• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Christophera said:
No,
Click to expand...

then why haven't you? So far, nothing we say to you is going through that 15" thick concrete skull of yours, so why are you torturing us with your stubborness and bother those who would have the "concrete" proof you so want?

but others have and those folks are not communicating.
Click to expand...
Its not their JOB to do your homework/research. YOU want us to believe you, THEN ITS YOUR job to contact them. Not us. Not someone else. YOU and only YOU>

You are welcome to try and see if they will act to reinforce the FEMA lie.
Click to expand...
There is no FEMA lie. Im not going to contact them since I already know the answer.

I'm betting no. People are done lying for murderers.
Click to expand...
Unlike those who like to trample on those who have died by the hands of extremists? Chris, you are no better than the terrorists at this point.

Gravy did not find any declarations of engineers in the WTC report and NIST or he would have posted it.
Click to expand...
Because they didn't need to be consulted because 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the people of this world, know there was no concrete core within the WTC towers. you are the only one who believes otherwise. EVEN the CT'ers have long dumped your concrete core theory as being preposterous (since they too dont believe that there was a concrete core).

So, until YOU consult with one of the hundreds of people working on the construction of the WTC towers, please do not respond/reply to this thread. YOu are a broken record and nothing you say is even remotely true.

I suggest everyone else, agian, to IGNORE this lunatic until he has done the most basic of research: consulting with the experts who were there.
 
Last edited:
I trust you are busy working up an answer as to when that cloud is going to explode with all the encased c4?
 
It's deeply ironic that if the building had, in fact, had a concrete core then it would have been less susceptible to fire. But that's missed on Chris, who has clearly fallen out of his tree. I take it you chaps read the "hypnosis" garbage?
 
Architect said:
It's deeply ironic that if the building had, in fact, had a concrete core then it would have been less susceptible to fire. But that's missed on Chris, who has clearly fallen out of his tree. I take it you chaps read the "hypnosis" garbage?
Click to expand...
I would have, but my conditioning kept me from comprehending the word system...
 
I think Chris should consider a career in politics.

Although not in my country, or indeed any other with access to nukes.
 
Architect said:
It's deeply ironic that if the building had, in fact, had a concrete core then it would have been less susceptible to fire. But that's missed on Chris, who has clearly fallen out of his tree. I take it you chaps read the "hypnosis" garbage?
Click to expand...


Yes.


MUAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!

You heard the one about encasing c4 in the core back in 69 or whenever?
 
These photos have all been posted here before, as Chris well knows. I won't be participating in this, er, discussion, but I've decided to post the photos monthly for newcomers.

8790452c11e07a3ea.jpg

​
8790452c0e45bc2e9.jpg


8790452c0ed979936.jpg


8790452c0ed9a19b0.jpg


8790452c0ed9d1efb.jpg


8790452c0ef8e8610.jpg

​
 
Last edited:
Chris' Core?

here's a very short (12 sec) scene i cut from the Nova production "Why The Towers Fell":-

BEHIND THE SHADOW?


this plainly shows the core momentarily standing during the collapse of WTC2. i suggest this may be what (obviously from a different distance/camera/angle) is seen as the "clouded shadow" in christopheras pic which he seems fixated upon insisting as evidence/proof that the core was made of concrete.

during the scene, a graphic of the structure in question is superimposed by Nova over the core to illustrate the WTC design architects point. sadly it's not that plain to see in my compressed cut/edit. i recommend christophera to watch the original film and try to find convincing evidence (besides several grainy inconclusive jpgs and a doctored diagram) to refute all the acknowledged expert professional opinions the movie shows.

Perhaps then he might be able to come to a more convincing conclusion as to how the WTC towers were constructed and therefore also more plausible mechanics of their eventual destruction.

the whole film is replete with illustrations, explanations and expert testament of/to the construction of the WTC. in fact the film particularly emphasises the true core fabrication.

LOOK and Learn...........

BV
 
Architect said:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/sf_building.html

Hmm Not a lot of concrete
Click to expand...

No indeed, not on the core anyway, yet they make a big deal about the concrete used in the footings and also show it used to build the floors. But nary a word about it in the core.

I guess the film makers were in on it, even back than. 'Whoa, cut that core footage out of there Bud, don't you know the're gonna blow this tower down in 01 with all that c4 we put in there." Then, quietly into the walki talki "hey, wre're gonna need a hypnotist down here in a few minutes, 10-4"
 
Christophera said:
The reverse is true.

What is there looks like it must be concrete. The image of the core proves there are no steel core columns.

homer, all that striking your head has given you brain damage.

