• 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.
I'm pretty sure I got this Googlevid from this very thread:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3135892053682639810

If so, given the identical title, isn't this PBS docu he's been blethering on about? Either way, 2mins in, it explains and shows the steel core structre quite clearly, with images and video footage of the build. NO sign of anything that could be even MISinterpreted as a concrete core.
 
Christophera said:
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
Click to expand...

Your still evading. Tony Jebson specificaly said he saw the the concrete tower during construction. You have to show me a picture of the concrete core abouve the steel during construction. You should be able to find one. Tony Jebson said he could clearly see it. You agreed with him.

Quit stalling Chris. Lets's see it. Or admit that Jebson was wrong.

I showed you a picture taken from street level of WTC1. You can do the same, can't you?
 
Christophera said:
Common sense and logic, which completely escape you.
Click to expand...

Your common sense and logic are greatly suspect. Show us proof that those columns are elevator guides.

But then that statment menas that you have no proof or evidence.
 
Christophera said:
I have the information of the Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation, published in 1992 and it is supported by numerous instances of raw evidence ORIGINAL core IMAGE. If you doubt the Oxford information, go find the one that provided it to me becuase I know the core was concrete and I have raw evidence showing it.

If you lack the integrity or experience to recognize it, your continued denial simply shows you are unreasonable.
Click to expand...

Nope. You have clipping wich does not show the source. And forgive me, but your word means very little here judging from your past performance. before we will give that clipping any value we must see verification of the source.
 
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...

I noticed the date was April 1st. Looks like someone was having a go at you Chris.
 
Christophera said:
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.
Click to expand...

When confronted with truth and reality you retreat into rediculousness
 
Christophera said:
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.
Click to expand...

This means that 20% of the square footage was used up inthe core? That's a lot of real estate to go to waste.

Christophera said:
Not at all sure, it may have even been fall of 1989.
Click to expand...

Photographic memory?



Christophera said:
I really do not sweat small details
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Christophera said:
I have the information of the Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation, published in 1992 and it is supported by numerous instances of raw evidence ORIGINAL core IMAGE. If you doubt the Oxford information, go find the one that provided it to me becuase I know the core was concrete and I have raw evidence showing it.

If you lack the integrity or experience to recognize it, your continued denial simply shows you are unreasonable.
Click to expand...

If you lack the integroty or experience to refrain from verifying your sources, you are simply being unreasonable.

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.
Click to expand...

Posted it where?

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...

You are questioning every other source, why not those as well? Do you think it is very scientific to only question sources that disagree with your point of view?

Big Les said:
I'm pretty sure I got this Googlevid from this very thread:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3135892053682639810

If so, given the identical title, isn't this PBS docu he's been blethering on about? Either way, 2mins in, it explains and shows the steel core structre quite clearly, with images and video footage of the build. NO sign of anything that could be even MISinterpreted as a concrete core.
Click to expand...

Finally...proof of the video! From 2:01 in that video..

The exterior walls were designed to bear much of the weight of the towers, as well as all of the wind loads.

The only internal supports would be in a central core of columns. Elevators would be placed in the shafts formed by the core columns.
Click to expand...

That's your own source, Chris. Or has the NWO gotten to that, too? The whole point of the design of the Twin Towers was to maximize interior space, unlike other skyscrapers of the time. That's why the design was so revolutionary. A concrete core would have utterly defeated that purpose.
 
Chris,

I started to believe the concrete core theory, so I set out on a mission to find evidence. I visited 110 different cities throughout the United States (In honor of the towers height), with the intention of finding evidence in local libraries. I found books and articles on the towers in every one of those cities' libraries, and each and every photo clearly showed that the cores were actually constructed of some material resembling caramel. I'm not sure what the actual material was. I'm still investigating. I'll let you know what I find. I'm starting to believe that EVERY LIBRARY IN THE UNITED STATES has been visited by government agents (probably some new agency created after 9/11 to cover up all traces of the concrete core), and the concrete core evidence has been replaced by this new, fake, caramel core evidence. I'll keep you posted.

Jim
 
NobbyNobbs said:
This means that 20% of the square footage was used up inthe core? That's a lot of real estate to go to waste.



Photographic memory?





Agreed.



If you lack the integroty or experience to refrain from verifying your sources, you are simply being unreasonable.



Posted it where?



You are questioning every other source, why not those as well? Do you think it is very scientific to only question sources that disagree with your point of view?



Finally...proof of the video! From 2:01 in that video..



That's your own source, Chris. Or has the NWO gotten to that, too? The whole point of the design of the Twin Towers was to maximize interior space, unlike other skyscrapers of the time. That's why the design was so revolutionary. A concrete core would have utterly defeated that purpose.
Click to expand...


Read the thread, all your questions are answered.
 
uruk said:
Your common sense and logic are greatly suspect. Show us proof that those columns are elevator guides.

But then that statment menas that you have no proof or evidence.
Click to expand...

If they were core columns they would be seen here, and many other photos. they are not.
 
uruk said:
Nope. You have clipping wich does not show the source. And forgive me, but your word means very little here judging from your past performance. before we will give that clipping any value we must see verification of the source.
Click to expand...

Evidence means very little here judging from past performance so this evidence which shows the concrete shear wall will have no meaning to you.

Go see,

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

there are more images of the concrete core there.
 
Christophera said:
Read the thread, all your questions are answered.
Click to expand...

I have read every page of this thread, Chris. Some unanswered questions:

1) Where was this posting posted? The one where Leslie agrees with you?
2) What was the name and approximate date of the magazine you referred to concerning the C-4 coated rebar?
3) How do you reconcile the fact that the closest thing we can find to the video you reference says that there were core columns rather than concrete?

None of these questions have been answered. I await eagerly.
 
Big Les said:
I'm pretty sure I got this Googlevid from this very thread:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3135892053682639810

If so, given the identical title, isn't this PBS docu he's been blethering on about? Either way, 2mins in, it explains and shows the steel core structre quite clearly, with images and video footage of the build. NO sign of anything that could be even MISinterpreted as a concrete core.
Click to expand...

No, the same issue has been brought up at least 10 times. Read the thread.
 
NobbyNobbs said:
I have read every page of this thread, Chris. Some unanswered questions:

1) Where was this posting posted? The one where Leslie agrees with you?
2) What was the name and approximate date of the magazine you referred to concerning the C-4 coated rebar?
3) How do you reconcile the fact that the closest thing we can find to the video you reference says that there were core columns rather than concrete?

None of these questions have been answered. I await eagerly.
Click to expand...

Read the thread for answers to 1 & 3. 2 I'm not answering because you are a disinfo and the info will disappear if I do.
 
Chris, when are you going to provide with your explanation on
1) there is no oxford publication of any encyclopedia uner the name you tout on your website and within this thread?
2) why you continue to use a erroneous BBC artist rendition of the WTC towers, when its prove that he neither consulted the deisngers and it was done only a few days after 9/11?
3) why you claim c4 was used within the tower, when c4 was actually quite "new" back in 1967, and was only available to the armed forces in vietnam?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom