Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers?
- Thread starter Christophera
- Start date
- Status
i've been incognito for 2 days. after that russian bloke got zapped with the radioactive sushi and then the mrs, right out of the blue, offered me a polony salad.
i mean, wots a shill i mean skeptic to think?
BV
I'm sorry, I must have missed your evidence on the infiltration of US government, Chris. Would you care to repost it?
ahem....
ETA to add ZD's "got you by the bollocks" summing up
--------------------------------------------------------
What is Chris' evidence of a concrete core?
1) A video in 1990 - one that no one else (except, allegedly, his ex-wife) has ever seen, one that does not exist in the archive records at PBS or at KCET, one that does not even exist in the entire catalogue of TV-Guide for the Santa Barbara area for the year of 1990.
2) An encyclopedia entry written by a person who had, at that point, never even been to the towers, and was writing on assumption, not fact.
3) A fuzzy photograph that shows nothing definite - only an indistinct, rounded shape in the dust cloud that could be concrete, or collapsing debris, or what was left of the steel-core and bedrock-walled core, partially covered with debris from above (explaining the apparent rounded shape)...
4) Deductive reasoning (since no 1300-ft long steel sections were visible during the collapse, they must not have existed). --Which is faulty, considering no 1300-ft long 'MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS' or elevator guide rails were visible, either.
On the other hand, numerous video and photographic evidence shows steel structural columns at the worksite; debris fields show clear evidence of steel support columns, but an insufficient amount of concrete; the most accurate construction plans that are available mention steel, not concrete; and a video documentary from 1983 clearly indicates steel, not concrete.
Why does concrete matter? Because Chris erroneously believes that the steel-reinforced concrete included one additional element: plastic explosives, applied directly to the rebar.
His evidence:
1) the violent collapse pictures showing the ejection of powdery-grey matter at the initiation of collapse - which can be equally accounted for by the presence of drywall, sheetrock, the concrete in the floors themselves, the ash from all that burned office equipment, etc.
2) the apparenty excessive speed of collapse -- which he cannot prove is excessive, nor can he come up with a quantification of what is 'acceptable' versus what is not.
3) 'Total Pulverisation' of the towers - which debris evidence proves is wrong... He equivocates by claiming that observed debris came from the mall, not the towers themselves. But this, too, is wrong.
4) A magazine article in the late 70s which he claims explains the process of returning C4 to slurry state for underwater use - yet he won't divulge what magazine it was, or when he read the article.
Evidence against:
1) Shelf life of plastic explosives under OPTIMAL conditions is only between 15-20 years. He tries to get around this by claiming concrete acted as a better protectant; yet concrete during curing emits heat, is moist, and results in a material which allows more air exchange than cellophane. Further, any such material on the rebar would largely negate one of the purposes of rebar, and such a structure likely would have collapsed under natural stresses long before 2001.
2) Insufficient chemical residue to indicate the existence of plastic explosives, nor of det cord, wiring, or other apparatus.
3) No eyewitnesses over the lifespan of the towers noticed anything odd - considering that wiring for the detonators would have to extend beyond the concrete, and no one ever noticed such wiring.
The only evidence he ever offers in support comes from his own website - owned, operated, and administered by himself from his Isley St. home - and photos which lack clarity and definition, which he also hosts. For all we know, he's doctored those photos. I don't think he has, but he's never offered them in context of the locations he's gotten them from. Meanwhile, he's in flat and open denial of any contraverting evidence, including statements by construction and engineering personnel, photographs of construction, photographs of debris fields, etc. He expounds upon his own 'photographic' memory, but gets details wrong enough to really embarrass himself - if he had any shame, which he doesn't. Why should we trust his memory about concrete cores and magazine articles, when he can't remember the show's name was Ally McBeal, or the age of the mohawk he interviewed, or the station number of KCET, or anything else, really?
His memory is shot - and things he recalls from memory are suspect.
My suggestion to Chris is this: go back to worrying about the available algae contents of your local lakes and rivers. This, at least, is a real problem, with real solutions, and could benefit people. Raving for years on websites has gotten you no where at all, and never will. You're wasting your time here, while the oxygen levels of your home continue to diminish.
My suggestion to all the other participants on this thread: When you feel like replying to Chris, here, just copy and paste this or another of the good summations available, and walk away.
--------------------------------------------------------
short and curlies mate, short and fn curlies
BV
Last edited:
NobbyNobbs
Gazerbeam's Protege
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2006
- Messages
- 5,617
If you're so tired of it, then stop.
If you're frustrated, maybe you should find an audience more willing to believe.
If you think something should be done to rectify the situation, then you should do it. Think about how much time you've wasted here when you could have been writing a paper for a professional magazine, going to the media, filing lawsuits, etc.
My belief is that you really don't care much about the truth or the people who died. You have done nothing to prove otherwise.
The Almond
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2006
- Messages
- 1,015
So, you have possession of 3 different floor plans which prove the existence of the concrete core you describe? Why did you need this new one?
Nice try, troll.
uruk
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
You mean the master plans show no concrete core. Which would mean that THERE IS NO CONCRETE CORE!
Even when you have actual evidence that shows you are wrong you still hang on to your dillusion. That should tell you somethng about yourself Chris.
Big Al
Mage Questor
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2006
- Messages
- 1,125
Oh, what's the use. Doubtless, Chris will suddenly remember how he happened to be in a pizza parlour in 1970, where two Secret Service agents were discussing why it was a good idea to allow the towers to be blown up.
Of course, it didn't mean anything to him at the time...
Well Chris, no evidence of a concrete core. What a surprise. Just as a matter of interest, would these big square blobs happen to be steel columns, perhaps?
In any event your grasp of the construction process (or lack thereof) never ceases to amaze. I can't see the title blocks, but at the most what you have here are some overall arrangement/locating plans. Construction drawings have to be to a reasonable scale, so as to be sufficiently detailed to be of any practical use.
Hey but what do I know - I'm supposedly just a fake!
It even tells you in the Constitution the WTC can not have a concrete core!
When will you read it again. It was added.
So how did you get all messed up to believe the core of the WTC is concrete? Someone has lied to you and you have fallen for it.
Christophera
Banned
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 2,760
You got the fake part right.
Apparently you do not know those plans were preliminary in all ways and were what Yamasaki used as a basis of loading and sought dimensions to first select a core, then design it. In the beginning steel core columns were thought to be possibly adequate but no engineer would certify the tower safe with them. Yamasaki eliminated them and instead selcted the steel reinforced cast conrete tube of the "Tube in a tube" construction style.
Last edited:
Well perhaps you'd like to tell us how you know that? Are the drawings marked preliminary?
In fact whose drawings are they? The architect? The engineer? What date are they? What does the title block say?
Proof? What do you have from these mysterious engineers confirming inability to certify?
Just a minute. If they were "entrusted" to you as a special, super-top secret way of busting open the whole concrete core conspiracy (yawn) then why don't they show anything of interest?
Gravy has my ARB and RIBA registration details. Pretty much everyone else here trusts him, Chris, so I'm afraid I don't give a monkey's whether you believe I'm a qualified architect or not.
Whereas we all know you're not a qualified architect or engineer.
There is no Consititution. You were all hypnotised into believing there was.
But worse still, you only think you're wearing clothes. That was hypnosis tooo........
NickUK
Critical Thinker
The Almond
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2006
- Messages
- 1,015
If I could, Mr. Bonavada, I would make you King of Earth.
- Status