• 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.
Christophera said:
I've built 1 very nice web sites that are informing Americans with raw evidence of a HUGE lie and WHY the lie.
Click to expand...
Yes, but how many people have you convinced of your concrete core? With evidence so obvious and the concrete core plain to see, surelly, millions by now.

Oh, that's right, we've been all hypnotised. Why bother then?

What have you done besides say "NO" to reality?

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

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
Click to expand...
At no point have I said NO to reality. You, on the other hand, reject reality and substitute your own.

And for the love of all that's good in this world, please, PLEASE, look up "raw evidence" because you're using it all wrong. It's been explained to you dozens of times, yet you insist on making a fool of yourself by misusing it.
 
It was built with C4 inside, thirty years prior to demolition.

And no one noticed, because they're all reptoids.
 
Christophera said:
I've built 1 very nice web sites that are informing Americans with raw evidence of a HUGE lie and WHY the lie.

What have you done besides say "NO" to reality?

<spam>

<spam>
Click to expand...

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

180px-Beholder.jpg
 
JonnyFive said:
What, you're not swayed by his amazing evidence?

Yeah, me neither.
Click to expand...

Picky, picky, picky... Geez, he built 1 very nice web sites for us, and now you want it to prove what he's claiming it does?
 
Christophera said:
I've built 1 very nice web sites that are informing Americans with raw evidence of a HUGE lie and WHY the lie.
Click to expand...

A) Pictures are not raw evidence. You've admitted this. Why do you continue to call them such ?

B) Your "WHY the lie" is sheer speculation, because you don't have a motive or any proof of explosives or anything, EVEN IF you had proof of the core.
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
I should admit that I'm 6 months overdue for an eye exam and there might be a big concrete core right in the middle of the picture that I just can't see.
Click to expand...

There is also the possibility that we're all hypontized agents of the conspiracy. Or we're just too stupid to see THE TRUTH, as Christophera keeps implying/blantantly saying.
 
Belz... said:
A) Pictures are not raw evidence. You've admitted this. Why do you continue to call them such ?

B) Your "WHY the lie" is sheer speculation, because you don't have a motive or any proof of explosives or anything, EVEN IF you had proof of the core.
Click to expand...

images are as close as we get to raw evidence so by default they deserve the label

Do you have any images that show any of the 47, 1,300 foot the steel core columns at some elevation above ground clearly in the core area?

I have an image of WTC 2 core that appears to be concrete as it bears no resemblence to steel columns.

i also have an image, raw evidence, of a section of concrete shear wall which is supporting the spire. Can you come up with any images of raw evidence of the steel core columns that have the veracity of ths raw evidence?
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
Ummm, this is a picture of a debris cloud behind some buildings. The building has already completely collapsed. There actually isn't a core of any kind in this picture.
Click to expand...

Many people have no problem with identifying a solid strcuture in that image. Perhaps you have no idea what concrete or solid object appear as or the difference between them and dust. There is very clearly a solid obect in the exact area of the WTC 2 core in that image.
 
Powa said:
At no point have I said NO to reality. You, on the other hand, reject reality and substitute your own.
Click to expand...

And the entire time you had no evidence, you still do not have any evidence of the reality you assert was.

On the other hand, I do have evidence, images of the raw evidence of concrete, which also discount your assertions.

For example, this is the concrete core wall base. Keep in mind I've revised my statement f the rebar diameter. I realized that the docuemntary I saw in 1990, "The Construction of the Twin Towers" had described 6 inch rebar that reached up from the foundaton into the lower core walls.

Note. There are no steel columns penetrating the stairwell or to the right of the stair and in the fore ground as the 4 different core floor plans show their approximate locations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom