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

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

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

No, that is pulling factoids out of your ass; which, though it does appear to be your forte, is useless in the real world.

[Christophera]

Thank you.

You asked for photos of the core NIST claims existed. The photo you posted is such evidence.

Case closed.

-Andrew

I've explained what that image showing columns sheared level (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/box.cols.sheared.level.jpg) is qualified for. Only showing the interior box columns sheared off level. Why? Because there were no steel core columns. What is in the center are supports for frieght elevators and heavy mechanical equipment as well as elevator guide rail supports.

You problem is you have no evidence showing steel columns in the core are at some elevation over ground. No way I'm going to let you MISREPRESENT that image as showing core columns. Since I've shown an image that should show steel core columns if they existed and it does not, reasonably you must produce an explanation for why or another image of the demo showing steel core columns at elevation.

I SAY, if they existed there at ground level, then they existed higher up, therefore show me a demolition image that has steel core columns at some elevation. To continue to MISREPRESENT evidence shows intellectual dishonesty. Let me assist with an image that SHOULD have the core columns, 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)

Sorry, no columns inside the core there (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/box.cols.sheared.level.jpg). The only columns obviously standing are around the core area as seen outside the core wall here (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg).

[RandFan]

Let me assist with an image that SHOULD have the core columns, 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) Please explain how this shows what you claim it shows?

[Christophera]

I'd like to remind you, as I have before, that this seemingly favorite image of yours is a still frame of a demolition in progress. It, by itself, is inconclusive. Surely you understand as much.

We have another frame of the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) lower (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcore2stands.gif). From another perspective, after eliminating the impossible, it is conclusive.

[RandFan]

We have another frame of the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) lower (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcore2stands.gif). From another perspective, after eliminating the impossible, it is conclusive. No, it is not conclusive. Stating that it is such does not make it so. You are simply engaging in rhetoric, demanding that people accept what you say the photos represent. When I ask you for explanations you ignore me. Please respond with more than rhetoric?

[Christophera]

Please explain how this (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) shows what you claim it shows?

That image can only be 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS because this image of the SPIRE (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) taken a second before from the same camera shows 14 inch thick interior box columns providing scale. NOTE: The slight curve to the fine vertical elements. There is actually nothing else it can be except rebar.

[Christophera]

No, it is not conclusive. Stating that it is such does not make it so. You are simply engaging in rhetoric, demanding that people accept what you say the photos represent. When I ask you for explanations you ignore me. Please respond with more than rhetoric?

Okay, let us try. Suggest some other structural design element which this (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) might be other than a cast concrete core.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Okay, let us try. Suggest some other structural design element which this (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) might be other than a cast concrete core.

It's the shadow of a building behind the dust cloud.

[gumboot]

I've explained what that image showing columns sheared level is qualified for. Only showing the interior box columns sheared off level. Why? Because there were no steel core columns.

Let me get this straight. You're saying that photo can't be showing core columns because there are not steel core columns? This is your response to our evidence? Why bother asking for it then? Your application of evidence is backwards. One must find evidence, then make a conclusion from it. You cannot make a conclusion, then look for evidence you think supports it.

We claim that photo depicts the core columns - which according to your graphics are in exactly the same location as your "interior box columns". The only difference is the concrete core. The photo of the columns quite clearly shows no concrete whatsoever. Therefore it must just be "interior box columns" without a core. Which is the NIST structure.



You problem is you have no evidence showing steel columns in the core are at some elevation over ground.

What does "some elevation over ground" mean, exactly? I've seen several photos of these core columns that reach at least 3 storeys above the rubble pile, which I understand was several floors high itself. That puts the top of the remaining core columns well above street level. We quite obviously cannot provide photos of the core columns any higher than that. Why? The building collapsed. In case you didn't notice.


No way I'm going to let you MISREPRESENT that image as showing core columns.

If they are interior box columns, as you claim, where is the concrete core inside them?




Since I've shown an image that should show steel core columns if they existed and it does not, reasonably you must produce an explanation for why

As has been, many times. The photo depicts the building after collapse. We maintain the core columns collapsed with the rest of the building. Ergo, in a photo where the building is collapsed, there will be no core columns.




To continue to MISREPRESENT evidence shows intellectual dishonesty.

Indeed it does.

-Andrew

[gumboot]

That image can only be 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS because this image of the SPIRE (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) taken a second before from the same camera shows 14 inch thick interior box columns providing scale. NOTE: The slight curve to the fine vertical elements. There is actually nothing else it can be except rebar.



Um... in spite of what you might claim...

Your own photo is simply a cropped segment of the other photo. A child could see this. You claim it is a second before? Um...no, it's not. It's really just...not.

In addition, if it is from the concrete core, explain why it is positioned at the outside edge of the building. It is quite clear (given your photo of "core in dust cloud") that this spire is nowhere near the location of the structural core.

-Andrew

[Johnny Pixels]

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

You know your stuff with fabrication and steel. See any steel columns here (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)? Or here here (http://home.comcast.net/%7Ejeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)?

Why weren't X-rays possible in position? I ask because I have done on-site radiography. In my experience welders are never counted on to do it right.

[Anders W. Bonde]

Uhmm, Christophera...Rebar is meant to work in tension, as concrete only excells in compression. That's the whole point of using rebar in the first place. The "spire" in your picture is a section of corner outer steel column, which will support its own weight in compression up to acertain height, the more remaining lateral support, the higher. The corner is the most stable section of the outer steel columns - floors would esily have sheared off from the mass pancaking upon them, leaving a portion of the corner less disturbed for a while. We can also see almost intact sections of outer columns near the base of the building in other post-collapse pictures. Rebar weave to that height with the concrete matrix removed would collapse under its own weight - except it would have been crumpled by the shattered concrete matrix collapse. This is all assuming that the pictures are genuine, of course.

IOW your theory is wrong in all respects.

IAW I'm a structural engineer - admittedly not in buildings but in aircraft. Rebar reinforced concrete is in principle similar to fiber reinforced composites - the rebar being the fiber.

[Belz...]

Check the delays and paths section of my page,

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

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


No, no and no. You said that the core was detonated. How did the rest of the tower fall if the core wasn't yet detonated ?

[Belz...]

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

You haven't answered my point about those large pieces of concrete on that very picture.

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

No, that's not what SPEECH is about.

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

Too busy ? You're constantly posting here. Surely you have some time to verify your assertions and stop sounding like a fool ?

[pchams]

I have been following this thread in its entirety, and since the first link I clicked on that Christophera posted had spam popups for antispyware, I have to conclude that the OP is just having you all on to get clicks on his webpage.
I mean, come on. The exact same nonsense and links are posted in each post.
He has presented no evidence that is conclusive, and he refuses to accept the mountain of evidence that has been produced for him.
You've been had by a click-miner.
He did a great job too.

[Belz...]

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

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

You're just making things up here. Do you have any EVIDENCE for that ??

[Apollyon]

What does above ground blasting have to do with anything being discussed, Christophera? Above ground blasting typically uses dynamite, nitroglycerin, black powder, or some other type of Class A explosive. Are you now claiming a Class A explosive was used to bring down the towers?

[Hellbound]

I've posted a link recently here that shows the same quare cut end on many columns in all kinds of positions.



As far as I can tell, you've just done exactly what you claim I'm doing. The link with the holed plate does not represent a Linear Shaped Charge which is really wht we are talking about here. The other link won't work

Corrected second link, which is a linear shaped charge with a special frame to further focus the blast (http://www.norabel.com/products/explosivecuttingframe/).

And no, I haven't done what you're doing. You can follow those links, see that they come from actual demolition sites. Your picture of a supposed "explosive cut column" could be from anywhere.


Hey,

Enough of this. I address this on my site. READ.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1154643

C4's life is 10 years in the manufacturers wrapping. Encapsulation in concrete is much better protection from evaporation and oxidization.



Enough of this. I address this on my site. READ.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1154643



"The Construction Of The Twin Towers". Aired in 1990 on PBS, 2 hours in length.

Enough of this. I address this on my site. READ.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1154643



Sorry, but I'm not reading your site. Show me the evidence, link me to the source. I don't want your speculation, I want evidence. Surely you researched these topics before you decided to accuse so many people of being mass murderers? I just want to see that research. The original sources. Not more baseless speculation.

And I'm sorry, but encasement in concrete is not better protection. Concrete is porous, allowing both air and water through. It "sweats" with temperature changes, as well as thermal expansion and contraction. You'd be grasping to get ten years.


Concentrate the high pressure cutting plane of gasses and the ragged edge disapears, that's what an LSC does.

Yes, but it doesn't make a perfectly smooth, level cut. See my example above.

No false photos. We have near free fall speeds to explain, and it has not been. My site explains near free fall and pulverization better than anything you've produced.

Yes, false photos. At the least, misleading photos. And here's a question you still have avoided since the beginning of the thread:

WHAT NEAR FREEFALL SPEEDS?

You have no evidence of this, primarily because it did not fall at near freefall.

Evidence of high explosivesD (http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/.site1106.jpg)

There have been numerous images of many square cut columns posted by myself and others. If you are not interested and do not notice them, I'm not surprised.

You're an idiot. Quit arguing aginst something I never stated and argue against my actual statements.

Yes, there are square cut column, becuase the picture you posted was of dayas and weeks after the attack, when those columns had been cut, with torches, during the clean-up operation.

YOU have to show something more than "square-cut columns", you have to prove "explosive-cut columns" to support your theory. So far, you've failed to do that. You've posted pics that you've misrepresented as explosive cut (like the first pic, with the two girders, that you originally claimed was evidence of explosive cuts, but have YET to show that the left pic is an actual explosive cut (i.e.-you haven't provided your source), and the right is obviously torch cut).

So, again, do you have evidence, or speculation?

I've shown a picture of the WTC 2 concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) AND shown that the steel core columns are NEVER seen in the DEMO photos. I know you are afraid of the truth so I expect you to ignore everything that supports the reality of near free fall and pulverization.

I've provided specific answers, many more than the questions you've asked.

The photos of the DEMO are unbiased, logical integration of them into an explanaton of free fall has been reasonably executed.

Show me your site where you use pictures of the towers demise to pove the official structure.[/QUOTE]

[Hutch]

I could be wrong here, but I do have some knowledge on shelf-life items and it seems to me that the "useful" life of an explosive is less than the shelf life--in other words, once you pull that item from the shelf and install it, your time to use it decreases. I am not sure if that applies to C-4 type explosives, but I do know that it applies to other types of high explosives.

[Stellafane]

I have been following this thread in its entirety, and since the first link I clicked on that Christophera posted had spam popups for antispyware, I have to conclude that the OP is just having you all on to get clicks on his webpage.
I mean, come on. The exact same nonsense and links are posted in each post.
He has presented no evidence that is conclusive, and he refuses to accept the mountain of evidence that has been produced for him.
You've been had by a click-miner.
He did a great job too.

Hmm, interesting theory. It would explain a lot. I mean, no one can really be that stubbornly, mind-numbingly stupid, right? (Right??)

On the other hand, I'm not so sure. I suspect Christophera might indeed be the real deal. Hard to decide which is the more reprehensible form of low-life -- a spammer, or a slime merchant.

[Hellbound]

I could be wrong here, but I do have some knowledge on shelf-life items and it seems to me that the "useful" life of an explosive is less than the shelf life--in other words, once you pull that item from the shelf and install it, your time to use it decreases. I am not sure if that applies to C-4 type explosives, but I do know that it applies to other types of high explosives.

Well, yeah, to a degree. Think of shelf-life as something similar to MTBF on electronics or mechanical items. That's the average time at which the product will still be nominally useable.

Of course, after 10 years, it'll be at the low end of the spectrum, and that's the average shelf life. Some will be bad at 5 years, some might last 15, but it's a toss up.

Heck, MREs are a case in point. Supposed to have a 7 year shelf life, I got a rotted one that was 3 years old.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I could be wrong here, but I do have some knowledge on shelf-life items and it seems to me that the "useful" life of an explosive is less than the shelf life--in other words, once you pull that item from the shelf and install it, your time to use it decreases. I am not sure if that applies to C-4 type explosives, but I do know that it applies to other types of high explosives.

According to this site, http://www.ribbands.co.uk/prdpages/C4.htm, Shelf life: At least 10 years under good conditions

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Hmm, interesting theory. It would explain a lot. I mean, no one can really be that stubbornly, mind-numbingly stupid, right? (Right??)

On the other hand, I'm not so sure. I suspect Christophera might indeed be the real deal. Hard to decide which is the more reprehensible form of low-life -- a spammer, or a slime merchant.

I'm still keeping my money on paranoid/delusional schizophrenia.

[Hellbound]

According to this site, http://www.ribbands.co.uk/prdpages/C4.htm,

Nice link.

Looked around on that site a bit though, ad found something that may work as a point fo comparison for some of us.

They list black powder, as well, and make the statement that it has a 15 year minimum shelf life.

So, if you've worked with black powder (hand loading, muzzle loaders, etc), then this gives you an idea on what shelf-life means. Personally, I don't know anyone that would use 15-year old black powder.

Heck, cased military ammunition isn't used after less time than that, because the number of split cases and "pop and no kicks" increases (pop and no kick is the pohrase to describe when a bullet fires, but there's no recoil, because the bullet jams in the barrel. This is common with older rounds, because the powder doesn't blow with enough force [it's partially oxidized] to force the bullet out. Can be very dangerous if you try to fire again after this).

[Apollyon]

Another issue is that C4 requires a primer, a blasting cap, to cause it to detonate. Not only must the shelf life of C4 be considered, but that of the primer as well.

Either way, to imagine that at least some of that C4 and the primers remained chemically viable while encased in concrete, which would be a pretty nasty alkaline environment to be encased in, for almost 40 years requires a complete suspension of logical thought.

[Belz...]

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

It was shown to you that the columns had been cut by people FOLLOWING the collapse. Why are you beign dishonest ?

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

How can you claim this ? If both construction images and destruction imagines show no concrete, how can you possibly know that it existed ?

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

:jaw-dropp

Mirrorcrete!!

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

Sitting on your bottom and writing posts is fighting for rights ?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Nice link.

Looked around on that site a bit though, ad found something that may work as a point fo comparison for some of us.

They list black powder, as well, and make the statement that it has a 15 year minimum shelf life.

So, if you've worked with black powder (hand loading, muzzle loaders, etc), then this gives you an idea on what shelf-life means. Personally, I don't know anyone that would use 15-year old black powder.

Heck, cased military ammunition isn't used after less time than that, because the number of split cases and "pop and no kicks" increases (pop and no kick is the pohrase to describe when a bullet fires, but there's no recoil, because the bullet jams in the barrel. This is common with older rounds, because the powder doesn't blow with enough force [it's partially oxidized] to force the bullet out. Can be very dangerous if you try to fire again after this).

Whoa. I don't use 2-year old black powder, let alone 15 yr-old. I suppose if it was stored in a sealed container, in optimal temp/humidity conditions I might consider it, but not in everyday usage.

ETA: Does remind me though, I've got some handload 6mm rounds to go through as they're getting a tad old. Can't trust that BLC-2 smokeless they use in the 5.56 shells ;) j/k huntsman.

[RandFan]

That image can only be 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS because this image of the SPIRE (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) taken a second before from the same camera shows 14 inch thick interior box columns providing scale. NOTE: The slight curve to the fine vertical elements. There is actually nothing else it can be except rebar.Says who? How can you make out rebar from that distance. I don't think the resolution of the photo is that high. I'm not an expert. Do you have something other than assertions?

Could you in photo-shop or an equivalent draw a scale for comparison and tell us how you arrived at that scale?

Having read some on forensic evidence I can tell you that scale must first be established. We need something empirical. Simply stating that the columns are 14 inch doesn't resolve this. Show us. What documentation do you have that these are 14 inch box columns?

[Belz...]

Whatta' mean? I'm kicking your ass in this intellectual battle and you DO know what you are talking about with high explosives

That. HAS to be the funniest post of the entire thread.

but you don't know the WTC and cannot explain any of what happened without the exact same logic I use. Tell rummy to send some one not afraid of the truth.

OH NO!! Huntsman is a government plant!!!!

[RandFan]

Okay, let us try. Suggest some other structural design element which this (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) might be other than a cast concrete core.No, that is not how this works. It's your job to prove your claim. I'm not an expert in any area that would give me a basis for making forming a conclusion. I have no idea what that is. I would simply be speculating as I suspect that is what you are doing. However I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. You will have to provide evidence though.

[kevin]

I found this 18-minute documentary on building the WTC, I believe it used to be shown at the WTC visitor center. It's at a PBS site. I haven't watched the whole thing, but did watch the beginning and searched through the transcript.

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

My favorite bit:
The exterior walls were designed to bear much of the weight of the towers, as well as all of the wind loads. The only internal supports would be in a central core of columns.

Searching the transcript for concrete all I can find is mentions when they were building the column footings and the walls used to hold the water back (which were yard thick concrete) while excavating.

[Regnad Kcin]

I'd like to remind you, as I have before, that this seemingly favorite image of yours is a still frame of a demolition in progress. It, by itself, is inconclusive. Surely you understand as much.We have another frame of the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) lower (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcore2stands.gif). From another perspective, after eliminating the impossible, it is conclusive.No. Not "conclusive" at all. Really now.

These pics of yours (realizing they're not "yours," of course, merely favorites) show nothing that couldn't be interpreted numerous ways. To claim that they represent a concrete core is silly in the extreme. Moreover, other pics and diagrams presented here reveal no such core, which, for this layman, effectively counters your claims. I suspect you're wedded to this point and will not divorce yourself of it ever, but so be it.

Now, on to my request that you state how many undamaged floors there were above the impact points in WTC 1 and WTC 2. There is a reason I'm engaging you on this matter.

[pgwenthold]

A quick comment. I have been impressed here, and elsewhere, at the impressive photo interpretation skills of CTers everywhere.

"impressive photo interpretation skills" is common among conspiracy theorists. See, for example, David Lifton in Best Evidence ("see this black blob? It's a blond haired shooter on the grassy knoll wearing a button-down suit with a spotted bow-tie aiming an AK-47 while on one knee." Amazingly, the people you can obviously see standing right next to him didn't seem to notice that he was there), or your random moon hoaxers.

Now if they start throwing out "shadow angles," we know they have sunk as low as possible.

[gumboot]

Either way, to imagine that at least some of that C4 and the primers remained chemically viable while encased in concrete, which would be a pretty nasty alkaline environment to be encased in, for almost 40 years requires a complete suspension of logical thought.

No, no, they drilled holes remember? Then during the power outage (it was only in one building but that's a minor detail) they came and poured parafin into the holes so they could detonate the C4.

Makes perfect sense.

:eye-poppi

-Andrew

[gumboot]

:jaw-dropp

Mirrorcrete!!


*slaps head* of course. That must be where the Iraqis are hiding their WMD. In mirrorcrete bunkers! All makes sense. Iraq was invaded due to connections to the 9/11 terrorists. The 9/11 terrorists were the American government who built the WTC with mirrorcrete. Now the same mirrorcrete is being used in Iraq to hide the WMD so that opinion of the current government dropps and continues to drop so that...
um...
okay that's all I got...
anyone else wanna continue?

-Andrew

[Hellbound]

No, no, they drilled holes remember? Then during the power outage (it was only in one building but that's a minor detail) they came and poured parafin into the holes so they could detonate the C4.

Makes perfect sense.

:eye-poppi

-Andrew
Heh.

To be fair, you can use parrafin to make some compunds that might be able to act as detonators, but it's iffy. It's advocated as an improvised measure, but less reliable than actual detonators using primary explosives.

Of course, drilling all those holes would have been rather obvious. Becuase if, especially as Christophera has claimed, the explosion was distributed, you'd have to drill a lot of holes. If you have C-4 in a solid column ground to top, and you only put a detonator in the bottom, it isn't all going to go off at once and I'd suspect much of it wouldn't detonate at all. You'd have to place detonators at various points all along the length, at least one per floor, for that single c4 column.

Not to mention the difficulty in knowing where to drill, as well as making sure you don't drill into your explosive. C4 is pretty stable, but becomes less so as it ages, and while unlikely, you can't discount the probability fo accidentally setting it off from a hot drill bit or (if you accidentally drilled into the rebar or the steel column) sparks (combined with the pressure produced by the drilling).

[Hellbound]

*slaps head* of course. That must be where the Iraqis are hiding their WMD. In mirrorcrete bunkers! All makes sense. Iraq was invaded due to connections to the 9/11 terrorists. The 9/11 terrorists were the American government who built the WTC with mirrorcrete. Now the same mirrorcrete is being used in Iraq to hide the WMD so that opinion of the current government dropps and continues to drop so that...
um...
okay that's all I got...
anyone else wanna continue?

-Andrew

...so that the people who are anti-government will point out the problems, and can be identified. Then, the government will mark them for visits by MiBs, and "find" the hidden WMDs.

It all makes sense now!

[Christophera]

It was shown to you that the columns had been cut by people FOLLOWING the collapse. Why are you beign dishonest ?
How can you claim this ? If both construction images and destruction imagines show no concrete, how can you possibly know that it existed ?

:jaw-dropp

Mirrorcrete!!

Sitting on your bottom and writing posts is fighting for rights ?

Columns not cut after demo. Prove there is a method to do this.

Plenty of Concrete (http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/.site1106.jpg) shown in demolition.

[Christophera]

No, it is not conclusive. Stating that it is such does not make it so. You are simply engaging in rhetoric, demanding that people accept what you say the photos represent. When I ask you for explanations you ignore me. Please respond with more than rhetoric?

It is conclusive since you have no alternative.

[Christophera]

It's the shadow of a building behind the dust cloud.

This disproves your suggestion. The core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif), the
core lower (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcore2stands.gif)

[Christophera]

Why weren't X-rays possible in position? I ask because I have done on-site radiography. In my experience welders are never counted on to do it right.

1968 technology was not up to it. Had to get to both sides, tube too wide.

[Christophera]

No, it is not conclusive. Stating that it is such does not make it so. You are simply engaging in rhetoric, demanding that people accept what you say the photos represent. When I ask you for explanations you ignore me. Please respond with more than rhetoric?

You have presented no evidenced alternatives, by default I am correct until evidenced options are presented.

[Christophera]

We claim that photo depicts the core columns - which according to your graphics are in exactly the same location as your "interior box columns".

-Andrew

What photo? Gain competence.

[Christophera]

What does "some elevation over ground" mean, exactly? I've seen several photos of these core columns that reach at least 3 storeys abov

-Andrew

You have not posted them so you cannot MISREPRESENT them yet.

[Christophera]

Um... in spite of what you might claim...

Your own photo is simply a cropped segment of the other photo. A child could see this. You claim it is a second before? Um...no, it's not. It's really just...not.

-Andrew

They are different images. This of the INTERIOR BOX COLUMNS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) or spire and this, 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) which is rebar.

By default I am correct. You have no reasonable alternative.

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

[CptColumbo]

You have presented no evidenced alternatives, by default I am correct until evidenced options are presented.

By default?

Because in your mind, and apparently your mind alone, there is no evidence to support any alternate theories doesn't make it so.

What exactly is your criteria for evidence?

Go to the library and read a book on the WTC from the 70's. Stop depending on the Internet for all your information. It's like depending on "The Daily Show" for all your news.

[Christophera]

You're just making things up here. Do you have any EVIDENCE for that ??

There is no alternative, This is a High speed series of very well contained and distributed high explosives. (http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/.site1106.jpg).

[Christophera]

As has been, many times. The photo depicts the building after collapse. We maintain the core columns collapsed with the rest of the building. Ergo, in a photo where the building is collapsed, there will be no core columns.


To continue to MISREPRESENT evidence shows intellectual dishonesty.

Indeed it does.

-Andrew

Your word game is intellectually dishonest. Our republic is at stake and you play word games. Sick.

[Belz...]

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

Are you telling me that a block of 25 floors falling on the rest of the building can't expell debris outwards ??

[Christophera]

Uhmm, Christophera...Rebar is meant to work in tension, as concrete only excells in compression. That's the whole point of using rebar in the first place. The "spire" in your picture is a section of corner outer steel column, which will support its own weight in compression up to acertain height, the more remaining lateral support, the higher. The corner is the most stable section of the outer steel columns - floors would esily have sheared off from the mass pancaking upon them, leaving a portion of the corner less disturbed for a while. We can also see almost intact sections of outer columns near the base of the building in other post-collapse pictures. Rebar weave to that height with the concrete matrix removed would collapse under its own weight - except it would have been crumpled by the shattered concrete matrix collapse. This is all assuming that the pictures are genuine, of course.

IOW your theory is wrong in all respects.

IAW I'm a structural engineer - admittedly not in buildings but in aircraft. Rebar reinforced concrete is in principle similar to fiber reinforced composites - the rebar being the fiber.

Apparently you are unfamiliar with high tensile steel and it properties. There is no alternative to this being 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) as this image taken a second earlier provides scale.
INTERIOR BOX COLUMNS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg)

[Apollyon]

You have presented no evidenced alternatives, by default I am correct until evidenced options are presented.
If that's what you believe then you are, by default, delusional.

YOU are the one making a claim that's contrary to commonly stated and accepted design of the WTC. Therefore the onus is on you to provide undeniable evidence of your claim. You have utterly failed to do so.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You have presented no evidenced alternatives, by default I am correct until evidenced options are presented.

Hrm, someone remind me, is that argumentum ad ignorantiam or false dilemma? Either way IT'S WRONG. The only way you can claim to be correct by default is
a) In a formal debate, where you are defending the status quo or
b) In science, when you are defending the current paradigm that has provisional agreement from the majority of the scientific body.

You are doing neither.

[Christophera]

No, no and no. You said that the core was detonated. How did the rest of the tower fall if the core wasn't yet detonated ?

Your comments show you are intentionally confusing the issue. You must READ.

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

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Apparently you are unfamiliar with high tensile steel and it properties. There is no alternative to this being 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) as this image taken a second earlier provides scale.
INTERIOR BOX COLUMNS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg)


Ad nauseam
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Argumentum ad nauseum)
Jump to: navigation, search
Look up ad nauseam in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Ad nauseam is a Latin term used to describe something that has been continuing "to the point of nausea." For example "This topic has been discussed ad nauseam": it has been discussed extensively and everyone has tired of it. It is a form of proof by assertion.

Argumentum ad nauseam or argument from repetition or Argumentum ad infinitum is the false proof of a statement by (prolonged) repetition, possibly by different people. This logical fallacy is commonly used as a form of rhetoric by politicians, and it is one of the mechanisms of reinforcing urban legends. In its extreme form, it can also be a form of brainwashing. In common usage the statement "A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth" is often used to allude to the same concept, which self referentially has been attributed diversely to Lenin, Goebbels, Hitler and Stalin among others, when little evidence can be found to support most of these historical figures having said this.

Modern politics is fraught with examples of argumentum ad nauseam, and wide acceptance of many policies and perspectives is driven in part by the endless repetition of slogans. The exercise of argumentum ad nauseam can be widely observed in the distribution of "talking points," which are collections of short phrases that are issued to members of modern political parties for recitation to achieve maximum message repetition.

This phrase is often misspelled "ad nauseum".

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

[Johnny Pixels]

1968 technology was not up to it. Had to get to both sides, tube too wide.

So what was the space that the tube had to fit into? What was the spacing between the columns? The tubes I used were not exactly brand new, and they weren't any more than 10 inches across.

If not x-ray, why not gamma radiography? That can fit into any confined space?

[CptColumbo]

Here's one:
Going it alone / by George Willig and Drew Bergman.
Published Garden City, N.Y. : Doubleday, 1979.
921 W6726

If you live in NY, you probably have access to far more books than at my library.

[Christophera]

You haven't answered my point about those large pieces of concrete on that very picture.

One does not answer "points". Ask a queston.

No, that's not what SPEECH is about.

Correct, it is it's greater meaning.

Too busy ? You're constantly posting here. Surely you have some time to verify your assertions and stop sounding like a fool ?

I cannot verify what I draw so why should I try. I've provided a core hallway layout fro WTC 1 which I know and at the site,

http://concretecore.741.com

Is proof. You'll have to read tho, and we cannot be sure that you can do that at all, or at least competently.

[Belz...]

The concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) of WTC 2 does this well, as long as one is willing to use logic.

That's not a core. That's a smoke plume. Are you listening ?

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

No, you don't.

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

Ask Huntsman.

You mean, the same guy who's been systematically debunking you ?

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

Check the first picture again. You can see larger pieces. Damn, you're not even reading this, are you ?

C4's life is 10 years in the manufacturers wrapping. Encapsulation in concrete is much better protection from evaporation and oxidization.

Encapsulation ? You DO know that concrete is POURED, right ?

No false photos. We have near free fall speeds to explain, and it has not been.

Well, aside from your ridiculous contention that the debris was falling FASTER than the tower because the tower hadn't yet started to collapse, which is patently false, and obvious to anyone who's ever seen WTC2 collapse, you don't have a case.

My site explains near free fall and pulverization better than anything you've produced.

How can you explain something that doesn't exist ?

There have been numerous images of many square cut columns posted by myself and others. If you are not interested and do not notice them, I'm not surprised.

He DID notice, you buffoon. He also EXPLAINED it.

[Christophera]

It was shown to you that the columns had been cut by people FOLLOWING the collapse. Why are you beign dishonest ?


This has not been shown. Ask yourself. Here is the answer.


You have no evidence or argument

[azazal]

Arkan_Wolfshade, here are some more links for debate/logic flaws:

http://www.sfdebris.com/logic.html

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html

[Christophera]

I have been following this thread in its entirety, and since the first link I clicked on that Christophera posted had spam popups for antispyware, I have to conclude that the OP is just having you all on to get clicks on his webpage.
I mean, come on. The exact same nonsense and links are posted in each post.
He has presented no evidence that is conclusive, and he refuses to accept the mountain of evidence that has been produced for him.
You've been had by a click-miner.
He did a great job too.

There is willfull ignorance here, imposed even. No desire for conclusion exists. Folks here support the lie that murderers hide behind while removing our rights and freedoms. I have logically qualified that evidence at its level of usefulness as it has been incompetently presented or misrepresented altogether.

[CptColumbo]

Again, what is your criteria for evidence?

I ask, because you seem to be holding your evidence to a much lower standard of verification and acceptance than any that we present, and it seems hypocritical to me.

[Christophera]

Hmm, interesting theory. It would explain a lot. I mean, no one can really be that stubbornly, mind-numbingly stupid, right? (Right??)

On the other hand, I'm not so sure. I suspect Christophera might indeed be the real deal. Hard to decide which is the more reprehensible form of low-life -- a spammer, or a slime merchant.

To you a truth seeker is the worst.

[Christophera]

What does above ground blasting have to do with anything being discussed, Christophera? Above ground blasting typically uses dynamite, nitroglycerin, black powder, or some other type of Class A explosive. Are you now claiming a Class A explosive was used to bring down the towers?

I always have. READ.

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

[Christophera]

Let me get this straight. You're saying that photo can't be showing core columns because there are not steel core columns? This is your response to our evidence? Why bother asking for it then?
-Andrew

I ask because you support the lie that steel core columns existed inside the core. I know that you cannot produce such so I win the argument by default.

Unless you believe the towers had an "Air Core".

[Belz...]

That image can only be 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS because this image of the SPIRE (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) taken a second before from the same camera shows 14 inch thick interior box columns providing scale. NOTE: The slight curve to the fine vertical elements. There is actually nothing else it can be except rebar.

Again, from this distance there is no way you can MEASURE anything.

[Apollyon]

Apparently you are unfamiliar with high tensile steel and it properties. There is no alternative to this being 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) as this image taken a second earlier provides scale.
INTERIOR BOX COLUMNS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg)
The explanation has already been provided that that picture shows a corner portion of the exterior wall structure. For some odd reason it appears very clearly to be that to everyone except for you.

Also, you been told that there is no such thing as 3" rebar on 4' centers. First of all, rebar is denoted by imperial bar size, not inches and rebar is not even available in a 3" size as a standard. Rebar is also typically a mild steel, not a high tensile steel. And last and certainly not least, in regards to shear walls, UBC and IBC designates for a MAXIMUM spacing for rebar of 30". For areas in which winds speeds can exceed 70 mph (of which NYC is such a place) UBC and IBC designates that rebar be used on 15" centers. NOBODY uses rebar on 48" centers. So stop making crap up please.

[Christophera]

You're just making things up here. Do you have any EVIDENCE for that ??

Read the eyewitness reports if you are interested in the truth. If high explosives were going off uncontained eyewitnesses will report "sharp bangs, or cracks".

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Arkan_Wolfshade, here are some more links for debate/logic flaws:

http://www.sfdebris.com/logic.html

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html


Cool. Thanks. I'll add those to my current folder of
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1663530#post1663530
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
http://www.daltonator.net/durandal/creationism/fallacies.shtml
http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html
http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/falseProofs/fallacies.html

[Christophera]

Another issue is that C4 requires a primer, a blasting cap, to cause it to detonate. Not only must the shelf life of C4 be considered, but that of the primer as well.

Either way, to imagine that at least some of that C4 and the primers remained chemically viable while encased in concrete, which would be a pretty nasty alkaline environment to be encased in, for almost 40 years requires a complete suspension of logical thought.


READ

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

The placing of explosives and primers were 3o years apart.

[CptColumbo]

I believe you are very immature, pragmatic, and depressed. You can present no evidence to the contrary, so I win by default.

[TheFeds]

Seeing as Christophera is watching right now, let me ask him again whether the documentary in question is this one (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1714131&postcount=998).

Also, I'm rather interested in the response to the apparent conflict between PBS's expert and Christophera, regarding the construction of the supporting columns.

[Christophera]

I could be wrong here, but I do have some knowledge on shelf-life items and it seems to me that the "useful" life of an explosive is less than the shelf life--in other words, once you pull that item from the shelf and install it, your time to use it decreases. I am not sure if that applies to C-4 type explosives, but I do know that it applies to other types of high explosives.

Encapsulation in concrete of fresh material assures LONGER than the manufacturers shelf life.

NO, I'm not providing proof of that. Common sense dictates the realiztion that a foot of concrete is a better seal than 6 mil's of cellophane.

[Belz...]

This disproves your suggestion. Thecore (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif), the
core lower (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcore2stands.gif)

Columns not cut after demo. Prove there is a method to do this.

You mean, there is NO way to cut steel columns outside of explosives ??

Plenty of Concrete (http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/.site1106.jpg) shown in demolition.

Indeed. From that distance, though, can you even tell if it's "pulverised" or not ? Really ? Look at this:

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/110947main_galaxy1.jpg

You'd swear it's just made of gas and light. But if you look REAL close, you'd see individual STARS.

From such a distance you couldn't make any kind of judgment about that...

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I believe you are very immature, pragmatic, and depressed. You can present no evidence to the contrary, so I win by default.

I second the motion.

[Apollyon]

READ

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

The placing of explosives and primers were 3o years apart.
And you have pictures or video of people placing the primers? You have pictures of the primers in place? Where does this information come from and how was it absolutely verified. Or are you just pulling something from between your glut's?

Don't bother linking to your own site anymore for explanations either. Linking to yourself for reference purposes is like allowing a criminal to be the judge of their own trial.

[Belz...]

Apparently you are unfamiliar with high tensile steel and it properties. There is no alternative to this being 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) as this image taken a second earlier provides scale.
INTERIOR BOX COLUMNS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg)

They are different images. This of the INTERIOR BOX COLUMNS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) or spire and this, 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) which is rebar.

By default I am correct. You have no reasonable alternative.

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

There is no alternative, This is a High speed series of very well contained and distributed high explosives. (http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/.site1106.jpg).

Just saying so doesn't make it true.

There ARE alternatives, all of which have been proposed on this thread. You're just ignoring them because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions.

[Christophera]

Surely you researched these topics before you decided to accuse so many people of being mass murderers?

Not mass murderers.


SUPPORTING THE LIE THAT MURDERERS HIDE BEHIND.

[Belz...]

Your comments show you are intentionally confusing the issue. You must READ.

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

No... you must ANSWER:

How did the rest of the tower fall if the core wasn't yet detonated ?

[Belz...]

One does not answer "points". Ask a queston.

How did the rest of the tower fall if the core wasn't yet detonated ?

[QUOTE]Correct, it is it's greater meaning.

No. It doesn't. It means what it means.

I cannot verify what I draw so why should I try. I've provided a core hallway layout fro WTC 1 which I know and at the site,

http://concretecore.741.com

Is proof. You'll have to read tho, and we cannot be sure that you can do that at all, or at least competently.

I can't read Drivel. I only read English and French.

This has not been shown. Ask yourself. Here is the answer.

You have no evidence or argument

You're a common case of someone who thinks saying something makes it true. Like the following example:

KID: "When I die, I'm going to go to heaven."
BELZ...: "Kid, you don't know that."
KID: " I WILL!! I WILL!! I WILL!!!"
BELZ...: "Sure, kid."

[CptColumbo]

Not mass murderers.


SUPPORTING THE LIE THAT MURDERERS HIDE BEHIND.
So you're not accusing people of mass murder? You are accusing people of "supporting a lie that murderers hide behind?" How are you doing one and not the other? I'm suspecting that you are not even reading your own posts. You present no evidence to the contrary, so I win by default.

[gumboot]

Your word game is intellectually dishonest. Our republic is at stake and you play word games. Sick.


Word game? I was merely agreeing with you. How is that a word game?

FYI... *your* Republic might be at stake, but my Constitutional Monarchy isn't.

-Andrew

[Belz...]

Read the eyewitness reports if you are interested in the truth. If high explosives were going off uncontained eyewitnesses will report "sharp bangs, or cracks".

They'll also hear that if a 110-storey building is collapsing. Trust me.

Encapsulation in concrete of fresh material assures LONGER than the manufacturers shelf life.

Not according to Huntsman, it won't. And I'll trust him over you any day, even if it's a debate over the recipe for omlets.

And since you can't dance limbo under a 2' high bar, I win by default.

[Belz...]

SUPPORTING THE LIE THAT MURDERERS HIDE BEHIND.

Appeal to emotion.

There has to be a fallacy for that.

[Christophera]

Concentrate the high pressure cutting plane of gasses and the ragged edge disapears, that's what an LSC does.

Yes, but it doesn't make a perfectly smooth, level cut. See my example above.

You did not quote a critical factor. The smoothness of the edge is dependant on the tolerance of the surface forming the high pressure gas plane doing the cutting (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/steelbeamcuttingfloors.gif). With tight tolerences the diagram provided will create a smooter cut than any commercial LSC.

No false photos. We have near free fall speeds to explain, and it has not been. My site explains near free fall and pulverization better than anything you've produced.

Yes, false photos. At the least, misleading photos. And here's a question you still have avoided since the beginning of the thread:

WHAT NEAR FREEFALL SPEEDS?

You have no evidence of this, primarily because it did not fall at near freefall.

The fall rate is well documented as being close to free fall. The exact rate is not an issue. The towers fell too fast for any collapse, as if a collapse could occure identically from 2 different impacts all the way to the ground

You have not provided an explanation at all for the factors of the above paragraph.

[azazal]

It was shown to you that the columns had been cut by people FOLLOWING the collapse. Why are you beign dishonest ?
This has not been shown. Ask yourself. Here is the answer.


You have no evidence or argument

Not evidence of columns be cut in the clean up?

Hmm, then what of this: http://www.newyorkmetro.com/news/articles/wtc/1year/aftershocks/15.htm
Caption from the image " The Final Beam The Ground Zero clean-up effort came to a close in a May 28, 2002 ceremony. Here the last of the Twin Towers' steel girders is being cut down by an ironworker."

Here's some more steel being cut through: http://www.usatoday.com/news/gallery/terr1016/contenttemplate13.htm

Iron workers from Local 40 cutting through yet more steel
http://www.911da.org/images/details/2260


But hey, just go on and deny the true evidence in front of you Christophera. I really hope that Renolds Wrap is make a ton of cash off the amount of tinfoil you keep buying.

[CptColumbo]

Do you know what "free-fall" is? What is "close to free-fall," and what does it prove?

Here is free-fall:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary...ther_drop.html

[Christophera]

Yes, there are square cut column, becuase the picture you posted was of dayas and weeks after the attack, when those columns had been cut, with torches, during the clean-up operation.

You shall have to prove that. I've used a torch under most conditions and the possibility of making cuts that smooth, in steel that thick, under those conditions consistenly is non existent.

[Belz...]

You did not quote a critical factor. The smoothness of the edge is dependant on the tolerance of the surface forming the high pressure gas plane doing the cutting (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/steelbeamcuttingfloors.gif). With tight tolerences the diagram provided will create a smooter cut than any commercial LSC.

I assume you actually KNOW what you're talking about. Let's ask the resident expert.

Huntsman ?

The fall rate is well documented as being close to free fall.

Well I guess that proves it. It's WELL DOCUMENTED !!!

The exact rate is not an issue. The towers fell too fast for any collapse,

In your expert opinion ?

as if a collapse could occure identically from 2 different impacts all the way to the ground

Well... the two towers WERE nearly identical. The damage WAS similar, and yet both towers fell differently...

[gumboot]

Unless you believe the towers had an "Air Core".


I believe the towers had a core made of marshmallow.

Prove otherwise. Until you do, I win by default.

-Andrew

[Christophera]

No, that is not how this works. It's your job to prove your claim. I'm not an expert in any area that would give me a basis for making forming a conclusion. I have no idea what that is. I would simply be speculating as I suspect that is what you are doing. However I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. You will have to provide evidence though.


My claim explains near free fall and total pulverization. Official theories do not.

It is now your job to determine which claim is valid or you lose your democracy, your rights, and your freedoms.

[RandFan]

It is conclusive since you have no alternative.That's fallacy. You need evidence to support your claim. Do you have evidence?

[RandFan]

My claim explains near free fall and total pulverization. No it doesn't. It does nothing of the sort.

It is now your job to determine which claim is valid or you lose your democracy, your rights, and your freedoms.This is more fallacy. It is an appeal to emotion.

[Christophera]

No, no, they drilled holes remember? Then during the power outage (it was only in one building but that's a minor detail) they came and poured parafin into the holes so they could detonate the C4.

Makes perfect sense.

:eye-poppi

-Andrew

The parafin sealed the access holes to the C4 cast into the concrete core as a coating on rebar.


READ

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

[Christophera]

I found this 18-minute documentary on building the WTC, I believe it used to be shown at the WTC visitor center. It's at a PBS site. I haven't watched the whole thing, but did watch the beginning and searched through the transcript.

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

My favorite bit:


Searching the transcript for concrete all I can find is mentions when they were building the column footings and the walls used to hold the water back (which were yard thick concrete) while excavating.

the NYC mayor took the plans for the WTC and the courts will not make hime return them.

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

One more violation of law following the failure to provide a due process investigation in 3,000 capitol crimes.

You are okay with that huh?

[Belz...]

My claim explains near free fall and total pulverization. Official theories do not.

Ahem...

EXCEPT IT DIDN'T FALL AT FREE FALL SPEEDS, and there WAS NO TOTAL PULVERISATION

<takes breath>

Why do you try to explain something that doesn't exist ?

[TheFeds]

It is now your job to determine which claim is valid or you lose your democracy, your rights, and your freedoms.And it's your turn to demonstrate how a supposedly-wrong choice will lead to the loss of those three things. Either substantiate or retract that statement, because as it stands, it's ridiculous.

[joseph k.]

Anyone trying to help poor Christophera (the name alone reminds me of geggy and his "the power of christ compels you"..ya know..the fear 'o christ and all) has astounding levels of patience! Just reading this thread makes me want to scream in a Munch type of way; I flew through Gravy's recent offering of Dylan and crew's ramblings, comparatively. This guy is playing a semantics game in the extreme as well as nauseatingly taking ad nauseum to new heights. Maybe if he says the same things he's already said again, posts a few links to his wacky website(every post), and tells you how he is right and everyone else is wrong (so there!) we will all finally be impressed. I am certain it has been said before, but it could actually use repeating: isn't the definition of insanity repeating the same behavior and expecting different results? Wouldn't his 'psycho therapist' wife tip him to this flaw?

[Christophera]

Heh.

To be fair, you can use parrafin to make some compunds that might be able to act as detonators, but it's iffy. It's advocated as an improvised measure, but less reliable than actual detonators using primary explosives.

Of course, drilling all those holes would have been rather obvious. Becuase if, especially as Christophera has claimed, the explosion was distributed, you'd have to drill a lot of holes. If you have C-4 in a solid column ground to top, and you only put a detonator in the bottom, it isn't all going to go off at once and I'd suspect much of it wouldn't detonate at all. You'd have to place detonators at various points all along the length, at least one per floor, for that single c4 column.

Not to mention the difficulty in knowing where to drill, as well as making sure you don't drill into your explosive. C4 is pretty stable, but becomes less so as it ages, and while unlikely, you can't discount the probability fo accidentally setting it off from a hot drill bit or (if you accidentally drilled into the rebar or the steel column) sparks (combined with the pressure produced by the drilling).

Good information, correct.

Much of the process I went through when I remembered the documentary fully enough to figure out what happened.

Hypothetically I pretended I was offered an unlimited budget to DEMO a tower identical to the WTC towers. I thne imagined using a dual rotor Sikorsky to get my track drill onto the roof, with a crane to get it onto each lower floor so I could cross drill the shear wall. Drilling 1300 feet and holding the horizontal position of the bottom of the hole is basically impossible, but that was not the point.

After I had the entire shear wall drilled I started to think about how the holes would be loaded and primed, delayed.


Oops

I forgot one real important thing. THE REBAR. You can't drill through rebar with carbide inserts.

Once I remembered the rebar I remembered the documentary talking about the butt weld connecting the 3 inch high tensile steel rebar together and WHY only weldrs with a security clearance could be used. The special plastic coating on the rebar.

[CptColumbo]

I think the problem we are having here is that Christophera is using one wrong theory to prove another wrong theory (concrete and "near free-fall"), and his inability to acknowledge that both are wrong. I suggest you start again.

[Apollyon]

You shall have to prove that. I've used a torch under most conditions and the possibility of making cuts that smooth, in steel that thick, under those conditions consistenly is non existent.
Why should he have to prove it? You make a claim, wave your hands furiously claiming it to be gospel, link a photo that shows nothing conclusive whatsoever, and then proclaim yourself to be correct. Why can't everyone else use that same practice?

Besides, an answer has already been provided as to what those smooth edges are. You ignored it. Maybe your memory needs to be refreshed?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1714131&postcount=998

[chipmunk stew]

Anyone trying to help poor Christophera (the name alone reminds me of geggy and his "the power of christ compels you"..ya know..the fear 'o christ and all) has astounding levels of patience! Just reading this thread makes me want to scream in a Munch type of way; I flew through Gravy's recent offering of Dylan and crew's ramblings, comparatively. This guy is playing a semantics game in the extreme as well as nauseatingly taking ad nauseum to new heights. Maybe if he says the same things he's already said again, posts a few links to his wacky website(every post), and tells you how he is right and everyone else is wrong (so there!) we will all finally be impressed. I am certain it has been said before, but it could actually use repeating: isn't the definition of insanity repeating the same behavior and expecting different results? Wouldn't his 'psycho therapist' wife tip him to this flaw?Christophera has the obsessiveness, the pseudo-rationality, the stubbornness, and the bizarre creativity of an autist.

[Christophera]

...so that the people who are anti-government will point out the problems, and can be identified. Then, the government will mark them for visits by MiBs, and "find" the hidden WMDs.

It all makes sense now!

I'm not anti government.

I'm against secrecy in government that allows infiltrations by un American elements.

We have a duty to protect our Constitution (check the soldiers oath) and laws made under it, our laws have been violated. I chose to defend the letter of the law and assist the good Americans that are caught within an infiltrated, corrupted government.

Not being a soldier, I choose to defend the Constitution by exposing the infiltrations or damage done by them, to protect my childrens futures.

[CptColumbo]

I'm not anti government.

I'm against secrecy in government that allows infiltrations by un American elements.

We have a duty to protect our Constitution (check the soldiers oath) and laws made under it, our laws have been violated. I chose to defend the letter of the law and assist the good Americans that are caught within an infiltrated, corrupted government.

Not being a soldier, I choose to defend the Constitution by exposing the infiltrations or damage done by them, to protect my childrens futures.
OMIGOD!
You have children?

[Christophera]

By default?

Because in your mind, and apparently your mind alone, there is no evidence to support any alternate theories doesn't make it so.

What exactly is your criteria for evidence?

Go to the library and read a book on the WTC from the 70's. Stop depending on the Internet for all your information. It's like depending on "The Daily Show" for all your news.

Produce the alternate theoris that explain near free fall and pulverization. the librarys have been sifted of books onthe subject.

[Christophera]

Why should he have to prove it? You make a claim, wave your hands furiously claiming it to be gospel, link a photo that shows nothing conclusive whatsoever, and then proclaim yourself to be correct. Why can't everyone else use that same practice?

Besides, an answer has already been provided as to what those smooth edges are. You ignored it. Maybe your memory needs to be refreshed?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1714131&postcount=998

You have to prove it because my explanation is feasible and fits into the events too well. What is your alternative?

These things can only happen in a limited set of circumstances.

[Christophera]

I think the problem we are having here is that Christophera is using one wrong theory to prove another wrong theory (concrete and "near free-fall"), and his inability to acknowledge that both are wrong. I suggest you start again.

You have no evidence of alternatives for the concrete or rates of fall near free fall. If I am wrong, produce the evidence but be sure is qualified.

You will only fail to to do that if you support the infiltration of the US government and the usurpation of our Constitution.

[Christophera]

Are you telling me that a block of 25 floors falling on the rest of the building can't expell debris outwards ??

Not like that with plumes of concrete (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1plumecascade.jpg).

[Christophera]

If that's what you believe then you are, by default, delusional.

YOU are the one making a claim that's contrary to commonly stated and accepted design of the WTC. Therefore the onus is on you to provide undeniable evidence of your claim. You have utterly failed to do so.

Are you saying that corrupted governments have not created "commonly stated and accepted" which is false?

Are you saying we should ignore the major inconsistencies of the official story while WE KNOW laws were violated?

[Apollyon]

You have to prove it because my explanation is feasible and fits into the events too well. What is your alternative?

These things can only happen in a limited set of circumstances.
The explanation is provided right there in the link to The Feds' post. The post also directly conflicts your claim that the columns were "butt-welded."

[Hellbound]

Belz:

You can make relatively smooth cuts with LSCs (see the second picture I linked), but they are NOT going to be smooth, right-angle cuts, perfectly straight, with no blast marks.

All it would really take is a picture of an explosive-cut steel beam, that can be verified as such. But Christophera can't provide that, because he's lying.

Just as he's lying when he claims that freefall and near freefall are identical (the actual difference was 20% to 30%, more than enough to account for all factors).

Just like he's lying when he says there is no other explanation fo rthe collapse (20 stories falling on the lower 80 stories of a building will collapse it, pretty much straight down and with little slowing).

Just like he's lying when he repeatedly claims that a spire and part of the external wall are photos of 3" rebar oin 4' centers (which doesn't even exist in any other known application).

Just like he's lying when he claims that concrete encasement (an alkaline, porous, water-permiable barrier) will extend shelf life (ever seem human remains recovered from concrete? It doesn't preserve very well at all. Shows how much good common sense is, eh?).

Just like he's lying when he calims a smoke colum is part of the core (there should be pictures from many other angles and other cameras showing this, why are you relying on two from a great distance?).

Just like he's lying when he claims to have explained all this on his site and demands we read it (all we want are the original sources, not your baseless allegations).

Just like he's lying when he claims to not be accusing anyone of mass murder (you are accusing the U.S. government, or at least large parts of it, of being complicit in this).

Just like there's very little he's been truthful about.

And Christophera, if you can provide actual evidence to support your assertions (you are correct that they aren't theories, but they aren't even hypothesis, they're pure speculation based on nothing), if you can provide original sources to verify your information (not just things you explain away, but actual, positive evidecne), then I will be the first to apologize to you, take back everything I've stated, admit I was wrong, and do my best to get your story out there.

But, unlike you, I refuse to accuse the innocent of murder without sufficient evidence. Because, unlike you, I actually support all the rights granted by our Constitution, such as the right to fair trial, innocent until proven guilty, and free speech.

Show us the evidence. Show us the math that explains why the towers fell too fast. Show us the records of huge amounts of concrete being ordered and delivered to the WTC towers for the core. SHow us the evidence of rebar (not the external cladding and wall). SHow us a clear, verifiable photo of this concrete core existing at any stage of the WTC construction or demolition.

So far, you simply conducted in enormous amounts of post hoc rationalization to explain wjhy your theory is still correct when we've presented contrary evidence. You've grapsed at every straw to keep your theory from being wrong. You engaged in logical fallacy after logical fallacy. You refuse to provide any sources except your own website, which I wouldn't believe if it stated the sky was blue (I'd look out a window to check it first).

All we want is verifiable, reliable evidence, not speculation and a couple of poor-quality photos...not obvious misrepresentation (rebar...right), not outlandish, impossible theories (rebar coated in C-4..you must realize that this would remove any structural support the rebar provided, and weaken the concrete structure as well, right?).

Evidence. Facts. Numbers to show it couldn't be any other way.

Oh, and Belz:

Bachelor's Omelette:

5 medium eggs
Cooking oil
Milk
Salt and Pepper
About 1 egg's worth (by volume) Meat (anything in the fridge, leftover ham, lunch meat, bacon, sausage, etc)
About 1 egg's worth (by volume) cheese (anything that happens to be left, american, swiss, cheddar, etc...but for Ed's sake avoid Velveeta)
Onions, mushrooms, tomatoes, other assorted vegetables to taste (1 to two eggs worth by volume).

Beat eggs until smooth and yellow. Add in a dab of milk (to help them smooth out).

Chop other ingredients into small pieces, combine in single bowl/cup/paper towel.

Coat the frying pan in cooking oil (a thing layer is plenty). Heat at low-medium heat for a few minutes. Pour in your egg mixture. Once the egg will remain in one piece, add in the other ingredients. If needed, use the spatula to spread then around/mix them up. Fold the egg over the ingredients. Flip the omeletee. Takes only a few minutes to finish cooking after the ingredients are added.

Serve with toast, milk, juice, leftover beer, warm soda, or whatever else is available.

Serves one male Bachelor (or three new girlfriends).

:D

[Apollyon]

Are you saying that corrupted governments have not created "commonly stated and accepted" which is false?

Are you saying we should ignore the major inconsistencies of the official story while WE KNOW laws were violated?
No. I'm saying that hundreds of experts in the field have independently come to the same conclusion as to the cause of the collapse. You, however, with no real expertise other than working for a civil engineer and appointing yourself as the final word, are presenting an alternate theory. Therefore it is your responsibility to provide extraordinary, undeniable evidence that proves everyone else to be wrong and you to be right. You have utterly and miserably failed to do anything of the sort.

All the rest of your huffing and puffing about laws and the constitution have no relevance to that basic point.

[Christophera]

So what was the space that the tube had to fit into? What was the spacing between the columns? The tubes I used were not exactly brand new, and they weren't any more than 10 inches across.

If not x-ray, why not gamma radiography? That can fit into any confined space?


The interior box columns, I think (http://www.rumormillnews.com/pix3/pic87932.jpg), were 24 inches thick at lower levels and 14 inches up higher. The perimeter box columns were 14 inches for sure. The spacing was 20 feet between them and they were up to 5 inches thick at the bottom.

Gamma radiography was not around in 1968.

[gumboot]

I thne imagined using a dual rotor Sikorsky to get my track drill onto the roof

Did you also "imagine" Sikorsky building a dual rotor helicopter? Because they don't at the moment, and they never have.

-Andrew

[Christophera]

Also, you been told that there is no such thing as 3" rebar on 4' centers. First of all, rebar is denoted by imperial bar size, not inches and rebar is not even available in a 3" size as a standard. Rebar is also typically a mild steel, not a high tensile steel. And last and certainly not least, in regards to shear walls, UBC and IBC designates for a MAXIMUM spacing for rebar of 30". For areas in which winds speeds can exceed 70 mph (of which NYC is such a place) UBC and IBC designates that rebar be used on 15" centers. NOBODY uses rebar on 48" centers. So stop making crap up please.

Consider that the WTC was very custom and the government can order any bar it wants.

[Christophera]

Did you also "imagine" Sikorsky building a dual rotor helicopter? Because they don't at the moment, and they never have.

-Andrew

Wow. that is a relevant correction. I hope the children that lost their parents in the towers appreciate your work.

[Christophera]

You, however, with no real expertise other than working for a civil engineer and appointing yourself as the final word, are presenting an alternate theory. Therefore it is your responsibility to provide extraordinary, undeniable evidence that proves everyone else to be wrong and you to be right. You have utterly and miserably failed to do anything of the sort.

All the rest of your huffing and puffing about laws and the constitution have no relevance to that basic point.

Wrong. I know how the WTC was constructed and very few of the engineers do. Their theories do not explain the rates of fall nor do they explain total pulverization.

Since they do not, and I do, and you do not like my scenario (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html) you must come up with an alternative IF you think our Constitution is worth preserving.

[Hellbound]

Wow. that is a relevant correction. I hope the children that lost their parents in the towers appreciate your work.

I'm also sure they "appreciate" your work...

"If I had an unlimited budget, and could ignore the fact that everything I'm doing is completely unprecedented, and ignore the fact that construction workers talk, and ignore the fact that the structure I'm imaginign wouldn't hold it's own weight, much less a building, and ignore the fact that I have no positive evidence at all, how would I rig the towers for demolition?"

[Hellbound]

Wrong. I know how the WTC was constructed and very few of the engineers do. Their theories do not explain the rates of fall nor do they explain total pulverization.

Easily disproven by your continual mistake of asserting that a corner spire and part of the external walls are actuall a part of the "interior box columns".

Since they do not, and I do, and you do not like my scenario (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html) you must come up with an alternative IF you think our Constitution is worth preserving.

There already is an alternative that explains the data. You've yet to show anything that disproves the offical reports from NIST and the commission.

Except your morbid "How would I commit mass murder" fantasies.

[Apollyon]

Consider that the WTC was very custom and the government can order any bar it wants.
Consider that your claim is no proof whatsoever of it actually happening. Please provide actual, verifiable proof that what you claim is true. Please don't link that stupid picture for the unpteenth time either because that is not proof of any sort but merely laughable conjecture on your part.

[joseph k.]

Christophera has the obsessiveness, the pseudo-rationality, the stubbornness, and the bizarre creativity of an autist.
As an armchair psychology buff, I think I would lean toward something related, that being Asperger's Syndrome. Given his ability to express himself fairly well with language, this seems plausible.
...
(3) a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or
achievements with other people (e.g. by a lack of showing,
bringing, or pointing out objects of interest to other people)

(4) lack of social or emotional reciprocity

B. Restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior,
interests, and activities, as manifested by at least one of the
following:

(1) encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and
restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in
intensity or focus

(2) apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional
routines or rituals

...
(4) persistent preoccupation with parts of objects

from: http://www.autism-resources.com/autismfaq-simi.html

Of course I am no expert and this is just speculation.

If this is the case, my apologies, Christophera. I hope you can be helped.

[Apollyon]

Wrong. I know how the WTC was constructed and very few of the engineers do. Their theories do not explain the rates of fall nor do they explain total pulverization.

Since they do not, and I do, and you do not like my scenario (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html) you must come up with an alternative IF you think our Constitution is worth preserving.
You can't know how the WTC was constructed because you haven't provided any solid evidence whatsoever of your claims.

But it's a sure sign a looney is speaking when they claim to have special knowledge that nobody else but them possess and, even they are not an expert of any sort, they know better than all of the real experts.

[gumboot]

Wrong. I know how the WTC was constructed and very few of the engineers do.

These engineers that don't know how the WTC was constructed seem to include the man that built it.

Interesting. Perhaps, like yourself, he just *imagined* it, then woke up one morning and there they were.

-Andrew

[Christophera]

Belz:

You can make relatively smooth cuts with LSCs (see the second picture I linked), but they are NOT going to be smooth, right-angle cuts, perfectly straight, with no blast marks.

We are not talking about an LSC, we are talking something that cuts like an LSC but much better because of the containment (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/steelbeamcuttingfloors.gif) more complete while being as hard as the material being cut and having a smooth edge.

All it would really take is a picture of an explosive-cut steel beam, that can be verified as such. But Christophera can't provide that, because he's lying.

You are in the military and if you/they are still concerned about preserving our Constitution, our rights and freedoms, then you will find away to confirm this.

I am not lying, I believe what I am saying. I could be wrong but the fact that the official story does not account for the high rates of fall or the pulverization of everything, means that I might be right, because I do explosion those things.

So if you take your soldiers oath seriously, and something tells me you do. You will determine if i am wrong with certainty by sourceing information only you have access to.

Just as he's lying when he claims that freefall and near freefall are identical (the actual difference was 20% to 30%, more than enough to account for all factors).

Those rates of fall, TWICE all the way to the ground are impossible with a collapse, let alone the towers which were way too strong.

Frank Demartini's Statement

Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation.

Just like he's lying when he says there is no other explanation fo rthe collapse (20 stories falling on the lower 80 stories of a building will collapse it, pretty much straight down and with little slowing).

Just like he's lying when he repeatedly claims that a spire and part of the external wall are photos of 3" rebar oin 4' centers (which doesn't even exist in any other known application).

Just like he's lying when he claims that concrete encasement (an alkaline, porous, water-permiable barrier) will extend shelf life (ever seem human remains recovered from concrete? It doesn't preserve very well at all. Shows how much good common sense is, eh?).

Just like he's lying when he calims a smoke colum is part of the core (there should be pictures from many other angles and other cameras showing this, why are you relying on two from a great distance?).

Just like he's lying when he claims to have explained all this on his site and demands we read it (all we want are the original sources, not your baseless allegations).

Just like he's lying when he claims to not be accusing anyone of mass murder (you are accusing the U.S. government, or at least large parts of it, of being complicit in this).

Just like there's very little he's been truthful about.

And Christophera, if you can provide actual evidence to support your assertions (you are correct that they aren't theories, but they aren't even hypothesis, they're pure speculation based on nothing), if you can provide original sources to verify your information (not just things you explain away, but actual, positive evidecne), then I will be the first to apologize to you, take back everything I've stated, admit I was wrong, and do my best to get your story out there.

But, unlike you, I refuse to accuse the innocent of murder without sufficient evidence. Because, unlike you, I actually support all the rights granted by our Constitution, such as the right to fair trial, innocent until proven guilty, and free speech.

Show us the evidence. Show us the math that explains why the towers fell too fast. Show us the records of huge amounts of concrete being ordered and delivered to the WTC towers for the core. SHow us the evidence of rebar (not the external cladding and wall). SHow us a clear, verifiable photo of this concrete core existing at any stage of the WTC construction or demolition.

So far, you simply conducted in enormous amounts of post hoc rationalization to explain wjhy your theory is still correct when we've presented contrary evidence. You've grapsed at every straw to keep your theory from being wrong. You engaged in logical fallacy after logical fallacy. You refuse to provide any sources except your own website, which I wouldn't believe if it stated the sky was blue (I'd look out a window to check it first).

All we want is verifiable, reliable evidence, not speculation and a couple of poor-quality photos...not obvious misrepresentation (rebar...right), not outlandish, impossible theories (rebar coated in C-4..you must realize that this would remove any structural support the rebar provided, and weaken the concrete structure as well, right?).

Evidence. Facts. Numbers to show it couldn't be any other way.

Oh, and Belz:

Bachelor's Omelette:

5 medium eggs
Cooking oil
Milk
Salt and Pepper
About 1 egg's worth (by volume) Meat (anything in the fridge, leftover ham, lunch meat, bacon, sausage, etc)
About 1 egg's worth (by volume) cheese (anything that happens to be left, american, swiss, cheddar, etc...but for Ed's sake avoid Velveeta)
Onions, mushrooms, tomatoes, other assorted vegetables to taste (1 to two eggs worth by volume).

Beat eggs until smooth and yellow. Add in a dab of milk (to help them smooth out).

Chop other ingredients into small pieces, combine in single bowl/cup/paper towel.

Coat the frying pan in cooking oil (a thing layer is plenty). Heat at low-medium heat for a few minutes. Pour in your egg mixture. Once the egg will remain in one piece, add in the other ingredients. If needed, use the spatula to spread then around/mix them up. Fold the egg over the ingredients. Flip the omeletee. Takes only a few minutes to finish cooking after the ingredients are added.

Serve with toast, milk, juice, leftover beer, warm soda, or whatever else is available.

Serves one male Bachelor (or three new girlfriends).

:D

We know, that you know you are losing the argument when you start posting recipes.

[gumboot]

Wow. that is a relevant correction. I hope the children that lost their parents in the towers appreciate your work.

That's the second false statement in this thread that you have admitted to me you have made.

-Andrew

[Christophera]

You can't know how the WTC was constructed because you haven't provided any solid evidence whatsoever of your claims.

Two web sites.

http://concretecore.741.com

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

substantiate my claims with evidence that is reasonably used. You have provided no qualified evidence whatsoever.

But it's a sure sign a looney is speaking when they claim to have special knowledge that nobody else but them possess and, even they are not an expert of any sort, they know better than all of the real experts.

The real experts are scared. knowledgeable citizens who are not scared have expressed their support for the scenario I put forth.

Here is one.

FROM Let's Roll 9-11.

Endgame
Joined: 28 Jul 2004
Posts: 439
Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 6:14 pm Post subject:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm with Christopher on this one.

Those towers were reduced to dust. The top sections above the damaged towers were dust before they hit the ground.

Let's say that these top sections fell 4 storeys before crushing the lower floors, leading to the "pancaking" collapse. Sure, the weight of the falling upper sections was very substancial, but was it enough to pulverise to dust the hundreds of storeys below?

And where's the stack of pancakes when all was said and done?

Floor by floor the supports gave way and the towers went down. When there was once 10 feet of air between each floor, now there was none. Where's the frickin stack of matter that made up those very floors?

These bastards were playing with a stacked deck! They had various factors in their arsenal of tricks that gave them supreme confidence in 9/11's execution and the quick to follow cover-up.
..................
When explosives are sheltered from elements such as oxygen, heat and light, do they go bad? I dunno. Seems like a great environment to store them for later use. Again, they know something I'll never figure out or be able to explain as a mere blue-collar joe. Without Christopher's work, I would have never imagined anything close to that level of detail. Now, there's nothing better out there to explain the collapse in my mind.

Respect the enemy. One does not wage war against his foe unless that very foe is identified as weak and incapable of great resistance. No one fires the first shot when the odds are stacked against them. We are the Republican Guard of society. Thought to be well trained, well equipped, and strong enough to repel the invaders. When the shooting started on 9/11, all of our wit, knowledge and understanding of self came crashing down. We broke up and fled to safety, not to re-group and fight again, but to hide and take the hand of the enemy. We surrendered.

We here are the insurgents of 9/11. Using what little power we have to discomfort the occupation, we fight on in hopes of our enemy slipping up and being discovered. Divided and in conflict, we are going nowhere. You don't have to believe the WTC explosive possibility, not one bit. But to mock those who are your comrades, will leave us forever in this struggle.

[Christophera]

That's the second false statement in this thread that you have admitted to me you have made.

-Andrew

Clearly you do not know the difference between "false" and an "error". Let alone an insignificant error within the discussion.

You only point it out in your incompetent/evasive fashion because you are so impotent in this discussion where you have no evidence to reason with so seek to escape the hard realities of the loss of our rights and freedoms as a result of this massive deception.

[gumboot]

Respect the enemy. One does not wage war against his foe unless that very foe is identified as weak and incapable of great resistance. No one fires the first shot when the odds are stacked against them...

Wow... that was an awesome speech from whoever that crazy nut was. I'm gonna hafta put that in a film one day.

Bit of tweaking and I could definately see Mel Gibson giving his shaken troops a backbone...

-Andrew

[gumboot]

You only point it out in your incompetent/evasive fashion because you are so impotent in this discussion where you have no evidence to reason with so seek to escape the hard realities of the loss of our rights and freedoms as a result of this massive deception.


Again... the loss of *your* rights and freedoms. My rights and freedoms are nice and safe.

-Andrew

[Christophera]

These engineers that don't know how the WTC was constructed seem to include the man that built it.

Interesting. Perhaps, like yourself, he just *imagined* it, then woke up one morning and there they were.

-Andrew

i notice you have no link to support what you say. i have noticed that Robertson implies that there were steel core columns but doesn't actually say it. He is afraid. Engineers are often not very brave.

Leslie Robertson, Architect Of The World Trade Center Towers

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

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

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

[Hellbound]

Idiocy.

No, Christophera, I won't confirm your sotry, because I can't. My sources do NOT agree with your statements, which is why I'm asking you where you got yoru information.

Apparently, you seem to be admitting that you just made it up because it sounded good to you.

I do take my oath seriously. I also take accusations of murder seriously. And, I take false accusations seriously, especially when they are repeated ad nauseum without evidence.

Evidence. That's all I'm asking. Let's try a simple yes or no, can you provide reliable, positive evidence of your assertions? Any one you want. Show the math and physics that shows the towers fell too fast, or couldn't pulverize concrete. Show a picture that shows the actual concrete core, or additional pictures and video that show the core you see in smoke. Verify your pictures of explosive-cut steel (which you were insistent were explosive-cut, and now seem to have backed off on...could it be because you were demonstrably wrong?).

Oh, any by the way, linking to your own website Two web sites.

http://concretecore.741.com

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

substantiate my claims with evidence that is reasonably used. You have provided no qualified evidence whatsoever. does not provide support for your claims. Give us the original sources, not some guys interpretation, or someone else's theory without evidence.

Those don't provide evidecne that is reasonably used, they provide post hoc rationalization that grasps at every straw, no matter how thin, to maintian the increasingly untenable conclusion that the WTC towers were brought down with explosives.

[Christophera]

Again... the loss of *your* rights and freedoms. My rights and freedoms are nice and safe.

-Andrew

As a government employee, about 2 weeks ago you lost your citizens right to free speech when reporting corruption and wrongdoing in government. You can now be legally discriminated against for trying to keep government lawful.

About 4 days ago you lost the right to have law enforcement knock before entering on a warrant.

You are ignorant.

[Apollyon]

Two web sites.

http://concretecore.741.com

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

substantiate my claims with evidence that is reasonably used. You have provided no qualified evidence whatsoever.
Wow. You Just. Don't. Get. It.

Linking to one other like-minded looney (who is also not an expert) and your OWN website to substantiate your claim doesn't give it validation. In fact, it looks really idiotic to reference yourself as a source of verification.

I and many others in here have provided plenty of links to statements by the original builders, statements by experts, pictures of the original construction, and pictures post-9/11 that demonstrate your claims to be false.

The real experts are scared. knowledgeable citizens who are not scared have expressed their support for the scenario I put forth.

Here is one.

FROM Let's Roll 9-11.

Endgame
Joined: 28 Jul 2004
Posts: 439
Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 6:14 pm Post subject:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm with Christopher on this one.

Those towers were reduced to dust. The top sections above the damaged towers were dust before they hit the ground.

Let's say that these top sections fell 4 storeys before crushing the lower floors, leading to the "pancaking" collapse. Sure, the weight of the falling upper sections was very substancial, but was it enough to pulverise to dust the hundreds of storeys below?

And where's the stack of pancakes when all was said and done?

Floor by floor the supports gave way and the towers went down. When there was once 10 feet of air between each floor, now there was none. Where's the frickin stack of matter that made up those very floors?

These bastards were playing with a stacked deck! They had various factors in their arsenal of tricks that gave them supreme confidence in 9/11's execution and the quick to follow cover-up.
..................
When explosives are sheltered from elements such as oxygen, heat and light, do they go bad? I dunno. Seems like a great environment to store them for later use. Again, they know something I'll never figure out or be able to explain as a mere blue-collar joe. Without Christopher's work, I would have never imagined anything close to that level of detail. Now, there's nothing better out there to explain the collapse in my mind.

Respect the enemy. One does not wage war against his foe unless that very foe is identified as weak and incapable of great resistance. No one fires the first shot when the odds are stacked against them. We are the Republican Guard of society. Thought to be well trained, well equipped, and strong enough to repel the invaders. When the shooting started on 9/11, all of our wit, knowledge and understanding of self came crashing down. We broke up and fled to safety, not to re-group and fight again, but to hide and take the hand of the enemy. We surrendered.

We here are the insurgents of 9/11. Using what little power we have to discomfort the occupation, we fight on in hopes of our enemy slipping up and being discovered. Divided and in conflict, we are going nowhere. You don't have to believe the WTC explosive possibility, not one bit. But to mock those who are your comrades, will leave us forever in this struggle.
Uh huh, and I'm sure when this guy went back to his job driving a truck he was very proud of his comment. :rolleyes:

[Hellbound]

i notice you have no link to support what you say. i have noticed that Robertson implies that there were steel core columns but doesn't actually say it. He is afraid. Engineers are often not very brave.

You are an idiot.

CTers are not very brave, either.

I was an engineer, and worked with several. In an active war zone. Multiple times. We were combat engineers, our job was to go in before the infantry and armor, so they'd have a path to follow through minefields, rivers, cliffs, etc.

I realize the combat engineer is a special case, but your sweeping generalization is completely unsupported and absolutely false. There are brave engineers and cowardly engineers. You are, again, simply making any insane, irrational statement you can think of so you don't have to realize your theory is absolutely worthless.

So, again, any evidence?

[Johnny Pixels]

The interior box columns, I think (http://www.rumormillnews.com/pix3/pic87932.jpg), were 24 inches thick at lower levels and 14 inches up higher. The perimeter box columns were 14 inches for sure. The spacing was 20 feet between them and they were up to 5 inches thick at the bottom.

Gamma radiography was not around in 1968.

My boss started out his career in radiography using gamma ray sources on the Trans Austria Gas Pipeline in 1966.

I believe those columns may be too thick for on-site radiography, but may well have been inspected using a much stronger source, such as Cobalt-60, in an off-site exposure bay. The inspected sections would then have to be bolted together if the onsite welds could not be tested because there would be no way of ensuring they were fit to bear any kind of load.

[aggle-rithm]

Frank Demartini's Statement

Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation.


And it DID survive an airline crash! It was the fire that brought it down.

By the way, the towers were designed to withstand an ACCIDENTAL airline crash, not a deliberate attempt to bring them down. The differences are 1) in such an accident, you wouldn't expect the plane to be fully fueled, and 2) you wouldn't expect it to be at cruising speed.

[Hellbound]

As a government employee, about 2 weeks ago you lost your citizens right to free speech when reporting corruption and wrongdoing in government. You can now be legally discriminated against for trying to keep government lawful.

About 4 days ago you lost the right to have law enforcement knock before entering on a warrant.

You are ignorant.

Prove this. You are, quite blatantly, lying.

I still have not only the right, but the responsibility to report corruption and fraud. Failure to do so will place me under liability.

And no one has removed the search and siezure laws regarding police entry. There are specifric instances where a knock is not required, and always have been (imminent danger, for one).

So, any evidence? OR is this more of your mindless spouting off to support your theory, regardless of facts?

[gumboot]

As a government employee, about 2 weeks ago you lost your citizens right to free speech when reporting corruption and wrongdoing in government. You can now be legally discriminated against for trying to keep government lawful.

About 4 days ago you lost the right to have law enforcement knock before entering on a warrant.

You are ignorant.


I'm afraid you're the ignorant one.

1\ I'm not a government employee - I'm actually self employed.
2\ I'm not AN AMERICAN. I do not live in America, and I never have. With any luck I never will.

Got it?

-Andrew

[Hellbound]

And it DID survive an airline crash! It was the fire that brought it down.

By the way, the towers were designed to withstand an ACCIDENTAL airline crash, not a deliberate attempt to bring them down. The differences are 1) in such an accident, you wouldn't expect the plane to be fully fueled, and 2) you wouldn't expect it to be at cruising speed.

Just to elaborate, they were desinged to take a low speed crash from a smaller jet (152,400 kgs compared to 179,170 kgs) at a much lower speed (an assumed failed takeoff/landing at about 160mph compared to a high-speed impact at 550mph). Do the math:

Kinetic energy is 1/2*m*v2

Kinetic energy designed for = 1/2*152,400 kgs*72 m/s* 72 m/s=395,020,800kgm2/s2

Kinetic energy taken on 9/11 = 1/2*179,170 kgs*246 m/s* 246 m/s=5,421,325,860kgm2/s2

Over TEN TIMES the impact energy they were designed for.

That is, sadly, a non-argument.

[joseph k.]

Huntsman, I think he is referring to this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13339498/

[about knocking]

[Christophera]

I'm afraid you're the ignorant one.

1\ I'm not a government employee - I'm actually self employed.
2\ I'm not AN AMERICAN. I do not live in America, and I never have. With any luck I never will.

Got it?

-Andrew

At least I know, so I'm not ignorant. Now I know you have no reason to care. It explains a lot, thanks.

[Christophera]

And it DID survive an airline crash! It was the fire that brought it down.

By the way, the towers were designed to withstand an ACCIDENTAL airline crash, not a deliberate attempt to bring them down. The differences are 1) in such an accident, you wouldn't expect the plane to be fully fueled, and 2) you wouldn't expect it to be at cruising speed.

No steel tower has ever collapsed from fire and jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to do what happened, let alone TWICE to the ground.

You got a nice safe fantasy to live with until you become a prisoner of your own government.

[Hellbound]

Huntsman, I think he is referring to this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13339498/

[about knocking]


Well, read the article. First, it doesn't say this is allowed, it just states that evidence is not thrown out just for this reason (somethign I've always wished for...what the hell does a cop forgetting to announce have to do with you having 20 kgs of cocaine in your bathtub?).

Officers will still be punished for forgetting to knock, it's just that this doesn't nullify the evidence when they are operating on a justified warrant.

Even in the case in question, the police did announce, they just didn't knock as well.

I really don't see this as a violation. In fact, I've been arguing for years that evidence should not be thrown out on technicalities, period. The officers violating the procedures should be punished, but why the heck would a person holding a bloody knife go free, just because an officer forgot to read his rights?

Never made sense to me.

[Hellbound]

No steel tower has ever collapsed from fire and jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to do what happened, let alone TWICE to the ground.

You got a nice safe fantasy to live with until you become a prisoner of your own government.

How hot does jet fuel burn?

How hot did it have to be to do what happened?

How many other combustibles were in the WTC towers?

What temperature do you think they burn at?

Answer these, and you might have a point.

However, even normal house fires (paper, furniture, wood, cloth) get into the multiple hundreds of degrees, because the heat has no where to go until there's an opening to the outside. Heck, how do you think they shaped steel in the Middle Ages? They used wood fires, and turned the steel malleable. WOOD. Idiot.

And the steel part of a steel-and-concrete building has collapsed before due to fire. There's been links all over this and other threads showing this. The only reason it didn't collapse to the ground is because the lower parts were concrete. The steel part of the structure failed.

Again, you misrepresent.

[Christophera]

My boss started out his career in radiography using gamma ray sources on the Trans Austria Gas Pipeline in 1966.

I believe those columns may be too thick for on-site radiography, but may well have been inspected using a much stronger source, such as Cobalt-60, in an off-site exposure bay. The inspected sections would then have to be bolted together if the onsite welds could not be tested because there would be no way of ensuring they were fit to bear any kind of load.

Thank you,

Sincerely provided correction. I clearly remember that the interior box columns were butt welded and that no x-rays would be provided. As a welder who could probably do an x-ray weld, I know that a couple of bubbles in a piece that size is not critical because the joint is so much better than one that is bolted.

Here is a welded column. interior box column. Butt weld up and to the right of the floor beam intersection, note ground surface in extrudede tube. (http://www.osha.gov/nyc-disaster/photoarchive/image5.jpg) This piece is from higher in the tower as it is extruded.

[sackett]

Don’t listen to them, Christopolis. We know that the JEWS cranked up the gravity at the critical moment and made sure the towers fell faster. (It’s well documented that the JEWS can control gravity. I mean, look at those “moon landing” (hah!) movies where the “astronauts” goof around like slow motion. Moishe or Benny only had to turn down the gravity under that movie set for a couple of minutes and Bob’s your uncle.)

And about those steel columns: THEY WERE ALREADY CUT WHEN THE WTC WAS BUILT! Don’t you see the fiendish ingenuity of it? Mere squibs of C4 or flash powder or something would be enough to collapse them, like pushing over a pile of alphabet blocks.

I’ll bet you had alphabet blocks to play with when you were a kid. I’ll bet you still have a set of them. I like to stack mine up real, real high and then YANK OUT THE BOTTOM ONE! Kee-rash! I do that when I play Nine Eleven up in my room.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

As a government employee, about 2 weeks ago you lost your citizens right to free speech when reporting corruption and wrongdoing in government. You can now be legally discriminated against for trying to keep government lawful.

About 4 days ago you lost the right to have law enforcement knock before entering on a warrant.

You are ignorant.

No, the SC found that the employer can take action against an employee that reports wrong information (whistleblowing) to their superiors. It does not affect employees acting as citizens whistleblowing to the media, or other sources. Read the SCOTUS brief you smacktard.

[Christophera]

How hot does jet fuel burn?

How hot did it have to be to do what happened?

How many other combustibles were in the WTC towers?

What temperature do you think they burn at?

Answer these, and you might have a point.

However, even normal house fires (paper, furniture, wood, cloth) get into the multiple hundreds of degrees, because the heat has no where to go until there's an opening to the outside. Heck, how do you think they shaped steel in the Middle Ages? They used wood fires, and turned the steel malleable. WOOD. Idiot.

And the steel part of a steel-and-concrete building has collapsed before due to fire. There's been links all over this and other threads showing this. The only reason it didn't collapse to the ground is because the lower parts were concrete. The steel part of the structure failed.

Again, you misrepresent.

You should provide a link to that steel building collapse. Maybe I was wrong in that it was a "tower" not just a building.

Good questions, answer them yourself if you care about the US Constitution.

I've built forges and used them. You can barely get steel orange with it using wood fuel. I had to use coal and coke to get it cherry and really workable. As you can see, even a charcoal fire with forced air, none of which was possible on 9-11, is absolutely needed to get steel red hot. Not that it has to bee that hot to cause a failure but those failure temperatures are not going to be spread over enough area to cause anythign like what happened.

http://www.survival.com/forge.htm

Step two: Construct a charcoal kiln.

Charcoal is virtually essential to a wood-fired primitive forge. While forging temperatures can be reached with hard wood fires and a good bellows, we had only Ponderosa and Lodgepole pine, woods that are too soft to get the really hot fire we needed.

Step three: Construct a bellows and Forge.

Airflow is crucial to a forge. Air, fuel and fire create heat and we needed lots of air to make our camp-made charcoal into a viable heat generator. The closer we got to fission the happier we would be. One of our members, Ray, came up with the ideal solution. Using a heavy-duty trash bag and a flexible fiberglass rib found at a hunter’s camp, he made a huge bellows. Attached to the bottom of the bag and held in place with junk wire was a hollow Elk leg bone.

[Christophera]

Prove this. You are, quite blatantly, lying.

I still have not only the right, but the responsibility to report corruption and fraud. Failure to do so will place me under liability.

And no one has removed the search and siezure laws regarding police entry. There are specifric instances where a knock is not required, and always have been (imminent danger, for one).

So, any evidence? OR is this more of your mindless spouting off to support your theory, regardless of facts?

What is considered corruption and fraud can be twisted into "duty" and you will have no way to test it. You crurrently operate under that paradigm, but it is psychological not legal. I've shown your rights and freedoms are being compromised and I haven't even mentioned the patriot act.

[Hellbound]

Christophera:

You're wrong.

Look up flashpoint.

Look up flashover.

I already know the answers to the questions I asked, but you, apparently, do not. Which is why I asked them. Again, you have shown that your research consists of no more than "What I think is..." without any verification of facts, without any examination of the physics involved, without any evidence or reasoning.

You are relying on "common sense", fed mostly by television and movies, and ignoring the actual, intensive research by hundreds of experts who have been involved in investigating this.

So, AGAIN, do you have any evidence?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You should provide a link to that steel building collapse. Maybe I was wrong in that it was a "tower" not just a building.

Good questions, answer them yourself if you care about the US Constitution.

I've built forges and used them. You can barely get steel orange with it using wood fuel. I had to use coal and coke to get it cherry and really workable. As you can see, even a charcoal fire with forced air, none of which was possible on 9-11, is absolutely needed to get steel red hot. Not that it has to bee that hot to cause a failure but those failure temperatures are not going to be spread over enough area to cause anythign like what happened.

http://www.survival.com/forge.htm

Step two: Construct a charcoal kiln.

Charcoal is virtually essential to a wood-fired primitive forge. While forging temperatures can be reached with hard wood fires and a good bellows, we had only Ponderosa and Lodgepole pine, woods that are too soft to get the really hot fire we needed.

Step three: Construct a bellows and Forge.

Airflow is crucial to a forge. Air, fuel and fire create heat and we needed lots of air to make our camp-made charcoal into a viable heat generator. The closer we got to fission the happier we would be. One of our members, Ray, came up with the ideal solution. Using a heavy-duty trash bag and a flexible fiberglass rib found at a hunter’s camp, he made a huge bellows. Attached to the bottom of the bag and held in place with junk wire was a hollow Elk leg bone.


1.2 COLOR TEMPERATURES OF HEAT
Dull red
500°-600°

Dark red
600°-800°

Bright red
800°-1000°

Yellow red
1000°-1200°

Bright yellow
1200°-1400°

White
1400°-1600°

1.3 TEMPERATURES DURING BUILDING FIRES
Hot gas layer
600°-1000°

Floor temperature
>180°

Glowing smoldering combustion
to 600°

Flashover
>600°

Glowing coals
to 1300°

...

3.1 STEEL
Appearance
Temperature
Yellow

320°
Brown

350°
Purple

400°
Blue

450°

* steel starts to weaken at 200°
* loses 50% of its structural strength and sags at 550°
* melt point of steel 1100°-1650°

http://www.tcforensic.com.au/docs/article10.html#3.1

[Hellbound]

What is considered corruption and fraud can be twisted into "duty" and you will have no way to test it. You crurrently operate under that paradigm, but it is psychological not legal.

Sorry, but no. What is considered corruption and fraud is pretty clearly spelled out in numerous regulations, laws, and other sources. I can test it by simply consulting the appropriate regulation.

You, however, simply pull things out of your ***** and don't bother to test them, because it "seems" right to you.

[Christophera]

No, the SC found that the employer can take action against an employee that reports wrong information (whistleblowing) to their superiors. It does not affect employees acting as citizens whistleblowing to the media, or other sources. Read the SCOTUS brief you smacktard.

Perhaps you've never heard of how frogs are successfully boiled alive.

[Hellbound]

Perhaps you've never heard of how frogs are successfully boiled alive.

Perhaps, if you'd ever known what actual research was, you'd have heard that this isn't true, and is, in fact, a myth?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Perhaps you've never heard of how frogs are successfully boiled alive.

Wrong again smacky:
http://www.uga.edu/srel/ecoview11-18-02.htm

[Christophera]

http://www.tcforensic.com.au/docs/article10.html#3.1

Good facts, (except you forgot to quote whehter or not it is F or C.)

Your argument suffers in that those conditions were very inconsistent even in the areas where maximum fuel burned. Also, WTC 2 had most of its fuel burn outside the tower.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Your argument suffers in that those conditions were very inconsistent even in the areas where maximum fuel burned.

Evidence?

Also, WTC 2 had most of its fuel burn outside the tower.
Evidence?

[Hellbound]

Good facts, (except you forgot to quote whehter or not it is F or C.)

Your argument suffers in that those conditions were very inconsistent even in the areas where maximum fuel burned. Also, WTC 2 had most of its fuel burn outside the tower.

Wrong.

Most of the jet fuel buringin on the outside, I can believe.

Inside, there was abundant fuel that burned for some time. Carpet, ceiling panels, office furniture, computers, televisions, VCRs, copiers, network cabling, plastic plants, etc, etc, etc.

[Montoya]

Under the right circumstances, a hot summer's day can cause solid steel to warp.

whyfiles.org/069renew_energy/1.html

[Trifikas]

No steel tower has ever collapsed from fire and jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to do what happened, let alone TWICE to the ground.



No Steel tower has collapsed from fire because until 9/11, all High-rise fires started with a small, localized fire. The small section on fire does weaken the supports, but since the surrounding supports are still cool they still have their Strength and maintain the building. As the fire expands, other sections of the support weaken, but due to fireproofing standards it's a slow process, and the area where the fire started exhausts the available Fuel and begins cooling again by that time.*

Compare that to WTC, where the fire ignited the floor, for all intents and purposes, all at once. The cooling needed to regain it's strength did not happen in time, Much of the fireproofing was destroyed by the impact itself, and some of the structure suffered physical damage from the plane was well. all this together causes the tower to collapse.

(*unfortunatly, can't reference anything here as it was explained to my by someone who designs fire safety systems)

Edit to add the above footenote, since I forgot to the first time..

Trifikas

[Belz...]

Not like that with plumes of concrete (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1plumecascade.jpg).

Aside from your WORD, can you demonstrate that ?

I forgot one real important thing. THE REBAR. You can't drill through rebar with carbide inserts.

Once I remembered the rebar I remembered the documentary talking about the butt weld connecting the 3 inch high tensile steel rebar together and WHY only weldrs with a security clearance could be used. The special plastic coating on the rebar.

All of which is still speculation until you've proven both the existence of the concrete core AND the presence of explosives in said core.

We have a duty to protect our Constitution

I don't. I'm Canadian.

(check the soldiers oath)

By your own admittance, you're not a soldier.

You have no evidence of alternatives for the concrete or rates of fall near free fall.

You've again ignored this:

EXCEPT IT DIDN'T FALL AT FREE FALL SPEEDS, and there WAS NO TOTAL PULVERISATION

[Belz...]

Wow. that is a relevant correction. I hope the children that lost their parents in the towers appreciate your work.

Okay, I don't usually do this, but...

You are one, inconsiderate, idiotic jerk.

Wrong. I know how the WTC was constructed and very few of the engineers do.

Considering how little you seem to know about anything, I'll side with the OTHER engineers who ALL disagree with you.

Their theories do not explain the rates of fall nor do they explain total pulverization.

Well, that's because...

IT DIDN'T FALL AT FREE FALL SPEEDS, and there WAS NO TOTAL PULVERISATION

[Belz...]

I am not lying, I believe what I am saying. I could be wrong but the fact that the official story does not account for the high rates of fall or the pulverization of everything, means that I might be right,

Well, that's a step forward.

because I do explosion those things.

You what ?

We know, that you know you are losing the argument when you start posting recipes.

No. Not any more than when you start seeing cats in a thread.

At least I know, so I'm not ignorant. Now I know you have no reason to care. It explains a lot, thanks.

And now you assume that non-Americans CANNOT care about that situation ?

[Christophera]

Okay, I don't usually do this, but...

You are one, inconsiderate, idiotic jerk.



Considering how little you seem to know about anything, I'll side with the OTHER engineers who ALL disagree with you.



Well, that's because...

IT DIDN'T FALL AT FREE FALL SPEEDS, and there WAS NO TOTAL PULVERISATION

Thanks, I really needed to emphasize the importance of FREE FALL SPEEDS and TOTAL PULVERISATION. (http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/.site1106.jpg).

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Thanks, I really needed to emphasize the importance of FREE FALL SPEEDS and TOTAL PULVERISATION. (http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/.site1106.jpg).

You mean the fact you haven't proven them, and the extent of your analytical skills is looking at pictures?

[Hutch]

Christophera, I want to be very sure I understand all the ramifications of your supposition, so please correct me if I am wrong in any of the particulars below.

1. The World Trade Centers were built with Concrete Cores, despite there being no record of that much concrete being ordered, no sign of the massive molds (wrong word but I've pulled a blank) that would have had to hold the settling concrete and no record of any of the hundreds of workers who would have been repsonsible for the building of the Core.

2. Inside the Concrete core was 3" rebar at 48" diameter, which is a unique and possibly one-of-a-kind rebar at distances that engineers (at least those on this site) believe are not practical.

3. On that unique rebar was a coat of C4-type explosive that was covered by the concrete during the pour, but retained it's explosive potential. This despite there being no record of the hypothetical Rebar being diverted to a location for application of the C4-type explosives.

4. At the same time the builders were welding 1300-ft steel columns on the outside of the Concrete core, while also planting explosive charges in such precise locations as to sever the steel whenever necessary.

5. Let sit for approximately 30 years.

6. Sometime prior to but near 9-11, the entire two buildings are primed and wired for detonation without the thousands of workers and scores of security being aware in the slightest of the massive work and wiring necessary.

7. Detonations are made that are powerful enough not only to sever steel but to pulverize the entire concrete core and lead to collapse of the building.

Is this accurate, Chris? I want to be sure I am following you here.




Uh huh, and I'm sure when this guy went back to his job driving a truck he was very proud of his comment. :rolleyes:

BTW, Apollyon; don't be hard on truckers; we have a pretty smart truck driver ourselves-name of Roadtoad, you might have read a post or two of his. So be nice to truck drivers...;) :D

[Christophera]

I am not lying, I believe what I am saying. I could be wrong but the fact that the official story does not account for the high rates of fall or the pulverization of everything, means that I might be right,

[QUOTE=Belz...;1715445]Well, that's a step forward.

No image of steel core columns from the DEMO at elevation over the ground or feasible, realistic explanation for near free fall and pulverization are forthcoming. Only denial. Completely unreasonable because there is no alternative that is comprehensive to the event.

because I do explosion those things.

You what ?

At least you are reading now. It would be nice to have the context so I could correct it.

We know, that you know you are losing the argument when you start posting recipes.

You what ?No. Not any more than when you start seeing cats in a thread.

Those supporting the official lie/viel hiding murderers produce the cats.


At least I know, so I'm not ignorant. Now I know you have no reason to care. It explains a lot, thanks.

And now you assume that non-Americans CANNOT care about that situation ?

You distort. I said "reason". "all or nothing thinking", "overgeneralizations" = Cognitive distortions. It aids in your dissociation or repression of the distrubing information causing cognitive dissonance.


Further, I meant inherent reason. Any person anywhere "can" find a reason and then care.

[Christophera]

Christophera, I want to be very sure I understand all the ramifications of your supposition, so please correct me if I am wrong in any of the particulars below.

1. The World Trade Centers were built with Concrete Cores, despite there being no record of that much concrete being ordered

Whoa. The records have been taken by the NY mayor and the courts will not force a return of them. All action very illegal in light of the seriousness of the multiple capitol crimes.

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

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Whoa. The records have been taken by the NY mayor and the courts will not force a return of them. All action very illegal in light of the seriousness of the multiple capitol crimes.

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

Evidence of its illegality?

[Christophera]

Christophera, I want to be very sure I understand all the ramifications of your supposition, so please correct me if I am wrong in any of the particulars below.

2. Inside the Concrete core was 3" rebar at 48" diameter, which is a unique and possibly one-of-a-kind rebar at distances that engineers (at least those on this site) believe are not practical.\

Hold up. LARGE error.

3" rebar at 4 FEET centers. Are you feigning confusion? We have obviously conflicting statements here?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

\

Hold up. LARGE error.

3" rebar at 4 FEET centers. Are you feigning confusion? We have obviously conflicting statements here?

48" == 4' Cpt. Confused, back to Math 101 with you!

[Trifikas]

\

Hold up. LARGE error.

3" rebar at 4 FEET centers. Are you feigning confusion? We have obviously conflicting statements here?


Just a guess, I think you don't have a conflict:

4 feet x 12 inches per foot = 48 inches. But I might be mis-interpreting as well...


ETA: Dangit, one of my few chances to help and Arkan's ninja typing skills sneaks in ahead of me...

[Hutch]

\

Hold up. LARGE error.

3" rebar at 4 FEET centers. Are you feigning confusion? We have obviously conflicting statements here?

No feigning on my part. 4 feet = 48 inches. So does that mean the 3" rebar was center with a radius of 48 inches or was the 3" rebar centered in a 48" diameter space?

Just trying to make sure I truly understand your terms.

[Apollyon]

Christophera, I want to be very sure I understand all the ramifications of your supposition, so please correct me if I am wrong in any of the particulars below.

1. The World Trade Centers were built with Concrete Cores, despite there being no record of that much concrete being ordered, no sign of the massive molds (wrong word but I've pulled a blank) that would have had to hold the settling concrete and no record of any of the hundreds of workers who would have been repsonsible for the building of the Core.
The word you were looking for was "forms."

BTW, Apollyon; don't be hard on truckers; we have a pretty smart truck driver ourselves-name of Roadtoad, you might have read a post or two of his. So be nice to truck drivers...;) :D
No intent to offend. Truckers was the first thing that came to my mind since I have a couple of friends that drive trucks and they are both...how do I say it politely...not the sharpest tacks on the bulletin board of life. Still great guys though. No doubt there are plenty of very sharp truckers. Unfortunately I haven't had the pleasure of meeting any of them yet. :)

[Christophera]

Christophera, I want to be very sure I understand all the ramifications of your supposition, so please correct me if I am wrong in any of the particulars below.

3. On that unique rebar was a coat of C4-type explosive that was covered by the concrete during the pour, but retained it's explosive potential. This despite there being no record of the hypothetical Rebar being diverted to a location for application of the C4-type explosives.

Check with the seal divers of the 1960's building sub bases, or contractors building missile silos. They have the records, good luck! Also the PA has records perhaps.

4. At the same time the builders were welding 1300-ft steel columns on the outside of the Concrete core,

The floors,

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

had C4 in the corrugations and specially designed tempered plates around the columns that cut them every other floor.

while also planting explosive charges in such precise locations as to sever the steel whenever necessary.

5. Let sit for approximately 30 years.

6. Sometime prior to but near 9-11, the entire two buildings are primed and wired for detonation without the thousands of workers and scores of security being aware in the slightest of the massive work and wiring necessary. (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1212053)

Recall that right after the WTC was leased workers in the towers had problems getting to lower floors. Maintenance (the were maintenance free by Otis) supposedly was scheduled. NOTE, Huntsman, I'm sure gas line flame detonation system used here. Safe to sit for months.

7. Detonations are made that are powerful enough not only to sever steel but to pulverize the entire concrete core and lead to

the pulverization and separation of the buildings components, not a "collapse of the building."

Is this accurate, Chris? I want to be sure I am following you here.

Now, except for 1 and 2 you've got the picture.

BTW, Apollyon; don't be hard on truckers; we have a pretty smart truck driver ourselves-name of Roadtoad, you might have read a post or two of his. So be nice to truck drivers...;) :D

Big respect for truckers here. Probably the most responsibility and skill ever required on a daily basis of any job that is common in America. Roads are about trucks and moving goods. Welcome.

[Christophera]

No feigning on my part. 4 feet = 48 inches. So does that mean the 3" rebar was center with a radius of 48 inches or was the 3" rebar centered in a 48" diameter space?

Just trying to make sure I truly understand your terms.

3 inch rebar on 4 foot centers (48 inch).

[Christophera]

2. Inside the Concrete core was 3" rebar at 48" diameter, which is a unique and possibly one-of-a-kind rebar at distances that engineers (at least those on this site) believe are not practical.


48" == 4' Cpt. Confused, back to Math 101 with you!

Go back to READING 101. Check "diameter", was the issue.

[Christophera]

Evidence of its illegality?

Oh, .......... I understand. One of those that sees it as okay to violate laws to subvert (http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/) the Constitution. I've heard about your kind.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Go back to READING 101. Check "diameter", was the issue.

I'm sorry, where in this mess do you mention that the error is the diameter?


Christophera, I want to be very sure I understand all the ramifications of your supposition, so please correct me if I am wrong in any of the particulars below.

2. Inside the Concrete core was 3" rebar at 48" diameter, which is a unique and possibly one-of-a-kind rebar at distances that engineers (at least those on this site) believe are not practical.

\

Hold up. LARGE error.

3" rebar at 4 FEET centers. Are you feigning confusion? We have obviously conflicting statements here?


Oh, that's right, you don't, I had to guess at what the hell you were typing. Par for the course I guess.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Oh, .......... I understand. One of those that sees it as okay to violate laws to subvert (http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/) the Constitution. I've heard about your kind.

Asking for you to provide evidence to back your claim is subversion?

subversion
One entry found for subversion.
Main Entry: sub·ver·sion
Pronunciation: s&b-'v&r-zh&n, -sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Late Latin subversion-, subversio, from Latin subvertere
1 : the act of subverting : the state of being subverted; especially : a systematic attempt to overthrow or undermine a government or political system by persons working secretly from within
2 obsolete : a cause of overthrow or destruction

m-w.com

Seriously, how do you manage to function in everyday life?

[Apollyon]

Thank you,

Sincerely provided correction. I clearly remember that the interior box columns were butt welded and that no x-rays would be provided. As a welder who could probably do an x-ray weld, I know that a couple of bubbles in a piece that size is not critical because the joint is so much better than one that is bolted.

Here is a welded column. interior box column. Butt weld up and to the right of the floor beam intersection, note ground surface in extrudede tube. (http://www.osha.gov/nyc-disaster/photoarchive/image5.jpg) This piece is from higher in the tower as it is extruded.
I've already shown you the link that TheFeds provided where Eager claimed the columns were tack welded, not butt welded. It's another claim where you are in opposition to an expert. For some reason you keep blowing right past it when it's been presented to you 4 times prviously. I will present it once again:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1714131&postcount=998

And the picture you link appears to show not a butt weld, but the beam clips welded onto the column. Clips are welded to each visible side of the column in that picture and you can clearly see where the bolts join the beams to the clips.

[Trifikas]

Complete and utter layman question:

Wouldn't the weakest part of that "Joint" (in the picture from number "6" above) be the part that breaks first? I.E. it would explode the concrete / mesh of the horizontal floor, rather than column itself?

[Christophera]

Not like that with plumes of concrete (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1plumecascade.jpg).

Aside from your WORD, can you demonstrate that ?

A classic example of where a demonstraton is totally ignored. Willful ignorance.

[Christophera]

I'm sorry, where in this mess do you mention that the error is the diameter?


Oh, that's right, you don't, I had to guess at what the hell you were typing. Par for the course I guess.

this is the problem when bb software doesn't carry the post replyed to.

The fact that 3,000 Americans have been murdered, laws violated and the Constitution compromised, 2 illegal wars waged, has become un important while the fact that a message not responding to you, neglected to state the problem with a post rather than just correcting it is important.

Wow. Major distortions of value systems. Must be related to your ability to rant.

[Christophera]

Eager

You have lost all credibility in sourcing quality information. He leaves out the floor beams in his analysis.

Where's a freakin' emoticon when you need one.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

this is the problem when bb software doesn't carry the post replyed to.



No, you just said his post had an error. You did not state what the error was. The forum software has nothing to do with it.


The fact that 3,000 Americans have been murdered,

You just can't get anything correct, can you?
http://www.september11victims.com/september11victims/COUNTRY_CITIZENSHIP.htm


laws violated and the Constitution compromised

How was it compromised? If you mean the wiretaps and PATRIOT Act, I agree.


, 2 illegal wars waged,

Evidence they are illegal?


has become un important while the fact that a message not responding to you, neglected to state the problem with a post rather than just correcting it is important.

Wow. Major distortions of value systems. Must be related to your ability to rant.
What can I say, your drivel is an inspiration.

[Apollyon]

You have lost all credibility in sourcing quality information. He leaves out the floor beams in his analysis.

Where's a freakin' emoticon when you need one.
Say what?
Eagar: Well, first you had the impact of the plane, of course, and then this spreading of the fireball all the way across within seconds. Then you had a hot fire, but it wasn't an absolutely uniform fire everywhere. You had a wind blowing, so the smoke was going one way more than another way, which means the heat was going one way more than another way. That caused some of the beams to distort, even at fairly low temperatures. You can permanently distort the beams with a temperature difference of only about 300°F.

Eagar: Exactly. If there was one part of the building in which a beam had a temperature difference of 300°F, then that beam would have become permanently distorted at relatively low temperatures. So instead of being nice and straight, it had a gentle curve. If you press down on a soda straw, you know that if it's perfectly straight, it will support a lot more load than if you start to put a little sideways bend in it. That's what happened in terms of the beams. They were weakened because they were bent by the fire.
Sure seems like Eagar hasn't forgotten the beams from what I'm reading.

But it wouldn't be the first incorrect and spurious claim you've tossed around in here and it's doubtful it wll be the last either.

Now kindly address the issue of butt welds vs. tack welds. Kindly provide proof the beams were butt welded. The picture from OSHA you linked to previously does not provide that proof.

[Hutch]

Christophera, I appreciate your comments and corrections. I have but one other thing to add to this thread and will then depart.

You. Are. Completely. Out. Of. Your. Mind.

and I'm gone...

[Belz...]

Thanks, I really needed to emphasize the importance of FREE FALL SPEEDS and TOTAL PULVERISATION. (http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/.site1106.jpg).

That picture doesn't prove anything about free fall, other than the fact the the debris are, again, falling faster than the rest of the structure. It also proves NOTHING about pulverization, or have you missed my galaxy analogy ?

[Christophera]

Say what?
Sure seems like Eagar hasn't forgotten the beams from what I'm reading.


Did eager say "FLOOR BEAMS"? Look at his model.

[Christophera]

NOTE: I won't say I fully understnad this. I've seen it before and was flabbergasted then. Here, again. WHY? "the rest of the structure" (http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/.site1106.jpg) is not falling!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!

That picture doesn't prove anything about free fall, other than the fact the the debris are, again, falling faster than the the rest of the structure (http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/.site1106.jpg). It also proves NOTHING about pulverization, or have you missed my galaxy analogy ?

Our unconscious truly controls us and attitudes control our perceptions. Belz, this is not a put down. In some ways it shows your sincerity.

[Belz...]

Oh, .......... I understand. One of those that sees it as okay to violate laws to subvert (http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/) the Constitution. I've heard about your kind.

You must be quite fun at parties. Do you EVER answer someone's points ? Or do you change the subject, as you've done here ? DO YOU have evidence of illegality ?

No image of steel core columns from the DEMO at elevation over the ground or feasible, realistic explanation for near free fall and pulverization are forthcoming. Only denial. Completely unreasonable because there is no alternative that is comprehensive to the event.

Until you recognise that your interpretation of the "event" is wrong, how can you possibly hope to have a comprehensive hypothesis ?

At least you are reading now.

Well, at least I read and respond to the posts adressed to me.

It would be nice to have the context so I could correct it.

The little arrow next to your name points to the original message, chris.

Those supporting the official lie/viel hiding murderers produce the cats.

That doesn't make any sense. It either implies that only people covering the official lie CAN post cat images, or that people who post cat images are AUTOMATICALLY considered co-conspirators.

You're weird.

You distort. I said "reason".

I distort nothing. You SAID:

"At least I know, so I'm not ignorant. Now I know you have no reason to care. It explains a lot, thanks."

You assume that, since he's not an American, he can't have, a priori, any reason to care. That is patently false. I don't see why one shouldn't care about the death of 3000 people ANYWHERE in the world.

"all or nothing thinking", "overgeneralizations" = Cognitive distortions. It aids in your dissociation or repression of the distrubing information causing cognitive dissonance.

I assume you have just about as much expertise in psychology as you have in engineering. With that in mind, I'll let that slide.

But mention the frontal lobe of the brain even ONCE, and we'll have a problem.

[Belz...]

A classic example of where a demonstraton is totally ignored. Willful ignorance.

That is not a demonstration. That is a picture. The OTHER picture, to which you link everytime you write the word "core", shows a tall, dark structure among the fallen WTC2, which I've said could have been a plume of dust following the collapse. You haven't answered that except with another picture that shows NOTHING of the sort. Who's beign ignorant now ?

[Christophera]

Asking for you to provide evidence to back your claim is subversion?

Erroneous premise. You are supporting subversion by accepting lawless performance from government.

No, you just said his post had an error. You did not state what the error was.

Right, and I corrected it.

Arkan_Wolfshade, if your government was infiltrated and turned against the principles of the American republic, would ou be upset?

A high speed series of optimally contained and distributed high explosives.

[Christophera]

You must be quite fun at parties. Do you EVER answer someone's points ? Or do you change the subject, as you've done here ? DO YOU have evidence of illegality ?


You will have to evidence the entire exchange to get a response.

[Belz...]

The fact that 3,000 Americans have been murdered,

I'm sorry. http://www.september11victims.com/september11victims/COUNTRY_CITIZENSHIP.htm (How many ?)

Sorry, Arkan. I just thought I should mention it a second time. We stand more chance of him reading it that way.

laws violated and the Constitution compromised,

I guess that WOULD be something to act upon, if only you had evidence. Well, on the other hand all this discussion is a good thing: you'll never make the cut as a jury.

2 illegal wars waged

The war in Afghanistan was not illegal. The one in Iraq might well be, but BPSCG would disagree.

Wow. Major distortions of value systems. Must be related to your ability to rant.

Pointing out errors in people's posts is a value system ? Who'd have guessed!??

[Belz...]

Our unconscious truly controls us and attitudes control our perceptions.

No, it doesn't. Perhaps it's a good thing that you're NOT a psychologist after all.

Belz, this is not a put down. In some ways it shows your sincerity.

Oh, coming from you any insult is just a comical aside.

If you actually WATCH A VIDEO of WTC2 falling, you might notice that the building is falling down a good deal of time before that picture was taken, and this is even more apparent with WTC1.

[Belz...]

You will have to evidence the entire exchange to get a response.

I don't NEED a response. But you should give it to the one who asked the question in the first place.

Erroneous premise. You are supporting subversion by accepting lawless performance from government.

Accepting ? Since when is asking for proof accepting anything ?

A high speed series of optimally contained and distributed high explosives.

Again, what is that picture supposed to prove ?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Erroneous premise. You are supporting subversion by accepting lawless performance from government.

How the hell can it be erroneous? You are making the claim that the government committed an illegal action. I am asking for evidence to back said claim.


Right, and I corrected it.

Well then, don't make posts like this
Go back to READING 101. Check "diameter", was the issue. suggesting I misread your post, when, in fact, your were editing it from under me.


A high speed series of optimally contained and distributed high explosives.

No. A picture of the collapse.


Arkan_Wolfshade, if your government was infiltrated and turned against the principles of the American republic, would ou be upset?
Red herring, but I'll bite. If objective, corraboratible, evidence was presented showing unlawful activity, I would exert (if at all possible by following the Rule of Law) effort to bring such activity to light and, if possible, aid in ending the activity.
Presenting incontrovertible proof to media is an excellent way of making people aware. As is informing military personnel, law enforcement, and local leaders.

I would not be posting subjective, uncorraboratible pictures on random web forums.

[Christophera]

That is not a demonstration. That is a picture. The OTHER picture, to which you link everytime you write the word "core", shows a tall, dark structure among the fallen WTC2, which I've said could have been a plume of dust following the collapse. You haven't answered that except with another picture that shows NOTHING of the sort. Who's beign ignorant now ?

I've answered with 2 entire web sites, one completely devoted to the concrete core. You, basically have not looked. That is the intellectual dishonesty thing you do.

http://concretecore.741.com/

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

[Stellafane]

Christophera, I want to be very sure I understand all the ramifications of your supposition, so please correct me if I am wrong in any of the particulars below.

1. The World Trade Centers were built with Concrete Cores, despite there being no record of that much concrete being ordered, no sign of the massive molds (wrong word but I've pulled a blank) that would have had to hold the settling concrete and no record of any of the hundreds of workers who would have been repsonsible for the building of the Core.

2. Inside the Concrete core was 3" rebar at 48" diameter, which is a unique and possibly one-of-a-kind rebar at distances that engineers (at least those on this site) believe are not practical.

3. On that unique rebar was a coat of C4-type explosive that was covered by the concrete during the pour, but retained it's explosive potential. This despite there being no record of the hypothetical Rebar being diverted to a location for application of the C4-type explosives.

4. At the same time the builders were welding 1300-ft steel columns on the outside of the Concrete core, while also planting explosive charges in such precise locations as to sever the steel whenever necessary.

5. Let sit for approximately 30 years.

6. Sometime prior to but near 9-11, the entire two buildings are primed and wired for detonation without the thousands of workers and scores of security being aware in the slightest of the massive work and wiring necessary.

7. Detonations are made that are powerful enough not only to sever steel but to pulverize the entire concrete core and lead to collapse of the building.

Is this accurate, Chris? I want to be sure I am following you here.


Well, when you say it like that, it all makes perfect sense.

[Apollyon]

Did eager say "FLOOR BEAMS"? Look at his model.
No, he doesn't say "floor beams."

Eagar correctly calls them "floor joists." They are also properly referred to in other studies as "floor trusses."

So what straw man are you going to come up with next to avoid providing proof of your claim that the columns were butt-welded?

Please stop with your hand-waving and answer.

[Pardalis]

The war in Afghanistan was not illegal. The one in Iraq might well be, but BPSCG would disagree.


The war in Iraq was technically legal, Saddam Hussein and his regime was in breach of UN resolution 1441, wich allowed the use of military force.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/

The resolution was passed with a 15 to 0 vote by the United Nations members. Only a few nations decided to implement it.

[Meffy]

You have lost all credibility in sourcing quality information.
There's a puddle of molten irony in here.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

There's a puddle of molten irony in here.

Are you sure that's not just irony that was heated to its weakening point? It is much lower than its melting point you know.

[Stellafane]

I've mostly stayed on the sidelines of this thread, especially since I'm increasingly suspecting Christophera is seriously deluded, perhaps even mentally ill, and thus further discussion with him is not only pointless, it may actually be dangerous in some ways. But I must say this: Chris, you questioning Huntsman's guts, even indirectly (as you did with your "engineers are often not very brave" comment), is like Bozo the Clown questioning Einstein's intelligence.

Beyond that, I can only echo what others have already suggested: seriously dude, please consider seeking help.

[Meffy]

@Arkan: Could be. My brain's well past its bedtime, and it's just afternoon. Must... find... something else to do besides read this thread...

[kevin]

BTW, i just finished watching the building the WTC documentary I linked to earlier (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/sf_building.html) it's pretty entertaining how many of christophera's "ideas" get shot down.

Lots of film of steel being flown in (with bolt holes clearly shown), couple of scenes of core columns being flown in. They show them pouring concrete for the floors (looks like that rebar was on 12" centers maybe?) but nothing on a concrete core. Guess in 1983 when they made the film they were already in on the secret that the buildings would be exploded and they weren't to show that part.

Here's a clip of one of the core columns being raised.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/578944987b4f05c6f.png

[rwguinn]

I've answered with 2 entire web sites, one completely devoted to the concrete core. You, basically have not looked. That is the intellectual dishonesty thing you do.

http://concretecore.741.com/

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
And a one anna 2 anna 3 anna one more time:
Still photos take from 5 miles away will show no object smaller than 12 feet on a side in any sensible, analyzable way. Saying that such a picture clearly shows 3"rebar on 48" centers is ludicrous-and, if you knew anything about construction, you'd know that rebar is buried in the concrete, and not visible, anyway...
I suggest that you actually look at the pictures of numerous posts, showing a cluster of steel beams in the center of the pile of rubble--with no concrete anywhere near.
Then get youself an engineering construction book, and look at the pretty pictures-because there is no way you can read and comprehend anything more complex than "Horton Hatches an Egg"

[Apollyon]

There's a puddle of molten irony in here.
I'm pretty sure I see some red hot sarcasm pooling on the surface as well.

It's a common side-effect of molten irony. ;)

[Woody-]

Evidence

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Inigo Montoya

[Woody-]

One thing that has me puzzled about this concrete core theory is how he claims they poured it. If I get the gist of it correct they poured the core seven stories or more below the uppermost level of construction after they have poured the concrete for the floorspace of each of those stories.


From a construction viewpoint that would be downright silly. Since you have to move the forms for each story why would you want to have to move them around in a limited space after the floor concrete has been poured. You would need to have some of the interior columns in place before you poured a core but then pouring the floors before you did the core would make no sense, particularly if as he claims the core is a structural element they would need it in place before pouring the floors.

I am not saying it would be impossible to pour a core after completing several stories of floors above it but it would sure be easier and cheaper to pour the core first.

[RandFan]

Evidence

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Inigo Montoya :) :D

[kevin]

I am not saying it would be impossible to pour a core after completing several stories of floors above it but it would sure be easier and cheaper to pour the core first.

more than cheaper and easier, i think it would be mandatory, otherwise the core would be sitting on the floor trusses. I believe for this to work the floor trusses have to be attached to the core.

BTW the replacement building for WTC 7 DOES have a concrete core now. I'd be curious to see some build pics from that.

[RandFan]

I am not saying it would be impossible to pour a core after completing several stories of floors above it but it would sure be easier and cheaper to pour the core first.It makes no sense. It would stand to reason, I believe, that it would make the job much more difficult.

Christophera, I'm curious, is there an example of anyone doing it the way you suggest? Do you understand the problems inherent with your explanation?

If I were doing it I would want to take advantage of an exposed area to pour my core. Why would I enclose an area and then pour?

Good point Woody.

[realitybites]

BTW the replacement building for WTC 7 DOES have a concrete core now. I'd be curious to see some build pics from that.
I'm not a structural engineer, so I don't know if these images (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/7wtc/images/7wtc_les_5sept04_s.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/7wtc/7wtc_construction.htm&h=240&w=320&sz=44&tbnid=XYHfbQrab3_kSM:&tbnh=84&tbnw=113&hl=en&start=32&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dwtc7%2Bconstruction%26start%3D20%26sv num%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN) show anything of importance.

[gumboot]

I've built forges and used them. You can barely get steel orange with it using wood fuel. I had to use coal and coke to get it cherry and really workable. As you can see, even a charcoal fire with forced air, none of which was possible on 9-11, is absolutely needed to get steel red hot. Not that it has to bee that hot to cause a failure but those failure temperatures are not going to be spread over enough area to cause anythign like what happened.


I worked with an armourer for about three years. He made the steel originals for "The Last Samurai" amongst others.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

The dynamics of the air through the floors of a building on which opposite walls have been smashed open would create a pretty decent air-blast furnace.

-Andrew

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I've built forges and used them. You can barely get steel orange with it using wood fuel. I had to use coal and coke to get it cherry and really workable. As you can see, even a charcoal fire with forced air, none of which was possible on 9-11, is absolutely needed to get steel red hot. Not that it has to bee that hot to cause a failure but those failure temperatures are not going to be spread over enough area to cause anythign like what happened.

I just had a conversation a few minutes ago with a member of the Edmonton Fire Department.

He told me that an average house fire can reach temperatures as high as 1700 degrees.

That's just a an average house. An office building with a HUGE chimney (elevator shafts) feeding fresh oxygen into the blaze would have NO problem reaching those temperatures.

Why don't you go test your faith, Chris? Ask a firefighter.

Or are you chicken?

[SRW]

No steel tower has ever collapsed from fire and jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to do what happened, let alone TWICE to the ground.

You got a nice safe fantasy to live with until you become a prisoner of your own government.

If you have a fire pit BBQ fireplace try this little experiment, Fill it with plastics, dire wall, rodents, and wood, Build a small steal stricter in side of it, then take watermelons filled with gasoline and toss them in and ignite. I suggest using a short match, Oh be sure the balloons are traveling at 500mpg, just to get maxim effect.

I would like to have him report back his results, but I will suffice to send flowers to his pit.

[gumboot]

The war in Iraq was technically legal, Saddam Hussein and his regime was in breach of UN resolution 1441, wich allowed the use of military force.



I just want to point out that under international law there is no such thing as an "illegal" war. The UN Charter and UN Resolutions are not law. Even international laws are not binding unless they have been ratified by the signatory nation and included in their own legislation. For example some aspects of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are in direct contradiction to Privacy Acts in New Zealand. While New Zealand is signatory to the universal declaration, we have not ratified all parts of it. If New Zealand breaches those parts of the declaration that have not been ratified, no laws has been broken.

The international laws of armed conflict (ILAC) dictate *how* war can be fought, but it is the sovereign right of every state to use military force at any time they consider appropriate.

Violation of any UN resolutions or Charters *are* breaking the rules of that particular organisation, of course, and in theory could result in expolsion from the organisation (Hah! Like that would ever happen) but it is not "illegal" any more than it is "illegal" for a student at a school to wear items that violate the uniform regulations for that school.

In addition individual states may have domestic laws dictating when and how they are allowed to go to war, and breaking these would make the act of war illegal domestically.

However, in an international setting, "illegal law" refers to the way in which war is fought (i.e. in breach of the ILAC), NOT the status of the war itself.

Just thought I would clear that common misconception up.

-Andrew

[CptColumbo]

Christophera,

I realize that you feel that admiting that you are wrong, at this point, would make you seem very foolish, but ask yourself if looking foolish is better or worse than seeming crazy and demented. You may feel you are not being heard or understood, but you are. The problem is that your wrong. You are not setting a good example for your children or anyone who is in fear of their civil liberties being taken away. I suggest you swallow your pride, admit your mistakes, put this behind you, and go back to your life.

MEB-SG

[Christophera]

No, he doesn't say "floor beams."

Eagar correctly calls them "floor joists." They are also properly referred to in other studies as "floor trusses."

So what straw man are you going to come up with next to avoid providing proof of your claim that the columns were butt-welded?

Please stop with your hand-waving and answer.

I ain't going for it. Joists are joists (lighter, more frequent support), trusses are trusses, (fabricated braced web) and beams are beams (wider spaced, heavy support). I would be interested to see what you come up with for these definitions, since you are so into petty stuff.

You have no evidence of the steel core columns from the demolition images with core columns at, 200, 400, 600, 700 feet (since the term, "at elevation" has been shown as "beyond" some of you pencil pushers).

[Christophera]

Christophera,

I realize that you feel that admiting that you are wrong, at this point, would make you seem very foolish, but ask yourself if looking foolish is better or worse than seeming crazy and demented. You may feel you are not being heard or understood, but you are. The problem is that your wrong. You are not setting a good example for your children or anyone who is in fear of their civil liberties being taken away. I suggest you swallow your pride, admit your mistakes, put this behind you, and go back to your life.

MEB-SG

I thought officers stood for lawful performance. So disapointing. FEMA lied about the core.

http://concretecore.741.com

[Christophera]

I just want to point out that under international law there is no such thing as an "illegal" war. The UN Charter and UN Resolutions are not law. Even international laws are not binding unless they have been ratified by the signatory nation and included in their own legislation. For example some aspects of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are in direct contradiction to Privacy Acts in New Zealand. While New Zealand is signatory to the universal declaration, we have not ratified all parts of it. If New Zealand breaches those parts of the declaration that have not been ratified, no laws has been broken.

The international laws of armed conflict (ILAC) dictate *how* war can be fought, but it is the sovereign right of every state to use military force at any time they consider appropriate.

Violation of any UN resolutions or Charters *are* breaking the rules of that particular organisation, of course, and in theory could result in expolsion from the organisation (Hah! Like that would ever happen) but it is not "illegal" any more than it is "illegal" for a student at a school to wear items that violate the uniform regulations for that school.

In addition individual states may have domestic laws dictating when and how they are allowed to go to war, and breaking these would make the act of war illegal domestically.

However, in an international setting, "illegal law" refers to the way in which war is fought (i.e. in breach of the ILAC), NOT the status of the war itself.

Just thought I would clear that common misconception up.

-Andrew

How lame. Missed the point altogether. I'll try simplifyng it for you.

1. 3000 murders un investigated on 9-11. Violations of due process laws.
2. Predetermined identity of attacker issued and political thrust to attack manifests.
3. War declared on 1 false premise.
4. War declared on 2 false premises.

Numbers 3 and 4 only happened because of 1. and that was illegal = illegal wars. Duh.

[Regnad Kcin]

One does not answer "points". Ask a queston...Well, I've asked you one question numerous times. It's a fairly easy one to answer, yet for some reason you've not responded. Here it is again:

How many undamaged stories were above the impacted stories in both WTC 1 and WTC 2?

[Regnad Kcin]

By the way, Mr. Brown, are you still standing by the authenticity of this:

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

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

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

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

[Christophera]

One thing that has me puzzled about this concrete core theory is how he claims they poured it. If I get the gist of it correct they poured the core seven stories or more below the uppermost level of construction after they have poured the concrete for the floorspace of each of those stories.

Actually Woody I do not say on my pages when floors were poured. They were poured afterwards to reduce the weight on the steel framework not laterally braced by the core. That is why the 7 floors of steel max over the top of the concrete. They were worried about the crane platforms lifting/loading potential causing failures of the steel.

From a construction viewpoint that would be downright silly.

I am not saying it would be impossible to pour a core after completing several stories of floors above it but it would sure be easier and cheaper to pour the core first.

Not easier or cheaper. The reverse is true.

The interior box columns are used to support the outer, standard wood forms and the steel floors provide surfaces to work off of surrounding the core. The cranes lift the inner, breakdown steel forms and place the elevator supports and guide rail in the center as soon as the concrete is cured to keep the elevators delivering as high as possible.
Often, temporary floors were spanned across the core over the work in the core below so crews could follow crane loads easily for the work on top.

[Christophera]

Well, I've asked you one question numerous times. It's a fairly easy one to answer, yet for some reason you've not responded. Here it is again:

How many undamaged stories were above the impacted stories in both WTC 1 and WTC 2?

You asked it different last time and I've answered. You do the research and the math.

On the way, .......... see if you can find some evidence for your buddies. A A touch of reason and integrity/sincerity would be good.

[Christophera]

I just had a conversation a few minutes ago with a member of the Edmonton Fire Department.

He told me that an average house fire can reach temperatures as high as 1700 degrees.

That's just a an average house. An office building with a HUGE chimney (elevator shafts) feeding fresh oxygen into the blaze would have NO problem reaching those temperatures.

Why don't you go test your faith, Chris? Ask a firefighter.

Or are you chicken?


Yea, there probably is a few hundred cubic feet in the draft that reaches that off and on through the flares.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

How lame. Missed the point altogether. I'll try simplifyng it for you.

1. 3000 murders un investigated on 9-11. Violations of due process laws.
2. Predetermined identity of attacker issued and political thrust to attack manifests.
3. War declared on 1 false premise.
4. War declared on 2 false premises.

Numbers 3 and 4 only happened because of 1. and that was illegal = illegal wars. Duh.

The 9-11 attacks were extensively investigated. By your own (rather shaky) logic, you remaining points are automatically invalid.

[Christophera]

I worked with an armourer for about three years. He made the steel originals for "The Last Samurai" amongst others.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

The dynamics of the air through the floors of a building on which opposite walls have been smashed open would create a pretty decent air-blast furnace.

-Andrew

Nonsense, without forced air a vertical draft is optimal/needed and there was none in the WTC towers. Only the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) drafted, and it was concrete.

[Christophera]

The 9-11 attacks were extensively investigated. By your own (rather shaky) logic, you remaining points are automatically invalid.

You believe a lie.

[Christophera]

And a one anna 2 anna 3 anna one more time:
Still photos take from 5 miles away will show no object smaller than 12 feet on a side in any sensible, analyzable way. Saying that such a picture clearly shows 3"rebar on 48" centers is ludicrous-and, if you knew anything about construction, you'd know that rebar is buried in the concrete, and not visible, anyway...
I suggest that you actually look at the pictures of numerous posts, showing a cluster of steel beams in the center of the pile of rubble--with no concrete anywhere near.
Then get youself an engineering construction book, and look at the pretty pictures-because there is no way you can read and comprehend anything more complex than "Horton Hatches an Egg"

The photo is taken at 7500 feet and a single 3 inch silhouette will not be seen, totally, but 80 or so, looking down a line of them some what, yes easily visible, and that is exactly what this picture shows, 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)

Why is that bar standing and no other does?

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1149808

Scroll down from the anchor that this link leads to and you will read about how the weather stopped work while the rebar stood and the "special plastic protective coating" "may have been compromised", was how the narration went.

[Christophera]

I've mostly stayed on the sidelines of this thread, especially since I'm increasingly suspecting Christophera is seriously deluded, perhaps even mentally ill, and thus further discussion with him is not only pointless, it may actually be dangerous in some ways. But I must say this: Chris, you questioning Huntsman's guts, even indirectly (as you did with your "engineers are often not very brave" comment), is like Bozo the Clown questioning Einstein's intelligence.

Beyond that, I can only echo what others have already suggested: seriously dude, please consider seeking help.

Hey, you've all got real deep social fears that are unreasonable. Not being able to deal with obvious information. Failing to produce any support for arguments in a group like this, what's with that? Sick stuff.

[Regnad Kcin]

Well, I've asked you one question numerous times. It's a fairly easy one to answer, yet for some reason you've not responded. Here it is again:

How many undamaged stories were above the impacted stories in both WTC 1 and WTC 2?You asked it different last time and I've answered. You do the research and the math...It would've been so simple for you to answer, rather than write the content quoted above. Nevertheless, you have not answered as you claim.

I first asked you to indicate what floor or floors each airplane hit each tower; that you did answer in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1711843&postcount=700). I then asked (numerous times now) how many undamaged stories existed above each story/floor (where the airplanes hit) according to your own figure. Will you do so?

By the way, I know the answer; it's a simple calculation, after all. Once you do answer (as you eventually did with the first question), we'll be very close to my point.

ETA: the "where the airplanes hit" paranthetical, for clarity.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

You believe a lie.

I beg your pardon?

I haven't believed a single word you've said.

[joseph k.]

Hey, you've all got real deep social fears that are unreasonable. Not being able to deal with obvious information. Failing to produce any support for arguments in a group like this, what's with that? Sick stuff.

A touch of reason and integrity/sincerity would be good.

How lame. Missed the point altogether. I'll try simplifyng it for you.

you are so into petty stuff

Duh.

shown as "beyond" some of you pencil pushers
Why do you feel the need to puff yourself up into pseudo-superior world constantly in your petty attempts at belittlement? Do you realize you are running in a fevered circle? That would be fine if someone chained you to a large sprocket that powered some orphanage, but sadly no power is realized by the likes of you. Why are you so abrasive with those sharing expertise in areas you have none, demonstrably. Who hurt you Christophera? Who took your power away? Wait I know...nevermind. It is pointed to in this thread, early on. Please, please seek assistance with your problems or at least manufacture some civility.

[asmodean]

Is this guy for real? 31 pages, and all he does is screaming about concrete cores and rebars, posting pics taken from miles away on a building obscured by dust, debris and smoke in order to "prove" items a couple of feet in size? It's effing unbeleivable.

[Belz...]

I've answered with 2 entire web sites, one completely devoted to the concrete core. You, basically have not looked. That is the intellectual dishonesty thing you do.

Well now. You don't know what intellectual dishonesty is, either. Damn. Do you know ANYTHING ?

I admit I didn't READ through your entire site. But I did read enough of it to know that there's no proof there, only conjecture and opinion. So I'm waiting for that evidence now...


...


...

[Belz...]

The war in Iraq was technically legal, Saddam Hussein and his regime was in breach of UN resolution 1441, wich allowed the use of military force.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/

The resolution was passed with a 15 to 0 vote by the United Nations members. Only a few nations decided to implement it.

Personally, my only question is whether the US should've waited for the UN vote. I don't know if it should have been required of them.

[Dave_46]

A rose by any other name...

Folks, I have been scanning back over the thread, and something struck me which doesn't seem to have been explicitly stated. If I have missed this then sorry.

Christophera says that there are no steel core columns. He does however refer to "Interior box columns". It seems to me that this is simply a matter of terminology. What he calls interior box columns just about everybody else calls steel core columns. Is it this simple? Please correct me if I am wrong.

Dave

[Belz...]

1. 3000 murders un investigated on 9-11. Violations of due process laws.
2. Predetermined identity of attacker issued and political thrust to attack manifests.
3. War declared on 1 false premise.
4. War declared on 2 false premises.

Numbers 3 and 4 only happened because of 1. and that was illegal = illegal wars. Duh.

PFah! Ridiculous. If something happens because of an illegal cause, that effect is automatically illegal ? Damn! You don't know about the law either!! Do you know ANYTHING ?

You believe a lie.

Well, that should convince him.

[kevin]

I'm not a structural engineer, so I don't know if these images (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/7wtc/images/7wtc_les_5sept04_s.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/7wtc/7wtc_construction.htm&h=240&w=320&sz=44&tbnid=XYHfbQrab3_kSM:&tbnh=84&tbnw=113&hl=en&start=32&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dwtc7%2Bconstruction%26start%3D20%26sv num%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN) show anything of importance.

I'm not going to jump the gun based on pictures taken from so far away (like some, cough, cough). But this one:
http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/7wtc/images/7wtc_6sept03.jpg

and this one:
http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/7wtc/images/7wtc_6nov03.jpg

clearly show the wooden forms for some sort of concrete structure. The core? dunno. The first one is from before the crane is there so it's possible that is more the top of the foundation. Second one they have the forms almost immediately below the crane.

[Belz...]

A rose by any other name...

Folks, I have been scanning back over the thread, and something struck me which doesn't seem to have been explicitly stated. If I have missed this then sorry.

Christophera says that there are no steel core columns. He does however refer to "Interior box columns". It seems to me that this is simply a matter of terminology. What he calls interior box columns just about everybody else calls steel core columns. Is it this simple? Please correct me if I am wrong.

Dave

I believe chris claims that these were only used to support the elevator shafts or something.

Of course, he ignores the fact that there should have been litterally a colossal amount of concrete there, by claiming it was pulverised totally. Of course, then he goes on contradicting himself by saying he can spot concrete on a photo, which itself is blurry and crappy at best.

[Dave_46]

Christophera.

You have posted this image,

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

under that name or another, or as an image in a post over twenty times now.

I think that it safe to assume the following.

1. Most of us have now seen the picture.

2. Most of us (possibly all except you) are unconvinced by it.

Therefore it will serve no useful purpose to continue posting it, please stop.

Dave

[Apollyon]

I ain't going for it. Joists are joists (lighter, more frequent support), trusses are trusses, (fabricated braced web) and beams are beams (wider spaced, heavy support). I would be interested to see what you come up with for these definitions, since you are so into petty stuff.
You aren't going for it, huh?

I'm sorry, but I missed the news of your appointment as National Construction Nomenclature Czar. Could you provide a link?

You have no evidence of the steel core columns from the demolition images with core columns at, 200, 400, 600, 700 feet (since the term, "at elevation" has been shown as "beyond" some of you pencil pushers).
You have shown no clear evidence of a concrete core at any elevation either in before or after photos, so you really don't have any point to make whatsoever. Your refusal to recognize core columns or trying to rename them as something else simply to avoid calling them core columns is utterly ridiculous.

[Pardalis]

I just want to point out that under international law there is no such thing as an "illegal" war. The UN Charter and UN Resolutions are not law. Even international laws are not binding unless they have been ratified by the signatory nation and included in their own legislation. For example some aspects of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are in direct contradiction to Privacy Acts in New Zealand. While New Zealand is signatory to the universal declaration, we have not ratified all parts of it. If New Zealand breaches those parts of the declaration that have not been ratified, no laws has been broken.

The international laws of armed conflict (ILAC) dictate *how* war can be fought, but it is the sovereign right of every state to use military force at any time they consider appropriate.

Violation of any UN resolutions or Charters *are* breaking the rules of that particular organisation, of course, and in theory could result in expolsion from the organisation (Hah! Like that would ever happen) but it is not "illegal" any more than it is "illegal" for a student at a school to wear items that violate the uniform regulations for that school.

In addition individual states may have domestic laws dictating when and how they are allowed to go to war, and breaking these would make the act of war illegal domestically.

However, in an international setting, "illegal law" refers to the way in which war is fought (i.e. in breach of the ILAC), NOT the status of the war itself.

Just thought I would clear that common misconception up.

-Andrew

Very interesting gumboot. Thanks.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I ain't going for it. Joists are joists (lighter, more frequent support), trusses are trusses, (fabricated braced web) and beams are beams (wider spaced, heavy support). I would be interested to see what you come up with for these definitions, since you are so into petty stuff.

You have no evidence of the steel core columns from the demolition images with core columns at, 200, 400, 600, 700 feet (since the term, "at elevation" has been shown as "beyond" some of you pencil pushers).

Just because I'm a firm believer that "words mean things"

Joist- Wooden 2 X 8's, 10's, or 12's that run parallel to one another and support a floor or ceiling, and supported in turn by larger beams, girders, or bearing walls.

Truss- An engineered and manufactured roof support member with "zig-zag" framing members. Does the same job as a rafter but is designed to have a longer span than a rafter.

Beam- A structural member transversely supporting a load. A structural member carrying building loads (weight) from one support to another. Sometimes called a "girder".

All from http://www.homebuildingmanual.com/Glossary.htm#Backfill


m-w.com says
joist
One entry found for joist.
Main Entry: joist
Pronunciation: 'joist
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English joiste, from Middle French giste, from (assumed) Vulgar Latin jacitum, from Latin jacEre to lie -- more at ADJACENT
: any of the small timbers or metal beams ranged parallel from wall to wall in a structure to support a floor or ceiling

truss
3 entries found for truss.
Main Entry: 2truss
Function: noun
...
2 a : BRACKET 1 b : an assemblage of members (as beams) forming a rigid framework
...

Main Entry: 1beam
Pronunciation: 'bEm
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English beem, from Old English bEam tree, beam; akin to Old High German boum tree
1 a : a long piece of heavy often squared timber suitable for use in construction

http://contractorsglossary.com/index.php?limit_index=270&letter=M says
Metal Joist. Horizontal cold formed metal framing member of floor, ceiling or flat roof to transmit loads to bearing points; often refers to a Bar Joist. (Bar Joist. A truss-like floor joist or rafter fabricated from steel bars. )

Truss. 1. A triangular arrangement of structural members that rces nonaxial forces on the truss to a set of axial forces in the members. 2. Structural framework of triangular units for supporting loads over long spans.

Beam - http://contractorsglossary.com/index.php?s=beam

[Gravy]

Christophera,

It's been a couple of days now, so you can't say you haven't had time to work on your diagram of the multiple MOVING hallways that penetrate your Invisicrete core at all sorts of odd angles.

Please show us.

[Stellafane]

Hey, you've all got real deep social fears that are unreasonable. Not being able to deal with obvious information. Failing to produce any support for arguments in a group like this, what's with that? Sick stuff.

Chris, with this post, you've now moved up to #2 on my list of "Unintentionally Hilarious 9/11 CT'ers." This post is funny on so many levels I'd need a supercomputer to count them all. Keep it up; I'm confident you'll soon be giving our mutual pal geggy a run for the coveted top spot.