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

[cloudshipsrule]

This is a quote from your concrete core site:

"The design was a "tube in a tube" construction where the steel reinforced, cast concrete interior tube, was surrounded with a structural steel framework configured as another tube with the load bearing capacity bias towards the perimeter wall with the core acting to reduce deformation of the steel structure maximizing its load bearing capacity. All steel structures with the proportions of the WTC towers have inherent problems with flex and torsion. Distribution of gravity loads was; perimeter walls 50%, interior core columns 30% core 20%. "

No mention of concrete core here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center

To meet the challenges of wind load, gravity load and related architectural stresses, the WTC's structural engineers took a then-unusual approach in its construction: instead of employing a traditional grid-like plan with beams evenly spaced throughout a floor, the WTCs columns were grouped in the building's core and perimeter. The core of each tower was a rectangular area 87 by 133 feet (27 by 41 meter) and consisted of steel box columns running from the bedrock to the tops of the tower. The columns tapered to the top, where they transitioned to lightweight H-beams, but the exact dimensions are unknown as the blueprints are under the jurisdiction of the Port Authority and are not public domain. Each tower had 240 steel perimeter columns (from 2.5 inches thick at the bottom tapering to .25 inch at the top [6.3 to 0.6 cm]) placed 14 inches (36 cm) around the perimeter. This signature feature of columns grouped in the core and perimeter allowed large tracts of uninterrupted floorspace, a significant marketing feature for the towers.



No mention of concrete here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html


Photos do not allow us to peer far into the interior of the building; in fact the hole is black, with no flames visible. We know that the structural core and its steel was incredibly strong (claimed 600% redundancy) making it unlikely that the core was "severely" damaged at impact. There were 47 core columns connected to each other by steel beams within an overall rectangular core floor area of approximately 87 feet x 137 feet (26.5 m x 41.8 m). Each column had a rectangular cross section of approximately 36" x 14" at the base (90 cm x 36 cm) with steel 4" thick all around (100 mm), tapering to ¼" (6 mm) thickness at the top. Each floor was also extremely strong (p. 26), a grid of steel, contrary to claims of a lightweight "truss" system.

No mention of concrete here:
http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh/1-Publications/Astaneh-9ASEC-WTC%20Paper%202003.pdf

The structure of the towers was a new system made of three main elements: (a) an exterior
steel tube with closely spaced column to carry gravity and lateral load, (b) interior steel core
columns and beams to carry gravity only and; (c) the light weight concrete on steel deck floors
supported on simply supported steel truss joists. Figure 3 shows a typical framing plan for the
upper floors. Figure 4 shows cross section of a typical upper floor. The World Trade Center was
constructed using 3-story pre-fabricated welded units. Figure 5 shows the units used for exterior
tube. The 3-story units were bolted to each other at the site using end plate connection shown

[Manny]

So if he helped the NIST with their report, and he is the WTC engineer on record, then it must have just slipped his mind that the buildings actually had a concrete core...:confused: (unless you want to bust out the old standbye of "he's lying"...Mr. Robinson was also on site while the WTC was being constructed, and even if the concrete core with the explosive rebar had been added without his knowledge he certainly would have come across it during construction.

So yes, Christopher, an obvious al Qaeda agent as proven earlier in this thread, is accusing Mr. Robinson of mass murder and treason and insurance fraud.

[Pardalis]

Mr. Robinson was also on site while the WTC was being constructed, and even if the concrete core with the explosive rebar had been added without his knowledge he certainly would have come across it during construction.

How many people were fooled during the 8 years it took to build the complex? Engeneers, architects, mohawk workers...:boggled:

[Trifikas]

OH! I figured it out! that first picture on

http://concretecore.741.com/

Shows a picture of a reenforced concrete colum, with 4 Steel Beams Sticking out of it. You nut, that's not what FEMA is showing the entire CORE is made from, a single mass of concrete with 4 beams from it...It's just showing one of the supportting columns, What the 4th picture on that page points to as "Box Columns connecting steel frame to concrete core"

FEMA isn't claiming it's ONE SOLID PIECE...

[Christophera]

One of your sources is a UNC class project.

"The class divided into three teams. The first team completed a report
on the World Trade Center project. The second team compiled information
on the impacts that the project had on Lower Manhattan. The third team
examined the architectural, engineering, and real estate aspects of the
project. "

Selective uses of information use in attempt to dismiss evidence.



There is much more, better you insist, information possible. See it directly here, along with the product of students.

http://concretecore.741.com

You are asking people to ignore a ton of evidence not related, to some other evidence because students made a report from information available to them on the subject and that is on the page with a scan of a page of the publication of the Oxford Institute of Technology 1992. Or the evaluation by Domel, an enginner ph.d. There are more, plus photos of the actual concrete core and its features in various phases of the demolition.

That should help our rights and freedoms a lot.

And no one here has produced any image ever of the supposed steel core columns.

[Christophera]

OH! I figured it out! that first picture on

http://concretecore.741.com/

Shows a picture of a reenforced concrete colum, with 4 Steel Beams Sticking out of it. You nut, that's not what FEMA is showing the entire CORE is made from, a single mass of concrete with 4 beams from it...It's just showing one of the supportting columns, What the 4th picture on that page points to as "Box Columns connecting steel frame to concrete core"

FEMA isn't claiming it's ONE SOLID PIECE...

The first paragraph says.

Some in the UK still think the WTC tower core was built as shown below. Basically a pre-stressed concrete design. Yamasaki had reviewed the design, and found no contractor that could build a 1,300 foot column of that design. We all know the towers had their stairwells and elevators inside the core. There is no room for that in the core below.

You've read only the erroneous information of the image hosted at the BBC.

[Shrinker]

And no one here has produced any image ever of the supposed steel core columns.
Perhaps our words are too small. Maybe if we speak moonbat language...

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

[Christophera]

How many people were fooled during the 8 years it took to build the complex? Engeneers, architects, mohawk workers...:boggled:

From the documentary and the sense of mystery surrounding the core, many people new something was up. For example: Revised core plans coming, not there until 2 days before work on the actual core begins. Then around the 3rd or 4th floor, forced evacations of workers by armed PA security just after sandblasting the floors prior to pouring concrete.

Phil Jayhan volenteered that he had heard that somewhere when I was posting at Let's Roll. The documentary showed workers jogging from floor to floor with security standing in the side hall next to stacks of 5 gallon buckets. Contractors almost sued to get wages while workers were displaced because the PA hadn't scheduled the evac's.

People knew somethign was up.

[bob_kark]

1. If you don't know how fast the WTC collapsed, how do you know it was "too fast?"

2. If the building is collapsing at free fall speed, why does the debris field overtake the collapse?

3. If there was a concrete core packed with C4, why is it still standing in your picture?

4. How would you time a collapse from a C4 demolition with a thermite demolition on the ground floor and have it look like a natural collapse?

5. If the Globalists, for lack of a better term, were so careful and thoughtful to plan the demolition of the WTC several decades in the past, why weren't they thoughtful enough to plant the thermite in the basement?

6. How are you able to claim that the structure as described in the NIST report is a sham if you never read the NIST report?

[Christophera]

Perhaps our words are too small. Maybe if we speak moonbat language...

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

Thank you for putting the arrows in EXACTLY the right places on the south tower which had 2 hallways crossing both axis of the core. It was not tapered either as it was engineered as a series of stacked cells.

The north tower on the right only had a single hallway on each floor crossing the core. We view the north (long) face of the WTC 1 core.

Look for the explanation of this image,

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtcsunriseshilouette.jpg

on this page.

http://concretecore.741.com

[senorpogo]

Selective uses of information use in attempt to dismiss evidence.

There is much more, better you insist, information possible. See it directly here, along with the product of students.




You claimed that your website contained credible sources.

I showed that four of them were not.
Will you now remove those non-credible and contradictory sources?

[Tricky]

From the documentary and the sense of mystery surrounding the core, many people new something was up. For example: Revised core plans coming, not there until 2 days before work on the actual core begins. Then around the 3rd or 4th floor, forced evacations of workers by armed PA security just after sandblasting the floors prior to pouring concrete.

Phil Jayhan volenteered that he had heard that somewhere when I was posting at Let's Roll. The documentary showed workers jogging from floor to floor with security standing in the side hall next to stacks of 5 gallon buckets. Contractors almost sued to get wages while workers were displaced because the PA hadn't scheduled the evac's.

People knew somethign was up.
"Many" huh? Can you give us a ballpark figure?

But how can you possibly suggest that of those "many" that not one has come forward, either wracked by guilt or just wanting to clear the board? Not one! This is a country where it is hard to keep anything secret, and if they do, the secret-keepers must be very few in number, humans being the capricious creatures they are. But what you are proposing is the greatest conspiracy every made and with 100% loyalty to the cause.

You know, just by the law of averages, some of those "many" secret keepers must have had loved ones who died in the event. So now we have a cabal of lots of people with hearts of stone.

Is there a Guiness World Record for paranoia?

[Belz...]

Well this thread is a cozy place, isn't it ?

But they could do if they wanted to, right?

Not if they don't have the skills.

The engineers believe FEMAs description of the structure and I know it was different so what the engineers have defined is in error.

You "know" ? How do you "know" ? Because of your own expertise in structual engineering ? Or because of your armchair analysis ?

No. I am aware from other sources exactly how the towers were designed and NIST is a waste of time. They do not explain free fall.

There was no free fall. They don't have to explain things that don't exist.

They do not explain how this happened twice and why the impact/fall sequence is backwards/ The wrong tower fell first if itwas a collapse.

You have noticed that the south tower was hit much lower than the north one, yes ?

[Belz...]

We do not need credentials to identify structural elements in a falling building.

You don't ? Well, why do all these OTHER structural engineers bother, then ?

Woah! I've wasted my whole adolescence on SCHOOLING, I guess.

Sorry, no time for another video of the towers. I'm fully satisfied as the visibility is not good enough to apply an accurate time. The fall was way too fast and it went to far down to be a collapse under any definition.

...but.... if the visibility precludes accurate timing, how can you say it fell too fast ??

First absolute. Towers built like those towers do not fall all the way to the ground. Maybe, under much more damage than 1 plane the top would fall off. Two towers doing it as they did identically FORGET IT. Never.

Compelling.

[XXX]

I found another forum that has a thread on this very topic...need 15 posts to post a link though...

[XXX]

There we go...

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread208023/pg1

I'm looking at it right now, might be some info in there that we don't know about yet.

[Belz...]

I've shown that there are more important issues and free fall is just a technicality that may be controlling and it may not. Most importantly is that they were way too close to free fall, and 2 towers fell almost identically when they had suffered very different damage.

Similar planes crashed into them in a similar way. What was so different ?

No, it might be, it might not. The important thing is that the issue remains undiminished because they fell WAY TOO fast.

Well, that does it for me. I've converted.

[Shrinker]

Thank you for putting the arrows in EXACTLY the right places on the south tower which had 2 hallways crossing both axis of the core. It was not tapered either as it was engineered as a series of stacked cells.

The north tower on the right only had a single hallway on each floor crossing the core. We view the north (long) face of the WTC 1 core.

Look for the explanation of this image,

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtcsunriseshilouette.jpg

on this page.

http://concretecore.741.com
And thank you for finally responding to a question. I've seen your diagram. No matter what side you view your tower from, every other floor would appear to have a completely solid core, becuase you'd be viewing down the wrong axis. In both photos all the floors have a great amount of daylight visible through them, and almost all have an identical configuration to the floor directly above and below. There is no alternating axis. In the picture I edited, there is more daylight than solid structure. That is not one hallway through a thick concrete core, it is open space punctuated by narrow supports.

Edit to add: your sunset picture seems to show a more solid core than the black and white one. We've already seen evidence that was just drywall, not concrete.

[Belz...]

Well tim, the end of the fall is vague, so there you have it. The exact time is just not worth discussing

"I don't know what I'm talking about, but that's not important."

I think that we are generally past that in the real world. It is well established that they fell too fast for a collapse, even a normal controlled demolition.

For EVEN a normal controlled demolition ? What, were they desintegrated by aliens ?

What is more important is that they fell all the way to the ground identically. Collapses do not happen like that. No steel building has ever collapsed.

Expected. Yes they do. It was a precedent.

It does not show steel core columns and that is what NIST says stood

I thought you said NIST denied the presence of the core ?

Covering for the murderers of 3000 Americans is not easy.

Leave it to a supporter of the murderers of Americans to demand an exact answer which cannot be obtained.

You have no support for the towers NIST said stood. Meaning you are supporting a lie to protect the real murderers.

By doing so he supports the lies that the real murderers hide behind.

What about our rights and freedoms Timmy?

Appeal to sentiments will not work here. Show the damn evidence.

Why do I bother, anyway ?

and will not return them. The picture is an absolute. If you cannot use it, that is your problem.

"I know something you don't"

[Christophera]

1. If you don't know how fast the WTC collapsed, how do you know it was "too fast?"

2. If the building is collapsing at free fall speed, why does the debris field overtake the collapse?

The building is descending from the top height, at whatever height, downwards. The building behind the debris has not yet begun to fall. It is quite incredible that you reasonably need that explained.


3. If there was a concrete core packed with C4, why is it still standing in your picture?

There was a digital delay system. All timers triggered by one security phone line on each floor with other detonation delay systems for the core. The core walls were very thick down low and quite a bit of work was requried to open the inspection ports and install detonators. the intitiation system would be different. Gas flame intiation tube system rather than electric caps. Electric's are too unstable over time.
Recall that tower workers immediately following the new lease had problems getting to jobs on lower floors because of "extensive elevator maintenance. The later power down got all the floors set with electric caps 3 days prior to 9-11. The lower core (heavily loaded with C4 coated bar) would have thrown the surrounding steel outward if the steel wasn't dropped first by thermite at the base and the,

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

column cutting system built into the floors. Yea, I know, very hard to beleive that such was built in, but from a position of some experience and much study, inquiry of experts, etc. before 9-11, there is no other way to get it done as we saw and see, example: square cut columns.


4. How would you time a collapse from a C4 demolition with a thermite demolition on the ground floor and have it look like a natural collapse?

Above I explain the delayed detonations happening above ground. The thermite was installed in 1993 after the basement bombing. That recent trial of a terrorist brought out that the FBI knew and guided the terrorist to place the van in the basement with explosives in it (away from the core). Astounding, more astounding that the information actually is out there. I wish I had links but you should be able to find it.


5. If the Globalists, for lack of a better term, were so careful and thoughtful to plan the demolition of the WTC several decades in the past, why weren't they thoughtful enough to plant the thermite in the basement?

Perhaps opportunities in the middle east had not developed to the point where a massive ruse was planned. Basically without opening the inspection ports and severing the C4 layer on the bar, you can't stop the whole tower going off at once like a firecracker. In answer #3 I describe that in sequence. If the basement van had been against the core it might have done the firecracker.


6. How are you able to claim that the structure as described in the NIST report is a sham if you never read the NIST report?

The NIST report uses the FEMA WTC report as a basis for it's structural configuration analyzed. This is probably the BEST documentation in existence for the core from official sources.

http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/femacore.gif

I saw the 1990 documentary and remember it very well. I've been a welder for 30 years and a surveyor for 20 having laid out a number of steel and concrete structures and did some drilling and blasting. I have the basic experience to be able to see how this demo was done. I'm just reverse engineering by the seat of my pants because all the data is so scattered and sparse that it needs to be assembled once, first, into a scenario that explains the event so a more refined analysis can be done. The documentary, which I understood very well, gave me the information on the towers that is needed to make that scenario work.

That is all I've done and it's so damm feasible that the few people I've mentioned it to who actually have similar experience, engineers, basically took a psychological crap because it (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html) adequately explained the entire Twin tower event.

[Christophera]

"I don't know what I'm talking about, but that's not important."

For EVEN a normal controlled demolition ? What, were they desintegrated by aliens ?

Expected. Yes they do. It was a precedent.

I thought you said NIST denied the presence of the core ?

Appeal to sentiments will not work here. Show the damn evidence.

Why do I bother, anyway ?

"I know something you don't"

Labelling, minimizing, all or nothing thinking, overgeneralizations, entitlement, WOW, you really do know how to conduct cognitive distortions. And whats more amazing, is you probably don't even know you are doing it.

That is natures way of assisting with dissociation from information which is too disturbing.

[Z]

Shelf life in the package of C-4, according to what I've read here: 10 years.

Out of the package, as anyone realizes with an ounce of common sense, shelf life will deteriorate, not extend. Even if encased in concrete, the C-4 would have been exposed for however long to air, begining the oxidation process.

At best, C-4 removed from its package, then packed and sealed in concrete or steel or any other material, would have a somewhat shorter shelf life than in its original packaging.

The only way to plant C-4 and extend its shelf life would have been if the container the C-4 were in was chemically inert, and immediately vacuum-sealed to remove all oxygen and other chemicals. The containers would also have to be maintained at an ideal temperature.

Even so, the best you could extend the functionality of C-4 would have been five or six years.

So best possible scenario - which is not supported by your claims - the C-4 could have lasted 16 years. Meaning C-4 planted during the construction of the towers in the late 60s would have been inert putty by the early 80s. If we're generous, and use the opening year of the later tower - 1972 - the C-4 would have been inert no later than 1988.

Those shelf life figures aren't far off, either. Having been asked to use 12-year old C-4 in a demo project, I can tell you, the older the C-4, the less likely it is to work at all. Our unit in Korea was required to replace all demolitions kits every five years, to ensure the C-4 would work properly. Our unit in Oklahoma lacked this requirement; as a result, when the time came for demolitions classes and exhibits, we had no idea if the stuff would work or not. There were several times we had to call in an EOD unit to destroy something we had rigged that failed to go off due to using out-of-date C-4.

Therefore, one of the key components of your conspiracy theory is incorrect.

The 'green stuff' was not C-4.

While this does not claim that the destruction of the towers was NOT from controlled demolition, it does show that your theory has a single fatal flaw. You'd be better off attempting to come up with a theory that explains how sufficient quantities of C-4 could be applied, properly wired, and concealed during the alleged power-down of the tower.... and how the same was accomplished in the other tower with no corresponding power-down.

[Belz...]

The fire fighters know it was a demo because collapses don't pulverize everything.

Maybe you'd care to ask them if that's the case. I'll light a few candles for you.

but there is nowhere for the elevators inside the core. So typically we catch a liar because their story doesn't match.

So mistakes don't exist ?

No. That makes less sense because it looks like a high speed series of explosions.

I don't give a hoot what it looks like, Christoblad. I want to know what it IS.

The use of math is a waste of time (that is what you are trying to cause)

That made me chuckle, actually. The use of math is a waste of time. Well, coming from someone who admitted not going to school, it's a given.

So much for the U.S. Constitution and the rights and freedoms our children might enjoy.

You also have the right to remain silent, you know.

There were murders. And there are lies and it is being proven right here that you folks cannot supprt the NIST info on the towers structure. Meaning you are suporting a lie that murderes depend on to get away with their deeds.

Denial.

[Pardalis]

Labelling, minimizing, all or nothing thinking, overgeneralizations, entitlement, WOW, you really do know how to conduct cognitive distortions.

All of wich you have done yourself many times in this thread.

[Belz...]

Absolutely, the planes were a cover for the fact that the building were built to be demolished and scheduled for 9-11.

Soooo.... they built the WTC in the 70's to demolish them thirty years later in order to ... go to war for oil ?

Why didn't they just ... go to war ?

[Christophera]

And thank you for finally responding to a question. I've seen your diagram. No matter what side you view your tower from, every other floor would appear to have a completely solid core, becuase you'd be viewing down the wrong axis. In both photos all the floors have a great amount of daylight visible through them, and almost all have an identical configuration to the floor directly above and below. There is no alternating axis. In the picture I edited, there is more daylight than solid structure. That is not one hallway through a thick concrete core, it is open space punctuated by narrow supports.

Edit to add: your sunset picture seems to show a more solid core than the black and white one. We've already seen evidence that was just drywall, not concrete.

the only barriers were 1 whole floor on WTC 1 and a slab thickness in core halls on WTC 2.

Robertson said in one comment I've seen that the floors disappeared when the towers were sihouetted. As the light is reflected off the concrete interior wall of the core, it tends to blur more at the distance of the photo.

Content removed - breach of Rule 4.

In this image the interior core walls are just visible. Notation locates the gap every other floor.

Content removed - breach of Rule 4.

Between the zoomed version above and the full shot below the vertical space between interior walls is just seen.

Content removed - breach of Rule 4.

[Shrinker]

Christophera, I can't find any floor plans that back up your claim that the cores of the two towers were configured differently. Do you have any evidence of this?

Also I can't find any evidence that any of the floors had two hallways running end to end through the core. From what I've seen, such a design would interfere with the stairwells.

Again do you have any evidence of this? Or is this all a rationalisation to combat the discovery that your concrete core theory is literally full of holes?

[Christophera]

All of wich you have done yourself many times in this thread.

So you notice I do it as well. Did you notice that I'm using it with evidence to counter distortions having no basis? Did you notice I'm doing it to preserve our Constitution, our rights and freedoms?

Can you say that by denying evidence you can protect our rights and freedoms? Or have you been made so afraid of Muslims you're ready to blindly assist in their destruction no matter what and believe that will protect our rights and freedoms?

You don't really have to answer these, just think about them.

[Pardalis]

Between the zoomed version above and the full shot below the vertical space between interior walls is just seen.

Between the zoomed version picture and the full shot below it I just see text.

[Regnad Kcin]

Mr. Brown, you've now posted an additional eight times since my most recent request that you answer my follow-up question. This makes it 13 posts in all since I asked the first time.

For your convenience, here is the question again:

At what level (that is, between what stories) did each airplane strike each tower?

[Timothy]

I've been a welder for 30 years and a surveyor for 20 ....
And by your own testimony you've been under the influence of "harmful hypnotic telepathy" for 38 years.

So you've been a delusional longer than you've been in construction.

It certainly shows.

- Timothy

[Christophera]

Christophera, I can't find any floor plans that back up your claim that the cores of the two towers were configured differently. Do you have any evidence of this?

Look at survivor accounts for the towers. The was a fire marshall for each tower and knowing one tower would not work in the other.


Also I can't find any evidence that any of the floors had two hallways running end to end through the core. From what I've seen, such a design would interfere with the stairwells.

The 3 stairwells were able to weave between the hallways.


Again do you have any evidence of this? Or is this all a rationalisation to combat the discovery that your concrete core theory is literally full of holes?

First realize that no one here has ever posted an image or a link to a site that shows us the stel core columns that FEMA states existed. I've posted this url which to a site having many photos showing the concrete. It will take familiarity of concrete and steel to feel very secure with the knowledge that the cores were concrete. Basically because no steel core columns ever show, we know this image is concrete.

Content that was a breach of Rule 4 has been removed. As stated in your last warning any further breaches would result in an automatic 3 day suspension.

[Pardalis]

And by your own testimony you've been under the influence of "harmful hypnotic telepathy" for 38 years.

Whoa, I think I missed something.

[Belz...]

I mean, how many people knew beforehand that it was going to happen? We need to trace the evidence back to these criminals.

Hi Tricky. Long time no see. I see we're tackling the same woo, here.

35 years.

Are you saying that there are no organizations that can keep secrets that well?

Yes.

He is the devil's advocate...;)

He's NOT my lawyer.

If you would read, you would learn that in the manufacturers package the shelf life is 10 years.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1154643

The manufacturere doesn't say how long it will last encapsulated in a couple of feet of concrete.

You're right, it doesn't. So how do YOU know ?

Sorry, you are wrong. Here is the same core lower, nothing behind.

Er... because it FELL ? I think you're looking at dust, man. DUST.

Really, you can consider that secret elements of government are going to chance that their construction project is to blame rather than some other likely perpetrator? Because ONLY optimaly placed and distributed explosives can do what happened.

Says the guy who never went to school.

DUST.

We have been decieved for many, many decades.

I'm sure you feel that this thought gives you purpose in this complex and dangerous world. It'd unfortunate that the universe doesn't bend to your will, I know. I'd like magical powers, myself. But they don't exist, Christobald. You've gotta deal with the pain.

Well, we can add you. And probably your father and your grandfather.

It is a dynamic deception and not the subject of this thread.

Oh, please create a new thread and I'll be happy to hear your delus... opinions on this.

It was only 3 days before 9-11 that WTC 2 was powered down on the upper 48 floors for 38 hours for a cable upgrade.

Just enough time to do months' worth of explosive rigging.

The building wasn't made of C4. The steel rebar inside the concrete was coated with a small, engineered amount of C4. Parafin plugs were cast on the inside of the core to fill inspection ports on the rebar. the presence of the ports were in the documentary I saw in 1990.

I recommend euthanasia.
No you don't. That was a typo, surely?

Recall that after the lease of the WTC there were major complaints from people trying to get to lower floors because they had to go up, change elevators and come down to get around the elevator work. The core was very thick at the base and getting detonators to the rebar would be a big job, but the holes made to get to the bar could be refilled with parafin.

Anyone here know someone who worked in the WTC towers so we can have first-hand testimony of how much space that core took ?

[Stellafane]

I'm kind of surprised this thread is still going. I enjoy seeing CT'ers get eviscerated as much as anyone, but there’s something about Christophera that I find really disturbing. I believe he’s either here to deliberately spread misinformation, or (even more alarming) he is seriously delusional. I’m nowhere near qualified to make any diagnoses or judgments concerning the latter, but I suspect that very little good can come from arguing with someone who suffers from such issues. So like others involved in this thread, I’ve opted out (not that I was contributing anything of substance anyway).

[Pardalis]

we know this image is concrete.

How?

ETA: Usually, .jpg images are not made of concrete.

[Belz...]

There are bigger problems that have to dealt with first. We are afraid of our unconscious existence. They operate there.

Crazy it is.

Hmmm... I finally get to the end of the thread and there's nothing else to say. How disappointing.

Oh no, 43. Please, by all means say something. Anything someone with Tuco for an avatar says can't possibly be anything else than entertaining!

These are trained professionals with experience. I know a high speed series of detonations when I see them.

I submit that you don't.

Suspended, now are we ? Damn. These guys always find a way to get kicked out so they can cry foul to their buddies.

[Dave_46]

With reference to the image on your website. (see post 480)

1. Do you know the difference between a column and a beam? If so please explain

2. Do you know that 800 C is nowhere near hot enough to melt steel?

Dave

ETA reference to post number

[Pardalis]

I'm kind of surprised this thread is still going. I enjoy seeing CT'ers get eviscerated as much as anyone, but there’s something about Christophera that I find really disturbing. I believe he’s either here to deliberately spread misinformation, or (even more alarming) he is seriously delusional. I’m nowhere near qualified to make any diagnoses or judgments concerning the latter, but I suspect that very little good can come from arguing with someone who suffers from such issues. So like others involved in this thread, I’ve opted out (not that I was contributing anything of substance anyway).

Come to think of it, you're absolutely right.

It's like talking to my budgie, everything we'll ever say he's always going to respond by "chîîîp chîîîp".

[Darat]

Attacking the argument is OK, attacking the Member is not.

[Shrinker]

Look at survivor accounts for the towers. The was a fire marshall for each tower and knowing one tower would not work in the other.



The 3 stairwells were able to weave between the hallways.



First realize that no one here has ever posted an image or a link to a site that shows us the stel core columns that FEMA states existed. I've posted this url which to a site having many photos showing the concrete. It will take familiarity of concrete and steel to feel very secure with the knowledge that the cores were concrete. Basically because no steel core columns ever show, we know this image is concrete.

Content that was a breach of Rule 4 has been removed. As stated in your last warning any further breaches would result in an automatic 3 day suspension.

Sadly Chris, you've posted images with text daubed on them, that make claims the pictures simply don't support. The images show chaos, nothing more.

Now I'm interested in getting more information about the layout of these concrete cores. The layout you describe certainly isn't impossible, the floorplans I've seen might only represent every second floor, and might only represent one of the towers. However I'm not stupid. The sunset picture shows that the core of each floor is the same as the floor below for over 90% of the floors.

The black and white picture looks exactly like an exposed steel core awaiting its drywall cladding. It does not match the floorplans I've seen or the sunset image.

The FEMA and NIST reports, the floorplans and the two photos are all mutually consistent, and there's no need for two different core layouts. They are also consistent with the logical construction process: build core, add floors, add drywall when construction is complete. Its simple ,consistent and easy.

In your version the floorplans don't match the core of one tower or 50% of the floors in the other. In your version the two towers have to be different to accomodate the two different photos. Your version doesn't match what's in the sunset photo at all, and demands a very creative interpretation of the black and white one. It contradicts every expert in the field, and in order to explain some of the other photos I posted earlier it required the concrete core to be built inside the building, several stories below the advancing steelwork and floors. I'm no expert, but that seems a bit weird does it not?

[Pardalis]

Attacking the argument is OK, attacking the Member is not.

To whom is this adressed?

[Darat]

To whom is this addressed?

To all Members - any further questions regarding Moderation should be raised in "Forum Management".

[bob_kark]

The building is descending from the top height, at whatever height, downwards.

Yes, gravity still functions.

The building behind the debris has not yet begun to fall. It is quite incredible that you reasonably need that explained.

No, the building collapses, as it collapses, it is ejecting debris. The debris being ejected falls faster than the building collapses.


There was a digital delay system. All timers triggered by one security phone line on each floor with other detonation delay systems for the core. The core walls were very thick down low and quite a bit of work was requried to open the inspection ports and install detonators. the intitiation system would be different. Gas flame intiation tube system rather than electric caps. Electric's are too unstable over time.
Recall that tower workers immediately following the new lease had problems getting to jobs on lower floors because of "extensive elevator maintenance. The later power down got all the floors set with electric caps 3 days prior to 9-11. The lower core (heavily loaded with C4 coated bar) would have thrown the surrounding steel outward if the steel wasn't dropped first by thermite at the base and the,

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

column cutting system built into the floors. Yea, I know, very hard to beleive that such was built in, but from a position of some experience and much study, inquiry of experts, etc. before 9-11, there is no other way to get it done as we saw and see, example: square cut columns.

Ok, so you believe the concrete core was packed with C4, I understand that. However, if that was the case, why is the core still standing in your picture after the WTC was demolished?

Above I explain the delayed detonations happening above ground. The thermite was installed in 1993 after the basement bombing. That recent trial of a terrorist brought out that the FBI knew and guided the terrorist to place the van in the basement with explosives in it (away from the core). Astounding, more astounding that the information actually is out there. I wish I had links but you should be able to find it.

Ok, I understand that you believe that thermite was used in the basement. How can you time a thermite reaction in a basement to weaken the supports at exactly the right time to coincide with the C4 explosions you claim? Thermite doesn't just switch on and off. It takes time to react and cut through the steel.

Perhaps opportunities in the middle east had not developed to the point where a massive ruse was planned. Basically without opening the inspection ports and severing the C4 layer on the bar, you can't stop the whole tower going off at once like a firecracker. In answer #3 I describe that in sequence. If the basement van had been against the core it might have done the firecracker.

So the initial C4 packed concrete core was just a prank gone wild? If they hadn't planned a massive ruse, why did they pack the concrete core with C4?

The NIST report uses the FEMA WTC report as a basis for it's structural configuration analyzed. This is probably the BEST documentation in existence for the core from official sources.

http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/femacore.gif

I saw the 1990 documentary and remember it very well. I've been a welder for 30 years and a surveyor for 20 having laid out a number of steel and concrete structures and did some drilling and blasting. I have the basic experience to be able to see how this demo was done. I'm just reverse engineering by the seat of my pants because all the data is so scattered and sparse that it needs to be asesmbled once, first, into a scenario that explains the event so a more refined analysis can be done. The documentary, which I understood very well, gave me the information on the towers that is needed to make that scenario work.

That is all I've done and it's so damm feasible that the few people I've mentioned it to who actually have similar experience, engineers, basically took a psychological crap because [url=http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html]it (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html) adequately explained the entire Twin tower event.

Ok, so you looked at 1 picture from the FEMA report and saw a documentary 15 years ago. Do you not think it might be important to read the NIST report to make sure you aren't missing something? What would it hurt exactly?

[Stellafane]

To all Members - any further questions regarding Moderation should be raised in "Forum Management".

Hi Darat. Just FYI, I wasn't attacking Christophera -- far from it. Indeed, my note was motivated out of genuine concern for his well-being. I was growing increasingly uneasy by the tenor and tone of his responses, and seriously wondered whether continuing this thread was doing him much good. If that came across as an attack, I apologize, but it most certainly wasn't my intent.

[Pardalis]

My budgie analogy might have had something to do with the warning:o

sorry

[bob_kark]

Oh no, 43. Please, by all means say something. Anything someone with Tuco for an avatar says can't possibly be anything else than entertaining!
Well the same could be said for anyone with a scary armored demon avatar. I gave it a shot.

[Hutch]

My budgie analogy might have had something to do with the warning:o

sorry

I think Belz in post #534 is probably what finally drew the comment; he did go a bit over the line, IMHO.

Still, everybody catch their breath and see if he returns on Monday...

[Belz...]

There was a digital delay system. All timers triggered by one security phone line on each floor with other detonation delay systems for the core.

Stop reading Clancy.

Yea, I know, very hard to beleive that such was built in,

Make that: impossible.

I saw the 1990 documentary and remember it very well. I've been a welder for 30 years and a surveyor for 20 having laid out a number of steel and concrete structures and did some drilling and blasting. I have the basic experience to be able to see how this demo was done. I'm just reverse engineering by the seat of my pants because all the data is so scattered and sparse that it needs to be assembled once, first, into a scenario that explains the event so a more refined analysis can be done. The documentary, which I understood very well, gave me the information on the towers that is needed to make that scenario work.

Oooooooohhh.... you've welded. Quite the expertise now, isn't it ?

I would accept it from anyone but it must be consistent with other evidence of the same type.

"As long as it doesn't clash with my preconceived ideas, sure."

The remodel in the basement is when the thermite was applied to the columns.

Huntsman, please demolish this guy... in a CONTROLLED manner.

Your government has been infitrated.

By whom ?

Thank you for putting the arrows in EXACTLY the right places on the south tower which had 2 hallways crossing both axis of the core. It was not tapered either as it was engineered as a series of stacked cells.

As opposed to what you think, we're not looking at the towers from the TOP, you idiot.

[Belz...]

Labelling, minimizing, all or nothing thinking, overgeneralizations, entitlement, WOW, you really do know how to conduct cognitive distortions. And whats more amazing, is you probably don't even know you are doing it.

That is natures way of assisting with dissociation from information which is too disturbing.

Considering you're a WELDER, and not a psychologist, I'll consider this mindless dribble from an uneducated glory-monger in denial.

[Belz...]

I think Belz in post #534 is probably what finally drew the comment; he did go a bit over the line, IMHO.

I merely recommended. Didn't say _I_ was goig to do it.

Robertson said in one comment I've seen that the floors disappeared when the towers were sihouetted. As the light is reflected off the concrete interior wall of the core, it tends to blur more at the distance of the photo.

Pffft... pfwhahaha! That's the funniest thing. What, were they coated with dissapearing ink ???

ETA - Such and such.

[bob_kark]

My post is no longer a true statement. Carry on please.

[treble_head]

My post is no longer a true statement. Carry on please.

Posting untruths! How dare you!!!

Oh and congratulations for posting the Truth.


(Edited for content in light of Pardalis' note of my typo. Mr. Colbert would be so dissapointed in me)

[Pardalis]

Oh and congratulations for posting the truth.

Isn't "truth" spelled with a capital "T"?;)

With these CTs, I don't know anymore!

[bob_kark]

Posting untruths! How dare you!!!

Oh and congratulations for posting the Truth.


(Edited for content in light of Pardalis' note of my typo. Mr. Colbert would be so dissapointed in me)

What about Globalist Henchman do you not understand, Mr. Commie Skull man?

[treble_head]

What about Globalist Henchman do you not understand, Mr. Commie Skull man?

I was giving credit to you and your many henchmannish ways, Mr. Lee Van Cleef man.

[bob_kark]

I was giving credit to you and your many henchmannish ways, Mr. Lee Van Cleef man.

Oh... Well carry on then Mr. Boney Che.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I saw the 1990 documentary and remember it very well. I've been a welder for 30 years and a surveyor for 20 having laid out a number of steel and concrete structures and did some drilling and blasting.

A welder, eh?

Do you know what happens to welders who believe in 9-11 controlled demo theories?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1646597&postcount=4271

[Gravy]

Wrong. I have demanded to see photographic evidence that supports the NIST/FEMA claim of steel core columns. No apologies to those saying "NO" without evidence. Get evidence supporting NIST or,...........
Apologize to me.

It's the same thing, sad sack. My evidence shows the cores that were actually built, and shows that they are not concrete. So, if I provide this evidence, do you promise to apologoze and to never bring this up on internet forums again?

[Gravy]

Aww, just noticed he was suspended. Let me put on my "big surprise" face.

[SezMe]

Phil Jayhan volenteered that he had heard that somewhere when I was posting at Let's Roll.
NOW you're getting the hang of it Christopher. This is the kind of solid, verifiable, documented evidence that we can all hang our hats on. Well, OK, I can't speak for everyone, but I am certainly a convert. :rolleyes:

[c4ts]

The illusion of the twin towers falling down was a hallucination broadcast by the Soviet Union's psychic beacon. We now live in a simultaneous dream-world indistinguishable from reality while our bodies build weather control sattelites for the Ruskies on the moon.

[Regnad Kcin]

Ah. Y'know, I thought I felt kinda funny lately.

[Tricky]

Aww, just noticed he was suspended. Let me put on my "big surprise" face.
The question is, will he be back? Many trolls like to see how far they can go before drawing moderator attention. Often they quit after finding what the limits are. If I had to guess, I'd say Chris will be back. He was posting pretty much non-stop and seemed to have a head of steam (or something very air-like). But I further predict he will find it imposisble to abide by forum rules and will eventually wind up with a longer suspension or a ban.

It is interesting from a clinical standpoint to observe the characteristics of "true believer syndrome". In Chris's case, it is the absolute fanatical devotion to the "concrete core" diversion. He cannot answer questions about other aspects of the conspiracy, such as how so very many people managed to keep it secret, or how the building managed to stand up after being structurally weakened or how they managed to plant charges and saw beams almost into without drawing attention, or even to the problems of co-ordinating the efforts of the evil engineers with those of the evil terrorists. It is classic tunnel-vision.

As long as he is able to convince himself that no-one has disproved his "concrete core" or "free fall" ideas, he will remain blissfully and willfully ignorant of the gaping holes in his theory.

Sad? Maybe. I know a few conspiracy theorists in real life and they lead pretty normal lives apart from their particular obsession. I suppose everybody needs a hobby.

[Gravy]

The question is, will he be back?
I received an email from him, and I replied by repeating my challenge: I'll provide the evidence that proves him wrong if he agrees never to darken our doorway again. Also, he claimed he was banned due to a conpsiracy, and I reminded him that he was suspended due to his repeatedly breaking the rules.

I do find it hard to believe that someone who gets their kicks out of accusing strangers of supporting mass murder, is normal in their everyday life.

[Regnad Kcin]

Gravy, why ask that he not return to this forum? I don't understand. Sincerely.

[Tricky]

II do find it hard to believe that someone who gets their kicks out of accusing strangers of supporting mass murder, is normal in their everyday life.
I wouldn't think so either, but oddly enough, it is often true. My brother-in-law is a die-hard conspiracy addict with a real hard-on for Bohemian Grove (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohemian_Grove) and who also believes in the prophecies of Nostradamus. Yet he is a male nurse who routinely takes care of very ill people. He really is a nice guy except for his "hobby".

[Sword_Of_Truth]

EDIT: Wrong conspiracy thread. :(

[Big Les]

What I can't understand is that one of the bases of this bloke's argument is a TV documentary that he saw in 1990!!!

I know my professional superiors would be far from impressed if I tried to publish an article based on two hours spent watching UKTV History.

Christophera, surely it wouldn't be that hard to locate a copy of this and get screencaps made that show a) this concrete core and b) the plastic explosive plug thingamies you mention.

Can you do this?

[Gravy]

I wouldn't think so either, but oddly enough, it is often true. My brother-in-law is a die-hard conspiracy addict with a real hard-on for Bohemian Grove (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohemian_Grove) and who also believes in the prophecies of Nostradamus. Yet he is a male nurse who routinely takes care of very ill people. He really is a nice guy except for his "hobby".
I stand confused and corrected!

[Gravy]

What I can't understand is that one of the bases of this bloke's argument is a TV documentary that he saw in 1990!!!

I know my professional superiors would be far from impressed if I tried to publish an article based on two hours spent watching UKTV History.

Christophera, surely it wouldn't be that hard to locate a copy of this and get screencaps made that show a) this concrete core and b) the plastic explosive plug thingamies you mention.

Can you do this?
Christophera isn't about to challenge himself to look for further confirmation, because he knows he won't find it. He seems quite comfortable in his fantasy world. He was going on about the "free fall" issue earlier, so I posted a link to a video that shows, very clearly and dramatically, how much faster debris from the tower was falling than the tower itself. Christophera said he wouldn't look at it.

We'll see if he accepts my challenge. If he wants proof that there's no concrete core and that the "Christophera against the world" act is baseless, I have that proof. If he doesn't want the truth, then I'm sure he'll continue to feel a sense of self-righteous importance while remaining encased in his concrete.

[joseph k.]

If he doesn't want the truth, then I'm sure he'll continue to feel a sense of self-righteous importance while remaining encased in his concrete.

Well, at least for 30-some years until its time to do the job.




(sorry, you were all probably graciously letting this thread fade until he made a possible reappearance.)

[Mr. Skinny]

A question about the "rebar coated in C4" theory: can anyone here with a chemistry background take a stab at what effect newly poured concrete would have on C4 coated rebar? I believe concrete is pretty basic, Ph-wise, and that the curing process is exothermic, but I wonder if the concrete would otherwise harm/inert/otherwise effect C4 coated rebar.

[Timothy]

I just read through the NIST "Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers" (NIST NCSTAR 1) and its appendix "Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft Impact Damage Analysis of the World Trade Center Towers" (NIST NCSTAR 1-2).

Excellent, comprehensive analysis. Plenty of documentation on the floorplan, dimensions, steel column placement, truss and floor design, FEA models of the building, detailed FEA modeling of the impact area and calculated damage, reconstruction of exactly which internal and external columns were damaged to what extent, etc., etc., etc. 500 pages of careful, quantitative, detailed analysis by professional structural engineers with the provinence of original documentation and records. (If you have the time to even browse it, I recommend it. With even a little bit of review, you'll probably learn some new details you didn't have beforehand.)

Compare that with:
"Look at this picture. I see a concrete core."
"I talked to some people who told me there was a concrete core."
"Your model is wrong because you can't show me a picture taken during the collapse that shows steel core columns."
"No way do buildings collapse like that."

Christophera wanted evidence? Poor man is *so* outgunned. I don't think he even comprehends what evidence is.

I'm looking forward to seeing what new treats we'll hear from him after he returns from his suspension.

- Timothy

[Meffy]

A question about the "rebar coated in C4" theory: can anyone here with a chemistry background take a stab at what effect newly poured concrete would have on C4 coated rebar?
My chemistry is mostly natural -- we skunks don't have to think about it, mercaptans happen -- but I'll have a go.

Coating C4 with concrete makes it crisp 'n' crunchy on the outside, soft 'n' chewy on the inside.

[XXX]

For those of you who miss this thread, you can find a rehashing (along with the same Christophera) here...

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread208594/pg1

[kookbreaker]

Hmmph. He seems slightly more coherant in that thread, but they seem to be argueing for page after page voer a few peices of rebar shown in photos. The building was over 100 stories tall, do they want to tell me there was no rebar used anywhere in the building?

[Kiwiwriter]

The illusion of the twin towers falling down was a hallucination broadcast by the Soviet Union's psychic beacon. We now live in a simultaneous dream-world indistinguishable from reality while our bodies build weather control sattelites for the Ruskies on the moon.

That would explain why Mariano Rivera couldn't make a routine double play throw in the bottom of the ninth inning of Game 7 of the 2001 World Series. :boggled:

[ExitDose]

Where's the steel core columns?

Here is the concrete. To the left of the spire, concrete shear wall. No steel core columns left of it. The center of the core.

home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1065.jpg
I love that every photo he posted is so far away that one can't make any judgement with certainty about composition. That could be the remnants of the tower's chocolate center for all I can see at that distance.

[Manny]

Hmmph. He seems slightly more coherant in that thread, but they seem to be argueing for page after page voer a few peices of rebar shown in photos. The building was over 100 stories tall, do they want to tell me there was no rebar used anywhere in the building?There was astonishingly little rebar used in the buildings, and little or none which should have been at or near the top of the pile. The concrete used for the floors was normal-weight, unreinforced concrete just laid on the slabs.

There were, however, miles and miles of elevator cable, and that's what I think most of those pictures show.

[kookbreaker]

There was astonishingly little rebar used in the buildings, and little or none which should have been at or near the top of the pile. The concrete used for the floors was normal-weight, unreinforced concrete just laid on the slabs. .

True enough, but pointing to a handful of pieces that are on the ground is not exactly something to work oneself into a tizzy over on either side.

[westphalia]

That would explain why Mariano Rivera couldn't make a routine double play throw in the bottom of the ninth inning of Game 7 of the 2001 World Series. :boggled:

Why are you hurting me? Why make all my pain - pain I've worked so hard to ease - come back in one fell swoop?:(

[wolfgirl]

Maxim:
If a suppossed explantion does not explain the event, it is not the truth. No explanation that does not explain the event can be the truth.

So far no explanation in existence explains free fall and total pulverization of the towers appears to exist. Has anyone seen one?I'm not an expert, by any means. But at the time of the event, my husband was working at an architectural engineering firm. As you might imagine, they discussed it at length and in great detail on a daily basis for some time. But not one of them (architects, architectural engineers and others who work on architectural engineering projects) had any problem believing that the towers came down just as they appeared to. Not one of them every questioned it or felt they had reason to question it. They all agreed that there was no need for any other theories or conspiracies to explain what happened, as it was all simply a matter of engineering, design, physics, etc.

[westphalia]

I'm not an expert, by any means. But at the time of the event, my husband was working at an architectural engineering firm. As you might imagine, they discussed it at length and in great detail on a daily basis for some time. But not one of them (architects, architectural engineers and others who work on architectural engineering projects) had any problem believing that the towers came down just as they appeared to. Not one of them every questioned it or felt they had reason to question it. They all agreed that there was no need for any other theories or conspiracies to explain what happened, as it was all simply a matter of engineering, design, physics, etc.

And little did you know that your husband's entire firm was paid off by the globalists. :rolleyes:

Consider the payroll the globalists have had to expend to keep the WTC conspiracy silent. Why not just give every person they didn't want on the planet one good weekend in Vegas, then line them up and "off" them? It would certainly have been cheaper.

[Regnad Kcin]

For those of you who miss this thread, you can find a rehashing (along with the same Christophera) here...

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread208594/pg1Why are you trying to hide the way Americans were murdered? Do the rights and freedoms of Americans mean anything to you? Only truth will protect them.

MAXIM

The truth explains free fall. What does not explain free fall is not the truth.
You feign confusion to enable selectivity not logical and attempt through cognitive distortions to create emotional reasoning in the viewer. You are acting as a disinformation agent.

Let me try to inspire a little emotional reasoning with the reality of what you work to hide and ignore with your irresponsible ridicule.

There are children out there who do not know if the mother or father they lost who worked in WTC over impact, died from injuries, smoke or fire or like hamburger in the demolition or as a jumper.

There are fire fighters that mourn their devoted friends lost who were denied due process. They and ground zero workers are dying from cancer contracted in an atmospheric toxic soup.

Tell us a little about your love for our rights and freedom and how you expect your actions here to protect them and our futures.
There is nothing pleasant about 9-11. These deniers have no evidence to support their assertions, then they ignore actual evidence. Those seeking real knowledge do not know how to qualify evidence by constructing valid scenarios, the obsfucations are professionally designed. These people are paid to do this. I've seen them working together, I've been set up with doctored images and down loaded bugs. I see them on other boards doing spam ralleys. They make it look halfway ligit and bury all the valuable information within insiginificant crap.

This behavior has cost us the last 5 years of inaction. The confusion this kind of garbage creates does real damage. We can and will loose this democracy, it is not far off that nothing will matter.

Get ready for deep hardship and struggle or worse if we cannot agree. There is a great deal I would like to share that would create much understanding and some here could handle it, but in an environment such as these disinfos create it will only be ridiculed and diminished in its value. The mods need to recognize sincerity and get rid of the unsincere, pronto. They need to recognize sincerity tests and support their usage.

Make people justify their positions with facts and logic and when your not sure about the exact data, post a thread for the sincere who might know or can figure it out or to chew on it. Create a forum for insignificant facts that cannot be relinquished but also cannot be allowed to obscure relative, high priority discussion focusing on real action items and move the "call phone" 'atta passport" stuff there.No, it can't possibly be the same Christophera.

[RussDill]

I think the problem is you're showing this picture of a shadowy, dust-obscured shape in this picture, and everyone is wondering how you can tell whether it's Concrete, Concrete reinforced by steel, or a building behind partially obscured by smoke.

If you could explain how we could tell, it would probably go a long way to more understanding of your claim.

I Haven't heard anyone mention that it could easily just be a denser field of suspended dust and debre. It would seem logical that the dust and debree would be densest at the center.

[RussDill]

Where's the concrete?

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11%20Picture5.jpg

Hmm, none around here either:

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

The 3" rebar was hollow and used as a coduit for concrete to be pumped up the building. Duh

[Dave_46]

Christophera, your suspension is now over.

Again, with reference to the image on your website. (see post 480)

1. Do you know the difference between a column and a beam? If so please explain

2. Do you know that 800 C is nowhere near hot enough to melt steel?

Dave

[Blue Mountain]

With regard to this picture, which has been posted many times in this thread:

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif

Has anyone identified the structure behind the smoke?

The sides look too straight to be an illusion, although it could be the brain drawing straight lines where none exist.

If it's a building, it should be simple to identify it.

Opinions?

[Regnad Kcin]

I, for one, would have to see more than a still frame of what is, as evidenced by the foreground plumes, a rapidly changing scene.

[fuelair]

I am loosely curious, has anyone with a background in psychiatry analyzed the writings of Christophera and American_ if so , psychotic or playing some kind of game? The theories they seem to be using make no sense in any world I have lived in (and based on the film /video that ran as the events were occuring, the motion was easily less than freefall- though not by gigantic amounts0. And assuming they were designed as later reports described, the way they fell makes perfectly good sense. But that never seems to bother people who "know" it didn't happen like we were told.

Edit:added d to world

[Gravy]

With regard to this picture, which has been posted many times in this thread:

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif

Has anyone identified the structure behind the smoke?

The sides look too straight to be an illusion, although it could be the brain drawing straight lines where none exist.

If it's a building, it should be simple to identify it.

Opinions?
There's no structure behind. What you see is a column of blackish smoke that was drawn down with the building. It dispersed in a few seconds. You can clearly see it in videos shot from the east: gray dust and debris being ejected to the sides, and a column of black in the center.

ETA: I uploaded some photos here that show there is no concrete core, and that the north tower "spire" the Christophera claims is part of the core, is actually part of the outer wall. I posted these at abovetopsecret, in a thread Christophera started.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nyctours/

[Regnad Kcin]

Gravy, you're not suggesting that Christophera's notorious concrete core is...imaginary?

[XXX]

Very nice work Gravy...yet again! I'm adding those to my 9/11 files.

Still waiting for their "Debunking of gravy's debunking"...

[Kent1]

There's no structure behind. What you see is a column of blackish smoke that was drawn down with the building. It dispersed in a few seconds. You can clearly see it in videos shot from the east: gray dust and debris being ejected to the sides, and a column of black in the center.

ETA: I uploaded some photos here that show there is no concrete core, and that the north tower "spire" the Christophera claims is part of the core, is actually part of the outer wall. I posted these at abovetopsecret, in a thread Christophera started.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nyctours/

Here is some high resolution shots of the core BTW.

http://cryptome.quintessenz.at/mirror/wtc/wtc044.jpg
http://cryptome.quintessenz.at/mirror/wtc/wtc070.jpg

That's not 17 ft think concrete
LOL!!

[Gravy]

Gravy, you're not suggesting that Christophera's notorious concrete core is...imaginary?
"Clearcrete" never caught on, because people kept breaking their noses on it.

[Gravy]

Speaking of that spire:
The disintegration of the spire is the clearest evidence that unconventional weapons were used. Steel doesn't just turn into dust.

One can speculate on the nature of the weapon...fusion, lasers, particle beams, Tesla technology. But maybe after spending trillions on advanced technology they came up with something they are not telling us about.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4965&view=findpost&p=4935469

Oh, to be a Looser for a day!

[chipmunk stew]

Speaking of that spire:


Oh, to be a Looser for a day!"Tesla technology"? Maybe the FBI should question these guys:
http://www.thelightningguy.com/tesla_photos.htm

[edthedoc]

[posted in error]

[Flo]

And little did you know that your husband's entire firm was paid off by the globalists. :rolleyes:

Consider the payroll the globalists have had to expend to keep the WTC conspiracy silent. Why not just give every person they didn't want on the planet one good weekend in Vegas, then line them up and "off" them? It would certainly have been cheaper.


And why do you think they trucked those hundreds bouillo... bulli... billions $ in gold away ? ;)

[Hutch]

I am loosely curious, has anyone with a background in psychiatry analyzed the writings of Christophera and American_ if so , psychotic or playing some kind of game? The theories they seem to be using make no sense in any world I have lived in (and based on the film /video that ran as the events were occuring, the motion was easily less than freefall- though not by gigantic amounts0. And assuming they were designed as later reports described, the way they fell makes perfectly good sense. But that never seems to bother people who "know" it didn't happen like we were told.

Edit:added d to world

fuelair, just a note and a comment. The poster American has been around for quite some time on these boards and opinion is still divided on exactly who he is and what he is doing--but IMHO he is not in the Chistophera category--he is much more subtle and intelligent than that (except where it concerns who totally rips off whos' music...).

As for Christophera (who has probably found new fields to play at, so I do not expect his imminent return, he reminds me of some of the folks at Loose Change, they KNOW things, the have PROOF, and nothing else matters or can shake their convictions. I concur, in Chrisophera it may be reaching unhealthy levels, but the will to believe is strong in many and in some it seems to be their only relief.

press on.

[ExitDose]

And why do you think they trucked those hundreds bouillo... bulli... billions $ in gold away ? ;)
Aha! It was Simon Gruber all along.

[Orphia Nay]

It has occurred to me that there is a certain similarity between Christophera and thesyntaxera. Mind you, I've only read a couple of pages of this thread, so perhaps someone could correct me if I'm way off.

[Hellbound]

It has occurred to me that there is a certain similarity between Christophera and thesyntaxera. Mind you, I've only read a couple of pages of this thread, so perhaps someone could correct me if I'm way off.

I agree.

In fact, I made a reference to it here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1663650&postcount=153) in this thread, but it went unremarked. I guess we're the only ones :)

[furrod]

I am interested in the engineering analysis of the WTC collapse. I have the F. R. Greening paper, ENERGY TRANSFER IN THE WTC COLLAPSE, and am wondering if it has been discussed/dissected in detail anywhere. I'm assuming the the CTers have reason to dismiss it since they still appear to think the collapse is extraordinary. Has there been any (lucid) attempt to rebutt it?

[Orb]

Gravy created an Index to help navigate all WTC topics in the "loose change" thread. I hope it helps!

http://www.yourfilelink.com/get.php?fid=108756

[kookbreaker]

I am interested in the engineering analysis of the WTC collapse. I have the F. R. Greening paper, ENERGY TRANSFER IN THE WTC COLLAPSE, and am wondering if it has been discussed/dissected in detail anywhere. I'm assuming the the CTers have reason to dismiss it since they still appear to think the collapse is extraordinary. Has there been any (lucid) attempt to rebutt it?

To date, no. Loosers and otehr 9-11 CTs are notoriously lacking in the technical skills department. Even those that should have a realted skillset show a remarkable incompetence in their own fields.

The entire movement is idiots telling bigger idiots that the experts who make their living doing these sorts of things all managed to be completely wrong.

[chipmunk stew]

To date, no. Loosers and otehr 9-11 CTs are notoriously lacking in the technical skills department. Even those that should have a realted skillset show a remarkable incompetence in their own fields.

The entire movement is idiots telling bigger idiots that the experts who make their living doing these sorts of things all managed to be completely wrong.Although there has been a lot of debate and revision around details of the Greening paper...among other skeptics.

[kookbreaker]

Although there has been a lot of debate and revision around details of the Greening paper...among other skeptics.

Absolutely, I don't really buy some of the Greening conclusions myself. But on the other hand, he's not trying to tell me a pile of concrete is formerly molten steel like the CT 'experts' are doing.

[chipmunk stew]

Absolutely, I don't really buy some of the Greening conclusions myself. But on the other hand, he's not trying to tell me a pile of concrete is formerly molten steel like the CT 'experts' are doing.Exactly. The debates over the paper are essentially nit-picking for accuracy--the conclusion doesn't change.

Furrod, this thread addresses some of Greening's errors:
Why "The Twin Towers Fell at Free Fall" is The Dumbest Thing I've Ever Heard (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=56227)

There's also some discussion over details in the original Loose Change thread, starting somewhere around here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1540148#post1540148

edit: more related analysis starts about here--
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1662808#post1662808

[Belz...]

Loosers and otehr 9-11 CTs are notoriously lacking in the technical skills department

That's to be expected, however. Otherwise they WOULDN'T be CTers!!

[Orphia Nay]

I agree.

In fact, I made a reference to it here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1663650&postcount=153) in this thread, but it went unremarked. I guess we're the only ones :)

Thanks, Huntsman.

Mods?

Even if they're not the same person, the numerous similarites might mean they are associated with the same website/'sect'.

[Belz...]

"In Command of the Revolution's Gorilla Group of Monkeys and Penguins." ??

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

"In Command of the Revolution's Gorilla Group of Monkeys and Penguins." ??

Just as long as I get the ninja-pirate monkeys.

[Orphia Nay]

"In Command of the Revolution's Gorilla Group of Monkeys and Penguins." ??

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1667385&postcount=117

Just as long as I get the ninja-pirate monkeys.

You can have them, but I've got Whoo Flung Dung (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1673225&postcount=220), ninja penguin and former Bond Villain side-kick.

Viva El Presidente!! Join the Revolution! Death to the unfunny!

[Orphia Nay]

As far as I know, Johnny Pixels and I are the only JREF posters at the Loose Change forum who are also Revolutionaries. We seek to combine forces with the ninjas (and possibly be deemed part of the Ninja Wave). See page 3 of Gravys Critique thread for examples of some of my (and my brave monkeys and penguins') recent forays.

Humiliation to 'Troofers'! Viva El Pres!

[Belz...]

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1667385&postcount=117

You can have them, but I've got Whoo Flung Dung (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1673225&postcount=220), ninja penguin and former Bond Villain side-kick.

Viva El Presidente!! Join the Revolution! Death to the unfunny!

Ah... I... I see... Er....

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

[capall]

As for Christophera (who has probably found new fields to play at, so I do not expect his imminent return, he reminds me of some of the folks at Loose Change, they KNOW things, the have PROOF, and nothing else matters or can shake their convictions. I concur, in Chrisophera it may be reaching unhealthy levels, but the will to believe is strong in many and in some it seems to be their only relief.
press on.

ya he is still fighting the good fight same BS different forum
http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?t=12306&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

[Gravy]

ya he is still fighting the good fight same BS different forum
http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?t=12306&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
I noticed that they're talking about his interesting theories on the LC forum. No, I'm not going to give you a link. It's bad for your health.

[capall]

Christophera is making a name for himself; don’t think this is what he was aiming for though.
http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?t=12472 :D

[Meffy]

*snerk*

[Christophera]

But lots of baking recipes.

Whata' bunch of unaccountable, immaterial morons.

Here is how free fall was caused,

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

and the core was concrete.

http://concretecore.741.com

[Curnir]

But lots of baking recipes.

Whata' bunch of unaccountable, immaterial morons.

Here is how free fall was caused,

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

and the core was concrete.

http://concretecore.741.com

Oh you're back.

*hugs Christophera*

And:
No free fall

No concrete core.

[cloudshipsrule]

Hasn't the attempt to find a single construction photo of the towers' supposed concrete core failed miserably? All of the construction photos I've seen depict a steel core. No concrete.

[cloudshipsrule]

Prolific, aren't you Chris?

http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/Does-anyone-believe-the-wtc-had-a-concrete-core_5631.html

[Christophera]

Hasn't the attempt to find a single construction photo of the towers' supposed concrete core failed miserably? All of the construction photos I've seen depict a steel core. No concrete.

Ah! you believe that misinterpreted images of construction can triumph over the reasonably intrepreted images of the demolition. How disingenuine, you know very well there are many images of the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)

[rwguinn]

Ah! you believe that misinterpreted images of construction can triumph over the reasonably intrepreted images of the demolition. How disingenuine, you know very well there are many images of the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)

How 'bout showing us even one, then? Shots from 3 miles away across the river can hardly show anything, much less a "concrete core"

[Regnad Kcin]

Mr. Brown:

Welcome back. I look forward to your answer to the following question, which I've asked you numerous times in this thread:

At what level (that is, between what stories) did each airplane strike each WTC tower?

[Christophera]

How 'bout showing us even one, then? Shots from 3 miles away across the river can hardly show anything, much less a "concrete core"

Try link, core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif). Or, ... the concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif).

[Christophera]

Mr. Brown:

Welcome back. I look forward to your answer to the following question, which I've asked you numerous times in this thread:

At what level (that is, between what stories) did each airplane strike each WTC tower?

WTC 1 94th to 96th, WTC 2 74th to 78th.

[Timothy]

But lots of baking recipes.
Just a way of showing disdain for someone with no substance who keeps repeating the same nonsense again and again.

Whata' bunch of unaccountable, immaterial morons.
What's unaccountable is your constant whining that anyone who doesn't agree with you is in league with terrorists and murderers. And what's immaterial is your argument. Nothing but speculation, conjecture, misdirection. And a poor performance it is, too.

Here is how free fall was caused,
What *is* it with you and that phrase? Do you even know what free fall is? And after your hiatus, I'll bet you won't answer the question posed at the beginning of the thread, "How fast did they fall?"

Same old tired, argument from a gullible, credulous attention seeker.

- Timothy

[Dave_46]

Christophera

I see you are back again.

Yet again, with reference to the image on your website. (see post 480)

1. Do you know the difference between a column and a beam? If so please explain

2. Do you know that 800 C is nowhere near hot enough to melt steel?

Dave

Edited for spelllinge

[Gravy]

Christophera,

You seem to forget which forums you've spammed with your babboonery. You were here already, Christophera. And just as I did on the ATS forum, I proved you wrong here.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1675546&postcount=592

Try to act like a man. You're childish behavior is unbecoming, even for a troll.

[Gravy]

My first accidental double post. It deserved saying twice, so I'll let it stand.

Christophera,

You seem to forget which forums you've spammed with your babboonery. You were here already, Christophera. And just as I did on the ATS forum, I proved you wrong here.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1675546&postcount=592

Try to act like a man. You're childish behavior is unbecoming, even for a troll.

[Christophera]

My first accidental double post. It deserved saying twice, so I'll let it stand.

Christophera,

You seem to forget which forums you've spammed with your babboonery. You were here already, Christophera. And just as I did on the ATS forum, I proved you wrong here.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1675546&postcount=592

Try to act like a man. You're childish behavior is unbecoming, even for a troll.

The images you've uploaded show nothing, mostly not even the twin towers. Your notion this core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is dust, is absurd and already disproven when I posted this of the core lower (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcore2stands.gif). Then there is the
core wall at base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) and the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg), but never any steel core columns.

You forgot to argue for the core you assert existed. All you've done is argue against the core that actually stood, and not convincingly at all, even for a monkey

[WildCat]

The images you've uploaded show nothing, mostly not even the twin towers. Your notion this core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is dust, is absurd and already disproven when I posted this of the core lower (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcore2stands.gif). Then there is the
core wall at base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) and the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg), but never any steel core columns.

You forgot to argue for the core you assert existed. All you've done is argue against the core that actually stood, and not convincingly at all, even for a monkey
I'm sorry Christophera, but you are obviously trolling. If you were so stupid as to actually believe the WTC had a concrete core, and a pic taken from a mile away shows "3" rebar on 4' centers" (which wouldn't even make sense from a structural point of view) I doubt you'd be able to figure out how to even use a computer.

Though you could be an idiot savant, I suppose... :rolleyes:

[Shrinker]

The images you've uploaded show nothing, mostly not even the twin towers. Your notion this core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is dust, is absurd and already disproven when I posted this of the core lower (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcore2stands.gif). Then there is the
core wall at base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) and the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/%7Ejeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg), but never any steel core columns.

You forgot to argue for the core you assert existed. All you've done is argue against the core that actually stood, and not convincingly at all, even for a monkey
Welcome back christophera. We've been asserting that there was a steel core. We've shown you pictures of the steel core during construction. We have therefore proved that the steel core existed. You've even shown us some pictures of the steel core too.

You are claiming there was a second core made of concrete inside the steel core. We cannot prove that this didn't exist because when we show you photos of its non-existence you make up excuses why it wasn't there at the time of the photo. If you think it existed, prove it. Otherwise we throw it in with all the other unproven, unfalsifiable entities, like aliens, bigfoot and ghosts...

Now on a completely unrelated matter can anyone tell me what the triangular shaped object is to the right of the collapsed tower in this picture (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcore2stands.gif)? It looks like a severely damaged building, but I wasn't aware that any building was so badly damaged by the first collapse.

[Christophera]

Welcome back christophera. We've been asserting that there was a steel core. We've shown you pictures of the steel core during construction. We have therefore proved that the steel core existed. You've even shown us some pictures of the steel core too.


Your construction photos show interior box columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) not core columns. Interior box columns ring the concrete core walls. This is very clear when you see the core wall at the base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) and there are no columns to the right of the stairwell (right side) and none penetrate it, and what is the massive grey block right of the interior box column? That is the concrete core.

You have therefore proved that you support the lie that murderers hide behind and nothing else.

[Gravy]

Now on a completely unrelated matter can anyone tell me what the triangular shaped object is to the right of the collapsed tower in this picture (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcore2stands.gif)? It looks like a severely damaged building, but I wasn't aware that any building was so badly damaged by the first collapse.
That's 1 Liberty Plaza, east of what was the south tower across Church St. It's partly obscured by the debris cloud. That cloud is deceptive: it looks translucent due to the strong side-and back light, but it's actually completely opaque.

[NobbyNobbs]

Now on a completely unrelated matter can anyone tell me what the triangular shaped object is to the right of the collapsed tower in this picture (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcore2stands.gif)? It looks like a severely damaged building, but I wasn't aware that any building was so badly damaged by the first collapse.


it looks to me as if that is an undamaged building partially obscured by smoke. The smoke happens to be about the same color as the background sky, so it looks as if a piece of the building is missing.

[Gravy]

You have therefore proved that you support the lie that murderers hide behind and nothing else.
Christophera, your concrete core is invisible. Please show what kind of mix makes invisible concrete. I haven't seen that on the market. Was that something they experimented with in the late sixties but abandoned because people kept bumping into it accidentally?

[Shrinker]

That's 1 Liberty Plaza, east of what was the south tower across Church St. It's partly obscured by the debris cloud. That cloud is deceptive: it looks translucent due to the strong side-and back light, but it's actually completely opaque.
Wow, who'd a thunk it. A picture that appears to show one thing, but actually shows something else. I'm surprised the loosers aren't already using it - OMG they used the attacks as a smokescreen to steal half of 1 Liberty Plaza, then replace it with a fake building!

[Shrinker]

Your construction photos show interior box columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) not core columns. Interior box columns ring the concrete core walls. This is very clear when you see the core wall at the base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) and there are no columns to the right of the stairwell (right side) and none penetrate it, and what is the massive grey block right of the interior box column? That is the concrete core.

You have therefore proved that you support the lie that murderers hide behind and nothing else.

Oh my. How naughty of me.
Your photo just shows a mess of stuff. The only thing I can identify for sure is steel. Concrete & Rebar? I'm not convinced. It could be anything. Also could you explain in layman's terms how you have determined that the steel in the construction photos is inadequate for the task of holding up the building?

[Moochie]

Christophera,

OK. It's all an extremely weird conspiracy. So what?

Each morning the sun is still there, as are death and taxes.

Send me a really good recipe for tuna casserole and I might give you the time of day.

M.

[Stellafane]

...You have therefore proved that you support the lie that murderers hide behind and nothing else.

And you and your fellow CT'ers continue to give aid and comfort to the murdering terrorist enemies of freedom everywhere.

The problem is, your statement is a meaningless rant written by an immature, malajusted little boy who thinks name calling is the essential ingrediant of effective debate. My statement, on the other hand, is quite likely true. And the more I dwell on it, the harder it is to maintain even the veneer of civility when conversing with you.

[Dave_46]

Come on Christophera, two nice easy questions.

1. Do you know the difference between a column and a beam? If so please explain

2. Do you know that 800 C is nowhere near hot enough to melt steel?

Dave

[Christophera]

That's 1 Liberty Plaza, east of what was the south tower across Church St. It's partly obscured by the debris cloud. That cloud is deceptive: it looks translucent due to the strong side-and back light, but it's actually completely opaque.

I so appreciate your reposting of the link to the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif). And I'm glad that you can identify concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif).

Do you have any images at all of the steel core columns during the demolition? All anyone here has been able to post is that constrcution image where the interior box columns are misrepresented as "core columns."

[Christophera]

Christophera, your concrete core is invisible. Please show what kind of mix makes invisible concrete. I haven't seen that on the market. Was that something they experimented with in the late sixties but abandoned because people kept bumping into it accidentally?

In the face of our 3000 dead Americans, you have silliness. Typical. Do you have a good explanation for near free fall yet (no pancakes on my plate please)?

I have the only explanation on the web for rates of fall near that speed.

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

Pulverization is explain while the timing mimicked by those firefighters (http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg) during that discussion in the firehouse is also detailed in the section called Delays and Paths (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1232703).

[steve s]

[B] Concrete & Rebar? I'm not convinced. It could be anything.

That "rebar" is probably elevator cable. There were miles of the stuff in the WTC.

Steve S.

[Christophera]

Come on Christophera, two nice easy questions.

1. Do you know the difference between a column and a beam? If so please explain

2. Do you know that 800 C is nowhere near hot enough to melt steel?

Dave

Yes and yes. Do you know what rebar (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) looks like?

Oh, .............. you need to explain why the steel core columns are unseen in all photos of the demolition. Please, no construction photos. The demolition bares the entire struture at one point or another.

[Christophera]

That "rebar" is probably elevator cable. There were miles of the stuff in the WTC.

Steve S.

The image of the core wall at base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) shows those very rigid coils near the center of the concrete core wall.

Elevator cable is not nearly that rigid. Think about it, The cable has to roll up on a reel.

High tensile bar when subected to extreme heat and pressure (always unequally) will coil up as one side gets longer than the other. Think of how a ribbon coils.

[Christophera]

And you and your fellow CT'ers continue to give aid and comfort to the murdering terrorist enemies of freedom everywhere.


There were terrorists flying the planes, but that had nothing to do with the Twin Towers falling at near free fall, identically into a pile of SAND & GRAVEL (http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg) and steel.

Those terrorists were used in a big ruse and your failure to recognize evidence or produce reasonable evidence to refute it, not to mention the fact that you are not considering the blocking of investigations and the export of all the WTC steel, show that you support the lie that the perpetrators hide behind.

[Christophera]

Oh my. How naughty of me.
Your photo just shows a mess of stuff. The only thing I can identify for sure is steel. Concrete & Rebar? I'm not convinced. It could be anything. Also could you explain in layman's terms how you have determined that the steel in the construction photos is inadequate for the task of holding up the building?

Explain what else it can be besides 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg). It is most definitely not heavy steel columns.

The 1990 documentary explained that very well. Robertson had originally proposed a core of steel columns but Yamasaki discovered it simply flexed too much and so investigated concrete in varying forms. A reject design for a pre stressed concrete core was rejected because no one could build it. It still hangs around helping to expose the lie. The BBC core (http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1540000/images/_1540044_world_trade_structure300.gif), by it's simple existence, shows the inconsistency of the information on the structural design of 2 of the worlds most prominant towers.

[Shrinker]

[ignore please]

[Johnny Pixels]

Sorry, are we arguing that the WTC core was made of concrete and not steel? Based on a picture of some dust, and a BBC diagram?

So how come none of the construction photos show the shuttering around the core columns that would be necessary to pour the concrete around them?

ETA: Sorry, you snuck in there While I was typing Shrinker.

[Apollyon]

What else can it be? How about conduit for carrying wiring?

The construction of the WTC was pretty well documentated. The photos available of that process makes it very clear that the construction was steel column and not concrete core.

http://www.greatbuildings.com/cgi-bin/gbi.cgi/World_Trade_Center_Images.html/cid_wtc_mya_WTC_const.1.gbi

[Shrinker]

Explain what else it can be besides 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/%7Ejeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg). It is most definitely not heavy steel columns.

The 1990 documentary explained that very well. Robertson had originally proposed a core of steel columns but Yamasaki discovered it simply flexed too much and so investigated concrete in varying forms. A reject design for a pre stressed concrete core was rejected because no one could build it. It still hangs around helping to expose the lie. The BBC core (http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1540000/images/_1540044_world_trade_structure300.gif), by it's simple existence, shows the inconsistency of the information on the structural design of 2 of the worlds most prominant towers.
Thanks. I'm still not understanding, because 3" rebar on 4' centers isn't in layman's terms, but I'll reply anway. You're saying there were no heavy steel beams. I see an abundance of heavy steel in this photo, which appears to be at or near one of the cores.

http://www.truck2bcfd.com/WTC-9.jpg

I count 9 similar columns, clearly hollow, one of them still standing upright. By their orange colour I'd say they were steel. The ladder on one of the columns shows the scale. They look a lot like the columns shown in the construction photo, and seem to match the description of hollow steel columns which apparently appears in the official report. I don't see much concrete.

I'm expecting you will claim this photo supports your claims. Please explain carefully how these steel columns differ from those decribed in the reports. No jargon please, but links to engineering info on the web are okay. Write carefully - if you explain this clearly you might win me round.

[Christophera]

Sorry, are we arguing that the WTC core was made of concrete and not steel? Based on a picture of some dust, and a BBC diagram?

So how come none of the construction photos show the shuttering around the core columns that would be necessary to pour the concrete around them?

ETA: Sorry, you snuck in there While I was typing Shrinker.

The outer forms of the core were supported by the interior box columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) which ringed the outside of the core. The inner form was steel and could be dismantled and raised for the next 40 foot tier.

The BBC diagram simply shows that concrete was a consideration. It also shows that there is deep confusion about the core which should not exist as being of 2 of the most prominent towers on the globe. that confusion should not exist.

Couple all of that with the fact that the FEMA core (http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/femacore.gif) is only detailed by this diagram regarding comprehensively. There are plan views but the one picture of the core wall at the base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) belies all of those because if they existed their would be many in our view to the right of the stairwell (on right), protruding out of the stairwell, where the solid grey block of the core wall is and in the foreground; would be steel core columns, there are none. We do see interior box columns sheared level[/url, and it is easy to see that they are in 2 rows on either side of the core area. Of course the concrete has all 9except for the core corner linked above) been fractured by high explosives encapsulated inside of it and in the photos exists only as [url=http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg]SAND & GRAVEL (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/box.cols.sheared.level.jpg).

[Dave_46]

Yes and yes. Do you know what rebar (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) looks like?

Oh, .............. you need to explain why the steel core columns are unseen in all photos of the demolition. Please, no construction photos. The demolition bares the entire struture at one point or another.

As the answer to my two questions are yes and yes, you need to correct the errors you have just acknowledged in the graphic on your website.

The picture you reference in post 650 shows has no reinforcing bar visible that can be distinguished at that distance.

Nothing to do with core columns in photographs will affect your acknowledged errors.

Dave

Edited to correct plural

[Christophera]

What else can it be? How about conduit for carrying wiring?

The construction of the WTC was pretty well documentated. The photos available of that process makes it very clear that the construction was steel column and not concrete core.

http://www.greatbuildings.com/cgi-bin/gbi.cgi/World_Trade_Center_Images.html/cid_wtc_mya_WTC_const.1.gbi

That link shows interior box columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) and they are not seen very clearly. Also, it should be well known that the NY mayor took the WTC documents and courts will not make him return them (http://www.nyclu.org/g_archive020602.html). So whatever documentaion exists is being kept secret by authority.

In 1990 I saw the best documentation besides the construction plans. A very intimate video documentary produced by BBC called "The Construction Of the twin Towers". It was 2 hours in length and mostly about the concrete core because it was the most difficult aspect of the construction.

[Shrinker]

...mostly about the concrete core because it was the most difficult aspect of the construction.

Evidently, since they seem to have left that part til last!

[steve s]

The image of the core wall at base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) shows those very rigid coils near the center of the concrete core wall.

Elevator cable is not nearly that rigid. Think about it, The cable has to roll up on a reel.

High tensile bar when subected to extreme heat and pressure (always unequally) will coil up as one side gets longer than the other. Think of how a ribbon coils.

Go back and look at that image carefully. That "rebar" you're referring to is curved into a big loop. Not so rigid afterall. It could be cable, conduit, or plumbing pipes. The point is that there's no way you can say with any amount of certainty that it's rebar. And what do ribbons have to do with anything?

Steve S.

[Gravy]

I ask you again, Christophera, what's the recipe for invisible concrete?

Christophera's "Invisicrete" Core
http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/87904495b5c1ae08b.jpg

The Actual Tower Cores Were Of Steel

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/87904495b879af0d4.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/87904495b879cb1fb.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/87904495b879ebd4b.jpg

[steve s]

I ask you again, Christophera, what's the recipe for invisible concrete?


In one of the Star Trek movies they had "transparent aluminum." Maybe it's something like that. It could be some of that alien technology we got from Roswell.

Steve S.

[Apollyon]

That link shows interior box columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) and they are not seen very clearly. Also, it should be well known that the NY mayor took the WTC documents and courts will not make him return them (http://www.nyclu.org/g_archive020602.html). So whatever documentaion exists is being kept secret by authority.

In 1990 I saw the best documentation besides the construction plans. A very intimate video documentary produced by BBC called "The Construction Of the twin Towers". It was 2 hours in length and mostly about the concrete core because it was the most difficult aspect of the construction.
You didn't click through the images, eh?

http://www.greatbuildings.com/cgi-bin/gbi.cgi/World_Trade_Center_Images.html/cid_wtc_mya_WTC_const.4.gbi

Look at Gravy's images as well. You can clearly see there's no concrete core. In fact, Gravy's images and the ones I've linked to are much clearer than the ones you claim as evidence of a concrete core.

Edit. btw, if it was a concrete core, where are the massive forms that would be required to pour such a core? Why is there no picture showing such a significant step in the construction process? What concrete company had the contract to provide the large amount of concrete to form such a core?

[Shrinker]

For those that are interested there's a short documentary on the building of the towers here http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/sf_building_pop_01_qt.html

It's a fascinating little thing if you've got the time. It's a little strange seeing a shot of ground zero in the late sixties that looked almost exactly like it I saw it last year.

Anyway, some people won't believe something unless they made it up themselves so I don't expect this will convert anyone...

ETA stuff about the core is in part 2

[Christophera]

Thanks. I'm still not understanding, because 3" rebar on 4' centers isn't in layman's terms, but I'll reply anway. You're saying there were no heavy steel beams. I see an abundance of heavy steel in this photo, which appears to be at or near one of the cores.

http://www.truck2bcfd.com/WTC-9.jpg

I count 9 similar columns, clearly hollow, one of them still standing upright. By their orange colour I'd say they were steel. The ladder on one of the columns shows the scale. They look a lot like the columns shown in the construction photo, and seem to match the description of hollow steel columns which apparently appears in the official report. I don't see much concrete.

I'm expecting you will claim this photo supports your claims. Please explain carefully how these steel columns differ from those decribed in the reports. No jargon please, but links to engineering info on the web are okay. Write carefully - if you explain this clearly you might win me round.

The columns with ends that are sheared square (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc.box.shear.torch.gif) support my explanation of how they were sheared.

Post 653 explains why the concrete core is stronger than steel in this application. It actually prevents the steel from deforming so the steel can carry its capacity.

The concrete has all been fractured except for this image of the core wall at base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) which shows the same columns as your image link which shows interior box columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg). The columns were tapered so at the base they were a bit wider than your link which you can see. Yes, they were all tubular. Down low they were hand fabricated, thicker as well, up near the top they were extruded. Those you link to are a bit thicker than the image I have.

The concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is visible in a number of images, people just do not know what to look for. For instance the only thing this can be is concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg) next to the spire which is shown again from another angel where box columns are silhouetted (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/shearspirewall.jpg).

[Apollyon]

That's not a picture of the concret core wall. That's a piece of the concrete floor that has collapsed 90 degrees from its original horizontal position to a vertical one.

[Shrinker]

The columns with ends that are sheared square (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc.box.shear.torch.gif) support my explanation of how they were sheared.

Post 653 explains why the concrete core is stronger than steel in this application. It actually prevents the steel from deforming so the steel can carry its capacity.

Understood. Concrete would have made it stronger. But so would many other non-existant things.

The concrete has all been fractured except for this image of the core wall at base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) which shows the same columns as your image link which shows interior box columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg). The columns were tapered so at the base they were a bit wider than your link which you can see. Yes, they were all tubular. Down low they were hand fabricated, thicker as well, up near the top they were extruded. Those you link to are a bit thicker than the image I have.
Okay absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, right? The concrete could have fallen away. However, more importantly does this detail about the steel columns contradict the official version? You claimed ealier that it does. In what way?

The concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is visible in a number of images, people just do not know what to look for. For instance the only thing this can be is concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg) next to the spire which is shown again from another angel where box columns are silhouetted (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/shearspirewall.jpg).
I'm prepared to accept for the sake of argument that the spire is the steel core, althoug the photos are far from conclusive. However, there's nothing to say that the more solid areas are concrete. Officially the core contained drywall. How do you know that's not what the photo shows? Also, when these parts of the spire finally fell, did they fall from a height great enough to completely pulverize the concrete? Because if they didn't then there should be some photos of concrete blocks with core colums attached or embedded. You haven't got any by any chance have you? I know, absence of evidence again, but when the absences start to pile up....

[Apollyon]

The columns with ends that are sheared square (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc.box.shear.torch.gif) support my explanation of how they were sheared.
Look again. That column wasn't "sheared square." It's an end that's already been torch cut to make the columns a manageable size for moving them to the scrap yard. The striations from the cuts are plainly visible.

Also, look here to see an original of one of your photos. They are stacked for transport to the scrap yard.

http://tinyurl.com/jkxpy

[WildCat]

Thanks. I'm still not understanding, because 3" rebar on 4' centers isn't in layman's terms, but I'll reply anway.
Rebar is simply a steel rod used to reinforce concrete. However, having "3 inch rebar on 4 foot centers" is just silly. Rebar isn't 3" thick, it's much smaller in diameter. And it is typically installed on much less than 4' centers, 4' is way too much space to give the reinforced concrete much strength. Here is a picture (http://www.consysinc.net/rebarinstpic.jpg) of rebar being put down before the concrete is poured on a bridge. For a vertical structure it is much the same, only vertical obviously.

There were concrete slabs for the floors of the WTC, but as they didn't carry much of a load there was no need for rebar in them and they did not contain rebar.

Christophera is a complete loon.

[kookbreaker]

YEdit. btw, if it was a concrete core, where are the massive forms that would be required to pour such a core? Why is there no picture showing such a significant step in the construction process? What concrete company had the contract to provide the large amount of concrete to form such a core?

Its interesting, but right now in Philadelphia they are building the new Comcast skyscraper at 18th and Arch streets. That sucker is going to be the new tallest building in Philadelphia (beating out the Liberty Places). Even so, it will have a much smaller 'footprint' than either of the WTC towers.

THe point is: In light of 9-11, they are making it 'Airplane proof'. Not 'accidently hit by an airplane'-proof, but 'intentionally rammed by a high speed Jumbo jet'-proof...they hope.

In any case, this means that are putting a lot of concrete around the core. Boatloads of concrete. In fact, they require so much concrete that the concrete suppliers delivery resrouces are stretched thin. A line of cement trucks is waiting at the site almost the whole workday. Meanwhile, Water Department jobs can't get the concrete they need. A sewer replacement job a block away from my place is delayed due to the shortage (with the ground dug up) and a friend of mine who works for the PWD says projects are given concrete by triage as selected by the contractors.

Keep in mind, despite its future size, the Comcast building will be much smaller than the WTC towers. I cannot imagine what kind of drain on concrete suppliers a WTC concrete core would have, especially given the poorer distribution & logistics methods of the early 70's.

[Apollyon]

Its interesting, but right now in Philadelphia they are building the new Comcast skyscraper at 18th and Arch streets. That sucker is going to be the new tallest building in Philadelphia (beating out the Liberty Places). Even so, it will have a much smaller 'footprint' than either of the WTC towers.

THe point is: In light of 9-11, they are making it 'Airplane proof'. Not 'accidently hit by an airplane'-proof, but 'intentionally rammed by a high speed Jumbo jet'-proof...they hope.

In any case, this means that are putting a lot of concrete around the core. Boatloads of concrete. In fact, they require so much concrete that the concrete suppliers delivery resrouces are stretched thin. A line of cement trucks is waiting at the site almost the whole workday. Meanwhile, Water Department jobs can't get the concrete they need. A sewer replacement job a block away from my place is delayed due to the shortage (with the ground dug up) and a friend of mine who works for the PWD says projects are given concrete by triage as selected by the contractors.

Keep in mind, despite its future size, the Comcast building will be much smaller than the WTC towers. I cannot imagine what kind of drain on concrete suppliers a WTC concrete core would have, especially given the poorer distribution & logistics methods of the early 70's.
Agreed. It would take an amazing concrete supply to create a core for WTC, not to mention that the construction photos would contain identifiable indications that such a core was being poured.

They would have had to place forms surrounding the columns at each floor in which to pour the concrete. There would be large mixer buckets on cranes. Even if the forms weren't yet in place you'd still see the rebar from the previous floor pour sticking up all over around the perimeter of the core columns so they could be tied in to the rebar for the next floor. None of that is visible in any of the existing photos; photos that would clearly show those indications if concrete were poured as Christophera claims.

[Gravy]

Christophera, please send Kookbreaker some Invisicrete. You seem to have quite a surplus.

Christophera, I wish you would click on the links that people post for you. We don't do that for our health, we do it for yours. You've ignored the links I gave you on two forums that refute your claims about the tower cores, and about the north tower spire.

Why ask questions if you're going ot ignore the answers?

Please respond to my post with the video stills above. Do you agree that there's no concrete core there as you describe?

Please try to stop being a child and be a man for once. Buck up, Christophera. A couple of incorrect theories about 9/11 shouldn't shatter your world. Just do a little homework and you can avoid these problems.

You also go on about the north tower spire being part of the core. That's a blatantly ridiculous claim. The spire is a piece of the northwest corner outer wall, as you can see in the photos below (I had also posted these for you elsewhere but you ignored them.)

See the corner of the tower that's indicated in the first photo? See how it lines up with the water tower in the foreground? In photo 2, do you see how the bulk of the building has fallen at the left, and a piece of the outer wall remains at the right? That's your spire, Christophera. Nothing mysterious about it. The third photo shows a closer view.

Oh, and the "rebar" portion of the real core? Your theory makes no sense. 3" rebar on 4' centers makes zero sense, Christophera. Anyway, when you look at a higher-resolution image of that core, you know what's missing? Concrete, Christophera. Are you still claiming that they use the invisible kind?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/87904495d95d99feb.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/87904495d95d9bb41.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/87904495d95d9d697.jpg


edit: spelling

[kevin]

Rebar is simply a steel rod used to reinforce concrete. However, having "3 inch rebar on 4 foot centers" is just silly. Rebar isn't 3" thick, it's much smaller in diameter.

2 1/4" rebar is the biggest in the standards.
http://www.sizes.com/materls/rebar.htm

it looks like for vertical walls rebar spacing doesn't typically exceed 24" on center (don't really have a link for this.)

BTW, the little BBC graphic is wrong about concrete. That image was first used by the BBC on 9/13/2001, 2 days after the collapse. I doubt very much they verified the accuracy. They reused the image in an article on October 4, 2001. However if you actually read the article you'll find it says "But the steel supports in the central cores supporting the towers were protected from fire by plaster that had been sprayed on to them." Plaster is not concrete and fire protection materials of any sort are not structurally supporting.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1579092.stm

Another article, from March 7, 2002, states "The drywall fireproofing surrounding the central columns was highly fire-resistant but not very strong." This matches what I remember from a Nova episode, that the steel central core was protected by fire-resistant drywall (two layers) that was blown off by the explosion exposing the steel.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1858491.stm

[Gravy]

[QUOTE=kevin;1711583]2 1/4" rebar is the biggest in the standards.
http://www.sizes.com/materls/rebar.htm

it looks like for vertical walls rebar spacing doesn't typically exceed 24" on center (don't really have a link for this.)

Excellent points, Kevin. I do wonder if we're just talking to the wall here. I'm not convinced that Christophera will even attempt to understand what we're saying.

[Hutch]

Just to followup on Kookbreaker and Apollyon, I did some very rough calculations on a concrete core.

I took the 17" that Christophera has mentioned, by a dimension of 90 ft square (360ft total) and a height of 900 ft (ok, probably short, but I'm too lazy to look up the real number, if Christophera is interested he can do the recalculation). In inches this gives me 793,152,000 cubic inches, which translates to 459,000 cubic feet or about 17,000 cubic yards of concrete.

I had trouble locating information, but what I could glean is that the average concrete truck can carry about 9 cubic yards of concrete, so they would need about 2,000 truckloads to do the "Core". Not to mention the infrastructure mentioned by Kook and Apollyon for hauling that mass of concrete up the tower.

Sorta think somebody would have noticed those bills and trucks and that the hundreds if not thousands of construction workers would have been modestly aware of what was going on...

Guess not, in Christophera's world. Chris, where did all that concrete come from?

[Christophera]

The picture you reference in post 650 shows has no reinforcing bar visible that can be distinguished at that distance.


If it is not 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg), what do you think it is?

[Christophera]

Just to followup on Kookbreaker and Apollyon, I did some very rough calculations on a concrete core.

I took the 17" that Christophera has mentioned, by a dimension of 90 ft square (360ft total) and a height of 900 ft (ok, probably short, but I'm too lazy to look up the real number, if Christophera is interested he can do the recalculation). In inches this gives me 793,152,000 cubic inches, which translates to 459,000 cubic feet or about 17,000 cubic yards of concrete.

I had trouble locating information, but what I could glean is that the average concrete truck can carry about 9 cubic yards of concrete, so they would need about 2,000 truckloads to do the "Core". Not to mention the infrastructure mentioned by Kook and Apollyon for hauling that mass of concrete up the tower.

Sorta think somebody would have noticed those bills and trucks and that the hundreds if not thousands of construction workers would have been modestly aware of what was going on...

Guess not, in Christophera's world. Chris, where did all that concrete come from?

The documentary explained that there was a concrete batch plant built at the site to produce all the concrete. I''ve seen a picture of the mixer in WTC constrcution photos recently. Don't remember where. Might have been the Guardian site. It is about a 20 foot diameter drum with a guy using a fire hose to clean it. Your volume figure is off. The floors were concrete too, light weight tho, all but about 10 floors, vermiculite, pumice and flyash w/portland.

[Christophera]

[QUOTE=kevin;1711583]2 1/4" rebar is the biggest in the standards.
http://www.sizes.com/materls/rebar.htm

it looks like for vertical walls rebar spacing doesn't typically exceed 24" on center (don't really have a link for this.)

Excellent points, Kevin. I do wonder if we're just talking to the wall here. I'm not convinced that Christophera will even attempt to understand what we're saying.

I didn't see spacings for 3 inch on that site. Very big and it was high tensile steel, very custom concrete. If it is not (note curvature of ALL the pieces) 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) what is it?

[Christophera]

2 1/4" rebar is the biggest in the standards.
http://www.sizes.com/materls/rebar.htm

it looks like for vertical walls rebar spacing doesn't typically exceed 24" on center (don't really have a link for this.)

BTW, the little BBC graphic is wrong about concrete. That image was first used by the BBC on 9/13/2001, 2 days after the collapse. I doubt very much they verified the accuracy. They reused the image in an article on October 4, 2001. However if you actually read the article you'll find it says "But the steel supports in the central cores supporting the towers were protected from fire by plaster that had been sprayed on to them." Plaster is not concrete and fire protection materials of any sort are not structurally supporting.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1579092.stm

Another article, from March 7, 2002, states "The drywall fireproofing surrounding the central columns was highly fire-resistant but not very strong." This matches what I remember from a Nova episode, that the steel central core was protected by fire-resistant drywall (two layers) that was blown off by the explosion exposing the steel.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1858491.stm

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

A Description of the World Trade Center

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

[Christophera]

As the answer to my two questions are yes and yes, you need to correct the errors you have just acknowledged in the graphic on your website.

i don't talk about the melting temperature on my site and the terms "column" and "beam" are always used properly by yours truly. Check your reading of my site, slow down some. My text presents a scan which is hosted on the bbc site.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1540000/images/_1540044_world_trade_structure300.gif

and THEIR information is in error, not mine. I point at their errors, not the ones you do however. A much bigger one. I point at the fact the core they show has no place for elevators and stairs inside it.

[Christophera]

I ask you again, Christophera, what's the recipe for invisible concrete?

Christophera's "Invisicrete" Core
http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/87904495b5c1ae08b.jpg

The Actual Tower Cores Were Of Steel

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/87904495b879af0d4.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/87904495b879cb1fb.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/87904495b879ebd4b.jpg


One is not of the twins or the light is so weird you cannot see the perimeter steel. The others are the TWIN towers but we are looking over the concrete core inside the steel framework below, the outer tube of the "tube in a tube" construction.

Get the original image urls up for us to look at.

I explain the hallways and light passing thru the core just as we see. http://concretecore.741.com).

[Apollyon]

Hutch, I looked up the dimensions and got a slightly different outcome.

At 110 stories and approximately 1365' (an average between the two heights of the towers) each floor comes out, rounded off, to slightly more than 12' high. It has to be assumed that there was no gap in the concrete between floors, because that would defeat the entire purpose of having a concrete core. But to simplify the calculations I rounded it off to 12' per floor in order to lowball and to make up for the little bit of room the rebar would require.

The dimension of the short sides of the core were 88' and the long walls were 138'. That doesn't take into consideration that thickness of the concrete. But again, I'd rather lowball so the CTs don't think I'm making any kind of outrageous claim. Using those basics assumptions and round-offs, that means each story would require (in inches) the following amount of concrete:

1056 * 144 * 17 * 2 (short sides) + 1656 * 144 * 17 * 2 (long sides) = 13277952 cubic inches of concrete per story.

A cubic yard of concrete is 46656 cubic inches.

That means each floor required @ 285 cubic yards of concrete for the core at a minimum. Multiplied by 110 stories, that means the total concrete required for each tower would be 31350 cubic yards. Assuming each concrete truck carried about 9 cubic yards of concrete, which is what most of the concrete trucks I've used carry, that means that 3483 concrete trucks were required for each large tower to create a concrete core.

[Christophera]

Look again. That column wasn't "sheared square." It's an end that's already been torch cut

Also, look here to see an original of one of your photos. They are stacked for transport to the scrap yard.

http://tinyurl.com/jkxpy

There are 2 photos there (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc.box.shear.torch.gif). Right side is torch cut but left is explosive shear.

[Christophera]

Assuming each concrete truck carried about 9 cubic yards of concrete, which is what most of the concrete trucks I've used carry, that means that 3483 concrete trucks were required for each large tower to create a concrete core.

There was a batch plant built at the WTC to produce the mass of concrete required. A high speed series of very well contained and distributed high explosives gets it all out from inside that steel where you can see it. (http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/.site1106.jpg)

Here are the interior box columns silhouetted against concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg)

Compare the volume of the basements to the volume of the concrete core towers here. SAND & GRAVEL (http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg).

I've done those calc's many times and there is way too much concrete onsite for the official towers.

[kevin]

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

A Description of the World Trade Center

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

same article:
Second, Yamasaki had to make sure the air pressure generated by the express elevators would not buckle the elevator shafts. The engineers of Otis Elevators came up with a solution to this problem. By using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core, the shafts were strengthened enough that air pressure was not an issue.

Out of curiosity, a few questions. Since you cited the University of North Carolina course work as authorative, do you also stand by the findings published in that article that the buildings fell because of fire? If not, how did they get this one fact right and all others wrong?

Since the concrete core cited in the UNC article only supported elevators and stairwells, and not the building, what does the construction of the core have to do with how the buildings did or did not fall?

[Apollyon]

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

A Description of the World Trade Center

The twin towers of the World Trade Center were essentially two tubes, with the north tower (1,368 feet) six feet taller than the south tower (1,362 feet), and each were 110 stories tall. Each tube contained a concrete core, which supported only the load of the central bank of elevators and stairwells (Snoonian and Czarnecki 23).
I'll see your link by students and raise you a link based on information from the structural engineer who actually built the towers:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?011119fa_FACT

What Skilling proposed was a pure tube structure. His design was consistent with the general principles at work in the new generation of high-rises, but he carried the concept of the tube building farther than it had ever been taken before. (Or since: the Sears Tower, in Chicago, which replaced the World Trade towers as the world's tallest building in 1973, is also a tube building, but it is actually a cluster of nine smaller tubes.) The Twin Towers would be perforated steel boxes surrounding a hollow steel core. The outer box would be two hundred and eight feet on each side, and made of fourteen-inch-wide steel columns that were spaced on forty-inch centers—much closer than the fifteen-to-thirty-foot spaces that separate most supporting columns in a building. Like the cast-iron buildings of the previous century, the exterior walls would be load-bearing; unlike most skyscrapers, which hide their supporting columns, the Twin Towers would proudly wear their structure on their sleeves. Because there were so many load-bearing columns around the perimeter of each building, the engineers could completely eliminate all columns within the office space. Joining the outside tube to the inner core were state-of-the-art lightweight floor trusses that spanned sixty feet from core to exterior walls on two sides, and thirty-five feet on the other two sides.

[kevin]

Compare the volume of the basements to the volume of the concrete core towers here.
I've done those calc's many times and there is way too much concrete onsite for the official towers.

and did you include the concrete from 110 floors of 8" concrete slabs 208' x 208' each?

since you've done these calcs you wouldn't mind posting them here would you?

[Apollyon]

There are 2 photos there (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc.box.shear.torch.gif). Right side is torch cut but left is explosive shear.
"Explosive shear?"

OK. Then where's the plastic deformation one would expect from "explosive shear?" The heating and concusssion from an explosion large enough to slice such a beam would create some massive deformation. Where is it? I don't see it.

[Apollyon]

There was a batch plant built at the WTC to produce the mass of concrete required.
Proof?

According to this article, there hadn't been a concrete batch plant on the Island since 1987:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1371

[Christophera]

and did you include the concrete from 110 floors of 8" concrete slabs 208' x 208' each?

since you've done these calcs you wouldn't mind posting them here would you?

I wouldn't mind if I could find them, but I can't so I won't. I do remember about a year ago I did parallel calc's with someone on a board and I think we came up with about 250,000 cu. yds. Above ground per tower.

What is important is that we have images showing what can only be a concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

Here is how it get's set to go away.

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

[Christophera]

Proof?

According to this article, there hadn't been a concrete batch plant on the Island since 1987:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1371

Do your own research.


Time for you to show proof of the core you think existed.

Describe what you believe existed.

[Apollyon]

Do your own research.


Time for you to show proof of the core you think existed.

Describe what you believe existed.
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You made the claim, you provide proof to back it up.

[WildCat]

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You made the claim, you provide proof to back it up.
What, didn't you see the low-res pic taken from a mile away showing a shadowy something obscured by smoke? Proooooooof!!!!!!!!!111

[kevin]

I wouldn't mind if I could find them, but I can't so I won't. I do remember about a year ago I did parallel calc's with someone on a board and I think we came up with about 250,000 cu. yds. Above ground per tower.

Ahh, I see the government is out to fool the people of the world and you're too busy to repeat some calculations that prove it. Nice fighting for justice attitude you have there. I'd like to try my own calculations, what did you use for the volume of the concrete core? What did you subtract out for floor pentrations?

What is important is that we have images showing what can only be a concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

That picture proves absolutely nothing. I have picture of a cloud that looks like a horse, doesn't mean I believe in flying horses.

[kevin]

Proof?

According to this article, there hadn't been a concrete batch plant on the Island since 1987:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1371

ummm, i hate to point this out but the WTC was finished in 1972. 15 years before the last batch plant left the island. I wouldn't be surprised if they used an onsite plant to mix concrete. They did have to pour all those floors.

[Apollyon]

ummm, i hate to point this out but the WTC was finished in 1972. 15 years before the last batch plant left the island. I wouldn't be surprised if they used an onsite plant to mix concrete. They did have to pour all those floors.
Shhhh!

I was trying to use CT "facts" on him.

[valis]

From the Florida Atlantic University Catalog:

Common Sense Analysis for Strength of Materials (EGM 3524) 3 credits
Prerequisite: EGM 3510
Concepts of stress and strain; mechanical properties of materials,
force, deformation and stress analysis of structural members;
stress and strain transformations; principal stresses; failure theories;
and concept of buckling. All course work is accomplished through the use of
common sense. No math or physics pre requisites needed.

[Regnad Kcin]

Mr. Brown:

Welcome back. I look forward to your answer to the following question, which I've asked you numerous times in this thread:

At what level (that is, between what stories) did each airplane strike each WTC tower?WTC 1 94th to 96th, WTC 2 74th to 78th.Thank you for your answer.

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_Trade_Center_9-11_Att.png), WTC 1 was hit between the 93rd and 99th floors and WTC 2 between the 77th and 85th floors. While your answer does not correspond exactly, there is a non-conflicting overlap, so all's fine so far.

Now, let's take your figures and divide them down the center for argument's sake and simplicity of calculation. That is, WTC 1's main floor hit will be the 95th floor. WTC 2 will be 76th floor. With me so far?

Furthermore, again at Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center), "Flight 11 was traveling roughly 490 mph (790 km/h) when it crashed into the north tower, Flight 175 hit the south tower at about 590 mph (950 km/h)."

Now then, on your website (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1200758), you have this to say:

TOWER FALL SEQUENCE

Excavator operators in clean up were amazed that they didn't have to use breakers to remove the foundations. The explosions were done with great efficiency in the base of the concrete core structure and exterior foundation. The detonations simply broke the foundation, and significant walls, moving relatively little material and were not explosively connected to travel upward. The gravity load of the tower lent its mass to the foundation breakage and divided the total seismic wave into 2 smaller events. The upper detonations and thermite initiation later were timed. If they were not timed and were remote, why would the second tower hit, least damaged, fall first? Human nature says that while conducting a ruse, those who have control to make it as perfect as ruse as possible, will do so. Meaning;

The pilot of the flight 11 hit the wrong tower.

There was no remote control over planes or detonations.

The fact that both towers fell almost identically and the tops fell in the wrong directions relating to the faces they were struck on are major factors that indicate the controlling aspects of the towers fall was completely separate from plane collisions and fires and that they were a demolition, controlled by timers.

Viewed from the east, here is the top of the north tower falling to the south when the tower was hit hard on the north side. Damage there logically causes a failure there having the tower fall to the north.

In addition to the above, it is completely illogical that this building, hit first, hit hardest, burnt worst, would fall last, without demolition's being involved.Bolding mine.

Aside from your error that that WTC 1 was "hit hardest" (and the corresponding mistake that it was the more damaged) do you see the error in your logic regarding the sequence of the collapses, or do I have to point it out to you?

[Christophera]

Thank you for your answer.

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_Trade_Center_9-11_Att.png), WTC 1 was hit between the 93rd and 99th floors and WTC 2 between the 77th and 85th floors. While your answer does not correspond exactly, there is a non-conflicting overlap, so all's fine so far.

Now, let's take your figures and divide them down the center for argument's sake and simplicity of calculation. That is, WTC 1's main floor hit will be the 95th floor. WTC 2 will be 76th floor. With me so far?

Furthermore, again at Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center), "Flight 11 was traveling roughly 490 mph (790 km/h) when it crashed into the north tower, Flight 175 hit the south tower at about 590 mph (950 km/h)."

Now then, on your website (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1200758), you have this to say:

Bolding mine.

Aside from your error that that WTC 1 was "hit hardest" (and the corresponding mistake that it was the more damaged) do you see the error in your logic regarding the sequence of the collapses, or do I have to point it out to you?

You better explain it.

[Christophera]

What, didn't you see the low-res pic taken from a mile away showing a shadowy something obscured by smoke? Proooooooof!!!!!!!!!111

So far I've proven that there were no steel core columns, meaing that shadowy thing is the concrete core.

PROOF:
If there were steel core columns we would see them here. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg)

NOTE:The poster I responded to has never produced any proof of anything.

[Christophera]

Ahh, I see the government is out to fool the people of the world and you're too busy to repeat some calculations that prove it. Nice fighting for justice attitude you have there. I'd like to try my own calculations, what did you use for the volume of the concrete core? What did you subtract out for floor pentrations?

That picture proves absolutely nothing. I have picture of a cloud that looks like a horse, doesn't mean I believe in flying horses.


Here is the concrete shear wall with box columns silhouetted (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/shearspirewall.jpg) on it. Another of the concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg) zoomed (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif), the same element from another angle.

Realize, not one person here has produced an image of ANY part of ANY of the supposed 47, 1300 foot tempered steel core columns, and these (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) are not core columns. They are interior box columns and they are OUTSIDE the core wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg)

[Shrinker]

Realize, not one person here has produced an image of ANY part of ANY of the supposed 47, 1300 foot tempered steel core columns, and these (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) are not core columns. They are interior box columns and they are OUTSIDE the core wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg)

I posted a picture which shows nine core column segments. You have posted many others. You then complain that they're not core columns, but box columns. You have yet to explain this distinction, and how you have made it. Perhaps if you would EXPLAIN why my column photos aren't satisfactory we could make some progress.

[chipmunk stew]

I posted a picture which shows nine core column segments. You have posted many others. You then complain that they're not core columns, but box columns. You have yet to explain this distinction, and how you have made it. Perhaps if you would EXPLAIN why my column photos aren't satisfactory we could make some progress.No progress can ever be made with this lunatic. He wins the tin foil hat of the year award. His last dying breath will carry the words: 3" rebar on 4' centers....

[ignore=on]

[Johnny Pixels]

I'm impressed that the WTC construction company managed to hide those 3" rebars on 4' centres on every single photo of the building of the towers. Probably hid them behind some invisicrete walls or something.

Reminds me of people who talk about the Second World War, but the only plane they know the name of is the Spitfire, and so all you get is Spitfires this, and Spitfires that. Man, those Spitfires were a great plane. I remember the time Spitfires bombed Berlin. And Tokyo. All on the same tank of fuel. And you could go to the cinema, buy dinner and get a taxi home and still have change from tuppence ha'penny. All thanks to Spitfires. They were built from 3" rebar on 4' centres too you know.

[kevin]

Here is the concrete shear wall with box columns silhouetted (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/shearspirewall.jpg) on it. Another of the concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg) zoomed (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif), the same element from another angle.

Realize, not one person here has produced an image of ANY part of ANY of the supposed 47, 1300 foot tempered steel core columns, and these (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) are not core columns. They are interior box columns and they are OUTSIDE the core wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg)

You haven't produced one image that backs up your claims. Most are dust filled, 5 mile away photographs with no detail. Some contain text labels with no proof that the labels are accurate. In one of them somebody claims conduit as rebar (hint, conduit is shiny aluminum, rebar isn't)

btw, just out of curiosity, the site these images are hosted on contains an article claiming Hepatitus C is caused by an oxygen crisis. It was written by a Christopher A. Is that you?

[Gravy]

Why ask questions if you're going to ignore the answers?

Please respond to my post with the video stills above. Do you agree that there's no concrete core there as you describe?

Please try to stop being a child and be a man for once. Buck up, Christophera. A couple of incorrect theories about 9/11 shouldn't shatter your world. Just do a little homework and you can avoid these problems.

I'll post them again, since you haven't answered me once. Christophera, Do you agree that the Twin Towers did not have concrete cores? If not, please explain these video stills.

Christophera's Invisicrete Core
http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/87904495b5c1ae08b.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/87904495b879af0d4.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/87904495b879cb1fb.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/87904495b879ebd4b.jpg

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Please do not feed the troll.

[Apollyon]

Realize, not one person here has produced an image of ANY part of ANY of the supposed 47, 1300 foot tempered steel core columns, and these (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) are not core columns. They are interior box columns and they are OUTSIDE the core wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg)
This old documentary from 1983 on the building of the towers doesn't show or speak of any sort of "concrete core."

If you want your proof, here it is:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3135892053682639810&q=WTC%2C+building&hl=en

[Gravy]

Realize, not one person here has produced an image of ANY part of ANY of the supposed 47, 1300 foot tempered steel core columns
<Troll Feed Mode>Yes, we have. Several times.</Troll Feed Mode>

[Gravy]

This old documentary from 1983 on the building of the towers doesn't show or speak of any sort of "concrete core."
If you want your proof, here it is:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3135892053682639810&q=WTC%2C+building&hl=en

Well done. The photos I showed are screen grabs from the Ric Burns series "New York." There are 2 hours on the WTC, including lots of film of the construction that clearly shows the core as it was designed, constructed, and as we describe it.

There are also interviews with Leslie Robertson, who designed the structure, talking about what its capabilities were. I've suggested this to Christophera before, but perhaps he should contact the Robertson firm. Maybe he can do his own exposé of the core coverup.

Leslie E. Robertson Associates, R.L.L.P.
30 Broad Street, 47-48th Floor
New York, NY 10004-2304
tel 212 750 9000
fax 212 750 9002

Eta: Address

[Apollyon]

They couldn't talk to Leslie Robertson, Gravy. He is likely involved in the massive coverup, or would be afraid to talk for fear of having a hit put on him by the government, or some other unsubstantiated claim that is equally ridiculous.

It's better to rely on some schlep with a Costa Rican diploma claiming a degree in forensic aquaculture because we all know how tightly intertwined forensic aquaculture and structural/architectural engineering are. Like the Chertoff's, they are practically related.

[Christophera]

Well done. The photos I showed are screen grabs from the Ric Burns series "New York." There are 2 hours on the WTC, including lots of film of the construction that clearly shows the core as it was designed, constructed, and as we describe it.

There are also interviews with Leslie Robertson, who designed the structure, talking about what its capabilities were. I've suggested this to Christophera before, but perhaps he should contact the Robertson firm. Maybe he can do his own exposé of the core coverup.

Leslie E. Robertson Associates, R.L.L.P.
30 Broad Street, 47-48th Floor
New York, NY 10004-2304
tel 212 750 9000
fax 212 750 9002

Eta: Address

Your construction photos do not show the steel core columns. So far all I've seen is the interior box columns which have been misrepresented as "core columns". The documentary I saw which documented intimately construction stated something like this. "the core was hard to photograph. It was always in the dark in the center of the tower a few floors below the top." They introduced several shots that they had found that actually showed the rebar sticking out of the aggregate and stated they were the best they had found. The images you posted do not clearly show the core.

The architect posted his feelings on the towers personally on a forum I was posting on that is dominated by disinformation agents who refuse to use photographic evidence and reason.

Leslie E. Robertson
Posted: Apr 1 2006, 06:33 PM
Unregistered

Christophera is correct in stating that the Twin Towers were constructed with a concrete core. Although in my original design the core was to be a steel framed one that decision was overridden by Minoru Yamasaki the architect.

That core should have resisted the airplane impacts AND the fires. I have said nothing for four and a half years but can remain silent no longer. My belief is that only explosives could have caused WTC 1 & WTC 2 to collapse the way they did on September 11, 2001.

Leslie E. Robertson
Director Leslie E. Robertson Associates, R.L.L.P. and lead engineer of the World Trade Center


http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3108&st=9390

Also.

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

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

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

Your evidence appears as lies in the face of historical proof from Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/oxfordarchcore.jpg)

Oh, Robertson does not answer emails or phone calls, so your suggestion is a waste of time.

[Regnad Kcin]

Thank you for your answer.

According to Wikipedia, WTC 1 was hit between the 93rd and 99th floors and WTC 2 between the 77th and 85th floors. While your answer does not correspond exactly, there is a non-conflicting overlap, so all's fine so far.

Now, let's take your figures and divide them down the center for argument's sake and simplicity of calculation. That is, WTC 1's main floor hit will be the 95th floor. WTC 2 will be 76th floor. With me so far?

Furthermore, again at Wiki, "Flight 11 was traveling roughly 490 mph (790 km/h) when it crashed into the north tower, Flight 175 hit the south tower at about 590 mph (950 km/h)."

Now then, on your website, you have this to say:

Bolding mine.

Aside from your error that that WTC 1 was "hit hardest" (and the corresponding mistake that it was the more damaged) do you see the error in your logic regarding the sequence of the collapses, or do I have to point it out to you?You better explain it.How many stories were above the impacted floor(s) in WTC 1? How many stories were above the impacted floor(s) in WTC 2?

[Pardalis]

Geat footage Apollyon.

I'm sorry to interfere in this debate, but what exactly does the existence or not of a "concrete core" (even thought I think the evidence shows that there weren't) have anything to do with the collapse?

What exactly are you leading to Christophera?

[Regnad Kcin]

...The architect posted his feelings on the towers personally on a forum I was posting on that is dominated by disinformation agents who refuse to use photographic evidence and reason.

Leslie E. Robertson
Posted: Apr 1 2006, 06:33 PM
Unregistered

Christophera is correct in stating that the Twin Towers were constructed with a concrete core. Although in my original design the core was to be a steel framed one that decision was overridden by Minoru Yamasaki the architect.

That core should have resisted the airplane impacts AND the fires. I have said nothing for four and a half years but can remain silent no longer. My belief is that only explosives could have caused WTC 1 & WTC 2 to collapse the way they did on September 11, 2001.

Leslie E. Robertson
Director Leslie E. Robertson Associates, R.L.L.P. and lead engineer of the World Trade Center

< snip >

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

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3069641/
The towers were designed to withstand a low speed impact of a much smaller airplane.

Oh, Robertson does not answer emails or phone calls...But he posts to Internet message boards? So how does anyone know the above so-called quoted words are his?

[Lamuella]

How disingenuine

you know, I don't think that's a word.

[Christophera]

<Troll Feed Mode>Yes, we have. Several times.</Troll Feed Mode>

Everyone notices that you provide no link nor post no images. Here is the concrete FEMA core (http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/femacore.gif) of WTC 2. Notice, no steel columns are seen protruding from the center of the core area.

Again. Here is the spire (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) which is formed from interior box columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg). Note that the rectangle formed by the floor beams in the construction photo is the same proportions as the rectangles formed below the spire. the spire is outside the core area.

Get some proof from the demolition images which bare the entire structure. If the steel core columns existed they would show in the spire photo.

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

[Johnny Pixels]

Leslie E. Robertson
Posted: Apr 1 2006, 06:33 PM
Unregistered

Christophera is correct in stating that the Twin Towers were constructed with a concrete core. Although in my original design the core was to be a steel framed one that decision was overridden by Minoru Yamasaki the architect.

That core should have resisted the airplane impacts AND the fires. I have said nothing for four and a half years but can remain silent no longer. My belief is that only explosives could have caused WTC 1 & WTC 2 to collapse the way they did on September 11, 2001.

Leslie E. Robertson
Director Leslie E. Robertson Associates, R.L.L.P. and lead engineer of the World Trade Center



Bolding mine.

[Regnad Kcin]

I'm sorry to interfere in this debate, but what exactly does the existence or not of a "concrete core" (even thought I think the evidence shows that there weren't) have anything to do with the collapse?

What exactly are you leading to Christophera?I'll answer, and hope I'm corrected if I'm not getting it. Christophera's position seems to be summed up in this alleged quote by Leslie Robertson:

"Christophera is correct in stating that the Twin Towers were constructed with a concrete core. Although in my original design the core was to be a steel framed one that decision was overridden by Minoru Yamasaki the architect.

That core should have resisted the airplane impacts AND the fires. I have said nothing for four and a half years but can remain silent no longer. My belief is that only explosives could have caused WTC 1 & WTC 2 to collapse the way they did on September 11, 2001."

In other words, concrete-core towers would have withstood the airplane impacts. Since they didn't, the towers must've been brought down by other means.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Everyone notices that you provide no link nor post no images. Here is the concrete FEMA core (http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/femacore.gif) of WTC 2. Notice, no steel columns are seen protruding from the center of the core area.

Again. Here is the spire (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) which is formed from interior box columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg). Note that the rectangle formed by the floor beams in the construction photo is the same proportions as the rectangles formed below the spire. the spire is outside the core area.

Get some proof from the demolition images which bare the entire structure. If the steel core columns existed they would show in the spire photo.

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

Everyone notices that you ignore every piece of evidence presented to you. The extent of your knowledge appears to come from staring at photos and managing to infer from them conclusions which run counter to every piece of evidence from every other source. You have managed only to demonstrate an utter lack of understanding of the scientific process, critical thinking, or debate. Go pound sand.

[Christophera]

Geat footage Apollyon.

I'm sorry to interfere in this debate, but what exactly does the existence or not of a "concrete core" (even thought I think the evidence shows that there weren't) have anything to do with the collapse?

What exactly are you leading to Christophera?

Collapse as we saw is impossible with the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) that existed. FEMA lied to cover the true demise. Many here support the lie the murderers hide behind. Notice they cannot produce images of the steel core columns from the demolition which hase exposed the core to the light of day for the first time. The construction images you see are misrepresented.

[Christophera]

Everyone notices that you ignore every piece of evidence presented to you. The extent of your knowledge appears to come from staring at photos and managing to infer from them conclusions which run counter to every piece of evidence from every other source. You have managed only to demonstrate an utter lack of understanding of the scientific process, critical thinking, or debate. Go pound sand.

I know exactly what kind of core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) stood and that is why I'm here. Can you explain why the steel core columns are never seen in images. (Forget the construction photos, they are misrepresented.)

[Pardalis]

Does Leslie E. Robertson have any evidence that demolition charges have ever been installed in this "concrete core"? What was his level of involvement exactly in the construction?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I know exactly what kind of core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) stood and that is why I'm here. Can you explain why the steel core columns are never seen in images. (Forget the construction photos, they are misrepresented.)

Can you explain why you ignore every piece of evidence presented previously in this thread?

[Christophera]

I'll answer, and hope I'm corrected if I'm not getting it. Christophera's position seems to be summed up in this alleged quote by Leslie Robertson:

"Christophera is correct in stating that the Twin Towers were constructed with a concrete core. Although in my original design the core was to be a steel framed one that decision was overridden by Minoru Yamasaki the architect.

That core should have resisted the airplane impacts AND the fires. I have said nothing for four and a half years but can remain silent no longer. My belief is that only explosives could have caused WTC 1 & WTC 2 to collapse the way they did on September 11, 2001."

In other words, concrete-core towers would have withstood the airplane impacts. Since they didn't, the towers must've been brought down by other means.

Now we know you aspire to be a master of distortion. Pick another subject 'cause you just lose credibility by trying to twist words like that. Particuarly when we have data of historical origin from Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/oxfordarchcore.jpg) to support the concrete corecore (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)

[Pardalis]

Collapse as we saw is impossible with the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) that existed. FEMA lied to cover the true demise. Many here support the lie the murderers hide behind. Notice they cannot produce images of the steel core columns from the demolition which hase exposed the core to the light of day for the first time. The construction images you see are misrepresented.

Do you only have these few pictures to show us? Do you have any real evidence, from the people who actually made these towers, of such a concrete core?

Could "your" interpretation of these images be misrepresented?

[Christophera]

same article:
Second, Yamasaki had to make sure the air pressure generated by the express elevators would not buckle the elevator shafts. The engineers of Otis Elevators came up with a solution to this problem. By using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core, the shafts were strengthened enough that air pressure was not an issue.

Out of curiosity, a few questions. Since you cited the University of North Carolina course work as authorative, do you also stand by the findings published in that article that the buildings fell because of fire? If not, how did they get this one fact right and all others wrong?

Since the concrete core cited in the UNC article only supported elevators and stairwells, and not the building, what does the construction of the core have to do with how the buildings did or did not fall?

This part of the page actually calls itself a description.

A Description of the World Trade Center

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

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

Then there is the very competent report of August Domel.

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

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

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

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

[Apollyon]

Your construction photos do not show the steel core columns. So far all I've seen is the interior box columns which have been misrepresented as "core columns". The documentary I saw which documented intimately construction stated something like this. "the core was hard to photograph. It was always in the dark in the center of the tower a few floors below the top." They introduced several shots that they had found that actually showed the rebar sticking out of the aggregate and stated they were the best they had found. The images you posted do not clearly show the core.
The video I posted clearly shows the core and repeated refers to the box columns as core columns. Disingeniusly trying to assign a different nomenclature to those columns does not change their function.

The architect posted his feelings on the towers personally on a forum I was posting on that is dominated by disinformation agents who refuse to use photographic evidence and reason.
Yeah. Right. He doesn't answer phones or e-mail, but somehow he located that forum and posted as an unregistered participant.

Here's a real article by Leslie Robertson. Notice he talks about the lack of masonry on the central shaft as a new design feature.

http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument

Another structural innovation was the outrigger space frame, which structurally linked the outside wall to the services core. This system performed several functions. First, gravity-induced vertical deformations between the columns of the services core and the columns of the outside wall were made equal at the top of the building; at other levels, the differential deformations were ameliorated. Second, wind-induced overturning moments were resisted in part by the columns of the services core, thus providing additional lateral stiffness.

We developed the concept of and made use of the fire-rated shaft-wall partition system, which is now widely used in place of masonry and plaster walls. At that time, masonry was the standard enclosure for elevators, stairs, duct shafts, and other internal structures. The partition system eliminates the need for within-the-shaft scaffolding, which was the common practice, provides more smoke-proof stairs and shafts, and improves safety on the job site. The shaft-wall completely changed the nature of the structural system for the two towers, making them the first of a new kind of high-rise building.

His own words state that the partition system was used "in place of masonry."

That seems to conflict with the post by an unregistered person at PhysOrg claiming to be Leslie Robertson. In fact, Leslie Robertson speaks with some technical eloquence, as his article demonstrates. The post at PhysOrg sounds more like someone using his name as a sock puppet to dupe people.

[Pardalis]

Now we know you aspire to be a master of distortion. Pick another subject 'cause you just lose credibility by trying to twist words like that. Particuarly when we have data of historical origin from Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/oxfordarchcore.jpg) to support the concrete corecore (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)

I'm no engeneer, but does the term "concrete core" necessarilly means one single concrete block? Or does it have a more general meaning?

[bob_kark]

544 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1666644&postcount=544)

[Christophera]

Do you only have these few pictures to show us? Do you have any real evidence, from the people who actually made these towers, of such a concrete core?

Could "your" interpretation of these images be misrepresented?

No steel core columns are ever seen in the demolition photos. Behind these concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg) should be some part of 1 of the 47, 1300 foot steel columns. There are none. To the left of the spire and box columns silhouetted (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/shearspirewall.jpg)concrete shear wall should be seen steel columns. None are seen.

Can the non appearance of major structural elements be misrepresented when they are not presented at all?

[Pardalis]

No steel core columns are ever seen in the demolition photos. Behind these concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg) should be some part of 1 of the 47, 1300 foot steel columns. There are none. To the left of the spire and box columns silhouetted (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/shearspirewall.jpg)concrete shear wall should be seen steel columns. None are seen.

Can the non appearance of major structural elements be misrepresented when they are not presented at all?

Again, same images. No proof. Do you have any evidence from the architects and engeneers and other people who built the towers?

ETA: You know, first-hand evidence.

[Christophera]

FROM post #544

Ok, so you believe the concrete core was packed with C4, I understand that. However, if that was the case, why is the core still standing in your picture after the WTC was demolished?

the delay sequence has not yet gotten to detonating the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

Ok, I understand that you believe that thermite was used in the basement. How can you time a thermite reaction in a basement to weaken the supports at exactly the right time to coincide with the C4 explosions you claim? Thermite doesn't just switch on and off. It takes time to react and cut through the steel.

The delay system initiated the thermite which burns nearly as fast as high explosives expand.

So the initial C4 packed concrete core was just a prank gone wild? If they hadn't planned a massive ruse, why did they pack the concrete core with C4?

You distort my words from this page.

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

I state the rebar of the concrete core was coated with C4.

Ok, so you looked at 1 picture from the FEMA report and saw a documentary 15 years ago. Do you not think it might be important to read the NIST report to make sure you aren't missing something? What would it hurt exactly?

Absolutely a waste of time under these conditions. I know exactly what core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) stood and have redundant proof. See,

http://concretecore.741.com

Meanwhile produce ONE image from the demolition that shows the supposed steel core columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/femacore.gif).

[Pardalis]

FROM post #544
the delay sequence has not yet gotten to detonating the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

The delay system initiated the thermite which burns nearly as fast as high explosives expand.

I state the rebar of the concrete core was coated with C4.


Proof?

[Christophera]

Again, same images. No proof. Do you have any evidence from the architects and engeneers and other people who built the towers?

ETA: You know, first-hand evidence.

Okay, .......... so you admit you cannot use evidence. My viewing of the documentary is actually as good as it gets short of someone who actually worked on the core. Most of them are dead and gone. I've spoken to an ex steel worker who worked on WTC 1 & 2, a Mohawk and he couldn't remember the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

Try and produce one image of the supposed steel core columns from the demoliton photos.

[Christophera]

Proof?

You cannot use proof. If you could you would use this. Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation, published in 1992 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/oxfordarchcore.jpg)

[Gravy]

Your construction photos do not show the steel core columns.
You are incorrect.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/87904495b879ebd4b.jpg

[Christophera]

Here's a real article by Leslie Robertson. Notice he talks about the lack of masonry on the central shaft as a new design feature.

http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument

His own words state that the partition system was used "in place of masonry."

That seems to conflict with the post by an unregistered person at PhysOrg claiming to be Leslie Robertson. In fact, Leslie Robertson speaks with some technical eloquence, as his article demonstrates. The post at PhysOrg sounds more like someone using his name as a sock puppet to dupe people.

That is a very typical post 9-11 article which does not elaborate on the core enough to consider it actually mentioned.

You really need to come up with images of the demolition that show the steel core columns inside the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) area to have credibility here. There are many images of the concrete core from the demolition at,

http://concretecore.741.com

Maybe you can come up with a link to a page about the steel core columns that uses demoliton photos.

[Pardalis]

Okay, .......... so you admit you cannot use evidence.

?


My viewing of the documentary is actually as good as it gets short of someone who actually worked on the core.

Not good enough. Are you an engeneer? If not, your "viewing" of the documentary is irrelevant.


Most of them are dead and gone.

It's only been 35 years.


I've spoken to an ex steel worker who worked on WTC 1 & 2, a Mohawk and he couldn't remember the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

That doesn't help your case, now does it?


Try and produce one image of the supposed steel core columns from the demoliton photos.

I cannot. can you provide ANY evidence, not only pictures, of a concrete core?

[twinstead]

That is a very typical post 9-11 article which does not elaborate on the core enough to consider it actually mentioned.



LOL why do I suspect that had the article suggested, but not actually mentioned, that there was a concrete core instead of steel you would have no problem using it to prove your point?

[Pardalis]

You cannot use proof. If you could you would use this. Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation, published in 1992 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/oxfordarchcore.jpg)

I'm not an engeneer. What does a "concrete hull-and core structure" mean, exactly?

[Christophera]

You are incorrect.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/87904495b879ebd4b.jpg

Those are interior box columns. Notice no heavy columns in the center of the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) area interior box columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg). The rectangle formed by the floor beams and the INTERIOR BOX COLUMNS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) tells us the image from the demo shows the same columns as the image you post.

Misrepresentation or, ............ ignorance.

[Christophera]

I'm not an engeneer. What does a "concrete hull-and core structure" mean, exactly?

Concrete tube.

[Pardalis]

What is your definition of evidence, btw?

[kevin]

what is the size of this concrete core you're proposing? According to the floor plans each floor is 208'x208'. There is a core that is 88'x135', but most of that is empty space for elevator shafts, stairwells, plumbing and electrical chases. What is the size of this concrete column and where on the floor plans was it located?

[Pardalis]

Concrete tube.

That doesn't help. I was kind of hoping to have a definition from an engeneering source.

[NobbyNobbs]

This whole conversation amazes me. People keep showing Christophera the pictures he demands, and then he sees exactly what he wants to see. Meanwhile, he shows poor evidence and reads too much into it. It reminds me about the lesson I teach my students when I talk about how resistant people are to change. The conversation is something like this:

Galileo: The earth goes around the sun.
Church: No, it doesn't.
Galileo: Sure it does. The math proves it.
Church: We have our own math.
Galileo: You forgot to carry the two.
Chruch: Doesn't matter. The sun still goes around the earth.
Galileo: Well, have a look through the telescope.
Church: We don't see a telescope.
Galileo: It's right here. Look.
Church: We don't want to look through it.
Galileo: You wanted proof, here's proof. Look.
Church: We have drawings. They show the sun going around the earth.
Galileo: Listen, this is better than a drawing. Take a look.
Church (looks): We don't see anything.
Galileo: What do you mean? It's right there, moons of Saturn! In front of your eyes!
Church: We don't see anything. Nothing you show us can make us admit we see anything. And the sun goes around the earth.

[Christophera]

LOL why do I suspect that had the article suggested, but not actually mentioned, that there was a concrete core instead of steel you would have no problem using it to prove your point?

I would have no problem because images of the demolition show that NO STEEL (http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/femacore.gif) CORE (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) COLUMNS EXIST. All that is visible in demolition images must be concrete.

See,

http://concretecore.741.com