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

[alexg]

Here is your core, Chris:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/111074527cc981b7df.jpg

Source:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/slagheap/sets/72057594112589148/?page=2

NO CONCRETE, SEE? NO NO NO NO NO NO NO! :D
That pretty well does it! No concrete, plenty steel, plenty debris. Surely this will lay this matter to rest:D :D :D

[Oliver]

That pretty well does it! No concrete, plenty steel, plenty debris. Surely this will lay this matter to rest:D :D :D

*lol* You don´t know him - i bet he will see nothing else but concrete cores on the image... :D

[alexg]

*lol* You don´t know him - i bet he will see nothing else but concrete cores on the image... :D


Chris will no doubt soldier on. I wonder how he swill spin it this time? No doubt all that 'concrete' we saw in the other view is on the far side and out of view in the hi-res pic. That's a given. ETA How he'll see 17 feet of it though is beyond me. Whatever is hanging over there on the far side could be no more than a few feet thick, AT MOST, it's probably just a piece of sheet rock, a few inches thick, if it's anything at all.

ETA Chris never has explained how the window cleaner tunneled through 17 feet of concrete with his squeegee.

As I see it Chris will always KNOW there was a concrete core because he has a memory of seeing and hearing all about one in the non-existent PBS documentary he saw years ago.

[Christophera]

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



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



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



Cable.



Steel doesn't bend ?



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



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.



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.

Belz,

Grasping at straws.

I know exactly what that block of gray material with roundede corners is. It is the core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg). YOU are the one that thinks there were steel core columns in the core. Well, ......... we don't see those.


YOU will not explain why they are not seen. I say the gray block is concrete, YOU say not. I ask you a reasonable question, "If it is not concrete what is it?" and you try to confuse the situation as if I do not know what it is.

EVASION.

The picture reveals many things, you just do not want to see them.

There was NO un reinforced concrete in the skyscraper, even you should know that.

So, you think the tower had 6 inch diameter cable in it? Bwahhhhhaaaaaa.

No, steel does not bend like that. Steel is not used like that when it is in that situation.

True, homer doesn't care but WRONG, I do know what the different building material look like as they come apart.

Homer didn't and never has explained anything. All he has actually done recently is over compressed an image to fit it into this boards restrictive image posting criteria.

We don't see any floors either.

All 47 torn away? And the interior box columns stay.

Wrong on all points. The interio box columns were the only fulllength columns in the towers and they have all fallen away in this imge to reveal the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

[Christophera]

Chris, the picture You posted shows the interior support columns. And if you notice they are only slightly smaller than the perimiter box columns Just like it was stated in all the Material that has been brought to your attention


Those are elevator guide rails or elevator landing support. Note they are not cut square and level as were the interior box columns on the left.

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

[Christophera]

Here is your core, Chris:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/111074527cc981b7df.jpg

Source:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/slagheap/sets/72057594112589148/?page=2

NO CONCRETE, SEE? NO NO NO NO NO NO NO! :D

Belz said it well Oliver, describing your picture.


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

Although I can see some leaning interior box columns and elevator guide rails still mostly intact.

The biggest problem for your group is that the steel core columns you say existed NEVER show up at elevation in the core area. We do see what can only be rebar.

3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)

We do see what can only be concrete for the core of WTC 2.

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


We do see Concrete shear wall to left of interior box column, the "spire" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg) but we see no steel core columns inside the core.

[alexg]

How'd the window cleaner tunnel out of the elevator shaft Chris?

[Christophera]

How'd the window cleaner tunnel out of the elevator shaft Chris?

The elevator shafts had at least 2 walls that were drywall, most had 3 or 4.

Meaning a squeegee will get you out if you go the right direction in the right elevator shaft. There was an account of a effort to cut through the drywall that met with concrete after getting through drywall. It was in a stairway tho.

[Skibum]

There was an account of a effort to cut through the drywall that met with concrete after getting through drywall. It was in a stairway tho.

Can you link us to it, or was it on the documentary you saw 15 years ago?

[alexg]

The elevator shafts had at least 2 walls that were drywall, most had 3 or 4.

Meaning a squeegee will get you out if you go the right direction in the right elevator shaft. There was an account of a effort to cut through the drywall that met with concrete after getting through drywall. It was in a stairway tho.
Sounds like this concrete core was everywhere but wherever we have looked for it. Frankly I don't believe there just happened to be drywall put in round an elevator shaft and concrete everywhere else. I need to see the account you mention of getting blocked by concrete in a shaft to believe it. I can believe somebody got trapped in a shaft and assumed the drywall was impenetrable, lacking a squeegee to tunnel with.

eta sorry, misunderstood the story about the stairwell escape, would like to see the story though.

[alexg]

Maybe you meant the famous story of the two guys who made it down a stairwell from above the fire? They had to leave a stairwell at one point and got blocked by a plie of drywall which they got round OK to get out.

And if your concrete core (ETA 17 feet, reenforced, compare to Pentagon for reference) was still in place before the collapse then why did almost all the stairwells get destroyed by the planes cutting right through them. No stairwells made it in the North tower and only one made it in the South because the plane cut accross a corner instead of going straight accross.

[Oliver]

Concrete ... i see concreeeete .... Muhawawawaw http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/111074527eb9578326.gifhttp://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/111074527eb7755fd3.gifhttp://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/111074527eb7757f0b.gif http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/111074527eb7759e48.gif

[Oliver]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/111074527eda9e808a.gif

[Christophera]

Maybe you meant the famous story of the two guys who made it down a stairwell from above the fire? They had to leave a stairwell at one point and got blocked by a plie of drywall which they got round OK to get out.

And if your concrete core (ETA 17 feet, reenforced, compare to Pentagon for reference) was still in place before the collapse then why did almost all the stairwells get destroyed by the planes cutting right through them. No stairwells made it in the North tower and only one made it in the South because the plane cut across a corner instead of going straight accross.

There were 2 squeegee stories and that was one of them.

I do not think we can be sure of the total destruction of the eastern stairway in WTC 1. The below animated .gif is pretty accurate as far as entry angle and position. The left wingtip is shown near the mentioned stairwell but given a concrete core it is doubtful that the wingtip actually got through the core wall. Other ancillary damages could have punctured the drywall separating it from the elevators and allowed smoke from the large fuel explosion to enter making the stairwell impassable.

If I remember correctly a few people in the building tried to go up one damaged staircase but were driven back by smoke before getting near the impact floors.

WTC 1 animated gif of the impact. (http://www.construction.com/NewsCenter/photoart/021104-13Ba.gif)

The right engine of flight 11 went clean through the concrete core walls to bounce off the inside of the perimeter walls on the far side, but the left was stopped inside, probably because it hit interior concrete walls that supported the hallways (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corehallsdoors.gif).

A little known factor is that the left engine of the flight 175 actually punctured the concrete core walls and tried to exit the perimeter wall of WTC 2 and is seen as a large puff of concrete dust and debris a floor or 2 below the impact floor on the eastern face of the building near the north corner. I don't have that image unfortunately. Someone posted it at Let's Roll calling it a missile and I debunked that notion with the below animated gif and simple analysis of trajectory which matched perfectly the position of the puff of debri.

WTC 2 animated gif of the impact. (http://www.construction.com/NewsCenter/photoart/021104-13Bb.gif)

[Christophera]

*lol* You don´t know him - i bet he will see nothing else but concrete cores on the image... :D

WRONG!

I only see concrete when there is concrete (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) to be seen. One thing for sure. I never see any of the supposed 47 steel core columns because they did not exist.

The concrete core is well documented by raw images of the demolition.

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

And near free fall as well as total pulverization are explained here.

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

Also explained there in a rational and comprehensive, consistent fashion are;

The backwards fall sequence of the towers

The fact that the tops of the towers fell the wrong directions for the sides impacted

Flight 93's logical role

[tsig]

WRONG!

I only see concrete when there is concrete (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) to be seen. One thing for sure. I never see any of the supposed 47 steel core columns because they did not exist.

The concrete core is well documented by raw images of the demolition.

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

And near free fall as well as total pulverization are explained here.

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

Also explained there in a rational and comprehensive, consistent fashion are;

The backwards fall sequence of the towers

The fact that the tops of the towers fell the wrong directions for the sides impacted

Flight 93's logical role

I see concrete lots of concrete I see lots and lots of concrete.

Cris is right and the whole world is wrong.


From where the sun sets in the sky I will post no more in this thread.

[alexg]

There were 2 squeegee stories and that was one of them.

I do not think we can be sure of the total destruction of the eastern stairway in WTC 1. The below animated .gif is pretty accurate as far as entry angle and position. The left wingtip is shown near the mentioned stairwell but given a concrete core it is doubtful that the wingtip actually got through the core wall. Other ancillary damages could have punctured the drywall separating it from the elevators and allowed smoke from the large fuel explosion to enter making the stairwell impassable.

If I remember correctly a few people in the building tried to go up one damaged staircase but were driven back by smoke before getting near the impact floors.

WTC 1 animated gif of the impact. (http://www.construction.com/NewsCenter/photoart/021104-13Ba.gif)

The right engine of flight 11 went clean through the concrete core walls to bounce off the inside of the perimeter walls on the far side, but the left was stopped inside, probably because it hit interior concrete walls that supported the hallways (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corehallsdoors.gif).

A little known factor is that the left engine of the flight 175 actually punctured the concrete core walls and tried to exit the perimeter wall of WTC 2 and is seen as a large puff of concrete dust and debris a floor or 2 below the impact floor on the eastern face of the building near the north corner. I don't have that image unfortunately. Someone posted it at Let's Roll calling it a missile and I debunked that notion with the below animated gif and simple analysis of trajectory which matched perfectly the position of the puff of debri.

WTC 2 animated gif of the impact. (http://www.construction.com/NewsCenter/photoart/021104-13Bb.gif)


No way, no way even the engines are going through 17 feet of re. concrete. I7 feet! Re-enforced? You'd prolly need a MOAB or a nuke! 17 feet of re-enforced concrtete.

And how could you even accpet those animations which show all kinds of airplane parts going through your core? A core BTW which is not even in those animations. Laughable, all of it.:D

[Blue Mountain]

In response to questions about how a worker was able to escape from an jammed elevator by chipping through drywall with a squeegee, I've attached to this post the plan of the 95th floor of WTC-1. It's from the FEMA report, and I've added to it (in blue) where Christophera's concrete core would have been, had it existed.

I see 13 elevators in the drawing: number 50 marked in purple, numbers 89-92 marked in yellow and numbers 93-98 marked in blue. Note that all the elevators are within the core but none of them are adjacent to the (non-existant) concrete wall.

I can draw two conclusions from this:
1. The story of the worker escaping from the elevator by chipping through drywall does not invalidate the idea of a concrete core.

2. Christophera has done no research at all into this issue, otherwise he would not have made the statement:
The elevator shafts had at least 2 walls that were drywall, most had 3 or 4.

Meaning a squeegee will get you out if you go the right direction in the right elevator shaft. There was an account of a effort to cut through the drywall that met with concrete after getting through drywall. It was in a stairway tho.
It appears all the elevators had drywall front and back.

Christophera: Do you have a source for the "second" story of a worker trying to chip through drywall in a stairwell (with a squeegee, no less) and encountering concrete?

[uruk]

Those are elevator guide rails or elevator landing support. Note they are not cut square and level as were the interior box columns on the left.

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

Hey, Chris, These are elevator rails.:
http://www.rcgov.com/police/Construction/images/040326_elevator_rails_jpg.jpg

http://www.suffolk.edu/sawlib/construction/photos/elevators/photos/third-floor-elevator-shaft-march-16-2006.html

http://www.suffolk.edu/sawlib/construction/photos/elevators/photos/second-floor-elevator-track-march-23-2006.html

http://chinahaixun.en.alibaba.com/product/0/50589251/Elevator_Guide_Rails/showimg.html

http://www.dir.ca.gov/Images/t8img/3030-1.gif

Take note that none bear any resenblance in shape or size to these.
But then Chris is into construction. This would be something that he should know.:

[uruk]

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)

That's right, Steel is indestructable. Nothing on earth can bend or break steel. This is coming from a contractor that thinks that elevator rails are made from 32 inch steel columns.

[Belz...]

I know exactly what that block of gray material with roundede corners is.

You shouldn't go around telling people what they think, chris. It's rude.

It is the core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg).

I know it's the base of the core. I'm saying you can't see concrete conclusively in that picture.

YOU are the one that thinks there were steel core columns in the core. Well, ......... we don't see those.

Yes we do.

I say the gray block is concrete, YOU say not. I ask you a reasonable question, "If it is not concrete what is it?" and you try to confuse the situation as if I do not know what it is.

You're simply arguing from ignorance, now. I called you on the fact that there's no way to identify concrete in that picture, and now you're doing exactly what fundies do: if you can't tell me what this is, it HAS to be God!

(replace God with concrete, in case you didn't get that)

EVASION.

Sorry, I use true strike. Your puny +2 to AC is insignificant.

The picture reveals many things, you just do not want to see them.

You shouldn't go around telling people what they want, chris. It's rude.

There was NO un reinforced concrete in the skyscraper, even you should know that.

You're the one who claimed that the first few floors didn't have 6" rebar.

So, you think the tower had 6 inch diameter cable in it? Bwahhhhhaaaaaa.

I never said it was 6 inches, you did.

No, steel does not bend like that. Steel is not used like that when it is in that situation.

Steel doesn't bend ? And concrete DOES ?

True, homer doesn't care but WRONG, I do know what the different building material look like as they come apart.

Oh, no you don't.

All he has actually done recently is over compressed an image to fit it into this boards restrictive image posting criteria.

What he also did and that you may have missed, is enhance the brightness so as to reveal your own obfuscation: namely, that there is no concrete to be seen in that image.

We don't see any floors either.

Not complete floors, you dope. But if we DID see pieces of concrete lying about the core it could very we be FROM a collapsed floor.

All 47 torn away? And the interior box columns stay.

You're the only one here who doesn't see the support columns, chris. So, no, not all 47 were torn away.

I was simply saying, as I'm certain you know, that steel columns COULD be torn away. Aren't you paying attention ? Or are you still evading ?

[Belz...]

Belz said it well Oliver, describing your picture.

Oh, now you add lying to your repertoire. You know full well that my comments were directed at your 90% JPEG compression image. You can clearly see in Oliver's picture that there is NO concrete. Unless you care to identify the concrete in his picture.

The biggest problem for your group is that the steel core columns you say existed NEVER show up at elevation in the core area.

Even if we didn't see any support columns, which we do, it wouldn't make you right. That's the part of the investigation process you don't understand.

We do see what can only be rebar.

Nuh-huh. Rebar couldn't possibly survive an explosive force that pulverizes concrete. That's part of the problem with YOUR group.

And stop posting your debunked pictures. Deal with ours, if you please.

[alexg]

In response to questions about how a worker was able to escape from an jammed elevator by chipping through drywall with a squeegee, I've attached to this post the plan of the 95th floor of WTC-1. It's from the FEMA report, and I've added to it (in blue) where Christophera's concrete core would have been, had it existed.

I see 13 elevators in the drawing: number 50 marked in purple, numbers 89-92 marked in yellow and numbers 93-98 marked in blue. Note that all the elevators are within the core but none of them are adjacent to the (non-existant) concrete wall.

I can draw two conclusions from this:
1. The story of the worker escaping from the elevator by chipping through drywall does not invalidate the idea of a concrete core.

2. Christophera has done no research at all into this issue, otherwise he would not have made the statement:

It appears all the elevators had drywall front and back.

Christophera: Do you have a source for the "second" story of a worker trying to chip through drywall in a stairwell (with a squeegee, no less) and encountering concrete?
It seems I made a naive and incorrect assumption about the orientation of the elevator doors to the core walls.

[Christophera]

I see concrete lots of concrete I see lots and lots of concrete.

Cris is right and the whole world is wrong.


From where the sun sets in the sky I will post no more in this thread.

I wonder what ever happened to critical thinking. I mean no steel core columns are visible in any of the demo images and this photo here (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg) shows and end view of a concrete wall holding up the spire.

[Oliver]

Come on, Chris - it´s a dead end and everyone knows that - even you. So what goal has this thread? Is it a bet or something?

[Christophera]

Hey, Chris, These are elevator rails.:
http://www.rcgov.com/police/Construction/images/040326_elevator_rails_jpg.jpg

http://www.suffolk.edu/sawlib/construction/photos/elevators/photos/third-floor-elevator-shaft-march-16-2006.html

http://www.suffolk.edu/sawlib/construction/photos/elevators/photos/second-floor-elevator-track-march-23-2006.html

http://chinahaixun.en.alibaba.com/product/0/50589251/Elevator_Guide_Rails/showimg.html

http://www.dir.ca.gov/Images/t8img/3030-1.gif

Take note that none bear any resenblance in shape or size to these.
But then Chris is into construction. This would be something that he should know.:

Consider that my statement of "or" frieght elevator landing support and guide rail supports covers the issue.

Seeing as you still have not come up with ONE image of the supposed 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns at elevation from the demo images, your issue is tiny.

What is this if it is not the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)?

[Christophera]

Come on, Chris - it´s a dead end and everyone knows that - even you. So what goal has this thread? Is it a bet or something?

No, it is the principles of our Constitution and the future of our nation. Recall, due process was deprived in 3,000 capitol crimes in NYC following 9-11.


Seeing as the truth of 9-11 is that important, you should be able to come up with at least one image of a steel core column inside the core area at some elevation.

Or even explain what this is if it is not the concrete core core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)

[mortimer]

Consider that my statement of "or" frieght elevator landing support and guide rail supports covers the issue.

Seeing as you still have not come up with ONE image of the supposed 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns at elevation from the demo images, your issue is tiny.

What is this if it is not the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)?

Chris, at what elevation do you need to see core columns during the collapse to convince you?

[Oliver]

No, it is the principles of our Constitution and the future of our nation. Recall, due process was deprived in 3,000 capitol crimes in NYC following 9-11.


Seeing as the truth of 9-11 is that important, you should be able to come up with at least one image of a steel core column inside the core area at some elevation.

Or even explain what this is if it is not the concrete core core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)

Yes Chris, i see the concrete core, too. But beside that - that´s all you have. No juridical evidence at all. So please stop spamming the board, will you? :D

[Bell]

I wonder what ever happened to critical thinking. I mean no steel core columns are visible in any of the demo images and this photo here (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg) shows and end view of a concrete wall holding up the spire.

Bolding mine.

Funny you should say that. You lack the ability to critical thinking in every department. Your proof consists of grainy pictures and a documentary seen 15 years ago, which has since been taken away by the NWO. Yeah, critical thinking is a bitch.

[Christophera]

Oh, now you add lying to your repertoire. You know full well that my comments were directed at your 90% JPEG compression image. You can clearly see in Oliver's picture that there is NO concrete. Unless you care to identify the concrete in his picture.



Even if we didn't see any support columns, which we do, it wouldn't make you right. That's the part of the investigation process you don't understand.



Nuh-huh. Rebar couldn't possibly survive an explosive force that pulverizes concrete. That's part of the problem with YOUR group.

And stop posting your debunked pictures. Deal with ours, if you please.

I do not think that Olivers image is better than mine, in fact it is worse.

I there were any steel croe columns at an elevation over the ground in demo images, I'm sure you would have posted them.

Since you haven't, and just "say" there are, it is quite clear you are arguing without evidence.

I've said this numerous times. The image showing 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) onlky shows that rebar because the C4 coating on the vertical bar did not detonate. The C4 on the much smaller horizontal bar did detonate as it was fresh when concrete was poured wheras the vertical bar sat through bad weather in the winter and lost it's viability.

Never once has a sensical explanation for what those fine vertical elements are if they are not rebar, been offered.

I've debunked your pitiful misrepresentations over and over and you have still not dealt with mine adequately, reasonably, logically and rationally.

[Christophera]

Bolding mine.

Funny you should say that. You lack the ability to critical thinking in every department. Your proof consists of grainy pictures and a documentary seen 15 years ago, which has since been taken away by the NWO. Yeah, critical thinking is a bitch.

Criticize my critical thinking huh?

Who was it, Peabody I think, who said that my explanation for the backwards fall sequence lacked logic. He never did back that up and I called him on it several times.

How about you give it a try just to show that you are an expert on "critical thinking" and have the natural authority to criticize mine.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1207667

Prepare yourself, this requires some in depth knowledege of what happened where on that day. The site back all of it with images and logic.

[Oliver]

Yes Chris, i see the concrete core, too. But beside that - that´s all you have. No juridical evidence at all. So please stop spamming the board, will you? :D

Will you? :D

[mortimer]

I there were any steel croe columns at an elevation over the ground in demo images, I'm sure you would have posted them.

Since you haven't, and just "say" there are, it is quite clear you are arguing without evidence.

You mean like how you haven't been able to produce any evidence of this supposed PBS documentary that showed the fictional concrete core? Oh wait, that's right. The Hypnotoad got to everyone who ever saw, worked on, distributed, or programmed that video!

[Christophera]

Yes Chris, i see the concrete core, too. But beside that - that´s all you have. No juridical evidence at all. So please stop spamming the board, will you? :D

If you are implying that we actually have a nation "under law", you are sadly mistaken.

I have raw evidence, hard evidence, of which you have none.

What is that light colored surface (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/shearspirewall.jpg) behind the interior box columns?

Oh, logically, after viewing from 90 degrees to the left (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg) we can see that the light colored surface behind the interior box columns is a concrete wall which happens to be holding up the spire.

[mortimer]

Criticize my critical thinking huh?

Who was it, Peabody I think, who said that my explanation for the backwards fall sequence lacked logic. He never did back that up and I called him on it several times.


Uh no, Chris. You never responded after you were suspended. You were asked to discuss the "wrong order" but you completely ignored it. On purpose, I assume.

How many others have you convinced of this mystical concrete core?

[Oliver]

If you are implying that we actually have a nation "under law", you are sadly mistaken.

I have raw evidence, hard evidence, of which you have none.

What is that light colored surface (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/shearspirewall.jpg) behind the interior box columns?

Oh, logically, after viewing from 90 degrees to the left (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg) we can see that the light colored surface behind the interior box columns is a concrete wall which happens to be holding up the spire.

Okay, so why do you destroy my nerves if you could sue Bush&Co. COWARD? :D

[Muckar-duva]

Excuse my n00bness.

But is this a thread dedicated to an argument about the elevator-riddled "core" of the WTC being an indestructible, concrete, core?

While every paper and book about WTC PRIOR to 9/11 stated the novel structural plan of the building, never once mentioning a "core" in the respect of "steel/concrete"- while the WTC designer ot massive crap for the hasardous design of Corporate tower?

I just don't get the arguments validity.

(any "s"-s that should be "z"s... tell me about them. My English tends to lack some, sometimes.)

[Christophera]

In response to questions about how a worker was able to escape from an jammed elevator by chipping through drywall with a squeegee, I've attached to this post the plan of the 95th floor of WTC-1. It's from the FEMA report, and I've added to it (in blue) where Christophera's concrete core would have been, had it existed.

I see 13 elevators in the drawing: number 50 marked in purple, numbers 89-92 marked in yellow and numbers 93-98 marked in blue. Note that all the elevators are within the core but none of them are adjacent to the (non-existant) concrete wall.

I can draw two conclusions from this:
1. The story of the worker escaping from the elevator by chipping through drywall does not invalidate the idea of a concrete core.

2. Christophera has done no research at all into this issue, otherwise he would not have made the statement:

It appears all the elevators had drywall front and back.

Christophera: Do you have a source for the "second" story of a worker trying to chip through drywall in a stairwell (with a squeegee, no less) and encountering concrete?

No I don't have that source. I wish now I had tracked the snip I saw on a message board that had it over a year ago. I had actully seen it once but was looking for other stuff and forgot to copy it and its url.

Yes, the elevators could have easily had drywall on all sides. However, since that diagram does not show the core it is a pre Yamasaki diagram and the space inthe core was seriosuly reduced by the thickness of the concrete core, meaning there probably was no room for that. I would bet that elevators were even redesigned so they could be closer together.

[Mancman]

What is this if it is not the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)?

A steel core.

You do realise you are nothing more than a comedy act now, Chris?

[Bell]

Criticize my critical thinking huh?

Who was it, Peabody I think, who said that my explanation for the backwards fall sequence lacked logic. He never did back that up and I called him on it several times.

How about you give it a try just to show that you are an expert on "critical thinking" and have the natural authority to criticize mine.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1207667

Prepare yourself, this requires some in depth knowledege of what happened where on that day. The site back all of it with images and logic.

To start with backwards fall, look at this picture of WTC1. See all of the fire at the south side?

3405

[Christophera]

Chris, at what elevation do you need to see core columns during the collapse to convince you?

This image of the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is the 43rd floor I believe. Much lower and their will not be enough contrast to see them, or too much dust, So at that elevation or above would be acceptable.

[Christophera]

To start with backwards fall, look at this picture of WTC1. See all of the fire at the south side?

3405

Visible fire does not equal a loss of suppport in a steel structure. The entry of a 767 jetliner does.

You might want to pass on the critical thinking challenge

[Oliver]

I have raw evidence, hard evidence, of which you have none.

Sue Bush! COWARD? http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107451d93669e73a.gif

[Christophera]

No way, no way even the engines are going through 17 feet of re. concrete. I7 feet! Re-enforced? You'd prolly need a MOAB or a nuke! 17 feet of re-enforced concrtete.

And how could you even accpet those animations which show all kinds of airplane parts going through your core? A core BTW which is not even in those animations. Laughable, all of it.:D

I accept the animations because the trajectories and positions of impacts are basically okay.

The core of WTC 1 was 17 feet thick at the base, narrow side, and 2 feet thick at the top. Meaning the engine had to puncture perhaps a 2.5 foot thick core wall. BTW, I've explained this a number of times on this thread.

[qarnos]

Visible fire does not equal a loss of suppport in a steel structure. The entry of a 767 jetliner does.

You might want to pass on the critical thinking challenge

Fire = Heat.
Heat = Loss of strength in steel support columns.

[Bell]

Visible fire does not equal a loss of suppport in a steel structure. The entry of a 767 jetliner does.

You might want to pass on the critical thinking challenge

So heat from fire doesn't weaken steel? No building on fire would collapse unless an airplane crashes into it?

[Christophera]

Sue Bush! COWARD? http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107451d93669e73a.gif

gwb is a puppet. I sue puppeteers if anyone.

What is hilarious is that you actually think this nation has courts of law. So far, I've not seen that in many years of failing lawsuits.

Law has one purpose, to protect life with reason. Our courts here are not measuring up.

[mortimer]

This image of the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is the 43rd floor I believe. Much lower and their will not be enough contrast to see them, or too much dust, So at that elevation or above would be acceptable.

I saw a video that showed just that. Good enough, right?

[Mancman]

Visible fire does not equal a loss of suppport in a steel structure. The entry of a 767 jetliner does.

You might want to pass on the critical thinking challenge

It does when the walls are being pulled inward:
http://uploads.abovetopsecret.com/ats25069_bowing1.JPG

[Oliver]

gwb is a puppet. I sue puppeteers if anyone.

What is hilarious is that you actually think this nation has courts of law. So far, I've not seen that in many years of failing lawsuits.

Law has one purpose, to protect life with reason. Our courts here are not measuring up.

Puppeteers? So what? It would be a good start, wouldn´t it?

[Oliver]

Concrete ... i see concreeeete .... Muhawawawaw http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/111074527eb9578326.gifhttp://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/111074527eb7755fd3.gifhttp://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/111074527eb7757f0b.gif http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/111074527eb7759e48.gif

:mad:

[Christophera]

So heat from fire doesn't weaken steel? No building on fire would collapse unless an airplane crashes into it?

Clearly, what ever the minimal fire might have done, it bears no comparison to this damage. She's alive on the 94th floor. is that where your fire was?

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3406&stc=1&d=1160267765

[Christophera]

Puppeteers? So what? It would be a good start, wouldn´t it?

You find a court that will use evidence and I'll write the complaint.

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

[Oliver]

I have raw evidence, hard evidence, of which you have none.

Sue Bush and the puppeteers! COWARD? http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107451d93669e73a.gif

[Oliver]

You find a court that will use evidence and I'll write the complaint.

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

Give it a try. Send me your hard evidence and i sue them in germany.

[Christophera]

It does when the walls are being pulled inward:
http://uploads.abovetopsecret.com/ats25069_bowing1.JPG

That is simply the fastners on the aluminum facade panels letting go. They were seriously giving up from bimetal corrosion.

Read Tom Scott Gordon.

[Oliver]

So tell me - what on god greens earth is your evidence beside that cool picture?

[Christophera]

That's right, Steel is indestructable. Nothing on earth can bend or break steel. This is coming from a contractor that thinks that elevator rails are made from 32 inch steel columns.

Apparently small words like "or" escape you. Maybe it is their meaning rather than just having 2 letters. Here, let me help with that.

Guide rails "Or" their support structures, "or" freight elevator landing support structures.

[Bell]

Clearly, what ever the minimal fire might have done, it bears no comparison to this damage. She's alive on the 94th floor. is that where your fire was?

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3406&stc=1&d=1160267765

Minimal fire? Are you blind? Or stupid?

Edna Cintron was maybe at that time at the safest position she could be. The initial fires had gone out, and the wind was blowing in her direction, allowing her to stay clear of the smoke and subsequential fires.

Don't ever bring her into the discussion about the magnitude or the heat of the fires again, you are being disrespectful to this victim!

[Oliver]

Are you blind? Or stupid?

Or "and"? :D

[Christophera]

Give it a try. Send me your hard evidence and i sue them in germany.

I would suggest developing a respect for how the pupeteers work first. There is no real connection to gwb and the WTC.

I will say that the Germans have a healthy respect for reasoning so it is fully possible that the first meaningful court actons related to 9-11 could happen there.

[Mancman]

Clearly, what ever the minimal fire might have done, it bears no comparison to this damage. She's alive on the 94th floor. is that where your fire was?

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3406&stc=1&d=1160267765

There was never any fire in that impact hole where she is standing. All of the combustible material in that area would have been bulldozed further into the building by the plane strike.

There were however serious fires all around the impact gash, and on every other face of the tower.

[Oliver]

I would suggest developing a respect for how the pupeteers work first. There is no real connection to gwb and the WTC.

I will say that the Germans have a healthy respect for reasoning so it is fully possible that the first meaningful court actons related to 9-11 could happen there.

They have no international rights to sue another gov but the press here would drive crazy with such a story. :D

Okay - how do the puppeteers work? Tell me.

[Christophera]

Minimal fire? Are you blind? Or stupid?

Edna Cintron was maybe at that time at the safest position she could be. The initial fires had gone out, and the wind was blowing in her direction, allowing her to stay clear of the smoke and subsequential fires.

Don't ever bring her into the discussion about the magnitude or the heat of the fires again, you are being disrespectful to this victim!

What is being disrespectful about stating she was alive?

I recognize what you are saying about the conditions. However, bright red-ornage flames do not generate the kind of heat required to cause structural failures in tempered steel, .......... ever with the configuration of those panels.

Check the critical thinking meter.

[Christophera]

They have no international rights to sue another gov but the press here would drive crazy with such a story. :D

Okay - how do the puppeteers work? Tell me.

INFERENCE ONE

Relating potentials for hypnotic performance to results of research, practice and experiments of hypnosis. Christopher A. Brown 8/17/01

BASIS 1 of INFERENCE

The first sentance of page 175 of EMOTIONS and MEMORY, 1964, by David Rappaport,

"The general tendency" of the subject to forget the events of the trance after emerging from it."

BASIS 2 of INFERENCE

(1) of the same paragraph states that, "The hypnotist can successfully suggest that no posthypnotic amnesia develop".

Basis 2 Restated; Suggestion conducive to remembering is successful or generally, suggestion effecting memory has effect against a general tendancy.

CONDITIONS OF BASIS

The first note page 175, EMOTIONS and MEMORY, Note #8 states (first note below main text) that the results of memory described "in general are valid only with subjects who are able to reach the somanmbulistic stages ofhypnosis."

INFERENCE ONE

Logical inference of BASIS 1 with BASIS 2, is that; suggestion to forget will have a greater effect on memory because of the general "tendency to forget". Research confirms with observations of behavior consistent with general hyperamnesia at the top of page 176, the end of a footnote that begins on page 175 stating;

"we find hypnotized people indignantly denying they have been hypnotized."

INFERENCE ONE

If the tendancy is to forget following hypnosis that induces a trance to the level of somanmbulism and suggection effecting memory is successful then suggestion to forget will be more effective than suggestion to remember.


http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3407&stc=1&d=1160268810

[Oliver]

INFERENCE ONE

Relating potentials for hypnotic performance to results of research, practice and experiments of hypnosis. Christopher A. Brown 8/17/01

BASIS 1 of INFERENCE

The first sentance of page 175 of EMOTIONS and MEMORY, 1964, by David Rappaport,

"The general tendency" of the subject to forget the events of the trance after emerging from it."

BASIS 2 of INFERENCE

(1) of the same paragraph states that, "The hypnotist can successfully suggest that no posthypnotic amnesia develop".

Basis 2 Restated; Suggestion conducive to remembering is successful or generally, suggestion effecting memory has effect against a general tendancy.

CONDITIONS OF BASIS

The first note page 175, EMOTIONS and MEMORY, Note #8 states (first note below main text) that the results of memory described "in general are valid only with subjects who are able to reach the somanmbulistic stages ofhypnosis."

INFERENCE ONE

Logical inference of BASIS 1 with BASIS 2, is that; suggestion to forget will have a greater effect on memory because of the general "tendency to forget". Research confirms with observations of behavior consistent with general hyperamnesia at the top of page 176, the end of a footnote that begins on page 175 stating;

"we find hypnotized people indignantly denying they have been hypnotized."

INFERENCE ONE

If the tendancy is to forget following hypnosis that induces a trance to the level of somanmbulism and suggection effecting memory is successful then suggestion to forget will be more effective than suggestion to remember.

Huh? Hypnosis? These are your hard facts? :boggled:
So what or who is the NWO?

[mortimer]

Oliver, it was the Hypnotoad! Get your facts straight!

[Oliver]

Oliver, it was the Hypnotoad! Get your facts straight!

The hypnotoad is just a patsy in the whoooooole NWO-plot. :D

BTW: What definitions do we have for the term "Troll" concerning christopheras crap?

[Christophera]

There was never any fire in that impact hole where she is standing. All of the combustible material in that area would have been bulldozed further into the building by the plane strike.

There were however serious fires all around the impact gash, and on every other face of the tower.

This I agree with. Meaning that the combustibles were pushed up against the core and the interio box columns burning there and weakening them, causing the tower top to fall to the north.

Oops, it fell to the south. Uhhh, .... critical thinking leads me to think that plane impacts had nothing to do with the towers coming down. Ohhhh and the towers went to the ground at near free fall rates.

Perhaps critical thinkers should start thinking about high explosives optimally placed and distributed considering the uniformity of the explosion seen here (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg),

Uhhh, they would have to sincerely love the United States Of America, its Constitution, the rights and freedoms guaranteed by it (empowering their motives for critical thinking) before trying to think at all.

[Bell]

What is being disrespectful about stating she was alive?

I recognize what you are saying about the conditions. However, bright red-ornage flames do not generate the kind of heat required to cause structural failures in tempered steel, .......... ever with the configuration of those panels.

Check the critical thinking meter.

Clearly, what ever the minimal fire might have done, it bears no comparison to this damage. She's alive on the 94th floor. is that where your fire was?

You're the one who talks about minimal fire. And no, 'my' fire wasn't there, it was on the other side of the building, as shown in the picture I linked to.

Stating that Edna Cintron was alive is not disrespectful. Using that fact to prove the fires where not hot enough to weaken the metal is.

[Christophera]

Huh? Hypnosis? These are your hard facts? :boggled:
So what or who is the NWO?

Ancient facts to boot. The dumbing down started around 75 AD and got all the way to Germany within a 100 years or so.

Now, obviously not even Germans know anything about it. But, ..... the book, "Emotions and Memory" of 1964 compiles earlier research and the inference is completely valid.


http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3407&stc=1&d=1160268810

[Oliver]

You're the one who talks about minimal fire. And no, 'my' fire wasn't there, it was on the other side of the building, as shown in the picture I linked to.

Stating that Edna Cintron was alive is not disrespectful. Using that fact to prove the fires where not hot enough to weaken the metal is.

Pssst, hey Bell: He allready said that he has hard facts. So let´s nail him on that one... ;)

I have raw evidence, hard evidence, of which you have none.

[mortimer]

Christopher,

Critical thinkers would have to find physical evidence of high explosives before concluding they were used. Where's your physical evidence of high explosives?

Simply saying that high explosives are the only way to explain how it happened is not evidence.

[Christophera]

You're the one who talks about minimal fire. And no, 'my' fire wasn't there, it was on the other side of the building, as shown in the picture I linked to.

Stating that Edna Cintron was alive is not disrespectful. Using that fact to prove the fires where not hot enough to weaken the metal is.

Certainly not equal to the disrespect her memory and murder hinge upon to using red-orange flames within "critical thinking" as compared to a gaping hole in the opposite side of the tower.

[Oliver]

Lisa? Would you mind if i kill him before you ban him? :D

[Christophera]

Christopher,

Critical thinkers would have to find physical evidence of high explosives before concluding they were used. Where's your physical evidence of high explosives?

Simply saying that high explosives are the only way to explain how it happened is not evidence.

I did not "simply say". You missed the image.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3409&stc=1&d=1160269701

[Oliver]

I have raw evidence, hard evidence, of which you have none.

What´s your hard evidence?

[Christophera]

What´s your hard evidence?

The raw evidence of the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) has been very HARD for you to explain. In fact, no one had ever reasonably, logically explained what it is if it is not concrete.

[Oliver]

Could you explain it to a court?

[mortimer]

I did not "simply say". You missed the image.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3409&stc=1&d=1160269701

That image does not hold ANY physical evidence of high explosives. The building simply collapsing could cause what you are seeing. Gnomes could have gnawed through your concrete core to begin the collapse.

[Oliver]

That image does not hold ANY physical evidence of high explosives. The building simply collapsing could cause what you are seeing. Gnomes could have gnawed through your concrete core to begin the collapse.

Pssst, hey Mortimer: He allready said that he has hard facts. So let´s nail him on that one... ;)

I have raw evidence, hard evidence, of which you have none.

[Christophera]

Bell is having a very hard time with the first and most fundamental aspect of the logic asserted here,

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1207667

which defines exactly why the first tower hit, burnt worst fell last. A totally illogical sequence for collapse considering conditions and events.

I want the viewer to note that he has not even approached the "backwards sequence" question and is totally stumbling on the "tower top" direction fall issue.

The critical thinking club would question his motives about now.

[Oliver]

@Lisa: "Let's just let this one fade away." ?

[tsig]

The raw evidence of the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) has been very HARD for you to explain. In fact, no one had ever reasonably, logically explained what it is if it is not concrete.

You do seem to like it raw and hard.

[Oliver]

You do seem to like it raw and hard.

Pssst, hey DHR: He allready said that he has hard facts. So let´s nail him on that one... ;)

I have raw evidence, hard evidence, of which you have none.

[tsig]

Bell is having a very hard time with the first and most fundamental aspect of the logic asserted here,

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1207667



"backwards sequence" question and is totally stumbling on the "tower top" direction fall issue.



raw and hard and backwards.

[Brainache]

Has anyone seen a realistice explanation for Chris's monomania on this concrete core business?

The only one I can see is total insanity.

Just a few posts above he says that his concrete core would have stopped the plane from causing the collapse from happening in the way that it did. He then uses this as proof that the core is real. Most rational people would conclude that the core simply was not there in the first place.

If the core is real, then it must have been rigged to explode. If it was rigged to explode, then everyone connected with the concrete must have been hypnotised to forget about it. How this mass hypnosis was achieved is never explained.

If everyone who denies the concrete was hypnotised, then hypnotists have worked their mesmerism on almost everyone in the whole world except Chris.

These hypnotists have been active for several millennia and have still not managed to control the world, despite being able to sneak into every house on the planet to plant false memories in the minds of several billion people.

So I say to Chris again: You are being delusional and I think you should seek help from someone you trust. Don't believe me if you don't want to, but please think of your kids and at least consider that they would be better off with a dad who spent more time caring for them than the WTC's concrete core.

Cheers.

[uruk]

Consider that my statement of "or" frieght elevator landing support and guide rail supports covers the issue.

Seeing as you still have not come up with ONE image of the supposed 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns at elevation from the demo images, your issue is tiny.

What is this if it is not the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)?

The elevators used a suspended cable system, including any "frieght elevators. Anyhoo, there would be only a few frieght elevators in comparison to all the passenger elevators. all those columns in the picture could not possibly justify them being used for frieght elevators.
Here is a picture of the elevator cable wench:
http://web.mit.edu/activities/safe/wtc/wtc069_1024x768.jpg

Take alook at pictures from this site:
http://www.mit.edu/activities/safe/wtc/wtc-photos.htm
They contain picture of the core in question from different angles. Where is the concrete wall?

Your simply making things up as you go along. your backed into a corner trying to gab at very flimsy threads.

[tsig]

Pssst, hey DHR: He allready said that he has hard facts. So let´s nail him on that one... ;)

Thanks for the reply,

The only facts he has is his vision, if he can't see it then it dosen't exist.

Chris would not acnowledge gravity as he fell off a cliff.

Why this bothers me so I do not know.

[Oliver]

The elevators used a suspended cable system, including any "frieght elevators. Anyhoo, there would be only a few frieght elevators in comparison to all the passenger elevators. all those columns in the picture could not possibly justify them being used for frieght elevators.
Here is a picture of the elevator cable wench:

Take alook at pictures from this site:

They contain picture of the core in question from different angles. Where is the concrete wall?

Your simply making things up as you go along. your backed into a corner trying to gab at very flimsy threads.

Pssst, hey Uruk: He already said that he has hard facts for his theory. So let´s nail him on that one... ;)

I have raw evidence, hard evidence, of which you have none.

(click little blue arrow to view his comment)

[uruk]

Here's a few more.
Oh and where are the center columns? What holding up the floors?

Where's the concrete?

[Oliver]

Lisa? http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107452129a890f55.gif

[twinstead]

Chris. Where is your core? You are wong, and have been wrong since day one. Show that you are not totally crazy and admit it.

[Christophera]

Here's a few more.
Oh and where are the center columns? What holding up the floors?

Where's the concrete?

You might want to rephrase that first question.

[Oliver]

Chris. Where is your core? You are wong, and have been wrong since day one. Show that you are not totally crazy and admit it.

Pssst, hey Twinstead: He already said that he has hard facts beside the pictures for his theory. So let´s nail him on that one... ;)

I have raw evidence, hard evidence, of which you have none.

(click little blue arrow to view his comment)

[uruk]

Has anyone seen a realistice explanation for Chris's monomania on this concrete core business?

The only one I can see is total insanity.

Just a few posts above he says that his concrete core would have stopped the plane from causing the collapse from happening in the way that it did. He then uses this as proof that the core is real. Most rational people would conclude that the core simply was not there in the first place.

If the core is real, then it must have been rigged to explode. If it was rigged to explode, then everyone connected with the concrete must have been hypnotised to forget about it. How this mass hypnosis was achieved is never explained.

If everyone who denies the concrete was hypnotised, then hypnotists have worked their mesmerism on almost everyone in the whole world except Chris.

These hypnotists have been active for several millennia and have still not managed to control the world, despite being able to sneak into every house on the planet to plant false memories in the minds of several billion people.

So I say to Chris again: You are being delusional and I think you should seek help from someone you trust. Don't believe me if you don't want to, but please think of your kids and at least consider that they would be better off with a dad who spent more time caring for them than the WTC's concrete core.

Cheers.

This sounds alot like a common delusion amoung schizophrenics. I had a friend who claimed the his parents had the FBI implant a radio transmitter in his head so that his parents could hear his thoughts. He was of course schitzophrenic. It's a small step to a global hypmotist

[Oliver]

@ADMINS:



Rule4: You will not post "copyright-protected1" material in its entirety, including "hotlinking2" to images or other media.

Rule5: You will not post anything that demonstrates a clear and present danger to the welfare of another person, or otherwise tends to create alarm or apprehension that the welfare of any person is in imminent jeopardy.

Rule6: You will not "spam" or "flood" the Forum.

[Christophera]

Chris. Where is your core? You are wong, and have been wrong since day one. Show that you are not totally crazy and admit it.

The reverse true. Since you have no evidence, logically it is time for you to admit that you have been wrong since day one.

The core of the top of tower 2 falls on WTC 3 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.gif)

[uruk]

You might want to rephrase that first question.

So your ignoring all those other pictures in favor of your one, single picture?

Your being completely irrational.

All the pictures I posted from that site shows no concrete walls whatsoever.

Your in complete denial.

Oh, and where's and what is this "hard" evidence?

[uruk]

You might want to rephrase that first question.

Show me the wall using the pictures I posted from that site?

[Oliver]

The reverse true. Since you have no evidence, logically it is time for you to admit that you have been wrong since day one.

The core of the top of tower 2 falls on WTC 3 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.gif)



Rule4: You will not post "copyright-protected1" material in its entirety, including "hotlinking2" to images or other media.



:boggled:

[Christophera]

Has anyone seen a realistice explanation for Chris's monomania on this concrete core business?

The only one I can see is total insanity.

Just a few posts above he says that his concrete core would have stopped the plane from causing the collapse from happening in the way that it did. He then uses this as proof that the core is real. Most rational people would conclude that the core simply was not there in the first place.


It seems you are misrepresenting my statements. Can you quote me to prove I've said this?

Even if you think I have, you have made an error.

[Oliver]

Even if you think I have, you have made an error.

Rule5: You will not post anything that demonstrates a clear and present danger to the welfare of another person, or otherwise tends to create alarm or apprehension that the welfare of any person is in imminent jeopardy.

:confused:

[Christophera]

Show me the wall using the pictures I posted from that site?

Your question does not seem understandable. Get to that first.

[Oliver]

Your question does not seem understandable. Get to that first.

Rule6: You will not "spam" or "flood" the Forum.

:mad:

[twinstead]

Chris. the pictures presented to you show NO trace of a concrete core.

And yet, you have the NERVE to suggest we are wrong.

Give it up. Give it up. Give it UP dude. You have NOTHING.

[uruk]

Your question does not seem understandable. Get to that first.

So now your claiming ignorance.
Ok let me reword it more simply. Show....me...where...the ...concrete...wall...is....in...the...pictures...I ...posted.

Where is the concrete wall?

The pictures I posted are of the same thing in the picture you keep posting but from different angles. You know the one with the 17 foot wall?
Where is the 17 foot wall?

Oh, yea. What is the "hard" evidence that you have?
All you seem to have is a bunch of pictures and a web site where you've written what you THINK happened. You have no evidence backing up what you wrote.

WHERE IS THIS "HARD" EVIDENCE?

[Oliver]

gwb is a puppet. I sue puppeteers if anyone.

What is hilarious is that you actually think this nation has courts of law. So far, I've not seen that in many years of failing lawsuits.

Law has one purpose, to protect life with reason. Our courts here are not measuring up.

Rule2: You will not post anything that is considered indecent, pornographic,
obscene, or contains excessive reference to violence.

He says the gov and/or the "above" leadership killed 3000 people.

[Brainache]

This I agree with. Meaning that the combustibles were pushed up against the core and the interio box columns burning there and weakening them, causing the tower top to fall to the north.

Here you say that the debris of the plane etc would have been pushed up against the core, but if there was no concrete core, those combustibles would have ended up on the far side of the building (and they did).


Oops, it fell to the south. Uhhh, .... critical thinking leads me to think that plane impacts had nothing to do with the towers coming down.

Here you say this proves that the raging fires on the far side of the building didn't affect the stuctural integrity of the tower.


Ohhhh and the towers went to the ground at near free fall rates.


Here you ignore the fact that rate at which the towers collapsed is perfectly consistent with the mechanism described in the official report.

[twinstead]

Here you ignore the fact that rate at which the towers collapsed is perfectly consistent with the mechanism described in the official report.

Here he ignores EVERY picture presented to him that doesn't show a concrete core.

Chris. What happened to your idiotic core in the pictures presented to you recently in this thread?

I would feel sorry for you, and would be more polite, if you you gave us even just a little respect and didn't imply we were idiots. We are NOT idiots and can see and judge evidence every bit as well, or better it appears, as YOU can.

[Oliver]

Clearly, what ever the minimal fire might have done, it bears no comparison to this damage. She's alive on the 94th floor. is that where your fire was?

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3406&stc=1&d=1160267765

Multitudes of pictures and diagrams? Mountain of data?

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

Here is hard evidence. No room for deception.

http://concretecore.741.com



[RULE4] You will not post "copyright-protected1" material in its entirety, including "hotlinking2" to images or other media.



Copyright violation over and over again.
Even to (own?) sites that live from copyright-violation
to "proof" the murder of 3000 people by the government.

Still without proof or any attempt to listen to the facts.

[Christophera]

Here he ignores EVERY picture presented to him that doesn't show a concrete core.

Chris. What happened to your idiotic core in the pictures presented to you recently in this thread?

I would feel sorry for you, and would be more polite, if you you gave us even just a little respect and didn't imply we were idiots. We are NOT idiots and can see and judge evidence every bit as well, or better it appears, as YOU can.

The only real difference between the images you posted and mine is that mine has better light on the core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) and some of the objects covering it have been removed.

I do not ignore the images. I've seen them all long before I came here. I think Gravy posted one that I hadn't seen and I asked him for the source but he wouldn't provide it because the image actually supported my side of this issue.

Actually, I have a decent amount of respect for the opposition here. You are seem more intelligent than the hard core opposition that was at LC. I do not regard you as idiots although at times my responses may indicate that. Homer makes some bad mistakes now and then but he hits himself on the head all day long so it is understandable.

Notice that when sincere efforts to use evidence are presented my posts are free of rancor. Bell has made a sincere effort to do what Peabody said he was going to do and I appreciate that. I didn't post that red text message to demean him and his efforts, I did it to bring attention to the fact that he was actually trying hard to challenge and couldn't even get a reasonable start on it.

Realize that your task, despite the hoards of eager deniers, is impossible. The towers did have a concrete core and I did see the 1990 documentary and the images do show concrete. And, ........ that is the only reason your virtual army of deniers cannot make a dent in what I assert.

[Oliver]

The only real difference between the images you posted and mine is that mine has better light on the core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) and some of the objects covering it have been removed.

Clearly, what ever the minimal fire might have done, it bears no comparison to this damage. She's alive on the 94th floor. is that where your fire was?

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3406&stc=1&d=1160267765

Multitudes of pictures and diagrams? Mountain of data?

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

Here is hard evidence. No room for deception.

http://concretecore.741.com



[RULE4] You will not post "copyright-protected1" material in its entirety, including "hotlinking2" to images or other media.



Copyright violation over and over again.
Even to (own?) sites that live from copyright-violation
to "proof" the murder of 3000 people by the government.

Still without proof or any attempt to listen to the facts.

I´m not kidding, Chris. I´m getting really angry because of you. And i tried it in a peaceful way.

Don´t reply. Thank you.

[Christophera]

Here you say that the debris of the plane etc would have been pushed up against the core, but if there was no concrete core, those combustibles would have ended up on the far side of the building (and they did).

Here you say this proves that the raging fires on the far side of the building didn't affect the stuctural integrity of the tower.

Here you ignore the fact that rate at which the towers collapsed is perfectly consistent with the mechanism described in the official report.

The debris of the plane and offices would not go to the other side of the building, the fuel in the plane would and would actually burn better spread out over the carpets furniture etc. The right engine of flight 11 went through the core and fuel folowed it I believe.

Correct. The fires on the south side were inadequate in heat and duration to cause any failure of heavy steel structure whatsoever.

The official story is LUDICRIOUS as an explanation for the below.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3419&stc=1&d=1160277226

[twinstead]

T
The official story is LUDICRIOUS as an explanation for the below.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3419&stc=1&d=1160277226

you are wrong. Your link is WRONG. Deal with it.

Jesus Chris just deal with the fact that you are wrong. OMG it is so obvious to any sane person...oh...never mind. I forgot you are insane.

[Christophera]

He says the gov and/or the "above" leadership killed 3000 people.

Actually I assert that the infiltrators of the US government set 9-11 up. The US government is forbidden by law to do anything like that. So if people in government do that, they are no longer government. They are renegade usurping authority, certainly not "leadership".

If there are infiltrators should we expose them?

[Oliver]

The only real difference between the images you posted and mine is that mine has better light on the core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) and some of the objects covering it have been removed.

Clearly, what ever the minimal fire might have done, it bears no comparison to this damage. She's alive on the 94th floor. is that where your fire was?

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3406&stc=1&d=1160267765

Multitudes of pictures and diagrams? Mountain of data?

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

Here is hard evidence. No room for deception.

http://concretecore.741.com

Actually I assert that the infiltrators of the US government set 9-11 up. The US government is forbidden by law to do anything like that. So if people in government do that, they are no longer government. They are renegade usurping authority, certainly not "leadership".

If there are infiltrators should we expose them?



[RULE4] You will not post "copyright-protected1" material in its entirety, including "hotlinking2" to images or other media.



Copyright violation over and over again.
Even to (own?) sites that live from copyright-violation
to "proof" the murder of 3000 people by the government.

Still without proof or any attempt to listen to the facts.

I´m not kidding, Chris. I´m getting really angry because of you. And i tried it in a peaceful way.

Don´t reply. Thank you.

[Christophera]

you are wrong. Your link is WRONG. Deal with it.

Jesus Chris just deal with the fact that you are wrong. OMG it is so obvious to any sane person...oh...never mind. I forgot you are insane.

I don't think a discussion of sanity is pertinent here. My link works fine and shows a tower undergoing a high speed series of detonations of high explosives. Anybody having experience with high explosives and being honest will immediately confirm that.

This is not meant to be an affront to you or anyone, but is there any possibility that you could have been one of the 150,000 Americans infuenced within MKultra?

Is there any US intelligence members in your family?

Are you near a military base?

Attended military schools?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA
http://peyote.com/jonstef/mkultra.htm
http://www.ra-info.org/library/programming/mkultra.shtml
http://www.hiddenmysteries.com/freebook/mk/

[Oliver]

The only real difference between the images you posted and mine is that mine has better light on the core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) and some of the objects covering it have been removed.

Clearly, what ever the minimal fire might have done, it bears no comparison to this damage. She's alive on the 94th floor. is that where your fire was?

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3406&stc=1&d=1160267765

Multitudes of pictures and diagrams? Mountain of data?

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

Here is hard evidence. No room for deception.

http://concretecore.741.com

Actually I assert that the infiltrators of the US government set 9-11 up. The US government is forbidden by law to do anything like that. So if people in government do that, they are no longer government. They are renegade usurping authority, certainly not "leadership".

If there are infiltrators should we expose them?



[RULE4] You will not post "copyright-protected1" material in its entirety, including "hotlinking2" to images or other media.



Copyright violation over and over again.
Even to (own?) sites that live from copyright-violation
to "proof" the murder of 3000 people by the government.

Still without proof or any attempt to listen to the facts.

I´m not kidding, Chris. I´m getting really angry because of you. And i tried it in a peaceful way.

Don´t reply. Thank you.

[uruk]

The only real difference between the images you posted and mine is that mine has better light on the core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) and some of the objects covering it have been removed.
You in complete, absolute denial. I know its not easy to be proven wrong time and time again, especially considering all the time and effort you put into this thing. But you have to face reality Chris. You are dead wrong. All the evidence is against you.


Realize that your task, despite the hoards of eager deniers, is impossible. The towers did have a concrete core and I did see the 1990 documentary and the images do show concrete. And, ........ that is the only reason your virtual army of deniers cannot make a dent in what I assert.
So your whole proof and evidence is based on a 16 year old documentary that can't even remember what the name is or what company produced it, or what station you saw it on. Where is this documentary? Where can we find it? Untill you can provide this information; you got nothing. Because all the pictures you have shown us show no concrete wall whatsoever.

[Christophera]

If the core is real, then it must have been rigged to explode. If it was rigged to explode, then everyone connected with the concrete must have been hypnotised to forget about it. How this mass hypnosis was achieved is never explained.

If everyone who denies the concrete was hypnotised, then hypnotists have worked their mesmerism on almost everyone in the whole world except Chris.


I think my last post provides a reasonable explanation how the mass hypnosis was achieved. There is no denying that MKultra existed as a covert program.

We have nver known what the objective was. Perhaps, after 122 pages of this thread we are getting a clue.

[Oliver]

@URUK: Please don´t reply until an Admin says something about it. Thank you very much. :)


The only real difference between the images you posted and mine is that mine has better light on the core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) and some of the objects covering it have been removed.

Clearly, what ever the minimal fire might have done, it bears no comparison to this damage. She's alive on the 94th floor. is that where your fire was?

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3406&stc=1&d=1160267765

Multitudes of pictures and diagrams? Mountain of data?

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

Here is hard evidence. No room for deception.

http://concretecore.741.com

Actually I assert that the infiltrators of the US government set 9-11 up. The US government is forbidden by law to do anything like that. So if people in government do that, they are no longer government. They are renegade usurping authority, certainly not "leadership".

If there are infiltrators should we expose them?



[RULE4] You will not post "copyright-protected1" material in its entirety, including "hotlinking2" to images or other media.



Copyright violation over and over again.
Even to (own?) sites that live from copyright-violation
to "proof" the murder of 3000 people by the government.

Still without proof or any attempt to listen to the facts.

I´m not kidding, Chris. I´m getting really angry because of you. And i tried it in a peaceful way.

Don´t reply. Thank you.

[Christophera]

So your whole proof and evidence is based on a 16 year old documentary that can't even remember what the name is or what company produced it, or what station you saw it on. Where is this documentary? Where can we find it? Untill you can provide this information; you got nothing. Because all the pictures you have shown us show no concrete wall whatsoever.

Hit yourself on the head again homer.

I've posted its title and its producer numerous times in this thread.

TITLE: "The Construction Of The Twin Towers."

PRODUCER: PBS

VIEWED ON CHANNEL: 10, KCET

Here is an end view of the concrete shear wall. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg)

[Oliver]

@URUK: Please don´t reply until an Admin says something about it. Thank you very much. :)


The only real difference between the images you posted and mine is that mine has better light on the core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) and some of the objects covering it have been removed.

Clearly, what ever the minimal fire might have done, it bears no comparison to this damage. She's alive on the 94th floor. is that where your fire was?

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3406&stc=1&d=1160267765

Multitudes of pictures and diagrams? Mountain of data?

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

Here is hard evidence. No room for deception.

http://concretecore.741.com

Actually I assert that the infiltrators of the US government set 9-11 up. The US government is forbidden by law to do anything like that. So if people in government do that, they are no longer government. They are renegade usurping authority, certainly not "leadership".

If there are infiltrators should we expose them?



[RULE4] You will not post "copyright-protected1" material in its entirety, including "hotlinking2" to images or other media.



Copyright violation over and over again.
Even to (own?) sites that live from copyright-violation
to "proof" the murder of 3000 people by the government.

Still without proof or any attempt to listen to the facts.

I´m not kidding, Chris. I´m getting really angry because of you. And i tried it in a peaceful way.

Don´t reply. Thank you.

[Loss Leader]

IThis is not meant to be an affront to you or anyone, but is there any possibility that you could have been one of the 150,000 Americans infuenced within MKultra?

Holy lord, MK ULTRA! Are you serious? MK ULTRA was a complete failure. Everything they tried utterly misfired. LSD was so unpredictable that it was dropped. Sensory deprivation turned people temporarily and uselessly psychotic. The other drugs didn't do anything. None of it allowed the implantation of false memory. It didn't generally allow the extraction of information. The whole thing was as worthless as 3" rebar on 4' centers.

[uruk]

Oliver. I appologise for making this post. I will cease posting here henceforth until after Lisa or a mod has respond But I feel this cuts to the heart of Christophera's proof as mentioned in the previouse post.

I owe an appology to Chris. I believe that I have found the documentary that he is talking about. I believe this is the very documentary from which he's says his irrefutable proof comes from.

The documentary is called "Building the World Trade Center" it is produced by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in 1983. It contains original footage of the construction of the Twn Towers. and was shown on PBS via KCET

Chris, is this the documentary that you saw?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/sf_building.html

The documentary is there in its entirety if anyone wants to watch it

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/sf_building_pop_01_qry.html


If it is, your in trouble. I watched it and the only mention of a concrete wall is of the retaining wall used in the sub-basement level to hold back the water in the bay (this was also called the "bath tub"). The film also shows construction workers pouring cement onto the floor structure. It makes no mention, nor does it show a concrete core. It also clearly shows the core box columns both in aerial vews as well as floor level views as the workers were working on the floor. (It also shows that your steel worker friend would have noticed a concrete core)

Be sure to read the linked essay.

I will not post in this thread again untill a mod responds to Olivers request.

[Oliver]

Oliver. I appologise for making this post. I will cease posting here henceforth until after Lisa or a mod has respond But I feel this cuts to the heart of Christophera's proof as mentioned in the previouse post.

I owe an appology to Chris. I believe that I have found the documentary that he is talking about. I believe this is the very documentary from which he's says his irrefutable proof comes from.

The documentary is called "Building the World Trade Center" it is produced by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in 1983. It contains original footage of the construction of the Twn Towers.

Chris, is this the documentary that you saw?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/sf_building.html

The documentary is there in its entirety if anyone wants to watch it

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/sf_building_pop_01_qry.html


If it is, your in trouble. I watched it and the only mention of a concrete wall is of the retaining wall used in the sub-basement level to hold back the water in the bay (this was also called the "bath tub". The film also shows construction workers puring cement onto the floor structure. It makes no mention, nor does it show a concrete core. It also clearly shows the core box columns both in aerial vews as well as floor level views as the workers were working on the floor. (It also shows that your steel worker friend would have noticed a concrete core)

Be sure to read the linked essay.

I will not post in this thread again untill a mod responds to Olivers request.

Hello Uruk. :) I also saw the documentary "Building the World Trade Center" at GoogleVideo but it proofs nothing about a concrete core. I´m getting sick of hearing Chris´s dissuade from real facts. In my opinion he is just fooling us because he doesn´t care about the discussion besides what he believes. ;) ...and he still has no proof (ETA) of the "gov-murderer" after 120 sides.... :boggled:

[Christophera]

Oliver. I appologise for making this post. I will cease posting here henceforth until after Lisa or a mod has respond But I feel this cuts to the heart of Christophera's proof as mentioned in the previouse post.

I owe an appology to Chris. I believe that I have found the documentary that he is talking about. I believe this is the very documentary from which he's says his irrefutable proof comes from.

The documentary is called "Building the World Trade Center" it is produced by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in 1983. It contains original footage of the construction of the Twn Towers. and was shown on PBS via KCET

Chris, is this the documentary that you saw?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/sf_building.html

The documentary is there in its entirety if anyone wants to watch it

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/sf_building_pop_01_qry.html


If it is, your in trouble. I watched it and the only mention of a concrete wall is of the retaining wall used in the sub-basement level to hold back the water in the bay (this was also called the "bath tub"). The film also shows construction workers pouring cement onto the floor structure. It makes no mention, nor does it show a concrete core. It also clearly shows the core box columns both in aerial vews as well as floor level views as the workers were working on the floor. (It also shows that your steel worker friend would have noticed a concrete core)

Be sure to read the linked essay.

I will not post in this thread again untill a mod responds to Olivers request.

No, that is not the documentary I saw. That documentary was mentioned in the one I saw which was 2 hours in length. The 18 minute film was referred to in the beginning as a "Celebratory Documentary" relating to the completion of the WTC.

The documentary I viewed spoke of itself as the final documentation to the public of the towers and their particularly high cost, justifying that cost. It was done on a grant and started in 1987 taking three years to produce. The videographers first took every single photo and 16mm film clip and copied them all to VHS tape then logged the tape.
Copies went out with researchers who made appointments and visited contractors, designers and engineers as well as an occasional retired employees to resolve questions associated with the images they had.
The original camera people had not always recorded the date and floor level where things were shot. Sometimes a reel of film had nothing whatsoever written on it, so it was like a giant puzzle in time.

The first 20 minutes gave all that as the history of the documentary then it went into the construction of the pit, the slurry wall drilling and construction. The drilling of the bedrock where foundation reinforcements were set in the rock.
Then the foundation of the core and perimeter walls. At about this time the videographers actually imparted a sense of mystery having to do with the core. Basically the entire documentary was about the core from then on out.

The videographers eventually found the big slow down in the construction to be the butt welds in the 3 inch high tensile steel rebar which arrived in 40 foot long sticks and had to be 100% welded, x-rayed, and recoated with the "special anti corrosion, vibration" plastic coating. The videographers in talking with concrete contractors found out about forced evacuations of the concrete crews pouring floors just prior to running the steel after the corrugated panels were sandblasted. They actually had video of the crews jogging between floors after the PA and the contractor got over the conflict the unplanned or announced stoppage of work was discovered by the contractor who threatened to sue because the stoppages over a few days had cost him about $7k in wages for workers who were sitting around waiting while the PA did some mysterious thing the videographers never did figure out.

I remember the video of the workers jogging showed the PA security guys standing in the adjoining hallway next to a stack of 5 gallon buckets waiting for the workers to clear the floor.

I believe that clips of the video were sold to other video producers who made newer, sorter versions of the same construction documentary. I've met people who have seen these other productions. They were 1 hour it seems and there may have been as many as 3 of them.

the "core box columns" you refer to are not inside the core. They surround the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) When none of the demo images show the supposed 47 steel core columns, it is a done deal because those columns, if they existed, would be of the strongest elements in the towers and would be seen.

[Oliver]

Could someone in here quote my "admin-post" to stop Cris? I spend the whole night to do so. :boggled:

Cheers,
Oliver :)

[Christophera]

Holy lord, MK ULTRA! Are you serious? MK ULTRA was a complete failure. Everything they tried utterly misfired. LSD was so unpredictable that it was dropped. Sensory deprivation turned people temporarily and uselessly psychotic. The other drugs didn't do anything. None of it allowed the implantation of false memory. It didn't generally allow the extraction of information. The whole thing was as worthless as 3" rebar on 4' centers (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg).

If you read the links, you would realize that very little is known about MKultra and that the CIA destroyed mass documents in 1972.

More importantly is the creation of memory barriers. If you can make a memory barrier, you can put false information in it and the person won't know it.

My post about "Inference One" and the valid research of psychology i use to support it are solid stuff. So solid that I've asked a few Ph.d.s of psychology about the inference and they agreed it was a valid inference. I asked them to give me a declaraton of such and they refused. FEAR.

The information explaining near free fall and total pulverization is valid as well.

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

[David Wong]

EDIT: This is re: the documentary christophera described two posts back.

This is terrifying, the way the human mind can construct something like that purely from imagination.

From a psychological perspective, how does that work? You need this piece of evidence to exist and so the mind just cobbles it together? Maybe he actually saw some documentary and his memory has just twisted and augmented it beyond recognition, all to fit this theory he's latched onto?

Is that possible? I didn't think it was until now, because I think christophera really does "remember" seeing this, despite 100% of the evidence being to the contrary.

Fascinating. And scary.

[Christophera]

Uh no, Chris. You never responded after you were suspended. You were asked to discuss the "wrong order" but you completely ignored it. On purpose, I assume.

How many others have you convinced of this mystical concrete core?

Not quite totally wrong.

I forgot it after the suspension but then remembered and asked Peabody to continue but he ignored it. I've brought it up a couple of times since, to him even. No show.

[Oliver]

If you read the links, you would realize that very little is known about MKultra and that the CIA destroyed mass documents in 1972.

More importantly is the creation of memory barriers. If you can make a memory barrier, you can put false information in it and the person won't know it.

My post about "Inference One" and the valid research of psychology i use to support it are solid stuff. So solid that I've asked a few Ph.d.s of psychology about the inference and they agreed it was a valid inference. I asked them to give me a declaraton of such and they refused. FEAR.

The information explaining near free fall and total pulverization is valid as well.

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

The only real difference between the images you posted and mine is that mine has better light on the core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) and some of the objects covering it have been removed.

Clearly, what ever the minimal fire might have done, it bears no comparison to this damage. She's alive on the 94th floor. is that where your fire was?

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3406&stc=1&d=1160267765

Multitudes of pictures and diagrams? Mountain of data?

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

Here is hard evidence. No room for deception.

http://concretecore.741.com

Actually I assert that the infiltrators of the US government set 9-11 up. The US government is forbidden by law to do anything like that. So if people in government do that, they are no longer government. They are renegade usurping authority, certainly not "leadership".

If there are infiltrators should we expose them?



[RULE4] You will not post "copyright-protected1" material in its entirety, including "hotlinking2" to images or other media.



Copyright violation over and over again.
Even to (own?) sites that live from copyright-violation
to "proof" the murder of 3000 people by the government.

Still without proof or any attempt to listen to the facts.

I´m not kidding, Chris. I´m getting really angry because of you. And i tried it in a peaceful way.

Don´t reply. Thank you.

[Z]

In Southern California, KCET was channel 28, from at least 1968.

Another lie, courtesy of Christophera - also the only person on earth who has ever seen or heard of this alleged video.

NEWSFLASH: Made contact with an avid TV Guide collector from Los Angeles. He has issues of TV Guide from 1984 to present for most of California (why? who the hell knows???) and is going to search the PBS listings for this alleged documentary. We should know in a week or two whether the documentary ever aired... :D

[uruk]

No, that is not the documentary I saw. That documentary was mentioned in the one I saw which was 2 hours in length. The 18 minute film was referred to in the beginning as a "Celebratory Documentary" relating to the completion of the WTC.

The documentary I viewed spoke of itself as the final documentation to the public of the towers and their particularly high cost, justifying that cost. It was done on a grant and started in 1987 taking three years to produce. The videographers first took every single photo and 16mm film clip and copied them all to VHS tape then logged the tape.
Copies went out with researchers who made appointments and visited contractors, designers and engineers as well as an occasional retired employees to resolve questions associated with the images they had.
The original camera people had not always recorded the date and floor level where things were shot. Sometimes a reel of film had nothing whatsoever written on it, so it was like a giant puzzle in time.

The first 20 minutes gave all that as the history of the documentary then it went into the construction of the pit, the slurry wall drilling and construction. The drilling of the bedrock where foundation reinforcements were set in the rock.
Then the foundation of the core and perimeter walls. At about this time the videographers actually imparted a sense of mystery having to do with the core. Basically the entire documentary was about the core from then on out.

The videographers eventually found the big slow down in the construction to be the butt welds in the 3 inch high tensile steel rebar which arrived in 40 foot long sticks and had to be 100% welded, x-rayed, and recoated with the "special anti corrosion, vibration" plastic coating. The videographers in talking with concrete contractors found out about forced evacuations of the concrete crews pouring floors just prior to running the steel after the corrugated panels were sandblasted. They actually had video of the crews jogging between floors after the PA and the contractor got over the conflict the unplanned or announced stoppage of work was discovered by the contractor who threatened to sue because the stoppages over a few days had cost him about $7k in wages for workers who were sitting around waiting while the PA did some mysterious thing the videographers never did figure out.

I remember the video of the workers jogging showed the PA security guys standing in the adjoining hallway next to a stack of 5 gallon buckets waiting for the workers to clear the floor.

I believe that clips of the video were sold to other video producers who made newer, sorter versions of the same construction documentary. I've met people who have seen these other productions. They were 1 hour it seems and there may have been as many as 3 of them.

the "core box columns" you refer to are not inside the core. They surround the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) When none of the demo images show the supposed 47 steel core columns, it is a done deal because those columns, if they existed, would be of the strongest elements in the towers and would be seen.

Wait. I thought you said that you saw this documentary on PBS. Why does PBS have no mention of your particular documentary? If you say that the documentary was produced by KCET, why do they not have any mention of it? Why does the port authority documentary specificaly state and show steel core coulmns, Why does it never mention or show a cement core. Something big like a concrete core would be clearly visible in any video.
You are clearly lieing.
Show me this documentary. Show me where to find it. heck even show me any site or document which mentions this documentary I cannot locate any mention of it anywhere. Otherwise You got nothing. I will not consider believeing anything you say untill I SEE PROOF OF THE EXISTANCE OF THIS DOCUMENTARY.

[Christophera]

Wait. I thought you said that you saw this documentary on PBS. Why does PBS have no mention of your particular documentary? If you say that the documentary was produced by KCET, why do they not have any mention of it? Why does the port authority documentary specificaly state and show steel core coulmns, Why does it never mention or show a cement core. Something big like a concrete core would be clearly visible in any video.
You are clearly lieing.
Show me this documentary. Show me where to find it. heck even show me any site or document which mentions this documentary I cannot locate any mention of it anywhere. Otherwise You got nothing. I will not consider believeing anything you say untill I SEE PROOF OF THE EXISTANCE OF THIS DOCUMENTARY.

My very ability to use the images as consistently as I use them is PROOF of something. How could I possibly identify these things if I didn't know? Obviously, by your very own doubt that they are not easy to interpret. But I do it and no one can reasonably deny that what they show is what I say they show. Sure, ............ deny all you want, but, ......... you ain't reasonable.

When I saw WTC 1 demoed on 9-11 I KNEW the documentary was gone. But I did't know why for a year. There is NO WAY the perps would allow that DOC to be available.

If you want to see it, be reasonable and realize that this image of the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) has never been reasonably explained as anything but concrete. Support that FEMA may have lied, make it an issue. When the public hears that the design of the towers may be an issue of deception, they will remember and SOMEONE made a copy. We WILL see the documentary.

[uruk]

My very ability to use the images as consistently as I use them is PROOF of something. How could I possibly identify these things if I didn't know? Obviously, by your very own doubt that they are not easy to interpret. But I do it and no one can reasonably deny that what they show is what I say they show. Sure, ............ deny all you want, but, ......... you ain't reasonable.

When I saw WTC 1 demoed on 9-11 I KNEW the documentary was gone. But I did't know why for a year. There is NO WAY the perps would allow that DOC to be available.

If you want to see it, be reasonable and realize that this image of the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) has never been reasonably explained as anything but concrete. Support that FEMA may have lied, make it an issue. When the public hears that the design of the towers may be an issue of deception, they will remember and SOMEONE made a copy. We WILL see the documentary.

Right. I knew you would come up this exact sort of excuse. You just confirmed to me that you are a liar. Your whole theory is based on a lie.

[LashL]

Wait. I thought you said that you saw this documentary on PBS. Why does PBS have no mention of your particular documentary? If you say that the documentary was produced by KCET, why do they not have any mention of it? Why does the port authority documentary specificaly state and show steel core coulmns, Why does it never mention or show a cement core. Something big like a concrete core would be clearly visible in any video.
You are clearly lieing.
Show me this documentary. Show me where to find it. heck even show me any site or document which mentions this documentary I cannot locate any mention of it anywhere. Otherwise You got nothing. I will not consider believeing anything you say untill I SEE PROOF OF THE EXISTANCE OF THIS DOCUMENTARY.

Chris has never seen the non-existent documentary that he's been yammering on about for the past three years on various forums; it's something that exists only in his imagination.

There has never been a "concrete core" in either of the twin towers, despite his delusional assertions to the contrary. The evidence of the steel core construction is irrefutable.

It's unfortunate that they didn't have concrete cores, which they clearly didn't, because if they had been concrete instead of steel, the buildings would have survived the impacts and fire damage a whole lot longer than they did, people would have had greater windows of opportunity to escape, and a lot fewer people would have died.

[jhunter1163]

.No, that is not the documentary I saw. That documentary was mentioned in the one I saw which was 2 hours in length. <snip>

The first 20 minutes gave all that as the history of the documentary then it went into the construction of the pit, the slurry wall drilling and construction. The drilling of the bedrock where foundation reinforcements were set in the rock.
Then the foundation of the core and perimeter walls. At about this time the videographers actually imparted a sense of mystery having to do with the core. Basically the entire documentary was about the core from then on out.

<snip>



An hour and 40 minutes on the concrete core? That must have made for some gripping TV.

[Brainache]

I think my last post provides a reasonable explanation how the mass hypnosis was achieved. There is no denying that MKultra existed as a covert program.

We have nver known what the objective was. Perhaps, after 122 pages of this thread we are getting a clue.

As this is my 666th post I feel I should devote it to your devilish hypnotists.
I have to say you are seriously over estimating the man power and resources of the CIA if you think they hypnotised billions of people.

Why did they do it? So that one day in 2001 people all over the world would not be able to see concrete or remember a PBS documentary.

But it goes further than that, doesn't it Chris? The CIA is being run by the same sect of mystical Circassian Druids who built Stone Henge. These strange secret priests steal into kiddies rooms at night and hypnotise them into believing lies about the WTC before it has even been built.

The 123 pages of this thread have gotten us exactly nowhere. They have taken us on a merry-go-round ride through the bizarre landscape of your delusions. I once again implore you to hop off the brightly painted horse of your fantastic imaginings and grasp the brass ring of reality.

Only you can make it happen, but everyone will applaud you for it. There is no shame in admitting a mistake. There is however a great price to pay for clinging to lies and delusions. That price is usually paid by the people closest to you.

Please give it up and get some help.

[Ducky]

Copyright violation over and over again.
Even to (own?) sites that live from copyright-violation
to "proof" the murder of 3000 people by the government.

Still without proof or any attempt to listen to the facts.

I´m not kidding, Chris. I´m getting really angry because of you. And i tried it in a peaceful way.

Don´t reply. Thank you.

Ok Oliver, I agree that he shows no proof, and is without any ability to grasp simple concepts, but I don't see where he is hotlinking. I see links to sites, and I see imaged uploaded onto the JREF imagehost, but I don't see where the image is shown here through a hotlinked img tag.

Am I missing something? Was there an edit?

[Bell]

Certainly not equal to the disrespect her memory and murder hinge upon to using red-orange flames within "critical thinking" as compared to a gaping hole in the opposite side of the tower.

Strawman, I never mentioned Edna Cintron when I showed that picture, so how is that disrespectful to her?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1981961&postcount=4791

Again, what do you think those huge fires did to the steel beams? I'll repeat a previous question, answer this time instead of dodging and showing pictures.

So heat from fire doesn't weaken steel? No building on fire would collapse unless an airplane crashes into it?

[Bell]

Bell is having a very hard time with the first and most fundamental aspect of the logic asserted here,

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1207667

which defines exactly why the first tower hit, burnt worst fell last. A totally illogical sequence for collapse considering conditions and events.

A plane hit the tower, causing a big hole in the outside, and exploded. Huge fires raged across multiple floors. The steel beams on the outside weakend and failed to carry the load of the section of the tower above it. The tower collapsed.

I want the viewer to note that he has not even approached the "backwards sequence" question and is totally stumbling on the "tower top" direction fall issue.

The critical thinking club would question his motives about now.

I didn't stumble over that issue, strawman. I showed you a picture (because you seem to like pictures) of major fires on several floors and on the south side of WTC1. What do you think happens to steal beams when exposed to these fires?

My only motives the critical thinking club would be questioning would be why the hell I'm still argueing with you.

[Oliver]

Ok Oliver, I agree that he shows no proof, and is without any ability to grasp simple concepts, but I don't see where he is hotlinking. I see links to sites, and I see imaged uploaded onto the JREF imagehost, but I don't see where the image is shown here through a hotlinked img tag.

Am I missing something? Was there an edit?

Yes you miss something - hotlinking is not my point: ;)

I´m not kidding, Chris. I´m getting really angry because of you. And i tried it in a peaceful way.

[Regnad Kcin]

Oh, now you add lying to your repertoire...Just popping in and saw the above.

Mr. Brown has been repeatedly lying throughout the thread; it is hardly a novel occurrence. That he does so in the face of clear and verifiable fact is further testimony of the astounding depths of his irrationality.

[Regnad Kcin]

Criticize my critical thinking huh?

Who was it, Peabody I think, who said that my explanation for the backwards fall sequence lacked logic. He never did back that up and I called him on it several times...And then I find the above.

You lie, liar. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1896768&postcount=3093)

[Christophera]

A plane hit the tower, causing a big hole in the outside, and exploded. Huge fires raged across multiple floors. The steel beams on the outside weakend and failed to carry the load of the section of the tower above it. The tower collapsed.

That is not called "critical thinking", that is called "generalizing" and "minimizing". Cognitive distortions. Exactly the thing that critical thinking exists to counter. Your attempt did not even address the impossibiity of anything but a toppling portion from either damage.

I didn't stumble over that issue, strawman. I showed you a picture (because you seem to like pictures) of major fires on several floors and on the south side of WTC1. What do you think happens to steal beams when exposed to these fires?

My only motives the critical thinking club would be questioning would be why the hell I'm still argueing with you.

You have again generalized the issue of heat and steel. NOTHING happens to steel columns when exposed to red orange flames for an hour or two. NOTHING. It's all in you head, just where the perps want it.

It was an impressive picture, and .... if it were a wooben tower it would be very meaningful. Red orange flames are relatively cool. If the perimeter columns were set horizontal at an optimum height over such flames for a week, they still would not loose significant strength.

Have you ever used a cutting torch to heat and bend steel? A rosebud tip? Ever tried to build a forge? Bend a horshoe in a fire by resting it in coals?

If you had you would know. Carbon fires and object relation have to absolutely optimized to have any significant effect on steel.

There is no doubt that the top of the building would have fell to the north IF it were going to fall from damage of the event.

The towers were demolished by optimally place and distributed high explosives in a high speed series of delays.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3423&stc=1&d=1160326368

[Christophera]

As this is my 666th post I feel I should devote it to your devilish hypnotists.
I have to say you are seriously over estimating the man power and resources of the CIA if you think they hypnotised billions of people.

Why did they do it? So that one day in 2001 people all over the world would not be able to see concrete or remember a PBS documentary.

But it goes further than that, doesn't it Chris? The CIA is being run by the same sect of mystical Circassian Druids who built Stone Henge. These strange secret priests steal into kiddies rooms at night and hypnotise them into believing lies about the WTC before it has even been built.

The 123 pages of this thread have gotten us exactly nowhere. They have taken us on a merry-go-round ride through the bizarre landscape of your delusions. I once again implore you to hop off the brightly painted horse of your fantastic imaginings and grasp the brass ring of reality.

Only you can make it happen, but everyone will applaud you for it. There is no shame in admitting a mistake. There is however a great price to pay for clinging to lies and delusions. That price is usually paid by the people closest to you.

Please give it up and get some help.

It is known that MKultra unfuenced 150,000 Americans, at least. You have conducted a distortions

You will love this link.

http://www.wovoca.com/controversies-black-arts-black-sciences.htm

The "Black Budget" then started to be used for the "Black Arts" and became known as the" Black Sciences." The earliest projects actually started prior to World War I while the more popular ones started around World War II. The U.S. Army was in charge of making the "A-bomb" in the "Manhattan Project" and the U.S. Navy was in charge of making stealth equipment and invisibility in the "Philadelphia Experiment."

After the war, the scientists of both projects were joined with Nazi scientists from Germany and NASA and the National Security Agency were formed. Previous experiments like Babylon Working and the Montauk Project –started using Nazi occultists and scientists to communicate with and materialize inter-dimensional beings. They,also, started working on inter-dimensional time travel and eugenics/cloning.

NOTE: I do not believe there was any success in time travel. However, I'm sure they are still spending your tax dollar on it in some way.

[Christophera]

An hour and 40 minutes on the concrete core? That must have made for some gripping TV.

Not nearly as thrilling as 123 pages of "Realistic Explanations for (near) Free Fall." that can be found here.

The hour and 40 minutes was broken up by commentary on other aspects, but the core was the big slowdown.

At the 42nd floor the crane platform had to be completely disassembled and lowerd to the ground and a much smaller cranes set up to assist with steel constrcution while the 43rd floor was formed by hand for cast concrete all the way out to the perimeter walls.

The 43rd was all concrete with heavy steel cast into floors and cieling. It was the major mechanical floor for the entire tower.

[Regnad Kcin]

Uh no, Chris. You never responded after you were suspended. You were asked to discuss the "wrong order" but you completely ignored it. On purpose, I assume.

How many others have you convinced of this mystical concrete core?Not quite totally wrong.

I forgot it after the suspension but then remembered and asked Peabody to continue but he ignored it. I've brought it up a couple of times since, to him even. No show.Liar. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1896768&postcount=3093)

[Christophera]

Though I had bid you adieu with my last post, I'll address your towers-fell-in-the-wrong-order inaccuracy. I suspect it'll be for naught, but what the hey.

First, I was attempting to walk you through the simple deductive process when I initially engaged you on the matter. But your general unresponsiveness proved continually taxing. Then, when you returned after your suspension (not "ban," as you lied on the physorg forum), you continued your difficult manner.

Actually the admin forgot to "unsuspend" me for some weeks. Therefore i had no reason to think I was anything but banned.

But let's get to it.

The 110-story WTC 1 was struck first by a Boeing 767 at approx. 490 mph. The floors damaged were between 93 and 99. This left 11 undamaged stories above. The tower fell 102 minutes after impact.

The 110-story WTC 2 was subsequently struck by a Boeing 767 at approx. 590 mph. The floors damaged were between 77 and 85. This left 25 undamaged stories above. The tower fell 56 minutes after impact.

Please don't tell me I have to explain this any further.

Yes, it definitely requires more explanation. Start with the tops of the towers falling the wrong way.

[Oliver]

Actually the admin forgot to "unsuspend" me for some weeks. Therefore i had no reason to think I was anything but banned.



Yes, it definitely requires more explanation. Start with the tops of the towers falling the wrong way.

Yes, the "controlled" explosions should have blown the tops of the towers to planet mars.:boggled:

ETA: AT LEAST!

[uruk]

Chris, your credibility is nonexistant here after all the bold faced lies you been comitting.

All your theories have been shown to be without merit or supporting evidence. You are too dellusioal or dishonest to admit it.
ou can continue to repeat your pictures and links to your web site, but they are meaningless. Everybody here knows it so move along, or continue to recieve an intellectual beating.

[Spektator]

Chris, your credibility is nonexistant here after all the bold faced lies you been comitting.

(snip).

Bold faced and bald faced. That's why I put him on "ignore" a long way back.

[Bell]

That is not called "critical thinking", that is called "generalizing" and "minimizing". Cognitive distortions. Exactly the thing that critical thinking exists to counter. Your attempt did not even address the impossibiity of anything but a toppling portion from either damage.



You have again generalized the issue of heat and steel. NOTHING happens to steel columns when exposed to red orange flames for an hour or two. NOTHING. It's all in you head, just where the perps want it.

It was an impressive picture, and .... if it were a wooben tower it would be very meaningful. Red orange flames are relatively cool. If the perimeter columns were set horizontal at an optimum height over such flames for a week, they still would not loose significant strength.

Have you ever used a cutting torch to heat and bend steel? A rosebud tip? Ever tried to build a forge? Bend a horshoe in a fire by resting it in coals?

If you had you would know. Carbon fires and object relation have to absolutely optimized to have any significant effect on steel.

There is no doubt that the top of the building would have fell to the north IF it were going to fall from damage of the event.

The towers were demolished by optimally place and distributed high explosives in a high speed series of delays.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3423&stc=1&d=1160326368

You accuse me of cognitive distortions? You, who sees concrete cores in grainy pictures and in non-excisting PBS documentaries? You, who says the planes hit the wrong towers, and that is why the tops of the towers fell to the wrong side? You, who claims the concrete core was packed with C4 that blew up the tower but not the concrete core?

ROTFLMAO!!

[chipmunk stew]

Clearly, what ever the minimal fire might have done, it bears no comparison to this damage. She's alive on the 94th floor. is that where your fire was?

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3406&stc=1&d=1160267765
Do NOT bring Edna Cintron into this, you creepy ghoul.

The fire was above and below her:

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

[Christophera]

You accuse me of cognitive distortions? You, who sees concrete cores in grainy pictures and in non-excisting PBS documentaries?

I don't think you know what a cognitive distortion is. Allow me to go through your post and point them out.

Below is an instance of "labeling".

You, who sees concrete cores in grainy pictures

10. Labeling: Instead of understanding errors, over generalization is applied.

Below is an instance of "minimizing".

and in non-excisting PBS documentaries?

4. Minimizing: Perceiving one or opposite experiences (positive or negative) as absolute and maintaining singularity of belief to one or the other.

You, who says the planes hit the wrong towers, and that is why the tops of the towers fell to the wrong side? You, who claims the concrete core was packed with C4 that blew up the tower but not the concrete core?

ROTFLMAO!!

The above are simple errors that together comprise a "minimizing" of my information.

Yes the planes hit the wrong towers, but that is not why the tops fell the wrong way. The tops fell the right way according to the placement of explosives, the wrong way according to the collapse theory/lie.

How you can say this,

C4 that blew up the tower but not the concrete core? is not really understandable because the concrete is gone in the GZ pictures,

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

[Bell]

I don't think you know what a cognitive distortion is. Allow me to go through your post and point them out.

Below is an instance of "labeling".

You, who sees concrete cores in grainy pictures

10. Labeling: Instead of understanding errors, over generalization is applied.

You're the one making an error claiming that this (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is a concrete core, and fail to recognize this error.

Below is an instance of "minimizing".

and in non-excisting PBS documentaries?

4. Minimizing: Perceiving one or opposite experiences (positive or negative) as absolute and maintaining singularity of belief to one or the other.

You claim you saw this documentary, but jet have failed top proof that PBS aired it. Why are you maintaining that you did see it?

The above are simple errors that together comprise a "minimizing" of my information.

Yes the planes hit the wrong towers, but that is not why the tops fell the wrong way. The tops fell the right way according to the placement of explosives, the wrong way according to the collapse theory/lie.

How you can say this,

C4 that blew up the tower but not the concrete core? is not really understandable because the concrete is gone in the GZ pictures,

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

I can say this, because you keep on saying concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

[Christophera]

You're the one making an error claiming that this (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is a concrete core, and fail to recognize this error.


When you cannot explain what it is if it is not concrete, your assertion is totally without basis.

That you say it is not concrete, by default sayd there were stel core columns as FEMA states but you have nvere produced any image from the demo of the supposed steel columns.

the concrete core is well documented by raw images of the demolition.

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

That I can produce image after image showing what can only be concrete and you can produce none of steel columns inside the core makes your claim a joke,

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3424&stc=1&d=1160338739

[Christophera]

Chris, your credibility is nonexistant here after all the bold faced lies you been comitting.

All your theories have been shown to be without merit or supporting evidence. You are too dellusioal or dishonest to admit it.
ou can continue to repeat your pictures and links to your web site, but they are meaningless. Everybody here knows it so move along, or continue to recieve an intellectual beating.

Just becausethe extensive proof of the concrete core found at,

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

is meaningless to those who fearfully believe lies doesn't mean that you, hitting youself on the head repeatedly, gives me an "intellectual beating."

Sow us your intellectual capacity.

If the below image is not the top of tower 2 and its core falling onto WTC 3, what is it.

The core of the top of tower 2 falls on WTC 3 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.gif)

[Bell]

When you cannot explain what it is if it is not concrete, your assertion is totally without basis.

That you say it is not concrete, by default sayd there were stel core columns as FEMA states but you have nvere produced any image from the demo of the supposed steel columns.

the concrete core is well documented by raw images of the demolition.

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

That I can produce image after image showing what can only be concrete and you can produce none of steel columns inside the core makes your claim a joke,

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3424&stc=1&d=1160338739

You say that the concrete core was packed with C4 and blew up the towers, but obviuos it did not blew up the concrete core. So the concrete core exploded but it did not explode?

Kind of like Schrodinger's cat, bot alive and death, allthough only one state can be true.

[twinstead]

If the below image is not the top of tower 2 and its core falling onto WTC 3, what is it.


It appears that you think that unless somebody comes up with an explanation of what your inconclusive picture is, if it isn't a concrete core, your theory wins by default. That makes you are as stupid as you are crazy.

ETA: And that's a LOT

[bonavada]

You say that the concrete core was packed with C4 and blew up the towers, but obviuos it did not blew up the concrete core. So the concrete core exploded but it did not explode?
Kind of like Schrodinger's cat, bot alive and death, allthough only one state can be true.

kinda like i've also been thinking while perusing this incredible thread.

Christophera on the elusive PBS documentary:-
The videographers eventually found the big slow down in the construction to be the butt welds in the 3 inch high tensile steel rebar which arrived in 40 foot long sticks and had to be 100% welded, x-rayed, and recoated with the "special anti corrosion, vibration" plastic coating.

presumably he is alluding here to his pet theory that C4 or some other nasty substance is really what those workers were slapping on willy-nilly in readiness for a covert operation in 30+ YEARS time.....didn't do a very good job those blokes though they huh? seeing he has presented ample "evidence" that the exploded "concrete" core stood while the rest of the building COLLAPSED AROUND IT.

all sort of puts it to bed as far as i'm concerned.

10 marks out of 10 for persistence chris but zero for content.

BV
Swansea Wales UK

[Bell]

kinda like i've also been thinking while perusing this incredible thread.



presumably he is alluding here to his pet theory that C4 or some other nasty substance is really what those workers were slapping on willy-nilly in readiness for a covert operation in 30+ YEARS time.....didn't do a very good job those blokes though they huh? seeing he has presented ample "evidence" that the exploded "concrete" core stood while the rest of the building COLLAPSED AROUND IT.

all sort of puts it to bed as far as i'm concerned.

10 marks out of 10 for persistence chris but zero for content.

BV
Swansea Wales UK

Welcome to the forums, Bonavada. I wonder why the heck I'm still argueing with Christopher. No one and nothing can make him see that he is completely, 100% wrong. But hey, you give a shot at it, okay? ;)

[Dazed]

Are you trying to say the interior box columns were made of concrete?

[Bell]

Are you trying to say the interior box columns were made of concrete?

No, Christopher is saying the whole core was made of concrete! :eek:

[Dazed]

3425

Please indicate which of this steel is concrete.

[Bell]

3425

Please indicate which of this steel is concrete.

Oh please, for goodness sake. Don't get him going again! ;)

[twinstead]

Oh please, for goodness sake. Don't get him going again! ;)

Yup. Here we go again...

[bonavada]

3425
Please indicate which of this steel is concrete.

you've obviously missed your last hypnolobotomy appointment..shame on you.

(flicks switch)...take that unbeliever!

BV

[bonavada]

Welcome to the forums, Bonavada. I wonder why the heck I'm still argueing with Christopher. No one and nothing can make him see that he is completely, 100% wrong. But hey, you give a shot at it, okay? ;)

thanks for the welcome Bell.......
i'm also wondering about my motives for traipsing this endless path as well. must be a masochistic streak in me somewhere.

BV

[uruk]

Just becausethe extensive proof of the concrete core found at,

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

is meaningless to those who fearfully believe lies doesn't mean that you, hitting youself on the head repeatedly, gives me an "intellectual beating."

Sow us your intellectual capacity.

If the below image is not the top of tower 2 and its core falling onto WTC 3, what is it.

The core of the top of tower 2 falls on WTC 3 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.gif)

Your in complete denial. Your completely predictable, You keep running in circles in complete denial of what your pictures show. Give up. Your never going to convince us of what is not there. You have nothing. This whole thread has gone beyond the rational into desprate mania.

[Bell]

Your in complete denial. Your completely predictable, You keep running in circles in complete denial of what your pictures show. Give up. Your never going to convince us of what is not there. You have nothing. This whole thread has gone beyond the rational into desprate mania.

I ones saw this movie called Murder on Denail, with Peter Ustinov. It was a good movie about a murder onboard a ship, on Denail.

[bonavada]

I ones saw this movie called Murder on Denail, with Peter Ustinov. It was a good movie about a murder onboard a ship, on Denail.

you just hit denail on dehead :-}

BV

[Bell]

you just hit denail on dehead :-}

BV

:p

A must hive swatched the I ind the A on my keyboird.

[uruk]

Did I misspell denial? Damn it Jim! I'm an computer maintenance instructor not an english teacher!

[Bell]

Did I misspell denial? Damn it Jim! I'm an computer maintenance instructor not an english teacher!

Did you? Or did I? :confused:

I thought I did...

[bonavada]

:p

A must hive swatched the I ind the A on my keyboird.

IIIIIH! at's spreidang! must be some kand of blick irts varus!

Bonividi.........

[uruk]

No, it's mass hypnotizim.

[Blue Mountain]

No I don't have that source. I wish now I had tracked the snip I saw on a message board that had it over a year ago. I had actully seen it once but was looking for other stuff and forgot to copy it and its url.

Yes, the elevators could have easily had drywall on all sides. However, since that diagram does not show the core it is a pre Yamasaki diagram and the space inthe core was seriosuly reduced by the thickness of the concrete core, meaning there probably was no room for that. I would bet that elevators were even redesigned so they could be closer together.
Please define "pre Yamasaki". I'm not sure what you're referring to.

BTW, that diagram is from the FEMA report, and it shows what the 96th floor of WTC 1 looked like on September 11, 2001!

[Blue Mountain]

EDIT: This is re: the documentary christophera described two posts back.

This is terrifying, the way the human mind can construct something like that purely from imagination.

From a psychological perspective, how does that work? You need this piece of evidence to exist and so the mind just cobbles it together? Maybe he actually saw some documentary and his memory has just twisted and augmented it beyond recognition, all to fit this theory he's latched onto?

Is that possible? I didn't think it was until now, because I think christophera really does "remember" seeing this, despite 100% of the evidence being to the contrary.

Fascinating. And scary.
There is good evidence memory is constructive in nature. It's not like a photograph where the brain simply pulls up the image.

The theory that memory is constructive is what helps explain false memory syndrome.

[StoneWT]

Goodness, lock this worthless thread and let it fade away. The kid is a certified liar and/or a nut. Who the fook creates their own website filled with fake evidence to support a theory and cites the website(s) as if it had any validity? Let the clown cry about censorship. Force him to start worthwhile topics or take his material elsewhere.

[stateofgrace]

Chris, here is a documentary for you. It is called “Building the WTCs"

I have watched it,so should you. There is no, repeat no mention whatsoever of concrete cores.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfGc5tM_oa4

[uruk]

Chris, here is a documentary for you. It is called “Building the WTCs"

I have watched, so should you. There is no, repeat no mention whatsoever of concrete cores.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfGc5tM_oa4

I already brought it to his attention. He dissmissed it even though it makes no mention or shows a concrete core. And you can clearly see the center steel columns, and see clear through the core area,...etc

[stateofgrace]

I already brought it to his attention. He dissmissed it even though it makes no mention or shows a concrete core. And you can clearly see the center steel columns, and see clear through the core area,...etc

Figures,I should have known.

Chris,please disregard my post and link.

[twinstead]

Chris,please disregard my post and link.

Oh, I'm sure he already has.

[alexg]

This has no doubt been covered before but I think this picture is proof of no concrete core.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1183545299e080f50d.jpg

I'm no expert in building construction so please correct me if I am missing something but it seems to me that the tower on the left could not have a concrete core of any significance, you can see right through the core section of the building. Let me repeat, you can see right through the building! The only kind of concrete core it could have would be on two sides only, and a very thin one at that. What we see is PERFECTLY consistent with the steel core everyone, save Chris, knows to have existed. I know Chris has some vague explanation for this on his website but I couldn't make much sense of it. Perhaps you could spell it out for me again Chris?

The tower to the right, seemingly further along in construction, clearly has something in the core area which at least appears to be more solid. I'm thinking they may have already hung the drywall to the core in that building.

ETA I know you say on your site Chris that there were holes in the core for hallways and doorways, which there surely would have to be for access, but this picture is far too full of holes. The core would have to be some kind of netting around a thousand openings. As it is the non-transparent areas are clearly what would need to be there for the steel core, elevator shafts etc. or in your model, the box columns and elevator shafts. There's not nearly enough dark area for any core walls.

[alexg]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/118354529a780cbbc8.gif

Here is the core pic from your site for reference. ETA I hope you are not going to claim that that tinyslice of dark in the center of the photograph is the view of the short side of the core because it would not be nearly large enough.

[Christophera]

Please define "pre Yamasaki". I'm not sure what you're referring to.

BTW, that diagram is from the FEMA report, and it shows what the 96th floor of WTC 1 looked like on September 11, 2001!

So much for your knowledge on the WTC towers. Yamasaki was the engineer that designed the actual structure that stood.

http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html

[Christophera]

Chris, here is a documentary for you. It is called “Building the WTCs"

I have watched it,so should you. There is no, repeat no mention whatsoever of concrete cores.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfGc5tM_oa4

I have watched it. There is no, repeat no structural information whatsoever.

What is the matter with raw images?

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

Oh, ........ I guess you don't know anything about construction.

[Christophera]

This has no doubt been covered before but I think this picture is proof of no concrete core.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1183545299e080f50d.jpg

I'm no expert in building construction so please correct me if I am missing something but it seems to me that the tower on the left could not have a concrete core of any significance, you can see right through the core section of the building. Let me repeat, you can see right through the building! The only kind of concrete core it could have would be on two sides only, and a very thin one at that. What we see is PERFECTLY consistent with the steel core everyone, save Chris, knows to have existed. I know Chris has some vague explanation for this on his website but I couldn't make much sense of it. Perhaps you could spell it out for me again Chris?

The tower to the right, seemingly further along in construction, clearly has something in the core area which at least appears to be more solid. I'm thinking they may have already hung the drywall to the core in that building.

ETA I know you say on your site Chris that there were holes in the core for hallways and doorways, which there surely would have to be for access, but this picture is far too full of holes. The core would have to be some kind of netting around a thousand openings. As it is the non-transparent areas are clearly what would need to be there for the steel core, elevator shafts etc. or in your model, the box columns and elevator shafts. There's not nearly enough dark area for any core walls.

WTC 2 had 2 hallways crossing the core in each direction. WTC 1 had 1.

The image you post is explained here as well as more.

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

[Christophera]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/118354529a780cbbc8.gif

Here is the core pic from your site for reference. ETA I hope you are not going to claim that that tinyslice of dark in the center of the photograph is the view of the short side of the core because it would not be nearly large enough.

That is the WTC 1 core with only one hallway per floor. Explained here.

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

[Christophera]

3425

Please indicate which of this steel is concrete.

The concrete is being cast inside the steel framework. Here is the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) with all the steel gone.

[mortimer]

Christopher,

Are you claiming that http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1984077#post1984077 reinforces your claims? I thought you said the hallways alternated each floor. That picture makes it quite clear that they are not alternating each floor. How can you have a solid concrete core when its divided in 3 from top to bottom? That would be three separate cores....

[Christophera]

You say that the concrete core was packed with C4 and blew up the towers, but obviuos it did not blew up the concrete core. So the concrete core exploded but it did not explode?

Kind of like Schrodinger's cat, bot alive and death, allthough only one state can be true.

You are distorting.

The rebar was coated with C4 and the concrete cast around it preserving it and making a containment vessal that is engineered to have just the right amount to get maximum pressures out of the detonation making http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg
Sand and gravel (http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg) and dust.

[mortimer]

[/URL] [URL="http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg"]Sand and gravel (http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg) and dust (and big chunks of concrete which I'll conveniently ignore because it wasn't pulverised as I've claimed).

Corrected inline.

[alexg]

Christopher,

Are you claiming that http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1984077#post1984077 reinforces your claims? I thought you said the hallways alternated each floor. That picture makes it quite clear that they are not alternating each floor. How can you have a solid concrete core when its divided in 3 from top to bottom? That would be three separate cores....
Indeed. And any way you slice it there is no concrete core of any significancance in that photo. It's all air and steel Chris. Give it up man!

[Oliver]

Weblink: "The 'WTC Had a Concrete Core' Hoax"
Source: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread208023/pg1

Reading the quote from the book in blue, it is impossible to see how anyone could draw the conclusion: “Each of the towers, in other words, was held up by its reinforced concrete core and the world's strongest curtain walls.” Nowhere in that excerpt are concrete walls mentioned. This appears to be a common mistake in descriptions of the towers. The tower structure was radically different and unique. People who were not intimately familiar with the details often have made this error. Unfortunately, through the miracle of the internet age, mistakes never go away.

Source:
http://www.salwen.com/wtc/



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. The floors were also concrete.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1540044.stm

[Loss Leader]

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. The floors were also concrete.

Actually, it's been pretty well established that the spray-on concrete was a fiasco. Many steel surfaces were not well coated or coated at all. There were gaps at construction. Over the years, expansion and cntraction of the steel could have caused more deterioration in the concrete. At least one reason was that the spray-on technology just wasn't a very good idea. Also, that part of the construction seems to have been handled by the mafia and they were not as interested in fireproofing as they were in doing a shoddy job and pocketing the money.

[Christophera]

Indeed. And any way you slice it there is no concrete core of any significancance in that photo. It's all air and steel Chris. Give it up man!

You simply do not know what you are looking at.

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

WTC 2 was very carefully designed to have the best access across the core possible. WTC 1 was very hard to rent because it only had one hallway (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corehallsdoors.gif)
per floor across the core.

So, WTC 2 (on left) had a completely redisigned core. The image of the mid day silouette (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/silhouettenoontosouth.jpg) shows 2 hallways. Since the core of WTC 2 ran north south, we view the narrow end, meaning that there was not much wall visible even though you are looking at the first of three full height structural walls (crossing our line of sight) that are heavily connected with floors and a wall down the middle between the 2 hallways we see.

It was termed the supercore. It was actually stronger than the WTC 1 core even though it used more concrete (weight detracts from very tall structures). The configuration utilized a combined shear wall/cell construction that was super rigid. The The sunrise silhouette (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtcsunriseshilouette.jpg) shows no light through it because we are not looking directly down the halls.

So it looks as though there is hardly any core, but that is deceptive because of the 2 hallways in the narrow end.

[Christophera]

The tower to the right, seemingly further along in construction, clearly has something in the core area which at least appears to be more solid. I'm thinking they may have already hung the drywall to the core in that building.


The tower on the right is WTC 1 which had a core oriented east and west with only one hallway through the core. We view the wide side.

[alexg]

You simply do not know what you are looking at.

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

WTC 2 was very carefully designed to have the best access across the core possible. WTC 1 was very hard to rent because it only had one hallway (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corehallsdoors.gif)
per floor across the core.

So, WTC 2 (on left) had a completely redisigned core. The image of the mid day silouette (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/silhouettenoontosouth.jpg) shows 2 hallways. Since the core of WTC 2 ran north south, we view the narrow end, meaning that there was not much wall visible even though you are looking at the first of three full height structural walls (crossing our line of sight) that are heavily connected with floors and a wall down the middle between the 2 hallways we see.

It was termed the supercore. It was actually stronger than the WTC 1 core even though it used more concrete (weight detracts from very tall structures). The configuration utilized a combined shear wall/cell construction that was super rigid. The The sunrise silhouette (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtcsunriseshilouette.jpg) shows no light through it because we are not looking directly down the halls.

So it looks as though there is hardly any core, but that is deceptive because of the 2 hallways in the narrow end.
No way. That's steel and air. You are convincing no one Chris. If that tells you nothing and you insist that you against the world are correct, then ask yourself what use is your theory if it can only live in your mind. I do admire your heroic persistence, sincerly, I do, but find a better outlet for it. A connection with the real world is ultimately vital to one's happiness.

[Blue Mountain]

So much for your knowledge on the WTC towers. Yamasaki was the engineer that designed the actual structure that stood.

http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html
So how could the floor plan presented in the NIST report have been pre-Yamasaki, since he was involved with the design from the very beginning?

Besides, wouldn't it have been Leslie Robertson who either put in or removed a concrete core from the design? He was the structural engineer who put Yamasaki's bold concept into practice. Since you appear to tbe the only person on Earth (certainly on this forum) that believes the towers had such a core, I suspect neither had such a thing in mind during design and construction.

And there's no indication in the NIST report of a concrete core, either:

Those core columns located in rentable and public spaces, closets, and mechanical shafts were enclosed in boxes of gypsum wallboard (and thus were inaccessible for inspection). The amount of gypsum enclosure in contact with the column varied depending on the location of the column within the core. (Page 73)
Indeed, all through the report is the assumption all the core columns were "exposed" and not encased in anything more substantial than gypsum wallboard. Considerable attention is paid to which columns were damaged and even severed by the impact of the aircraft. Such discussion would have been moot had there been a concrete core, and would have concentrated instead on how the aircraft damage would have affected the concrete walls.

In fact, had there been a concrete core, especially one 17' thick :eek:, would it not have served to protect the stairwells and elevators? If that were so, why did everyone above the impact zone in the north tower perish, and only a handful in the south tower escape?

[Bell]

You are distorting.

The rebar was coated with C4 and the concrete cast around it preserving it and making a containment vessal that is engineered to have just the right amount to get maximum pressures out of the detonation making http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg
Sand and gravel (http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg) and dust.

That still doesn't explain that the core exploded but did not explode.

[Christophera]

So how could the floor plan presented in the NIST report have been pre-Yamasaki, since he was involved with the design from the very beginning?

Besides, wouldn't it have been Leslie Robertson who either put in or removed a concrete core from the design?

No. Robertson was not qualified to the degree Yamasaki was with design engineering and basically employed Yamasaki to certify the greater structural/safety value of the entire project in some ways.

Hence the sacrifice in floor space at the ground floor because of the core walls base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) wall thickness. The steel cored tower could not certify past basic calculation and wind tunnel tests of models showed that calc's were correct. Steel flexes too much in those proportions.

The weight of a tower needs to be below the middle for greater stability. Putting the heavy elevator motors and AC machinery on the 43rd was that principle (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif). That floor had structural cast concrete walls and floors out to the perimeter walls holding the shear panels of the walls in dimension, no flex, while mounting all the heavy elevator machinery, in postion in the core. That is the reason that some elevators only went halfway.

I have a partial set of Robertsons plans that show the site and some elevations. No core floor plan.

[Christophera]

That still doesn't explain that the core exploded but did not explode.

Uh, ...... delay system.



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

[uruk]

Your a complete and total liar Chris.
you completely ignore the facts that don't suit you. even on your own website you ignore fact and focus only what you think you see

[Belz...]

I do not think that Olivers image is better than mine, in fact it is worse.

I can understand why: we see a whole lot better in his image, so you can't try to bamboozle us with your lies.

I there were any steel croe columns at an elevation over the ground in demo images, I'm sure you would have posted them.

We have posted them. You have seen them. You have ignored them.

I've said this numerous times. The image showing 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) onlky shows that rebar because the C4 coating on the vertical bar did not detonate.

Then why did the concrete explode there ?

The C4 on the much smaller horizontal bar did detonate as it was fresh when concrete was poured wheras the vertical bar sat through bad weather in the winter and lost it's viability.

Speculation.

Criticize my critical thinking huh?

Oxymoron.

What is that light colored surface behind the interior box columns?

Teflon, obviously.

What is hilarious is that you actually think this nation has courts of law. So far, I've not seen that in many years of failing lawsuits.

Oh! So christophera can't possibly lose, otherwise someone's cheating.

[Hellbound]

I fed my dog last night.

We use one of those self-feeder things, lasts him about a week. Seems to work pretty well...he doesn't over-eat.

[Belz...]

Clearly, what ever the minimal fire might have done, it bears no comparison to this damage. She's alive on the 94th floor. is that where your fire was?

You can clearly see fire damage on your picture. Ergo there was a fire. You can also clearly see in other pictures that the fire moved to other floors in the building.

You find a court that will use evidence and I'll write the complaint

Interesting cop-out.

That is simply the fastners on the aluminum facade panels letting go. They were seriously giving up from bimetal corrosion.

They weren't like this before the 767 hit them.

Check the critical thinking meter.

I get no reading when pointing it at you.

Relating potentials for hypnotic performance to results of research, practice and experiments of hypnosis. Christopher A. Brown 8/17/01

Ah, the typical non-falsifiable claim. I love this.

This I agree with. Meaning that the combustibles were pushed up against the core and the interio box columns burning there and weakening them, causing the tower top to fall to the north.

Oops, it fell to the south. Uhhh, .... critical thinking leads me to think that plane impacts had nothing to do with the towers coming down.

Nope. Trying to apply common sense to an extremely complex event leads you to think that. That's because you have no ability to ignore your own bias. I still get no reading on you.

Ohhhh and the towers went to the ground at near free fall rates.

What's a free-fall rate ? And how much can I save if I switch ?

which defines exactly why the first tower hit, burnt worst fell last. A totally illogical sequence for collapse considering conditions and events.

A: Please show your evidence that it burned worse.
B: Don't you think the conspirators would've demolished the towers in the "proper" order ?

which defines exactly why the first tower hit, burnt worst fell last. A totally illogical sequence for collapse considering conditions and events.

That you don't know when to stop ?

[Belz...]

When I saw WTC 1 demoed on 9-11 I KNEW the documentary was gone.

Telepathy ?

If you want to see it, be reasonable and realize that this image of the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) has never been reasonably explained as anything but concrete. Support that FEMA may have lied, make it an issue. When the public hears that the design of the towers may be an issue of deception, they will remember and SOMEONE made a copy. We WILL see the documentary.

Not if they're ALL hypnotised.

You have again generalized the issue of heat and steel. NOTHING happens to steel columns when exposed to red orange flames for an hour or two. NOTHING.

Nothing ? Wow. You mean, the laws of physics don't apply in that instance ? Amazing!

There is no doubt that the top of the building would have fell to the north IF it were going to fall from damage of the event.

Perhaps you'd care to re-evaluate the distribution of the damage to the north tower.

Yes, it definitely requires more explanation. Start with the tops of the towers falling the wrong way.

The conspirators wanted to tip YOU off ?

When you cannot explain what it is if it is not concrete, your assertion is totally without basis.

That would only be true if your claim that it is concrete was the most logical explanation.

What is the matter with raw images?

They're not raw.

That is the WTC 1 core with only one hallway per floor. Explained here.

It's amazing how you keep using yourself as your own support.

WTC 2 was very carefully designed to have the best access across the core possible. WTC 1 was very hard to rent because it only had one hallway
per floor across the core.

Wow. It really must be fun, making this up as you go.

So, WTC 2 (on left) had a completely redisigned core. The image of the mid day silouette shows 2 hallways. Since the core of WTC 2 ran north south, we view the narrow end, meaning that there was not much wall visible even though you are looking at the first of three full height structural walls

If that were true, the concrete would have no structural strength whatsoever. You can't even keep track of your own lies, can you ?

Uh, ...... delay system.

Uh, no. You can't destroy something AND keep it intact. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Also: why did the evil hypnotisers allow your vaunted documentary to be made in the first place ?

[chipmunk stew]

I fed my dog last night.

We use one of those self-feeder things, lasts him about a week. Seems to work pretty well...he doesn't over-eat.
My dog used to vomit on the carpet every time she drank her water from her bowl.

We bought her a water bottle (essentially an over-sized gerbil feeder) so she can't gulp the water down so fast, and we've been vomit-free ever since.

[mortimer]

Chris,

Care to revise your alternating hallways claim?

[Hellbound]

My dog used to vomit on the carpet every time she drank her water from her bowl.

We bought her a water bottle (essentially an over-sized gerbil feeder) so she can't gulp the water down so fast, and we've been vomit-free ever since.

That's a good idea. We have a self-filling water bowl for him (has a float valve), but I have to clean it every couple days because it gets leaves, dirt, grass, etc in it. A bottle would eliminate that problem.

[Arus808]

Chris, have you attempted to contact those construction companies and the designers of the WTC towers to get their comments?

[Bell]

Uh, ...... delay system.



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

Uh..... no? Why did the rest of the tower collapse around the core, while the core itself was not yet blown?

[bonavada]

Uh..... no? Why did the rest of the tower collapse around the core, while the core itself was not yet blown?


just a thought...
is it possible that that pic (the one chris asserts shows a "17' core") is a picture of the area that those surviving firemen and the crippled lady (NYFD co. ladder 6 and victoria?) were dug out from?

just wondered..

BV
Swansea Wales UK

[Mancman]

just a thought...
is it possible that that pic (the one chris asserts shows a "17' core") is a picture of the area that those surviving firemen and the crippled lady (NYFD co. ladder 6 and victoria?) were dug out from?

just wondered..

BV
Swansea Wales UK

Yes, it is.

[Bell]

just a thought...
is it possible that that pic (the one chris asserts shows a "17' core") is a picture of the area that those surviving firemen and the crippled lady (NYFD co. ladder 6 and victoria?) were dug out from?

just wondered..

BV
Swansea Wales UK

STOP STALKING ME!!!

Anyhow, there's a follow up picture to the one Christophera keeps posting... again and again and again... It shows the 'shadow' (for lack of a better word (and no, Christophere, concrete core is NOT a better word)) conciderably lower than in this picture, like it collapsed. very hard to tell what the hell happened inside the dustcloud. But it has been my thought as well that we see the STEEL COLUMNS core collapsing, indeed where the firefighters and Josephine Harris were found.

[chipmunk stew]

That's a good idea. We have a self-filling water bowl for him (has a float valve), but I have to clean it every couple days because it gets leaves, dirt, grass, etc in it. A bottle would eliminate that problem.
It's really cute how she looks up at us and wags her tail while she's drinking from it, too. Awww....

[Hellbound]

It's really cute how she looks up at us and wags her tail while she's drinking from it, too. Awww....

Where'd you get it? I don't think I've ever seen one before.

[Blue Mountain]

No. Robertson was not qualified to the degree Yamasaki was with design engineering and basically employed Yamasaki to certify the greater structural/safety value of the entire project in some ways.
Please provide a reference for this assertion.

Hence the sacrifice in floor space at the ground floor because of the core walls base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) wall thickness. The steel cored tower could not certify past basic calculation and wind tunnel tests of models showed that calc's were correct. Steel flexes too much in those proportions.

The weight of a tower needs to be below the middle for greater stability. Putting the heavy elevator motors and AC machinery on the 43rd was that principle (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif). That floor had structural cast concrete walls and floors out to the perimeter walls holding the shear panels of the walls in dimension, no flex, while mounting all the heavy elevator machinery, in postion in the core. That is the reason that some elevators only went halfway.

I have a partial set of Robertsons plans that show the site and some elevations. No core floor plan.
I'm so ignoring the links to your perposterous algoxy site.

Close, but no carrot. No elevator in the buildings went "only halfway" (JREFers: I'm splitting hairs here.) On what floors were the mechanical equipment REALLY located?

Also, the elevator setup was done the way it was to reduce the total amount of space dedicated to the elevator system, essentially by dividing the building to zones. It had nothing to do with the damping system.

I found this out in less than half an hour of research. How long have you been at this, only to get some very basic facts wrong?

Do you now understand why we don't give any credence to your extraordinary theory when you can't get even the ordinary stuff correct?

[Bell]

Please provide a reference for this assertion.


I'm so ignoring the links to your perposterous algoxy site.

Close, but no carrot. No elevator in the buildings went "only halfway" (JREFers: I'm splitting hairs here.) On what floors were the mechanical equipment REALLY located?

Also, the elevator setup was done the way it was to reduce the total amount of space dedicated to the elevator system, essentially by dividing the building to zones. It had nothing to do with the damping system.

I found this out in less than half an hour of research. How long have you been at this, only to get some very basic facts wrong?

Do you now understand why we don't give any credence to your extraordinary theory when you can't get even the ordinary stuff correct?

There's a difference between the skylobbies (44 & 78) and the mechanical floors (41/42 & 75/76 & 108/109)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_World_Trade_Center_tenants

[Christophera]

Please provide a reference for this assertion.

You didn't know who Yamasaki was. I'm not here to educate you on the business/certificaton relationships.

I'm here to show you pictures of the the towers coming apart/down and point out the existence or non existence of certain structural element.

If yo uhave any concerns for the rights and freedoms of Americans you will cease trying to change the subject.

The image showing the concrete core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) is conclusive when no steel core columns are seen.

I'm so ignoring the links to your perposterous algoxy site.

It is preposterous to atempt to conduct an argument sach as you do with NO EVIDENCE while images showing concrete and no steel (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg)core columns are present.

No elevator in the buildings went "only halfway" (JREFers: I'm splitting hairs here.) On what floors were the mechanical equipment REALLY located?

Once again, I realize that changing the subject is your tactic and the fact that to get to some floors you had to go to the 42nd first and change elevators escapes your capacity to identify the needed mechanical relationships and structural loading into the tower and the elevator systems.

I am here to show you concrete (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)
And prove you cannot show steel. You want to detail elevators because you have NO EVIDENCE of th esteel core columns.

Also, the elevator setup was done the way it was to reduce the total amount of space dedicated to the elevator system, essentially by dividing the building to zones. It had nothing to do with the damping system.

I found this out in less than half an hour of research. How long have you been at this, only to get some very basic facts wrong?

Do you now understand why we don't give any credence to your extraordinary theory when you can't get even the ordinary stuff correct?

I have never mentioned the damping system. Know nothing about it. Stop trying to change the subject and show some images of the supposed steel core column or give up.

[Christophera]

Your a complete and total liar Chris.
you completely ignore the facts that don't suit you. even on your own website you ignore fact and focus only what you think you see

Hit yourself again on the head homer. Look at the top left corner of tower 2 (the one on the right).

It is easy to see we are not looking at one face. The deflection angle is about 20 degrees.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3445&stc=1&d=1160438347

[Christophera]

Telepathy ?


Common sense, a notion wasted here. If it was not, then there would be a common sense explanation for this (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is if it is not concrete.

[Bell]

Hit yourself again on the head homer. Look at the top left corner of tower 2 (the one on the right).

It is easy to see we are not looking at one face. The deflection angle is about 20 degrees.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3445&stc=1&d=1160438347

Uruk was talking about the tower on the left, strawman.

[stateofgrace]

Hit yourself again on the head homer. Look at the top left corner of tower 2 (the one on the right).

It is easy to see we are not looking at one face. The deflection angle is about 20 degrees.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3445&stc=1&d=1160438347

Chris I'm not being funny here but are you actually looking at the same photograph?

Because the ones I am looking at you can see straight through the one on the left, apart from the steel cores that is.

[Arus808]

he is purposefully being obtuse.

if this was at the wrong angle, then i have a bridge in new york to sell you.

[bonavada]

Stop trying to change the subject and show some images of the supposed steel core column or give up.

HERE'S ONE! (image of WTC1 during construction)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748452aecb7d91ee.jpg


curiously, i can see no evidence at all of anything that resembles a "concrete" core in this image. CAN YOU?

BV

[Dog Town]

curiously, i can see no evidence at all of anything that resembles a "concrete" core in this image. CAN YOU?

BV

Your new, it was drum roll... invisicrete(TM)!

[uruk]

It's called selective reasoning. And selective sight.

Chris has been mass hypmotized by ancient druids to only be able to see the tower on the right. He also has no concept of what periodelia is.

He's probably going to say that the two towers were built differently. And his proof is a video for which he cannot prove to exists.

Maybe he was hypmotized into thinking that he watched this video.

An 18 minute film which ballooned out to a 4 hour film about a concrete core.

He also completely ignores the black and white picture of the two towers taken from a angle that was perpendicular to one side of the towers and from a distance that the view is practically orthognal.
He also avoids the fact that there is no alternating areas of light and dark between the floors.

He has backed himself into a corner and he is closing his eyes tightly, clicking his heels twice and repeating "there is a concrete core, there is a concrete core, there's no place like a concrete core."

Give it up Chris
Your done son!

[alexg]

Common sense, a notion wasted here. If it was not, then there would be a common sense explanation for this (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is if it is not concrete.


You think that picture is sufficient to prove concrete? Correct?

Then, sticking with that photo, what is your proof that the thing in the picture is not core enclosed in drywall?

You'll need to stick pretty close to the photo I believe, to avoid circular reasoning.

[Christophera]

Chris,

Care to revise your alternating hallways claim?

Your question is not really complete. WTC 1 has a dark line between bright spots. The nature of these type photos is for adjacent light spots to bleed throughout the dark spaces between them. The sunrise silhouette shows the better than the midday shot to the south at bottom.

The sunrise silhouette (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtcsunriseshilouette.jpg)

mid day silouette (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/silhouettenoontosouth.jpg)

That WTC 1 had 2 halls crossing on the top 10+ floors, that is the only addition I would make.

Again, WTC 2 had 2 halls across the core on each floor. There was only a thick slab, like 18" or something as a floor/cieling between vertically adjacent halls.

Below, from my site RE; WTC 1, Not sure on final details on these matters which is odd because this should be easy information to confirm.
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

"the hallway/door scheme was changed higher up."

Most importantly. The concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is completely consistent with images of the towers demise.

[Dog Town]

One word Chris
Stelazine

The hell with, tardive dyskinesia... the twitching, get some help lad!

[alexg]

By golly, I think he is cracking. The absurdities must be obvious even to him at this point. Chris, you are resourcefull, I'll give you that, bleeding light over dark, eh? But no. It's all too sharp, the details in the steelwork are too clear, to be any bleeding in the B & W shots. You wearing your reading glasses. I'm so nearsighted my nearpoint vision is crazy good.

[Christophera]

You think that picture is sufficient to prove concrete? Correct?

Without providing a link I would have to guess that you mean the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) of WTC 2. By default it must be concrete. Steel support strucutre alone will not appear as is seen.

Then, sticking with that photo, what is your proof that the thing in the picture is not core enclosed in drywall?

Again, you are not linking to a photo so I guess that you refer to the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) WTC 2. Hundreds of thousands of tons of steel and concrete have crashed over that structure. Do you really think that something you can cut trough with a squeegee is going to survive that?

If drywall will not survive that then the drywall will be ripped off to expose the supposed steel core columns. Common sense says drywall will not survive.

You'll need to stick pretty close to the photo I believe, to avoid circular reasoning.

Nothing circular about the reasoning I've provided.

That is a 500 foot tall structure and all the exterior steel is gone. It is the core position. Realistically, ........... done deal. Steel reinforced oncrete can be the only material that will survive and appear as that does. Add to that the end view of the concrete shear wall, double done deal.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3449&stc=1&d=1160444694

[alexg]

I quoted you and the quote linked to the 'box in the cloud' pic.

I admit I don't know what is in the cloud but you want a common sense explanation and I give one - if the core has managed to stand on it's own then then it seems the trussess must have snapped away from it rather easily, else it would have been dragged down with the rest, so yes, the drywall might still be at least partially in tact, enough to give the steel core a solid appearance in a smoke filled cloud.

I do not think you have given sufficient reason to eliminate drywall and thus the picture is not sufficient proof of concrete core.

ETA This thing in the cloud appears to be the lower part of the building, well below the fire and airplane damage, area pristine still until the collapse goes past it in a heartbeat, even more reason to believe drywall may still be attached.

eta your other picture (the spire) is so vague it could be anything, I do not believe you believe you can see what you claim to see, impossible to distinguish between steel core and anything else. You are too smart for that.

[alexg]

Each pic by itself is inconclusive, it's understanding resting on it's place in a pattern, the pattern resting on other pics, which are themselves inconclusive - the whole argument is indeed circular.

eta I believe YOUR confidence rests upon the documentary you cannot produce - I think this colors your perception of the evidence at hand. If you cannot produce the documentary you will never convince anyone.

[bonavada]

Most importantly. The concrete core is completely consistent with images of the towers demise.

much more importantly where is the concrete core in the scenes in this clip?

CONCLUSIVE PROOF THERE WAS NO CORE? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRvimM0AcN4)

(cut from "American Experience: Center of the World"

done and dusted.

BV

[alexg]

much more importantly where is the concrete core in the scenes in this clip?

CONCLUSIVE PROOF THERE WAS NO CORE? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRvimM0AcN4)

(cut from "American Experience: Center of the World"

done and dusted.

BV

If ONLY that video showed the lower elevations, I think Chris has claimed that the concrete stops at a certain floor level, forgotten which. No doubt he will inform us shortly.

[Blue Mountain]

The image showing the concrete core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) is conclusive when no steel core columns are seen.

It is preposterous to atempt to conduct an argument sach as you do with NO EVIDENCE while images showing concrete and no steel (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg)core columns are present.
Again, I'm ignoring the algoxy links. I've seen that picture lots of times and it shows no concrete core. That picture is so grainy it's difficult to determine just what it shows.

Once again, I realize that changing the subject is your tactic and the fact that to get to some floors you had to go to the 42nd first and change elevators escapes your capacity to identify the needed mechanical relationships and structural loading into the tower and the elevator systems.
Christophera, you keep getting the FLOOR NUMBERS wrong when talking about the sky lobby and mechanical floors--even after Bell posted the correct ones here in this thread! If you can't even get that basic information right, how can we trust anything else you say?

I have never mentioned the damping system. Know nothing about it.
Well, one of your earlier posts said:
The weight of a tower needs to be below the middle for greater stability. Putting the heavy elevator motors and AC machinery on the 43rd was that principle. That floor had structural cast concrete walls and floors out to the perimeter walls holding the shear panels of the walls in dimension, no flex, while mounting all the heavy elevator machinery, in postion in the core. That is the reason that some elevators only went halfway. (bolding mine)
The comment about stability implied to me you were concerned about the tower's stability and thus, by extension, the damping system. Since you say you don't know anything about the damping system, I withdraw my suggestion that you believe the elevators and mechanical rooms were put where they were to aid in that.

You did, however, imply that the mechanical rooms were located "halfway up" (see bolding above) to keep their weight in the lower half of the building. But a little research turned up a couple of facts:
1. There were no mechanical rooms on 54, 55, or 56, which would have been "halfway";
2. There were not one but two sets of floors dedicated to mechanical equipment above the halfway mark. So that kinda blows your theory about them needing to be in the lower half of the building to maintain stability.

Stop trying to change the subject and show some images of the supposed steel core column or give up.
The reason I'm "switching topics" is to show that you have such a poor grasp of even basic facts such as of the layout of WTC 1 and 2 that you're nuking any credibility you may have on other stuff. It's like a kid trying to show me he knows advanced topographical geometry when he can't even accurately describe a square vs a rectangle vs a parallelogram.

[Christophera]

I quoted you and the quote linked to the 'box in the cloud' pic.

I admit I don't know what is in the cloud but you want a common sense explanation and I give one - if the core has managed to stand on it's own then then it seems the trussess must have snapped away from it rather easily, else it would have been dragged down with the rest, so yes, the drywall might still be at least partially in tact, enough to give the steel core a solid appearance in a smoke filled cloud.

I do not think you have given sufficient reason to eliminate drywall and thus the picture is not sufficient proof of concrete core.

ETA This thing in the cloud appears to be the lower part of the building, well below the fire and airplane damage, area pristine still until the collapse goes past it in a heartbeat, even more reason to believe drywall may still be attached.

eta your other picture (the spire) is so vague it could be anything, I do not believe you believe you can see what you claim to see, impossible to distinguish between steel core and anything else. You are too smart for that.

I cannot imagine any drywall at all surviving it is very weak and will be torn from its fasteners and broken with far far less than what happened.. Meaning we'd be looking at columns if they existed. We would have to see some protruding. It is completely unreasonable to consider that drywall would not erode.

The notion of drywall surviving at all is just too far from common sense with consideration of the magnitude of what crashed overt he core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

Again the logical analysis consistent with everything seen is that the spire leans on a concrete shear wall. Process of elimination will get you to the same place.

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

Add to that the many descriptions of the core. Here is one.

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

[Christophera]

The reason I'm "switching topics" is to show that you have such a poor grasp of even basic facts such as of the layout of WTC 1 and 2 that you're nuking any credibility you may have on other stuff. It's like a kid trying to show me he knows advanced topographical geometry when he can't even accurately describe a square vs a rectangle vs a parallelogram.

We cannot establish exactly what they layout is. There is no point discussing it. Just like elevators. It is immaterial. Oops, ....... I forget you like that, focus on that, etc.

Fundaments are what matter. I post an image of the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) of WTC 2 which, after reasonable attempts to explain it, can only be explained reasonably as concrete given the natural properties of all building materials pssibly existent in the structure.

[Christophera]

If ONLY that video showed the lower elevations, I think Chris has claimed that the concrete stops at a certain floor level, forgotten which. No doubt he will inform us shortly.

The steel was only allowed to go 7 floors over the top of the concrete before casting more concrete core. I sort of remember one instance where a little more was allowed by specific request to the engineers monitoring the steel erection but the cranes were not working off the crane platform after that. Or if they did it was only holding, positioning rebar, elevator supports and the inner concrete forms inside the core.

Not reaching out over the side of the tower reduces lateral load greatly.

[Blue Mountain]

We cannot establish exactly what they layout is. There is no point discussing it. Just like elevators. It is immaterial. Oops, ....... I forget you like that, focus on that, etc.
While the precise layout of what went where in WTC 1 and 2 may not be material to discussion of the materials that made up the core, the fact that you get the floor allocations wrong when they are well documented casts an unfavourable light on your research abilities.

Fundaments are what matter. I post an image of the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) of WTC 2 which, after reasonable attempts to explain it, can only be explained reasonably as concrete given the natural properties of all building materials pssibly existent in the structure.
Ah, that old canard. There have been many attempts to explain it, but your conviction that it shows a concrete core (which apparently had been blown into powder seconds before) has made you happily immune to the alternatives.

[alexg]

"The notion of drywall surviving at all is just too far from common sense with consideration".

Not IF the core for some reason has let go of the trusses - which, if that be core we see, it would have likely done. The floor would simply have been ripped away from the core structure in a flash. The drywall would have been attached above the concrtete floors. The concrete on concrete pancaking may have whisked it all away in a flash. The common sense alternative still stands.

[Blue Mountain]

The steel was only allowed to go 7 floors over the top of the concrete before casting more concrete core. I sort of remember one instance where a little more was allowed by specific request to the engineers monitoring the steel erection but the cranes were not working off the crane platform after that. Or if they did it was only holding, positioning rebar, elevator supports and the inner concrete forms inside the core.

Not reaching out over the side of the tower reduces lateral load greatly.
Christophera: what was the purpose of pouring the core after the steel went up? That process appears to be rather counter-intuitive ... what would they attach the floors to?

[alexg]

also, where is the explosion? In the 'core in the cloud pic', when does that hunk of core explode with all the c4?