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

[JimBenArm]

Christophera,

Where are you getting the information that the core used 3" diameter rebar on 4' centers?

My understanding is that the architect wanted to keep the core design light so he encased it with Sheetrock.

I worked for the Army Corp of Engineers some time ago and had the pleasure of working on-site at the Toole, Utah military site where they built a facility to incinerate nerve gas. The incineration part on the plant had 4' thick walls designed to hold up to an explosion. They used nowhere near 3" diameter rebar for the construction.

Where are you getting this information from and what documentary did you see about the construction process?

Unfortunately, Chris is mentally disturbed. His documentary is one that only exists in his head. He also believes this rebar was coated with C4 plastic explosives, among other delusions. So it is pointless to ask him questions.

That's why you see posts saying this is a dead thread, although it keeps coming back to life more that Jason in the horror movies!

[Architect]

Let it lie.

[Gamolon]

I will make one last post in this thread and let it die as requested.

I was a construction supervisor and industrial piping designer. I supervised construction projects for steel mills. I was an on site piping designer for the Toole Utah facility I mentioned above. I was part of a damage assessment team for two sites. One was for a company called IMC/Angus in Louisiana and the other was for Shell Chemical in Belpre, Ohio. All I can say is that I've seen some pretty amazing stuff. I've seen steel beams twisted like spaghetti.

I would just like to know a few things.

1. Where is he getting the 3" diameter on 4' centers from?

2. How can he tell that the spire picture, which was taken at 7500 feet away, contained 3" rebar? That's like telling me that he can recognize one of his friends from that distance.

3. I have not seen one picture showing the plywood structure, concrete pouring mechanisms, or the 3" rebar used in construction of the supposed concrete core.

4. It has been stated numerous times that the architect wanted to keep the core light in weight which is why he had the steel beam core encased in Sheetrock, not concrete.

5. In my experience in construction, I've never seen 3" diamater rebar used (not to say that it hasn't, just that I've never seen it). Even the 4' thick walls of the Toole facility, built to contain a possible explosion, didn't use 3" rebar. It used vary closely spaced, smaller diameter rebar. There was so much rebar that I remember standing in front of it before the concrete was poured, and I couldn't see through it.

6. Lastly, I have yet to see a clear picture that shows a piece of the concrete with 3" rebar sticking out of it. You can refer me to the picture taken of what was left of the core with the supposed 3" rebar sticking out of the concrete, but I just don't see it. Those could be pipes. That picture proves nothing. Come to think of it, I have never seen a picture of 3" rebar anywhere. You would think that there would have been a huge pile of it somewhere.

7. How was the concrete poured in place for the core if it was always below the current floor being constructed (a convenient explanation I might add).

Only when the blueprints are produced will we know the truth and can put Christopher's claims to rest. All of his "raw" images that he says proves his claims are all subject to interpretation. What I mean is that there is not one photo that he provides which distinctly proves that the core was concrete with 3" diameter rebar. The spire picture looks like part of the exterior facade to me. The other picture he uses shows what he claims to be 3" rebar. I could be piping. I see no pictures of a plywood structure used to form the core. I see no 3" rebar lying around waiting to be used. I see no pictures of the 3" rebar set in place before the supposed concrete was poured. I see no pictures of a piece of concrete with 3" rebar sticking out of it. I see no account of 3" rebar being scrapped.

All I see are pictures to back up what NIST describes in their paper.

Again, the only way that Chistophera can prove the concrete core existed is with pictures of the blueprints that show it.

I will not post again in this thread as I fear the wrath of the "elder posters". My they have mercy on my soul.

:D

[Belz...]

When one has evidence as good as this.

<giggle> the dust picture.

and also KNOWS FOR CERTAIN that the core was concrete, is there a reason to give up?

A friend of mine also knows for certain that angels exist. She can see them. Go figure.

Does the great god of fiends, Belz, advocate cowardice?

It gets you to the first level of Hell, that's why.

[Belz...]

Here is a bridge flying, then falling. Only 42 MPH wind.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=tacoma%20narrows%20bridge&btnG=Google+Search&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv

Imagine how a vertically loaded tower would perform in a 110 MPH wind, which did happen a few times in the 33 years they stood.

Psst... chris doesn't know why the Tacoma bridge failed.

[Architect]

Psst... chris doesn't know why the Tacoma bridge failed.

Spectacularly!!!



Now, let it lie!

[Gamolon]

Gamolon, I know you're new here but please don't be tempted to reason with Chris on this. This thread has been running since May 2006, all the evidence and reasoning has been presented several times. Chris has not changed his position even slightly and keeps posting the same image and links from his website.

There really is no point in debating Chris and his argument (based on his memory of a non-existent documentary) that the towers were pre-built with c4-coated rebar and then detonated 30 years later is too ridiculous to require further counter-argument.

Should you be tempted to argue for the sake of amusement or as an abstract exercise I would suggest that you give serious consideration to the idea that Chris has a mental illness. If this is the case, then arguing with him will not help his condition.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Chris is a deeply troubled man, here is just one section of one of his websites:

http://truthasaur.com/my_22/my22.html

The consensus of long-time posters on this thread is that it is better for it to be left to die.

:eek:

WOW!

I just read the site linked above. I know see where everyone is coming from. I apologize profusely.

[bonavada]

I will make one last post in this thread and let it die as requested.

I was a construction supervisor and industrial piping designer. I supervised construction projects for steel mills. I was an on site piping designer for the Toole Utah facility I mentioned above. I was part of a damage assessment team for two sites. One was for a company called IMC/Angus in Louisiana and the other was for Shell Chemical in Belpre, Ohio. All I can say is that I've seen some pretty amazing stuff. I've seen steel beams twisted like spaghetti.

I would just like to know a few things. <snip>

welcome to the forum Gamalon.
no doubt christophera will be along to "answer" your questions. when you read his response please bear this in mind, all the questions you have asked have already been addressed numerous times in this thread. chris will just regurgitate those answers he has already given, no matter what your knowledge in any field you bring forth to refute his assertions.

christophera will gainsay you by one of many methods:

he may accuse you of being unable to accept the "truth" because you are hypnotised
he will quote untraceable tv documentaries and magazine articles and time-warping mohican ironworkers
he may accuse you of being complicit in the murder of thousands of americans
he will use blatantly cherry-picked quotes from first-responders and other 9/11 victims
he will point you to badly compressed jpgs as "raw evidence"
he may accuse you of being a fraud
Above all he has stated that "NOTHING will convince me" that the towers were built any other way.during nearly 11,000 posts he has staged a lonesome one-man battle against all irrefutable evidence that there was no concrete core in wtc 1 + 2.
i do believe he's unique, he is the only man in the world that truly believes in his invisible core.
i cannot blame you for asking your questions but if you're hoping that christophera will accept your arguments you will have a long wait.
Good luck

My last post here (i mean it this time :-} )

BV

[Big Al]

Will the last person to leave please turn the lights off and put the cat(s) out?

See you around, amigos.

[twinstead]

Will the last person to leave please turn the lights off and put the cat(s) out?


My, and I didn't even know the cat was on fire. Cue rimshot.

[Big Al]

My, and I didn't even know the cat was on fire. Cue rimshot.

:rolleyes: Oh, come on, twinstead - you know I didn't mean that!

What I actually meant was "Would you overload the cat with lots of extra work".

Some people are just so literal....:D

[Christophera]

Christophera,

Where are you getting the information that the core used 3" diameter rebar on 4' centers?

My understanding is that the architect wanted to keep the core design light so he encased it with Sheetrock.

Any understanding you gained from government sources about the core of the WTC is in error. The core was a steel reinforced, rectangular tube of cast concrete.

There is NO WAY sheetrock fastened to steel core columns would survive to stand as we see in the linked, high RES image below.

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

I worked for the Army Corp of Engineers some time ago and had the pleasure of working on-site at the Toole, Utah military site where they built a facility to incinerate nerve gas. The incineration part on the plant had 4' thick walls designed to hold up to an explosion. They used nowhere near 3" diameter rebar for the construction.

Where are you getting this information from and what documentary did you see about the construction process?

There are ferrocement constrcution methods that would survive explosions with 4" thick walls.

My information comes from a 1990 PBS documentary called "The Construction of the Twin Towers". It has been confirmed they have no records of the video. When watching WTC 1 fall on 9-11, I knew the documentary would be gone. It was far too detailed for the perpetrators to allow to exist.

Since that that time I've found a total of 3 people, one a structural engineer, who saw that doc, or another comprised of clips from the original, depicting the cast concrete core.

Here is a Ph.D. structural engineers report which has been published stating the towers had a cast concrete core.

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

[Christophera]

he has staged a lonesome one-man battle against all irrefutable evidence that there was no concrete core in wtc 1 + 2.
i do believe he's unique, he is the only man in the world that truly believes in his invisible core.

You have a mental problem. Severe dissociation. There is a civil engineer who knows of the concrete core. He is an uninterested party, unlike the sources you cite.

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

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


i cannot blame you for asking your questions but if you're hoping that christophera will accept your arguments you will have a long wait.
Good luck

My last post here (i mean it this time :-} )

BV

And you are strictly in error about "compressed images", some are, but this one which shows a 500 foot tall Concrete Core Of WTC 2 (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) is very high res. No other material could possibly survive the crashing heavy steel wreckage falling past and over during the demise of tower.

I seriously recommend that you seek therapy for your severe problems of dissociation of memory. Hypnosis is probably the only thing that will help.

[Belz...]

I seriously recommend that you seek therapy for your severe problems of dissociation of memory. Hypnosis is probably the only thing that will help.

Considering how poorly hypnosis fares in recovering memories, I wouldn't bet on it.

[Christophera]

Considering how poorly hypnosis fares in recovering memories, I wouldn't bet on it.

That is a fallacy promoted by those that wish to control people and keep secrets with hypnosis.

That fallacy is promoted along with another that people cannot be hypnotized without their awareness or consent.

Some people can be as shown by by the authoritative book by Berelson and Steiner "HUMAN BEHAVIOR". The bottom paragraphs bracketed in red.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4954&stc=1&d=1168030257

[Christophera]

Christophera, do any of the other One-Fourthers buy into your concrete core theory. I think I remember you having to fervently defend this idea over on LC too.

Is there anyone else on this globe who sides with you on this?

Many, but this ones report is easily available, August Domel, Ph.d SE. PE. (http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf)

Then there is the lead engineer of the WYC

Leslie Robertson, Architect Of The World Trade Center Towers

Still, Robertson, whose firm is responsible for three of the six tallest buildings in the world, feels a sense of pride that the massive towers, supported by a steel-tube exoskeleton and a reinforced concrete core,

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3069641/

[Big Les]

Sorry, that's the journalist's assumption/misconception, not Robertson's. That's the intro to his actual quote, which is:

“If they had fallen down immediately, the death counts would have been unimaginable,” he says. “The World Trade Center has performed admirably, and everyone involved in the project should be proud.”

Journalists are forever simplifying difficult concepts to the point where they lose meaning. This is just another one of those instances. Robertson hardly had editorial control over that article.

But if you really want to investigate this piece of "evidence", why not ask Robertson himself?

[Big Les]

Chris! Everyone! I think I finally have some evidence on the same level as yours Chris. Surely if you aren't convinced by any of the numerous well-argued and evidenced posts so far, you will be by this...
.
.
.
.
.
wait for it....
.
.
.
.
I'VE JUST SEEN A DOCUMENTARY! You know, like you did? And as we know thanks to you, seeing a documentary trumps real evidence every time. "The Fall of the World Trade Centre" by the good old Beeb (Horizon). And guess what? The steel core is referred to, shown clearly, and Robertson is interviewed. The fact that NO CONCRETE was used in the core is explicitly stated, and that there was only drywall and fire-coating is stated.

The 2002 documentary actually exists (http://www.bbcactive.com/BroadCastLearning/asp/catalogue/productdetail.asp?productcode=17931), and can be purchased or otherwise viewed by anyone. So, by your own unorthodox standards, Chris, I have considerably more evidence than yow. By everyone else's standards, your arguments have already been utterly debunked by countless others on this thread. This may be hypocritical now that I've replied, twice, to this thread. But it really is over.

ETA - I find it hard to believe that this hasn't been brought up in 263 pages of sheer hell in pixel form, but hey, it's worth a go phrased this way. And here's the link to a full transcript:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/worldtradecentertrans.shtml

[Christophera]

Chris! Everyone! I think I finally have some evidence on the same level as yours Chris. Surely if you aren't convinced by any of the numerous well-argued and evidenced posts so far, you will be by this...

wait for it....
.
I'VE JUST SEEN A DOCUMENTARY! You know, like you did? And as we know thanks to you, seeing a documentary trumps real evidence every time. "The Fall of the World Trade Centre" by the good old Beeb (Horizon). And guess what? The steel core is referred to, shown clearly, and Robertson is interviewed. The fact that NO CONCRETE was used in the core is explicitly stated, and that there was only drywall and fire-coating is stated.

The 2002 documentary actually exists (http://www.bbcactive.com/BroadCastLearning/asp/catalogue/productdetail.asp?productcode=17931), and can be purchased or otherwise viewed by anyone. So, by your own unorthodox standards, Chris, I have considerably more evidence than yow. By everyone else's standards, your arguments have already been utterly debunked by countless others on this thread. This may be hypocritical now that I've replied, twice, to this thread. But it really is over.

ETA - I find it hard to believe that this hasn't been brought up in 263 pages of sheer hell in pixel form, but hey, it's worth a go phrased this way. And here's the link to a full transcript:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/worldtradecentertrans.shtml

Very good, exposing more garbage subterfuge.

From the Transcript
BILL FORNEY (World Trade Center North Tower Survivor): It lurched back and forth. After maybe six to ten movements back and forth of that building it was over and it, it was still standing.

NARRATOR: To support most of the downward weight of the building Robertson created a separate inner core made of steel girders. The core also housed the lifts and emergency stairwells, but neither the outer skeleton nor the inner core could stand alone, so Robertson used steel floor trusses to knit the whole thing together.

LESLIE ROBERTSON: The World Trade Center is a very large project. In essence it still boils down to a series of small pieces and this is an example of a top part assembly of a typical floor truss.



THE NARRATOR SAID IT, NOT ROBERTSON

The 500 foot tall steel reinforced concrete core of WTC 2.

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

[Christophera]

Seeing this thread grow, week after week, is terribly saddening. I have no authority to compel you to do anything. I just wish you would stop.

Do you really think you can justify that wish?

[tsig]

I will make one last post in this thread and let it die as requested.

I was a construction supervisor and industrial piping designer. I supervised construction projects for steel mills. I was an on site piping designer for the Toole Utah facility I mentioned above. I was part of a damage assessment team for two sites. One was for a company called IMC/Angus in Louisiana and the other was for Shell Chemical in Belpre, Ohio. All I can say is that I've seen some pretty amazing stuff. I've seen steel beams twisted like spaghetti.

I would just like to know a few things.

1. Where is he getting the 3" diameter on 4' centers from?

2. How can he tell that the spire picture, which was taken at 7500 feet away, contained 3" rebar? That's like telling me that he can recognize one of his friends from that distance.

3. I have not seen one picture showing the plywood structure, concrete pouring mechanisms, or the 3" rebar used in construction of the supposed concrete core.

4. It has been stated numerous times that the architect wanted to keep the core light in weight which is why he had the steel beam core encased in Sheetrock, not concrete.

5. In my experience in construction, I've never seen 3" diamater rebar used (not to say that it hasn't, just that I've never seen it). Even the 4' thick walls of the Toole facility, built to contain a possible explosion, didn't use 3" rebar. It used vary closely spaced, smaller diameter rebar. There was so much rebar that I remember standing in front of it before the concrete was poured, and I couldn't see through it.

6. Lastly, I have yet to see a clear picture that shows a piece of the concrete with 3" rebar sticking out of it. You can refer me to the picture taken of what was left of the core with the supposed 3" rebar sticking out of the concrete, but I just don't see it. Those could be pipes. That picture proves nothing. Come to think of it, I have never seen a picture of 3" rebar anywhere. You would think that there would have been a huge pile of it somewhere.

7. How was the concrete poured in place for the core if it was always below the current floor being constructed (a convenient explanation I might add).

Only when the blueprints are produced will we know the truth and can put Christopher's claims to rest. All of his "raw" images that he says proves his claims are all subject to interpretation. What I mean is that there is not one photo that he provides which distinctly proves that the core was concrete with 3" diameter rebar. The spire picture looks like part of the exterior facade to me. The other picture he uses shows what he claims to be 3" rebar. I could be piping. I see no pictures of a plywood structure used to form the core. I see no 3" rebar lying around waiting to be used. I see no pictures of the 3" rebar set in place before the supposed concrete was poured. I see no pictures of a piece of concrete with 3" rebar sticking out of it. I see no account of 3" rebar being scrapped.

All I see are pictures to back up what NIST describes in their paper.

Again, the only way that Chistophera can prove the concrete core existed is with pictures of the blueprints that show it.

I will not post again in this thread as I fear the wrath of the "elder posters". My they have mercy on my soul.

:D

We have no mercy

[Christophera]

bv is justifiably filled with erroneous advice.

welcome to the forum Gamalon.
no doubt christophera will be along to "answer" your questions. when you read his response please bear this in mind, all the questions you have asked have already been addressed numerous times in this thread. chris will just regurgitate those answers he has already given, no matter what your knowledge in any field you bring forth to refute his assertions.

True, no amount of experience supplants evidence. If you bring evidence of the supposed steel core columns from the demise of the towers, where all is exposed, refutation is difficult. Now, keep in mind that many have done what Gene Coreley took the lead on which was to imply that a the wall of interior box columns actually represented the interior core, or "lattice core" as was invented to describe. Here is is seen that it is just a wall and that the interior is empty. (http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/3396/gjswtc30pt4.jpg)

christophera will gainsay you by one of many methods:
he may accuse you of being unable to accept the "truth" because you are hypnotised

it is well known that secret societies use occult methods to keep secrets. If you are trying to gatekeep and refuse to acknowledge evidence, you may be hypnotized.


he will quote untraceable tv documentaries and magazine articles and time-warping mohican ironworkers

bv refers to a minor discrepancy or confusion between the Mohawks beginning employment, my meeting him and then my later interview. bv distorts and exaggerates a non issue. Lacking evidence, this is common with deniers of the concrete core.


he may accuse you of being complicit in the murder of thousands of americans

That I do not do. I accuse people of working to support the LIE which the murderers of thousands of Americans hide behind.


he will use blatantly cherry-picked quotes from first-responders and other 9/11 victims

Actually the deniers of concrete do this far more than I do. For example: The guy that used a squeegee to cut through drywall to find a stairway. There was another account, perhaps the same guy where they cut through drywall to find concrete. I do use a video of firefighters in the firehouse discussing detonations.

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


he will point you to badly compressed jpgs as "raw evidence"

A blatant error/lie. This image of the WTC 2 concrete core is not compressed at all. You have to scroll left an entire screen to see the 500 foot tall concrete core.

http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG

he may accuse you of being a fraud

True. For example. bv, you are a fraud and this post proves it.

Above all he has stated that "NOTHING will convince me" that the towers were built any other way.[/LIST]during nearly 11,000 posts he has staged a lonesome one-man battle against all irrefutable evidence that there was no concrete core in wtc 1 + 2.
i do believe he's unique, he is the only man in the world that truly believes in his invisible core.

True, nothing will convince me. This is because I KNOW the towers had a concrete core and all of the raw evidence of images from the demolition supports that contention. Misinterpreted construction images are not presentable unless they are logically consistent.

It is a total exaggeration, error and lie, that I am the only man in the world that knows of the conrete core, and bv knows it.

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

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

Or a poster on physorg.com who ambiguously posts on April fools day and identifies themselves as Leslie Robertson lead engineer of the World Trade Center.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3108&view=findpost&p=78752

Apr 1 2006, 06:33 PM

Unregistered

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

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

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

Then there is MSNBC that identifies the concrete core in conjunction with an interview with Robertson.

Leslie Robertson, Architect Of The World Trade Center Towers
Still, Robertson, whose firm is responsible for three of the six tallest buildings in the world, feels a sense of pride that the massive towers, supported by a steel-tube exoskeleton and a reinforced concrete core, held up as well as they did—managing to stand for over an hour despite direct hits from two massive commercial jetliners.
Says engineer Robertson, “If they had fallen down immediately, the death counts would have been unimaginable,” he says. “The World Trade Center has performed admirably, and everyone involved in the project should be proud.” The buildings were designed specifically to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, the largest plane flying in 1966, the year they broke ground on the project.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3069641


i cannot blame you for asking your questions but if you're hoping that christophera will accept your arguments you will have a long wait.
Good luck

My last post here (i mean it this time :-} )

BV

Sure.

[Arus808]

Chris, this thread is dead. So dead that you have to dredge up old posts just to keep it alive.

stop. please.


EVERYONE ELSE, JUST STOP REPLYING. LET CHRIS HAVE THE LAST WORD AND LEAVE IT.

[Gamolon]

I lied. Sorry guys.

Christophera, I found this video footage of the construction of the towers.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/sf_building_pop_01_qt.html

I saw no mention or footage about 3" rebar used in the interior core, no mention or footage of a plywood structure to be used to form the concrete core, and no mention or footage of concrete being poured into the inner core. They happen to touch on all other facets of construction except your concrete core. They even showed the pouring/smoothing of the concrete for the floors.

So far you have provided me with a picture taken at 7500' away showing supposed 3" diameter rebar. You sir must have eyesight like that of GI Joe with the eagle eye. You have provided a documentary which conveniently doesn't exist. You have provided another picture showing what you claim to be 3" rebar sticking out of concrete. I say it's pipe.

Everything I have seen so far shows without a doubt that the core was constructed of steel and not concrete reinforced with 3" diameter rebar.

How come you cannot come up with any photos or footage during the construction that show anything you claim yet I can find tons of stuff pertaining to the steel core? Which, I may add, also lack mention of anything resembling your claimed concrete inner core.

So far you have provided obscure pictures that are taken from long distances and a non-existent video. Nice.

Your proof, for lack of a better term, sucks.

[maccy]

Gamolon, I guarantee anything you find will already have been mentioned several times on this thread. Chris will now present you with his deluded explanation for the PBS documentary once more.

Really, there's nothing that hasn't already been said. You can check by searching the thread if you want.

It's pointless and he won't listen. Nobody is in danger of being persuaded by his theory as it is self-evidently ludicrous.

Please leave it.

-------------------------

Edited to Add: because the posts asking people to stop posting are also bumping the thread, A W Smith has suggested we PM anybody who posts an argument with Chris on this thread. I think this is a good idea. So if someone other than Chris posts, please PM them to explain the situation and then post that you've done it on this thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=71851

That way they shouldn't be inundated with PMs and the warning thread will also be bumped above this one.

[A W Smith]

I lied. Sorry guys.

Christophera, I found this video footage of the construction of the towers.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/sf_building_pop_01_qt.html

I saw no mention or footage about 3" rebar used in the interior core, no <snip>

Gamolon; I see you are new here. trust us even that documentary has been brought to his attention about every five pages of this thread. he just will not believe there was no concrete core in the towers. let this thread go ok? he is the lone CTer who thinks there is a concrete core. He simply is not well.

No more posts below this line OK?
__________________________

[Christophera]

I will make one last post in this thread and let it die as requested.

I was a construction supervisor and industrial piping designer. I supervised construction projects for steel mills. I was an on site piping designer for the Toole Utah facility I mentioned above. I was part of a damage assessment team for two sites. One was for a company called IMC/Angus in Louisiana and the other was for Shell Chemical in Belpre, Ohio. All I can say is that I've seen some pretty amazing stuff. I've seen steel beams twisted like spaghetti.

Sounds as though you have some experience. I've been a welder for 35 years off and on. Also heavy equipment operation with some demo on steel buildings. In 1984 I did a road building project in some highly varied strata with lots of very tricky blasting. Following that I studied for my blasters license. Currently I work as a surveyor and draftsman for a small engineering company.




I would just like to know a few things.

1. Where is he getting the 3" diameter on 4' centers from?

This comes from a very detailed documentary that aired in 1990 called "The Construction of the Twin Towers" on PBS in souther California. It was 2 hours in length and got very intimate with many details of WTC 1 as it was built.

2. How can he tell that the spire picture, which was taken at 7500 feet away, contained 3" rebar? That's like telling me that he can recognize one of his friends from that distance.

As a surveyor I use 2.5 inch PVC as a long distance target/reference and if it is silhouetted it is very easy to see with the naked eye. It can even be picked out if there is contrast with the background.

3. I have not seen one picture showing the plywood structure, concrete pouring mechanisms, or the 3" rebar used in construction of the supposed concrete core.

The interior box columns, called "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) in the linked imaged ringed the core and were used to support the exterior form wood. The core was ALWAYS cast inside the exterior framework except for the first 4 floors of WTC 1. The inner form was a breakdown steel form which left very shiny/reflective surfaces. I explain how those work to create the appearance of the towers in silhouette here. The third image down.

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

The concrete was pumped up pipe inside the core by a series of mud pumps from a small onsite batch plant. It may have been the first large scale concrete pumping operation ever,

4. It has been stated numerous times that the architect wanted to keep the core light in weight which is why he had the steel beam core encased in Sheetrock, not concrete.

Does it seem reasonable that the 500 foot tall core standing in this high RES image is sheet rock?

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

I cannot imagine that such a uniform silhouette would be provided by sheetrock after hundreds of thousands of tones of steel wreakage fell past and over the core.

5. In my experience in construction, I've never seen 3" diamater rebar used (not to say that it hasn't, just that I've never seen it). Even the 4' thick walls of the Toole facility, built to contain a possible explosion, didn't use 3" rebar. It used vary closely spaced, smaller diameter rebar. There was so much rebar that I remember standing in front of it before the concrete was poured, and I couldn't see through it.

You describe what is essentially "ferrocement" which is mostly steel. The towers were very custom, only 2 made ever and the exterior steel was tempered while the rebar used in the core was high tensile steel. Liability called for serious measures to insure high strength. The concrete core was designed to resist torsion and lateral loads primarily. The twisting action created by high winds (110 MPH recorded) would cause the tower faces to "fly" and the loading of the steel would then cause deformations leading to failures. It was a tapered shear wall (WTC 1) 17 foot thick walls (narrow axis) at the base and 2 foot at the top. I suspect the unusual size bar and spacing was to accommodate that it was to resist twisting and lateral load rather than being a load bearing element.

6. Lastly, I have yet to see a clear picture that shows a piece of the concrete with 3" rebar sticking out of it. You can refer me to the picture taken of what was left of the core with the supposed 3" rebar sticking out of the concrete, but I just don't see it. Those could be pipes. That picture proves nothing. Come to think of it, I have never seen a picture of 3" rebar anywhere. You would think that there would have been a huge pile of it somewhere.

Firstly cameras were being confiscated at ground zero, so our evidence is minimal. The image of the core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) has an error in its annotation. the constant criticism of the evaluation of size at 3 inch bothered me so much I began thinking about the potentials for larger sizes. After some time I realized that the foundation segment of the documentary had mentioned that the rebar was so large in the foundations that it could not be bent, it had to be welded. This was a big slowdown in the construction because there were a limited number of welders with security clearances available. A security clearance was required because of a special "corrosion resistant/, vibration resistant" coating on ALL of the rebar, even basement walls. The foundation rebar was 6 inch diameter in the core foundations and it extended up into the lower core walls. The tight coils in the annotated rebar of the above linked images are typical of high tensile steel exposed to extreme stresses. Pipe will kink and fold rather than making nice round coils under those conditions.

. How was the concrete poured in place for the core if it was always below the current floor being constructed (a convenient explanation I might add).

Above I've explained that the interior box columns supported the conventional outer wood forms. Currently WTC 7, I believe, is being made the same way. large concrete cores are done this way as it saves greatly on form structures. The concrete is needed for strength so the steel is not allowed to extend far above the concrete. In the case of WTC 2 which had a slightly different design in that it was no a strict shear wall as was WTC 1. It was a combined shear wall in stacked cells. This accommodated 2 hallways in each direction which WTC 1 only had 1 hallway going 1 direction that was perpendicularly opposing every other floor. WTC 1, with its cell design could have part of the core built upwards which would reduce the flex of the tower enough so that steel erection could sometimes go perhaps 10 floors over the top of the completed core.

Only when the blueprints are produced will we know the truth and can put Christopher's claims to rest. All of his "raw" images that he says proves his claims are all subject to interpretation.

The other side of that is how do you justify interpretation of this as anything but concrete.

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

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

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


What I mean is that there is not one photo that he provides which distinctly proves that the core was concrete with 3" diameter rebar. The spire picture looks like part of the exterior facade to me.

the exterior had 14 inch box columns on 22 inch centers. Clearly there are 20 foot centers which match the interior box columns annotated as "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg). The floor beams and columns form rectangles which match that of those shown in the spire image (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg)

The other picture he uses shows what he claims to be 3" rebar. I could be piping. I see no pictures of a plywood structure used to form the core. I see no 3" rebar lying around waiting to be used. I see no pictures of the 3" rebar set in place before the supposed concrete was poured. I see no pictures of a piece of concrete with 3" rebar sticking out of it. I see no account of 3" rebar being scrapped.

All I see are pictures to back up what NIST describes in their paper.

Again, the only way that Chistophera can prove the concrete core existed is with pictures of the blueprints that show it.

I will not post again in this thread as I fear the wrath of the "elder posters". My they have mercy on my soul.

:D

FEMA nor NIST had access to the blueprints.

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

The ex NYC mayor took the WTC documents and the courts will not force a return.

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

At least you can admit to the "fear" of other posters which shows how they gatekeep the truth.

[Christophera]

Gamolon; I see you are new here. trust us even that documentary has been brought to his attention about every five pages of this thread. he just will not believe there was no concrete core in the towers. let this thread go ok? he is the lone CTer who thinks there is a concrete core. He simply is not well.

No more posts below this line OK?
__________________________

Trying to use fear to control the truth huh?

GATEKEEPER

You have no proof of anything.

[Christophera]

Christophera, I'm just curious, what does "raw" evidence mean?

This, maybe?

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11%20Picture6.jpg

That is raw evidence of the interior box columns, which were outside the core area. That image does not even look into the core.

Hey, 1/06/07

http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/userbirthday.gif

[Christophera]

The liar haveth not evidence, but I have much evidence, all compiled logically explaining near free fall and total pulverization.

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

Do you have such an explanation based on evidence of the structure that actually stood?

Why ask? You either don't care or you are to thick to understand our evidence.

I not only understand your evidence I logically account for the errors you've made when presenting it as "evidence". To call it evidence you must misrepresent whatever you put forth.

For example, the post before this one. You've presented Jones's error that he used to try and support "core columns" bu the image he uses, that you use, does not look into the core.

Other images that show vertical steel in the core area actually show elevator guide rail support steel and the concrete core denial crew tries to present it as "core columns". However, the fact that the steel you call "core columns" is not seen during the demolition shows that the steel does not have the strength to stand, which "core columns" would have, if they existed, which they did not.

Of course you have presented no evidence whatsoever for explanation of free fall. That, of course. cannot be done until the actual strcuture is ascertained.

[Bell]

Hey, 1/06/07

http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/userbirthday.gif

Hey, you know, I really didn't want to post in your thread anymore. But for this I'll make an exception.

Thanks Christopher :)

[Christophera]

Hey, you know, I really didn't want to post in your thread anymore. But for this I'll make an exception.

Thanks Christopher :)

You're welcome,

We all have to suffer birthdays, hope yours is graceful and full of warmth.

http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/userbirthday.gif

[Christophera]

CORRECTED VERSIONS (diagram of hallways and interior wall of the WTC 1 steel reinforced concrete core) (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corehallsdoors.gif)

So, why in your "corrected" version have numerous columns been edited out? You didn't like the fact that the diagram showed columns in places totally inconsistent with your concrete hypothesis, so you just hand-waved and removed them? Brilliant stuff. I wish real engineers could conduct business like that.

You will see that images which are totally unedited show NO STEEL CORE COLUMNS.

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

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

3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)

And all of those images SHOULD show the steel core columns IF they existed.

So, if the BBC image (http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1540000/images/_1540044_world_trade_structure300.gif) is inconsistent with this image, that you edited (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corehallsdoors.gif)*, and they're both inconsistent with this image (http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc_graphic.gif), how do you explain it?

The images I posted above show that the image (http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc_graphic.gif) you post with the steel core columns did not exist.


In fact, the two images that you reference are mutally inconsistent. One core is hollow, with supporting webs intersected on every other floor.

Those are not webs those are hallways.

The other core is solid, with steel beams running vertically inside it. And the real core? Steel, like this (http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml) explains, and NIST, the WTC report and others corroborate.

That link corroborates nothing.

By the way, there's a link that you missed the first time around (http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixe.pdf). I defy you to rebut all 78 instances of "core" and reconcile them with the copious descriptions of steel products, and zero description of concrete (in conjunction with the core).

*Or maybe, someone else edited, but you certainly seem to believe it.

The fact that no steel core columns are ever seen in the images of the demolition makes it conclusive that diagrams and drawings used to misrepresent the core are frauds.

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

[Loss Leader]

That is raw evidence of the interior box columns, which were outside the core area. That image does not even look into the core.

By "interior box columns," do you mean the cross-braces that supported the cranes during construction and then were removed because otherwise they'd be blocking the elevator shaft?

[Christophera]

That is raw evidence of the interior box columns, which were outside the core area. That image does not even look into the core. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtcacrossfloor.box.cols.jpg)

By "interior box columns," do you mean the cross-braces that supported the cranes during construction and then were removed because otherwise they'd be blocking the elevator shaft?

The image which has been misinterpreted so much as showing "core columns, really

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

shows the heavily trussed crane towers which are a part of the crane platform. That image is unusual because it shows a crane tower NOT in the corner of the core, The crane platform accommodated the crane towers in a number of ways and allowed the cranes to be positioned vertically and horizontally wherever was needed. The towers could be inserted into the platform wherever.

Between the cranes and their towers in that image, at the 3rd floor below the top you will see 2 diagonals meeting at the top in the center between the crane towers. Those are diagonal braces of the crane platform which is not on the same plane as the interior box columns which are the outer row of columns that surround the core and are connected by floor beams. The platform, the diagonal of it, are not a part of the tower. They moved up it fastened to the inside of the core.

In the below image we see a row of interior box columns with a moment frame having heavy diagonal braces and cross braces. The moment frame and interior box columns ARE the inner wall of the outer tube of the "tube in a tube" construction and are permanent. The concrete core is the inner tube.

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

The image I use showing the interior box columns annotated as "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) shows the crane towers set in the corners which was more or less the normal configuration. In different photos the crane towers can be seen at different heights as they could easily be jacked up and down depending on what was happening in construction. In that image the interior columns are all set with 3 floors exposed. They were delivered in 40 foot pieces so 10 foot is below the top floor. A temporary floor is set for personel to move around on while the cranes, jacked up high on their towers are setting elevator guide rail support for extension and alignment while a 40 foot tall tier of concrete core is curing below the crane platform which was at least 30 feet tall inside the core, fastened to the interior box columns and floor beams as we see here.

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

The crane platform is in exactly the same plane as the concrete core walls but above them. The elevator shafts were beyond that actually inside the core area where the elevator guide rail support steel is seen being stood up and aligned.

[beachnut]

That is raw evidence of the interior box columns, which were outside the core area. That image does not even look into the core.

Hey, 1/06/07

http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/userbirthday.gif

you know you are showing the core and there is no concrete in the core!

no concrete, you have zero proof of a concrete core.

are you a modern person who understands zero?

Sorry Chris but you only show proof of a steel core! Why?

Where is your photos of the C-4?

Happy new year

[Christophera]

you know you are showing the core and there is no concrete in the core!

no concrete, you have zero proof of a concrete core.

are you a modern person who understands zero?

Sorry Chris but you only show proof of a steel core! Why?

Where is your photos of the C-4?

Happy new year

Please, understand that picture has the purpose of showing it does not show steel core columns? That image does not even look into the core AT ALL. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtcacrossfloor.box.cols.jpg) It does show interior box columns, but not core columns

Now. Here is a 500 foot tall piece of concrete, a steel reinforced concrete tube. This picture is for the purpose of showing the concrete core.

If you do not like that explanation, then you logically explain what it is.

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

One thing is for certain. It does not show steel core columns. No picture does, they did not exist.

[Christophera]

This is a whole issue on its own after 162,929 views and 10,535 posts spread over 264 pages on a thread about realistic explanatons for free fall.

I've posted a description of what gatekeeping against the concrete core is all about and how it works. What I refer to is a psyop campaign designed to make the information about the concrete core disappear from peoples minds, I believe is one of the primary purpose of the disinformation, gatekeeping campaign of 9-11.

HERE

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2226416#post2226416

If gatekeeping in the way described in the above post IS NOT what the deniers of concrete are doing. Then they will post what they ARE doing here in this thread.

This thread is specifically for the deniers of the concrete core to say WHY they work so hard to dismiss all information about the concrete core or what rational purpose they expect that denial to serve.

REQUIREMENTS OF CREDIBILITY:We know there was a core, if one core didn't exist, then the other did.

For anybody posting who presents a purpose or reason for saying "no concrete", in order for them to be credible, the post must also explain HOW the supposed 47 steel core columns were cut to create near free fall which ALSO explains why they are NEVER seen in images of the demolition.

Confirm, on this site below where many images of the concrete core are seen, or pieces of it at least, that NO STEEL COLUMNS ARE SEEN INSIDE THE CORE AREA.

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

If it is asserted the steel core columns were not cut then it must be explained why they are unseen in demolition images. Otherwise the post is just more disinformation.

Discussion on disinformation is also welcome here.

For instance, why won't the scholars for 9-11 truth allow me to join? Why don't they embrace the concrete core which CAN be fractured by a small amount of explosive to fall instantly while steel cannot?

Why did LC forums ban me for posting evidence and logic supporting the concrete core?

[Woody-]

"I'm only paranoid because everyone's against me"
- Frank Burns

[Dog Town]

Why did LC forums ban me for posting evidence and logic supporting the concrete core?

Same reason this place should of, I guess. Got Spamming?

[beachnut]

Why did LC forums ban me for posting evidence and logic supporting the concrete core?

Because there is no concrete core and they were tired of you posting junk?

There is no concrete core?

You show pictures of no concrete core!

You show pictures of just a steel core!

You take news errors and use them as proof of a concrete core!

You refuse to listen to proof of no concrete core.

You will not even look at your own pictures of the steel core and understand you debunk yourself.

LC is loony anyway and they were hoping you would post here so they can laugh at you from a distance.

You have no evidence for a concrete core.

You present evidence for a steel core and then you say it is concrete; that is lack of logic!

You ignored the darn email I presented to you from an expert telling us there is no concrete core. I am upset and if I was mean I would ban you for not trying to read and comprehend others work; you treat others work with indifference and by doing so you dishonor others.

You seem to miss the fact you keep giving this forum crap but they let you present your fact less conclusions; where LC is not out for truth but the ban you? This is illogical since LC has no facts they should enjoy your insane concrete core dribble; but Dylan is trying to make money and he knows LC is a fraud, he knows you are a liar.

Dylan knows you are a liar cause Dylan makes money telling lies on his DVDs. He has to keep out the idiots who make it too easy to see the simple concrete core lies, may expose his total lack of physical evidence.

Have you ever wondered why this forum lets you rant of concrete core?

Because toleration is the logical way to learn; we must tolerate ignorance or we become like the ones we do not want to be.

[jaydeehess]

For instance, why won't the scholars for 9-11 truth allow me to join? Why don't they embrace the concrete core which CAN be fractured by a small amount of explosive to fall instantly while steel cannot?

Why did LC forums ban me for posting evidence and logic supporting the concrete core?

Fact is that no one, no one at all on either side of the 9/11 debate accepts your contentions. Neither 'Truth Movement' or the so-called 'official theorists'.

Face it you are alone, utterly alone in your theory so either the rest of the world is wrong or you are.

[Christophera]

Fact is that no one, no one at all on either side of the 9/11 debate accepts your contentions. Neither 'Truth Movement' or the so-called 'official theorists'.

That is only because of successful gatekeeping.

Face it you are alone, utterly alone in your theory so either the rest of the world is wrong or you are.

With one post you are proven wrong.

Leslie Robertson, Architect Of The World Trade Center Towers

Still, Robertson, whose firm is responsible for three of the six tallest buildings in the world, feels a sense of pride that the massive towers, supported by a steel-tube exoskeleton and a reinforced concrete core, held up as well as they did—managing to stand for over an hour despite direct hits from two massive commercial jetliners.

Says engineer Robertson, “If they had fallen down immediately, the death counts would have been unimaginable,” he says. “The World Trade Center has performed admirably, and everyone involved in the project should be proud.” The buildings were designed specifically to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, the largest plane flying in 1966, the year they broke ground on the project.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3069641/

Then there is August Domel, Ph.d SE. PE. (http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf)

[Christophera]

Dylan makes money telling lies on his DVDs.

Now that might be true. Otherwise your post is like an over excited juvenile.

[A W Smith]

Oh i didn't know that. Chris if you go over to the new LC forums and get banned again I think a new avatar badge is in order for you. :D

[beachnut]

That is only because of successful gatekeeping.



With one post you are proven wrong.

Leslie Robertson, Architect Of The World Trade Center Towers

Still, Robertson, whose firm is responsible for three of the six tallest buildings in the world, feels a sense of pride that the massive towers, supported by a steel-tube exoskeleton and a reinforced concrete core, held up as well as they did—managing to stand for over an hour despite direct hits from two massive commercial jetliners.

Says engineer Robertson, “If they had fallen down immediately, the death counts would have been unimaginable,” he says. “The World Trade Center has performed admirably, and everyone involved in the project should be proud.” The buildings were designed specifically to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, the largest plane flying in 1966, the year they broke ground on the project.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3069641/

Then there is August Domel, Ph.d SE. PE. (http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf)

You use the news of this post, which is wrong, to base your junk.

You are wrong, the article is wrong. Write to them and ask them why they messed up. Because I have done this for you and you ignored me. You do it.

You are wrong and you refuse to see that the news is wrong sometimes. You are wrong.

[Christophera]

Same reason this place should of, I guess. Got Spamming?

No, look up the folks with the cat pictures and baking recipes.

[A W Smith]

Chris you have a thread here thats over 10500 posts long and you yourself have over 2500 posts.. now WHO are the "'gatekeepers"? JREF? or loose change?

[Christophera]

You use the news of this post, which is wrong, to base your junk.

You are wrong, the article is wrong. Write to them and ask them why they messed up. Because I have done this for you and you ignored me. You do it.

You are wrong and you refuse to see that the news is wrong sometimes. You are wrong.

Oops, ...... you forgot to get credible.

REQUIREMENTS OF CREDIBILITY:We know there was a core, if one core didn't exist, then the other did.

For anybody posting who presents a purpose or reason for saying "no concrete", in order for them to be credible, the post must also explain HOW the supposed 47 steel core columns were cut to create near free fall which ALSO explains why they are NEVER seen in images of the demolition.

[beachnut]

That is only because of successful gatekeeping.



With one post you are proven wrong.

Leslie Robertson, Architect Of The World Trade Center Towers

Still, Robertson, whose firm is responsible for three of the six tallest buildings in the world, feels a sense of pride that the massive towers, supported by a steel-tube exoskeleton and a reinforced concrete core, held up as well as they did—managing to stand for over an hour despite direct hits from two massive commercial jetliners.

Says engineer Robertson, “If they had fallen down immediately, the death counts would have been unimaginable,” he says. “The World Trade Center has performed admirably, and everyone involved in the project should be proud.” The buildings were designed specifically to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, the largest plane flying in 1966, the year they broke ground on the project.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3069641/

Then there is August Domel, Ph.d SE. PE. (http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf)

I already sent a email to the guy who wrote the August Domel paper, and you refused to understand they made a mistake too.

So you can rot in your ignorance! I have worked to help you understand the truth and you ignore my work. Fine, your ignorance is tolerated because you do not break the rules.

You call me a kid. I do not care if you do so; you are the one who takes my work and dumps on me. You fail to understand simple things. I wrote to the author of August Domel's paper; you called me a liar. You never will be about to research anything if you can not see what I did was real.

You are poor at research and you will fail to learn more about 9/11 until you learn to research. I gave you my best and you crap on me.

So call me a kid now, but it seems my humble research abilities dwarf your abilities by an order of magnitude. My BSEE/MSEE/ATP and countless extra training are dwarfed by you ability to be insane. Sorry I let you down by making sure my demeanor would not help you to see the efforts of my humble work.

May you spend the rest of your paranoid life in ignorance, since you fail to use anyone's inputs to help you.

[Christophera]

Chris you have a thread here thats over 10500 posts long and you yourself have over 2500 posts.. now WHO are the "'gatekeepers"? JREF? or loose change?

Interesting question.

It appears that Loose Change is more of a gatekeeper than JREF. In fact I've learned that JREF is actually a very functional forum where moderators will enforce the rule, unlike LC forum and other 9-11 expose forums where opinions rather than facts seem to rule.

Have you seen my page on LC forum?

http://algoxy.com/psych/whatis9-11_loose-change.html

[beachnut]

With one post you are proven wrong.

Still, Robertson, whose firm is responsible for three of the six tallest buildings in the world, feels a sense of pride that the massive towers, supported by a steel-tube exoskeleton and a reinforced concrete core, held up as well as they did—managing to stand for over an hour despite direct hits from two massive commercial jetliners.


http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3069641/


Robertson never said concrete core; the reporter for MSNBC is wrong as are you Chris.

But MSNBC will tell you they are wrong; Chris will never admit he can learn anything new.

[Christophera]

I already sent a email to the guy who wrote the August Domel paper, and you refused to understand they made a mistake too.

Yes, and I discovered that guy is the same guy that developed the "hammer theory". Nuff said.

As far as I know August Domel wrote the August Domel paper and we haven't heard from him.

[Christophera]

Robertson never said concrete core; the reporter for MSNBC is wrong as are you Chris.

But MSNBC will tell you they are wrong; Chris will never admit he can learn anything new.

REQUIREMENTS OF CREDIBILITY:We know there was a core, if one core didn't exist, then the other did.

For anybody posting who presents a purpose or reason for saying "no concrete", in order for them to be credible, the post must also explain HOW the supposed 47 steel core columns were cut to create near free fall which ALSO explains why they are NEVER seen in images of the demolition.

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

[CurtC]

I'd like to remind everyone here that engaging Christophera in this is cruel, and only prolongs the time until he can get help. Please just say no, for his sake.

[jaydeehess]

CA, you are not having any problems getting your story out there. Your problem is in convincing anyone at all that you are correct. You cannot show any evidence of any of your claims, no photos showing the concrete core being poured for eg., and certainly no evidence whatsoever of explosive covered rebar in any buildings at all much less that towers. All you have are mistakes by journalists, half remembered docuementaries and your own diagrams.

Again, either you are wrong or the rest of the world is. Why should anyone believe you?

[beachnut]

Yes, and I discoverd that guy is the same guy that developed the "hammer theory". Nuff said.

As far as I know August Domel wrote the August Domel paper and we haven't heard from him.

You now prove you lack the ability to research. I sent an email and you even remember who wrote the paper for Domel. Now you twist it and ignore real experts for your own ideas.

You have only yourself to back up you ideas and some mistakes made by people who admit they were making errors.

Nuff said; you are the only one in the world who thinks there was a concrete core in the WTC towers in the upper floors.

You are unique and the only one in the CT world and non CT world who has the concrete core idea. Your own web pages prove you wrong.

Nuff said

[A W Smith]

from your loose change page Chris

How many explosions would be required to cut 47 1300 foot columns and cut them into 40 foot pieces?

How much high explosive is required to cut thick tempered steel without linear shape charges?

Does the explosive have to be in direct contact with the steel?

Do linear shape charges have to be in direct contact to perform?

What was acesss/clearance like around the supposed steel core columns in the core?

What do unconstrained high explosive detonations sound like and does that compare to what as heard on 9-11? What does that look like when cutting steel?

OK so you realize that placing charges on the steel necessary to bring the towers down is not really possible.

Now what if Chris . I'm saying WHAT IF. there was no concrete core? then what?

[Christophera]

from your loose change page Chris



OK so you realize that placing charges on the steel necessary to bring the towers down is not really possible.

Now what if Chris . I'm saying WHAT IF. there was no concrete core? then what?

Basically it is all impossible. That is my point.

Supporting the steel core columns IS supporting the impossible to obscure the possible

[WildCat]

"I'm only paranoid because everyone's against me"
- Frank Burns
Hehe, I'm watching M*A*S*H right now on TV Land!

[Christophera]

You now prove you lack the ability to research. I sent an email and you even remember who wrote the paper for Domel. Now you twist it and ignore real experts for your own ideas.

You have only yourself to back up you ideas and some mistakes made by people who admit they were making errors.

Nuff said; you are the only one in the world who thinks there was a concrete core in the WTC towers in the upper floors.

You are unique and the only one in the CT world and non CT world who has the concrete core idea. Your own web pages prove you wrong.

Nuff said

I researched your guy. It turns out he was the one that came up with the hammer theory which is stupid, grasping at straws type inane BS. These towers BOTH went to the ground.

Whoever posted this believes there was a concrete core. And, .... I personally believe it was Robertson.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3108&view=findpost&p=78752

Apr 1 2006, 06:33 PM

Leslie E. Robertson
Unregistered


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

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

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

And, I've personally met 3 people that saw other documentaries which had clips from the one I saw in it. They know like I know there was a concrete core.

Meanwhile, you forgot to get credible and explain WHY it is so important there was no concrete core.

REQUIREMENTS OF CREDIBILITY:We know there was a core, if one core didn't exist, then the other did.

For anybody posting who presents a purpose or reason for saying "no concrete", in order for them to be credible, the post must also explain HOW the supposed 47 steel core columns were cut to create near free fall which ALSO explains why they are NEVER seen in images of the demolition.

[beachnut]

Hehe, I'm watching M*A*S*H right now on TV Land!

I was thinking about Frank Burns when the SCUD missile knocked out our giant plate glass windows; I was thinking about getting a Frank Burn Purple Heart as I ran past the glass!

My dad was in the 101st on D-Day! I would feel like a Frank Burns if I had jumped into the pile of glass; I would disgrace my dad.

But it was funny as I went about my work!

Is our CC guy as p as frank? YES; have i messed up and jumped in the glass????

[uruk]

REQUIREMENTS OF CREDIBILITY:We know there was a core, if one core didn't exist, then the other did.

For anybody posting who presents a purpose or reason for saying "no concrete", in order for them to be credible, the post must also explain HOW the supposed 47 steel core columns were cut to create near free fall which ALSO explains why they are NEVER seen in images of the demolition.

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

We've read your website. We've read all you posts.
Have some honesty and read the NIST report. Otherwise your not worth responding to.

The NIST reports explains everything. (unfortunately for you, it is completely at odds with your belief.

The NIST had detailed construction plans of the WTC towers as evidenced in thier report. But of course you refused to look at the report but instead take the word of a highly questionable source. (that seems to be your modus operendi)

But I know Your not going even consider looking.

Dishonesty is way.

Anyhoo, this will be my only post in this thread.

[beachnut]

I researched your guy. It turns out he was the one that came up with the hammer theory which is stupid, grasping at straws type inane BS. These towers BOTH went to the ground.

Whoever posted this believes there was a concrete core. And, .... I personally believe it was Robertson.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3108&view=findpost&p=78752

Apr 1 2006, 06:33 PM

Leslie E. Robertson
Unregistered


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

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

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

And, I've personally met 3 people that saw other documentaries which had clips from the one I saw in it. They know like I know there was a concrete core.

Meanwhile, you forgot to get credible and explain WHY it is so important there was no concrete core.

REQUIREMENTS OF CREDIBILITY:We know there was a core, if one core didn't exist, then the other did.

For anybody posting who presents a purpose or reason for saying "no concrete", in order for them to be credible, the post must also explain HOW the supposed 47 steel core columns were cut to create near free fall which ALSO explains why they are NEVER seen in images of the demolition.

Someone lied to you; Robertson said it was not him! You were lied to by an impostor.

You are the dumbest guy I have ever met. You must of noted that the guy who posted that was not Robertson. It is a fake post! Someone is teasing you!

You are being used and abused. You should sue that forum for fraud! You are sad.

[Christophera]

Anyhoo, this will be my only post in this thread.

In your only post you completely miss the opportunity to post your evidence from the NIST report that you know so well.

Wow, valuable evidence. Worth every minute you put into sharing it.

This is an image of raw evidence, notice how often I post it.

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

It is irrefutable. And you cannot get close to even trying without establishing credibility which you have not done.

[fuelair]

This is a whole issue on its own after 162,929 views and 10,535 posts spread over 264 pages on a thread about realistic explanatons for free fall.

I've posted a description of what gatekeeping against the concrete core is all about and how it works. What I refer to is a psyop campaign designed to make the information about the concrete core disappear from peoples minds, I believe is one of the primary purpose of the disinformation, gatekeeping campaign of 9-11.

HERE

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2226416#post2226416

If gatekeeping in the way described in the above post IS NOT what the deniers of concrete are doing. Then they will post what they ARE doing here in this thread.

This thread is specifically for the deniers of the concrete core to say WHY they work so hard to dismiss all information about the concrete core or what rational purpose they expect that denial to serve.

REQUIREMENTS OF CREDIBILITY:We know there was a core, if one core didn't exist, then the other did.

For anybody posting who presents a purpose or reason for saying "no concrete", in order for them to be credible, the post must also explain HOW the supposed 47 steel core columns were cut to create near free fall which ALSO explains why they are NEVER seen in images of the demolition.

Confirm, on this site below where many images of the concrete core are seen, or pieces of it at least, that NO STEEL COLUMNS ARE SEEN INSIDE THE CORE AREA.

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

If it is asserted the steel core columns were not cut then it must be explained why they are unseen in demolition images. Otherwise the post is just more disinformation.

Discussion on disinformation is also welcome here.

For instance, why won't the scholars for 9-11 truth allow me to join? Why don't they embrace the concrete core which CAN be fractured by a small amount of explosive to fall instantly while steel cannot?

Why did LC forums ban me for posting evidence and logic supporting the concrete core?
Because even they recognise your incompetence to talk about this subject - and so many others. Now if they would only recognize theirs.

[28th Kingdom]

What exactly are you saying... that the core was solid concrete?

In the article you linked to, it says:

"... and a reinforced concrete core ..."

On this page, it shows a picture (which you claim to be inaccurate) that shows a reinforced concrete core:

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

The picture even says reinforced core - and the reinforcement is coming from steel beams...

I'm confused as to what you're claiming, so please clarify it for me. Are you saying the core had no steel beams and was solid concrete? The article you linked to even claims the concrete core is reinforced.

Thanks.

[Christophera]

Someone lied to you; Robertson said it was not him! You were lied to by an impostor.

You should explain what you've said more thoroughly because what you've said doesn't make sense.

[Christophera]

What exactly are you saying... that the core was solid concrete?

In the article you linked to, it says:

"... and a reinforced concrete core ..."

On this page, it shows a picture (which you claim to be inaccurate) that shows a reinforced concrete core:

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

The picture even says reinforced core - and the reinforcement is coming from steel beams...

I'm confused as to what you're claiming, so please clarify it for me. Are you saying the core had no steel beams and was solid concrete? The article you linked to even claims the concrete core is reinforced.

Thanks.

The steel reinforced concrete core was a tube with shear wall construction.

Here is a crude diagram I made from a FEMA image which shows how it was designed. This depicts the lower part of WTC 1.

Diagram of hallways and interior wall of the WTC 1 steel reinforced concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corehallsdoors.gif)

[Christophera]

Because even they recognise your incompetence to talk about this subject - and so many others. Now if they would only recognize theirs.

It seems you have said nothing competent, so your opinion is worth that much.

Get credible.

REQUIREMENTS OF CREDIBILITY:We know there was a core, if one core didn't exist, then the other did.

For anybody posting who presents a purpose or reason for saying "no concrete", in order for them to be credible, the post must also explain HOW the supposed 47 steel core columns were cut to create near free fall which ALSO explains why they are NEVER seen in images of the demolition.

[beachnut]

Two nuts at work; please do not disturb! :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

[beachnut]

You should explain what you've said more thoroughly because what you've said doesn't make sense.

U R stupid;

Robertson did not post that; it was someone teasing you!

R U stupid?

[28th Kingdom]

Okay, you are saying that the concrete core was surrounded by steel box columns, yes? So, what is your theory for how these were cut?

[uruk]

In your only post you completely miss the opportunity to post your evidence from the NIST report that you know so well.

Wow, valuable evidence. Worth every minute you put into sharing it.

This is an image of raw evidence, notice how often I post it.

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

It is irrefutable. And you cannot get close to even trying without establishing credibility which you have not done.

Coward!

See I knew you were going to make excuses

You have access to the internet don't you?
Read it. It's there on the internet.

Your so patheticaly predictable.


Ok, for real, last post

[Pardalis]

Two nuts at work; please do not disturb! :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

It would be interesting to see what these two can come up with, like an odd sociological experiment.

:tinfoil :tinfoil

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Who the @#$% left the cage open?! >:(

[beachnut]

What exactly are you saying... that the core was solid concrete?

In the article you linked to, it says:

"... and a reinforced concrete core ..."

On this page, it shows a picture (which you claim to be inaccurate) that shows a reinforced concrete core:

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

The picture even says reinforced core - and the reinforcement is coming from steel beams...

I'm confused as to what you're claiming, so please clarify it for me. Are you saying the core had no steel beams and was solid concrete? The article you linked to even claims the concrete core is reinforced.

Thanks.

28th you are just like Chris but you have no focus!

28th you are just like Chris but you are not unique like Chris.

10Kingdom you are being reduce to 1kingdom. just keep adding up the evidence and you will evaporate.

As thick as Chris's concrete core is your partial brain effort at systems you will never understand or comprehend.

You and Chris are analogous to Frankenstein and the Wolfman meeting! In some far off galaxy of thought where brains are split in parts, you and Chris are suffering from part of an unknown disease best described as terminal stupidity which can be cured; but you have to do it yourself.

It is just like when you see the light in higher math and all of a sudden you realize there is a higher math. You guys are the really dumb guys in high school who never ever left home; you are the reality of what 5 bottles of Pour La Vie could cure for me. You guys are the reason they invented alcoholism. You guys will never fly high performance jets at supersonic speeds and live. You guys will never experience 7.333 gs in a steep dive on bight sunny day over GA as your instructor takes his turn at chasing clouds after he realizes the student, me (never you), may be capable of being a pilot who will never kill others due to lack of flying skills!

You guys will never be past your own ignorance if you do not break out of your current trap of following lies and not knowing it. Find the truth by working harder until it hurts; you guys are grounded and will not fly until you gain the knowledge to do so.

Wake up Chris you are being lied to and you are lying to yourself; 28th you are are just like Chris without focus; Chris is stuck on a single lie, 28th has infinite lies. Same but different; both false both wrong; both hopeless?

[beachnut]

Who the @#$% left the cage open?! >:(

some one needs to suspend me for a few days!

I actually understand drug abuse for the moment!

[Christophera]

Coward!

See I knew you were going to make excuses

You have access to the internet don't you?
Read it. It's there on the internet.

Your so patheticaly predictable.

Ok, for real, last post

You know the NIST report. You think it has evidence. You even sound like you know where it is in there. You should, you are treating it as "your "evidence. You find it and bring it for us to see.

I know this is an image showing the end section of a steel reinforced cast concrete shear wall. I am posting it directly for YOU to see. it is my/our evidence for a concrete core.

You have access to the internet too and you are failing to bring your evidence. Talk about pathetic. Get it!

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4973&stc=1&d=1168151709

[A W Smith]

oh boy oh boy.. if we can keep 28th and chris here this can get very interesting. **sneaks out and locks the cage**:boxedin:

[beachnut]

yes; where was that proof again :dig:

[beachnut]

Okay, you are saying that the concrete core was surrounded by steel box columns, yes? So, what is your theory for how these were cut?

So you need to help Chris with the concrete core!

[Christophera]

yes; where was that proof again :dig:

The proof of the concrete core is compiled here.

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

The scenario that explains near free fall and pulverization is here.

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

[Pardalis]

So you need to help Chris with the concrete core!

Beachnut, please don't antagonize them, just sit back and enjoy the show. ;)

[uruk]

You know the NIST report. You think it has evidence. You even sound like you know where it is in there. You should, you are treating it as "your "evidence. You find it and bring it for us to see.

I know this is an image showing the end section of a steel reinforced cast concrete shear wall. I am posting it directly for YOU to see. it is my/our evidence for a concrete core.

You have access to the internet too and you are failing to bring your evidence. Talk about pathetic. Get it!

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4973&stc=1&d=1168151709

Too scared to read it Chris?
You just keep making excuses.
I and others have posted the link many times over.
Here it is again: http://wtc.nist.gov/

I/we made the effort to go to your web site and suffer through reading your stuff. Do us the same courtesy.

We made the effort, now it's your turn.

[Christophera]

Okay, you are saying that the concrete core was surrounded by steel box columns, yes? So, what is your theory for how these were cut?

Bascially there was a very high performance cutting charge built into the floors. I explain it here.

Cutting charges built into the floors (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1233383)

Those square cut smooth column ends show all over ground zero.

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

[Christophera]

Too scared to read it Chris?
You just keep making excuses.
I and others have posted the link many times over.
Here it is again: http://wtc.nist.gov/

I/we made the effort to go to your web site and suffer through reading your stuff. Do us the same courtesy.

We made the effort, now it's your turn.

I just did a google site search on the site and it didn't turn up any images of raw evidence. Just words. Easily falsified. All with no veracity. Not like images. Very much in question. This is produced by the same infiltrated government that illegally removed and destroyed evidence.

If you think there is something in there that has the veracity of raw evidence. You find it.

[uruk]

I just did a google site search on the site and it didn't turn up and images of raw evidence. Just words. Easily falsified. All with no veracity. Not like images. Very much in question. This is produced by the same infiltrated government that illegally removed and destroyed evidence.

If you think there is something in there that has the veracity of raw evidence. You find it.

You didn't go to the site. Otherwise you would have known that the reports are in PDF format and downloadable for your perusal. (and YES they have PICTURES in it, for god's sakes your pathetic)
Quit lying, quite making excuses. Read it.

Or are you scared, lazy, dishonest?

Here's the link to the page for the downloads: http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm

[Christophera]

You didn't go to the site. Otherwise you would have known that the reports are in PDF format and downloadable for your perusal. (and YES they have PICTURES in it, for god's sakes your pathetic)
Quit lying, quite making excuses. Read it.

Or are you scared, lazy, dishonest?

Here's the link to the page for the downloads: http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm

I used a google site specific image search on wtc.nist.gov. NOTHING.

I'm tired of subterfuge. I need genuine. The real thing. UNDERSTAND?

I loath PDF's.

You know your evidence right? You find something with veracity. I've wasted a couple of hours in the last 2 of years trying to find something verifiable relating to the core, I cannot find anything.

Keep in mind, I know FEMA didn't have the blueprints and NIST depends on them.

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

If you think there is evidence in there that is as good as images of raw evidence, you find it.

This I know is good. It is an image showing 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) and no steel core columns appear in the core area and if the steel core columns existed, they would be seen there.

[Arus808]

chris, why did you start a new thread when your thread is still open? Until its closed, you should sTAY in the thread that is still open.

[SezMe]

Jebus, why do all of you keep feeding Chris? Who's more insane - Chris or those who keep engaging him knowing that he has no basis for his position?

I beg of you. Just do not respond. At all. Ever. Let this thread die. Let all of his threads die.

[NickUK]

Chris, please realise that after a couple of dozen pages on your original thread it turns into madness porn, and you're the one wearing suspenders and a smile.

That's the reason people go there, mate, it really isn't about debating you because you've said many times that there you'll never change your mind. It really is all about voyeurism.

Don't mean to be harsh, because I actually quite like you when you're being funny, but there you go.

I'm not posting on this or the other thread again.

[uruk]

I used a google site specific image search on wtc.nist.gov. NOTHING.

I'm tired of subterfuge. I need genuine. The real thing. UNDERSTAND?The real thing is there. no subterfuge. I lead you to it. So read it.


I loath PDF's. So what? Your lazy? You can't read? What's the deal? You need someone to read it to you like a child wanting a bed time story?

You know your evidence right? You find something with veracity. I've wasted a couple of hours in the last 2 of years trying to find something verifiable relating to the core, I cannot find anything. That's because your looking for something specific to back up your claim. Problem is that it doesn't exist. All reputable sources clearly state steel core.
It's not my problem your hypothesis is wrong.

Keep in mind, I know FEMA didn't have the blueprints and NIST depends on them.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html
We all know how reputable that source is.
If you would look at the reports You would see how detailed the information they had is. But you'll never know that will you. Your too lazy or too cowardly to look.

If you think there is evidence in there that is as good as images of raw evidence, you find it.

This I know is good. It is an image showing 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) and no steel core columns appear in the core area and if the steel core columns existed, they would be seen there.
So wheen you got nothing you resort to posting old stuff that has been delt with before.

I got news for you Chris. Photos can be faked and, more importantly, misinterpreted.

We read your stuff. Now read the reports or show yourself to be the intellectual coward we all know you are.

[uruk]

Jebus, why do all of you keep feeding Chris? Who's more insane - Chris or those who keep engaging him knowing that he has no basis for his position?

I beg of you. Just do not respond. At all. Ever. Let this thread die. Let all of his threads die.

Yea, your right.
I'm out!

[Zep]

CHRIS, GET HELP!
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/images/wtc-1.construction.1.jpg
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/images/wtc-1.construction.1.jpg

[Darat]

Merged the two threads - Christophera don't start new threads to discuss this matter.

[firecoins]

I'll be here tonight, an open mike:

Doors open @ 5:45pm.

Lottery sign-up.

$5 cover per person.

See you then!

-Comedy Village
82 West 3rd Street (btw. Thompson and Sullivan)
Manhattan, NY 10012
http://blog.myspace.com/comedyvillage

P.S. We do these emails to keep you informed fast and easily about our
mics. The general comedy websites can take a while to update, so it's
just faster this way. In the event, however, that you want to be off
this list, please reply with "Remove" in the Subject line. Thank you.

[Oliver]

Merged the two threads - Christophera don't start new threads to discuss this matter.

What a mess... :covereyes :D

[Architect]

Dead Thread

[Christophera]

Merged the two threads - Christophera don't start new threads to discuss this matter.

I thought that it was appropriate because the first thread which was supposed to be about others success at finding a realistic explanation for free fall and it ended up being a gatekeeping operation on the concrete core for deniers. Perpetually off topic.

In 264 pages not one realistic explanation for free fall was offered.

Since its labelled one thing and is actually about another, I thought it was time to try and clean it up and make the title represent the content.

[Christophera]

CHRIS, GET HELP!
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/images/wtc-1.construction.1.jpg
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/images/wtc-1.construction.1.jpg

I have a picture of what is inside that steel exterior framework, which means you are the one that needs help because you have no explanation for free fall and I do.

Concrete can be fractured to fall instantly, steel cannot. This is a 500 foot steel reinforced concrete tube that WAS surrounded by structural steel.

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

[Christophera]

I lead you to it. So read it.


Words are too easily falsified.

I show you the concrete core.

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

So you produce an image of the steel core columns from the demo which DOES expose the entire tower and SHOW me the steel core columns.

It is that simple. Written words can never offer proof only images can and if NIST has 'em, you find 'em and post 'em.

[Christophera]

I was thinking

Correction:

you were spewing your inanities.

[Christophera]

We've read your website. We've read all you posts.
Have some honesty and read the NIST report.

As I've said. No written words can prove this point. You must find the appropriate images and post them.

I have images of concrete which I post for you that prove concrete. If you are unwilling to use them then find your own images of stel core columns and post them.

Part of the concrete core of the top of tower 2 falls on WTC 3 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg)

[Christophera]

Two nuts at work; please do not disturb! :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

When Darat talks about a mess he means the kind of posts beachnut has made. I only claim responsiblity for the reasonable posts that logically use evidence of the concrete core.

[Christophera]

U R stupid;

Robertson did not post that; it was someone teasing you!

R U stupid?

I can prove the concrete core.

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

and one image proves high explosives.

concrete exploding (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg)




Now, who is stupid?

[Christophera]

The best explanation I've heard is that it WASN'T FREE FALL!

The acceleration rate was only maybe 2/3 of that for a free fall.

There is another maxim that says:
You don't need an explanation for something that didn't happen.

Apparently it did happen. Even NIST admits to a 10 second fall time. Meaning your post is a compulsive effort to cover up a disturbing truth.

Seek mental health care before your nation turns into a prison.

[Christophera]

aliens. The aliens did it.

Another compulsive reaction seeking to deny the truth. You have been deceived by media. Endeavor to use actual information wherever you may find it.

Endeavor to use reason.

Endeavor to use both information and reason to preserve your rights and freedoms as secured by the US Constitution.

[Christophera]

total pulverization?

The firefighter at the scene describes 2, 100 story towers turned to dust.

Argue with him.

I just have a realistic explanation for how it can be done. (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html)

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/Engine-7.htm

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/collapsed%20to%20dust.mpg

[Christophera]

Has anyone seen an explanation for why so many CTs, in 2006, continue to claim that the towers fell at free fall?
Gravy,

The only explanation is that the fall rate was so cloe to free fall that it is functionally accurate to say the fell at that speed.

I have a realistic explanation for that fact, here.

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

[Christophera]

It was damned heavy.

Maxim: If I don't know or understand the science behind an explanation am I allowed to cast the explanation into doubt?

That is a question not a maxim?

The official explnations do not even get close to explaining how 2 towers go ALL THE WAY TO THE GROUND.

No collpase of a steel framed building can do this, let alone one that has a steel reinforced cast concrete core.

There is however a competent explanation.

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

But, .......... you will have to capable of using reason and logic with images depicting raw evidence and realizing that the towers were BUILT TO DEMOLISH.

[Christophera]

Total pulverization of his arguments may follow.

Do the CT arguments fall at free-fall or close to free-fall?

No.

But Americans will lose their rights and freedoms if they fail to reasonably use facts. This has already been proven since 9-11. Pigs rarely care about such things and just do not want to end up as bacon. You however, are so stupid you are probably already digested and eliminated.

However, all porcine deserve a chance at self improvement before slaughter.

In which case examine the facts here.

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

[Christophera]

Also, there wasn't "total pulverization of the towers." There was much pulverization, but that's pretty much to be expected as the buildings used a little as possible and it was all horizontal -- there was no reinforced concrete in the structure.

Firstly, you have not established credibility.

REQUIREMENTS OF CREDIBILITY:We know there was a core, if one core didn't exist, then the other did.

For anybody posting who presents a purpose or reason for saying "no concrete", in order for them to be credible, the post must also explain HOW the supposed 47 steel core columns were cut to create near free fall which ALSO explains why they are NEVER seen in images of the demolition.

Second, watch the video of the firefighter describing what IS NOT found.

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/collapsed%20to%20dust.mpg

Third, realize you are wrong.

[Christophera]

Like others have said, it didn't fall at free fall.

And as the engineers have said about the collapse, it was due to something called pancaking, which i'm not going to get into since its easily looked up and the engineers can explain it much better then me.

Once its explained well, it sounds VERY reasonable.

It only sounds reasonable if you can believe that 2 towers can fall identically at rates so close to that of free fall that it would be indistinguishable to onlookers.

Add to that the towers, which have a steel exterior framework, fell all the way to the ground and you have basically described an impossibility if you insist on the term COLLAPSE.

There is only one reasonable explanation and that is DEMOLITION. And amongst the many incomplete and illogical suppositions, none of which actually describe a realistic scenario where towers such as those could fall as those did, there is only one site that even gets close.

And it does so because it recognizes that the towers had a steel reinforced concrete core, which it proves by the use of images of raw evidence.

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

[Christophera]

Estimated time of arrival of the "9/11 hijackers still alive!" post: 11:12 p.m.

Your prediction fails. No one to my recolection has ever posted about the hijackers in this thread.

Personally I believe some of the identities were wrong but that all the planes were flown by hijackers.

However, that had nothing to do with the towers falling at a rate comparable to free fall. Only demolitions can do that.

[Christophera]

How do you know? And you saying that engineers who have studied the collapse were too stupid to realize that something was wrong with the official story?

I'm saying that they never even had the plans for the towers.

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

You are saying they were SO stupid they thought they could fool everybody by going along with the official story rather than using the truth.

[Christophera]

No. You pay me $1000. Now.

No explanation is needed. You do it. It is SCIENTIFIC FACT that you owe me this.

You pay money, or admit complete fallacy of your argument. This has been PROVEN.

Sorry. Hand over your rights and freedoms to the infiltrated government, the one you support with your nonsense. Oh, give up your childrens rights and freedoms too.

It is simple reason to state that this is a steel and reinforced concrete statnding at 500 foot.

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

That there was a concrete core is really the only thing that has been proven.

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

[Christophera]

Christophera, have you read any of the NIST reports (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/)? Please be specific when describing what issues you have w/ them - give a publication and page number so we can check your work.

Thanks!

No. If you will notice homer tries to pawn that PDF on the hopelessly gullible.

Realistically, as it is only a digital file, it cannot even be used as toilet paper. AND, it is certainly not worth printing to even pick up cat poop, which your post equals in every way.

I recomend you get ringworm then eat a rat that has been poisoned. Perhaps you will see the CONCRETE fact.

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

[Christophera]

The engineers believe FEMAs description of the structure and I know it was different so what the engineers have defined is in error.

How do you know it was different?

The engineers describe a tower that had steel core columns when the demo images only show steel reinforced concrete.

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

[jsfisher]

--posted deleted.

[podocarp]

Hello You-all; Podocarpos here! I hesitate to post anything at this Forum
because the set-up for each post, and reply, do not reasonably distinguish or name each 'poster' and 'critic', making it impossible to understand the whole! However, I believe 9/11 was thought out and prepared for, well in advance, and was the result of a conspiracy engineered by high placed Americans interested in creating a 'reason' for eliminating low-priced Iraqi crude 0il from limiting the profits of OPEC, and other American Family Oil Dynasties. The threat was known by the Administration, and could have been averted in a number of ways, including restoring Air Marshals on all planes, or by issuing an order for all pilots compartments to be completely sealed during flight! Also, whenever contact is lost with pilots, remote control devices could be used to overide in-plane controls, to defend against this type occurrence! Also
as ABSOLUTE method of averting a threatened 9/11 type event, THE GROUNDING ALL PLANES would have saved (200,000) TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND LIVES! OR MORE TO COME?

[SezMe]

Welcome, podocarp.

Please start your own new thread to discuss your ideas. They will get lost in this thread. Also, I am trying to get people to stop feeding Chris and would ask the same of you.

[Christophera]

You have evidence that money was paid? To every single structural engineer in the world?! Is money paid to new structural engineering college graduates as well to keep them hushed up? How much money do you think is necessary to hush thousands of these engineers?

Allright, I don't have evidence there were payoffs. Actually those things work more insidiously.

First there is an implied threat, then there is a suggestion that a large government contract "might" be pending IF a good enough job is done on the curretn 9-1 issue.

What I do have evidence for is that the towers had a cast concrete steel reinforced, tubular concrete core. Here is a 500 goot tall core that can only be concrete.

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

There are more images showing what can only be concrete here.

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

[Christophera]

Nobody has explained the fact that aliens were seen flying from the windows, either.

The above is an example of facts to deniers of truth.

There is verifiable truth in simple images.

What is 500 foot tall has the dimensions of the core area and can survive the crash of thousands of tons of steel over it?

VERY GOOD! Correct answer, a concrete core! (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

[Zep]

Hi Chris,

Have a look at this pic, please. Do you agree it's the WTC? Do you agree that the angle of view is situated a few miles to the left of the one in your "concrete core" pic? If so, what is the building arrowed?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_71045a1a76a1bee1.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3518)

ETA: Needed to upload the picture properly.

[Christophera]

Welcome, podocarp.

Please start your own new thread to discuss your ideas. They will get lost in this thread. Also, I am trying to get people to stop feeding Chris and would ask the same of you.

This, coming from a guy that posts a thread at this date and time


22nd November 2006, 12:23 AM (http://truthasaur.com)
SezMe
Master Poster
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=69171



doubting that there were mass murders in the town he lives, my home town.

Wherein I prove there have been serious mass murders, then the guy pretends it doesn't matter and wishes HARD he never started the thread.

[Christophera]

Hi Chris,

Have a look at this pic, please. Do you agree it's the WTC? Do you agree that the angle of view is situated a few miles to the left of the one in your "concrete core" pic? If so, what is the building arrowed?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_71045a1a76a1bee1.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3518)

ETA: Needed to upload the picture properly.

I do not know what the building is. Not a New Yorker. If you are trying to say it represents the core in this image.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif

I have another image a second later showing the core lower.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcore2stands.gif

[Christophera]

--posted deleted.

The way about 7000 posts in this thread should have been. Good going! Best thing you ever did.

[Christophera]

So you haven't seen the Loose Change DVD? That is what you are saying, correct?

There is no such thing as common-sense analysis. There is only qualified analysis. Are you qualified to analyse construction materials and their physical properties?


Yes, and I still haven't seen it.

Your mincing of words is pointless. Common sense is basically qualified and qualified is basically common sense. Official type qualifications are not needed, experience is fully adequate. Qualifications are a hinderence to gaining truth becuse qualified people feel intimidated in this issuse. Many people have common sense and are willing to use it.

For example. The NIST determination of collapse violates my common sense appraisal and experience as well as millions of other people.

Common sense tells anybody who is being honest with themselves that this image has no structural steel of any consequence showing and therefore must be concrete because it is 500 feet tall. Only steel reinforced concrete could stand like that.

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

[Christophera]

Hello You-all; Podocarpos here! I hesitate to post anything at this Forum because the set-up for each post, and reply, do not reasonably distinguish or name each 'poster' and 'critic', making it impossible to understand the whole!

Yes, I understand. One of my major complaints of this forums software. When a poster quotes a first poster whatever that first poster quotes is not carried in the second post on the same subject. I carry them manually when they are important but it can be very tedious particularly when a posted makes many points that must be addressed.

However, I believe 9/11 was thought out and prepared for, well in advance, and was the result of a conspiracy engineered by high placed Americans

Correct, and I'm not quoting any more. Not because I believe you are wrong, but rather because I do not feel what you are saying is comprehensive enough to address the motives behind 9-11.

AS far as I can tell the US government was infiltrated in about 1950 and that the government was infiltrated at the same time. The infiltrations had a common agenda which was the creation of the cold war. That agenda was to create a reason for what would other wise be considered excessive secrecy, particularly the US. There were other reasons but that issue enabled the others,

Please feel free to post more as Sezme is simply appealling to you to curtail you right to free speech and applying some vague threat of stigmatization in effort to basically interfere with your right. You may chose to allow them to do this. I do not recommend this.

All those posting obfuscations here ARE interfering with my rights to free speech. An aspect of free speech says they have the right to. My right says I can sue them for it Civily but we have no courts that will uphold these rights on this level so that is a joke and they know it. I've already established that they have no interest in a lawful government so why should they endeavor to be lawful citizens.

Please, feel free to discuss more if you so chose.

ON EDIT:
To evidence their collusion and concern over you using your rights I found this.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2235714#post2235714

[Belz...]

That is a fallacy promoted by those that wish to control people and keep secrets with hypnosis.

B*llsh**.

But thanks for trying.

[Belz...]

I loath PDF's.

Reading hurts the brain, doesn't it ?

[Belz...]

I believe 9/11 was thought out and prepared for, well in advance, and was the result of a conspiracy engineered by high placed Americans interested in creating a 'reason' for eliminating low-priced Iraqi crude 0il from limiting the profits of OPEC

Except the Iraq war has nothing to do with 9/11. Haven't you been paying attention ?

The threat was known by the Administration, and could have been averted in a number of ways, including restoring Air Marshals on all planes, or by issuing an order for all pilots compartments to be completely sealed during flight!

Post hoc reasoning...

Also, whenever contact is lost with pilots, remote control devices could be used to overide in-plane controls, to defend against this type occurrence!

Please stop inventing technologies to support your wild fantasies. Thank you.

Also as ABSOLUTE method of averting a threatened 9/11 type event, THE GROUNDING ALL PLANES would have saved (200,000) TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND LIVES! OR MORE TO COME?

Of course, that's all assuming that they knew. Which they didn't. Unless you can prove otherwise. But then you did say it was a "belief".

[Big Al]

Chris, you never did give the slightest explanation of:

a) Why on Earth the relevant authorities ordained that the WTC should be wired for demolition 35 years ago, before Saddam, before bin Laden, before the Taleban... just in case it would come in handy, perhaps?

b) Why they made such a big deal of the steel core if it's so impossible. All you've done is to hint that they said there was a steel core because, some time in the future when it might become necessary to blow the buildings, people like you might ask where all the concrete went. Just a leetle paranoid?

c) Why they didn't blow the building in 1993 after the van bomb? Souinds like a perfect excuse to me, if you're just itching to blow up two of NYC's prime architectural achievements.

d) Why didn't they blow the buildings as soon as the airliners hit, rather than waiting over an hour for practically every TV camera and flying eye in the country to converge on the scene?

Still, I know you'll valiantly and cogently answer each of these just as diligently as you have in the past - i.e. ignore them.

[Gravy]

People, Chris is ill. Have you noticed that he is now responding to posts made in May?

I don't think anyone here would taunt a mentally ill person on the street day after day after day, but that's what's happening in this forum. I'm begging you to stop this.

[Loss Leader]

I'm gonna regret this, but ...

All those posting obfuscations here ARE interfering with my rights to free speech. An aspect of free speech says they have the right to. My right says I can sue them for it Civily but we have no courts that will uphold these rights on this level so that is a joke and they know it.

The only entity that must respect your right to free speech is the government. No private citizen may be held liable for violating one's rights to free speech, only the government. Since the JREF forum is not a government website and the people on it are not government employees acting on color of their authority, you have no civil suit. It's not just that courts won't uphold your rights, it is that the thing you claim is not a right at all. There is no such thing as private citizens interfering with free speech. It does not exist.

Once again, you are seeing the world through remarkably paranoid eyes. This is not normal. I know it seems normal to you, but that is because the organ that is thinking about your mental health is the same organ that is diseased. Get help today.

[Darat]

....snip...

All those posting obfuscations here ARE interfering with my rights to free speech. An aspect of free speech says they have the right to. My right says I can sue them for it Civily but we have no courts that will uphold these rights on this level so that is a joke and they know it. I've already established that they have no interest in a lawful government so why should they endeavor to be lawful citizens.

Please, feel free to discuss more if you so chose.

...snip...



Christophera your statement is silly; Membership here is not a right it is solely at the discretion of the JREF. What you are allowed to say here (that does not breach a law) is entirely up to the JREF. They could tomorrow say that all Members here can only discuss pink blancmange and that would not be any infringement of any rights.

I have been lenient in regards to accusations that you are in fact spamming with this thread (which would be against the Forum rules), however if you continue to "bump" this thread by replying to posts from as far back as May and just adding the same information, links and so on that you were in May I will consider that you are spamming the Forum and take appropriate action.

[Christophera]

Chris,

We are talking about the North tower, not the South tower. Please pay attention.

Show me RAW evidence of the North tower's concrete core at elevation in demo photos. After all, that is the evidence you demand of us to prove steel core columns.

Sorry I missed answering this. So many nonsense posts do make it hard to find the quality questions.

To the left of the spire is the concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg). Here is the annotated zoomed image (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif)

[Christophera]

I seem to recall that Chris claimed that the alleged concrete core was poured seven stories behind construction. Take a look at this picture here (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v450/Henkie54/Amsterdam%20update%20pics/2004_080101-08-20040027.jpg)
I haven't seen it in this thread before. Can anyone back up my assertion that this shows construction more than seven stories high on BOTH towers and yet no sign of a concrete core yet? Is it possibly the "smoking gun" to Chris' ficticious construction plan? It could well be...

That does not even appear to be the WTC.

The concrete core is very visible during the demoliton.

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

[Belz...]

The public can view without registering. Many wonder how 2, 1300 foot towers could fall at near free fall, nearly identically to the ground.

They can wonder all they want.

[Christophera]

They can wonder all they want.

So you do not believe they should have a realistic explanaton for rates of fall near free fall available without digging through hundreds of threads. Then they do this to find that the one explanation which exists has been purposefully hidden by colluding people who cannot logically, reasonably counter the realistic explanation and so work together to obscure what is logical?

You think this is okay?

[Andúril]

So far no explanation in existence explains free fall and total pulverization of the towers appears to exist. Has anyone seen one?
I didn't bother to read through all 260+ pages to see if this idea has already been seen here.

Just think where the collapse of the towers started. Did it start from the top of the WTC towers? No. It started from the areas that were damaged by the airplanes, reducing the distance to the ground from 417 meters to roughly 300 (WTC 2) and 350 (WTC 1) meters. During those 300+ meters of collapsing the upper floors of the towers were either crushed to smithereens, or they smashed to the ground, being crushed to smithereens by the impact.

BTW, a video of the collapse of WTC 1 quite clearly shows that, after 10 seconds from starting, the process has advanced roughly halfway down the building. So much for "free fall".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmBL2oYdXWQ

[Christophera]

BTW, a video of the collapse of WTC 1 quite clearly shows that, after 10 seconds from starting, the process has advanced roughly halfway down the building. So much for "free fall".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmBL2oYdXWQ

I'm satisfied with 16 seconds, near free fall. What is astounding is that it is clean to the ground.

I didn't bother to read through all 260+ pages to see if this idea has already been seen here.

Well, no wonder you're not happy, you missed a lot of cat pictures.

Just think where the collapse of the towers started. Did it start from the top of the WTC towers? No. It started from the areas that were damaged by the airplanes, reducing the distance to the ground from 417 meters to roughly 300 (WTC 2) and 350 (WTC 1) meters. During those 300+ meters of collapsing the upper floors of the towers were either crushed to smithereens, or they smashed to the ground, being crushed to smithereens by the impact.

Smithereens, ............. okay, whatever. Just seems like a label to me that accepts what is not explained.

There was a strcuture of a finite composition that came down. Its structural elements were critical to its ability to fall, what it looked like on the way down and what was left on the ground.

Way too many people (irrationally) believe there were 47, 1300 foot steel core columns in the core area. If what you say is true then many heavily bent, long core columns would be seen at ground zero. Or they would be seen bent and snapped.

Aerial photos show many straight steel column segments with square cut ends all the same length. That, ..................... will need an explanation.

Steel does not crush. Concrete does, but not easily, particulary steel reiforced, high strength concrete and the below imge shows the core of WTC 2 standing at 500 feet with NO heavy steel columns protruding.

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

Which means, logically, that there were no steel core columns and the columns seen at ground zero were from the exterior framework.

But around here, ............... logic?????, this amounts to counting beer bottles on the wall downward. Maybe that is what you missed.

[firecoins]

The only inside job on 9/11 was the airline jets into WTC 1, 2, the Pentagon and a Penn. field. And WTC 1 & 2 into near by buildings.

[Gamolon]

Ok, I'm doing some math here, so follow along and see if there are mistakes and or variables I am missing.

One of the tower's estimated total weight was 500,000 tons. 200,000 tons of it was structural steel leaving 300,000 tons for other materials. I have some dimensions given to me from Christphera saying that the inner core's two smaller walls were 17ft thick at the base, 2ft thick at the top and about 87ft long

I calculated one of these walls (wedge shaped) to be 1,130,652 cubic ft in volume. I took out the space that the 3" diameter rebar from top to bottom would have taken up. I used his 4' on center measurements for the rebar. I used a rectangle of 17ft x 87ft x 1368 ft to calculate the area taken up by rebar instead of the proposed wedge shape of Christophera's wall just to make it easier on me. The volume of the wall is actually more than what I propose.

I then used 148lbs per cubic ft for concrete (limestone/Portland mix) and came up with 167,336,496 lbs. or 83,668 tons of concrete for one wall. For two walls I get 167,336 tons.

So, what we have so far is 500,000 tons total for one tower minus 200,000 tons of steel, leaving 300,000 to play with. Now, subtract 167,336 tons to get 132,664 tons left.

I then came up with about 740 tons per concrete floor. I used 208ft x 208ft x .333ft (4 "). I then subtracted out the center taken up by the core. I got 10,002.69 cubic ft. Multiply that by 148 lbs. per cubic ft and you get 1,480,438.08 lbs. or 740.21 tons. I'm not sure about rebar displacement so I will use 700 tons per floor. 700 tons x 110 floors equals 77,000 tons.

132,664 tons from above minus 77,000 tons for the floors and we get 55,664 tons left.

We haven't even calculated the the other two, longer walls he is proposing nor are we yet calculating the two interior walls of the core he shows on his website.

Am I calculating this right? I've also seen totals of concrete used ranging from 90,000 tons to 110,000 tons.

Also, why would architects use a continuous wall of concrete of that thickness when the building would sway 3 ft.? Wouldn't this subject the concrete core stress fractures? I have also read that the towers were built to be lightweight because of their height. Why would an architect use the concrete structure proposed by Chrisophera?

Thoughts?

[Darat]

I am surprised that I have had to again to intervene in this thread despite my numerous previous warnings.

Let me make it clear if I judge this thread has been bumped for entertainment by anyone then they will be at least suspended or even banned.

And also note discussions or comments about Forum Management issues should be in the appropriate section of the Forum.

[William Rea]

Also, why would architects use a continuous wall of concrete of that thickness when the building would sway 3 ft.? Wouldn't this subject the concrete core stress fractures? I have also read that the towers were built to be lightweight because of their height. Why would an architect use the concrete structure proposed by Chrisophera?

I think that the fatigue that the concrete would endure from constant cycling by the winds around New York would also have an effect.

The "top hat" structure is the key to this building.

[Big Al]

Why would an architect use the concrete structure proposed by Chrisophera?

In an attempt to synthesise what has been said over the last zillion posts, as far as I understand it, Christophera's theory runs as follows:


The archtects and engineers soon realised that their proposed steel-cored buildings were physically impossible, and that only a concrete core would be strong enough.
For obscure reasons as yet unrevealed, they then recognised that this was an ideal opportunity to cover the now-necessary concrete's reinforcing rebar with C-4 plastique, in case on some future occasion they wanted to blow it up.
A documentary Chris saw in 1983 gave tantalising proof of this theory. However, immediately after 9/11, the authorities deleted every single record that the documentary ever existed.
However, at the same time they recognised that the resultant explosion would pulverise all the concrete, and that people would then wonder where it had all gone. They therefore stuck with the story that the WTC towers were braced steel structures.
When the airliners hit, the grey eminences on NYC clapped their hands and knew that, after a long wait of nearly forty years, at last they were free to blow up their pride and joy. They knew the airliner impacts were nowhere near bad enough to topple the WTC, so they detonated the C-4 via the phone network.
The lack of concrete found in the ruins and the large clouds emitted from the buildings as they fell proves the concrete cores existed, as does the apparent lack of thousand-foot box section girders from the core. The C-4 vaporised every trace of concrete.
It is now a matter of political urgency that the authorities deny the concrete core, as this will prove they blew up the WTC.I don't believe this is an exaggeration or a misstatement, but Chris' actual belief.

[Christophera]

Ok, I'm doing some math here, so follow along and see if there are mistakes and or variables I am missing.

One of the tower's estimated total weight was 500,000 tons. 200,000 tons of it was structural steel leaving 300,000 tons for other materials. I have some dimensions given to me from Christphera saying that the inner core's two smaller walls were 17ft thick at the base, 2ft thick at the top and about 87ft long

I calculated one of these walls (wedge shaped) to be 1,130,652 cubic ft in volume. I took out the space that the 3" diameter rebar from top to bottom would have taken up. I used his 4' on center measurements for the rebar. I used a rectangle of 17ft x 87ft x 1368 ft to calculate the area taken up by rebar instead of the proposed wedge shape of Christophera's wall just to make it easier on me. The volume of the wall is actually more than what I propose.

I then used 148lbs per cubic ft for concrete (limestone/Portland mix) and came up with 167,336,496 lbs. or 83,668 tons of concrete for one wall. For two walls I get 167,336 tons.

So, what we have so far is 500,000 tons total for one tower minus 200,000 tons of steel, leaving 300,000 to play with. Now, subtract 167,336 tons to get 132,664 tons left.

I then came up with about 740 tons per concrete floor. I used 208ft x 208ft x .333ft (4 "). I then subtracted out the center taken up by the core. I got 10,002.69 cubic ft. Multiply that by 148 lbs. per cubic ft and you get 1,480,438.08 lbs. or 740.21 tons. I'm not sure about rebar displacement so I will use 700 tons per floor. 700 tons x 110 floors equals 77,000 tons.

132,664 tons from above minus 77,000 tons for the floors and we get 55,664 tons left.

We haven't even calculated the the other two, longer walls he is proposing nor are we yet calculating the two interior walls of the core he shows on his website.

Am I calculating this right? I've also seen totals of concrete used ranging from 90,000 tons to 110,000 tons.

Also, why would architects use a continuous wall of concrete of that thickness when the building would sway 3 ft.? Wouldn't this subject the concrete core stress fractures? I have also read that the towers were built to be lightweight because of their height. Why would an architect use the concrete structure proposed by Chrisophera?

Thoughts?

The high tensile steel rebar was there for that purpose. Also, the concreete was poured mounded up in opposing corners to make a sawtooth joint and reduce the chance of a fracture across the concrete tube.

I could post more but an entire page disappeared, page 268. A really good answer to Willeam Reas question was in there too.

[Christophera]

In an attempt to synthesise what has been said over the last zillion posts, as far as I understand it, Christophera's theory runs as follows:

The archtects and engineers soon realised that their proposed steel-cored buildings were physically impossible, and that only a concrete core would be strong enough.

Correct, steel in the proportions of the towers flexes too much.

For obscure reasons as yet unrevealed, they then recognised that this was an ideal opportunity to cover the now-necessary concrete's reinforcing rebar with C-4 plastique, in case on some future occasion they wanted to blow it up.

Error and mistatement:
They, the designers had nothing to do with the use of the towerrs for those purposes. The owners (infiltrators of the government), hired an outside engineering firm that specialized in self destruct missile silos and sub bases for the DOD and they redesigned the core with C4 coated rebar.

A documentary Chris saw in 1983 gave tantalising proof of this theory. However, immediately after 9/11, the authorities deleted every single record that the documentary ever existed.

Error and mistatement:
The documentary titled, "The Construction of the Twin Towers" was aired on PBS channel 28 in southern California. I speculate it was removed from the archives at least a year, probably more, of PS and all other records of it deleted.

However, at the same time they recognised that the resultant explosion would pulverise all the concrete, and that people would then wonder where it had all gone. They therefore stuck with the story that the WTC towers were braced steel structures.

Error and mistatement:
It was decided that the preliminary plans,

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/masterplan/index.html

Robertson gave to Yamasaki to analyze loads with was, by default (infiltrators of the truth movement) put in place of "plans not available to FEMA"

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

When the airliners hit, the grey eminences on NYC clapped their hands and knew that, after a long wait of nearly forty years, at last they were free to blow up their pride and joy. They knew the airliner impacts were nowhere near bad enough to topple the WTC, so they detonated the C-4 via the phone network.

Simplistic distortions, generalizing not accounting for needed anonymity and planning. Attempts at propositional mental flitering.

The lack of concrete found in the ruins and the large clouds emitted from the buildings as they fell proves the concrete cores existed, as does the apparent lack of thousand-foot box section girders from the core. The C-4 vaporised every trace of concrete.

Here we see mostly sand and gravel.

http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg

And her we see no structural steel core, steel core columns.

http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG

It is now a matter of political urgency that the authorities deny the concrete core, as this will prove they blew up the WTC.[/LIST]I don't believe this is an exaggeration or a misstatement, but Chris' actual belief.

You at least got that part right.

but, ........

GOT EVIDENCE for the first distorted, erroneous mistatements?

[Big Al]

Correct, steel in the proportions of the towers flexes too much.

And concrete weighs too much.

Error and mistatement:
They, the designers had nothing to do with the use of the towerrs for those purposes. The owners (infiltrators of the government), hired an outside engineering firm that specialized in self destruct missile silos and sub bases for the DOD and they redesigned the core with C4 coated rebar.

This was mentioned in the documentary, was it? Or are you just saying this for the sake of sounding likeonly you are on the inside track? Why on earth have a self-destruct missile silo? If you want to wreck it, you just detonate the missile inside the silo. Where are these mythical James Bond self-destruct bases?

Error and mistatement:
The documentary titled, "The Construction of the Twin Towers" was aired on PBS channel 28 in southern California. I speculate it was removed from the archives at least a year, probably more, of PS and all other records of it deleted.

So you're speculating now, but all the rest about specialist build-for-demolition construction companies was absolute undeniable truth? Source?

Error and mistatement:
It was decided that the preliminary plans,

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/masterplan/index.html

Robertson gave to Yamasaki to analyze loads with was, by default (infiltrators of the truth movement) put in place of "plans not available to FEMA"

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



Simplistic distortions, generalizing not accounting for needed anonymity and planning. Attempts at propositional mental flitering.

Is this also speculation?

Here we see mostly sand and gravel.

http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg

And her we see no structural steel core, steel core columns.

http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG

Or mighty 3" rebar. What with all this structural concrete, filled with enough explosive to utterly,totally pulverise it into dust, it's a wonder the Towers didn't just sink into the ground years before.



You at least got that part right.

but, ........

GOT EVIDENCE for the first distorted, erroneous mistatements?

Christophera, I just posted the gist of what you've said, although I admit to some speculation, since you never answered simple questions like "WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU SPEND BILLIONS ON A MIGHTY PUBLIC STRUCTURE, BUT WIRE IT UP WITH EXPLOSIVES? WHY, IN THE 1960S, WOULD YOU THINK THAT WAS A DESIRABLE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE? WHY DID THEY NOT SAY THEY WERE BUILDING THE TWIN TOWERS WITH CONCRETE CORES?"

Still, you'll just ignore that, won't you? So I'll have to contimue to speculate on your behalf.

[Christophera]

Correct, steel in the proportions of the towers flexes too much.

And concrete weighs too much.

It weighs more than invisisteel. And concrete shows up in photos. The supposed steel core columns never do and I've been asking for an image of them from 9-11 in the core area above ground since the beginning of this thread.

He is what can only be concrete.

http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif


Error and mistatement:
They, the designers had nothing to do with the use of the towers for those purposes. The owners (infiltrators of the government), hired an outside engineering firm that specialized in self destruct missile silos and sub bases for the DOD and they redesigned the core with C4 coated rebar.

This was mentioned in the documentary, was it?

No. You've just made another error and mistatement. It was mentioned in the documentary that the plans for the core were not available from the Port Authority until 2 days before the construction on the core was to start.

And, while making errors and mistatemnts, you've presented no evidence for the core, FEMA and you say existed.

Or are you just saying this for the sake of sounding like only you are on the inside track?

Inside track?? The documentary explained about the PA taking over the final core designs after Yamasaki created the initial concrete, shear wall, steel reinforced core. I have a web site which explains what is very nearly free fall and the total pulverization of the towers. Logical conclusions are a part of expected analysis. What do you expect, some half a$$ed speculation? No way .... I go the distance to a full conclusion that fits the event using what I know.

Why on earth have a self-destruct missile silo? If you want to wreck it, you just detonate the missile inside the silo. Where are these mythical James Bond self-destruct bases?

Wow, .......... good thing you've not in a position of power in the DOD, you would irradiate a large piece of the United States. Conventional explosives are used because then the only radiation is the core of the nuke which just might survive meaning no radiation escapes. The trigger, external to the bomb core, the sensitive technology, is the technology which is to be protected by self destruction.


Error and mistatement:
The documentary titled, "The Construction of the Twin Towers" was aired on PBS channel 28 in southern California. I speculate it was removed from the archives at least a year, probably more, of PBS and all other records of it deleted.

So you're speculating now, but all the rest about specialist build-for-demolition construction companies was absolute undeniable truth? Source?

Just try and get a building to do what the towers did without building it to do that.

See this,

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

That is high explosives at work. You do not have the experience to know that but I do. I also know that only high explosives which are optimally contained and distributed will do that to concrete. Since the documentary told me there was a "special plastic coating" on the rebar, and also that the coating was flammable, it is a reasonable conclusion because of the image above, that the towers were built to demolish. You are the one using the words "build-for-demolition construction companies", I am saying there were welders with a security clearance working directly under the government agency that built the towers.


Error and mistatement:
It was decided that the preliminary plans,

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/masterplan/index.html

Robertson gave those to Yamasaki to analyze loads with. By default (infiltrators of the truth movement) put them in place of "plans not available to FEMA"

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

Not speculation Al. The documentary had that information about Robertsons preliminary plans as a part of the introduction to it.


When the airliners hit, the grey eminences on NYC clapped their hands and knew that, after a long wait of nearly forty years, at last they were free to blow up their pride and joy. They knew the airliner impacts were nowhere near bad enough to topple the WTC, so they detonated the C-4 via the phone network.


Simplistic distortions, generalizing not accounting for needed anonymity and planning. Attempts at propositional mental flitering.

Is this also speculation?

No Al, your "Simplistic distortions and generalizing" is absolutely for sure. And, you are intentionally trying to misapply my comments to your reply.

Or mighty 3" rebar. What with all this structural concrete, filled with enough explosive to utterly, totally pulverise it into dust, it's a wonder the Towers didn't just sink into the ground years before.

Your capacity for cognitive distortions is robust.

2. Over generalization: Single event is viewed as continuous.

4. Minimizing: Perceiving one or opposite experiences (positive or negative) as absolute and maintaining singularity of belief to one or the other.

[/QUOTE]Christophera, I just posted the gist of what you've said,[/QUOTE]

No, you have intentionally misstated, misapplied, rearranged and distorted what I said, and I've proven it.

although I admit to some speculation, since you never answered simple questions like "WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU SPEND BILLIONS ON A MIGHTY PUBLIC STRUCTURE, BUT WIRE IT UP WITH EXPLOSIVES? WHY, IN THE 1960S, WOULD YOU THINK THAT WAS A DESIRABLE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE? WHY DID THEY NOT SAY THEY WERE BUILDING THE TWIN TOWERS WITH CONCRETE CORES?"

Still, you'll just ignore that, won't you? So I'll have to contimue to speculate on your behalf.

Duh, the documentary was about the twin towers being built with concrete cores. It was stated everywhere that had that type of information on the core composition.

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

No, I don't ignore that. I use what you've posted to expose you.

I insist that you show you can work with facts and be intellectually honest before I address "WHY". You cannot, so you will remain in the dark about "WHY", because you are not showing you have the integrity to deal with facts showing "HOW".

[chippy]

Christophera, judging from the fact that you have now taken more than 10,000 posts to make your point, I can say with a great degree of confidence that you really suck at making a point.

Sorry if that offends you, but it's true.

[Christophera]

Christophera, judging from the fact that you have now taken more than 10,000 posts to make your point, I can say with a great degree of confidence that you really suck at making a point.

Sorry if that offends you, but it's true.


Dear chippy,

The irony of your post is astounding.

The fact is that there are 10,000 plus posts in this thread is not because of my lack of ability to make a point, it is because of the other posters ability to observe, utilize, respect or appreciate facts.

Your post proves my point. Thank you for making it so clear. I have made perhaps only 2570 posts in this thread.

If the other posters would observe, utilize, respect or appreciate facts, this thread would only be 500 posts.

Perhaps you should go back and observe the fact os the abusive posts in the thread. Count some beer bottles. Try some recipes, or enjoy the many kitty pictures as they post to obscure the valid evidence I provide.

The Twin Towers had a steel reinforced cast concrete core.

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

and, it was built to demolish.

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

[hcmom]

The fact is that there are 10,000 plus posts in this thread is not because of my lack of ability to make a point, it is because of the other posters ability to observe, utilize, respect or appreciate facts.
I've tried really hard to not make any more posts to this thread, but I just can't resist.

I know what Chris thinks he said, but what he actually wrote is amazingly factual...

[A W Smith]

Dear chippy,

The irony of your post is astounding.

The fact is that there are 10,000 plus posts in this thread is not because of my lack of ability to make a point, it is because of the other posters ability to observe, utilize, respect or appreciate facts.

Your post proves my point. Thank you for making it so clear. I have made perhaps only 2570 posts in this thread.




This means you have only 22 posts total in all other threads combined? Do you see any problem with that? Chris can you even name one other person that now believes that there were concrete cores in the towers? in a thread containing over 10655 posts what have you accomplished?

[Gamolon]

Dear chippy,

The irony of your post is astounding.

The fact is that there are 10,000 plus posts in this thread is not because of my lack of ability to make a point, it is because of the other posters ability to observe, utilize, respect or appreciate facts.

Your post proves my point. Thank you for making it so clear. I have made perhaps only 2570 posts in this thread.

If the other posters would observe, utilize, respect or appreciate facts, this thread would only be 500 posts.

Perhaps you should go back and observe the fact os the abusive posts in the thread. Count some beer bottles. Try some recipes, or enjoy the many kitty pictures as they post to obscure the valid evidence I provide.

The Twin Towers had a steel reinforced cast concrete core.

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

and, it was built to demolish.

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

Christophera,

I could easily post that same picture and claim it was a steel core covered in paper mache. That picture alone proves nothing. You need corresponding evidence to back up what you claim is in that picture.

How come there are no pictures, movies, drawings, or eyewitness testimony from the folks on the site to corroborate what you are claiming?

1. I have yet to see pictures of a wooden frame for the concrete core anywhere?
2. I have yet to see the availability or existence of 3" diameter rebar.
3. I have yet to see a clear picture of the core you claim existed.
4. Nowhere, in any footage taken of the construction of the towers, do I see or hear mention of a concrete core.
5. Your picture of the two towers showing the sun shining through from a distance shows no solid core. THE SUN SHINES THROUGH the building. You can see separations between what could be the elevator shafts.
6. You claim to see 3" diameter rebar from a picture taken from 7500' away. Impossible! There is no way that a human being can identify an object 3" in diameter from 7500'. What your telling me is that I could take that picture of the "spire", walk up to any structural field engineer, ask him what he sees, and he would definitely say "3" diameter rebar"? No way. As a matter of fact, I'm going to do just that. I'll see what answers I get. You must be GI Joe with the Eagle Eye.
7. I have not seen any drawings showing concrete core.

Am I correct in saying that the only evidence you have to back up your pictures is the supposed PBS documentary you claim you saw? Is that how you supposedly know that they used 3" diameter rebar and constructed a concrete core? Or do you have other proof that backs up what your saying? I looked all over the web for some hint of that documentary. You know what I found? Posts from you asking if anyone had also seen it. That's it. Are you telling me that the government wiped any mention of this documentary from the entire internet?

In summation, the only proof you have are a few distant, blurry pictures and a ghostumentary you claim you saw? Are you asking us to take your word that this PBS show actually aired/existed? Wow. That's pretty ballsy of you.

BTW, I saw a documentary on the twin towers also. They used balsa wood and staples. Funny though. The government must have gotten rid of it.

Stupid NWO.

[Gamolon]

Tell you what Christophera.

Here's a link to blueprint of the towers showing the lobbies and the elevators. Please show me or explain where your supposed 17' thick concrete core walls would fit?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/masterplan/docs/page07.jpg

[firecoins]

Here is a picutr of the lobby.
http://www.dwestudios.com/fwis_store/11x17print/lobby1.JPG

I am now totally convinced there was a concrete core. Chris was right the whole time. I don't know why I didn't see it. I guess because all the pictures showed a steel core but other than that... Chris is right. The only expainationwas C-4 was planted in the building during construction.

[Christophera]

Here is a picutr of the lobby.
http://www.dwestudios.com/fwis_store/11x17print/lobby1.JPG

I am now totally convinced there was a concrete core. Chris was right the whole time. I don't know why I didn't see it. I guess because all the pictures showed a steel core but other than that... Chris is right. The only expainationwas C-4 was planted in the building during construction.

Yes, it is clear to see how little space there was between the thick core walls and the perimeter columns.

http://misheli.image.pbase.com/o2/78/583378/1/52419073.wtclobby.jpg
http://www.newyork-net.de/images/WorldTradeCenter_Lobby.jpg

I've seen no images of steel core columns, so I'm unsure of what you are talking about there unless it is the constrcution images which are misrepresented. They show elevator guide rail supports protruding from the core area. If that guide rail was actually core column it would still be standing here.

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

and here

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

Post number 67 has a good explanation of the guide rail supports here,

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=72941&page=2

[Gamolon]

Yes, it is clear to see how little space there was between the thick core walls and the perimeter columns.

http://misheli.image.pbase.com/o2/78/583378/1/52419073.wtclobby.jpg
http://www.newyork-net.de/images/WorldTradeCenter_Lobby.jpg

I've seen no images of steel core columns, so I'm unsure of what you are talking about there unless it is the constrcution images which are misrepresented. They show elevator guide rail supports protruding from the core area. If that guide rail was actually core column it would still be standing here.

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

and here

http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg (http://home.comcast.net/%7Ejeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)

Post number 67 has a good explanation of the guide rail supports here,

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=72941&page=2

Were the elevators positioned outside or inside your supposed core?

[Christophera]

Were the elevators positioned outside or inside your supposed core?

The elevators were inside the tubular, steel reinforced cast concrete core. The main reason the elevators were so fast in the towers was becaues of the perfect alignment of the guide rail supports which were fastened to the inside of the concrete core walls.

There is a good description of the guide rail supports here, post #67,

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=72941&page=2

[Gamolon]

The elevators were inside the tubular, steel reinforced cast concrete core. The main reason the elevators were so fast in the towers was becaues of the perfect alignment of the guide rail supports which were fastened to the inside of the concrete core walls.

There is a good description of the guide rail supports here, post #67,

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=72941&page=2

Let me get this straight.

Inside the core correct?

Follow me here.

On the lobby floor. Where the concrete core walls would be the thickest, meaning 17' by your account.

Wouldn't there have to be a 17' long access corridor, cutting through the concrete from the open lobby to the elevator doors, for people to go through?

Can you also explain to me how your solid concrete core withstood the 3' sway the towers sometimes had without cracking or losing any of it's structural integrity?

[Christophera]

Let me get this straight.

Inside the core correct?

Follow me here.

On the lobby floor. Where the concrete core walls would be the thickest, meaning 17' by your account.
Wouldn't there have to be a 17' long access corridor, cutting through the concrete from the open lobby to the elevator doors, for people to go through?



204 x 204 inside perimeter, 80 x 120 core, inside, 2 foot thick at the top, 12 long axis walls at base, 17 short axis walls at base.

Long axis lobby

120+34(wall2 x 17)=154-204 =50/2=25 lobby width.

Below I would guess is WTC 2 looking south on the east side of the core in the afternoon.

Observe the proportion of the mezzanine that wraps to the right core end!!
Scale in brain. Very small by comparison.

http://misheli.image.pbase.com/o2/78/583378/1/52419073.wtclobby.jpg




Can you also explain to me how your solid concrete core withstood the 3' sway the towers sometimes had without cracking or losing any of it's structural integrity?

The high tensile steel rebar provided slightly better flexibility. Here is reabr standing after the concrete was blown off.

3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)

High strength concrete reinforced with that rebar cast with a minimal thickness has a decent amount of flexibility, the proportions of the tower demanded resilency (not totally rigid) with rigidity while supplying large resistence to lateral loads from loaded, flexing steel. The steel took the load and the concrete kept the steel aliigned without undue dimensional deflection from the loads present.

Very tough/strong structure.

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

[Gamolon]

204 x 204 inside perimeter, 80 x 120 core, inside, 2 foot thick at the top, 12 long axis walls at base, 17 short axis walls at base.

Long axis lobby

120+34(wall2 x 17)=154-204 =50/2=25 lobby width.

Below I would guess is WTC 2 looking south on the east side of the core in the afternoon.

Observe the proportion of the mezzanine that wraps to the right core end!!
Scale in brain. Very small by comparison.

http://misheli.image.pbase.com/o2/78/583378/1/52419073.wtclobby.jpg




The high tensile steel rebar provided slightly better flexibility. Here is reabr standing after the concrete was blown off.

3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/%7Ejeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)

High strength concrete reinforced with that rebar cast with a minimal thickness has a decent amount of flexibility, the proportions of the tower demanded resilency (not totally rigid) with rigidity while supplying large resistence to lateral loads from loaded, flexing steel. The steel took the load and the concrete kept the steel aliigned without undue dimensional deflection from the loads present.

Very tough/strong structure.

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

Ok, so I understand. The short axis wall at the base is 12' thick at the base and the long access walls are 17' thick at the base.

By your account, the elevators are INSIDE the core.

This puts the elevator doors almost flush with the inside of your concrete core walls correct?

I'll use the long axis wall for my argument, which is 12' thick at the base as you claim. If that is the case, then there would have to be a 12' corridor (opening) cut or formed within the 12' concrete core wall for folks to walk through to get to each of the elevator doors, yes?

So, my question to you is, should there be a 12' long corridor from the outside wall of the lobby, through the concrete core wall you propose, leading to the elevator doors?

There would have to be these corridors THROUGH the concrete wall on each floor also. These corridors would diminish in length because of the taper you say occur in the core walls.

So please answer my question.

[Gamolon]

High strength concrete reinforced with that rebar cast with a minimal thickness has a decent amount of flexibility, the proportions of the tower demanded resilency (not totally rigid) with rigidity while supplying large resistence to lateral loads from loaded, flexing steel. The steel took the load and the concrete kept the steel aliigned without undue dimensional deflection from the loads present.

Very tough/strong structure.

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

Let me get this straight. You're claiming that a 2' thick, HIGH STRENGTH concrete wall with 3" diameter rebar is able to "sway" 3' without the concrete cracking or failing?

[babazaroni]

Let me get this straight. You're claiming that a 2' thick, HIGH STRENGTH concrete wall with 3" diameter rebar is able to "sway" 3' without the concrete cracking or failing?

Gamolon, these questions have been asked many times in this thread.

Why are you repeating them?

[Gamolon]

Gamolon, these questions have been asked many times in this thread.

Why are you repeating them?

He's saying that the elevators were inside his concrete core. This puts the elevator doors almost flush with the inside of the concrete core wall. He is claiming that the wall is 12' thick. There has to be a corridor or cutout THROUGH the concrete to get to each of the elevators.

If what he is claiming is true, then any photo of the elevators should show a 12' long corridor passing from the lobby wall, through the concrete core, to the elevator doors. Does anyone have a photo of the lobby elevators?

If the photos show the elevator doors to be recessed into the wall like normal elevator doors (about 1'), then his core cannot exist.

Am I explaining this correct?

[Overman]

LOL @ Christophera'a pathetic existance.

[Gamolon]

The high tensile steel rebar provided slightly better flexibility. Here is reabr standing after the concrete was blown off.

3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/%7Ejeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)

How do you know that that picture is showing 3" rebar on 4' centers?

Please explain using the picture only as reference.

How do you know that picture is showing the concrete core?

Please use the picture only for reference.

I want you to see where I'm coming from. I didn't have the luxury of seeing the ghostumentary you claim existed, so all I have to go on is the picture you show and your word that the information you have obtained came from the PBS special.

[Jennie C.]

Gamolon, these questions have been asked many times in this thread.

Why are you repeating them?

Because he's new to the thread. And, in fact, I don't remember anyone's talking about the elevators. The people who rode them must have had some DRINK ME, since the shaft was only 2' x 2' by the time it got to the top floor.

[Big Al]

the shaft was only 2' x 2' by the time it got to the top floor.

Hmmm... that buggers up the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS then. Unless there was a single piece of this chunky explosive-coated rebar sticking up through a hole in the middle of the elevator like a sliding lap-dancers' pole.

Perhaps also the mythical mockumentary had a 20-minute section about how all visitors to the top floor of the WTC towers had to sign a non-disclosure agreement or face a $20,000 fine and ten years in jail for blabbing about the concrete core instead of the official steel core.

[Christophera]

Christophera,

I could easily post that same picture and claim it was a steel core covered in paper mache. That picture alone proves nothing. You need corresponding evidence to back up what you claim is in that picture.

How come there are no pictures, movies, drawings, or eyewitness testimony from the folks on the site to corroborate what you are claiming?

There are many people who know about the concrete core, they just do not know the core is an issue.

1. I have yet to see pictures of a wooden frame for the concrete core anywhere?

The interior box columns, (anotated image)

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg

Were the supports for the outer wood forms. The inner form was a breakdown steel form. The perimeter walls could only progress 7 floors over the top of the concrete core because cranes could pull hard enough laterally while lifting to damage the tower.


2. I have yet to see the availability or existence of 3" diameter rebar.

Put in a 20 million dollar order for some and see how long it takes to make it available.


3. I have yet to see a clear picture of the core you claim existed.

This picture is plenty clear within the process of elimination to show steel reinforced concrete.

http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG

now, if you don't want to consider it, that is another matter. Wherein reasonably you would be required to produce a similar type image type/quality to support the supposed invisisteel core columns.

4. Nowhere, in any footage taken of the construction of the towers, do I see or hear mention of a concrete core.
5. Your picture of the two towers showing the sun shining through from a distance shows no solid core. THE SUN SHINES THROUGH the building. You can see separations between what could be the elevator shafts.

You forgot the hallways, that is what the sun is shining through.


6. You claim to see 3" diameter rebar from a picture taken from 7500' away. Impossible! There is no way that a human being can identify an object 3" in diameter from 7500'. What your telling me is that I could take that picture of the "spire", walk up to any structural field engineer, ask him what he sees, and he would definitely say "3" diameter rebar"? No way. As a matter of fact, I'm going to do just that. I'll see what answers I get. You must be GI Joe with the Eagle Eye.

So, ............... you are saying we cannot see what we see and that what we know doesn't matter. Below we know that is about a 24 inch wide box columns called the spire.

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

Above is an interior box column which 24 (best count) ringed the core.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg]

The vertical steel in the center is much smaller and is elevator guide rail support steel. The reactangular shapes of columns and beans can be seen and compared to the framework of below the spire above.

Heres the back of the same object.

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

Then there is the rebar, which is so fine the camera does not resolve some of it. I work as a surveyor and can sometimes see pvc pipe with a 2.5 inch diameter at 7500 feet. Those are optimum conditions and there are many of them overlapping.

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

7. I have not seen any drawings showing concrete core.

Well I haven't seen any core plans at all, none for steel and none for concrete. But I did notice that nobody including FEMA has ever seen the plans.

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

And above, the mayor took the cities plans and hid them in his warehouse 3 months after 9-11.

Am I correct in saying that the only evidence you have to back up your pictures is the supposed PBS documentary you claim you saw?

By no means. The very fact I can interpret images consistently proves that I saw the documentary and interpret the images correctly. We certainly notice you have no plans AND no pictures and no consistency.

Is that how you supposedly know that they used 3" diameter rebar and constructed a concrete core? Or do you have other proof that backs up what your saying?

Of course there is more support for the concrete core. The scan of the Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992. The source has been removed showing academia's complicity.

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

Here it was done again, a recent 404.

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

I looked all over the web for some hint of that documentary. You know what I found? Posts from you asking if anyone had also seen it. That's it. Are you telling me that the government wiped any mention of this documentary from the entire internet?

Why would it be mentioned on the internet by many people? Do you think todays 9-11 people were tuned in to construction documentaries 16 years ago? Is there a reason for those who know about the documentary to immediately start posting on the web about the concrete core? Do they know that reason?

In summation, the only proof you have are a few distant, blurry pictures and a ghostumentary you claim you saw? Are you asking us to take your word that this PBS show actually aired/existed? Wow. That's pretty ballsy of you.

Wel you posted no evidence whatsoever and I've just posted tons, so I guess your balls are bigger.

BTW, I saw a documentary on the twin towers also. They used balsa wood and staples. Funny though. The government must have gotten rid of it.

Stupid NWO.

The balsa wood and staples is your argument, mine is concrete.

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8232/wtcsl8.jpg
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif

[Christophera]

Ok, so I understand. The short axis wall at the base is 12' thick at the base and the long access walls are 17' thick at the base.

By your account, the elevators are INSIDE the core.

This puts the elevator doors almost flush with the inside of your concrete core walls correct?

I'll use the long axis wall for my argument, which is 12' thick at the base as you claim. If that is the case, then there would have to be a 12' corridor (opening) cut or formed within the 12' concrete core wall for folks to walk through to get to each of the elevator doors, yes?

The elevators were only accessed from the inside hallways.

On WTC 1 there was only one hallway per floor. The next floor up the hallway went perpendicular. Above the 75th there were 2 per floor crossing the core each way.

This image shows one side of a hallway opening penetrating the long axis wall of the core wall of WTC 2 which had 2 hallways in each direction per floor.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg

[A W Smith]

The elevators were only accessed from the inside hallways.

On WTC 1 there was only one hallway per floor. The next floor up the hallway went perpendicular. Above the 75th there were 2 per floor crossing the core each way.

This image shows one side of a hallway opening penetrating the long axis wall of the core wall of WTC 2 which had 2 hallways in each direction per floor.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg

Chris no they weren't. I rode those elevators. I KNOW . I accessed them from the exterior of the core in the lobby. NOT through a central hallway. The elevators were recessed at a maximum maybe 20 inches from the face of the marble to the face of the door itself in the lobby.. if even that. And the photo you show above the mezzanine is the outside perimeter NOT the core. notice the chamfer in the corner. Chris I have been in those buildings. You haven't even been on the east coast all your life. get professional help.

[Christophera]

Chris no they weren't. I rode those elevators. I KNOW . I accessed them from the exterior of the core in the lobby. NOT through a central hallway. The elevators were recessed at a maximum maybe 20 inches from the face of the marble to the face of the door itself in the lobby.

Images show otherwise.

WTC 1 with no openings in the core wall.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/images/wtc_19aug2000_lobby.jpg

WTC 1 with one opening in the core wall.

http://www.francesdelrio.com/wtc/images/lobby_02.jpg

Above the slight taper of the core wall can be seen.

WTC 2 with two openings in the core wall.

http://www.bobbyshred.com/images/wtcinlobby1.jpg

if even that. And the photo you show above the mezzanine is the outside perimeter NOT the core. notice the chamfer in the corner. Chris I have been in those buildings. You haven't even been on the east coast all your life. get professional help.

The above doesn't make sense. All of the images were interior photos. You better post some images and clarify or Al will be more correct than he intended.

[uruk]

Great raw evidence interpretation Chris.

[Christophera]

Great raw evidence interpretation Chris.
homer, you're right. My mistake, hadn't awakened yet, not much sleep. What about the other 2 images smith?

[Gamolon]

Images show otherwise.

WTC 1 with no openings in the core wall.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/images/wtc_19aug2000_lobby.jpg

WTC 1 with one opening in the core wall.

http://www.francesdelrio.com/wtc/images/lobby_02.jpg

Above the slight taper of the core wall can be seen.

WTC 2 with two openings in the core wall.

http://www.bobbyshred.com/images/wtcinlobby1.jpg



The above doesn't make sense. All of the images were interior photos. You better post some images and clarify or Al will be more correct than he intended.

Wow!

You cannot be more wrong.

The first picture you post. Count the beams on the left to match the center of the wall on the right. I count about 10. Now look at the drawing at this link:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...ocs/page07.jpg (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/masterplan/docs/page07.jpg)

Count the black rectangles (outer beams) from the corner to about the middle. You get about 10 correct? That is a picture of the short axis wall, not the long axis wall with the elevators.

As for your second picture. Same thing. You can also see on the right a small portion of the glass railing that starts to go around the floor, just above the lobby.

You third picture was taken care of by uruk.

[Gamolon]

Hmmmm.

Looks like elevators on the outside of the long axis wall to me.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.dogboy.org/albums/roadshow/1109/images/DSCF0729.JPG&imgrefurl=http://www.dogboy.org/index_old4.html&h=480&w=640&sz=59&hl=en&start=33&tbnid=1s-O4B3GZTwj1M:&tbnh=103&tbnw=137&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dwtc%2Blobby%26start%3D21%26ndsp%3D21% 26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

[Gamolon]

Chris no they weren't. I rode those elevators. I KNOW . I accessed them from the exterior of the core in the lobby. NOT through a central hallway. The elevators were recessed at a maximum maybe 20 inches from the face of the marble to the face of the door itself in the lobby.. if even that. And the photo you show above the mezzanine is the outside perimeter NOT the core. notice the chamfer in the corner. Chris I have been in those buildings. You haven't even been on the east coast all your life. get professional help.

Thank you!

That proves my point. There would ave to be a 12' between the marble of the wall and the face of the door in order to go THROUGH the concrete core wall and get to the elevator doors from the lobby.

[uruk]

Here's my observations.

Notice the cue or "velvet rope" poles in the foreground of the first picture?
Why would they need to have people form a line like that to enter a hallway for the elevators?
The doorway where the people are standing is obviously the entrance to a confrence or venue room. There is probably some event taking place there where people have to line up and register or present a ticket to enter.

The second picture seems to be showing the short side of the core area.

[Gamolon]

By no means. The very fact I can interpret images consistently proves that I saw the documentary and interpret the images correctly.

Yeah. After seeing your previous 2 or 3 posts, I really have confidence in this statement.

So where are those 12' long corridors that should be there for each elevator going through your concrete wall?

Shouldn't there be some Christophera?

[Christophera]

Hmmmm.

Looks like elevators on the outside of the long axis wall to me.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.dogboy.org/albums/roadshow/1109/images/DSCF0729.JPG&imgrefurl=http://www.dogboy.org/index_old4.html&h=480&w=640&sz=59&hl=en&start=33&tbnid=1s-O4B3GZTwj1M:&tbnh=103&tbnw=137&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dwtc%2Blobby%26start%3D21%26ndsp%3D21% 26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

I see no openings. I see a tile wall face between intertio box columns.

http://www.dogboy.org/albums/roadshow/1109/images/DSCF0729.JPG

[Gamolon]

I see no openings. I see a tile wall face between intertio box columns.

http://www.dogboy.org/albums/roadshow/1109/images/DSCF0729.JPG

Really? If you click on the image to enlarge it, where are the people on the left of the photo going and coming from?

[Christophera]

Wow!

You cannot be more wrong.

The first picture you post. Count the beams on the left to match the center of the wall on the right. I count about 10. Now look at the drawing at this link:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...ocs/page07.jpg (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/masterplan/docs/page07.jpg)

Count the black rectangles (outer beams) from the corner to about the middle. You get about 10 correct? That is a picture of the short axis wall, not the long axis wall with the elevators.

As for your second picture. Same thing. You can also see on the right a small portion of the glass railing that starts to go around the floor, just above the lobby.

You third picture was taken care of by uruk.


Your link doesn't go to an image so your point is not made.


My point is made.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/images/wtc_19aug2000_lobby.jpg

No openings was my point

[Christophera]

Really? If you click on the image to enlarge it, where are the people on the left of the photo going and coming from?

If that were WTC 1 the hallway in the center would be about there and there is an extra dark area above the people far left.

[firecoins]

Chris, I have been in the WTC. You are clueless but you don't need to tell me that.

[Christophera]

Here's my observations.

Notice the cue or "velvet rope" poles in the foreground of the first picture?
Why would they need to have people form a line like that to enter a hallway for the elevators?
The doorway where the people are standing is obviously the entrance to a confrence or venue room. There is probably some event taking place there where people have to line up and register or present a ticket to enter.

The second picture seems to be showing the short side of the core area.

The below image does show a tapering wall. Undoubtly the long axis wall of WTC 1

http://www.francesdelrio.com/wtc/images/lobby_02.jpg

This,

http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/images/wtc_19aug2000_lobby.jpg

I agree is the narrow end of the core and not all walls were the same. The interior box columns were set with their wide axis paralell to the wall faces on the narrow end, so a vertical wall makes sense there. Notice that the near corner appears to intersects with a tapered wall which is consistent with the upper image.

[Gamolon]

Your link doesn't go to an image so your point is not made.


My point is made.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/images/wtc_19aug2000_lobby.jpg

No openings was my point

WRONG!

That's the short axis. There should be no elevators there.

[Christophera]

WRONG!

That's the short axis. There should be no elevators there.

Smith said there would be. I knew he was wrong.

[Christophera]

Yeah. After seeing your previous 2 or 3 posts, I really have confidence in this statement.

So where are those 12' long corridors that should be there for each elevator going through your concrete wall?

Shouldn't there be some Christophera?

homer showed I misinterpreted 1 image, I had very little sleep last night. Not a good day.

Nobody has shown that you could enter an elevator from a core wall face.

[Gamolon]

homer showed I misinterpreted 1 image, I had very little sleep last night. Not a good day.

Nobody has shown that you could enter an elevator from a core wall face.

Do you agree that there are elevators along the outside of the long axis wall, accessible from the lobby?

[Gamolon]

The below image does show a tapering wall. Undoubtly the long axis wall of WTC 1

http://www.francesdelrio.com/wtc/images/lobby_02.jpg

Nope. If that was the case, then the curved floor, which was open to the lobby below, would be shown.

[Christophera]

Do you agree that there are elevators along the outside of the long axis wall, accessible from the lobby?

This image shows there were none.

http://www.francesdelrio.com/wtc/images/lobby_02.jpg

[Christophera]

Nope. If that was the case, then the curved floor, which was open to the lobby below, would be shown.

We see no exterior doors and the perimeter column trees appear to taper to a point. That would be the 3rd or 4th floor perhaps, and the Mezzanine didn't extend there.

[A W Smith]

Chris compare the rectangular coffered ceiling panels from one picture to the next. Particularly how many column trees they span.

http://www.francesdelrio.com/wtc/images/lobby_02.jpg


I entered the elevator using the doors to the left. which is where THE PEOPLE ARE

now count the span of the exterior column trees that the coffers cover in the celling in the lower image.

http://www.dogboy.org/albums/roadshow/1109/images/DSCF0729.JPG

[A W Smith]

We see no exterior doors and the perimeter column trees appear to taper to a point. That would be the 3rd or 4th floor perhaps, and the Mezzanine didn't extend there.


chris that image was taken standing ON the mezzanine.


Chris the mezzanine level was above the plaza level. The level below that was the lobby or concourse level. Trust me. Ive been in those buildings. i get off the water taxi in the marina behind the WFC. I enter the Winter garden and escalate up to the pedestrian bridge. i cross the pedestrian bridge and enter the WTC towers at the mezzanine level. from there I had to take an escalator downstairs to the lobby level. from there to the long side of the lobby to the elevator banks on the exterior of the core. Do i have to draw a friggin map?

[uruk]

This image shows there were none.

http://www.francesdelrio.com/wtc/images/lobby_02.jpg

That cannot be a picture of the long axis of the core. Look at the distance between the core area wall on the right and the outer wall on the left. Compare that to the distance between the core wall to the exterior wall of the front lobby in the picture below.
http://www.dogboy.org/albums/roadshow/1109/images/DSCF0729.JPG

You need to make sure of what your looking at. So far your track record is not good.

[uruk]

Take a closer look at the pictures Chris.

[Christophera]

Take a closer look at the pictures Chris.

The image with the purple carpet is suspected of photoshopping and I only use it to show the wall. Besides, no point is made.

[Gamolon]

The image with the purple carpet is suspected of photoshopping and I only use it to show the wall. Besides, no point is made.

And it was ok for you to use the same image to make your point?

[uruk]

The image with the purple carpet is suspected of photoshopping and I only use it to show the wall. Besides, no point is made.
Say what!?!?! If you suspect that the picture has been altered in photoshop why use it at all? Any info it would show would be suspect. Even the wall.

What part of the photo is specificaly altered?

This sounds like a bad copout on your part Chris. You've been caught in in making several mistakes in interpreting these pictures and your trying to weasle your way out.

I'm calling you out on this.

The point was made in post # 10700

ETA: Oh and the is not tapered look at the colums on the left of the picture.They appear to be
slanting to the left as they go up.
The angles of the wall and colums appear to have a perspective distortion probably due to
the lense of the camera and the angle the photo was taken.

[A W Smith]

photoshopped ? to show what?


what about these?
http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/images/wtc_19aug2000_lobby.jpg


http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/binda/images/wtc/W01_Tower_2_Lobby_72dpi_Q10.JPG

[Christophera]

Say what!?!?! If you suspect that the picture has been altered in photoshop why use it at all? Any info it would show would be suspect. Even the wall.

What part of the photo is specificaly altered?

Here is the standard size,

http://www.francesdelrio.com/wtc/images/lobby_02.jpg

Here is a zoom up the middle, part of the person can be seen on the right. Observe the difference in the pixelation.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/lobbyphotoshop.gif

I'm not at all sure if it is shopped or not but that jagged pixelations looks suspect to me.

At any rate, for the purpose that I'm using it here, and I could find no other pixelated areas, the image is okay. I use it to show one opening inthe wall and a tapering wall.

This sounds like a bad copout on your part Chris. You've been caught in in making several mistakes in interpreting these pictures and your trying to weasle your way out.

I've caught you in so many of those I've lost count.

In the last 48 hours I've had like 11 hours of sleep, so it's not surprising I've misinterpreted ONE, not several as you intentionally exaggerate.

None of us can tell for sure which tower, which side we are on anyway. So the images are only useful for certain things.

I'm calling you out on this.

The point was made in post # 10700

ETA: Oh and the is not tapered look at the colums on the left of the picture.They appear to be
slanting to the left as they go up.
The angles of the wall and colums appear to have a perspective distortion probably due to
the lense of the camera and the angle the photo was taken.

I see your point about the lens used and the apparent outward lean of the vertical perimeter walls. Still the wall joining the corner on the right looks tapered in this image.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/images/wtc_19aug2000_lobby.jpg

By the cieling tile analysis you could be right that this is the narrow end of the core.

http://www.francesdelrio.com/wtc/images/lobby_02.jpg

Either way, I've made my point. The 17 foot thick core walls made the lobby at the end of the long axis very narrow, which is seen in the background on the right.

http://misheli.image.pbase.com/o2/78/583378/1/52419073.wtclobby.jpg

[Christophera]

That cannot be a picture of the long axis of the core. Look at the distance between the core area wall on the right and the outer wall on the left. Compare that to the distance between the core wall to the exterior wall of the front lobby in the picture below.
http://www.dogboy.org/albums/roadshow/1109/images/DSCF0729.JPG

You need to make sure of what your looking at. So far your track record is not good.

I agree that is the long side of the core.

This however is the narrow end.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/images/wtc_19aug2000_lobby.jpg

and we can see there is about 25 feet. And THAT is the only point I'm trying to make. Nobody here except for me even knows which tower the images are from and I only know this one for sure is WTC 1 because it has a single hallway into the core.

http://www.francesdelrio.com/wtc/images/lobby_02.jpg

I would say it is the east end of the core in the afternoon. A new yorker who was really familiar with the WTC could tell us which tower which face by the buildings outside. Without that, we are wasting our time trying to use these images for anything past what I've used them for.

[beachnut]

Have you written Robertson? The post you have of Robertson was faked and there is no concrete core. Someone was teasing you.

[uruk]

Here is the standard size,

http://www.francesdelrio.com/wtc/images/lobby_02.jpg

Here is a zoom up the middle, part of the person can be seen on the right. Observe the difference in the pixelation.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/lobbyphotoshop.gif

I'm not at all sure if it is shopped or not but that jagged pixelations looks suspect to me.

In the first picture you can clearly see the post and "velvet rope".
The bright light behind the person and the post has washed out the image a bit. Nothing wrong about that.
In the second image the soft ware you used to blow up the image has introduced Jpeg pixelation errors. There an algorythim in the imaging software that extropolates the pixels it has to add to get the higher image size. You usually wind up getting alot of errors in difficult area like a bad edge due to light blooms or washouts.

At any rate, for the purpose that I'm using it here, and I could find no other pixelated areas, the image is okay. I use it to show one opening inthe wall and a tapering wall. Only the wall is not tapering. The wall appears to lean due to the focal point of the lense being used. Cheap cameras tend to have a bad distotion because of the cheap lenses they use. Compare the angle of the core wall to the exterior wall. The columns close to the left edge of the picture appears to lean outward to the left. But toeard the center of the picture the columns are straight vertical. You can see the same thing on the core wall.



I've caught you in so many of those I've lost count. Don't get me started on your track record. You still haven't gotten one right yet.

In the last 48 hours I've had like 11 hours of sleep, so it's not surprising I've misinterpreted ONE, not several as you intentionally exaggerate. Sorry your having some long days but you've missinterpreted all three images posted sofar. you can't seem to tell which pictures are of the short side of the core or the long side of the core.

None of us can tell for sure which tower, which side we are on anyway. So the images are only useful for certain things.
Agreed I can't tell which tower is wich from the pictures but I can definitely tell which is the short side and which is the long side.



I see your point about the lens used and the apparent outward lean of the vertical perimeter walls. Still the wall joining the corner on the right looks tapered in this image.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/images/wtc_19aug2000_lobby.jpg Look at the wall toward the center of the picture. There's less distortion there

By the cieling tile analysis you could be right that this is the narrow end of the core.

http://www.francesdelrio.com/wtc/images/lobby_02.jpg

Either way, I've made my point. The 17 foot thick core walls made the lobby at the end of the long axis very narrow, which is seen in the background on the right.

http://misheli.image.pbase.com/o2/78/583378/1/52419073.wtclobby.jpg

But I believe the argument is that 17 foot thick wall going all the way around the core will leave insufficient space for the elevator lobby if the access was in the center of the core.
At any rate A W Smith was actually there. He should know where the access to the elevators were.

[Gamolon]

The following summation will prove Chris's core didn't exist.

Here is a link I have found (the same link Chris sent me via PM) that has some blueprints of the towers that have been scanned. You can click on each blueprint to zoom in:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...lan/index.html (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/masterplan/index.html)

1. A couple of the blueprints clearly show an outline of the curved mezzanine level, which is opened to view the lobby below. The open mezzanine floor curves around the long axis of the core and according to the blueprint scans. So, any picture showing a floor connected to the wall, is the SHORT AXIS WALL. Any picture showing the open mezzanine floor facing a wall is the LONG AXIS WALL. This information has been confirmed by A.W. Smith, who has been through the building many times. Also look at the blueprint in the second row, third from the left. You can see the outline of the open mezzanine floor.

2. One of Chris's contentions was that the elevators were accessible only through the inside hallway of the core. This is wrong. The blueprints from the link above clearly show elevators that are accessed not only from the center hallway, but from the LONG AXIS WALL also. Again, look at the blueprint in the second row, third one from the left. You can see the outline of the mezzanine level floor in which the floor's open face is situated along the LONG AXIS WALL.

3. Chris's misinterpretation of the three photos makes him suspect on what he is viewing in any other photos.

4. In post #10687, he says that my link does not go anywhere and thus my point is not made. That link was to an individual drawing contained in the link posted above. The same link he sent me via PM.

5. Based on the above information, Chris's contention that his photo of the "tapered" wall with the purple carpet is of the LONG AXIS WALL is wrong. This is proven by the fact that the floor on the mezzanine level does not connect to the LONG AXIS WALL. It connects to the SHORT AXIS WALL. In the purple carpet photo you can clearly see the start of the glass railing that goes around the open mezzanine floor. Look at the middle right edge of the photo. This has also been confirmed by A.W. Smith who had been through the buildings many times.

6. We have proven that not only did the center hallway of the core have access to elevators, but the outside of the core, along the LONG AXIS WALL, had elevators also. This is proven by the blueprints from above AND A.W. Smith's eyewitness testimony.

7. Now that we have all that straight, on to my main point, which I may add, I have not seen discussed before in this thread. Chris's supposed concrete core was 12' thick at the base along the LONG AXIS WALL. The SHORT AXIS WALL was 17' thick at the base. Both walls supposedly tapered to 2' at the top of the building. He also said that the elevators were positioned on the INSIDE of the core. To illustrate construction of the LONG AXIS WALL, the construction materials would be in the following order. Picture yourself looking at the LONG AXIS WALL on the lobby floor:

Marble wall exterior
12' Thick concrete core wall
Elevator doors (almost flush with INSIDE of the supposed core wall)

Now, How would a person get into the elevators on the LONG AXIS WALL if there was a 12' concrete wall between them and the elevator doors? There would have to be a 12' long "tunnel" or "corridor" cut through the concrete wall to get to the elevators. Well there is none. A.W. Smith said that the elevators were only recessed about 20". This point alone proves that Chris's concrete core theory is false. Absence of corridors on ANY floor proves his claim false.

So in closing here is what I have as proof that Chris's core didn't exist:
1. Scans of blueprints to back up any lobby photo used to show orientation of the LONG and SHORT AXIS walls.
2. An eyewitness account corroborating all my points.
3. Blueprints and an eyewitness account proving that Chris's statement of there being only access to the elevators in the center hall is totally wrong. Chris, your research skills are clearly lacking. You have no clue as to what you are talking about. Look how many mistakes you've made just in a few posts. How can anyone put credibility into what you are saying?

What Chris has:
1. Photos which he has INTERPRETED to be a concrete core. His sites a documentary to back this up, which conveniently doesn't exist.
2. In three posts, Chris has incorrectly identified what he was looking at. He blames this on lack of sleep. This brings his other interpretations under serious fire.
3. He was wrong about the only access to the elevators was in the inside hallway of the core.

Chris, your theory has been successfully squashed. Anyone looking at the blueprints and the photos together, and seeing the absence of 12' long (on the lobby floor and subsequent floors) corridors will see you are dead wrong about the core. It didn't exist. Period.

[bonavada]

My point about the absence of the corridors on the lobby level has not been discussed to my knowledge.

i think you are correct and you make excellent valid analysis. old heads of this thread know however, that if you expect reasonable responses from chris on any of the points you bring up, you should be prepared for major disappointment.
i was one who called for a boycott of this thread (READ HERE) (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=71851) because in truth, it had descended into a pillory for chris. a sideshow of the CT forum where people (including me) would pop in just to throw a couple of rotten tomatoes to raise a laugh.
you are perfectly entitled to pursue your questions with chris. no-one should badger you not to. though if you read that boycott OP i wrote above you might realise you are in for a long ride.
and if you are willing to stump up 20 bucks or so, "elevator world" magazine did an issue featuring the WTC elevator system. get in there quick before the MIB get busy with the old airbrush..........:-]

AND .......... are you a tom hanks fan? anyway take a look at a clip of this turkey about 3 mins in you see a perfect example of your argument :-

9IkuQouJqOA

BV

[uruk]

]

AND .......... are you a tom hanks fan? anyway take a look at a clip of this turkey about 3 mins in you see a perfect example of your argument :-

9IkuQouJqOA

BV

There you go Chris. Irrefutable, Raw evidence that the elevators opened into the lobby from exterior side of the core.

I guess the government though that noone would have remembered that film.

Thanks Bonavada. I've been looking for a movie that would show that.
I tried Trading Places which had a scene where Dan Akroid and Eddie Murphy walked up to the towers But I don't recall if they entered the building in that film. I'll have to look.

[Gamolon]

i think you are correct and you make excellent valid analysis. old heads of this thread know however, that if you expect reasonable responses from chris on any of the points you bring up, you should be prepared for major disappointment.
i was one who called for a boycott of this thread (READ HERE) (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=71851) because in truth, it had descended into a pillory for chris. a sideshow of the CT forum where people (including me) would pop in just to throw a couple of rotten tomatoes to raise a laugh.
you are perfectly entitled to pursue your questions with chris. no-one should badger you not to. though if you read that boycott OP i wrote above you might realise you are in for a long ride.
and if you are willing to stump up 20 bucks or so, "elevator world" magazine did an issue featuring the WTC elevator system. get in there quick before the MIB get busy with the old airbrush..........:-]

AND .......... are you a tom hanks fan? anyway take a look at a clip of this turkey about 3 mins in you see a perfect example of your argument :-

9IkuQouJqOA

BV

THAT was beautiful my friend. That was actually my next step. To find footage in a movie of the elevator doors.

No 12' tunnel leading through the concrete to the elevator doors. The doors are pretty much recessed only a foot or so. Now we have video footage to add.

Chris. You and your crazy theory have thoroughly been proven false. After the myriad of blueprints, photos, eyewitness testimony, and now video to prove my point, all you can come up with is a ghostumentary and about 5, self interpreted, photos with no other corroborating evidence.

You're done.

Be sure to direct any of your followers who believe your nonsense to this very thread so they may see the comparison of what you bring to the table as evidence and to see how many times you've had to backpedal because you "misinterpreted" photos. Nice track record for a researcher. Your evidence PALES in comparison to what we have compiled.

Do you honestly think that if we selected a panel of folks and presented them with your evidence, then with ours, that you would win them over?

:eye-poppi

One last thing. I came here with the sole intention of proving you wrong about the concrete core with my tunnel/corridor arguement, not to prove that there was a steel core. Get that through your skull.

[bonavada]

Now we have video footage to add.


* ADDED..........

firstly, christophera states:-
that he has experience in many fields of construction (although not qualified in any)
that he HAS NOT and WILL NOT read the NIST report
that the "official core" cannot have existed because steel flexes too much when in the proportions of the towers (he cites the case of the tacoma bridge collapse to "prove" this)
that anyone who disagrees with him must be "disinfo" and support the murders of "3000 americans" or has been hypnotised by the government
that NOTHING will convince him that the towers did not have a concrete core

christopheras theory hinges on information from:-
an untraceable documentary
an untraceable book
an untraceable magazine article
an untraceable (amnesic) mohawk

the use of:-
highly compressed altered and inconclusive images
highly erroneous and crude diagrams
highly selective quotes from mike pecararo
highly selective quotes from willy rodriguez
highly selective quotes from phillip morelli
highly dubious quotes from tony jebson
highly plagarised prof steven jones theories

christophera has been shown to be wrong about :-
his definition of "raw-evidence"
his "total pulverisation of the towers"
his "free-fall of the towers"
his "mohawk saboteur"
his "c4 coated rebar"
his "erroneous bbc diagram"
his "explosions in the basement"
his "molten metal in the basement"
his "reinforced concrete walls in basement"
his "the wrong tower fell first"
his "the tops of the towers fell the wrong way"
his "firefighters discussing controlled demolition"
his "powerdown of the WTC"
his "april fool robertson message"
his "17 foot thick concrete core wall at the base" *

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

christophera cannot adequately explain (if his theories are correct):-
why there is no sound of thousands of explosions during WTC collapses
why there are no pictures of the concrete core during construction
why there is a lack of whistle-blowers (first responders, mohawks, welders, concreters, carpenters, PA employees, union officials, architects, US government employees etc etc.....)

finally................
why would the US government plan 30 years ahead to destroy the WTC?????

TIME TO CALL IT A DAY CHRIS!

BV

[Big Al]

Or how you can slurry C-4 and leave it just as potent
Or how C-4, with a storage life of ten years in the most perfect conditions can be relied upon to work right on cue after being allowed to simmer in a wet marinade of concrete for 30 years

[Christophera]

Have you written Robertson? The post you have of Robertson was faked and there is no concrete core. Someone was teasing you.

I have a link to the post.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3108&view=findpost&p=78752

Let people decide for themselves who is teasing who.

I can prove the concrete core and I post my proof.

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

You have no proof of anything, deniers of the concrete core typically have none. Personally I think the post which is posted in the name of Leslie Robertson, is Leslie Robertson. It makes sense.

Sorry, I know you find logic offensive, but again, you have no proof.

[Big Al]

Let people decide for themselves who is teasing who.

They have, and you have all but called them idiots.

I can prove the concrete core and I post my proof.

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

Chris, please believe me (and I think I speak for just about everyone else here), that I genuinely cannot see a concrete core in that frequently-posted link. I see a cloud of smoke and dust. That's it. Can you please not bother to show that picture, "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" or "3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS'" yet again for the millionth time. They have not convinced anyone. You need some new and more persuasive material.

You have no proof of anything, deniers of the concrete core typically have none.

If all you have is those blurry JPEGs of dust clouds, neither do you, Chris. Sorry, mate.

Personally I think the post which is posted in the name of Leslie Robertson, is Leslie Robertson. It makes sense.

Sorry, I know you find logic offensive, but again, you have no proof.

Pop quiz, Chris: what is more likely?

a) That Leslie Robinson, the man who is presumably sworn to secrecy on this dreadful conspiracy, has posted under his own name what amounts to official heresy, presumably condemning him to summary execution by some convenient accident?
b) That some anonymous poster is having fun by appending Robinson's name to a piece of muck-stirring nonsense?

If you think a) is more probable than b), I'm afraid you're in no condition to preach about logic to the rest of us!

[Christophera]

The apparent differences in pixel patterns, and washed out areas are perfcet for hiding those kinds of splices from what I can see there, amke me think,

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/lobbyphotoshop.gif

This one is photoshopped as proportionately the lobby width looks larger than this one.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/images/wtc_19aug2000_lobby.jpg

and the confusion about which was which began there.


Agreed I can't tell which tower is wich from the pictures but I can definitely tell which is the short side and which is the long side.

I can tell too, but hadn't decided how exactly be consistent with that, besides the apparent narrowness of the lobby, to tell which was which or the confusion mentioned above.



I see your point about the lens used and the apparent outward lean of the vertical perimeter walls. Still the wall joining the corner on the right looks tapered in this image.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/images/wtc_19aug2000_lobby.jpg

By the cieling tile analysis you could be right that this is the narrow end of the core.

http://www.francesdelrio.com/wtc/images/lobby_02.jpg

Either way, I've made my point. The 17 foot thick core walls made the lobby at the end of the long axis very narrow, which is seen in the background on the right.

http://misheli.image.pbase.com/o2/78/583378/1/52419073.wtclobby.jpg



But I believe the argument is that 17 foot thick wall going all the way around the core

The long axis wall was only 12 feet and that dimension is outside the 80 x 120 core interior.

will leave insufficient space for the elevator lobby if the access was in the center of the core.
At any rate A W Smith was actually there. He should know where the access to the elevators were.

Above you apply the 17 feet as if it would make the core interior smaller when it makes the exterior space, the lobby areas smaller.

There were entire floors devoted to "elevator lobbies". Aside from that the core hallways acted as such on each floor. They were farily wide.

We have not seen any image of the ground floor which shows direct elevator access through the outside of the core wall despite what smith says.

WTC 2 had 2 hallways in each direction and they were quite which could create the "lobby feel" and give the impressson that elevators were accessed from outside core walls when in fact the elevators were accessed from inside the core only.

[Christophera]

2. One of Chris's contentions was that the elevators were accessible only through the inside hallway of the core. This is wrong. The blueprints from the link above clearly show elevators that are accessed not only from the center hallway, but from the LONG AXIS WALL also. Again, look at the blueprint in the second row, third one from the left. You can see the outline of the mezzanine level floor in which the floor's open face is situated along the LONG AXIS WALL.


The blue prints scanned were not used for construction. Look at the date. Also note the steel columned core is not detailed in any way. It was never designed, only conceived and the elevator access possible with it was not possible with a concrete core.

[Gamolon]

WTC 2 had 2 hallways in each direction and they were quite which could create the "lobby feel" and give the impressson that elevators were accessed from outside core walls when in fact the elevators were accessed from inside the core only.

Wrong again. That's not what the blueprints show that I link to. One central hallway with elevator access. Access also on the outside core.

You're done.

You know what's funny Chris? You've failed to convince ANYONE of your theories. I've read many of the other forums and you have nobody but yourself on your side. Nobody is taking your side. You're alone on this.

That's proof in itself that your "evidence" stinks.

Keep posting your three pictures. As the past dictates, they'll convert nobody and you'll still be by yourself with your own beliefs.

[Christophera]

i think you are correct and you make excellent valid analysis. old heads of this thread know however, that if you expect reasonable responses from chris on any of the points you bring up, you should be prepared for major disappointment.
i was one who called for a boycott of this thread (READ HERE) (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=71851) because in truth, it had descended into a pillory for chris. a sideshow of the CT forum where people (including me) would pop in just to throw a couple of rotten tomatoes to raise a laugh.
you are perfectly entitled to pursue your questions with chris. no-one should badger you not to. though if you read that boycott OP i wrote above you might realise you are in for a long ride.
and if you are willing to stump up 20 bucks or so, "elevator world" magazine did an issue featuring the WTC elevator system. get in there quick before the MIB get busy with the old airbrush..........:-]

AND .......... are you a tom hanks fan? anyway take a look at a clip of this turkey about 3 mins in you see a perfect example of your argument :-

9IkuQouJqOA

BV

The only hint of an elevator entrance from the lobby begins at 5:03 where people appear standing by stainless steel relived areas. No one is seen walking in and out of the relieved area.

At 4:08 two areas shown, spaced wide as would be the hallways, taken in a shot from the mezzanine down, appear to have people entering and exiting.

At the following times in the video the reflections of stainless elevator doors, other elevator doors across the core hallway in the sky lobby can be seen. If the elevators faced the perimeter walls, the perimeter box columns and windows would be seen.

2:50
2:39
2:27

At 2:15 the elevator doors open and the hallway is visible outside, not the perimeter walls.

Another case of misinterpretation.

[Christophera]

Wrong again. That's not what the blueprints show that I link to. One central hallway with elevator access. Access also on the outside core.

You're done.

You know what's funny Chris? You've failed to convince ANYONE of your theories. I've read many of the other forums and you have nobody but yourself on your side. Nobody is taking your side. You're alone on this.

That's proof in itself that your "evidence" stinks.

Keep posting your three pictures. As the past dictates, they'll convert nobody and you'll still be by yourself with your own beliefs.

The blueprints you are using are absolete and it is well known that FEMA never accessed the real ones.

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

The NYC mayor took the cities WTC documents and put thim in his warehouse and courts will not force their return.

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

[A W Smith]

We have not seen any image of the ground floor which shows direct elevator access through the outside of the core wall despite what smith says.

WTC 2 had 2 hallways in each direction and they were quite which could create the "lobby feel" and give the impressson that elevators were accessed from outside core walls when in fact the elevators were accessed from inside the core only.

Video from the tom hanks movie was posted which shows exactly how I entered the elevators from outside the core

The blue prints scanned were not used for construction. Look at the date. Also note the steel columned core is not detailed in any way. It was never designed, only conceived and the elevator access possible with it was not possible with a concrete core.

I never entered any hallway. standing at the elevator door and exiting you only had to look up to see the the perimeter column trees and widows to the outside over the setback mezzanine above. Sadly i took very few pictures as I thought the trade center would be there as long as i lived. In fact I thought it silly when my wife took a picture of me standing under the doors on the east side to the escalators which went to the shopping concourse below under the trade center sign. I also have a few pictures taken from windows on the world but they are only prints which need to be scanned.

[Architect]

How the hell is this thread still alive?

Chris, did you ever get a reply from Beverly Ballin Smith or Denys Pringle?

[Christophera]

Video from the tom hanks movie was posted which shows exactly how I entered the elevators from outside the core

I explain what is seen in the movie here. There is no shot showing that.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2308814#post2308814

I never entered any hallway. standing at the elevator door and exiting you only had to look up to see the the perimeter column trees and widows to the outside over the setback mezzanine above.

Excuse me, "you only had to look up". You would have to turn around also.

The Hanks movie does NOT show people going in and out of elevators on the core face. At 4:08 a segment starts that is as close as it gets to what you are saying and the people appear to be coming and entering a hallway on the long side of the WTC 2 core which had 2 hallways in each direction. The last of the video shows they are in tower 2.

At 4:58 a few seconds where people are standing in front of a stainless relieved area does not show them going in or others coming out.

MY POINT IS THERE IS ONLY 25 FEET BETWEEN THE CORE AND PERIMETER

[Big Al]

I hang my head in shame. I'm sorry, Chris: I really thought you were going to listen to all this new stuff from someone who really visited the WTC.

Instead, you just tell him he's a liar. I thought even you were beyond that knee-jerk reacton.

I'm sorry I ever thought you would listen to reason.

I also apologise to all those who demanded that this thread be killed: you were right.

Chris, I'm not quitting because you have conviced me of your delusion: I want to make that clear. I am not a member of the U.S. Government, the New World Order or the Secret Service. I am not even a U.S. citizen. I have no vested interest in keeping secret the supposed U.S. government conspiracy to kill 3,000 innocent people in order to justify a was that was going to happen anyway.

The ONE THING I wanted you to offer was a sensible reason for why the Port Authority or whoever decided in THE MID-SIXTIES that it was a good idea to line the buildings with C-4 so they could blow it up thirty years later.

You have never answered that, and I see you never, ever will. There IS no answer to that: it's a ridiculous premise.

I will continue to follow this thread in the vain hope that reason will prevail: however, this is my last post here.

Vale, Christophera. I promise you I don't hate you; I hope you find peace and tranquility in your life: you need it. If you are prepared to believe that I (as a non-U.S. citizen) am not complicit in a vast U.S. goverment plan to deceive the shocked American people, them please give me a P.M.

[A W Smith]

Chris all you have to do is count the exterior column trees which are tridents at the top with the forks 40" o/c. That makes 40"X3=10' o/c including the space between them. Notice there are 6 of them in the hanks long shot. Sorry chris that equals 60 feet to the core from the exterior wall. Fine if you think I am lying. I have no need to. I was there. I rode the elevators. Being as I have been in the construction industry all my adult life I tend to notice details. Sorry you don't believe me.

[jsfisher]

Just an FYI: The movie, The Number 23, comes out this month.

[Gravy]

How the hell is this thread still alive?

Chris, did you ever get a reply from Beverly Ballin Smith or Denys Pringle?That's how. :(

[Christophera]

Sounds like someone is purposly avoiding the facts.

Your a lost cause Chris. The video clearly shows people entering and exiting the elevators from the lobby.

Your pathetic. You've lost. You are lost.

You must cite the exact time you think you see this in the video or your words are empty.

[bonavada]

;-]


5yhL383OL6Q


BV

[uruk]

Chis look for the items I pointed out in the pictures below in the reflections on the elevator doors in the video above posted by Bonavada.

Face it Chris, You're wrong.

[David Wong]

Nearly 11,000 replies, nearly 200,000 page views.

[Christophera]

Chis look for the items I pointed out in the pictures below in the reflections on the elevator doors in the video above posted by Bonavada.

Face it Chris, You're wrong.

The features reflected in the doors of the video are different.

The point you are trying to make you are not making. Smiths recall is not supported by images.

Your efforts to change the subject fail.

The point is that there is a 25 foot wide lobby on the narrow end of the core as shown in this image.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/images/wtc_19aug2000_lobby.jpg

Not only do efforts to change the subject fail, no one in nearly 11,000 posts has ever provided a logical explanation for what this is, if it is NOT concrete.

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

[Z]

Not only do efforts to change the subject fail, no one in nearly 11,000 posts has ever provided a logical explanation for what this is, if it is NOT concrete.

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

Of course they have. It's the remnants of the steel framed core, choked with debris and dust, momentarily suspended in mid-collapse. Since the core columns were pressed upon by thousands of tons of falling buildings, all exposed core beams snapped and fell away, probably at their welds - known to any in construction as the weakes part of such a structure. What remains in this picture is, most likely, a portion of the steel framed support, as shown in all construction photos, with probably 20-40 feet of debris piled atop it - resulting in a rounded-edged flat shape at the top - and smoke and debris filling the spaces within; indeed, and with heavy smoke/dust all around it, washing out all observable details, further determination of what this is becomes nearly impossible. What it cannot be is, it cannot be concrete. Why? Because there are no photographs, videos, or other references detailing the use of concrete as a core construction material in existence anywhere. Because concrete on rebar, when the rebar is mounted on some kind of plastic coating, defeats the purpose of the rebar. Because a concrete core would have to be so thick at the base, it would take up enormous amounts of office space - which visitors to the towers have never seen. Instead, they describe open space, and a smaller core area, than Chris needs to have existed.

And it certainly cannot be C-4-coated rebar in side of concrete. Why not? C-4 could not have been used, as it has a shelf life, in sealed containers at optimal temperatures, of just 10 years. Inside of curing concrete, the combination of heat, moisture, and air would drastically reduce that lifespan - DRASTICALLY. C-4 in slurry form is non-explosive. C-4 coating the rebar would defeat the purpose of the rebar. A building experiencing swaying of even a few feet, with rebar coated in some sort of plastic/rubber substance, would flex far too much, allowing the concrete to crack and split. The concrete would have to be poured over the rebar directly, for the rebar to have the necessary reinforcing capacity. Otherwise, all you've done is created flaws in the concrete; flaws which, in any stress, would result in the total failure of the concrete.

This description - of the building core with mounds of debris atop it, choked with dust, smoke, and debris - momentarily standing during the total structural collapse, is completely logical and rational, and further, is consistant with the observable evidence which shows the building to be constructed with a steel core, rather than with concrete.

Sorry, Chris, but it IS a logical explanation. It is COMPLETELY logical, rational, and reasonable. It is also supported by the evidence at hand.

What is NOT logical is that this mound is concrete with C-4 coated rebar, which somehow failed to detonate during the initial demolition. What is NOT logical is C-4 surviving for more than twice its optimal shelf life while being exposed to air, moisture, and temperature ranges beyond its capacity to maintain its chemical consistancy. What is NOT logical is attempting to determined what happened, using low-resolution pictures taken a significant distance from the event, during the event, and making claims which are in direct conflict with all available evidence. What is NOT logical is clinging to a documentary which never existed, a book which never existed, a magazine article which never existed, and some speculative ponderings on construction and architecture based upon a layman/ditch-digger's level of knowledge. That's an awful lot like a local mechanic speculating about how the engines on the Mars Rover work. Worse... like the guy next door who's tinkering with his engine - but has no mechanics training whatsoever - speculating about the Mars Rover. At least the mechanic finished some kind of school.

I have tried hard not posting in this thread, because I do agree that it accomplishes nothing; but this repeated claim that 'no one...has ever provided a logical explanation for what this is, if it is NOT concrete' is simply a lie. A lie.

This statement is a LIE, Christopher.

It's time for the lies to stop, Christopher. If you cannot back your statements with clear, actual, real, tangible evidence, you should retract them.

Shall we start with this one? Obviously, a logical explanation for what that is has been provided - repeated.

Or shall we start with your lie about the PBS documentary? The one that doesn't exist in archives of TV Guide, of PBS's video records, or anywhere else?

Or the lie about C-4? Or the lie about the Oxford publication that Oxford never published?

When do the lies end, Chris?

Ignorance can be forgiven. Stupidity can be looked beyond. But this is simply lying.

Either back your apparent lies with actual evidence, or retract them. It's that simple.

[Christophera]

Not only do efforts to change the subject fail, no one in nearly 11,000 posts has ever provided a logical explanation for what this is, if it is NOT concrete.

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


Of course they have. It's the remnants of the steel framed core, choked with debris and dust, momentarily suspended in mid-collapse.

Easily said.

I noticed you posted no corroborative evidence or images from the towers moments of demise which show the supposed steel core columns.

Do this, or just be so much accusatory rhetoric.

I shall post another image showing concrete. Now you have two to logically explain because so far, you aven't even explained one.

Concrete shear wall supporting an interio box columns which is outside the core.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif

[Z]

Easily said.

I noticed you posted no corroborative evidence or images from the towers moments of demise which show the supposed steel core columns.

That's not what you asked for. You wouldn't see these superlong steel columns. They snapped apart and collapsed with the rest. As it is, tons of photographs exist at ground zero that shows the remains of the shattered columns.

And I don't need to post corroborative evidence or images. You asked for a logical explanation. I provided one. Deal with it.

Do this, or just be so much accusatory rhetoric.

Just as soon as you do the same for your imaginary concrete core, shown during the construction process.

How about it? Show me one - JUST ONE - image clearly showing any of the supposed concrete core during construction. Show me any of this alleged 3' rebar used during construction. Show me ANY of the forms in place during construction.

"Do this, or just be so much accusatory rhetoric."

I shall post another image showing concrete. Now you have two to logically explain because so far, you aven't even explained one.

Again, the lies. I've explained the first. That you don't like the explanation is irrelevant. It is a logical explanation, which makes you a liar.

As for standard image number 2: I see no concrete evident in those pictures. I see the remains of something steel - whether interior structural core column, or exterior support steel, I'm not certain. If anything, I'd call that an image from the demolition showing a steel support column in a state of collapse, and a ton of dust and debris. If anything, that seems to support the official story, not your imagination and lies. Your arrow that you think points to concrete, appears to be pointing to dust. Nothing more.

Sorry, Chris. You've been pretty much laid bare. Your lies exposed. Your imaginings revealed.

You really do have nothing left, Chris.

Still, since I'm posting here, I'm practically begging for you to agian, and again even, post your psychotic ramblings yet again.

But I've made my point, rather clearly now. Chris, you're a blatant liar. A logical explanation has been presented, and now you're trying desperately to move the goalposts.

Too late, numbnutz. Touchdown. Cincinnati 343, Santa Barbara 2.

[uruk]

The features reflected in the doors of the video are different.

The point you are trying to make you are not making. Smiths recall is not supported by images.

Your efforts to change the subject fail.
The reflection shows exactly what I pointed out Chris.
You denying the facts is pathetic.
You're simply closing your eyes and putting your fingers in your ears purposly ignoring the truth.

The point is that there is a 25 foot wide lobby on the narrow end of the core as shown in this image.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/images/wtc_19aug2000_lobby.jpg
Chris that is a picture of the mezzanine level. The escalators lead down to the elevator lobby.

Not only do efforts to change the subject fail, no one in nearly 11,000 posts has ever provided a logical explanation for what this is, if it is NOT concrete.

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

You are that one who is trying to change the subject here because YOU KNOW what the video is showing and you can't handle it. The video is proof that you are wrong. AND YOU KNOW IT.


Face up to the truth Chris. YOUR WRONG and everybody knows it.

[Christophera]

That's not what you asked for.

True, but reason calls for it.

You wouldn't see these superlong steel columns. They snapped apart and collapsed with the rest. As it is, tons of photographs exist at ground zero that shows the remains of the shattered columns.

Sure is blatantly inadequate that you didn't post any images of shattered columns from ground zero if there are so many.

Notice all the below columns are straight. To get tempered steel columns to shatter you have to bend them hard.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748454a8c1e46c64.jpg

Notice that the ends of most of those columns look like Sheared Columns. (http://www.parrhesia.com/wtc/wtc066.jpg)

[uruk]

True, but reason calls for it.



Sure is blatantly inadequate that you didn't post any images of shattered columns from ground zero if there are so many.

Notice all the below columns are straight. To get tempered steel columns to shatter you have to bend them hard.



Unless they break at the joining points

[Z]

True, but reason calls for it.


So you do concede, then, that a logical explanation for your picture was given, that did NOT involve a concrete core?

Thank you.

Sure is blatantly inadequate that you didn't post any images of shattered columns from ground zero if there are so many.

Nah - there's plenty of them. You posted one, in fact.

Notice all the below columns are straight. To get tempered steel columns to shatter you have to bend them hard.

No, you just have to stress the joints beyond their breaking point. No bending required.

(And what makes you think these were tempered steel columns?)

Notice that the ends of most of those columns look like Sheared Columns. (http://www.parrhesia.com/wtc/wtc066.jpg)

No, they look like columns that sheared at their welds. Pretty consistant with what we know.

Thanks for conceding! There's hope yet.

[Christophera]

How the hell is this thread still alive?

Chris, did you ever get a reply from Beverly Ballin Smith or Denys Pringle?

I had not tried Pringle but Smith never got back to me. I'm trying Pringle now with a crusader specific inquiry that should pique his interest.

[Christophera]

Of course they have. It's the remnants of the steel framed core, choked with debris and dust, momentarily suspended in mid-collapse.

Easily said.

I noticed you posted no corroborative evidence or images from the towers moments of demise which show the supposed steel core columns.

Do this, or just be so much accusatory rhetoric.

I shall post another image showing concrete. Now you have two to logically explain because so far, you aven't even explained one.

Concrete shear wall supporting an interior box column which is outside the core.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif

That's not what you asked for. You wouldn't see these superlong steel columns. They snapped apart and collapsed with the rest. As it is, tons of photographs exist at ground zero that shows the remains of the shattered columns.

And I don't need to post corroborative evidence or images. You asked for a logical explanation. I provided one. Deal with it.

A few assertions that are not congruent with evidence also having no evidence to support them is not logical.

DEALT WITH.

One can say what you said but the image does not have that appearance. I was reading through the thread earlier and cam upon a post where homer enlightened you about arc welding in regards to a question regarding welding around C4. If homer has to do that, its fairly clear your construction knowledge and practical experiences with the appearances of construction materials is pretty sparse.

Meaning that you might not know that the image I've posted above bears absolutely no resemblance to heavy steel structure.

[Christophera]

;-]


5yhL383OL6Q


BV

The reflections in the stainless doors of the above video at 32 seconds show closely spaced opposing elevator doors of the sky lobby not the wide spacing of homers image. At 28 seconds many doors can be seen as reflections fromthe opposing wall of the sky lobby which was inside the core area.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=5380&d=1170521745

What is being attempted, and it seems to be working, is a bit of confusion.

The below image does not show any elevator doors on the core face.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=5379&d=1170521745

homer has it annotated so but it does not and no entrances can be seen. Far left is one but it is a hallway. The spacing of the relieved, tiled areas between interior box columns is similar to the elevator doors inside the sky lobby and this is where homer and BV attempt confusion.

It's implied between BV's video and homers images that the reflections are the same wall face as homers second image. What we should be seeing in the video if homer is correct is only ONE ELEVATOR entrance in BV's video because the openings in homers image are much further apart.

The lights homer attempts to place as under the mezzanine are inside the sky lobby in the video at 21 seconds and again at 7 seconds. They are too close to both the opposing wall as well as the elevator entrances. There is s single elevator opening shown there but it is much closer than the 50 feet between the core and the perimeter wall.

If people are that easily deceived, well it is no wonder we're loosing our rights and freedoms at wholesale rates.

My point is that there is 25 feet between the perimeter walls and the narrow end of the core because there is a 17 foot thick wall at the base of the core. See the below image.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/images/wtc_19aug2000_lobby.jpg

here is the 17 foot thick wall at the core base with the interior box columns outside the core area. No columns are seen in the core area.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg

BV, smith and homer deceptively attempt to make people forget the obviousness of the lobby image above or the 25 feet by attempting to confuse people into believing the video shows elevator entrances on the outside core walls in the lobby. It does not.

[Z]

A few assertions that are not congruent with evidence also having no evidence to support them is not logical.

You're right - for example, your concrete core. Not congruent with evidence and has no evidence to support it logically.

One can say what you said but the image does not have that appearance.

It most certainly does.

I was reading through the thread earlier and cam upon a post where homer enlightened you about arc welding in regards to a question regarding welding around C4. If homer has to do that, its fairly clear your construction knowledge and practical experiences with the appearances of construction materials is pretty sparse.

Apparently, it's much better than your experiences, since you see a size of rebar that doesn't exist in pictures with insufficient resolution, for example.

Meaning that you might not know that the image I've posted above bears absolutely no resemblance to heavy steel structure.

It most certainly does - a heavy steel structure, combined with flooring and other building materials, under a state of spontaneous total structural failure. In fact, similar building collapse videos reveal still frames very similar - where core elements briefly remain standing, choked with debris and mounded at the top with debris from floors above.

Nevertheless, all evidence aside, all experience aside - my explanation is a perfectly logical explanation, and more logical than this being a concrete core that no one in the entire world admits to existing, and that logically could not have existed, given the knowledge of visitors and workers in the towers...

Your core is illogical, impractical, and simply refuted by the facts. Unless you can produce the images I requested - of any of the concrete being formed, poured, or cured during construction - then you have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

That's it, in a nutshell. No construction images showing concrete core = no concrete core. PERIOD. End of argument.

And, btw - digging ditches doesn't give you any more special insights about what a collapse looks like than any one else has. And that's ALL YOU ARE, Chris - a psychotic, paranoid, ignorant, unschooled asshat of a ditch digger, too stupid to realize how useless and wasted his life has been, too much of an ashole to keep a family, and too lazy and worthless to do anything useful about his beliefs.

Inappropriate remark removed.

Do not use personal attacks.

[Christophera]

You're right - for example, your concrete core. Not congruent with evidence and has no evidence to support it logically.


The notion that there were 47, 1300 foot steel columns is what is not supported by real evidence. Absolute evidence of images from 9-11.

You can produce obsolete plans from 1964, 2 years before construction started.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/masterplan/index.html

But it is well known that FEMA didn't have THE plans used for construction, no one did.

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

It is known the NYC mayor took the WTC documents and courts will not make him return them.

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

But your selective uses of information have you only using the bogus diagram (http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/femacore.gif) which CANNOT BE SUPPORTED with images of raw evidence from 9-11. Exactly the same images I use to show concrete.

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

Are you getting nasty because you know you are wrong?

[Z]

No, I'm getting nasty because I'm tired of talking to someone who's dumb as a stump and crazy as a Frenchman.

My use of information has been quite inclusive. It includes actual construction photographs, videos, and documents which detail steel core columns, not concrete.

You have nothing at ALL that accurately details concrete in the core. Your photographs from the collapse are inconclusive at best, and have other reasonable explanations. And now that a logical explanation has been presented, you're waffling.

I think it's YOU who knows you are wrong - dead wrong. I think you're finally starting to realize that grainy, poor-quality photos showing indeterminable mass are insignificant compared to the wealth of construction photographs, videos, and documents - as well as eyewitness accounts - that render your tales of concrete not only unlikely, but absolutely impossible.

Game, set, match.

So now, unless you can produce images of the concrete during construction, you've lost. PERIOD.

Checkmate.

[Z]

And, btw - digging ditches doesn't give you any more special insights about what a collapse looks like than any one else has. And that's ALL YOU ARE, Chris - a psychotic, paranoid, ignorant, unschooled asshat of a ditch digger, too stupid to realize how useless and wasted his life has been, too much of an ashole to keep a family, and too lazy and worthless to do anything useful about his beliefs.

Inappropriate remark removed.

Do not use personal attacks.

Sorry, Lisa - I shouldn't have called him worthless.

[Christophera]

No, I'm getting nasty because I'm tired of talking to someone who's dumb as a stump and crazy as a Frenchman.

My use of information has been quite inclusive. It includes actual construction photographs, videos, and documents which detail steel core columns, not concrete.

You have nothing at ALL that accurately details concrete in the core. Your photographs from the collapse are inconclusive at best, and have other reasonable explanations. And now that a logical explanation has been presented, you're waffling.

I think it's YOU who knows you are wrong - dead wrong. I think you're finally starting to realize that grainy, poor-quality photos showing indeterminable mass are insignificant compared to the wealth of construction photographs, videos, and documents - as well as eyewitness accounts - that render your tales of concrete not only unlikely, but absolutely impossible.

Game, set, match.

So now, unless you can produce images of the concrete during construction, you've lost. PERIOD.

Checkmate.

It's not a game. It was murder and it was 3,000 innocent Americans. It was our rights and freedoms. Sorry your gullibility extends so far to aquiese to nonsense in the face of such serious circumstance.

You have not been comprehensively logical. For the reason that if the steel core columns existed, they would be seen in at least one image of the towers demise, and they are not EVER seen. Those images were the last undeniable evidence of the towers existence.

I've lost nothing. You have lost all the construction images which do show concrete and it matters to you because you believe the lie of the steel core columns. I do not.

You have lost an ability to provide a realistic explanation for free fall as you have not provided an explanation for how 47, 1300 foot columns allow this. I have not because i know they never existed and now that concrete can be fractured easily to fall instantly.

Your loss is your lack of a tool to recover the US Constitution.

Your loss is exemplified by your inability to explain what this is if it is not a concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) wall holding up an interior box column.

[uruk]

The reflections in the stainless doors of the above video at 32 seconds show closely spaced opposing elevator doors of the sky lobby not the wide spacing of homers image. At 28 seconds many doors can be seen as reflections fromthe opposing wall of the sky lobby which was inside the core area. Chris look at the reflections 35 or 36 seconds into the video. You'll see the the reflection of the closely placed lighting fixtures and door way under the mezzanine walk way.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=5380&d=1170521745

What is being attempted, and it seems to be working, is a bit of confusion.

The below image does not show any elevator doors on the core face.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=5379&d=1170521745
Look at the picture I annotated below. Notice the sizes of the columns on the core wall. See how they alternate between thick and thin? Compare that to the video.

homer has it annotated so but it does not and no entrances can be seen. Far left is one but it is a hallway. The spacing of the relieved, tiled areas between interior box columns is similar to the elevator doors inside the sky lobby and this is where homer and BV attempt confusion.

It's implied between BV's video and homers images that the reflections are the same wall face as homers second image. What we should be seeing in the video if homer is correct is only ONE ELEVATOR entrance in BV's video because the openings in homers image are much further apart. Granted that the nature of filmaking and editing may have mixed up shots of elevators doors opening and closing on different floors. Seeing as the tower scene takes place on both the lobby, mezzanine, and sky lobby.
Also Chris, have you notice how deep the elevators are in the interior shots? It seems to be at least 5 to 6 people deep. It seems they would'nt leave the space you say there would be if there was a 12 and 17 foot wall of concrete core with the elevators opening in toward the core interior

The lights homer attempts to place as under the mezzanine are inside the sky lobby in the video at 21 seconds and again at 7 seconds. They are too close to both the opposing wall as well as the elevator entrances. There is s single elevator opening shown there but it is much closer than the 50 feet between the core and the perimeter wall.
Chris, you'll notice a second row of closely space lighting fixtures that are closer to the wall under the mezzanine walk way. I pointed them out in the picture below.

If people are that easily deceived, well it is no wonder we're loosing our rights and freedoms at wholesale rates. Well, people aren't being decieve by your lies and misinterpretations.

My point is that there is 25 feet between the perimeter walls and the narrow end of the core because there is a 17 foot thick wall at the base of the core. See the below image.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/images/wtc_19aug2000_lobby.jpg Sorry Chris, that does not show a 17 foot thick wall. It shows a facade which can be any thickness and set anywhere within the space between the core and exterior wall. You'll have to do better

here is the 17 foot thick wall at the core base with the interior box columns outside the core area. No columns are seen in the core area.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg Chris, picture does not show any concrete wall there. A higher resolution picture of this portion of the core has already been shown to you and posted earlier in this thread. Shame on you for trying to fool people. But then that's a tatic liars use isn't it Chris.

BV, smith and homer deceptively attempt to make people forget the obviousness of the lobby image above or the 25 feet by attempting to confuse people into believing the video shows elevator entrances on the outside core walls in the lobby. It does not.Chris, I pointed out at least two attempts by you trying to lie and obfuscate the truth in this post alone. Quit accusing people of doing what you are clearly guilty of yourself.
I think anyone reading through this thread will clearly see through your lies and obfuscations.
You've been caught, You've been proven wrong and mistaken throughout this thread. You've lost. The video drove the last nail through this coffin.
It's sad that you don't know it yet. Or maybe you are continuing your dishonesty.

[Z]

It's not a game. It was murder and it was 3,000 innocent Americans.

Yes, committed by extremist Muslim terrorists.

It was our rights and freedoms.

I haven't lost ANY rights or freedoms. NOT ONE.

You have not been comprehensively logical. For the reason that if the steel core columns existed, they would be seen in at least one image of the towers demise, and they are not EVER seen.

No, they wouldn't be seen. In video of three other controlled and uncontrolled collapses of steel structures, I also never saw steel core columns. Why? Because those columns shatter apart and are enclosed in the remaining debris.

This is one of those basic facts you cannot grasp - are not intelligent enough to grasp. When the collapse began, they stopped being 47 1300 foot long columns and instead became hundreds if not thousands of much smaller shards.

You have lost an ability to provide a realistic explanation for free fall

Even after admitting time and again that there was no free fall, nor was it near free fall, you STILL bring this up, again and again.

Stubborn, aren't ya?

as you have not provided an explanation for how 47, 1300 foot columns allow this.

It wouldn't - which is good, because the rate of fall was considerably less than free fall.

I have not because i know they never existed and now that concrete can be fractured easily to fall instantly.

No you don't. You know very little, in fact - demonstrated over and over and over again in this thread.

Steel also can be fractured easily to fall very quickly - and concrete won't even fall quickly.

Your loss is your lack of a tool to recover the US Constitution.

Hmmm... the Constitution is right where it's always been - maybe stretched a little here and there, but I have no problems with it.

Your loss is exemplified by your inability to explain what this is if it is not a concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) wall holding up an interior box column.

Explained already, dimwhit.

I see the remains of something steel - whether interior structural core column, or exterior support steel, I'm not certain. If anything, I'd call that an image from the demolition showing a steel support column in a state of collapse, and a ton of dust and debris. If anything, that seems to support the official story, not your imagination and lies. Your arrow that you think points to concrete, appears to be pointing to dust. Nothing more.

Seems like an explanation to me.

You're dissociating, Chris, because you know you're wrong, somewhere inside. You know you've dropped the ball. You lost, and you know it, in some strange way.

Your only move now is to keep spewing lies, ad-homs, false accusations, and appeals to emotion.

But as I said before:

unless you can produce images of the concrete during construction, you've lost. PERIOD.

Checkmate, as already pointed out.