Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers? [Archive] - Page 19

Christophera

1st October 2006, 03:41 PM

Then you should have no problem producing people that will validate your claim.

Of course, your sentence above contradicts what you've said before on this thread, namely that everyone's been hypnotised to forget about the concrete core. :rolleyes:

OMG!, you are stuck on hypnotized AFTER you woke up.

From my concrete core site.

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

Leslie Robertson, Architect Of The World Trade Center Towers

Still, Robertson, whose firm is responsible for three of the six tallest buildings in the world, feels a sense of pride that the massive towers, supported by a steel-tube exoskeleton and a reinforced concrete core, held up as well as they did—managing to stand for over an hour despite direct hits from two massive commercial jetliners.

Says engineer Robertson, “If they had fallen down immediately, the death counts would have been unimaginable,” he says. “The World Trade Center has performed admirably, and everyone involved in the project should be proud.” The buildings were designed specifically to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, the largest plane flying in 1966, the year they broke ground on the project.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3069641/

A Description of the World Trade Center

The twin towers of the World Trade Center were essentially two tubes, with the north tower (1,368 feet) six feet taller than the south tower (1,362 feet), and each were 110 stories tall. Each tube contained a concrete core, which supported only the load of the central bank of elevators and stairwells (Snoonian and Czarnecki 23).

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

NOTE: This page has some confusion about the construction sequence of steel and concrete.

Each of the towers, in other words, was held up by its reinforced concrete core and the world's strongest curtain walls. Without the usual steel skeleton, the open floors allowed unprecedented space and flexibility. Between them, the two 1,350-foot-high towers provided 7.9 million square feet of rentable floor space, roughly the equivalent of fifty city blocks.

http://salwen.com/wtc

NOTE: This page identifies the concrete core but suffers from some confusion.

http://www.delta.tudelft.nl/archief/j33/n27/3664

NOTE: This page identifies the concrete core but does not indicate "steel reinforced core".

http://membres.lycos.fr/jcviel/BTS/sujets/2002batiment.htm

NOTE: This page identifies the concrete core from the oral history of the NYC Fire Chief.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0512/S00082.htm

This page identifies the concrete core in fine print on the left side. Actually a brief but accurate description.

http://www.didyouknow.org/terrorism.htm

NOTE: This page has some confusion mentioning multiple, concrete clad cores.

http://www.ussartf.org/world_trade_center_disaster.htm

This page has a brief but competent description of the concrete core

http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/wtc/page3.html

NOTE: This page has some confusion and relies on Snoonian and Czarnecki as do others.

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

This Page Has A Concise, Accurate Structural Description

http://www.blythe.org/nytransfer-subs/2001-Environment/Gallon_Environ.Letter:_Engineers_on_WTC_Collapse

At the heart of the structure was a vertical steel and concrete core, housing lift shafts and stairwells. Steel beams radiate outwards and connect with steel
uprights, forming the building's outer wall.

August Domel, Jr., Ph.D., S.E., P.E. November 2001

Groundbreaking for construction of the World Trade Center took place on August 5, 1966 Tower One, standing 1368 feet high, was completed in 1970, and Tower Two, at 1362 feet high, was completed in 1972. The structural design for the World Trade Center Towers was done by Skilling, Helle, Christiansen and Robertson. It was designed as a tube building that included a perimeter moment-resisting frame consisting of steel columns spaced on 39-inch centers. The load carrying system was designed so that the steel facade would resist lateral and gravity forces and the interior concrete core would carry only gravity loads.

Dr. Domel received a Ph.D. from the University of Illinois at Chicago in 1988 and a Law Degree from Loyola University in 1992. He is a licensed Structural Engineer and Attorney at Law in the .State of Illinois and a Professional Engineer in twelve states, including the State of New York. Dr. Domel is authorized by the Department of Labor (OSHA) as a 10 and 30 hour construction safety trainer.

http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf

Oliver

1st October 2006, 03:43 PM

*Ahem* ... My PM? :D Since i start to like you, Christophera - what´s your forename? Christopher? :)

Cheers,
Oliver

;)

Oliver

1st October 2006, 04:39 PM

♫♪♫♫ 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

.

Any additional strophes?

Christophera

1st October 2006, 06:11 PM

pls rewite for truth.

You do it but make sure motives are comprehensive to all known history. You better include an explanation of near free fall and total pulverization of the towers since your tendency is to assume collapse of the towers. So explain how that happens within known factors.

Oliver

1st October 2006, 06:13 PM

I´m still waiting for your PM-Reply - i was banned three times since i send the message... :D Badges? http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107451ef9fc0fca9.gif

Christophera

1st October 2006, 10:49 PM

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.

I do not know what you refer to but I do know that you are ignoreing a great deal of solid evidence and uninterested testimony documentin the concrete core.

When you explain near freefall and total pulverization or stop dissing the only explanation in existence fo rthos phenomena, then you will have ceased shaming yourself for lack of respect for the dead and violations of laws.

defaultdotxbe

1st October 2006, 10:57 PM

I do not know what you refer to but I do know that you are ignoreing a great deal of solid evidence and uninterested testimony documentin the concrete core.
your "testimony" documenting the concrete consists of newspaper and magazine articles, why cant you find any workers who poured the concrete?

longfellow

1st October 2006, 11:14 PM

From one of Chrisophera's threads over at loose change:

Christophera, I and other Administrators have become weary of you using our forum to advance a position that appears to have little basis in verifiable fact. You have persisted in this now for just over a month and we have been overly tollerant. Your persistence in this borders on spamming.

As of now I am removing your posting privileges indefinitely, moving your threads to the "alt theories" section where they will be locked, pending further Administrative review. We strongly encourage you to find another forum to promulgate your largely unsubstantiated hypothesis.

s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=14889

Christophera

1st October 2006, 11:32 PM

your "testimony" documenting the concrete consists of newspaper and magazine articles, why cant you find any workers who poured the concrete?

Newspaper and magazine articles make it common knowledge. Don't forget the Ph.d Augus Domel and the architectural college. What about the Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992?

it was 33 years ago and they are not in the 9-11 truth movement and, the movement is too manipulated and ignorant of steel and concrete structures to realize that FEMA lied and how importnat the lie is. Otherwise the core would be an issue adn some workers would have heard and come forward.

Most importantly, this site

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

has images that show NO STEEL CORE COLUMNS where they would have to be if they existed. And, ........ it shows what can only be concrete.

Christophera

1st October 2006, 11:38 PM

From one of Chrisophera's threads over at loose change:

s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=14889

Yes, Loose Change might not be as interested in the truth as they say they are. The administration should have taken up the challenge and compiled all the information they think they have for the steel core columns, if they think they existed, but they didn't they just banned me.

And they should have done that because my site,

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

is actually the ONLY feasible, realistic explanation for near free fall and total pulverization in existence.

But noooooo, their rules are too important.

The fact is I don't pay attention to rules, much. I only argue and debate and if the opposition won't argue and debate, I've won. To test it, I'll start another thread. If the board admin can't see that, they are into running BB's not finding the truth and protecting our Constitution.

Meaning they might not be real and the entire Loose Change legacy may be bogus and a dead end rabbit hole just for the trendy, gullible, sensation seekng American defacto rebel culture.

LashL

2nd October 2006, 12:22 AM

Belz...

2nd October 2006, 05:44 AM

OMG!, you are stuck on hypnotized AFTER you woke up.

I woke up ? Wow! You ARE good. You can tell from a distance! Just like with the pictures! :D

Belz...

2nd October 2006, 05:47 AM

Newspaper and magazine articles make it common knowledge.

It's also common knowledge that crime rates are higher on a full moon.

Careful what you read.

has images that show NO STEEL CORE COLUMNS where they would have to be if they existed. And, ........ it shows what can only be concrete.

I see lots of steel core columns and only concrete in diagrams made by YOU or news outlets.

Where's that evidence, again ?

The fact is I don't pay attention to rules, much.

Not even to the laws of physics, it seems.

chipmunk stew

2nd October 2006, 05:58 AM

From one of Chrisophera's threads over at loose change:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=14889
This is the first time I've ever agreed with an administrative decision at the LC forums.

chipmunk stew

2nd October 2006, 06:01 AM

Yes, Loose Change might not be as interested in the truth as they say they are.

....

Meaning they might not be real and the entire Loose Change legacy may be bogus and a dead end rabbit hole just for the trendy, gullible, sensation seekng American defacto rebel culture.
This is the first time I've ever agreed with anything you've said.

Belz...

2nd October 2006, 08:11 AM

This is the first time I've ever agreed with an administrative decision at the LC forums.

If only they applied such reasoning to their own pet theories.

Anti-sophist

2nd October 2006, 08:22 AM

Haha, the irony of this statement on that thread did not escape me:
We strongly encourage you to find another forum to promulgate your largely unsubstantiated hypothesis.

Let's give them some credit, though... only 33% of them don't believe the holocaust happened.

Christophera

2nd October 2006, 11:41 AM

I see lots of steel core columns and only concrete in diagrams made by YOU or news outlets.

Where's that evidence, again ?

That is my question and you said there was "lots".

Christophera

2nd October 2006, 11:55 AM

Chris, here's a hint.

When even the lunatic nutcases at the LC forum won't buy what you're trying to sell, you really, really, really have hit rock bottom.

Please, seek the help you so obviously require, and come back and talk to us after you've received treatment. We'll still be here and we won't hold it against you.

Please take a break from your computer and get the help you need.

I've always wondered if the producers of the video were for real. Now I really wonder. Most of you guys are blind to evidence with minds closed tight as a drum, as tight as those that run the courts and the mental health care industry, and I prove my point about the core.

Now I really wonder about Loose Change.

Supporting the impossible to obscure the possible.

firecoins

2nd October 2006, 11:58 AM

Oliver

2nd October 2006, 12:00 PM

Belz...

2nd October 2006, 01:06 PM

That is my question and you said there was "lots".

I never said there was lots of evidence for YOUR theory, bucko.

Christophera

2nd October 2006, 07:17 PM

I have no clue where you see something like a concrete Core. All i see is a mesh, made of steel.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/111074521535c06e9e.jpg

ETA: And even no one of the troofers agrees with you at:
Loose Change Forum->September 11, 2001 Sites->Alternative Theories->

Why dont you ask people who knows that concretecore-thing - like the construction worker?

LC forum has no construction workers. That is not called a mesh. Call it a grid if you must. The image at the bottom shows you what it really is.

Your image is of the interior box columns and the floor beams showing prove it. Here is another of the interior box columns that were encircling the concrete core, and the core has detonated, interior box columns falling, toppelling (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/overspirezoom.gif) NOTE: No interior columns of steel to the core are shown.

I am a construction worker and I interpret correctly. You have no clue.

See the floor beams connecting the interior box columns that ring the core.

Christophera

2nd October 2006, 07:19 PM

I never said there was lots of evidence for YOUR theory, bucko.

No, I did. You won't see it.

I was talking about your evidence, post it. You said there was "lots of it", I said

"Post it."

Oliver

2nd October 2006, 07:40 PM

This might be a stupid question of mine, Chris:

What do you see what i can not see on your pictures? How can you see concrete from this distance?

And the more important question i have:
Why don´t you ask other construction workers if these people see what you mean?

You may ask the WTC construction workers, too. Why not?

What does all of this proof? Is the core more stable with a concrete Core?
Are you talking about the pulverized issue? I still dont get the point of what you´re trying to suppose?

Christophera

2nd October 2006, 08:54 PM

TheFeds

2nd October 2006, 09:08 PM

Leslie Robertson, Architect Of The World Trade Center Towers

Still, Robertson, whose firm is responsible for three of the six tallest buildings in the world, feels a sense of pride that the massive towers, supported by a steel-tube exoskeleton and a reinforced concrete core, held up as well as they did—managing to stand for over an hour despite direct hits from two massive commercial jetliners.

Says engineer Robertson, “If they had fallen down immediately, the death counts would have been unimaginable,” he says. “The World Trade Center has performed admirably, and everyone involved in the project should be proud.” The buildings were designed specifically to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, the largest plane flying in 1966, the year they broke ground on the project.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3069641/
Robertson doesn't claim anything about a concrete core. MSNBC does. They do not attribute that observation to him.

A Description of the World Trade Center

The twin towers of the World Trade Center were essentially two tubes, with the north tower (1,368 feet) six feet taller than the south tower (1,362 feet), and each were 110 stories tall. Each tube contained a concrete core, which supported only the load of the central bank of elevators and stairwells (Snoonian and Czarnecki 23).

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

From the above: "By using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core, the shafts were strengthened enough that air pressure was not an issue."

NOTE: This page has some confusion about the construction sequence of steel and concrete.

Each of the towers, in other words, was held up by its reinforced concrete core and the world's strongest curtain walls. Without the usual steel skeleton, the open floors allowed unprecedented space and flexibility. Between them, the two 1,350-foot-high towers provided 7.9 million square feet of rentable floor space, roughly the equivalent of fifty city blocks.

http://salwen.com/wtc
The quotation from John Tauranac identifies "cores", but says nothing about concrete cores. The author of the site asserts that they are concrete, but provides no reference.

NOTE: This page identifies the concrete core but suffers from some confusion.

http://www.delta.tudelft.nl/archief/j33/n27/3664
The author attributes the WTC's temporary survival to a concrete core, stating that the use of bearing outer walls would have doomed comparable Dutch structures. But recall that one of the foremost aspects of the WTC design was the use of bearing outer walls instead of a full set of interior columns. His assessment does not make sense in this light, and he is probably unfamiliar with the WTC's structural layout.

NOTE: This page identifies the concrete core but does not indicate "steel reinforced core".

http://membres.lycos.fr/jcviel/BTS/sujets/2002batiment.htm
"But the towers’ ultimate collapse was inevitable, as the steel cores inside them reached temperatures of 800°C – raising questions as to why hundreds of rescue workers were sent into the doomed buildings to their deaths."
"But as fires raged in the towers, driven by aviation fuel, the steel cores in each building would have eventually reached 800°C – hot enough to start buckling and collapsing."
"All the steel was covered in concrete to guarantee firefighters a minimum period of one or two hours in which they could operate – although aviation fuel would have driven the fire to higher-than-normal temperatures." This implies a coating of concrete (e.g. gun-applied), rather than a slip-formed solid bulkhead. If it were solid, why refer to it as "covered"?

NOTE: This page identifies the concrete core from the oral history of the NYC Fire Chief.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0512/S00082.htm
"The FDNY chief of safety says in his oral history that he thought the towers were made of block construction, with a solid concrete core, so that fire crews would have at least three hours to work. In fact, the cores of the towers were sheetrock over steel. " The fire chief was incorrect. The WTC was not using block construction. Your own reference states that the cores were sheetrock (i.e. drywall) over steel.

This page identifies the concrete core in fine print on the left side. Actually a brief but accurate description.

http://www.didyouknow.org/terrorism.htm
Just an observation, that site might not be considered too credible around here, on account of this (http://www.didyouknow.org/Bible/Bible.htm).
But I can concede that that site does not contradict your opinion.

NOTE: This page has some confusion mentioning multiple, concrete clad cores.

http://www.ussartf.org/world_trade_center_disaster.htm
"Worried that the intense air pressure created by the buildings’ high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core." Steel core again, from your own reference. Here's more, from the same site:
"But the towers' ultimate collapse was inevitable, as the steel cores inside them reached temperatures of 800C - raising questions why hundreds of rescue workers were sent into the doomed buildings to their deaths."
"But as fires raged in the towers, driven by aviation fuel, the steel core in each building would have eventually reached melting point - 800C. The protective concrete cladding on the cores would certainly have been no defense in these extraordinary circumstances." Note that cladding is not a solid wall, it's a layer applied to the surface, often by spray.

This page has a brief but competent description of the concrete core

http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/wtc/page3.html
This reference does not contradict your opinion. They are, however, an elementary school in Alberta.
http://www.worsleyschool.net/zeropix/toppic00a.jpghttp://www.worsleyschool.net/zeropix/toppic00b.jpg

NOTE: This page has some confusion and relies on Snoonian and Czarnecki as do others.

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

This link is identical to one you posted earlier.

This Page Has A Concise, Accurate Structural Description

http://www.blythe.org/nytransfer-subs/2001-Environment/Gallon_Environ.Letter:_Engineers_on_WTC_Collapse

At the heart of the structure was a vertical steel and concrete core, housing lift shafts and stairwells. Steel beams radiate outwards and connect with steel
uprights, forming the building's outer wall.
"The central steel core carried gravity loads only." If it were reinforced concrete, it is inappropriate to refer to it as steel (obviously). Why does your own reference refer to it as being a steel core?

August Domel, Jr., Ph.D., S.E., P.E. November 2001

Groundbreaking for construction of the World Trade Center took place on August 5, 1966 Tower One, standing 1368 feet high, was completed in 1970, and Tower Two, at 1362 feet high, was completed in 1972. The structural design for the World Trade Center Towers was done by Skilling, Helle, Christiansen and Robertson. It was designed as a tube building that included a perimeter moment-resisting frame consisting of steel columns spaced on 39-inch centers. The load carrying system was designed so that the steel facade would resist lateral and gravity forces and the interior concrete core would carry only gravity loads.

Dr. Domel received a Ph.D. from the University of Illinois at Chicago in 1988 and a Law Degree from Loyola University in 1992. He is a licensed Structural Engineer and Attorney at Law in the .State of Illinois and a Professional Engineer in twelve states, including the State of New York. Dr. Domel is authorized by the Department of Labor (OSHA) as a 10 and 30 hour construction safety trainer.

http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf
Dr. Domel does not contradict your opinion. So that one might legitimately count for you.

But why do so many of your references describe steel, or steel-with-concrete-cladding as the core materials? These (your own references) are inconsistent with reinforced concrete construction.

mortimer

2nd October 2006, 09:10 PM

No one here has said anything but drywall when I ask what that structure is. I know it is not structural steel.

Got evidence (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

It's something hidden behind a cloud of dust. I can't tell what it is. And there's no way you can, either.

Found anyone with a copy of that documentary yet? Even tried? Or has the NWO silenced everyone involved with the making of, distribution of, and viewing of that documentary, except you? Why would they have left you alone while "silencing" the thousands of others?

alexg

2nd October 2006, 09:12 PM

Your evidence is a picture, that picture. That picture is vague, it could be core, steel core, in a dust/smoke cloud - the cloud imparting that 'solid' look. Now don't go showing me other pictures or quoting the Britannica, explain to me how LOOKING AT THAT PICTURE ALONE we must conclude that is concrete and not steel core or something else. I hold you to this stipulation because you are so sure THAT picture is obviously concrete core. Argue that, please.

TheFeds

2nd October 2006, 09:13 PM

I am a construction worker and I interpret correctly. You have no clue.A construction worker? What trade, and how much experience do you have? What are some major projects that you worked on?

If you can't provide that, it's like claiming to be an engineer and using that fact to seem credible (w/r/t the WTC), even though you're just an electrical engineer specializing in microchip design.

Christophera

2nd October 2006, 10:31 PM

A construction worker? What trade, and how much experience do you have? What are some major projects that you worked on?

If you can't provide that, it's like claiming to be an engineer and using that fact to seem credible (w/r/t the WTC), even though you're just an electrical engineer specializing in microchip design.

A wide range of skills from survey, construction stakeout, topographic mapping, cutting, fitting and welding, fabrication, operating equipment, demolition, drilling for blasting, start to finish roadway construction drawings.

Concrete, I try not to touch the stuff, but I've incorporated a lot of its design into retaining walls, abutements and other roadway features. Not too much cast in place above ground structure, but some. A 7 story building layed out and monitored for dimension, built from steel.

Enough experience so that when a documentary about a steel reinforced cast concrete tube built inside of scaffold/floors of the tower comes o nthe TV, I take notice and I understand exactly what I'm seeing and hearing.

The end view of the Concrete shear wall of the core to left of interior box column, the "spire" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg)

Get evidence of the steel core columns.

mortimer

2nd October 2006, 10:39 PM

Enough experience so that when a documentary about a steel reinforced cast concrete tube built inside of scaffold/floors of the tower comes o nthe TV, I take notice and I understand exactly what I'm seeing and hearing.

Found anyone with a copy of that documentary yet? Even tried? Or has the NWO silenced everyone involved with the making of, distribution of, and viewing of that documentary, except you? Why would they have left you alone while "silencing" the thousands of others?

qarnos

2nd October 2006, 10:39 PM

Christophera

2nd October 2006, 11:17 PM

Since when has that become a problem for them?

Ironey is poignant, is it not?.

Christophera

2nd October 2006, 11:21 PM

Found anyone with a copy of that documentary yet? Even tried? Or has the NWO silenced everyone involved with the making of, distribution of, and viewing of that documentary, except you? Why would they have left you alone while "silencing" the thousands of others?

I'm here looking for a copy, and I want to thank you guys for helping. Do you think they will have a hard time remembering it unless it is an issue?

Belz...

3rd October 2006, 05:47 AM

No, I did. You won't see it.

I was talking about your evidence, post it. You said there was "lots of it", I said

"Post it."

I don't need to, you're doing a fine job of doing that, yourself. All these "box columns" you are refering to are core columns, and that concrete core picture you keep linking to is so impossible to interpret that a child could debunk it.

cloudshipsrule

3rd October 2006, 06:01 AM

Any of you ever see L.A. Story with Steve Martin?

There's one scene where Martin is standing in front of a painting describing it to other people who are also looking at it. He is very detailed in his description, and we, the audience, can't see the painting he is describing.

After he finishes his description of the painting he steps back, and we are shown the abstact painting he was describing which depicts none of the objects in the description he gave. This scene will now always reminds me of ole' Chris!

I think I actually saw a concrete core in the painting.

mortimer

3rd October 2006, 07:10 AM

I'm here looking for a copy, and I want to thank you guys for helping. Do you think they will have a hard time remembering it unless it is an issue?

Nice non-answer. Has the NWO silenced everyone involved with the making of, distribution of, and viewing of that documentary, except you? Why would they have left you alone while "silencing" the thousands of others?

Metullus

3rd October 2006, 10:04 AM

Nice non-answer. Has the NWO silenced everyone involved with the making of, distribution of, and viewing of that documentary, except you?
Actually that is pretty much his claim. Seriously.
Why would they have left you alone while "silencing" the thousands of others?Because he somehow escaped being hypnotised as a child. I am not making this up. It is in this thread.

chipmunk stew

3rd October 2006, 11:18 AM

Actually that is pretty much his claim. Seriously.
Because he somehow escaped being hypnotised as a child. I am not making this up. It is in this thread.
And now the secret society is unconsciously communicating with him in various ways, including placing the number 22 (or sometimes 21 or 23) and references to the solstice in his mailings.

I wish I were joking.

chipmunk stew

3rd October 2006, 11:23 AM

No. I am aware from other sources exactly how the towers were designed and NIST is a waste of time. They do not explain free fall. They do not explain free fall to the ground of the entire structure. They do not explain how this happened twice and why the impact/fall sequence is backwards/ The wrong tower fell first if itwas a collapse.

They don't explain why the tops of the towers fell the wrong directions according top the sides damaged.

Belz:

You can make relatively smooth cuts with LSCs (see the second picture I linked), but they are NOT going to be smooth, right-angle cuts, perfectly straight, with no blast marks.

All it would really take is a picture of an explosive-cut steel beam, that can be verified as such. But Christophera can't provide that, because he's lying.

Just as he's lying when he claims that freefall and near freefall are identical (the actual difference was 20% to 30%, more than enough to account for all factors).

Just like he's lying when he says there is no other explanation fo rthe collapse (20 stories falling on the lower 80 stories of a building will collapse it, pretty much straight down and with little slowing).

Just like he's lying when he repeatedly claims that a spire and part of the external wall are photos of 3" rebar oin 4' centers (which doesn't even exist in any other known application).

Just like he's lying when he claims that concrete encasement (an alkaline, porous, water-permiable barrier) will extend shelf life (ever seem human remains recovered from concrete? It doesn't preserve very well at all. Shows how much good common sense is, eh?).

Just like he's lying when he calims a smoke colum is part of the core (there should be pictures from many other angles and other cameras showing this, why are you relying on two from a great distance?).

Just like he's lying when he claims to have explained all this on his site and demands we read it (all we want are the original sources, not your baseless allegations).

Just like he's lying when he claims to not be accusing anyone of mass murder (you are accusing the U.S. government, or at least large parts of it, of being complicit in this).

Just like there's very little he's been truthful about.

And Christophera, if you can provide actual evidence to support your assertions (you are correct that they aren't theories, but they aren't even hypothesis, they're pure speculation based on nothing), if you can provide original sources to verify your information (not just things you explain away, but actual, positive evidecne), then I will be the first to apologize to you, take back everything I've stated, admit I was wrong, and do my best to get your story out there.

But, unlike you, I refuse to accuse the innocent of murder without sufficient evidence. Because, unlike you, I actually support all the rights granted by our Constitution, such as the right to fair trial, innocent until proven guilty, and free speech.

Show us the evidence. Show us the math that explains why the towers fell too fast. Show us the records of huge amounts of concrete being ordered and delivered to the WTC towers for the core. SHow us the evidence of rebar (not the external cladding and wall). SHow us a clear, verifiable photo of this concrete core existing at any stage of the WTC construction or demolition.

So far, you simply conducted in enormous amounts of post hoc rationalization to explain wjhy your theory is still correct when we've presented contrary evidence. You've grapsed at every straw to keep your theory from being wrong. You engaged in logical fallacy after logical fallacy. You refuse to provide any sources except your own website, which I wouldn't believe if it stated the sky was blue (I'd look out a window to check it first).

All we want is verifiable, reliable evidence, not speculation and a couple of poor-quality photos...not obvious misrepresentation (rebar...right), not outlandish, impossible theories (rebar coated in C-4..you must realize that this would remove any structural support the rebar provided, and weaken the concrete structure as well, right?).

Evidence. Facts. Numbers to show it couldn't be any other way.

Oh, and Belz:

Bachelor's Omelette:

5 medium eggs
Cooking oil
Milk
Salt and Pepper
About 1 egg's worth (by volume) Meat (anything in the fridge, leftover ham, lunch meat, bacon, sausage, etc)
About 1 egg's worth (by volume) cheese (anything that happens to be left, american, swiss, cheddar, etc...but for Ed's sake avoid Velveeta)
Onions, mushrooms, tomatoes, other assorted vegetables to taste (1 to two eggs worth by volume).

Beat eggs until smooth and yellow. Add in a dab of milk (to help them smooth out).

Chop other ingredients into small pieces, combine in single bowl/cup/paper towel.

Coat the frying pan in cooking oil (a thing layer is plenty). Heat at low-medium heat for a few minutes. Pour in your egg mixture. Once the egg will remain in one piece, add in the other ingredients. If needed, use the spatula to spread then around/mix them up. Fold the egg over the ingredients. Flip the omeletee. Takes only a few minutes to finish cooking after the ingredients are added.

Serve with toast, milk, juice, leftover beer, warm soda, or whatever else is available.

Serves one male Bachelor (or three new girlfriends).

:D

They may have to make an exception for a white stripe for Meffy's.

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?
Fun trivia fact:
The above posts were (in order) the 22nd, 1111th, 2222nd, and 4444th posts in this thread.

Oliver

3rd October 2006, 11:27 AM

Can someone in here (beside chris) sum up what the concrete core proofs - no matter if it´s true or not - what does it proof?

chipmunk stew

3rd October 2006, 11:40 AM

Can someone in here (beside chris) sum up what the concrete core proofs - no matter if it´s true or not - what does it proof?
Well you see, he needs it to be concrete because the concrete core is what housed the C4-wrapped 3" rebar on 4' centers that blew up the towers. If it's a steel-framed core, his bizarre fantasy doesn't work.

Oliver

3rd October 2006, 11:42 AM

Well you see, he needs it to be concrete because the concrete core is what housed the C4-wrapped 3" rebar on 4' centers that blew up the towers. If it's a steel-framed core, his bizarre fantasy doesn't work.

AAARRGH :mad: - so you´re telling me i´m ruining my nerves for nothing? :boggled:

3rd October 2006, 11:56 AM

AAARRGH :mad: - so you´re telling me i´m ruining my nerves for nothing? :boggled:

No no no - you're ruining your nerves for our continuing entertainment. :D

Oliver

3rd October 2006, 12:11 PM

No no no - you're ruining your nerves for our continuing entertainment. :D

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107451e5e850e23f.gifhttp://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107451db56d36f14.gif

.
.
.
.

:D

Christophera

3rd October 2006, 01:29 PM

I don't need to, you're doing a fine job of doing that, yourself. All these "box columns" you are refering to are core columns, and that concrete core picture you keep linking to is so impossible to interpret that a child could debunk it.

You are not past infancy, if a child could debunk the truth which is that this is concrete (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

You need to post raw evidence of the steel core columns to be reasonable.

Hellbound

3rd October 2006, 01:34 PM

I'ma little tea...pot short and stout...

Christophera

3rd October 2006, 02:25 PM

Belz:

You can make relatively smooth cuts with LSCs (see the second picture I linked), but they are NOT going to be smooth, right-angle cuts, perfectly straight, with no blast marks.

All it would really take is a picture of an explosive-cut steel beam, that can be verified as such. But Christophera can't provide that, because he's lying.

Sheared on left & Torch Cut Columns on right (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc.box.shear.torch.gif)]

Just as he's lying when he claims that freefall and near freefall are identical (the actual difference was 20% to 30%, more than enough to account for all factors)

Any rate of fall near free fall identically to the ground is unacceptable for collapse.

Just like he's lying when he says there is no other explanation fo rthe collapse (20 stories falling on the lower 80 stories of a building will collapse it, pretty much straight down and with little slowing).

It was stopped to begin with. You distort

Just like he's lying when he repeatedly claims that a spire and part of the external wall are photos of 3" rebar oin 4' centers (which doesn't even exist in any other known application).

The tallest buildings inthe world called for CUSTOM, 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)

Just like he's lying when he claims that concrete encasement (an alkaline, porous, water-permiable barrier) will extend shelf life (ever seem human remains recovered from concrete? It doesn't preserve very well at all. Shows how much good common sense is, eh?).

Not porus enough to cause evaporation and oxidization which are the only 2 things that might cause C4 to be unviable.

Just like he's lying when he calims a smoke colum is part of the core (there should be pictures from many other angles and other cameras showing this, why are you relying on two from a great distance?).

You distort with intent to decieve. This is the core, a solid object and can only be explained as concrete. No steel core columns are visible here or any where else. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)

Just like he's lying when he claims to have explained all this on his site and demands we read it (all we want are the original sources, not your baseless allegations).

Many original, independent, un interested sources confirm the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html)

Just like he's lying when he claims to not be accusing anyone of mass murder (you are accusing the U.S. government, or at least large parts of it, of being complicit in this).

Finally you get something right

Just like there's very little he's been truthful about.

You haven't posted any evidence, only accusations of liest

And Christophera, if you can provide actual evidence to support your assertions (you are correct that they aren't theories, but they aren't even hypothesis, they're pure speculation based on nothing), if you can provide original sources to verify your information (not just things you explain away, but actual, positive evidecne), then I will be the first to apologize to you, take back everything I've stated, admit I was wrong, and do my best to get your story out there.

Testimony of explosions in the basement at plane impact, WTC 1 (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1205439)

But, unlike you, I refuse to accuse the innocent of murder without sufficient evidence. Because, unlike you, I actually support all the rights granted by our Constitution, such as the right to fair trial, innocent until proven guilty, and free speech.

You also appear to support violations of due process in 3000 capiltol crimes evidence was removed from the scene before independent analysis and inspection could take place, It is now confirmed you are doing EXACTLY what you accuse me of doing.

Show us the evidence. Show us the math that explains why the towers fell too fast. Show us the records of huge amounts of concrete being ordered and delivered to the WTC towers for the core. SHow us the evidence of rebar (not the external cladding and wall). SHow us a clear, verifiable photo of this concrete core existing at any stage of the WTC construction or demolition.

I've asked for one simple image showing the steel core columns and not one poster on the board has been able to produce a single image ever that showed what is clearly a steel columnn inside the core but you will not acknowledge even one of many at this link. (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html)]

So far, you simply conducted in enormous amounts of post hoc rationalization to explain wjhy your theory is still correct when we've presented contrary evidence. You've grapsed at every straw to keep your theory from being wrong. You engaged in logical fallacy after logical fallacy. You refuse to provide any sources except your own website, which I wouldn't believe if it stated the sky was blue (I'd look out a window to check it first).

So you say, but you and yours are the ones totally failing to come up with any evidence to support your contentions and you have explained nothing.

All we want is verifiable, reliable evidence, not speculation and a couple of poor-quality photos...not obvious misrepresentation (rebar...right), not outlandish, impossible theories (rebar coated in C-4..you must realize that this would remove any structural support the rebar provided, and weaken the concrete structure as well, right?).

Right. It is all about what you "want" with no concern or regard for needs. Typical.

Evidence. Facts. Numbers to show it couldn't be any other way.

What rhetoric you are capable of. Astounding!

Hellbound

3rd October 2006, 02:28 PM

Christophera:

You are getting sleepy...veeeeeeery sleeeeeepy...

:D

Arkan_Wolfshade

3rd October 2006, 02:33 PM

Christophera

3rd October 2006, 02:42 PM

Fill shaker with ice
Add 1/2 oz vermouth
Shake vigorously for 30-45 seconds
Drain excess vermouth
Add 2.5-3 oz of good quality vodka (Grey Goose or Chopin)
Shake vigorously for 30-45 seconds
Strain in to chilled martini glass
Add bleu cheese stuff olive
Consume
Repeat as needed

I knew those without evidence would resort to posting recipes again.

The evidence of the concrete core

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

Arkan_Wolfshade

3rd October 2006, 02:44 PM

Fill shaker with ice
Add 1/2 oz vermouth
Shake vigorously for 30-45 seconds
Drain excess vermouth
Add 2.5-3 oz of good quality vodka (Grey Goose or Chopin)
Shake vigorously for 30-45 seconds
Strain in to chilled martini glass
Add bleu cheese stuff olive
Consume
Repeat as needed

Oh, and here's a kitten for dessert:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/ArkanWolfshade/__hr_bigcatnose.jpg

Big Les

3rd October 2006, 03:11 PM

I knew those without evidence would resort to posting recipes again.

The evidence of the concrete core

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

Interesting, but a little dry on the palate, don't you think?

chipmunk stew

3rd October 2006, 03:51 PM

http://www.diviniti.demon.co.uk/Hypnotic%20Spiral%20Picture.gif

chipmunk stew

3rd October 2006, 03:57 PM

Oh, and here's a kitten for dessert:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/ArkanWolfshade/__hr_bigcatnose.jpg
That's not a kitten!
:teacher:That's clearly a two-legged beast with an oversized head. I don't think you're qualified to analyze photographs.

Pardalis

3rd October 2006, 03:59 PM

I think the shadow on the cat's nose is proof that there was a concrete core.

Oliver

3rd October 2006, 04:04 PM

I think the shadow on the cat's nose is proof that there was a concrete core.

Forget the shadow - take a look at the garage. Are these Tinhats? :confused:

Pardalis

3rd October 2006, 04:11 PM

No, wait, I think I see it... Yes, definately a concrete core.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/88864522dff9a05ce.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1759)

alexi_drago

3rd October 2006, 04:25 PM

Off Topic but if the plane in the pentagon video is too small to be a 757 then a plantpot can fit in a cats ear

Oliver

3rd October 2006, 04:41 PM

I´m pretty sure that Chritophera will kill you all very soon for hijacking his "115 pages and only 85 to go until i´ve won the bet at LCF"-thread. :D

jsiv

3rd October 2006, 04:42 PM

Did Bush have the concrete core shipped off to China before it could be analyzed?

3rd October 2006, 04:45 PM

Did Bush have the concrete core shipped off to China before it could be analyzed?

Actually, it was secretly removed during a 6-hour blackout in WTC-5 six days before the incident. The rest of the building was held up with plastic paper clips, which would of course melt when the C-4-coated rebar exploded.

stateofgrace

3rd October 2006, 05:05 PM

Chris once again you have enthralled your audience.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Sections/Newsweek/Components/Photos/Web_Exclusives/040817_040723/040819_TerrorQA_hd.hmedium.jpg

Please give it up Chris.

firecoins

3rd October 2006, 05:07 PM

They filmed a 1970's remake of king kong at the twin towers.
Beauty brought down the towers!

I guess I am calling the towers beastly and they liked blondes,

chipmunk stew

3rd October 2006, 05:36 PM

Off Topic but if the plane in the pentagon video is too small to be a 757 then a plantpot can fit in a cats ear
Believe it or not, that's the most realistic explanation for free fall of the towers that's been proposed on this thread yet.

Welcome to the forums!

TheFeds

3rd October 2006, 06:50 PM

Christophera, what's with the sources you yourself cited describing steel cores? See this summary (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1969253&postcount=4537).

If you reference them, and they talk about steel, or drywall over steel, or steel cladded with concrete, you can't just claim that they really mean solid extruded concrete walls. So why reference things that contradict you in numerous places?

There are so many quotes from your own sources that flatly contradict you, that I'm thinking you just searched for "WTC concrete core" in a search engine, and pasted results.

Bell

3rd October 2006, 07:28 PM

Somebody said kitten? :c1:

http://www.worth1000.com/entries/142500/142622yEgD_w.jpg

Christophera

3rd October 2006, 08:10 PM

Did Bush have the concrete core shipped off to China before it could be analyzed?

No, there was too much American flesh ground up in the Sand and gravel (http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg). he had it buried at Freshkills dump.

Christophera

3rd October 2006, 08:16 PM

Robertson doesn't claim anything about a concrete core. MSNBC does. They do not attribute that observation to him.

From the above: "By using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core, the shafts were strengthened enough that air pressure was not an issue."

The quotation from John Tauranac identifies "cores", but says nothing about concrete cores. The author of the site asserts that they are concrete, but provides no reference.

The author attributes the WTC's temporary survival to a concrete core, stating that the use of bearing outer walls would have doomed comparable Dutch structures. But recall that one of the foremost aspects of the WTC design was the use of bearing outer walls instead of a full set of interior columns. His assessment does not make sense in this light, and he is probably unfamiliar with the WTC's structural layout.

"But the towers’ ultimate collapse was inevitable, as the steel cores inside them reached temperatures of 800°C – raising questions as to why hundreds of rescue workers were sent into the doomed buildings to their deaths."
"But as fires raged in the towers, driven by aviation fuel, the steel cores in each building would have eventually reached 800°C – hot enough to start buckling and collapsing."
"All the steel was covered in concrete to guarantee firefighters a minimum period of one or two hours in which they could operate – although aviation fuel would have driven the fire to higher-than-normal temperatures." This implies a coating of concrete (e.g. gun-applied), rather than a slip-formed solid bulkhead. If it were solid, why refer to it as "covered"?

"The FDNY chief of safety says in his oral history that he thought the towers were made of block construction, with a solid concrete core, so that fire crews would have at least three hours to work. In fact, the cores of the towers were sheetrock over steel. " The fire chief was incorrect. The WTC was not using block construction. Your own reference states that the cores were sheetrock (i.e. drywall) over steel.

Just an observation, that site might not be considered too credible around here, on account of this (http://www.didyouknow.org/Bible/Bible.htm).
But I can concede that that site does not contradict your opinion.

"Worried that the intense air pressure created by the buildings’ high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core." Steel core again, from your own reference. Here's more, from the same site:
"But the towers' ultimate collapse was inevitable, as the steel cores inside them reached temperatures of 800C - raising questions why hundreds of rescue workers were sent into the doomed buildings to their deaths."
"But as fires raged in the towers, driven by aviation fuel, the steel core in each building would have eventually reached melting point - 800C. The protective concrete cladding on the cores would certainly have been no defense in these extraordinary circumstances." Note that cladding is not a solid wall, it's a layer applied to the surface, often by spray.

This reference does not contradict your opinion. They are, however, an elementary school in Alberta.
http://www.worsleyschool.net/zeropix/toppic00a.jpghttp://www.worsleyschool.net/zeropix/toppic00b.jpg

This link is identical to one you posted earlier.

"The central steel core carried gravity loads only." If it were reinforced concrete, it is inappropriate to refer to it as steel (obviously). Why does your own reference refer to it as being a steel core?

Dr. Domel does not contradict your opinion. So that one might legitimately count for you.

But why do so many of your references describe steel, or steel-with-concrete-cladding as the core materials? These (your own references) are inconsistent with reinforced concrete construction.

As I've said, there is some confusion, but the consistent reference to the "concrete core" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) matches the demo images which is raw, absolute evidence of concrete.

Loss Leader

3rd October 2006, 08:17 PM

No, there was too much American flesh ground up in the Sand and gravel (http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg). he had it buried at Freshkills dump.

Hey, Freshkills is a land reclamation project, not a dump. Okay, it's kind of a dump.

Bell

3rd October 2006, 08:17 PM

As I've said, there is some confusion, but the consistent reference to the "concrete core" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) matches the demo images,

Consistent reference to the concrete core... by you.

Christophera

3rd October 2006, 08:40 PM

There are so many quotes from your own sources that flatly contradict you, that I'm thinking you just searched for "WTC concrete core" in a search engine, and pasted results.

Basically that is what I did. I examined them and decided that the contradictions were separated from the concrete core statement and they reinforced each other by the concrete core statement.

This reference has the qualities needed. Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/oxfordarchcore.jpg) to show the consistency of the other sources. As well as the MSNBC statement, which Robertson nor them has corrected if it is wrong. This image of the core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) supports the concrete core factor in conjunction with the others.

Christophera

3rd October 2006, 08:58 PM

Not even to the laws of physics, it seems.

Actually it seems your club has a big problem with that. You folks think it was going at terminal velocity before it started moving.

Arkan_Wolfshade

3rd October 2006, 09:11 PM

Actually it seems your club has a big problem with that. You folks think it was going at terminal velocity before it started moving.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/ArkanWolfshade/qq_kitty.jpg

Christophera

3rd October 2006, 10:28 PM

BTW, what am I afraid of?

You are afraid of the ridicule of your peers. After all, no one has explained what this (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is if it not concrete, this is not reasonable. It seems you know that.

Bell

3rd October 2006, 10:32 PM

You are afraid of the ridicule of your peers. After all, no one has ezplained whtat this (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is if it not concrete.

No one? :eek:

Please, read through this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57426) first.

firecoins

3rd October 2006, 10:46 PM

I actually believe the WTC buildings collapsed because they have chocolate & caromel centers with a hard steel shell. Buildings that melt in you mouth but in airplane crashes with fuel fires.

I know Hershey was behind 9/11 the whole time so they could sell more chocate. 9/11 was misdirection for Hersey to get contol over more coca bean fields in South America.

Christophera

3rd October 2006, 11:29 PM

Christophera

3rd October 2006, 11:34 PM

No one? :eek:

Please, read through this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57426) first.

Yes. I read the entire thing. And no one ever came up with a cerdible explanation for what this 43 story structural element is (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) that has survived 100's of thousands of tone of steel debri crashing over it.

Sure, somebody tried to say it was drywall fastened to steel columns. No way. The columns woul dbe protruding IF, the tops of columns and drywall could erode under the conditions described in the way we see. No way. It would look completely different.

No one here or at LC tried to answere these columns posed as IF there were 47 1300 foot columns in the center of th towers.

How many explosions would be required to cut 47 1300 foot steel columns and cut them into 40 foot pieces?

How much high explosive is required to cut thick tempered steel without linear shape charges?

Does the explosive have to be in direct contact with the steel?

Do linear shape charges have to be in direct contact to perform?

What was acesss/clearance like around the supposed steel core columns in the core?

What do unconstrained high explosive detonations sound like and does that compare to what as heard on 9-11? What does that look like when cutting steel?

Then:

If the steel core columns existed and they were taken out with explosives, why is that thing still standing which would have to be AROUND the steel core columns while no steel core columns are seen protruding from the core?How many explosions would be required to cut 47 1300 foot steel columns and cut them into 40 foot pieces?

Basically if you assert that there were steel core columns, those are questions you can come up with reasonble answers for. I can tell you that finding answers are not particuarly easy, but when there have military personel in discussion who really know, and there have been a few, when the issue of what cutting steel with high explosives takes, they got very quiet and mostly stopped arguing.

They know, cutting steel with high explosives is crazy *****. Not recomended as high loads are required and dangerous shrapnel travels long distances at high speeds unless the detonations are very well contained.

Powa

3rd October 2006, 11:40 PM

You are afraid of the ridicule of your peers.
If I saw any evidence of a concrete core I would say so. Thanks for calling me a coward.

After all, no one has explained what this (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is if it not concrete, this is not reasonable. It seems you know that.
No one can explain what that is, because of all the smoke. Neither can you. How you can say that's concrete is beyond me. You've just decided that it is, because it HAS to be for your fantasy to work.

cloudshipsrule

4th October 2006, 12:47 AM

No one can explain what that is, because of all the smoke.

Concrete is grey. The object in question is grey. Therefore, the grey object in question is concrete. (Ignore the smoke in the image. It was simply planted there in a crude attempt by the government to conceal the, obvious, concrete core.)

Christophera

4th October 2006, 01:53 AM

Concrete is grey. The object in question is grey. Therefore, the grey object in question is concrete. (Ignore the smoke in the image. It was simply planted there in a crude attempt by the government to conceal the, obvious, concrete core.)

Only columns around the outside. None pierce the stairwell none to the right, none in the foreground. And what is that big featureless gray block? Little smoke seen.

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

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3369&stc=1&d=1159948263

Architect

4th October 2006, 03:06 AM

No, there was too much American flesh ground up in the Sand and gravel (http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg). he had it buried at Freshkills dump.

You know, I think this post might be evidence that Chris is winding us all up. Either that or he's completely cack at irony, of course. :p

Architect

4th October 2006, 03:07 AM

Arkan_Wolfshade

4th October 2006, 07:01 AM

Actually Invisicrete tm is pink. But no-one knows.

Ew, are you saying the making Invisicrete out of IPUs?

Belz...

4th October 2006, 08:07 AM

You are not past infancy, if a child could debunk the truth which is that this is concrete (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

You need to post raw evidence of the steel core columns to be reasonable.

Again, I don't need to. You've done that, yourself.

Powa

4th October 2006, 08:17 AM

Christophera, I'm just curious, what does "raw" evidence mean?

Bell

4th October 2006, 08:21 AM

Christophera, I'm just curious, what does "raw" evidence mean?

This, maybe?

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11%20Picture6.jpg

Arkan_Wolfshade

4th October 2006, 08:21 AM

Christophera, I'm just curious, what does "raw" evidence mean?

Internal temp < 120F. Between 120F and 140F would be "rare" evidence.

chipmunk stew

4th October 2006, 08:49 AM

Internal temp < 120F. Between 120F and 140F would be "rare" evidence.
I'll have mine medium-well, please.

Anyone want my cole slaw?

firecoins

4th October 2006, 09:06 AM

I am sticking the caromel center theory.

Loss Leader

4th October 2006, 09:41 AM

This, maybe?

Bell, I call your attention to the very clear diagonal cross-bracing shown in your picture. I believe this is proof positive of ... something. Anyway, the cross-braces are the same color as the other metal which also has some sort of meaning. And the fact that they are where the elevators will go in the finished building can be easily dismissed by ignoring that fact entirely.

Bell

4th October 2006, 09:49 AM

Bell, I call your attention to the very clear diagonal cross-bracing shown in your picture. I believe this is proof positive of ... something. Anyway, the cross-braces are the same color as the other metal which also has some sort of meaning. And the fact that they are where the elevators will go in the finished building can be easily dismissed by ignoring that fact entirely.

I've only seen the inside of one elevator at WTC2, so I doubt there were many more. Two maybe. But what I find courious, what is that light doing in this picture? It's either an NWO helicopter with crude cloaking technology (hey, it was the 60s) or it's the sun reflecting on the Invisicrete.

Belz...

4th October 2006, 10:07 AM

Internal temp < 120F. Between 120F and 140F would be "rare" evidence.

I tend to overcook them, myself.

alexi_drago

4th October 2006, 10:30 AM

But what I find courious, what is that light doing in this picture? It's either an NWO helicopter with crude cloaking technology (hey, it was the 60s) or it's the sun reflecting on the Invisicrete.

PROOF, squibs were going off in nearby buildings before the towers were even completed.

Belz...

4th October 2006, 01:09 PM

PROOF, squibs were going off in nearby buildings before the towers were even completed.

That's because the oven was running too hot. Crust doesn't rise too well when that happens.

Woah... wait a minute...

Christophera

4th October 2006, 02:00 PM

This, maybe?

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11%20Picture6.jpg

The photo does not look into the core area. The image only shows the scale of the "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" shown in this image which DOES show the inner core area. Vertical steel there is much smaller. Not core columns. If it was core columns, it would be seen here (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif), it is not.
http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3374&stc=1&d=1159991859

Christophera

4th October 2006, 02:05 PM

Bell, I call your attention to the very clear diagonal cross-bracing shown in your picture. I believe this is proof positive of ... something. Anyway, the cross-braces are the same color as the other metal which also has some sort of meaning. And the fact that they are where the elevators will go in the finished building can be easily dismissed by ignoring that fact entirely.

The cross braced double interior box columns are the "moment frame" that connected to the hat truss and transferred loads.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11%20Picture6.jpg

They are not however where the elevators went. To the right is the floor space of the building. Elevators were in the core area, left of the "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS". Or inside the area surrounded by "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg), interior box columns.

Yes, the color can be ignored entirely.

Christophera

4th October 2006, 02:55 PM

http://www.diviniti.demon.co.uk/Hypnotic%20Spiral%20Picture.gif

This should help along with.

WAKE UP!

Arkan_Wolfshade

4th October 2006, 03:06 PM

This should help along with.

WAKE UP!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/ArkanWolfshade/20073.jpg

Oliver

4th October 2006, 03:08 PM

This should help along with.

WAKE UP!

Everytime i wake up, i see a new stupid post of you.

Why don´t you ask in the "contruction worker forum" or try to phone the construction companies who build the WTC???????????????????

Why don´t you answer this question of me?

Architect

4th October 2006, 03:25 PM

Chris - remember, we're not laughing with you.

Now, seek medical help.

Big Les

4th October 2006, 03:33 PM

Believe it or not, that's the most realistic explanation for free fall of the towers that's been proposed on this thread yet.

Welcome to the forums!

No, no, it's realistice.

I can't tell you how much that spelling mistake irks me every time I check this subforum. Couldn't you have at least got that right, Chris?

tsig

4th October 2006, 04:19 PM

You do it but make sure motives are comprehensive to all known history. You better include an explanation of near free fall and total pulverization of the towers since your tendency is to assume collapse of the towers. So explain how that happens within known factors.

Planes hit the towers, 1/3 of the support beams were destroyed by the impact.
The load from gravity had to go to the remaining columns. Now the beams, already loaded beyond thier design were heated and the heat reduced thier ability to take the stress, when the force exceeded the design limit of one of the beams the others had to take the load since they were already at thier limit the result was what you see.

tsig

4th October 2006, 04:23 PM

This should help along with.

WAKE UP!

Planes hit the towers, 1/3 of the support beams were destroyed by the impact.
The load from gravity had to go to the remaining columns. Now the beams, already loaded beyond thier design were heated and the heat reduced thier ability to take the stress, when the force exceeded the design limit of one of the beams the others had to take the load since they were already at thier limit the result was what you see.

tsig

4th October 2006, 04:24 PM

I do not know what you refer to but I do know that you are ignoreing a great deal of solid evidence and uninterested testimony documentin the concrete core.

When you explain near freefall and total pulverization or stop dissing the only explanation in existence fo rthos phenomena, then you will have ceased shaming yourself for lack of respect for the dead and violations of laws.

Planes hit the towers, 1/3 of the support beams were destroyed by the impact.
The load from gravity had to go to the remaining columns. Now the beams, already loaded beyond thier design were heated and the heat reduced thier ability to take the stress, when the force exceeded the design limit of one of the beams the others had to take the load since they were already at thier limit the result was what you see.

tsig

4th October 2006, 04:27 PM

I've always wondered if the producers of the video were for real. Now I really wonder. Most of you guys are blind to evidence with minds closed tight as a drum, as tight as those that run the courts and the mental health care industry, and I prove my point about the core.

Now I really wonder about Loose Change.

Supporting the impossible to obscure the possible.

Planes hit the towers, 1/3 of the support beams were destroyed by the impact.
The load from gravity had to go to the remaining columns. Now the beams, already loaded beyond thier design were heated and the heat reduced thier ability to take the stress, when the force exceeded the design limit of one of the beams the others had to take the load since they were already at thier limit the result was what you see.

tsig

4th October 2006, 04:35 PM

A wide range of skills from survey, construction stakeout, topographic mapping, cutting, fitting and welding, fabrication, operating equipment, demolition, drilling for blasting, start to finish roadway construction drawings.

Concrete, I try not to touch the stuff, but I've incorporated a lot of its design into retaining walls, abutements and other roadway features. Not too much cast in place above ground structure, but some. A 7 story building layed out and monitored for dimension, built from steel.

Enough experience so that when a documentary about a steel reinforced cast concrete tube built inside of scaffold/floors of the tower comes o nthe TV, I take notice and I understand exactly what I'm seeing and hearing.

The end view of the Concrete shear wall of the core to left of interior box column, the "spire" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg)

Get evidence of the steel core columns.

I am qualified in all trades that have ever been up too and including building Pyramids.

Got a journyman card from the illuminati.

I was espesially qualified in testing the beer.

tsig

4th October 2006, 04:42 PM

Actually it seems your club has a big problem with that. You folks think it was going at terminal velocity before it started moving.

It was moveng when it started moving, do you deny that?

tsig

4th October 2006, 04:44 PM

You are afraid of the ridicule of your peers. After all, no one has explained what this (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is if it not concrete, this is not reasonable. It seems you know that.

It's cuagulated milk. this is not unreasonable.

You have peers?

Christophera

4th October 2006, 05:14 PM

It was moving when it started moving, do you deny that?

No, I do not deny that.

However, if it were a collapse, then it would have started stopping immediately also and fallen off the remaining tower below on the weakened side of the perimeter.

It was a demolition.

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

Christophera

4th October 2006, 05:16 PM

I am qualified in all trades that have ever been up too and including building Pyramids.

Got a journyman card from the illuminati.

I was espesially qualified in testing the beer.

Good, twinstead has extra air in his head.

Oliver

4th October 2006, 05:23 PM

Good, twinstead has extra air in his head.

Please - for Heaven's sake, Chris:

1. Why don´t you ask in a "construction worker forum"

2. ...or try to phone the construction companies who built the WTC???????????????????

3. Why don´t you answer this question of me?

twinstead

4th October 2006, 05:29 PM

Good, twinstead has extra air in his head.

Hey hey hey mister, I may have a little air in my head, but I'm not a raving, irrational paranoid schizophrenic totally divorced from reality.

It could be worse, you see. ;)

Arus808

4th October 2006, 05:40 PM

Please - for Heaven's sake, Chris:

1. Why don´t you ask in a "construction worker forum"

2. ...or try to phone the construction companies who built the WTC???????????????????

3. Why don´t you answer this question of me?

I've asked the posters here to do just the same. Why dont we just stop demanding answers from Chris and let him find out by contacting those who worked on the construction of the towers. Because after 110+ pages, nohting we say will change his mind.

So, for the umpteenth time in this ThREAD

CHRistophera, please do us all a favor of taking the 4 hours you spend on this forum for something constructive, like calling up the several construction firms responsible for the construction of the two towers.

Until Christophera has offered up proof that he did such task, I aks that the posters here refrain from replying to him, since he refuses to do the ONE thing we've aksed him over to do.

Pardalis

4th October 2006, 08:54 PM

i Don't Know What We're Yelling About!

cloudshipsrule

4th October 2006, 09:20 PM

I like potatoes!

Pardalis

4th October 2006, 09:21 PM

LOUD NOISES!

hellaeon

4th October 2006, 09:24 PM

I think a mod may be a high value and kingship if they close this thread. Its the same stuff over and over....

Pardalis

4th October 2006, 09:31 PM

I think a mod may be a high value and kingship if they close this thread. Its the same stuff over and over....

What? Oops, sorry. I couldn't hear you. :o

Blue Mountain

4th October 2006, 09:48 PM

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/538545247fe2cf5db.jpg
From www.dailykitten.com - kitten for Monday, October 2, 2006.

Christophera

4th October 2006, 10:01 PM

Please - for Heaven's sake, Chris:

1. Why don´t you ask in a "construction worker forum"

2. ...or try to phone the construction companies who built the WTC???????????????????

3. Why don´t you answer this question of me?

Why would I phone construction companies? I know the towers had a concrete core and can show it with images. If you don't know what you are looking at then you need a construction worker forum, not me.

You find one that will argue with me, and I'll go argue with them. I guarantee they'd rather drink beer and watch football or watch fox news or something.

Why would you think they are less afraid than engineers?

Christophera

4th October 2006, 10:08 PM

I think a mod may be a high value and kingship if they close this thread. Its the same stuff over and over....

Uh huh, the same quality evidence ignored over and over.

Here is the Concrete shear wall to left of interior box column, the "spire" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg)

Here is another view of it where the interior box columns are silouetted against it. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/shearspirewall.jpg)

Oliver

4th October 2006, 10:10 PM

Why would I phone construction companies? I know the towers had a concrete core and can show it with images. If you don't know what you are looking at then you need a construction worker forum, not me.

You find one that will argue with me, and I'll go argue with them. I guarantee they'd rather drink beer and watch football or watch fox news or something.

Why would you think they are less afraid than engineers?

Why construction workers? ----- I thought you may ask them, too if they also see the concrete core. It might be a good experience for you to hear from them, too that you may be an idiot. Or maybe you´re a genius. Or they just ban you. Whatever.

The same goes to the companies that built the towers. Give it a try - you live over there and speak english very well.

Cheers,
Oliver

Christophera

4th October 2006, 10:14 PM

Hey hey hey mister, I may have a little air in my head, but I'm not a raving, irrational paranoid schizophrenic totally divorced from reality.

It could be worse, you see. ;)

Easy to say. Impossible to prove. Similar to the "47, 1300 foot steel core columns". Whereas the air in your head is plain to see.

Is it okay with you that all private investigations into the collaspe (sic) were blocked?

The site that proves the concrete also disproves the multiple steel core column lie.

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

Christophera

4th October 2006, 10:22 PM

Why construction workers? ----- I thought you may ask them, too if they also see the concrete core. It might be a good experience for you to hear from them, too that you may be an idiot. Or maybe you´re a genius. Or they just ban you. Whatever.

The same goes to the companies that built the towers. Give it a try - you live over there and speak english very well.

Cheers,
Oliver

I've asked them face to face, they agree. I can't get them online. Any forum of construction workers is going to be afraid to confirm that the tower has a concrete core. I live over here, believe me, I speak english very well.

Did you miss the explanation of the fear ritual? "The government has already killed 3,000 why would they stop at one more?" I may know better or that it is a fairly small group that did the dirty work and not actually a part of government, but construction workers mostly don't.

jhunter1163

5th October 2006, 12:58 AM

Lisa Simpson, you would NOT be blamed for closing this thread. At least not by me.

twinstead

5th October 2006, 04:09 AM

I've asked them face to face, they agree. I can't get them online. Any forum of construction workers is going to be afraid to confirm that the tower has a concrete core. I live over here, believe me, I speak english very well.

Did you miss the explanation of the fear ritual? "The government has already killed 3,000 why would they stop at one more?" I may know better or that it is a fairly small group that did the dirty work and not actually a part of government, but construction workers mostly don't.

What a cop out. What a bald-faced typically paranoid way to address the issue. What a steaming pile of dung.

Of course. They would be afraid to come forth, because no construction worker has ever had a conscience, they are all blind sheep cowering in the shadow of the jack-booted Red White and Blue Evil Empire, right?

In essence, you are claiming that you are smarter than they so you know they could come forth if they wanted to, but they are too afraid or stupid or brainwashed or whatever you think to do so, right?

Chris, all it takes is ONE worker who was there to admit to seeing something suspicious. Just ONE. Chris, not only are you crazy, but you are insultingly, arrogantly so, yet you don't even realize it.

The true definition of insane.

MRC_Hans

5th October 2006, 04:36 AM

Oliver

5th October 2006, 04:39 AM

Just passing by this thread. I lost track of this particular debate (if there is any) long ago, but what exactly is with this concrete/no concrete business? Why does it make a big difference whether there was concrete or not?

Hans

I asked that 3 pages ago (#4552) - don´t explode by reading it, Hans. :boggled:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57426&page=114

- Oliver

MRC_Hans

5th October 2006, 04:53 AM

Belz...

5th October 2006, 05:36 AM

The photo does not look into the core area. The image only shows the scale of the "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" shown in this image which DOES show the inner core area.

It shoes the same area, chris. Any idiot can see that. Oh, sorry. Not every idiot.

Vertical steel there is much smaller.

That's because the picture is taken from further away. Sheesh.

Isn't it unfortunate that you don't have any picture of the concrete core during construction ? Until you do, your theory is null and void. And no, NO pictures from DURING the collapses count.

No, I do not deny that.

However, if it were a collapse, then it would have started stopping immediately also and fallen off the remaining tower below on the weakened side of the perimeter.

It was a demolition.

So you agree with Truthseeker1234 that it should've toppled over as though the building was a 1-piece lego block ?

Why would I phone construction companies? bother with checking my claims ?

There, fixed that for you.

Any forum of construction workers is going to be afraid to confirm that the tower has a concrete core.

Why ? Anonymity should actually help them speak up.

"The government has already killed 3,000 why would they stop at one more?"

Why aren't YOU dead, chris ?

chipmunk stew

5th October 2006, 05:56 AM

Lisa Simpson, you would NOT be blamed for closing this thread. At least not by me.
Me either. I do, however, blame you for NOT closing this thread. And for some other things.

chipmunk stew

5th October 2006, 06:01 AM

Oh, the explosives that were built into the building from the very start and wired up for use, should some later evil administration decide to fly airliners into the building but find that was not enough to bring it down?

Oh sure, that makes sense.

I have one question though: If that is the case, then why does Chris claim that the part that is left standing after the collapse (for a little while) is the concrete? Didn't they just blow that up??

Hans
There's a perfectly rational explanation for that. It has something to do with one of half a dozen fuzzy pictures, some of which have notes pointing to splotches that clearly identify them as something or other. It all ties together, you'll see.

5th October 2006, 06:09 AM

Christophera

5th October 2006, 06:36 AM

Just passing by this thread. I lost track of this particular debate (if there is any) long ago, but what exactly is with this concrete/no concrete business? Why does it make a big difference whether there was concrete or not?

Hans

The below cannot happen without having optimally placed and distributed explosives and construction is the only time to do that.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3380&stc=1&d=1160051730

Christophera

5th October 2006, 06:39 AM

This has been resolved some time ago. The answer to the title question is no, since the towers didn't 'free fall'.

All other questions raised during the thread have been answered satisfactorily, with the singular exception of why some people haven't gotten proper mental health assistance and/or been incarcerated appropriately.

A mod should have closed this thread many pages ago.

Because I was not told what this (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) many pages ago and no reasonable explanation of the event (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg) has been provided, the nods, much to my appreciation, have not done anything except the right thing and allow the deniers more time to ansewer reasonable questions, rather than just banning them all immediately.

Arkan_Wolfshade

5th October 2006, 06:57 AM

The below cannot happen without having optimally placed and distributed explosives and construction is the only time to do that.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3380&stc=1&d=1160051730

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/ArkanWolfshade/orlyeh2ra.jpg

MRC_Hans

5th October 2006, 07:08 AM

The below cannot happen without having optimally placed and distributed explosives and construction is the only time to do that.

Cannot? How do you know?

Nevermind.........

Hans

Loss Leader

5th October 2006, 08:36 AM

The below cannot happen without having optimally placed and distributed explosives and construction is the only time to do that.

I take the fact that it did happen as sufficient evidence that it can happen.

Just consider this - never in human history had a 110 story building built on a core concept (rather than a traditional skeletal frame) been hit with a large passenger jet going 500 miles an hour. There was no way to predict what would have happened. And there is no way to retroactively say that it would have happened differently.

The way events unfolded that morning is the best evidence ever gathered of the way world trade centers react to deliberate impacts with 767s.

Everything else is fantasy.

Arus808

5th October 2006, 10:19 AM

Belz...

5th October 2006, 10:58 AM

But I LIKE replying to his nonsense...

Christophera

5th October 2006, 12:03 PM

guys, its time we just let this thread die. Chris admitted that he WILL speak with no one who was involved in the planning, designing, excavation of the land, the building and construction of the two towers.

Sicne he is unwilling to do this ONE simple request, it only shows that he is and has been nothing but a troll all the time he has been here.

HE is not seeking the truth.
He is just dangling the proverbial steak on a rope in front of so we continue to reply to his nonsense.

Arus808 makes an error by stating that I admitted that I will speak to no one involved in the "planning, designing, excavation of the land, the building and construction of the two towers.

I seek them out often and speak to them. They have never been involved with the concrete or do not remember. The contractors themselves have already been put under a code of silence as have the designers.

The only nonsense here is from you and yours. I have facts that you cannot addres or diminish in any reasonable way.

For example. Not one sensical explanation for the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) has been produced.

Not one reasonable alternative to concrete has been produced for this image of the WTC 2 core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

The list goes on and includes every image found at,

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

Arkan_Wolfshade

5th October 2006, 12:13 PM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/ArkanWolfshade/20021213h.gif

Christophera

5th October 2006, 12:22 PM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/ArkanWolfshade/20021213h.gif

Evidence of the success of supporting lies with no evidence.

uruk

5th October 2006, 12:26 PM

I seek them out often and speak to them. They have never been involved with the concrete or do not remember. The contractors themselves have already been put under a code of silence as have the designers.

I'm sorry, but this is too precious to pass up.
So, you've actually talked to some of the people who actually worked on the WTC and none of them corroberate you theories. So instead of re-evaluating your theory you naturaly assume that they have been paid off or under some non-disclosure agreement.
Wow. It truely boggels the mind.

P.S.
I was reading the latest issue of Cinefx magazine. In there is an article about the the Oliver Stone movie about 9/11. In the Article it states that the special effects company that was responsible for recreating the WTC towers had access to the original blueprints in order to make the CG version of the buildings. I thought Christophera said that the original blueprints are not available to the public. Sure he must be looking in the wrong places.

Or maybe not at all.

Christophera

5th October 2006, 12:33 PM

I'm sorry, but this is too precious to pass up.
So, you've actually talked to some of the people who actually worked on the WTC and none of them corroberate you theories. So instead of re-evaluating your theory you naturaly assume that they have been paid off or under some non-dosclosure agreement.
Wow. It truely boggels the mind.

You better apologize. You are distorting and making errors. I've talked to 2 people who worked on the towers. One was a steel worker who only went up the elevators to have anything to do with the concrete core.

The other was hanging doors and the outside core wall had already been drywalled so he didn't see concrete.

I do not assume they had been paid off.

I assume that the designers and contractors have been obliquely threatened or paid off.

P.S.
I was reading the latest issue of Cinefx magazine. In there is an article about the the Oliver Stone movie about 9/11. In the Article it states that the special effects company that was responsible for recreating the WTC towers had access to the originalblueprints in order to make the CG version of the buildings. I thought Christophera said that the original blueprints are not available to the public. Sure he must be looking in the wrong places.

Or maybe not at all.

How do we/they know what originalblueprints are?

Tom Scott Gordon stated that there were perhaps 3 different sets. I know there are at least 2. One is in Gulianis warehouse

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

The other is the prelimninary set that the FEMA lie is based on that has no details of the supposed steel core columns and their bracing.

Arkan_Wolfshade

5th October 2006, 12:48 PM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/ArkanWolfshade/3_4.jpg

uruk

5th October 2006, 12:52 PM

You better apologize. You are distorting and making errors. I've talked to 2 people who worked on the towers. One was a steel worker who only went up the elevators to have anything to do with the concrete core.

The other was hanging doors and the outside core wall had already been drywalled so he didn't see concrete.

You said:
"I seek them out often and speak to them."

You mean "them" being only two people. Both of whom have never seen a concrete core.
If the steel worker never saw a concrete core, at which point in the construction processe would the core have been laid? If the concrete core was laid during the time the steel was going up then the steel worker would have noticed. If the core was laid after the the steel went up, then the core could not have been a major load bearing structure because the steel would have to have been standing on it's own befor the concrete core was installed. It would have been just some thing to support the maintenance and elevator equipment.

I do not assume they had been paid off.

I assume that the designers and contractors have been obliquely threatened or paid off. The key word here being "assumed" which means that you don't really know.

]How do we/they know what originalblueprints are?
Well I imagine they would not have called them original unless they had reason to believe that they were original. As in somesort of marking or information given to them from the owner of the blueprints.

Tom Scott Gordon stated that there were perhaps 3 different sets. I know there are at least 2. One is in Gulianis warehouse

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

The other is the prelimninary set that the FEMA lie is based on that has no details of the supposed steel core columns and their bracing.

You'll need to give me another source. the link you posted was to the New York civil liberties union which has nothing concerning the WTC blueprints.

Don't lie Chris. You make baby Jesus cry when you lie.

Christophera

5th October 2006, 12:55 PM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/ArkanWolfshade/3_4.jpg

What a bitch!

Christophera

5th October 2006, 01:04 PM

You said:
You'll need to give me another source. the link you posted was to the New York civil liberties union which has nothing concerning the WTC blueprints.

Don't lie Chris. You make baby Jesus cry when you lie.

Read deeper

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

Giuliani's "World Trade Center files" and "Millennium Project files," together with 6000 files of photographs, 1000 audiotapes, and 15,000 videotapes, are also reported to be a part of the records covered by the contract. In addition, the records include those of his chief of staff and every deputy mayor, together with their chiefs of staff. Finally, gifts such as plaques, awards, personalized clothing, and other items presented to the mayor and deputy mayors, as well as World Trade Center-related materials are alleged to be included as part of the records. All of these items were reported to have been delivered from the control of the City to a warehouse storage facility in Long Island City at the end of December 2001.

Belz...

5th October 2006, 01:07 PM

Arus808 makes an error by stating that I admitted that I will speak to no one involved in the "planning, designing, excavation of the land, the building and construction of the two towers.

I seek them out often and speak to them. They have never been involved with the concrete or do not remember. The contractors themselves have already been put under a code of silence as have the designers.

So, basically, what you're saying is that, instead of working like normal people and assuming that a complete lack of evidence and confirming testimony means you're wrong, you assume that you're right and interpret the lack of evidence and confirming testimony as evidence that you need to add a layer of conspiracy to maintain your theory ?

tsig

5th October 2006, 01:09 PM

I've asked them face to face, they agree. I can't get them online. Any forum of construction workers is going to be afraid to confirm that the tower has a concrete core. I live over here, believe me, I speak english very well.

Did you miss the explanation of the fear ritual? "The government has already killed 3,000 why would they stop at one more?" I may know better or that it is a fairly small group that did the dirty work and not actually a part of government, but construction workers mostly don't.

Planes hit the towers, 1/3 of the support beams were destroyed by the impact.
The load from gravity had to go to the remaining columns. Now the beams, already loaded beyond their design were heated and the heat reduced their ability to take the stress, when the force exceeded the design limit of one of the beams the others had to take the load since they were already at their limit the result was what you see.

tsig

5th October 2006, 01:11 PM

Arus808 makes an error by stating that I admitted that I will speak to no one involved in the "planning, designing, excavation of the land, the building and construction of the two towers.

I seek them out often and speak to them. They have never been involved with the concrete or do not remember. The contractors themselves have already been put under a code of silence as have the designers.

The only nonsense here is from you and yours. I have facts that you cannot addres or diminish in any reasonable way.

For example. Not one sensical explanation for the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) has been produced.

Not one reasonable alternative to concrete has been produced for this image of the WTC 2 core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

The list goes on and includes every image found at,

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

Planes hit the towers, 1/3 of the support beams were destroyed by the impact.
The load from gravity had to go to the remaining columns. Now the beams, already loaded beyond their design were heated and the heat reduced their ability to take the stress, when the force exceeded the design limit of one of the beams the others had to take the load since they were already at their limit the result was what you see.

tsig

5th October 2006, 01:14 PM

Because I was not told what this (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) many pages ago and no reasonable explanation of the event (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg) has been provided, the nods, much to my appreciation, have not done anything except the right thing and allow the deniers more time to ansewer reasonable questions, rather than just banning them all immediately.

Planes hit the towers, 1/3 of the support beams were destroyed by the impact.
The load from gravity had to go to the remaining columns. Now the beams, already loaded beyond their design were heated and the heat reduced their ability to take the stress, when the force exceeded the design limit of one of the beams the others had to take the load since they were already at their limit the result was what you see.

chipmunk stew

5th October 2006, 01:14 PM

I got hold of the real original blueprints.

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g73/chipmunk_stew/tinker_toy_01.jpg

You can clearly see the concrete core. In front of that fan thingie.

tsig

5th October 2006, 01:19 PM

Read deeper

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

Giuliani's "World Trade Center files" and "Millennium Project files," together with 6000 files of photographs, 1000 audiotapes, and 15,000 videotapes, are also reported to be a part of the records covered by the contract. In addition, the records include those of his chief of staff and every deputy mayor, together with their chiefs of staff. Finally, gifts such as plaques, awards, personalized clothing, and other items presented to the mayor and deputy mayors, as well as World Trade Center-related materials are alleged to be included as part of the records. All of these items were reported to have been delivered from the control of the City to a warehouse storage facility in Long Island City at the end of December 2001.

What does any of that mean? besides.

Bell

5th October 2006, 01:23 PM

http://www.iranian.com/Anyway/2001/October/Images/osama.jpg

uruk

5th October 2006, 01:26 PM

Arus808

5th October 2006, 01:31 PM

Arus808 makes an error by stating that I admitted that I will speak to no one involved in the "planning, designing, excavation of the land, the building and construction of the two towers.

Apparently, you have a short attention span:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1974819&postcount=4633

Why would I phone construction companies? I know the towers had a concrete core and can show it with images. If you don't know what you are looking at then you need a construction worker forum, not me.

Why would you need to phone construction companies? BASICALLY To prove to use that there was a concrete core, despite PHYSICAL evidence to the contrary.
Your shoddy memory of seeing a supposed pbs documentary leads us to believe that your "memory" has as much holes as a block of swiss cheese.

YOU want to prove to use that there was indeed a concrete core, then YOU provide us with someone who was there during their construction to say that there was.

I seek them out often and speak to them. They have never been involved with the concrete or do not remember. The contractors themselves have already been put under a code of silence as have the designers.

Unquantified, humoungous bullcrap on your part by stating this. Give us a list of names of those who you 'sought' out, who say they dont remember whehter or not. Code of silence? That is an outiright lie. The designers and contractors HAVE been more than vocal in the LAST 5 years, about the construction of the towers. Where the hell have you been?

The only nonsense here is from you and yours. I have facts that you cannot addres or diminish in any reasonable way.

YOU have no facts. YOU do not have the testimony of at least one construction worker that agrees with you; not one testimony of the designers and builders of the towers; YOU do not have facts. YOU can't even provide the supposed pbs documentary that Has only seen by YOU, yet the ONLY pbs documentary ever made on the towers dating to before 9/11 was on their construction.

And stop spaming your site. We will not believe anything written on yoru site. Provide links to repuatbale sites like the ASE or a site dedicated to the building of skyscrapers by those in the construction industry.

Again, you show that you have and will always be nothing more than a troll.

chipmunk stew

5th October 2006, 01:45 PM

http://www.iranian.com/Anyway/2001/October/Images/osama.jpg
They were that close, then they lost him in Tora Bora...shameful...

Hellbound

5th October 2006, 01:49 PM

They were that close, then they lost him in Tora Bora...shameful...

HE whipped out a magic lamp and went all genie on their a$$.

Not really much they could do.

Bell

5th October 2006, 01:59 PM

HE whipped out a magic lamp and went all genie on their a$$.

Not really much they could do.

He hid behind an invisicrete (tm) core.

Christophera

5th October 2006, 02:18 PM

Apparently, you have a short attention span:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1974819&postcount=4633

Why would I phone construction companies? I know the towers had a concrete core and can show it with images. If you don't know what you are looking at then you need a construction worker forum, not me.

You find one that will argue with me, and I'll go argue with them. I guarantee they'd rather drink beer and watch football or watch fox news or something.

Why would you think they are less afraid than engineers?

Your reading skills and integrity suffer.

Try evidence from raw images of the steel reinforced, shear wall constructed cast concrete core.

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

Powa

5th October 2006, 02:22 PM

Christophera, what about the Pentagon? Was it a controlled demolition, too? Does Pentagon have a concrete core?

And what does "raw evidence" mean?

Pardalis

5th October 2006, 02:53 PM

http://www.iranian.com/Anyway/2001/October/Images/osama.jpg

:dl:

Arus808

5th October 2006, 03:07 PM

Your reading skills and integrity suffer.

Try evidence from raw images of the steel reinforced, shear wall constructed cast concrete core.

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

again, you have a problem with understanding basic english.
your site is not a reputable site.
your site is a bunch of opinions not backed by facts.

please consult with a professional that has worked on the construction, design and implementation of the WTC towers.

Until you do, you spamming your site, only shows that you are nothing more than a troll.

Pardalis

5th October 2006, 03:18 PM

please consult with a professional therapist

Fixed it for you. :D

Arus808

5th October 2006, 03:19 PM

Fixed it for you. :D

haha, yeah i had to pause twice when i typed that out....

tsig

5th October 2006, 06:19 PM

Your reading skills and integrity suffer.

Try evidence from raw images of the steel reinforced, shear wall constructed cast concrete core.

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

You can be isultiing but not convincing.

Planes hit the towers, 1/3 of the support beams were destroyed by the impact.
The load from gravity had to go to the remaining columns. Now the beams, already loaded beyond their design were heated and the heat reduced their ability to take the stress, when the force exceeded the design limit of one of the beams the others had to take the load since they were already at their limit the result was what you see.

can you answer what is there?

Until you do I will be there for you.

Arus808

5th October 2006, 06:38 PM

Blue Mountain

5th October 2006, 08:06 PM

why in all of this, does Chris not realize that the towers would have not had concrete cores, for the simple fact that there were almost 100 elevators in each tower, and that those who were trapped in one, dug through SHEETROCK to get out!??
If I recall correctly, the point has been made more than once in this thread, and Christophera simply ignores it. He's much too fixed on the idea of a concrete core to let inconvenient things like details get in the way.

Christophera

5th October 2006, 09:36 PM

If I recall correctly, the point has been made more than once in this thread, and Christophera simply ignores it. He's much too fixed on the idea of a concrete core to let inconvenient things like details get in the way.

Certainly you must realize that people dug through the drywall elevator shaft walls, or even hallways when they were adjacent to them. I've also read where the dry wall was cut away with a squeegee to find concrete. There were 2 different squeegee stories and other barrier braking stories of survivors.

There were 3 hallways in each tower. From what I can tell by various floorplans, which don't vary alot with stair locations; even though the core was not steel columns when finally built and the floor plans available are Robertsons preliminary plans to Yamasaki; 2 stiarwells were on the same side at opposite ends of the long axis of the concrete tube and a single stairwell was located near the center on the opposite side.

Quite likely meaning 2 stairwells had concrete on 2 sides and one only had it on 1 side.

Here (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) is a stairway that had concrete on two sides.

uruk

5th October 2006, 09:37 PM

here's acouple of links:
http://www.salon.com/ent/tv/review/2006/09/01/911_shows/

"In the end, though, the flashy effects and upsetting stories of the doomed are redeemed by some amazing survivor stories, narrated by the survivors themselves. One group is trapped in an elevator and must dig through several layers of Sheetrock in order to escape, and even then, without the help of a fireman they never would've made it out."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/11/AR2005091101630.html

"It's too much for me," he said. Fifteen of his friends, including the best friend he was scheduled to have coffee with that morning, perished in the disaster. He and five others trapped in an elevator dangling near the 50th floor were lucky to escape, prying open the elevator door with the handle of a window washer's squeegee and carving their way out through a sheetrock wall with its blade."

http://mt.hockeybird.com/archives/000256.html

http://www.ukrweekly.com/Archive/2003/020329.shtml

"Jan Demczur became a hero on 9/11 by freeing himself and five others trapped in an elevator in the World Trade Center. Mr. Demczur had worked for 11 years as a window washer in the Twin Towers, and he used the tool of his trade, a squeegee, to extricate himself and the others from the elevator. The elevator that Mr. Demczur was riding fell 20 floors before coming to a stop at the 50th floor. The men were able to pry open the elevator doors, but found a wall of sheetrock on the other side. They used the squeegee blade until they dropped it, and after that used the squeegee handle break through the sheetrock. Six months later, on March 11, 2002, the squeegee was part of a temporary display at the National Museum of American History along with other artifacts of the terrorist attacks."

http://www1.poynter.org/dg.lts/id.104945/content.content_view.htm

Christophera

5th October 2006, 09:41 PM

why in all of this, does Chris not realize that the towers would have not had concrete cores, for the simple fact that there were almost 100 elevators in each tower, and that those who were trapped in one, dug through SHEETROCK to get out!??

Elevators shafts were easy to get out of as some had drywall on 4 sides. Only 2 had concrete on 2 sides, the corners opposite the stairwells on the short axis.

Still, no pictures of steel core columns in the core area from the demo huh?

uruk

5th October 2006, 09:48 PM

Still, no pictures of steel core columns in the core area from the demo huh?

We've been showing you pictures. you've been ignoring them. So what's the point in showing you more pictures?

And what about you steel worker friend who did not see a concrete core?
You ignored my question about that.

Christophera

5th October 2006, 10:57 PM

We've been showing you pictures. you've been ignoring them. So what's the point in showing you more pictures?

Wrong pictures.

You haved noticed my pictures of the concrete core structure are the right ones and I don't mind producing them over (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) and over (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg).

Christophera

6th October 2006, 12:01 AM

We've been showing you pictures. you've been ignoring them. So what's the point in showing you more pictures?

And what about you steel worker friend who did not see a concrete core?
You ignored my question about that.

I have explained exactly what is wrong with your picture, not ignoring them. It was 35 years ago and he did steel. The elevators had plywood tunnles built to them, He didn't see enough concrete to really form a memory that was durable of.

What was curious is that he did remember a height limit of 7 floors of steel over the concrete, but didn't remember any concrete.

Oliver

6th October 2006, 12:41 AM

http://www.mamatang.ca/tinhats/tinfoil_russ.jpg

Now this explains a lot why he don´t get our NWO-Messages. :boggled:

Pardalis

6th October 2006, 01:43 AM

That almost looks like a WWII German helmet! ;)

Oliver

6th October 2006, 02:11 AM

That almost looks like a WWII German helmet! ;)

Yes, and the guy on this photo looks almost like George Bush... :D

tsig

6th October 2006, 03:54 AM

I have explained exactly what is wrong with your picture, not ignoring them. It was 35 years ago and he did steel. The elevators had plywood tunnles built to them, He didn't see enough concrete to really form a memory that was durable of.

What was curious is that he did remember a height limit of 7 floors of steel over the concrete, but didn't remember any concrete.

Planes hit the towers, 1/3 of the support beams were destroyed by the impact.
The load from gravity had to go to the remaining columns. Now the beams, already loaded beyond their design were heated and the heat reduced their ability to take the stress, when the force exceeded the design limit of one of the beams the others had to take the load since they were already at their limit the result was what you see.

Ever going to respond.

I'm here for you Chris.

qarnos

6th October 2006, 04:29 AM

Planes hit the towers, 1/3 of the support beams were destroyed by the impact.
The load from gravity had to go to the remaining columns. Now the beams, already loaded beyond their design were heated and the heat reduced their ability to take the stress, when the force exceeded the design limit of one of the beams the others had to take the load since they were already at their limit the result was what you see.

Ever going to respond.

I'm here for you Chris.

Hey, DHR.

Chris doesn't respond to logic. I think we're best to let this thread die.

It's just going around in circles.

Oliver

6th October 2006, 04:43 AM

Hey, DHR.

Chris doesn't respond to logic. I think we're best to let this thread die.

It's just going around in circles.

I agree, Qarnos.

DHR: Don´t even try it - he has this damned
Anti-o-Logic-Deflector TM Tinhat.

No chance to get into his world... :rolleyes:

http://allshops.org/community/CommunityAlbum/9990178867745.jpg

qarnos

6th October 2006, 04:55 AM

I agree, Qarnos.

DHR: Don´t even try it - he has this damned
Anti-o-Logic-Deflector TM Tinhat.

No chance to get into his world... :rolleyes:

http://allshops.org/community/CommunityAlbum/9990178867745.jpg

I appreciate the support, Oliver, but there was no need to get dressed up like that! :D

Oliver

6th October 2006, 05:00 AM

I appreciate the support, Oliver, but there was no need to get dressed up like that! :D

If you ever see me dressed like that .... please shoot me! :D

ETA: TWICE!

Belz...

6th October 2006, 05:39 AM

There were 3 hallways in each tower. From what I can tell by various floorplans,

None of which shows concrete...

Here (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) is a stairway that had concrete on two sides.

What stairway ? What concrete ? What secret mission ? What plans ? I'm not going in there.

Wrong pictures.

Oh, so they're wrong until they show what YOU expect ? Way to work your way backwards.

I have explained exactly what is wrong with your picture, not ignoring them. It was 35 years ago and he did steel. The elevators had plywood tunnles built to them, He didn't see enough concrete to really form a memory that was durable of.

Other then the fact that this is barely intelligible, you DO realise that, if the concrete wasn't poured FIRST, it wouldn't have had any structural significance in the towers, as Uruk said ?

bonavada

6th October 2006, 06:12 AM

just watched the excellent nova production "Why the Towers Fell". the film offers a very plausibe explanation of the events before and during the collapse.

the core of the structures (the twin towers themselves) are mentioned often by highly skilled people with many years of expertise and experience between them. not once (if i remember correctly) is the core referred to as "concrete", in fact the core is criticised toward the end as being too flimsy (being composed of sheetrock attached to steel columns) to withstand the initial blasts from the impacts of the aircraft and fuel ignition/explosions. the conclusion was that, if concrete HAD been used, lives (above the impact areas) may have been saved because stairwells, down through the impact zones, may have remained passable.

BTW one of the pictures Christophera links to is obviously a piece of the exterior steel lattice work which momentarily stood then toppled near the end of a collapse. Possibly the other picture IS of the core (or a building behind?) but i can't see how this is evidence that the core was concrete though.

Perhaps if Christophera watched the nova film he might be able to come to terms with what happened that terrible day.

BV
Swansea Wales UK.

Mancman

6th October 2006, 06:23 AM

chipmunk stew

6th October 2006, 06:58 AM

There they are.
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/images/911.wtc.1.04.jpg
Those are interior box columns and 3" rebar. I thought he'd made that clear.

Belz...

6th October 2006, 08:06 AM

Those are interior box columns and 3" rebar. I thought he'd made that clear.

How can it be both ? If the concrete exploded, and assuming the "box columns" survived, wouldn't that be inconsistent with his contention that this is rebar ?

Muckar-duva

6th October 2006, 08:16 AM

I don't know if this has been mentioned: in the book Skyscrapers by Matthew Wells, there is a mention of Leslie Robertson (designer of WTC). He also designed the Citicorp Tower in 77- a building which was thought to be so badly constructed that some people feared it may collapse.

chipmunk stew

6th October 2006, 08:50 AM

How can it be both ? If the concrete exploded, and assuming the "box columns" survived, wouldn't that be inconsistent with his contention that this is rebar ?
*sigh* You're just not getting it and ignoring his evidence. Maybe if I post his image again it will begin to sink in. Remember, this is RAW EVIDENCE: http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif

NOW do you get it?

Belz...

6th October 2006, 10:06 AM

*sigh* You're just not getting it and ignoring his evidence. Maybe if I post his image again it will begin to sink in. Remember, this is RAW EVIDENCE: http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif

NOW do you get it?

I'll fix that for you, chip:

core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)

Arus808

6th October 2006, 10:49 AM

Elevators shafts were easy to get out of as some had drywall on 4 sides. Only 2 had concrete on 2 sides, the corners opposite the stairwells on the short axis.

Still, no pictures of steel core columns in the core area from the demo huh?

where's your pictures of concrete cores?
And you're mistakened about the elevators.
What part of this statement do you have a hard time understanding?

There were nearly 100 elevators in EACH building. And what about the floors on which only some elevators stopped at didn't go any further.

That some VERY thin concrete core you are referring to.

Christophera

6th October 2006, 11:55 AM

And you're mistakened about the elevators.

So you say, but you have not said why. This not competent or reasonable.

There were nearly 100 elevators in EACH building. And what about the floors on which only some elevators stopped at didn't go any further.
What part of this statement do you have a hard time understanding?

I have a hard time understanding how what you say contradicts what I've said

That some VERY thin concrete core you are referring to.

Actually you can see the thickness here (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) could be 17 feet. ANd no one has ever said why no core columns are penetrating the stairs where the official diagram show them.

Here you can see the concrete shear wall is perhaps 4 feet thick. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg)

where's your pictures of concrete cores?

There was only one core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) per tower, so your terminology is confused as well.

Do you have an aversion to evidence?

Christophera

6th October 2006, 12:07 PM

How can it be both ? If the concrete exploded, and assuming the "box columns" survived, wouldn't that be inconsistent with his contention that this is rebar ?

The concrete did explode, most of it. Some of the C4 sat out in the weather on the 4 inch rebar and didn't detonate. The smaller horizontal rebar tied to the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) did detonate nad removed the concrete from the 3 inch. All the rebar was high tensile steel so the 3 inch was undamaged and stands free.

Here is the one piece of core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) surviving. It shows us the relationship between the "MASSIVE interior BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg), the core wall and the stairwell.

In this image all of the core walls have been detonated but no core columns are seen inside. The few vertical pieces of steel in the core are freight elevator landing supports and it can be seen they are cut irreguarly. All is seen is that the interior box columnscolumns are cut level (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/WTC1int.box.cols.gif)

uruk

6th October 2006, 12:21 PM

Bell

6th October 2006, 12:55 PM

Sooo... Christophera... can you finally cut to the clue? This joke is starting to get lame.

Christophera

6th October 2006, 01:03 PM

You can be isultiing but not convincing.

Planes hit the towers, 1/3 of the support beams were destroyed by the impact.
The load from gravity had to go to the remaining columns. Now the beams, already loaded beyond their design were heated and the heat reduced their ability to take the stress, when the force exceeded the design limit of one of the beams the others had to take the load since they were already at their limit the result was what you see.

can you answer what is there?

Until you do I will be there for you.

They are called columns not beams.

Okay, be here for me now. With logic. The north tower was hit on the north side. Why is the top falling south when all of the load bearing capacity of the north perimeter wall was removed?

Top of north tower falling south.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3393&stc=1&d=1160161186

Christophera

6th October 2006, 01:06 PM

Chris. This picture does not show any concrete at all in the core.

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

And there is no way that the metal you are pointing out as being 3 inches could possibly be three inches. compare the size to other things in the picture.

Yes, true. Since I annotated that I remember that the base of the tower used some 6 rebar that extended from the foundation. I remember because the documentary talked about how slow the constrcution of the core foundation and the base were because the rebar could not be bent. It had to be cut and welded.

Christophera

6th October 2006, 01:08 PM

Sooo... Christophera... can you finally cut to the clue? This joke is starting to get lame.

I've given all the clues.

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

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

You guys are not interested in clues, facts or the truth. You are here to make information go away.

Bell

6th October 2006, 01:13 PM

I've given all the clues.

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

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

Neh, not funny...

You guys are not interested in clues, facts or the truth. You are here to make information go away.

What information did we make go away?

Arus808

6th October 2006, 01:32 PM

So you say, but you have not said why. This not competent or reasonable.

Its competent enough to know that with that many elevators in one building, and the plans to maximize the floorspace within the WTC towers (because the rental income would be worth it) that there is NO way in hell that there was a concrete core system within the two towers.

What you propose, not only goes AGAINST everything that was planned for the two towers, if you bothered to ASK the designers and planners of the WTC towers, and the many PUBLISHED books and artciles concerning their construction, even average joe schmoe knows that there wasn't any concrete core within the buildings.

I have a hard time understanding how what you say contradicts what I've said

Then you fail to understand basic english.

Actually you can see the thickness here (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) could be 17 feet. ANd no one has ever said why no core columns are penetrating the stairs where the official diagram show them.
That images proves nothing. YOU can't determine anything from that image other than its the remnants of a standing structure on what was the WTC towers. We do not have anything to compare it (ie a person in the foreground) to determine size (17 foot thick? HOw do you know???). All we see is part of a crane, and that isn't even clear enough to determine how far its from that structure, nor can we determine the size of that partially shown crane.

There was only one core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) per tower, so your terminology is confused as well.
Then this answers proves you know nothing of their construction. Explain how there were intermittent floors in each tower that was pretty much considered a "lobby" meaning, it was open space and only some elevators landed there. If you bothered to even read many of the publications, many explain how the elevators were situated in each building. THERE is no way in hell that a concrete core could fit, in the way you think they would.

However, I will take the words of experts, not some wanna be engineer with lack of comprehension:

where is your concrete core:
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc_graphic.gif
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc_plan.jpg
http://www.wtc7.net/store/books/wakingup/samples/docs/p2/site1099c.jpg
http://www.thaiengineering.com/column/lesson_disaster/World_trade_center/image/wtc.jpg
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11%20Picture5.jpg
http://smelternews.com/core.jpg
http://www.lescarney.com/Pictures/wtc_9_60.jpg
Here is a slew of images from their construction:
http://www.emporis.com/en/il/pc/?id=100001&aid=10&sro=1

NOpe, nothing but sheetrock covered steel supports for the core.

Do you have an aversion to evidence? Im not the one with an aversion.

tsig

6th October 2006, 01:34 PM

They are called columns not beams.

Okay, be here for me now. With logic. The north tower was hit on the north side. Why is the top falling south when all of the load bearing capacity of the north perimeter wall was removed?

Top of north tower falling south.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3393&stc=1&d=1160161186

Chris, Chris try not to remove the speck from your friends eye before removing the beam from your own.

Sorry just couldn't resist the opening.

So you do admit that the planes caused structual damage?

(See folks progress is possible.)

mortimer

6th October 2006, 01:41 PM

Where is the core located in this "typical floor plan"?

http://www.greatbuildings.com/cgi-bin/gbc-drawing.cgi/World_Trade_Center.html/World_Trade_Tower.gbd

Loss Leader

6th October 2006, 02:25 PM

Where is the core located in this "typical floor plan"?

http://www.greatbuildings.com/cgi-bin/gbc-drawing.cgi/World_Trade_Center.html/World_Trade_Tower.gbd

My understanding of the word "core," leads me to believe that everything in the middle of your picture is the core. The rest of the floor is tethered to it with the outside frame of the building helping to hold up a small amount of the weight.

I don't think Christopher is using the word "core" in the same sense.

alexg

6th October 2006, 02:32 PM

I'm sure this ain't this first time this has been referenced but here goes anyway:

In the NOVA documentary 'why the towers fell' the lead structural engineer Leslie Robertson (the same guy Chris quoted as saying there was a concrete core, from the Apr. 1 post!) was interviewed, and interviewed extensively. He was really the main focus of the show.

Throughout this documentery they describe the core as steel and drywall - showing photographs, film of the construction, diagrams, and detailed floorplans - even explaining why the drywall was used, 'keeping the building light by walling off the core with drywall or sheetrock, rather than concrete" (my bold) - direct quote from the show. This drywall was a big part of the show because they were lamenting it's use as core wall because it didn't protect the emergency stairways. Only 4 people total made it out from the floors above the damage because the stairwells were smashed by the planes.

And Chris, if there was a seventeen foot thick concrete core how did a window cleaner carve through it with his squeegee? That's how one group got out of an elevator stuck between floors.

mortimer

6th October 2006, 02:45 PM

My understanding of the word "core," leads me to believe that everything in the middle of your picture is the core. The rest of the floor is tethered to it with the outside frame of the building helping to hold up a small amount of the weight.

I don't think Christopher is using the word "core" in the same sense.

Sorry, that comment was directed at Christopher. I should have said "Where's the concrete core in this..."

alexg

6th October 2006, 03:12 PM

Christophera

6th October 2006, 04:29 PM

"C"hris. This picture does not show any concrete at all in the core.

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

And there is no way that the metal you are pointing out as being 3 inches could possibly be three inches. compare the size to other things in the picture. "

LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!

If that is not concrete with a width like 17 feet, what is it? And, where are the steel core columns that are supposed to be penetrating the stairwell?

The 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) was further up in the concrete core. Probably starting on top of that level on to of the concrete.

The documentary spent a proportionate amount of time on the foundation for the core and the first 3 floors because those structural elements took that much time and there were many issues that needed addressing.

So yes, I made a mistake not a lie. The rebar is bigger than 3 inch, it is 6 inch. The charcteristics of the tensile steel are TOTALLY demonstrated by the tightly curled steel. There is no other material used in the towers that could do that, just like the link to the 3" rebar on 4' centers. There is no other material that would have that appearance under those conditions.

The fact of the contractors not being able to get plans they could take home was talked about at that time in the documentary.

Arus808

6th October 2006, 04:56 PM

If that is not concrete with a width like 17 feet, what is it? And, where are the steel core columns that are supposed to be penetrating the stairwell?

Definitely not something you are claiming them to be.

The 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/%7Ejeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) was further up in the concrete core. Probably starting on top of that level on to of the concrete.

again, with that pic. what part of "that pic shows nothing conclusive" do you not understand?

The documentary spent a proportionate amount of time on the foundation for the core and the first 3 floors because those structural elements took that much time and there were many issues that needed addressing.
what documentary? Teh one you imagined you saw?

So yes, I made a mistake not a lie. The rebar is bigger than 3 inch, it is 6 inch. The charcteristics of the tensile steel are TOTALLY demonstrated by the tightly curled steel. There is no other material used in the towers that could do that, just like the link to the 3" rebar on 4' centers. There is no other material that would have that appearance under those conditions.

More speculation on your part, not backed by anything remotely close to as evidence.

What wont you contact the construction company, and designers for answers?

The fact of the contractors not being able to get plans they could take home was talked about at that time in the documentary.

Again, what documentary? The one you imagined seeing?

alexg

6th October 2006, 05:05 PM

If that is not concrete with a width like 17 feet, what is it? And, where are the steel core columns that are supposed to be penetrating the stairwell?

The 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) was further up in the concrete core. Probably starting on top of that level on to of the concrete.

The documentary spent a proportionate amount of time on the foundation for the core and the first 3 floors because those structural elements took that much time and there were many issues that needed addressing.

So yes, I made a mistake not a lie. The rebar is bigger than 3 inch, it is 6 inch. The charcteristics of the tensile steel are TOTALLY demonstrated by the tightly curled steel. There is no other material used in the towers that could do that, just like the link to the 3" rebar on 4' centers. There is no other material that would have that appearance under those conditions.

The fact of the contractors not being able to get plans they could take home was talked about at that time in the documentary.

Chris, puhleeze, you know there was concrete all over the place right? That's what the floors were made of. How can you be sure that isn't a piece of floor hanging on? And 17 feet? INSANITY! ETA or dry wall? drywall walled in the core and that's a fact!

And obviously that remaining stand of core is filled with debris. Nothing much can be made of that pic. But having seen a better ver of that piece of core with some fireman ascending it I'd say not even 6 inches comes close to size of those curled bars.

Christophera

6th October 2006, 07:03 PM

Chris, puhleeze, you know there was concrete all over the place right? That's what the floors were made of. How can you be sure that isn't a piece of floor hanging on? And 17 feet? INSANITY! ETA or dry wall? drywall walled in the core and that's a fact!

The image at bottom shows an interior box column on the left. Immediately to the right is the core wall base. Notice that the angle of the interior box column is duplicated for the core wall base to the right.
And, no floors, I MEAN, NO FLOORS SURVIVED THE COLLAPSE. Odd huh? The interior box columns were 52 inches wide at the bottom so the thickness of what must be the concrete base looks correct at 17 feet.

And obviously that remaining stand of core is filled with debris. Nothing much can be made of that pic. But having seen a better ver of that piece of core with some fireman ascending it I'd say not even 6 inches comes close to size of those curled bars.

"remaining stand of core is filled with debris" This statement is not clear with regard to the image below. The core area is in the foreground of the stairwell and to the right. So when you say "firemen ascending" it does not make sense. The core is hollow.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3395&stc=1&d=1160182445

Christophera

6th October 2006, 07:07 PM

If that is not concrete with a width like 17 feet, what is it? And, where are the steel core columns that are supposed to be penetrating the stairwell?

Definitely not something you are claiming them to be.

To be reasonable you now have to explain what it is if it is not concrete (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) and that needs to be logical within knowledge of constrcution materials.

Arus808

6th October 2006, 07:27 PM

To be reasonable you now have to explain what it is if it is not concrete (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) and that needs to be logical within knowledge of constrcution materials.

Here for your slow comprehension:

There is nothing in that pic that is evidence of a concrete core. and for all we know, it could be the STEEL core still standing, since that is basically part of what kep the buildings standing.

IN that pic, you cannot determine anything other than a building collapsed and it created a plume of dust and debris.
If you see anything other than that in that pic, you are far better than superman to see through that, at that distance that the picture was taken.

Christophera, have you bothered to contact anyone who worked for the construction companies who built the two towers and the design company?

Christophera

6th October 2006, 07:46 PM

To be reasonable you now have to explain what it is if it is not concrete and that needs to be logical within knowledge of constrcution materials.

Here for your slow comprehension:

There is nothing in that pic that is evidence of a concrete core. and for all we know, it could be the STEEL core still standing, since that is basically part of what kep the buildings standing.

Wrong. The image of the core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) shows rounded corners of the concrete core wall remnant. Steel will not do that. About half way down a bright area of freshly borken concrete is visable next tot he interio box column.

Apparently your knowledge of the lie you support is not very in depth. The lie states there were multiple steel columns in the core area. We see none but we do see 17 feet of wasted space if steel columns are supposed to be in use and we also do not see any steel columns penetrating the stairwell.

IN that pic, (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) you cannot determine anything other than a building collapsed and it created a plume of dust and debris.
If you see anything other than that in that pic, you are far better than superman to see through that, at that distance that the picture was taken.

Wrong again. Each building material has its unique characteristics during demolition, collapse or failure. There is no building material that can attain that appearance except concrete. You are not in construction so you don't know this.

Christophera, have you bothered to contact anyone who worked for the construction companies who built the two towers and the design company?

No. I know exactly how the core was constructed.

You should contact them and ask them because you support the steel core columns (barely) and get them to tell you that the towers had steel columns in the core.

They will not. Because later, the truth will be known and they do not want to be seen as liars supporting a lie that murderers hide behind.

uruk

6th October 2006, 08:12 PM

If that is not concrete with a width like 17 feet, what is it? And, where are the steel core columns that are supposed to be penetrating the stairwell?

If you look carefully at the picture youll see vertical lines in the area that you call the 17 foot slab. Those are the columns.
That area is being obscured by the cloud of dust rising up in the foreground and heavy JPEG artifacting.
That area is also abit longer than 17 feet. Look at the cranes in the foreground.

Christophera

6th October 2006, 08:21 PM

If you look carefully at the picture youll see vertical lines in the area that you call the 17 foot slab. Those are the columns.
That area is being obscured by the cloud of dust rising up in the foreground and heavy JPEG artifacting.
That area is also abit longer than 17 feet. Look at the cranes in the foreground.

The machines are called EXCAVATORS. The 52 inch wide column is at exactly the same distance, far better to use for scale than an excavator with unknown dimensions.

No clean vertical lines are visible in that 17 foot and the columns would protrude from the top area, they do not. The rounded corners of the object show it must be concrete (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg).

Now, explain why no steel core columns penetrate the stiarwell where the official diagrams say they were. Why are no columns seen anywhere insde what is the core area?

uruk

6th October 2006, 09:38 PM

alexg

6th October 2006, 09:51 PM

"And, no floors, I MEAN, NO FLOORS SURVIVED THE COLLAPSE. Odd huh? "

No floors and NO CORES either. So it's a tie. And I got drywall too so I win!

alexg

6th October 2006, 09:58 PM

I enhanced the contrast and tried to remove as much JPEG artifacting as I could. I also added a few notes myself. Look at what happens to the "wall."
The so called wall is debris mixed with a dust cloud and JPEG artifacting.

Here is another link concerning the core which notes that there was no concrete core. It even suggest that the WTC might have faired better if there was a concrete core.
http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh/1-Publications/Astaneh-9ASEC-WTC%20Paper%202003.pdf#search=%22wtc%20box%20colum ns%22
Youi still think that's 17 feet of concrtete? The 'firemen ascending ' - I was referring to apic of that same hunk of core but the firemen were on the exterior of it going up in some kind of bucket - that picture is in this thread, prolly back in one of the early chapters. You must have seen it.

And that remaining hunk is all torn to shreds, you can't tell what steel members may have been torn away. What I do see is steel but no concrete. There was no concrete Chris, strat getting used to that idea. It won't kill you. I hope . .

Christophera

6th October 2006, 11:36 PM

I enhanced the contrast and tried to remove as much JPEG artifacting as I could. I also added a few notes myself. Look at what happens to the "wall."
The so called wall is debris mixed with a dust cloud and JPEG artifacting.

Here is another link concerning the core which notes that there was no concrete core. It even suggest that the WTC might have faired better if there was a concrete core.
http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh/1-Publications/Astaneh-9ASEC-WTC%20Paper%202003.pdf#search=%22wtc%20box%20colum ns%22

Well, ................. you did not explain WHY the supposed steel core columns are not seen in the images. If you are going to support the 47, 1,300 foot steel columns as having existed in the core area of the towers, you must explain WHY they are not seen in the photos.

There was no artifacting that was problematic in the image.

All you have succeeded in doing is damaging the image and you rannotations are unreadable.

Yes, I have seen the BS reverse logic speculation attempted as a way of supporting the steel core columns by saying that IF the tower had a concrete core it wouldn't have fallen. Here is the worst of that. "The Freedom Tower will have a concrete core so it will not collapse."

You are gullible and failng to use hard evidence and instead using "whatever" which also has no support in hard evidence.

Christophera

6th October 2006, 11:44 PM

Youi still think that's 17 feet of concrtete? The 'firemen ascending ' - I was referring to apic of that same hunk of core but the firemen were on the exterior of it going up in some kind of bucket - that picture is in this thread, prolly back in one of the early chapters. You must have seen it.

And that remaining hunk is all torn to shreds, you can't tell what steel members may have been torn away. What I do see is steel but no concrete. There was no concrete Chris, strat getting used to that idea. It won't kill you. I hope . .

The supposed steel core columns were of the strongest elements of the towers. They would not have been torn away. Look at the interior box columns, the ONLY columns that were full length structural elements.

columns cut level (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/WTC1int.box.cols.gif)

Big Les

7th October 2006, 06:09 AM

What.
F*cking.
Doc.
U.
Mentary.
?

Belz...

7th October 2006, 06:13 AM

So you say, but you have not said why. This not competent or reasonable.

Nor is it generous, frolicking, mesmerising or fruitcake. Stop it with the attacks and try to FOCUS.

Actually you can see the thickness here (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) could be 17 feet.

Could you alter the image to show your measurements, please ?

Here you can see the concrete shear wall is perhaps 4 feet thick. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg)

Idem.

Do you have an aversion to evidence?

I feel asphixiated by irony.

The concrete did explode, most of it. Some of the C4 sat out in the weather on the 4 inch rebar and didn't detonate. The smaller horizontal rebar tied to the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS did detonate nad removed the concrete from the 3 inch. All the rebar was high tensile steel so the 3 inch was undamaged and stands free.

So you're saying that all that C4, placed directly onto the rebar, did NOT damage the rebar significantly ?

Okay, be here for me now. With logic. The north tower was hit on the north side. Why is the top falling south when all of the load bearing capacity of the north perimeter wall was removed?

Simple logic. The south side was further damaged than you suspect.

Belz...

7th October 2006, 06:17 AM

What you propose, not only goes AGAINST everything that was planned for the two towers, if you bothered to ASK the designers and planners of the WTC towers, and the many PUBLISHED books and artciles concerning their construction, even average joe schmoe knows that there wasn't any concrete core within the buildings.

Heck. Even the truthers know.

Belz...

7th October 2006, 06:25 AM

If that is not concrete with a width like 17 feet, what is it?

Just because you can't determine what it is doesn't mean it's what you THINK it is. Ever thought of that ?

And, where are the steel core columns that are supposed to be penetrating the stairwell?

The picture's a mess, chris. We can't make out anything.

The 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) was further up in the concrete core. Probably starting on top of that level on to of the concrete.

So, what ? How many floors had free-standing, non-reinforced concrete ?

The rebar is bigger than 3 inch, it is 6 inch. The charcteristics of the tensile steel are TOTALLY demonstrated by the tightly curled steel. There is no other material used in the towers that could do that

Cable.

Wrong. The image of the core wall at its base shows rounded corners of the concrete core wall remnant. Steel will not do that.

Steel doesn't bend ?

Wrong again. Each building material has its unique characteristics during demolition, collapse or failure. There is no building material that can attain that appearance except concrete. You are not in construction so you don't know this.

I don't think he cares. YOU'RE in construction and you don't know this.

Well, ................. you did not explain WHY the supposed steel core columns are not seen in the images.

But he DID explain that there's no concrete in there.

Even if you DID see concrete in the images, don't forget that the floors were made of reinforced concrete, so chances are you'll see that in the aftermath pictures.

The supposed steel core columns were of the strongest elements of the towers. They would not have been torn away.

Just like flight recorders are made from the most resilient material known to man ?? Come on. Just because they were the strongest element doesn't mean they can't be torn away.

Powa

7th October 2006, 07:16 AM

Belz..., I wasn't going to say anything but that space you put before each question mark is bugging me enormously. I can't stand it any more. Do it one more time and I'm reporting you. :D

7th October 2006, 07:30 AM

I swear there were no spaces in there earlier. It's a conspiracy!!! Someone is deliberately spacing his question marks!!!!

Do ya think ?

Oliver

7th October 2006, 07:45 AM

A CT´ist hacked his account here and the empty space before the question marks is a symbol that represents their evidence.

defaultdotxbe

7th October 2006, 07:46 AM

I swear there were no spaces in there earlier. It's a conspiracy!!! Someone is deliberately spacing his question marks!!!!

Do ya think ?
only an admin could do it without an "edit by" tag.....i blame Lisa Simpson (for obvious reasons)

7th October 2006, 07:53 AM

only an admin could do it without an "edit by" tag.....i blame Lisa Simpson (for obvious reasons)

Yes, yes, I agree... Lisa is known to have a concrete core, too...

Oliver

7th October 2006, 08:11 AM

only an admin could do it without an "edit by" tag.....i blame Lisa Simpson (for obvious reasons)

Pah, the NWO could do this, too :D - or if someone is fast enough to edit a message. I guess in the first 5 minutes you can edit them without "edit"-tag.

firecoins

7th October 2006, 08:53 AM

It was No Such Agency!

uruk

7th October 2006, 09:41 AM

Well, ................. you did not explain WHY the supposed steel core columns are not seen in the images. If you are going to support the 47, 1,300 foot steel columns as having existed in the core area of the towers, you must explain WHY they are not seen in the photos.

There was no artifacting that was problematic in the image.

All you have succeeded in doing is damaging the image and you rannotations are unreadable.

Yes, I have seen the BS reverse logic speculation attempted as a way of supporting the steel core columns by saying that IF the tower had a concrete core it wouldn't have fallen. Here is the worst of that. "The Freedom Tower will have a concrete core so it will not collapse."

You are gullible and failng to use hard evidence and instead using "whatever" which also has no support in hard evidence.

Sorry, I over compressed the image to meet thr image size restriction.
I did not change anything in the image other than increase the contrast to compensate for the dust cloud. and to add my notations.

The added notes are:
1. 52 inches - 4.3 feet (concerning the width of the coulmn)
2. These bar have to be at least 10 inches thick (in comaprison to the column)
3. The area pointed is less than 17 feet (concerning the area pointed out by Chris)
4.Note the difference in contrast in areas obscured by the dust cloud. (showing that what Chris thinks is a surface is actually a combination of JPEG artifacting and diffusion caused by the dust cloud in the foreground)
5. Note "holes" and debris (to further show that the area pointed out by Chris is not a wall)

The other columns are not visible because they are already collapsed or obscured by the debris.