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

[alexg]

Your core/cloud picture has one other problem; If you look over at the face of the North tower, approx. level with the core/cloud you'll see smoke - a similar thickness of smoke, probably less thick actually, but the same quality - this smoke has rendered the wall of the tower behind it into an amorphous gray, yet we know it is steel divided by glass. Thus your cloud/core object could easily be likewise obscured. What is under could well be steel structure, smoothed over much as the face of the North tower. So even if the drywall has ripped off we have yet another common sense explanation for the seeming solidity of the object. That's thick smoke, the picture is grainy, what's behind the smoke could be anything, steel, drywall, even concrete. The point is this THE PICTURE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE CONCRETE.

[Christophera]

Your core/cloud picture has one other problem; If you look over at the face of the North tower, approx. level with the core/cloud you'll see smoke - a similar thickness of smoke, probably less thick actually, but the same quality - this smoke has rendered the wall of the tower behind it into an amorphous gray, yet we know it is steel divided by glass. Thus your cloud/core object could easily be likewise obscured. What is under could well be steel structure, smoothed over much as the face of the North tower. So even if the drywall has ripped off we have yet another common sense explanation for the seeming solidity of the object. That's thick smoke, the picture is grainy, what's behind the smoke could be anything, steel, drywall, even concrete. The point is this THE PICTURE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE CONCRETE.

Even if we had a clear view of the faces of the core it wouldn't matter. the important aspect is the silhouetted top edge. No steel protruding and the smooth eroded edge is absolutely characteristic of concrete. Combined with other photographic evidence and the total lack of steel core columns and the suppor tof the many websites listed here at the "Concrete Core Page",

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

There is literally no evidence for steel core and massive evidence for concrete.

Where is the steel core page?

[Christophera]

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?

For an overall view of how the tower worked structurally, imagine this analogy using ordinary scaffolding to help show how they were built and worked which really went hand in hand. It was like building a scaffold to use as an outer form for a concrete tube, then leaving the scaffold inplace afterwards to act as floor space on a tower.

Imagine you take 4 pieces of scaffolding and go up 4 levels. Then you take rebar and run it vertically up the wall of space formed in the center of the scaffold offset 1/2 the wall thickness from the inside vertical supports of the scaffold. Then lower a steel rectangular tube down the inside of that rebar which comes apart later to be removed up and out the empty center area of the core. Then wood is used to fasten against the inner side vertical suppports of the scaffolding outside the rebar. The space betwen the steel inner form and the outer wood form is filled with concrete encapsulating the rebar completely.

You disassemble the inner form, remove wood from the outside of the concrete when cured then fasten the inner ring of the scaffolds vertical supports to the concrete core wall and stack up 4 more sets of four sides of scaffold and do it again to 8 levels.

The inner ring of vertical supports of the scaffold in the analogous model represent the ONLY columns associated with the core. Called "interior box columns" referring to the inner wall of the scaffold, a tube shaped framework outside the cast concrete wall of the rectangular concrete tube but fastened to it.

The 47 steel columns of FEMA are ONLY supported by crude diagrams, unrelated with no overview except text. Not construction plans by any means and none of it is consistent with the images of the actual buildings coming down. There are at least 3 different layouts for columns and stairways etc, core floor plans.

[Architect]

For an overall view of how the tower worked structurally, imagine this analogy using ordinary scaffolding to help show how they were built and worked which really went hand in hand. It was like building a scaffold to use as an outer form for a concrete tube, then leaving the scaffold inplace afterwards to act as floor space on a tower.

Imagine you take 4 pieces of scaffolding and go up 4 levels. Then you take rebar and run it vertically up the wall of space formed in the center of the scaffold offset 1/2 the wall thickness from the inside vertical supports of the scaffold. Then lower a steel rectangular tube down the inside of that rebar which comes apart later to be removed up and out the empty center area of the core. Then wood is used to fasten against the inner side vertical suppports of the scaffolding outside the rebar. The space betwen the steel inner form and the outer wood form is filled with concrete encapsulating the rebar completely.

You disassemble the inner form, remove wood from the outside of the concrete when cured then fasten the inner ring of the scaffolds vertical supports to the concrete core wall and stack up 4 more sets of four sides of scaffold and do it again to 8 levels.

The inner ring of vertical supports of the scaffold in the analogous model represent the ONLY columns associated with the core. Called "interior box columns" referring to the inner wall of the scaffold, a tube shaped framework outside the cast concrete wall of the rectangular concrete tube but fastened to it.

The 47 steel columns of FEMA are ONLY supported by crude diagrams, unrelated with no overview except text. Not construction plans by any means and none of it is consistent with the images of the actual buildings coming down. There are at least 3 different layouts for columns and stairways etc, core floor plans.


Professionally speaking, that's a load of bollocks.

You're saying that the steel was to support permanent shuttering and to take the floors, in which case what the heck is youy mythical concrete core doing? Torsion? No need. The columns act as a box girder and deal with tranverse loadings.

And the steel columns are supported by a wealth of photgraphic evidence. All that YOU have are badly interpreted photgraphs and distant shots. You can't find any credible evidence.

Really, I don't know why I bother. You're certifiable. As you've proven already on this thread.

:mad:

[chipmunk stew]

Where'd you get it? I don't think I've ever seen one before.
I forget where we bought it, but it's made by Lixit (http://www.lixit.com/products/disp_prod.asp?id=680). We have it mounted on the door of her crate, and we just leave the crate door open when we're home so she has access to the bottle.

[Hellbound]

I forget where we bought it, but it's made by Lixit (http://www.lixit.com/products/disp_prod.asp?id=680). We have it mounted on the door of her crate, and we just leave the crate door open when we're home so she has access to the bottle.

I'll have to look around. I bet I could find something similar at Petco or Petsmart or a similar store around here.

Thanks for the tip :)

[alexg]

Even if we had a clear view of the faces of the core it wouldn't matter. the important aspect is the silhouetted top edge. No steel protruding and the smooth eroded edge is absolutely characteristic of concrete. Combined with other photographic evidence and the total lack of steel core columns and the suppor tof the many websites listed here at the "Concrete Core Page",

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

There is literally no evidence for steel core and massive evidence for concrete.

Where is the steel core page?

Steel core pages abound and you know it. But forget that for a moment.

Do you then agree the bulk of the cloud pic is inconclusive and rely instead on the 'silhouetted top edge"?


eta And where/when does this cloud/core explode? You missed that one!

[uruk]

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.

Well, that was lame and predictable. I knew you were going to claim the the two buildings were built differently. Where's your proof? Oh, wait! it's on the non existant video that was never shown on PBS.

The diffusing light does wash out the floor slabs because the floor slabs are relatively thin. But according to your diagram the hallways alternate between the entire height floor (I.e. from floor to ceiling.) The light would not diffuse through that much distance. Notice in the tower on the left the areas where light is blocked for the entire hight of the floor. The light does not seem to be "bleeding" around those areas. Chris, how does your post above explain those areas?
The thread your clinging to is getting thinner Chris.

[Belz...]

Common sense, a notion wasted here.

Common sense ? You mean, the thing that tells you the earth is flat, that the sun "rises" in the morning and that traveling near the speed of light doesn't alter how time passes for you ?

Common sense hasn't worked for you, chris. Time to change to a more useful tool.

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.

Again, since it's impossible de determine what this thing is made of, your assertion that it is concrete is, at best, speculation.

I also see you've ignored my other points. Very courageous of you.

[Arus808]

Chris,

Have you bothered to make contact with the design firm, the construction companies and the Port Authority about the plans for WTC towers?

[Belz...]

We cannot establish exactly what they layout is. There is no point discussing it.

And yet you claim to know what it was ?

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.

Dust, man. Dust.

Thought it may actually be the steel core, as we've seen in other videos. All that smoke makes it look pretty opaque, anyway.

[alexg]

Look how a relatively small amount of smoke from the collapse of the south tower has obscured the detail from the wall of the north tower.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11835452bc52f3e976.gif


The picture is grainy to start with, all that steel and glass detail on the north tower is barely visible even away from the smoke, but add the smoke and all detail vanishes. THERE IS NONE.

Now look back at the object in the cloud. (Assuming there is an object in the cloud at all, which is generous but I lean toward giving you that much.) The even larger quantity of smoke CLEARLY erases any detail from whatever is behind the smoke. Impossible to say it is not a steel frame! Look back at the north tower again, behind the smoke. NO DETAIL! NONE!

So. I think even Chris sees this much. And moves to the top of the photo. Whatever that darker blob is at the top it is certainly safe to say doesn't look like a concrete wall any more than it does anything else.

THIS PICTURE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE ANYTHING ABOUT THE CORE! Nothing! Not even in conjunction with other photos provided.
And it is Chris's bedrock.


ETA and when does the cloud explode again, from the encased c4? Third time for this question.

[Belz...]

The steel was only allowed to go 7 floors over the top of the concrete before casting more concrete core.

Except that's not how you make a concrete core. And you say you know this stuff ?

The core NEEDS to be standing BEFORE the construction of the rest of the building can catch up to it. Can you tell me why ?

I sort of remember

We can agree on that.

No steel protruding and the smooth eroded edge

Again, something you can't tell from that photograph.

The 47 steel columns of FEMA are ONLY supported by crude diagrams, unrelated with no overview except text.

Except in all those pictures we've shown you. According to you, those were 47 box columns...

[Oliver]

Chris,

Have you bothered to make contact with the design firm, the construction companies and the Port Authority about the plans for WTC towers?




*Bump*

[Arus808]

Chris,

Have you bothered to make contact with the design firm, the construction companies and the Port Authority about the plans for WTC towers?




and dont answer with some bullcrap story about how you tried, but no one was willing to talk with you or that they are now under a "code of silence".

[Christophera]

Look how a relatively small amount of smoke from the collapse of the south tower has obscured the detail from the wall of the north tower.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11835452bc52f3e976.gif


The picture is grainy to start with, all that steel and glass detail on the north tower is barely visible even away from the smoke, but add the smoke and all detail vanishes. THERE IS NONE.

Now look back at the object in the cloud. (Assuming there is an object in the cloud at all, which is generous but I lean toward giving you that much.) The even larger quantity of smoke CLEARLY erases any detail from whatever is behind the smoke. Impossible to say it is not a steel frame! Look back at the north tower again, behind the smoke. NO DETAIL! NONE!

So. I think even Chris sees this much. And moves to the top of the photo. Whatever that darker blob is at the top it is certainly safe to say doesn't look like a concrete wall any more than it does anything else.

THIS PICTURE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE ANYTHING ABOUT THE CORE! Nothing! Not even in conjunction with other photos provided.
And it is Chris's bedrock.


ETA and when does the cloud explode again, from the encased c4? Third time for this question.

My point about the silhouetted top is still valid and the fact no core columns protrude is valid, meaning the image will be interpreted by those that know concrete and steel as showing concrete before it will be interpreted to show steel.

The steel core columns do not show. By default the concrete core is the only reasonable option based on that one photo. If you can produce alternate images that show steel core columns protruding from the core area at some elevation over the ground, then you have evidence for steel core columns.

Saying 'no" to the evidence for concrete when it is reasonably shown that ther was concrete, does not make evidence for steel columns.

[Architect]

My point about the silhouetted top is still valid and the fact no core columns protrude is valid, meaning the image will be interpreted by those that know concrete and steel as showing concrete before it will be interpreted to show steel.


I know steel and concrete, far better than you Chris, and it's steel. Stop wasting out time.

[Christophera]

I know steel and concrete, far better than you Chris, and it's steel. Stop wasting out time.

No. And you haven't shown you are accountable to back up your claim of being an arch.

You didn't answer the question about multiple steel core columns and torsion.

You have no credibility, out of the picture.

[Architect]

No. And you haven't shown you are accountable to back up your claim of being an arch.

<snip>

You have no credibility, out of the picture.


Chris, I don't think that accountable means what you think it means. If you're asking for evidence that I am indeed qualified, then do tell me what information would suffice? RIBA number? ARB? RIAS? Details of education?

Or would they all be part of the Government disinfo plot too?


As for credibility, mate, there's not ONE person on this site who agrees with you regarding the concrete core theory. Tell me why you think this might be?!

[Belz...]

My point about the silhouetted top is still valid and the fact no core columns protrude is valid,

None of those points are valid, because they ASSUME that what you see in that picture isn't just dust. You haven't shown this to be true.

meaning the image will be interpreted by those that know concrete and steel as showing concrete before it will be interpreted to show steel.

And that would be... only you ?

The steel core columns do not show. By default the concrete core is the only reasonable option based on that one photo.

You have a very strange notion of evidence.

If you can produce alternate images that show steel core columns protruding from the core area at some elevation over the ground, then you have evidence for steel core columns.

You mean you HAVEN'T seen the video where we see the core still standing, briefly, after the collapse ?

[Christophera]

Chris, I don't think that accountable means what you think it means. If you're asking for evidence that I am indeed qualified, then do tell me what information would suffice? RIBA number? ARB? RIAS? Details of education?

Or would they all be part of the Government disinfo plot too?


As for credibility, mate, there's not ONE person on this site who agrees with you regarding the concrete core theory. Tell me why you think this might be?!

Your numbers are not worth anything here. Only reason has value.

You have failed to provide that, you have no credibility. You are out of the picture.

[Christophera]

None of those points are valid, because they ASSUME that what you see in that picture isn't just dust. You haven't shown this to be true.

What you assert is not reasonable. The image of the WTC 2 core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) proves it. That dark form is not dust.

Such an assertion reduces your credibility as your sincerity can no longer be supported. Such an assertion in view of the evidence is not reasonable.

[Arus808]

Chris,

Have you bothered to make contact with the design firm, the construction companies and the Port Authority about the plans for WTC towers?

and dont answer with some bullcrap story about how you tried, but no one was willing to talk with you or that they are now under a "code of silence".

[uruk]

Your numbers are not worth anything here. Only reason has value.

You have failed to provide that, you have no credibility. You are out of the picture.

OH! that is precious!
First Chris demands proof of Arch's credentials. Arch gives credentials. Then Chris says "AH! that's not important!" and then dismisses him.
OH LORD! That's funny!

Chris You can't even prove that there's any concrete in that picture. The whole core is occluded by dust. Hey, just because you can't imagine that that could be drywall or even denser dust in the core does not mean that it cannot be it.
It is your credibilty that is nonexistant.


P.S. You never responded to my post #5008

[cloudshipsrule]

What you assert is not reasonable. The image of the WTC 2 core proves it. That dark form is not dust.

Such an assertion reduces your credibility as your sincerity can no longer be supported. Such an assertion in view of the evidence is not reasonable.

This is starting to sound a lot like the Timecube website.

[Architect]

"Your numbers are not worth anything here. Only reason has value."

SO even though I can prove that:

1. I'm a qualified, chartered architect

2. Have a track record in tall structures

3. And hold passes in fields such as structures and fire safety

these count for nothing?

What a laugh. Especiallly your quote to the effect that we stand or fall on our reasoning skills, given that this is where you woefully fail.

[Christophera]

"Your numbers are not worth anything here. Only reason has value."

SO even though I can prove that:

1. I'm a qualified, chartered architect

2. Have a track record in tall structures

3. And hold passes in fields such as structures and fire safety

these count for nothing?

What a laugh. Especiallly your quote to the effect that we stand or fall on our reasoning skills, given that this is where you woefully fail.

blah blah blah,

With that much hot air you could of answered the question from what, 30 pages back about the flex of steel of long lengths and the effect of bundling the same and the comparitive gains in torsion resistence over a square of the perimeter walls with the proportions of the towers.

You didn't do it then, you didn't do it now, you are fake. Either architect or seeker of truth.

[Architect]

blah blah blah,

With that much hot air you could of answered the question from what, 30 pages back about the flex of steel of long lengths and the effect of bundling the same and the comparitive gains in torsion resistence over a square of the perimeter walls with the proportions of the towers.

You didn't do it then, you didn't do it now, you are fake. Either architect or seeker of truth.

Physician heal thyself, methinks. :boggled:

I seem to recall - I can't be arsed reading back through the e-mails - that I pointed out that you hadn't asked a real question and seemed to misunderstand the term torsion. Hence there was no valid answer. :confused:

Face it mate, you're nuts. bonkers. Mad. In fact certifiably so, as your ample earlier posts about hypnosis show. :jaw-dropp

[alexg]

perhaps you could answer the (4x) question as to when this cloud is going to blow sky high?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11835452bc52f3e976.gif

Lemme guess, you forgot that they only planted c4 in the higher levels?

What else could it be?:D

[uruk]

blah blah blah,

With that much hot air you could of answered the question from what, 30 pages back about the flex of steel of long lengths and the effect of bundling the same and the comparitive gains in torsion resistence over a square of the perimeter walls with the proportions of the towers.

You didn't do it then, you didn't do it now, you are fake. Either architect or seeker of truth.


The corner is getting smaller isn't it Chris.

[Christophera]

OH! that is precious!
First Chris demands proof of Arch's credentials. Arch gives credentials. Then Chris says "AH! that's not important!" and then dismisses him.
OH LORD! That's funny!

Chris You can't even prove that there's any concrete in that picture. The whole core is occluded by dust. Hey, just because you can't imagine that that could be drywall or even denser dust in the core does not mean that it cannot be it.
It is your credibilty that is nonexistant.


P.S. You never responded to my post #5008

The reverse is true.

What is there looks like it must be concrete. The image of the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) proves there are no steel core columns.

homer, all that striking your head has given you brain damage.

Recall, this is the internet and fakery is the norm. Accordingly, to separate myself from the fakes, I post raw images and use reason to impliment ALL of them with consistency.

meaning I post another image that can only be interpreted as showing concrete.

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

[Architect]

The corner is getting smaller isn't it Chris.

You can't really tell, when you're backing into it.:D

[Hellbound]

You can't really tell, when you're backing into it.:D

Guys, he went through the corner about a month ago.

Now he's somewhere in the neighbor's yard, about to back into the street.

[Architect]

I post raw images and use reason to impliment ALL of them with consistency.






Yes, and impressively you're consistently wrong.

ps......consistency means something else. ;)

[Architect]

Guys, he went through the corner about a month ago.

Now he's somewhere in the neighbor's yard, about to back into the street.

Hopefully a busy street, with lots of HGVs and buses.

[alexg]

and the explosion?

[alexg]

The reverse is true.

What is there looks like it must be concrete. The image of the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) proves there are no steel core columns.

homer, all that striking your head has given you brain damage.

Recall, this is the internet and fakery is the norm. Accordingly, to separate myself from the fakes, I post raw images and use reason to impliment ALL of them with consistency.

meaning I post another image that can only be interpreted as showing concrete.


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




There IS an impressive concrete core, between someone's ears.

[Arus808]

chris, why are you again ignoring my question, that i've asked two times to you already?

[Christophera]

Chris,

Have you bothered to make contact with the design firm, the construction companies and the Port Authority about the plans for WTC towers?

and dont answer with some bullcrap story about how you tried, but no one was willing to talk with you or that they are now under a "code of silence".

No, but others have and those folks are not communicating.

You are welcome to try and see if they will act to reinforce the FEMA lie.

I'm betting no. People are done lying for murderers.

Gravy did not find any declarations of engineers in the WTC report and NIST or he would have posted it.

[Architect]

No, but others have and those folks are not communicating.

You are welcome to try and see if they will act to reinforce the FEMA lie.

I'm betting no. People are done lying for murderers.

Gravy did not find any declarations of engineers in the WTC report and NIST or he would have posted it.


1. See if they will act to reinforce the FEMA lie: A self fulfilling prophecy; if they tell the truth, you call them liars.

2. Declarations of engineers. Yawn. You actually want them to ceritfy that they agree with the report? See item 1, above.

Ye'r nuts mate.

[Arus808]

No,

then why haven't you? So far, nothing we say to you is going through that 15" thick concrete skull of yours, so why are you torturing us with your stubborness and bother those who would have the "concrete" proof you so want?

but others have and those folks are not communicating. Its not their JOB to do your homework/research. YOU want us to believe you, THEN ITS YOUR job to contact them. Not us. Not someone else. YOU and only YOU>

You are welcome to try and see if they will act to reinforce the FEMA lie.
There is no FEMA lie. Im not going to contact them since I already know the answer.

I'm betting no. People are done lying for murderers. Unlike those who like to trample on those who have died by the hands of extremists? Chris, you are no better than the terrorists at this point.

Gravy did not find any declarations of engineers in the WTC report and NIST or he would have posted it. Because they didn't need to be consulted because 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999% of the people of this world, know there was no concrete core within the WTC towers. you are the only one who believes otherwise. EVEN the CT'ers have long dumped your concrete core theory as being preposterous (since they too dont believe that there was a concrete core).

So, until YOU consult with one of the hundreds of people working on the construction of the WTC towers, please do not respond/reply to this thread. YOu are a broken record and nothing you say is even remotely true.

I suggest everyone else, agian, to IGNORE this lunatic until he has done the most basic of research: consulting with the experts who were there.

[alexg]

I trust you are busy working up an answer as to when that cloud is going to explode with all the encased c4?

[Architect]

It's deeply ironic that if the building had, in fact, had a concrete core then it would have been less susceptible to fire. But that's missed on Chris, who has clearly fallen out of his tree. I take it you chaps read the "hypnosis" garbage?

[rwguinn]

It's deeply ironic that if the building had, in fact, had a concrete core then it would have been less susceptible to fire. But that's missed on Chris, who has clearly fallen out of his tree. I take it you chaps read the "hypnosis" garbage?
I would have, but my conditioning kept me from comprehending the word system...

[Architect]

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

Hmm Not a lot of concrete

[Architect]

I think Chris should consider a career in politics.

Although not in my country, or indeed any other with access to nukes.

[Arus808]

Or he complete ignores what was posted in this
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/innovation.html

[Architect]

That's clearly Government disinformation.......Torsion! Torsion!

[alexg]

It's deeply ironic that if the building had, in fact, had a concrete core then it would have been less susceptible to fire. But that's missed on Chris, who has clearly fallen out of his tree. I take it you chaps read the "hypnosis" garbage?


Yes.


MUAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!

You heard the one about encasing c4 in the core back in 69 or whenever?

[Architect]

Yes.


MUAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!

You heard the one about encasing c4 in the core back in 69 or whenever?

Thus my signature....

[Arus808]

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

Hmm Not a lot of concrete



What chris fails to realize that his "documentary" could not have been made since why would htere be TWO documentaries released by PBS addressing the construction of the two towers so close together?

Chris, you fail at humanity.

[Gravy]

These photos have all been posted here before, as Chris well knows. I won't be participating in this, er, discussion, but I've decided to post the photos monthly for newcomers.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790452c11e07a3ea.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790452c0e45bc2e9.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790452c0ed979936.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790452c0ed9a19b0.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790452c0ed9d1efb.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790452c0ef8e8610.jpg

[bonavada]

here's a very short (12 sec) scene i cut from the Nova production "Why The Towers Fell":-

BEHIND THE SHADOW? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4u9i62bMXQ)


this plainly shows the core momentarily standing during the collapse of WTC2. i suggest this may be what (obviously from a different distance/camera/angle) is seen as the "clouded shadow" in christopheras pic which he seems fixated upon insisting as evidence/proof that the core was made of concrete.

during the scene, a graphic of the structure in question is superimposed by Nova over the core to illustrate the WTC design architects point. sadly it's not that plain to see in my compressed cut/edit. i recommend christophera to watch the original film and try to find convincing evidence (besides several grainy inconclusive jpgs and a doctored diagram) to refute all the acknowledged expert professional opinions the movie shows.

Perhaps then he might be able to come to a more convincing conclusion as to how the WTC towers were constructed and therefore also more plausible mechanics of their eventual destruction.

the whole film is replete with illustrations, explanations and expert testament of/to the construction of the WTC. in fact the film particularly emphasises the true core fabrication.

LOOK and Learn...........

BV

[alexg]

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

Hmm Not a lot of concrete

No indeed, not on the core anyway, yet they make a big deal about the concrete used in the footings and also show it used to build the floors. But nary a word about it in the core.

I guess the film makers were in on it, even back than. 'Whoa, cut that core footage out of there Bud, don't you know the're gonna blow this tower down in 01 with all that c4 we put in there." Then, quietly into the walki talki "hey, wre're gonna need a hypnotist down here in a few minutes, 10-4"

[uruk]

The reverse is true.

What is there looks like it must be concrete. The image of the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) proves there are no steel core columns.

homer, all that striking your head has given you brain damage.

Recall, this is the internet and fakery is the norm. Accordingly, to separate myself from the fakes, I post raw images and use reason to impliment ALL of them with consistency.

meaning I post another image that can only be interpreted as showing concrete.

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

Chris, why do you lie?

Chris do you even know what a "RAW" image file is? You know very well that all the pictures you have on your web site are all downloaded form other websites. We all know it. (You can't even post RAW image files on a web page. the files sizes are too big)
If you look at the picture files you will notice that they are all either JPEG or GIFS. That means that all the pictures on your website have gone through image compression software. The only way you could have RAW image files is if you had taken the picture yourself or obtained the files from the photographers themselves. And only if they were using high end digital cameras. If they used film there would be no RAW image files since the negative would have to be scanned.
Besides in my post #5008 I used the same image you had on your website all i did was to add text and a few lines. That is no more that you have done on other pictures on your website.

But now lets get to your reasoning abilities. You are only relying on memory of a video that you watched 15 years ago. A video that you cannot provide evidence for that it ever existed or even that is was ever shown. Memory is very elastic, this is a proven fact.
Other than a few mistaken or missinformed sources, all other sources for the information on the construction of the WTC do not mention a concrete core. In fact some make particular mention of the "innovative steel tube" construction. Add to that, none of the pictures of the construction of the WTC that you use on your site shows a concrete core. In fact at least two pictures show light shining through the core of the buildings, If, as you say the concrete core was used as structural support for the buildings, Why are the buildings standing, several floor high, with light shining through them and no concrete installed?

To continue, The "spire" pictures clearly show steel columns surrounded by debris. The size relation of the spire elements comfirm that they are the steel support columns. You have even missinterpreted length and size in the pictures that you labeled. (The 3 inch item you pointed to is much larger that 3 inches, and you point it out next to a blob on the picture that you claim is 17 feet. The sizes you pointed out does not correlate)

The truth is that your basis for claiming that the core is made of concrete is based on the memory of movie you watched 15 years ago that you cannot prove exists. You look at the pictures with that bias already in your head.

[Arus808]

AGain, Chris, have you contacted a one of the many hundreds of workers who constructed the WTC towers? YOu had now, 13 hours today alone, to make a simple phone call.

[Christophera]

YOU want us to believe you, THEN ITS YOUR job to contact them. Not us. Not someone else. YOU and only YOU

With consideration of the fact that your proposal of steel core columns is only supported by fraudulent documents or misrepresentations of construction photos and the raw evidence of images of the demolition show things that are completely unexplained by the steel core sheep that believe lies.

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

That concrete there is why that stairwell was not crushed and a number of people survived.



Which one are you Arus808?



http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3471&stc=1&d=1160519564

[Christophera]

Chris, why do you lie?

Chris do you even know what a "RAW" image file is?

Damm, brain damage with sociopathic tendencies. Stop hitting your head.


No excursions of changing the subject homer.

Reason now, .............. think bwain, bwain. You need evidence because I have evidence. Then you get to be reasonable.

That brownish gray material in the center of the perimeter columns is concrete.

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

[cloudshipsrule]

With consideration of the fact that your proposal of steel core columns is only supported by fraudulent documents or misrepresentations of construction photos

Chris, how in hell can you look at the construction photos and construction videos presented here and conclude that the core is anything but STEEL COLUMNS?? It's so damn plain to see that the core was made out of STEEL it boggles my mind that you are blind to it.

I've worked in construction, and when concrete is going to be poured around a steel structure, FORMS ARE PUT IN PLACE around said steel so the concrete doesn't just fall away due to gravity. Makes sense, huh??

When have you EVER seen a single, damn form around one of the steel members in ANY photo taken during the construction of WTC 1 or 2??

You do believe that there was steel in the core, don't you?? Please tell me you aren't starting to believe that there were no steel columns in the core as implied by your last post.

Can you provide ONE SINGLE PHOTO taken during construction that would lead us to believe the core might have been steel reinforced concrete, or do you think that every construction photo has been either deleted if it showed concrete, or altered to make it 'look like' there really never was concrete?

Was there steel in the core of the WTC's or not Chris???? Just answer that.

[alexg]

"That concrete there is why that stairwell was not crushed and a number of people survived."

Hogwash! The planes ripped through all but one stairwell - one survived because the plane cut across the South Tower on an angle. See the docu. "why the towers fell" featuring Leslie Roberston, lead structural engineer for the WTC. If they had used concrete in the core more stairwells might have made it.

And (6x) the explosion of the cloud?

[Christophera]

These photos have all been posted here before, as Chris well knows. I won't be participating in this, er, discussion, but I've decided to post the photos monthly for newcomers.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790452c11e07a3ea.jpg



That is the north face of the South tower. You do not know what you are looking at. I do. Light reflecting off the concrete core.


http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3472&stc=1&d=1160522839

[Christophera]

"That concrete there is why that stairwell was not crushed and a number of people survived."

Hogwash! The planes ripped through all but one stairwell - one survived because the plane cut across the South Tower on an angle. See the docu. "why the towers fell" featuring Leslie Roberston, lead structural engineer for the WTC. If they had used concrete in the core more stairwells might have made it.

And (6x) the explosion of the cloud?

The planes were at least 800 feet over that scene. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg)

Some one here earlier mentioned the firefighters and others rescued from a stairwell. That would have to be the one.

[Christophera]

The photo record of the tower constrcution was pilfered, just like the documentary. The infiltrators of the US governmetn are not stupid. Ar you going to help them?

Chris, how in hell can you look at the construction photos and construction videos presented here and conclude that the core is anything but STEEL COLUMNS?? It's so damn plain to see that the core was made out of STEEL it boggles my mind that you are blind to it.

I've worked in construction, and when concrete is going to be poured around a steel structure, FORMS ARE PUT IN PLACE around said steel so the concrete doesn't just fall away due to gravity. Makes sense, huh??

When have you EVER seen a single, damn form around one of the steel members in ANY photo taken during the construction of WTC 1 or 2??

You do believe that there was steel in the core, don't you?? Please tell me you aren't starting to believe that there were no steel columns in the core as implied by your last post.

Can you provide ONE SINGLE PHOTO taken during construction that would lead us to believe the core might have been steel reinforced concrete, or do you think that every construction photo has been either deleted if it showed concrete, or altered to make it 'look like' there really never was concrete?

Was there steel in the core of the WTC's or not Chris???? Just answer that.

Easily answered and this will be the second time in a page or so.

For an overall view of how the tower worked structurally, imagine this analogy using ordinary scaffolding to help show how they were built and worked which really went hand in hand. It was like building a scaffold to use as an outer form for a concrete tube, then leaving the scaffold inplace afterwards to act as floor space on a tower.

Imagine you take 4 pieces of scaffolding and go up 4 levels. Then you take rebar and run it vertically up the wall of space formed in the center of the scaffold offset 1/2 the wall thickness from the inside vertical supports of the scaffold. Then lower a steel rectangular tube down the inside of that rebar which comes apart later to be removed up and out the empty center are of the core. Then wood is used to fasten against the inner side vertical suppports of the scaffolding outside the rebar. The space betwen the steel inner form and the outer wood form is filled with concrete encapsulating the rebar completely.

You disassemble the inner form, remove wood from the outside of the concrete when cured then fasten the inner ring of the scaffolds vertical supports to the concrete core wall and stack up 4 more sets of four sides of scaffold and do it again to 8 levels.

The inner ring of vertical supports of the scaffold in the analogous model represent the ONLY columns associated with the core. Called "interior box columns" ("MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg)) referring to the inner wall of the scaffold, a tube shaped framework outside the cast concrete wall of the rectangular concrete tube but fastened to it.

The 47 steel columns of FEMA are ONLY supported by crude diagrams, unrelated with no overview except text. Not construction plans by any means and none of it is consistent with the images of the actual buildings coming down. There are at least 3 different layouts for columns and stairways etc, core floor plans.

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

[Dog Town]

Is it just me, or is it painfuly obvious when christo is off his meds?
Maybe it's just a polar swing? I would call it a strike, over the plate, or not.

[Arus808]

With consideration of the fact that your proposal of steel core columns is only supported by fraudulent documents or misrepresentations of construction photos and the raw evidence of images of the demolition show things that are completely unexplained by the steel core sheep that believe lies.

Its your claim, YOU have to prove it.
<delete link to your site, which proves nothing>
Fraudulent documents? THESE are the documents that have to be seen by SEVERAL safety experts and designers in order for them to accept the design in order to BUILD these buildings. If they were fraudulent, tEH towers WOULD have never been built.

So, DID YOU contact those involved in the construction of these two towers/


YOu have had now, 14 hours to do so.

[Arus808]

Light reflecting off the concrete core.



Since WHEN does light REFLECT OFF OF CONCRETE you boob? :jaw-dropp

MY god, you are totally a lunatic.
You are totally being INTENTIONALLY obtuse about this.

So, when are you going to contact those involved in the construction?

[Christophera]

here's a very short (12 sec) scene i cut from the Nova production "Why The Towers Fell":-

BEHIND THE SHADOW? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4u9i62bMXQ)


this plainly shows the core momentarily standing during the collapse of WTC2. i suggest this may be what (obviously from a different distance/camera/angle) is seen as the "clouded shadow" in christopheras pic which he seems fixated upon insisting as evidence/proof that the core was made of concrete.

during the scene, a graphic of the structure in question is superimposed by Nova over the core to illustrate the WTC design architects point. sadly it's not that plain to see in my compressed cut/edit. i recommend christophera to watch the original film and try to find convincing evidence (besides several grainy inconclusive jpgs and a doctored diagram) to refute all the acknowledged expert professional opinions the movie shows.

Perhaps then he might be able to come to a more convincing conclusion as to how the WTC towers were constructed and therefore also more plausible mechanics of their eventual destruction.

the whole film is replete with illustrations, explanations and expert testament of/to the construction of the WTC. in fact the film particularly emphasises the true core fabrication.

LOOK and Learn...........

BV

It's bogus. They don't even show the deception in the little clip you linked to. I saved the bold attempt at deception. If it were not bogus we would see that same structure here here (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) ad we do not.

http://www.randi.org/forumlive/images/attach/jpg.gif

[Christophera]

Since WHEN does light REFLECT OFF OF CONCRETE you boob? :jaw-dropp

I guess you have never been around cast concrete structures. It can be blinding if metal forms are used. Even plywood formed surfaces can get shiney.

[Arus808]

It's bogus. If it were not we would see that same structure here here (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) ad we do not.
I propose to the mods that the url as spammed to this forum by Chris, now and a foever be, censored.

[defaultdotxbe]

It's bogus. If it were not we would see that same structure here here (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) ad we do not.
maybe your picture is the bogus one

[Arus808]

I guess you have never been around cast concrete structures. It can be blinding if metal forms are used. Even plywood formed surfaces can get shiney.


Plywood shiny? Since when? ONly when it has a laminate on it. I have plywood at my home right now, They are direct sunlight, and they do squat in reflecting anything.

[Arus808]

My only reply to Christophera will be this from now on, since he is only basing his opnions on a faulty memory:

So, when are you going to contact those involved in the construction of the Twin Towers?

[Christophera]

I propose to the mods that the url as spammed to this forum by Chris, now and a foever be, censored.

Because you cannot explain it and I have to keep bringing back as you won't accept what it shows and does not show while you have no evidence. Wow, that's fair.

[Arus808]

Because you cannot explain it and I have to keep bringing back as you won't accept what it shows and does not show while you have no evidence. Wow, that's fair.


Why should I explain it? Your site has be debunked more than a thousand times in this thread alone. Me repeating ad nauseum whas has been stated in this thread does no one else any good. So, now, your site is nothing more than spam. You have no proof on your website; no expert testimony; all it has is downloaded images from the net, in poor quality, with your crap analysis, not backed by any facts whatsoever, based upon a fictional documentary you made up in your head.


So, when are you going to contact those involved in the construction of the twin towers? You've now had 15 hours to do so.

[defaultdotxbe]

Because you cannot explain it and I have to keep bringing back as you won't accept what it shows and does not show while you have no evidence. Wow, that's fair.
why cant you provide one person (actual PERSON, not a grade school science paper, not a fluff article from a newspaper) who can corroborate your concrete core story? why not? someone must have poured that concrete, in fact, id say many workers must have been involved in the construction of the WTC, find me some of them

[Blue Mountain]

Professionally speaking, that's a load of bollocks.

You're saying that the steel was to support permanent shuttering and to take the floors, in which case what the heck is youy mythical concrete core doing? Torsion? No need. The columns act as a box girder and deal with tranverse loadings.

And the steel columns are supported by a wealth of photgraphic evidence. All that YOU have are badly interpreted photgraphs and distant shots. You can't find any credible evidence.

Really, I don't know why I bother. You're certifiable. As you've proven already on this thread.

:mad:
What he said.

BTW, Architect, the building in your avatar: I can't identify it, so I'm wondering -
1) Is it real or an artistic rendering?
2) Were you involved in its creation?

[alexg]

The planes were at least 800 feet over that scene. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg)

Some one here earlier mentioned the firefighters and others rescued from a stairwell. That would have to be the one.

I see what you mean. Sorry, I snapped that post off too quick.

[alexg]

7x, the explosion? As I understood you the core encased c4, the top portion already blown and the bottom part set on a delay. So when does it blow?

[Blue Mountain]

Hi Christopera, can I get your take on this statement I made earlier? You started to reply, but then we got sidetracked on a discussion on the placement of the mechanical equipment and the overall stability of the tower.

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?

[Blue Mountain]

Oh, and I just noticed you haven't addressed this one either:

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 [i]some elevators only went halfway.[/b] (bolding mine)
(one paragraph snipped)

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.
Please demonstrate you have grasped elementary research skills and post here for all to see (and state your source while you're at it):
1) Which floors had the skylobbies
2) Which floors had mechanical equipment

[uruk]

Damm, brain damage with sociopathic tendencies. Stop hitting your head.


No excursions of changing the subject homer.

Reason now, .............. think bwain, bwain. You need evidence because I have evidence. Then you get to be reasonable.

That brownish gray material in the center of the perimeter columns is concrete.

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

Wow,you've ceased to make sense. You said you were using raw images. I called you out on your lie. You are using pictures that you down loaded from the internet missinterpreting them.
face it Chris. there were no concrete core. All the images show a steel collumn core. You look rediculous and pathic denying the obvious.

[Christophera]

Wow,you've ceased to make sense. You said you were using raw images. I called you out on your lie. You are using pictures that you down loaded from the internet missinterpreting them.
face it Chris. there were no concrete core. All the images show a steel collumn core. You look rediculous and pathic denying the obvious.

Oops, did I say RAW images, Sorry, I meant RAW evidence, or is file type more important infomation than information help explaining 3,000 murders?

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

[Christophera]

Oh, and I just noticed you haven't addressed this one either:


Please demonstrate you have grasped elementary research skills and post here for all to see (and state your source while you're at it):
1) Which floors had the skylobbies
2) Which floors had mechanical equipment

Selectivity and distraction. What bogus manipulation. Get real, get evidence, explain something.

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

[uruk]

That is the north face of the South tower. You do not know what you are looking at. I do. Light reflecting off the concrete core.


http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3472&stc=1&d=1160522839


Does anyone have the laughing dog smiley? oh well.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!

OH Jesus! Chris, That is the lamest attempt I have seen from you sofar.
That is not reflection from concrete The angle is wrong, not to mention the red lines on the right that represent the side of the core do not match the perspective of the building. You really are grasping at straws.

It's just pathetic

[Christophera]

Hi Christopera, can I get your take on this statement I made earlier? You started to reply, but then we got sidetracked on a discussion on the placement of the mechanical equipment and the overall stability of the tower.


Originally Posted by Blue Mountain on page 124 of this thread View Post
And there's no indication in the NIST report of a concrete core, either:

Originally Posted by NIST Report
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 , 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?

The NIST language contradicts itself. Pure fiction. Says first columns were in rentable space, closets (true), and then says the columns were in the core.

HEY! It has got to be one way or the other, or it can't be both ways.

[alexg]

8x, explosion?

[Blue Mountain]

Selectivity and distraction. What bogus manipulation. Get real, get evidence, explain something.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
Distraction, yes: I'm trying to get you to show people here you have even a single clue. It's a simple experiment, really, akin to flipping a light switch to see if the electricity is on. Answering my questions about floors that held the skylobby and mechanical equipment would show a couple of things:
1. You're willing to work with us instead of calling the whole lot of us names,
2. You are actually capable of locating references and getting information from them.

Now, if you wish to be belligerent, by all means go ahead. The room will empty out eventually, and no one will be left to argue with you.

[Blue Mountain]

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain on page 124 of this thread View Post
And there's no indication in the NIST report of a concrete core, either:

Originally Posted by NIST Report
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 , 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?

The NIST language contradicts itself. Pure fiction. Says first columns were in rentable space, closets (true), and then says the columns were in the core.

HEY! It has got to be one way or the other, or it can't be both wats [sic].
While the part I quoted contains an apparent contradiction, the truth is one could have it both ways. The local elevators in each of the zones served by the skylobbies (about 33 floors in each zone) did not all encompass the entire zone. Some local elevators served only a few floors, others a few more. Only a fraction served the entire zone. On the floors above those elevators that served only part of the zone, the concrete floor slab was extended into the space where the elevators weren't, and this became rentable space. But the columns were still there, since they were needed to keep the building up.

Returning back to your concrete core, please now address this comment of mine:
In fact, had there been a concrete core, especially one 17' thick , 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?

[defaultdotxbe]

Christophera: Where are the construction workers who poured the concrete for your core?

i am going to keep bringing this up until you answer

[alexg]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11835452bc52f3e976.gif

Chris,
I thought I understood you to say the entire concrete core was laced with c4 - and that in this picture we see the lower section of core which was set to blow later than the upper. "uh . . delay system" If I recall your last answer. (ETA Althouigh I'm not sure if you were referring to entire core or just to this part) If so then when is it going to blow and could you supply some evidence of this explosion ever taking place.

[Christophera]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11835452bc52f3e976.gif

Chris,
I thought I understood you to say the entire concrete core was laced with c4 - and that in this picture we see the lower section of core which was set to blow later than the upper. "uh . . delay system" If I recall your last answer. (ETA Althouigh I'm not sure if you were referring to entire core or just to this part) If so then when is it going to blow and could you supply some evidence of this explosion ever taking place.

I've answered this question maybe 3 times in the last 6 pages.

There was 2 delays systems, one for the floors and one for the core. The lower core had a slower or less predictable fuse system and took a number of seconds to intitate. It was also safer and would not be inadvertantly detonated by a stray radio signal.

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

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3478&stc=1&d=1160539723

[Christophera]

Christophera: Where are the construction workers who poured the concrete for your core?

i am going to keep bringing this up until you answer

1/3 are dead the rest are spead around America waiting for you to cease your obfuscations.

[alexg]

I've answered this question maybe 3 times in the last 6 pages.

There was 2 delays systems, one for the floors and one for the core. The lower core had a slower or less predictable fuse system and took a number of seconds to intitate. It was also safer and would not be inadvertantly detonated by a stray radio signal.

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

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3478&stc=1&d=1160539723

It sounds like maybe you answered part 1. That yes, the purported object in the picture, of the core/cloud, of the South Tower, was rigged to blow. Correct?

You then show us a picture, apparently of the collapse of the north tower and it's cloud of smoke and debris. Which was not at all what I asked for, which was for a picture or other evidence of the explosion of the standing south tower core.

Are you suggesting that what I take to be the cloud of debris left in the air from the north tower collapse http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11835452c72ff1d2c2.jpg

is in fact, in part at least, the core blowing itself upwards? And that we are to assume that is also what happened to the south tower core?

[Christophera]

It sounds like maybe you answered part 1. That yes, the purported object in the picture, of the core/cloud, of the South Tower, was rigged to blow. Correct?

You then show us a picture, apparently of the collapse of the north tower and it's cloud of smoke and debris. Which was not at all what I asked for, which was for a picture or other evidence of the explosion of the standing south tower core.

Are you suggesting that what I take to be the cloud of debris left in the air from the north tower collapse http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11835452c72ff1d2c2.jpg

is in fact, in part at least, the core blowing itself upwards? And that we are to assume that is also what happened to the south tower core?

Oop's my mistake, but you've correctly interpreted it. The photograper of WTC 2 core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) did not catch that phase of 2. Correct, I posted the same event at about the same elevation for WTC 1.

Here is WTC 2 just before that which is shown happening to the north tower.

The core lower (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcore2stands.gif)

[Belz...]

What you assert is not reasonable. The image of the WTC 2 core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) proves it. That dark form is not dust.

You haven't shown this yet. All you've done is ASSERT that it isn't dust. I'm saying that it could very well be. Other suggestions have also been made, but your only answer is "no, it's concrete" without support.

This reduces your credibility and sincerity.

[Belz...]

Recall, this is the internet and fakery is the norm.

That's an unsupported, sweeping generalisation if I ever heard one.

Accordingly, to separate myself from the fakes, I post raw images and use reason to impliment ALL of them with consistency.[/SIZE]

Again, those images aren't RAW.

[QUOTE]No, but others have and those folks are not communicating.

You are welcome to try and see if they will act to reinforce the FEMA lie.

So is it your contention that you cannot possibly be shown wrong, no matter what, and that anyone who disagrees with you is automatically wrong, no matter what ?

completely unexplained by the steel core sheep that believe lies.

Or people like you, who manufacture them.

You need evidence because I have evidence.

If we need equal measures then this should be easy.

That is the north face of the South tower. You do not know what you are looking at. I do. Light reflecting off the concrete core.

Very funny. No way we could see the light through the "hallway" at this angle. Also, how you can distinguish between different "qualities" of light is baffling.

[Belz...]

1/3 are dead the rest are spead around America waiting for you to cease your obfuscations.

And you know this how ?

There was 2 delays systems, one for the floors and one for the core.

And you know this how ?

[defaultdotxbe]

1/3 are dead the rest are spead around America waiting for you to cease your obfuscations.
waiting just for me? i feel so important

anyway, you seem to keeping good tabs on them, why not interview a few, get some quotes about the concrete core so you have soemthign else to post besides those 2 pictures

[cloudshipsrule]

Christophera,

How many levels/floors of the towers were constructed between each pouring of the concrete core? In other words, did the concrete for the core get poured as each level was built, or did the concrete get poured for the core after every 5 or 10 or 15 stories of building were constructed?

[bonavada]

It's bogus. They don't even show the deception in the little clip you linked to. I saved the bold attempt at deception. If it were not bogus we would see that same structure here ad we do not.

WHAT'S BOGUS?
1/ the whole nova film?
or
2/ do you just refer to the below .jpg you link to?

if the latter, i already explained that nova superimposed that graphic (to clarify a point that the structural engineer was making) over footage of the core collapsing (which i also think maybe the culprit for the "clouded shadow" in the pic you keep spamming this thread with)
if the former then there really is no hope for your theory, and you are into the realms of unfalisfyability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability) and no-one with any amount of intellect will buy it.

i am beginning to suspect that the main reason christophera continues to attempt to propagate his extremley dubious, offensive theory is to bump up the hits to his ill-informed site. he can then boast to the rest of the like-minded community of the hits generated by this method. just a little theory of my own but there you go, prove me wrong easily by hosting all the images you spam here on the jref servers.

BV
Swansea Wales UK

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3473&d=1160524490

<grammatical edit>

[bonavada]

why didn't you inform other contributors to THIS THREAD (http://www.breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=481) about the long-lost documentary about the "concrete" core? one would think you would be tireless in your fruitless search for this (what would be a) holy grail for conspiracy theorists. and that the like-minded souls encountered there would be very interested in such information. you espouse there (in that thread) much about your "embedded C4" accusations yet fail even once to mention the missing PBS docu. that gives an enormous hint as to your motives here. you fabricate a frankly ridiculous, convoluted story about a non-existent documentary just to re-inforce your entirely groundless ill-informed fallacious ideas about what happened that terrible day.

it seems your arguments here are, at best, based on fallacy but perhaps more likely, that you are just a malicious and self-grandising person bent on carving a niche in some god-forsaken wasteland that is the CT morass.

go see a shrink FFS

BV

Swansea Wales UK

[Arus808]

Chris, have you bothered to contact those who were involved in the design and construction of the twin towers? You've now had 24 hours to do so.

[TK0001]

Hey guys.

Just popping in to drop the knowledge that they didn't really free fall.

Have we considered this yet?


Thanks,

TK

[Bell]

I've answered this question maybe 3 times in the last 6 pages.

There was 2 delays systems, one for the floors and one for the core. The lower core had a slower or less predictable fuse system and took a number of seconds to intitate. It was also safer and would not be inadvertantly detonated by a stray radio signal.

<snip> redundant links

What is the point of detonating it later?

Why did the corresponding part of the outside of the building collapse if not exploded?

[Hellbound]

Hey guys.

Just popping in to drop the knowledge that they didn't really free fall.

Have we considered this yet?


Thanks,

TK

All but one of us has.

Now somome seems to have the album "999 lies to support conspiracy" stuck on track 12, "Con-ca-ca-con-ca-ca-concrete core!"

[Spektator]

Hey guys.

Just popping in to drop the knowledge that they didn't really free fall.

Have we considered this yet?


Thanks,

TK

Yes, beginning in the first answer to the question, which was the second post in this whole thread.

Won't the mods kill this thing?

[Hellbound]

Yes, beginning in the first answer to the question, which was the second post in this whole thread.

Won't the mods kill this thing?

No.

It's the Thread of Sisyphus. Just keep pushing the rock :)

[Architect]

What he said.

BTW, Architect, the building in your avatar: I can't identify it, so I'm wondering -
1) Is it real or an artistic rendering?
2) Were you involved in its creation?


1. It's the planning application illustration.

2. Yes.

It's in Manchester. The British one. We're just finishing it off now.

[Bell]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1991142#post1992412

[Belz...]

Won't the mods kill this thing?

Nope. It's the new thread that won't die.

[alexg]

Oop's my mistake, but you've correctly interpreted it. The photograper of WTC 2 core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) did not catch that phase of 2. Correct, I posted the same event at about the same elevation for WTC 1.

Here is WTC 2 just before that which is shown happening to the north tower.

The core lower (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcore2stands.gif)

So this:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11835452d3e4f64040.gif

Is the south tower just about to do this:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11835452c72ff1d2c2.jpg

Time machine! :jaw-dropp


OK, enough. You couldn't actually believe any of this. You're here for the clicks or the attention or for the fun of puting us on. Which is it? It better be one of the above because the alternative is capitol I insanity.

[tsig]

Yes, beginning in the first answer to the question, which was the second post in this whole thread.

Won't the mods kill this thing?

Try asking them.

[Blue Mountain]

1. It's the planning application illustration.

2. Yes.

It's in Manchester. The British one. We're just finishing it off now.

Thanks. It looks like the Beetham Tower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beetham_Tower,_Manchester) [wikipedia.org]. Am I right?

Does it have a concrete core? :D On a more serious note, did the events of September 11 have an effect on the design?

[Mancman]

Thanks. It looks like the Beetham Tower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beetham_Tower,_Manchester) [wikipedia.org]. Am I right?

Does it have a concrete core? :D On a more serious note, did the events of September 11 have an effect on the design?

No, the one in Architects avatar isn't built yet.

The Beetham Tower just opened this week. It actually does have two concrete cores! :D They were really very prominent during construction.

http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/gallery/d/3397-1/beetham9995.jpg
http://static.flickr.com/25/37328670_72c305de82_o.jpg

[Bell]

No, the one in Architects avatar isn't built yet.

The Beetham Tower just opened this week. It actually does have two concrete cores! :D They were really very prominent during construction.

http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/gallery/d/3397-1/beetham9995.jpg
http://static.flickr.com/25/37328670_72c305de82_o.jpg

You dumb@ss! Don't you know they were removed AFTER construction? Jeez... get your facts right.

[mortimer]

Manc,

Those must be photoshopped. If the concrete core is being built higher than anything else, where are the floors not supposed to attach?

[Z]

As a related aside, and just to feed Chris' paranoia a bit, I contacted KCET. Apparently, THEY got to the archives a few years ago...

Unfortunately much of KCET's archived collection was destroyed in a fire
several years ago. What survived was transferred to the University of
California, Los Angeles Film & Television Archive.

Eh, I concede. I'm too lazy to go chasing a ghost of a video that never existed through fire, flood, and acts of Bob.

Obviously, the video existed, and THEY destroyed all records of it.

(Damn, that fire was awful convenient..)

(BTW - this just goes to show a true skeptic reveals evidence, whether in support of his points or not... )

[Christophera]

Chris, have you bothered to contact those who were involved in the design and construction of the twin towers? You've now had 24 hours to do so.

This is the second (at least) time I said no. Other have done this and there is no response.

[Christophera]

Distraction, yes: I'm trying to get you to show people here you have even a single clue. It's a simple experiment, really, akin to flipping a light switch to see if the electricity is on. Answering my questions about floors that held the skylobby and mechanical equipment would show a couple of things:
1. You're willing to work with us instead of calling the whole lot of us names,
2. You are actually capable of locating references and getting information from them.

Now, if you wish to be belligerent, by all means go ahead. The room will empty out eventually, and no one will be left to argue with you.

Waht you really mean here,

1. You're willing to work with us instead of calling the whole lot of us names,

is; That I'm willing to change the subject.

NO.

Get reasonable and you will find I stop calling you names.

If this is not concrete what is it. Drywall is not logical.

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

[Bell]

<snip>
<snap>
<snip>

If this is not concrete what is it. Drywall is not logical.

<snip>redundant link

Why is it not logical?

[Christophera]

You haven't shown this yet. All you've done is ASSERT that it isn't dust. I'm saying that it could very well be. Other suggestions have also been made, but your only answer is "no, it's concrete" without support.

This reduces your credibility and sincerity.

We can see the dust, we know what it is, and that dark form located exactly at the core is not dust. Your issue is significant.

What is really a significant issue is that you have not produced any proof from the raw evidence of the demoliton that there were steel core columns whiule I have entire site with links to uninterested parties confirming the concrete core.

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

[Arus808]

This is the second (at least) time I said no. Other have done this and there is no response.

Christophera, have you bothered to contact those involved in the construction and design of the twin towers? You are now going on 31 hours ; that is more than enough to time to make a simple phone call to those who were involved.

Why haven't you? Dont tell me that others have, because Im not going to ask them.

[Arus808]

Why is it not logical?

by his comment, he really doesn't understand building materials.
Christophear, look up sheetrock.

[Bell]

We can see the dust, we know what it is, and that dark form located exactly at the core is not dust. Your issue is significant.

What is really a significant issue is that you have not produced any proof from the raw evidence of the demoliton that there were steel core columns whiule I have entire site with links to uninterested parties confirming the concrete core.

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

What, in your understanding, is raw evidence?

[Blue Mountain]

Waht you really mean here,

1. You're willing to work with us instead of calling the whole lot of us names,

is; That I'm willing to change the subject.

NO.

Get reasonable and you will find I stop calling you names.

If this is not concrete what is it. Drywall is not logical.

