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

[Christophera]

This whole conversation amazes me. People keep showing Christophera the pictures he demands

The demoliton shows us the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) many different times. Show me an image from the demolition that shows ONE of the supposed 47, 1300 foot steel coliumns!!!!!!


I can produce many that show the core area and NO STEEL COLUMNS EXIST IN THE CORE.

[Gravy]

Those are interior box columns. Notice no heavy columns in the center of the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) area interior box columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg). The rectangle formed by the floor beams and the INTERIOR BOX COLUMNS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) tells us the image from the demo shows the same columns as the image you post.

Misrepresentation or, ............ ignorance.

You are incorrect.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/87904495b879ebd4b.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/87904496cc3612098.jpg

What's the recipe for invisible concrete, Christophera?

[Apollyon]

Those are interior box columns. Notice no heavy columns in the center of the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) area interior box columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg). The rectangle formed by the floor beams and the INTERIOR BOX COLUMNS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) tells us the image from the demo shows the same columns as the image you post.

Misrepresentation or, ............ ignorance.
Both, on your part.

The structure was a "hollow core" to accommodate the elevators, electrical services, and plumbing. There was not intended to be any "heavy" columns at the center. That's a red herring. What you are erroneously referring to as interior box columns ARE the core columns. Please stop trying to create your own nomenclature.

[Christophera]

what is the size of this concrete core you're proposing? According to the floor plans each floor is 208'x208'. There is a core that is 88'x135', but most of that is empty space for elevator shafts, stairwells, plumbing and electrical chases. What is the size of this concrete column and where on the floor plans was it located?

How about you produce an image of the steel core columns from the demolition to show they exist? I can show the rectangular, tubular, steel reinforced concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) and that no steel columns ever appear in the core area. The inside dimensions of the core were 80 x 120 feet.

[Pardalis]

The demoliton shows us the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) many different times. Show me an image from the demolition that shows ONE of the supposed 47, 1300 foot steel coliumns!!!!!!


I can produce many that show the core area and NO STEEL COLUMNS EXIST IN THE CORE.

Again, do YOU have any evidence from reputable engeneering sources, that there was a concrete core? Before the collapse, while it was under construction.

[Belz...]

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

That's actually just ONE, chris.

[Pardalis]

That's actually just ONE, chris.

... and it's inconclusive.

[twinstead]

I would have no problem because images of the demolition show that NO STEELCORE COLUMNS EXIST. All that is visible in demolition images must be concrete.



Well, yea, but while you seem to be very convinced, your evidence is being seriously disputed here. In typical arrogant conspiracy theorist fashion, you are hand waving their contrary evidence away and implying they don’t know what they are talking about and are ignorant.

To me, it seems like a huge concrete core being poured during construction would be documented very well, as would the people who were involved in it number in the hundreds.

If we could arrange it, how many people coming forward who were involved in the construction, either planning or actual workers, saying they saw no concrete core would it take for you to start questioning yourself? One? Ten? A hundred?

[Christophera]

Both, on your part.

The structure was a "hollow core" to accommodate the elevators, electrical services, and plumbing. There was not intended to be any "heavy" columns at the center. That's a red herring. What you are erroneously referring to as interior box columns ARE the core columns. Please stop trying to create your own nomenclature.

FEMA (http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/femacore.gif) proves you wrong with their crappy little diagram used in the WTC report.

[Belz...]

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

That's been shown to you to be part of the outer wall. In fact, you can see it in other pictures, some of which YOU'VE posted.

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

I'm amazed that you can distinguish steel and concrete from that far away. Maybe you should apply for the million.

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

I don't see any concrete there. In fact, all the pictures you've shown to support your position are inconclusive at best. Why don't you show us a single, clear image of that core ?

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

Haven't you learned yet that appealing to patriotic emotions doesn't advance your argument in a logical DEBATE ?

[Christophera]

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

Of course. The evidence is msirepresented and the demolition shows the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) very well from a number of angles. Also, I know for CERTAIN that the core was concrete while the images I link to never, ever show the steel core columns that were supposed to exist.

can you explain why the steel core columns never appear in the demo images?

[Gravy]

How about you produce an image of the steel core columns from the demolition to show they exist? I can show the rectangular, tubular, steel reinforced concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) and that no steel columns ever appear in the core area. The inside dimensions of the core were 80 x 120 feet.
No, you can't. There is no evidence of concrete in the image you posted. There are, however, thousands of photos of the steel core columns.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/87904496cf2e77fcd.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/87904495b879af0d4.jpg

Tell me, Christophera, what is the recipe for invisible concrete?

[Christophera]

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

I have backed it up with redundant evidence, and none of it shows the steel core columns where they should show. I have proven my point and disproven yours.

Your turn.

[Belz...]

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

"Please convince me that your theory is wrong, but DON'T MENTION YOUR THEORY!!"

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

Gravy and others have done a fine job of explaining to you that the towers did NOT FALL AT FREE FALL SPEEDS. I mean, LOOK:

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/wtc_collapse.jpg

How can the towers fall at free fall speeds if the debris falls faster ?

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

HAAHAHAHAH!! That's circular reasoning if I ever saw one. You're using this picture to show that there was rebar on the site... and when asked to show that you know what it looks like, you pose the SAME picture!!!

Pulverization is explain while the timing mimicked by those[...]

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

Funny how we can see non-pulverised concrete in that picture, eh ?

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

Woah!! I mean if the BBC said so, it MUST be true...

[twinstead]

Hey, in those pictures you can actually see through the building being built. How can that be possible if there was a solid concrete core?

[Pardalis]

Concrete tube.

Aren't "tubes" by definition cylindrical?

[Christophera]

No, you can't. There is no evidence of concrete in the image you posted. There are, however, thousands of photos of the steel core columns.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/87904496cf2e77fcd.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/87904495b879af0d4.jpg

Tell me, Christophera, what is the recipe for invisible concrete?

The concrete was totally fractured instantly to fall as SAND & GRAVEL (http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg).

Those are interior box columns and images of them above ground are what you need to show. Something similar to what I show of the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) at 400 feet off the ground. Similar to this image of the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) which also happens to fully show the core area and ther are not steel columns.

Your tower silhouette image shows the tubular cast concrete core inside with its hallways letting light through.

[Christophera]

Aren't "tubes" by definition cylindrical?

You had better leave the discussion after asking that lame question.

[Christophera]

Hey, in those pictures you can actually see through the building being built. How can that be possible if there was a solid concrete core?

Which pictures?

In this image you cannot see through the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) and you cannot see any steel columns either.

[twinstead]

Your tower silhouette image shows the tubular cast concrete core inside with its hallways letting light through.

My goodness. And you have the nerve to accuse others of posting ignorant statements?

[Gravy]

Of course. The evidence is msirepresented and the demolition shows the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) very well from a number of angles. Also, I know for CERTAIN that the core was concrete while the images I link to never, ever show the steel core columns that were supposed to exist.

can you explain why the steel core columns never appear in the demo images?
Do you know what argumentum ad nauseum means, Christophera? It's the logical fallacy that arguing the same point over and over makes you right. It doesn't. Evidence does. You don't have any. We do. This is the "concrete core" that Christophera goes on about ad nauseum.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/87904496d16e39a49.jpg

[twinstead]

Which pictures?

In this image you cannot see through the core and you cannot see any steel columns either.

I am sick of seeing that ONE picture, the only shred of evidence you have, over and over and over again.

The picture is inconclusive. It is not good evidence. None of your evidence stands up to objective scrutiny. You can't see that because I am beginning to suspect you have, with all due respect, a few screws loose.

[Christophera]

"Please convince me that your theory is wrong, but DON'T MENTION YOUR THEORY!!"


The rest of your post is too confusing to try and respond to.

I have a SCENARIO (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html), many theories that work together so well, so consistently that it is removed from the realm of "theory".

[Gravy]

Your tower silhouette image shows the tubular cast concrete core inside with its hallways letting light through.

Come again?

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

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/87904496d488985cf.jpg


eta photo

[Christophera]

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

Still waiting for your definition of my error Regnad Kcin.

[Belz...]

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

You're systematically ignoring Gravy's posts on the matter.

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

Even assuming that you're right about the core, Chris, it still doesn't change anything about 9/11.

[Christophera]

Come again?

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

Your image proves nothing. This image of the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) proves that there was a concrete core because nothing else could survive and have that appearance. The image also proves there were not steel core columns.

[Apollyon]

FEMA (http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/femacore.gif) proves you wrong with their crappy little diagram used in the WTC report.
How does that prove me wrong?

If anything, FEMA proves you wrong. Or did they misrepresent the invisicrete?

[Johnny Pixels]

Which pictures?

In this image you cannot see through the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) and you cannot see any steel columns either.

Son, that's because the thing fell down. It's in a heap behind that building.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You had better leave the discussion after asking that lame question.

Is it physically painful to be as stupid as you are? Seriously. Do you have a beeper to remind you to breath, because I'm not seeing enough brain function out of your posts to suggest that you even have an autonomic nervous system.

[Apollyon]

btw, I've sent the following e-mail to Lera.com, which is Leslie E. Robertson Associates, R.L.L.P.

------

Dear Sirs,

I would like to bring an issue to your attention. As you probably know, there are a number of theories discussed on the internet as to the fall of the World Trade Center Towers. Some of these theories involve the design methodologies used in the construction of the towers. One of the alternate theories of construction, which goes against the prevailing wisdom and the statements made by design engineers and structural engineers, including Mr. Robertson, is that 1 WTC and 2 WTC were constructed with a concrete core.

People in various online forums are debating the design issues, but in one particular forum a comment was posted and attributed to Leslie E. Robertson, claiming that the design was indeed a concrete core.

Following is a link to the forum and the content of the comment:

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

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

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

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

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

My impression is that someone impersonated Mr. Robertson in this forum in order to spread false information. While this may seem insignificant, it has had an impact on quite a few people involved in the debates over the fall of the towers, not to mention they seem to be falsely proliferating a viewpoint that does not jibe with past statements by Mr. Robertson.

I thought I would bring this to your attention to make you aware of the situation in case you felt the need to take any action.

Thank you for your time.

[Christophera]

You're systematically ignoring Gravy's posts on the matter.

Even assuming that you're right about the core, Chris, it still doesn't change anything about 9/11.

Gravy has not addressed the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) nor has it produced an image of the steel core columns from demo photos of steel columns. NOTE: the above image link should show some of the supposed 47, steel core columns IF they existed, which they didn't.

[bob_kark]

FROM post #544



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

So, they botched the demolition? This certainly seems like a fairly large problem. How did the rest of the building collapse if the core was still standing? Why wasn't there a huge explosion when the C4 in the standing core detonated? Also, if thermite explosives had been detonated in the basement, what was the core standing on?

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

Thermite burns quickly, however it doesn't melt steel nearly as fast as high explosives expand.

You distort my words from this page.

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

I state the rebar of the concrete core was coated with C4.

You are still avoiding this discrepancy. If they had planned out this attack at the time the building was erected, why would they leave out the most important part of the plan, i.e. the explosives in the basement?

Absolutely a waste of time under these conditions. I know exactly what core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) stood and have redundant proof. See,

http://concretecore.741.com

Meanwhile produce ONE image from the demolition that shows the supposed steel core columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/femacore.gif).

How many do you need? There have been at least 10 in this thread.

[Tricky]

btw, I've sent the following e-mail to Lera.com, which is Leslie E. Robertson Associates, R.L.L.P.

------

Dear Sirs,

I would like to bring an issue to your attention. As you probably know, there are a number of theories discussed on the internet as to the fall of the World Trade Center Towers. Some of these theories involve the design methodologies used in the construction of the towers. One of the alternate theories of construction, which goes against the prevailing wisdom and the statements made by design engineers and structural engineers, including Mr. Robertson, is that 1 WTC and 2 WTC were constructed with a concrete core.

People in various online forums are debating the design issues, but in one particular forum a comment was posted and attributed to Leslie E. Robertson, claiming that the design was indeed a concrete core.

Following is a link to the forum and the content of the comment:

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

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

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

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

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

My impression is that someone impersonated Mr. Robertson in this forum in order to spread false information. While this may seem insignificant, it has had an impact on quite a few people involved in the debates over the fall of the towers, not to mention they seem to be falsely proliferating a viewpoint that does not jibe with past statements by Mr. Robertson.

I thought I would bring this to your attention to make you aware of the situation in case you felt the need to take any action.

Thank you for your time.
Um... Take a look at the date on that message.

[Christophera]

btw, I've sent the following e-mail to Lera.com, which is Leslie E. Robertson Associates, R.L.L.P.

------

Dear Sirs,

I would like to bring an issue to your attention. As you probably know, there are a number of theories discussed on the internet as to the fall of the World Trade Center Towers. Some of these theories involve the design methodologies used in the construction of the towers. One of the alternate theories of construction, which goes against the prevailing wisdom and the statements made by design engineers and structural engineers, including Mr. Robertson, is that 1 WTC and 2 WTC were constructed with a concrete core.

People in various online forums are debating the design issues, but in one particular forum a comment was posted and attributed to Leslie E. Robertson, claiming that the design was indeed a concrete core.

Following is a link to the forum and the content of the comment:

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

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

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

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

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

My impression is that someone impersonated Mr. Robertson in this forum in order to spread false information. While this may seem insignificant, it has had an impact on quite a few people involved in the debates over the fall of the towers, not to mention they seem to be falsely proliferating a viewpoint that does not jibe with past statements by Mr. Robertson.

I thought I would bring this to your attention to make you aware of the situation in case you felt the need to take any action.

Thank you for your time.

Good luck!

He won't deny it as he won't confirm it. He is afraid. I would be too. But I shall not berate him for not coming forward. I will thank him for posting as he did, with his conscience.

[Tricky]

Good luck!

He won't deny it as he won't confirm it. He is afraid. I would be too. But I shall not berate him for not coming forward. I will thank him for posting as he did, with his conscience.
It's an April Fools day joke, you great oaf.

[Johnny Pixels]

Um... Take a look at the date on that message.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1712526#post1712526

[Belz...]

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

A Description of the World Trade Center

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

More proof that nothing exists beyond fall of 2001 for these guys.

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

Why do I get the impression that this is your wallpaper ?

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

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

Again, completely ignoring Gravy, I see.

[Apollyon]

I realize it was posted on April Fools. Regardless, Christophera seems bent on using a fake impersonation of Leslie E. Robertson as proof positive.

Maybe they won't care, maybe they will? It doesn't hurt to give them a heads up.

[Belz...]

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

Interesting that you posted this again, number 43 :

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

Chris, if explosives were used to blow up the CONCRETE core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) and only sand and gravel remained from the collapse, why can we see the thing still standing after the collapse ?

[twinstead]

Your image proves nothing. This image of the core proves that there was a concrete core because nothing else could survive and have that appearance. The image also proves there were not steel core columns.

Dude. Your image proves nothing, because all the construction photos posted in the last few pages show light shining through the building. How do you explain that? How does that fit your concrete core theory? Your concrete core would have to be invisible, therefore, your beloved SINGLE image must have some other explanation.

Honestly, you actually could claim the core was invisible, and it would only be slightly more kooky then the theory you currently have. And if it was invisible, it would explain why no workers saw it, or no pictures taken during construction show it. A perfect theory.

You're welcome in advance for the advice.

[Christophera]

So, they botched the demolition? This certainly seems like a fairly large problem. How did the rest of the building collapse if the core was still standing? Why wasn't there a huge explosion when the C4 in the standing core detonated? Also, if thermite explosives had been detonated in the basement, what was the core standing on?

Read my page,

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

It will save lots of space.


Thermite burns quickly, however it doesn't melt steel nearly as fast as high explosives expand.

True enough. However, the structural value of a steel column is gone quickly.

You are still avoiding this discrepancy. If they had planned out this attack at the time the building was erected, why would they leave out the most important part of the plan, i.e. the explosives in the basement?

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/underground/underground_explosions.htm

How many do you need? There have been at least 10 in this thread.

Mr. Kark,

There are no images of the steel core columns because they did not exist. What is being posted are misrepresentations. If the steel core columns existed they would be seen HER (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg). Instead what is seen is the spire, formed by an interio box column and an end view of the concrete core shear wall.

[Gravy]

The Core Was Often 7 Stories Below The Top OF The Tower

How about 25 stories? Look at the angle the photo is taken from, Christophera. Are you telling me those are HALLWAYS? Please provide a schematic diagram of hallways that go inthe indicated directions.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/87904496d59e43d90.jpg

ETA; Christophera, I really recommend you get the video "New York." Remember that these are video images, and the moving helicopter shows the light between the columns from many angles.

[Pardalis]

You had better leave the discussion after asking that lame question.

Come again?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tube

[Tricky]

I realize it was posted on April Fools. Regardless, Christophera seems bent on using a fake impersonation of Leslie E. Robertson as proof positive.

Maybe they won't care, maybe they will? It doesn't hurt to give them a heads up.
Yeah, Johnny Pixels got there first too. I confess, I don't have the stomach to read through this whole thread.

I suppose though that this proves the old adage, "Nothing can be made foolproof because of the great energy and determination of fools."

[Gravy]

Um... Take a look at the date on that message.
No one knows tricks like Pixie and Tricky!

[Belz...]

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

Ooohh... so they also mixed C4 with the steel of the outer walls during construction ?

Also:

core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)

[Belz...]

Hey, in those pictures you can actually see through the building being built. How can that be possible if there was a solid concrete core?

Invisicrete, of course.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Apparently, Christophera needs reminded why pictures are not, in and of themselves, evidence http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1664253&highlight=challenger#post1664253

Here, let me provide an example of why pictures, by themselves, are not evidence.

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9610/10/feyn...plosion.lg.jpg
Here we can see the after-effects of Christophera's laser attack on the space shuttle Challenger.
...

[Christophera]

Dude. Your image proves nothing, because all the construction photos posted in the last few pages show light shining through the building. How do you explain that?

The hallways allow light to show through, particuarly with WTC 2.

How does that fit your concrete core theory? Your concrete core would have to be invisible, therefore, your beloved SINGLE image must have some other explanation..

There are many images that show the concrete core. This is the one piece of core left, not fractured by high explosive. It is the core wall at the base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg). If the steel core columns existed they would be seen here.

Honestly, you actually could claim the core was invisible, and it would only be slightly less kooky then the theory you currently have. And if it was invisible, it would explain why no workers saw it, or no pictures taken during construction show it. A perfect theory.

You're welcome in advance for the advice.

Workers saw it, we just cannot find the ones that are alive still that saw it. The core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) was not easy to see, but the steel core columns NEVER appear in the demo images where they should if they existed.

[Belz...]

The rest of your post is too confusing to try and respond to.

Really ?

How can the towers fall at free fall speeds if the debris falls faster ?

[Rabbit]

--deleted--

[Christophera]

How about 25 stories? Look at the angle the photo is taken from, Christophera. Are you telling me those are HALLWAYS? Please provide a schematic diagram of hallways that go inthe indicated directions.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/87904496d59e43d90.jpg

ETA; Christophera, I really recommend you get the video "New York." Remember that these are video images, and the moving helicopter shows the light between the columns from many angles.

We see through the hallways of the concrete core just fine.

[Gravy]

The hallways allow light to show through, particuarly with WTC 2.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1712749&postcount=793

[twinstead]

Workers saw it, we just cannot find the ones that are alive still that saw it

So do you have a quote from a worker who saw the core, but he is dead now? Who is this worker? Just how many workers do you think are still alive after only 35 years? You can't find a single worker who remembers the HUGE undertaking that pouring a concrete core would entail?

How many of them would have to say they saw NO concrete core for you to start questioning your theory?

Indeed, what would it take for you to be convinced there was no concrete core?

[Pardalis]

I'll accept your apology whenever you want Chris.


You had better leave the discussion after asking that lame question.
Come again?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tube

[Gravy]

We see through the hallways of the concrete core just fine.
Please provide a schematic that shows hallways going at these angles, Christophera, or admit that you're wrong about the core.

Please try to be a man and not a little child.

I await your diagram.

ETA: Christophera, I really recommend you get the video "New York." Remember that I've been posting screen grabs from MOVING images, and the moving helicopter shows the light between the columns from many angles, and shows the steel columns at various stages of construction. Sorry, there is no concrete core.

[twinstead]

We see through the hallways of the concrete core just fine.

How?

[Christophera]

My goodness. And you have the nerve to accuse others of posting ignorant statements?

Whatsamatta" can't recognize light passing through hallways?

More importantly, where are the steel core columns in this image of the concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg)?

[Christophera]

Please provide a schematic that shows hallways going at these angles, Christophera, or admit that you're wrong about the core.

Please try to be a man and not a little child.

I await your diagram.

ETA: Christophera, I really recommend you get the video "New York." Remember that I've been posting screen grabs from MOVING images, and the moving helicopter shows the light between the columns from many angles, and shows the steel columns at various stages of construction. Sorry, there is no concrete core.

Look, I've posted links to many (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) images that SHOULD show at leat ONE of the 47, 1300 foot steel columns that you and FEMA (http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/femacore.gif) claim existed, AND no steel columns are seen. Sorry, you've got the diagram of WTC 1 core and that is all I'm putting out.

i suggest you put out a littel effort instead of misinformation. Constrcut a small site that compiles all the images of the stee lcore columns you and FEMA (http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/femacore.gif) claim existed.

[Gravy]

Whatsamatta" can't recognize light passing through hallways?

More importantly, where are the steel core columns in this image of the concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg)?

Christophera, please stop this charade. You can't provide a diagram that would explain "hallways" running at crazy angles through the cores. If you tried, I'd just post more screen grabs from different angles that show how ridiculous your idea is.

Why not just do as I ask and watch the Ric Burns documentary? What are you afraid of?

[Christophera]

We see through the hallways of the concrete core just fine.

How?

You make a better door than a window. HOW?

[Gravy]

Look, I've posted links to many (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) images that SHOULD show at leat ONE of the 47, 1300 foot steel columns that you and [url=http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/femacore.gif]

And I've posted images that actually show those columns. All images of the construction confirm the "official" version. None confirm, or even suggest, your that your version has any validity.

[Gravy]

You make a better door than a window. HOW?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1712809&postcount=811

Well, what do you have to say for yourself? Will you be a man or a mouse? It's your choice.

[Stellafane]

Do you know what argumentum ad nauseum means, Christophera? It's the logical fallacy that arguing the same point over and over makes you right. It doesn't. Evidence does. You don't have any. We do. This is the "concrete core" that Christophera goes on about ad nauseum.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/87904496d16e39a49.jpg

Oh, that's just Christophera being Christophera. He's under the delusion that good, serious debate consists of insulting people and repeating the same meaningless drivel over and over until the other person realizes they're talking to a mindless idiot and gives up. It's like two toddlers on a playground going "UH-UH! UH-UH!" at each other for an hour. I'm guessing Christophera doesn't really have a whole lot of real experience interacting with adults face-to-face, so he's formed his ideas via Internet chat rooms like the LC forum. And someone once told him that the concrete core thing is significant, so he's latched onto it and simply can't let go because, let's face it, he really doesn't have much else going on anyway. It's annoying as hell of course, but ulimately it's more pitiable than anything else.

[Apollyon]

Look, I've posted links to many (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) images that SHOULD show at leat ONE of the 47, 1300 foot steel columns that you and FEMA (http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/femacore.gif) claim existed, AND no steel columns are seen.
You have posted the same few images over and over again and assign your own nomenclature to what you think you see.

Your supposed concrete shear wall is a section of the outer tube, the perimeter of the tower. If it's a concrete shear wall, then where are the "interior box columns that you claim should be surrounding it?

btw, you still haven't responded as to how the box column in the photo you provided was so perfectly cut by demo charges without any sort of deformation. Care to expound on that?

[bob_kark]

Read my page,

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

It will save lots of space.

While I would enjoy saving said space, my workplace will not allow me to view said page. Would you please make an exception and explain:

How did the rest of the building collapse if the core was still standing? Why wasn't there a huge explosion when the C4 in the standing core detonated? Also, if thermite explosives had been detonated in the basement, what was the core standing on?


True enough. However, the structural value of a steel column is gone quickly.

True as well, however even this is not an immediate reaction.

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/underground/underground_explosions.htm

Again, I don't have access, would you mind please?

Mr. Kark,

There are no images of the steel core columns because they did not exist. What is being posted are misrepresentations. If the steel core columns existed they would be seen HER (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg). Instead what is seen is the spire, formed by an interio box column and an end view of the concrete core shear wall.

I suppose we must agree to disagree.

[Pardalis]

Christophera, what are your credentials? Are you an engeneer of any sort?

[Christophera]

Really ?

How can the towers fall at free fall speeds if the debris falls faster ?

Geez, ......... I can hardly believe that this has been asked.

You have made an error, perhaps intentionally. This I consider to be a disinfo tactic it is so confusing.

The towers you refer to are not falling yet so the debris outruns them.

[hurdygurdy]

One more image of the astounding invisicrete:

http://img310.imageshack.us/img310/3411/bscap2360yo.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Christophera]

Christophera, what are your credentials? Are you an engeneer of any sort?

I work for a civil engineer doing surveying and drafting. We do mostly grading plans, not structural. I do staking for structural quite often and must use structural plans. I've also been a welder for 30 years and have about 3 years experieince doing above ground blasting.

What are your credentials?

[bob_kark]

2x post

[twinstead]

Geez, ......... I can hardly believe that this has been asked.

You have made an error, perhaps intentionally. This I consider to be a disinfo tactic it is so confusing.

The towers you refer to are not falling yet so the debris outruns them.

How can you have the guts to respond to that question with such an idiotic statement?

[Pardalis]

I work for a civil engineer doing surveying and drafting. We do mostly grading plans, not structural. I do staking for structural quite often and must use structural plans. I've also been a welder for 30 years and have about 3 years experieince doing above ground blasting.

What are your credentials?

I have none in this matter. I just wondered why you keep referring to your own site, instead of real engeneering ones.

[Christophera]

One more image of the astounding invisicrete:

http://img310.imageshack.us/img310/3411/bscap2360yo.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

There is no reason concrete would show in that photo. It was most often at least 3 floors below the top floor and sometimes 7 floors down.

There is reason for the supposed steel core columns in this image of the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif). Also in this image showing 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) the supposed steel core columns do not show.

WHY? Because they did not exist.

[kevin]

where is this concrete core in these pictures?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/eye/wtc-pics.htm

[Christophera]

I have none in this matter. I just wondered why you keep referring to your own site, instead of real engeneering ones.

Here is another engineering site.

NOTE: This page has some confusion about the construction sequence of steel and concrete.

Each of the towers, in other words, was held up by its reinforced concrete core and the world's strongest curtain walls. Without the usual steel skeleton, the open floors allowed unprecedented space and flexibility. Between them, the two 1,350-foot-high towers provided 7.9 million square feet of rentable floor space, roughly the equivalent of fifty city blocks.

http://salwen.com/wtc

[Christophera]

where is this concrete core in these pictures?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/eye/wtc-pics.htm

I will have to look through them, but generally, except for a few, the concrete was fractured and fell instantly, as in near free fall.

[Christophera]

where is this concrete core in these pictures?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/eye/wtc-pics.htm

'Cause it is such an idiotic question.

[Pardalis]

http://salwen.com/wtc[/i]

This is not an engeneering site, but I'll take a look at it anyways. Thanks.

But I take into consideration that you have no engeneering expertise, you would have posted a real engeneering site if you had any.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Here is another engineering site.

NOTE: This page has some confusion about the construction sequence of steel and concrete.

Each of the towers, in other words, was held up by its reinforced concrete core and the world's strongest curtain walls. Without the usual steel skeleton, the open floors allowed unprecedented space and flexibility. Between them, the two 1,350-foot-high towers provided 7.9 million square feet of rentable floor space, roughly the equivalent of fifty city blocks.

http://salwen.com/wtc

That is not an engineering site/firm. It is a PR/Graphics Design firm:
www.salwen.com = [ 209.35.192.105 ]

Get a FREE domain name registration transfer or renewal with any annual hosting package
- or just 8.95 with monthly packages.
http://www.networksolutions.com
Registrant:
Salwen Business Communications
156 Fifth Avenue
New York NY 10010-7002
US
Domain Name: SALWEN.COM
Administrative Contact Technical Contact:
Salwen sbc@GRAMERCY.IOS.COM

Salwen Business Communications
156 Fifth Avenue
New York NY 10010-7002
US
(212) 242-5546 fax: 999 999 9999
Record expires on 17-Feb-2010.
Record created on 16-Feb-1996.
Database last updated on 19-Jun-2006 13: 41: 38 EDT.
Domain servers in listed order:
A.NS.INTERLAND.NET 64.226.28.33
B.NS.INTERLAND.NET 69.0.145.33
C.NS.INTERLAND.NET 64.77.127.42

http://www.salwen.com/


Stop spreading erroneous information Christophera.

[twinstead]

I will have to look through them, but generally, except for a few, the concrete was fractured and fell instantly, as in near free fall.

Then for God's sake what the heck is that picture you keep showing supposed to prove? How could a supposed concrete core still be standing if it was fractured and fell instantly?

How does your brain reconcile such blatent inconsistencies like that?

[Christophera]

How did the rest of the building collapse if the core was still standing? Why wasn't there a huge explosion when the C4 in the standing core detonated? Also, if thermite explosives had been detonated in the basement, what was the core standing on?

The core was on its own foundation and went below the basement. The upper portions of the core were detonated, ripping the steel structure apart after the steel columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/steelbeamcuttingfloors.gif) were cut every other floor. At about the 43rd floor the core detonations stopped for a second or so and the thermite inthe basement cut most of the interior columns and the perimeter columns so that the thicker (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) walls, having more explosives in them would not throw heavy steel into adjacent buildings. The standing core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) then detonated with delays just faster than free fall to the ground.

Okay, we'll disagree.

[Christophera]

Then for God's sake what the heck is that picture you keep showing supposed to prove? How could a supposed concrete core still be standing if it was fractured and fell instantly?

How does your brain reconcile such blatent inconsistencies like that?


Firefighters (http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg) actually mimick the delays with their voices as they describe the detonations they say they heard. The parts that detonated fell instantly WHEN they were detonated from the top down.

[Pardalis]

I work for a civil engineer doing surveying and drafting. We do mostly grading plans, not structural. I do staking for structural quite often and must use structural plans. I've also been a welder for 30 years and have about 3 years experieince doing above ground blasting.

From all this experience, do you have any reference from a reputable engeneering source, that there was a concrete core in the WTC?

[Christophera]

That is not an engineering site/firm. It is a PR/Graphics Design firm:
www.salwen.com = [ 209.35.192.105 ]

Get a FREE domain name registration transfer or renewal with any annual hosting package
- or just 8.95 with monthly packages.
http://www.networksolutions.com
Registrant:
Salwen Business Communications
156 Fifth Avenue
New York NY 10010-7002
US
Domain Name: SALWEN.COM
Administrative Contact Technical Contact:
Salwen sbc@GRAMERCY.IOS.COM

Salwen Business Communications
156 Fifth Avenue
New York NY 10010-7002
US
(212) 242-5546 fax: 999 999 9999
Record expires on 17-Feb-2010.
Record created on 16-Feb-1996.
Database last updated on 19-Jun-2006 13: 41: 38 EDT.
Domain servers in listed order:
A.NS.INTERLAND.NET 64.226.28.33
B.NS.INTERLAND.NET 69.0.145.33
C.NS.INTERLAND.NET 64.77.127.42

http://www.salwen.com/


Stop spreading erroneous information Christophera.

No wonder they are a bit confused. At least they got the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) correct.

Can you produce an image of the steel core columns above the ground from demolition images?

[Christophera]

From all this experience, do you have any reference from a reputable engeneering source, that there was a concrete core in the WTC?


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

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

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

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

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

No wonder they are a bit confused. At least they got the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) correct.

Can you produce an image of the steel core columns above the ground from demolition images?

Can you produce any images showing that you did not cause the Challenger disaster with a laser beam attack?


Apparently, Christophera needs reminded why pictures are not, in and of themselves, evidence http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...#post 1664253
Here, let me provide an example of why pictures, by themselves, are not evidence.

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9610/10/feyn...plosion.lg.jpg
Here we can see the after-effects of Christophera's laser attack on the space shuttle Challenger.
...

[Gravy]

Can you produce an image of the steel core columns above the ground from demolition images?
It's been done several times. You choose to ignore all the evidence that's presented. You're just a sad, childish troll.

[Apollyon]

No wonder they are a bit confused. At least they got the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) correct.

Can you produce an image of the steel core columns above the ground from demolition images?
Yep.

http://tinyurl.com/n849l

Unlike the blurry photos you rely on, this is sharp and high resolution as well.

[bob_kark]

The core was on its own foundation and went below the basement. The upper portions of the core were detonated, ripping the steel structure apart after the steel columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/steelbeamcuttingfloors.gif) were cut every other floor. At about the 43rd floor the core detonations stopped for a second or so and the thermite inthe basement cut most of the interior columns and the perimeter columns so that the thicker (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) walls, having more explosives in them would not throw heavy steel into adjacent buildings. The standing core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) then detonated with delays just faster than free fall to the ground.

Okay, we'll disagree.

If this was the case, why is there no footage showing the core detonating?

[twinstead]

I see now about this whole repeating over and over and over again the same thing and ignoring evidence that goes against it until folks just give throw up their hands in disgust and walk away.

Like the artist Poe said, "You can't talk to a psycho like a normal human being".

[Pardalis]

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

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

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

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

Finally, something of substance. I'll check it out.

ETA: Looking forward to reading their definition of a "concrete core".

[Gravy]

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

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

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

http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf
Everyone makes mistakes, Christophera. But to make the same mistake over and over while being corrected again and again? Would you call that mature, intelligent behavior?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

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

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

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

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

That site and this one http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.udispuut.tudelft.nl%2FPDF%2FE indverslag%2520USA03.pdf&ei=wuuWRLOPE4z6oQLj6NyHDg&sig2=kuJ6hqFLOxL2j8tUD0FOIA
are the only two sites that provide hits when googling for "world trade center" "load carrying system" "concrete core"

[Gravy]

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

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

Christophera, what's the recipe for Invisicrete?

[kevin]

Finally, something of substance. I'll check it out.

ETA: Looking forward to reading their definition of a "concrete core".

No substance to be had in that document. the paragraph quoted is the only mention of the construction used in the wtc and is a cut-paste job for the report introduction. The report is actually a how-to document for using structural engineers in a major disaster, and how to prepare to have them ready to go when one occurs.

the report does mention that each structural engineering team had to file a report each time they came back in. Those would be interesting to see.

[Pardalis]

Everyone makes mistakes, Christophera. But to make the same mistake over and over while being corrected again and again? Would you call that mature, intelligent behavior?

I might have had something to do with that. I didn't realise the link had already been discussed. My mistake to not having read the whole thread. :o

[kevin]

[CENTER]Christophera's Invisicrete Core With Hallways
http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/87904495b5c1ae08b.jpg


This design isn't structurally sound. The "interior" walls aren't vertically continuous, they're interrupted every other floor by the hallway. That can't be load bearing without some huge columns supporting them. As shown they're a waste of concrete.

[Pardalis]

No substance to be had in that document. the paragraph quoted is the only mention of the construction used in the wtc and is a cut-paste job for the report introduction. The report is actually a how-to document for using structural engineers in a major disaster, and how to prepare to have them ready to go when one occurs.

the report does mention that each structural engineering team had to file a report each time they came back in. Those would be interesting to see.

Thanks. I missed that part of the thread. I'm catching up. ;)

I was betting that the confusion about the "concrete core" might be the definition itself, that's why I wanted to read Christophera's own sources and learn myself what exactly "concrete core" means (and how he might have interpreted it).

[Christophera]

If this was the case, why is there no footage showing the core detonating?

There is [/url]and it is inside the outer steel framework. It is ripping the framework apart after the interior box columns are cut (http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/.site1106.jpg). The plumes of concrete debri go out over the floors after the floors detonate, and hide the floors below detonating. Except in the linked case of premature detonations (http://perso.club-internet.fr/mouv4x8/11Sept01/A0069b_3_towerexplo1_explosion_below.jpg)

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

within the scheme of the delays and paths of the detonation circuits.

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

[bob_kark]

There is [/url]and it is inside the outer steel framework. It is ripping the framework apart after the interio box columns are cut (http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/.site1106.jpg). The plumes of concrete debri go out over the floors after the floors detonate,

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

within the scheme of the delays and paths of the detonation circuits.

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

Ah, I suppose I will have to wait until I get home to respond to the images. Thank you for answering my questions.

[Pardalis]

Ah, I suppose I will have to wait until I get home to respond to the images. Thank you for answering my questions.

I'll save you the time, same old CT BS.

[NobbyNobbs]

Mr. Kark,

There are no images of the steel core columns because they did not exist. What is being posted are misrepresentations. If the steel core columns existed they would be seen HER (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg). Instead what is seen is the spire, formed by an interio box column and an end view of the concrete core shear wall.

So what you are saying is that the columns don't exist because, if they did, there would be pictures of them. And that there are no pictures of them because they do not exist. May I suggest you find and read an article on "circular reasoning"?

Also, why do you insist that a photo showing steel core columns be shown from after the collapse? Why are photos from construction not good enough? After all, construction was much more organized than the debris pile, and so things are easier to see and distinguish from those photos.

Finally, I notice that just about every photo you show as evidence is taken from across the river or some other great distance. None of your photos are taken at Ground Zero itself. You must have pretty sharp eyesight to distinguish rebar and concrete from 2 miles away.

[Gravy]

Still. Not One Image From Thr DEMO Showing Steel Core Columns
You obviously haven't been looking at my photos. Why not? What are you afraid of?

[Christophera]

No substance to be had in that document. the paragraph quoted is the only mention of the construction used in the wtc and is a cut-paste job for the report introduction. The report is actually a how-to document for using structural engineers in a major disaster, and how to prepare to have them ready to go when one occurs.

the report does mention that each structural engineering team had to file a report each time they came back in. Those would be interesting to see.


Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/oxfordarchcore.jpg)

[Pardalis]

Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/oxfordarchcore.jpg)

This is even less relevant.

[Christophera]

You obviously haven't been looking at my photos. Why not? What are you afraid of?

Sure I've looked at them and I've told you the core is below the top of the tower by 7 floors. I've told you that light passes through the hallways.

How come the multiple steel columns are not silhouetted? If such existed there would be a phase where one could look through the floors and see them in the core area.

The Concrete cores had hallways, WTC 2 more than 1. WTC 1 was hard to rent out because access thru the core was so bad.

Still not one image of the supposed steel core columns from the demolition at some elevation, like here. (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)

[Belz...]

Gravy has not addressed the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) nor has it produced an image of the steel core columns from demo photos of steel columns. NOTE: the above image link should show some of the supposed 47, steel core columns IF they existed, which they didn't.

Yes, he has.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1711500&postcount=674

Your image proves nothing. This image of the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) proves that there was a concrete core because nothing else could survive and have that appearance. The image also proves there were not steel core columns.

You DO know that collapsing buildings of that size can leave columns of smoke in their center ?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1711500&postcount=674

See second photo

[Christophera]

This is even less relevant.

Perhaps you should take a course in disinformation. Try misrepresenting images such as Gravey does, more effective.

[Pardalis]

Perhaps you should take a course in disinformation.

Oh, I think I'm getting the gist of it with you, professor.

[Christophera]

Yes, he has.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1711500&postcount=674


This

Oh, and the "rebar" portion of the real core? Your theory makes no sense. 3" rebar on 4' centers makes zero sense,

Does not consitutute "addressing" an image (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) which has an absolutely distinct quality in the realm of construction.

[Christophera]

You DO know that collapsing buildings of that size can leave columns of smoke in their center ?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1711500&postcount=674

See second photo

Ya' seen lots of demo videos and many dynamite/detcord blasts. Ya' they make smoke.

Your soul will smoke in hell if you keep supporting lies that murders hide behind.

[Belz...]

The towers you refer to are not falling yet so the debris outruns them.

The towers aren't falling ? Why the DEBRIS, then ?

We see through the hallways of the concrete core just fine.

Yep. Invisicrete.

Look, I've posted links to many (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) images that SHOULD show at leat ONE of the 47, 1300 foot steel columns that you and FEMA (http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/femacore.gif) claim existed, AND no steel columns are seen. Sorry, you've got the diagram of WTC 1 core and that is all I'm putting out.

Many images ?

[Belz...]

I will have to look through them, but generally, except for a few, the concrete was fractured and fell instantly, as in near free fall.

So... you mean that the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) isn't really a core... because it WOULD HAVE BEEN GONE AT THAT POINT ?

There is no reason concrete would show in that photo. It was most often at least 3 floors below the top floor and sometimes 7 floors down.

How would you know this ?

[Christophera]

Oh, I think I'm getting the gist of it with you, professor.

My evidence disqualifies me, I'm of the lowly "truth" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) crowd and use facts with reason.

Oh, worst of all I do it because it will protect life, our rights, our freedoms, our liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Do you know the GREATER meaning of free speech quack?

[Belz...]

Firefighters (http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg) actually mimick the delays with their voices as they describe the detonations they say they heard. The parts that detonated fell instantly WHEN they were detonated from the top down.

Gee... building falls down makes noise.

[Pardalis]

My evidence disqualifies me, I'm of the lowly "truth" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) crowd and use facts with reason.

Oh, worst of all I do it because it will protect life, our rights, our freedoms, our liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Amen


Do you know the GREATER meaning of free speech quack?

uh... anybody can say what ever they want about anything, regardless of how stupid it is?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

My evidence disqualifies me, I'm of the lowly "truth" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) crowd and use facts with reason.

Oh, worst of all I do it because it will protect life, our rights, our freedoms, our liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Do you know the GREATER meaning of free speech quack?

HOW DARE YOU. You come here, with your crap, your logical fallacies, your close-mindedness, and dare talk down to people who don't share your demented view?

Wow. Whilst I admire erudition generally, I think you may be a little over the top here. Let's just leave it at the above comment, shall we?

[kevin]

Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/oxfordarchcore.jpg)

first, that is a generic definition. second, it also says the outer perimeter is aluminum. WTC was steel. third, it's a completely generic scan hosted on your own site, the only proof that it comes from the oxford encyclopedia of technology and innovation is your own claim. You didn't even bother to scan the copyright page (assuming you scanned it, which I rather doubt.)

[Christophera]

So... you mean that the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) isn't really a core... because it WOULD HAVE BEEN GONE AT THAT POINT ?



How would you know this ?

Check the delays and paths section of my page,

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

i understand delay systems for demolition and how to control the descent of a structure, generally. Using videos, still and eyewitness testimony from firefighters (http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg) and others I am able to fit the WTC event together with great consistency.

Here is an email I received from a demo contractor of 30 years experience.


Subject:*
deception achieved
Date:*
Wed, 24 May 2006 22:43:27 -0700

Awesome work, very well presented with great links. I am a demolition contractor for 30 years and it all fits and always believed this was the case.Now there needs to be the rest of the story.

An eyewitness describes explosions in the basement.

PHILLIP MORELLI
http://www.gallerize.com/153%20WINDY%20TOWERS%20OF%209-11%20Four-Dateien/image001.jpg

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

[Pardalis]

"I am a demolition contractor for 30 years"

"Construction worker in the WTC Phillip Morelli (37 years old on 9-11-1)"

He was a contractor at age 12???

[rwguinn]

Hey Ark!
Are you saying that he has to be careful going home lest his mother run out from under the porch and bites him on the nether regions?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1713167#post1713167

[Christophera]

first, that is a generic definition. second, it also says the outer perimeter is aluminum. WTC was steel. third, it's a completely generic scan hosted on your own site, the only proof that it comes from the oxford encyclopedia of technology and innovation is your own claim. You didn't even bother to scan the copyright page (assuming you scanned it, which I rather doubt.)

The WTC towers had a aluminum facia over the steel perimeter box columns.

I did not scan that. seatnineb from democraticunderground did. He found it in the UK. I know the towers core was concrete, why should I doubt it or be reluctant to use even though it is not the best documention?

I have plenty of other evidence to show that steel core columns did not exist and some of it show the core or parts of it. There is theconcrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg) Or the Top of WTC 2 core falls onto WTC 3 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.gif). Of course if you do not know steel and concrete construction this information may not be of much use to you. Perhasp you could gain an education or consult with a contractor/engineer generally about the appearance of steel and concrete during collapse and other conditions.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Hey Ark!
Are you saying that he has to be careful going home lest his mother run out from under the porch and bites him on the nether regions?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1713167#post1713167

I'm saying he has two choices:
1) Stop trolling (assuming he does not believe this drek)
2) Go get psychiatric meds (assuming he believes this drek)

[Christophera]

He was a contractor at age 12???

I've edited the post to make it clearer.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

...Perhasp you could gain an education or consult with a contractor/engineer generally about the appearance of steel and concrete during collapse and other conditions.

Perhaps you should stop talking out of your ass like some smacktard that has spent too many hours watching the X-files.

[Pardalis]

I've edited the post to make it clearer.

No, it's pretty clear:

He says in 2006 that he has been a contractor for 30 years. If he was 37 in 2001, that would make him 12 years old 30 years ago.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I've edited the post to make it clearer.
It's no clearer. If he was 37 on 9/1/01, then he is, at most, 42 now. If he has been in demolitions for 30 years, then he started when he was 11-12 yrs old.

[Pardalis]

It's no clearer.

That's one way to look at it. ;)

[Apollyon]

I know the towers core was concrete, why should I doubt it or be reluctant to use even though it is not the best documention?
Maybe you should doubt it because many more - and far more reliable - sources claim the core is not concrete? And we've shown you multiple pictures that show there was no concrete core while the pictures and information you keep linking over and over and over, ad naseum, primarily come from your own website and are inconclusive, at best.

Just a thought.

[CptColumbo]

Perhaps you should gain an better education in journalism, research, and logic.

[Christophera]

HOW DARE YOU. You come here, with your crap, your logical fallacies, your close-mindedness, and dare talk down to people who don't share your demented view?

You swine. You vulgar little maggot. Don't you know that you are pathetic? You worthless bag of filth. As we say in Texas, I'll bet you couldn't pour piss out of a boot with instructions on the heel. You are a canker. A sore that won't go away. I would rather kiss a lawyer than be seen with you.


Okay, so you do not know the GREATER meaning of free speech. Do you even want to know?

I'd expect you should keep your narrow minded views of Texans to yourself. A dear friend, a Texan, just died (smoked Pall Malls) and he had a phd in psychology, and he knew how important these principles are and how truth (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) supports them.

The indigenous people of this continent imparted this GREATER meaning of free speech to the founding fathers. They had to dilute, or simplify it to get in into the Amendments, but here it is,

The greater meaning of free speech is found in the understanding that can come from it. That understanding can create; foregiveness, tolerence, acceptance, respect, trust, freindship and love; protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Okay, so you do not know the GREATER meaning of free speech. Do you even want to know?

I'd expect you should keep your narrow minded views of Texans to yourself. A dear friend, a Texan, just died (smoked Pall Malls) and he had a phd in psychology, and he knew how important these principles are and how truth (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) supports them.

The indigenous people of this continent imparted this GREATER meaning of free speech to the founding fathers. They had to dilute, or simplify it to get in into the Amendments, but here it is,

The greater meaning of free speech is found in the understanding that can come from it. That understanding can create; foregiveness, tolerence, acceptance, respect, trust, freindship and love; protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Ah, so in addition to being denser than lead, you're also a hypocrite and lack reading comprehension. Truly, you'd make Oswald, Koresh, and Manson proud with your utter lack of thought process.

[Christophera]

Maybe you should doubt it because many more - and far more reliable - sources claim the core is not concrete? And we've shown you multiple pictures that show there was no concrete core while the pictures and information you keep linking over and over and over, ad naseum, primarily come from your own website and are inconclusive, at best.

Just a thought.

Firstly, I know the core was concrete.

Second, the images of the demolition support that there was no steel core columns.

The WTC 2 core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) shows what must be concrete. The concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg) is visible while NO STEEL CORE COLUMNS are.

The 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg), used on my site, is not on my server. many are not on my server.

[Pardalis]

Okay, so you do not know the GREATER meaning of free speech. Do you even want to know?

I'd expect you should keep your narrow minded views of Texans to yourself. A dear friend, a Texan, just died (smoked Pall Malls) and he had a phd in psychology, and he knew how important these principles are and how truth (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) supports them.

The indigenous people of this continent imparted this GREATER meaning of free speech to the founding fathers. They had to dilute, or simplify it to get in into the Amendments, but here it is,

The greater meaning of free speech is found in the understanding that can come from it. That understanding can create; foregiveness, tolerence, acceptance, respect, trust, freindship and love; protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

B.S.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Firstly, I know the core was concrete.

Second, the images of the demolition support that there was no steel core columns.

The WTC 2 core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) shows what must be concrete. The concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg) is visible while NO STEEL CORE COLUMNS are.

The 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg), used on my site, is not on my server. many are not on my server.


Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place. Of course, it is not a fallacy to state the truth again and again; what is fallacious is to expect the repitition alone to substitute for real arguments.

Nonetheless, this is a very popular fallacy in debate, and with good reason: the more times you say something, the more likely it is that the judge will remember it. The first thing they'll teach you in any public speaking course is that you should "Tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em, then tell 'em, and then tell 'em what you told 'em." Unfortunately, some debaters think that's all there is to it, with no substantiation necessary! The appropriate time to mention argumentum ad nauseam in a debate round is when the other team has made some assertion, failed to justify it, and then stated it again and again. The Latin wording is particularly nice here, since it is evocative of what the opposition's assertions make you want to do: retch. "Sir, our opponents tell us drugs are wrong, drugs are wrong, drugs are wrong, again and again and again. But this argumentum ad nauseam can't and won't win this debate for them, because they've given us no justification for their bald assertions!"

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20nauseam

[Gravy]

Sure I've looked at them and I've told you the core is below the top of the tower by 7 floors. I've told you that light passes through the hallways.

How come the multiple steel columns are not silhouetted? If such existed there would be a phase where one could look through the floors and see them in the core area.

The Concrete cores had hallways, WTC 2 more than 1. WTC 1 was hard to rent out because access thru the core was so bad.


How many hallways run at how many different angles on each floor, Christophera?

For the third time, please provide a diagram of the hallway system you describe, which is clearly not the one indicated in your graphic. Your diagram must account for all of the openings in the photo below.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/87904495b5c1ae08b.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/87904496fe0a6fa6e.jpg

[Christophera]

Ah, so in addition to being denser than lead, you're also a hypocrite and lack reading comprehension. Truly, you'd make Oswald, Koresh, and Manson proud with your utter lack of thought process.

Cetainly entitled to your opinion but do you believe in enough to do any thing notable (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html) with it besides diminish or dismiss evidence that can be used to protect our Constitution?

[Christophera]

How many hallways run at how many different angles on each floor, Christophera?

For the third time, please provide a diagram of the hallway system you describe, which is clearly not the one indicated in your graphic. Your diagram must account for all of the openings in the photo below.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/87904495b5c1ae08b.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/87904496fe0a6fa6e.jpg

No diagram. I'm too busy. I only know specifics about WTC 1 as that was the tower shown in the 1990 documentary.

Your zoomed image helps. The solid areas are concrete forms being constructed or assembled. The concrete core would be symetrical.

[CptColumbo]

Cetainly entitled to your opinion but do you believe in enough to do any thing notable (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html) with it besides diminish or dismiss evidence that can be used to protect our Constitution?
So you are protecting "our" Constitution (keep in mind that this forum has members from around the world) by posting your opinions, that have no evidence to back them up, on an internet forum? You're quite the freedom fighter.

[Pardalis]

Christophera, even IF there had been a "concrete core", you're a million light-years away from proving that there were demolition charges embeded in it, as I believe you are suggesting

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Cetainly entitled to your opinion but do you believe in enough to do any thing notable (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html) with it besides diminish or dismiss evidence that can be used to protect our Constitution?

False dichotomy. Plus, your unsubstantiated claptrap you insist on regurgitating like a dog eating its own vomit only to choke it back up, does nothing to further the principles of the US Constitution.

[Stellafane]

Cetainly entitled to your opinion but do you believe in enough to do any thing notable (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html) with it besides diminish or dismiss evidence that can be used to protect our Constitution?

The best evidence that our Constitution, and the rights it protects, are alive and well is the fact that you and your fellow scum-spewers are free to continue promoting your rancid ideas, without fear of being imprisoned, institutionalized, deported, or worse, as would probably happen in the vast majority of countries in this world.

So I guess your presence here does serve some small purpose, by reminding us of that fact. Oh, and to make us all feel a bit better about ourselves for not being you.

[Christophera]

Perhaps you should stop talking out of your ass like some smacktard that has spent too many hours watching the X-files.

Apparently you do. Remember this (http://perso.club-internet.fr/mouv4x8/11Sept01/A0069b_3_towerexplo1_explosion_below.jpg)?

[Gravy]

Firstly, I know the core was concrete.

Second, the images of the demolition support that there was no steel core columns.

The WTC 2 core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) shows what must be concrete. The concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg) is visible while NO STEEL CORE COLUMNS are.

The 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg), used on my site, is not on my server. many are not on my server.

Every one of those points has been explained to you. Many of the explanations have been illustrated with photos that prove you wrong. You continue to say we have not provided evidence, when we have, EVERY TIME.

Christophera, it's important to understand that beliefs often do not correspond to reality. You haven't shown a single way in which your belief corresponds to reality. Instead, you hammer away with the same nonsensical, discredited claims, while ignoring all of the evidence that's placed before you, evidence that you could easily have found yourself if you had bothered looking.

Christophera, that's how children behave, not men. Please get help.

[Christophera]

Wow, you are a talented distorter. You could mate with wolfie and the result would scorch satans ass, be sure!

The best evidence that our Constitution, and the rights it protects, are alive and well is the fact that you and your fellow scum-spewers are free to continue promoting your rancid ideas, without fear of being imprisoned, institutionalized, deported, or worse, as would probably happen in the vast majority of countries in this world.

So I guess your presence here does serve some small purpose, by reminding us of that fact. Oh, and to make us all feel a bit better about ourselves for not being you.

yea' we gottum' rights, we use 'em. We know what for too. How about you?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Apparently you do. Remember this (http://perso.club-internet.fr/mouv4x8/11Sept01/A0069b_3_towerexplo1_explosion_below.jpg)?

I certainly do remember that day, and it is the grave pissing upons that you and your fellow nutcases do is what keeps my invigorated to provide verifiable, objective facts to people who may not have resources readily available and might be swayed by your evangelical fantasy trips.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Wow, you are a talented distorter. You could mate with wolfie and the result would scorch satans ass, be sure!



yea' we gottum' rights, we use 'em. We know what for too. How about you?


No true Scotsman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

No true Scotsman is a term coined by Antony Flew in his 1975 book Thinking About Thinking. It refers to an argument which takes this form:

Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Reply: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

This form of argument is a fallacy if the predicate ("putting sugar on porridge") is not actually contradictory for the accepted definition of the subject ("Scotsman"), or if the definition of the subject is silently adjusted after the fact to make the rebuttal work.

Some elements or actions are exclusively contradictory to the subject, and therefore aren't fallacies. The statement "No true vegetarian would eat a beef steak" is not fallacious because it follows from the accepted definition of "vegetarian:" Eating meat, by definition, disqualifies a (present-tense) categorization among vegetarians, and the further value judgement between a "true vegetarian" and the implied "false vegetarian" cannot likewise be categorized as a fallacy, given the clear disjunction. In logic, the mutually exclusive contradiction is called a logical disjunction.

Using the context of culture, individuals of any particular religion, for example, may tend to employ this fallacy. The statement "no true Christian" would do some such thing is often a fallacy, since the term "Christian" is used by a wide and disparate variety of people. This broad nature of the category is such that its use has very little meaning when it comes to defining a narrow property or behaviour. If there is no one accepted definition of the subject, then the definition must be understood in context, or defined in the initial argument for the discussion at hand.

It is also a common fallacy in politics, in which critics may condemn their colleagues as not being "true" liberals or conservatives because they occasionally disagree on certain matters of policy. It comes in many other forms - "No decent person would" - it is argued "support hanging/watch pornography/smoke in public", etc. Often the speaker seems unaware that he/she is, in fact, coercively (re)defining what the phrase "decent person" means to include/exclude what he/she wants and NOT simply following what the phrase is already accepted as meaning. The argument shifts the debate from being about hanging/pornography/smoking and tries to make it seem that anyone disagreeing with the speaker is arguing for the "indecent".
[edit]

See also

* Loaded language
* Equivocation
* Power word
* Euphemism

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

[Gravy]

No diagram. I'm too busy. I only know specifics about WTC 1 as that was the tower shown in the 1990 documentary.

Your zoomed image helps. The solid areas are concrete forms being constructed or assembled. The concrete core would be symetrical.

Christophera, please, please, please come on back when you have that diagram ready! I can't wait to see it!

(You might want to take my advice and watch that Ric Burns video first, though. You've made enough of a fool of yourself as is.)

[Stellafane]

Wow, you are a talented distorter. You could mate with wolfie and the result would scorch satans ass, be sure!



yea' we gottum' rights, we use 'em. We know what for too. How about you?

Sure, I know how to use them. Primarily, to make sure your kind of infantile, delusional thinking never succeeds in affecting my life in any way -- outside an Internet forum, of course.

[Pardalis]

Apparently you do. Remember this (http://perso.club-internet.fr/mouv4x8/11Sept01/A0069b_3_towerexplo1_explosion_below.jpg)?

Welcome to my "ignore" select club!

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

http://www.webmd.com/content/article/60/67143.htm
Delusions: Delusions are strange beliefs that are not based in reality and that the person refuses to give up, even when presented with factual information. For example, the person suffering from delusions may believe that people can hear his or her thoughts, that he or she is God or the devil, or that people are putting thoughts into his or her head.

[Apollyon]

Firstly, I know the core was concrete.
There are people who "know" the Earth is flat too. I don't believe them either.

Second, the images of the demolition support that there was no steel core columns.
I already linked you to an image that clearly showed the core columns. Your refusal to acknowledge that image does not change the fact that they are there.

The WTC 2 core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) shows what must be concrete. The concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg) is visible while NO STEEL CORE COLUMNS are.
It's not a "concrete shear wall." I've already addressed that as well. You ignored it.

And please stop linking the same damn links over and over. I already saw them the first hundred times you linked them. I'm pretty sure everyone else has as well.

The 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg), used on my site, is not on my server. many are not on my server.
You claim to be working for a civil engineer, and you make a statement about 3" rebar on 4' centers?

Look, although I'm a lowly technical writer, I write technical documentation for engineers. That includes mechanical, electrical, systems and controls, A/V, and structural/architectural engineers. I've been doing it for 18 years. I see foundations being poured and shear walls being constructed on a regular basis. Nobody does 3" rebar on 4' centers. Nobody. If you had any real experience in building design/construction you'd know that already and you wouldn't come within 50 miles of that ridiculous claim. The fact that you're regurgitating it makes me believe you are completely full of rule8 and yet another anonymous internet poser trying to pretend they are smart and in possession of special knowledge. You guys always give yourself away though.

[Christophera]

Every one of those points has been explained to you. Many of the explanations have been illustrated with photos that prove you wrong. You continue to say we have not provided evidence, when we have, EVERY TIME.

You don't explAin my own points to me, you counter them with evidence SUPPORTING YOUR POINT that you qualify by some means. You have not provided an image of any steel core columns from the demolition images which is above ground. You cannot because the demo exposes the entire structure, particuarly the concrete (SAND & GRAVEL (http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg)) and steel core columns are never seen.

Christophera, it's important to understand that beliefs often do not correspond to reality. You haven't shown a single way in which your belief corresponds to reality.

I've shown it a multitude (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1233383) of ways and they are totally comprehensive to the reality of 2 towers falling at rates comparable to free fall and pulverization.

Instead, you hammer away with the same nonsensical, discredited claims, while ignoring all of the evidence that's placed before you, evidence that you could easily have found yourself if you had bothered looking.

Christophera, that's how children behave, not men. Please get help.

How could a perfectly feasible, realistice explnation for free fall and pulverization matching the accounts of firefighters be "nonsensical". Perhaps you are using a "Cognitive Distortion" by labeling.

Knowing the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) was concrete, why would I go look for bogus evidence to misinterpret to say the opposite of what I need to say.(just a sample of the kind of unreasoning you conduct, reflected back to you)

Read my web page carefully,

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

[rwguinn]

Wow, you are a talented distorter. You could mate with wolfie and the result would scorch satans ass, be sure!



yea' we gottum' rights, we use 'em. We know what for too. How about you?

And you have the use of those rights.
However, based on your statement of what you do for a living (Work for surveying/civil engineer firm), I have the need to know what project you are working on, so I can warn my family and friends to stay the heck away from those projects since anyone with so little knowledge and such a huge mouth can and will endanger people at some time.

[Christophera]

I already linked you to an image that clearly showed the core columns. Your refusal to acknowledge that image does not change the fact that they are there.


Better link again 'cause this forum needs diapers. I always try to repost (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.gif) images that demonstrate tangibly the presence of that heavy concrete core.

Who 'gotta link to the top of the WTC 3 after that chunk of the core punched all the way to the ground floor?

[Christophera]

And you have the use of those rights.
However, based on your statement of what you do for a living (Work for surveying/civil engineer firm), I have the need to know what project you are working on, so I can warn my family and friends to stay the heck away from those projects since anyone with so little knowledge and such a huge mouth can and will endanger people at some time.

Very good, I'll prepare the demolition seminar (http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/.site1106.jpg) for them.

[Christophera]

It's not a "concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg)l." I've already addressed that as well. You ignored it.


Did you do it like Gravey did? Better repost that, use some evidence and reason.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Better link again 'cause this forum needs diapers.

No kidding, you've been crapping all over this thread.


I always try to repost (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.gif) images that demonstrate tangibly the presence of that heavy concrete core.

Bolding mine. You try, but all you end up doing is posting the same pictures over and over and they don't show a damn thing you're claiming.


Who 'gotta link to the top of the WTC 3 after that chunk of the core punched all the way to the ground floor?
wtf?

[rwguinn]

You don't explAin my own points to me, you counter them with evidence SUPPORTING YOUR POINT that you qualify by some means. You have not provided an image of any steel core columns from the demolition images which is above ground. You cannot because the demo exposes the entire structure, particuarly the concrete (SAND & GRAVEL (http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg)) and steel core columns are never seen. :dl: 'nuff said? ETA-bolding mine!

Why do you keepcountering arguments with evidence, Gravy! Shame, shame!

:hit:

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Did you do it like Gravey did? Better repost that, use some evidence and reason.

Why? You wouldn't recognize evidence and reason if they bit you on both ass cheeks.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

http://www.webmd.com/content/article/60/67143.htm

More general info of interest:
http://www.hoptechno.com/paranoia.htm

[Christophera]

You try, but all you end up doing is posting the same pictures over and over and they don't show a damn thing you're claiming.


You (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg) say that because they are the evidence (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) showing no steel core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) columns while showing the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/shearspirewall.jpg) that you have no counter (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg) for.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg) say that because they are the evidence (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) showing no steel core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) columns while showing the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/shearspirewall.jpg) that you have no counter (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg) for.

No, I say that because you are delusional.

[bob_kark]

I have a few more questions for you. Sorry, I'm just so inquisitive. Anyway, how thick are the concrete walls of the core you claim existed? I would assume they would need to be very thick to support the weight of the structure. Therefore, I would assume there would have been quite a large amount of C4 used to not only demo them, but to turn them into "sand and gravel." How can you account for the fact that when the tower fell, we didn't see a massive explosion on the floor where the collapse began? Sure, the fire kicked up a bit, but no massive explosion.

[Dave_46]

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

That image shows a wide view, and I have tried to make an estimate of the width of the view at the distance of the collapse. My estimate is that it is at least 600 ft. Assuming this, and noting that the image is 400 pixels wide, I make that 1.5 ft per pixel. How can we see 3" reinforcing bar, it will only be 1/6 of a pixel wide. Your 4' centres would be what? 2.5 pixels. The resolution is not good enough to show that detail.

Dave

[Christophera]

It's not a "concrete shear wall." I've already addressed that as well. You ignored it.

I missed that "address" of these images of the concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg) (zoomed (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif))

[Christophera]

But we have eighty maybe, and/or we view nearly along a line of them

That image shows a wide view, and I have tried to make an estimate of the width of the view at the distance of the collapse. My estimate is that it is at least 600 ft. Assuming this, and noting that the image is 400 pixels wide, I make that 1.5 ft per pixel. How can we see 3" reinforcing bar, it will only be 1/6 of a pixel wide. Your 4' centres would be what? 2.5 pixels. The resolution is not good enough to show that detail.

Dave

Some of the rebar does pixelate showing that it is indeed small diameter and not any column.

[Christophera]

I have a few more questions for you. Sorry, I'm just so inquisitive. Anyway, how thick are the concrete walls of the core you claim existed? I would assume they would need to be very thick to support the weight of the structure. Therefore, I would assume there would have been quite a large amount of C4 used to not only demo them, but to turn them into "sand and gravel." How can you account for the fact that when the tower fell, we didn't see a massive explosion on the floor where the collapse began? Sure, the fire kicked up a bit, but no massive explosion.

The technolgy of engineered explosive charges has an interesting exercise with getting the right amount of high density explosive distributed well enough to attain, "maximum containment" with a vessal that can fracture such as concrete. You would have to see above ground blasting in highly stratified terrain and compare blast that were centered in hard formations as to blasts not centered and closer to softer adjacent rock to know what well contained really means.

To the observer it means quieter, or muffled, it means really fine breakage, it means you see a relatively gentle heaving of materials rather than a blast of a gas jet leaking out. The delay systems took care of the rest and had a minimal amount of explosives detonating at any time.

[Dave_46]

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

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

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

If "THEIR information is in error" then why use their graphic?

Did you clear the copyright?

Dave

[Christophera]

No, I say that because you are delusional.

You will find that I have all the evidence (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html), no matter where we go. Because you have no evidence you have resorted to attacking the messenger.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You will find that I have all the evidence (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html), no matter where we go. Because you have no evidence you have resorted to attacking the messenger.

No, I've moved on to attacking you, because you are not here for debate or discussion, you ignore evidence, and your continue to spout the same nonsense over and over ad nauseum. Go seek professional help.


ETA: You're a troll, a thread gull, you bring nothing of value. You make geggy look like Steven Jones, still wrong, but at least intelligent. I've witnessed Youth Earth Creationists that could carry on better debate than you do.

[Christophera]

is why I use the BBC core (http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1540000/images/_1540044_world_trade_structure300.gif).

If "THEIR information is in error" then why use their graphic?

Did you clear the copyright?

Dave

If I was making money on it I would have to now wouldn't I. I ain't.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

is why I use the BBC core (http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1540000/images/_1540044_world_trade_structure300.gif).



If I was making money on it I would have to now wouldn't I. I ain't.

You don't know anything about copyright law either I see:

What constitutes copyright infringement?

Subject to certain defenses, it is copyright infringement for someone other than the author to do the following without the author's permission:
1. copy or reproduce the work
2. create a new work derived from the original work (for example, by translating the work into a new language, by copying and distorting the image, or by transferring the work into a new medium of expression)
3. sell or give away the work, or a copy of the work, for the first time (but once the author has done so, the right to sell or give away the item is transferred to the new owner. This is known as the "first sale" doctrine: once a copyright owner has sold or given away the work or a copy of it, the recipient or purchaser may do as she pleases with what she posesses.) 17 U.S.C. §109(a).
4. perform or display the work in public (this right does not apply to visual art) without permission from the copyright owner. 17 U.S.C. §106. It is also copyright infringement to violate the "moral rights" of an author as defined by 17 U.S.C. 106A. Moral rights are discussed at this location.

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property/library/copyprimer.html

You don't have to profit to be infringing.

[Christophera]

we need raw images of the demolition, side by side, in order to show exactly what the structure was.

I have built an entire web site using such images,

http://concretecore.741.com

I know exactly what your evidence consists of and that it is misrepresented which that is why I insist on you producing equal type evidence from the demolition to SHOW the steel core columns you and FEMA assert stood. I know it is a lie, period.

No, I've moved on to attacking you, because you are not here for debate or discussion, you ignore evidence, and your continue to spout the same nonsense over and over ad nauseum. Go seek professional help.

[Hellbound]

The technolgy of engineered explosive charges has an interesting exercise with getting the right amount of high density explosive distributed well enough to attain, "maximum containment" with a vessal that can fracture such as concrete. You would have to see above ground blasting in highly stratified terrain and compare blast that were centered in hard formations as to blasts not centered and closer to softer adjacent rock to know what well contained really means.

To the observer it means quieter, or muffled, it means really fine breakage, it means you see a relatively gentle heaving of materials rather than a blast of a gas jet leaking out. The delay systems took care of the rest and had a minimal amount of explosives detonating at any time.

It also means that I highly doubt you have much experience with explosives, beyond maybe seeing a few.

What you're discussing sound smore like the difference between cutting and cratering charges. Low-speed explosives are used to move objects, things like AN-AL, and the classic diesel fuel/fertilizer mix. Higher speed explosives (like the C-4 you mention) are cutting charges, with high explansion rates. The dispersion needed to have anything similar to a cratering effect with C-4 would be ridiculous. Of course, the same goes for cratering charges, but they aren't that much more plausible.

Also, your consistent display of ignorance regarding the capabilities and action of thermite shows your lack of knowledge in the area, as well.

Thermite does not "burn at a speed equal to many explosives". If it did, it would be an explosive. But it isn't. It's an incendiary. It'll melt through an engine block, sure, but it takes a while (15 to 30 seconds). And it burns down, so it is highly difficult to use it for cutting vertical columns. Not to mention it produces enormous amounts of iron and aluminum oxide slag, as well as residue of the ignition mixture used (of which no evidence was found). For that matter, no traces of explosive compunds or blast patterns was found, either.

By the way, your picture of "a steel cloumn cut by shear forces" is a complete fabrication. I'm calling you out as a liar. That was a column industrially cut, not a cut from blast. Again, this points out to me that you don't have much experience with explosives, except perhaps seeing a few go off from a far distance away.

I, on the other hand, am a combat engineer in the military, with several years of experience in demolitions, cratering/clearing, and EOD, including both electric and nonelectric detonations systems (mostly MDI), as well as improvised explosives and incendiaries. You, Christophera*, are a liar.

*-Is it just me, or does this sound like the name of a venereal disease?

[Christophera]

You don't know anything about copyright law either I see:

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property/library/copyprimer.html

You don't have to profit to be infringing.


I think we have your priorities defined adequately. I'm so glad you are protecting the rights of the BBC. Admirable, really. Maybe you'll be Knighted.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

we need raw images of the demolition, side by side, in order to show exactly what the structure was.

I have built an entire web site using such images,

http://concretecore.741.com

I know exactly what your evidence consists of and that it is misrepresented which that is why I insist on you producing equal type evidence from the demolition to SHOW the steel core columns you and FEMA assert stood. I know it is a lie, period.

Images, in and of themselves, are not evidence. Say it with me.

Images.
In.
And.
Of.
Themselves.
Are.
Not.
Evidence.

What have we presented that has been a misrepresentation? Provide evidence, not opinion.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I think we have your priorities defined adequately. I'm so glad you are protecting the rights of the BBC. Admirable, really. Maybe you'll be Knighted.

We certainly understand yours, "Do whatever is necessary to feed your delusions of grandeur and paranoia."

Maybe you should actually listen to what is being said (typed) and consider the fact that you need psychiatric help.

[Hellbound]

I think we have your priorities defined adequately. I'm so glad you are protecting the rights of the BBC. Admirable, really. Maybe you'll be Knighted.

Interesting, I thought you were all about protecting the rights granted by the Consititution (such as property rights)?

I guess that's only when it's convenient for you, eh?

You know, while I'm on the subject, just what have you done to protect our rights? Post on internet forums? I hope it makes you feel better, because it does absolutely nothing to protect anything (especially since you seem incapable of understanding a logical argument).

I, on the other hand, have spent years working to protect our rights, not to mention human rights in general. I've put my ***** in the line of fire, and saved lives (both American and Iraqi) while you've sat in front of a keyboard. I've seen, up close and personal, the attitudes and mindsets of those we're currently fighting. Even if Bush and co. had wanted to pull off something like 9/11, the terrorists would have refused just based on the fact that Bush wanted it. But that's neither here nor there.

I sincerely hope you are able to continue posting on internet forums for many years to come, because freedom of speech is something I pay more than lip service to. However, don't expect to be able to make the claim that you're fighting for our rights when you've put nothing at risk but free time, when others have bled and died for it. You don't know what it means to fight for rights.

[Christophera]

on the columns faces. Recall how long the spire stood before falling.

It also means that I highly doubt you have much experience with explosives, beyond maybe seeing a few.

What you're discussing sound smore like the difference between cutting and cratering charges. Low-speed explosives are used to move objects, things like AN-AL, and the classic diesel fuel/fertilizer mix. Higher speed explosives (like the C-4 you mention) are cutting charges, with high explansion rates. The dispersion needed to have anything similar to a cratering effect with C-4 would be ridiculous. Of course, the same goes for cratering charges, but they aren't that much more plausible.

Also, your consistent display of ignorance regarding the capabilities and action of thermite shows your lack of knowledge in the area, as well.

Thermite does not "burn at a speed equal to many explosives". If it did, it would be an explosive. But it isn't. It's an incendiary. It'll melt through an engine block, sure, but it takes a while (15 to 30 seconds). And it burns down, so it is highly difficult to use it for cutting vertical columns. Not to mention it produces enormous amounts of iron and aluminum oxide slag, as well as residue of the ignition mixture used (of which no evidence was found). For that matter, no traces of explosive compunds or blast patterns was found, either.

By the way, your picture of "a steel cloumn cut by shear forces" is a complete fabrication. I'm calling you out as a liar. That was a column industrially cut, not a cut from blast. Again, this points out to me that you don't have much experience with explosives, except perhaps seeing a few go off from a far distance away.

I, on the other hand, am a combat engineer in the military, with several years of experience in demolitions, cratering/clearing, and EOD, including both electric and nonelectric detonations systems (mostly MDI), as well as improvised explosives and incendiaries. You, Christophera*, are a liar.

*-Is it just me, or does this sound like the name of a venereal disease?

Call all you want, the explosively sheared columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc.box.shear.torch.gif) match very closely the results of a lininear shaped charge and we have many, many columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/box.cols.sheared.level.jpg) sheared like that all over ground zero in locations not possible to get a shear to, and the interior box columns were 100% butt welded.

I can tell you know explosive well, but as I said, engineered uses of high density explosives when maximum containment is achieved will sound like ANFLO cushion blasting, but are not. It is the uniformity of the concrete that makes it work.

[Hellbound]

Call all you want, the explosively sheared columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc.box.shear.torch.gif) match very closely the results of a lininear shaped charge and we havemany, many columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/box.cols.sheared.level.jpg) sheared like that all over ground zero in locations not possible to get a shear to, and the interior box columns were 100% butt welded.

I can tell you know explosive well, but as I said, engineered uses of high density explosives when maximum containment is achieved will sound like ANFLO cushion blasting, but are not. It is the uniformity of the concrete that makes it work.

Sorry, but you've yet to post a pick of explosively sheared columns.

You've posted picks of cut columns.

Your ground zero pick was after the overhanging pieces had been cut off (nice pick of some of the core columns, by the way). You can tell because the huge mound of rubble has been cleared away from the lower parts of the columns.

Again, you are either ignorant or intentionally dishonest.

[cloudshipsrule]

Where's the friggin' concrete, Christophera??

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/images/wtc-1.construction.1.jpg

You do understand how concrete is poured, don't you? Forms are pretty important. See any forms in the above photo? Was the photo doctored by the government?


No concrete here either:

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

None here:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://members.aol.com/mn1965/wtc_construct.jpg&imgrefurl=http://members.aol.com/mn1965/twintowers.html&h=600&w=577&sz=58&tbnid=ePBWr9DdgpR_FM:&tbnh=133&tbnw=127&hl=en&start=29&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dworld%2Btrade%2Bcenter%2Bconstruct%26 start%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN

No concrete core, only steel here:

http://www.photonewyork.com/prod_images_large/2507241gyi.jpg

No concrete core rising from the center in this photo:

http://www.souptree.net/blog/images/wtc_underconstruction.jpg

This one's a classic. Maybe a tiny concrete core off center?

http://www.lera.com/pimg/wtc/7571897_small.jpg

No concrete, and clearly a steel core:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11%20Picture6.jpg

SHOW ME SOME FORMS, DAMN IT!

Here's an excellent core image. Any concrete here? Nope!
http://homepage.mac.com/dansound/.Public/Pix/SteelOnFire/WTC_Core_03s.jpg

Lots o' steel. Not so lots a' concrete.
http://www.greatbuildings.com/cgi-bin/gbi.cgi/World_Trade_Center_Images.html/cid_wtc_mya_WTC_const.1.gbi

Oh. Oh. Here's some concrete:
http://www.greatbuildings.com/cgi-bin/gbi.cgi/World_Trade_Center_Images.html/cid_wtc_mya_WTC_const.4.gbi
On the ground!

Are those forms what are used to pour concrete? NOPE.
http://www.greatbuildings.com/cgi-bin/gbi.cgi/World_Trade_Center_Images.html/cid_wtc_mya_WTC_const.3.gbi

Again I ask you to show me ANY construction photograph depicting a concrete core. Go to your local library, get an old book on the WTC's construction and look there too. Oh, I forgot. The government swapped out all those books years before the planned demolition. :rolleyes:

I need a drink!

[Christophera]

Sorry, but you've yet to post a pick of explosively sheared columns.

You've posted picks of cut columns.

Your ground zero pick was after the overhanging pieces had been cut off (nice pick of some of the core columns, by the way). You can tell because the huge mound of rubble has been cleared away from the lower parts of the columns.

Again, you are either ignorant or intentionally dishonest.

We've got a explosively sheared columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc.box.shear.torch.gif) on the left and a torch cut on the right. Here is a series of columns sheared level (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/box.cols.sheared.level.jpg) the green arrows are interior box columns and the yellow are elevator landing supports or guide rail supports.

If there were steel core columns we would seem them here, 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) and we do not, because they did not exist.

Intellectual dishonesty would reside where there is no reasoning for not accepting evidence that is obvious. The images of construction posted in attempts to show "core columns" have been disqualified because my knowledge of the actual construction.

Conversly I have many pictures where the supposed steel core columns should be seen and are not. There is no reason for these images to be disqualified for use in this way but you are trying to without a reason.

Let us check the "intentionally dishonesty" meter.

[Christophera]

Your images will not show concrete because the concrete was inside the steel framework. So the farmes were also. I'e said this many times but there are many that chose to ignore this fact.

Only images of the towers demise are permitted as evidence for steel core columns.

Why? The construction photos can be misreprsented and the DEMO photos cannot.

Actually the sunrise photo does show the silhouette of concrete and light reflects off the inside concrete walls from the smooth steel forms.


Where's the friggin' concrete, Christophera??

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/images/wtc-1.construction.1.jpg

You do understand how concrete is poured, don't you? Forms are pretty important. See any forms in the above photo? Was the photo doctored by the government?


No concrete here either:

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

None here:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://members.aol.com/mn1965/wtc_construct.jpg&imgrefurl=http://members.aol.com/mn1965/twintowers.html&h=600&w=577&sz=58&tbnid=ePBWr9DdgpR_FM:&tbnh=133&tbnw=127&hl=en&start=29&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dworld%2Btrade%2Bcenter%2Bconstruct%26 start%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN

No concrete core, only steel here:

http://www.photonewyork.com/prod_images_large/2507241gyi.jpg

No concrete core rising from the center in this photo:

http://www.souptree.net/blog/images/wtc_underconstruction.jpg

This one's a classic. Maybe a tiny concrete core off center?

http://www.lera.com/pimg/wtc/7571897_small.jpg

No concrete, and clearly a steel core:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11%20Picture6.jpg

SHOW ME SOME FORMS, DAMN IT!

Here's an excellent core image. Any concrete here? Nope!
http://homepage.mac.com/dansound/.Public/Pix/SteelOnFire/WTC_Core_03s.jpg

Lots o' steel. Not so lots a' concrete.
http://www.greatbuildings.com/cgi-bin/gbi.cgi/World_Trade_Center_Images.html/cid_wtc_mya_WTC_const.1.gbi

Oh. Oh. Here's some concrete:
http://www.greatbuildings.com/cgi-bin/gbi.cgi/World_Trade_Center_Images.html/cid_wtc_mya_WTC_const.4.gbi
On the ground!

Are those forms what are used to pour concrete? NOPE.
http://www.greatbuildings.com/cgi-bin/gbi.cgi/World_Trade_Center_Images.html/cid_wtc_mya_WTC_const.3.gbi

Again I ask you to show me ANY construction photograph depicting a concrete core. Go to your local library, get an old book on the WTC's construction and look there too. Oh, I forgot. The government swapped out all those books years before the planned demolition. :rolleyes:

I need a drink!

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

We've got a explosively sheared columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc.box.shear.torch.gif) on the left and a torch cut on the right. Here is a series of columns sheared level (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/box.cols.sheared.level.jpg) the green arrows are interior box columns and the yellow are elevator landing supports or guide rail supports.

If there were steel core columns we would seem them here, 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) and we do not, because they did not exist.

Intellectual dishonesty would reside where there is no reasoning for not accepting evidence that is obvious. The images of construction posted in attempts to show "core columns" have been disqualified because my knowledge of the actual construction.

Conversly I have many pictures where the supposed steel core columns should be seen and are not. There is no reason for these images to be disqualified for use in this way but you are trying to without a reason.

Let us check the "intentionally dishonesty" meter.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.php

[Christophera]

Interesting, I thought you were all about protecting the rights granted by the Consititution (such as property rights)?

I guess that's only when it's convenient for you, eh?

You know, while I'm on the subject, just what have you done to protect our rights? Post on internet forums? I hope it makes you feel better, because it does absolutely nothing to protect anything (especially since you seem incapable of understanding a logical argument).

I, on the other hand, have spent years working to protect our rights, not to mention human rights in general. I've put my ***** in the line of fire, and saved lives (both American and Iraqi) while you've sat in front of a keyboard. I've seen, up close and personal, the attitudes and mindsets of those we're currently fighting. Even if Bush and co. had wanted to pull off something like 9/11, the terrorists would have refused just based on the fact that Bush wanted it. But that's neither here nor there.

I sincerely hope you are able to continue posting on internet forums for many years to come, because freedom of speech is something I pay more than lip service to. However, don't expect to be able to make the claim that you're fighting for our rights when you've put nothing at risk but free time, when others have bled and died for it. You don't know what it means to fight for rights.

There are better battles than wars for rights. Battles to defeat deceptions that warmongers create and perpetuate qualify.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

There are better battles than wars for rights. Battles to defeat deceptions that warmongers create and perpetuate qualify.

Ah, so you're saying hypocracy is fine, so long as it furthers your cause.

[Apollyon]

Your images will not show concrete because the concrete was inside the steel framework. So the farmes were also. I'e said this many times but there are many that chose to ignore this fact.

Only images of the towers demise are permitted as evidence for steel core columns.
You can't explain why your beloved concrete core is not visible in all the pictures shown so now you try to make the rules of evidence conform to your own delusion.

What a lame joke you are.

[hellaeon]

Your images will not show concrete because the concrete was inside the steel framework. So the farmes were also. I'e said this many times but there are many that chose to ignore this fact.

Only images of the towers demise are permitted as evidence for steel core columns.

Why? The construction photos can be misreprsented and the DEMO photos cannot.

Actually the sunrise photo does show the silhouette of concrete and light reflects off the inside concrete walls from the smooth steel forms.

wow

Lost me mate. I think your trying to understand something the way you want it rather then understanding it the way it actually is.

[Hellbound]

We've got a explosively sheared columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc.box.shear.torch.gif) on the left and a torch cut on the right. Here is a series of columns sheared level (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/box.cols.sheared.level.jpg) the green arrows are interior box columns and the yellow are elevator landing supports or guide rail supports.

If there were steel core columns we would seem them here, 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) and we do not, because they did not exist.

Intellectual dishonesty would reside where there is no reasoning for not accepting evidence that is obvious. The images of construction posted in attempts to show "core columns" have been disqualified because my knowledge of the actual construction.

Conversly I have many pictures where the supposed steel core columns should be seen and are not. There is no reason for these images to be disqualified for use in this way but you are trying to without a reason.

Let us check the "intentionally dishonesty" meter.

Yes, lets.

Do you have anything to show that your pictures are explosive shear? You've asserted it, but I'm sorry, it isn't.

Now, you can make relatively clean cuts with explosives, but they won't look that clean without a bit of work afterwards. In any case, making a clean cut would require direct access to the steel beam itself, something that in the WTC would have required removal of large pieces of the drywall (or, removal of the concrete if we accept your "reinforced core" nonsense).

You've yet to post anything showing explosive shear. The WTC picture is showing the columns that were torch cut earlier in the process, not explosive shear. They were cut when the rubble around them was close to the level of the tops of the columns. Your picture os from quite some time after the collapse.

Unless you have evidence of explosive shear, you're just blowing smoke. Unless you can support your claim that this is shear, you have no evidence. You're either ignorant, too lazy to check the facts, or dishonest. Possibly some combination of these. I'd simply like to ascertain which.

So, can you support your contention that these pictures are explosive shear, or do you expect us to just take your word for it?

There are better battles than wars for rights. Battles to defeat deceptions that warmongers create and perpetuate qualify.

Yes, they do, but so far you've only perpetuated deception. You've shown amazingly shallow research, biased arguments, invalid logic, and a lot of assertions with no evidence. You have one picture of a supposed concrete core (that doesn't appear in any other pictures), you keep claiming a piece of corner column and facade is part of the "core wall", you've asserted explosives and thermite (of which the evidence is less than zero), cut steel you've claimed is explosive shear, and you've shown a complete lack of knowledge about the effects of explosives and incendiaries, as well as structural engineering and failure analysis.

You've fought nothing. You hide behind your wall throwing stones over the top, laughing to yourself about the bulls-eyes you imagine scoring, not realizing that the battle is no longer in the same zip code. You're like the people who "fight" by writing letters to the editor, instead of actually getting out and making a difference. You can't even be bothered to do the basic research to identify facts and support your arguments, and don't seem to be able to understand what logical argument or reasoned thought is, let alone implement it. You're fighting shadows in a mirror, while some of us are doing much more. You don't know what it means to fight, in a war or otherwise.

You may very well work for a civil engineering firm; they need secretaries and janitors just like any other business.

[gumboot]

A quick comment. I have been impressed here, and elsewhere, at the impressive photo interpretation skills of CTers everywhere. I work professionally in the film industry, and part of my training involved photographic interpretation.

This doesn't mean I'm brilliant, but it does mean I know just how difficult it is to interpret photos. I also am aware of the extensive additional training in photographic interpretation that experts such as work for military intelligence, the FBI, or CIA go through.

I have yet to see a single claim of "clearly seen in this picture" presented by CTers that is even remotely plausible given my level of photographic interpretation skill. Bare in mind I'm used to interpreting much more difficult photos, often with very high key lighting that cast very misleading shadows. The photos presented of the collapse are extremely easy to interpret, comparatively. The "core collapsing" appears to be a variation in the density of the dust cloud. The "spire" of the core (never mind it's in a completely different place to the so-called "core behind the smoke") is fairly obviously an outside corner of the building (I like how they call pillars designed to hold much of the building's weight a "facade").

As with the videos apparantly proving Osama isn't Osama in the Dec 2001 video, I am stounded at the expert video interpretation skills these people apparantly have.

Skills that clearly outstrip my own meagre skills picked up over only 3 years of study, and even outstripping the CIA experts whose SOLE JOB is to interpret videos.

Edited: Typo

[rwguinn]

everyone who believes that continuous steel collumns, 1300 feet long, plus, do or have existed in the world, stand up and be counted.
Each I-beam (or box) collumn was likely no longer than 60 feet, with 30 more likely.
They are NOT welded continuously--the warpage would be outrageous. They were and are riveted and/or bolted.
That means each end was cleanly cut, upon extruding, so that everything could be fit together.
The one beam from WTC II have seen had a web which was about 1 inch thick, and was used as a Gong in the premier performance of "Beyond Courage". It was about 6 feet long, and cut from a bigger chunk.
On-site welding of that size steel requires QC of unbelievable scope--especially at the strength required.
Bolted jopints are much easier to analyze, and are far more consistent in performance than welded joints--and you don't have the heat-affected zone to guess about.

[Christophera]

The "spire" of the core (never mind it's in a completely different place to the so-called "core behind the smoke") is fairly obviously an outside corner of the building (I like how they call pillars designed to hold much of the building's weight a "facade").


The spire is not a perimeter box column spire (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg). The perimter box columns had 22 inches between them. The spire has below it rectangles formed by interior box columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) and floor beams easily visible in this image.

BTW, check gravys post, "Clearly seen" is a popular phrase with him.

You do not know enough about the towers to critique the structural analysis I provide. Use evidence and reason to get things done.

[Christophera]

wow

Lost me mate. I think your trying to understand something the way you want it rather then understanding it the way it actually is.

Look else where for that problem.

Here (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is what actually is, or isn't. It is not an image that shows the steel core columns. It is an image showing something that could be concrete. In that situation, there is nothing else it could be but concrete.

Always use evidence when trying to reason.

[Christophera]

everyone who believes that continuous steel collumns, 1300 feet long, plus, do or have existed in the world, stand up and be counted.


By virtue of a 100% but weld, the columns become virtually continuos, 1,300 foot long. They would not stand anywhere except for in place. They will buckle and fall unsupported, but they are continuos.

There were no extruded columns until the 80th floor. Everything hand fabbed and trucked in 40 foot pieces.

[rwguinn]

The spire is not a perimeter box column spire (http://home.comcast.net/%7Ejeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg). The perimter box columns had 22 inches between them. The spire has below it rectangles formed by interior box columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) and floor beams easily visible in this image.

BTW, check gravys post, "Clearly seen" is a popular phrase with him.

You do not know enough about the towers to critique the structural analysis I provide. Use evidence and reason to get things done.

And you, whatever you are, have less Structural Analysis ability than a first-year music major. You have even less knowlege of physics than you do stress/strain, and certainly no knowlege of construction techniques.
In other words, you are an ignoramous spouting off about things you know less than nothing about.

[twinstead]

In other words, you are an ignoramous spouting off about things you know less than nothing about.

That is an understatement. Can anybody tell me if there is any sane person who hasn't come to that conclusion after reading this entire thread?

[Christophera]

On-site welding of that size steel requires QC of unbelievable scope--especially at the strength required.
Bolted jopints are much easier to analyze, and are far more consistent in performance than welded joints--and you don't have the heat-affected zone to guess about.

the columns were hand fabbed at the mill. Trucked to the site and butt welded. X-rays weren't possible in position. Experienced welders were counterd on to do it right. Butt welds in the high tensile steel rebar of the concrete core were x-rayed. Bolted and plated joints were only used when floor beams joined with columns, not column extension.

You know your stuff with fabrication and steel. See any steel columns here (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)? Or here here (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)?

[TheFeds]

By virtue of a 100% but weld, the columns become virtually continuos, 1,300 foot long. They would not stand anywhere except for in place. They will buckle and fall unsupported, but they are continuos.Continuous, but not homogeneous and not isotropic. There's a heat-affected zone surrounding every weld, where the heat of the torch and the flow of the molten metal have changed the properties. Frequently, in structural steel, these areas are effectively annealed, and therefore weaker than the rest of the steel (which is usually formed by hot-rolling, a process that imparts additional strength by controlling grain size and direction).

Without having read the rest of the thread I'll hold off on further comment—but from a structural perspective, assumptions like the preceding are dangerous. I'll also point out that rwguinn is completely correct with respect to the nature of standard practice for joining steel structural shapes; especially when those structures were built, welding was avoided because of the difficulties in predicting the strength of a joint (though somewhat more common now, it's still far from standard). For bolts, calculating loading is trivial; for a weld, it depends on many factors, several of which are rather difficult to control at 1000' in the air.

[gumboot]

In other words, you are an ignoramous spouting off about things you know less than nothing about.

That is an understatement. Can anybody tell me if there is any sane person who hasn't come to that conclusion after reading this entire thread?

Just of note, while looking for evidence of this "BBC" documentary I found someone called "Christophera" arguing the same claims on another site (sorry I can't put in links yet). When I say "the same" I mean "identical". As in the same exact phrases, void of evidence. The same photographic links.

The only exception was the documentary. This "Christophera" claimed it was "produced by PBS".

I still can't find any reference to it on the net aside from these threads. I did however, find a much shorter film on the WTC made in the 70's about the construction. It didn't mention a concrete core.

[hellaeon]

Christophera,
Sorry but you can say what you like, but its pretty evident your just rambling your own interpretations of things while clearly ignoring what contradicts it.
You pick and choose things and even then distort and twist what you choose to fit your own supposed facts. You have been shown to be wrong time and time again. You cant just run along in the world thinking your some self endowered expert. Your not, is that so hard to accept? Im not, so I turn to the experts who are on these matters.

You present not anything scientific or evident, just a belief system, the way you interpret it. Thats an opinion, and when you try to make it a fact, its not supported remotely by anything real, yet you continue to differ. You may as well say the WTC was built by koalas and the explosives *shakes head yet again* were planted by monkeys and the whole thing conspired by Jim Jones.


Cheers

[gumboot]

You know your stuff with fabrication and steel. See any steel columns here? Or here?

Excuse me for point out the obvious... but no, there's no steel columns in either of those photos. Because they're taken about a mile from the buildings or so, and they are taken after the building has collapsed. The steel structural columns (which, incidently, you yourself have claimed exist) are, at the time of these photos, lying in a pile of wreckage behind a cloud of dust and several buildings.

-Andrew

[hellaeon]

You know your stuff with fabrication and steel. See any steel columns here (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)? Or here here (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)?


hahahaha is that meant to be stupid?

[Christophera]

Do you have anything to show that your pictures are explosive shear? You've asserted it, but I'm sorry, it isn't.

Now, you can make relatively clean cuts with explosives, but they won't look that clean without a bit of work afterwards.

Explosive shear on the left, torch cut on the right sheared columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc.box.shear.torch.gif).

In any case, making a clean cut would require direct access to the steel beam itself, something that in the WTC would have required removal of large pieces of the drywall (or, removal of the concrete if we accept your "reinforced core" nonsense).

wtf, I wish people read before they post. My site deals with most of what you say, which is correct, except fo the denial. There were extreme shape charges built into the floors around the columns. After a few years of looking at thsoe square cut ends. Too clean, as you say, for any previously known salvage operation, I realized that the documentary in 1990 had a few relative words.

Here is an approximate diagram of the cutting charges (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/steelbeamcuttingfloors.gif) built into every other floor. Based on the last 10 minutes of the 1990 documentary and their details on the floor finishing details on behalf of the public OVER expenditure on the tower construction. PBS producers trying to show that the coasts were justified. The videographers found that tempered steel plates had a 0.035 inch clearance to the interior box columns that surrounded the concrete core. The PA was upset and said the documents they had sourced from a sub contractor 20 years after the construction was still considered confidential.

Steven Jones refers to them as cutting charges (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/steelbeamcuttingfloors.gif) and they will perform leaving an edge as smooth as that which guides the plane of high presure gasses.

You've yet to post anything showing explosive shear. The WTC picture is showing the columns that were torch cut earlier in the process, not explosive shear. They were cut when the rubble around them was close to the level of the tops of the columns. Your picture os from quite some time after the collapse.

These columns sheared level (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/box.cols.sheared.level.jpg) were not done so by men cutting off the tops of piles of tangles steel. The green arrows are a level, square cut row of interior box column tops. The yellow are the salvage cuts you describe. Not core columns. Elevator landing supports or other mechanical equipment, yes.

You can't even be bothered to do the basic research to identify facts and support your arguments, and don't seem to be able to understand what logical argument or reasoned thought is, let alone implement it. You're fighting shadows in a mirror, while some of us are doing much more. You don't know what it means to fight, in a war or otherwise.

Whatta' mean? I'm kicking your ass in this intellectual battle and you DO know what you are talking about with high explosives, but you don't know the WTC and cannot explain any of what happened without the exact same logic I use. Tell rummy to send some one not afraid of the truth.

You may very well work for a civil engineering firm; they need secretaries and janitors just like any other business.

I notice you did not use any evidence, your post used reasonable knowledge, but was inadequate to provide criticism. READ.

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

[Christophera]

hahahaha is that meant to be stupid?

I think your response is very appropriate. Thank you.

[Christophera]

The steel structural columns (which, incidently, you yourself have claimed exist) are, at the time of these photos, lying in a pile of wreckage behind a cloud of dust and several buildings.

-Andrew

You misrepresent my statements or simplify and blur them. I insist that 47 steel columns, 1,300 foot in length SURROUNDED (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) the outside of the concrete core wall. I insist that no steel columns were inside the core.

Produce the image of the 1,300 foot columns in the wreakage or explain why they are not seen buckled and lying around ground zero as you say.

[Christophera]

Just of note, while looking for evidence of this "BBC" documentary I found someone called "Christophera" arguing the same claims on another site (sorry I can't put in links yet). When I say "the same" I mean "identical". As in the same exact phrases, void of evidence. The same photographic links.

The only exception was the documentary. This "Christophera" claimed it was "produced by PBS".

I still can't find any reference to it on the net aside from these threads. I did however, find a much shorter film on the WTC made in the 70's about the construction. It didn't mention a concrete core.

So you've found me arguing for the truth elsewhere. Good. I've claimed it was the 2 hour documentary that aired on PBS in 1190 on this forum too, in this very thread. it was called "The Constrcution Of The Twin Towers." You will have to read to find it though, and well the diaper on this forum is full and all I can do is apply more disinfectant (truth) so it is swollen and messy. Sorry about that, but the major flow comes form the other posters here.

[DavidJames]

You misrepresent my statements or simplify and blur them. I insist that 47 steel columns, 1,300 foot in length SURROUNDED (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) the outside of the concrete core wall. I insist that no steel columns were inside the core.

Produce the image of the 1,300 foot columns in the wreakage or explain why they are not seen buckled and lying around ground zero as you say.What do you think happend to the 47 1300' steel columns?

[Apollyon]

Here's a better picture of the columns, one that Christophera refuses to properly recognize:

http://tinyurl.com/n849l

There are plenty of core columns visible. This is a different angle and much better resolution of a single blurry picture in which Christophera claims shows a portion of his concrete core. In the picture it doesn't appear to be a concrete core at all. It looks more like a small floor section with some of the concrete still in place that has collapsed to an almost vertical position.

You also get a better view of what he claims to be rebar. It's more evident in this picture that it conduit and/or water pipes.

TheFeds. Nice post.

[Christophera]

You can't explain why your beloved concrete core is not visible in all the pictures shown so now you try to make the rules of evidence conform to your own delusion.

What a lame joke you are.

You think that all pictures should show what you want them to show and so feel entitled to get information that way.

Sorry you live in a dumbed down world. Look for qualified evidence. Construction photos are good for somethings but not for determinations of core coluns because the available variety of photos on the web has been seriously sifted before 9-11. More afterwards.

[gumboot]

You misrepresent my statements or simplify and blur them. I insist that 47 steel columns, 1,300 foot in length the outside of the concrete core wall. I insist that no steel columns were inside the core.

Produce the image of the 1,300 foot columns in the wreakage or explain why they are not seen buckled and lying around ground zero as you say.


Ah so you agree. The core consisted of concrete with 47 columns of steel on the outside? So in your photo of the concrete core standing, are we expected to believe the 47 steel columns around the outside of it magically peeled away? But the concrete is still there?

Okay, interesting. Please produce an image of ground zero showing the 1,300 foot columns that flanked the outside of the solid concrete core. The ones that somehow fell before the concrete core itself did. While you're at it, please provide photographic evidence of these 47 steel columns outside the core as the building collapses. Presumably, since there is clear evidence of the concrete core during collapse, it should be no trouble finding evidence of these columns that were OUTSIDE it.

-Andrew

[Christophera]

Yes, lets.
Do you have anything to show that your pictures are explosive shear? You've asserted it, but I'm sorry, it isn't. (http://www.toad.com/****nyccensors/wtc100301/wtc035.jpg)


The entire ground zero is littered with square cut tempered steel columns.

[gumboot]

So you've found me arguing for the truth elsewhere. Good. I've claimed it was the 2 hour documentary that aired on PBS in 1190 on this forum too, in this very thread. it was called "The Constrcution Of The Twin Towers." You will have to read to find it though, and well the diaper on this forum is full and all I can do is apply more disinfectant (truth) so it is swollen and messy. Sorry about that, but the major flow comes form the other posters here.


Now I'm confused. In this thread you have called it a "BBC Documentary". In another forum you called it a documentary "Produced by PBS". Produced does not mean "aired". Produced means "made". Produced means "owned".

So which is it? PBS? Or BBC?

And it it's a BBC documentary, can you explain why it is that the BBC had knowledge in 1990 of WTC structure that no one else in the world has. But that in 2001 they published an image of the tower (as you have on your website) that shows a *third* structure, that neither reflects the structure they described in their 1990 documentary, nor the structure the rest of the entire world believes was there.

This doesn't make any sense to me.

-Andrew

[Christophera]

Christophera, even IF there had been a "concrete core", you're a million light-years away from proving that there were demolition charges embeded in it, as I believe you are suggesting

The effect seen here (http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/.site1106.jpg) cannot be created any other way.

Ask Huntsman what kind of placement and distribution you MUST have to get that kind of breakage.

[RandFan]

The entire ground zero is littered with square cut tempered steel columns. And the concrete?

[Christophera]

Now I'm confused. In this thread you have called it a "BBC Documentary". In another forum you called it a documentary "Produced by PBS". Produced does not mean "aired". Produced means "made". Produced means "owned".

So which is it? PBS? Or BBC?

And it it's a BBC documentary, can you explain why it is that the BBC had knowledge in 1990 of WTC structure that no one else in the world has. But that in 2001 they published an image of the tower (as you have on your website) that shows a *third* structure, that neither reflects the structure they described in their 1990 documentary, nor the structure the rest of the entire world believes was there.

This doesn't make any sense to me.

-Andrew

PBS is the producer of the documentary and BBC is who is in error about the core design. They think it's concrete but a prestressed column with no room for stairs and elevators.

[RandFan]

The effect seen here (http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/.site1106.jpg) cannot be created any other way.Based on what theory?

[Christophera]

Images, in and of themselves, are not evidence. Say it with me.

Images.
In.
And.
Of.
Themselves.
Are.
Not.
Evidence.

What have we presented that has been a misrepresentation? Provide evidence, not opinion.

Exactly, that is why I use reason with images to make them evidence. Try it sometime.

[Christophera]

Based on what theory?

Not a theory. A fact. Explosives must be optimally positioned (centralized) and well distributed in a uniform medium to get equilibrium from an explosion and superfine breakage.

Ask Huntsman.

[gumboot]

As a side note, a search in the IMDB for both "WTC" and "World Trade Centre" didn't find a single entry, either fiction or non-fiction, regarding the WTC at or earlier than 1990.

The earliest entry is "Path To Paradise: The Untold Story Of The World Trade Centre Bombing" (1997, NYC Productions)

It appears to be a fictional made-for-television feature film about the true events surrounding the 1993 WTC Bombing.

-Andrew

[Christophera]

And the concrete?

Has been turned into
SAND & GRAVEL (http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg) except for one piece (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg)

[RandFan]

Not a theory. A fact. Explosives must be optimally positioned (centralized) and well distributed in a uniform medium to get equilibrium from an explosion and superfine breakage. Non sequitur. Perhaps that is true for "an explosion". What of a collapsing building?

[RandFan]

Has been turned into
SAND & GRAVEL (http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg) except for one piece (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg)That's a picture that you proclaim shows what you say it shows. Do you have any proof that it does show what you say it shows?

Do you have any evidence that states that the concrete core would be so eviscerated?

[Hellbound]

Explosive shear on the left, torch cut on the right sheared columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc.box.shear.torch.gif).

Your left pic is not explosive shear (or not just explosive shear). Have any proof that it is?

Examples of a cutting charge:
Shaped charges placed on steel plate (http://www.air-and-space.com/20020624%20China%20Lake/4%2031%20Shape%20charge%20penetrations%20m.jpg)--Very rough edges, as is expected. Also, blast marks clearly visible.

Industrial explosive cutting set up, using shaped explosives and a "cuting frame" (http://www.norabel.com/products/explosivecuttingframe/[/url)--again, notice roughness of edges and blast pattern.

You'll see this in explosive cuts, not the nice smooth edges you showed. If that was cut with explosives, it was ground and finished afterwards.

Again, you are blatantly misrepresenting these images to further your agenda...you aren't interested in truth.

wtf, I wish people read before they post. My site deals with most of what you say, which is correct, except fo the denial. There were extreme shape charges built into the floors around the columns. After a few years of looking at thsoe square cut ends. Too clean, as you say, for any previously known salvage operation, I realized that the documentary in 1990 had a few relative words.

Do you have any evidence, or is this more speculation?

Explosive built into the building would have become highly unreliable by 2001 (modern C-4 has a shelf life of 10 years under good conditions). Not to mention that trying to get charges, on a sequenced timer, and set it so you cut the steel and demolish the concrete core, along with everything else, is just plain idiotic. There's no way to hide the wires or tubes you'd have to have installed for the system, or the switches, junctions, and other equipment. It'd run throughout the building. The first time electricians go to rewire an office (or the first time network cabling was run through the building), they'd find these wires.

Here is an approximate diagram of the cutting charges (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/steelbeamcuttingfloors.gif) built into every other floor. Based on the last 10 minutes of the 1990 documentary and their details on the floor finishing details on behalf of the public OVER expenditure on the tower construction. PBS producers trying to show that the coasts were justified. The videographers found that tempered steel plates had a 0.035 inch clearance to the interior box columns that surrounded the concrete core. The PA was upset and said the documents they had sourced from a sub contractor 20 years after the construction was still considered confidential.

I don't need your diagram, I want to know what you based it on. So far, it's just your opinion. Which, with 50 cents added, will buy me a cup of coffee.

Provide a source for that? "A PBS documentary" is not a source. Dates, show name, air times, anything?

Steven Jones refers to them as cutting charges (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/steelbeamcuttingfloors.gif) and they will perform leaving an edge as smooth as that which guides the plane of high presure gasses.

Stephen Jones also thinks thermite is a high explosive and contains sulfur. He's a physicist, not an explosives expert.

These columns sheared level (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/box.cols.sheared.level.jpg) were not done so by men cutting off the tops of piles of tangles steel. The green arrows are a level, square cut row of interior box column tops. The yellow are the salvage cuts you describe. Not core columns. Elevator landing supports or other mechanical equipment, yes.

I'll speak slowly, with small words...

HOW DO YOU KNOW WHICH ONES WERE EXPLOSIVE SHEAR AND WHICH WERE NOT?

None of them appear to be explosive shear, sorry. There's no blast patterns, and the edges are too smooth.

Whatta' mean? I'm kicking your ass in this intellectual battle and you DO know what you are talking about with high explosives, but you don't know the WTC and cannot explain any of what happened without the exact same logic I use. Tell rummy to send some one not afraid of the truth.

Um, which intellectual battle are you watching?

You've provided baseless speculation and false photographs.

You provided no evidence that any of the photographs you presented are examples of explosive shear (beyond your opinion).

You provided no evidence of high explosives used at WTC (residue, detonators, etc), again except for your opinion.

You provided no evidence of explosively cut columns, except your opinion.

You provided no evidence of a concrete core, except your interpretation of a very unclear photo that is directly contradicted by other video and photographic evidence (i.e.-tapes of the collapse that do NOT show your "concrete core" standing).

And I can explain what happened without your logic. Your logic is nothing of the sort, it's your opinion and a lot of speculation and conjecture.

I notice you did not use any evidence, your post used reasonable knowledge, but was inadequate to provide criticism. READ.

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

No. Your site is, I'm afraid, not an unbiased source. I;ve asked specific questions, you should be able to point me to reliable sources to support your assertions.

Of course, you're more interested in the attention you recieve by spreading your slander, and get to feel good because you can pretend to be doing more than others who actually do have the intestinal fortitude to get up off the couch and do something about what they believe in.

So, do you have any evidence? Or just more conjecture?

[Apollyon]

You think that all pictures should show what you want them to show and so feel entitled to get information that way.
iow, you can't explain why there is no concrete core whatsoever to be seen in the construction photos.

[Christophera]

As a side note, a search in the IMDB for both "WTC" and "World Trade Centre" didn't find a single entry, either fiction or non-fiction, regarding the WTC at or earlier than 1990.

The earliest entry is "Path To Paradise: The Untold Story Of The World Trade Centre Bombing" (1997, NYC Productions)

It appears to be a fictional made-for-television feature film about the true events surrounding the 1993 WTC Bombing.

-Andrew

Andrew,

I confess. I have never even tried to find that video, except for asking people on the web.

In round 1999 I tried to communicate with PBS for other reasons and found it to be a completely closed organization that was not responsive in any way.

On 9-11 I watched WTC 1 fall and thought of the documentary and realized that it was most certainly gone. A year later I remembered about the "special anti vibration, corrosion resistant coating" on the rebar I'd learned of in the video and knew it was gone.

[Christophera]

iow, you can't explain why there is no concrete core whatsoever to be seen in the construction photos.

The core is unseen in the construction photos because it is inside the steel framework up to 7 floors below the top floor.

[Hellbound]

Has been turned into
SAND & GRAVEL (http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg) except for one piece (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg)

The effect seen here (http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/.site1106.jpg) cannot be created any other way.

Ask Huntsman what kind of placement and distribution you MUST have to get that kind of breakage.

Not a theory. A fact. Explosives must be optimally positioned (centralized) and well distributed in a uniform medium to get equilibrium from an explosion and superfine breakage.

Ask Huntsman.

He's right, if you assume gravity doesn't exist and everything will be the result of explosive charges.

If you actually have two brain cells you can rub together to spark an idea, you'll realize that the force of the collapse of the upper floors was the equivalent of severl thousands of pounds of explosives, and the pancaking of the floors as the top collapsed onto them more than accounts for the destruction observed in teh collapse.

[Apollyon]

The core is unseen in the construction photos because it is inside the steel framework up to 7 floors below the top floor.
I don't see any concrete core in the link I provided. I see core columns.

Edit: Here's the photo. This is the thrid time I've linked this for you:

http://tinyurl.com/n849l

[gumboot]

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

So this documentary was produced by PBS, yes? So the above statement by you is false? Yes?

Incidently, I have now checked "Twin Towers" on IMDB. The earliest entry is a short film entitled "Twin Towers" from 1911. I'm going to take a wild stab and assume it wasn't about the building of the WTC.

The next earliest entry is "Without Warning: Terror In The Towers" (1993, produced by Stephen Downing and Robert M Rolsky) It's a feature length film about the 1993 bombing, made for Television.

There are no entries for any production about the building of the WTC.

To give you an idea of the IMDB's scope, for 1990 it lists "Linda's Body" a short film made in New Zealand, and only ever released in New Zealand. In 1990 New Zealand only had a population of 3.4 million.

The documentary appears to be your only actual piece of evidence (misinterpreting a photograph is not evidence) therefore I think it important that the existence of this documentary is verified.

-Andrew

[RandFan]

The core is unseen in the construction photos because it is inside the steel framework up to 7 floors below the top floor.That sounds like a claim to me. Can you prove that claim?

[Christophera]

Your left pic is not explosive shear (or not just explosive shear). Have any proof that it is?

I've posted a link recently here that shows the same quare cut end on many columns in all kinds of positions.

Examples of a cutting charge:
Shaped charges placed on steel plate (http://www.air-and-space.com/20020624%20China%20Lake/4%2031%20Shape%20charge%20penetrations%20m.jpg)--Very rough edges, as is expected. Also, blast marks clearly visible.

Industrial explosive cutting set up, using shaped explosives and a "cuting frame" (http://www.norabel.com/products/explosivecuttingframe/[/url)--again, notice roughness of edges and blast pattern.

You'll see this in explosive cuts, not the nice smooth edges you showed. If that was cut with explosives, it was ground and finished afterwards.

Again, you are blatantly misrepresenting these images to further your agenda...you aren't interested in truth.

As far as I can tell, you've just done exactly what you claim I'm doing. The link with the holed plate does not represent a Linear Shaped Charge which is really wht we are talking about here. The other link won't work



Do you have any evidence, or is this more speculation?

Explosive built into the building would have become highly unreliable by 2001 (modern C-4 has a shelf life of 10 years under good conditions).

Hey,

Enough of this. I address this on my site. READ.

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

C4's life is 10 years in the manufacturers wrapping. Encapsulation in concrete is much better protection from evaporation and oxidization.

Not to mention that trying to get charges, on a sequenced timer, and set it so you cut the steel and demolish the concrete core, along with everything else, is just plain idiotic. There's no way to hide the wires or tubes you'd have to have installed for the system, or the switches, junctions, and other equipment. It'd run throughout the building. The first time electricians go to rewire an office (or the first time network cabling was run through the building), they'd find these wires.

Enough of this. I address this on my site. READ.

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

Provide a source for that? "A PBS documentary" is not a source. Dates, show name, air times, anything?

"The Construction Of The Twin Towers". Aired in 1990 on PBS, 2 hours in length.

Enough of this. I address this on my site. READ.

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

I'll speak slowly, with small words...

HOW DO YOU KNOW WHICH ONES WERE EXPLOSIVE SHEAR AND WHICH WERE NOT?

None of them appear to be explosive shear, sorry. There's no blast patterns, and the edges are too smooth.

Concentrate the high pressure cutting plane of gasses and the ragged edge disapears, that's what an LSC does.

Um, which intellectual battle are you watching?

You've provided baseless speculation and false photographs.

You provided no evidence that any of the photographs you presented are examples of explosive shear (beyond your opinion).

You provided no evidence of high explosives used at WTC (residue, detonators, etc), again except for your opinion.

You provided no evidence of explosively cut columns, except your opinion.

You provided no evidence of a concrete core, except your interpretation of a very unclear photo that is directly contradicted by other video and photographic evidence (i.e.-tapes of the collapse that do NOT show your "concrete core" standing).

And I can explain what happened without your logic. Your logic is nothing of the sort, it's your opinion and a lot of speculation and conjecture.

No. Your site is, I'm afraid, not an unbiased source. I;ve asked specific questions, you should be able to point me to reliable sources to support your assertions.

Of course, you're more interested in the attention you recieve by spreading your slander, and get to feel good because you can pretend to be doing more than others who actually do have the intestinal fortitude to get up off the couch and do something about what they believe in.

So, do you have any evidence? Or just more conjecture?

No false photos. We have near free fall speeds to explain, and it has not been. My site explains near free fall and pulverization better than anything you've produced.

Evidence of high explosivesD (http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/.site1106.jpg)

There have been numerous images of many square cut columns posted by myself and others. If you are not interested and do not notice them, I'm not surprised.

I've shown a picture of the WTC 2 concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) AND shown that the steel core columns are NEVER seen in the DEMO photos. I know you are afraid of the truth so I expect you to ignore everything that supports the reality of near free fall and pulverization.

I've provided specific answers, many more than the questions you've asked.

The photos of the DEMO are unbiased, logical integration of them into an explanaton of free fall has been reasonably executed.

Show me your site where you use pictures of the towers demise to pove the official structure.

[Christophera]

That sounds like a claim to me. Can you prove that claim?

The concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) of WTC 2 does this well, as long as one is willing to use logic.

[Christophera]

I don't see any concrete core in the link I provided. I see core columns.

Edit: Here's the photo. This is the thrid time I've linked this for you:

http://tinyurl.com/n849l

Sorry if I missed it before. My image shows the concrete of the core base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) and the interior box column much better.

[Christophera]

Ah so you agree. The core consisted of concrete with 47 columns of steel on the outside? So in your photo of the concrete core standing, are we expected to believe the 47 steel columns around the outside of it magically peeled away? But the concrete is still there?

Yes, the exploding core pushed them outward after cutting charges (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/steelbeamcuttingfloors.gif) severed them. There have been a number of images posted showing many square cut column ends.

Okay, interesting. Please produce an image of ground zero showing the 1,300 foot columns that flanked the outside of the solid concrete core. The ones that somehow fell before the concrete core itself did. While you're at it, please provide photographic evidence of these 47 steel columns outside the core as the building collapses. Presumably, since there is clear evidence of the concrete core during collapse, it should be no trouble finding evidence of these columns that were OUTSIDE it.

-Andrew

Sorry, I've explained that the columns were cut as the building fell.

[gumboot]

Sorry if I missed it before. My image shows the concrete of the core base and the interior box column much better.


No it doesn't. Because your photo is enlarged so it looks blurry and hard to see.

The other photo, of exactly the same piece of debris, confirms there is no concrete wall on that chunk of building.

This is a big part of photo interpretation that you seem to have missed. Interpretation is achieved by cross-referencing multiple photos of the same thing.

-Andrew

[Christophera]

No it doesn't. Because your photo is enlarged so it looks blurry and hard to see.

The other photo, of exactly the same piece of debris, confirms there is no concrete wall on that chunk of building.

This is a big part of photo interpretation that you seem to have missed. Interpretation is achieved by cross-referencing multiple photos of the same thing.

-Andrew

Your image is a bad angle, bad light, mine (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) shows everything much clearer. And I've already looked at all I could find, including the one you post and chose mine for the aforementioned reasons.

[Christophera]

Okay, interesting. Please produce an image of ground zero showing the 1,300 foot columns that flanked the outside of the solid concrete core.
-Andrew

This (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/box.cols.sheared.level.jpg) would qualify for that. Green arrows are the interior box columns, yellow are elevator landing supports or mechanical equipment supports.

[RandFan]

The concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) of WTC 2 does this well, as long as one is willing to use logic.Please explain. How does it do what you claim that it does? When you say "the concrete core does this what do you mean by the "concrete core" and what does the photo have to do with it? Are you alleging that the concrete core is in the photo? If so why is not in the other photo that I asked you about, the one where you said it had been "been turned into SAND & GRAVEL (http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg)?"

When I use logic and I look at the two photos it doesn't seem that what you are saying makes sense. Are you saying:

1.) The concrete core was blown up after the building was first destroyed?

Or

2.) The concrete core disintegrated after the building fell down around it?

Also, could you address these other posts of mine?

Non sequitur. Perhaps that is true for "an explosion". What of a collapsing building?

That's a picture that you proclaim shows what you say it shows. Do you have any proof that it does show what you say it shows?

Do you have any evidence that states that the concrete core would be so eviscerated?

[gumboot]

Your image is a bad angle, bad light, mine (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) shows everything much clearer. And I've already looked at all I could find, including the one you post and chose mine for the aforementioned reasons.

I didn't link any photos at all. That was someone else entirely.

And you are wrong. The light conditions in the two photos are identical.

The other photo is not front on, thus making it fairly easy to see that there is no enormous concrete wall there. In fact the other photo is a *better* angle.

[gumboot]

This (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/box.cols.sheared.level.jpg) would qualify for that. Green arrows are the interior box columns, yellow are elevator landing supports or mechanical equipment supports.

Thank you.

You asked for photos of the core NIST claims existed. The photo you posted is such evidence.

Case closed.

-Andrew

[NobbyNobbs]

Christophera--

I am doing my best to find out about this documentary, because I would love to see it. In order to query PBS about it, I need to know where it aired. What is the nearest large city to you, or what is your zip code? PBS airs programs locally, not nationally, so a search for it has to be done this way. Thanks!



Edited: because I evidently can't type correctly this late at night.

[Regnad Kcin]

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

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

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

In other words, concrete-core towers would have withstood the airplane impacts. Since they didn't, the towers must've been brought down by other means.Now we know you aspire to be a master of distortion. Pick another subject 'cause you just lose credibility by trying to twist words like that. Particuarly when we have data of historical origin from Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/oxfordarchcore.jpg) to support the concrete corecore (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)Ignoring your unnecessary snarkiness, why did you cite and quote the alleged post by Leslie Robertson, if not to bolster your position?

If I was mistaken in my deduction, I have no problem refining, amending, or dropping it entirely. You know, the things people should do when presented with corrective info.

[Regnad Kcin]

Aside from your error that that WTC 1 was "hit hardest" (and the corresponding mistake that it was the more damaged) do you see the error in your logic regarding the sequence of the collapses, or do I have to point it out to you?Still waiting for your definition of my error Regnad Kcin.I took the next step in my examining your error here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1712508&postcount=715).

As I requested there, please tell how many stories (that is, undamaged by the airplane collisions) were above each impact in both WTC 1 and WTC 2. (A reminder: I took the range of impacted floors you provided and chose the middle number.)

[Regnad Kcin]

This image of the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) proves that there was a concrete core because nothing else could survive and have that appearance. The image also proves there were not steel core columns.I'd like to remind you, as I have before, that this seemingly favorite image of yours is a still frame of a demolition in progress. It, by itself, is inconclusive. Surely you understand as much.

[TheFeds]

Is this (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/) the documentary in question (PBS's NOVA "Why the Towers Fell")?

If so, here (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2907_wtc.html) is the transcript.

Also, regarding the use and structural properties of welded joints (from here (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/letters.html)): Thanks for a great program. I was very interested in the analysis of the connection between the trusses and the columns and the bolt sizes used, and I have a follow-up question for Dr. Eagar (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html) or one of the people on the program. From the beginning, I noticed one thing I have not yet seen addressed: There is no bending or damage evident at the connections between the three-story high columns and the ones above which rest on them. I am referring to the four holes visible in the horizontal plate forming the base of each column in the groups of three.

If these columns had been fully welded to the one above, or used significantly stronger bolts, would the outside columns been more able to resist the penetration of the plane, and would they also have not "unzipped" as fast during the collapse? I expected to see some distortion or damage to the holes if the connection had been as strong as the column itself, which appears to have enormous resistance to shear and bending. Instead, these preassemblies of columns appeared to be almost intact when found, at least with regard to bending away from vertical. The bases and holes look intact. Could they also have used relatively weak bolts? I assume bolts were used since there are openings in each column just above the top and bottom of the column, maybe to allow wrenches.

Anonymous


Dr. Eagar responds:

This is a very perceptive question. One of my faculty colleagues pointed this out to me a few days after Sept. 11. It turns out that the connection between the column sections was only tack welded; well, maybe a bit bigger than a tack weld, but they were not continuously welded. These joints are in compression, so the weld is not load-bearing—unless the floor joist connections give way, which is what happened during the fire. The welds were only needed to hold the pieces together during steel erection. In service these welds were not really needed.

It is true that a continuously welded piece of structural steel should bend before it breaks. The column sections were not continuously welded, so they did not have the weld strength to bend the steel before the partial welds broke. That is why you do not see the sections twisted and distorted as much as if they had been welded.

Does this mean the building was defectively designed? I do not think so, because once continuous welds started to bend, the building would have been done for anyway. Even with the weaker partial welds, the primary loads in the columns were still compressive, and the distortions that popped these partial welds represented a building in a serious state of distress. Maybe the buliding might have survived a few more minutes with continuous welds, but there is no reason to conclude that the building would have withstood the entire fire without collapse if continuous welds had been present. Apparently welds were used for non-structural reasons during the positioning of the members. They weren't holding the building up, probably because of the aforementioned difficulties in reliably creating load-bearing welds in these conditions. According to this source, therefore, the columns "were not continuously welded". This is in opposition to Christophera's statement: By virtue of a 100% but weld, the columns become virtually continuos, 1,300 foot long. They would not stand anywhere except for in place. They will buckle and fall unsupported, but they are continuos.

[Regnad Kcin]

What Matters More, 3,000 Americans Dead Or An Immaterial Use Of An Internet Image?You do realize, Mr. Brown, that there were numerous other nationalities represented among the killed that day, don't you?

[SezMe]

Christophera--

I am doing my best to find out about this documentary, because I would love to see it. In order to query PBS about it, I need to know where it aired. What is the nearest large city to you, or what is your zip code? PBS airs programs locally, not nationally, so a search for it has to be done this way. Thanks!
Based on publically available information, Christophera's home zip is 93101, which is Santa Barbara, California. The nearest large city is Los Angeles (depending on how you define "large") which is the location of the nearest PBS outlet. PBS in LA is KCET (http://www.kcet.org/).

Go Nobby.