FEMA Deceives Nation About Twin Towers Core
- Thread starter Christophera
- Start date
Christophera
Evidence & Reason Rule
- Thread starter
- #4,902
This is proof.
Robertson is verified by Oxford, verifying Domel who describes a concrete core verified by the image of WTC 2 core, verifying the top of WTC 2 core falling onto WTC 3, the WTC 1 rebar, just after the WTC 1 west core wall is seen in an end view, then, the WTC 1 east shear wall toppling, consistent with interior box columns silhouetted on WTC 1 north core wall, consistent with ground zero showing the WTC 1 north concrete core base wall, 12 foot thick, all supported as clarification of the many confused statements that do mention concrete in the core including the latest revised NIST contracted analysis of free fall by Bazant et. al 6/21/2007, which actually provides an equivalent amount of high explosives needed to create the rate of fall they are attempting to justify with physics. It doesn't work, but at least they won't go down in history as totally supporting the deceptions.
Robertson is verified by Oxford, verifying Domel who describes a concrete core verified by the image of WTC 2 core, verifying the top of WTC 2 core falling onto WTC 3, the WTC 1 rebar, just after the WTC 1 west core wall is seen in an end view, then, the WTC 1 east shear wall toppling, consistent with interior box columns silhouetted on WTC 1 north core wall, consistent with ground zero showing the WTC 1 north concrete core base wall, 12 foot thick, all supported as clarification of the many confused statements that do mention concrete in the core including the latest revised NIST contracted analysis of free fall by Bazant et. al 6/21/2007, which actually provides an equivalent amount of high explosives needed to create the rate of fall they are attempting to justify with physics. It doesn't work, but at least they won't go down in history as totally supporting the deceptions.
no, that is paranoid delusions
Hey folks.
Time to close the book on this thread for me at least. Chris has posted nothing new in quite some time and it's getting boring now. He's admitted to so many mistakes in his analysis and evidence that it makes his theory, which is based on these mistakes he's admitted to, nothing more than a pile of dogshit. How anyone can believe a theory is true based on evidence that is admittedly riddled with errors is beyond me. The proof is in the pudding. Nobody believes him ANYWHERE.
Chris, you haven't gained any more supporters in the years you've been pushing this nonsense and you won't get any more going forward. That's a fact.
Maybe we should all let him wallow in his misery alone as that's the way it's going to be for him.
Time to close the book on this thread for me at least. Chris has posted nothing new in quite some time and it's getting boring now. He's admitted to so many mistakes in his analysis and evidence that it makes his theory, which is based on these mistakes he's admitted to, nothing more than a pile of dogshit. How anyone can believe a theory is true based on evidence that is admittedly riddled with errors is beyond me. The proof is in the pudding. Nobody believes him ANYWHERE.
Chris, you haven't gained any more supporters in the years you've been pushing this nonsense and you won't get any more going forward. That's a fact.
Maybe we should all let him wallow in his misery alone as that's the way it's going to be for him.
Christophera
Evidence & Reason Rule
- Thread starter
- #4,906
Since the federal filing of disclosure of knowledge of treason,
9-11-misprision of treason, Title 18, part I, chapter 115, §2382
I'm not surprised to see your sorry ass trying to get out of here with some credibility. No way, you've lost it.
I've made some mistakes in analysis of photos, but not nearly as many mistakes as you've made trying to conduct misprision of treason on various message boards by supporting the FEMA deception .
Your photoshopping blunders,
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2012579-post3749.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2061163-post4124.html
Your biggest of mistakes is trying to assert there were steel core columns on the core area when NOT ONE image from 9-11 shows them.
What is seen can only be concrete.
9-11-misprision of treason, Title 18, part I, chapter 115, §2382
I'm not surprised to see your sorry ass trying to get out of here with some credibility. No way, you've lost it.
I've made some mistakes in analysis of photos, but not nearly as many mistakes as you've made trying to conduct misprision of treason on various message boards by supporting the FEMA deception .
Your photoshopping blunders,
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2012579-post3749.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2061163-post4124.html
Your biggest of mistakes is trying to assert there were steel core columns on the core area when NOT ONE image from 9-11 shows them.
What is seen can only be concrete.
Liability
Locked Account.
Since the federal filing of disclosure of knowledge of treason,
9-11-misprision of treason, Title 18, part I, chapter 115, §2382
I'm not surprised to see your sorry ass trying to get out of here with some credibility. No way, you've lost it.
I've made some mistakes in analysis of photos, but not nearly as many mistakes as you've made trying to conduct misprision of treason on various message boards by supporting the FEMA deception .
Your photoshopping blunders,
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2012579-post3749.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2061163-post4124.html
Your biggest of mistakes is trying to assert there were steel core columns on the core area when NOT ONE image from 9-11 shows them.
What is seen can only be concrete.
You show no images of concrete and nothing that can reasonably be mistaken as being just concrete. You show steel. Others have consistently shown you ONLY steel. You are such a complete lying **** that when you SEE steel you automatically lie and call it "concrete."
The only rational conclusions are either that you are insane or a compulsive intentionally lying piece of shit.
he could be BOTH
slackjawed
Self deported
Christophera
Evidence & Reason Rule
- Thread starter
- #4,911
slacker, your text is worthless.
divot, your text is wrong.
fiz, you can't handle the old evidence.
divot, your text is wrong.
fiz, you can't handle the old evidence.
dipshit, you can claim that, but it only makes you look more ******* pathetic
Christophera
Evidence & Reason Rule
elvis
Rookie
- Sep 15, 2008
- 25,881
- 4,473
- 0
- Banned
- #4,914
The fact is that none of you have come up with a reasonable explanation for the uniform symetry of this image of the core, if it is not concrete. Nor has any good identification for this image showing the west wall of the WTC 1 core besides concrete been developed.
i think you are delusional to the core. Does that count?
yes it countsThe fact is that none of you have come up with a reasonable explanation for the uniform symetry of this image of the core, if it is not concrete. Nor has any good identification for this image showing the west wall of the WTC 1 core besides concrete been developed.
i think you are delusional to the core. Does that count?
it shows you have a functioning brain
Liability
Locked Account.
The fact is that none of you have come up with a reasonable explanation for the uniform symetry of this image of the core, if it is not concrete. Nor has any good identification for this image showing the west wall of the WTC 1 core besides concrete been developed.
You are a lying ****. There is no uniform symmetry, asshole. There are thin-looking spires of STEEL. They aren't symmetrical. The only things in the image that look symmetrical are unrelated buildings -- and it appears that being a stupid retarded lying ****, you have confused another building for the "core" of the collapsed Tower.
You make pig shit look like Einstein.
he is totally delusionalThe fact is that none of you have come up with a reasonable explanation for the uniform symetry of this image of the core, if it is not concrete. Nor has any good identification for this image showing the west wall of the WTC 1 core besides concrete been developed.
You are a lying ****. There is no uniform symmetry, asshole. There are thin-looking spires of STEEL. They aren't symmetrical. The only things in the image that look symmetrical are unrelated buildings -- and it appears that being a stupid retarded lying ****, you have confused another building for the "core" of the collapsed Tower.
You make pig shit look like Einstein.
he sees things that arent there, and ignores the things that are
every photo he posts shows a STEEL COLUMN CORE
and several other people have posted photos that show indisputable proof of a steel core
slackjawed
Self deported
That text looks like a post from someone who recognizes when they have been exposed for fraud. At least when you were exposed on the other boards, you immediatly went into attack mode, shortly followed by either being banned or threads with no responses.
It looks to me like you follow a pattern every place you have been on th einternet, and surely even you must realize your attention getting time here is short.
On the other boards at this point all you get is insults, kinda like your getting here asswipe.
Not only is your text worthless agent, so are you. You are worthless now and you will be worthless tomorrow, as well as the day after. Next month you will be even more worthless, but will likely be expending your energy at another board where they have not recognized your fraud yet.
Don't worry, I will find you there, and we'll talk.
Christophera
Evidence & Reason Rule
- Thread starter
- #4,920
All you've done slacker is defined the internet psyops and how prolific it is.
This is VERIFICATION,
Robertson is verified by Oxford, verifying Domel who describes a concrete core verified by the image of WTC 2 core, verifying the top of WTC 2 core falling onto WTC 3, the WTC 1 rebar, just after the WTC 1 west core wall is seen in an end view, then, the WTC 1 east shear wall toppling, consistent with interior box columns silhouetted on WTC 1 north core wall, consistent with ground zero showing the WTC 1 north concrete core base wall, 12 foot thick, all supported as clarification of the many confused statements that do mention concrete in the core including the latest revised NIST contracted analysis of free fall by Bazant et. al 6/21/2007, which actually provides an equivalent amount of high explosives needed to create the rate of fall they are attempting to justify with physics. It doesn't work, but at least they won't go down in history as totally supporting the deceptions.
You cannot provide independently verifying statements and evidence.
Accordingly, again, the reverse of what agents state is most often true.
This is VERIFICATION,
Robertson is verified by Oxford, verifying Domel who describes a concrete core verified by the image of WTC 2 core, verifying the top of WTC 2 core falling onto WTC 3, the WTC 1 rebar, just after the WTC 1 west core wall is seen in an end view, then, the WTC 1 east shear wall toppling, consistent with interior box columns silhouetted on WTC 1 north core wall, consistent with ground zero showing the WTC 1 north concrete core base wall, 12 foot thick, all supported as clarification of the many confused statements that do mention concrete in the core including the latest revised NIST contracted analysis of free fall by Bazant et. al 6/21/2007, which actually provides an equivalent amount of high explosives needed to create the rate of fall they are attempting to justify with physics. It doesn't work, but at least they won't go down in history as totally supporting the deceptions.
You cannot provide independently verifying statements and evidence.
Accordingly, again, the reverse of what agents state is most often true.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Bill and Hillary Clinton celebrate 50th anniversary by sharing nondisclosure agreements.- Started by Votto
- Replies: 2
-
Media: No Motive Yet In Attack On Jewish Synagogue By Radical Muslim
- Started by Votto
- Replies: 8
-
-
