• 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.
Chris his new tactic:

"I've been debunked to hell and back. All my evidence is irrelevant and useless. Maybe if I tell the skeptics to dig through this +/- 240 page thread for an answer, they'll give up, and I win."

Or it could be that Chris has no answers and no evidence.

Christophera said:
We will be sticking with the AVAILABLE evidence.
Click to expand...
 
Christophera said:
If they were core columns they would be seen here, and many other photos. they are not.
Click to expand...

Sorry Chris. Your going to have to do WAY better than that. That picture shows nothing definite. You have to show me proof that those columns seen in the core area of the construction photos are elevator rail guides.
You just simply saying that they are is not going to do.
 
uruk said:
Sorry Chris. Your going to have to do WAY better than that. That picture shows nothing definite. You have to show me proof that those columns seen in the core area of the construction photos are elevator rail guides.
You just simply saying that they are is not going to do.
Click to expand...

Well, ......... you definitely have no evidence.

The vertical steel seen in the core area is guide rail support steel.

I am not simply saying so I am showing you that the steel in the core area had no structural substance and fell to the bottom of the core immediately when debris fell into the core area. That is why NO VERTICAL STEEL PROTRUDES from the core of WTC 2.

Steel core columns would have been able to stand if they existed. Particuarly becuase they would have been inside whatever that superstrong structure is which is obviously not destroyed so whatever was inside them, if it was anywhere near as strong would be protected and still standing.
 
Bell said:
Come on, Chris. You can do better than that. Be a sport, provide us with the link. You've got nothing to loose.
Click to expand...

Just time.

You have fulll access to every page in this thread. Robertsons message was originally posted at forum.physorg.com in a major disinfo thread there that I busted up.
 
Christophera said:
Well, ......... you definitely have no evidence.
Click to expand...

Yes, he has. He has posted it in this thread. I guess you have missed that post. It obliterates your concrete core 'evidence'.

The vertical steel seen in the core area is guide rail support steel.
Click to expand...

Proof?

Christophera said:
We will be sticking with the AVAILABLE evidence.
Click to expand...

I am not simply saying so I am showing you that the steel in the core area had no structural substance and fell to the bottom of the core immediately when debris fell into the core area. That is why NO VERTICAL STEEL PROTRUDES from the core of <spam> WTC 2.

Steel core columns would have been able to stand if they existed. Particuarly becuase they would have been inside whatever that superstrong structure is which is obviously not destroyed so whatever was inside them, if it was anywhere near as strong would be protected and still standing.
Click to expand...

Wha-wha-what?? Do you ever read back what you are writing?
 
Christophera said:
Just time.

You have fulll access to every page in this thread. Robertsons message was originally posted at forum.physorg.com in a major disinfo thread there that I busted up.
Click to expand...

In the same time you typed up this post, you could have provided us with the link. So no time to loose, Chris, remember, we are talking about the murdering of 3000 innocent people!
 
Christophera said:
I have not said that you have said that which means you are trying to distort my statment.

The only evidence I have of the separation of the columns is either explosive shear (left) or torch cuts from salvage (right).
Click to expand...

Your claim that the steel core should have remained upright after the collapse implies a belief that steel is unbreakable. If steel (or even just the welds) are breakable, the paucity of upright columns could be explained as being due to the columns being snapped.
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
Your claim that the steel core should have remained upright after the collapse implies a belief that steel is unbreakable. If steel (or even just the welds) are breakable, the paucity of upright columns could be explained as being due to the columns being snapped.
Click to expand...

Steel bends before it breaks. Tempered steel will snap if the bend is sharp enough. Absent high explosive cutting charges, there is no way the 47 1300 foot steel columns would be visually non existent. Some might snap but most would bend when the outer floors had fallen away to be seen toppled laying over the still existing strcuture below or bent then snapped but still protruding.

That all are always snapped and missing is simply not credible.

In this image the spire comprised of an interior box column, it only stands because cutting charges failed at that elevation. Had there been no cutting charges the towers would have looked like this at some point leaving the interior box columns standing with floor beams making rectangular frames.

Corley lies in the video he made and superimposes a similar looking stucture in his video, but only because the prior linked image suggest that. He tries to say it was a solid framework in the core but we can see inthe previous image that the core is empty. No framework, no columns, nothing.

The image before that showing the lowerconcrete core explosions removed the concrete of WTC 1 that is shown here on WTC 2 and left the interior box columns which had failed cutting charges. Which failed because of decayed explosives on the sunny side of the tower. Evaporation and oxidization had gotten to them either during constrcution or from intrusion into spaces which developed between the floor pans and concrete of the floors.

At any rate the supposed steel core columns were, by definition, full length, made one piece by 100% butt welds and would be seen if they existed. They did not.
 
Last edited:
Bell said:
In the same time you typed up this post, you could have provided us with the link. So no time to loose, Chris, remember, we are talking about the murdering of 3000 innocent people!
Click to expand...

What makes you think I keep that link around? It is here in this thread or do a google on it at the site it was originally posted.

I had not even kept a copy of it when I though to post it here and had to go find it at that site I mentioned a few posts back where Robertson originally made it.
 
Bell said:
Yes, he has. He has posted it in this thread. I guess you have missed that post. It obliterates your concrete core 'evidence'.
Click to expand...

This is nonsense.

If what homer/gravey/idiot posted was that good of evidence someone would have made a "steel core column" site by now. It is all crap and whoever trys to build it will go down in history as the biggest pawn, disinfo to ever breath. They will have to compete with the fools that actually believe FEMA though.

The FEMA core cannot disappear within what was seen. Cutting steel with out custom, built in cutting charges makes an absolutely HUGE sharp noise/bang throwing shrapnel for thousands of feet.

We did not see that or hear that. We saw nice big billowy well contained blasts.
 
Christophera said:
Well, ......... you definitely have no evidence.

The vertical steel seen in the core area is guide rail support steel.

I am not simply saying so I am showing you that the steel in the core area had no structural substance and fell to the bottom of the core immediately when debris fell into the core area. That is why NO VERTICAL STEEL PROTRUDES from the core of WTC 2.

Steel core columns would have been able to stand if they existed. Particuarly becuase they would have been inside whatever that superstrong structure is which is obviously not destroyed so whatever was inside them, if it was anywhere near as strong would be protected and still standing.
Click to expand...

OMFG. You. Have. No. Clue. Whatsoever.

I mean it. You just have no knowledge whatsoever. That you even begin to think this shows what an ignorant a--hat you really are.
 
Christophera said:
This is nonsense.

If what homer/gravey/idiot posted was that good of evidence someone would have made a "steel core column" site by now. It is all crap and whoever trys to build it will go down in history as the biggest pawn, disinfo to ever breath. They will have to compete with the fools that actually believe FEMA though.
Click to expand...

Why would someone build a website proving what is already known to be true?

Chris, do you honestly think all vitally important information is on websites?

Never mind, you probably do.

Here's a clue: websites are not good source material. They prove nothing. They are relatively unimportant, when it comes to information. Even the best ones - like Wikipedia - are good places to start research, not conclude it.

No one needs to make a 'steel core website', because no one doubts the steel core except a few nutters and one particular obsessive compulsive liar.
 
Chris, when are you going to explain
1) an image that was copied from a non=existant book is the basis of your theory?

2) how c4 could be used when no one knew what it was until the last 4 years of the Vietnam war?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom