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

[Christophera]

Take a closer look at the pictures Chris.

The image with the purple carpet is suspected of photoshopping and I only use it to show the wall. Besides, no point is made.

 

[Gamolon]

The image with the purple carpet is suspected of photoshopping and I only use it to show the wall. Besides, no point is made.

And it was ok for you to use the same image to make your point?

 

[uruk]

The image with the purple carpet is suspected of photoshopping and I only use it to show the wall. Besides, no point is made.

Say what!?!?! If you suspect that the picture has been altered in photoshop why use it at all? Any info it would show would be suspect. Even the wall.

What part of the photo is specificaly altered?

This sounds like a bad copout on your part Chris. You've been caught in in making several mistakes in interpreting these pictures and your trying to weasle your way out.

I'm calling you out on this.

The point was made in post # 10700

ETA: Oh and the is not tapered look at the colums on the left of the picture.They appear to be
slanting to the left as they go up.
The angles of the wall and colums appear to have a perspective distortion probably due to
the lense of the camera and the angle the photo was taken.

 

[A W Smith]

photoshopped ? to show what?


what about these?
http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/images/wtc_19aug2000_lobby.jpg


http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/binda/images/wtc/W01_Tower_2_Lobby_72dpi_Q10.JPG

 

[Christophera]

Say what!?!?! If you suspect that the picture has been altered in photoshop why use it at all? Any info it would show would be suspect. Even the wall.

What part of the photo is specificaly altered?

Here is the standard size,

http://www.francesdelrio.com/wtc/images/lobby_02.jpg

Here is a zoom up the middle, part of the person can be seen on the right. Observe the difference in the pixelation.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/lobbyphotoshop.gif

I'm not at all sure if it is shopped or not but that jagged pixelations looks suspect to me.

At any rate, for the purpose that I'm using it here, and I could find no other pixelated areas, the image is okay. I use it to show one opening inthe wall and a tapering wall.

This sounds like a bad copout on your part Chris. You've been caught in in making several mistakes in interpreting these pictures and your trying to weasle your way out.

I've caught you in so many of those I've lost count.

In the last 48 hours I've had like 11 hours of sleep, so it's not surprising I've misinterpreted ONE, not several as you intentionally exaggerate.

None of us can tell for sure which tower, which side we are on anyway. So the images are only useful for certain things.

I'm calling you out on this.

The point was made in post # 10700

ETA: Oh and the is not tapered look at the colums on the left of the picture.They appear to be
slanting to the left as they go up.
The angles of the wall and colums appear to have a perspective distortion probably due to
the lense of the camera and the angle the photo was taken.

I see your point about the lens used and the apparent outward lean of the vertical perimeter walls. Still the wall joining the corner on the right looks tapered in this image.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/images/wtc_19aug2000_lobby.jpg

By the cieling tile analysis you could be right that this is the narrow end of the core.

http://www.francesdelrio.com/wtc/images/lobby_02.jpg

Either way, I've made my point. The 17 foot thick core walls made the lobby at the end of the long axis very narrow, which is seen in the background on the right.

http://misheli.image.pbase.com/o2/78/583378/1/52419073.wtclobby.jpg

 

[Christophera]

That cannot be a picture of the long axis of the core. Look at the distance between the core area wall on the right and the outer wall on the left. Compare that to the distance between the core wall to the exterior wall of the front lobby in the picture below.
http://www.dogboy.org/albums/roadshow/1109/images/DSCF0729.JPG

You need to make sure of what your looking at. So far your track record is not good.

I agree that is the long side of the core.

This however is the narrow end.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/images/wtc_19aug2000_lobby.jpg

and we can see there is about 25 feet. And THAT is the only point I'm trying to make. Nobody here except for me even knows which tower the images are from and I only know this one for sure is WTC 1 because it has a single hallway into the core.

http://www.francesdelrio.com/wtc/images/lobby_02.jpg

I would say it is the east end of the core in the afternoon. A new yorker who was really familiar with the WTC could tell us which tower which face by the buildings outside. Without that, we are wasting our time trying to use these images for anything past what I've used them for.

 

[beachnut]

Have you written Robertson? The post you have of Robertson was faked and there is no concrete core. Someone was teasing you.

 

[uruk]

Here is the standard size,

http://www.francesdelrio.com/wtc/images/lobby_02.jpg

Here is a zoom up the middle, part of the person can be seen on the right. Observe the difference in the pixelation.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/lobbyphotoshop.gif

I'm not at all sure if it is shopped or not but that jagged pixelations looks suspect to me.

In the first picture you can clearly see the post and "velvet rope".
The bright light behind the person and the post has washed out the image a bit. Nothing wrong about that.
In the second image the soft ware you used to blow up the image has introduced Jpeg pixelation errors. There an algorythim in the imaging software that extropolates the pixels it has to add to get the higher image size. You usually wind up getting alot of errors in difficult area like a bad edge due to light blooms or washouts.

At any rate, for the purpose that I'm using it here, and I could find no other pixelated areas, the image is okay. I use it to show one opening inthe wall and a tapering wall.

Only the wall is not tapering. The wall appears to lean due to the focal point of the lense being used. Cheap cameras tend to have a bad distotion because of the cheap lenses they use. Compare the angle of the core wall to the exterior wall. The columns close to the left edge of the picture appears to lean outward to the left. But toeard the center of the picture the columns are straight vertical. You can see the same thing on the core wall.

I've caught you in so many of those I've lost count.

Don't get me started on your track record. You still haven't gotten one right yet.

In the last 48 hours I've had like 11 hours of sleep, so it's not surprising I've misinterpreted ONE, not several as you intentionally exaggerate.

Sorry your having some long days but you've missinterpreted all three images posted sofar. you can't seem to tell which pictures are of the short side of the core or the long side of the core.

None of us can tell for sure which tower, which side we are on anyway. So the images are only useful for certain things.

Agreed I can't tell which tower is wich from the pictures but I can definitely tell which is the short side and which is the long side.

I see your point about the lens used and the apparent outward lean of the vertical perimeter walls. Still the wall joining the corner on the right looks tapered in this image.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/images/wtc_19aug2000_lobby.jpg

Look at the wall toward the center of the picture. There's less distortion there

By the cieling tile analysis you could be right that this is the narrow end of the core.

http://www.francesdelrio.com/wtc/images/lobby_02.jpg

Either way, I've made my point. The 17 foot thick core walls made the lobby at the end of the long axis very narrow, which is seen in the background on the right.

http://misheli.image.pbase.com/o2/78/583378/1/52419073.wtclobby.jpg

But I believe the argument is that 17 foot thick wall going all the way around the core will leave insufficient space for the elevator lobby if the access was in the center of the core.
At any rate A W Smith was actually there. He should know where the access to the elevators were.

 

[Gamolon]

The following summation will prove Chris's core didn't exist.

Here is a link I have found (the same link Chris sent me via PM) that has some blueprints of the towers that have been scanned. You can click on each blueprint to zoom in:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...lan/index.html

1. A couple of the blueprints clearly show an outline of the curved mezzanine level, which is opened to view the lobby below. The open mezzanine floor curves around the long axis of the core and according to the blueprint scans. So, any picture showing a floor connected to the wall, is the SHORT AXIS WALL. Any picture showing the open mezzanine floor facing a wall is the LONG AXIS WALL. This information has been confirmed by A.W. Smith, who has been through the building many times. Also look at the blueprint in the second row, third from the left. You can see the outline of the open mezzanine floor.

2. One of Chris's contentions was that the elevators were accessible only through the inside hallway of the core. This is wrong. The blueprints from the link above clearly show elevators that are accessed not only from the center hallway, but from the LONG AXIS WALL also. Again, look at the blueprint in the second row, third one from the left. You can see the outline of the mezzanine level floor in which the floor's open face is situated along the LONG AXIS WALL.

3. Chris's misinterpretation of the three photos makes him suspect on what he is viewing in any other photos.

4. In post #10687, he says that my link does not go anywhere and thus my point is not made. That link was to an individual drawing contained in the link posted above. The same link he sent me via PM.

5. Based on the above information, Chris's contention that his photo of the "tapered" wall with the purple carpet is of the LONG AXIS WALL is wrong. This is proven by the fact that the floor on the mezzanine level does not connect to the LONG AXIS WALL. It connects to the SHORT AXIS WALL. In the purple carpet photo you can clearly see the start of the glass railing that goes around the open mezzanine floor. Look at the middle right edge of the photo. This has also been confirmed by A.W. Smith who had been through the buildings many times.

6. We have proven that not only did the center hallway of the core have access to elevators, but the outside of the core, along the LONG AXIS WALL, had elevators also. This is proven by the blueprints from above AND A.W. Smith's eyewitness testimony.

7. Now that we have all that straight, on to my main point, which I may add, I have not seen discussed before in this thread. Chris's supposed concrete core was 12' thick at the base along the LONG AXIS WALL. The SHORT AXIS WALL was 17' thick at the base. Both walls supposedly tapered to 2' at the top of the building. He also said that the elevators were positioned on the INSIDE of the core. To illustrate construction of the LONG AXIS WALL, the construction materials would be in the following order. Picture yourself looking at the LONG AXIS WALL on the lobby floor:

Marble wall exterior
12' Thick concrete core wall
Elevator doors (almost flush with INSIDE of the supposed core wall)

Now, How would a person get into the elevators on the LONG AXIS WALL if there was a 12' concrete wall between them and the elevator doors? There would have to be a 12' long "tunnel" or "corridor" cut through the concrete wall to get to the elevators. Well there is none. A.W. Smith said that the elevators were only recessed about 20". This point alone proves that Chris's concrete core theory is false. Absence of corridors on ANY floor proves his claim false.

So in closing here is what I have as proof that Chris's core didn't exist:
1. Scans of blueprints to back up any lobby photo used to show orientation of the LONG and SHORT AXIS walls.
2. An eyewitness account corroborating all my points.
3. Blueprints and an eyewitness account proving that Chris's statement of there being only access to the elevators in the center hall is totally wrong. Chris, your research skills are clearly lacking. You have no clue as to what you are talking about. Look how many mistakes you've made just in a few posts. How can anyone put credibility into what you are saying?

What Chris has:
1. Photos which he has INTERPRETED to be a concrete core. His sites a documentary to back this up, which conveniently doesn't exist.
2. In three posts, Chris has incorrectly identified what he was looking at. He blames this on lack of sleep. This brings his other interpretations under serious fire.
3. He was wrong about the only access to the elevators was in the inside hallway of the core.

Chris, your theory has been successfully squashed. Anyone looking at the blueprints and the photos together, and seeing the absence of 12' long (on the lobby floor and subsequent floors) corridors will see you are dead wrong about the core. It didn't exist. Period.

 

[bonavada]

My point about the absence of the corridors on the lobby level has not been discussed to my knowledge.

i think you are correct and you make excellent valid analysis. old heads of this thread know however, that if you expect reasonable responses from chris on any of the points you bring up, you should be prepared for major disappointment.
i was one who called for a boycott of this thread (READ HERE) because in truth, it had descended into a pillory for chris. a sideshow of the CT forum where people (including me) would pop in just to throw a couple of rotten tomatoes to raise a laugh.
you are perfectly entitled to pursue your questions with chris. no-one should badger you not to. though if you read that boycott OP i wrote above you might realise you are in for a long ride.
and if you are willing to stump up 20 bucks or so, "elevator world" magazine did an issue featuring the WTC elevator system. get in there quick before the MIB get busy with the old airbrush..........:-]

AND .......... are you a tom hanks fan? anyway take a look at a clip of this turkey about 3 mins in you see a perfect example of your argument :-



BV

 

[uruk]

]

AND .......... are you a tom hanks fan? anyway take a look at a clip of this turkey about 3 mins in you see a perfect example of your argument :-



BV

There you go Chris. Irrefutable, Raw evidence that the elevators opened into the lobby from exterior side of the core.

I guess the government though that noone would have remembered that film.

Thanks Bonavada. I've been looking for a movie that would show that.
I tried Trading Places which had a scene where Dan Akroid and Eddie Murphy walked up to the towers But I don't recall if they entered the building in that film. I'll have to look.

 

[Gamolon]

i think you are correct and you make excellent valid analysis. old heads of this thread know however, that if you expect reasonable responses from chris on any of the points you bring up, you should be prepared for major disappointment.
i was one who called for a boycott of this thread (READ HERE) because in truth, it had descended into a pillory for chris. a sideshow of the CT forum where people (including me) would pop in just to throw a couple of rotten tomatoes to raise a laugh.
you are perfectly entitled to pursue your questions with chris. no-one should badger you not to. though if you read that boycott OP i wrote above you might realise you are in for a long ride.
and if you are willing to stump up 20 bucks or so, "elevator world" magazine did an issue featuring the WTC elevator system. get in there quick before the MIB get busy with the old airbrush..........:-]

AND .......... are you a tom hanks fan? anyway take a look at a clip of this turkey about 3 mins in you see a perfect example of your argument :-



BV

THAT was beautiful my friend. That was actually my next step. To find footage in a movie of the elevator doors.

No 12' tunnel leading through the concrete to the elevator doors. The doors are pretty much recessed only a foot or so. Now we have video footage to add.

Chris. You and your crazy theory have thoroughly been proven false. After the myriad of blueprints, photos, eyewitness testimony, and now video to prove my point, all you can come up with is a ghostumentary and about 5, self interpreted, photos with no other corroborating evidence.

You're done.

Be sure to direct any of your followers who believe your nonsense to this very thread so they may see the comparison of what you bring to the table as evidence and to see how many times you've had to backpedal because you "misinterpreted" photos. Nice track record for a researcher. Your evidence PALES in comparison to what we have compiled.

Do you honestly think that if we selected a panel of folks and presented them with your evidence, then with ours, that you would win them over?



One last thing. I came here with the sole intention of proving you wrong about the concrete core with my tunnel/corridor arguement, not to prove that there was a steel core. Get that through your skull.

 

[bonavada]

Now we have video footage to add.

* ADDED..........

firstly, christophera states:-
that he has experience in many fields of construction (although not qualified in any)
that he HAS NOT and WILL NOT read the NIST report
that the "official core" cannot have existed because steel flexes too much when in the proportions of the towers (he cites the case of the tacoma bridge collapse to "prove" this)
that anyone who disagrees with him must be "disinfo" and support the murders of "3000 americans" or has been hypnotised by the government
that NOTHING will convince him that the towers did not have a concrete core

christopheras theory hinges on information from:-
an untraceable documentary
an untraceable book
an untraceable magazine article
an untraceable (amnesic) mohawk

the use of:-
highly compressed altered and inconclusive images
highly erroneous and crude diagrams
highly selective quotes from mike pecararo
highly selective quotes from willy rodriguez
highly selective quotes from phillip morelli
highly dubious quotes from tony jebson
highly plagarised prof steven jones theories

christophera has been shown to be wrong about :-
his definition of "raw-evidence"
his "total pulverisation of the towers"
his "free-fall of the towers"
his "mohawk saboteur"
his "c4 coated rebar"
his "erroneous bbc diagram"
his "explosions in the basement"
his "molten metal in the basement"
his "reinforced concrete walls in basement"
his "the wrong tower fell first"
his "the tops of the towers fell the wrong way"
his "firefighters discussing controlled demolition"
his "powerdown of the WTC"
his "april fool robertson message"
his "17 foot thick concrete core wall at the base" *

christopheras states he has a "photographic memory" but..............
he forgets that the PA painted the C4 on the rebar
he forgets how long he's been a welder
he forgets the mohawks age
he forgets when he saw the documentary
he forgets that other nationalities besides american died at the WTC on 9/11

christophera cannot adequately explain (if his theories are correct):-
why there is no sound of thousands of explosions during WTC collapses
why there are no pictures of the concrete core during construction
why there is a lack of whistle-blowers (first responders, mohawks, welders, concreters, carpenters, PA employees, union officials, architects, US government employees etc etc.....)

finally................
why would the US government plan 30 years ahead to destroy the WTC?????

TIME TO CALL IT A DAY CHRIS!

BV

 

[Big Al]

• Or how you can slurry C-4 and leave it just as potent
• Or how C-4, with a storage life of ten years in the most perfect conditions can be relied upon to work right on cue after being allowed to simmer in a wet marinade of concrete for 30 years

 

[Christophera]

Have you written Robertson? The post you have of Robertson was faked and there is no concrete core. Someone was teasing you.

I have a link to the post.

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

Let people decide for themselves who is teasing who.

I can prove the concrete core and I post my proof.

Concrete Core Of WTC 2​

You have no proof of anything, deniers of the concrete core typically have none. Personally I think the post which is posted in the name of Leslie Robertson, is Leslie Robertson. It makes sense.

Sorry, I know you find logic offensive, but again, you have no proof.

 

[Big Al]

Let people decide for themselves who is teasing who.

They have, and you have all but called them idiots.

I can prove the concrete core and I post my proof.

Concrete Core Of WTC 2​

​

Chris, please believe me (and I think I speak for just about everyone else here), that I genuinely cannot see a concrete core in that frequently-posted link. I see a cloud of smoke and dust. That's it. Can you please not bother to show that picture, "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" or "3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS'" yet again for the millionth time. They have not convinced anyone. You need some new and more persuasive material.​

​

You have no proof of anything, deniers of the concrete core typically have none.

If all you have is those blurry JPEGs of dust clouds, neither do you, Chris. Sorry, mate.

Personally I think the post which is posted in the name of Leslie Robertson, is Leslie Robertson. It makes sense.

Sorry, I know you find logic offensive, but again, you have no proof.

Pop quiz, Chris: what is more likely?

a) That Leslie Robinson, the man who is presumably sworn to secrecy on this dreadful conspiracy, has posted under his own name what amounts to official heresy, presumably condemning him to summary execution by some convenient accident?
b) That some anonymous poster is having fun by appending Robinson's name to a piece of muck-stirring nonsense?

If you think a) is more probable than b), I'm afraid you're in no condition to preach about logic to the rest of us!

 

[Christophera]

The apparent differences in pixel patterns, and washed out areas are perfcet for hiding those kinds of splices from what I can see there, amke me think,

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/lobbyphotoshop.gif

This one is photoshopped as proportionately the lobby width looks larger than this one.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/images/wtc_19aug2000_lobby.jpg

and the confusion about which was which began there.

Agreed I can't tell which tower is wich from the pictures but I can definitely tell which is the short side and which is the long side.

I can tell too, but hadn't decided how exactly be consistent with that, besides the apparent narrowness of the lobby, to tell which was which or the confusion mentioned above.

I see your point about the lens used and the apparent outward lean of the vertical perimeter walls. Still the wall joining the corner on the right looks tapered in this image.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/images/wtc_19aug2000_lobby.jpg

By the cieling tile analysis you could be right that this is the narrow end of the core.

http://www.francesdelrio.com/wtc/images/lobby_02.jpg

Either way, I've made my point. The 17 foot thick core walls made the lobby at the end of the long axis very narrow, which is seen in the background on the right.

http://misheli.image.pbase.com/o2/78/583378/1/52419073.wtclobby.jpg

But I believe the argument is that 17 foot thick wall going all the way around the core

The long axis wall was only 12 feet and that dimension is outside the 80 x 120 core interior.

will leave insufficient space for the elevator lobby if the access was in the center of the core.
At any rate A W Smith was actually there. He should know where the access to the elevators were.

Above you apply the 17 feet as if it would make the core interior smaller when it makes the exterior space, the lobby areas smaller.

There were entire floors devoted to "elevator lobbies". Aside from that the core hallways acted as such on each floor. They were farily wide.

We have not seen any image of the ground floor which shows direct elevator access through the outside of the core wall despite what smith says.

WTC 2 had 2 hallways in each direction and they were quite which could create the "lobby feel" and give the impressson that elevators were accessed from outside core walls when in fact the elevators were accessed from inside the core only.

 

[Christophera]

2. One of Chris's contentions was that the elevators were accessible only through the inside hallway of the core. This is wrong. The blueprints from the link above clearly show elevators that are accessed not only from the center hallway, but from the LONG AXIS WALL also. Again, look at the blueprint in the second row, third one from the left. You can see the outline of the mezzanine level floor in which the floor's open face is situated along the LONG AXIS WALL.

The blue prints scanned were not used for construction. Look at the date. Also note the steel columned core is not detailed in any way. It was never designed, only conceived and the elevator access possible with it was not possible with a concrete core.

 

[Gamolon]

WTC 2 had 2 hallways in each direction and they were quite which could create the "lobby feel" and give the impressson that elevators were accessed from outside core walls when in fact the elevators were accessed from inside the core only.

Wrong again. That's not what the blueprints show that I link to. One central hallway with elevator access. Access also on the outside core.

You're done.

You know what's funny Chris? You've failed to convince ANYONE of your theories. I've read many of the other forums and you have nobody but yourself on your side. Nobody is taking your side. You're alone on this.

That's proof in itself that your "evidence" stinks.

Keep posting your three pictures. As the past dictates, they'll convert nobody and you'll still be by yourself with your own beliefs.

 

[Christophera]

i think you are correct and you make excellent valid analysis. old heads of this thread know however, that if you expect reasonable responses from chris on any of the points you bring up, you should be prepared for major disappointment.
i was one who called for a boycott of this thread (READ HERE) because in truth, it had descended into a pillory for chris. a sideshow of the CT forum where people (including me) would pop in just to throw a couple of rotten tomatoes to raise a laugh.
you are perfectly entitled to pursue your questions with chris. no-one should badger you not to. though if you read that boycott OP i wrote above you might realise you are in for a long ride.
and if you are willing to stump up 20 bucks or so, "elevator world" magazine did an issue featuring the WTC elevator system. get in there quick before the MIB get busy with the old airbrush..........:-]

AND .......... are you a tom hanks fan? anyway take a look at a clip of this turkey about 3 mins in you see a perfect example of your argument :-



BV

The only hint of an elevator entrance from the lobby begins at 5:03 where people appear standing by stainless steel relived areas. No one is seen walking in and out of the relieved area.

At 4:08 two areas shown, spaced wide as would be the hallways, taken in a shot from the mezzanine down, appear to have people entering and exiting.

At the following times in the video the reflections of stainless elevator doors, other elevator doors across the core hallway in the sky lobby can be seen. If the elevators faced the perimeter walls, the perimeter box columns and windows would be seen.

2:50
2:39
2:27

At 2:15 the elevator doors open and the hallway is visible outside, not the perimeter walls.

Another case of misinterpretation.