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

[bonavada]

we all know that even if confronted by leslie roberson himself with the WTC blueprints he would claim them fraudulent.

i will resist commenting further in this thread but only now and then add to the multitudinous list below. this may serve the unwary as they enter here.

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?

* 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"
his "17 foot thick concrete wall at the base"
his "layout of the elevators"
his "hidden WTC blueprints" *


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]

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

Since this thread just won't die, I recommend strongly that whenever Chris posts, that the only replies should be this quote!

In the mid-Sixties, the US' main enemies were China, the USSR, North Vietnam etc., all of whom tended to restrict their activities to outside the boundaries of the US. There WAS no domestic terrorist threat on the scale there is today!

So, Chris: why would the US government plan 30 years ahead to destroy the WTC?????

 

[Jennie C.]

Since this thread just won't die, I recommend strongly that whenever Chris posts, that the only replies should be this quote!

In the mid-Sixties, the US' main enemies were China, the USSR, North Vietnam etc., all of whom tended to restrict their activities to outside the boundaries of the US. There WAS no domestic terrorist threat on the scale there is today!

So, Chris: why would the US government plan 30 years ahead to destroy the WTC?????

However, because of the issue brought up by Gamolon, I really would like to know, if the elevators were inside the (non)concrete core, what happens to them (and the people inside) when the core is only 2-foot by 2-foot.

Seems this has never been more apt:
Or this:

 

[Big Al]

I ASKED FIRST... some time soon after this ludicrous CT popped up. So there!

Anyway, Chris will only answer either of these burning questions with:

a) MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS
b) Concrete Core Of WTC2
c) 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS
d) a link to his website.

So, Chris: why would the US government plan 30 years ahead to destroy the WTC?????

 

[Gamolon]

However, because of the issue brought up by Gamolon, I really would like to know, if the elevators were inside the (non)concrete core, what happens to them (and the people inside) when the core is only 2-foot by 2-foot.

Seems this has never been more apt:
Or this:

Chris says that the inside of the core stays straight from bottom to top. The core is situated inside the core columns. The long axis walls are 17' thick concrete at their base and taper to 2' at the top. The short axis wall are 12' thick concrete at the base and taper to 2' thick at the top.

My question was this.

If you are standing on the ground floor/lobby, facing the long axis core, do you have to pass through/into a 17' long corridor to get through the supposed core wall from the lobby to the elevator doors.

Chris's argument were:

1. There is no elevator access from the outside of the core. Elevator access was only available from a central hallway inside the parallel to the long axis wall. This hallway was accessible from through the short axis wall. He sticks to this "fact" even though we have an eyewitness who had been to the towers and said that there was indeed elevator access on the outside of the core.

2. The blueprints I provided links to were from a few years before and he is suggesting that they were changed since that time because of the addition to the core.

Is there anyone else out there who has been to the towers and can say that there was indeed elevator access from outside the core walls along the long axis?

 

[Christophera]

However, because of the issue brought up by Gamolon, I really would like to know, if the elevators were inside the (non)concrete core, what happens to them (and the people inside) when the core is only 2-foot by 2-foot.

Not sure exactly what your question is as there is nthing 2 x 2 involved.

The core was a steel reinforced cast concrete tube and all of the elevators ewre inside of it.

The core was 2 foot thick at the top.

Chris says that the inside of the core stays straight from bottom to top. The core is situated inside the core columns.

The core is the inner tube of the "tube in a tbe" construction. The inner wall of the outer tube, which was a steel framework, had columns which were called "interior box columns". There were no core columns. The 1990 documentary called "The Constrcution of the Twin Towers" mentioned the confusion which existed bevase Leslie Robertson had originally concieved of the towers with steel crore columns.

The long axis walls are 17' thick concrete at their base and taper to 2' at the top. The short axis wall are 12' thick concrete at the base and taper to 2' thick at the top.

It seems as though your axis directions are reversed or lacking. Let me clarify.

The walls along the long axis were 12 foot thick

The walls along the short axis were 17 foot thick.

Both tapered to 2 foot thick at the top.

My question was this.

If you are standing on the ground floor/lobby, facing the long axis core, do you have to pass through/into a 17' long corridor to get through the supposed core wall from the lobby to the elevator doors.

Yes, apply the appropriate direction/wall locations above.

This image I believe is WTC 2, walls along the short axis.

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

Chris's argument were:

1. There is no elevator access from the outside of the core. Elevator access was only available from a central hallway inside the parallel to the long axis wall. This hallway was accessible from through the short axis wall. He sticks to this "fact" even though we have an eyewitness who had been to the towers and said that there was indeed elevator access on the outside of the core.

There may have been access from the hallway across the short access into elevators. I don't know.

Smiths eyewitness account is not supported by the video which has been posted. Still images do not show the elevators he states existed.

2. The blueprints I provided links to were from a few years before and he is suggesting that they were changed since that time because of the addition to the core.

I located the 20 sheets of obsoleted WTC plans I was sent and the date is December 16, 1963. They are the same as can be found here.

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

There was a quote from an article stating that the plans were made available to investigating teams in FEB. of '02. The name Coreley was mentioned and he has produced a fraudulent CGI animation that implies the interior box column and floor beam frames shown here.

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/3396/gjswtc30pt4.jpg

Were actaully a "lattice" box framework that was throughout the core. That assertion is totally unsupported in the plans linked above and no plans showing such have ever been provided.

In the above linked image it is fairly easy to tell that the core area is actually empty (the concrete has just blown up) and that the steel frames standing are a wall and not a framework filling the core area.

Is there anyone else out there who has been to the towers and can say that there was indeed elevator access from outside the core walls along the long axis?

I'm sure there are lots of them but they are afraid to contribute to this truth.

 

[Christophera]

I ASKED FIRST... some time soon after this ludicrous CT popped up. So there!

Anyway, Chris will only answer either of these burning questions with:

a) MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS
b) Concrete Core Of WTC2
c) 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS
d) a link to his website.

So, Chris: why would the US government plan 30 years ahead to destroy the WTC?????

Curious that why would be more important than how because free fall is unexplained as well as pulverization. That, ............ is, ........... illogical, because how will have a great deal to do with who and why.

 

[Gamolon]

The elevators were only accessed from the inside hallways.

There may have been access from the hallway across the short access into elevators. I don't know.

Let's make this easy Chris and focus on one point, that being the elevators, before moving on. You clearly are backpedaling now. First you claim that they were accessed from inside. NOW you aren't sure. Why did you change your mind?

 

[Oliver]

Curious that why would be more important than how because free fall is unexplained as well as pulverization. That, ............ is, ........... illogical, because how will have a great deal to do with who and why.

Chris - seriously. Did you know about the people trapped
in an elevator at the 50th Floor that digged themselfes
out of their trap by removing the "Cheep or Cheapstone"
Walls??? I guess this type of material will indeed turn to
dust if crashed...

ETA:

 

[A W Smith]

Chris - seriously. Did you know about the people trapped
in an elevator at the 50th Floor that digged themselfes
out of their trap by removing the "Cheep or Cheapstone"
Walls??? I guess this type of material will indeed turn to
dust if crashed...

Yeah thats right!!! the window washer trapped in the elevator used a squeegee to scrape his way through 12 feet of concrete!!!! Lucky for him it was between the 4' oc 3" rebar!!. Chris I don't care what pictures of video you think doesn't support how i entered the elevators. When i faced the doors standing inside the elevators I saw by looking up the outside perimeter column trees.

 

[Gamolon]

Another question Chris.

With all of your talk about "raw images", "logical explanations", and "hard evidence", how is it that you can cite a nonexistent documentary for fact when trying to prove your point?

Isn't that a bit hypocritical?

I'll use some of your quotes from previous threads:

Your link doesn't go to an image so your point is not made.

or

You must cite the exact time you think you see this in the video or your words are empty.

or

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

Why do you request that we be "exact" with our evidence, but you don't follow the same rules you put down.

This one quote derails your whole theory:

I saw a documentary 2 hours in length and found that all the images of the towers coming down support what I remember fully.

You're using a nonexistent documentary as the backbone of your theory. Just as you require us to provide you with "raw data", I would expect you to follow your own requirements. So, I need to see the documentary or proof that it existed in order for any of your points to be valid.

Fair enough Chris?

 

[uruk]

Another question Chris.

With all of your talk about "raw images", "logical explanations", and "hard evidence", how is it that you can cite a nonexistent documentary for fact when trying to prove your point?

Isn't that a bit hypocritical?

I'll use some of your quotes from previous threads:

or

or

Why do you request that we be "exact" with our evidence, but you don't follow the same rules you put down.

This one quote derails your whole theory:

You're using a nonexistent documentary as the backbone of your theory. Just as you require us to provide you with "raw data", I would expect you to follow your own requirements. So, I need to see the documentary or proof that it existed in order for any of your points to be valid.

Fair enough Chris?

It's tactic a Chris employs called "moving the goal posts".
He asks for some proof or info, you provide it and then he changes the nature of the original request so he can say that you never provided what he asked for. It's typical of the way Chris debates. It's also a typical response for someone who is cornered.

 

[hcmom]

Chris - seriously. Did you know about the people trapped
in an elevator at the 50th Floor that digged themselfes
out of their trap by removing the "Cheep or Cheapstone"
Walls??? I guess this type of material will indeed turn to
dust if crashed...

ETA:

Oliver... just for your information... Sheetrock^dict

 

[A W Smith]

Oliver... just for your information... Sheetrock^dict

Actually its gypsum board. Sheetrock is a brand name. even though everyone calls it sheetrock. I spec it as gypsum board.

 

[Christophera]

Chris - seriously. Did you know about the people trapped
in an elevator at the 50th Floor that digged themselfes
out of their trap by removing the "Cheep or Cheapstone"
Walls??? I guess this type of material will indeed turn to
dust if crashed...

ETA:

And there was another guy that tried it and hit concrete. They were both using squeegees.

 

[Arus808]

Please provide a citation of that claim.

 

[Zep]

Also, don't forget, folks: Chris is in need of help - he has "issues". That has been amply demonstrated elsewhere in this forum, if you care to look.

This also means his lines or argument are not bound by any rules of logic or sense - he already has "the twoof" in his head, so he works from there backwards to wherever we might be now. And if one route does not work, he simply starts with his "twoof" and works back another way. It makes sense to him!

Personally I suspect he simply isn't even aware that he is moving his own goalposts.

 

[Christophera]

Please provide a citation of that claim.

I looked for it again about a year back and couldn't find it. More removal of supportive evidence for the concrete core.

Digging through drywall to find air in the towers from a stairway was about an 80 percent certainty, judging from the garbage floor plan/stairwell layouts we can find.

How about you come up with images of raw evidence showing some of the supposed 47, 1300 foot the steel core columns? There are hunderds of images of the towers coming down and you should be able to find the columns easily in there, if they existed.

 

[Arus808]

I looked for it again about a year back and couldn't find it. More removal of supportive evidence for the concrete core.

then retract that claim.
also retract your claim of c4 coated rebar (c4 didn't exist in 1967)
also retract your claim of your non-existent book (since Oxford confirmed they didn't even publish a book under that title).

You have a lot of retractions to do..Stop spending time here, and edit your site to reflect that you made numerous errors.

Digging through drywall to find air in the towers from a stairway was about an 80 percent certainty, judging from the garbage floor plan/stairwell layouts we can find.

my my my, did you even bother to read the testimony of the men who were trapped in the elevator and try dig their way out. They only made a "small" hole, enough to alert passing Firefighters (who were going room by room to check for survivors) it was they, who punched through the hole to get them out. And it was the janitor who knew that the wall was only sheetrock.

How about you come up with images of raw evidence showing some of the supposed 47, 1300 foot the steel core columns? There are hunderds of images of the towers coming down and you should be able to find the columns easily in there, if they existed.

There are construction photos that show this. In fact, you are using them in yoru posts and they have been posted through this thread. YOU dig for them. Why repost something that has been posted repeatedly in this thread alone?

Get to work Chris, You have an entire website to edit.

 

[Christophera]

then retract that claim.
also retract your claim of c4 coated rebar (c4 didn't exist in 1967)
also retract your claim of your non-existent book (since Oxford confirmed they didn't even publish a book under that title).

Get real, you have not explained free fall (near is close enough to use that term} and you haven't shown with images of raw evidence that the structure you (fail) claim existed, which by the way, cannot possibly do what what was seen on 9-11.

Oxford is in on the coverup.

Since I linked to the University of north Carolina, they have removed their page that talked about the concrete core.

http://www.unc.edu/courses/2001fall/plan/006e/001/engineering/index.html

Apparently you have no concern for lawful government, fo rthe US Constitution and our rights and freedoms and are all about enabling evasion.

I am not the only one held to standards of accountability in the eyes of the impartial viewer. The invisisteel column group has utterly failed to support that thing they hardly ever mention.

What we hear mostly is "no concrete". Reasonably, the towers did have a core. If it wasn't concrete, then show us the steel columns from images of raw evidence from the towers demise.