• 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.
Arus808 said:
NO SUCH BOOK HAS EVER BEEN PUBLISHED BY THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

A question to them, something you should have done since the beginning of all this, proves that they've never published such book!

Why haven't you bothered to fact check anything that you've "obtained' from questionable sources?
Click to expand...

I know the core of the Twin Towers was a steel reinforced cast concrete tube. Why should I question sources that agree with raw evidence showing what can only be a steel reinforced cast concrete tube?

You are duped into believing that powerful universities cannot control information about their publications.
 
Christophera said:
Maxim:
If a suppossed explantion does not explain the event, it is not the truth. No explanation that does not explain the event can be the truth.

So far no explanation in existence explains free fall and total pulverization of the towers appears to exist. Has anyone seen one?
Click to expand...

Read the NIST report.

Some one has been sending you fake letters from people.

But you should read the NIST report. Have you?
 
Christophera said:
I know there is a conspiracy to conceal the true design and construction of the Twin Towers, which is why the designer of the towers chose April 1, 2006 to post this message. Those who can confirm the concrete core are afraid to.

Christophera is correct in stating that the Twin Towers were constructed with a concrete core. Although in my original design the core was to be a steel framed one that decision was overridden by Minoru Yamasaki the architect.

That core should have resisted the airplane impacts AND the fires. I have said nothing for four and a half years but can remain silent no longer. My belief is that only explosives could have caused WTC 1 & WTC 2 to collapse the way they did on September 11, 2001.

Leslie E. Robertson
Director Leslie E. Robertson Associates, R.L.L.P. and lead engineer of the World Trade Center
Click to expand...

Another lie.
 
zaayrdragon said:
Show me a concrete core in a construction photograph.
Click to expand...

The images of the constrcution have been filtered and the few images of the concrete during constrcution are not available.

You will have to settle for an image of the demolition showing the WTC 2 core exposed.

Unless of course you are a disinformation agent and do not care about your reputation and credibility whereupon you will insist time and time again that I produce information which you know is unavailable.
 
Christophera said:
I know the core of the Twin Towers was a steel reinforced cast concrete tube. Why should I question sources that agree with raw evidence showing what can only be a steel reinforced cast concrete tube?

You are duped into believing that powerful universities cannot control information about their publications.
Click to expand...

:dl:

So now PBS was raided, people's personal TV Guide collections were altered, AND the Oxford Press has been concealing a book they published, but that doesn't even exist in the Library of Congress records, eBay, or Amazon.com entries?

Pathetic.

The World Trade Center twin towers had a concrete-cladded, steel frame core.
 
Christophera said:
I know the core of the Twin Towers was a steel reinforced cast concrete tube. Why should I question sources that agree with raw evidence showing what can only be a steel reinforced cast concrete tube?
Click to expand...

So are you now saying that there is no such book that you've been claiming for the last 200+ pages?

Good, so please remove that scan of that non existant passage from a non-existant book from your website.

Continuing to keep somehting that was proven to be fabricated is wholly dishonest of you.



LOOK guys! I got him to prove that his "skyscraper" scanned passage was a fabricated piece of eVidence!

If he's lied about that, then we can can assume that he's lied about everything else.

CASE CLOSED!
 
zaayrdragon said:
:dl:

So now PBS was raided, people's personal TV Guide collections were altered, AND the Oxford Press has been concealing a book they published, but that doesn't even exist in the Library of Congress records, eBay, or Amazon.com entries?

Pathetic.

The World Trade Center twin towers had a concrete-cladded, steel frame core.
Click to expand...

Information is more controlled today than it ever has been in the past. What makes you think this deception is not worth the effort needed to make it successful?
 
Christophera said:
Information is more controlled today than it ever has been in the past. What makes you think this deception is not worth the effort needed to make it successful?
Click to expand...


What are you talking about? By the way other Ct'ers claim, information is more GUARDED now than of 33 years ago.

Remember, I just proved you fabricated evidence about the book and also proved you wrong about the term C4 being used back in 1967.

All through simple research.
 
Arus808 said:
So are you now saying that there is no such book that you've been claiming for the last 200+ pages?
Click to expand...

No. I am not saying that, you are. This scan of the Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation, published in 1992 is real as far as I know. It was provided to me by a 9-11 truth seeker in the UK who went to a library who photocopied a page then scanned it. It is supported/confirmed by raw images of the towers demolition which exposed the primary structure. That linked image of the concrete core is supported by others.

Your efforts are beginning to appear as an organized disinformation program.
 
Christophera said:
No. I am not saying that, you are. This scan of the Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation, published in 1992 is real as far as I know.
Click to expand...

Again, for the last time, as far as you "know" is not proof of anything.
because I CALLED the oxford university press about it.

NO SUCH BOOK UNDER THAT TITLE HAS EVER BEEN PUBLISHED BY THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

It was provided to me by a 9-11 truth seeker in the UK who went to a library who photocopied a page then scanned it.
Click to expand...

And you trust this no named anonyous persom from the UK, without questioning his motives or biasness?

SHOULDN'T it be your job to verify ALL information you receive from unreliable sources PRIOR To posting it on a website?

No, of course it shouldn't......
 
Arus808 said:
What are you talking about? By the way other Ct'ers claim, information is more GUARDED now than of 33 years ago.

Remember, I just proved you fabricated evidence about the book and also proved you wrong about the term C4 being used back in 1967.

All through simple research.
Click to expand...

You have simply proven that the conspiracy to conceal evidence that was public extends to major universities. You have also prove that you are a disinformation agent who has no regard for laws which everybody knows have bee violated by government.

This is all substancial because the concrete core is fully evidenced by images of the demolition which show the concrete core of WTC 2.
 
Christophera said:
The images of the constrcution have been filtered and the few images of the concrete during constrcution are not available.
Click to expand...

Because they never existed.

You will have to settle for an image of the demolition showing the WTC 2 core exposed.
Click to expand...

Sorry - I see no concrete core in that image.

Unless of course you are a disinformation agent and do not care about your reputation and credibility whereupon you will insist time and time again that I produce information which you know is unavailable.
Click to expand...

I'm a disinterested third party, Chris. I don't care one way or another. Why? Because if you're wrong, which is likely, then the only thing we need to worry about is how long our government is going to keep using 9/11 as an excuse. And if you're right, the government is all-powerful anyway, and there's nothing we can do about it. Since my life is perfectly comfortable and safe, I see no reason to bother.

However, let's talk about credibility, shall we?

You're an admitted mental case; you've been caught now on numerous occasions either a) making up 'supporting evidence', or b) using evidence someone else made up; you've claimed to have an excellent memory, but can't seem to remember details at al well - for example, Ally McBeal, 1990 or 1989, the age of the Mohawk worker, etc. When we do get you to almost concede a point, you wait a few posts and revert to old posting habits. You redefine terms to suit your theory (example: free fall, pulverisation, total, reason, common sense).

And even assuming you're not just a compulsive obsessive liar, what do you do about this terrible conspiracy? You make up several poorly-made websites, post on an internet forum where almost no one takes you seriously, and... and... what?

Nothing.

You're a laughing stock, Chris. At one point I was trying to ignore you, but it's so funny to watch you backpeddle and equivocate... solid gold comedy.

Your knowledge of construction is pathetic. You made claims such as 'all skyscrapers have a concrete core' and 'steel flexes too much to be used in tall, thin buildings'. You talk about 3" rebar, which doesn't exist. You discuss butt-welding steel beams as if it unifies them on a molecular level.

Meanwhile, what are you really? Apparently, a ditch-digger.

The only way you will EVER gain credibility in anyone's eyes now is to produce this mysterious documentary, the notorious Oxford's book, some real evidence of a concrete core, and, while you're at it, documentation proving what you do and have done for a living.

Until you do any of that, you're just a clown, here to amuse us.

Carry on, jester! Carry on!
 
Christophera said:
You have simply proven that the conspiracy to conceal evidence that was public extends to major universities. You have also prove that you are a disinformation agent who has no regard for laws which everybody knows have bee violated by government.
Click to expand...

YOU have proven nothing

And I just proved two of your evidence have been fabricated.
1) your non existant book
2) your claim of C4 being used in 1967
 
Christophera said:
You could prove that by contacting the person who says they wrote it and asking them. He might be past his fear and ready to tell the truth in a way that does not compromise it. Are you ready to test that?
Click to expand...


Sure. Send me his address. His real address.
 
Christophera said:
Information is more controlled today than it ever has been in the past. What makes you think this deception is not worth the effort needed to make it successful?
Click to expand...

Information is more accessible today than it ever has been in the past.
If the feds can't keep the recipe for methamphetimene (however it's spelled) off the internet, how are they going to eliminate any and ALL traces of books, movies, etc - including from people's private collections?

How can a book be in the library in the UK, but not exist in any catalogue anywhere?
 
Christophera said:
No. I am not saying that, you are. This scan of the Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation, published in 1992 is real as far as I know. It was provided to me by a 9-11 truth seeker in the UK who went to a library who photocopied a page then scanned it. It is supported/confirmed by raw images of the towers demolition which exposed the primary structure. That linked image of the concrete core is supported by others.

Your efforts are beginning to appear as an organized disinformation program.
Click to expand...

Translation:

"Waaaah! Stop it! You're ruining my proofs!!!"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom