• 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 when are you going to answer my questions?

Why are you quoting a scanned passage from a nonexistant book? Oxford University states they've never published a book under that title. And a look a public library that has archives of publications (meaning, they list eveyr title ever published) for the last century shows that there was no title published called the Oxford Encyclopedia of Innovation and Technology. You cannot claim that Oxford University Press (which is a UK entity) has somehow infiltrated the millions of libraries on this earth to take out any reference to this book in their archives and of course, STEAL this same book from the libraries themselves.

how can you claim that c4 was used in the buildings when c4 wasn't a term used back in 1967 and that its use wasn't available until the Vietnam War in the late 60's?
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
It must be my bad eyesight that makes the 2 in the center look closer together than the rest.
Click to expand...

I wish you guys who want to deny the fundamental design of the tower would study what IS known.

The 2 interior box columns that are closer together are the vertical elements of the moment arms. That image shows them before the diagonal braces are installed.

Center left with the diagonal bracing.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/ssm/dsc00169.jpg
 
JonnyFive said:
Well, duh, it's the new mirror-crete which reflects the light in just the right way so as to make it look like there's no concrete. It's all an optical illusion. There aren't any other examples of this kind of illusion because obvious the towers were so special that entirely new rules of proof, logic, and reasoning had to be designed to talk about them.

Even I picked up on that, and according to Christophera I'm incapable of reading. (Of course, I also picked up on the fact that it was a BS retroactive explanation for something he knows nothing about, but that's nothing new)

It's all so obvious. If you're not convinced I can repeat the same phrase a few hundred times without presenting any new evidence.
Click to expand...

Sorry Jonny but it's InvisicreteTM already mentioned on JREF. Then you need HushaboomTM for the rest. Somewhere there must be a black hole in the building.

Just how advanced is the govmnt science?

Why won't they approve my grant?

Ecplain that and I may show yu the facts.

Actually pigs fly on a regular basis.
 
I just wanted to make sure Chris remebered this:

Originally Posted by Christophera
What you mean is that you would LOVE to change the subject which is itself obsufucation. I made MY point more than adquately 10 pages back.
Click to expand...
You have a peculiar habit of accusing others of the things you do yourself. I've been sticking with the same subject here. Your the one who has been desperately trying to avoid and change the subject. And you still haven't made any point except that you are avoiding to own up to some lies and errors.


The WTC 2 concrete core standing (and no one has ever reasonably shown it to be anything else) completely agrees with Jebsons usenet post no matter what he saw or could not see.
Click to expand...
So your still saying that you were wrong in post 5607.
Anyhoo the picture does not agree with Jebson's post. First there is no indication that the picture shows a concrete core since sheetrock and wall board can also have a rounded appearance and the dust and smoke is too thick to really see anything other than an amorphous shape. I showed you pictures of sheetrock still attached to the steel core columns.
Second, Jebson said he could see the concrete core during construction. And Jebson could have seen the concrete core from street level if there was a concrete core. The Comcast building pictures prove this.
You keep showing a picture of an indistinct blob and say that Jebson was right even though you said he was wrong in post 5607.


It is logical that he could not see the core which was 35 feet in from the edge of the floor minimum and 5 floors up. He could't know. We know from aerials that the core is not being built ahead of the exterior steel and the image above shows the core stripped of all floors as well as structural steel. NO CORE COLUMNS PROTRUDING FROM THE CORE AREA.
Click to expand...

Wrong. The pictures of the Comcast building (taken at ground level) PROVE that Jebson could have seen the concrete core of the WTC1 tower if there had in fact been a concrete core in WTC 1.
The fact the aerial photos of the construction site show no concrete core being built ahead of the steel means that you are also wrong in post 8960.
And we've shown you many pictures of the core columns. You refusing to acknowledge the photos and reports just makes you look dishonest and, quite frankly, childish.


Trying to pretend that the fact of that image of the concrete core is not adequate is absurd. He talks about 4 floors of concrete and I show 40 floors of concrete. AND, I show the concrete goes all the way to the top with the image of the core of the top of tower 2 falling onto WTC 3.
Click to expand...

The photo you keep posting does not clearly show anything. It just shows an indistinct shape that presumably is the core structure of the building.

This picture here: http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg Shows the spandrel sections falling onto the building below. I do not see any concrete in that photo. You going to have to point it out to me.
 
uruk said:
I just wanted to make sure Chris remebered this:


You have a peculiar habit of accusing others of the things you do yourself. I've been sticking with the same subject here. Your the one who has been desperately trying to avoid and change the subject. And you still haven't made any point except that you are avoiding to own up to some lies and errors.



So your still saying that you were wrong in post 5607.
Anyhoo the picture does not agree with Jebson's post. First there is no indication that the picture shows a concrete core since sheetrock and wall board can also have a rounded appearance and the dust and smoke is too thick to really see anything other than an amorphous shape. I showed you pictures of sheetrock still attached to the steel core columns.
Second, Jebson said he could see the concrete core during construction. And Jebson could have seen the concrete core from street level if there was a concrete core. The Comcast building pictures prove this.
You keep showing a picture of an indistinct blob and say that Jebson was right even though you said he was wrong in post 5607.




Wrong. The pictures of the Comcast building (taken at ground level) PROVE that Jebson could have seen the concrete core of the WTC1 tower if there had in fact been a concrete core in WTC 1.
The fact the aerial photos of the construction site show no concrete core being built ahead of the steel means that you are also wrong in post 8960.
And we've shown you many pictures of the core columns. You refusing to acknowledge the photos and reports just makes you look dishonest and, quite frankly, childish.




The photo you keep posting does not clearly show anything. It just shows an indistinct shape that presumably is the core structure of the building.

This picture here: http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg Shows the spandrel sections falling onto the building below. I do not see any concrete in that photo. You going to have to point it out to me.
Click to expand...

Who are you going to belive, Chris or your lying eyes.
 
uruk said:
Wrong. The pictures of the Comcast building (taken at ground level) PROVE that Jebson could have seen the concrete core of the WTC1 tower if there had in fact been a concrete core in WTC 1.
The fact the aerial photos of the construction site show no concrete core being built ahead of the steel means that you are also wrong in post 8960.
And we've shown you many pictures of the core columns. You refusing to acknowledge the photos and reports just makes you look dishonest and, quite frankly, childish.
Click to expand...

homer,

You missed the point several times.

1.)You cannot explain what the solid object in the WTC 2 core photo is. No one can unless they call it a steel reinforced concrete core. The fact is suppported by a number of other pieces of raw information as well as the reports of Ph.d's

2.)The above deficiency in what is said in 1.) above escapes you so you assume that the comcast tower was how the Twin towers were constructed, which in your mind makes Jebson correct, but the aerial images of the towers do not show the concrete, so Jebson was wrong about the concrete being constructed above the steel, at least from the 4th floor up.

The construction photos do not show steel core columns because steel core columns are strong enough to survive and be seen in the demo photos. None are seen meaning they didn't exist.

if you ignore critical information as you do, because you are not interested in the truth, you have an agenda to prove something no matter what, meaning you are not going to be able to use the evidence properly. I would prefer that our government not be infiltated and thatthe towers were not demolished, but this is not the case. I can face it, you cannot.


You just don't have enough evidence for the steel core columns to make your point rationally,
 
Bell said:
Also Chris, this picture, posted on the interweb by the BBC on 9/13 shows your alleged concrete core. How did the artist know of this concrete core?
Click to expand...

Okay, you cannot read.

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

Some in the UK still think the WTC tower core was built as shown below. Basically a pre-stressed concrete design. Yamasaki had reviewed the design, and found no contractor that could build a 1,300 foot column of that design. We all know the towers had their stairwells and elevators inside the core. There is no room for that in the core below.

the BBC core

The design was a "tube in a tube" construction where the steel reinforced, cast concrete interior tube, was surrounded with a structural steel framework configured as another tube with the load bearing capacity bias towards the perimeter wall with the core acting to reduce deformation of the steel structure maximizing its load bearing capacity. All steel structures with the proportions of the WTC towers have inherent problems with flex and torsion. Distribution of gravity loads was; perimeter walls 50%, interior core columns 30% core 20%.
 
Arus808 said:
how can you claim that c4 was used in the buildings when c4 wasn't a term used back in 1967 and that its use wasn't available until the Vietnam War in the late 60's?
Click to expand...

RDX (C4) has been around since the 1950's. Demolition specialists were using it from around 1960 on. Navy seals developed the coated rebar in concrete casting technique in the early 1960's.
 
Christophera said:
RDX (C4) has been around since the 1950's. Demolition specialists were using it from around 1960 on. Navy seals developed the coated rebar in concrete casting technique in the early 1960's.
Click to expand...

And the seals regulary ate the C4 as part of thier training, it gave a farts a wolne no meaning.
 
Nearly up to 10 000 posts in this thread I see.

Sorted it out yet Chris?
Convinced those pesky sceptics to open their eyes and see what you see yet?

I'm still hoping that all this is just some strange piece of performance art, but it's not looking likely.

BTW I'm still hypnotised to believe that the WTC had a steel core and that it was destroyed by a bunch of pissed off muslim hijackers. I guess there is no help for me.:hypnodisk :hypnodisk :hypnodisk
 
Arus808 said:
Chris when are you going to answer my questions?

Why are you quoting a scanned passage from a nonexistant book? Oxford University states they've never published a book under that title. And a look a public library that has archives of publications (meaning, they list eveyr title ever published) for the last century shows that there was no title published called the Oxford Encyclopedia of Innovation and Technology. You cannot claim that Oxford University Press (which is a UK entity) has somehow infiltrated the millions of libraries on this earth to take out any reference to this book in their archives and of course, STEAL this same book from the libraries themselves.
Click to expand...

We really think that because things are written down that it means something like they are secure for all time. We have another think coming.
 
Christophera said:
I said
READ​
Click to expand...

Christophera said:
We really think that because things are written down that it means something like they are secure for all time. We have another think coming.
Click to expand...

I just think these two posts in the same day are funny. Not funny peculiar, but funny to see. I'm not even making fun of Chris, because I know what he meant in both posts. But it is funny...
 
Christophera said:
We really think that because things are written down that it means something like they are secure for all time. We have another think coming.
Click to expand...

And you know this... how? And please don't just cite the disappearance of the disputed documentary and book, since we don't believe they existed in the first place.

How about answering the following questions:

  1. Why would the Oxford University Press, a British academic institution agree to the total informational erasure of a book because of a single paragraph? Why not just reissue it to cite the approved story of a steel core?
  2. Why has your website not been erased? It's far more extensive in its heresy than that single half-para in the purported Oxford book.
  3. Why would the MIBs divulge to the PBS documentary crew so much damaging information?
  4. How do you go about erasing every single trace of a book? Every website, every public library all over the world, every private collection, every Amazon.com warehouse, AbeBooks, Gardners, Bertrams, the Library of Congress... the list is HUGE!
  5. And, above all, a question you've studiously avoided despite frequent repeats: WHY DID THE MIB LINE THE TWIN TOWERS WITH C4 IN THE FIRST PLACE, THIRTY YEARS BEFORE 9/11?
BTW, I noted that you conflated C4 and RDX, and stated that it was first available in the 1950s. This is nonsense.

RDX was discovered in the 1890s and first used as an explosive in the 1920s - it was used extensively in WWII. It was generally known in the U.S. as cyclonite.
C-4 (Composition 4) is derived from the solid RDX and first arrived in the 1960s. It is produced from an RDX slurry with oil and lecithin, Critically for your argument, because of its oily composition, it cannot be slurried in solvents without losing its plastic characteristics and denaturing.
 
Chris, you really don't understand the internet, do you? When information is out there, there's NO WAY of erasing it. Except maybe if there were an extincion event of some sort (remember dynosaurs?). But by that time a concrete core would be the least of our worries.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom