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

[defaultdotxbe]

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)
zooming in to the point where you would see the the "tiny gas jet lines" shows your original imjage is not detailed enough to see them to begin with

also, do you not see the masses of slag on the opposite side of th etube in the left hand picture? do explosives produce slag as well?

ETA: what kind of cut would a thermal lance leave? different from an oxy-acetelene cut? how about a plasma torch?

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)
ive already told you, c4 is not a cutting charge, and a steel plate is not used to make cuts in an actual cutting charge (the liner is generally beryllium i believe)

[Popeholden]

you guys should really just stop responding to this guy. he's decided to believe this despite clear and obvious evidence to the contrary. it's called "faith".

[Christophera]

zooming in to the point where you would see the the "tiny gas jet lines" shows your original imjage is not detailed enough to see them to begin with

We can see the granuals of gravel and smaller.

also, do you not see the masses of slag on the opposite side of the tube in the left hand picture? do explosives produce slag as well?

No slag is produced, The explosive shear happens all the way around simualtaenously most metal turns to fine powder, falling down the tube.


ive already told you, c4 is not a cutting charge, and a steel plate is not used to make cuts in an actual cutting charge (the liner is generally beryllium i believe)

A cutting charge is a specific configuration of explosives that are focused by tamping, shield or guides. Any high density high explosive can be used. You refer to Linear Shape Charges. The WTC was built before they were perfected.

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

[Christophera]

you guys should really just stop responding to this guy. he's decided to believe this despite clear and obvious evidence to the contrary. it's called "faith".

It's called evidence, and you have none for the steel core columns while the concrete core is well documented.

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

[Oliver]

It's called evidence, and you have none for the steel core columns while the concrete core is well documented.

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

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

[defaultdotxbe]

A cutting charge is a specific configuration of explosives that are focused by tamping, shield or guides. Any high density high explosive can be used. You refer to Linear Shape Charges. The WTC was built before they were perfected.

Cutting charges built into the floors (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1233383)
so why dont you draw a diagram (from memory i assume) of the cutting charges built into the floors

the one in your picture there just looks like a wad of c4

and please address my questions about the appearance of cuts from a thermal lance of plasma torch compared to the oxy-acetylene cut you show

[Bell]

Delusion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[...]

Although non-specific concepts of madness have been around for several thousand years, the psychiatrist and philosopher Karl Jaspers was the first to define the three main criteria for a belief to be considered delusional in his book General Psychopathology. These criteria are:
- certainty (held with absolute conviction)
- incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
- impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)

[...]

These factors have led the psychiatrist Anthony David to note that "there is no acceptable (rather than accepted) definition of a delusion". In practice psychiatrists tend to diagnose a belief as delusional if it is either patently bizarre, causing significant distress, or excessively pre-occupies the patient, especially if the person is subsequently unswayed in belief by counter-evidence or reasonable arguments.

[...]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion

[tsig]

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?

I cut steel 40 years ago.

[uk_dave]

Any known method?

I cut steel 40 years ago.


So it was YOU!

[tsig]

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)

Were the goose bumps raging?

Did the cut bleed?

Took you two years?

[tsig]

So it was YOU!

Well no no one would know if it wasen't for the internet.

All of us played our small parts and kept our mouths tidy.

'Cept for Chris.

[Popeholden]

It's called evidence, and you have none for the steel core columns while the concrete core is well documented.

everyone else disagrees with you, from conspiracy theorists, critical thinkers, experts, even my cat, Leto.

Even he has the critical thinking skills to know that citing your own website and your own drawings as evidence is absurd.

In fact, when i showed him your "evidence" he said, "Meow! Has he contacted anyone who had a hand in designing or building the towers? Meow?" and when I said you hadn't, he defecated on my keyboard!

You owe me a new keyboard, chris.

[bonavada]

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.

<sigh>
i now retract the slightly misleading term "around mike pecararo" it was wrong (see how easy it is to admit a mistake?) i now rephrase that to "in level C" just a minor error on my part. but, obvious to all bar you, no attempt at decepton or fabrication by me. whatever....that in no way negates the thrust of my original arguments HERE (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2003121#post2003121). this is just nit-picking. more sidestepping cowardice by you. you still haven't answered the original questions HERE (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2003121#post2003121). your reluctance to even try is indicative of your inabilty thereof.
you have been well and truly sussed mate. you are just a plain old glory-hunting bullsh1tter.


BV

[stateofgrace]

everyone else disagrees with you, from conspiracy theorists, critical thinkers, experts, even my cat, Leto.


I just asked my cat. He doesn't agree with you Chris.

http://www.farsight.net.nz/images/vicpc.JPG

[Christophera]

everyone else disagrees with you, from conspiracy theorists, critical thinkers, experts, even my cat, Leto.

Even he has the critical thinking skills to know that citing your own website and your own drawings as evidence is absurd.

In fact, when i showed him your "evidence" he said, "Meow! Has he contacted anyone who had a hand in designing or building the towers? Meow?" and when I said you hadn't, he defecated on my keyboard!

You owe me a new keyboard, chris.

Clearly, your cat has no respect for the dead and the truth of their death that will protect the living whom were loved and loved them. (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html)

[firecoins]

Clearly, your cat has no respect for the dead and the truth of their death that will protect the living whom were loved and loved them. (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html)

Psychic John Edward contacted the dead and they said it was a steel core.


I am getting an S. It has something to do with metal in the middle, does that make sense to you?

[Christophera]

<sigh>
i now retract the slightly misleading term "around mike pecararo" it was wrong (see how easy it is to admit a mistake?) i now rephrase that to "in level C" just a minor error on my part. but, obvious to all bar you, no attempt at decepton or fabrication by me. whatever....that in no way negates the thrust of my original arguments HERE (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2003121#post2003121). this is just nit-picking. more sidestepping cowardice by you. you still haven't answered the original questions HERE (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2003121#post2003121). your reluctance to even try is indicative of your inabilty thereof.
you have been well and truly sussed mate. you are just a plain old glory-hunting bullsh1tter.


BV

You are going to have to restate your questions because as far as I remember i answered them or made them superflous with the point about the walls being gone.

It is also possiblel that the "glitch" that cuts my posts off cut off the answer.

[Woody-]

Time to once again hang Chris with his own words and photos.

First he shows us this pic

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc.box.shear.torch.gif

What he overlooks is that if you look a little you can find a high res version of it somewhere on the internet.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/gzap5.html


This much larger pic show two box columns stacked on top of each other. There is a feature that is still hard to make out but is very important to this little discussion. I'll point it out here shorty but first lets look at something else Chris posted.

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.

With that quote in mind look closely at the hi res pic I just posted. Yep, you can see weld lines along the top and bottom edges of the columns. Now it becomes clear, his "sheared" column is actually just where either the welds broke during the collapse or they were ground off during cleanup.

[Christophera]

Time to once again hang Chris with his own words and photos.

First he shows us this pic

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc.box.shear.torch.gif

What he overlooks is that if you look a little you can find a high res version of it somewhere on the internet.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/gzap5.html


This much larger pic show two box columns stacked on top of each other. There is a feature that is still hard to make out but is very important to this little discussion. I'll point it out here shorty but first lets look at something else Chris posted.

With that quote in mind look closely at the hi res pic I just posted. Yep, you can see weld lines along the top and bottom edges of the columns. Now it becomes clear, his "sheared" column is actually just where either the welds broke during the collapse or they were ground off during cleanup.

OMG!


You cannot think that is a broken weld?????


A broken weld is about the most ragged edge you can find. Utterly clueless.

ESPECIALLY if you think anyone grinds anything off in a salvage operation.

We know you are clueless, certifiable.

Contractors don't even want to grind when fabricating.

[Christophera]

Took you two years?

Hah!

Yes, by fall of 2002 I had remembered the basic structure from the 1990 documentary titled "The Construction of the Twin Towers? and most of the other details.

The later goose bumps were nothing compared to the initial crawly chicken skin when I remembered the "special plastic coating" on the rebar and the security measures around completing the butt weld in the 3" high tensile steel rebar.

Finally in around spring 2005 memories of the last few minutes of the documentary started to pop up. I have a photographic memory that surprises me often so when visual recall is triggered I know I've got something. That 18 minute celebratory film on the towers that is still around actually brought an image back from those last few minutes. In the 18 minute piece its a shot that lasts about 4 seconds looking out across one wide side floor with the core corner to the right of the camera. Two floors below, trussed floor panels are being swung into position from the foreground and background very quickly. When I saw it I remembered it immediately and the visual memory returned for me later easily.

The image of the smooth sheared burnt red column ends (left) (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc.box.shear.torch.gif)

[Christophera]

The image of the smooth sheared burnt red column ends (left) (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc.box.shear.torch.gif) kept coming back. One day I remembered that in the 1990 documentary, as that image was playing the narrator was talking about the floor assemblies and how they never found any stills or film footage of the last metal assemblies to fill the truncated corners of the floor panel. A month or so later I remembered the details you can find here (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1233383) about the super close tolerances of double tempered steel plates around the interior box columns at every intersection with the floors.

[Z]

Is this the same photographic memory that told you that KCET was channel 10?

Since you have this marvelous memory, why don't you tell us who the producer or director of this program was? Or the day and time it aired? Or who narrated the piece?

The same memory, I suppose, that had you interviewing a worker who apparently (by your account) worked on the towers in 1966 or earlier, but who was somewhat familiar with the core?

Chris, babe - your lies just keep on coming, don't they?

[uk_dave]

Just out of curiosity...does anyone here have experience of the way US construction is handled with regard to building codes?

By this I mean, over here a project has to be submitted (in most cases) to an approved Building Control Inspector for approval before the work commences and then is inspected by the Building Control during the course of construction. That makes it rather difficult for major changes to be made to the structural design of a building without a record of those changes being kept (and approved) by Building Control.

So if the towers were constructed with a RC core as seems to be christophera's claim, then would an equivalent new york building inspection/approval body not have records of such a change?

[MortFurd]

Just out of curiosity...does anyone here have experience of the way US construction is handled with regard to building codes?

By this I mean, over here a project has to be submitted (in most cases) to an approved Building Control Inspector for approval before the work commences and then is inspected by the Building Control during the course of construction. That makes it rather difficult for major changes to be made to the structural design of a building without a record of those changes being kept (and approved) by Building Control.

So if the towers were constructed with a RC core as seems to be Christophera's claim, then would an equivalent new york building inspection/approval body not have records of such a change?
If you ask Christophera, then no, there won't be any record. All Americans (and everyone else on the planet, for that matter) have been hypnotized so as to be incapable of seeing anything that "they" don't want seen.

You obviously missed the pages where Chris explained the Celt/Stonehenge/WTC/911 connection to us.

Stuff from Mr. Brown. (http://truthasaur.com/index.html)
More stuff from Mr. Brown. (http://www.algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html)

Follow some of the links on Truthasaur.

[William Rea]

...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...

...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...

1. In the case of the WTC the Core is referred to as such because it is a fundamental part of the structural design concept and not just a service corridor. Many believe that FEMA deliberately under played the strength of the core to make the progressive collapse theory seem viable.

2. The primary connection between the outer and inner structures was via the substantial roof trusses. Although the floor trusses added bracing strength between the structures it was not their primary purpose.

[uk_dave]

1. In the case of the WTC the Core is referred to as such because it is a fundamental part of the structural design concept and not just a service corridor. Many believe that FEMA deliberately under played the strength of the core to make the progressive collapse theory seem viable.

2. The primary connection between the outer and inner structures was via the substantial roof trusses. Although the floor trusses added bracing strength between the structures it was not their primary purpose.

So the towers were completely unstable until the roof was put on? Seriously?

[William Rea]

So the towers were completely unstable until the roof was put on? Seriously?

I didn't say or propose that.

[uk_dave]

I didn't say or propose that.

But if the roof is the primary means of lateral restraint, surely the building must be unstable until the roof is put on?

The taller the building is constructed the greater the vertical loading on the outer columns and the greater the forces wanting to push them outwards.

Obviously the primary role of the floor trusses is to support the floor deck. But their restraint of the external columns must also be important, or was there some other form of lateral restraint used?

It would seem to me that the roof trusses, while their primary function was to support the roof, could only provide restraint to the tops of the external columns, whereas lower levels would also need to be restrained to prevent the bowing out that would occur as the loads are transfered down the structure. It was my understanding that the floor trusses served this purpose also.

[-=Vagrant=-]

Hi einsteen, welcome to the forum.

I just wanted to clarify the NIST's position on "pancaking," since I've already seen this misinterpreted in four different places.

When the NIST uses the term "pancaking," you have to understand that the word has a very precise meaning for them, a meaning different than the general public understands. NIST concludes that WTC 1 and 2 did not experience "pancake collapse," but did experience "progressive collapse."

What is the difference? To NIST, "pancake collapse" means that the weight of one or more floors came loose, landed on a lower floor, the combined stress tore that floor loose, it fell on the floor below, etc. This is NOT what WTC 1 and 2 experienced.

Instead, what NIST is claiming is that, instead of each floor tearing loose, it sagged, pulling inward on the outer columns until they were twisted to the point of failure. The weight then fell on a lower floor, causing it to sag, buckling the outer columns, etc. This is their "progressive collapse."

To any but a structural engineer, the difference is subtle.

The next time you see anyone baldly claim "NIST admits no pancake collapse!!" without attempting to understand what they actually say, you may immediately sense their true agenda. This claim is being used out of context, as well as out of ignorance.

Thanks! What pages in the NIST report have the relevant texts for this progressive collapse? A Finnish engineer is spreading this falsehood around in a certain newspaper.

[uk_dave]

You hugged james randi?

Sure it wasn't an illusion?

:D

[-=Vagrant=-]

You hugged james randi?

Sure it wasn't an illusion?

:D

I got pics to prove it!

[tsig]

Hah!

goose bumps were nothing compared to the initial crawly chicken skin when I remembered the "special plastic coating" on the rebar and the security measures around completing the butt weld in the 3" high tensile steel rebar.

Finally in around spring 2005 memories of the last few minutes of the documentary started to pop up. I have a photographic memory that surprises me often so when visual recall is triggered I know I've got something. That 18 minute celebratory film on the towers that is still around actually brought an image back from those last few minutes. In the 18 minute piece its a shot that lasts about 4 seconds looking out across one wide side floor with the core corner to the right of the camera. Two floors below, trussed floor panels are being swung into position from the foreground and background very quickly. When I saw it I remembered it immediately and the visual memory returned for me later easily.

The image of the smooth sheared burnt red column ends (left) (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc.box.shear.torch.gif)

When you can download your photographic memory into a hard drive.

[bonavada]

You are going to have to restate your questions because as far as I remember i answered them or made them superflous with the point about the walls being gone.

It is also possiblel that the "glitch" that cuts my posts off cut off the answer.

i've quoted the original message and questions below. it seems your very convenient "glitch" also prevents you from using the numerous links i've provided to that.

for others interested who may have lost the thread of this interminable discussion.....my whole point is that i think christophera used highly selective quotes from mike pecararo's story on his site in a cynical attempt to fabricate evidence that the walls were exploded down there by a controlled demolition. (see more background HERE (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2000677#post2000677) and HERE (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2003121#post2003121)) that being so, i believe he CANNOT answer the questions without invalidating his own false versions of events in the sub-levels.
i can't wait to see how he squirms his way out of this one.

BV

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

[bonavada]

The same memory, I suppose, that had you interviewing a worker who apparently (by your account) worked on the towers in 1966 or earlier, but who was somewhat familiar with the core?

Chris, babe - your lies just keep on coming, don't they?

yes the hilarious pow-wow with the selectively amnesic time-shifting mohawks.
did you dance around the tee-pee fire and smoke-um-peace pipe as well chris?
white man speak with forked tongue methinketh..........

BV

[Christophera]

i've quoted the original message and questions below. it seems your very convenient "glitch" also prevents you from using the numerous links i've provided to that.

for others interested who may have lost the thread of this interminable discussion.....my whole point is that i think christophera used highly selective quotes from mike pecararo's story on his site in a cynical attempt to fabricate evidence that the walls were exploded down there by a controlled demolition. (see more background HERE (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2000677#post2000677) and HERE (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2003121#post2003121)) that being so, i believe he CANNOT answer the questions without invalidating his own false versions of events in the sub-levels.
i can't wait to see how he squirms his way out of this one.

BV

Thanks for restating the query,

As I had thought, the questions were made moot by my point of the walls being gone. Those workrs did not know why the walls were gone, but I do.

Consider i added 2 accounts relating to explosions. I also added them to my web site here,

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

Meaning the issue of exploding walls underground is basically a substantiated fact.

[Christophera]

Is this the same photographic memory that told you that KCET was channel 10?

Since you have this marvelous memory, why don't you tell us who the producer or director of this program was? Or the day and time it aired? Or who narrated the piece?

The same memory, I suppose, that had you interviewing a worker who apparently (by your account) worked on the towers in 1966 or earlier, but who was somewhat familiar with the core?

Chris, babe - your lies just keep on coming, don't they?

can't see why the fact i saw the PBS produced DOC. "The Construction of the Twin Towers" on channel 10 KCET, is an issue.

It aired at 8:00 PM in 1990.

The worker was a steel worker who did not remember the core material but rememberd that they were only allowed to build steel 7 floors over it.

What i say is consistent with all the images of the towers demise here,

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

Meaning that those here who rarely even mention the core of the tower they ostensibly support, are indeed the ones conduction decepetive communications.

They have never even posted a picture from the demo of a steel core column sticking out the top of the tower.

[defaultdotxbe]

can't see why the fact i saw the PBS produced DOC. "The Construction of the Twin Towers" on channel 10 KCET, is an issue.

its an issue because PBS never produced a documentary called the construction of the twin towers

[GlennB]

They have never even posted a picture from the demo of a steel core column sticking out the top of the tower.

Pouring concrete requires specialised equipment of its own. Why do we not see this equipment in those photos at the top of the under-construction Towers?

[Z]

its an issue because PBS never produced a documentary called the construction of the twin towers

And unless you were living in Las Vegas in 1990, or receiving PBS stations from Las Vegas, KCET was broadcast on channel 28 in California.

However, everything you've told us so far (IIRC) is that you've lived in California your whole life. In California, PBS KCET is Channel 28.

[mortimer]

And unless you were living in Las Vegas in 1990, or receiving PBS stations from Las Vegas, KCET was broadcast on channel 28 in California.

However, everything you've told us so far (IIRC) is that you've lived in California your whole life. In California, PBS KCET is Channel 28.

You must be mistaken (or, more likely, hypnotized), because Chris has a perfect photographic memory.

[Z]

It aired at 8:00 PM in 1990.

Every night at 8:00 PM???

Or a particular night?

What was the date, liar?

(As it is, that's enough for my purposes. Just got off the phone with my OCD TV-Guide collecting friend in Calif. He is thrilled - it should only take him an hour to scan every entry for PBS in 1990 for 8:00 PM. After all, that's only a few hundred entries... :D )

[Arus808]

Chris, have you bothered to contact anyone who was involved in the design and construction of the twin towers? You've now had 5 days to do so. Why haven't you done so?

[bonavada]

Pouring concrete requires specialised equipment of its own. Why do we not see this equipment in those photos at the top of the under-construction Towers?

christofoggymemory mentions something like that here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1711694#post1711694) strangely his hi-res memory cam was out of order:-


I've seen a picture of the mixer in WTC constrcution photos recently. Don't remember where.

:-]



BV

[defaultdotxbe]

i have to yet to see chris address this (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4334991174539603857) documentary which does NOT show any concrete core, it shows in fact a steel core

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

[bonavada]

Thanks for restating the query,

As I had thought, the questions were made moot by my point of the walls being gone. Those workrs did not know why the walls were gone, but I do.

Consider i added 2 accounts relating to explosions. I also added them to my web site here,

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

Meaning the issue of exploding walls underground is basically a substantiated fact.

once again you weakly try to obfuscate the questions. this shows high moral cowardice on your part.
why can't you just admit that you are wrong about the conclusions you arrived at when you read mike pecararo's story? you fail to answer the reasonable SPECIFIC questions i asked because the only answers you can possibly arrive at blow your "exploding walls at level C" theory right out of the water.
you have absolutely NO CREDIBILITY left. if you had an ounce of pride you would end this tedious, cretinous, campaign NOW.
but i doubt you will. you are so desperate to pump up the hits to your bollock-brained site that, if you could, you would keep up this cretinous farce for eternity. it's therefore rather ironic that you must use a forum dedicated to debunking absurd theories such as yours as the only means to get visitors to veiw your tripe at algoxy.sewage.com.
lonely out there is it chris? you're one sad man.

BV

[tsig]

can't see why the fact i saw the PBS produced DOC. "The Construction of the Twin Towers" on channel 10 KCET, is an issue.

It aired at 8:00 PM in 1990.

The worker was a steel worker who did not remember the core material but rememberd that they were only allowed to build steel 7 floors over it.

What i say is consistent with all the images of the towers demise here,

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





Meaning that those here who rarely even mention the core of the tower they ostensibly support, are indeed the ones conduction decepetive communications.

They have never even posted a picture from the demo of a steel core column sticking out the top of the tower.


So the worker did not know what the core was but you do?

[GlennB]

christofoggymemory mentions something like that here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1711694#post1711694) strangely his hi-res memory cam was out of order:-

BV

Thanks bonavada ;)

But it wasn't a mixer I was thinking of. More the crane that carries the hopper that contains the gloop from the gloppeta-gloppeta machine ...

I mean that's a hell of a mass of concrete that needs pouring around all the rebar. The gloop crane had to be going full time, no?

Perhaps ChristopherA could explain??

[Christophera]

Thanks bonavada ;)

But it wasn't a mixer I was thinking of. More the crane that carries the hopper that contains the gloop from the gloppeta-gloppeta machine ...

I mean that's a hell of a mass of concrete that needs pouring around all the rebar. The gloop crane had to be going full time, no?

Perhaps ChristopherA could explain??

Actually, yes. They did not bucket the concrete. It was pumped up large temporary pipe up the core.

After talking with the Windwalker, I was trying jog his memory about the core and I knew that the elevator crew called the shots. Whatever would get an elevator further up was a priority for the rest of the crews on the project. I asked him about his elevator rides and the tube the elevators ran in.

He said, "Is that where the concrete went?"

After a second I knew they were pumping and asked him, "So they were pumping concrete up?"

"Yes." he said.

[bonavada]

Consider i added 2 accounts relating to explosions. I also added them to my web site here,

<more side-stepping spam>

Meaning the issue of exploding walls underground is basically a substantiated fact.

you only fool yourself if you think the few paragraphs you link to prove anything even minutely substantive about your moronic "C4rebar exploding walls" nonsense. it really is pathetic.
for instance, what is your source for the William "Roderiguez" story? this man is easily googled and an account HERE (http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/new.york.terror/) is different in very significant ways to yours:-

Christophera's "account"


Seconds before Flight 11 impacted floors 93 to 99 of the North Tower, janitor William Rodriguez heard and felt the concussion of a massive explosion in the sublevels under his feet. Thought the Twin Towers were anchored to bedrock, the floor beneath his feet vibrated and everything started shaking.
Then Rodriguez heard “another explosion from way above.”
Massive walls were cracking when co-worker Felipe David burst into the basement office yelling “explosion! explosion! explosion!” The skin was hanging off his hands and arms.


CNN (dated 12 sep 2001)


"We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture," Rodriguez said. "And then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off."


the CNN quotes were reported just 1 DAY following 9/11. his recall must have been vivid at that time. please can you explain why the man's story has changed so significantly in your "account"? (i.e. from"rumble" to "massive explosion")
for any further quotes please give SOURCES!

as for phillip morelli, have you actually read the article at the source you give HERE (http://www.ny1.com/pages/RRR/911special_survivors.html) ? or watched the video? it seems even when you do give a source it turns out to have no bearing on your version of events. where is the evidence in that video for "exploding" walls or ANYTHING that would even hint at embedded C4rebar?
your assertions are, at the least, weak and unfounded they are ineptly-researched and at the worst CYNICAL LIES!

bring it on

BV

[Arus808]

There Never Was A Concrete Core!

[uruk]

Hey Chris, here is a high resolution photo upped by celestrin from this thread:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66292

It is two views of the core section which you claim shows a "17 foot" concrete wall.The photos are very clear an of a much higher resolution that the one on your website.

http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/4166.jpg
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/4166.jpg

Can you please point out where the concrete is?

[Z]

OK, let me see if I get this straight:

They were mixing the concrete somewhere below and pumping it up a tube.

IF the mixer were on the ground level, you're talking eventually pumping hundreds or thousands of pounds of concrete against gravity. I'd like to see a pump that could do that.

IF the mixer were only a few floors below the area in question, then they'd still be using machines to lift the mixer, etc. up to new floors. Seems to defeat the purpose of the pump, then.

How did they deal with the leftover concrete still in the pipe? The waste in that would be enormous.

How did they keep the concrete from setting along the outer edge of the pipe, and prevent a 'clogged artery' effect from happening? Surely they didn't add something to it to keep it liquid, considering what they were intending it for - that would defeat the purpose of using concrete at all.

I'm not familiar with this technique, so I could just be ignorant - but that seems the LEAST efficient way imaginable for putting concrete into a building.

Of course, if this is the same guy you spoke to who worked on the building in the early to mid sixties... :D

[Z]

Hey Chris, here is a high resolution photo upped by celestrin from this thread:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66292

It is two views of the core section which you claim shows a "17 foot" concrete wall.The photos are very clear an of a much higher resolution that the one on your website.

http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/4166.jpg
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/4166.jpg

Can you please point out where the concrete is?


For that matter, where's the total pulverization?

[bonavada]

Actually, yes. They did not bucket the concrete. It was pumped up large temporary pipe up the core.

After talking with the Windwalker, I was trying jog his memory about the core and I knew that the elevator crew called the shots. Whatever would get an elevator further up was a priority for the rest of the crews on the project. I asked him about his elevator rides and the tube the elevators ran in.

He said, "Is that where the concrete went?"

After a second I knew they were pumping and asked him, "So they were pumping concrete up?"

"Yes." he said.

ahhhh the time-shifing mohawk who was working on the towers about three years before construction began..............

i can't make head or tail of this message. are you saying your concrete went up by elevator? or large pipe? whats this tube you're on about? have you any pictures of this large pipe? i have many pictures of the WTC tower cores. i can't recall noticing any "large pipes" up there.... perhaps you are mixing it up with the pipe you copiously stuff with wacko-bacco and smoke before you post your incredibly befuddled fantasies every day?

BV

[defaultdotxbe]

anyone else notice all chris's interviews seem to involve lots of leading questions and him "jogging peoples memories?"

[uruk]

weeeeee!! Here's another view!!!
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/3950.jpg
and another.
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/3949.jpg
and another.
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/3913.jpg
and soforth
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/5311.jpg

Who am I kidding. all this proof is not raw enough for concrete brain.

[Christophera]

weeeeee!! Here's another view!!!
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/3950.jpg
and another.
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/3949.jpg
and another.
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/3913.jpg
and soforth
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/5311.jpg

Who am I kidding. all this proof is not raw enough for concrete brain.

Those columns are not in the center of the core. They surround the outside of the core and were fastened to it.

"MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg)

After the area is cleaned a little, the remaining block of undetonated core wall stands adjacent to the MASSIVE interior BOX COLUMNS is easily seen.

[Christophera]

anyone else notice all chris's interviews seem to involve lots of leading questions and him "jogging peoples memories?"

Remembering is remembering. I never thought about how the concrete got up there, he told me and didn't know it.

[Oliver]

Did you still call no one from the companies who build your concrete core? :rolleyes:

[Oliver]

Those columns are not in the center of the core. They surround the outside of the core and were fastened to it.

"MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg)

After the area is cleaned a little, the remaining block of undetonated core wall stands adjacent to the MASSIVE interior BOX COLUMNS is easily seen.

I see your concrete core, and now?

[Oliver]

Please answer this, Chris:

If the Towers fell because a controlled demolition,
why is the "concrete core" still visible shortly after
the collapse?

http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/gen140.gif

[defaultdotxbe]

Remembering is remembering. I never thought about how the concrete got up there, he told me and didn't know it.
being the master of hypnosis that you are im sure youve heard of hypnotic regression, i bet the folks here have lots of opinions ont he validity of that, suffice to say, no, remembering is not remembering

and according to your own words:


He said, "Is that where the concrete went?"

After a second I knew they were pumping and asked him, "So they were pumping concrete up?"

"Yes." he said.

he didnt tell you how the concrete got up there, you suggested it it was pumped and he agreed, whether its true or not, this is still a leading question, and my point still stands

why havent you addressed the 1983 documentary? (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4334991174539603857)

[Christophera]

and according to your own words:


he didnt tell you how the concrete got up there, you suggested it it was pumped and he agreed, whether its true or not, this is still a leading question, and my point still stands

why havent you addressed the 1983 documentary? (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4334991174539603857)

being the master of hypnosis that you are im sure youve heard of hypnotic regression, i bet the folks here have lots of opinions ont he validity of that, suffice to say, no, remembering is not remembering

and according to your own words:


he didnt tell you how the concrete got up there, you suggested it it was pumped and he agreed, whether its true or not, this is still a leading question, and my point still stands

why havent you addressed the 1983 documentary? (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4334991174539603857)

My question was based on his knowledge of what the concrete was doing there.

You would be the last person that would remember about remembering. Psychology even forgot.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3595&stc=1&d=11611

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3596&stc=1&d=116113727137235

[uruk]

Those columns are not in the center of the core. They surround the outside of the core and were fastened to it.

"MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg)

After the area is cleaned a little, the remaining block of undetonated core wall stands adjacent to the MASSIVE interior BOX COLUMNS is easily seen.

Well there's acouple of huge columns there. Where's the concrete that's supposed to be there according to your "assesment"?
You pointed it out in your picture. It the same core. Where's the concrete?

[uruk]

My question was based on his knowledge of what the concrete was doing there.

You would be the last person that would remember about remembering. Psychology even forgot.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3595&stc=1&d=11611

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3596&stc=1&d=116113727137235

You do know that the floors were concrete on corregated metal panels. Don't you think that the concrete was going up there for the floors?

[defaultdotxbe]

My question was based on his knowledge of what the concrete was doing there.

You would be the last person that would remember about remembering. Psychology even forgot.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3595&stc=1&d=11611

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3596&stc=1&d=116113727137235

Invalid Attachment specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator (http://forums.randi.org/sendmessage.php)

???

[Christophera]

Please answer this, Chris:

If the Towers fell because a controlled demolition,
why is the "concrete core" still visible shortly after
the collapse?

http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/gen140.gif














Nice format job, can't miss that.

The towers had 2 delay systems at least. One for the core and one for the floors. Actually there was probably a third that worked with a vibration detector or a radio proximity trigger with a transmitter on the plane that initiated the explosions in the basement.

The system for the floors went ahead of the initial detonations that got the tops of the towers going by taking out the core at a high elevations, then the core went while the steel was near bottom and the thermite had gone off, but there was another type that was used low in the core because detonators set there must have been set months before and electric caps are too unstable to leave in. That extended delay was not very predicatable as to timing leaving the bottom of the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) momentarily.

[Christophera]

You do know that the floors were concrete on corregated metal panels. Don't you think that the concrete was going up there for the floors?

Oh yes, and the core too. But nobody saw much of that because it was being formed or it was below the major level of activity.

[Bell]

Oh yes, and the core too. But nobody saw much of that because it was being formed or it was below the major level of activity.

Jezus Christ, Cristophera. Get a hobby. Buy a Lionel train set or something. It would be more fun for all of us to see a F7 going round and around, instead of your thread going round and around.

[defaultdotxbe]

Oh yes, and the core too. But nobody saw much of that because it was being formed or it was below the major level of activity.
i dont think you ever gave a good answer as to what the floors above the core were attached to untilt he core came up to meet them, or how the floors were securely fixed into wet concrete as it set

[Christophera]

Well there's acouple of huge columns there. Where's the concrete that's supposed to be there according to your "assesment"?
You pointed it out in your picture. It the same core. Where's the concrete?

Almost all the concrete got blowed up homer. Don't cry.

[Christophera]

i dont think you ever gave a good answer as to what the floors above the core were attached to untilt he core came up to meet them, or how the floors were securely fixed into wet concrete as it set

The floor panels were fastened to their hangers and the floor beams running out from the interior box columns and between them along the concrete core face (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg). The floors wer'nt poured untill the core concrete pour was advanced and cured.

The documentary mentioned that they never did find any images of the filling in the last corners around the interior box columns prior to pouring the floors. That is when the tight fitting steel plates around the interior box columns were found.

[Oliver]

Nice format job, can't miss that.

The towers had 2 delay systems at least. One for the core and one for the floors. Actually there was probably a third that worked with a vibration detector or a radio proximity trigger with a transmitter on the plane that initiated the explosions in the basement.

The system for the floors went ahead of the initial detonations that got the tops of the towers going by taking out the core at a high elevations, then the core went while the steel was near bottom and the thermite had gone off, but there was another type that was used low in the core because detonators set there must have been set months before and electric caps are too unstable to leave in. That extended delay was not very predicatable as to timing leaving the bottom of the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) momentarily.


http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/gen147.gif

[Blue Mountain]

Jezus Christ, Cristophera. Get a hobby. Buy a Lionel train set or something. It would be more fun for all of us to see a F7 going round and around, instead of your thread going round and around.
He has a hobby. He winds up JREFers and watches us go round and round :p

[TheFeds]

The floor panels were fastened to their hangers and the floor beams running out from the interior box columns and between them along the concrete core face (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg). The floors wer'nt poured untill the core concrete pour was advanced and cured.So there were no concrete floors in place on the top few levels of the building, while the core was curing on those floors? Was this standard practice which was maintained for all of the floors?

And just for our education, can you accurately describe the structure of the floors? What type of concrete? What type and shape of steel? Who assembled them, and when?

The documentary mentioned that they never did find any images of the filling in the last corners around the interior box columns prior to pouring the floors. That is when the tight fitting steel plates around the interior box columns were found.Also, ask yourself, why would a documentary produced around fifteen years ago need to mention that they never found these images? Doesn't that seem like a trivial thing to be spending time on, in a documentary? Of all the things they could cram into an hour or two, they chose the fact that they were unable to find some pictures? What was the significance of this?

[Christophera]

So there were no concrete floors in place on the top few levels of the building, while the core was curing on those floors? Was this standard practice which was maintained for all of the floors?

Yes, for both towers I believe.

And just for our education, can you accurately describe the structure of the floors? What type of concrete? What type and shape of steel? Who assembled them, and when?

Here is the WTC concrete schedule for floors (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/archconcreteschedwtc.jpg). The 43rd floor and 75th were all structural stone concrete. About ten floors were for structural reasons. The lightweight concrete used in floors was batched on-site as was the core concrete. Steel for the floors was a fairly widespaced rebar with a heavy steel mesh. The steel and concrete was assembled and poured by large crews.

The architect, Robertson, did not handle the engineering for the concrete core. Yamasaki had done the original then handed it over to the PA who had thier own engineers make refinements or changes to Yamasakis basic plan. Meaning Roberston never had the concrete specs for the core.

Also, ask yourself, why would a documentary produced around fifteen years ago need to mention that they never found these images? Doesn't that seem like a trivial thing to be spending time on, in a documentary? Of all the things they could cram into an hour or two, they chose the fact that they were unable to find some pictures? What was the significance of this?

Actually I remember the documentary explaining that factor. And it was in the same passages that had the info on the steel plates with super tight tolerences around the interior box columns at the end. They said that they considered it a main aspect of their documentary and integrity to their grant to actually document all the relevant elements of the structure and that they had failed in that when it came to the floors but otherwise had succeeded in documenting as well as they had hoped, the rest of the towers.

[defaultdotxbe]

The floor panels were fastened to their hangers and the floor beams running out from the interior box columns and between them along the concrete core face (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg). The floors wer'nt poured untill the core concrete pour was advanced and cured.

The documentary mentioned that they never did find any images of the filling in the last corners around the interior box columns prior to pouring the floors. That is when the tight fitting steel plates around the interior box columns were found.
heres a picture of them pouring the concrete floor:

http://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/pictures/floor.JPG

on the right you can see a few core columns, obviously the floor was poured before the advancement of the "concrete" core

[bonavada]

heres a picture of them pouring the concrete floor: on the right you can see a few core columns, obviously the floor was poured before the advancement of the "concrete" core

http://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/pictures/floor.JPG

OMG i think that man there in the foreground has a memory inhibiting hypnolaser!! maybe he's going to shoot the mohawks with it....!!!!

BV

[Belz...]

You cannot think that is a broken weld?????

A broken weld is about the most ragged edge you can find. Utterly clueless.


You still maintain that it couldn't just have been cut by the cleanup crew ?

Yes, by fall of 2002 I had remembered the basic structure from the 1990 documentary titled "The Construction of the Twin Towers? and most of the other details.

You mean you didn't remember before ? That's disconcerting.

The worker was a steel worker who did not remember the core material but rememberd that they were only allowed to build steel 7 floors over it.

Did not remember the core material ? Could be steel, then.

They have never even posted a picture from the demo of a steel core column sticking out the top of the tower.

Chris, we know you think all those steel columns were box columns. Of course, you're wrong.

They did not bucket the concrete. It was pumped up large temporary pipe up the core.

:boggled: Huh ? Pump the concrete UP ? Dozens of floors ? This ain't water, boy. As Zaary said, if they're going to move the pump up with the building, why not simply use the regular technique ? Or was it really that important that no one knew that they were building a concrete core ?

Those columns are not in the center of the core. They surround the outside of the core and were fastened to it.

Prove it.

The towers had 2 delay systems at least. One for the core and one for the floors. Actually there was probably a third that worked with a vibration detector or a radio proximity trigger with a transmitter on the plane that initiated the explosions in the basement.

But WHY ? Why not just blow the core structure ONCE and let everything else fall by itself ? And why blow the basement ? It came down from the TOP !

[uruk]

Oh yes, and the core too. But nobody saw much of that because it was being formed or it was below the major level of activity.

Then the floors could not have been attached to a "concrete core".
If the core was the main structural support for the building, the core would have to be formed first, then the other structures attached to it.
In fact that is what you see here in the construction of this building.:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1993049&postcount=5114

If the concrete core was the main structural support, then it had to be formed first. The workers would have notice a concrete core whaile they were attaching steel to it.

[stateofgrace]

You would be the last person that would remember about remembering.


Chris I like this. Don't ask me why it just amuses me.

So much so I have put it in my signature.

[uruk]

Almost all the concrete got blowed up homer. Don't cry.

Then what are you pointing at here?
http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3553&d=1160928237
It's the same core as the pictures I showed you. Where is the concrete your pointing out in the picture above in relation to the pictures I posted?

[Christophera]

heres a picture of them pouring the concrete floor:

http://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/pictures/floor.JPG

on the right you can see a few core columns, obviously the floor was poured before the advancement of the "concrete" core

Yes, I do see interior box columns. However notice, there is something cutting off our view of the floor edge on the far side at the bottom of the columns. That could easily be the top edge of the concrete forms of the core.

[Christophera]

Then the floors could not have been attached to a "concrete core".
If the core was the main structural support for the building, the core would have to be formed first, then the other structures attached to it.
In fact that is what you see here in the construction of this building.:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1993049&postcount=5114

If the concrete core was the main structural support, then it had to be formed first. The workers would have notice a concrete core whaile they were attaching steel to it.

Smaller cores in towers are built ahead of the steel. Large cores are built after the steel using the steel as form supports. WTC 7 is being built now in that way.

Attaching anything to concrete is difficult. Meaning the interior box columns which had great strength were attached to the concrete core and floor beams went between them then the fightweight floors were fastened to that.

Attaching flimsy metal elements, protruding outward, to concrete just doesn't work. There were beams running from the interior box columns every other one, 40 feet, to connect to the perimeter walls.

[Christophera]

Then what are you pointing at here?
http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3553&d=1160928237
It's the same core as the pictures I showed you. Where is the concrete your pointing out in the picture above in relation to the pictures I posted?

I said "almost". The explosive circuit was interupted and that piece of the core was isolated from the detonations.

[Christophera]

Chris I like this. Don't ask me why it just amuses me.

So much so I have put it in my signature.

Don't forget this link,

http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/emomem175.jpeg

better add this one about "indignent denial"

http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/emomem176.jpeg

It has everything to do with whatever it was.

[Arus808]

Christophera, have you bothered to speak with those who were responsible for the design and construction of the twin towers? You've now had 7 days to do so.

I dont know why you continue to spend time here, when all you have to do is call the design firm up and ask simply "did the towers have a concrete core".

ETA: I still suggest that we put a censor on Chris's website, since he's only using it to spam the forum. He's only gaining "hits" from this thread with his repeated attempts to promote it. Only when Chris starts using resources from other credible websites, should the censor be lifted.

[Dave_46]

..snip.. Only when Chris starts using resources from other credible websites, should the censor be lifted.

Arus

You missed the comma between other and credible.

Dave

[uruk]

Smaller cores in towers are built ahead of the steel. Large cores are built after the steel using the steel as form supports. WTC 7 is being built now in that way.

Attaching anything to concrete is difficult. Meaning the interior box columns which had great strength were attached to the concrete core and floor beams went between them then the fightweight floors were fastened to that.

Attaching flimsy metal elements, protruding outward, to concrete just doesn't work. There were beams running from the interior box columns every other one, 40 feet, to connect to the perimeter walls.
AH! so were going from one core to multiple cores.
Why aren't the smaller cores mention before in your website? Where are they on your "corrected" illustration? Making stuff up on the fly?

Why did the mowhawk not mention the smaller concrete cores? He certainly would have seen them since they had to put steel over the smaller cores then put the large concrete core over the steel.

[uruk]

I said "almost". The explosive circuit was interupted and that piece of the core was isolated from the detonations.

Great, but that's not what I asked. You claim that the picture on your website shows a 17 foot section of the concrete core. I'm asking you to point out the concrete section on the pictures I posted above. The pictures are of the same section but of a higher resolution. Show me the concrete!

[Christophera]

You still maintain that it couldn't just have been cut by the cleanup crew ?

Under the best conditions using a straight edge guide, a welder. cutter fitter can make a cut that has almost no verigations from tip wobble. However, not every time.

The torch ends up having a overly large tip on it to get this done and that leaves a slightly rounded top and bottom edge,


You mean you didn't remember before ? That's disconcerting.

Memories need to be related to things to be recovered. Until I had excercised related aspects, there was no connection to the information.


Did not remember the core material ? Could be steel, then.

Yes, I was surprised. But then the steel crews were the elite of the tower construction group. They didn't even think about anything but getting more steel up faster,

Also, for safety, elevators on construction sites are typically tunneled to the work area with plywood. The core was dark inside so there is no seeing concrete while you are in it. The outer forms would cover it until they were stripped and the outer forms would require more time to make than the inner so they would be started right away perhpas leaving a window from the outside for a welder to do the butt welds from a floor when it was convienent.


Chris, we know you think all those steel columns were box columns. Of course, you're wrong.

But you can find no images of any other column of sizes matching the interior box columns. Or the "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) that are legends almost. All that is seen are puny columns tat are fastened to the interior box columns.


:boggled: Huh ? Pump the concrete UP ? Dozens of floors ? This ain't water, boy. As Zaary said, if they're going to move the pump up with the building, why not simply use the regular technique ? Or was it really that important that no one knew that they were building a concrete core ?

Yes, I believe you are correct, more than one pumping station would be required, and I remember there was a segment in the documentary that showed the batch plant and talked about the increasing pressures and auxilary pumps located up higher inthe towers.

Undoubtly they would have preferred that they could keep it all secret, but many people knew. Here is a letter from an architect to his parents.

September 17, 2001
Dear Mom and Dad,

I had just started a letter to you folks when I checked my voice mail
and had a message from Dad to call him back. I enjoyed our brief call, and
thanks for the stock update. I am still shaken over what has happened. I keep
replaying that day over and over in my head. We studied the Trade Towers
extensively when I was in school. They were one of the first examples of an
innovative and efficient structural concept called "tube" restraint. The Sears
Towers are a variation called "bundled tube construction" and the idea is based
on a minimum of interior columns, with the exterior facade having more numerous
exterior perimeter columns. In the case of the WTC, there are no interior
columns. Only a central concrete core roughly 60-80 feet square comprised of
several vertical voids that house exit stairs, hoistways for the elevators,
utility raceways and mechanical chases; and also, significantly, the sprinkler
system main lines. The floors were prefabricated broad cellular panels of
parallel trusses and main decking that had a light weight concrete topping
applied after they were installed. They spanned a distance of roughly 60 feet
from the concrete core to the exterior gridwork of columns and horizontal
beams. the floor trusses restrained the exterior walls and prevented them from
buckling outward. The exterior structural system was prefabricated in panels of
multiple columns (steel tubes only 14 inches square) that spanned vertically
through 2 or three floors. This was a fast way to erect the building and helped
enclose the building faster. At the upper floors, the winds are so high at
times that no other work can begin (including pouring the floor topping) until
the exterior is in place.



Prove it.

Look at the images in question. You will see that this image shows the stairwell after the debris is removed.

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

Below you can see the position of the interio box colmns surrounding the core. VErtical steel inside the core is much smaller.

"MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg)



But WHY ? Why not just blow the core structure ONCE and let everything else fall by itself ? And why blow the basement ? It came down from the TOP !

There was an effort to divide the seismic signals generated by the needed blast(s). Detonating the basement walls first removed a significant amount of energy from the final blasts which fractured te core foundation as the core itself was detonated in 40 foot sectons, 3 per second from the top down just behind a third set of detonations which took out a floor every 75 milliiseconds.

[Christophera]

Great, but that's not what I asked. You claim that the picture on your website shows a 17 foot section of the concrete core. I'm asking you to point out the concrete section on the pictures I posted above. The pictures are of the same section but of a higher resolution. Show me the concrete!


I recall that your photos show a debris pile on top of the stairwell. The image I've posted shows that area after the debris is removed.

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

[Christophera]

AH! so were going from one core to multiple cores.
Why aren't the smaller cores mention before in your website? Where are they on your "corrected" illustration? Making stuff up on the fly?

Why did the mowhawk not mention the smaller concrete cores? He certainly would have seen them since they had to put steel over the smaller cores then put the large concrete core over the steel.

The towers each had a single cast concrete tubular core.

Perhaps you are misreading what I said because we are talking about "concrete cores" (plural).

[Christophera]

Christophera, have you bothered to speak with those who were responsible for the design and construction of the twin towers? You've now had 7 days to do so.

I dont know why you continue to spend time here, when all you have to do is call the design firm up and ask simply "did the towers have a concrete core".

ETA: I still suggest that we put a censor on Chris's website, since he's only using it to spam the forum. He's only gaining "hits" from this thread with his repeated attempts to promote it. Only when Chris starts using resources from other credible websites, should the censor be lifted.

Since my site,

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

only uses raw evidence of images of the demolition, it is more credible than any web site and uses others that have statements from unintersted parties that corroborate the concrete core.

If you are censoreing any of the information, you are doing people a disservice.


I've told you a number of times that no one involved with the construction is going to talk about the true strcuture that was built. You call them. I've read many times where people have called to find that they can get no informaton whatsoever.

[uruk]

I recall that your photos show a debris pile on top of the stairwell. The image I've posted shows that area after the debris is removed.

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

Nope, your picture also has the debris hanging from the core.
Come on Chris, the pictures are form different perspectives. The debris should not make a difference. If there is concrete you should be able to see it. Quit stalling and making excuses, where is the concrete?
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2010466&postcount=5551
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2010697&postcount=5556

[uruk]

The towers each had a single cast concrete tubular core.

Perhaps you are misreading what I said because we are talking about "concrete cores" (plural).

Wait, wait, wait.
What did you mean here?
Smaller cores in towers are built ahead of the steel. Large cores are built after the steel using the steel as form supports. WTC 7 is being built now in that way.
What were the "smaller cores" made of? If it was concrete, the Mohawk would have have noticed concrete. If it was steel then steel is the main support structure.

[uruk]

Since my site,

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

only uses raw evidence of images of the demolition, it is more credible than any web site and uses others that have statements from unintersted parties that corroborate the concrete core.

If you are censoreing any of the information, you are doing people a disservice.


I've told you a number of times that no one involved with the construction is going to talk about the true strcuture that was built. You call them. I've read many times where people have called to find that they can get no informaton whatsoever.

No, your site uses assumptions and interpretations of pictures. Where is your list of sources for independent verification? Your memory Is not good enough.

[alexi_drago]

Yes, I do see interior box columns. However notice, there is something cutting off our view of the floor edge on the far side at the bottom of the columns. That could easily be the top edge of the concrete forms of the core.

It could also quite easily be a barrier around a lift shaft or stairwell or any other opening in the floor as would be required by law.

[Arus808]

Since my site,

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

only uses raw evidence of images of the demolition, it is more credible than any web site and uses others that have statements from unintersted parties that corroborate the concrete core.

It uses nothing of the sort. YOU just download SOMEONE elses images.
That is not raw.

RAW means
YOU took the images yourself and used a camera that didn't compress any of the information within the image upon saving
YOU obtained the images from a reputable source, like the companies involved in the construction of the two buildings.

You seem to have an misunderstanding of the term "raw evidence".

[alexi_drago]

Oops, ignore this.

[Regnad Kcin]

...Undoubtly they would have preferred that they could keep it all secret, but many people knew. Here is a letter from an architect to his parents.

September 17, 2001
Dear Mom and Dad,

I had just started a letter to you folks when I checked my voice mail
and had a message from Dad to call him back. I enjoyed our brief call, and
thanks for the stock update. I am still shaken over what has happened. I keep
replaying that day over and over in my head. We studied the Trade Towers
extensively when I was in school. They were one of the first examples of an
innovative and efficient structural concept called "tube" restraint. The Sears
Towers are a variation called "bundled tube construction" and the idea is based
on a minimum of interior columns, with the exterior facade having more numerous
exterior perimeter columns. In the case of the WTC, there are no interior
columns. Only a central concrete core roughly 60-80 feet square comprised of
several vertical voids that house exit stairs, hoistways for the elevators,
utility raceways and mechanical chases; and also, significantly, the sprinkler
system main lines. The floors were prefabricated broad cellular panels of
parallel trusses and main decking that had a light weight concrete topping
applied after they were installed. They spanned a distance of roughly 60 feet
from the concrete core to the exterior gridwork of columns and horizontal
beams. the floor trusses restrained the exterior walls and prevented them from
buckling outward. The exterior structural system was prefabricated in panels of
multiple columns (steel tubes only 14 inches square) that spanned vertically
through 2 or three floors. This was a fast way to erect the building and helped
enclose the building faster. At the upper floors, the winds are so high at
times that no other work can begin (including pouring the floor topping) until
the exterior is in place.

Mr. Brown,

You are good for at least one hearty laugh a day. Please don't ever change.

[Powa]

So, this architect writes to mom and dad and goes all technical on them? Riiiiight. Christophera, if you can't lie well, don't do it at all.

[uruk]

Dear Mom and dad,
instead of wirting about what i'm doing and how I am especially considering what happened after September 11th, I'm going to write to you instead about stuff you could care less about and probably won't understand. but I'm doing it just in case some guy needs to make a website about how the World Trade Center has a concrete core.

Love, your son,Chris...uh, Phil.

[Blue Mountain]

(much stuff snipped)
September 17, 2001
Dear Mom and Dad,

I had just started a letter to you folks when I checked my voice mail
and had a message from Dad to call him back. I enjoyed our brief call, and
thanks for the stock update. I am still shaken over what has happened. I keep
replaying that day over and over in my head. We studied the Trade Towers
extensively when I was in school. They were one of the first examples of an
innovative and efficient structural concept called "tube" restraint. The Sears
Towers are a variation called "bundled tube construction" and the idea is based
on a minimum of interior columns, with the exterior facade having more numerous
exterior perimeter columns. In the case of the WTC, there are no interior
columns. Only a central concrete core roughly 60-80 feet square comprised of
several vertical voids that house exit stairs, hoistways for the elevators,
utility raceways and mechanical chases; and also, significantly, the sprinkler
system main lines. The floors were prefabricated broad cellular panels of
parallel trusses and main decking that had a light weight concrete topping
applied after they were installed. They spanned a distance of roughly 60 feet
from the concrete core to the exterior gridwork of columns and horizontal
beams. the floor trusses restrained the exterior walls and prevented them from
buckling outward. The exterior structural system was prefabricated in panels of
multiple columns (steel tubes only 14 inches square) that spanned vertically
through 2 or three floors. This was a fast way to erect the building and helped
enclose the building faster. At the upper floors, the winds are so high at
times that no other work can begin (including pouring the floor topping) until
the exterior is in place.

(other stuff snipped)


This letter raises more questions than it answers.

Who wrote it?
How did you obtain the letter?
What are the architect's credentials?
Do you have only a copy, or do you have (access to) the original?


Without this additional information, the letter is as useless ar your web site.

[Bell]

Oops, ignore this.

You have to talk to poverty101 about that.

[Christophera]

So, this architect writes to mom and dad and goes all technical on them? Riiiiight. Christophera, if you can't lie well, don't do it at all.

I wondered about that too, it came off the usenet. Apparently the guys brother wrote their parents regarding what he knew about the WTC.

[Christophera]

Here is another.

this guy saw the very beginning where the core was formed standing free and the steel went up around it. After 5 or 6 floors a person on the street wouldn't be able to see so his account of the process is not correct.




From: tomorle@postoffice.worldnet.att.net (Thomas)
Newsgroups: alt.architecture,sci.energy,soc.history.medieval
Subject: Re: World Trade Center collapse
Message-ID: <3ba01ef2.11885093@news>
References: <jmsn7.736$ar5.37551@news1.rdc1.ga.home.com> <xRsn7.20$eV3.292@typhoon.nyu.edu> <9nlp4k$eni$5@news.umbc.edu> <tZtn7.28$eV3.331@typhoon.nyu.edu> <
69un7.285700$NK1.26585170@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews. com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235
Lines: 13
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 02:54:50 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.5.188.36
X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net
X-Trace: news1.rdc1.ga.home.com 1000349690 24.5.188.36 (Wed, 12 Sep 2001 19:54:50 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 19:54:50 PDT
Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster


"Tony Jebson" <jebbo@texas.net> wrote:

>......Apparently, the WTC towers had no internal
>structural columns but relied on the exterior structure for
>support / strength. No doubt the impact of an airplane does
>this no end of harm.
I worked in downtown NY in the late 1960's when the towers were
built! At lunch time we went to the construction site to watch the
progress. And we saw them first buildt an internal thick walled
rectangular concrete core inside which later the elevators ran. The
steel work was erected around this core several floors behind!

[defaultdotxbe]

Here is another.

this guy saw the very beginning where the core was formed standing free and the steel went up around it. After 5 or 6 floors a person on the street wouldn't be able to see so his account of the process is not correct.

can you find one person who does remember the "correct" process? or are you the only person in the world who knows the "truth?"

[Christophera]

This letter raises more questions than it answers.

Who wrote it?
How did you obtain the letter?
What are the architect's credentials?
Do you have only a copy, or do you have (access to) the original?


Without this additional information, the letter is as useless ar your web site.


Her is the header to the usenet post.

Message-ID: <3BAD5E05.F5A92E1E@aol.com>
From: The Wizard of Oz <never_was@aol.com>
Reply-To: wizard@wiz.mailshell.com
Organization: abuse@wiz.mailshell.com
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: dfw.singles
Subject: The Letter
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 19
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 04:07:51 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.1.47.166
X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net
X-Trace: news1.rdc1.tn.home.com 1001218071 65.1.47.166 (Sat, 22 Sep 2001 21:07:51 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 21:07:51 PDT

As many of you know, I have a brother who lives in Birmingham, Ala who is an
architect of some stature in his community. He has never let his successes go to
his head, and is still the nice guy I grew up with.
Just a day or two ago, my parents got a letter from him regarding the recent
national tragedy in New York and Washington DC. He gave some technical details
about the construction methods used in the WTC Towers which are very
interesting, and also talks about his own thoughts on effects of the destruction
on the country and himself. I found it extremely interesting, even if he is my
brother, and, with his permission, will post it here in the NG for you to read
if you care to. The technical aspects of the constructions get a little
detailed, but he wrote it aiming at our parents who are non- professional in his
field, but learned a little from him when he was in school.
His own thoughts are interesting, to me, but I may be just prejudiced. Read it
if you wish, or just move on to the next one.
--
Regards,
Wiz
Reply to: wizard (at) wiz dot mailshell dot com
Complaints to: abuse@wiz.mailshell.com

[Christophera]

can you find one person who does remember the "correct" process? or are you the only person in the world who knows the "truth?"

IF folks would realize that this is an issue, and get their act together, THEN the public will hear and those that know also can come forward.

Do you actually think I know every person in the USA?

[Christophera]

Mr. Brown,

You are good for at least one hearty laugh a day. Please don't ever change.

That's the way it is with concrete (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html) here at jref, just full of giggles and evidence of common knowledge.

[LashL]

And we saw them first buildt an internal thick walled
rectangular concrete core inside which later the elevators ran. The
steel work was erected around this core several floors behind!

Um, Chris,

Isn't this the exact opposite of what you have been postulating for years now? You say that the steel was constructed several floors ahead of the concrete, and that is why this imaginary concrete core of yours is not visible in the hundreds of construction photos. Yet this anonymous internet source (like all of your sources) upon which you seem to rely is contradicting one of the core (pardon the pun) premises of your imaginary core.

In any event, the truth is that there was not and never has been a concrete core in the WTC towers. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you can get on with your life and seek the help that you need.

[sleahead]

And here is the letter in its entirety:



September 17, 2001

Dear Mom and Dad,

I had just started a letter to you folks when I checked my voice mail
and had a message from Dad to call him back. I enjoyed our brief call, and
thanks for the stock update. I am still shaken over what has happened. I keep
replaying that day over and over in my head. We studied the Trade Towers
extensively when I was in school. They were one of the first examples of an
innovative and efficient structural concept called "tube" restraint. The Sears
Towers are a variation called "bundled tube construction" and the idea is based
on a minimum of interior columns, with the exterior facade having more numerous
exterior perimeter columns. In the case of the WTC, there are no interior
columns. Only a central concrete core roughly 60-80 feet square comprised of
several vertical voids that house exit stairs, hoistways for the elevators,
utility raceways and mechanical chases; and also, significantly, the sprinkler
system main lines. The floors were prefabricated broad cellular panels of
parallel trusses and main decking that had a light weight concrete topping
applied after they were installed. They spanned a distance of roughly 60 feet
from the concrete core to the exterior gridwork of columns and horizontal
beams. the floor trusses restrained the exterior walls and prevented them from
buckling outward. The exterior structural system was prefabricated in panels of
multiple columns (steel tubes only 14 inches square) that spanned vertically
through 2 or three floors. This was a fast way to erect the building and helped
enclose the building faster. At the upper floors, the winds are so high at
times that no other work can begin (including pouring the floor topping) until
the exterior is in place.

Once the building was closed in, the underside of the floor assemblies
were sprayed with a cementitious mineral fiber coating for fire resistance.
Then the sprinkler lines were run, along with ductwork laterals from the main
ducts built into the floor assemblies. A ceiling grid would have been hung and
minor interior partitions fastened to the floor and ceiling grid and covered
with gypsum board panels. A building that size, 10 million square feet, would
have each floor (roughly 40,000 square feet each) separated by fire/smoke
barriers and exit corridors that prevented the migration of smoke and fire
throughout a given floor.

The stairs would have been considered an absolutely safe haven to leave
a fire-envolved floor to an area of safety. In high rise construction, the
stair towers are required to have the capability of being pressurized by large
fans so that, in a fire emergency, smoke will be kept out of the stair; even
with a number of the stair doors open. Otherwise it makes a perfect chimney.
That is why you should never use an elevator in a fire. There are hose
connections and hose cabinets at each floor so the firemen can fight the blaze
where ever it may occur without hauling hose up the building.

I'm no structural engineer, but the impact of the planes must have
severely damaged the center core. They were designed to handle a Boeing 707; a
typical plane in use in the late 60's. But no one imagined the thousands of
gallons of fuel that poured into the structure. With essentially every fire
barrier breached, the fuel must have flowed everywhere, and poured down the
cavities between floors. They say the fuel combined with all of the furnishings
produced fire temperatures in excess of 1000 degrees. Building beams and
columns are protected with the fire proofing to prevent structural failure at
temperatures of 1500 degrees for 1-hour. That is the way we design them per the
requirements of the various building codes. Combined with the automatic
sprinkler systems, the fire proofing in a structural steel building is intended
to give firemen enough time to contain the blaze.

With the sprinkler risers severed, and the cascading flood of fuel, the
firemen would never have been able to save the building's structure from
thermal failure in time. Ironically, Building 2 survived exactly one hour
before it collapsed. Building 1 lasted close to 1 3/4 hours. When the high
temperature caused the first few floor trusses to sag and pull away from the
exterior wall, the wall buckled outwards, causing a chain reaction of dropping
floor trusses, and buckling walls all the way to the bottom. The center core
would have been only designed to accommodate gravity loads, vertically imposed
loads. The falling floors must have created so much lateral force that the core
disintegrated in the same chain reaction. As each floor pancaked, a shockwave
blew out the windows and expelled the dust cloud of pulverized concrete, gypsum
dust, and the cementitious fiber fireproofing. It was one of the first
buildings constructed without asbestos fireproofing, so there should have been
no danger of that in the dust cloud.

In the last week, I have moved from shock and disbelief, through grief,
and have settled into an anger that won't go away. I keep thinking of those now
5,400 innocent people looking themselves in the mirror for the last time,
getting dressed for the last time and going to work. I can't imagine how those
firemen searching through the debris must feel. People of my generation, as I
mentioned to you before, never had a Great Depression, or a Pearl Harbor to
galvanize us and crystallize our beliefs; to bring us together as one nation. We
were just a pampered, unappreciative, self-centered bunch of self important
egos; wondering how best to get ahead. I don't think that is the case any more.
I still don't think the seriousness and gravity of this tragedy has hit us;
those of us without your WW II perspective.


From http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/chrisbrown/corerefs/ConcreteCore.001.txt

[Big Les]

http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/

I got so many clues skimming through the index page, I couldn't stand up.

[Z]

Another one of Chris's manufactured whole-cloth lie websites...

Not too surprising.

It would appear that C. Brown is creating a modern myth, all by himself.

Wow- what hubris.

[uruk]

Um, Chris,

Isn't this the exact opposite of what you have been postulating for years now? You say that the steel was constructed several floors ahead of the concrete, and that is why this imaginary concrete core of yours is not visible in the hundreds of construction photos. Yet this anonymous internet source (like all of your sources) upon which you seem to rely is contradicting one of the core (pardon the pun) premises of your imaginary core.

In any event, the truth is that there was not and never has been a concrete core in the WTC towers. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you can get on with your life and seek the help that you need.

Yea, I noticed how all the sources he quotes contradict eachother and construction photos. Where he notices the contradictions he calls them "confused".

[Belz...]

Smaller cores in towers are built ahead of the steel. Large cores are built after the steel using the steel as form supports.

Got any examples of that aside from the WTC ?

WTC 7 is being built now in that way.

WTC7 has been completed for a few months, Chris.

Attaching anything to concrete is difficult. Meaning the interior box columns which had great strength were attached to the concrete core and floor beams went between them then the fightweight floors were fastened to that.

But that would mean that the floors COULDN'T be built BEFORE the core was poured.

Under the best conditions using a straight edge guide, a welder. cutter fitter can make a cut that has almost no verigations from tip wobble. However, not every time.

So you admit it's possible. Thank you.

Yes, I was surprised. But then the steel crews were the elite of the tower construction group. They didn't even think about anything but getting more steel up faster,

Also, for safety, elevators on construction sites are typically tunneled to the work area with plywood. The core was dark inside so there is no seeing concrete while you are in it. The outer forms would cover it until they were stripped and the outer forms would require more time to make than the inner so they would be started right away perhpas leaving a window from the outside for a welder to do the butt welds from a floor when it was convienent.

This is just incredible. How could they possibly build a whole tower with NO ONE ever seeing the concrete ? Who poured it, anyway ? Ninjas ?

But you can find no images of any other column of sizes matching the interior box columns. Or the "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" that are legends almost. All that is seen are puny columns tat are fastened to the interior box columns.

Uh-huh. Those ARE the steel columns. They're not as flimsy as you think.

Yes, I believe you are correct, more than one pumping station would be required, and I remember there was a segment in the documentary that showed the batch plant and talked about the increasing pressures and auxilary pumps located up higher inthe towers.

Again, why not pour it like you do regular concrete cores ?

There was an effort to divide the seismic signals generated by the needed blast(s). Detonating the basement walls first removed a significant amount of energy from the final blasts which fractured te core foundation as the core itself was detonated in 40 foot sectons, 3 per second from the top down just behind a third set of detonations which took out a floor every 75 milliiseconds.

Except none of those explosions were detected or seen.

[Belz...]

Since my site,

only uses raw evidence of images of the demolition, it is more credible than any web site and uses others that have statements from unintersted parties that corroborate the concrete core.

What's "raw" evidence, chris ?

If you are censoreing any of the information, you are doing people a disservice.

Only your government can "censor" your information.

I've told you a number of times that no one involved with the construction is going to talk about the true strcuture that was built. You call them. I've read many times where people have called to find that they can get no informaton whatsoever.

Very convenient. To you, lack of evidence is actually evidence in your favour. You can't lose.

I worked in downtown NY in the late 1960's when the towers were
built! At lunch time we went to the construction site to watch the
progress. And we saw them first buildt an internal thick walled
rectangular concrete core inside which later the elevators ran. The
steel work was erected around this core several floors behind!

But that statement contradicts your claim, chris.

[Belz...]

Yea, I noticed how all the sources he quotes contradict eachother and construction photos. Where he notices the contradictions he calls them "confused".

Must be the hypnosis.

[Blue Mountain]

Another one of Chris's manufactured whole-cloth lie websites...

Not too surprising. (remainder snipped)
While the website is yet another effort by the unstoppable Chris Brown, the usenet postings he has quoted are authentic.

Go to http://groups.google.com and enter the following text into the search box:

3BAD5E05.F5A92E1E

Here is a link to the thread found by the search (http://groups.google.com/group/dfw.singles/browse_thread/thread/acbe5f00f6050073/051b7cc2a67b839a?lnk=st&q=3BAD5E05.F5A92E1E&rnum=1#051b7cc2a67b839a). (The link's not guaranteed to work; the result may be specific to my search due to cookies sent to my browser by Google.)

With respect to the concrete core mentioned in the Usenet post, I'd like to make the following observations:

The writer is an architect, not a construction engineer
He studied the towers in school, but I have no idea how many years prior to 2001 that was
He never mentioned visiting the WTC, so he may not have physically seen the building. He certainly never saw it while it was being built.
He was writing under stress (he indicates he's angry) - this was only six days after the towers fell

So while the letter says "concrete core", there's nothing to indicate the writer of the letter was close enough to the design and construction to state that with authority. It's not even hearsay evidence.

Chris, the letter is useless as evidence for your mythical concrete core.

I'll repeat that to ensure you don't miss it :)

The letter is useless as evidence for your mythical concrete core.

[Bell]

Got any examples of that aside from the WTC ?

<snip>

Not even the WTC is an example ;)

[cloudshipsrule]

Hmmm. Can't resist but to take a stab.......

I found this while searching for the truth on the Internet. I feel that this site is very credible because they really don't make a lot of pop ups come up on your screen, and their site name is registered and stuff. When I read this letter I new it was true because it reminded me of another letter I read that was true from some other people who also want to know the truth.

From cbell-errors@mx.lodo.infobeat.com Mon Mar 24 15:29:00 1997
Return-Path: cbell-errors@mx.lodo.infobeat.com
Received: from key-colony.merc.com (key-colony.merc.com [207.79.9.133]) by mta0.yahoomail.com (8.0.5/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AX08764 for <****@yahoomail.com>; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 15:28:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tahiti.prod.merc.com (cbell-errors@mx.lodo.merc.com) by tahiti.prod.merc.com (version 3.23, queueup copyright InfoBeat, Inc. 1996,1997) with stdio id AAJVI18872; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 16:30:23 MST
Message-Id: <******@tahiti.merc.com>
To: ****@yahoo.com
Subject: Finance - Full Closing Bell @ 08/20/97 (1 stories)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html
From: InfoBeat <finance@infobeat.com> Add to Address Book
Priority: normal
Errors-To: finance-errors@mx.lodo.infobeat.com
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 17:43:03 MDT
Content-Length: ****


Sept 13, 2001 12:14:46pm

Dear Uncle Pete and Aunt Marie,


I know you know what happened two days ago in New York. I'm still shaking thinking about it. In school yesterday a lot of us were talking about the World Trade Center complex, and we decided to build a scale model using toothpicks and common, elementary-school-grade Elmers. We thought this would be a great project for our architectural drawing class. My worst fears were realized when the burning Weeble-Wobble plastic, plane we launched into the toothpick towers failed to bring the towers down after impact. Now it is clear to me that 9/11 was a plot by our own government, and it sickens me.

You see, As I understand it, EPA proposes to establish a WTC signature of a combination of slag
wool, concrete, and gypsum. If and when this signature is validated, its presence would
then serve as an indicator that a sampled space had been impacted by the collapse of
the towers on 9/11. Contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) that are also found to
be present would be presumed to be WTC-derived. Absence of the signature
components would serve as an indicator that a sampled space had not been impacted.
COPCs found to be present would then be presumed to not be of WTC derivation.
Presence of the WTC signature will also be used to determine the geographic extent of
remaining WTC contaminants, if any.
This signature proposal, in my view, is based upon a number of key assumptions:
a. It is assumed that signature components (slag wool, concrete, and gypsum) were
dispersed to every geographic area that was impacted by the collapse of the
towers and entered every indoor space that was impacted by the collapse of the
towers.
b. It is assumed that signature components were dispersed to every geographic
area that was impacted by the activities, routes, and locations of debris removal
and waste transfer operations and entered every indoor space that was impacted
by the activities, routes, and locations of debris removal and waste transfer
operations.
c. It is assumed that signature components were dispersed to every geographic
area that was impacted by combustion byproducts in the plume that emanated
from Ground Zero fires and entered every indoor space that was impacted by
combustion byproducts.
d. It is assumed that signature components that entered indoor spaces did not
become separated from other WTC substances, including COPCs, by transport
or by activities that resulted in disturbance.
e. It is assumed that signature components that entered indoor spaces did not
become separated from other WTC substances, including COPCs, over time.
It is my opinion that for a signature to be validated, these assumptions must also be
proved to be valid. EPA does not propose any of these assumptions for testing or proof.
EPA proposes only to prove that it can identify WTC-derived slag wool, in combination
with concrete and gypsum, and that laboratory analysis is capable of distinguishing and
quantifying samples containing these constituent substances.
Efforts to establish a combustion signature have been abandoned. Consequently, the
EPA draft final sampling proposal includes no provision for identifying or cleaning indoor
spaces, if any, that may have been impacted by the combustion plume and that may
have residual WTC contaminants as a result. (PAHs will be sampled but in the absence
of a dust signature will not be cleaned.)
So you see, I can't help but think that we have been lied to.

Love,
billy

[Christophera]

While the website is yet another effort by the unstoppable Chris Brown, the usenet postings he has quoted are authentic.

Go to http://groups.google.com and enter the following text into the search box:

3BAD5E05.F5A92E1E

Here is a link to the thread found by the search (http://groups.google.com/group/dfw.singles/browse_thread/thread/acbe5f00f6050073/051b7cc2a67b839a?lnk=st&q=3BAD5E05.F5A92E1E&rnum=1#051b7cc2a67b839a). (The link's not guaranteed to work; the result may be specific to my search due to cookies sent to my browser by Google.)

With respect to the concrete core mentioned in the Usenet post, I'd like to make the following observations:

The writer is an architect, not a construction engineer
He studied the towers in school, but I have no idea how many years prior to 2001 that was
He never mentioned visiting the WTC, so he may not have physically seen the building. He certainly never saw it while it was being built.
He was writing under stress (he indicates he's angry) - this was only six days after the towers fell

So while the letter says "concrete core", there's nothing to indicate the writer of the letter was close enough to the design and construction to state that with authority. It's not even hearsay evidence.

Chris, the letter is useless as evidence for your mythical concrete core.

I'll repeat that to ensure you don't miss it :)

The letter is useless as evidence for your mythical concrete core.

The letter I have quoted is more useful than the entire WTC report because it is consistent with the images showing the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)
.

[Christophera]

What's "raw" evidence, chris ?

I've already answered that.


Only your government can "censor" your information.

Wrong, anybody with power over publishing can.

Very convenient. To you, lack of evidence is actually evidence in your favour. You can't lose.

Wen statements are inconsistent with raw evidence they do not qualify for usage.



But that statement contradicts your claim, chris.

Yes, and I explained it.

[Christophera]

Um, Chris,

Isn't this the exact opposite of what you have been postulating for years now? You say that the steel was constructed several floors ahead of the concrete, and that is why this imaginary concrete core of yours is not visible in the hundreds of construction photos. Yet this anonymous internet source (like all of your sources) upon which you seem to rely is contradicting one of the core (pardon the pun) premises of your imaginary core.

In any event, the truth is that there was not and never has been a concrete core in the WTC towers. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you can get on with your life and seek the help that you need.


I've answered these questions several times now. read the thread and enjoy how much garbge the opposition posts, as they have no evidence for steel core columns.

[Christophera]

can you find one person who does remember the "correct" process? or are you the only person in the world who knows the "truth?"

I've explained this several times now. Many people know the process but do not know that FEMA states there were steel core columns. If the 9-11 truth movement wasn't so ifiltrated it could get over its confusion and make statements that were informative rather than hashing the the same useless info back and forth.

[hellaeon]

hahaha your a good laugh christophera

[Oliver]

Oops, ignore this.

Bohohohoo, i really would if the thread wouldn´t jump up and down in front of my nose all the time... http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/sad035.gif

[Oliver]

I've explained this several times now. Many people know the process but do not know that FEMA states there were steel core columns. If the 9-11 truth movement wasn't so ifiltrated it could get over its confusion and make statements that were informative rather than hashing the the same useless info back and forth.





So what are you gonna do now since you
give a fart about other points of view?

In your world it was a concrete core - for
what matter are you trying to ride this dead
horse to the moon and back nevertheless?

Do something - go and show your evidence
to someone who cares about it. What the
hell is your goal with this thread?

Is this a conspiracy staged by the evil admins?



http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/whacky110.gif

[Belz...]

The letter I have quoted is more useful than the entire WTC report because it is consistent with the images showing the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)
.

It's consistent with your interpretation, therefore you accept it. Otherwise you'd reject it. I thought there was a name for that one...

What's "raw" evidence, chris ?

I've already answered that.

Good. Because I've already explained that your pictures aren't raw.

Wrong, anybody with power over publishing can.

Not really. They can decide not to publish, but that's not censorship, per se.

Wen statements are inconsistent with raw evidence they do not qualify for usage.

Good. Your entire site is disqualified, then.

Yes, and I explained it.

"Explain" ? You tossed it aside. You kept the part you liked and dumped the rest, nutter-style.

If the 9-11 truth movement wasn't so ifiltrated

So the nutters are not just wrong, they're "infiltrated". Guess you're too nuts even for them.

[firecoins]

Ninjas built an invisible concrete core and ninjas filled it invisible explosives.

[Blue Mountain]

The letter I have quoted is more useful than the entire WTC report because it is consistent with the images showing the concrete core [link removed]

A couple of questions:
1. Which report are you referring to -- 9/11 Commission, FEMA, or NIST?
2. How is the letter useful? The writer writer was not involved at all in the design and construction of the towers!

[Christophera]

I
So the nutters are not just wrong, they're "infiltrated". Guess you're too nuts even for them.

Yes, infiltration. the gov and the 9-11 movement. At least you have something right.


Seeing as you have never produced one image of the steel core columns from the raw evidence of 9-11, and evidence was moved from the scene illegally the disposed of, private investigations blocked. the WTC documents taken an hidden in violation of of tederal law, and you have no problem with it, your behaviro goes beypnd nuts towards sociopathic

[Christophera]

A couple of questions:
1. Which report are you referring to -- 9/11 Commission, FEMA, or NIST?
2. How is the letter useful? The writer writer was not involved at all in the design and construction of the towers!

The 9-11 commission depends on NIST, NIST depends on FEMA. FEMA misrepresents the core.


whoever wrote the letter definitly knew architecture and the towers, actually better than many sites which mention the concrete core.

[Bell]

The 9-11 commission depends on NIST, NIST depends on FEMA. FEMA misrepresents the core.


whoever wrote the letter definitly knew architecture and the towers, actually better than many site which mention the concrete core.

What many site [sic] ? Please link to them. And that does not include your own site.

[azazal]

whoever wrote the letter definitly knew architecture and the towers, actually better than many sites which mention the concrete core.


So let me get this straight. This letter, which is worhtless junk at best, was "written" by some one that by some one that knows more about WTC 1 and 2's non-existent concrete cores then web sites that talk about these cores. Given that your site is the only one I've seen that says there were concrete cores, is is logical to assume this letter knows more then your site. So you have just admitted that this craptasic letter is better then your site.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/azazal/Misc/Really.jpg

Thank you for playing, "Debunk My Own Stupidity"

I didn't realize one could do a self bukkake of stupid.

[Christophera]

So let me get this straight. This letter, which is worhtless junk at best, was "written" by some one that by some one that knows more about WTC 1 and 2's non-existent concrete cores then web sites that talk about these cores.

You are using a cognitive distortion by labeling "worthless". Over generalizing rather than understanding

Yes, the details of the letter are greater than sites that describe a concrete core.

Given that your site is the only one I've seen that says there were concrete cores, is is logical to assume this letter knows more then your site. So you have just admitted that this craptasic letter is better then your site.

Apparently you are capable of dynamic distortions. You are not reasonable and you have no evidence.

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

[Arus808]

Apparently you are capable of dynamic distortions. You are not reasonable and you have no evidence.

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


what part of "your site isn't credible" do you not understand.

[Christophera]

What many site [sic] ? Please link to them. And that does not include your own site.

The sites that describe the concrete core are linked from my page at the bottom.

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

Check the paper by August Domel PH.d. SE. PE. You will see he matter of factly identifies a concrete core without much detail, as if everyone knew.

This is why I said the letter has more detail and facts than most sites.

[Christophera]

what part of "your site isn't credible" do you not understand.


My site relies on raw evidence. Credibility begins there.

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

[Arus808]

your site isn't credible. so anything on it, is deemed not credible. even links to sites that are not credible.

[Arus808]

My site relies on raw evidence.

Unfortunately you do not have any raw evidence on your site.

Credibility begins there.

Credibility starts with knowing that said person is able to tell the truth and always tell the truth.

You have demonstrated that youve done nothing of the sort. So your site, is not credible.

Again, I ask teh moderators to censor his website, since all he is doing is spamming it.

[Christophera]

Bohohohoo (http://www.sonomacountyfreepress.com/bohos/bohofact.html), i really would if the thread wouldn´t jump up and down in front of my nose all the time... http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/sad035.gif


How right you might be.

[Christophera]

Unfortunately you do not have any raw evidence on your site.


Sorry to hear about your blindness. Maybe a family member can describe the images to you.

[Arus808]

Sorry to hear about your blindness. Maybe a family member can describe the images to you.


seeing as that everyone here knows that your site has no raw evidence, it seems that my vision is quite clear (had laser surgery to make sure that i have perfect vision).

you might want to consider such a procedure in the near future.

[Powa]

"Raw"? I'm sick and tired of you using that word. What does "raw evidence" mean? Is it undercooked? Can you please define "raw" evidence?

BTW, it's been explained to you what a "raw" image is and no image on your site qualifies.

[Garb]

"Raw"? I'm sick and tired of you using that word. What does "raw evidence" mean? Is it undercooked? Can you please define "raw" evidence?

BTW, it's been explained to you what a "raw" image is and no image on your site qualifies.

You shouldn't eat the evidence or else you will get worms.


Worms=conspiracy

[Christophera]

seeing as that everyone here knows that your site has no raw evidence, it seems that my vision is quite clear (had laser surgery to make sure that i have perfect vision).

you might want to consider such a procedure in the near future.

If this is not raw evidence, what is?

If that is not a 17 x 30 foot block of concrete what is it?

While you are reasonably answering questions, since I've reasonably answered so many, explain why there are no steel croe columns penetraing the stairwell?

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3647&stc=1&d=1161401774

[Christophera]

"Raw"? I'm sick and tired of you using that word. What does "raw evidence" mean? Is it undercooked? Can you please define "raw" evidence?

BTW, it's been explained to you what a "raw" image is and no image on your site qualifies.

I''ve already answered this question about "raw evidence" and I'm not doing it again. Go find it in the thread, proabably about 15 pages back.


Find raw evidence of the steel core columns, return, post it. Stop asked dumb question that have already been answered and giving answered that are not wanted or needed.

I've got raw evidence.

This is the concrete shear wall of the core holding up the spire formed of a single interior box column, The core area is to the left.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3648&stc=1&d=1161402119

[Christophera]

Unfortunately you do not have any raw evidence on your site.



Credibility starts with knowing that said person is able to tell the truth and always tell the truth.

You have demonstrated that youve done nothing of the sort. So your site, is not credible.

Again, I ask teh moderators to censor his website, since all he is doing is spamming it.

I've posted raw evidence from my site here. Now everyone knows that you don't know what raw evidence.

If I'm spamming you are a troll. Actually, you haven't been reasonable but I have. So, .......... you are just a troll.

[Oliver]

If this is not raw evidence, what is?

If that is not a 17 x 30 foot block of concrete what is it?

While you are reasonably answering questions, since I've reasonably answered so many, explain why there are no steel croe columns penetraing the stairwell?
http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3647&d=1161401774

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1110745399ef76dee7.jpg

[qarnos]

:bwall

[TheFeds]

Christophera, how do you justify this:

"The size of the ‘core’ varied significantly throughout WTC 1 and WTC 2. Note that the size of the structural core (as defined by the location of interior load-bearing columns) did not change significantly from floor to floor. As discussed earlier in Chapter 2.2.3, however, on any given floor, the core space used for local elevators was reclaimed for leasable office space on successively higher floors within a zone. For example, while floors 42 to 48 had a core area of approximately 12,000 ft2 (1,100 m2), floor 105 had a core area of 6,800 ft2 (630 m2), or 57 percent of the core area of floors 42 through 48."(From here (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-7.pdf).)

From the same reference, see pages 20-23 and 241-243 (in Acrobat, 58-61 and 279-281, respectively). Those diagrams flatly contradict you again.

The "Hallways and Doors" Core, which you seem to think is correct:
http://algoxy.com/conc/images/corehallsdoors.gif (http://algoxy.com/conc/images/corehallsdoors.gif)

Why do the floor plans from the reference above include crossed hallways on almost every floor, yet you don't include crossed hallways, instead preferring to stagger them on alternate floors?

Why do you have cross-shaped interior walls in your drawing, when in fact there are hallways depicted in those locations in the referenced pages?



Quoting the reference again:"Either tower (since they were identical in core layout and stair position) was divided into 5 zones, in addition to the four significant transferfloors (floors 42, 48, 76, and 82). The 11 representative floors were the Concourse, Mezzanine, arepresentative floor from each of the 5 zones, and the 4 unique transfer floors. Using representative floorplans greatly simplified floor plan input into each evacuation model used, with little loss of accuracy."Do you still claim that the north and south towers were significantly different in layout? Because that's what your site says.

If you don't think that reference is valid, then you have to provide proof of your assertion. Provide your calculations, sketches and explanations, if you choose to make a technical claim. Provide evidence of a conspiracy if one exists. But nobody believes the fool who hand-waves in the face of a better explanation.

[Z]

Raw evidence would be actual material evidence - such as sections of concrete, or photographs which are clear and unambiguous (by which I mean real photographs, not blurry and inconclusive pictures on the internet), or actual blueprints...

Chris has none of this. In fact, the only available raw evidence shows steel. LOTS of steel.

What Chris is erroneously and obsessively calling 'raw evidence' is a blurry and inconclusive internet photo. The funny thing is, if you get the photo itself and examine it closely, you can actually make out bits of something which could be metal protruding from the upper edge. Of course, he's always going to have an out for anything you ever show him. Even if you show him blueprints, actual photos of the steel core columns, remains of same, etc., he's always going to have an explanation and rationalization.

This is his obsession. Like an autistic 20-year-old child, Chris is fixated on the idea that someone magically made c-4 outlast its shelf date by mixing it with concrete, and pumped that concrete against gravity into an already existing steel-framed building, etc. etc. And like a child, Chris will make up any number of lies and deceits to defend his fantasies, such as fake documentary movies, fake interviews with workers who apparently were working on the core two or more years prior to the foundation being laid, etc, etc.

After all, this is the same mentally ill person who got himself kicked out of school for being a moron, and has since tried to blame old indian shamans and who knows who else for subconscious psychic hypnotism, etc...

Chris doesn't live in a little place we like to call the real world.

Now, please, stop feeding into the child's little fantasy life. You're only serving to encourage his ridiculous and infantile behavior.

If he had anything at all, he wouldn't be wasting his time posting to otherwise irrelevant internet forums and making an ass of himself. That he is, shows he has nothing.

[Christophera]

Christophera, how do you justify this:

(as defined by the location of interior load-bearing columns)

can you show me where those columns are in this (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) picture?

How about this (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) one.

Does NIST explain what those super fine vertical elements are?

[Z]

can you show me where those columns are in this (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) picture?

In this picture, most of those columns have already collapsed above the darker edge. (Yes, Chris, the columns would break apart, rather quickly, at the welds) But if you look closely, there are a couple of vertical lines just above the grey phallus that might be columns... or image artifacts.

How about this (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) one.

Too distant and indistinct to tell for sure. We're either looking at the outer support panelling, or a few of the remaining columns, or both. Very poor picture to try to recognize elements.

Does NIST explain what those super fine vertical elements are?

Who uses terms like 'super fine'?

Anyway, again, this picture's resolution is not sufficient to determine any 'fine' elements - certainly not to recognize '3-inch rebar' or such nonsense.

This is what we mean, Chris - these pictures are NOT 'raw evidence'. They're poor-quality images that have insufficient detail to be used as such.

Many other pictures have been provided to you that show wreckage of the steel columns, building wreckage where no concrete is shown, interior shots during construction that show only the steel frame core, and massive debris fields that completely nullify the 'total pulverization' nonsense. The very websites you link to as 'evidence' discuss the steel core; only a few mistakenly refer to a concrete core, and those are of limited veracity for other reasons, as well.

The only actual existing documentaries discuss the steel core, not the concrete core. The one documentary you claim to have seen was never shown on KCET in 1990 in California (or did THEY get to all the OCD TV-Guide collectors out there and wipe THEIR memories, too?).

Further, a 64-year-old construction worker who worked on the towers at 24 and witnessed anything about the core (other than possibly design notes) is impossible.

Also, C-4 has an insufficient durability to have been placed during construction and still survived today. No other available explosive would have survived so long either. And there were insufficient opportunities to add explosives in the recent history of the WTC, so don't try that one, either.

The evidence you offer is superficial, and of lowest quality and veracity. The evidence presented you is better, even if only by a few degrees, and of higher quality and veracity.

Though I hesitate to speak for strangers, I would have to say that any lurker or passer-by who reads through this ridiculously long thread would undoubtably come to the conclusion that you are out of your league, out of your mind, and tilting at windmills that have long ago lost interest in you. You've been trounced, thrashed, and completely discredited. You lack honesty and integrity, knowledge, skill, and character. The only thing going for you is tenacity - or what some would call obsession.

One last thing: ranting here all this time has gotten you nowhere. Even if anything you said were true, the people here are the wrong ones to try to convince. If you really wanted to get somewhere, you'd be pumping this stuff to politicians, activist groups, the media - anyone of influence that might listen. If you have tried, and they've treated you as we have, that should give you a clue... maybe you're not half as smart as you think you are.

With that, I wash my hands of you entirely.

[Powa]

I''ve already answered this question about "raw evidence" and I'm not doing it again. Go find it in the thread, proabably about 15 pages back.
I've read the whole thread and I don't remember a satisfactory answer from you. I'm not going back to reread this thread. It would probably take you 15 seconds or less to explain it to me. Look, if you don't know, just say so. I tend not to use words I don't understand until such time as I do.

[Blue Mountain]

The 9-11 commission depends on NIST,

NIST depends on FEMA. FEMA misrepresents the core.
Hi Chris,

Can you provide evidence that NIST "depended on" FEMA, rather than doing their own comprehensive investigation?

Further, can you provide evidence as to how the literally thousands of people investigating the events of September 11 and the collapse of the WTC towers--the 9/11 Commission, FEMA, and NIST--all managed to miss something as completely obvious such as the materials used in their construction? Especially with access to things like people, plans, and blueprints?

whoever wrote the letter definitly knew architecture and the towers, actually better than many sites which mention the concrete core.
What part of "The writer was not involved at all in the design and construction of the towers!" do you not understand?

[Christophera]

Hi Chris,

Can you provide evidence that NIST "depended on" FEMA, rather than doing their own comprehensive investigation?

Further, can you provide evidence as to how the literally thousands of people investigating the events of September 11 and the collapse of the WTC towers--the 9/11 Commission, FEMA, and NIST--all managed to miss something as completely obvious such as the materials used in their construction? Especially with access to things like people, plans, and blueprints?


What part of "The writer was not involved at all in the design and construction of the towers!" do you not understand?


Seeing as I don't waste my time determining which fraud is nost fraudlent or dependent on other frauds, I won't be doing a study on the FEMA/NIST interdependence for deception.

The was one PH.d that was left out of the loop and just wrote about the concrete core he knew.

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

Then thre is the, "Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992"


http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3649&stc=1&d=1161447038

[Z]

Domel made a mistake, that's all. He wasn't personally involved with the WTC until 9.11. He may have read the Oxford entry and assumed it was correct.

The Oxford Encyclopedia entry is also mistaken.

Considering earlier plans did call for a concrete core, but were rejected, it's no wonder that these mistakes happened quite a bit.

Mistakes are more common than you seem to give them credit for.

[maccy]

.

The was one PH.d that was left out of the loop and just wrote about the concrete core he knew.

(link to a PDF document)



Your link is to a document published in November 2001, mainly concerning itself with the response to the disaster by structural engineers. The author is a specialist in engineering law and was not connected in any way with the construction of the towers. The quote you are referring to is in page 5:



It was designed as a tube building that included a perimeter moment-resisting frame consisting of steel columns spaced on 39-inch centers. The load carrying system was designed so that the steel facade would resist lateral and gravity forces and the interior concrete core would carry only gravity loads.



This is most likely a mistake (much like the BBC diagram) as it is contradicted by the other evidence. It is part of the general introduction to the document and has no cited source.

I know it is a bit of a waste of time my pointing this out, but there you go.

Anyway, if you're sure that the author of this paper thinks there was a concrete core, why not contact him?

He's a lawyer and so his law office is listed publicly:

August W. Domel Jr.
Firm: Domel, August W. Jr.
Address: P.O. Box 981
Dundee, IL 60118-0481
Phone: (630) 213-7800

(found via google in a matter of minutes).

[Z]

I can see the dialogue now:

CHRIS: Mr. Domel, did you mention in your 2001 SEERP paper that the WTC had a concrete core?

DOMEL: [snip]Yes, I did...[snip]

CHRIS: See? RAW EVIDENCE!!!! [link to own website][blurry photo]

[Christophera]

I can see the dialogue now:

CHRIS: Mr. Domel, did you mention in your 2001 SEERP paper that the WTC had a concrete core?

DOMEL: [snip]Yes, I did...[snip]

CHRIS: See? RAW EVIDENCE!!!! [link to own website][blurry photo]

Please provide link to web site using raw evidence to document steel core columns.

Here is the site that uses raw evidence to show there were no steel core columns and for those with experience, a concrete core.

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

[Z]

Once again, for the thinking impaired: there is no raw evidence on your website, Chris. Your credibility is nil. Any document you produce is suspect.

Websites are not raw evidence, Chris. But here's one anyway. (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html)

Honesty and integrity are unfamiliar with you, Chris. You live in a mansion of lies and deceits. Your currency is falsehood, your garments are illusion. Truth is a stranger in your home.

[uruk]

If this is not raw evidence, what is?

If that is not a 17 x 30 foot block of concrete what is it?

While you are reasonably answering questions, since I've reasonably answered so many, explain why there are no steel croe columns penetraing the stairwell?

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3647&stc=1&d=1161401774

That's debris, smoke and dust. I have provided higher resolution photos which show it to be nothing more than That. But you continue to lie.

Prove me wrong and point out the concrete wall in the photos I provided.

[Christophera]

Once again, for the thinking impaired: there is no raw evidence on your website, Chris. Your credibility is nil. Any document you produce is suspect.

Websites are not raw evidence, Chris. But here's one anyway. (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html)

Honesty and integrity are unfamiliar with you, Chris. You live in a mansion of lies and deceits. Your currency is falsehood, your garments are illusion. Truth is a stranger in your home.

Sad your vision and reading skills are impaired.

Please provide link to web site using raw evidence to document steel core columns.

I did not say "websites are raw evidence", I said a site "using raw evidence.

Obviously that means a site showing the supposed steel core columns in the core area. The below site does not show steel core columns inside the core area.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

My image of the "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) is much closer that the one on your link and it shows much smaller vertical steel in the core area. Not core columns,

Clearly you have no evidence.

[Christophera]

That's debris, smoke and dust. I have provided higher resolution photos which show it to be nothing more than That. But you continue to lie.

Prove me wrong and point out the concrete wall in the photos I provided.

homer,

You images show a plie of debri in front of the concrete. They are useless.

This image of the core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) is plenty clear to;

1) show that there are no steel core columns because if there were they would be protruding from the stairrwell.

2)If the steel core columns existed they would be sen to the right and in the foreground.

3)The wide gray area to the right of the interior box column has rounded corners which appears only as concrete can under those conditions.

homer, you have no evidence for the steel core columns. There is not even a web site using raw evidence to document the steel core. There is one that documents the concrete whic also documents the fact that there were no steel core columns.

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

[TheFeds]

can you show me where those columns are in this (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) picture?

How about this (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) one.

Does NIST explain what those super fine vertical elements are?In your first picture, I cannot explain where the columns are, because there is too much debris to see clearly what is going on. The second picture is of utterly insufficient resolution to determine anything at all. It is totally useless, because the width of one of the columns would be, at most, one pixel wide. I've explained to you on a previous occasion why it is inappropriate to use it as evidence of small objects. Do you not understand the limitations of photography and .jpg images?


But that's not what I asked you.

Please justify each of the following, because they cast your position in serious doubt:

Why do the floor plans from the reference above include crossed hallways on almost every floor, yet you don't include crossed hallways, instead preferring to stagger them on alternate floors?

Why do you have cross-shaped interior walls in your drawing, when in fact there are hallways depicted in those locations in the referenced pages?

Do you still claim that the north and south towers were significantly different in layout? Because that's what your site says.

If you don't think that reference is valid, then you have to provide proof of your assertion. Provide your calculations, sketches and explanations, if you choose to make a technical claim. Provide evidence of a conspiracy if one exists. But nobody believes the fool who hand-waves in the face of a better explanation.


homer, you have no evidence for the steel core columns.If you refer to him as "homer", can I refer to you a "bleeding virgin"?

[Blue Mountain]

Seeing as I don't waste my time determining which fraud is nost fraudlent or dependent on other frauds, I won't be doing a study on the FEMA/NIST interdependence for deception.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." [Sagan] You're the one accusing NIST of bias in using the FEMA report as the basis of its investigations and conclusions. It is therefore up to you to do the legwork in exposing the collusions and frauds. Your stated refusal to do so further erodes your credibility on this matter, were that possible.

The was one PH.d that was left out of the loop and just wrote about the concrete core he knew.

http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf
For what it's worth, one HowardRoark on abovetopsecret.com apparently took the time to ask SEERP about this and received a reply (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/single.php?post=2212266) from them. From that post:

I just recieved this e-mail from the SEERP Commitee:
Following is the response I received to your question, from Ron Hamburger:

The core was not concrete. It was also structural steel. The SEERP report is in error, if it says “concrete”

[Christophera]

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." [Sagan] You're the one accusing NIST of bias in using the FEMA report as the basis of its investigations and conclusions. It is therefore up to you to do the legwork in exposing the collusions and frauds. Your stated refusal to do so further erodes your credibility on this matter, were that possible.

If NIST could explain the image below credibly, what you say might have veracity. Instead, since 3,000 innocent Americans were killed and due process violated, evidence removed and destroyed, now your credibility as an American that loves their rights and freedoms is in question.

NIST's attempts to explain this are a harbinger of greater loss of rights and freedoms and worse. Their explanation is ludicrous for any American who has watched TV and film wherein high explosives are seen detonating, despite the varity possible therein. The notion that this is a collapse is laughable, literally.
Get your evidence (sic) together yourself.


http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3665&stc=1&d=1161464673

[Bell]

If NIST could explain the image below credibly, what you say might have veracity. Instead, since 3,000 innocent Americans were killed and due process violated, evidence removed and destroyed, now your credibility as an American that loves their rights and freedoms is in question.

NIST's attempts to explain this are a harbinger of greater loss of rights and freedoms and worse. Their explanation is ludicrous for any American who has watched TV and film wherein high explosives are seen detonating, despite the varity possible therein. The notion that this is a collapse is laughable, literally.
Get your evidence (sic) together yourself.


http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3665&stc=1&d=1161464673

You find the fact that the towers collapsed laughable? Go tell that to the relatives of the some 2700 people that died in or around the WTC.

:mad:

[Christophera]

In your first picture, I cannot explain where the columns are, because there is too much debris to see clearly what is going on. The second picture is of utterly insufficient resolution to determine anything at all. It is totally useless, because the width of one of the columns would be, at most, one pixel wide. I've explained to you on a previous occasion why it is inappropriate to use it as evidence of small objects. Do you not understand the limitations of photography and .jpg images?

The image of the WTC core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) would show core columns silhouetted if they were there. It is too convienent for you to claim the image is not good enough. Your excuse will not fly.

Well the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) is immediately after the image showing the spire (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) which is clearly visible and your image calculations say it sould not be seen and the image of the rebar was taken a second later from the same camera at almost exacly the same position, so your excuse there is nothing but unacceptable.



Please justify each of the following, because they cast your position in serious doubt:

Why do the floor plans from the reference above include crossed hallways on almost every floor, yet you don't include crossed hallways, instead preferring to stagger them on alternate floors?

Why do you have cross-shaped interior walls in your drawing, when in fact there are hallways depicted in those locations in the referenced pages?

Do you still claim that the north and south towers were significantly different in layout? Because that's what your site says.

If you don't think that reference is valid, then you have to provide proof of your assertion. Provide your calculations, sketches and explanations, if you choose to make a technical claim. Provide evidence of a conspiracy if one exists. But nobody believes the fool who hand-waves in the face of a better explanation.

Again photographic evidence shows you to be wrong. The 2 towers have obivously different hallway layouts as acn be easily seen by the silhouetted towers. You plans are from a fraudulent source and every piece of it must be qualified by comparison to raw evidence before it can be deemed acceptable and quality.

North tower on left. Sunrise silhouette (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtccoreshilouette.jpg)

South tower on left. Mid day silouette (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/silhouettenoontosouth.jpg)


If you refer to him as "homer", can I refer to you a "bleeding virgin"?

[Hellbound]

ARTHUR: Now stand aside, worthy adversary.
BLACK KNIGHT: 'Tis but a scratch.
ARTHUR: A scratch? Your arm's off!
BLACK KNIGHT: No, it isn't.
ARTHUR: Well, what's that then?
BLACK KNIGHT: I've had worse.
ARTHUR: You liar!
BLACK KNIGHT: Come on you pansy!
[hah]
[parry thrust]
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's right arm off]
ARTHUR: Victory is mine!
[kneeling]
We thank thee Lord, that in thy merc-
[hah]
BLACK KNIGHT: Come on then.
ARTHUR: What?
BLACK KNIGHT: Have at you!
ARTHUR: You are indeed brave, Sir knight, but the fight is mine.
BLACK KNIGHT: Oh, had enough, eh?
ARTHUR: Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left.
BLACK KNIGHT: Yes I have.
ARTHUR: Look!
BLACK KNIGHT: Just a flesh wound.
[bang]
ARTHUR: Look, stop that.
BLACK KNIGHT: Chicken! Chicken!
ARTHUR: Look, I'll have your leg. Right!
[whop]
BLACK KNIGHT: Right, I'll do you for that!
ARTHUR: You'll what?
BLACK KNIGHT: Come 'ere!
ARTHUR: What are you going to do, bleed on me?
BLACK KNIGHT: I'm invincible!
ARTHUR: You're a loony.
BLACK KNIGHT: The Black Knight always triumphs!
Have at you! Come on then.
[whop]
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's other leg off]
BLACK KNIGHT: All right; we'll call it a draw.
ARTHUR: Come, Patsy.
BLACK KNIGHT: Oh, oh, I see, running away then. You yellow
bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you.
I'll bite your legs off!

[TheFeds]

Again photographic evidence shows you to be wrong. The 2 towers have obivously different hallway layouts as acn be easily seen by the silhouetted towers. You plans are from a fraudulent source and every piece of it must be qualified by comparison to raw evidence before it can be deemed acceptable and quality.

North tower on left. Sunrise silhouette

South tower on left. Mid day silouetteYou do recall that one core was oriented 90° to the other, don't you? If you want to use those pictures, you need to find a similar photograph taken from a position 90° to one side. You have provided a view east (into the rising sun) and west (toward the Hudson River). You need one looking north or south. This isn't rocket science; to compare photographs of the core structures, you need pictures of the wide faces of each one, and pictures of the narrow faces of each one. Without both views, your evidence is insufficient.

But it gets better. In your sunrise photograph, do you realize that the hallways in the core area are depicted as being stacked one on top of the other, rather than staggered on alternate floors (like in your drawing). How can you possibly claim that your drawing is correct, when your own photo obviously contradicts it? Your drawing has been proven incorrect; you must retract it.


Additionally, you claimed that the report was a "fraudulent source". What is your proof that NIST is a fraudulent organization? Without proof, your statement appears libellous; are you so desperate that you must resort to defamation? We require proof of this alleged fraud.


The image of the WTC core would show core columns silhouetted if they were there. It is too convienent for you to claim the image is not good enough. Your excuse will not fly.On the contrary. You made the claim, therefore you must support it. You need to prove (with calculations, if necessary) why it is good enough. The burden of proof rests with you.

And furthermore, the notion that the image "would show core columns silhouetted" is foolish. Recall your own posted images that required illumination through the building (e.g. direct sunlight) to see the hallways. You tell us that in a cloud of dense grey dust and smoke, we ought to be able to see clear through to the other side? No detail within the building is visible in that photograph, because the lighting is insufficient, and the smoke and dust obscure the building.

Well the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS is immediately after the image showing the spire which is clearly visible and your image calculations say it sould not be seen and the image of the rebar was taken a second later from the same camera at almost exacly the same position, so your excuse there is nothing but unacceptable.I did not say that the "spire" was supposed to be invisible. Recall that here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1721639&postcount=1711) I asked you to edit a copy of that image, and to make a dimension mark across the 4' rebar centers. Why didn't you do so? And here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1724191&postcount=2029), I explained to you the meaning of resolution with regard to your images and your rebar. With calculations, explain why you believe my math to be in error.

[uruk]

homer,

You images show a plie of debri in front of the concrete. They are useless.

This image of the core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) is plenty clear to;

1) show that there are no steel core columns because if there were they would be protruding from the stairrwell.

2)If the steel core columns existed they would be sen to the right and in the foreground.

3)The wide gray area to the right of the interior box column has rounded corners which appears only as concrete can under those conditions.

homer, you have no evidence for the steel core columns. There is not even a web site using raw evidence to document the steel core. There is one that documents the concrete whic also documents the fact that there were no steel core columns.

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

The pictures I posted are of the same core structure.One of them is even the SAME picture that you are using except it is at a higher resolution.
You do not see a 17 foot concrete wall because there is no concrete wall.
What your pointing out in your picture is smoke and dust obscured by JPEG artifacting. You simply do not know what you are talking about.

here are your steel collumns. All I did was highlight them out using the floor plan info.
This picture also contradicts one of the newsgroup letters you posted. It clearly shows the steel collumns AND NO CONCRETE CORE.

But hey. go ahead and continue to deny it. It just makes you look more rediculous and dishonest.

[uruk]

Where's the concrete?

[Bell]

Where's the concrete?

Homer, that's not raw evidence!

Don't hurt your head so much. You should wake up from your hypnosis and see the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/conc/images/southcorestands.gif).

[yodaluver28]

If NIST could explain the image below credibly, what you say might have veracity.

It has been explained credibly. It's not NIST's fault that you do not understand it or are unwilling to accept it.

Instead, since 3,000 innocent Americans were killed and due process violated, evidence removed and destroyed, now your credibility as an American that loves their rights and freedoms is in question. How, exactly, was due process violated?

Why do you say that evidence was removed and destroyed when the rubble was not completely cleared from Ground Zero until nearly 18 months after the attacks and investigators were given free access to both the excavation site during removal and the scrap yard that housed the debris after it was removed and some of the debris, including steel beams, is still being held in hangars?

Exactly what everyday rights and freedoms that you had on September 10th 2001 do you not have today?


Their explanation is ludicrous for any American who has watched TV and film wherein high explosives are seen detonating, despite the varity possible therein. The notion that this is a collapse is laughable, literally.
Get your evidence (sic) together yourself.So basically your argument is : The WTC collapse looks like something I saw in "Die Hard" and in "Die Hard" there was a bomb, therefore the WTC was taken town with explosives?

[Oliver]

It has been explained credibly. It's not NIST's fault that you do not understand it or are unwilling to accept it.

How, exactly, was due process violated?

Why do you say that evidence was removed and destroyed when the rubble was not completely cleared from Ground Zero until nearly 18 months after the attacks and investigators were given free access to both the excavation site during removal and the scrap yard that housed the debris after it was removed and some of the debris, including steel beams, is still being held in hangars?

Exactly what everyday rights and freedoms that you had on September 10th 2001 do you not have today?


So basically your argument is : The WTC collapse looks like something I saw in "Die Hard" and in "Die Hard" there was a bomb, therefore the WTC was taken town with explosives?

Welcom on board, Yodaluver28. :)

I should warn you. This is Christopheras fun-thread where he never will listen to you until he breaks the record for the largest thread of all times. No kidding here.

[Christophera]

Where's the concrete?

Homer, it all blowed up. Don't cry.



http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3684&stc=1&d=1161496994

[uruk]

Homer, it all blowed up. Don't cry.



http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3684&stc=1&d=1161496994

Then what were you pointing at in this picture? Or are you lieing?

[Garb]

Homer, it all blowed up. Don't cry.



http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3684&stc=1&d=1161496994

Please don't tell me that's your raw evidence...

[Christophera]

You find the fact that the towers collapsed laughable? Go tell that to the relatives of the some 2700 people that died in or around the WTC.

:mad:

Do you misunderstand things on purpose? Those relatives will think less of that than me laughing at those who term an obvious explosion a collapse.

I stand for justice by acknowleging the truth with reason, they will like that. I stand for using truth to protect the living. They will like that too.

[uruk]

Oh were's a web site that supports the no concrete core idea.
http://manhattan.about.com/od/september11th2001/a/worldtradecente.htm

"Construction of the World Trade center began in 1966. The south tower was completed first in 1971. The Towers were built using a new drywall system reinforced by steel cores, making them the first skycrapers ever built without the use of masonry. "

[Garb]

Do you misunderstand things on purpose? Those relatives will think less of that than me laughing at those who term an obvious explosion a collapse.

I stand for justice by acknowleging the truth with reason, they will like that. I stand for using truth to protect the living. They will like that too.

Well, let me just say, you are doing a bang-up job.

[Christophera]

Please don't tell me that's your raw evidence...

Yes, of the last of a high speed series of delayed detonations. I know you haven't got a clue of what evidence is so don't stress trying to fabricate some misrepresentation to support the absudity of collapse.

[Christophera]

Well, let me just say, you are doing a bang-up job.

I just explain the job.

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

[Brainache]

Wibble banana toffee apple dingbat.

[Christophera]

Oh were's a web site that supports the no concrete core idea.
http://manhattan.about.com/od/september11th2001/a/worldtradecente.htm

"Construction of the World Trade center began in 1966. The south tower was completed first in 1971. The Towers were built using a new drywall system reinforced by steel cores, making them the first skycrapers ever built without the use of masonry. "

With what? A bunch of text. Where is the raw evidence?

I've got lots in support of a concrete core and it even disproves the steel core columns. Meaning your site is very insubstantial in comparison.

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

[Garb]

Yes, of the last of a high speed series of delayed detonations. I know you haven't got a clue of what evidence is so don't stress trying to fabricate some misrepresentation to support the absudity of collapse.

A blatant unprovoked attack? Congratulations, you are even less respectable than I took you for.


And you have audible data to support your claims, right?

[Christophera]

Then what were you pointing at in this picture? Or are you lieing?

No, it all blowed up in your pictures. There was one piece left just for you.

[uruk]

With what? A bunch of text. Where is the raw evidence?

I've got lots in support of a concrete core and it even disproves the steel core columns. Meaning your site is very insubstantial in comparison.

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

Hmmm. I see abunch of text on your web site too. I wonder what's the difference. Anyhoo. Answer my question you cowardly liar. If all the concrete billowed away, what the heck are you pointing at in your picture?

[Christophera]

A blatant unprovoked attack? Congratulations, you are even less respectable than I took you for.


And you have audible data to support your claims, right?

Massive raw data in support of the concrete core.

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

And all of that is used to explain near free fall and total pulverization.

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

[uruk]

No, it all blowed up in your pictures. There was one piece left just for you.
Ok, so where is it in this picture?

[Garb]

Massive raw data in support of the concrete core.

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

And all of that is used to explain near free fall and total pulverization.

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

Second link don't work.

[Christophera]

Hmmm. I see abunch of text on your web site too. I wonder what's the difference. Anyhoo. Answer my question you cowardly liar. If all the concrete billowed away, what the heck are you pointing at in your picture?

My text is called reasoning homey. reasoning WITH evidence. New and strange concept for you. Stop hiitting your head you've find it reasonable.

[Christophera]

Massive raw data in support of the concrete core.

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

And all of that is used to explain near free fall and total pulverization.

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


Second link don't work.

Remove the bracket inadvertently pasted with the link.

[uruk]

Massive raw data in support of the concrete core.

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

And all of that is used to explain near free fall and total pulverization.

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

No. just abunch of text with blurry pictures, a made up drawing and link to webbsites and letters that contradict each other. I'd say you have massive raw crap in support of the concrete core.

[uruk]

My text is called reasoning homey. reasoning WITH evidence. New and strange concept for you. Stop hiitting your head you've find it reasonable.
Nope, your text is called fantasy with misrepresentation. A new and strange concept to you is honesty and integrity as well as truth.

Oh and come on coward. Show me where that piece of concrete is:

[Christophera]

Hmmm. I see abunch of text on your web site too. I wonder what's the difference. Anyhoo. Answer my question you cowardly liar. If all the concrete billowed away, what the heck are you pointing at in your picture?

The explosive circuits were interrupted by intelligent caring, courageous Mohawks that figured out wtf was happening. Imagine how impossible it would be to convince anyone if that one chunk (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) of the core wasn't left.

[Christophera]

Nope, your text is called fantasy with misrepresentation. A new and strange concept to you is honesty and integrity as well as truth.

Only one problem homey. The text reasonably fits the raw evidence.

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

[uruk]

The explosive circuits were interrupted by intelligent caring, courageous Mohawks that figured out wtf was happening. Imagine how impossible it would be to convince anyone if that one chunk (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) of the core wasn't left.

WOW!. Where's the evidence for that whopper? Since the buildings came down I'd say that the circuit interruption was unsuccessful. Jesus-in-a-hand-basket! how you lie so. And terribly so!

So your saying the the picture where you pointed out the 17 foot concrete core is a lie? If it isin't then show where the concrete core is:

[Christophera]

Ok, so where is it in this picture?

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3686&d=1161497913

It is to the right of the box column just where it is in my image (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg).

[uruk]

Only one probelm homey. The text reasonably fits the raw evidence.

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

It's easy to make up fantasy to fit abunch of pictures. Especially when you alter a diagram to fit your fantasy text.

[Oliver]

Only one probelm homey. The text reasonably fits the raw evidence.

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

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

Hey, just some more times posting this link and it will become true.

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

[uruk]

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3686&d=1161497913

It is to the right of the box column just where it is in my image (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg).
So where is it in this image? It a picture of the same core section as in your picture. I even included your picture in the upper right hand corner for comparison. Where is the 17 foot concrete core that is supposed to be formed around the box column?

[TheFeds]

The explosive circuits were interrupted by intelligent caring, courageous Mohawks that figured out wtf was happening. Imagine how impossible it would be to convince anyone if that one chunk (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) of the core wasn't left.Mohawks? What are you talking about? Where's the raw evidence of Mohawk involvement? (There's something disturbingly absurd about that...more so than usual, despite the nature of this thread.)


Also, you missed this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2025913&postcount=5674). It would be wonderful if you could shed some light on the questions posed there.

[Christophera]

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

Hey, just some more times posting this link and it will become true.

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

It was true before I made the site and you posted redundant colored links to it. This image shows the concrete shear wall of the core holding up the spire reinforcing the truth further.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3689&stc=1&d=1161498986

[Christophera]

If you refer to him as "homer", can I refer to you a "bleeding virgin"?

Oh, I forgot to address this one question. If I used a name like gravy or something then you could call me whatever. Since I use my real name that would not be proportionate. Who else would sabotage the explosive circuit besides those that have been watching the infiltrators since the beginning.

I addressed your questions by posting silhouettes of the towers that are also seen on this page.

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

[RandFan]

This image shows the concrete shear wall of the core holding up the spire reinforcing the truth further. So you assert. Why should anyone agree?

[Christophera]

So you assert. Why should anyone agree?

Because there is no other reasonable explanation for what is seen.

[Skibum]

Because there is no other reasonable explanation for what is seen.

Sure there is, you're hallucinating.

[Oliver]

It was true before I made the site and you posted redundant colored links to it. This image shows the concrete shear wall of the core holding up the spire reinforcing the truth further.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3689&stc=1&d=1161498986

It does not mahahahahtter... In the end you lose... :D

[TheFeds]

It was true before I made the site and you posted redundant colored links to it. This image shows the concrete shear wall of the core holding up the spire reinforcing the truth further.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3689&stc=1&d=1161498986 This image shows nothing of value, because it's 168 pixels wide, and taken through a cloud of smoke and dust. When will you learn that grey ≠ concrete? Show your calculations for determining the minimum size of a resolvable object (using the method that I've previously demonstrated, or any logical method).

Oh, I forgot to address this one question. If I used a name like gravy or something then you could call me whatever. Since I use my real name that would not be proportionate. Who else would sabotage the explosive circuit besides those that have been watching the infiltrators since the beginning.

I addressed your questions by posting silhouettes of the towers that are also seen on this page.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11corexplosions.html And by "Who else", you mean the Mohawks? Seriously?

Look, I know that many Mohawks were ironworkers, but the fact that there were Mohawks present does not necessarily mean that they sabotaged any particular circuit. Coincidence is not raw evidence.

By the way, I inadvertently linked to a previous post above; it's since been edited to reflect what I intended: this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2025913&postcount=5674). It's the one which describes how your core drawing (featured prominently on your site) doesn't even correspond to your own pictures of the WTC at sunrise.

[Oliver]

Let me sing it for you:

It does not mahahahahtter... In the end you lose...

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

[Bell]

Do you misunderstand things on purpose? Those relatives will think less of that than me laughing at those who term an obvious explosion a collapse.

I stand for justice by acknowleging the truth with reason, they will like that. I stand for using truth to protect the living. They will like that too.

What is there to misunderstand about

The notion that this is a collapse is laughable, literally.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3665&d=1161464673

So, once again, do you find the fact that the towers collapsed laughable?

[Belz...]

Yes, infiltration. the gov and the 9-11 movement. At least you have something right.

I gather they are "infiltrated" because they, too, deny your concrete core ?

Seeing as you have never produced one image of the steel core columns from the raw evidence of 9-11, and evidence was moved from the scene illegally the disposed of, private investigations blocked.

Oh... so "raw" means "christophere's". I had not understood this before. If it doesn't come from you, it isn't raw. Got it.

the WTC documents taken an hidden in violation of of tederal law, and you have no problem with it, your behaviro goes beypnd nuts towards sociopathic

What I have a problem with is all the typos in your post.

[defaultdotxbe]

i still havent seen chris expalin the 1983 documentary showing a nice steel core and no concrete

although i suppose its disinfo because it was made by the PANYNJ, cant trust the folks who actually made the building to tell you what its made out of

[Belz...]

My site relies on raw evidence.

Your site interprets evidence.

If this is not raw evidence, what is?

Second-hand evidence.

If that is not a 17 x 30 foot block of concrete what is it?

Pixels.

You images show a plie of debri in front of the concrete.

That's your explanation why we don't see them ?

Homer, it all blowed up. Don't cry.

It "blowed" up ? Why do you claim to see it on YOUR picture, then ?

