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

[Christophera]

How the hell is this thread still alive?

Chris, did you ever get a reply from Beverly Ballin Smith or Denys Pringle?

I had not tried Pringle but Smith never got back to me. I'm trying Pringle now with a crusader specific inquiry that should pique his interest.

 

[Christophera]

Of course they have. It's the remnants of the steel framed core, choked with debris and dust, momentarily suspended in mid-collapse.

Easily said.

I noticed you posted no corroborative evidence or images from the towers moments of demise which show the supposed steel core columns.

Do this, or just be so much accusatory rhetoric.

I shall post another image showing concrete. Now you have two to logically explain because so far, you aven't even explained one.

Concrete shear wall supporting an interior box column which is outside the core.

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

That's not what you asked for. You wouldn't see these superlong steel columns. They snapped apart and collapsed with the rest. As it is, tons of photographs exist at ground zero that shows the remains of the shattered columns.

And I don't need to post corroborative evidence or images. You asked for a logical explanation. I provided one. Deal with it.

A few assertions that are not congruent with evidence also having no evidence to support them is not logical.

DEALT WITH.

One can say what you said but the image does not have that appearance. I was reading through the thread earlier and cam upon a post where homer enlightened you about arc welding in regards to a question regarding welding around C4. If homer has to do that, its fairly clear your construction knowledge and practical experiences with the appearances of construction materials is pretty sparse.

Meaning that you might not know that the image I've posted above bears absolutely no resemblance to heavy steel structure.

 

[Christophera]

;-]





BV

The reflections in the stainless doors of the above video at 32 seconds show closely spaced opposing elevator doors of the sky lobby not the wide spacing of homers image. At 28 seconds many doors can be seen as reflections fromthe opposing wall of the sky lobby which was inside the core area.

What is being attempted, and it seems to be working, is a bit of confusion.

The below image does not show any elevator doors on the core face.

homer has it annotated so but it does not and no entrances can be seen. Far left is one but it is a hallway. The spacing of the relieved, tiled areas between interior box columns is similar to the elevator doors inside the sky lobby and this is where homer and BV attempt confusion.

It's implied between BV's video and homers images that the reflections are the same wall face as homers second image. What we should be seeing in the video if homer is correct is only ONE ELEVATOR entrance in BV's video because the openings in homers image are much further apart.

The lights homer attempts to place as under the mezzanine are inside the sky lobby in the video at 21 seconds and again at 7 seconds. They are too close to both the opposing wall as well as the elevator entrances. There is s single elevator opening shown there but it is much closer than the 50 feet between the core and the perimeter wall.

If people are that easily deceived, well it is no wonder we're loosing our rights and freedoms at wholesale rates.

My point is that there is 25 feet between the perimeter walls and the narrow end of the core because there is a 17 foot thick wall at the base of the core. See the below image.

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

here is the 17 foot thick wall at the core base with the interior box columns outside the core area. No columns are seen in the core area.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg

BV, smith and homer deceptively attempt to make people forget the obviousness of the lobby image above or the 25 feet by attempting to confuse people into believing the video shows elevator entrances on the outside core walls in the lobby. It does not.

 

[Z]

A few assertions that are not congruent with evidence also having no evidence to support them is not logical.

You're right - for example, your concrete core. Not congruent with evidence and has no evidence to support it logically.

One can say what you said but the image does not have that appearance.

It most certainly does.

I was reading through the thread earlier and cam upon a post where homer enlightened you about arc welding in regards to a question regarding welding around C4. If homer has to do that, its fairly clear your construction knowledge and practical experiences with the appearances of construction materials is pretty sparse.

Apparently, it's much better than your experiences, since you see a size of rebar that doesn't exist in pictures with insufficient resolution, for example.

Meaning that you might not know that the image I've posted above bears absolutely no resemblance to heavy steel structure.

It most certainly does - a heavy steel structure, combined with flooring and other building materials, under a state of spontaneous total structural failure. In fact, similar building collapse videos reveal still frames very similar - where core elements briefly remain standing, choked with debris and mounded at the top with debris from floors above.

Nevertheless, all evidence aside, all experience aside - my explanation is a perfectly logical explanation, and more logical than this being a concrete core that no one in the entire world admits to existing, and that logically could not have existed, given the knowledge of visitors and workers in the towers...

Your core is illogical, impractical, and simply refuted by the facts. Unless you can produce the images I requested - of any of the concrete being formed, poured, or cured during construction - then you have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

That's it, in a nutshell. No construction images showing concrete core = no concrete core. PERIOD. End of argument.

And, btw - digging ditches doesn't give you any more special insights about what a collapse looks like than any one else has. And that's ALL YOU ARE, Chris - a psychotic, paranoid, ignorant, unschooled asshat of a ditch digger, too stupid to realize how useless and wasted his life has been, too much of an ashole to keep a family, and too lazy and worthless to do anything useful about his beliefs.

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

Inappropriate remark removed.

Do not use personal attacks.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[Christophera]

You're right - for example, your concrete core. Not congruent with evidence and has no evidence to support it logically.

The notion that there were 47, 1300 foot steel columns is what is not supported by real evidence. Absolute evidence of images from 9-11.

You can produce obsolete plans from 1964, 2 years before construction started.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/masterplan/index.html

But it is well known that FEMA didn't have THE plans used for construction, no one did.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html

It is known the NYC mayor took the WTC documents and courts will not make him return them.

http://www.nyclu.org/g_archive020602.html

But your selective uses of information have you only using the bogus diagram which CANNOT BE SUPPORTED with images of raw evidence from 9-11. Exactly the same images I use to show concrete.

Concrete Core Of WTC 2​

Are you getting nasty because you know you are wrong?

 

[Z]

No, I'm getting nasty because I'm tired of talking to someone who's dumb as a stump and crazy as a Frenchman.

My use of information has been quite inclusive. It includes actual construction photographs, videos, and documents which detail steel core columns, not concrete.

You have nothing at ALL that accurately details concrete in the core. Your photographs from the collapse are inconclusive at best, and have other reasonable explanations. And now that a logical explanation has been presented, you're waffling.

I think it's YOU who knows you are wrong - dead wrong. I think you're finally starting to realize that grainy, poor-quality photos showing indeterminable mass are insignificant compared to the wealth of construction photographs, videos, and documents - as well as eyewitness accounts - that render your tales of concrete not only unlikely, but absolutely impossible.

Game, set, match.

So now, unless you can produce images of the concrete during construction, you've lost. PERIOD.

Checkmate.

 

[Z]

And, btw - digging ditches doesn't give you any more special insights about what a collapse looks like than any one else has. And that's ALL YOU ARE, Chris - a psychotic, paranoid, ignorant, unschooled asshat of a ditch digger, too stupid to realize how useless and wasted his life has been, too much of an ashole to keep a family, and too lazy and worthless to do anything useful about his beliefs.

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

Inappropriate remark removed.

Do not use personal attacks.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

Sorry, Lisa - I shouldn't have called him worthless.

 

[Christophera]

No, I'm getting nasty because I'm tired of talking to someone who's dumb as a stump and crazy as a Frenchman.

My use of information has been quite inclusive. It includes actual construction photographs, videos, and documents which detail steel core columns, not concrete.

You have nothing at ALL that accurately details concrete in the core. Your photographs from the collapse are inconclusive at best, and have other reasonable explanations. And now that a logical explanation has been presented, you're waffling.

I think it's YOU who knows you are wrong - dead wrong. I think you're finally starting to realize that grainy, poor-quality photos showing indeterminable mass are insignificant compared to the wealth of construction photographs, videos, and documents - as well as eyewitness accounts - that render your tales of concrete not only unlikely, but absolutely impossible.

Game, set, match.

So now, unless you can produce images of the concrete during construction, you've lost. PERIOD.

Checkmate.

It's not a game. It was murder and it was 3,000 innocent Americans. It was our rights and freedoms. Sorry your gullibility extends so far to aquiese to nonsense in the face of such serious circumstance.

You have not been comprehensively logical. For the reason that if the steel core columns existed, they would be seen in at least one image of the towers demise, and they are not EVER seen. Those images were the last undeniable evidence of the towers existence.

I've lost nothing. You have lost all the construction images which do show concrete and it matters to you because you believe the lie of the steel core columns. I do not.

You have lost an ability to provide a realistic explanation for free fall as you have not provided an explanation for how 47, 1300 foot columns allow this. I have not because i know they never existed and now that concrete can be fractured easily to fall instantly.

Your loss is your lack of a tool to recover the US Constitution.

Your loss is exemplified by your inability to explain what this is if it is not a concrete shear wall wall holding up an interior box column.

 

[uruk]

The reflections in the stainless doors of the above video at 32 seconds show closely spaced opposing elevator doors of the sky lobby not the wide spacing of homers image. At 28 seconds many doors can be seen as reflections fromthe opposing wall of the sky lobby which was inside the core area.

Chris look at the reflections 35 or 36 seconds into the video. You'll see the the reflection of the closely placed lighting fixtures and door way under the mezzanine walk way.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=5380&d=1170521745[/qimg]

What is being attempted, and it seems to be working, is a bit of confusion.

The below image does not show any elevator doors on the core face.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=5379&d=1170521745[/qimg]

Look at the picture I annotated below. Notice the sizes of the columns on the core wall. See how they alternate between thick and thin? Compare that to the video.

homer has it annotated so but it does not and no entrances can be seen. Far left is one but it is a hallway. The spacing of the relieved, tiled areas between interior box columns is similar to the elevator doors inside the sky lobby and this is where homer and BV attempt confusion.

It's implied between BV's video and homers images that the reflections are the same wall face as homers second image. What we should be seeing in the video if homer is correct is only ONE ELEVATOR entrance in BV's video because the openings in homers image are much further apart.

Granted that the nature of filmaking and editing may have mixed up shots of elevators doors opening and closing on different floors. Seeing as the tower scene takes place on both the lobby, mezzanine, and sky lobby.
Also Chris, have you notice how deep the elevators are in the interior shots? It seems to be at least 5 to 6 people deep. It seems they would'nt leave the space you say there would be if there was a 12 and 17 foot wall of concrete core with the elevators opening in toward the core interior

The lights homer attempts to place as under the mezzanine are inside the sky lobby in the video at 21 seconds and again at 7 seconds. They are too close to both the opposing wall as well as the elevator entrances. There is s single elevator opening shown there but it is much closer than the 50 feet between the core and the perimeter wall.

Chris, you'll notice a second row of closely space lighting fixtures that are closer to the wall under the mezzanine walk way. I pointed them out in the picture below.

If people are that easily deceived, well it is no wonder we're loosing our rights and freedoms at wholesale rates.

Well, people aren't being decieve by your lies and misinterpretations.

My point is that there is 25 feet between the perimeter walls and the narrow end of the core because there is a 17 foot thick wall at the base of the core. See the below image.

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

Sorry Chris, that does not show a 17 foot thick wall. It shows a facade which can be any thickness and set anywhere within the space between the core and exterior wall. You'll have to do better

here is the 17 foot thick wall at the core base with the interior box columns outside the core area. No columns are seen in the core area.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg

Chris, picture does not show any concrete wall there. A higher resolution picture of this portion of the core has already been shown to you and posted earlier in this thread. Shame on you for trying to fool people. But then that's a tatic liars use isn't it Chris.

BV, smith and homer deceptively attempt to make people forget the obviousness of the lobby image above or the 25 feet by attempting to confuse people into believing the video shows elevator entrances on the outside core walls in the lobby. It does not.

Chris, I pointed out at least two attempts by you trying to lie and obfuscate the truth in this post alone. Quit accusing people of doing what you are clearly guilty of yourself.
I think anyone reading through this thread will clearly see through your lies and obfuscations.
You've been caught, You've been proven wrong and mistaken throughout this thread. You've lost. The video drove the last nail through this coffin.
It's sad that you don't know it yet. Or maybe you are continuing your dishonesty.

 

[Z]

It's not a game. It was murder and it was 3,000 innocent Americans.

Yes, committed by extremist Muslim terrorists.

It was our rights and freedoms.

I haven't lost ANY rights or freedoms. NOT ONE.

You have not been comprehensively logical. For the reason that if the steel core columns existed, they would be seen in at least one image of the towers demise, and they are not EVER seen.

No, they wouldn't be seen. In video of three other controlled and uncontrolled collapses of steel structures, I also never saw steel core columns. Why? Because those columns shatter apart and are enclosed in the remaining debris.

This is one of those basic facts you cannot grasp - are not intelligent enough to grasp. When the collapse began, they stopped being 47 1300 foot long columns and instead became hundreds if not thousands of much smaller shards.

You have lost an ability to provide a realistic explanation for free fall

Even after admitting time and again that there was no free fall, nor was it near free fall, you STILL bring this up, again and again.

Stubborn, aren't ya?

as you have not provided an explanation for how 47, 1300 foot columns allow this.

It wouldn't - which is good, because the rate of fall was considerably less than free fall.

I have not because i know they never existed and now that concrete can be fractured easily to fall instantly.

No you don't. You know very little, in fact - demonstrated over and over and over again in this thread.

Steel also can be fractured easily to fall very quickly - and concrete won't even fall quickly.

Your loss is your lack of a tool to recover the US Constitution.

Hmmm... the Constitution is right where it's always been - maybe stretched a little here and there, but I have no problems with it.

Your loss is exemplified by your inability to explain what this is if it is not a concrete shear wall wall holding up an interior box column.

Explained already, dimwhit.

I see the remains of something steel - whether interior structural core column, or exterior support steel, I'm not certain. If anything, I'd call that an image from the demolition showing a steel support column in a state of collapse, and a ton of dust and debris. If anything, that seems to support the official story, not your imagination and lies. Your arrow that you think points to concrete, appears to be pointing to dust. Nothing more.

Seems like an explanation to me.

You're dissociating, Chris, because you know you're wrong, somewhere inside. You know you've dropped the ball. You lost, and you know it, in some strange way.

Your only move now is to keep spewing lies, ad-homs, false accusations, and appeals to emotion.

But as I said before:

unless you can produce images of the concrete during construction, you've lost. PERIOD.

Checkmate, as already pointed out.

 

[Christophera]

Chris look at the reflections 35 or 36 seconds into the video. You'll see the the reflection of the closely placed lighting fixtures and door way under the mezzanine walk way.

homer, I see a man in a blue jacket with no refelction of lights over head at and around 36 and 35 seconds. At 32 seconds I see the lights of the skylobby reflected in the doors. This is easy to tell because the people on the far side are much to large and clear for the 50 feet distance you assert.

At 21 and 20 seconds I see the same lights and at 8 seconds I see them one more time.

What is more for your argument is at 8 seconds and it is more than the lights is the height of the ceiling. However, the camera angle is low which would allow positioning to look down the opposing hallway, through reflection, and across the lobby. As long as these possibilities exist, and they do, your efforts to use such images in this way is not acceptable when quality stills exist showing no elevator entrances.

Your efforts to change/avoid the subject of the 25 foot wide lobby below are noted.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=5380&d=1170521745[/qimg]

You can pretend to have proven there were elevator doors on the outside of the core when all quality still photos, intended to show the lobby and core walls do not show elevators, but that will not bode well for your integrity while I've shown very well there is only 25 feet between the narrow end of the core and the perimeter wall.

What you are really trying to prove you cannot prove so you attempt to make auxiliary points which would preempt my information and the redundant evidence I use to prove the concrete core. That evidence disproves the steel core columns. My evidence is robust consisting of many images which you and yours of the steel core have completely failed to explain from at least 2 perspectives.

Perspective 1: If what is in this image is not concrete what is it?

Concrete Core Of WTC 2​

Perspective 2: How were the steel core columns cut to fall at free fall and to disappear from images?

The invisisteel club has NO EXPLANATION for these factors which absolutely must be explained if FEMA never had,

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html

the plans and the NYC mayor took the WTC documents,

http://www.nyclu.org/g_archive020602.html

and will not return them. Actions that completely support exactly the deception you are adhering to.

 

[Christophera]

So you do concede, then, that a logical explanation for your picture was given, that did NOT involve a concrete core?

No concessions whatsoever.

Not logical and the explanation provided was completely unsupported, which is reasonably very much required

Below is a classic example of manipulative, intellectual dishonesty.

Nah - there's plenty of them. You posted one, in fact.

Here is why. My post explains that the columns in the image are straight.

Notice all the below columns are straight. To get tempered steel columns to shatter you have to bend them hard.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/8748454a8c1e46c64.jpg[/qimg]

The intellectual aspects of dishonesty are demonstrated below. Exactly HOW, under these conditions do steel columns get stressed without bending?

No, you just have to stress the joints beyond their breaking point. No bending required.

(And what makes you think these were tempered steel columns?)

I show what the interior box column ends looked like. The interior box columns did exist as the inside wall of the outer "tube of the tube in a tube" design. The outer tube was a load bearing steel framework and the inner tube was the steel reinforced cast concrete tube that kept the steel aligned in its maximum load bearing position.

In reality the ends of the columns shown in the link below are the ONLY ends I've ever seen for these particular columns.

Notice that the ends of most of those columns look like Sheared Columns.

Below, more intellectual dishonesty. Earlier ZD did not know that arc welding was how steel columns were joined. homer had to post and tell him.

No, they look like columns that sheared at their welds. Pretty consistant with what we know.

Thanks for conceding! There's hope yet.

ZD still hasn't posted any pictures of shattered steel columns of the type he asserts were in the core and I have reasonably asked for them.

Sure is blatantly inadequate that you didn't post any images of shattered columns from ground zero if there are so many.

ZD's post is typical of the deceptive manipulations that comprise all the posts in this thread that are posted by those actually trying to defend the FEMA lie about the core. The very reason there are nearly 11,000 posts in this thread.

 

[Z]

LMAO!

Chris doesn't want facts; he wants pretty pictures.

Imagine if he had tried to go to high school!

Sorry Chris - your lies above are ignored.

Not logical and the explanation provided was completely unsupported, which is reasonably very much required

This perfectly describes your concrete core theory. It is neither logical, nor supported.

So... unless you can produce images of the concrete during construction, you've lost. PERIOD.

 

[Gamolon]

The invisisteel club has NO EXPLANATION for these factors which absolutely must be explained if FEMA never had,

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html

the plans and the NYC mayor took the WTC documents,

http://www.nyclu.org/g_archive020602.html

and will not return them. Actions that completely support exactly the deception you are adhering to.

If the above is true, how do you explain this blurb:

"Several witness commented on the problems the BPAT faced in gaining access to information it required as part of its investigation. The BPAT requested access to the WTC building blueprints, design drawings, and maintenance records. It planned to use these to validate physical and photographic evidence and to develop computer models to explain why and how the buildings failed and how similar failures might be avoided in the future. The BPAT did not get immediate access to the full set of these documents and eventually, FEMA had to intercede on behalf of the BPAT. However, there was a significant delay in FEMA making this request. Mr. Wingo testified that FEMA did not ask the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for blueprints and design
specifications for the buildings until December 21, nearly four months after the disaster, and Dr. Corley testified that the BPAT did not receive full copies of the blueprints and design drawings until January
8."

(Bolding is mine)

This was taken from the following site:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpque...&r_n=hr530.107&db_id=107&item=&sel=TOC_32867&
I've seen a couple other sites saying that there was a delay in getting the blueprints also. Almost 4 months. It seems that not only did BPAT get blueprints to work with, they had help from FEMA. So they were accessible.
I also fail to see what the NYCLU link has to do with obtaining blueprints for the analysis of the collapse. Was the NYCLU in charge of obtaining blueprints for anyone doing analysis or was this link to a different issue altogether.

I guess you can stop posting your links about the blueprints not being accessible right?

 

[Christophera]

LMAO!

Chris doesn't want facts; he wants pretty pictures.

Imagine if he had tried to go to high school!

Sorry Chris - your lies above are ignored.



This perfectly describes your concrete core theory. It is neither logical, nor supported.

So... unless you can produce images of the concrete during construction, you've lost. PERIOD.

You are being selective of evidence when in fact the images of the towers demis provide a far better picture of the core than any construction photo.

Do all the distorting of fact you need to support the FEMA deception. The fact remains that FEMA never had the plans for the towers.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html

The fact remains that the only plans available, albeit obsolete and not used for constrcution are on a CT site.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/masterplan/index.html

The fact remains that the NYC mayor took the WTC documents which includes plans and the courts will not force a return.

http://www.nyclu.org/g_archive020602.html

It's conclusive that the government agancies involved are trying to hide somethign having to do with the design of the towers.

Duh, guess what it is.

Concrete Core Of WTC 2​

The Twin towers had a steel reinforced cast concrete core and it is not I that is guilty of a lie.

 

[Christophera]

If the above is true, how do you explain this blurb:

"Several witness commented on the problems the BPAT faced in gaining access to information it required as part of its investigation. The BPAT requested access to the WTC building blueprints, design drawings, and maintenance records. It planned to use these to validate physical and photographic evidence and to develop computer models to explain why and how the buildings failed and how similar failures might be avoided in the future. The BPAT did not get immediate access to the full set of these documents and eventually, FEMA had to intercede on behalf of the BPAT. However, there was a significant delay in FEMA making this request. Mr. Wingo testified that FEMA did not ask the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for blueprints and design
specifications for the buildings until December 21, nearly four months after the disaster, and Dr. Corley testified that the BPAT did not receive full copies of the blueprints and design drawings until January
8."

(Bolding is mine)

This was taken from the following site:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpque...&r_n=hr530.107&db_id=107&item=&sel=TOC_32867&
I've seen a couple other sites saying that there was a delay in getting the blueprints also. Almost 4 months. It seems that not only did BPAT get blueprints to work with, they had help from FEMA. So they were accessible.
I also fail to see what the NYCLU link has to do with obtaining blueprints for the analysis of the collapse. Was the NYCLU in charge of obtaining blueprints for anyone doing analysis or was this link to a different issue altogether.

I guess you can stop posting your links about the blueprints not being accessible right?

If we could see the plans it would be another story.

Since Dr. Corley is involved, who has basically promoted a fraudulent video on the web (technically he stops short) we will have to view the situation of BPAT and FEMA and Corley as part of a conspiracy coverup.

IT WAS A PUBLIC BUILDING, WE ARE THE PUBLIC. Show US the plans.

 

[uruk]

If we could see the plans it would be another story.

Since Dr. Corley is involved, who has basically promoted a fraudulent video on the web (technically he stops short) we will have to view the situation of BPAT and FEMA and Corley as part of a conspiracy coverup.

IT WAS A PUBLIC BUILDING, WE ARE THE PUBLIC. Show US the plans.

The WTC towers were not public buildings. They were leased by Silverstein and assoc. and space rented to corporations and agencies. The building were made accessable to the public.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein

 

[Z]

Unless you can produce images of the concrete during construction, you've lost. PERIOD.

 

[Gamolon]

If we could see the plans it would be another story.

Since Dr. Corley is involved, who has basically promoted a fraudulent video on the web (technically he stops short) we will have to view the situation of BPAT and FEMA and Corley as part of a conspiracy coverup.

IT WAS A PUBLIC BUILDING, WE ARE THE PUBLIC. Show US the plans.

I thought your contention was that nobody (the public or otherwise) has been able to see the blueprints because the mayor took them and locked them away. Isn't that what you've been saying?

 

[Gamolon]

You know what Chris?

Nobody believes you. Even other CTers. You ask us to provide all kinds of evidence, but the same rules do not seem to apply to you. You continue to regurgitate the same 3 photos of your core, and use a nonexistent documentary as backup proof. You've admitted that you "misinterpreted" photos because of a "lack of sleep". This helps your cause a great deal.

You sir are nothing but a troll.

We have provided more evidence than you ever will. You asked for eyewitnesses of what existed in the towers. We give you one and you say he's mistaken.

I have proven my point as have others that your core does not exist. Our evidence outweighs yours by a ton. I see nobody anywhere excepting your theory at all. It's just you on an island.

Based on what I've seen on your other websites and in this forum, your credibility is severely lacking.

Good luck in finding others to except your theory. You'll need it.