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

[Arus808]

your site isn't credible. so anything on it, is deemed not credible. even links to sites that are not credible.

 

[Arus808]

My site relies on raw evidence.

Unfortunately you do not have any raw evidence on your site.

Credibility begins there.

Credibility starts with knowing that said person is able to tell the truth and always tell the truth.

You have demonstrated that youve done nothing of the sort. So your site, is not credible.

Again, I ask teh moderators to censor his website, since all he is doing is spamming it.

 

[Christophera]

Bohohohoo, i really would if the thread wouldn´t jump up and down in front of my nose all the time... [qimg]http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/sad035.gif[/qimg]

How right you might be.

 

[Christophera]

Unfortunately you do not have any raw evidence on your site.

Sorry to hear about your blindness. Maybe a family member can describe the images to you.

 

[Arus808]

Sorry to hear about your blindness. Maybe a family member can describe the images to you.

seeing as that everyone here knows that your site has no raw evidence, it seems that my vision is quite clear (had laser surgery to make sure that i have perfect vision).

you might want to consider such a procedure in the near future.

 

[Powa]

"Raw"? I'm sick and tired of you using that word. What does "raw evidence" mean? Is it undercooked? Can you please define "raw" evidence?

BTW, it's been explained to you what a "raw" image is and no image on your site qualifies.

 

[Garb]

"Raw"? I'm sick and tired of you using that word. What does "raw evidence" mean? Is it undercooked? Can you please define "raw" evidence?

BTW, it's been explained to you what a "raw" image is and no image on your site qualifies.

You shouldn't eat the evidence or else you will get worms.


Worms=conspiracy

 

[Christophera]

seeing as that everyone here knows that your site has no raw evidence, it seems that my vision is quite clear (had laser surgery to make sure that i have perfect vision).

you might want to consider such a procedure in the near future.

If this is not raw evidence, what is?

If that is not a 17 x 30 foot block of concrete what is it?

While you are reasonably answering questions, since I've reasonably answered so many, explain why there are no steel croe columns penetraing the stairwell?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3647&stc=1&d=1161401774

 

[Christophera]

"Raw"? I'm sick and tired of you using that word. What does "raw evidence" mean? Is it undercooked? Can you please define "raw" evidence?

BTW, it's been explained to you what a "raw" image is and no image on your site qualifies.

I''ve already answered this question about "raw evidence" and I'm not doing it again. Go find it in the thread, proabably about 15 pages back.


Find raw evidence of the steel core columns, return, post it. Stop asked dumb question that have already been answered and giving answered that are not wanted or needed.

I've got raw evidence.

This is the concrete shear wall of the core holding up the spire formed of a single interior box column, The core area is to the left.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3648&stc=1&d=1161402119

 

[Christophera]

Unfortunately you do not have any raw evidence on your site.



Credibility starts with knowing that said person is able to tell the truth and always tell the truth.

You have demonstrated that youve done nothing of the sort. So your site, is not credible.

Again, I ask teh moderators to censor his website, since all he is doing is spamming it.

I've posted raw evidence from my site here. Now everyone knows that you don't know what raw evidence.

If I'm spamming you are a troll. Actually, you haven't been reasonable but I have. So, .......... you are just a troll.

 

[Oliver]

If this is not raw evidence, what is?

If that is not a 17 x 30 foot block of concrete what is it?

While you are reasonably answering questions, since I've reasonably answered so many, explain why there are no steel croe columns penetraing the stairwell?

 

[qarnos]

 

[TheFeds]

Christophera, how do you justify this:

"The size of the ‘core’ varied significantly throughout WTC 1 and WTC 2. Note that the size of the structural core (as defined by the location of interior load-bearing columns) did not change significantly from floor to floor. As discussed earlier in Chapter 2.2.3, however, on any given floor, the core space used for local elevators was reclaimed for leasable office space on successively higher floors within a zone. For example, while floors 42 to 48 had a core area of approximately 12,000 ft2 (1,100 m2), floor 105 had a core area of 6,800 ft2 (630 m2), or 57 percent of the core area of floors 42 through 48."​

(From here.)

From the same reference, see pages 20-23 and 241-243 (in Acrobat, 58-61 and 279-281, respectively). Those diagrams flatly contradict you again.

The "Hallways and Doors" Core, which you seem to think is correct:


Why do the floor plans from the reference above include crossed hallways on almost every floor, yet you don't include crossed hallways, instead preferring to stagger them on alternate floors?

Why do you have cross-shaped interior walls in your drawing, when in fact there are hallways depicted in those locations in the referenced pages?



Quoting the reference again:

"Either tower (since they were identical in core layout and stair position) was divided into 5 zones, in addition to the four significant transferfloors (floors 42, 48, 76, and 82). The 11 representative floors were the Concourse, Mezzanine, arepresentative floor from each of the 5 zones, and the 4 unique transfer floors. Using representative floorplans greatly simplified floor plan input into each evacuation model used, with little loss of accuracy."​

Do you still claim that the north and south towers were significantly different in layout? Because that's what your site says.

If you don't think that reference is valid, then you have to provide proof of your assertion. Provide your calculations, sketches and explanations, if you choose to make a technical claim. Provide evidence of a conspiracy if one exists. But nobody believes the fool who hand-waves in the face of a better explanation.

 

[Z]

Raw evidence would be actual material evidence - such as sections of concrete, or photographs which are clear and unambiguous (by which I mean real photographs, not blurry and inconclusive pictures on the internet), or actual blueprints...

Chris has none of this. In fact, the only available raw evidence shows steel. LOTS of steel.

What Chris is erroneously and obsessively calling 'raw evidence' is a blurry and inconclusive internet photo. The funny thing is, if you get the photo itself and examine it closely, you can actually make out bits of something which could be metal protruding from the upper edge. Of course, he's always going to have an out for anything you ever show him. Even if you show him blueprints, actual photos of the steel core columns, remains of same, etc., he's always going to have an explanation and rationalization.

This is his obsession. Like an autistic 20-year-old child, Chris is fixated on the idea that someone magically made c-4 outlast its shelf date by mixing it with concrete, and pumped that concrete against gravity into an already existing steel-framed building, etc. etc. And like a child, Chris will make up any number of lies and deceits to defend his fantasies, such as fake documentary movies, fake interviews with workers who apparently were working on the core two or more years prior to the foundation being laid, etc, etc.

After all, this is the same mentally ill person who got himself kicked out of school for being a moron, and has since tried to blame old indian shamans and who knows who else for subconscious psychic hypnotism, etc...

Chris doesn't live in a little place we like to call the real world.

Now, please, stop feeding into the child's little fantasy life. You're only serving to encourage his ridiculous and infantile behavior.

If he had anything at all, he wouldn't be wasting his time posting to otherwise irrelevant internet forums and making an ass of himself. That he is, shows he has nothing.

 

[Christophera]

Christophera, how do you justify this:

(as defined by the location of interior load-bearing columns)

can you show me where those columns are in this picture?

How about this one.

Does NIST explain what those super fine vertical elements are?

 

[Z]

can you show me where those columns are in this picture?

In this picture, most of those columns have already collapsed above the darker edge. (Yes, Chris, the columns would break apart, rather quickly, at the welds) But if you look closely, there are a couple of vertical lines just above the grey phallus that might be columns... or image artifacts.

How about this one.

Too distant and indistinct to tell for sure. We're either looking at the outer support panelling, or a few of the remaining columns, or both. Very poor picture to try to recognize elements.

Does NIST explain what those super fine vertical elements are?

Who uses terms like 'super fine'?

Anyway, again, this picture's resolution is not sufficient to determine any 'fine' elements - certainly not to recognize '3-inch rebar' or such nonsense.

This is what we mean, Chris - these pictures are NOT 'raw evidence'. They're poor-quality images that have insufficient detail to be used as such.

Many other pictures have been provided to you that show wreckage of the steel columns, building wreckage where no concrete is shown, interior shots during construction that show only the steel frame core, and massive debris fields that completely nullify the 'total pulverization' nonsense. The very websites you link to as 'evidence' discuss the steel core; only a few mistakenly refer to a concrete core, and those are of limited veracity for other reasons, as well.

The only actual existing documentaries discuss the steel core, not the concrete core. The one documentary you claim to have seen was never shown on KCET in 1990 in California (or did THEY get to all the OCD TV-Guide collectors out there and wipe THEIR memories, too?).

Further, a 64-year-old construction worker who worked on the towers at 24 and witnessed anything about the core (other than possibly design notes) is impossible.

Also, C-4 has an insufficient durability to have been placed during construction and still survived today. No other available explosive would have survived so long either. And there were insufficient opportunities to add explosives in the recent history of the WTC, so don't try that one, either.

The evidence you offer is superficial, and of lowest quality and veracity. The evidence presented you is better, even if only by a few degrees, and of higher quality and veracity.

Though I hesitate to speak for strangers, I would have to say that any lurker or passer-by who reads through this ridiculously long thread would undoubtably come to the conclusion that you are out of your league, out of your mind, and tilting at windmills that have long ago lost interest in you. You've been trounced, thrashed, and completely discredited. You lack honesty and integrity, knowledge, skill, and character. The only thing going for you is tenacity - or what some would call obsession.

One last thing: ranting here all this time has gotten you nowhere. Even if anything you said were true, the people here are the wrong ones to try to convince. If you really wanted to get somewhere, you'd be pumping this stuff to politicians, activist groups, the media - anyone of influence that might listen. If you have tried, and they've treated you as we have, that should give you a clue... maybe you're not half as smart as you think you are.

With that, I wash my hands of you entirely.

 

[Powa]

I''ve already answered this question about "raw evidence" and I'm not doing it again. Go find it in the thread, proabably about 15 pages back.

I've read the whole thread and I don't remember a satisfactory answer from you. I'm not going back to reread this thread. It would probably take you 15 seconds or less to explain it to me. Look, if you don't know, just say so. I tend not to use words I don't understand until such time as I do.

 

[Blue Mountain]

The 9-11 commission depends on NIST,

NIST depends on FEMA. FEMA misrepresents the core.

Hi Chris,

Can you provide evidence that NIST "depended on" FEMA, rather than doing their own comprehensive investigation?

Further, can you provide evidence as to how the literally thousands of people investigating the events of September 11 and the collapse of the WTC towers--the 9/11 Commission, FEMA, and NIST--all managed to miss something as completely obvious such as the materials used in their construction? Especially with access to things like people, plans, and blueprints?

whoever wrote the letter definitly knew architecture and the towers, actually better than many sites which mention the concrete core.

What part of "The writer was not involved at all in the design and construction of the towers!" do you not understand?

 

[Christophera]

Hi Chris,

Can you provide evidence that NIST "depended on" FEMA, rather than doing their own comprehensive investigation?

Further, can you provide evidence as to how the literally thousands of people investigating the events of September 11 and the collapse of the WTC towers--the 9/11 Commission, FEMA, and NIST--all managed to miss something as completely obvious such as the materials used in their construction? Especially with access to things like people, plans, and blueprints?


What part of "The writer was not involved at all in the design and construction of the towers!" do you not understand?

Seeing as I don't waste my time determining which fraud is nost fraudlent or dependent on other frauds, I won't be doing a study on the FEMA/NIST interdependence for deception.

The was one PH.d that was left out of the loop and just wrote about the concrete core he knew.

http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf

Then thre is the, "Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992"


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3649&stc=1&d=1161447038

 

[Z]

Domel made a mistake, that's all. He wasn't personally involved with the WTC until 9.11. He may have read the Oxford entry and assumed it was correct.

The Oxford Encyclopedia entry is also mistaken.

Considering earlier plans did call for a concrete core, but were rejected, it's no wonder that these mistakes happened quite a bit.

Mistakes are more common than you seem to give them credit for.