Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Christophera,

I realize that you feel that admiting that you are wrong, at this point, would make you seem very foolish, but ask yourself if looking foolish is better or worse than seeming crazy and demented. You may feel you are not being heard or understood, but you are. The problem is that your wrong. You are not setting a good example for your children or anyone who is in fear of their civil liberties being taken away. I suggest you swallow your pride, admit your mistakes, put this behind you, and go back to your life.

MEB-SG
 
Apollyon said:
No, he doesn't say "floor beams."

Eagar correctly calls them "floor joists." They are also properly referred to in other studies as "floor trusses."

So what straw man are you going to come up with next to avoid providing proof of your claim that the columns were butt-welded?

Please stop with your hand-waving and answer.
Click to expand...

I ain't going for it. Joists are joists (lighter, more frequent support), trusses are trusses, (fabricated braced web) and beams are beams (wider spaced, heavy support). I would be interested to see what you come up with for these definitions, since you are so into petty stuff.

You have no evidence of the steel core columns from the demolition images with core columns at, 200, 400, 600, 700 feet (since the term, "at elevation" has been shown as "beyond" some of you pencil pushers).
 
CptColumbo said:
Christophera,

I realize that you feel that admiting that you are wrong, at this point, would make you seem very foolish, but ask yourself if looking foolish is better or worse than seeming crazy and demented. You may feel you are not being heard or understood, but you are. The problem is that your wrong. You are not setting a good example for your children or anyone who is in fear of their civil liberties being taken away. I suggest you swallow your pride, admit your mistakes, put this behind you, and go back to your life.

MEB-SG
Click to expand...

I thought officers stood for lawful performance. So disapointing. FEMA lied about the core.

http://concretecore.741.com
 
gumboot said:
I just want to point out that under international law there is no such thing as an "illegal" war. The UN Charter and UN Resolutions are not law. Even international laws are not binding unless they have been ratified by the signatory nation and included in their own legislation. For example some aspects of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are in direct contradiction to Privacy Acts in New Zealand. While New Zealand is signatory to the universal declaration, we have not ratified all parts of it. If New Zealand breaches those parts of the declaration that have not been ratified, no laws has been broken.

The international laws of armed conflict (ILAC) dictate *how* war can be fought, but it is the sovereign right of every state to use military force at any time they consider appropriate.

Violation of any UN resolutions or Charters *are* breaking the rules of that particular organisation, of course, and in theory could result in expolsion from the organisation (Hah! Like that would ever happen) but it is not "illegal" any more than it is "illegal" for a student at a school to wear items that violate the uniform regulations for that school.

In addition individual states may have domestic laws dictating when and how they are allowed to go to war, and breaking these would make the act of war illegal domestically.

However, in an international setting, "illegal law" refers to the way in which war is fought (i.e. in breach of the ILAC), NOT the status of the war itself.

Just thought I would clear that common misconception up.

-Andrew
Click to expand...

How lame. Missed the point altogether. I'll try simplifyng it for you.

1. 3000 murders un investigated on 9-11. Violations of due process laws.
2. Predetermined identity of attacker issued and political thrust to attack manifests.
3. War declared on 1 false premise.
4. War declared on 2 false premises.

Numbers 3 and 4 only happened because of 1. and that was illegal = illegal wars. Duh.
 
By the way, Mr. Brown, are you still standing by the authenticity of this:

Christophera said:
Leslie E. Robertson
Posted: Apr 1 2006, 06:33 PM
Unregistered

Christophera is correct in stating that the Twin Towers were constructed with a concrete core. Although in my original design the core was to be a steel framed one that decision was overridden by Minoru Yamasaki the architect.

That core should have resisted the airplane impacts AND the fires. I have said nothing for four and a half years but can remain silent no longer. My belief is that only explosives could have caused WTC 1 & WTC 2 to collapse the way they did on September 11, 2001.

Leslie E. Robertson
Director Leslie E. Robertson Associates, R.L.L.P. and lead engineer of the World Trade Center
Click to expand...
 
Floors Surrounding Core Work Area Make It easier

Woody- said:
One thing that has me puzzled about this concrete core theory is how he claims they poured it. If I get the gist of it correct they poured the core seven stories or more below the uppermost level of construction after they have poured the concrete for the floorspace of each of those stories.
Click to expand...

Actually Woody I do not say on my pages when floors were poured. They were poured afterwards to reduce the weight on the steel framework not laterally braced by the core. That is why the 7 floors of steel max over the top of the concrete. They were worried about the crane platforms lifting/loading potential causing failures of the steel.

Woody- said:
From a construction viewpoint that would be downright silly.

I am not saying it would be impossible to pour a core after completing several stories of floors above it but it would sure be easier and cheaper to pour the core first.
Click to expand...

Not easier or cheaper. The reverse is true.

The interior box columns are used to support the outer, standard wood forms and the steel floors provide surfaces to work off of surrounding the core. The cranes lift the inner, breakdown steel forms and place the elevator supports and guide rail in the center as soon as the concrete is cured to keep the elevators delivering as high as possible.
Often, temporary floors were spanned across the core over the work in the core below so crews could follow crane loads easily for the work on top.
 
Regnad Kcin said:
Well, I've asked you one question numerous times. It's a fairly easy one to answer, yet for some reason you've not responded. Here it is again:

How many undamaged stories were above the impacted stories in both WTC 1 and WTC 2?
Click to expand...

You asked it different last time and I've answered. You do the research and the math.

On the way, .......... see if you can find some evidence for your buddies. A A touch of reason and integrity/sincerity would be good.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
I just had a conversation a few minutes ago with a member of the Edmonton Fire Department.

He told me that an average house fire can reach temperatures as high as 1700 degrees.

