Title 18, "Misprision of treason" filed in District Court

[Christophera]

"The Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers" 2 hours in length, produced in 1990 is not on youtube.

What is on youtube is,


Building The Twin Towers World Trade Center - Before 9/11 - Part 2 ...
This documentary was made in 1983 by The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. The Footage shown is from the mid 60's through early 70's and ..

"The Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers" mentioned the 1983 port authority production with CONTEMPT because it misrepresented the towers core just as you and FEMA do.

That is why you MUST show this core structure on 9-11.

 

[Fizz]

"The Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers" 2 hours in length, produced in 1990 is not on youtube.

What is on youtube is,


Building The Twin Towers World Trade Center - Before 9/11 - Part 2 ...
This documentary was made in 1983 by The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. The Footage shown is from the mid 60's through early 70's and ..

"The Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers" mentioned the 1983 port authority production with CONTEMPT because it misrepresented the towers core just as you and FEMA do.

That is why you MUST show this core structure on 9-11.

it wasnt 2 hours, you fucking moron. thats another one of your delusions.

let's take this step by step so even a moron like you can understand it.

you claim there was a concrete core.

you use a documentary as proof of that claim.

you cant show the documentary.

therefore, whether the documentary exists or not is NOT relevant because you can not show what is actually IN the documentary.

its the same thing with your claim of missing documents and building plans. even if there were missing documents and building plans it in no way proves a concrete core. it would only prove things are missing. you make this stupid delusional and illogical leap to "i cant see it" to "that means there is a concrete core" that has absolutely no basis in reality.

you are seriously mentally ill.

 

[Christophera]

This is the independently verified proof.

Robertson is verified by Oxford, verifying Domel who describes a concrete core verified by the image of WTC 2 core, verifying the top of WTC 2 core falling onto WTC 3, the WTC 1 rebar, just after the WTC 1 west core wall is seen in an end view, then, the WTC 1 east shear wall toppling, consistent with interior box columns silhouetted on WTC 1 north core wall, consistent with ground zero showing the WTC 1 north concrete core base wall, 12 foot thick, all supported as clarification of the many confused statements that do mention concrete in the core including the latest revised NIST contracted analysis of free fall by Bazant et. al 6/21/2007, which actually provides an equivalent amount of high explosives needed to create the rate of fall they are attempting to justify with physics. It doesn't work, but at least they won't go down in history as totally supporting the deceptions.

The documentary enables me to use the evidence consistently to DESTROY your lie, the FEMA deception

 

[DiveCon]

<lies and delusional BULLSHIT removed>

not one bit of that is true
you are a fucking LIAR

 

[Fizz]

This is the independently verified proof.

Robertson is verified by Oxford, verifying Domel who describes a concrete core verified by the image of WTC 2 core, verifying the top of WTC 2 core falling onto WTC 3, the WTC 1 rebar, just after the WTC 1 west core wall is seen in an end view, then, the WTC 1 east shear wall toppling, consistent with interior box columns silhouetted on WTC 1 north core wall, consistent with ground zero showing the WTC 1 north concrete core base wall, 12 foot thick, all supported as clarification of the many confused statements that do mention concrete in the core including the latest revised NIST contracted analysis of free fall by Bazant et. al 6/21/2007, which actually provides an equivalent amount of high explosives needed to create the rate of fall they are attempting to justify with physics. It doesn't work, but at least they won't go down in history as totally supporting the deceptions.

The documentary enables me to use the evidence consistently to DESTROY your lie, the FEMA deception

first, you need to look up what the word "verify" means. oxford never verifies your stupid article where the reporter (not robertson) says there was a concrete core. the article was wrong and it was not only never published in the magazine, it was pulled from their website.

second, without being able to show the documentary you can claim it says anything you want. it doesnt make it true. it makes you a delusional asshole. you can claim aliens came down and ate the world trade center for breakfast and your documentary proves it. it doesnt mean its true.

the documentary is available to view on youtube and clearly shows a STEEL CORE. you are just a lying sack of non child support paying shit.

did you figure out how to fit all those elevators into your non-existent concrete core yet?

 

[Christophera]

You are wrong. The Newsweek site still has the story.

'Painful And Horrible' - Newsweek

You have not revealed your source for dimensions. I've shown your link to go to wtc7.net which or 9-11 reasearch, which are not using all the evidence. They are selective and distribute the fake plans without notice that they are in question.

They do not use the only image of a core structure on 9-11 . . . because it deos not agree with FEMA, and they support FEMA.

 

[DiveCon]

You are wrong. The Newsweek site still has the story.

'Painful And Horrible' - Newsweek

that doesnt make it any less WRONG
you pathetic moronic deadbeat piece of SHIT

seems you must have just found that or you wouldn't have been using that web archive all this time


but, it still isnt Robertson's words

 

[Fizz]

You are wrong. The Newsweek site still has the story.

'Painful And Horrible' - Newsweek

You have not revealed your source for dimensions. I've shown your link to go to wtc7.net which or 9-11 reasearch, which are not using all the evidence. They are selective and distribute the fake plans without notice that they are in question.

They do not use the only image of a core structure on 9-11 . . . because it deos not agree with FEMA, and they support FEMA.

you have been given the source for the elevator dimensions. if you dont like them then WHAT'S YOUR SOURCE, JACKASS?!!!!!!

so when was this article published in the magazine?

 

[Fizz]

just found something else your reporter got wrong in your article.....

the article was published on sept 12th, 2001. (24 hours after the event) yet the reporter says 48 hours later he had only gotten as far as tokyo from hong kong.

this reporter have a time machine or what?

 

[Christophera]

Considering the time differences such is understandable.

You have not posted an image from 9-11 of the core FEMA said stood.

I have posted many images of concrete surrounding the core. A portion of the WTC 1 east concrete wall toppling into the empty core.

 

[DiveCon]

Considering the time differences such is understandable.

You have not posted an image from 9-11 of the core FEMA said stood.

it has been posted for you mutliple times
posting it yet again wouldnt change the fact you are totally fucking delusional

 

[Fizz]

Considering the time differences such is understandable.

no, you fucking moron..... asia is ahead of us... not behind.

that would give them 12hours less to make the 9/12 deadline. not 12 hours more!!

 

[Christophera]

Any difference at all can carry/magnify, confuse errors. Not an issue. See the Oxford Illustrated Encyclopedia of Invention and Technology, of 1992. See August Domel, Ph.d SE. PE. who is a structural engineer certified in 12 states. The issue is that you cannot show this core on 9-11. issue

While I can show concrete. The west core wall of WTC 1. The north wall has already fallen and we see the core area.

 

[DiveCon]

Any difference at all can carry/magnify, confuse errors. Not an issue. See the Oxford Illustrated Encyclopedia of Invention and Technology, of 1992. See August Domel, Ph.d SE. PE. who is a structural engineer certified in 12 states. The issue is that you cannot show this core on 9-11. issue



While I can show concrete. The west core wall of WTC 1. The north wall has already fallen and we see the core area.

again, moron, there is NO CONCRETE in the photo

 

[Fizz]

==delusional bullshit removed==

all that crap has been debunked over and over again....

 

[Christophera]

Since you have not posted one image from 9-11 showing this structure ever, and continue to try and pass of images that DO NOT show this structure,

you are proven to be insincere. Since you refuse to recognize violations of law that deprive the public of the building plans and photos of the Twin towers, you are prove to be unconstitutional in your focus. The Constitution and lawful government mean nothing to you.

 

[Fizz]

==delusional bullshit removed==

debunked already

 

[DiveCon]

==delusional bullshit removed==

debunked already

yup, he is totally batshit crazy

 

[Christophera]

Your false social group can do very little with text.

Especially since you attempt to say this is comprised of steel core columns and gypsum fastened to it.

Nonsense.

Here is a video from the south, of the WTC 2 concrete core after the steel has fallen away, taken slightly before the still above. See at 9 seconds the double hallways of the narrow or south end of the WTC 2 concrete core.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhNd48qx684&feature=related]YouTube - WTC 2 collapse from the south, street level[/ame]

The fact of the concrete core is independently verified.

Robertson is verified by Oxford, verifying Domel who describes a concrete core verified by the image of WTC 2 core, verifying the top of WTC 2 core falling onto WTC 3, the WTC 1 rebar, just after the WTC 1 west core wall is seen in an end view, then, the WTC 1 east shear wall toppling, consistent with interior box columns silhouetted on WTC 1 north core wall, consistent with ground zero showing the WTC 1 north concrete core base wall, 12 foot thick, all supported as clarification of the many confused statements that do mention concrete in the core including the latest revised NIST contracted analysis of free fall by Bazant et. al 6/21/2007, which actually provides an equivalent amount of high explosives needed to create the rate of fall they are attempting to justify with physics. It doesn't work, but at least they won't go down in history as totally supporting the deceptions.

 

[DiveCon]

Your false social group can do very little with text.

there is nothing false about it dipshit
we all know you are fucking batshit crazy insane
we also know the WTC towers had STEEL cores