doing an appropriate job or if they are worried that the proper job is not being done, they have a right to conduct their own invesitgation.

If the the infiltrated governemtn says, "Sorry, it is a matter of national security" and they are blaiming it on Muslims then they already have what they need to know and THERE IS NO REASON TO LIMIT THE PUBLIC INVESTIGATION.

Period.


Your buddies life is on the line for NOTHING.

The buildings were built to demolish. Send him and all the GI's here.

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

The should know what well contained, optimally placed and distributed high explosives look like when detonated in a high speed series of delays.

We need our soldiers BACK here. We need their courage and expertise. Their commander and chief has already been implicated by blocking invetigations. That part of their oath they can forego.

Focus on the Constitution and lawful performance from the BEGINNING or there will be no more Constitution.

Save your "dispassionate" sermon for folks that don't know about high explosives, concrete and steel. I do.

 

[Christophera]

You seem to aprove of it, since you fail to take any step to bring them to justice. Remember the 3000 poor victims that died, Christophera. Do it for them, go to court!

Come on, you must know at least one good attorney joke.

 

[maccy]

Come on, you must know at least one good attorney joke.

I like that! More of that please!

Chris, I know we aren't going to convince you of anything and I really do wish you well.

Please realise that you're also not going to convince us.

All the information you have is here, and probably doesn't need repeating. Any lurkers who are around will have got it by now.

Unfortunately people around here will keep arguing with you if you keep posting here, it's the nature of this forum.

I honestly think that you can call it a day and stop posting here and it won't make a difference - your argument is out there and this thread stands as a testament to the fact that you didn't give in or back down.

You've spent six months of your life here arguing with people who won't give in.

I humbly suggest that you could use the time over the next six months on a more enjoyable way.

All the best.

Matthew

 

[Bell]

Come on, you must know at least one good attorney joke.

You are the joke, Christophera.

Now answer the question:

- Are you going to take your evidence to court, yes or no?

If not, you are going to fail the families of the 3000 poor victims. Can you life with that burden?

Now answer, and stop sidestepping.

 

[hcmom]

Come on, you must know at least one good attorney joke.

I was worried. I don't think I got anything good from Chris yesterday!

 

[Powa]

Your awareness of our socioculturalpolitical condition equals that of the last cat image posted.

If you're talking about American 'socioculturalpolitical condition' I have to disapoint you. I'm not American.

Three generatons of media manipulation has rendered our populations unable to even recognize the difference between black and white, figuratively speaking.

Here you go again. Everyone is a stupid zombie except you. And you don't find that odd? Why are you not manipulated? Or hypnotized? Why are you so special?

You appear one of the few unaware of this as you consider your question valid.

Yes, I'm unaware of 300 million stupid Americans. Minus one Chris A. Brown, of course.

If I was average I would have given up immediately as soon as I realized that FEMA was trying to present steel core columns.

No, average you're not.

 

[SezMe]

We have had mass murders here since that time becasue the County will not follow laws and the courts will not recognize, follow or uphold them.

I have started a new thread to test Chris on this so as to not derail this one too much.

 

[Christophera]

i dont think you understand what naivete means.
what is naive about you filing a lawsuit?

You are confused. You actually think we have courts of law.

We are the law. If we cannot agree on the purpose of law, whoever can interpret what "law" is for for their own purposes.

So far they have killed about 6000 if you count the soldiers, they have removed the Constitution and the courts.

How do you feel about this?

 

[Christophera]

You are the joke, Christophera.

Now answer the question:

- Are you going to take your evidence to court, yes or no?

If not, you are going to fail the families of the 3000 poor victims. Can you life with that burden?

Now answer, and stop sidestepping.

It is you that fail to engage the purpose of reason, not I. I bring evidence and seek your ability to reason so we might enforce the law of the land together. But you do not seem to recognize the purpose of reason or law and how evidence might be used to recover some of each.

I've filed my lawsuits, I know what is happening and what is not. As far as I can tell you've done nothing but excercise your right to be unreasonable, and, ..... without evidence to boot.

I know what I saw on TV in 1990 on channel 10 (KCET 28) in the documentary called "The Construction of the Twin Towers" and what I saw helps me to correctly interpret the images of the demo and build a web site that documents the concrete core.

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

You have no evidence for what you assert and you have no reason to assert it.

Can you even tell us why you continue to try to assert the towers had 47 steel core columns at their center?

 

[Big Al]

She remembers nothing of it only that we watched it.

You mean she doesn't remember hearing how the main structural supports of a major U.S. architectural icon were deliberately filled with high explosives? I'd have thought that would be the kind of detail that would stick in one's mind. She didn't think this was strange?

How very inconvenient.

For my part, I'm still trying to imagine;

a) The foresight of authority figures who knew in 1966 that they might one day have to blow up the WTC.

b) The confidence of said evil planners in sweaty, degraded 40-year old C4 to explode perfectly right on cue. It's only a wonder it didn't blow up long before - which might have been a teensy little embarrassment.

c) How a documentary that revealed this skulduggery ever went to air.

d) Why such a documentary didn't provoke a HUGE public outcry at the time, and flood the Internet with references to it. And yet it seems you're the only person who can remember it in any detail.

 

[Mobyseven]

You are confused. You actually think we have courts of law.

Anyone convicted of a crime in the years since 9/11 will be surprised to hear that they were actually NOT convicted, as the courts they were supposed to be convicted in don't exist. I would further postulate that they will be rather happy about this news.

We are the law. If we cannot agree on the purpose of law, whoever can interpret what "law" is for for their own purposes.

Quite the philosopher there, Chris. You should write a book or something. "We are the law" - sounds somewhat like the sort of justification the KKK would use to justify their lynching. When things fail to go the way you want them to, try to incite a mob metality.

Could you please submit a contact email for your ex-wife, as well as an independant referee to confirm that we are in fact contacting your ex-wife?

I would like to have a second person who remembers seeing the documentary (even if this is a possibly biased witness). It doesn't matter if she doesn't remember the content of the documentary, just that said documentary exists.

 

[mortimer]

She remembers nothing of it only that we watched it.

Well, that's awfully convenient for your little story, just like the rest of your story, isn't it?

If you were correct those steel core columns would be protruding from the core area of the WTC2 CORE and they are not, so, ......... you are wrong. My claim is corroborated yours is not.

If you were correct there would be construction photos showing the concrete core, yet there are only construction photos showing the steel core. You are wrong. My claim is corroborated yours is not.

 

[Belz...]

Mo good attorney jokes and no evidence, Typical.

Please point to the attorney joke I made.

Because I know and I love my country and my children. Why do you bother?

But you DON'T bother, chris. You waste your time in a skeptics' forum when you should be trying to prove your case. You claim that courts are ineffective, that experts are lying to protect themselves and that the entire world is hypnotised to forget the facts.

It seems as though you can't win. So why bother ? And if you DO bother, why do it here ?

To explain not argue about.

Sorry, but if those points are important then they should be important enough for you to explain, for if others don't understand your points they can't argue about them very well, can they ?

Minor as far as the exactness, major as far as explanation.

In science, exactness is everything. You're trying to prove something very important. You should be expected to give very precise answers.

 

[Belz...]

Three generatons of media manipulation has rendered our populations unable to even recognize the difference between black and white, figuratively speaking. You appear one of the few unaware of this as you consider your question valid.

That's called a claim, chris, not an explanation.

If such columns existed they would be seen here BIGTIME because the lower core is totally intact.

Why should we see them through what you admitted could be dust ?

An epidemic of naivete has struck JREF. Quick, get the proctoscope.

Chris is deluded. Quick, get the straightjacket.

My evidence is absolute for any who know structural steel and concrete.

Or dust.

 

[Belz...]

The 2 hour documentary I viewed "The Construction of the Twin Towers" started production in 1987 and aired in 1990.

How did you come across the 1987 date ? When was it mentionned, by anyone, when this documentary was made ?

In the beginning they mentioned the 18 minute video that is still available and differentiated their intimate, techinical production from it.

That's new. I'm going to assume that you're making it up as you go, this time. You never mentioned this, and now you suddenly "remember" this information ?

From it I learned that the C4 coating on some of the rebar was exposed to bad weather over the winter months before concrete could be poured.

You never said they mentioned C4, chris. YOU think it was C4, but you claimed the documentary never said so.

How would I know that if i hadn't seen the doc, how would I know that?

See above.

My ex wife watched it with me and remebers it, sorry.

Perhaps you could help us contact her and validate this claim ?

If you were correct those steel core columns would be protruding from the core area of the WTC2 CORE and they are not, so, ......... you are wrong. My claim is corroborated yours is not.

That's easy. You made up something that was impossible. Of course, the impossible doesn't happen, but it doesn't mean you're right, because what you claimed wasn't true to begin with.

You are confused. You actually think we have courts of law.

We are the law. If we cannot agree on the purpose of law, whoever can interpret what "law" is for for their own purposes.

So far they have killed about 6000 if you count the soldiers, they have removed the Constitution and the courts.

Again, those are called claims, not proof.

It is you that fail to engage the purpose of reason, not I. I bring evidence and seek your ability to reason so we might enforce the law of the land together.

You're going to go for a revolution ?

I know what I saw on TV in 1990 on channel 10 (KCET 28) in the documentary called "The Construction of the Twin Towers" and what I saw helps me to correctly interpret the images of the demo and build a web site that documents the concrete core.

Bolding mine. Interesting.

 

[Big Al]

So, a documentary Chris saw 16 years ago about work done 40 years ago gives him blinding insight.

About that long ago, I saw a horrifying documentary about a nuclear accident at a reactor called "SL-1", in which some guys died in rather horrible circumstances. The name stuck with me, but I couldn't for the life of me build a website from the information.

There are a few websites about the accident now, so at least I know I wasn't dreaming it.

Another thought - why did the evil WTC builders allow documentary makers access to a structure being wrapped in C4? Even if the explosives weren't specifically mentioned in the documentary (which isn't clear to me), surely somebody might have asked awkward questions about the white cladding on the still-exposed rebar waiting for concrete infill?

And as I've said before, concrete doesn't need to wait for dry or warm weather to go off as "materials expert" Chris asserted - it's an exothermic reaction and can even set under water. The Hoover Dam had concrete poured into it in all conditions, and I believe it's still setting in parts.

 

[Big Al]

And as I've said before, concrete doesn't need to wait for dry or warm weather to go off as "materials expert" Chris asserted - it's an exothermic reaction and can even set under water. The Hoover Dam had concrete poured into it in all conditions, and I believe it's still setting in parts.

I rebuke myself and withdraw that remark. I see that very low temperatures can lead to weakened concrete. Sorry, Chris.

However, I do stand by the rest of the post.