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

[Powa]

Is this christopheras trash?

http://truthasaur.com/index.html

Yep. That site makes the idea of concrete core seem almost reasonable in comparison.

And as a graphics designer I must protest the... *shudders* "design" of that site.

 

[Bell]

But, but... 22 is a significant number for Chris! Must be that damn disinfos! They constantly edit this thread to make Chris appear crazy. Damn, they're good!

*slap* I missed that 22 reference

It could then also be page 21 or 23 (just incase the receipe doesn't has the number 22 on it). Or maybe his 21st, 22nd or 23rd post? Maybe a post made on the 21st, 22nd or 23rd of the month? At 22:23? A postnumber with 21, 22 or 23 in it?

So many places to look, so little time.

 

[Oliver]

Yep. That site makes the idea of concrete core seem almost reasonable in comparison.

And as a graphics designer I must protest the... *shudders* "design" of that site.

Wich design? Why are you talking to him anyway? Self destruction?

 

[Powa]

Wich design?

I'll have nightmares about it tonight. I just know it. Even Creationists must, after seeing that gastly site, admit that it was untouched by Inteligent Design.

Why are you talking to him anyway?

I'm giving him rope to hang himself.

Self destruction?

I'm destroying his theories by controlled demolitions. It's fun. When it stops being fun I'll go beat up a bum or something.

 

[Christophera]

Shown ?
And you might want to check those diagrams again. There WERE steel columns within the core and others in the perimeter.

Diagrams? Check them? Against what? We already know they do not verify when compared to iages of the demo.

We see pretty well how they were connected in the picture. Seems you're not so good with CLEAR pictures as you are with bad ones.

Produce the picture and describe how they are connected if this is the case.

 

[Christophera]

Not anything you are claiming them to be, because yOU can't determine any size in that heavily compressed and edited image.

Wrong, theimage is plenty clear.

Of course you can determine size. Simply use the interior box column for scale. It is 52 inches wide.

 

[Garb]

Wrong, theimage is plenty clear.

Of course you can determine size. Simply use the interior box column for scale. It is 52 inches wide.

Yes, because pointing to an low quality image and saying there is concrete somewhere there defenitely proves your claim.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Altogether now

Tie me concrete core down, Brown
Tie me concrete core down
Tie me concrete core down, Brown
Tie me concrete core down

 

[beachnut]

Yea,

and what core columns?

http://concretecore.741.com

you do know there was not concrete core in the WTC?

it was just steel and wallboard, 2 pieces of 3/4 inch wall board

this is why the guys trapped in an elevator were able to cut and dig through the wall board into a bathroom,

no concrete, just wall board! you need to study better or were you just point out how the CT web site is full of dolts who can not research or are just telling lies for fun?

If you think the web site is correct, then why worry about research, it will just make your fantasy vaporize.

 

[Belz...]

Diagrams? Check them? Against what? We already know they do not verify when compared to iages [sic] of the demo.

Interesting. How do we "already know" that if we can't verify it properly. That very knowledge is what's beign debated here, so I don't think you can claim that we know anything about those "iages". Also, you calling it a demo assumes your conclusion.

Produce the picture and describe how they are connected if this is the case.

You might have noticed the horizontal steel connecting the two steel columns. Or does your incredible vision cease to register objects that are wider than 2 pixels ?

 

[Belz...]

Wrong, theimage is plenty clear.

Of course you can determine size. Simply use the interior box column for scale. It is 52 inches wide.

Unless it's a steel columns. Oh, no. Chris "knows" that those never existed. All those columns were just for show, and the concrete had no structural usefulness whatsoever because it was poured after the rest of the building.

 

[Christophera]

Not anything you are claiming them to be, because yOU can't determine any size in that heavily compressed and edited image.

Wrong, the image is plenty clear.

Of course you can determine size. Simply use the interior box column for scale. It is 52 inches wide.

 

[Oliver]

Dont feed the trolls at this board, thank you.
​

 

[Garb]

Wrong, the image is plenty clear.

Of course you can determine size. Simply use the interior box column for scale. It is 52 inches wide.

No, it's not clear at all.

 

[Christophera]

You might have noticed the horizontal steel connecting the two steel columns. Or does your incredible vision cease to register objects that are wider than 2 pixels ?

So the columns that are not inside the core are connected with horizontal steel.

What about columns in the core?

 

[Oliver]

No, it's not clear at all.

Did you read the whole thread?

 

[Christophera]

No, it's not clear at all.

Plenty clear for these purposes.



http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3732&stc=1&d=1161635540

 

[azazal]

Wrong, the image is plenty clear.

Of course you can determine size. Simply use the interior box column for scale. It is 52 inches wide.

Nahh I prefer to us the people in these pictures for scale.

But you go ahead and just keep on ignoring them

 

[Garb]

Did you read the whole thread?

Yes.

 

[GlennB]

Wrong, the image is plenty clear.

Of course you can determine size. Simply use the interior box column for scale. It is 52 inches wide.

Christophera, could you address - with raw evidence - the approx 1.5 million tonnes of concrete that comprised the cores of the Twin Towers that you describe? 400x25x40 cubic metres approx volume, x2.4 tonnes per cubic metre. Where did it go? Why wasn't there a 100m+ pile of concrete rubble at GZ?