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

[TellyKNeasuss]

218 feet for both WTC 1 and 2, and they were square in cross-section. Must have been tight on space in there!

Maybe they were TARDISes.

[JonnyFive]

Perhaps he is referring to an alternative PBS which broadcasts exclusively into his mind?

The documentary was three hours of pure core action, and he couldn't look away.

[tsig]

I've been trying to point that out to you people!

got any other gems?

[tsig]

Wow, the welders knew they were putting up a building loaded with C4? That's... incredible.



Really? Where would all this torsion be coming from?

From the twists in the head?

[tsig]

Totally. It's like there's a whole side thread (or five) going alongside the main one. Christophera just kind of ignores everything not related to his quest and whoever is in his sights at a given time, leaving the rest of us free to talk about whatever. It's fun.

I've learned a lot too. Especially about mental illness. You could call it first hand experience, I suppose.

I just starting reading this as a lurker, and got sucked in. Once I joined, I just had to post here... I couldn't help it.

Abandon all hope ye who post here.

(that's a quote)

[Belz...]

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.

Is this your own speculation, or was this little tidbit mentioned, too ?

[bonavada]

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...

same here, chris is a great resource for debunk noobs. i would recommend all skeptic rookies, as i was a few weeks ago, to browse this thread for good hints on the activity......all the hallmarks of debunkability are here.......unfalsifiability, get-out clauses, embellishment, etc etc.

look at this list from Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit (http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html) i would bet that most, if not all, are present somewhere in christophera's postings here.

Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric

Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
Argument from "authority".
Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).
Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).
Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)
Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").
Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.
Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).
Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
Confusion of correlation and causation.
Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack..
Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"perhaps architect is right, this is all just an art project by mr brown to see how many of the above he can get away with. hasn't done very well though has he?

:-]

BV

[tsig]

same here, chris is a great resource for debunk noobs. i would recommend all skeptic rookies, as i was a few weeks ago, to browse this thread for good hints on the activity......all the hallmarks of debunkability are here.......unfalsifiability, get-out clauses, embellishment, etc etc.

look at this list from Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit (http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html) i would bet that most, if not all, are present somewhere in christophera's postings here.

Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric

Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
Argument from "authority".
Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).
Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).
Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)
Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").
Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.
Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).
Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
Confusion of correlation and causation.
Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack..
Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"perhaps architect is right, this is all just an art project by mr brown to see how many of the above he can get away with. hasn't done very well though has he?

:-]

BV



I think they leave it here just for that purpose.

Now for really paranoid could one of the mods be Chris?

[hcmom]

got any other gems?
Yes. For a while I was finding at least one a day, and pointing them out.

[bonavada]

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

no in this case his words are for describing what was experienced. he saw smoke and smelt kerosene. you distort his words to support your unprovable speculation.



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


once again you blatantly cherry-pick and distort given information. have you actually watched the video at that link you give HERE? (http://www.ny1.com/pages/RRR/911special_survivors.html) perhaps you should. and maybe try and digest the full account of morelli. he pointedly speaks of an inital explosion ABOVE the sub-levels and then another explosion which he say he later found out was a frieght-car crashing down to earth. you'll have to do better than this chris your slip is showing.


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.


ETA (I mixed mike pecararo up with another worker):-

pure conjecture about mike pecararos' work experience..................

try googling "earthquake rubble" chris you'll be surprised how many hits you get. i managed 9,730 OMFG the NWO have been busy with that C4 huh?

you could also try these:-

"tornado rubble" 13,700

"tsunami rubble" 1,200

"fire rubble" 242

"hurricane rubble" 163

"landslide rubble" 94

last but not least

"barney rubble" with an astonishing 437,000!!! jeezzus H! so him and fred were in on it too?

WILMA!!!!!!



BV

[Christophera]

it is really a test of the forum engine

so how was the concrete core poured Chris

3rd time I've answered this.

The concrete was pumped up through the core from a small batch plant built onsite.

[beachnut]

3rd time I've answered this.

The concrete was pumped up through the core from a small batch plant built onsite.

Thanks, that must of been 7,078 posts ago

But there was no concrete core so you can relax. Your entire web page is based on lies. Kind of ironic. But so true you are the last one in the entire world who thinks the core is concrete.

You are the only one.

urdeonly1

[Christophera]

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.

This is a gross error.

My objection to using fictional plans (which of 4 core floors plans applied) with no plan showing how the supposed core columns were tied together and braced, has never been addressed.

My request for images of the ANY of the supposed 47, 1300 foot steel columns from teh demolition showing the columns at some elevations offf thegrouns has NEVER been provided.

My requests for reasonable explanations of what the materials are comprising these (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) structuresIMAGE (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) which look like concrete and can only be concrete HAVE NEVER BEEN reasonably responded to.

I point out that "If there was any raw evidence for the steel core columns someone would make a web site about the them" is answered by a site titled "no concrete core", which shows no steel core columns. There are misrepresented images which show vertical steel but the steel is always minor in size compared to the "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) which did exists ONLY SURROUNDING the concrete core walls.

No images show the supposed core columns inthe core area.

[Christophera]

Thanks, that must of been 7,078 posts ago

But there was no concrete core so you can relax. Your entire web page is based on lies. Kind of ironic. But so true you are the last one in the entire world who thinks the core is concrete.

You are the only one.

urdeonly1

You and Belz can start the "Galactic Psychic Society" and practice your juvenile text hypnosis of steel core columns and sophistery of misrepresentations of images on the few remaining that are willing to believe that steel core columns look like THIS (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1plumecascade.jpg) when they are cut with high explosives.

Doh oie yaaaaa!!!!! why all the Sand and gravel (http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg), must have been masses of hard stone concrete.

[TellyKNeasuss]

My requests for reasonable explanations of what the materials are comprising these (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) structuresIMAGE (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) which look like concrete and can only be concrete HAVE NEVER BEEN reasonably responded to.

Why do you think that they look like concrete?

[Christophera]

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.

There were temporary lift motors that were easily rigged and they were placed at the top. Although the biggest had to be installed during construction as it was cast inside the 43rd floor with a pulley system. Placing too much weight over halfway up creates and unstable tower and increases structural requirements. If you study the elevator system you will find only one elevator went all the way to the top from the bottom. The sky lobbies were operated on an elaborte pulley system from one centrally located lift motor and reel set.


Bollocks..

I'd have to say that closes the case on your architect status. No one has ever questioned the fact that 40 feet is the max height for wood forms and many have supported it over the years.

I'm not even responding to the rest of your nonsense.

[Christophera]

Why do you think that they look like concrete?

You cannot be serious.

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

[jhunter1163]

[QUOTE=Christophera;2151539]You and Belz can start the "Galactic Psychic Society" <snip>

I knew you were going to suggest that.

[TellyKNeasuss]

You cannot be serious.

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


It isn't clear that there is a wall there. The color in between what you are calling the end of the wall and what your are calling hallways is the about the same as the color of the debris cloud to the outside of this area. And where is the top of the wall? There is no clear vertical boundary.

And even if it is a wall, it is no thicker than your "interior box column". This would make it about 2-3 feet wide, right?

[TellyKNeasuss]

It isn't clear that there is a wall there. The color in between what you are calling the end of the wall and what your are calling hallways is the about the same as the color of the debris cloud to the outside of this area. And where is the top of the wall? There is no clear vertical boundary.

And even if it is a wall, it is no thicker than your "interior box column". This would make it about 2-3 feet wide, right?

P.S. There is also no clear boundary beyond what you are calling hallways. So where does your supposed wall end?

[beachnut]

You cannot be serious.


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


That is drywall on the steel.

[Bell]

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?

^^ Christopher, answer please.

[Bell]

Also, care to address these pictures? Especially the last one?

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

[TellyKNeasuss]

That is drywall on the steel.

I seriously am not sure that there is a wall there at all. The color is non-uniform and blends in with the surrounding smoke/debris cloud. What Christophera is claiming are hallways don't seem to be uniform in height.

[TellyKNeasuss]

Also, care to address these pictures? Especially the last one?

If they were going to install thick concrete walls, it wouldn't seem to be likely that they would install the floors first (middle picture), would it? Wouldn't the floors make it difficult to pour concrete?

Just speculating.

[Bell]

If they were going to install thick concrete walls, it wouldn't seem to be likely that they would install the floors first (middle picture), would it? Wouldn't the floors make it difficult to pour concrete?

Just speculating.

Yup. And where is the core in the last picture, Christopher? I can look straight through the south tower at approximate halfway up.

[uruk]

Nothing to comment on this Chris?

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?

[uruk]

How about this Chris?

Originally Posted by Christophera
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?

[NobbyNobbs]

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.



No problem. C-4 needs a detonator, not heat, remember?





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






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



Ok, Chris, you can't have it both ways. Another poster asks for comparison to another tower, and you say it isn't fair to compare the WTC to other towers. Yet you have no trouble comparing it to a bridge.

Secondly, you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about when it comes to the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. The reason Galloping Gertie collapsed was due to resosance set up by the winds in that particular valley. It was a very specialized set of circumstances. There are two other bridges in existence built on the same basic design, and according to you, they should have collapsed years ago. One is the bridge to Deer Isle, Maine. The other is the Golden Gate Bridge, in San Francisco, CA.

You aren't even comparing apples and oranges. This is more like apples and fruitcake.


"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=-

Great. Then you shouldn't have any trouble finding an image of a concrete core sticking up several floors over the steel structure during construction.


Two "bollocks" in one post, at least tying a record....

Bollocks, bollocks, bollocks. Do I win?

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?


Your post has been corrected. The answer is yes.

[Arus808]

3rd time I've answered this.

The concrete was pumped up through the core from a small batch plant built onsite.


this is why you are laughable Chris, and this satement shows exactly why you know jack freaking squat about construction.

YOU can't pump CONCRETE UP!
Why do you think they "lay" concrete?

[Regnad Kcin]

My request for images of the ANY of the supposed 47, 1300 foot steel columns from teh demolition showing the columns at some elevations offf thegrouns has NEVER been provided...Please provide images of ANY of the McDonald's or Starbucks located on Uranus.

"Offf thegrouns?"

[Regnad Kcin]

The concrete was pumped up through the core from a small batch plant built onsite.The evidence of which will never be posted, I'll wager.

[Bell]

Please provide images of ANY of the McDonald's or Starbucks located on Uranus.

"Offf thegrouns?"

Not Uranus, but Mars, maybe?

http://moshie.blogspot.com/mars.bmp

[carlvs]

this is why you are laughable Chris, and this satement shows exactly why you know jack freaking squat about construction.

YOU can't pump CONCRETE UP!
Why do you think they "lay" concrete?

I hate to do this, but better me than our resident loon...:)

In this case you are wrong. Actually you can pump concrete, and in fact it is a pretty common construction procedure, as the number of companies that either do the work or make the equipment used in the pumping which popped-up in a Google search (http://www.google.com/search?q=concrete+pump&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official) seems to indicate.

HOWEVER,

The technology for concrete pumping didn't come into being until the 1960's, and only recently did we have the capacity to pump concrete upwards for long distances:link (http://www.ejse.org/Archives/Fulltext/200101/01/20010101.htm)
Delivery of concrete had been an issue for tall buildings and other large projects. Hand-in-hand with this concern came the challenge of material placement in large quantities. Technology remained primitive and stagnant in this area until the 1960s when hydraulically powered and controlled pumps were first developed and mounted on a truck for mobile service. From here, techniques improved continually till now when pumping of concrete is considered even for small jobs. In recent years, concrete pumping has reached new heights. The builders for the Jin Mao Building in Shanghai, China, boast of pumping high strength concrete as high as 1200 ft (366 m). Pumping is limited by the plastic qualities of concrete, the type of pump available and the piping needed to carry the product up to the desired level. For such great heights, a high-pressure unit is needed. Great thought must be given to the properties of concrete and how it will react when pressure is applied in a pipe...

I seriously doubt that back when the WTC towers were built, they had the capability to directly pump concrete to the heights that both structures eventually reached...

[Christophera]

Wow, the welders knew they were putting up a building loaded with C4? That's... incredible.

Oh no. I have not said that. I have speculated that the welders were told and that is why a security clearance was required to do the butt weld, so the COULD be safely told.

Consider, would you allow somebody to weld your explosive coated rebar in your tower based on an absolute "do it this way" with out telling them exacly why when you had somebody to tell that had passed a series of security test over years.

I believe they were told. and that a security clearance basically makes a person unable to expose the facts.

Really? Where would all this torsion be coming from?

Wind Roger. Wind. Did you see the Tacoma narrows bridge video?

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

That was from a 42 mile an hour wind. The towers were expected to see over 100 MPH winds from occasional hurricanes.

The tower faces begin to fly and twist the tower.

[Christophera]

I hate to do this, but better me than our resident loon...:)

In this case you are wrong. Actually you can pump concrete, and in fact it is a pretty common construction procedure, as the number of companies that either do the work or make the equipment used in the pumping which popped-up in a Google search (http://www.google.com/search?q=concrete+pump&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official) seems to indicate.

HOWEVER,

The technology for concrete pumping didn't come into being until the 1960's, and only recently did we have the capacity to pump concrete upwards for long distances:link (http://www.ejse.org/Archives/Fulltext/200101/01/20010101.htm)


I seriously doubt that back when the WTC towers were built, they had the capability to directly pump concrete to the heights that both structures eventually reached...

Your history is correct. The documentary mentioned that they had multiple pumps on a number of levels to keep the pressures divided down to managable levels to gain the elevation needed.

High pressure mud pumps were developed by Gardner Denver and a few other companies for pumping drilling mud and they were adapted to concrete.

[Christophera]

How about this Chris?
You mean these diagnal cross connecting bracings in these photographs?

Those diagonal braces are in the crane platform or of the "moment frame. the moment frame was outside the core and in line with the interior box columns.

[Bell]

Oh no. I have not said that. I have speculated that the welders were told and that is why a security clearance was required to do the butt weld, so the COULD be safely told.

Consider, would you allow somebody to weld your explosive coated rebar in your tower based on an absolute "do it this way" with out telling them exacly why when you had somebody to tell that had passed a series of security test over years.

I believe they were told. and that a security clearance basically makes a person unable to expose the facts.



Wind Roger. Wind. Did you see the Tacoma narrows bridge video?

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

That was from a 42 mile an hour wind. The towers were expected to see over 100 MPH winds from occasional hurricanes.

The tower faces begin to fly and twist the tower.

You do realise that a badly designed bridge and the Trade Towers are not ther same thing, do you? Ofcourse you don't.

BTW, care to reply to my other posts?

[RandFan]

YOU can't pump CONCRETE UP! As much as it pains me to say it but it is possible.

Advanced Technology 1 (http://www.magazine-deutschland.de/issue/TechnikA_6-05_ENG_E1.php)

Concrete Pumps: Schwing concrete pumps win the fight against gravity on construction sights worldwide – and has even set a world record: during the building work on the world’s tallest building in Taipei, the machines from the family business managed to pump concrete up a height of 455.2 metres. Supported by five axles, the company’s mobile concrete pumps must also break a few records. Their masts can be extended to a height of 60 metres. www.schwing.de

[Bell]

Your history is correct. The documentary mentioned that they had multiple pumps on a number of levels to keep the pressures divided down to managable levels to gain the elevation needed.

High pressure mud pumps were developed by Gardner Denver and a few other companies for pumping drilling mud and they were adapted to concrete.

Amazing how you make up new stuff on the fly.

[RandFan]

The evidence of which will never be posted, I'll wager. Of course not. He just pulls this $%!& out of his butt.

[RandFan]

I hate to do this, but better me than our resident loon...:)

In this case you are wrong. Actually you can pump concrete, and in fact it is a pretty common construction procedure, as the number of companies that either do the work or make the equipment used in the pumping which popped-up in a Google search (http://www.google.com/search?q=concrete+pump&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official) seems to indicate.

HOWEVER,

The technology for concrete pumping didn't come into being until the 1960's, and only recently did we have the capacity to pump concrete upwards for long distances:link (http://www.ejse.org/Archives/Fulltext/200101/01/20010101.htm)


I seriously doubt that back when the WTC towers were built, they had the capability to directly pump concrete to the heights that both structures eventually reached... :) Beat me to it.

[NobbyNobbs]

Wow, the welders knew they were putting up a building loaded with C4? That's... incredible.

Oh no. I have not said that. I have speculated that the welders were told and that is why a security clearance was required to do the butt weld, so the COULD be safely told.

Consider, would you allow somebody to weld your explosive coated rebar in your tower based on an absolute "do it this way" with out telling them exacly why when you had somebody to tell that had passed a series of security test over years.

I believe they were told. and that a security clearance basically makes a person unable to expose the facts.



Roger: The welders knew there was C-4?
Chris: No. They were told there was C-4.

Excuse me, but....huh???

And if you think that a security clearance would keep an entire union of welders quiet after 30 years and 3,000 deaths, well, you have a pretty low opinion of the basic morals of humanity. I honestly feel bad for you, Christophera, for the kind of world you think you live in.



Headed at full-speed for 10,000 posts. Un-friggin'-believable.

[Christophera]

Also, care to address these pictures? Especially the last one?

The first shows what might be interior box columns and an empty core area. The dimensions on center or column dimensions do not look right for the Twin Towers though.

The second shows elevator guide rail support steel and diagonally braced crane platforms inside the line of interior box columns and floor beams.

This image explains the last image, the tower on the right and the light coming through.


http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4396&stc=1&d=1165383869

[NobbyNobbs]

The first shows what might be interior box columns and an empty core area. The dimensions on center or column dimensions do not look right for the Twin Towers though.

Are you suggesting that these are not pictures of the twin towers?

The second shows elevator guide rail support steel and diagonally braced crane platforms inside the line of interior box columns and floor beams.

This image explains the last image, the tower on the right and the light coming through.


http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4396&stc=1&d=1165383869

Ah, yes the famous and ever-popular reflecting concrete. Tell me, Christophera, where else can I find a building made of this stuff?

[mortimer]

The first shows what might be interior box columns and an empty core area. The dimensions on center or column dimensions do not look right for the Twin Towers though.

The second shows elevator guide rail support steel and diagonally braced crane platforms inside the line of interior box columns and floor beams.

This image explains the last image, the tower on the right and the light coming through.


http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4396&stc=1&d=1165383869


Are you claiming there were *6* parallel hallways through your concrete core with that last image?

[Christophera]

Roger: The welders knew there was C-4?
Chris: No. They were told there was C-4.

Excuse me, but....huh???

And if you think that a security clearance would keep an entire union of welders quiet after 30 years and 3,000 deaths, well, you have a pretty low opinion of the basic morals of humanity. I honestly feel bad for you, Christophera, for the kind of world you think you live in.

Headed at full-speed for 10,000 posts. Un-friggin'-believable.

I'm sure you do not understand the weight of a security clearance and have no proof they belong to any union.

I said "I believe they were told". And it is reasonable. Consider what would happen if one decided to not strip the C4 or shield it. If you wer a welder would you be tempted to cut corners if they just told you it was flammable? How about if you were told it was C4?

[NobbyNobbs]

I'm sure you do not understand the weight of a security clearance and have no proof they belong to any union.

I said "I believe they were told". And it is reasonable. Consider what would happen if one decided to not strip the C4 or shield it. If you wer a welder would you be tempted to cut corners if they just told you it was flammable? How about if you were told it was C4?

Agreed, were I a welder working on a C-4 coated piece of rebar, I'd want to be told. HOWEVER.....if 30 years later that building came down under any sort of suspicious circumstance, security clearance or not, I'd be hollering holy h3ll loud and far.

By "union" I was presuming. I believe they were probably unionized, just as you believe they were told there was C-4. I have at least as much reason to hold my belief as you do yours. And the union is besides the point. How many welders were there, under security clearance? You suppose every single one felt that being under security clearance is enough reason to keep their mouths shut after 3,000 deaths, plus a war?

And yet you rail against us to pursue justice. What a farce.

[Christophera]

Are you claiming there were *6* parallel hallways through your concrete core with that last image?

Two hallways in each directon for WTC 2.

[Christophera]

Agreed, were I a welder working on a C-4 coated piece of rebar, I'd want to be told. HOWEVER.....if 30 years later that building came down under any sort of suspicious circumstance, security clearance or not, I'd be hollering holy h3ll loud and far.

Clearly, you have no idea what a security clearance entails. I have asked people who have them and they said they couldn't tell me. Very serious stuff.

By "union" I was presuming. I believe they were probably unionized, just as you believe they were told there was C-4.

I have THIS (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg) which proved optimally contained high explosives and I also read a magazine inthe 1970 that explained C4 coated rebar being used in sub bases and missle silos as part of could wart self destruct technology. I understand high explosives. Do you? Why would a very high paid welder with a security clearance be in a union? Free speech rights???????? Hah!

I have at least as much reason to hold my belief as you do yours. And the union is besides the point. How many welders were there, under security clearance? You suppose every single one felt that being under security clearance is enough reason to keep their mouths shut after 3,000 deaths, plus a war?

And yet you rail against us to pursue justice. What a farce.

Yes, pursue justice and use reason to do it and you are failing in both.

There was a big problem in that there were not enough welders with security clearances to get the welds done on the construction schedule and no compromises were ever made in that. The docuemntary was very clear in this over and over.

How long do you think welders live? Do you know what "low hydrogen rod is? Ever hear of silicosis?

[NobbyNobbs]

I also read a magazine inthe 1970 that explained C4 coated rebar being used in sub bsaes and missle silos as part of could wart self destruct technology.

What magazine? What year? If you want me to pursue justice, you're doing a singularly poor job of educating me. No information on the documentary, and no information on this magazine article. Either one would prove your point about C-4 coated rebar.

[mortimer]

Two hallways in each directon for WTC 2.

Then why are there *6* blue lines in your photo marked "hall openings"?

[Christophera]

Are you suggesting that these are not pictures of the twin towers?

I do not believe the top one is.

Ah, yes the famous and ever-popular reflecting concrete. Tell me, Christophera, where else can I find a building made of this stuff?

You do ntt need a tower to see reflecting concrete. Every time steel forms are used the concrete becomes very smooth and will blind your a$$ if the light hits it at a low angle.

If I remember I think the Petronis tower and the Seattle steel workers towers both have concrete cores.

[Christophera]

Amazing how you make up new stuff on the fly.

The info on the pumping system was in the documentary. It was a huge expense and the documentary was all about explaining the costs for the public buildings to the public.

[Christophera]

Then why are there *6* blue lines in your photo marked "hall openings"?

The 2 narrow blue lines represent each side of a hall opening and the thick blue lines represent entire openings viewed at a low, obilque angle.

[NobbyNobbs]

From the Wikipedia article on the Petronas towers..

...were completed in 1998....The 88-floor towers ....Because of the depth of the bedrock, the buildings were built on the world's deepest foundations built by Bachy Soletanche going down some 120 meters and requiring massive amounts of concrete......Due to a lack of steel and the huge cost of importing steel, the towers were constructed on a cheaper radical design of super high strength reinforced concrete. High-strength concrete is a material familiar to Asian contractors and twice as effective as steel in sway reduction; however, it makes the building twice as heavy on its foundation than a comparable steel building.


So yes, they have concrete cores. They also were built with technology 30 years more advanced than the WTC. They were also built on deep bedrock, rather than Manhattan Island. They were also 22 stories shorter than the WTC.

So why are you comparing these, again?

[Christophera]

no in this case his words are for describing what was experienced. he saw smoke and smelt kerosene. you distort his words to support your unprovable speculation.

once again you blatantly cherry-pick and distort given information. have you actually watched the video at that link you give HERE? (http://www.ny1.com/pages/RRR/911special_survivors.html) perhaps you should. and maybe try and digest the full account of morelli. he pointedly speaks of an inital explosion ABOVE the sub-levels and then another explosion which he say he later found out was a frieght-car crashing down to earth. you'll have to do better than this chris your slip is showing.

The man has an experience and describes it. He might learn more and interpret it later differently. I read his description and know more about the event than he does and interpret it differently.

Morelli describes one un identified explosion and Pecararo describes another. Total = 2 (two) explosions. Get it?


ETA (I mixed mike pecararo up with another worker):-

pure conjecture about mike pecararos' work experience..................

try googling "earthquake rubble" chris you'll be surprised how many hits you get. i managed 9,730 OMFG the NWO have been busy with that C4 huh?

you could also try these:-

"tornado rubble" 13,700

"tsunami rubble" 1,200

"fire rubble" 242

"hurricane rubble" 163

"landslide rubble" 94

last but not least

"barney rubble" with an astonishing 437,000!!! jeezzus H! so him and fred were in on it too?

WILMA!!!!!!


BV

Yes, news casters are notoriously inaccurate and general with descriptors that have a varied, technical nature.

[Christophera]

From the Wikipedia article on the Petronas towers..




So yes, they have concrete cores. They also were built with technology 30 years more advanced than the WTC. They were also built on deep bedrock, rather than Manhattan Island. They were also 22 stories shorter than the WTC.

So why are you comparing these, again?

Concrete cores.

[NobbyNobbs]

Concrete cores.

And? What of it? You have produced a building that has a concrete core, that everyone knows has a concrete core, that is advertised to have a concrete core. And this proves....what?

[Christophera]

Are you saying that there are NO high-rise buildings with steel cores ?

No towers with the proportions of the Twin Towers have steel cores.

[NobbyNobbs]

No towers with the proportions of the Twin Towers have steel cores.

That's because there are no towers with the proportions of the Twin Towers.

[Christophera]

And? What of it? You have produced a building that has a concrete core, that everyone knows has a concrete core, that is advertised to have a concrete core. And this proves....what?

Concrete cores have proved themselves through the Twin Towers as being the best for very tall narrow towers.

[chacal]

And? What of it? You have produced a building that has a concrete core, that everyone knows has a concrete core, that is advertised to have a concrete core. And this proves....what?

A core of concrete?

I’ve argued this fact of the Twin towers concrete core on every board that has a 9-11 forum, and always, there is a die hard group that works together to try and make sure the concept is smeared and ridiculed into oblivion.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5637&st=0


Why wont this thread just die?:boggled:

[Christophera]

It isn't clear that there is a wall there. The color in between what you are calling the end of the wall and what your are calling hallways is the about the same as the color of the debris cloud to the outside of this area. And where is the top of the wall? There is no clear vertical boundary.

And even if it is a wall, it is no thicker than your "interior box column". This would make it about 2-3 feet wide, right?

I see it thicker than that, about 4 feet.

[NobbyNobbs]

Concrete cores have proved themselves through the Twin Towers as being the best for very tall narrow towers.

Actually, all this shows is that concrete cores have proven themselves as being the best for buildings in the configuration and environment that the Petronas towers are in. The fact that they have concrete cores does not prove that the Twin Towers have concrete cores.

My neighbor's car has a hybrid engine. Does that mean that all cars have hybrid engines? Same argument.

[Christophera]

Actually, all this shows is that concrete cores have proven themselves as being the best for buildings in the configuration and environment that the Petronas towers are in. The fact that they have concrete cores does not prove that the Twin Towers have concrete cores.

My neighbor's car has a hybrid engine. Does that mean that all cars have hybrid engines? Same argument.

An engine doesn't have a safety factor and a tower does. Not an appropriate anology.

[NobbyNobbs]

A perfect analogy. You brought up the Petronas towers, presumably to show that they have a concrete core, in order to bolster your argument that the Twin Towers have a concrete core. I'm bringing up my neighbor's hybrid to bolster my argument that my car is a hybrid, despite all other evidence to the contrary.

[Arus808]

Your history is correct. The documentary mentioned that they had multiple pumps on a number of levels to keep the pressures divided down to managable levels to gain the elevation needed.
hey guys, notice how christophera conveniently adds to his "memory" of the documentary once things are pointed out to be impossible then when its shown later that its indeed possible but with limitations, he "suddenly" remembers that it was also stated in the documentary?

first he states that a pump was built on site, then now he claims each level had pumps....(which is not possible btw).

wow, this "hour" long documentary seems to be getting a lot of information put into it. heck, with commercials interspersed between each section, all of this crap had to be put into 40 minutes of workable footage.



High pressure mud pumps were developed by Gardner Denver and a few other companies for pumping drilling mud and they were adapted to concrete.

cool, now we can call the company to see if they had such machines back in 1967.

[Arus808]

An engine doesn't have a safety factor and a tower does. Not an appropriate anology.

WTF are you talking about?!

ENGIENS HAVE SAFTEY Features BUILt IN you dolt.

and you completely MISSED THe freaking analogy.

[Z]

I have a top-secret security clearance. If I saw something I thought was a hazard to life, limb, or eyesight, I could certainly report it. Ever hear of the Whistleblower Act?

Granted, it doesn't always work the best. But if 3000 American citizens died due to explosives built into the building, no security clearance in the U.S. could prevent some of those guys from talking. And they would be protected by the law, too.

[Mobyseven]

9071, 9071, 9071...unless someone else posts first...

[Big Al]

The info on the pumping system was in the documentary. It was a huge expense and the documentary was all about explaining the costs for the public buildings to the public.

As I said twice earlier, this must have been one hell of a tedious documentary! Core, core, core, 3" rebar on 48" centres, rebar, rebar coating, rebar security, rebar butt welding, core, core concrete pumping schedules, core concrete pumping system, core build schedule, core, core, core. Nothing about the rest of the buildings.

And yet, before 9/11, if you'd asked me what I knew (or THOUGHT I knew) about the Twin Towers, I'd have been able to say only that they were in Manhattan and they had an innovative steel core to maximise internal space.

I'm no architect or expert, but even I remember hearing about the steel core. From what you're saying, it was a lie fostered by whoever (or is that wooever?) to cover up the C-4-laden concrete core - a fact that must NEVER be revealed! A conspiracy requiring top secret clearance even for welders. A conspiracy that has lasted for thirty-five or forty years. A conspiracy that involves the deliberate murder of 3,000 innocent souls.

And yet, when a PBS documentary crew come along, the authorities gleefully tell them all about the concrete core, the top-secret rebar coating, the strange movements of workers, the security requirements both for the stored rebar and the welders . . . semingly nothing else.

The steel core was a FAMOUS aspect of the Twin Towers - even I knew about it. Are you saying that not one architect or structural engineer watched the documentary and furrowed his brow in perplexity? This would have been a major issue!

And yet, ELEVEN YEARS after the documentary was broadcast, they had SUDDENLY to pull the documentary and all records it ever existed?

Why the hell wasn't it stifled at birth? Why did they even give those documentary-makers all that DANGEROUS info? Other documentaries I have seen were given the old "Innovative Steel Core" line, and the makers seemed to swallow it. Whywere these PBS guys treated so differently?

If I may add my contribution to the testicular fest: BOLLOCKS!

[tsig]

Concrete cores have proved themselves through the Twin Towers as being the best for very tall narrow towers.

No concrete cores.

[tsig]

hey guys, notice how christophera conveniently adds to his "memory" of the documentary once things are pointed out to be impossible then when its shown later that its indeed possible but with limitations, he "suddenly" remembers that it was also stated in the documentary?

first he states that a pump was built on site, then now he claims each level had pumps....(which is not possible btw).

wow, this "hour" long documentary seems to be getting a lot of information put into it. heck, with commercials interspersed between each section, all of this crap had to be put into 40 minutes of workable footage.





cool, now we can call the company to see if they had such machines back in 1967.

Yeh the documentary becomes more detailed the more Chris rembers.

[tsig]

As I said twice earlier, this must have been one hell of a tedious documentary! Core, core, core, 3" rebar on 48" centres, rebar, rebar coating, rebar security, rebar butt welding, core, core concrete pumping schedules, core concrete pumping system, core build schedule, core, core, core. Nothing about the rest of the buildings.

And yet, before 9/11, if you'd asked me what I knew (or THOUGHT I knew) about the Twin Towers, I'd have been able to say only that they were in Manhattan and they had an innovative steel core to maximise internal space.

I'm no architect or expert, but even I remember hearing about the steel core. From what you're saying, it was a lie fostered by whoever (or is that wooever?) to cover up the C-4-laden concrete core - a fact that must NEVER be revealed! A conspiracy requiring top secret clearance even for welders. A conspiracy that has lasted for thirty-five or forty years. A conspiracy that involves the deliberate murder of 3,000 innocent souls.

And yet, when a PBS documentary crew come along, the authorities gleefully tell them all about the concrete core, the top-secret rebar coating, the strange movements of workers, the security requirements both for the stored rebar and the welders . . . semingly nothing else.

The steel core was a FAMOUS aspect of the Twin Towers - even I knew about it. Are you saying that not one architect or structural engineer watched the documentary and furrowed his brow in perplexity? This would have been a major issue!

And yet, ELEVEN YEARS after the documentary was broadcast, they had SUDDENLY to pull the documentary and all records it ever existed?

Why the hell wasn't it stifled at birth? Why did they even give those documentary-makers all that DANGEROUS info? Other documentaries I have seen were given the old "Innovative Steel Core" line, and the makers seemed to swallow it. Whywere these PBS guys treated so differently?

If I may add my contribution to the testicular fest: BOLLOCKS!

The evil guys always tip thier hands so the good guys can catch them. It's in the script.

[Big Al]

The evil guys always tip thier hands so the good guys can catch them. It's in the script.

Yes, and there's always a self-destruct button, and the bad guy always shows 007 just where it is . . .

Hey, DHR, you don't think Chris has been watching just a little too much James Bond, do you?

I do notice he's not answered a single question about the motivation for wiring the towers for demolition, or about the "documentary's" absolute and total obsession with every last tiny little detail on the core. Or why the makers never queried the famous steel core.

Coming soon: How Chris now remembers that the documentary mentioned:


All the welders had to be qualified explosives experts
The potting compound for the detonator channel holes was specified to be a non-exothermic resin to avoid axcess heat
The phone contractors also had to have top secret clearance
The office furniture was specified to be manufactured from a special napalm-containing material
As I said earlier, about the time Chris was watching his gripping documentary on concrete and rebar, I saw a documentary on an accident at a nuclear reactor called SL-1. For years, I couldn't find any confirmatory details, and I wondered if it was a realistic dramatisation. I've managed to refresh my memory with online references since, but before then I could hardly have told you anything about it, apart from the fact that the dead were buried piecemeal in small lead-lined coffins.

However, even before my memory was refreshed, I remembered the name, "SL-1", and that fact. If a thread had started, claiming "The SL-1 reactor is the safest in the history of the nuclear industry," I'd have sounded off. I wouldn't have posited this, suggested that and trickled in little dribs and drabs I remembered about the documentary from time to time: I'd have dumped the totality of my memory in one go, meagre as it was.

This drip-by-drip revelation of the documentary's shattering contents is very convenient and wholly unconvincing. So, Chris, how about a challenge?

Why don't you dedicate a post to telling us each fact you can remember from this 1990 documentary? A post without speculation, personal comment or pictures. Nobody here believes there was such a documentary, as you know. They think you just make up new revelations when the arguments are going against you.

So, why not give us all a full run-down on what you remember of it?

No? Ah, ain't that a shame? :D

[Big Al]

PS, proof of my remembered documentary:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0323857/

And you can get it on DVD now. I wonder why the powerful nuclear lobby didn't pull the plug on that one, erasing it from the world? Or films like "Silkwood", "The China Syndrome" and countless others.

[Bell]

The first shows what might be interior box columns and an empty core area. The dimensions on center or column dimensions do not look right for the Twin Towers though.

The second shows elevator guide rail support steel and diagonally braced crane platforms inside the line of interior box columns and floor beams.

This image explains the last image, the tower on the right and the light coming through.



Below are two pictures, looking at the core. The left is taken from the north, looking south. The right is taken from the west, looking east. You can pretty much look through the south tower in both pictures. And that is somewhere halfway up. There is NOTHING that suggest a concrete core is in there somewhere. A concrete core would have BLOCKED the view.

Ergo,

NO. CONCRETE. CORE.

[NobbyNobbs]

Don't worry, Chris will have an explanation. Like....maybe those aren't the real twin towers, but the fake ones they constructed for puposes of fooling the public into thinking they had steel cores. The real ones took their place in 1971, while the fake ones were shipped out and now on display next door to a trailer park outside Topeka, Kansas. They use them as grain storage bins. I saw it in a documentary.

[mortimer]

The 2 narrow blue lines represent each side of a hall opening and the thick blue lines represent entire openings viewed at a low, obilque angle.

So, 4 hallways?

[JonnyFive]

I'm sure you do not understand the weight of a security clearance and have no proof they belong to any union.

If they were working on a government project in NYC, then they were part of a union. Ever hear of a "project labor agreement"?

In your alternate reality where they needed a security clearance and the government had a role in this, the welders would have to be union.

Of course, it was developed by the Port Authority, so it may already have required union welders. I'm trying to track down the specific details now. I suppose you could always research it and find out that non-union welders were involved, but somehow I think you won't bother.


Now, as far as security clearance goes, I don't think you understand what exactly they are for. A security clearance is strictly for the compartmentalization of information. It isn't some magical NWO super pass. I'm sure the clearance holders here can give you more information than I can, but my dad works for a defense contractor and has held a clearance for many years (making him, and by extension me, part of the NWO conspiracy, I suppose). Basically you get a detailed background check (how detailed depends on the clearance level), and sometimes a polygraph examination. You are authorized in specific areas, based on what your job function is.

The funny thing is, if you were welding "special plastic coating" onto rebar, you probably wouldn't need a security clearance. A clearance details what information you have access too, and it doesn't seem like they would be told any secret information. Any evil NWO government employees here can help me out, but I'm fairly sure they would simply have them sign some papers promising dire criminal penalties if they told anyone about the special coating they were working with. A clearance would only be required if they, for some reason, needed to know it was really C4 used for a super secret plot against the American people.

And a clearance isn't some blood oath to the government, it's simply a sign that you need to know something or other to do your job, and the government thinks you're trustworthy enough to handle it. Penalties are already in place for divulging classified information, but those penalties would mean next to nothing to any decent human who knew of such a horrible plot, even after the fact. Ordinary humans have regularly risked death and worse because they believed in ideals bigger than themselves. You're saying that everyone involved in this somehow shut down their humanity. I find that difficult to believe. Would you remain silent if you knew something like that? Remember, your big plot requires that thousands of people shut their mouths and look away while thousands are killed for some vague reason.

In case you haven't noticed, our government changes composition pretty frequently (by the way, it has happened dozens of times since the towers were built). The reason it stays cohesive is because the authority of the government rests beyond the President and his cronies, with the elected Congress and the Constitution.

I'm sure you'll go on about how it's really an evil conspiracy etc. etc., but it doesn't work like that. Government workers are not robots, and all it takes is one person to say something to start sowing the seeds of a widespread dissent.

Nixon couldn't cover up Watergate, and Clinton couldn't even cover up his extracurricular activities. That speaks volumes about the lack of ability in government to keep big secrets.

But, of course, you may argue that the NWO wanted Nixon and Clinton taken down for some reason that doesn't apply to the WTC thing, but that smacks of special pleading.

I love your "sand and gravel" picture which is clearly not from right after the towers fell, but from after cleanup had been underway for a bit.

[TellyKNeasuss]

I see it thicker than that, about 4 feet.

4 feet is a lot less than 17 feet, which is the thickness that you claim the concrete core was.

[Z]

Does the Bank of Oklahoma building in downtown Tulsa, a supposedly 1/2 scale version of one tower, allegedly designed by the same designer, have a concrete core?

Just asking.

[JonnyFive]

Does the Bank of Oklahoma building in downtown Tulsa, a supposedly 1/2 scale version of one tower, allegedly designed by the same designer, have a concrete core?

Just asking.

Better watch it, it's probably the NWO's next target. Anyone check it for C4-coated rebar?

[Belz...]

My objection to using fictional plans (which of 4 core floors plans applied) with no plan showing how the supposed core columns were tied together and braced, has never been addressed.

They're floor plans. Why would you expect them to show bracing ?

My request for images of the ANY of the supposed 47, 1300 foot steel columns from teh demolition showing the columns at some elevations offf thegrouns has NEVER been provided.

They have been provided you mislabeling person, you.

My requests for reasonable explanations of what the materials are comprising these (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) structuresIMAGE (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) which look like concrete and can only be concrete HAVE NEVER BEEN reasonably responded to.

Liar. You said it could also be dust. Are you retracting that statement ?

No images show the supposed core columns inthe core area.

Yes, and the sky isn't blue. I said so.

You and Belz can start the "Galactic Psychic Society" and practice your juvenile text hypnosis of steel core columns and sophistery of misrepresentations of images

My, my. Someone struck a nerve. What exactly have I done to deserve the label "psychic" ?

[...] that are willing to believe that steel core columns look like THIS when they are cut with high explosives.

No one believes that, chris. It's all in your head.

I'd have to say that closes the case on your architect status. No one has ever questioned the fact that 40 feet is the max height for wood forms and many have supported it over the years.

Evidence ?

You cannot be serious.

You might want to show an ACTUAL photo of an ACTUAL shear wall, so we can make the comparison.

The concrete was pumped up through the core from a small batch plant built onsite.

I snicker every time I read you saying this.

I'd like to see what pump they used for that.

[TellyKNeasuss]

The first shows what might be interior box columns and an empty core area. The dimensions on center or column dimensions do not look right for the Twin Towers though.

The key word being EMPTY, as in no concrete core. And the building height has progressed well beyond this point and the floors and perimeter columns have been installed, but no concrete core!

The second shows elevator guide rail support steel and diagonally braced crane platforms inside the line of interior box columns and floor beams.It also shows floors in the core. What's the explanation of why they would install floors before they built the concrete core?

This image explains the last image, the tower on the right and the light coming through.


http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4396&stc=1&d=1165383869

Given the depth the core is in the building, the Sun would have to be about at the horizon to hit the core. Add in the hazy sky conditions, and it's unlikely that there would that there would be much of a reflection off of concrete.

When are we going to get an explanation of how they fit a 400-foot concrete core into a 218-foot building?

[Christophera]

If they were working on a government project in NYC, then they were part of a union. Ever hear of a "project labor agreement"?

In your alternate reality where they needed a security clearance and the government had a role in this, the welders would have to be union.

Of course, it was developed by the Port Authority, so it may already have required union welders. I'm trying to track down the specific details now. I suppose you could always research it and find out that non-union welders were involved, but somehow I think you won't bother.


Now, as far as security clearance goes, I don't think you understand what exactly they are for. A security clearance is strictly for the compartmentalization of information. It isn't some magical NWO super pass. I'm sure the clearance holders here can give you more information than I can, but my dad works for a defense contractor and has held a clearance for many years (making him, and by extension me, part of the NWO conspiracy, I suppose). Basically you get a detailed background check (how detailed depends on the clearance level), and sometimes a polygraph examination. You are authorized in specific areas, based on what your job function is.

The funny thing is, if you were welding "special plastic coating" onto rebar, you probably wouldn't need a security clearance.

Special plastic coating was not being welded onto rebar. The rebar was being welded and it had a special plastic coating.

A clearance details what information you have access too, and it doesn't seem like they would be told any secret information.

Your position is grossly contradictory to the topic of "buildings built to demolish."


Any evil NWO government employees here can help me out,

Your cognitive distortion and labeling indicate your attitude clouds you position.

but I'm fairly sure they would simply have them sign some papers promising dire criminal penalties if they told anyone about the special coating they were working with. A clearance would only be required if they, for some reason, needed to know it was really C4 used for a super secret plot against the American people.

I'm better than fairly sure that this is a very well contained detonation of high explosives contained in a uniform mineral material container. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg)

And a clearance isn't some blood oath to the government, it's simply a sign that you need to know something or other to do your job, and the government thinks you're trustworthy enough to handle it. Penalties are already in place for divulging classified information, but those penalties would mean next to nothing to any decent human who knew of such a horrible plot, even after the fact. Ordinary humans have regularly risked death and worse because they believed in ideals bigger than themselves. You're saying that everyone involved in this somehow shut down their humanity. I find that difficult to believe. Would you remain silent if you knew something like that? Remember, your big plot requires that thousands of people shut their mouths and look away while thousands are killed for some vague reason.

In case you haven't noticed, our government changes composition pretty frequently (by the way, it has happened dozens of times since the towers were built). The reason it stays cohesive is because the authority of the government rests beyond the President and his cronies, with the elected Congress and the Constitution.

I'm sure you'll go on about how it's really an evil conspiracy etc. etc., but it doesn't work like that. Government workers are not robots, and all it takes is one person to say something to start sowing the seeds of a widespread dissent.

Nixon couldn't cover up Watergate, and Clinton couldn't even cover up his extracurricular activities. That speaks volumes about the lack of ability in government to keep big secrets.

But, of course, you may argue that the NWO wanted Nixon and Clinton taken down for some reason that doesn't apply to the WTC thing, but that smacks of special pleading.

I love your "sand and gravel" picture which is clearly not from right after the towers fell, but from after cleanup had been underway for a bit.

Your world view is to narrow to deal with this subject comprehensively.

[Belz...]

Oh no. I have not said that. I have speculated that the welders were told and that is why a security clearance was required to do the butt weld, so the COULD be safely told.

Oh!

Next time you might actually want to indicate when you're speculating and when you're not. That way we can safely ignore your speculation without having to wait for you to explain yourself.

I believe they were told. and that a security clearance basically makes a person unable to expose the facts.

Interesting assertion.

That was from a 42 mile an hour wind. The towers were expected to see over 100 MPH winds from occasional hurricanes.

The tower faces begin to fly and twist the tower.

You do know WHY the wind caused this effect, right ?

Those diagonal braces are in the crane platform or of the "moment frame. the moment frame was outside the core and in line with the interior box columns.

As usual, you dodge reality by inventing labels. You asked where the cross-bracing war. When shown, you again label the columns so that the fact that they ARE based, and that you didn't see it, is inconsequential. You said that if they WERE core columns, they'd be braced. They are. Be honest for once.

The first shows what might be interior box columns and an empty core area. The dimensions on center or column dimensions do not look right for the Twin Towers though.

HA! "Those may not be the twin towers". Look again.

The second shows elevator guide rail support steel and diagonally braced crane platforms inside the line of interior box columns and floor beams.

Again, why would the elevator rails be built BEFORE the elevator shafts ???

This image explains the last image, the tower on the right and the light coming through.

What mortimer said: how many hallways is that ?

I said "I believe they were told". And it is reasonable. Consider what would happen if one decided to not strip the C4 or shield it.

Exactly. You consider your "reasonable" speculation as evidence. Probably raw.

Clearly, you have no idea what a security clearance entails. I have asked people who have them and they said they couldn't tell me. Very serious stuff.

It only means you have access to stuff that other people don't. Plenty of security breaches have shown that it isn't foolproof, yes ?

[Belz...]

No towers with the proportions of the Twin Towers have steel cores.

And you're saying that such towers would be impossible ?

Well, that's it then. Why don't you simply show that it would be, indeed, IMPOSSIBLE to build such a buliding with steel columns, and you've got yourself a case. Obviously, if it's impossible, we'll have no choice but to consider the existence of the concrete core.

I eagerly await your proof.

[Belz...]

I have THIS (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg) which proved optimally contained high explosives

You never watched the video of the collapse, did you ?

and I also read a magazine inthe 1970 that explained C4 coated rebar being used in sub bases and missle silos as part of could wart self destruct technology.

You read a magazine. Yes. How does that prove that the WTC was wired, now ?

I understand high explosives.

Apparently you don't know that C4 doesn't explode due to heat.

Why would a very high paid welder with a security clearance be in a union? Free speech rights???????? Hah!

Do you have evidence that such welders existed ?

[Belz...]

Basically you get a detailed background check (how detailed depends on the clearance level), and sometimes a polygraph examination.

As, so they're in the woo business, too ?

Nixon couldn't cover up Watergate, and Clinton couldn't even cover up his extracurricular activities. That speaks volumes about the lack of ability in government to keep big secrets.

Not to mention our recent debacle in Canada in regards to sponsoring...

[JonnyFive]

As, so they're in the woo business, too ?

Yes, sadly. One of the last bastions of the polygraph BS is the federal government. They have various polygraph exams for clearance. Some of them can get pretty intrusive, from what I've heard.

[TellyKNeasuss]

I believe they were told. and that a security clearance basically makes a person unable to expose the facts.

Did they cut their tongues out to keep them from talking?

[Regnad Kcin]

Mr. Brown:

Which is heavier?

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

[hcmom]

Did they cut their tongues out to keep them from talking?

Their mouths were filled with concrete core...

[uruk]

Those diagonal braces are in the crane platform or of the "moment frame. the moment frame was outside the core and in line with the interior box columns.

Wow. That was incredibly weak Chris.
Look closer at the pictures. The frames holding the cranes are clearly visible in the outer corners of the core area. The cross connections are clearly conecting the core columns. These pictures clearly show that you are wrong.
Be a man and admit to it.

[uruk]

I also noted that you ignored this post.
Be a man Chris. admit to your mistakes. No human being is infallible.
everybody makes mistake or are wrong about something. Are you saying that you are never wrong or mistaken?


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?

[Architect]

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.


Chris,

I note that the only questions that you attempted a response to were the elevator rails (my response: "prove it"), and that regarding formwork heights.

What's wrong - the rest too hard?

[uruk]

Special plastic coating was not being welded onto rebar. The rebar was being welded and it had a special plastic coating.



Your position is grossly contradictory to the topic of "buildings built to demolish."




Your cognitive distortion and labeling indicate your attitude clouds you position.



I'm better than fairly sure that this is a very well contained detonation of high explosives contained in a uniform mineral material container. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg)



Your world view is to narrow to deal with this subject comprehensively.

Chris, in no way what-so-ever did you answer or address anything that
Telly posted. A shining example of how you respond to posts.

ETA: Sorry, that should have been JonnyFive's post

[Architect]

I think the problem is that Chris can't imagine....oops, I mean remember....the answers.

[uruk]

Chris,

I note that the only questions that you attempted a response to were the elevator rails (my response: "prove it"), and that regarding formwork heights.

What's wrong - the rest too hard?

I've asked him to show evidence concerning the "so called" elevator rail guides.
I emailed Otis Elevator company concerning the models of elevators they installed into the WTC towers. this was thier response:

Hello Mr. Ethridge: My name is Stephen Showers and I am the Corporate
Archivist here at Otis Elevator. The otis.com staff forwarded your email to
me. Thank you for your inquiry. The best public source of elevator
information on the WTC Towers and other building of the complex is Elevator
World magazine. They can be reached at: www.elevator-world.com. They have
done several comprehensive stories on the whole WTC. Otis did install the
original elevators, escalators and dumbwaiters in the whole World Trade
Center. Each tower had 104 elevators each. There were 2 types: gearless
and geared. The gearless were model numbers 339, 269, 219 and 155. The
geared models had various model numbers depending on the installation and
use. The November, 2001 issue of Elevator World has an excellent breakdown
of the whole system and you should be able to acquire a copy of it for your
research. I hope this information helps. Good luck in your research.
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: ezhil.nanjappan@otis.com [mailto:ezhil.nanjappan@otis.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 10:26 AM
To: information.request@otis.com
Subject: Information Request

I then sent an email to Elevator World and got This response:

Mr. Ethridge:
Please forgive my lateness in replying to the below e-mail, we do have the November 2001 issue available for $15.00 plus postage (back issues are sent by ground UPS) and usually runs around $7.00 for a total of $22.00.

Please let me know if you are interested – you may also visit this link and order this way just type in November 2001 issue in comments section, the link is http://elevatorbooks.stores.yahoo.net/baisofelwoma1.html This issue is only available in print version.

Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

Patricia Cartee
Commercial Director

Before I lay down $22.00 in the name of debating Chris, I was hoping that, since you are in the trade, might have access to this issue.

Better yet, might you have access to the technical information for the elevator models mentioned in the Otis response?

[Big Al]

I've asked him to show evidence concerning the "so called" elevator rail guides.
I emailed Otis Elevator company concerning the models of elevators they installed into the WTC towers. this was thier response:



I then sent an email to Elevator World and got This response:


Before I lay down $22.00 in the name of debating Chris, I was hoping that, since you are in the trade, might have access to this issue.

Better yet, might you have access to the technical information for the elevator models mentioned in the Otis response?

Sorry, uruk, I'd save my money if I were you. Chris'll just say Otis were warned off by the NWO or whoever. He knows better. The Holy Documentary neatly addresses every point you might make. It cannot be denied. Praise The Documentary.

Amen. :covereyes

[bonavada]

chris.....................

i asked:-

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

you replied:-

I think you've found a misstatement, 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.

what exactly do you mean by "misstatement"? a "misstatement" by YOU?
were YOU "mistating" when you wrote this?:-

From LetsRollForums (http://www.letsrollforums.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15600&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=e059854b9b9534bc401a2ff80c9762e5)
I interviewed a Mohawk who was 24 when the towers were built. He couldn't say he remembered the concrete core. But he did remember they could only go 7 floors over the core with steel. He still had 2 friends that worked with him on the towers that were living. I asked him to speak with them about the core to see if they could revive each others memory.
When I explained that the FEMA said it was made with steel core columns, he became afraid. He was 64 years of age at that time. I could try him again. Maybe the fact I'm stilll alive will encourage him.

my bold

its unequivocal chris. you state that you interviewed the man who was "64 years of age at that time" and "24 when the towers were built" you have also stated elsewhere that you interviewed this worker in 2002

64-24=40

2002-40=1962

so........the construction of the towers began in 1969-70 i think...... whichever way you try to twist it mate, either your photographic memcam batteries are up the duff or you (or the mohawk) are TELLING LICKLE FIBS!
demolition of the existing buildings on the pre-WTC site didn't begin till 1966 FFS.

care to revise your mohawk story in the light of the above?

BV

keep wriggling.

[uruk]

Sorry, uruk, I'd save my money if I were you. Chris'll just say Otis were warned off by the NWO or whoever. He knows better. The Holy Documentary neatly addresses every point you might make. It cannot be denied. Praise The Documentary.

Amen. :covereyes

Hallowed be the name of the almighty, all encompasing PBS Documentary!

[Big Al]

its unequivocal chris. you state that you interviewed the man who was "64 years of age at that time" and "24 when the towers were built" you have also stated elsewhere that you interviewed this worker in 2002

If it'd been 65 and 25 years, it would have been possible to plead "approximation". However, 64 and 24 sounds like an attempt to sound definite and precise.

Nice try, Chris.

[TellyKNeasuss]

Before I lay down $22.00 in the name of debating Chris...

Given the amount of evidence presented already that Christophera is wrong, it hardly seems worthwhile to spend money for even more evidence.

[bonavada]

i tried HERE (http://www.liveboards.com/mb/server/board.cgi?B=107638&)

let's hope they haven't all eaten their copies after realising what the NWO have done huh?

BV

[bonavada]

Given the amount of evidence presented already that Christophera is wrong, it hardly seems worthwhile to spend money for even more evidence.

you just made me realise something.......i am actually looking forward to reading a trade magazine about freakin elevators.........how fkn sad is that?

BV

[Belz...]

If it'd been 65 and 25 years, it would have been possible to plead "approximation". However, 64 and 24 sounds like an attempt to sound definite and precise.

Nice try, Chris.

Maybe he'll say the towers really were started in 1960 and we were all hypnotised to forget it.

[bonavada]

If it'd been 65 and 25 years, it would have been possible to plead "approximation". However, 64 and 24 sounds like an attempt to sound definite and precise.

Nice try, Chris.

i cannot see how our chris can wriggle out of this, he either has to admit that:-

he is wrong about what he states about the mohawk.
or that the mohawk is wrong.
or that he just made the whole frickin windwalker story up.after his claims of possessing a photographic memory we must discount the first option, the second option brings considerable doubt onto the rest of the mohawks recollections, the third would just make chris act like this:-

ToXuKnCk8ks


BV

[JonnyFive]

Maybe he'll say the towers really were started in 1960 and we were all hypnotised to forget it.

Dude, it was in the documentary! You can't question the holy docu-dogma!

[uruk]

i tried HERE (http://www.liveboards.com/mb/server/board.cgi?B=107638&)

let's hope they haven't all eaten their copies after realising what the NWO have done huh?

BV

Thanks for the help Bonavada. I am inclined to listen to BigAl and TellyKNeasuss and not waste cash on the Chrismiester. Elevator World has the issue but they want $22.00 for it.

I was hoping that Architect might have free access to information concerning the elevators and be able to present the fact that those columns with in the core area are too big to be elevator rail guides, especially as the elevators were cable suspention type.

I've argued this before with chris and showed him evidence but he continues to brush it off without presenting any counter evidence.

Much like he keeps ignoring my post about the usnet post from Tony Jebson.

[tsig]

Special plastic coating was not being welded onto rebar. The rebar was being welded and it had a special plastic coating.



Your position is grossly contradictory to the topic of "buildings built to demolish."




Your cognitive distortion and labeling indicate your attitude clouds you position.



I'm better than fairly sure that this is a very well contained detonation of high explosives contained in a uniform mineral material container. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg)



Your world view is to narrow to deal with this subject comprehensively.

Chris you cannot weld rebar coated with C4 becuse it burns and metal conducts heat.

Repeat, no welder in thier right mind would touch a rod to this rebar.

[Big Al]

Dude, it was in the documentary! You can't question the holy docu-dogma!

As a matter of fact, I now remember that the 1960 date also was mentioned in the Holy Documentary, which I have just channelled from Beyond. That's when they started on the core. It then went on for the next ten minutes detailing the batch of ore from which the iron that was used for the rebar steel came. The next ten minutes dealt with the special High-Frangibility Portland cement used for the core, with special evidence on the particular beach from which the sand came - famed for its low cohesion when used in concrete. The next ten minutes concentrated on the aggregate used in the core concrete. Then, if I remember rightly, it said that the water used was of a special high-hydrocarbon composition found only in the Adirondacks. It showed the very lake and went into detail on the exact chemical composition.

After that, I admit I began to lose interest. Not to mention the will to live.

[Big Al]

Chris you cannot weld rebar coated with C4 becuse it burns and metal conducts heat.

Repeat, no welder in thier right mind would touch a rod to this rebar.

Thank you for reminding me, DHR: My channelled memory of the Documentary tells me of the special low-temperature experimental welding gear used in the WTC. Of course, it might just be a distorted memory of the Cold Fusion affair...

That was bollocks, too...

[tsig]

As a matter of fact, I now remember that the 1960 date also was mentioned in the Holy Documentary, which I have just channelled from Beyond. That's when they started on the core. It then went on for the next ten minutes detailing the batch of ore from which the iron that was used for the rebar steel came. The next ten minutes dealt with the special High-Frangibility Portland cement used for the core, with special evidence on the particular beach from which the sand came - famed for its low cohesion when used in concrete. The next ten minutes concentrated on the aggregate used in the core concrete. Then, if I remember rightly, it said that the water used was of a special high-hydrocarbon composition found only in the Adirondacks. It showed the very lake and went into detail on the exact chemical composition.

After that, I admit I began to lose interest. Not to mention the will to live.


It was not portland cement I don't rember what it was, but I will argue about it forever. Always siting the documentary.

We needed no water it was dry-set concrete it absorbed the water from the atmosphere, that's why it had to be above 50% humidity when it was placed.

[twinstead]

Chris you cannot weld rebar coated with C4 becuse it burns and metal conducts heat.

Repeat, no welder in thier right mind would touch a rod to this rebar.

Perhaps the real conspiracy is the fact that 318 welders died of thermate burns and c4 explosions during construction and are secretly buried in the basement. ;)

[Roger_Harris]

Consider, would you allow somebody to weld your explosive coated rebar in your tower based on an absolute "do it this way" with out telling them exacly why when you had somebody to tell that had passed a series of security test over years.

Considering that I would not expect any sane person to participate in the construction of an office building with built-in explosives, I'm afraid that question is a little too hypothetical for me to answer.

I believe they were told. and that a security clearance basically makes a person unable to expose the facts.

Well, hypothetically, if I were insane enough to come up with this explosive-coated rebar plan, I'd probably also have to be insane to think that security clearances would keep everyone from spilling the beans. So I suppose it all makes sense... in an insane sorta way.

Wind Roger. Wind. Did you see the Tacoma narrows bridge video?

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

That was from a 42 mile an hour wind. The towers were expected to see over 100 MPH winds from occasional hurricanes.

The tower faces begin to fly and twist the tower.

Well, that's kinda why I asked, because I think I have a basic understanding of what happened to that long, thin, flat Tacama Narrows Bridge, and I just can't picture anything remotely similar happening with a tall, square office building. The towers were designed to withstand the huge lateral loads produced by wind, yes, but that would produce bending, not torsion. That bending was resisted by the exterior column "tube," not the core, and it seems to me any torsion produced by wind would be pretty danged negligable in a design that could withstand that bending, without any help from the core. Everything I've read says the core was designed to just carry vertical loads, and I can't think of any reason why that's not the case.

[bonavada]

Much like he keeps ignoring my post about the usnet post from Tony Jebson.

INVOKE THE HOLY SOCKS OF TRUTH!

BV

[Redtail]

C4 won't explode because of heat alone. As our EOD (When I was in the Army) said "You can stomp on it, set it on fire, just don't set it on fire then try to stomp it out."

ETA: Then again, he never mentioned welding rods.

[tsig]

Considering that I would not expect any sane person to participate in the construction of an office building with built-in explosives, I'm afraid that question is a little too hypothetical for me to answer.



Well, hypothetically, if I were insane enough to come up with this explosive-coated rebar plan, I'd probably also have to be insane to think that security clearances would keep everyone from spilling the beans. So I suppose it all makes sense... in an insane sorta way.



Well, that's kinda why I asked, because I think I have a basic understanding of what happened to that long, thin, flat Tacama Narrows Bridge, and I just can't picture anything remotely similar happening with a tall, square office building. The towers were designed to withstand the huge lateral loads produced by wind, yes, but that would produce bending, not torsion. That bending was resisted by the exterior column "tube," not the core, and it seems to me any torsion produced by wind would be pretty danged negligable in a design that could withstand that bending, without any help from the core. Everything I've read says the core was designed to just carry vertical loads, and I can't think of any reason why that's not the case.


It's well known that a security clearance renders you immune to exposives.

[Christophera]

Wow. That was incredibly weak Chris.
Look closer at the pictures. The frames holding the cranes are clearly visible in the outer corners of the core area. The cross connections are clearly conecting the core columns. These pictures clearly show that you are wrong.
Be a man and admit to it.

I see no columns in the core. I see floor beams connecting the interior box columns.

The crane platform was seriously diagonaly braced, but not a part of the building.

Get a bigger picture and maybe we'll see more.

[Bell]

I see no columns in the core. I see floor beams connecting the interior box columns.

The crane platform was seriously diagonaly braced, but not a part of the building.

Get a bigger picture and maybe we'll see more.

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

http://images.wisconsinhistory.org/whi_images_new/700099990250/9999004225-l.jpg

ETA:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~davidbos/wtc_construction/wtc1_core.jpg

[Christophera]

Chris you cannot weld rebar coated with C4 becuse it burns and metal conducts heat.

Repeat, no welder in thier right mind would touch a rod to this rebar.

The documentary explained the "special plastic coating" had to be stripped and the margins shielded. That is all that was known until later when it was revealed to a welding contractor who was about ready to sue because he was told his welders would be able to do those welds then they were not allowed. He was paying out big $ to keep them in town while they were layed off so they would be there for the next level of interior box column butt welds after the core was cast up another 40 feet.

As far as "right mind".

Examine America for the last 40 years paying for the "mutually assured destruction policy" of the cold war.

The C4 coated rebar in the sub bases and missile silos was a part of that, so the technology, and the welders were all well developed.

[Christophera]

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

http://images.wisconsinhistory.org/whi_images_new/700099990250/9999004225-l.jpg

ETA:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~davidbos/wtc_construction/wtc1_core.jpg

I see no "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) in the core area. I see them surrounding the core area and I only see floor beams connecting them. No diagonal bracing on the interio box columns except for the moment frames which are not shown in that image.

The vertical steel sticking up out of the core is WAY TOO SMALL and does not compare in any way to the interior box columns. It is elevator guide rail support steel.

[Bell]

I see no "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) in the core area. I see them surrounding the core area and I only see floor beams connecting them. No diagonal bracing on the interio box columns except for the moment frames which are not shown in that image.

The vertical steel sticking up out of the core is WAY TOO SMALL and does not compare in any way to the interior box columns. It is elevator guide rail support steel.

There is CLEARLY diagonal bracing in those three pictures. That is what you asked for. Diagonal bracing. Stop with the lie, you make baby Jezus cry.

Also, care to answer my two other posts?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2145385&postcount=8839
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2152796&postcount=9078

[TellyKNeasuss]

I see no columns in the core. I see floor beams connecting the interior box columns.

Can someone explain this to me?

[bonavada]

I see no columns in the core. I see floor beams connecting the interior box columns.


Can someone explain this to me?

it's a bit like the one below.......


I interviewed a Mohawk who was 24 when the towers were built. He couldn't say he remembered the concrete core. But he did remember they could only go 7 floors over the core with steel.


praps chris and the mohawk smokeum too muchum peace-pipe?

BV

[Bell]

Don't take too long now Chris, making up an explanation, which you will claim you saw in your non-excisting PBS documentary.

[uruk]

I see no "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) in the core area. I see them surrounding the core area and I only see floor beams connecting them. No diagonal bracing on the interio box columns except for the moment frames which are not shown in that image.

The vertical steel sticking up out of the core is WAY TOO SMALL and does not compare in any way to the interior box columns. It is elevator guide rail support steel.
You really are being obtuse on purpose. Your lying is clearly evident and shameful. The pictures clearly show the cross bracing of the columns. The crane support is clearly visible and separate from the columns.

At this point we are not talking about the interior core columns, this was in respons to you saying that there was no beams cross connecting the coulmns. The photos prove you wrong. Face it like a man.

[Bell]

it's a bit like the one below.......



praps chris and the mohawk smokeum too muchum peace-pipe?

BV

Or like saying the towers collapsed symmetrical AND the buildings fell to the wrong side?

[bonavada]

There is CLEARLY diagonal bracing in those three pictures. That is what you asked for. Diagonal bracing. Stop with the lie, you make baby Jezus cry.

Also, care to answer my two other posts?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2145385&postcount=8839
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2152796&postcount=9078



and mine?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2153777#post2153777

BV

[Canadian Malcontent]

We had a guy in our toronto jail ( wouldnt say who he really was, didnt want to go back to the states) who called 911 a few weeks in advance, He called plane attacks on Chicago and New York and said that the order was to stop them but to let one go through. I am gonna look for the newspaper article now.

www.rense.com/general20/vree.htm

[uruk]

Hey Chris!
You still are ignoring this!
Why wont you respond to it? Could it be because it shows you to be wrong about something? Does it put a kink in the armour of your self confidence?

Come on big guy, be a man own up to it.

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?

Come on Chris If Tony Jebson is right there should be a concrete tube soring abouve the steel . Where is it?

[JimBenArm]

OK, I really need to say this:
I served in the Navy on 4 submarines, three sub tenders, and three submarine squadrons in the height of the cold war. (USS Pollack SSN-603, USS Guardfish SSN-612, USS George Washington SSBN-598, USS Pogy SSN-647, USS Sperry AS-12, USS Dixon AS-37, USS McKee AS-41, Submarine Squadron 3, Submarine Squadron 2, SubGroup 5, if you're interested, or even if you're not). I never heard anything about C-4 coated REBAR or any other such nonsense. This claim is total BS, and anyone who says it is a bald-faced liar. No such thing exists or ever has existed. PERIOD, end of discussion!

Don't care what you saw in a PBS documentary, I was there, been there, done that, have the T-shirt to prove it.

[uruk]

It is elevator guide rail support steel.

Prove it.

[Christophera]

Consider, would you allow somebody to weld your explosive coated rebar in your tower based on an absolute "do it this way" with out telling them exactly why when you had somebody to tell that had passed a series of security tests over years.

Considering that I would not expect any sane person to participate in the construction of an office building with built-in explosives, I'm afraid that question is a little too hypothetical for me to answer.

I hear what you are saying and it makes sense. A few posts back I commented on the "mutually assured destruction policy" that America has participated in for about 40 years. Everyone I've ever talked to has considered that insane. Our tax dollars paid for hundreds of thousands of nukes and the Twin Towers. Recall, the people of New York voted the towers down several times. They were built despite this public rejection. The things our government has been doing just don't make sense. That we pay for it makes less sense. That is our problem. Media has seriously twisted our perception of what life is about and this has damages our society so badly it almost bears no resemblance to our fathers or grandfathers society. Consider Iran Contra. The savings and loan rip off, BCCI, enron. We've been so divided we cannot even object to these things that show us being ripped off and our intelligence agencies moving drugs in into our country and taking part in international /weapons/drug trading.We know that things are VERY wrong and tear ourselves away from our petty fears, wants and desires long enough or well enough to consider our needs, the needs of future generations. Corrupted by comfort, lies and manipulations.


I believe they were told. and that a security clearance basically makes a person unable to expose the facts.

Well, hypothetically, if I were insane enough to come up with this explosive-coated rebar plan, I'd probably also have to be insane to think that security clearances would keep everyone from spilling the beans. So I suppose it all makes sense... in an insane sorta way.

The paragraph I wrote above expands on your logic that expresses " in an insane sorta way' and shows how WE HAVE BEEN allowing it, taking part in it and PAYING for it.

Wind Roger. Wind. Did you see the Tacoma narrows bridge video?http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8849554834285920420&q=tacoma+narrows+bridge&hl=enThat was from a 42 mile an hour wind. The towers were expected to see over 100 MPH winds from occasional hurricanes.The tower faces begin to fly and twist the tower.Well, that's kinda why I asked, because I think I have a basic understanding of what happened to that long, thin, flat Tacama Narrows Bridge, and I just can't picture anything remotely similar happening with a tall, square office building. The towers were designed to withstand the huge lateral loads produced by wind, yes, but that would produce bending, not torsion. That bending was resisted by the exterior column "tube," not the core, and it seems to me any torsion produced by wind would be pretty danged negligable in a design that could withstand that bending, without any help from the core. Everything I've read says the core was designed to just carry vertical loads, and I can't think of any reason why that's not the case.

I've got to say thank you for your comment there. You are truly a common sense individual with respect for reason. I've been trying to get "Architect" to answer the question you just partially answered regarding the cores ability to resist torsion.There was torsion caused by the wind, and bending as you say. The moment frames and the perimeter wall did mostly take care of bending, as you say. Your point made, which I've been trying to get "Architect" to acknowledge for pehaps 30 pages now, is that a set of columns inside of a core area approximatly 1/2 the dimensions of an outside set of square walls, would add no resistance to torsion.

In the 1990 documentary I viewed called "The Construction of the Twin Towers", the first 30 minutes was devoted to the design process. Yamasaki took Robertsons original core column design and built a model to scale and loaded then subjected it to wind tunnel tests. He found that the towers resistence to bending was acceptable, but, with loads applied, the very tall proportions and winds over 65 miles per hour showed deflections of the perimeter walls that indicated failures would probably occur over 75 MPH of wind. 110 MPH winds in hurricane were normal at times and the spec.'s bascially called for resistence to 120 MPH. Yamasaki abandoned the steel core columns and utilized the steel reinforced cast concrete core as it handed lateral displacements better and dealt very well with the torsion issue.

Please, examine the page I've put together that shows silhouettes of the towers using what I know from the documentary to explain the images,Understanding Silhouetted Images Of The Towers,

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

It begins with the 3rd image down. WTC 1 was almost unrentable because of the poor access across the core. One hallway in opposite directions perpindicuarly every other floor. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corehallsdoors.gif) It actually was about 30% empty up till 2001 as far as I can tell. Mostly government offices because the gov. employees HAD to tolerate the poor access. After WTC 1 reached it's max height, construction was basically stopped on WTC 1 to start WTC 2 which had a redesigned core having 2 hallways in each direction which could be rented immediately.

Also, please examine the issues I've pointed out with the expanding planes of debris and the vertical valley formed between them down low on the page. Common sense stuff.

[Bell]

OK, I really need to say this:
I served in the Navy on 4 submarines, three sub tenders, and three submarine squadrons in the height of the cold war. (USS Pollack SSN-603, USS Guardfish SSN-612, USS George Washington SSBN-598, USS Pogy SSN-647, USS Sperry AS-12, USS Dixon AS-37, USS McKee AS-41, Submarine Squadron 3, Submarine Squadron 2, SubGroup 5, if you're interested, or even if you're not). I never heard anything about C-4 coated REBAR or any other such nonsense. This claim is total BS, and anyone who says it is a bald-faced liar. No such thing exists or ever has existed. PERIOD, end of discussion!

Don't care what you saw in a PBS documentary, I was there, been there, done that, have the T-shirt to prove it.

Hello JimBenArm, welcome to this... ehm... ehm... well, welcome anyway. The PBS documentary does not excist, and anyhow, it did not address the C4. That is something Chris made up, after he made up the documentary.

You see how this works? We demand evidence, he says it was in the documentary (or not, but must be a logical conclusion - in his foggy eyes).

[Christophera]

You really are being obtuse on purpose. Your lying is clearly evident and shameful. The pictures clearly show the cross bracing of the columns. The crane support is clearly visible and separate from the columns.

At this point we are not talking about the interior core columns, this was in respons to you saying that there was no beams cross connecting the coulmns. The photos prove you wrong. Face it like a man.

The cross supports you indicate are a part of the crane platform. The crane towers could be independantly moved around, up and down, inside the platform.

Note, the diagonal braces you arrow in green ARE INSIDE the interior box columns. And, are never seen in the demo images.

[Christophera]

You really are being obtuse on purpose. Your lying is clearly evident and shameful. The pictures clearly show the cross bracing of the columns. The crane support is clearly visible and separate from the columns.

At this point we are not talking about the interior core columns, this was in respons to you saying that there was no beams cross connecting the coulmns. The photos prove you wrong. Face it like a man.

Prove it.

http://images.wisconsinhistory.org/whi_images_new/700099990250/9999004225-l.jpg

Elevator guide rail support steel.

It was weak, insubstancial structure that was whisked away by heavy steel and concrete crashing down the concrete core leaving the steel reinforced cast concrete tube standing.

PROOF, no core columns protruding from the core area (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

You face it like a man. There is no raw evidence from the demo supporting the existence of steel creo columns inside the core area.

[Canadian Malcontent]

I have worked a fair bit of construction including highrise and the steel core I see in those pictures is structural steel it heavier (thicker) material and quite obviously a structural core.
I can only assume that the floors were precast concrete which is high strength concrete (less water when mixing it) very strong and also very brittle. Precast concrete floor sections are characteristically hollow having cylindrical voids in them running end to end. they are about 50% air. This is consistent with the failure we all watched on TV.
The concrete would have been pulverized into dust. The amount of wieght and the repeated impacts as every floor got hit in its turn could easily turn half the concrete to dust. Thats my opinion based on experience with construction and construction materials.

P.S. the reason the buildings fell straight down and did not tip over is gravity related.

I just looked over the pictures and there is no concrete core, those are steel structures. When you hang steel on concrete you need a LOT of concrete the concrete can hold itself up as well as lend rigidity to the steel structure.

[Christophera]

OK, I really need to say this:
I served in the Navy on 4 submarines, three sub tenders, and three submarine squadrons in the height of the cold war. (USS Pollack SSN-603, USS Guardfish SSN-612, USS George Washington SSBN-598, USS Pogy SSN-647, USS Sperry AS-12, USS Dixon AS-37, USS McKee AS-41, Submarine Squadron 3, Submarine Squadron 2, SubGroup 5, if you're interested, or even if you're not). I never heard anything about C-4 coated REBAR or any other such nonsense. This claim is total BS, and anyone who says it is a bald-faced liar. No such thing exists or ever has existed. PERIOD, end of discussion!

Don't care what you saw in a PBS documentary, I was there, been there, done that, have the T-shirt to prove it.

JimBenArm, please explain why you would NEED to know about the self destruct capabilities of sub bases and missile silos. Or why your superiors would inform you.

[TellyKNeasuss]

In the 1990 documentary I viewed called "The Construction of the Twin Towers", the first 30 minutes was devoted to the design process. Yamasaki took Robertsons original core column design and built a model to scale and loaded then subjected it to wind tunnel tests. He found that the towers resistence to bending was acceptable, but, with loads applied, the very tall proportions and winds over 65 miles per hour showed deflections of the perimeter walls that indicated failures would probably occur over 75 MPH of wind. 110 MPH winds in hurricane were normal at times and the spec.'s bascially called for resistence to 120 MPH. Yamasaki abandoned the steel core columns and utilized the steel reinforced cast concrete core as it handed lateral displacements better and dealt very well with the torsion issue.

Wow, this documentary covered EVERYTHING. I wish that I had watched it.

[Bell]

Christopher, care to answer my other posts? I asked you many times, which undoubtly you must know, what with your photographic memory and all.

[Christophera]

I have worked a fair bit of construction including highrise and the steel core I see in those pictures is structural steel it heavier (thicker) material and quite obviously a structural core.
I can only assume that the floors were precast concrete which is high strength concrete (less water when mixing it) very strong and also very brittle. Precast concrete floor sections are characteristically hollow having cylindrical voids in them running end to end. they are about 50% air. This is consistent with the failure we all watched on TV.
The concrete would have been pulverized into dust. The amount of wieght and the repeated impacts as every floor got hit in its turn could easily turn half the concrete to dust. Thats my opinion based on experience with construction and construction materials.

Canadian Malcontent, based on your experience with construction and construction materials, please tell us what you think that material is to the left of the spire aproximately 500 feet off the ground which has survived the crashing descent of hundreds of thousands of tons of steel.

Concrete shear wall to left of interior box column, the "spire" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg)

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

Here is a view from 90 degrees to the right.

Shear wall face (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/shearspirewall.jpg)

[Bell]

JimBenArm, please explain why you would NEED to know about the self destruct capabilities of sub bases and missile silos. Or why your superiors would inform you.

Why would YOU know, but JimBenArm doesn't?
Oh, right, it was in a magazine article, for the whole world to read :rolleyes:

[uruk]

The cross supports you indicate are a part of the crane platform. The crane towers could be independantly moved around, up and down, inside the platform.

Note, the diagonal braces you arrow in green ARE INSIDE the interior box columns. And, are never seen inthe demo images.

The crane towers are clearly marked and visible. The cross beams that I marked in green are also clearly visible. So now your moving the goal posts. I'm sure the cross beams are there amoungst the pile of broken steel beams. But hey, you still can't show us a picture of the concrete core. construction photos or demo photos.

[uruk]

Hey Chris!
You still are ignoring this!
Why wont you respond to it? Could it be because it shows you to be wrong about something? Does it put a kink in the armour of your self confidence?

Come on big guy, be a man own up to it.

Quote:
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?

Come on Chris If Tony Jebson is right there should be a concrete tube soring abouve the steel . Where is it?

[uruk]

JimBenArm, please explain why you would NEED to know about the self destruct capabilities of sub bases and missile silos. Or why your superiors would inform you.

So how do you know? Were you ever in the military?

Or was mentioned in the documentary?

[Christophera]

Or like saying the towers collapsed symmetrical AND the buildings fell to the wrong side?

The top of WTC 1 fell south when over half of the vertical support was wiped out on the north side. The fires present on the south side simply did not have enough heat long enough over enough area of enough columns to cause this failure.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4422&stc=1&d=1165458488

There are detonations shown on the towers that exemplify explosions used to "steer" the fall of parts of the towers. (http://mouv4x8.club.fr/11Sept01/A0069b_3_towerexplo1_explosion_below.jpg)

Here is a totally unexplainable event without demolitions, the core of the top of tower 2 falls on WTC 3 and is seen inside the perimeter walls. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg)

[Christophera]

Hey Chris!
You still are ignoring this!
Why wont you respond to it? Could it be because it shows you to be wrong about something? Does it put a kink in the armour of your self confidence?

Come on big guy, be a man own up to it.



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?

Come on Chris If Tony Jebson is right there should be a concrete tube soring abouve the steel . Where is it?

All your images are over 4 floors and the steel surrounded the concrete core after that. A person on the street would not have been able to see anything happening.

You forgot to post an image of some of the 47, 1300 foot steel core columns inside the core area at some elevation over the ground from the demo images. Do that soon please.

[Christophera]

The crane towers are clearly marked and visible. The cross beams that I marked in green are also clearly visible. So now your moving the goal posts. I'm sure the cross beams are there amoungst the pile of broken steel beams. But hey, you still can't show us a picture of the concrete core. construction photos or demo photos.

You need to show the diagonal braces of the interior box columns from the demo images. Your ability to interprete constuction images is minimal. There are many images of the interior box columns after the perimeter steel and flors have fallen away. See if you can find one in there that shows the diagonal bracing you suggest is there.

Keep in mind that the moment frames were heavily braced with diagonals but they are obvious.

Here is the moment frame on the center left.

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

[uruk]

http://images.wisconsinhistory.org/whi_images_new/700099990250/9999004225-l.jpg

Elevator guide rail support steel.

It was weak, insubstancial structure that was whisked away by heavy steel and concrete crashing down the concrete core leaving the steel reinforced cast concrete tube standing.

PROOF, no core columns protruding from the core area (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

You face it like a man. There is no raw evidence from the demo supporting the existence of steel creo columns inside the core area.

The pictures posted in this thread cleasrly shows coulumns within the core area. You are claiming that they are elevator guide rails with out any evidence or proof to back that statement up.
I have provided proof that those columns are too big to be rails.
I have shown you pictures of elevator rail guides.
You have shown me no proof that they are elevator rail guides.
I have even posted the model numbers of the elevators used int he WTC towers from Otis themselves.
I have posted thier web site showing the models of elevators that they sell. None of them show rail guides that big.
Now it's up to you to prove to me that those are elevator guide rails.
Show me plans. Show me models. Show diagrams, show me a model of elevators that use rails that big.

[Christophera]

it's a bit like the one below.......



praps chris and the mohawk smokeum too muchum peace-pipe?

BV

praps BV and homer have no evidence.

[Canadian Malcontent]

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


Also, please examine the issues I've pointed out with the expanding planes of debris and the vertical valley formed between them down low on the page. Common sense stuff.


I looked this over and there was no concrete core.
The steel beam end that is represented to have been cut by 'explosive shear' is just the end of the beam it came off the truck like that thats what the end of a beam looks like when they make and when you buy it and when you use it.

And the towers did not fall the wrong way the impact of the aluminum airplane didnt even rock the building.
The heat from the burning kerosene weakend the steel structure and the and the steel failed the building then fell straight down as per our experience to date with GRAVITY.
The weight and impact pulverised the concrete floors and thats where a lot of the dust came from.
Had the towers been concrete or steel on concrete I dont think the would have fallen..

I watched the wtc7 video. Question, how did you expect it to fall? Like a leaf?

[uruk]

All your images are over 4 floors and the steel surrounded the concrete core after that. A person on the street would not have been able to see anything happening.

You forgot to post an image of some of the 47, 1300 foot steel core columns inside the core area at some elevation over the ground from the demo images. Do that soon please.
So then are you saying that Joberson was wrong?
According to Tony Jebson and you WTC 1 had the concrete core go up several floors ahead of the steel. The construction pictures of WTC 1 show no concrete core ahead of the steel work.

Quite obfuscating and dancing, I'm not talking about interior steel core columns at the moment in this post. I'm talking about Joberson's e-mail.

[JimBenArm]

JimBenArm, please explain why you would NEED to know about the self destruct capabilities of sub bases and missile silos. Or why your superiors would inform you.

Oh, gee, I don't know, like, to keep us from accidentally SETTING THEM OFF? Submariners are trained and qualified on every system on the ship, because it is truly a matter of life and death if something happens. There is NOTHING the crew doesn't know about. NOTHING!

So what makes you more qualified to speak on this than me?

Tell me again how many subs you served on?

When did you earn your "Dolphins"?

Do you even know what "Dolphins" are?

[TellyKNeasuss]

Canadian Malcontent, based on your experience with construction and construction materials, please tell us what you think that material is to the left of the spire aproximately 500 feet off the ground which has survived the crashing descent of hundreds of thousands of tons of steel.

Concrete shear wall to left of interior box column, the "spire" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg)

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

Here is a view from 90 degrees to the right.

Shear wall face (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/shearspirewall.jpg)


By your own estimate, what you claim to be the concrete core wall is about 4 feet thick. Yet 500 feet is at only little more than a third the height of the tower. Would the core really taper from 17 feet to 4 feet in the bottom third of the tower?

[TellyKNeasuss]

The top of WTC 1 fell south when over half of the vertical support was wiped out on the north side. The fires present on the south side simply did not have enough heat long enough over enough area of enough columns to cause this failure.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4422&stc=1&d=1165458488

There are detonations shown on the towers that exemplify explosions used to "steer" the fall of parts of the towers. (http://mouv4x8.club.fr/11Sept01/A0069b_3_towerexplo1_explosion_below.jpg)

Here is a totally unexplainable event without demolitions, the core of the top of tower 2 falls on WTC 3 and is seen inside the perimeter walls. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg)

You claim that the explosives were small enough that the explosives in the floors didn't damage the core; instead the core had it's own explosives. But you also claim that these huge debris clouds were generated by explosions. Which is it?

[hcmom]

At least I have evidence that Chris can be a funny guy when he want to be!

praps BV and homer have no evidence.

[uruk]

You need to show the diagonal braces of the interior box columns from the demo images. Your ability to interprete constuction images is minimal. There are many images of the interior box columns after the perimeter steel and flors have fallen away. See if you can find one in there that shows the diagonal bracing you suggest is there.

Keep in mind that the moment frames were heavily braced with diagonals but they are obvious.

Here is the moment frame on the center left.

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

The link you provided does not show a picture, just the welcome page.

Your moving the goal posts again. The pictures available of the core structure after the collapse only shows a small portion of the whole structure. So, as you put it, your request is unreasonable and a shining example of your avoidance of the facts.

[Canadian Malcontent]

By your own estimate, what you claim to be the concrete core wall is about 4 feet thick. Yet 500 feet is at only little more than a third the height of the tower. Would the core really taper from 17 feet to 4 feet in the bottom third of the tower?
Dude, there is no concrete structure there. I see only steel. There were probbably block walls to fireproof the stairwells, and maybe precast concrete stairs.

And your 'explosives coated rebar' idea is patently absurd. The concrete would not adhere to the rebar and the structure would fall down before it was finished. Also I dont know anything about explosives but drying concrete gets REALLY hot and it is also corrosive it will burn a hole in your foot if it falls in your boot and you leave it there. Literally burn through your skin.

So Navy man how does plastique react to that kind of environment?

No core, no explosions , no steering just hundreds of thousands of tons of building taking the quick way to the ground and spitting out dust and debris in the process.

[uruk]

To be totaly honest this picture may show what Chris is calling the "moment frame" but the picture also clearly shows the cross connect beams.

[se7ensnakes]

The only realistic explanation of the fall of the three WTC structures are a control demolition. You dont even need to read any expert ......it is all so evident. Three buildings falling down due to an open fire just dont cut it.
One added thought........Conspiracies are how criminals work....Criminals do not go around openly claiming what they are going to do........they work in secrecy, they hide things. Conspiracies are a normal part of human nature.
Most of the anti-conspiracy people are really not about the obvious but about a problem with their personalities. Some of them doubt that Operation Northwood ever existed or that it is just exageration, or that there really is a law that requires most people to pay income tax. Their kind of world is very restrictive. Be very careful with these people.

[hcmom]

The only realistic explanation of the fall of the three WTC structures are a control demolition. You dont even need to read any expert ......it is all so evident. Three buildings falling down due to an open fire just dont cut it.
One added thought........Conspiracies are how criminals work....Criminals do not go around openly claiming what they are going to do........they work in secrecy, they hide things. Conspiracies are a normal part of human nature.
Most of the anti-conspiracy people are really not about the obvious but about a problem with their personalities. Some of them doubt that Operation Northwood ever existed or that it is just exageration, or that there really is a law that requires most people to pay income tax. Their kind of world is very restrictive. Be very careful with these people.

...I read this, and I jumped to comment. But I just can't think of a single thing to say...

[tsig]

The documentary explained the "special plastic coating" had to be stripped and the margins shielded. That is all that was known until later when it was revealed to a welding contractor who was about ready to sue because he was told his welders would be able to do those welds then they were not allowed. He was paying out big $ to keep them in town while they were layed off so they would be there for the next level of interior box column butt welds after the core was cast up another 40 feet.

As far as "right mind".

Examine America for the last 40 years paying for the "mutually assured destruction policy" of the cold war.

The C4 coated rebar in the sub bases and missile silos was a part of that, so the technology, and the welders were all well developed.

Chris I was in the USAF and in nuclear silos they were not wired for demolition.

[uruk]

Chris I was in the USAF and in nuclear silos they were not wired for demolition.

You can even buy one if you want.
http://www.roadsideamerica.com/attract/TXOPLmissile.html

[tsig]

praps BV and homer have no evidence.

Chris your C4 will not explode under your theory. try it! It is not even possible.

A thin layer of explosive on a steel bar will not blow up.

[NickUK]

The only realistic explanation of the fall of the three WTC structures are a control demolition. You dont even need to read any expert ......it is all so evident.

Beautiful.:rolleyes:

[TellyKNeasuss]

Chris I was in the USAF and in nuclear silos they were not wired for demolition.

Some of the silos have actually been sold and people even live inside a few of them. "Enjoy your new home. Just be sure to NEVER push that red button that is labelled 'SELF DESTRUCT'. Better train your dog to stay away from it".

[uruk]

...I read this, and I jumped to comment. But I just can't think of a single thing to say...

I knew there was a law that we had to pay income taxes. With what authority does the IRS have to incarcerate you for tax evasion?

[JimBenArm]

Some of the silos have actually been sold and people even live inside a few of them. "Enjoy your new home. Just be sure to NEVER push that red button that is labelled 'SELF DESTRUCT'. Better train your dog to stay away from it".

"Mom, Dad blowed up the house again!"

[tsig]

Some of the silos have actually been sold and people even live inside a few of them. "Enjoy your new home. Just be sure to NEVER push that red button that is labelled 'SELF DESTRUCT'. Better train your dog to stay away from it".

Well we did plan to demo the world. Just never thought the plan went so deep.

[uruk]

Beautiful.:rolleyes:

Yea, just like it's so evident that the sun orbits the earth.

[NobbyNobbs]

The cross supports you indicate are a part of the crane platform. The crane towers could be independantly moved around, up and down, inside the platform.

Note, the diagonal braces you arrow in green ARE INSIDE the interior box columns. And, are never seen in the demo images.

Oh good lord, Chris, I don't know a thing about construction and even *I* can see what he's talking about. You're being intentionally obtuse here, aren't you? Will someone please post a blown up photo with the stupid diagonal cross-supports clearly labelled so that Chris knows just what the heck we're referring to?

JimBenArm, please explain why you would NEED to know about the self destruct capabilities of sub bases and missile silos. Or why your superiors would inform you.

Right. Those serving at the base don't know. But you do. From a magazine. Right.

My wife's cousin was commander of the first nuclear sub (I forget the name of it). He has spoken quite freely about his experiences in the Navy, and he is most certainly not an advocate of the current administration. At no time has he even hinted at such an absurd theory as having C-4 coated rebar in the bases. And this guy was a commander, who knew all kinds of things that no one else was allowed to know.

Conspiracies are a normal part of human nature.


So is paranoia, apparently.

[milesalpha]

The only realistic explanation of the fall of the three WTC structures are a control demolition. You dont even need to read any expert ......it is all so evident. Three buildings falling down due to an open fire just dont cut it.
One added thought........Conspiracies are how criminals work....Criminals do not go around openly claiming what they are going to do........they work in secrecy, they hide things. Conspiracies are a normal part of human nature.
Most of the anti-conspiracy people are really not about the obvious but about a problem with their personalities. Some of them doubt that Operation Northwood ever existed or that it is just exageration, or that there really is a law that requires most people to pay income tax. Their kind of world is very restrictive. Be very careful with these people.


Yeah never ask an expert, that's simply foolish. I get all my medical advice from a kid who stares at googled photos of body parts.


In other words...yeeesh.

[Mobyseven]

Hi Chris!

I was just wondering if you could post a link to a site that supports your theory, but that ISN'T your site?

Thanks!

[JimBenArm]

[quote=NobbyNobbs;2155005]


My wife's cousin was commander of the first nuclear sub (I forget the name of it).

quote]

That would have been the USS Nautilus SSN-571. It's actually a floating museum piece in Groton, CT, part of the Submarine Force Museum.

[Christophera]

Hi Chris!

I was just wondering if you could post a link to a site that supports your theory, but that ISN'T your site?

Thanks!

Let's stick wth the simple stuff. The demo scenario I've assembled is for the experts, and they are terrified or paid off. Later you will get what you ask for.

I've been asking for a site that simply substantiates the FEMA core of 47, 1300 foot columns, for over six months now. I mean there are 4 different floor plans, no structural plans showing how the supposed core columns were connected or braced, nothing on this falacious structure.

Guess what, there is no web site supporting this official lie, still. You would think some of the competent people here would have assembled images of the towers demise showing clearly, many columns in the core area, bent, falling shattered, toppling, leaning etc. NOT EVEN ONE IMAGE of the supposed steel core columns has ever been produced. What do the people here produce? A sites called noconcrete core. Why? Because they cannot prove the steel core columns. They produce ridicule ad nauseum, but no proof from the best opportunity ever to get images of the steel core columns.

Sure, .......... there have been many attempts to pass off misinterpretations of construction images as "core columns", but if there were steel core columns, they would be easy to see in the images of the towers coming down, but they never are.

Let us stick with the simple stuff.

What is seen is concrete and America has been lied to. The site documenting the concrete core would show the steel core coumns if they existed, but they did not.

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

[Christophera]

Yeah never ask an expert, that's simply foolish. I get all my medical advice from a kid who stares at googled photos of body parts.


In other words...yeeesh.

Has he taught you how to masturbate properly?

[Christophera]

The only realistic explanation of the fall of the three WTC structures are a control demolition. You dont even need to read any expert ......it is all so evident. Three buildings falling down due to an open fire just dont cut it.
One added thought........Conspiracies are how criminals work....Criminals do not go around openly claiming what they are going to do........they work in secrecy, they hide things. Conspiracies are a normal part of human nature.
Most of the anti-conspiracy people are really not about the obvious but about a problem with their personalities. Some of them doubt that Operation Northwood ever existed or that it is just exageration, or that there really is a law that requires most people to pay income tax. Their kind of world is very restrictive. Be very careful with these people.

Wow, a breath of fresh air. Simple logic, how refreshing, dynamic even. reaching to human nature, psychology and simple sociology.

Thanks for your words here!

Christopher

[Christophera]

Chris I was in the USAF and in nuclear silos they were not wired for demolition.

Do you have a reason to know about secret, self destruct policy? Can you document this?

[Mobyseven]

Let's stick wth the simple stuff. The demo scenario I've assembled is for the experts, and they are terrified or paid off. Later you will get what you ask for.

I've been asking for a site that simply substantiates the FEMA core of 47, 1300 foot columns, for over six months now. I mean there are 4 different floor plans, no structural plans showing how the supposed core columns were connected or braced, nothing on this falacious structure.

Guess what, there is no web site supporting this official lie, still. You would think some of the competent people here would have assembled images of the towers demise showing clearly, many columns in the core area, bent, falling shattered, toppling, leaning etc. NOT EVEN ONE IMAGE of the supposed steel core columns has ever been produced. What do the people here produce? A sites called noconcrete core. Why? Because they cannot prove the steel core columns. They produce ridicule ad nauseum, but no proof from the best opportunity ever to get images of the steel core columns.

Sure, .......... there have been many attempts to pass off misinterpretations of construction images as "core columns", but if there were steel core columns, they would be easy to see in the images of the towers coming down, but they never are.

Let us stick with the simple stuff.

What is seen is concrete and America has been lied to. The site documenting the concrete core would show the steel core coumns if they existed, but they did not.

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

So, in other words you have no corroborating evidence outside of your own myopian world?

[Christophera]

The link you provided does not show a picture, just the welcome page.

Your moving the goal posts again. The pictures available of the core structure after the collapse only shows a small portion of the whole structure. So, as you put it, your request is unreasonable and a shining example of your avoidance of the facts.

This link goes directly to an image for me.

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

There are many, many images of the demise of the towers. You should be able to find exactly what you are looking for, if it existed.

[Christophera]

Chris your C4 will not explode under your theory. try it! It is not even possible.

A thin layer of explosive on a steel bar will not blow up.

What do you think a linear shape charge is?

[Christophera]

By your own estimate, what you claim to be the concrete core wall is about 4 feet thick. Yet 500 feet is at only little more than a third the height of the tower. Would the core really taper from 17 feet to 4 feet in the bottom third of the tower?

At the 43rd floor the core walls got thinner because the walls below that level supported the heavy mechanical room at the 43rd. That image is probably around 100 feet over the 43rd. WTC 1 came down with much irregularity compared to WTC 2 and so the spire and that concrete shear wall was left standing.

[NobbyNobbs]

[quote=NobbyNobbs;2155005]


My wife's cousin was commander of the first nuclear sub (I forget the name of it).

quote]

That would have been the USS Nautilus SSN-571. It's actually a floating museum piece in Groton, CT, part of the Submarine Force Museum.

That's the one. He's offered me a personal tour, but I haven't been up there in awhile.

Do you have a reason to know about secret, self destruct policy? Can you docuement this?


Same question, right back at you.

[TellyKNeasuss]

Guess what, there is no web site supporting this official lie, still. You would think some of the competent people here would have assembled images of the towers demise showing clearly, many columns in the core area, bent, falling shattered, toppling, leaning etc. NOT EVEN ONE IMAGE of the supposed steel core columns has ever been produced. What do the people here produce? A sites called noconcrete core. Why? Because they cannot prove the steel core columns. They produce ridicule ad nauseum, but no proof from the best opportunity ever to get images of the steel core columns.

Am I the only one who sees steel columns in Christophera's images?

I'm still interested in how they managed to get a 400 foot core wall into a 218 foot building. I'm sure this was all covered in the documentary, so you should have no trouble explaining this.

[hcmom]

Later you will get what you ask for.


Later?!!!

[TellyKNeasuss]

At the 43rd floor the core walls got thinner because the walls below that level supported the heavy mechanical room at the 43rd. That image is probably around 100 feet over the 43rd. WTC 1 came down with much irregularity compared to WTC 2 and so the spire and that concrete shear wall was left standing.

This explanation is totally ridiculous. The core still would have had to support something approximating half the weight of the building. And "100 feet over the 43rd" would not be at around 500 feet AGL.

[uruk]

This link goes directly to an image for me.

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

There are many, many images of the demise of the towers. You should be able to find exactly what you are looking for, if it existed.

Everytime i click on the link I get sent to this page:
http://911research.wtc7.net/re911/welcome.html

But all that is beside the point. The diagnal cross beams are clearly visible in the pictures posted. You asking me to show you pictures of the cross beams in the portion that remains from the collapse is silly. Your clearly tring to dance around the facts.

[TellyKNeasuss]

Has he taught you how to masturbate properly?

Why do you want to know?

[uruk]

You also haven't finished adressing this issue:

Originally Posted by Christophera
All your images are over 4 floors and the steel surrounded the concrete core after that. A person on the street would not have been able to see anything happening.

You forgot to post an image of some of the 47, 1300 foot steel core columns inside the core area at some elevation over the ground from the demo images. Do that soon please.

So then are you saying that Joberson was wrong?
According to Tony Jebson and you WTC 1 had the concrete core go up several floors ahead of the steel. The construction pictures of WTC 1 show no concrete core ahead of the steel work.

Quite obfuscating and dancing, I'm not talking about interior steel core columns at the moment in this post. I'm talking about Joberson's e-mail.

[hcmom]

Has he taught you how to masturbate properly?

I can't believe I missed this the first time around! I guess I just wasn't looking for a second giggle in one night.

[uruk]

What do you think a linear shape charge is?
These are linear shaped charges:
http://www.corelab.com/owen/Products/Linear.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaped_charge

The charge is designed so that the metal in the inside of the V-shape is converted to a hot vaporized metal gas that does the actual cutting. Explosive coated the outside of a cylinder would not have the same effect since it completely surrounds the cylinder. It might vaporize the rebar, but then there would not be any rebar left to be photographed. So if that is the case the picture you keep saying is a picture of rebar would be incorrectly interpreted.

[uruk]

Has he taught you how to masturbate properly?

Wow. That's pretty crass even for you.
But then getting cornered pretty tightly here must be getting you flustered.

[TellyKNeasuss]

Am I the only one who sees steel columns in Christophera's images?

In fact, in frames 12-16 of the "North Tower collapse from west" video there is something that appears to be a column sticking up above the debris cloud near the center where the core should be. Which one of the videos shows a concrete core?

[Christophera]

So, in other words you have no corroborating evidence outside of your own myopian world?

The fact that you identify with a proven fallacy makes your evaluation meaningless.

If the fallacy is not proven, then show us images of steel core columns exposed during the demise of the towers.

[Christophera]

Wow. That's pretty crass even for you.
But then getting cornered pretty tightly here must be getting you flustered.

A facetious piece of ridicule as poorly assembled as was his, deserves a slap in the face.

[Christophera]

These are linear shaped charges:
http://www.corelab.com/owen/Products/Linear.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaped_charge

The charge is designed so that the metal in the inside of the V-shape is converted to a hot vaporized metal gas that does the actual cutting. Explosive coated the outside of a cylinder would not have the same effect since it completely surrounds the cylinder. It might vaporize the rebar, but then there would not be any rebar left to be photographed. So if that is the case the picture you keep saying is a picture of rebar would be incorrectly interpreted.

My point is that linear shape charges work and the amount of explosive is very small with the explosive connectivity folowing the shape of the metal reflective container. A coating around a cylinder would be perfect for fracturing and pulverizing a uniform mineral material around it.

[Christophera]

This explanation is totally ridiculous. The core still would have had to support something approximating half the weight of the building. And "100 feet over the 43rd" would not be at around 500 feet AGL.

Perhaps you do not know a primary rule of tower design.

Keep the major weight BELOW the mid point of the tower to avoid instability

The structural design for the associated loads necessarily is adjusted for the reduced weight above.

[Christophera]

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4426&d=1165461601

To be totaly honest this picture may show what Chris is calling the "moment frame" but the picture also clearly shows the cross connect beams.

The diagonal braced vertical in the middle leeft is the moment frame.

No we have proff that you do not have a clue about structural elements of the WTC towers.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4428&stc=1&d=1165471286

[Arus808]

i dont know why we even continue. I think that its REALLY time to just close and end this thread.

NO one buys into Christophera's fantasy claims. Even normal joe schmoes on the street know that there was never a concrete core in the World Trade Center buildings.

WE really shoud stop aruging with someone who has been proven to have some mental deficiency.

And its really a non issue, since concrete core or not, the buildings collapsed. they are gone, and there is a big hole currently at the site where they once stood.

Since no one believes his claims, that means we REALLY do not have antyhing to worry about. And to the public at large, they really dont give a rat's booty whether or not the building had a concrete core, swiss cheese as a core, or were made of jello.

[se7ensnakes]

I have been showing a whole lot of people the whole 9/11 argument, and have been observing personalities. I have seen many people make-up stuff on the fly without any evidence. I have seen people that want to argue without even knowing the basic facts of the day. Worse, i have seen people that would not even consider the idea that an alternative explanation could exist.
It is really obvious that there was somekind of controlled demolition - buildings do not collapse due to open fire --------- it is just utterly rediculous to even think that.
So i am mostly trying to understand these people that believe otherwise. People that believe the official version remind of christians..........no matter what evidence you bring forth they weasel their way out of it and go home more resolute about their beliefs than ever.
I am really curious what these people think of Operation Northwood............

[se7ensnakes]

milesalpha (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=9406)
Never need an expert..........I think you need to improve your comprehension skills.....I plainly said that it the control demolition is obvious and for that you dont need an expert...........like a ship that has sunk, you dont need an expert to tell you it has sunk.

[SezMe]

I am really curious what these people think of Operation Northwood............
Welcome to the fora, se7ensnakes. I suggest that you state what YOU think of Operation Northwood so the rest of us can speak directly to your thoughts. Discussions on these here fora seem to go much better when specific, concrete ideas are being discussed rather than just, "what do you think" posts.

[Christophera]

You claim that the explosives were small enough that the explosives in the floors didn't damage the core; instead the core had it's own explosives. But you also claim that these huge debris clouds were generated by explosions. Which is it?

It is both depending on the timing, delays and phase of the demo. Not a simple matter, very complex.

[Christophera]

WE really shoud stop aruging with someone who has been proven to have some mental deficiency.

Alright, you and homer just stay out of the arugment.

[Christophera]

Do you have a reason to know about secret, self destruct policy? Can you document this?

[QUOTE=NobbyNobbs;2155082]
Same question, right back at you.

No problem, can you understand an image of self destruction in action? (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg)

[Christophera]

Dude, there is no concrete structure there. I see only steel. There were probbably block walls to fireproof the stairwells, and maybe precast concrete stairs.

My turn to position the drywall and gypsum in the core area. The elevator shafts and stairwells were separated by drywall and gypsum panels.

This however, is not drywall or gypsum. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) All that stuff was sent to the bottom of the core with the elevator guide rail supports with the heavy steel and concrete particulate from the explosive demolitions above crashing down the core area.

[Arus808]

milesalpha (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=9406)
Never need an expert..........I think you need to improve your comprehension skills.....I plainly said that it the control demolition is obvious and for that you dont need an expert...........like a ship that has sunk, you dont need an expert to tell you it has sunk.

you're wrong on several points;
1) the buildings did not look like Controlled demotlions
2) there were no prior explosions or series of explosions, that would have been needed in order to cause these towers to collapse
3) a ship can sink, but we are talking about what caused it to sink.

but, please move your question or make a new thread to discuss this issue, or please use the search function on this forun as we have discussed this ad nauseum.


For eERYONE ELSE Please abandon this thread. there is no use in continuing or entertaining someone who has admitted that he has a mental deficiency. HIS claims are not believed by anyone in the public, and that's all that matters.

[Karl Johannes]

but its so close to 10,000 posts

[Donn]

Abandon thread - abandon thread - Skeptics and children first! We have hit a Woo-berg and it's going down..

Was it a controlled disaster - we will never know!

Abandon thread!

[milesalpha]

milesalpha (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=9406)
Never need an expert..........I think you need to improve your comprehension skills.....I plainly said that it the control demolition is obvious and for that you dont need an expert...........like a ship that has sunk, you dont need an expert to tell you it has sunk.


My comprehension is fine. Another has already pointed out the weakness in your argument. The fact that there are virtually no experts who agree with your assessment speaks volumes. That is the only thing that is obvious.

[Dave_46]

<snip>
It is really obvious that there was somekind of controlled demolition - buildings do not collapse due to open fire --------- it is just utterly rediculous to even think that.
<snip>

However, with large, uncontrolled fires burning in buildings which have had their loadbearing capacity severely compromised by being hit by airliners, it is utterly ridiculous to think that they would survive.

[Bell]

Chris, will you respond to these two posts allready?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2145385&postcount=8839
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2152796&postcount=9078

[Bell]

The top of WTC 1 fell south when over half of the vertical support was wiped out on the north side. The fires present on the south side simply did not have enough heat long enough over enough area of enough columns to cause this failure.

So, the collapse was NOT symmetrical? Also, provide proof of fires being not hot enough?

<spam><spam>There are detonations shown on the towers that exemplify explosions used to "steer" the fall of parts of the towers.

Here is a totally unexplainable event without demolitions, <spam> the core of the top of tower 2 falls on WTC 3 and is seen inside the perimeter walls.

Unexplainable TO YOU. God knows we have tried.

[bonavada]

From LetsRollForums (http://www.letsrollforums.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15600&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=e059854b9b9534bc401a2ff80c9762e5)
I interviewed a Mohawk who was 24 when the towers were built. He couldn't say he remembered the concrete core. But he did remember they could only go 7 floors over the core with steel. He still had 2 friends that worked with him on the towers that were living. I asked him to speak with them about the core to see if they could revive each others memory.
When I explained that the FEMA said it was made with steel core columns, he became afraid. He was 64 years of age at that time. I could try him again. Maybe the fact I'm stilll alive will encourage him.

so............... chris, you state that you interviewed the mohawk who was "64 years of age at that time" and "24 when the towers were built" you have also stated elsewhere that you interviewed this worker in 2002

64-24=40

2002-40=1962

btw the construction of the towers began in 1969-70 i think......

so which one is it?

you are wrong?
is the mohawk wrong?
or is it all *********?keep wriggling.

BV

[bonavada]

People that believe the official version remind of christians..........no matter what evidence you bring forth they weasel their way out of it and go home more resolute about their beliefs than ever.


I plainly said that it the control demolition is obvious and for that you dont need an expert...........like a ship that has sunk, you dont need an expert to tell you it has sunk.

ahem.......... ^

like the titanic on it's maiden voyage, your ship has sunk too.


BV

[Big Al]

ahem.......... ^

like the titanic on it's maiden voyage, your ship has sunk too.


BV

Hmmm... It was "obvious" that the iceberg tore a huge hole in the Titanic's side, but it didn't. It just rumpled the hull plates so there were gaps.

Likewise, someone could say "Everyone said the Titanic was unsinkable. Therefore a simple iceberg couldn't have sunk it. It must have been sabotage. And this is how they did it..."

That's what's going on here.

[PerryLogan]

Isn't it obvious? Conspiracy nuts are too stupid to see the arguments that refute them. They are people of below-average intelligence who think they're geniuses.

I cite Alex Jones as proof.

[Bell]

milesalpha (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=9406)
Never need an expert..........I think you need to improve your comprehension skills.....I plainly said that it the control demolition is obvious and for that you dont need an expert...........like a ship that has sunk, you dont need an expert to tell you it has sunk.

Christopher believes the towers were built with a concrete core with explosives allready in it, and in the floortrusses. Do you agree with Chris? If not, care to explain to him how the buildings were blown up in your opinion?

[bonavada]

Hmmm... It was "obvious" that the iceberg tore a huge hole in the Titanic's side, but it didn't. It just rumpled the hull plates so there were gaps.

Likewise, someone could say "Everyone said the Titanic was unsinkable. Therefore a simple iceberg couldn't have sunk it. It must have been sabotage. And this is how they did it..."

That's what's going on here.

also....the band! they played on! would you carry on waltzing with the icy north atlantic lapping at your ankles???? I DONT FRIKN THINK SO!!!! "obviously" they were in on it too! just there to lull the passengers into a false sense of security just before being whisked away by the sub that torpedoed the ship in the first place ITS SO FKN OBVIOUS! (tm se7ensnakes)

BV

[Big Al]

ITS SO FKN OBVIOUS!

Obvious facts (from a series of 10,000):

4,786: The sun moves round the earth, or we'd all be flung off.
5,212: The earth can't be a sphere, or people would fall off the bottom.
6,094: When you swing a ball on a string round your head, there is a radial force pulling the ball away from you. When you cut the string, it will fly directly away from you.
7,703: Heavier objects fall faster than light ones.

[bonavada]

Obvious facts (from a series of 10,000):

4,786: The sun moves round the earth, or we'd all be flung off.
5,212: The earth can't be a sphere, or people would fall off the bottom.
6,094: When you swing a ball on a string round your head, there is a radial force pulling the ball away from you. When you cut the string, it will fly directly away from you.
7,703: Heavier objects fall faster than light ones.

#6666: a car is travelling at 60mph, a torch is shone out the window. the light is travelling 60mph faster than the speed of light!

the obviousity is obvious! OBVIOUSLY!

BV

[tsig]

Do you have a reason to know about secret, self destruct policy? Can you document this?

Was cleared for Top Secret with Crypto Acess.

Why do you not document anything?

[tsig]

Has he taught you how to masturbate properly?

Yes we now do it with alternating strokes, left hand, right hand don't you?

[tsig]

What do you think a linear shape charge is?

What do you think it is, bet it isn't.

As you use words do you think what they mean or is it all just drivil?

[bonavada]

Yes we now do it with alternating strokes, left hand, right hand don't you?

its OBVIOUS (tm se7ensnakes) he does. A LOT. what else could explain his myopic explanation for this:-

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748453c042018e89.jpg

BV

[tsig]

its OBVIOUS (tm se7ensnakes) he does. A LOT. what else could explain his myopic explanation for this:-

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748453c042018e89.jpg

BV

Might have saw it on the off-stroke.

bad form and all.

[JonnyFive]

At the 43rd floor the core walls got thinner because the walls below that level supported the heavy mechanical room at the 43rd. That image is probably around 100 feet over the 43rd. WTC 1 came down with much irregularity compared to WTC 2 and so the spire and that concrete shear wall was left standing.

The only problem is that there were mechanical floors above the 43rd floor. You're getting your info from an incomplete tenant list which only mentions one mechanical floor yet was widely circulated (the list for the other tower lists no mechanical floors, so does that mean there really weren't any?), and skyscrapers require more than a single mechanical floor.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_floor#Examples (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_floor#Examples)

Dark bands showing mechanical floor vents, since you like pictures. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lightmatter_wtc.jpg)

You find them on 75, 76, 108, and 109 as well.

So, why would they have thinner walls above the 43rd floor when they still had four mechanical floors and a TV/radio broadcast tower to support? Please provide evidence to support your assertion that the walls tapered.

[se7ensnakes]

Hey listen forks, adherents of this anti-conspiracy forum, you guys really got to think.
When i stated obvious facts, i stated it in regards to the many buildings that have burned around the world, I have yet to see a total collapse of three buildings due to fire. Oh you say you have one......show it to me. Please dont post any woodern structures. Or structures with fallen roofs. My request is simply ........a collapse metal structure fallen on its own foot print due to a 4 hour long fire.
In regards to the titanic......bad analogy.......really bad analogy. The world is full of sunken metal ships that have gone down because of flotsam. In fact when i was in the Puerto Plata, Dominican Republic a metal ship went down just because the rust broke thru the hull.
You guys are not thinking, you are just posting without any regards to somekind of intelligent conversation. I think you are just doing that to keep this forum alive... No one can be that dumb!

[tsig]

Hey listen forks, adherents of this anti-conspiracy forum, you guys really got to think.
When i stated obvious facts, i stated it in regards to the many buildings that have burned around the world, I have yet to see a total collapse of three buildings due to fire. Oh you say you have one......show it to me. Please dont post any woodern structures. Or structures with fallen roofs. My request is simply ........a collapse metal structure fallen on its own foot print due to a 4 hour long fire.
In regards to the titanic......bad analogy.......really bad analogy. The world is full of sunken metal ships that have gone down because of flotsam. In fact when i was in the Puerto Plata, Dominican Republic a metal ship went down just because the rust broke thru the hull.
You guys are not thinking, you are just posting without any regards to somekind of intelligent conversation. I think you are just doing that to keep this forum alive... No one can be that dumb!


Someone is.

[JonnyFive]

The only realistic explanation of the fall of the three WTC structures are a control demolition. You dont even need to read any expert ......it is all so evident. Three buildings falling down due to an open fire just dont cut it.

See, this is the reason nobody takes you guys seriously. You go on and on about these dire conspiracies, and then you claim it's all "common sense" and you "don't even need to read any expert" (I assume you mean either "expert opinions" or "experts"). But there is a reason why we have people who study their whole lives in order to construct these buildings, rather than simply using "common sense."

There are areas where you need to show more diligence in terms of research and knowledge, especially complex technical subjects like structural engineering and architectural design. There is a lot of complicated math and physics involved, and "common sense" doesn't even scratch the surface.

Quick, I'll use an example from a totally different area of life. I underwrite state-mandated group disability insurance for a living, so I'll use an example I'm qualified to judge.

Using common sense, tell me how to determine a profitable rate for a group disability insurance policy given three years of premium, claims, and rate history. The business has changed insurance carriers several times, and has been with the current carrier less than six months. Assuming a low yearly premium (say, under $5,000 a year), what would you need to do, without mentioning specific numbers. Just give me a general idea of what kind of factors you would include in your calculations and decision-making process.

Only people who believe "common sense" is an acceptable methodology in solving technical problems are allowed to answer. Come on, this is not nearly as hard as structural engineering.

[bonavada]

You guys are not thinking, you are just posting without any regards to somekind of intelligent conversation. I think you are just doing that to keep this forum alive... No one can be that dumb!

OBVIOUSLY!

BV

[se7ensnakes]

I think that OPERATION NORTHWOOD is exemplary of some of what the government / private sector is capable of. Plant bombs in American cities, hurt american citizens, shoot missiles to cuban refugees floating on the water, all so that americans populace support a war. What else can i say.....it is very simple.
If Operation Northwood had indeed taken place, I could just see you people arguing that the plane over cuba was really full of students. Most of you anti-conspiracy people just dont think. You are really a danger to our freedom!

[Big Al]

When i stated obvious facts, i stated it in regards to the many buildings that have burned around the world, I have yet to see a total collapse of three buildings due to fire. Oh you say you have one......show it to me. Please dont post any woodern structures. Or structures with fallen roofs. My request is simply ........a collapse metal structure fallen on its own foot print due to a 4 hour long fire.
In regards to the titanic......bad analogy.......really bad analogy. The world is full of sunken metal ships that have gone down because of flotsam. In fact when i was in the Puerto Plata, Dominican Republic a metal ship went down just because the rust broke thru the hull.
You guys are not thinking, you are just posting without any regards to somekind of intelligent conversation. I think you are just doing that to keep this forum alive... No one can be that dumb!

We're not just taking about simple fires here. How many other major structures have you seen that have had fully-laden airliners crash straight into them, simultaneously exposing several floors to a bath of blazing aviation fuel?

And the Titanic is not a bad analogy. It's all about how "obvious" conclusions are not always the right ones. How about, instead of just bombarding us with rhetoric, personal invective, masses of ellipses . . . and shouts of "it's obvious", you inject a little reasoned argument into the discussion?

The controlled demolition argument is NOT obvious to many of us. Saying it is will not change that. Why don't you offer reasons for why it's the only reasonable explanation?

[bonavada]

My request is simply ........a collapse metal structure fallen on its own foot print due to a 4 hour long fire.

so we can't take into account two huge passenger jets that deliberately crashed (at high speed causing considerable damage) one into each tower? no of course we can't, i wonder why? maybe because it never freakin happened before?



In regards to the titanic......bad analogy.......really bad analogy.

the analogy was good, sunk on it's maiden voyage just like you on your first trip to this thread.

BV

[JonnyFive]

I think that OPERATION NORTHWOOD is exemplary of some of what the government / private sector is capable of. Plant bombs in American cities, hurt american citizens, shoot missiles to cuban refugees floating on the water, all so that americans populace support a war. What else can i say.....it is very simple.
If Operation Northwood had indeed taken place, I could just see you people arguing that the plane over cuba was really full of students. Most of you anti-conspiracy people just dont think. You are really a danger to our freedom!

(Bolding mine)

Exactly who would be left after these two areas are filtered out? Non-profit groups? You?

You see, Operation Northwoods was a retarded idea, and even the morons in government saw it as retarded. Them coming up with an idiotic plan to stage attacks doesn't somehow prove 9/11 was a government plot. All it proves is that the planners in the 60's acted like morons sometimes. So what?

So, what evidence do you have that it was CD that brought down the towers?

[bonavada]

We're not just taking about simple fires here. How many other major structures have you seen that have had fully-laden airliners crash straight into them, simultaneously exposing several floors to a bath of blazing aviation fuel?

And the Titanic is not a bad analogy. It's all about how "obvious" conclusions are not always the right ones. How about, instead of just bombarding us with rhetoric, personal invective, masses of ellipses . . . and shouts of "it's obvious", you inject a little reasoned argument into the discussion?

The controlled demolition argument is NOT obvious to many of us. Saying it is will not change that. Why don't you offer reasons for why it's the only reasonable explanation?

:-]

great minds etc

BV

[Christophera]

milesalpha (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=9406)
Never need an expert..........I think you need to improve your comprehension skills.....I plainly said that it the control demolition is obvious and for that you dont need an expert...........like a ship that has sunk, you dont need an expert to tell you it has sunk.

If it were a ship, the entire harbor whould have heard a series of blasts, tourists took video of water blowing hundreds of feet away from the ship, and the vessal would have been on the bottom in seconds.

The good ol' boys would'a showed up a few weeks later and said"

All those people are hearing things, their video simply shows bubbles, clearly, the ship sprung a leak, it's on the bottom now.

Obvious plumes of ejected concrete particulate (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1plumecascade.jpg)

Obvious uniform explosions of concrete (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg)

Obvious "steering" charges" ahead of major detonations. (http://mouv4x8.club.fr/11Sept01/A0069b_3_towerexplo1_explosion_below.jpg)

Below, the only feasible. realistic, comprehensive explanation on the web for near free fall and total pulverization of everything but heavy steel.

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

[Christophera]

Abandon thread - abandon thread - Skeptics and children first! We have hit a Woo-berg and it's going down..

Was it a controlled disaster - we will never know!

Abandon thread!

Donn, da, Donn, Donn

Abandon thread, cogntive dissonance! We are beginning to know what we do not want to know.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4429&stc=1&d=1165506574

[Bell]

Hey listen forks, adherents of this anti-conspiracy forum, you guys really got to think.
When i stated obvious facts, i stated it in regards to the many buildings that have burned around the world, I have yet to see a total collapse of three buildings due to fire. Oh you say you have one......show it to me. Please dont post any woodern structures. Or structures with fallen roofs. My request is simply ........a collapse metal structure fallen on its own foot print due to a 4 hour long fire.
In regards to the titanic......bad analogy.......really bad analogy. The world is full of sunken metal ships that have gone down because of flotsam. In fact when i was in the Puerto Plata, Dominican Republic a metal ship went down just because the rust broke thru the hull.
You guys are not thinking, you are just posting without any regards to somekind of intelligent conversation. I think you are just doing that to keep this forum alive... No one can be that dumb!

Could you provide us with the number of 110 skycrapes have been hit by planes flying at full speed, loaded with jetfuel? Also provide us with the number of 47-story buildings that had a 110-story building crashing into it. Beside those on 9/11 ofcourse.

I await your reply.

[Bell]

I think that OPERATION NORTHWOOD is exemplary of some of what the government / private sector is capable of. Plant bombs in American cities, hurt american citizens, shoot missiles to cuban refugees floating on the water, all so that americans populace support a war. What else can i say.....it is very simple.
If Operation Northwood had indeed taken place, I could just see you people arguing that the plane over cuba was really full of students. Most of you anti-conspiracy people just dont think. You are really a danger to our freedom!

Also... could you please bugger off out of this thread and start your own Northwood thread? Much appreciated.

[Christophera]

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?

homer and BV and others have utterly failed to show the supposed steel core columns from the images which SHOW ALL THE MAJOR STRCUTURAL ELEMENTS as the towers are coming apart and down.

The concrte core was vital to the towers stability and safety.

Steel flexes WAY TOO MUCH in those proportions.

Here is a steel suspension bridge in a 42 MPH wind a few hundred feet off a river.

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

Imagine the tower faces to the wind and those opposite. Do you know how a wing flies? It is not so much the pressure below holding the wing up. it is the low pressure above lifting, just tlike the sail on a boat.

The towers faces "flew" or "sailed" slightly caused a twisting. Along witht he bending and the load on the towers, the narrow proportions caused deformations potentially resulting in catastrophic that the architect who certified the tower safe COULD NOT ACCEPT and so the steel core columns originally concieved of were rejected in favor of a steel reinforced, tubular, cast concrete core.

[Z]

Sure, .......... there have been many attempts to pass off misinterpretations of construction images as "core columns", but if there were steel core columns, they would be easy to see in the images of the towers coming down, but they never are.

And you never give a reason why you believe this to be true.
The building was collapsing. There's no reason that welded beams would remain standing while the thousands of tons of debris was falling around it - none whatsoever. It's not like they were indestructible, single-piece 1300ft long steel beams - they were multisectioned, welded steel, some of which had suffered intensely from fire damage and all of which were suffering from massive dammage from the building collapsing around it. Added to the fact that the cross-bracing of the vertical elements was completely disintegrating, there's no reason any of the columns would have stood, at all.

So there's nothing to explain on our parts. Construction images adequately and clearly show steel core columns. Debris clearly and adequately shows the remains of steel core columns. All of this aligns quite neatly to the official story, and makes sense to those who understand physics, construction materials, and how the real world works.

It is you who are, therefore, making an extraordinary claim - one you can only support with a single fuzzy photograph, innumerable erroneous statements about the construction photos, and a lot of made up lies, like documentaries, time-travelling mohawks, etc.

Let us stick with the simple stuff.

You're a stupid liar.

[Christophera]

Also... could you please bugger off out of this thread and start your own Northwood thread? Much appreciated.

Finally, someone responds to se7ensnakes, query. I would doubt the response is a surprise.

However, se7ensnakes is on topic here and just "wondered" what some might think of the historically documented, unexecuted plan which show the propensity of the infiltrated US government to conduct deceptive, false flag operations on American soil to manipulatate opinion in support of offensive military actions.

Bell, do you like having an infiltrated government that kills innocent people to use your tax dollars to conduct war?

[JonnyFive]

All those people are hearing things, their video simply shows bubbles, clearly, the ship sprung a leak, it's on the bottom now.

You, ironically, are not relying on video evidence but still images.

Hey, I've got an idea, how about you post videos instead of stills so we can compare them to known controlled explosions to see if they're actually similar in some way.

Or, perhaps, you can answer some of our questions by doing something other than insulting us and posting the same four (six?) images that obviously aren't sufficient to convince anyone here except Mr. snakes.

So, which weighs more:
-11 pieces of 3" rebar on 4' centers.
-25 pieces of 3" rebar on 4' centers.

And could you provide some evidence for a few of your assertions:
-Walls got thinner higher up.
-Workers were not in the union.
-Secret clearance was required to work at the site.
-C4 is still viable after 30 years or is preserved by concrete.
-There was a PBS documentary showing a core.

If you are so sure of these things, you must have evidence, right? But you haven't shown us one piece of evidence for any of these things.

You know what, I think that's because you're incorrect. I don't think you have any evidence for any of this, and those are things you can't easily claim some vague image supports. After all, those claims are ones which require definitive, obvious proof (like, say, a manufacturer's web site claiming a shelf life of 30 years for their brand of C4 which was available in 1966).

Your "evidence" of a concrete core and controlled demolition has to be supported by something other than a few images. Reality is determined by converging lines of evidence from different areas. You claim your pictures show some kind of explosion and a concrete core, but you have provided no other line of evidence with which to check that.

So, show us some construction photos, or address some of my above points, or any of the dozens of other questions from the other posters here.

Putting the word "obvious" in front of the same tired old picture doesn't improve it.

Go ahead and call me stupid, because you seem to think that's the best way to argue with us. It's not really working, but that doesn't seem to phase you.

[Z]

It is really obvious that there was somekind of controlled demolition - buildings do not collapse due to open fire --------- it is just utterly rediculous to even think that. .

So what are your qualifications for this opinion? Because, oddly enough, experts in controlled demolitions, construction, physicists, etc. all disagree with you.

[JonnyFive]

Steel flexes WAY TOO MUCH in those proportions.

Here is a steel suspension bridge in a 42 MPH wind a few hundred feet off a river.

How do you explain the many, many steel suspension bridges that do not flex unacceptably in the wind? Do they have concrete cores?

And why is it that you think tall buildings do not move slightly in the wind?

You are, of course, saying that there are concrete cores in all tall buildings, then, as you claim it is needed for stability? Could you please cite a source for this assumption or stop making it.