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

[Christophera]

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?

If you haven't been reading to find out the core was covered with a temporary floor while the core was being cast, then you are just lazy and thus ignorant. Where do you come up with a 400 foot concrete wall?

More ignornace?

The core was 80 x 120 inside.

 

[Christophera]

... 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?

Not at all sure, it may have even been fall of 1989.

 

[uruk]

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.

So you didn't look at the pages in the the report that shows the detailed plans? I proveded the link I pointed out the pages, look at them for yourself.

 

[Christophera]

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.

Plans are not vaild here because they are not actual construction plans. Those false documents are the one in question. Construction photos, or their "misinterpretations" do not match photos of the towers demise, so tose will not be acceptable. Recovered debris canot be placed in the core as its original location,

You, .......... have no evidence to support your fake plans.

I have evidence of a steel reinforced, tubular cast concrete core.

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

 

[Mobyseven]

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

Does anyone know what the correct title of this book is, or whether it exists?

I can't find it...

 

[Christophera]

Then provide us with raw evidence of the PBS documentary.



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

No, I might be simply wrong on an inconsequential detail, while you are wrong on a major one.

The steel reinforced tubular cast concrete core​

 

[uruk]

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

So your still avoiding the issue.
You posted an e-mail by one Tony Jebson that says he saw a concrete core going up "several floors" abouve the steel work during construction. You agreed with him.
I showed you a picture taken from street level of WTC1 that proves Mr.Jebson, and by extention you, wrong. And you keep avoiding that fact.

So show me a picture of the concrete core being built several floors abouve the the steel work, just like Mr. Jebson mentioned in his e-mail, or admit that you are wrong. The more you evade the issue the more it makes you look dishonest.

 

[uruk]

No, I might be simply wrong on an inconsequential detail, while you are wrong on a major one.

The steel reinforced tubular cast concrete core​

So now you're refusing to provide the most crucial evidence you have. (or even evidence that it existed.)

Tell me again why we should believe you?

 

[Christophera]

So now you're refusing to provide the most crucial evidence you have. (or even evidence that it existed.)

Tell me again why we should believe you?

The evidence you ask for is not available. No refusual on my part.

I show the WTC 2 core standing at approximately 500 feet, that includes the concrete Tony Jebson refers to

 

[Arus808]

Does anyone know what the correct title of this book is, or whether it exists?

I can't find it...

why it doesn't matter what it defines a skyscraper as "having" since buildigns, even skyscrapers are all built differently with different techiniques

a defnition of what a skyscraper is , doesn't mean that the WTC towers were built as what the defnition is.

 

[Christophera]

why it doesn't matter what it defines a skyscraper as "having" since buildigns, even skyscrapers are all built differently with different techiniques

a defnition of what a skyscraper is , doesn't mean that the WTC towers were built as what the defnition is.

It is pretty clear what the book, Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992 says in reference to the Twin Towers.

"Modern skyscrapers such as the "World Trade Center", New York, have steel and concrete hull-and-core structures. The central core a reinforced concrete tower contrains lift shafts, staircases, and vertical ducts."

And, there is lots more evidence from disinterested sources confirming a concrete core, here.

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

Be informed that because the original plans have never been seen by official reporting sources on the towers, that some confusion exists and the LIE about the core is being fully enabled.

 

[A W Smith]

The evidence you ask for is not available. No refusual on my part.

I show the WTC 2 core standing at approximately 500 feet, that includes the concrete Tony Jebson refers to

that debris that you show over and over again is nothing more than a debris clogged skeleton of steel. which collapsed almost immediately . the claim of some seeing the "steel turn to dust" is the column of steel collapsing and shedding its dust. And the other photo you show you claim is the "Concrete filled exterior columns" collapsing on #6 would be laughable if your mistaken conclusion wasn't so tragic. You are clueless in interpreting data. 9431 posts and you haven't convinced a single soul. In fact I don't think you have convinced yourself. Just trying to save face by not admitting your colossal error. You are a fool. I will not waste my time any more with you.

 

[Arus808]

It is pretty clear what the book, Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992 says in reference to the Twin Towers.

A search on several book sites and within my own public library says there is no such book. For someone who uses a questionable passage from a non existant book, you'd figure that you'd have a the ISBN number and actual image of the book to prove your point than just a scan that could have been typed up on a any word processing program.

And a question to the Oxford University Press provided that they never authored such book nor every published anything under that title.

Please try harder Chris. You know what they say when you lie so much...

IF Amazon can locate a title that was published in 1949, they surely as hell could find a book that was published in 1992. In fact , I just received a book that was published in 1990, that was out of print since 1991 from them. Waited 6 years to finally receive a used copy. Its nice when Amazon notifies you when they locate a copy of such rare books

Here, you can search their site for yourself:
http://www.oup.com/us/

Funny thing about Oxford. they dont even combin Technology and Innovation together.

But they have an extensive collection of engineering books. You might want to stop and buy some of their books and read them.


And you take one passage from a no existant book, that could have been written by someone who mistakened, and think that is proof, when there have been OTHER Publications that say the WTC towers were built with a steel framed core? You reak of the same Cter stink, who discount hundreds of witnesses who say they saw the planes, for the 10 witnesses who said there were no planes.

The fact that you still have the erroneous BBC illustration from a clueless artist who didn't have access to the plans of WTC, and didn't bother to call the designers of the WTC towers, speaks volumes of your credibility. Which sadly is less than fathers who dont pay child support.

 

[Mobyseven]

It is pretty clear what the book, Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992 says in reference to the Twin Towers.

"Modern skyscrapers such as the "World Trade Center", New York, have steel and concrete hull-and-core structures. The central core a reinforced concrete tower contrains lift shafts, staircases, and vertical ducts."

And, there is lots more evidence from disinterested sources confirming a concrete core, here.

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

Be informed that because the original plans have never been seen by official reporting sources on the towers, that some confusion exists and the LIE about the core is being fully enabled.

I would like to locate a copy of this book myself. As we have assertained that Oxford have never published an "Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation", let alone in 1992, I would like to know where this book was obtained from and its proper name.

Alternatively, just post a link to the image from the book that is NOT hosted on your site.

 

[Christophera]

A search on several book sites and within my own public library says there is no such book. For someone who uses a questionable passage from a non existant book, you'd figure that you'd have a the ISBN number and actual image of the book to prove your point than just a scan that could have been typed up on a any word processing program.

And a question to the Oxford University Press provided that they never authored such book nor every published anything under that title.

Please try harder Chris. You know what they say when you lie so much...

IF Amazon can locate a title that was published in 1949, they surely as hell could find a book that was published in 1992. In fact , I just received a book that was published in 1990, that was out of print since 1991 from them. Waited 6 years to finally receive a used copy. Its nice when Amazon notifies you when they locate a copy of such rare books

Here, you can search their site for yourself:
http://www.oup.com/us/

Funny thing about Oxford. they dont even combin Technology and Innovation together.

But they have an extensive collection of engineering books. You might want to stop and buy some of their books and read them.


And you take one passage from a no existant book, that could have been written by someone who mistakened, and think that is proof, when there have been OTHER Publications that say the WTC towers were built with a steel framed core? You reak of the same Cter stink, who discount hundreds of witnesses who say they saw the planes, for the 10 witnesses who said there were no planes.

The fact that you still have the erroneous BBC illustration from a clueless artist who didn't have access to the plans of WTC, and didn't bother to call the designers of the WTC towers, speaks volumes of your credibility. Which sadly is less than fathers who dont pay child support.

If you register at democraticunderground.com and ask seatnineb these questions you will get answers. All I can tell you is that is where I got the image, from him.

Maybe you are getting the picture on how easily the information you think you have is taken away.

The information is accurate, I can confirm it ans I have raw evidence from the demise of the towers which shows a tubular cast concrete core.

 

[Christophera]

that debris that you show over and over again is nothing more than a debris clogged skeleton of steel. which collapsed almost immediately . the claim of some seeing the "steel turn to dust" is the column of steel collapsing and shedding its dust. And the other photo you show you claim is the "Concrete filled exterior columns" collapsing on #6 would be laughable if your mistaken conclusion wasn't so tragic. You are clueless in interpreting data. 9431 posts and you haven't convinced a single soul. In fact I don't think you have convinced yourself. Just trying to save face by not admitting your colossal error. You are a fool. I will not waste my time any more with you.

You are in error. Here is an end view of the concrete shear wall of the steel reinforced, tubular cast concrete core. Her is an image showing its high tensile steel rebar.

 

[Z]

Not at all sure, it may have even been fall of 1989.

If you're not sure about that, what else might you not be sure of?

Was it even about the WTC, Chris?

What happened to your photographic memory?

 

[Z]

Plans are not vaild here because they are not actual construction plans.

Can you show evidence for that claim?

Those false documents are the one in question.

Only to you.

Construction photos, or their "misinterpretations" do not match photos of the towers demise,

Actually, they match quite well.

so tose will not be acceptable.

What you meant to type was, construction photos do not match your misinterpretation of fuzzy, dust-filled photographs, so in order to keep your theory intact, you will reject those. Got it.

Recovered debris canot be placed in the core as its original location,

But the debris exists of steel core columns, not of a concrete core.

You, .......... have no evidence to support your fake plans.

Oh, I have plans now? --Oh, you mean the blueprints, which you cannot prove are fake. Actually, there is a mountain of evidence to support them.

I have evidence of a steel reinforced, tubular cast concrete core.

No you don't.

 

[Z]

A search on several book sites and within my own public library says there is no such book. For someone who uses a questionable passage from a non existant book, you'd figure that you'd have a the ISBN number and actual image of the book to prove your point than just a scan that could have been typed up on a any word processing program.

And a question to the Oxford University Press provided that they never authored such book nor every published anything under that title.

Please try harder Chris. You know what they say when you lie so much...

IF Amazon can locate a title that was published in 1949, they surely as hell could find a book that was published in 1992. In fact , I just received a book that was published in 1990, that was out of print since 1991 from them. Waited 6 years to finally receive a used copy. Its nice when Amazon notifies you when they locate a copy of such rare books

Here, you can search their site for yourself:
http://www.oup.com/us/

Funny thing about Oxford. they dont even combin Technology and Innovation together.

But they have an extensive collection of engineering books. You might want to stop and buy some of their books and read them.


And you take one passage from a no existant book, that could have been written by someone who mistakened, and think that is proof, when there have been OTHER Publications that say the WTC towers were built with a steel framed core? You reak of the same Cter stink, who discount hundreds of witnesses who say they saw the planes, for the 10 witnesses who said there were no planes.

The fact that you still have the erroneous BBC illustration from a clueless artist who didn't have access to the plans of WTC, and didn't bother to call the designers of the WTC towers, speaks volumes of your credibility. Which sadly is less than fathers who dont pay child support.

Boom! Another false resource revealed.

Chris is nothing but a liar.

 

[Z]

If you register at democraticunderground.com and ask seatnineb these questions you will get answers. All I can tell you is that is where I got the image, from him.

Maybe you are getting the picture on how easily the information you think you have is taken away.

The information is accurate, I can confirm it ans I have raw evidence from the demise of the towers which shows a tubular cast concrete core.

...??

And it never occurs to you to confirm his resources? How do you know he's not the one faking evidence to obfuscate the truth?

Another of your pieces of evidence discredited. Figures.