• 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.
Psssst Chris,

The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry. Worried that the intense air pressure created by the buildingsâ high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core.
 
Smiffy said:
Yeah, Oliver! Get with the program! I've read up to page 62 now so even I was aware of this little gem, along with "algebraic assimilation" (don't ask!)...
Click to expand...

Glad you like my use of words. Basiclally it means that if you cannot use evidence, you cannot solve problems, or accomplish the prerequisites to it via "algebraic assimilation".
 
Oliver said:
You are reading this whole stuff? :confused:

I mean there is no "brain-damage" warning within
this trash-dump. I hope you are aware of this fact. :D
Click to expand...
Hehe... I take your point. I see from your posts that you try to really empathise with our rather unusual subject. I admire your attempts, but he's a tough nut to crack!
 
Last edited:
Christophera said:
This link will answer your question.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1232703
Click to expand...
It was a very simple question about that particular video, Chris. Why are you pointing me to your site?

The floor detonations caused enough covering debris to obliterate views of the core.
Click to expand...
Yet you see it in your beloved picture.

The concrete core explosions themselves are actually fairly obvious when floors are not involved.
Click to expand...
If the explosions are so obvious, how is it then, that no one (except you) sees them?

Anyway, I asked you to point out the detonation of the core in the video I linked. How hard can that be?
 
Chris, slightly off topic but could you voice your opinion on this core.

apple%20core%20copy.jpg

What do you reckon?

Steel?
Concrete?
Organic?

I saw a documentary a while ago that told me what it was, but I have never seen it since, clearly suppressed.

Thanks in advance.
 
Powa said:
It was a very simple question about that particular video, Chris. Why are you pointing me to your site?
Click to expand...

I prefer to let you educate yourself on my time spent once rather than twice.

Powa said:
Yet you see it in your beloved picture.
Click to expand...

In the beloved picture of Americans, the one that helps us to preserve our democracy, rights and freedoms, the floors have fallen away and the secondary initiation system of the core takes a few seconds to begin intiations. This was intentional to get the steel out of the way for the heavy detonations of the lower core that are much larger to deal with the thicker core walls which are seen in thelower concrete core explosions

Powa said:
If the explosions are so obvious, how is it then, that no one (except you) sees them?

Anyway, I asked you to point out the detonation of the core in the video I linked. How hard can that be?
Click to expand...

I am not the only one that sees them. I'm one of the few that speaks of them.
 
Smiffy said:
Hehe... I take your point. I see from your posts that you try to really empathise with our rather unusual subject. I admire your attempts, but he's a tough nut to crack!
Click to expand...

Believe me. Those who might think they've got what it takes do that do not even try because I have evidence for EVERYTHING I assert, well most everything. More than deniers have by a large factor.
 
Chris,

OK, you've presented all the evidence you have of the South tower's alleged concrete core. Now, show me the North tower's concrete core, standing at elevation, from the demo images. Since that is the only evidence you will accept from us regarding the core columns, you should of course hold yourself to the same standards.

So, where are images of the North tower's concrete core, standing at elevation, from the demo images?
 
Christophera said:
Believe me. Those who might think they've got what it takes do that do not even try because I have evidence for EVERYTHING I assert, well most everything. More than deniers have by a large factor.
Click to expand...

I am no denier. There was a cover up at least concerning incompetence. And there was the WMD lie.

But what you´re doing is to find a murderer because you saw a knife once in your live. A clear sign that someone is a murderer. :boggled:
 
Christophera said:
Under the conditions present where the WTC 2 core is, drywall would no even exist. It would be stripped away immediately.
Click to expand...
Which it was as the core collapsed. But from the photos i posted It shows that drywall did remain attached to the core structure. Deny it all you want But the photos proves you wrong.

There is far less debris around the stair/wall/column in my image of the core wall at its base than your, so I it clear that you have it backwards.
Click to expand...
Nope. In the photo I posted it shows one more floor below then one you posted which proves that more debris was cleared out. You can even see a clear path at the base of the core. What is clear is that you are incapable of correctly interpreting photos.


Overwhelming opposition and odds to not equate to overwhelming evidence. You would like to think it does, it does not. Clearly, if I have enough raw evidence of images to make a site just about the concrete corehttp://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

which also proves there were no steel core columns, and am still here, my sense of self worth exceeds yours by the factors of evidence I have plus the numbers I oppose.
Click to expand...
What opposition. We've been posting pictures and diagrams and websites with descriptions. Far more sources than you have. All you have on your website is conjecture that is backed up by assumptions and misinterpretation.



There is no site using raw evidence to substantiate the steel core columns because there is no raw evidence to construct it from. This is why all the sites that claim steel core columns use diagrams or a pair of misrepresented images.
Click to expand...
Why does there need to be a web site dedicated to a single aspect of a buildings architecture when there are hundredes of sites which state the fact that the core was composed of steel and no concrete.

Just because you have a website loaded with conjecture, assumptions, and flatout lies and misinterpretations does make it true.
 
Last edited:
I am sorry Oliver.

At what point did the Twin Towers core become concrete? Because when the towers were constructed they were steel core so it wasn't than. So it had to be after they were built.

Was it when Copperfield made the SOL disappear?
 
uruk said:
Which it was as the core collapsed. But from the photos i posted It shows that drywall did remain attached to the core structure. Deny it all you want But the photos proves you wrong..
Click to expand...

You wish.

You are wrong. The drywall is attached to a stairway of elevator shaft NOT THE CORE STRUCTURE.

uruk said:
Nope. In the photo I posted it shows one more floor below then one you posted which proves that more debris was cleared out. You can even see a clear path at the base of the core. What is clear is that you are incapable of correctly interpreting photos.
Click to expand...

Or, there is the possibility it is not the same piece of the core. There are some major differences in the appearance. It does not make sense that things would be added, only taken away. See if you can tell what I'm getting at.

Do you have the original image link?

uruk said:
What opposition. We've been posting pictures and diagrams and websites with descriptions. Far more sources than you have. All you have on your website is conjecture that is backed up by assumptions and misinterpretation.
Click to expand...

Sure, and most, if not all of it doesn't qualify. What is at my site is backed by consistent images showing what can only be concrete and steel core columns are never seen where they must.

uruk said:
Why does there need to be a web site dedicated to a single aspect of a buildings architecture when there are hundredes of sites which state the fact that the core was composed of steel and no concrete.

Just because you have a website loaded with conjecture, assumptions, and flatout lies and misinterpretations does make it true.
Click to expand...

Raw evidence of photographs can be and are used to make absolute determinations of fakery all the time. Statements need to be carefully linked to evidence that is consistent with the statement. My site does this with the concrete core and this cannot be done with steel core columns.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom