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

defaultdotxbe · Sep 23, 2006

Christophera said:
Hey, no one here has ever tried a logical interpretation other than what I provide of the core.

youve been given several answers in this thread

I've asked, they won't do it. I've asked why the supposed "steel core columns" are not seen. No logical answers.

you shoudl look up the definition of "logical" because, again, youve been given several

There are a lot more than 2 images showing concrete. There are none from the construction showing steel columns IN THE CORE.

youve been shown several picture of the steel core in this thread

Not after seeing the documentary. The videographers had a hard time finding good pictures of it amongst the thousands of stills and hundreds of reels of 16mm film. Why? It was 35 to 60 feet from the perimeter and always in shadow, or covered with forms inside and out and almost always 40 feet below the top floor. The demolition images provide the best view ever.

so your telling me the whole time they wre building the tower no one ever took a flash camera inside and took a picture of the core to document how its coming along? ive worked on construction sites, i can assure you that core would have been photographed on a daily basis, any cracks that appeared in the concrete would have been documented

also, why cant you find anyone who worked on the contruction that can tell you about the core? i remember you citing one guy who said there WASNT a concrete core

furthermore, if the core was 40 feet below the progress of the floors, what were the floors attached to? how were they attached to the core when it rose up to meet them? it must be very difficult to keep couplings like that steady in wet concrete

They would of the steel core columns too, if they existed and they did not.

again, youve been shown several pictures of them

Christophera · Sep 23, 2006

Christophera said:
Hey, no one here has ever tried a logical interpretation other than what I provide of the core.

defaultdotxbe said:
youve been given several answers in this thread

you shoudl look up the definition of "logical" because, again, youve been given several

youve been shown several picture of the steel core in this thread

Actualy I cannot recall one interpretation of the core that actually was logical. Attempts yes, but not a done deal or even close to it.

No one ever supported the images with logic consistant and related to the core. Consistency with raw evidence of the demoliton is mandatory.

uruk · Sep 23, 2006

What's all the fuss? The WTC had a hollow concrete service core surrounded by 244 steel box collumns. All the pictures posted show this structure.
The steel box columns go all the way down just like the concrete core. They both supported the wieght of the floors and building. But what does that have to with anything? You fly a plane filled with fuel in to that structure your going to get quite a bit of damage to both colums and core.

bob_kark · Sep 23, 2006

Christophera said:
No, I don't waste time and I don't need the documentary. You want it, go for it. File a F.O.I.A then test the courts.

All I need is informed folks with open minds that are interested in the truth. w t f I'm posting here, I don't know.

But you do waste time! Why stop at wasting ours?

So, other than a documentary that for all intents and purposes does not exist and the same two photos used over and over again, what evidence do you have?

BTW, evidence is where gullibility ends and open mindedness begins.

uruk · Sep 23, 2006

Christophera · Sep 23, 2006

Bobs Temporal Management Study

bob_kark said:
But you do waste time! Why stop at wasting ours?

So, other than a documentary that for all intents and purposes does not exist and the same two photos used over and over again, what evidence do you have?

BTW, evidence is where gullibility ends and open mindedness begins.

Your time is wasted because you won't use it with reason. If you knew what I know you would realize that it is not a waste of my time to get you to stop wasting yours.

If this is not true, or will no longer be true, reasonably explain what that is to the left of the spire if it is not the concrete shear wall of the concrete core. btw, the statement, "I don't know", will not suffice.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3232&stc=1&d=1159047063

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3233&stc=1&d=1159047345

bob_kark · Sep 23, 2006

Christophera said:
Your time is wasted because you won't use it with reason. If you knew what I know you would realize that it is not a waste of my time to get you to stop wasting yours.

That's what I'm asking you. How do you know what you claim to know? Other than a few pictures from over a mile away and a non-existent documentary, what do you have as proof? You talk of reason, but all you have is speculation. To gain reason, you need to found your arguments with evidence instead.

Christophera said:
If this is not true, or will no longer be true, reasonably explain what that is to the left of the spire if it is not the concrete shear wall of the concrete core. btw, the statement, "I don't know", will not suffice.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3232&stc=1&d=1159047063

I can't reasonably explain it because you can't provide me with enough information to make a proper judgement. You are deluding yourself if you think that you can know that the item in that horribly pixelated photograph is definately made of concrete. That is absolutely impossible.

The fact that you can't recognize this is proof that you're too close to this, you're no longer being objective. I would seriously recommend re-evaluating your work from a more objective viewpoint.

uruk · Sep 23, 2006

The structures in the spire look like the steel box collumn supports but it is hard to tell from 2 dimensional photographs that have been highly compressed with jpeg

qarnos · Sep 23, 2006

Christophera said:
No, I don't waste time and I don't need the documentary. You want it, go for it. File a F.O.I.A then test the courts.

