| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| Apology To Dylan Avery & Loose Change; Truth and "Face to Face" sharing | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: May 15 2008, 02:49 PM (2,804 Views) | |
| Christophera | May 15 2008, 02:49 PM Post #1 |
|
This is an apology to Dylan Avery for labeling "Loose Change" as a disinformation site. I do recognize he has put a great deal of effort into the quest for truth and justice for 9-11 and that my past characterization is not fair. Since that time I've come to understand that the world of disinformation is far too complex to apply such labels indiscriminately. An understanding is really needed and I'm hoping this thread can lend itself to that end. I have changed my page, http://algoxy.com/psych/whatis9-11_loose-change.html to reflect a current understanding. I wish very much to completely remove all reference to "Loose Change" from that page or section of my 9-11 website. This thread hopefully will inspire an understanding of what we must collectively work towards to fully justify that and the following is an analysis of EXACTLY WHY that collective work towards an adequate understanding is justified. There are those that will argue against "controlled demolition" because we cannot explain how it was done. What was done cannot be effected by mere planted charges and experts to confirm that are readily available as long as someone is trying to disprove "controlled demolition". Assertion of "controlled demolition" without full explanation can render it impossible to those who do not want to believe it. Meanwhile NO official can carry demands for investigation of "controlled demolition" to congress or the senate without trashing their career. A demand for a limited investigation into deceptions regarding the structure is safe and reasonable. Meaning the "core deception" is actually the ONLY way to get the truth. Accordingly, forget talking about demolition-cart before horse situation, get the true structure, eliminate collapse then examine potentials for demo based on structure., Accordingly, as a truth seekers, how soon are we willing to stop talking about demo and instead narrow the plea for an accurate building design for forensic analysis proven earlier deprived by a deception? I was in San Francisco on May 10, 2,008 at the Federal building for the demonstration at Mission and 7th. My main reason for being there was to personally meet as many 9-11 activists as possible and get a "Face to Face" communication started that presents my information concerning the concrete core of the Twin Towers. There I met Dylan and a number of others. Curiously, none had ever heard of the concrete core issue except Dylan (and one other who dissed me with an expression of rejection). This underlines the extreme, yes EXTREME need the truth movement has to put this issue on the leading edge of the truth quest. In October of 2006 I was banned from Loose Change forums by painter, a moderator who has since left Loose Change and now moderates at pilotsfor911truth.org. A few weeks ago painter finally understood what he had done and posted an apology in the "Lobby" at pilotsfor911truth.org http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=12135 I met with Richard Gage at a presentation in San Luis Obispo on May 3rd, '08 and he apologized and promised to place an apology on the ae911truth.org website. Such has not appeared yet, but I understand how difficult that is to do. It is not easy to admit one has been deceived when confronted with absolute evidence. In the case of evidence that requires specialized experience in materials recognition, it is of course more difficult. I'm hoping that pilotsfor911truth.org will see fit to create a forum just to resolve a reasonable position on this matter. There has been discussion of such a move. I believe I've shown that it is completely reasonable to state that the quest for truth justifies a forum for resolution of this matter on every 9-11 message board. Please, for the sake of reason and its role in finding the truth, participate in this matter. Some may not want to do this because of the social onus to go with the group perceptions. Some may resent that I do not just follow that group perception, but the reason stated in this message for pursuing a group determination of the fact that FEMA has deceived the public about the design and construction of the towers most likely cannot logically be countered in any way. Imagine if a group you needed to involve yourself with a group that insisted on stating that the moon outshone the sun at noon on any given day. That is how I feel. Consider, .......... I spent over an hour watching the documentary in 1990 titled "The Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers", which focused on the very difficult construction of the largest tubular concrete core ever constructed. Edited by Christophera, May 15 2008, 03:03 PM.
|
 |
 
|
| Roxdog | May 15 2008, 03:13 PM Post #2 |
|
Very nice... |
|
|
|
| dylan avery | May 15 2008, 10:18 PM Post #3 |
|
It was good talking to you, man. Thanks again for sharing the information, and I wish you luck in spreading it with others. |
|
|
|
| Christophera | May 16 2008, 02:01 AM Post #4 |
|
Thanks, I'll need the luck. I was hoping to get your help in creating a reasonable evaluation of the evidence by serious truthseekers, comparing evidence, such as what I describe here http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?s=&showtopic=12135&view=findpost&p=10739107 at pilotsfor911truth. Very functional concept because it consolidates evidence. That board has specific post linking so no one needs to post images, just links and the original image is there with its description which shortens the thread. The idea is that a conclusion is arrived at in a thread and the image description is changed by the admin to make what is probably a refined and quite accurate description IF reason and experience are used. Meaning that perceptions don't get rehashed over and over. The defining thread is abondoned and the next level of definintion is undertaken. Supporting the concept of helping reason and evidence rule effectively counters the post 9-11 psyops and creates the possibility of functional unity in the truth movement. HOW THE CONCEPT OF THE TRUE CORE WAS TAINTED WITH RIDICULE: The post 9-11 counter truth psyops drew a tight bead on the exact social fear and structure that the public would respond to on the internet. Ghandi defined the formula; first they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, ..... well they lost the fight, but the ridicule was quite effective and the movement still responds to it today in a curious but effective way. Kind of like truth poison in the collective mindset. It started on GNN in about 2002 with the most intense ridicule I've ever seen. The key was a huge animated avatar (about 1/2 inch in diameter similar to this symetry  but really laughing hard), that was a laughing, bobbing, serious symbol of ridicule, much worse than any avatar I can find today. This went on for awhile, then I figured it out and wrote this piece. I used their avatar between paragraphs, because it was so effective. Since I can't find one nearly as bad, I'll just use the worst I can find so you can get the feel for how it works. The avatar used presented psychological conditioning designed to create social fear and what I wrote defused it and that took the wind out of their sails somewhat. Shortly thereafter I was banned from GNN. As far as I could tell the same group followed me around the web for some years. Covertly of course.ANALYSIS OF RIDICULE IN DEFENSE OF TRUTH:  "Ridicule Replaces Reason." A common conspiracy that is unconsciously participated in is a blight to processes of reason. It is a conspiracy based, at the very least, on each persons natural fear of being ridiculed. It is a campaign with a threat of degradation compulsively conducted within our social communications. Criticism based in evidence is justifiable, political conditions are too bad to justify ridicule based in disbelief fueled by fear.  "Ridicule Replaces Reason." There are those amongst us that react to a special fear and need everything to be clearly laid out for them to feel comfortable. Without that feeling of social comfort, no reason can be openly engaged. There is a monumental risk they perceive in operating with less than knowledge verifiable by its already being commonly used. That risk is that they suffer an immense blow, a drastic reduction of self esteem and worth, if detected using knowledge unverified by others with the same fear. That fear controls them and they cannot confront it. Each of those fearful, must be certain of everything by using only commonly verified knowledge in order to commit to doing anything, even thoughts. "Ridicule Replaces Reason." They must watch the masses and determine by the movements of others, where it is safe to go with all that is done, even their thinking. Vast amounts of knowledge that may be perfectly good, is not used by them because by itself, it proves nothing. This results in their fearful obsession with the position, that; because all this unverified knowledge proves nothing, everyone one should perceive as they do, or in this instance, do nothing, not even have thoughts with that knowledge because the one fearful does not have them, ........... therefore no others should have them; and if someone does, that person should not express those thoughts because that may influence more people to actually use information that is not verified by its common usage. Conversely believed; everyone who does express their thought derived from unverified knowledge, therefore has, in some way, flawed thinking meaning none should listen to those expressions ever. "Ridicule Replaces Reason." Since those amongst us reacting to that special fear must only use knowledge valid by virtue of its being recognized by others as commonly used, learned this method by suffering criticism, or watching criticism inflicted on others, by loved ones, ones respected, whom yet others; of the common group; accepted by those respected, also reacting to the special fear, believed the respected teachers were being responsible by teaching these fearful paradigms of action in this way. "Ridicule Replaces Reason." With regard to reason, all knowledge has a value, some of much more value immediately and others great value generally, and some little ever; it is not reasonable to exclude knowledge because it is unused by a group. Therefore that fearful group agreed that a special punishment must be created. In some ways it could be said to have a purpose derived from the ultimate opposite purpose of all said here. "Ridicule Replaces Reason." When one person says something with a lesson of irony that is very well understood, relative or a truism expressing by axiomatic or analogous means; and another perceives and UNDERSTANDS the expression, they show this understanding by a very complex and dynamic expression that is comprehensive and a product of all that is said so far; they LAUGH. This profound expression of understanding and appreciation was borrowed and converted for use as a punishment for those using unverified knowledge in anyway, even thinking. "Ridicule Replaces Reason." This new method of punishment was named ridicule. Those reacting to that special fear, the one being explained here, had suffered, at the will of those they loved and respected, a reduced perception of self worth whenever they engaged in a usage of knowledge not commonly known. Their behaviors were changed by loved ones laughing at them and those seeing the great power and potential harm of ridicule often were helpless to identify and counter the abusive expression. "Ridicule Replaces Reason." Ridicule is no more functional than using unverified information or thinking but it serves as a way for those who are fearful to acknowledge and identify each other as having the same fears without looking like they are afraid. "Ridicule Replaces Reason." Edited by Christophera, May 16 2008, 02:45 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Avenger | May 16 2008, 04:13 PM Post #5 |
|
I'll deal with you tomorrow. |
|
|
|
| Avenger | May 17 2008, 08:05 PM Post #6 |
|
Time to play a little game. Called Hunt the Concrete Core.      I don't know about anybody else but I see elevator banks. Unless they used some kind of invisible concrete mixture, I would say there was no concrete core. |
|
|
|
| JFK | May 17 2008, 08:43 PM Post #7 |
|
Good luck to ya Avenger.  Been there done that a few years back. |
|
|
|
| Christophera | May 18 2008, 01:17 AM Post #8 |
|
Hmmmm, what I had hoped to discuss here was the matter of accepting the official story with regard to the core structure as compared to using evidence, or the un fairness and illogic of NOT using evidence when the circumstance of FEMA, who provided the core description you try to support, was set up for a full scale emergency exercise a day before 9-11 while they are an agency NOT created under the Constitution. Add to that the fact that even NIST did not have the plans. Add again the fact that guiliani too the WTC documents from NYC and the courts will not force their return, a violation of federal laws. Add again the fact that the plans "leaked" to the truth movement come from silverstein show obvious signs of fakery, And the sheets showing the supposed core columns details of the horizontal and diagonal joining members are not a part of the set. Add again the fact that the BBC core is concrete but obviously wrong, and some people say there was nothing in the core but FEMA released this image, which it turns out is the only official depiction of the core in exietence.  Do you not think there is good reason to suspect deception from official sources regarding the core of the towers?
The concrete core was cast up to 80 feet below the top floor and the interior box columns, the columns surrounding the core acted to support the outer concrete forms. Notice, the steel stubbed inside the core are is much smaller that is because it is elevator guide rail support steel. Your photo hasn't proven steel core columns. Below is an image showing conclusive evidence that the steel inside the core is not of adequate strength in its connections. Notice the 2 pieces of vertical steel left of the center crane and the one right of the crane and the fact that on top of them is a plate. That plate is called a butt plate and facilitates a quick connection that can be shimmed to tilt the elevator guide rail support steel. It can also have the holes elongated so the steel can be shifted. It has no lateral load bearing capacity and cannot be termed a "core column".  The only joint between steel sections that are adequate for "core columns" is called a "100% deep fillet weld". Here is an example of it being used to join the ends of an "I" beam. Each complete weld on the interior box columns, the only columns that actually had the strength to be used as "core columns", 100% penetration all the way around the box took at least 1.5 days if not more, depending on thickness.  You will notice as you search for an image of a welder making a horizontal weld across a column that they are only found on the outside of a core. Elevator guide rail support steel was butt welded, however, only a single pass weld was done. They can be found snapped off in GZ images with a ragged edge. The guide rail supports were also thick walled tempered steel because they had to take the gravity load of the full height of the support steel. They had no footing and were laterally supported by horizontal braces that were cast into the concrete core and went through the shear wall to be fastened to the interior box columns.
I would say the above image shows a concrete core on WTC 2 because there are not enough vertical lines of light distinguishing the spaces between the supposed steel core columns. We know there were hallways through the core and the image shows large spaces where hallways would be. How do you think it shows steel columns?
The above image easily proves the towers had different cores. A zoom shows the taper of WTC 1 as a widening space between the interior box column which must be plumb and the core face of WTC 1 which was tapered. Again, how do you think the image shows steel core columns? 
Again, how do you think the above image shows steel core columns?
I actually have a complete explanation for that image on a web page, it includes the other daytime silhouette as well. http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11towersilhouettes.html
Here is an image which shows the thick concrete core base wall with a hallway running along the length of it where a bank of elevators should be. Invisibility is a problem with the steel core columns in ALL 9-11 images not the concrete core. The steel core columns never show. In the case of this image, what we see is too fine to be structural steel and can only be rebar.  The concrete core of WTC 2 is all that can be seen in this image after all of the exterior steel has fallen.  If that is NOT a steel reinforced cast concrete tube, what do you think it is? Don't try to say it is drywall fastened to steel core columns because drywall will not survive the crash of thousands of tons of steel over it because that is just not credible. Edited by Christophera, May 18 2008, 01:49 AM.
|
|
|
|
| hbgtruth | May 18 2008, 08:15 AM Post #9 |
|
The cores of the towers were the same. Just set on different axis. |
|
|
|
| Avenger | May 18 2008, 10:27 AM Post #10 |
|
It is an explanation that makes no sense. Concrete is not transparent. It doesn't matter how much light is shining on it.
Did I not say elevator banks? The core columns are there just like the perimeter columns are there, but, both obviously have spaces between them, which is why the sunlight can shine through them. Your concrete is not spaced like columns, so sunlight would NOT shine through it. Concrete is NOT transparent.
I would tactfully point out to you that those pictures I provided show no core columns, but, also no PERIMETER columns? Are you also going to argue that there were also no perimeter columns?
Your concrete core is lopsided. It's leaning to the left. |
|
|
|
| Avenger | May 18 2008, 01:18 PM Post #11 |
|
Doesn't look all that "fine" to me at all. Looks pretty thick to me. But let's have a closer look, shall we?    Does that look anything like rebar to anybody? Or do they look like columns? I'm sure Christophera will still try to make such an insane argument, but I wonder if he'll put these pictures in his site. Edit: Pictures got resized. You can find the larger versions at this site. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc1exp12.html Edited by Avenger, May 18 2008, 01:36 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Christophera | May 18 2008, 05:59 PM Post #12 |
|
True they were perpendicularly opposed with their axis is and that they were identical is what the officials want us to believe, but this image shows something completely illogical IF what you say is true.  I'm wondering if you can produce that logic? Then wonder why Rodriguez won't describe the hallways of WTC 1. Then, ........... wonder why we don't have plans for WTC 2. Edited by Christophera, May 18 2008, 06:00 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Christophera | May 18 2008, 06:29 PM Post #13 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Avenger | May 18 2008, 08:14 PM Post #14 |
|
Oh, MY cherry picked images. The ones that happen to be closeups so you can see what it ACTUALLY is. It's not rebar. |
|
|
|
| Christophera | May 18 2008, 09:08 PM Post #15 |
|
About this time it is actually appropriate to wonder why you attempt to say these images are of the same phase of the demo. Your image on the top is much earlier in the formation of the spire, mine is after it is gone. EDIT: I noticed that your image is even before this one which is seconds before the one showing the fine elements of rebar having a slight curve. So fine they almost don't resolve. The sequence can be determined by the fallen dust of the second in the series as compared to the first. 
Edited by Christophera, May 18 2008, 09:23 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Avenger | May 18 2008, 09:22 PM Post #16 |
|
About this time it is appropriate to wonder why you chose to post the FIRST image of the THREE IMAGES I posted previously. Here are the other two. |
|
|
|
| Christophera | May 18 2008, 09:35 PM Post #17 |
|
The one I chose showed the taller as best as I could tell. You have not made a point, you have evaded response. Meanwhile, ............ do you still try and assert the image your've posted shows the same phase as this image? ON EDIT: And this one a second or so after the one above, do you assert it is the same image as the one you say shows steel core columns? EDIT: Still waiting to learn if AVENGER believes all 3 images show the same structure as was earlier asserted. Edited by Christophera, May 19 2008, 11:32 AM.
|
|
|
|
| JFK | May 18 2008, 09:53 PM Post #18 |
|
Update your link Christopher, It has changed to http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/index.shtm |
|
|
|
| look-up | May 19 2008, 09:41 AM Post #19 |
|
let's ask Leslie Robertson, whose firm designed the things... http://berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2002/04/17_alum.html
Let it be pointed out that saying "Hollow core" does not mean that there was no steel. He said there was steel in the core, and mentioned that there was NO concrete. "Hollow" probably refers to the fact that there was no solid core between the columns that constituted the core itself. Robertson also makes it clear that the first thing to mention with regard to how weight is distributed, is the core itself... he mentions the exterior columns second. |
|
|
|
| look-up | May 19 2008, 09:49 AM Post #20 |
|
he also says this, as paraphrased by the article linked above:
isn't it strange that a faulty design (allegedly) that killed 3,000 people (certainly) could not cast doubt on similar designs that are currently in construction? or did someone tell the financiers of the Shanghai tower that they were safe from being targeted by the new world order? Every time I see a new building going up made of steel, even if it's just a two story office building, I think "Hey I hope that never catches fire"... then I laugh at how ridiculous that thought is. I want to go up to the worksite and ask, "hey if this catches fire and someone throws some jet fuel on it, would you expect it to fall down?" |
|
|
|
| Christophera | May 19 2008, 11:29 AM Post #21 |
|
The following was part of a Newsweek article on September 13, 2001. Note: This article has never been corrected if it was wrong. Images from 9-11 show it to be correct. The original linked page was changed shortly after I first made it an active link from my website, archives still hold the story. Robertson was logically coerced to alter his story in the berkeley.edu article and it is the only such mention that can be found. Even while being interviewed by S. Jones, Jones was the one that said "steel core columns", not Robertson. Logic dictates that the September 13, 2001 information is the best. http://web.archive.org/web/20040807085840/http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3069641/ September 13, 2001 ‘Painful and Horrible’ The engineer behind the World Trade Center speaks about the structures. Leslie Robertson, Architect Of The World Trade Center Towers http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3069641/ Still, Robertson, whose firm is responsible for three of the six tallest buildings in the world, feels a sense of pride that the massive towers, supported by a steel-tube exoskeleton and a reinforced concrete core, held up as well as they did—managing to stand for over an hour despite direct hits from two massive commercial jetliners. Leslie E. Robertson has already addressed the issue and it was publicized in an international magazine. Here is an excerpt from a PDF published by an certified structural engineer certified in 12 states. See chapter 2.1 August Domel, Jr., Ph.D., S.E., P.E. November 2001 NOTE: August Domel has been contacted and confirms that the concrete core is a "design method". http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf Groundbreaking for construction of the World Trade Center took place on August 5, 1966 Tower One, standing 1368 feet high, was completed in 1970, and Tower Two, at 1362 feet high, was completed in 1972. The structural design for the World Trade Center Towers was done by Skilling, Helle, Christiansen and Robertson. It was designed as a tube building that included a perimeter moment-resisting frame consisting of steel columns spaced on 39-inch centers. The load carrying system was designed so that the steel facade would resist lateral and gravity forces and the interior concrete core would carry only gravity loads. |
|
|
|
| look-up | May 19 2008, 12:35 PM Post #22 |
|
and how exactly was he coerced to say it was steel? |
|
|
|
| Avenger | May 19 2008, 07:48 PM Post #23 |
|
The taller what?? There was only one north tower spire. And it was not rebar. What do you think happened? Do you think the spire disappeared and then some rebar popped up in its place?? Edited by Avenger, May 19 2008, 07:49 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Avenger | May 19 2008, 08:54 PM Post #24 |
|
Yes. All images show the same north tower spire. There was only one north tower spire, anyway. You are a strange one. |
|
|
|
| Christophera | May 19 2008, 08:57 PM Post #25 |
|
Do you actually expect me to be able to answer that? Got logic? Answer it yourself. The fact is he changed his story. Nuff said. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · World Trade Center · Next Topic » |
4:07 AM Dec 5
