Yea, ................ the mother of all conspiracies, secrets.

The notion that 2 towers would end up tangled steel, SAND & GRAVEL from collapse is absurd.

Oh, .......... and it looks like this.



The most sophisticated demolition in history done with towers built to demolish in a global conspiracy spanning over half a century. Not the topic of this thread.

The FEMA lie about the core. The topic of this thread.

NOTE: Who remembers seeing a 1990 2 hour documentary airing on PBS called "The Construction Of The Twin Towers." Ask friends and family.

Here the concrete core is documented.

http://concretecore.741.com

and here the demolition plan is reverse engineered to show the feasibility and final realistic effects of placing high explosives inside the cast concrete core walls as a coating on high tensile steel rebar.

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

Please, emphasize the concrete core lie to those perhaps not ready for the "built to demolish" aspect. It tends to be too much for them, let them examine the lie for now.

Here is a final understanding that most people familiar, from television, with big quarry blast and building demolitions should see quite easily.

The below image,



shows an effect that is only possibe under a VERY narrow set of circumstances. I have some experience with blasting and firstly, the uniformity of the expanding materials is astounding. If high explosives are not confined exactly in the center of the mineral material, minimum fracturing occurs, and huge gas jets blow into space with small bullet like rock flying up.

Note in the above image the vertical valley between the debris wave on the right and the one coming towards the camera. That represents the plane of the walls of the core at 90 degrees expanding outward at perhaps 10,000 foot per second for the first 40-70 feet, velocity decaying, then arcing falling. The planes are expanding away from each other so form the valley between them. Accomplished with a high speed series of digital delays wired into the security phone circuits of the towers.

Its all here, even the method the interior box columns, (not core columns) were cut by high explosives. Built to demolish. We have bigger problems than demo'ed towers, gotta tear the scab off and clean up or lose our republic and its democracy.

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

Times a wastin' been too long already.

"Times a wastin' been too long already."

The above quote is true. Plus all the steel,iron etc. was either dumped at sea or sold to foreign countries. The whole investigation was a whitewash.Some crime scene investigation.Destroy the evidence.Unfortunatly too many people beleive the 'Gov.' excuse (lie).

Of course the excuse the government made in the terrirble job they did in the aftermath of 9/11 was out of respect for the victims. They didn't release any evidence or details out of respect for the victims and there families. That's why evidence is being covered up to this day.


I don't know about explosives being built into the building. That's a stretch. Interesting thought though.

They definitely used that as an excuse. A set of cognitive distortions imposed on the public, emotional reasoning and minimizing, Generalizations to justify attacking Afghanisatan and Iraq.



The aspect of the lie about the core shows the intent form the beginning to prevent any ability to investigate as well as the continuing cover up today you point out. The NY mayor took the WTC documents and will not return them. Courts won't make him follow laws. He was knighted BTW.



"Buitl in" Yes, I know it is a stretch. However, when you realize that the only feasible, realistic explanation for free fall and pulverization hinge on the fact

The image above of the exploding tower actually cannot be created any other way than building the explosives in. If explosives are not optimally placed and distributed the effect is completely different. The uniformity of the explosion above is amazing. I have the experience to recognize that, others do too. A few days ago I received an email from a demolitions contractor.

Subject: 
deception achieved
Date: 
Wed, 24 May 2006 22:43:27 -0700

Awesome work, very well presented with great links. I am a demolition contractor for 30 years and it all fits and always believed this was the case.Now there needs to be the rest of the story.

Bombs and explosive not placed in the center of concrete will blow small holes and mostly reflect outward. Yes, hard to believe. Remember what hermann ghoering told hitler, that "the more outrageous the lie, the easier it will be believed."

And, the truth will explain free fall and pulveriztion.

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

Thermite?

In the basement and first floor interior and perimeter box columns. Installed as a part of the remodel following the van bomb.

Makes more sense than jet fuel. There were reports of explosions in the basement. It tooka LOT of heat to turn all that iron into liquid.(molten)

The exlosions were to divide the seismic signals between 2 events. The plane impacts were used to disguise the basement detonations.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1205439

Later the core was detonated to the ground, after thermite was used to drop the last standing steel that was nearer the ground and very thick.

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

If the steel would have been in place for this, much of it would have been thrown into surrounding buildings.

Christophera, You and others that have an open mind and know the difference between black and white should have been on the 911 commission. The facts speak for themselves. Too many beat around the' busher's' and outright fibbers whitewashed the whole deal.

Our discussion is causing people to lose their fear of what each other will think if we question authority on this. For example. I received an email from a demolition contractor who had examined my site in detail.


<argus1@earthlink.net>
Subject: 
deception achieved
Date: 
Wed, 24 May 2006 22:43:27 -0700

Awesome work, very well presented with great links. I am a demolition contractor for 30 years and it all fits and always believed this was the case. Now there needs to be the rest of the story.

There are a few knowledgeable people who realize that the event witnessed can only happen under very limited conditions. Very limited.

Yea, ......... the first time around it got whitewashed, but next time, we'll get the real picture. I feel they will have to use the scenario assembled as a guide, only because not one other belivable means has been produced in 5 years.

"Yea, ......... the first time around it got whitewashed, but next time, we'll get the real
picture"

Ohhh.... I'm not so sure. Oklahoma City as an example.

Does anyone have any thoughts about the 2 bright flashes that seem to come from a chopper hovering above the first towers collapse?(caught on 911 eyewitness)
The chopper flys slowly into the thick smoke and lingers around the top of the south tower,A couple of bright flashes occur,then it quickly flys away out of the smoke.
A second later and the tower collapses?!

I feel,(if there is a conspiracy ) that something much more than explosives were used.
Maybe some sort of radiation,secret,black project weapon.(wheres my tin foil hat? )
If this was planned by "the illuminati" surely these guys would have such sophisticated weapons,through their links with the military.
It just seems a bit old fashioned,too strategic and risky to organise where to put all that TNT!!!!
The fact that the towers just turned to dust strikes me as strange,that would take massive amounts of explosives to achieve,wouldnt it?

My take on the technologies that might be available is that they firstly, are not as developed as we hear. It is a psyop to make people believe that the omnipotent government can wield such power. Secondly, the secret societies do not have a front organization that actually has the power which is presented. That is presented to create fear and reduce opposition, demoralize. The power to use publicity, sure, but not to control the many it takes for the time taken to get this done as we saw.

It is up to the public to think what they secret societies want them to.


Here is the page that explains how the explosives must be placed and distributed.

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

Your point about "dust" is well made. Although they weren't quite reduced to that point, they were still pulverized to a degree where it is absolutely certain that the explosives were perfectly placed and distributed. Building them in is the only way to do this under conditions. The page above is actually the ONLY realistic and feasible explanation for free fall in existence.

^
Good points,cheers for the link.I'll take a closer look when I've got more time.Im impressed with your site too,nice one.

The spire dissolving to nothingness has always baffled me,and the tops of the buildings,esp the south tower tipping east,yet falling down on the streets as dust? hows that?
No pancake effect from floors above,to crush them?

It sure does appear to dissolve, or I thought so for a very long time. Then one day I realized that there is a shock wave from the C4 coated rebar nestled against it down lower that knocks all the dust off the upper portion as it falls.

Here are 2 images you might appreciate. The first is the spire (no steel core columns are seen). The light is blocked, obscuring the frames of the interior box column and floor beams by the concrete shear wall in back.



The next image is one second later and the steel spire has fallen. This image is from the same camera but zoomed differently. Note where the spire was and that the fine vertical elements there are the tallest of the many. Note the top is slightly lower than the spire was. They are 3 inch rebar on 4 foot centers.



The C4 coating on the bar had been exposed too long during winter construciton and was cast in concrete before they realized the coating had lost it's viability. After it was cast it was too late. However, fresher horizontal bar, smaller, still having viable explosive had been tied in to the vertical rebar and that detonated properly fracturing the concrete without damaging the high tensile 3 inch steel delivered in 400 foot sections then butt welded and xrayed before being recoated. The process is described on the scenario page.

Okay, ......... point well made. However, much has been made quite obvious to many since then. Perhaps, if Americans collaborate to effectively use what ability to resist is left.

Hard to say. TV divided us and gave us "attitude" as we dumbed down with misinfo.

I doubt the next (and there will be one)9/11 will cause people to wake up. They will continue to be dumbed down time and time again by the 'media' etc. Common sense takes a back seat to fear in a lot of cases.

i was reading the thread and i came across an interesting movie online:

http://tvnewslies.org/html/watch_loose_change_2_on_line.html

Sorry, my mistake for not identifying what I suggested was next. The next investigation, not 9-11 type event.

I do agree with what you say in the context you apply. I suggest that the next will be simply done to justify marshal law.

I also agree, and not a little, MUCH, with what you say about common sense taking a back seat to fear. In fact, 9-11 to me has the trappings of a ceremony of human sacrifice that re orients us to a fear base of instincts.

Once working from a basic instinct set that is based in fear we are also basically dealing with our reptilian instincts. Reptiles do not have courage and don't care about each other let alone use common sense.

Conclusion:
Using common sense is a mammilian trait for the most part, so even trying to make sense is better than being a cowardly lizard.

..and C4 coated rebar is common sense to you?..o.k.

Wel, ............... accepting an explanation adequate to fully explain this is common sense, that is unless you are ready to say goodbye to the rights and freedoms we think we have.



Bombs will not explain it. What we see is far too uniform for that. Even ordinary controlled demolition where charges are placed in drill holes is inadequate to explain the above. Literally, the concrete of the core was reduced to SAND & GRAVEL.

I do have the experience with high explosives, steel and concrete to state what I have here. and it DOES explain free fall and pulverization.

What common sense do you have to offer?

I want to know what you bring to the table qualification-wise that trumps the thousands of qualified structural engineers around the world who see nothing suspicious about how those buildings fell.

The mechanics of the collapse have been described ad nauseam, and are studied every day in engineering classrooms all over the world.

And your only answer to all this expertise, all the thousands of pages published for years detailing how the buildings can fall in such a way that you find so odd, is explosive coated rebar?

LOL

Do you an envision a seriously committed group of engineers, laywers suffering from a hyperinspiration to truth and justice? Do you believe everything you see on TV, everything politicians say? And what makes you think I have a problem with the way the towers fell (sic).

Did some buildings fall in New York?

That is not a falling building. Falling buildings look like square chunks falling off, big steel columns peel, buckle and fold. A lot of toppling crashing, rolling of big and small pieces. We did not see that on 9-11.

You have been scammed and you are yielding to unreasonable fears and attempting a cognitive expression that justifies your beliefs. You need to present the specific evidence of your "qualified structural egineers around the world". I will not peruse their product looking for support for what you assert because what you assert does not explain what I saw.



You are right, the lie is being retold over and over with it's dark stench of death supporting the anonymity of the murderers, and that is nauseating.

If I have to make this argument now, we actually have far bigger problems than the secret sophisiticated demolition of 9-11 in NY.

Explosives optimally placed and distributed over the entire structure is the only way to achieve what we saw. basically free fall rates and total pulverization, breakage in blasting terms. Rebar is a grid that is centralized inside the concrete wall.

The 1990 documentary mentioned the "special plaastic coating" that was "flammable". Yes it did. I worked backwards form that with my knowledge of high explosives, steel, concrete and demolition to discover that everything seen in photos of the demo can be explained with a tower built to demolish.

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

Wrong. That IS a falling building. Why do you say its unusual in the way it failed? What should it have looked like and what are you basing that on?



I'm afraid that YOU have been scammed.




Actually you have that backwards..

You're making tha outrageous claim...YOU need to present some evidence to back it up. Why would you think it was the other way around?





Thats your opinion..supported by zero evidence. It is simply nothing more than your opinion.




Wrong again.

The building didn't freefall...they weren't totally pulverized.





So..walk us through your process of investigation that lead to your conclusion...its the least you can do for such an outrageous claim.

Yea. Evidence. What a concept.

I have seen a tendency to distort, but not like this. One batch at a time.


You were told that is a falling building and because you don't know what that kind of building looks like when it explodes with a delay system controlling engineered detonations of near perfect containment you believed it. Now you are communicating with someone that has witnessed many blasts of explosives. Some well contained and others not so well. We always tried to get blasts as uniform as that but never could even get close.

No, buildings do not turn into upward, outeardly arcing waves of concrete debris and steel framework when they fall.

I do not say that it is unusual in the way it failed. You say that I say that but I do not. STOP DISTORTING! I assert the building did not fail it was demolished. Plane impacts and fires had nothing to do with that. That fact is proven probably 30 times a day on 10 forums of the www. And all the obfuscation and denial amounts to zilch, because people are not stupid. They know when somebody is sincere after reading numbers of posts. they follow links and the look at images and many of them have a great deal of expereince also, some have the courage to speak.

Lastly you ask, "What it should it look like?". Well, you quoted exactly that information I had provided. Are you okay?

Christopher wrote:
"That is not a falling building. Falling buildings look like square chunks falling off, big steel columns peel, buckle and fold. A lot of toppling crashing, rolling of big and small pieces. We did not see that on 9-11."

Yes evidence. There appears to be no explanation for free fall and pulverization. And there is solid evidence of both. They can be considered basic facts. No questioning of them here. We are going forward to an explanation of them not questioning their validity.

Since free fall and pulveriztion can only happen with demolition, we don't have to argue that. That is a done deal. We can argue the structure of the building because that will control the free fall of the tower to a large extent. And we have material evidence of that whereas whatever explosive was used must remain uncertain, but parameters define the energy necessary and that was expended.

So is there any raw evidence from the demoition to show what kind of structure stood, what it's core was? Yea there is. I saw a documentary in 1990 about the construction of WTC 1 so I am able to recognize the structure in the demolition photos. I watched a concrete core being built inside the outer framework of the "tube in a tube" construction.

Menaing that today, amongst the many images, I should be able to find an image of rebar. Well I found it. There was 3 inch high tensile steel rebar used in the construction. the very fine vertical elements are about 100 pieces of rebar. The horizontal bar detonated (in my scenario) and fractured the concrete wall leaving the heavy vertical bar standing.


http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg

Of course you've never seen anything like it before...no one did. It was a totally unique event.



Please... As twinstead asked..what are your qualifications that trump everyone elses who examined the event? I simply can't wait for that answer...which you'll completely avoid.



There were no "blasts". You're making that up...unless you have some evidence you could provide?



Huh?



Huh??..you most certainly do say that it was unusual. Stop trying to fill in the holes you've dug for yourself.



And you're basing that in what?? websites?? ...Please.




Thats right...get used to it.




I'm sure some do look like that. Why do you assume ALL do..under ANY circumstances?
Some buildings just kinda fall over..some could collapse with the walls splayed out and the roof intact..some could fall with the roof inside the building and the walls intact..my point is that different structures fall in different ways. If your point is that they didn't fall at all but were blasted apart...well you have to provide some evidence or run the risk of just sounding silly.


What is the tallest building you've seen fail?..under what circumstances?

Christophera, your wasting your time with EGGY.

He is a pro bush supporter and supports NWO, he is most probably an informant for the Government going on different forums debating and trying to prove the 911 conspiracy is a myth.

He has NO evidence to back up any of his theories, and the only source he gets his information from a site dedicated to debunking the 911 conspiracy (911myths.com) yet the site has no evidence to back up any of its information.

The ones with a brain all know the evidence is there and it takes common sense to realise the US Government was behind a master plan for a pretext to war and in turn create a NWO.

But you know what they say common sense is not that common and you can tell by EGGY's discussion's.

Many people have ignored his comments and have debated thoroughly with evidence but yet he has no evidence to back up his theories. The real myth is his theories and the real conspiracy is the site 911myths.com.

Cheers

BZRK

twinstead is also one of those with a severe case of cognative dissonance

uh huh.......

Well I have seen something like it in some ways. When I drilled and located the center of the hardest rock in the strata i was working in and charges were set there, the resulting blast was quite different. The containment made it quieter, a thump rather than a bang.

Ever see this video?

http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg

There were many blasts, no pictures of those, but I have pictures of the drill I used with me working it. No scanner now so providing these won't be easy now.

Alright, you've just exposed yourself Huh?. You will not recognize what a collapse actually looks like. BZRK is right, you are an agent. Folks take note of that site, strictly dsiinformation.

Right on BZRK. THX, I checked a suspiscion at another forum linked below. Your referral to "common sense" did it. There is a,

"Common Sense" that posts here,

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3108&st=13250

and has these links in his signature.

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911
http://www.911myths.com

He and a few of his fellow employees hang out there in a thread with
13270 replies and 312998 reads that is strictly an obfuscators zoo. I stopped posting in it to try and keep it honest and real 'cause my connection was getting seriously pinged right after posting.

Well thank you for agreeing with my point...and living up to my guess that even though you claim to know more than the thousands of people around the world who actually have training in these things, you provide zero qualification to dispute the findings beyond pointing to a website that shows yet again some much debunked and out of context, and carfully edited "quotes"



No..you're wrong if you are trying to say that the "blasts" were placed explosives. I'm sure that in a failure the scope of the towers many things "blasted" apart. Why would this surprise you?


You have a picture of a drill..thats nice. I have some pictures too.



This statement show your paranoia...suddenly I must be an "agent"..paid by the gubment........there can be no other answer.
This also shows your reasoning powers. You're using the same type of mental leaps from one stone to another in your conclusions about 911.
But I must admit you take the cake with your "C4 coated rebar" schtick.

There you go distorting my claims. I never claimed that. I claim that I have explained free fall. If there are thousands around the world that know more, and I'm sure there are, Provide a link to ONE of their sites. that has an explanation of free fall. Also, I do not edit quotes on my web sites. I provide link data so people can see the source.



There you go, trying to interpret an obvious explosion as a failure.





If you are not an agent, then you have a mental problem and simply can only use data that supports your delusion of safety and security gained from supporting the lie that the murdering infiltrators of the gov hide behind.

What exactly did I distort?

If you've noticed..you have not answered one question but simply fall into the weakness of ad hominem.

Most people who are experts in their fields..failure analysis investigations of structural collapses..finite element analysis..etc. don't have websites dedicated to bothering to prove the obvious. Why should they? The truth has been proven and its obvious. Should they have websites dedicated to proving the earth revolves around the sun only to have the "Earthcentrists" claim that not having those sites proves them wrong?? silly.


There ARE sites that are quite science oriented and have many threads on the subject of 911 etc.
You would be filleted in a moment if you posted your hypothesis on any of them..I mean..come on..you won't even answer a simple question. Why don't you try it though??



The was no "freefall" In evey single picture or video the is debris falling well ahead of not only the collapse but also ahead of the debris cloud. If you have a pic that shows different...please post it.




It is obviously a structural failure. What makes you say its an explosion?

Also..do you have a source for that pic?..it looks doctored?

I'd rather be ad hominen than covering for murderers. At the bottom I've answered all your simple questions.



If you're not qualified to recognize an explosion,I doubt if you'll be able to rationally assimilate the relative speed of fall.



I have a feasible and realistic explanation for free fall. Link to the other examiners web sites so we can see their explanation. Here is mine.

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

If you cannot link to one with your next post your assertion is vacuous.





Here is my source for the image. It is an explosion. If you cannot recognize that you have disqualified yourself from the discusssion.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/jan...4/.site1106.jpg



I do not need to base my assertions in anything except evidence.

This is the core of WTC 2. FEMA lied.





You are most likely disqualified from being able to recognize an explosion. your participation is moot.

What makes you say it was a collapse. TV news?

BZRK is right on. Eggo has no evidence of any kind and no intention to reason for any worthy purpose and so is most likely some kind of an agent.

OH MY!..Goodness Gracious!! ..Such confidence where there is obviously none justified.
Where to begin with this spoiled haggis of bad meat?






Whys that? Why not just prove your case? Oh wait..I know. You can't prove your case because you have no evidence.



You answered nothing. Would you like me to restate the questions for you?




I'm soo glad you brought this up..about qualifications....what are yours?..Oh, that right...zero qualifications..just a link to a website. lol.




You do? Why have you not presented it?.. "Realistic" I'm afraid doesn't cut. It has to be real.





No. That is not yours. It is someone elses ideas who you have obviously been taken with.




Wrong. That may be your opinion but its wrong. But if you want some links I'll provide them..but I'm afraid they are most likely far over your bobbing head.



I asked for the source of the original photo..its doctored.



Wrong.





My goodness! You are wrong again. Have you read the Fema/Nist report? Obviously not.



No. Not T.V...and most certainly not a website. The published conclusions of a long investigation by hundreds of qualified scientists from around the world and after the results and methodology of the investigations were peer reveiwed by qualified people from around the world ..not all of which are friends of the U.S., the conclusions have been accepted as valid. That will suffice for me until any new evidence appears to question the findings.......got any?

To counter the this you have.......a link to a website.LOLOLOL.

P.S...we know who you are..and we know WHERE you are..we want to know why you stopped taking the medication? Have you noticed any new people in the area?.."repeat people"..in cars..at the coffee shop..the book store??........KIDDING!!

Well to counter the CT's theories your only source is 911myths.com....

How do you explain that?

Evidence has been brought forward to you on numerous occasations but yet your either to ignorant or dont have the brain capacity to understand such evidence.

But yet to counter this..... a link to a website... LOL LOL LOL now thats funny...

Anyway quit wasting your time and stop copying and pasting from 911myths.com.... its quite rediculous how your only source is that website.

Cheers

BZRK

Explain it? Its a wrong assumption on your part.



I have yet to see you or anyone bring one iota of evidence to counter the conclusions of hundreds of qualified scientists.
But this may just be a valid misunderstanding of terminology.

So lets set the criteria O.K.?
What constitutes "evidence" as opposed to speculation."gut feelings"..or intuitive deduction?
You seem to have the misunderstanding. You define it so we're all on the same page.





Rediculous?? how about "C4 coated rebar"?..

You must have been away. I haven't used anything from 911 myths for quite awhile.

You guys sound desperate...or totally nuts...or sort of joking. Probably all three.

Geez Eggy, these guys were foaming at the mouth and having a great time stroking each other till you broke the party up... LOLOL. It is comical though. Disinformation agent, LOL.
Paranoid people are funny.

Hey Stardrive..I know. I resisted even posting in this thread because it seemed hopeless to attempt to inject any serious questions. I mean..come on!..C4 coated rebar??

Conclusions that do not support collapse to the ground at rates near free fall,... twice.

The truth will explain free fall. Anything that does not explain free fall is not the truth.

O.K. so now it NEAR freefall.

Which is it? I'll give you a hint..its not freefall.

Look at these pictures and discribe what you see.

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/freefall.htm


If what you mean by your bolded wording was that your simply stating "FREEFALL" is evidence..well you're wrong about that. What your doing is simply making an observation and conclusion.

Evidence might be something to support the observation and conclusion.
A simple analogy might be this.

You see a black bird.
You claim it was a crow.
Someone else claims it was a Raven.
Someone else claims that it was not a bird at all but a government top secret mechanical bird that spys on people.

Evidence would be something to prove your conclusion that it was in fact a crow.

Simply claiming something is not evidence.

It is unreasonable to assert that you know the exact time because no video show shows the debris hitting the ground. there is another factor.

Technically it might be faster because most of the material travels upwards a short distance. Meaning the total height of the tower might have to be increased by an approximate factor to give an accurate rate of fall. That particulate that goes up, still nust fall and it will have further to fall.


Basically the average perception of those who try to get the fall time exact is that they are gov disinformation agents trying to congest the bulletin boards with inconsequential information to keep vital, relevant information from being visible.

I didn't state any time..you did...i.e. freefall time. You pointing out that no video shows the debris hitting the ground is almost right. I think what you mean is that no video shows the LAST of the debris hitting the ground.
Thats a good point.
Most CTs claim 10 secs. and correlate that to some calculation that they determine to be "freefall" Having the time extended by not being able to see the end of the collapse just extends the time of the actual fall and gives even more evidence to dispel the freefall notion...but timeing ANYTHING really depends on when you start/stop the clock doesn't it?





WHAT??..most of the material travels UPWARD??? how do you figure THAT??...You're just making that up.




Thats odd..so far the ONLY people that bring up the "time" of fall factor is the CTs...they need it to support their silly theories.

Thats not how an investigation works. To try to fit the evidence into some arbitrary framework is the expertise of the conspiracy theorists. In an investigation the evidence falls (lol).. where it may, and things like "it should have taken longer."..etc. just never enter the process...why would it? That would be an investigation that started with a preconcieved theory....thats not how it works.




Welll..don't hold back...provide some.

I used my "government connections" to dig up and old profile of you .

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/49180

You distort. I said near free fall. And it is perfectly reasonable to use evidence, although you appear to have none.

This series of high speed detonations is caused by very uniformly contained, placed and distributed explosives using a calcualted yield relative to fracturing the containment which appears as concrete.



Take note, what I have just done is made a "well evidenced claim". Of course only a blasting or demolitions expert can confirm that, and one emailed me about 2 weeks back.

Subject: 
deception achieved
Date: 
Wed, 24 May 2006 22:43:27 -0700

Awesome work, very well presented with great links. I am a demolition contractor for 30 years and it all fits and always believed this was the case.Now there needs to be the rest of the story.

In true CT form you try to obfuscate what you said. In a text forum this seems silly and futile. Anyone can simply scroll back throught your posts and see that you claimed freefall.....before you claimed near freefall. Being vague is another Ct technique of misinformation. Ignoring claifications in favor of straw man arguements is another one of many.

In this statement..which you will fail to address.. you claim:



..ummm..exactly WHAT is perfectly reasonable evidence?? Your simply stateing something? Is that your criteria of what constitutes "evidence". I've asked for a criteria that would apply to all side of the dissussion..even stated that YOU or someone else could provide the critera as long as all side adhered to the critera and....true to form the suggestion was ignored. So just to clarify..Am I understanding you correctly to be saying that "evidence" is A claim..ANY claim made by anyone? Burden of proof not needed...just claim it..thats good enough for you?



Again..simply stateing something is not evidence of anything except simply stateing something. Your unnamed "demolition expert" has no credibility for obvious reasons.

This "expert" seems quite impressed with your "work"..


WHAT work is this? why not present it here so we can all be impressed?