• 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.
Christophera said:
Get real, my choice of words has nothing to do with my action of trying to gain reasonable recognition of evidence from you. Your distortion of my words actually shows disrespect for the loss of life because you seek to justify a BS lie covering for murderers, whereas my use of words simply shows that I'm searching for words to carry meaning over and over because YOU ARE NOT RECOGNIZING the meaning of the words I first used, like "uniform".

You are sick.
Click to expand...

Your words:

Christophera said:
We saw nice big billowy well contained blasts.
Click to expand...

What was so nice about (your alleged) blasts, where hundreds of people died?
 
Well, of course, you only need to take into account anything that can be twisted into confirming what you already believe. That goes without saying.
 
Christophera said:
Concrete ​



Explain how these images show steel core columns.
Click to expand...

FIRSTLY........excellent piece of draughtsmanship on the below chris. is this the high standard that makes you the preferred option above those over-qualified elite professionals?


attachment.php


those images do not show steel core columns chris because the pics are taken at a goodly distance. is it too hard for you to comprehend that? what the images do show are lift shafts.


In the left image you can see that the center piece is missing which shows that the core was cast in pieces
Click to expand...

not the only thing that's in peices. your concrete core theory is shattered by your own words........

8748457c7ea70c448.jpg


BV
 
Last edited:
Christophera said:
You folks are so dense that you still haven't been able to deal reasonably with the meaning of the raw evidence of images posted.

Compared to the evidence you've got for the steel core columns, I've got mountains.
Click to expand...

Oh cool it's my turn again, huh? Kind of weird, since I haven't posted for like ten pages.

You stated earlier that the government erased all evidence of the concrete core, including a documentary from PBS and a book from Oxford University Press. That's an awfully convenient turn of events, especially since they were clever enough to leave all the construction photos and videos that seem to show a set of steel columns being erected.

If the government has this magical ability to erase info, how come your site is still on the internet? Why didn't they just erase your mountains of evidence like you claim (emphasis so you don't accuse me of being paranoid again for some reason) "they" did with the PBS documentary?

Why do you and your conspiracy fellows even have web sites, if the government has this power? Couldn't they just, according to you, erase everything?

I'm sure you'll find some BS reason why they didn't, but the idea that they erased all other evidence of the core without erasing your evidence as well is a logical absurdity. It's not like you're really trying to lie low here.

One final question, if you're still playing along at home:

What experience do you have with math and physics?
Please provide a detailed explanation.
 
hey chris take a look at this (12 sec video).........



i believe this is a close up of your WTC1 "spire" as it falls. please tell me where the "hundreds of in-line rebar" is in this video?
and is that not diagonal bracing i see near the end?

BV
 
Christophera said:
Concrete
​

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4462&stc=1&d=1165814495

In the left silhouette "A" is the entire center piece, in the right "A" is only the forms of the actual wall running perpendicular to the long axis core wall face we view. The outer forms of the core are not in place yet so we can see light along where the concrete will be.

"D" on the right is the right side of the center piece formed and "C" is the partially formed left side of the center piece.

In the left image "B "is the total left side of the core.

In the left image you can see that the center piece is missing which shows that the core was cast in pieces.

NOW,

Explain how these images show steel core columns.
Click to expand...

Tell me why on earth would they build only one side of the concrete core going up all those floors before starting on the next wall?
Wouldn't you logicaly build all four walls of the core on one floor before you start on the next floor?
Your explinations are becoming more and rediculous as you try to fit your clearly incorrect hypothesis with evidence that clearly shows you to be wrong.
Your dishonesty is staggering.
 
I will not forget the Architect that used all graphic methods and indexed his overly of the street center line on the right of way ALL THE WAY through the project. When I went to layout the building the corner of the new house fell in the pool. The existing house was to be demoed, the pool to remain. The contractor and the architect would not let me tell the owner who was an engineer. I was working for the contractor and unfortunately did as he asked, but told the contractor that the engineer/owner would spot the relationships onthe opposite side of the structure after we moved the house to have the pool/house relationship the plan showed.

The contractor wouldn't believe me and the architect abandoned the project after I pointed out what he had done graphically. It went exactly as I said and the engineer spotted it. one day I arrived to find another survey company checking the retaining wall positions and realize the engineer had figured it out. All of the adjustments I had made including the 5 degree clockwise rotation of the structure the owner/engineer had requested were properly done within the given situation and the structure continued. There really wasn't much else that could be done, I realized this which was one reason I just did it.

I was paid. The Contractor and the architect fired. I only wish I had bouted them and their lack of integrity and told the engineer/owner what was going on before walls were set so he could have made the decisions himself. I figure I was paid because I had second guessed okay that he would have accepted the adjustments the contractor applied
Click to expand...