<silly URL snipped>
Earlier you made a couple of incorrect statements with regards to which floors contained the skylobbies and the mechanical equipment.

This tells me you either can't research anything accurately, or are unwilling to admit you made a mistake.

If you can't research things accurately, why should we believe anything you say?

I'm trying to give you a chance to show us you're capable of doing something extremely basic, sort of like having your kid show you she can ride a bike before you take the traning wheels off.

Getting all huffy when I'm trying to give you a chance to show you're more than a bag of hot air really doesn't enhance your case very much.

And in answer to your question: dryer lint.

[Blue Mountain]

Oh, and can I get your answer to this question?


In fact, had there been a concrete core, especially one 17' thick , 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?

[Christophera]

In fact, had there been a concrete core, especially one 17' thick , 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?

Oh, and can I get your answer to this question?

I answered this a few pages back which means the obfuscatiors efforts are effective.

To illustrate it I posted an animated gif,

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

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

The obfuscatiors, cried, "That doesn't show the core." and my answer was lost in what followed.

The core of Tower one was holed all the way through by the right engine of flight 11, fuel flowed it through and spread fuel through the core. The central stair and the western stair were destroyed. The engine bounced off the inside of the farside perimeter walls not exiting the tower. The left engine hit interior walls and stayed inside the core on the east half. Falling debris had partially blocked the east stairwell and the fuel exploded making the environment full of smoke and fire, uninhabitable. The core was protection from the aluminum plane but not the engine. It was about 2.5 thick at impact height.

The core of tower 2 was holed by the left engine of flight 175 which was traveling 100 MPH faster than 11 and the core was about 4 feet thick at that elevation. Smaller amounts of fuel were in WTC 2 as much of the fuel burned outside the east wall at impact. Tower 2 had 2 functioning stairwells and little smoke in the core.

Flight 11 made a solid hit and only the engines penetrated. That is pretty good protection, but the fire issue made the environment uninhabitable.

[Christophera]

What, in your understanding, is raw evidence?

Raw evidence is something that is not contrivable. It really is of the scene.

[Christophera]

I'm trying to give you a chance to show us you're capable of doing something extremely basic, sort of like having your kid show you she can ride a bike before you take the traning wheels off.

Getting all huffy when I'm trying to give you a chance to show you're more than a bag of hot air really doesn't enhance your case very much.

And in answer to your question: dryer lint.

Something basic in this situation is like the core of the towers, what kind? Thereis no way we can get an accurate idea of what the floors were laid out like, elevators in the plan view or otherwise. Why bother? The issue is insiginificant to the priorities at hand.

It was you that didn't know who Yamasaki was.

Try and use raw eivdence to make your point and you'll find out that I know more about the towers structure and can analyze images of construction and demolition like none can. Go ahead, bring me evidence for your steel core columns and I'll show you the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif). That is all you can do because the steel core columns did not exist.

Gravy learned this and doesn't even try to post images anymore. A true dummy at LC learned it the hard way by misinterpreting information on construction photos first and then continued to make a really dumb boo boo.

See my 7:45 pm post on this page.

http://www.letsrollforums.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15600&sid=cdb1230b0bd17820dfd1b10adac2c70c#top

What he did first was provide me with a picture of the footing zone of the core. Yes, accomodating the 15 foot wall thickness (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/elev.pits.core.footing.CORR.jpg) on the long side of the core. I took his erroneously annotated image and corrected it to make sense witht he relationship between the elevator pits and the piers for the interior box columns.

[Christophera]

Earlier you made a couple of incorrect statements with regards to which floors contained the skylobbies and the mechanical equipment.

What i said is that some elevator equipment was inside the core itself at the 43rd and one other above serving elevators with cable and that those elevator shafts, above and below were separated.

Logic says that if the heavy elevator motors were at the top there would be perhaps too much weight. The 43 floor is known as the mechanical floor, in the right place for stability. The pulley systems in elevators such as those require the reels to be very close to the load. There were parts of the core that were not continuous for good reason, to get the cable out into the core area going up to pulleys that in turn led down.

All that made the 43rd floor very complex structurally. My point is that the top of the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is that area or perhaps just below it, very strong to take the weight.

[Belz...]

We can see the dust, we know what it is, and that dark form located exactly at the core is not dust.

In fact, we can see the dust so well that we can't make out anything else.

[Belz...]

The core of Tower one was holed all the way through by the right engine of flight 11, fuel flowed it through and spread fuel through the core.

How do you know this, considering the only reports made on the impacts do not speak of a concrete core ?

[bonavada]

Christophera wrote:-
See my 7:45 pm post on this page.
Let's Roll Forum (http://www.letsrollforums.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15600&sid=cdb1230b0bd17820dfd1b10adac2c70c#top)


just waded through that thread, interesting to note that none of the other contributors rallied to your concrete core cause.

i was intrigued though, by your statement that you interviewed a mohawk ironworker about his involvement in the construction of the WTC. you infer that he was "afraid" to talk to you about certain matters, (in particular "the special security measures taken during the construction of each floor") this sounds incredible to me. can you elaborate further? i.e. more about the "special security measures" or just general information like the guys name or even when/where did the interview take place?

BV



(http://www.letsrollforums.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15600&sid=cdb1230b0bd17820dfd1b10adac2c70c#top)

[Belz...]

My thought is that the worker said he didn't know, or didn't remember, or that there was no concrete core, and chris "interpreted" that as fear.

[DavidJames]

My thoughts on that part of the conversation:

mohawk ironworker: "Concrete core? I'm afraid you're insane pal, that's so stupid, I don't want talk about it"

What Christophera heard "Concrete core? I'm afraid ... I don't want talk about it"

[Oliver]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107452c473e7c9d8.gif

[uruk]

This is the second (at least) time I said no. Other have done this and there is no response.

Who are these "others" who have tried to contact the workers who made the concrete core? Can we have thier names so that we can contact them?

[bonavada]

My thoughts on that part of the conversation:

mohawk ironworker: "Concrete core? I'm afraid you're insane pal, that's so stupid, I don't want talk about it"

What Christophera heard "Concrete core? I'm afraid ... I don't want talk about it"

my thoughts are that the mohawk/christophera interview may not have even taken place. i base this accusation on the related dates he gives in the let's roll forum HERE (http://www.letsrollforums.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15600&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=e059854b9b9534bc401a2ff80c9762e5) :-

From Christophera
Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 11:27 am
Post subject: Re: Impact and fires different yet they both fell similarly
I interviewed a Mohawk who was 24 when the towers were built. He couldn't say he remembered the concrete core. But he
did remember they could only go 7 floors over the core with steel. He still had 2 friends that worked with him on the
towers that were living. I asked him to speak with them about the core to see if they could revive each others memory.
When I explained that the FEMA said it was made with steel core columns, he became afraid. He was 64 years of age at
that time. I could try him again. Maybe the fact I'm stilll alive will encourage him.

my bold
this indicates that the mohawk must have been working on the WTC at least 40 years prior to the interview. ok....well let's look at a few (quickly googled ) (http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLJ9?OpenDocument) facts, for a start, the slurry walls that encompassed the WTC site were not finished until 1968 and only then could the main excavation of the site be carried out. this work finished in 1969. work on the foundations of the two main towers then began. which took god knows how long?
what puzzles me is what exactly was the mohawk doing at the WTC site (at the latest) in 1966? also from the gist of the rest of the guff he's posted at the Let's Roll Forum i gather that the mohawk interview took place two years ago or more. so that would make his dates even more odd.
And this from the above quote:-
He couldn't say he remembered the concrete core. But he did remember they could only go 7 floors over the core with steel

so he couldn't remember the core but he did remember the core? wtf??

anyway even if i'm totally wrong about this and besides anything else, i think it's highly offensive for christophera to insinuate that hard working proud people like those ironworkers who risked life and limb to earn a wage were/are even mildy complicit in the "cover-up" of his cretinous concrete core C4rebar sheisser.

it seems he will do/say/write anything to lend weight to his daft claims.

Angry BV

[Z]

Oh yeah, he's clearly a liar.

He never did address his 'KCET channel 10' claim... lol

[uruk]

Gravy learned this and doesn't even try to post images anymore. A true dummy at LC learned it the hard way by misinterpreting information on construction photos first and then continued to make a really dumb boo boo.

See my 7:45 pm post on this page.

http://www.letsrollforums.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15600&sid=cdb1230b0bd17820dfd1b10adac2c70c#top


Gravey said that he was only going to make that one post in this thread. Further proof of your habitual lieing.

That person in the other forum is Jackx he realized his error and corrected it and he totaly demolished you. Further proof of your intellectual dishonesty.

When chris, are you going to stop lieing? But then we all know why you lie here and at other forums. You have nothing and you know it. Your just runnng around making stuff up to save face. You know your wrong. Admit it.

[uruk]

Raw evidence is something that is not contrivable. It really is of the scene. But yet everything on your website is contrived by you from what you are mistakenly interpreting from the pictures you downloaded from other sites on the internet.

All your "raw" evidence is just your observations of pictures. What do you have to back up those observations? Nothing. Just your imagination.

[Arus808]

Chris, have you bothered to contact those who were involved with teh design and construction of the twin towers? You've now had 48 hours to do so.

[uruk]

I answered this a few pages back which means the obfuscatiors efforts are effective.

To illustrate it I posted an animated gif,

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

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

The obfuscatiors, cried, "That doesn't show the core." and my answer was lost in what followed.

The core of Tower one was holed all the way through by the right engine of flight 11, fuel flowed it through and spread fuel through the core. The central stair and the western stair were destroyed. The engine bounced off the inside of the farside perimeter walls not exiting the tower. The left engine hit interior walls and stayed inside the core on the east half. Falling debris had partially blocked the east stairwell and the fuel exploded making the environment full of smoke and fire, uninhabitable. The core was protection from the aluminum plane but not the engine. It was about 2.5 thick at impact height.

The core of tower 2 was holed by the left engine of flight 175 which was traveling 100 MPH faster than 11 and the core was about 4 feet thick at that elevation. Smaller amounts of fuel were in WTC 2 as much of the fuel burned outside the east wall at impact. Tower 2 had 2 functioning stairwells and little smoke in the core.

Flight 11 made a solid hit and only the engines penetrated. That is pretty good protection, but the fire issue made the environment uninhabitable.

The gifs show much of the plane wreckage passing through the core area.

[Mancman]

The core of Tower one was holed all the way through by the right engine of flight 11, fuel flowed it through and spread fuel through the core. The central stair and the western stair were destroyed. The engine bounced off the inside of the farside perimeter walls not exiting the tower. The left engine hit interior walls and stayed inside the core on the east half. Falling debris had partially blocked the east stairwell and the fuel exploded making the environment full of smoke and fire, uninhabitable. The core was protection from the aluminum plane but not the engine. It was about 2.5 thick at impact height.



And you know this how?

How did an engine 'bounce' off a wall, yet a landing gear take an entire column tree out?

[uruk]

Go ahead, bring me evidence for your steel core columns and I'll show you the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif). That is all you can do because the steel core columns did not exist.



We,ve all showed you time and time again. You ignored it all and came up with some crazy, lame excuse to brush them off.
They truth is not going away because you don't agree or like what you see Chris.
Your showing yourself to be a dishonest person.

[Christophera]

In fact, we can see the dust so well that we can't make out anything else.

That is a classic cognitive distortion "can't make out anything else", overgeneralization.

[Christophera]

just waded through that thread, interesting to note that none of the other contributors rallied to your concrete core cause.

i was intrigued though, by your statement that you interviewed a mohawk ironworker about his involvement in the construction of the WTC. you infer that he was "afraid" to talk to you about certain matters, (in particular "the special security measures taken during the construction of each floor") this sounds incredible to me. can you elaborate further? i.e. more about the "special security measures" or just general information like the guys name or even when/where did the interview take place?

BV



(http://www.letsrollforums.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15600&sid=cdb1230b0bd17820dfd1b10adac2c70c#top)

I mentioned but didn't discuss the security issues with the Windwalkers.

Ask Phil Jayhan about the forced evacuations of the floors, he remembers hearing that back in the late 1970's.

[Christophera]

But yet everything on your website is contrived by you from what you are mistakenly interpreting from the pictures you downloaded from other sites on the internet.

All your "raw" evidence is just your observations of pictures. What do you have to back up those observations? Nothing. Just your imagination.

The non appearance of steel core columns is not a contrivance. You have provided no reasonable alternate interpretations.

[Christophera]

Who are these "others" who have tried to contact the workers who made the concrete core? Can we have thier names so that we can contact them?

I've forgotten. I know the doors are sut to the public trying to investigate.

[Christophera]

My thoughts on that part of the conversation:

mohawk ironworker: "Concrete core? I'm afraid you're insane pal, that's so stupid, I don't want talk about it"

What Christophera heard "Concrete core? I'm afraid ... I don't want talk about it"

The documentary showed me the concrete core over and over and the Mohawks were doing much stee erection.

The concrete core is documented here.

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

Got link to your page documenting the steel core columns from raw evidence from the demo?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

The non appearance of steel core columns is not a contrivance. You have provided no reasonable alternate interpretations.

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

[defaultdotxbe]

That is a classic cognitive distortion "can't make out anything else", overgeneralization.
is it part of the "mass hypnosis" that makes us unable to see through huge dust clouds?

[bonavada]

Got link to your page documenting the steel core columns from raw evidence from the demo?

many links have been given to document the steel columns that made up the steel core of the WTC towers. your puerile attempt to qualify the question ("raw evidence from the demo") only serves to show your total disregard to the facts as presented. the steel core was destroyed during the collapse of the towers. numerous photographs (your "raw evidence") exist of the mangled columns that the steel core was fabricated of littering the site immediately following 9/11.


btw why haven't you explained the discrepancies in your "interview" with the mohawk ironworker? i mean the dates the man is supposed to have worked at the WTC?

do you still insinuate that this man is keeping quiet about the horrendous crimes that were committed that day? is he also part of this huge widespread conspiracy of silence?

do you know that many mohawk ironworkers were involved in the clean-up of GZ following 9/11? perhaps with your connections in that area you could contact some of those people and discover more evidence to back up your theory?

BV

[jhunter1163]

The documentary showed me the concrete core over and over and the Mohawks were doing much stee erection.

<snip>



That gave me a visual that I really, REALLY didn't need.

[mortimer]

Chris, I see you have no demo images of your concrete core at elevation for WTC1. How is that possible? Obviously if there are no photos at elevation during the demolition of WTC1's concrete core, it doesn't exist. Right?

[Belz...]

That is a classic cognitive distortion "can't make out anything else", overgeneralization.

Oh, but don't let me stop you. Please show me how you can possibly see anything through all that dust.

[Belz...]

The concrete core is documented here.

So you're documenting your own hypothesis and using it as a basis for your argument ? Has there ever been a more circular form of reasoning ?

[uruk]

The non appearance of steel core columns is not a contrivance. You have provided no reasonable alternate interpretations.

Yep I sure have. You've just ignored it because it did not agree with your belief.

I showed that What you interpret as a 17 foot concrete wall was nothing more that debris obscured by dust and smoke. I showed you the core structure from several diffreent angle. And you did not reply to it.
I showed how the mesurments you noted on the picture did not match up or coincide.
Other people here have posted pictures of the steel column core (so did jakx in the other forum) but you ignore all that. You've already admitted that you would never accept any other explination other than your own.

[uruk]

I've forgotten. I know the doors are sut to the public trying to investigate.

Right, sure.
Yet there's all those CT who are doing investigations right now. With what?

[Christophera]

Right, sure.
Yet there's all those CT who are doing investigations right now. With what?

A strange and alien concept for you. Raw evidence.

[cloudshipsrule]

Christophera,

How many levels/floors of the towers were constructed between each pouring of the concrete core? In other words, did the concrete for the core get poured as each level was built, or did the concrete get poured for the core after every 5 or 10 or 15 stories of building were constructed?

[Christophera]

Yep I sure have. You've just ignored it because it did not agree with your belief.

I debunked your evidence.

I showed that What you interpret as a 17 foot concrete wall was nothing more that debris obscured by dust and smoke.

Right you found an alternative photo that had debris in front of the concrete. rather than using mine which had litttle debris, (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg)

I showed you the core structure from several diffreent angle. And you did not reply to it.
I showed how the mesurments you noted on the picture did not match up or coincide.
Other people here have posted pictures of the steel column core (so did jakx in the other forum) but you ignore all that. You've already admitted that you would never accept any other explination other than your own.

I debunked it, you showed nothing to change the dimensions I provided. Remember, it was all cocered with debris. Can't have it both ways.

There have been numerous misinterpretations of construction photos. jackx did the most imcompetent.

I will accept raw evidence that is presented correctly.

[Arus808]

I debunked your evidence.

YOU. DEBUNKED. NOTHING.

Chris, have you bothered to contact anyone who was reponsible in the design and construction of the twin tower? YOu've now had 51 hours to do so.

Dont reply until you have. And dont make up excuses as to why you haven't or make others do it for you.

[Christophera]

Christophera,

How many levels/floors of the towers were constructed between each pouring of the concrete core? In other words, did the concrete for the core get poured as each level was built, or did the concrete get poured for the core after every 5 or 10 or 15 stories of building were constructed?

The standing rule for WTC 1 was no more thatn 7 floors od steel over the core.

The core required that 4 floors minimum of steel be constructed so that the crane platform was above the new segment of cast concrete core but still had a place to be fastened and that the interior box columns were in position to support the outer core forms. By special arrangement with the engineers in charge of steel and restricted operation, steel went higher on a few occasions. WTC 2 may have had more of that as experience gained on WTC 1 was used to evaluate risks.

[Christophera]

YOU. DEBUNKED. NOTHING.

Chris, have you bothered to contact anyone who was reponsible in the design and construction of the twin tower? YOu've now had 51 hours to do so.

Dont reply until you have. And dont make up excuses as to why you haven't or make others do it for you.

Hey, you shouldn't be replying until you have an image of some of the 47 steel columns at reasonable elevation of the ground, and you should not reply because th eimage that shows what can only be concrete ALSO shows NO steel core columns.

You suffer from delusions of "entitlement" in light of available raw evidence.

[Arus808]

What part of "its your responsibility to prove to us your theory" do you not understand?

The only way you're going to prove to use your theory is correct, is to contact someone who was involved in the design and construction of said towers.

Until you do so, we dont have to show you anything, since evidence supports OUR FACTS (not theories).

[Arus808]

Hey, you shouldn't be replying until you have an image of some of the 47 steel columns at reasonable elevation of the ground

why? the buildings collapse, so those "steel" columns would no longer be standing at a reasonable elevation off the ground.

The fact that there are NO pictures proves that there was no concrete core.

You contradict yourself constantly, Chris.



You suffer from delusions of "entitlement" in light of available raw evidence.
You suffer from voluntary ingnorance.

[Christophera]

So you're documenting your own hypothesis and using it as a basis for your argument ? Has there ever been a more circular form of reasoning ?


It is a known fact to me that there was a concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif). It is documented with evidence. What is wrong with me using what I know to show what was there to you who do not and consider my propositions as hypothesis, what else would I use?

Still, you have not one image of the steel core columns.

So you're objecting to my using evidence it as a basis for my argument ? Has there ever been a more unfair proposition of so called "reasoning"?

[Arus808]

It is a known fact to me that there was a concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

Bolding done by me.

Yes, its ONLY known to you. Because you made it up.

It is documented with evidence.
Which you have not provided.
So, whom did you speak with as to the design and construction of the twin towers. They'd be the ones that can provide evidence.

What is wrong with me using what I know to show what was there to you who do not and consider my propositions as hypothesis, what else would I use?

Because you are trying to show something that is not there.

Still, you have not one image of the steel core columns.

So, I guess all those while being constructed images are just figments of our imaginations. Those same in-construction images that show the many steel columns that go through the center of both buildings?

So you're objecting to my using evidence it as a basis for my argument ? Has there ever been a more unfair proposition of so called "reasoning"?

If that is evidence, then you need to read the dictionary under its definition.

[uruk]

A strange and alien concept for you. Raw evidence.

"Raw" evidence. You mean looking at a photograph and guessing at what's going on?
There is a lot of information lost in a compressed 2 dimentional photo.

A picture may be worth a thousand words but all of them can be wrong.

The special effects industry makes a lot money on that fact that 2d pictures
can decieve.

[Hellbound]

100 bottles of beer on the wall, 100 bottles of beer...

Take one down, pass it around, 99 bottles of beer on the wall...

Next verse! Someobody take it!

[Bell]

Raw evidence is something that is not contrivable. It really is of the scene.

Yes, a picture of the scene. But where is your RAW evidence of the concrete core? Show me a clear picture that shows this core, not within a cloud of dust, not from a sketch, but a clear picture.

Also, you failed to answer two of my other questions:

I've answered this question maybe 3 times in the last 6 pages.

There was 2 delays systems, one for the floors and one for the core. The lower core had a slower or less predictable fuse system and took a number of seconds to intitate. It was also safer and would not be inadvertantly detonated by a stray radio signal.

<snip> redundant links

What is the point of detonating it later?

Why did the corresponding part of the outside of the building collapse if it did not explode?



<snip>
<snap>
<snip>

If this is not concrete what is it. Drywall is not logical.

<snip>redundant link

Why is it not logical?

[Christophera]

Quote:
So you're objecting to my using evidence it as a basis for my argument ? Has there ever been a more unfair proposition of so called "reasoning"?
If that is evidence, then you need to read the dictionary under its definition.

If that is evidence, then you need to read the dictionary under its definition.

By what you've written in response to what I wrote. Some reading comprehension courses are in order for you.

[Architect]

No, the one in Architects avatar isn't built yet.

The Beetham Tower just opened this week. It actually does have two concrete cores! :D They were really very prominent during construction.

http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/gallery/d/3397-1/beetham9995.jpg
http://static.flickr.com/25/37328670_72c305de82_o.jpg


Actually, the whole construction is concrete; Mancman will be able to testify to the in-situ formwork that crawled up floor, after floor, over the last year and a half or so.

One of the reasons we used concrete was cost, however I have to say that it does make issues such as fireproofing a lot easier.

Mancman; I know you're itching to mention the fins but they were the boss' idea. :)

[Christophera]

Yes, a picture of the scene. But where is your RAW evidence of the concrete core? Show me a clear picture that shows this core, not within a cloud of dust, not from a sketch, but a clear picture.

Also, you failed to answer two of my other questions:
What is the point of detonating it later?

Why did the corresponding part of the outside of the building collapse if it did not explode?

Why is it not logical?

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

If you do not have the experience required to recognize that only concrete would have that appearance and could only be concrete under those conditions then your requirements exceed the availability of evidence.

A person with the correct expereince will realize that what is seen may not be easily identifiable visusally as concete, but because of its appearance in that location adjacent to bvious steel columns shown out side the core, they will know the image shows concrete.

The delayed detonation allowed the steel to fall away after the floors and columnn cutting charges had disassembled it before the thermite took out many of the perimeter and interio box column bases. If the core was detonated with the steel around it the steel would be thrown outwards damaging surrounding buildings.

Note the insurance lawsuit. Double payment to a recipient who had private liability and there are not excessive claims from the adjoining buildings.

[uruk]

I debunked your evidence.
You never addressed even half of what I posted. There are questions that I put forth that you never answered. You just keep pointing back to pictures on your site that have already been shown to be inconclusive, mistakenly annoted, and blured and obscured. Your just running around in circles.



Right you found an alternative photo that had debris in front of the concrete. rather than using mine which had litttle debris, (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg)

I debunked it, you showed nothing to change the dimensions I provided. Remember, it was all cocered with debris. Can't have it both ways.

I posted five photos. The I posted were clearer than the one that you have posted on your website and one was even of the same angle and view as the one you have on your site. (And not to mention that the sizes you were pointing out on that picture were completely wrong. The structure you pointed out could not possibly be 3 inches when compared next to the 4.3 foot wide box collumn.) and those different angles showed NO CONCRETE! That's why you ignored them.



There have been numerous misinterpretations of construction photos. jackx did the most imcompetent.
Jackx made one missinterpretation and corrected it. And even with the missinterpretation he still showed how completely wrong you are.

I will accept raw evidence that is presented correctly.

No you don't. It has been presented to you by many people in many ways. You willfully choose not to accept it.
Your mind is closed.

[Arus808]

By what you've written in response to what I wrote. Some reading comprehension courses are in order for you.

Im not the one with reading comprehension problems. YOU DO NOT HAVE any evidence. That's why I said you should look the definition up in a dictionary.

So have you contacted those who were involved in the construction and design of the twin towers?

[Christophera]

why? the buildings collapse, so those "steel" columns would no longer be standing at a reasonable elevation off the ground.

Steel columns don't just collapse. They topple which is highly visible. We do not see them. Meaning they must have been cut.

How many cuts are required and what does that look like when it is done with high explosives?

[Christophera]

Im not the one with reading comprehension problems. YOU DO NOT HAVE any evidence. That's why I said you should look the definition up in a dictionary.

So have you contacted those who were involved in the construction and design of the twin towers?

I have lots of evidence for the concrete core.

You just don't want to use it,

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

You want me to waste time making phones calls that have already been made and I know the outcome which you've been told.

[Arus808]

Steel columns don't just collapse.[/qyite]

YES they do. They weaken and with weight, they collapse; like they did on 9/11.

[quote] They topple which is highly visible. We do not see them. Meaning they must have been cut.

This shows exactly why you have no clue what you are talking about.

How many cuts are required and what does that look like when it is done with high explosives?

There are photos out there of exactly what goes into prepping a building for demolitions. None of that were evident in the WTC towers.


SO , have you contacted those who were involved in the design and construction of the Twin towers?


Stop ignoring that question.

[Arus808]

I have lots of evidence for the concrete core.

You just don't want to use it,


Thats not evidence. Can't ignore something that you dont have. Images of after collapse is not evidence of anything that you are claiming. Evidence are physical proof (ie please provide your proof fomr the site of these concrete columns, in the form of PHOTOS THAT YOU TOOK yourself; or the testimony of those who worked on them towers).

You've provided none, but images YOU"ve downloaded from other conpsiracy sites. That is not evidence.



you want me to waste time making phones calls that have already been made and I know the outcome which you've been told.

No, we want you to provide proof. by making those phone calls, you are on your way to getting that proof. So far you contacted 1 person, who doesn't support your theory. So why is that?

And no speculation on your part. YOU can't 2nd guess someone because they didn't give you the answer YOU wanted.

So, have you contacted those who were involved with the design and construction of the twin towers? Why haven't you contacted the design firm?

[uruk]

It is a known fact to me that there was a concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif). It is documented with evidence. What is wrong with me using what I know to show what was there to you who do not and consider my propositions as hypothesis, what else would I use? Backed up with what evidence? The stuff you made up on your website? That won't do.

You need independent sources. You need names and transcripted interviews with the workers who actualy worked on the core. You need to find that video you keep talking about or a source that refreneces or mentions the video, or even a TVGuide from that month and year that shows the air date. You need other sources other than your own website to back you up.

Still, you have not one image of the steel core columns.
WHAT?!?!?! They're posted all over this thread. Your just willfully ignoring them.

So you're objecting to my using evidence it as a basis for my argument ? Has there ever been a more unfair proposition of so called "reasoning"?

No, were just questioning and pointing out errors in your thoery on your website. Were asking you to back that up with more than just photo interpretation. Photo interpretation is not enough. You need other corroberating evidence.

[Christophera]

Backed up with what evidence? The stuff you made up on your website? That won't do.


I have always maintained that many here do not know what evidence is. Thanks for the confirmation.

If you don't like my interpretation, you give it a try.



http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3489&stc=1&d=1160688749

[Christophera]

Thats not evidence. Can't ignore something that you dont have. Images of after collapse is not evidence of anything that you are claiming.

The invitation has been standing for you to provide a reasonable, logical explanation for what is seen in images.

Start here. What is seen does not resemble steel core columns and drywall could not survice. What is the core of WTC 2 made of?

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

[Christophera]

Steel columns don't just collapse.

YES they do. They weaken and with weight, they collapse; like they did on 9/11.

In collapse the topple they do not just fall apart and downward.

This shows us exactly why you have no clue what you are talking about.



There are photos out there of exactly what goes into prepping a building for demolitions. None of that were evident in the WTC towers.

Correct, so in order for the towers to come down like this, (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg) explosives had to be built in.

[bonavada]

Steel columns don't just collapse. They topple which is highly visible. We do not see them. Meaning they must have been cut.

sigh.........

i've found an astonishing series of panoramic pictures illustrating the total devastation at GZ very soon after 9/11 (two days after the atrocity). they've probably been referred to here before but i think it would be worth it for everyone to take a look.........

HERE (http://www.zombietime.com/wtc_9-13-2001/)

where is the evidence of blasted concrete in these picures christophera? where, ANYWHERE in those terrible pictures is evidence of your concrete core? where is the "sand and gravel" you are so fond claiming covered the site following the disaster?
are these "raw" enough for you? these pictures are so "raw" you can almost see the blood trickling down the lens.

take a break mate you can't be a twat all your life. have a day off ffs.

BV

[Bell]

sigh.........

i've found an astonishing series of panoramic pictures illustrating the total devastation at GZ very soon after 9/11 (two days after the atrocity). they've probably been referred to here before but i think it would be worth it for everyone to take a look.........

HERE (http://www.zombietime.com/wtc_9-13-2001/)

where is the evidence of blasted concrete in these picures christophera? where, ANYWHERE in those terrible pictures is evidence of your concrete core? where is the "sand and gravel" you are so fond claiming covered the site following the disaster?
are these "raw" enough for you? these pictures are so "raw" you can almost see the blood trickling down the lens.

take a break mate you can't be a twat all your life. have a day off ffs.

BV

Looking at those pictures again makes me wonder how the hell did those 18 people survive? Wow, what lucky few.

And since I'm talking about that... Christophera, how did the firefighters and the civilian survive in the staircase inside the core, if that was blown up?

[Z]

WHY does anyone talk to this liar, anyway?

What do you all hope to achieve?

We've now caught him in two obvious, plain, simple lies: First, that he saw a documentary on 'PBS channel 10 WCET' (unless, and I can allow for this, he saw it in Las Vegas, or somehow got the Vegas station where he lived); second, that he interviewed a 64 year old Mohawk who worked on the towers when he was 24 and speaks of the core (amazing... so in 1966, two years before they started working on the erection, he knew what was GOING to happen with the core???)... that's assuming Chris interviewed him this year. Chances are, it was 'a couple of years ago' and we're talking the Mohawk worked on the towers around, what, 1962-1964???

Liar.

Why should anyone believe anything else he claims?

Why does this thread continue???

Please, for pity's sake, stop. It's done. Chris has been absolutely shown to be a delusional, self-aggrandizing liar. His 'evidence' has been debunked more often than Oprah's changed weight, and he's never, EVER, going to admit he's wrong on anything. This is his life, folks.. this is all that matters to him any more. He'll never give up, never surrender.

So what more is there to say?

Or do you guys actually like banging your head against a concrete core?

[bonavada]

Looking at those pictures again makes me wonder how the hell did those 18 people survive? Wow, what lucky few.
And since I'm talking about that... Christophera, how did the firefighters and the civilian survive in the staircase inside the core, if that was blown up?

an extremely valid point my man!

can christophera theorise that pearler away?

i'll hazard a guess that'll he'll cook something up. hologramatic hypnolobotomisation or some other total shiesser.

BV

[Arus808]

The invitation has been standing for you to provide a reasonable, logical explanation for what is seen in images.

Images have been posted ad nauseum throughout this thread. the fact that you ignore them speaks louder.


So when are you going to contact those who were involved in the design and construction of the twin towers?

[Popeholden]

you're seriously arguing that the core was made of concrete?

wow.

[Redtail]

100 bottles of beer on the wall, 100 bottles of beer...

Take one down, pass it around, 99 bottles of beer on the wall...

Next verse! Someobody take it!

99 bottles of beer on the wall, 99 bottles of beer...

Take one down pass it around, 98 bottles of beer on the wall...

[Bell]

you're seriously arguing that the core was made of concrete?

wow.

Just wait until you see all the evidence. Raw evidence. *giggle*

[bonavada]

Why does this thread continue???
<snip>
Please, for pity's sake, stop. It's done. Chris has been absolutely shown to be a delusional, self-aggrandizing liar.
<snip>
So what more is there to say?

Or do you guys actually like banging your head against a concrete core?

point taken. i shall try and stop reacting to his nonsense. just that he annoys me so much with this utter tripe.

BV

[Z]

I know, I know.

But as a parent of six kids, and the primary caregiver, sometimes you have to learn that the best way to deal with the annoying whining, question-asking, and screaming is... just ignore it. Little kids eventually give up, because they're not getting positive reinforcement of their behaviors.

Do I know what I'm talking about? Let me give you another useless anecdote: My kids range from 8 to 2. The 8 year old and the 6 year old are step-children, whose father is a jerk. The others are all mine.

Anyway, I can take all six, by myself, to any restaurant I choose. I order for them - drinks, main course, everything. They remain seated the entire meal. They eat with their silverware. They mostly finish all their food (the 3 year old has an eating disorder, though, and often refuses to eat).

I have actually had waitresses RETURN me my tip. Managers have marvelled at how well-behaved these guys are. My seven and four year old today went to IHOP, and got FREE Chocolate banana smoothies - TWO EACH - because of how well they behave. When my four-year-old asked for a side salad, they brought him a main course salad. And charged as per his request!

Yeah, I've figured out how kids work.

Ergo... Chris is acting like a child. Treat him as one. Ignore his rants.

[cloudshipsrule]

Christophera said:

The standing rule for WTC 1 was no more thatn 7 floors od steel over the core.

The core required that 4 floors minimum of steel be constructed so that the crane platform was above the new segment of cast concrete core but still had a place to be fastened and that the interior box columns were in position to support the outer core forms. By special arrangement with the engineers in charge of steel and restricted operation, steel went higher on a few occasions. WTC 2 may have had more of that as experience gained on WTC 1 was used to evaluate risks.

Chris, I've tried to find this information on the Net with no luck. Could you point me in the right direction to find the details of this construction method?
Was there verbal or written discussion between engineers and job foremen concerning the height to construct the steel core before pouring the cement? Help!:)

James

[Christophera]

Christophera said:

Chris, I've tried to find this information on the Net with no luck. Could you point me in the right direction to find the details of this construction method?
Was there verbal or written discussion between engineers and job foremen concerning the height to construct the steel core before pouring the cement? Help!:)

James

There was no steel core. There were "interior box columns" that were needed to form the concrete core inside. WTC 7 is being re built right now with this technique. I've looked for details on it but there seem to be none. It is private property.

There is no reference on the web for any constructon details for the towers except perhaps "slurry wall' or "hat truss" or something like that.

The steel core column deception suffers from a similar problem, or worse because there are at least 3 different core column layouts available and the different sources don't seem to know it, or care.

[Bell]

10 Print "The WTC had a concrete core. See my picture."
20 Print "There was no concrete core in the WTC."
30 Goto 10

[mortimer]

Chris,

Did your supposed "concrete core" just skip the 27th floor of WTC2? This is from the Port Authority website PRIOR to 9/11:

http://web.archive.org/web/20010212010023/http://www.panynj.gov/wtc/27thfloor.htm

[alexg]

10 Print "The WTC had a concrete core. See my picture."
20 Print "There was no concrete core in the WTC."
30 Goto 10

Basically, yes. LOL

[stateofgrace]

100 bottles of beer on the wall, 100 bottles of beer...

Take one down, pass it around, 99 bottles of beer on the wall...

Next verse! Someobody take it!

99 bottles of beer on the wall, 99 bottles of beer...

Take one down, pass it around, 98 bottles of beer on the wall......

[alexg]

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

And for my 100th post.

I rest my case.


Anybody see a concrete core in there is gonzo.

[Oliver]

99 bottles of beer on the wall, 99 bottles of beer...



Take one down, pass it around, 98 bottles of beer on the wall......
98 bottles of beer on the wall, 98 bottles of beer...

Take one down, pass it around, 97 bottles of beer on the wall...... http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/111074527eb7755fd3.gif

[twinstead]

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

I rest my case.


Anybody see a concrete core in there is gonzo.

LOL I see you haven't been debating Chris for very long. Your picture can only convince sane people there was no concrete core. The image has been shown to Chris before.

not surpirsingly, he remains unconvinced...

[uruk]

98 bottles of beer on the wall, 98 bottles of beer...

Take one down, pass it around, 97 bottles of beer on the wall......

97 bottles of beer on the wall, 97 bottles of beer...

Take one down, pass it around, 96 bottles of beer on the wall......

[Mancman]

http://www.undiscoveredscotland.co.uk/usrecipes/shortbread/images/shortbread-450.jpg

Shortbread Biscuits

Ingredients:
# 6 oz. (150g) plain flour
# 4 oz. (100g) butter or margarine
# 2 oz. (50g)castor sugar
# 1 egg yolk
# half a teaspoon of baking powder

Cooking Instructions:

1. Pre-heat oven to 350F, Gas Mark 4, 180C
2. Sieve together the flour and baking powder
3. Rub the butter into the flour and add the sugar
4. Add the beaten egg yolk to the flour mixture and knead into a stiff dough
5. On a lightly floured board, roll the dough out rather thinly
6. Cut into biscuits and bake in the oven for 20-30 minutes

[Oliver]

97 bottles of beer on the wall, 97 bottles of beer...

Take one down, pass it around, 96 bottles of beer on the wall......

96 bottles of beer on the wall, 96 bottles of beer...
Take one down, pass it around, 95 bottles of beer on the wall...... http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/111074527eda9e808a.gif

[uruk]

I have always maintained that many here do not know what evidence is. Thanks for the confirmation.

If you don't like my interpretation, you give it a try.



http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3489&stc=1&d=1160688749

For god's sake Chris! The arrow is pointing a gap between the steel columns. In fact it's pointing at the dust cloud behind the column. Put on some glasses! Anybody with half a brain can see that.

[alexg]

LOL I see you haven't been debating Chris for very long. Your picture can only convince sane people there was no concrete core. The image has been shown to Chris before.

not surpirsingly, he remains unconvinced...

Actually I followed the whole thread. :D And did my best to convince him already. I still think that picture does it better than anything else. But all efforts are in vain at this point.

[alexg]

For god's sake Chris! The arrow is pointing a gap between the steel columns. In fact it's pointing at the dust cloud behind the column. Put on some glasses! Anybody with half a brain can see that.
It's true. That's actually dust. It's not even close.

[The Atheist]

A strange and alien concept for you. Raw evidence.:dl:
I really don't know which is funnier - you, Christophera, with your unbelievably thick-skinned inability to assimilate FACTS placed in front of you, or the other posters who have caused this thread to grow to over 5000 posts!

I think it's well past time this thread was moved to humour, because boy are you guys humouring this dumbo #####!

[Christophera]

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

And for my 100th post.

I rest my case.


Anybody see a concrete core in there is gonzo.

The gonzo people think this (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is drywall

Your rested case has been crushed by knowledgeable anslysis using raw evidence.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3495&stc=1&d=1160705047

[Christophera]

:dl:
I really don't know which is funnier - you, Christophera, with your unbelievably thick-skinned inability to assimilate FACTS placed in front of you, or the other posters who have caused this thread to grow to over 5000 posts!

I think it's well past time this thread was moved to humour, because boy are you guys humouring this dumbo #####!

So sad that you cannot logic what a fact is.

There have been so few real facts presented by the deniers here that it should be easy for you to actually post one.

Below is raw evidence and the fact is that to the left of the steel spire, an interior box column outside the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg), is concrete.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3496&stc=1&d=1160705248

[mortimer]

Chris,

Care to revise your "perpendicular hallways on alternate floors" theory? Or are you claiming that the tenants who paid to rent these buildings just ignore that the floor plans they are given are wrong?

Where's the concrete core?

[Christophera]

For god's sake Chris! The arrow is pointing a gap between the steel columns. In fact it's pointing at the dust cloud behind the column. Put on some glasses! Anybody with half a brain can see that.

The close up is a bit over exposed so this will expel your error.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3498&stc=1&d=1160705467

[Christophera]

Chris,

Care to revise your "perpendicular hallways on alternate floors" theory? Or are you claiming that the tenants who paid to rent these buildings just ignore that the floor plans they are given are wrong?

Where's the concrete core?

Your image is prior to the product of an actual plan with which construction was done. The dimensions are even wrong according to other such floor plans.

[Christophera]

A picture is not evidence that they were constructed with different hallways. Please provide technical evidence that this was the case.

Now I know your blind. Tower on right, north tower looing at wide side of core. Left, WTC 2, narrow side of core.

Please provide an image or techinical evidence that the steel cor columns existed.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3499&stc=1&d=1160706086

[mortimer]

Your image is prior to the product of an actual plan with which construction was done. The dimensions are even wrong according to other such floor plans.

No, Chris, it's a real estate floor plan from June of 2001. You think the tenants who actually rented in these buildings wouldn't notice your missing hallways?

If you claim the dimensions are wrong, it is up to you to prove it.

[alexg]

The close up is a bit over exposed so this will expel your error.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3498&stc=1&d=1160705467

Take your clearer version and blow it way up. It's still smoke. And that much is obvious. It simply looks like a cloud, not like a concrete wall.

The smoke is a little darker/grayer than some other areas but from what I have seen by looking now at hundreds of pics and videos is that the smoke tended to be thicker when in close proximity to the standing debris. In fact that same smoke seems to have hung around the entire spire structure, not just in that gap.

[mortimer]

Chris,

Have you attempted to contact any of the tens, nay, hundreds of thousands of people who actually worked inside of those buildings, day in and day out, to verify your hallway theory?

ETA: Never mind, forgot they were all hypnotized.

[alexg]

The gonzo people think this (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is drywall

Your rested case has been crushed by knowledgeable anslysis using raw evidence.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3495&stc=1&d=1160705047

HA HA. I showed what that is. It's smoke and dust, no details of hidden structure, if any, are visible. And on top, that's likely debris stuffed into core top.http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_11835452bc52f3e976.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1871)

And you still have shown no non-comic explanation of how that standing cloud blew up with the c4. You showed a picture of collapsing n tower, not yet fully down, your supposed upward explosions was just the plume from the collapse. The one above needs to blow up, now, if you say it blows after it's on the ground, as you did say, you make no sense - the c4 is supposed to CAUSE the collapse.

Chris it's over, not even the CTs give you any credence, not 1 person believes you here, there is no hope ever of anyone buying your story, unless they buy it for comedy or as a case study of delusion. Come to think of it, this whole thread could be a classic study of delusion and it's endless capacity to go on functioning in the face of obvious refutation.

[firecoins]

you have convinced me Chris. I was in the tower 1 in Feb 2001 and even though everything you said so far doesn't have any basis in reality, I believe you. :covereyes

[Blue Mountain]

I answered this a few pages back which means the obfuscatiors efforts are effective.

To illustrate it I posted an animated gif,

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

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

The obfuscatiors, cried, "That doesn't show the core." and my answer was lost in what followed.

The core of Tower one was holed all the way through by the right engine of flight 11, fuel flowed it through and spread fuel through the core. The central stair and the western stair were destroyed. The engine bounced off the inside of the farside perimeter walls not exiting the tower. The left engine hit interior walls and stayed inside the core on the east half. Falling debris had partially blocked the east stairwell and the fuel exploded making the environment full of smoke and fire, uninhabitable. The core was protection from the aluminum plane but not the engine. It was about 2.5 thick at impact height.

The core of tower 2 was holed by the left engine of flight 175 which was traveling 100 MPH faster than 11 and the core was about 4 feet thick at that elevation. Smaller amounts of fuel were in WTC 2 as much of the fuel burned outside the east wall at impact. Tower 2 had 2 functioning stairwells and little smoke in the core.

Flight 11 made a solid hit and only the engines penetrated. That is pretty good protection, but the fire issue made the environment uninhabitable.
Overall, a good summary of the events. A couple of comments:
1) In WTC1, it seems implausible that the two wheels could make it through 5 feet of reinforced concrete, with a couple still travelling with enough force to exit the building through the south wall. (Then again, it appears that the engines didn't make it through at all. That I'm puzzled about.)

2) The NIST report indicates all three stairwells in WTC were destroyed by the impact, while you indicate the east one survived. The NIST report is based on extensive study, engineering expertise, and computer simulations. Please indicate on what you base your conclusion that one stairwell survived.

3) I'm interested in finding out where you got the numbers for the core thickness at the various levels. If you've had to compute them yourself, please give us a rough idea if how you went about your calculations. Detailed calculations would be great.

[Blue Mountain]

What i said is that some elevator equipment was inside the core itself at the 43rd and one other above serving elevators with cable and that those elevator shafts, above and below were separated.

Logic says that if the heavy elevator motors were at the top there would be perhaps too much weight. The 43 floor is known as the mechanical floor, in the right place for stability. The pulley systems in elevators such as those require the reels to be very close to the load. There were parts of the core that were not continuous for good reason, to get the cable out into the core area going up to pulleys that in turn led down.

All that made the 43rd floor very complex structurally. My point is that the top of the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is that area or perhaps just below it, very strong to take the weight.
BZZT! Wrong answer.

You keep getting the floor numbers wrong. In neither building was the 43rd floor a "mechanical" floor!

If you can't get something this simple correct, why should we believe anything other conclusion you come to?

[Regnad Kcin]

WHY does anyone talk to this liar, anyway?

...We've now caught him in two obvious, plain, simple lies...I know of at least two others: 1) posting on the physorg forum that he was banned from the JREF when he was only briefly suspended, and 2) claiming just a couple pages ago that I had not earlier responded to his towers-fell-in-the-wrong-order inanity.

[Blue Mountain]

WHY does anyone talk to this liar, anyway?

What do you all hope to achieve?

(remainder trimmed)
I'm doing for a few reasons:
To sharpen my research skills
To improve my debating skills
To try to get Chris to explain some of the more improbable parts of his story (it's the "give a man enough rope" theory)
To see what manner of whacky ideas Chris can come up with on-the-fly
To educate myself and others here on some of the more obscure aspects of the construction of the WTC
To see if Chris is overall a coherent person with the exception of this one idea. So far he's doing not too badly, except when he's defending his idea.

I'm certainly not doing this in an attempt to get Chrisophera to change his mind. This is perhaps a textbook example of idee fixee. It's certainly a real-life example of Winston Churchill's famous definition: "A fanatic is somone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."

[Oliver]

96 bottles of beer on the wall, 96 bottles of beer...
Take one down, pass it around, 95 bottles of beer on the wall...... http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/111074527eb7755fd3.gif

95 bottles of beer on the wall, 95 bottles of beer...
Take one down, pass it around, 94 bottles of beer on the wall......

[uruk]

The close up is a bit over exposed so this will expel your error.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3498&stc=1&d=1160705467
Chris, it shows the same thing. Steel columns momentarily standing before gravity and instability take over.

[uruk]

Here's an interesting video talking about the causes for the collapse of the WTC. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bfe0Hbgq1HY&NR


I know you won't like it or believe it because it has things like scientists, facts, and NO CONCRETE CORE!

[uruk]

:dl:
I really don't know which is funnier - you, Christophera, with your unbelievably thick-skinned inability to assimilate FACTS placed in front of you, or the other posters who have caused this thread to grow to over 5000 posts!

I think it's well past time this thread was moved to humour, because boy are you guys humouring this dumbo #####!

I just want to see how far this will go before a mod or admin finally gets sick ant tired and kill this farce.

[uruk]

The gonzo people think this (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is drywall

Your rested case has been crushed by knowledgeable anslysis using raw evidence.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3495&stc=1&d=1160705047

Chris, your a complete liar. The perspective of your lines are all wrong. You are clearly making up stuff. Your raw evidence is wrong.

[Brainache]

I want Chris to tell us again about how the mass hypnosis of millions of people all over the world was achieved. How they programmed us all to deny the existence of concrete.

I'd also like to hear again how the film "A Beautiful Mind" was produced specifically to mislead Christopher A Brown.

A bit more about Stonehenge and the Circassian Druids might also be amusing.

How about the etymology of the word "circa"? That was a hoot.

This thread has gotten bogged down with all this tech talk. Let's get back to the wild and wacky world of woo that is Christopheraland.

[Christophera]

I want Chris to tell us again about how the mass hypnosis of millions of people all over the world was achieved. How they programmed us all to deny the existence of concrete.

I'd also like to hear again how the film "A Beautiful Mind" was produced specifically to mislead Christopher A Brown.

A bit more about Stonehenge and the Circassian Druids might also be amusing.

How about the etymology of the word "circa"? That was a hoot.

This thread has gotten bogged down with all this tech talk. Let's get back to the wild and wacky world of woo that is Christopheraland.

Brainy, I see you made as many errors as possible.

The error that costs us our futures is the one about the concrete. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)

Clearly if you are doing this ad hominem thing it is because you do not have any evidence but still must somehow support the lie that the murderers hide behind. Some fear that would be hard to understand no doubt.

And, ....... you will not use your abilities to reason to protect the lives of the children. Sad how corrupted humans have become.

At least I have evidence. It is far more than you can understand, or wish to undertstand from your deeply corrupted state, but it is evidence and it's good evidence. It also explains near free fall and total pulverization (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html), which are important. The raw evidence of the concrete core is immense (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html) compared to the fraudulent documents and misintrerpreted documents you and yours rely on.

[Christophera]

Chris, your a complete liar. The perspective of your lines are all wrong. You are clearly making up stuff. Your raw evidence is wrong.

But what is really wonderful is that the evidence proves you totally wrong. (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html)

[Christophera]

Chris, it shows the same thing. Steel columns momentarily standing before gravity and instability take over.

Correction, one steel column, the spire. And to the left is the remnants of a steel reinforced Concrete shear wall. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg)

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3501&stc=1&d=1160716870

[Oliver]

Another bag of rice felt in china this morning. :eek: :eye-poppi :covereyes

http://www.gallien.org/serendipity/uploads/cnn_bag_rice_sack_reis.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107452f26531f71b.gif

[tsig]

So sad that you cannot logic what a fact is.

There have been so few real facts presented by the deniers here that it should be easy for you to actually post one.

Below is raw evidence and the fact is that to the left of the steel spire, an interior box column outside the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg), is concrete.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3496&stc=1&d=1160705248

Raw evidence means nothing till you soak it in paranoia then add a garlic of true belief.


Flavor to taste.

[Big Les]

I'm so getting a clue right now.

[twinstead]

Raw evidence means nothing till you soak it in paranoia then add a garlic of true belief.



In this case, it's more like pickled in paranoia.

[Brainache]

Brainy, I see you made as many errors as possible.

The error that costs us our futures is the one about the concrete. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)

Clearly if you are doing this ad hominem thing it is because you do not have any evidence but still must somehow support the lie that the murderers hide behind. Some fear that would be hard to understand no doubt.

And, ....... you will not use your abilities to reason to protect the lives of the children. Sad how corrupted humans have become.

At least I have evidence. It is far more than you can understand, or wish to undertstand from your deeply corrupted state, but it is evidence and it's good evidence. It also explains near free fall and total pulverization (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html), which are important. The raw evidence of the concrete core is immense (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html) compared to the fraudulent documents and misintrerpreted documents you and yours rely on.

No Chris, what I am doing with the ad hominem thing is putting your concrete core in context with some of the other things you have said in this thread.

If even you think that those things sound crazy, then maybe it's time you reassessed the basis of your argument.

I don't claim to have evidence. I'm just an unemployed TV professional in Australia. I leave issues of structural engineering to the experts. Likewise with issues of demolition. I believe claiming knowledge in areas where I have none would be dishonest and disrespectful to those people who have studied for years to earn their qualifications.

So I'm happy to sit in the peanut gallery and mock people like you who think they know more than the experts. People like you who are fixated on a delusion and who refuse to even consider the possibility that they may be mistaken.

Time for you to wake up and smell the medication Chris. Get help.

[Oliver]

99 bottles of beer on the wall, 99 bottles of beer...

Take one down, pass it around, 98 bottles of beer on the wall......

1,000,000 bottles of beer on the wall, 1,000,000 bottles of beer...
Take one down, pass it around, 999,999 bottles of beer on the wall...... http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107451f109db90e3.gif

[Brainache]

1,000,000 bottles of beer on the wall, 1,000,000 bottles of beer...
Take one down, pass it around, 999,999 bottles of beer on the wall...... http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107451f109db90e3.gif

Oliver, you get my vote for the funniest German ever. Yay!

(I'm not going to sing tho', sorry).

[Bell]

David Icke believes the core was actually a lizard :eek:

[Oliver]

Oliver, you get my vote for the funniest German ever. Yay!

(I'm not going to sing tho', sorry).

You think that was funny? http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107451da7e781cb2.gif Wait until i get Chris between my fingers... http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107451db56d36f14.gif http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/111074527eb9578326.gif

[bonavada]

Another bag of rice felt in china this morning. :eek: :eye-poppi :covereyes

hah! nice one........
the caption says "Jessica Weisenheimer Reports" but that young lady on the left is CNN anchor monita (can't remember her surname) and she is the hottest news anchor ever afaiac.....drop dead gorgeous. she can shuffle my notes anytime ...........

http://www.gallien.org/serendipity/uploads/cnn_bag_rice_sack_reis.jpg

BV

[Bell]

hah! nice one........
the caption says "Jessica Weisenheimer Reports" but that young lady on the left is CNN anchor monita (can't remember her surname) and she is the hottest news anchor ever afaiac.....drop dead gorgeous. she can shuffle my notes anytime ...........

http://www.gallien.org/serendipity/uploads/cnn_bag_rice_sack_reis.jpg

BV

Monita Rajpal.

And how about Becky Anderson?
Zain Verjee?
Hala Gorani?

:blush:

[bonavada]

Monita Rajpal.

And how about Becky Anderson?
Zain Verjee?
Hala Gorani?

:blush:

dunno about any of those candidates (any links?)

<serenade>
but there's nuffink sweeter
than my monita
</serenade>

BV

[Bell]

dunno about any of those candidates (any links?)

<serenade>
but there's nuffink sweeter
than my monita
</serenade>

BV

They're presentors at CNN international.

Becky Anderson (http://edition.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/images/anderson.becky.jpg)
Zain Verjee (http://edition.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/images/verjee.zain.jpg)
Hala Gorani (http://edition.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/images/gorani.hala.jpg)

ETA: But these still pictures can't compare to seeing them live on tv ;)

[bonavada]

The error that costs us our futures is the one about the concrete. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)
At least I have evidence. It is far more than you can understand, or wish to undertstand from your deeply corrupted state, but it is evidence and it's good evidence. It also explains near free fall and total pulverization (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html), which are important. The raw evidence of the concrete core is immense (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html) compared to the fraudulent documents and misintrerpreted documents you and yours rely on.

ITeuaqcpckc

BV

[Brainache]

They're presentors at CNN international.

Becky Anderson (http://edition.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/images/anderson.becky.jpg)
Zain Verjee (http://edition.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/images/verjee.zain.jpg)
Hala Gorani (http://edition.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/images/gorani.hala.jpg)

ETA: But these still pictures can't compare to seeing them live on tv ;)

My fave has to be my old mate Steph:

http://www.chadwickmodels.com.au/AddModel.aspx?modelID=279

I worked with this woman and she is a totally gorgeous woman. One of a kind.