Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers? [Archive] - Page 44

Christophera

5th February 2007, 11:32 AM

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.

homer, I see a man in a blue jacket with no refelction of lights over head at and around 36 and 35 seconds. At 32 seconds I see the lights of the skylobby reflected in the doors. This is easy to tell because the people on the far side are much to large and clear for the 50 feet distance you assert.

At 21 and 20 seconds I see the same lights and at 8 seconds I see them one more time.

What is more for your argument is at 8 seconds and it is more than the lights is the height of the ceiling. However, the camera angle is low which would allow positioning to look down the opposing hallway, through reflection, and across the lobby. As long as these possibilities exist, and they do, your efforts to use such images in this way is not acceptable when quality stills exist showing no elevator entrances.

Your efforts to change/avoid the subject of the 25 foot wide lobby below are noted.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=5380&d=1170521745

You can pretend to have proven there were elevator doors on the outside of the core when all quality still photos, intended to show the lobby and core walls do not show elevators, but that will not bode well for your integrity while I've shown very well there is only 25 feet between the narrow end of the core and the perimeter wall.

What you are really trying to prove you cannot prove so you attempt to make auxiliary points which would preempt my information and the redundant evidence I use to prove the concrete core. That evidence disproves the steel core columns. My evidence is robust consisting of many images which you and yours of the steel core have completely failed to explain from at least 2 perspectives.

Perspective 1: If what is in this image is not concrete what is it?

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

Perspective 2: How were the steel core columns cut to fall at free fall and to disappear from images?

The invisisteel club has NO EXPLANATION for these factors which absolutely must be explained if FEMA never had,

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

the plans and the NYC mayor took the WTC documents,

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

and will not return them. Actions that completely support exactly the deception you are adhering to.

Christophera

5th February 2007, 12:31 PM

So you do concede, then, that a logical explanation for your picture was given, that did NOT involve a concrete core?

No concessions whatsoever.

Not logical and the explanation provided was completely unsupported, which is reasonably very much required

Below is a classic example of manipulative, intellectual dishonesty.

Nah - there's plenty of them. You posted one, in fact.

Here is why. My post explains that the columns in the image are straight.

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

The intellectual aspects of dishonesty are demonstrated below. Exactly HOW, under these conditions do steel columns get stressed without bending?

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?)

I show what the interior box column ends looked like. The interior box columns did exist as the inside wall of the outer "tube of the tube in a tube" design. The outer tube was a load bearing steel framework and the inner tube was the steel reinforced cast concrete tube that kept the steel aligned in its maximum load bearing position.

In reality the ends of the columns shown in the link below are the ONLY ends I've ever seen for these particular columns.

Notice that the ends of most of those columns look like Sheared Columns. (http://www.parrhesia.com/wtc/wtc066.jpg)

Below, more intellectual dishonesty. Earlier ZD did not know that arc welding was how steel columns were joined. homer had to post and tell him.

No, they look like columns that sheared at their welds. Pretty consistant with what we know.

Thanks for conceding! There's hope yet.

ZD still hasn't posted any pictures of shattered steel columns of the type he asserts were in the core and I have reasonably asked for them.

Sure is blatantly inadequate that you didn't post any images of shattered columns from ground zero if there are so many.

ZD's post is typical of the deceptive manipulations that comprise all the posts in this thread that are posted by those actually trying to defend the FEMA lie about the core. The very reason there are nearly 11,000 posts in this thread.

5th February 2007, 01:01 PM

LMAO!

Chris doesn't want facts; he wants pretty pictures.

Imagine if he had tried to go to high school!

Sorry Chris - your lies above are ignored.

Not logical and the explanation provided was completely unsupported, which is reasonably very much required

This perfectly describes your concrete core theory. It is neither logical, nor supported.

So... unless you can produce images of the concrete during construction, you've lost. PERIOD.

Gamolon

5th February 2007, 01:41 PM

The invisisteel club has NO EXPLANATION for these factors which absolutely must be explained if FEMA never had,

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

the plans and the NYC mayor took the WTC documents,

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

and will not return them. Actions that completely support exactly the deception you are adhering to.

If the above is true, how do you explain this blurb:

"Several witness commented on the problems the BPAT faced in gaining access to information it required as part of its investigation. The BPAT requested access to the WTC building blueprints, design drawings, and maintenance records. It planned to use these to validate physical and photographic evidence and to develop computer models to explain why and how the buildings failed and how similar failures might be avoided in the future. The BPAT did not get immediate access to the full set of these documents and eventually, FEMA had to intercede on behalf of the BPAT. However, there was a significant delay in FEMA making this request. Mr. Wingo testified that FEMA did not ask the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for blueprints and design
specifications for the buildings until December 21, nearly four months after the disaster, and Dr. Corley testified that the BPAT did not receive full copies of the blueprints and design drawings until January
8."

(Bolding is mine)

This was taken from the following site:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&sid=cp107EbuAM&refer=&r_n=hr530.107&db_id=107&item=&sel=TOC_32867&
I've seen a couple other sites saying that there was a delay in getting the blueprints also. Almost 4 months. It seems that not only did BPAT get blueprints to work with, they had help from FEMA. So they were accessible.
I also fail to see what the NYCLU link has to do with obtaining blueprints for the analysis of the collapse. Was the NYCLU in charge of obtaining blueprints for anyone doing analysis or was this link to a different issue altogether.

I guess you can stop posting your links about the blueprints not being accessible right?

Christophera

5th February 2007, 04:19 PM

LMAO!

Chris doesn't want facts; he wants pretty pictures.

Imagine if he had tried to go to high school!

Sorry Chris - your lies above are ignored.

This perfectly describes your concrete core theory. It is neither logical, nor supported.

So... unless you can produce images of the concrete during construction, you've lost. PERIOD.

You are being selective of evidence when in fact the images of the towers demis provide a far better picture of the core than any construction photo.

Do all the distorting of fact you need to support the FEMA deception. The fact remains that FEMA never had the plans for the towers.

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

The fact remains that the only plans available, albeit obsolete and not used for constrcution are on a CT site.

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

The fact remains that the NYC mayor took the WTC documents which includes plans and the courts will not force a return.

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

It's conclusive that the government agancies involved are trying to hide somethign having to do with the design of the towers.

Duh, guess what it is.

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

The Twin towers had a steel reinforced cast concrete core and it is not I that is guilty of a lie.

Christophera

5th February 2007, 04:24 PM

If the above is true, how do you explain this blurb:

"Several witness commented on the problems the BPAT faced in gaining access to information it required as part of its investigation. The BPAT requested access to the WTC building blueprints, design drawings, and maintenance records. It planned to use these to validate physical and photographic evidence and to develop computer models to explain why and how the buildings failed and how similar failures might be avoided in the future. The BPAT did not get immediate access to the full set of these documents and eventually, FEMA had to intercede on behalf of the BPAT. However, there was a significant delay in FEMA making this request. Mr. Wingo testified that FEMA did not ask the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for blueprints and design
specifications for the buildings until December 21, nearly four months after the disaster, and Dr. Corley testified that the BPAT did not receive full copies of the blueprints and design drawings until January
8."

(Bolding is mine)

This was taken from the following site:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&sid=cp107EbuAM&refer=&r_n=hr530.107&db_id=107&item=&sel=TOC_32867&
I've seen a couple other sites saying that there was a delay in getting the blueprints also. Almost 4 months. It seems that not only did BPAT get blueprints to work with, they had help from FEMA. So they were accessible.
I also fail to see what the NYCLU link has to do with obtaining blueprints for the analysis of the collapse. Was the NYCLU in charge of obtaining blueprints for anyone doing analysis or was this link to a different issue altogether.

I guess you can stop posting your links about the blueprints not being accessible right?

If we could see the plans it would be another story.

Since Dr. Corley is involved, who has basically promoted a fraudulent video on the web (technically he stops short) we will have to view the situation of BPAT and FEMA and Corley as part of a conspiracy coverup.

IT WAS A PUBLIC BUILDING, WE ARE THE PUBLIC. Show US the plans.

uruk

5th February 2007, 07:28 PM

If we could see the plans it would be another story.

Since Dr. Corley is involved, who has basically promoted a fraudulent video on the web (technically he stops short) we will have to view the situation of BPAT and FEMA and Corley as part of a conspiracy coverup.

IT WAS A PUBLIC BUILDING, WE ARE THE PUBLIC. Show US the plans.

The WTC towers were not public buildings. They were leased by Silverstein and assoc. and space rented to corporations and agencies. The building were made accessable to the public.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein

5th February 2007, 08:35 PM

Unless you can produce images of the concrete during construction, you've lost. PERIOD.

Gamolon

6th February 2007, 07:21 AM

If we could see the plans it would be another story.

Since Dr. Corley is involved, who has basically promoted a fraudulent video on the web (technically he stops short) we will have to view the situation of BPAT and FEMA and Corley as part of a conspiracy coverup.

IT WAS A PUBLIC BUILDING, WE ARE THE PUBLIC. Show US the plans.

I thought your contention was that nobody (the public or otherwise) has been able to see the blueprints because the mayor took them and locked them away. Isn't that what you've been saying?

Gamolon

6th February 2007, 09:15 AM

You know what Chris?

Nobody believes you. Even other CTers. You ask us to provide all kinds of evidence, but the same rules do not seem to apply to you. You continue to regurgitate the same 3 photos of your core, and use a nonexistent documentary as backup proof. You've admitted that you "misinterpreted" photos because of a "lack of sleep". This helps your cause a great deal.

You sir are nothing but a troll.

We have provided more evidence than you ever will. You asked for eyewitnesses of what existed in the towers. We give you one and you say he's mistaken.

I have proven my point as have others that your core does not exist. Our evidence outweighs yours by a ton. I see nobody anywhere excepting your theory at all. It's just you on an island.

Based on what I've seen on your other websites and in this forum, your credibility is severely lacking.

Good luck in finding others to except your theory. You'll need it.

bonavada

6th February 2007, 11:11 AM

we all know that even if confronted by leslie roberson himself with the WTC blueprints he would claim them fraudulent.

i will resist commenting further in this thread but only now and then add to the multitudinous list below. this may serve the unwary as they enter here.

I thought your contention was that nobody (the public or otherwise) has been able to see the blueprints because the mayor took them and locked them away. Isn't that what you've been saying?

* 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"
his "17 foot thick concrete wall at the base"
his "layout of the elevators"
his "hidden WTC blueprints" *

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

6th February 2007, 11:19 AM

finally................
why would the US government plan 30 years ahead to destroy the WTC?????

Since this thread just won't die, I recommend strongly that whenever Chris posts, that the only replies should be this quote!

In the mid-Sixties, the US' main enemies were China, the USSR, North Vietnam etc., all of whom tended to restrict their activities to outside the boundaries of the US. There WAS no domestic terrorist threat on the scale there is today!

So, Chris: why would the US government plan 30 years ahead to destroy the WTC?????

Jennie C.

7th February 2007, 08:42 AM

Since this thread just won't die, I recommend strongly that whenever Chris posts, that the only replies should be this quote!

In the mid-Sixties, the US' main enemies were China, the USSR, North Vietnam etc., all of whom tended to restrict their activities to outside the boundaries of the US. There WAS no domestic terrorist threat on the scale there is today!

So, Chris: why would the US government plan 30 years ahead to destroy the WTC?????

However, because of the issue brought up by Gamolon, I really would like to know, if the elevators were inside the (non)concrete core, what happens to them (and the people inside) when the core is only 2-foot by 2-foot.

Seems this has never been more apt: :boxedin:
Or this: :crowded:

Big Al

7th February 2007, 09:14 AM

Gamolon

7th February 2007, 10:03 AM

However, because of the issue brought up by Gamolon, I really would like to know, if the elevators were inside the (non)concrete core, what happens to them (and the people inside) when the core is only 2-foot by 2-foot.

Seems this has never been more apt: :boxedin:
Or this: :crowded:

Chris says that the inside of the core stays straight from bottom to top. The core is situated inside the core columns. The long axis walls are 17' thick concrete at their base and taper to 2' at the top. The short axis wall are 12' thick concrete at the base and taper to 2' thick at the top.

My question was this.

If you are standing on the ground floor/lobby, facing the long axis core, do you have to pass through/into a 17' long corridor to get through the supposed core wall from the lobby to the elevator doors.

Chris's argument were:

1. There is no elevator access from the outside of the core. Elevator access was only available from a central hallway inside the parallel to the long axis wall. This hallway was accessible from through the short axis wall. He sticks to this "fact" even though we have an eyewitness who had been to the towers and said that there was indeed elevator access on the outside of the core.

2. The blueprints I provided links to were from a few years before and he is suggesting that they were changed since that time because of the addition to the core.

Is there anyone else out there who has been to the towers and can say that there was indeed elevator access from outside the core walls along the long axis?

Christophera

7th February 2007, 11:29 AM

However, because of the issue brought up by Gamolon, I really would like to know, if the elevators were inside the (non)concrete core, what happens to them (and the people inside) when the core is only 2-foot by 2-foot.

Not sure exactly what your question is as there is nthing 2 x 2 involved.

The core was a steel reinforced cast concrete tube and all of the elevators ewre inside of it.

The core was 2 foot thick at the top.

Chris says that the inside of the core stays straight from bottom to top. The core is situated inside the core columns.

The core is the inner tube of the "tube in a tbe" construction. The inner wall of the outer tube, which was a steel framework, had columns which were called "interior box columns". There were no core columns. The 1990 documentary called "The Constrcution of the Twin Towers" mentioned the confusion which existed bevase Leslie Robertson had originally concieved of the towers with steel crore columns.

The long axis walls are 17' thick concrete at their base and taper to 2' at the top. The short axis wall are 12' thick concrete at the base and taper to 2' thick at the top.

It seems as though your axis directions are reversed or lacking. Let me clarify.

The walls along the long axis were 12 foot thick

The walls along the short axis were 17 foot thick.

Both tapered to 2 foot thick at the top.

My question was this.

If you are standing on the ground floor/lobby, facing the long axis core, do you have to pass through/into a 17' long corridor to get through the supposed core wall from the lobby to the elevator doors.

Yes, apply the appropriate direction/wall locations above.

This image I believe is WTC 2, walls along the short axis.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg

Chris's argument were:

1. There is no elevator access from the outside of the core. Elevator access was only available from a central hallway inside the parallel to the long axis wall. This hallway was accessible from through the short axis wall. He sticks to this "fact" even though we have an eyewitness who had been to the towers and said that there was indeed elevator access on the outside of the core.

There may have been access from the hallway across the short access into elevators. I don't know.

Smiths eyewitness account is not supported by the video which has been posted. Still images do not show the elevators he states existed.

2. The blueprints I provided links to were from a few years before and he is suggesting that they were changed since that time because of the addition to the core.

I located the 20 sheets of obsoleted WTC plans I was sent and the date is December 16, 1963. They are the same as can be found here.

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

There was a quote from an article stating that the plans were made available to investigating teams in FEB. of '02. The name Coreley was mentioned and he has produced a fraudulent CGI animation that implies the interior box column and floor beam frames shown here.

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/3396/gjswtc30pt4.jpg

Were actaully a "lattice" box framework that was throughout the core. That assertion is totally unsupported in the plans linked above and no plans showing such have ever been provided.

In the above linked image it is fairly easy to tell that the core area is actually empty (the concrete has just blown up (http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8232/wtcsl8.jpg)) and that the steel frames standing are a wall and not a framework filling the core area.

Is there anyone else out there who has been to the towers and can say that there was indeed elevator access from outside the core walls along the long axis?

I'm sure there are lots of them but they are afraid to contribute to this truth.

Christophera

7th February 2007, 01:07 PM

I ASKED FIRST... some time soon after this ludicrous CT popped up. So there! :p

Anyway, Chris will only answer either of these burning questions with:

a) MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS
b) Concrete Core Of WTC2
c) 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS
d) a link to his website.

So, Chris: why would the US government plan 30 years ahead to destroy the WTC?????

Curious that why would be more important than how because free fall is unexplained as well as pulverization. That, ............ is, ........... illogical, because how will have a great deal to do with who and why.

Gamolon

7th February 2007, 01:09 PM

The elevators were only accessed from the inside hallways.

There may have been access from the hallway across the short access into elevators. I don't know.

Let's make this easy Chris and focus on one point, that being the elevators, before moving on. You clearly are backpedaling now. First you claim that they were accessed from inside. NOW you aren't sure. Why did you change your mind?

Oliver

7th February 2007, 01:12 PM

Curious that why would be more important than how because free fall is unexplained as well as pulverization. That, ............ is, ........... illogical, because how will have a great deal to do with who and why.

Chris - seriously. Did you know about the people trapped
in an elevator at the 50th Floor that digged themselfes
out of their trap by removing the "Cheep or Cheapstone"
Walls??? I guess this type of material will indeed turn to
dust if crashed...

ETA:

CIeNPlYVuNE

A W Smith

7th February 2007, 01:55 PM

Chris - seriously. Did you know about the people trapped
in an elevator at the 50th Floor that digged themselfes
out of their trap by removing the "Cheep or Cheapstone"
Walls??? I guess this type of material will indeed turn to
dust if crashed...

Yeah thats right!!! the window washer trapped in the elevator used a squeegee to scrape his way through 12 feet of concrete!!!! Lucky for him it was between the 4' oc 3" rebar!!. Chris I don't care what pictures of video you think doesn't support how i entered the elevators. When i faced the doors standing inside the elevators I saw by looking up the outside perimeter column trees.

Gamolon

7th February 2007, 02:04 PM

Another question Chris.

With all of your talk about "raw images", "logical explanations", and "hard evidence", how is it that you can cite a nonexistent documentary for fact when trying to prove your point?

Isn't that a bit hypocritical?

I'll use some of your quotes from previous threads:

Your link doesn't go to an image so your point is not made.

or

You must cite the exact time you think you see this in the video or your words are empty.

or

A few assertions that are not congruent with evidence also having no evidence to support them is not logical.

Why do you request that we be "exact" with our evidence, but you don't follow the same rules you put down.

This one quote derails your whole theory:

I saw a documentary 2 hours in length and found that all the images of the towers coming down support what I remember fully.

You're using a nonexistent documentary as the backbone of your theory. Just as you require us to provide you with "raw data", I would expect you to follow your own requirements. So, I need to see the documentary or proof that it existed in order for any of your points to be valid.

Fair enough Chris?

uruk

7th February 2007, 02:26 PM

Another question Chris.

With all of your talk about "raw images", "logical explanations", and "hard evidence", how is it that you can cite a nonexistent documentary for fact when trying to prove your point?

Isn't that a bit hypocritical?

I'll use some of your quotes from previous threads:

or

or

Why do you request that we be "exact" with our evidence, but you don't follow the same rules you put down.

This one quote derails your whole theory:

You're using a nonexistent documentary as the backbone of your theory. Just as you require us to provide you with "raw data", I would expect you to follow your own requirements. So, I need to see the documentary or proof that it existed in order for any of your points to be valid.

Fair enough Chris?

It's tactic a Chris employs called "moving the goal posts".
He asks for some proof or info, you provide it and then he changes the nature of the original request so he can say that you never provided what he asked for. It's typical of the way Chris debates. It's also a typical response for someone who is cornered.

hcmom

7th February 2007, 02:40 PM

A W Smith

7th February 2007, 03:23 PM

Oliver... just for your information... Sheetrock

Actually its gypsum board. Sheetrock (http://www.usg.com/navigate.do?resource=/USG_Marketing_Content/usg.com/web_files/products/brand_overview/Sheetrock_Brand-BO.htm) is a brand name. even though everyone calls it sheetrock. I spec it as gypsum board.

Christophera

7th February 2007, 05:17 PM

Chris - seriously. Did you know about the people trapped
in an elevator at the 50th Floor that digged themselfes
out of their trap by removing the "Cheep or Cheapstone"
Walls??? I guess this type of material will indeed turn to
dust if crashed...

ETA:

CIeNPlYVuNE

And there was another guy that tried it and hit concrete. They were both using squeegees.

Arus808

7th February 2007, 05:58 PM

Please provide a citation of that claim.

Zep

7th February 2007, 05:59 PM

Christophera

7th February 2007, 06:10 PM

Please provide a citation of that claim.

I looked for it again about a year back and couldn't find it. More removal of supportive evidence for the concrete core.

Digging through drywall to find air in the towers from a stairway was about an 80 percent certainty, judging from the garbage floor plan/stairwell layouts we can find.

How about you come up with images of raw evidence showing some of the supposed 47, 1300 foot the steel core columns? There are hunderds of images of the towers coming down and you should be able to find the columns easily in there, if they existed.

Arus808

7th February 2007, 06:17 PM

I looked for it again about a year back and couldn't find it. More removal of supportive evidence for the concrete core.

then retract that claim.
also retract your claim of c4 coated rebar (c4 didn't exist in 1967)
also retract your claim of your non-existent book (since Oxford confirmed they didn't even publish a book under that title).

You have a lot of retractions to do..Stop spending time here, and edit your site to reflect that you made numerous errors.

Digging through drywall to find air in the towers from a stairway was about an 80 percent certainty, judging from the garbage floor plan/stairwell layouts we can find.

my my my, did you even bother to read the testimony of the men who were trapped in the elevator and try dig their way out. They only made a "small" hole, enough to alert passing Firefighters (who were going room by room to check for survivors) it was they, who punched through the hole to get them out. And it was the janitor who knew that the wall was only sheetrock.

How about you come up with images of raw evidence showing some of the supposed 47, 1300 foot the steel core columns? There are hunderds of images of the towers coming down and you should be able to find the columns easily in there, if they existed.

There are construction photos that show this. In fact, you are using them in yoru posts and they have been posted through this thread. YOU dig for them. Why repost something that has been posted repeatedly in this thread alone?

Get to work Chris, You have an entire website to edit.

Christophera

7th February 2007, 06:51 PM

then retract that claim.
also retract your claim of c4 coated rebar (c4 didn't exist in 1967)
also retract your claim of your non-existent book (since Oxford confirmed they didn't even publish a book under that title).

Get real, you have not explained free fall (near is close enough to use that term} and you haven't shown with images of raw evidence that the structure you (fail) claim existed, which by the way, cannot possibly do what what was seen on 9-11.

Oxford is in on the coverup.

Since I linked to the University of north Carolina, they have removed their page that talked about the concrete core.

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

Apparently you have no concern for lawful government, fo rthe US Constitution and our rights and freedoms and are all about enabling evasion.

I am not the only one held to standards of accountability in the eyes of the impartial viewer. The invisisteel column group has utterly failed to support that thing they hardly ever mention.

What we hear mostly is "no concrete". Reasonably, the towers did have a core. If it wasn't concrete, then show us the steel columns from images of raw evidence from the towers demise.

Gamolon

7th February 2007, 08:22 PM

Oxford is in on the coverup.

Since I linked to the University of north Carolina, they have removed their page that talked about the concrete core.

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

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Another piece of "ghost" evidence to go along with your "ghostumentary".

You still haven't answered my previous post. How come you don't hold yourself to the same standards of producing evidence?

So far, in the past few days, you have:

1. Misinterpreted some photos
2. Cited a documentary that doesn't exist
3. Cited a website that doesn't exist
4. Used evidence to make your own point then later claim that "they're in on it"
5. First claim that the elevators were only accessible from INSIDE the core and then backpedal to say you really don't know.

Nice track record over a few days.

You're on an island all by yourself. Nobody believes you, not even other CTers.

You're terrible at research and really can't get your point across to anyone. THAT should be proof enough that your theory holds no water.

As far as I'm concerned, you can go suck farts out of a bus seat.

You aren't worth any more of my time.

Keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use insults.

firecoins

7th February 2007, 08:31 PM

However, because of the issue brought up by Gamolon, I really would like to know, if the elevators were inside the (non)concrete core, what happens to them (and the people inside) when the core is only 2-foot by 2-foot.

Seems this has never been more apt: :boxedin:
Or this: :crowded:
I was in those elevators several times. I weigh 220lbs. I had no problem fitting inside.

firecoins

7th February 2007, 08:35 PM

Get real, you have not explained free fall (near is close enough to use that term} and you haven't shown with images of raw evidence that the structure you (fail) claim existed, which by the way, cannot possibly do what what was seen on 9-11.

Oxford is in on the coverup.

Since I linked to the University of north Carolina, they have removed their page that talked about the concrete core.

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

Apparently you have no concern for lawful government, fo rthe US Constitution and our rights and freedoms and are all about enabling evasion.

I am not the only one held to standards of accountability in the eyes of the impartial viewer. The invisisteel column group has utterly failed to support that thing they hardly ever mention.

What we hear mostly is "no concrete". Reasonably, the towers did have a core. If it wasn't concrete, then show us the steel columns from images of raw evidence from the towers demise.
You are a disinformation agent for the Bush administration! You have yet to show 1 picture of a concrete core or the C4 you claim exists there. You are to distract JREF from uncovering the real conspiracy here and the is that the truth movement exits to overthrow the US government and turn into a Stalinist/Hitler-Nazi/Communist Jewish regime.

Oliver

7th February 2007, 09:56 PM

And there was another guy that tried it and hit concrete. They were both using squeegees.

Please stop being so ignorant while i'm honest to you, Chris.

Explain to me why these trapped guys in the elevator on the
50th floor were able to escape by digging thru "concrete".

Liars??? :confused:

Arus808

7th February 2007, 10:07 PM

Get real, you have not explained free fall (near is close enough to use that term} and you haven't shown with images of raw evidence that the structure you (fail) claim existed, which by the way, cannot possibly do what what was seen on 9-11.

since the buldings didn't fall at or even near free fall speed. Present your calculations please.

Oxford is in on the coverup.Here you are shown to be a liar. THOUSAND UPON THOUSANDS of libraries would need ot have been raided across 6 continents to remove reference of such book that is published by an organization BASED IN ENGLAND. you obviously have never done any type of research in a libary because there's these books called periodicals. You know what are in periodicals. THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF LISTINGS of every publication ever made since the first publication hit a library. They consist of listings of magazines, newspapers, books, reference, media (including TAPES, audio/visual) and a summary of what each these items contain therein. NOt only would these "black ops' have to remove your imaginary book, they'd have to REMOVE the years upon years of periodicals in the many languages that REFERENCE This imaginary book since it was "published".

So now you're saying that the ENTIRE country of England, and the entire continent of Asia, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, South and North America, are responsible for stealing thousands upon thousands upon thousands of books to Hide the fact that one book "published" said that the wtc towers had a concrete core? Despite books published before your imaginary Oxford book, say they didn't?

This is why you need help Chris...Please, seek it

Jennie C.

8th February 2007, 08:35 AM

Not sure exactly what your question is as there is nthing 2 x 2 involved.

and then to Gamolon:
It seems as though your axis directions are reversed or lacking. Let me clarify.

The walls along the long axis were 12 foot thick

The walls along the short axis were 17 foot thick.

Both tapered to 2 foot thick at the top.

"Both tapered to 2 foot thick at the top" means the core was 2' x 2' at the top. So what happens to the people in the elevators? :eek:

Pardalis

8th February 2007, 09:54 AM

I'm sorry to barge in on this thread, which I haven't read in a long while, but is this the documentary Christophera has been babbling about?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUU-_toZooE

Big Al

8th February 2007, 10:07 AM

Afraid not, Pardalis. It doesn't mention the concrete core or the 3" rebar on 4' centres or the special rebar coating or the security-cleared welders or the clearing of the floors when casting or the rebar being kept in secure lockers or...

I'm sorry, I'm out of breath! No, I remember seeing that documentary, but it mentions specifically the steel core, so it just has to be a fake, doesn't it?

Pardalis

8th February 2007, 10:16 AM

At the end of the Youtube first part (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2yhWJrMIZA)they mention how they poured in concrete for the basement walls, before the excavation, and later on they mention concrete being used for the foundations, the concrete "footing".

Maybe our friend got a little confused. ;)

Now back to our regularly scheduled Christophera delusion.

firecoins

8th February 2007, 10:57 AM

Libby testified today he was ordered by Christophera to release the name of Judy Plame.

Christophera

8th February 2007, 11:22 AM

You are a disinformation agent for the Bush administration! You have yet to show 1 picture of a concrete core or the C4 you claim exists there. You are to distract JREF from uncovering the real conspiracy here and the is that the truth movement exits to overthrow the US government and turn into a Stalinist/Hitler-Nazi/Communist Jewish regime.

A highly visual 500 foot vertical element of concrete has been before you. You do not want to see and continue to pretend that you have not. Not my problem.

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

The notion that that is steel core columns clogged with debri is nonsensical. Columns would be protruding under any conditions. There are none.

Again, the same type unwillingness to observe fairly simple events.

concrete core explosions (http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8232/wtcsl8.jpg)

The notion that the above shows dust expelled by compressed air from pancaking floors is totally unsupported by any reason whatsoever. Observe the scale. Logically only high explosives can be responsible for that.

uruk

8th February 2007, 11:29 AM

The notion that that is steel core columns clogged with debri is nonsensical. Columns would be protruding under any conditions. There are none.

Can you explain why that is so? I and others have shown you pictures of the steel columns with the sheetrock still attached to it as well as stairwells and other debris.
Do want to be embarrassed again? I can post those pictures as many times as you want.

ingoa

8th February 2007, 01:03 PM

:D Cool...
This thread is probably longer the the Pricipia of Isaac Newton. Both items are about gravitation. One is a classic the other one is not.

Make a guess which is what... :p

Big Al

8th February 2007, 05:02 PM

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

There you go again, Chris!

We've seen that same bloody picture SO MANY TIMES!

If I may remind you of what I said two days ago:

I ASKED FIRST... some time soon after this ludicrous CT popped up. So there! :p

Anyway, Chris will only answer either of these burning questions with:

a) MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS
b) Concrete Core Of WTC2
c) 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS
d) a link to his website.

So, Chris: why would the US government plan 30 years ahead to destroy the WTC?????

I DO NOT SEE A REINFORCED CONCRETE CORE IN A CLOUD OF DUST/SMOKE, HOWEVER MANY TIMES YOU POST IT! I WORK AS THE Q.A. MANAGER IN A SMALL FACTORY IN THE SOUTH OF ENGLAND! I HAVE NEVER BEEN OFFERED EITHER A DEATH THREAT OR A LARGE AMOUNT OF MONEY BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, THE C.I.A. OR ANYONE ELSE TO EITHER SHUT MY MOUTH OR SPOUT AN "OFFICIAL LINE". SPEAKING AS A FREE PERSON WITH THE RIGHT TO SPEAK MY MIND IN A DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY, I STATE FREELY THAT NONE OF YOUR BLURRY JPEGS IMPRESS ME. YOUR WHOLE STORY OF DEMOLITION PLANNED 30-35 YEARS AGO (PARTICULARLY USING EXPLOSIVES WITH AN OPTIMAL 10-YEAR LIFE) STRIKES ME AS ABSOLUTELY LUDICROUS!

For me, this question is CRITICAL:

Chris: why would the US government plan 30 years ahead to destroy the WTC?????[

DontAskMe

8th February 2007, 05:27 PM

there is a concrete core seen in that picture? where? today I have heard there isnt enough debris so a space weapon had to demolish the towers, now the core thing...

it is like arguing against someone who stands in the middle of the street at midnight and insists it is light outside

Christophera

8th February 2007, 07:40 PM

Please stop being so ignorant while i'm honest to you, Chris.

Explain to me why these trapped guys in the elevator on the
50th floor were able to escape by digging thru "concrete".

Liars??? :confused:

Not liars, just in an elevator is away from the concrete core wall. Most elevators and stairwells wer not against the core wall.

I answer it here very well.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2323256#post2323256

fezzic

8th February 2007, 07:43 PM

Christophera

9th February 2007, 12:24 PM

I would suggest that the alleged concrete core may actually be a building from the other side of the WTC complex. It is difficult to determine distance from the photo. The smoke and dust obscures details in the background (the sun glare doesn't help either). I suggest that a possible candidate for the alleged concrete core would be the Millenium Hotel, a 55 (or so) story structure to the east across Church Street from the complex.

The first image is the concrete core of WTC 2

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

This is an image taken a second later which shows the same concrete core a little lower.

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

I hardly think my suggestion is conclusive, merely plausible. I don't know if anyone has suggested this before (there are too many pages).

Yes and that is what those who work to obscure information intend. Or the extra 8000 posts or so of nonsense, cat pictures and baking recipes

To provide a clearer picture (heh), we could use another image taken from about the same spot in about the same direction. (Anybody know of such a shot?) This will then allow identification of various buildings and give some location information about where they are in the image.

I've pretty much found all the applicable images.

GlennB

9th February 2007, 02:15 PM

Here is some of the core of WTC1, after the outer wall/floor areas had fallen. No concrete Chris, just steel members ...

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l131/Ignatz_CT/wtc1peelingcorecropped.jpg

9th February 2007, 02:17 PM

fezzic, on this point Chris is right. Yes, there is a building at approx. the same location that looks similar; but the angle this photo was taken at is too low to see the building behind it, i.e. the view is looking upward, and the building would be far below the frame to be seen.

Given all available evidence - which consists of construction photographs, available diagrams, eyewitness reports, post-collapse photographs, film clips, and debris analysis - the greatest likelihood is that this is a portion of the lower interior of the building, with a large portion of debris atop it, and some debris on the sides, largely obscured by dust and smoke, suspended on film in mid-collapse. This is consistant with the way buildings collapse - that is, all the debris of the floors above wouldn't simply slip off the sides, a large quantity would likely mound atop whatever stood resistant during the collapse. Further, it is reasonable under a steel core scenario, as the steel supports lower in the building might have survived longer, but were being snapped off at the welds higher up by the extreme pressure of tons of falling debris. These beams weren't spears; they wouldn't have poked through the falling debris and remained upright.

There is a far less likely chance that this is the same thing, but with a concrete core instead. The same mounding of debris would occur, but the chance of this portion of the core collapsing would be vastly less. Further, the debris at the site contained far too little concrete or concrete dust to account for the amount of concrete which Chris believes would have been present. Also, since we know that plastic explosives only have an optimal shelf life of between 10-20 years, and since we know that such explosives exposed to the air, to heat from curing concrete and subsequent moisture, and further exposed to varying temperatures and air qualities since the construction would have a far shorter viable lifespan, we can properly surmise that the concrete was not destroyed by any built-in explosives. This leaves only post-construction demolition, an even less likely theory.

Nonetheless, that's basically what this chunk is - a piece of the collapsing core of the building, with mounds of debris atop it, and some debris choking the floors on the sides, all obscured by smoke and dust. Any discussion of this photograph in terms of steel vs. concrete would be reduced to what evidence existed of either. Chris is simply flat wrong in believing that the steel beams would be poking up in this picture above the fallen debris. He wrongly believes that welded steel becomes all but invincible, and that we basically have 47 1300-foot long adamant beams, where all the debris should have fallen neatly around, leaving a ghastly skeleton of empty steel erect.

Anyone who's ever seen a steel building collapse knows this isn't what happens.

Other than that, all he has are some memories of a documentary which doesn't exist, a clip from a non-existant book, some memories of a non-existant magazine article, and some day-laborer-level experience with construction and demolition, combined with some serious mental health issues, a junior-high-school level of education, an an April Fool's joke letter taken seriously.

So it all boils down to this: unless he can produce images of the concrete during construction, he's lost. PERIOD.

Big Al

9th February 2007, 04:36 PM

Chris: why would the US government plan 30 years ahead to destroy the WTC?????[

Are you ever going to answer this, Chris?

Christophera

9th February 2007, 04:39 PM

Are you ever going to answer this, Chris? Or do you just think it dosn't matter?

Later, after HOW is dealt with.

HOW were 47, 1300 foot steel columns made to fall freely and also disappear from all images of the towers

Big Al

9th February 2007, 04:47 PM

If you have a simple answer, Chris, why not give it? Go on: one paragraph! I dare you! I double-dare you!

It's a very simple question. After all, you have all the answers, don't you?

Big Al

9th February 2007, 04:51 PM

Come on, Chris: it's gone quiet. You can spare me thirty seconds to answer that, can't you?

Chris: why would the US government plan 30 years ahead to destroy the WTC?????[

Christophera

9th February 2007, 05:05 PM

If you have a simple answer, Chris, why not give it? Go on: one paragraph! I dare you! I double-dare you!

It's a very simple question. After all, you have all the answers, don't you?

It a matter of principle Al. I know you are trying to marginalize me by ridiculing my answer, and really what and how is the first thing that is considered in an investigation. Clearly, you cannot rationally handle the answer anyway, so there it serves no purpose I'm interested in at all to answer you erroneous question.

The true US government is prohibited from doing what you suggest. Infiltrators of the government could though.

Seeing as the explanations for free fall you ascribe to are nonsense and don't explain anything, I can reasonably say what happened was a demolition.

Now I need an explanation for how 47, 1300 foot steel columns were severed to create near free fall speeds.

9th February 2007, 10:32 PM

eeyore1954

10th February 2007, 06:08 AM

Chris: why would the US government plan 30 years ahead to destroy the WTC?????

Because our the leaders of our real government (the reptillian overlords) come from a planet so far away that if they leave to go to their 7/11 it takes them about 30-40 years . Even though they have mastered traveling through worm holes.

Christophera

10th February 2007, 12:40 PM

Given all available evidence - which consists of construction photographs, available diagrams, eyewitness reports, post-collapse photographs, film clips, and debris analysis - the greatest likelihood is that this is a portion of the lower interior of the building, with a large portion of debris atop it, and some debris on the sides, largely obscured by dust and smoke, suspended on film in mid-collapse. This is consistant with the way buildings collapse - that is, all the debris of the floors above wouldn't simply slip off the sides, a large quantity would likely mound atop whatever stood resistant during the collapse.

Mounds do not have clean edges and one of the 47 steel columns would protrude. Or later be seen. Such as here, in the shot of the core lower.

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

No image ever shows the supposed core columns. We do see and end view of what can only be a concrete shear of WTC 1 wall 500 feet off the ground.

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

No steel core columns are seen to the left where they should be.

Further, it is reasonable under a steel core scenario, as the steel supports lower in the building might have survived longer, but were being snapped off at the welds higher up by the extreme pressure of tons of falling debris. These beams weren't spears; they wouldn't have poked through the falling debris and remained upright.

If this is true there will images of the same columns as are shown here with clean square ends, except with severe bends where they were "snapped off"

http://www.parrhesia.com/wtc/wtc066.jpg

There is a far less likely chance that this is the same thing, but with a concrete core instead. The same mounding of debris would occur, but the chance of this portion of the core collapsing would be vastly less. Further, the debris at the site contained far too little concrete or concrete dust to account for the amount of concrete which Chris believes would have been present.

In the below image we see mostly sand and gravel and much large aggregate from high strength concrete.

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

The is no evidence from the towers demise of the supposed steel core columns but there is a great deal of evidence for steel reinforced concrete.

Words are easy to type and that is all ZD has done. ZD has shown no evidence to support the steel core columns.

Christophera

10th February 2007, 01:30 PM

Also, don't forget, folks: Chris is in need of help - he has "issues". That has been amply demonstrated elsewhere in this forum, if you care to look.

This also means his lines or argument are not bound by any rules of logic or sense - he already has "the twoof" in his head, so he works from there backwards to wherever we might be now. And if one route does not work, he simply starts with his "twoof" and works back another way. It makes sense to him!

Personally I suspect he simply isn't even aware that he is moving his own goalposts.

There are other "issues", and people can read about them here.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2240248&posted=1#post2240248

and here,

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=69171

and here,

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63738

and here,

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2248014#post2248014

As far as goal posts, from the beginning I've been looking for a realistic explanation for free fall. Got one?

Okay, I guess in 271 pages I can accept that you do not and that mine is still the only one in existance.

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

From the beginning a major goal post I've put out for you is the production of some 9-11 images that show raw evidence of the steel core columns that you cannot misrepresent as you do construction images.

Okay, I guess in 271 pages where such images have not been produced that the only core evidenced by images of 9-11 is a concrete core. So, ........ the real goal posts are exactly the same.

ConspiRaider

10th February 2007, 02:15 PM

Okay, I guess in 271 pages I can accept that you do not and that mine is still the only one in existance.

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

From the beginning a major goal post I've put out for you is the production of some 9-11 images that show raw evidence of the steel core columns that you cannot misrepresent as you do construction images.

Okay, I guess in 271 pages where such images have not been produced that the only core evidenced by images of 9-11 is a concrete core. So, ........ the real goal posts are exactly the same.
Well. I scanned your thing up above.

So: After all this careful planning going all the way back to planting C4 in the buildings as they were being constructed in the late 1960s:

You're saying the planes hit the wrong towers. How could they make such an incredibly stupid mistake, after all of that intricate and clever planning? Flight 11 was supposed to hit WTC 2? Flight 175 was supposed to hit WTC 1?

This other bit about Flight 93 "wandering around" as a backup plane.

You do realize, Chris, that Flight 93 was DELAYED from taking off as scheduled? By about 45 minutes?

Now had it taken off on time that would have put it somewhere near Chicago at the time of turnback to the East. Instead of Cleveland. So we've got a backup plane about 800 miles away from the WTCs (had it taken off on time) to clean up any unfinished business with the Towers. Again this seems like incredibly dolt-like planning. Let's keep a backup passenger jet at the ready - EIGHT HUNDRED MILES AWAY?!?

None of this seems realistice to me, sorry.

Christophera

10th February 2007, 03:25 PM

None of this seems realistice to me, sorry.

The realistic aspect referes mostly to an explanation for free fall.

Well. I scanned your thing up above.

So: After all this careful planning going all the way back to planting C4 in the buildings as they were being constructed in the late 1960s:

You're saying the planes hit the wrong towers. How could they make such an incredibly stupid mistake, after all of that intricate and clever planning? Flight 11 was supposed to hit WTC 2? Flight 175 was supposed to hit WTC 1?

Did I ever say the planning of constrcution extended to hijacking and targets for airliners?

No. I never said that.

The intricate and clever planning extended to a comromise, the lesser of to undesireables.

Having a minamally controlled muslim pilot flying the first plane was more diesireable than a well trained remote operator sitting on a tower top a half mile away because he could tlak or be made to talk or investigated and talk, or be linkd, observed. You get the point.

Anonymity was more important than precision.

This other bit about Flight 93 "wandering around" as a backup plane.

You do realize, Chris, that Flight 93 was DELAYED from taking off as scheduled? By about 45 minutes?

Now had it taken off on time that would have put it somewhere near Chicago at the time of turnback to the East. Instead of Cleveland. So we've got a backup plane about 800 miles away from the WTCs (had it taken off on time) to clean up any unfinished business with the Towers. Again this seems like incredibly dolt-like planning. Let's keep a backup passenger jet at the ready - EIGHT HUNDRED MILES AWAY?!?

The delay aspect only increases the potential for inside control as it accomodates the "holding pattern" timing as a back up.

Your hypothetical "IF" wasn't what happened. What happened was more advantageous to what I suggest with the "towers fell in the wrong order" (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1207667) perspective.

DontAskMe

10th February 2007, 03:30 PM

someone please show me in that pic of the towers where the concrete core is supposed to be, how can that be seen, i am confused, all i see is smoke and buildings

ConspiRaider

10th February 2007, 04:22 PM

The realistic aspect referes mostly to an explanation for free fall.

Did I ever say the planning of constrcution extended to hijacking and targets for airliners?

No. I never said that.

The intricate and clever planning extended to a comromise, the lesser of to undesireables.

Having a minamally controlled muslim pilot flying the first plane was more diesireable than a well trained remote operator sitting on a tower top a half mile away because he could tlak or be made to talk or investigated and talk, or be linkd, observed. You get the point.

Anonymity was more important than precision.

The delay aspect only increases the potential for inside control as it accomodates the "holding pattern" timing as a back up.

Your hypothetical "IF" wasn't what happened. What happened was more advantageous to what I suggest with the "towers fell in the wrong order" (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1207667) perspective.
Well. Well, well, well.

That "green stuff in the valleys of the corrugated deck" reported in an oral history by a worker: What if it was NOT C-4? How do we know that Linda Blair didn't do her screen test for The Exorcist the night before or something?

C-4 is pretty stable and you really have to kick the living hell out of it to set it off. How? Did this mysterious worker report on blasting caps throughout the "green stuff"? What about wiring to the blasting caps?

Chris you need a new hobby - this one has gone nowhere. Try noodling a bit on solutions to global warming. A non-polluting car. How to get energy from coal with no mercury emissions and no CO2 emissions. Speaking of mercury: Fluorescent lighting is nice in that it uses much less energy than incandescents - but damned if it doesn't have mercury vapor within the bulbs. Pollution hazard. See if you can come up with a non-hazardous alternative to mercury in fluorescents.

This 9/11 stuff of yours isn't making it. Put your calculating brain onto something else, would you please?

10th February 2007, 05:45 PM

Mounds do not have clean edges and one of the 47 steel columns would protrude. Or later be seen. Such as here, in the shot of the core lower.

Wrong. Mounds can very well have edges as textured as this one is. Wrong. None of the columns would have to protrude. And column remains were seen later.

No image ever shows the supposed core columns. We do see and end view of what can only be a concrete shear of WTC 1 wall 500 feet off the ground.

Wrong. Several images show steel core columns, including construction images and at least one collapse image. Wrong. It can certainly be something other than concrete shear wall.

No steel core columns are seen to the left where they should be.

Wrong. The core columns did not have to be there.

If this is true there will images of the same columns as are shown here with clean square ends, except with severe bends where they were "snapped off"

Wrong. Steel does not always bend before snapping, especially when the steel bends at the welds. In fact, the more rigid the steel, the more likely it is to snap rather than bend.

In the below image we see mostly sand and gravel and much large aggregate from high strength concrete.

As well as the remains of gypsum board. The concrete floors easily account for the concrete recovered. There was insufficient sand, gravel, and aggregate for the cores you suggest existed.

The is no evidence from the towers demise of the supposed steel core columns but there is a great deal of evidence for steel reinforced concrete.

Wrong. There is no evidence of steel reinforced concrete from the towers, either at demise or construction, but there is a great deal of evidence for the steel core, both in construction and after demise.

Words are easy to type and that is all ZD has done. ZD has shown no evidence to support the steel core columns.

ZD doesn't need to show the evidence; it has been shown, time and time and time again.

Chris, however, has shown no construction evidence to support the concrete core.

Unless Christophera can produce images of the concrete core during construction, he has LOST. PERIOD.

Crazy Chainsaw

10th February 2007, 06:59 PM

Oh no look at this, http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=12383&st=240

David B. Benson

"reasonwhy --- The towers broke into two parts. The top part falls onto the bottom part. So there is no connection between those two parts. Next, the top part hits the beams, etc., at the very top of the bottom part, brutally destroying those. Continued eccentric strikes fracture all welds as the collapse progresses.

Everybody --- Note that I edited my previous post to 2600 lb for an assumed force action distance of 0.1 foot. This is still a rather small mass given all the falling heavy beams and columns.

Everybody should understand this calculation is only approximate for a simplified, idealized model. But using imperfect columns (ones that lean a little) lowers the energy requirements quite a bit. On the other hand, using a nonlinear spring and allowing for linear buckling will up the energy requirements. Lets just say that the model of eccentric, sudden loading of short duration provides a plausible means of fracturing welds without inelastic buckling of core column members... "
I have got to quite telling people what happens in my back yard.

Christophera

10th February 2007, 07:37 PM

Wrong. Mounds can very well have edges as textured as this one is. Wrong. None of the columns would have to protrude. And column remains were seen later.

Symetrical? Give us a break!

I noticed you forgot to post the evidence of the columns seen later.

Typing is easy. Try something substancial, as in concrete.

Let me show you how.

It is easy when you have evidence.

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

10th February 2007, 08:09 PM

Chris - there's no concrete core in that picture.

Maybe you posted the wrong one?

While you're posting all these pictures of the steel columns protruding during collapse, and all these fuzzy pictures showing mounds of collapsing debris, how about posting some construction images showing the concrete core? Because without those, you LOSE. PERIOD.

Christophera

10th February 2007, 08:55 PM

Chris - there's no concrete core in that picture.

HERE (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg) is the image which makes obvious your lie.

Maybe you posted the wrong one?

No. You did the wrong thing, you lied. Normally I don't use that term as homer uses it for instance, but you are blatantly misrepresenting my argument.

While you're posting all these pictures of the steel columns protruding during collapse, and all these fuzzy pictures showing mounds of collapsing debris, how about posting some construction images showing the concrete core? Because without those, you LOSE. PERIOD.

You have stated serious distortions attempting to generalize and minimize the facts presented here, and entire web site that establishes a structure that CAN fall at near free fall.

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

The invisisteel contingent has no evidence, only fabrications and misrepresentations. No explanations, nada.

10th February 2007, 10:18 PM

HERE (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg) is the image which makes obvious your lie.

Nope... still no concrete core. I see some of the side panels, and I see some debris which appears to be a mixture of materials, some of which could be concrete from the FLOORS, but no concrete core in this image.

No. You did the wrong thing, you lied. Normally I don't use that term as homer uses it for instance, but you are blatantly misrepresenting my argument.

Either prove I am lying, or retract the argument. Post reported.

You have stated serious distortions attempting to generalize and minimize the facts presented here, and entire web site that establishes a structure that CAN fall at near free fall.

But since it didn't fall at 'near free fall', there's nothing to establish.

And I've stated no distortions.

Either provide images of the concrete core during construction, or you've LOST. PERIOD.

uruk

10th February 2007, 11:28 PM

HERE (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg) is the image which makes obvious your lie.
I thought you said the concrete was totally pulverized. Why would it be coming down in big slotted slabs?

By the way, That's a picture of the steel spandrels falling.

You need to get your lies straight Chris.

Christophera

11th February 2007, 12:26 AM

Nope... still no concrete core. I see some of the side panels, and I see some debris which appears to be a mixture of materials, some of which could be concrete from the FLOORS, but no concrete core in this image.

