• 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:
I have lots of evidence for the concrete core.

You just don't want to use it,
Click to expand...

Thats not evidence. Can't ignore something that you dont have. Images of after collapse is not evidence of anything that you are claiming. Evidence are physical proof (ie please provide your proof fomr the site of these concrete columns, in the form of PHOTOS THAT YOU TOOK yourself; or the testimony of those who worked on them towers).

You've provided none, but images YOU"ve downloaded from other conpsiracy sites. That is not evidence.



you want me to waste time making phones calls that have already been made and I know the outcome which you've been told.
Click to expand...

No, we want you to provide proof. by making those phone calls, you are on your way to getting that proof. So far you contacted 1 person, who doesn't support your theory. So why is that?

And no speculation on your part. YOU can't 2nd guess someone because they didn't give you the answer YOU wanted.

So, have you contacted those who were involved with the design and construction of the twin towers? Why haven't you contacted the design firm?
 
Christophera said:
It is a known fact to me that there was a concrete core. It is documented with evidence. What is wrong with me using what I know to show what was there to you who do not and consider my propositions as hypothesis, what else would I use?
Click to expand...
Backed up with what evidence? The stuff you made up on your website? That won't do.

You need independent sources. You need names and transcripted interviews with the workers who actualy worked on the core. You need to find that video you keep talking about or a source that refreneces or mentions the video, or even a TVGuide from that month and year that shows the air date. You need other sources other than your own website to back you up.

Still, you have not one image of the steel core columns.
Click to expand...
WHAT?!?!?! They're posted all over this thread. Your just willfully ignoring them.

So you're objecting to my using evidence it as a basis for my argument ? Has there ever been a more unfair proposition of so called "reasoning"?
Click to expand...

No, were just questioning and pointing out errors in your thoery on your website. Were asking you to back that up with more than just photo interpretation. Photo interpretation is not enough. You need other corroberating evidence.
 
Last edited:

Attachments

  • corewallspirearrows.gif
    corewallspirearrows.gif
    28.9 KB · Views: 11
Arus808 said:
Thats not evidence. Can't ignore something that you dont have. Images of after collapse is not evidence of anything that you are claiming.
Click to expand...

The invitation has been standing for you to provide a reasonable, logical explanation for what is seen in images.

Start here. What is seen does not resemble steel core columns and drywall could not survice. What is the core of WTC 2 made of?

core​
 
Arus808 said:
Christophera said:
Steel columns don't just collapse.
Click to expand...

YES they do. They weaken and with weight, they collapse; like they did on 9/11.
Click to expand...

In collapse the topple they do not just fall apart and downward.

This shows us exactly why you have no clue what you are talking about.



Arus808 said:
There are photos out there of exactly what goes into prepping a building for demolitions. None of that were evident in the WTC towers.
Click to expand...

Correct, so in order for the towers to come down like this, explosives had to be built in.
 
Christophera said:
Steel columns don't just collapse. They topple which is highly visible. We do not see them. Meaning they must have been cut.
Click to expand...

sigh.........

i've found an astonishing series of panoramic pictures illustrating the total devastation at GZ very soon after 9/11 (two days after the atrocity). they've probably been referred to here before but i think it would be worth it for everyone to take a look.........

HERE

where is the evidence of blasted concrete in these picures christophera? where, ANYWHERE in those terrible pictures is evidence of your concrete core? where is the "sand and gravel" you are so fond claiming covered the site following the disaster?
are these "raw" enough for you? these pictures are so "raw" you can almost see the blood trickling down the lens.

take a break mate you can't be a twat all your life. have a day off ffs.

BV
 
bonavada said:
sigh.........

i've found an astonishing series of panoramic pictures illustrating the total devastation at GZ very soon after 9/11 (two days after the atrocity). they've probably been referred to here before but i think it would be worth it for everyone to take a look.........

HERE

where is the evidence of blasted concrete in these picures christophera? where, ANYWHERE in those terrible pictures is evidence of your concrete core? where is the "sand and gravel" you are so fond claiming covered the site following the disaster?
are these "raw" enough for you? these pictures are so "raw" you can almost see the blood trickling down the lens.

take a break mate you can't be a twat all your life. have a day off ffs.

BV
Click to expand...

Looking at those pictures again makes me wonder how the hell did those 18 people survive? Wow, what lucky few.

And since I'm talking about that... Christophera, how did the firefighters and the civilian survive in the staircase inside the core, if that was blown up?
 
WHY does anyone talk to this liar, anyway?

What do you all hope to achieve?

We've now caught him in two obvious, plain, simple lies: First, that he saw a documentary on 'PBS channel 10 WCET' (unless, and I can allow for this, he saw it in Las Vegas, or somehow got the Vegas station where he lived); second, that he interviewed a 64 year old Mohawk who worked on the towers when he was 24 and speaks of the core (amazing... so in 1966, two years before they started working on the erection, he knew what was GOING to happen with the core???)... that's assuming Chris interviewed him this year. Chances are, it was 'a couple of years ago' and we're talking the Mohawk worked on the towers around, what, 1962-1964???

Liar.

Why should anyone believe anything else he claims?

Why does this thread continue???

Please, for pity's sake, stop. It's done. Chris has been absolutely shown to be a delusional, self-aggrandizing liar. His 'evidence' has been debunked more often than Oprah's changed weight, and he's never, EVER, going to admit he's wrong on anything. This is his life, folks.. this is all that matters to him any more. He'll never give up, never surrender.

So what more is there to say?

Or do you guys actually like banging your head against a concrete core?
 
Bell said:
Looking at those pictures again makes me wonder how the hell did those 18 people survive? Wow, what lucky few.
And since I'm talking about that... Christophera, how did the firefighters and the civilian survive in the staircase inside the core, if that was blown up?
Click to expand...

an extremely valid point my man!

can christophera theorise that pearler away?

i'll hazard a guess that'll he'll cook something up. hologramatic hypnolobotomisation or some other total shiesser.

BV
 
Christophera said:
The invitation has been standing for you to provide a reasonable, logical explanation for what is seen in images.
Click to expand...

Images have been posted ad nauseum throughout this thread. the fact that you ignore them speaks louder.


So when are you going to contact those who were involved in the design and construction of the twin towers?
 
Huntsman said:
100 bottles of beer on the wall, 100 bottles of beer...

Take one down, pass it around, 99 bottles of beer on the wall...

Next verse! Someobody take it!
Click to expand...

99 bottles of beer on the wall, 99 bottles of beer...

Take one down pass it around, 98 bottles of beer on the wall...
 
zaayrdragon said:
Why does this thread continue???
<snip>
Please, for pity's sake, stop. It's done. Chris has been absolutely shown to be a delusional, self-aggrandizing liar.
<snip>
So what more is there to say?

Or do you guys actually like banging your head against a concrete core?
Click to expand...

point taken. i shall try and stop reacting to his nonsense. just that he annoys me so much with this utter tripe.

BV
 
I know, I know.

But as a parent of six kids, and the primary caregiver, sometimes you have to learn that the best way to deal with the annoying whining, question-asking, and screaming is... just ignore it. Little kids eventually give up, because they're not getting positive reinforcement of their behaviors.

Do I know what I'm talking about? Let me give you another useless anecdote: My kids range from 8 to 2. The 8 year old and the 6 year old are step-children, whose father is a jerk. The others are all mine.

Anyway, I can take all six, by myself, to any restaurant I choose. I order for them - drinks, main course, everything. They remain seated the entire meal. They eat with their silverware. They mostly finish all their food (the 3 year old has an eating disorder, though, and often refuses to eat).

I have actually had waitresses RETURN me my tip. Managers have marvelled at how well-behaved these guys are. My seven and four year old today went to IHOP, and got FREE Chocolate banana smoothies - TWO EACH - because of how well they behave. When my four-year-old asked for a side salad, they brought him a main course salad. And charged as per his request!

Yeah, I've figured out how kids work.

Ergo... Chris is acting like a child. Treat him as one. Ignore his rants.
 
Christophera said:

The standing rule for WTC 1 was no more thatn 7 floors od steel over the core.

The core required that 4 floors minimum of steel be constructed so that the crane platform was above the new segment of cast concrete core but still had a place to be fastened and that the interior box columns were in position to support the outer core forms. By special arrangement with the engineers in charge of steel and restricted operation, steel went higher on a few occasions. WTC 2 may have had more of that as experience gained on WTC 1 was used to evaluate risks.
Click to expand...

Chris, I've tried to find this information on the Net with no luck. Could you point me in the right direction to find the details of this construction method?
Was there verbal or written discussion between engineers and job foremen concerning the height to construct the steel core before pouring the cement? Help!:)

James
 
cloudshipsrule said:
Christophera said:

Chris, I've tried to find this information on the Net with no luck. Could you point me in the right direction to find the details of this construction method?
Was there verbal or written discussion between engineers and job foremen concerning the height to construct the steel core before pouring the cement? Help!:)

James
Click to expand...

There was no steel core. There were "interior box columns" that were needed to form the concrete core inside. WTC 7 is being re built right now with this technique. I've looked for details on it but there seem to be none. It is private property.

There is no reference on the web for any constructon details for the towers except perhaps "slurry wall' or "hat truss" or something like that.

The steel core column deception suffers from a similar problem, or worse because there are at least 3 different core column layouts available and the different sources don't seem to know it, or care.
 
10 Print "The WTC had a concrete core. See my picture."
20 Print "There was no concrete core in the WTC."
30 Goto 10
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom