Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers?

[Christophera]

You now prove you lack the ability to research. I sent an email and you even remember who wrote the paper for Domel. Now you twist it and ignore real experts for your own ideas.

You have only yourself to back up you ideas and some mistakes made by people who admit they were making errors.

Nuff said; you are the only one in the world who thinks there was a concrete core in the WTC towers in the upper floors.

You are unique and the only one in the CT world and non CT world who has the concrete core idea. Your own web pages prove you wrong.

Nuff said

I researched your guy. It turns out he was the one that came up with the hammer theory which is stupid, grasping at straws type inane BS. These towers BOTH went to the ground.

Whoever posted this believes there was a concrete core. And, .... I personally believe it was Robertson.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3108&view=findpost&p=78752

Apr 1 2006, 06:33 PM

Leslie E. Robertson
Unregistered


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

And, I've personally met 3 people that saw other documentaries which had clips from the one I saw in it. They know like I know there was a concrete core.

Meanwhile, you forgot to get credible and explain WHY it is so important there was no concrete core.

REQUIREMENTS OF CREDIBILITY:We know there was a core, if one core didn't exist, then the other did.

For anybody posting who presents a purpose or reason for saying "no concrete", in order for them to be credible, the post must also explain HOW the supposed 47 steel core columns were cut to create near free fall which ALSO explains why they are NEVER seen in images of the demolition.

 

[beachnut]

Hehe, I'm watching M*A*S*H right now on TV Land!

I was thinking about Frank Burns when the SCUD missile knocked out our giant plate glass windows; I was thinking about getting a Frank Burn Purple Heart as I ran past the glass!

My dad was in the 101st on D-Day! I would feel like a Frank Burns if I had jumped into the pile of glass; I would disgrace my dad.

But it was funny as I went about my work!

Is our CC guy as p as frank? YES; have i messed up and jumped in the glass????

 

[uruk]

REQUIREMENTS OF CREDIBILITY:We know there was a core, if one core didn't exist, then the other did.

For anybody posting who presents a purpose or reason for saying "no concrete", in order for them to be credible, the post must also explain HOW the supposed 47 steel core columns were cut to create near free fall which ALSO explains why they are NEVER seen in images of the demolition.

Concrete Core Of WTC 2​

We've read your website. We've read all you posts.
Have some honesty and read the NIST report. Otherwise your not worth responding to.

The NIST reports explains everything. (unfortunately for you, it is completely at odds with your belief.

The NIST had detailed construction plans of the WTC towers as evidenced in thier report. But of course you refused to look at the report but instead take the word of a highly questionable source. (that seems to be your modus operendi)

But I know Your not going even consider looking.

Dishonesty is way.

Anyhoo, this will be my only post in this thread.

 

[beachnut]

I researched your guy. It turns out he was the one that came up with the hammer theory which is stupid, grasping at straws type inane BS. These towers BOTH went to the ground.

Whoever posted this believes there was a concrete core. And, .... I personally believe it was Robertson.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3108&view=findpost&p=78752

Apr 1 2006, 06:33 PM

Leslie E. Robertson
Unregistered


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

And, I've personally met 3 people that saw other documentaries which had clips from the one I saw in it. They know like I know there was a concrete core.

Meanwhile, you forgot to get credible and explain WHY it is so important there was no concrete core.

REQUIREMENTS OF CREDIBILITY:We know there was a core, if one core didn't exist, then the other did.

For anybody posting who presents a purpose or reason for saying "no concrete", in order for them to be credible, the post must also explain HOW the supposed 47 steel core columns were cut to create near free fall which ALSO explains why they are NEVER seen in images of the demolition.

Someone lied to you; Robertson said it was not him! You were lied to by an impostor.

You are the dumbest guy I have ever met. You must of noted that the guy who posted that was not Robertson. It is a fake post! Someone is teasing you!

You are being used and abused. You should sue that forum for fraud! You are sad.

 

[Christophera]

Anyhoo, this will be my only post in this thread.

In your only post you completely miss the opportunity to post your evidence from the NIST report that you know so well.

Wow, valuable evidence. Worth every minute you put into sharing it.

This is an image of raw evidence, notice how often I post it.

Concrete Core Of WTC 2​

It is irrefutable. And you cannot get close to even trying without establishing credibility which you have not done.

 

[fuelair]

This is a whole issue on its own after 162,929 views and 10,535 posts spread over 264 pages on a thread about realistic explanatons for free fall.

I've posted a description of what gatekeeping against the concrete core is all about and how it works. What I refer to is a psyop campaign designed to make the information about the concrete core disappear from peoples minds, I believe is one of the primary purpose of the disinformation, gatekeeping campaign of 9-11.

HERE

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2226416#post2226416​

If gatekeeping in the way described in the above post IS NOT what the deniers of concrete are doing. Then they will post what they ARE doing here in this thread.

This thread is specifically for the deniers of the concrete core to say WHY they work so hard to dismiss all information about the concrete core or what rational purpose they expect that denial to serve.

REQUIREMENTS OF CREDIBILITY:We know there was a core, if one core didn't exist, then the other did.

For anybody posting who presents a purpose or reason for saying "no concrete", in order for them to be credible, the post must also explain HOW the supposed 47 steel core columns were cut to create near free fall which ALSO explains why they are NEVER seen in images of the demolition.

Confirm, on this site below where many images of the concrete core are seen, or pieces of it at least, that NO STEEL COLUMNS ARE SEEN INSIDE THE CORE AREA.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

If it is asserted the steel core columns were not cut then it must be explained why they are unseen in demolition images. Otherwise the post is just more disinformation.

Discussion on disinformation is also welcome here.

For instance, why won't the scholars for 9-11 truth allow me to join? Why don't they embrace the concrete core which CAN be fractured by a small amount of explosive to fall instantly while steel cannot?

Why did LC forums ban me for posting evidence and logic supporting the concrete core?

Because even they recognise your incompetence to talk about this subject - and so many others. Now if they would only recognize theirs.

 

[28th Kingdom]

What exactly are you saying... that the core was solid concrete?

In the article you linked to, it says:

"... and a reinforced concrete core ..."

On this page, it shows a picture (which you claim to be inaccurate) that shows a reinforced concrete core:

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

The picture even says reinforced core - and the reinforcement is coming from steel beams...

I'm confused as to what you're claiming, so please clarify it for me. Are you saying the core had no steel beams and was solid concrete? The article you linked to even claims the concrete core is reinforced.

Thanks.

 

[Christophera]

Someone lied to you; Robertson said it was not him! You were lied to by an impostor.

You should explain what you've said more thoroughly because what you've said doesn't make sense.

 

[Christophera]

What exactly are you saying... that the core was solid concrete?

In the article you linked to, it says:

"... and a reinforced concrete core ..."

On this page, it shows a picture (which you claim to be inaccurate) that shows a reinforced concrete core:

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

The picture even says reinforced core - and the reinforcement is coming from steel beams...

I'm confused as to what you're claiming, so please clarify it for me. Are you saying the core had no steel beams and was solid concrete? The article you linked to even claims the concrete core is reinforced.

Thanks.

The steel reinforced concrete core was a tube with shear wall construction.

Here is a crude diagram I made from a FEMA image which shows how it was designed. This depicts the lower part of WTC 1.

Diagram of hallways and interior wall of the WTC 1 steel reinforced concrete core​

 

[Christophera]

Because even they recognise your incompetence to talk about this subject - and so many others. Now if they would only recognize theirs.

It seems you have said nothing competent, so your opinion is worth that much.

Get credible.

REQUIREMENTS OF CREDIBILITY:We know there was a core, if one core didn't exist, then the other did.

For anybody posting who presents a purpose or reason for saying "no concrete", in order for them to be credible, the post must also explain HOW the supposed 47 steel core columns were cut to create near free fall which ALSO explains why they are NEVER seen in images of the demolition.

 

[beachnut]

Two nuts at work; please do not disturb!

 

[beachnut]

You should explain what you've said more thoroughly because what you've said doesn't make sense.

U R stupid;

Robertson did not post that; it was someone teasing you!

R U stupid?

 

[28th Kingdom]

Okay, you are saying that the concrete core was surrounded by steel box columns, yes? So, what is your theory for how these were cut?

 

[uruk]

In your only post you completely miss the opportunity to post your evidence from the NIST report that you know so well.

Wow, valuable evidence. Worth every minute you put into sharing it.

This is an image of raw evidence, notice how often I post it.

Concrete Core Of WTC 2​

It is irrefutable. And you cannot get close to even trying without establishing credibility which you have not done.

Coward!

See I knew you were going to make excuses

You have access to the internet don't you?
Read it. It's there on the internet.

Your so patheticaly predictable.


Ok, for real, last post

 

[Pardalis]

Two nuts at work; please do not disturb!

It would be interesting to see what these two can come up with, like an odd sociological experiment.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Who the @#$% left the cage open?!

 

[beachnut]

What exactly are you saying... that the core was solid concrete?

In the article you linked to, it says:

"... and a reinforced concrete core ..."

On this page, it shows a picture (which you claim to be inaccurate) that shows a reinforced concrete core:

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

The picture even says reinforced core - and the reinforcement is coming from steel beams...

I'm confused as to what you're claiming, so please clarify it for me. Are you saying the core had no steel beams and was solid concrete? The article you linked to even claims the concrete core is reinforced.

Thanks.

28th you are just like Chris but you have no focus!

28th you are just like Chris but you are not unique like Chris.

10Kingdom you are being reduce to 1kingdom. just keep adding up the evidence and you will evaporate.

As thick as Chris's concrete core is your partial brain effort at systems you will never understand or comprehend.

You and Chris are analogous to Frankenstein and the Wolfman meeting! In some far off galaxy of thought where brains are split in parts, you and Chris are suffering from part of an unknown disease best described as terminal stupidity which can be cured; but you have to do it yourself.

It is just like when you see the light in higher math and all of a sudden you realize there is a higher math. You guys are the really dumb guys in high school who never ever left home; you are the reality of what 5 bottles of Pour La Vie could cure for me. You guys are the reason they invented alcoholism. You guys will never fly high performance jets at supersonic speeds and live. You guys will never experience 7.333 gs in a steep dive on bight sunny day over GA as your instructor takes his turn at chasing clouds after he realizes the student, me (never you), may be capable of being a pilot who will never kill others due to lack of flying skills!

You guys will never be past your own ignorance if you do not break out of your current trap of following lies and not knowing it. Find the truth by working harder until it hurts; you guys are grounded and will not fly until you gain the knowledge to do so.

Wake up Chris you are being lied to and you are lying to yourself; 28th you are are just like Chris without focus; Chris is stuck on a single lie, 28th has infinite lies. Same but different; both false both wrong; both hopeless?

 

[beachnut]

Who the @#$% left the cage open?!

some one needs to suspend me for a few days!

I actually understand drug abuse for the moment!

 

[Christophera]

Coward!

See I knew you were going to make excuses

You have access to the internet don't you?
Read it. It's there on the internet.

Your so patheticaly predictable.

Ok, for real, last post

You know the NIST report. You think it has evidence. You even sound like you know where it is in there. You should, you are treating it as "your "evidence. You find it and bring it for us to see.

I know this is an image showing the end section of a steel reinforced cast concrete shear wall. I am posting it directly for YOU to see. it is my/our evidence for a concrete core.

You have access to the internet too and you are failing to bring your evidence. Talk about pathetic. Get it!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4973&stc=1&d=1168151709

 

[A W Smith]

oh boy oh boy.. if we can keep 28th and chris here this can get very interesting. **sneaks out and locks the cage**