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

[bonavada]

total pulverisation?

ahem:-

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748456afd2214fc5.jpg

BV

[uruk]

The sheetrock covers a hallway on WTC 2. Why the sheerock still exists attests to the efficiency of the C4 coated rebar.

Remember William Rodriugez and the cracking walls, remember the explosions in the basement.

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

The picture shows you to be wrong on two counts.
You said that the concrete core was installed directly behind the box collumns. If that was true how could there have been space for the sheetrock inbetween the box column and the concrete wall?

Secondly, the sheetrock would not have been there at all if there was a concrete wall that exploded. The idea that a concrete wall could explode without taking the sheetrock out is ludicrous. You are clearly dancing around waving your hands trying to obfuscate clear evidence that you are wrong.

[Belz...]

We are all controlled by our unconscious. Being aware of that make some less controllable because reason can sometimes take over.

Freud was wrong. You do know that, of course.

Your question does not make sense. I'll do my best with it. The documentary had only to do with what was known about the construction in 1987 when the only core that was known was the concrete core.

An interesting lie. The 1983 documentary showed the STEEL core.

The information has been removed from our society, that's why. If you don't think this is possible? You are exactly what the perps are counting on.

"If you think the devil doesn't exist, then you are doing exactly what he hopes."

Concrete lasts longer than cellophane.

It's not any less porous, however.

An excellent question by Big Al, here:

If the public knew from the start that the towers had a concrete core then they would really wonder why there were no massive chunks of concrete.

But they didn't say "They'll wonder where the steel core went"?

On the towers we had 14 inch tempered steel columns 22 inches C to C and getting enough heat to 3 sides on any column to loose significant strength would not be likely. Realize that the top of the columns at each floor is where the majority of the heat will end up.

Realise why the towers collapsed. Huge concrete floows pulling you down isn't good for columns designed to handle loads differently.

Which makes the issue of the top of WTC 1 falling south a real mystery if collapse is proposed because about 1/2 of the columns on the north side were severed meaning the top should have fallen north, but it fell south.

This has been dealt with ad nauseam. You're just not reading.

Obsessed with my childrens futures

YOU HAVE KIDS ????

[Belz...]

It is important to know if the towers achieved near free fall conditions because it gives an insight into the possibilities of how the collapse proceeded after initiation. If the timing is 9.15 seconds then this implies that the underlying structure offered no resistance to the fall.

1) Why would you expect it to offer any significant resistance ?

2) Did you not see the debris fall significantly faster than the rest ?

[bonavada]

see this here:-

nkZRN6GA0NA

next time our chris whines that we have shown him NO "raw" evidence of inner core steel columns blah-de-blah refer him to this.
(slideshow of this threads attachments)

:-]

BV

[Belz...]

In over 200 pages not one image of steel core columns has been produced by many, many deniers of the concrete core.

Actually, lost of them have been shown, but haven't been accepted by the denier of the steel core.

The two images that have been produced that might be credibly misinterpreted have been explained and fit reasonably into images of the demo which also show the concrete core.

All this while no image showing concrete has been equitably explained.

Except by you, who stated it could also be dust.

[bonavada]

In over 200 pages not one image of steel core columns has been produced by many, many deniers of the concrete core.

lookit............

nkZRN6GA0NA

BV

[Bell]

Well, has anyone???

[Christophera]

lookit............

nkZRN6GA0NA

BV

BV,

You've made a flash presentation of the same misrepresentations and never explained the core of WTC 2 (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) which can obviously only be concrete.

Those vertical pieces of steel inside the core area are much smaller than the interior box columns labeled "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg).

You show elevator guide rail but do not locate its support. Those smaller vertical steel members inside the core are elevator guide rail supports. What you imply are "core columns" IS the elevator guide rail support.

You only show interior box columns at ground zero and no one can say otherwise because often there are no references. When there are, it is clear the columns you show are along the walls of the core. interior box columns.

You get the award for the most incompetetnt and erroneous flash presentation.

[beachnut]

BV,

You only show interior box columns at ground zero and no one can say otherwise because often there are no references. When there are, it is clear the columns you show are along the walls of the core. interior box columns.

You get the award for the most incompetetnt and erroneous flash presentation.

No one can find your concrete core!

Still wrong, no evidence, no facts, no concrete core! Wow, still wrong after all those posts!

Another day, another no concrete core day! Five years and you still have it wrong!

[Z]

Does anyone have a good recipe for dutch apple pie?

[bonavada]

You get the award for the most incompetetnt and erroneous flash presentation.

whatever........don't forget when you finally do step off that fuffy cloud it's a long way back down to earth.

BTW how does this sit with your "total pulverisation":-

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748456afd2214fc5.jpg

do tell us......

BV

[Bell]

You get the award for the most incompetetnt and erroneous flash presentation.

As soon as such awards excist for websites, I'll make sure to nominate your website.

[Christophera]

Actually, lost of them have been shown, but haven't been accepted by the denier of the steel core.

They have been reasonably explained by a person who witness the WTC 1 constrcution and knows the structural elements of the towers. The aerials and the shots looking up showing steel in the core area simply show elevator guide rail supports.


Except by you, who stated it could also be dust.

Typically you misrepresent my statement. There is also dust in the photos and I acknowledge that. The dust came from the concrete that has already blown up as this concrete is doing. (http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8232/wtcsl8.jpg) in a BIG way Leaving interior box columns standing (http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/3396/gjswtc30pt4.jpg) because the box columns cutting charges failed (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1233383) on that side of WTC 1.

[Christophera]

whatever........don't forget when you finally do step off that fuffy cloud it's a long way back down to earth.

BTW how does this sit with your "total pulverisation":-

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748456afd2214fc5.jpg

do tell us......

BV

That must be in the mall area not the tower which underwent total pulverization.
(http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg)

[bonavada]

Does anyone have a good recipe for dutch apple pie?

if only raw images were edible......big dollop of cream and you're away.........

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748456b27e68252f.jpg

BV

[firecoins]

thread is dead!

[Arus808]

I've never stated that. You must prove it.

Prove what? Prove that c4 was never used in the construction of the WTC towers? That's already proven. Its your job to prove that it was.

[Christophera]

Prove what? Prove that c4 was never used in the construction of the WTC towers? That's already proven. Its your job to prove that it was.

There is no other way top explain this (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg) than the use of high explosives optimally contained through perfect placement and distribution.

You haven't explained the event and the official account does not. I do and it fits the images of the demo. (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html)

[uruk]

They have been reasonably explained by a person who witness the WTC 1 constrcution and knows the structural elements of the towers. The aerials and the shots looking up showing steel in the core area simply show elevator guide rail supports.
Sorry Chris. It has been shown to you in the past that those columns are not elevator guide rails. The floor plans show elevators that are no where near these columns. The elevators are supported by cables from above the shaft. Guide rails are there for stability along the elevator cab travel not for support and they are attached to the sheetrock not the columns.

Here is an excerpt from an email from Otis, the company that built and installed the elevators in the WTC towers 1&2.:

"Otis did install the original elevators, escalators and dumbwaiters in the whole World Trade Center. Each tower had 104 elevators each. There were 2 types: gearless and geared. The gearless were model numbers 339, 269, 219 and 155. The geared models had various model numbers depending on the installation and use."

http://www.otis.com/products/detail/0,1355,CLI1_PRD741_PRT30_PST48_RES1,00.html

[uruk]

concrete is doing.[/url] in a BIG way Leaving interior box columns standing (http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/3396/gjswtc30pt4.jpg) because the box columns cutting charges failed (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1233383) on that side of WTC 1.

If the box column cutting charges failed then they would have still been there. That would have been red hot raw irrefutable evidence. The workers would have found them and have called a bomb squad for removal. Any record of that?

[Z]

What is Chris' evidence of a concrete core?

1) A video in 1990 - one that no one else (except, allegedly, his ex-wife) has ever seen, one that does not exist in the archive records at PBS or at KCET, one that does not even exist in the entire catalogue of TV-Guide for the Santa Barbara area for the year of 1990.

2) An encyclopedia entry written by a person who had, at that point, never even been to the towers, and was writing on assumption, not fact.

3) A fuzzy photograph that shows nothing definite - only an indistinct, rounded shape in the dust cloud that could be concrete, or collapsing debris, or what was left of the steel-core and bedrock-walled core, partially covered with debris from above (explaining the apparent rounded shape)...

4) Deductive reasoning (since no 1300-ft long steel sections were visible during the collapse, they must not have existed). --Which is faulty, considering no 1300-ft long 'MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS' or elevator guide rails were visible, either.

On the other hand, numerous video and photographic evidence shows steel structural columns at the worksite; debris fields show clear evidence of steel support columns, but an insufficient amount of concrete; the most accurate construction plans that are available mention steel, not concrete; and a video documentary from 1983 clearly indicates steel, not concrete.

Why does concrete matter? Because Chris erroneously believes that the steel-reinforced concrete included one additional element: plastic explosives, applied directly to the rebar.

His evidence:

1) the violent collapse pictures showing the ejection of powdery-grey matter at the initiation of collapse - which can be equally accounted for by the presence of drywall, sheetrock, the concrete in the floors themselves, the ash from all that burned office equipment, etc.

2) the apparenty excessive speed of collapse -- which he cannot prove is excessive, nor can he come up with a quantification of what is 'acceptable' versus what is not.

3) 'Total Pulverisation' of the towers - which debris evidence proves is wrong... He equivocates by claiming that observed debris came from the mall, not the towers themselves. But this, too, is wrong.

4) A magazine article in the late 70s which he claims explains the process of returning C4 to slurry state for underwater use - yet he won't divulge what magazine it was, or when he read the article.

Evidence against:

1) Shelf life of plastic explosives under OPTIMAL conditions is only between 15-20 years. He tries to get around this by claiming concrete acted as a better protectant; yet concrete during curing emits heat, is moist, and results in a material which allows more air exchange than cellophane. Further, any such material on the rebar would largely negate one of the purposes of rebar, and such a structure likely would have collapsed under natural stresses long before 2001.

2) Insufficient chemical residue to indicate the existence of plastic explosives, nor of det cord, wiring, or other apparatus.

3) No eyewitnesses over the lifespan of the towers noticed anything odd - considering that wiring for the detonators would have to extend beyond the concrete, and no one ever noticed such wiring.

The only evidence he ever offers in support comes from his own website - owned, operated, and administered by himself from his Isley St. home - and photos which lack clarity and definition, which he also hosts. For all we know, he's doctored those photos. I don't think he has, but he's never offered them in context of the locations he's gotten them from. Meanwhile, he's in flat and open denial of any contraverting evidence, including statements by construction and engineering personnel, photographs of construction, photographs of debris fields, etc. He expounds upon his own 'photographic' memory, but gets details wrong enough to really embarrass himself - if he had any shame, which he doesn't. Why should we trust his memory about concrete cores and magazine articles, when he can't remember the show's name was Ally McBeal, or the age of the mohawk he interviewed, or the station number of KCET, or anything else, really?

His memory is shot - and things he recalls from memory are suspect.

My suggestion to Chris is this: go back to worrying about the available algae contents of your local lakes and rivers. This, at least, is a real problem, with real solutions, and could benefit people. Raving for years on websites has gotten you no where at all, and never will. You're wasting your time here, while the oxygen levels of your home continue to diminish.

My suggestion to all the other participants on this thread: When you feel like replying to Chris, here, just copy and paste this or another of the good summations available, and walk away.

[Arus808]

There is no other way top explain this (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg) than the use of high explosives optimally contained through perfect placement and distribution.

Please, when you start reusing claims you've used before, make sure you ad "To me" to the sentence. You are surely not speaking for all of us, and so fare YOU are the only one that can't accept the explanations that have been given to you.

Seeing that you have no understanding of physics, explaining to you why what you see in your repeatedly posted image ad nauseum wont help us and it certainly hasn't helped you.

You haven't explained the event and the official account does not. I do and it fits the images of the demo. (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html)

What looks like a demo, doesn't mean it is.
Shall i show you images of buyildings that were burnt down to the ground and they looked like it was a demo, when none occured.

You need to learn the difference, something you havent done so in that last 2 years.

[Belz...]

You've made a flash presentation of the same misrepresentations and never explained the core of WTC 2 (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) which can obviously only be concrete.

Or dust.

They have been reasonably explained by a person who witness the WTC 1 constrcution and knows the structural elements of the towers.

You did not "witness" the construction of the towers. You think you remember a documentary that no one else in the universe has seen.

Typically you misrepresent my statement. There is also dust in the photos and I acknowledge that.

You said it was concrete because it was the only thing in the towers that could have that colour. I asked you if dust could have that colour and you said "dust can have many colors".

So it COULD be merely dust.

in a BIG way Leaving interior box columns standing because the box columns cutting charges failed on that side of WTC 1.

And why wouldn't they fail once the concrete right NEXT to them blows up ?

There is no other way top explain this than the use of high explosives optimally contained through perfect placement and distribution.

Oh, but there is another explanation : collapse. Your still misrepresents how the collapse occured. Watch a video. In fact, your other pictures show that it wasn't an explosion.

[The Almond]

They have been reasonably explained by a person who witness the WTC 1 constrcution and knows the structural elements of the towers.

Yet, the structural analysis I provided to you proving that the concrete core you claim exists is too thick at the bottom and too thin at the top to be useful. The analysis of the structural elements of the tower disprove your thesis.

[NobbyNobbs]

i'd like to add:
[LIST]
the involvement of scores of official/independent agencies with hundreds of employees yet not one whistleblower after 5+ years


Actually, no whistleblowers ater 35+ years. Remember, not one of the construction workers has mentioned putting explosives in the concrete.

They have been reasonably explained by a person who witness the WTC 1 constrcution and knows the structural elements of the towers.

So now you were there when the towers were constructed? You say you've witnessed the construction. Watching a documentary, whether it exists or not, is not witnessing construction. Either tell me how I'm misrepresenting this statement, or else tell me how you are misrepresenting yourself. It's either one or the other.

[Christophera]

If the box column cutting charges failed then they would have still been there. That would have been red hot raw irrefutable evidence. The workers would have found them and have called a bomb squad for removal. Any record of that?

It was the south west corener really and it appears the floors detonated okay so it was ll swept away in the descent of debri from above.

[Christophera]

And why wouldn't they fail once the concrete right NEXT to them blows up ?=

Your appreciation for the strength of a tempered steel column as thick as those were is equal to your understanding of the control potential for an engineered blast with well contained explosive. If the columns are intact to any degree the walls blowing will not phase them. As we see (http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/3396/gjswtc30pt4.jpg).

[Bell]

Christophera, do you actuallty have REAL evidence, beside your assumptions and 'logical conclusions'?

[Christophera]

Yet, the structural analysis I provided to you proving that the concrete core you claim exists is too thick at the bottom and too thin at the top to be useful. The analysis of the structural elements of the tower disprove your thesis.

We have a very competent engineer here identifying a concrete core. And, it agrees with the images of the demo. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

WORLD TRADE CENTER DISASTER:
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS AT GROUND ZERO
Prepared for:
National Council of Structural Engineers Associations -
Structural Engineering Emergency Response Plan
(SEERP) Committee
By:
August Domel, Jr., Ph.D., S.E., P.E.
November 2001


CHAPTER 2: GROUND ZERO OPERATIONS AT THE WORLD
TRADE CENTER
2.1 General
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.

[Garb]

We have a very competent engineer here identifying a concrete core. And, it agrees with the images of the demo. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

WORLD TRADE CENTER DISASTER:
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS AT GROUND ZERO
Prepared for:
National Council of Structural Engineers Associations -
Structural Engineering Emergency Response Plan
(SEERP) Committee
By:
August Domel, Jr., Ph.D., S.E., P.E.
November 2001


CHAPTER 2: GROUND ZERO OPERATIONS AT THE WORLD
TRADE CENTER
2.1 General
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.

I wouldn't go so far as to say he identified there being a concrete core.

What evidence brought him to believe there was a concrete core?

[jsfisher]

I wouldn't go so far as to say he identified there being a concrete core.

What evidence brought him to believe there was a concrete core?
The document, itself, provides some clarification:

1.4 Source Material
The information presented in this document was obtained from two sources. Much of the information was obtained from discussions with structural engineering teams that worked at Ground Zero. The other source was the author’s own opinions based on working at Ground Zero.
http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf

It is also worth noting that the purpose of the document, researched and produced in just two months, was also described:

1.1 Purpose
This document was written as a resource for the preparation of an emergency response plan for mobilizing structural engineers for a search and rescue operation under extreme emergency conditions. More specifically, it was developed for preparing a response plan that uses structural engineers after a major collapse or failure.

It seems fairly clear, then, that the author was not all that focused on the exact construction of the World Trade Center and its collapse, per se, but on emergency response planning.

ETA:
The document contains other factual errors as well:
The collapse of the structures, along with the collateral damage, produced a pile of debris weighing more than two billion pounds, over 5,000 fatalities and thousands of injured civilians and rescue workers.
Emphasis mine.

[NobbyNobbs]

It was the south west corener really and it appears the floors detonated okay so it was ll swept away in the descent of debri from above.

Swept away to where?

[Christophera]

The document, itself, provides some clarification:

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

[QUOTE=http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf]
1.4 Source Material
The information presented in this document was obtained from two sources. Much of the information was obtained from discussions with structural engineering teams that worked at Ground Zero. The other source was the author’s own opinions based on working at Ground Zero.

It is also worth noting that the purpose of the document, researched and produced in just two months, was also described:

It seems fairly clear, then, that the author was not all that focused on the exact construction of the World Trade Center and its collapse, per se, but on emergency response planning.

ETA:
The document contains other factual errors as well:

Emphasis mine.

That the number of victims is off means nothing to my point. What is important is that Domel simply states the towes had a concrete core..

That information is absolutely consistent with images of the demo which show materials in positions with appearances that can only be concrete.
(http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif)

[jsfisher]

That the number of victims is off means nothing to my point. What is important is that Domel simply states the towes had a concrete core.
The number of victims being wrong means quite a lot. It shows he wasn't very thorough fact-checking details oblique to his main interest (emergency preparedness).

He was wrong as to the number of victims, and he was misinformed as to the existence of a concrete core.

By the way, Chris, since his account of the collapses differs from yours, should we accept his "expert" testimony over yours? No controlled demolition; no explosives? You can't have it both ways.

[chippy]

I have never seen a post with more than 8,000 responses. Wow. I guess this means that someone has seen a realistic(e) explanation of the free fall of the towers, eh?

[Christophera]

The number of victims being wrong means quite a lot. It shows he wasn't very thorough fact-checking details oblique to his main interest (emergency preparedness).


Wrong. It means that the actual numbers of victims was not known yet or was over looked at the time of publishing.

[jsfisher]

Wrong. It means that the actual numbers of victims was not known yet or was over looked at the time of publishing.
Nice bit of truth spin. Dismiss the discrepancies you dislike, but worship any thread of what seems to be support. Excellent. You do realize, though, that the general number of victims was no big mystery by November, 2001 -- the time of publishing.

By the way, you ignored the other half of my post. Another discrepancy-coping mechanism?

[Big Al]

By the way, you ignored the other half of my post. Another discrepancy-coping mechanism?

I'm still waiting to hear why the WTC builders thought it'd be a great idea to fill their masterpiece with explosives on the off-chance that, some day (hopefully within the life of the C-4), it might come in handy to blow them up.

The only answer I got was "various reasons".

And can rebar coated in squishy plastique really reinforce concrete? I don't think so!

[uruk]

It was the south west corener really and it appears the floors detonated okay so it was ll swept away in the descent of debri from above.

Nice try to dodge but it doesn't matter what corner. And we were talking about the alleged "cutting charges" that were supposedly attached to the columns.

All the debris was removed from the site. If there were unexploded charges they would have been found and a bomb squad called for removal.

[uruk]

We have a very competent engineer here identifying a concrete core. And, it agrees with the images of the demo. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

WORLD TRADE CENTER DISASTER:
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS AT GROUND ZERO
Prepared for:
National Council of Structural Engineers Associations -
Structural Engineering Emergency Response Plan
(SEERP) Committee
By:
August Domel, Jr., Ph.D., S.E., P.E.
November 2001


CHAPTER 2: GROUND ZERO OPERATIONS AT THE WORLD
TRADE CENTER
2.1 General
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.

The author of that paper has already admitted to being in error about the core. You really do ignore things that don't agree with your hypothesis don't you?

[uruk]

Sorry. I forgot to add the link with the nessecary info.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2084276&postcount=7115

[Big Al]

Sorry. I forgot to add the link with the nessecary info.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2084276&postcount=7115

Chris'll say "they" got to him and persuaded him to change his mind. And I bet you can't provide raw evidence to disprove that indisputable fact! ;)

[Powa]

Or he'll say that until you show him "raw images of the supposed steel core columns from the demo at some elevation off the ground" he won't answer your question.

[uruk]

Yea, it's a great big circle. He gets cornered on some issue and then he does the christopher dance.
Here's how it goes.:
He get pinned down on a point.
Then he says:"show me "raw images of the supposed steel core columns from the demo at some elevation off the ground".
He get shown pictures.
Then he says "no those are elevator guides".
Then he post links to his site and post that picture of phalic symbol.
ad infinitum.

[gmarshall]

Christopher,

I have a question for you regarding the PBS documentary that you base a substantial part of your concrete core theory on. My question is what would it take for you to believe that there never was a PBS documentary on the construction of the WTC Towers that described a concrete core? This is purely hypothetical and your response in no way suggests any lapse in your current beliefs. I just wonder if there is any amount of evidence that could sway your point of view on this matter. Thanks for your time.

Would you change your mind if …
You performed an internet search of past PBS specials that turned up no such documentary during the timeframe you describe
You reviewed several privately held collections of TV Guides from the appropriate timeframe for your documentary that show no such documentary was broadcast.
You interviewed the management/staff of PBS from the relevant timeframe and they have no recollection/records of such a documentary being created.
You found a copy of the documentary that you remember watching on the construction of the WTC towers but on further review, you realize that there really was no mention of a concrete core in it.These next ones are not really possible but please consider them anyway as if they were
You went back in time to the point when you originally watched the documentary (prior to any possible government tampering) and on reviewing it, you realize there was no mention of the concrete core.
You went back in time to the point when the towers were built and after being given full access to the construction site, you find no concrete core.

[Christophera]

Yet, the structural analysis I provided to you proving that the concrete core you claim exists is too thick at the bottom and too thin at the top to be useful. The analysis of the structural elements of the tower disprove your thesis.

Yes, your analysis is too thick, and thin to be useful.

It is absurd to think of a wall 1,300 feet tall that is the same thickness at the top than the bottom. Your inability to use this fact immediately indicates you are not competent to provide analysis.

[Christophera]

Christopher,

I have a question for you regarding the PBS documentary that you base a substantial part of your concrete core theory on. My question is what would it take for you to believe that there never was a PBS documentary on the construction of the WTC Towers that described a concrete core? This is purely hypothetical and your response in no way suggests any lapse in your current beliefs. I just wonder if there is any amount of evidence that could sway your point of view on this matter. Thanks for your time.

Would you change your mind if …
You performed an internet search of past PBS specials that turned up no such documentary during the timeframe you describe
You reviewed several privately held collections of TV Guides from the appropriate timeframe for your documentary that show no such documentary was broadcast.
You interviewed the management/staff of PBS from the relevant timeframe and they have no recollection/records of such a documentary being created.
You found a copy of the documentary that you remember watching on the construction of the WTC towers but on further review, you realize that there really was no mention of a concrete core in it.These next ones are not really possible but please consider them anyway as if they were
You went back in time to the point when you originally watched the documentary (prior to any possible government tampering) and on reviewing it, you realize there was no mention of the concrete core.
You went back in time to the point when the towers were built and after being given full access to the construction site, you find no concrete core.

You waste bandwidth, space and time.

Try explaining what this material is of the WTC 2 core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) is if it is not concrete.

Gypsum or drywall do not make sense..

[uruk]

Yes, your analysis is too thick, and thin to be useful.

It is absurd to think of a wall 1,300 feet tall that is the same thickness at the top than the bottom. Your inability to use this fact immediately indicates you are not competent to provide analysis.

Don't just say he's wrong, That's just being contrarian. Show where his calculations are mistaken or incorrect. Explain why you think he's wrong and show the proof.

[Regnad Kcin]

...Your inability to use this fact immediately indicates you are not competent to provide analysis.Speaking of which...

Which is heavier, Mr. Brown:

- 11 stories of WTC tower
- 25 stories of WTC tower

[uruk]

You waste bandwidth, space and time.

Try explaining what this material is of the WTC 2 core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) is if it is not concrete.

Gypsum or drywall do not make sense..

Your avoiding his question. That is not addressing it.
Answer it.

[hcmom]

Your inability to use this fact immediately indicates you are not competent to provide analysis.

You waste bandwidth, space and time.



C'mon Chris, you're a lot more fun when you're being stubborn and obtuse than when you're being rude...

[The Almond]

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.
We've been over this, but once again, this particular structural engineer disagrees with you. You've claimed numerous times that the concrete core was a shear wall. Shear loads are not gravity loads. Notice how nowhere in the document does it list:
1) A concrete shear wall with a thickness of 17' at the base and 2' thick at the top
2) Reinforcing steel 3 inches thick

Yes, it does mention a concrete core, but it's a far cry from mentioning or describing one you've claimed to show. The document does nothing to support your case.

Yes, your analysis is too thick, and thin to be useful.

I'm glad that you admit that I've proved the wall you've described is structurally unnecessary. You're learning!

It is absurd to think of a wall 1,300 feet tall that is the same thickness at the top than the bottom.
If it's a gravity load wall, then yes, but not if it's a shear wall.

Your inability to use this fact immediately indicates you are not competent to provide analysis.Oh? By whose opinion? Don't appeal to common sense here, I've got an entire thread on common sense. Clearly the states of South Carolina and Maryland think I'm quite competent to provide analyses on structural mechanics, but hey, what do they know?

[beachnut]

You waste bandwidth, space and time.

Try explaining what this material is of the WTC 2 core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) is if it is not concrete.

Gypsum or drywall do not make sense..

yet your fantasy concrete core makes sense? NOT, no concrete core

That is a still photo of the WTC falling, and it is made of steel core, steel sides with aluminum covering, concrete floors, wall board, and spray-on fireproofing, people, desks, carpet, tile floors, paper, bathrooms, buckets, pails, brooms, computers, monitors, projectors, file cabinets, wooden floors, wooden desks, oak desk, chairs, nice computer chairs, glass, room dividers, work stations, furniture, TVs, keyboards, mice, printers, servers, routers, switches, transformers, pictures, clocks, bottles, cokes, pepsi, coke machines, clothes racks, power cords, electrical outlets, pillows, drapes, cushions, BUT NO CONCRETE CORE!

[Christophera]

yet your fantasy concrete core makes sense? NOT, no concrete core

That is a still photo of the WTC falling, and it is made of steel core, steel sides with aluminum covering, concrete floors, wall board, and spray-on fireproofing, people, desks, carpet, tile floors, paper, bathrooms, buckets, pails, brooms, computers, monitors, projectors, file cabinets, wooden floors, wooden desks, oak desk, chairs, nice computer chairs, glass, room dividers, work stations, furniture, TVs, keyboards, mice, printers, servers, routers, switches, transformers, pictures, clocks, bottles, cokes, pepsi, coke machines, clothes racks, power cords, electrical outlets, pillows, drapes, cushions, BUT NO CONCRETE CORE!

Hah.

Sorry, I was looking for something specific and what we see is not falling. If you wish to see it slightly lower, after another chunk has blown off the top off the concrete tube look here. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcore2stands.gif)

[Big Les]

What about the author of that piece ADMITTING that he got it wrong about the concrete core? What do you say to that?

BTW Bonavada, looks like the NWO got to your site before it got to Chris' - the choco-core site's down.

[Architect]

Clearly the states of South Carolina and Maryland think I'm quite competent to provide analyses on structural mechanics, but hey, what do they know?

Save your breath mate. I'm a chartered architect and he just accused me of bullsh**ing when I dared to throw professional expertise into the ring.

Incidentally, Gravy has enough of my registration details to confirm that I am indeed a qualified architect however I think he has better things to do with his time than help feed Chris' insanity.

[Architect]

Hey Chris, how did they fool this guy - he's a real professor and everything (of a proper university, too, none of your Steve Jones crap)

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/worldTradeCenter.htm

[Architect]

Deleted - Duplicate

[Architect]

Hey, here's more folk telling Chris he's nutso:

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5631

[Christophera]

Save your breath mate. I'm a chartered architect .

That will not answer simple questions about the added resistence to torsion that core columns give to a square set of perimeter shear walls.

A Chartered fake

We do not need professionals when we have raw evidence. Experience helps tho.

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

[Christophera]

You think you remember a documentary that no one else in the universe has seen.


Oh Galactic seer Belz, ......... with the all seeing eye, knowing whoever, wherever, whenever.

Where is Jimmy Hoffa buried?

[Arus808]

We do not need professionals when we have raw evidence. Experience helps tho.




What are professionals, Chris? By definition, they are people who are EXPERIENCED in their fields of study, and can give their EXPERT opinion on subjects that have direct knowledge of.

So, stating that you dont need professionals, then add that experience helps, is hypocratic. YOu can't have it both ways.


YOU dont have experience. Raw evidence SHOULD only be examined and interpreted by professionals. Since you're not a professional and are not experienced to give opinions on "raw" evidence, you should take down your page of lies and hearsay, and leave it to the EXPERIENCED to interpret.

The only thing you've shwon yourself to professional at is lying.

[gmarshall]

You waste bandwidth, space and time.

Interesting what you consider good use of bandwidth.

I think I've realized what this thread is. Christopher has created a phrase generator that randomly replies to posts with arbitrary strings of words from some database on his website. This explains the non sequiturs that appear in most of his posts. Every once in a while, the words align properly but mostly they just show links to his site or question our ability to find the truth. Christopher has been off on the beach while everyone debates his with computer.

G

[Christophera]

Raw evidence SHOULD only be examined and interpreted by professionals.

Yes raw evidence SHOULD be examined by professionals, and when they don't, they've lost their credibility. Their intentions have been compromised.

When a batch of "professionals" make a report and ignore something like this.

WTC 2 CORE (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

Then all the other professionals are afraid to comment something is very wrong. I know this from experience and there ARE NO PROFESSIONALS professionals in this area of understanding this specific kind of corruption.

Basically we have a situation where professionals are useless. Go ahead, try and find one that will personally comment on the above image and apply his "professional seal".

[Christophera]

The number of victims being wrong means quite a lot. It shows he wasn't very thorough fact-checking details oblique to his main interest (emergency preparedness).

He was wrong as to the number of victims, and he was misinformed as to the existence of a concrete core.

By the way, Chris, since his account of the collapses differs from yours, should we accept his "expert" testimony over yours? No controlled demolition; no explosives? You can't have it both ways.

Check my last post. Professionals are useless in this situation.

Domel used information from engineers at ground zero to make his report. They said concrete core he used that. They said collapse he used that.

Concrete core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) agrees with the raw evidence. Collapse does not. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1plumecascade.jpg)

All information from professionals and experts must qualify by comparison to raw evidence and only those people involved with this discusson are qualified and only those that reasonably, logically use evidence are accepetable for inclusion if the preservation of the US Constitution is the goal.

[hcmom]

Oh Galactic seer Belz, ......... with the all seeing eye, knowing whoever, wherever, whenever.

Where is Jimmy Hoffa buried?

I was getting worried again. Thank you Chris.

[milesalpha]

Just thought I'd mention to any of those who haven't read the cute little website he so frequently references, you should give it a look. Read the Phd references they have. Oddly enough, they post these references when only one line sounds similar to anything they (particularly true with regards to this young man's arguments) might say. The funniest part is that are clear answers to this thread's title question in most of them, and none of them agree with him. I guess I shouldn't be that surprised from someone who thinks a photograph is raw evidence, but is a good chuckle nonethless.

[NobbyNobbs]

You waste bandwidth, space and time.
.

Wow..this is honestly funny. This is coming from someone who has posted the exact same images and links dozens and dozens of times.

That will not answer simple questions about the added resistence to torsion that core columns give to a square set of perimeter shear walls.


And this comes from someone who will not answer a simple question about what it would take to change his beliefs.

Professionals are useless in this situation.



Damn. All that schooling gone to waste. I should have spent the money on a few hi-res photographs, instead.

[Christophera]

You waste bandwidth, space and time.

Wow..this is honestly funny. This is coming from someone who has posted the exact same images and links dozens and dozens of times.

Yes, in an effort to gain reasonable. logical, responsible responses from others who do not WANT to know the truth.


That will not answer simple questions about the added resistence to torsion that core columns give to a square set of perimeter shear walls.

And this comes from someone who will not answer a simple question about what it would take to change his beliefs.

I've stated it almost 2000 times. Show me clear pictures of steel core columns at some elevation above ground from the demo images. Everyone has failed in this. Farsitect won't answer because the truth is steel core columns DO nothing to strengthen a square set of perimeter shear walls against torsion. Steel in those proportons flexs too much. You need something ridgid to stop the flex of torsion and lateral sway from deforming the pereimter walls and leaving the maximum load bearing dimensions causing failures.

Damn. All that schooling gone to waste. I should have spent the money on a few hi-res photographs, instead.

The photos are free, your brain (we assume) is yours to control. Put it to work for its natural purposes.

[Christophera]

Just thought I'd mention to any of those who haven't read the cute little website he so frequently references, you should give it a look. Read the Phd references they have. Oddly enough, they post these references when only one line sounds similar to anything they (particularly true with regards to this young man's arguments) might say. The funniest part is that are clear answers to this thread's title question in most of them, and none of them agree with him. I guess I shouldn't be that surprised from someone who thinks a photograph is raw evidence, but is a good chuckle nonethless.

Yes, that is my point. One line "CONCRETE CORE" is the same across many web sites. But we have 3 different floor places for the "supposed" steel core columned core and the plans have NEVER been released.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html

Now we know why. To enable a lie.

The towers had a concrete core (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html).

[hcmom]

...your brain (we assume) is yours to control. Put it to work for its natural purposes.

I'm much too lazy to go back and find all the posts where you tell us that our minds are not ours to control...

[Christophera]

Christophera, do you actuallty have REAL evidence, beside your assumptions and 'logical conclusions'?

That has been my question to you for over 200 pages now. My real evidence (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg) has been prevailing over your assumptions and the "supposed 'logical conclusions' of your bought and paid for experts/professonals.

If this was not true you and yours would not return over and over again to throw your pitiful assumptions and faulty logic against the hard evidence of the steel reinforced, cast tubular concrete core. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

How does it feel to be so wrong for the wrong reasons?

[milesalpha]

That has been my question to you for over 200 pages now. My real evidence (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg) has been prevailing over your assumptions and the "supposed 'logical conclusions' of your bought and paid for experts/professonals.

If this was not true you and yours would not return over and over again to throw your pitiful assumptions and faulty logical against the hard evidence of the steel reinforced, cast tubular concrete core. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

How does it feel to be so wrong for the wrong reasons?


I, once again, demand a nomination for comedy posts. It is rare you see someone so self-deluded, he really deserves some sort of award, and a strait-jacket.

[Christophera]

I, once again, demand a nomination for comedy posts. It is rare you see someone so self-deluded, he really deserves some sort of award, and a strait-jacket.

Easy to say.

But you can produce no raw evidence of the steel core columns, images of them from the core area at some elevation from the demo images which make your words empty and existent only to support a lie.

I assert a concrete core. Where there is concrete there is rebar. (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)

I have evidence, you do not.

[Canadian Malcontent]

How did you expect them to fall???
Do you know how much they weigh?
Dont forget 'Gravity is our friend.'

[milesalpha]

Easy to say.

But you can produce no raw evidence of the steel core columns, images of them from the core area at some elevation from the demo images which make your words empty and existent only to support a lie.

I assert a concrete core. Where there is concrete there is rebar. (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)

I have evidence, you do not.

You have just proven my statement about your self-delusion, since the only one who takes your evidence seriously is yourself. Here's an idea for you. As I pointed out, you are fond of taking things out of context. Why not write any of the Phds listed on that silly little website and ask him to back your interpretation of their words. It was readily apparent to me how you are bending them, and I am no scientist, and clearly, you are not. The easy way to end this debate (such as it is, I have moderated many a debate, if I had to judge this one, I'd say you are getting creamed) is to simply produce some expert agreement for your version of the WTC.

While you are at it, ask him what raw evidence means, you look truly stupid every time you use the term, as always, out of context.

I now wait expectantly, looking forward to your dodge, and another of the endless repeats of how good your evidence is, as decided only by you.

For me, I am back to lurking, I have had to teach too many goofy first year students to debate with someone who hasn't even gotten that far.

[PerryLogan]

Raw evidence - n. A blurry video clip of unknown origin.

[Z]

What is Chris' evidence of a concrete core?

1) A video in 1990 - one that no one else (except, allegedly, his ex-wife) has ever seen, one that does not exist in the archive records at PBS or at KCET, one that does not even exist in the entire catalogue of TV-Guide for the Santa Barbara area for the year of 1990.

2) An encyclopedia entry written by a person who had, at that point, never even been to the towers, and was writing on assumption, not fact.

3) A fuzzy photograph that shows nothing definite - only an indistinct, rounded shape in the dust cloud that could be concrete, or collapsing debris, or what was left of the steel-core and bedrock-walled core, partially covered with debris from above (explaining the apparent rounded shape)...

4) Deductive reasoning (since no 1300-ft long steel sections were visible during the collapse, they must not have existed). --Which is faulty, considering no 1300-ft long 'MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS' or elevator guide rails were visible, either.

On the other hand, numerous video and photographic evidence shows steel structural columns at the worksite; debris fields show clear evidence of steel support columns, but an insufficient amount of concrete; the most accurate construction plans that are available mention steel, not concrete; and a video documentary from 1983 clearly indicates steel, not concrete.

Why does concrete matter? Because Chris erroneously believes that the steel-reinforced concrete included one additional element: plastic explosives, applied directly to the rebar.

His evidence:

1) the violent collapse pictures showing the ejection of powdery-grey matter at the initiation of collapse - which can be equally accounted for by the presence of drywall, sheetrock, the concrete in the floors themselves, the ash from all that burned office equipment, etc.

2) the apparenty excessive speed of collapse -- which he cannot prove is excessive, nor can he come up with a quantification of what is 'acceptable' versus what is not.

3) 'Total Pulverisation' of the towers - which debris evidence proves is wrong... He equivocates by claiming that observed debris came from the mall, not the towers themselves. But this, too, is wrong.

4) A magazine article in the late 70s which he claims explains the process of returning C4 to slurry state for underwater use - yet he won't divulge what magazine it was, or when he read the article.

Evidence against:

1) Shelf life of plastic explosives under OPTIMAL conditions is only between 15-20 years. He tries to get around this by claiming concrete acted as a better protectant; yet concrete during curing emits heat, is moist, and results in a material which allows more air exchange than cellophane. Further, any such material on the rebar would largely negate one of the purposes of rebar, and such a structure likely would have collapsed under natural stresses long before 2001.

2) Insufficient chemical residue to indicate the existence of plastic explosives, nor of det cord, wiring, or other apparatus.

3) No eyewitnesses over the lifespan of the towers noticed anything odd - considering that wiring for the detonators would have to extend beyond the concrete, and no one ever noticed such wiring.

The only evidence he ever offers in support comes from his own website - owned, operated, and administered by himself from his Isley St. home - and photos which lack clarity and definition, which he also hosts. For all we know, he's doctored those photos. I don't think he has, but he's never offered them in context of the locations he's gotten them from. Meanwhile, he's in flat and open denial of any contraverting evidence, including statements by construction and engineering personnel, photographs of construction, photographs of debris fields, etc. He expounds upon his own 'photographic' memory, but gets details wrong enough to really embarrass himself - if he had any shame, which he doesn't. Why should we trust his memory about concrete cores and magazine articles, when he can't remember the show's name was Ally McBeal, or the age of the mohawk he interviewed, or the station number of KCET, or anything else, really?

His memory is shot - and things he recalls from memory are suspect.

My suggestion to Chris is this: go back to worrying about the available algae contents of your local lakes and rivers. This, at least, is a real problem, with real solutions, and could benefit people. Raving for years on websites has gotten you no where at all, and never will. You're wasting your time here, while the oxygen levels of your home continue to diminish.

My suggestion to all the other participants on this thread: When you feel like replying to Chris, here, just copy and paste this or another of the good summations available, and walk away.

It's time to post this again.

[uruk]

Check my last post. Professionals are useless in this situation.

Domel used information from engineers at ground zero to make his report. They said concrete core he used that. They said collapse he used that.

Concrete core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) agrees with the raw evidence. Collapse does not. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1plumecascade.jpg)

All information from professionals and experts must qualify by comparison to raw evidence and only those people involved with this discusson are qualified and only those that reasonably, logically use evidence are accepetable for inclusion if the preservation of the US Constitution is the goal.

Domel's authors already admitted thier error concerning the nature of the core.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2131537&postcount=8541

Ignoring this fact is not going to make it go away.

[rwguinn]

Hey Chris, how did they fool this guy - he's a real professor and everything (of a proper university, too, none of your Steve Jones crap)

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/worldTradeCenter.htm
While I don't have any use for BYU (they get special dispensation from the NCAA for missions, fer cryin' out loud! ), not Michigan, nor USC, nor Notre Dame, by all definitions and criteria, BYU [b]is indeed/b] a proper university--complete with eccentric professors (and former profsesors).
Dadblamed UKers always have to bash us, one way or another. Respect is a 2-way street, fella! Like Oxford doesn't have its share of wierdo's?:p

[Christophera]

You have just proven my statement about your self-delusion, since the only one who takes your evidence seriously is yourself. Here's an idea for you. As I pointed out, you are fond of taking things out of context. Why not write any of the Phds listed on that silly little website and ask him to back your interpretation of their words. It was readily apparent to me how you are bending them, and I am no scientist, and clearly, you are not. The easy way to end this debate (such as it is, I have moderated many a debate, if I had to judge this one, I'd say you are getting creamed) is to simply produce some expert agreement for your version of the WTC.

While you are at it, ask him what raw evidence means, you look truly stupid every time you use the term, as always, out of context.

I now wait expectantly, looking forward to your dodge, and another of the endless repeats of how good your evidence is, as decided only by you.

For me, I am back to lurking, I have had to teach too many goofy first year students to debate with someone who hasn't even gotten that far.

Blah, blah, blah

Typical, no evidence of anything.

I prove the concrete core with one image.

WTC 2 CONCRETE CORE (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

You will be utterly unable to reasonably explain what it is if you think it is not concrete.

[Christophera]

Domel's authors already admitted thier error concerning the nature of the core.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2131537&postcount=8541

Ignoring this fact is not going to make it go away.

Domel doesn't have authors that Domel has identified. And the bozo who claims to be the author is also the idiot that claims the "hammer" theory. A post on randi.org is about as far as a fact as test can get.

When it is linked to a substantial element of raw evidence that is consistent with other raw evidence, then you've got facts.

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

[Christophera]

It's time to post this again.

Your ability to identify and categorize evidence is laughable.

[Tailgater]

Your ability to identify and categorize evidence is laughable.

Almost as laughable as basing an arguement off photographs of something you have never seen in real life or have any credibility of commenting on.

[Z]

Your ability to identify and categorize evidence is laughable.

I prove the concrete core with one image.

What is Chris' evidence of a concrete core?

1) A video in 1990 - one that no one else (except, allegedly, his ex-wife) has ever seen, one that does not exist in the archive records at PBS or at KCET, one that does not even exist in the entire catalogue of TV-Guide for the Santa Barbara area for the year of 1990.

2) An encyclopedia entry written by a person who had, at that point, never even been to the towers, and was writing on assumption, not fact.

3) A fuzzy photograph that shows nothing definite - only an indistinct, rounded shape in the dust cloud that could be concrete, or collapsing debris, or what was left of the steel-core and bedrock-walled core, partially covered with debris from above (explaining the apparent rounded shape)...

4) Deductive reasoning (since no 1300-ft long steel sections were visible during the collapse, they must not have existed). --Which is faulty, considering no 1300-ft long 'MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS' or elevator guide rails were visible, either.

On the other hand, numerous video and photographic evidence shows steel structural columns at the worksite; debris fields show clear evidence of steel support columns, but an insufficient amount of concrete; the most accurate construction plans that are available mention steel, not concrete; and a video documentary from 1983 clearly indicates steel, not concrete.

Why does concrete matter? Because Chris erroneously believes that the steel-reinforced concrete included one additional element: plastic explosives, applied directly to the rebar.

His evidence:

1) the violent collapse pictures showing the ejection of powdery-grey matter at the initiation of collapse - which can be equally accounted for by the presence of drywall, sheetrock, the concrete in the floors themselves, the ash from all that burned office equipment, etc.

2) the apparenty excessive speed of collapse -- which he cannot prove is excessive, nor can he come up with a quantification of what is 'acceptable' versus what is not.

3) 'Total Pulverisation' of the towers - which debris evidence proves is wrong... He equivocates by claiming that observed debris came from the mall, not the towers themselves. But this, too, is wrong.

4) A magazine article in the late 70s which he claims explains the process of returning C4 to slurry state for underwater use - yet he won't divulge what magazine it was, or when he read the article.

Evidence against:

1) Shelf life of plastic explosives under OPTIMAL conditions is only between 15-20 years. He tries to get around this by claiming concrete acted as a better protectant; yet concrete during curing emits heat, is moist, and results in a material which allows more air exchange than cellophane. Further, any such material on the rebar would largely negate one of the purposes of rebar, and such a structure likely would have collapsed under natural stresses long before 2001.

2) Insufficient chemical residue to indicate the existence of plastic explosives, nor of det cord, wiring, or other apparatus.

3) No eyewitnesses over the lifespan of the towers noticed anything odd - considering that wiring for the detonators would have to extend beyond the concrete, and no one ever noticed such wiring.

The only evidence he ever offers in support comes from his own website - owned, operated, and administered by himself from his Isley St. home - and photos which lack clarity and definition, which he also hosts. For all we know, he's doctored those photos. I don't think he has, but he's never offered them in context of the locations he's gotten them from. Meanwhile, he's in flat and open denial of any contraverting evidence, including statements by construction and engineering personnel, photographs of construction, photographs of debris fields, etc. He expounds upon his own 'photographic' memory, but gets details wrong enough to really embarrass himself - if he had any shame, which he doesn't. Why should we trust his memory about concrete cores and magazine articles, when he can't remember the show's name was Ally McBeal, or the age of the mohawk he interviewed, or the station number of KCET, or anything else, really?

His memory is shot - and things he recalls from memory are suspect.

My suggestion to Chris is this: go back to worrying about the available algae contents of your local lakes and rivers. This, at least, is a real problem, with real solutions, and could benefit people. Raving for years on websites has gotten you no where at all, and never will. You're wasting your time here, while the oxygen levels of your home continue to diminish.

My suggestion to all the other participants on this thread: When you feel like replying to Chris, here, just copy and paste this or another of the good summations available, and walk away.

One fuzzy photo, easily explained, isn't 'proof'.

[hcmom]

Domel's authors already admitted thier error concerning the nature of the core.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2131537&postcount=8541

Ignoring this fact is not going to make it go away.

It does for Chris...

[Christophera]

Almost as laughable as basing an arguement off photographs of something you have never seen in real life or have any credibility of commenting on.

Seeing as you have posted no raw evidence of the steel core columns you fail to support, we all laugh louder at your textual writhing.

This is a concrete shear wall supporting the spire formed of interior box columns.
(http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg)

[Arus808]

Yes raw evidence SHOULD be examined by professionals, and when they don't, they've lost their credibility. Their intentions have been compromised.

what the hell are you talking about?
What a crock of manure statement to make.
If htey dont examine the raw evidence they lost their credibilty. Give me a break

btw, 100's of professionals HAVE examined the raw evidence and have never come to the conclusions or statements you are asserting.

Thanks for proving that the professionals know what they are talking about and proving you to be a liar.

[Regnad Kcin]

[Y]ou can produce no raw evidence of the steel core columns, images of them from the core area at some elevation from the demo images which make your words empty and existent only to support a lie...Sayeth the lying liar.

Mr. Brown, how 'bout you produce "raw evidence" of 11 stories of WTC tower being heavier than 25?

[Christophera]

Sayeth the lying liar.

Mr. Brown, how 'bout you produce "raw evidence" of 11 stories of WTC tower being heavier than 25?

Your request is prempted by the logic of knowing which structure stood FIRST. Logically, rates of fall, loads etc. will not matter BEFOR knowing what kind of structure stood.

I can show you what kind of structure I KNOW stood. It was a steel reinforced cast concrete core and HERE is the top of WTC 2 about to hit WTC 3. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg) The brown grey object inside the perimeter columns IS the top of the concrete core. The cast concrete roof is easily seen.

[Christophera]

what the hell are you talking about?
What a crock of manure statement to make.
If htey dont examine the raw evidence they lost their credibilty. Give me a break

btw, 100's of professionals HAVE examined the raw evidence and have never come to the conclusions or statements you are asserting.

Correct. The FEMA WTC report does not use raw evidence of images from 9-11 and neither does NIST. They use text just like you do. And it is very easy to see how things can be misrepresented with text. All one has to do is read what you write.

I use images. I say HERE IS THE CONCRETE CORE OF WTC 2. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) Then I link the text to an image showing raw evidence which is consistent with what I assert. it is simple, if you had any evidence you too could do it, but you don't so you just lie, supporting FEMA and NIST.

Thanks for proving that the professionals know what they are talking about and proving you to be a liar.

The professionals did not even get close to descibing rates of fall near free fall, I do and the first thing I do is prove what kind of structure stood with raw evidence of images of the actual buildings that were demolished. (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html)

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

FEMA and NIST do not do this.

[Arus808]

Correct. The FEMA WTC report does not use raw evidence of images from 9-11 and nieter does NIST. They use text just like you do. And it is very easy to see how things can be misrepresented with text. All one has to do is read what you write.

Oh so i guess the ACTUAL DEBRIS FOUND AT THE SITE isn't raw evidence at all then? So that 7 story pile of concrete, steel, wiring and metal isn't raw evidence? My god, you're beyond delusional; you are certifiable.

No, NIST and FEMA had the raw evidence (in the blue prints, the debris, the metal, the concrete, sheetrock, gypsum and the like). AND IMAGES Are not raw evidence. Which why you do not UNDERSTAND THE term.


All one has to do is read what you write and know that you are a certifiable loon.

[Christophera]

What is Chris' evidence of a concrete core?

1) A video in 1990 - one that no one else (except, allegedly, his ex-wife) has ever seen, one that does not exist in the archive records at PBS or at KCET, one that does not even exist in the entire catalogue of TV-Guide for the Santa Barbara area for the year of 1990.

It's time to post this again.

How can you call that evidence? I do not. I call it EXPERIENCE which I USE to identify evidence.

This is what I mean. You attempt to identify or catagorize evidence is a joke.

You do not even list the evidence I present.

Here is evidence there was concrete. An image showing what can only be the 3 inch rebar I assert it is. Proof follows.

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

My opposition here is so laughable they have attempted to prove the viewer cannot see the fine vertical elements which are obviously much smaller than interior box columns (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) shot with the same camera from the same distance a second before the rebar is exposed after the steel falls away.

[Christophera]

No, NIST and FEMA had the raw evidence (in the blue prints, the debris, the metal, the concrete, sheetrock, gypsum and the like). AND IMAGES Are not raw evidence. Which why you do not UNDERSTAND THE term.


You are so pitifully uninformed is is incredible that you attempt your deceptions.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html

Incredibly, FEMA's team that investigated the collapses lacked access to the buildings' blueprints -- access which has been the subject of legal battles.

And BTW, I have copies of the master plan.

World Trade Center Master Plan

While detailed engineering drawings of the World Trade Center remain unavailable, 9-11 Research has been able to obtain drawings of the MASTER PLAN, dated December 16, 1963.

They do not have any details on the core and are 3 years before construction began.

[Big Al]

Chris,

I'll ask you again: WHY DID WHOEVER-IT-WAS THINK IT WAS A GREAT IDEA TO LINE THE WTC WITH EXPLOSIVES, 30 YEARS BEFORE BLOWING IT UP? JUST IN CASE A BUNCH OF RELIGIOUS FANATICS MIGHT CHOOSE TO CRASH A COUPLE OF PLANES INTO THEM?

WHY DID THEY EVEN EXPECT THE EXPLOSIVES TO WORK AFTER DOUBLE THEIR STORAGE LIFE?

DID THEY HAVE A CRYSTAL BALL OR SOMETHING?

[Big Al]

And why have they daringly stated in advance that Freedom Tower will have a concrete core? Aren't they taking the risk people will wonder about the pulverisation when they have to blow that up in 2046, as an excuse to invade some other country, as yet unknown?

[Arus808]

You are so pitifully uninformed is is incredible that you attempt your deceptions.
you are so incredibly delusional, you should be institutionalized before you think that kids around you are "out to get you".

BTW, that 911 research site, has been known to NEVER update what is outdated information. Considering that the REAL ESTATE companies had blueprints of each FLOOR so they COULD RENT OUT THAT SPACE to interested companies, proves that site wrong yet again!

And BTW, I have copies of the master plan.Oh that is a world class lie. YOU do not have access to no such thing.

They do not have any details on the core and are 3 years before construction began.and why should it. THAT WAS 3 years before construction.
With every post you make, Christopherea, you lie takes on new details and the deeper the hole you are digging. Have you reached china yet?

Seeing as your photographic memory has been to shown to have more holes than swiss cheese, your claims are again figments of your delusional imagination.

[JonnyFive]

And why have they daringly stated in advance that Freedom Tower will have a concrete core? Aren't they taking the risk people will wonder about the pulverisation when they have to blow that up in 2046, as an excuse to invade some other country, as yet unknown?

Perhaps they're really building it without a concrete core. CONSPIRACY!


I assert a concrete core. Where there is concrete there is rebar. (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)

I have evidence, you do not.

Could you please post some new pictures. You've been showing the same four or five for the past 200 pages. I suppose they're supposed to floor us all, but they really don't.

I'm not stupid enough to think that anything anyone could every possibly say will ever change your mind, because you're sure you know THE TRUTH, but at least show some different photographic evidence of STEEL REBAR and CONCRETE CORE and all those other capitalized things. You must have mountains of it, right?

[Arus808]

You must have mountains of it, right?

If he did, he would have brought a lawsuite already. The fact that he doesn't bring a lawsuite, means that he is sitting on "evidence" and dishonoring those who were murdered that day.


Or that his evidence is ONLY of those 12 or so photographs, which doesn't prove anything that he claims.

[Big Al]

Perhaps they're really building it without a concrete core. CONSPIRACY!

Yeah, Jonny, I mentioned that several pages back and, of course, Chris ignored it. His answer to the other question was "Various reasons" - very helpful!

I'm not stupid enough to think that anything anyone could every possibly say will ever change your mind, because you're sure you know THE TRUTH, but at least show some different photographic evidence of STEEL REBAR and CONCRETE CORE and all those other capitalized things. You must have mountains of it, right?

Amen to that! I is gettin' sick of seeing the same stuff again and again.

[Christophera]

Could you please post some new pictures. You've been showing the same four or five for the past 200 pages. I suppose they're supposed to floor us all, but they really don't.

I'm not stupid enough to think that anything anyone could every possibly say will ever change your mind, because you're sure you know THE TRUTH (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html), but at least show some different photographic evidence of STEEL REBAR (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) and CONCRETE CORE (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) and all those other capitalized things. You must have mountains of it, right?

I'm very sorry you are tired of real evidence. Considering you have none, it must be very frustrating.

Imagine how tired I am of trying over and over again to gain a reasonable recognition of facts, or logical explanation of them from people who persist in attempting to support a lie with no evidence what so ever.

[Big Al]

Chris,

I'll ask you again: WHY DID WHOEVER-IT-WAS THINK IT WAS A GREAT IDEA TO LINE THE WTC WITH EXPLOSIVES, 30 YEARS BEFORE BLOWING IT UP? JUST IN CASE A BUNCH OF RELIGIOUS FANATICS MIGHT CHOOSE TO CRASH A COUPLE OF PLANES INTO THEM?

WHY DID THEY EVEN EXPECT THE EXPLOSIVES TO WORK AFTER DOUBLE THEIR STORAGE LIFE?

DID THEY HAVE A CRYSTAL BALL OR SOMETHING?

Is this question unworthy of consideration, perhaps?

[JonnyFive]

I'm very sorry you are tired of real evidence. Considering you have none, it must be very frustrating.

Imagine how tired I am of trying over an over again to gain a reasonable recognition of facts, or logical explanation of them from people who persist in attempting to support a lie with no evidence what so ever.

I am not one of the presenters of evidence, I am one of the consumers of it.

Ah, but you get a special chance with people like me. We're not smarty man engineers, and we don't know much about structural faults or melting points or C4. You have a perfect chance to convince us with your excellent evidence.

Except your explanation isn't logical, or reasonable. It strikes me as bizzare, overly complicated, and nonsensical. Your evidence is weak, and the other side's evidence is strong. You haven't done a thing to prosecute those responsible for this monstrous act. Also, you are somehow still alive despite knowing THE TRUTH about this incredible conspiracy.

As I have mentioned in another thread, I know little about the physics or the structural elements of this thing. I am not an idiot, but I am not an expert either (which, by CT logic, may make me 200% more qualified to discuss those topics, but I disagree). However, I have done some study in the way that intelligence and law enforcement, as well as terrorism, work. As far as those elements of things go, the conspiracy theories simply aren't believable.

You need to do better than a couple photos to convince me of something that incredible. I will always trend towards the simplest explanation, unless given proof otherwise.

Think of me as electricity, I always follow the path of least resistance.


By the way Chris, if you know all this, why are you still alive? Your personal information is far too easy to get online (especially since you keep referring to your own web site as evidence), and I'm sure the government could easily silence you. Why haven't they? Why, if you know so much?

[bonavada]

BTW Bonavada, looks like the NWO got to your site before it got to Chris' - the choco-core site's down.

hah..........oops....seems a payment is due on the host of that.

found another place for now see below.

thanks for the heads up.

BV

[hcmom]

By the way Chris, if you know all this, why are you still alive? Your personal information is far too easy to get online (especially since you keep referring to your own web site as evidence), and I'm sure the government could easily silence you. Why haven't they? Why, if you know so much?

They're toying with him first...

[JonnyFive]

Hey bonavada, how come you're still alive? Are you really an NWO disinfo agent?

[JonnyFive]

They're toying with him first...

Oh, okay.

Run, Christophera, run for your life.

[hcmom]

Bonavada -- thank you so much for the fearlessness it must have taken to expose "THE TRUTH" like that!

[Christophera]

And BTW, I have copies of the master plan.

Oh that is a world class lie. YOU do not have access to no such thing.


Here is a photo taken of my copies of the master plans taken about 15 minutes ago on my humble drafting board.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtcplans1.JPG

The son of an architect who worked on the project sent them to me after consulting with a few 9-11 truth seekers to ask them who would be most trustworthy with them, and I was chosen to be the recipient.

After examining them I realized they were all but useless as they do not have any details on the core.

The one thing they are use for is proving the side of the towers were aligned in cardinal directions which proves the map in use on the FEMA or NIST site as well as Mapquest and topozone do not have the correct directions on the maps.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/WTC/fig-1-3.jpg

http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?lat=40.71999&lon=-74.01348&datum=nad27&u=4&layer=DRG&size=l&s=24

http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?formtype=address&addtohistory=&address=Vesey%20St%20%26%20Church%20St&city=New%20York&state=NY&zipcode=10007&country=US&geodiff=1

I corrected the FEMA map.

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

Your "expert professionals" have pulled the wool over your dumbed down eyes. Get out of your cave.

[Christophera]

They're toying with him first...

The US government is actually filled with many dedicated people. The infiltration which you support has it all messed up.

Ideally the US government is prevented from doing 9-11 or messing with me for exposing the truth, if it is a lawfull entity.

Do you like it being unlawful, infiltrated and disposing of the Constitution?

[Bell]

Here is a photo taken of my copies of the master plans taken about 15 minutes ago on my humble drafting board.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtcplans1.JPG

The son of an architect sent them to me after consulting with a few 9-11 truth seekers to ask them who would be most trustworthy with them, and I was chosen to be the recipient.

After examining them I realized they were all but useless as they do not have any details on the core.

I doubt he figured you were the most trustworthy. Most nutworthy maybe.

Maybe he hoped that showing you the drawings of the REAL towers, could proof to you the towers didn't had a concrete core. Silly him.

[Bell]

I corrected the FEMA map.

Apply for a job here (http://www.fema.gov/career/publicSearch.do;jsessionid=DA4D9589ED85F2241CBC9FE BC5036D26?action=Init).

[The Almond]

After examining them I realized they were all but useless as they do not have any details on the core.


Quoted for posterity. In the face of actual, copyrighted evidence showing that the concrete core you describe does not exist, you've decided to discount the evidence simply because it does not support your theory. Astounding.

[bonavada]

Here is a photo taken of my copies of the master plans taken about 15 minutes ago on my humble drafting board.

<snip>

After examining them I realized they were all but useless as they do not have any details on the core.


this is better than friggin BORAT...........

BV

[Big Al]

Hey bonavada, how come you're still alive? Are you really an NWO disinfo agent?

<evil laugh>

No, insect, I AM! I know where you live, your favourite colour, your pastimes and your sordid little personal preferences!

It is I who sent you all those threatening emails telling you to deny the lambent truth of Chris's patently undeniable photos! It is I who forced you and everybody else, trembling, to deny the eye-blisteringly self-evident concrete core, even though you long to tell the truth and admit you are convinced.

Just remember that I know how much you love your little Shitzu, Bonzo. Keep your mouth shut and you will never need to find him fricasseed on your front porch.

Big Al, A.K.A. Dr. Destructo.

[hcmom]

The US government is actually filled with many dedicated people. The infiltration which you support has it all messed up.

Chris, find a post of mine, anywhere, that indicates that I support whatever it is you think I do.

Do you like it being unlawful, infiltrated... None of your business!

[Christophera]

Quoted for posterity. In the face of actual, copyrighted evidence showing that the concrete core you describe does not exist, you've decided to discount the evidence simply because it does not support your theory. Astounding.

They do not have any core shown at all. Not even one of the 3 different floor plans for the core that are in circulation.

Which indicates a big fat lie, which you folks support.

How does it feel to help with the demise of the US Constitution?

[Bell]

They do not have any core shown at all. Not even one of the 3 different floor plans for the core that are in circulation.

Which indicates a big fat lie, which you folks support.

How does it feel to help with the demise of the US Constitution?

How does it feel to stand by and do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to bring the perpetrators to court? You're a hypocrite.

[Architect]

While I don't have any use for BYU (they get special dispensation from the NCAA for missions, fer cryin' out loud! ), not Michigan, nor USC, nor Notre Dame, by all definitions and criteria, BYU [b]is indeed/b] a proper university--complete with eccentric professors (and former profsesors).
Dadblamed UKers always have to bash us, one way or another. Respect is a 2-way street, fella! Like Oxford doesn't have its share of wierdo's?:p

Yea, right. :mad: I'd respond to that but it takes us into the realms of politics and religion. Lets just say that BYU has entrance and conduct policies which would be criminally illegal in the EC, and lets also note that neither politics or religion has any place in defining the curriculum of higher education.

[Powa]

(deleted, I was responding to something on the previous page)

[bonavada]

Hey bonavada, how come you're still alive? Are you really an NWO disinfo agent?

i've been incognito for 2 days. after that russian bloke got zapped with the radioactive sushi and then the mrs, right out of the blue, offered me a polony salad.

i mean, wots a shill i mean skeptic to think?

BV

[bonavada]

Which indicates a big fat lie...

something else which indicates a big fat lie...you touching your fkn keyboard

BV

[Powa]

Do you like it being unlawful, infiltrated and disposing of the Constitution?
I'm sorry, I must have missed your evidence on the infiltration of US government, Chris. Would you care to repost it?

[bonavada]

I'm very sorry you are tired of real evidence. Considering you have none, it must be very frustrating.

ahem....

nkZRN6GA0NA

ETA to add ZD's "got you by the bollocks" summing up

--------------------------------------------------------


What is Chris' evidence of a concrete core?

1) A video in 1990 - one that no one else (except, allegedly, his ex-wife) has ever seen, one that does not exist in the archive records at PBS or at KCET, one that does not even exist in the entire catalogue of TV-Guide for the Santa Barbara area for the year of 1990.

2) An encyclopedia entry written by a person who had, at that point, never even been to the towers, and was writing on assumption, not fact.

3) A fuzzy photograph that shows nothing definite - only an indistinct, rounded shape in the dust cloud that could be concrete, or collapsing debris, or what was left of the steel-core and bedrock-walled core, partially covered with debris from above (explaining the apparent rounded shape)...

4) Deductive reasoning (since no 1300-ft long steel sections were visible during the collapse, they must not have existed). --Which is faulty, considering no 1300-ft long 'MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS' or elevator guide rails were visible, either.

On the other hand, numerous video and photographic evidence shows steel structural columns at the worksite; debris fields show clear evidence of steel support columns, but an insufficient amount of concrete; the most accurate construction plans that are available mention steel, not concrete; and a video documentary from 1983 clearly indicates steel, not concrete.

Why does concrete matter? Because Chris erroneously believes that the steel-reinforced concrete included one additional element: plastic explosives, applied directly to the rebar.

His evidence:

1) the violent collapse pictures showing the ejection of powdery-grey matter at the initiation of collapse - which can be equally accounted for by the presence of drywall, sheetrock, the concrete in the floors themselves, the ash from all that burned office equipment, etc.

2) the apparenty excessive speed of collapse -- which he cannot prove is excessive, nor can he come up with a quantification of what is 'acceptable' versus what is not.

3) 'Total Pulverisation' of the towers - which debris evidence proves is wrong... He equivocates by claiming that observed debris came from the mall, not the towers themselves. But this, too, is wrong.

4) A magazine article in the late 70s which he claims explains the process of returning C4 to slurry state for underwater use - yet he won't divulge what magazine it was, or when he read the article.

Evidence against:

1) Shelf life of plastic explosives under OPTIMAL conditions is only between 15-20 years. He tries to get around this by claiming concrete acted as a better protectant; yet concrete during curing emits heat, is moist, and results in a material which allows more air exchange than cellophane. Further, any such material on the rebar would largely negate one of the purposes of rebar, and such a structure likely would have collapsed under natural stresses long before 2001.

2) Insufficient chemical residue to indicate the existence of plastic explosives, nor of det cord, wiring, or other apparatus.

3) No eyewitnesses over the lifespan of the towers noticed anything odd - considering that wiring for the detonators would have to extend beyond the concrete, and no one ever noticed such wiring.

The only evidence he ever offers in support comes from his own website - owned, operated, and administered by himself from his Isley St. home - and photos which lack clarity and definition, which he also hosts. For all we know, he's doctored those photos. I don't think he has, but he's never offered them in context of the locations he's gotten them from. Meanwhile, he's in flat and open denial of any contraverting evidence, including statements by construction and engineering personnel, photographs of construction, photographs of debris fields, etc. He expounds upon his own 'photographic' memory, but gets details wrong enough to really embarrass himself - if he had any shame, which he doesn't. Why should we trust his memory about concrete cores and magazine articles, when he can't remember the show's name was Ally McBeal, or the age of the mohawk he interviewed, or the station number of KCET, or anything else, really?

His memory is shot - and things he recalls from memory are suspect.

My suggestion to Chris is this: go back to worrying about the available algae contents of your local lakes and rivers. This, at least, is a real problem, with real solutions, and could benefit people. Raving for years on websites has gotten you no where at all, and never will. You're wasting your time here, while the oxygen levels of your home continue to diminish.

My suggestion to all the other participants on this thread: When you feel like replying to Chris, here, just copy and paste this or another of the good summations available, and walk away.

--------------------------------------------------------


short and curlies mate, short and fn curlies

BV

[NobbyNobbs]

I'm very sorry you are tired of real evidence. Considering you have none, it must be very frustrating.

Imagine how tired I am of trying over and over again to gain a reasonable recognition of facts, or logical explanation of them from people who persist in attempting to support a lie with no evidence what so ever.

If you're so tired of it, then stop.

If you're frustrated, maybe you should find an audience more willing to believe.

If you think something should be done to rectify the situation, then you should do it. Think about how much time you've wasted here when you could have been writing a paper for a professional magazine, going to the media, filing lawsuits, etc.

My belief is that you really don't care much about the truth or the people who died. You have done nothing to prove otherwise.

[The Almond]

They do not have any core shown at all. Not even one of the 3 different floor plans for the core that are in circulation.

So, you have possession of 3 different floor plans which prove the existence of the concrete core you describe? Why did you need this new one?

How does it feel to help with the demise of the US Constitution?
Nice try, troll.

[uruk]

Here is a photo taken of my copies of the master plans taken about 15 minutes ago on my humble drafting board.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtcplans1.JPG

The son of an architect who worked on the project sent them to me after consulting with a few 9-11 truth seekers to ask them who would be most trustworthy with them, and I was chosen to be the recipient.

After examining them I realized they were all but useless as they do not have any details on the core.



You mean the master plans show no concrete core. Which would mean that THERE IS NO CONCRETE CORE!
Even when you have actual evidence that shows you are wrong you still hang on to your dillusion. That should tell you somethng about yourself Chris.

[Big Al]

Chris,

I'll ask you again: WHY DID WHOEVER-IT-WAS THINK IT WAS A GREAT IDEA . . . .


Oh, what's the use. Doubtless, Chris will suddenly remember how he happened to be in a pizza parlour in 1970, where two Secret Service agents were discussing why it was a good idea to allow the towers to be blown up.

Of course, it didn't mean anything to him at the time...

[Architect]

After examining them I realized they were all but useless as they do not have any details on the core.

The one thing they are use for is proving the side of the towers were aligned in cardinal directions which proves the map in use on the FEMA or NIST site as well as Mapquest and topozone do not have the correct directions on the maps.

<snip>


Your "expert professionals" have pulled the wool over your dumbed down eyes. Get out of your cave.

Well Chris, no evidence of a concrete core. What a surprise. Just as a matter of interest, would these big square blobs happen to be steel columns, perhaps?

In any event your grasp of the construction process (or lack thereof) never ceases to amaze. I can't see the title blocks, but at the most what you have here are some overall arrangement/locating plans. Construction drawings have to be to a reasonable scale, so as to be sufficiently detailed to be of any practical use.

Hey but what do I know - I'm supposedly just a fake!

[firecoins]

why does everyone have to ruin Chris's 9/11 truth conspiracy with realty? Can't well agree Chris has the right to have babies even though it its no on'es fault? Not even the Romans?

[beachnut]

The US government is actually filled with many dedicated people. The infiltration which you support has it all messed up.

Ideally the US government is prevented from doing 9-11 or messing with me for exposing the truth, if it is a lawfull entity.

Do you like it being unlawful, infiltrated and disposing of the Constitution?

It even tells you in the Constitution the WTC can not have a concrete core!

When will you read it again. It was added.

So how did you get all messed up to believe the core of the WTC is concrete? Someone has lied to you and you have fallen for it.

[Christophera]

In any event your grasp of the construction process (or lack thereof) never ceases to amaze. I can't see the title blocks, but at the most what you have here are some overall arrangement/locating plans. Construction drawings have to be to a reasonable scale, so as to be sufficiently detailed to be of any practical use.

Hey but what do I know - I'm supposedly just a fake!

You got the fake part right.

Apparently you do not know those plans were preliminary in all ways and were what Yamasaki used as a basis of loading and sought dimensions to first select a core, then design it. In the beginning steel core columns were thought to be possibly adequate but no engineer would certify the tower safe with them. Yamasaki eliminated them and instead selcted the steel reinforced cast conrete tube of the "Tube in a tube" construction style.

[Architect]

Apparently you do not know those plans were preliminary in all ways and were what Ymasaki used as a basis of loading and sought dimensions to first select a core, then design it.

Well perhaps you'd like to tell us how you know that? Are the drawings marked preliminary?

In fact whose drawings are they? The architect? The engineer? What date are they? What does the title block say?


I the beginning steel core columns were though to be possibly adequate bu no engineer would certify the tower safe with them. Yamasaki eliminated them and instead selcted the steel reinforced cast conrete tube of the "Tube in a tube" construction style


Proof? What do you have from these mysterious engineers confirming inability to certify?


Just a minute. If they were "entrusted" to you as a special, super-top secret way of busting open the whole concrete core conspiracy (yawn) then why don't they show anything of interest?

[Architect]

You got the fake part right.



Gravy has my ARB and RIBA registration details. Pretty much everyone else here trusts him, Chris, so I'm afraid I don't give a monkey's whether you believe I'm a qualified architect or not.

Whereas we all know you're not a qualified architect or engineer.

[Architect]

It even tells you in the Constitution the WTC can not have a concrete core!

When will you read it again. It was added.



There is no Consititution. You were all hypnotised into believing there was.

But worse still, you only think you're wearing clothes. That was hypnosis tooo........:jaw-dropp

[Architect]

Oh, what's the use. Doubtless, Chris will suddenly remember how he happened to be in a pizza parlour in 1970, where two Secret Service agents were discussing why it was a good idea to allow the towers to be blown up.

Of course, it didn't mean anything to him at the time...


C4 coated anchovies?

[bonavada]

In fact whose drawings are they? The architect? The engineer? What date are they? What does the title block say?


devastating details on this raw image below.......

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748456e23b593431.jpg

BV

[NickUK]

:D

[The Almond]

If I could, Mr. Bonavada, I would make you King of Earth.

[tsig]

You got the fake part right.

Apparently you do not know those plans were preliminary in all ways and were what Yamasaki used as a basis of loading and sought dimensions to first select a core, then design it. In the beginning steel core columns were thought to be possibly adequate but no engineer would certify the tower safe with them. Yamasaki eliminated them and instead selcted the steel reinforced cast conrete tube of the "Tube in a tube" construction style.

"Tube in tube" hardly likely because of the sexual connotations theAmerican people would not have stood for it.

In the beginning there was the plan

But it failed and came short of the the Gloryof Gravity

Then spoke YAMASAKI

Let there be concrete!!!

[Christophera]

devastating details on this raw image below.......

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748456e23b593431.jpg

BV

I have 20 sheets total, same date December 16, 1963. If you want to see better detail go to the scans.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/masterplan/index.html

I would have paid to drum scan them but I knew the obsolete set was being distibuted and coudn't afford it. Within month the above link was created.

BV, we are not hiring you for plan check or construction, you are too ready to approve or to build with improperly designed preliminary drawings.

You stay in the sandbox.

[Christophera]

I am not one of the presenters of evidence, I am one of the consumers of it.

Ah, but you get a special chance with people like me. We're not smarty man engineers, and we don't know much about structural faults or melting points or C4. You have a perfect chance to convince us with your excellent evidence.

Except your explanation isn't logical, or reasonable.

Above you are falling short of reason and logic yourself. You must be specific to WHAT is not logical or not reasonable.

It strikes me as bizzare, overly complicated, and nonsensical. Your evidence is weak,

What is bizarre, overly complicated and nonsensical or weak. Your criticism is empty, illogical and unreasonable without this.

and the other side's evidence is strong.

What evidence do they actually have? Let alone strong?

You haven't done a thing to prosecute those responsible for this monstrous act.

Right, ............. you think that is reasonable to expect. Why do you think such can be done by anyone person. You are not an idiot, you are ignorant.

Also, you are somehow still alive despite knowing THE TRUTH about this incredible conspiracy.

You are the paranoid one here. Not too smart either.

However, I have done some study in the way that intelligence and law enforcement, as well as terrorism, work. As far as those elements of things go, the conspiracy theories simply aren't believable.

If this were an interrogaton I'd leave you alone for a long time then pop in and say. "Tell me more." every now and then, Knowing that you really know very little but wanting to know what you think you know.

[tsig]

Above you are falling short of reason and logic yourself. You must be specific to WHAT is not logical or not reasonable.



What is bizarre, overly complicated and nonsensical or weak. Your criticism is empty, illogical and unreasonable without this.



What evidence do they actually have? Let alone strong?



Right, ............. you think that is reasonable to expect. Why do you think such can be done by anyone person. You are not an idiot, you are ignorant.



You are the paranoid one here. Not too smart either.



If this were an interrogaton I'd leave you alone for a long time then pop in and say. "Tell me more." every now and then, Knowing that you really know very little but wanting to know what you think you know.


I have the raw eidence. I'll be posting soon. You will not believe it!!

[hcmom]

I have the raw eidence. I'll be posting soon. You will not believe it!!

Well, duh....

[delphi_ote]

I have the raw eidence. I'll be posting soon. You will not believe it!!
Better hurry up before your raw evidence goes bad. I hope you're keeping it refrigerated in the meantime. It would be awful if you served it and everyone got salmonella.

[tsig]

Better hurry up before your raw evidence goes bad. I hope you're keeping it refrigerated in the meantime. It would be awful if you served it and everyone got salmonella.


My raw eidence is a picture of a steak that I have linked to and defy you to refute.

I will show the real thing after I have built up the basics of your understanding.


Only when you understand what I know will you understand.

Send money.

[Belz...]

Your appreciation for the strength of a tempered steel column as thick as those were is equal to your understanding of the control potential for an engineered blast with well contained explosive. If the columns are intact to any degree the walls blowing will not phase them.

Really ? Wasn't it your contention that, had the towers had a steel code, they would've been far more susceptible to the damage they sustained ?

So, which is it, is steel invincible, or is it weaker than concrete ?

That the number of victims is off means nothing to my point.

Well, it's an easy number to verify, so the fact that they got it wrong calls their ability to research properly into question.

It means that the actual numbers of victims was not known yet or was over looked at the time of publishing.

Which also applies to the core.

It is absurd to think of a wall 1,300 feet tall that is the same thickness at the top than the bottom.

Why ?

Oh Galactic seer Belz, ......... with the all seeing eye, knowing whoever, wherever, whenever.

I don't need to be a seer: you can't produce either the documentary or anyone who's seen it. You explain away that fact with meaningless ramblings, but the fact remains that we haven't seen that documentary from you.

Yes raw evidence SHOULD be examined by professionals, and when they don't, they've lost their credibility. Their intentions have been compromised.

[...]

Basically we have a situation where professionals are useless.

Even were that true, it wouldn't make laymen more competent in interpreting said evidence.

Concrete core agrees with the raw evidence.

You just said that professionals should be the ones evaluating the evidence.

You also said that this evidence was not raw.

Yes, in an effort to gain reasonable. logical, responsible responses from others who do not WANT to know the truth.

Oh Galactic seer chris, ......... with the all seeing eye, knowing whoever, wherever, whenever

[Belz...]

I've stated it almost 2000 times. Show me clear pictures of steel core columns at some elevation above ground from the demo images. Everyone has failed in this.

Well, such a claim is easy when you label steel columns "box columns".

The photos are free, your brain (we assume) is yours to control.

I thought we were controlled by our subconscious ?

Easy to say.

:i:

I prove the concrete core with one image.

Or dust.

The FEMA WTC report does not use raw evidence of images from 9-11 and neither does NIST. They use text just like you do.

Typical woo nonsense. Lack of trust for knowledgeable people, appeal to common sense, fear of actual numbers.

The professionals did not even get close to descibing rates of fall near free fall

They didn't need to. No one in the business finds the rate of collapse odd.

My opposition here is so laughable they have attempted to prove the viewer cannot see the fine vertical elements which are obviously much smaller than interior box columns shot with the same camera from the same distance a second before the rebar is exposed after the steel falls away.

1) The picture shows nothing that can be analysed.
2) It's obviously the same structure as the earlier, more detailed picture
3) Please prove that rebar could withstand the "total pulverization"

Here is a photo taken of my copies of the master plans taken about 15 minutes ago on my humble drafting board.

Those plans don't show a concrete core, do they ?

After examining them I realized they were all but useless as they do not have any details on the core.

So, instead of realising that ANOTHER piece of evidence you come across disproves YOUR theory, you decide that your theory disproves the EVIDENCE.

So how can we trust you when you claim to have other evidence ?

[Belz...]

You are the paranoid one here.

Says the guy who believes everyone in the world has been hypnotised to ignore the evidence the only HE knows about.

[Architect]

Well, let's look as these drawings (again)

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/masterplan/docs/page07.jpg

General arrangement drawing. No sign of anything that looks like a concrete core. Hmmmm.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/masterplan/docs/page02.jpg

Basement plan. No concrete core. Lots of columns. Hmm!

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/masterplan/docs/page11.jpg

Upper floor plan. Still no sign of a concrete core. My, what a lot of columns though.....

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/masterplan/docs/page14.jpg

Schematic section of lists. Zzzz. Still no concrete core.


You know, I can see a pattern here.....

[Powa]

Yes, a pattern of...

*dramatic music*

...DECEPTION! :eye-poppi :eek: :covereyes

[JonnyFive]

Above you are falling short of reason and logic yourself. You must be specific to WHAT is not logical or not reasonable.

What is bizarre, overly complicated and nonsensical or weak. Your criticism is empty, illogical and unreasonable without this.
What evidence do they actually have? Let alone strong?

Right, ............. you think that is reasonable to expect. Why do you think such can be done by anyone person. You are not an idiot, you are ignorant.



You are the paranoid one here. Not too smart either.

If this were an interrogaton I'd leave you alone for a long time then pop in and say. "Tell me more." every now and then, Knowing that you really know very little but wanting to know what you think you know.


You know, I was going to go through my problems with your story (like everyone else hasn't done that to death), but I re-read your comments first and W...T...F?

Numerous people have posted here listing all the evidence they have against your position, and apparently that just doesn't phase you at all. Rather than posting even more convincing evidence to prove your point, you just slipped into ad hominem attacks. What the hell did I do to you other than say that I didn't believe your story based on the current evidence you presented.

Could you please just refute the evidence specifically.

So, is it possible to disagree with you and not be "ignorant", "not too smart", or "paranoid" (huh?)?

Seriously though, I want you to answer one question without calling me names: Why are you still alive if you know this? If you really knew about this horrendous conspiracy that involves the highest levels of power, why would the government let you or the other CTs go around talking about their plans? What purpose would that serve in the conspiracy?

Note that I currently do not believe that the government had any active role in this at all. I believe the intelligence system was screwed up, but I don't think that they planned or executed this. Therefore, I do not actually believe that the government is going to be coming to kill anyone. However, I want to know, assuming that you are 100% correct, why the government would not silence you.

Please answer without calling me names. I am not attacking you as a person, I am attacking your arguments. However, your calling me "not too smart" and suggesting that I know nothing will not make me more likely to believe your arguments.

[JonnyFive]

Well, let's look as these drawings (again)

Did someone just take those off the web site, they're not there anymore?

[firecoins]

at least 100 pages ago, Chris said he would not convinced. Can't we agree to just end this ridicuous thread?

[JonnyFive]

at least 100 pages ago, Chris said he would not convinced. Can't we agree to just end this ridicuous thread?

I don't know, it's kind of like a training ground for CT debate.

[hcmom]

at least 100 pages ago, Chris said he would not convinced. Can't we agree to just end this ridicuous thread?

Nooooooooo! It's much cheaper than anything else I'd be addicted to!

[JonnyFive]

Nooooooooo! It's much cheaper than anything else I'd be addicted to!

Exactly!

See, now I'm hooked and can't stop. I wonder why.

[Christophera]

Numerous people have posted here listing all the evidence they have against your position, and apparently that just doesn't phase you at all.

Their evidence consisted of misinterpreted construction drawings which showed vertical stel in the core area that was much smaller than the interio rbox columns surrounding the core area. That steel is elevator guide rail support steel and distinct with plates on top of it to bolt the sections together. It has no real strength or it would still be seen in the image of the WTC 2 (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) core protruding from the core area. The interior box columns were the only columns associated with the core and thery were outside of it nad were truly "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg).

Rather than posting even more convincing evidence to prove your point, you just slipped into ad hominem attacks. What the hell did I do to you other than say that I didn't believe your story based on the current evidence you presented.

Could you please just refute the evidence specifically.


Can you please present evidence specifically for comment? I always get nasty when confronted with the inadequacy like the below.

Your evidence is weak, and the other side's evidence is strong.

Referring to the below. You have not been reading and have not discerned where I'm at with this. I believe that the US government is infiltrated.

Therefore, I do not actually believe that the government is going to be coming to kill anyone.

It is not smart to attempt to conduct discussion without actual raw evidence when authority is in question. Period.

My site documenting the concrete core is all about raw evidence.

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

[Big Al]

C4 coated anchovies?

Mmm, delicious. On a rebar-soft base coated with lashings of mouthwatering concrete mozzarella...

I think we must frequent the same pizza parlour... :D

[Christophera]

Well, such a claim is easy when you label steel columns "box columns".


I did not annotate this image.

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

The term "box columns" is correct but not complete. Those columns are"interior box columns" and you can see that whoever annotated them definately saw that the steel in the core was much smaller and not deserving of annotation.

[aggle-rithm]

Their evidence consisted of misinterpreted construction drawings which showed vertical stel in the core area that was much smaller than the interio rbox columns surrounding the core area. That steel is elevator guide rail support steel and distinct with plates on top of it to bolt the sections together. It has no real strength or it would still be seen in the image of the WTC 2 (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) core protruding from the core area. The interior box columns were the only columns associated with the core and thery were outside of it nad were truly "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg).



Can you please present evidence specifically for comment? I always get nasty when confronted with the inadequacy like the below.



Referring to the below. You have not been reading and have not discerned where I'm at with this. I believe that the US government is infiltrated.



It is not smart to attempt to conduct discussion without actual raw evidence when authority is in question. Period.

My site documenting the concrete core is all about raw evidence.

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


Christophera,

I haven't been following this thread closely, so I'll just say this:

The only difference between your delusions and that of a paranoid schizophrenic are that yours are slightly more eloquent and slightly less fanciful.

But just slightly.

[Christophera]

Well, let's look as these drawings (again)

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/masterplan/docs/page07.jpg

General arrangement drawing. No sign of anything that looks like a concrete core. Hmmmm.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/masterplan/docs/page02.jpg

Basement plan. No concrete core. Lots of columns. Hmm!

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/masterplan/docs/page11.jpg

Upper floor plan. Still no sign of a concrete core. My, what a lot of columns though.....

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/masterplan/docs/page14.jpg

Schematic section of lists. Zzzz. Still no concrete core.


You know, I can see a pattern here.....

You are fired, along with Belz.

Trying to use obsolete preliminary drawings for your purposes is incompetent. Check the date man!

Then try raw evidence which shows something that cannot be steel core columns, only concrete (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) will have that appearance.

[Big Al]

Chris,

I'll ask you again: WHY DID ...?

Are you going to answer that or ignore it?

[JonnyFive]

Can you please present evidence specifically for comment? I always get nasty when confronted with the inadequacy like the below.

Referring to the below. You have not been reading and have not discerned where I'm at with this. I believe that the US government is infiltrated.

It is not smart to attempt to conduct discussion without actual raw evidence when authority is in question. Period.

My site documenting the concrete core is all about raw evidence.

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


No, your site is about photographs. As has been pointed out, this is not raw evidence. Raw evidence would be the actual twisted wreckage of the towers. All else is subject to proper interpretation.

By the way, your first photo looks like dust, and your second photo looks like big steel columns. Neither looks like a concrete core, sorry.

Got any better photos? Got any blueprints? Come on, man, you're making the positive claims here! Why should I have to prove that there wasn't C4 coated rebar, when you and a couple other people are the only ones claiming there even was?

You have no reason to "get nasty", this is not an attack. This is a debate.

You have already posted plans which do not show a concrete core, which you dismissed as being drawn up without showing the core for reasons no one could possibly fathom. You have been presented with video of the building of the towers that did not show a conrete core. Several posters have pointed out that the images you show do not appear to show a concrete core. You labelled elements from different parts of the tower side as "rebar".

If you want to convince us, you'll need to provide better evidence.
-Do you have official blueprints showing a core?
-Do you have photos from construction that conclusively show a core?
-Do you have testimony from architects or engineers that worked on the project?
-Do you have the name or airing date of that PBS documentary you claim mentions the core?

If I ask you to prove you aren't an Al Qaeda disinformation agent sent to blame our government for something your operatives did, but ignore all evidence presented and keep claiming the same thing, am I debating honestly or dishonestly?

So, just for kicks, prove you aren't an Al Qaeda operative. I saw a photo once of some terrorist training camp with some people whose faces I couldn't see in it. Prove you're not one of them. By the way, I can't provide you with the photo because I only remember it.

Why I am even bothering? Because I like pain, obviously.

[NobbyNobbs]

You are fired, along with Belz.

Trying to use obsolete preliminary drawings for your purposes is incompetent. Check the date man!



You never cease to amaze me, Christophera. Wasn't it you who, just a page or two ago, were using blueprints from 1963? Preliminary blueprints?

[JonnyFive]

You never cease to amaze me, Christophera. Wasn't it you who, just a page or two ago, were using blueprints from 1963? Preliminary blueprints?

Didn't he say that they showed no concrete core and somehow that was proof that there was a concrete core?

You can't argue with logic like that. I mean, it's physically impossible to do so!

[hcmom]

You ... have not discerned where I'm at with this.

It's a big club Jonny. Welcome to it!

[hcmom]

Didn't he say that they showed no concrete core and somehow that was proof that there was a concrete core?

You can't argue with logic like that. I mean, it's physically impossible to do so!
Betcha $5 it's not impossible for Chris...

[JonnyFive]

It's a big club Jonny. Welcome to it!

Sweet, I'm in a club now! You people make me feel so welcome.

Except Christophera, he called me an idiot and compared our wonderful dialogue to an interrogation. Oh well, there's always a critic.


ETA: No way hcmom, I'm not falling for that one. I can use my $5 to buy delicious food.

[NobbyNobbs]

So, just for kicks, prove you aren't an Al Qaeda operative. I saw a photo once of some terrorist training camp with some people whose faces I couldn't see in it. Prove you're not one of them. By the way, I can't provide you with the photo because I only remember it.
[/SIZE]


You know, you many be on to something here. Maybe Chris really is an al Qaeda disinfo agent. That's the assumption I'm now going to go under unless he proves otherwise.

This thread was getting tedious, but maybe this'll liven it up a bit.

[JonnyFive]

You know, you many be on to something here. Maybe Chris really is an al Qaeda disinfo agent. That's the assumption I'm now going to go under unless he proves otherwise.

This thread was getting tedious, but maybe this'll liven it up a bit.

I thought about it for a couple days, and I feel that this is essentially equivalent to what he's asking us to do. Fair is fair.

[Z]

ahem....

nkZRN6GA0NA

ETA to add ZD's "got you by the bollocks" summing up

--------------------------------------------------------


What is Chris' evidence of a concrete core?

1) A video in 1990 - one that no one else (except, allegedly, his ex-wife) has ever seen, one that does not exist in the archive records at PBS or at KCET, one that does not even exist in the entire catalogue of TV-Guide for the Santa Barbara area for the year of 1990.

2) An encyclopedia entry written by a person who had, at that point, never even been to the towers, and was writing on assumption, not fact.

3) A fuzzy photograph that shows nothing definite - only an indistinct, rounded shape in the dust cloud that could be concrete, or collapsing debris, or what was left of the steel-core and bedrock-walled core, partially covered with debris from above (explaining the apparent rounded shape)...

4) Deductive reasoning (since no 1300-ft long steel sections were visible during the collapse, they must not have existed). --Which is faulty, considering no 1300-ft long 'MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS' or elevator guide rails were visible, either.

On the other hand, numerous video and photographic evidence shows steel structural columns at the worksite; debris fields show clear evidence of steel support columns, but an insufficient amount of concrete; the most accurate construction plans that are available mention steel, not concrete; and a video documentary from 1983 clearly indicates steel, not concrete.

Why does concrete matter? Because Chris erroneously believes that the steel-reinforced concrete included one additional element: plastic explosives, applied directly to the rebar.

His evidence:

1) the violent collapse pictures showing the ejection of powdery-grey matter at the initiation of collapse - which can be equally accounted for by the presence of drywall, sheetrock, the concrete in the floors themselves, the ash from all that burned office equipment, etc.

2) the apparenty excessive speed of collapse -- which he cannot prove is excessive, nor can he come up with a quantification of what is 'acceptable' versus what is not.

3) 'Total Pulverisation' of the towers - which debris evidence proves is wrong... He equivocates by claiming that observed debris came from the mall, not the towers themselves. But this, too, is wrong.

4) A magazine article in the late 70s which he claims explains the process of returning C4 to slurry state for underwater use - yet he won't divulge what magazine it was, or when he read the article.

Evidence against:

1) Shelf life of plastic explosives under OPTIMAL conditions is only between 15-20 years. He tries to get around this by claiming concrete acted as a better protectant; yet concrete during curing emits heat, is moist, and results in a material which allows more air exchange than cellophane. Further, any such material on the rebar would largely negate one of the purposes of rebar, and such a structure likely would have collapsed under natural stresses long before 2001.

2) Insufficient chemical residue to indicate the existence of plastic explosives, nor of det cord, wiring, or other apparatus.

3) No eyewitnesses over the lifespan of the towers noticed anything odd - considering that wiring for the detonators would have to extend beyond the concrete, and no one ever noticed such wiring.

The only evidence he ever offers in support comes from his own website - owned, operated, and administered by himself from his Isley St. home - and photos which lack clarity and definition, which he also hosts. For all we know, he's doctored those photos. I don't think he has, but he's never offered them in context of the locations he's gotten them from. Meanwhile, he's in flat and open denial of any contraverting evidence, including statements by construction and engineering personnel, photographs of construction, photographs of debris fields, etc. He expounds upon his own 'photographic' memory, but gets details wrong enough to really embarrass himself - if he had any shame, which he doesn't. Why should we trust his memory about concrete cores and magazine articles, when he can't remember the show's name was Ally McBeal, or the age of the mohawk he interviewed, or the station number of KCET, or anything else, really?

His memory is shot - and things he recalls from memory are suspect.

My suggestion to Chris is this: go back to worrying about the available algae contents of your local lakes and rivers. This, at least, is a real problem, with real solutions, and could benefit people. Raving for years on websites has gotten you no where at all, and never will. You're wasting your time here, while the oxygen levels of your home continue to diminish.

My suggestion to all the other participants on this thread: When you feel like replying to Chris, here, just copy and paste this or another of the good summations available, and walk away.

--------------------------------------------------------


short and curlies mate, short and fn curlies

BV


Quoted his quoting, since I like his bollocks and curlies comments...

[Belz...]

It is not smart to attempt to conduct discussion without actual raw evidence when authority is in question. Period.


Therefore you are not smart, since you admitted you had no raw evidence.

I did not annotate this image.

I don't care. The fact that you annotated it or not doesn't change the fact that those columns are structural steel.

Those columns are"interior box columns" and you can see that whoever annotated them definately saw that the steel in the core was much smaller and not deserving of annotation.

So he thought they were "too small" like you think the towers fell "too fast" ?

You are fired, along with Belz.

Sorry, I don't respond well to orders.

[Christophera]

Didn't he say that they showed no concrete core and somehow that was proof that there was a concrete core?

You can't argue with logic like that. I mean, it's physically impossible to do so!

JonnyFive, with each post that you make wihtout raw evidence of the supposed 47, 1300 foot steel core columns you become less and less competent.

The blueprints have no core details what so ever. There are little dots which indicate where the original engineers thought the interior box columns might be.

Interior box columns existed, core columns did not. Farsetect proves my point not his.

Here are interio box columns labeled, "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg).

Here is a single interior box column which is called "the spire" (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg)

Here is the the top of WTC 2 falling onto WTC 3 and the concrete core is visible inside the perimeter walls. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg)

To be competent you need to use raw evidence not juvenile, obvious techniques intended to create confusion.

[Christophera]

Therefore you are not smart, since you admitted you had no raw evidence.

Working on larger and lareger errors I see.

All I have is raw evidence (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html) and a few sites with testimonials that provide corroboration from uninterested parties showing a consistency to the words "concret core" despite the confusion caused by the fact that no final construction blueprints have ever been provided to any one.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html

[JonnyFive]

Since you consider photos raw evidence, here you go. Let's do some research:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/index.html

Wait, nothing about a conrete core here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/innovation.html

"The World Trade Center's tube-style construction, with steel columns found only along the exterior wall and within a central core, freed up nearly an acre of space on each floor for offices."

You seem to like this site so:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtccons2.html
(See any concrete?)

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
(Nothing about concrete either)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_Trade_Center_Building_Design_with_Floo r_and_Elevator_Arrangment.jpg
(They somehow put elevators in the CONCRETE CORE WITH SOMETHING SOMETHING REBAR)

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

All right, I submit your own blueprints without any hint of a core as evidence that there was no core.

I also submit the earlier posted video of the tower construction, and all the construction photos as proof. And you own blurry picture that appears to show steel supports, not a CONCRETE CORE or MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS.

Do you have additional photos? Do you have the documentary? Testimony? Blueprints?

You're being evasive. You have made a positive claim (there is a concrete core), I have made a negative counter-claim (you have not shown me the core). I did not say it was impossible for there to be a concrete core, only that you have not shown good evidence.

I also see that a quick Google image search for "WTC concrete core" yields the now-discredited BBC graphic, your web site, and some forum postings by... you.

Never mind. Rock on, Christophera, rock on.

By the way, are you going to prove you're not an Al Qaeda operative?

[Dave_46]

Sweet, I'm in a club now! You people make me feel so welcome.

Except Christophera, he called me an idiot <snip>

What! He hasn't accused you of having some sort of cognitive disfunction, or told you that you have mental problems, just because you don't accept his world view. Never mind, if you carry on disagreeing with him he probably will.

Dave

[Christophera]

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html

Since you consider photos raw evidence, here you go. Let's do some research:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/index.html

I don't find any images of raw evidence of steel core columns there. You need images of the columns in the core area at some elevation above the ground to qualify as showing "core columns".

Wait, nothing about a conrete core here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/innovation.html

"The World Trade Center's tube-style construction, with steel columns found only along the exterior wall and within a central core, freed up nearly an acre of space on each floor for offices."

No raw evidence at the above site.

You seem to like this site so:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtccons2.html
(See any concrete?)

No raw evidence of columns inside the core at the above site.
This image does not look into the core and only shows an interior box column on the left.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/ssm/dsc00169.jpg

You are misrepresenting images but you do not seem to know it.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
(Nothing about concrete either)

The above site has no images of steel core columns in the core area. If you try to say so it is a misrepresentation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_Trade_Center_Building_Design_with_Floo r_and_Elevator_Arrangment.jpg
(They somehow put elevators in the CONCRETE CORE WITH SOMETHING SOMETHING REBAR)

No raw evidence of steel core columns at the above site. You did however come up with yet one more floor plan for the core layout. That makes FOUR plans now, all different.

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

If you are looking for an aerial of the top of the tower showing interior box columns mine is the best. "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) You can even see the small vertical steel of the ELEVATOR GUIDE RAIL SUPPORTS in the core area. No core columns seen.

All right, I submit your own blueprints without any hint of a core as evidence that there was no core.

Now you are being dumb again. I've already said those are not accurate and useless except for site information such as which way the towers are aligned.

I also submit the earlier posted video of the tower construction, and all the construction photos as proof. And you own blurry picture that appears to show steel supports, not a CONCRETE CORE or MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS.

Do insist on using crap information to make your point instead of raw evidence?

Do you have additional photos? Do you have the documentary? Testimony? Blueprints?

I've already shown the blueprints have never been made available to anyone,

twice.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html

http://www.nyclu.org/g_archive020602.html

Proving that there is something being hidden about the structure. Or were you sleeping through your law enforcement investigational classes?

You're being evasive. You have made a positive claim (there is a concrete core),

Yes, and I've proven my point with one image, although I have more.

Concrete core of WTC 2 (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

If you do not think it is concrete ,then tell me what you think it is based on its appearance and your experience with construction materials. If you do not do this immediately,then you WILL be truly evasive.

You could also say, "I do not have any experience in evaluating building materials by their appearances." This would mean that you cannot use my raw evidence.

I have made a negative counter-claim (you have not shown me the core). I did not say it was impossible for there to be a concrete core, only that you have not shown good evidence.

I also see that a quick Google image search for "WTC concrete core" yields the now-discredited BBC graphic, your web site, and some forum postings by... you.

Never mind. Rock on, Christophera, rock on.

By the way, are you going to prove you're not an Al Qaeda operative?

I talk about preserving the principles of the US Constitution, our rights and freedoms. Al Qaeda will not do that and I've noticed you have not either.

So, .... you might not be abel to evaluate building materials by their appearances, but at least you could avoid being perceived as some kind of agent subversive to to the sacred principles of our great nation.

Or, ....... you could say you are Canadian or Australian or from Germany and have no reason whatsoever to give a crap. I which case you are probably an agent of some sort.

[Christophera]

What! He hasn't accused you of having some sort of cognitive disfunction, or told you that you have mental problems, just because you don't accept his world view. Never mind, if you carry on disagreeing with him he probably will.

Dave

Dave,

You really should get your terms straight.

that is "Cognitive Distortion and jonny isn't seriously guilty of it, ...yet, but your post constitutes a "mental filter" with its various attempts at labeling.

3. Mental filter - Focusing exclusively on certain, usually negative or upsetting, aspects of something while ignoring the rest, like a tiny imperfection in a piece of clothing.

So to balence out your ig nor ance. I will post upsetting evidence of a concrete core.

concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif)

[Christophera]

Better hurry up before your raw evidence goes bad. I hope you're keeping it refrigerated in the meantime. It would be awful if you served it and everyone got salmonella.

Better than getting gonorrhea or aids from misrepresented evidence.

Real evidence of the raw type accurately interpreted showing a steel reinforced cast concrete core published by a sincere American seeking to protect the US Constitution and American people.

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

[jsfisher]

Real evidence of the raw type accurately interpreted showing a steel reinfocd cast concrete core publiched by a sincere American seeking to protect the US Constitution and American people.

Truly, Chris, you will be a legend in your own time.

[Z]

What is Chris' evidence of a concrete core?

1) A video in 1990 - one that no one else (except, allegedly, his ex-wife) has ever seen, one that does not exist in the archive records at PBS or at KCET, one that does not even exist in the entire catalogue of TV-Guide for the Santa Barbara area for the year of 1990.

2) An encyclopedia entry written by a person who had, at that point, never even been to the towers, and was writing on assumption, not fact.

3) A fuzzy photograph that shows nothing definite - only an indistinct, rounded shape in the dust cloud that could be concrete, or collapsing debris, or what was left of the steel-core and bedrock-walled core, partially covered with debris from above (explaining the apparent rounded shape)...

4) Deductive reasoning (since no 1300-ft long steel sections were visible during the collapse, they must not have existed). --Which is faulty, considering no 1300-ft long 'MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS' or elevator guide rails were visible, either.

On the other hand, numerous video and photographic evidence shows steel structural columns at the worksite; debris fields show clear evidence of steel support columns, but an insufficient amount of concrete; the most accurate construction plans that are available mention steel, not concrete; and a video documentary from 1983 clearly indicates steel, not concrete.

Why does concrete matter? Because Chris erroneously believes that the steel-reinforced concrete included one additional element: plastic explosives, applied directly to the rebar.

His evidence:

1) the violent collapse pictures showing the ejection of powdery-grey matter at the initiation of collapse - which can be equally accounted for by the presence of drywall, sheetrock, the concrete in the floors themselves, the ash from all that burned office equipment, etc.

2) the apparenty excessive speed of collapse -- which he cannot prove is excessive, nor can he come up with a quantification of what is 'acceptable' versus what is not.

3) 'Total Pulverisation' of the towers - which debris evidence proves is wrong... He equivocates by claiming that observed debris came from the mall, not the towers themselves. But this, too, is wrong.

4) A magazine article in the late 70s which he claims explains the process of returning C4 to slurry state for underwater use - yet he won't divulge what magazine it was, or when he read the article.

Evidence against:

1) Shelf life of plastic explosives under OPTIMAL conditions is only between 15-20 years. He tries to get around this by claiming concrete acted as a better protectant; yet concrete during curing emits heat, is moist, and results in a material which allows more air exchange than cellophane. Further, any such material on the rebar would largely negate one of the purposes of rebar, and such a structure likely would have collapsed under natural stresses long before 2001.

2) Insufficient chemical residue to indicate the existence of plastic explosives, nor of det cord, wiring, or other apparatus.

3) No eyewitnesses over the lifespan of the towers noticed anything odd - considering that wiring for the detonators would have to extend beyond the concrete, and no one ever noticed such wiring.

The only evidence he ever offers in support comes from his own website - owned, operated, and administered by himself from his Isley St. home - and photos which lack clarity and definition, which he also hosts. For all we know, he's doctored those photos. I don't think he has, but he's never offered them in context of the locations he's gotten them from. Meanwhile, he's in flat and open denial of any contraverting evidence, including statements by construction and engineering personnel, photographs of construction, photographs of debris fields, etc. He expounds upon his own 'photographic' memory, but gets details wrong enough to really embarrass himself - if he had any shame, which he doesn't. Why should we trust his memory about concrete cores and magazine articles, when he can't remember the show's name was Ally McBeal, or the age of the mohawk he interviewed, or the station number of KCET, or anything else, really?

His memory is shot - and things he recalls from memory are suspect.

My suggestion to Chris is this: go back to worrying about the available algae contents of your local lakes and rivers. This, at least, is a real problem, with real solutions, and could benefit people. Raving for years on websites has gotten you no where at all, and never will. You're wasting your time here, while the oxygen levels of your home continue to diminish.

My suggestion to all the other participants on this thread: When you feel like replying to Chris, here, just copy and paste this or another of the good summations available, and walk away.

[Christophera]

3) No eyewitnesses over the lifespan of the towers noticed anything odd - considering that wiring for the detonators would have to extend beyond the concrete, and no one ever noticed such wiring.


Where do you find my claim of such wiring here that is separate from the descriptions of "setting detonators"?

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

Such does not exist there.

I do describe the detonation systems but they were installed since the new lease on the WTC. And not sitting around where they might be observed.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1209159

There was the powerdown 2 days before 9-11 where WTC 2 was without security for 38 hours before the demo.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1212053

There is the "delays and paths" section where the delays are explained.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1232703

Each floor panel was separate and was an explosive circuit. Each had to be connected to each other by det cord or with a delay circuit wired into the security phone circuits.

You are misrepresenting my information most likely because you haven't examined it. There must be an attitude that interferes with your perceptions.

There is also a serious deficit of knowledge about what high explosive events look like and what delay systems are capable of.

Here is a video of firefighters discussing what they perceived as "detonations".

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg

[TellyKNeasuss]

From the writings of Christophera: "The red line shows a vertical valley formed in the debris because of the 2 precision, exploding planes of the core walls with perpendicular alignments (see above alignments). The debris waves are moving perpendicularly away from each other so the valley forms. The yellow line shows the adjacent ridge to the valley or the far reaches, of the parallel debris wave from the exploding plane."

Gee, and all this time I was thinking that debris would always fall straight down. I'm glad that you educated me that in a simple collapse the debris falls towards the corners so as to create a uniform debris cloud and only when explosives are used are there minima in the debris cloud at the corners of the building.

[Garb]

Here is a video of firefighters discussing what they perceived as "detonations".

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg

Yeah, well a building falling down can make plenty of noise. Honestly, were you expecting it to sound like toothpicks or something?

[Z]

Where do you find my claim of such wiring here that is separate from the descriptions of "setting detonators"?

Such does not exist there.

In fact, there's no coherent description of how the detonators were set or used there.

I do describe the detonation systems but they were installed since the new lease on the WTC. And not sitting around where they might be observed.



There was no time after the new lease to install sufficient detonation systems.

There was the powerdown 2 days before 9-11 where WTC 2 was without security for 38 hours before the demo.

Insufficient time to wire up detonation systems. Definitely insufficient time to conceal the work.

Each floor panel was separate and was an explosive circuit. Each had to be connected to each other by det cord or with a delay circuit wired into the security phone circuits.

Total nonsense. It would never be wired that way - a stray spark or feed from an eroding phone circuit would cause it to detonate.

Structures designed with self-destruct systems as you are attempting to claim this one was have completely independent, protected circuites, isolated from all other power, ground, or telephone feeds.

You are misrepresenting my information most likely because you haven't examined it. There must be an attitude that interferes with your perceptions.

Yes - love of knowledge and a firm grasp of reason... which you don't seem to possess.

I misrepresent nothing - your information is lousy.

There is also a serious deficit of knowledge about what high explosive events look like and what delay systems are capable of.

Used'em. Spent a decade in the military using C4 and other explosives. I've wired buildings, bridges, vehicles, telephone poles, and other things. Blown quite a few of them to smithereens, too.

The collapse of the towers did not look like a high explosive event, Chris. And that is the voice of experience.

Here is a video of firefighters discussing what they perceived as "detonations".

Hearing a 'boom' does not mean explosives were used. If you had any sense, you'd know that.


What is Chris' evidence of a concrete core?

1) A video in 1990 - one that no one else (except, allegedly, his ex-wife) has ever seen, one that does not exist in the archive records at PBS or at KCET, one that does not even exist in the entire catalogue of TV-Guide for the Santa Barbara area for the year of 1990.

2) An encyclopedia entry written by a person who had, at that point, never even been to the towers, and was writing on assumption, not fact.

3) A fuzzy photograph that shows nothing definite - only an indistinct, rounded shape in the dust cloud that could be concrete, or collapsing debris, or what was left of the steel-core and bedrock-walled core, partially covered with debris from above (explaining the apparent rounded shape)...

4) Deductive reasoning (since no 1300-ft long steel sections were visible during the collapse, they must not have existed). --Which is faulty, considering no 1300-ft long 'MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS' or elevator guide rails were visible, either.

On the other hand, numerous video and photographic evidence shows steel structural columns at the worksite; debris fields show clear evidence of steel support columns, but an insufficient amount of concrete; the most accurate construction plans that are available mention steel, not concrete; and a video documentary from 1983 clearly indicates steel, not concrete.

Why does concrete matter? Because Chris erroneously believes that the steel-reinforced concrete included one additional element: plastic explosives, applied directly to the rebar.

His evidence:

1) the violent collapse pictures showing the ejection of powdery-grey matter at the initiation of collapse - which can be equally accounted for by the presence of drywall, sheetrock, the concrete in the floors themselves, the ash from all that burned office equipment, etc.

2) the apparenty excessive speed of collapse -- which he cannot prove is excessive, nor can he come up with a quantification of what is 'acceptable' versus what is not.

3) 'Total Pulverisation' of the towers - which debris evidence proves is wrong... He equivocates by claiming that observed debris came from the mall, not the towers themselves. But this, too, is wrong.

4) A magazine article in the late 70s which he claims explains the process of returning C4 to slurry state for underwater use - yet he won't divulge what magazine it was, or when he read the article.

Evidence against:

1) Shelf life of plastic explosives under OPTIMAL conditions is only between 15-20 years. He tries to get around this by claiming concrete acted as a better protectant; yet concrete during curing emits heat, is moist, and results in a material which allows more air exchange than cellophane. Further, any such material on the rebar would largely negate one of the purposes of rebar, and such a structure likely would have collapsed under natural stresses long before 2001.

2) Insufficient chemical residue to indicate the existence of plastic explosives, nor of det cord, wiring, or other apparatus.

3) No eyewitnesses over the lifespan of the towers noticed anything odd - considering that wiring for the detonators would have to extend beyond the concrete, and no one ever noticed such wiring.
The only evidence he ever offers in support comes from his own website - owned, operated, and administered by himself from his Isley St. home - and photos which lack clarity and definition, which he also hosts. For all we know, he's doctored those photos. I don't think he has, but he's never offered them in context of the locations he's gotten them from. Meanwhile, he's in flat and open denial of any contraverting evidence, including statements by construction and engineering personnel, photographs of construction, photographs of debris fields, etc. He expounds upon his own 'photographic' memory, but gets details wrong enough to really embarrass himself - if he had any shame, which he doesn't. Why should we trust his memory about concrete cores and magazine articles, when he can't remember the show's name was Ally McBeal, or the age of the mohawk he interviewed, or the station number of KCET, or anything else, really?

His memory is shot - and things he recalls from memory are suspect.

My suggestion to Chris is this: go back to worrying about the available algae contents of your local lakes and rivers. This, at least, is a real problem, with real solutions, and could benefit people. Raving for years on websites has gotten you no where at all, and never will. You're wasting your time here, while the oxygen levels of your home continue to diminish.

My suggestion to all the other participants on this thread: When you feel like replying to Chris, here, just copy and paste this or another of the good summations available, and walk away.

[Christophera]

Yeah, well a building falling down can make plenty of noise. Honestly, were you expecting it to sound like toothpicks or something?

OMG!

Serious distortions there. How did the building stand for 33 years with all the potential fragility you imply?

Almost childish, "Falling down to the ground."

These guys are professionals and they've witnessed controlled demolitions.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg

[Christophera]

Where do you find my claim of such wiring here that is separate from the descriptions of "setting detonators"?


Such does not exist there.
In fact, there's no coherent description of how the detonators were set or used there.


I just provided a complete and detailed reply to your unfounded and unsupported contention, here.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2138919#post2138919

So what is the below? Something you cannot understand it appears.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1232703

Delays and Paths

The floor delays would be on one circuit and the core on another. The ports accessing the rebar in the core walls were on the inside of the core, protected from the blasts of the floors. Floor circuit delays would be set to count at 75 milliseconds with a possible decreasing delay downward for initiations of consecutive floors to the bottom. Concrete core delay paths would set at 300 milliseconds for each 40 foot concrete pour which had at least one inspection port on each 3" vertical rebar to remove the coating and slow the removal of bearing and lateral support, keeping the floors in position while they detonate.

Apparently technical desciptions of process are not something you can comprehend.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1212053

SETTING DETONATORS:

Inspection ports provided would allow access to the big vertical bar in the concrete shear walls of the core. I remember these mentioned in the documentary as needed to check the condition of the reinforcing bar. When the buildings were leased there was extensive service done on lower elevators. That was done in immediately following the leasing of the towers when news programs reported that employees working in the towers lower floors experienced delays getting to lower floors because they had to go above them and then come back down due to service on lower floor elevators. A flame initiation method that utilizes gas filled plastic tubes which is a safer, more stable detonation system would be used here as those blasting caps would sit for months in the occupied building. The gas is lit and burns to a detonator resembling an old fuse, or fire blasting cap. This system will not be inadvertently detonated by radio waves or static and can be left safely for months.

On the weekend before 9-11 the building was unlocked throughout the inside for cable upgrades for almost 48 hours above the 48th floor. Just about the right amount of time to access the inspection ports and complete the work done.

the inspection ports into the cast concrete pour are opened and 4 inches of C4 scraped off the rebar interrupting the explosive circuit where a delay cap initiated with the gas detonation circuit is inserted. Shielding the C4 from the upper detonation with a steel cover would assure that the lower cap would be intact for delayed detonation. The opportunity for setting detonators on the upper 48 floors of WTC 2 is documented below. It is implied that the entire WTC underwent the same cable upgrade.

[beachnut]

who made up this junk about detonation circuits, there were none at the WTC the security, the private security guys for some of the businesses were on the ball, they would have found them, they did not

you are wrong again, I have seen that the WTC businesses had independent security who would have found silly stuff like you make up

[TellyKNeasuss]

Inspection ports provided would allow access to the big vertical bar in the concrete shear walls of the core. I remember these mentioned in the documentary as needed to check the condition of the reinforcing bar.

...the inspection ports into the cast concrete pour are opened and 4 inches of C4 scraped off the rebar interrupting the explosive circuit where a delay cap initiated with the gas detonation circuit is inserted.

This might be a dumb question, but wouldn't the inspection ports have made the C4 visible to all sorts of maintenance workers?

The opportunity for setting detonators on the upper 48 floors of WTC 2 is documented below. It is implied that the entire WTC underwent the same cable upgrade."Implied"??? Don't you mean "fantasized"? There is no evidence that there was any major work similar to the magnitude of what your single witness claims took place in WTC2, so your claim about how the detonators were installed is implausible.

[Bell]

"NUTS!"

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/bc/Anthony_McAuliffe.jpg/250px-Anthony_McAuliffe.jpg

[Redtail]

"NUTS!"

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/bc/Anthony_McAuliffe.jpg/250px-Anthony_McAuliffe.jpg

HOOAH Gen McAliffe!

[beachnut]

surrender now!

[Bell]

Serenity now!

[Powa]

I talk about preserving the principles of the US Constitution, our rights and freedoms.
Yes, all you do is talk. How about some action? What have you done that is of any consequence in all these years? What are your plans for bringing the 'real' perpertrators to justice and why are you wasting your time here?

[Christophera]

who made up this junk about detonation circuits, there were none at the WTC the security, the private security guys for some of the businesses were on the ball, they would have found them, they did not

you are wrong again, I have seen that the WTC businesses had independent security who would have found silly stuff like you make up

Hey, these firefighters are discussing, testifying about a delay system working floor by floor,

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg

We neen an explanation for this (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1plumecascade.jpg) and COLLAPSE is NOT logical

Inside the core security is going to find them? No. they are not looking at all, let alone from the roof of an elevator.

No, the ports were potted in paraffin or something like that looking like part of the construction, and they were.
After the lease there were news reports of people on lower floors having to take elevators over their floor then come back down on other elevators. The plugs were very thick and took serious work to dig through to get the caps next to the rebar, as well as stripping off C4 to create delays. Although judging from the shape and size of this explosion, (http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8232/wtcsl8.jpg) I don't think three was much delay. i need to see a video to make a call on that. Stripping off the C4, 4 feet inside a wall at the bottom of an inspection port doesn't sound easy, let alone connecting a delay with det cord.
This works was causing delays and the fact made the news. I did not personally see/hear this on the TV but read the fact on another message board a couple of years back. Others confirmed it.

On the floor panels there was probably a sheet metal cover near the core wall that had a couple of screws in it and under it was security phone lines. Under the lines was concrete except for a paraffin plug. 4-5 inches through the plug was C4. Insert a cap and rest the delay circuit on floor, connect it into the color coded phone circuit designated for detonators, replace the cover and continue to the next one.

The delays in the detonation system created these early blasts (http://mouv4x8.club.fr/11Sept01/A0069b_3_towerexplo1_explosion_below.jpg)to steer the top of WTC 2 to the east.

[solidslade]

just curious as to the engineering / explosives qualifications of the OP?

and no, I refuse to do a search function on over 200 consecutive posts..

jesus-tap-dancing-christ, this thing is huge.

[Belz...]

All I have is raw evidence

No, that's not what you said:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2109655&postcount=7806

and a few sites with testimonials that provide corroboration from uninterested parties showing a consistency to the words "concret core" despite the confusion caused by the fact that no final construction blueprints have ever been provided to any one.

You mean, despite the fact that every expert in the world says you're wrong, that no one remembers the core, that your principal "testimonial" comes from a Canadian grade school, that you've admitted that your pictures may show dust.

Should I go on ?

[Belz...]

I don't find any images of raw evidence of steel core columns there.

Wrong burden of proof. NO CONCRETE CORE is mentionned, either.

OMG!

Serious distortions there. How did the building stand for 33 years with all the potential fragility you imply?

Are you saying that a collapsing, 110-storey building will NOT make loud bangs ?

I just provided a complete and detailed reply to your unfounded and unsupported contention, here.

So what is the below?

Something you made up. No quotations. You just make it up, don't you ?

Hey, these firefighters are discussing, testifying about a delay system working floor by floor,

Speculation. They're talking about explosions, not explosives.

[Big Al]

I do describe the detonation systems but they were installed since the new lease on the WTC. And not sitting around where they might be observed.

And you know this ... how? Another documentary that slipped your mind?

Each floor panel was separate and was an explosive circuit. Each had to be connected to each other by det cord or with a delay circuit wired into the security phone circuits.

Ditto.

You are misrepresenting my information most likely because you haven't examined it. There must be an attitude that interferes with your perceptions.

You, of course, don't have any preconceptions. You're willing to consider all the evidence and modify your beliefs as new data comes to light. I, for one, have followed every link you've posted, most of which are just repeats of earlier ones. Can't you get it through your head that we're just not convinced?

Here is a video of firefighters discussing what they perceived as "detonations".

And they, of course, are experts in demolition systems.

[Big Al]

Serious distortions there. How did the building stand for 33 years with all the potential fragility you imply?

Whereas coating rigid rebar in squishy plastic explosives will do wonders for the building's sturdiness,won't it?

And, of course, you still haven't responded to the issue of why on Earth the builders back in the mid-60s thought it would be such a good idea to plant the explosives, just in case they needed to demolish the buildings over thirty years later.

I've seen several tower demolitions on the TV, and they don't fall to one side or the other. They completely collapse within their own foootprints. With the WTC, there was an enormous amount of collateral damage. If that had been a professional demolition, the demolition firm would be cooling their heels in jail for a VERY long time for gross negligence.

However, of course, the omniscient evil planners thought it would be useful to wire the demolition charges in the first place could also see the benefit in damaging as many other buildings as possible.

I found this site very interesting:

http://www.implosionworld.com/wtc.htm

But then you won't be interested in reading anything written by real demolition experts.

[JonnyFive]

I don't find any images of raw evidence of steel core columns there. You need images of the columns in the core area at some elevation above the ground to qualify as showing "core columns".

You're taking my evidence very specifically. I then showed you construction photos of steel supports sticking out of the top, and you claim they are MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS. Care to explain how those are NOT steel support columns?


No raw evidence of columns inside the core at the above site.
This image does not look into the core and only shows an interior box column on the left.

Again, this is a very meaningless distinction. How do I know that those are not support columns? You have shown me no pictures of the towers under construction showing a concrete core, and so I must conclude that the columns are more likely to be support columns than some kind of reinforcement for a core you have shown no pictures of.


No raw evidence of steel core columns at the above site. You did however come up with yet one more floor plan for the core layout. That makes FOUR plans now, all different.

Which is odd, because the only one which seems truly different is the BBC one which is incorrect. The others show different aspects of the same design.


If you are looking for an aerial of the top of the tower showing interior box columns mine is the best. "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) You can even see the small vertical steel of the ELEVATOR GUIDE RAIL SUPPORTS in the core area. No core columns seen.

Yes, MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS. See my above question regarding these.

Where is the concrete?


Now you are being dumb again. I've already said those are not accurate and useless except for site information such as which way the towers are aligned.

Personal attacks will not hurt me or convince me, sorry.

But you present them as some kind of evidence of something. If they are only layout plans, then they're totally useless to anyone here. Why even post them?


I've already shown the blueprints have never been made available to anyone,

This will make your case considerably harder to prove.


Proving that there is something being hidden about the structure. Or were you sleeping through your law enforcement investigational classes?

Well, I didn't take "law enforcement investigational classes", I took classes studying the science of investigation as applied generally, but I'll let you off the hook for such a minor distinction.

No, as a matter of fact. However, one thing we learned, along with every law class I had to take, was that absence of evidence is not evidence. It can direct you to look in a particular place or make a jury hesitate, but it can never prove anything. The concept of absence of evidence as proof may be popular among the CT circles, but it will not hold water here.


Yes, and I've proven my point with one image, although I have more.

No, you haven't.

If you do not think it is concrete ,then tell me what you think it is based on its appearance and your experience with construction materials. If you do not do this immediately,then you WILL be truly evasive.

I agree, I would be being evasive.

I do not know specifically what it is, and you do not either. You have shown one still image from the collapse. You are trying to evaluate a very dynamic situation from a static perspective, which is a very bad idea.

It could be many things. Given the situation, I would say it is most likely the bulk of the building as it was coming down, being a collection of many different materials.

If it were the concrete core and core was demolished completely by C4, then why would we see pieces of an intact core.

You could also say, "I do not have any experience in evaluating building materials by their appearances." This would mean that you cannot use my raw evidence.

No, it would mean my opinion is less valuable in this area than the more knowledgable forum members that have already addressed this issue. I'll defer to their expertise in this area.

However, to a layman it does not look like a concrete core. So you'll have to provide better evidence that, to a layman, looks good. I hope you're not suggesting I simply take your word for it, because I don't give that liberty to anyone.

I talk about preserving the principles of the US Constitution, our rights and freedoms. Al Qaeda will not do that and I've noticed you have not either.

Anyone can talk about anything, that doesn't prove their true motives.

I do not need to spout patriotic rhetoric in order to prove my dedication to the Constitution. That is a tactic of last resort for the intellectually cornered.


So, .... you might not be abel to evaluate building materials by their appearances, but at least you could avoid being perceived as some kind of agent subversive to to the sacred principles of our great nation.

You finally answered my earlier question. Apparently, it is impossible to disagree with you without being insulted.

Or, ....... you could say you are Canadian or Australian or from Germany and have no reason whatsoever to give a crap. I which case you are probably an agent of some sort.

No, I'm very happy to be a part of my country, despite its flaws. But national origin has nothing to do with this.

I would kindly request that you converse in a more civil tone. I know that you are frustrated that no one here takes your argument seriously, and have long ago degraded into using ad hominem as a debate method, but it's very tiresome.

[twinstead]

But then you won't be interested in reading anything written by real demolition experts.

...or real structural engineers, or real construction engineers, or anybody at all who actually knows what they are talking about concerning the design and construction of the WTC.

[JonnyFive]

Better than getting gonorrhea or aids from misrepresented evidence.

Real evidence of the raw type accurately interpreted showing a steel reinforced cast concrete core published by a sincere American seeking to protect the US Constitution and American people.

You do realize that the definition of "raw evidence" is "evidence which has not been evaluated or processed", right?

Photographs of the collapse of the towers are not raw evidence. The sum of the records of the collapse (video, seismic, series of still images) might be considered raw. So would physical evidence.

But you take one still frame and call it evidence. How about providing the whole frame sequence from the video? I'd love to the see the previous and next few hundred frames from your CONCRETE CORE STILL STANDS image.

Do you want to convince us, or just batter us into submission? If you want the latter, I think you're in the wrong place.

[delphi_ote]

Better than getting gonorrhea or aids from misrepresented evidence.
It doesn't work that way. If it did, there wouldn't be much left of the "Truth Movement".

[aggle-rithm]

Better than getting gonorrhea or aids from misrepresented evidence.

Real evidence of the raw type accurately interpreted showing a steel reinforced cast concrete core published by a sincere American seeking to protect the US Constitution and American people.

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


YOU'RE protecting us? Where the hell were you on September 11, 2001? Why the total non-response? Were you IN ON IT?!?

[aggle-rithm]

Whereas coating rigid rebar in squishy plastic explosives will do wonders for the building's sturdiness,won't it?

And, of course, you still haven't responded to the issue of why on Earth the builders back in the mid-60s thought it would be such a good idea to plant the explosives, just in case they needed to demolish the buildings over thirty years later.

I've seen several tower demolitions on the TV, and they don't fall to one side or the other. They completely collapse within their own foootprints. With the WTC, there was an enormous amount of collateral damage. If that had been a professional demolition, the demolition firm would be cooling their heels in jail for a VERY long time for gross negligence.

However, of course, the omniscient evil planners thought it would be useful to wire the demolition charges in the first place could also see the benefit in damaging as many other buildings as possible.

I found this site very interesting:

http://www.implosionworld.com/wtc.htm

But then you won't be interested in reading anything written by real demolition experts.

Don't forget the fact that, even if the towers had fallen straight down without damaging the surrounding buildings, they still would have done severe damage to the infrastructure underneath the WTC, including subway tunnels, power, water lines, etc.

For this reason, I think that if the WTC buildings were to be demolished, they would not have been collapsed all at the same time; they would have been dismantled piecemeal, sort of a reverse of the construction.

[Bell]

The delays in the detonation system created these early blasts (http://mouv4x8.club.fr/11Sept01/A0069b_3_towerexplo1_explosion_below.jpg)to steer the top of WTC 2 to the east.

Okay, we finally agree that the top of the south tower fell to the east. Thank you.

[JonnyFive]

Okay, we finally agree that the top of the south tower fell to the east. Thank you.


Yeah, but... wait a sec, he thinks that the photo shows an explosive charge going off? Did he look at the top of the photo before saying that? You know, with the big f-ing tower coming down? Wouldn't expect that to throw out any debris or dust, it had to be explosives.

[Bell]

Yeah, but... wait a sec, he thinks that the photo shows an explosive charge going off? Did he look at the top of the photo before saying that? You know, with the big f-ing tower coming down? Wouldn't expect that to throw out any debris or dust, it had to be explosives.

Hey! For someone who used to claim the top fell onto the Marriott, I think this is a pretty big step forward :)

[JonnyFive]

Hey! For someone who used to claim the top fell onto the Marriott, I think this is a pretty big step forward :)

That's true, I guess.

ETA: Has he ever actually admitted he might be wrong about all this? Has he ever said "well, this is my theory, here's my proof... let me know what you think", or is this 100% about THE TRUTH which is not open to debate?

Never mind, I think I know the answer to that.

[Powa]

With Christophera, as with a stone wall, there is no debate. (ancient Chinese proverb)

[Big Al]

With Christophera, as with a stone wall, there is no debate. (ancient Chinese proverb)

It's concrete
Oh, yes it is, so there
Says Christophera

Hey! I just wrote a haiku!

[Regnad Kcin]

Yes, and I've proven my point with one image, although I have more.So the Earth must be flat. Hey, one image is all you need for proof, apparently.

Oh, and which weighs more:

- 11 stories of WTC tower
- 25 stories of WTC tower

[JonnyFive]

So the Earth must be flat. Hey, one image is all you need for proof, apparently.

Oh, and which weighs more:

- 11 stories of WTC tower
- 25 stories of WTC tower

Yeah, that one image line just killed me.

Maybe the 11 stories had more C4 and concrete in them and weighed more, somehow proving everything he's said.

[Christophera]

Yes, all you do is talk. How about some action? What have you done that is of any consequence in all these years? What are your plans for bringing the 'real' perpertrators to justice and why are you wasting your time here?

I've built 1 very nice web sites that are informing Americans with raw evidence of a HUGE lie and WHY the lie.

What have you done besides say "NO" to reality?

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

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

[Arus808]

I've built 1 very nice web sites that are informing Americans with raw evidence of a HUGE lie and WHY the lie.

those pages dont have raw evidence.. Images are not raw evidence. Please post actual debris you've collected from the WTC...

[JonnyFive]

those pages dont have raw evidence.. Images are not raw evidence. Please post actual debris you've collected from the WTC...

Yeah, I keep saying the same thing. I think he's using a different, made-up definition of the phrase "raw evidence".

[Regnad Kcin]

I've proven my point with one image.Look, rockets hover in midair! (http://www7.tltc.ttu.edu/kechambe/Saturn%20V.jpg)

(Also please note the 3" rebar in the tower to the left.)

[Powa]

I've built 1 very nice web sites that are informing Americans with raw evidence of a HUGE lie and WHY the lie.
Yes, but how many people have you convinced of your concrete core? With evidence so obvious and the concrete core plain to see, surelly, millions by now.

Oh, that's right, we've been all hypnotised. Why bother then?

What have you done besides say "NO" to reality?

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

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
At no point have I said NO to reality. You, on the other hand, reject reality and substitute your own.

And for the love of all that's good in this world, please, PLEASE, look up "raw evidence" because you're using it all wrong. It's been explained to you dozens of times, yet you insist on making a fool of yourself by misusing it.

[JonnyFive]

Look, rockets hover in midair! (http://www7.tltc.ttu.edu/kechambe/Saturn%20V.jpg)

(Also please note the 3" rebar in the tower to the left.)

All that fire and smoke proves CD!

[Powa]

All that smoke proves that the rocket's concrete core was totally pulverized.

[JonnyFive]

It was built with C4 inside, thirty years prior to demolition.

And no one noticed, because they're all reptoids.

[Powa]

I think he's using a different, made-up definition of the phrase "raw evidence".
Or in his reality words have different meanings.

[TellyKNeasuss]

Yes, and I've proven my point with one image, although I have more.

Concrete core of WTC 2 (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)




Ummm, this is a picture of a debris cloud behind some buildings. The building has already completely collapsed. There actually isn't a core of any kind in this picture.

[Bell]

I've built 1 very nice web sites that are informing Americans with raw evidence of a HUGE lie and WHY the lie.

What have you done besides say "NO" to reality?

<spam>

<spam>

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/a/ab/180px-Beholder.jpg

[JonnyFive]

There actually isn't a core of any kind in this picture.

What, you're not swayed by his amazing evidence?

Yeah, me neither.

[hcmom]

What, you're not swayed by his amazing evidence?

Yeah, me neither.

Picky, picky, picky... Geez, he built 1 very nice web sites for us, and now you want it to prove what he's claiming it does?

[JonnyFive]

Picky, picky, picky... Geez, he built 1 very nice web sites for us, and now you want it to prove what he's claiming it does?


Yeah, I'm really annoying like that.

[Hellbound]

Dang it!

How many times do I have to tell you kids...

IF YOU KEEP PICKING AT IT IT'S NEVER GOING TO HEAL!!!!

:D

[hcmom]

Dang it!

How many times do I have to tell you kids...

IF YOU KEEP PICKING AT IT IT'S NEVER GOING TO HEAL!!!!

:D

More than 8731 times obviously...

[Belz...]

I've built 1 very nice web sites that are informing Americans with raw evidence of a HUGE lie and WHY the lie.

A) Pictures are not raw evidence. You've admitted this. Why do you continue to call them such ?

B) Your "WHY the lie" is sheer speculation, because you don't have a motive or any proof of explosives or anything, EVEN IF you had proof of the core.

[TellyKNeasuss]

What, you're not swayed by his amazing evidence?

I should admit that I'm 6 months overdue for an eye exam and there might be a big concrete core right in the middle of the picture that I just can't see.

[JonnyFive]

I should admit that I'm 6 months overdue for an eye exam and there might be a big concrete core right in the middle of the picture that I just can't see.

There is also the possibility that we're all hypontized agents of the conspiracy. Or we're just too stupid to see THE TRUTH, as Christophera keeps implying/blantantly saying.

[Regnad Kcin]

I've proven my point with one image.Raw evidence of a flying car! (http://quatrorodas.abril.com.br/grid/download/wallpaper/img/2004/rally_citroen3_800.jpg)

[Christophera]

A) Pictures are not raw evidence. You've admitted this. Why do you continue to call them such ?

B) Your "WHY the lie" is sheer speculation, because you don't have a motive or any proof of explosives or anything, EVEN IF you had proof of the core.

images are as close as we get to raw evidence so by default they deserve the label

Do you have any images that show any of the 47, 1,300 foot the steel core columns at some elevation above ground clearly in the core area?

I have an image of WTC 2 core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) that appears to be concrete as it bears no resemblence to steel columns.

i also have an image, raw evidence, of a section of concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) which is supporting the spire. Can you come up with any images of raw evidence of the steel core columns that have the veracity of ths raw evidence?

[Christophera]

Ummm, this is a picture of a debris cloud behind some buildings. The building has already completely collapsed. There actually isn't a core of any kind in this picture.

Many people have no problem with identifying a solid strcuture in that image. Perhaps you have no idea what concrete or solid object appear as or the difference between them and dust. There is very clearly a solid obect in the exact area of the WTC 2 core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) in that image.

[Christophera]

At no point have I said NO to reality. You, on the other hand, reject reality and substitute your own.


And the entire time you had no evidence, you still do not have any evidence of the reality you assert was.

On the other hand, I do have evidence, images of the raw evidence of concrete, which also discount your assertions.

For example, this is the concrete core wall base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg). Keep in mind I've revised my statement f the rebar diameter. I realized that the docuemntary I saw in 1990, "The Construction of the Twin Towers" had described 6 inch rebar that reached up from the foundaton into the lower core walls.

Note. There are no steel columns penetrating the stairwell or to the right of the stair and in the fore ground as the 4 different core floor plans show their approximate locations.

[Christophera]

Can't you get it through your head that we're just not convinced?


I understand this, but them I also know you are refusing to be reasonable in the recognition of redundant evidence documenting the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html).

[hcmom]

... refusing to be reasonable in the recognition of redundant evidence ...

It had been a day or two since Chris made me smile...

[Bell]

It had been a day or two since Chris made me smile...

I'm pretty sure he is suffering from MPD.

[NobbyNobbs]

Or in his reality words have different meanings.

Of course. Remember, "pulverization" means fist-sized chunks, and "near free-fall" means less than 2 minutes.


Hey, these firefighters are discussing, testifying about a delay system working floor by floor,

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg

We neen an explanation for this (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1plumecascade.jpg) and COLLAPSE is NOT logical

Inside the core security is going to find them? No. they are not looking at all, let alone from the roof of an elevator.

No, the ports were potted in paraffin or something like that looking like part of the construction, and they were.
After the lease there were news reports of people on lower floors having to take elevators over their floor then come back down on other elevators. The plugs were very thick and took serious work to dig through to get the caps next to the rebar, as well as stripping off C4 to create delays. Although judging from the shape and size of this explosion, (http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8232/wtcsl8.jpg) I don't think three was much delay. i need to see a video to make a call on that. Stripping off the C4, 4 feet inside a wall at the bottom of an inspection port doesn't sound easy, let alone connecting a delay with det cord.
This works was causing delays and the fact made the news. I did not personally see/hear this on the TV but read the fact on another message board a couple of years back. Others confirmed it.

On the floor panels there was probably a sheet metal cover near the core wall that had a couple of screws in it and under it was security phone lines. Under the lines was concrete except for a paraffin plug. 4-5 inches through the plug was C4. Insert a cap and rest the delay circuit on floor, connect it into the color coded phone circuit designated for detonators, replace the cover and continue to the next one.

The delays in the detonation system created these early blasts (http://mouv4x8.club.fr/11Sept01/A0069b_3_towerexplo1_explosion_below.jpg)to steer the top of WTC 2 to the east.

Please note what I've bolded. Nice, definitive evidence there.

I still maintain that Christophera is an al Qaeda shill, here to spread disinfo about the WTC collapse and shift blame onto the US government. As "RAW EVIDENCE" , I submit the past 219 pages of this thread, plus the following image:

3" x 4" rebar (http://www.themes.myqth.com/Wallpaper/Kitten%20Wallpaper.jpg)

[Bell]

I submit the past 219 pages of this thread, plus the following image:

3" x 4" rebar (http://www.themes.myqth.com/Wallpaper/Kitten%20Wallpaper.jpg)

CUUUTE!!!

[TellyKNeasuss]

For example, this is the concrete core wall base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg).

Man, I've just got to make an appointment with the eye doctor. I just can't see 17-foot thick concrete in that picture.

[Big Al]

I understand this, but them I also know you are refusing to be reasonable in the recognition of redundant evidence documenting the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html).

<Yawn>

I've seen that before, and it's...

Ah, what's the point?

What told the builders to put C-4 in the WTC towers 33 years before it "needed" to be cut down?

Will you EVER answer that?

[Big Al]

Perhaps not, you TROLL! You don't have an answer to that, do you?

[Christophera]

<Yawn>

I've seen that before, and it's...

Ah, what's the point?

What told the builders to put C-4 in the WTC towers 33 years before it "needed" to be cut down?

Will you EVER answer that?

That information is more than this thread is designated for.

We talk "EXPLANATION" here, for "FREE FALL" or speeds near it. I wouldn't want to stress anyone unnecessarily by trying to expain "why" when "how" has not been addressed.

It took over 200 pages for the "near" part of free fall to soak in. Now, since the structure that existed is very much going to determine the rate of fall, the type of fall, etc. we are working on that.

I estimate, considering the unwillingness to utilize available information, that this process will take another 600 pages.

Keep in mind, that not one denier of the concrete core has come up with a rational explanation of what that material is to the left of the spire IF it is not a concrete shear wall. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif)

[Bell]

That information is more than this thread is designated for.

We talk "EXPLANATION" here, for "FREE FALL" or speeds near it. I wouldn't want to stress anyone unnecessarily by trying to expain "why" when "how" has not been addressed.

It took over 200 pages for the "near" part of free fall to soak in. Now, since the structure that existed is very much going to determine the rate of fall, the type of fall, etc. we are working on that.

I estimate, considering the unwillingness to utilize available information, that this process will take another 600 pages.

Keep in mind, that not one denier of the concrete core has come up with a rational explanation of what that material is to the left of the spire IF it is not a concrete shear wall. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif)

You. Are. Wrong.

Seek professional help, Chris. Ask your children for help. I mean it.

[Christophera]

CUUUTE!!!

I suggest that the basic evidence you are presenting has as much validity as that contained in the shrunken pantaloons of Bell and his brother Belz.

Despite this fact, and that one is an alien, their basic rights are still worth defending.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4331&stc=1&d=1165020216