Are you seriously suggesting that we file a F.O.I.A. request for a PBS documentary which may not even exist? :jaw-dropp

Belz... · Sep 23, 2006

Christophera said:
You cannot convince me that the towers had steel core columns. I know for absolute certain that the core was concrete. Forget it, a waste of your time.

I have all of the raw evidence.

I have the proof. It is eternal, but you don't WANT to recognize it so you are giving up on trying to prove your point.

Getting out of hand, isn't it ?

jhunter1163 · Sep 23, 2006

I think that Christophera is suffering heavy metal poisoning from eating too much raw evidence.

Christophera · Sep 24, 2006

qarnos said:
Are you seriously suggesting that we file a F.O.I.A. request for a PBS documentary which may not even exist?

It did exist and still does, but PBS won't know it. If you really want to see the video realize that the lack of images from the demo indicate that there were no steel core columns and that the core must have been concrete. Given time and the support of reasonable people that appreciate reason, logic and evidence, a copy of the documentary will surface, that is what I suggested all along.

Some fool actually thought PBS knew what was going on and could tell us.

Oliver · Sep 24, 2006

Christophera said:
It did exist and still does, but PBS won't know it. If you really want to see the video realize that the lack of images from the demo indicate that there were no steel core columns and that the core must have been concrete. Given time and the support of reasonable people that appreciate reason, logic and evidence, a copy of the documentary will surface, that is what I suggested all along.

Some fool actually thought PBS knew what was going on and could tell us.

Come to a point, CHRIS. You have something? Okay - give it to us and we will debunk it.

PS: I´m not talking about evidence of you in form of any speculations. So think bevore posting your evidence...

Christophera · Sep 24, 2006

bob_kark said:
That's what I'm asking you. How do you know what you claim to know? Other than a few pictures from over a mile away and a non-existent documentary, what do you have as proof? You talk of reason, but all you have is speculation. To gain reason, you need to found your arguments with evidence instead.

You didn't explain what this is if it is not the concrete core you are not being reasonable and you are wasting our time.

Christophera · Sep 24, 2006

Oliver said:
Come to a point, CHRIS. You have something? Okay - give it to us and we will debunk it.

PS: I´m not talking about evidence of you in form of any speculations. So think bevore posting your evidence...

Where are the supposed steel core columns in this image. Why are they not seen penetrating the stairwell or right of the stairwell or in the foreground.

These are reasonable questions, it is not reasonable to NOT answer them.

Christophera · Sep 24, 2006

Belz... said:
Getting out of hand, isn't it ?

Yea, you guys are finally giving up on reason because you have no evidence and reasoning with mine defeats your argument.

Oliver · Sep 24, 2006

Christophera said:
Where are the supposed steel core columns in this image. Why are they not seen penetrating the stairwell or right of the stairwell or in the foreground.

These are reasonable questions, it is not reasonable to NOT answer them.

This is not what i asked. Do you have some hard evidence instead of Pics, Videos, Seismics or something else?

Regards,
Oliver

GlennB · Sep 24, 2006

Christophera said:
Yea, you guys are finally giving up on reason because you have no evidence and reasoning with mine defeats your argument.

Chris, you are absolutely correct.
The entire core was built of reinforced concrete.
Finally, we all agree on this. You were right all along and in the end your evidence was overwhelming.

regards

Mancman · Sep 24, 2006

Christophera said:
You didn't explain what this is if it is not the concrete core you are not being reasonable and you are wasting our time.

It's a steel core.

There, solved. You can get on with your life now.

alexg · Sep 24, 2006

Assume for a moment that the picture of the mysterious box in the cloud, rising above the just collapsed tower, so oft displayed by Christophera as proof of said core, is in fact a 1300 ft tall, 15 to 17 ft. thick, concrete core, 80ft x 120 ft., as described by Chris. Then what?

Then it must be about to blow up at any second, why? Because, according to Chris, that concrete core encases enough c4 to blow it into microscopic dust - c4 planted by the government during construction over 30 years ago for the purpose of blowing up the WTC as needed at some future date, yet c4 which has yet to blow in that picture of the ‘core’ rising above the already collapsed tower.

So assumed, now:

1. What caused the tower to collapse, if not the yet to blow c4?

2. And this is the kicker. How is it there is no auditory or visual evidence of such an explosion, no, cataclysm! A cataclysm capable of reducing a nearly 100 floor, 15 to 17 foot thick, block of reinforced concrete, reinforced with custom, massive rebar, 80 x 120 ft, into mini dust?

Ok, here we go – Chris’s answer to this last question was to post a picture of the collapsing WTC tower! and say ‘here’s an explosion’.

Therefore, bless his sweet heart, the man is GONzo!

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

Drunken Shikigami

Banned

Philosopher

Person of Hench

Philosopher

Banned

Attachments

Person of Hench

Philosopher

Cold-hearted skeptic

Fiend God

beer-swilling semiliterate

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian

Graduate Poster

Muse