Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers? [Archive] - Page 36

Christophera

1st December 2006, 05:01 PM

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?

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.

I know you are in Slovenia where the contents of shrunken pantaloons are considered raw evidence.

Here in California, the very western part of the US of A, photos ARE considered "raw evidence" in construction matters which this matter of defining demoliton is closely related to.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3923/is_200211/ai_n9342046

Construction: Raw evidence in mediation
Dispute Resolution Journal, Nov 2002-Jan 2003
Find More Results for: "raw evidence "

The California Court of Appeal held that photographs and raw data prepared for or used in connection with mediation were "otherwise admissible evidence" and therefore were not protected from disclosure under the California Evidence Code

beachnut

1st December 2006, 05:05 PM

I know you are in Slovenia where the contents of shrunken pantaloons are considered raw evidence.

Here in California, the very western part of the US of A, photos ARE considered "raw evidence" in construction matters which this matter of defining demoliton is closely related to.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3923/is_200211/ai_n9342046

Construction: Raw evidence in mediation
Dispute Resolution Journal, Nov 2002-Jan 2003
Find More Results for: "raw evidence "

The California Court of Appeal held that photographs and raw data prepared for or used in connection with mediation were "otherwise admissible evidence" and therefore were not protected from disclosure under the California Evidence Code

Good work Chris insult the guy who know you are wrong.

Still wrong, I use your web site to prove you wrong everyday. Even grade school kids know the WTC had a steel only core. No Concrete and 10 year olds can figure it out with real research!

Good luck Chris as we test the web engine to contain this thread

Christophera

1st December 2006, 05:48 PM

Good work Chris insult the guy who know you are wrong.

Still wrong, I use your web site to prove you wrong everyday. Even grade school kids know the WTC had a steel only core. No Concrete and 10 year olds can figure it out with real research!

Good luck Chris as we test the web engine to contain this thread

Lying to children is dispicable.

The ones in Canada that knew of the concrete core had it right tho. Posters here did not like that and made fun of the fact so I removed the childrens information from my web site.

jsfisher

1st December 2006, 06:10 PM

Do we get to the "and they lived happily ever after" soon, or does this fairy tale continue?

TellyKNeasuss

1st December 2006, 06:32 PM

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.

I assumed that it was another building, since it appears to be behind all the smoke and debris. It certainly isn't clear enough to determine what it is or what's it's made of.

Christophera

1st December 2006, 07:05 PM

I assumed that it was another building, since it appears to be behind all the smoke and debris. It certainly isn't clear enough to determine what it is or what's it's made of.

Okay, I understand now that you have a problem identifying objects. here is the WTC 2 core lower (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcore2stands.gif)

Christophera

1st December 2006, 07:14 PM

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.

I've dealt with the images as raw evidence issue.

And of course that establishes that I do have raw evidence of the core, and that evidence is redundant.

My redundant evidence has not been resonably explained as anything but concrete, meaning that the core must be concrete by default. This is a fact also because the steel core columns are never seen where they should be.

Okay, it is reasonably established that the core was concrete.

Next, the issue of near free fall and pulverization.

The image of a pulverized concrete (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg) debris wave is irrefutable as it completely obliterates any view of what a collapse would look like which is a series of toppling events having a geometric quality based on the dimensions of the structural elements.

Since almost nothing was identifiable in the ground zero debris, the issue of pulverization is quite absolute. Then there numerous events where explosions are clearly seen out the sides of the towers way ahead of the erroneously termed "collapse" (http://mouv4x8.club.fr/11Sept01/A0069b_3_towerexplo1_explosion_below.jpg).

hcmom

1st December 2006, 07:29 PM

You didn't know that I can roll my "r's" with profundity did you?

It's this stuff that makes me want to keep the thread going!

Here in California, the very western part of the US of A,

I'm not real thrilled that he's in the same state I'm in though...

TellyKNeasuss

1st December 2006, 07:45 PM

Okay, I understand now that you have a problem identifying objects. here is the WTC 2 core lower (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcore2stands.gif)

If the core was 17-foot thick reinforced concrete (and I don't know how anyone can definitively tell what it is with all the smoke), what caused it to continue to collapse? The smoke pattern doesn't indicate explosions near the top of whatever that object is (there are no "squibs" nor is there any debris being blown out).

Christophera

1st December 2006, 08:54 PM

If the core was 17-foot thick reinforced concrete (and I don't know how anyone can definitively tell what it is with all the smoke), what caused it to continue to collapse? The smoke pattern doesn't indicate explosions near the top of whatever that object is (there are no "squibs" nor is there any debris being blown out).

Uh, that word collapse. does not apply.

That 17 foot thick was only at the very bottom. WTC 1 taperd smoothly and WTC 2 had minor stepping down in dimension every few floors.

It is a still image, so we don't get a sense of time.

Here is another shot of the lower core exploding (http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8232/wtcsl8.jpg) which takes it about to the ground.

Christophera

1st December 2006, 10:18 PM

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.

I don't know that what you say makes sense in this case. The engineers August Domel, Ph.d SE. PE. (http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf) was consulting with knew for decades the construction of the core. The actual number of missing persons wasn't determined for perhaps 3 months minimum.

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

Why ?

The core walls were not load bearing walls for the most part. With its tapered design, loads tended to acummulate lower as time passed and settling of the main bearing wall, the perimeter walls, ocurred. Meaning that the top of the tower which was much lighter construction than the lower parts, had less weight to apply to the top of the core walls. The core was primarily to absorb lateral loads and torsion.

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.

In one sense, I admit you are right. If professionals were to loose their fear and begin to examine real evidence and provide commentary on it, that would be quite meaningful. However, since they are not, or the only ones doing it are paid to do so on fake structures that did not exist, then laymen providing competent interpretations of the strucutre that DID EXIST are far more useful to the process of sharing truth.

Powa

2nd December 2006, 02:16 AM

I know you are in Slovenia where the contents of shrunken pantaloons are considered raw evidence.

Your insults need more work.

Here in California, the very western part of the US of A, photos ARE considered "raw evidence" in construction matters which this matter of defining demoliton is closely related to.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3923/is_200211/ai_n9342046

Construction: Raw evidence in mediation
Dispute Resolution Journal, Nov 2002-Jan 2003
Find More Results for: "raw evidence "

The California Court of Appeal held that photographs and raw data prepared for or used in connection with mediation were "otherwise admissible evidence" and therefore were not protected from disclosure under the California Evidence Code
Where in that link does it say that pictures are considered raw evidence? Maybe my English is lacking, or I'm stupid (all Slovenians are) so please type slowly so I can understand.

Big Les

2nd December 2006, 04:16 AM

I've dealt with the images as raw evidence issue.

And of course that establishes that I do have raw evidence of the core, and that evidence is redundant.

My redundant evidence has not been resonably explained as anything but concrete, meaning that the core must be concrete by default. This is a fact also because the steel core columns are never seen where they should be.

Okay, it is reasonably established that the core was concrete.

NO. It does NOT mean that. Have you learned nothing in your time here? YOU are making the claim, therefore YOU need to prove that it's concrete rather than the established steel, and YOU have consistently failed to do so to any accepted standard.

And you base your "case" for a concrete core upon on your subjective, heavily biased, layperson's interpretation of low resolution still photographs, and memories of a documentary whose contents you can't show us.

Don't you see the illogic of what you're saying?

Bell

2nd December 2006, 04:32 AM

Big Al

2nd December 2006, 04:50 AM

Given that the official story is that the core was made of steel, don't you think someone would have noticed that there was way too little steel?

However, I understand over 185,000 tons of structural steel was removed from Ground Zero. That's an awful lot of rebar, even this mythical 3" stuff.

Big Al

2nd December 2006, 05:28 AM

A very interesting site here: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

However, the poor fools still seem to believe in that laughable steel core! They mention that the towers fell in about 10 seconds with a terminal velocity of 200km/h. They also say that in free fall the figures would have been 8 seconds and 300km/h.

The authors were Thomas Eagar (Professor of Materials Engineering at MIT) and Christopher Musso (with a Master's Degree in Materials Science). So I guess you could say these guys might be considered just a little bit knowledgeable about their subjects.

They even use your favourite phrase, "near free fall", Chris, but it doesn't strike them as odd.

Given that these two experts' argument sounds highly plausible to me, can you not accept that your concrete-core C-4-coated-rebar theory is not quite the slam-dunk only-game-in-town you represent it to be?

2nd December 2006, 06:09 AM

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.

His 'evidence' of a concrete core is invalid. Even the courts in California would say it was insufficient evidence.

(I know - I asked a judge from Santa Monica.)

Powa

2nd December 2006, 07:38 AM

But there's no justice system left. The only judge that can help us now is Judge Dread!

Christophera

2nd December 2006, 08:43 AM

His 'evidence' of a concrete core is invalid. Even the courts in California would say it was insufficient evidence.

(I know - I asked a judge from Santa Monica.)

Did you ask if the steel core columns could be proven if all the information of so called authorities was thrown into question as fraud?

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.

Can you prove the 8 inch thick concrete is from the towers?

Christophera

2nd December 2006, 08:46 AM

Christophera

2nd December 2006, 08:53 AM

Christophera, the fact that none in this thread believes in your concrete core conspiracy, that you have not been able to win over anyone, what does that tell you?

Hypnosis you say? Everybody, every single living person on this planet is hypnotized at birth to cover up for the concrete core? Does that sounds even remotely plausible to you?

Forget it, I think I know the answer :boxedin:

Are you going to compete with Belz for "All seeing galactic seer" title. And what if I do not expect those unreasonable deniers to "believe" and only expect the readers to "understand" that the deniers have no evidence and simply"believe" whatever".

Your gross exaggeration of what is possible with hypnosis shows your ignorance of the human mind. Societal pressures will create the rest of the denial about the true structure if a few key figures attest to a ficticious core. And that is what we have, FEMA publishing a fraud and the rest afraid to challenge it, then simply jumping on board.

The explanation for near free fall is here.

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

NobbyNobbs

2nd December 2006, 09:11 AM

I know you are in Slovenia where the contents of shrunken pantaloons are considered raw evidence.

Here in California, the very western part of the US of A, photos ARE considered "raw evidence" in construction matters which this matter of defining demoliton is closely related to.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3923/is_200211/ai_n9342046

Construction: Raw evidence in mediation
Dispute Resolution Journal, Nov 2002-Jan 2003
Find More Results for: "raw evidence "

The California Court of Appeal held that photographs and raw data prepared for or used in connection with mediation were "otherwise admissible evidence" and therefore were not protected from disclosure under the California Evidence Code

Christophera, read what you quoted carefully. It says "photographs and raw data", not "photographs are raw data".

Uh, that word collapse. does not apply.

Are you suggesting it did not collapse? Because the alternative is that it is still standing. Do you have evidence (raw or otherwise) for this?

beachnut

2nd December 2006, 09:13 AM

Are you going to compete with Belz for "All seeing galactic seer" title. And what if I do not expect those unreasonable deniers to "believe" and only expect the readers to "understand" that the deniers have no evidence and simply"believe" whatever".

Your gross exaggeration of what is possible with hypnosis shows your ignorance of the human mind. Societal pressures will create the rest of the denial about the true structure if a few key figures attest to a ficticious core. And that is what we have, FEMA publishing a fraud and the rest afraid to challenge it, then simply jumping on board.

The explanation for near free fall is here.

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

1) The rate equaling that of free fall, inconsistent sequence, direction.
2) Total pulverization of everything but heavier steel
3) The molten steel seen in the basement 2 weeks after 9-11
4) The character and quantity of concrete particulate in the dust.

1 wrong only those items free of the building fell at the rate of a gravity fall, the rest took longer.

2 not everything was pulverized, the damage was all done by building hitting itself.

3 no molten steel, show me?

4 you have no numbers on this

No concrete core, no good ideas, try again, your web page is a redo

2nd December 2006, 11:31 AM

Did you ask if the steel core columns could be proven if all the information of so called authorities was thrown into question as fraud?

Hmmm... recovered structural steel, blueprints, photographic evidence clearly showing structural steel core columns during construction, and the testimony of workers from the construction of the towers, versus one grainy photograph showing an indeterminate grey shape in a dust cloud.

You'd have to prove that the information was fraudulent first - which you cannot do. This is precisely why that documentary is so important - without it, you have absolutely no proof that any of the official records are fraudulent. And since that documentary seems to have vanished into thin air - taking with it all mentions in the TV Guide, all PBS archival records, and all other related records - what do you have?

Before you can prove anything you'll have to produce that documentary. If you can't - you got nothin'.

Which do you think the judge is going to buy into?

Can you prove the 8 inch thick concrete is from the towers?

Can you prove it isn't?

TellyKNeasuss

2nd December 2006, 01:00 PM

Uh, that word collapse. does not apply.

That 17 foot thick was only at the very bottom. WTC 1 taperd smoothly and WTC 2 had minor stepping down in dimension every few floors.

It is a still image, so we don't get a sense of time.

Here is another shot of the lower core exploding (http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8232/wtcsl8.jpg) which takes it about to the ground.

It was taller in the first picture than in the second picture, so what happened. Did it shrink because it was exposed to air for the first time in 30 years?

If WTC2 collapsed because there were explosives embedded in the core, why was the core still standing after the rest of the building collapsed?

Architect

2nd December 2006, 01:58 PM

You'd have to prove that the information was fraudulent first - which you cannot do. This is precisely why that documentary is so important - without it, you have absolutely no proof that any of the official records are fraudulent. And since that documentary seems to have vanished into thin air - taking with it all mentions in the TV Guide, all PBS archival records, and all other related records - what do you have?

Now you see what a great conspiracy this is:

1. They hypnotised the entire US population, except maybe Chris, and somehow all of us in other countries too. Whooooweee.

2. They made everyone forget, from construction workers to engineers, forget about all the concrete they poured. Including the magic C4 explsove coated rebar you can't prove existed. And removed all records. And blueprints. Impressive, eh? Thousands of people and tens of thousands of written records.

3. They magicked away a PBS documentary showing a concrete core, despite it perhaps being made by the BBC and hence there were copies outwith the immediate grasp on the US government. Wow.

4. They hid all conclusive photgraphs of the concrete core during both construction and collapse, leaving only a grany image of a "spire". They then whisked away the massive surviving sections of concrete core on site and somehow made sure everyone saw lots of steel beams. Neat.

5. They've got every engineer and architect in the world, except that guy Pegelow, so scared of their job - or criminally incompetent - that after 5-7 years of study each we all believe that it was (a) a steel core and (b) the collapse was consistent with our understanding of catastophic building failure. Cool.

Chris, if you're right, that's the most comprehensive consipracy ever. The power and control exercised by the US Government must be immense. Clearly it can never be resisted. Might as well leave the front doors open and wait for the round-ups to begin......

Architect

2nd December 2006, 02:25 PM

Sheesh, they even faked these pictures to make it look 110% like a steel core. That's what I call good!

Architect

2nd December 2006, 02:30 PM

This is obviously a fake phot too, eh Chris? I mean, looks pretty much like a photo of part of the steel core to me.....

bonavada

2nd December 2006, 02:39 PM

Here is a video of firefighters discussing what they perceived as "detonations". http://algoxy.com/psych/images/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg

And they, of course, are experts in demolition systems.

this is worth pointing out again, watch this firefighter

v_CmZMkvQ_w

hey! wait a minute mickey?! METEORS????!!..........oh shiesser! he's like using a simile (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/simile) right? had me going for a minute there. phew..........

although a 9/11 meteor strike scenario would be much more likely than C4 coated rebar, phallic dust clouds, mass-hypnosis and time-warping mohawk saboteurs.

:-]

BV

bonavada

2nd December 2006, 03:13 PM

look at the two pics below, both from during the constuction of the WTC.
look at the remarkable similarity in position and alignment of the two core columns arrowed in the first image to those two arrowed in the second.
i believe we are looking at the same general area of the tower.

i can safely asume then that the other columns in the second picture are those that composed the core of that building. also notice that the floor of this storey has been laid in the second picture.

i have to ask christophera how TF did the builders manage to constuct a concrete core through the plainly visible floor in this image???

also those columns beyond the arrowed centre columns in the second image do not look like elevator guide rails to me. they look the same or very similar to those on the perimeter.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87484572049607c95.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87484572049646846.jpg

explain away chris

BV

hcmom

2nd December 2006, 03:23 PM

explain away chris

BV

It wouldn't appear that we can explain him away... lots of people have certainly given it a shot, but he's still here...

jhunter1163

2nd December 2006, 04:04 PM

Ed knows we've tried to explain him away...

ETA: Clever avatar Hcmom. Took me a minute to get it... :confused:

The Almond

2nd December 2006, 05:55 PM

The core walls were not load bearing walls for the most part. With its tapered design, loads tended to acummulate lower as time passed and settling of the main bearing wall, the perimeter walls, ocurred. Meaning that the top of the tower which was much lighter construction than the lower parts, had less weight to apply to the top of the core walls. The core was primarily to absorb lateral loads and torsion.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHA!

*breathes*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!

NobbyNobbs

2nd December 2006, 06:07 PM

rwguinn

2nd December 2006, 06:41 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHA!

*breathes*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!

May I join you in that excess of mirth?
Why build a 17' thick wall if not to bear loads? there was too much open space around, and like Kansas and the other Great Plains areas, "people won't be able to live there", so they put in a non-functional, couple hundred million dollar "space occupying wall"??
I have had crispy-fried brain on ignore for some time, but I appreciate your quoting it..

Christophera

2nd December 2006, 06:47 PM

Christophera, read what you quoted carefully. It says "photographs and raw data", not "photographs are raw data".

Okay, I have no problem with that. Photographs are basically equal to raw data but considered to be different. Both admissable as evidence.

Are you suggesting it did not collapse? Because the alternative is that it is still standing. Do you have evidence (raw or otherwise) for this?

THIS (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg) is not a collapse.

JonnyFive

2nd December 2006, 06:47 PM

The C-4 detonates, which takes down the outside of the building, but not the core in which it is embedded? How does this work?

Magic.

It's magic C4 that lasts for three decades and magically destroys the twin towers in a way that looks exactly like they collapsed due to weakened structural steel and immense damage due to a plane crash.

Also, there are no photos of the concrete core during construction because it's magic concrete! It magically appeared when magic magic magic magic magic magic!

This thead is fun.

Bell

2nd December 2006, 06:56 PM

Are you going to compete with Belz for "All seeing galactic seer" title.

At least Belz... (you forgot the periods) and I see more clearly than you do.

And what if I do not expect those unreasonable deniers to "believe" and only expect the readers to "understand" that the deniers have no evidence and simply"believe" whatever".

We have plenty of evidence. The fact that your thick skull can't comprehend the way the towers were built, so you have to make up a BS story about how those towers collapsed, says a lot about your simple believe.

Your gross exaggeration of what is possible with hypnosis shows your ignorance of the human mind.

So not everybody on this planet was hypnotized at birth? Then why do we still know there was a steel core?

Societal pressures will create the rest of the denial about the true structure if a few key figures attest to a ficticious core.

You are talking about yourself in multiple?

And that is what we have, FEMA publishing a fraud and the rest afraid to challenge it, then simply jumping on board.

That is slander, and slander is a crime. Are you a criminal?

The explanation for near free fall is here.

WTF? Can you please take a freaking stand on this? Either the rate of collapse is not important, and if so then STFU about it, or it is important, and if so, provide us with data about the collapse times, and the times the towers should have taken to fall.

<spam>

Christophera

2nd December 2006, 07:34 PM

also those columns beyond the arrowed centre columns in the second image do not look like elevator guide rails to me. they look the same or very similar to those on the perimeter.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87484572049646846.jpg

explain away chris

BV

They appear quite a bit smaller as those in the distance on the perimeter appear about the same size but are perhaps 3 times the distance away. Still, if they were the same, why do they not stand as does the interior box column or the "spire" (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) and why are none seen inside the core area within the interior box columns standing (http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/3396/gjswtc30pt4.jpg). Or protruding from the intact core of the WTC 2 (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) .

You have certainly found the best image to date with columns in the core are that appear close to the same size.

The image of the "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) shows more of the columns and the downward angle allow a better evaluation of the end sections which show a smaller vertical piece of steel.

The issue of the core core columns logically being of the strongest elements of the towers but not showing up in the demo images is a problem for the case you try to make despite what images you produce showing vertical steel in the core area.

But I must say, that is the best image yet.

Christophera

2nd December 2006, 07:48 PM

If WTC2 collapsed because there were explosives embedded in the core, why was the core still standing after the rest of the building collapsed?

I would love an explanation for this, Chris. The C-4 was embedded in the concrete. The concrete comprised the core. The rest of the building surrounds the core. The C-4 detonates, which takes down the outside of the building, but not the core in which it is embedded? How does this work?

You fellows are not reading my web site.

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

The first sentence.

The floor delays would be on one circuit and the core on another.

There were 2 totally separate explosive systems. The floors and the core. The floors were detonated first because the detonation system for the core was inside the core area. Detonating the core first would destroy the floor detonation circuits whereas the thick core walls protected the C4 cast inside themas well as the initiation circuits inside.

In the image of WTC 2 core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG), the floors have already been detonated and there is a slightly longer delay it seems for the lower section of core to initiate.

I speculate the thicker lower core walls were set with detonators in the first few weeks of the lease. There were reports of long delays at elevators due to maintenace on the elevators required by insurance. Workers had to take elevators over theri floors and return downward on another elevator.

The detonation system that sits for 3 months is NOT going to be electric caps. They can be detonated by radio waves. There is a gas flame system that uses a cap similar to an old fuse cap which is very stable but has a somewhat unpredictable delay on the distributon of intiation.

Two days before 9-11 there was a powerdown wherein electric caps were set probably on most of the floors which had a minimal dealy of 75 milliseconds and so had to be the precision electrical caps and digital delay counters..

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

2nd December 2006, 08:11 PM

But that was in only one tower, and not sufficient time for wiring that much explosives and concealing the handiwork.

BTW - why would we assume that steel columns would protrude during a catastrophic building collapse? Maybe if you explain your reasoning there, we can identify and understand the confusion you're suffering from.

Over the last few days I've reviewed footage from a dozen or so steel core building collapses - most CDs, one collapse during an earthquake, and one spontaneous structural failure; of those, I'd say two of them were sufficiently like what was proposed for the architecture of 9/11 to exhibit some similar failure patterns.

None of them had steel cores protruding from the wreckage.

Neither during collapse, nor after.

Sorry, Chris - that's just how buildings collapse. If the cores were standing, they might have held up part of the building; but once the building starts collapsing, the steel shatters into small beams - usually right at the weld points. They almost never protrude above the top of the visible wreckage.

Christophera

2nd December 2006, 09:31 PM

This is obviously a fake phot too, eh Chris? I mean, looks pretty much like a photo of part of the steel core to me.....

You and BV need to get on the same page. The H-Beams here,

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4342&d=1165098618

are not the same core columns he claims to show in his previous posts. Some web sites show H-beams in the uppper core areas. Liars should get their stories straight.

Then there is this which refutes you both, and it is "official"

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
Establishing the true nature of the core structures is of great importance given that the most widely read document on the World Trade Center attack -- the 9/11 Commission Report -- denies their very existence, claiming the towers' cores were "hollow steel shaft[s]:"

Christophera

2nd December 2006, 09:43 PM

NO. It does NOT mean that. Have you learned nothing in your time here? YOU are making the claim, therefore YOU need to prove that it's concrete rather than the established steel, and YOU have consistently failed to do so to any accepted standard.

And you base your "case" for a concrete core upon on your subjective, heavily biased, layperson's interpretation of low resolution still photographs, and memories of a documentary whose contents you can't show us.

Don't you see the illogic of what you're saying?

If I watched the concrete core being constructed for an hour on TV in 1990 while the narattor described it. Should I think it is illogical to say there was a concrete core now because you believe the official story?

Consider, the official act also includes destruction of evidence and blocking investigations, and the construction bluprints have never been made available to anyone.

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

I suggest you rethink what logic is to you?

Arus808

2nd December 2006, 10:32 PM

Chris, i asked oh so manh times already. Sinec you have all this earth shattering evidence, why haven't you brought a lawsuite against those involved?

If you aren't going to bring a lawsuite, then you are as guilty of hindering prosecution and also should be tried for treason for not bringing this evidence forward

so put up or shut up. repeating everythin over 8000 posts in one thread isn't going to prove anything to us. You say your evidence is strong, then put it out there for thsoe qualified to test it. namely, please file a lawsuite.

Powa

3rd December 2006, 01:26 AM

Chris, since you believe that there's no justice system left in the USA, my advice is to file your lawsuit at the International Court of Justice. The other option would be the International Criminal Court, but it can only prosecute crimes that were committed on or after 1 July 2002 (the date its founding treaty entered into force).

So, if I were you, I'd hire a lawyer who specializes in international law. He will help you with proper procedures and paperwork.

I hope you'll put your lawsuit in motion as soon as possible, because, as you claim, the 3,000 victims have been denied justice for too long.

Architect

3rd December 2006, 01:54 AM

are not the same core columns he claims to show in his previous posts. Some web sites show H-beams in the uppper core areas. Liars should get their stories straight.

1. Have a look at what it's welded to on the "inner" end

2. For someone who claims to know so much about building construction, I think you should know that they're NOT called "H" beams.

Architect

3rd December 2006, 01:55 AM

I speculate

That's the point, isn't it Chris. You speculate. Wildly, as it happens.

BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO SUBSTANTIVE (look it up) EVIDENCE

Architect

3rd December 2006, 01:56 AM

Now you see what a great conspiracy this is:

1. They hypnotised the entire US population, except maybe Chris, and somehow all of us in other countries too. Whooooweee.

2. They made everyone forget, from construction workers to engineers, forget about all the concrete they poured. Including the magic C4 explsove coated rebar you can't prove existed. And removed all records. And blueprints. Impressive, eh? Thousands of people and tens of thousands of written records.

3. They magicked away a PBS documentary showing a concrete core, despite it perhaps being made by the BBC and hence there were copies outwith the immediate grasp on the US government. Wow.

4. They hid all conclusive photgraphs of the concrete core during both construction and collapse, leaving only a grany image of a "spire". They then whisked away the massive surviving sections of concrete core on site and somehow made sure everyone saw lots of steel beams. Neat.

5. They've got every engineer and architect in the world, except that guy Pegelow, so scared of their job - or criminally incompetent - that after 5-7 years of study each we all believe that it was (a) a steel core and (b) the collapse was consistent with our understanding of catastophic building failure. Cool.

Chris, if you're right, that's the most comprehensive consipracy ever. The power and control exercised by the US Government must be immense. Clearly it can never be resisted. Might as well leave the front doors open and wait for the round-ups to begin......

Hey Chris....you missed this one! Reply, eh? Give us a laugh.

Architect

3rd December 2006, 01:59 AM

Here in California, the very western part of the US of A,

So, the man so smart that he's the only person in the whole wide world to expose the concrete core plot is saddly unaware that Alaska and Hawaii are both further west than California.

Hmm. Intellectual rigour or what.......

Architect

3rd December 2006, 02:01 AM

Eagers first analysis actually left out the floor beams, you know the one with the animations, and he was challenged by the steel workers immediately. Then laughed out of the 9-11 explanation world alltogether. His pancake theory belongs under the hammer theory.

Intellectual garbage

You'll have no problem providing a link to that?

Architect

3rd December 2006, 02:03 AM

That is slander, and slander is a crime. Are you a criminal?

It's libel, actually.

Hey Chris, come over here and say it in the UK where you can have your arse sued for saying such a thing. If you have the guts.

bonavada

3rd December 2006, 03:55 AM

They appear quite a bit smaller as those in the distance on the perimeter appear about the same size but are perhaps 3 times the distance away. Still, if they were the same, why do they not stand as does the interior box column or the "spire" (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) and why are none seen inside the core area within the interior box columns standing (http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/3396/gjswtc30pt4.jpg). Or protruding from the intact core of the WTC 2 (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG).

pure waffle and conjecture.

chris, again it must be pointed out to you the old adage that "absence of evidence is not evidence"
the collapse of the towers was a catastrophic, chaotic, unbelievably complex event lasting perhaps 30 seconds combined.

you irrationally judge definite structural elements of the towers from one or two cherry-picked, highly pixellated, obscured and distant images.

hundreds of other pictures that have accumulated over the years from many independent sources tell a story entirely opposing your concrete core. there is only one conclusion any person with a modicum of intelligence could come to and that is that is that YOU ARE WRONG!

these columns are not "elevator guide rails" chris.
those guys there are walking and working on a solid floor.
there is no way i can see that a concrete core could be poured under these circumstances...............

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87484572af421edc7.jpg

not only was your intial concrete core fantasy incorrect chris but you have woven a web of convoluted cynical fallacy around it. you have shamelessly lied about the PBS documentary, the mohawks, the magazine article etc etc. you even brought your poor long-suffering wife into it at one stage FFS. you have also demeaned the testement of brave people like mike pecararo, accused honest posters here of faking their credentials.......the list goes on......the worst though is when you have accused people of supporting the murder of "3000 americans"
it's time you packed up and left this thread to the tumbleweed. the only credit you could gain now is if you did so.
please listen mate, you're not doing yourself any good here.
leave now with a bit of dignity.

BV

Big Al

3rd December 2006, 04:03 AM

For someone who claims to know so much about building construction, I think you should know that they're NOT called "H" beams.

"I-beam of Jeannie with the light brown hair..."

hcmom

3rd December 2006, 04:06 AM

"I-beam of Jeannie with the light brown hair..."

If you beam her, won't it get her hair all bloody?

tsig

3rd December 2006, 04:33 AM

If you beam her, won't it get her hair all bloody?

It was ment as a metaphor floating on the air.

NobbyNobbs

3rd December 2006, 08:38 AM

Okay, I have no problem with that. Photographs are basically equal to raw data but considered to be different. Both admissable as evidence.

THIS (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg) is not a collapse.

I'm glad you have at least admitted to this. Yes, photographs can be evidence. No, they are not "raw evidence". Will you now stop referring to them as such? Thanks.

You fellows are not reading my web site.

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

The first sentence.

The floor delays would be on one circuit and the core on another.

There were 2 totally separate explosive systems. The floors and the core. The floors were detonated first because the detonation system for the core was inside the core area. Detonating the core first would destroy the floor detonation circuits whereas the thick core walls protected the C4 cast inside themas well as the initiation circuits inside.

In the image of WTC 2 core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG), the floors have already been detonated and there is a slightly longer delay it seems for the lower section of core to initiate.

I speculate the thicker lower core walls were set with detonators in the first few weeks of the lease. There were reports of long delays at elevators due to maintenace on the elevators required by insurance. Workers had to take elevators over theri floors and return downward on another elevator.

The detonation system that sits for 3 months is NOT going to be electric caps. They can be detonated by radio waves. There is a gas flame system that uses a cap similar to an old fuse cap which is very stable but has a somewhat unpredictable delay on the distributon of intiation.

Two days before 9-11 there was a powerdown wherein electric caps were set probably on most of the floors which had a minimal dealy of 75 milliseconds and so had to be the precision electrical caps and digital delay counters..

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

Two detonation systems? For the love of Bob, why? Wouldn't exploding the core be sufficient to bring down the building? And if it isn't, why put explosives there in the first place?

If I watched the concrete core being constructed for an hour on TV in 1990 while the narattor described it. Should I think it is illogical to say there was a concrete core now because you believe the official story?

This documentary keeps getting better and better. So now, the documentary spent an entire hour showing you the construction of the core? I've got to get a copy of this....

TellyKNeasuss

3rd December 2006, 11:15 AM

The floor delays would be on one circuit and the core on another.

There were 2 totally separate explosive systems. The floors and the core. The floors were detonated first because the detonation system for the core was inside the core area. Detonating the core first would destroy the floor detonation circuits whereas the thick core walls protected the C4 cast inside themas well as the initiation circuits inside.

This is non-sensical. Wouldn't blowing the core would be sufficient to collapse a building? What is your evidence that there were 2 separate detonation systems? None of your photos show explosions away from the core. There is just one big plume of smoke and debris encompassing entire floors.

In the image of WTC 2 core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG), the floors have already been detonated and there is a slightly longer delay it seems for the lower section of core to initiate.

"it seems"??? Or maybe it's just that your hypothesis is incorrect. The "slightly longer delay" apparently was 5-15 seconds (the bulk of the building has collapsed to the ground and the debris cloud has spread out at least a block).

I speculate the thicker lower core walls were set with detonators in the first few weeks of the lease. There were reports of long delays at elevators due to maintenace on the elevators required by insurance. Workers had to take elevators over theri floors and return downward on another elevator.

What lease? And when were the detonators in the floors set?

Two days before 9-11 there was a powerdown wherein electric caps were set probably on most of the floors which had a minimal dealy of 75 milliseconds and so had to be the precision electrical caps and digital delay counters..

The powerdown, if there actually was one, only affected 1 floor of 1 building. That doesn't explain the other buildings.

Big Les

3rd December 2006, 11:29 AM

If I watched the concrete core being constructed for an hour on TV in 1990 while the narattor described it. Should I think it is illogical to say there was a concrete core now because you believe the official story?

You should certainly question whether what you remember seeing was what you actually saw. For the purposes of this thread, you need to show us stills or video from this mythical video, or your memories are useless to your argument.

Consider, the official act also includes destruction of evidence and blocking investigations, and the construction bluprints have never been made available to anyone.

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

I suggest you rethink what logic is to you?

Right back atcha chief; got any evidence for this withholding of evidence and/or obstruction? Even if blueprints and other material is being with-held, that does not logically prove a conspiracy.

Christophera

3rd December 2006, 11:31 AM

1. Have a look at what it's welded to on the "inner" end

You will have to be more specific.

2. For someone who claims to know so much about building construction, I think you should know that they're NOT called "H" beams.

When the flange is thicker than the web and the web width is about equal to the flange width. It is called an "H" beam.

You have just proven you are a fraud.

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861616897/H-beam.html

H-beam (plural H-beams)
Definition:

H-shaped structural part: a structural steel member shaped like an H in section. It is similar to an I-beam.

http://www.answers.com/topic/h-beam

H beam (??ch ?b?m)
(civil engineering) A beam similar to the I beam but with longer flanges. Also known as wide-flange beam.

http://www.answers.com/topic/i-beam

I-beam

I-beam (?'b?m')
n.
A steel joist or girder with short flanges and a cross section formed like the letter I.

BTW, the wiki definition is not correct. Welded beams are welded, whatever shape they have

Christophera

3rd December 2006, 11:44 AM

You should certainly question whether what you remember seeing was what you actually saw. For the purposes of this thread, you need to show us stills or video from this mythical video, or your memories are useless to your argument.

Right back atcha chief; got any evidence for this withholding of evidence and/or obstruction? Even if blueprints and other material is being with-held, that does not logically prove a conspiracy.

I proved the witholding of documents once. Here I will do it again

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

Blocking investigations is common knowledge. Why are you here? Your only purpose appears to disinform.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/unexplained_911_explosion_at_wtc_complex.htm
Although the Customs House apparently exploded at 9:04 a.m., the government-sponsored investigation was steered away from looking into what had actually happened.

http://www.thepowerhour.com/911_analysis/wtc6-explosion.htm
The Federal Emergency Management Agency funded an investigation by the American Society of Civil Engineers. However, investigators were reportedly blocked from the building by an order from the New York City’s Department of Design and Construction .

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Sept_11_2001/New_Pearl_Harbor.html
20. Evidence that the FBI and other federal agencies blocked investigations after the attacks that might have revealed the true perpetrators.

Big Les

3rd December 2006, 12:00 PM

Your questionable media sources notwithstanding, the withholding of evidence does not prove a conspiracy. Evidence is routinely withheld with respect to investigations (as I seem to remember somebody pointing out to you), and will no doubt see the light of day in due course.

How is it evidence of a conspiracy?

As to my other point, which you've conveniently ignored, why should anyone be expected to believe your concrete core on the basis that you saw it on a TV show that apparently no longer exists?

Architect

3rd December 2006, 12:32 PM

You will have to be more specific.

When the flange is thicker than the web and the web width is about equal to the flange width. It is called an "H" beam.

You have just proven you are a fraud.

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861616897/H-beam.html

H-beam (plural H-beams)
Definition:

H-shaped structural part: a structural steel member shaped like an H in section. It is similar to an I-beam.

http://www.answers.com/topic/h-beam

H beam (??ch ?b?m)
(civil engineering) A beam similar to the I beam but with longer flanges. Also known as wide-flange beam.

http://www.answers.com/topic/i-beam

I-beam

I-beam (?'b?m')
n.
A steel joist or girder with short flanges and a cross section formed like the letter I.

BTW, the wiki definition is not correct. Welded beams are welded, whatever shape they have

Actually, you've just shown yourself to be a fraud. It's a Universal Column section.

Architect

3rd December 2006, 12:34 PM

Architect

3rd December 2006, 12:36 PM

You'll have no problem providing a link to that?

Still waiting for this one tooooooooo

Architect

3rd December 2006, 12:41 PM

Remind me again where the Inviscrete is in these photographs, Chris?

bonavada

3rd December 2006, 01:06 PM

Remind me again where the Inviscrete is in these photographs, Chris?

and remind me how it was poured here:-

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87484572af421edc7.jpg

ETA and here:-

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87484569f60feb777.jpg

ETA ooops and here:-

bRvimM0AcN4

OMG there's more:-

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/874845733f92527cf.jpg

BV

Architect

3rd December 2006, 01:17 PM

BV

Gotta love that second shot of yours; at least 8 floors of nothing but colums visible before perspective eclipses to facade-facade view.

Now there are two ways to look at this:

1. The concrete (haha) has still to be poured by the 3" rebar and shuttering are magically invisible.

2. We're looking at a steel columned building.

Oops, forgot no. 3 - it's part of the evil G'b'm'n't Conspiracy

Christophera

3rd December 2006, 01:27 PM

They appear quite a bit smaller as those in the distance on the perimeter appear about the same size but are perhaps 3 times the distance away. Still, if they were the same, why do they not stand as does the interior box column or the "spire" and why are none seen inside the core area within the interior box columns standing. Or protruding from the intact core of the WTC 2 .

pure waffle and conjecture.

Notice Farseitect has not answered the query about the added resistence to torsion of steel core columns to a square tower comprised of perimeter shear walls.

chris, again it must be pointed out to you the old adage that "absence of evidence is not evidence"
the collapse of the towers was a catastrophic, chaotic, unbelievably complex event lasting perhaps 30 seconds combined.

The demolition provided views of the primary structural elements that were impossible to see during construction. If core columns existed they were there for a reason and that reason would be that they added to the strength of the towers. I asked the fake Architect to explain that reason and he has not. What does this tell a reasonable person?

you irrationally judge definite structural elements of the towers from one or two cherry-picked, highly pixellated, obscured and distant images.

I notice you have not produced one image from the demo which show the supposed steel core columns. So your labeling of the images which show concrete as cherry picked for the purpose of NOT SHOWING STEEL CORE COLUMNS is strictly a distortion.

hundreds of other pictures that have accumulated over the years from many independent sources tell a story entirely opposing your concrete core. there is only one conclusion any person with a modicum of intelligence could come to and that is that is that YOU ARE WRONG!

these columns are not "elevator guide rails" chris.
those guys there are walking and working on a solid floor.
there is no way i can see that a concrete core could be poured under these circumstances...............

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87484572af421edc7.jpg

Hundred of pictures huh? All misrepresented as the demo images do not show even ONE of the supposed "core columns".

The contractors found out very quickly that access across the core was so vital that a temporary floor system was designed wchi was removed and advanced as soon as the concrete core was completed to a level just below it.

A more serious use of intelligence is to apply to hte common sense conclusion that IF steel core columns eisted, THEN they would be of the strongest elements in the towere and they WOULD be visible in the images of the towers coning down. THEY ARE NOT.

Sincr they are not and images such as the WTC 2 core do exist and that structure can only be interpreted and concrete (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG), THEN the towers had a concrete core and FEMA lied to enable a massive ruse.

not only was your intial concrete core fantasy incorrect chris but you have woven a web of convoluted cynical fallacy around it. you have shamelessly lied about the PBS documentary, the mohawks, the magazine article etc etc. you even brought your poor long-suffering wife into it at one stage FFS. you have also demeaned the testement of brave people like mike pecararo, accused honest posters here of faking their credentials.......the list goes on......the worst though is when you have accused people of supporting the murder of "3000 americans"
it's time you packed up and left this thread to the tumbleweed. the only credit you could gain now is if you did so.
please listen mate, you're not doing yourself any good here.
leave now with a bit of dignity.

BV

Convoluted fallacy and support for a lie that murders hide behing belong to you as you attempt to twist information to support a structure that did not exist and cannot be shown where it must appear.

How did I demean the testimony of Mike Pecararo here?

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

He said there were "no walls" where there had been concrete walls and I simply commented on the bizarre fac tthat within a plane impacts effect 100 stories over him that it was a sign of high explosives at work. Since the walls blew up autonomously, completely, C4 coated rebar fits the event well.

I've produced a declaration from a structural engineer that he saw a similar docementary which Gravy challenged and I asked him to find ONE declaration anywhere in the NIST report and he never did. In fact he pretty much gave up the argument after that.

That civil which signed the delaration could declare about the concrete too but is afraid to do so. He's afraid of people like you nad your baseless ridicule.

I was introduced by a local Indigenous person to a Mohawk steel worker back in 2002. Later I interviewed him on the phone and truthfully said he doesn't remember the core but remembered that that was where they brought the concrete up?

But worst is yo state I accuse posters here of supporting the murders of 3000 innocent people when actually I accuse them, you, of unreasonably supporting the lie the murderers hide behind.

Christophera

3rd December 2006, 01:31 PM

Still waiting for your reply, Chris

Please, hold your breath.

I've been waiting for over a month for a competent explanation of how steel core columns add resistence to torsion to a square tower of th Twin Towers protportions with steel perimeter shear walls, and have not gotten one

Big Al

3rd December 2006, 02:18 PM

Please, hold your breath.

I've been waiting for over a month for a competent explanation of how steel core columns add resistence to torsion to a square tower of th Twin Towers protportions with steel perimeter shear walls, and have not gotten one

I'm still holding my breath to hear why on Earth they might come up with this lunatic plan to blow up the WTC over 30 years before it happened. Still, you're never, ever going to answer that, are you? :rolleyes:

bonavada

3rd December 2006, 02:23 PM

The demolition provided views of the primary structural elements that were impossible to see during construction. If core columns existed they were there for a reason and that reason would be that they added to the strength of the towers. I asked the fake Architect to explain that reason and he has not. What does this tell a reasonable person?

impossible to see? weren't they shown in your documentary?

I notice you have not produced one image from the demo which show the supposed steel core columns. So your labeling of the images which show concrete as cherry picked for the purpose of NOT SHOWING STEEL CORE COLUMNS is strictly a distortion.

i believe there are quite a few shots of the columns during the collapses. i cannot be absolutely certain as they are obstructed by smoke and dust and taken from a distance. many of those images have been posted here. unlike you though, i am able to realise the uncertainty in the circumstance. your inability to do the same is your downfall here.
how would any reasonable person be able to assert that anything could be seen with any real clarity during the collapses? oh i forgot your not a reasonable person.

The contractors found out very quickly that access across the core was so vital that a temporary floor system was designed wchi was removed and advanced as soon as the concrete core was completed to a level just below it.

let me guess you learned this in the documentary right? <sigh>

A more serious use of intelligence is to apply to hte common sense conclusion that IF steel core columns eisted, THEN they would be of the strongest elements in the towere and they WOULD be visible in the images of the towers coning down. THEY ARE NOT.

i refer the (dis) honourable gentleman to my earlier reply

Sincr they are not and images such as the WTC 2 core do exist and that structure can only be interpreted and concrete (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG), THEN the towers had a concrete core and FEMA lied to enable a massive ruse.

i find this amusing. earlier you were harping on about FEMA-funded investigators being blocked from a building either FEMA are in on it or they are not. make you mind up.

How did I demean the testimony of Mike Pecararo here?

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

He said there were "no walls" where there had been concrete walls and I simply commented on the bizarre fac tthat within a plane impacts effect 100 stories over him that it was a sign of high explosives at work. Since the walls blew up autonomously, completely, C4 coated rebar fits the event well.

you demeaned it in many ways. mainly what got my goat was your cherry picking of the man's quotes. you didn't seem to notice that he says he smelt kerosene, or that he doesn't mention dust or particulate. and you still cannot explain how an explosion in the sub-levels can suck a fire door off it's hinges TOWARD an explosion below. also where is the information that the walls down there were exclusively reinforced concrete? are you sure there were no drywall composed walls down there?

done and dusted here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2000677#post2000677)

I've produced a declaration from a structural engineer that he saw a similar docementary which Gravy challenged and I asked him to find ONE declaration anywhere in the NIST report and he never did. In fact he pretty much gave up the argument after that.

similar documentary? i don't know whether to laugh or friggin cry.....

I was introduced by a local Indigenous person to a Mohawk steel worker back in 2002. Later I interviewed him on the phone and truthfully said he doesn't remember the core but remembered that that was where they brought the concrete up?

ahh the famous mohawk.

dissected here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1995037#post1995037)

let's get this straight you interviewed an ironworker in 2002 (you have stated peviously that he was 64 years old at that time) and that he was 24 when he worked at the WTC. there's a 40 year gap there. so are you stating that the man was working at the WTC in 1962?

i'm offline tonight so please do take your time with your lies...i mean answers

toodle pip

BV

The Almond

3rd December 2006, 02:38 PM

Notice Farseitect has not answered the query about the added resistence to torsion of steel core columns to a square tower comprised of perimeter shear walls.

Would you like me to produce the mathematics proving you're wrong? Would you understand them if I did?

Big Les

3rd December 2006, 03:19 PM

and remind me how it was poured here:-

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87484572af421edc7.jpg

ETA and here:-

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87484569f60feb777.jpg

ETA ooops and here:-

bRvimM0AcN4

OMG there's more:-

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/874845733f92527cf.jpg

BV

Ahem, Chris.

Architect

3rd December 2006, 03:48 PM

Architect

3rd December 2006, 03:53 PM

Chris

THIS IS A STEEL FRAMED CORE

Architect

3rd December 2006, 03:55 PM

Chris

THESE ARE ALL STEEL COLUMNS.

THERE IS NO CONCRETE

THIS IS RAW EVIDENCE

Architect

3rd December 2006, 03:56 PM

Chris

Look. No Concrete Here Either.

Lots of Steel, though, eh?

WHERE'S THE CONCRETE THEN, EH?

Architect

3rd December 2006, 03:58 PM

Chris

For the avoidance of doubt:

WE HAVE LOTS OF PHOTOS OF STEEL. YOU HAVE NO - REPEAT NO - CLEAR PHOTOGRAPHS OF CONCRETE.

GIVE UP!

Bell

3rd December 2006, 04:45 PM

http://www.tgeneva.com/~davethom/images/tower1_zoom.jpg

NickUK

3rd December 2006, 04:54 PM

Bell

3rd December 2006, 04:55 PM

Christopher, follow this link:

link (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2dust3.html)

Christophera

3rd December 2006, 06:41 PM

Please, hold your breath.

I've been waiting for over a month for a competent explanation of how steel core columns add resistence to torsion to a square tower of the Twin Towers proportions with steel perimeter shear walls, ........ and have not gotten one

That's because your question doesn't make sense, Chris

Not just a farse as an architect, a farce as a human being. A farse with respect to the integrity of the purpose of reason.

Your aerial images of the tower with large font cannot get past the fact that my question makes perfect sense and core columns inside the tower can add NO resistence to torsion when a tower has a square set of perimeter shear walls. Your assertion that the question does not make sense only shows your evasion.

DUH!

Check out what wind does to the Tacoma narrows bridge.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4037354776795422979&q=tacoma+narrows+bridge&hl=en

The image I use is the best yet of the steel which is in the core area and it clearly is so small whoever annotated it didn't even bother to try to label them "core columns". Instead they annotated the only real heavy columns, the interior box columns which encircle to core as "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg).

Christophera

3rd December 2006, 06:54 PM

OMG there's more:-

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/874845733f92527cf.jpg

BV

That photo shows the second section of exterior framework to be built around the core area before the core forming inside the framework was began. The cranes are atop the rectangle of interior box columns that surround the core. The floor beams and interior box columns can be seen below the top and the interior box columns protrude above.
Behind them are the much smaller elevator guide rail steel.

Alignment of the elevator guide rail supports was critical at the bottom of the tower and it was felt that a better job could be done before the core was cast.

Uh huh, the documentary said that. These were the largest tubular cast concrete cored towers ever built and the processes were not at all worked out. This was why WTC 2 went so much smoother.

I believe that perspective was reversed by the time WTC 2 was built.

Also, the difficulty in renting WTC 1 with its single hallway per floor was apparent so WTC 2 was altered to have 2 hallways in each direction with a third shear wall in the center making it actually stronger that WTC 1. WTC 2 employed a combined shear wall/cell design that was termed the "super core".

Here WTC 2 stands with its center shear wall forming the high point of the core structure which stand momentarily. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

TellyKNeasuss

3rd December 2006, 07:04 PM

That photo shows the second section of exterior framework to be built around the core area before the core forming inside the framework was began. The cranes are atop the rectangle of interior box columns that surround the core. The floor beams and interior box columns can be seen below the top and the interior box columns protrude above.

Let me guess. You can't show an actual picture of concrete being poured because the govt. confiscated all of them. Am I right?

Christophera

3rd December 2006, 07:11 PM

Collude with a delusion = reinforce it
Argue against a delusion = reinforce it (and quite often become part of it)

10 years in mental health have taught me this.

It doesn't matter what any of us bring up or say, Chris isn't well at all. It's a damn shame.

Here is a damm shame. Malpractice in psychiatry.

http://www.cchr.org/files/14552/Violence%20White%20Paper.pdf

Here is a damm shame, The American Psychological Association cannot even answer questions in a striaght forward question AFTER the director of the ethics department leaves when I send a letter.

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

Here is the eventual response and it is NOT EVEN ON APA stationary. We need competent, responsible people in psychology not this crap.
Do you support this lack of accountability?

1. I had referred to "ABUSES" Barabasz distorts "minimizing" the issue. A cognitive distortion.

2. Ihad not asked if the person mentioned was a member of the A.P.A. I know they are not.

3. If the 30 year old paper is "out dated" what is the new reference comprehensive to my issues? Without that information this is a another cognitive distortion of "minimumization"

4. The source is Blacks Law Dictionary, named and attached, is linked in my letter below.5. Barabasz does not know that it is absolutely legal to hypnotise a person wthout their awareness in California so licensure is not competent if it does not include investigation of abuses. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/apabarabasz.jpg)

Bell

3rd December 2006, 07:13 PM

Christopher, what the hell was the use for a concrete core anyway? The pictures posted by Uruk, Bonavada and others show the towers could stand without a concrete core. So why cast such as a core... 7 floors behind the rest of the building?

TellyKNeasuss

3rd December 2006, 08:06 PM

As a mere Student, I'm not able to post links. But someone who appears to be a CT'er has a PBS documentary made in 1983 online. It was the 10th entry when I did a google search on "building the World Trade Center". Ironically, this guy captioned the film with the statement "Watch the construction of the World Trade Center, including the 47 steel core columns that the true perpetrators of 9/11 claim do not exist."

Christophera

3rd December 2006, 08:15 PM

Actually, you've just shown yourself to be a fraud. It's a Universal Column section.

You are way late with whatever your latest evasive compensation is trying to be.

The issue of torsion and the square tower shear wals is actually obvious to most people once they think about it.

How can an inner bunch of steel vertical elements begin to provide more resistence to twisting than 4 perimeter shear walls that are as dense as the 22 inch center to center spacing of the towers when the outer dimensions of the inner bunch of columns is around 1/2 the dimensions of the square walls????.

Particuarly when there is NO plan available showing how they are connected and braced. Notice NONE of BV's nor Farseitects images show any diagonal bracing of the supposed columns they attempt to evidence with misrepresented images.

Even Gene Corleys fake analysis fails to be seen in any images except for the one he misinterprets with imagery enhancing what is actually the inner wall of the outer steel framwork of the "tube in a tube" construction.

The wall formed by interior box columns annotated, "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) in the linked image. The rectangular framwork formed by interior box columns and floor beams is clearly seen.

There is no evidence from the demo images supporting the supposed "steel core columns" because they did not exist.

There is redundant support from the raw evidence of images from the demo for the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html).

TellyKNeasuss

3rd December 2006, 08:47 PM

There is redundant support from the raw evidence of images from the demo for the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html).

If there is, please post some of these images. You haven't posted a single image that is clear enough to show a concrete core.

If what you called '3" rebar' in 'THE REBAR' section of your web page really is only 3 inches wide, those men in the foreground must have toothpicks for legs.

What did you say the name of that 1990 PBS documentary was?

delphi_ote

3rd December 2006, 09:16 PM

And it stinks so bad the stones been choking
And weeping greenish drops
In the room where the giant fire puffer works
The torture never stops
The torture never stops
The torture
The torture
The torture never stops.

Don't mind me...

Christophera

3rd December 2006, 09:30 PM

If there is, please post some of these images. You haven't posted a single image that is clear enough to show a concrete core.

This IS the core of WTC 2 (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG). I know it is concrete. If you do not know as much as me you will not know what it is. If you think it is noy concrete explain what material you think it is.

Also, explain why none of the supposed 47, 1300 foot the steel core columns are not seen.

The image is clear enough. Stop evading.

~enigma~

3rd December 2006, 09:41 PM

This IS the core of WTC 2 (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG). I know it is concrete. If you do not know as much as me you will not know what it is. If you think it is noy concrete explain what material you think it is.

Also, explain why none of the supposed 47, 1300 foot the steel core columns are not seen.

The image is clear enough. Stop evading.Christophera,

Do you care to explain why the 32 story building in Madrid (The Windsor building) is still standing AFTER a two day fire? What is the core of the Windsor building?

Either you are a really stubborn person or :tr:

TellyKNeasuss

3rd December 2006, 09:53 PM

This IS the core of WTC 2 (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG). I know it is concrete. If you do not know as much as me you will not know what it is. If you think it is noy concrete explain what material you think it is.

Also, explain why none of the supposed 47, 1300 foot the steel core columns are not seen.

The image is clear enough. Stop evading.

It's kind of brownish, so the core must have been made of mud.

I thought that you said you had lots of images. Why do you keep posting the same one?

~enigma~

3rd December 2006, 09:58 PM

Would you tell us what this is Christophera
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_8790452c0ed9a19b0.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1886)

Christophera

3rd December 2006, 10:34 PM

It's kind of brownish,

Yes it is concrete. Inside the perimeter walls is the concrete core of WTC 2. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg) It is about to smash ALL THE WAY to the ground through WTC3.

so the core must have been made of mud.

Yes it is concrete and it is a steel reinforced concrete shear wall to left of interior box column, the "spire" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg)

I thought that you said you had lots of images.

Yes it is concrete and here is one more image. This is the core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg). the annotation of 3 inch rebar is not correct. Since annotation I have recalled that the foundations hat 6 inch bar that extended up for a distance into the shear wall base.

Why do you keep posting the same one?

Because you won't go to the web site and use the available information there.

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

Also, .......... the WTC 2 concrete core image (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) cannot be explained by anything other than concrete reasonably. But if you do not know that, you do not know enough about the building materials involved here to evaluate what the images show.

Christophera

3rd December 2006, 10:41 PM

Would you tell us what this is Christophera
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_8790452c0ed9a19b0.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1886)

That is an image of the framework of the interior box columns extended up ove rthe concret ecore being cast below. False floors are installed for the elevator guide rail installation crews to work on while guide rail support steel is lowered into position and aligned.

The elevator crews had priority, or, whatever would get the elevators up another few floors sooner was what the rest of the crews were working on. Every 80 feet or so, the concrete core HAD TO CATCH UP by the engineers specifications but until that point was reached the guide rail supports were installed and aligned and temporarily braced to the interior box columns.

After that the false floors were removed and the breakdown steel inner forms were set and outer form wood was placed against the inside of the interior box columns, (the building floors and perimeter columns would be in place by this time) and another 40 feet of concrete core was cast.

~enigma~

3rd December 2006, 10:42 PM

Christophera any reason you skipped over my post? Afraid of something. Do you live underneath a bridge?

Christophera

3rd December 2006, 10:53 PM

Christophera any reason you skipped over my post? Afraid of something. Do you live underneath a bridge?

You mean the Q about the madrid tower?

I know nothing of that tower. I only know about the Twin Towers.

~enigma~

3rd December 2006, 11:12 PM

~enigma~

3rd December 2006, 11:13 PM

You mean the Q about the madrid tower?

I know nothing of that tower. I only know about the Twin Towers.You should read about it. In particular read about the core. Then it would be wise to rethink your concrete stupidity.

Christophera

3rd December 2006, 11:43 PM

You should read about it. In particular read about the core. Then it would be wise to rethink your concrete stupidity.

Why do you not just explain the stupidity you percieve as it relates to the other building without a concrete core.

~enigma~

3rd December 2006, 11:55 PM

Why do you not just explain the stupidity you percieve as it relates to the other building without a concrete core.Windsor building had a concrete core and after a two day fire it remained standing. You claim the WTC collapsed after a fire that was much less than 48 hours although the core was concrete. Besides all the evidence you ignore that it was steel, testimony of people that were there, you instead want to base your belief on a documentary (mockumentary) that nobody besides you has seen. You are delusional.

Arus808

4th December 2006, 12:00 AM

Windsor building had a concrete core and after a two day fire it remained standing. You claim the WTC collapsed after a fire that was much less than 48 hours although the core was concrete. Besides all the evidence you ignore that it was steel, testimony of people that were there, you instead want to base your belief on a documentary (mockumentary) that nobody besides you has seen. You are delusional.

you forget, chris claims that the concrete poured had a rebar reinforcement that was coated with plastic explosives.

forget the fact that such explosives wouldn't have any potency after 30 years...

~enigma~

4th December 2006, 12:03 AM

you forget, chris claims that the concrete poured had a rebar reinforcement that was coated with plastic explosives.

forget the fact that such explosives wouldn't have any potency after 30 years...Read the quote from Ethan Allen in my signature and you'll see what I think of Christophera and his ilk.

Arus808

4th December 2006, 12:13 AM

nice quote. Same with my quote in my sig.

Bell

4th December 2006, 04:15 AM

You mean the Q about the madrid tower?

I know nothing of that tower. I only know about the Twin Towers.

No, you dont.

Christopher, what the hell was the use for a concrete core anyway? The pictures posted by Uruk, Bonavada and others show the towers could stand without a concrete core. So why cast such as a core... 7 floors behind the rest of the building?

Eh?

JonnyFive

4th December 2006, 05:30 AM

What did you say the name of that 1990 PBS documentary was?

Come on, Christophera, you must remember the name... the narrator... the production company... something?

Why doesn't it phase you when everyone here thinks your "concrete core" images are terrible proof. Why can't you easily flip out a great picture from the tower construction and show us all? Surely a massive concrete core wasn't simply hidden during construction.

ETA: Oh wait, are you claiming the core was actually poured below the floors that were at the top of the construction at any given time? Yet, they described it on the PBS documentary that no one but you can find. Could you please provide this documentary, as it is fast becoming the only possible avenue you have to claim we're all crazy and delluded and stupid because we don't see the truth of the core.

Big Al

4th December 2006, 05:58 AM

Come on, Christophera, you must remember the name... the narrator... the production company... something?

Why doesn't it phase you when everyone here thinks your "concrete core" images are terrible proof. Why can't you easily flip out a great picture from the tower construction and show us all? Surely a massive concrete core wasn't simply hidden during construction.

Chris's argument is that the authorities claimed there was a steel core because then, when they "needed" to blow it up, everyone would wonder where all the concrete chunks had gone.

Then, they tell a PBS documentary crew all about the officially top-secret concrete core and gave them detailed access to the lie. This despite the fact that everybody (including me at that time) "knew" there was a steel core.

I bet they're still kicking themselves over that one! "Look, I told you not to tell 'em all about the officially non-existent concrete core and the extra-special, anti-corrosion-coated long-life 3" rebar!" "Sorry, boss, I clean forgot!"

And yet, this secret is so well concealed that it's been under the radar for nearly forty years . . . kinda makes you wonder, don't it?

Of course, when the buildings ollapsed, nobody questioned where all the non-existent steel was, apart from some chunky rebar.

Another thing, Chris... in 1993, terrorists tried to blow up WTC1 with a subterranean explosion, trying to make it topple into WTC2. Didn't the city masters, the CIA or whomsoever go, "WHOOPPEE! Now we get an excuse to blow all that C-4! 've been wating for this chance for years!" ?

No, presumably they just said "Not good enough yet. I guess we'll need to wait a few years more, until, say, someone crashes an airliner into it. Much more convincing."

Christophera is a troll. Nothing you can say will ever change his tight-shut "mind", because it's just a big echo-chamber.

JonnyFive

4th December 2006, 06:28 AM

Christophera is a troll. Nothing you can say will ever change his tight-shut "mind", because it's just a big echo-chamber.

Oh, I think you're right there. I'm not even sure why I bother.

Is "troll" sufficient to describe his behavior? He's been posting the same four or five pictures for over six months.

The same resistant behavior seems present in a lot of the conspiracy diehards. I guess that's what it takes to resist reality.

Big Al

4th December 2006, 06:37 AM

Finally, I have seen the light! I now feel the need to expose the whole sorry tale of lies, deceit and Machiavellian manipulation!

The Story So Far...
1. When designing the WTC in the 1960s, the architects wanted to maximise internal space by using an innovative steel core.

2. The NY city fathers, the CIA or whomsoever, said, "No, no, we want a concrete core with all the reinforcing core wrapped in C-4, so we can blow the towers up whenever we want to."

3) Then, a bright person said, "Just a moment, guys, if we do that, it's bound to pulverise all the tens of thousands of tons of concrete utterly into dust, and everyone will wonder where it went."

4) "OK, good point. I hadn't thought of that. Better stick with the fallacious steel core story. . . Err . . . Won't they wonder about where all the steel went, Boss?" "Naah, the elevator guide rails and the undamaged 3" rebar will look like the missing core steel."

5) In 1990, the authorities gave a documentary film crew unprecedented access to footage and pictures of the towers' construction, pointing out the super-special anti-corrosion coating on the already super-thick reinforcing rebar. They told them about all the labour disputes, the strange secrecy surrounding the concrete pouring, and utterly "demolished" the famous official steel core story.

6). They were still kicking themselves weeks later: "I TOLD you not to tell them about the concrete core, you schmuck!" "Sorry, Boss, I guess I just clean forgot!"

7) With their trigger fingers having been itching for over twenty years, they must have been sorely tempted to push the button in 1993, when a terrorist group set off a subterranean explosion to try to knock WTC1 into WTC2. However, they manfully stayed their hands. "Can't I blow it up yet, Boss?" "No, I'm sorry, Chuck. We'd better wait for something better... like, say, someone crashing a couple of jetliners into them."

8) Unlike their prescience when realising they needed the explosives in the first place, and their cunning concealment of the concrete core to forestall conjecture about all the missing concrete (is that enough c's for you?), nobody said, "Excuse me, Boss, but there's no way jet kerosene will burn hot enough to damage the steel." Still, their crystal ball mighthave been out for calibration.

9) AT LAST! Finally, thirty-five years after this was all planned, the homicidal éminences grises got their wish, and joyously brought the buildings down, laughing as they did so. With their commendable foresight, they remembered their boo--boo on the 1990 documentary and swiftly wiped out any trace it had ever been broadcast. Fortunately, nobody had ever bothered to watch it.

Or so they thought...

<Cue dramatic organ stab.>

Only Christophera, the insightful and perceptive investigator, has seen the documentary (apart from his ex-wife, who has had her memory of the event wiped by the NSA), and he, alone, knows the awful truth. He remains as a lone voice, crying out for justice in a world that refuses to acknowledge his undeniable evidence.

How can anyone read that tale and remain unconvinced?

Belz...

4th December 2006, 07:03 AM

images are as close as we get to raw evidence so by default they deserve the label

So a second-generation copy of a DVD deserves the label of original if you can't find it in stores anymore ?

Unfit4Command

4th December 2006, 07:07 AM

Belz...

4th December 2006, 07:07 AM

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?

Yes.

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.

Key word: appears.

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.

Fuzzy evidence, you mean.

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.

Well, the fact that you think the collapse should've taken several minutes pretty much says it all. You have a deep misunderstanding of buildings and how they fall.

Yes, after 6 months you can count on the contents of the Bel brothers shrunken pantaloons being concrete, similar to your evidence for steel core columns.

Wow. Even chris is resorting to jokes, now.

This thread is dead.

JonnyFive

4th December 2006, 07:08 AM

How can anyone read that tale and remain unconvinced?

I know I can't, I've finally seen the light!

Wait a minute, it just seems more ridiculous now than ever. The light is fading, fading, faaaaadingggg...

...please post detailed info about the PBS documentary, Christophera, you're my only hope!

uruk

4th December 2006, 07:12 AM

The issue of torsion and the square tower shear wals is actually obvious to most people once they think about it.

How can an inner bunch of steel vertical elements begin to provide more resistence to twisting than 4 perimeter shear walls that are as dense as the 22 inch center to center spacing of the towers when the outer dimensions of the inner bunch of columns is around 1/2 the dimensions of the square walls????.

Read here!
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20I%20History.pdf

Go to page 6 of the PDF file and start reading from the 2nd paragraph.

In case your to lazy to read the PDF:
"The World Trade Center Towers used a type of perimeter tube structure along with an interior steel frame to resist the lateral shear and moment imposed on it by the accumulated wind pressure. Both the frame and the perimiter tube also contributed to transferring the internal loads of the building down to the foundations."

Explination:
It was the whole system of the perimiter tube and the core frame being connected by the floor structure that provided resistance to twisting and torsion.

From the linked PDF:
"The floors tied together the exterior perimeter columns and the interior steel frame to resist twisting, or torsion, of the tower."

Belz...

4th December 2006, 07:14 AM

Lying to children is dispicable.

The ones in Canada that knew of the concrete core had it right tho.

Just because they agree with you doesn't mean they're right.

I've dealt with the images as raw evidence issue.

And of course that establishes that I do have raw evidence of the core, and that evidence is redundant.

No, it doesn't, because images are NOT RAW, no matter how much you want them to be.

My redundant evidence has not been resonably explained as anything but concrete

I believe someone here said it could also be dust. Oh, that was you.

meaning that the core must be concrete by default

False dichotomy.

This is a fact also because the steel core columns are never seen where they should be

They are, and they're mislabeled by the steel core deniers.

Next, the issue of near free fall and pulverization.

Non issue: no free fall, no pulverisation. This must be the 50th time I told you.

The image of a pulverized concrete debris wave is irrefutable

Except you can clearly see larger pieces of concrete. Only circular reasoning can lead someone to claim they're from a different building.

Since almost nothing was identifiable in the ground zero debris, the issue of pulverization is quite absolute.

Please stop using terms like "absolute", "irrefutable" and "undeniable". They don't prove anything.

I don't know that what you say makes sense in this case.

Fact-checking, chris. If they don't know what happened, why trust them ?

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

Why ?
The core walls were not load bearing walls for the most part.

Oh, so that was circular reasoning, AGAIN, on your part. Got it.

In one sense, I admit you are right. If professionals were to loose their fear and begin to examine real evidence and provide commentary on it, that would be quite meaningful.

Again, you have no evidence of said fear. You simply interpret that it exists.

laymen providing competent interpretations of the strucutre that DID EXIST are far more useful to the process of sharing truth.

No, because said laymen don't know how buildings are made and destroyed any more than they did BEFORE. Ergo, they aren't more competent NOW.

Find experts who agree with you. Not children. EXPERTS.

Belz...

4th December 2006, 07:16 AM

Are you going to compete with Belz for "All seeing galactic seer" title.

Impossible. Caster level differences.

Your gross exaggeration of what is possible with hypnosis shows your ignorance of the human mind.

No, it shows that you rely of hollywoodish conceptions of the mind and of hypnosis.

Not the best way to accumulate knowledge.

Bell

4th December 2006, 07:23 AM

Impossible. Caster level differences.

Oi!!

uruk

4th December 2006, 07:30 AM

Particuarly when there is NO plan available showing how they are connected and braced. Notice NONE of BV's nor Farseitects images show any diagonal bracing of the supposed columns they attempt to evidence with misrepresented images.

Read this PDF file.:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-2ADraft.pdf

Go to pages 36,37,39,40,41,42,43,44,53,67,68,70,82,97,105,1124 ,126,127,128,129, and 176 (PDF pages)

P.S. By the looks of the images of the NIST report, it seems that the NIST had VERY detailed plans of the towers.

uruk

4th December 2006, 07:38 AM

That is an image of the framework of the interior box columns extended up ove rthe concret ecore being cast below. False floors are installed for the elevator guide rail installation crews to work on while guide rail support steel is lowered into position and aligned.

The elevator crews had priority, or, whatever would get the elevators up another few floors sooner was what the rest of the crews were working on. Every 80 feet or so, the concrete core HAD TO CATCH UP by the engineers specifications but until that point was reached the guide rail supports were installed and aligned and temporarily braced to the interior box columns.

After that the false floors were removed and the breakdown steel inner forms were set and outer form wood was placed against the inside of the interior box columns, (the building floors and perimeter columns would be in place by this time) and another 40 feet of concrete core was cast.

Those aren't elevator guide rails. They are too big. Look at the floor plans, the elevators are nowhere near those columns. If you really are in construction you'd know that the guide rails go up after the shaft has been built because the rails go inside the shaft.
Tell you what. prove to me that those are elevator rail guides. show me "raw evidence" that there are elevator rail guides that big.

4th December 2006, 07:49 AM

He probably found them the same place he found all that 3" and 6" (!) rebar...

Big Al

4th December 2006, 08:01 AM

Read here!
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20I%20History.pdf

Go to page 6 of the PDF file and start reading from the 2nd paragraph.

In case your to lazy to read the PDF:
"The World Trade Center Towers used a type of perimeter tube structure along with an interior steel frame to resist the lateral shear and moment imposed on it by the accumulated wind pressure. Both the frame and the perimiter tube also contributed to transferring the internal loads of the building down to the foundations."

Explination:
It was the whole system of the perimiter tube and the core frame being connected by the floor structure that provided resistance to twisting and torsion.

From the linked PDF:
"The floors tied together the exterior perimeter columns and the interior steel frame to resist twisting, or torsion, of the tower."

Christophera will just throw mud at Professor Fernandez like he did at the article written by Professor Eagar I posted yesterday. Anyway, they're both at MIT. That's gotta be proof of collusion.

Big Al

4th December 2006, 08:38 AM

I know I can't, I've finally seen the light!

Wait a minute, it just seems more ridiculous now than ever. The light is fading, fading, faaaaadingggg...

...please post detailed info about the PBS documentary, Christophera, you're my only hope!

Damn! And I was so close! Would it help to sway you back to the side of truth if I said that over an hour after the aircraft struck, with only feeble gravity acting on the building, the buildings would have toppled over sideways? Gravity can't possibly pull things straight down: as we know, "what goes up must come down at a tangent."

AAAAGH! Now I'm having doubts again! Why did they wait a bloody HOUR to blow the buildings, if the jet fires couldn't have caused it? Why didn't they blow them immediately after the impacts?

..... No. Gotta stay focused. It's real. It's true. I believe...

uruk

4th December 2006, 08:39 AM

Christophera will just throw mud at Professor Fernandez like he did at the article written by Professor Eagar I posted yesterday. Anyway, they're both at MIT. That's gotta be proof of collusion.

Yea, He takes the word of highschoolers over that of college professors simply on the sole criteria that they agree with him.

uruk

4th December 2006, 08:47 AM

Damn! And I was so close! Would it help to sway you back to the side of truth if I said that over an hour after the aircraft struck, with only feeble gravity acting on the building, the buildings would have toppled over sideways? Gravity can't possibly pull things straight down: as we know, "what goes up must come down at a tangent."

AAAAGH! Now I'm having doubts again! Why did they wait a bloody HOUR to blow the buildings, if the jet fires couldn't have caused it? Why didn't they blow them immediately after the impacts?

..... No. Gotta stay focused. It's real. It's true. I believe...

Come on. You know it's like dominoes or bowling pins. Something hits it near the top, it goes falling over. See there! irrefutable logic! The rawest of raw evidence! It's dripping with the red jucies of truth! Incorruptable by the salmonella of denial! And like totaly hungered by the wombats of the truth starved.

Big Al

4th December 2006, 09:01 AM

Belz...

4th December 2006, 09:13 AM

THIS (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg) is not a collapse.

Yes, it is. You have ONE still picture of a complex collapse event. You might want to CHECK THE VIDEOS.

They appear quite a bit smaller as those in the distance on the perimeter appear about the same size but are perhaps 3 times the distance away.

Key word: appear. You're just making this stuff up, aren't you ?

You have certainly found the best image to date with columns in the core are that appear close to the same size.

The image of the "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" shows more of the columns and the downward angle allow a better evaluation of the end sections which show a smaller vertical piece of steel.

Of course, if there WAS a concrete core a few stories below the top of the tower, the fact that the whole thing was basically transparent means that people would've seen it.

The issue of the core core columns logically being of the strongest elements of the towers but not showing up in the demo images is a problem for the case you try to make despite what images you produce showing vertical steel in the core area.

That's because you think structural steel is invincible. Not so.

You fellows are not reading my web site.

Drivel isn't worth my time.

are not the same core columns he claims to show in his previous posts. Some web sites show H-beams in the uppper core areas. Liars should get their stories straight.

Oh, so now we're no longer hypnotised, we're liars ?

Who should get his stories straight, now ?

Arus808

4th December 2006, 09:17 AM

Belz...

4th December 2006, 09:22 AM

If I watched the concrete core being constructed for an hour on TV in 1990 while the narattor described it. Should I think it is illogical to say there was a concrete core now because you believe the official story?

Actually, the fact that reality seems to disagree with your memories should make you doubt the MEMORIES, not reality.

BTW, the wiki definition is not correct. Welded beams are welded, whatever shape they have

Funny how we can see bolts in the pictures.

I notice you have not produced one image from the demo which show the supposed steel core columns.

The buildings were DESTROYED, so not much is standing during that period. We have plenty of CONSTRUCTION photos showing them, though. Clearly, since they are standing with several floors of core without concrete, they must have some structural utility, as opposed to your claim.

Sincr they are not and images such as the WTC 2 core do exist and that structure can only be interpreted and concrete, THEN the towers had a concrete core and FEMA lied to enable a massive ruse.

Non sequitur. Also, you've admitted that "only be interpreted as concrete" was wrong.

Later I interviewed him on the phone and truthfully said he doesn't remember the core but remembered that that was where they brought the concrete up?

Ah, yes. They brought the concrete UP using pumps. Something never done before or since.

They should've just built the damn core out of steel and be done with it, eh ?

JonnyFive

4th December 2006, 09:23 AM

Come on. You know it's like dominoes or bowling pins. Something hits it near the top, it goes falling over. See there! irrefutable logic! The rawest of raw evidence! It's dripping with the red jucies of truth! Incorruptable by the salmonella of denial! And like totaly hungered by the wombats of the truth starved.

They're seriously saying that because it was hit on the top but didn't topple over, it had to be demolitions, aren't they?

I love how the official (i.e. true) explanation of how the towers collapsed keeps being supported, but the TRUTH (i.e. insane) explanation relies on a constantly moving, changing, and mutating definition of what actually happened, propped up by a series of lies, misconceptions, ignorance, and assertions that the evidence is indeed coming. Someday.

Of course, I'm just a stupid, hateful, evil, government-paid, ignorant, incompetent shill for not agreeing. You haven't really made it in the world until some conspiracy theorist calls you an idiot for not agreeing with him.

I wonder if, in their minds, we are no longer neutral parties to be convinced, but enemies to be destroyed? It seems that the transition from one to the other is a quick one, consisting primarily of disagreeing with the CT position.

Actually, I'm pretty sure many of us made that transition with the first breath of "I don't agree with you, could you provide some proof?"

Regnad Kcin

4th December 2006, 09:25 AM

Mr. Brown:

Which of the below is heavier?

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

Thanks in advance!

Belz...

4th December 2006, 09:30 AM

Your aerial images of the tower with large font cannot get past the fact that my question makes perfect sense and core columns inside the tower can add NO resistence to torsion when a tower has a square set of perimeter shear walls. Your assertion that the question does not make sense only shows your evasion.

Says the guy who just evaded "raw" evidence of steel columns.

That photo shows the second section of exterior framework to be built around the core area before the core forming inside the framework was began.

How does it stand, then ?

Uh huh, the documentary said that.

Non-existent.

I believe that perspective was reversed by the time WTC 2 was built.

You believe ?

Also, the difficulty in renting WTC 1 with its single hallway per floor was apparent so WTC 2 was altered

They were built at the same time chris. Boy, you're not getting any better.

Christopher, what the hell was the use for a concrete core anyway? The pictures posted by Uruk, Bonavada and others show the towers could stand without a concrete core. So why cast such as a core... 7 floors behind the rest of the building?

I'd like an answer to that, too, chris.

This IS the core of WTC 2. I know it is concrete.

Little Billy also "knows" that he has been abducted by aliens. It doesn't make it so.

Yes it is concrete.

Or dust.

TellyKNeasuss

4th December 2006, 09:35 AM

Yes it is concrete. Inside the perimeter walls is the concrete core of WTC 2. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg) It is about to smash ALL THE WAY to the ground through WTC3.

What in that image proves that it can only be concrete? What is it that I'm not seeing?

Yes it is concrete and here is one more image. This is the core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg). the annotation of 3 inch rebar is not correct. Since annotation I have recalled that the foundations hat 6 inch bar that extended up for a distance into the shear wall base. The "rebar" in the image is NOT close to the base.

uruk

4th December 2006, 09:45 AM

They're seriously saying that because it was hit on the top but didn't topple over, it had to be demolitions, aren't they?

I love how the official (i.e. true) explanation of how the towers collapsed keeps being supported, but the TRUTH (i.e. insane) explanation relies on a constantly moving, changing, and mutating definition of what actually happened, propped up by a series of lies, misconceptions, ignorance, and assertions that the evidence is indeed coming. Someday.

Of course, I'm just a stupid, hateful, evil, government-paid, ignorant, incompetent shill for not agreeing. You haven't really made it in the world until some conspiracy theorist calls you an idiot for not agreeing with him.

I wonder if, in their minds, we are no longer neutral parties to be convinced, but enemies to be destroyed? It seems that the transition from one to the other is a quick one, consisting primarily of disagreeing with the CT position.

Actually, I'm pretty sure many of us made that transition with the first breath of "I don't agree with you, could you provide some proof?"

I don't think actually came out and said it, but he did mention that "if the collpase was caused by the planes, it would have fallen differently. Also some other things he said gave me the impression that "toppeling" is what he meant.

tsig

4th December 2006, 09:57 AM

No. I am aware from other sources exactly how the towers were designed and NIST is a waste of time. They do not explain free fall. They do not explain free fall to the ground of the entire structure. They do not explain how this happened twice and why the impact/fall sequence is backwards/ The wrong tower fell first if itwas a collapse.

They don't explain why the tops of the towers fell the wrong directions according top the sides damaged.

They don't explain it 'cause it didn't happen.

JonnyFive

4th December 2006, 10:03 AM

I don't think actually came out and said it, but he did mention that "if the collpase was caused by the planes, it would have fallen differently. Also some other things he said gave me the impression that "toppeling" is what he meant.

Okay, I wasn't sure if that was what he was saying, or if it was something about the speed of the collapse... or something. He keeps talking about the collapse being wrong, etc. etc. but I don't think he's actually come out and said how he thinks it should have happened if two planes hit the towers and nothing else, despite repeated requests that he do so.

tsig

4th December 2006, 10:09 AM

This IS the core of WTC 2 (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG). I know it is concrete. If you do not know as much as me you will not know what it is. If you think it is noy concrete explain what material you think it is.

Also, explain why none of the supposed 47, 1300 foot the steel core columns are not seen.

The image is clear enough. Stop evading.

I do not know concrete as an invisible component. I have seen rebar, that is not rebar.

Steel is in 20' I beams.

bonavada

4th December 2006, 11:27 AM

Arus808

4th December 2006, 11:33 AM

once again chris................

..........you interviewed an ironworker/windwalker in 2002 (you have stated previously that he was 64 years old at that time) and that he was 24 when he worked at the WTC. there's a 40 year gap there. so are you stating that the man was working at the WTC in 1962?

BV

shh... remember facts gets in the way of his fantasies.

he still has to explain how he thought it was C4 when the term c4 wasn't commonly used in the late 60's, not until 69-70 when it was used in Vietnam. or how 'plastic coating to protect from fire' equates to plastic explosives.

JonnyFive

4th December 2006, 11:42 AM

hcmom

4th December 2006, 11:53 AM

Of course, I'm just a stupid, hateful, evil, government-paid, ignorant, incompetent shill for not agreeing.

You left out hypnotized.

bonavada

4th December 2006, 11:54 AM

shh... remember facts gets in the way of his fantasies.
he still has to explain how he thought it was C4 when the term c4 wasn't commonly used in the late 60's, not until 69-70 when it was used in Vietnam. or how 'plastic coating to protect from fire' equates to plastic explosives.

yep.......
i also read somewhere an account of a vietnam grunt warming rations with burning C4. also this story related that, once burning, it was rather difficult to extinguish, in fact one soldier was injured trying to stomp it out and it exploded. so a combination of heat AND pressure was liable to detonate the stuff.

makes you think huh?

BV

jsfisher

4th December 2006, 11:55 AM

shh... remember facts gets in the way of his fantasies....
...or how 'plastic coating to protect from fire' equates to plastic explosives.
More likely what Chris saw in some documentary (or newspaper article, or comic book, or lucid dream) as a fire-retardant coating on the steel core members, not the rebar.

But then again, since he knows it was C-4 on the rebar, then all the evidence must agree it was C-4 on the rebar in a tight little circle, as has all the other examples of "logical reasoning" Chris has offered.

JonnyFive

4th December 2006, 12:01 PM

You left out hypnotized.

Yes, and "evasive" too, how forgetful of me.

Architect

4th December 2006, 12:02 PM

Chris

I've got to hand it to you. You're creating a work of fantasy, possibly even some sort of performance art.

1. Why do the elevator guide rails have to extend beyond the working platform?

2. Why did the "concrete core" have to catch up evey 80ft or so and what proof do you have?

3. Perhaps you can tell me why, then, we can't see 80ft of formwork or rebar?

4. A propos of which, can you tell me how they join 3" rebar; how do the lateral junctions work?

5. How much do you need to resist torsion, and where does it go in the core?

6. If we take standard cover depths for Rebar, what thickness does the concrete have to be to accommodate all the reinforcement required?

7. Why can't steel resist torsion (not that we call it that)? Why does it have to be concrete?

Architect

4th December 2006, 12:04 PM

oh, yeah, one more thing.

WHERE'S THE CONCRETE IN THESE PHOTGRAPHS THEN?

DID YOU FORGET TO REPLY?

tsig

4th December 2006, 12:12 PM

oh, yeah, one more thing.

WHERE'S THE CONCRETE IN THESE PHOTGRAPHS THEN?

DID YOU FORGET TO REPLY?

Stay in this thread and you will believe that you hvave instsalled the rebar.

It was simple I just swilled the rebar in the hot ecplosive mixture, then planted it.

Confession is good.

uruk

4th December 2006, 01:05 PM

Stay in this thread and you will believe that you hvave instsalled the rebar.

It was simple I just swilled the rebar in the hot ecplosive mixture, then planted it.

Confession is good.

And I was the one who mixed up the batch of C4 from an old recipe my mother handed down to me from her mother and so forth.

And, of course, you know what the secret ingrediant is, don't you?

That's right.....love.

JonnyFive

4th December 2006, 01:09 PM

Confession is good.

Has anyone seen a realistice explanation for free fall of my pants?

I know there is a concrete core. I heard explosions, it must be c4. I have raw evidence that you cannot refute.

PANTS CORE STILL STANDS (http://omiru.com/wp-content/images/GapBlueJeans_012306.jpg)

I saw a PBS documentary on pants in 1990 that showed pantscrete. My ex-cat saw it as well. ARE YOU QUALIFIED TO EVALUATE PANTS? Answer in the next 2 nanoseconds or you are being evasive.

Bell

4th December 2006, 01:11 PM

For the asplosion nutters in this thread: How did the demolition firms (or USG for that matter) demolish buildings in the early 60's? Did they use C4 or other asplosives? Or a large steel ball? I'd like to know.

uruk

4th December 2006, 01:45 PM

Has anyone seen a realistice explanation for free fall of my pants?

I know there is a concrete core. I heard explosions, it must be c4. I have raw evidence that you cannot refute.

PANTS CORE STILL STANDS (http://omiru.com/wp-content/images/GapBlueJeans_012306.jpg)

I saw a PBS documentary on pants in 1990 that showed pantscrete. My ex-cat saw it as well. ARE YOU QUALIFIED TO EVALUATE PANTS? Answer in the next 2 nanoseconds or you are being evasive.

JonnyFive has employed COGNITIVE DISTORTION concerning the structure of the core of the pants. (probably due to hypmotizim by Hungarian Gerbils) The picture he posted is incorrect and does not show the proper core. I have modified his picture to show how the core really is. This drawing was confirmed by his ex-girl friend who is an hindu indian with a mohawk.

TellyKNeasuss

4th December 2006, 02:10 PM

If what you called '3" rebar' in 'THE REBAR' section of your web page really is only 3 inches wide, those men in the foreground must have toothpicks for legs.

In addition, based on the size of the image and the height of the buildings, the resolution of this image at the distance the buildings are from the camera is at best 1 pixel/foot, and probably is worse. At that resolution, even 6-inch rebar would be at most half a pixel wide. 3-inch rebar would be a quarter of a pixel wide or less. How could something that small be as clearly visible as what's in the image?

bonavada

4th December 2006, 02:41 PM

The picture he posted is incorrect and does not show the proper core. I have modified his picture to show how the core really is. This drawing was confirmed by his ex-girl friend who is an hindu indian with a mohawk.

you is disinfo...
that image are not raw evidence and are fake. here is the original.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87484574a3d313aa2.jpg

BV

Big Al

4th December 2006, 03:17 PM

<Snorts in a disdainful manner>

In addition, based on the size of the image and the height of the buildings, the resolution of this image at the distance the buildings are from the camera is at best 1 pixel/foot, and probably is worse. At that resolution, even 6-inch rebar would be at most half a pixel wide. 3-inch rebar would be a quarter of a pixel wide or less. How could something that small be as clearly visible as what's in the image?

Du-uh! So it was 1-foot rebar! Whatever! That doesn't change the undeniable reality of some puffs of dust from collapsing floors . . . I mean, C-4 explosions pulverising concrete! :rolleyes:

Besides, that was recorded on film, not digital media. The resolution's much better on film . . . and the digitisation . . . sorta captured that resolution and then . . . sorta de-resolved it, leaving the essential homeopathic essence of the rebar in the emulsion, or the digitalisification, or whatever it was. :boggled:

Anyway, you're wrong. Chris is THE MAN!

Big Al

4th December 2006, 03:20 PM

you is disinfo...
that image are not raw evidence and are fake. here is the original.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87484574a3d313aa2.jpg

BV

Bonavada, you've not become a filthy, unbelieving disiformationist, have you?

That picture is a total fake! Those legs are really made of concrete, as you well know! Shame on you!

Brainache

4th December 2006, 04:11 PM

bonavada

4th December 2006, 04:13 PM

Bonavada, you've not become a filthy, unbelieving disiformationist, have you?
That picture is a total fake! Those legs are really made of concrete, as you well know! Shame on you!

i show you raw evidence of gusset supports that FEMA says still stood after pant collapse.
the brownish scrote particulate is irrefutable.
you care not that your government is involved in the covert removal of 3000 american skidmarks. skidmarks that could only be facilitated by explosive ejection of pulverised C4 coated vindaloo
your support of pantycide is noted.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87484574a3d313aa2.jpg

BV

uruk

4th December 2006, 04:14 PM

Wow, almost an entire day without "the man" himself responding.

Could it be the end finally?

Bell

4th December 2006, 04:15 PM

Wow, almost an entire day without "the man" himself responding.

Could it be the end finally?

DON'T JINX IT!! :mad:

uruk

4th December 2006, 04:17 PM

i show you raw evidence of gusset supports that FEMA says still stood after pant collapse.
the brownish scrote particulate is irrefutable.
you care not that your government is involved in the covert removal of 3000 american skidmarks. skidmarks that could only be facilitated by explosive ejection of pulverised C4 coated vindaloo
your support of pantycide is noted.

BV

Well let's hope it was just pulverized C4 coated vindaloo that was explosively ejected.

Christophera

4th December 2006, 04:50 PM

why doesn't chris realize that that "thin" of a concrete core wouldn't be able to last/survive the immense wind speeds for a building that tall? That there would have been no way to install the hundreds of elevators in the buildings because the center would needed to be "concrete" through and through?

that is why what he claims is pure fantasy.

First its too thick then its too thin. Two foot thick at the top and 17 feet thick at the bottom. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg)

I can only guess you do not understand the flex of steel. In the proportions of the tower the flex would be fatal to the structure.

This is the core of WTC 2 (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) and it can only be concrete. Not one reasonable explanation of what it is if it is NOT concrete has ever been offered.

No reasonable explanation for WHY the supposed steel core columns do not protrude in some way from the top has ever been offered.

tsig

4th December 2006, 04:53 PM

And I was the one who mixed up the batch of C4 from an old recipe my mother handed down to me from her mother and so forth.

And, of course, you know what the secret ingrediant is, don't you?

That's right.....love.

Yes who do you think was pissing into the pot next to you?

Christophera

4th December 2006, 04:53 PM

Just dropped by to say Hi!

So has the hypnotism worn off yet Chris?

Or is my evil plan to make you see concrete cores where there are none still in effect?

Look into my eyes not around the eyes.....:hypnodisk :hypnodisk .....And when you wake you will know the cores were made of pancake bunnies.
:bunpan
:bunpan
:bunpan
:bunpan
:bunpan

Like so.

First all atempts to produce reasonable evidence are abandoned, even the sadly misrepresented kind.

Then all efforts at reasonable discussion are abandoned. All in support of a sad lie.

tsig

4th December 2006, 04:55 PM

JonnyFive has employed COGNITIVE DISTORTION concerning the structure of the core of the pants. (probably due to hypmotizim by Hungarian Gerbils) The picture he posted is incorrect and does not show the proper core. I have modified his picture to show how the core really is. This drawing was confirmed by his ex-girl friend who is an hindu indian with a mohawk.

For the love of humanity, put them back!!

TellyKNeasuss

4th December 2006, 04:56 PM

This is the core of WTC 2 (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) and it can only be concrete. Not one reasonable explanation of what it is if it is NOT concrete has ever been offered.

Are you saying that my mud theory isn't reasonable???

Christophera

4th December 2006, 04:58 PM

In addition, based on the size of the image and the height of the buildings, the resolution of this image at the distance the buildings are from the camera is at best 1 pixel/foot, and probably is worse. At that resolution, even 6-inch rebar would be at most half a pixel wide. 3-inch rebar would be a quarter of a pixel wide or less. How could something that small be as clearly visible as what's in the image?

Trying to convince people they are not seeing what is there to see?

This is the 3 inch rebar which is probably moving around quite a bit, which would make you pixel arguement null and void. (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg). Also, over a hundred of them are in a line or nearly so, and that will be larger than a pixel.

Clearly this image of and interior box column "the spire" (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) which is just over 2 feet wide, perhaps there are 2, one slightly behind the other, was taken a second before that of the rebar, so the scale is correct and we are looking at 3 inch rebar.

What should not be over looked, is that there are NO STEEL core columns in the core area.

bonavada

4th December 2006, 05:06 PM

bonavada

4th December 2006, 05:12 PM

also once again chris.............

when quoting mike pecararo you didn't seem to notice that he says he smelt kerosene, or that he doesn't mention dust or particulate. and you still cannot explain how an explosion in the sub-levels can suck a fire door off it's hinges TOWARD an explosion below. also where is the information that the walls down there were exclusively reinforced concrete? are you sure there were no drywall composed walls down there?

??

BV

Big Al

4th December 2006, 05:21 PM

I can only guess you do not understand the flex of steel. In the proportions of the tower the flex would be fatal to the structure.

Damn! Those guys weren't too clever when they told the whole WORLD they were going to make the core out of steel, were they? Lucky for them every structural engineer and architect was asleep when they said it, and only poor laymen like me heard about it. Or perhaps, with their marvellous foresight, the NWO just bought them ALL off.

This is the core of WTC 2 (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) and it can only be concrete. Not one reasonable explanation of what it is if it is NOT concrete has ever been offered.

No, Chris, that is the same tired old pic you've shown us a hundred times, and it shows an opaque cloud. It could be from sheetrock, the concrete floors or from belly-button fluff. Your mere didactic statement that it's from the core doesn't make it so.

No reasonable explanation for WHY the supposed steel core columns do not protrude in some way from the top has ever been offered.

Can you show me a steel-core building where the steel has remained protruding after its collapse? The core is meant to support the whole building. If the building has collapsed then ipso facto, the core has collapsed, too.

Can't you get it through your head that your pictures and endless reiterations of "it's undeniable" and "this is not in doubt" are not convincing anyone?

For me, the whole thing flounders on the nonsense idea that the proudest skyscrapers in New York, perhaps in the U.S.A., would have been deliberately built to be destroyed on some future President's idle whim.

uruk

4th December 2006, 05:21 PM

First all atempts to produce reasonable evidence are abandoned, even the sadly misrepresented kind.

Then all efforts at reasonable discussion are abandoned. All in support of a sad lie.

I believe it's called "responding in kind".

Christophera

4th December 2006, 05:32 PM

Chris

I've got to hand it to you. You're creating a work of fantasy, possibly even some sort of performance art.

1. Why do the elevator guide rails have to extend beyond the working platform?

I know you are not an architect and I've answered these questions before but I also know you are all about wasting my time and have no real interest in the truth. However, it cannot appear as if I cannot answer these questions which I can answer.

The elevator guide rail SUPPORT steel does not have to stick up over the temporary floor in the core. The priority of the job was to keep the elevator acess as far up as possible. Meaning that every now and then, the guide rail support steel did stick up over the top floor.

2. Why did the "concrete core" have to catch up evey 80ft or so and what proof do you have?

Only 40 feet of concrete can be poured before hydrostatic pressures of concrete blow out wood forms. Engineers determined that the unequal loading of the kangaroo cranes working together could easily over load and damage the steel framework so limited the steel over the concrete to 7 floors. The Steelworker I interviewed remembered this. There were a few time where exceptions were allowed but cranes must have been limited in their loads during those phases.

3. Perhaps you can tell me why, then, we can't see 80ft of formwork or rebar?

The forms are always inside the interior box columns and the rebar inside the steel framework in shadow.

4. A propos of which, can you tell me how they join 3" rebar; how do the lateral junctions work?

The documentary noted a number of times that the big slowdown in the concrete core construction was because of a shortage of welders that had security clearance to perform the butt weld in the high tensile steel rebar used in the concrete shear walls of the core. A security clearnace was required because of the thick "special plastic coating" on the rebar. Later the videographers discovered that the reason the security clearance was required was because the rebar s plastic coating was "flammable". The lateral junctions were tied in a normal fashion. The horizontal bar had the same "special plastic coating".

5. How much do you need to resist torsion, and where does it go in the core?

Your question is unclear. If it is "How much rebar", I can say I don't know. The rebar is always centered in concrete walls. The rebar was on 4 foot centers and 3" inches in diameter all the way to the top.

How about you answer my question about how much added resistance to torsion that interior steel columns add to a square set of perimeter walls when the field of steel columns is about 1/2 the dimension of the square?

6. If we take standard cover depths for Rebar, what thickness does the concrete have to be to accommodate all the reinforcement required?

I've answered enough of your questions and I couldn't tell you exactly. Generally four times the bar diameter is a minimum.

7. Why can't steel resist torsion (not that we call it that)? Why does it have to be concrete?

Steel flexes in very long members whether vertical or horizontal. In the documentary they played a clip of the Tacoma narrow bridge twisting.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8849554834285920420&q=tacoma+narrows+bridge&hl=en

Concrete is rigid and absorbed lateral forces as well as torsion. That was the role of the concrete core in the WTC towers.

Christophera

4th December 2006, 05:35 PM

I believe it's called "responding in kind".

No, that would be an error. I have consistently produced competetn evidence and provided explanations that are reasonable for the MISREPRESENTED evidence that the deniers of the concrete core present in trying to support the steel core columns.

The concrete shown HEREl (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) as a part of the concrete shear wall of the core in this larger image (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg) has neven been explained by the deniers of the concrete core.

Which proves your assertion to be wrong.

TellyKNeasuss

4th December 2006, 05:38 PM

Trying to convince people they are not seeing what is there to see?

What is in that image? You say it's concrete, but the only evidence that you've offered is that YOU haven't seen another explanation. If you want to do a proof by elimination, you have to list all other possibilities and then prove that none of them could be true. So far you haven't done that.

This is the 3 inch rebar which is probably moving around quite a bit, which would make you pixel arguement null and void. (http://home.comcast.net/%7Ejeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg). Sorry. They wouldn't be swaying fast enough to fill up an area several pixels wide in the image exposure time.

Also, over a hundred of them are in a line or nearly so, and that will be larger than a pixel.Over a hundred pieces of rebar, each apparently over 200 feet long (according to my crude measurements, the "spire" is at least 16 stories tall), all standing at exactly the same angle. And if they are moving as you claim, all moving at the same (or nearly the same) speed and in the same phase?

Clearly this image of and interior box column "the spire" (http://home.comcast.net/%7Ejeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) which is just over 2 feet wide, perhaps there are 2, one slightly behind the other, was taken a second before that of the rebar, so the scale is correct and we are looking at 3 inch rebar.Could these be 2 pictures of the same thing? In any case, your "reasoning" about the scale being correct is non-sensical.

What should not be over looked, is that there are NO STEEL core columns in the core area.Your only proof is your claim that there is a concrete object. Since you haven't proven that there is a concrete object, you haven't proven anything about what is in that image. The "spire" image looks to me like steel columns with the debris cloud in between.

beachnut

4th December 2006, 05:39 PM

The concrete shown HEREl (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) as a part of the concrete shear wall of the core in this larger image (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg) has neven been explained by the deniers of the concrete core.

Which proves your assertion to be wrong.

Darn, that is wall board over steel!

Wrong again. you need real evidence or you should hang it up!

Christophera

4th December 2006, 05:43 PM

Actually, the fact that reality seems to disagree with your memories should make you doubt the MEMORIES, not reality.

The fact that the steel core columns are not seen in this image (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) but rebar is proves your assertion wrong.

Your assertion is proven wrong again because steel core columns are not protruding from the center of the core area of the WTC 2 core where they should be if they existed. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

My memories are accurate. More accurate than most peoples because this is very important and I knew that when I was watching the towers constrcuted in the 1990 doumentary titled, "The Constrcution of the Twin Towers."

They were amazing structures that were built incredibly strong and planes plus fires as we saw could NEVER do this (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg) to them, or any structure that size. What we saw on 9-11 was nohting less that a high speed series of super well contained and distributed detonations of high explosives.
(http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1plumecascade.jpg)

Christophera

4th December 2006, 05:45 PM

Darn, that is wall board over steel!

Wrong again. you need real evidence or you should hang it up!

Your answer is ridiculous, unreasonable, facetious and mocking the true explanation for an event that killed 3000 innocent people.

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

TellyKNeasuss

4th December 2006, 05:49 PM

My memories are accurate. More accurate than most peoples because this is very important and I knew that when I was watching the towers constrcuted in the 1990 doumentary titled, "The Constrcution of the Twin Towers."

So you watched the documentary because you knew the WTC was going to be blown up some day and you wanted to learn how?

Christophera

4th December 2006, 06:02 PM

also once again chris.............

when quoting mike pecararo you didn't seem to notice that he says he smelt kerosene,

It would be expected that he smelled jet fuel.

http://www.chiefengineer.org/article.cfm?seqnum1=1029
Mike told his co-worker to call upstairs to their Assistant Chief Engineer and find out if everything was all right. His co-worker made the call and reported back to Mike that he was told that the Assistant Chief did not know what happened but that the whole building seemed to shake and there was a loud explosion. They had been told to stay where they were and "sit tight" until the Assistant Chief got back to them.
The two decided to ascend the stairs to the C level, to a small machine shop where Vito Deleo and David Williams were supposed to be working. When the two arrived at the C level, they found the machine shop gone.
"There was nothing there but rubble" Mike said. "We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press - gone!" The two began yelling for their co-workers, but there was no answer. They saw a perfect line of smoke streaming through the air. "You could stand here," he said, "and two inches over you couldn't breathe. We couldn't see through the smoke so we started screaming." But there was still no answer.
The two made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. ‘There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can't see anything’ he said
or that he doesn't mention dust or particulate.

Mike Pecoraro had no way of knowing that rebar coated with plastic explosive had detonated turning the walls to rubble. When high explosives are optimally contained by mineral materials the minerals in close proximity are turned to extremely fine particales which are also very hot. He had no way of knowing what was smoke was actually concrete particulate. You cannot breath that and that was exactly his experience

and you still cannot explain how an explosion in the sub-levels can suck a fire door off it's hinges TOWARD an explosion below.

i don't have to explain that because there were other explosions that were documented. Remember William Rodriguez?

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=7762
There were a total of fourteen people in the office at this time. As he was talking with others, there was a very loud massive explosion which seemed to emanate from between sub-basement B2 and B3. There were twenty-two people on B2 sub-basement who also felt and heard that first explosion.??At first he thought it was a generator that had exploded. But the cement walls in the office cracked from the explosion. "When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and everything started shaking." said Rodriguez, who was crowded together with fourteen other people in the office including Anthony Saltamachia, supervisor for the American Maintenance Company
also where is the information that the walls down there were exclusively reinforced concrete? are you sure there were no drywall composed walls down there?

BV

I've answered enough of your question and Mike Pecoraro calls out "rubble" framed walls of drywall are referred to as "debris".

How about you explain why no steel core columns are seen here or here? (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)

Regnad Kcin

4th December 2006, 06:14 PM

Perhaps my question has been too difficult. I'll rephrase it.

Which weighs more:

- 11 bowls of Cocoa Puffs
- 25 bowls of Cocoa Puffs

And for extra credit:

Are you cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs?

TellyKNeasuss

4th December 2006, 06:16 PM

The fact that the steel core columns are not seen in this image (http://home.comcast.net/%7Ejeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) but rebar is proves your assertion wrong.

It is NOT rebar, for reasons that I've already explained.

jsfisher

4th December 2006, 06:22 PM

This whole thread gives new meaning to the term, Brownian motion.

Bell

4th December 2006, 06:34 PM

:confused:

http://hereisnewyork.org//jpegs/photos/3448.jpg

tsig

4th December 2006, 06:54 PM

tsig

4th December 2006, 06:59 PM

Trying to convince people they are not seeing what is there to see?

This is the 3 inch rebar which is probably moving around quite a bit, which would make you pixel arguement null and void. (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg). Also, over a hundred of them are in a line or nearly so, and that will be larger than a pixel.

Clearly this image of and interior box column "the spire" (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) which is just over 2 feet wide, perhaps there are 2, one slightly behind the other, was taken a second before that of the rebar, so the scale is correct and we are looking at 3 inch rebar.

What should not be over looked, is that there are NO STEEL core columns in the core area.

Steel, ve don't need no stinking' steel man!

bonavada

4th December 2006, 07:03 PM

It would be expected that he smelled jet fuel.

yes it would be. especially if thousands of gallons had ignited in the building above and cascaded explosively down elevator shafts right? strange how, conveniently, you don't consider this option when formulating conclusions of what happened down there huh?

http://www.chiefengineer.org/article.cfm?seqnum1=1029
Mike told his co-worker to call upstairs to their Assistant Chief Engineer and find out if everything was all right. His co-worker made the call and reported back to Mike that he was told that the Assistant Chief did not know what happened but that the whole building seemed to shake and there was a loud explosion

note here that mike pecararo and his workmate were aware of only ONE explosion and report no other.

Mike Pecoraro had no way of knowing that rebar coated with plastic explosive had detonated turning the walls to rubble. When high explosives are optimally contained by mineral materials the minerals in close proximity are turned to extremely fine particales which are also very hot. He had no way of knowing what was smoke was actually concrete particulate. You cannot breath that and that was exactly his experience

this is an amusingly spurious explanation. i would suggest that if anyone has the authority to dictate mike pecararos experience it would be mike pecararo. your attempt to put words into mike's mouth here are pathetic.

i don't have to explain that because there were other explosions that were documented. Remember William Rodriguez?

ETA: get it right chris not that you DON'T HAVE TO explain it...YOU CAN'T explain it. there was only ONE explosion and that was above the firedoor. story, end of.

now......not withstanding that i was discussing mike pecararo....i believe william rodriguez' story has had more changes than michael jackson's nostrils. and anyway i think that nothing he says proves any of your outlandish theory of exploding rebar in the basement.

I've answered enough of your question and Mike Pecoraro calls out "rubble" framed walls of drywall are referred to as "debris".

no chris. i can't let you get away with this. debris, rubble, they are just words mate.
a couple of dictionary definitions:-
rubble: The remains of something destroyed, disintegrated, or decayed
rubble: A jumbled mass of rough or broken things
debris: The scattered remains of something broken or destroyed; rubble or wreckage
debris: Carelessly discarded refuse; litter

the two words are highly interchangable and your definitions are a hark-back to newspeak 1984.

NOTHING mike pecararo says supports your basement explosion theory. you have stated before that the walls down there were made of reinforced concrete. where did you get that information? why can't you tell us?

How about you explain why no steel core columns are seen <A href="http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg" target=_blank>here or here? (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

i have chris, quite a few times. once again though..........whatever the structures standing in those pictures are, neither i, nor you, could say with any certainty what they are. there may be steel columns, there may not. most people i think would agree with me.

keep wriggling chris.

BV

Bell

4th December 2006, 07:04 PM

Perhaps my question has been too difficult. I'll rephrase it.

Which weighs more:

- 11 bowls of Cocoa Puffs
- 25 bowls of Cocoa Puffs

And for extra credit:

Are you cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs?

Poor Regnad :(
Why don't the nutters ever answer his simple questions?

tsig

4th December 2006, 07:14 PM

The fact that the steel core columns are not seen in this image (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) but rebar is proves your assertion wrong.

Your assertion is proven wrong again because steel core columns are not protruding from the center of the core area of the WTC 2 core where they should be if they existed. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

My memories are accurate. More accurate than most peoples because this is very important and I knew that when I was watching the towers constrcuted in the 1990 doumentary titled, "The Constrcution of the Twin Towers."

They were amazing structures that were built incredibly strong and planes plus fires as we saw could NEVER do this (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg) to them, or any structure that size. What we saw on 9-11 was nohting less that a high speed series of super well contained and distributed detonations of high explosives.
(http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1plumecascade.jpg)Just making it up as you go along. You and Joe Smith would get along well.

Bell

4th December 2006, 07:16 PM

bonavada

4th December 2006, 07:16 PM

My memories are accurate. More accurate than most peoples......

is your memory accurate about the question below?

once again chris................
..........you interviewed an ironworker/windwalker in 2002 (you have stated previously that he was 64 years old at that time) and that he was 24 when he worked at the WTC. there's a 40 year gap there. so are you stating that the man was working at the WTC in 1962?

BV

Bell

4th December 2006, 07:24 PM

My memories are accurate. More accurate than most peoples ...

Some examples of Christophera's 'accurate' memory:

Flight 176 hit the south east corner of WTC 2.

Flight 176 hit the south east corner of WTC 2.

And yes, they are two different posts, follow the link.

tsig

4th December 2006, 07:28 PM

What is in that image? You say it's concrete, but the only evidence that you've offered is that YOU haven't seen another explanation. If you want to do a proof by elimination, you have to list all other possibilities and then prove that none of them could be true. So far you haven't done that.

Sorry. They wouldn't be swaying fast enough to fill up an area several pixels wide in the image exposure time.

Over a hundred pieces of rebar, each apparently over 200 feet long (according to my crude measurements, the "spire" is at least 16 stories tall), all standing at exactly the same angle. And if they are moving as you claim, all moving at the same (or nearly the same) speed and in the same phase?

Could these be 2 pictures of the same thing? In any case, your "reasoning" about the scale being correct is non-sensical.

Your only proof is your claim that there is a concrete object. Since you haven't proven that there is a concrete object, you haven't proven anything about what is in that image. The "spire" image looks to me like steel columns with the debris cloud in between.

OK rebar is never welded in position. It is wired into postion Go to any construction site.

Regnad Kcin

4th December 2006, 07:33 PM

Say, fellows:

I've found raw evidence of the Concrete Core (http://www.surroundyourcore.com/core%20information.htm).

tsig

4th December 2006, 07:38 PM

It would be expected that he smelled jet fuel.

http://www.chiefengineer.org/article.cfm?seqnum1=1029
Mike told his co-worker to call upstairs to their Assistant Chief Engineer and find out if everything was all right. His co-worker made the call and reported back to Mike that he was told that the Assistant Chief did not know what happened but that the whole building seemed to shake and there was a loud explosion. They had been told to stay where they were and "sit tight" until the Assistant Chief got back to them.
The two decided to ascend the stairs to the C level, to a small machine shop where Vito Deleo and David Williams were supposed to be working. When the two arrived at the C level, they found the machine shop gone.
"There was nothing there but rubble" Mike said. "We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press - gone!" The two began yelling for their co-workers, but there was no answer. They saw a perfect line of smoke streaming through the air. "You could stand here," he said, "and two inches over you couldn't breathe. We couldn't see through the smoke so we started screaming." But there was still no answer.
The two made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. ‘There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can't see anything’ he said

Mike Pecoraro had no way of knowing that rebar coated with plastic explosive had detonated turning the walls to rubble. When high explosives are optimally contained by mineral materials the minerals in close proximity are turned to extremely fine particales which are also very hot. He had no way of knowing what was smoke was actually concrete particulate. You cannot breath that and that was exactly his experience

i don't have to explain that because there were other explosions that were documented. Remember William Rodriguez?

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=7762
There were a total of fourteen people in the office at this time. As he was talking with others, there was a very loud massive explosion which seemed to emanate from between sub-basement B2 and B3. There were twenty-two people on B2 sub-basement who also felt and heard that first explosion.??At first he thought it was a generator that had exploded. But the cement walls in the office cracked from the explosion. "When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and everything started shaking." said Rodriguez, who was crowded together with fourteen other people in the office including Anthony Saltamachia, supervisor for the American Maintenance Company

I've answered enough of your question and Mike Pecoraro calls out "rubble" framed walls of drywall are referred to as "debris".

How about you explain why no steel core columns are seen here or here? (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)

I sea no steel where there is no steal.

The Almond

4th December 2006, 07:50 PM

OK rebar is never welded in position. It is wired into postion Go to any construction site.

I've seen some welding, but you're right, the overwhelming majority of rebar is just tied.

orphia nay

4th December 2006, 08:02 PM

Just couldn't let this one pass without comment:

There is redundant support from the raw evidence of images from the demo for the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html).

Are you sure you didn't mean 'abundant'???

Synonyms for redundant:
bombastic, de trop, inessential, inordinate, iterating, long-winded, padded, palaverous, reiterating, repetitious, spare, superfluous, surplus, tautological, unnecessary, unwanted, verbose, wordy.

Antonyms: essential, necessary.
:newlol

Christophera

4th December 2006, 08:13 PM

No, Chris, that is the same tired old pic you've shown us a hundred times, and it shows an opaque cloud. It could be from sheetrock, the concrete floors or from belly-button fluff. Your mere didactic statement that it's from the core doesn't make it so.

It seems you are short on reasonable responses because that is not the only image showing concrete, and you have not explained why there are no steel core columns seen. The top of WTC 2 concrete core is seen inside the perimeter walls (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg) before it crashes on WTC 3 and there can be no mistaking that brownish gray material.

Did you ever see the pictures of WTC 3 after that hit?

Can you show me a steel-core building where the steel has remained protruding after its collapse? The core is meant to support the whole building. If the building has collapsed then ipso facto, the core has collapsed, too.

Shorter towers are made with steel core columns but none has ever collapsed, so your request is not reasonable.

Can't you get it through your head that your pictures and endless reiterations of "it's undeniable" and "this is not in doubt" are not convincing anyone?

Since none of the deniers of the concrete core have ever produced one image of any of the 47, 1300 foot steel core columns have ever produced an image from the demolition that shows the columns clearly in the core area at some elevation above ground, you NEED to apply your statement to yourself and others that deny the concrete core.

For me, the whole thing flounders on the nonsense idea that the proudest skyscrapers in New York, perhaps in the U.S.A., would have been deliberately built to be destroyed on some future President's idle whim.

You have made a mistake, an assumption, undoubtedly based in attitude. I do not assert that it was a presidentual whim.

Bell

4th December 2006, 08:34 PM

Well, Christophera? Is all this 'debunking of us deniers' getting to you? Are you growing tired? There are a lot more posts to reply to. Get to it!

orphia nay

4th December 2006, 08:44 PM

Darn, that is wall board over steel!

Yep. Plus a lot of dust. I think we're all agreed on that. Or do we need a poll? :D

Your answer is ridiculous, unreasonable, facetious and mocking the true explanation for an event that killed 3000 innocent people.

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

You might as well have said, "Your answer is cromulent, interfrastic, contrafibulous, and mocking the tautologically tautological explanation for my mummy not loving me".

Wrong again. you need real evidence or you should hang it up!

Right again.

Christophera

4th December 2006, 09:18 PM

OK rebar is never welded in position. It is wired into postion Go to any construction site.

Am I arguing with somebody that does not recognize there was ALOT that was special about the Twin Towers?

Go to any construction site and you will not find high tensile steel rebar. You will not find 3 inch diameter rebar.

Of course you will also not find a 1368 foot tower being constructed.

The concrete shear walls of the WTC had 3 inch diameter, high tensile stel rebar that was butt welded 100% then X-rayed.

Given what you've displayed as common sense, you will never guess why, so I will tell you. LIABILITY and the factor of being the tallest buildings in the world.

Christophera

4th December 2006, 09:21 PM

Steel, ve don't need no stinking' steel man!

Zat is my line you bonehead!

Ve see no steel core columns in da zenter of ze core! (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg)

Christophera

4th December 2006, 09:22 PM

Some examples of Christophera's 'accurate' memory:

And yes, they are two different posts, follow the link.

If you only had as much commen sense as you do an editors eyes for typos.

Christophera

4th December 2006, 09:25 PM

I've seen some welding, but you're right, the overwhelming majority of rebar is just tied.

And the horizontal bar was tied to the welded vertical bar.

I see most larger bar welded these days as the specs call for heavy tie wire that is very difficult to do in tight areas, whereas the arc stinger can be inserted in a tight area and applied in a fraction of the time actually reducing costs. Welders are somewhat cheaper these days, by the hour, than they were.

Christophera

4th December 2006, 09:40 PM

is your memory accurate about the question below?

BV

I think you've found a mis statement, and perhaps you've confused when I met him and when I interviewed him. I'm mostly repeating what he told me, and his memory wasn't that good.

But you are correct, the arithmetic doesn't work, but not way off as he worked on the towers for at least 6 years.

Christophera

4th December 2006, 09:56 PM

this is an amusingly spurious explanation. i would suggest that if anyone has the authority to dictate mike pecararos experience it would be mike pecararo. your attempt to put words into mike's mouth here are pathetic.

After the fact interpretation is what words are for, even those who spoke them.

ETA: get it right chris not that you DON'T HAVE TO explain it...YOU CAN'T explain it. there was only ONE explosion and that was above the firedoor. story, end of.

now......not withstanding that i was discussing mike pecararo....i believe william rodriguez' story has had more changes than michael jackson's nostrils. and anyway i think that nothing he says proves any of your outlandish theory of exploding rebar in the basement.

I've documented two explosions in different areas at the same time, Here is a third. Remember Phillip Morelli?

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

no chris. i can't let you get away with this. debris, rubble, they are just words mate.
a couple of dictionary definitions:-
rubble: The remains of something destroyed, disintegrated, or decayed
rubble: A jumbled mass of rough or broken things
debris: The scattered remains of something broken or destroyed; rubble or wreckage
debris: Carelessly discarded refuse; litter

the two words are highly interchangable and your definitions are a hark-back to newspeak 1984.

Not so interchangeble in the construction/engineering world, particuarly in the demolition world, and given these circumstances, engineers will always borrow the terms from the demo world. A truck load of concrete is never called debris unless it is "concrete debris" or "hard debris" it is always "rubble" which means there may be some bricks and stone in with the concrete. Rubble is actually an old term that referres to permeable hard backfill.

NOTHING mike pecararo says supports your basement explosion theory. you have stated before that the walls down there were made of reinforced concrete. where did you get that information? why can't you tell us?

I can tell you. The documentary talked about the basement walls in the parking area, and it mentioned that the "same special plastic coating was on the rebar".

i have chris, quite a few times. once again though..........whatever the structures standing in those pictures are, neither i, nor you, could say with any certainty what they are. there may be steel columns, there may not. most people i think would agree with me.

keep wriggling chris.

BV

No steel is ever seen where it should be and what can only be concrete is seen.

You would like to have people believe I'm wiggling, I'm not. You and the deniers are attempting the manipulation of evidence and testimony which the supports the concrete core,...........

Because you have no evidence for the steel core columns.

Other than misrepresented construction photos.

Christophera

4th December 2006, 10:00 PM

Just couldn't let this one pass without comment:

Are you sure you didn't mean 'abundant'???

Redundant, abundant evidence, yea, that's okay.

Synonyms for redundant:
bombastic, de trop, inessential, inordinate, iterating, long-winded, padded, palaverous, reiterating, repetitious, spare, superfluous, surplus, tautological, unnecessary, unwanted, verbose, wordy.

Antonyms: essential, necessary.
:newlol

Christophera

4th December 2006, 10:14 PM

What is in that image? You say it's concrete, but the only evidence that you've offered is that YOU haven't seen another explanation

Yes, and what is seen must be explained. If you do not believe this is so try explaining something you cannot see. This is you major problem with talkng about the supposed steel core columns. You cannot even come up with a plan that shows how they are connected.

You can come up with 4 different floor plans for the core though.

Sorry. They wouldn't be swaying fast enough to fill up an area several pixels wide in the image exposure time.

Over a hundred pieces of rebar, each apparently over 200 feet long (according to my crude measurements, the "spire" is at least 16 stories tall), all standing at exactly the same angle. And if they are moving as you claim, all moving at the same (or nearly the same) speed and in the same phase?

Could these be 2 pictures of the same thing? In any case, your "reasoning" about the scale being correct is non-sensical.

Your only proof is your claim that there is a concrete object. Since you haven't proven that there is a concrete object, you haven't proven anything about what is in that image. The "spire" image looks to me like steel columns with the debris cloud in between.

Above you have just unsuccessfully tried to say 2 things.

ONE, this image of the fine vertical elements does not show fine vertical elements. (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)

TWO That this image shows the same fine vertical elements. (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg)

Any rational person can see you are wrong twice.

the second photo shows heavy steel slightly taller than the first. What has happened is that the heavy steel fell away and the concrete of the core wall had been blown off the vertical rebar by the horizontal rebar which had viable C4 explosive while the C4 on the vertical bar had aged and was not viable which kept the high tensile steel intact.

This image of the interior box columns (http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/3396/gjswtc30pt4.jpg) shows how the spire was left after the concrete core walls exploded (http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8232/wtcsl8.jpg). Tempered steel columns of the thickness found in the WTC will only be damages by very large amounts of high explosives in direct contact that are also well contained in order to develop huge amounts of high pressure gasses.

Christophera

4th December 2006, 10:23 PM

:confused:

http://hereisnewyork.org//jpegs/photos/3448.jpg

Excellent. I knew we could find a picture of the WTC 2 steel being built ahead of the core. The mistakes of WTC 1 processes were not repeated.

Below is a usenet comment which descibes what I saw in the 1990 documentary called "Construction of the Twin Towers". The WTC 1 core was constructed ahead of the steel erection. After thinking about it I realized I would have built the steel frame first and used it to align the elevator guide rails.

The docuemntary explained that there was much construction politics around the beginning as the elevator crews basically controlled the process as contracts stated that "elevators were to be given a priority and other trades were to work to get elevators as far up as possible", or some such language.

Constructon politics, being what they are could definitely lead to what was seen by some passer by below and what I saw in the 1990 documentary. Which was a mistake. The wrong way to start, very time consuming.

Thanks to Bell we have just shown the correct way to start your tower. Pour the core inside AFTER the exterior steel is in position so you can use it to form with and be support for the elevator guide rail supports too.

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

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

-=tom=-

Roger_Harris

4th December 2006, 10:49 PM

The documentary noted a number of times that the big slowdown in the concrete core construction was because of a shortage of welders that had security clearance to perform the butt weld in the high tensile steel rebar used in the concrete shear walls of the core. A security clearnace was required because of the thick "special plastic coating" on the rebar. Later the videographers discovered that the reason the security clearance was required was because the rebar s plastic coating was "flammable". The lateral junctions were tied in a normal fashion. The horizontal bar had the same "special plastic coating".

"Security clearance"? I can think of more plausible reasons why there would be a "shortage of welders" if they were trying to weld rebar coated with C4! Delays? I'm surprised they got the towers finished before they exhausted all the welders in the country...

Anyway, and I apologize if this has come up before (no way I'm reading this whole thread!) but... 3" rebar at 48" on center? That just doesn't make any sense to me. First, that would be a #24 bar (24 eighth-inches), which is a non-standard size so it would be very expensive; and second, spacing bars that far apart doesn't sound like a good idea -- you'd have big gaps of concrete between the bars where the steel was essentially having no effect, and it would require extra steel just to hold that concrete together. Using a #18 bar (the largest standard size) at 24" OC would be the same steel area, but cheaper, and it would distribute the steel better. (And actually, using a smaller bar, closer, say #12 at 12" OC, would be better still.)

So, can you imagine some reason why the engineers came up with that bizarre design? Why build a wall that was so unnecessarily expensive, yet less efficient than a cheaper wall? Umm... maybe to reduce the number of C4-coated rebar welders they'd go through?

hcmom

4th December 2006, 11:26 PM

Anyway, and I apologize if this has come up before (no way I'm reading this whole thread!)

Oh, you really ought to! You have no idea what you're missing...

So, can you imagine some reason why the engineers came up with that bizarre design? Why build a wall that was so unnecessarily expensive, yet less efficient than a cheaper wall?

They were hypnotized. See, that's why you should read all two hundred something pages...

skeptifem

5th December 2006, 12:03 AM

this thread is like a novel already, and yes, every single one of his objections has been answered multiple times, usually in picture AND text w/sources sited. its not worth discussing anymore.

beachnut

5th December 2006, 01:32 AM

it is really a test of the forum engine

so how was the concrete core poured Chris

Architect

5th December 2006, 01:38 AM

I know you are not an architect and I've answered these questions before but I also know you are all about wasting my time and have no real interest in the truth.

Gravy has my ARB (that's the Architects Registration Board) and RIBA (Royal Institute of British Architects) registration details which confirm - much to your disappointment, no doubt - that I am indeed a qualified architect with 15 years post-qualification experience.

The elevator guide rail SUPPORT steel does not have to stick up over the temporary floor in the core. The priority of the job was to keep the elevator acess as far up as possible. Meaning that every now and then, the guide rail support steel did stick up over the top floor.

Well Chris, there's a small problem there. You see the lift machinery at WTC generally went at the top of the shafts. So there's no point in installing them until you get to the plant level. On construction sites, we use temporary lifts pretty much until the final fitting out stage. Yes, even in tall buildings.

Only 40 feet of concrete can be poured before hydrostatic pressures of concrete blow out wood forms. Engineers determined that the unequal loading of the kangaroo cranes working together could easily over load and damage the steel framework so limited the steel over the concrete to 7 floors. The Steelworker I interviewed remembered this. There were a few time where exceptions were allowed but cranes must have been limited in their loads during those phases.

Bollocks.

The forms are always inside the interior box columns and the rebar inside the steel framework in shadow.

We'd still be able to see the timber forms and their supporting framework. If you've ever seen in-situ concrete work you'd realise just how much formwork and support was required. It would not slide into invisibility in photographs.

The documentary noted a number of times that the big slowdown in the concrete core construction was because of a shortage of welders that had security clearance to perform the butt weld in the high tensile steel rebar used in the concrete shear walls of the core. A security clearnace was required because of the thick "special plastic coating" on the rebar. Later the videographers discovered that the reason the security clearance was required was because the rebar s plastic coating was "flammable". The lateral junctions were tied in a normal fashion. The horizontal bar had the same "special plastic coating".

Bollocks. Steel reinforcement is not welded and does not particularly need to be. It is tied or clipped. Welding is neither necessary or cost effective; do you really understand the structural issues?

I'd especially love you to tell me how the complex lateral junctions would work if they were welded.

Your question is unclear. If it is "How much rebar", I can say I don't know. The rebar is always centered in concrete walls. The rebar was on 4 foot centers and 3" inches in diameter all the way to the top.

Wrong again, mate. You really don't understand structures, do you?

Reinforcement only serves to take the tension loads, as concrete is only good in compression. Therefore the reinforcement is placed where the tensile loads are; so, for example, on a floor it goes on the underside and on a balcony on the topside. If (haha) WTC had a concrete core the arrangement of the reinforcement would have been rather complex.

I would have thought they would have mentioned that in your documentary.

Anyway the reason I ask you about the quantity of rebar is because it's important in debunking your argument. You see, you'd have to look at how much rebar was required, especially at the complex junctions, then the amount of concrete to cover it.

I think you'll find that it's rather a lot, and certainly the kind of thickness where it would be visible in construction photgraphs and the like.

How about you answer my question about how much added resistance to torsion that interior steel columns add to a square set of perimeter walls when the field of steel columns is about 1/2 the dimension of the square?

It's a non-sensical question, Chris. Let me ask you one; are you using elastic or plastic structural theory to consider this?

Steel flexes in very long members whether vertical or horizontal. In the documentary they played a clip of the Tacoma narrow bridge twisting.

Concrete is rigid and absorbed lateral forces as well as torsion. That was the role of the concrete core in the WTC towers.

Aha, the Tacoma Narrows. We did that in structures (gasp, horror, 4 years of it as part of our degrees). You're trying to use a cable suspension bridge as some sort of analagy. Apples and oranges spring to mind.

Anyway you fail on so many levels:

1. Steel is just as sutiable and strong as concrete; resistance to forces all comes down to design. It may be helpful if you (well, the sane readers) think of all framed structures as girder beams, where the floors and other members act as the web. The important thing is not the material, but rather how the web and flanges (ahem) interact with each other structurally.

2. Concrete is only strong in compression. Steel is strong in tension and compression. "Lateral forces" is irrelevant under such circumstances.

3. Tall buildings aren't designed to be completely rigid, mate. This may come as a shock to you.

Basically you're a fraud Chris; you don't understand even basic structural issues, and instead apply a ham fisted layman's interpretation onto what are actually perfectly clear photographs of a steel core getting built.

Performance art, or a troll. I don't buy delusional any more.

jhunter1163

5th December 2006, 03:32 AM

Two "bollocks" in one post, at least tying a record....

tsig

5th December 2006, 03:41 AM

Zat is my line you bonehead!

Ve see no steel core columns in da zenter of ze core! (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg)

Chris you have more humor than I thought.

tsig

5th December 2006, 03:45 AM

"Security clearance"? I can think of more plausible reasons why there would be a "shortage of welders" if they were trying to weld rebar coated with C4! Delays? I'm surprised they got the towers finished before they exhausted all the welders in the country...

Anyway, and I apologize if this has come up before (no way I'm reading this whole thread!) but... 3" rebar at 48" on center? That just doesn't make any sense to me. First, that would be a #24 bar (24 eighth-inches), which is a non-standard size so it would be very expensive; and second, spacing bars that far apart doesn't sound like a good idea -- you'd have big gaps of concrete between the bars where the steel was essentially having no effect, and it would require extra steel just to hold that concrete together. Using a #18 bar (the largest standard size) at 24" OC would be the same steel area, but cheaper, and it would distribute the steel better. (And actually, using a smaller bar, closer, say #12 at 12" OC, would be better still.)

So, can you imagine some reason why the engineers came up with that bizarre design? Why build a wall that was so unnecessarily expensive, yet less efficient than a cheaper wall? Umm... maybe to reduce the number of C4-coated rebar welders they'd go through?

I can't believe I read the whole thing!

tsig

5th December 2006, 03:48 AM

this thread is like a novel already, and yes, every single one of his objections has been answered multiple times, usually in picture AND text w/sources sited. its not worth discussing anymore.

I wasen't aware we were discussing anymore more like hamering.

Life was probably worse on the Russian Front.

tsig

5th December 2006, 03:54 AM

Gravy has my ARB (that's the Architects Registration Board) and RIBA (Royal Institute of British Architects) registration details which confirm - much to your disappointment, no doubt - that I am indeed a qualified architect with 15 years post-qualification experience.

Well Chris, there's a small problem there. You see the lift machinery at WTC generally went at the top of the shafts. So there's no point in installing them until you get to the plant level. On construction sites, we use temporary lifts pretty much until the final fitting out stage. Yes, even in tall buildings.

Bollocks.

We'd still be able to see the timber forms and their supporting framework. If you've ever seen in-situ concrete work you'd realise just how much formwork and support was required. It would not slide into invisibility in photographs.

Bollocks. Steel reinforcement is not welded and does not particularly need to be. It is tied or clipped. Welding is neither necessary or cost effective; do you really understand the structural issues?

I'd especially love you to tell me how the complex lateral junctions would work if they were welded.

Wrong again, mate. You really don't understand structures, do you?

Reinforcement only serves to take the tension loads, as concrete is only good in compression. Therefore the reinforcement is placed where the tensile loads are; so, for example, on a floor it goes on the underside and on a balcony on the topside. If (haha) WTC had a concrete core the arrangement of the reinforcement would have been rather complex.

I would have thought they would have mentioned that in your documentary.

Anyway the reason I ask you about the quantity of rebar is because it's important in debunking your argument. You see, you'd have to look at how much rebar was required, especially at the complex junctions, then the amount of concrete to cover it.

I think you'll find that it's rather a lot, and certainly the kind of thickness where it would be visible in construction photgraphs and the like.

It's a non-sensical question, Chris. Let me ask you one; are you using elastic or plastic structural theory to consider this?

Aha, the Tacoma Narrows. We did that in structures (gasp, horror, 4 years of it as part of our degrees). You're trying to use a cable suspension bridge as some sort of analagy. Apples and oranges spring to mind.

Anyway you fail on so many levels:

1. Steel is just as sutiable and strong as concrete; resistance to forces all comes down to design. It may be helpful if you (well, the sane readers) think of all framed structures as girder beams, where the floors and other members act as the web. The important thing is not the material, but rather how the web and flanges (ahem) interact with each other structurally.

2. Concrete is only strong in compression. Steel is strong in tension and compression. "Lateral forces" is irrelevant under such circumstances.

3. Tall buildings aren't designed to be completely rigid, mate. This may come as a shock to you.

Basically you're a fraud Chris; you don't understand even basic structural issues, and instead apply a ham fisted layman's interpretation onto what are actually perfectly clear photographs of a steel core getting built.

Performance art, or a troll. I don't buy delusional any more.

Such a lack of basic understanding of how a building is erected seems hard to place in todays world, is Chris having us on?

Bell

5th December 2006, 04:18 AM

PerryLogan

5th December 2006, 04:18 AM

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/122334575642fb9ec1.jpg
Facts just bounce off those tin hats.

Belz...

5th December 2006, 04:50 AM

This is the 3 inch rebar which is probably moving around quite a bit (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg).

Impossible. It's like claiming you can see the bolts in the columns, from there.

Also, over a hundred of them are in a line or nearly so, and that will be larger than a pixel.

Speculation. You don't know if that's the case.

What should not be over looked, is that there are NO STEEL core columns in the core area.

Yes, there are. But for some reason you seem to think that elevator guide rails are built BEFORE the rest of the building...

Belz...

5th December 2006, 04:53 AM

The elevator guide rail SUPPORT steel does not have to stick up over the temporary floor in the core. The priority of the job was to keep the elevator acess as far up as possible. Meaning that every now and then, the guide rail support steel did stick up over the top floor.

Ridiculous. You don't know anything about construction.

Only 40 feet of concrete can be poured before hydrostatic pressures of concrete blow out wood forms. Engineers determined that the unequal loading of the kangaroo cranes working together could easily over load and damage the steel framework so limited the steel over the concrete to 7 floors. The Steelworker I interviewed remembered this. There were a few time where exceptions were allowed but cranes must have been limited in their loads during those phases.

Those new memories just keep on coming, don't they ?

I can only guess you do not understand the flex of steel. In the proportions of the tower the flex would be fatal to the structure.

Are you saying that there are NO high-rise buildings with steel cores ?

Belz...

5th December 2006, 05:01 AM

The fact that the steel core columns are not seen in this image (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) but rebar is proves your assertion wrong.

Sorry. Reality disagrees with you again.

You can see the columns in that picture, in fact. If you look at the OTHER picture, which is by far clearer, you can see them much better.

Am I arguing with somebody that does not recognize there was ALOT that was special about the Twin Towers?

Interesting. You've just built yourself an invincible, if contradictory, argument. You continuously appeal to common sense and reason, but when people point out that things don't fit, you say it was "special" in the WTC's case. Quite an interesting, unfalsifiable theory you have there.

I knew we could find a picture of the WTC 2 steel being built ahead of the core. The mistakes of WTC 1 processes were not repeated.

Speculation, or did the documentary mention this, as well ?

Oh, and chris: how did they weld rebar with explosives on it ?

Big Al

5th December 2006, 05:13 AM

Oh, and chris: how did they weld rebar with explosives on it ?

You can't explode C-4 without a detonator, but it burns quite easily - GIs in Vietnam used it as fuel for camp fires. Also, I've read that, once lit, it just won't go out.

Doubtless they used special room-temperature welding equipment for the WTC, along with all the other "special" factors.

Porkpie Hat

5th December 2006, 05:26 AM

The concrete shear walls of the WTC had 3 inch diameter, high tensile stel rebar that was butt welded 100% then X-rayed.

First, why would they butt weld lengths of re-bar together? If this was some sort of top secret conspiracy 30yrs in the making would they not just order the required lengths of re-bar thus eliminating the need for welders to be given security clearance for the purpose of splicing lengths of re-bar together in order to achieve the required lengths? (edit to ask what joint configuration Chris is trying to describe?)

Secondly, what sort of joint geometry was required in these assumed butt welds? If the pieces were just butted together without preperation then it's logical to assume that the resultant weld wound be less than complete penetration. The x-rays would then show a lack of fusion at the faying surfaces of the two sections being welded together (I can't post links so just google "welded joints+x ray+lack of fusion). So what is the purpose of the x-ray? Any amount of porosity or slag inclusion in the welded joint would be inconsequential compared to the lack of fusion present.

If the joint geometry specified complete joint penetration and required preperation before welding (grinding to a pencil like point at the joining surfaces) then I can only ask why? The joint is not taking a load or withstanding a pressure, it's supposedly encased in concrete, hence this makes no sense at all.

So what was the name of the NDE company that preformed the x-rays? And what do you consider "high tensile"?

Big Al

5th December 2006, 05:43 AM

My, but that must have been one boring hour-long documentary! I've seen many documentaries on construction, but I can't remember any going into so much damn' detail over the bloody core!

With all that, the labour disputes, the required security clearance, the concrete pouring schedules, delayed due to bad weather, the reason the rate at which the core had to climb, the rebar butt welding and X-ray, it's special "anti-corrosion coating", the fact that the rebar had to be kept locked up, yada yada yada, was there any time for anything else?

I'd have been bored to tears!

JonnyFive

5th December 2006, 05:48 AM

Can't you get it through your head that your pictures and endless reiterations of "it's undeniable" and "this is not in doubt" are not convincing anyone?

For me, the whole thing flounders on the nonsense idea that the proudest skyscrapers in New York, perhaps in the U.S.A., would have been deliberately built to be destroyed on some future President's idle whim.

And destroyed it in a way that, according to silly things like "explosives shelf life" and "the laws of physics", couldn't have happened. But all right.

Are you sure you aren't convinced? I mean, it's undeniable and all. This is not in doubt.

I'm just waiting for him to call us "educated stupid", then it's really in the crapper.

Bell

5th December 2006, 05:57 AM

Christopher:

http://images.wisconsinhistory.org/whi_images_new/700099990248/9999004208-l.jpg

http://images.wisconsinhistory.org/whi_images_new/700099990250/9999004225-l.jpg

http://bobbhobbs.googlepages.com/wtc_sm.jpg

JonnyFive

5th December 2006, 06:26 AM

Christopher:

Oh look, massive box columns.

I'm sure he's got some BS reason why no one can find any concrete core in any construction photos. I mean, he did see a documentary. And by "documentary" I mean "coma fantasy".

I kid, I kid. Really though, love to see some pictures of construction to support the ever-more-ridiculous assertion that there was a concrete core somewhere.

Belz...

5th December 2006, 07:04 AM

You can't explode C-4 without a detonator, but it burns quite easily - GIs in Vietnam used it as fuel for camp fires. Also, I've read that, once lit, it just won't go out.

I'm working on the assumption that the explosives weren't C4. Otherwise they'd have been useless after 30 years. Contra chris' contention, concrete actually lets air through.

Big Al

5th December 2006, 07:47 AM

I'm working on the assumption that the explosives weren't C4. Otherwise they'd have been useless after 30 years. Contra chris' contention, concrete actually lets air through.

But Chris said it was C-4, Belz! And he knows! Semtex and RDX wouldn't be much different anyway.

The next thing you know, he'll suddenly remember how the documentary mentioned a special, non-wet, impermeable concrete.

JonnyFive

5th December 2006, 07:48 AM

But Chris said it was C-4, Belz! And he knows! Semtex and RDX wouldn't be much different anyway.

The next thing you know, he'll suddenly remember how the documentary mentioned a special, non-wet, impermeable concrete.

This all ties so nicely in the with very simple explanation of "magic", doesn't it?

hcmom

5th December 2006, 08:38 AM

this thread is like a novel already, and yes, every single one of his objections has been answered multiple times, usually in picture AND text w/sources sited. its not worth discussing anymore.

Several of us haven't actually "discussed" it in quite some time, we're just addicted.

uruk

5th December 2006, 08:38 AM

Below is a usenet comment which descibes what I saw in the 1990 documentary called "Construction of the Twin Towers". The WTC 1 core was constructed ahead of the steel erection. After thinking about it I realized I would have built the steel frame first and used it to align the elevator guide rails.

The docuemntary explained that there was much construction politics around the beginning as the elevator crews basically controlled the process as contracts stated that "elevators were to be given a priority and other trades were to work to get elevators as far up as possible", or some such language.

Constructon politics, being what they are could definitely lead to what was seen by some passer by below and what I saw in the 1990 documentary. Which was a mistake. The wrong way to start, very time consuming.

Thanks to Bell we have just shown the correct way to start your tower. Pour the core inside AFTER the exterior steel is in position so you can use it to form with and be support for the elevator guide rail supports too.

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

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

-=tom=-

Hey Chris, You do know that the usenet comment goes against what your claiming. "Tony Jebson" doesn't say which tower he's refering to. He claims that the steel was erected several floors behind the core. Except in the picture there is no concrete core ahead of the steel work. Look again:

hcmom

5th December 2006, 08:39 AM

Chris you have more humor than I thought.

I've been trying to point that out to you people!

JonnyFive

5th December 2006, 08:43 AM

Several of us haven't actually "discussed" it in quite some time, we're just addicted.

It is quite addictive. Especially since you get these great gems of insane humor. It's more than worth sifting through the tons of crap and concrete dust for, at least for me (and apparently several other people as well).

uruk

5th December 2006, 08:46 AM

How can an inner bunch of steel vertical elements begin to provide more resistence to twisting than 4 perimeter shear walls that are as dense as the 22 inch center to center spacing of the towers when the outer dimensions of the inner bunch of columns is around 1/2 the dimensions of the square walls????.

Particuarly when there is NO plan available showing how they are connected and braced. Notice NONE of BV's nor Farseitects images show any diagonal bracing of the supposed columns they attempt to evidence with misrepresented images.

You mean these diagnal cross connecting bracings in these photographs?

uruk

5th December 2006, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by Christophera
The issue of torsion and the square tower shear wals is actually obvious to most people once they think about it.

How can an inner bunch of steel vertical elements begin to provide more resistence to twisting than 4 perimeter shear walls that are as dense as the 22 inch center to center spacing of the towers when the outer dimensions of the inner bunch of columns is around 1/2 the dimensions of the square walls????.

Read here!
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20I%20History.pdf

Go to page 6 of the PDF file and start reading from the 2nd paragraph.

In case your to lazy to read the PDF:
"The World Trade Center Towers used a type of perimeter tube structure along with an interior steel frame to resist the lateral shear and moment imposed on it by the accumulated wind pressure. Both the frame and the perimiter tube also contributed to transferring the internal loads of the building down to the foundations."

Explination:
It was the whole system of the perimiter tube and the core frame being connected by the floor structure that provided resistance to twisting and torsion.

From the linked PDF:
"The floors tied together the exterior perimeter columns and the interior steel frame to resist twisting, or torsion, of the tower."

I wanted to remind Chris about this. he seems to be ignoring certain posts.

And this one too:
Originally Posted by Christophera
That is an image of the framework of the interior box columns extended up ove rthe concret ecore being cast below. False floors are installed for the elevator guide rail installation crews to work on while guide rail support steel is lowered into position and aligned.

The elevator crews had priority, or, whatever would get the elevators up another few floors sooner was what the rest of the crews were working on. Every 80 feet or so, the concrete core HAD TO CATCH UP by the engineers specifications but until that point was reached the guide rail supports were installed and aligned and temporarily braced to the interior box columns.

After that the false floors were removed and the breakdown steel inner forms were set and outer form wood was placed against the inside of the interior box columns, (the building floors and perimeter columns would be in place by this time) and another 40 feet of concrete core was cast.

Those aren't elevator guide rails. They are too big. Look at the floor plans, the elevators are nowhere near those columns. If you really are in construction you'd know that the guide rails go up after the shaft has been built because the rails go inside the shaft.
Tell you what. prove to me that those are elevator rail guides. show me "raw evidence" that there are elevator rail guides that big.

hcmom

5th December 2006, 09:02 AM

It is quite addictive. Especially since you get these great gems of insane humor. It's more than worth sifting through the tons of crap and concrete dust for, at least for me (and apparently several other people as well).

Plus, as a bonus, people other than Chris post pictures and links that are sometimes interesting. When I got here, (and I have absolutely no recollection of how that happened!) I had very little CT knowledge, or really any of the facts that they have spun off of. Now I've learned about architecture, explosives, mental illnesses...

uruk

5th December 2006, 09:07 AM

Originaly posted by Christophera:
"Tony Jebson" <jebbo@texas.net> wrote:

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

-=tom=-

Seems like "Tony Jebson" is a liar or seriously mistaken.

Where is the concrete core several floors ahead of the steel work in these pictures?

Christophera

5th December 2006, 09:30 AM

"Security clearance"? I can think of more plausible reasons why there would be a "shortage of welders" if they were trying to weld rebar coated with C4! Delays? I'm surprised they got the towers finished before they exhausted all the welders in the country.

Sarcasm aside, the idea was that they had to have welders that they could tell that the rebar was coated with C4 or othrewise a welder might try and cut corners and not remove enough of the coating or not shield the coating properly, ......then ... BOOM, and BOOM, and BOOM, big problem.

Anyway, and I apologize if this has come up before (no way I'm reading this whole thread!) but... 3" rebar at 48" on center? That just doesn't make any sense to me. First, that would be a #24 bar (24 eighth-inches), which is a non-standard size so it would be very expensive; and second, spacing bars that far apart doesn't sound like a good idea -- you'd have big gaps of concrete between the bars where the steel was essentially having no effect, and it would require extra steel just to hold that concrete together. Using a #18 bar (the largest standard size) at 24" OC would be the same steel area, but cheaper, and it would distribute the steel better. (And actually, using a smaller bar, closer, say #12 at 12" OC, would be better still.)

So, can you imagine some reason why the engineers came up with that bizarre design? Why build a wall that was so unnecessarily expensive, yet less efficient than a cheaper wall? Umm... maybe to reduce the number of C4-coated rebar welders they'd go through?

The idea was as a torsion resistant wall rather than a lead bearing wall. That was why the high tensile steel rebar. I'm unsure, but the wide c to c on the vertical bar has to do with a wall designed primarily for torsion rather than load. The horizontal bar was closer to what you say.