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

[kevin]

Note there are no Massive Columns inside the core area. the steel that is there is support for elevator guide rails.


I count at least 6 interior columns in Gravy's picture and that's without zooming into for a closer examination.

As I pointed out at http://noconcretecore.741.com/ elevator guide rails don't get installed during structural installation. They just get in the way, and get damaged. Not to mention they have to be perfectly plumb to the walls and the only way to guarantee that is to wait until the shaft is complete.

[kevin]

My diagram of hallways and interior walls of the WTC 1 steel reinforced concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corehallsdoors.gif) stays as it is and is as finished as it will be.

Have you calculated how thick the ceilings of your hallways would have to be to support 110 floors of concrete wall?

As I state at http://noconcretecore.741.com (just to prove I can abuse links as much as anyone), your design fails on many fronts. First is the problem of the hallways running through the interior walls. that means the ceiling of each hallway has to support all the interior walls (and hallways) above it.

Then there is the entertaining fact that the only way you can get elevators to stop on consecutive floors is top put doors at 90 degrees to each other and exit one floor to the front and one floor to right (and limit yourself to 4 elevator shafts), or have each elevator stop on every other floor. Nobody sane designs elevators like that.

[Regnad Kcin]

Mr. Brown:

Are you feeling well today? Also, would you say that in recent days things have been average, better than average, or worse than average? Remember that things are never as bad as they seem. You can trust me on this.

Please let's continue where we left off with your buildings-fell-in-the-wrong-order claim, which we had been discussing before you were suspended (not banned) here*. I would certainly enjoy the discussion. What do you say?

Also, I remain curious as to your plans for presenting your various materials to one or more professional structural engineers. Will you be doing this soon? Perhaps you could publish in one or more scientific journals.

*In addition, an admission that you were mistaken when you claimed on the phsyorg forum that you were banned, not to mention an apology to me for your unprovoked personal attacks, would be appropriate, don't you think?

[Mancman]

Not to mention they have to be perfectly plumb to the walls and the only way to guarantee that is to wait until the shaft is complete.

Not to mention that elevator guide rails are not usually 52 inches wide.

[Christophera]

If there was a hefty concrete core within the WTC in addition to all those steel core columns, how was this landing gear able to go through straight through the centre of WTC1 and take out a perimeter column tree on the south side of the building?
http://killtown.911review.org/images/wtc-gallery/7-70_tire-embedded-wtc1-panel.jpg

The engines and the landing gear are very close to each other and one engine from each plane punctured the concrete core, both walls as the only projectiles hard enough with enough mass to go through the concrete, The landing gear followed the engine through.

What you were reasonably supposed to do you have not done.

Post an image from the demolitions that shows a steel core column in the core area above ground level.

[Christophera]

I don't see multiple diagonal hallways on each floor in your diagram. Please explain.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044ea70174f256.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044e6c65e64d34.jpg

You should reasonably explain why you expect diagonal hallways. If is from a comment of mine, post a link.

I've never stated such existed. You are posting false information.

[Mancman]

The engines and the landing gear are very close to each other and one engine from each plane punctured the concrete core, both walls as the only projectiles hard enough with enough mass to go through the concrete, The landing gear followed the engine through.

What you were reasonably supposed to do you have not done.

Post an image from the demolitions that shows a steel core column in the core area above ground level.

You are wrong. ONE engine in total went through the buildings, that was from WTC2, it missed the core and went through the corner of the tower, landing on Murrary Street.

At WTC1, the only sizeable aircraft debris that went through the building were pieces of the main landing gears.

So for your hypothesis to have taken place, the engine would have gone through the perimeter wall, through a core of 3 reinforced concrete walls(as indicated by your lovely diagram) and steel columns.

To 'follow the engine through' the landing gear would have to somehow shift 10ft to the side, and go directly through the holes created by the engine. The engine would then have to disintergrate enough to not eject any sizeable pieces into the streets, and in time to let the landing gear go through and hit the perimeter wall, smashing the column tree out of place.

I'm sure even you realise this is impossible, christophera. That landing gear would have to move like the JFK magic bullet.
http://killtown.911review.org/images/wtc-gallery/7-3_wtc1-767-disintegrating-planview.jpg

http://www.airchive.com/airline%20pics/Atlanta%20Compressed/dl%20767-300.jpg

And if this isn't a big bundle of steel core columns, I don't know what is. (http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/Spire_hi-res.jpg)

[rwguinn]

You are wrong. ONE engine in total went through the buildings, that was from WTC2, it missed the core and went through the corner of the tower, landing on Murrary Street.

At WTC1, the only sizeable aircraft debris that went through the building were pieces of the main landing gears.

So for your hypothesis to have taken place, the engine would have gone through the perimeter wall, through a core of 3 reinforced concrete walls(as indicated by your lovely diagram) and steel columns.
Don't forget! 17' thick 3" rebars on 4' centers!

To 'follow the engine through' the landing gear would have to somehow shift 10ft to the side, and go directly through the holes created by the engine. The engine would then have to disintergrate enough to not eject any sizeable pieces into the streets, and in time to let the landing gear go through and hit the perimeter wall, smashing the column tree out of place.

I'm sure even you realise this is impossible, christophera. That landing gear would have to move like the JFK magic bullet.
http://killtown.911review.org/images/wtc-gallery/7-3_wtc1-767-disintegrating-planview.jpg

http://www.airchive.com/airline%20pics/Atlanta%20Compressed/dl%20767-300.jpg

And if this isn't a big bundle of steel core columns, I don't know what is. (http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/Spire_hi-res.jpg)

[Christophera]

You are wrong. ONE engine in total went through the buildings, that was from WTC2, it missed the core and went through the corner of the tower, landing on Murrary Street.

Examine closely what I said. I did not say that any engines that went through the core also went through the building.


The engines and the landing gear are very close to each other and one engine from each plane punctured the concrete core, both walls as the only projectiles hard enough with enough mass to go through the concrete, The landing gear followed the engine through.

Post an image from the demolitions that shows a steel core column in the core area above ground level.

YouAnd if this isn't a big bundle of steel core columns, I don't know what is. (http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/Spire_hi-res.jpg)


The latter, those are interior box columns, floor beams are visible connecting them. Where are the steel columns that are supposed to be inside of those?

[Christophera]

Don't forget! 17' thick 3" rebars on 4' centers!

By the time the landing gear follows the engine through 2 walls about 2.5 thick concrete for WTC 1 (4 feet for WTC 2), with a wave of debris behind it. it could easily shift/deflect 10 feet. Think, it travelled over 208 feet through 3 walls to bounce off the inside of the far perimeter box columns.

[Gravy]

Where are your multiple moving diagonal hallways on each floor, Chris? How many times do I have to ask you?

Answer the question.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044ea70174f256.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044e6c65e64d34.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044e6c6b81fcef.jpg

[Belz...]

The engines and the landing gear are very close to each other and one engine from each plane punctured the concrete core, both walls as the only projectiles hard enough with enough mass to go through the concrete, The landing gear followed the engine through.

So, in your astute opinion the landing gear could've punched through the concrete core TWICE ?

Examine closely what I said. I did not say that any engines that went through the core also went through the building.

So your expert opinion is that the engine went through the core but not the building, providing a perfect corridor for the landing gear, which for some reason FOLLOWED the engine, to go through ? You're just making stuff up.

The latter, those are interior box columns, floor beams are visible connecting them. Where are the steel columns that are supposed to be inside of those?

Sorry, but those are it.

[Gravy]

You should reasonably explain why you expect diagonal hallways. If is from a comment of mine, post a link.

I've never stated such existed. You are posting false information.

Look at the angle of the photo in question, Einstein. It's looking diagonally through the building. As I've explained to you a number of times, this is from video, and as tha camera moves, so do your multiple "hallways" on each floor.

Give it up and seek professional mental health care, Chris. You need it badly.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044ec3fc15d7c2.jpg

[Mancman]

By the time the landing gear follows the engine through 2 walls about 2.5 thick concrete for WTC 1 (4 feet for WTC 2), with a wave of debris behind it. it could easily shift/deflect 10 feet. Think, it travelled over 208 feet through 3 walls to bounce off the inside of the far perimeter box columns.

Christophera, since you seem to love diagrams, I'm sure you'll like this. It took me an entire 4 minutes. :mad:
http://i8.tinypic.com/25fn3n7.jpg
As would have to happen for your theory to be correct.

Your 'following the engine through' theory is ridiculous.
The landing gear alone could not smash through 3 concrete walls and still have the energy to take out the perimeter columns.

Your concrete core theory is null, void. It was a non starter. I hope you can now re-evaluate 9/11, and get on with your life.

[Christophera]

Your 'following the engine through' theory is ridiculous.
The landing gear alone could not smash through 3 concrete walls and still have the energy to take out the perimeter columns.

1.) I did not say "The landing gear alone", I said that the gear followed the engine.

2.) I did not say it "took out" the perimeter columns. I said the opposite, that it stopped short of that.

Your diagram is inaccurate there is an animated .gif that has the impacts of both towers, I've lost the url. butthat shows accurately the entry points and angles which yours does not. WTC 1 left engine did not make it all the way through the core. It encountered the interior walls.

Again, you attempt to deny the existence of what is well docuemented by images of the demolition.

http://concretecore.741.com


Your concrete core theory is null, void. It was a non starter. I hope you can now re-evaluate 9/11, and get on with your life.

To salvage your credibility, try using evidence to support the core you do believe existed BEFORE trying to dismiss well evidenced statements.

[Christophera]

Nothing you post supports that I claimed there were "diagonal hallways." OMG! Yet you post unintelligble, unreferenced images.

Look at the angle of the photo in question, Einstein. It's looking diagonally through the building. As I've explained to you a number of times, this is from video, and as tha camera moves, so do your multiple "hallways" on each floor.


On edit I,ve figured out what you are trying to say.

Consider that hall openings on one core face can be seen through the core wall openings perpindicular and adjacent and that light can pass through them. duh. That must be WTC 2, it had many more openings.

[kevin]

Consider that hall openings on one core face can be seen through the core wall openings perpindicular and adjacent and that light can pass through them. duh. That must be WTC 2, it had many more openings.

Your claim is that the corridors are at 90 degrees to each other. If they are on the same floor (WTC 2 according to you) or on alternate (WTC 1 according to you) floors they won't apper in a photo from the corner. The only way to accomplish this is to have diagonal hallways. Neither building had that.

Further you've yet to explain how one could design elevator shafts that served consecutive floors per your WTC 1 floor plan claim.

Nor have you explained what retard would design a building with interior walls stacked on top of hallways. Calculate the size of the header needed for the ceiling on hallway on floor 1 and you'll see why.

Nor have you explained why the design plans call for concrete floors but do not mention specs for the concrete in the core.

Nor how you support floors with a core that doesn't exist yet.

[Mancman]

1.) I did not say "The landing gear alone", I said that the gear followed the engine.

2.) I did not say it "took out" the perimeter columns. I said the opposite, that it stopped short of that.

Your diagram is inaccurate there is an animated .gif that has the impacts of both towers, I've lost the url. butthat shows accurately the entry points and angles which yours does not. WTC 1 left engine did not make it all the way through the core. It encountered the interior walls.

Again, you attempt to deny the existence of what is well docuemented by images of the demolition.

http://concretecore.741.com



To salvage your credibility, try using evidence to support the core you do believe existed BEFORE trying to dismiss well evidenced statements.

Look at the trajectory the landing gear would have to take for your story to be true - it is not possible.

[Gravy]

[QUOTE=Christophera;1870334Consider that hall openings on one core face can be seen through the core wall openings perpindicular and adjacent and that light can pass through them. duh. That must be WTC 2, it had many more openings.[/QUOTE]
Wrong again Chris. Do you realize that EVERY TIME you've pointed out a particular tower, you've gotten the wrong one? How many years have you been at this?

Now, finally, no more stalling: look at the angle that the large photo is taken from. Did the north tower have six diagonal hallways through the core on each floor? If you believe it did, show me a diagram of how that fit in with the elevators, restrooms, closets, etc.

If you agree that it didn't, then retract your claim that the core was concrete.

No more stalling. Answer the questions directly.

[Gravy]

Your claim is that the corridors are at 90 degrees to each other. If they are on the same floor (WTC 2 according to you) or on alternate (WTC 1 according to you) floors they won't apper in a photo from the corner. The only way to accomplish this is to have diagonal hallways. Neither building had that.

Further you've yet to explain how one could design elevator shafts that served consecutive floors per your WTC 1 floor plan claim.

Nor have you explained what retard would design a building with interior walls stacked on top of hallways. Calculate the size of the header needed for the ceiling on hallway on floor 1 and you'll see why.

Nor have you explained why the design plans call for concrete floors but do not mention specs for the concrete in the core.

Nor how you support floors with a core that doesn't exist yet.
Eminently sane questions, all.

[Woody-]

Christophera, please point out in this picture from your website where the concrete core is being built.

http://concretecore.741.com/images/silhouettenoontosouth.jpg


You claim that the concrete was poured seven or more stories below the top level of construction but the tower on the left shows no visible change in the dimensions of the core below where construction is taking place. Wouldn't the concrete show as being thicker than the "elevator guide rails" and wouldn't there be some kind of a bulge where the forms for the concrete are.

[fuelair]

Maxim:
If a suppossed explantion does not explain the event, it is not the truth. No explanation that does not explain the event can be the truth.

So far no explanation in existence explains free fall and total pulverization of the towers appears to exist. Has anyone seen one?


I haven't even seen a realistic one- but I have no idea what a suppossed explantion is - is it some part of a building.

[Regnad Kcin]

Mr. Brown:

Hello! I hope all is well with you. You can never have enough good days, I'm certain you'll agree.

You seem to have returned in full force to this thread since the recent time you were suspended (not banned*). However, you've not replied to my repeated invitations to pick up our incompleted discussion of your buildings-fell-in-the-wrong-order claim. This saddens me.

Also, when you do reply, please share your plans for presenting your various materials to one or more professional structural engineers. I'll guess there are numerous scientific journals eager to consider your analyses. Frankly, the sooner you do so the better, considering what is at stake.

*In addition, an admission that you were mistaken when you claimed on the phsyorg forum that you were banned, not to mention an apology to me for your unprovoked personal attacks, would be appropriate, don't you think?

[Belz...]

1.) I did not say "The landing gear alone", I said that the gear followed the engine.

2.) I did not say it "took out" the perimeter columns. I said the opposite, that it stopped short of that.

Your diagram is inaccurate there is an animated .gif that has the impacts of both towers, I've lost the url. butthat shows accurately the entry points and angles which yours does not. WTC 1 left engine did not make it all the way through the core. It encountered the interior walls.

But the landing gear and engine aren't aligned. How can the engine carve a path for the landing gear ?

[Christophera]

But the landing gear and engine aren't aligned. How can the engine carve a path for the landing gear ?

The engine punches a hole and there are high strength steel structural elements that connect the engine to the landing gear. The engine drags the landing gear through the hole.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

The engine punches a hole and there are high strength steel structural elements that connect the engine to the landing gear. The engine drags the landing gear through the hole.

Evidence?

[rwguinn]

:jaw-dropp The engine punches a hole and there are high strength steel structural elements that connect the engine to the landing gear. The engine drags the landing gear through the hole.
:dl:

[Metullus]

The engine punches a hole and there are high strength steel structural elements that connect the engine to the landing gear. The engine drags the landing gear through the hole.You are joking, of course! You know little to nothing about aircraft design, do you? You do know that it is not unknown for engines to fall off of aircraft in flight and the aircraft can still land, don't you?

[Belz...]

The engine punches a hole and there are high strength steel structural elements that connect the engine to the landing gear. The engine drags the landing gear through the hole.

:eye-poppi

Pff....P....PPFPHAAHHAHAHAAHAHAH!!!

That's the funniest thing I've read all week!!

Keep at it, chris.

[KingMerv00]

The engine punches a hole and there are high strength steel structural elements that connect the engine to the landing gear. The engine drags the landing gear through the hole.

Bolding mine.

"There are".....not "I think there are"....not "I've heard".....not even "maybe there are".

Such certainty. I'll bet you can name the components that connect the engine to the landing gear, right?

[Christophera]

You are joking, of course! You know little to nothing about aircraft design, do you? You do know that it is not unknown for engines to fall off of aircraft in flight and the aircraft can still land, don't you?

Wow, the relevance of this comment is impressive.

Ya, bolts loosen up and the engines fall out of their mounting cradle which is connected to the wheels. Sure, they might land.

[KingMerv00]

Post deleted.

[Christophera]

Bolding mine.

"There are".....not "I think there are"....not "I've heard".....not even "maybe there are".

Such certainty. I'll bet you can name the components that connect the engine to the landing gear, right?

Sorry, planes are not really my thing. I've known a few aircraft mechanics and discussed the airframe and controls some. Basically irrelevant question.

I don't gamble.

One thing is certain, you cannot find images of the supposed steel core columns, because they did not exist.

[KingMerv00]

Sorry, planes are not really my thing. I've known a few aircraft mechanics and discussed the airframe and controls some.

They are "not your thing" but you feel comfortable making statements about their construction?

Basically irrelevant question.

I'm sorry.....what? My question is irreleveant? How in bloody hell is it irrelevant?

You make claim. I ask you to back up claim.

One thing is certain, you cannot find images of the supposed steel core columns, because they did not exist.

I haven't really followed the whole thread. God is it long. I just jumped in when you asserted your expertise on airplane engineering.

[Ravenwood]

I guess you never looked to see that the landing gear is not attached to the engine nacelles....

[fuelair]

I guess you never looked to see that the landing gear is not attached to the engine nacelles....

I could be wrong, but I suspect he hasn't looked at anything, appears to pull word/concepts out of thin air and.....oh (woopps own head) he's a CTer. Wouldn't know evidence/ engineering if it bit him (this woould be ad hominem if evidence of sapience:rolleyes: :rolleyes: ):D

[Johnny Pixels]

The engine punches a hole and there are high strength steel structural elements that connect the engine to the landing gear. The engine drags the landing gear through the hole.

I love you. Please come and live with me so I can take you to the pub, where you'll sit in the corner, smoking a pipe, and whenever there is a lull in the conversation you can provide us with a "scientific viewpoint" to get us going again:

Christophera:You do realise of course, that the dog fish is in fact, a dog, and not a fish at all?
Johnny's Pub Friends:Marvellous!

[Hellbound]

I love you. Please come and live with me so I can take you to the pub, where you'll sit in the corner, smoking a pipe, and whenever there is a lull in the conversation you can provide us with a "scientific viewpoint" to get us going again:

Christophera:You do realise of course, that the dog fish is in fact, a dog, and not a fish at all?
Johnny's Pub Friends:Marvellous!

He's the Cliff Claven of JREF :)

[Metullus]

Wow, the relevance of this comment is impressive.

Ya, bolts loosen up and the engines fall out of their mounting cradle which is connected to the wheels. Sure, they might land.I think it is relevant. You asserted as a fact that: The engine punches a hole and there are high strength steel structural elements that connect the engine to the landing gear. The engine drags the landing gear through the hole.You have provided no support for this statement. You have not told us how or why there would be such "high strength steel structural elements" connecting engines and landing gear that would cause the engine to drag "the landing fear through the hole".

The plain fact is that if your illusory concrete core was to have been in place you need to account for the trajectory of the landing gear - and you apparently cannot except to say that the egine dragged the LG through the hole. That is its relevance.

[Metullus]

One thing is certain, you cannot find images of the supposed steel core columns, because they did not exist.I have seen in this thread several pictures of the steel core and not a single picture of any concrete core in either WTC1 or WTC2.

I have seen images of the towers that show sunlight shining through the cores - images that could not have been made if the cores were the massive concrete structures you claim them to have been.

I visited the buildings prior to 9/11 on several occassions and never saw anything to indicate that the core structure was a massive concrete element.

I have been involved in the construction business for some 26 years now. I have been involved in the constructuion of large concrete structures, including bridges, marine structures, and buildings. I have also worked on structures that were largely structural steel supported. I have been involved forensically on literally hundreds of construction projects. I have never seen anything as absurd as your claim that the concrete core would follow the floor erection by seven floors. There is no reason whatsoever for any builder to plan his work so and every reason for hiim not to, the most obvious being that without the core in place there is nothing to hold up the floors he is constructing. I defy you to find a single instance of this type of construction scheme on a multi-story building.

Maybe you can find somebody who built a 7 story building by erecting the core last?

Good luck.

[Christophera]

I have seen in this thread several pictures of the steel core

You've said enough to show you don't know what you are talking about.

Firstly you don't know about this forum, you don't post pictures here without jumping through hoops, Meaning my picture of the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) would be a link in the text.

Second, you definetely cannot find poff of the steel core, because it didn't exist. You mght find misinterpreted images of the core are that show heavy columns ringing the core, but no pictures of "the steel core" because the fallacy that is presented is multiple steel core columns.

[Christophera]

I guess you never looked to see that the landing gear is not attached to the engine nacelles....

i guess you never noticed that the nacelle is superflous cover and nothing attaches to it. it attaches to things.

Most importantly is the miscreants here have nver produced a single image of the supposed "steel core columns" which is derived from the demolition images which show it all.

No has any good answer been provided for why the are not seen in this image of the core wall at its base, (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg)

[Brainache]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044e76299ec2b2.jpg


So Chris what is this a picture of?

[Foolmewunz]

Chris,... Bubby!
I'm in agreement with Johnny Pixels, but on the other side of the world, so we may have to up the ante - come on out of the dark and come live with us and we can take you to the pub (my pubs are in downtown Hong Kong, though... think of the untapped audience just across the border... 1.38 billion people.... someone's bound to listen).

I'm sitting in a train on my way to the airport in Hkg, and I just saw a whole bunch of planes. I'm still looking for the one with a landing gear attached to the engine, though. You bring so much joy to so many.

So, seriously, since they're now remaking almost any movie ever made, I've got a couple of good parts for you. I'll give Morty a ring, and we'll set up a screen test, but I'm sure it's gonna work, babe! I can see you now....

"I have to see Judge Wappner. People's Court is on at 2. Judge Wapner. People's Court. 2 O'clock. Two inch rebar on four inch centers. 2 o'clock. People's Court. Have to see People's Court. Two inch rebar. Read my proof here. Free Fall. Nearly Free Fall. Two inch rebar. Nearly free fall. Free fall. Two inch rebar on four inch centers. My proof is here. People's Court is on at 2 o'clock. Have to see People's Court. People's Court that's Judge Wapner. Yeah. Judge Wapner. Free Fall. Not what I said. Not what I said. I said nearly free fall. Not what I said. People's Court. Two inch rebar. Free Fall. Read my proof."

You get out to the coast often? Next Thursday we're looking at some properties. But, I'll be in the lobby of the Beverly Wilshire at four, okay? Have your girl call my girl, we'll set it up. (You got an agent, yet...? It's okay, Sweetie, I'll talk to Bernie at IMF....)

[Metullus]

You've said enough to show you don't know what you are talking about.
And what, pray tell, have I said that suggests that I don't know what it is that I am talking about?

Firstly you don't know about this forum, you don't post pictures here without jumping through hoops, *snip
It is amazing how many people manage to post on this forum without violating rules, isn't it? I have not been tripped up by the many hoops through which we must here jump, but I am an amazing agile guy now that I think of it.

Meaning my picture of the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) would be a link in the text.Which is the problem with which you still have failed to come to grips: your pictures do not show what you think they show.

Second, you definetely cannot find poff of the steel core, because it didn't exist. You mght find misinterpreted images of the core are that show heavy columns ringing the core, but no pictures of "the steel core" because the fallacy that is presented is multiple steel core columns.Maybe the difference is our experience: I have seen reinforced concrete structures built and I have seen structural steel buildings built. I have done the planning for their construction. I have built the schedules used in their construction. I know structural steel elements when I see them. I know that the design you suggest for the core (17 ft thick with 3" resteel on 4' centers) is ludicrous. I know that the core design you propose is inconsistant with my own experience and with the images presented in this thread. I know that the construction sequence that you assert was employed (the structural reinforced concrete core following deck installation by 7 floors) is, in all probabilty, effectively impossible to execute. I know electric conduit when I see it. I know, absolutely, that you have never presented here any evidence of a concrete core. I have, however, seen evidence of a steel supporting structure: Structural (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1665055#post1665055) Steel (http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044e76299ec2b2.jpg)

In two weeks I will be in New York meeting with a couple of structural engineers who have some knowledge of the buildings. They will, I am certain, be interested in your theories.

[R.Mackey]

The engine punches a hole and there are high strength steel structural elements that connect the engine to the landing gear. The engine drags the landing gear through the hole.

OH, MAN, I could not believe this one.

Even aircraft with internally mounted engines don't have a direct linkage between them and the landing gear. I've worked with F/A-18's, for instance, which have inordinately strong landing gear (being a Navy carrier plane), and there is no such linkage. Vibration, and the requirement to service engines will absolutely forbid this on any aircraft.

Unless you mean "the fuselage." I.e. the engine "drags" the entire aircraft, in one piece, through the hole...

That structure wouldn't be made of concrete, would it?

Do some research, you loon. I doubt you've ever even seen an airplane after that comment.

[Christophera]

And what, pray tell, have I said that suggests that I don't know what it is that I am talking about?

Since you are not posting any images yourself, it's clear.

Your link was the typical misinterpreted construction photo. This is the Crane Tower and interior box columns "Massive columns" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) of one of the WTC towers. Notice there are no heavy columns inside the core area.

Notice there are no heavy columns inside the core area in this image of the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg). This is an absolutely verfiable image in that it has no core columns. Anyone with experience in heavy steel and concrete can confirm that this shows what can only be rebar.

Since you are arguing here in the way you are, you are not that kind person. So come up with images from the demolition which cannot be misinterpreted if you wish credibility.

[Regnad Kcin]

Mr. Brown:

I'm waiting for you to answer.

- Wouldn't you like to pick up where we left off with your towers-fell-in-the-wrong-sequence claim?
- Will you retract your claim that you were banned from this forum?
- What are your plans for presenting your evidence to one or more scientific journals?
- Will you apologize for your unprovoked attack on me?

[Metullus]

Since you are not posting any images yourself, it's clear.I am judging based upon the evidence presented and my own experience. If you have other evidence please present it.

Your link was the typical misinterpreted construction photo. This is the Crane Tower and interior box columns "Massive columns" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) of one of the WTC towers. Notice there are no heavy columns inside the core area.The photo shows what appear to be 4 tower cranes at each corner of a structural steel core under construction. This is exactly what I would expect to see.

Notice there are no heavy columns inside the core area in this image of the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg). This is an absolutely verfiable image in that it has no core columns. Anyone with experience in heavy steel and concrete can confirm that this shows what can only be rebar.There is no way whatsoever that you could identify resteel of any diameter at the distance from which the photo was taken. This has been explained to you in terms that my ten year old daughter understands.

How do you suppose that what must be several score feet of resteel could be standing unsupported as your interpretation of the photograph would have us believe? Are you suggesting that the contractor somehow got his hands on 100ft strands of 3" resteel and used them to reinforce the concrete core walls? How did he get them into the building? Where is the horizontal resteel that should be tied to the vertical pieces? Why is there no concrete glinging to the resteel?

Your image is not at all conclusive, indeed, it is not of sufficient clarity or resolution to identify anything of such a small dimension as 3".

Since you are arguing here in the way you are, you are not that kind person. So come up with images from the demolition which cannot be misinterpreted if you wish credibility.I have never claimed to be kind. And, as I know has been pointed out to you on more than several occaisions in this thread alone, it is you who is making the claim; it is you who must provide the evidence in support of your claim. This you have failed to do, and spectacularly so.

[Cuddles]

Get Evidence To Get Credibility

Just out of interest, do you ever read you own posts?

[Belz...]

Your link was the typical misinterpreted construction photo. This is the Crane Tower and interior box columns "Massive columns" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) of one of the WTC towers. Notice there are no heavy columns inside the core area.

Why would there be ? The ones on the perimeter of the core are enough. Look at how massive they are.

Notice there are no heavy columns inside the core area in this image of the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS. This is an absolutely verfiable image in that it has no core columns. Anyone with experience in heavy steel and concrete can confirm that this shows what can only be rebar.

Bolding mine. I knew something was missing to my week.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Christophera,

Please provide objectively verifiable evidence, and not subjective interpretations of photographs; or kindly shut the hell up.

[Gravy]

Chris,
For months you've been running away from answering my direct questions. Here's a repost in case you missed this last time.

Please be a responsible adult and answer these simple questions.

Consider that hall openings on one core face can be seen through the core wall openings perpindicular and adjacent and that light can pass through them. duh. That must be WTC 2, it had many more openings.
Wrong again Chris. Do you realize that EVERY TIME you've pointed out a particular tower, you've gotten the wrong one? How many years have you been at this?

Now, finally, no more stalling: look at the angle that the large photo is taken from.

Did the north tower have five or six or more diagonal hallways through the core on each floor? If you believe it did, show me a diagram of how that fit in with the elevators, restrooms, closets, etc.

If you agree that it didn't, will you retract your claim that the core was concrete?

No more stalling. You've been running from me for months. Answer the questions directly.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_879044ec3fc15d7c2.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_879044e6c65e64d34.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_879044ea70174f256.jpg

[MRC_Hans]

Just popping in on this never-ending thread. I'm a little puzzled as it appears to me that you have been discussing the structural details of the WTC towers endlessly, based on fuzzy photos.

Excuse me, but there must exist documentation of how the towers were constructed. There must be construction drawings, fire safety drawings, structure security drawings, etc. etc. Aren't they publicly available?

Hans

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Just popping in on this never-ending thread. I'm a little puzzled as it appears to me that you have been discussing the structural details of the WTC towers endlessly, based on fuzzy photos.

Excuse me, but there must exist documentation of how the towers were constructed. There must be construction drawings, fire safety drawings, structure security drawings, etc. etc. Aren't they publicly available?

Hans

To my understanding they are not publicly available. Iirc, Mayor Giuliani took possession of them from the Port Authority and they are not public record. I could well be mistaken though. Besides, even if they were viewable, Christophera would either (a) miread them or (b) claim they were doctored/forged/etc

[Johnny Pixels]

Just popping in on this never-ending thread. I'm a little puzzled as it appears to me that you have been discussing the structural details of the WTC towers endlessly, based on fuzzy photos.

Excuse me, but there must exist documentation of how the towers were constructed. There must be construction drawings, fire safety drawings, structure security drawings, etc. etc. Aren't they publicly available?

Hans

These are the best I've found so far:

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

[kevin]

These are the best I've found so far:

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

Those plans are NOT any kind of design or structural drawings (and only a few floors, mostly the mechanical spaces, are covered). You don't build a building from the masterplan and they can be out of sync from what was actually built (unless they are as-built which these don't appear to be).

The NIST report has better construction and strcutural plans and notes from the specifications in it.

Unfortunately a complete set of plans (probably several thousand sheets) is unavailable to the public.

[Christophera]

http://www.infoplease.com/biography/var/rudolphgiuliani.html

Just popping in on this never-ending thread. I'm a little puzzled as it appears to me that you have been discussing the structural details of the WTC towers endlessly, based on fuzzy photos.

Excuse me, but there must exist documentation of how the towers were constructed. There must be construction drawings, fire safety drawings, structure security drawings, etc. etc. Aren't they publicly available?

Hans

The mayor has the WTC docs, including the plans in his personal warehouse and will not release them.

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

This is from the documentary I viewed in 1990:

In the beginning, when the towers started to leave the ground, the concrete contractors were not even allowed to take the plans home at night. Lawsuits were threatened. Finally they were allowed to check them out for 5 days at a time but had to sign an agreement to not copy them or allow them to be copied.

Seventeen years after the towers were built PBS made the documentary. Videographers were given a list of engineering companys that were contracted with to provide services. One company contacted on the last pass to glean info on the floors came up with a detail that showed a tempered steel plate filling the corener truncation of the floor panels. The clearance between the plate and the interior box column was 0.040". To hold those tolerences the plate had to be machined. The cost was huge. The videograpers asked the PA about it.
The PA was upset that the information had been sourced as they considered it to confidential originally and told the videographers who included the fact in the narration.
The PA when asked why, "The plates had such tight tolerences" were told that the plates were need to be that way to make a better connection between the final concrete floor diaphram and interior box columns.

When I remembered that detail about a year ago I added a diagram to show the function of the precision plates ascutting charges built into the floors (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1233383) to explain the perfectly sheared columns.

[Darth Rotor]

Those plans are NOT any kind of design or structural drawings (and only a few floors, mostly the mechanical spaces, are covered). You don't build a building from the masterplan and they can be out of sync from what was actually built (unless they are as-built which these don't appear to be).

The NIST report has better construction and strcutural plans and notes from the specifications in it.

Unfortunately a complete set of plans (probably several thousand sheets) is unavailable to the public.
Is this due to fear of liability claims? Given the fact of the building no longer being in existence, I am curious at this course of action.

It doesn't take much of a leap to go from this document handling to "cover up!" in the mind of even the mildest skeptic.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Those plans are NOT any kind of design or structural drawings (and only a few floors, mostly the mechanical spaces, are covered). You don't build a building from the masterplan and they can be out of sync from what was actually built (unless they are as-built which these don't appear to be).

The NIST report has better construction and strcutural plans and notes from the specifications in it.

Unfortunately a complete set of plans (probably several thousand sheets) is unavailable to the public.
Was NIST given access to the blueprints, floor by floor? Or did they have to guess? How about the 9-11 Comission?

DR

[KingMerv00]

Was NIST given access to the blueprints, floor by floor? Or did they have to guess? How about the 9-11 Comission?

DR

They HAD to have been handed over. If they didn't they would've brought them to court. No court in the land would let them keep those specs secret during an investigation.

[kevin]

Was NIST given access to the blueprints, floor by floor? Or did they have to guess? How about the 9-11 Comission?

DR

I believe they had the entire set, including as-builts and modifications (there is a list of what floors had significant structural changes to them. A couple had some pretty big holes punched in the floors.)

However the port authority only authorized publication of some of the plans. I believe NIST report published fairly typical plans most of the floor types (the floors for elevator/mechanical/electrical equipment were beam framed instead of joists and had thicker concrete floors, etc....)

Not sure 9/11 commission had the plans, but if they did I doubt they knew how to read them. They weren't the engineering study.

[gumboot]

OH, MAN, I could not believe this one.

Even aircraft with internally mounted engines don't have a direct linkage between them and the landing gear. I've worked with F/A-18's, for instance, which have inordinately strong landing gear (being a Navy carrier plane), and there is no such linkage. Vibration, and the requirement to service engines will absolutely forbid this on any aircraft.


To be fair it's quite common for low-wing multi engine turboprops and older multi engine piston aircraft to locate the main undercarriage in the inboard engine housings.

Think P3 Orion, Avro Lancaster, P38 Lightning, etc...

Although I'm pretty sure a 767 doesn't fit into that category...:rolleyes:

-Andrew

[KingMerv00]

To be fair it's quite common for low-wing multi engine turboprops and older multi engine piston aircraft to locate the main undercarriage in the inboard engine housings.

Think P3 Orion, Avro Lancaster, P38 Lightning, etc...

Although I'm pretty sure a 767 doesn't fit into that category...:rolleyes:

-Andrew

Aren't we discussing 757's?

[gumboot]

Aren't we discussing 757's?


AA11 and UA175 were 767s. UA93 and AA77 were 757s.

-Andrew

[Christophera]

Well, ........ I just received this, which I guess has been circulating some.


Hello Judson and Jim!

I am a retired Mechanical Engineer (BME U of MN 1961) who practiced as a
Professional Engineer in Minnesota for 27 years.

I have witnessed the implosion of two high rise concrete-steel buildings in
person. My first thought when I saw the first WTC tower collapse was,
"That is a controlled demolition". I had second thoughts when I realized
how much smoke and dust had been created. The demolitions I witnessed did
not have all that smoke and dust.

I have since learned that the original steel and rebar in those building
was coated with special type of corrosion inhibitor that required special
contractors and high security during the coating. It turns out that
coating was the plastic explosive C4 that the Navy Seals use to blow up
underwater steel and concrete barriers. It turns them to powder and naked
steel just like the 3 WTC buildings.

I heard that submarine pens and missile silos used this construction in
case an enemy had captured one of these facilities. They could be
destroyed with one coded phone call.

I called a fraternity brother, Theta Tau - the largest engineering
fraternity in the USA, who had done work on the missiles silos in N. and S.
Dakota during the 1960's. He affirmed that such construction was used in
building those missile silos so that they could be "pulled" with a coded
phone call.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

[Gravy]

Still running away, you cowardly concrete curmudgeon?

Did the north tower have five or six or more diagonal hallways through the core on each floor? If you believe it did, show me a diagram of how that fit in with the elevators, restrooms, closets, etc.

If you agree that it didn't, will you retract your claim that the core was concrete?

No more stalling. You've been running from me for months. Answer the questions directly. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1874491&postcount=2553

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Well, ........ I just received this, which I guess has been circulating some.


Hello Judson and Jim!

I am a retired Mechanical Engineer (BME U of MN 1961) who practiced as a
Professional Engineer in Minnesota for 27 years.

I have witnessed the implosion of two high rise concrete-steel buildings in
person. My first thought when I saw the first WTC tower collapse was,
"That is a controlled demolition". I had second thoughts when I realized
how much smoke and dust had been created. The demolitions I witnessed did
not have all that smoke and dust.

I have since learned that the original steel and rebar in those building
was coated with special type of corrosion inhibitor that required special
contractors and high security during the coating. It turns out that
coating was the plastic explosive C4 that the Navy Seals use to blow up
underwater steel and concrete barriers. It turns them to powder and naked
steel just like the 3 WTC buildings.

I heard that submarine pens and missile silos used this construction in
case an enemy had captured one of these facilities. They could be
destroyed with one coded phone call.

I called a fraternity brother, Theta Tau - the largest engineering
fraternity in the USA, who had done work on the missiles silos in N. and S.
Dakota during the 1960's. He affirmed that such construction was used in
building those missile silos so that they could be "pulled" with a coded
phone call.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

Without the name of the alledged engineer; so that it can be verified in the state he/she is registered with; this is nothing more than anecdotal evidence, and of no value.

[R.Mackey]

Well, ........ I just received this, which I guess has been circulating some.

[Ridiculous Internet tall tale deleted]
Wow. What a coincidence. I just received THIS:

"Did you know that some people will believe anything they read on the Internet, no matter how loopy? I don't mean simple things like 'if you reply to this chain letter, Bill Gates will donate a dollar to cancer research,' I mean hardcore stupidity -- you name it! The crazier the better! It's true!"

Mystery explosives, mixed in with building materials, lying hidden for decades, able to survive plane crashes and raging infernos, detonating at the whim of a distant telephone, leaving no trace of their existence and ruin in their wake.

Great Ceaesar's Ghost. I'm amazed you're able to walk down the street without fearing for your life.

[Regnad Kcin]

Mr. Brown:

You do realize the more outrageous the claim, the more proof is required, yes? And considering yours are some of the most outrageous of all...

Oh, and by the way, your "retired mechanical engineer" story was the capper on what has surely been one of the best days I've had in awhile. Thanks!

[Christophera]

Still running away, you cowardly concrete curmudgeon?

Did the north tower have five or six or more diagonal hallways through the core on each floor? If you believe it did, show me a diagram of how that fit in with the elevators, restrooms, closets, etc.

If you agree that it didn't, will you retract your claim that the core was concrete?

No more stalling. You've been running from me for months. Answer the questions directly. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1874491&postcount=2553

Gravy,
I've answered that question and you know it. The photo you refer to shows light entering through the hallway openings on perpindicular faces of the tubular core. Only WTC 2 can do that, ......... although thinking about that, 1 might too depending on the elevation.

Do you even know which tower your picture is from?

[Christophera]

Mr. Brown:

You do realize the more outrageous the claim, the more proof is required, yes? And considering yours are some of the most outrageous of all...

Oh, and by the way, your "retired mechanical engineer" story was the capper on what has surely been one of the best days I've had in awhile. Thanks!

Mr. Peabody: PROF. of human psychology, herrmann goering school of business.

Consider this you fleabag, apply your maxim to the governments claim and look how much evidence they shipped off the continent.

f,nnnnn hipocryte.

[gumboot]

Gravy,
I've answered that question and you know it. The photo you refer to shows light entering through the hallway openings on perpindicular faces of the tubular core. Only WTC 2 can do that, ......... although thinking about that, 1 might too depending on the elevation.

Do you even know which tower your picture is from?


I think you missed his point. The light MOVES. It can't do that, unless the concrete core of the WTC also includes a complicated series of prisms.

The logical explanation is the core is not solid.

-Andrew

[Christophera]

Mystery explosives, mixed in with building materials, lying hidden for decades, able to survive plane crashes and raging infernos,

You display your ignorance. High explosive are not detonated by fires and plane crashes.

[Christophera]

I think you missed his point. The light MOVES. It can't do that, unless the concrete core of the WTC also includes a complicated series of prisms.

The logical explanation is the core is not solid.

-Andrew

No, the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is tubular.

[Gravy]

Gravy,
I've answered that question and you know it. The photo you refer to shows light entering through the hallway openings on perpindicular faces of the tubular core. Only WTC 2 can do that, ......... although thinking about that, 1 might too depending on the elevation.

Do you even know which tower your picture is from?

Yet another lie. You have not answered the question.

I've told you twice already that it's the north tower. As always, you can't even get that straight.

So you DO believe that there were 5, or 6 or more diagonal hallways through the core on each floor?

Show me your diagram. Now. Stop running like a scared little boy and do it.

If you cannot, then stop claiming the core was concrete. That's fair enough, isn't it?

Then do it.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_879044e6c65e64d34.jpg

[gumboot]

You display your ignorance. High explosive are not detonated by fires and plane crashes.

You claimed it was C-4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-4_%28explosive%29), correct?

C-4 is also well known for its durability, reliability, and safety. It will not explode even if hit by a bullet, punched, cut, or thrown into a fire. The only reliable method for detonation is via a detonator or blasting cap. However, applying pressure in combination with heat can often cause detonation.

Because C-4 burns slowly if a started explosion is not feeding it, during the Vietnam War era, many soldiers would use small amounts of C-4 as means of heating rations while on long patrols. While many soldiers were able to use C-4 in this manner safely, there are several anecdotes about soldiers attempting to put out the fire by stomping on it and causing it to detonate.


I wouldn't be as confident of success.

-Andrew

[Christophera]

Without the name of the alledged engineer; so that it can be verified in the state he/she is registered with; this is nothing more than anecdotal evidence, and of no value.

Consider that the situation will mature and that information will be available, or confirmation from other, verifiable sources will become available. Personally I knew it was going to happen sooner or later. There were many people involved with building the silos and sub bases.

The engineering technology developed was EXACTLY what was used at the WTC
(http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html).

[Christophera]

You claimed it was C-4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-4_%28explosive%29), correct?



I wouldn't be as confident of success.

-Andrew

It burns really well. Sure, it is possible, but not very. Containment can create pressures.

[Regnad Kcin]

Mr. Brown:

Your continued high level of stress can't be good for you. Perhaps it's time to relax with a hot cup of tea and some delicious ladyfingers.

When you return, these questions will be waiting:

- Wouldn't you like to pick up where we left off with your towers-fell-in-the-wrong-sequence claim?
- Will you retract your claim that you were banned from this forum?
- What are your plans for presenting your evidence to one or more scientific journals?
- Will you apologize for your unprovoked attack on me?

[Gravy]

Consider that the situation will mature and that information will be available, or confirmation from other, verifiable sources will become available. Personally I knew it was going to happen sooner or later. There were many people involved with building the silos and sub bases.

The engineering technology developed was EXACTLY what was used at the WTC
(http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html).
Really? I suggest you check the shelf life of sealed C-4 and report back to us.

I also suggest you, who claim experience with concrete construction, spend at least a half-second pondering the structural integrity of concrete that poured around steel that's covered with a large amount of plastic explosive.

This theory may be the dumbest thing I have ever heard in my life.

[Christophera]

Gravy,

What problem do you have a problem with the concept of looking diagonally through openings on perpindicular faces of a box? WTC 2 was a box with 8 openings around it.

considering how badly you botched your attempt to show which tower the core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) was of. I've always said I don't know. I think WTC 2. So you will have to prove how you know that is the north tower.

If you can't handle the concept of looking diagonally through a box, I wouldn't be surprised.




Yet another lie. You have not answered the question.

I've told you twice already that it's the north tower. As always, you can't even get that straight.

So you DO believe that there were 5, or 6 or more diagonal hallways through the core on each floor?

Show me your diagram. Now. Stop running like a scared little boy and do it.

If you cannot, then stop claiming the core was concrete. That's fair enough, isn't it?

Then do it.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_879044e6c65e64d34.jpg

[Gravy]

Gravy,

What problem do you have a problem with the concept of looking diagonally through openings on perpindicular faces of a box? WTC 2 was a box with 8 openings around it.

considering how badly you botched your attempt to show which tower the core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) was of. I've always said I don't know. I think WTC 2. So you will have to prove how you know that is the north tower.

If you can't handle the concept of looking diagonally through a box, I wouldn't be surprised.

Stop running like a baby and show me the diagram of the 5, 6, or more diagonal hallways on each floor, Chris. Now.

BTW, I showed you about 10 times that the core section you refer to is from the north tower.

Why do you lie like this? What do you gain by that behavior?

[Gravy]

Gravy,
So you will have to prove how you know that is the north tower.

I've told you several times the pictures are stills from the Ric Burns video "New York." See, Chris, unlike you I'm able to provide the title of the video! How about that! It isn't just a figment of my imagination! I told you long ago to watch it, because it contains many sequences of the tower construction with the core of steel columns and no concrete, interviews with Leslie Robertson, etc.

Why haven't you watched it? What are you afraid of? Seriously, what are you afraid of? It's not as if the lack of a concrete core is the end of civilization. Just stop posting about it on the internet. Find another cause to promote. Won't it feel good to stop lying?

[Belz...]

I have since learned that the original steel and rebar in those building
was coated with special type of corrosion inhibitor that required special
contractors and high security during the coating. It turns out that
coating was the plastic explosive C4 that the Navy Seals use to blow up
underwater steel and concrete barriers. It turns them to powder and naked
steel just like the 3 WTC buildings.

Now, I'm sure everybody and their mother's asked this, by now... but...

EVIDENCE ?

Where did he "learn" this ?

[Belz...]

You display your ignorance. High explosive are not detonated by fires and plane crashes.

Tell that to nitroglycerin.

Consider that the situation will mature and that information will be available, or confirmation from other, verifiable sources will become available. Personally I knew it was going to happen sooner or later. There were many people involved with building the silos and sub bases.

Uh-huh. Oh, and I'm still wondering how they poured that invisicrete(tm) into the building...

If you can't handle the concept of looking diagonally through a box, I wouldn't be surprised.

Eddamn it.

Look at the following diagram. If the hallways are straight, and the observer even slightly to the side, how the hell can he see through the concrete core ?

[Gravy]

B]how the hell can he see through the concrete core ?[/B]
If you couldn't see through it, it wouldn't be INVISICRETETM.

[Hellbound]

You display your ignorance. High explosive are not detonated by fires and plane crashes.

And you display your appaling ignorance, in presuming to correct others without having knowledge yourself, as well as your utter intellectual dishonesty, in the fact that you obviously have not done even the basic research that would give you an ounce of credibility on the subject.

C-4 is highly flammable, and will burn hotly. It won't survive fire.

[kevin]

Well, ........ I just received this, which I guess has been circulating some.

It has? Interesting that nobody seems to have posted a copy to the web. Googling for the text of the message turns up nothing, not even from other conspiracy sites. You must have different definitions of the word "circulating"


Hello Judson and Jim!


Anonymous message sent to anonymous people. And here I thought quoting a grade school was poor research.

I am a retired Mechanical Engineer (BME U of MN 1961) who practiced as a Professional Engineer in Minnesota for 27 years.

No proof of this being true offered. Anonymous note sent to anonymous people with anonymous credentials. By the way, if this person is on a first name basis with the receivers of the letter why do they have provide their credentials at all? Wouldn't they already know?

I have witnessed the implosion of two high rise concrete-steel buildings in person.
Witnessing an event does not make you an expert in an event. And witnessing one twice doesn't make you twice the expert.

My first thought when I saw the first WTC tower collapse was,
"That is a controlled demolition".

How many un-controlled demolitions had this person seen to compare it too?

I had second thoughts when I realized how much smoke and dust had been created. The demolitions I witnessed did not have all that smoke and dust.

And watching 2 demolitions makes one a expert.

I have since learned that the original steel and rebar in those building was coated with special type of corrosion inhibitor that required special contractors and high security during the coating.

An anonymous note sent to anonymous people with anonymous credentials citing anonymously learned facts. That grade school report is looking better and better.

It turns out that coating was the plastic explosive C4 that the Navy Seals use to blow up underwater steel and concrete barriers. It turns them to powder and naked steel just like the 3 WTC buildings.

And of course watching two controlled demolitions makes one an expert in C4.

I heard that submarine pens and missile silos used this construction in case an enemy had captured one of these facilities. They could be destroyed with one coded phone call.

Sure hope the bad guys don't find out about this and start cutting the phone lines.

I called a fraternity brother, Theta Tau - the largest engineering
fraternity in the USA,

Yay! More anonymous sources with anonymous credentials!

who had done work on the missiles silos in N. and S. Dakota during the 1960's. He affirmed that such construction was used in building those missile silos so that they could be "pulled" with a coded phone call.

Not one participant in this put-explosives-in-the-WTC-rebar has ever come forward, but fraternity brothers will cough up national secrets about missile silo construction at the drop of a phone call.

[R.Mackey]

Mystery explosives, mixed in with building materials, lying hidden for decades, able to survive plane crashes and raging infernos,
You display your ignorance. High explosive are not detonated by fires and plane crashes.
I've already been ably defended, but I didn't say they had to detonate. You put that word in my mouth. You deliberately distorted my words.

I said they wouldn't survive. I dare you find me a high explosive that won't burn, melt, oxidize, separate, or, yes, detonate when exposed to an hours-long inferno that weakens steel to failure. If there is one, it sure isn't "C-4," as you claimed.

"My" ignorance, indeed.

[Christophera]

No proof of this being true offered. Anonymous note sent to anonymous people with anonymous credentials. By the way, if this person is on a first name basis with the receivers of the letter why do they have provide their credentials at all? Wouldn't they already know?

http://concretecore.741.com

contains proof of the concrete core. You have provided no proof of the FEMA core from raw images of the demolition to counter it. No one has.

Consider that the shear amount of concrete (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg) seen exploding here needs reasonable explanation, proof .......... and you have provided none.

[Johnny Pixels]

http://concretecore.741.com

contains proof of the concrete core. You have provided no proof of the FEMA core from raw images of the demolition to counter it. No one has.

Consider that the shear amount of concrete (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg) seen exploding here needs reasonable explanation, proof .......... and you have provided none.

I just recieved this email:

Hi Johnny,

I can confirm that badgers are in fact the most vicious of all land mammals, and can spit poison from their eyes. Hope that settles the argument you've been having

Later

Bill Maidup

So, there we have it, conclusive proof.

[Belz...]

http://concretecore.741.com

contains proof of the concrete core.

No, it contains badly captured images with badly MS-painted arrows in them that show YOUR interpretation of the badly captured images.

You have provided no proof of the FEMA core from raw images of the demolition to counter it. No one has.

That's because you keep drawing lines over them or labeling them "box columns" or whatever.

Consider that the shear amount

Interesting typo.

of concrete (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg) seen exploding here needs reasonable explanation, proof .......... and you have provided none.

Just one: gravity.

[kevin]

http://concretecore.741.com

contains no proof at all as shown here: http://noconcretecore.741.com/

contains proof of the concrete core. You have provided no proof of the FEMA core from raw images of the demolition to counter it. No one has.

Proof of a steel core has been presented in this thread over and over. I have no idea what a FEMA core is. Are you saying they built the core or the core was made from FEMA?

Consider that the shear amount of concrete (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg) seen exploding here needs reasonable explanation, proof .......... and you have provided none.

Actually you need to prove it's concrete and not something else, like drywall. After all they did find lots of sulpher at ground zero and that's what drywall is made from.

[ghost707]

Well, ........ I just received this, which I guess has been circulating some.


Hello Judson and Jim!

I am a retired Mechanical Engineer (BME U of MN 1961) who practiced as a
Professional Engineer in Minnesota for 27 years.

I have witnessed the implosion of two high rise concrete-steel buildings in
person. My first thought when I saw the first WTC tower collapse was,
"That is a controlled demolition". I had second thoughts when I realized
how much smoke and dust had been created. The demolitions I witnessed did
not have all that smoke and dust.

I have since learned that the original steel and rebar in those building
was coated with special type of corrosion inhibitor that required special
contractors and high security during the coating. It turns out that
coating was the plastic explosive C4 that the Navy Seals use to blow up
underwater steel and concrete barriers. It turns them to powder and naked
steel just like the 3 WTC buildings.

I heard that submarine pens and missile silos used this construction in
case an enemy had captured one of these facilities. They could be
destroyed with one coded phone call.

I called a fraternity brother, Theta Tau - the largest engineering
fraternity in the USA, who had done work on the missiles silos in N. and S.
Dakota during the 1960's. He affirmed that such construction was used in
building those missile silos so that they could be "pulled" with a coded
phone call.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html


I'll bet the teenager who wrote this joke is laughing his ass off at how dumb people are to believe this.

Priceless.

[gumboot]

I just recieved this email:

Hi Johnny,

I can confirm that badgers are in fact the most vicious of all land mammals, and can spit poison from their eyes. Hope that settles the argument you've been having

Later
Bill Maidup

So, there we have it, conclusive proof.


THOMAS THE BADGER-SLAYER

Deep in the Elderk forests, beneath the peaks of the Eagles Reaches, there lived a race of peaceful Gnomes.
It was that in the time of King George the Hearty the lands of the Gnomes were beset with attacks from Furious Badgers. These were no ordinary badgers, but terrible mountain badgers from the cruel regions of the Eagles Reaches. They had great long talons and tempers to match. Whole Gnome villagers were destroyed by these terrible beasts. When news of the great tragedy reached the king he was greatly worried. ‘What shall we do?’ He cried. ‘Furious Badgers devour my kingdom!’
And no one knew what to do, for indeed Furious Badgers are dangerous beasts, and after all Gnomes are only very small. For a Gnome to fight a Furious Badger would be like a man fighting an enraged bull the size of an elephant with pointy teeth. Not a pleasant task! But one Gnome stepped forward, a rather young lad with blonde hair who hadn’t even grown a beard yet! ‘I shall kill the badgers,’ he said.
‘You? You’re just a boy!’ King George the Hearty protested.
‘Nonetheless,’ said the boy. ‘I shall slay your Furious Badgers.’
And the King was desperate, so he agreed. ‘You may take of any armour you wish, and any weapons,’ the king said.
‘Nay,’ said the boy. ‘I have already my trusty spatula, and my leaf shall shield me, and an acorn I have for a helmet.’
Now all the court laughed at this, for surely the boy would be eaten, but as I said the king was desperate and so he agreed. ‘What is your name?’ He asked.
And the boy bowed low. ‘I am Thomas,’ he said.

So the next day Thomas prepared to depart and all the court gathered to farewell him. He indeed wore an acorn shell on his head, and a broad green leaf was slung across his back, and a spatula was firmly belted at his waist. A sight he was! None few in the crowd sniggered at his appearance. But Thomas was unperturbed, and mounted his trusty steed, which was a hamster called Squeak. ‘Onwards Squeak!’ Thomas cried, and with a leap Squeak leapt forward and off he rode.

Over many hills and valleys, through vast canyons, and wide plains, Thomas rode. He came to the dark woods of the Elderk and entered in, showing no fear. He was the bravest of all the Gnomes, and no Furious Badger would threaten him.

He had been riding through the forest for some time when suddenly a woodcutter appeared before him. ‘Who are you?’ The woodcutter demanded, peering down as this tiny little creature.
‘I am Thomas, the Badger-slayer,’ Thomas replied.
‘A badger slayer?’ Said the woodcutter. ‘You don’t look very fearsome.’
‘There you are wrong,’ Thomas declared. ‘I am very fearsome. Come closer and I shall prove it.’
Now the woodcutter was not about to be beaten by a tiny Gnome, so he did come closer. With a quick flick of the reins Thomas send Squeak shooting up the woodcutter’s trousers. Fast as lighting he stabbed the woodcutter right in the sweets with his spatula, then turned his trusty steed and escaped. With a great cry the woodcutter crashed to the ground, which was right where Thomas wanted him. Squeak climbed up on to his face and Thomas dismounted. With one great heave he thrust his spatula right through the woodcutter’s eye. To add insult to injury Squeak urinated in the woodcutter’s mouth. Thomas pulled his spatula clear, and mounted Squeak, quickly galloping into the forest.

After a long and tiresome journey Thomas smelt the smell of smoke. ‘That smells like smoke,’ he declared, and pushed Squeaky into a faster amble. Ahead a clearing appeared in the trees, and in it were a scattering of Gnome houses. They were all in states of disrepair, some burned out, and a few houses were ablaze as he arrived. There was no one around. ‘Surely the Furious Badgers have been here,’ Thomas thought.

He moved slowly through the villages but there didn’t appear to be a soul left alive. As he went his professional eye carefully analysed the carnage. ‘I’d say at least two badgers,’ he thought to himself. No one had lived to tell of meeting more than one Furious Badger so no one really knew if they worked together as an especially destructive and terrifying team. Thomas knew he would need all the speed and cunning he could muster. He tightened his grip on his spatula just a little more. After a while Thomas began to feel like something was watching him. But every time he turned around nothing would be there. He was certain it wasn’t a Furious Badger because they were quite simply bigger than the little gnome houses so there was nowhere for one to hide. But there were plenty of smaller dangers in the world. At last Thomas had enough of the horrible tickling feeling on his neck. He brought Squeak to a stop with a sharp pull on the reins and leapt to the ground. He took up his shield in one arm and bared his spatula in the other. ‘Who’s there?’ He demanded. There was no reply, so he swished his spatula through the air a bit just to show he was serious. ‘Come out,’ he shouted.
After a moment a young girl’s voice spoke. ‘Oo are you?’ It asked.
‘I’m Thomas the Badger-slayer,’ Thomas answered.
‘Slay badgers?’ The voice asked. ‘Wif wot?’
Thomas flourished his spatula. ‘With my trusty blade.’
‘It looks like a spatula.’
‘So?’
‘Dem badgers is gonna ‘ave you fa lunch.’
‘Not so, my shield shall protect me.’
‘Ya wot?’
Thomas held up his leaf. ‘My sturdy shield.’
‘Its’a leaf.’
‘No it’s not.’
‘Is too. I seen it. It’s all green ‘n stuff.’
‘It’s not just a leaf,’ Thomas shouted indignantly. He turned the leaf around. ‘Look it’s got arm buckles just like a real shield.’
‘Ooooh, a leaf with buckles is it?’ Said the unimpressed voice. ‘Wots dat meant to protect ya from? Stop ‘em pissin’ on ya?’
Thomas suddenly felt the conversation was getting away from him. Valiantly he rallied. ‘I’ll have you know badger urine is highly toxic.’
‘Get off.’
‘Look here!’ Thomas shouted. ‘Come out so I can see you!’
There was the brief sound of scuffing feet, pots moving, and the door to one of the few fairly intact houses opened. In the doorway stood a young girl, about Thomas’ age, with long curly blonde hair. She had a frying pan in her hands. ‘Hullo,’ Thomas said with a wave.
The girl just looked at him. ‘So you’s a badger-slayer?’ She asked skeptically.
Thomas nodded. ‘Sure am. Seen any badgers?’
‘Wot dey looks like?’ The girl asked. ‘Are ‘ey giant ‘n furry?’
Thomas nodded. ‘Sounds about right, if you can just point me in the direction it went I’ll—’
‘And do ‘ey got big sharp teeth ‘n long claws ‘n red eyes?’ The girl continued. ‘And a big chunk outta its left ear?’
Thomas felt a sudden sense of dread, which was to say he felt like his stomach had abruptly tried to escape out his rectum. ‘Oh.’ He said. Slowly he turned around. He saw a wide open mouth dripping saliva, dominated by a large pink tongue and enormous teeth.
‘Dere’s one right a’hind ya,’ the girl said helpfully.
‘Thanks,’ Thomas managed.
The Furious Badger isn’t exactly the most intelligent animal in the world, in the same way that a brick isn’t the most intelligent building material. Furious Badger are specialist creatures, and they specialise in being Furious Badgers. Furious being the operative word. Furious Badgers are furious in the same way the sun is hot. This particular Furious Badger furiously leapt at Thomas, jaws snapping. But if it was good at being furious, Squeak was superb at being a hamster – which consists of running away from anything fiercer than it (i.e. anything). The badger closed its jaws on thin air, and immediately felt a sharp jabbing pain in its rear end. It was the equivalent of sitting on a grass prickle, and it did nothing but enrage the already furious animal.
Thomas heaved with all his might, just managing to tear his spatula free as the animal turned around. By now Sqeak had vacated the area and was galloping towards the other end of the village. Once there Thomas hauled on the reins and turned his trusty mount around. The ground fairly shook with the ferocious anger of the Furious Badger, but Thomas was unperturbed. He settled his acorn a little firmer on his head and took up his spatula in one hand.
At the far end of the village the Badger let out a monstrous scream of rage and charged towards Thomas. He immediately dug his heels into Squeak’s ribs and the noble steed charged forward.
Thomas was steadfast in his charge, holding Squeak in a straight line as the distance between himself and his foe closed with dramatic speed. Ahead the gaping jaws of the Badger loomed in awful splendour, the teeth glistening with saliva.
From the dubious safety of a partly burned wall, the young girl watched wide-eyed as Thomas drew closer and closer to the Badger and then abruptly, disappeared. The jaws of the Badger snapped shut with a violent quake. ‘He got et,’ the girl whispered in amazement.
The Furious Badger stopped, obviously as surprised as the girl. It looked about in confusion, then with a sudden burst of brain tissue and thick blood, a gargantuan spatula burst from the top of its head. A moment later the handle of the spatula ruptured forth from the chin of the creature, and it collapsed to the ground, utterly dead.
The girl approached the Badger hesitantly, terrified that it might come alive at any moment. But it was stone dead, its tongue hanging from its mouth. And then the top lip moved slightly. The girl shrieked in terror and jumped backwards. At that moment the mouth pushed aside and Thomas led a shaking Squeak from the monster’s mouth.
‘Hullo,’ he said.
The girl fainted.
She awoke some time later. The Furious Badger was still dead, but now Thomas was vigorously involved in the difficult task of pulling his now over-large spatula free. He had arranged some form of elaborate rope and pulley system. Squeak hauled on the traces with supreme effort and slowly the spatula eased itself free. And then with a mighty wet tearing sound, then a sort of sucking pop the weapon burst free. The moment it came free of the beast it shrunk until Thomas was again holding his trusty spatula weapon. He held it up to the girl, grinning.
‘Who would have thought a drunken wish to own a spatula that increased its size one hundred times on contact with Badger saliva would prove useful,’ he mused.
The girl’s face was still a stupefied mask of utter shock. Her eyes remained on Thomas as he nonchalantly cleaned the blood off his weapon.
‘That Badger et ya,’ she observed.
Thomas nodded. ‘My mother always told me you should be careful what you eat. That Badger could have benefited from the same advice.’
‘My Ma told me you is wot you et,’ the girl offered.
‘Indeed,’ Thomas said. He considered the girl beside him. She was actually quite pretty, in a Gnomish kind of way. ‘How old are you little girl?’ He asked.

Three days later Thomas staggered out of one of the intact little houses. As he saddled Squeak once more, the girl appeared at the doorway, her hair dishevelled and a bed sheet arranged seductively around her. She watched Thomas prepare his mount with a sort of awe-ridden expression. ‘Come back soon,’ she said hopefully.
Thomas swung himself into the saddle and pulled his acorn onto his head. He nodded to the girl. ‘I may indeed, m’Lady,’ he said. ‘But for now, I must rid this kingdom of Badgers for good.’
And with that he turned Squeak and vanished into the mountains.

THE END

-Andrew

[Regnad Kcin]

Mr. Brown:

- Wouldn't you like to pick up where we left off with your towers-fell-in-the-wrong-sequence claim?
- Will you retract your claim (made on another board) that you were banned from this forum?
- What are your plans for presenting your evidence to one or more scientific journals?
- Will you apologize for your unprovoked attack on me?

[Gravy]

One thing is certain, you cannot find images of the supposed steel core columns, because they did not exist.
Most importantly is the miscreants here have nver produced a single image of the supposed "steel core columns" which is derived from the demolition images which show it all.
So come up with images from the demolition which cannot be misinterpreted if you wish credibility.

While I object to your characterization of us as "miscreants" (we are creants), I have finally come to the conclusion that you are correct. When you look at a better image the remains of the core that you keep posting, it's obvious that it's made of solid concrete and contains no steel columns. Please feel free to quote me on this, as long as you include the photo below. I'm glad to finally have this resolved, and I appreciate your patient persistence in this matter.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044f189f149bdd.jpg

i guess you never noticed that the nacelle is superflous cover and nothing attaches to it. it attaches to things.
Again I find myself in agreement with you. Things that attach to things cannot have things attached to them.

[Gravy]

I figured out what the "notumns" above are. They're 3-foot rebar on 12-foot centers.

[gumboot]

I figured out what the "notumns" above are. They're 3-foot rebar on 12-foot centers.


Well the architect was Japanese wasn't he? So what would you expect but Super-mega-fun Rebar?

-Andrew

[Belz...]

Oh, come on Christophera. I'm sure you can answer this:

How the hell could someone at this angle see anything through a concrete core ?

[Metullus]

Oh, come on Christophera. I'm sure you can answer this:

How the hell could someone at this angle see anything through a concrete core ?
Its done with mirrors...

[Stellafane]

http://concretecore.741.com

contains proof of the concrete core. You have provided no proof of the FEMA core from raw images of the demolition to counter it. No one has.