That's just a an average house. An office building with a HUGE chimney (elevator shafts) feeding fresh oxygen into the blaze would have NO problem reaching those temperatures.

Why don't you go test your faith, Chris? Ask a firefighter.

Or are you chicken?
Click to expand...


Yea, there probably is a few hundred cubic feet in the draft that reaches that off and on through the flares.
 
Christophera said:
How lame. Missed the point altogether. I'll try simplifyng it for you.

1. 3000 murders un investigated on 9-11. Violations of due process laws.
2. Predetermined identity of attacker issued and political thrust to attack manifests.
3. War declared on 1 false premise.
4. War declared on 2 false premises.

Numbers 3 and 4 only happened because of 1. and that was illegal = illegal wars. Duh.
Click to expand...

The 9-11 attacks were extensively investigated. By your own (rather shaky) logic, you remaining points are automatically invalid.
 
gumboot said:
I worked with an armourer for about three years. He made the steel originals for "The Last Samurai" amongst others.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

The dynamics of the air through the floors of a building on which opposite walls have been smashed open would create a pretty decent air-blast furnace.

-Andrew
Click to expand...

Nonsense, without forced air a vertical draft is optimal/needed and there was none in the WTC towers. Only the core drafted, and it was concrete.
 
Typical Ignorance of Information, Intentional Obfuscation

rwguinn said:
And a one anna 2 anna 3 anna one more time:
Still photos take from 5 miles away will show no object smaller than 12 feet on a side in any sensible, analyzable way. Saying that such a picture clearly shows 3"rebar on 48" centers is ludicrous-and, if you knew anything about construction, you'd know that rebar is buried in the concrete, and not visible, anyway...
I suggest that you actually look at the pictures of numerous posts, showing a cluster of steel beams in the center of the pile of rubble--with no concrete anywhere near.
Then get youself an engineering construction book, and look at the pretty pictures-because there is no way you can read and comprehend anything more complex than "Horton Hatches an Egg"
Click to expand...

The photo is taken at 7500 feet and a single 3 inch silhouette will not be seen, totally, but 80 or so, looking down a line of them some what, yes easily visible, and that is exactly what this picture shows, 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS

Why is that bar standing and no other does?

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1149808

Scroll down from the anchor that this link leads to and you will read about how the weather stopped work while the rebar stood and the "special plastic protective coating" "may have been compromised", was how the narration went.
 
Stellafane said:
I've mostly stayed on the sidelines of this thread, especially since I'm increasingly suspecting Christophera is seriously deluded, perhaps even mentally ill, and thus further discussion with him is not only pointless, it may actually be dangerous in some ways. But I must say this: Chris, you questioning Huntsman's guts, even indirectly (as you did with your "engineers are often not very brave" comment), is like Bozo the Clown questioning Einstein's intelligence.

Beyond that, I can only echo what others have already suggested: seriously dude, please consider seeking help.
Click to expand...

Hey, you've all got real deep social fears that are unreasonable. Not being able to deal with obvious information. Failing to produce any support for arguments in a group like this, what's with that? Sick stuff.
 
Regnad Kcin said:
Well, I've asked you one question numerous times. It's a fairly easy one to answer, yet for some reason you've not responded. Here it is again:

How many undamaged stories were above the impacted stories in both WTC 1 and WTC 2?
Click to expand...
Christophera said:
You asked it different last time and I've answered. You do the research and the math...
Click to expand...
It would've been so simple for you to answer, rather than write the content quoted above. Nevertheless, you have not answered as you claim.

I first asked you to indicate what floor or floors each airplane hit each tower; that you did answer in this post. I then asked (numerous times now) how many undamaged stories existed above each story/floor (where the airplanes hit) according to your own figure. Will you do so?

By the way, I know the answer; it's a simple calculation, after all. Once you do answer (as you eventually did with the first question), we'll be very close to my point.

ETA: the "where the airplanes hit" paranthetical, for clarity.
 
Last edited:
Christophera said:
Hey, you've all got real deep social fears that are unreasonable. Not being able to deal with obvious information. Failing to produce any support for arguments in a group like this, what's with that? Sick stuff.

A touch of reason and integrity/sincerity would be good.

How lame. Missed the point altogether. I'll try simplifyng it for you.

you are so into petty stuff

Duh.

shown as "beyond" some of you pencil pushers
Click to expand...
Why do you feel the need to puff yourself up into pseudo-superior world constantly in your petty attempts at belittlement? Do you realize you are running in a fevered circle? That would be fine if someone chained you to a large sprocket that powered some orphanage, but sadly no power is realized by the likes of you. Why are you so abrasive with those sharing expertise in areas you have none, demonstrably. Who hurt you Christophera? Who took your power away? Wait I know...nevermind. It is pointed to in this thread, early on. Please, please seek assistance with your problems or at least manufacture some civility.
 
Is this guy for real? 31 pages, and all he does is screaming about concrete cores and rebars, posting pics taken from miles away on a building obscured by dust, debris and smoke in order to "prove" items a couple of feet in size? It's effing unbeleivable.
 
Christophera said:
I've answered with 2 entire web sites, one completely devoted to the concrete core. You, basically have not looked. That is the intellectual dishonesty thing you do.
Click to expand...

Well now. You don't know what intellectual dishonesty is, either. Damn. Do you know ANYTHING ?

I admit I didn't READ through your entire site. But I did read enough of it to know that there's no proof there, only conjecture and opinion. So I'm waiting for that evidence now...


...


...
 
Pardalis said:
The war in Iraq was technically legal, Saddam Hussein and his regime was in breach of UN resolution 1441, wich allowed the use of military force.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/

The resolution was passed with a 15 to 0 vote by the United Nations members. Only a few nations decided to implement it.
Click to expand...

Personally, my only question is whether the US should've waited for the UN vote. I don't know if it should have been required of them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom