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

[Christophera]

so............... chris, you state that you interviewed the mohawk who was "64 years of age at that time" and "24 when the towers were built" you have also stated elsewhere that you interviewed this worker in 2002

64-24=40

2002-40=1962

btw the construction of the towers began in 1969-70 i think......

so which one is it?

1. you are wrong?
2. is the mohawk wrong?
3. or is it all a pile of steaming ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊?

still wriggling chris?

BV

I think you missed my earlier post where I explained you were confused between when I met him and when I interviewed him. At any rate all the infor I gave to you was from him.

Have you found any raw evidence of images from the demolition that show some of the 47, 1300 foot steel columns in the core area from some elevation over the ground.

I do have this excellent image that shows the WTC core and it must be concrete, because no other material can have this appearance nad have endured the hundreds of thousands of tons of heavy steel crashing over it.

There are quite a few more images of concrete as well as links to web sites that mention the concrete core, here,

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

Keep in mind since the WTC plans HAVE NEVER BEEN MADE AVAILABLE, there is a lot of confusion. Here are links documenting this 2 different ways/times.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html

http://www.nyclu.org/g_archive020602.html

 

[Bell]

I think you missed my earlier post where I explained you were confused between when I met him and when I interviewed him. At any rate all the infor I gave to you was from him.

Have you found any raw evidence of images from the demolition that show some of the 47, 1300 foot steel columns inthe core area from some elevation over the ground.

I do have this excellent image that shows the WTC core and it must be concrete, because no other material can have this appearance nad have endured the hundreds of thousands of tons of heavy steel crashing over it.

There are quite a few more images of concrete as well as links to web sites that mention the concrete core, here,

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

Keep in mind since the WTC plans HAVE NEVER BEEN MADE AVAILABLE, there is a lot of confusion.

Do you realise that posting your spam again and again doesn't answer the questions put to you? Stop moving the goalposts.

Please explain to Bonavada and the rest of us about the age differences of the mohawk you allegedly interviewed and the times the towers were constructed.

 

[Blue Mountain]

that's nothing new.
he still hasn't explained how he claims it was C4 that was used to coat the rebar, when C-4 wasn't a term that was used back when the building were being built.

Or even what floors held the mechanical equipment, when that information is all over the internet, just a simple search away!

Hey Chris, are you ever going to bother showing us you have even elementary research skills by correctly numbering the floors that held the mechanical equipment?

 

[bonavada]

I think you missed my earlier post where I explained you were confused between when I met him and when I interviewed him. At any rate all the infor I gave to you was from him.

<evasive irrelevance snipped>

there is no confusion on my part chris you state HERE

I interviewed a Mohawk who was 24 when the towers were built. He couldn't say he remembered the concrete core. But he did remember they could only go 7 floors over the core with steel. He still had 2 friends that worked with him on the towers that were living. I asked him to speak with them about the core to see if they could revive each others memory.
When I explained that the FEMA said it was made with steel core columns, he became afraid. He was 64 years of age at that time. I could try him again. Maybe the fact I'm stilll alive will encourage him.

he was 64 years of age when you interviewed him. correct?
he was 24 years old when the towers were built. correct?

so when did you interview him chris?
even if it was yesterday..............

64-24=40

2006-40=1966

remind me again, when were the towers built?

once again........

1. you are wrong?
2. is the mohawk wrong?
3. or is it all a pile of steaming ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊?

BV

 

[Christophera]

No, you're the one who's trying to take a snapshot and making it the whole event.

We have an image of the top of one of two towers falling the wrong way.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1tiltingfromsouth.jpg

We have the top of the other tower falling the opposite diection of the body. Impossible without explosives.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg

We have an image of plumes of sand and gravel, concrete particulate cascading up and out hundreds of feet.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1plumecascade.jpg

Here is an image of a uniform mushroom shape of puverized concrete from the core and floors extending perhaps 150 feet out from the tower faces.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg

Clearly, you are intentionally making an error by stating I am using one image to prove demolition.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

I think you missed my earlier post where I explained you were confused between when I met him and when I interviewed him. At any rate all the infor I gave to you was from him.

Yeah, right.

Have you found any raw evidence of images from the demolition that show some of the 47, 1300 foot steel columns in the core area from some elevation over the ground.

STRAWMAN! There weren't any 1300 foot steel columns. There were shorter columns connected together.

I do have this excellent image that shows the WTC core and it must be concrete, because no other material can have this appearance nad have endured the hundreds of thousands of tons of heavy steel crashing over it.

As I thought. Your definition of an "excellent image" is one in which there is so much dust and smoke that it is impossible to see any detail.

There are quite a few more images of concrete as well as links to web sites that mention the concrete core, here,

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

But any not on your website?

Keep in mind since the WTC plans HAVE NEVER BEEN MADE AVAILABLE, there is a lot of confusion.

I guess you haven't noticed that the rest of us aren't confused.

By the way, how did they manage to fit a 400 foot concrete wall into a 218 foot building? And why did they install the floors in the core area before they put in the concrete core?

 

[Christophera]

Or even what floors held the mechanical equipment, when that information is all over the internet, just a simple search away!

Hey Chris, are you ever going to bother showing us you have even elementary research skills by correctly numbering the floors that held the mechanical equipment?

Hey Blue Mountain, are you ever going to read this thread to determine I've answered just about every question that can be asked, if I can?

So, ............. are you lazy?

The lower mechanical floors are 41, 42 & 43.

 

[Bell]

Hey Blue Mountain, are you ever going to read this thread to determine I've answered just about every question that can be asked, if I can?

Then provide us with raw evidence of the PBS documentary.

So, ............. are you lazy?

The lower mechanical floors are 41, 42 & 43.

The 'lower' mechancial floors were on 41 and 42 only. I've told you this before. Are you lazy?

 

[bonavada]

I've answered just about every question that can be asked, if I can?
So, ............. are you lazy?

he isn't lazy, you are. or you would answer this:-

1. are you wrong?
2. is the mohawk wrong?
3. or is it all a pile of steaming ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊?

BV

 

[Christophera]

Have you found any raw evidence of images from the demolition that show some of the 47, 1300 foot steel columns in the core area from some elevation over the ground.

STRAWMAN! There weren't any 1300 foot steel columns. There were shorter columns connected together.

Since that is the "official core design" you should be able to prove it.

 

[Z]

Okay Bell, I'll make it really simple for you. There is just one thing you have to do.

Show us raw evidence of the 47, steel core columns from the 1,000's of images of the demolition.

Why? There's plenty of evidence from available plans, construction photos, and recovered debris. The only person who's claiming the steel didn't exist is you. Therefore, the burden of proof is yours.

Meanwhile, there's no evidence in available plans, construction photos, or recovered debris of a concrete core, exploded or not, of 3" rebar, or of C4. The only person who's claiming it was there is you. Therefore, the burden of proof is yours.

That's how it works.

 

[Z]

When I saw WTC 2 fall on 9-11 I knew the documentary must have been removed from their archives and records.

... and personal archives of TV Guide. And all personal collections. And several programming guides... though on this point I admit I've only gained three month's worth.

Chris, what month was this thing shown?

 

[uruk]

Hey Chris! You still haven't shown me Tony Jebsons Concrete core.
He said you could see it. You agreed with him. So show me the pictures. I showed you a picture of the construction of WTC1 from street level.

 

[uruk]

Keep in mind since the WTC plans HAVE NEVER BEEN MADE AVAILABLE, there is a lot of confusion. Here are links documenting this 2 different ways/times.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html

http://www.nyclu.org/g_archive020602.html

Read this PDF file.:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-2ADraft.pdf

Go to pages 36,37,39,40,41,42,43,44,53,67,68,70,82,97,105,1124 ,126,127,128,129, and 176 (PDF pages)


By the looks of the images of the NIST report, it seems that the NIST had VERY detailed plans of the towers.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Since that is the "official core design" you should be able to prove it.

You've conceded that the Sears Tower has a steel core. It is around 1400 feet tall. Are there 1400 foot single-section columns it it? How would they have been transported there? Obviously they were constructed out of shorter pieces.

 

[Christophera]

there is no confusion on my part chris you state HERE




he was 64 years of age when you interviewed him. correct?
he was 24 years old when the towers were built. correct?

so when did you interview him chris?
even if it was yesterday..............

64-24=40

2006-40=1966

remind me again, when were the towers built?

once again........

1. you are wrong?
2. is the mohawk wrong?
3. or is it all a pile of steaming ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊?

BV

I'm not sure but it looks like one of us is. I met him in 2002 at the "House of Blues" at the "Red Nation Celebrationl" in Los Angeles where he was talking about working on the WTC while a couple of others, Navajo elders from WWII, talked about their being consultants on "Windtalkers" (I think it was called". I interviewed him in late 2004 or early 2005 over the phone and I remember he told me he started in 1968 on the towers (the steel didn't start until then.) He might have said, "I'm going to be 64 soon". So there is a lag in the arithmatic, maybe there isn't. I know it is very important to you to smear my credibility in some way, so get from it what you can.

But, what about your inability to document the supposed steel cores with raw evidence of images from the towers demise. I mean, ........... here you are pretending this issue of the steelworkers age is important in an attempt to distract form your own utter inability to show the official structure is real.

Ive shown that no one has ever seen the plans that was a part of the official invetistigation. I've shown that the mayor of NYC took the plans from the city and hid them while the courts will not impliment the freedom of information laws to get teh public documents returned.

You know that evidence was removed from the scene and destroyed.

Why are you protecting those who have been proven to have violated so many laws, ignoring the violations and then implimenting weak, BS effort to impune the credibility of one who has assembled facts of all types into a feasible and credible explanation for near free fall and pulverization?

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

How about you answer one question NOW?

 

[Christophera]

You've conceded that the Sears Tower has a steel core. It is around 1400 feet tall. Are there 1400 foot single-section columns it it? How would they have been transported there? Obviously they were constructed out of shorter pieces.

You and homer ought to rent a room together.

They were transported in short sections and butt welded to for single complete full length columns.

 

[Christophera]

Read this PDF file.:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-2ADraft.pdf

Go to pages 36,37,39,40,41,42,43,44,53,67,68,70,82,97,105,1124 ,126,127,128,129, and 176 (PDF pages)


By the looks of the images of the NIST report, it seems that the NIST had VERY detailed plans of the towers.

Recall I KNOW the towers had a steel reinforced concrete core and I can prove it with RAW EVIDENCE of images. Meaning if you think you've got plans that show details of the core, you find then and bring them. Then I'll look at them.

 

[Mobyseven]

We have an image of the top of one of two towers falling the wrong way.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1tiltingfromsouth.jpg

We have the top of the other tower falling the opposite diection of the body. Impossible without explosives.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg

We have an image of plumes of sand and gravel, concrete particulate cascading up and out hundreds of feet.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1plumecascade.jpg

Here is an image of a uniform mushroom shape of puverized concrete from the core and floors extending perhaps 150 feet out from the tower faces.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg

Clearly, you are intentionally making an error by stating I am using one image to prove demolition.

That's a lot of images there. Got anything other than incorrectly interpreted still images?

 

[Christophera]

Hey Chris! You still haven't shown me Tony Jebsons Concrete core.
He said you could see it. You agreed with him. So show me the pictures. I showed you a picture of the construction of WTC1 from street level.

I've shown you an image of the WTC 2 core standing at around 500 feet and it can be nothing but concrete. And I've made a web site available to you with more images utilized with real logic to show the concrete core.

Amongst the evidence is this from Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation, published in 1992. We will be sticking with the AVAILABLE evidence.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4452&stc=1&d=1165635717