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

[Fizz]

You cannot prove that. It is a lie.

actually, you are the one claiming they are being hidden so its up to you to prove that is still true.

but here's something to keep you busy:
Over time, the records were microfilmed and returned to the city archives. Giuliani aides have bristled at suggestions that documents were withheld, scrubbed of embarrassing details or destroyed.

But "there will always be questions," Freeman added.

The administration of Giuliani's successor, Michael Bloomberg, is confident the records were returned. City archivists echo that assessment but, when questioned, acknowledge the situation is less than definitive.
Giuliani's claim of transparency contradicted by record - USATODAY.com

Your link is pure crap. Nothing about the records mentioned in the NYCLU expose.

NYCLU:

NO ONE CAN GET THE TOWERS OFFICIAL PLANS and you can find no link to locate them.

We get altered, obsolete conceptual drawing from silverstein.

link is CRAP?!!

its a USA Today article about the files you said Guiliani stole. he had them archived and they were returned. you keep claiming the courts are hiding them and all that shit but YOU ARE A LIAR!!!

you can easily get the official plans for the tower. robertson has them. simply pay him for them.

 

[Christophera]

actually, you are the one claiming they are being hidden so its up to you to prove that is still true.

but here's something to keep you busy:
Over time, the records were microfilmed and returned to the city archives. Giuliani aides have bristled at suggestions that documents were withheld, scrubbed of embarrassing details or destroyed.

But "there will always be questions," Freeman added.

The administration of Giuliani's successor, Michael Bloomberg, is confident the records were returned. City archivists echo that assessment but, when questioned, acknowledge the situation is less than definitive.
Giuliani's claim of transparency contradicted by record - USATODAY.com

Your link is pure crap. Nothing about the records mentioned in the NYCLU expose.

NYCLU:

NO ONE CAN GET THE TOWERS OFFICIAL PLANS and you can find no link to locate them.

We get altered, obsolete conceptual drawing from silverstein.

link is CRAP?!!

its a USA Today article about the files you said Guiliani stole. he had them archived and they were returned. you keep claiming the courts are hiding them and all that shit but YOU ARE A LIAR!!!

you can easily get the official plans for the tower. robertson has them. simply pay him for them.

If Robertson had the plans for sale, they would have been purchased, copied and viewable online within weeks of their availability at least in part. If he has them it is only the exterior steel framework.

The opposite of what agents say is most often true. Anyone can read you link and see the truth and know who the liar is..

Your link has NOTHING about the WTC documents, anyone can confirm that. The courts refuse to uphold the FOIL which is violated by the contract between guliani and the city.

So NOW, you've added to the crap by posting what you have!

 

[Fizz]

If Robertson had the plans for sale, they would have been purchased, copied and viewable online within weeks of their availability at least in part. If he has them it is only the exterior steel framework.

proof please. (you are just making shit up again!!!)

The opposite of what agents say is most often true. Anyone can read you link and see the truth and know who the liar is..

Your link has NOTHING about the WTC documents, anyone can confirm that. The courts refuse to uphold the FOIL which is violated by the contract between guliani and the city.

So NOW, you've added to the crap by posting what you have!

the link is ALL the documents you were talking about in your letter from the NYCLU. anyone can see that.

well, except you. you are a delusional moron.

 

[Christophera]

Since the opposite of what agents say is most often true, you are the one making stuff up.

You claim Robertson has plans available, you prove it.

I claim there was a concrete core and I prove it with images from 9-11 as well as independent verifications.

A portion of the top of the WTC 2 concrete core falling onto WTC 3. Inside the perimeter walls is a brownish object. That is the concrete.

There are many verifications and they are consistent. 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.

 

[Fizz]

Since the opposite of what agents say is most often true, you are the one making stuff up.

You claim Robertson has plans available, you prove it.

go to his website and look. he has already provided the plans to FEMA and NIST. make him an offer.

I claim there was a concrete core and I prove it with images from 9-11 as well as independent verifications.

you havent shown ANY pictures of a concrete core EVER.

A portion of the top of the WTC 2 concrete core falling onto WTC 3. Inside the perimeter walls is a brownish object. That is the concrete.

the floors were made of concrete, jitbag.

There are many verifications and they are consistent. 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.

all delusions. robertson doesnt say what you claim he said. you lie....
oxford doesnt say the wtc had a concrete core. it uses the wtc as an example of what a skyscraper is. you lie.
NIST doesnt prove high explosives. you lie.

face it. you are just a compulsive liar. you continually simply make shit up instead of facing reality. tell us again how a paper from 1876 jsutifies you not paying #30,000 of child support!!

 

[Fizz]

find any pictures of a concrete core yet?
find any documentation to your claim of "elevator guide rail support" that you pulled out of your ass?
find any documentation to support your claim that the cores were radically different?
find any pictures of the concrete core getting constructed?
find any building plans for a concrete core?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dB6xdCS9NJU]YouTube - 9/11: Why They Fell pt 2[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqDTEZIdg7g&feature=PlayList&p=A6382FD1025BACE9&index=62]YouTube - WTC 1&2 UNIQUE DESIGN.[/ame]


"For a combination of historical, cultural and economic reasons, tall, concrete-core buildings dedicated to office use are unusual in New York, where builders prefer the wallboard-enclosed cores with steel frames that Mr. Robertson pioneered in the trade center."
New York Timeshere


"Engineers are still debating whether the Twin Towers' unique structure should be credited for surviving the initial crashes, or blamed for collapsing in the subsequent fires, or both. But the point is that it was unique, utilizing closely spaced columns connected to a steel core by relatively lightweight floor trusses. "
Newsweek. Newsweek.com


"Each of the towers, more than 200 ft. wide on each side, contained a central steel core surrounded by open office space. Eighteen-inch steel tubes ran vertically along the outside, providing much of the support for the building"
Time Magazine.TIME.com


"The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry. Worried that the intense air pressure created by the building's high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core. "
engineering.comENGINEERING.com


"Like many high-rises built in the 1960s, the Twin Towers were constructed with their weight distributed between a hollow steel core (containing services like elevators) and steel columns around the perimeter, maximizing open floor space. Many believe the older high-rise design, in which steel columns are often encased in concrete, is more fire resistant.

“A lot of people have told me, ‘You should have used more concrete in the structure,’” said Robertson. However, his chart plotting the strength of steel vs. concrete at various temperatures showed that at the incendiary levels that raged in the towers, the two materials become similarly weak."
Berkeley 04.17.2002 - World Trade Center remembered


"Yamasaki has switched from concrete, his favorite medium, to steel because of the sheer height of the towers, and instead of having the weight of the structure carried by the frame and the elevator core, the great steel columns of the exterior walls will support it."
Time Magazine article from 1964!! Art: Onward & Upward - TIME

 

[DiveCon]

Since the opposite of what agents say is most often true, you are the one making stuff up.

You claim Robertson has plans available, you prove it.

I claim there was a concrete core and I prove it with images from 9-11 as well as independent verifications.

A portion of the top of the WTC 2 concrete core falling onto WTC 3. Inside the perimeter walls is a brownish object. That is the concrete.

There are many verifications and they are consistent. 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.

how many more times are you going to LIE about that photo
you can see floor trusses on that, it is clear to any rational person that that is a FLOOR section

 

[Christophera]

Since the opposite of what agents say is most often true, you are the one making stuff up.

You claim Robertson has plans available, you prove it.

I claim there was a concrete core and I prove it with images from 9-11 as well as independent verifications.

A portion of the top of the WTC 2 concrete core falling onto WTC 3. Inside the perimeter walls is a brownish object. That is the concrete.

There are many verifications and they are consistent. 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.

how many more times are you going to LIE about that photo
you can see floor trusses on that, it is clear to any rational person that that is a FLOOR section

Nope, not floor trusses. Not floors. It is a piece of the perimeter walls stuck under the falling concrete. There is an image of it a hundred or so feet further up and the perimeter wall can be seen not quite in contact yet.

 

[DiveCon]

Since the opposite of what agents say is most often true, you are the one making stuff up.

You claim Robertson has plans available, you prove it.

I claim there was a concrete core and I prove it with images from 9-11 as well as independent verifications.

A portion of the top of the WTC 2 concrete core falling onto WTC 3. Inside the perimeter walls is a brownish object. That is the concrete.

There are many verifications and they are consistent. 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.

how many more times are you going to LIE about that photo
you can see floor trusses on that, it is clear to any rational person that that is a FLOOR section

Nope, not floor trusses. Not floors. It is a piece of the perimeter walls stuck under the falling concrete. There is an image of it a hundred or so feet further up and the perimeter wall can be seen not quite in contact yet.

you are such an idiot

 

[Christophera]

how many more times are you going to LIE about that photo
you can see floor trusses on that, it is clear to any rational person that that is a FLOOR section

Nope, not floor trusses. Not floors. It is a piece of the perimeter walls stuck under the falling concrete. There is an image of it a hundred or so feet further up and the perimeter wall can be seen not quite in contact yet.

you are such an idiot

Are you trying to say this,

is what the WTC 2 core should look like on 9-11?

 

[DiveCon]

Nope, not floor trusses. Not floors. It is a piece of the perimeter walls stuck under the falling concrete. There is an image of it a hundred or so feet further up and the perimeter wall can be seen not quite in contact yet.

you are such an idiot

Are you trying to say this,

is what the WTC 2 core should look like on 9-11?

no, dipshit
that was just a basic diagram of the tube within a tube construction
you just continue to not get it

 

[Christophera]

you are such an idiot

Are you trying to say this,

is what the WTC 2 core should look like on 9-11?

no, dipshit
that was just a basic diagram of the tube within a tube construction
you just continue to not get it

So then this must have been the inner tube after the outer tube fell away.

 

[Fizz]

Are you trying to say this,

is what the WTC 2 core should look like on 9-11?

no, dipshit
that was just a basic diagram of the tube within a tube construction
you just continue to not get it

So then this must have been the inner tube after the outer tube fell away.

your image is of a steel structure are clearly shown in the image below. the fact that you show this picture in which you cant identify what it is instead of my picture which is eaasily identifiable shows what a lying sack of shit you are and will do anything to push your concrete core hoax. you arent interested in the truth. you are only interested in disinformation.

 

[Christophera]

no, dipshit
that was just a basic diagram of the tube within a tube construction
you just continue to not get it

So then this must have been the inner tube after the outer tube fell away.

your image is of a steel structure are clearly shown in the image below.

View attachment 9770

Bwhahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaha you think your pic showing interior box columns surrounding the core is clear? The top cannot even be seen. The upper image of the WTC 2 concrete core is much clearer over all.

Your image does not show the core area. It shows the outside of the core which is the same framework as this image. The spacing between interior box columns and the floor beams confirm it.

 

[Fizz]

So then this must have been the inner tube after the outer tube fell away.

your image is of a steel structure are clearly shown in the image below.

View attachment 9770

Bwhahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaha you think your pic showing interior box columns surrounding the core is clear? The top cannot even be seen. The upper image of the WTC 2 concrete core is much clearer over all.

Your image does not show the core area. It shows the outside of the core which is the same framework as this image. The spacing between interior box columns and the floor beams confirm it.

where is your documentation showing a concrete core surrounded by box columns?

again, you are just making shit up.

there was no concrete core. the pictures both show the collapsing steel core structure of the building.

 

[DiveCon]

your image is of a steel structure are clearly shown in the image below.

View attachment 9770

Bwhahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaha you think your pic showing interior box columns surrounding the core is clear? The top cannot even be seen. The upper image of the WTC 2 concrete core is much clearer over all.

Your image does not show the core area. It shows the outside of the core which is the same framework as this image. The spacing between interior box columns and the floor beams confirm it.

where is your documentation showing a concrete core surrounded by box columns?

again, you are just making shit up.

there was no concrete core. the pictures both show the collapsing steel core structure of the building.

yup he's totally delusional
he posts photos showing steel columns and claims it's concrete

 

[Liability]

Bwhahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaha you think your pic showing interior box columns surrounding the core is clear? The top cannot even be seen. The upper image of the WTC 2 concrete core is much clearer over all.

Your image does not show the core area. It shows the outside of the core which is the same framework as this image. The spacing between interior box columns and the floor beams confirm it.

where is your documentation showing a concrete core surrounded by box columns?

again, you are just making shit up.

there was no concrete core. the pictures both show the collapsing steel core structure of the building.

yup he's totally delusional
he posts photos showing steel columns and claims it's concrete

Yup.

That, in a nutshell, is the essence of all things ChristoFEARa.

And "in a nutshell" is just so appropriate in his case.

 

[Christophera]

where is your documentation showing a concrete core surrounded by box columns?

again, you are just making shit up.

there was no concrete core. the pictures both show the collapsing steel core structure of the building.

yup he's totally delusional
he posts photos showing steel columns and claims it's concrete

Yup.

That, in a nutshell, is the essence of all things ChristoFEARa.

And "in a nutshell" is just so appropriate in his case.

Typical agents. Misrepresenting what I say and the images I post.

This is the west concrete core wall of WTC 1 left of the spire.

This is rebar of the north and west wall.

All the agents can do is try and confuse by misrepresentation or pretend they are confused.

 

[DiveCon]

yup he's totally delusional
he posts photos showing steel columns and claims it's concrete

Yup.

That, in a nutshell, is the essence of all things ChristoFEARa.

And "in a nutshell" is just so appropriate in his case.

Typical agents. Misrepresenting what I say and the images I post.

This is the west concrete core wall of WTC 1 left of the spire.

This is rebar of the north and west wall.

All the agents can do is try and confuse by misrepresentation or pretend they are confused.

more delusional shit from a delusional dipshit

 

[Christophera]

Yup.

That, in a nutshell, is the essence of all things ChristoFEARa.

And "in a nutshell" is just so appropriate in his case.

Typical agents. Misrepresenting what I say and the images I post.

This is the west concrete core wall of WTC 1 left of the spire.

This is rebar of the north and west wall.

All the agents can do is try and confuse by misrepresentation or pretend they are confused.

more delusional shit from a delusional dipshit

That is what the infiltrating perpetrators would need you to say so they can continue with treason.

Since you have NEVER posted an image of steel core columns in the core area, you have no position except of one concealing treason.