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

[Big Al]

I've just realised: Chris doesn't have concrete cores on the brain: his brain is a concrete core!

 

[Powa]

I suspect the officer's real gesture was a vigorous tapping of his right temple with his extended index finger.

No, he flipped him the bird.

 

[JonnyFive]

No, he flipped him the bird.

It does fit the available evidence.

3" BIRD ON 4' CENTER BRANCH!

Irrefutable!

 

[Powa]

3" BIRD ON 4' CENTER BRANCH!

The bird is sitting on what can only be concrete, what with the round shape and grey color. And, no one has ever produced a reasonable explanation for what that is if it is not concrete!

 

[JonnyFive]

The bird is sitting on what can only be concrete, what with the round shape and grey color. And, no one has ever produced a reasonable explanation for what that is if it is not concrete!

And we all know what the NWO does with concrete. Do you see any rebar?

The bird must be warned!

 

[hcmom]

And we all know what the NWO does with concrete. Do you see any rebar?

The bird must be warned!

If you don't warn the bird, you will be responsible for the death of 3000 birds!

 

[Belz...]

You cannot have it both ways, those stresses take time and space to accumulate, and you have yet to show a shattered column end.

So it's impossible de collapse something very quickly ?

They were cut as part of the demolition into aproximate 40 foot pieces.

Speculation, again.

Rodger Harris answered the question about torsion with common sense, and he doesn't claim to be an architect.

That's why he answered with common sense rather than experience.

A one time, unregistered post on April 1st. Yep That's an April fools joke if i ever saw one.

Or, sombody very afraid of something but yet still wanting to contribute to the truth/fact finding and doing so but protecting themselves by posting on April fools day knowing people like you would compromise it.

Do you realise how biased that sounds ? You've just decided what the person who sent you this was thinking. Are you a telephath, again ?

We've confirmed that Oxford is in on the cover up and PBS as well.

I must've missed that.

Basically all of America that is wedded to government is in on it.

And I assume they ALL benefited from it ?

I am unlicensed in everything I do

Big f-ing surprise, there!

 

[Belz...]

I am producing the scan of the Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation, published in 1992 and you are proving they have no record of it while I am posting an image of a 500 foot tall concrete core to support it (among other images here). You and I are "we" (among others here).

There's just one flaw in your reasoning here, chris. 500 foot of DUST.

Also, how would I be able to provde such detailed and congruent explanations for the images showing the conrete, rebar, elevator guide rail supports, etc. if I had not seen the documentary?

Well, you have proven yourself pretty good at making things up.

My explanations, descriptions etc. are completely consistent with the raw evidence wheras your and others are not.

The what kind of evidence, now ?

Is this thread not 200 plus pages? If I was totally without evidence and reason would this be possible?

Totally. See any thread by Iacchus.

The very fact that I am here, insistent, day after day consistently saying the same thing about these images...

Proves nothing at all. Any raving lunatic can say the same thing, day in and day out, without beign right. What, you think if someone opens a thread about the Earth beign flat it makes him right after 200 pages ?

Those who post. "Let this thread die" or "Don't feed the trolls" are actually working harder than you are to keep the secret

Why the hell would we want to keep "the secret" if we don't even know it exists ? Your lies aren't very consistent.

For lack of a better name (I think there is one tho), you are diabled from seeing something that is actaully before your eyes. Your unconscious mind gets the first, original information from your eyes and gives a copy to your conscious mind. In this case your unconscious provides a set of things your conscious "feels" (things provided by the unconscious) are reasons to explain what you see.

Sorry, that's not how the human brain works. Get a degree, or something.

Others voice this as "dust" or some other excuse, type description.

Funny, you're one of those people who saw "dust".

They may not exist now (I'm sure there are copies) but they did and what I show and say proves it indirectly.

No, at best it proves that, had they existed, they would've been evidence. They don't exist. You can't say that something that doesn't exist is evidence because if it DID exist it would agree with you.

 

[JonnyFive]

There's just one flaw in your reasoning here, chris. 500 foot of DUST.

Well, that and the fact the book doesn't seem to exist. I guess the NWO disinfo agents erased all knowledge of it.

 

[Belz...]

Buck Fush, I don't talk about puppets.

He's being used.

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

"Hey, look at this scenario I made up."

You don't know how wrong you are. The inspectors relax when I'm around because they know I have integrity and care about my work.

More of your telepathy, chris ?

My experiences with 2 licensed, certified, elite individuals.

Go get'em, Robin Hood!

August Domel, Jr., Ph.D., S.E., P.E. November 2001

Do you have ANYTHING post-2001 ?

You don't hear explosions because the audio was turned down at some point.

Was it tuned down for those who were on location ?

Get real

You should heed your own advice.

Your distortion of my words actually shows disrespect for the loss of life because you seek to justify a BS lie covering for murderers, whereas my use of words simply shows that I'm searching for words to carry meaning over and over because YOU ARE NOT RECOGNIZING the meaning of the words I first used, like "uniform".

You are sick.

So, which is it ? Hypnosis or complicity ?