Well if it's true, why does one negligent architect tar all of us? I'm sure there are incompetent welders out there. I once had a topo survey back from the surveyor and I don't know what they'd done, but their REDM (that long ago) data was all tits up. But I don't go attacking surveyors.

Methinks it tells us too much about Chris.

Incidentally, if the architect abandoned the project, why do you then say he was fired? Facts, the facts.....
 
The Number 23

A man whose life unravels after he comes into contact with an obscure book titled The Number 23. As he reads the book, he becomes increasingly convinced that it is based on his own life. His obsession with the number 23 starts to consume him, and he begins to realize the book forecasts far graver consequences for his life than he could have ever imagined.
Click to expand...

Apple Quick Time trailer

Now, what does this remind me of?

22 (21 & 23)
 
Last edited:
I wanted to share this little gem with everyone. Especially Chris.
It's perfect example of Chris's superiour memory. I found it while looking back in this thread for info to respond to one of Chris's replies.

Well it seems that Chris's memory is suffering (as well as mine). I just found a post where Chris said that Mr. Jebson's account of the process could not be correct.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2015273&postcount=5607
"this guy saw the very beginning where the core was formed standing free and the steel went up around it. After 5 or 6 floors a person on the street wouldn't be able to see so his account of the process is not correct."
Click to expand...
If Chris had already discounted Mr. Jebson's account back then, why did Chris post this?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2148744&postcount=8960
"Below is a usenet comment which descibes what I saw in the 1990 documentary called "Construction of the Twin Towers". The WTC 1 core was constructed ahead of the steel erection."
Click to expand...

So which is it Chris? Is Jebson wrong like you said in post #5607? Or is he correct like you said in post #8960? You can't have it both ways
 
uruk said:
So which is it Chris? Is Jebson wrong like you said in post #5607? Or is he correct like you said in post #8960? You can't have it both ways
Click to expand...

i think chris is trying to tell you otherwise. jebson is correct but at the same time he is INCORRECT. this logic-stream only works for psuedo-surveyor-welder-draughtsmen-blaster-musician-artistes in santa barbara tho.

BV
 
Christophera said:
More bogus evasion. The evidence I have is selected because it shows distinct structural elements. Are you suggesting I should try to show the existence of the concrete core with images that I know do not show it. GET REAL!
Click to expand...
According to you on post #8960 Jebson could see the concrete core. So where is it? Or is he wrong like you said on post #5607. The pictures I posted shows him to be wrong. Show me otherwise.

The NIST product explains nothing, that is why I don't read it. Besides. I have you monkeys to chatter all that nonsense to me.
Click to expand...
How would you know it explains nothing? You never even look at it. To claim that it explains nothing while never having even looked at is bold faced hypocracy. Not to mention weakens your position.

Your selectivity shows you are simply acting to disinform when you do not use available information.
Click to expand...
I'm just trying to get you to back up your claims, which you can't seem to do

This is 500 feet tall of steel reinforced concrete core. If it is not steel reinforced concrete, what is it?

What is it?​

That is the question NO ONE HERE has ever answered reasonably.
Click to expand...

That picture could also be of the remaning steel core heavily obscured by smoke and dust and still retaining a sizable portion of sheet rock attached to it.
Remember this picture? look at all the sheetrock still attached to the steel.
And if there was no exploding concrete core the sheetrock would probably still be attached in significant quantities as to give the reminant core a solid, rounded appearance within a cloud of smoke dust and debris.
 

Attachments

  • 5435.jpg
    5435.jpg
    79.4 KB · Views: 4
What do you expect from a guy who can't spell "Innovation", and who thinks that Oxford University is in the U.S.A.?
 
also johnny5 and others, if you haven't already, you might want to watch this:-



sorta explains everything.........

BV
 
bonavada said:
i think chris is trying to tell you otherwise. jebson is correct but at the same time he is INCORRECT. this logic-stream only works for psuedo-surveyor-welder-draughtsmen-blaster-musician-artistes in santa barbara tho.

BV
Click to expand...

It is his special brand of common sense and logic. His info is wrong or right depending on what he needs it to be for a particular argument. It's the same kind of thinking that allows Chris say something is wrong without ever having seen that thing.
 
Christophera said:
You feign confusion trying to induce confusion in the reader. Shame on you.

Interior box columns were the only columns visible.
Click to expand...

At least we agree that there were columns left. You can call them "interior box columns" if you like.



I do have evidence and you have failed to address it. You have not explained how these cuts were done at ground zero if they are NOT cuts from high explosive shear inthe demolition.

Sheared Columns
Click to expand...
Pictures of steel beams cut up for transport hardly qualify as evidence of explosives. I would doubt that explosives would have created such a clean, straight cut, with no evidence of scorching. Just my opinion, but it fits both logic and common sense.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom