• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Celebrate The Steel Cores Lack Of Evidence!!!

Your first image,

8748453043bd77e28.jpg


Shows the interior box columns ("MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS") on the left side of the tower. The group on the far left can be easily identified as interior box columns which are not inside the the core as shown in the previously linked image where the floor beams comprise rectangles which are of exactly the same proportions as shown in the aerial. The single box column falling off to the right is literally the only image that could be realistically interpreted as a "core column". It is not however. Projecting the column vertical angle downward makes it a part of the wall of interior box columns. The central core area is to the right more and no columns are seen there where they should be along with the "lattice work" that fraud Gene Corely presents later in your post. The lattice work is not seen.


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/87484549459bbc9ed.jpg[/qimg]

The above image shows the concrete core and light reflected off the interior of the shear walls. The breakdown steel forms leave a very smooth shiny surface on concrete which will easily reflect light at low angles of incidence. This image and other silhouettes are dealt with completely here,

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

The third image down, same image.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/874845533b6969bde.jpg[/qimg]

The above image is dealt with on the same page,

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

at the bottom. The image shows the interior box columns standing AFTER the concrete boles up. This image, taken part of a seconds before shows the concrete blowing up., The steel on that side of the building is only partially compromised by cutting charges due to exposure and the loss of viability of the built in explosives.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/8748455348d42d173.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/8748455348d3ef31c.jpg[/qimg]

Both of the above are interior box columns that have been cut by the cutting charges and are falling out of the line of interior box columns. No image clearly shows steel core columns in the core area at an elevation because the steel core columns did not exist.

What existed is obvious as concrete to anybody that knows construction and has the courage and integrity to acknowledge that concrete is the only structure that can stand and appear as linked under those conditions

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/87484569f60feb777.jpg[/qimg]

Unseen in the above image is the concrete core which is just below the un cored area of the tower. Notice, the supposed steel core columns are also not seen.

Nice video celebrating my web site,

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

which has the only comprehensive, feasible, realistic explanation for the 9-11 WTC event on the internet.

All those that doubt this, please realize that there is no web site supporting the steel core columns with raw evidence of images from the demolition and that the massive amount of opposition to my assertion that the most common building material in the world, concrete, supported by copius evidence of photos and links to various un interested sites shows that the steel core crowd has no evidence and must resort to elaborate ad hominem attacks upon the messenger.

There is no evidence for the steel core columns. only fraudulent fabrications easily debunked by images of the demolition which bare the entire structure at various points.
 
ha, ha, not even after another 8 and a half thousand posts - this is a major pathological obcession we are seeing here.

Obsessed with my childrens futures and awareness of your deep denial/delusion and my commitment to the principles of the US Constitution with the inherent value of the American people, as deceived as they may be,

is more like it.
.

But you do not want to know that from your isolated cave.
 
So sad you saw a mistake and now are the only one, the only one who can not see the errors and make corrections.

You are the last one to cling to a concrete core. I have proved to others and they have corrected or admitted their mistake.

When will you?

Come up with evidence for the steel core columns of a raw nature and explain what looks like concrete here and you stand a chance.
 
I'm starting to suspect that pathological obsession lies on both sides here. Chris's mind isn't going to change.

I can't believe they're still going at it.

But hell what do I know, unlike Chris I'm only trained in building construction and work on tall buildings projects........

...or is that the hypnosis kicking in? :confused:
 
Come up with evidence for the steel core columns of a raw nature and explain what looks like concrete here and you stand a chance.
[my bold]

looks like? LOOKS LIKE?

does this look like concrete?

8748456a2b88dfc40.jpg


how do you reconcile this image with your oft spammed one on your site christophera? do you still insist there is evidence in this "raw image" of a 17' thick concrete structure? if so please be kind enough to indicate where it is?

btw apologies to the OP of this image i can't give credit as i don't know who it was. but it does the job it was meant to do. perfectly
 
Those temperatures are not ambient throughout the fire and are only attained in a few places for a short period. The number is more accurately expressed "parts to attain" termpertures up to 1500F.
"Parts to attain" being loosely translated to mean "currently burning"?


Generally, in this type of discussion, it is assumed a person has familiarity with the images of the event, 9-11, and knows what images are out there and does not argue points that can be refuted easily. Generally people have their pet theory and have perused all the images to find ones that support their theory.

What happens most of the time, and I'm generalizing here to typify the 9-11 exchange process, is that the person gets so involved that they sort of forget that such and such image exists and shows something contrary to what they've come to believe, and another poster has to remind them that there are images that show something that contradicts there position irrefutably.
Yes, we've noticed...

When that poster is reminded, and if they are sincere in seeking the truth, they change their mind. Their perspective is modified.
Well, you did say you were generalizing. There's no way we'd expect you to be part of the norm...