Consider that the shear amount of concrete (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg) seen exploding here needs reasonable explanation, proof .......... and you have provided none.

Hi Chris. Sorry about the derail, but since you're one of the last 9/11 CTists that posts here anymore, I thought I'd ask: What's your thoughts on all the infighting that's going on with you guys? Killtown getting banned at the LC forum, johndoex leaving, Dylan getting moody and saying he wants to be left alone to do fiction, the Scholars at each other's throats, everyone charging each other with being the enemy...what gives?

[Christophera]

Your post is a graphic and linguistic distortion. Wrong angle, wrong hallway opening wdith/location and an gross over-generalization.

Oh, come on Christophera. I'm sure you can answer this:

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2826&d=1156690883

How the hell could someone at this angle see anything through a concrete core ?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_879044e6c65e64d34.jpg


GOT INTEGRITY?

[WildCat]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_879044e6c65e64d34.jpg


GOT INTEGRITY?
Uh Chris, light seems to be shining through your solid concrete core...

[Belz...]

Your post is a graphic and linguistic distortion. Wrong angle, wrong hallway opening wdith/location and an gross over-generalization.

Oh! I humbly apologise, then. Would you care to post your own diagram of the hallway configuration for all to see ? This would surely help me understand, as well as others, how this whole thing works.

[Belz...]

Your post is a graphic and linguistic distortion. Wrong angle, wrong hallway opening wdith/location and an gross over-generalization.

...Course, it doesn't really matter, unless your hallways are THIS big :

[Christophera]

...Course, it doesn't really matter, unless your hallways are THIS big :

It sucks being wrong don't it?

[R.Mackey]

It sucks being wrong don't it?
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1877683#post1877683

You've got some nerve, accusing Belz of having no integrity.

Personally, I'd have moved this thread to the "Comedy" section weeks ago.

[MortFurd]

It sucks being wrong don't it?
Don't it suck not being able to reconcile your inanities with reality?

When are you going to explain the light shining through your "concrete core?"

[MortFurd]

Your post is a graphic and linguistic distortion. Wrong angle, wrong hallway opening wdith/location and an gross over-generalization.



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_879044e6c65e64d34.jpg


GOT INTEGRITY?
In other words, about as accurate as this diagram (http://concretecore.741.com/images/corehallsdoors.gif) from your site. You know the one, based on your recollections of a TV show you saw back in 1990 and corroborated by an anonoymous engineer who saw a different program in 1995.

[Metullus]

Your post is a graphic and linguistic distortion.A fair description of your posts in this thread.

Wrong angle, wrong hallway opening wdith/location and an gross over-generalization.Yet you will not or cannot address his point.


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_879044e6c65e64d34.jpg


GOT INTEGRITY?Belz, yes, and demonstrably so. You, no, and demonstrably so as well.

[Belz...]

It sucks being wrong don't it?

You're now claiming that the hallways were several dozen feet across ?

[Christophera]

A fair description of your posts in this thread.

Yet you will not or cannot address his point.


Belz, yes, and demonstrably so. You, no, and demonstrably so as well.

It has been done but the integrity to recognize it appears to not exist here.

If I am wrong some one will post an image of a steel core column which is of the demo images showing a steel column inside the core area at some elevation off the ground.

[Belz...]

Also,

Would you care to post your own diagram of the hallway configuration for all to see ? This would surely help me understand, as well as others, how this whole thing works.

[Belz...]

If I am wrong some one will post an image of a steel core column which is of the demo images showing a steel column inside the core area at some elevation off the ground.

You mean, this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1878758&postcount=2598) ?

[Belz...]

It just occured to me that your avatar is actually a riddle: Find one out of three things that christophera stands for: woo, freedom or justice.

Guess which one I picked ?

[kevin]

Is this due to fear of liability claims? Given the fact of the building no longer being in existence, I am curious at this course of action.

Missed this earlier, but I believe their thinking is that if they release the plans they'll be hindsighted to death and sued over what (in hindsight) obviously should've been done.

They're wrong. There is nothing like hiding something to make yourself look guilty and get sued over that.... And of course the plans can then be requested in discovery during the court case.

BTW, Nova says the plan set (including specs) weighed in at 650 pounds. Not sure if the drawings were on paper, mylar, linen or something else. I wouldn't want to pay for the hosting bill for downloading that!

[Regnad Kcin]

It sucks being wrong don't it?- Wouldn't you like to pick up where we left off with your towers-fell-in-the-wrong-sequence claim?
- Will you retract your claim (made on another board) that you were banned from this forum?
- What are your plans for presenting your evidence to one or more scientific journals?
- Will you apologize for your unprovoked attack on me?

[Dog Town]

- Wouldn't you like to pick up where we left off with your towers-fell-in-the-wrong-sequence claim?
- Will you retract your claim (made on another board) that you were banned from this forum?
- What are your plans for presenting your evidence to one or more scientific journals?
- Will you apologize for your unprovoked attack on me?

Have not read the whole thread, but Cphera you gotta latta esplain'en ta doo!
C. Core! Are you MAD man? You have nada! That Avatar(?) Is offensive in soo many ways, and I ain't even in those ways! How old are you? Gotta know!
Truth! Please look at your own pics!

[Christophera]

You mean, this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1878758&postcount=2598) ?

Dud photo for making your point. My image of the core actually shows the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

[Christophera]

- Wouldn't you like to pick up where we left off with your towers-fell-in-the-wrong-sequence claim?


You were attacked because you have never supported your claim that the towers fell in proper sequence. Your distortions are juvenile and you have no evidence.

[Falcon Apoda]

You were attacked because you have never supported your claim that the towers fell in proper sequence. Your distortions are juvenile and you have no evidence.

But the towers did fall in "proper" sequence. Given the relatively lower position in which the second plane hit, the greater mass above the damaged floor(s) dictated that it would be the first to collapse.

Greater mass = greater force upon the damaged section. This effectively cancelled out any common-sensical expectation as to which tower would would fail first. The second tower hit became the first to fail because of where (and how) it got hit. Pure and simple.

F=ma

Of course, this is yet another ridiculous argument, given the notion that buildings were deliberately brought down by CD. It raises the question (and the quandry) for CT'ers:

If the destruction of the buildings was planned and "controlled" by the Smiths/Norsefire, then why didn't they bring them down in the expected "sequence" which was dictated by the order in which they were hit by the planes? Why did they purposefully contribute minutae to the cottage industry which is known as the 9/11 "truth" movement?


"They're just questions, Leon. In answer to you're query, they're written down for me."

[Belz...]

Dud photo for making your point. My image of the core actually shows the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

Answer the question, christophera. Are those (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1878758&postcount=2598) steel columns ?

Also,

Would you care to post your own diagram of the hallway configuration for all to see ? This would surely help me understand, as well as others, how this whole thing works.

[Belz...]

You were attacked because you have never supported your claim that the towers fell in proper sequence. Your distortions are juvenile and you have no evidence.

Proper sequence ?

So, if I shoot a man in the gut, and another in the heart, the first victim should die first ? Is that your argument ? That the north tower should've fell first because it was hit first ?

I'm tempted to ask another question, that I believe was asked to you several times before: at which floor, respectively, was each tower hit ?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Dud photo for making your point. My image of the core actually shows the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place. Of course, it is not a fallacy to state the truth again and again; what is fallacious is to expect the repitition alone to substitute for real arguments.

Nonetheless, this is a very popular fallacy in debate, and with good reason: the more times you say something, the more likely it is that the judge will remember it. The first thing they'll teach you in any public speaking course is that you should "Tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em, then tell 'em, and then tell 'em what you told 'em." Unfortunately, some debaters think that's all there is to it, with no substantiation necessary! The appropriate time to mention argumentum ad nauseam in a debate round is when the other team has made some assertion, failed to justify it, and then stated it again and again. The Latin wording is particularly nice here, since it is evocative of what the opposition's assertions make you want to do: retch. "Sir, our opponents tell us drugs are wrong, drugs are wrong, drugs are wrong, again and again and again. But this argumentum ad nauseam can't and won't win this debate for them, because they've given us no justification for their bald assertions!"

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You were attacked because you have never supported your claim that the towers fell in proper sequence. Your distortions are juvenile and you have no evidence.

And I believe the name of the logical fallacy expressed here is... lying.

[Gravy]

Dud photo for making your point.
Really? Okay, please explain. You say the columns shown in this photo are surrounding the core. You also say the core at its base had 17-foot thick walls. Please describe where in this photo the core would be, and what would be inside it. Sorry, but I don't see room for all the elevator banks, storage rooms, restrooms, etc, considering that 34 feet of this core section would be solid concrete,and that's just in one direction. And how does the stairwell fit into your plan? And where's the room for all those hallways?

Again, we await your diagrams, which you promised months ago. Present them now, or admit that you cannot.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044f189f149bdd.jpg

[Spektator]

Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. ....

I've also seen this called the "Bellman's Fallacy," from the Lewis Carroll poem "The Hunting of the Snark," in which the Bellman insists, "What I tell you three times is true."

Unfortunately, the characters in the poem lose count.

[Christophera]

Really? Okay, please explain. You say the columns shown in this photo are surrounding the core. You also say the core at its base had 17-foot thick walls. Please describe where in this photo the core would be, and what would be inside it. Sorry, but I don't see room for all the elevator banks, storage rooms, restrooms, etc, considering that 34 feet of this core section would be solid concrete,and that's just in one direction. And how does the stairwell fit into your plan? And where's the room for all those hallways?

Again, we await your diagrams, which you promised months ago. Present them now, or admit that you cannot.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044f189f149bdd.jpg

I have promised no diagrams. What you say is a lie.

Your notation on the columns is correct, they are not inside the core. The end of the concrete wall may be visible to the right of the stairwell.

It is definitely visible in the below image, which I feel may be an image of the same corner of the core from the other side after some clean up.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2838&stc=1&d=1156786209

[jhunter1163]

Christophera:

I believe that what you refer to as the "core" in that photo is actually One Liberty Plaza, a 54 story building situated half a block from the WTC. Best try another photo.

[Gravy]

jhunter, it's not 1 Liberty Plaza, but dark smoke that was drawn down with the collapse. 1 Liberty Plaza would be well to the right.

[Gravy]

I have promised no diagrams. What you say is a lie.
Do it today or admit you cannot. Fair enough? You've had since June to do it. You said you know the layout of the North tower. Both the "see through" photo I've provided 40 times and the photo above are of the north tower. Provide your diagram that explains the features seen. Stop running like a little baby and do it.

[jhunter1163]

Gravy:

My bad. Carry on.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I have promised no diagrams. What you say is a lie.

Your notation on the columns is correct, they are not inside the core. The end of the concrete wall may be visible to the right of the stairwell.

It is definitely visible in the below image, which I feel may be an image of the same corner of the core from the other side after some clean up.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2838&stc=1&d=1156786209


Argumentum Ad Nauseam

Definition

Repeating the same argument over and over again, without supporting it or repeating the same arguments without adding new ones. Note that the assertion can be correctly supported but that the fallacy resides in the perpetual repeating.

Explanation

This fallacy is based on the incorrect belief that people will finally accept an assertion as true because they hear it repeatedly. Brain-washing is expected. Works better on prisoners than on free citizens.

Examples

"Delenda est Carthago". (Carthage must be destroyed)
Caton the Elder ended all of his speeches by these words, whatever the subject was.

Counter-examples

None.

Advices

This fallacy is a two-edged sword: some people will get sick of hearing the same thing over and over again, and will react by believing the opposite of what you say.
If your opponent becomes repetitive, point it out after having refuted his arguments a few times. source (http://esgs.free.fr/uk/log07.htm)

[Gravy]

Your notation on the columns is correct, they are not inside the core. The end of the concrete wall may be visible to the right of the stairwell.

It is definitely visible in the below image, which I feel may be an image of the same corner of the core from the other side after some clean up.
I'm sorry. You know I'm not very bright. Can you describe to me where that concrete core is again, keeping in mind the stairwell I pointed out in the view from the east? And are you sticking with your claim that the bent metal at the top is 3" rebar?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044f3352a86873.jpg

[Belz...]

Also, for the fourth time:

Would you care to post your own diagram of the hallway configuration for all to see ? This would surely help me understand, as well as others, how this whole thing works.

[Regnad Kcin]

Peabody's Distortion "I am entitled"
- Wouldn't you like to pick up where we left off with your towers-fell-in-the-wrong-sequence claim?You were attacked because you have never supported your claim that the towers fell in proper sequence. Your distortions are juvenile and you have no evidence.You certainly are a curious individual, Mr. Brown.

First, nowhere have I said "I am entitled" to anything; you may retract that immediately, though I strongly suspect you will not. This is a discussion board where I have attempted, with little cooperation from you, to discuss one aspect of your numerous claims, that being the towers fell in the wrong sequence.

You say I "have never supported" my claim, which is misleading at best. I was slowly managing, even with your reluctance, to draw answers from you vis-a-vis where each tower was impacted, what floors were damaged, and what number of undamaged floors remained above each impact. I was building toward a conclusion when you were suspended, not banned, from this forum. Since your return, I've repeatedly asked if you'd care to pick up from where we left off. It's nice that you've finally responded, but insults, false quotes, and misleading information do not make for fair, reasoned debate.

Also, what "distortions" of mine are "juvenile?" Please provide quotes.

In any event, I will assume that the towers-fell-in-the-wrong-sequence claim is one you maintain to be valid, and I'll restart that discussion momentarily (schedule depending).

Also, in finally responding, you neglected to address these unresolved questions:

- Will you retract your claim (made on another board) that you were banned from this forum?
- What are your plans for presenting your evidence to one or more scientific journals?
- Will you apologize for your unprovoked attack on me?

[Christophera]

I'm sorry. You know I'm not very bright. Can you describe to me where that concrete core is again, keeping in mind the stairwell I pointed out in the view from the east? And are you sticking with your claim that the bent metal at the top is 3" rebar?


In your earlier posted image it would be above th "s" in "somebody" in your lower notation. Notice it is tapered. Notice the vertical lines in it from form boards. Do you have the integrity to provide me with the original url of that image?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044f189f149bdd.jpg

The notated rebar here below, yes.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2841&stc=1&d=1156800866

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

For the love of all construction workers, they don't make 3" diameter rebar!
Bar Size
Designation Nominal Area cm2 [inch2] Nominal Weight kg/m [lb/ft] Nominal Diameter cm [inch]
#3 0.71 [0.11] .52 [ 0.376] 0.95 [0.375]
#4 (most common) 1.29 [0.20] 0.994 [0.668] 1.27 [0.500]
#5 2.00 [0.31] 1.55 [1.043] 1.59 [0.625]
#6 2.84 [0.44] 2.24 [1.502] 1.91 [0.75]
#7 3.87 [0.6] 3.041 [2.044] 2.22 [0.875]
#8 5.10 [0.79] 3.97 [2.67] 2.54 [1]
#9 6.45 [1] 5.06 [3.4] 2.87 [1.128]
#10 8.19 [1.27] 6.40 [4.303] 3.23 [1.27]
#11 10.06 [1.56] 7.90 [5.313] 3.58 [1.41]
#14 14.52 [2.25] 11.4 [7.65] 4.30 [1.693]
#18 25.81 [4] 20.2 [13.6] 5.73 [2.257]
source (http://xtronics.com/reference/rebar.htm)
corroborating source (http://www.sizes.com/materls/rebar.htm)
another corroborating source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebar)

[Gravy]

In your earlier posted image it would be above th "s" in "somebody" in your lower notation. Notice it is tapered. Notice the vertical lines in it from form boards.
But Chris, that's not 17 feet thick. :confused: And if the rebar is 3" thick, how thick is the handrail on the stairs? :confused: (Think carefully. I know the answer.) How do you explain these discrepancies, and what do you suppose happened to all the rest of the concrete? :confused: The section in question alone would have hundreds of tons of concrete, according to you. Where did it all go, and how did it disappear without damaging the interior? :confused:

[Christophera]

For the love of all construction workers, they don't make 3" diameter rebar!
Bar Size
Designation Nominal Area cm2 [inch2] Nominal Weight kg/m [lb/ft] Nominal Diameter cm [inch]
#3 0.71 [0.11] .52 [ 0.376] 0.95 [0.375]
#4 (most common) 1.29 [0.20] 0.994 [0.668] 1.27 [0.500]
#5 2.00 [0.31] 1.55 [1.043] 1.59 [0.625]
#6 2.84 [0.44] 2.24 [1.502] 1.91 [0.75]
#7 3.87 [0.6] 3.041 [2.044] 2.22 [0.875]
#8 5.10 [0.79] 3.97 [2.67] 2.54 [1]
#9 6.45 [1] 5.06 [3.4] 2.87 [1.128]
#10 8.19 [1.27] 6.40 [4.303] 3.23 [1.27]
#11 10.06 [1.56] 7.90 [5.313] 3.58 [1.41]
#14 14.52 [2.25] 11.4 [7.65] 4.30 [1.693]
#18 25.81 [4] 20.2 [13.6] 5.73 [2.257]
source (http://xtronics.com/reference/rebar.htm)
corroborating source (http://www.sizes.com/materls/rebar.htm)
another corroborating source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebar)


As if there was nothing custom and special about the WTC towers.

[KingMerv00]

As if there was nothing custom and special about the WTC towers.

How do you know it is 3 inch diameter anyway?

[Christophera]

But Chris, that's not 17 feet thick. :confused: And if the rebar is 3" thick, how thick is the handrail on the stairs? :confused: (Think carefully. I know the answer.) How do you explain these discrepancies, and what do you suppose happened to all the rest of the concrete? :confused: The section in question alone would have hundreds of tons of concrete, according to you. Where did it all go, and how did it disappear without damaging the interior? :confused:

Correct, the edge of the concrete in your image is the perpindicuarly opposite wall which was, I believe, a max of 12 feet thick on WTC 2.

With the rest of your questions ou refer to the other image, I think.

[Johnny Pixels]

As if there was nothing custom and special about the WTC towers.

Where's your source for the 3"? Which steel company had the contract to manufacture it?

In fact, which construction companys worked on the WTC. Who were the workers there? How many of them remember using concrete for the core? How many of them have you talked to?

[Gravy]

Correct, the edge of the concrete in your image is the perpindicuarly opposite wall which was, I believe, a max of 12 feet thick on WTC 2.

With the rest of your quesitons refer to the other image, I think.
What is your "belief" based on?

And what would be the thickness of the short side in tower 1, which is what we're talking about?

And seriously, how thick is the stair handrail if that's 3" rebar? You don't have to be exact. Just take a guess.

And PLEASE answer my question about where all the concrete went, and how it all went away without destroying interior elements like stairs. I mean, how can there be a clean "end" of a concrete wall that supposedly disintegrated?

[CptColumbo]

A week away and nothing new. Proof shown to chris again and again (which he ignores or denies the existance of despite it's obvious nature), and all he has is the same old misinterpreted pictures that were debunked (his interpretation of them I mean) long ago on this very thread. Chris has also yet to explain why he lied on the other site.

[Christophera]

How do you know it is 3 inch diameter anyway?

The documentary stated 3" inch over and over because of the difficulty of the butt weld re-occuring every 40 feet with bars on 4 foot centers. Now that I'm thinking about it, I feel as though a thicker bar was mentioned for the core base wall.

I use the word "feel" because I realize that that in the image I post of the base, that the coiled bar over the concrete wall does look larger than 3". There was a part of the documentary which slowed down as the construction process slowed around all the prep for getting the core off the gronud properly, mostly the elevator alignment process but also the start of myriad conduit/plumbing inside the core.

That part showed a network of very heavy reinforcing bar and mentioned that the bar couldn't be bent because it was so large and had to be welded to go around corners. That was right at ground level and I had not remembered until now. Meaning the coiled bar on top of the concrete core wall could be transitionary bar with a size approaching 6 inch.

One thing for certain that has not changed; the tight coils are totally a chracteristic of high tensile steel subjected to extreme stresses.

[gumboot]

Mr Brown,

Are you familiar with the Black Knight scene from "Monty Python And The Holy Grail"?

If you are not, let me recap briefly. King Arthur comes across a Black Knight who will not let him pass. They fight, and the king successfully removes one of the Knight's arms. The Black Knight, however, ignores the wound and continues to fight. So Arthur chops the other off. Still the Black Knight will not surrender. Ultimately King Arthur also chops off both the knight's legs. As Arthur rides away the Black Knight still refuses to surrender.

John Cleese revealed that the story was inspired by a teacher of his. The teacher told a tale of two Greek wrestlers, locked in an epic struggle. They remained locked together for day after day, until at last one of the wrestlers gave up in utter exhaustion, unable to take any more.

The two wrestlers were pulled apart, but when the victorious wrestler was approached it was discovered he was dead.

The moral of the story was "If you don't give up you can't possibly lose". Cleese wrote the Black Knight scene in tribute to how ridiculous that notion was.

I believe the above tale has some bearing on this current discussion. Do you?

-Andrew

[Gravy]

The documentary stated 3" inch over and over because of the difficulty of the butt weld re-occuring every 40 feet with bars on 4 foot centers. Now that I'm thinking about it, I feel as though a thicker bar was mentioned for the core base wall.
That's quite a specific memory! Or were you taking notes? And the name of the documentary? Surely you remember that?

[KingMerv00]

Maybe I missed out on this part of the conversation...why is 3" rebar important? I'm not reading through 67 pages of posts.

Chris, not to be mean but "I saw it in a documentary" isn't evidence unless you know the name of the documentary in question. Once that is straighted out, then maybe we can see for ourselves.

[Gravy]

Maybe I missed out on this part of the conversation...why is 3" rebar important? I'm not reading through 67 pages of posts.

Chris, not to be mean but "I saw it in a documentary" isn't evidence unless you know the name of the documentary in question. Once that is straighted out, then maybe we can see for ourselves.
Christophera will tell you all about it.

[Christophera]

Where's your source for the 3"? Which steel company had the contract to manufacture it?

In fact, which construction companys worked on the WTC. Who were the workers there? How many of them remember using concrete for the core? How many of them have you talked to?

What do you think I am? Can I expect you to remember that kind of details from a documentary you saw 16 years ago?

I remember the concrete core from the documentary. Others remember it from documentaries made from the same film footage.

I spoke to a 64 year old steel worker that worked on both towers. He didn't remember the concrete core, but the elevators entrances and exits were sheathed in plywood for safety. After awhile of talking about it, he said, "Okay, that must have been where the concrete was pumped up." probably referring to the mud for the floors. Also, there was only a very short period of time when the exterior of the core was exposed for him and he was passing by it between the advancing floors and the forming or stripping of forms. Probably only one floor. And, because he was working always on the top he would exit the elevators sheathed in plywood from the concrete core, walk around to the stairs going up through the floors at various stages of completion, passing either an open space in the core, no forms in place yet, or, an inner steel form in place, or the exterior form wood in place. So he didn't have much opportunity to see the concrete walls.

[Christophera]

Maybe I missed out on this part of the conversation...why is 3" rebar important? I'm not reading through 67 pages of posts.

Chris, not to be mean but "I saw it in a documentary" isn't evidence unless you know the name of the documentary in question. Once that is straighted out, then maybe we can see for ourselves.

yes, I will tell you all about it. The documentary was called "The Construction Of The Twin Towers."

The big slowdown in the constructon documented by the video was the concrete core. Specifically the butt weld occuring every 40 feet in the special high tensile steel rebar used in the cast concrete core. Only welders with a security clearance were allowed to make the weld.

[Gravy]

What do you think I am? Can I expect you to remember that kind of details from a documentary you saw 16 years ago?

Of course not. That would be impossible.
The documentary stated 3" inch over and over because of the difficulty of the butt weld re-occuring every 40 feet with bars on 4 foot centers. Now that I'm thinking about it, I feel as though a thicker bar was mentioned for the core base wall.

[gumboot]

yes, I will tell you all about it. The documentary was called "The Construction Of The Twin Towers."


This documentary does not exist.

-Andrew

[Gravy]

This documentary does not exist.

-Andrew
The Library of Congress, the New York Public Library, the Brooklyn Public Library, Google, and Mark Roberts have not heard of this 'documentary."

Guess again, Chris.

[gumboot]

The Library of Congress, the New York Public Library, the Brooklyn Public Library, Google, and Mark Roberts have not heard of this 'documentary."

Guess again, Chris.


It's also not on IMDB. And EVERYTHING is on IMDB.

-Andrew

[Johnny Pixels]

What do you think I am? Can I expect you to remember that kind of details from a documentary you saw 16 years ago?

I remember the concrete core from the documentary. Others remember it from documentaries made from the same film footage.

I spoke to a 64 year old steel worker that worked on both towers. He didn't remember the concrete core, but the elevators entrances and exits were sheathed in plywood for safety. After awhile of talking about it, he said, "Okay, that must have been where the concrete was pumped up." probably referring to the mud for the floors. Also, there was only a very short period of time when the exterior of the core was exposed for him and he was passing by it between the advancing floors and the forming or stripping of forms. Probably only one floor. And, because he was working always on the top he would exit the elevators sheathed in plywood from the concrete core, walk around to the stairs going up through the floors at various stages of completion, passing either an open space in the core, no forms in place yet, or, an inner steel form in place, or the exterior form wood in place. So he didn't have much opportunity to see the concrete walls.

Wikipedia is your friend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center



Engineers & contractors involved

Guy F. Tozzoli (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guy_F._Tozzoli&action=edit), Director World Trade Department
Rino M. Monti (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rino_M._Monti&action=edit), Chief EngineerArchitects:
Minoru Yamasaki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoru_Yamasaki), Emery Roth & Sons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emery_Roth_%26_Sons)Structural engineers:
Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Worthington%2C_Skilling%2C_Helle_% 26_Jackson&action=edit) (later renamed Skilling, Helle, Christiansen & Robertson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Robertson)), New YorkFoundation engineers:
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Authority_of_New_York_and_New_Jersey), Engineering Dept.Electrical engineers:
Joesph R. Loring & Associates (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joesph_R._Loring_%26_Associates&action=edit), New YorkMechanical engineers:
Jaros, Baum & Bolles (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jaros%2C_Baum_%26_Bolles&action=edit), New YorkGeneral contractor:
Tishman Realty & Construction Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tishman_Realty_%26_Construction_Co mpany&action=edit), New York

[kevin]

The Library of Congress, the New York Public Library, the Brooklyn Public Library, Google, and Mark Roberts have not heard of this 'documentary."

Guess again, Chris.

Neither has IMDB or Netflix or Blockbuster.

I have my Tivo set to show me everything twin towers or world trade center related. It has never shown up (even with the 5 year anniversary coming up and everything else is being run over and over.)

[kevin]

It's also not on IMDB. And EVERYTHING is on IMDB.

-Andrew

Yeah, did you find that 1911 movie called the Twin Towers too? Maybe he's remembering that.

[defaultdotxbe]

Yeah, did you find that 1911 movie called the Twin Towers too? Maybe he's remembering that.

i found out the Petronas Twin Towers were built out of high-strength reinforced concrete

http://en.structurae.de/structures/data/index.cfm?ID=s0000053

perhaps he saw a documentary on that?

[kevin]

I spoke to a 64 year old steel worker that worked on both towers. He didn't remember the concrete core, but the elevators entrances and exits were sheathed in plywood for safety. After awhile of talking about it, he said, "Okay, that must have been where the concrete was pumped up." probably referring to the mud for the floors. Also, there was only a very short period of time when the exterior of the core was exposed for him and he was passing by it between the advancing floors and the forming or stripping of forms. Probably only one floor. And, because he was working always on the top he would exit the elevators sheathed in plywood from the concrete core, walk around to the stairs going up through the floors at various stages of completion, passing either an open space in the core, no forms in place yet, or, an inner steel form in place, or the exterior form wood in place. So he didn't have much opportunity to see the concrete walls.

Except of course the core would have to be built FIRST and would be clearly visible above the rest of the superstructure. If you build a building with a concrete core you have to pour the core first so you have something to attach the floors too, and the concrete needs time to dry appropriately to be capable of supporting things attached to it.

[kevin]

I'm going to laugh my butt off when christophera realizes there is another set of Twin Towers that really does have a concrete core and the documentary he probably remembers is from that.

[kevin]

i found out the Petronas Twin Towers were built out of high-strength reinforced concrete

http://en.structurae.de/structures/data/index.cfm?ID=s0000053

perhaps he saw a documentary on that?

darn it, you beat me too it.

[Brainache]

If anyone wants to download a few megs of software I believe they can view a 3D model of the WTC here:

http://www.greatbuildings.com/models/World_Trade_Center_mod.html

[Blue Mountain]

i found out the Petronas Twin Towers were built out of high-strength reinforced concrete

http://en.structurae.de/structures/data/index.cfm?ID=s0000053

perhaps he saw a documentary on that?
Sorry, couldn't have. He says he saw it in 1990. The Petronas Twin Towers were build between 1992 and 1998.

Of course, given his rather tenious grip on other facts, he could well be mistaken about when he saw the documentary.

[defaultdotxbe]

Sorry, couldn't have. He says he saw it in 1990. The Petronas Twin Towers were build between 1992 and 1998.

Of course, given his rather tenious grip on other facts, he could well be mistaken about when he saw the documentary.

that was my thought too, he seems to have a very selective memory, it wouldnt surprise me if date was one he glazed out on

[Belz...]

The notated rebar here below, yes.

And you know this is rebar, because ?

[Belz...]

Correct, the edge of the concrete in your image is the perpindicuarly opposite wall which was, I believe, a max of 12 feet thick on WTC 2.

How would you know this ?

Also, for the fifth time:

Would you care to post your own diagram of the hallway configuration for all to see ? This would surely help me understand, as well as others, how this whole thing works.

[Belz...]

I use the word "feel" because I realize that that in the image I post of the base, that the coiled bar over the concrete wall does look larger than 3".

By your logic, this would mean that it IS larger than 3".

There was a part of the documentary which slowed down as the construction process slowed around all the prep for getting the core off the gronud properly, mostly the elevator alignment process but also the start of myriad conduit/plumbing inside the core.

Gosh, I'd like to see that documentary...

That part showed a network of very heavy reinforcing bar and mentioned that the bar couldn't be bent because it was so large and had to be welded to go around corners. That was right at ground level and I had not remembered until now. Meaning the coiled bar on top of the concrete core wall could be transitionary bar with a size approaching 6 inch.

Next up : 18" rebar.

[Belz...]

What do you think I am? Can I expect you to remember that kind of details from a documentary you saw 16 years ago?

If you can't remember the documentary properly, isn't it possible that you're mistaken about the core ?

I remember the concrete core from the documentary. Others remember it from documentaries made from the same film footage.

"Others" ?

I spoke to a 64 year old steel worker that worked on both towers. He didn't remember the concrete core,

And what does that tell you ?

but the elevators entrances and exits were sheathed in plywood for safety. After awhile of talking about it, he said, "Okay, that must have been where the concrete was pumped up." probably referring to the mud for the floors.

So far, so good.

Also, there was only a very short period of time when the exterior of the core was exposed for him and he was passing by it between the advancing floors and the forming or stripping of forms. Probably only one floor. And, because he was working always on the top he would exit the elevators sheathed in plywood from the concrete core, walk around to the stairs going up through the floors at various stages of completion, passing either an open space in the core, no forms in place yet, or, an inner steel form in place, or the exterior form wood in place. So he didn't have much opportunity to see the concrete walls.

Why ? Did they HIDE the concrete core ?

[Belz...]

This documentary does not exist.

-Andrew

Indeed, the only mentions I can find of this documentary are made by chris himself on different websites...

[Gravy]

Why ? Did they HIDE the concrete core ?
If it wasn't hidden, they couldn't call it INVISICRETE TM

[azazal]

How do you know it is 3 inch diameter anyway?

It's not 3 inches. Chris has forgotten these pictures

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/azazal/Misc/WTC2working.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/azazal/Misc/WTC1working.jpg

As shown in post 1294 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1718163&postcount=1294)
and in post 1397 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1719513&postcount=1397)

The 3 inch rebar is not rebar nor is it 3 inches, closer to 9 inches or so from the looks of things. The sad thing is, to get Chris to see this requires us to destroy a 17-foot thick wall of ignorance.

[Gravy]

The 3 inch rebar is not rebar nor is it 3 inches, closer to 9 inches or so from the looks of things. The sad thing is, to get Chris to see this requires us to destroy a 17-foot thick wall of ignorance.
Indeed, Chris's "rebar" is much wider than the handrail in the exposed stairwell, which is about 4" wide.
North Tower Stairwell
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044f4499c31301.jpg

Chris also needs to explain what a huge steel column with attached floors is doing right in the middle of the area that he says was surrounded by a concrete core. And why not make the shaft walls out of concrete, instead of the crumbly panels in these photos? So many questions, and not a single sensible answer from our friend Mr. Brown.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044f36de34ddfb.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044f3725edcfbc.jpg

[Belz...]

So many questions, and not a single sensible answer from our friend Mr. Brown.

Where the hell did you get that picture, Gravy ? Why, months of "discussion" with chris, and never was a CLEAR picture of that ruin shown until now!

[Gravy]

Where the hell did you get that picture, Gravy ? Why, months of "discussion" with chris, and never was a CLEAR picture of that ruin shown until now!
We don't want to bring young Chris along too quickly. Remember that each of our posts is quite a shock to his frangible core.

[Christophera]

Indeed, Chris's "rebar" is much wider than the handrail in the exposed stairwell, which is about 4" wide.
North Tower Stairwell
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044f4499c31301.jpg

Chris also needs to explain what a huge steel column with attached floors is doing right in the middle of the area that he says was surrounded by a concrete core. And why not make the shaft walls out of concrete, instead of the crumbly panels in these photos? So many questions, and not a single sensible answer from our friend Mr. Brown.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044f36de34ddfb.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044f3725edcfbc.jpg


Your first image does not represent known scale in the same image that you refer to.

Your second image shows a vertical member holding up the right side of a stairwell but only one where many should be shown.

In that same image there is a space between the stairwell and the interior box column which looks like concrete.

The selectivity here is immense because I have shown a number of photos where the supposed steel core columns should show but they do not.

And, ............ I've not only made sense but I've backed it with evidence so your implying that I have not is an error.

For example. This image evidences what can only be rebar, and it should show the supposed steel core columns but does not.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2852&stc=1&d=1156873291

So your efforts are weak and there is no body of evidence to support it as there is with the concrete core.

http://concretecore.741.com

Maybe if a few more posters with peanut gallery type comments could help you your credibility would increase.

[KingMerv00]

In my opinion, very little can be gleaned from these photographs. They are pictures of rubble and dustclouds after all. I don't know how either side could make profound statements about the WTC's construction.

Chris, are you sure of that documentary title? Can you find it?

[defaultdotxbe]

and are you sure it was in new york and kuala lumpur?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

As if there was nothing custom and special about the WTC towers.

Evidence that custom rebar was used?

[Belz...]

Please answer my previous posts, christophera...

Also, for the SIXTH time:

Would you care to post your own diagram of the hallway configuration for all to see ? This would surely help me understand, as well as others, how this whole thing works.

[Christophera]

Evidence that custom rebar was used?

You've seen plenty of evidence to know that there was rebar, but have produced none from the raw images of the demolition to support the steel core columns.

At least poor Gravy is trying. He probably had to search a thousand photos to find one he might misinterpret successfully,

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You've seen plenty of evidence to know that there was rebar, but have produced none from the raw images of the demolition to support the steel core columns.

At least poor Gravy is trying. He probably had to search a thousand photos to find one he might misinterpret successfully,

That's not for what I asked. You said they used custom rebar on the WTC towers. Provide evidence for this or retract your claim that it was custom rebar.

[Spektator]

I have a general dislike of anecdotal evidence, but we were having dinner with a couple last night, we were talking about the anniversary of Katrina, and she mentioned that the fifth anniversary of 9/11 was coming up soon too, and that her father had been a construction foreman working on the towers when they were built. I asked her "Did he ever say anything about the core?" She took out her cell phone and called him. He was a very soft spoken older gentleman. I asked, "Did you work on the towers enough to know about the core?" Yes, he had worked on the South Tower from beginning to end, he said. I asked if there was a solid concrete core. No, he said, just steel and drywall. Was he sure? Yes, he said. He'd put a lot of his life into that tower, and he cried like a baby when it came down. No concrete core, he said again. Just steel and drywall.

And no, I will not post his name. It's an anecdote, but I talked to him and I believe him.

[Gravy]

First, answer all of the questions that you've avoided above. Stop running away and face them like a man. Provide your diagrams. Just do it, Chris. Running away like a little boy doesn't help your cause.

Your first image does not represent known scale in the same image that you refer to.
It is a stairwell in the north tower. Would you rather I provided a photo of an unrelated stairwell? Or are you claiming that there were special stairways for little people there?

Your second image shows a vertical member holding up the right side of a stairwell but only one where many should be shown.
How do you know that's a stairwell? If you're judging by floorplans, then do you accept the floorplans as published? The image shows a huge core column with connected floors where your diagram and your statements say there cannot be one. Please explain the discrepancy. Is reality wrong, or are you?

In that same image there is a space between the stairwell and the interior box column which looks like concrete. Point it out. And is "looks like concrete" proof that is is concrete?

The selectivity here is immense because I have shown a number of photos where the supposed steel core columns should show but they do not. No, you haven't. On the other hand, we've shown numerous photos, including today, which show the core columns exactly where the published plans say they are. World 1, Chistophera, 0.

And, ............ I've not only made sense but I've backed it with evidence so your implying that I have not is an error. For example. This image evidences what can only be rebar, and it should show the supposed steel core columns but does not.Explain why that can only be rebar and not something else. Remember, it's not 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 inches thick. It's thicker than that. And what would be the purpose of rebar of any thickness on 4-foot centers? You have never explained how this would be anything more than an idiotic gesture.

So your efforts are weak and there is no body of evidence to support it as there is with the concrete core.Repeat after me: "There is no core but the core..."

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044e76299ec2b2.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044e6c6b81fcef.jpg

[Belz...]

You've seen plenty of evidence to know that there was rebar

The word you're looking for, chris, is speculation.

At least poor Gravy is trying. He probably had to search a thousand photos to find one he might misinterpret successfully,[/QUOTE]

Bolding mine.

Considering how his picture is far clearer than yours, that's quite dishonest from you.

[Belz...]

Also, for the SEVENTH time:

Would you care to post your own diagram of the hallway configuration for all to see ? This would surely help me understand, as well as others, how this whole thing works.

[kevin]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/578944f4f155d23fe.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/578944f4f155a130f.jpg

[Christophera]

First, answer all of the questions that you've avoided above.[/CENTER]

No, .............. first post an image of steel core columns protruding from the core area at an elevation above ground. I've done plenty in answering your questions and I've posted many a picture of the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) that should show the steel croe columns if they existed.

You have no evidence from raw images of the demo which totally expose the core. We see what can only be concrete.

[Christophera]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/578944f4f155d23fe.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/578944f4f155a130f.jpg

Notice how much smaller they are than the box columns ringing the core area. The only such heavy columns in the towers. There were no core columns but the elevators advancing as far possible were guaranteed as a conditon to the contractors. So that is what your pictures show, the elevator guide rail or its supporting steel getting stuck up as far as possible.

[Regnad Kcin]

In reviewing this thread in order to find pertinent posts, I rediscovered this unresolved exchange:

By the way, Mr. Brown, do you stand by the authenticity of this:

Leslie E. Robertson
Posted: Apr 1 2006, 06:33 PM
Unregistered

Christophera is correct in stating that the Twin Towers were constructed with a concrete core. Although in my original design the core was to be a steel framed one that decision was overridden by Minoru Yamasaki the architect.

That core should have resisted the airplane impacts AND the fires. I have said nothing for four and a half years but can remain silent no longer. My belief is that only explosives could have caused WTC 1 & WTC 2 to collapse the way they did on September 11, 2001.

Leslie E. Robertson
Director Leslie E. Robertson Associates, R.L.L.P. and lead engineer of the World Trade Center Get real. I don't know. But if it is from Robertson, he's done about what I would do in his situation given his position.I ask you for the second time: If you "don't know," why did you present it here?Where else would I present it?I ask you for the third time, if you "don't know" why did you present it here?So you would have somethng to do that would make you feel important while you couldn't substantiate your BS assertion that there was an error in my logic with the tower fall/impact scenario.Now then, Mr. Brown, insofar as you cannot provide for its authenticity, will you retract the original post above which you claim to be from Leslie E. Robertson?

[Regnad Kcin]

Also, once again:

- Will you retract your claim (made on another board) that you were banned from this forum?
- What are your plans for presenting your evidence to one or more scientific journals?
- Will you apologize for your unprovoked attack on me?

[kevin]

Notice how much smaller they are than the box columns ringing the core area. The only such heavy columns in the towers.

You don't even understand the plan you're claiming is wrong do you?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/578944f501a762853.png

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/578944f50230717b4.png

As you can see the biggest column is 22.5x18 and the smallest is 13x10. less than 10" difference in any direction. That photo is completely accurate and those aren't elevator guides.

[Belz...]

Notice how much smaller they are than the box columns ringing the core area. The only such heavy columns in the towers. There were no core columns but the elevators advancing as far possible were guaranteed as a conditon to the contractors. So that is what your pictures show, the elevator guide rail or its supporting steel getting stuck up as far as possible.

You might want to confirm that with an actual engineer, chris. Unless you have plans that can support your assertion. Otherwise I can do that, too, and call them rabbits, instead.

Also, for the Eighth time:

Would you care to post your own diagram of the hallway configuration for all to see ? This would surely help me understand, as well as others, how this whole thing works.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Christophera

That's not for what I asked. You said they used custom rebar on the WTC towers. Provide evidence for this or retract your claim that it was custom rebar.

[Christophera]

You might want to confirm that with an actual engineer, chris. Unless you have plans that can support your assertion. Otherwise I can do that, too, and call them rabbits, instead.

Also, for the Eighth time:

Would you care to post your own diagram of the hallway configuration for all to see ? This would surely help me understand, as well as others, how this whole thing works.

Glad to see you can count.

Check my site for a diagram.

Why would engineers improve on the logic of having elevators travel as far up in a skyscraper being constructed?

My point is that you cannot evidence the steel core columns from images of the demolition, but I can redundantly show concrete while showing there were no steel core columns. For example, this image of Concrete shear wall to left of interior box column, the "spire" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg) should show steel core columns left of the spire, but do not.

The steel core columns did not exist.

http://concretecore.741.com

[Regnad Kcin]

- Will you retract your claim (made on another board) that you were banned from this forum?
- What are your plans for presenting your evidence to one or more scientific journals?
- Will you apologize for your unprovoked attack on me?
- Will you retract the post you claim to be from Leslie E. Robertson?

[Belz...]

Glad to see you can count.

Check my site for a diagram.

I'm not going to rummage through that drivel to find anything. Post it here. You usually have no problem with posting links and images.

Why would engineers improve on the logic of having elevators travel as far up in a skyscraper being constructed?

Who the hell talked about logic ? We're talking facts, here.

My point is that you cannot evidence the steel core columns from images of the demolition, but I can redundantly show concrete while showing there were no steel core columns.

That must be very convenient to you, assuming your own conclusion beforehand. None of the people here have that delusion, however.

[Gravy]

Of all the exchanges I've read at the JREF forums, this may be my favorite:

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin ask you for the second time: If you "don't know," why did you present it here?
Originally Posted by ChristopheraWhere else would I present it?

Perhaps when we're all dead and buried, Christophera will kneel over our graves and whisper to us the explanation of the mysterious "elevator guide rails" that are three feet thick.

[Christophera]

I'm not going to rummage through that drivel to find anything. Post it here. You usually have no problem with posting links and images.

Who the hell talked about logic ? We're talking facts, here.

That must be very convenient to you, assuming your own conclusion beforehand. None of the people here have that delusion, however.

Love how this site quotes. Really makes it hard for folks to follow what is being said. Could this be intentional?

This site is a real inadequate site for posting images. I was actually suspended for it, I think. Or was it for reporting unevidenced, repeated, illogical denials of facts by posters with NO evidence as spam, both probably. You will find I do not post many images here.

Facts are often logical and what I've posted is a logical fact seen in the images themselves.

None of the people here have competent evidence for their illogical assertions, which figures 'cause they cannot recognize concrete (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg).

[kevin]

Love how this site quotes. Really makes it hard for folks to follow what is being said. Could this be intentional?

ah yes, the software is designed to make it hard on you. Despite the fact you've repeatedly successfully posted images.

This site is a real inadequate site for posting images.

Interesting as the JREF will actually pay for the bandwidth of hosting images. That's pretty nice deal.

Anyway all you're capable of posting is images of dust you claim is concrete.


Please provide proof the dust in your images is from your supposed core and not from the floors.
Please provide proof the dust in the images is pure concrete and not concrete from the floors plus drywall.
Why is the only proof for your core pictures of dust. Why no construction photos?
Why is 3" rebar on 4' centers structurally unsound?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Love how this site quotes. Really makes it hard for folks to follow what is being said. Could this be intentional?

Funny, nobody else seems to have trouble utilizing the Quote functionality.


This site is a real inadequate site for posting images. I was actually suspended for it, I think. Or was it for reporting unevidenced, repeated, illogical denials of facts by posters with NO evidence as spam, both probably. You will find I do not post many images here.

You were suspended for Christophera has been suspended for 3 days (despite being warned) for repeatedly mis-using the "Report" feature. source (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1724293#post1724293)

Iirc, you were warned for violating

4. You will not post "copyright-protected1" material in its entirety, including "hotlinking2" to images or other media.
...
2"Hotlinking" is using the [img] code to display material from another website in a post. An example would be using the [img] tag to display an image you found on someone else's web page so it will appear in your posts here. Some sites may allow hotlinking, especially image hosting sites, however it is up to the Member to ensure that is the case prior to using a "hotlink" to the content. It is not "hotlinking" to provide a link to content on another site. source (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=681416#post681416)


Facts are often logical and what I've posted is a logical fact seen in the images themselves.

Facts are data. Logic is a thought process.


None of the people here have competent evidence for their illogical assertions, which figures 'cause they cannot recognize concrete (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg).

You said they used custom rebar on the WTC towers. Provide evidence for this or retract your claim that it was custom rebar.

[Pardalis]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/578944f4f155d23fe.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/578944f4f155a130f.jpg

Nice pics, I've never seen them before.

[Pardalis]

At least poor Gravy is trying. He probably had to search a thousand photos to find one he might misinterpret successfully,

As opposed to you posting the same two pictures, OVER, AND OVER, AND OVER, AND OVER, AND OVER again?

[kevin]

Nice pics, I've never seen them before.

They're from a magazine published in 2002. Not sure why I haven't found them before either.

http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/whi/feature/wtc/

Story about them is here:
http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/wmh/issues/autumn02.asp

[Belz...]

Love how this site quotes. Really makes it hard for folks to follow what is being said. Could this be intentional?

Yes. A direct order from James Randi: "make it HUGELY difficult to use the QUOTE function. Otherwise look for another program."

This site is a real inadequate site for posting images. I was actually suspended for it, I think.

Actually that has little to do with the site itself.

Facts are often logical and what I've posted is a logical fact seen in the images themselves.

Facts are ALWAYS logical, and you've posted your interpretation of lousy resolution images.

If you stopped spamming the same image over and over and started explaining how you came to your conclusions about said image maybe we'd get somewhere.

None of the people here have competent evidence for their illogical assertions, which figures 'cause they cannot recognize concrete (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg).

Not at the range you claim to be able to, I can't.

[Belz...]

Also, for the NINTH time, chris:

Would you care to post your own diagram of the hallway configuration for all to see ? This would surely help me understand, as well as others, how this whole thing works.

[kevin]

Who knew the prairies were constructed with a concrete core? Just look at the size of that core!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/578944f5e3a50b942.gif

[Gravy]

Installation of elevator guide rails in WTC
Where'd the concrete core go?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044f5eae6e5c55.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044f5eac523439.jpg

Not Guide Rails.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044f5ed546b728.jpg

[Woody-]

I haven't had any fun poking holes in Christophera's evidence for awhile but I could only hold out for so long. :D


According to his infamous site http://concretecore.741.com/ , this picture shows "a long row of 3" rebar on 4 foot centers"

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/996744f636ddc5213.jpg


Believe it or not he is wrong again. :D

I found a nice little set of pictures taken from New Jersey of the events of that day.

http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/

The following pictures were taken from my apartment in Jersey City. I did not see the two planes hit, but started to take pictures about 3-4 mins after the second one hit. I can assure everyone, that the actual sight was way more horrible than in these pictures. The sheer size of the destruction is pretty difficult to capture. I wish I never get a chance to witness anything like this again.

The three most interesting to the " 3" rebar on 4 foot centers" claim are

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/996744f636c6ccc66.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/996744f636c74d8b9.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/996744f636c7b3cf9.jpg

(I had to crop them slightly to fit here)


So what Christophera calls " 3" rebar on 4 foot centers are actually whole floors and large columns.

So my question to Christophera, are you sure about those 3" rebar on 4 foot centers.

[Christophera]

Installation of elevator guide rails in WTC
Where'd the concrete core go?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044f5eac523439.jpg
The yellow part of the image IS the concrete.


Off the left arrow from the word GUIDE, one arrows length, points to the pad arm brackets that hold the guide rails to the inside of the cast concrete core wall. Opposing it on the left the anchor bolts are shown as "thru bolts" with cross hatching showing concrete.

Thank you very much for that quality evidence.



Let us keep scale closely referenced as well. Those in your zoomed photo are much smaller that the interior box columns ringing the out side of the core wall, because they are elevator guide rail supports. You have photoshop work to do. Until then, everyone please correct the error when posting the image as I've done in red below. The competency of randi.org is at stake here.

CAUTION:Mislabeled image! ------ Arrow indicates Elevator Guide rail support structure.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/578944f4f155d23fe.jpg

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

The yellow part of the image IS the concrete.


Off the left arrow from the word GUIDE, one arrows length, points to the pad arm brackets that hold the guide rails to the inside of the cast concrete core wall. Opposing it on the left the anchor bolts are shown as "thru bolts" with cross hatching showing concrete.

Thank you very much for that quality evidence.



Let us keep scale closely referenced as well. Those in your zoomed photo are much smaller that the interior box columns ringing the out side of the core wall, because they are elevator guide rail supports. You have photoshop work to do. Until then, everyone please correct the error when posting the image as I've done in red below. The competency of randi.org is at stake here.

CAUTION:Mislabeled image! ------ Arrow indicates Elevator Guide rail support structure.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/578944f4f155d23fe.jpg


You said they used custom rebar on the WTC towers. Provide evidence for this or retract your claim that it was custom rebar.

Also, answer Belz, Gravy, et al's questions.

[kevin]

If the yellow part is concrete how did people escape through it with a squeegee?

http://www.ukrweekly.com/Archive/2002/260204.shtml

That's some crappy concrete.

[kevin]

And have you figured out why 3" rebars on 4' centers is strucutrally unsound yet?

[Christophera]

And have you figured out why 3" rebars on 4' centers is strucutrally unsound yet?

I knew I could get the mad hamster to wave his arms wildly.

[CptColumbo]

I knew I could get the mad hamster to wave his arms wildly.

You should really start answering some of these questions (instead of trying to change the subject(badly)), they're really starting to pile up.

BTW you still haven't explained why you lied on the other site.

Also, do you know what a "waving a bloody shirt arguement is?"

[Woody-]

I like this, I post a stumper for Christphera and it gets ignored. I expected at least a hand wave or two.

[Regnad Kcin]

Love how this site quotes. Really makes it hard for folks to follow what is being said. Could this be intentional?No. Your refusal to carry on step-by-step conversation, as well as answer questions posed to you time and time again, make it "hard for folks to follow."

This site is a real inadequate site for posting images.Boo hoo.

Why not instead concentrate on written evidence to support your claims. That you cannot (save for fiction like the e-mail from Leslie E. Robertson) should tell you something.

I was actually suspended for it, I think.So you weren't "banned" (as you earlier claimed at the physorg forum) afterall? Thank you for finally admitting as much.

Or was it for reporting unevidenced, repeated, illogical denials of facts by posters with NO evidence as spam, both probably.You, who do almost nothing but repeat your unsupported claims over and over again, have a lot of nerve.

You will find I do not post many images here.You, who do almost nothing but link to the same handful of images over an over again, have a lot of nerve.

Facts are often logical and what I've posted is a logical fact seen in the images themselves.Er, okay...

None of the people here have competent evidence for their illogical assertions, which figures 'cause they cannot recognize concrete (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg).Tell me the one about how explosives were built into the towers when they were first erected again. I so enjoy the "logic" of that assertion.

Also:

- What are your plans for presenting your evidence to one or more scientific journals?
- Will you apologize for your unprovoked attack on me?
- Will you retract the post you claim to be from Leslie E. Robertson?

[Blackadder_no]

Gah. Now someone is claiming that the 9/11 commission lied, because they said that the core of each tower was "a hollow steel shaft", when it was really made up of "47 massive steel columns".

I just don't see any obvious lie, as I thought these 47 columns simply were the components of this "hollow steel shaft". Perhaps I'm just dense...

Anyone care to enlighten me?

[Gravy]

The yellow part of the image IS the concrete.

Let us keep scale closely referenced as well. Those in your zoomed photo are much smaller that the interior box columns ringing the out side of the core wall, because they are elevator guide rail supports.
:dl:

"Elevator guide rail supports!" "The yellow in the image is the concrete!" Um, Chris, that drawing is not of the World Trade Center.

Okay, here's a quiz. Good luck!

1) If, as you say, the "yelow portion is concrete," why would huge steel columns be needded to guide an elevator? After all, such columns don't appear in the diagram, now, do they? The concrete is the support. Please explain.

2) How thick are those "elevator guide rail supports?"

3) On what floor is the black & white photo taken?

4) Where is the concrete core in the black & white photo?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044f5eae6e5c55.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044f5ed546b728.jpg

[Gravy]

"There are some concrete issues that everyone agrees on that are irrefutable," Avery said in an interview before the screening, " ... and (one of them) is the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center."

[Regnad Kcin]

Wow. I wouldn't have thought someone could fit so much innacuracy in one small statement before reading that. Bravo, Dylan Avery!

[Belz...]

The yellow part of the image IS the concrete.

Ladies and gentlement, it's official. Christophera has the paranormal ability to see concrete not only in fuzzy pictures taken from miles away, but also in DRAWINGS and sketches that show nothing at all.

Off the left arrow from the word GUIDE, one arrows length, points to the pad arm brackets that hold the guide rails to the inside of the cast concrete core wall. Opposing it on the left the anchor bolts are shown as "thru bolts" with cross hatching showing concrete.

Even if you were correct, chris, the columns in Gravy's picture are NOT guide rails, and they're not "box columns", according to the diagram. How do you explain that ?

ETA: Now Gravy says the elevator picture wasn't even from the WTC. I guess chris should think twice before lying.

[Belz...]

CAUTION:Mislabeled image! ------ Arrow indicates Elevator Guide rail support structure.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/578944f4f155d23fe.jpg

No, no it doesn't. You CAN read, can't you ?

Also, for the TENTH time, chris:

Would you care to post your own diagram of the hallway configuration for all to see ? This would surely help me understand, as well as others, how this whole thing works.

[Hellbound]

Just a note:

Chris says they're guide rails, because they're too small to be columns.

Look at the crane nearby.

Those are approx. 15 foot wide elevators.

That seem fishy to anyone else? No elevators that are "normal" sized?

[azazal]

Just a note:

Chris says they're guide rails, because they're too small to be columns.

Look at the crane nearby.

Those are approx. 15 foot wide elevators.

That seem fishy to anyone else? No elevators that are "normal" sized?

Shhhh, stop using logic, it only confuses people

[kevin]

I like this, I post a stumper for Christphera and it gets ignored. I expected at least a hand wave or two.

Get used to it. You'll see 4 or 5 posts questioning him and he'll either reply to one (as in the yellow part is concrete) or ignore them all and repost his pictures of dust.

Nice find on the pictures btw, i haven't seen those at that high a resolution.

[celestrin]

Christophera wrote:
There was a part of the documentary which slowed down as the construction process slowed around all the prep for getting the core off the gronud properly, mostly the elevator alignment process but also the start of myriad conduit/plumbing inside the core.

Christophera, you do realize that there was a huge amount of concrete that went into the WTC, right? You see, it wasn't only the floor slabs that were made of concrete at the WTC. And it sure wasn't your core. (Your core was made of invisicrete, remember. Or was it 3" mirrorcrete on 4' invisicrete centers? I forget which.) There was one other thing, a huge thing, which was also made of concrete.

How accurate is your recollection of the documentary? As you admitted yourself, one cannot expect to remember the details from a documentary one has seen 16 years ago. Was the only footage of "your" concrete core shown at the base of the towers? Just as they were starting to get built? Just as the towers were "getting off the gronud properly"? Down at the base? At or even under the street level?

Are you sure your memory didn't mix up the concrete "core" with the concrete retaining wall? The huge thing that was constructed around the whole WTC complex to keep the ground water at bay? The huge thing that was, in fact, made of concrete? Which was, in fact, reinforced with metal? And, just as you say, the construction of this sealed concrete "tub" did slow down the construction process, since it had to be completed before the construction of the buildings themselves could begin. I'm not a structural engineer nor even a construction worker, but I guess it's hard to erect a building before its foundations are completed.

And there actually is a documentary from about 16 years ago. Well, 23 actually, it was apparently made in 83. It speaks of concrete. Your only problem is, the concrete didn't go in the core, it went into the retaining wall and the foundations. And it shows how the metal reinforcement cages were used in the retaining wall construction. It shows how the retaining wall had to be reinforced with rather large steel tendons, anchored into the bedrock. I guess those might be 3" thick.

IIRC, the documentary was also mentioned somewhere in this very thread. Remove excess spaces.
ht tp://w w w.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/sf_building_pop_01_qry.html

Since all your claims about the core from the ellusive documentary are also consistent with the retaining wall around the WTC, IMO, the whole thing can be explained by your faulty and selective memory. Convince me of your side of the story. Provide your documentary. Provide your version of WTC floor plans with concrete core included. Where were the elevators, various steel columns, concrete walls and hallways? Why is it so hard to provide a simple bird's eye view of your version of Towers? Modify one of FEMA/NIST drawings, modify Kevin's layout or draw a large square and in it a smaller rectangle. Furnish it with column/guide rail setups, elevators, stairwells and the ellusive concrete core and its see-through hallways. Do it on paper and scan it or take a photo with a cell phone camera.

And answer these already. You sure seem to be able to come up with explanations, but only after the pics are shown to you. Why is that? I've got hundreds of pics. Help me identify the ones you're looking for.

Can you tell me how would you recognize steel core columns? What sets them apart from interior box columns and elevator guide rails and whatnot?

What is the property of interior box columns, which allows you to identify them as such?

What is the property of elevator guide rails, which allows you to identify them as such?

What is the property of FEMA-style steel core columns, which would allow you to identify them as such, if I showed them to you?

Do you expect any other type of steel columns on the Ground Zero site except for the exterior columns, internal box columns and guide rail columns? How would you recognize those?


You posted this on other forum, but the same could easily go for this thread as well.
I'll continue to ignore you until you come up with evidence from the demoliton photos that show the supposed steel core columns at an elevation above ground

Why such dishonesty? You refuse to define what you're looking for and then choose to ignore those who are unable to present the requested. You're just like a kiddy version of Jimmy Walter's million dollar challenge. You both demand the impossible and it doesn't really matter whether that's for the lack of coherent logic or lack of properly defined rules. Walter at least chose to deal with structural engineers and I believe he does posses the real bucks, while you just give the impression of a spoiled brat in a sandbox, who refuses to allow anyone to play with his little shovel and pail, until they bring him a skybluepink pydbpawngpunr. Don't bother looking the word up, any similarity to an actual word is purely coincidental.

Answer the questions, not just mine, mind you, and provide your floorplans. I'm extremely interested in how your concrete core fits with the "typical enclosed area for elevators and services" from Kevin's pic. Use imagevenue.com or similar to upload your pictures, since you claim that this board's software is beyond your comprehension.

[kevin]

I knew I could get the mad hamster to wave his arms wildly.

Ah yes, when you don't understand the question insult the questioner. Fortunately your insulting abilities are right up there with your researching abilities.

So you admit you have no idea why 3" rebar on 4' centers is structurally unsound. You should really look into that. It shoots down your theory without even doing research. No engineer would design anything with those specs.

[Hellbound]

Excellent post, celestrin.

And, for ease of access. the documentary link:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/sf_building_pop_01_qry.html
(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/sf_building_pop_01_qry.html)

[kevin]

Gah. Now someone is claiming that the 9/11 commission lied, because they said that the core of each tower was "a hollow steel shaft", when it was really made up of "47 massive steel columns".

I just don't see any obvious lie, as I thought these 47 columns simply were the components of this "hollow steel shaft". Perhaps I'm just dense...

Anyone care to enlighten me?

The design of the WTC is frequently called a tube construction. A large number of exterior columns formed the outer skin of the tube. An inner core filled the center. Most of the volume between the outer skin and the core is air.

Some people have called the core a "tube in a tube" design but this is a mistake. This has led to beliefs like you mention that the core was another tube, but the column plan I posted earlier shows the columns were (somewhat) evenly distributed.

[Belz...]

Excellent post, celestrin.

And, for ease of access. the documentary link:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/sf_building_pop_01_qry.html
(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/sf_building_pop_01_qry.html)

When I saw this about a month ago I thought this must be the documentary that chris saw.

Hey, christophera. Mind watching the movie in the link above and telling us if that's the right documentary ?

[celestrin]

Excellent post, celestrin.
Thanks, Huntsman. And thanks for the link conversion.

[Hellbound]

No prob. The restriction on links is primairly to stop spammers, so we try to help out if it's a legitimate link from a newcomer :)

[longfellow]

Apologies if this has been posted before. It looks as if Christopera isn't making many friends over at LC with his concrete core theory.

s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11658

Incredible, bendable concrete. Made from moon dust broght back from the Apollo missions. The planes were made from concrete, also.

[kevin]

Apologies if this has been posted before. It looks as if Christopera isn't making many friends over at LC with his concrete core theory.

s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11658

clickable linky:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11658

Gravy, check that thread out. Christophera is now using your guide rail image as proof.

[azazal]

clickable linky:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11658

Gravy, check that thread out. Christophera is now using your guide rail image as proof.

Well at least it's good to see that the loosers can detect some BS

[Christophera]

When I saw this about a month ago I thought this must be the documentary that chris saw.

Hey, christophera. Mind watching the movie in the link above and telling us if that's the right documentary ?

The documentary I saw mentioned the one you link to as celebrating the WTC completion but described itself as an intimate examination of the construction process of TWC 1. It was called "The Construction Of The Twin Towers" and was 2 hours in length.

No, not the same doc.

[WildCat]

The documentary I saw mentioned the one you link to as celebrating the WTC completion but described itself as an intimate examination of the construction process of TWC 1. It was called "The Construction Of The Twin Towers" and was 2 hours in length.

No, not the same doc.
Why don't you come on back after you find it, m'kay?

[Pardalis]

The documentary I saw mentioned the one you link to as celebrating the WTC completion but described itself as an intimate examination of the construction process of TWC 1. It was called "The Construction Of The Twin Towers" and was 2 hours in length.

No, not the same doc.

Christophera, nobody ever saw that freaking documentary. If you can't provide us with a link or any hint as to who made it, if it ever was made, then it's IRRELEVANT.

[Christophera]

The design of the WTC is frequently called a tube construction. A large number of exterior columns formed the outer skin of the tube. An inner core filled the center. Most of the volume between the outer skin and the core is air.

Some people have called the core a "tube in a tube" design but this is a mistake. This has led to beliefs like you mention that the core was another tube, but the column plan I posted earlier shows the columns were (somewhat) evenly distributed.

"Tube in a tube" construction was the term used in the documentary I saw in 1990 and the WTC core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) shown here does not reflect the columns of the various , poorly detailed column plans.

[Christophera]

Christophera, nobody ever saw that freaking documentary. If you can't provide us with a link or any hint as to who made it, if it ever was made, then it's IRRELEVANT.

It was made by PBS, production went from 1987 to 1990.

It cannot be irrelevant if it helps to explain the facts. You have no explanation for what this (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is and why steel core columns do not appear in the core area of any of the demoliton images. My informatoin from the documentary does, so therefore it is relevant.

[Christophera]

Ah yes, when you don't understand the question insult the questioner. Fortunately your insulting abilities are right up there with your researching abilities.

So you admit you have no idea why 3" rebar on 4' centers is structurally unsound. You should really look into that. It shoots down your theory without even doing research. No engineer would design anything with those specs.


Proof is so much better than theory.

3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Proof is so much better than theory.

3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)

You said they used custom rebar on the WTC towers. Provide evidence for this or retract your claim that it was custom rebar.

[Mancman]

It was made by PBS, production went from 1987 to 1990.

It cannot be irrelevant if it helps to explain the facts. You have no explanation for what this (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is and why steel core columns do not appear in the core area of any of the demoliton images. My informatoin from the documentary does, so therefore it is relevant.

Have you considered the fact that it would be near impossible to pick out columns in that photo as it a) taken from a mile away; and b) the core is veiled in dust?

How about the columns(along with lateral bracing) you see in this video footage? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778&q=nist+fema

[Pardalis]

Christophera, how old were you when you saw that documentary?

[Darth Rotor]

Proof is so much better than theory.

3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)
Informed opinion is so much better than wankery. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=62901)

DR

[azazal]

Proof is so much better than theory.

3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)

I was waiting for the 3 inch rebar to come back.

From http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/boom24.shtml

But the thickness and amount of rebar uncovered opened the eyes of Loizeaux. The last time he had seen such reinforced concrete was at a nuclear reactor.

AND

Mark Loizeaux points out the reinforcing rods used in Kingdome columns. He said he has only seen rebar that thick in nuclear power plants.

And there is a nice picture of said rebar, looks to be about 2 to 2.5 inches thick. Guess the WTC was some sort of super-duper rebar