Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers? [Archive] - Page 39

Blue Mountain

9th December 2006, 12:59 PM

See the post before this. When deniers repeatedly ignore and erroneously evaluate VERY BIG issues, (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) I can hardly care about the little stuff.

In other words, when evidence is removed and destroyed in 3,000 capitol crimes, building plans are made unavailable to investigatiing agencies., or private investigations are blocked in what is supposed to be a collapse, little, petty details do not matter.

Your insistence on those inconsequential matters being important makes you a supporter of the infiltration of the US government and a protector of the lies that muderers hide behind.
Christophera, you completely ignored the bolded portion of my quote, where I asked you to please demonstrate to us that you have even rudimentary research skills. Your refusal to answer so simple a request by calling it petty seriously erodes your credibility.

I program computers for a living. On occasion I also interview fellow programmers with an eye to hiring them. Sure, I read their résumés and ask for details about their education and computer related interests, but I also ask them in advance of the interview to write a simple program merely to demonstrate they can actually write a program.

In the last round of hiring we did, half of those requests went unanswered.

As a result, we didn't contact them for an interview. If they couldn't be bothered to spend an hour or so writing a simple program to demonstrate they know their stuff, we can't be bothered talking to them.

Same for you, Chris. If you can't be bothered demonstrating to us you can answer a simple question by spending a few minutes searching on the web, perferring instead to accuse us of being deniers and calling us names, why should we even bother listening to anything else you say?

Blue Mountain

9th December 2006, 01:15 PM

You have simply proven that the conspiracy to conceal evidence that was public extends to major universities. You have also prove that you are a disinformation agent who has no regard for laws which everybody knows have bee violated by government.

This is all substancial because the concrete core is fully evidenced by images of the demolition which show the concrete core of WTC 2 (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG).
Christopher has obviouly never heard of Books in Print. I recall seeing these at libraries: thick volumes of large-format pages listing all books currently in print. It would be a n enormous task to track down and alter every simgle one of those if you wanted to cover up evidence that a given book was ever published.

Arus808

9th December 2006, 01:25 PM

Christopher has obviouly never heard of Books in Print. I recall seeing these at libraries: thick volumes of large-format pages listing all books currently in print. It would be a n enormous task to track down and alter every simgle one of those if you wanted to cover up evidence that a given book was ever published.

how many libraries exist in the world?
how many of these archivla indexes are published?

jsfisher

9th December 2006, 01:29 PM

I know there is a conspiracy to conceal the true design and construction of the Twin Towers, which is why the designer of the towers chose April 1, 2006 to post this message....
(Emphasis mine.) I think the date of the post explains everything.

Powa

9th December 2006, 01:37 PM

I've also been a welder for 30 years and have about 3 years experieince doing above ground blasting.
I've been a welder for 35 years.
Just a minor detail, I'm sure.

Bell

9th December 2006, 01:40 PM

And the documentary I viewed makes it possible for me to use available evidence.

Yet you still fail to provide us with raw evidence of the documentary. Therefor every claim you make regarding information in this documentary, is useless.

For example; this image, (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) shows the base of the concrete core wall. The rebar is actually large than notated as it extends from the foundation upward and is 6 inch.

It is a testemony of bad manner how you twist and turn your evidence everytime one of us debunks you. Where did this 6" rebar suddenly came from? And what is your source for this, for the dimentions?

Bell

9th December 2006, 01:57 PM

We are only working with available information here.

Logically, under present conditions of 9-11, explain an image of the WTC 2 core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) as being anythign but concrete.

Your logical conclusions have no meaning whatsoever. I can give you plenty explainations for that picture. For example that it is a cloud of dust. If this is your only picture of an alleged concrete core, then your available (or raw) information is pretty thin and useless.

Powa

9th December 2006, 02:02 PM

I know there is a conspiracy to conceal the true design and construction of the Twin Towers, which is why the designer of the towers chose April 1, 2006 to post this message. Those who can confirm the concrete core are afraid to.

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

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

Leslie E. Robertson
Director Leslie E. Robertson Associates, R.L.L.P. and lead engineer of the World Trade Center
Chris, Chris, Chris... How quickly you forget. You've admited that you don't know who wrote this, yet you still use it as evidence of the concrete core. How dishonest of you.

Get real. I don't know. But if it is from Robertson, he's done about what I would do in his situation given his position.

Bell

9th December 2006, 02:05 PM

I have the information of the Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation, published in 1992 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/oxfordarchcore.jpg) and it is supported by numerous instances of raw evidence ORIGINAL core IMAGE (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG). If you doubt the Oxford information, go find the one that provided it to me becuase I know the core was concrete and I have raw evidence showing it.

If you lack the integrity or experience to recognize it, your continued denial simply shows you are unreasonable.

You show us a scan that is allegedly from some encyclopedia. I can make such an article using nice formatting in Microsoft Word. You fail to provide us with evidence that this article is genuine. Therefor this piece of evidence is meaningless.

So now we have:

- NO EVIDENCE for the PBS documentary
- NO EVIDENCE for the Oxford encyclopedia

Bell

9th December 2006, 02:08 PM

I know there is a conspiracy to conceal the true design and construction of the Twin Towers, which is why the designer of the towers chose April 1, 2006 to post this message. Those who can confirm the concrete core are afraid to.

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

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

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

:dl:

What a load of crap!
By the way, look at this message I recieved earlier today:

9/11 was not an inside job!

George W. Bush
President of the United States of America

It's true :)

Bell

9th December 2006, 02:19 PM

The images of the constrcution have been filtered and the few images of the concrete during constrcution are not available.

Proof of excistance of those images? You say they are filtered and not available. You can only make such a claim if you can proof those images excist. You know, to avoid circulair reasoning.

You will have to settle for an image of the demolition showing the WTC 2 core exposed. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

No, I will not.

Unless of course you are a disinformation agent and do not care about your reputation and credibility whereupon you will insist time and time again that I produce information which you know is unavailable.

Well, as said by yourself, we will only work with available evidence. You see how this works both ways?

Big Les

9th December 2006, 04:43 PM

I'm pretty sure I got this Googlevid from this very thread:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3135892053682639810

If so, given the identical title, isn't this PBS docu he's been blethering on about? Either way, 2mins in, it explains and shows the steel core structre quite clearly, with images and video footage of the build. NO sign of anything that could be even MISinterpreted as a concrete core.

uruk

9th December 2006, 06:18 PM

The evidence you ask for is not available. No refusual on my part.

I show the WTC 2 core standing at approximately 500 feet, (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) that includes the concrete Tony Jebson refers to

Your still evading. Tony Jebson specificaly said he saw the the concrete tower during construction. You have to show me a picture of the concrete core abouve the steel during construction. You should be able to find one. Tony Jebson said he could clearly see it. You agreed with him.

Quit stalling Chris. Lets's see it. Or admit that Jebson was wrong.

I showed you a picture taken from street level of WTC1. You can do the same, can't you?

uruk

9th December 2006, 06:49 PM

Common sense and logic, which completely escape you.

Your common sense and logic are greatly suspect. Show us proof that those columns are elevator guides.

But then that statment menas that you have no proof or evidence.

uruk

9th December 2006, 06:58 PM

I have the information of the Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation, published in 1992 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/oxfordarchcore.jpg) and it is supported by numerous instances of raw evidence ORIGINAL core IMAGE (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG). If you doubt the Oxford information, go find the one that provided it to me becuase I know the core was concrete and I have raw evidence showing it.

If you lack the integrity or experience to recognize it, your continued denial simply shows you are unreasonable.

Nope. You have clipping wich does not show the source. And forgive me, but your word means very little here judging from your past performance. before we will give that clipping any value we must see verification of the source.

uruk

9th December 2006, 07:13 PM

I know there is a conspiracy to conceal the true design and construction of the Twin Towers, which is why the designer of the towers chose April 1, 2006 to post this message. Those who can confirm the concrete core are afraid to.

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

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

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

I noticed the date was April 1st. Looks like someone was having a go at you Chris.

uruk

9th December 2006, 07:19 PM

The images of the constrcution have been filtered and the few images of the concrete during constrcution are not available.

You will have to settle for an image of the demolition showing the WTC 2 core exposed. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

Unless of course you are a disinformation agent and do not care about your reputation and credibility whereupon you will insist time and time again that I produce information which you know is unavailable.

When confronted with truth and reality you retreat into rediculousness

NobbyNobbs

9th December 2006, 07:25 PM

If you haven't been reading to find out the core was covered with a temporary floor while the core was being cast, then you are just lazy and thus ignorant. Where do you come up with a 400 foot concrete wall?

More ignornace?

The core was 80 x 120 inside.

This means that 20% of the square footage was used up inthe core? That's a lot of real estate to go to waste.

Not at all sure, it may have even been fall of 1989.

Photographic memory?

I really do not sweat small details

Agreed.

I have the information of the Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation, published in 1992 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/oxfordarchcore.jpg) and it is supported by numerous instances of raw evidence ORIGINAL core IMAGE (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG). If you doubt the Oxford information, go find the one that provided it to me becuase I know the core was concrete and I have raw evidence showing it.

If you lack the integrity or experience to recognize it, your continued denial simply shows you are unreasonable.

If you lack the integroty or experience to refrain from verifying your sources, you are simply being unreasonable.

I know there is a conspiracy to conceal the true design and construction of the Twin Towers, which is why the designer of the towers chose April 1, 2006 to post this message. Those who can confirm the concrete core are afraid to.

Posted it where?

I know the core of the Twin Towers was a steel reinforced cast concrete tube. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) Why should I question sources that agree with raw evidence showing what can only be a steel reinforced cast concrete tube?

You are questioning every other source, why not those as well? Do you think it is very scientific to only question sources that disagree with your point of view?

I'm pretty sure I got this Googlevid from this very thread:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3135892053682639810

If so, given the identical title, isn't this PBS docu he's been blethering on about? Either way, 2mins in, it explains and shows the steel core structre quite clearly, with images and video footage of the build. NO sign of anything that could be even MISinterpreted as a concrete core.

Finally...proof of the video! From 2:01 in that video..

The exterior walls were designed to bear much of the weight of the towers, as well as all of the wind loads.

The only internal supports would be in a central core of columns. Elevators would be placed in the shafts formed by the core columns.

That's your own source, Chris. Or has the NWO gotten to that, too? The whole point of the design of the Twin Towers was to maximize interior space, unlike other skyscrapers of the time. That's why the design was so revolutionary. A concrete core would have utterly defeated that purpose.

cloudshipsrule

9th December 2006, 07:29 PM

Chris,

I started to believe the concrete core theory, so I set out on a mission to find evidence. I visited 110 different cities throughout the United States (In honor of the towers height), with the intention of finding evidence in local libraries. I found books and articles on the towers in every one of those cities' libraries, and each and every photo clearly showed that the cores were actually constructed of some material resembling caramel. I'm not sure what the actual material was. I'm still investigating. I'll let you know what I find. I'm starting to believe that EVERY LIBRARY IN THE UNITED STATES has been visited by government agents (probably some new agency created after 9/11 to cover up all traces of the concrete core), and the concrete core evidence has been replaced by this new, fake, caramel core evidence. I'll keep you posted.

Jim

Christophera

9th December 2006, 08:13 PM

This means that 20% of the square footage was used up inthe core? That's a lot of real estate to go to waste.

Photographic memory?

Agreed.

If you lack the integroty or experience to refrain from verifying your sources, you are simply being unreasonable.

Posted it where?

You are questioning every other source, why not those as well? Do you think it is very scientific to only question sources that disagree with your point of view?

Finally...proof of the video! From 2:01 in that video..

That's your own source, Chris. Or has the NWO gotten to that, too? The whole point of the design of the Twin Towers was to maximize interior space, unlike other skyscrapers of the time. That's why the design was so revolutionary. A concrete core would have utterly defeated that purpose.

Read the thread, all your questions are answered.

Christophera

9th December 2006, 08:16 PM

Your common sense and logic are greatly suspect. Show us proof that those columns are elevator guides.

But then that statment menas that you have no proof or evidence.

If they were core columns they would be seen here, (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) and many other photos. they are not.

Christophera

9th December 2006, 08:19 PM

Nope. You have clipping wich does not show the source. And forgive me, but your word means very little here judging from your past performance. before we will give that clipping any value we must see verification of the source.

Evidence means very little here judging from past performance so this evidence which shows the concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) will have no meaning to you.

Go see,

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

there are more images of the concrete core there.

NobbyNobbs

9th December 2006, 08:29 PM

Read the thread, all your questions are answered.

I have read every page of this thread, Chris. Some unanswered questions:

1) Where was this posting posted? The one where Leslie agrees with you?
2) What was the name and approximate date of the magazine you referred to concerning the C-4 coated rebar?
3) How do you reconcile the fact that the closest thing we can find to the video you reference says that there were core columns rather than concrete?

None of these questions have been answered. I await eagerly.

Bell

9th December 2006, 08:34 PM

If they were core columns they would be seen here, (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) and many other photos. they are not.

Do you have many other photo's of the concrete core? You have not.

Christophera

9th December 2006, 09:10 PM

Bell

9th December 2006, 09:12 PM

No, the same issue has been brought up at least 10 times. Read the thread.

Right. So where is your documentary, Chris? Raw evidence and all...

We will be sticking with the AVAILABLE evidence.

Christophera

9th December 2006, 09:12 PM

I have read every page of this thread, Chris. Some unanswered questions:

1) Where was this posting posted? The one where Leslie agrees with you?
2) What was the name and approximate date of the magazine you referred to concerning the C-4 coated rebar?
3) How do you reconcile the fact that the closest thing we can find to the video you reference says that there were core columns rather than concrete?

None of these questions have been answered. I await eagerly.

Read the thread for answers to 1 & 3. 2 I'm not answering because you are a disinfo and the info will disappear if I do.

Bell

9th December 2006, 09:13 PM

Read the thread for answers to 1 & 3. 2 I'm not answering because you are a disinfo and the info will disappear if I do.

:boxedin:

Christophera

9th December 2006, 09:14 PM

I noticed the date was April 1st. Looks like someone was having a go at you Chris.

You actually know about the message from Roberston. Read the thread the link is in there.

Arus808

9th December 2006, 09:16 PM

Chris, when are you going to provide with your explanation on
1) there is no oxford publication of any encyclopedia uner the name you tout on your website and within this thread?
2) why you continue to use a erroneous BBC artist rendition of the WTC towers, when its prove that he neither consulted the deisngers and it was done only a few days after 9/11?
3) why you claim c4 was used within the tower, when c4 was actually quite "new" back in 1967, and was only available to the armed forces in vietnam?

beachnut

9th December 2006, 09:17 PM

You actually know about the message from Roberston. Read the thread the link is in there.

It is fake like your web pages

Bell

9th December 2006, 09:18 PM

Chris his new tactic:

"I've been debunked to hell and back. All my evidence is irrelevant and useless. Maybe if I tell the skeptics to dig through this +/- 240 page thread for an answer, they'll give up, and I win."

Or it could be that Chris has no answers and no evidence.

We will be sticking with the AVAILABLE evidence.

Porkpie Hat

9th December 2006, 09:24 PM

Using 7018 high tensile, low hydrogen rod, beveling is all that is needed. I've been a welder for 35 years.
So I take it your talking about a full pen joint then?

Can you explain the entire welding procedure for me?

uruk

9th December 2006, 09:26 PM

If they were core columns they would be seen here, (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) and many other photos. they are not.

Sorry Chris. Your going to have to do WAY better than that. That picture shows nothing definite. You have to show me proof that those columns seen in the core area of the construction photos are elevator rail guides.
You just simply saying that they are is not going to do.

NobbyNobbs

9th December 2006, 09:29 PM

Read the thread for answers to 1 & 3. 2 I'm not answering because you are a disinfo and the info will disappear if I do.

:jaw-dropp

hcmom

9th December 2006, 09:36 PM

Read the thread for answers to 1 & 3. 2 I'm not answering because you are a disinfo and the info will disappear if I do.

Couldn't we just hope that since the info has already disappeared, Chris will too?

Bell

9th December 2006, 09:40 PM

Couldn't we just hope that since the info has already disappeared, Chris will too?

Do you think so?

Oops... wrong thread...

uruk

9th December 2006, 10:17 PM

You actually know about the message from Roberston. Read the thread the link is in there.

What link?

Christophera

9th December 2006, 10:19 PM

What link?

The link to Robertsons original message is in this thread.

Bell

9th December 2006, 10:22 PM

The link to Robertsons original message is in this thread.

Come on, Chris. You can do better than that. Be a sport, provide us with the link. You've got nothing to loose.

Christophera

9th December 2006, 10:25 PM

Sorry Chris. Your going to have to do WAY better than that. That picture shows nothing definite. You have to show me proof that those columns seen in the core area of the construction photos are elevator rail guides.
You just simply saying that they are is not going to do.

Well, ......... you definitely have no evidence.

The vertical steel seen in the core area is guide rail support steel.

I am not simply saying so I am showing you that the steel in the core area had no structural substance and fell to the bottom of the core immediately when debris fell into the core area. That is why NO VERTICAL STEEL PROTRUDES from the core of WTC 2. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

Steel core columns would have been able to stand if they existed. Particuarly becuase they would have been inside whatever that superstrong structure is which is obviously not destroyed so whatever was inside them, if it was anywhere near as strong would be protected and still standing.

Christophera

9th December 2006, 10:27 PM

Come on, Chris. You can do better than that. Be a sport, provide us with the link. You've got nothing to loose.

Just time.

You have fulll access to every page in this thread. Robertsons message was originally posted at forum.physorg.com in a major disinfo thread there that I busted up.

Bell

9th December 2006, 10:33 PM

Well, ......... you definitely have no evidence.

Yes, he has. He has posted it in this thread. I guess you have missed that post. It obliterates your concrete core 'evidence'.

The vertical steel seen in the core area is guide rail support steel.

Proof?

We will be sticking with the AVAILABLE evidence.

I am not simply saying so I am showing you that the steel in the core area had no structural substance and fell to the bottom of the core immediately when debris fell into the core area. That is why NO VERTICAL STEEL PROTRUDES from the core of <spam> WTC 2.

Steel core columns would have been able to stand if they existed. Particuarly becuase they would have been inside whatever that superstrong structure is which is obviously not destroyed so whatever was inside them, if it was anywhere near as strong would be protected and still standing.

Wha-wha-what?? Do you ever read back what you are writing?

Bell

9th December 2006, 10:49 PM

Just time.

You have fulll access to every page in this thread. Robertsons message was originally posted at forum.physorg.com in a major disinfo thread there that I busted up.

In the same time you typed up this post, you could have provided us with the link. So no time to loose, Chris, remember, we are talking about the murdering of 3000 innocent people!

TellyKNeasuss

9th December 2006, 10:59 PM

I have not said that you have said that which means you are trying to distort my statment.

The only evidence I have of the separation of the columns is either explosive shear (left) or torch cuts from salvage (right). (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc.box.shear.torch.gif)

Your claim that the steel core should have remained upright after the collapse implies a belief that steel is unbreakable. If steel (or even just the welds) are breakable, the paucity of upright columns could be explained as being due to the columns being snapped.

Christophera

9th December 2006, 11:25 PM

Your claim that the steel core should have remained upright after the collapse implies a belief that steel is unbreakable. If steel (or even just the welds) are breakable, the paucity of upright columns could be explained as being due to the columns being snapped.

Steel bends before it breaks. Tempered steel will snap if the bend is sharp enough. Absent high explosive cutting charges, there is no way the 47 1300 foot steel columns would be visually non existent. Some might snap but most would bend when the outer floors had fallen away to be seen toppled laying over the still existing strcuture below or bent then snapped but still protruding.

That all are always snapped and missing is simply not credible.

In this image the spire comprised of an interior box column (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg), it only stands because cutting charges failed at that elevation. Had there been no cutting charges the towers would have looked like this at some point leaving the interior box columns standing with floor beams making rectangular frames. (http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/3396/gjswtc30pt4.jpg)

Corley lies in the video he made and superimposes a similar looking stucture in his video, but only because the prior linked image suggest that. He tries to say it was a solid framework in the core but we can see inthe previous image that the core is empty. No framework, no columns, nothing.

The image before that showing the lowerconcrete core explosions (http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8232/wtcsl8.jpg) removed the concrete of WTC 1 that is shown here on WTC 2 (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) and left the interior box columns which had failed cutting charges (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/steelbeamcuttingfloors.gif). Which failed because of decayed explosives on the sunny side of the tower. Evaporation and oxidization had gotten to them either during constrcution or from intrusion into spaces which developed between the floor pans and concrete of the floors.

At any rate the supposed steel core columns were, by definition, full length, made one piece by 100% butt welds and would be seen if they existed. They did not.

Christophera

9th December 2006, 11:30 PM

In the same time you typed up this post, you could have provided us with the link. So no time to loose, Chris, remember, we are talking about the murdering of 3000 innocent people!

What makes you think I keep that link around? It is here in this thread or do a google on it at the site it was originally posted.

I had not even kept a copy of it when I though to post it here and had to go find it at that site I mentioned a few posts back where Robertson originally made it.

Christophera

9th December 2006, 11:37 PM

Yes, he has. He has posted it in this thread. I guess you have missed that post. It obliterates your concrete core 'evidence'.

This is nonsense.

If what homer/gravey/idiot posted was that good of evidence someone would have made a "steel core column" site by now. It is all crap and whoever trys to build it will go down in history as the biggest pawn, disinfo to ever breath. They will have to compete with the fools that actually believe FEMA though.

The FEMA core cannot disappear within what was seen. Cutting steel with out custom, built in cutting charges (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/steelbeamcuttingfloors.gif) makes an absolutely HUGE sharp noise/bang throwing shrapnel for thousands of feet.

We did not see that or hear that. We saw nice big billowy well contained blasts.
(http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8232/wtcsl8.jpg)

9th December 2006, 11:43 PM

Well, ......... you definitely have no evidence.

The vertical steel seen in the core area is guide rail support steel.

I am not simply saying so I am showing you that the steel in the core area had no structural substance and fell to the bottom of the core immediately when debris fell into the core area. That is why NO VERTICAL STEEL PROTRUDES from the core of WTC 2. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

Steel core columns would have been able to stand if they existed. Particuarly becuase they would have been inside whatever that superstrong structure is which is obviously not destroyed so whatever was inside them, if it was anywhere near as strong would be protected and still standing.

OMFG. You. Have. No. Clue. Whatsoever.

I mean it. You just have no knowledge whatsoever. That you even begin to think this shows what an ignorant a--hat you really are.

9th December 2006, 11:46 PM

This is nonsense.

If what homer/gravey/idiot posted was that good of evidence someone would have made a "steel core column" site by now. It is all crap and whoever trys to build it will go down in history as the biggest pawn, disinfo to ever breath. They will have to compete with the fools that actually believe FEMA though.

Why would someone build a website proving what is already known to be true?

Chris, do you honestly think all vitally important information is on websites?

Never mind, you probably do.

Here's a clue: websites are not good source material. They prove nothing. They are relatively unimportant, when it comes to information. Even the best ones - like Wikipedia - are good places to start research, not conclude it.

No one needs to make a 'steel core website', because no one doubts the steel core except a few nutters and one particular obsessive compulsive liar.

Arus808

10th December 2006, 01:04 AM

Chris, when are you going to explain
1) an image that was copied from a non=existant book is the basis of your theory?

2) how c4 could be used when no one knew what it was until the last 4 years of the Vietnam war?

Dave_46

10th December 2006, 02:06 AM

Brainache

10th December 2006, 03:56 AM

Nobby

Quick, get Sergeant Colon and Captain Carrot of the disinfo squad onto this.

Now

Dave

I'm not sure Nobbs is human.....

Architect

10th December 2006, 05:53 AM

Sorry for not posting much, but I knackered my knee falling down a temp. access tower inside the Beetham Tower on Friday and have only just got a wireless connection sorted out in the house in order that I can post from the old sickbed.

Chris has a number of clear problems with his argument:

1. No photographs of the concrete core during construction; given the size and scale of the buildings, it's simply untenable to suggest that they would never exist.

2. His missing (i.e. never existed) BBC and PBS documentary. Given that BBC documentaries tend to get wide coverage, for example in Oz or Canada, this too is quite untenable.

3. His quote from a book which doesn't exist, but even more damning his failure to recognise that this undermines his case.

4. A comprehensive failure to prove that there is or was such a thing as C4 coated reinforcement, which is quite incredible given the number of people involved in the construction of the tower.

5. The acceptance of the steel core and collapse failure mechanism by the worldwide engineering and architectural communities. Again this is dealt with by hand-waving, specifically a suggestion that all of us - even in countries opposed to the US - have been silenced.

6. A failure to address the structural issues around a steel or concrete core, notably some weird unsubstantiated arguments about "torsion",

Chris; troll, liar, and delusional eejit. I make more headway debating with my 5 year old.

Bell

10th December 2006, 07:55 AM

This is nonsense.

No, it's not. Search the thread.

If what homer/gravey/idiot posted was that good of evidence someone would have made a "steel core column" site by now. It is all crap and whoever trys to build it will go down in history as the biggest pawn, disinfo to ever breath. They will have to compete with the fools that actually believe FEMA though.

I'll make such a site after I finish my 'the earth is round' site. I've good evidence it is.

The FEMA core cannot disappear within what was seen. Cutting steel with out custom, built in <spam> cutting charges makes an absolutely HUGE sharp noise/bang throwing shrapnel for thousands of feet.

Well, the core must not of been cut up during the collapse, then.

We did not see that or hear that. We saw nice <spam> big billowy well contained blasts.

So now you are saying that blowing up hundreds of people is nice?

uruk

10th December 2006, 08:31 AM

The link to Robertsons original message is in this thread.

I'm not going to slog through over 9,000 posts for something that you could easily repost.
More of your evading tactics.
You are debating dishonestly Chris. Repost the link

Architect

10th December 2006, 08:39 AM

Apart from the hypnosis one, which other (ie non 911) conspiracy theories do you believe Chris?

Dave_46

10th December 2006, 08:51 AM

I'm not sure Nobbs is human.....

Yes he is. He's got a letter or something confirming it.

Dave

(I went to the same school as Terry Pratchett, acouple of years ahead of him)

uruk

10th December 2006, 08:52 AM

Well, ......... you definitely have no evidence.

The vertical steel seen in the core area is guide rail support steel.
I've provided ample evidence. I've showed you pictures of elevator rail guides, diagrams of elevators from Otis elevator co. Showed you pictures of elevator installations, web sites and videos that show that core was steel.

I am not simply saying so I am showing you that the steel in the core area had no structural substance and fell to the bottom of the core immediately when debris fell into the core area. That is why NO VERTICAL STEEL PROTRUDES from the core of WTC 2. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

Steel core columns would have been able to stand if they existed. Particuarly becuase they would have been inside whatever that superstrong structure is which is obviously not destroyed so whatever was inside them, if it was anywhere near as strong would be protected and still standing.
That's rediculous. that has nothing to do to proving that the core columns were elevator rail guides. Less than 1% of the "massive box columns" remained standing in one of towers, None remained standing in the other. Your argument is meaningless.

Architect

10th December 2006, 08:54 AM

(I went to the same school as Terry Pratchett, acouple of years ahead of him)

I went to the same school as Kirsty Wark, which isn't the one she says she went to, for what it's worth.......but I'd rather have gone to school with Terry. Less shrill on the ear drums, I would imagine. :D

rwguinn

10th December 2006, 08:59 AM

I'm not sure Nobbs is human.....
He has a piece of paper from the NWO asserting that he is....

uruk

10th December 2006, 08:59 AM

Just time.

You have fulll access to every page in this thread. Robertsons message was originally posted at forum.physorg.com in a major disinfo thread there that I busted up.

The message being posted on April 1st and that it cannot be verified beyond the posting at forum.physorg.com strongly suggests that someone was obviously making an April Fools joke on you Chris.

TellyKNeasuss

10th December 2006, 09:06 AM

Steel bends before it breaks. Tempered steel will snap if the bend is sharp enough. Absent high explosive cutting charges, there is no way the 47 1300 foot steel columns would be visually non existent. Some might snap but most would bend when the outer floors had fallen away to be seen toppled laying over the still existing strcuture below or bent then snapped but still protruding.

That all are always snapped and missing is simply not credible.

Why not? With that much mass falling that quickly, the stress on the columns would have been enormous. What is your justification for claiming that all the columns could not have broken? We know that there were steel columns, the ones that you call "interior box columns" but seem to believe were in themselves not the core. Were these removed before 9/11? If not, they must have broken into small pieces right?

In this image the spire comprised of an interior box column (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg), it only stands because cutting charges failed at that elevation.

Evidence for this? Can you point out where the "cutting charges" are visible on this column?

Bell

10th December 2006, 09:13 AM

He has a piece of paper from the NWO asserting that he is....

If you may have noted, that piece of paper is dated April 1st.

uruk

10th December 2006, 09:14 AM

What makes you think I keep that link around? It is here in this thread or do a google on it at the site it was originally posted.

I had not even kept a copy of it when I though to post it here and had to go find it at that site I mentioned a few posts back where Robertson originally made it.

You don't keep it around? An important piece of evidence like that? Your not sounding very rational. I think this is a clear indication of your dishonesty. What infintesmal credibility you had here is completely gone.

uruk

10th December 2006, 09:24 AM

This is nonsense.

If what homer/gravey/idiot posted was that good of evidence someone would have made a "steel core column" site by now.Wow! Thanks for putting me in the same company as Gravey. There are hundreds of sites, diagrams, videos and reports that mention the steel core. Why would there need to be one completely dedicated to the steel core. And even if there was one, you would call it a gov't disinfo site. Your being silly.

It is all crap and whoever trys to build it will go down in history as the biggest pawn, disinfo to ever breath. They will have to compete with the fools that actually believe FEMA though.

The FEMA core cannot disappear within what was seen. Cutting steel with out custom, built in cutting charges (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/steelbeamcuttingfloors.gif) makes an absolutely HUGE sharp noise/bang throwing shrapnel for thousands of feet.

We did not see that or hear that. We saw nice big billowy well contained blasts.
(http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8232/wtcsl8.jpg)
Says the guy who ingnores facts, makes up lies, and believes April Fools jokes.

uruk

10th December 2006, 09:43 AM

Oh. And you still haven't shown me a picture showing Tony Jebson's concrete core being built ahead of the steel.

TellyKNeasuss

10th December 2006, 11:32 AM

Trying to make that statement when the generalizaton of the book is more than adequately supported is even MORE absurd.

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

On the other hand, citing a book that doesn't actually exist is hilarious.

What network was that 1990 documentary broadcast on?

Christophera

10th December 2006, 12:30 PM

No, it's not. Search the thread.

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

Perhaps you do not know how to search.

Well, the core must not of been cut up during the collapse, then.

Or, ......... the steel core columns did not exist, then they do not have to get cut up.

One thig is D@mm sure, 47, 1300 foot steel columns are never seen in ANY of the demo images. Only interior box columns. The elevator guide rail suppport steel is so flimsy it fell to the bottom of the core immediately.

So now you are saying that blowing up hundreds of people is nice?

No. you are trying to say that is what I am saying.

I am saying these nice billowy debris cloudes/waves can only be created by optimally contained, uniformly distributed high explosives. Doing so respects the truth of those innocent peoples lives and endeavors to use the truth to protect more lives.

By arguing against the obvious truth of an explosion rather than the total fallacy of collapse you are saying "it is nice that the perpetrators get away with murdering 3000 innocent people." and "I'm too afraid to recognize the truth so I'm just going to sit here and type to say NO, without regrad for whatever evidence is produced for a concrete core or high explosives."

But that is all unconscious for you, which you will not be able to admit either. So please, hurry up and post in more denial so I can be correct.

Christophera

10th December 2006, 12:34 PM

On the other hand, citing a book that doesn't actually exist is hilarious.

What network was that 1990 documentary broadcast on?

Not being able to find record of it does not mean it does not exist. That goes for the documentary as well. Our society is really messed up.

The documentary "The Construction of the Twin Towers" was broadcast on PBS, channel 28 in Southern California.

beachnut

10th December 2006, 12:36 PM

Not being able to find record of it does not mean it does not exist. That goes for the documentary as well. Our society is really messed up.

The documentary "The Construction of the Twin Towers" was broadcast on PBS, channel 28 in Southern California.

They issued a retraction on the concrete core. You will never find it; only expert researchers will.

bonavada

10th December 2006, 12:42 PM

Christophera

10th December 2006, 12:45 PM

Why not? With that much mass falling that quickly, the stress on the columns would have been enormous.

You cannot have it both ways, those stresses take time and space to accumulate, and you have yet to show a shattered column end.

What is your justification for claiming that all the columns could not have broken? We know that there were steel columns, the ones that you call "interior box columns" but seem to believe were in themselves not the core. Were these removed before 9/11? If not, they must have broken into small pieces right?

They were cut as part of the demolition into aproximate 40 foot pieces.

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

The interior box columns surrounded the concrete core walls and were fastened to it. This was where lateral and torsion load were transferred to the concrete from the steel framework.

spire (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg)

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

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

Evidence for this? Can you point out where the "cutting charges" are visible on this column?

salvage cuts on the far ends explosive shear on the near ends.

Sheared Columns (http://www.parrhesia.com/wtc/wtc066.jpg)

beachnut

10th December 2006, 12:49 PM

You cannot have it both ways, those stresses take time and space to accumulate, and you have yet to show a shattered column end.

They were cut as part of the demolition into aproximate 40 foot pieces.

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

The interior box columns surrounded the concrete core walls and were fastened to it. This was where lateral and torsion load were transferred to the concrete from the steel framework.

spire (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg)

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

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

salvage cuts onth efar ends explosive shear on the near ends.

Sheared Columns (http://www.parrhesia.com/wtc/wtc066.jpg)

notice there is no concrete on your core columns of steel

just steel, no concrete

you are the best at proving a steel core I have seen

Architect

10th December 2006, 12:52 PM

Heheheh. What a loser. He's stopped talking to me......what's wrong Chris, questions too tough?

Doubtless you'll dress this up in some endless "fraud" accusation, despite bona fides being proven already, rather than actually go for a substantive response. Heheheheh.

Christophera

10th December 2006, 12:54 PM

a quick sum-up of this thread. feel free to add any other relevant points i've missed, i'm sure there are many more . i'll then update the list and remind chris now and then :-]

btw chris. the points below are not up discussion. they have all been established in this thread. it's all there mate, go and take a look :-]

christopheras photographic memory..............
he forgets that the PA painted the C4 on the rebar
he forgets how long he's been a welder
he forgets the mohawks age
he forgets when he saw the documentary
he forgets that other nationalities besides american died at the WTC on 9/11

christopheras theory hinges on information from:-
a non-existent documentary
a non-existent book
a non-existent magazine article
and the use of:-
badly compressed altered and inconclusive images
erroneous and crude diagrams
highly selective quotes from mike pecararo
highly selective quotes from willy rodriguez
highly selective quotes from phillip morelli
highly dubious quotes from tony jebson
wrongly defined raw-evidence
plagarised prof steven jones theories

christophera has been shown to be wrong about :-
his "total pulverisation of the towers"
his "free-fall of the towers"
his "mohawk saboteur"
his "c4 coated rebar"
his "erroneous bbc diagram"
his "reinforced concrete walls in basement"
his "the wrong tower fell first"
his "the tops of the towers fell the wrong way"
his "firefighters discussing controlled demolition"
his "powerdown of the WTC"
his "april fool robertson message"
his "molten metal in the basements"

christophera cannot adequately explain (if his theories are correct):-
why there is no sound of thousands of explosions during WTC collapses
why there are no pictures of the concrete core during construction
the lack of whistle-blowers (mohawks, welders, concreters, carpenters, PA employees, union officials, architects, US government employees etc etc.....)
or even why the US government would plan 30 years ahead to destroy the WTC

finally, christophera says:-
that he HAS NOT and WILL NOT read the NIST report
that the "official core" cannot have existed because steel flexes too much when in the proportions of the towers.....
that anyone who disagrees with him must be "disinfo" and support the murders of "3000 americans"
that NOTHING will convince him that the towers did not have a concrete core

BV

Nothing but cognitive distortions. Mostly generalizations. They are applied by BV conversely rather than as direct perceptions of self as cognitive therapy originally applies them.

A large proportion of them are "Should statements" falsely justified with "Disqualifying the positive" regarding the evidence which DOES exist for the concrete core while none, from the demo images. exists for the steel core columns. There is a large degree of expectation for the reader to "Jump to conclusions" based on the aspects of ridicule applied.

In all, BV attempts to construct a "mental filter" forthe reader. If the reader has preconceptions, "attitude", the mental filter works.

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

All-or-nothing thinking - Thinking of things in absolute terms, like "always", "every" or "never". Few aspects of human behavior are so absolute. (See false dilemma.)

Overgeneralization - Taking isolated cases and using them to make wide generalizations. (See hasty generalization.)

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

Disqualifying the positive - Continually "shooting down" positive experiences for arbitrary, ad hoc reasons. (See special pleading.)

Jumping to conclusions - Assuming something negative where there is no evidence to support it. Two specific subtypes are also identified:
Mind reading - Assuming the intentions of others.
Fortune telling - Predicting that things will turn out badly. (See slippery slope.)

Magnification and Minimization - Exaggerating negatives and understating positives. Often the positive characteristics of other people are exaggerated and negatives understated. There is one subtype of magnification:

Catastrophizing - Focusing on the worst possible outcome, however unlikely, or thinking that a situation is unbearable or impossible when it is really just uncomfortable.

Emotional reasoning - Making decisions and arguments based on how you feel rather than objective reality. (See appeal to consequences.)

Making should statements - Concentrating on what you think "should" or ought to be rather than the actual situation you are faced with, or having rigid rules which you think should always apply no matter what the circumstances are. (See wishful thinking.)

Labelling - Related to overgeneralization, explaining by naming. Rather than describing the specific behavior, you assign a label to someone or yourself that puts them in absolute and unalterable terms.

Personalization (or attribution) - Assuming you or others directly caused things when that may not have been the case. (See illusion of control.) When applied to others this is an example of blame.

Christophera

10th December 2006, 12:57 PM

Heheheh. What a loser. He's stoped talking to me......what's wrong Chris, questions too tough?

Doubtless you'll dress this up in some endless "fraud" accusation, despite bona fides being proven already, rather than actually go for a substantive response. Heheheheh.

Rodger Harris answered the question about torsion with common sense, and he doesn't claim to be an architect. So you are either a very bad one, a fake or avoiding an issue fatal to your illogically held position.

From my perspective, an utter waste of time.

Sorry about your knee tho, I know they hurt like hell when that happens.

Architect

10th December 2006, 12:58 PM

And once again Chris fails to answer points put to him!

On you go, mate - give us all a laugh.

Christophera

10th December 2006, 01:01 PM

notice there is no concrete on your core columns of steel

just steel, no concrete

you are the best at proving a steel core I have seen

You are by the best wriggler on JREF. BV take note. That is true wriggling.

Those columns were not in the core. They were outside the core and I showed images of them.

the spire (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg)

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

Concrete wall face behind interio box columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/shearspirewall.jpg)

After the concrete exploded leaving interior box columns standing. Note the floor beams forming the rectangles seen in the constrcuton photo of the (http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/3396/gjswtc30pt4.jpg) "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg)

Christophera

10th December 2006, 01:03 PM

And once again Chris fails to answer points put to him!

On you go, mate - give us all a laugh.

You confirm you are a fake and a bad architect both.

Architect

10th December 2006, 01:05 PM

Sorry for not posting much, but I knackered my knee falling down a temp. access tower inside the Beetham Tower on Friday and have only just got a wireless connection sorted out in the house in order that I can post from the old sickbed.

ie on a building site of a (near complete) tall building. Hmmm. And just ask Gravy if I'm real or not, he has all my ARB and RIBA details.

Anyway back to the questions at hand:

Chris has a number of clear problems with his argument:

1. No photographs of the concrete core during construction; given the size and scale of the buildings, it's simply untenable to suggest that they would never exist.

2. His missing (i.e. never existed) BBC and PBS documentary. Given that BBC documentaries tend to get wide coverage, for example in Oz or Canada, this too is quite untenable.

3. His quote from a book which doesn't exist, but even more damning his failure to recognise that this undermines his case.

4. A comprehensive failure to prove that there is or was such a thing as C4 coated reinforcement, which is quite incredible given the number of people involved in the construction of the tower.

5. The acceptance of the steel core and collapse failure mechanism by the worldwide engineering and architectural communities. Again this is dealt with by hand-waving, specifically a suggestion that all of us - even in countries opposed to the US - have been silenced.

6. A failure to address the structural issues around a steel or concrete core, notably some weird unsubstantiated arguments about "torsion",

Any real answers?

Architect

10th December 2006, 01:06 PM

Sorry about your knee tho, I know they hurt like hell when that happens.

Ta.

bonavada

10th December 2006, 01:17 PM

You confirm you are a fake and a bad architect both.

chris, where do you get off calling someone a fake? if he is as you say it should be easy for you to refute his allegations and answer his questions huh? your unwillingness seems to indicate your inability and the venomous way you treat his questions shows an odd fear of his postings here. what are you afraid of?

architect has already stated many times that he has provided evidence of his qualifications here. i have no reason to doubt that. how about you do the same? please provide, as architect has done, evidence of your qualifications as a surveyor, welder, and in the use of demolition explosives.................

BV

Architect

10th December 2006, 01:31 PM

The sig alone will confirm to anyone else in the UK construction industry a working knowledge of construction contracts (JCT, if anyone is interested).

The only reason I gave the details to Gravy for verification, rather than posting, was to avoid getting spammed at work. :scared:

beachnut

10th December 2006, 01:41 PM

You are by the best wriggler on JREF. BV take note. That is true wriggling.

Those columns were not in the core. They were outside the core and I showed images of them.

the spire (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg)

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

Concrete wall face behind interio box columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/shearspirewall.jpg)

After the concrete exploded leaving interior box columns standing. Note the floor beams forming the rectangles seen in the constrcuton photo of the (http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/3396/gjswtc30pt4.jpg) "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg)

As I said you web site proves there is no concrete core.

I use it to help other see there is just a steel core.

Your web site proves there is not a concrete core. This is a very simple fact. Check it out.

C4 was never built into the WTC, the union would not let it happen, nor did Robertson, the stuctual engineer.

bonavada

10th December 2006, 01:43 PM

You are by the best wriggler on JREF. BV take note. That is true wriggling.

no, sorry chris you win by a fkn mile

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748457c7ea70c448.jpg

BV

Christophera

10th December 2006, 01:49 PM

chris, where do you get off calling someone a fake? if he is as you say it should be easy for you to refute his allegations and answer his questions huh? your unwillingness seems to indicate your inability and the venomous way you treat his questions shows an odd fear of his postings here. what are you afraid of?

architect has already stated many times that he has provided evidence of his qualifications here. i have no reason to doubt that. how about you do the same? please provide, as architect has done, evidence of your qualifications as a surveyor, welder, and in the use of demolition explosives.................

BV

His questions have all been answered. All he has to do is read the thread.

When he evaded, refused, to answer the questions about how much resitence to torsion core columns add to a square tower with comprised of perimeter box columns as were the twin towers, his insincerity was emphasized.

It is absurd to think that columns made of steel can add any resistence to torsion when steel perimeter walls twice as wide already exist. Rodger Harris stated that matter of factly with simple logic.

I am unlicensed in everything I do, so I can't provide evidence of qualifications that you would find acceptable other than images of my equipment while I work. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/nikon2dtm551.jpg) What 9-11 is going to do is show the world that our dependence on "government" verification of ability is a serious mistake and a symptom of our dumbed down state.

All professional status will be subject to public review of performance and nothing will be taken for granted again. That is IF we can continue as a society from our present position of deep ignorance and gullibility.

Christophera

10th December 2006, 01:51 PM

As I said you web site proves there is no concrete core.

I use it to help other see there is just a steel core.

Your web site proves there is not a concrete core. This is a very simple fact. Check it out.

C4 was never built into the WTC, the union would not let it happen, nor did Robertson, the stuctual engineer.

The original text monger. No evidence of anything.

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

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

Architect

10th December 2006, 01:54 PM

It is absurd to think that columns made of steel can add any resistence to torsion when steel perimeter walls twice as wide already exist. Rodger Harris stated that matter of factly with simple logic.

Very funny.

It all acts together like a box girder. Material is pretty much imaterial, as long as the steel sections have the right strength.

uruk

10th December 2006, 01:59 PM

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

Perhaps you do not know how to search. A one time, unregistered post on April 1st. Yep That's an April fools joke if i ever saw one.

Or, ......... the steel core columns did not exist, then they do not have to get cut up.

One thig is D@mm sure, 47, 1300 foot steel columns are never seen in ANY of the demo images. Only interior box columns. The elevator guide rail suppport steel is so flimsy it fell to the bottom of the core immediately. 99% of the steel fell immediatly to the bottom of one tower and 100% in the other. How fast the steel fell has no bearing on wether the core columns were elevator rail guides or not Chris. This is a meaningless point of argument. You have to show me proof, such as diagrams and photos of other installations of elevators that show elevator rail guides that big.

Big Les

10th December 2006, 02:01 PM

I went to the same school as Kirsty Wark, which isn't the one she says she went to, for what it's worth.......but I'd rather have gone to school with Terry. Less shrill on the ear drums, I would imagine. :D

Well I went to university with Will Young, AND I've met the Chuckle Brothers. Beat that.

beachnut

10th December 2006, 02:02 PM

The original text monger. No evidence of anything.

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

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

See, proof of no concrete core.

I love it, you have all the stuff to prove the steel only core exists on your web site.

Thank you

Architect

10th December 2006, 02:03 PM

Well I went to university with Will Young, AND I've met the Chuckle Brothers. Beat that.

That's unbeatable!

Christophera

10th December 2006, 02:04 PM

A one time, unregistered post on April 1st. Yep That's an April fools joke if i ever saw one.

Or, sombody very afraid of something but yet still wanting to contribute to the truth/fact finding and doing so but protecting themselves by posting on April fools day knowing people like you would compromise it.

99% of the steel fell immediatly to the bottom of one tower and 100% in the other. How fast the steel fell has no bearing on wether the core columns were elevator rail guides or not Chris. This is a meaningless point of argument. You have to show me proof, such as diagrams and photos of other installations of elevators that show elevator rail guides that big.

Steel core columns WILL NOT FALL (or not like that, unseen). Your point is meaningless.

TellyKNeasuss

10th December 2006, 02:04 PM

Not being able to find record of it does not mean it does not exist. That goes for the documentary as well. Our society is really messed up.

The documentary "The Construction of the Twin Towers" was broadcast on PBS, channel 28 in Southern California.

The book doesn't exist. The Oxford University Press has confirmed this.

The documentary doesn't exist. PBS had confirmed this

You've made both those up. Just like you made up the 4-foot spacing between the rebar and the "over a hundred".

TellyKNeasuss

10th December 2006, 02:06 PM

Steel core columns WILL NOT FALL (or not like that, unseen). Your point is meaningless.

Steel has anti-gravity properties!!!

TellyKNeasuss

10th December 2006, 02:18 PM

You cannot have it both ways, those stresses take time and space to accumulate, and you have yet to show a shattered column end.

Complete nonsense. Stress is caused by the application of a force. When a force is applied, a stress exists.

They were cut as part of the demolition into aproximate 40 foot pieces.

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

The interior box columns surrounded the concrete core walls and were fastened to it. This was where lateral and torsion load were transferred to the concrete from the steel framework.

spire (http://home.comcast.net/%7Ejeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg)

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

concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif)
But why weren't there 1300 foot "interior box columns" visible? If steel core columns wouldn't be broken during a collapse, why would "interior box columns"? After all, if there was a concrete core as you claim, the "interior box columns" wouldn't be supporting the bulk of the weight of the building, so wouldn't they be less likely to break than would core columns?

salvage cuts on the far ends explosive shear on the near ends.

Sheared Columns (http://www.parrhesia.com/wtc/wtc066.jpg)I was referring to your spire picture. You claimed that the "spire" remained because the cutting charges didn't work. In that case, they should still be attached to the columns. So where are they?

Christophera

10th December 2006, 02:20 PM

The book doesn't exist. The Oxford University Press has confirmed this.

The documentary doesn't exist. PBS had confirmed this

You've made both those up. Just like you made up the 4-foot spacing between the rebar and the "over a hundred".

We've confirmed that Oxford is in on the cover up and PBS as well. They certainly will not be aware of this, ........... don't bother denying. Basically all of America that is wedded to government is in on it. We need to know this is possible and I'm here to tell/show you, and everybody else it is unconscious. You do not know what you are doing.

If you value your life and the lives of your children you will heed what I say and be STRICTLY reasonable. Something this thread shows those involved with this secret keeping cannot do. But, ... it had to be said.

When a 500 foot concrete tube fro the tower core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) is ignored by you and others, my thoughtless over exaggeration of how many rebars are in a line to make a point about pixels, which is valid, becomes unimportant compared to your virtual hallucination/cogntive failure of ignoring the obivious concrete.

You are doing everythinf you are doing here with no evidence and ignoring evidence absolutely contrary to what you support.

Big Al

10th December 2006, 02:21 PM

Well I went to university with Will Young, AND I've met the Chuckle Brothers. Beat that.

I went to Stephen Hawking's school (St. Albans School), and I chatted with him at an Old Boys' reunion while he could still talk.

Whatcha reckon?

beachnut

10th December 2006, 02:21 PM

do you have a mouse in your pocket?

Architect

10th December 2006, 02:23 PM

Christophera

10th December 2006, 02:23 PM

Big Al

10th December 2006, 02:28 PM

We've confirmed that Oxford is in on the cover up and PBS as well. They certainly will not be aware of this, do don't bother. Basically all of America that is wedded to government is in on it. We need to know this is possible and I'm her to tell you it is unconscious.

The Oxford University Press isn't any part of corporate America, thank you very much. It's about 40 miles away from me in England. So how come they're in on it, too?

You are doing everythinf you are doing here with no evidence and ignoring evidence absolutely contrary to what you support.

Not like you, then.

Don't you even feel slightly embarrassed that this book and this documentary on which you so heavily rely don't seem to exist? No, you just expect us to believe they existed.

Well, I don't. I think you're lying to try to substantiate an untenable position. There was no documentary. There was no magazine article. There was no book.

TellyKNeasuss

10th December 2006, 02:31 PM

We've confirmed that Oxford is in on the cover up and PBS as well.

Proof of this? And who is "we"?

When a 500 foot concrete tube fro the tower core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) is ignored by you and others, my thoughtless over exaggeration of how many rebars are in a line to make a point about pixels, which is valid, becomes unimportant compared to your virtual hallucination/cogntive failure of ignoring the obivious concrete.What's a "virtual hallucination"?

You are doing everythinf you are doing here with no evidence and ignoring evidence absolutely contrary to what you support.I don't see that there's anything wrong with ignoring non-existent books and non-existent documentaries.

Christophera

10th December 2006, 02:32 PM

But why weren't there 1300 foot "interior box columns" visible?

Your brain is failing. This image shows an interior box columns standing (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg). The rest wer all cut like this. (http://www.parrhesia.com/wtc/wtc066.jpg)

If steel core columns wouldn't be broken during a collapse, why would "interior box columns"? After all, if there was a concrete core as you claim, the "interior box columns" wouldn't be supporting the bulk of the weight of the building, so wouldn't they be less likely to break than would core columns?

Again, your brain is failing cognition. The interior box columns were cut with built in demolition charges. The concrete core, at completion was designed to take only 20% percent of the active load. The interior box columns were cut with Cutting charges built into the floors (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1233383) and so were cut without major visible action associated with cutting steel without very well contained charges.

I was referring to your spire picture. You claimed that the "spire" remained because the cutting charges didn't work. In that case, they should still be attached to the columns. So where are they?

The spire "IS" a column (interior box column) and it is attached to floor beams.

uruk

10th December 2006, 02:37 PM

Or, sombody very afraid of something but yet still wanting to contribute to the truth/fact finding and doing so but protecting themselves by posting on April fools day knowing people like you would compromise it.
Why would a prominant man with large company be afraid for his life? Why aren't all the people who post websites, supposedly exposing the conspiracy, dropping like flies?
Your reasoning makes no sense.

Steel core columns WILL NOT FALL (or not like that, unseen). Your point is meaningless.
Your argument is meaningless since the vast majority of the steel came down quickly. both internal core columns and box columns. How fast the steel fell has no bearing, or is proof in any way, that the core columns are elevator rail guides.
You are evading. Show me proof or admit your wrong.

bonavada

10th December 2006, 02:40 PM

I am unlicensed in everything I do, so I can't provide evidence of qualifications...

how the f does that work chris? you can get work as a welder, surveyor, draghtsman, and a blaster without any qualifications? i know america is supposed to be the land of the fkn free but not of the free meal ticket.
i mean, what about the poor saps that spent years at university or college sweating over exams for the above? won't they be a tad upset at you nicking their jobs?

you must be raking in the bucks....i'm not sure what "surveyor" means in the american workplace but over here you pay about £500 just to hear one fart.

BTW does your boss know your unqualified?

BV

uruk

10th December 2006, 02:43 PM

We've confirmed that Oxford is in on the cover up and PBS as well. They certainly will not be aware of this, ........... don't bother denying. Basically all of America that is wedded to government is in on it. We need to know this is possible and I'm here to tell/show you, and everybody else it is unconscious. You do not know what you are doing.

If you value your life and the lives of your children you will heed what I say and be STRICTLY reasonable. Something this thread shows those involved with this secret keeping cannot do. But, ... it had to be said.

When a 500 foot concrete tube fro the tower core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) is ignored by you and others, my thoughtless over exaggeration of how many rebars are in a line to make a point about pixels, which is valid, becomes unimportant compared to your virtual hallucination/cogntive failure of ignoring the obivious concrete.

You are doing everythinf you are doing here with no evidence and ignoring evidence absolutely contrary to what you support.

And paranoia rears it's ugly head

Big Al

10th December 2006, 02:49 PM

you must be raking in the bucks....i'm not sure what "surveyor" means in the american workplace but over here you pay about £500 just to hear one fart.

Chris only does that to fill in between stints as a test pilot, an astronaut or a nuclear reactor engineer.

Architect

10th December 2006, 02:58 PM

you must be raking in the bucks....i'm not sure what "surveyor" means in the american workplace but over here you pay about £500 just to hear one fart.

They're about £650 a day. Architects are about £600. Good structural engineers around £750.

For what it's worth.

Christophera

10th December 2006, 03:14 PM

Proof of this? And who is "we"?

I am producing the scan of the Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation, published in 1992 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/oxfordarchcore.jpg) and you are proving they have no record of it while I am posting an image of a 500 foot tall concrete core to support it (among other images here (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html)). You and I are "we" (among others here).

Also, how would I be able to provde such detailed and congruent explanations for the images showing the conrete, rebar, elevator guide rail supports, etc. if I had not seen the documentary? My explanations, descriptions etc. are completely consistent with the raw evidence wheras your and others are not. Is this thread not 200 plus pages? If I was totally without evidence and reason would this be possible?

The very fact that I am here, insistent, day after day consistently saying the same thing about these images and what they show while not one of you can support the FEMA core with competent constrcution drawings or images of the demolition, shows the FEMA lie and confirms the concrete, the documentary and the demolition. Which is why you and others keep returning, because what I'm saying/showing simply cannot exist within your unconsciously assimilated paradigm.

You keep trying to make congruency between what you "think" (or are told, led to believe) and the reality that the world presents (my information). My persistence with real images presents a contradiction or "cognitive dissonance" that is disturbing and your continued posting shows just how disturbing it is.

Those who post. "Let this thread die" or "Don't feed the trolls" are actually working harder than you are to keep the secret, but have less integrity to the value of the truth than you do. So in many ways I have an inherent respect for those of you that keep returning, because unconsciously you/them are asking for me to convince you of the lie and reveal the truth because it is very important to you and your unconscious mind knows it and will not let you rest.

What's a "virtual hallucination"?

For lack of a better name (I think there is one tho), you are diabled from seeing something that is actaully before your eyes. Your unconscious mind gets the first, original information from your eyes and gives a copy to your conscious mind. In this case your unconscious provides a set of things your conscious "feels" (things provided by the unconscious) are reasons to explain what you see. Others voice this as "dust" or some other excuse, type description. It is a mental event similar to a hallucination.

I don't see that there's anything wrong with ignoring non-existent books and non-existent documentaries.

They may not exist now (I'm sure there are copies) but they did and what I show and say proves it indirectly.

Christophera

10th December 2006, 03:20 PM

And paranoia rears it's ugly head

Perhaps some, but duly justified. But mostly common sense of a variety you've never encountered before.

Big Les

10th December 2006, 03:20 PM

I went to Stephen Hawking's school (St. Albans School), and I chatted with him at an Old Boys' reunion while he could still talk.

Whatcha reckon?

Nah, sorry - Willy and the Chuckles are B and Z-list celebs respectively, whereas Stephen Hawking is a respected scientific figure. By the standards of today's British society, I win hands down :)

bonavada

10th December 2006, 03:22 PM

They're about £650 a day. Architects are about £600. Good structural engineers around £750.
For what it's worth.

hey that sounds doubleplus good!
i'm off down swanseas maritime quarter tomorrow for a job. i think i'll go for that surveyor malarkey sounds piss-easy that.

do you think they'll accept a picture of a fleflobolite (or whatever) as proof of my qualifications?

BV

Big Les

10th December 2006, 03:22 PM

Perhaps some, but duly justified. But mostly common sense of a variety you've never encountered before.

By definition then, not "common" sense at all.

10th December 2006, 03:31 PM

I am unlicensed in everything I do, so I can't provide evidence of qualifications that you would find acceptable other than images of my equipment while I work. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/nikon2dtm551.jpg) What 9-11 is going to do is show the world that our dependence on "government" verification of ability is a serious mistake and a symptom of our dumbed down state.

All professional status will be subject to public review of performance and nothing will be taken for granted again. That is IF we can continue as a society from our present position of deep ignorance and gullibility.

Translation: Since I was unable to complete high school, thanks to my own stupidity, I now am an unskilled day laborer, occasionally trusted with a piece of equipment - as long as inspectors aren't around.

One day the uneducated proletariat will rise up against those elitist trained and licensed, educated elite people things...

Architect

10th December 2006, 03:32 PM

do you think they'll accept a picture of a fleflobolite (or whatever) as proof of my qualifications?

Tell 'em yer a welder.

bonavada

10th December 2006, 03:33 PM

Chris only does that to fill in between stints as a test pilot, an astronaut or a nuclear reactor engineer.

hey lay-off the astronauts! i worked as one of them for 60 years in between a bit of welding and giraffe-whispering.

take a look at my equipment...............

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748457c9906ccea0.jpg

BV

Christophera

10th December 2006, 03:38 PM

how the f does that work chris? you can get work as a welder, surveyor, draghtsman, and a blaster without any qualifications? i know america is supposed to be the land of the fkn free but not of the free meal ticket.
i mean, what about the poor saps that spent years at university or college sweating over exams for the above? won't they be a tad upset at you nicking their jobs?

you must be raking in the bucks....i'm not sure what "surveyor" means in the american workplace but over here you pay about £500 just to hear one fart.

BTW does your boss know your unqualified?

BV

Yes, my boss knows I'm unlicensed, but as a licensed land surveyor knows I'm qualified as he's reviewed all my methods, check and proofs. He worked in the old way, directly on the lines. I educated him to the new "random traverse" that is used today with electronic theodolites. He appreciates my attention to details very much that protect his liability. I understand the legal aspects of surveying quite well and do a fair job although we do not do a great deal of official boundary work, filing maps for subdivision and such. Mostly construction certifications or easement disputes.

Yes some are upset I get to do these things. I make about 1/2 the $ of what the certified, licensed individuals get, and I do not work anything like full time. Certainly they have more skills than I have but for what I do, I've got exactly what is needed. I can also pull off 1:30,000 precision traversing, just about as good as the best of the surveyors in bad terrain.

My topographic maps, when I did exclusive manual interpolations were far better than automated. Having done so much manual interpolation my automated maps are often better as I adjust them. My grading plans are the same, occasionally better than some of the best civils. I am an artist that takes time with these things.

I know this because I've worked from so many of the grading plans made by registered, certified individuals. Sometimes they are quite good, (engineers mostly) sometimes, the architects make a MAJOR mess, economic and otherwise.

I haven't done any blasting since 1984 and then I was only the driller, but working closely with the blaster and studying the handbook as well as demolitions texts.

People appreciate my service and it is comprised of much return customers and I've never advertised. Curiously, in these times where freedom is compromised so much by the politics of post 9-11, we are still free to work IF we can find it and that totally depends on the quality you can deliver.

All the welding I've done for the last 20 years has been for myself on equipment or fabrication projects. Prior to that I worked for a contractor on projects where he did not need a certified welder. When he discovered my math/geometry skills he had me mostly laying out difficult projects with certified welders.

It ain't a free meal ticket by any means, particuarly when I have to operate equipment (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/belmonte_exdown2.jpg) to make ends meet.

10th December 2006, 03:41 PM

Also, how would I be able to provde such detailed and congruent explanations for the images showing the conrete, rebar, elevator guide rail supports, etc. if I had not seen the documentary?

Even if you HAD seen this documentary you made up, your explanations are neither detailed nor congruent. Just babble, mostly.

My explanations, descriptions etc. are completely consistent with the raw evidence wheras your and others are not. Is this thread not 200 plus pages? If I was totally without evidence and reason would this be possible?

Certainly, since you're an obsessive compulsive liar, and our mods have turned into lazy pig's organs.

The very fact that I am here, insistent, day after day consistently saying the same thing about these images and what they show while not one of you can support the FEMA core with competent constrcution drawings or images of the demolition, shows the FEMA lie and confirms the concrete, the documentary and the demolition.

Wrong. It shows you're obssessive and more than a little stupid, and that we get off watching the retard wet himself daily.

Life is cruel that way.

Which is why you and others keep returning, because what I'm saying/showing simply cannot exist within your unconsciously assimilated paradigm.

Cannot and did not exist.

So in many ways I have an inherent respect for those of you that keep returning, because unconsciously you/them are asking for me to convince you of the lie and reveal the truth because it is very important to you and your unconscious mind knows it and will not let you rest.[/quote[

LOL!!!!

What a load of feces.

[quote]For lack of a better name (I think there is one tho), you are diabled from seeing something that is actaully before your eyes. Your unconscious mind gets the first, original information from your eyes and gives a copy to your conscious mind.

Actually, signal information is split, and copies arrive almost at the same time in both brain areas. But the unconscious mind can react to information before the conscious mind can interpret it.

The unconscious mind cannot filter anything, btw.

They may not exist now (I'm sure there are copies) but they did and what I show and say proves it indirectly.

No, it doesn't. These things never existed, Chris. YOU MADE THEM UP. You are the liar.

Big Al

10th December 2006, 03:41 PM

hey lay-off the astronauts! i worked as one of them for 60 years in between a bit of welding and giraffe-whispering.

take a look at my equipment...............

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748457c9906ccea0.jpg

BV

You never flew that. It's a fake. We never went to the moon. Well, I mean, I did, but nobody else did.:p

I love the idea that the Oxford University Press and the Library of Congress are in on this little conspiracy. They delete the entire history of a book just because it contains the dreaded words "concrete core". Those conspirators must have been as busy as fleas on a hedgehog, desperately looking to yank absolutely any publication, broadcast of recording that said "concrete core", because otherwise everyone would ask where the concrete went, because there wouldn't be enough concrete found at the site because of the C4 around the rebar put in place thirty-five years before....

Is it just me, or is this just a little on the not-entirely-sensible side?

I also hope the OUP could spell "Innovation" better than Chris. He's spelt it wrong at least three times.

beachnut

10th December 2006, 03:42 PM

Bush was seen hiding the concrete core plans before 9/11

10th December 2006, 03:43 PM

Perhaps some, but duly justified. But mostly common sense of a variety you've never encountered before.

Well, you're wrong there too, Chris. We encounter 'pig stupid' every day.

bonavada

10th December 2006, 03:43 PM

Nah, sorry - Willy and the Chuckles are B and Z-list celebs respectively, whereas Stephen Hawking is a respected scientific figure. By the standards of today's British society, I win hands down :)

i saw sid little and eddie large walking past the guildhall in 1978. do i get a crackerjack pencil?

oh oh i nearly forgot......and i went to the same school as harry secombe and the arch fkn bishop of fkn CANTERBURY beat that.

BV

Big Al

10th December 2006, 03:45 PM

i saw sid little and eddie large walking past the guildhall in 1978. do i get a crackerjack pencil?

oh oh i nearly forgot......and i went to the same school as harry secombe and the arch fkn bishop of fkn CANTERBURY beat that.

BV

The later Archbishop of Canterbury, Robert Runcie, was practically our school chaplain when he was Bishop of St. Albans.

10th December 2006, 03:46 PM

Yes some are upset I get to do these things. I make about 1/2 the $ of what the certified, licensed individuals get, and I do not work anything like full time. Certainly they have more skills than I have but for what I do, I've got exactly what is needed. I can also pull off 1:30,000 precision traversing, just about as good as the best of the surveyors in bad terrain.

My topographic maps, when I did exclusive manual interpolations were far better than automated. Having done so much manual interpolation my automated maps are often better as I adjust them. My grading plans are the same, occasionally better than some of the best civils. I am an artist that takes time with these things.

I know this because I've worked from so many of the grading plans made by registered, certified individuals. Sometimes they are quite good, (engineers mostly) sometimes, the architects make a MAJOR mess, economic and otherwise.

I haven't done any blasting since 1984 and then I was only the driller, but working closely with the blaster and studying the handbook as well as demolitions texts.

People appreciate my service and it is comprised of much return customers and I've never advertised. Curiously, in these times where freedom is compromised so much by the politics of post 9-11, we are still free to work IF we can find it and that totally depends on the quality you can deliver.

All the welding I've done for the last 20 years has been for myself on equipment or fabrication projects. Prior to that I worked for a contractor on projects where he did not need a certified welder. When he discovered my math/geometry skills he had me mostly laying out difficult projects with certified welders.

It ain't a free meal ticket by any means, particuarly when I have to operate equipment (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/belmonte_exdown2.jpg) to make ends meet.

Uh-huh.

So you're actually completely unqualified to discuss construction of skyscrapers, materials, etc. You're a driller, a ditch-digger, and a general crewperson, who occasionally is used under the table as a drafter, so that the contractor in question can save a few hundred bucks.

Heh.

Now we know. Those professionals are shady, but they know when to use and abuse the moron in their crew. Gotta hand it to them.

And now that we have that much information, a few letters to some inspectors in Cali ought to help a bit... Wonder just how interested they'd be in knowing an unlicensed amateur was being used in capacities beyond his means, unofficially?

:D

Don't worry Chris, I won't put you out of a job. Eris knows, you need something to keep you busy; otherwise you might, I don't know... build another website.

THE HORROR! THE HORROR!!

(We all know you'll never actually take action about this silly nonsense...)

Christophera

10th December 2006, 03:51 PM

Even if you HAD seen this documentary you made up, your explanations are neither detailed nor congruent. Just babble, mostly.

Certainly, since you're an obsessive compulsive liar, and our mods have turned into lazy pig's organs.

Wrong. It shows you're obssessive and more than a little stupid, and that we get off watching the retard wet himself daily.

Life is cruel that way.

Cannot and did not exist.

So in many ways I have an inherent respect for those of you that keep returning, because unconsciously you/them are asking for me to convince you of the lie and reveal the truth because it is very important to you and your unconscious mind knows it and will not let you rest.

LOL!!!!

What a load of feces.

Actually, signal information is split, and copies arrive almost at the same time in both brain areas. But the unconscious mind can react to information before the conscious mind can interpret it.

The unconscious mind cannot filter anything, btw.

No, it doesn't. These things never existed, Chris. YOU MADE THEM UP. You are the liar.

Your post shows you are appropriately ignorant of the unconsious mind to perform unconsciously, consistently.

You can prove nothing, particuarly the steel core columns. You have proven that you do not respect the truth as it is evident nor do you respect peoples need to bring it and percieve it.

Christophera

10th December 2006, 03:54 PM

Bush was seen hiding the concrete core plans before 9/11

Wrong!

It was the ex mayor of NYC, and just after 9-11.

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

beachnut

10th December 2006, 03:55 PM

Wrong!

It was the ex mayor of NYC, and just after 9-11.

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

but you know it was bush behind it

stop bush signs were seen on site of the big deal

Christophera

10th December 2006, 04:00 PM

Uh-huh.
And now that we have that much information, a few letters to some inspectors in Cali ought to help a bit... Wonder just how interested they'd be in knowing an unlicensed amateur was being used in capacities beyond his means, unofficially?

Curious, the officials know I'm unlicensed and that I stay within my means. I work with a licensed individual who over sees my work, this is all legal. The officials actually appreciate some one who picks up the slack for the cheapos that do not want to do things properly. I provide away for them to get a plan they will afford then the inspectors can hold them to it.

I've been doing this for over 20 years y'know. If there were problems it would not have gone on.

People without raw evidence from the actual scenes of crimes are strictly incompetent in discussion and it is reprehensible that they would advocate unlawful performance by governments or impede those that work for lawful performance WHO DO USE raw evidence reasonably.

bonavada

10th December 2006, 04:01 PM

The later Archbishop of Canterbury, Robert Runcie, was practically our school chaplain when he was Bishop of St. Albans.

well at least our AoC doesn't sound like danny la fkn rue..................

BV

Christophera

10th December 2006, 04:01 PM

but you know it was bush behind it

stop bush signs were seen on site of the big deal

Buck Fush, I don't talk about puppets.

He's being used.

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

bonavada

10th December 2006, 04:05 PM

People without raw evidence from the actual scenes of crimes are strictly incompetent in discussion

you should know.

BV

Christophera

10th December 2006, 04:19 PM

Translation: Since I was unable to complete high school, thanks to my own stupidity, I now am an unskilled day laborer, occasionally trusted with a piece of equipment - as long as inspectors aren't around.

One day the uneducated proletariat will rise up against those elitist trained and licensed, educated elite people things...

You don't know how wrong you are. The inspectors relax when I'm around because they know I have integrity and care about my work. It's the licensed contractors that are a problem. It's all about money for them so they are constantly cheating.

Engineers generally have a lot of integrity. Architects. watch 'em closely. Seriously.

I will not forget the Architect that used all graphic methods and indexed his overly of the street center line on the right of way ALL THE WAY through the project. When I went to layout the building the corner of the new house fell in the pool. The existing house was to be demoed, the pool to remain. The contractor and the architect would not let me tell the owner who was an engineer. I was working for the contractor and unfortunately did as he asked, but told the contractor that the engineer/owner would spot the relationships onthe opposite side of the structure after we moved the house to have the pool/house relationship the plan showed.

The contractor wouldn't believe me and the architect abandoned the project after I pointed out what he had done graphically. It went exactly as I said and the engineer spotted it. one day I arrived to find another survey company checking the retaining wall positions and realize the engineer had figured it out. All of the adjustments I had made including the 5 degree clockwise rotation of the structure the owner/engineer had requested were properly done within the given situation and the structure continued. There really wasn't much else that could be done, I realized this which was one reason I just did it.

I was paid. The Contractor and the architect fired. I only wish I had bouted them and their lack of integrity and told the engineer/owner what was going on before walls were set so he could have made the decisions himself. I figure I was paid because I had second guessed okay that he would have accepted the adjustments the contractor applied.

My experiences with 2 licensed, certified, elite individuals.

Christophera

10th December 2006, 04:23 PM

you should know.

BV

I notice you posted no evidence, so you have made a large error.

This is the steel reinforced tubular concrete core of WTC 2. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

Do you have what it takes to admit your mistakes?

uruk

10th December 2006, 04:36 PM

Perhaps some, but duly justified. But mostly common sense of a variety you've never encountered before.

Bullhocky. Are you saying that a university in England is in on an American cover up?

Also
Originally Posted by Christophera
Or, sombody very afraid of something but yet still wanting to contribute to the truth/fact finding and doing so but protecting themselves by posting on April fools day knowing people like you would compromise it.

Why would a prominant man with large company be afraid for his life? Why aren't all the people who post websites, supposedly exposing the conspiracy, dropping like flies?
Your reasoning makes no sense.

:
Steel core columns WILL NOT FALL (or not like that, unseen). Your point is meaningless.

Your argument is meaningless since the vast majority of the steel came down quickly. both internal core columns and box columns. How fast the steel fell has no bearing, or is proof in any way, that the core columns are elevator rail guides.
You are evading. Show me proof or admit your wrong.

bonavada

10th December 2006, 04:42 PM

I notice you posted no evidence

oh but i have, many many times in this very thread, go search it (tm christophera)

BV

bonavada

10th December 2006, 04:47 PM

hey chris here's an entity that may listen to you:-

TELL THESE PEOPLE (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/55ABE840-AC30-41D2-BDC9-06BBE2A36665.htm)

or perhaps you think they are controlled by bush rumsie condie et al as well?

go give it a try the world is waiting

BV

Christophera

10th December 2006, 05:24 PM

oh but i have, many many times in this very thread, go search it (tm christophera)

BV

And it wasn't worth reposting.

Christophera

10th December 2006, 05:26 PM

Your argument is meaningless since the vast majority of the steel came down quickly. both internal core columns

Can you show how, when and why they came down?

Christophera

10th December 2006, 05:37 PM

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

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

You folks are so dense that you still haven't been able to deal reasonably with the meaning of the raw evidence of images posted.

Compared to the evidence you've got for the steel core columns, I've got mountains.

uruk

10th December 2006, 05:59 PM

Can you show how, when and why they came down?

Go read the NIST report. http://wtc.nist.gov/

And your still evading the issue. Show me the proof that the interior columns were elevator rail guides.
Oh while your at it, show me Tony Jebson's concrete core.

uruk

10th December 2006, 06:04 PM

You folks are so dense that you still haven't been able to deal reasonably with the meaning of the raw evidence of images posted.

Compared to the evidence you've got for the steel core columns, I've got mountains.

Those images do not show what you think they do.

You've got ony one website and alot of erroneous and fabricated nonsense

Christophera

10th December 2006, 06:12 PM

Those images do not show what you think they do.

I tell you exactly what I think they do and that agrees with;

August Domel, Jr., Ph.D., S.E., P.E. November 2001
http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf

http://www.delta.tudelft.nl/archief/j33/n27/3664

Berenbak is now amazed that the two WTC towers didn't collapse immediately after the collisions. ''Apparently, the WTC had an enormous redundancy. Which other building could survive such a crash?'' The fireproof concrete core, hard as rock, probably prevented the building from coming down at once. Every Dutch building would have collapsed, he says, ''because we work with bearing outer walls.''

But you do not tell me what you think the images represent, or at least not in a reasonable, logical fashion

You've got ony one website and alot of erroneous and fabricated nonsense

You have no web site and no evidence and no reasonable explanation for the evidence I have which agrees with the statements of many uninterested parties.

You are wrong, ........ and you loose.

Miss Anthrope

10th December 2006, 06:12 PM

I would be so happy if everyone left this dog chasing it's tail cycle of "raw evidence".....it's been making me dizzy for months.

Christophera

10th December 2006, 06:17 PM

Go read the NIST report. http://wtc.nist.gov/

And your still evading the issue. Show me the proof that the interior columns were elevator rail guides.
Oh while your at it, show me Tony Jebson's concrete core.

You are supposed to SHOW how they came down not refer to the same old tired lies that explain nothing.

One image shows a h@ll of a lot more than Tony Jebson says should be there.

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

beachnut

10th December 2006, 06:19 PM

You are supposed to SHOW how they came down not refer to the same old tired lies that explain nothing.

One image shows a h@ll of a lot more than Tony Jebson says should be there.

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

I just see a steel core with dust.

Can anyone tell us whey they do not see a concrete core?

there is no concrete core

Christophera

10th December 2006, 06:23 PM

I just see a steel core with dust.

Can anyone tell us whey they do not see a concrete core?

there is no concrete core

That is not logical. There are no protruding column ends. With 47, supposed 1,300 foot steel column, it is NOT REASONABLE to think they would all break off uniformly and leave a smooth round shape.

It is not reasonable to assume that there would be no breaches of the drywall between the supposed core columns showing light through.

Bell

10th December 2006, 06:23 PM

You are supposed to SHOW how they came down not refer to the same old tired lies that explain nothing.

One image shows a h@ll of a lot more than Tony Jebson says should be there.

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

Wot? No concrete?

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4402&d=1165412673

beachnut

10th December 2006, 06:25 PM

I would be so happy if everyone left this dog chasing it's tail cycle of "raw evidence".....it's been making me dizzy for months.

This is a good test for the engine of this forum.

The concrete core and C4 in each floor of the WTC are far out, and when people are that far out it may be impossilbe to get them back to reality.

This has to be my last anti concrete core post, can Chris say the same for the pro core group of one

At least he is unique; could be a lot of other things, but he is unique

He has a page on the internet exposing his C4 floor plan, his wires are missing but he has the old C4 in the floor down, he needs to copyright that so he can get some movie deals when the CT nut case movie is made.

beachnut

10th December 2006, 06:26 PM

The answer is in NIST

uruk

10th December 2006, 06:40 PM

I tell you exactly what I think they do and that agrees with;

August Domel, Jr., Ph.D., S.E., P.E. November 2001
http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf

http://www.delta.tudelft.nl/archief/j33/n27/3664

Berenbak is now amazed that the two WTC towers didn't collapse immediately after the collisions. ''Apparently, the WTC had an enormous redundancy. Which other building could survive such a crash?'' The fireproof concrete core, hard as rock, probably prevented the building from coming down at once. Every Dutch building would have collapsed, he says, ''because we work with bearing outer walls.''

But you do not tell me what you think the images represent, or at least not in a reasonable, logical fashion

You have no web site and no evidence and no reasonable explanation for the evidence I have which agrees with the statements of many uninterested parties.

You are wrong, ........ and you loose.
The Domel paper was already adimtted to be in error. And if Someone like Domel can be in error, so can some dutch guy.
NIST has a very plausable explination. Pitty you refuse to read it.
Other people here and myself have post many, many websites that specifcally mention the steel core.
So quit lying

Enough stalling and evading Chris.
Show me proof that the interior core columns are elevator guides
And show me Tony Jebson's core being built ahead of the steel.

Your constant evading just makes you look worse.

uruk

10th December 2006, 06:46 PM

You are supposed to SHOW how they came down not refer to the same old tired lies that explain nothing.

One image shows a h@ll of a lot more than Tony Jebson says should be there.

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

People far smarter that I have already done the hard work, research and investigation. I can't explain it any better than they can. You have never shown anything in the NIST report to be a lie. In fact you admitted to never having read it, so how can you say it's a lie if you haven't even read it? Your typical dishonesty.
What have you done? Cut and past text and pictures, mislable pictures. Cherry pick and quote out of context. make up evidence.

Quit running scared Chris. Tony Jebson said he saw the concrete core during construction. Show me a picture of the core during construction. If Jebson is right You shouldn't have a problem. After all I showed you a picture during construction. Why can't you?

Bell

10th December 2006, 07:49 PM

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

Perhaps you do not know how to search.

There, how hard was that?

Or, ......... the steel core columns did not exist, then they do not have to get cut up.

Anyway, blowing up an alleged concrete core with 3" rebar on 4' centers would not produce noice and shrapnell?

One thig is D@mm sure, 47, 1300 foot steel columns are never seen in ANY of the demo images. Only interior box columns. The elevator guide rail suppport steel is so flimsy it fell to the bottom of the core immediately.

We showed you pleny. That your brain can't comprehend that, is your problem. Also, I don't think Otis would agree. The elevators ran for some 30 years, without them crashing down.

No. you are trying to say that is what I am saying.

Correct, you said:

We saw nice big billowy well contained blasts.

But now you are weasling your way out and saying:

I am saying these nice billowy debris cloudes/waves can only be created by optimally contained, uniformly distributed high explosives. Doing so respects the truth of those innocent peoples lives and endeavors to use the truth to protect more lives.

No, it respects nothing. When you say the billowy blast, or billowy debris clouds (which is it, Chris?) are nice, you are saying that looking at the blast, or debris (which is it, Chris?) is nice. These clouds are part of the collapse that killed hundreds of innocent people. How is the look of that nice? Don't you respect the victims?

Bell

10th December 2006, 08:09 PM

TellyKNeasuss

10th December 2006, 08:45 PM

Your brain is failing. This image shows an interior box columns standing (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg). The rest wer all cut like this. (http://www.parrhesia.com/wtc/wtc066.jpg)

You've been claiming that the proof of a concrete core was that no columns were visible. Now you're claiming that columns were visible (which they were). So which do you actually believe?

Again, your brain is failing cognition. The interior box columns were cut with built in demolition charges. The concrete core, at completion was designed to take only 20% percent of the active load. The interior box columns were cut with Cutting charges built into the floors (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1233383) and so were cut without major visible action associated with cutting steel without very well contained charges.

You have no evidence for cutting charges other than your speculation involving a non-existent documentary.

What is the evidence for the 20% figure? What that in your "documentary" also?

The spire "IS" a column (interior box column) and it is attached to floor beams.

Maybe a core column?

Christophera

10th December 2006, 09:22 PM

Christophera

10th December 2006, 09:35 PM

You've been claiming that the proof of a concrete core was that no columns were visible. Now you're claiming that columns were visible (which they were). So which do you actually believe?

You feign confusion trying to induce confusion in the reader. Shame on you.

Interior box columns (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) were the only columns visible.

You have no evidence for cutting charges other than your speculation involving a non-existent documentary.

I do have evidence and you have failed to address it. You have not explained how these cuts were done at ground zero if they are NOT cuts from high explosive shear inthe demolition.

Sheared Columns (http://www.parrhesia.com/wtc/wtc066.jpg)

Christophera

10th December 2006, 09:38 PM

Also, you lying, delusional [rule8], what explosives caused the side of the building to buckle inwards? Why don't I hear explosives going off? Why don't I hear explosives going of in the alleged concrete core after the rest of the building came down?

Remember, hundreds of people were killed when this happened...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546

More video's of the South Tower's collapse...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8564772103237441151

You don't hear explosions because the audio was turned down at some point. Also the rapid delays sound like a rumble rather than distinct explosions. The second 2 are so far away that the more proximal sounds overpower the rumbling.

These emergency professional heard plenty of detonations.

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

Christophera

10th December 2006, 09:47 PM

Anyway, blowing up an alleged concrete core with 3" rebar on 4' centers would not produce noice and shrapnell?

No, it is all contained. Changes the character of high explosive totally.

No, it respects nothing. When you say the billowy blast, or billowy debris clouds (which is it, Chris?) are nice, you are saying that looking at the blast, or debris (which is it, Chris?) is nice. These clouds are part of the collapse that killed hundreds of innocent people. How is the look of that nice? Don't you respect the victims?

Get real, my choice of words has nothing to do with my action of trying to gain reasonable recognition of evidence from you. Your distortion of my words actually shows disrespect for the loss of life because you seek to justify a BS lie covering for murderers, whereas my use of words simply shows that I'm searching for words to carry meaning over and over because YOU ARE NOT RECOGNIZING the meaning of the words I first used, like "uniform".

You are sick.

Christophera

10th December 2006, 09:53 PM

People far smarter that I have already done the hard work, research and investigation. I can't explain it any better than they can. You have never shown anything in the NIST report to be a lie. In fact you admitted to never having read it, so how can you say it's a lie if you haven't even read it? Your typical dishonesty.
What have you done? Cut and past text and pictures, mislable pictures. Cherry pick and quote out of context. make up evidence.

Quit running scared Chris. Tony Jebson said he saw the concrete core during construction. Show me a picture of the core during construction. If Jebson is right You shouldn't have a problem. After all I showed you a picture during construction. Why can't you?

More bogus evasion. The evidence I have is selected because it shows distinct structural elements. Are you suggesting I should try to show the existence of the concrete core with images that I know do not show it. GET REAL!

The NIST product explains nothing, that is why I don't read it. Besides. I have you monkeys to chatter all that nonsense to me.

Your selectivity shows you are simply acting to disinform when you do not use available information.

This is 500 feet tall of steel reinforced concrete core. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) If it is not steel reinforced concrete, what is it?

What is it?

That is the question NO ONE HERE has ever answered reasonably.

10th December 2006, 10:42 PM

That is the question NO ONE HERE has ever answered reasonably.

Please remain courteous.
BTW - the ex says hi.

Christophera

10th December 2006, 11:21 PM

This is 500 feet tall of steel reinforced concrete core. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) If it is not steel reinforced concrete, what is it?

What is it?

That is the question NO ONE HERE has ever answered reasonably.

Correction: it's been answered plenty of times, quite correctly.

Noticed BIGTIME that you did not provide a few words describing the answer. Do that please.

ON EDIT:So you cannot pretend confusion I've edited and added the question you claim has been answeed "plenty of times".

11th December 2006, 12:28 AM

Later, Chris. Whenever you stop pissing in the wind and promoting your whack-job website, and start actually doing something about these alleged beliefs you're espousing, I'll start paying attention. However, your lies and hand-waving have become tiresome. You are no longer amusing; just boring and dull.

Do the world a favor - either get off your lazy ass and do something about this 'evidence', or take a short trip to the Hunting Grounds.

hcmom

11th December 2006, 02:21 AM

If it is not steel reinforced concrete, what is it?

A building collapsing.

That is the question NO ONE HERE has ever answered reasonably.I doubt you're going to get anyone here to answer you more reasonably than I am...

bonavada

11th December 2006, 03:17 AM

These emergency professional heard plenty of detonations.
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg

what about this one?

v_CmZMkvQ_w

BV

Garb

11th December 2006, 03:48 AM

You don't hear explosions because the audio was turned down at some point. Also the rapid delays sound like a rumble rather than distinct explosions. The second 2 are so far away that the more proximal sounds overpower the rumbling.

These emergency professional heard plenty of detonations.

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

Loose Change 2nd cut. 10 minutes in, they have a clip of a reporter at the base of the tower just as it collapses. No explosions. Where in that does the audio get turned down?

Big Al

11th December 2006, 05:22 AM

Once more, Chris: How would the Oxford University Press, a British academic publishing house, get involved with U.S. Government skulduggery to remove allevidence of a book, just because it mentioned in one tiny section a concrete core?

Also, you haven't answered why such anomalies as this book and the supposed PBS documentary were ever alowed to go out in the first place with the "non-sanctioned" info. If the guilty parties made sure from Day 1 that the only official story was that the Twin Towers had steel cores, how come they told OUP and PBS the wrong story?

If so many well-known records from before 9/11 mention the steel core (even I knew that), how come the OUP compilers and the PBS documentary crew didn't hear of them? The book and the documentary don't seem to have caused so many waves that anyone but you has heard of them,. so why did the authorities suddenly feel the need to yank them? I would have thought they'd have been famous for going against the party line.

Architect

11th December 2006, 05:33 AM

Just as an aside, and to confirm the above, I checked Abebooks.co.uk (it's an excellent second hand book site) and they have no record of it either; my oh my are these Yank government agents good!!

Bell

11th December 2006, 05:36 AM

Concrete

<spam>

In the left silhouette "A" is the entire center piece, in the right "A" is only the forms of the actual wall running perpendicular to the long axis core wall face we view. The outer forms of the core are not in place yet so we can see light along where the concrete will be.

"D" on the right is the right side of the center piece formed and "C" is the partially formed left side of the center piece.

In the left image "B "is the total left side of the core.

In the <spam> left image you can see that the center piece is missing which shows that the core was cast in pieces.

NOW,

Explain how these images show steel core columns.

Bolding mine.

You explained quite nicely yourself, thank you. You say the concrete was not yet in place. Which makes me wonder, since you stated it was cast 7 floors behind (or above, which is it, Chris?) the rest of the building. You say the concrete core was needed to give the building stability. So in your view the south tower, where the concrete core has yet to be cast, could not have stand.

Bell

11th December 2006, 05:39 AM

You don't hear explosions because the audio was turned down at some point. Also the rapid delays sound like a rumble rather than distinct explosions.

Where was the audio turned down exactly? Also, how do you make explosions sound like rumble?

Bell

11th December 2006, 05:43 AM

Get real, my choice of words has nothing to do with my action of trying to gain reasonable recognition of evidence from you. Your distortion of my words actually shows disrespect for the loss of life because you seek to justify a BS lie covering for murderers, whereas my use of words simply shows that I'm searching for words to carry meaning over and over because YOU ARE NOT RECOGNIZING the meaning of the words I first used, like "uniform".

You are sick.

Your words:

We saw nice big billowy well contained blasts.

What was so nice about (your alleged) blasts, where hundreds of people died?

Bell

11th December 2006, 05:45 AM

The NIST product explains nothing, that is why I don't read it.

and...

Your selectivity shows you are simply acting to disinform when you do not use available information.

:confused:

Big Al

11th December 2006, 05:53 AM

Well, of course, you only need to take into account anything that can be twisted into confirming what you already believe. That goes without saying.

bonavada

11th December 2006, 06:06 AM

Concrete

Explain how these images show steel core columns.

FIRSTLY........excellent piece of draughtsmanship on the below chris. is this the high standard that makes you the preferred option above those over-qualified elite professionals?

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4462&d=1165814495

those images do not show steel core columns chris because the pics are taken at a goodly distance. is it too hard for you to comprehend that? what the images do show are lift shafts.

In the left image (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/silhouettenoontosouth.jpg) you can see that the center piece is missing which shows that the core was cast in pieces

not the only thing that's in peices. your concrete core theory is shattered by your own words........

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748457c7ea70c448.jpg

BV

JonnyFive

11th December 2006, 06:14 AM

You folks are so dense that you still haven't been able to deal reasonably with the meaning of the raw evidence of images posted.

Compared to the evidence you've got for the steel core columns, I've got mountains.

Oh cool it's my turn again, huh? Kind of weird, since I haven't posted for like ten pages.

You stated earlier that the government erased all evidence of the concrete core, including a documentary from PBS and a book from Oxford University Press. That's an awfully convenient turn of events, especially since they were clever enough to leave all the construction photos and videos that seem to show a set of steel columns being erected.

If the government has this magical ability to erase info, how come your site is still on the internet? Why didn't they just erase your mountains of evidence like you claim (emphasis so you don't accuse me of being paranoid again for some reason) "they" did with the PBS documentary?

Why do you and your conspiracy fellows even have web sites, if the government has this power? Couldn't they just, according to you, erase everything?

I'm sure you'll find some BS reason why they didn't, but the idea that they erased all other evidence of the core without erasing your evidence as well is a logical absurdity. It's not like you're really trying to lie low here.

One final question, if you're still playing along at home:

What experience do you have with math and physics?
Please provide a detailed explanation.

bonavada

11th December 2006, 06:18 AM

hey chris take a look at this (12 sec video).........

vaysznxCBzA

i believe this is a close up of your WTC1 "spire" as it falls. please tell me where the "hundreds of in-line rebar" is in this video?
and is that not diagonal bracing i see near the end?

BV

uruk

11th December 2006, 06:42 AM

Concrete

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4462&stc=1&d=1165814495

In the left silhouette "A" is the entire center piece, in the right "A" is only the forms of the actual wall running perpendicular to the long axis core wall face we view. The outer forms of the core are not in place yet so we can see light along where the concrete will be.

"D" on the right is the right side of the center piece formed and "C" is the partially formed left side of the center piece.

In the left image "B "is the total left side of the core.

In the left image (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/silhouettenoontosouth.jpg) you can see that the center piece is missing which shows that the core was cast in pieces.

NOW,

Explain how these images show steel core columns.

Tell me why on earth would they build only one side of the concrete core going up all those floors before starting on the next wall?
Wouldn't you logicaly build all four walls of the core on one floor before you start on the next floor?
Your explinations are becoming more and rediculous as you try to fit your clearly incorrect hypothesis with evidence that clearly shows you to be wrong.
Your dishonesty is staggering.

Architect

11th December 2006, 07:02 AM

I will not forget the Architect that used all graphic methods and indexed his overly of the street center line on the right of way ALL THE WAY through the project. When I went to layout the building the corner of the new house fell in the pool. The existing house was to be demoed, the pool to remain. The contractor and the architect would not let me tell the owner who was an engineer. I was working for the contractor and unfortunately did as he asked, but told the contractor that the engineer/owner would spot the relationships onthe opposite side of the structure after we moved the house to have the pool/house relationship the plan showed.

The contractor wouldn't believe me and the architect abandoned the project after I pointed out what he had done graphically. It went exactly as I said and the engineer spotted it. one day I arrived to find another survey company checking the retaining wall positions and realize the engineer had figured it out. All of the adjustments I had made including the 5 degree clockwise rotation of the structure the owner/engineer had requested were properly done within the given situation and the structure continued. There really wasn't much else that could be done, I realized this which was one reason I just did it.

I was paid. The Contractor and the architect fired. I only wish I had bouted them and their lack of integrity and told the engineer/owner what was going on before walls were set so he could have made the decisions himself. I figure I was paid because I had second guessed okay that he would have accepted the adjustments the contractor applied

Well if it's true, why does one negligent architect tar all of us? I'm sure there are incompetent welders out there. I once had a topo survey back from the surveyor and I don't know what they'd done, but their REDM (that long ago) data was all tits up. But I don't go attacking surveyors.

Methinks it tells us too much about Chris.

Incidentally, if the architect abandoned the project, why do you then say he was fired? Facts, the facts.....

Bell

11th December 2006, 08:09 AM

The Number 23

A man whose life unravels after he comes into contact with an obscure book titled The Number 23. As he reads the book, he becomes increasingly convinced that it is based on his own life. His obsession with the number 23 starts to consume him, and he begins to realize the book forecasts far graver consequences for his life than he could have ever imagined.

Apple Quick Time trailer (http://www.apple.com/trailers/newline/thenumber23/trailer/)

Now, what does this remind me of?

22 (21 & 23) (http://www.truthasaur.com/my_22/my22.html)

uruk

11th December 2006, 08:11 AM

I wanted to share this little gem with everyone. Especially Chris.
It's perfect example of Chris's superiour memory. I found it while looking back in this thread for info to respond to one of Chris's replies.

Well it seems that Chris's memory is suffering (as well as mine). I just found a post where Chris said that Mr. Jebson's account of the process could not be correct.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2015273&postcount=5607
"this guy saw the very beginning where the core was formed standing free and the steel went up around it. After 5 or 6 floors a person on the street wouldn't be able to see so his account of the process is not correct."
If Chris had already discounted Mr. Jebson's account back then, why did Chris post this?
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2148744&postcount=8960
"Below is a usenet comment which descibes what I saw in the 1990 documentary called "Construction of the Twin Towers". The WTC 1 core was constructed ahead of the steel erection."

So which is it Chris? Is Jebson wrong like you said in post #5607? Or is he correct like you said in post #8960? You can't have it both ways

bonavada

11th December 2006, 08:31 AM

So which is it Chris? Is Jebson wrong like you said in post #5607? Or is he correct like you said in post #8960? You can't have it both ways

i think chris is trying to tell you otherwise. jebson is correct but at the same time he is INCORRECT. this logic-stream only works for psuedo-surveyor-welder-draughtsmen-blaster-musician-artistes in santa barbara tho.

BV

bonavada

11th December 2006, 08:33 AM

What experience do you have with math and physics?
Please provide a detailed explanation.

careful, he might show you a picture of his "equipment"

BV

uruk

11th December 2006, 08:35 AM

More bogus evasion. The evidence I have is selected because it shows distinct structural elements. Are you suggesting I should try to show the existence of the concrete core with images that I know do not show it. GET REAL! According to you on post #8960 Jebson could see the concrete core. So where is it? Or is he wrong like you said on post #5607. The pictures I posted shows him to be wrong. Show me otherwise.

The NIST product explains nothing, that is why I don't read it. Besides. I have you monkeys to chatter all that nonsense to me.
How would you know it explains nothing? You never even look at it. To claim that it explains nothing while never having even looked at is bold faced hypocracy. Not to mention weakens your position.

Your selectivity shows you are simply acting to disinform when you do not use available information. I'm just trying to get you to back up your claims, which you can't seem to do

This is 500 feet tall of steel reinforced concrete core. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) If it is not steel reinforced concrete, what is it?

What is it?

That is the question NO ONE HERE has ever answered reasonably.

That picture could also be of the remaning steel core heavily obscured by smoke and dust and still retaining a sizable portion of sheet rock attached to it.
Remember this picture? look at all the sheetrock still attached to the steel.
And if there was no exploding concrete core the sheetrock would probably still be attached in significant quantities as to give the reminant core a solid, rounded appearance within a cloud of smoke dust and debris.

Big Al

11th December 2006, 08:35 AM

What do you expect from a guy who can't spell "Innovation", and who thinks that Oxford University is in the U.S.A.?

bonavada

11th December 2006, 08:40 AM

also johnny5 and others, if you haven't already, you might want to watch this:-

ZYPco_Pr5Sw

sorta explains everything.........

BV

uruk

11th December 2006, 08:41 AM

i think chris is trying to tell you otherwise. jebson is correct but at the same time he is INCORRECT. this logic-stream only works for psuedo-surveyor-welder-draughtsmen-blaster-musician-artistes in santa barbara tho.

BV

It is his special brand of common sense and logic. His info is wrong or right depending on what he needs it to be for a particular argument. It's the same kind of thinking that allows Chris say something is wrong without ever having seen that thing.

JonnyFive

11th December 2006, 08:45 AM

careful, he might show you a picture of his "equipment"

You mean his 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTER?

Powa

11th December 2006, 08:59 AM

The Number 23

Apple Quick Time trailer (http://www.apple.com/trailers/newline/thenumber23/trailer/)

Now, what does this remind me of?

22 (21 & 23) (http://www.truthasaur.com/my_22/my22.html)
Oh Chris, why can't you at least be original? Pick some other number, like, I dunno, 42?

Oh, wait, that's taken (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Answer_to_Life%2C_the_Universe%2C_and_Everythi ng), too.

Bell

11th December 2006, 08:59 AM

You don't hear explosions because :words:

And by the way, Chris, you didn't address the buckling...

what explosives caused the side of the building to buckle inwards?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546

TellyKNeasuss

11th December 2006, 09:12 AM

You feign confusion trying to induce confusion in the reader. Shame on you.

Interior box columns (http://home.comcast.net/%7Ejeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) were the only columns visible.

At least we agree that there were columns left. You can call them "interior box columns" if you like.

I do have evidence and you have failed to address it. You have not explained how these cuts were done at ground zero if they are NOT cuts from high explosive shear inthe demolition.

Sheared Columns (http://www.parrhesia.com/wtc/wtc066.jpg)Pictures of steel beams cut up for transport hardly qualify as evidence of explosives. I would doubt that explosives would have created such a clean, straight cut, with no evidence of scorching. Just my opinion, but it fits both logic and common sense.

bonavada

11th December 2006, 09:12 AM

what explosives caused the side of the building to buckle inwards?

same type that caused the firedoor to be sucked off it's hinges in the basement.

BV

bonavada

11th December 2006, 09:15 AM

thinking about the basement.........

hey chris, please can you tell me how you know that the walls in the wtc towers sub-levels were reinforced concrete?

BV

bonavada

11th December 2006, 09:26 AM

You have not explained how these cuts were done at ground zero if they are NOT cuts from high explosive shear inthe demolition.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748457d94126448c.jpg

i can explain........see below.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748456afaafc24c4.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748457c7ea70c448.jpg

BV

hcmom

11th December 2006, 09:27 AM

Christophera

11th December 2006, 09:30 AM

Your words:

What was so nice about (your alleged) blasts, where hundreds of people died?

Your refusal to use the original word "uniform" to descibe a billowing cloud of dust and debris, has led to my trying another word "nice".

Now you are attempting to reaaply that word to another aspect of the event and twist that into somehting which might evoke "emotional reasoning". A cognitive distortion.

This obvious and is the sign of a sick and desperate mind.

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

7. Emotional reasoning - Making decisions and arguments based on how you feel rather than objective reality. (See appeal to consequences.)

Christophera

11th December 2006, 09:40 AM

i can explain........see below.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748456afaafc24c4.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748457c7ea70c448.jpg

BV

So where is the explanation?

Christophera

11th December 2006, 09:46 AM

thinking about the basement.........

hey chris, please can you tell me how you know that the walls in the wtc towers sub-levels were reinforced concrete?

BV

I've answered this about 15 pages back.

The documentary explained that basement walls were constructed with concrete having rebar with the same "special plastic coating".

What would you expect basement walls made from besides concrete?

Christophera

11th December 2006, 10:01 AM

JonnyFive

11th December 2006, 10:16 AM

This obvious and is the sign of a sick and desperate mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_distortion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_distortionquote)

Why is it again that we should take your opinion of this over the opinion of every structural engineer, fire safety expert, actual controlled demolitions expert, and architect in the world?

You say you're a welder and you can do drafting and surveying. That's absolutely wonderful, but that has nothing to do with structural engineering. Simply having experience with construction materials or in construction doesn't make you an expert in the underlying physical elements.

Since you haven't bothered to cite any experts in these fields that agree with your claim of controlled demolition, your credibility must come from your own expertise.

What experience do you have with math and physics?
Please provide a detailed explanation, including specific subject areas you are an expert on.

I would note that structural engineers must generally attend at least four years of university-level courses to become qualified in the discipline. It is my understanding that you have not completed high school, correct? Have you then gone on to attend university-level engineering courses? Have you conducted a rigorous self-directed program of study in these matters?

If that is the case, could you please explain in semi-technical terms why the towers fell in the "wrong order" and fell "the wrong way". I am not an engineer, but I can understand university-level mathematical concepts.

Feel free to post equations. I will let you know if they involve symbols or concepts I am not familiar with so that you can clarify or explain in simpler terms.

TellyKNeasuss

11th December 2006, 10:17 AM

I've answered this about 15 pages back.

The documentary explained that basement walls were constructed with concrete having rebar with the same "special plastic coating".

What would you expect basement walls made from besides concrete?

An answer that cites a non-existent documentary is useless.

Bell

11th December 2006, 10:26 AM

Your refusal to use the original word "uniform" to descibe a billowing cloud of dust and debris, has led to my trying another word "nice".

Now you are attempting to reaaply that word to another aspect of the event and twist that into somehting which might evoke "emotional reasoning". A cognitive distortion.

This obvious and is the sign of a sick and desperate mind.

You picked the word, life with it, but don't blame your twisted and sick choice of words on me, Chris.

Bell

11th December 2006, 10:27 AM

I've answered this about 15 pages back.

The documentary explained that basement walls were constructed with concrete having rebar with the same "special plastic coating".

What would you expect basement walls made from besides concrete?

Your words:

We will be sticking with the AVAILABLE evidence.

uruk

11th December 2006, 10:40 AM

Hey Chris! You ignoring this for some reason?

I wanted to share this little gem with everyone. Especially Chris.
It's perfect example of Chris's superiour memory. I found it while looking back in this thread for info to respond to one of Chris's replies.

Well it seems that Chris's memory is suffering (as well as mine). I just found a post where Chris said that Mr. Jebson's account of the process could not be correct.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=5607

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

If Chris had already discounted Mr. Jebson's account back then, why did Chris post this?
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=8960

Quote:
"Below is a usenet comment which descibes what I saw in the 1990 documentary called "Construction of the Twin Towers". The WTC 1 core was constructed ahead of the steel erection."

So which is it Chris? Is Jebson wrong like you said in post #5607? Or is he correct like you said in post #8960? You can't have it both ways

Christophera

11th December 2006, 10:46 AM

At least we agree that there were columns left. You can call them "interior box columns" if you like.

Pictures of steel beams cut up for transport hardly qualify as evidence of explosives. I would doubt that explosives would have created such a clean, straight cut, with no evidence of scorching. Just my opinion, but it fits both logic and common sense.

Evidence was removed from ground zero most likely because it was of explosives. Here now, I'm asking you to explain reasonably, how those columns were cut. If you cannot, it becomes evidence for explosives.

I have used a detail remembered from the 1990 documentary to produce a design based on the components described int he documentary that will leave cuts like those columns show.

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

Christophera

11th December 2006, 10:49 AM

Hey Chris! You ignoring this for some reason?

I wanted to share this little gem with everyone. Especially Chris.
It's perfect example of Chris's superiour memory. I found it while looking back in this thread for info to respond to one of Chris's replies.

Well it seems that Chris's memory is suffering (as well as mine). I just found a post where Chris said that Mr. Jebson's account of the process could not be correct.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=5607

If Chris had already discounted Mr. Jebson's account back then, why did Chris post this?
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=8960

So which is it Chris? Is Jebson wrong like you said in post #5607? Or is he correct like you said in post #8960? You can't have it both ways

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

"Below is a usenet comment which descibes what I saw in the 1990 documentary called "Construction of the Twin Towers". The WTC 1 core was constructed ahead of the steel erection.

homer,

You have a reading problem. My memory is okay, my writing is okay, your reading is scrambled.

This post is my basis for asserting this. Something I've noticed before.

They both say basically the same thing.

Big Al

11th December 2006, 10:50 AM

The documentary explained that basement walls were constructed with concrete having rebar with the same "special plastic coating".

Did the documentary talk about ANYTHING OTHER THAN bloody concrete & rebar?

They first talk about the concrete core, making absolutely sure you got the message about the super-special rebar and it's ultra-secret coating, and they then make a point about the basement walls containing the very same stuff, viewers, just in case you didn't get the point! Wanna hear more about rebar, documentary fans? Wait for the next thrilling instalment of "Christophera Remembers!"

Wow! Somebody REALLY slipped up allowing all this top-secret stuff to get out twenty years after the towers were built, didn't they? How come this documentary ever aired at all? I'd have thought the PBS offices would have been knee-deep in corpses, not to mention the offices that vouchsafed all this info!

This reminds me of something. It's brown, it's steaming, and it comes out of bovine recta...

JonnyFive

11th December 2006, 10:54 AM

This reminds me of something. It's brown, it's steaming, and it comes out of bovine recta...

Oooh, ooh, I know! It's candy!

No? It's not candy? Well, I got nothing.

Chris, could you please tell us everything you remember from this documentary, even if it doesn't relate to the core? I just want to be sure this isn't just a catch-all piece of unprovable "evidence" for whenever we have you in a jam. You wouldn't do that, would you?

Also,

What experience do you have with physics and math? Please be specific!

Big Al

11th December 2006, 11:01 AM

Chris, could you please tell us everything you remember from this documentary, even if it doesn't relate to the core? I just want to be sure this isn't just a catch-all piece of unprovable "evidence" for whenever we have you in a jam.

I asked for that pages back, Jonny. Totally ignored, of course. As for Chris' physics and maths experience... OK, Chris, what physical property of a material is defined as stress over strain?

uruk

11th December 2006, 11:04 AM

homer,

You have a reading problem. My memory is okay, my writing is okay, your reading is scrambled.

This post is my basis for asserting this. Something I've noticed before.

They both say basically the same thing.
Only in a fractured mind do those post say the same thing.
Now you're lying to cover up a blatant mistake. Truly sad Chris.

Try reading the full posts Chris. In post #5607 you say Jebson account of the process was wrong. But in post #8960 you said that Jebson's account coincides with the "documentary" you saw. He can't be right on both accounts Chris.

Look again:
"this guy saw the very beginning where the core was formed standing free and the steel went up around it. After 5 or 6 floors a person on the street wouldn't be able to see so his account of the process is not correct.
"Below is a usenet comment which descibes what I saw in the 1990 documentary called "Construction of the Twin Towers". The WTC 1 core was constructed ahead of the steel erection.

You made an error Chris. Be a man and own up to it. It's blatant, It's obvious.
And I am not going to let you go on this one Chris.

Better yet. Explain to me how they both say the same thing.

TellyKNeasuss

11th December 2006, 11:05 AM

Evidence was removed from ground zero most likely because it was of explosives. Here now, I'm asking you to explain reasonably, how those columns were cut. If you cannot, it becomes evidence for explosives.

No it doesn't.

I have used a detail remembered from the 1990 documentary to produce a design based on the components described int he documentary that will leave cuts like those columns show.

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

There was no 1990 documentary. Since everyone already knows this, why do you keep bringing it up?

JonnyFive

11th December 2006, 11:11 AM

I asked for that pages back, Jonny. Totally ignored, of course. As for Chris' physics and maths experience... OK, Chris, what physical property of a material is defined as stress over strain?

Yeah, I know. I figured I'd ask again in case it slipped past his filter that apparently allows him to only see 2% of what we say, and respond to .05%. ::Le Sigh::

I know the answer (because I'm a freaking genius and can do simple research when I hear something unfamiliar), but I'd love to hear him give it a shot. It should be easy, as he is apparently more qualified to evaluate the collapse than every other engineer, architect, and demolitions expert in the world.

But wait, he "worked with demolitions" in some vague way. EXPERT!

Christophera

11th December 2006, 11:17 AM

FIRSTLY........excellent piece of draughtsmanship on the below chris. is this the high standard that makes you the preferred option above those over-qualified elite professionals?

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4462&d=1165814495

those images do not show steel core columns chris because the pics are taken at a goodly distance. is it too hard for you to comprehend that? what the images do show are lift shafts.

not the only thing that's in peices. your concrete core theory is shattered by your own words........

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748457c7ea70c448.jpg

BV

Do you have some other way to show steel core columns in the towers? Images from the towers demise are the best because the core area is totally exposed in many shots.

Construction photos showing steel in the core area simply show the steel support for lift shafts or they would still be there in the images of the towers demise because the supposed steel core columns would be very strong and survive to be seen in some way.

Big Al

11th December 2006, 11:21 AM

Construction photos showing steel in the core area simply show the steel support for lift shafts or they would still be there in the images of the towers demise because the supposed steel core columns would be very strong and survive to be seen in some way.

And you know this from experience of the collapse of what other steel-cored skyscraper hit by a fully-fuelled airliner at 400mph?

The whole idea is that the fire WEAKENED the steel, so it could no longer support the weight above.

Christophera

11th December 2006, 11:29 AM

Tell me why on earth would they build only one side of the concrete core going up all those floors before starting on the next wall?
Wouldn't you logicaly build all four walls of the core on one floor before you start on the next floor?
Your explinations are becoming more and rediculous as you try to fit your clearly incorrect hypothesis with evidence that clearly shows you to be wrong.
Your dishonesty is staggering.

WTC 2 had a very different concrete core design from WTC 1. It was comprised of shear wall cells divided by a full height wall cutting the long axis of the core in half and could have been constructed in portions rather than the entire footprint, which would explain why they could erect more steel before the core had to catch up.

The reason they would do it is that they could get more height quicker which would make the exterior tower ridgid and safe to erect more steel faster.

Christophera

11th December 2006, 11:31 AM

And you know this from experience of the collapse of what other steel-cored skyscraper hit by a fully-fuelled airliner at 400mph?

The whole idea is that the fire WEAKENED the steel, so it could no longer support the weight above.

Heat goes up and your explanation does nothing to illuminate why both towers collapsed all the way to the ground almost identically. The strcuture below was undamaged and was designed to support the loads above.

JonnyFive

11th December 2006, 11:34 AM

Do you have some other way to show steel core columns in the towers? Images from the towers demise are the best because the core area is totally exposed in many shots.

Construction photos showing steel in the core area simply show the steel support for lift shafts or they would still be there in the images of the towers demise because the supposed steel core columns would be very strong and survive to be seen in some way.

Images from the tower demise with the dust, debris, smoke, chaos, and confusion in a highly dynamic situation involving the massive failure and collapse of enormous skyscrapers are best?

Wait, I thought they were elevator guides rails. Or was it MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS?

What makes you qualified to say that steel supports would have survived a collapse of this sort? Is this the part where you tell me your engineering, mathematics, and physics knowledge with specific details?

Let me remind you that you are the one contradicting all the other structural engineers, so you really need to bring some meat to this table, rather than the straw you've brought so far.

beachnut

11th December 2006, 11:34 AM

Heat goes up and your explanation does nothing to illuminate why both towers collapsed all the way to the ground almost identically. The strcuture below was undamaged and was designed to support the loads above.

No the building below could not handle over 50,000 tons moving, wrong again.

Your web site is still the best way to debunk the concrete core.

Glad you do not design buildings; sad you do not understand physics.

jhunter1163

11th December 2006, 11:37 AM

Heat goes up and your explanation does nothing to illuminate why both towers collapsed all the way to the ground almost identically. The strcuture below was undamaged and was designed to support the loads above.

Ooooh! Oooooh! Let me answer this one!

The structure was designed to support a STATIC (or nearly so) load. STATIC in this context means not moving in relation to the rest of the tower. Once the supports started failing, the load became DYNAMIC. DYNAMIC, in this context, means the load was moving relative to the rest of the tower. A DYNAMIC load of the mass of, say, 20 floors of WTC will have WAY more kinetic energy than a STATIC load of the same mass (I know a static load has zero kinetic energy, but work with me here) and thus will WAY exceed the tolerances built into the floors below, thus causing global structural failure.

Am I right, Architect? Do I win a cookie?

Bell

11th December 2006, 11:42 AM

WTC 2 had a very different concrete core design from WTC 1. It was comprised of shear wall cells divided by a full height wall cutting the long axis of the core in half and could have been constructed in portions rather than the entire footprint, which would explain why they could erect more steel before the core had to catch up.

The reason they would do it is that they could get more height quicker which would make the exterior tower ridgid and safe to erect more steel faster.

And where is your evidence of all of this?

We will be sticking with the AVAILABLE evidence.

uruk

11th December 2006, 11:47 AM

Chris. I'm not going to let you go on this one.

Here's what you posted on post #5607
"this guy saw the very beginning where the core was formed standing free and the steel went up around it. After 5 or 6 floors a person on the street wouldn't be able to see so his account of the process is not correct.
Here's the full post #8960
Excellent. I knew we could find a picture of the WTC 2 steel being built ahead of the core. The mistakes of WTC 1 processes were not repeated.

Below is a usenet comment which descibes what I saw in the 1990 documentary called "Construction of the Twin Towers". The WTC 1 core was constructed ahead of the steel erection. After thinking about it I realized I would have built the steel frame first and used it to align the elevator guide rails.

The docuemntary explained that there was much construction politics around the beginning as the elevator crews basically controlled the process as contracts stated that "elevators were to be given a priority and other trades were to work to get elevators as far up as possible", or some such language.

Constructon politics, being what they are could definitely lead to what was seen by some passer by below and what I saw in the 1990 documentary. Which was a mistake. The wrong way to start, very time consuming.

Thanks to Bell we have just shown the correct way to start your tower. Pour the core inside AFTER the exterior steel is in position so you can use it to form with and be support for the elevator guide rail supports too.

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

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

-=tom=-

Notice the statements that I bolded.
It's unmistakable Chris. In post 5607 you clearly stated that Jebson was wrong. In post# 8960 you said his account was correct and therefore we should see a concrete core being built ahead of the steel on WTC1.
You can't weasle out of this one Chris.

JonnyFive

11th December 2006, 11:47 AM

Heat goes up

No, it doesn't.

I think you're thinking of the fact that cold gases, being denser, will sink towards the dominant source of gravity (Earth), while hotter, less dense gases will be pushed up.

"Heat" simply refers to the movement of molecules, atoms, and whatnot that make up all matter.

Also, could you please tell me (because I'm not sure of the answer) which weighs more:
-2.5 steel bars with a diameter of 3" and a length of 4'
-1.1 steel bars with a diameter of 3" and a length of 4'

uruk

11th December 2006, 11:53 AM

WTC 2 had a very different concrete core design from WTC 1. It was comprised of shear wall cells divided by a full height wall cutting the long axis of the core in half and could have been constructed in portions rather than the entire footprint, which would explain why they could erect more steel before the core had to catch up.

The reason they would do it is that they could get more height quicker which would make the exterior tower ridgid and safe to erect more steel faster.

How does one side of a four sided wall make a structure more rigid? It would sound like the single wall would need the support of the steel structre more than the steel structure needed the support of the concrete wall.

Also can you provide proof that that is way it happened? Because this just sounds like you're making stuff up again.

Belz...

11th December 2006, 12:15 PM

Belz i am trying to bend a 1/4 inch sheet metal using jet fuel......still no successes.........

And I'm trying real hard to understand your toddler-level english.

can you tell me again how this works?

Easy: NO MELTING.

i dont get it...........why can i bend this 1/4 carbon steel........a minute fraction of the 5inch steel column beams in the world trade center. why is this not working. help me out here.....CAN ANY OF YOU DENIALS PLEASE TELL ME HOW I CAN USE JET FUEL TO BEND THIS 1/4" PLATE STEEL???

Are you sure this relates to 9/11 ?

Lets be clear...........you are saying that it was
1) the impact of the plane the subsequent damage
2) and the heat from the jet fuel that caused its collapse
right?

No. The impact and the fires CAUSED by the jet fuel, that burned thousands of pieces of furniture and other office supplies. You know, the really annoying petroleum-based stuff.

Belz...

11th December 2006, 12:17 PM

If the planes were going to take them down it would have happened immediately.

Ridiculous. The planes were one of the contributing factors.

Haven't you ever seen something topple several minutes after you clipped it ?

Besides, you know very well the towers had a cast concrete core.

Telling me what you think I know will not help your cause. What you have demonstrated is that low-resolution pictures are worth squat, and that there was a lot of dust during the collapse of the towers. You've also conclusively demonstrated both that : A) calling core columns "box columns" and "elevator guide rails" is a convenient but unconvincing dodge strategy and B) You know next to nothing about building construction and demolition, contra your claims.

When the towers did fall, the tops of the towers fell the wrong directions compared to the aircraft damage you cite.

Because you ignore damage to OTHER walls during the crash. Another convenient AND unconvincing strategy of yours.

Steel reinforced concrete flexes to a degree.

Thanks. TO A DEGREE. But not nearly as much as stell. Am I correct ?

No, you're the one who's trying to take a snapshot and making it the whole event.

We have an image of the top of one of two towers falling the wrong way.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1tiltingfromsouth.jpg

We have the top of the other tower falling the opposite diection of the body. Impossible without explosives.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg

We have an image of plumes of sand and gravel, concrete particulate cascading up and out hundreds of feet.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1plumecascade.jpg

Here is an image of a uniform mushroom shape of puverized concrete from the core and floors extending perhaps 150 feet out from the tower faces.

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

Clearly, you are intentionally making an error by stating I am using one image to prove demolition.

That's because your're confused: that's NOT what I said. You're still doing it, in fact: taking SNAPSHOTS and trying to make them look like they represent the whole, complex collapse event.

Christophera

11th December 2006, 12:38 PM

Yeah, I know. I figured I'd ask again in case it slipped past his filter that apparently allows him to only see 2% of what we say, and respond to .05%. ::Le Sigh::

I know the answer (because I'm a freaking genius and can do simple research when I hear something unfamiliar), but I'd love to hear him give it a shot. It should be easy, as he is apparently more qualified to evaluate the collapse than every other engineer, architect, and demolitions expert in the world.

But wait, he "worked with demolitions" in some vague way. EXPERT!

Our discussion is about explanations for near free fall and the filter is actually garbage posts by deniers of the truth as substanciated here,

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

regarding the concrete core

Christophera

11th December 2006, 12:50 PM

Ridiculous. The planes were one of the contributing factors.

Haven't you ever seen something topple several minutes after you clipped it ?

Sure, and the topple stopped at the bottom of the clip. To suggest it would continue down into undamaged areas IS ridiculous.

Telling me what you think I know will not help your cause. What you have demonstrated is that low-resolution pictures are worth squat, and that there was a lot of dust during the collapse of the towers. You've also conclusively demonstrated both that : A) calling core columns "box columns" and "elevator guide rails" is a convenient but unconvincing dodge strategy and B) You know next to nothing about building construction and demolition, contra your claims.

Since you cannot explain your own thoughts about what happened of what is seen where dust is not present in the images, some thing is needed to explain your inanity.

The misrepresentations of the construction images is proven by the lack of core columns in the demolition images so "guide rails" fits way better than "core columns" because those were supposedly very strong.

Because you ignore damage to OTHER walls during the crash. Another convenient AND unconvincing strategy of yours.

You haven't shown that such damage actaully occured. You assume, or generalize, a distortion, that such ocurred. In your presentation this damge extends all the way to the ground, which is absolutely unsupported.

That's because your're confused: that's NOT what I said. You're still doing it, in fact: taking SNAPSHOTS and trying to make them look like they represent the whole, complex collapse event.

Seeing as you have no pictures at all, your assertion simply serves your profound lack of evidence.

The concrete core is well documented from the demolition images.

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

Bell

11th December 2006, 12:53 PM

Our discussion is about explanations for near free fall and the filter is actually garbage posts by deniers of the truth as substanciated here,

<spam>

regarding the concrete core

No, it is not. Everytime we bring it up, and try to determine how long it took for the towers to collapse, you weasel your way out, by saying the time doesn't matter. But if it doesn't matter, you can't determine if the towers fell near free fall or not. Therefor your discussion is useless.

JonnyFive

11th December 2006, 12:55 PM

Our discussion is about explanations for near free fall and the filter is actually garbage posts by deniers of the truth as substanciated here,

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

regarding the concrete core

Substantiated, you really need to run this stuff through a spell checker.

You're quick to dismiss questions as garbage, even when they relate directly to your credibility as a source (as you don't cite any others).

So, you're not going to tell me your math, physics, or engineering expertise?

You've already shown you don't appear to understand even basic high school physics, so why should I trust your opinion about the speed of the towers falling, the order they fell in, or anything else related to science?

Bell

11th December 2006, 01:03 PM

The misrepresentations of the construction images is proven by the lack of core columns in the demolition images so "guide rails" fits way better than "core columns" because those were supposedly very strong.

Yet here you say...

One thig is D@mm sure, 47, 1300 foot steel columns are never seen in ANY of the demo images. Only interior box columns. The elevator guide rail suppport steel is so flimsy it fell to the bottom of the core immediately.

uruk

11th December 2006, 01:04 PM

I'm not letting you run away from this one Chris.

Here's what you posted on post #5607

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

Here's the full post #8960

Quote:
Excellent. I knew we could find a picture of the WTC 2 steel being built ahead of the core. The mistakes of WTC 1 processes were not repeated.

Below is a usenet comment which descibes what I saw in the 1990 documentary called "Construction of the Twin Towers". The WTC 1 core was constructed ahead of the steel erection. After thinking about it I realized I would have built the steel frame first and used it to align the elevator guide rails.

The docuemntary explained that there was much construction politics around the beginning as the elevator crews basically controlled the process as contracts stated that "elevators were to be given a priority and other trades were to work to get elevators as far up as possible", or some such language.

Constructon politics, being what they are could definitely lead to what was seen by some passer by below and what I saw in the 1990 documentary. Which was a mistake. The wrong way to start, very time consuming.

Thanks to Bell we have just shown the correct way to start your tower. Pour the core inside AFTER the exterior steel is in position so you can use it to form with and be support for the elevator guide rail supports too.

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

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

-=tom=-

Notice the statements that I bolded.
It's unmistakable Chris. In post 5607 you clearly stated that Jebson was wrong. In post# 8960 you said his account was correct and therefore we should see a concrete core being built ahead of the steel on WTC1.
You can't weasle out of this one Chris.

Bell

11th December 2006, 01:09 PM

Also Chris, Mr. Kcin would like to know:

Which is heavier:

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

JonnyFive

11th December 2006, 01:14 PM

Also Chris, Mr. Kcin would like to know:

Yeah, that'll happen. Perhaps...

Which is heavier, Chris:

-25 Loose Change DVDs
-11 Loose Change DVDs

Christophera

11th December 2006, 01:27 PM

I'm not letting you run away from this one Chris.

Here's what you posted on post #5607

Here's the full post #8960

Notice the statements that I bolded.
It's unmistakable Chris. In post 5607 you clearly stated that Jebson was wrong. In post# 8960 you said his account was correct and therefore we should see a concrete core being built ahead of the steel on WTC1.
You can't weasle out of this one Chris.

The fact remains that what I said is that he was right about the bottom of the core but not about the core after 5 floors because there is no way he could see it.

Cease with efforts of distortion and produce raw images of the steel core columns in the core area from some elevation over the ground during the demoliton.

Here is one that shows rebar, (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) but no steel core columns where they should be if they existed.

Christophera

11th December 2006, 01:31 PM

Substantiated, you really need to run this stuff through a spell checker.

You're quick to dismiss questions as garbage, even when they relate directly to your credibility as a source (as you don't cite any others).

So, you're not going to tell me your math, physics, or engineering expertise?

You've already shown you don't appear to understand even basic high school physics, so why should I trust your opinion about the speed of the towers falling, the order they fell in, or anything else related to science?

Locating evidence has nothing to do with what you are attempting with discussion. Or, ....... if you had any evidence you would use it.

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

Bell

11th December 2006, 01:33 PM

The fact remains that what I said is that he was right about the bottom of the core but not about the core after 5 floors because there is no way he could see it.

Where is the concrete, Chris?

edit: webpage here (http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/small/eng-news-record.htm)
7th picture from the top.

Bell

11th December 2006, 02:00 PM

Here is <spam> the top of WTC 2, with the concrete core inside the perimeter walls falling on WTC 3

We have been through this before Chris (congrats on your photographic memory). The top op the South Tower fell to the EAST, the Marriott hotel was on the WEST side. Stop lying.

uruk

11th December 2006, 02:01 PM

The fact remains that what I said is that he was right about the bottom of the core but not about the core after 5 floors because there is no way he could see it.Nope, What you said:
"this guy saw the very beginning where the core was formed standing free and the steel went up around it. After 5 or 6 floors a person on the street wouldn't be able to see so his account of the process is not correct."
you then later used his account to corroberate your "documentary".:
Below is a usenet comment which descibes what I saw in the 1990 documentary called "Construction of the Twin Towers". The WTC 1 core was constructed ahead of the steel erection.
At any rate, the core of WTC1 should have been visible in the aerial photographs. But they are not.

Cease with efforts of distortion and produce raw images of the steel core columns in the core area from some elevation over the ground during the demoliton. I'm not distorting. I'm showing the truth. If you can't handle it or unwilling to admit the truth, that's not my fault. But i'm not going to let you brush it away and pretend it didn't happen.
How about you show a picture of the WTC1 concrete core under construction. I'll even accept an areial view. According to you, Jebson and your documentary, you should have no trouble at this.

Here is one that shows rebar, (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) but no steel core columns where they should be if they existed.

Why should I believe your interpretation when you can't honestly admit to a mistake and a lie?