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

[Rat in the Hat]

I'm a surveyor. A 3" pole is visible under the right conditions at that distance with the naked eye, just barely.

Which is why your contention that the photos show re-bar is an absolute joke. No camera can pick up a 3" piece of steel at these distances. These are much larger structural elements, not re-bar that is too small to be photographed.

 

[Christophera]

The visability of a 3" pole benefits from the camera lenses magnification.

Because there are so many of them, they are easily captured. Because there are so many, it cannot be structural steel. Because there are no horizontals and they are so small, we know it cannot be structural steel.

This shows the west concrete core wall in and end view inside the structural steel of the inner framed wall of the exterior steel framework.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

The visability of a 3" pole benefits from the camera lenses magnification.

Because there are so many of them, they are easily captured. Because there are so many, it cannot be structural steel. Because there are no horizontals and they are so small, we know it cannot be structural steel.

This shows the west concrete core wall in and end view inside the structural steel of the inner framed wall of the exterior steel framework.

Are you kidding?? Really, are you kidding??

If you can see 3" re-bar in this photo, than tell me what is written on the white sweatshirt the man is wearing. It's much closer to the camera, and larger than 3".

Let's have it, big man.

 

[DiveCon]

The visability of a 3" pole benefits from the camera lenses magnification.

Because there are so many of them, they are easily captured. Because there are so many, it cannot be structural steel. Because there are no horizontals and they are so small, we know it cannot be structural steel.

This shows the west concrete core wall in and end view inside the structural steel of the inner framed wall of the exterior steel framework.

Are you kidding?? Really, are you kidding??

If you can see 3" re-bar in this photo, than tell me what is written on the white sweatshirt the man is wearing. It's much closer to the camera, and larger than 3".

Let's have it, big man.

you should see where he calls this very same object "steel columns outside his imaginary concrete core"

 

[Christophera]

I did not say you can see 3" rebar in that photo. It is seen in this one.

The photo I posted shows an end view of the concrete wall inside the inner frame of the exterior steel.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

I did not say you can see 3" rebar in that photo. It is seen in this one.

The photo I posted shows an end view of the concrete wall inside the inner frame of the exterior steel.

And again, if you can make out 3" re-bar in the WTC at this distance, you must be fucking Kal-El of Krypton. I'm a typical mortal man, and I can't even make out the 3" characters of the license plate in this photo.

 

[Fizz]

I did not say you can see 3" rebar in that photo. It is seen in this one.


The photo I posted shows an end view of the concrete wall inside the inner frame of the exterior steel.[/url]

you got any proof of ANY of these claims other than your own fucked up interpretations of fuzzy photos?

any expert analysis? any documentation? ANYTHING AT ALL??

or are we just supposed to take your word for everything?

 

[Christophera]

Lots of verifying statements from authority.

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.

 

[DiveCon]

Lots of verifying statements from authority.

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.

wrong again
that all has already been proven to be BULLSHIT

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Lots of verifying statements from authority.

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.

Booga, booga, booga.

Does any of this drivel confirm "3 inch re-bar" used in the WTC??

 

[Christophera]

Yes it does. And it does that while you have NO INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED eviden ceof steel core columns.

ALL references you might produce go back to FEMA.

 

[Liability]

Lots of verifying statements from authority.

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.

Endlessly repeating that entirely dishonest and already fully disproved paragraph of ChriscoFEARa lies, only proves that you are unable to refrain from lying, you lying pussy scumbag Troofer asshole.

 

[Liability]

Yes it does. And it does that while you have NO INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED eviden ceof steel core columns.

ALL references you might produce go back to FEMA.

^ Dishonest.

None of it addresses "rebar" at all, you lying bitch child-non-supporting unmanly pussy.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Yes it does. And it does that while you have NO INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED eviden ceof steel core columns.

ALL references you might produce go back to FEMA.

Well, let's see, whom should I believe?

FEMA, who was on site and was able to examine the wreckage at close range?

or,

Christophera, who looks at photos shot through a telephoto lens and can see re-bar at 1/2+ mile ranges?

My money's on FEMA.

Sorry, Kal-El.

 

[Fizz]

Yes it does. And it does that while you have NO INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED eviden ceof steel core columns.

ALL references you might produce go back to FEMA.

you claiming there is no evidence of steel core columns is just more proof that you are a lying jackass.

here are your steel core columns!! (right next to your invisible concrete).

 

[Liability]

Here, in a paper soon to be filed in Court by CriscoFEARa, is a CLEAR view (he maintains) of the REBAR used in the CONCRETE CORE of the Twin Towers:

Yep.

You gotta hand it to CriscoFEARa. That's MIGHTY convincing!

 

[Fizz]

here's proof the lunar rover was made out of 3 inch rebar.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Here's proof that Deep Space 9 was built with 3" rebar.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

View attachment 9975

Here's proof that Deep Space 9 was built with 3" rebar.

By the way, if you look really, really closely, you can see the concrete cores running from the docking bay to the upper command area!!!

 

[Fizz]

View attachment 9975

Here's proof that Deep Space 9 was built with 3" rebar.

By the way, if you look really, really closely, you can see the concrete cores running from the docking bay to the upper command area!!!

i can see them. they are very reflective!!