When this does not occur something is wrong. The person is not being reasonable, they are not using the evidence.
Yes, we've noticed...
 
"Parts to attain" being loosely translated to mean "currently burning"?


Yes, we've noticed...

Well, you did say you were generalizing. There's no way we'd expect you to be part of the norm...

Yes, we've noticed...

In over 200 pages not one image of steel core columns has been produced by many, many deniers of the concrete core. The two images that have been produced that might be credibly misinterpreted have been explained and fit reasonably into images of the demo which also show the concrete core.

All this while no image showing concrete has been equitably explained.

So, everybody has noticed, .................... mostly, ....... that you have not provided a feasible explanation while unreasonbly trying to dismiss an explanation and the core structure it depends on, ............. while you have no evidence for the core you, and FEMA and NIST assert exists.
 
[my bold]

looks like? LOOKS LIKE?

does this look like concrete?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/8748456a2b88dfc40.jpg[/qimg]

how do you reconcile this image with your oft spammed one on your site christophera? do you still insist there is evidence in this "raw image" of a 17' thick concrete structure? if so please be kind enough to indicate where it is?

btw apologies to the OP of this image i can't give credit as i don't know who it was. but it does the job it was meant to do. perfectly

The sheetrock covers a hallway on WTC 2. Why the sheerock still exists attests to the efficiency of the C4 coated rebar.

Remember William Rodriugez and the cracking walls, remember the explosions in the basement.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1205439
 
In over 200 pages not one image of steel core columns has been produced by many, many deniers of the concrete core. The two images that have been produced that might be credibly misinterpreted have been explained and fit reasonably into images of the demo which also show the concrete core.

All this while no image showing concrete has been equitably explained.

So, everybody has noticed, .................... mostly, ....... that you have not provided a feasible explanation while unreasonbly trying to dismiss an explanation and the core structure it depends on, ............. while you have no evidence for the core you, and FEMA and NIST assert exists.

Post #8455, last image. I would have put it here, but I'm not really sure how.

And Chris, I'd still like to know more about this magazine article. Simply the name of the magazine and the year the article was published would be fine.
 
This is a stupid question, but if Chris's mind isn't going to change (and it very clearly isn't, despite the mountains of evidence against him), why do you keep posting on this thread? (This is a question for anyone on this thread).

I admire your perseverance, but not your optimism...
 
This is a stupid question, but if Chris's mind isn't going to change (and it very clearly isn't, despite the mountains of evidence against him), why do you keep posting on this thread? (This is a question for anyone on this thread).

I admire your perseverance, but not your optimism...

Admiral, welcome,

As commander of the fleet of justice you must be very upset by the 3,000 violations of due process and the destruction of evidence.

Aparently you have been taken in by the misrepresentations and deceptions. Can you point to any actual evidence against the concrete core which qualifies via comparison to raw evidence of images?
 
you show proof of no concrete core

your post is sad, you show a steel core, sorry but you are still wrong, try again

My post shows the concrete core website which has redundant evidence for the truth core of the Twin Towers.

What is sad is that you are so deceived that you cannot tell the difference between evidence of a concrete core and no evidence for steel core columns.
 
This is a stupid question, but if Chris's mind isn't going to change (and it very clearly isn't, despite the mountains of evidence against him), why do you keep posting on this thread? (This is a question for anyone on this thread).

I admire your perseverance, but not your optimism...

Admiral, welcome,

As commander of the fleet of justice you must be very upset by the 3,000 violations of due process and the destruction of evidence.

Aparently you have been taken in by the misrepresentaions and deceptions. Can you point to any actual evidence for steel core columns or against the concrete core which qualifies via comparison to raw evidence of images?
 
Admiral, welcome,

As commander of the fleet of justice you must be very upset by the 3,000 violations of due process and the destruction of evidence.

Aparently you have been taken in by the misrepresentaions and deceptions. Can you point to any actual evidence for steel core columns or against the concrete core which qualifies via comparison to raw evidence of images?
You have stated you will NOT be convinced despite all the evidence contradicting your concrete core theory. The steel core has been proven as fact beyond ANY doubt. Your opinion is on this matter is no longer relevant.
 
I concur Admiral. I say lets talk about something else and treat Chris as he does the evidence - non existant.

I propose we talk about Australia smashing England in the first test in the ashes. Any takers?

My Dream team has Pieterson and bell, but not Collingwood who carved up yesterday. I picked Harmison but he was as usefull as evidence in this thread.
Ponting is a total uberlord.
 
So, everybody has noticed, .................... mostly, ....... that you have not provided a feasible explanation while unreasonbly trying to dismiss an explanation and the core structure it depends on, ............. while you have no evidence for the core you, and FEMA and NIST assert exists.

I bet that most everybody has noticed.......except apparently you......that I haven't even attempted to provide an explanation that you wouldn't believe, no matter how feasible it is...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom