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

[ArmillarySphere]

And that question was answered.

Pull outwards when the floor trusses were wrenched loose by the progressive collapse, and then supplanted by gravity as soon as the columns deviated from vertical.

[ArmillarySphere]

I'll wait for an explanation of how you think the equivalent of a 10-floor building can bounce

[Gravy]

If the top of the building is seperate on its own as you say then why didn't it just topple off above the damage rather than plummet through all that relatively sound structure? In effect the top should "ricochet" or take the path of least resistance off the top of the building, kind of like trying to balance a block on the end of a broomstick (Go on Belz, take that analogy beyond its boundaries, I dares ya).
Oh, my. William, I'll make this as simple as possible.

At the same time that it was tilting and twisting, the top of each tower was also falling straight down, fulcrum and all, through the lower section. Any close-up video shows this.

I hope this was helpful.

[qarnos]

If the top of the building is seperate on its own as you say then why didn't it just topple off above the damage rather than plummet through all that relatively sound structure? In effect the top should "ricochet" or take the path of least resistance off the top of the building, kind of like trying to balance a block on the end of a broomstick (Go on Belz, take that analogy beyond its boundaries, I dares ya).

IT DID!

The path of least resistance was down. Remember our old friend, gravity?

I will re-iterate an experiment proposal I created for TruthSeeker1234:

* Take a large, heavy object such as a shipping container and suspend if from a crane so the bottom of the container is a smidgen above head height.

* Go stand under the container, but as far from the centre as possible. You will be acting as the pivot point.

* Have a friend release the container and observe if it tips over (due to your resistance) before chrushing you.

By your logic, the container would "fall around" you. The laws of physics might disagree of course.

NOTE: Attempting this experiment may result in severe personal injury or, more likely, death. I will not be held responsible for the well-being of persons attempting this experiment.

[Belz...]

The concept of separate, delayed detonations explains why the lower part of the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) stands momentarily.

Oh, you mean this:

The core stopped detonations right after that. The thermite in the basement and the floors detonations were enough to bring the steel to the ground and expose the core for a second or two.

So, you think you can just blow up the outside of the building, then wait, and then detonate the core, which is still standing on its own ?

Good thing you don't build houses.

[Belz...]

I'm sure you'll try to lecture and educate me anyway.

Read it again, I am surprised you missed this as you claim to have some sort of ESP about my posts!!! The comment "What lateral forces?" is asking what lateral forces were present on the day.

Oh, so we're supposed to guess what it means without the words that would make it clear ?

Oh, and I'm pretty sure a 767 ramming a building at top speed constitutes a lateral force.

[Belz...]

Kind of like trying to balance a block on the end of a broomstick (Go on Belz, take that analogy beyond its boundaries, I dares ya).

So... you think the bottom of the building was a solid block ? Gee, I'm happy that YOU don't build houses, either.

[Z]

Look at the aspect ratio Huntsman.

I didn't show the whole building to try to reduce the visual impact of the damage. I did it to show the density (as this seems to be such a big deal) and extent of the sound structure BENEATH the damage (Assuming that structure is not made of skin).

If the top of the building is seperate on its own as you say then why didn't it just topple off above the damage rather than plummet through all that relatively sound structure? In effect the top should "ricochet" or take the path of least resistance off the top of the building, kind of like trying to balance a block on the end of a broomstick (Go on Belz, take that analogy beyond its boundaries, I dares ya).

There's where your analogy continuously fails. The building under the roof was not 'like a broomstick', but like a set of smaller, somewhat weaker sticks making a loose box-shape under the roof. Far less stable, and infinitely less likely to act as a unit, deflecting the larger mass of the top anywhere. Add to that the fact that the supporting structure DIRECTLY under the roof began to collapse into the middle, and there's no reason the roof would slide in any horizontal direction.

It had no choice whatsoever than to come down through the floors below it.

[einsteen]

-the situation is extremely nonlineair and onze the 'block' falls it becomes chaotic, there is enough time for the assumed block to find a path of less resistance

- the speed after one floor is assumed to give the block enough energy to break everything between the block, an initial speed of sqrt(2gh_floor) is assumed. Well assuming that the last thing that is able to keep the block that high (for an hour) breaks, what would be what breaks, in fact they mean at t=0 the block can freely move a distance of 3.7meter to get its initial speed, why would this complete block getting that initial speed.
That is not realistic. First of all 3.7 meter is between the center of masses of the floors, but the floors have a width and what about the plane that is still there and all other stuff, that doesn't give the free 3.7 meter to travel. I would expect that only one part of the block gets a space to travel 1 meter and then, the rest breaks with this, but then the velocity that it reaches when it is at the next floor will be much lower. Kinetic energy goes with v^2 which means that the energy will be much lower in general, much lower. There is so much more that is not taken into account, mass scattering away, the block that will destroy also etc.

[sleahead]

That is not realistic. First of all 3.7 meter is between the center of masses of the floors, but the floors have a width and what about the plane that is still there and all other stuff

Was the plane and all other stuff still there?

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

(Scroll down to details of the Air France flight)

[einsteen]

Ok, I don't care, what I'm interested in is, how could the block reach a speed of sqrt(2gh) to collapse on the next floor ?

Physical processes are continue processes, why at t=0 does the block completely fall in vacuum ? at t=0 in fact an area is assumed with all mass concentrated. This is not possible if you assume steal weakens, I would expect in a continue process that the block just caves in one floor continuously. Why is it there for an hour and then after one hour it is completely free and is able to move 3.7 meters in the whole area.

But of course NIST has the answer, please could you give the the link of the report that explains this, I couldn't find it.

[bob_kark]

You didn't explain what this is if it is not the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) you are not being reasonable and you are wasting our time.
What is unreasonable about asking you to stand behind the evidence you provide? Simply demonstrate how it is possible to determine the identity of the materials from the pictures you are showing. Why do you not consider this a reasonable request?

[uruk]

Just wanted to remind Christophera that thermite does not explode.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ld1rlBAfK_I
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2289367460324643450&q=grenade

[chipmunk stew]

What is unreasonable about asking you to stand behind the evidence you provide? Simply demonstrate how it is possible to determine the identity of the materials from the pictures you are showing. Why do you not consider this a reasonable request?
Because he is not a reasonable person. If history is any guide, he will be hammering away at the same points with the same tenacity in the same language on some forum five years from now. It's not stubbornness--it's illness. He actually, literally sees what he says he sees. Nothing you say can convince him otherwise.
To those of you who may be relatively new to christophera, he really is seriously mentally ill. You can find links to his various sites that prove this unconditionally in this very thread (search the time frame around 2-3 weeks ago in this thread and you'll find everything you need to know about him).

But in light of that reality, it is probably best not to engage with him over the same two posts and the same two photos that he's been spouting here for the past few months and that he's been spouting for the past few years on various forums. Just read the links and you will understand. Personally, I'd prefer that when his ultimate meltdown occurs, it is on a forum other than JREF.

As annoying as he is, as obvious as it is that his theories are indefensible and nonsensical, as apparent as it is that he's the only person on the face of the earth who believes that the twin towers had concrete cores, he really is seriously mentally ill. No joke. So, please, take the high road and let this thread die despite the temptation to respond to his nonsensical posts.

[chipmunk stew]

-the situation is extremely nonlineair and onze the 'block' falls it becomes chaotic, there is enough time for the assumed block to find a path of less resistance

- the speed after one floor is assumed to give the block enough energy to break everything between the block, an initial speed of sqrt(2gh_floor) is assumed. Well assuming that the last thing that is able to keep the block that high (for an hour) breaks, what would be what breaks, in fact they mean at t=0 the block can freely move a distance of 3.7meter to get its initial speed, why would this complete block getting that initial speed.
That is not realistic. First of all 3.7 meter is between the center of masses of the floors, but the floors have a width and what about the plane that is still there and all other stuff, that doesn't give the free 3.7 meter to travel. I would expect that only one part of the block gets a space to travel 1 meter and then, the rest breaks with this, but then the velocity that it reaches when it is at the next floor will be much lower. Kinetic energy goes with v^2 which means that the energy will be much lower in general, much lower. There is so much more that is not taken into account, mass scattering away, the block that will destroy also etc.
Remember, it's not really a "block", it's a wad of debris that happens to be arranged in a stable configuration.

Remember, too, how massive this "wad" is--millions of pounds. The initial failure causing PE to convert to KE would be localized, but for every failed structural member, the stress and strain on the remaining members would increase, causing a rapidly accelerating chain reaction of failures. Given the enormity of the wad's mass, it's reasonable to expect that this chain reaction would have been nearly instantaneous. Also given the wad's enormity, I wouldn't expect any plane or other debris to slow the initial drop significantly. The velocity at the initial impact leading to global collapse would be very near the velocity it would be at freefall.

[einsteen]

I more mean, take a book, place 4 blocks of ice in the corners and place another book on it, take the heaviest book you can find and the smallest iceblocks, but strong enough to carry the book. Maybe ice is no good example, let's take some plastic or metal whatever you want, the weakest material that you can think of with the properties its strength is heat-dependent. Do an experiment in which you heat the metal.

Why would the book not go down slowly ? Why is it assumed to have it's height of 3.7 cm and at t=0 it's in vacuum. melting/weakening etc is a continuous process, like all things in physics. We have no sawtooth functions working somewhere, especially not after an hour, a lot of functions go with exp(-k1*t/k2). What happened here ? I don't know.

of course it is no 'block', mass is mass ok but debris even makes it more difficult, then a small part will drop, another small part will drop etc.

I think you can earn a lot of money if you can proof it, wouldn't that be nice, you f**k the CT'ers and get money also, what more do you want ?

[MortFurd]

I more mean, take a book, place 4 blocks of ice in the corners and place another book on it, take the heaviest book you can find and the smallest iceblocks, but strong enough to carry the book. Maybe ice is no good example, let's take some plastic or metal whatever you want, the weakest material that you can think of with the properties its strength is heat-dependent. Do an experiment in which you heat the metal.

Why would the book not go down slowly ? Why is it assumed to have it's height of 3.7 cm and at t=0 it's in vacuum. melting/weakening etc is a continuous process, like all things in physics. We have no sawtooth functions working somewhere, especially not after an hour, a lot of functions go with exp(-k1*t/k2). What happened here ? I don't know.

of course it is no 'block', mass is mass ok but debris even makes it more difficult, then a small part will drop, another small part will drop etc.

I think you can earn a lot of money if you can proof it, wouldn't that be nice, you f**k the CT'ers and get money also, what more do you want ?
First off, no one here says it was in vacuum.

About the closest working model I can think of that you might build at home would be to use the sheet metal channels that are sometime used in building partition walls in houses. These are about the dimensions of a 2x4, but are made of sheet metal. They frame the wall and hang sheet rock on the stuff.

If you built a model of a section of the WTC (ten floors or so) about the area of large living room, you might be able to learn something. That's about the closest I can WAG the dimensions. Someone here with real engineering experience could probably come up with a more accurate scaling, but they'd also say that the attempt will be inherently inaccurate and not neccessarily representative of the WTC situation - which is all true.

The point I'm trying to make is that material strength and mass do not scale linearly with size changes. If you make a structure like the WTC at a smaller scale, at will be stronger by far than ther real WTC was. If you want to simulate the WTC, you have to go with software (which has its own inaccuracies) or with a structure whose materials and dimensions have been scaled to match mass to size and strength strength to size ratios. To be really accurate, you'd have to build a full size structure (or at least a section of it.)

Your books will act like rigid blocks. The WTC buildings were flexible steel structures. Big difference in response right there.

The collapsing section (where the plane hit) did not melt like an ice cube. The steel columns continued to stand until some over stressed (too hot, and trying to carry too much load from missing neighbors) column buckled. That one then left its neighbors to carry more load until one of them collpased, and so on. In just a few seconds that process could expand until even undamaged columns can no longer carry the load on them. Once you've got columns (and beams) collapsing, there's no reason for them to stop. The structure still has a load to carry, and less and less memebers to carry it.

Your mistake is still in assuming that the collapsing section will respond like a block. It will not.

[einsteen]

Yeah, a scale model will not really work of course. My knowledge is a little bit based on the Greening pre-print because it's an excellent paper that exactly calculates the collapse time under the assumptions that are assumed (if that is proper English?). One of the assumptions is that the energy of the initial falling block is enough to cause pancaking, only if a small precentage of the energy is enough to break the floors and all other stuff, in fact that means that the energy should be enough to compress all the mass within or press it out in all directions. In fact it is assumed for the initial 'block' that it travels a distance about 410/110 meter, it needs that distance to get suff. speed. IMO the paper disproves what it wants to prove.

[rwguinn]

Yeah, a scale model will not really work of course. My knowledge is a little bit based on the Greening pre-print because it's an excellent paper that exactly calculates the collapse time under the assumptions that are assumed (if that is proper English?). One of the assumptions is that the energy of the initial falling block is enough to cause pancaking, only if a small precentage of the energy is enough to break the floors and all other stuff, in fact that means that the energy should be enough to compress all the mass within or press it out in all directions. In fact it is assumed for the initial 'block' that it travels a distance about 410/110 meter, it needs that distance to get suff. speed. IMO the paper disproves what it wants to prove.
The buildings stood for a very long time with significant numbers of supports missing. These were pretty much all on one side.
The fire weakened sufficient numbers of the remaining members to the point where one or more could no longer react the bending moment imposed by the failure on one side of the building, and it/they failed, and what was left were then doomed to fail.
Such failure is not plastic. It was catastrophic. When you yield steel, you are putting energy in. That energy reduces to its lowest form, heat, which further weakens the steel, which cannot dissipate it very quickly--and rubture is abrupt and catastrophic.
With no support, the upper "block" falls free and impacts the next level, which fails catastrophically, ad infinitum.

[Christophera]

Oh, you mean this:

So, you think you can just blow up the outside of the building, then wait, and then detonate the core, which is still standing on its own ?

Good thing you don't build houses.

Apparently you have your terms confused. There is something suspiciously naive or phoney about this comment. Building houses is one thing, demoliton another. I've scratched the surface of both over years, on occasion.

There were 2 distinct systems one that demolished the core and another for floors.

After your ridiculous mixing of terms, I know you will not or cannot reason, so this isn't for you.

Consider:
If you are going to design an exploding building and build it safely you build it so that it is segmented and one segment does not detonate an adjoining segement. If one goes off, it stops there. You have to make each segment have separate detonators.

The different systems were; Reinforced concrete core had RDX coated rebar, floors had it in the corrugations and there was a special dual plate system that was built into the floors to cut columns, ( EXPLO. shear & torch Cut on columns left shear, right torch. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc.box.shear.torch.gif)).

The documentary had a bit about plates with ridiculous tolerences surrounding each interior box columns. Justifying the high cost of the towers was actually a part of the grant the videographers so the tracked down an engineering company of a list given to them by the PA and received all the old drawings produced by the company and found tempered steel plates specified to very tight tolerences for the type component. When they went to the PA the PA was upset that the engineering company had released the old drawings, and data. They had considered them classified at the time. It was near the end of the ducumentary.

The below diagram describes the concept accomodated by the tolerences and position of the plates. They filled the truncated corners of the trussed floor panels where they connected to the interior box column. There is something fully feasible and logical about using one system of super high pressures gasses to cut steel strcuture then using an interior concrete strcuture that throws the steel materials outward with a controlled heave.

(http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg)http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3271&stc=1&d=1159228581

[Christophera]

What is unreasonable about asking you to stand behind the evidence you provide? Simply demonstrate how it is possible to determine the identity of the materials from the pictures you are showing. Why do you not consider this a reasonable request?

My reasoning is not evidence. Y

Demonstratons of logic showing the shape of the WTC 2 core can only be concrete will require you brain to ba active and your heart large enough to care about Amrica enough to use logic.

Common snes with logic say it must be concrete because there is no steel seen. It does no look like steel and other images show what mut be concrete and not steel. Redundancy consistent with common logic. Done deal.

FEMA lied.

[LashL]

My reasoning is not evidence. Y [sic]

Demonstratons [sic] of logic showing the shape of the WTC 2 core can only be concrete [???] will require you [sic] brain to ba [sic] active and your heart large enough to care about Amrica [sic] enough to use logic.

Common snes [sic] with logic say [sic] it must be concrete because there is no steel seen [sic]. It does no [sic] look like steel and other images show what mut [sic] be concrete and not steel. Redundancy consistent with common logic [???]. Done deal.

FEMA lied.

Chris,

Please get help. Nobody here wishes to watch you implode, by controlled demolition or otherwise, but it does appear that you are getting worse when your language, spelling, and grammar become so horrible, and when your posts do not even make any sense.

Please, take a break from the internet and seek the help you need.

[Skylark]

Enough with the concrete core BS already... (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html)

Read this and get some help.

[bob_kark]

My reasoning is not evidence. Y

Demonstratons of logic showing the shape of the WTC 2 core can only be concrete will require you brain to ba active and your heart large enough to care about Amrica enough to use logic.

Common snes with logic say it must be concrete because there is no steel seen. It does no look like steel and other images show what mut be concrete and not steel. Redundancy consistent with common logic. Done deal.

FEMA lied.
I will only say this once. Please, never insinuate that I do not care about my country. That's a very low blow and is completely uncalled for. Let's stick to the subject at hand.

You're claiming that the structure in the picture does not look like steel, therefore it must be concrete. How can you tell? The picture is taken from such a great distance that you can not judge texture, much less color.

However, you bring up an interesting point, common sense. Let me ask you this, would a structure that was built to be able to withstand high wind loads be built with a concrete core or a steel beam core? Which one seems more likely to bend and absorb the energy from high winds? In addition, which material would you say would be more suited for large open spaces such as in the WTC? Also, the WTC would have been nearly double the tallest concrete building in the world at the time, One Shell Plaza. So from a building stand point, wouldn't you believe steel would make far more sense than concrete ever would for the WTC? What benefit would concrete provide?

But let's get back to your claim. You state that you have other images that show concrete. Could you provide them?

[Christophera]

I consider your rebuke to my questioning you loyalty to the principles of our nation to be sincere. Meaning truth and justice are also valued, meaning you might be up the challenge of doing something important to save it.


You're claiming that the structure in the picture does not look like steel, therefore it must be concrete. How can you tell? The picture is taken from such a great distance that you can not judge texture, much less color.


You've got it, then you twist away from it.

Structural steel during failure is very distinct. When we see it at the WTC, we can see what it is if one knows what its distinct characteristces are. In the absense of those characteristics we must look to what characteristics other matreials have that could survive the tousands of tons of steel crashing over it have. Seek to identify those in the decomposing structure in order to discern the material.

Now we must conside the possibilities. Lets trya few things other than concrete to see how they fits.

Wood: Check the history of wooden towers.
Stone: Definately masonry and it is stated the towers had none. cast concrete is not often called masonry in engineering and archcitecture. Check the history of stone towers.

Aluminum: Check the history of aluminum towers.
Fibeglass: Check the history of fiberglass towers.

We all have common knowledge to know that those materials just arn't used for towers.

CONCRETE: Square cast concrete corners will develop larger radius gently rounded corners (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) with erosive forces.

[Skylark]

So you're saying that a concrete core would have withstood not only the "blasts" (since you say it was CD) above it, but the floors collapsing around it, where steel wouldn't have? That is your only proof that it had a concrete core?

...

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA no.

[Mancman]

-the situation is extremely nonlineair and onze the 'block' falls it becomes chaotic, there is enough time for the assumed block to find a path of less resistance

- the speed after one floor is assumed to give the block enough energy to break everything between the block, an initial speed of sqrt(2gh_floor) is assumed. Well assuming that the last thing that is able to keep the block that high (for an hour) breaks, what would be what breaks, in fact they mean at t=0 the block can freely move a distance of 3.7meter to get its initial speed, why would this complete block getting that initial speed.
That is not realistic. First of all 3.7 meter is between the center of masses of the floors, but the floors have a width and what about the plane that is still there and all other stuff, that doesn't give the free 3.7 meter to travel. I would expect that only one part of the block gets a space to travel 1 meter and then, the rest breaks with this, but then the velocity that it reaches when it is at the next floor will be much lower. Kinetic energy goes with v^2 which means that the energy will be much lower in general, much lower. There is so much more that is not taken into account, mass scattering away, the block that will destroy also etc.

What resistance is there going to be between one floorslab and another? Some burnt desks, chairs, partition walls, and shreds of plane? These are going to absorb all the energy and slow down a 1000 ton floorslab? Wow. :eek:

[Belz...]

After your ridiculous mixing of terms, I know you will not or cannot reason, so this isn't for you.

I'm not mixing terms, I'm trying to make heads and tails out of your ridiculous theory.

If you are going to design an exploding building and build it safely you build it so that it is segmented and one segment does not detonate an adjoining segement. If one goes off, it stops there. You have to make each segment have separate detonators.

Why not just ram big planes into the buildings and let the fire do the rest of the work ?

[Belz...]

My reasoning is not evidence.

Damn straight.

Demonstratons of logic showing the shape of the WTC 2 core can only be concrete will require you brain to ba active and your heart large enough to care about Amrica enough to use logic.

Nonsensical assertion of the day.

Common snes with logic

Leave Nintendo out of this.

say it must be concrete because there is no steel seen.

False dichotomy.

It does no look like steel and other images show what mut be concrete and not steel. Redundancy consistent with common logic. Done deal.

"I'm right, therefore I am correct. Ergo, I win."

[Belz...]

Oh, please, chris, answer Bob's question:

However, you bring up an interesting point, common sense. Let me ask you this, would a structure that was built to be able to withstand high wind loads be built with a concrete core or a steel beam core? Which one seems more likely to bend and absorb the energy from high winds? In addition, which material would you say would be more suited for large open spaces such as in the WTC? Also, the WTC would have been nearly double the tallest concrete building in the world at the time, One Shell Plaza. So from a building stand point, wouldn't you believe steel would make far more sense than concrete ever would for the WTC? What benefit would concrete provide?

[Skylark]

Or, you know, you could completely ignore the link I posted which even shows photos of a cross section of a core column (one of the 44-47 used in the entire core structure) - made completely, 100% FROM STEEL.

You know, ignoring evidence is a good way to prove your argument, isn't it?

You have yet to post proof that there is in fact this "concrete core" which is the basis of your theory. (You know, that theory that the buildings fell at "free fall" speeds, which I already proved they didn't.)

Since you continue to ignore evidence I will continue to ignore your posts (which seem to consist of the same thing every time you post). Arguing with a CT isn't so annoying if they don't cling to their argument despite it being debunked over and over and over.

[bob_kark]

I consider your rebuke to my questioning you loyalty to the principles of our nation to be sincere. Meaning truth and justice are also valued, meaning you might be up the challenge of doing something important to save it.



You've got it, then you twist away from it.

Structural steel during failure is very distinct. When we see it at the WTC, we can see what it is if one knows what its distinct characteristces are. In the absense of those characteristics we must look to what characteristics other matreials have that could survive the tousands of tons of steel crashing over it have. Seek to identify those in the decomposing structure in order to discern the material.

Now we must conside the possibilities. Lets trya few things other than concrete to see how they fits.

Wood: Check the history of wooden towers.
Stone: Definately masonry and it is stated the towers had none. cast concrete is not often called masonry in engineering and archcitecture. Check the history of stone towers.

Aluminum: Check the history of aluminum towers.
Fibeglass: Check the history of fiberglass towers.

We all have common knowledge to know that those materials just arn't used for towers.

CONCRETE: Square cast concrete corners will develop larger radius gently rounded corners (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) with erosive forces.
Thank you Christophera, I'm glad you appreciate the fact that I do love my country, as I'm sure you do.

Thank you as well for bringing up distinct characteristics of different building materials. I've taken the liberty of finding several pictures of collapsed concrete buildings. I'm sorry in advance for the great number of pictures:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/6327451933616aa0f.gif

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/63274519336171383.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/632745193499ecc20.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/63274519349a2d576.jpg

Now, besides the fact that none of these buildings have completely collapsed, I'm seeing a common theme in each of these pictures. It has to do with the structure itself rather than the collapse. Do you notice how none of he hallways are created completely out of concrete? Instead they use reinforced concrete pillars as a support to create the building.

In fact, I've been unable to find a single high-rise concrete building that used any other method. In addition, in each of these high-rise concrete building, the reinforced concrete pillars are spaced apart from each other by quite a distance. Instead of forming a square as your pictures seem to, they form a rectangle which is far more wide than tall.

In addition, I was unable to find a collapse where the reinforced concrete pillars stood up on their own. In each collapse I was able to view, they had a tendency to tip over with the floor above them rather than to stand straight on their own. So, at this point, it actually appears to me that the structure in the pictures you provided actually does not follow the characteristics of a reinforced concrete structure.

Now, you stated that the structure in your pictures do not share the characteristics of a steel structure. What characteristics are you referring to?

[uruk]

Christophera invested a lot of time, money, and self-confidence in this belief of his. He is going to ignore any evidence which goes against his beliefs.

He is quite simply a dellusional fanatic. There is no amount of fact or evidence that is going to sway him. Everybody here has shown him multitudes of pictures and diagrams, some even from his own site, that show unequivacly and without any doubt how the core is constructed. Yet he still ignores all that mountain of data based soley on three fuzzy and obscured pictures. Does that sound like the actions of an intellectually honest or possibly even stable person?

You be the judge.

[Belz...]

Maybe the Chewbacca defense will work.

[Oliver]

I consider your rebuke to my questioning you loyalty to the principles of our nation to be sincere. Meaning truth and justice are also valued, meaning you might be up the challenge of doing something important to save it.



You've got it, then you twist away from it.

Structural steel during failure is very distinct. When we see it at the WTC, we can see what it is if one knows what its distinct characteristces are. In the absense of those characteristics we must look to what characteristics other matreials have that could survive the tousands of tons of steel crashing over it have. Seek to identify those in the decomposing structure in order to discern the material.

Now we must conside the possibilities. Lets trya few things other than concrete to see how they fits.

Wood: Check the history of wooden towers.
Stone: Definately masonry and it is stated the towers had none. cast concrete is not often called masonry in engineering and archcitecture. Check the history of stone towers.

Aluminum: Check the history of aluminum towers.
Fibeglass: Check the history of fiberglass towers.

We all have common knowledge to know that those materials just arn't used for towers.

CONCRETE: Square cast concrete corners will develop larger radius gently rounded corners (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) with erosive forces.



2001 = Dead End

2006 = Dead End

.
.
.
.
.

2047 = Dead End

[chipmunk stew]

2001 = Dead End

2006 = Dead End

.
.
.
.
.

2047 = Dead End

2067 = Dead. With nothing to show for it. :(

[alexg]

Christophera invested a lot of time, money, and self-confidence in this belief of his. He is going to ignore any evidence which goes against his beliefs.

He is quite simply a dellusional fanatic. There is no amount of fact or evidence that is going to sway him. Everybody here has shown him multitudes of pictures and diagrams, some even from his own site, that show unequivacly and without any doubt how the core is constructed. Yet he still ignores all that mountain of data based soley on three fuzzy and obscured pictures. Does that sound like the actions of an intellectually honest or possibly even stable person?

You be the judge.


I'll second that. This is his GREAT CONTRIBUTION to society, his life's meaning, he's WAY out on a limb on this! I'm no psychiatrist but I'm thinking the only hope is that some tragic event - divorce, job loss for example - may have brought on this episode and that a lot of time might bring a very slow return to sanity. I hope he's not on any non-prescribed drugs. If you are Chris just stop. Come back to us.

[Regnad Kcin]

Demonstratons of logic showing the shape of the WTC 2 core can only be concrete will require you brain to ba active and your heart large enough to care about Amrica enough to use logic.I will only say this once. Please, never insinuate that I do not care about my country. That's a very low blow and is completely uncalled for.I consider your rebuke to my questioning you loyalty to the principles of our nation to be sincere. Meaning truth and justice are also valued...So says the admitted liar.

Sorry, Mr. Brown. The high road is not yours to claim.

[Christophera]

Thank you Christophera, I'm glad you appreciate the fact that I do love my country, as I'm sure you do.

Thank you as well for bringing up distinct characteristics of different building materials. I've taken the liberty of finding several pictures of collapsed concrete buildings. I'm sorry in advance for the great number of pictures:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/6327451933616aa0f.gif

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/63274519336171383.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/632745193499ecc20.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/63274519349a2d576.jpg

Now, besides the fact that none of these buildings have completely collapsed, I'm seeing a common theme in each of these pictures. It has to do with the structure itself rather than the collapse. Do you notice how none of he hallways are created completely out of concrete? Instead they use reinforced concrete pillars as a support to create the building.

In fact, I've been unable to find a single high-rise concrete building that used any other method. In addition, in each of these high-rise concrete building, the reinforced concrete pillars are spaced apart from each other by quite a distance. Instead of forming a square as your pictures seem to, they form a rectangle which is far more wide than tall.

In addition, I was unable to find a collapse where the reinforced concrete pillars stood up on their own. In each collapse I was able to view, they had a tendency to tip over with the floor above them rather than to stand straight on their own. So, at this point, it actually appears to me that the structure in the pictures you provided actually does not follow the characteristics of a reinforced concrete structure.

Now, you stated that the structure in your pictures do not share the characteristics of a steel structure. What characteristics are you referring to?

You have correctly noted the characteristics of steel reinforced concrete columns and that they will not stand on their own. The steel reinforced concrete core of the Twin Towers was not the single narrow column repeated and tied together with floors. It was a single tubular rectangle with concrete shear wall construction on four sides with a 80 x 120 foot ID. The interior box columns surrounded it and fastened to it imparting the shear resistence of the concrete and the resistence to torsion of such a tube to the steel so the steel was able to take maximum loads. The core would have stood on its own but the scaffolding to build it constitutes the floors, so just leave the scaffold up 'cause you don't need elevators to nowhere. The tube is cast inside the scaffold frame.

This represents WTC 1, 2 was different.

diagram of hallways and interior wall of the WTC 1 steel reinforced concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corehallsdoors.gif)

[Christophera]

Here are the pictures of the steel columns in the core structre of the WTC

These pictures show that the sipres in your pictures are the steel support structures in the core of the building. Look closely at the size and spacing

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/images/w...truction.1.jpg
http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2002-05/3121225.jpg

In the first picture notice the color of the concrete on the floor section, now note the color of veretical support beam. concrete-white, steel-dark

Your first link no workee. Second link not show what you say. U dummie.

[Christophera]

Christophera invested a lot of time, money, and self-confidence in this belief of his. He is going to ignore any evidence which goes against his beliefs.

He is quite simply a dellusional fanatic. There is no amount of fact or evidence that is going to sway him. Everybody here has shown him multitudes of pictures and diagrams, some even from his own site, that show unequivacly and without any doubt how the core is constructed. Yet he still ignores all that mountain of data based soley on three fuzzy and obscured pictures. Does that sound like the actions of an intellectually honest or possibly even stable person?

You be the judge.

Multitudes of pictures and diagrams? Mountain of data?

You are exagerating and really have no evidence that is not deeply in question, whatsoever or you would have posted it

Here is hard evidence. No room for deception.

http://concretecore.741.com

[qarnos]

Here is hard evidence. No room for deception.

http://concretecore.741.com

I don't think you are trying to deceive us Christopher, but I think you are deceiving yourself.

Read this (http://www.physics.brocku.ca/etc/cargo_cult_science.html) speech from by Richard Feynman. The quote in my signature is taken from this and illustrates what I am trying to say.

[Belz...]

You have correctly noted the characteristics of steel reinforced concrete columns and that they will not stand on their own. The steel reinforced concrete core of the Twin Towers was not the single narrow column repeated and tied together with floors. It was a single tubular rectangle with concrete shear wall construction on four sides with a 80 x 120 foot ID. The interior box columns surrounded it and fastened to it imparting the shear resistence of the concrete and the resistence to torsion of such a tube to the steel so the steel was able to take maximum loads. The core would have stood on its own but the scaffolding to build it constitutes the floors, so just leave the scaffold up 'cause you don't need elevators to nowhere. The tube is cast inside the scaffold frame.

And you remember all this from 15 years ago ?

[GlennB]

Multitudes of pictures and diagrams? Mountain of data?

You are exagerating and really have no evidence that is not deeply in question, whatsoever or you would have posted it

Here is hard evidence. No room for deception.

http://concretecore.741.com

Christopher - this a very personal question I know and I'm not really expecting an answer, but have you ever been diagnosed with an Autistic Spectrum Disorder? Asperger's Syndrome perhaps?

[Oliver]

Christopher - this a very personal question I know and I'm not really expecting an answer, but have you ever been diagnosed with an Autistic Spectrum Disorder? Asperger's Syndrome perhaps?

Maybe it´s just a Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder?

The prevalence among children is estimated to be in the range of 5% to 8% in children, and 4% to 8% in adults

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder

[Skibum]

Maybe it´s just a Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder

I seriously doubt its anything as simple as ADHD by itself. IMO the man is certifiably insane.

[Lothian]

Wow, 86 pages, excuse me for not reading them all. I am not sure if this has been suggested yet but perhaps the fall of the towers was in some way connected to the aeroplanes that crashed into them.*






*Unless I have totally misunderstood and it was caused by Frodo throwing the one ring into the inferno at Mount Doom.

[uruk]

Multitudes of pictures and diagrams? Mountain of data?

You are exagerating and really have no evidence that is not deeply in question, whatsoever or you would have posted it

Here is hard evidence. No room for deception.

http://concretecore.741.com

In the picture on you your own website you show a picture from the construction of the WTC. You have erroneously (and without evidence I might add) labeled some of the core coulmns as "elevator rail guides". They are not elevator rail guides. They are far too large to be elevator rail guides.
Look here for an example of elevator guide rails. Take notice of the size of the rails in relation to people and other structures.:
http://www.eltecelevator.com/imgs/diagram.jpg
http://india.thyssenkruppelevator.com.cn/india/product/elevator.asp

also notice the WTC elevators in relation to your "elevator rail guides"
Most of the elevators are not adjacent to the columns that labled as "rail guides":
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_ch2.htm#fig-2-1
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/World_Trade_Center_Building_Design_with_Floor_and_ Elevator_Arrangment.jpg

Hey, how about showing me evidence that those columns are elevator rail guides from some place other than your site. You know, back it up with corroberating evidence.

Naa, this is just a waste of time. Your just going to ignore all this stuff.

[Brainache]

Wow, 86 pages, excuse me for not reading them all. I am not sure if this has been suggested yet but perhaps the fall of the towers was in some way connected to the aeroplanes that crashed into them.*






*Unless I have totally misunderstood and it was caused by Frodo throwing the one ring into the inferno at Mount Doom.

Come on, we all know it was Gollum who fell into the fire after biting off Frodo's finger with the ring that caused the tower to collapse. The ring was obviously a transmitter to set of the gaspipe explosives in the black tower.

If only Sauron hadn't used that C4 coated rebar in the concrete core at Barad Dur....

[einsteen]

Wow, 86 pages, excuse me for not reading them all. I am not sure if this has been suggested yet but perhaps the fall of the towers was in some way connected to the aeroplanes that crashed into them.

That's indeed how the human brain works. First we have an event, then another event. There is a correlation between the events. There is a chance that the second event has a causal relation with the first one, this chance was near zero, but that day the impossible happened.
And once this idea has been absorbed into the brain it will never get out of that brain, especially not when it happened two times on the same day.
We saw it ourselves didn't we! Even smart people are tricked by this shock effect and become dull, journalists change into media whores and scientists work under the assumption of the pancake collapse. There is no proof of a complete steel frame that is deformed. It was completely intact except at the floors of impact. But I swear one day the truth will be revealed.

[WildCat]

But I swear one day the truth will be revealed.

It's been revealed for over 5 years now. You can't handle the truth.

[Gravy]

That's indeed how the human brain works. First we have an event, then another event. There is a correlation between the events. There is a chance that the second event has a causal relation with the first one, this chance was near zero, but that day the impossible happened.
And once this idea has been absorbed into the brain it will never get out of that brain, especially not when it happened two times on the same day.
We saw it ourselves didn't we! Even smart people are tricked by this shock effect and become dull, journalists change into media whores and scientists work under the assumption of the pancake collapse. There is no proof of a complete steel frame that is deformed. It was completely intact except at the floors of impact. But I swear one day the truth will be revealed.

I didn't know geggy had relatives in Europe.

[Belz...]

That's indeed how the human brain works. First we have an event, then another event. There is a correlation between the events. There is a chance that the second event has a causal relation with the first one, this chance was near zero, but that day the impossible happened.

What the hell is that supposed to mean ?

And once this idea has been absorbed into the brain it will never get out of that brain, especially not when it happened two times on the same day.

It doesn't mean that brain understands what happened.

We saw it ourselves didn't we! Even smart people are tricked by this shock effect and become dull, journalists change into media whores and scientists work under the assumption of the pancake collapse. There is no proof of a complete steel frame that is deformed. It was completely intact except at the floors of impact.

So, you know better than scientists and specialists ?

But I swear one day the truth will be revealed.

Certainly not by you, seeing as how you spend your time here, instead.

[chipmunk stew]

I didn't know geggy had relatives in Europe.
The frontal lobe problem must be genetic.

[einsteen]

who's geggy ?

No of course not by me. It looks like most JREF regulars think that the people who are skeptical against the official explanation are just mentally sick or something like that, or that it is just a kind of fashion or lifestyle. No it isn't. Of course there is a lot of nonsense out, one must separate chaff from wheat, but there are some things that even NIST cannot explain. 50% of your population will be mentally sick then.

[bob_kark]

You have correctly noted the characteristics of steel reinforced concrete columns and that they will not stand on their own. The steel reinforced concrete core of the Twin Towers was not the single narrow column repeated and tied together with floors. It was a single tubular rectangle with concrete shear wall construction on four sides with a 80 x 120 foot ID. The interior box columns surrounded it and fastened to it imparting the shear resistence of the concrete and the resistence to torsion of such a tube to the steel so the steel was able to take maximum loads. The core would have stood on its own but the scaffolding to build it constitutes the floors, so just leave the scaffold up 'cause you don't need elevators to nowhere. The tube is cast inside the scaffold frame.

This represents WTC 1, 2 was different.

diagram of hallways and interior wall of the WTC 1 steel reinforced concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corehallsdoors.gif)
Ok, now where did you obtain this diagram? Have you obtained blueprints for the WTC? Have you visited the WTC and made this determination?

In addition, if this was a continuous wall, why does your picture show a box pattern in the remaining debris standing? The hallways you describe in the picture would be unlikely to be left standing with their supports removed, so what causes this box pattern?

[Hellbound]

who's geggy ?

No of course not by me. It looks like most JREF regulars think that the people who are skeptical against the official explanation are just mentally sick or something like that, or that it is just a kind of fashion or lifestyle. No it isn't. Of course there is a lot of nonsense out, one must separate chaff from wheat, but there are some things that even NIST cannot explain. 50% of your population will be mentally sick then.

No, we don't. We generally think they are uninformed, misinformed, or otherwise incorrect...with a few being mentally ill or intentionally deceptive.

The thing is, 60% of the things "NIST can't explain" are simply things NIST doesn't explain, because to those with knowledge in the relevent areas it doesn't require an explanation...it's obvious if you have the knowledge and experience to make the judgement. Consider that the NIST report was not an investigation to tell the general public what happened...it was an investigation to determine what engineers and architects could do in the future to make buildings safer, by identifying the factors that contributed to this collapse.

35% of the remaining things brought up are non-events...such as the supposed explosions in the basement (reported by a single witness who has changed his story continuously since the event, and supported by none of the physical evidence), or the "squibs" that are video compression artifacts, or the "pyroclastic flow" and "mushroom cloud" that are not either, or the highjackers supposedly still alive.

The last 5% are things so inconsequential that searching for an explanation would be counterproductive and irrelevent to the final determination in any case.

[Belz...]

who's geggy ?

No of course not by me. It looks like most JREF regulars think that the people who are skeptical against the official explanation are just mentally sick or something like that, or that it is just a kind of fashion or lifestyle. No it isn't. Of course there is a lot of nonsense out, one must separate chaff from wheat, but there are some things that even NIST cannot explain. 50% of your population will be mentally sick then.

Not sick.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_6080451910aeadaa4.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1621)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Not sick.



I was thinking more along the lines of
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/ArkanWolfshade/woo_v_skeptic.jpg

[Christophera]

In the picture on you your own website you show a picture from the construction of the WTC. You have erroneously (and without evidence I might add) labeled some of the core coulmns as "elevator rail guides". They are not elevator rail guides. They are far too large to be elevator rail guides.

If they were "core columns' they would be seen in the demolition images, they are not and therefore did not exist since "core columns" would be of the strongest parts of the towers and woul dbe seen in imges of the towers demise.

What we see resembles concrete (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)and nothing looking like steel core columns is seen where it should.

Add to this evidence the many other images showing what must be concrete while no steel columns are seen and it is conclusive. NO STEEL CORE COLUMNS.

http://concretecore.741.com

[Christophera]

Ok, now where did you obtain this diagram? Have you obtained blueprints for the WTC? Have you visited the WTC and made this determination?

I created this diagram from a FEMA diagram that misrepresented the core. The diagram was made from memory using the information from the documentary on the construction of WTC 1.

diagram of hallways and interior wall of the WTC 1 steel reinforced concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corehallsdoors.gif)


In addition, if this was a continuous wall, why does your picture show a box pattern in the remaining debris standing? The hallways you describe in the picture would be unlikely to be left standing with their supports removed, so what causes this box pattern?

I'm am not sure of what you refer to with the above.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I created this diagram from a FEMA diagram that misrepresented the core. The diagram was made from memory using the information from the documentary on the construction of WTC 1.

diagram of hallways and interior wall of the WTC 1 steel reinforced concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corehallsdoors.gif)



I'm am not sure of what you refer to with the above.

Okay Chris, you've convinced me. Now what?

[bob_kark]

I created this diagram from a FEMA diagram that misrepresented the core. The diagram was made from memory using the information from the documentary on the construction of WTC 1.

diagram of hallways and interior wall of the WTC 1 steel reinforced concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corehallsdoors.gif)
How can you be certain that you remember it accurately after 10 years?

I'm am not sure of what you refer to with the above.
I think I misunderstood you before actually. Let me ask you something else. You're stating that the box like pattern shown in the picture in this post:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1941796#post1941796

Are from the divisions in the concrete where the hallways cut through the concrete core. Why, and how for that matter, would only the sides surrounding the openings for the hallways remain standing? Also, what material is the extraordinarily long beam made out of?

[Belz...]

If they were "core columns' they would be seen in the demolition images, they are not and therefore did not exist since "core columns" would be of the strongest parts of the towers and woul dbe seen in imges of the towers demise.

And yet, by your own admission, box columns, that are weaker than core columns, are seen throughout and after the collapse. So which is it ?

[uruk]

If they were "core columns' they would be seen in the demolition images, they are not and therefore did not exist since "core columns" would be of the strongest parts of the towers and woul dbe seen in imges of the towers demise.

What we see resembles concrete (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)and nothing looking like steel core columns is seen where it should.

Add to this evidence the many other images showing what must be concrete while no steel columns are seen and it is conclusive. NO STEEL CORE COLUMNS.

http://concretecore.741.com

See this site for picture of the steel columns:
http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corecorneralt3.gif
http://www.rumormillnews.com/pix3/pic87932.jpg
http://people.howstuffworks.com/wtc7.htm
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
http://thewebfairy.com/nerdcities/WTC/WTC_apndxB.htm
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-1A.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3B.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/session6/6McAllister.pdf#search=%22wtc%20core%20support%20c olumns%22
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/worldTradeCenter.htm

etc..etc..




P.S. Yes I know one of the links is from his site.

[Christophera]

How can you be certain that you remember it accurately after 10 years?


I think I misunderstood you before actually. Let me ask you something else. You're stating that the box like pattern shown in the picture in this post:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1941796#post1941796

Are from the divisions in the concrete where the hallways cut through the concrete core. Why, and how for that matter, would only the sides surrounding the openings for the hallways remain standing? Also, what material is the extraordinarily long beam made out of?

That image is the spire (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) and the rectangular shapes are formed by 1 x 3', "I" beams and the interior box columns ("MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg)) which surround the concrete core.

The very long vertical element (beam) is a corner column of the interior box columns ringing the core


http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3291&stc=1&d=1159398191

[bob_kark]

That image is the spire (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) and the rectangular shapes are formed by 1 x 3', "I" beams and the interior box columns ("MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg)) which surround the concrete core.

The very long vertical element (beam) is a corner column of the interior box columns ringing the core


http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3291&stc=1&d=1159398191
Ok, so basically, you're stating that this is all steel then?

[Christophera]

And yet, by your own admission, box columns, that are weaker than core columns, are seen throughout and after the collapse. So which is it ?

I do not think I've said that. IF core columns are going to exist then they are at least the same strength as the "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg). But to say "probably stronger" wouldn't be an error. The only columns we see in demo images are interior box columns encircling the concrete core, core detonated, box columns falling, toppelling in this image (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/overspirezoom.gif)

[Christophera]

Ok, so basically, you're stating that this is all steel then?

Behind the steel is a concrete shear wall, but I'm not going to try and say you can see it in that image,

This image of the Concrete shear wall to left of interior box column, the "spire" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg) is actually very close to the same moment in time from the opposite side of the strcuture and the broken end of the concrete shear wall of the core is easy to see.

[Arus808]

holy god forbid. Please. this thread should have died. Chris has already stated that nohting will convince him that there was no concrete core.
that should have ended it.
if he's not here to be open minded, then he this thread isn't worth keeping opne.

the only thing that will prove our facts and undermine his theories is to get a person who workedon the construction of the towers to post here.

other than that, please, let this thread die.

[bob_kark]

Behind the steel is a concrete shear wall, but I'm not going to try and say you can see it in that image,

This image of the Concrete shear wall to left of interior box column, the "spire" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg) is actually very close to the same moment in time from the opposite side of the strcuture and the broken end of the concrete shear wall of the core is easy to see.
How can you determine this is concrete and not dry wall or some other building material?

[Christophera]

P.S. Yes I know one of the links is from his site.

You probablay don't know what information that was so I've defined it, what it shows.

A piece of the core wall base.
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corecorneralt3.gif
ANOTATED: Core wall base. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg)

A salvage cut on an interior box column. We are looking across a corner of the core the center of the core is not shown. ("MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg)) Ask me and I'll tell you exactly how that cut was made.
http://www.rumormillnews.com/pix3/pic87932.jpg

This page is a problem for any who think the truth will protect the future of this nation. It basically supports the FEMA story.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
It does make a disclaimer to the presented steel column data:

Column Arrangement

The exact arrangement of the columns and how they were cross-braced is not apparent from public documents such as FEMA's World Trade Center Building Performance Study. The arrangement of box columns depicted in Figure 2-10 of Chapter 2 (pictured to the right) seems plausible, even though it contradicts other illustrations in the report showing a more random arrangement. It depicts the top floors of a tower and does not indicate the widths of the columns on a typical floor.

[Christophera]

How can you determine this is concrete and not dry wall or some other building material?

The events preceding our view of it. What has just happened? The relative strength of something that survives such a catastrophe is the first criteria. We see the spire, flexing to the right of the concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) and we can tell it is concrete shear wall by its rounded features. Also, although difficult to see, this images diagram of hallways and interior wall of the WTC 1 steel reinforced concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corehallsdoors.gif) can be seen in the image of the shear wall annotated above. This larger version helps to see that.

Dark spaces left of shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg)

The same logic underly, but even proportionately moreso, how this image (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) can only be seen as the core of 2.

[Senor_Pointy]

The same logic underly, but even proportionately moreso, how this image can only be seen as the core of 2.

That explains a lot. :rolleyes:

[Christophera]

Did you yourself not state:



This is clearly a LOT longer than free fall would have taken - more than twice as long, in fact. So by your own evidence (which is far less factual than the evidence I have provided) the buildings did not fall at "free fall" speeds.

Therefore your question is answered so you can stop.

Since I'm not after a scientific determination, and the topic of this thread includes "Realitic explanations", providing realistic explanations is a priority.

When you do that it is because you care about the pinciples of the nation you are a part of.



Twice the rate of free fall is fine. This is oviously not a collapse for OTHER REASONS. Any rate of fall, idenitical(ly) W/structures at near free fall rates, uniformly to the ground is totally UNACCEPTABLE in terms of collapse. (read last sentence again) Towers built like those would NEVER do that. Why do you think they stood for 35 years!!

The tops fell the wrong way according to where the damage was.

Explain this within the claimed reasons for 'collapse" (sic).

[chipmunk stew]

Christopher, I have suggested that the administrators ban you from the forum under the no spam rule. You have posted the same handful of links to your own sites hundreds of times. You are not discussing anything with anyone, you are simply repeating yourself over and over and over and over... It would not be terribly difficult to set up a spam bot that could closely replicate your presence on this forum.

I prefer to be upfront with you about this than go behind your back.

[uruk]

You probablay don't know what information that was so I've defined it, what it shows.

A piece of the core wall base.
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corecorneralt3.gif
ANOTATED: Core wall base. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg)

A salvage cut on an interior box column. We are looking across a corner of the core the center of the core is not shown. ("MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg)) Ask me and I'll tell you exactly how that cut was made.
http://www.rumormillnews.com/pix3/pic87932.jpg

This page is a problem for any who think the truth will protect the future of this nation. It basically supports the FEMA story.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
It does make a disclaimer to the presented steel column data:

Column Arrangement

The exact arrangement of the columns and how they were cross-braced is not apparent from public documents such as FEMA's World Trade Center Building Performance Study. The arrangement of box columns depicted in Figure 2-10 of Chapter 2 (pictured to the right) seems plausible, even though it contradicts other illustrations in the report showing a more random arrangement. It depicts the top floors of a tower and does not indicate the widths of the columns on a typical floor.

I've seen your annotations more times that I care to. From what information are you basing what you are labeling? Your just assuming you know what you are looking at. What do you have to back up what you are saying?

The "911 research" site shows that they don't know what they are looking at either. There's noone there who knows how to read a floorplan. They are confusing plans which eliminate certain detail for the clarity of other information with plans which show other detail And thier confused as to why one plan shows one thing and not the other.
Your doing the samething. Your looking at a jumble of twisted and torn metal and totaly confusing what it is that you are looking at. Your even seeing concrete where there is no concrete.

But you know what? This is a total waste of time. Your too lock in your emotional investment to even consider that you may be wrong or mistaken about what you belive. That's a sure sign of dillusionment to be so absolute on so little info.

I hope you have a good life there Chris. See ya

[firecoins]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

[alexg]

Why do you think they stood for 35 years!! Christophera


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAH!

Brilliant!

[bob_kark]

The events preceding our view of it. What has just happened? The relative strength of something that survives such a catastrophe is the first criteria. We see the spire, flexing to the right of the concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) and we can tell it is concrete shear wall by its rounded features. Also, although difficult to see, this images diagram of hallways and interior wall of the WTC 1 steel reinforced concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corehallsdoors.gif) can be seen in the image of the shear wall annotated above. This larger version helps to see that.

Dark spaces left of shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg)

The same logic underly, but even proportionately moreso, how this image (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) can only be seen as the core of 2.
Do you have the originals of these pictures? I'm sorry but it is impossible to determine rounded edges from these pictures. They are quite simply too low a quality to be able to determine that much detail.

The picture taken from New Jersey can provide slightly more detail, but the color of the structure is nearly identical to the color of the dust due to the poor lighting conditions. The picture taken from down the street can't show enough detail as demonstrated well by the windows on the highrise on the left. If you'll look carefully, the size of each window can vary widely depending on what row or column the window is located on. Either way, they are too blurry to be able to determine the composition of the structure based upon the picture.

[Christophera]

I've seen your annotations more times that I care to. From what information are you basing what you are labeling? Your just assuming you know what you are looking at. What do you have to back up what you are saying?

What I'm saying is consistent with all the otehr images whereas your description of the tower core is not.

The "911 research" site shows that they don't know what they are looking at either. There's noone there who knows how to read a floorplan. They are confusing plans which eliminate certain detail for the clarity of other information with plans which show other detail And thier confused as to why one plan shows one thing and not the other.
Your doing the samething. Your looking at a jumble of twisted and torn metal and totaly confusing what it is that you are looking at. Your even seeing concrete where there is no concrete.

But you know what? This is a total waste of time. Your too lock in your emotional investment to even consider that you may be wrong or mistaken about what you belive. That's a sure sign of dillusionment to be so absolute on so little info.

I hope you have a good life there Chris. See ya

No homer, not a waste of time. I saw the docuementary and I know how the towers were constructed and some of the images I see I understand exactly what I'm looking at and everything is consistent with reason and logic from several directions.

http://concretecore.741,com

[Christophera]

Do you have the originals of these pictures? I'm sorry but it is impossible to determine rounded edges from these pictures. They are quite simply too low a quality to be able to determine that much detail.

The picture taken from New Jersey can provide slightly more detail, but the color of the structure is nearly identical to the color of the dust due to the poor lighting conditions. The picture taken from down the street can't show enough detail as demonstrated well by the windows on the highrise on the left. If you'll look carefully, the size of each window can vary widely depending on what row or column the window is located on. Either way, they are too blurry to be able to determine the composition of the structure based upon the picture.

Process of elimination first of what you see then what it could be.

What are you not looking at. Steel core columns.

What materials might present themselves as we see. Concrete. Only concrete.

Done deal if logic in service to truth for justice protecting rights and freedoms, fundamental principles of our nation are respected without fear or prejudice.

[bob_kark]

Process of elimination first of what you see then what it could be.

What are you not looking at. Steel core columns.

What materials might present themselves as we see. Concrete. Only concrete.

Done deal if logic in service to truth for justice protecting rights and freedoms, fundamental principles of our nation are respected without fear or prejudice.
What about the structure tells you that you do not see steel core columns?

[Christophera]

Why do you think they stood for 35 years!! Christophera


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAH!

Brilliant!

Oh, yea, maybe only 33.

[missyvanwinkle]

Christopher - this a very personal question I know and I'm not really expecting an answer, but have you ever been diagnosed with an Autistic Spectrum Disorder? Asperger's Syndrome perhaps?

Hi GlennB,
Maybe I can add a little something to the conversation.

Asperger's is a developemental disorder on the autism spectrum that's characterized by social handicap, *not* generally affiliated at all with psychosis (like your garden variety paranoia, delusions, etc. Whole different issue entirely.)

Matter of fact, Asperger's is associated with normal to high intelligence. It's hypothesized Einstein had it and many mathematicians, scientists, engineers, & academics probably do, too; you know, the classic "absent-minded professor" types who have great intellectual abilities coupled with no common sense or people skills. Oh, and motor clumsiness often enough is just thrown in for good measure -- make sure they're reeeeeally popular in high school. :-)

But, if anything, they tend to LOVE rationality -- they understand logical argument, comprehend the introduction of new information that contradicts their previous beliefs, and change their minds with new data, all because they are normal people in that sense.

Miss

[Blue Mountain]

It's hypothesized Einstein had it and many mathematicians, scientists, engineers, & academics probably do, too; you know, the classic "absent-minded professor" types who have great intellectual abilities coupled with no common sense or people skills. Oh, and motor clumsiness often enough is just thrown in for good measure -- make sure they're reeeeeally popular in high school. :-)
Going slightly off-topic here ... I'm reasonably convinced Einstein suffered nothing of the sort. He was rather gregarious (witness the picture of him with his tongue out), married twice, had three children. Hardly something you'd expect from a socially handicapped individual. And he played the violin, so his motor skills were probably all right, too.

[Christophera]

What about the structure tells you that you do not see steel core columns?

Steel structures, when they don't just fail and fall, erode in very obvious fashions from object and structure above breaking away. If explosives sof material are blown away leaving protruding cut stubs. If collapse, a great deal of bending to the point of breaking then a fall leaving a protruding, bent end. This happens without fail, or a more rectangular remanant is always left over when things are torn off cleanly.

This object is round, smooth (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

There are supposed to be 47 very strong columns, and "column" implys one piece for each, 1300 feet long in the core area. Many of those columns probably wouldn't break and would be draped over the surroundings, bucking unsupported? Any core that couldn't mostly stand on its own wouldn't be much of a core. The columns would be have to be joined together, making a very jagged remnant if it were steel.

Consider there is NO DETAIL whatsoever, on how the supposed columns were joined together. I have NEVER seen that information, I 've asked for it and invariably a misinterpreted image of the heavily trussed crane platform is posted where upon I have to explain, one more time, that the crane platform followed the towers up and could be seen fastened at varying depths in the core area, always the same.

[Christophera]

Christopher, I have suggested that the administrators ban you from the forum under the no spam rule. You have posted the same handful of links to your own sites hundreds of times. You are not discussing anything with anyone, you are simply repeating yourself over and over and over and over... It would not be terribly difficult to set up a spam bot that could closely replicate your presence on this forum.

I prefer to be upfront with you about this than go behind your back.

If there was moderation that insisted on reason in debate I would only have to post links once.

The opposition here has also posted the same links over and over and I've shown that their evidence is inadequate.

They say mine is not, but they cannot reasonably substantiate it from the images of the demolition which is where we get to look at its guts. We do not see what the oppositions says was there. We see what I say was there.

chipmunk, you might not be capable of rationalizations on this subject matter.

How about letting me challenge you to a debate with rules of reason based on evidence regarding this concrete core denial issue so we can test what i claim about your ability to rationalize and judge what spam might really be.

[Gravy]

Christopher, I have suggested that the administrators ban you from the forum under the no spam rule. You have posted the same handful of links to your own sites hundreds of times. You are not discussing anything with anyone, you are simply repeating yourself over and over and over and over... It would not be terribly difficult to set up a spam bot that could closely replicate your presence on this forum.

I prefer to be upfront with you about this than go behind your back.
A week or two ago in response to a poll I said Christophera should be allowed post as long as he's not breaking any rules. I didn't think of the spam issue at the time. I tend to think that if people continue to engage a poster, there's at least a level of curiosity there, and perhaps someone is learning something from that.

But now that I look at it again, I think Chipmunk is absolutely right. This is supposed to be a discussion forum, and discussions are impossible with Christophera. Not difficult: absolutely impossible. The only new thing presented by Chris on this thread since the first few pages is confirmation of his mental illness, hardly reason to encourage this thread to continue.

Imagine if this were a "discussion" at a meeting, a dinner, a bar. No one would last 30 seconds with Christophera, much less 4300 posts, because his delusions prevent him from engaging with others in a meaningful way. I think that allowing this to continue does a disservice to newcomers who come across this massive thread and assume that something interesting must develop. And I think we do Christophera a disservice by enabling his monomania, which has carried over into other threads.

I just picked 4 pages at random and 4 posts with my eyes closed:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1663981&postcount=175
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1839233&postcount=2322
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1884059&postcount=2687
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1939853&postcount=4084

This is not good. I'm going to request a ban based on the spam rule, and if that can't be done, that a notice be placed at the front of this thread that the entire thread can be summed up in these words: Chris: concrete core. Others: steel core.

Chris, the people who've expressed concern for your health, including me, are very serious about it. It's hard to see you go through this. I apologize for the role I played here, which I treated as an exercise to dig up photos and watch WTC videos. Enough.

[Skylark]

Since I'm not after a scientific determination, and the topic of this thread includes "Realitic explanations", providing realistic explanations is a priority.

When you do that it is because you care about the pinciples of the nation you are a part of.



Twice the rate of free fall is fine. This is oviously not a collapse for OTHER REASONS. Any rate of fall, idenitical(ly) W/structures at near free fall rates, uniformly to the ground is totally UNACCEPTABLE in terms of collapse. (read last sentence again) Towers built like those would NEVER do that. Why do you think they stood for 35 years!!

The tops fell the wrong way according to where the damage was.

Explain this within the claimed reasons for 'collapse" (sic).


I'll give you a reason. You just want one reason why in the 33 years of those buildings existence, they didn't collapse, yet on 9/11 they collapsed?

BECAUSE AA JETS WERE FLOWN INTO THEM.

Really this is like 100 pages of him plugging his gay site... instead of all of us saying "don't post here anymore", lets just stop feeding his addiction and really just stop posting in this godawful, retarded, inhumanly stupid thread.

BTW, I bolded a part of your quote, because I thought I ought to point out that I live in Brisbane Australia.

So go choke. I don't even have a reason to defend the Bush administration. But I do for 9/11. You see, I've been presented with the facts from both sides, and although some reasonable questions were asked by some CTers, they have nearly all been answered (apart from ones that are impossible to prove from either side). But when CTers try to blatantly push that their stories still hold firm (even after being debunked), I tend to lose patience. You still have not even shown that you followed the link I posted, which proves that there is no concrete core.

And as for you saying "there are no photos of steel columns on the ground", of course there are! That's the stupidest claim I've ever heard.

EDIT: Point taken, too, Gravy. This is pointless, let it die.

[Belz...]

I do not think I've said that. IF core columns are going to exist then they are at least the same strength as the "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg). But to say "probably stronger" wouldn't be an error. The only columns we see in demo images are interior box columns encircling the concrete core, core detonated, box columns falling, toppelling in this image (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/overspirezoom.gif)

So you admit that "box columns" survived the collapse momentarily ?

[Belz...]

The events preceding our view of it. What has just happened? The relative strength of something that survives such a catastrophe is the first criteria. We see the spire, flexing to the right of the concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) and we can tell it is concrete shear wall by its rounded features.

Huh ? What rounded features ??

This object is round, smooth.

Huh ?

What materials might present themselves as we see. Concrete. Only concrete.

Dry wall, perhaps ?

Dust ?

[bob_kark]

Christopher, I have suggested that the administrators ban you from the forum under the no spam rule. You have posted the same handful of links to your own sites hundreds of times. You are not discussing anything with anyone, you are simply repeating yourself over and over and over and over... It would not be terribly difficult to set up a spam bot that could closely replicate your presence on this forum.

I prefer to be upfront with you about this than go behind your back.
I disagree with you chip. Christophera may argue in circles at times but I don't think he's harming anyone. He doesn't bombard any other threads with his comments and actually, I think that's rather admirable considering the behavior of other posters I've seen. While he may link back to his site on many posts, he's making no profit from it. In fact, many people have links to their own websites in their signature line, every post they make is an advertisement of sorts for their website.

Finally, more to gravy's point, no one on this forum is fit to diagnose Christophera with any mental illness. We can believe that he appears to have certain symptoms of mental illness. However, our view of Christophera is extremely limited. All we know about Christophera is confined to conversations about the construction and eventual destruction of the WTC and about some beliefs he holds that are different from the norm. Therefore I would strongly suggest that everyone withhold their diagnosis of Christophera's mental state unless they are a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist and have actually had sessions with Christophera. Well, even then I suppose you can't discuss it...

I've made the mistake before of attempting to diagnose from ignorance. It simply causes you to appear ignorant and does nothing to help the person you are attempting to "diagnose." I hope you realize, I'm not trying to offend you by stating this. I simply believe this is an important fact you may not have taken into consideration.

[Skibum]

Therefore I would strongly suggest that everyone withhold their diagnosis of Christophera's mental state unless they are a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist and have actually had sessions with Christophera.

I think the vast majority are not making a diagnosis.
Many are expressing a concern that he possibly needs mental health care, and IMO there is enough there to make that call.

One doesn't need to be a mechanic to be able to tell someone that they ought to have their car checked out when its showing signs of malfunction.


I would have no problem telling someone to have a nasty looking infection checked by a doctor.

I would certainly hope that If I were exhibiting signs of mental illness that someone would at least try to clue me in before I got bad enough to either hurt myself or someone else.

[missyvanwinkle]

Going slightly off-topic here ... I'm reasonably convinced Einstein suffered nothing of the sort. He was rather gregarious (witness the picture of him with his tongue out), married twice, had three children. Hardly something you'd expect from a socially handicapped individual. And he played the violin, so his motor skills were probably all right, too.

While definitive diagnosis is impossible in dead folks, Einstein's tongue-out pic is a pretty good argument in favor of his not being particularly adept with or concerned about social niceties -- as is his generally unkempt apppearance (hello? That hair?! lol), his refusal to wear socks, etc.

Marriage and children are, surprising-to-the-laiety, not unexpected with the AS group -- and two marriages is extremely consistent, particularly in a time of few divorces (they're hard to live with!); that his second marriage was apparently to a cousin speaks volumes. Admittedly, many AS marriages are of convenience or caretaking.

Not all are affected with motor deficit. As I alluded to, just the lucky get it ;-)

BUT, to get back to the side topic at hand, any psychotic resistance to logic or reason in the forum should not be mistaken for mere social deficit.

Miss

[MortFurd]

...SNIP
Finally, more to gravy's point, no one on this forum is fit to diagnose Christophera with any mental illness. We can believe that he appears to have certain symptoms of mental illness. However, our view of Christophera is extremely limited. All we know about Christophera is confined to conversations about the construction and eventual destruction of the WTC and about some beliefs he holds that are different from the norm. Therefore I would strongly suggest that everyone withhold their diagnosis of Christophera's mental state unless they are a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist and have actually had sessions with Christophera. Well, even then I suppose you can't discuss it...

I've made the mistake before of attempting to diagnose from ignorance. It simply causes you to appear ignorant and does nothing to help the person you are attempting to "diagnose." I hope you realize, I'm not trying to offend you by stating this. I simply believe this is an important fact you may not have taken into consideration.
We aren't diagnosing anything. Start reading here. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57426&page=93) Christophera seems to have really, truthfully had problems at some point. It doesn't appear that they are completely cured.

[bob_kark]

I think the vast majority are not making a diagnosis.
Many are expressing a concern that he possibly needs mental health care, and IMO there is enough there to make that call.

One doesn't need to be a mechanic to be able to tell someone that they ought to have their car checked out when its showing signs of malfunction.


I would have no problem telling someone to have a nasty looking infection checked by a doctor.

I would certainly hope that If I were exhibiting signs of mental illness that someone would at least try to clue me in before I got bad enough to either hurt myself or someone else.
You're comparing mental illness to a blown carborator? To begin with, I hope we can agree that the human mind is a bit more complex. In addition, you are unable to speak directly to Christophera, you're able to see what he types on a message board. You can tell he claims to have some strange beliefs, but strange beliefs are not definitive proof of mental illness.

[MortFurd]

Strange beliefs are NOT the problem. Christophera admits to having been in psychiatric treatment. Some of the pages he sites starting on page 92 of this thread are his own sites, and they present evidence of his taking legal action for things he claims were done to him.

Given that he has had problems, and that his postings here are not in any way rational, I will not discuss 911 with him anymore.


You are correct in that no one here is qualified to diagnose Christophera. At the same time, we are not qualified to deal with him if he is having problems. I will not respond to him again on any subject. If he is not mentally ill, then he's a major jerk. If he is ill, then I am not qualified to say as much as "hi" to him.

[bob_kark]

We aren't diagnosing anything. Start reading here. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57426&page=93) Christophera seems to have really, truthfully had problems at some point. It doesn't appear that they are completely cured.
I see he's a fan of writing letters and he made one comment that was questionable depending on the interpretation. Short of that, he seems to simply have many unconventional beliefs that are irrational. But, I've seen no proof of actual mental illness. I don't doubt that the possibility exists. However, without any real evidence, I don't believe we can rely on a hunch as a basis for banning him from the site.

[bob_kark]

Strange beliefs are NOT the problem. Christophera admits to having been in psychiatric treatment. Some of the pages he sites starting on page 92 of this thread are his own sites, and they present evidence of his taking legal action for things he claims were done to him.

Given that he has had problems, and that his postings here are not in any way rational, I will not discuss 911 with him anymore.


You are correct in that no one here is qualified to diagnose Christophera. At the same time, we are not qualified to deal with him if he is having problems. I will not respond to him again on any subject. If he is not mentally ill, then he's a major jerk. If he is ill, then I am not qualified to say as much as "hi" to him.
I've seen a psychiatrist, am I mentally ill? Should I be banned from the site?

He took legal action based upon information he read in a book that he believes to be true. Many other people share his beliefs. This may be irrational, however that does not make it insane.

[Christophera]

I'll give you a reason. You just want one reason why in the 33 years of those buildings existence, they didn't collapse, yet on 9/11 they collapsed?

BECAUSE AA JETS WERE FLOWN INTO THEM.


Yes jets were flown into them, and how were they constructed?

Their design is what determines how and when they will fall with any given impact.


You are supporting a lie that is hiding the near free fall rate of descent.

http://concretecore.741.com

[Christophera]

So you admit that "box columns" survived the collapse momentarily ?

The only columns that existed in the towers were "interior box clumns" which were outside the core.

And for a second or so they survived the demolition.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3296&stc=1&d=1159463451

[Hellbound]

Penguins don't have shoulders.

[DavidJames]

Penguins don't have shoulders.Ok mister know it all, then how do the tuxedo's they wear stay up?

[Hellbound]

Ok mister know it all, then how do the tuxedo's they wear stay up?

If a tree falls in the woods, and the chicken and the wolf can never be in the boat at the same time, how many jumps does it take to reach the top of the ladder?

[Christophera]

This is not good. I'm going to request a ban based on the spam rule, and if that can't be done, that a notice be placed at the front of this thread that the entire thread can be summed up in these words: Chris: concrete core. Others: steel core.

Let us be fair and complete in summation.

Chris: concrete core with substancial raw evidence discounting the steel core AND supporting the concrete core from major institutions of learning and statements of structural engineers. The concrete core enables an explanation completely comprehensive to characteriscs of the event seen including near free fall and total pulverization. (http://concretecore.741.com)


Others: steel core with evidence from government sources or construction photos that do not show the claimed steel columns in the core area. The steel core disables any feasible, realistic, reasonable explanation for the event seen. No raw evidence from the towers demise shows the steel columns in the core area.

[DavidJames]

If a tree falls in the woods, and the chicken and the wolf can never be in the boat at the same time, how many jumps does it take to reach the top of the ladder?mods, can you delete this post, it's a clear derail. This thread is about penguins

[Hellbound]

mods, can you delete this post, it's a clear derail. This thread is about penguins

WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!?!?!?!

I think I've broken something.

[chipmunk stew]

I disagree with you chip. Christophera may argue in circles at times but I don't think he's harming anyone. He doesn't bombard any other threads with his comments and actually, I think that's rather admirable considering the behavior of other posters I've seen. While he may link back to his site on many posts, he's making no profit from it. In fact, many people have links to their own websites in their signature line, every post they make is an advertisement of sorts for their website.
I think that's an overly-generous assessment of his posting behavior here. I don't think he argues in circles, I think he merely repeats himself ad nauseam, occasionally pausing to acknowledge other people's posts only to insult them, accuse them of defending mass murderers and liars, or dismissing them completely. His links to his websites, unlike those people have in their sigs, constitute the bulk of his repetitive assertions in the body of his posts. Profit or not, to my way of thinking, that's spam.

He has mostly restricted himself to a single thread (although occasionally his spam overflows into other threads) which I agree is a point in his favor. He's not abusive--I agree that he's harmless.

And I agree that there's no way to diagnose someone for mental illness based on their online behavior alone. But I believe there's enough evidence on which to base a recommendation to seek the diagnosis of a professional. For instance: http://truthasaur.com/my_22/my22one.html

I still am in favor of banning him, but whatever the mods decide, I won't complain. In the meantime, I'll just have him on ignore.

[missyvanwinkle]

mods, can you delete this post, it's a clear derail. This thread is about penguins

It was not C4 nor thermite. Don't you see it now??? It's all clear:
"And it's just gone 8 o'clock and time for the penguin on the top of your *World Trade Center* to explode."

[Regnad Kcin]

"Bermas!"

"Why'd you say Bermas?"

"I panicked."

[DavidJames]

It was not C4 nor thermite. Don't you see it now??? It's all clear:
"And it's just gone 8 o'clock and time for the penguin on the top of your *World Trade Center* to explode."
hmmm, so you're saying the Pythons were in on it as well. Now that's something completely different.

[Hellbound]

"There. I've blown your walls off."

"No you haven't!"

"What's that, then?"

"It's a concrete core!!! Have at you!!!"

[Christophera]

I think that's an overly-generous assessment of his posting behavior here. I don't think he argues in circles, I think he merely repeats himself ad nauseam, occasionally pausing to acknowledge other people's posts only to insult them, accuse them of defending mass murderers and liars, or dismissing them completely. His links to his websites, unlike those people have in their sigs, constitute the bulk of his repetitive assertions in the body of his posts. Profit or not, to my way of thinking, that's spam.

He has mostly restricted himself to a single thread (although occasionally his spam overflows into other threads) which I agree is a point in his favor. He's not abusive--I agree that he's harmless.
And I agree that there's no way to diagnose someone for mental illness based on their online behavior alone. But I believe there's enough evidence on which to base a recommendation to seek the diagnosis of a professional. For instance: http://truthasaur.com/my_22/my22one.html

I still am in favor of banning him, but whatever the mods decide, I won't complain. In the meantime, I'll just have him on ignore.

By not accepting my challenge to a debate based on reason and evidence, you have made a defacto admisson that I should be posting my links, reasoning and evidence whenever needed because you cannot support reasonably that the towers had stel core columns as FEMA states.

And, ........... the USA has principles at its foundation that are sacred which demand, yes, even compel with laws, that I do so IF capitol crimes have been committed and laws of due process have been violated. Our rights and freedoms depend on this action here in the US.

You sir, in your willfull ignorance, condone lawlessness, aiding and abetting capitol crimes.

The true core of the Twin Towers.

http://concretecore.741.com

[Arus808]

How many times must this be stated:

Why dont we get someone who worked on the construction of the WTC twoers to post here and put this thread to rest? Stop feeding into Christophera's delusions. ONLY until someone who had direct connection to the construction of these two towers will he shut up

UNTIL then, I ask...nO I PLEAD that the forum members here, just let this thread die until such first person construction member is found and asked to post.

[TruthSeeker1234]

It's very simple. Consult the 9/11 commission report and you will learn that the core of each tower was but a "hollow steel shaft in which elevators and stairwells were grouped". No concrete core, no 47 steel box columns. Neither. It's a hollow steel shaft. That's it. thread over. 9/11 Commission would not lie.

[Arus808]

It's very simple. Consult the 9/11 commission report and you will learn that the core of each tower was but a "hollow steel shaft in which elevators and stairwells were grouped". No concrete core, no 47 steel box columns. Neither. It's a hollow steel shaft. That's it. thread over. 9/11 Commission would not lie.


dont know if this is sarcasm, but holy damn did pigs fly when I wasn't watching, or did Troofseeker just said something right. :eye-poppi:jaw-dropp

[Bell]

Sooo.... BS101 is going along with the concrete core now as well?

Riiight...

:v:

[Christophera]

It's very simple. Consult the 9/11 commission report

Did they provide a reasonable explanation for near free fall? NO. Did their report give a good reason for shipping all the steel offshore instead of making it available to engineers for analysis. NO.

Meaning their report condones lawlessness and unaccountability for capitol crimes. If we hear any more of that crap after this notice, you have proven that you support lawless government.

[Belz...]

The only columns that existed in the towers were "interior box clumns" which were outside the core.

And for a second or so they survived the demolition.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3296&stc=1&d=1159463451

So you keep saying that you can tell box columns from core columns at that distance ?

[Arus808]

Did they provide a reasonable explanation for near free fall? NO.[/qupte]

since the buildings didn't fall at free fall speeds (which obviously you do not understand the concept of) it was a topic that was never addressed (please, before you start claiming something happened, actually learn what that topic is before trying to convince us. cause all you're doing is looking more and more like a lunatic).


[quote] Did their report give a good reason for shipping all the steel offshore instead of making it available to engineers for analysis. NO.

what planet do you live on? That steel was available to ANY and EVERY investigator for nearly a year after the event. Why do you ignore this simple and plain fact?

[Christophera]

So you keep saying that you can tell box columns from core columns at that distance ?

I detect that you are unable to determine the position of the interior box columns within the tower footprint, or that core columns could be box columns if core columns existed.

Core columns are inside the core area and we see none there. We see the spire, a interior box column. (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg)

[Christophera]

[quote=Christophera;1959534]Did they provide a reasonable explanation for near free fall? NO.[/qupte]

since the buildings didn't fall at free fall speeds (which obviously you do not understand the concept of

Excuse me.

I said "near free fall". Obviously you do not read well.

[Christophera]

what planet do you live on? That steel was available to ANY and EVERY investigator for nearly a year after the event. Why do you ignore this simple and plain fact?

OMG! An alien posting on JREF, mods, check the rules.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html

http://www.questionsquestions.net/documents2/wtc_obstruction.html


http://justicefor911.org/iiA5_WTC7Collapse_111904.php

Steel remnants from the collapse were removed from Ground Zero in the weeks after the disaster, along with the rest of the remnants of the entire WTC complex. These were not retained by the authorities for use in the investigation of collapse mechanics, but rapidly shipped to blast furnaces in Asia for recycling, either directly from Ground Zero or from the Fresh Kills landfill in Staten Island. The engineers writing the FEMA report lacked subpeona power. They were hired part-time as freelancers. They were prevented from obtaining blueprints for the buildings, and had only occasional and restricted access to the Ground Zero site. The Science Committee of the House of Representatives later wrote, "the lack of authority of investigators to impound pieces of steel for investigation before they were recycled led to the loss of important pieces of evidence." (House Science Committee, 3/6/02

[Christophera]

It's very simple. Consult the 9/11 commission report and you will learn that the core of each tower was but a "hollow steel shaft in which elevators and stairwells were grouped". No concrete core, no 47 steel box columns. Neither. It's a hollow steel shaft. That's it. thread over. 9/11 Commission would not lie.

If the above is true, then what is this that looks like a concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)? No steel whatsoever is seen.

No wonder no evidence was posted.

[TruthSeeker1234]

9/11 commission would not lie

For the record, I think the core of each tower was 47 steel box columns, heavily cross braced.

For anyone above who thinks that the 9/11 commission would not lie, then why did they say the core of each tower was a hollow steel shaft?

[Christophera]

And as for you saying "there are no photos of steel columns on the ground", of course there are! That's the stupidest claim I've ever heard.


I do not make that claim. I claim that no steel box columns equal to those that surround the concrete core are seen on the ground or anywhere inside the core area.

This is classic misinformaton because the FEMA floor plan calles for "core columns" penterating the stairwell, to the right of it and in front of it. We see none.

[rwguinn]

9/11 commission would not lie

For the record, I think the core of each tower was 47 steel box columns, heavily cross braced.

For anyone above who thinks that the 9/11 commission would not lie, then why did they say the core of each tower was a hollow steel shaft?
link? paragraph? Page #?
I don't believe you.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Christophera, I agree with you that the collapse times have not been explained (except by explosives). Although I am not at all sure about your concrete core hypothesis, the behavior of the North Tower "spire" is indeed mysterious. Guys, you have about 750 feet of intact core standing after the "collapse", then it appears to turn to dust. Christophera's explanation is that it is made of concrete. Reynolds and Wood have suggested it was steel, but was possibly dissociated by some sort of high energy weapon.

Anybody else see this as a mystery?

[Christophera]

The data of Dr. Steven Jones is trash - he even can not proof if whatever he found is from the collapse, from a CD or from the destruction work on ground zero. He even does not have a proof that his samples are from ground zero.


Since Jones cannot recognize the differences betwen steel and concrete structure at the core, his assertions of thermite, above the basement, are indeed almost without proof. There are a few photos that show bright, perhaps molten metal at elevation in the building. Albeit, a very small bit of evidence and render his efforts basic misinformation.

[TruthSeeker1234]

rwguinn was incredulous link? paragraph? Page #?
I don't believe you [that the 9/11 commission characterized the core of each tower as a hollow steel shaft.

Any OCT's care to verify this? He'll accept it coming from you.

[Christophera]

Christophera, I agree with you that the collapse times have not been explained (except by explosives). Although I am not at all sure about your concrete core hypothesis, the behavior of the North Tower "spire" is indeed mysterious. Guys, you have about 750 feet of intact core standing after the "collapse", then it appears to turn to dust. Christophera's explanation is that it is made of concrete. Reynolds and Wood have suggested it was steel, but was possibly dissociated by some sort of high energy weapon.

Anybody else see this as a mystery?

This is the spire (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) and I have always asserted it is a steel box column which is located outside the tubular concrete shear wall core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

The spire falls straight down in a cloud of dust. Dust knocked off by the shock of detonation far below.

[GlennB]

Christophera, I agree with you that the collapse times have not been explained (except by explosives). Although I am not at all sure about your concrete core hypothesis, the behavior of the North Tower "spire" is indeed mysterious. Guys, you have about 750 feet of intact core standing after the "collapse", then it appears to turn to dust. Christophera's explanation is that it is made of concrete. Reynolds and Wood have suggested it was steel, but was possibly dissociated by some sort of high energy weapon.

Anybody else see this as a mystery?

No mystery. Either one of the leftover mini-nukes kicked in a bit late and brought it down, or it took a while to crumble.

[Christophera]

rwguinn was incredulous

Any OCT's care to verify this? He'll accept it coming from you.

Their characterization is VERY short on consistent appearance with raw images of the demolition as well as actual constrcution plans. Good reason for that, the NYC mayor took them and will not return them.

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

Since then he's been knighted by the queen.

http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0202/13/ltm.02.html

Rewards for aiding and abetting capitol crimes is the new world order way of showing appreciation.

[Christophera]

No mystery. Either one of the leftover mini-nukes kicked in a bit late and brought it down, or it took a while to crumble.

Large error, misinformation. Utterly unsupportable as nukes cannot be delayed.

Firefighters give video testimony of delays and controlled demolition detonations,

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg

Not to mention that radiation readings are no where near high enough.

[TK0001]

They didn't freefall.

Anyone mention this yet?

[Christophera]

link? paragraph? Page #?
I don't believe you.

Yes, 1234, show us the cross braced core columns in images of the demolition. Show us a diagram of the bracing.

[Christophera]

They didn't freefall.

Anyone mention this yet?

From the begginning. I now carefully utilize the term "near free fall".

Then I explain that the term "collapse" describing 2 near free fall descents, nearly identically, uniformly to the ground IS totally UNBELIEVEABLE and justifys the use of the term "free fall" because the rate of fall was SO CLOSE to free fall.

[cloudshipsrule]

Reynolds and Wood have suggested it was steel, but was possibly dissociated by some sort of high energy weapon.


What would be the f n point of destroying the still-standing, precious core (concrete or not) after the rest of the damn building was already leveled? Witnesses?


"Good job on the CD guys!" "We sure made it look like that itty, bitty plane took the building down!"

(High fives all around the inside of the white van parked conspicuously close to what remained of the WTC's)

"Hey, wait a minute." "Frank, is that the damn core still standing?"

"Holy <beeb>, it is." "READY THE HIGH ENERGY WEAPON."

[Christophera]

What would be the f n point of destroying the still-standing, precious core (concrete or not) after the rest of the damn building was already leveled? Witnesses?


"Good job on the CD guys!" "We sure made it look like that itty, bitty plane took the building down!"

(High fives all around the inside of the white van parked conspicuously close to what remained of the WTC's)

"Hey, wait a minute." "Frank, is that the damn core still standing?"

"Holy <beeb>, it is." "READY THE HIGH ENERGY WEAPON."

Both Reynold and Wood know about my issues with the concrete core and ignore it to pursue nonsense of "energy weapons".

Should that tell you that they;

1. Can't identify concrete and steel from photos. (How did they ever get into the quasi leadership position in the movement they hold? (http://concretecore.741.com))

2. Do not have the engineering knowledge to know that steel in the proportions of the towers canot be made rigid enough to avoid disasterous flex, sway and twisting. (How did they ever get to be engineers?)

3. Somehow cannot consider spreading the issue of concrete, the worlds most common building material, competent to resisting torsion. (How did they ever get publically so well known?)

4. Are working to obscure the only feasible and realistic explanation for the profound uniformity and pulverization of or caused by the demolitions. (How did they get to the public positions they hold in the movement? (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1233383))

[TK0001]

From the begginning. I now carefully utilize the term "near free fall".

Then I explain that the term "collapse" describing 2 near free fall descents, nearly identically, uniformly to the ground IS totally UNBELIEVEABLE and justifys the use of the term "free fall" because the rate of fall was SO CLOSE to free fall.

Do you have special glasses that can see through dust and debris?

And it certainly is totally unbelievable, since they didn't fall identically. When is the mothership due again?

[Christophera]

Do you have special glasses that can see through dust and debris?

And it certainly is totally unbelievable, since they didn't fall identically. When is the mothership due again?

The differences in the beginning do not negate the impossible nearly identical completions. Absolutely never, ever seen in the history of collaspe or demoltion, although demolitons resemble what happened closer than collapses.

Why would I need special glasses, you are the one that thinks you know it didn't fall at free fall. I know the end of the fall cannot be seen, so therefore I use "nearly free fall" just to appease facts. Things you do not seem to recognize.

[TK0001]

The differences in the beginning do not negate the impossible nearly identical completions.

Ooh...good point. No one would ever think that gravity would take over and bring the buildings completely down....both times!!!

Absolutely never, ever seen in the history of collaspe or demoltion, although demolitons resemble what happened closer than collapses.

In the end, both towers fell completely to the ground. This is contrary to what happens in CDs?

Why would I need special glasses, you are the one that thinks you know it didn't fall at free fall. I know the end of the fall cannot be seen, so therefore I use "nearly free fall" just to appease facts. Things you do not seem to recognize.

Let me get this straight. You use "nearly" freefall because you realize that the towers didn't fall straight down with no resistance, right? Then how about using "nowhere near" freefall? Wait, that wouldn't look as sexy. Might as well keep "freefall" in your description of the fall of the buildings, even though you've conceded that freefall didn't occur...

[Arus808]

[quote=Arus808;1959547]

Excuse me.

I said "near free fall". Obviously you do not read well.

I did read well. YOU however, have demonstrated repeated that you do know what the hell you are talking about.

near free fall/ at free fall. same thing in the CT universe. and near free fall would mean that it would have to have fallen at no more than 100'ths of a second off. The buildigns fell a lot slower (not EVEN near) free fall speeds.

[Arus808]

OMG! An alien posting on JREF, mods, check the rules.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html

http://www.questionsquestions.net/documents2/wtc_obstruction.html


http://justicefor911.org/iiA5_WTC7Collapse_111904.php

Steel remnants from the collapse were removed from Ground Zero in the weeks after the disaster, along with the rest of the remnants of the entire WTC complex. These were not retained by the authorities for use in the investigation of collapse mechanics, but rapidly shipped to blast furnaces in Asia for recycling, either directly from Ground Zero or from the Fresh Kills landfill in Staten Island. The engineers writing the FEMA report lacked subpeona power. They were hired part-time as freelancers. They were prevented from obtaining blueprints for the buildings, and had only occasional and restricted access to the Ground Zero site. The Science Committee of the House of Representatives later wrote, "the lack of authority of investigators to impound pieces of steel for investigation before they were recycled led to the loss of important pieces of evidence." (House Science Committee, 3/6/02

You might want to stop using conspiracy sites to prove your point.
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020909/landfill/index.html

[Arus808]

They didn't freefall.

Anyone mention this yet?

over a thousand times through the 100+ pages in this thread.

[alexg]

Mr. Jowenko, the Dutch demo expert, gives a nice explanation of the rapid fall of the twin towers. I'm no expert but it sounded as if he was saying that the weight of the building above the damage fell upon the lower building in a slightly uneven fashion, therby stressing certain members with the full weight momentarily, causing them to break apart violently. As opposed to the usual simplistic proposition put forward in the CT that the lower stories should have been able to support the upper, implying that the lower would take the weight of the falling uppers evenly - just like under ordinary conditions with the additional force added by the speed of the fall. Check for yourslef at youtubeDOTcom/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI

eta: the fall was way slower than free fall, watch the new video "sept 11 2001: what we saw" where you can clearly see debris hitting the ground when the collapse line is only about half way down the building!! There WAS resistence, but the resistence was too weak to stop the onslaught much at any given point, each point gave up almost at once.

[Arus808]

jowenko, agrees that the towers were not brought down by cd, so we can believe any opinion he has to that.

[rwguinn]

rwguinn was incredulous

Any OCT's care to verify this? He'll accept it coming from you.

why should they do yourwrk?
You made the assertion that the core
"For the record, I think the core of each tower was 47 steel box columns, heavily cross braced. "

and that

"....the 9/11 commission .... say the core of each tower was a hollow steel shaft?"

Provide a link, or the paragraph and page, or admit that you are a lying sack of garbage.

[uruk]

Christophera, I agree with you that the collapse times have not been explained (except by explosives). Although I am not at all sure about your concrete core hypothesis, the behavior of the North Tower "spire" is indeed mysterious. Guys, you have about 750 feet of intact core standing after the "collapse", then it appears to turn to dust. Christophera's explanation is that it is made of concrete. Reynolds and Wood have suggested it was steel, but was possibly dissociated by some sort of high energy weapon.

Anybody else see this as a mystery?

see here:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Read item #6

[Christophera]

see here:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Read item #6

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”


homer,

What is basically said is to imply that the building mass had gathered free fall momentum. If you want to believe "official" then the lie might be acceptable if one can actually assume that the top of the tower was allowed to gather terminal velocity then hammer into the lower floors.

That, of course, did not happen.

Hit your head again simpson.

[Christophera]

why should they do yourwrk?
You made the assertion that the core
"For the record, I think the core of each tower was 47 steel box columns, heavily cross braced. "

and that

"....the 9/11 commission .... say the core of each tower was a hollow steel shaft?"

Provide a link, or the paragraph and page, or admit that you are a lying sack of garbage.

The very fact that this exchange exists with no evidence for either side shows that folks here really don't have a clue about steel and concrete construction.

http://concretecore.741.com

[LashL]

The very fact that this exchange exists with no evidence for either side shows that folks here really don't have a clue about steel and concrete construction.

No, what it shows, Christopher, is that Twoofseeker posts uneducated, uninformed, unsupported and untruthful assertions and then refuses to back it up, and then expects others to go and find the evidence of his own uneducated, uninformed, unsupported and untruthful assertions for him.



And, for the 50,000th time, there was no concrete core, Christophera.

Please, get help.

[Skylark]

Okay, enough snide comments aimed at christophera in every post. This includes me. No one can prove a point by making jokes amid facts.

Christophera, let's look at this "near free fall" from a purely logical perspective.

Say there are 20 floors above the plane, and however many million below. Jet fuel fires have also weakened a few floors below where the initial impact was, so the steel supports would be weakened there.

One floor gives way. It gets crushed under the weight of 20 floors. The next floor also comprises of weakened steel, so it follows suit. Momentum builds up.

Now this plane would have weakened at the very minimum about 10 floors below the top part of the collapsing tower, yes? So even the lower floors that have not been weakened in this way, would somehow have to catch the momentum of all the pressure from the floors building up against it. And it's not the top 20 floors vs every floor underneath the impact area. The tower is taking that load one floor at a time.

If you think about it, it is very unlikely that one floor can take the pressure of a 20 story building comprising of the same material falling on top of it (not to mention the debris already falling and weakening the support).

Logically, it makes sense that the building fell at free fall - it would have encountered very little resistance on the way down.

[Oliver]

And, for the 50,000th time, there was no concrete core, Christophera.

And I say YES! ... there WAS a concrete core! Nahnahnahnahnaaaaahnaaah http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/happy075.gif

[jhunter1163]

Noooooooooooooooo... Oliver.. do not give in to the Dark Side....

[Loss Leader]

If you think about it, it is very unlikely that one floor can take the pressure of a 20 story building comprising of the same material falling on top of it (not to mention the debris already falling and weakening the support).

It's worse than that. The buildings didn't actually pancake as each floor gave way to the force of the moving floors above. The towers were not skeletal buildings, the floors were anchored to a core. When the core gave way, it pulled the building in and down into itself. So all that weight was concentrated in an even smaller space than the footprint. As the core progressively failed, it pulled the exterior of the building with it. That's way more force on the core than just a flat pancaking of floors and it leads to fast collapse times.

[Christophera]

Okay, enough snide comments aimed at christophera in every post. This includes me. No one can prove a point by

How you can assume the top load will stay centered and not fall off to the side is a modern mental miracle.

NO WAY. A couple of floors below the failure get crushed and it all falls to the side leaving part of a tower standing there.

To underline the illogical fall understand this:

WTC 1 was hit on the north side. Many perimeter columns cut. The top of the tower fell south.

IMPOSSIBLE in a collapse. DONE DEAL

[Loss Leader]

How you can assume the top load will stay centered and not fall off to the side is a modern mental miracle.

NO WAY. A couple of floors below the failure get crushed and it all falls to the side leaving part of a tower standing there.

To underline the illogical fall understand this:

WTC 1 was hit on the north side. Many perimeter columns cut. The top of the tower fell south.

IMPOSSIBLE in a collapse. DONE DEAL

No, it's not impossible in a collapse. As I just explained, the towers were not built with the normal skeletal structure of most uildings. Instead, the floors were anchored to the central core. As the cores failed, it pulled the buildings in and down. The central cores kept the buildings relatively within their own footprints.

The top floors of tower two did lean. They also twisted which, in some photos, makes the lean look more dramatic than it really was. But the core pulled the top back in as it gave way.

[Christophera]

No, it's not impossible in a collapse. As I just explained, the towers were not built with the normal skeletal structure of most uildings. Instead, the floors were anchored to the central core. As the cores failed, it pulled the buildings in and down. The central cores kept the buildings relatively within their own footprints.

The top floors of tower two did lean. They also twisted which, in some photos, makes the lean look more dramatic than it really was. But the core pulled the top back in as it gave way.

You do not have a clue to the actual structure that stood. FEMA lied, you believe.

Here is the actual steel reinforced concrete tubular core that sttod at the center of the towers documented.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

[Christophera]

No, what it shows, Christopher, is that Twoofseeker posts uneducated, uninformed, unsupported and untruthful assertions and then refuses to back it up, and then expects others to go and find the evidence of his own uneducated, uninformed, unsupported and untruthful assertions for him.



And, for the 50,000th time, there was no concrete core, Christophera.

Please, get help.

And, for the 50,000th time, please get evidence, currently you have posted NONE.

Here is the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) of WTC 2.

If it is not concrete, explain reasonably what it is.

[CurtC]

9/11 commission would not lie

For the record, I think the core of each tower was 47 steel box columns, heavily cross braced.

For anyone above who thinks that the 9/11 commission would not lie, then why did they say the core of each tower was a hollow steel shaft?link? paragraph? Page #?
I don't believe you.
In the 9/11 Commission Report footnotes for Chapter 9, Heroism and Horror. It is talking about the scale of the towers, giving the reader a sense of the horror of that morning, and footnote 1 says:1. For the WTC’s layout, see Port Authority diagrams,“World Trade Center Concourse Level,” “Concourse Level,” and “Plaza Level,” undated. For the number of square feet of office space, see Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) report,“World Trade Center Building Performance Study,” undated. For the number of workers and passersby, see Port Authority briefing (May 13, 2004).
For the dimensions, see FEMA report,“World Trade Center Building Performance Study,” undated. In addition, the outside of each tower was covered by a frame of 14-inch-wide steel columns; the centers of the steel columns were 40 inches apart.These exterior walls bore most of the weight of the building.The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped. Ibid. For stairwells and elevators, see Port Authority response to Commission interrogatory, May 2004.

Source: http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Notes.htm

[Christophera]

1. For the WTC’s layout, see Port Authority diagrams,“World Trade Center Concourse Level,” “Concourse Level,” and “Plaza Level,” undated. For the number of square feet of office space, see Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) report,“World Trade Center Building Performance Study,” undated. For the number of workers and passersby, see Port Authority briefing (May 13, 2004).
For the dimensions, see FEMA report,“World Trade Center Building Performance Study,” undated. In addition, the outside of each tower was covered by a frame of 14-inch-wide steel columns; the centers of the steel columns were 40 inches apart.These exterior walls bore most of the weight of the building.The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped. Ibid. For stairwells and elevators, see Port Authority response to Commission interrogatory, May 2004.

In the 9/11 Commission Report footnotes for Chapter 9, Heroism and Horror. It is talking about the scale of the towers, giving the reader a sense of the horror of that morning, and footnote 1 says:

Source: http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Notes.htm

One mention, like 5 words, does not an official competent statement make, And, ......... it is inconsistent with this (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/overspirezoom.gif)

and this (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/overspirezoom.gif) which should show us plate steel on the inside of the tube. We see the outer framework which formed a tube.

and here it has all fallen away to show the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif),

Where is the steel tube?

[hellaeon]

hahahahahahaha man. I have missed much but what is the concrete core in that picture? The building behind it (http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=230666)?

Hahaha you refuse to budge. Enjoy your quite unproductive lifetime of this!

[Christophera]

hahahahahahaha man. I have missed much but what is the concrete core in that picture? The building behind it (http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=230666)?

Hahaha you refuse to budge. Enjoy your quite unproductive lifetime of this!

Should I give up what I know while you have no evidence? You do not know how badly you are going to feel one day about your denial. Here is the same core a little lower. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcore2stands.gif)

[Oliver]

Should I give up what I know while you have no evidence? You do not know how badly you are going to feel one day about your denial. Here is the same core a little lower. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcore2stands.gif)

Seriously, Christophera:

Why do you always show the collapse-images?
If there was a concrete core - where is it on the construction photos?
Did you try to contact one of the companies, who built the Towers?
What difference does it make at all?

Remember, it took the fall of Nazi-Germany before the details and evidence of the Reichtagsfire was uncovered.

What do we have if it was a concrete core?

[Belz...]

I detect that you are unable to determine the position of the interior box columns within the tower footprint, or that core columns could be box columns if core columns existed.

Core columns are inside the core area and we see none there. We see the spire, a interior box column. (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg)

Just answer by yes or no, chris:

Do you claim that you can tell box columns from core columns at that distance ?

[Belz...]

And, for the 50,000th time, please get evidence, currently you have posted NONE.

Here is the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) of WTC 2.

If it is not concrete, explain reasonably what it is.

Dust plume.

[Bell]

Dust plume.

Sorry Belz... but i beg to differ.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778

[uruk]

I wonder if Chris will notice that the core seen in the video is a steel core.
NAWW! who am I kidding, he's going to claim to see concrete.
Wait and see.

[uruk]

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”


homer,

What is basically said is to imply that the building mass had gathered free fall momentum. If you want to believe "official" then the lie might be acceptable if one can actually assume that the top of the tower was allowed to gather terminal velocity then hammer into the lower floors.

That, of course, did not happen.

Hit your head again simpson.

Yea, why on earth should I believe in the law of physics.

[TK0001]

over a thousand times through the 100+ pages in this thread.

. <------ joke

























. <---- Arus's head

[Gravy]

Sorry Belz... but i beg to differ.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778
That clip, from the BBC Horizon program, is deceptive. It shows a couple of seconds of super-slow-mo video of the south tower core section standing. However, that section came down immediately after the clip ends and was not standing when Christophera's "core" photo from New Jersey was taken. Christophera's photo is one of a series, and the next photo, a couple of seconds later, shows a very different and diffuse smoke pattern. That's the problem with trying to draw conclusions about a dynamic event from a single still photo.

[Belz...]

Sorry Belz... but i beg to differ.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778

Well, even if it was the steel core, mine wasn't an unreasonable assumption. That's the kind of thing you expect to see in such a huge collapse.

[Z]

Anyone see this vid yet?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9021865071819772470

While I don't think that's a fair model for one of the towers, what I am impressed by is...






...that anyone can build a tower of cards like that in the FIRST PLACE!


Must have a concrete core in there somewhere.

[firecoins]

WTC has a steel core. Its where the elevators and stiarways were located.

[Christophera]

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”


homer,

What is basically said is to imply that the building mass had gathered free fall momentum. If you want to believe "official" then the lie might be acceptable if one can actually assume that the top of the tower was allowed to gather terminal velocity then hammer into the lower floors.

That, of course, did not happen.

Hit your head again simpson.


Yea, why on earth should I believe in the law of physics.

Physics won't work without logic and you are ignoring that.

[Christophera]

WTC has a steel core. Its where the elevators and stiarways were located.

Here is the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif), does it look like steel? How was the supposed "steel core" constructed?

[Arus808]

Physics won't work without logic and you are ignoring that.

seems that the only person who is not using logic at all, is you.

[Christophera]

seems that the only person who is not using logic at all, is you.

You post no evidence to base your statement on. I post documentation of the concrete core with raw images and links to sites that have no special interest.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

What is not logical about that?

[Belz...]

Physics won't work without logic and you are ignoring that.

No, the laws of physics work fine, no matter what.

[cloudshipsrule]

I post documentation of the concrete core with raw images and links to sites that have no special interest.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html


So you're saying your OWN site does not have a special interest at heart?

You're also saying the ONE photograph you keep showing of the smoke surrounding the steel core proves the core was concrete?

Have you come across any documentation, that wasn't your own, stating the core was concrete? Have you found a single photograph CLEARLY showing a concrete core? (I said "CLEARLY", which means not obscured by smoke.) Why do NONE of the construction photographs show any concrete around the STEEL core? Have you seen ONE construction photograph showing concrete being used in the core?

This has been bugging me too. BESIDES YOU, WHO THE HELL CARES IF THE CORE WAS CONCRETE OR STEEL?

Is there really anyone else out there on the net talking about this cocrete core besides you?

[cloudshipsrule]

What if, and I'm just throwing this out there because it's a possibility, but, what if the actual truth is that there really was NO CORE AT ALL.

[Hellbound]

What if, and I'm just throwing this out there because it's a possibility, but, what if the actual truth is that there really was NO CORE AT ALL.

[cue dramatic music]Dun-dun-Daaaaaah![/dramatic music]

The plot thickens...

[Metullus]

If they can get away with claiming that Belgium exists, (http://zapatopi.net/belgium/) they can get away with anything...

[jujigatami]

Christophera is right.

I've seen engineering blueprints.

There was a 22 feet thick concrete core consisting of 22 concrete columns that were 22 inches by 22 inches wide going from the 22nd floor up to the top.

[Oliver]

Christophera is right.

I've seen engineering blueprints.

There was a 22 feet thick concrete core consisting of 22 concrete columns that were 22 inches by 22 inches wide going from the 22nd floor up to the top.

You´ve seen the WTC-Blueprints? Any pictures?

And if you´ve seen the blueprints - what the heck does christophera try to tell us? I still have no clue what he tries to explain with that concrete-core issue...

[cloudshipsrule]

AND, 22 * 5 = 110. HELLO??? 11, as in 9/11. Tell me that's not proof. TELL ME!

[Oliver]

AND, 22 * 5 = 110. HELLO??? 11, as in 9/11. Tell me that's not proof. TELL ME!

Mhmm, you may want to use the quote-button since my english is not perfect and i sometimes don´t know who was meant without quoting... :D

[firecoins]

Here is the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif), does it look like steel? How was the supposed "steel core" constructed?

You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. They were steel core buildings whether you like or not. Pictures of the collapse from NJ or any other angle don't show the core. However people have posted picture of its construction clearly show the steel. The architects, engieers and construction workers who built the buildings are not in on the conspiracy.

[chipmunk stew]

Christophera is right.

I've seen engineering blueprints.

There was a 22 feet thick concrete core consisting of 22 concrete columns that were 22 inches by 22 inches wide going from the 22nd floor up to the top.
Those were the enchanted blueprints, right?

[Hellbound]

I avoid blueprints. They're so depressing. I prefer yellowprints. They're happy and sunny.

[DavidJames]

Christophera is right

I've seen engineering blueprints.Let me guess...

You no longer have them.
You don't have copies.
You don't have any evidence of having them.
You don't have any witnesses who can vouch for you.
You don't have any evidence that you even were in a position to have them.

How am I doing?

[Z]

They were seized in a raid by the same group that stole the documentary from PBS, donchya know?

That collapse analysis video linked to earlier seems to show what we expect - the core steel columns and the floors between them, still standing, briefly, as the outer shell fell. Then again, because someone took the time to overlay an image for us, it could be simple paradoi... paraladala... er, that word. You know? Where clouds and dog anuses look like Jesus' face?

[Bell]

Well, even if it was the steel core, mine wasn't an unreasonable assumption. That's the kind of thing you expect to see in such a huge collapse.

Well, after Gravy's post above yours...

That clip, from the BBC Horizon program, is deceptive. It shows a couple of seconds of super-slow-mo video of the south tower core section standing. However, that section came down immediately after the clip ends and was not standing when Christophera's "core" photo from New Jersey was taken. Christophera's photo is one of a series, and the next photo, a couple of seconds later, shows a very different and diffuse smoke pattern. That's the problem with trying to draw conclusions about a dynamic event from a single still photo.

... I'm not so sure of my claim. To me it seemed the logical conclusion. But it is very hard to tell, since the collapsing tower was enveloped with dustclouds and debris.

[TheFeds]

Alright, here (http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixe.pdf)'s a document that deals specifically with the construction of the core.

Notice that when you search it for "concrete", it returns 8 results, all specifically dealing with the floor. Then, when you search it for "core", you get 78 results, including comprehensive specifications on the types and quantities of steel used, and also including overhead and isometric drawings of core column positions and relative sizes. There is no mention of a concrete core in any fashion whatsoever.

This document is prepared in a fashion consistent with the structural, civil or mechanical engineering disciplines; anyone competent in one of those fields will be able to interpret the specifications and illustrations and instantly understand that there never was a concrete core, and instead, the core of the WTC 1 and 2 buildings was composed of structural steel columns.

[Christophera]

I wonder if Chris will notice that the core seen in the video is a steel core.
NAWW! who am I kidding, he's going to claim to see concrete.
Wait and see.

Corely makes a photoshopped fake core and homer believes it. OMG!

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3310&stc=1&d=1159588729

How can the above possibly represent the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) as it stands alone.

Corely's fake resembles this which shows the core area is hollow (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/overspirezoom.gif) surrounded by interior box columns which is probably why that image of the interior box columns viewed from below was faked.

[uruk]

Chris, you wouldn't know evidence if it bit you in the [rule8]!

For god sake I know that was an illustration. It was used to clarify what was in the video. Your the only person who claims that the core was made of concrete. Now why is that? Hell, you can't even tell steel from concrete.

Oh dear god. You have this picture on your website and you still claim that the core was concrete. Good god! your in complete denial.
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/overspirezoom.gif

[Christophera]

Alright, here (http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixe.pdf)'s a document that deals specifically with the construction of the core.

Notice that when you search it for "concrete", it returns 8 results, all specifically dealing with the floor. Then, when you search it for "core", you get 78 results, including comprehensive specifications on the types and quantities of steel used, and also including overhead and isometric drawings of core column positions and relative sizes. There is no mention of a concrete core in any fashion whatsoever.

This document is prepared in a fashion consistent with the structural, civil or mechanical engineering disciplines; anyone competent in one of those fields will be able to interpret the specifications and illustrations and instantly understand that there never was a concrete core, and instead, the core of the WTC 1 and 2 buildings was composed of structural steel columns.

Wow, 2 bogus pieces of information in one message. This calls for copius correction.

The concrete core documented with raw images.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

The below linked image was created from TheFeds bogus image originally.

diagram of hallways and interior wall of the WTC 1 steel reinforced concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corehallsdoors.gif)

[Christophera]

Chris, you wouldn't know evidence if it bit you in the [rule8]!

For god sake I know that was an illustration. It was used to clarify what was in the video. Your the only person who claims that the core was made of concrete. Now why is that? Hell, you can't even tell steel from concrete.

Oh dear god. You have this picture on your website and you still claim that the core was concrete. Good god! your in complete denial.

Well the core is hollow in this linked image interior box columns encircling the concrete core, core detonated, box columns falling, toppelling (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/overspirezoom.gif). None of what corely depicted is seen except the outside of corelys fake, which is hollow in reality.

[Regnad Kcin]

Christophera is right.

I've seen engineering blueprints.

There was a 22 feet thick concrete core consisting of 22 concrete columns that were 22 inches by 22 inches wide going from the 22nd floor up to the top.Ah, Mr. Brown's spooky, sinister, and ever-present Magic Number 22!

[Christophera]

Christophera is right.

I've seen engineering blueprints.

There was a 22 feet thick concrete core consisting of 22 concrete columns that were 22 inches by 22 inches wide going from the 22nd floor up to the top.

jujigatami is making fun of the sacred number of sun worship while making a HUGE error.

There was ONE core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) per tower and it was tubular, steel reinforced cast concrete.

[Christophera]

I avoid blueprints. They're so depressing. I prefer yellowprints. They're happy and sunny.

See, you turkeys are all secretly sun worshippers. jujigatami is in deep do do for making fun of your special number.

[defaultdotxbe]

Twenty-two is one of the ten Master Numbers in Numerology. This number is considered extremely unstable because of its ability to switch between itself and 4, its sum. According to Numerology, this Life Path number is hard to master because it is the number of "vision with action." 22 also signifies the number of the builder, and most astrologers consider it to be one of the strongest esoteric forms, along with 11 and 33.

The 22 is the most powerful of all numbers. It is often called the Master Builder. The 22 can turn the most ambitious of dreams into reality. It is potentially the most successful of all numbers. It has many of the inspirational insights of the 11, combined with the practicality and methodical nature of the 4. It is unlimited, yet disciplined. It sees the archetype, and brings it down to earth in some material form. It has big ideas, great plans, idealism, leadership, and enormous self-confidence. If not practical, the 22s waste their potential. Like the 11, the 22 can easily shrink from its own ambition, causing difficult interior pressures. Both the 11 and the 22 experience the pressure-cooker effect very strongly, particularly at an early age. It must work toward the realization of goals that are larger than personal ambition. The 22 serves the world in a practical way.

The number 22, like 11 itself is a duality between 4 and 2. It is also able to make the ideal, real. This number is sacred to those who wield it becaues of its rarity, and also its special powers. It is a number able to face the challenges of the world, and make a difference, if it is not distracted by its surroundings, and making for itself its own pressure.


thanks chris, i havent had a good laugh all day

[defaultdotxbe]

See, you turkeys are all secretly sun worshippers. jujigatami is in deep do do for making fun of your special number.
the sun is actually white....

[Brainache]

According to a numerologist I once knew I'm a 33 - 6, which trumps your 22 by 11 therefore you must listen to me and go see a professional about coping with your delusional world view.

[defaultdotxbe]

According to a numerologist I once knew I'm a 33 - 6, which trumps your 22 by 11 therefore you must listen to me and go see a professional about coping with your delusional world view.
my ex was 28-18-26.....

[twinstead]

Christophera, you DO realize that IF, and with all due respect I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say IF, you are wrong about your concrete core that is invisible to us hypnotized rabble, your world-view is in serious jeopardy. Right?

Are you fighting the good fight for a world-view that needs to be adjusted?

[Christophera]

Christophera, you DO realize that IF, and with all due respect I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say IF, you are wrong about your concrete core that is invisible to us hypnotized rabble, your world-view is in serious jeopardy. Right?

Are you fighting the good fight for a world-view that needs to be adjusted?

The concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is VERY visible.

When you awaken you will remember everything.

I am not wrong. Examine the consistency of the sites linked at the bottom of this page having NO SPECIAL INTEREST that all identify a concrete core.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

[twinstead]

The concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is VERY visible.

When you awaken you will remember everything.

I am not wrong. Examine the consistency of the sites linked at teh bottom of this page having NO SPECIAL INTEREST that all identify a concrete core.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

But you ARE wrong. You just refuse to accept it. I've read your posts for dozens of pages. You are WRONG, dude. Horribly, catastrophically wrong.

You keep posting the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

You have been shown to be in error. Hey, you don't have to concede. All you have to do is admit that you have been shown viable and defensible alternatives to every point you have brought up. You can still insist you are right in that case.

Otherwise you just appear to be a paranoid schizophrenic.

Is that what you want?

[defaultdotxbe]

I am not wrong.
spoken like a true skeptic

[Christophera]

But you ARE wrong. You just refuse to accept it. I've read your posts for dozens of pages. You are WRONG, dude. Horribly, catastrophically wrong.

You keep posting the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

You have been shown to be in error. Hey, you don't have to concede. All you have to do is admit that you have been shown viable and defensible alternatives to every point you have brought up. You can still insist you are right in that case.

Otherwise you just appear to be a paranoid schizophrenic.

Is that what you want?

And you know what, you bendehos keep saying NO over and over without reason, and will not reason, and have no evidence nor explanations and that seems to be just fine with you which I think is SICK.

No viable evidence has been produced in comparison to the raw data I utilize. In fact, its continued usage in the face of the logic presenting a true explanation for events, says you and yours have a dark agenda of supporting the lie murderers of innocent US citizens hide behind.

Dude,

You explain nothing and have no proof. Empty words. The opposite of what is found at the links below.

The concrete core documented with raw images and links to uninterested sites of engineering.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

The only realistic and feasible explanation fro near free fall and total pulverization on the web.

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

[NobbyNobbs]

The concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is VERY visible.

When you awaken you will remember everything.

I am not wrong.


Please seek professional help. Please.

I am not joking.

[Powa]

Christophera has now posted the same picture of his "concrete" core (southcorestands.gif) 149 times in the JREF forums alone.

No, I'm not kidding. You can verify this by searching these forums.

Wow.

[Belz...]

And you know what, you bendehos keep saying NO over and over without reason, and will not reason, and have no evidence nor explanations and that seems to be just fine with you which I think is SICK.

It's okay, chris. You keep saying yes, so it balances out.

[Belz...]

The concrete core is VERY visible.

When you awaken you will remember everything.

I guess you're just going to have to break the spell, then.

[Oliver]

This is page ONEHUNDREDANDTWELVE! What´s your point? Inside job? What does a C-Core proof?

...

[firecoins]

It was a steel core building! It was a steel core before 9/11! But on 9/11 it somehow changed to concrete according to CTers? Yeah right!

[Powa]

Christophera, how come you are not afraid that "they" will kill you? You obviously know too much and you're spreading the Truth. They've already killed 3,000 people. What's one more?

[Oliver]

Why should "THEY" kill someone who is already doing slow and painful suicide? - now over 112 pages long...

[Christophera]

Please seek professional help. Please.

I am not joking.

Please seek evidence, Please.

I am not joking.

[Christophera]

Christophera has now posted the same picture of his "concrete" core (southcorestands.gif) 149 times in the JREF forums alone.

No, I'm not kidding. You can verify this by searching these forums.

Wow.

The JREF lie support team has posted the same un evidenced or malfeasing support for the biggest lie, probably 3,000 times now,

No, I'm not kidding. You can verify this by reading this thread.

Wow.

[jhunter1163]

I think the word he was looking for is pendejos, and if so it would be a breach of Rule 8 for our Hispanic members.

[Powa]

The JREF lie support team has posted the same un evidenced or malfeasing support for the biggest lie, probably 3,000 times now,
That number seems a bit high. Evidence?

Oh, right, it's you. Never mind.

[Powa]

Christophera, isn't it interesting how wherever you go, on whichever forum, there are only "disinfos" and how only you know The Truth? How many "disinfos" do you figure there are out there? In order to cover the whole internet I would say a lot. Wouldn't it be easier just to kill you and be done with it? You claim that your government orchestrated the biggest conspiracy in the world. Do you really think they wouldn't tie this loose end (you)?

[Christophera]

This is page ONEHUNDREDANDTWELVE! What´s your point? Inside job? What does a C-Core proof?

...

The concrete core makes near free fall and total pulverization possible because concrete can be fractured to fall instantly and pulverized in the same event.

To date, not one 9-11 page on the web actually provides a feasible and realistic explanation for near free fall and total pulverization beside this one,

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

[Christophera]

Christophera, how come you are not afraid that "they" will kill you? You obviously know too much and you're spreading the Truth. They've already killed 3,000 people. What's one more?

The thought occurs to me but I love my children and the principles of my country far too much to let what might be an unreasonable fear stop me.

Would you prefer I be afraid as you are?

[Christophera]

Christophera, isn't it interesting how wherever you go, on whichever forum, there are only "disinfos" and how only you know The Truth? How many "disinfos" do you figure there are out there? In order to cover the whole internet I would say a lot. Wouldn't it be easier just to kill you and be done with it? You claim that your government orchestrated the biggest conspiracy in the world. Do you really think they wouldn't tie this loose end (you)?

That is not quite true. The people beside myself who know about the core are too afraid to argue for it, Others on the web can't justify going against the tide. The tide IS you and yours who have no evidence but are full of ***** to splatter on BB's.

People don't understand what kind of infiltration of gov has occured. Most people in gov are okay, but they are looking over their shoulders because no one is sure of who the bad guys are so we cannot get proper performance, but that doesn't mean they are ready to assasinate people who are trying to protect the Constitution and doing it reasonably.

[Powa]

Would you prefer I be afraid as you are?
Well, if you are right and there really is this massive conspiracy with stakes so high, I hope you have your affairs in order.

Personally, I think you're perfectly safe.

BTW, what am I afraid of?

[Powa]

That is not quite true. The people beside myself who know about the core are too afraid to argue for it,
Who are they? And since they don't arque for it how do you know they know there was a concrete core?

Others on the web can't justify going against the tide.
Justify going against the tide? How about the truth?

The tide IS you and yours who have no evidence but are full of ***** to splatter on BB's.
Choosing not to see the evidence before you doesn't mean it isn't there. You've decided years ago on your "truth" and you don't even consider you could be wrong.

People don't understand what kind of infiltration of gov has occured. Most people in gov are okay, but they are looking over their shoulders because no one is sure of who the bad guys are so we cannot get proper performance, but that doesn't mean they are ready to assasinate people who are trying to protect the Constitution and doing it reasonably.
They're not ready to assasinate people? They've killed 3,000 people. Why wouldn't they kill you? It doesn't make sense. Why are you still allowed to spread the truth?

[TheFeds]

Wow, 2 bogus pieces of information in one message. This calls for copius correction.

The concrete core documented with raw images.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

The below linked image was created from TheFeds bogus image originally.

diagram of hallways and interior wall of the WTC 1 steel reinforced concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corehallsdoors.gif)So, why in your "corrected" version have numerous columns been edited out? You didn't like the fact that the diagram showed columns in places totally inconsistent with your concrete hypothesis, so you just hand-waved and removed them? Brilliant stuff. I wish real engineers could conduct business like that.

So, if the BBC image (http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1540000/images/_1540044_world_trade_structure300.gif) is inconsistent with this image, that you edited (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corehallsdoors.gif)*, and they're both inconsistent with this image (http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc_graphic.gif), how do you explain it? In fact, the two images that you reference are mutally inconsistent. One core is hollow, with supporting webs intersected on every other floor. The other core is solid, with steel beams running vertically inside it. And the real core? Steel, like this (http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml) explains, and NIST, the WTC report and others corroborate.

By the way, there's a link that you missed the first time around (http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixe.pdf). I defy you to rebut all 78 instances of "core" and reconcile them with the copious descriptions of steel products, and zero description of concrete (in conjunction with the core).

*Or maybe, someone else edited, but you certainly seem to believe it.

[Christophera]

So, why in your "corrected" version have numerous columns been edited out? You didn't like the fact that the diagram showed columns in places totally inconsistent with your concrete hypothesis, so you just hand-waved and removed them? Brilliant stuff. I wish real engineers could conduct business like that.

the BBC core (http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1540000/images/_1540044_world_trade_structure300.gif) never existed and was rejected by Yamasaki because no contractor could build it.

The image that I revised (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corehallsdoors.gif) to represent the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) that actually stood basically depicts the core configuration/design accurately and raw demo images confirm it.

The FEMA core (http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/femacore.gif) DOES NOT resemble in any way the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) that actually stood and NO image of the demo (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) will ever be found that shows those columns standing in the core area.

Engineers representing reality will not engage any of this or we wouldn't be doing what we are doing

[Christophera]

Who are they? And since they don't arque for it how do you know they know there was a concrete core?


Justify going against the tide? How about the truth?

I've met 3 people personally that saw a documentary which had the same information about the core as I saw. They were different productions bu had the info about the concrete core.

A number of people at various boards have posted supportive comments. Here is a collection of them.

http://algoxy.com/psych/supportfor9-11truth.html

Here are comments collected off the usenet where people mention the concrete core.

http://cosmicpenguin.com/911/chrisbrown/corerefs/index.html

At the bottom of ths page are a number of links to sites that are not interested in 9-11 which mention the concrete core.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

The concrete core is basically common knowledge everywhere except in contentious areas of 9-11 discussion. And, they do not want to be informed it appears. Probably because the main source of their information, the original CT site misinforms them about the core and they consider the site gospel.

Try the Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/oxfordarchcore.jpg).

[Christophera]

Choosing not to see the evidence before you doesn't mean it isn't there. You've decided years ago on your "truth" and you don't even consider you could be wrong.

I did not decide, I was informed of it first hand by a detailed documentary that showed details of it.

How did you learn about the core you think stood?

[Christophera]

People don't understand what kind of infiltration of gov has occured. Most people in gov are okay, but they are looking over their shoulders because no one is sure of who the bad guys are so we cannot get proper performance, but that doesn't mean they are ready to assasinate people who are trying to protect the Constitution and doing it reasonably.


They're not ready to assasinate people? They've killed 3,000 people. Why wouldn't they kill you? It doesn't make sense. Why are you still allowed to spread the truth?

You are having problems comprehending what I've written.

[Christophera]

Well, if you are right and there really is this massive conspiracy with stakes so high, I hope you have your affairs in order.

Personally, I think you're perfectly safe.

BTW, what am I afraid of?

Perhaps ridicule for seeing the obvious concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) where it stands and not seeing the invisicolumns (http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/femacore.gif) that Gravy believes in.

[Christophera]

I think the word he was looking for is pendejos, and if so it would be a breach of Rule 8 for our Hispanic members.

It means stupid, ......... you Cabrone, the Latinos will enjoy it.

[Oliver]

♫♪♫♫ whether it's concrete
or whether it's horsemeat ♫♪♫
♫♪ we need to know chris´s adress
to make him stop this thread ♫♪♫

♫♪♫♫ whether it's concrete
or whether it's excrete ♫♪♫
♫♪ we need to know chris´s dealer
to make him stop smoking weed ♫♪♫

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107451f109db90e3.gif

.

[Mancman]

♫♪♫♫ whether it's concrete
or whether it's horsemeat ♫♪♫
♫♪ we need to know chris´s adress
to make him stop this thread ♫♪♫

♫♪♫♫ whether it's concrete
or whether it's excrete ♫♪♫
♫♪ we need to know chris´s dealer
to make him stop smoking weed ♫♪♫

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107451f109db90e3.gif

.

Bravo. :D

[jhunter1163]

Now I'm gonna have that song in my head all night, but with better words...

[Christophera]

Bravo. :D

While Rome Burned.



http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3316&stc=1&d=1159667216

[Oliver]

T´was just humor... I wish you would spend that massive amount of energy into the involvement-, keymaster-, paymentside. And Rome wouldn´t burn anymore... ;)

[Christophera]

T´was just humor... I wish you would spend that massive amount of energy into the involvement-, keymaster-, paymentside. And Rome wouldn´t burn anymore... ;)

Ending the secrecy will put the fire out. It seems that the whole purpose of the cold war was to create the secrecy needed to pull this crap off.

[Loss Leader]

Ending the secrecy will put the fire out. It seems that the whole purpose of the cold war was to create the secrecy needed to pull this crap off.


Stimson: Mr. President, we have to drop the bomb on Japan.

Truman: Why?

Stimson: To scare the Russians.

Truman: And then we win?

Stimson: Not exactly. Then we engage them in a covert war for years, maybe decades. In seven years, we fight them in Korea.

Truman: We do?

Stimson: Or the Chinese. Anyway, then in twenty years we fight them in Vietnam. Oh, there's some stuff with Cuba, too. It all works out, though and thirty-five years from now, we help these guys in Afghanistan beat the Ruskies back.

Truman: You've lost me.

Stimson: No, no, it's important. Because those Afghanies will win and the Soviet Union will collapse. That's when the freedom fighters in Afghanistan turn on us.

Truman: That's terrible.

Stimson: No, that's good. That's exactly what we want to have happen. It'll take them a few decades, but they'll finally get their act together and attack us.

Truman: No!

Stimson: Yes! And then we've got our own citizens right where we want them. We can take away their rights and sell them oil for whatever we want. Except, we will have some trouble with a couple of paranoid kids looking at cropped photos on the internet.

Truman: What's the internet?

Stimson: I'll get to that. Did I tell you about Israel?

[Bell]

OMFG Loss Leader, best think I read in days! :D

[Christophera]

Stimson: Mr. President, we have to drop the bomb on Japan.

Truman: Why?

Stimson: To scare the Russians.

Truman: And then we win?

Stimson: Not exactly. Then we engage them in a covert war for years, maybe decades. In seven years, we fight them in Korea.

Truman: We do?

Stimson: Or the Chinese. Anyway, then in twenty years we fight them in Vietnam. Oh, there's some stuff with Cuba, too. It all works out, though and thirty-five years from now, we help these guys in Afghanistan beat the Ruskies back.

Truman: You've lost me.

Stimson: No, no, it's important. Because those Afghanies will win and the Soviet Union will collapse. That's when we make it look like the freedom fighters in Afghanistan turn on us.

Truman: That's terrible. Why do we do that?.

Stimson: Adolfs boys figured out the Mayan Calander and we'll never be held accountable by the time the earth starts to shake. People will be way too busy. So that's exactly what we want to have happen. It'll take us a few decades to work up to it, but it will look like they finally get their act together and attacked us.

Truman: No!

Stimson: Yes! And then we've got our own citizens right where we want them. We can take away their rights and sell them oil for whatever we want, make loads of money. We'll be able to protect ourselves well at the end. Except, we will have some trouble with a couple of paranoid kids looking at cropped photos on the internet.

Truman: What's the internet?

Stimson: I'll get to that. Did I tell you about Israel?

Nice reconstruction. The motives were weak and the history not robust as reality calls for. You should know by Christmas.

[Loss Leader]

Nice reconstruction. The motives were weak and the history not robust as reality calls for. You should know by Christmas.

It is generally accepted practice that if you quote someone else's post, you do not alter it without making it clear what you have done.

As it is, I have no idea what your changes even mean or why you think they were important. And I don't understand your comment regarding my post. Still, you should indicate your changes unambiguously.

[Nightlord]

It means stupid, ......... you Cabrone, the Latinos will enjoy it.

Actually, the translation depends on the country, and "Cabrone" has (as "bendehos") no meaning, you are doing a terrific work mutilating English, so you don't need to go into Spanish to prove that you have a difficult time with words. (specially if both words DO constitute a breach on the rule 8, or would be if you knew how to write them)

And I know a few latinos that are enjoying a lot this thread, especially about the pobrecito gringo paranoico, but probably not in the way that you think they do.

[Gravy]

Stimson: Mr. President, we have to drop the bomb on Japan.
...
Stimson: I'll get to that. Did I tell you about Israel?
Sweet. Nominated.

[StoneWT]

Christophera,

You do understand that creating your own webpages containing fake evidence and referring to them as if they are reliable, outside sources is a sign of mental illness? Of course, this assumes that you aren't deliberately lying.

At the bottom of ths page are a number of links to sites that are not interested in 9-11 which mention the concrete core.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html)

The concrete core is basically common knowledge everywhere except in contentious areas of 9-11 discussion. And, they do not want to be informed it appears. Probably because the main source of their information, the original CT site misinforms them about the core and they consider the site gospel.

Try the Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/oxfordarchcore.jpg).


Do you scan only the portion of your fake letters and reference book pages that contain the critical :rolleyes: portion because showing the entire page would involve too much work? God forbid that you should scan the letter heading with contact info for your fake docu-witness or the page with publishing info for your fake concrete core definition.

You do realize that you did a poor job of inserting "a reinforced concrete tower"? There are a good two or three spaces, instead of one, after "The central core" and before "contains lift shafts,". Please stop dishonoring the 3,000 victims from that tragic day with your self-created evidence :rolleyes:. Please stop spitting on the graves of thousands in order to give yourself an ego boost.