The explosive circuits were interrupted by intelligent caring, courageous Mohawks that figured out wtf was happening. Imagine how impossible it would be to convince anyone if that one chunk of the core wasn't left.

Wow. You really are crazy. You're saying that brave american indians decided to save a small pieces of concrete so that the one bearer of truth, christophera, could illuminate the world ?

Also, adress this:

So where is it in this image? It a picture of the same core section as in your picture. I even included your picture in the upper right hand corner for comparison. Where is the 17 foot concrete core that is supposed to be formed around the box column?

[alexg]

I gotta know - how did Mohawks get involved?

[Garb]

I gotta know - how did Mohawks get involved?

Well I must ask how they could not be involved. It's common knowledge that the Mohawks are the core of the truth movement.

[bonavada]

........i have spent quite a few enjoyable hours on this thread learning how to debunk a plainly absurd theory such as the one that you defend so pathetically here.
i think this thread should be recorded somewhere as a resource for rookie skeptik students such as me when starting out on the road to debunkothology. i must say though, i found it suprisingly easy to help pull apart the seams of the fallacy you try to weave, in fact TOO easy. i now relish the opportunity to have a go at, dare i say it, more plausible CT's such as the no planers, aliens from jupiter did it, or osama is bushs' bitch brigade.....
thanks again

toodle pip

BV

[Christophera]

You do recall that one core was oriented 90° to the other, don't you? If you want to use those pictures, you need to find a similar photograph taken from a position 90° to one side. You have provided a view east (into the rising sun) and west (toward the Hudson River). You need one looking north or south. This isn't rocket science; to compare photographs of the core structures, you need pictures of the wide faces of each one, and pictures of the narrow faces of each one. Without both views, your evidence is insufficient.

The important factor is that one tower has 2 hallways and the other has one..

But it gets better. In your sunrise photograph, do you realize that the hallways in the core area are depicted as being stacked one on top of the other, rather than staggered on alternate floors (like in your drawing). How can you possibly claim that your drawing is correct, when your own photo obviously contradicts it? Your drawing has been proven incorrect; you must retract it.

The light bleeds over the staggered floor without the hallway. If you enlarge that sunrise image you will find a wide gray band between the reflected light from the vertically adjacent halls.

Additionally, you claimed that the report was a "fraudulent source". What is your proof that NIST is a fraudulent organization? Without proof, your statement appears libellous; are you so desperate that you must resort to defamation? We require proof of this alleged fraud.

The image of the proof.top of the tower undergoing a high speed series of detonations (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg) is proof NIST is a fraudulent study.


On the contrary. You made the claim, therefore you must support it. You need to prove (with calculations, if necessary) why it is good enough. The burden of proof rests with you.

It is not true that you assert that there were 47 1,300 foot columns inthe core area of the towers. I accept raw evidence only and you have produced none whatsoever to prove your assertions. No calculations needed or accepted. An image of the steel core columns in the core area protruding as the building comes down will suffice..

And furthermore, the notion that the image "would show core columns silhouetted" is foolish. (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) Recall your own posted images that required illumination through the building (e.g. direct sunlight) to see the hallways. You tell us that in a cloud of dense grey dust and smoke, we ought to be able to see clear through to the other side? No detail within the building is visible in that photograph, because the lighting is insufficient, and the smoke and dust obscure the building.

It is not lighting or perception of detail on the face it is the shape and lack of strcutural steel protruding. Your paragraph is foolis and the link I added to your own words proves it.

I did not say that the "spire" was supposed to be invisible. Recall that here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1721639&postcount=1711) I asked you to edit a copy of that image, and to make a dimension mark across the 4' rebar centers. Why didn't you do so? And here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1724191&postcount=2029), I explained to you the meaning of resolution with regard to your images and your rebar. With calculations, explain why you believe my math to be in error.

You want it both ways now.

You say a pixel is 3 feet wide, How can that be when a 2 foot wide column is visible (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) and the obvious fine vertical elements (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)which I know to be a hundred or so high tensile steel rebars 3 inches in diameter is also visisble? The rebar is so small it does disappear on the right side. The images prove you wrong and you have never, nor has anyone, provided an explanation for the many fine vertical elements.

[Christophera]

Well I must ask how they could not be involved. It's common knowledge that the Mohawks are the core of the truth movement.

Not correct enough.

The Indigenous people of this continent are the core of the truth movement in this hemisphere.

[Christophera]

It's easy to make up fantasy to fit abunch of pictures. Especially when you alter a diagram to fit your fantasy text.

If it was easy to make a fantasy fit a bunch of pictures then you would have images of steel core columns at elevations above the ground, but, ......... you don't even have that.

I prove there are no steel core columns with one picture and a person with some experience with heavy steel and concrete demolition would easily identify a concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

[Garb]

If it was easy to make a fantasy fit a bunch of pictures then you would have images of steel core columns at elevations above the ground, but, ......... you don't even have that.

I prove there are no steel core columns with one picture and a person with some experience with heavy steel and concrete demolition would easily identify a concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

If it was a controlled demolition, wouldn't the cores be destroyed?

[Christophera]

the WTC documents taken an hidden in violation of of tederal law, and you have no problem with it, your behaviro goes beypnd nuts towards sociopathic



What I have a problem with is all the typos in your post.

Gosh Belz,

I am so sorry. I really should pay more attention to the spelling in my posts. I'm so ashamed. How can I apologize?


No, .......... sorry. It is a concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

[The_Fire]

to Garb:
Don't encourage him.

[Garb]

Gosh Belz,

I am so sorry. I really should pay more attention to the spelling in my posts. I'm so ashamed. How can I apologize?


No, .......... sorry. It is a concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

So how does that show there is a controlled demo?

[Christophera]

If it was a controlled demolition, wouldn't the cores be destroyed?

And they were destroyed, except for one piece of the core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg).

In the image of the WTC 2 core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif), the steel had been removed and the detonations circuits of the lower core were somewhat unpredictable in thie speed. They were slow and half of the core stood for a few seconds before detonating.

[Garb]

And they were destroyed, except for one piece of the core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg).

In the image of the WTC 2 core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif), the steel had been removed and the detonations circuits of the lower core were somewhat unpredictable in thie speed. They were slow and half of the core stood for a few seconds before detonating.

I didn't see anything "detonate".

[Christophera]

So how does that show there is a controlled demo?

The image of the core doesn't show the demolition, it shows the steel reinforced tubular case concrete core standing.

The below image shows the demo.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3692&stc=1&d=1161538242

[Christophera]

I didn't see anything "detonate".

You did now.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3693&stc=1&d=1161538354

[Garb]

You did now.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3693&stc=1&d=1161538354

Sorry, I only see smoke. I see no explosions, of all videos I saw I didn't hear explosions either.

So we are dealing with silent, invisible charges here? Dirty work is obviously afoot.

[Garb]

The image of the core doesn't show the demolition, it shows the steel reinforced tubular case concrete core standing.

The below image shows the demo.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3692&stc=1&d=1161538242

I thought that if it was a demo the building would fall in its own footprint.

And either way that just looks like a big building collapsing.

[Christophera]

Sorry, I only see smoke. I see no explosions, of all videos I saw I didn't hear explosions either.

So we are dealing with silent, invisible charges here? Dirty work is obviously afoot.

Thes professional public safety personel did. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg)

[Christophera]

I thought that if it was a demo the building would fall in its own footprint.

And either way that just looks like a big building collapsing.

Where is the building in the collapsed part? I only see concrete particulate and dust.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3694&stc=1&d=1161539436

[Garb]

Thes professional public safety personel did. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg)

1. Nice wording for "professional public saftey personel. They are called firefighters if you didn't know.
2. When a building is demolished, explosives go up, not down.
3. Did it ever occur to you that they were describing the building collapsing? Last time I checked when floors smash into other floors they aren't silent.
4. Doesn't this contradict your "no explosions because they were in concrete" idea?

And way to not even discuss how dust proves there is an explosion.

[Garb]

Where is the building in the collapsed part? I only see concrete particulate and dust.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3694&stc=1&d=1161539436

It's in the dust. Posting this picture multiple times isn't going to show me how that directly proves explosives, which it doesn't.

[Blue Mountain]

If NIST could explain the image below credibly, what you say might have veracity.

NIST assembled 200 experts in 8 teams. In addition to the main 300 page report, it wrote 45 additional reports and supplementary documents. Why do you suggest that such a large team of experts in their fields came to a wrong conclusion?

Instead, since 3,000 innocent Americans were killed and due process violated, evidence removed and destroyed, now your credibility as an American that loves their rights and freedoms is in question.
You've made a mistaken assumption here. Care to guess what it is?

NIST's attempts to explain this are a harbinger of greater loss of rights and freedoms and worse. Their explanation is ludicrous for any American who has watched TV and film wherein high explosives are seen detonating, despite the varity possible therein. The notion that this is a collapse is laughable, literally.
Get your evidence (sic) together yourself.

Why the "(sic)" after "evidence"?

[Blue Mountain]

The explosive circuits were interrupted by intelligent caring, courageous Mohawks that figured out wtf was happening. Imagine how impossible it would be to convince anyone if that one chunkof the core wasn't left. (link to silly picture removed)
How many Mohawks have you interviewed on this subject?

And I'm referrring to the ones who actually worked on the project, not the one who worked on the towers before construction began :).

[Blue Mountain]

The explosive circuits were interrupted by intelligent caring, courageous Mohawks that figured out wtf was happening. Imagine how impossible it would be to convince anyone if that one chunk of the core wasn't left. (link to perposterous picture pinched)

Hmmm. If the Mohawks working on the towers (mostly steelworkers, IIRC) quietly went about interrupting the control circuits in the concrete (which they likely would not have had any need to concern themselves with), how is it that 30 years later the circuits were suddenly active again?

[Bell]

Christophera, when you're done laughing, will you please answer my post?

post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2026782&postcount=5716)

[Powa]

This thread is the new "Thread That Will Not Die". Except here we only have one funny guy and a wide audience laughing AT him.

Chris, you really need new material. Your stuff is getting old.

[Oliver]

...and in the end he lose...http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107451f109db90e3.gif

[Architect]

Whenever I'm tired, whenever I'm down, I know a place to have a good laugh. Here. Reading Chris' amazing, astounding, and invariably incredible (in the proper sense) claims. :)

Thanks, Chris.





You know I'm kinda wondering if he's doing this as some sort of performance art type thing?:confused:

[TheFeds]

The important factor is that one tower has 2 hallways and the other has one..Which tower has which? Please re-post the images in question, with all of the hallways highlighted.
The light bleeds over the staggered floor without the hallway. If you enlarge that sunrise image you will find a wide gray band between the reflected light from the vertically adjacent halls.How do you know this? I have created an enlargement as you requested (see below). There are no such grey bands. If you see grey bands, highlight them, and re-post the image.

http://img282.imageshack.us/img282/6703/wtcsunriseenlargementri4.th.png (http://img282.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wtcsunriseenlargementri4.png)
You'll surely notice the pixellated appearance. Those are the individual pixels from your source image. They cannot be sharpened without losing detail, because sharpening destroys existing image information, and replaces it with more differentiated zones of colour. When you post an image, do not sharpen it.


The image of the proof.top of the tower undergoing a high speed series of detonations (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg) is proof NIST is a fraudulent study.It is no such thing. Proof of fraud requires motive, means and opportunity to commit the crime (in this case, falsifying a report with fraudulent intent). Your image does not show motive. Your image does not show means. Your image does not show opportunity. Therefore your image is not proof of fraud.

Your image depicts the destruction of the WTC. A single image is not proof of a "high speed of series" of anything. Absent evidence like plumes of flame, you must realize that without knowledge of what debris is being expelled (average and distribution of mass, coefficients of drag, etc.), and knowledge of the explosion (speed, magnitude, etc.) you cannot accurately predict whether the cloud of dust and smoke is the result of an explosion and collapse, or just of a collapse.


It is not true that you assert that there were 47 1,300 foot columns inthe core area of the towers. I accept raw evidence only and you have produced none whatsoever to prove your assertions. No calculations needed or accepted. An image of the steel core columns in the core area protruding as the building comes down will suffice..I do not assert that they were continuous. I did not state the quantity (though I have referenced sources which might depict 47). They were constructed by connecting the ends of much shorter column segments together, either by welding, riveting or bolting. This is visible in numerous photos and videos, including the 1983 Port Authority piece. Why would they necessarily protrude if they were attached to a collapsing building?

Furthermore, you are obviously ignorant of the methods practiced by structural engineers. Calculations are needed and accepted. When investigating the collapses, do you believe that all the engineering professionals did was to sift through a series of photographs? No, not a chance. It is expected that a structural engineer create and certify his calculations, when he performs an analysis. If you want to tackle problems of a structural engineering nature, you must also perform calculations. Failing that, all you have is idle speculation.


It is not lighting or perception of detail on the face it is the shape and lack of strcutural steel protruding. Your paragraph is foolis and the link I added to your own words proves it.It is no such thing. I pointed out that it was impossible to see through the dust cloud. If you can see through the dust cloud, highlight and re-post the details inside the dust cloud. Identify and label them. But you can't do that, can you?
http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg
You cannot see any interior details in the above picture. That's just the way it is. No amount or lack of structural steel protruding will change that fact. You need a higher-resolution image.

You want it both ways now.

You say a pixel is 3 feet wide, How can that be when a 2 foot wide column is visible (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) and the obvious fine vertical elements (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)which I know to be a hundred or so high tensile steel rebars 3 inches in diameter is also visisble? The rebar is so small it does disappear on the right side. The images prove you wrong and you have never, nor has anyone, provided an explanation for the many fine vertical elements.If a pixel is 3' wide, what fraction of it is occupied by a 2' column? Did you get 2/3? If so, you should expect that 1/3 of the pixel will be a representation of the background. But because a pixel is the finest unit of detail, its colour is the weighted average of its constituents. 2/3 dark-coloured steel + 1/3 light-coloured background = 1 pixel that is still probably closer to the appearance of dark steel, than it is to light background. But it is not an image of either, and without knowing beforehand that it was steel and background, you cannot know what was originally contained within this pixel. Let that sink in. If an object is smaller than the pixel size, you are not permitted to say that it is visible, because, by definition, the image does not contain a pixel which belongs uniquely to that object. Something was there to cause the picture to have a characteristic colour. But it is totally impossible (not figuratively, but rather literally impossible) to know from a digital image what real-life objects contributed to the pixel, by looking only at that pixel for detail. And what's more, one pixel shows remarkably little detail—you need several pixels to show texture. If you don't have an object several pixels wide, you cannot claim to know anything about the texture.

You are wrong if you claim to recognize hundreds of 3" steel rebars in that picture. You can perhaps see something that appears to have the same average colour as hundreds of 3" rebars would (in that the pixel that it occupies is coloured the same way), but you cannot see individual rebars. It is impossible. You must understand that there is a distinction between seeing rebar, and seeing a pixel that is equally grey.

If you still claim that I'm wrong, you must draw a 3" (to scale) dimension line on that picture, indicating the width of a rebar seen from the camera's viewing distance. If you can draw such a line, and it is approximately 1/12 of a pixel in width (1/12 of 3' is 3"), then you will have proven me wrong. (Remember, you may not scale the picture, unless you preserve the original pixellation.)

[TheFeds]

The Indigenous people of this continent are the core of the truth movement in this hemisphere.Raw evidence that they are the "core of the truth movement", please.

What are you going to do, photoshop a picture of a Mohawk pointing at the WTC debris, and call it proof?

[GlennB]

It is not true that you assert that there were 47 1,300 foot columns inthe core area of the towers. I accept raw evidence only and you have produced none whatsoever to prove your assertions. No calculations needed or accepted. An image of the steel core columns in the core area protruding as the building comes down will suffice..


Christophera ... these cores you propose would be approx 25m x 40m x 400m in volume, = 400,000 cubic metres.

Allowing 25% for stairways, lift shafts etc that's 300,000 cubic metres of concrete.

At 2.4 tonnes per cubic metre that makes 720,000 tonnes of concrete per tower, i.e. approx 1.5 million tonnes of demolished concrete in total for two buildings.

Given that it was held together (according to your theory) by 6" rebar, what happened to 1.5 million tonnes of reinforced concrete at Ground Zero? It simply isn't there in the photos. That much concrete would make a pile about 100m high, even without all the steel.

[bonavada]

http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg

You cannot see any interior details in the above picture. That's just the way it is. No amount or lack of structural steel protruding will change that fact. You need a higher-resolution image.

below is an image of the scene captured at around the same time from a slightly different angle. you may see (from the higher resolution detail arrowed) that there is NO EVIDENCE of 3" rebar or indeed any of christopheras mythical concrete core. this evidence has been put before christophera previously. he chose to ignore it. he exercises his "get-out" clause on any evidence that counters his tired absurdly idiotic theories.
one has to ask also, if this is 3" rebar as he asserts, why wasn't it destoyed by the C4 coating? more mohawk skull-duggery? those pesky indiginents huh? wait till rumsfeld and connie get holda that one...........


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748453c042018e89.jpg

BV