Recall, this is the internet and fakery is the norm. Accordingly, to separate myself from the fakes, I post raw images and use reason to impliment ALL of them with consistency.

meaning I post another image that can only be interpreted as showing concrete.

Click to expand...

Chris, why do you lie?

Chris do you even know what a "RAW" image file is? You know very well that all the pictures you have on your web site are all downloaded form other websites. We all know it. (You can't even post RAW image files on a web page. the files sizes are too big)
If you look at the picture files you will notice that they are all either JPEG or GIFS. That means that all the pictures on your website have gone through image compression software. The only way you could have RAW image files is if you had taken the picture yourself or obtained the files from the photographers themselves. And only if they were using high end digital cameras. If they used film there would be no RAW image files since the negative would have to be scanned.
Besides in my post #5008 I used the same image you had on your website all i did was to add text and a few lines. That is no more that you have done on other pictures on your website.

But now lets get to your reasoning abilities. You are only relying on memory of a video that you watched 15 years ago. A video that you cannot provide evidence for that it ever existed or even that is was ever shown. Memory is very elastic, this is a proven fact.
Other than a few mistaken or missinformed sources, all other sources for the information on the construction of the WTC do not mention a concrete core. In fact some make particular mention of the "innovative steel tube" construction. Add to that, none of the pictures of the construction of the WTC that you use on your site shows a concrete core. In fact at least two pictures show light shining through the core of the buildings, If, as you say the concrete core was used as structural support for the buildings, Why are the buildings standing, several floor high, with light shining through them and no concrete installed?

To continue, The "spire" pictures clearly show steel columns surrounded by debris. The size relation of the spire elements comfirm that they are the steel support columns. You have even missinterpreted length and size in the pictures that you labeled. (The 3 inch item you pointed to is much larger that 3 inches, and you point it out next to a blob on the picture that you claim is 17 feet. The sizes you pointed out does not correlate)

The truth is that your basis for claiming that the core is made of concrete is based on the memory of movie you watched 15 years ago that you cannot prove exists. You look at the pictures with that bias already in your head.
 
AGain, Chris, have you contacted a one of the many hundreds of workers who constructed the WTC towers? YOu had now, 13 hours today alone, to make a simple phone call.
 
Arus808 said:
YOU want us to believe you, THEN ITS YOUR job to contact them. Not us. Not someone else. YOU and only YOU
Click to expand...

With consideration of the fact that your proposal of steel core columns is only supported by fraudulent documents or misrepresentations of construction photos and the raw evidence of images of the demolition show things that are completely unexplained by the steel core sheep that believe lies.


That concrete there is why that stairwell was not crushed and a number of people survived.



Which one are you Arus808?



 

Attachments

  • sheep4.gif
    sheep4.gif
    2.9 KB · Views: 97
Last edited:
uruk said:
Chris, why do you lie?

Chris do you even know what a "RAW" image file is?
Click to expand...

Damm, brain damage with sociopathic tendencies. Stop hitting your head.


No excursions of changing the subject homer.

Reason now, .............. think bwain, bwain. You need evidence because I have evidence. Then you get to be reasonable.

That brownish gray material in the center of the perimeter columns is concrete.

The core of the top of tower 2 falls on WTC 3
 
With consideration of the fact that your proposal of steel core columns is only supported by fraudulent documents or misrepresentations of construction photos
Click to expand...

Chris, how in hell can you look at the construction photos and construction videos presented here and conclude that the core is anything but STEEL COLUMNS?? It's so damn plain to see that the core was made out of STEEL it boggles my mind that you are blind to it.

I've worked in construction, and when concrete is going to be poured around a steel structure, FORMS ARE PUT IN PLACE around said steel so the concrete doesn't just fall away due to gravity. Makes sense, huh??

When have you EVER seen a single, damn form around one of the steel members in ANY photo taken during the construction of WTC 1 or 2??

You do believe that there was steel in the core, don't you?? Please tell me you aren't starting to believe that there were no steel columns in the core as implied by your last post.

Can you provide ONE SINGLE PHOTO taken during construction that would lead us to believe the core might have been steel reinforced concrete, or do you think that every construction photo has been either deleted if it showed concrete, or altered to make it 'look like' there really never was concrete?

Was there steel in the core of the WTC's or not Chris???? Just answer that.
 
"That concrete there is why that stairwell was not crushed and a number of people survived."

Hogwash! The planes ripped through all but one stairwell - one survived because the plane cut across the South Tower on an angle. See the docu. "why the towers fell" featuring Leslie Roberston, lead structural engineer for the WTC. If they had used concrete in the core more stairwells might have made it.

And (6x) the explosion of the cloud?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom