Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers? [Archive] - Page 40

Christophera

11th December 2006, 04:30 PM

Nope, What you said:

you then later used his account to corroberate your "documentary".:

At any rate, the core of WTC1 should have been visible in the aerial photographs. But they are not.

I'm not distorting. I'm showing the truth. If you can't handle it or unwilling to admit the truth, that's not my fault. But i'm not going to let you brush it away and pretend it didn't happen.
How about you show a picture of the WTC1 concrete core under construction. I'll even accept an areial view. According to you, Jebson and your documentary, you should have no trouble at this.

Why should I believe your interpretation when you can't honestly admit to a mistake and a lie?

If you can't find raw evidence to support the steel core columns, just say so.

you are doing you best to twist what has been said and it is not working because I do have raw evidence to support the concrete core. Here is and image which shows the base of the core wall between the interior box columns and a stariwell. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg). If steel core columns existed, some would be seen around the stairs.

Then there is the area where the core wall footing went between the elevator pits and the footings for the interior box columns. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/elev.pits.core.footing.CORR.jpg)

Christophera

11th December 2006, 04:45 PM

It could be concrete from the floor. It might not even be concrete. In any event, it doesn't look thick enough to be a building core.

Proportionately it looks about 4 feet thick, which is about right for that elevation in the core wall.

The scale etablished from an image of an interior box column, another image from the same camera a second later, shows the large steel columns gone and 3"many fine vertical elements in place, slightly lower, must be rebar because there is an image from the opposite direction which shows a concrete shear wall when the large steel column steel stands.

The second image was taken from a longer distance than the first image, so of course the columns LOOK smaller. The buildings look smaller, too.

"another image from the same camera a second later"

the second image was taken from the same distance without the zoom and proportionately the fine vertical elements are much smaller. Then this other shot taken from the opposite side at about the same time as the first showing the large column from the opposite side, which also shows the column, shows a lighter colored wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/shearspirewall.jpg) behind the interior box columns. That image is matched by one taken 90 degrees to the left showing an end view of the same concrete wall. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg)

TellyKNeasuss

11th December 2006, 04:47 PM

You do support the steel core columns do you not?

Please produce some evidence to support their existence beside misrepresented constrcuton images which are show to depict vertical steel in the core area far too insubstancial to be core columns as they ar never seen after the demoliton begins.

You said that the concrete core only supported 20% of the load. Therefore, the "interior box columns" must have supported 80% of the load (100 - 20 = 80). This means that the "interior box columns" would have had to be pretty "substantial".

TellyKNeasuss

11th December 2006, 05:02 PM

Proportionately it looks about 4 feet thick, which is about right for that elevation in the core wall.

It doesn't look anywhere close to 4 feet thick to me.

"another image from the same camera a second later"

the second image was taken from the same distance without the zoom and proportionately the fine vertical elements are much smaller. Then this other shot taken from the opposite side at about the same time as the first showing the large column from the opposite side, which also shows the column, shows a lighter colored wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/shearspirewall.jpg) behind the interior box columns. That image is matched by one taken 90 degrees to the left showing an end view of the same concrete wall. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg)That was a mighty fast cameraman if he could have moved that far and lined up another photo in a second (note the position of the man in shorts and white shirt in the 2 images). Regardless, the width of the columns relative to the width of features in the buildings in the foreground seems to be about the same, so I think that it is reasonable that they are both images of the same type of object.

Christophera

11th December 2006, 05:50 PM

It doesn't look anywhere close to 4 feet thick to me.

Well, .. the interior box columns were 2 feet. It looks twice as thick to me.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg

That was a mighty fast cameraman if he could have moved that far and lined up another photo in a second (note the position of the man in shorts and white shirt in the 2 images). Regardless, the width of the columns relative to the width of features in the buildings in the foreground seems to be about the same, so I think that it is reasonable that they are both images of the same type of object.

There are many objects to the right of the tallest element in the lower elevation, second image. The first image is very plumns with no arc as well.

http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg]and below the spire

http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg

Christophera

11th December 2006, 06:01 PM

You said that the concrete core only supported 20% of the load. Therefore, the "interior box columns" must have supported 80% of the load (100 - 20 = 80). This means that the "interior box columns" would have had to be pretty "substantial".

The perimeter columns supported 50%, the interior box columns 30% and the core 20%.

The interior box columns were very substancial, much larger than the perimeter columns as they were spaced on 20 foot centers.

TellyKNeasuss

11th December 2006, 06:03 PM

Well, .. the interior box columns were 2 feet. It looks twice as thick to me.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg

I'm not sure there is a wall of any sort in that image. It looks like dust/smoke between columns. There is no apparent upper boundary and it matches the colors of the surrounding dust/smoke.

There are many objects to the right of the tallest element in the lower elevation, second image. The first image is very plumns with no arc as well.

http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg]and (http://home.comcast.net/%7Ejeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg%5Dand) below the spire

http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg (http://home.comcast.net/%7Ejeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)
Even though I can't understand this, I'm pretty sure that it doesn't address my point.

tacodaemon

11th December 2006, 07:06 PM

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

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

You know, even after nearly 250 pages I'm still flabbergasted by the complexity and detail of Chris's made-up memories of an imaginary documentary.

uruk

11th December 2006, 07:17 PM

If you can't find raw evidence to support the steel core columns, just say so.

you are doing you best to twist what has been said and it is not working because I do have raw evidence to support the concrete core. Here is and image which shows the base of the core wall between the interior box columns and a stariwell. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg). If steel core columns existed, some would be seen around the stairs.

Then there is the area where the core wall footing went between the elevator pits and the footings for the interior box columns. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/elev.pits.core.footing.CORR.jpg)
I've provided ample evidence for a steel core as others here have also.
everyone here agrees to that point.

I am not twisting anything, I am simply presenting your posts as you presented them. Your the one who posted the erroneous and conflicting information.
And now your the one who's trying to weasle out of it by trying to change the issue. You can't hand wave your error away.
Be a man and admit to it.

In post 5607 You said Jebson was in wrong about his obsevation. In post 8960 you used the same observation to support your statement.

Christophera

11th December 2006, 08:05 PM

You know, even after nearly 250 pages I'm still flabbergasted by the complexity and detail of Chris's made-up memories of an imaginary documentary.

Call them what you like but they allow me to identify things you cannot and they come from the 1990 documentary.

For example the concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) holding up the spire. If it weren't for me no one would have a logical explanation for that.

NickUK

11th December 2006, 08:17 PM

If it weren't for me no one would have a logical explanation for that.

:dl:

Christophera

11th December 2006, 08:25 PM

I'm not sure there is a wall of any sort in that image. It looks like dust/smoke between columns. There is no apparent upper boundary and it matches the colors of the surrounding dust/smoke.

In this zoom you can see that what is on the left is not a steel column and that its; light color with rough broken edge show it is a concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif).

That was a mighty fast cameraman if he could have moved that far and lined up another photo in a second (note the position of the man in shorts and white shirt in the 2 images). Regardless, the width of the columns relative to the width of features in the buildings in the foreground seems to be about the same, so I think that it is reasonable that they are both images of the same type of object.

There are many objects to the right of the tallest element in the lower elevation, second image. The first image is very plumb with no arc as well.

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

http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg

Even though I can't understand this, I'm pretty sure that it doesn't address my point.

The cameraman was in a vehicle I think. The point is that they are not the same image and the object has changed significantly. It is lower and no longer comprised of a large steel column with framework below it. The second image is comprised of fine vertical elements not heavy steel columns with framework supporting them.

Christophera

11th December 2006, 08:28 PM

:dl:

Do you have an explanation for what the whiteish, thick object (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif)is 500 feet off the ground?

Bell

11th December 2006, 08:32 PM

Do you have an explanation for what the <spam> whiteish, thick object is 500 feet off the ground?

Do you have an explanation for the buckling?

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

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

Do you have an explanation for where the concrete is?

Where is the concrete, Chris?

edit: webpage here (http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/small/eng-news-record.htm)
7th picture from the top.

And finaly, do you have an answer to Mr. Kcin's question?

Which is heavier:

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

Christophera

11th December 2006, 08:40 PM

I've provided ample evidence for a steel core as others here have also.
everyone here agrees to that point.

I am not twisting anything, I am simply presenting your posts as you presented them. Your the one who posted the erroneous and conflicting information.
And now your the one who's trying to weasle out of it by trying to change the issue. You can't hand wave your error away.
Be a man and admit to it.

In post 5607 You said Jebson was in wrong about his obsevation. In post 8960 you used the same observation to support your statement.

Jebson saw the concrete core being cast standing free at street level. This matched what I saw in the 1990 documentary. The documentary also said that after the 5th floor all concrete core casting work was done inside the outer steel framework. That being the case, Jebson would not have been able to see what was going on so couldno tsay how the core was constrcuted after that point.

NickUK

11th December 2006, 09:04 PM

Do you have an explanation for what the whiteish, thick object (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif)is 500 feet off the ground?

The temptation to say 'clue glue' is almost overwhelming ;)

You've posted this picture a billion times now with your explanations imposed on it. The reality, Chris, is that it's an exceptionally bad capture from an already crappy quality video. It looks to me like dust and smoke. It don't look anything like concrete.

Christophera

11th December 2006, 09:23 PM

The temptation to say 'clue glue' is almost overwhelming ;)

You've posted this picture a billion times now with your explanations imposed on it. The reality, Chris, is that it's an exceptionally bad capture from an already crappy quality video. It looks to me like dust and smoke. It don't look anything like concrete.

It seems that everything which does not agree with the official structure is dust and smoke. Which of course is not reasonable and logical meaning that you are simply using that as everyone else does here to dismiss good evidence reasonably used.

The idea is that near free fall must be explained and a concrete core which is used as a container for high explosives explains it. Since I happen to know for certain that there was a concrete core and that the rebar in it had a special plastic coating and we have events that look like this (http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8232/wtcsl8.jpg) are present, we have to say that you are supporting a lie, 'cause that much concrete cannot explode that completely unless the explosives are perfectly placed and distributed within it.

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

defaultdotxbe

11th December 2006, 09:28 PM

The perimeter columns supported 50%, the interior box columns 30% and the core 20%.

The interior box columns were very substancial, much larger than the perimeter columns as they were spaced on 20 foot centers.
where did this info come from? are you remembering more of this elusive documentary you saw 15 years ago or have you found another source?

hcmom

11th December 2006, 09:30 PM

Call them what you like but they allow me to identify things you cannot and they come from the 1990 documentary.
Speaking for myself only, I call them the voices in my head....

For example the concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) holding up the spire. If it weren't for me no one would have a logical explanation for that.If it weren't for Chris, there would be no one who saw a concrete shear wall...

Christophera

11th December 2006, 09:42 PM

Do you have an explanation for the buckling?

Yes. The buckling is most likely the core being detonated in one 40 foot zone first on one side will get that effect. With a few interior box columns getting cut then a few floors detonating. Perhaps just cutting the interior box columns at one floor on one side would do it because as far as i remember the cores horizontal bar was continuous around the concrete shear walls and so you couldn't just do one side. But you could start there after it was weakened on one side because the floor panels were separate explosive circuits.

Do you have an explanation for where the concrete is?

The concrete is in the center of the building of course. When it detonates on one side it leans heavy on the interior core columns and taking out one or 2 of those makes a very effective mimic of a collapse

And finaly, do you have an answer to Mr. Kcin's question?

That is a really ridiculous question which answer explains nothing. The larger number of floors of course weighs more.

Since fires from those sources cannot heat steel enough to cause failures on the scale required, and the planes did not cause failures immediately, the only explanation for the tops of the towers falling the wrong directions is demolitions.

Christophera

11th December 2006, 09:44 PM

If it weren't for Chris, there would be no one who saw a concrete shear wall...

Correction, no one would say anything about it. I've met a number of people who know there was a concrete core.

firecoins

11th December 2006, 09:46 PM

245 pages of nonsense. Someday this thread will end.

Christophera

11th December 2006, 11:25 PM

245 pages of nonsense. Someday this thread will end.

Hopefully in a free nation having an intact constitution gained by united people unafraid of truth

Bell

11th December 2006, 11:31 PM

Correction, no one would say anything about it. I've met a number of people who know there was a concrete core.

But yet they discussed it for over an hour in an documentary, whilst it was highly secret. How is that, Chris?

Also, did the core had DIAGONAL cross bracing?

Bell

11th December 2006, 11:42 PM

Yes. The buckling is most likely :words:

Don't be silly Chris :rolleyes:

Note that in this video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863
The buckling can be seen many seconds before the tower collapses.

The concrete is in the center of the building of course. :words:

Prolly you did not understand the question or what to look at.

Where is the concrete, Chris?
Please look at this webpage (http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/small/eng-news-record.htm)
7th picture from the top

That is a really ridiculous question which answer explains nothing. The larger number of floors of course weighs more.

:words:

But thanks for answering though.

Christophera

11th December 2006, 11:57 PM

But yet they discussed it for over an hour in an documentary, whilst it was highly secret. How is that, Chris?

In 1990 it was not a secret, obviously. It was common knowledge amongst people who knew architecture. Those people still know, they just don't know about the FEMA lie, or perhaps approve of it.

Also, did the core have DIAGONAL cross bracing?

No. It was a special shear wall construction. Rodger Harris made some good points about rebar sizes, the center to center of 4 foot seemed a lot to him. In the discussion regarding wall thickness I had with beachnut where he couldn't understand why the wall was only 2 foot thick at the top, I realized that the horizontal rebar was very dense which served to work with the 3 inch rebar on 4 foot centers to enhance the diagonal shear strength of the walls.

The points Rodger made got me comparing, intuitively, (I am not an engineer), the rebar in the core walls to standard concrete walls I've seen and the walls or core really was designed to deal with torsion in a big way. The winds put a big twist on the tower at the top as the faces would "fly".

The image of the rebar
(http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) shows the rebar tips sloping. The documentary actually explained, indirectly, why that happened like that. Two reasons, 1.) The rebar butt welds were done on the slope by specification to reduce the chance of a fracture across the core on a horizontal line, torsion resistence. The sloping rebar welds followed the concrete which was mounded up inside the forms to a high point at the corners forming a sawtooth joint between pours making the core more resistant to torsion.
2.) The rebar on the side in the linked image sat out in the weather and the special plastic coating lost its "protective viability", stated in the documentary. In reality the plastic explosive had lost its viability and that is why the vertical rebar still stood. The horizontal rebar coating was fresh and blew the concrete off to expose the tops on a slope.

Christophera

12th December 2006, 12:00 AM

Where is the concrete, Chris?
Please look at this webpage (http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/small/eng-news-record.htm)
7th picture from the top

The forth floor of steel from the core base is where the steel was erected around the core. The constructon images have been filtered to remove the images of the core.

hcmom

12th December 2006, 12:14 AM

The forth floor of steel from the core base is where the steel was erected around the core. The constructon images have been filtered to remove the images of the core.

C'mon Chris...it isn't weak answers like this keeping us all here. Take a little longer if you need to...

Big Al

12th December 2006, 12:40 AM

In 1990 it was not a secret, obviously. It was common knowledge amongst people who knew architecture. Those people still know, they just don't know about the FEMA lie, or perhaps approve of it.

Chris, in 1990, the official story was that the towers had steel cores. It was one of the few things I knew about them then. According to you, this was a lie told way back in the late 60s to cover up the lack of concrete that would be seen when they got round to blowing them up.

If they were paranoid enough to do this on Day 1, how come they relaxed enough to tell this documentatry crew about the concrete core in 1990? Not to mention banging on and on and ON about rebar and its super-special coating.

Architect

12th December 2006, 02:48 AM

Since fires from those sources cannot heat steel enough to cause failures on the scale required, and the planes did not cause failures immediately, the only explanation for the tops of the towers falling the wrong directions is demolitions.

Chris, if you're claiming that normal fires don't weaken structural steel to the point of failure then I'm going to have to prove you wrong. It's not hard.

Architect

12th December 2006, 02:57 AM

No. It was a special shear wall construction. Rodger Harris made some good points about rebar sizes, the center to center of 4 foot seemed a lot to him. In the discussion regarding wall thickness I had with beachnut where he couldn't understand why the wall was only 2 foot thick at the top, I realized that the horizontal rebar was very dense which served to work with the 3 inch rebar on 4 foot centers to enhance the diagonal shear strength of the walls.

The points Rodger made got me comparing, intuitively, (I am not an engineer), the rebar in the core walls to standard concrete walls I've seen and the walls or core really was designed to deal with torsion in a big way. The winds put a big twist on the tower at the top as the faces would "fly".

This is unmitigated rubbish, and shows your complete lack of understanding of structural issues. And just to compound matters, I've already explained part of it but it was amongst the "difficult" questions you chose to ignore.

Let's look at it again.

Concrete is excellent in compression, but extremely poor in tension. For this reason we incorporate steel reinforcement (steel being excellent in tension but not so hot in compression).

Now, if we were to only put in the reinforcement at (say) 300mm centres then there is a ridiculous amount of concrete which is effective only in compression. Yet you claim that the concrete core is acting in torsion (haha) and thus tensile strenses will be a major design issue! Your claim that this is dealt with by the horizontal reinforcement - you omit the size of this, by the way - is ludicrous.

Likewise let's look at the idea of 75mm reinforcing bar. What you're effectively suggesting is that the wall is reinforced with solid round section steel columns, rather than (say) simply increasing the centres of standard reinforcing sections (which would solve manual handling problems and be cheaper). Then you say these are all welded, rather than lapped and tied per normal practice.

A further issue you fail to address in previous questions is the means of jointing the horizontal and vertical sections. Reinforcement layout it quite complex, as loads do strange things at junctions, and tend to be quite cumbersome if there's a lot. Perhaps you could tell me what evidence they had for how these were formed here?

I have to hand it to you Chris, you're providing amusement while this knee heals.

Architect

12th December 2006, 02:59 AM

Oh, incidentally:

http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?client=public&X=450000.03091282&Y=200000.379846936&width=700&height=400&gride=451503.03091282&gridn=206162.379846936&srec=0&coordsys=gb&db=freegaz&addr1=&addr2=&addr3=&pc=&advanced=&local=&localinfosel=&kw=&inmap=&table=&ovtype=&keepicon=true&zm=1&scale=4000000

http://www.oup.co.uk/

Note the country.

Bell

12th December 2006, 03:52 AM

This is unmitigated rubbish, and shows your complete lack of understanding of structural issues. And just to compound matters, I've already explained part of it but it was amongst the "difficult" questions you chose to ignore.

Let's look at it again.

Concrete is excellent in compression, but extremely poor in tension. For this reason we incorporate steel reinforcement (steel being excellent in tension but not so hot in compression).

Now, if we were to only put in the reinforcement at (say) 300mm centres then there is a ridiculous amount of concrete which is effective only in compression. Yet you claim that the concrete core is acting in torsion (haha) and thus tensile strenses will be a major design issue! Your claim that this is dealt with by the horizontal reinforcement - you omit the size of this, by the way - is ludicrous.

Likewise let's look at the idea of 75mm reinforcing bar. What you're effectively suggesting is that the wall is reinforced with solid round section steel columns, rather than (say) simply increasing the centres of standard reinforcing sections (which would solve manual handling problems and be cheaper). Then you say these are all welded, rather than lapped and tied per normal practice.

A further issue you fail to address in previous questions is the means of jointing the horizontal and vertical sections. Reinforcement layout it quite complex, as loads do strange things at junctions, and tend to be quite cumbersome if there's a lot. Perhaps you could tell me what evidence they had for how these were formed here?

I have to hand it to you Chris, you're providing amusement while this knee heals.

Educating post, Architect. To bad Chris will disregard it, though.

Belz...

12th December 2006, 04:32 AM

You've got me with the above. Thirty 3" rebar on 4' centers (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg). There are 20 across the cameras view and they are visible which means the assertion of the deniers that a 3 inch rebar will not resolve in a pixel is completely erroneous. Or, simply waving around make sthe needed exposure. Whatever, the fine veritcal elements are definitely there and very small.

I really do not sweat small details when such BIG ones (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) are so erroneouly evaluated and ignored.

If you can't get the small details right, how can you expect to get the important stuff right ?

In other words, when evidence is removed and destroyed in 3,000 capitol crimes

Ah, they're "capitol" again ?

Common sense and logic, which completely escape you.

The same common sense that tell you the Earth is flat and that heavier objects fall faster ?

Welded makes them "one piece"

Well that proves beyond any doubt that you don't know anything about construction. Don't cry, though.

If you cannot produce an image of any of the supposed 47, 1300 foot steel core columns in the core area, but insist they exist desipte the fact that the event that would expose them if they existed does not show them, and the perpetrators of 3,000 murders are escaping based on a deception related to the core structure of the towers, you are a sociopath.

You also get your psychological disorders wrong.

Produce an image of the concrete core being built.

We are only working with available information here.

Does that excuse for work us, too ?

Bell

12th December 2006, 04:47 AM

Does that excuse for work us, too ?

Trust me, I tried...

:hypnodisk

JonnyFive

12th December 2006, 06:04 AM

That is a really ridiculous question which answer explains nothing. The larger number of floors of course weighs more.

Since fires from those sources cannot heat steel enough to cause failures on the scale required, and the planes did not cause failures immediately, the only explanation for the tops of the towers falling the wrong directions is demolitions.

Praise JEEZ-US he answered the question.

Now, Chris, why should we believe your word that the fires couldn't cause "failures on the scale required"? Are you a structural engineer?

Every expert disagrees with your theories, so you need some qualification to call their experience into question. Without some kind of experience or substantial evidence, you are totally unqualified to evaluate still images and claim they show anything.

You say everyone who disagrees with you is either a shill or an idiot. So prove it. Prove you know what you're talking about. Prove they're shills. Prove you know what you're talking about.

You must have extensive math, physics, engineering, and demolitions experience to be able to determine all this new information from a few grainy photos. But wait, you don't, and you claim that this fact is somehow immaterial to the matter at hand, but that's ridiculous.

You can try to bully us into agreeing that your pictures show amazing evidence all you want, but it won't work. If someone isn't convinced, then show more evidence. If you don't have any, then get more.

I don't know what kind of people you think we are, but we're not going to be insulted and strong-armed into agreeing with you because you call us names.

The truth has a funny way of being supported by converging threads of evidence, but your "truth" has a funny way of being supported by some blurry photos and people that don't even understand high school physics.

Big Al

12th December 2006, 06:30 AM

Praise JEEZ-US he answered the question.

Well, he answered a question, anyway.

I'm still waiting to hear:

Why the buidlings were supposedly planted with explosives
How the explosives lasted at least three times their shelf life
Even if they did, why the relevant evil people thought they would still work after all that time
Why they didn't "pull" the towers after the abortive van-bombing in 1993, instead of waiting another 8 1/2 years to do so.
What was in this alleged disappeared documentary
Why the evildoers told the documentary crew in such ludicrous detail about this supposedly non-existent concrete core and the super-special rebar coating, when the official story was that the towers had steel cores
Why the documentary wasn't stifled at birth instead of ten years ater, by which time the damage was presumably done
Why no architect or structural engineer watched this documentary and said "Hang on! I thought the WTC towers had steel cores!"
Why the Oxford University Press, a British academic institution, was told about the "non-existent" concrete core in the first place, and why they deleted all records of the book because of one paragraph
Why nobody but Christophera seems to wonder why most of the steel in the wreckage was in the form of thick rebarThe nearest I got to an answer to any of these was on number 1, where Chris' informative answer was "various reasons".

uruk

12th December 2006, 06:32 AM

Do you have an explanation for what the whiteish, thick object (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif)is 500 feet off the ground?
Your pointing to a dust/smoke cloud. Everyone here can see that. Your the only one ON EARTH who thinks it's a concrete wall.

JonnyFive

12th December 2006, 06:47 AM

Well, he answered a question, anyway.

One is better than none, I guess.

To which I would add:

11. What experience and/or education he has that makes him so
qualified to talk about the physics of this disaster.

jhunter1163

12th December 2006, 06:48 AM

JonnyFive

12th December 2006, 06:50 AM

I'm still trying to get my head around the concept of making something a secret again after it's been publicized. Seems to me that secrecy is like virginity; highly prized but once it's gone, it's gone.

But, you see, they used their special mind-wipe rays to destroy all evidence of it and memory of it in everyone's minds.

Except for one man, crusading against evil in a world of mind-slaves... Christophera!

uruk

12th December 2006, 06:54 AM

Jebson saw the concrete core being cast standing free at street level. This matched what I saw in the 1990 documentary. The documentary also said that after the 5th floor all concrete core casting work was done inside the outer steel framework. That being the case, Jebson would not have been able to see what was going on so couldno tsay how the core was constrcuted after that point.

Wow. It just took you two days to make up this excuse and as expected you pulled out the all mighty "documentary" as all purpose balm for you lies and mistakes. You are pathetic Chris. This lie just makes you look all the worse.

But that that is not you posted at all. Your maleable grasp on reality keeps bending.
In post 5607 you said Jebson could not be right about the process.
In post 8960 you used Jebson's e-mail to support your statement. You did not state then that the process was changed for WTC1 untill this post to try to cover up your lies and mistakes.

An honest man admitts his mistakes Chris.
You are just a pathetic liar.

uruk

12th December 2006, 07:00 AM

Correction, no one would say anything about it. I've met a number of people who know there was a concrete core.

Are you sure these people actually exist. I mean you still can't prove that your documentary actually existed. You seem to be seeing things that are not there. Your picture with the arrow pointing to a dust cloud seems to support this.

uruk

12th December 2006, 07:17 AM

The forth floor of steel from the core base is where the steel was erected around the core. The constructon images have been filtered to remove the images of the core.

Hey chris I thought you said that you knew how to interpret pictures.
If you notice in the picture below That is the sub-basment structure. Notice the "bathtub" or retaining wall in the back? You can even see the subway tube to the right of the structure. This structure is actually below ground level.
Are you going to whip out your fictitious documentary to come up with another lie to explain this mistake away?

Big Al

12th December 2006, 07:18 AM

Are you sure these people actually exist. I mean you still can't prove that your documentary actually existed. You seem to be seeing things that are not there. Your picture with the arrow pointing to a dust cloud seems to support this.

So these people are scared for their lives and those of their families if they dare to breathe a word of the heretical concrete core. However, they're more than happy to tell Chris, who blabs it all over the web and even hosts a website preaching this dangerous knowledge.

What a man! What courage! What disregard for his own personal safety in his crusade for freedom, justice, truth and the American way!

What a prat!

Big Al

12th December 2006, 07:22 AM

Are you going to whip out your fictitious documentary to come up with another lie to explain this mistake away?

This documentary must have been about 15 hours long, after spending so long detailing every last nugget of information about the rebar and its mega-special coating.

Big Al

12th December 2006, 07:23 AM

199 posts to go. I can hardly wait.:D

JonnyFive

12th December 2006, 07:25 AM

199 posts to go. I can hardly wait.:D

Got any plans for the big 10K?

I was thinking I'd put on a little party hat and do a little happy dance.

Architect

12th December 2006, 07:39 AM

Let's get Chris a special jacket with strap down arms.

uruk

12th December 2006, 07:39 AM

Hey Chris, Here is an article dated July 8th, 1965 concerning the design of the steel columns and how they will take the wind loads.

Excerpts taken from:
http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/small/eng-news-record.htm
The full articles can read at the above address provided

July 8, 1965

HOW COLUMNS WILL BE DESIGNED FOR 110-STORY BUILDINGS

"For record-height towers of New York's World Trade Center, engineers proportion columns to avoid floor warpage when high-strength steels are used for exterior columns and A36 steel for interior columns.

A design procedure that will be used for structural framing of the 1,350-ft high twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City gives the exterior columns tremendous reserve strength. Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.

The procedure calls for proportioning of columns in each story for the same unit stress under gravity loads, regardless of the grade of steel in the columns. Thus, all columns will shorten the same amount, and differential shortening will be eliminated as a possible cause of floor warpage. The reserve strength of high strength steel members will then be available to resist wind stresses.

The structural engineers adopted this particular design because of the great length of the columns, use of different grades of steel and their plan to take wind stresses in the exterior columns only.

The concept was explained to the New York Architectural League by John Skilling, a partner in Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson, of Seattle, consulting structural engineers on the World Trade Center (see p. 124)."

"Exterior columns will be spaced 39 inches c-c. Made of various high-strength steels, they will be 14-inch square hollow-box sections, for high torsional and bending resistance, and windows will be set between them. Spandrels welded to the columns at each floor will convert the exterior walls into giant Vierendeel trusses."

"Interior columns are all in or around the elevator-stairway core. Thus, the office areas are free of columns. All the core columns will be made of A36 steel (36,000-psi yield point). As a result, corner columns at the base of the core may be solid steel as large as 2 x 8 ft in section."

"Walls resist wind. In designing the record-height towers against wind, Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson adopted a scheme that does not rely on the core at all to take wind. Each tower will act as a vertical, cantilevered hollow tube. The giant Vierendeel trusses forming the loadbearing exterior walls will provide the required rigidity and strength to resist wind. All the horizontal shear will be resisted by the sides of the building parallel to the wind, and most of the overturning moment will be taken by the exterior walls normal to the wind. For economy in resisting the stresses, the wall columns will be made of high-strength steels, as indicated in the diagram above."
Notice, Chris, the section I bolded.
Here are a couple of pictures that went with the article:

firecoins

12th December 2006, 08:38 AM

can we hit 10,000 posts of meaningless dribble?

Chris was debunked in post #1

Big Al

12th December 2006, 08:57 AM

uruk

12th December 2006, 09:01 AM

JonnyFive

12th December 2006, 09:17 AM

Or try being a man and admit that you are wrong.

But... but.... massive box columns... rebar... 4' centers... box columns... centers...

No, wait, the WTC towers were so special that no other photos from other buildings apply. They invented new techniques for them, then never used those techniques again, ever. That's it.

All those pictures we posted from the tower construction showing steel columns are just showing elevator guide rails that for some reason are bigger than elevator guide rails. Also, there was concrete in there somewhere. Somehow.

Take note, the Freedom Tower is going to be built with a concrete core. Don't let them erase your mind and tell you it's a steel core in 20 years. Documentary! PBS! CONCRETE CORE!

Christophera

12th December 2006, 09:19 AM

Hey Chris. Consider these photos of the Comcast building construction.

The Comcast building is being made with a concrete core. Notice how the concrete core soars over the steel work. Also notice how the photos taken at street level can clearly see the concrete core abouve 9 and 13 floors of the steel work.

Your explination of the lie and mistake you made about the Jebson e-mail is crap. Try to make another lie. You can even use the fictitious documentary again if want.
Or try being a man and admit that you are wrong.

a tip o' the hat to kookbreaker for posting the photographs

Smaller concrete cores are cast ahead of the steel so their strength can add to the tower which reduces the towers weight.

The WTC concrete core was probably about twice the size. Casting the concrete inside the steel saves forming costs.

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

Try being a HUMAN and admit you have no evidence.

Christophera

12th December 2006, 09:22 AM

But... but.... massive box columns... rebar... 4' centers... box columns... centers...

No, wait, the WTC towers were so special that no other photos from other buildings apply.

Special plastic coating on the rebar that goes BOOM. (http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8232/wtcsl8.jpg)

Very secret.

JonnyFive

12th December 2006, 10:22 AM

Special plastic coating on the rebar that goes BOOM. (http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8232/wtcsl8.jpg)

Very secret.

And yet you have yet to provide any proof of this at all. You can't even tell us the name of the documentary.

Here's one for you: Who narrated the documentary?

uruk

12th December 2006, 10:23 AM

Smaller concrete cores are cast ahead of the steel so their strength can add to the tower which reduces the towers weight.

The WTC concrete core was probably about twice the size. Casting the concrete inside the steel saves forming costs.

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

Try being a HUMAN and admit you have no evidence.

That was a pretty lame tap dance Chris.
It doesn't matter the size of the building. Jebson could have seen a concrete core from street level if there was a concrete core. The pictures of the Comcast building prove it. Which means that the explination you gave me about the error you made concerning the Jebson e-mail is solid crap.
Besides in post 8960 you said that WTC1 was built with the concrete core going up first.

Try again Chris. You're not weasling out of it. Own up to it or be labeled the liar we all know that you are.

Oh and while you're at it. try to explain the mistake you made in misinterpreting the picture of WTC1's sub basment structure.
Just incase you missed it, here it is:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2170012&postcount=9799

Big Al

12th December 2006, 10:25 AM

Special plastic coating on the rebar that goes BOOM. (http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8232/wtcsl8.jpg)

Very secret.

For absolutely no reason. "Hey, Yamasaki-san, mind if we line your masterpiece with explosives, just in case we feel like blowing it up, say, thirty years from now?"

"Dozo, Injiniiru-san!"

Plain and utter nonsense, and you haven't given the ghost of a valid reason why they might have done it.

uruk

12th December 2006, 10:32 AM

You know, even after nearly 250 pages I'm still flabbergasted by the complexity and detail of Chris's made-up memories of an imaginary documentary.
It's called the art of B.S. In which Chris has a masters degree in.

JonnyFive

12th December 2006, 10:40 AM

Plain and utter nonsense, and you haven't given the ghost of a valid reason why they might have done it.

But the documentary!

Come to think of it, even if there was a concrete core (which there wasn't), and even if he saw a documentary that mentioned a special rebar coating (which I don't think he did), that doesn't really prove anything.

Chris, a couple more questions:

If this "documentary" specifically mentioned plastic explosives, or you figured it out back then, why didn't you say anything?
If it just called it a "special coating" then what additional proof do you have that it was indeed plastic explosives?I'm sure you'll say something about how it's obviously controlled demolition, but then we come back to the issue of your experience. You are not qualified, based on what you've told us, to evaluate such a complex event. All of the people who are qualified have failed to agree with the controlled demolition theory. They have, in fact, explicitly stated that it was not a controlled demolition.

Do you see where this is going? You need to provide some additional evidence, or you're just arguing in circles that lead back to "I believe this to be true, so it is".

Your precious photos won't help you here, because even you can only claim they show a concrete core. But what if there was a core and it happened to sustain enough damage to collapse on its own. You need to provide proof that this didn't happen.

Even if there was a core with specially coated rebar, you still need proof that the collapse was a controlled demolition and that the coating was explosive. This is where your decades of experience as a demolitions expert or structural engineer come into play...

...you do have decades of experience as a demolitions expert or structural engineer, right?

Are you beginning to see the level of proof that we require here? Not only do you need to establish your core thesis (which, by the way, you haven't), but then you'll need to prove that it had a rebar coating, that the coating was explosive, that the explosive was indeed detonated, and that the whole thing was a controlled demolition. Then you'll need to prove that it was indeed the government behind it all.

You're embarking on a journey up Mount Everest, and you're not even in country yet.

TellyKNeasuss

12th December 2006, 10:57 AM

In this zoom you can see that what is on the left is not a steel column and that its; light color with rough broken edge show it is a concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif).

I downloaded your image and doubled, then quadrupled, it in size. This reinforced my belief that there the image does not show a wall. There clearly is no upper boundary and the colors in the "wall" area are the same as the surrounding smoke/dust cloud.

The cameraman was in a vehicle I think. The point is that they are not the same image and the object has changed significantly. It is lower and no longer comprised of a large steel column with framework below it. The second image is comprised of fine vertical elements not heavy steel columns with framework supporting them.Regardless of whether 1 or 2 photographers took the photos, the object's size seems to be about the same relative to other features in the photos, so your claim that the 1st photo is of "interior box columns" and the second is of rebar is VERY unlikely.

Big Al

12th December 2006, 11:00 AM

Even if there was a core with specially coated rebar, you still need proof that the collapse was a controlled demolition and that the coating was explosive.

And, since the documentary supposedly aired in 1990, 19 years after the towers were completed, why did the documentary advisers even have to mention the special coating, let alone go on and on about it? They could have shown the documentary crew any old pictures they wanted, including "fake" steel core ones, but they had to go and show them absolute, undeniable, unimpeachable evidence that:

a) Not only was the core made of concrete, contrary to the cover story they'd so cunningly fostered, but,
b) That the now-utterly-invisible rebar had this mysterious coating, and they kept returning to it.

That teensy little anomaly hasn't even been addressed yet.

TellyKNeasuss

12th December 2006, 11:09 AM

The perimeter columns supported 50%, the interior box columns 30% and the core 20%.

Source for this?

The interior box columns were very substancial, much larger than the perimeter columns as they were spaced on 20 foot centers.

Source for this?

Big Al

12th December 2006, 11:13 AM

Source for this?

Why, the Almighty Documentary, of course! More revelations from the Blessed Oracle of Undeniable Proof. It must be holy, because, just like with God, you're not allowed to ask for proof it exists.

JonnyFive

12th December 2006, 11:13 AM

That teensy little anomaly hasn't even been addressed yet.

As per my mountain analogy, we aren't even at the foothills.

Come on, Chris, we want to see the foothills! Show us the foothills!

uruk

12th December 2006, 11:31 AM

The WTC concrete core was probably about twice the size. Casting the concrete inside the steel saves forming costs.

Wrong. the comcast building is going to be 975 feet tall. That's roughly 2/3 the the hight of the WTC towers. Not half.
Each floor of the Comcast building has aproximately 23,000 square foot of rentable space. Each floor of the WTC building had 40,000 square feet of rentable floor space. and that is out 43,000 square feet of total floor space. So the core was actually smaller in relation to the floor space on WTC towers than in the Comcast building.

Anyhoo, in post8960 you said that Jebson was right about the WTC1 core being cast first before the steel work.
Try again Chris.

JonnyFive

12th December 2006, 11:33 AM

Wrong. (Snip)
Try again Chris.

I'm pretty sure that the documentary mentioned the Comcast building. They were specifically talking about how the WTC towers were so much different and also made using magic.

uruk

12th December 2006, 11:41 AM

I'm pretty sure that the documentary mentioned the Comcast building. They were specifically talking about how the WTC towers were so much different and also made using magic.

So.... is there any word on what the documentary might have said about tomorrow's lottery numbers? Ya know....just askin'

JonnyFive

12th December 2006, 11:43 AM

So.... is there any word on what the documentary might have said about tomorrow's lottery numbers? Ya know....just askin'

Can't remember right now, but I'm sure it'll come to me tomorrow sometime.

hcmom

12th December 2006, 11:59 AM

So.... is there any word on what the documentary might have said about tomorrow's lottery numbers? Ya know....just askin'
You should have asked back in 1990 when it was all fresh and new in his mind.

uruk

12th December 2006, 12:10 PM

Special plastic coating on the rebar that goes BOOM. (http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8232/wtcsl8.jpg)

Very secret.
And yet they mentioned the "special" plastic coating on a PBS documentary.
Very secret indeed!

uruk

12th December 2006, 12:12 PM

You should have asked back in 1990 when it was all fresh and new in his mind.

D'OH!!!!!

bonavada

12th December 2006, 12:13 PM

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

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

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

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

So where is the explanation?

<sigh> i would have thought the picures were self-explanatory chris. the cuts at ground zero in the top image could have been done in a similar fashion to the cuts in the bottom image. is that concept to difficult for you to grasp?

or do you have evidence that the steel in the bottom image was cut with "high explosive shear in the demolition"?????

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

BV

SezMe

12th December 2006, 02:37 PM

Special plastic coating on the rebar that goes BOOM. (http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8232/wtcsl8.jpg)
This is a question for the reality-based community, not Chris. Which building is the brown building in the bottom right portion of this picture?

bonavada

12th December 2006, 02:46 PM

This is a question for the reality-based community, not Chris. Which building is the brown building in the bottom right portion of this picture?

errrrm the one that "shouldn't have fallen down because it was never even damaged or hardly on fire"?

BV

bonavada

12th December 2006, 03:25 PM

I am unlicensed in everything I do, so I can't provide evidence of qualifications that you would find acceptable other than images of my equipment while I work. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/nikon2dtm551.jpg)

i am an acrophobic giraffe whisperer, here is an image of my equipment...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748457f3a07eb03e.jpg

BV

Christophera

12th December 2006, 04:30 PM

And yet you have yet to provide any proof of this at all. You can't even tell us the name of the documentary.

Here's one for you: Who narrated the documentary?

If you haven't read the documentary name yet I know you are not reading.

You are a waste of time.

You read the entire thread if you want another answer from me.

Christophera

12th December 2006, 04:39 PM

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

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

<sigh> i would have thought the picures were self-explanatory chris. the cuts at ground zero in the top image could have been done in a similar fashion to the cuts in the bottom image. is that concept to difficult for you to grasp?

or do you have evidence that the steel in the bottom image was cut with "high explosive shear in the demolition"?????

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

BV

So, .......... I have to answer my own question because you are too manipulative?

Those are torch cuts.

In order to say "NO" reasonably, you must come up with a close up of the surface of the cut.

JonnyFive

12th December 2006, 04:59 PM

If you haven't read the documentary name yet I know you are not reading.

You are a waste of time.

You read the entire thread if you want another answer from me.

No, you can tell us the real name of the documentary, or provide proof it exists under the title you gave. Or you could admit it exists only in your mind.

Because we searched for it, and found no trace.

Remember the mountain, Chris.

bonavada

12th December 2006, 05:14 PM

So, .......... I have to answer my own question because you are too manipulative?

that's ripe, you calling me manipulative....

anyway i think i answered your question. i showed you a picture of the remains of WTC steel and explained as you requested that they may have been cut by the same method as the steel in your image. you have offered no evidence of otherwise except:-

Those are torch cuts.

quite possibly they are. so please explain why your image may not also show "torch cuts" or are we are to take as irrefutable every thing you write? you, unqualified in any aspect of building construction, design, salvage or demolition? give me one good reason why i should take your word for anything relevant here chris.

In order to say "NO" reasonably, you must come up with a close up of the surface of the cut.

no chris that's your job. you are the one making extraordinary claims.
you argue that the cuts in your image could only be made with "high explosive shear"..........howz about you show another image demonstrating that such "high explosive shear" WOULD MAKE SUCH A CUT in steel. but show us an image of a similar cut in steel from an actual controlled demolition by "high explosive shear" chris.
and i mean a real corroborated CD not more pics of steel from the WTC.
show us that chris.
just one image will do. please

BV

uruk

12th December 2006, 05:19 PM

I just wanted to make sure that Chris doesn't forget about this:
Originally Posted by Christophera
Smaller concrete cores are cast ahead of the steel so their strength can add to the tower which reduces the towers weight.

The WTC concrete core was probably about twice the size. Casting the concrete inside the steel saves forming costs.

Cast Concrete Core Of WTC 2

Try being a HUMAN and admit you have no evidence.

That was a pretty lame tap dance Chris.
It doesn't matter the size of the building. Jebson could have seen a concrete core from street level if there was a concrete core. The pictures of the Comcast building prove it. Which means that the explination you gave me about the error you made concerning the Jebson e-mail is solid crap.
Besides in post 8960 you said that WTC1 was built with the concrete core going up first.

Try again Chris. You're not weasling out of it. Own up to it or be labeled the liar we all know that you are.

Oh and while you're at it. try to explain the mistake you made in misinterpreting the picture of WTC1's sub basment structure.
Just incase you missed it, here it is:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=9799

hcmom

12th December 2006, 05:31 PM

If you haven't read the documentary name yet I know you are not reading.

You are a waste of time.

You read the entire thread if you want another answer from me.

Chris...play nice...

TellyKNeasuss

12th December 2006, 06:21 PM

In this zoom you can see that what is on the left is not a steel column and that its; light color with rough broken edge show it is a concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif).

I ran your image thru ImageMagick's edge detection algorithm, and it didn't detect a vertical boundary. Therefore, it's pretty certain that this is not a picture of a wall.

Christophera

12th December 2006, 06:42 PM

I ran your image thru ImageMagick's edge detection algorithm, and it didn't detect a vertical boundary. Therefore, it's pretty certain that this is not a picture of a wall.

I think it detected that the image has not been photoshopped.

It is not the clearest of images, but adequate for the human eye and brain (critical part) to know that we are looking at a concrete wall adjacent to a steel column.

Christophera

12th December 2006, 06:44 PM

Chris...play nice...

Little jonny must learn to read at some point mom. We can't indulge him forever you know. It is in his own best interest that he learn to apply himself.

Stay late and study this Jonny,

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

ktesibios

12th December 2006, 06:55 PM

Well, at least I've brought away something vaguely useful from this thread.

On some other thread here (or possibly over at the BAUT forum; CTer posts all look the same after a while), some CTer made the claim that the WTC towers had a 2000% factor of safety in their design.

Reading that Engineering News-Record article, I think I see where that came from: someone who saw the figure 2000% and didn't comprehend the difference between live load and the total load the struture had to support.

BTW, when thread gets to 10,000 posts, can we have a party? Or should we make it 250 or even, FSM forfend, 300 pages?

Christophera

12th December 2006, 07:00 PM

Hey chris I thought you said that you knew how to interpret pictures.
If you notice in the picture below That is the sub-basment structure. Notice the "bathtub" or retaining wall in the back? You can even see the subway tube to the right of the structure. This structure is actually below ground level.
Are you going to whip out your fictitious documentary to come up with another lie to explain this mistake away?

The core base starts below ground.

Christophera

12th December 2006, 07:02 PM

That was a pretty lame tap dance Chris.
It doesn't matter the size of the building. Jebson could have seen a concrete core from street level if there was a concrete core. The pictures of the Comcast building prove it.

This image which shows the "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) has a concrete core underneath the top floor. This image of the WTC 2 concrete core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) shows the core that was inside the building photographed.

And, no one has ever produced a reasonable explanation for what that core is if it is not concrete!

Which means that the explination you gave me about the error you made concerning the Jebson e-mail is solid crap.
Besides in post 8960 you said that WTC1 was built with the concrete core going up first.

Yes teh concrete core went up before the steel on WTC 1, then the steel went up first on WTC 2, which makes more sense.[/QUOTE]

Stop trying to weasal onto of providing an image of some of the supposed 47 steel core columns from the demo images which show the steel columns inthe core area. By not producing this image you are unreasonably supporting what must be a lie. Alie that hides the murderers of 3,000 innocent people.

We know that evidence was taken from the scene and destroyed. we know private investigations were blocked, we know that FEMA never had the original blueprints.

http://www.gulufuture.com/future/knights_z.htm

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

Try again Chris. You're not weasling out of it. Own up to it or be labeled the liar we all know that you are.

Oh and while you're at it. try to explain the mistake you made in misinterpreting the picture of WTC1's sub basment structure.
Just incase you missed it, here it is:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2170012&postcount=9799

I just adequately addressed what you wish to term a mistake. You mistinterpreted what I said. Not the first time, ....... right?

"four floors from the base of the core" I didn't say ground level.

Christophera

12th December 2006, 07:05 PM

uruk

12th December 2006, 07:29 PM

The core base starts below ground.
you posted this:
The forth floor of steel from the core base is where the steel was erected around the core. The constructon images have been filtered to remove the images of the core.
Which floors were you refering to in the picture? You do know that that whole structure in the picture is below ground level. (except for the crane towers)

uruk

12th December 2006, 08:05 PM

This image which shows the "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) has a concrete core underneath the top floor. This image of the WTC 2 concrete core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) shows the core that was inside the building photographed.
The first photo shows no concrete core. It shows steel columns. According to Jebson the concrete core was build ahead of the steel work. You agreed with Jebson in post 8960. I guess this means you can't find a picture of the concrete core being built ahead of the steel.

It is not clear what is in the second picture. The object is too obscured to be sure what it is.

And, no one has ever produced a reasonable explanation for what that core is if it is not concrete!
Yep there is.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2167252&postcount=9693

Yes teh concrete core went up before the steel on WTC 1, then the steel went up first on WTC 2, which makes more sense.
So you were wrong in post 5607?
And you can't find any pictures of the concrete core for WTC1 even though constructions photos of WTC1 show no concrete core what so ever.

Stop trying to weasal onto of providing an image of some of the supposed 47 steel core columns from the demo images which show the steel columns inthe core area. By not producing this image you are unreasonably supporting what must be a lie. Alie that hides the murderers of 3,000 innocent people.
I have shown you pictures of the core columns. other people have shown you pictures of core columns. You posted one right in the post I am repling to. I even posted this article concerning the core columns:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2170080&postcount=9805

We know that evidence was taken from the scene and destroyed. we know private investigations were blocked, we know that FEMA never had the original blueprints.

http://www.gulufuture.com/future/knights_z.htm

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html
Interesting I guess that was because NIST had the plans. Look at he report. I even pointed out the pages. It's not my fault if you refuse to look.
So you can't say I didn't show you.:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2161350&postcount=9414

I just adequately addressed what you wish to term a mistake. You mistinterpreted what I said. Not the first time, ....... right?

"four floors from the base of the core" I didn't say ground level.
No you haven't, although you did admit to being wrong in post #5607. Sorta. Your still just dancing and obfuscationg. It is just one of the MANY mistakes and misinterpretations you've made in this thread.

Weren't you refering to the picture posted? The whole structure in the picture is below ground level and it shows no concrete core at all.

Continue to hand wave, obfuscate and dance all you want. But I'm not going to let you go on this Chris.

hcmom

12th December 2006, 09:34 PM

Darat has offered free personalized forum T-shirts to all posters that post reasonably using raw evidence of images from the demolition at the 10k post mark.

(Now that is a lie).

(But funny!)

Christophera

12th December 2006, 09:57 PM

The first photo shows no concrete core. It shows steel columns. According to Jebson the concrete core was build ahead of the steel work. You agreed with Jebson in post 8960. I guess this means you can't find a picture of the concrete core being built ahead of the steel.

It is not clear what is in the second picture. The object is too obscured to be sure what it is.

Yep there is.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2167252&postcount=9693

So you were wrong in post 5607?
And you can't find any pictures of the concrete core for WTC1 even though constructions photos of WTC1 show no concrete core what so ever.

I have shown you pictures of the core columns. other people have shown you pictures of core columns. You posted one right in the post I am repling to. I even posted this article concerning the core columns:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2170080&postcount=9805

Interesting I guess that was because NIST had the plans. Look at he report. I even pointed out the pages. It's not my fault if you refuse to look.
So you can't say I didn't show you.:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2161350&postcount=9414

No you haven't, although you did admit to being wrong in post #5607. Sorta. Your still just dancing and obfuscationg. It is just one of the MANY mistakes and misinterpretations you've made in this thread.

Weren't you refering to the picture posted? The whole structure in the picture is below ground level and it shows no concrete core at all.

Continue to hand wave, obfuscate and dance all you want. But I'm not going to let you go on this Chris.

What you mean is that you would LOVE to change the subject which is itself obsufucation. I made MY point more than adquately 10 pages back.

The WTC 2 concrete core standing (and no one has ever reasonably shown it to be anything else) completely agrees with Jebsons usenet post no matter what he saw or could not see. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

It is logical that he could not see the core which was 35 feet in from the edge of the floor minimum and 5 floors up. He could't know. We know from aerials that the core is not being built ahead of the exterior steel and the image above shows the core stripped of all floors as well as structural steel. NO CORE COLUMNS PROTRUDING FROM THE CORE AREA.

Trying to pretend that the fact of that image of the concrete core is not adequate is absurd. He talks about 4 floors of concrete and I show 40 floors of concrete. AND, I show the concrete goes all the way to the top with the image of the core of the top of tower 2 falling onto WTC 3 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg).

Christophera

12th December 2006, 10:01 PM

This documentary must have been about 15 hours long, after spending so long detailing every last nugget of information about the rebar and its mega-special coating.

One picture is worth a thousand words. I saw many stills and film clips, all narrated. It could take 15 hours to write a description of what I watched in one hour.

How about "mega-secret coating"?

hcmom

12th December 2006, 10:10 PM

How about "mega-secret coating"?
Twice in one night!

Christophera

12th December 2006, 10:36 PM

Sorry, uruk, but you know and I know those reports aren't true. The Guardian is in on the conspiracy. As Chris will soon remember, The Documentary spent approximately three hours detailing all the false reports generated about steel cores, and how a foreman mysteriously told the director:

There was actually a few minutes where the tendency to call the "interior box columns" "core columns" was addressed and indentified.

It started with Robertsons original design which he (I do believe it was him) identifies in his April 1, 2006 post at physorg.com.

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

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

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

I do not remember if Robertson was interviewed but I do remember that various employees were and that the tendency they had to refer to the "interior box columns" as core columns caused confusion which the videographers had to deal with and so included a reminder or notaton of it in the documentary specifically explaining that the columns that existed were not core columns or inside the core area but surrounded the core. They did not imply that this diminished their role, strength of size by ay means, they were indeed massive and there were many shots of them at various levels and phases of construction.

Bell

12th December 2006, 10:38 PM

Special plastic coating on the rebar that goes BOOM. (http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8232/wtcsl8.jpg)

Very secret.

Chris, remember...

We will be sticking with the AVAILABLE evidence.

... got some?

Bell

12th December 2006, 10:42 PM

One picture is worth a thousand words. I saw many stills and film clips, all narrated. It could take 15 hours to write a description of what I watched in one hour.

Well, with all the info you claim it contained, the documentary should have taken 15 hours.

How about "mega-secret coating"?

How about:

We will be sticking with the AVAILABLE evidence.

Wizard

12th December 2006, 10:44 PM

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

IS THIS FOR REAL?????

I have heard Robertson saying that explosives were not used

Bell

12th December 2006, 10:45 PM

IS THIS FOR REAL?????

I have heard Robertson saying that explosives were not used

You might want to take a look at the date that message was posted. But Chris lacks critical thinking, hence he thinks it's real indeed.

Wizard

12th December 2006, 10:48 PM

You might want to take a look at the date that message was posted. But Chris lacks critical thinking, hence he thinks it's real indeed.

It was posted in April this year. Did Leslie Robertson say this or not?

Wizard

12th December 2006, 10:50 PM

Ah April fools day!!!!!! I didn't spot that even after looking several times lol

Big Al

13th December 2006, 12:37 AM

How about "mega-secret coating"?

So secret that the documentary crew were told all about it, including how it necessitated special welders with security clearance, how weather made some of it lose its "potency", about how it was stored in special containers....

Wow! That's pretty damned secret!

Architect

13th December 2006, 01:43 AM

This is unmitigated rubbish, and shows your complete lack of understanding of structural issues. And just to compound matters, I've already explained part of it but it was amongst the "difficult" questions you chose to ignore.

Let's look at it again.

Concrete is excellent in compression, but extremely poor in tension. For this reason we incorporate steel reinforcement (steel being excellent in tension but not so hot in compression).

Now, if we were to only put in the reinforcement at (say) 300mm centres then there is a ridiculous amount of concrete which is effective only in compression. Yet you claim that the concrete core is acting in torsion (haha) and thus tensile strenses will be a major design issue! Your claim that this is dealt with by the horizontal reinforcement - you omit the size of this, by the way - is ludicrous.

Likewise let's look at the idea of 75mm reinforcing bar. What you're effectively suggesting is that the wall is reinforced with solid round section steel columns, rather than (say) simply increasing the centres of standard reinforcing sections (which would solve manual handling problems and be cheaper). Then you say these are all welded, rather than lapped and tied per normal practice.

A further issue you fail to address in previous questions is the means of jointing the horizontal and vertical sections. Reinforcement layout it quite complex, as loads do strange things at junctions, and tend to be quite cumbersome if there's a lot. Perhaps you could tell me what evidence they had for how these were formed here?

I have to hand it to you Chris, you're providing amusement while this knee heals.

I see you've not responded to this yet, Chris. Any particular reason? :p

Mancman

13th December 2006, 01:50 AM

AND, I show the concrete goes all the way to the top with the image of the core of the top of tower 2 falling onto WTC 3 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg).

Explain this image. Are those interior box columns with the dust from the detonated core trailing behind?

bonavada

13th December 2006, 06:21 AM

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

i believe the image you assert shows "high explosive shear" cut steel may simply show only salvage cuts made at ground zero. i believe this because the image i countered with shows remarkably similar cuts on salvaged WTC steel.

can you please show an image of steel cut by high explosives showing similar "high explosive shear" cuts from an actual controlled demolition other than the WTC 9/11 event? please corroborate any such image with a link to the source.

if you present such an image i will have to reconsider my opening argument.

BV

Architect

13th December 2006, 06:23 AM

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

i believe the image you assert shows "high explosive shear" cut steel may simply show only salvage cuts made at ground zero. i believe this because the image i countered with shows remarkably similar cuts on salvaged WTC steel.

can you please show an image of steel cut by high explosives showing similar "high explosive shear" cuts from an actual controlled demolition other than the WTC 9/11 event? please corroborate any such image with a link to the source.

if you present such an image i will have to reconsider my opening argument.

BV

That's a very fair point, Chris; I for one have never seen thermite/ate cut steel and would like to see an example in order that we can compare it to your photgraphs.

JonnyFive

13th December 2006, 06:30 AM

Little jonny must learn to read at some point mom. We can't indulge him forever you know. It is in his own best interest that he learn to apply himself.

Stay late and study this Jonny

Those insults have all the maturity of a grade school cafeteria food fight, and I think you are sorely mistaken if you believe that they hurt me. As poignant as your rhetorical abilities are, I think you might profit more from addressing the concerns of those here, rather than insulting us.

So, let's get back to the whole problem of you proving anything. For the sake of rhetoric, I will grant you your ridiculous concrete core with whatever god-awful rebar you claim it has.

Now: prove to me that the government blew it up. You have yet to establish anything else, even with blurry images. Even if we give you the benefit of the doubt (which I think you seriously abuse) and say your images show a core, how are we to know that there were explosives that were detonated by the US government?

No, I've read your web site, Chris. You haven't proven anything. Your unwillingness to answer questions and eagerness to resort to childlike insults only reinforces my belief that you are hopelessly lost in your own make-believe world.

You're welcome to introduce new evidence at any time. You could start by actually reading the NIST reports on the collapse and refuting them in detail.

You don't need any pictures for that, your knowledge of science and engineering should be sufficient.

Which reminds me, you never did answer my question about that. Why?

bonavada

13th December 2006, 06:50 AM

That's a very fair point, Chris; I for one have never seen thermite/ate cut steel and would like to see an example in order that we can compare it to your photgraphs.

if i remember correctly, chris' theory is that the columns were cut with shaped charges not thermite/ate. when and where these charges were laid and by what method they were detonated gawd knows, i don't think he's elaborated on that one.

what i'm interested in is whether such charges could make such a clean uniform cut in the steel he shows. the columns he refers to look almost as if they have just come from the mill.........

i've had a quick google but ATM can find no pics of steel after having been cut with high explosives. i do remember reading somewhere that steel columns were prepped (by mechanical cutting or perhaps oxy-a-torching) in buildings with a view to weakening the structure prior to controlled demolition with explosives. not being a CD expert or nowt i would like further information on this aspect of CD. i've got a day off today so may spend an hour or so taking a browse around, any suggestions anyone where would be a good place to look?

BV

uruk

13th December 2006, 07:03 AM

What you mean is that you would LOVE to change the subject which is itself obsufucation. I made MY point more than adquately 10 pages back. You have a peculiar habit of accusing others of the things you do yourself. I've been sticking with the same subject here. Your the one who has been desperately trying to avoid and change the subject. And you still haven't made any point except that you are avoiding to own up to some lies and errors.

The WTC 2 concrete core standing (and no one has ever reasonably shown it to be anything else) completely agrees with Jebsons usenet post no matter what he saw or could not see. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)
So your still saying that you were wrong in post 5607.
Anyhoo the picture does not agree with Jebson's post. First there is no indication that the picture shows a concrete core since sheetrock and wall board can also have a rounded appearance and the dust and smoke is too thick to really see anything other than an amorphous shape. I showed you pictures of sheetrock still attached to the steel core columns.
Second, Jebson said he could see the concrete core during construction. And Jebson could have seen the concrete core from street level if there was a concrete core. The Comcast building pictures prove this.
You keep showing a picture of an indistinct blob and say that Jebson was right even though you said he was wrong in post 5607.

It is logical that he could not see the core which was 35 feet in from the edge of the floor minimum and 5 floors up. He could't know. We know from aerials that the core is not being built ahead of the exterior steel and the image above shows the core stripped of all floors as well as structural steel. NO CORE COLUMNS PROTRUDING FROM THE CORE AREA.
Wrong. The pictures of the Comcast building (taken at ground level) PROVE that Jebson could have seen the concrete core of the WTC1 tower if there had in fact been a concrete core in WTC 1.
The fact the aerial photos of the construction site show no concrete core being built ahead of the steel means that you are also wrong in post 8960.
And we've shown you many pictures of the core columns. You refusing to acknowledge the photos and reports just makes you look dishonest and, quite frankly, childish.

Trying to pretend that the fact of that image of the concrete core is not adequate is absurd. He talks about 4 floors of concrete and I show 40 floors of concrete. AND, I show the concrete goes all the way to the top with the image of the core of the top of tower 2 falling onto WTC 3 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg).

The photo you keep posting does not clearly show anything. It just shows an indistinct shape that presumably is the core structure of the building.

This picture here: http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg Shows the spandrel sections falling onto the building below. I do not see any concrete in that photo. You going to have to point it out to me.

uruk

13th December 2006, 07:06 AM

One picture is worth a thousand words. I saw many stills and film clips, all narrated. It could take 15 hours to write a description of what I watched in one hour.

How about "mega-secret coating"?

One picture may be worth a thousand words, But are those the correct words?

A mega-secret coating that had one hour of a PBS documentary devoted to it.

Super mega-secret indeed!

uruk

13th December 2006, 07:10 AM

There was actually a few minutes where the tendency to call the "interior box columns" "core columns" was addressed and indentified.

It started with Robertsons original design which he (I do believe it was him) identifies in his April 1, 2006 post at physorg.com.

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

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

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

I do not remember if Robertson was interviewed but I do remember that various employees were and that the tendency they had to refer to the "interior box columns" as core columns caused confusion which the videographers had to deal with and so included a reminder or notaton of it in the documentary specifically explaining that the columns that existed were not core columns or inside the core area but surrounded the core. They did not imply that this diminished their role, strength of size by ay means, they were indeed massive and there were many shots of them at various levels and phases of construction.

And the refrence to an April fools joke continues!
With made up stuff to boot!

Belz...

13th December 2006, 07:18 AM

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

Why should you doubt sources that agree with you ? Well, if you don't know why, I guess you can never make an actual investigation.

Show me a concrete core in a construction photograph.

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

Speculation. Or can you provide a source for this assertion ?

Information is more controlled today than it ever has been in the past.

What the hell are you talking about ? Information is far more readily available today than it ever has been in the past.

supported/confirmed by raw images of the towers

"Raw" images, now ?

Are you listing your assigned disinformation tasks?

Are you accusing Arus of beign a government disinfo agent ? Wasn't she hypnotised ?

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

So that hypnosis crap you pulled was just for show ?

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

SUPERSTRONG!!!

That all [47 steel columns] are always snapped and missing is simply not credible.

You're forgetting that they were assembled, and that the joints are far weaker. Also, tens of floors fell upon them.

One thig is D@mm sure, 47, 1300 foot steel columns are never seen in ANY of the demo images.

Oh, yes they are.

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

A win-win scenario, isn't it ?

Belz...

13th December 2006, 07:20 AM

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

This, by the guy who says :

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

uruk

13th December 2006, 07:27 AM

IS THIS FOR REAL?????

I have heard Robertson saying that explosives were not used

Read the date of the Robertson posting. It was posted in Phys.org.forum on April 1st.
The post was obviously someone in the Phys.org forum playing an April Fools joke on Chris.

But he needs all the support he can get no matter how dodgy or questionable it is.
ALL of his evidence consists of blurry, misinterpreted pictures, mistaken accounts, a non-existant PBS documentary, an April Fools jokes, A Mohawk Indian who can't get his age right, a mistaken excerpt from a British publication that does not exist, and outright lie and invention.

Architect

13th December 2006, 07:29 AM

ALL of his evidence consists of blurry, misinterpreted pictures, mistaken accounts, a non-existant PBS documentary, an April Fools jokes, A Mohawk Indian who can't get his age right, a mistaken excerpt from a British publication that does not exist, and outright lie and invention.

He'll think you're calling him tenacious and resourceful, you know. :p

uruk

13th December 2006, 07:34 AM

He'll think you're calling him tenacious and resourceful, you know. :p
Yea, something tells me he would have been a better used car salesman than an unlicenced construction worker.

firecoins

13th December 2006, 07:44 AM

9874 posts. Nothing relevant yet.

JonnyFive

13th December 2006, 07:44 AM

Yea, something tells me he would have been a better used car salesman than an unlicenced construction worker.

I don't know, I don't really want a car with a concrete core.

ETA: 125 posts to go. I've got my hat ready. It's made of tin foil.

Big Al

13th December 2006, 08:02 AM

I don't know, I don't really want a car with a concrete core.

Don't worry, Jonny. It has a steel core, really. But Chris just won't believe it.

Big Al

13th December 2006, 08:06 AM

Read the date of the Robertson posting. It was posted in Phys.org.forum on April 1st.
The post was obviously someone in the Phys.org forum playing an April Fools joke on Chris.

Unless, of course, he posted it himself. Robertson daring to "come out of the closet" five years after the event (bit of a slow-acting conscience!) sounds as probable as most of Chris' other posts.

JonnyFive

13th December 2006, 08:10 AM

Don't worry, Jonny. It has a steel core, really. But Chris just won't believe it.

As long as the gubmint didn't line it with explosives, then that's fine.

bonavada

13th December 2006, 08:12 AM

found this here (http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=26572#p26572) posted the other week.
is this sad or funny? can't quite make my mind up:-

.......I would take a 400 watt PA and a small generator to a local park next to where the local peace march assembles and I start talking about 9-11 and what I know about the towers. The peace marchers do not, at any time come to support my speaking or speak on their own even if I invite them to speak on whatever subject they wish. There was a time, before the war was over (sic), but it appears that the crisis management mentality of our society accepts official announcements of such deceptive nature and goes home.

In 2004 a coast guard member complained to the police that I was too loud. I was. I could be heard 2 blocks away. The police warned me and I turned the PA down to 1/2, they approved, and I kept talking. Then the coast guard member signed the complaint and I was cited for violating the noise ordinance. The police moved for dismissal at the hearing as the complainer, their witness did not show. The police were embarassed. I have only done it once since then.

You know I would be talking about the FEMA lie that the core was comprised of steel columns and that logically given the uniformity of the demolition or the resulting total pulverization of concrete that there was C4 coating the rebar encapsulated, sealed from the air and oxidization, preserving the RDX explosive circuits until initiated. I would be talking about the 2 hour 1990 PBS documentary I saw which identified the big slow down in the concrete core construction as being the "special, anti corrosion, vibration resistant" plastic coating on the rebar and the fact that it was flammable making it necessary for the municipal entity to require that only welders with a security clearance be allowed to execute the butt weld in the high tensile steel reinforcing bar used in the core shear walls. I would be sending the public to my website, http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html) and asking them to communicate with me, to ask questions.

I would ask the public to inquire with friends and family for any who may have seen that documentary.

In the one time I spoke on 9-11 since being cited for violating the noise ordinance I observed a police officer at the moment I said "C4 coated rebar" raise his right hand, without looking at me, as he walked the sidewalk across the street from me, and shake his hand vigourously with his thumb pointed straight up.

Would you be speaking about demoliton with me or would would you be standing across the street? Would you be there at all?...............

BV

Big Al

13th December 2006, 08:27 AM

I suspect the officer's real gesture was a vigorous tapping of his right temple with his extended index finger.

Big Al

13th December 2006, 08:36 AM

I've just realised: Chris doesn't have concrete cores on the brain: his brain is a concrete core! :D

Powa

13th December 2006, 08:37 AM

I suspect the officer's real gesture was a vigorous tapping of his right temple with his extended index finger.
No, he flipped him the bird.

JonnyFive

13th December 2006, 08:48 AM

No, he flipped him the bird.

It does fit the available evidence.

3" BIRD ON 4' CENTER BRANCH! (http://www.xmlpdf.com/examples2/bird.jpg)

Irrefutable!

Powa

13th December 2006, 08:52 AM

3" BIRD ON 4' CENTER BRANCH! (http://www.xmlpdf.com/examples2/bird.jpg)

The bird is sitting on what can only be concrete, what with the round shape and grey color. And, no one has ever produced a reasonable explanation for what that is if it is not concrete!

JonnyFive

13th December 2006, 08:59 AM

The bird is sitting on what can only be concrete, what with the round shape and grey color. And, no one has ever produced a reasonable explanation for what that is if it is not concrete!

And we all know what the NWO does with concrete. Do you see any rebar?

The bird must be warned!

hcmom

13th December 2006, 09:01 AM

And we all know what the NWO does with concrete. Do you see any rebar?

The bird must be warned!

If you don't warn the bird, you will be responsible for the death of 3000 birds!

Belz...

13th December 2006, 09:09 AM

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

So it's impossible de collapse something very quickly ?

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

Speculation, again.

Rodger Harris answered the question about torsion with common sense, and he doesn't claim to be an architect.

That's why he answered with common sense rather than experience.

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

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

Do you realise how biased that sounds ? You've just decided what the person who sent you this was thinking. Are you a telephath, again ?

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

I must've missed that.

Basically all of America that is wedded to government is in on it.

And I assume they ALL benefited from it ?

I am unlicensed in everything I do

Big ***** surprise, there!

Belz...

13th December 2006, 09:14 AM

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

There's just one flaw in your reasoning here, chris. 500 foot of DUST.

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

Well, you have proven yourself pretty good at making things up.

My explanations, descriptions etc. are completely consistent with the raw evidence wheras your and others are not.

The what kind of evidence, now ?

Is this thread not 200 plus pages? If I was totally without evidence and reason would this be possible?

Totally. See any thread by Iacchus.

The very fact that I am here, insistent, day after day consistently saying the same thing about these images...

Proves nothing at all. Any raving lunatic can say the same thing, day in and day out, without beign right. What, you think if someone opens a thread about the Earth beign flat it makes him right after 200 pages ?

Those who post. "Let this thread die" or "Don't feed the trolls" are actually working harder than you are to keep the secret

Why the hell would we want to keep "the secret" if we don't even know it exists ? Your lies aren't very consistent.

For lack of a better name (I think there is one tho), you are diabled from seeing something that is actaully before your eyes. Your unconscious mind gets the first, original information from your eyes and gives a copy to your conscious mind. In this case your unconscious provides a set of things your conscious "feels" (things provided by the unconscious) are reasons to explain what you see.

Sorry, that's not how the human brain works. Get a degree, or something.

Others voice this as "dust" or some other excuse, type description.

Funny, you're one of those people who saw "dust".

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

No, at best it proves that, had they existed, they would've been evidence. They don't exist. You can't say that something that doesn't exist is evidence because if it DID exist it would agree with you.

JonnyFive

13th December 2006, 09:19 AM

There's just one flaw in your reasoning here, chris. 500 foot of DUST.

Well, that and the fact the book doesn't seem to exist. I guess the NWO disinfo agents erased all knowledge of it.

Belz...

13th December 2006, 09:27 AM

Buck Fush, I don't talk about puppets.

He's being used.

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

"Hey, look at this scenario I made up."

You don't know how wrong you are. The inspectors relax when I'm around because they know I have integrity and care about my work.

More of your telepathy, chris ?

My experiences with 2 licensed, certified, elite individuals.

Go get'em, Robin Hood!

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

Do you have ANYTHING post-2001 ?

You don't hear explosions because the audio was turned down at some point.

Was it tuned down for those who were on location ?

Get real

You should heed your own advice.

Your distortion of my words actually shows disrespect for the loss of life because you seek to justify a BS lie covering for murderers, whereas my use of words simply shows that I'm searching for words to carry meaning over and over because YOU ARE NOT RECOGNIZING the meaning of the words I first used, like "uniform".

You are sick.

So, which is it ? Hypnosis or complicity ?

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

You should ask chris. He said it could be dust.

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

How do you know what it explains, then ?

JonnyFive

13th December 2006, 09:31 AM

If you don't warn the bird, you will be responsible for the death of 3000 birds!

Unless the bird is a disinfo agent, in which case the government will just silence me or erase my memory.

Maybe I'll just sit here and post on this interweb forum about it.

I saw a documentary on birds back in 1990. It was on PBS and called "Birds Are Government Disinfo Agents". Don't bother looking it up, all information was erased by the NWO that for some reason allowed the documentary to be produced.

hcmom

13th December 2006, 09:34 AM

I have proof that those birds have clay cores... "The Smoking Clay (http://www.cci-international.com/english__/ourclays_.htm)"

Belz...

13th December 2006, 09:41 AM

JonnyFive

13th December 2006, 09:42 AM

I have proof that those birds have clay cores... "The Smoking Clay (http://www.cci-international.com/english__/ourclays_.htm)"

I've found evidence of controlled demolition:

CLAY CORE COMES DOWN! (http://www.doublebarrelledpicturecompany.co.uk/images/break1.gif)

Here is my computer simulation of what I think happened:

WHAT REALLY HAPPENED! (http://trials2.pocketgear.com/Product_images/5/5099/CPSunMiss.gif)

Belz...

13th December 2006, 09:56 AM

Ah April fools day!!!!!! I didn't spot that even after looking several times lol

It took you 5 minutes to notice that.

Chris is still working on it after 8 months.

Belz...

13th December 2006, 09:57 AM

The perimeter columns supported 50%, the interior box columns 30% and the core 20%.

Oh! So the concrete core was insufficient to bear the load ? That's interesting, and also new.

light color with rough broken edge show it is a concrete shear wall.

No, chris. You can't make out anything in that picture.

Yes. The buckling is most likely the core being detonated in one 40 foot zone first on one side will get that effect. With a few interior box columns getting cut then a few floors detonating.

Liar, liar pants on fire, chris. According to you, the WTC2 core was detonated AFTER the collapse. Otherwise we wouldn't see it in your much-vaunted dust picture.

Smaller concrete cores are cast ahead of the steel so their strength can add to the tower which reduces the towers weight.

The WTC concrete core was probably about twice the size. Casting the concrete inside the steel saves forming costs.

Ah! A new lie. Wouldn't that make the structure extremely unstable ?

Yes teh concrete core went up before the steel on WTC 1, then the steel went up first on WTC 2, which makes more sense

Then I'm sure you can provide a construction picture ("raw" evidence) of WTC1 showing the concrete...

It is logical that he could not see the core which was 35 feet in from the edge of the floor minimum and 5 floors up.

Well, we could see it THROUGH the space between the columns, no ?

Belz...

13th December 2006, 09:58 AM

Well, that and the fact the book doesn't seem to exist. I guess the NWO disinfo agents erased all knowledge of it.

Well, we ARE that good.

JonnyFive

13th December 2006, 10:01 AM

Well, we ARE that good.

We are, aren't we? And erasing that documentary from the internet... classic!

By the way, I love the Chris quote in your sig, Belz.

Christophera

13th December 2006, 10:48 AM

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

So it's impossible de collapse something very quickly ?

Of that size and strength, yes, unless there is somethign very obvious and LOCAL to the specific failure. So,......... when it falls all the way to the ground, you ............ are ............ on the liars side.

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

Speculation, again.

This is common knowledge of ground zero, a great deal of the big steel was a perfect maximum length for loading onto trucks. Either you are informed or you are not.

Rodger Harris answered the question about torsion with common sense, and he doesn't claim to be an architect.

That's why he answered with common sense rather than experience.

The term would governmentally approved authority. Remember, that is what is in question here. Recall, ...... government removed evidence from the scene of a crime before private investigations into collapse (sic) were conducted. When something as impossible as a 10 second collapse brings a tower down, the entire world of structural engineers is not only allowed, they are INVITED to help understand exactly what happened. that is what happens in a rightful and lawful society.

It is clear you do approve of those.

A one time, unregistered post on April 1st. Yep That's an April fools joke if i ever saw one.
Have you ever had such a joke with such meaningful aspects to everyone played upon you?

My description of Robersons comment makes much more sense AFTER your denial of evidence showing a concrete core.

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

Do you realise how biased that sounds ? You've just decided what the person who sent you this was thinking. Are you a telephath, again ?

Perhaps, but reading between the lines is a skill based in tangibility. For example, how would you feel under these conditions if somebody blew up the building you had designed then threatened you to not reveal the true design.

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

[QUOTE=Belz...;2172533]I must've missed that.

When a uniform denial of publication and production is counter to raw evidence of the concrete core, (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) We've just determining who is assisting with the coverup.
Basically all of America that is wedded to government is in on it.

And I assume they ALL benefited from it ?

They probably think they will. Which is part of the great deception taking nearly 2 generations to perfect.

I am unlicensed in everything I do

Big ***** surprise, there!

So, ........... do you do anything besides slip profanities into glib denials?

Christophera

13th December 2006, 11:32 AM

Sure, and the topple stopped at the bottom of the clip. To suggest it would continue down into undamaged areas IS ridiculous.

I see you have no experience either with houses of cards or anything else, for that matter.

Your statement is either an obvious lie or an indication that you have no knowledge of even LEGO blocks.

You can say what you like but it is not supported in history or with reason. Your credibility wanes with each denial. This is the concrete core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) and you have no raw evidence of steel core columns which is why your posts are empty of any evidence.

Since you cannot explain your own thoughts about what happened of what is seen where dust is not present in the images, some thing is needed to explain your inanity.

I can explain my own thoughts. Look:

Your pictures are far too low-resolution to be able to make any definite conclusion about what they show, structually.

Very convienent but not reasonable. The image of the WTC 2 concrete core IS perfectly aligned with the core area and the dust is obvious AS DUST. Meaning no one here besides my self has ever provided a reasonable explanation for what that material is.

The misrepresentations of the construction images is proven by the lack of core columns in the demolition images so "guide rails" fits way better than "core columns" because those were supposedly very strong.

And again you show your lack of knowledge by assuming that steel is invincible.

You are distorting my words. "Very strong" does not mean invincible. It means we need an explanation and you have never provided one which seriously hurts your credibility because I have presented abundant evidence of concrete including rebar. (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)

In your presentation this damage extends all the way to the ground, which is absolutely unsupported.

Of course not. I said WALLS. The damage was to the opposite WALL. A 767 doesn't stop on a dime, even when it hits a wall.

Your answer pretends that I'm stating the inertia of impact is an issue. It is not. I am stating that a plane impacting the tower only imparts a damage to that area which is reasonable. For you to assert that the damage extends to the ground is a distortion of the history physical damage to structures. Again, your efforts to compensate for your lack of evidence are simply damaging your credibility, NOW, this could extend to levels below the ground.

Seeing as you have no pictures at all, your assertion simply serves your profound lack of evidence.

Pictures shmictures. They're the only thing you've been willing to consider as evidence, even when shown that they are inaccurate.

Now we see how much you appreciate raw evidence. Attitude controls your perceptions, not logic and reason. For example, you nor anyone has provided an explanation for what can only be a concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif). When a person in denial has no evidence, they have no appreciation for the oppositions evidence.

Reasonably, by default, when not offering a more reasonable explanation, the explanation provided is the one that stands if it is congruent with conditions.

No, no it's not. Besides, yours is FAR from congruent. It's more like a mass of Jell-O that wiggles back and forth, never becoming solid.

Nice juvenile label for hard evidence. When you have none, labeling is to be expected as part of your dismissal of the reality. When I post raw evidence showing concrete such as the concrete core inside the perimeter stel of the top of tower 2 falling on WTC 3 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg), seriously if you have no evidence all you can do is deny the evidence is real./ I understand this, you have a pitiful case.

If you can't find raw evidence to support the steel core columns, just say so.

There are other issues that are relevant to this discussion, Chris. Also, you can't find raw evidence to support the concrete core, either. All you've got is a picture of what you admitted could be dust.

Again, you attempt to distort my statment. What I said is that "there IS dust" in the image of the concrete core of WTC 2. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG), Which is true, but the solid object in the position of the core is exacly that and the only material it can be is concrete. All of this while NO STEEL CORE COLUMNS PROTRUDE FROM THE TOP which precludes the existence of steel core columns.

Done deal, .......... get real.

TellyKNeasuss

13th December 2006, 12:00 PM

I think it detected that the image has not been photoshopped.

It is not the clearest of images, but adequate for the human eye and brain (critical part) to know that we are looking at a concrete wall adjacent to a steel column.

Photoshop has nothing to do with it. Neither the human eye nor an image processing program can detect any boundary that would be the top of the wall, so it's pretty safe to say that the image does not show a wall. If there is a wall, it's totally obscured by dust/smoke, and would be too thin to be the core.

Belz...

13th December 2006, 12:16 PM

Of that size and strength, yes, unless there is somethign very obvious and LOCAL to the specific failure. So,......... when it falls all the way to the ground,

Again, proving you know nothing of construction.

This is common knowledge of ground zero, a great deal of the big steel was a perfect maximum length for loading onto trucks. Either you are informed or you are not.

Yes, indeed. the steel was a perfect maximum length for loading onto trucks. Can't you think of a non-nefarious reason why that is ? I can think of two:

1) If was cut by the cleanup crew. We can clearly see several pictures of them doing it, and we KNOW that no explosive could produce such a clean cut.

2) They were MADE at that length, because they had to be hauled TO the construction site BY trucks. It's only logical that the joints would fail first, so you end up with those sections, again.

See ? That wasn'T hard.

The term would governmentally approved authority. Remember, that is what is in question here.

Oh, so all experts are in on it because they're part of the system. Sounds like layman-aspiring-to-become-the-new-elite talk to me.

Recall, ...... government removed evidence from the scene of a crime before private investigations into collapse (sic) were conducted.

I also recall that that's not true.

When something as impossible as a 10 second collapse brings a tower down, the entire world of structural engineers is not only allowed, they are INVITED to help understand exactly what happened. that is what happens in a rightful and lawful society.

Yes, and that should tell you something about your theory.

Have you ever had such a joke with such meaningful aspects to everyone played upon you?

No. My lack of experience in these matters does not mean it cannot happen. I've seen some very convincing, and some very sick, April's fool jokes.

My description of Robersons comment makes much more sense AFTER your denial of evidence showing a concrete core.

Evidence ? Haven't seen any. And I know this, consciously.

Perhaps, but reading between the lines is a skill based in tangibility.

Reading "between the lines" is not something you do in an investigation. Otherwise you can put anything you want "between the lines".

For example, how would you feel under these conditions if somebody blew up the building you had designed then threatened you to not reveal the true design.

I'd feel like the common citizen like a certain christophera, whose identity is known, would be just as likely to be slain by those making the threats, should he speak up. So far, zilch.

When a uniform denial of publication and production is counter to raw evidence of the concrete core, (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) We've just determining who is assisting with the coverup.

Actually, when EVERYONE is claiming the SAME thing, it's much more reasonable to assume that they're beign honest about it.

They probably think they will. Which is part of the great deception taking nearly 2 generations to perfect.

Guess we'd better start keeping tabs on those PBS employees, until ALL of them show up in Mercedes...

Bell

13th December 2006, 12:22 PM

Concrete

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

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

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

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

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

NOW,

Explain how these images show steel core columns.

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

I've been a bit lacking the last day or two. But I have to come back at this excellent piece of explanation. Or rather, lack of it.

Christopher, I really have no idea what you are trying to explain here. First, let's focus only on the South Tower. Note that in the left picture (that's the black & white one) you can see through the upper 40 or so floors. YOU CAN SEE RIGHT THROUGH THEM! Then, in the right picture (that's the color one), we can see through some 10 or so floors. I'd guess around the 50th floor up. Again... YOU CAN SEE RIGHT THROUGH THEM! So, what I would like you to do is...

Show me the concrete!

TellyKNeasuss

13th December 2006, 12:59 PM

The interior box columns were very substancial, much larger than the perimeter columns as they were spaced on 20 foot centers.

You haven't provided a source for this. Why might I think that it's another thing you just made up?

JonnyFive

13th December 2006, 01:05 PM

Christopher, I really have no idea what you are trying to explain here. First, let's focus only on the South Tower. Note that in the left picture (that's the black & white one) you can see through the upper 40 or so floors. YOU CAN SEE RIGHT THROUGH THEM! Then, in the right picture (that's the color one), we can see through some 10 or so floors. I'd guess around the 50th floor up. Again... YOU CAN SEE RIGHT THROUGH THEM! So, what I would like you to do is...

Well, duh, it's the new mirror-crete which reflects the light in just the right way so as to make it look like there's no concrete. It's all an optical illusion. There aren't any other examples of this kind of illusion because obvious the towers were so special that entirely new rules of proof, logic, and reasoning had to be designed to talk about them.

Even I picked up on that, and according to Christophera I'm incapable of reading. (Of course, I also picked up on the fact that it was a BS retroactive explanation for something he knows nothing about, but that's nothing new)

It's all so obvious. If you're not convinced I can repeat the same phrase a few hundred times without presenting any new evidence.

bonavada

13th December 2006, 01:09 PM

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

i believe the image you assert shows "high explosive shear" cut steel may simply show only salvage cuts made at ground zero. i believe this because the image i countered with shows remarkably similar cuts on salvaged WTC steel.

can you please show an image of steel cut by high explosives showing similar "high explosive shear" cuts from an actual controlled demolition other than the WTC 9/11 event? please corroborate any such image with a link to the source.

if you present such an image i will have to reconsider my opening argument.

BV

TellyKNeasuss

13th December 2006, 01:10 PM

you are doing you best to twist what has been said and it is not working because I do have raw evidence to support the concrete core. Here is and image which shows the base of the core wall between the interior box columns and a stariwell. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg). If steel core columns existed, some would be seen around the stairs.

In which direction are you claiming the "wall" was 17 feet wide?

Bell

13th December 2006, 01:10 PM

JonnyFive

13th December 2006, 01:13 PM

Also Chris, this picture (http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1540000/images/_1540044_world_trade_structure300.gif), posted on the interweb by the BBC on 9/13 shows your alleged concrete core. How did the artist know of this concrete core?

I love that picture. It's the only semi-legitimate anything showing his "core" in a diagram, and it turned out to be a simple mistake on the part of the BBC. Not a big surprise, considering the close proximity to the event.

But I suppose in Christophera's mind, the closer something is to an event the more accurate it is, because the NWO hasn't had time to cover things up.

Too bad that's not how the real world works.

Christophera

13th December 2006, 01:32 PM

Also Chris, this picture (http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1540000/images/_1540044_world_trade_structure300.gif), posted on the interweb by the BBC on 9/13 shows your alleged concrete core. How did the artist know of this concrete core?

Keep this up and I won't be responding to your posts either.

READ

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

I deal with this issue in the first few paragrphs.

Christophera

13th December 2006, 01:34 PM

In which direction are you claiming the "wall" was 17 feet wide?

The thickness of the wall is measured perpindicular to its run. The thickness is between the stairwell and the interior box column.
(http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg)

Bell

13th December 2006, 01:41 PM

Keep this up and I won't be responding to your posts either.

READ

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

I deal with this issue in the first few paragrphs.

What? Wait! Is that picture claiming the towers had 1 solid concrete column in the middle? I have been misinterpreting it all the time... That's even more daft than your hollow concrete core.

Christophera

13th December 2006, 02:02 PM

You haven't provided a source for this. Why might I think that it's another thing you just made up?

You do know that perimeter columns were 14 inches square don't you?

The thickness of the interior box column at the base.
Interior box columns at base. (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/docs/corebase1.jpg)

The thickness of an interior box columns from intermediate elevation
Sheared & Torch Cut Columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc.box.shear.torch.gif)

20 foot centers shown between interior box columns

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

Christophera

13th December 2006, 02:04 PM

What? Wait! Is that picture claiming the towers had 1 solid concrete column in the middle? I have been misinterpreting it all the time... That's even more daft than your hollow concrete core.

I said READ

Christophera

13th December 2006, 02:11 PM

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

i believe the image you assert shows "high explosive shear" cut steel may simply show only salvage cuts made at ground zero. i believe this because the image i countered with shows remarkably similar cuts on salvaged WTC steel.

You didn't actually show the cuts. You showed cut pieces. I need to see the cut face of the steel. Here is explosive shear on the left and a torch cut on the right. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc.box.shear.torch.gif) BTW, your image looked like a torch cut on the outside edge but that is not conclusive.

can you please show an image of steel cut by high explosives showing similar "high explosive shear" cuts from an actual controlled demolition other than the WTC 9/11 event? please corroborate any such image with a link to the source.

if you present such an image i will have to reconsider my opening argument.

BV

There are no such images from demolitions because there is not need to limit the noise or the quantity of explosive. I did find an image of a linear shape charge cut to demonstrate how clean they are. Essentially a shearing action.

http://www.air-and-space.com/20020624%20China%20Lake/4%2028%20Linear%20shape%20charge%20I-beam%20cut%20l.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4483&stc=1&d=1166047675

Bell

13th December 2006, 02:19 PM

I said READ

What the hell?!

Uruk, BV, Johnny... Belz...? Anyone?
Help me out here, I have no clue what Chris is getting at :confused:

13th December 2006, 02:20 PM

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

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

JimBenArm

13th December 2006, 02:22 PM

I said READ

Who died and left you in charge?

TellyKNeasuss

13th December 2006, 02:24 PM

The thickness of the wall is measured perpindicular to its run. The thickness is between the stairwell and the interior box column.
(http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg)

Is it in the x direction (horizontally across the screen) or z direction (into the screen)?

Incidentally, your "rebar" bears a strong resemblance to the stairway handrails.

bonavada

13th December 2006, 03:30 PM

I did find an image of a linear shape charge cut to demonstrate how clean they are. Essentially a shearing action.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4483&d=1166047675

where's the source for that image chris? (ETA sorry just noticed the url on the pic)

what type of explosive was used?how much explosive did it take to produce that cut? it what fashion was it detonated? for all i know that cut could have been made with a bloody hacksaw.

anyway there is no proper comparison is there?........that looks like a light thin mild steel or zinc lintel you may find above a door or window in a house? except for a couple of footprints there's no perspective for anyone to judge on how thick the metal is there. and the cut looks like it's been made along a weak edge of a flange or something. after all, the pics we both show are of SERIOUS steel needing serious energy to cut. this doesn't convince me that the original steel you showed is cut with high explosives. i still find it hard to believe that high explosive could produce such clean uniform square cut as you claim. i would need better evidence to be swayed. and i don't mean just your word for it, you proven to be quite unreliable as to the veracity of "raw evidence" in the past.

and you also wrote:-

there are no such images from demolitions because there is not need to limit the noise or the quantity of explosive

sorry mate, you've lost me there what do you mean by that?
ETA sorry just noticed the url on the pic
BV

Arus808

13th December 2006, 04:02 PM

Chris when are you going to answer my questions?

Why are you quoting a scanned passage from a nonexistant book? Oxford University states they've never published a book under that title. And a look a public library that has archives of publications (meaning, they list eveyr title ever published) for the last century shows that there was no title published called the Oxford Encyclopedia of Innovation and Technology. You cannot claim that Oxford University Press (which is a UK entity) has somehow infiltrated the millions of libraries on this earth to take out any reference to this book in their archives and of course, STEAL this same book from the libraries themselves.

how can you claim that c4 was used in the buildings when c4 wasn't a term used back in 1967 and that its use wasn't available until the Vietnam War in the late 60's?

TellyKNeasuss

13th December 2006, 04:10 PM

20 foot centers shown between interior box columns

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

It must be my bad eyesight that makes the 2 in the center look closer together than the rest.

Christophera

13th December 2006, 06:00 PM

Who died and left you in charge?

Those that ask questions of me.

Christophera

13th December 2006, 06:03 PM

It must be my bad eyesight that makes the 2 in the center look closer together than the rest.

I wish you guys who want to deny the fundamental design of the tower would study what IS known.

The 2 interior box columns that are closer together are the vertical elements of the moment arms. That image shows them before the diagonal braces are installed.

Center left with the diagonal bracing.

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

TellyKNeasuss

13th December 2006, 06:12 PM

I wish you guys who want to deny the fundamental design of the tower would study what IS known.

The 2 interior box columns that are closer together are the vertical elements of the moment arms. That image shows them before the diagonal braces are installed.

Center left with the diagonal bracing.

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

What am I supposed to get from your link? It takes me to the "Welcome" page.

uruk

13th December 2006, 06:30 PM

What the hell?!

Uruk, BV, Johnny... Belz...? Anyone?
Help me out here, I have no clue what Chris is getting at :confused:

It's one of Chris's obfuscating tactics.

tsig

13th December 2006, 06:53 PM

Well, duh, it's the new mirror-crete which reflects the light in just the right way so as to make it look like there's no concrete. It's all an optical illusion. There aren't any other examples of this kind of illusion because obvious the towers were so special that entirely new rules of proof, logic, and reasoning had to be designed to talk about them.

Even I picked up on that, and according to Christophera I'm incapable of reading. (Of course, I also picked up on the fact that it was a BS retroactive explanation for something he knows nothing about, but that's nothing new)

It's all so obvious. If you're not convinced I can repeat the same phrase a few hundred times without presenting any new evidence.

Sorry Jonny but it's InvisicreteTM already mentioned on JREF. Then you need HushaboomTM for the rest. Somewhere there must be a black hole in the building.

Just how advanced is the govmnt science?

Why won't they approve my grant?

Ecplain that and I may show yu the facts.

Actually pigs fly on a regular basis.

uruk

13th December 2006, 07:22 PM

I just wanted to make sure Chris remebered this:

Originally Posted by Christophera
What you mean is that you would LOVE to change the subject which is itself obsufucation. I made MY point more than adquately 10 pages back.
You have a peculiar habit of accusing others of the things you do yourself. I've been sticking with the same subject here. Your the one who has been desperately trying to avoid and change the subject. And you still haven't made any point except that you are avoiding to own up to some lies and errors.

The WTC 2 concrete core standing (and no one has ever reasonably shown it to be anything else) completely agrees with Jebsons usenet post no matter what he saw or could not see.
So your still saying that you were wrong in post 5607.
Anyhoo the picture does not agree with Jebson's post. First there is no indication that the picture shows a concrete core since sheetrock and wall board can also have a rounded appearance and the dust and smoke is too thick to really see anything other than an amorphous shape. I showed you pictures of sheetrock still attached to the steel core columns.
Second, Jebson said he could see the concrete core during construction. And Jebson could have seen the concrete core from street level if there was a concrete core. The Comcast building pictures prove this.
You keep showing a picture of an indistinct blob and say that Jebson was right even though you said he was wrong in post 5607.

It is logical that he could not see the core which was 35 feet in from the edge of the floor minimum and 5 floors up. He could't know. We know from aerials that the core is not being built ahead of the exterior steel and the image above shows the core stripped of all floors as well as structural steel. NO CORE COLUMNS PROTRUDING FROM THE CORE AREA.

Wrong. The pictures of the Comcast building (taken at ground level) PROVE that Jebson could have seen the concrete core of the WTC1 tower if there had in fact been a concrete core in WTC 1.
The fact the aerial photos of the construction site show no concrete core being built ahead of the steel means that you are also wrong in post 8960.
And we've shown you many pictures of the core columns. You refusing to acknowledge the photos and reports just makes you look dishonest and, quite frankly, childish.

Trying to pretend that the fact of that image of the concrete core is not adequate is absurd. He talks about 4 floors of concrete and I show 40 floors of concrete. AND, I show the concrete goes all the way to the top with the image of the core of the top of tower 2 falling onto WTC 3.

The photo you keep posting does not clearly show anything. It just shows an indistinct shape that presumably is the core structure of the building.

This picture here: http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg Shows the spandrel sections falling onto the building below. I do not see any concrete in that photo. You going to have to point it out to me.

tsig

13th December 2006, 07:42 PM

I just wanted to make sure Chris remebered this:

You have a peculiar habit of accusing others of the things you do yourself. I've been sticking with the same subject here. Your the one who has been desperately trying to avoid and change the subject. And you still haven't made any point except that you are avoiding to own up to some lies and errors.

So your still saying that you were wrong in post 5607.
Anyhoo the picture does not agree with Jebson's post. First there is no indication that the picture shows a concrete core since sheetrock and wall board can also have a rounded appearance and the dust and smoke is too thick to really see anything other than an amorphous shape. I showed you pictures of sheetrock still attached to the steel core columns.
Second, Jebson said he could see the concrete core during construction. And Jebson could have seen the concrete core from street level if there was a concrete core. The Comcast building pictures prove this.
You keep showing a picture of an indistinct blob and say that Jebson was right even though you said he was wrong in post 5607.

Wrong. The pictures of the Comcast building (taken at ground level) PROVE that Jebson could have seen the concrete core of the WTC1 tower if there had in fact been a concrete core in WTC 1.
The fact the aerial photos of the construction site show no concrete core being built ahead of the steel means that you are also wrong in post 8960.
And we've shown you many pictures of the core columns. You refusing to acknowledge the photos and reports just makes you look dishonest and, quite frankly, childish.

The photo you keep posting does not clearly show anything. It just shows an indistinct shape that presumably is the core structure of the building.

This picture here: http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg Shows the spandrel sections falling onto the building below. I do not see any concrete in that photo. You going to have to point it out to me.

Who are you going to belive, Chris or your lying eyes.

Christophera

13th December 2006, 07:55 PM

Wrong. The pictures of the Comcast building (taken at ground level) PROVE that Jebson could have seen the concrete core of the WTC1 tower if there had in fact been a concrete core in WTC 1.
The fact the aerial photos of the construction site show no concrete core being built ahead of the steel means that you are also wrong in post 8960.
And we've shown you many pictures of the core columns. You refusing to acknowledge the photos and reports just makes you look dishonest and, quite frankly, childish.

homer,

You missed the point several times.

1.)You cannot explain what the solid object in the WTC 2 core photo is. No one can unless they call it a steel reinforced concrete core. The fact is suppported by a number of other pieces of raw information as well as the reports of Ph.d's

2.)The above deficiency in what is said in 1.) above escapes you so you assume that the comcast tower was how the Twin towers were constructed, which in your mind makes Jebson correct, but the aerial images of the towers do not show the concrete, so Jebson was wrong about the concrete being constructed above the steel, at least from the 4th floor up.

The construction photos do not show steel core columns because steel core columns are strong enough to survive and be seen in the demo photos. None are seen meaning they didn't exist.

if you ignore critical information as you do, because you are not interested in the truth, you have an agenda to prove something no matter what, meaning you are not going to be able to use the evidence properly. I would prefer that our government not be infiltated and thatthe towers were not demolished, but this is not the case. I can face it, you cannot.

You just don't have enough evidence for the steel core columns to make your point rationally,

Christophera

13th December 2006, 08:05 PM

What am I supposed to get from your link? It takes me to the "Welcome" page.

I cannot figure why that image will not link from its original server.

I've copied it and placed it on mine.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtcacrossfloor.box.cols.jpg

Christophera

13th December 2006, 08:10 PM

Also Chris, this picture (http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1540000/images/_1540044_world_trade_structure300.gif), posted on the interweb by the BBC on 9/13 shows your alleged concrete core. How did the artist know of this concrete core?

Okay, you cannot read.

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

Some in the UK still think the WTC tower core was built as shown below. Basically a pre-stressed concrete design. Yamasaki had reviewed the design, and found no contractor that could build a 1,300 foot column of that design. We all know the towers had their stairwells and elevators inside the core. There is no room for that in the core below.

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

The design was a "tube in a tube" construction where the steel reinforced, cast concrete interior tube, was surrounded with a structural steel framework configured as another tube with the load bearing capacity bias towards the perimeter wall with the core acting to reduce deformation of the steel structure maximizing its load bearing capacity. All steel structures with the proportions of the WTC towers have inherent problems with flex and torsion. Distribution of gravity loads was; perimeter walls 50%, interior core columns 30% core 20%.

Christophera

13th December 2006, 11:32 PM

how can you claim that c4 was used in the buildings when c4 wasn't a term used back in 1967 and that its use wasn't available until the Vietnam War in the late 60's?

RDX (C4) has been around since the 1950's. Demolition specialists were using it from around 1960 on. Navy seals developed the coated rebar in concrete casting technique in the early 1960's.

tsig

13th December 2006, 11:43 PM

RDX (C4) has been around since the 1950's. Demolition specialists were using it from around 1960 on. Navy seals developed the coated rebar in concrete casting technique in the early 1960's.

And the seals regulary ate the C4 as part of thier training, it gave a farts a wolne no meaning.

Brainache

13th December 2006, 11:47 PM

Nearly up to 10 000 posts in this thread I see.

Sorted it out yet Chris?
Convinced those pesky sceptics to open their eyes and see what you see yet?

I'm still hoping that all this is just some strange piece of performance art, but it's not looking likely.

BTW I'm still hypnotised to believe that the WTC had a steel core and that it was destroyed by a bunch of pissed off muslim hijackers. I guess there is no help for me.:hypnodisk :hypnodisk :hypnodisk

Christophera

14th December 2006, 12:54 AM

Chris when are you going to answer my questions?

Why are you quoting a scanned passage from a nonexistant book? Oxford University states they've never published a book under that title. And a look a public library that has archives of publications (meaning, they list eveyr title ever published) for the last century shows that there was no title published called the Oxford Encyclopedia of Innovation and Technology. You cannot claim that Oxford University Press (which is a UK entity) has somehow infiltrated the millions of libraries on this earth to take out any reference to this book in their archives and of course, STEAL this same book from the libraries themselves.

We really think that because things are written down that it means something like they are secure for all time. We have another think coming.

hcmom

14th December 2006, 01:50 AM

I said READ

We really think that because things are written down that it means something like they are secure for all time. We have another think coming.

I just think these two posts in the same day are funny. Not funny peculiar, but funny to see. I'm not even making fun of Chris, because I know what he meant in both posts. But it is funny...

SezMe

14th December 2006, 01:50 AM

We really think that because things are written down that it means something like they are secure for all time. We have another think coming.
We?

Yeah, yeah, I know it ain't much, but I gotta do my part to contribute to the 10K goal.

Big Al

14th December 2006, 01:54 AM

We really think that because things are written down that it means something like they are secure for all time. We have another think coming.

And you know this... how? And please don't just cite the disappearance of the disputed documentary and book, since we don't believe they existed in the first place.

How about answering the following questions:

Why would the Oxford University Press, a British academic institution agree to the total informational erasure of a book because of a single paragraph? Why not just reissue it to cite the approved story of a steel core?
Why has your website not been erased? It's far more extensive in its heresy than that single half-para in the purported Oxford book.
Why would the MIBs divulge to the PBS documentary crew so much damaging information?
How do you go about erasing every single trace of a book? Every website, every public library all over the world, every private collection, every Amazon.com warehouse, AbeBooks, Gardners, Bertrams, the Library of Congress... the list is HUGE!
And, above all, a question you've studiously avoided despite frequent repeats: WHY DID THE MIB LINE THE TWIN TOWERS WITH C4 IN THE FIRST PLACE, THIRTY YEARS BEFORE 9/11?
BTW, I noted that you conflated C4 and RDX, and stated that it was first available in the 1950s. This is nonsense.

RDX was discovered in the 1890s and first used as an explosive in the 1920s - it was used extensively in WWII. It was generally known in the U.S. as cyclonite.
C-4 (Composition 4) is derived from the solid RDX and first arrived in the 1960s. It is produced from an RDX slurry with oil and lecithin, Critically for your argument, because of its oily composition, it cannot be slurried in solvents without losing its plastic characteristics and denaturing.

Powa

14th December 2006, 01:57 AM

Chris, you really don't understand the internet, do you? When information is out there, there's NO WAY of erasing it. Except maybe if there were an extincion event of some sort (remember dynosaurs?). But by that time a concrete core would be the least of our worries.

Big Al

14th December 2006, 04:12 AM

I sense an Argument from Ignorance coming on: "You have absolutely no idea what the NSA is capable of!"

Neither, of course, does Chris, but that won't sway him.

JimBenArm

14th December 2006, 05:26 AM

Those that ask questions of me.

:jaw-dropp You killed them?:jaw-dropp

JonnyFive

14th December 2006, 05:49 AM

What the hell?!

Uruk, BV, Johnny... Belz...? Anyone?
Help me out here, I have no clue what Chris is getting at

Oh, I don't know. Perhaps he thinks we haven't read his page yet. Obviously if we had, we'd be totally convinced.

It's the same stuff he's posted on the forum, with the same arguments. Hallways in the core, massive box columns, elevator guide rails, etc. He doesn't seem to have modified it even slightly, despite things like being shown that those couldn't possibly have been elevator guide rails, or that the solid spaces in the "core at sunset" picture are too small to be any kind of supportive core.

Perhaps he feels you too are incapable of reading? Would you like to join the club, we have no t-shirts.

Bell

14th December 2006, 09:23 AM

Okay, you cannot read.

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

Some in the UK still think the WTC tower core was built as shown below. Basically a pre-stressed concrete design. Yamasaki had reviewed the design, and found no contractor that could build a 1,300 foot column of that design. We all know the towers had their stairwells and elevators inside the core. There is no room for that in the core below.

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

So, a single solid concrete column then? Like I said in this post:

What? Wait! Is that picture claiming the towers had 1 solid concrete column in the middle? I have been misinterpreting it all the time... That's even more daft than your hollow concrete core.

The design was a "tube in a tube" construction where the steel reinforced, cast concrete interior tube, was surrounded with a structural steel framework configured as another tube with the load bearing capacity bias towards the perimeter wall with the core acting to reduce deformation of the steel structure maximizing its load bearing capacity. All steel structures with the proportions of the WTC towers have inherent problems with flex and torsion. Distribution of gravity loads was; perimeter walls 50%, interior core columns 30% core 20%.

Wrong.

Bell

14th December 2006, 09:28 AM

Chris, please also address this post:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2173039&postcount=9903

And try to be clear in your writing this time, ol' chap.

Bell

14th December 2006, 09:31 AM

BTW I'm still hypnotised to believe that the WTC had a steel core and that it was destroyed by a bunch of pissed off muslim hijackers. I guess there is no help for me.:hypnodisk :hypnodisk :hypnodisk

Now, if only we could find out the magic word to snap us out of our hypnosis...

Architect

14th December 2006, 09:42 AM

All steel structures with the proportions of the WTC towers have inherent problems with flex and torsion

Amazing; it's just bollocks. You size the material - be it steel or concrete, wattle or brick, timber or stone - to provide the required strength. Is Chris trying to claim that the strength of steel against "torsion" (hahahah) is so low that it would be too big to put in the buildings or something?!?!?!?! Sheesh. The guy barely even ranks as an amateur.

Sorry, scratch the "barely" and add "doesn't"

Christophera

14th December 2006, 10:17 AM

And you know this... how? And please don't just cite the disappearance of the disputed documentary and book, since we don't believe they existed in the first place.

How about answering the following questions:

Why would the Oxford University Press, a British academic institution agree to the total informational erasure of a book because of a single paragraph? Why not just reissue it to cite the approved story of a steel core?
Why has your website not been erased? It's far more extensive in its heresy than that single half-para in the purported Oxford book.
Why would the MIBs divulge to the PBS documentary crew so much damaging information?
How do you go about erasing every single trace of a book? Every website, every public library all over the world, every private collection, every Amazon.com warehouse, AbeBooks, Gardners, Bertrams, the Library of Congress... the list is HUGE!
And, above all, a question you've studiously avoided despite frequent repeats: WHY DID THE MIB LINE THE TWIN TOWERS WITH C4 IN THE FIRST PLACE, THIRTY YEARS BEFORE 9/11?

There are very tight alignments between government, the military and academia, in case you havn't noticed. We've been allowed to think that OUR informationis a priority, it is not. The secret control of informtion IS the priority and always has been.

I have a specific interest in my web site and doing such would draw attention while it could be remounted on another server easily.

The MIB did not have anything to do with the active inquiry into the documents of the WTC by the videographers who had to use a FOIA to get some information.

Ever hear of a book called "The Hundredth Monkey"? 10,000 were printed in 1962. In 10 years of trying to find one person who has even seen it, I have not. Ever hear of "book burnings"? Why did they do that? Is there a modern equivilant? What does it look like?

The folks that invented the MIB have another group that has no uniform.

BTW, I noted that you conflated C4 and RDX, and stated that it was first available in the 1950s. This is nonsense.

RDX was discovered in the 1890s and first used as an explosive in the 1920s - it was used extensively in WWII. It was generally known in the U.S. as cyclonite.
C-4 (Composition 4) is derived from the solid RDX and first arrived in the 1960s. It is produced from an RDX slurry with oil and lecithin, Critically for your argument, because of its oily composition, it cannot be slurried in solvents without losing its plastic characteristics and denaturing.

Well, Big Al,

You've finally contributed something here. I had always assumed that C4 were the same. And they are, but not quite. What is interesting is that it appears there is at least 1 opportunity in the process to make a slurry which could coat an object.

]http://science.howstuffworks.com/c-42.htm

The explosive material in C-4 is cyclotrimethylene-trinitramine (C3H6N6O6), commonly called RDX (which stands for "royal demolition explosive" or "research development explosive")

Christophera

14th December 2006, 10:25 AM

Amazing; it's just bollocks. You size the material - be it steel or concrete, wattle or brick, timber or stone - to provide the required strength. Is Chris trying to claim that the strength of steel against "torsion" (hahahah) is so low that it would be too big to put in the buildings or something?!?!?!?! Sheesh. The guy barely even ranks as an amateur.

Sorry, scratch the "barely" and add "doesn't"

I noticed you did not reference with any links.

I reference to a steel suspension bridge whipping around in 42 MPH wind

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

Do you realize the steel compresses 18 inches with the loads of 1300 feet? Fits between the concrete and the core were made but not fastened untill a certain number of floors had been completed in order to distribute the structure load to the concrete over successive series of fasteners and the associated compression.

Big Al

14th December 2006, 10:34 AM

There are very tight alignments between government, the military and academia, in case you havn't noticed. We've been allowed to think that OUR informationis a priority, it is not. The secret control of informtion IS the priority and always has been.

Between the U.S. goverment and military and British academia?

I have a specific interest in my web site and doing such would draw attention while it could be remounted on another server easily.

But they haven't erased it all as is?

The MIB did not have anything to do with the active inquiry into the documents of the WTC by the videographers who had to use a FOIA to get some information.

But, seemingly, they can delete any records at will, regardless of the FOIA! And the PBS documentary mentioned this problem, did it?

Ever hear of a book called "The Hundredth Monkey"? 10,000 were printed in 1962. In 10 years of trying to find one person who has even seen it, I have not. Ever hear of "book burnings"? Why did they do that? Is there a modern equivilant? What does it look like?

Result of a momentary Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 42,000 for "hundredth (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=X&oi=dict&q=http://www.answers.com/hundredth%26r%3D67&usg=__U7xk8citP6kmUEItvkroMx97w3E=) monkey (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=X&oi=dict&q=http://www.answers.com/monkey%26r%3D67&usg=__eLU1oNYIaz4ePKBV7Wrl1ts8gdk=)". (0.37 seconds)

or try: http://www.amazon.com/Hundredth-Monkey-Ken-Keyes-Jr/dp/094202401X

They have 56 used and new available. Not quite in the same league as this purported Oxford University book, is it? Also, 10,000 books is nothing, nada, zip in the publishing world; if that's all they sold, I'm not surprised they ditched it. Disingenuous, Chris.

The folks that invented the MIB have another group that has no uniform.

Well, Big Al,

You've finally contributed something here. I had always assumed that C4 were the same. And they are, but not quite. What is interesting is that it appears there is at least 1 opportunity in the process to make a slurry which could coat an object.

Thanks for the condescension. So, we've switched from C-4 to RDX now, have we?

Slurrying is part of the process of making C-4, not moulding RDX. I don't know if slurried RDX would hold together if applied to round steel, anyway. RDX is not a plastic explosive.

Christophera

14th December 2006, 10:35 AM

Chris, please also address this post:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2173039&postcount=9903

And try to be clear in your writing this time, ol' chap.

Let me just add one little note to help you with this difficult logic.

A & B on the left point to concrete. On the right part of what we see is forms and cannot be sure of what is concrete.

Concrete

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

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

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

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

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

NOW,

Explain how these images show steel core columns.

Christophera

14th December 2006, 10:41 AM

Between the U.S. goverment and military and British academia?

Perhaps you have not noted that there is good reason to believe that the US is still a British Colony in some ways.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/bcolony.htm

But, seemingly, they can delete any records at will, regardless of the FOIA! And the PBS documentary mentioned this problem, did it?

Yes, they mentioned that they could not get the original plans for the core.

Result of a momentary Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 42,000 for "hundredth (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=X&oi=dict&q=http://www.answers.com/hundredth%26r%3D67&usg=__U7xk8citP6kmUEItvkroMx97w3E=) monkey (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=X&oi=dict&q=http://www.answers.com/monkey%26r%3D67&usg=__eLU1oNYIaz4ePKBV7Wrl1ts8gdk=)". (0.37 seconds)

or try: http://www.amazon.com/Hundredth-Monkey-Ken-Keyes-Jr/dp/094202401X

They have 56 used and new available. Not quite in the same league as this purported Oxford University book, is it? Also, 10,000 books is nothing, nada, zip in the publishing world; if that's all they sold, I'm not surprised they ditched it. Disingenuous, Chris.

Wrong book. Keyes book was about the first book and he was too high on LSD to remember the main points.

Thanks for the condescension. So, we've switched from C-4 to RDX now, have we?

Slurrying is part of the process of making C-4, not moulding RDX. I don't know if slurried RDX would hold together if applied to round steel, anyway. RDX is not a plastic explosive.

You are welcome, you've earned it.

From what you posted oil or lecitin could be used to solvent the C4 although it is implied that other solvents may be used. Versatile stuff.

JonnyFive

14th December 2006, 10:43 AM

Wrong book. Keyes book was about the first book and he was too high on LSD to remember the main points.

Evidence, please.

uruk

14th December 2006, 11:04 AM

homer,

You missed the point several times.
No I didn't. Your trying to avoid owing up to several error and mistakes As well as outright lies and deception.

1.)You cannot explain what the solid object in the WTC 2 core photo is. No one can unless they call it a steel reinforced concrete core. The fact is suppported by a number of other pieces of raw information as well as the reports of Ph.d's Yes I can. That photo you keep trotting out is more than likely wallboard and sheetrock still attached to the remaining steel comuns. I have even backed it up with pictures of sheetrock still attached to steel columns. You cant show us one sing picture of a concrete wall.
So stop trying to redirect and address your error and lies.
Be a man for once Chris.
Your "ph.D" paper was already admitted to being in error. As are your other sources.

2.)The above deficiency in what is said in 1.) above escapes you so you assume that the comcast tower was how the Twin towers were constructed, which in your mind makes Jebson correct, but the aerial images of the towers do not show the concrete, so Jebson was wrong about the concrete being constructed above the steel, at least from the 4th floor up.This statement shows how little you understand what I am saying (or what little you understand of anything in this thread). It even shows how you backpedal in your claims and statements.
I am saying that both you AND Jebson are wrong. In post #5607 You said that Jebson was wrong about his account of the construction. I proved to you that Jebson could see a concrete tower if there had been a concrete tower. The Comcast pictures showed that the core could have been seen from ground level if they had existed. You said he couldn't. Which meant you were mistaken in post 5607.

But in post 8960 you retracted and said that Jebson was right about the concrete going up first in WTC1. The pictures posted by several people here showed that to be false also.
You will never find a picture of a concrete core in the WTC towers because they never had concrete cores. EVER!

The construction photos do not show steel core columns because steel core columns are strong enough to survive and be seen in the demo photos. None are seen meaning they didn't exist. You have been shown pictures of the core columns both in construction photos and Ground Zero photos. You keep mislabeling them "elevator rail guides" even though you've shown us no proof that they are "elevator rail guides". There is even video posted showing the core columns falling over. But you refuse to acknowledge it. Don't blame us for your intellectual dishonesty.

if you ignore critical information as you do, because you are not interested in the truth, you have an agenda to prove something no matter what, meaning you are not going to be able to use the evidence properly. I would prefer that our government not be infiltated and thatthe towers were not demolished, but this is not the case. I can face it, you cannot.
Again you exhibit that peculiar habit of accusing others of that which you are guilty of yourself. I guess it pathalogical that you can't see it. Perhapse your ego won't let you.

I have no agenda. I am not out to prove anything. You are the one who has an agenda. You are the one who's trying to prove something at all costs. Otherwise, why are you posting in this forum? Why do you have a website devoted to your hypothesis?

All I am asking that you back up your assertions. Prove to me what you say is true. And I challenge that proof if I am not convinced by it or if I think it may be in error. If it is truth, it will hold up to the acid tests.

But so far your evidence has been lacking.
If your going to convince someone of your concrete core, your going to have to present more than just a picture of a dark indeterminate shape and an arrow pointing to a dust cloud. Your evidence is dodgy and fraught with error, misinterpretation, misrepresentation and outright lie and invention.
You just don't have enough evidence for the steel core columns to make your point rationally,

Just about everybody here has posted websites, reports, pictures, and videos of the steel core columns. Your intellectual dishonesty is not our fault or our problem.
It is you that has so much emotion and self worth tied up in this belief that you can not see beyond it. Your ego and self image will not allow you to even consider the possibility that you may be mistaken.
You need for the world to have an all powerful conspriacy and cabal to be the scapegoat for all the shortcomings and failures in your life.
Well Chris, sometimes crap just happens and you gotta pick up the pieces and keep going and quit blaming other people for your own shortcomings.

uruk

14th December 2006, 11:07 AM

Navy seals developed the coated rebar in concrete casting technique in the early 1960's.
Proof?

uruk

14th December 2006, 11:11 AM

We really think that because things are written down that it means something like they are secure for all time. We have another think coming.
Well once something has been printed And published into several hundred or thousand copies. It tends to make it hard for the Evil Conspiratorial Cabal to go around hunting down thousands of books in people's houses or libraries and change or destroy them. Or are saying that exactly what they are doing?
If so How?

JonnyFive

14th December 2006, 11:15 AM

Proof?

Yeah, that'll happen.

Architect

14th December 2006, 11:18 AM

I noticed you did not reference with any links.

That's because it's ruddy obvious.

If you're silly enough to trying laying out (say) 50x25mm softwood timber floor joists at 900mm centres over a 3m span and they fail, it's not an indication that timber is crap for floors! It's a sign you should have used 150x50mm timbers at 450mm centres.

I reference to a steel suspension bridge whipping around in 42 MPH wind

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

I've warned you before that all of us who do structures do study the Tacoma Narrows bridge, haven't I?

The issue is not material, but rather a combination of weight (intertia, resistance to wind loads, etc.), rigidity of the box girders you see below carriageway level (phot attached), and deck width (eddies, etc. are created and narrow bridges are quite susceptible).

Notwithstanding the earlier invention of the Dredge Bridge (look it up) and small suspension bridges, large span units were poorly understood at first and Tacoma is just an example of getting it wrong.

Today we can name loads of steel suspension bridges including (but not exclusively):

Forth Road Bridge, Scotland
Severn Crossing (the old one), England
Dartford Crossing, England
Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco

Do you realize the steel compresses 18 inches with the loads of 1300 feet? Fits between the concrete and the core were made but not fastened untill a certain number of floors had been completed in order to distribute the structure load to the concrete over successive series of fasteners and the associated compression.

Bollocks. There are numerous steel framed skyscrapers across the world including:

Bank of China, Hong Kong
Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank, Hong Kong
Sears Tower, Chicago
Citicorp (now Citigroup) Building, New York
Hancock Building, Chicago (or is it New York? Ah what the hell)

You just can't deal in reality, can you Chirs?

uruk

14th December 2006, 11:23 AM

There are very tight alignments between government, the military and academia, in case you havn't noticed. We've been allowed to think that OUR informationis a priority, it is not. The secret control of informtion IS the priority and always has been.
Your not getting it Chris. Oxford University is not in the United States. It is in England.
Why would a British university be complicit to an American cover up?

Architect

14th December 2006, 11:27 AM

Perhaps you have not noted that there is good reason to believe that the US is still a British Colony in some ways.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/bcolony.htm

Hey, great....we run America. Where's my share of the loot?

But come on Chris, you're bein funny surely. Are you really trying to claim that we do still run the US at some level? I'm sure you would have noticed!

And do you really believe a web site which refers to "England" at a time when that political entity no longer existed? That a percentage of your taxes goes straight to the UK? And no-one has ever blabbed?

Come on!

uruk

14th December 2006, 11:41 AM

The Tacoma bridge disaster had nothing to do with the steel (except that it's maximum stress load was exceeded). It had to do with the design. Most steel bridges have open lattice beam trusses that allowed the wind to pass through. The Tacoma Narrows bridge had plate girders that caused the wind to divert abouve and below the bridge that set up the oscillations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Narrows_Bridge

The WTC tower's steel "tube with in tube" and floor truss was designed to resist the wind load.
http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/small/eng-news-record.htm
Scroll down to where it says:
HOW COLUMNS WILL BE DESIGNED FOR 110-STORY BUILDINGS

uruk

14th December 2006, 11:44 AM

Hey, great....we run America. Where's my share of the loot?

But come on Chris, you're bein funny surely. Are you really trying to claim that we do still run the US at some level? I'm sure you would have noticed!

And do you really believe a web site which refers to "England" at a time when that political entity no longer existed? That a percentage of your taxes goes straight to the UK? And no-one has ever blabbed?

Come on!

He's quoting from another crackpot's site.

Psst. The tax check is in the mail mate.

Arus808

14th December 2006, 11:48 AM

Your not getting it Chris. Oxford University is not in the United States. It is in England.
Why would a British university be complicit to an American cover up?

Or remove reference of a supposed publication from the millions of periodicals that list all publications made? from the millions of libraries?

Architect

14th December 2006, 11:49 AM

He's quoting from another crackpot's site.

Psst. The tax check is in the mail mate.

That's cheque, you disloyal colonial you!

It'll really confuse them all when they find out that you yanks have to pay us in sistertii. :eye-poppi

Or was it the old wooden shekels?

MG1962

14th December 2006, 11:54 AM

If you're silly enough to trying laying out (say) 50x25mm softwood timber floor joists at 900mm centres over a 3m span and they fail, it's not an indication that timber is crap for floors! It's a sign you should have used 150x50mm timbers at 450mm centres.

No it is evidence you should have used some 15mm compressed fibre cement, that my company just happens to make ;)

Architect

14th December 2006, 11:56 AM

No it is evidence you should have used some 15mm compressed fibre cement, that my company just happens to make ;)

Is it coated in explosive?

Do they actually still make fibre board? I thought it went out with the Arc.....:boggled:

MG1962

14th December 2006, 11:59 AM

Is it coated in explosive?

Do they actually still make fibre board? I thought it went out with the Arc.....:boggled:

I could arrange it for you ;)

But without derailing this thread FC sheeting is alive and well. Feel free to PM me if you like

Spindrift

14th December 2006, 12:04 PM

Wrong book. Keyes book was about the first book and he was too high on LSD to remember the main points.

What first book?

This one? (Lifetide by Lyall Watson who came up with the term Hundredth Monkey):
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0671246895/sr=8-1/qid=1166126418/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-9173614-2104808?ie=UTF8&s=books

Belz...

14th December 2006, 12:07 PM

1.)You cannot explain what the solid object in the WTC 2 core photo is. No one can unless they call it a steel reinforced concrete core.

That's not true. I call it DUST.

Also, you might want to answer Bell's question:

If the concrete core followed the rest of the building by 7 floors, why can we see through the pictures he showed ?

Belz...

14th December 2006, 12:12 PM

There are very tight alignments between government, the military and academia, in case you havn't noticed. We've been allowed to think that OUR informationis a priority, it is not. The secret control of informtion IS the priority and always has been.

If it's so secret, how come you know about it ?

If it's so secret, how come the author of the book you're about to mention knew about it ?

Perhaps you have not noted that there is good reason to believe that the US is still a British Colony in some ways.

So they DIDN'T win the war of independence ?

MG1962

14th December 2006, 12:18 PM

So they DIDN'T win the war of independence ?

No - they just let you think that. otherwise you might taken up cricket or something really bad like that :)

JimBenArm

14th December 2006, 12:20 PM

No - they just let you think that. otherwise you might taken up cricket or something really bad like that :)

Yeah, didn't you take notes in NWO school?

Whoops, wasn't supposed to say that out loud, was I?

JonnyFive

14th December 2006, 12:23 PM

Yeah, didn't you take notes in NWO school?

Whoops, wasn't supposed to say that out loud, was I?

No, you weren't. I hope you enjoy being erased from existence.

Look on the bright side, less than 30 posts until a big party or possibly another posting of the same "CONCRETE CORE" images.

Christophera

14th December 2006, 01:17 PM

JonnyFive

14th December 2006, 01:32 PM

You still haven't produced one image showing any of the supposed steel core columns at some elevation above ground from the demo images. This, ... while an entire web page having numerous images of the concrete is right here.

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

Soooo... first you ask us to show you images of the steel columns. We do that, so you ask us to show images from "some elevation above ground." We do that, so now it's "some elevation above ground from the demo images."

Man, you must be a killer at soccer defense. You can move the goalposts and everything.

uruk

14th December 2006, 03:17 PM

You still haven't produced one image showing any of the supposed steel core columns at some elevation above ground from the demo images. This, ... while an entire web page having numerous images of the concrete is right here.

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

So, you're still trying to divert attention away from your blatant error and lie.

O.k tell you what. Show me a picture of the concrete core going up ahead of the steel work in WTC1 and I'll repost ALL those pictures of the Steel core columns we've been posting and you've been ignoring.

And Chris. That's one website compared to hundred of websites mentioning and showing the steel core.

Arus808

14th December 2006, 03:20 PM

Christophera,

When are you going to address that the Oxford University Press has never published a book called the Oxford Encyclopeodia of Innovation and Technology or anythinng similar to that title?

How that no periodical in the 10 libraries I've been, doesn't make note of such book.

How the term C4 could have been used in 1967 when it was only available to soldiers in Vietnam in the late 60's early 70's?

I've yet to see an answer from you on this.

Spektator

14th December 2006, 04:30 PM

Ever hear of a book called "The Hundredth Monkey"? 10,000 were printed in 1962. In 10 years of trying to find one person who has even seen it, I have not. Ever hear of "book burnings"? Why did they do that? Is there a modern equivilant? What does it look like?

The 1962, 1963, and 1964 Books in Print volumes do not list any volume under that title.

More, the original researcher, Masao Kawai, first published his description of the spread of a behavior among Japanese macaques in Primates, a journal of primatology, in the year 1963 (4:113-115). More, the idea that the behavior spread among 100 monkeys apparently originated in the book Lifetide, by Lyall Watson, published in 1979. More, Kawai never described the behavior spreading among 100 monkeys. It peaked when 36 out of a troop of 59 monkeys picked up the behavior. There was no tipping point, no flash when suddenly all the monkeys knew the behavior. So how could a book dealing with the phenomenon of the "hundredth monkey" more or less similar to the tale told in Ken Keyes' book of that title appear the year before any research on the phenomenon at all had been published and seventeen years before the number 100 drifted into the discussion?

You are mistaken.

TellyKNeasuss

14th December 2006, 04:30 PM

1.)You cannot explain what the solid object in the WTC 2 core photo is. No one can unless they call it a steel reinforced concrete core. The fact is suppported by a number of other pieces of raw information as well as the reports of Ph.d's

I think that someone explained it as steel columns with debris in between. What other pieces of "raw information" support your claim? Who are these "Ph.d's"?

The construction photos do not show steel core columns because steel core columns are strong enough to survive and be seen in the demo photos. None are seen meaning they didn't exist.Are you planning on offering any proof that core columns would have been strong enough to survive the collapse? They would only have had to be 67% stronger than "interior box columns" if they had to support 50% rather than 30% of the weight (and what is your source for the 20% concrete/30% "interior box column" load distribution anyway?).

if you ignore critical information as you do, because you are not interested in the truth, you have an agenda to prove something no matter what, meaning you are not going to be able to use the evidence properly. I would prefer that our government not be infiltated and thatthe towers were not demolished, but this is not the case. I can face it, you cannot.Statements like this are the reason this thread is so entertaining.

TellyKNeasuss

14th December 2006, 04:37 PM

In which direction are you claiming the "wall" was 17 feet wide?

Since Christophera won't answer my question, I'll just point out that the distance between the column and the edge of what he labelled "17 foot thick (max.) cast concrete wall at tower base." is about twice the width of the column. This means that whatever the object is, it's no where near 17 feet thick.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg

Christophera

14th December 2006, 05:33 PM

So, you're still trying to divert attention away from your blatant error and lie.

You started the efforts to distract from essential issues because you have no evidence.

So ............ you've decided that the statement which supports the concrete core has a difference with what I state about the sequence of construction and making a diversion of it.[/QUOTE]

O.k tell you what. Show me a picture of the concrete core going up ahead of the steel work in WTC1 and I'll repost ALL those pictures of the Steel core columns we've been posting and you've been ignoring.

And Chris. That's one website compared to hundred of websites mentioning and showing the steel core.

Your selectivity exposes your disinterest in the truth. I have an image which you cannot explain of 500 feet of concrete. You refuse to use logic in addressing evidence. I have not ignored you images of steel in the core area. I have explained it logically in 2 different ways as being elevator guide rail support steel.

We know the elevators had to have guide rails.

We know that the elevators had to go as far up the tower as possible as soon soon as they could.

We know that steel core columns ARE VERY STRONG. That, theoretically is why they exist.

If they we steel core columns and NO elevator guide rail supports the WOULD be seen protruding from the core area of WTC 2. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

They are not. Therefore they are not steeel core columns,

Since the towers did have a "tube in a tube" construction, and steel reinforced cast concrete tube inside of a steel framework in a tubular configuration fits the description of the constrcution about as good as can be, the towers had a steel reinforced cast concrete core.

You have no logical support for what you term "your evidence" after this post with these words.

Any effort to present your images of construction showing vertical steel and label them "core columns IS misrepresentation of evidence. Is illogical and without rational, reasonable basis.

Your effort to divert the discussion to an inconsistency in the observations of a pedestrian that support the concrete core to his errors of construction sequence above where he could see, IS obsufucation.

Arus808

14th December 2006, 05:37 PM

Christophera

14th December 2006, 05:47 PM

Since Christophera won't answer my question, I'll just point out that the distance between the column and the edge of what he labelled "17 foot thick (max.) cast concrete wall at tower base." is about twice the width of the column. This means that whatever the object is, it's no where near 17 feet thick.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg

Actually I've answered this question once. I'll do it again because you appear challenged with analysis of construction evidence.

The core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg), and we are not quite seeing low enough to show the base is aproximately 3 times the width of the interior box below the level of debri. Keep in mind that the right side is vertical and the left side is at a slope getting wider as it goes down. Here is a photo annotated to show where the core wall footing goes betweent piers of the interio box columns and the elevator pits. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/elev.pits.core.footing.CORR.jpg)

Christophera

14th December 2006, 05:50 PM

Just 20 more posts to our 10,000 post thread!

oops, make that 18 more
http://www.arus.org/album/albums/userpics/10001/boob_tube.jpg

I vote taht at 10,000 we close this thread...as its gone circled the earth more times than superman did in the first movie.

If I was discussing this issue with reasonable, logical and accountable people about 200 posts would have done it. Because of idiotic posts of cata, dogs, counting beers on the walls and baking recipes, we are approaching ten thousand posts.

Christophera

14th December 2006, 05:56 PM

I think that someone explained it as steel columns with debris in between. What other pieces of "raw information" support your claim? Who are these "Ph.d's"?

I logically showed that the explanation you describe was illogical because no steel core column ends are seen protruding. It is very unlikely that such a uniform, symetrical shape would be left under the conditions offered as explanatory. Sorry, not logical.

Are you planning on offering any proof that core columns would have been strong enough to survive the collapse? They would only have had to be 67% stronger than "interior box columns" if they had to support 50% rather than 30% of the weight (and what is your source for the 20% concrete/30% "interior box column" load distribution anyway?).

The source for the load distributon is the 1990 documentary. This image shows that the interior box columns were strong enough to stand hundreds of feet on their own. (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg)

TellyKNeasuss

14th December 2006, 06:02 PM

Actually I've answered this question once. I'll do it again because you appear challenged with analysis of construction evidence.

The core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg), and we are not quite seeing low enough to show the base is aproximately 3 times the width of the interior box below the level of debri. Keep in mind that the right side is vertical and the left side is at a slope getting wider as it goes down. Here is a photo annotated to show where the core wall footing goes betweent piers of the interio box columns and the elevator pits. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/elev.pits.core.footing.CORR.jpg)

What we can see is only 2 times the width of a column. And the image is very close to ground level (maybe even below ground level?), so you can't claim "tapering". But even if it was 3 times as wide as the column (and how would you know that. Do you have another image?), that would still require the column to be close to 6 feet wide.

TellyKNeasuss

14th December 2006, 06:14 PM

I logically showed that the explanation you describe was illogical because no steel core column ends are seen protruding. It is very unlikely that such a uniform, symetrical shape would be left under the conditions offered as explanatory. Sorry, not logical.

It is completely logical that a number of columns would snap at about the same height.

The source for the load distributon is the 1990 documentary. This image shows that the interior box columns were strong enough to stand hundreds of feet on their own. (http://home.comcast.net/%7Ejeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg)In other words, you made up the numbers. There was no documentary; why can't you comprehend that we all know this.

uruk

14th December 2006, 06:49 PM

You started the efforts to distract from essential issues because you have no evidence.
Nope. I just pointed out an error and subsequent lie and subtrifuge by you.
It all goes to show the nature of your evidence and "investigative" skills. It is you that is trying to avoid it and hand wave your way out of it.
And everyone here has presented plenty of evidence. It's not our fault if you choose to ignore it. No doubt because it proves you wrong.

So ............ you've decided that the statement which supports the concrete core has a difference with what I state about the sequence of construction and making a diversion of it.
I haven't decided anything. In post 5607 you said Jebson could not be right about his account. I showed you pictures of the constructon of the Comcast building that prove that Jebson could have seen the core if there had been a concrete core.
In post 8960, you recanted and said that Jebson was right about his account. We showed you pictures of WTC1 during construction that show no concrete core at all.
All I did was point out your errors and showed you proof of your error.
You were the one who made the posts.
I am not making a diversion of it. I making sure you don't weasle out of it or ignore it like you usually do when given evidence that shows you to be wrong.

Your selectivity exposes your disinterest in the truth. I have an image which you cannot explain of 500 feet of concrete.You refuse to use logic in addressing evidence.
Yes I have given you a logical explination and evidence. The object in the photo you keep posting could just as well be the steel core still covered in wallboard and sheetrock. If there was no exploding concrete core, the sheetrock and board could still be attached to the steel. In fact I even showed you a high resolution and clear photo of the core remenant with the sheetrock and board still attached. That is a logical explination supported by clear photographic evidence. It's not my fault if you choose to ignore it.
I have not ignored you images of steel in the core area. I have explained it logically in 2 different ways as being elevator guide rail support steel.

We know the elevators had to have guide rails.
Elevators do need guide rails for stability not support. That's why their called "guide" rails. The elevators were cable type. That means the wieght was supported by the machine floor where the cable reels and motor is, not the guide rails. I wrote an e-mail to the Otis elevator company. They were the company that built and installed the elevators. The gave me the model numbers and types of elevators they used in thier reply to me. I posted the email in this thread. (no doubt you ignored it) And I even showed you several examples of guide rails along with pictures of an elevator installation in progress. None of them were even close to being as large as the core columns in the noumerous pictures that we have been posting.
Do you see already how I've present more evidence than you have concerning the elevator guide rail/ core column issue? What have you presented? An assumption? that's all

We know that the elevators had to go as far up the tower as possible as soon soon as they could. Proof of this? The steel crew obviously had a different method of reaching the top of the construction site. Else where did the lift equipment go if there was nothing abouve the site to support the lift equipment? See how your not thinking?

We know that steel core columns ARE VERY STRONG. That, theoretically is why they exist.

If they we steel core columns and NO elevator guide rail supports the WOULD be seen protruding from the core area of WTC 2. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)
You can barely make anything out in that picture. Besides you don't see what you call the "massive box columns" protruding out of that shape either. Or are you denying that the box columns were there?

They are not. Therefore they are not steeel core columns,
Do you see how faulty your logic is? Do you see that you have not provided any evidence in support of this?[/quote] Yes I have, repeatedly. Remember that article link I posted several times that describes how the core columns were part of the design to resist wind loads? It went into detail about the different types of steel and column design that were used.
But you ignored that too didn't you.
Do you see your intellectual dishonesty?
Did you see how your logic failed you?

Since the towers did have a "tube in a tube" construction, and steel reinforced cast concrete tube inside of a steel framework in a tubular configuration fits the description of the constrcution about as good as can be, the towers had a steel reinforced cast concrete core. Unfortunately every reputable source says that was no concrete core. Your sources are questionable (remember the April fools joke and Jebson's mistaken account?)

You have no logical support for what you term "your evidence" after this post with these words. I'll take the opinions of others if you don't mind. You are dishonest and your opinions means very little to me.

Any effort to present your images of construction showing vertical steel and label them "core columns IS misrepresentation of evidence. Is illogical and without rational, reasonable basis. I think I've presented more than enough supported evidence as opposed to your "assumption". What have you got to support your assertion? Just that hackneyed, unsupported shpiel you pull out of thin air? You have to do WAY better than that.

Your effort to divert the discussion to an inconsistency in the observations of a pedestrian that support the concrete core to his errors of construction sequence above where he could see, IS obsufucation.
You were the one who made the conflicting and erroneous posts. I just pointed them out. You are the one who's having a hard time dealing with it.
You're the one who dodges and evades and changes the subject when you get cornered.
Don't blame others for your shortcomings