If it is not steel reinforced concrete, what is it?

You should ask chris. He said it could be dust.

The NIST product explains nothing, that is why I don't read it.

How do you know what it explains, then ?

 

[JonnyFive]

If you don't warn the bird, you will be responsible for the death of 3000 birds!

Unless the bird is a disinfo agent, in which case the government will just silence me or erase my memory.

Maybe I'll just sit here and post on this interweb forum about it.

I saw a documentary on birds back in 1990. It was on PBS and called "Birds Are Government Disinfo Agents". Don't bother looking it up, all information was erased by the NWO that for some reason allowed the documentary to be produced.

 

[hcmom]

I have proof that those birds have clay cores... "The Smoking Clay"

 

[Belz...]

Sure, and the topple stopped at the bottom of the clip. To suggest it would continue down into undamaged areas IS ridiculous.

I see you have no experience either with houses of cards or anything else, for that matter.

Your statement is either an obvious lie or an indication that you have no knowledge of even LEGO blocks.

Since you cannot explain your own thoughts about what happened of what is seen where dust is not present in the images, some thing is needed to explain your inanity.

I can explain my own thoughts. Look:

Your pictures are far too low-resolution to be able to make any definite conclusion about what they show, structually.

The misrepresentations of the construction images is proven by the lack of core columns in the demolition images so "guide rails" fits way better than "core columns" because those were supposedly very strong.

And again you show your lack of knowledge by assuming that steel is invincible.

You haven't shown that such damage actaully occured. You assume, or generalize, a distortion, that such ocurred.

No, you've been SHOWN images that prove that not only the wall that was crashing into was damaged. What were you doing when you were "reading" those posts ?

In your presentation this damge extends all the way to the ground, which is absolutely unsupported.

Of course not. I said WALLS. The damage was to the opposite WALL. A 767 doesn't stop on a dime, even when it hits a wall.

Seeing as you have no pictures at all, your assertion simply serves your profound lack of evidence.

Pictures shmictures. They're the only thing you've been willing to consider as evidence, even when shown that they are inaccurate.

Reasonably, by default, when not offering a more reasonable explanation, the explanation provided is the one that stands if it is congruent with conditions.

No, no it's not. Besides, yours is FAR from congruent. It's more like a mass of Jell-O that wiggles back and forth, never becoming solid.

If you can't find raw evidence to support the steel core columns, just say so.

There are other issues that are relevant to this discussion, Chris. Also, you can't find raw evidence to support the concrete core, either. All you've got is a picture of what you admitted could be dust.

 

[JonnyFive]

I have proof that those birds have clay cores... "The Smoking Clay"

I've found evidence of controlled demolition:

CLAY CORE COMES DOWN!

Here is my computer simulation of what I think happened:

WHAT REALLY HAPPENED!

 

[Belz...]

Ah April fools day!!!!!! I didn't spot that even after looking several times lol

It took you 5 minutes to notice that.

Chris is still working on it after 8 months.

 

[Belz...]

The perimeter columns supported 50%, the interior box columns 30% and the core 20%.

Oh! So the concrete core was insufficient to bear the load ? That's interesting, and also new.

light color with rough broken edge show it is a concrete shear wall.

No, chris. You can't make out anything in that picture.

Yes. The buckling is most likely the core being detonated in one 40 foot zone first on one side will get that effect. With a few interior box columns getting cut then a few floors detonating.

Liar, liar pants on fire, chris. According to you, the WTC2 core was detonated AFTER the collapse. Otherwise we wouldn't see it in your much-vaunted dust picture.

Smaller concrete cores are cast ahead of the steel so their strength can add to the tower which reduces the towers weight.

The WTC concrete core was probably about twice the size. Casting the concrete inside the steel saves forming costs.

Ah! A new lie. Wouldn't that make the structure extremely unstable ?

Yes teh concrete core went up before the steel on WTC 1, then the steel went up first on WTC 2, which makes more sense

Then I'm sure you can provide a construction picture ("raw" evidence) of WTC1 showing the concrete...

It is logical that he could not see the core which was 35 feet in from the edge of the floor minimum and 5 floors up.

Well, we could see it THROUGH the space between the columns, no ?

 

[Belz...]

Well, that and the fact the book doesn't seem to exist. I guess the NWO disinfo agents erased all knowledge of it.

Well, we ARE that good.

 

[JonnyFive]

Well, we ARE that good.

We are, aren't we? And erasing that documentary from the internet... classic!

By the way, I love the Chris quote in your sig, Belz.

 

[Christophera]

You cannot have it both ways, those stresses take time and space to accumulate, and you have yet to show a shattered column end.

So it's impossible de collapse something very quickly ?

Of that size and strength, yes, unless there is somethign very obvious and LOCAL to the specific failure. So,......... when it falls all the way to the ground, you ............ are ............ on the liars side.

They were cut as part of the demolition into aproximate 40 foot pieces.

Speculation, again.

This is common knowledge of ground zero, a great deal of the big steel was a perfect maximum length for loading onto trucks. Either you are informed or you are not.

Rodger Harris answered the question about torsion with common sense, and he doesn't claim to be an architect.

That's why he answered with common sense rather than experience.

The term would governmentally approved authority. Remember, that is what is in question here. Recall, ...... government removed evidence from the scene of a crime before private investigations into collapse (sic) were conducted. When something as impossible as a 10 second collapse brings a tower down, the entire world of structural engineers is not only allowed, they are INVITED to help understand exactly what happened. that is what happens in a rightful and lawful society.

It is clear you do approve of those.

A one time, unregistered post on April 1st. Yep That's an April fools joke if i ever saw one.

Have you ever had such a joke with such meaningful aspects to everyone played upon you?

My description of Robersons comment makes much more sense AFTER your denial of evidence showing a concrete core.

Or, sombody very afraid of something but yet still wanting to contribute to the truth/fact finding and doing so but protecting themselves by posting on April fools day knowing people like you would compromise it.

Do you realise how biased that sounds ? You've just decided what the person who sent you this was thinking. Are you a telephath, again ?

Perhaps, but reading between the lines is a skill based in tangibility. For example, how would you feel under these conditions if somebody blew up the building you had designed then threatened you to not reveal the true design.

We've confirmed that Oxford is in on the cover up and PBS as well.

I must've missed that.

When a uniform denial of publication and production is counter to raw evidence of the concrete core, We've just determining who is assisting with the coverup.

Basically all of America that is wedded to government is in on it.

And I assume they ALL benefited from it ?

They probably think they will. Which is part of the great deception taking nearly 2 generations to perfect.

I am unlicensed in everything I do

Big f-ing surprise, there!

So, ........... do you do anything besides slip profanities into glib denials?

 

[Christophera]

Sure, and the topple stopped at the bottom of the clip. To suggest it would continue down into undamaged areas IS ridiculous.

I see you have no experience either with houses of cards or anything else, for that matter.

Your statement is either an obvious lie or an indication that you have no knowledge of even LEGO blocks.

You can say what you like but it is not supported in history or with reason. Your credibility wanes with each denial. This is the concrete core wall at its base and you have no raw evidence of steel core columns which is why your posts are empty of any evidence.

Since you cannot explain your own thoughts about what happened of what is seen where dust is not present in the images, some thing is needed to explain your inanity.

I can explain my own thoughts. Look:

Your pictures are far too low-resolution to be able to make any definite conclusion about what they show, structually.

Very convienent but not reasonable. The image of the WTC 2 concrete core IS perfectly aligned with the core area and the dust is obvious AS DUST. Meaning no one here besides my self has ever provided a reasonable explanation for what that material is.

The misrepresentations of the construction images is proven by the lack of core columns in the demolition images so "guide rails" fits way better than "core columns" because those were supposedly very strong.

And again you show your lack of knowledge by assuming that steel is invincible.

You are distorting my words. "Very strong" does not mean invincible. It means we need an explanation and you have never provided one which seriously hurts your credibility because I have presented abundant evidence of concrete including rebar.

In your presentation this damage extends all the way to the ground, which is absolutely unsupported.

Of course not. I said WALLS. The damage was to the opposite WALL. A 767 doesn't stop on a dime, even when it hits a wall.

Your answer pretends that I'm stating the inertia of impact is an issue. It is not. I am stating that a plane impacting the tower only imparts a damage to that area which is reasonable. For you to assert that the damage extends to the ground is a distortion of the history physical damage to structures. Again, your efforts to compensate for your lack of evidence are simply damaging your credibility, NOW, this could extend to levels below the ground.

Seeing as you have no pictures at all, your assertion simply serves your profound lack of evidence.

Pictures shmictures. They're the only thing you've been willing to consider as evidence, even when shown that they are inaccurate.

Now we see how much you appreciate raw evidence. Attitude controls your perceptions, not logic and reason. For example, you nor anyone has provided an explanation for what can only be a concrete shear wall. When a person in denial has no evidence, they have no appreciation for the oppositions evidence.

Reasonably, by default, when not offering a more reasonable explanation, the explanation provided is the one that stands if it is congruent with conditions.

No, no it's not. Besides, yours is FAR from congruent. It's more like a mass of Jell-O that wiggles back and forth, never becoming solid.

Nice juvenile label for hard evidence. When you have none, labeling is to be expected as part of your dismissal of the reality. When I post raw evidence showing concrete such as the concrete core inside the perimeter stel of the top of tower 2 falling on WTC 3, seriously if you have no evidence all you can do is deny the evidence is real./ I understand this, you have a pitiful case.

If you can't find raw evidence to support the steel core columns, just say so.

There are other issues that are relevant to this discussion, Chris. Also, you can't find raw evidence to support the concrete core, either. All you've got is a picture of what you admitted could be dust.

Again, you attempt to distort my statment. What I said is that "there IS dust" in the image of the concrete core of WTC 2., Which is true, but the solid object in the position of the core is exacly that and the only material it can be is concrete. All of this while NO STEEL CORE COLUMNS PROTRUDE FROM THE TOP which precludes the existence of steel core columns.

Done deal, .......... get real.