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

[bonavada]

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 ;)

not sure about becky and hala but i'm formally dumping that shameless harlot monita and now HOH in lurrrrrrve with beautiful zain.


BV

[bonavada]

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.

bet she can't shuffle her papers, tap her pen, read an autocue AND look sexily into the camera ALL AT THE SAME TIME???????
thought not. NEXT......

BV

[Belz...]

A strange and alien concept for you. Raw evidence.

But your evidence ISN'T raw. The pictures you show are obviously not the originals in full resolution. You obfuscate.

I will accept raw evidence that is presented correctly.

Since when does the way evidence is presented change anything about the value of the evidence itself ?

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

Source ? Oh, that's right. The non-existent documentary.

It is a known fact to me that there was a concrete core. 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?

What's wrong, chris, is that you can't build credibility by quoting yourself as the sole source of your thesis.

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.

You're forgetting a very important factor in determining the appearance and composition of what you see in the picture: SMOKE.

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.

Since this ISN'T from your documentary, please tell us where you got this information.

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

Indeed. And a huge mass of several floors falling onto them WILL do that. Oh, and they bend, too.

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?

Smoke.

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, explosives had to be built in.

"Correct", followed by a statement that shows you didn't understand a thing he said.

[Belz...]

There was no steel core. There were "interior box columns" that were needed to form the concrete core inside.

That's not how concrete is poured. You lied when you said you had any experience with building construction.

WTC 7 is being re built right now with this technique.

Actually, it's been finished for a while, now.

The gonzo people think this is drywall

No one here thinks that.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.p...d=116070504 7

Now THAT shows you've NEVER been in the construction business.

So sad that you cannot logic what a fact is.

Uh-huh, but can YOU fact

Below is raw evidence and the fact is that to the left of the steel spire, an interior box column outside the core, is concrete.what a logic is ?

Again, that's not "raw". And your "cast concrete core wall" arrow points to air.

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

I didn't know you could see THROUGH concrete.

The error that costs us our futures is the one about the concrete.

I would think, if the CT was correct, there'd be much more at stake than the concrete core. It's not like concrete core buildings CAN'T collapse, you know.

still must somehow support the lie that the murderers hide behind.

Appeal to emotion. Again.

[Bell]

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.

That is not a clear picture, without the dust, of the concrete core. It's not even a picture of a concrete core. Show me a picture during construction. A raw picture is preferable.

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.

You don't have the experience either.

Please explain why only concrete would appear like that? And why it could not be the columns of the steel core?

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.

Please provide evidence of the cutting charges and of the thermite taking out MANY of the perimeter and interior box colums. Evidence of this happening, not the damage after.

Also, you failed to correctly answer some other questions:

<snip>
<snap>
<snip>

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

<snip>redundant link

Why is it not logical?

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?


http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1996135&postcount=5187

Looking at those pictures [of 'the pile'] 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?


And if the WTC had a concrete core, how come the towers swayed when they where struck by the planes?

[Z]

Looking at those pictures, how can anyone think there was 'total pulverization'?

Oh, right - some people are dumb as a stump. Some are more so.

[Hellbound]

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

999,999 bottles of beer on the wall, 999,999 bottles of beer,

Take one down, pass it arouns, 999,988 bottles of beer on the wall...

(Sorry, I got thirsty passing that one around and drank 10 more while singing).

[uruk]

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

Posting your website yet again. How about posting another source that supports your claim for a change, Hmm Chris?
Your website is total hogwash.
It's still steel columns with smoke/dust clouds and debris hanging from it. No matter how many times you post that picture it's not going to change.

[uruk]

Hey, Chris take alook at this and try to explain this away.

Compare the picture of the 27th floor plan provided by Mortimer with the pict of light shining through the tower provided by Gravy. You will clearly see that they coincide. The picture reflects or verifies what the floor plan shows.

[uruk]

Hey Chris, You got nothing to say about this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bfe0Hbgq1HY&NR

Cat got your tounge?

[jhunter1163]

I asked a stump if it had seen a realistice explanation for free fall of the towers. It said nothing. This means that the stump has made approximately 2,296 fewer false statements on this topic than Christophera. (I derived the 2,296 figure by multiplying Chris's post count by an average of two factual inaccuracies per post.)

I think we can draw our own conclusions from this.

[uruk]

hey chris! it works for this view too!

[Belz...]

Uh-huh, but can YOU fact

Dammit. That got snipped, for some reason.

I said:

So sad that you cannot logic what a fact is.

Uh-huh, but can YOU fact was a logic is ?

[Arus808]

So chris, have you bothered to contact those who were involved in the construction and design of the twin towers? You've now had 72 hours to do so. Why haven't you?

[Christophera]

hey chris! it works for this view too!

Go to the hospital, you have a concussion. Then to the mental ward, you have a probem.


The floor plan says it is for WTC 2 and you have annotated WTC 1

The plan is garbage. Fraud.

Here is the best info that can be found on the basic structure of the towers which had steel reinforced, tubular cast concrete cores.

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

[Christophera]

So chris, have you bothered to contact those who were involved in the construction and design of the twin towers? You've now had 72 hours to do so. Why haven't you?

You have obsessive compulsive disorder.

Seek help, take your buddy homer to emergency.

[Hellbound]

Boooooooooooooooogeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

[tsig]

In this case, it's more like pickled in paranoia.

Well something.

Chris thinks the "raw evidence of the concrete core is eminence".

This is giving me a clue.

[Mancman]

Boooooooooooooooogeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.


http://www.boreme.com/oboreme/media-pictures/i_nose_pick.jpg

[tsig]

You have obsessive compulsive disorder.

Seek help, take your buddy homer to emergency.

I'll save you a seat.

[Christophera]

Looking at those pictures, how can anyone think there was 'total pulverization'?

Oh, right - some people are dumb as a stump. Some are more so.

Get clue
http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3507&stc=1&d=1160759491

[Hellbound]

Oh, I've got a RAGING FREAKIN' CLUE Right NOW!

:D

[mortimer]

The plan is garbage. Fraud.

Here is the best info that can be found on the basic structure of the towers which had steel reinforced, tubular cast concrete cores.

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

Prove the plan is garbage, Chris. Your own site and drawings on your site cannot be accepted as evidence.

[Hellbound]

Tubular.

*snicker*

[tsig]

Go to the hospital, you have a concussion. Then to the mental ward, you have a probem.


The floor plan says it is for WTC 2 and you have annotated WTC 1

The plan is garbage. Fraud.

Here is the best info that can be found on the basic structure of the towers which had steel reinforced, tubular cast concrete cores.

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

The best that can be found is not what is found for if it is found it has the property of being found and therefore cannot be the best that can be found.

From this we can conclude that the best evicence is that we do not have and we can discard all that is known.

So what we believe IS.

[Hellbound]

The best that can be found is not what is found for if it is found it has the property of being found and therefore cannot be the best that can be found.

From this we can conclude that the best evicence is that we do not have and we can discard all that is known.

So what we believe IS.

42?

[Arus808]

chris, answer the questions put forth to you.
Do not use your website (that isn't a credible site)
Please use contstruction blue rpints, or real estate quotes (those buildings were rented out by a real estate company to buinsess) showing the exactly the construct of the buildings .

So, have you bothered to contact anyone who were involved in the design and construction of the twin towers.

[chipmunk stew]

42?
:nope: ...22.

[tsig]

Tubular.

*snicker*

We may be getting closer to the hole source of Chris's problems.

[eddyk]

Oh, I've got a RAGING FREAKIN' CLUE Right NOW!

:D

May I see it?

[Mancman]

Oh, I've got a RAGING FREAKIN' CLUE Right NOW!

:D

You find ol' Queeny quite the looker eh? :D

[tsig]

42?

No, that was a wrong answer in HHGTTG.

We phycos would never steer you wrong.

If you can't trust the word of someone on the net, who can you trust.

Scary questions demand scary answers.

[Hellbound]

:nope: ...22.

23?

We may be getting closer to the hole source of Chris's problems.

Ew, let me know when I get too close, I don't want to get any on me.

May I see it?

That depends, got a $20?

:D

You find ol' Queeny quite the looker eh? :D

No, just a fetish for nose picking.

No, that was a wrong answer in HHGTTG.

We phycos would never steer you wrong.

If you can't trust the word of someone on the net, who can you trust.

Scary questions demand scary answers.

Yep.

Like my new Halloween avatar?

[eddyk]

I'll show you mine if you show me yours ^^


The CTs over at LC hope to show their clues to someone one day.

[tsig]

I'll show you mine if you show me yours ^^


The CTs over at LC hope to show their clues to someone one day.

If you only show your clues to those who pay the price well.......

[Christophera]

Prove the plan is garbage, Chris. Your own site and drawings on your site cannot be accepted as evidence.

I just did. Now is your chance to get a clue.

The 2 silhouette images are in the middle of this page and the light passing through the core is explained there.

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

and with this image.



http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3508&stc=1&d=1160761867

[Popeholden]

all emphasis is mine

Also unique to the engineering design were its core and elevator system. The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry. Worried that the intense air pressure created by the buildingsâ high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core. For the elevators, to serve 110 stories with a traditional configuration would have required half the area of the lower stories be used for shaftways. Otis Elevators developed an express and local system, whereby passengers would change at "sky lobbies" on the 44th and 78th floors, halving the number of shaftways.


The inner box at the core of each tower measured about 135 feet by 85 feet (41x26 m). Its 47 heavy steel columns surrounded a large open area housing elevators stairwells and restrooms.



it won't let me link to my sources, but i'll provide them to you if you want them.

[Christophera]

The royals protect their fingers.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3509&stc=1&d=1160761998

[tsig]

23?



Ew, let me know when I get too close, I don't want to get any on me.



That depends, got a $20?

:D



No, just a fetish for nose picking.



Yep.

Like my new Halloween avatar?


I think your Avatar is eating the thermite evidence. COVER UP!!

or maybe nuclear enhanced spiders ate the steel. The fire couldn't harm them because of being NE.

The truth is out

[Christophera]

all emphasis is mine


it won't let me link to my sources, but i'll provide them to you if you want them.

The term "masonry" referres to actual stone not concrete. Is that source in the UK?

The below is actually very accurate, in some ways. The inside dimensions of the concrete core was 80x120 feet and it was surrounded by interior box columns outside the core. Interior referres to the inner wall of the outer tube of the "tube in a tube" construction. The "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) are correctly annotated in that image as ONLY being around the outside.


Quote:
The inner box at the core of each tower measured about 135 feet by 85 feet (41x26 m). Its 47 heavy steel columns surrounded a large open area housing elevators stairwells and restrooms.

[twinstead]

The royals protect their fingers.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3509&stc=1&d=1160761998

Along with your interviews of the construction workers involved, perhaps you could contact people who worked for Otis Elevators about how they designed an elevator system for your concrete core.

All it takes, all it has ever taken, is ONE person, one construction worker involved in the building, one receipt for massive amounts of concrete, one engineer from Otis Elevators who knew about the core, some witness, one picture taken during construction, something, ANYTHING, for you to be taken seriously. I mean seriously. Do you even understand the concept of corroborating evidence?

But no, all you have is a couple inconclusive pictures and a web site full of unsubstantiated and unproven claims. Just remember you can believe anything you want no matter how crazy or bogus; reality doesn't care. It just is.

[tsig]

The royals protect their fingers.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3509&stc=1&d=1160761998

Chris, if you will take the finger from the nose and put it in the ear, do the same with the other hand, now sing "I cannot hear you" and you will have a very good view of how I see you.

[Christophera]

Chris, if you will take the finger from the nose and put it in the ear, do the same with the other hand, now sing "I cannot hear you" and you will have a very good view of how I see you.

If this is not concrete, what is it?
core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)

If you can see and type, you can answer, if you are using your brain.

[twinstead]

If this is not concrete, what is it?
core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)

If you can see and type, you can answer, if you are using your brain.

And, for the 100,000th time, we submit that the picture is inconclusive. We therefore request some corroborating evidence that it is indeed a concrete core. What part of that do you not understand?

Even if you dismiss it all, you can't deny we have shown you literally dozens and dozens of bits of evidence supporting a steel core. Yet, all you do is keep posting that same stupid picture as it it trumps everything. Well, IT DOESN'T.

Do you have any other evidence of a concrete core? Specifically during construction, since there's not all the dust concealing everything like in your pictures.

Just one piece of evidence Chris that a concrete core was poured during construction. That's all we ask. Some corroborating evidence to support your theory.

[Arus808]

Just one piece of evidence Chris that a concrete core was poured during construction. That's all we ask. Some corroborating evidence to support your theory.

OR the testimony of anyone who worked on the construction and design of the twin towers that can attest to the concrete being poured for the core. Something that I've asked him to provide evidence of in the last 3 days.

[tsig]

If this is not concrete, what is it?
core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)

If you can see and type, you can answer, if you are using your brain.

Chris I have looked at it time and time again. I see lots of smoke and a tower in the background but no concrete core.

So we are at a crossroads. I love fantasy but we have to live in reality.

Oh Chris "I AM GRAVITY"

[Oliver]

999,999 bottles of beer on the wall, 999,999 bottles of beer,

Take one down, pass it arouns, 999,988 bottles of beer on the wall... http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107451f109db90e3.gif

(Sorry, I got thirsty passing that one around and drank 10 more while singing).


999,988 bottles of beer on the wall, 999,988 bottles of beer,

Take one down, pass it arouns, 999,993 bottles of beer on the wall...

I bought a Six-Pack for some thirsty guys in here. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107452fdd37546bc.gif

[Bell]

If this is not concrete, what is it?
core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)

If you can see and type, you can answer, if you are using your brain.

And if these are not questions posted to you, what are they?

questions (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1998208#post1997550)

If you can see and type, you can answer, if you are using your brain.

[mortimer]

I just did. Now is your chance to get a clue.

The 2 silhouette images are in the middle of this page and the light passing through the core is explained there.

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

and with this image.



http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3508&stc=1&d=1160761867

What part of 'Your own site and drawings on your site cannot be accepted as evidence' do you not understand?

[tsig]

What part of 'Your own site and drawings on your site cannot be accepted as evidence' do you not understand?

Watching Chris in action has lead me to a deeper understanding of the SP 911 episode.

[Belz...]

Go to the hospital, you have a concussion. Then to the mental ward, you have a probem.

Actually, he's right. We do see exactly what the plan says.

You have obsessive compulsive disorder.

You're a psychologist, now ? Or are you trying to project your own problem onto others.

[Belz...]

The term "masonry" referres to actual stone not concrete.

The twin towers were the first supertall buildings constructed without STONE ? You've got to be kidding!

[Parsman]

Sorry going back, 42 was the right answer in HHGTTG - it was the question that was wrong, because the Earth was demolished (CD? :D ) to make way for a hyper-soace bypass. Mind you, it is apt because CTers keep asking the wrong questions...

[Oliver]

Trin Tragula was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher or, as his wife would have it, an idiot.

I love this book... :D

[Arus808]

The term "masonry" referres to actual stone not concrete.

this right here shows why you do not know what the hell you are talking about and should refrain from further commenting on an industry you have never participated in:

Masonry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masonry) is the building of structures from individual units laid in and bound together by mortar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortar_%28masonry%29). The common materials of masonry construction are brick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brick), stone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_%28geology%29) such as marble (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marble), granite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granite), travertine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travertine), limestone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limestone); concrete (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete) block, glass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass) block, and tile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tile). Masonry is generally a highly durable form of construction. However, the materials used, the quality of the mortar and workmanship, and the pattern the units are laid in can strongly affect the durability of the overall masonry construction.

Masonry:
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0916041.html

Concrete:
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0813170.html

[Architect]

Masonry is all the materials listed; stonemasonry is exclusively stonework and is normally used in the industry thus.

Man, he's mental.

[Hellbound]

Wait.

I thought masonry was the Illuminati?

No, wait, that's on Tuesdays...what is it on Fridays in COtober when it's not raining and you don't get off work early?

[DavidJames]

Wait.

I thought masonry was the Illuminati?

No, wait, that's on Tuesdays...what is it on Fridays in COtober when it's not raining and you don't get off work early?
I hate to be the one to tell you this, but your avatar is bleeding.

[alexg]

The twin towers were the first supertall buildings constructed without STONE ? You've got to be kidding!


MUHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA

[uruk]

Go to the hospital, you have a concussion. Then to the mental ward, you have a probem.


The floor plan says it is for WTC 2 and you have annotated WTC 1

The plan is garbage. Fraud.

Here is the best info that can be found on the basic structure of the towers which had steel reinforced, tubular cast concrete cores.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html
Did you see the other post?
The floor plan works for both buildings. What is your proof that both buildings have different floor plans?

[Big Les]

I think I just shot clue goo over this thread. Sorry about that, I'll see myself out.

[T.A.M.]

Wrong Thread

Tam

[firecoins]

Did you see the other post?
The floor plan works for both buildings. What is your proof that both buildings have different floor plans?
They are the TWIN towers. If you have seen 1 floor plan, you see them all.

Anyway I think thread need to be closed or something. Chistoconcret keep trolling this concret core nonsense to death.

[Christophera]

And, for the 100,000th time, we submit that the picture is inconclusive. We therefore request some corroborating evidence that it is indeed a concrete core. What part of that do you not understand?

I understand all of it and have already provided dynamic corroboration. The uniform selectivity I'm faced with is not reasonable. To be reasonable examine the consistency of the web sites description of the concrete core when the core is mentioned. There are mentions of steel on some of those pages but that is just the confusion. The uniformity is the important, real information.

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

Even if you dismiss it all, you can't deny we have shown you literally dozens and dozens of bits of evidence supporting a steel core. Yet, all you do is keep posting that same stupid picture as it it trumps everything. Well, IT DOESN'T.

By itself perhaps not. With all of the corroboraton of the above link, the inability of anyone to come up with a reasonable explanation for what this (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is if it not steel becomes basically conclusive. No other core can be substantiated.

Do you have any other evidence of a concrete core? Specifically during construction, since there's not all the dust concealing everything like in your pictures.

Just one piece of evidence Chris that a concrete core was poured during construction. That's all we ask. Some corroborating evidence to support your theory.

As I said. The images from construction of the core were not very many to begin with because the thing is being poured inside a 40 foot deep hole 50 to 35 feet from the outer walls. there was rarely enough light. Add to that the removal of images by the perpetrators prior to 9-11 and after it, and the construction photos are just not available.

Again, I have adequately shown that the existing misinterpreted construction images indeed do not show the core columns that FEMA claims existed. The uttter lack of them in the raw evidence of 9-11 simply eliminates the justification for using the construction images that just are not properly presented. Not to mention the fact the plans are hidden and there are 3 different floor plans for the towers, a dead giveaway as to some deception.

The old addage about liars, recall?

[Hellbound]

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but your avatar is bleeding.

CRAP!

Got a band-aid?

[Bell]

CRAP!

Got a band-aid?

http://www.rocklibrary.com/images/EntityImages/1900/1963/Band%20Aid%201984.jpg

[Hellbound]

Let me rephrase...

Got a Band-AidTM?

[twinstead]

As I said. The images from constrcution of the core were not very many to begin with because the thing is being poured inside a 40 foot deep hole 50 to 35 feet from the outer walls. there was rarely enough light. Add to that teh filtering of images by the perpetrators prior to 9-11 and after it, and the constrcution photos are just not available. You are just making stuff up as you go along. Nice. There are literally thousands of photos taken during the construction, and many are very hard to explain if one beleives in a concrete core. We have provided for you many pictures that actually show a steel core being built. Since you claim that there just aren't many pictures, then perhaps to make up for it you need to find ONE, JUST ONE person involved in the construction that supports you. You can’t and you know it.

All you have are excuses and hand waiving. Life must be easy if you can distort reality so it fits into your world view like you do. It's an art, dude. I gotta hand it to your for that.


Again, I have adequately shown that the existing misinterpreted construction images indeed do not show the core columns that FEMA claims existed. The uttter lack of them in the raw evidence of 9-11 simply eleminates the justification for using the construction images that just are not properly presented. Not to mention the fact the plans are hidden and there are 3 differnt floor plans for the towers, a dead giveaway as to some deception.No, you have not. You just think you have because otherwise your theory would fall apart. You can't hand waive evidence that contradicts your theory away by claiming the copious evidence presented to you is 'misinterpreted'. I call BS.

The old addage about liars, recall? I'll make something up, so it will be, shall we say, a new adage:

"Crazy people don't know they are crazy. According to them, they are right and the world is against them. No amount of logic or evidence, quality of debate, or majority of detractors can dissuade them from their beliefs; they will forever keep repeating the same tired debunked evidence over and over and over and over again."

See. Like it? An instant classic.

[Christophera]

You are just making stuff up as you go along. Nice. There are literally thousands of photos taken during the construction, and many are very hard to explain if one beleives in a concrete core.


Show me one that shows steel core columns at construction or otherwise and I will point out things about your image that reasonably show the image does not show what you think it shows.

Meanwhile, there is no reasonable explanation for this (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) if it is not concrete.

[defaultdotxbe]

Meanwhile, there is no reasonable explanation for this (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) if it is not concrete.
so concrete is th eonly opaque substance in the world?

why dont you find the original of that picture, maybe you would actually be able to tell soemthign from looking at it

[Christophera]

so concrete is the only opaque substance in the world?

why dont you find the original of that picture, maybe you would actually be able to tell something from looking at it

Yes, there is more information in the original.

ORIGINAL core IMAGE (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

[Arus808]

^^ i dont see a core. All I see is a dark shadow in a cloud of dust. How anyone can see through that dust, must have xray freaking vision.

ETA . So have you bothered to contact those who were involved in the design and construction of said towers? Why dont you contact the real estate company that handled renting of the space within the towers. Im sure they have blue prints for every floor.

[twinstead]

Show me one that shows steel core columns at construction or otherwise and I will point out things about your image that reasonably show the image does not show what you think it shows.


No you won't . You will simply waive it away like a gnat in your face. You are adept at that. There is no reason for me to show you anything because you have been shown it all in the course of this million post thread and ignored ALL of it.

Face it. You have nothing. Even those who believe 911 is an inside job think you are wrong. Everybody on either side of the issue thinks you are wrong.

You and only you (except perhaps those who champion the charming missile pod or hologram theories) believe what you believe, and you are tirelessly supporting an untenable position like a pit bull.

Sorry Chris. I really think you are not a bad guy. You'd probably be fun to have a couple beers with, in fact. But you are WRONG.

[Dog Town]

Ok, I realise that I come over and take a swipe at'em, from time to time!
How is it, that this is the 5,324th post, and he is still telling...the same joke?
Is this "The Aristocrat's"?

[Christophera]

What part of 'Your own site and drawings on your site cannot be accepted as evidence' do you not understand?

Apparently you can not conduct comprehensive "reasoning". You have provided no adequate reasoning with consideration of the; missing plans, the missing steel, the 3 different sets of plans for the FEMA core, the incongruity/impossibility of explanation with the FEMA core of the event seen, no core columns seen in raw evidence which does show things that can really only be concrete.


The reason this thread is so long is because I won't give up what I know as fact and you will not reason in a comprehensive fashion.

Accordingly I'm changing my mind about the integrity of the Administration of JREF. Even though I feel they do not support my contentions, they realize that I am reasoning with evidence and you are not and so allow this thread to continue.

The thread goes on.

[Arus808]

Apparently you can not conduct comprehensive "reasoning".

the one being without reason, has been you.

[Christophera]

No you won't . You will simply waive it away like a gnat in your face.

Is that why I was able to take the dummies image from LC that repeatedly misinterpreted construction images, erroneously annotating them, analysing them, understanding them to the point where he ended up actually bringing me valuable evidence?

FOOTINGS OF THE CORE WALL (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/elev.pits.core.footing.CORR.jpg)

Is that why I was able to take Gravy's "proof" of steel core columns and made sense of it turning it into proof of the concrete core?

No. You are wrong. That is why things have gone as they have.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3527&stc=1&d=1160787866Or

[Christophera]

the one being without reason, has been you.

As far as I can tell you've done no reasoning of any kind, erroneous or otherwise. Peanut gallery.

On edit: Your recent post shows you have done erroneous reasoning.

[Arus808]

As far as I can tell you've done no reasoning of any kind, erroneous or otherwise. Peanut gallery.

funny thats what your posts herer since day have shown.
nothing that i've posted or others here have posted are erroneous and not without reasoning.

Something tells me in your world, you see everything in the negative from own views.

If we say the sky is blue, you probably see it as orange.

[twinstead]

Chris you rock on, my man. Rock on.

You will be wrong forever. Your 'theory' will never fly, and will be rejected by everybody on either side of the issue.

That, in my mind is the best rebuttal anyway. No more is needed.

[bonavada]

<snip>
no core columns seen in raw evidence which does show things that can really only be concrete.
</snip>


no core columns? then wtf are these in the pic below? which by your own definition must be "raw evidence" as they are lifted from YOUR OWN SOURCE. (http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc70.JPG) where is the evidence of a concrete core in the pic below?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748453043bd77e28.jpg

hung by your own petard methinks....

BV

[Christophera]

no core columns? then wtf are these in the pic below? which by your own definition must be "raw evidence" as they are lifted from YOUR OWN SOURCE. (http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc70.JPG) where is the evidence of a concrete core in the pic below?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748453043bd77e28.jpg

hung by your own petard methinks....

BV

I knew someone would come back with those series of images. I've dealt with this question probably 5 times in this thread.

The rectangles visible are of the same proportions as seen in the below aerial which show that the columns and beams you indicate are actually NOT IN THE CORE AREA. This image shows the interior box columns encircling the concrete core, core detonated, box columns falling, toppelling (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/overspirezoom.gif) which is about the same time as the image you provided. No steel columns inside the core area.

It also matches exactly what Popeholden contributed. Pope, what is your soure BTW?


The inner box at the core of each tower measured about 135 feet by 85 feet (41x26 m). Its 47 heavy steel columns surrounded a large open area housing elevators stairwells and restrooms.


http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3530&stc=1&d=1160793307

[Z]

There's no concrete in that picture, either.

[firecoins]

why are we encouraging this argument?! Any one with any sanity would realize that they were steel core buildings and 2 commercial jetliners caused its destruction. Don't encourage Christopheria!:mad:

[Z]

Sorry, I slipped.

BTW - in his 'original' core picture - that looks more like a giant phallus.

[defaultdotxbe]

The rectangles visible are of the same proportions as seen in the below aerial which show that the columns and beams you indicate are actually NOT IN THE CORE AREA. This image shows the interior box columns encircling the concrete core, core detonated, box columns falling, toppelling (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/overspirezoom.gif) which is about the same time as the image you provided. No steel columns inside the core area.

so essentially what your saying is the concrete core was surrounded by steel columns, the core was blown up with enough force to turn all the concrete into dust, but it left the steel columns standing long enough for people to take pictures of?

[yodaluver28]

Sorry, I slipped.

BTW - in his 'original' core picture - that looks more like a giant phallus.


I have been dying to mention that but thought it might be inappropriate. It really does though.

[Christophera]

so essentially what your saying is the concrete core was surrounded by steel columns, the core was blown up with enough force to turn all the concrete into dust, but it left the steel columns standing long enough for people to take pictures of?

Realize, that is WTC 1 (http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc70.JPG) and this is WTC 2 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif). From what I can tell WTC 1 had problems with decay of some of the explosives and steel structure as well as concrete (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) or rebar (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) was left standing.

Yes, that would be the case. Optimally placed explosives that are well distributed will not seriously damage heavy structural steel which is immediately adjacent.

Now you are getting an idea of what it would take to cut 47, 1,300 foot steel columns into 40 foot pieces.

The interior box columns were cut with highly specialized cutting charges built into the floors (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/steelbeamcuttingfloors.gif)

[Brainache]

I have been dying to mention that but thought it might be inappropriate. It really does though.

Well I think it's a CLUE.

[defaultdotxbe]

Realize, that is WTC 1 (http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc70.JPG) and this is WTC 2 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif). From what I can tell WTC 1 had problems with decay of some of the explosives and steel structure as well as concrete (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) or rebar (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) was left standing.
so then what happened to it if the explosives failed?

Yes, that would be the case. Optimally placed explosives that are well distributed will not seriously damage heavy structural steel which is immediately adjacent.
i thought they decayed? how is that optimal?

Now you are getting an idea of what it would take to cut 47, 1,300 foot steel columns into 40 foot pieces.
1300 foot fall shoudl do the trick

The interior box columns were cut with highly specialized cutting charges built into the floors (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/steelbeamcuttingfloors.gif)
c4 isnt a specialised cutting charge

[Christophera]

so then what happened to it if the explosives failed?

At one time the vertical core rebar (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) failed to detonate and at another some of the cutting charges didn't detonate (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/overspirezoom.gif)

[Christophera]

So then what happened to it if the explosives failed?

At one time the vertical core rebar (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) failed to detonate and at another some of the cutting charges didn't detonate (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/overspirezoom.gif)


I thought they decayed? how is that optimal?

The placement and distribution were optimal. This says nothing about fouled construction processes and critical explosive paths being left out in harsh weather.


1300 foot fall should do the trick

A fall like that will not make these cuts (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc.box.shear.torch.gif)

c4 isnt a specialized cutting charge

No it isn't but it's application is specialized (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1233383)

[Bell]

At one time the vertical core rebar (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) failed to detonate and at another some of the cutting charges didn't detonate (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/overspirezoom.gif)

Jezus, you're making this up as you go, don't you?

What does your doctor say?

[Oliver]

Jezus, you're making this up as you go, don't you?

What does your doctor say?

His doctor went to the Golden Gate Bridge after the third session with Christophera .... to test Chris´s "free-fall" theorie ... :boggled:

[Belz...]

I understand all of it and have already provided dynamic corroboration. The uniform selectivity I'm faced with is not reasonable.

"The whole world is WRONG, friends. I AM RIGHT. The sun rises in the WEST!"

To be reasonable examine the consistency of the web sites description of the concrete core when the core is mentioned.

The consistency of ONE web site that happens to be YOURS.

There are mentions of steel on some of those pages but that is just the confusion. The uniformity is the important, real information.

Some ? All but ONE!

By itself perhaps not. With all of the corroboraton of the above link, the inability of anyone to come up with a reasonable explanation for what this (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is if it not steel becomes basically conclusive. No other core can be substantiated.

I agree with you. I can only be steel. Thanks for changing your mind, finally.

As I said. The images from construction of the core were not very many to begin with because the thing is being poured inside a 40 foot deep hole 50 to 35 feet from the outer walls. there was rarely enough light.

Of course, this all makes sense if you ignore the fact that THAT'S NOT HOW YOU POUR A CONCRETE CORE.

Why in the blue HELL would they want to HIDE the core BEFORE they decided to blow up the buildings ? Why hide something if there's no reason to ?

The old addage about liars, recall?

I don't know. That ONE floor plan seems to fit it all.

[Belz...]

Show me one that shows steel core columns at construction

We have. Unfortunately you seem to think that those 47 steel columns are BOX columns. Why they'd need so many eludes me, because there's no reason to IF YOU'RE GOING TO POUR CONCRETE THERE.

ORIGINAL core IMAGE

More dust.

Apparently you can not conduct comprehensive "reasoning".

I can understand why you put your own brand of reasoning inside scare quotes.

You have provided no adequate reasoning with consideration of the; missing plans, the missing steel, the 3 different sets of plans for the FEMA core

So are the plans missing or are there too many of them ?

no core columns seen in raw evidence which does show things that can really only be concrete.

Still no raw evidence.

Huh. Light reflecting off the concrete, only in specific places on the concrete and only in a way that, from ALL angles, gives the specific illusion of beign steel. That's damn good invisicretetm.

From what I can tell WTC 1 had problems with decay of some of the explosives

You can TELL that some of the explosives had DECAYED ??? How the hell did you manage that ?

Yes, that would be the case. Optimally placed explosives that are well distributed will not seriously damage heavy structural steel which is immediately adjacent.

Steel, chris. NOT Adamantium.

Now you are getting an idea of what it would take to cut 47, 1,300 foot steel columns into 40 foot pieces.

Gravity.

At one time the vertical core rebar failed to detonate and at another some of the cutting charges didn't detonate

Oh, so you don't "know", you just make it up while looking at pictures. Got it.

A fall like that will not make these cuts

Chris, those cuts were made by contruction workers for transportation, AFTER the collapse. Get your facts straight.

[Hellbound]

I see a little silhouetto of a man...

[Peephole]

Yes, there is more information in the original.

ORIGINAL core IMAGE (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

Lol, every few days I check this thread and everytime I see hem posting the same picture over and over again. Each time I laugh.

So, if get it right, Cristophera gets all his information about the core out of this bbc news picture?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1540000/images/_1540044_world_trade_structure300.gif

[Powa]

I see a little silhouetto of a man...
Scaramouch, Scaramouch will you do the fandango?

[bonavada]

from a section of the christorphera site “Explosions In The Basement”:-



Explosions In The Basement.

http://jfk2wtc.tripod.com/

Mike told his co-worker to call upstairs to their Assistant Chief Engineer and find out if everything was all right. His co-worker made the call and reported back to Mike that he was told that the Assistant Chief did not know what happened but that the whole building seemed to shake and there was a loud explosion. They had been told to stay where they were and "sit tight" until the Assistant Chief got back to them.

...............

The two decided to ascend the stairs to the C level, to a small machine shop where Vito Deleo and David Williams were supposed to be working. When the two arrived at the C level, they found the machine shop gone.
"There was nothing there but rubble" Mike said. "We’re talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press -gone!" The two began yelling for their co-workers, but there was no answer. They saw a perfect line of smoke streaming through the air. "You could stand here," he said, "and two inches over you couldn't breathe. We couldn't see through the smoke so we started screaming." But there was still no answer.

........

The two made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. ‘There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can't see anything’ he said

........

No walls, NO WALLS!!! Those were steel reinforced concrete walls, the centralized rebar of the walls coated with C4 removed the walls completely. The surviving engineers were protected by the efficiency of the blast which pulverized the concrete and filled the air with dust and high heat, floating the particles at the top of the room.



he sources the quotes to:- http://jfk2wtc.tripod.com/ (http://jfk2wtc.tripod.com/) a now defunct CT effort at tripod.
the quotes can be found elsewhere (in what might be the original story ?) (http://www.chiefengineer.org/article.cfm?seqnum1=1029) this lengthy article is composed of the memories of quite a few workers who were present at the WTC on 9/11.
i have selected only excerpts from the story of Mike Pecoraro as these contain the quotes used by christophera and they are the most relevant to the points i want to make about some of his ludicrous claims.
mikes story is a long, highly moving account of the events that day so i felt i must reproduce the whole of mike pecararo's story for sentimental reasons if nothing else. the most revealing parts though are those before mike pecararo reaches the WTC1 lobby.
anyway, if anyone else interested will read this story they may, like me, see major discrepancies in the methods christophera uses to bolster his “explosion in the basement” claim, i will detail these concerns in another post soon. i'm on shopping duty with "she who must be obeyed" and wont be back for an hour or two.



I'D LIKE TO ASK CHRISTOPHERA TO INDICATE IF HE, LIKE ME, CAN SEE IF THE CONCLUSIONS HE DRAWS ABOUT "EXPLOSIONS IN THE BASEMENT" HAVE ANY VALIDITY AFTER READING THE FULL ACCOUNT OF MIKE PECARARO'S STORY BELOW?

christophera's "explosion in the basement" quotes are boxed for clarity.
what i think are highly revealing details that are convieniently “overlooked” are in my bold

Mikes Story

[EXCERPTS FROM]

We Will Not Forget

A Day of Terror

Mike Pecoraro was working as a Stationary Engineer in WTC1 on 9/11
September 11th, 2001 dawned in New York as a crystal clear day - a perfect day. Throughout the city, Stationary Engineers were readying their buildings for the Tuesday morning influx of tenants. Everything and everyone was at the city's normal hastened pace. None knew that within just a few hours, their city and the lives of everyone within would never again be the same.
Mike Pecoraro had gotten up from bed at 4 a.m. to make his normal 2 hour commute from his Long Island home to the World Trade Center, where he worked as a Stationary Engineer on a roving crew that serviced all of the buildings at the complex. The 36 year-old father of two stopped and bought breakfast on the way into One World Trade Center and changed into his work clothes. At about 6:45 he went to the mechanical shop in the second subbasement, ate his breakfast and chatted with his co-workers who were also arriving for the normal 8:00 a.m. beginning of their shift. Mike's assignment that day would be to continue constructing a gantry that would be used to pull the heads from the 2,500 ton chillers, located in the 6th sub- basement level of the tower. 49,000 tons of refrigeration equipment were located in the lower level of the tower. The 2,500 ton units were the smallest in use.
Donning his hearing protection, respirator, gloves and eye protection, Mike, along with another engineer, began the work day using a large grinder to smooth down the welds on steel they were using for the gantry. Deep underground, in an area surrounded by solid bedrock, the noise made by the grinder reverberated from the walls as sparks flew from the spinning grinding wheel.
Deep below the tower, Mike Pecoraro was suddenly interrupted in his grinding task by a shake on his shoulder from his co-worker. "Did you see that?" he was asked. Mike told him that he had seen nothing. "You didn't see the lights flicker?", his co-worker asked again. "No," Mike responded, but he knew immediately that if the lights had flickered, it could spell trouble. A power surge or interruption could play havoc with the building's equipment. If all the pumps trip out or pulse meters trip, it could make for a very long day bringing the entire center's equipment back on-line.



from christophera's site:-
Mike told his co-worker to call upstairs to their Assistant Chief Engineer and find out if everything was all right. His co-worker made the call and reported back to Mike that he was told that the Assistant Chief did not know what happened but that the whole building seemed to shake and there was a loud explosion. They had been told to stay where they were and "sit tight" until the Assistant Chief got back to them.


"We smelled kerosene," Mike recalled, "I was thinking maybe a car fire was upstairs", referring to the parking garage located below grade in the tower but above the deep space where they were working.


from christophera's site:-
The two decided to ascend the stairs to the C level, to a small machine shop where Vito Deleo and David Williams were supposed to be working. When the two arrived at the C level, they found the machine shop gone.
"There was nothing there but rubble" Mike said. "We’re talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press - gone!" The two began yelling for their co-workers, but there was no answer. They saw a perfect line of smoke streaming through the air. "You could stand here," he said, "and two inches over you couldn't breathe. We couldn't see through the smoke so we started screaming." But there was still no answer.
The two made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. ‘There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can't see anything’ he said



They decided to ascend two more levels to the building's lobby. As they ascended to the B Level, one floor above, they were astonished to see a steel and concrete fire door that weighed about 300 pounds, wrinkled up "like a piece of aluminum foil" and lying on the floor. "They got us again," Mike told his co-worker, referring to the terrorist attack at the center in 1993. Having been through that bombing, Mike recalled seeing similar things happen to the building's structure. He was convinced a bomb had gone off in the building. Mike walked through the open doorway and found two people lying on the floor. One was a female Carpenter and the other an Elevator Operator. They were both badly burned and injured. Realizing he had to get help, Mike ascended to the Lobby Level where he met Arti DelBianco, a member of his work crew. People were now coming down the same stairway from above the lobby and Arti and Mike had to stay where they were to direct people out of the stairway door and into the building's lobby. If they didn't, people descending could walk past the lobby door and unwittingly keep descending into the sublevels of the building.
Mike Pecoraro and Arti made their way out of Tower One and went to Tower Two. They encountered a crowd of people standing outside the tower, not knowing what had happened. Apparently, they had witnessed a fireball come through the lobby after the second airplane had struck that tower, but they were entering directly from the subway underground and had as yet, no idea of what was happening. Mike and Arti told them all to leave and go home. They then made their way to 4 World Trade Center where they encountered a guard who initially was refusing to leave her post. "Just go home," Mike told her. "You don't have a job, it's done". Reluctantly, the guard left and walked towards the north side of the complex.

Still believing that a helicopter had struck the tower, Mike finally learned the truth when two female police officers informed him of the jetliners. Feeling that they were not doing enough, the two decided to go back to One World Trade Center to see what they could do to help and to take another look in the 4th subbasement for Vito Deleo and David Williams.

A search of the subbasements again turned up no one. The building at this point almost seemed empty. A telephone was ringing in one of the shops. Mike answered it and found a tenant on the other end requesting that the heat be turned off in their office.

"I just shook my head and hung the phone up," he said. He wanted to call his wife and tell her that he was okay, but could not get through on the line. He finally managed to reach his wife's employer and asked her to relay a message to his wife that he was all right.

Mike and Arti then decided to make their way to the Pump House which was located away from the buildings at the far end of the complex. The World Trade Center used water from the river for their condenser needs. This water was pumped through a 60 inch main, fed by large pumps located in the Pump House, near the river. Their walk there would take them again through 2 World Trade Center.

No sooner had the two reached Tower 2 when Mike stopped and turned to Arti. "I have a bad feeling," he told Arti. " I don't know what's in there, but I know what's back there," he said indicating Tower 1 where they were. The two decided to go back to 1 World Trade Center, cut through the lobby and make their way around the complex using a different, longer route to the Pump House.

When they re-entered Tower 1, they saw more people coming down the same stairwell where they had earlier been assisting. "They were more hurt, more burnt, more tired," he said. They helped them exit the building asking each if there was anyone up the stairs that needed assistance. "We'll just run up and we'll grab them and get them out," he told them. But each person reported that there was no one in the stairwell that they had passed. Finally, a Port Authority worker descended the stairwell. They asked him if there was anyone left up in the building. The man said nothing, just shook his head and exited the building.

Mike and Arti decided it was time to leave as well. They left the stairwell and re-entered the lobby. As they walked to the exit, they heard a roar and the floor began to shake.

"Banging so hard that we fell down on our knees," he said. "I'm looking south, at the building, Arti's looking at me, we locked eyes and he is screaming at the top of his lungs...I can barely hear this guy. He's screaming, "What the f? is that?", and I am screaming back at him, that I think it's another plane".
In reality, as the two were kneeling in the lobby of 1 World Trade Center, its sister building, 2 World Trade Center, was crashing down upon them.
"The building was just bouncing and bouncing, the floor was bouncing. I figured another plane already hit the building". Mike related. "I'm looking ahead and I see all the windows, either three story tall windows or four story tall windows, 10 feet wide; shatter. All of them broke at the same time. All the glass flew over my head. I'm looking up, on my knees, with my hands on the floor, and I saw all that glass. You're talking glass three inches thick, go right over our heads. I saw that some of the firemen who was standing on the perimeter (mezzanine) was blown right off the top. They just flew over the top. I can't put a number on it, maybe ten. Bunch of firemen were guarding doors there. They got blown off. Don't know where they went. I saw pieces of debris as big as cars go right over my head without stopping. Like a line drive right over my head," he said, raising his hand to indicate an approximate 4 foot level.
"I put my head down, put my hands over my head. I still had gloves in my hand. I put the gloves over my head and there was a wind that came through the revolving doors that blew me?100 feet to the far wall, right by the visitor's desk. The floor was covered with sheetrock (powdered) and water so it was like a soup. It was very slippery".

"You couldn't see anything now. There was dust in the room. My eyes were covered with dust and debris. I got hit in the back of the head with something so hard I fractured my elbow on the floor. Something stuck in the back of my calf and I just got beat all over the left side of my body. Then the building started bouncing even harder. So hard it was lifting me off the floor, bouncing me on the floor".

"I had somebody fall on top of me. That freaked me out. I kicked that person off me because I didn't want them on me. And then it just stopped. It was dead quiet. There was no sound except this hissing sound coming from? I believe it was steam pipes, at the edge of One World Trade Center. There was no people, no sounds, there was just quiet. I was alive!"

"I still had my flashlight in my holder, my walkie-talkie was split in half. I couldn't call anybody. I turned the flashlight on, people jumped all over me, that must have been standing right next to me. I don't know who they were. All they wanted was help. How do we get out? I turned the flashlight off and put it back in my holder because it didn't do a damn thing (within the thick dust) and I told them, just follow me. I told them I was an engineer in the building, I think I know where I am, follow me out, we're gonna give it a try. There was pandemonium. Nobody would listen to me. They just left. I don't know where they went or who they were".

Mike was having trouble breathing in the thick dust. He cut a piece of cloth from his T-shirt and put it over his face. Arti was nowhere around him. He couldn't hear him and certainly couldn't see him. Mike heard a sound near him in the dust. He crawled towards the sound. The sound was coming from a fireman lying on the floor near him. Some type of alarm was apparently triggered on the fireman's air pack. Mike tried to wake the fireman, but there was no response. He tried to get to the fireman's air pack and mask but could not see through the dust how to remove it or get to the air he so desperately needed.

In desperation, Mike grabbed the fireman's coat, relit his flashlight and began dragging the unconscious fireman out of the building. "He was easy to drag," Mike said. "the floor was so slippery". He moved in the direction he thought was out, but he was wrong. If Mike had turned left, he would have easily exited the lobby. But, blinded by the dust and disoriented from the pounding he had received, he turned right and was forced to travel three-quarters of the distance of the building before finally reaching a door.

Along the way, another fireman came out of the dust and grabbed at Mike. "Who are you?" he yelled. Mike told him he was an engineer in the building. The fireman replied: "Good; how do we get the hell out of here?" Mike replied: "I'm not really sure. I thought this was the way out and now I'm not sure".
More firemen appeared through the dust, they grabbed the unconscious fireman who Mike was dragging and said "let's go!" Slowly moving through the thick cloud, Mike led the fireman through the lobby. "There was piles of stuff on the floor," he said. "I don't know what it was. There were people on the floor we were falling over". Somehow, Mike managed to lead them to the South Entrance of the tower to a door which led to the Marriott Hotel. Debris blocked all of the doors from the building. The men managed to move through broken windows to the outside. "That's when we started to hear people hitting the ground," Mike said.

In a state of shock, Mike and the firemen watched as bodies struck the ground in front of them. "They were just bouncing off the ground right in
front of us," he said, emotion filling his voice. "I saw people jumping before I came back in to the building," he said. "They were jumping, about one every minute, maybe every two minutes. Now you're talking one every five seconds hitting the ground".

"I said this is ********. Whatever the hell that was, I lived through that, and now I'm going to get killed by some guy jumping out of the building? You could hear them. You could hear them hitting the ground. It was like nothing you ever heard before. It was a very hollow, soft sound. And you knew exactly what it was. They must have seen the other building come down and just mass exited the building".

A fireman grabbed Mike and said, "You know what you're going to do? You're going to start running and you're going to hit the wall in front of the building. One way or another, you're going to keep running!"

Mike told the fireman, "all right", and made a break from the building. "I made it about four feet out the front of the building and I fell over somebody that was on the ground," Mike said. Scrambling back to his feet he contin-ued a dash through the dust towards the outside. "When I tell you the stuff (dust) on the street was a foot deep, that's conservative. I'd say over a foot deep. It was like walking through a blizzard of snow".

Mike ran north and suddenly found himself out of the dust cloud. He saw fireman and fire trucks lined up the street. Finally, he could breathe. The firemen who had been with him stayed in the building; perhaps to regroup. Mike never found out or saw them again.

Mike continued walking north, one block, then another. Eventually he reached a small garden intersection where, sitting on a bench, he found Arti.
"When I accepted a job downtown," Mike Pecoraro, a survivor of the World Trade Center told us, "my wife broke down and started crying. She didn't want me working in another building".

BV

[Bell]

Lol, every few days I check this thread and everytime I see hem posting the same picture over and over again. Each time I laugh.

So, if get it right, Cristophera gets all his information about the core out of this bbc news picture?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1540000/images/_1540044_world_trade_structure300.gif

Oh crap, so it is true? We have to take a better look at this picture which the Beeb posted a day after the events. The artist prolly saw Christophera's 'documentary' as well. Chris, why don't you try to contact the BBC? Maybe they have a copy of the 'documentary' hidden somewhere in underground London.

[Bell]

no core columns? then wtf are these in the pic below? which by your own definition must be "raw evidence" as they are lifted from YOUR OWN SOURCE. (http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc70.JPG) where is the evidence of a concrete core in the pic below?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748453043bd77e28.jpg

hung by your own petard methinks....

BV

I've never seen it that clear before. Man, zoomed in like that, makes it one horrifying picture :(

[Peephole]

Oh crap, so it is true? We have to take a better look at this picture which the Beeb posted a day after the events. The artist prolly saw Christophera's 'documentary' as well. Chris, why don't you try to contact the BBC? Maybe they have a copy of the 'documentary' hidden somewhere in underground London.
Dude, don't you know Britain is the home of the NWO.
The BBC is SO in on it.

[Bell]

Dude, don't you know Britain is the home of the NWO.
The BBC is SO in on it.

Operation Seelöwe was a false flag op, then?

[tsig]

At one time the vertical core rebar (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) failed to detonate and at another some of the cutting charges didn't detonate (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/overspirezoom.gif)

So sometimes they did and sometimes they didn't and all just right to make it come out so. There's real CLUE.

[tsig]

Scaramouch, Scaramouch will you do the fandango?

Oh mama my life has just begun and now Iv'e gone and thrown it all alway.

[defaultdotxbe]

Oh mama my life has just begun and now Iv'e gone and thrown it all alway.
Thunderbolt and lightning, very very frightening me

(i wonder how long we can keep this going)

[Christophera]

Lol, every few days I check this thread and everytime I see hem posting the same picture over and over again. Each time I laugh.

So, if get it right, Cristophera gets all his information about the core out of this bbc news picture?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1540000/images/_1540044_world_trade_structure300.gif

No, you get it wrong. Try reading deeper.

I simply use that picture to show the confusion, the inconsistency that exists surrounding the core which is supported by the taking and hiding of the WTC plans in the mayors warehouse.

Here is the core I know stood.

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

[Bell]

Thunderbolt and lightning, very very frightening me

(i wonder how long we can keep this going)

Galileo, galileo, galileo, galileo, galileo figaro magnifico

(veeery long)

[Bell]

No, you get it wrong. Try reading deeper.

I simply use that picture to show the confusion, the inconsistency that exists surrounding the core which is supported by the taking and hiding of the WTC plans in the mayors warehouse.

Here is the core I know stood.

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

That's some great evidence...

for me to poop on!

http://www.entertainment-news.org/images/thumbnails/triumph-the-dog-to-perform-on-tbs-special.jpg

[Oliver]

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

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

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

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

[Oliver]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/111074527eb9578326.gifhttp://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/111074527eb7755fd3.gifhttp://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/111074527eb7757f0b.gif http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/111074527eb7759e48.gif

[Peephole]

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

And where did you find this super duper secret diagram?

[Christophera]

from a section of the christorphera site “Explosions In The Basement”:-

I'D LIKE TO ASK CHRISTOPHERA TO INDICATE IF HE, LIKE ME, CAN SEE IF THE CONCLUSIONS HE DRAWS ABOUT "EXPLOSIONS IN THE BASEMENT" HAVE ANY VALIDITY AFTER READING THE FULL ACCOUNT OF MIKE PECARARO'S STORY BELOW?

The two made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. ‘There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can't see anything’ he said


Recall the man William Rodrigues saved emerging from the stairway, "The walls are exploding".

Recall Phillip Morelli.

PHILLIP MORELLI
http://www.gallerize.com/153%20WINDY%20TOWERS%20OF%209-11%20Four-Dateien/image001.jpg

Construction worker in the WTC Phillip Morelli (37 years old on 9-11-1) describes being thrown to the ground by two explosions while in the fourth subbasement of the North Tower. The first, which threw him to the ground and seemed to coincide with the plane crash, was followed by a larger blast that again threw him to the ground and this time blew out walls. He then made his way to the South Tower and was in the subbasement there when the second plane hit, again associated with a powerful underground blast. This is one of a series of interviews with WTC survivors done by NY1 News: ny1.com/pages/RRR/911special_survivors.html
(source

I conclude the walls were exploding. Here is how.

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

[Christophera]

And where did you find this super duper secret diagram?

Hmmmm, cognitive distortions. A one man labeling fest.

I revised the FEMA diagram and made it from memory. Read the web site.

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

[Peephole]

So, you were there when they were constructing the towers?

And are there any witnesses that have stepped forth with information about this super duper secret concrete core?

[Hellbound]

Galileo, galileo, galileo, galileo, galileo figaro magnifico

(veeery long)

I'm just a poor boy from a poor family

[defaultdotxbe]

Hmmmm, cognitive distortions. A one man labeling fest.

I revised the FEMA diagram and made it from memory. Read the web site.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
so what effect would those criscrossing hallways have on the load-bearing abilities of the structure? seems liek it woudl severely weaken your concrete core

[defaultdotxbe]

heres a documentary on the construction of the towers that talks abour steel core columns, no concrete though

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4334991174539603857

heres a screenshot of the core:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v190/defaultdotxbe/core.jpg

[apathoid]

Has anyone seen a realistice explanation for Chris' avatar? 'Cause I think its supposed to mean something, but I have no idea what that might be. :confused:

[defaultdotxbe]

Has anyone seen a realistice explanation for Chris' avatar? 'Cause I think its supposed to mean something, but I have no idea what that might be. :confused:
the flag symbolism patriotism, and scales for justice, and the weeping/bleeding icon for pure unadulterated woo

[apathoid]

the flag symbolism patriotism, and scales for justice, and the weeping/bleeding icon for pure unadulterated woo

Ah. I knew it was something simple!

I was thinking along the lines of it equating the US to the Roman Empire....or something. But I couldnt make any sense of the blood tears. But now that I think about it, it's doing exactly what I feel like doing every time I read one of his or BS1234's posts. So I can only conclude that it starting crying blood on its own accord after being subjected to all of Chris' nearly 2,000 posts.

[Powa]

I'm just a poor boy from a poor family and nobody loves me

Hes just a poor boy from a poor family

[Powa]

The first, which threw him to the ground and seemed to coincide with the plane crash, was followed by a larger blast that again threw him to the ground and this time blew out walls. He then made his way to the South Tower and was in the subbasement there when the second plane hit, again associated with a powerful underground blast.
Um... Are you now claiming that the demolition of each tower began when the planes hit?

[Architect]

Chris! It's Your Tune!


They're Coming to Take Me Away, Ha-haaa!


Remember when you ran away
And I got on my knees
And begged you not to leave
Because I'd go berserk?
Well. . .

You left me anyhow
And then the days got worse and worse
And now you see I've gone
Completely out of my mind
And. . .

They're coming to take me away, HA HA
They're coming to take me away, HO HO HEE HEE HA HA
To the funny farm
Where life is beautiful all the time
And I'll be happy to see
Those nice, young men
In their clean, white coats
And they're coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!

You thought it was a joke
And so you laughed
You laughed when I had said
That losing you would make me flip my lid
Right. . .

You know you laughed, I heard you laugh
You laughed, you laughed and laughed
And then you left
But now you know I'm utterly mad!
And. . .

They're coming to take me away, HA HA
They're coming to take me away, HO HO HEE HEE HA HA
To the happy home
With trees and flowers and chirping birds
And basket weavers who sit and smile
And twiddle their thumbs and toes
And they're coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!

I cooked your food
I cleaned your house
And this is how you pay me back
For all my kind, unselfish loving deeds?!!
Hah. . .

Well you just wait
They'll find you yet
And when they do they'll
Put you in the ASPCA, you mangy mutt!
And. . .

They're coming to take me away, HA HA
They're coming to take me away, HO HO HEE HEE HA HA
To the funny farm
Where life is beautiful all the time
And I'll be happy to see
Those nice, young men
In their clean, white coats
And they're coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!

To the happy home
With trees and flowers and chirping birds
And basket weavers who sit and smile
And twiddle their thumbs and toes
And they're coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!

To the funny farm
Where life is beautiful all the time
And I'll be happy to see
Those nice, young men
In their clean, white coats
And they're coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!



Download the Real Audio version (http://it.stlawu.edu/~x0tsing/takeaway.ra)

[alexg]

This, in any way shape form:

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

Is not in this:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1183545299f8ddc9dc.jpg



And I don't care if you quadruple the number of hallways. There is simply no concrete wall in the above. ITS FCKNG OBVIOUS!!!!!

[defaultdotxbe]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1183545299f8ddc9dc.jpg



And I don't care if you quadruple the number of hallways. There is simply no concrete wall in the above. ITS FCKNG OBVIOUS!!!!!
nice pic, clearly shows the "concrete" core doesnt start 7 floors below the roofline (as if that ever made any sense to begin with)

[stateofgrace]

This, in any way shape form:

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

Is not in this:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1183545299f8ddc9dc.jpg



And I don't care if you quadruple the number of hallways. There is simply no concrete wall in the above. ITS FCKNG OBVIOUS!!!!!

Alexg, don't you understand nothing is obvious in the world of the conspirator?

Just because you can produce a photograph that proves conclusively 100% that the Towers did not have concrete cores, doesn't prove a thing.

For a start can you prove that your photograph is real? Can you prove with 100% certainty than there are no little green men with touches all pointing in the direction of the camera, making it look like there is no concrete core? No of course you can't. It is easy to disguise concrete cores.

Do you know for certain that we are not all hypnotised into seeing the photograph in the way we are supposed to see it? After all,for all I know this photograph may well show the concrete cores but because I am hypnotised I can not see it.

Prove I am not hypnotised and prove there were no little green men with torches and you may have a case, until then,Chris I'm with you.:rolleyes:

[alexg]

Alexg, don't you understand nothing is obvious in the world of the conspirator?

Just because you can produce a photograph that proves conclusively 100% that the Towers did not have concrete cores, doesn't prove a thing.

For a start can you prove that your photograph is real? Can you prove with 100% certainty than there are no little green men with touches all pointing in the direction of the camera, making it look like there is no concrete core? No of course you can't. It is easy to disguise concrete cores.

Do you know for certain that we are not all hypnotised into seeing the photograph in the way we are supposed to see it? After all,for all I know this photograph may well show the concrete cores but because I am hypnotised I can not see it.

Prove I am not hypnotised and prove there were no little green men with torches and you may have a case, until then,Chris I'm with you.:rolleyes:


yeah, you're right . . our hope of convincing him is as delusional as his theory.

[Skibum]

yeah, you're right . . our hope of convincing him is as delusional as his theory.


135 pages containing 5379 posts, and you are just figuring that out? :D


Any truther that is willing to go to 'enemy territory' and fight for their cause, is going be next to impossible sway from any of their beliefs.

[alexg]

135 pages containing 5379 posts, and you are just figuring that out? :D


Any truther that is willing to go to 'enemy territory' and fight for their cause, is going be next to impossible sway from any of their beliefs.
Something compels me, not hope of convincing him, but something . .

[defaultdotxbe]

Something compels me, not hope of convincing him, but something . .
kind alike multiplayer halo with the inifinit life trainer, you and your friends run around shooting eachother all day and no one dies, and somehow its still fun

....although a melee to the back of the head still kills....someone melee chris in the back of the head

[Bell]

I'm just a poor boy from a poor family

Spare him his life from this monstrosity

[uruk]

To show you guys what load of free time I have, I've been messing around with some 3d. software and I made me some rage'n hot "raw" evidence.

I built a section made from the floor plan and compare it to some of the images posted here. the floor plan and pictures coincide. but you guys be the judge.

[LashL]

Easy come, easy go, will you let me go?

Bismillah! No, we will not let you go!
(let him go)

Bismillah! We will not let you go
(let him go)

Bismillah! We will not let you go
(let me go)

Will not let you go
(let me go)

Will not let you go
(let me go)

No,no,no,no,no,no,NO

Mama mia, mama mia, mama mia, let me go

Beelzebub has a devil put aside for me, for me, for me...

[Christophera]

To show you guys what load of free time I have, I've been messing around with some 3d. software and I made me some rage'n hot "raw" evidence.

I built a section made from the floor plan and compare it to some of the images posted here. the floor plan and pictures coincide. but you guys be the judge.

homer,

Sorry to say, a person does not "make raw evidence", when they do and present it as such it is called "falsifying evidence".

You are treating the towers as if they are being viewed looking parallel with the left face looking down the hallways, they are not. The camera angle is perhaps 20 degrees off being aligned with that.

Really, to do what you are trying to do, you would have to show the columns you think existed silhouetted. You do not, they do not. What shows is solid.

About halfway down this page is a description that accounts for everything seen.

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

[LashL]

Dear Christophera:

There were not and never have been concrete cores at the WTC twin towers.

Deal with it.

And please seek help for your problems.

Love,
The Rest of the World

[Christophera]

This, in any way shape form:

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

Is not in this:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1183545299f8ddc9dc.jpg



And I don't care if you quadruple the number of hallways. There is simply no concrete wall in the above. ITS FCKNG OBVIOUS!!!!!

The tower on the right in the silhouette matches and it should. The light is bleeding over the floor in between halls.

[Architect]

"bleeding"? Heck now Chris thinks that diffraction is in on the plot......

[alexi_drago]

I'm a bit confused by what's going on so I might be way off track here but in that b/w image, the tower on the right is obviously nearer to completion than the one on the left so wouldn't it make sense that the steel core would have more drywall fixed to it (as in once the main structure is complete then do the non structural internal stuff)?

[Architect]

Alex

All you need to know is that:

1. Chris insists that the core is concrete

2. Chris has no substantive evidence of same

3. Chris thinks that we're all nuts for pointing this out]

4. Chris most earnestly and seriously believes there's some sort of hypnosis/mind control conspracy.

[Bell]

I'm a bit confused by what's going on so I might be way off track here but in that b/w image, the tower on the right is obviously nearer to completion than the one on the left so wouldn't it make sense that the steel core would have more drywall fixed to it (as in once the main structure is complete then do the non structural internal stuff)?

That sounds logical to all bar one.

[bonavada]

.....for christophera:-

ZYPco_Pr5Sw

enjoy :-}

BV

[Powa]

MUAHAHAHAHAHA! That was great!

[Brainache]

.....for christophera:-

ZYPco_Pr5Sw

enjoy :-}

BV

I've just nominated that post for The Language Award. One of my favourite songs. Neil Innes is an absolute genius. Love your work bonavada.

[Pyrrho]

redacted, bah.

[alexi_drago]

oooo-oooo how sweet.


Alex

All you need to know is that:

1. Chris insists that the core is concrete

2. Chris has no substantive evidence of same

3. Chris thinks that we're all nuts for pointing this out]

4. Chris most earnestly and seriously believes there's some sort of hypnosis/mind control conspracy.


1. Yes he does.

2. Well, he has his memories of a documentary from 1990.

3. We probably are, but maybe not with quite the same definition of nuts.

4. My special hat isn't working...... maybe some concrete would've made it more effective but there was no mention of that in the instructions.

[tsig]

kind alike multiplayer halo with the inifinit life trainer, you and your friends run around shooting eachother all day and no one dies, and somehow its still fun

....although a melee to the back of the head still kills....someone melee chris in the back of the head

Put my gun against his head pulled the trigger now he's dead OH! MAMA!

[Powa]

Oh great. Now Christophera is going to claim that he received death threats on this forum.

[Architect]

Oh great. Now Christophera is going to claim that he received death threats on this forum.

You make it sound like a bad thing

[tsig]

Oh great. Now Christophera is going to claim that he received death threats on this forum.

Just a quote from a song, part of an underlying theme of this long and undying saga of one persons journey into neverneverland.

I heard it so often going to work and listening to oldies rock it's tatooed on my mind.

If someone takes offense at old rock lyrics........

[bonavada]

I've just nominated that post for The Language Award. One of my favourite songs. Neil Innes is an absolute genius. Love your work bonavada.

TYVM.........<blush> though technically not original so i don't deserve any accolades.........

just a quiet sunday afternoon so i thought i'd relieve the boredom here. fed up dissecting christopheras rancid tripe i decided to try something more creative with nero vision express.

you're right about neil innes, always liked his stuff, especially with the pythons. i read that the bonzo's have reunited and are touring the UK. if they come down this way i may catch them up.

there's lots more of the neil/bonzo stuff etc available HERE (http://www.neilinnes.org/audio/audio.htm)

ATB

BV

[tsig]

Oh great. Now Christophera is going to claim that he received death threats on this forum.

Well I did not post it to Chris, Just a part of an underlying theme in this undying thread.

[Belz...]

Here is the core I know stood.

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

It also happens to be drawn by YOU.

I revised the FEMA diagram and made it from memory.

That's what I said.

Sorry to say, a person does not "make raw evidence", when they do and present it as such it is called "falsifying evidence".

You mean like revising the FEMA diagram from memory ?

[Christophera]

It also happens to be drawn by YOU.

Would you prefer that someone who does not remember draw it?


You mean like revising the FEMA diagram from memory ?


That would be true if I DID NOT remember it, but I do remember and it works with the other evidence.

[Christophera]

heres a documentary on the construction of the towers that talks abour steel core columns, no concrete though

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4334991174539603857

heres a screenshot of the core:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v190/defaultdotxbe/core.jpg


Can you explain why there are no core columns seen in this image if your image shows the true core? Both the other core floor plans show at least one where the stairwell is. And what is the APROX. 17 foot wide gray area?

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3553&stc=1&d=1160928237

[Shrinker]

Can you explain why there are no core columns seen in this image if your image shows the true core? Both the other core floor plans show at least one where the stairwell is. And what is the APROX. 17 foot wide gray area?

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3553&stc=1&d=1160928237

O M G . . .

I thought people were joking about this thread.

See you all next month!

[Christophera]

Jezus, you're making this up as you go, don't you?

What does your doctor say?

You do realize there had to ne 2 different detonation systems do you not? Clearly there were premature explosions (http://mouv4x8.club.fr/11Sept01/A0069b_3_towerexplo1_explosion_below.jpg) from one sydtem involving the floors and steel outside the concrete core and another that destroyed the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

[alexi_drago]

Looking at chris's page there and the last photo, i've realised that in photo after photo of the collapses at different stages there is lots of bits of the steelwork from the core visibly still standing out of the dust cloud and well above the point of collapse for a few moments. Correct me if i'm wrong here but in a controlled demolition don't they ensure that they take out the main load bearing parts of the structure?
Also on a slightly different note, i've read on various occasions that the 'indestructable' core should've been left standing in a 'natural' gravity driven collapse but as far as i know, constructing the core to stand on it's own (never mind the chaos of the collapse around it) would be a complete waste, it would've been designed to be stable and load bearing as long as the rest of the structure remained relatively intact.

[Oliver]

@Chris:

There were no explosives in these buildings.
Its just that simple.

[Hellbound]

Did you think you coudl stone me and spit in my eye-ee-eye (phonetically spelled)

[alexg]

I'm a bit confused by what's going on so I might be way off track here but in that b/w image, the tower on the right is obviously nearer to completion than the one on the left so wouldn't it make sense that the steel core would have more drywall fixed to it (as in once the main structure is complete then do the non structural internal stuff)?

Indeed Alexi, as I pointed out a few chapters back, the one on the right is beside the point. The one Chris ignores, on the left, has no such walls, it's bare naked steel. YOU CAN SEE RIGHT THROUGH IT! Chris take that photo and please annotate a concrete wall matching your putative one.

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

[Oliver]

Indeed Alexi, as I pointed out a few chapters back, the one on the right is beside the point. The one Chris ignores, on the left, has no such walls, it's bare naked steel. YOU CAN SEE RIGHT THROUGH IT! Chris take that photo and please annotate a concrete wall matching your putative one.

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

*lol* You seem to be a newbie to this thread. Chris gives a Uck about any evidence we show him. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/111074527eb7759e48.gif

[Shrinker]

Indeed Alexi, as I pointed out a few chapters back, the one on the right is beside the point. The one Chris ignores, on the left, has no such walls, it's bare naked steel. YOU CAN SEE RIGHT THROUGH IT! Chris take that photo and please annotate a concrete wall matching your putative one.

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

Hi Alexg, I posted that picture in this thread over a hundred pages ago. I needed to make some adjustments though, just to get his attention. I think we're actually debating a goldfish here so I'll post it again, and see if I get the same reaction.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/36174478a63c5ee0e.jpg

[stateofgrace]

Indeed Alexi, as I pointed out a few chapters back, the one on the right is beside the point. The one Chris ignores, on the left, has no such walls, it's bare naked steel. YOU CAN SEE RIGHT THROUGH IT! Chris take that photo and please annotate a concrete wall matching your putative one.

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

Hey Alexg, I got another idea; maybe the concrete wall had a mural of the background painted on it. Ha, bet you never thought of that one did you?

I'm with you Chris "to infinity and beyond."

[alexg]

Looking at chris's page there and the last photo, i've realised that in photo after photo of the collapses at different stages there is lots of bits of the steelwork from the core visibly still standing out of the dust cloud and well above the point of collapse for a few moments. Correct me if i'm wrong here but in a controlled demolition don't they ensure that they take out the main load bearing parts of the structure?
Also on a slightly different note, i've read on various occasions that the 'indestructable' core should've been left standing in a 'natural' gravity driven collapse but as far as i know, constructing the core to stand on it's own (never mind the chaos of the collapse around it) would be a complete waste, it would've been designed to be stable and load bearing as long as the rest of the structure remained relatively intact.


According to Chris the concrete floors and the supposed concrete core were laced with c4 at the time of construction. (yes, in late 60's). They were detonated seperately in such a way that the upper core and the floors went off first which caused all but the lower core to come down. The lower core blew separately after the rest was down. Here is his idea (the rectangular cloud on the right) of the concrete core of the S. tower.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11835452bc52f3e976.gif
Duck! It's about to blow! An explosion he cannot show a trace of evidence for. As if that stand of 'core' we see in Chris's picture could have blown up without anyone noticing!

This is his idea of that separtae explosion of the core for the other (north) tower.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11835452c72ff1d2c2.jpg
Ha! It is obviously the tail end of the collapse of the N. Tower. And the 'upward explosion' Chris claims is of course the plume of the collapse. As any video of the collapse will show.

[NickUK]

Hi Alexg, I posted that picture in this thread over a hundred pages ago. I needed to make some adjustments though, just to get his attention. I think we're actually debating a goldfish here so I'll post it again, and see if I get the same reaction.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/36174478a63c5ee0e.jpg

I wish you'd be a bit more direct, Shrinker, I am getting tired of you pussyfooting around, quite frankly :D

[tsig]

Hey Alexg, I got another idea; maybe the concrete wall had a mural of the background painted on it. Ha, bet you never thought of that one did you?

I'm with you Chris "to infinity and beyond."

We have nothing to lose but the bandwith.

[alexi_drago]

Ohh right, C4 hidden in the concrete, it's so obvious. Just a couple of questions though (although they've probably been asked before):

Why was it put there in the first place, was 9/11 planned back then?

Were the trigger mechanisms already in place, I can't imagine anyone really wanting the job of drilling or cutting into C4 filled concrete so did all the people working during the construction and fitting of the buildings accept this strange wiring or whatever going into the concrete without question? (concrete workers, steel fixers, electricians, plumbers, joiners etc. that have probably worked in their field for most of their working life and never seen anything like that before)

And finally, is there any proof of this whatsoever?

[bonavada]

hey christophera.
did you read this post:-

HERE (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2000677#post2000677)


firstly i believe mike pecararo's story to be honest and truthful (and evidently so must you) however the quotes you use are carefully and cynically cherry-picked..
a study of the WHOLE (http://www.chiefengineer.org/article.cfm?seqnum1=1029) story of what mike witnessed on 9/11 makes it obvious to me that your claim that there was a controlled explosion in the basement is just no more than total, utter bolloxology.

please address the questions below:-

firstly, how in the name of hell did mike pecararo and his mate find a firedoor, lying "wrinkled" on the floor 1 LEVEL ABOVE level C (1 level below the lobby) blasted INWARDS and TOWARD the area BELOW? mike pecararo encountered the door then WALKED THROUGH THE OPEN DOORWAY to continue the ascent to the lobby. was this door SUCKED off it's hinges by your C4rebar explosions BELOW in level C? don't forget, on the whole journey upwards from the sub-levels to the lobby mike's account refers to no explosions (except the one his boss reported on the phone shortly after the flickering lights) this is extremely relevant. the obvious reasoning is to conclude that the only explosion happened ABOVE the level mike first saw the rubble and smoke. how does this conclusion fit in with your "explosions in the basement" theory?

also, why did you not include quotes about the smell of kerosene mike talks about? this might have blunted the arrowhead of your daft theory right? isn't kerosene that funny stuff they pump into jetliners? the stuff that many people reported exploded down the elevator shafts? burning and blasting everything in it's path? you sorta missed that one chris. or is it that you can't let that get in the way of yet another of your potty fantasies huh?

lastly, where in that story does mike mention "floating pulverised concrete dust air particles"? i only notice he saw a "perfect line of SMOKE streaming through the air" only if he raised his head high enough was he unable to breathe. he says nothing about DUST. how did you deduce from his recollections that that SMOKE was the result of anything other than something burning?

these are just a few of the glaring discrepancies on your site. your version of events in the WTC1 basement are based on highly flawed logic. in fact i'd go as far as to say they are dowright lies. i think your abuse of the testament of this brave man is crass and offensive. it shows a cynical malicious disregard of plain, simple facts about what happened there.
either that or you are just insane. either way you need to sit back and think about your motives for trying to propagate these wacked-out exhausted theories that seem so dear to you.

get some help before the men in the white coats come and knock your door.

BV

[Z]

Ohh right, C4 hidden in the concrete, it's so obvious. Just a couple of questions though (although they've probably been asked before):

Why was it put there in the first place, was 9/11 planned back then?

Were the trigger mechanisms already in place, I can't imagine anyone really wanting the job of drilling or cutting into C4 filled concrete so did all the people working during the construction and fitting of the buildings accept this strange wiring or whatever going into the concrete without question? (concrete workers, steel fixers, electricians, plumbers, joiners etc. that have probably worked in their field for most of their working life and never seen anything like that before)

And finally, is there any proof of this whatsoever?

Don't forget - since you insist on feeding this trolloc - the question as to how C4 encased in concrete has a greater shelf life than C4 in its original packaging... :D

[alexg]

Ohh right, C4 hidden in the concrete, it's so obvious. Just a couple of questions though (although they've probably been asked before):

Why was it put there in the first place, was 9/11 planned back then?

Were the trigger mechanisms already in place, I can't imagine anyone really wanting the job of drilling or cutting into C4 filled concrete so did all the people working during the construction and fitting of the buildings accept this strange wiring or whatever going into the concrete without question? (concrete workers, steel fixers, electricians, plumbers, joiners etc. that have probably worked in their field for most of their working life and never seen anything like that before)

And finally, is there any proof of this whatsoever?


Chris may answer but I think he says the triggers were added later by a small army of infiltrators who somehow managed to go un-noticed by the WTC staff:D

I forgot what he said about the original planting of the c4. If anybody noticed who wasn't supposed to they were likely hypnotised to forget.:D :D Just like they all forgot there was a concrete core.

Proof you say! Of the c4, none but the fact that it appears to Chris to be the only viable explanation.

And were they planning 9/11/2001 back in 68? Sort of, they thought they might need some sort of false flag operation someday and cooked up this one should the need arise. :jaw-dropp

So why have we humored this madman for 136 pages?

[Skibum]

So why have we humored this madman for 136 pages?

Don't think of it as us humoring him, think of it as him providing us great humor. After all how many of us are laughing at him?

[bonavada]

So why have we humored this madman for 136 pages?

beats me. moths to a flame? flies round ****?

BV

[eddyk]

How many posts do I have to make...before I can get an avatar?

[Metullus]

How many posts do I have to make...before I can get an avatar?50. Oh, yeah, and you must acknowledge TEH CORE (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif). :D

[The Atheist]

So sad that you cannot logic what a fact is.No, you're 100%. It is sad that I cannot logic a fact.

Even more a pity that you cannot understand what either logic or facts are. Let me help:

This:



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_103774532ab538fae3.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2021)


needs to be placed in here:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_103774532ab53760cc.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2020)

Problem solved.

5 pages since I last came in for a look, that's pretty good in a couple of days, I must congratulate you on doing an excellent job, Christophera. I have you in front on points at this stage. Despite the fact that you know nothing, you're hanging in there and still getting people to debate with you. Unbelievable.

Well played.

[The Atheist]

Over 300 posts in three days, that's exceptional. Most threads dont get to 300 posts, total!

[uk_dave]

For fear of repeating what others may have already stated, and even more fearful of actually entering into a dialogue with christophera, weren't the stairwells constructed with rc walls, at least at ground floor level?

The stairwells would have been a protected escape route so fireproofing of these would be more stringent than partition walls elsewhere in the building.

As for pre-placed explosives though....puhlease!

Apart from the absurdity of expecting construction workers to be involved in such a dangerous scenario, what insurance company would insure a building that had explosive demolition charges built in to main structural members?

Don't answer....please...please don't answer.

[Bell]

You do realize there had to ne 2 different detonation systems do you not? Clearly there were premature explosions (http://mouv4x8.club.fr/11Sept01/A0069b_3_towerexplo1_explosion_below.jpg) from one sydtem involving the floors and steel outside the concrete core and another that destroyed the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

I realize there was no C4 in the towers, which did not have a concrete core. Plane hits building. Building burns. Building falls. Sim-ple...

And clearly you forgot (comfortably?) to answer these questions (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1998208#post1997550).

[alexg]

For fear of repeating what others may have already stated, and even more fearful of actually entering into a dialogue with christophera, weren't the stairwells constructed with rc walls, at least at ground floor level?

The stairwells would have been a protected escape route so fireproofing of these would be more stringent than partition walls elsewhere in the building.

As for pre-placed explosives though....puhlease!

Apart from the absurdity of expecting construction workers to be involved in such a dangerous scenario, what insurance company would insure a building that had explosive demolition charges built in to main structural members?

Don't answer....please...please don't answer.

AFAIK it was dry wall all the way. There was much lamenting over the fact that concrete was NOT used, (see the PBS documentary 'why the towers fell") because all but one starirway was wiped out by the planes, the one stairway that survived was on the South tower and it made it only because the plane angled away from it. Only a few people above the damage escaped because of this.

If you have something about RC in the stairwells please provide a source. We'll survive.

Plese note: there are a few references out there to a concrete core, in an erroneous BBC documentary I believe and a few others, also erroneous, some have admited it too (the abovetop secret stuff, Chris).

[Christophera]

Please explain why only concrete would appear like that? And why it could not be the columns of the steel core?

Steel columns would be protruding and silhouetted no matter what material joined them unless is was the same size steel. the steel woul dhave to be a 2 foot thick sold wall to appear like that, but since the columns were vertical it wouldn't. Pieces would be bent and broken sticking out.

Concrete will get ground down as steel debris falls over it to appear axactly as we see..


Please provide evidence of the cutting charges

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

[uk_dave]

But didn't some people survive the collapse due to being in the starwell... witness the oliver stone film?

It would not be uncommon for the stairwell to be RC at lower levels...depending on the layout of the lobby and other aesthetic considerations. Nothing sinister.

[uk_dave]

oh boy

[alexg]

But didn't some people survive the collapse due to being in the starwell... witness the oliver stone film?

It would not be uncommon for the stairwell to be RC at lower levels...depending on the layout of the lobby and other aesthetic considerations. Nothing sinister.

The cops in WTC were not in either tower, but in an underground connecting concourse, IIRC.

[Christophera]

My posts are getting cut off so I'll answer these questions in another.

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?

Obviously this segment of core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) did not detonate. That saved those trapped. After that, the mass of the concrete wall kept the falling debris from crushing the stairwell.



And if the WTC had a concrete core, how come the towers swayed when they where struck by the planes?

Steel reinforced concrete does has some flexibility. I've done demolition where I've picked up a 6 inch thinck piece of slab with the corner tooth of a crawler loader and continued to lift until the lifting capactiy of the 32 ton machine was exceeded. Pehaps 3 foot of arc over 50 feet was seen. To break it ,a piece of concrete debris about 2 x 2 feet is placed under it then the machine driven on top of the unsupported are adjacent to fractire it.

[uruk]

homer,

Sorry to say, a person does not "make raw evidence", when they do and present it as such it is called "falsifying evidence". What did I do that is different then what you did when you redrew the core diagram. Oh, I know, Mine is based on reality and fact.

You are treating the towers as if they are being viewed looking parallel with the left face looking down the hallways, they are not. The camera angle is perhaps 20 degrees off being aligned with that.

Really, to do what you are trying to do, you would have to show the columns you think existed silhouetted. You do not, they do not. What shows is solid.

About halfway down this page is a description that accounts for everything seen.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11corexplosions.html
Further proof of your hypocracy, lies and obfuscation. If you saw the pictures you would find the shot shows one building straight on and the other at an angle. the models I superimosed reflect this but your not ony are you a liar but your stupid enough to think that nobody else sees that.

[alexg]

The cops in WTC were not in either tower, but in an underground connecting concourse, IIRC.

There were some others who survived in the stairwell. They were just a few stories above ground. We think the core fell seperately from the towers, the pictures and videos indicate this, so they were not in the big pancake. I don't think concrete saved them however. They just lucked out. GZ shows a few story hunk of core that never did collapse. Perhaps they were in that. Chris thinks that remaining hunk of core has concrete around it but he is wrong.

[uk_dave]

If you want to bring down a building it is best to start at the bottom and work up. That way you avoid any embarassing stalling of the collapse as the weakened upper structure grinds to a halt against a resistant lower structure.

Weaken the structure at ground level and let gravity do the work for you.

To plan a demolition any other way would be absurd, so the suggestion that the rc section of the building (if indeed any existed) was left 'un-detonated' would be introducing a variable into the scenario which a plot would hardly be likely to chance. (OMG I can't believe I am actually engaging this person....stop me someone!!)

Oh BTW your description of picking up a slab after demolition sounds suspiciously like something you poached off someone else. I would stop now if I were you, or google might get overloaded!

[LashL]

Dear Christophera:

There were not and never have been concrete cores at the WTC twin towers.

Accept it. And please seek help for your problems.

Love,
The Rest of the World

[uk_dave]

Yeah...what LashL said.

[Bell]

Steel columns would be protruding and silhouetted no matter what material joined them unless is was the same size steel. the steel woul dhave to be a 2 foot thick sold wall to appear like that, but since the columns were vertical it wouldn't. Pieces would be bent and broken sticking out.

Concrete will get ground down as steel debris falls over it to appear axactly as we see..

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748453043bd77e28.jpg

Posted before by bonavada in this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1999851&postcount=5331) post.

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

Those columns where cut by the ironworkers at GZ during the cleanup.

[Bell]

My posts are getting cut off so I'll answer these questions in another.

Obviously this segment of core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) did not detonate. That saved those trapped. After that, the mass of the concrete wall kept the falling debris from crushing the stairwell.

Obviously, yes, since they weren't blown up in the first place. Stop deviating from your own theories to fit in evidence that disproves your nonsense.

Steel reinforced concrete does has some flexibility. I've done demolition where I've picked up a 6 inch thinck piece of slab with the corner tooth of a crawler loader and continued to lift until the lifting capactiy of the 32 ton machine was exceeded. Pehaps 3 foot of arc over 50 feet was seen. To break it ,a piece of concrete debris about 2 x 2 feet is placed under it then the machine driven on top of the unsupported are adjacent to fractire it.

Well, I'll have to give you that - somewhat. I have no experience with flexibility of concrete, but I'm pretty sure it would not behave like the survivors described. Wouldn't it be more logical the 'concrete' core should have broken from the impact, instead of swayed? Let alone exploded at once, since the rebar was packed with C4?

[Oliver]

This photo is a faked since we all know that the core was blown to dust.

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

[Christophera]

What did I do that is different then what you did when you redrew the core diagram. Oh, I know, Mine is based on reality and fact.

homer, your attempt at using a graphic analysis is not the right approach even if you had proper information to work from. I corrected the core diagram to match evidence and illustrate the core I can prove stood.


Further proof of your hypocracy, lies and obfuscation. If you saw the pictures you would find the shot shows one building straight on and the other at an angle. the models I superimosed reflect this but your not ony are you a liar but your stupid enough to think that nobody else sees that.

homer, I actually think that your application of the word "stupid" to me applies to you. And, considering how much of this buffoonish posting you do, you could be termed a liar, if you knew what you are doing. Not to be offensive, because I sort of like you, I apply that defensively.
You have the right avatar anyway, nobody else here does except for Peabody. (Does that guy watch old Rocky & Bullwinkle cartoons to get his approach just right or what?)
You are special here, the others are actually smart enough to not try and do what you are attempting. Gravy gave up on it because he was bringing me evidence that I logically implimented to support my assertions. Keep in mind, this has happened time, and time again.

To prove my point I've uploaded a much better image of the sunrise silhouette that shows the top of WTC 1 and its tower. You can see, WTC 1 as WTC 2, is not viewed aligned down the hallways.

Give up homer. You are wasting your time and damaging your clubs efforts at supporting the lie.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3559&stc=1&d=1160958256

[Christophera]

Well, I'll have to give you that - somewhat. I have no experience with flexibility of concrete, but I'm pretty sure it would not behave like the survivors described. Wouldn't it be more logical the 'concrete' core should have broken from the impact, instead of swayed? Let alone exploded at once, since the rebar was packed with C4?

The towers behaved exactly as I would expect. The steel frame work around them protected them from too much flex. Although for all we know, the core was cracked from the impact. That can happen and the steel still keep the concrete in one piece. That high tensile steel rebar is super strong. (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)

Impact, fire and bullets will not detonate C4.

[Oliver]

This photo is a faked since we all know that the core was blown to dust.

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

Well, Chris? http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107451ef9fc0fca9.gif

[Christophera]

Those columns where cut by the ironworkers at GZ during the cleanup.

The one on the right (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc.box.shear.torch.gif) yes, was but the one on the left defies any known method of steelwork,

PERIOD!

[Oliver]

The one on the right (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc.box.shear.torch.gif) yes, was but the one on the left defies any known method of steelwork,

PERIOD!

This photo is a faked since we all know that the core was blown to dust.

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

Well, Chris? http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107451ef9fc0fca9.gif

[uruk]

homer, your attempt at using a graphic analysis is not the right approach even if you had proper information to work from. I corrected the core diagram to match evidence and illustrate the core I can prove stood.
Your diagram does not coincide with the photographs. Why don't you try to do what I did by superimposing your "core" over the photos. See if the match up.

homer, I actually think that your application of the word "stupid" to me applies to you. And, considering how much of this buffoonish posting you do, you could be termed a liar, if you knew what you are doing. Not to be offensive, because I sort of like you, I apply that defensively.
You have the right avatar anyway, nobody else here does except for Peabody. (Does that guy watch old Rocky & Bullwinkle cartoons to get his approach just right or what?)
You are special here, the others are actually smart enough to not try and do what you are attempting. Gravy gave up on it because he was bringing me evidence that I logically implimented to support my assertions. Keep in mind, this has happened time, and time again.

To prove my point I've uploaded a much better image of the sunrise silhouette that shows the top of WTC 1 and its tower. You can see, WTC 1 as WTC 2, is not viewed aligned down the hallways.

Give up homer. You are wasting your time and damaging your clubs efforts at supporting the lie.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3559&stc=1&d=1160958256

I don't normaly call people "stupid", but your complete denial of what is clearly visible and your habitual lieing and dishonest behaiviour definitly warrants it.
I don't hate you, nor do I particularly like you. I just pity you for your dementia.

[alexg]

Chris,

Just for the record, what about this, where is the core on the left one again:



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1183545299f8ddc9dc.jpg

And why doesn't it look anything like this:


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/118354532d6d133ad0.jpg

And don't tell me our view is askew, I get that, but that doesn't account for the near abscence of darkness at the core!

[uruk]

The one on the right (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc.box.shear.torch.gif) yes, was but the one on the left defies any known method of steelwork,

PERIOD!

Chris, Chris, Chris. the image on the left is out of focud or blurred by JPEG compression. The detail is too low to make a determination.

I will give you this. Your are right about the left tower in the sunset image. The perspective is shifted by a small but INSIGNIFICANT amount. My superimposed image is still valid. The 3d info derived from the floor plan corresponds to the pictures.

Do what I did. superimpose your "core" over the pictures to see if your info is right.

[stateofgrace]

The one on the right (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc.box.shear.torch.gif) yes, was but the one on the left defies any known method of steelwork,


PERIOD!


Any known method? Are you absolutely sure? It is not even remotely possible this beam was machined this way. Not even possible that you are seeing the end of a steel beam from somewhere that was actually manufactured this way?

Where exactly did this beam come from? Which part of the structure was it from? You have assumed it was cut this way during the collapse but you have no idea about the history of this beam.

Here is a random photograph of steel being manufactured.

http://www.quakewrap.com/images/Steel%20Beam%20in%20Lab-4.jpg


Notice how the end "defies all known methods of steel work" ?

[bonavada]

please answer my questions:-

HERE (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2003121#post2003121)

BV

[Christophera]

Well, Chris? http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107451ef9fc0fca9.gif

Is this the image?

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

What is faked about it?

[bonavada]

it's entirely clear to me what's in the picture of the towers below.
the vertical shadows in the left tower are simply LIFT SHAFTS/STAIRWELLS nothing more.....like all of his other unbelievable assertions, how christophera sees evidence in this picture of concrete cores is beyond me.
the towers had an innovative (at the time of building) system of express lifts which took workers up to sky-lobbies at regular intervals. i think there were two sky lobbies one of those at or about the level where the shadows alternate thicken and thin ot in the pic. i have an url with a diagram from a reference book published in the 80's explaining the system. i will post that later today.

another nail in the concrete core coffin.


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/118354532d6d133ad0.jpg

BTW i think the above picture is one of the most thought-provoking and stunning photographs ever taken of the WTC. the sun slicing through the tower like that emphasises the magnificent beauty of the structure but also reminds us of it's tragic vulnerability.

fuggit i'm getting all tired and emotional. i'm hitting the duckdown and springs.
see youse

BV

BV

[Christophera]

please answer my questions:-

HERE (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2003121#post2003121)

BV

As soon as there were "no walls" all of your objections to my assertions are without basis.

I answered all your questions here.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2000937#post2000937

Also, you have not acknowledged that I provided 2 more accounts supporting the exploding wall scenario.

[Christophera]

Any known method? Are you absolutely sure? It is not even remotely possible this beam was machined this way. Not even possible that you are seeing the end of a steel beam from somewhere that was actually manufactured this way?

Where exactly did this beam come from? Which part of the structure was it from? You have assumed it was cut this way during the collapse but you have no idea about the history of this beam.

Here is a random photograph of steel being manufactured.

http://www.quakewrap.com/images/Steel%20Beam%20in%20Lab-4.jpg


Notice how the end "defies all known methods of steel work" ?

Definitely random, in fact it has no relation at all.

Have you certified that is tempered steel?

That is about an 8 inch "H" beam and the flange is maybe 3/4 inch. The machine a press and it is being bent or straightened.

The ends of mild steel "H" and "I" beams are sheared but done so hot at the mill.

When tempered is sheared it is also done hot or much hotter than mild. Like cherry red.

And, this kills any logic you might think you have applied, but you wouldn't know it until you're told.

YOU CANNOT SHEAR A TUBE WITHOUT COLLAPSING IT. Let alone a tempered steel tube of that thickness.

[Christophera]

Chris, Chris, Chris. the image on the left is out of focud or blurred by JPEG compression. The detail is too low to make a determination.

I will give you this. Your are right about the left tower in the sunset image. The perspective is shifted by a small but INSIGNIFICANT amount. My superimposed image is still valid. The 3d info derived from the floor plan corresponds to the pictures.

Do what I did. superimpose your "core" over the pictures to see if your info is right.

You wouldn't be able to say that unless you knew where the corner of the core is. Your work is junk

[Christophera]

Chris,

Just for the record, what about this, where is the core on the left one again:



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1183545299f8ddc9dc.jpg

And why doesn't it look anything like this:


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/118354532d6d133ad0.jpg

And don't tell me our view is askew, I get that, but that doesn't account for the near abscence of darkness at the core!

The mid day silouette (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/silhouettenoontosouth.jpg), tower on left is WTC 2.

The below image shows you the the same face of the same tower in a slightly oblique view. You see 3 shear walls, quite narrow on the north, narrow end of the WTC 2 core.

As I've said before the reflected light bleeds across the floors that do not have hallways in the sunrise image. We expect darkness when looking at walls and expect light when looking at hallway doors, even reflected light.


http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3561&stc=1&d=1160965729

[alexg]

The mid day silouette (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/silhouettenoontosouth.jpg), tower on left is WTC 2.

The below image shows you the the same face of the same tower in a slightly oblique view. You see 3 shear walls, quite narrow on the north, narrow end of the WTC 2 core.

As I've said before the reflected light bleeds across the floors that do not have hallways in the sunrise image. We expect darkness when looking at walls and expect light when looking at hallway doors, even reflected light.


http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3561&stc=1&d=1160965729

MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! What a crock of misdirection. I see steel core. Period. Your answer is laughable. The only thing bleeding is your brain.
You CANNOT hide a concrete core in here:

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

There is no bleeding, it's a crisp image. You can make out the outlines of the steel stucture.

What will happen to you Chris, when the admins finally shut this thread down and you have nothing? You have a good intellect, save it before it's too late. This is not your great contribution, you are not saving the world, you are not the savior who alone can see the truth. We want to help you.

[stateofgrace]

So you are saying the only way the steel beam you have showed could have got the way it did was as direct result of explosive devices yes?

Just like these ones.

http://www.hollow-sections.net/gifs/main.jpg
How thick are these beams Chris? Is this not manufactured this way?

In your expert opinion there is absolutely no way the steel beam you showed was manufactured that way?

No way, no how?

http://www.exportersindia.com/dynamic-files/bc-small/52376/1019548.jpg

I give up with you. You simply see what you want and will not even accept there is an alternative to your theories.

You have no idea how this section of steel got the way it did, you have no idea where it came from. You just jump to the conclusion you have already determined and that's it.

You will not accept that the beam was not sheared but could have easily beeen manufactured that way. Show me one example of explosives or thermite producing such a clean cut,such a manufactured cut.

I'm finished wasting my time on you Chris.

Cheerio

[Christophera]

So you are saying the only way the steel beam you have showed could have got the way it did was as direct result of explosive devices yes?

Just like these ones.

http://www.hollow-sections.net/gifs/main.jpg
How thick are these beams Chris? Is this not manufactured this way?

In your expert opinion there is absolutely no way the steel beam you showed was manufactured that way?

No way, no how?

http://www.exportersindia.com/dynamic-files/bc-small/52376/1019548.jpg

I give up with you. You simply see what you want and will not even accept there is an alternative to your theories.

You have no idea how this section of steel got the way it did, you have no idea where it came from. You just jump to the conclusion you have already determined and that's it.

You will not accept that the beam was not sheared but could have easily beeen manufactured that way. Show me one example of explosives or thermite producing such a clean cut,such a manufactured cut.

I'm finished wasting my time on you Chris.

Cheerio

You apprently have no familiarity with the clean up and the multitude of columns that were cut in this way. Generally your use of the word "beam" shows you have no familiarity with construction and steel fabrication.

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

[Christophera]

So you are saying the only way the steel beam you have showed could have got the way it did was as direct result of explosive devices yes?

Just like these ones.

http://www.hollow-sections.net/gifs/main.jpg
How thick are these beams Chris? Is this not manufactured this way?

In your expert opinion there is absolutely no way the steel beam you showed was manufactured that way?

No way, no how?

http://www.exportersindia.com/dynamic-files/bc-small/52376/1019548.jpg

I give up with you. You simply see what you want and will not even accept there is an alternative to your theories.

You have no idea how this section of steel got the way it did, you have no idea where it came from. You just jump to the conclusion you have already determined and that's it.

You will not accept that the beam was not sheared but could have easily beeen manufactured that way. Show me one example of explosives or thermite producing such a clean cut,such a manufactured cut.

I'm finished wasting my time on you Chris.

Cheerio

You apparently have no familiarity with the clean up and the multitude of columns that were cut in this way. Generally your use of the word "beam" shows you have no familiarity with construction and steel fabrication.

The interior box columns of the WTC towers were hand fabricated because square tube with that wall thickness cannot be extruded. The columns have the red stains of iron oxide from extreme heat and bear no machining marks. Something NEVER done on a clean up unless it is a chop saw. Tempered steel does not cut well this way. A torch is almost always used except with thinner stock.

All of your posted images are extruded mild steel.

I have 35 years experience with steel fabrication and the cut on the left is astounding. The first time I saw one of these columns I got goose bumps. Two years later I figured out how they were cut.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1233383

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

[defaultdotxbe]

you do realize that explosives wont leave that clean of a cut right?

the fact that it looks exactly like the the torch cut steel should tell you something, lol

[stateofgrace]

Chris there is one of three ways that cut was produced.

1. It was manufactured that way.(plausible)
2. It was cut by blow torch during the clean up operation.(plausible)
3. Explosives of some description produced it.(?)

Now you have 35 years in this field what do you reckon.?

Incidentally I work offshore with ROV’s; I have done for the last twelve years. I am well used to massive steel construction jobs

[TheFeds]

All of your posted images are extruded mild steel.Actually, they're cold-rolled hollow steel sections. Structural steel isn't extruded, due to the high cost of maintaining and replacing the dies.
I have 35 years experience with steel fabrication and the cut on the left is astounding. The first time I saw one of these columns I got goose bumps. Two years later I figured out how they were cut.Your idle speculation isn't worth much, if you can't connect that particular beam to a particular location in the building that shouldn't have been cut. After all, there are obviously cut ends in the steelwork, how do you know that this wasn't one of them? That is a built-up steel member, fabricated from welded plate or bar stock. Unless you post a higher resolution version of that picture, neither you nor I can say for sure that the pieces weren't cut with a bandsaw prior to erection, and that the rusting was due to the natural oxidation of the metal over time.
If you care to dispute this, you'd better demonstrate that you've acquired an understanding of why digital images cannot store information that is smaller than their pixel size. You certainly didn't have a clue about it the last several times that it came up in relation to your long-range pictures.
For that matter, if that cut were the result of an explosive, do you realize what sort of explosive it would have to be? This isn't plywood that's being cut, it's steel plate. You can't use mere cord explosive; you need a shaped charge. But not just any shaped charge. One with an extremely narrow and consistent blast pattern which encircles the entire beam. (Remember, this isn't demolition work where you can weaken the beam and depend on the building to fall down—you're saying that they sheared it perfectly perpendicular to the axis.) Don't you think someone would have noticed those explosive-in-a-housing shaped charges encircling the columns? Do you realize what a pain it would have been for someone to install those in the first place? You seem to know less about steel than you ought to, for someone with years of experience. And you certainly don't comprehend the engineering challenge involved in cutting a beam with an explosive. But even if it were practical, I bet you can't rationally explain why they didn't just blow the beams up with a big slab of dynamite in each one, and instead went to the extreme difficulty of cutting them perfectly.

That is about an 8 inch "H" beam and the flange is maybe 3/4 inch. The machine a press and it is being bent or straightened.

The ends of mild steel "H" and "I" beams are sheared but done so hot at the mill.They're called wide-flange I-beams, not H-beams. The short form is "W", not "H".

YOU CANNOT SHEAR A TUBE WITHOUT COLLAPSING IT. Let alone a tempered steel tube of that thickness.Actually, you can. And a hardened beam will have less ductility, not more, than a mild steel beam. So although it will have higher strength than the mild steel, it will exhibit less plastic deformation before failing in shear (all other factors being equal).

Here's a picture and a link (http://www.tubenet.org.uk/technical/bill_cutting.html) to prove that you're utterly wrong:
http://www.tubenet.org.uk/technical/billshear.gif (http://www.tubenet.org.uk/technical/bill_cutting.html)DUAL BLADE SHEAR CUTTING
The utilization of a blade shear to cut tubing has been used since the 1920's, starting with a single blade method, then improved on with the double blade system. Fig. 10 illustrates a typical dual blade system showing a horizontal blade removing a notch from the tube, followed by a vertical blade that shears the tube to length. Use of the initial scarf cut (horizontal) allows the vertical blade to penetrate the wall with minimum tube dimpling.
Because of the nature of the shearing process, the system is better suited for hard materials such as carbon and alloy steels.Yes, that's a slightly different tube (thinner walls and round), but the same principle can be used when necessary. And if you still don't think it would work, look at the "supported shear" method also described on that page.

[Christophera]

Actually,

Blah, Blah, bad qute, too small of a scale, wrong type steel.

Your post is bunk.

Explosive Shear (left) & Torch Cut Columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc.box.shear.torch.gif)

[Christophera]

you do realize that explosives wont leave that clean of a cut right?

the fact that it looks exactly like the the torch cut steel should tell you something, lol

The fact that you tell us it looks like a torch cut is something.


The left side looks nothing like a torch cut and the right side shows a torch cut.

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

[Oliver]

The fact that you tell us it looks like a torch cut is something.


The left side looks nothing like a torch cut and the right side shows a torch cut.

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

Hey Chris, how could there be a core in your post-collapse pictures if the core was blown up in a controlled demolition??????

[uk_dave]

ermmmmm does this help at all?

Video showing construction of the towers

http://www.archive.org/details/world_trade_center


(It also shows a CIA operative drilling the floor slab to pre-plant explosive charges!...... Just kiddin'...)

[stateofgrace]

ermmmmm does this help at all?

Video showing construction of the towers

http://www.archive.org/details/world_trade_center


(It also shows a CIA operative drilling the floor slab to pre-plant explosive charges!...... Just kiddin'...)

Nope. It's been shown at least a dozen times by different members.

Oh by the way Dave welcome to jref.

[uk_dave]

TY for the welcome.

Well there's always this site.....

http://tinyurl.com/y2m6v2


Not much evidence of a concrete core in those pictures!

[twinstead]

Not much evidence of a concrete core in those pictures!

It's no use; Chris has an answer for everything, and is as adept as I have ever seen at handwaiving away powerful evidence contrary to his stance without batting an eye.

It really is an art.

Oh, and welcome.

[Bell]

The towers behaved exactly as I would expect. The steel frame work around them protected them from too much flex. Although for all we know, the core was cracked from the impact. That can happen and the steel still keep the concrete in one piece. That high tensile steel rebar is super strong. (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)

Impact, fire and bullets will not detonate C4.

That's not freaking rebar! That's the steel core (http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748453043bd77e28.jpg). Stop lying.

[Bell]

The one on the right (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc.box.shear.torch.gif) yes, was but the one on the left defies any known method of steelwork,

PERIOD!

Why is that? Did you notice how the picture on the left is blurry? Hence you can't see the details of the cuts? Both beams are cut. Stop lying.

PERIOD!

[Belz...]

Would you prefer that someone who does not remember draw it?

That would be true if I DID NOT remember it, but I do remember and it works with the other evidence.

That you remember something you saw so long ago in passing, but in so great detail makes me doubt your account. Few can remember so much specific details after so much time.

[Belz...]

Can you explain why there are no core columns seen in this image if your image shows the true core?

Funny. I can see them.

You do realize there had to ne 2 different detonation systems do you not? Clearly there were premature explosions from one sydtem involving the floors and steel outside the concrete core and another that destroyed the core.

Little is clear about anything you post here, chris.

Obviously this segment of core wall at its base did not detonate.

Well, that should tell you something: there was no detonation.

homer, your attempt at using a graphic analysis is not the right approach even if you had proper information to work from. I corrected the core diagram to match evidence and illustrate the core I can't prove stood.

Here, fixed it for you.

You are special here, the others are actually smart enough to not try and do what you are attempting. Gravy gave up on it because he was bringing me evidence that I logically implimented to support my assertions.

No, chris. You're just the poorest judge of evidence I've ever seen.

Give up homer. You are wasting your time and damaging your clubs efforts at supporting the lie.

Why in the blue hell would we support a lie ?

As I've said before the reflected light bleeds across the floors that do not have hallways in the sunrise image.

Even if you were correct about that, you wouldn't see THROUGH the building.

I have 35 years experience with steel fabrication and the cut on the left is astounding. The first time I saw one of these columns I got goose bumps. Two years later I figured out how they were cut.

You've NEVER seen a blowtorch ?

Also, what kind of explosive can produce a clean cut like that ?

[Belz...]

Hey Chris, how could there be a core in your post-collapse pictures if the core was blown up in a controlled demolition??????

No, no, Oliver. The outside of the building was destroyed, and THEN the core was detonated.

Apparently those multi-trillion dollar NWO folks can hypnotise the entire planet to further their thousand-year plans for world domination, but they can't blow up a building properly.

[uruk]

You wouldn't be able to say that unless you knew where the corner of the core is. Your work is junk

Then explain to me why my illustration (where I used the floor plan as the basis) matches up to what you see on the photographs?

Explain why yours do not.

Your lies are making the Virgin Mary cry blood.

[uruk]

The fact that you tell us it looks like a torch cut is something.


The left side looks nothing like a torch cut and the right side shows a torch cut.

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

Your dishonesty is appaling chris. The image on the left is too blurred by JPEG compression to show any clear detail.

What is clear is how bad a liar you are.

[William Rea]

William, here's what I'm trying to understand:

Are you suggesting that the horizontal elements of the upper sections are so heavily reinforced and rigid, that there's no chance of them breaking up as the upper sections tilt into the damaged area of the building? Because that seems to be exactly what you are suggesting.

As I understand it - and I fully admit I might be mistaken - the aircraft destroyed several support columns from the inner box, while creating a hole in the outer support. From the diagrams and photographs, my guess is that the total damage on the interior was proportionally larger than the total damage to the exterior. Since the interior was designed to support more weight than the exterior, it's fairly safe to suggest that the exterior facing could not be expected to hold the upper stories safely in place; but at the same time, since the interior was seriously compromised by initial impact and subsequent plasticizing due to fire, the interior was not likely to support the upper stories for long, either.

Now, bear with me here... if the interior supports did give - and, from reading and watching about other building collapses, it's safe to assume that the time between initial column failure and final column failure for the interior was one or two seconds apart at best - then what's keeping the upper floors from sagging in the middle and collapsing into the damaged region? You've made the suggestion, whether intentional or not, that each floor is like a rigid plate that would stay whole whether falling, sliding, or tilting; when, in fact, each floor is made of a variety of materials and, once free from its support, would be likely to suffer torsion damage and failure of cross members in numerous places.

So the interior columns fail. The floors, no longer supported, begin to sag and, ultimately, collapse downward. The outer columns, receiving less damage proportionally, hold up the outer edges of the floors momentarily, but also fail due to increased stress. The result would be a cave-in, essentially. The upper sections, it seems to me, would simply drop into the damaged area - not whole, but as a collection of debris of fairly large size.

The images we see of the collapse are misleading in one way: as the collapse begins, we see what we think are entire, whole floors dropping in sync into the damage zone; but what are we really witnessing? The drop of outer support members, as stresses in the damage zone cause catastrophic failure of those outer supports at that level, allowing those above it to slide down, into the damaged area.

In your concept, if I understand correctly, you suggest that the weight of the upper portions remains evenly distributed around the building in spite of the loss of columns, and that the upper sections remain fixed and rigid during structural failure; that those columns not damaged could continue to support their share of the load even as the building top fell, causing it to hinge into the damaged area, and slide through the damage, toward the ground, without significantly damaging the lower portions of the building. Is that about right? I hope you'll correct me, because that makes no sense at all - but that seems to me to be what you're claiming.

As for why the core isn't still standing, isn't it pretty understandable? I mean, there's a pretty good reason we don't build cores like that first, then make the building around them. Without their cross-supports, they topple and crush themselves under their own weight in the wind. Anyone who says otherwise never tried stacking LEGO when they were kids. :D

OK, I'm back again for a few weeks so I will answer soon.

I think I will maybe start a new thread to continue this because this one seems to have deteriorated into a rant at Christophera thread now.

Laters.

[bonavada]

I answered all your questions here.

NO YOU FKN DIDN'T!!!!! (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2000937#post2000937)



you answered NONE of the questions.
you DODGED the questions.
you CANNOT answer the questions.
you show a high degree of moral cowardice under fire. your assertion on your site that the basement walls exploded around mike pecarao on the sub-levels by a controlled demolition down there has been shown to be a complete fabrication.
YOU LIE!

Also, you have not acknowledged that I provided 2 more accounts supporting the exploding wall scenario.

once again i ask you. answer the SPECIFIC questions i ask HERE (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2003121#post2003121)

don't simply spam us with a link to your badly researched, fully discredited, glory-hunting, BLINKERED site. please no link to a totally different account to the one involving mike pecararo. simply answer the reasonable questions i asked about HIM and what he saw.

answer coward.......

BV

[Christophera]

your assertion on your site that the basement walls exploded around mike pecarao on the sub-levels by a controlled demolition down there has been shown to be a complete fabrication.
YOU LIE!

Anyone that can read can see that you are the conducting deception simply by reading this paragraph,

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1205439

I do not say walls exploded around Pecarao, you do, then you try to assert that I do. Meaning your entire post is a fabrication and attempt at deception.

[Hellbound]

Hmmm.

Queeen has lost it's appeal.

Maybe...


"A long, long time ago, I can still remember how that music, used to make me smile..."

[defaultdotxbe]

The fact that you tell us it looks like a torch cut is something.


The left side looks nothing like a torch cut and the right side shows a torch cut.

Sheared & Torch Cut Columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc.box.shear.torch.gif)
so your comparing a single image of a beam cut by a torch to an image to blurry to make out details

do all torches produce the exact same cut? do all people produce the exact same cut? was there only one guy with one torch in the cleanup crew?

and please explain how explosives could produce a cut that perfect

[Christophera]

so your comparing a single image of a beam cut by a torch to an image too blurry to make out details

do all torches produce the exact same cut? do all people produce the exact same cut? was there only one guy with one torch in the cleanup crew?

and please explain how explosives could produce a cut that perfect

Under any hand held cutting condition, even mechanized which is not used in salvage, tiny gas jet lines are visable and masses of slag are generated on the opposite side of the tube.

The details of the image reveal that the face of the cut is so smooth that zooming it to the point where gas jet lines would be visible if they existed, only gets you to say "it is blurry.

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

[Christophera]

And here is how built in cutting charges with precision tempered steel plates were made to effect those cuts. http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1233383

Cutting charges built into the floors (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1233383)

[uk_dave]

And, surely the fact that any steel memeber is not going to be continuous in any case... so it's going to have ends...how do you know any photographic evidence isn't just showing you the manufactured end of a beam?

And...and...and...why the hell am I drawn into adding to the debate with someone who appears, on the evidence at hand and to my layman's eye, to be, as they say in the medical proffession, totally and utterly...bonkers?

[Bell]

Under any hand held cutting condition, even mechanized which is not used in salvage, tiny gas jet lines are visable and masses of slag are generated on the opposite side of the tube.

The details of the image reveal that the face of the cut is so smooth that zooming it to the point where gas jet lines would be visible if they existed, only gets you to say "it is blurry.

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

Christophera, is the left picture lacking details due to blurring/jpeg artifacts, YES OR NO?

[Arus808]

So, Chris, have you bothered to contact anyone who was responsible for the design and construction of the twin towers? You've now had 4 days to do so.

[Dave_46]

And, surely the fact that any steel memeber is not going to be continuous in any case... so it's going to have ends...how do you know any photographic evidence isn't just showing you the manufactured end of a beam?

And...and...and...why the hell am I drawn into adding to the debate with someone who appears, on the evidence at hand and to my layman's eye, to be, as they say in the medical proffession, totally and utterly...bonkers?

Now now,stop being logical about the cut ends. It won't make any difference to him. I stopped trying to talk sense to him an awful long time ago, it just don't work. I now just lurk here.

Another Dave from the UK

[Christophera]

Christophera, is the left picture lacking details due to blurring/jpeg artifacts, YES OR NO?

The image on the left,

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

[Christophera]

The image on the left has no significant blurring that will impede the determination of the finish of the face cut and determination that it is not a torch cut in comparison of the torch cut image on the right.

[Bell]

The image on the left has no significant blurring that will impede the determination of the finish of the face cut and determination that it is not a torch cut in comparison of the torch cut image on the right.

Christophera, is the left picture lacking details due to blurring/jpeg artifacts, YES OR NO?

Just a simple yes or no.

[Christophera]

Now now,stop being logical about the cut ends. It won't make any difference to him. I stopped trying to talk sense to him an awful long time ago, it just don't work. I now just lurk here.

Another Dave from the UK

The interior box columns were 100% welded in place from delivered 40 foot long pieces. Essentially they were continuous 1300 foot columns when completed. Structural elements do not gain the designation as "core" without being one piece.

[Christophera]

Christophera, is the left picture lacking details due to blurring/jpeg artifacts, YES OR NO?

Just a simple yes or no.

NO.

Not for these purposes.

[Arus808]

^^ translation. Yes, but I dont want you to concentrate on the fact that it shows nothing.

[Bell]

NO.

Not for these purposes.

So your answer is no. Thank you.

Since it is very clear that the blurred image failes to reveal any detail of cuts on the edge of the beam (which are seen in the right picture, since that has more detail), this clearly proves you lack the ability to analyze the pictures you provide.

[uk_dave]

The interior box columns were 100% welded in place from delivered 40 foot long pieces. Essentially they were continuous 1300 foot columns when completed. Structural elements do not gain the designation as "core" without being one piece.


I've met people like you on other blogs.

You share a common trait: The ability to imagine something and then present it as a fact.

The core of a building normally (at least in the uk) acheives that designation by being the location of services for that building, such as elevators, toilets and stairwells.

There is no law that says for a structural member to be classed as a 'core' member it has to be one piece.

And anyway, what if the steel columns were bolted together, would that not make them 'one piece'?

Silly man.

You also seem to be failing to take into account (amongst other things) that it was the connections between the floor trusses and the outer and inner columns which failed. The floor trusses depended on the columns for support, but the columns depended on the floor trusses for restraint, otherwise vertical loading is inclined to make them spread outwards. And outwards they did indeed spread AFTER the physical connection with the floor trusses failed.

And how did we get so tied up in your fantasies about reinforced concrete columns when your original question on this thread was regarding the myth of the buildings collapsing at 'free fall' speed?