Title 18, "Misprision of treason" filed in District Court

[Fizz]

Your emoticon in the way you use it, within the doctrine of ridicule, a psychologically defined group of social fears, supports treason by working to keep the true core structure of the Twins secret.

calling you a fucking idiot isnt ridicule. it's stating the obvious.

 

[DiveCon]

this shows,

your the only fucking moron that sees concrete in that picture.

correction: only a fucking moron would see concrete in that photo

 

[Christophera]

Correction, only a moron would accept that either of you are anything but agents ofthe infiltration seeking to conceal treason because you have all failed to show this core on 9-11.

 

[DiveCon]

your paranoid delusions will NEVER be equal to evidence

 

[Christophera]

The exact opposite from your words state this evidence,

is, generally, exactly the core of WTC 2, concrete, as the global encyclopedic authority on technology states it should be.

Oxford Illustrated Encyclopedia of Invention and Technology, of 1992

and that your text is meaningless inth way you attempt to apply it but IS meaningful evidence for conviction, in a court of law, (if we had one) for misprision of treason.

 

[DiveCon]

that photo does not show any concrete
and that image of a book is not saying that the WTC had a concrete core
your paranoid delusions to NOT equal evidence

 

[Fizz]

Correction, only a moron would accept that either of you are anything but agents ofthe infiltration seeking to conceal treason because you have all failed to show this core on 9-11.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Correction, only a moron would accept that Goof-0-phera is anything but an agent of stupidity seeking to conceal reality because he has failed to show an intact concrete core between the day the twins were built, and the day they fell.

Goof-0-phera, living the lie, one day at a time.

 

[Christophera]

Correction, only a moron would accept that Goof-0-phera is anything but an agent of stupidity seeking to conceal reality because he has failed to show an intact concrete core between the day the twins were built, and the day they fell.

Goof-0-phera, living the lie, one day at a time.

So what do you call a psyops agent who refuses to recognize how the public lost 6,000 photo files, logically the plans and 15,000 videotapes, in an official violations of law?

Not one agent has posted an image of this core on 9-11 . . . ever.

Not one agent has explained why none of the supposed steel core columns are in this image showing the WTC 2 core on 9-11.

 

[DiveCon]

hey dipshit
did you see that Newsweek has fixed and noted the errors in your link
LOL

 

[Christophera]

You mean your masters the infiltrators of the US government have paid Newsweek to go along with the FEMA deception to conceal treason. All you do is disinformation so that figures.

You have never shown this core on 9-11,

No one has, it did not exist.

 

[DiveCon]

YOU have posted photos that show it
only you delusionally call it something else

you are a FRAUD

 

[Christophera]

Your empty text does noting to change the fact that NO ONE has ever posted an image of that core on 9-11. If there were such images you would post them.

The facts remain. Concrete is easily separated from steel in photos. Concrete o the left, steel on the right.

 

[DiveCon]

no concrete in that photo, but there is steel

 

[Fizz]

Your empty text does noting to change the fact that NO ONE has ever posted an image of that core on 9-11. If there were such images you would post them.

The facts remain. Concrete is easily separated from steel in photos. Concrete o the left, steel on the right.

fucking moron says there are no pics of the steel core and then posts a pic of the steel core!!

 

[Christophera]

Only part of the core is concrete on the left. The steel on the right is outside the core and you have been shown that over and over.

The steel structure has beams that were used to support the floors OUTSIDE the core.

The sloping shape behind the steel structure is concrete.

 

[DiveCon]

no concrete shown in ANY photo you post

 

[Christophera]

From one who has shown nothing whatsoever supporting the solitary official depiction, your text is comedic.

Here's concrete.

a bit fractured.

Bazant describes concrete core walls too, in the 2007 revision, the last one.

it is shown that the observed size range (0.01 mm – 0.1 mm) is fully consistent with this theory and is achievable by collapse driven gravity alone, and that only about 7% of the total gravitational energy converted to kinetic energy of impacts would have sufficed to pulverize all the concrete slabs and core walls (while at least 158 tons of TNT per tower, installed into many small holes drilled into each concrete floor slab and core wall, would have been needed to produce the same degree of pulverization).

A .pdf download.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images2/00 WTC Collapse - Wha#558C6.pdf

 

[Rat in the Hat]

From one who has shown nothing whatsoever supporting the solitary official depiction, your text is comedic.

Here's concrete.

a bit fractured.

Bazant describes concrete core walls too, in the 2007 revision, the last one.

it is shown that the observed size range (0.01 mm – 0.1 mm) is fully consistent with this theory and is achievable by collapse driven gravity alone, and that only about 7% of the total gravitational energy converted to kinetic energy of impacts would have sufficed to pulverize all the concrete slabs and core walls (while at least 158 tons of TNT per tower, installed into many small holes drilled into each concrete floor slab and core wall, would have been needed to produce the same degree of pulverization).

A .pdf download.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images2/00 WTC Collapse - Wha#558C6.pdf

Wasn't Bazant verified by Robertson?

Oops, sorry about that. Sore subject, huh?

 

[Christophera]

No Oxford verifies Robertson and Domel, they are veriified by evidence of 9-11 and GZ.

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 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 for justifying explanation for collapse, but at least they won't go down in history as totally supporting the deceptions.