Either prove I am lying, or retract the argument. Post reported.

You are premature with your demands.

You ignore the grey, brown colored piece in the center, (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg) inside the perimeter walls.

Your must explain the grey brown cube streaming dust.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg

There is a floor facing right with light colored dust. To the left is a more brown colored cube shape.

That cube shape looks to be very heavy and the lighter floor and perimeter walls have been catching air, billowing out and are tearing completely away from the core, left behind the dense, plumeting concrete.

11th February 2007, 02:31 AM

Chris, is it grey, or is it brown? There's really no such tone as 'grey brown'.

Are you referring to this section, which appears to be a stack of floors?

5486

Again, I see no concrete core structure, Chris. I've looked extremely closely at that image, tried a number of filters, sharpness, negatives... and I see absolutely no sign of a concrete core. I DO see outer spandrels, what appears to be a stack of floors tumbling aside to the left of the image, and a LOT of smoke and dust and debris.

But this again proves that there was no 'total pulverization'.

Further, you cannot judge weight by such an image, Chris. Now, if this is part of a video clip, THAT might be useful to see. But a static image - no good, Chris. There just isn't sufficient sign of any concrete core there, amigo.

So, we're still back to the basics: unless you can provide images of the concrete core during construction, YOU LOST. PERIOD.

Jennie C.

11th February 2007, 07:37 AM

The true US government is prohibited from doing what you suggest. Infiltrators of the government could though.

Would you give a hint as to WHO has infiltrated? Please at least tell me it's not extra-terrestrials, I'd be so disappointed if it were.

(almost said aliens, but I don't mean mexicans)

Christophera

11th February 2007, 11:24 AM

Chris, is it grey, or is it brown? There's really no such tone as 'grey brown'.

Are you referring to this section, which appears to be a stack of floors?

5486

There is one floor almost out of the picture on the right and it was lighter in color.

For that central object. Okay, brown. Mottled with both colors is perhaps more correct.

How do you interpret that as a "stack" of floors?

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg

I DO see outer spandrels,

Do you know what spandrels are?

DontAskMe

11th February 2007, 11:36 AM

Christophera

11th February 2007, 01:24 PM

WAIT if there is a concrete core, or isnt, why not ask the people who built it, they would know, right? certainly someone has done that?

please dont tell me the people who built it say no concrete core, and they are in on it too? i am asking cuz I dont know...i still cant get passed the guy that says the planes hitting the towers were holograms

As far as I know the people that built it do not respond to inquiry.

One did volenteer information. Of course it was on April fools day, so either someone was having a joke on us or Leslie Robertson wanted everyone to think it was a prank. Personally, I think it is Leslie Robertson who wrote this. If I was him I would be really bugged by what happen and would be looking for safe ways to help the truth.

Posting on April one helps as anything done on that day is self marginalizing. I include a link to the original post.

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

DontAskMe

11th February 2007, 01:32 PM

We designed the towers to resist the accidental impact of a Boeing 707, perhaps lost in the fog while seeking to land. The impact of the Boeing 767s, commandeered by the terrorists, even though larger and flying much faster, was still unable to bring down the towers. The fire-resistive systems, however, did not and could not have contemplated the subsequent fire fueled by thousands of gallons of jet fuel.

http://www.lera.com/sep11.htm

this is his firm and what he and they say about it, sorry...your linked post is either a joke or an impostor

OK, I was curious, since I personally wouldnt believe anything this govt would tell me, I have now independently researched it and there is no question in my mind the planes both hit the buildings and caused their collapse

uruk

11th February 2007, 02:39 PM

You are premature with your demands.

You ignore the grey, brown colored piece in the center, (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg) inside the perimeter walls.

Your must explain the grey brown cube streaming dust.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg

There is a floor facing right with light colored dust. To the left is a more brown colored cube shape.

That cube shape looks to be very heavy and the lighter floor and perimeter walls have been catching air, billowing out and are tearing completely away from the core, left behind the dense, plumeting concrete.
The brown slotted structure is the steel spandrel section. The "grey" slotted section is the aluminum decorative facade covering the steel.

Christophera

11th February 2007, 03:15 PM

The brown slotted structure is the steel spandrel section. The "grey" slotted section is the aluminum decorative facade covering the steel.

OMG!

I cannot believe I've been arguing with somone who is as clueless as this.

The spandrel "plates" horizontally join the perimeter box columns. Near the center of the image below are 3 perimeter columns. The wide horizontal plate between them is the spandrel plate.

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

FYI, the the aluminum facade pieces fit over the outside of the perimeter box column and without the being afixed, it does not have the parallel apperance seen here.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg

The short straight pieces flying through space in the below image are what the facade pieces look like when loose.

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

[size=5]Both ZD and homer are in complete and dynamic error about the image showing part of the concrete core of the top of tower 2 as it falls on WTC 3 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg)

11th February 2007, 08:11 PM

Wrong - those are floors, Chris. But I used the wrong word - when I said 'spandrels' I meant facade. Simple glitch.

Certainly you don't believe the concrete core had all those regular slots along the lower portion - slots that look surprisingly like multiple stacks of floors?

Then again, you think C4 exposed to curing concrete can survive longer than it can sealed in cellophane or plastic... And since you never even took a high-school-level chem class, we know how much your opinion on chemical reactions matters.

Nevertheless, unless you can post images of the concrete core during construction, you've LOST. PERIOD.

wizzertz

12th February 2007, 01:14 AM

Being a long time observer to this thread. I'm more convinced than ever that this is a lost argument. The core wasn't steel, but keep wasting your time, a busy twoofer is a good twoofer.

Jennie C.

12th February 2007, 08:43 AM

Chris, I think you missed my questions:

Not sure exactly what your question is as there is nthing 2 x 2 involved.
And then to Gamolon
It seems as though your axis directions are reversed or lacking. Let me clarify.
The walls along the long axis were 12 foot thick
The walls along the short axis were 17 foot thick.
Both tapered to 2 foot thick at the top.

My question 1: Both tapered to 2 foot thick at the top" means the core was 2' x 2' at the top. So what happens to the people in the elevators?

The true US government is prohibited from doing what you suggest. Infiltrators of the government could though.
My question 2:
Would you give a hint as to WHO has infiltrated? Please at least tell me it's not extra-terrestrials, I'd be so disappointed if it were.

eta: formatting

Big Al

12th February 2007, 09:12 AM

uruk

12th February 2007, 09:44 AM

OMG!

I cannot believe I've been arguing with somone who is as clueless as this.

The spandrel "plates" horizontally join the perimeter box columns. Near the center of the image below are 3 perimeter columns. The wide horizontal plate between them is the spandrel plate.

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

FYI, the the aluminum facade pieces fit over the outside of the perimeter box column and without the being afixed, it does not have the parallel apperance seen here.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg

The short straight pieces flying through space in the below image are what the facade pieces look like when loose.

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

[size=5]Both ZD and homer are in complete and dynamic error about the image showing part of the concrete core of the top of tower 2 as it falls on WTC 3 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg)

Chris, The combination of the columns and spandrel plate were called a "spandrel section" collectively.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-6ExecutiveSummary.pdf

You really need to understand what it is your talking about.
The picture you posted does not show any part of the core section what so ever. It is the Spandrel sections and the aluminum facade falling on the building below. The columns should have been a dead giveaway but your so desparate to find something that is not there that you are deluding yourself.

Chris face it. You have no proof what-so-ever of a concrete core. Posting and misinterpreting pictures is not helping your cause.
In fact it's doing quite the opposite of what you think.

uruk

12th February 2007, 09:49 AM

No, Jennie, Chris hasn't missed them: he's just ignoring them. He's already told me he's going to utterly ignore what he regards as the irrelevant question of why the WTC towers should have been constructed for demolition thirty to forty years ago.

He's tried to answer the question before, but the best he could come up with was "I don't know".
He still doesn't know. I think that he knows any answer he comes with will force him see how rediculous his idea is. I think that why he refuses to answer the question now. He knows it'll sound idiotic.

Big Al

12th February 2007, 09:56 AM

What I wonder is: if the Illuminati or the NWO or whoever are so desperate to cover up this concrete core that they wipe thousands of records of long-ago books and documentaries that dare to mention it:

Why is Chris' site still on the Web?

Why is he still breathing and posting instead of playing a supporting role in a motorway bridge?

AZCat

12th February 2007, 10:03 AM

He's tried to answer the question before, but the best he could come up with was "I don't know".
He still doesn't know. I think that he knows any answer he comes with will force him see how rediculous his idea is. I think that why he refuses to answer the question now. He knows it'll sound idiotic.

Sounding idiotic has never seemed to be a big concern for Chris, for all the years I've been reading his loony posts.

uruk

12th February 2007, 10:14 AM

Sounding idiotic has never seemed to be a big concern for Chris, for all the years I've been reading his loony posts.
The difference is that even he knows any answer to that question will sound idiotic.
Which should be a wake up call. But Chris has devoted too much of his life and personal resources to back down. His ego will not alow him to admit that he is wrong. So his stuff becomes more wild and fanciful.

But CT'rs live in a different world.

AZCat

12th February 2007, 10:23 AM

The difference is that even he knows any answer to that question will sound idiotic.
Which should be a wake up call. But Chris has devoted too much of his life and personal resources to back down. His ego will not alow him to admit that he is wrong. So his stuff becomes more wild and fanciful.

But CT'rs live in a different world.

I think Chris is going to be the one to hit R. Mackey's brilliant Inflationary Limit of Conspiracy Theories (link here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2323813#post2323813). How else is he going to explain 30+ years of conspiracy?

Christophera

12th February 2007, 12:45 PM

Wrong - those are floors, Chris. But I used the wrong word - when I said 'spandrels' I meant facade. Simple glitch.

Why are there no lines on the side of the brown cube facing us? Are you going to try and say that they are so tightly pressed together there are no spaces showing?

Certainly you don't believe the concrete core had all those regular slots along the lower portion - slots that look surprisingly like multiple stacks of floors?

See what I've said above. You have not recoved from an error, you are making it larger.

Then again, you think C4 exposed to curing concrete can survive longer than it can sealed in cellophane or plastic... And since you never even took a high-school-level chem class, we know how much your opinion on chemical reactions matters.

As far as I know C4 loves a wet environment devoid of gasses which can promote oxidization and evaporation. Curing then cured concrete is probably optimum.

Nevertheless, unless you can post images of the concrete core during construction, you've LOST. PERIOD.

I've posted pictures of concrete from the towers demise, you have not posted an image of the steel core columns from that same event. You and the concrete denier crowd have misrepresented pictures from construction to pretend that you have evidence and I've logically dismissed them as the vetical steel you claim is "steel core columns" simply is never seen when the towers are coming down.

Now we see how much you know about structures and we understand exactly how you could believe the construction images that your partners in denial have posted and assert show steel core columns, erroneously, when the images really show elevator guide rail supports.

The images I've posted and the logic I've presented prove they are not steel core columns. But your recent posts prove you don't know enough to know that is true. Hopefully some in the viewing public do.

Christophera

12th February 2007, 01:01 PM

Chris, The combination of the columns and spandrel plate were called a "spandrel section" collectively.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-6ExecutiveSummary.pdf

If it was an assembly panel, and we could see the entire panale perhaps your could refer to it that way. That would would be NIST specific terminology. Perimeter box columns would generally be the only correct structural reference, then, you can add "with aluminum facade". However, since you cannot recognize that the only steel columns ever shown in the demolition images show columns which are outside the core area, your ability to reconize or properly refer to structural elements is very limited.

You really need to understand what it is your talking about.
The picture you posted does not show any part of the core section what so ever. It is the Spandrel sections and the aluminum facade falling on the building below. The columns should have been a dead giveaway but your so desparate to find something that is not there that you are deluding yourself.

Chris face it. You have no proof what-so-ever of a concrete core. Posting and misinterpreting pictures is not helping your cause.
In fact it's doing quite the opposite of what you think.

Again "and aluminum facade" will not supplant the major structural description of "perimeter box columns" which also has the "aluminum facade" attached.

The picture you posted does not show any part of the core section what so ever.

So are you supporting ZD with the assertion that the huge brown cube inside the falling perimeter box columns is comprised of stacked floors?

uruk

12th February 2007, 01:36 PM

If it was an assembly panel, and we could see the entire panale perhaps your could refer to it that way. That would would be NIST specific terminology. Perimeter box columns would generally be the only correct structural reference, then, you can add "with aluminum facade". However, since you cannot recognize that the only steel columns ever shown in the demolition images show columns which are outside the core area, your ability to reconize or properly refer to structural elements is very limited.

Again "and aluminum facade" will not supplant the major structural description of "perimeter box columns" which also has the "aluminum facade" attached.

So are you supporting ZD with the assertion that the huge brown cube inside the falling perimeter box columns is comprised of stacked floors?

Chris, take a closer look. Your so-called cube is dust and debri following the spandrel sections in the air vortex behind the falling sections.
Take notice of the strak like structures that I circled. Notice how similar they are to the streaks in the dust following the steel sections in the lower right hand corner.

You need to wipe the dillusion from your eyes and see what is realy there, not what you think is there.

Christophera

12th February 2007, 01:56 PM

Christophera

12th February 2007, 03:40 PM

Chris, I think you missed my questions:

Quote:
Both tapered to 2 foot thick at the top" means the core was 2' x 2' at the top. So what happens to the people in the elevators?

You forgot to consider, and I assumed you knew, that the 17 & 12 foot walls are in addition to the 80 x 120 foot inside dimensions of the steel reinforced cast concrete tube of the core. That would make the core OD at 104 feet narrow side. Long axis 154 feet OD.

uruk

12th February 2007, 04:02 PM

Okay, since you've evaded my question as to whether or not you support ZD in his assertion that the brown cube is "stacked floors" I will assume you do not and that you recognize his error.

IMAGE BELOW:
What you annotate "dust & debris" on the left is definitely a solid. So your annotation is really erroneous there. At the bottom I get more specific and DO EXPECT an answer to my question. I do not discount that there may be something behind the dust in the right side of the picture, (I do not have Xray vision) but I do not see a hard or solid edge. I do see the edge of the dust streaming off the panel section to the left that is at the same angle as the rest of the streaming dust. You are going to have to point out where the "solid edge" is.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=5506&d=1171312436

On the right what you annotate as "dust & debris" is a floor with its broken edge where it had fastened to the interior box columns and floor beams streaming dust. You've completely left out the fact that there is a plane edge at the origin of the dust. Again I cannot see through dense dust clouds. All I see is dust streaming behind the panel section falling below it. The solid black areas are possibly the floor structures. You are going to have to point out the "plane edge".

You accurately indicate aluminum facade pieces with annotation above.

Near the bottom in green you refer to perimeter box columns as "spandrel sections" when they are obviously shredded or not in their original irregular panels. If you wish to continue to refer to the assembly panels as "spandrel sections" please refer to exact page inthe NIST document you link to Otherwise "spandrels" are plates that horizontally join "perimeter boc columns". The lines going upward point to perimeter box columns where the aluminum facade has been torn off. Sorry, my mistake. What I referred to as "spandrel section" (which I thought was the collective assembly of the columns connected by spandrels) is actually refered to as an "exterior wall panel" or just "panel". This was due to my misreading of the paragraphs on page 6, & 13, of the report I posted earlier which specifcaly mention "spandrel section": http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-6ExecutiveSummary.pdf

The green line pointing to the left to the roof of the concrete core where marks of the roof beams which joined the perimeter wall together remain, strictly is INCONSISTENT with the other green pointer lines.

What do you say to that fact? You are going to have to point it out. I do not see a "roof" to a "concrete core". I see panel sections and possibly floor sections falling on to the roof of a building with a lot of streaming dust and debri following behind.

For core info see:
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-2.pdf (page 61, and see pages 80 - for damage caused to core section)
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-1A.pdf (take particular note of page 42, 43 and 44 for info of core)

uruk

12th February 2007, 04:27 PM

You forgot to consider, and I assumed you knew, that the 17 & 12 foot walls are in addition to the 80 x 120 foot inside dimensions of the steel reinforced cast concrete tube of the core. That would make the core OD at 104 feet narrow side. Long axis 154 feet OD.

Wel Chris, why would they say the core is 80 x 120 when the Concrete core wal is supposed to be part of the core. would'nt they have said the core was 104 x 154?
The people who built the building were pround of the vast office floor space.
And on top of that, the reported square footage of office space does not work out if you take into consideration of extra space taken up by your concrete core walls.

Also, If the core walls tapered from 17 and 12 feet at the base to 2 feet at the top, the core should be narrower at the top if the interior dimension stays the same.
why do we not see that taper in the pictures below?

Christophera

12th February 2007, 09:57 PM

On the right what you annotate as "dust & debris" is a floor with its broken edge where it had fastened to the interior box columns and floor beams streaming dust. You've completely left out the fact that there is a plane edge at the origin of the dust.

Again I cannot see through dense dust clouds. All I see is dust streaming behind the panel section falling below it. The solid black areas are possibly the floor structures. You are going to have to point out the "plane edge".

I do not discount that there may be something behind the dust in the right side of the picture, (I do not have Xray vision) but I do not see a hard or solid edge.

In your annotated image below, there is an edge visible which runs from top left to bottom right approximately. It is brown and to the left of the puffs of dust you have circled on the right annotated "dust & debris". That floor edge, or edge of a plane is parallel to the right edge of the concrete core roof. White pieces of debris can be seen travelling up into the dark cavity (black areas) formed between the floor and the right core face.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=5506&d=1171312436

The green line pointing to the left to the roof of the concrete core where marks of the roof beams which joined the perimeter wall together remain, strictly is INCONSISTENT with the other green pointer lines.

What do you say to that fact?

I do see the edge of the dust streaming off the panel section to the left that is at the same angle as the rest of the streaming dust. You are going to have to point out where the "solid edge" is.

Above the image I described where the edge of the floor is and you've just described the dust stream which is left of the vertical line (left most) coming down from the note "Aluminum facade pieces". That dust emerges from behind the perimeter box column panel which appears to be rotating counterclockwise as all falling objects in the image are.

That element on the left of the perimeter box column panel and below does not have dust and debris in any quantity coming from it. The top edge of it is clearly seen. That entire core face only has only one piece of debris in front of it. It also has an unmistakable cube shape. The green line coming from the note "Steel spandrel sections" points to the roof area. Moisture inside the roof area sitting on the concrete between the beams that joined the perimeter wall together causes lime to leach from the concrete making the white streaks that run from bottom left to top right. The dark lines are where the roof beams ran on the concrete. The brown color of the concrete is from being enclosed and "sweating" rather than a bleached gray color from exterior concrete faces as we usually see.

The left side of the piece of the core, left of the line coming from the note on the left of the image "dust & debris", is the edge of a hallway which is why the line formed is so straight and clean.

That being the top of the south tower core, which ran with the long axis north and south, the left side of the core in the image would be the edge of the east opening, of two on that side (outside length at top 84 feet). The right side of the core (length at top, 124 feet) in the image, which is barely seen other than the roof, would be at about the north side of the north opening on the east face.

Did you ever see photo of the hole in WTC 3 with all the sand and gravel at the bottom of it? The core penetrated WTC 3 all the way to the ground and shattered. Steel framing wouldn't do that. it would get caught on surroundings and bend/fold floors downward without penetrating and would probably only go halfway to the ground.

The explanation for (near) free fall at,

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

include a description of how the towers were caused to fall in the directions they fell rather than in the directions of the damaged perimeter walls from plane impacts.

12th February 2007, 10:05 PM

I might well be wrong about that being flooring. It seems I'm looking at the dark lines of the spandrel sections and seeing what looks like stacks of floors.

However, one thing is clear: there's no concrete core in that image, that I can tell.

Regardless, without clear photographic images of the concrete core during construction, you have lost. Period.

BTW - the towers didn't fall any faster than would be expected during any collapse. Your harping on 'near free fall' is moronic.

Mobyseven

12th February 2007, 11:24 PM

13th February 2007, 06:33 AM

LET THIS THREAD DIE!!! WHY WON'T YOU LET IT DIE???

Everytime I come back to this forum and see this thread on the first page it makes me cry on the inside.

And I know, I know this will bump it right back to the top again.

And please - PLEASE! Let it be the last time I ever see it there!!!

Forget it, Moby. The thread won't die. The mods won't kill it, and Chris won't let it die, and every newcomer seems to have to take a stab at Chris - giving Chris even more material to quote and misuse.

As for me, I refuse to quit until Chris can provide one of the following:

1) Clear evidence of the concrete core during construction of the towers;
2) Clear evidence of the existence of this remarkable documentary he claims to have seen; AND/OR
3) Clear evidence of the existence of this Oxford book he references.

Without 1, he has LOST. 2 would be worth discussing, and would also count as 1; 3 would be at least worth looking into.

Since you can't handle the thread, Moby, just put Chris on Ignore, and choose to turn his threads invisible.

Big Al

13th February 2007, 06:36 AM

As far as I know C4 loves a wet environment devoid of gasses which can promote oxidization and evaporation. Curing then cured concrete is probably optimum.

I'll have to bow to your superior knowledge on the moisture content, although I have read at least that C-4 powder needs to be kept dry.

However, concrete curing is a strongly exothermic reaction which generates a LOT of heat - I understand the Hoover Dam is still a little warmer than it should be due to heat leaking from concrete still curing in its interior. To quote from a DOD website http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/fun/part12.htm

(2) Temperature of storage--The rate of decomposition of explosives increases at higher temperatures. All of the standard military explosives may be considered to be of a high order of stability at temperatures of -10o to +35oC, but each has a high temperature at which the rate of decomposition becomes rapidly accelerated and stability is re-duced. As a rule of thumb, most explosives becomes dangerously unstable at temperatures exceeding 70oC

Curing concrete normally generates up to 50 degrees C and can spike up to 70. That's well above the 35 degree upper storage temperature mentioned above. Some "optimum" environment. Strikes me as more like Russian roulette.

uruk

13th February 2007, 09:24 AM

In your annotated image below, there is an edge visible which runs from top left to bottom right approximately. It is brown and to the left of the puffs of dust you have circled on the right annotated "dust & debris". That floor edge, or edge of a plane is parallel to the right edge of the concrete core roof. White pieces of debris can be seen travelling up into the dark cavity (black areas) formed between the floor and the right core face.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=5506&d=1171312436
I'm sorry Chris, I just don't see what your trying to point out. I do not see a hard or solid edge there. I just see a lot of dust and debris.

You are using a computer right? you can use the "Paint" program to point out the edge you are seeing. That's what i've been using to annotate pictures

Above the image I described where the edge of the floor is and you've just described the dust stream which is left of the vertical line (left most) coming down from the note "Aluminum facade pieces". That dust emerges from behind the perimeter box column panel which appears to be rotating counterclockwise as all falling objects in the image are.
I still don't see a hard or solid edge.
Chris, you can't tell rotational motion from a still photograph. You can only assume the debris is moving downward because of gravity. I can't tell at which direction the debris is rotating from a still photograph.

That element on the left of the perimeter box column panel and below does not have dust and debris in any quantity coming from it. The top edge of it is clearly seen. That entire core face only has only one piece of debris in front of it. It also has an unmistakable cube shape. The green line coming from the note "Steel spandrel sections" points to the roof area. Moisture inside the roof area sitting on the concrete between the beams that joined the perimeter wall together causes lime to leach from the concrete making the white streaks that run from bottom left to top right. The dark lines are where the roof beams ran on the concrete. The brown color of the concrete is from being enclosed and "sweating" rather than a bleached gray color from exterior concrete faces as we usually see.

The left side of the piece of the core, left of the line coming from the note on the left of the image "dust & debris", is the edge of a hallway which is why the line formed is so straight and clean.

That being the top of the south tower core, which ran with the long axis north and south, the left side of the core in the image would be the edge of the east opening, of two on that side (outside length at top 84 feet). The right side of the core (length at top, 124 feet) in the image, which is barely seen other than the roof, would be at about the north side of the north opening on the east face. I still don't see it Chris. Do your own annotation and post the picture.

Did you ever see photo of the hole in WTC 3 with all the sand and gravel at the bottom of it? The core penetrated WTC 3 all the way to the ground and shattered. Steel framing wouldn't do that. it would get caught on surroundings and bend/fold floors downward without penetrating and would probably only go halfway to the ground. You're making alot of unsubstantiated claims there. Show me the evidence.

The explanation for (near) free fall at,

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

include a description of how the towers were caused to fall in the directions they fell rather than in the directions of the damaged perimeter walls from plane impacts.
Yada, yada, yada. This is something you typicaly do when you are cornered.
Change the subject.

Christophera

13th February 2007, 11:55 AM

In your annotated image below, there is an edge visible which runs from top left to bottom right approximately. It is brown and to the left of the puffs of dust you have circled on the right annotated "dust & debris". That floor edge, or edge of a plane is parallel to the right edge of the concrete core roof. White pieces of debris can be seen travelling up into the dark cavity (black areas) formed between the floor and the right core face.

I'm sorry Chris, I just don't see what your trying to point out. I do not see a hard or solid edge there. I just see a lot of dust and debris.

You are using a computer right? you can use the "Paint" program to point out the edge you are seeing. That's what i've been using to annotate pictures

Above the image I described where the edge of the floor is and you've just described the dust stream which is left of the vertical line (left most) coming down from the note "Aluminum facade pieces". That dust emerges from behind the perimeter box column panel which appears to be rotating counterclockwise as all falling objects in the image are.
I still don't see a hard or solid edge.

I'm sorry Chris, I just don't see what your trying to point out. I do not see a hard or solid edge there. I just see a lot of dust and debris.

You are using a computer right? you can use the "Paint" program to point out the edge you are seeing. That's what i've been using to annotate pictures

I still don't see a hard or solid edge.

I still don't see it Chris. Do your own annotation and post the picture.

Here is the image annotated. The thick red line (lower right) is parallel and left of a barely visible line formed by a series of objects, the ends of the floor trusses, then a broken line of the floor panel. The light colored dust to the right is typical of the lightweight concrete. Structural concrete is darker in its particulate form.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3line.jpg

Chris, you can't tell rotational motion from a still photograph. You can only assume the debris is moving downward because of gravity. I can't tell at which direction the debris is rotating from a still photograph.

It is not comprehensible to imagine the object rotating counterclockwise. Not logical, basically under the conditions, not possible. If you think it is, explain how, physically, this could happen within the non existent structural damage at that elevation.

This will be difficult at least and open a new can of worms because within a collapse the top of the tower cannot end up on the west side when the body is falling east.

Then explain what that brown, cube object is, if it is not concrete.

Then show us an image of the supposed steel core columns in the core area from an elevation over the ground.

It is not I that is in a corner. I've already shown that the narrow end of the core is 25 feet from the perimeter walls (http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/images/wtc_19aug2000_lobby.jpg), which totally accomodates the 17 thick walls I show here. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg)

13th February 2007, 12:03 PM

What causes concrete, normally a grey material, to be brown, just out of curiosity?

uruk

13th February 2007, 12:37 PM

Here is the image annotated. The thick red line (lower right) is parallel and left of a barely visible line formed by a series of objects, the ends of the floor trusses, then a broken line of the floor panel. The light colored dust to the right is typical of the lightweight concrete. Structural concrete is darker in its particulate form.

The line you marked out in red is the edge of whatever that black mass is. The dark brown area above the black mass is the debris and dust cloud within the shadow.

It is not comprehensible to imagine the object rotating counterclockwise. Not logical, basically under the conditions, not possible. If you think it is, explain how, physically, this could happen within the non existent structural damage at that elevation. I have no idea what your babeling about here but I was commenting on your observation that the debris was rotating. You can not tell from a still photograph what direction the panels are rotating. You need video for that. Or at least something in the picture to indicate rotation. But he dust streams are only traveling verticaly.

This will be difficult at least and open a new can of worms because within a collapse the top of the tower cannot end up on the west side when the body is falling east. Chris, as the mass crashes into the building below it, the panels will fall in a outward direction away from the building.

Then explain what that brown, cube object is, if it is not concrete.Hey Chris, I though you said that the concrete was totaly pulverized by the C4 covering the rebar with in the Concrete core walls. Why would there be an intact concrete cube if the concrete was totaly pulverized by the explosives?

Anyhoo, It is not a brown concrete cube. Concrete is not brown. (unless coloring has been added) You are just seeing what you want to see.

The brown mass is a shadow being cast on the debris/dust cloud. The brown color is due to the processing of the image. (Look up color temperatures and hues in photography)
Look at the enlargements I annotated below.

Then show us an image of the supposed steel core columns in the core area from an elevation over the ground. Trying to change the subject again?

It is not I that is in a corner. I've already shown that the narrow end of the core is 25 feet from the perimeter walls (http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/images/wtc_19aug2000_lobby.jpg), which totally accomodates the 17 thick walls I show here. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg)
Why are trying to change the subject when you are responding to a specific issue with a post? Could it be you are trying to hide something or redirect the readers attention?
What is it that you are trying to hide Chris?

uruk

13th February 2007, 12:42 PM

Speaking of changing the subject.
Chris Why have you not responded to this post?

Originally Posted by Christophera
You forgot to consider, and I assumed you knew, that the 17 & 12 foot walls are in addition to the 80 x 120 foot inside dimensions of the steel reinforced cast concrete tube of the core. That would make the core OD at 104 feet narrow side. Long axis 154 feet OD.

If the core walls tapered from 17 and 12 feet at the base to 2 feet at the top, the core should be narrower at the top if the interior dimension stays the same.
why do we not see that taper in the pictures below?

Big Al

14th February 2007, 10:05 AM

The light colored dust to the right is typical of the lightweight concrete. Structural concrete is darker in its particulate form.

You never told us you were an expert in the properties of pulverised concrete, too, Chris!

It is not comprehensible to imagine the object rotating counterclockwise. Not logical, basically under the conditions, not possible. If you think it is, explain how, physically, this could happen within the non existent structural damage at that elevation.

This will be difficult at least and open a new can of worms because within a collapse the top of the tower cannot end up on the west side when the body is falling east.

OK, chief, you got me. With my non-existent expertise in building collapses, I don't know. However, I have seen several controlled demolitions on TV, and the buildings don't rotate then, either. How would the explosive demolition of the main supporting core of a skyscraper uniquely cause it to rotate, where the much-maligned aircraft impact "theory" wouldn't? I think that is more to the point. Why should the rotation or non-rotation of the tower imply controlled demolition to us?

Then explain what that brown, cube object is, if it is not concrete.

1) it's manifestly not a cube.
2) I associate cured concrete with a grey colour, not brown.
3) Your question is like showing a kangaroo to someone who's never seen one before and saying "If that's not a dog, then what is it?"
4) I thought your theory was that the core was completely blown into powder by the C-4 coated rebar. If this solid chunk of supposed reinforced concrete survived, I would expect it to be substantially intact when it hit the ground, held together by its rebar. All wiring connections would be severed, and so the C-4 couldn't be detonated. It burns in fire, it doesn't explode, so your huge concrete block would, I imagine, be a pretty notable remnant.

Then show us an image of the supposed steel core columns in the core area from an elevation over the ground.

I wonder what all the quarter-million tons of steel taken away for scrap were from.

It is not I that is in a corner. I've already shown that the narrow end of the core is 25 feet from the perimeter walls (http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/images/wtc_19aug2000_lobby.jpg),

No you haven't, Chris. You've shown there were corridors in the WTC. That I knew without your help. What's that picture supposed to show qua a concrete core?

Christophera

14th February 2007, 11:04 AM

Speaking of changing the subject.
Chris Why have you not responded to this post?

If the core walls tapered from 17 and 12 feet at the base to 2 feet at the top, the core should be narrower at the top if the interior dimension stays the same.
why do we not see that taper in the pictures below?

Oh yes, your subject change.

The below image show WTC 1 on the right and the space between the interior box column can be seen. The interior box columns can be seen intermitently. They are plumb and the core face is not meaning there is a wider space between them and the core face and that is seen.

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

The The sunrise silhouette (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtccoreshilouette.jpg) looks through the corners enough to obscure that quality.

WTC 2 was different in that it did not have the strict shear wall design or taper that WTC 1 had. From the ground to the 43rd floor there was a stepping of the outer dimensions and narrowing as it went up. At the 43rd I believe it went to a constant dimension.

Why are the plans not available?

Big Al

14th February 2007, 11:49 AM

WTC 2 was different in that it did not have the strict shear wall design or taper that WTC 1 had. From the ground to the 43rd floor there was a stepping of the outer dimensions and narrowing as it went up. At the 43rd I believe it went to a constant dimension

You're not seriously trying to tell us that you remember this from your vanished PBS documentary viewed all those years ago, are you, Chris? Or are you just "creating memories" to fit your story? It's ludicrous to imagine that such a minuscule detail would either be mentioned in a documentary or stick in your brain after all that time. And all the official accounts say that they were steel-cored towers, so you wouldn't be able to refresh your memory there. And I wouldn't have thought the documentary would have had time to go into such painstaking floor-by-floor detail, what with going on and on about bloody reinforcing rebar!

Christophera

14th February 2007, 01:14 PM

You're not seriously trying to tell us that you remember this from your vanished PBS documentary viewed all those years ago, are you, Chris?

You're not trying to pretend you can legitmately, within reason, ask these questions when you cannot support the steel core columns you assert exist with images from the towers demise are you?

You have no memory of anything at all yet you pretend you can question mine when it fits what is seen in images?

I say there was a difference between the 2 towers cores and we see one.

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

The documentay I viewed was not about WTC 2 it was about WTC 1. It did have a few minutes at the end where images showed WTC 2 ascending and the narration described a few things about it. One was that WTC one was difficult to rent because there was only one hallway per floor on the lower 75 floors crossing the core. That hallway was perpindicuarly opposed with adjacent floors and the light in the silhouette images bleeds across that floor and making the hall look like every floor. Becuase WTC was so difficult to rent, WTC 2 was made with 2 hallways in each direction on every floor.

Or are you just "creating memories" to fit your story? It's ludicrous to imagine that such a minuscule detail would either be mentioned in a documentary or stick in your brain after all that time.

If it is easier for you to imagine 2 planes slamming into towers and having their fuel soften steel columns to the degree that both, ENTIRE towers fall to the ground at free fall almost identically to leave molten steel inthe basement, you have a mental problem and are in no position to question a persons memory that happens to fit images of hard evidence.

And all the official accounts say that they were steel-cored towers,

And we know that FEMA didn't ever get the plans.

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

and we know the mayor of NYC took the plans and hid them in his private warehouse.

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

and, as far a BPAT getting them in January of 2002, where are they???? How do we know this is true. What reason do they have for not making them available.

We know that due process was violated in 3,000 capital crimes when evidence was disturbed, removed and destroyed before private investigations could be made. Too many live were lost in a supposed collapse to NOT allow full, independent investigations in order to be sure future constrcution will not fail in the same way.

As it is, if they did collapse as officially stated, there is no good reson why so no improvements can be made.

so you wouldn't be able to refresh your memory there. And I wouldn't have thought the documentary would have had time to go into such painstaking floor-by-floor detail, what with going on and on about bloody reinforcing rebar!

The DOC did not have floor by floor detail. Major changes in constrcution at floors were noted.

Considering all said above, reasonably, you really must produce images of the supposed steel core columns from the towers demise BECAUSE you have no plans and the below shows concrete and not steel structure, and,............... steel cannot be cut to fall instantly within what was seen on 9-11.

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

uruk

14th February 2007, 02:10 PM

Oh yes, your subject change.

The below image show WTC 1 on the right and the space between the interior box column can be seen. The interior box columns can be seen intermitently. They are plumb and the core face is not meaning there is a wider space between them and the core face and that is seen. I never said anything about the Columns tapering. I haven't even refrenced that picture.
This is your typical attempt at a red herring.

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

The The sunrise silhouette (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtccoreshilouette.jpg) looks through the corners enough to obscure that quality.

WTC 2 was different in that it did not have the strict shear wall design or taper that WTC 1 had. From the ground to the 43rd floor there was a stepping of the outer dimensions and narrowing as it went up. At the 43rd I believe it went to a constant dimension.
Chris, Chris, Chris. backtracking and making stuff up as you go along are we?

Don't think your fooling anyone here Chris.

You have been telling us that the concrete core wall tapers from 12 & 17 feet at the bottom to 2 feet at the top.
You told JennieC that the interior area of the core remained the same from bottom to top so the tapered side is the exterior side of the core.
You even said that you could see the exterior wall of the core taper in the picture taken at the mezzanine.
So, If you can see the taper in the photograph of the mezzanine level, you should be able to see the taper of the core in the sunrise photo.

So where's the taper?

Why are the plans not available?
Trying to change the subject again?
Anyhoo the plans were available to NIST. All you have to do is look at the reports. The two PDFs I posted has some detailed images from the plans including construction breakdowns and supply reports. (I pointed out a couple of pages)

uruk

14th February 2007, 02:43 PM

You're not trying to pretend you can legitmately, within reason, ask these questions when you cannot support the steel core columns you assert exist with images from the towers demise are you? hey your the one claiming Concrete core. We'er just asking you to prove it. Every website that mentions the cores of the tower all say "a core of 47 steel columns".
Well except yours. But then your site is the only one. And sofar you have no proof.

You have no memory of anything at all yet you pretend you can question mine when it fits what is seen in images? So far none of the images you have shown us shows a concrete core.

I say there was a difference between the 2 towers cores and we see one. So you say. But you haven't shown us the difference.
There's a difference between "what you say" and "what is". Since your the one saying there is a difference, it is your burden to prove it to us.

The documentay I viewed was not about WTC 2 it was about WTC 1. It did have a few minutes at the end where images showed WTC 2 ascending and the narration described a few things about it. One was that WTC one was difficult to rent because there was only one hallway per floor on the lower 75 floors crossing the core. That hallway was perpindicuarly opposed with adjacent floors and the light in the silhouette images bleeds across that floor and making the hall look like every floor. Becuase WTC was so difficult to rent, WTC 2 was made with 2 hallways in each direction on every floor. Before we can believe that, we are going to have to see proof that it actually existed. Hey what about showing us floor plans, how about pictures of the office space or core area that shows the difference.

If it is easier for you to imagine 2 planes slamming into towers and having their fuel soften steel columns to the degree that both, ENTIRE towers fall to the ground at free fall almost identically to leave molten steel inthe basement, you have a mental problem and are in no position to question a persons memory that happens to fit images of hard evidence. Only the picture do not fit what you have been telling us. the picture of the falling panel sections proves that. You see a concrete where ther e is only dust and debris.
You have not provided any hard evidence whatsoever. Just conjecture supported by badly misinterpreted pictures.

And we know that FEMA didn't ever get the plans.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html
According to the information Golomon posted:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2316412&postcount=10754
Your wrong.

and we know the mayor of NYC took the plans and hid them in his private warehouse.

http://www.nyclu.org/g_archive020602.html
Quit lieing Chris. It doesn't say "WTC plans" were in the archive. It said "documents relating to the WTC" were in the archive. That could be anything.
Besides, Just look at the NIST reports. The diagrams and plans are very detailed. Where else could they have obtained that info. If they had faked it, the designers and engineers would have spoken up by now.

and, as far a BPAT getting them in January of 2002, where are they???? How do we know this is true. What reason do they have for not making them available.

We know that due process was violated in 3,000 capital crimes when evidence was disturbed, removed and destroyed before private investigations could be made. Too many live were lost in a supposed collapse to NOT allow full, independent investigations in order to be sure future constrcution will not fail in the same way. ***Mindless ranting.****

Considering all said above, reasonably, you really must produce images of the supposed steel core columns from the towers demise BECAUSE you have no plans and the below shows concrete and not steel structure, and,............... steel cannot be cut to fall instantly within what was seen on 9-11.

Concrete Core Of WTC 2 (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)
Your the one making the claim for a concrete core when all other sources say it was a steel core. The burden of proof is on you Chris. And can't show us one clear photo of a concrete core.

The tactic of shifting the burden of proof means that you are getting more and more desparate as that little corner you're in keeps getting smaller and smaller.

Christophera

14th February 2007, 03:47 PM

I never said anything about the Columns tapering. I haven't even refrenced that picture.
This is your typical attempt at a red herring.

I also never said anything about the columns tapering. I said the core of WTC 1 tapers. Are feigning confusion to change the subject now?

The picture reference deals with the tapering core. I explained the sunrise image you used was not lined up witht he building faces and the slight diagnoal view won't show the taper. So I used an image that would show taper the taper between the plumb interior box columns and the core face.

mid day silouette (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/silhouettenoontosouth.jpg)

What is your game?

Big Al

14th February 2007, 04:42 PM

You're not trying to pretend you can legitmately, within reason, ask these questions when you cannot support the steel core columns you assert exist with images from the towers demise are you?

You have no memory of anything at all yet you pretend you can question mine when it fits what is seen in images?

Where is the tapering core of WTC1 and the non-tapering core of WTC2 shown in any picture you have posted?

I say there was a difference between the 2 towers cores and we see one.

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

I don't. Please don't include me in this mythical "we".

The documentay I viewed was not about WTC 2 it was about WTC 1. It did have a few minutes at the end where images showed WTC 2 ascending and the narration described a few things about it. One was that WTC one was difficult to rent because there was only one hallway per floor on the lower 75 floors crossing the core. That hallway was perpindicuarly opposed with adjacent floors and the light in the silhouette images bleeds across that floor and making the hall look like every floor. Becuase WTC was so difficult to rent, WTC 2 was made with 2 hallways in each direction on every floor.

And this came in a few minutes at the end of a two-hour documentary in... what was it, 1993? And you can remember it in this much detail? Chris, you really, really need to apply for Randi's million. A memory such as yours transcends all normality. What I find even more remarkable is that you remember all these tiny little details only when someone challenges you. I asked you god knows how many pages back to put down everything you remember about this documentary that nobody believes in, so you couldn't magically bring out new "revelations" as the mood took you. However, you ignored that request, as I expected.

If it is easier for you to imagine 2 planes slamming into towers and having their fuel soften steel columns to the degree that both, ENTIRE towers fall to the ground at free fall almost identically to leave molten steel inthe basement, you have a mental problem and are in no position to question a persons memory that happens to fit images of hard evidence.

Two almost identical towers, hit by two almost identical planes in two almost identical crashes reacting the SAME WAY? My God, how preposterous!

And we know that FEMA didn't ever get the plans.

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

To quote from 911research's website:

The core columns were steel box-columns that were continuous for their entire height, going from their bedrock anchors in the sub-basements to near the towers' tops, where they transitioned to H-beams.

So they. too, must be wilful liars like all the rest of us non-concrete-core believers, mustn't they? So why believe them on anything else?

and we know the mayor of NYC took the plans and hid them in his private warehouse.

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

No, we don't. We are told that the plaintiffs believe he secreted WTC documents. That could imply anything.

and, as far a BPAT getting them in January of 2002, where are they???? How do we know this is true. What reason do they have for not making them available.

Why don't you ask, Chris?

We know that due process was violated in 3,000 capital crimes when evidence was disturbed, removed and destroyed before private investigations could be made. Too many live were lost in a supposed collapse to NOT allow full, independent investigations in order to be sure future constrcution will not fail in the same way.

As it is, if they did collapse as officially stated, there is no good reson why so no improvements can be made.

The WTC buildings stood for over 30 years, supposedly laced with overheated, sweaty, unstable C-4 in their very hearts. They did pretty well, considering. WTC1 even withstood a major bomb blast in the basement without buckling. The fact that the buildings collapsed after being hit by 300-400 mph airliners is hardly a major indictment about their design, is it?

Christophera

14th February 2007, 05:46 PM

You have no memory of anything at all yet you pretend you can question mine when it fits what is seen in images?

To stick with the subject, the core tapers. Below, the top left image of the 4.

"A" on right of right tower, #1; NOTE, at about 8, 8:30 o'clock from "A" the space between the outer, vertical dark bar inside the tower and the core face, is narrower lower.

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

(http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2166475#post2166475
The post that image is from is about WTC 2 and how some walls of the core were cast ahead of the rest of the core to allow the steel to go more than the limit of 7 floors on WTC 1. Concrete serves to make the steel structure more stable.)

hey your the one claiming Concrete core. We'er just asking you to prove it.

I prove the concrete core.

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

but you are not familiar enough with the design subjects of steel framed construction or concrete constrcution and their appearances or applications.

Here is proof from page 231 that you do not know what you are talking about here.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2155211#post2155211

And you are the one ZD was following with the "spandrel sections" or whatever you were using to describe the perimeter box columns. Your last blunder. The above link is probably the 3rd or 4th time in this thread I've shown that you don't have a clue.

Your the one making the claim for a concrete core when all other sources say it was a steel core. The burden of proof is on you Chris. And can't show us one clear photo of a concrete core.

Firstly, above I've shown you will not recognize concrete if you saw it. You certainly don't know the difference between a moment frame and the trussed crane platform. Add to this factor and, ........

If that burden is on me then the burden of showing the steel core columns in a situation that cannot be misinterpreted. ......... like from the 9-11 images, is upon you.

[size=5]No one has ever shown that[/b]

REASON AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF:
Recall, I'm saying that everything you've been told about the towers core is a lie. Remember, you have no plans to show describing the steel core columns and if they existed, you would. The very fact that I assert the towers were built to demolish logically precludes your asking me for plans, or photos of construction because those that plotted to do this also intended to get away with it and removed the plans (proven) and concealed the plans (proven).

As increased reason for you to produce proof of the core that cannot be misrepresented, we have the fact that that evidence of steel was WAS removed from the scene managed by the sources of your information, throwing them into question again.

All the above says to remain reasonable with integrity to the purpose of reason , says that your simply repeating "NO" is, ........... not, ......... reasonable, NOW lets add to the burden of proof that is logically upon you a fact, ........

The core you (fail) to assert existed CANNOT be made to perform as was seen as heard on 9-11. Concrete can.

Accordingly, ........... you or any who attempt to assert that there were steel core columns in the cores of those towers MUST have images of raw from 9-11 evidence that cannot be misinterpreted as can construction images.

If the steel you've presented as "core columns" if it was core columns, would also be present in the 9-11 images BECAUSE the "core columns" would (if they existed in the core area) be so strong they would ABSOLUTELY be seen in the images of the towers demise, and they are not. (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg)

The tactic of shifting the burden of proof means that you are getting more and more desparate as that little corner you're in keeps getting smaller and smaller.

I have proof of the concrete core many ways (25' wide lobby! = 17' thick base core wall.) (http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/images/wtc_19aug2000_lobby.jpg), you don't have the competence to recognize it or the integrity to admit it.

Instead you distract or confuse with nonsense or the behavior of feigning confusion and try to pretend that because a government agency produced your theroretical free falling core made of invisisteel, is the correct one, erroneously, that the burden of proof therefore is with me. You cannot use your sources to establish their veracity while we are questioning those very sources.

Your assertions of the towers structure is without substance. Your ability to discern what design structural elements of steel and concrete are comprised of or their basic identity is not even marginal. It is bad.

Give up homer!

Christophera

14th February 2007, 05:52 PM

You have no memory of anything at all yet you pretend you can question mine when it fits what is seen in images?

To stick with the subject, the core tapers. Below, the top left image of the 4.

"A" on right of right tower, #1; NOTE, at about 8, 8:30 o'clock from "A" the space between the outer, vertical dark bar inside the tower and the core face, is narrower lower.

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

(http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2166475#post2166475
The post that image is from is about WTC 2 and how some walls of the core were cast ahead of the rest of the core to allow the steel to go more than the limit of 7 floors on WTC 1. Concrete serves to make the steel structure more stable.)

hey your the one claiming Concrete core. We'er just asking you to prove it.

I prove the concrete core.

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

but you are not familiar enough with the design subjects of steel framed construction or concrete constrcution and their appearances or applications.

Here is proof from page 231 that you do not know what you are talking about here.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2155211#post2155211

And you are the one ZD was following with the "spandrel sections" or whatever you were using to describe the perimeter box columns. Your last blunder. The above link is probably the 3rd or 4th time in this thread I've shown that you don't have a clue.

Your the one making the claim for a concrete core when all other sources say it was a steel core. The burden of proof is on you Chris. And can't show us one clear photo of a concrete core.

Firstly, above I've shown you will not recognize concrete if you saw it. You certainly don't know the difference between a moment frame and the trussed crane platform. Add to this factor and, ........

If that burden is on me then the burden of showing the steel core columns in a situation that cannot be misinterpreted. ......... like from the 9-11 images, is upon you.

[size=5]No one has ever shown that[/b]

REASON AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF:
Recall, I'm saying that everything you've been told about the towers core is a lie. Remember, you have no plans to show describing the steel core columns and if they existed, you would. The very fact that I assert the towers were built to demolish logically precludes your asking me for plans, or photos of construction because those that plotted to do this also intended to get away with it and removed the plans (proven) and concealed the plans (proven). Then, as increased reason for you to produce proof of the croe that cannot be misrepresented, we have the fact that that evidence WAS removed from the scene.

All the above says to remain reasonable with integrity to the purpose of reason , says that your simply repeating "NO" is not reasonable, NOW lets add to the burden of proof that is logically upon you, ........

The core you fail to assert existed CANNOT be made to perform as was seen as heard on 9-11. Concrete can.

Accordingly, ........... you or any who attempt to assert that there were steel core columns in the cores of those towers MUST have images of raw from 9-11 evidence that cannot be misinterpreted as can construction images.

If the steel you've presented as "core columns" if it was core columns, would also be present in the 9-11 images BECAUSE the "core columns" would (if they existed in the core area) be so strong they would ABSOLUTELY be seen in the images of the towers demise, and they are not. (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg)

The tactic of shifting the burden of proof means that you are getting more and more desparate as that little corner you're in keeps getting smaller and smaller.

I have proof of the concrete core many ways (25' wide lobby! = 17' thick base core wall.) (http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/images/wtc_19aug2000_lobby.jpg), you don't have the competence to recognize it or the integrity to admit it.

Instead you distract or confuse with nonsense or the behavior of feigning confusion and try to pretend that because a government agency produced your theroretical free falling core made of invisisteel, is the correct one and the burden of proof therefore is with me. You cannot use your sources to establish their veracity while we are questioning those very sources.

Your assertions of the towers structure is without substance. Your ability to discern what design structural elements of steel and concrete are comprised of or their basic identity is not even marginal. It is bad.

Give up homer!

uruk

14th February 2007, 05:53 PM

I also never said anything about the columns tapering. I said the core of WTC 1 tapers. Are feigning confusion to change the subject now?

The picture reference deals with the tapering core. I explained the sunrise image you used was not lined up witht he building faces and the slight diagnoal view won't show the taper. So I used an image that would show taper the taper between the plumb interior box columns and the core face.

mid day silouette (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/silhouettenoontosouth.jpg)

What is your game?
You said all the walls were tapered Chris. Remember the long section of the core had 12 foot base tapering down to 2 feet at the top. The short section of the core wall section had 17 foot base that tapered down to 3 feet at the top. If the Interior area remained 80 X 120 feet all the way from bottom to top, the outside of the core walls taper. That include the corners of the Core wall. The taper would be observable from any angle Chris.

You avoided the issue of your poor interpretation of the falling panels now your trying to avoid the issue of the non tapering core.

Stop avoiding the issue Chris. The point of the post is; where is the taper of the core in the sunrise picture?

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

Christophera

14th February 2007, 06:16 PM

I don't. Please don't include me in this mythical "we".

Only the reasonable need worry about inclusion.

And this came in a few minutes at the end of a two-hour documentary in... what was it, 1993? And you can remember it in this much detail?

Is that supposed to supplant your reasonable need for evidence to support the tower core you think stood? Evidence that logically and consistently cannot be misinterpreted by virtue of comparison to with other images?

Two almost identical towers, hit by two almost identical planes in two almost identical crashes reacting the SAME WAY? My God, how preposterous!

Good job of a cognitive distortion. Al's version (attempted) of "correct by association" by relating insubstancial and inconsequential simularities of the event as if they were explanations for the event. Generalizations maximizing the "all or nothing" thinking he seeks to promote.

No, we don't. We are told that the plaintiffs believe he secreted WTC documents. That could imply anything.

Normally, Americans, .............. they like to think that their leadership is lawful, you know, in a way that protects ther lives. Public documents cannot be taken by any indivdual, EVER, under conditions such as these.

You are condoning lawless courts which are not working for the welfare of American familes and the preservation of the US Constitution.

The WTC buildings stood for over 30 years, supposedly laced with overheated, sweaty, unstable C-4 in their very hearts. They did pretty well, considering. WTC1 even withstood a major bomb blast in the basement without buckling. The fact that the buildings collapsed after being hit by 300-400 mph airliners is hardly a major indictment about their design, is it?

To answer your earlier assertions about problems with C4 curing inside concrete and the 50C temperatures. The sustainment of the 50C is not long enough and occurs in a sealed environment. The concrete ends up shrinking and ends up gripping the coated bar. The problem is evaporation and oxidization, exposure to oxygen and other atmospheric gasses and warmer temperatures. In a sealed(ing) environment (concrete) with the fairly uniform temperatures, the air entrained in the plastique may even be squeezed out.

The van with the bomb in the 1993 bombing was moved away from the core as a revision of the bombers original plan.

uruk

14th February 2007, 06:51 PM

To stick with the subject, the core tapers. Below, the top left image of the 4.

"A" on right of right tower, #1; NOTE, at about 8, 8:30 o'clock from "A" the space between the outer, vertical dark bar inside the tower and the core face, is narrower lower.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4462&d=1165814495 Chris, There is no taper there. The lines are parallel. You said the concrete walls were tapered. Or are you changing your argument again? Or are you saying the steel columns were angled narrower at the top? Do you just make stuff up on the fly Chris?

8:30 o'clock?!?!?! Do you even know what you are talking about?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2166475#post2166475
The post that image is from is about WTC 2 and how some walls of the core were cast ahead of the rest of the core to allow the steel to go more than the limit of 7 floors on WTC 1. Concrete serves to make the steel structure more stable.)

Chris, we're not talking about the steel core columns. We're talking about your so called tapering concrete core. Quit trying to obfuscate and show us the tapering core.

I prove the concrete core.

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

but you are not familiar enough with the design subjects of steel framed construction or concrete constrcution and their appearances or applications.

Here is proof from page 231 that you do not know what you are talking about here.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2155211#post2155211 I believe you were the one who was mistaken about there being no cross connected support beams between the core columns. You couldn't even tell the difference between the core columns and the crane towers.

And you are the one ZD was following with the "spandrel sections" or whatever you were using to describe the perimeter box columns. Your last blunder. The above link is probably the 3rd or 4th time in this thread I've shown that you don't have a clue. Hey I human. I make mistakes and I admit to them when I make them.
How about you?
But my confusion concerning the name of the panel sections does not lessen the truth of my argument.

Firstly, above I've shown you will not recognize concrete if you saw it. You certainly don't know the difference between a moment frame and the trussed crane platform. Add to this factor and, ........ You havent even shown a concrete core yet.
And you can't tell the differencve between A dust cloud and concrete.

If that burden is on me then the burden of showing the steel core columns in a situation that cannot be misinterpreted. ......... like from the 9-11 images, is upon you. I repeat, You have never, ever shown a picture of a concrete core. And since your the one making the claim you're the one who needs to provide the proof.

[size=5]No one has ever shown that[/b]

REASON AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF:
Recall, I'm saying that everything you've been told about the towers core is a lie. Remember, you have no plans to show describing the steel core columns and if they existed, you would. The very fact that I assert the towers were built to demolish logically precludes your asking me for plans, or photos of construction because those that plotted to do this also intended to get away with it and removed the plans (proven) and concealed the plans (proven). You haven't proven anything. All you have been doing is making unsubstantiated claims. The NIST reports show very detailed plans and information that can have only come from the original construction documents. I have even givin you page numbers of the PDFs so you can see them for yourself.

Do you know what the word "assert" means? Assert just simply means to state something. It does not mean you have proof or that what you assert is a fact. You have to back it up wth evidence. Which you have not yet done.

The link you provided only states that WTC related documents were in the archives. It did not specificaly say the WTC plans were in there.

As increased reason for you to produce proof of the core that cannot be misrepresented, we have the fact that that evidence of steel was WAS removed from the scene managed by the sources of your information, throwing them into question again. I have no idea what your saying here. You need to calm down and construct sentances coherently inorder to be understood.

All the above says to remain reasonable with integrity to the purpose of reason , says that your simply repeating "NO" is, ........... not, ......... reasonable, NOW lets add to the burden of proof that is logically upon you a fact, ........ You need to start making sense Chris. Calm down and try again

The core you (fail) to assert existed CANNOT be made to perform as was seen as heard on 9-11. Concrete can. You just simply made a statment here. You need to back it up with some facts Chris.

Accordingly, ........... you or any who attempt to assert that there were steel core columns in the cores of those towers MUST have images of raw from 9-11 evidence that cannot be misinterpreted as can construction images. Every website that mentions the construction of the of the WTC tower clearly state that the core consisted of 47 Steel columns Chris. Every picture of the construction of the tower only show steel columns in the core Chris. Every picture of the destruction and aftermath of the Towers show steel Chris. The amount of concrete seen in the ground zero picture are consistant with the amount of concrete used in the floors.

If the steel you've presented as "core columns" if it was core columns, would also be present in the 9-11 images BECAUSE the "core columns" would (if they existed in the core area) be so strong they would ABSOLUTELY be seen in the images of the towers demise, and they are not. (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) They are seen in the pictures of the collapse.

I have proof of the concrete core many ways (25' wide lobby! = 17' thick base core wall.) (http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/images/wtc_19aug2000_lobby.jpg), you don't have the competence to recognize it or the integrity to admit it. You don't have the competence to properly interpret pictures Chris. The lobby pictures, the videos. Anyone can see that you've been lieing in your interpretations. The recent posts with the falling panel section show that.

Instead you distract or confuse with nonsense or the behavior of feigning confusion and try to pretend that because a government agency produced your theroretical free falling core made of invisisteel, is the correct one, erroneously, that the burden of proof therefore is with me. You cannot use your sources to establish their veracity while we are questioning those very sources. You are the one who has been jumping around from subject to subject when your lies get exposed or you get trapped in a corner. Just recently we've been jumping from the lobby to the elevators to the falling panel sections to the tapering core walls to the plans etc. You are the one that is jumping around like a caged rabbit.
You are the one who is trying to confuse the issue.

You are the one who came to this forum claimimg that there was a concrete core Chris. The burnden of proof in upon you to prove it.
Trying to shift the burden of proof is the tatic of someone in a weak position. And so far all your arguments have been very weak.

Your assertions of the towers structure is without substance. Your ability to discern what design structural elements of steel and concrete are comprised of or their basic identity is not even marginal. It is bad.

Give up homer!

I've backed up my arguments with facts. I have made mistakes. I'm human. But I admit to them. How about you Chris?

You haven't been able to properly interpret photos yet. This thread is filled with plenty of examples. That is because I am not trying to prove anything. You are the one who is trying to prove something. It clouds your judgement and it is not letting you judge the evidence clearly.
You are seeing only the things you want to see and seeing things that are not there.

firecoins

14th February 2007, 07:03 PM

Chis has a concrete case. I don't know why your arguing with him. We all know he is right. Our Jewish/neo-con/alien overlords tell us what to do.

uruk

14th February 2007, 07:07 PM

Chis has a concrete case. I don't know why your arguing with him. We all know he is right. Our Jewish/neo-con/alien overlords tell us what to do.

And I, for one, welcome our Jewish/neo-con/alien overlords.

SezMe

14th February 2007, 07:39 PM

As for me, I refuse to quit until Chris can provide one of the following:

1) Clear evidence blah, blah, blah;
2) Clear evidence blah, blah, blah; AND/OR
3) Clear evidence of blah, blah, blah.
You expect "Clear evidence" out of Chris??? Really? In face of the evidence that this thread itself provides? You're no skeptic, then.

14th February 2007, 08:19 PM

Until you can produce photographic evidence of the concrete core during construction, Chris, YOU'VE LOST. PERIOD.

Christophera

15th February 2007, 11:23 AM

Chris, There is no taper there. The lines are parallel. You said the concrete walls were tapered. Or are you changing your argument again? Or are you saying the steel columns were angled narrower at the top? Do you just make stuff up on the fly Chris?

Okay, it is good to see you have given up. The above has the opposite relation to what is discussed, and if that is not clear at this point your statement is obfuscation, intentional confusion, ...... or you have given up on reason and are now using that tactic, which of course you try to accuse me of below.

Chris, we're not talking about the steel core columns. We're talking about your so called tapering concrete core. Quit trying to obfuscate and show us the tapering core.

Below you state the exact opposite of what happened. Here is the post that proves it.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2155211#post2155211

I believe you were the one who was mistaken about there being no cross connected support beams between the core columns. You couldn't even tell the difference between the core columns and the crane towers.

[QUOTE=uruk;2343801]
But my confusion concerning the name of the panel sections does not lessen the truth of my argument.

Good, you admit that you had assimilated an erroneous term and applied it. So we can see that ZD was following your lead.

I make errors too but generally only with new photos, not ones I've been studying.

You havent even shown a concrete core yet.
And you can't tell the differencve between A dust cloud and concrete.

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

You want to call the above a dust cloud because it disproves your invisisteel did not exist, and since there was a core, it proves it was concrete.

I repeat, You have never, ever shown a picture of a concrete core. And since your the one making the claim you're the one who needs to provide the proof.

Of course you repeat your erroneous assertion. That is the only possible way it can exist in any form and you agenda is "no concrete", not the truth.

You haven't proven anything. All you have been doing is making unsubstantiated claims. The NIST reports show very detailed plans

But NIST does not explain what this is nor do they explain free fall.

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

And I've shown there is only 25 feet between the narrow end core wall and the perimeter columns.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/images/wtc_19aug2000_lobby.jpg

meaning that the 17 foot thick core wall base is real.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg

btw, you forgot to post your evidence for the invisisteel core columns.

uruk

15th February 2007, 12:09 PM

Okay, it is good to see you have given up. The above has the opposite relation to what is discussed, and if that is not clear at this point your statement is obfuscation, intentional confusion, ...... or you have given up on reason and are now using that tactic, which of course you try to accuse me of below. I see your doing more tapdancing. You are not fooling anybody Chris.

You claimed there was a tapering concrete core. The sunrise picture shows that the core does not taper.

Now you started spouting something about the cores of the towers not being identical. So are you now saying that the core in one of the towers did not taper? What does that say about your concrete core theory if one core tapers and the other one doesn't?

The pictures of the construction you posted show only the steel columns. Which, by the way, goes against your claim that the concrete was being poured eight floors behind the steel columns.

Oops! Now youv'e gone and exposed another one of your lies.

Below you state the exact opposite of what happened. Here is the post that proves it.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2155211#post2155211

[uruk;2343801]I believe you were the one who was mistaken about there being no cross connected support beams between the core columns. You couldn't even tell the difference between the core columns and the crane towers. More redirection and obfuscation. still trying to change the subject again Chris?

Good, you admit that you had assimilated an erroneous term and applied it. So we can see that ZD was following your lead.

I make errors too but generally only with new photos, not ones I've been studying. Hey I try to correct my errors. How about you?

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

You want to call the above a dust cloud because it disproves your invisisteel did not exist, and since there was a core, it proves it was concrete.
That picture does not prove a concrete core. The object is too obscured by dust and smoke to make any kind of positive identification. One can assume that it is the core structure, but there is no detail.
And I 've explained before; I have shown you pictures (in this thread) of the core reminant where the sheetrock was still attached to the steel columns.

If there were no explosives, large quantities of sheetrock could still remain attached to the core area. And sheet rock can have the rounded appearance you keep pointing out.
If you want I can post those pictures again.

Of course you repeat your erroneous assertion. That is the only possible way it can exist in any form and you agenda is "no concrete", not the truth. I have no agenda Chris. I'm just going by what I've read in the NIST report and what I've reasearched on the web in the process of debating with you.
You are the one with the agenda. You are the one who came to this forum claiming that the WTC Towers had a concrete core and that the government is lieing. You are the one with the websites and the court cases. You are the one who is actively promoting an agenda. I do not have websites. I'm just pointing out your errors and misconceptions and debating with you.
Do see the difference Chris?

But NIST does not explain what this is nor do they explain free fall.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif You have not provided proof of this. The official or reasearched times show that the towers did not fall at free fall speeds.

And I've shown there is only 25 feet between the narrow end core wall and the perimeter columns.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/images/wtc_19aug2000_lobby.jpg
meaning that the 17 foot thick core wall base is real. Show me how that is 25 feet Chris. By what scale did you make that determination? Look at the escalator. Look at the planters. Look at the entrance door. That distance looks alot more that 25 feet Chris

And at any rate, the wall with the decorative hanging could just as well be a a marble facade, and that could have been built at any distance from the core area.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg

btw, you forgot to post your evidence for the invisisteel core columns.
Chris it pretty obvious to anyone looking at the picture that there is no concrete in that photo. I have even shown you higher resolution pictures of that particular core reminant that shows nothing but steel, cable, and sheetrock.
Do you want me to post them again here?

I have posted links to architectural and engineering sites in this thread that say the core was composed of steel columns. I have posted links to the NIST reports that say the same thing. I have posted picture of the towers construction that show the stell comuns of the core being erected. I have posted pictures of ground zero that show the steel columns scattered upon the ground. So stop lieing.

What have you shown to prove the existance of a concrete core?

That corner is getting a bit tighter isn't Chris?

BTW, isn't time you tried to change the subject again?

Big Al

15th February 2007, 12:14 PM

Chris: you said:

The documentay I viewed was not about WTC 2 it was about WTC 1. It did have a few minutes at the end where images showed WTC 2 ascending and the narration described a few things about it. One was that WTC one was difficult to rent because there was only one hallway per floor on the lower 75 floors crossing the core. That hallway was perpindicuarly opposed with adjacent floors and the light in the silhouette images bleeds across that floor and making the hall look like every floor. Becuase WTC was so difficult to rent, WTC 2 was made with 2 hallways in each direction on every floor.

My disbelieving response was

And this came in a few minutes at the end of a two-hour documentary in... what was it, 1993? And you can remember it in this much detail?

Your non-response was:

Is that supposed to supplant your reasonable need for evidence to support the tower core you think stood? Evidence that logically and consistently cannot be misinterpreted by virtue of comparison to with other images?

Having done a quick search, I see you actually claimed to see this non-existent documentary in 1990 - seventeen years ago and 11 years before 9/11. And yet you don't seem to think it an appropriate question to ask how you can remember the 75 floors - not "somewhere in the seventies" even, but a definite "76 floors". Also, you said: Becuase WTC was so difficult to rent, WTC 2 was made with 2 hallways in each direction on every floor. Another very definite snippet that you just suddenly remember from the last few minutes of a documentary seen seventeen years ago.

We all know you're making up this documentary, but you don't have to make it so obvious.

uruk

15th February 2007, 12:46 PM

What I wonder is how did they determin that WTC1 was more difficult to rent out that WTC2 because of the core layout and then make changes when WTC 1 And 2 were started and completed within weeks of each other.

He truly is making it up as he goes along.

Overman

15th February 2007, 01:19 PM

[Thread moved to trashcan]

:drillserg

Christophera

15th February 2007, 03:29 PM

I see your doing more tapdancing. You are not fooling anybody Chris.

You claimed there was a tapering concrete core. The sunrise picture shows that the core does not taper.

So typical that you refuse to acknowledge the image that does show the taper on the right side of WTC 1 in the image of the below linked post and only choose to acknowledge which does not show the taper.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2343673#post2343673

Christophera

15th February 2007, 03:32 PM

The pictures of the construction you posted show only the steel columns. Which, by the way, goes against your claim that the concrete was being poured eight floors behind the steel columns.

This is a very curious post because besides the silhouette image I've not posted any construction image. You should define exactly which image you refer to.

15th February 2007, 03:34 PM

How about ANY construction image?

Because unless you can show us a construction image showing the concrete core, you have nothing. You've LOST. PERIOD.

Christophera

15th February 2007, 03:38 PM

Below you state the exact opposite of what happened. Here is the post that proves it.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2155211#post2155211

I believe you were the one who was mistaken about there being no cross connected support beams between the core columns. You couldn't even tell the difference between the core columns and the crane towers.

Close examination will show the diagonal bracing to be inside the interior box columns rather than a part of them. Making the trusses and diagonals part of the crane platform. The image you annnotated there shows this as fact.

More redirection and obfuscation. still trying to change the subject again Chris?

I've clearly shown that obfuscation is what you are attempting.

uruk

15th February 2007, 07:59 PM

So typical that you refuse to acknowledge the image that does show the taper on the right side of WTC 1 in the image of the below linked post and only choose to acknowledge which does not show the taper.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2343673#post2343673
Chris, You're blind. That core does not taper.
If the supposed concrete core tapers from the base to the top. You should see a gradual angle. All you see is parallel lines.

uruk

15th February 2007, 08:02 PM

This is a very curious post because besides the silhouette image I've not posted any construction image. You should define exactly which image you refer to.

Chris, did you notice the cranes in the image you posted above?

uruk

15th February 2007, 08:05 PM

Close examination will show the diagonal bracing to be inside the interior box columns rather than a part of them. Making the trusses and diagonals part of the crane platform. The image you annnotated there shows this as fact.

I've clearly shown that obfuscation is what you are attempting.

Chris, look at the posts previous to the one your refering to to see your mistakes.

Quit jumping around and stick to the subject.

Jennie C.

15th February 2007, 08:26 PM

This from uruk (I assume Uruk Hai, at least :)
Speaking of changing the subject.
Chris Why have you not responded to this post?
Originally Posted by Christophera
You forgot to consider, and I assumed you knew, that the 17 & 12 foot walls are in addition to the 80 x 120 foot inside dimensions of the steel reinforced cast concrete tube of the core. That would make the core OD at 104 feet narrow side. Long axis 154 feet OD.

Oh yes, your subject change.

Umm, my subject change, prompted by a query from Gamolon (tip-of-hat)

To stick with the subject, the core tapers.

There goes that core tapering again. And the elevator passengers squeeze ever closer. Again.

Kudos to Gamolon, who started this whole tapering core thing about the elevators. Because he was right.

Edited: I always seem to need to play with the formatting. Making even a spreadsheet look pretty is always harder than to do the data and formulae.

uruk

15th February 2007, 08:46 PM

This from uruk (I assume Uruk Hai, at least :)
Hi.
Actually It's Uruk, the babylonian city
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruk
Why? A very obscure Star Trek TNG refrence.
I'm a nerd. What can I say.

There goes that core tapering again. And the elevator passengers squeeze ever closer. Again.

Kudos to Gamolon, who started this whole tapering core thing about the elevators. Because he was right.

Edited: I always seem to need to play with the formatting. Making even a spreadsheet look pretty is always harder than to do the data and formulae.

I think he means that the core wall thickness tapers not the core itself. (at least I hope that what he's saying. You never know with Chris)

Christophera

15th February 2007, 08:50 PM

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

You want to call the above a dust cloud because it disproves your invisisteel did not exist, and since there was a core, it proves it was concrete.

That picture does not prove a concrete core. The object is too obscured by dust and smoke to make any kind of positive identification. One can assume that it is the core structure, but there is no detail.

If that were the only picture, and if we did not have to explain near free fall, if you had images of the supposed steel core columns in the core area at elevations above the ground your objection might be reasonable, since you do not have images of stel core columns from the towers demise, since we do have to explain near free fall, since we do have more images, your objection is NOT reasonable.

Here is the end view of the concrete shear wall of the core.

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

And I 've explained before; I have shown you pictures (in this thread) of the core reminant where the sheetrock was still attached to the steel columns.

If there were no explosives, large quantities of sheetrock could still remain attached to the core area. And sheet rock can have the rounded appearance you keep pointing out.
If you want I can post those pictures again.

Will those pictures show the steel core columns in the core area at elevations above ground? No, they show interior box columns or elevator guide rail support steel and drywall.

This image should show steel core columns if they existed. It does not. What it does show can only be rebar.

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

Never has an adequate explanation for what those fine vertical elements are, IF they are not rebar.

Of course you repeat your erroneous assertion. That is the only possible way it can exist in any form and your agenda is "no concrete", not the truth.

I have no agenda Chris. I'm just going by what I've read in the NIST report and what I've reasearched on the web in the process of debating with you.
You are the one with the agenda. You are the one who came to this forum claiming that the WTC Towers had a concrete core and that the government is lieing. You are the one with the websites and the court cases. You are the one who is actively promoting an agenda. I do not have websites. I'm just pointing out your errors and misconceptions and debating with you.
Do see the difference Chris?

You cannot debate me because you do not have the experience with steel and concrete to distinguish between them. You also do not have the integrity to conduct fact finding that is required. Your agenda is supporting the NIST report and you have no evidence to do so with so you just say NO to anything which counters the NIST report.

Yes, I have an agenda, but it is focused on the truth and it does so through my websites and various message boards where I use EVIDENCE. You have no evidence for anything.

You haven't even bothered to explain (NIST doesn't) how the supposed 47, 1300 foot steel core columns fall at free fall and disapear from all the 9-11 images.

You haven't because steel like what you say existed cannot be cut within what was seen on 9-11 to fall freely or disapear from images.

Christophera

15th February 2007, 08:52 PM

Chris, did you notice the cranes in the image you posted above?

Haaaaaaaaa ha, that was your image or someone elses erroneously annotated that I reposted.

Here's another one.

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

The reason those diagonals are never seen in the 9-11 images of the steel structure is that they are not a part of the tower. They are a part of the crane platform. But homer did not know that until he posted the erroneously interpreted construction image and I corrected him.

All interpretation of construction images must be consistent with 9-11 images in order to be verified.

RickGonja

15th February 2007, 09:33 PM

Wow! This thread is still going. Just let Chris be. Its not worth the effort.

uruk

15th February 2007, 10:29 PM

[Christophera;2345643]
Concrete Core Of WTC 2 (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

You want to call the above a dust cloud because it disproves your invisisteel did not exist, and since there was a core, it proves it was concrete.
Chris, Chris, Chris. You are showing your dishonesty or incapability to understand.
I did not say that picture was of a dust cloud. I said the object was obscured by a the dust and smoke.
Quit lieing. It's not helping your case.
I said the if the object is the core it could just as well be the steel columns with the sheet rock and other structures still attached. But because of the dust and smoke, you can't tell for sure what it is.

If that were the only picture, and if we did not have to explain near free fall, if you had images of the supposed steel core columns in the core area at elevations above the ground your objection might be reasonable, since you do not have images of stel core columns from the towers demise, since we do have to explain near free fall, since we do have more images, your objection is NOT reasonable. Only that this thread is filled with pictures of the steel core during construction and after the collapse.
The facts are there , the pictures are there. The videos are there.
You really are detached from reality if you claim they are not.
What is not in this thread is one single picture of a concrete core during construction or collapse.
You got nothing Chris, and no amount of lieing is going to change that fact.

Here is the end view of the concrete shear wall of the core.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif
Chris that is a picture of the steel coluns. There is no concrete wall there.
Everybody here has told you that repeatedly. Ask anyone here if they see a concrete wall. See what they say.

Will those pictures show the steel core columns in the core area at elevations above ground? No, they show interior box columns or elevator guide rail support steel and drywall. And they show no concrete wall what so ever.

This image should show steel core columns if they existed. It does not. What it does show can only be rebar.

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

Never has an adequate explanation for what those fine vertical elements are, IF they are not rebar. {/quote] Chris this is old stuff. Everybody here has already told you that those are obviously the steel columns. We've already gone over this many, many, many times before.
You don't even have anything new to show.

[quote]You cannot debate me because you do not have the experience with steel and concrete to distinguish between them. You also do not have the integrity to conduct fact finding that is required. Your agenda is supporting the NIST report and you have no evidence to do so with so you just say NO to anything which counters the NIST report. Well, so far everything you've been saying about the pictures and your theory have been pretty much debunked thuroghly and have been shown to be almost completely incorrect by just about everybody who has read this thread. That's why most of the more sane people have stopped reading and responding to this thread.

Yes, I have an agenda, but it is focused on the truth and it does so through my websites and various message boards where I use EVIDENCE. You have no evidence for anything. I've more than supported my statement and claims. And I don't have to make any of it up. Far smarter people than I have already looked into the WTC collapse. The reports are there for anyone to look at.

You haven't even bothered to explain (NIST doesn't) how the supposed 47, 1300 foot steel core columns fall at free fall and disapear from all the 9-11 images. This shows more of your mistakes and errors. You don't even know what the NIST reports say or don't say because you refuse to read them. You have no basis to claim what the NIST reports say or don't say because you've never read them. So your statement is meaningless and with out merit.

You haven't because steel like what you say existed cannot be cut within what was seen on 9-11 to fall freely or disapear from images.
You're not a metallurgist or an materials engineer. You are not qualified to make judgments such as this.

uruk

15th February 2007, 10:34 PM

Haaaaaaaaa ha, that was your image or someone elses erroneously annotated that I reposted.

Chris look at the picture below. Notice the cranes at the top of the tower?
That is a picture taken during construction.

uruk

15th February 2007, 10:42 PM

Here's another one.

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

The reason those diagonals are never seen in the 9-11 images of the steel structure is that they are not a part of the tower. They are a part of the crane platform. But homer did not know that until he posted the erroneously interpreted construction image and I corrected him.

All interpretation of construction images must be consistent with 9-11 images in order to be verified.
Chris, you are showing that you still can't properly interpret pictures.
I pointed out the stabilizing structure for the cranes in the upper portion of the tower. That is because The exterior panels and floor structures are not yet attached to provide stabilty to the cranes towers. I was assuming that you were refering to that as the "moment frame" you werer talking about. (you seem to have trouble expressing yourself coherently)

If you notice in the lower part of the picture I pointed out where they were starting to attach diagnal beams between some of the steel columns.
(notice that I am not pointing to the crane towers)

Quit with this red herring and get back to the subject.

Big Al

16th February 2007, 06:23 AM

Christophera,
Let's be reasonable here. I'm sure we all felt the same sense of sick, disbelieving horror on September 11, 2001, and we all want justice to be done. You post some pictures (the same ones again and again) and claim that they show evidence of a massive and deep-seated conspiracy to deceive the American public and the world. When we say we can't see the same things you can, you just show the same pictures again and dismiss these doubts by claiming you have already proved what you're saying.

I for one am not in the pay of some shaddowy American éminence grise to toe the official line, and nor have I been threatened in any way of dire consequences should I not do so. However, I am interested to know that lessons have been learned from this horrendous act so that it never happens again. I don't think that interest is best served by spraying suspicion left and right towards some unseen, unknown and probably non-existent power bloc capable of manipulating the thoughts and actions of thousands.

Your pictures do not convince me or others on this site of this "concrete conspiracy", no matter how many times you show them, so can you please stop showing them or come up with some new ones? I am willing to be convinced by persuasive evidence, but blurry JPEGs of dust clouds don't do that for me. Unlike you, I have read the NIST report, and I think it is a painstaking and persuasive argument for showing how airliner crashes and jet fuel fires could bring down steel-cored buildings.
I would like you to consider the following points, whether you choose to address them or not:

I can't believe that the architects and engineers would make such a thing of the lightweight steel core construction of the WTC towers if it were impossible to achieve: surely other architects and engineers would have known? Many large buildings are constructed with reinforced concrete cores, so why would on earth would Messrs Yamasaki, Robertson and Skilling lie about this, when the lie could so easily be exposed by recalcitrant building staff? Why not just say, "These buildings have been constructed with reinforced concrete cores"? right from the start? Why the need to lie?
If it was for some reason so important to lie about the core construction, why would the relevant authorities, who you claim are capable of suppressing any amount of information or data at will, supply a 1990 documetary crew with so much information about a concrete core (not to mention the mysterious and much-talked-about rebar coating)?
Why did the relevant authorities supply Oxford Universiity Press, a British academic establishment, with details of the concrete core, if it was so important to keep it secret?
How did the authorities delete every single record of both the American documentary and the British book without arousing outcry or suspicion?
If it was so important but easy to delete all these "heretical" references, why is your site still in existence? Why are YOU still in existence?
Why would the authorities order that the WTC be constructed ready-made for demolition?
If Leslie Robertson has the conscience to mention this now, why did he not do so when this fact came to light? If he was threatened in some way to keep his mouth shut, why would he post these dangerous facts online under his own name on April 1? Is it not far more likely that this was a hoax?
Rebar is designed to REINFORCE concrete. What would a layer of squishy plastic explosive do to this reinforcement?
Since the storage life of C-4 is ten years under IDEAL conditions, why would the authorities risk even partial non-detonation thirty-five years after construction? This would entail the huge risk of the core being exposed but remaining largely intact with its explosive-laden rebar.
If the authorities were waiting for a chance to demolish the towers, to give an excuse to invade Iraq and take control of its oil (a reason that did not exist in the 1960s, when oil was still plentiful), why did they not do so after the bombing in 1993, eight years before?
You have often cited as evidence for the non-steel core the fact that other steel-cored buildings have not collapsed in this fashion. Therefore, how can you apply any criteria about how such buildings should or should not collapse?
Despite your often snide imputations that I am a "disinformationist" I am not a U.S. Government employee, and I have not been threatened, cozened or bribed to defend the official line. I am not even a U.S. citizen. I am being totally honest when I say that your pictures do not convince me of anything. I have seen all these pictures on several other sites, including ones mentioning the steel core (including 911research, one of your favourite sites) but the only site I find that uses them to "prove" a concrete core is yours. Therefore, your supposedly "obvious" pictures aren't obvious at all.

So, why not drop the insults, forget the same tired old pictures, and show us that you are capable of rational and reaonable discourse by positing plausible explanations for the above? That you seem to find these fundamental issues as unimportant is, to say the least, worrying to me.

twinstead

16th February 2007, 06:30 AM

So, why not drop the insults, forget the same tired old pictures, and show us that you are capable of rational and reaonable discourse by positing plausible explanations for the above? That you seem to find these fundamental issues as unimportant is, to say the least, worrying to me.

Psssssst. Chris is insane. Nothing you say or do will change his mind--he has the rock-solid conviction that only a crazy person can have.

Seriously. Logical, rational requests like yours only make it worse; it's best to just walk away.

We need to let this thread die with dignity.

Big Al

16th February 2007, 06:37 AM

I've tried, twinstead, but it seems to have a life of its own. I am hoping that Chris will at least acknowledge that these teensy little issues are just a wee bit important if rational people are to give his convoluted theory any credence. Of course, I'm probably wasting bandwidth, but I'm still maintaining the forlorn hope that somewhere within Chris is a still small voice of reason.

If this thread is doomed to eternal life like the Ancient Mariner, as it seems, I'd rather there was some rational discussion, even if it's one-sided.

uruk

16th February 2007, 08:28 AM

Wow! This thread is still going. Just let Chris be. Its not worth the effort.

I'm bored. I ain't got nothing else better to do.

Which means my life is just as pathetic as "you-know-who's"

twinstead

16th February 2007, 09:15 AM

I'm bored. I ain't got nothing else better to do.

Which means my life is just as pathetic as "you-know-who's"

LOL I just realized that I posted myself for the same reason, even though I vowed I'd stay away forever.

This thread is like a train wreck; it's gruesome, but I just can't look away

Big Al

16th February 2007, 09:33 AM

I make a point of not slowing down and rubber-necking at road accidents, but I have to make an exception in this case.

uruk

16th February 2007, 09:33 AM

LOL I just realized that I posted myself for the same reason, even though I vowed I'd stay away forever.

This thread is like a train wreck; it's gruesome, but I just can't look away

There, now you've come to the same sad realization I had about myself.

Come in and wallow in the pigsty friend. There's room for all.

yeeeahaaaaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHhahahaha!!!!!!!oo h god! my life sucks

Arus808

16th February 2007, 10:19 AM

If you guys want to persist on tormenting the rest of the members of this forum by keeping this thread alive, why dont you just break it down to each of Chris's claims and get an absolute answer from him on it. So that he doesn't back track and make up some other stupid crap. Keep a running tab of his claims as a list, before presenting a new question. Just keep it simple. No padding of explanations needed by you (he just ignores them anyway). Just get an answer and move on.

Rules:

1) one person and that person only presents a question. Until Chris answers it to his with proof (that means HE CANNOT USE HIS WEBSITE AT ALL), that question remains the only question asked.

1a) If you can provide proof that Chris is wrong, then provide it.

2) once that question is answered, keep it as a tab (ie list it in the next new question post) and then ask the next question. Refer to rule #1

Once Chris' references his own website as proof or as a resource, then at that point, Chris' has been defeated and we can let this thread die.

Sounds good?

Christophera

16th February 2007, 10:33 AM

Chris look at the picture below. Notice the cranes at the top of the tower?
That is a picture taken during construction.

Very good homer. You totally have that right.

Are you aware that I did not create that assemblage?

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=5566&d=1171604071

Someone created it to show light through the core, as if that meant there was no concrete. I then annotated it to show the core elements of WTC 2 and explain how the cell construction of WTC 2 allowed half of the core, or even one concrete wall on one half with a perpindicular set on the other, to built be at a time and that the concrete structure was then used to stiffen the steel framework so the tower could proceed past the 7 floor limit that WTC 1 had.

The only construction image I use is the aerial to show what the interior box columns looked like with their vertical rectangles formed by the floor beams in this image.

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

Mind you, deniers of concrete try to use that image to show core columns. I did not even annotate it. I found that on somebody elses 9-11 site. My poin is that the only "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" they found surround the core.

Infrequently when the issue of the core wall widths at the base come up and the question, "Where were the footings for the 17 foot wall", I post another image that was erroneously annotated by a denier of concrete that actually shows the footing zone. Notice the different color annotation. The red is the original posters text (jackx from LC) that I went over with blue and purple to correct.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/elev.pits.core.footing.CORR.jpg

My ability to correctly consistently (with demo images) interpret those images is made possible because I watched the documentary and actually understood all of it.

uruk

16th February 2007, 11:07 AM

uruk

16th February 2007, 11:35 AM

Very good homer. You totally have that right.

Are you aware that I did not create that assemblage?

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=5566&d=1171604071
Irrelevent, You were the one how posted it when we were discussing the tapering core. I mearly refrencenced it.

Someone created it to show light through the core, as if that meant there was no concrete. I then annotated it to show the core elements of WTC 2 and explain how the cell construction of WTC 2 allowed half of the core, or even one concrete wall on one half with a perpindicular set on the other, to built be at a time and that the concrete structure was then used to stiffen the steel framework so the tower could proceed past the 7 floor limit that WTC 1 had. Only the pictures show the steel core columns and no concrete core being poured 7 floor behind.
In fact it shows no concrete core at all.

The only construction image I use is the aerial to show what the interior box columns looked like with their vertical rectangles formed by the floor beams in this image.

"MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg)[quote] What does this have to do with the elevators and tapering core that we have been discussing for the past few pages.
Chris try to keep up and quite trying to change the subject we've moved on to. This is just a further attempt by you to change the subject.
Chris, your dishonesty is showing.

[quote]Mind you, deniers of concrete try to use that image to show core columns. I did not even annotate it. I found that on somebody elses 9-11 site. My poin is that the only "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" they found surround the core. Chris you can clearly see the columns in the interior of the core area. Everybody can see them. You are not helping your case

Infrequently when the issue of the core wall widths at the base come up and the question, "Where were the footings for the 17 foot wall", I post another image that was erroneously annotated by a denier of concrete that actually shows the footing zone. Notice the different color annotation. The red is the original posters text (jackx from LC) that I went over with blue and purple to correct.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/elev.pits.core.footing.CORR.jpg I remember that. You were totaly wrong.

My ability to correctly consistently (with demo images) interpret those images is made possible because I watched the documentary and actually understood all of it.
Chris you havent been correctly interpreting pictures. This whole thread is repleate with examples. You have arrows pointing to dust clouds and empty space. You misjudge length, mistake columns for rebar, mislabel, couldn't tell the mezzanine from the lobby, etc., etc.

And you have never ever provided proof that your documentary ever existed.

Now lets' get back to what we were dicussing before this recent outburst.

Show us the tapering core Chris.

Arus808

16th February 2007, 11:41 AM

I think this was attempted before with the conch shell thingy from Lord of the Flies.
It failed miserably because of Chris trying to change the subject when he got cornered. And other posters wer'nt honoring the stipulations.

then its our job to keep him on the subject and make sure others do so as well.

When he gets cornered and tries to change the subject do not go into a long "explanation" or crit him for doing so, so re-ask the question until he answers.

Miragememories

16th February 2007, 11:47 AM

Very good homer. You totally have that right.

Are you aware that I did not create that assemblage?

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=5566&d=1171604071

Someone created it to show light through the core, as if that meant there was no concrete. I then annotated it to show the core elements of WTC 2 and explain how the cell construction of WTC 2 allowed half of the core, or even one concrete wall on one half with a perpindicular set on the other, to built be at a time and that the concrete structure was then used to stiffen the steel framework so the tower could proceed past the 7 floor limit that WTC 1 had.

The only construction image I use is the aerial to show what the interior box columns looked like with their vertical rectangles formed by the floor beams in this image.

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

Mind you, deniers of concrete try to use that image to show core columns. I did not even annotate it. I found that on somebody elses 9-11 site. My poin is that the only "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" they found surround the core.

Infrequently when the issue of the core wall widths at the base come up and the question, "Where were the footings for the 17 foot wall", I post another image that was erroneously annotated by a denier of concrete that actually shows the footing zone. Notice the different color annotation. The red is the original posters text (jackx from LC) that I went over with blue and purple to correct.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/elev.pits.core.footing.CORR.jpg

My ability to correctly consistently (with demo images) interpret those images is made possible because I watched the documentary and actually understood all of it.

It's virtually impossible to convert the folks here from their religious beliefs Christophera.

MM

uruk

16th February 2007, 11:50 AM

then its our job to keep him on the subject and make sure others do so as well.

When he gets cornered and tries to change the subject do not go into a long "explanation" or crit him for doing so, so re-ask the question until he answers.
Will try my best. But he's a slippery sucker.

uruk

16th February 2007, 11:52 AM

It's virtually impossible to convert the folks here from their religious beliefs Christophera.

MM

He could if he had actual facts and evidence. But so far he's had none.

Christophera

16th February 2007, 01:23 PM

And I've shown there is only 25 feet between the narrow end core wall and the perimeter columns.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/images/wtc_19aug2000_lobby.jpg

meaning that the 17 foot thick core wall base is real.

Show me how that is 25 feet Chris. By what scale did you make that determination? Look at the escalator. Look at the planters. Look at the entrance door. That distance looks alot more that 25 feet Chris

I see no escalator in that image homer.

How tall is the door homer? Max is about 8, average is under 7 feet. How many times does that doorway on the left fit into the width of the lobby rotated horizontal? I see only 3.5 times MAX.

You are wrong and it is time to admit that simple logic and proportioning shows there is only 25 feet between the core face and the inside lobby wall on the narrow end of the core.

And at any rate, the wall with the decorative hanging could just as well be a a marble facade, and that could have been built at any distance from the core area.

Now that is grasping at straws, and unreasonable too. Look at the ceiling panels in the image link above, there are the same number across as any other image of the narrow end.

You are wrong homer and it is time to face it.

Arus808

16th February 2007, 03:31 PM

uruk

16th February 2007, 05:06 PM

[QUOTE=Christophera;2349239]I see no escalator in that image homer. look at the annotated picture below. You can see the upper rails of the escalator that leads from the mezzanin level to the lobby.
You see these ecsalators in the video segment from the Tom Hanks movie that was posted a few pages back.
look at 30 second into this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGJElpnMs70
You'll see the the people riding the escalators up to the mezzanine.

You know Chris this is another example of your poor picture interpretation skills.

How tall is the door homer? Max is about 8, average is under 7 feet. How many times does that doorway on the left fit into the width of the lobby rotated horizontal? I see only 3.5 times MAX.
Well there's your problem. You're making a guess and estimation on what you think the hight of the door is. And we all know how good you are at that.
Take alook at this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-ZQez5iM1g
Look at 17 seconds in to the video at the people in the back that are near the entrance to the towers. Looks like the rotating doors are a bit taller than 7 feet.

Look at 52 seconds into the video. It shows the people waiting to use the express elevators. You'll see the short side of the core behind the lady. Notice that the distance is quite a bit longer than 25 feet.
(also notice how big the interior of the express elevator is)

You are wrong and it is time to admit that simple logic and proportioning shows there is only 25 feet between the core face and the inside lobby wall on the narrow end of the core. Chris, the videos show the distance to be larger than 25 feet. The picture you posted shows it to be longer than 25 feet. Heck you couldn't even see the escalators.
Why should we believe your estimation of the distance?

Now that is grasping at straws, and unreasonable too. Look at the ceiling panels in the image link above, there are the same number across as any other image of the narrow end. Your the one who's desparately avoiding the non tapering issue. You keep trying to change the subject because you know that you are wrong.

You are wrong homer and it is time to face it.
Chris this latest post proves that you are wrong yet again.
Maybe you're the one that needs to retire from this farce.

Hey Look at his video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4LHUOPOEv4
Look at 6 seconds into the video. The camera shoots toward the core area. You'll notice the glass and the stuctures within the core area. You'd think there wouldn't be able to anything if there was a concrete wall there.

Christophera

16th February 2007, 05:11 PM

Okay Chris forget everything that's been posted on this thread and start this from the beginning.

You can answer this question only, and you can't go off into "long" explanations or use your website as a "source".

Okay, all you need to do is come up with an image from 9-11 that shows the steel core columns in the core areato adequately support the assertion that such columns existed, and what you suggest might be justified.

Of course if you cannot come up with such evidence then the obvious course is to focus on the quality, reasonable questions that have been asked of me in this thread, and my answers to them.

Or, if an explanation for near free fall is needed, go here.

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

Arus808

16th February 2007, 05:17 PM

Okay, all you need to do is come up with an image from 9-11

Chris, read my post again; you can't edit it to only answer what you want with what you want. The post again is:

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

1) PBS Documentary: Please provide the name and airdate of the documentary. No "I think it was in 1993" or "it was 1990" . Actual month, day and time that the show aired.

your answer can be only of:
Title : Month Day, Year and Time

Unacceptable answers:
I dont know.
It was in 1990;
It aired in September;
"PBS took it out of their library" or any other dubious claims, as these cannot be supported.

Your answer will then be fact checked by an email to TVGuide to confirm the airing of this show on the day you claim at the time you claim. Or a visit to the library to scavenge their collection of TVGuides.

Christophera

16th February 2007, 05:29 PM

Take alook at this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-ZQez5iM1g
Look at 17 seconds in to the video at the people in the back that are near the entrance to the towers. Looks like the rotating doors are a bit taller than 7 feet.

I have a much better image of the doors and I would be surprised if it is over over 8 feet.

http://www-ifm.math.uni-hannover.de/~kadir/images/tradeben.jpg

I never studied the inside of the building. Did you find me talking about escalators until you brought it up? No. You are now trying to change the subject.

On thing for sure, the video above show there were no elevator entrances in the outside of the core. So smiths accounts are nonsense.

I've shown the core is about 25 feet.

uruk

16th February 2007, 05:30 PM

I'm afraid I told you so Arus88. When he can't answer a question or is shown to be wrong, he tries to change the subject.

uruk

16th February 2007, 05:39 PM

I have a much better image of the doors and I would be surprised if it is over over 8 feet.

http://www-ifm.math.uni-hannover.de/~kadir/images/tradeben.jpg Assumeing the person is at least 5 feet tall. That would make the door about 8 feet. If the person is taller than 5 feet would make the door even taller.

I never studied the inside of the building. Did you find me talking about escalators until you brought it up? No. You are now trying to change the subject.[
Chris are you really blind? Did you read the rest of my post? I posted the annotated picture I posted videos of people riding those escalators.

You're just purposly avoiding the truth. Chhris that is just plain pathetic.

On thing for sure, the video above show there were no elevator entrances in the outside of the core. So smiths accounts are nonsense. You know there are four sides to the core. the floor plans only show elevator entrances one one side of the core area exterior and inside the core area.

I've shown the core is about 25 feet.
No you haven't.

And just in case you missed it or are trying to avoid it. Here is the picture again showing the upper section of the escalator

Christophera

16th February 2007, 05:41 PM

Okay Chris forget everything that's been posted on this thread and start this from the beginning.

You can answer this question only, and you can't go off into "long" explanations or use your website as a "source". You must use referenced from published material (such as a book or magazine that we can find in a library or periodical text that says that particular book/magazine/article was published) or a credible website or news website; and post that information here. If someone proves your answer wrong, then that question is answered and we will move on.

So anyone else posting, please ADHERE To this post. And if you have to reply, only reply with the question in this post if CHRIS hasn't answered.

1) PBS Documentary: Please provide the name and airdate of the documentary. No "I think it was in 1993" or "it was 1990" . Actual month, day and time that the show aired.

your answer can be only of:
Title : Month Day, Year and Time

Unacceptable answers:
I dont know.
It was in 1990;
It aired in September;
"PBS took it out of their library" or any other dubious claims, as these cannot be supported.

Your answer will then be fact checked by an email to TVGuide to confirm the airing of this show on the day you claim at the time you claim. Or a visit to the library to scavenge their collection of TVGuides.

Hey, read the thread. I've answered that to the best of my ability at least 6 times.

Oops, obviously you don't read.

"The Construction of the Twin Towers" aired in 1990 or very late 1989. That is all I remember besides the DOC itself.

Now, time for you to reasonbly support the steel core columns. If heavy steel columns do not show here;

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

here

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

or here

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg

The supposed steel core columns probably did not exist condidering the bottom image showing a uniformly eroded mass instaed of protruding columns and the fact that concrete can be fractured to fall instantly with a relatively small amount of well placed explosives.

So far nobody has posted any mistinterpretations of construction photos for about 15 pages. Give it a try, maybe you can find some better pictures of elevator guide rail support steel in your efforts to find images of core columns.

I have a good image of what can only be steel reinforced concrete core standing 500 foot tall or so.

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

Support what you assert. Prove the steel core columns from the 9-11 images where the entire strcuture is bared. Your 47, 1300 foot columns should be easy to spot.

Christophera

16th February 2007, 05:49 PM

Assumeing the person is at least 5 feet tall. That would make the door about 8 feet. If the person is taller than 5 feet would make the door even taller.

Chris are you really blind? Did you read the rest of my post? I posted the annotated picture I posted videos of people riding those escalators.

Duh, what I said. You talk about escalators not me.

Escalators is a change of subject. Stick with the lobby width I think the people are shorter in this image.

http://www-ifm.math.uni-hannover.de/~kadir/images/tradeben.jpg

The person on the left looks to be a woman and the other just entering on the right could be also. Probably just over 5 feet. Yes, 8 foot door, big

Meaning that the same door fits just over three times in this image.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/images/wtc_19aug2000_lobby.jpg

About a 25 foot wide lobby on the narrow end of the core. Which accomodates the 17 foot thick concrete core wall shown here.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg

Pardalis

16th February 2007, 05:56 PM

Maybe.

Arus808

16th February 2007, 06:09 PM

I'm afraid I told you so Arus88. When he can't answer a question or is shown to be wrong, he tries to change the subject.

And as asked, keep cornering him until he does.

Arus808

16th February 2007, 06:11 PM

Chris, please do not reply to any other post until you answer this question:

1) PBS Documentary: Please provide the name and airdate of the documentary. No "I think it was in 1993" or "it was 1990" . Actual month, day and time that the show aired.

your answer can be only of:
Title : Month Day, Year and Time

Unacceptable answers:
I dont know.
It was in 1990;
It aired in September;
"PBS took it out of their library" or any other dubious claims, as these cannot be supported.

Your answer will then be fact checked by an email to TVGuide to confirm the airing of this show on the day you claim at the time you claim. Or a visit to the library to scavenge their collection of TVGuides.

uruk

16th February 2007, 06:16 PM

Duh, what I said. You talk about escalators not me.
Chris, Chris, Chris. You said you couldnt see the escaladors in the pictures. I pointed them out to you.
I only mentioned that that was another example of your picture interpretation skills. You couldn't even see them until i pointed them out to you.

Escalators is a change of subject. Stick with the lobby width I think the people are shorter in this image. You asked i just responded Your the one who changed the subject from the one I was disscussing with you which was that fact that the core does not taper in the Construction pictures I showed you. You changed the subject to t he lobby when you couldn't prove the core tapered.
Now your trying to shift the blame of something you're gulity of onto someone else. That's another example of someone who's in a tight corner and has no facts to argue with.

http://www-ifm.math.uni-hannover.de/~kadir/images/tradeben.jpg

The person on the left looks to be a woman and the other just entering on the right could be also. Probably just over 5 feet. Yes, 8 foot door, big

Meaning that the same door fits just over three times in this image. Actually almost 3 and a half times. If the door is 8 feet tall then that puts the distance closer to 30 feet not 25.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/images/wtc_19aug2000_lobby.jpg

About a 25 foot wide lobby on the narrow end of the core. Which accomodates the 17 foot thick concrete core wall shown here.
Look at the videos Chris. The distance is larger than that.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpgChris, That picture has already been proven to not show any concrete at all. Why do you keep posting it? Everybody here has already told you the same thing.

Give up Chris, You lost. You can't even answer a question without trying to change the subject.
Arsus88 asked you a valid question. zaayrdragon asked a valid one too.
There's also plenty of others that you never even attempted to answer.

What do you think it means when you can't asnswer a question?
Maybe you have no answer?

Arus808

16th February 2007, 06:17 PM

So that this is the only thing that is being addressed.

1) PBS Documentary: Please provide the name and airdate of the documentary. No "I think it was in 1993" or "it was 1990" . Actual month, day and time that the show aired.

your answer can be only of:
Title : Month Day, Year and Time

Unacceptable answers:
I dont know.
It was in 1990;
It aired in September;
"PBS took it out of their library" or any other dubious claims, as these cannot be supported.

Your answer will then be fact checked by an email to TVGuide to confirm the airing of this show on the day you claim at the time you claim. Or a visit to the library to scavenge their collection of TVGuides.

uruk

16th February 2007, 06:17 PM

Oops Sorry Arus88.
Carry on.

Arus808

16th February 2007, 06:20 PM

Christophera

16th February 2007, 08:08 PM

Maybe.

Do I detect an ability to reason?

Christophera

16th February 2007, 08:15 PM

no problem uruk...remember just keep it to the what is currently being discussed. remember, Chris claims that he has 'photographic' memory. That means he should be able to give us the exact date, time and title the PBS documentary aired.

Classic efforts towards "minimization" a cognitive distortion, or working up to "all or nothing thinking and as much over generalization as possible,

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

1. All or nothing thinking: Things are placed in black or white categories.
2. Over generalization: Single event is viewed as continuous.

Is this what you want people to believe?

Now it is my duty to keep track of exact dates and times, ........................... but the infiltrated government doesn't have to keep the plans of the tallest building in the world or preserve evidence.

A new kind of clown.

If it helps you, I remember the time my wife asked me to be home to watch the documentary. 8:00 PM. Great huh!. Real excited now?

Arus808

16th February 2007, 09:19 PM

AGain chris, I dont want to see any other answer from you, except to this posted question:

1) PBS Documentary: Please provide the name and airdate of the documentary. No "I think it was in 1993" or "it was 1990" . Actual month, day and time that the show aired. Addendum : Also what channel it aired on and it what city.

your answer can be only of:
Title : Month Day, Year and Time
Channel Name and City.

Unacceptable answers:
I dont know.
It was in 1990;
It aired in September;
"PBS took it out of their library" or any other dubious claims, as these cannot be supported.

Your answer will then be fact checked by an email to TVGuide to confirm the airing of this show on the day you claim at the time you claim. Or a visit to the library to scavenge their collection of TVGuides.

Christophera

16th February 2007, 09:57 PM

Arus808

16th February 2007, 10:10 PM

In your reply, you didn't give a specific date and time that the PBS documentary aired. Again, that is an unacceptable answer:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2350061#post2350061

1) PBS Documentary: Please provide the name and airdate of the documentary. No "I think it was in 1993" or "it was 1990" . Actual month, day and time that the show aired. Addendum : Also what channel it aired on and it what city.

your answer can be only of:
Title : Month Day, Year and Time
Channel Name and City.

Unacceptable answers:
I dont know.
It was in 1990;
It aired in September;
"PBS took it out of their library" or any other dubious claims, as these cannot be supported.

Your answer will then be fact checked by an email to TVGuide to confirm the airing of this show on the day you claim at the time you claim. Or a visit to the library to scavenge their collection of TVGuides.

If you can't give a specific date and time, then you must concede that you do not have a "photographic" memory (remember that is a claim you made about yourself)

So, please provide the specific date and time that the documentary aired, and in addition provide the channel and city in which you saw this documentary.

If this is your answer:

"The Construction of the Twin Towers" aired in 1990 or very late 1989. That is all I remember besides the DOC itself.

Then you are admitting that you do not have photographic memory and cannot provide the exact date and time it aired nor what channel and city in which you saw it.

Last chance, please provide the answer in the format as asked in the question.

Christophera

16th February 2007, 11:11 PM

In your reply, you didn't give a specific date and time that the PBS documentary aired. Again, that is an unacceptable answer:

The apparent inability to apply proportion to your sense of "unacceptability" is clownish.

After destroyed evidence, hidden plans and you having NO EVIDENCE of steel core columns, your attempt to change the subject is not short of pitiful.

Here, is evidence

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

No way that is anything but 500 feet of steel reinforced cast concrete tubular core.

Get evidence of steel croe columns.

Arus808

17th February 2007, 12:45 AM

Chris, i stated in a previous post that your answer must be in the format as asked. Anything more will be ignored. Im not asking about cores, or rebar, or anything of that, so your answer that includes these aspects will be ignored. So answer this question

1) PBS Documentary: Please provide the name and airdate of the documentary. No "I think it was in 1993" or "it was 1990" . Actual month, day and time that the show aired. Addendum : Also what channel it aired on and it what city.

your answer can be only of:
Title : Month Day, Year and Time
Channel Name and City.

Unacceptable answers:
I dont know.
It was in 1990;
It aired in September;
"PBS took it out of their library" or any other dubious claims, as these cannot be supported.

Your answer will then be fact checked by an email to TVGuide to confirm the airing of this show on the day you claim at the time you claim. Or a visit to the library to scavenge their collection of TVGuides.

17th February 2007, 07:48 AM

Just a side note: TV Guides for the Santa Barbara area for 1989 and 1990 show no such documentary for PBS. And these are in private collections, not public archives.

Christophera

17th February 2007, 12:20 PM

Chris, Chris, Chris. You said you couldnt see the escaladors in the pictures. I pointed them out to you.
I only mentioned that that was another example of your picture interpretation skills. You couldn't even see them until i pointed them out to you.

It is correct that I'm not at all interested in escalators. My image interpretation skills do not extend to escalators. It is true that the 1990 documentary did not have any information on escalators.

My ability to know when opposition is attempting to change the subject is keen however.

I have clearly proven that there was about 25 feet between the narrow end of the core and the perimeter walls.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/images/wtc_19aug2000_lobby.jpg

The door is about 8 feet in height and it fits a little more than 3 times across the lobby to the core wall. All of which shows that the the core was concrete and that the below image showing the thick core wall is indeed the fact.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg

Christophera

17th February 2007, 12:34 PM

Just a side note: TV Guides for the Santa Barbara area for 1989 and 1990 show no such documentary for PBS. And these are in private collections, not public archives.

When I did watch TV, I recall that PBS programs were frequently not listed in the TV guide or that the guide was not accurate. Often I had to use the TV Weekly which was a part of the newspaper to get the actual PBS air schedule.

Christophera

17th February 2007, 02:39 PM

[SIZE=4]Then you are admitting that you do not have photographic memory and cannot provide the exact date and time it aired nor what channel and city in which you saw it.

Last chance, please provide the answer in the format as asked in the question.

My photographic memory works much better when I am interested in what I'm seeing. Meaning that the actual date was something I never saw, 8 Pm was important and comes from verbal memory.

You have made no point and your efforts to change the subject from the fact I've proven there was a 25 wide lobby on the narrow end of the core, are obvious.

Typically about the time I make a serious point one of the deniers is relegated to boring, repetitive posts in an effort to change the subject.

Arus808

17th February 2007, 02:49 PM

Tvguide isnt the ONLY resource Christophera. and you haven't answered the question:

1) PBS Documentary: Please provide the name and airdate of the documentary. No "I think it was in 1993" or "it was 1990" . Actual month, day and time that the show aired. Addendum : Also what channel it aired on and it what city.

your answer can be only of:
Title : Month Day, Year and Time
Channel Name and City.

Unacceptable answers:
I dont know.
It was in 1990;
It aired in September;
"PBS took it out of their library" or any other dubious claims, as these cannot be supported.

Your answer will then be fact checked by an email to TVGuide to confirm the airing of this show on the day you claim at the time you claim. Or a visit to the library to scavenge their collection of TVGuides and NEWSPAPERS.

I dont want to see excuses (assumptions on your part - because that is your opinion. We are interested in facts not your baseless assumptions.) You do know that libraries also carry on FISCHE and in real life newspapers right? And guess what newspapers list in their entertainment sections?

Now answer the question. As i said, any answer beside the format listed above will be ignored and the question will be posted again.

jhunter1163

17th February 2007, 03:03 PM

Arus808

17th February 2007, 03:20 PM

uruk

17th February 2007, 03:30 PM

It is correct that I'm not at all interested in escalators. My image interpretation skills do not extend to escalators. It is true that the 1990 documentary did not have any information on escalators.

My ability to know when opposition is attempting to change the subject is keen however.

I have clearly proven that there was about 25 feet between the narrow end of the core and the perimeter walls.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/images/wtc_19aug2000_lobby.jpg

The door is about 8 feet in height and it fits a little more than 3 times across the lobby to the core wall. All of which shows that the the core was concrete and that the below image showing the thick core wall is indeed the fact.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg

Hey I've been trying to get you to show me the tapering core. You are the one who's been jumping around from subject to subject trying to avoid the cold hard fact that the core does not taper.

Christophera

17th February 2007, 07:28 PM

Hey I've been trying to get you to show me the tapering core. You are the one who's been jumping around from subject to subject trying to avoid the cold hard fact that the core does not taper.

Curious how when I answered that, you said you couldn't see the taper and tried to say I was presenting the evidence for reasons I was not. You intentionally confused ALL the issues. Which ends up by you annotating the cranes on top of the towers.

confusion on image (homer
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2339749#post2339749

In the below,

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2342577#post2342577

I point out that the sunrise image is not viewing the towers straight on and so makes the taper sharder to see. It is still there. Realize were trying to see perhaps 8 foot of taper in 500 feet of core.

confusion on taper1
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2343801#post2343801

confusion on taper2
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2347121#post2347121

The below construction photo was not introduced by me. I utilize it now (again) because it has convienent annotation.

Top left photo. WTC 1 on right, "A" to right of tower, 8:30 o'clock from "A". Note the width of the first vertical light space left of the floor area. Note the space gets wider as it goes up. That is the taper of the core as it moves away from the plumb interior box column.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=5566&d=1171604071

The below image may better show the wide space at top and the narrow lower.

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

Meanwhile, I show that the core base is 25 feet wide with this image of the lobby on the narrow end of the core. (This is why homer's trying to change the subject.)

http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/images/wtc_19aug2000_lobby.jpg

Which is consistent with the below image which shows the one piece of the 17 foot thick WTC 2 core (I think), that was obviously not detonated.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg

Oh, and the video you posted clearly shows that the core does not have elevator entries on the outside of it.

At 26 seconds the core wall is shown, no elevator entries.

39 more, no elevator entries.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-ZQez5iM1g

What is the matter with smiths brain? Oh, let us not forget homers brain.

Christophera

17th February 2007, 07:32 PM

My US$.02 on this thread:

I'm not a mathematician by any stretch, but if you took the square footage of the alleged concrete core, and multiplied it by what office space goes for in Manhattan, you'd find a VERY compelling argument against the concrete core. As in "We'd love to rent this space for $enormous amount, but we can't because it's full of concrete."

Developers aren't dumb: they want to maximize the rentable office space in the buildings they build. The WTC was built the way it was BECAUSE Robertson's innovative design maximized rentable office space.

Unfortunately Robertsons innovative design was not structurally sound and Yamasaki would not build it. So, ..... there was very little space on lower floors between the perimeter walls and the core face.

http://www-ifm.math.uni-hannover.de/~kadir/images/tradeben.jpg

That is why no steel core columns are seen in this image, or any other image.

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

When people post images and say they show steel core columns, they are misrepresenting the images. What is seen in construction photos are elevator guide rail supports.

If they were core columns, the above image would show them because core columns are SUPER STRONG!

Oliver

17th February 2007, 07:36 PM

Unfortunately Robertsons innovative design was not structurally sound and Yamasaki would not build it. So, ..... there was very little space on lower floors between the perimeter walls and the core face.

http://www-ifm.math.uni-hannover.de/~kadir/images/tradeben.jpg (http://www-ifm.math.uni-hannover.de/%7Ekadir/images/tradeben.jpg)

That is why no steel core columns are seen in this image, or any other image.

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

When people post images and say they show steel core columns, they are misrepresenting the images. What is seen in construction photos are elevator guide rail supports.

If they were core columns, the above image would show them because core columns are SUPER STRONG!

What are you gonna do to bring the perpetrators
to justice, Chris - i mean instead talking this issue
for the rest of your life?

Why don't you fill a lawsuit?

Arus808

17th February 2007, 08:29 PM

guys.. one question at a time... until he answers mines, please dont offer any more

1) PBS Documentary: Please provide the name and airdate of the documentary. No "I think it was in 1993" or "it was 1990" . Actual month, day and time that the show aired. Addendum : Also what channel it aired on and it what city.

your answer can be only of:
Title : Month Day, Year and Time
Channel Name and City.

Unacceptable answers:
I dont know.
It was in 1990;
It aired in September;
"PBS took it out of their library" or any other dubious claims, as these cannot be supported.

Your answer will then be fact checked by an email to TVGuide to confirm the airing of this show on the day you claim at the time you claim. Or a visit to the library to scavenge their collection of TVGuides and NEWSPAPERS.

uruk

17th February 2007, 09:26 PM

Curious how when I answered that, you said you couldn't see the taper and tried to say I was presenting the evidence for reasons I was not. You intentionally confused ALL the issues. Which ends up by you annotating the cranes on top of the towers.

confusion on image (homer
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2339749#post2339749 You are clearly the one who's confused. You are the one that brought up that image claiming that it shows a tapered core when it obviously does not show a tapered core. (You even used the rediculously wrong direction term "8:30 o' clock. There is no such thing as 8:30 o'clock.
You just say 8 o' clock when your trying to point to a direction.)

Then you said that it wasn't a construction photo when it obviously had the cranes on top of the building. Its just another example of how you don't notice details in pictures. Just like you could'nt see the escalators in the lobby picture.

In the below,

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2342577#post2342577

I point out that the sunrise image is not viewing the towers straight on and so makes the taper sharder to see. It is still there. Realize were trying to see perhaps 8 foot of taper in 500 feet of core.
Chris, if the core tapers from the outside of the core, you should be able to see the taper from any angle. The left tower shows plenty of floors. If the core tapered it should have clearly visible.
The fact that you're dancing around backtracking and changing the subject means that you are trying to redirect attention from the truth.
The core does not taper.

confusion on taper1
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2343801#post2343801

confusion on taper2
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2347121#post2347121

The below construction photo was not introduced by me. I utilize it now (again) because it has convienent annotation.
Chris, there is no taper. Face it You are wrong.

Top left photo. WTC 1 on right, "A" to right of tower, 8:30 o'clock from "A". Note the width of the first vertical light space left of the floor area. Note the space gets wider as it goes up. That is the taper of the core as it moves away from the plumb interior box column.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=5566&d=1171604071
Chris. You just say "8 o'clock" not "8:30 o'clock" There's no such thing as "8:30 o'clock" in this refrence.
And Chris, there is no taper there. Look at the core below the section your talking about. It is parallel. look at the opposite side of the core It is parallel. There is no taper.

The below image may better show the wide space at top and the narrow lower.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/silhouettenoontosouth.jpg
The picture even shows clearer how parallel the lines are. See the blown up picture At the bottom.

Meanwhile, I show that the core base is 25 feet wide with this image of the lobby on the narrow end of the core. (This is why homer's trying to change the subject.)

http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/images/wtc_19aug2000_lobby.jpg
Chris, That lobby is wider that 25 feet. If the door is 8 feet and the distance is about 3 and a half times the hight of the door. The distance is almost 30 feet. (about 28 feet give or take.

According to the dimensions posted on the net, (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html) the base dimension of the towers was 63.4 X 63.4 meters. That's 209 X 209 feet roughly.
If the long axis of the core was 133 feet that leaves 37 feet on each side.
If you subtract 17 feet from that it leaves 20.5 feet. Subtract somemore distance for sheetrock, insulation and decorative paneling, That would leave you with much less that 25 feet. And as you can clearly see, there is quite abit more that 20.5 feet that would be there if there was a 17 foot concrete wall there.

[qoute]Which is consistent with the below image which shows the one piece of the 17 foot thick WTC 2 core (I think), that was obviously not detonated.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg[/quote] Chris, you make yourself look silly when you post that picture.
It does not show a concrete wall. We've shown you higher resolution picture that clearly shows no concrete at all.

Oh, and the video you posted clearly shows that the core does not have elevator entries on the outside of it.

At 26 seconds the core wall is shown, no elevator entries.

39 more, no elevator entries.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-ZQez5iM1g
Chris, at 26 seconds in the video, on the left of the frame, you can see the guy in the suit walking toward the elevator door just before the camera zooms into the sign and pans to the right. At 40 seconds the camera pans back to the same location and the guy is no longer there

What is the matter with smiths brain? Oh, let us not forget homers brain.
Well, there's something definitely wrong with yours.

uruk

17th February 2007, 10:29 PM

I made a rough estimate of the distance in the lobby using photoshop. (Oh BTW, The picture is of the mezzanine level, not the the lobby. The escalators lead down to the lobby)

Assuming the hight of the door is 8 feet. I came up with a number that is roughly 27 to 30 feet.

According to the dimensions posted on the net, (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html) the base dimension of the towers was 63.4 X 63.4 meters. That's 209 X 209 feet roughly. The core was 87' X 133'
If the long axis of the core was 133 feet that leaves 37 feet on each side. (209'-133'=76'; 76'/2=37')

If you subtract 17 feet from that it leaves 20.5 feet. Subtract some more distance for sheetrock, insulation and decorative paneling, That would leave you less than 20.5 feet. And as you can clearly see, there is quite a bit more than 20.5 feet that would be there if there was a 17 foot concrete wall there.

See the picture below. But try and do your own measurments.

A W Smith

18th February 2007, 01:20 AM

Gravy

18th February 2007, 01:38 AM

A W Smith

18th February 2007, 01:45 AM

Arus, a month ago you were begging people not to post here.

Uruk, your posts in this thread have no positive effect on Christophera's reasoning.

A W, your energy is better spent anywhere else.

Exactly what about arguing with a mentally ill person do you all need help understanding?

Why are you doing this?

Why?

Well I was just helping out Uruk with a minor mezzanine width detail while I was waiting for merc to clean the bongwater up off his laptop and post over at thepentacon (http://z6.invisionfree.com/ThePentaCON/index.php?showforum=1) invision forum. Hey its almost 4 am what are we doin up?

Hey im not gonna get docked am I?:eek:

Ok read your post below. Ill try to be more rational.. See how im not bumping the thread by posting in reverse? (upwards edit)

Gravy

18th February 2007, 01:53 AM

Well I was just helping out Uruk with a minor mezzanine width detail while I was waiting for merc to clean the bongwater up off his laptop and post over at thepentacon (http://z6.invisionfree.com/ThePentaCON/index.php?showforum=1) invision forum. Hey its almost 4 am what are we doin up?I don't mean to pick on you. It's just that any "contribution" to rationality in this thread only serves to feed Christophera's paranoid delusions that everyone is against him.

Why won't people stop arguing with Christophera? There are no new facts to be learned. Christophera is ill. Rational arguments about the construction of the World Trade Center will never, ever, change that.

Never.

Get it, people? Never.

In the name of all that is rational and decent, please stop this.

And if you cannot stop, what does that say about you?

uruk

18th February 2007, 10:35 AM

Uruk see them exterior columns in the distance? They are exactly 10 feet on center. How do we know this? because they are tridents at the top. the forks of those tridents are exactly 40 inches on center according to construction documents and the nist report. therefore. 3 x
40= 120 or ten feet. Therefore Chris's "lobby" that we know is a mezzanine it no less than 30 feet wide.

Thanks. I was working on the assumption of the hight of the rotating door that Chris agreed with. I knew it wasn't very accurate because of the assumption was base how tall the person was in the picture posted by Chris. But even with the huge assumption I still showed that the distance of the mezzanine area is still larger than 25 feet.
The math shows that the distance should be less than 20.5 feet (if there was a17 foot concrete wall) using the dimensions posted on the internet.

You method is more accurate. The calculations show that the distance should be around 37 feet.

uruk

18th February 2007, 10:42 AM

Christophera

18th February 2007, 11:39 AM

Chris, at 26 seconds in the video, on the left of the frame, you can see the guy in the suit walking toward the elevator door just before the camera zooms into the sign and pans to the right. At 40 seconds the camera pans back to the same location and the guy is no longer there

Stop hitting yourself inthe head homer. T'is causing brain damage. If the guy steps out of the frame it doesn't mean there is an elevator entry.

Well, there's something definitely wrong with yours.

Your "straight" line on the left is not straight. On the right it obscures the tapered space, very sloppy. At any rate, clearly there are more pixels above than below. There is not much taper but just enough to be seen.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=5591&d=1171772852

Use the image I annotated. It has straight lines but it doesn't show the taper any better than yours because your pixelation is more exagerated.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1_taper_demo.gif

uruk

18th February 2007, 01:20 PM

Stop hitting yourself inthe head homer. T'is causing brain damage. If the guy steps out of the frame it doesn't mean there is an elevator entry. Why would a guy walk toward a wall and then dissappear? Magic?

Your "straight" line on the left is not straight. On the right it obscures the tapered space, very sloppy. At any rate, clearly there are more pixels above than below. There is not much taper but just enough to be seen.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=5591&d=1171772852

Use the image I annotated. It has straight lines but it doesn't show the taper any better than yours because your pixelation is more exagerated.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1_taper_demo.gif

Don't you think it odd That all the other sides of the core area are perfectly straight Chris?
(Inspite of your missalinement attempt.)

This is an example of your amazing ability to see only what you want to see.
All the other sides are straight. You admitt there is heavy pixelation. So don't you think the distortion in the little section you pointed out is due to the pixelation?

Oh here's something else. You noticed how the core does not go all the way out to the outer most columns that you lined in blue?
Could it be that they are still putting up drywall and haven't finished yet? Hmmmmm.

uruk

18th February 2007, 01:55 PM

twinstead

18th February 2007, 02:31 PM

I'd say your finished Chris. Just about everything in your hypothesis has been totaly debunked.
I don't think there's anything more to say.

You're done son.
bye.

Dude. That happened on the first page of this thread...

Christophera

18th February 2007, 06:16 PM

twinstead

18th February 2007, 06:38 PM

Chris. Get help

uruk

18th February 2007, 08:50 PM

All that is seen is reflections. No elevator entrances. Meaning the guy walked away in 14 seconds. That is one of the outer doors you posted an image of earlier reflected in the tile.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=5607&stc=1&d=1171847583

Chris, the entrance of the elevators was below the mezzanine level in the lobby.
The entrance to the building was on the mezzanine level. You had to go down the escaltors to get to the elevators. Remember the Tom Hanks movie? http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2308213&postcount=10710

The only thing that would be reflecting on the doors would be the wall below the mezzanine balcony.

Face it Chris, you've been wrong on almost everything.

Give it up

eddyk

19th February 2007, 03:15 PM

'it was just 2 seconds longer than freefall, that's nothing'
-Arrowhead

If he claims free fall is 8/9 seconds....2 seconds is 20/25% longer.

I mean in my school sports comp I ran 100m in 13 seconds, that's a few seconds off olympic qualifying time...still a HUGE difference though.

Christophera

19th February 2007, 04:37 PM

According to the dimensions posted on the net, (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html) the base dimension of the towers was 63.4 X 63.4 meters. That's 209 X 209 feet roughly.
If the long axis of the core was 133 feet that leaves 37 feet on each side.
If you subtract 17 feet from that it leaves 20.5 feet. Subtract somemore distance for sheetrock, insulation and decorative paneling, That would leave you with much less that 25 feet. And as you can clearly see, there is quite abit more that 20.5 feet that would be there if there was a 17 foot concrete wall there.

[qoute]Which is consistent with the below image which shows the one piece of the 17 foot thick WTC 2 core (I think), that was obviously not detonated.

Reports on the number of core columns vary from 44 to 47. The exact arrangement of the columns is not known due to the secrecy of detailed engineering drawings

The cores were rectangular pillars with numerous large columns and girders, measuring 87 feet by 133 feet.

The exact arrangement of the columns and how they were cross-braced is not apparent from public documents such as FEMA's World Trade Center Building Performance Study. The arrangement of box columns depicted in Figure 2-10 of Chapter 2 (pictured to the right) seems plausible, even though it contradicts other illustrations in the report showing a more random arrangement. It depicts the top floors of a tower and does not indicate the widths of the columns on a typical floor.

The language of your reference admits to it's own uncertainties and very much draws its description of the core into question.

Your citation of dimension is a joke, as well at the web site you refer to. You do not give inside or outside identity

The inside dimensions of the core have always, only been,

80 x 120

That web site has no images of the demolition to compare structure to. That site has only pictures of outer steel framework. The conclusions they draw from examination do not have comparison to 9-11 images. There must be consitency and we see none, or no attempt to describe what this structure is.

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

Arus808

19th February 2007, 04:54 PM

Gravy

19th February 2007, 05:02 PM

Christophera

19th February 2007, 06:22 PM

I'd say your finished Chris. Just about everything in your hypothesis has been totaly debunked.
I don't think there's anything more to say.

You're done son.
bye.

Ya, .......... right. Like the sun ain't coming up tomorrow.

I do agree, though. There is actually 31 feet between the core and the perimeter walls.

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

I converted the image to a pict file and imported it into coordinate geometery software and assumed a top of door frame height at 8.5+- feet and approximated perpendicular to scale the image and determine the width.

Of course the dimensions you think existed are wrong, so your arithmatic is garbage, .......... and you don't know what tower it is.

Yes, that matters a lot. Tower 2 had slightly thinner core walls.

Everyplace I've seen there is good agreement that the core was 80 x 120. Another solid dimension is the inside of the towers at 204 feet. If you find 208 feet then that must be outside.

If the image scaled is from the north tower we have;

204 - 62(2x31) =142 - 120 (=22)
2 = 11

You can't explain that distance with your supposed steel core columns that are never seen, and, the site you reference for dimensions does not use 9-11 images to confirm what it assumes as the core design.

uruk

19th February 2007, 07:08 PM

The language of your reference admits to it's own uncertainties and very much draws its description of the core into question.

Your citation of dimension is a joke, as well at the web site you refer to. You do not give inside or outside identity

The inside dimensions of the core have always, only been,

80 x 120

That web site has no images of the demolition to compare structure to. That site has only pictures of outer steel framework. The conclusions they draw from examination do not have comparison to 9-11 images. There must be consitency and we see none, or no attempt to describe what this structure is.

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

source of your dimensions?

Here's a few that I found on the web.
http://www.european911citizensjury.com/10a.htm (87 X 137)
http://www.zmag.org/Sustainers/Content/2001-09%5C30raptis.cfm (79 x 139)
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-1.pdf (87 x 135)
http://www.answers.com/topic/collapse-of-the-world-trade-center (87 x 135)
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html (87 x 131)
And so forth and soforth.

Where did you get your numbers? Your ghost documentary?
Give up Chris. you are wrong

Hey Chris, Check this out:
http://thumb14.webshots.net/t/34/34/3/22/83/256032283axZTWU_th.jpg (http://news.webshots.com/photo/1256032283064370674axZTWU)
(Hot linked with website's permission)

Its a different view of core in the the picture you keep posting.
Notice no concrete.

uruk

19th February 2007, 07:32 PM

Ya, .......... right. Like the sun ain't coming up tomorrow.

I do agree, though. There is actually 31 feet between the core and the perimeter walls. so you finally admit that you are wrong. Great!
There's hope for you.

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

I converted the image to a pict file and imported it into coordinate geometery software and assumed a top of door frame height at 8.5+- feet and approximated perpendicular to scale the image and determine the width.

Of course the dimensions you think existed are wrong, so your arithmatic is garbage, .......... and you don't know what tower it is.
My arithmetic is fine. Your numbers are wrong.

Yes, that matters a lot. Tower 2 had slightly thinner core walls. Source?
And you better not say "the documentary" unless you can prove it exists.
Othwise it's crap.

Everyplace I've seen there is good agreement that the core was 80 x 120. Another solid dimension is the inside of the towers at 204 feet. If you find 208 feet then that must be outside. Show me where it says the core was 80' X 120'. I just showed you several sites that had the long side of the core no less that 131'.

If the image scaled is from the north tower we have;

204 - 62(2x31) =142 - 120 (=22)
2 = 11 So I assume you saying the core is 11' feet?
Unfortuantly you are wrong about the core dimensions.

You can't explain that distance with your supposed steel core columns that are never seen, and, the site you reference for dimensions does not use 9-11 images to confirm what it assumes as the core design.

pictures of the steel columns have been presented. Quite lieing and pretending they haven't.
What hasn't been presented is any picture of the concrete core.

You are wrong Chris. The past posts have shown you to be wrong on a great many things.

Face it Chris

Huntster

19th February 2007, 11:31 PM

Way to go, Huntsman!!!

As a reward, I propose we should never ever again confuse Huntsman with Huntster, neither make any jokes mixing the names, on the penalty of the offender having his/hers toilet rigged with C4.

No reward should be necessary for the "intelligent" folks on this silly forum.

If you can't spell, you might be able to post here, but you should be relegated to the appropriate stupidity that you deserve.

Right, Huntsman?

Huntster

19th February 2007, 11:34 PM

Yes...you'd be suprised what a quarter-pound shaped charge in the bottom of the bowl can do

No, I wouldn't.

A quarter pound of shaped charge is devastating.

Arus808

19th February 2007, 11:47 PM

Arus, there is no such documentary. Chris has been asked for this information over 100 times. Repeating the same questions ad nauseum will never cure Chris's illness. Please follow your own advice and stop this. Arguing with the mentally ill isn't healthy for anyone.

there's a reason why I am asking and its will be revealed as soon as Chris provides his answer. but until others stop posting so that CHRIS can concentrate on this one question, I'll have to repost until then. There is a point to my questioning him.

So:::::

guys.. one question at a time... until he answers mines, please dont offer any more

1) PBS Documentary: Please provide the name and airdate of the documentary. No "I think it was in 1993" or "it was 1990" . Actual month, day and time that the show aired. Addendum : Also what channel it aired on and it what city.

your answer can be only of:
Title : Month Day, Year and Time
Channel Name and City.

Unacceptable answers:
I dont know.
It was in 1990;
It aired in September;
"PBS took it out of their library" or any other dubious claims, as these cannot be supported.

Your answer will then be fact checked by an email to TVGuide to confirm the airing of this show on the day you claim at the time you claim. Or a visit to the library to scavenge their collection of TVGuides and NEWSPAPERS.

Belz...

20th February 2007, 10:36 AM

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2233260&postcount=10523

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.

Yes. Please.

Christophera

20th February 2007, 11:18 AM

source of your dimensions?

Here's a few that I found on the web.
http://www.european911citizensjury.com/10a.htm (87 X 137)
http://www.zmag.org/Sustainers/Content/2001-09%5C30raptis.cfm (79 x 139)
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-1.pdf (87 x 135)
http://www.answers.com/topic/collapse-of-the-world-trade-center (87 x 135)
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html (87 x 131)
And so forth and soforth.

Where did you get your numbers? Your ghost documentary?
Give up Chris. you are wrong

Hey Chris, Check this out:
http://thumb14.webshots.net/t/34/34/3/22/83/256032283axZTWU_th.jpg (http://news.webshots.com/photo/1256032283064370674axZTWU)
(Hot linked with website's permission)

Its a different view of core in the the picture you keep posting.
Notice no concrete.

Good list of disinfo sites. That one,

european911citizensjury.com

Is an incompetent compilation if I ever saw one. When 9-11 sites fail to use images of the demolition to define the structure, it shatters their credibility.

It looks as though the control of the internet has really facilitated a "night into day" conversion of information into whatever fits the official story.

Of course there is no competent explanation for this,

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

I like that image, it shows the rebar very well, and yes, it is larger than three inch, six inches looks about right and agrees witht he narration of the documentary.

uruk

20th February 2007, 11:43 AM

Good list of disinfo sites. That one,

european911citizensjury.com

Is an incompetent compilation if I ever saw one. When 9-11 sites fail to use images of the demolition to define the structure, it shatters their credibility.

It looks as though the control of the internet has really facilitated a "night into day" conversion of information into whatever fits the official story.
So I take it you couldn't find any sources that said the the core was 80 X 120 Feet.

Of course there is no competent explanation for this,

Concrete Core Of WTC 2

I like that image, it shows the rebar very well, and yes, it is larger than three inch, six inches looks about right and agrees witht he narration of the documentary.
Only it doesn't show any concrete what so ever.

Anyhoo. I won't respond to you any further until you answer Arus808's question.

What was the date, time, and channel you ghostumentary was broadcast?
Come on, your photographic memory should be able to give you the answer.

Without Rights

20th February 2007, 12:17 PM

there was no reinforced concrete in the structure.

I have read many articles, even the commission report says the concrete was reinforced with steel. Where did you hear such information? It sounds completely bogus that structural engineers would build a 100+ story building and not reinforce the concrete.

Christophera

20th February 2007, 12:29 PM

Ya, .......... right. Like the sun ain't coming up tomorrow.

I do agree, though. There is actually 31 feet between the core and the perimeter walls.

so you finally admit that you are wrong. Great!
There's hope for you.

As I said before, that must be the South tower which had a different core.

I've proven that the wtc 2 core was different with this image showing 2 hallways across the core for building 2 and 1 hallway for building 1.

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

Also, since the image

http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/images/wtc_19aug2000_lobby.jpg

showing the core face 31 foot from the wall is not the ground floor, then it is going to have a wider lobby and a norrower core.

Most importantly is you cannot show from the 9-11 images ANY STEEL COLUMNS inside the core area.

But what is most pitiful about your position, which you have not supported, is that you have not explained how the supposed 47 steel columns were cut to accomodate near free fall and disapear from all images.

The "air core" "invisisteel" crew has a big deficiency when it comes to logic.

Christophera

20th February 2007, 01:30 PM

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.

The core,

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

Was steel reinforced concrete. Here is the 3 inch high tensile steel rebar.

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

The steel reinforced concrete of the towers was reduced to it's particualte components and further. Here is the video testimony of a firefighter who was at ground zero.

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

http://prisonplanet.tv/articles/may2004/051404collapsedtodust.htm

"You have two hundred and ten story office buildings. You don't find a desk. You don't find a chair. You don't find a telephone, a computer. The biggest piece of a telephone I found was half of the keypad. The building collapsed to dust."

He's right about everything except the "collapse". There was no collapse, only demolition.

Here is a group of 3 firefighters comparing what they saw to a demolition.

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

Arus808

20th February 2007, 01:31 PM

Chris, you still have to answer my question;

1) PBS Documentary: Please provide the name and airdate of the documentary. No "I think it was in 1993" or "it was 1990" . Actual month, day and time that the show aired. Addendum : Also what channel it aired on and it what city.

your answer can be only of:
Title : Month Day, Year and Time
Channel Name and City.

Unacceptable answers:
I dont know.
It was in 1990;
It aired in September;
"PBS took it out of their library" or any other dubious claims, as these cannot be supported.

Your answer will then be fact checked by an email to TVGuide to confirm the airing of this show on the day you claim at the time you claim. Or a visit to the library to scavenge their collection of TVGuides and NEWSPAPERS.

Christophera

20th February 2007, 01:45 PM

Arus808, you still have to answer my question;

1) Please provide at least one image of the supposed steel core columns in the core area

your answer can be only, above ground level, from 9-11

Unacceptable answers:
Construction photos have been posted.
Images of the core columns have been posted.

Your photo will then be fact checked by comparison to other images of the towers demise to confirm that your image actually shows steel columns of the appropriate size in the core area.

Arus808

20th February 2007, 02:06 PM

TellyKNeasuss

20th February 2007, 03:57 PM

1) Please provide at least one image of the supposed steel core columns in the core area

your answer can be only, above ground level, from 9-11

Unacceptable answers:
Construction photos have been posted.
Images of the core columns have been posted.

Your photo will then be fact checked by comparison to other images of the towers demise to confirm that your image actually shows steel columns of the appropriate size in the core area.

Christophera, some of your images show core columns. You just claim that they aren't core columns.

Now it's your turn to answer Arus808's question.

Christophera

20th February 2007, 05:12 PM

Christophera, some of your images show core columns. You just claim that they aren't core columns.

Now it's your turn to answer Arus808's question.

Since you provide no image to debunk, I will provide one.

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/3396/gjswtc30pt4.jpg

Numerous invisiteel core proponents have posted this image in attempts to prove the steel core columns.

One big problem, there are no columns in the core area. The columns seen are of a wall surrounding the core. They have none of the diagonal bracing that is marginally, inconsistently described and the void of the core area is plain to see. The spire on the right IS identified as outside the core area.

Arus808

20th February 2007, 05:14 PM

TellyKNeasuss

20th February 2007, 05:38 PM

Since you provide no image to debunk, I will provide one.

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/3396/gjswtc30pt4.jpg

Numerous invisiteel core proponents have posted this image in attempts to prove the steel core columns.

One big problem, there are no columns in the core area. The columns seen are of a wall surrounding the core. They have none of the diagonal bracing that is marginally, inconsistently described and the void of the core area is plain to see. The spire on the right IS identified as outside the core area.

This image doesn't show a concrete core, either. So again your claim is based on this supposed documentation. Are you going to tell us what the title of the documentary was and when it was shown on TV or not? This is a simple yes-or-no question. You don't need to post images. You don't need to make any comments about concrete cores. Just answer Yes or No.

Christophera

20th February 2007, 05:38 PM

1) PBS Documentary: Please provide the name and airdate of the documentary. No "I think it was in 1993" or "it was 1990" . Actual month, day and time that the show aired. Addendum : Also what channel it aired on and it what city.

your answer can be only of:
Title : Month Day, Year and Time
Channel Name and City.

Unacceptable answers:
I dont know.
It was in 1990;
It aired in September;
"PBS took it out of their library" or any other dubious claims, as these cannot be supported.

Your answer will then be fact checked by an email to TVGuide to confirm the airing of this show on the day you claim at the time you claim. Or a visit to the library to scavenge their collection of TVGuides and NEWSPAPERS.

There is a reason why this question is being posed to you.

Your authority is TV Guide, who will be cross checked by newspapers. I'm astounded at the lack of competence here. As if any form of media could be trusted or is not controlled.

There is, and has been a media crisis in this nation. Why do you think your unsubstanciated denial of the concrete core is even possible?

Consider, your lack of a competent explanation for HOW the supposed 47, 1300 foot columns were cut to accomodate near free fall and disapearance from ALL 9-11 images precludes your pompous request.

The fact that I can logically answer so many questions in ways consistent with 9-11 images as well as construction, substantiates my claim of viewing the documentary I claim to have seen.

Then, there is Harold Hill, structural engineer. I met him at a meeting called by moveon.org after F9-11 and he remembered seeing the documentary, or a documentary which detailed the concrete core.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/harold.hill.dec.jpg

He was too afraid to state the core was concrete in his declaration, but a documentary is substantiated here. I do not believe it was the same DOC. I saw. I think PBS sold some of the video clips that comprised the DOC. and other producers created other documentaries.

I have spoken to 3 other people who saw those documentaries and know that the towers had a steel reinforced cast concrete core.

TellyKNeasuss

20th February 2007, 05:43 PM

Your authority is TV Guide, who will be cross checked by newspapers. I'm astounded at the lack of competence here. As if any form of media could be trusted or is not controlled.

There is, and has been a media crisis in this nation. Why do you think your unsubstanciated denial of the concrete core is even possible?

Consider, your lack of a competent explanation for HOW the supposed 47, 1300 foot columns were cut to accomodate near free fall and disapearance from ALL 9-11 images precludes your pompous request.

The fact that I can logically answer so many questions in ways consistent with 9-11 images as well as construction, substantiates my claim of viewing the documentary I claim to have seen.

Then, there is Harold Hill, structural engineer. I met him at a meeting called by moveon.org after F9-11 and he remembered seeing the documentary, or a documentary which detailed the concrete core.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/harold.hill.dec.jpg

He was too afraid to state the core was concrete in his declaration, but a documentary is substantiated here. I do not believe it was the same DOC. I saw. I think PBS sold some of the video clips that comprised the DOC. and other producers created other documentaries.

I have spoken to 3 other people who saw those documentaries and know that the towers had a steel reinforced cast concrete core.

What was the title of the documentary and when was it shown?

Arus808

20th February 2007, 06:01 PM

you continue to post unacceptable answers, Chris, I'll continue to post this question to you. Tv Guide isnt my ONLY source that can be accessed, Chris, ITS one of many that can either confirm or debunk your claims:

1) PBS Documentary: Please provide the name and airdate of the documentary. No "I think it was in 1993" or "it was 1990" . Actual month, day and time that the show aired. Addendum : Also what channel it aired on and it what city.

your answer can be only of:
Title : Month Day, Year and Time
Channel Name and City.

Unacceptable answers:
I dont know.
It was in 1990;
It aired in September;
"PBS took it out of their library" or any other dubious claims, as these cannot be supported or third party claims by people you dont name or we can't ask ourselves.

Your answer will then be fact checked by an email to TVGuide to confirm the airing of this show on the day you claim at the time you claim. Or a visit to the library to scavenge their collection of TVGuides and NEWSPAPERS.

There is a reason why this question is being posed to you.

Christophera

20th February 2007, 06:03 PM

So again your claim is based on this supposed documentation. Are you going to tell us what the title of the documentary was and when it was shown on TV or not? This is a simple yes-or-no question. You don't need to post images. You don't need to make any comments about concrete cores. Just answer Yes or No.

Telly, dude,

If you had read some of the thread you would know I gave the name of the DOC about 3 pages back. It was called,

The Construction of the Twin Towers

Your simpleton requirements are below my standards. I'm repeating what I remember in full, ..............."simple yes-or-no", ...................................... gawd, gimme a freakin' break. READ, or suffer the repetition of facts.

It aired in late 1989 or early 1990 on channel 28, (10 in Santa Barbara).

Now, be aware, I've answered this question probably 7 times now. So, your indignancy is totally misplaced.

And, finally, YES, comment and images about the core that existed are essential.

This image doesn't show a concrete core, either.

Here is an image of the core of WTC 1 blowing up immediately before the last image I posted showing Leaving interior box columns. (http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/3396/gjswtc30pt4.jpg).

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8232/wtcsl8.jpg

Arus808

20th February 2007, 06:04 PM

again unacceptable answer Chris.
YOU MUST GIVE A SPECIFIC DATE and time and the actual title in the format that is listed under ACCEPTABLE answer. Any other "text" accompanied with your answer, that entire post will be ignored.

1) PBS Documentary: Please provide the name and airdate of the documentary. No "I think it was in 1993" or "it was 1990" . Actual month, day and time that the show aired. Addendum : Also what channel it aired on and it what city.

your answer can be only of:
Title : Month Day, Year and Time
Channel Name and City.

Unacceptable answers:
I dont know.
It was in 1990;
It aired in September;
"PBS took it out of their library" or any other dubious claims, as these cannot be supported.

Your answer will then be fact checked by an email to TVGuide to confirm the airing of this show on the day you claim at the time you claim. Or a visit to the library to scavenge their collection of TVGuides and NEWSPAPERS.

There is a reason why this question is being posed to you.

PerryLogan

20th February 2007, 06:16 PM

I think we've taught Christophera all we can. It's time for him to leave the seclusion of this thread and take his information public.

Take it to the New York Times, Chris. Now's the time. The neocons are on their knees; I'm almost positive the Times would publish your stunning findings, the brilliance of which--as you yourself keep pointing out--is beyond description.

Now that you're ready, you can't keep hiding here, Chris. At this point, you are avoiding your duty to spread the word.

You can't just stay here like someone who refuses to finish graduate school...

Off you go, my son. Get out there and save the world! When you're on Oprah, we'll say we knew you when you were nothing.

Christophera

21st February 2007, 10:31 AM

No, I wouldn't.

A quarter pound of shaped charge is devastating.

From what I've read, the "shaped charge" aspects reduce the required explosive by about 70 to 40 percent from what would be required without the shaped charge device. Or charges just applied to the exterior of steel without tamping.

Steel columns of this size,

http://www.parrhesia.com/wtc/wtc066.jpg

Would, by my rough extimates of weight and volume for C4 need a shaped charge that stood perhaps 8 inches off the surface and be about 3 inches wide.

The noise this makes when it goes of is a very loud, sharp "bang", which would have to be repeated 1300 times to cut 47, 1300 foot columns and end up with pieces that were aproximately 40 foot long.

The above is the reason why I ask the invisisteel column group to explain how the supposed steel core columns were cut to enable near free fall and the disappearance from ALL images from 9-11.

Gravy

21st February 2007, 10:45 AM

there's a reason why I am asking and its will be revealed as soon as Chris provides his answer. but until others stop posting so that CHRIS can concentrate on this one question, I'll have to repost until then. There is a point to my questioning him.As I said, he has been asked the same question over 100 times. We have also researched the issue and found no evidence of any such video.

Arus, Uruk, why are you arguing with a person who is admittedly mentally ill, and who you know will never answer your questions to your satisfaction?

What does that say about you?

Aphelion

21st February 2007, 12:24 PM

uruk

21st February 2007, 12:27 PM

Aphelion

21st February 2007, 12:30 PM

No offence intented Gravy, But it's a free country.

If I see a thread I'm not interested in, I ignore it.

Personaly I'm waiting for Merc and lyte to release thier film.
And I ain't got nothing else better to do but to be a thorn in you know who's side.

You can't coddle anyone in an open forum. Even if they are ill.

Hope you don't take this the wrong way.

You are clearly doing this for sport. Is the mental health of an individual and 9/11 a suitable reason for sport?

This thread has gone on for coming up to a year. Chris is wrong, he will never admit otherwise, he will never answer your questions.

Christophera

21st February 2007, 12:33 PM

As I said, he has been asked the same question over 100 times. We have also researched the issue and found no evidence of any such video.

Arus, Uruk, why are you arguing with a person who is admittedly mentally ill, and who you know will never answer your questions to your satisfaction?

What does that say about you?

Apparenty Gravy is unable to perceive that authority, power, has a problem in this country. Example: The removal and destruction of evidence, the secreting of building plans, the budget for 9-11 investigation compared to Clinton/Monica investigations. Gravey cannot imagine that "authority" would purge their records of TV shows, or that Oford would purge their records of published architectural volumes.

All this after I've posted a thread,

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63738
The Hidden Agenda
http://www.realityzone.com/hiddenagenda2.html

that SHOWS, that this nation is filled with the victims of a planned program of ignorance by the very same "authorities", essentially, as Gravy cannot bring himself to question of even allow questioning of.

Therefore Gravy is inadvertantly supporting something very dark and dangerous for all of our futures when he pretends to present reason while actually relying on Ad hominum approaches.

Where is the proportion and principle in Gravys action?

Arus808

21st February 2007, 12:46 PM

Why I am asking that question is to goto the HEART of chris' claims.

he says that he has photographic memory. Wrong. Its proof positive that he doesn't.

1) there is no such thing as photographic memory. Its a myth. People can possess good memory skills, but its only developed through exercises that are repeated often that can be used in real life situations.
2) eidetic memory is as close to photographic memory that people can possess, however, eidetic memory only last for a few moments after once and event or image has been seen by the observer. And its only seen in 5% of children, and usually is outgrown by adulthood. Very few adults possess eidetic memory.

This is why Chris's claim of having a photographic memory is nothing more than a lie. If he "truly" possessed this mythical skill, then he'd have no trouble of remembering the EXACT date, time, month and channel this mythical pbs documentary aired.

Since there is:
1) no documentary by that title
2) he can't give us the specific date time and month it aired,

This proves that ANY claim that he has taken away from this mythical documenatry is nothing more than LIES and the product of a fanciful imagination. A disturbed imagination.

When one starts to claim things based on fantasy, that person needs to find help...

After being asked more than 10 times for the specifics of that documentary, and Chris' unable to answer with a specific answer; it goes to conclude and is supported by the newspapers published during that time that no such documentary exists and it has never aired. Only in the imagination of Chris.

Sorry, Chris, the claims you make are totally based on a fairytale of your own making.