Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers? [Archive] - Page 6

Christophera

21st June 2006, 10:44 AM

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

No, not that simple.

These are interior box columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) and they (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) are outside the concrete core shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg)and there are no steel columns inside the core walls. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg). All but the first link should show steel creo columns if they existed.

Belz...

21st June 2006, 10:48 AM

No, not that simple.

These are interior box columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) and they (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) are outside the concrete core shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg)and there are no steel columns inside the core walls. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg). All but the first link should show steel creo columns if they existed.

Perhaps you've forgotten the pictures (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1711500&postcount=674) that were shown to you, proving that the "shear wall" is actually part of the outer wall ?

Christophera

21st June 2006, 10:51 AM

You have shown no clear evidence of a concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) at any elevation (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) 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.

What is utterly ridiculous is that your position is so pitiful and void of evidence that I have just linked the key words of your post to proof of the concrete core that also disproves the notion of "steel core columns".

Christophera

21st June 2006, 10:54 AM

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

Do not forget that none have produced an alternative explanation for what it is other than rebar.

Christophera

21st June 2006, 10:58 AM

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 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) there, by claiming it was pulverised totally. Of course, then he goes on contradicting himself by saying he can spot concrete (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) on a photo, which itself is blurry and crappy at best.

I do not ignore "the fact that there should have been litterally a colossal amount of concrete (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) there, by claiming it was pulverised totally." I show it was pulverised totally (http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg) except for one piece of the thick base of the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg), where I actually show it.

Here is the original higher res image of the core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc18.JPG).

Arkan_Wolfshade

21st June 2006, 10:59 AM

Do not forget that none have produced an alternative explanation for what it is other than rebar.

Includes: Appeal to Ignorance ("Ad Ignorantiam")
Description of Burden of Proof

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

1. Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
2. Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).
Examples of Burden of Proof

1. Bill: "I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system."
Jill: "I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury."
Bill: "How can anyone be against highway improvements?"

2. Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."

3. "You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

Apollyon

21st June 2006, 11:02 AM

What is utterly ridiculous is that your position is so pitiful and void of evidence that I have just linked the key words of your post to proof of the concrete core that also disproves the notion of "steel core columns".
We've already seen numerous pictures of the steel core columns in the construction photos and no evidence whatsoever of your concrete core. You are not Captain Picard and your mere words claiming it exists does not "make it so".

Apollyon

21st June 2006, 11:04 AM

Do not forget that none have produced an alternative explanation for what it is other than rebar.
Do not forget that we have produced an alternate explanation - that it is conduit and/or plumbing.

Arkan_Wolfshade

21st June 2006, 11:06 AM

Each building had a square floor
plate, 207 feet 2 inches long on each side. Corners were chamfered 6 feet 11 inches. Nearly an acre of floor
space was provided at each level. A rectangular service core, with overall dimensions of approximately 87 feet
by 137 feet, was present at the center of each building, housing 3 exit stairways, 99 elevators, and 16
escalators. Figure 2-1 presents a schematic plan of a representative aboveground floor.

http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch2.pdf

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/ArkanWolfshade/wtc_core.jpg

Christophera

21st June 2006, 11:10 AM

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.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2246&stc=1&d=1150909669

See the butt weld in the interior box column to the right and above the floor beam intersection. It can be distinguished by the different texture from grinding the weld smooth and the coloration of the steel from the heat of the weld.

Christophera

21st June 2006, 11:13 AM

Do not forget that we have produced an alternate explanation - that it is conduit and/or plumbing.

Tube will not bend like that without kinking. No way!

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2247&stc=1&d=1150909948

Christophera

21st June 2006, 11:15 AM

more than cheaper and easier, i think it would be mandatory, otherwise the core would be sitting on the floor trusses.

How does the core get outside the core area to sit on the trusses? Absurd.

Pardalis

21st June 2006, 11:16 AM

What is a tube?

What does it mean in engeneering terms?

Christophera

21st June 2006, 11:17 AM

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

Amazing! The principles of the nation are recognized in some part!!!!!!

kevin

21st June 2006, 11:17 AM

Do not forget that none have produced an alternative explanation for what it is other than rebar.

what is the scale of this photo so I can measure the "rebar" and verify it is exactly 3" on 4' centers?

Can you prove that is from the interior of the building and not the exterior load bearing walls.

How could I tell the difference in this photo between 3" rebar and a 3" conduit? How could I tell the difference in this photo between 3" rebar and the elevator guides you claim exist in another photo? Speaking of this other photo, what insane person would install elevator guides before the elevator shafts were built? What did they attach them to? The nearest concrete, according to you, is 7 stories down.

Hellbound

21st June 2006, 11:26 AM

Tube will not bend like that without kinking. No way!

Plastic, plenum-rated conduit will.

For that matter, metal tubes heated to a high temperature will.

And some are likely already curved, to go around ventilation shafts, columns, other cable runs, etc.

And thick elevator cable could be that stiff, the stuff isn't fishing line. Yeah, it rolls onto reels, but the reels aren't little 12 inch ones, they're rather large.

IN any case, the OTHER picture you keep posting as being "3" rebar on 4' centers" has been conclusively shown to be a portion of the outer wall attached to a still standing corner spire. So let's droip that one now, shall we? Repeating your disproven assumption over and over is not providing additional evidence.

Apollyon

21st June 2006, 11:26 AM

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2246&stc=1&d=1150909669

See the butt weld in the interior box column to the right and above the floor beam intersection. It can be distinguished by the different texture from grinding the weld smooth and the coloration of the steel from the heat of the weld.
Is there something wrong with you?

Seriously?

I already responded to your bogus claim of that picture showing a butt-weld. What that shows is where the standoffs for the beam clips are welded on. If you take the picture into Photoshop and blow it up a bit you can plainly see the raised surface. It the same sort of clips clearly shown on the far end of the column in this construction photo linked previously:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1716047&postcount=1208

Tube will not bend like that without kinking. No way!
It can easily bend like that when heated, which it was because jet fuel had gone down the elevator shafts.

And you actually claim the concrete core was 17' thick?

kevin

21st June 2006, 11:35 AM

Plastic, plenum-rated conduit will.
If it's conduit it could've been INSTALLED curved. Cable has to exit the risers some how and 90 degree intersections are bad for cables. They bend them with a nice soft radius.

Christophera

21st June 2006, 11:54 AM

Is there something wrong with you?

Seriously?

I already responded to your bogus claim of that picture showing a butt-weld. What that shows is where the standoffs for the beam clips are welded on. If you take the picture into Photoshop and blow it up a bit you can plainly see the raised surface. It the same sort of clips clearly shown on the far end of the column in this construction photo linked previously:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1716047&postcount=1208

It can easily bend like that when heated, which it was because jet fuel had gone down the elevator shafts.

And you actually claim the concrete core was 17' thick?

The beam clips are still on the column indexing the beams!!!!!! And tubing is LESS likely to bend smoothly when heated. Stick with pencil pushing.

I show the core wall at base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) is 17 feet thick.

Arkan_Wolfshade

21st June 2006, 12:03 PM

The beam clips are still on the column indexing the beams!!!!!! And tubing is LESS likely to bend smoothly when heated. Stick with pencil pushing.

I show the core wall at base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) is 17 feet thick.

The heat-induction pipe bending process was originally used during World War II to harden surfaces of gears and ball bearings. The pipe bending industry uses the heat-induction pipe bending process by placing an induction coil around the pipe to be bent. The induction coil heats a narrow, circumferential section of pipe to a temperature of 800 to 2,200 F, depending on the material type. At proper pipe bending temperature, the pipe passes through the induction coil at a slow, gradual rate as the bending force is applied.
custom pipe bending

After bending occurs, the heated area is quenched by a water or air spray. This pipe bending process produces a quality product, however its typical cost is higher than other methods. Pipe sizes up to 48" outside diameter and larger are commonly bent by this pipe bending method for applications including power plants, highway road signs and petroleum pipelines.

http://www.ttb.com/process.htm

Hellbound

21st June 2006, 12:12 PM

If it's conduit it could've been INSTALLED curved. Cable has to exit the risers some how and 90 degree intersections are bad for cables. They bend them with a nice soft radius.

Yeah, I mentioned the installation.

Also, on cable, it would have some stiffness to it, and 90 degree bends could easily happen during a collapse. I suspect it is conduit, though, but so far I don't think elevator cabling is necessarily out.

NobbyNobbs

21st June 2006, 12:13 PM

I have carefully read the first half of this thread, and not being an engineer have, for the sanity of my mind, had to skip past the last half. I have only one thing to say.

Here's an excellent recipe for steak sauce.

Get a pan nice and hot, and sear the outside of the steak on all sides. While the steak cooks in the oven, use the juices in the pan as a base. Add a couple ounces of port wine. Burn off the alcohol (it will make a lovely purple flame). Add a couple ounces of beef gravy and a spoonful or two of tomato paste. Mash the paste well in. At the very end, melt a few ounces of butter into it. Strain the result and pour it over the steak. It also works well on ground beef.

TheFeds

21st June 2006, 12:15 PM

Firstly, review the U.S. government's report linked to by Arkan_Wolfshade (http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch2.pdf). You'll note that it states:The core consisted of 5-inch concrete fill on metal deck supported by floor framing of rolled structural shapes, in turn supported by a combination of wide flange shape and box-section columns. Some of these columns were very large, with cross-sections measuring 14 inches wide by 36 inches deep. In upper stories, these rectangular box columns transitioned into heavy rolled wide flange shapes.There are dozens of mentions of core columns in that document, but this is the only mention of the word concrete in any sort of relationship with the core. 5" concrete fill on a metal deck does not in any way describe a core created by slip-form concrete extrusion. In fact, see the attached figure, which depicts this construction method. Observe that it does not involve concrete walls. If concrete walls were significant in the construction of the core, don't you think that that fact should have been mentioned? In fact, the only component of the core that is concrete is this floor (aside from perhaps the base of the foundation on the first basement level).

Note also in the schematic, that there are locations for structural columns indicated, but there are no positions for load-bearing concrete walls. Standard architectural practice would dictate that these be indicated with thick black lines, with widths that are correctly scaled to the drawing. No such things are present. Contrast this with the thinner lines, which represent other walls within the structure—it is clear that the intent of this drawing is to show the position of the walls within the core. Why then would the most significant walls be absent? So, can you provide a schematic which contradicts the one presented above, and shows a significant thickness of concrete arranged in vertical walls?

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2246&stc=1&d=1150909669

See the butt weld in the interior box column to the right and above the floor beam intersection. It can be distinguished by the different texture from grinding the weld smooth and the coloration of the steel from the heat of the weld.Those appear to be the vertical columns, not floor trusses, judging by their size and shape. (See the above link for information on the profiles used, and their positions.) And in any event, there is a fundamental problem with using a butt weld in the location that you seem to have described (if you think I'm looking at it wrongly, circle the spot, and re-post). No engineer would permit a crucial member to be butt-welded in a location where it could clearly experience tensile, compressive and shear loading, without significant additional reinforcement (such as bolted gussets). Furthermore, note the proximity of distorted steel members to the undamaged weld. How do you propose that the weld withstood these forces, allowing the rest of the attached beam to deflect catastrophically, despite the fact that in common steel construction, welds are the weakest, softest and most ductile regions? If that were actually a butt weld, it would have failed first.

Christophera

21st June 2006, 12:17 PM

http://www.ttb.com/process.htm

You can't be serious. That is a highly controlled set of circumstances that a a man on the ground cannot reproduce, let alone happen by accident inside of a falling mass of steel debri 700 feet below the fire with a few spots hot enough to provide the required heat. OMG! The only bend in pipe or tube that a man can do with heat successfully without collapsing the tube is a wrinkle bend. A series of bends incrementing the entire curve.

Apparently the lie the murderers are hiding behind is so important to support that you are willing to sacrifice your marginal credibility.

Christophera

21st June 2006, 12:21 PM

Those appear to be the vertical columns, not floor trusses, judging by their size and shape.

Check reading and comprehension skills. I said column and beam, not floor trusses. Only raw evidence is qualified for this discussion.

Christophera

21st June 2006, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by Huntsman :
Plastic, plenum-rated conduit will.

If it's conduit it could've been INSTALLED curved. Cable has to exit the risers some how and 90 degree intersections are bad for cables. They bend them with a nice soft radius.

I do not know what, "Plastic, plenum-rated" conduit is, but I seriously doubt it existed in 1967.

Check the size of the loop formed by the bar sticking out the top center of the core wall at base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg), it is perhaps 15 feet in diamter and close to a 360 degree bend.

How does this happen at the bottom of a supposed collapse of debri with weak conduit or pipe? It is super rigid and there are more than one of them. No chance of this being anything but something very strong that was heavily heated and stressed in a uniform fashion over its length except one side was much hotter.

Arkan_Wolfshade

21st June 2006, 12:32 PM

You can't be serious. That is a highly controlled set of circumstances that a a man on the ground cannot reproduce, let alone happen by accident inside of a falling mass of steel debri 700 feet below the fire with a few spots hot enough to provide the required heat. OMG! The only bend in pipe or tube that a man can do with heat successfully without collapsing the tube is a wrinkle bend. A series of bends incrementing the entire curve.

Apparently the lie the murderers are hiding behind is so important to support that you are willing to sacrifice your marginal credibility.

Huntsman said
...
For that matter, metal tubes heated to a high temperature will.
...

Apollyon said
...
It can easily bend like that when heated, which it was because jet fuel had gone down the elevator shafts.
...

You replied with ...
And tubing is LESS likely to bend smoothly when heated.
...

So, I provided an example of heat being used to bend tubing. I did not claim those conditions were, or were not, present in WTC 1 or 2. Do not put words in my mouth. Do not take my words out of context.

Christophera

21st June 2006, 12:37 PM

By the way, Mr. Brown, are you still standing by the authenticity of this:

Get real. I don't know. But if it is from Robertson, he's done about what I would do in his situation given his position.

Arkan_Wolfshade

21st June 2006, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by Huntsman :
Plastic, plenum-rated conduit will.

I do not know what, "Plastic, plenum-rated" conduit is, but I seriously doubt it existed in 1967.

Check the size of the loop formed by the bar sticking out the top center of the core wall at base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg), it is perhaps 15 feet in diamter and close to a 360 degree bend.

How does this happen at the bottom of a supposed collapse of debri with weak conduit or pipe? It is super rigid and there are more than one of them. No chance of this being anything but something very strong that was heavily heated and stressed in a uniform fashion over its length except one side was much hotter.

Plenum - in layman's terms, as I understand it, is cable/conduit that meets the fire codes that are relevent to dead-air spaces in buildlings.

Also, please show your work that you used to arrive at
Check the size of the loop formed by the bar sticking out the top center of the core wall at base, it is perhaps 15 feet in diamter and close to a 360 degree bend.

Arkan_Wolfshade

21st June 2006, 12:41 PM

Get real. I don't know. But if it is from Robertson, he's done about what I would do in his situation given his position.

So, you admit you have no way of verifying the validity of your claim in this post http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1712505#post1712505 ?

TheFeds

21st June 2006, 12:41 PM

Check reading and comprehension skills. I said column and beam, not floor trusses. Only raw evidence is qualified for this discussion.Nice try. You posted below a picture (http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2246&stc=1&d=1150909669) in response to Apollyon's reference to floor trusses and joists. Are you now telling me that you didn't mean for any part of that picture to represent a truss? If so, why would you answer a question about a truss with a picture of something that's not a truss, without explaining yourself? Or are you convinced that a "floor beam" isn't a truss?

And look at the schematics. The floor is not composed of beams, it's composed of trusses. Now, note in Figure 2-9 that the cross-section of a "main double truss" is very narrow, and that a "transverse truss" is not even composed of a solid web. These things are not pictured—so maybe that picture doesn't actually represent what you purport that it does.

And come on, answer the criticism regarding the schematic. Where's the core?

Hellbound

21st June 2006, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by Huntsman :
Plastic, plenum-rated conduit will.

I do not know what, "Plastic, plenum-rated" conduit is, but I seriously doubt it existed in 1967.

Probably not, but that doesn't mean it wasn't installed later.

Cat 5 network cable didn't exist in 1967 either, but I bet the WTC was wired for networking in almost all of it's offices.

Check the size of the loop formed by the bar sticking out the top center of the core wall at base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg), it is perhaps 15 feet in diamter and close to a 360 degree bend.

I'll accept this portion, although it appears closer to 180 degrees than 360 degrees, and it appears more like a slightly flexible tubing that lay over due to gravity.

How does this happen at the bottom of a supposed collapse of debri with weak conduit or pipe? Because collapses aren't deterministic, but chaotic. How did people survive at the bottom ofa collapse? It happens. It is super rigid and there are more than one of them.Have any evidence of it being "super-rigid"? You can't tell this from a single still photo, or even from a video unless there's something pushing on it. It's at least moderatly rigid, but could well be some type of plastic tubing or conduit. Heck, it could be condensation drains for the air conditioners. No chance of this being anything but something very strong that was heavily heated and stressed in a uniform fashion over its length except one side was much hotter. Unless it wasn't. You haven't supported this assertion, and even this assertion, assuming it was true, doesn't support rebar.

Looking more closely at it, I'm still leaning towards some sort of thick metal cabling, such as might be expected on an elevator.

Here's a thought, can you point out the original source of the picture? Not on your web page, I want to know exactly what the picture was of, and if it does happen to be the bottom of one of the elevator shafts.

Dave_46

21st June 2006, 12:50 PM

what is the scale of this photo so I can measure the "rebar" and verify it is exactly 3" on 4' centers?

Can you prove that is from the interior of the building and not the exterior load bearing walls.

How could I tell the difference in this photo between 3" rebar and a 3" conduit? How could I tell the difference in this photo between 3" rebar and the elevator guides you claim exist in another photo? Speaking of this other photo, what insane person would install elevator guides before the elevator shafts were built? What did they attach them to? The nearest concrete, according to you, is 7 stories down.

Christophera.

What kevin said.

I have already given my estimate of the size of the image which shows that you cannot see something 3" wide.

Dave

Apollyon

21st June 2006, 12:53 PM

The beam clips are still on the column indexing the beams!!!!!!
Yes. They are welded on.

And tubing is LESS likely to bend smoothly when heated.
Really? So a piece of conduit stuffed with cable and wiring is going to kink eaily when heated and bent, particularly when bent in the large radius that your picture shows?

Stick with pencil pushing.
/looks at steel-toed boots I'm wearing

/looks at hard hat with my name on it sitting on the shelf behind me

Hmmm. It appears you're speculating erroneously yet again. How unsurprising.

I show the core wall at base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) is 17 feet thick.
You don't "show" anything. Or is using MS Paint (badly, I might add) to create colored arrows your idea of making something proof positive?

azazal

21st June 2006, 12:53 PM

For those that were asking for it, found another shot of Chris's core from a different angle, and with people in the pictures as well, great for scaling.

http://community.webshots.com/photo/252150348/1256032283064370674axZTWU
http://community.webshots.com/photo/252150348/1256032213064370674ctBCuP

Dave_46

21st June 2006, 01:00 PM

With regard to the use of the word plenum above, this refers to the enclosed spaces, usually between floors, where cables are run. Because when new cables are put in it is cheaper to leave the old ones in position the cables are usually low smoke / low fume rated. I presume any plastic ducting which may be used would also be low smoke / low fume.

(I have been involved in fire testing of these types of cables)

(for an American co. in case anyone thinks that because of my location the testing may not be relevant)

Dave

sackett

21st June 2006, 01:06 PM

BUTTERSCOTCH NUT BAR

1 cup unsalted butter (2 sticks)

2-1/4 cups dark brown sugar, packed

3 large eggs

2-2/3 cups all-purpose unbleached flour

2-1/2 teaspoon baking powder

1 teaspoon salt

1 package (6 oz) butterscotch chips

1 cup walnuts, chopped

1. Preheat oven to 350 degrees F. Grease a 9 x 13 inch pan.
2. In a medium-sized bowl, combine the flour, baking powder and salt. Set aside.
3. Melt butter in a heavy bottomed saucepan, and stir in brown sugar. Remove from heat, and let cool for 10 minutes, until tepid.
4. Beat eggs, and then stir in butter / sugar mixture in portions. Beat after each addition until smooth. Stir flour mixture into the butter/sugar/egg mixture. Batter will be thick. Stir in butterscotch chips and nuts.
5. Spread evenly in baking pan. Bake for about 35 - 45 minutes. Let cool in the pan on wire cake rack. Cut into bars.

This recipe is especially popular with kids.

kevin

21st June 2006, 01:10 PM

Looking more closely at it, I'm still leaning towards some sort of thick metal cabling, such as might be expected on an elevator.

the photo has two arrows pointing to things that are supposedly high tensile rebar. the one on the left has a silvery sheen and stands upright. The one on the right appears to loop around. The one on the right could be cable, the one on the left I don't think could, just because I don't think it could remain upright like that. The silvery color indicates to me it is anything but rebar. I've never seen silver rebar. brown, green, even black. Never silver.

kevin

21st June 2006, 01:11 PM

This recipe is especially popular with kids.

Don't the kids add kind of a spam flavor when added to the recipe?

Hellbound

21st June 2006, 01:27 PM

the photo has two arrows pointing to things that are supposedly high tensile rebar. the one on the left has a silvery sheen and stands upright. The one on the right appears to loop around. The one on the right could be cable, the one on the left I don't think could, just because I don't think it could remain upright like that. The silvery color indicates to me it is anything but rebar. I've never seen silver rebar. brown, green, even black. Never silver.

You're right, I've been focusing on the looping strand.

I'm still leanign towards various conduit types. Many of the pastic conduits are made to be semi-rigid/flexible, to assist in threading them through existing structures. This is more commonly used when additions are made to an existing building (as would be expected in upgrades to a building built in 1967).

And I'd still say it's more likely that a flexible or semi-rigid structure would make a nice, even loop like that. Something rigid would be more likely to make a sharp-angle bend or break (IMHO).

The ones standing straight I'd suspect are metal conduit pipe or even water supply pipes.

azazal

21st June 2006, 01:27 PM

Ok, this is quick and dirty pixel counting, so take with some salt and please point any math of measurement errors.

But here we have the core of the North Tower, and with people for scaling.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/azazal/Misc/WTC1working.jpg

Going with the person in the foreground, the one with the red hardhat. I'm getting a height of 33 pixels. Guessing the person to be at a height of 6 feet, I'm getting 1 pixel is 2.18 inches (6/33*12).

Checking the "rebar" I'm getting a width of 4 pixels or 8.72 inches. Well over the 3 inch width claimed. Also I would not be surprised if the "rebar" was wider, given that it is further back then the person used to scale off of.

Hellbound

21st June 2006, 01:30 PM

Much better pic, azazal. It does appear that the looping portion has a 90 degree bend. Of course, it looks much less like a loop, and more like two 90 degree bends making a square, that's leaning over to the left.

I'm dropping elevator cable now. I'm pretty sure that's conduit or water pipe, or a similar structure.

sackett

21st June 2006, 01:39 PM

Don't the kids add kind of a spam flavor when added to the recipe?

Kevin, I’d like to respond with a joke, but this thread has finally worn me out. Christo is just another loony crank, and I confess that all loonies eventually weary and depress me; they’re not amusing forever. I suppose you could say that he’s beaten me.

But I know that you better men will keep after him. September 11 was – it still is, for me it happens again and again -- too dreadful an event to be allowed to fall into the hands of ugly-spirited fantasists. Their nasty spewing is easy to refute, and would be even if it weren’t so madly, impossibly, staggeringly implausible.

Keep at it stubbornly, guys. You’re winning a fight that’s important to all of us.

Diazo

21st June 2006, 02:38 PM

Just wanted to back up Huntsman on this one.

I work for an electrical contractor, and the drooping/looping objects are pretty much exactly what I would expect to see cable and/or conduits do when involved in such a collapse.

This also matches with the approximate size azazal calculated. While a quick google search for '3" rebar' turns up several tables of rebar sizes, most which list 2.257" as the largest rebar size.

Based on both the size issue and the color issue mentioned by kevin, I don't see how it could be rebar in any form. Since it must be something, my thought is that the objects are most likely cables or conduit of some sort.

On a quick tangent, I would just like to thank everyone who has been going back and forth about this. (That's thanks for everyone at this forum, just not this thread.) Having seen Loose Change cold, and then going online and finding this site is a breath of fresh air to me. Keep up the excellent posts everyone! :clap: :clap:

Edit: grammar gremlins got me.

NobbyNobbs

21st June 2006, 03:06 PM

I do not know what, "Plastic, plenum-rated" conduit is, but I seriously doubt it existed in 1967.

I don't know what it is either, so I'm not about to make a statement about its existence, then or now.

Amazing. You claim ignorance about something, and then in the same sentence have no problem feeling qualified to comment on its very existence. Kind of like you've been doing with every other topic in this thread.

Belz...

21st June 2006, 03:10 PM

I do not ignore "the fact that there should have been litterally a colossal amount of concrete (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) there, by claiming it was pulverised totally." I show it was pulverised totally (http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg) except for one piece of the thick base of the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg), where I actually show it.

Chris, you still haven't answered to my claim that you can still see non-pulverised concrete in the first picture.

The second picture is difficult to interpret because of its low quality. Can you find a better file of the same image ?

Also, how have you been able to identify that the dark "column" in your oft-posted picture is the core ?

Belz...

21st June 2006, 03:15 PM

Apparently the lie the murderers are hiding behind is so important to support that you are willing to sacrifice your marginal credibility.

Let's try it this way:

Appealing to one's emotions does not advance your argument.

Belz...

21st June 2006, 03:18 PM

Because collapses aren't deterministic, but chaotic

Well, they ARE deterministic. We simply don't know all the variables involved.

Belz...

21st June 2006, 03:20 PM

Belz...

21st June 2006, 03:21 PM

Ok, this is quick and dirty pixel counting, so take with some salt and please point any math of measurement errors.

But here we have the core of the North Tower, and with people for scaling.

Going with the person in the foreground, the one with the red hardhat. I'm getting a height of 33 pixels. Guessing the person to be at a height of 6 feet, I'm getting 1 pixel is 2.18 inches (6/33*12).

Checking the "rebar" I'm getting a width of 4 pixels or 8.72 inches. Well over the 3 inch width claimed. Also I would not be surprised if the "rebar" was wider, given that it is further back then the person used to scale off of.

Do they even make rebar that big ? (3" i mean)

pchams

21st June 2006, 03:24 PM

As much as I hesitate to reply to this post again as I think Christophera is just click-hunting for his site, I shall once more.
As electrical construction apprentices we had a fun side project to deform ridgid conduit into tight radius bends (almost 360 deg.).
Guess what was the only way to deform the conduit into such a tight radius
without kinking it?

erm.....heat it up.

Keep getting those clicks Christophera. ;)

gumboot

21st June 2006, 03:28 PM

Do not forget that none have produced an alternative explanation for what it is other than rebar.

I think this may be proof of insanity...

-Andrew

mortimer

21st June 2006, 03:32 PM

kevin

21st June 2006, 03:36 PM

Do they even make rebar that big ? (3" i mean)

The online standards I found only went up to 2 and a fraction, however I'm sure you could get it custom made. Or maybe it was only 3" after they added the C4.

kevin

21st June 2006, 03:48 PM

Heh. This is entertaining. It appears that a fire in WTC 1 in 1975 led to the fire codes to begin plenum spaces.

In 1975 there was a large fire at One World Trade Center that luckily occurred in the middle of the night when the building was unoccupied. The One World Trade Center fire was analyzed in great detail and a report was issued by The New York Board of Fire Underwriters Bureau of Fire Prevention and Public Relations. The information gathered in this investigation was used to further develop New York City Local Law 5. The following are some of the observations/ conclusions of the report.

"The [exposed] polyethylene (PE) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) cable insulation and plastic back panel blocks burned readily so that virtually all combustibles including the fire retardant wood paneling on the telephone closet walls of the 10th and 12th floors were destroyed".

"High temperatures in the plenum radiated enough heat into the offices to the north of the fire to melt plastic phones and char papers on desk tops, but ignition did not take place".

"Cables passing from one closet to another closet on the same floor pass through the plenum above the hung ceiling. The exposed cable [1975 PE and PVC compounds] is combustible and constitutes a hazard because fire will be drawn into the plenum and the insulation will intensify the fire at this point".

"The central air conditioning system of itself is not a fire hazard. It is of importance because of its ability to spread smoke throughout a building, to carry the fire from one section to another, and to intensify the fire. Smoke can carry through a system even when it is shut down and create intolerable conditions on other than the fire floor. It is because of this that no combustibles should be allowed in the plenum to create additional heat and additional problems".

"It should be noted, that the mass of cables to supply communications equipment in many office occupancies is sufficient to sustain a substantial fire. While an individual cable is extremely difficult to ignite, a group of cables lying parallel will burn intensely, similar to the situation that exists with a group of logs in a fire".

Note that prior to 1975 the code specified:
Prior to 1975, the National Electric Code (established by the National Fire Protection, NFPA, no. 70) required that all cables installed in building plenums be either encased in metal raceway or conduit, or have metal sheaths. Three types of metal sheaths were accepted - mineral-insulated metal, metal clad, and armored.
This supports my theory of conduit in the picture.

read more here:
http://www.wireville.com/news/news01.html

pchams

21st June 2006, 03:56 PM

The online standards I found only went up to 2 and a fraction, however I'm sure you could get it custom made. Or maybe it was only 3" after they added the C4.

:D
Now that is funny! However, let us not forget that the C4 would have been consumed leaving the 2-1/4 grade
Untouched by the C4 of course....
:rolleyes:

gumboot

21st June 2006, 03:57 PM

I don't mean to disrespect the incredible knowledge you all have but...

This argument now seems to hinge on a claim that the depicted narrow lines in a particular photo are rebar because they couldn't possibly be anything else as they are bent.

In this instance, I believe all your skills are unnecessary, excellent as they are. A squirrel could see that the claim made is ridiculous. Firstly, there is clearly no 17 foot concrete wall in that arrangement. Secondly, there is a multitude of things these lines could be, given the nature of the preceeding event.

Basic common sense utterly and unquestionably refutes Christopher's claim in mere moments.

-Andrew

pchams

21st June 2006, 04:09 PM

I agree gumboot...the OP just ignores everything shown to him.
I wish to address one other point though.
I have worked on several highrise constructions in Toronto.
I have never seen a floor slab that did not contain rebar unless it was prefabricated(in which case there were tensioning cables imbedded). It's possible that there was no rebar in the floor slabs of the towers, but at the time they were constructed, I tend to doubt it.
We electricians used to call it 'walking the steel' (as opposed to those crazy steelworkers who actually bolted the structure together, and called that 'walking the steel').

Hellbound

21st June 2006, 04:12 PM

I agree gumboot...the OP just ignores everything shown to him.
I wish to address one other point though.
I have worked on several highrise constructions in Toronto.
I have never seen a floor slab that did not contain rebar unless it was prefabricated. It's possible that there was no rebar in the floor slabs of the towers, but at the time they were constructed, I tend to doubt it.
We electricians used to call it 'walking the steel' (as opposed to those crazy steelworkers who actually bolted the structure together, and called that 'walking the steel').

Well, there probably was rebar in the floor slabs (at least I would assume as much). But, the issues are:

1 . It wouldn't be 3" rebar on 4' centers.
2. The presence of rebar would not prove a concrete core.
3. The pics Christophera has shown, so far, do not show anything remotely resembling rebar.
4. The rebar would not be part of the vertical support structure.

Sure you knew this, but just clarifiying the issues a bit for our readers out there.
:)

Apollyon

21st June 2006, 04:26 PM

The online standards I found only went up to 2 and a fraction, however I'm sure you could get it custom made. Or maybe it was only 3" after they added the C4.
:D

There's another issue with Christophera's claim about rebar as well. He calls it "high tensile rebar." High tensile steel does have an amazing tensile strength but it is also brittle (a relative term when speaking of steel) along its length. Normally rebar is made of mild steel so it is a bit ductile because it often needs to be bent at fairly sharp angles. High tensile steel includes chromium and molybdenum (In some forms it's stainless steel) to provide it's higher tensile strength and hardness, but there's no way that it's going to bend around in a loop as Christophera claims, even with heat applied. Besides, you can be sure that with the steel being protected by a 17' thickness of concrete it was providing pretty good insulation from the fire, so the high tensile steel wouldn't have become anywhere near hot enough to bend. Any C4 charge strong enough to bust up 17' of concrete would have sheared that steel as well.

btw, I found this picture of rebar actually used in the WTC.

http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1956.jpg

It's from one of the floors. Notice the large pieces of "pulverized" concrete laying around too. ;)

Here's a close-up of rebar from the WTC off of the same website:

http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1952.jpg

kevin

21st June 2006, 04:35 PM

btw, I found this picture of rebar actually used in the WTC.

http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1956.jpg

It's from one of the floors. Notice the large pieces of "pulverized" concrete laying around too. ;)

Here's a close-up of rebar from the WTC off of the same website:

http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1952.jpg

The link I posted to the building of the WTC documentary a few pages back has video of them tying rebar in one scene, and another pouring the concrete FLOORS over the rebar. No way is it 3", looks more like 1/2" or less. It also looks like it's on 12" centers.

Apollyon

21st June 2006, 04:40 PM

Well, there probably was rebar in the floor slabs (at least I would assume as much). But, the issues are:

1 . It wouldn't be 3" rebar on 4' centers.
2. The presence of rebar would not prove a concrete core.
3. The pics Christophera has shown, so far, do not show anything remotely resembling rebar.
4. The rebar would not be part of the vertical support structure.

Sure you knew this, but just clarifiying the issues a bit for our readers out there.
:)
In one of the construction videos that was posted in here they showed the workers tieing rebar for the floor and then pouring the concrete. It looked like it was a crosshatch pattern on @ 15" centers.

As to your number 4, rebar would definitely be part of a vertical support structure. The rebar is strung up first, forms are placed, then concrete is poured into the forms. That's why I told Christophera previously that the construction photos would clearly show that rebar. It'd be sticking out like 100 steel medusa heads all around the core columns and very noticeable. He is full of it that a concrete core was lagging behind the rest of the structure because that core would be supporting the gravity load as the towers went up and there's no way you have 4 - 7 floors built up without the gravity load being supported. Besides that, concrete takes some time to cure before it reaches its full load carrying capacity and, using a concrete core, there's no possible way that a floor could be erected every 4 days. The concrete on the floors below would have to cure properly first before you could go too high. Using concrete they could possibly do a floor every 7 - 10 days.

And the biggest problem with his claim is that if there really was a concrete core those "interior box columns" of his wouldn't be necessary at all. The engineers could get away with much, much smaller I-beams instead.

Edit: Kevin, do you remember which video that was? Can you repost it? Thanks.

kevin

21st June 2006, 04:49 PM

ktesibios

21st June 2006, 04:50 PM

In case anyone else wants to try estimating the sizes of objects in Azazel's picture, there's another item that can be used for scale. Behind and to the right of the still-standing section of core structure there's an object which is obviously a piece of a perimeter column assembly. That's something with some known dimensions. The columns were spaced, IIRC, on 39" centers. One of the spandrels which joined the columns in groups of three is also visible, and we know that these were 52" high.

Of course, you have to compensate for distances and the fact that the column assembly piece is somewhat tilted WRT the viewing axis of the picture, but it still might prove a useful reference.

Not that Christophera's claims really need any more refutation.

Apollyon

21st June 2006, 05:04 PM

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

click the picture in the banner to go to the video. or this should take you straight there:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/sf_building_pop_01_qry.html
Much obliged sir.

In the video it looks as if my initial claim about the floor rebar was way off. It appears to be much tighter - possibly 8" or even 6" centers. When that one guys steps on them the distance between the rebar is only slightly larger than the width of his boot.

Christophera

21st June 2006, 05:54 PM

Also, please show your work that you used to arrive at

The work is a process of elimination, The work is simple experience with materials (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) and how they react to stresses. You really can't take a responsible part in the discussion if you cannot understand this.

RandFan

21st June 2006, 06:03 PM

Christophera

21st June 2006, 06:05 PM

Well, there probably was rebar in the floor slabs (at least I would assume as much). But, the issues are:

1 . It wouldn't be 3" rebar on 4' centers (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg).
2. The presence of rebar would not prove a concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).
3. The pics Christophera has shown, so far, do not show anything remotely resembling rebar (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg).
4. The rebar would not be part of the vertical support structure (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif).

Sure you knew this, but just clarifiying the issues a bit for our readers out there.
:)

Clarifying???

Many of the floors did not have rebar, only mesh. Lightweight concrete won't grip a rebar hard enough to use its strength. Here is the concrete schedule for the floors. Floors with stone concrete have rebar. I doubt larger than #4 bar.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2253&stc=1&d=1150934321

Read,

http://concretecreo.741.com

and use evidence to make competent opposition.

Christophera

21st June 2006, 06:10 PM

Nice try. You posted below a picture (http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2246&stc=1&d=1150909669) in response to Apollyon's reference to floor trusses and joists. Are you now telling me that you didn't mean for any part of that picture to represent a truss? If so, why would you answer a question about a truss with a picture of something that's not a truss, without explaining yourself? Or are you convinced that a "floor beam" isn't a truss?

On a half assed board that does not carry quotes, what can we expect? You to take advantage of the confusion created.

I posted the image (http://www.osha.gov/nyc-disaster/photoarchive/image5.jpg) because you refered to a truss fastened to the column.

Christophera

21st June 2006, 06:13 PM

Here's a thought, can you point out the original source of the picture? Not on your web page, I want to know exactly what the picture was of, and if it does happen to be the bottom of one of the elevator shafts.

I believe I downloaded it from this site.

http://www.toad.com/****nyccensors/wtc100301/wtc035.jpg

There are perhaps 4 of the same piece of core, interior box columns and stairwell. I chose the best one to cross section the structural elements. One of the others is very close.

Christophera

21st June 2006, 06:15 PM

So, you admit you have no way of verifying the validity of your claim in this post http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1712505#post1712505 ?

What claim? If it is about Robertson, no.

Christophera

21st June 2006, 06:17 PM

Christophera.

What kevin said.

I have already given my estimate of the size of the image which shows that you cannot see something 3" wide.

Dave

If you take 80 or so in a line then look down the line you will see them. and individuals will inconsistenly be visible.

The important thing is that your inability to come up with an alternative shows you are not being reasonable.

RandFan

21st June 2006, 06:24 PM

The important thing is that your inability to come up with an alternative shows you are not being reasonable.No, that is not how it works. If you have a claim it is incumbent upon you to prove the claim. No one need prove you wrong. No one need offer an alternative.

Christophera

21st June 2006, 06:30 PM

Yes. They are welded on.

Really? So a piece of conduit stuffed with cable and wiring is going to kink eaily when heated and bent, particularly when bent in the large radius that your picture shows?

/looks at steel-toed boots I'm wearing

/looks at hard hat with my name on it sitting on the shelf behind me

Hmmm. It appears you're speculating erroneously yet again. How unsurprising.

You don't "show" anything. Or is using MS Paint (badly, I might add) to create colored arrows your idea of making something proof positive?

Yes, conduit with wires in it will kink as badly as empty. You distort by using the word "stuffed". Wires in conduit must have clearance to pull them.

Somehow you seem like you are actually making stuff up and lying. You can't have expereince and argue about conduit bends as you do.

Christophera

21st June 2006, 06:35 PM

And I'd still say it's more likely that a flexible or semi-rigid structure would make a nice, even loop like that. Something rigid would be more likely to make a sharp-angle bend or break (IMHO).

The ones standing straight I'd suspect are metal conduit pipe or even water supply pipes.

Tempered steel will often not take a 90 degree bend without cracking. Mild steel will. Those coils are VERY rigid. Water pipes have couplers every 40 feet MAX. which will not take any of the stresses required to make the bend.

The shape of the coiled pieces on top of the core wall would not have survived the fall of debris if it was not surrounded in concrete. The concrete fractured from the C4 coating on the rebar detonating, pushing the debris out and coliing up the rebar with the heat and stress.

Christophera

21st June 2006, 06:40 PM

I don't know what it is either, so I'm not about to make a statement about its existence, then or now.

Amazing. You claim ignorance about something, and then in the same sentence have no problem feeling qualified to comment on its very existence. Kind of like you've been doing with every other topic in this thread.

I know the behavior of materials more than specific products. I am very familiar with heavy steel and steel reinforced concrete as well as blasting and the controlling principles.

Do you expect me to act like a know it all like apolyp?

Christophera

21st June 2006, 06:43 PM

Looking more closely at it, I'm still leaning towards some sort of thick metal cabling, such as might be expected on an elevator.

A 3 inch diameter piece of wire rope might do that but not an elevator cable. Very pliant by comparison.

Christophera

21st June 2006, 06:47 PM

Apollyon

21st June 2006, 06:55 PM

Clarifying???

Many of the floors did not have rebar, only mesh. Lightweight concrete won't grip a rebar hard enough to use its strength. Here is the concrete schedule for the floors. Floors with stone concrete have rebar. I doubt larger than #4 bar.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2253&stc=1&d=1150934321

Read,

http://concretecreo.741.com

and use evidence to make competent opposition.
First, what is the provenance of that document? I ask because you complain that Guliani has the information locked up, then you produce this piece of paper.

Second, where does it say that a mesh is to be used for the lighter weight concrete?

cloudshipsrule

21st June 2006, 06:57 PM

The concrete fractured from the C4 coating on the rebar detonating, pushing the debris out and coliing up the rebar with the heat and stress.

How in hell can you not see how irrational this belief is?

How many people do you think were involved in the actual construction of the buildings? I'm talking about just construction workers, not engineers. Hundereds. You think all of them have kept this a secret for 30 years. No one outside of the construction circle has known about this C4 coated rebar until you came up with the theory?

Chris, please listen to me carefully. As entertaining as this thread can be for rational individuals, if you truly believe in the C4 coated rebar theory, you really do have some type of schizophrenia. I'm not telling you this to be funny Chris.

John Nash honestly believed he had a roomate in college. He didn't. Think about that. His dillusions were/are very similar to yours. Conspiracy, cover-ups, secrets, big brother, etc...

cloudshipsrule

21st June 2006, 06:59 PM

Christophera

21st June 2006, 07:10 PM

One of the only scientifically verifiable pieces of info to be gleaned from this photo you keep referencing:

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

is that the channel 6 news crew has a nice Suburban in their fleet of vehicles. That's it. YOU CAN NOT GET DETAILED INFORMATION ABOUT THE WTC'S FROM THIS DAMN PHOTO.

Selective uses of evidence. You still didn't explain what it is with its many fine elements each having their own curve.

You WISH I couldn't get detailed information from that xcellent image, this is clear.

WHY?

Christophera

21st June 2006, 07:13 PM

How in hell can you not see how irrational this belief is?

How many people do you think were involved in the actual construction of the buildings? I'm talking about just construction workers, not engineers. Hundereds. You think all of them have kept this a secret for 30 years. No one outside of the construction circle has known about this C4 coated rebar until you came up with the theory?

Chris, please listen to me carefully. As entertaining as this thread can be for rational individuals, if you truly believe in the C4 coated rebar theory, you really do have some type of schizophrenia. I'm not telling you this to be funny Chris.

John Nash honestly believed he had a roomate in college. He didn't. Think about that. His dillusions were/are very similar to yours. Conspiracy, cover-ups, secrets, big brother, etc...

I would wager that a few construction people suspected. The PA did not deliver the revised core plans until 2 days before the core was scheduled to get started. The videographers who made the 1990 I viewed certainly made a mystery out of the concrete core, its rebar, the butt welds, and the "special, anti vibration, anti corrosion plastic coatint.".

Apollyon

21st June 2006, 07:16 PM

Yes, conduit with wires in it will kink as badly as empty. You distort by using the word "stuffed". Wires in conduit must have clearance to pull them.
Yes, conduit could potentially kink in a building collapse...if it's not heated first or even if it is heated. However, it's impossible to claim that conduit must kink, particularly when it's heated.

Basically what you are arguing is that it must kink in all situations, and you simply cannot prove that.

Somehow you seem like you are actually making stuff up and lying. You can't have expereince and argue about conduit bends as you do.
Says the guy who speaks of "high tensile rebar." :rolleyes:

Tricky

21st June 2006, 07:18 PM

RandFan

21st June 2006, 07:19 PM

Selective uses of evidence. You still didn't explain what it is with its many fine elements each having their own curve.

You WISH I couldn't get detailed information from that xcellent image, this is clear.

WHY? There is no detailed information there that has any relevance to what you are talking about. None.

Stellafane

21st June 2006, 07:19 PM

How in hell can you not see how irrational this belief is?

How many people do you think were involved in the actual construction of the buildings? I'm talking about just construction workers, not engineers. Hundereds. You think all of them have kept this a secret for 30 years. No one outside of the construction circle has known about this C4 coated rebar until you came up with the theory?

Chris, please listen to me carefully. As entertaining as this thread can be for rational individuals, if you truly believe in the C4 coated rebar theory, you really do have some type of schizophrenia. I'm not telling you this to be funny Chris.

John Nash honestly believed he had a roomate in college. He didn't. Think about that. His dillusions were/are very similar to yours. Conspiracy, cover-ups, secrets, big brother, etc...

John Nash also found secret messages encoded in innocuous magazine articles. Sort of like finding concrete cores in blurry photos...

Christophera

21st June 2006, 07:19 PM

Besides, you can be sure that with the steel being protected by a 17' thickness of concrete it was providing pretty good insulation from the fire, so the high tensile steel wouldn't have become anywhere near hot enough to bend. Any C4 charge strong enough to bust up 17' of concrete would have sheared that steel as well.

There was no fire there.

The C4 was a thin layer and it fractured the concrete.

There were other layers of steel in the very thick wal.l

kevin

21st June 2006, 07:20 PM

RandFan

21st June 2006, 07:22 PM

John Nash also found secret messages encoded in innocuous maganize articles. Sort of like finding concrete cores in blurry photos... :D We used to have a poster that found demons in photos and would go on and on demanding that people see what he could see. Sound familiar?

RandFan

21st June 2006, 07:29 PM

Christophera, you are now arguing ad nauseam. No one buys your theories simply because what you say is in the photos, isn't. It is not empirical and it isn't even sorta. You simply demand that people accept your theory based on blurry photos that lack the resolution and clarity to definitively show what you claim they show. Yelling over and over that you are right and everyone else is wrong is simply a waste of everyones time. Further people have provided photographic evidence that directly disputes your claim. You have not shown a single document that states that there was a concrete core. Not one. You've demonstrated that there was concrete there but that was never in dispute.

It's over dude. The only thing left is for you to realize it. I doubt you can though.

Christophera

21st June 2006, 08:04 PM

Arkan_Wolfshade

21st June 2006, 08:06 PM

It ain't over until images of the demolition show the supposed steel core columns. Currently, there is an entire website,

http://concretecore.741.com

of images that show the concrete core and not one steel core column is seen.

As bad as you WANT it to be over, it ain't over DUDE.

btw, WHY do you want it over so bad?
:words:

Christophera

21st June 2006, 08:10 PM

You been unable to prove this documentary even exists. I've linked to a documentary (2 or 3 times now) that shows the core being built. It doesn't support any of your theories.

Not nearly as bad as being unable to prove that there were 47, 1,300 foot steel columns inside the core while all the images show no steel columns, but do show concrete.

My proof of the documentary is shown by the fact that I can use images of the demolition logically to show that the images depict a concrete core.

Here is the concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg) next to the spire.

rwguinn

21st June 2006, 08:10 PM

The work is a process of elimination, The work is simple experience with materials (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) and how they react to stresses. You really can't take a responsible part in the discussion if you cannot understand this.
yes?
I do it for a living smart boy/girl/beingofundeterminednature.
Steel, Aluminum, bronze, titanium, graphite/epoxy composites. Stress/strain, and strength are what I do. I even took an 8 hour, 8 question test to prove my capability in the field.
I have never had an unexpected failure due to expected loading in any aircraft, spacecraft, structure, or land vehicle I did the analysis for. And I've been doing it for longer than you likely have been alive.
Did you notice all those round thingies in your pictures "proving" that the columns were continuously butt-welded? (that's the correct spelling, BTW)
They are called "Bolts" and "Rivets". They are fastened through "fish plates" to connect beams together--and beam is an engineering term which is a long part with a known cross-section, and it does not have to be horizontal. It can be vertical (used as a column) or horizontal (used as a joist). It's a chunk of building material.

Christophera

21st June 2006, 08:11 PM

RandFan

21st June 2006, 08:12 PM

...there is an entire website of images that show the concrete core and not one steel core column is seen. So you say. That is just an assertion by you. That you assert it doesn't make it true.

As bad as you WANT it to be over, it ain't over DUDE.

btw, WHY do you want it over so bad? I have no such desire. I'm stating that you are making the same arguments over and over and they are having no effect because like the guy who thought he could see demons in the photos there are no concrete cores to be seen in the photos.

Arkan_Wolfshade

21st June 2006, 08:15 PM

Yes, :words: try some in answer. WHY?

Because you're a moron. You can't debate. You have no idea how scientific process works. You don't understand the basics of forensics. Your right info to wrong info ratio is abyssmal. You are unable to do anything but regurgitate the same vomit over and over ad nauseum. You're boring. You're a troll, a blight on the thread. You're not contributing anything meaningful. You dismiss any evidence that doesn't support your preconceived notions. And you smell funny.

Okay, I don't actually know if you smell funny, it's just a s.w.a.g. on my part.

Christophera

21st June 2006, 08:15 PM

yes?
I do it for a living smart boy/girl/beingofundeterminednature.
Steel, Aluminum, bronze, titanium, graphite/epoxy composites. Stress/strain, and strength are what I do. I even took an 8 hour, 8 question test to prove my capability in the field.
I have never had an unexpected failure due to expected loading in any aircraft, spacecraft, structure, or land vehicle I did the analysis for. And I've been doing it for longer than you likely have been alive.
Did you notice all those round thingies in your pictures "proving" that the columns were continuously butt-welded? (that's the correct spelling, BTW)
They are called "Bolts" and "Rivets". They are fastened through "fish plates" to connect beams together--and beam is an engineering term which is a long part with a known cross-section, and it does not have to be horizontal. It can be vertical (used as a column) or horizontal (used as a joist). It's a chunk of building material.

Sorry,

Proof requires more than this.

"Did you notice all those round thingies in your pictures "proving" that the columns were continuously butt-welded?"

How about a link and some language locating your thingies?

Christophera

21st June 2006, 08:20 PM

yes?
I do it for a living smart boy/girl/beingofundeterminednature.
Steel, Aluminum, bronze, titanium, graphite/epoxy composites. Stress/strain, and strength are what I do. I even took an 8 hour, 8 question test to prove my capability in the field.
I have never had an unexpected failure due to expected loading in any aircraft, spacecraft, structure, or land vehicle I did the analysis for. And I've been doing it for longer than you likely have been alive.
Did you notice all those round thingies in your pictures "proving" that the columns were continuously butt-welded? (that's the correct spelling, BTW)
They are called "Bolts" and "Rivets". They are fastened through "fish plates" to connect beams together--and beam is an engineering term which is a long part with a known cross-section, and it does not have to be horizontal. It can be vertical (used as a column) or horizontal (used as a joist). It's a chunk of building material.

Sorry,

Proof (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg) has some substance, and requires more than what you've provided.

"Did you notice all those round thingies in your pictures "proving" that the columns were continuously butt-welded?"

How about a link and some language locating your thingies?

Arkan_Wolfshade

21st June 2006, 08:23 PM

Sorry,

Proof (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg) has some substance, and requires more than what you've provided.

"Did you notice all those round thingies in your pictures "proving" that the columns were continuously butt-welded?"

How about a link and some language locating your thingies?

:words: <same damned picture you've reposted 20+ times> :words:

aggle-rithm

21st June 2006, 08:30 PM

Sorry,

Proof requires more than this.

"Did you notice all those round thingies in your pictures "proving" that the columns were continuously butt-welded?"

How about a link and some language locating your thingies?

Sigh.

Where did this misconception come from, that having a link to something is the ultimate test of its veracity?

Check out this (www.johnmreese.net/911truth.htm) link.

rwguinn

21st June 2006, 08:36 PM

Christophera

21st June 2006, 08:42 PM

Yes, conduit could potentially kink in a building collapse.

Double duh, take your hard hat off.

if it's not heated first or even if it is heated. However, it's impossible to claim that conduit must kink, particularly when it's heated.

Absolutely laughable. Unless is is very evenly heated it will not even remain concentric without bending. You know the wrapper on a straw, think of hot conduit.

if it's not heated first or even if it is heated. Basically what you are arguing is that it must kink in all situations, and you simply cannot prove that.

Says the guy who speaks of "high tensile rebar." (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)

All pipe will collapse and fold easily when bent past 90 degrees unless very special measures are taken.

NOTICE:

The first, yes, ............. the very first time I've ever used a :rolleyes:

Christophera

21st June 2006, 08:47 PM

your picture, from 3 pages ago..

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2264&d=1150943755

Sure I see the bolts holding the plates to the beams and beam clips welded to the column.

My point is that the column is butt welded

Note the discolored area seen to the right of the intersection of the floor beams. A weld has been ground off. About 4 o'clock from the "S" in "RIVITS".

gumboot

21st June 2006, 08:47 PM

Sigh.

Where did this misconception come from, that having a link to something is the ultimate test of its veracity?

Check out this (www.johnmreese.net/911truth.htm) link.

Hah hah hah

I think that's going to become my favourite resource!

-Andrew

Christophera

21st June 2006, 08:53 PM

Because you're a moron. You can't debate. You have no idea how scientific process works. You don't understand the basics of forensics. Your right info to wrong info ratio is abyssmal. You are unable to do anything but regurgitate the same vomit over and over ad nauseum. You're boring. You're a troll, a blight on the thread. You're not contributing anything meaningful. You dismiss any evidence that doesn't support your preconceived notions. And you smell funny.

Okay, I don't actually know if you smell funny, it's just a s.w.a.g. on my part.

Could you be clearer, more specific, than s.w.a.g.,

4 entries found for s.w.a.g.

swag P Pronunciation Key (swg)
n.
An ornamental drapery or curtain draped in a curve between two points.
An ornamental festoon of flowers or fruit.
A carving or plaster molding of such an ornament.
Slang. Stolen property; loot.
Australian. The pack or bundle containing the personal belongings of a swagman.
Slang. Herbal tea in a plastic sandwich bag sold as marijuana to an unsuspecting customer.

Christophera

21st June 2006, 08:55 PM

Sigh.

Where did this misconception come from, that having a link to something is the ultimate test of its veracity?

Check out this (www.johnmreese.net/911truth.htm) link.

So typical of those who support the official core structure with no evidence. They get frustrated and spam the thread.

The Towers had concrete cores.

http://concretecore.741.com

rwguinn

21st June 2006, 08:56 PM

Could you be clearer, more specific, than s.w.a.g.,

4 entries found for s.w.a.g.

swag P Pronunciation Key (swg)
n.
An ornamental drapery or curtain draped in a curve between two points.
An ornamental festoon of flowers or fruit.
A carving or plaster molding of such an ornament.
Slang. Stolen property; loot.
Australian. The pack or bundle containing the personal belongings of a swagman.
Slang. Herbal tea in a plastic sandwich bag sold as marijuana to an unsuspecting customer.

unlike your W.A.G.'s, a S.W.A.G. is a scientific Wild ***** Guess....

kevin

21st June 2006, 09:08 PM

So typical of those who support the official core structure with no evidence. They get frustrated and spam the thread.

The Towers had concrete cores.

http://concretecore.741.com

this site is a lie. you cannot prove a single accusation or "fact" you've posted to that site. your "evidence" wouldn't pass the laugh test in a kindergarten class. Your knowledge about things you speak is actually worse than being totally ignorant, it's anti-knowledge.

bignickel

21st June 2006, 09:12 PM

So typical of those who support the official core structure with no evidence. They get frustrated and spam the thread.

... says the man who's posted a link to the same image of a faraway building collapse 20 times (and then claimed he could see detailed info in said collapse).

realitybites

21st June 2006, 09:15 PM

So typical of those who support the official core structure with no evidence. They get frustrated and spam the thread.

The Towers had concrete cores.

http://concretecore.741.com
Thanks Christopher.... ah.

I have this thing in my brain where I can't see a hyperlink until the 47th time it's posted. I just now finally saw the link to that site (is it your own?) that you use as evidence.

Hope there's room in the pews, 'cause you got yourself a convert on your hands!!!

Christophera

21st June 2006, 09:16 PM

this site is a lie. you cannot prove a single accusation or "fact" you've posted to that site. your "evidence" wouldn't pass the laugh test in a kindergarten class. Your knowledge about things you speak is actually worse than being totally ignorant, it's anti-knowledge.

Easy to say.

You need evidence of the steel core columns you support, from demo images at elevation, to make it stick. Notice no one has explained what these fine, lightly curving, vertical elements are if they are not 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg).

Christophera

21st June 2006, 09:19 PM

Thanks Christopher.... ah.

I have this thing in my brain where I can't see a hyperlink until the 47th time it's posted. I just now finally saw the link to that site (is it your own?) that you use as evidence.

Hope there's room in the pews, 'cause you got yourself a convert on your hands!!!

Yes, that is my site. Excellent, it's getting crowded, but there's always room! Here's a few comments from the past.

http://algoxy.com/psych/supportfor9-11truth.html

realitybites

21st June 2006, 09:30 PM

Yes, that is my site. Excellent, it's getting crowded, but there's always room! Here's a few comments from the past.

http://algoxy.com/psych/supportfor9-11truth.html
Well I'm totally comforted by the fact that your 100% unbiased research is being relied upon by yourself to expose the government. It also is encouraging to see that commenters from the Democratic Underground (again, a neutral ground if there ever was one) find your un-tainted logic to be on point as well.

All in all, I'm really digging my new status as a "truth seeker".

My only request is that the dude I'm sitting next to in the pew? The one that smells like a vegetable compost/patchouli hybrid? Yeah, can we either have him moved to the back of the Church of Truth or just pretend he's a government shill and have him capped?

'Preciate it. ;)

Christophera

21st June 2006, 09:30 PM

... says the man who's posted a link to the same image of a faraway building collapse 20 times (and then claimed he could see detailed info in said collapse).

You forgot to explain what these fine vertical elements are if they are not 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg). Oh,........ why are there no steel core columns showing.

Or what that is to the left of the spire if it is not a concrete shear wall concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg). Why are there no steel core columns showing.

Closer, you can just see the fractured end of the concrete shear wall zoomed (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) Why are there no steel core columns showing.

Here we see a huge grey block sitting between the interior box columns, outside the core, which can only be the core wall at the base of the tower. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) Why are there no steel core columns showing.

And all of this is fully consistent with the Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/oxfordarchcore.jpg)

wtf, ............... I mean concrete is the most common building material in the world.

Apollyon

21st June 2006, 09:35 PM

Double duh, take your hard hat off.
It's necessary when replying to you.

Absolutely laughable. Unless is is very evenly heated it will not even remain concentric without bending. You know the wrapper on a straw, think of hot conduit.
"Concentric?"

Do you just pull words out of your [rule8] that you can't even use properly?

All pipe will collapse and fold easily when bent past 90 degrees unless very special measures are taken.
Thanks for proving, as I suspected, that you don't know wtf you're talking about.

NOTICE:

[quote]The first, yes, ............. the very first time I've ever used a :rolleyes:
Good for you. Keep up your training. You'll get the hang of clicking on emoticons eventually.

NobbyNobbs

21st June 2006, 09:42 PM

You forgot to explain what these fine vertical elements are if they are not 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg). Oh,........ why are there no steel core columns showing.

Or what that is to the left of the spire if it is not a concrete shear wall concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg). Why are there no steel core columns showing.

Closer, you can just see the fractured end of the concrete shear wall zoomed (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) Why are there no steel core columns showing.

Here we see a huge grey block sitting between the interior box columns, outside the core, which can only be the core wall at the base of the tower. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) Why are there no steel core columns showing.

And all of this is fully consistent with the Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/oxfordarchcore.jpg)

wtf, ............... I mean concrete is the most common building material in the world.

The reason you don't see steel core columns is because the f****ing thing COLLAPSED!!!!

Beleth

21st June 2006, 09:44 PM

You need evidence of the steel core columns you support, from demo images at elevation, to make it stick. Why? Why does he need ones defined so specifically, when there is better evidence taken at better times and at better elevations?

There are crystal-clear pictures of the steel core columns at the time of the erection of the building. Why is that not sufficient?

There are no dead people in your pictures either. Is that evidence that no one died in the collapses?

Oh, and while I'm making my one and probably only post in this thread --
That document you posted only describes that concrete was used in the floors of the WTC. It says nothing about a central column.

Christophera

21st June 2006, 09:53 PM

Why? Why does he need ones defined so specifically, when there is better evidence taken at better times and at better elevations?

There are crystal-clear pictures of the steel core colums (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) at the time of the erection of the building. Why is that not sufficient?

All of those columns are outside the core area and here, we see no steel core columns. And here (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) we see no core columns, and here (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) we see none. The spire is at the corner of the core, but outside the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif), then the steel fell away from the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

There are no dead people in your pictures either. Is that evidence that no one died in the collapses?

There are an infinite number of things that are not a concern with that image which are also not shown in it.

The steel columns are a concern and they are absent.

Oh, and while I'm making my one and probably only post in this thread --
That document you posted only describes that concrete was used in the floors of the WTC. It says nothing about a central column.

I never said it did. If it said that I would have presented it first.

In the documentary it explained that the concrete schedule for floors was very late as much testing for strength was being done. So that is what that is ,just floors.

I remember a little about that. Note the floors that are stone aggregate. Note the distribution of them. The location and distributon of those heavy floors optimized the cantilever resistence of the tower by increasing compression strength of the floors and stabilized the tower to the max.

gumboot

21st June 2006, 09:58 PM

TheFeds

21st June 2006, 10:17 PM

In the documentary it explained that the concrete schedule for floors was very late as much testing for strength was being done. So that is what that is ,just floors.

I remember a little about that. Note the floors that are stone aggregate. Note the distribution of them. The location and distributon of those heavy floors optimized the cantilever resistence of the tower by increasing compression strength of the floors and stabilized the tower to the max.That's fine; nobody disputes that the floors were concrete over corrugated steel panels. But what about a similar BOM for the rest of the concrete used in the structure?

Christophera

21st June 2006, 11:13 PM

That's fine; nobody disputes that the floors were concrete over corrugated steel panels. But what about a similar BOM for the rest of the concrete used in the structure?

The mayor of new york took the WTC documents and will not return them. Courts will not make him. Other plans exist secretly, but no admissions of that will be found.

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

The simple logic used to analyse the elements of this a' la' Holmes style is adequate. "We don't need no stinking plans", with this image of the core wall at the base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg).

We can agree, the towers had a core, hollow except for elevators and stairs. In the above linked image we see, from left to right, the interior box column, outside the core wall. Moving right is a grey mass. Oops, ...... by the FEMA core (http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/femacore.gif) we should have steel columns starting up. Moving right, we see a stairwell, Oops, we should have more steel core columns but see none. Moving right, no core columns.

Take that entire section closer to you and you should see a number of core columns in the foreground. Conclusion based on consistecncy of other information of the concrete FEMA core (http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/femacore.gif), it is very reasonable to say that the towers had a concrete core because we know they had cores and there are no steel core columns.

How the concrete instantly fractured to fall to SAND & GRAVEL (http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg) on the ground is another story.

Beleth

21st June 2006, 11:20 PM

There are an infinite number of things that are not a concern with that image which are also not shown in it.

The steel columns are a concern and they are absent.
Just because they are a concern to you does not mean that they were a concern to the photographer.

Are the lack of dead bodies in those pictures evidence that no one died in the collapses? Yes or no, please.

Christophera

21st June 2006, 11:41 PM

I'm now convinced this is either a troll, or something who has quite serious mental problems. I'm not joking. It isn't just the stubborn repetion (IDENTICAL at that) of the same links, with the same names, etc. It's the evidence of very poor language when deviating outside technical mumbo jumbo. And it's how utterly and completely oblivious Christopher is when people start to take the piss.

I am convinced that Christoper is completely failing, at a cognative level, to actually follow the progression of this thread.

He reminds me of a robot repeatedly walking into a wall.

-Andrew

I only have a limited amount of evidence, still, when you have none, it must feel to you like I can produce proof of the core endlessly. Well I can't, so when you say "no" one more time, I post the evidence one more time and reasonably describe how it fits in with other facts. Just because you continuosly treat it as dismissed, does not mean it has actually been done.

The evidence can only be properly dismissed with counter evidence of the same quality. Since the event has been mislabeled by the media at official behest and 3000 capitol crimes occured and due process laws violated, and analysis are not consistent with observed events, the burden of proof lies with those in support of the un lawful acts by government.

Prove the steel core columns existed by using images of the demolition just as I prove that there was a steel reinforced cast concrete tube for a core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

Christophera

21st June 2006, 11:45 PM

Just because they are a concern to you does not mean that they were a concern to the photographer.

Are the lack of dead bodies in those pictures evidence that no one died in the collapses? Yes or no, please.

The point is immaterial when considering this is a quest for exactly how they died. We know they died and do not need evidence from this image to confirm this. Your language is obfuscation of the discussion and intended to confuse the message of how they died.

Unreasonable.

Christophera

21st June 2006, 11:52 PM

Thanks for proving, as I suspected, that you don't know wtf you're talking about.

Dude, take your hat off and pick up your pencil if the word "concentric" causes you to stumble. You misrepresent yourself completely.

Beleth

21st June 2006, 11:52 PM

We know they died and do not need evidence from this image to confirm this.
Likewise, we know there was a steel, not concrete, core and do not need evidence from the demo images to confirm this.

Christophera

22nd June 2006, 12:43 AM

Well I'm totally comforted by the fact that your 100% unbiased research is being relied upon by yourself to expose the government. It also is encouraging to see that commenters from the Democratic Underground (again, a neutral ground if there ever was one) find your un-tainted logic to be on point as well.

All in all, I'm really digging my new status as a "truth seeker".

My only request is that the dude I'm sitting next to in the pew? The one that smells like a vegetable compost/patchouli hybrid? Yeah, can we either have him moved to the back of the Church of Truth or just pretend he's a government shill and have him capped?

'Preciate it. ;)

Remember, you are working with a lie, that's an opposite. You think its bad now? Wait till later when reality bites.

RandFan

22nd June 2006, 12:46 AM

I post the evidence one more time and reasonably describe how it fits in with other facts. That's the problem. It doesn't. You simply asert that it does. And it is by defintion fallacy.

Argumentum ad nauseam (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#nauseam)

Christophera

22nd June 2006, 12:46 AM

Likewise, we know there was a steel, not concrete, core and do not need evidence from the demo images to confirm this.

You are saying it is as easy to prove there was a steel core as it is to prove 3000 people died?

Great, go for it? I've been asking since the begining for this.

Christophera

22nd June 2006, 12:53 AM

The reason you don't see steel core columns is because the f****ing thing COLLAPSED!!!!

Thank you, valiant attempt.

They were 47, continous 1300 foot tall columns and we never see them in the sky but the exterior is totally gone and they must be visible IF it is a collapse because steel won't tear/shear/separate that easily. 47 and we cannot ever see one as the towers come down.

The spire (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) is not a core column, it is outside the core.

If it had steel core columns at this juncture you must explain how the steel core columns were removed to support the contention.

Regnad Kcin

22nd June 2006, 01:02 AM

Mr. Brown:

You have posted 47 times since I last asked you to answer the simple question found most recently in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1716723&postcount=1235). Will you please answer?

Here are pertinent posts regarding my request:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1711843&postcount=700

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1710640&postcount=630

Again, how many undamaged stories were above the impacted stories in WTC 1 and WTC 2?

Regnad Kcin

22nd June 2006, 01:05 AM

By the way, Mr. Brown, are you still standing by the authenticity of this:

Originally Posted by Christophera :
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
Get real. I don't know. But if it is from Robertson, he's done about what I would do in his situation given his position.If you "don't know," why did you present it here, then?

Dave_46

22nd June 2006, 01:46 AM

snip
--and beam is an engineering term which is a long part with a known cross-section, and it does not have to be horizontal. It can be vertical (used as a column) or horizontal (used as a joist). It's a chunk of building material.

That surprises me a bit. I've always thought that a beam was a horizontal member. Still, if that's the case I guess I owe Christophera an apology for complaining that one of the images he uses refers to vertical reinforcing as a beam. That graphic is still wrong about the melting temperature of steel though.

Dave

Dave_46

22nd June 2006, 01:50 AM

The mayor of new york took the WTC documents and will not return them. Courts will not make him. Other plans exist secretly, but no admissions of that will be found.

snip

If they are secret, how do you know about them. Are you an insider, with special information.

Dave

bignickel

22nd June 2006, 02:02 AM

You forgot to explain what these fine vertical elements are if they are not 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg). Oh,........ why are there no steel core columns showing.

I can't see ANYTHING in your photo except a the news crew, their SUV, and a very far away collapsing building.

So: why don't you provide a phot that's MUCH closer, where we can actually see what it is that you're referring to?

I could post pictures of clouds and tell you the face of Henry Kissinger is in there, but many here would hold me to higher standard of proof then "Well, if you can't see it, that sounds like a personel problem."

Apollyon

22nd June 2006, 05:26 AM

Dude, take your hat off and pick up your pencil if the word "concentric" causes you to stumble. You misrepresent yourself completely.
Do you find that people frequently point and laugh at you and you don't understand exactly why?

I'm still waiting for an answer concerning the provenance of the concrete spec you posted. You complain about the "mayor" (psssst, he's not the mayor any longer) having these documents then you produce this internal document on concrete specifications for the WTC.

I also would like to know where you got information on using mesh vs. rebar in the floors. I don't see anything to substantiate that claim. There should be copious amounts of that mesh in the debris if it was on as many floors as you claimed. So care to produce a clear picture of it?

Johnny Pixels

22nd June 2006, 05:45 AM

Christophera, take a look at this photo, and try to understand why people are frustrated. Can you tell me:

http://img234.imageshack.us/img234/9020/picture01825af.jpg

1) What type of roof the building in the background has?
2) What type of finish is the buildings facade?
3) The name of the bus company that the bus belongs to?
4) The name of the company that owns the recovery truck?
5) The material of the brown patch at the bottom of the doorway?
6) The thickness of the hand holds on the backs of the seats in the top deck?
7) The shape of those hand holds
8) The diameter of the disc brakes on the orange Peugeot in the foreground?

You can't tell these things because the photo does not have a high enough resolution. Some of these things you can't tell from a photo. This is the same with your photos.

Belz...

22nd June 2006, 05:50 AM

Any C4 charge strong enough to bust up 17' of concrete would have sheared that steel as well.

Has anyone actually calculated the amount of C4 required to do all that ? It must be astronomical!!

It's from one of the floors. Notice the large pieces of "pulverized" concrete laying around too. ;)

I keep telling Christ that, and he ignores me every time.

Belz...

22nd June 2006, 05:54 AM

Somehow you seem like you are actually making stuff up and lying. You can't have expereince and argue about conduit bends as you do.

I was wondering when that No True Scottsman would come.

Belz...

22nd June 2006, 05:57 AM

You WISH I couldn't get detailed information from that xcellent image, this is clear.

Excellent ?? Can't you see the pixelisation on the "shear wall" ? You can't make out anything on that picture!!

Tempered steel will often not take a 90 degree bend without cracking. Mild steel will. Those coils are VERY rigid. Water pipes have couplers every 40 feet MAX. which will not take any of the stresses required to make the bend.

The shape of the coiled pieces on top of the core wall would not have survived the fall of debris if it was not surrounded in concrete. The concrete fractured from the C4 coating on the rebar detonating, pushing the debris out and coliing up the rebar with the heat and stress.

It's amazing how you seem to know what you're talking about in one paragraph...

... and then claim that rebar was coated with C4.

Belz...

22nd June 2006, 05:59 AM

There was no fire there.

The C4 was a thin layer and it fractured the concrete.

There were other layers of steel in the very thick wal.l

Can C4 really be used that way ? Thin layer ? Huntsman ?

azazal

22nd June 2006, 07:02 AM

It seems that to resolve anything small we will find that it measures larger because of blur.

that image is reinforcement for this one (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)

TRANSLATION: Crap my argument has fallen apart, quick try a misdirect

So here's another nail in the 3 inch rebar coffin, same core, different pic.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/azazal/Misc/WTC2working.jpg

As can be seen we have people in a basket going up to the same floor as the "rebar". Taking a count on those people, I'm getting 30 pixels. Again guessing an approx height of 6 feet, came sout to 2.4 inches per pixel. Checking the "rebar" loop, I'm counting a width of 4 pixels or 9.6 inches. Ao again we can clearly see that the "rebar" is not rebar at all.

Apollyon

22nd June 2006, 07:04 AM

I looked closer at the concrete spec document provided by Christophera and have serious doubts as to its authenticity. Part of the problem stems from the very Rathergate-ish fact that the document uses proportional fonts instead of monospaced fonts. A document this old would have been done on a typewriter. There's the very precise centering of the text in the title blocks (something virtually impossible to do on a typewriter), a two-column layout, precise use of tab stops (not impossible but very cumbersome and difficult to do on a typewriter), and the underlined heading text. Everything I see indicates that this was done on a computer. Nor would any respectable secretary in an engineering firm have allowed the word "mehtod" to have been passed along in an official company specification. At the very least it would have been whited out and typed over.

So, Chris, your document is most likely a fake.

I'm still waiting to hear where you got it from.

Stellafane

22nd June 2006, 07:29 AM

Arkan_Wolfshade

22nd June 2006, 07:39 AM

I am now seriously wondering whether Christophera is suffering from some sort of visual hallucinations. That would explain why he keeps insisting he sees concrete cores where none exists. Imagine if we showed a picture of Golden Gate to a friend, and said friend stated "I don't see a bridge." We would probably conclude this person was lying, stupid, or delusional, right? Well, that's how Chris is coming off -- he sees the bridge (or in this case, concrete core), and none of us do. The problem is, it's in his head, not in the photo -- which doesn't make it any less real for him. So he can't for the life of him understand why we don't see it too.

I actually hope I'm wrong. I'd rather he be a shameless troll or just another snot-nosed CT'er than be afflicted by such a debilitating problem.

Two things on your bridge example
1) You'd be able to describe what you see, with specific detail, to the point where your friend could determine without doubt that you were seeing something different. You could describe the specifics of the bridge to the point were it would be clear you were not interpretting the waves of the bay incorrectly.
2) If all your friends were in agreement in what they saw was different from what you saw, you would have the sense to reconsider what you saw/see.

Big Les

22nd June 2006, 08:04 AM

I would wager that a few construction people suspected. The PA did not deliver the revised core plans until 2 days before the core was scheduled to get started. The videographers who made the 1990 I viewed certainly made a mystery out of the concrete core, its rebar, the butt welds, and the "special, anti vibration, anti corrosion plastic coatint.".

WHAT F*CKING DOCUMENTARY???? What are you talking about? Who made it? What channel did it air on? Is it available on video/dvd/mpeg/wax cylinder???????

Why should we be expected to concede any of your points that are substantially supported by scenes from a 16-year old TV programme that none of us have ever heard of, much less seen, and for which you are unable to provide any evidence, let alone clips or screencaps?

How about we start with this documentary - get some screencaps, clips or at least evidence of its existence on the board NOW, or expect to be put on many, many ignore lists.
Yeesh.

Belz...

22nd June 2006, 08:04 AM

Belz...

22nd June 2006, 08:07 AM

wtf, ............... I mean concrete is the most common building material in the world.

You wouldn't happen to have a picture of the WTC during construction that would show the concrete beign poured, would you ? Or a contract showing the company that was responsible for pouring it ? Or what ?

Belz...

22nd June 2006, 08:09 AM

All of those columns are outside the core area and here, we see no steel core columns. And here (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) we see no core columns, and here (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) we see none. The spire is at the corner of the core, but outside the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif), then the steel fell away from the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

You don't see any core columns in this (http://www.kitten-central.com/burmilla2.jpg) picture either.

Belz...

22nd June 2006, 08:11 AM

The evidence can only be properly dismissed with counter evidence of the same quality.

Which is why I think my previous post disproves your theory.

Belz...

22nd June 2006, 08:15 AM

TRANSLATION: Crap my argument has fallen apart, quick try a misdirect

So here's another nail in the 3 inch rebar coffin, same core, different pic.

As can be seen we have people in a basket going up to the same floor as the "rebar". Taking a count on those people, I'm getting 30 pixels. Again guessing an approx height of 6 feet, came sout to 2.4 inches per pixel. Checking the "rebar" loop, I'm counting a width of 4 pixels or 9.6 inches. Ao again we can clearly see that the "rebar" is not rebar at all.

I think chris thinks the core in his oft-posted image is much smaller than it really is, allowing him to see rebar.

... mind you, he must see rebar in his alpha-bits...

Apollyon

22nd June 2006, 08:16 AM

Another issue with Christophera's claim just came to mind. A concrete core, particularly one 17' thick at the base, would have to have had a very significant footer to support it that would need to go all the way down to bedrock. None of the construction videos show any such footer being poured. If this sudden change in plans came only two days prior to construction of the core, as Chris claims, that footer would have to have been poured and allowed to cure, causing significant delays in construction.

Where's the footer for the concrete core, Chris?

Arkan_Wolfshade

22nd June 2006, 08:32 AM

Okay, Christophera is claiming a 17' x 17' concrete core, right? Each tower was 110 stories tall (above the plaza, the 7 stories below the plaza are moot). He says the cores stopped 7 stories from the top. One story = 10 feet, yeah?

So, we have 17' x 17' x ((110-7)*10) cubic feet of concrete in the core.
Which works out to 17 * 17 * 1030
=> 297670 cubic feet of concrete

Per here http://www.concreteexchange.com/mixer/mix_1_2_notes.jsp

(remembering that a cubic foot of concrete weighs about 140 pounds, and a yard about 3,780 pounds)

So, our 297,670 cubic feet of concrete core * 140 = 41,673,800 lbs of concrete.
=> 20,836.9 tons of concrete

I claim this core would have been too small to be structurally significant to the towers.

Hellbound

22nd June 2006, 08:47 AM

As to your number 4, rebar would definitely be part of a vertical support structure.

I should have added "if there was not a concrete core". ;)

Which was what I meant, that could not be rebar in Chris's pic because the core wasn't concrete.

Gravy

22nd June 2006, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by me
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.

Another day has gone by, Christophera. Where's the diagram of the many moving hallways that you promised?

Christophera, what is the recipe for invisible concrete?

NobbyNobbs

22nd June 2006, 09:00 AM

Christophera:

First of all, you said

I do not know what, "Plastic, plenum-rated" conduit is, but I seriously doubt it existed in 1967.

I'd like to know how you can make such a definitive statement about something you know nothing about.

Secondly, you say that the non-existence of steel core in post-collapse pictures proves there is no steel core. We say the non-existence of dead people in post-collapse pictures proves there are no dead people. Kindly explain the logical difference between these two statements.

Thirdly, you say

We know they died and do not need evidence from this image to confirm this.

Please explain why images are not needed for evidence in this case but they are needed for evidence of a steel core.

Fourthly, you say the concrete core was 7 stories from the top. Was this just during construction? I mean, did it eventually "catch up" to the rest of the building? If so, you should have no problem finding pictures from the top of the building near the end of construction that show the concrete core. In other words, while you say it is necessary to see demolition photos that show the core, we say it is necessary to see construction photos that show the core. I don't think our request is any less reasonable than yours.

Finally, if you can distinguish 3" rebar from across the river in the cloud of a collapsing building, there should be no problem disinguishing 5' office desks, 3' windows, 10' air conditioning units, and 6' people. Please point out any of these in your photos. Thank you.

Hellbound

22nd June 2006, 09:10 AM

Can C4 really be used that way ? Thin layer ? Huntsman ?

There are "sheet explosives" that can be made with C-4, but I don't beleive they are any thinner than 1/2" or so. I haven't personally worked with them, so I'm not as familiar.

However, there are a few problems with "C-4 coated rebar".

1. C-4, although called plastic explosive, is not plastic. It has a consistency somewhere between modelling clay and Play-Doh. So using C-4 coated rebar would mean your concrete core was peppered with holes that allowed the rebar inside to wiggle. IN other words, the rebar would provide ZERO structural support, and the holes left would weaken the concrete.

2. Sheet explosives have problems with detonating simultaneously. Even a small (4' by 4') sheet requires multiple detonators to get a proper detonation. Installing the detonators as Chris likes to believe they were would require many, multiple holes all over each floor. And no one noticed.

3. 17 feet of concrete? No, not going to do it with a sheet. It takes a 1/2" sheet large enough to wrap completely around an I-beam (following the contours of the beam) to cut it. 4 lbs. of C-4 are needed to breach a reinforced concrete wall enough to make a man-sized hole. I'll double-check my figures (I keep forgetting to dig out my old engineer books at home) tonight, but no, it would take a lot more than a thin-coating on rebar every 4 feet.

While I'm typing, I believe Chris thinks there can't be steel core columns unless thos columns are in the exact center of the building.

Of course, his concrete columns are not there, either.

What he calls "interior box columns" are the steel core. It was several columns, arrange in a rectangle central to the building, and cross-connected by trusses, struts, joists, or whatever. Think of it like a steel cage, and you're close.

As to why it isn't seen in the collapse...well, duh. The steel core fell first, which is what brought the rest of the structure down. As was stated in several of the consrution documents, the beams were tack-weilded together, and mostly relied on tension to stay in place, once the collapse began (whith failure of the columns at the damaged floors) and the columns began to fail, it was like knocking over a stack of wooden blocks. You wouldn't expect the core columns to remain standing.

Meffy

22nd June 2006, 09:14 AM

Think of it like a steel cage, and you're close.
I'm flashing on Lovelace.

"Invisicrete does not a core make,
Nor iron rebars a cage."

Crummy scansion. Ah well.

azazal

22nd June 2006, 09:18 AM

Think of it like a steel cage, and you're close.

Whay am I thinking that a steel cage death match will be the only way to win this arguement. Really it's getting to the point were need to put the CTers in corners and the JREFers in the other, and let them fight it out, winner takes all.

Apollyon

22nd June 2006, 09:22 AM

I should have added "if there was not a concrete core". ;)

Which was what I meant, that could not be rebar in Chris's pic because the core wasn't concrete.
Ahh. Gotcha. Alles klar.

CptColumbo

22nd June 2006, 09:29 AM

If anyone cares to contact Leslie Robertson and confirm the letter:

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

I don't believe I would have the technical expertise to convey what the letter says or understand the answer enough to relay it here. Hopefully, it isn't a fabrication, because that could lead to legal proceedings.

TheFeds

22nd June 2006, 09:36 AM

So, Chris, your document is most likely a fake.

I'm still waiting to hear where you got it from.I'm just wondering what would possess him to falsify a document that doesn't even advance his argument. Nobody cares about floors—that's not a matter of contention. So why tell us all about the floor material? (Incidentally, I can't really see where you're perceiving trickery. It looks to me as if the sans-serif font used in some of the table cells is part of the stationery, and the serif monospace font retains its vertical alignment, as it should. The typewriter I remember playing with—I think it was a late-70s IBM—could accommodate stops easily, just by sliding a pair of levers for right and left margins; tabs were preset widths, and would take you to the next stop for every press of the button.)

Does anyone have any documentation that indicates the nature of the concrete purportedly used as the structure of the core? The type of forms used? The contractor who was responsible? If the real building records are no longer on file with the city (for whatever reason), surely the architects and engineers would have records of their own. Right now, all photographs of the construction, irrespective of the floor that they were taken on, appear to show steel structure. Some photos of the destruction show a tall object that later collapses, which could well be the core. But it can't be definitely identified as being concrete, because the resolution is too poor, and because it's in the middle of a dust cloud. Furthermore, one would expect a steel core to be filled with partitions and other components of the building. When covered in debris, they might well appear grey. So where's the close-up that identifies the surface texture of concrete?

Christophera, this is obviously pertinent; why don't you ask the builders, architects and engineers for copies of the specifications? I'm sure that they'll do it for the cost of copies, because this became public information, once the builders applied for their permits.

Beleth

22nd June 2006, 09:43 AM

You are saying it is as easy to prove there was a steel core as it is to prove 3000 people died? Close. I am saying that the standards for evidence for both are the same, but I'm not saying that they are both necessarily easy.

Great, go for it? I've been asking since the begining for this. You misunderstand. The same amount of evidence for both has already been provided. Either both have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, or neither have.

You are trying to have an impossibly-high standard of evidence for one while hand-wavingly dismissing the other as a given. That simply will not wash, especially on this board.

Either both can be accepted as given, or both need specific post-demo photographic evidence to be accepted.
You can't have it both ways.

gmanontario

22nd June 2006, 10:12 AM

A little OT for a moment.

While reading through the craziness of the CT whackos here, something twigged in the back of my mind and was bothering me all week. I finally figured it out. Is it just me or is the behaviour of nuts like Chrisophera and geggy amazingly similar to the antics of Usenet uberkooks George Hammond (SPOG!!!) and Ed Conrad (finds fossilized penises in coal seams therefore putting man on earth at the same time as the dinosaurs)? They like the ones here continually post the same crap over and over ad nauseum while disregarding any counter-arguments. Ed even likes to post the same pics in every reply!! Sounds like Chrisophera. Georgie Hammond is unintelligible all the time (hello geggy!!)

Is there a Kook Kollege somewhere?

Too bad they can't take their act to the level of kook god Earl Curley (Ed rest his soul). That would be the ultimate entertainment.:)

Belz...

22nd June 2006, 10:16 AM

Okay, Christophera is claiming a 17' x 17' concrete core, right?

Did he say that ?? 17 FOOT wide ? Isn't that rather small ? I thought he meant 17 foot THICK ??

Belz...

22nd June 2006, 10:19 AM

I'd like to know how you can make such a definitive statement about something you know nothing about.

Dammit, Nobby. He said "I seriously doubt". This ALONE should be proof to you!!

Belz...

22nd June 2006, 10:22 AM

1. C-4, although called plastic explosive, is not plastic. It has a consistency somewhere between modelling clay and Play-Doh. So using C-4 coated rebar would mean your concrete core was peppered with holes that allowed the rebar inside to wiggle. IN other words, the rebar would provide ZERO structural support, and the holes left would weaken the concrete.

Well, yeah. Plus, the way I see it, I'm not sure pouring concrete over the C-4 would be good for the explosive...

Christophera

22nd June 2006, 10:24 AM

WHAT F*CKING DOCUMENTARY???? What are you talking about? Who made it? What channel did it air on? Is it available on video/dvd/mpeg/wax cylinder???????

It aired on channel 10 in southern California in 1990. It was called "The Construction Of The Twin Towers". As far as I know it was removed from PBS. I've dealt with them and they are not responsive.

Why should we be expected to concede any of your points that are substantially supported by scenes from a 16-year old TV programme that none of us have ever heard of, much less seen, and for which you are unable to provide any evidence, let alone clips or screencaps?

You are expected to protect your Constitutional republic. If I can explain things that you cannot that help with that protection, then you have a reason, regardless of how I am able.

How about we start with this documentary - get some screencaps, clips or at least evidence of its existence on the board NOW, or expect to be put on many, many ignore lists.
Yeesh.

As I've said. You deal with PBS. I'd rather continue looking for people who've seen it. So far I've found 3.

Belz...

22nd June 2006, 10:26 AM

It aired on channel 10 in southern California in 1990. It was called "The Construction Of The Twin Towers". As far as I know it was removed from PBS. I've dealt with them and they are not responsive.

So you're using MEMORY to recall facts from a documentary you've seen once 15 years ago ?

You are expected to protect your Constitutional republic. If I can explain things that you cannot that help with that protection, then you have a reason, regardless of how I am able.

How does ANYTHING we're saying here relate to the constitution ?

Christophera

22nd June 2006, 10:28 AM

So you're using MEMORY to recall facts from a documentary you've seen once 15 years ago ?

How does ANYTHING we're saying here relate to the constitution ?

Yes I remember things that far back.

Laws are made under the Constitution and government has violated laws which are going to compromise the Constitution.

Arkan_Wolfshade

22nd June 2006, 10:31 AM

Is this the film?
http://pbsvideodb.pbs.org/programs/chapter.asp?item_id=40305&chap_id=7

Christophera

22nd June 2006, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by Huntsman :
1. C-4, although called plastic explosive, is not plastic. It has a consistency somewhere between modelling clay and Play-Doh. So using C-4 coated rebar would mean your concrete core was peppered with holes that allowed the rebar inside to wiggle. IN other words, the rebar would provide ZERO structural support, and the holes left would weaken the concrete.

Well, yeah. Plus, the way I see it, I'm not sure pouring concrete over the C-4 would be good for the explosive...

The C4 was solvented and the bar was dipped leaving a light coating. The documentary actually mentioned the thickness issue (of the special "anti vibration/corrosion" coating) and that engineers had no problem with it.

Arkan_Wolfshade

22nd June 2006, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by Huntsman :
1. C-4, although called plastic explosive, is not plastic. It has a consistency somewhere between modelling clay and Play-Doh. So using C-4 coated rebar would mean your concrete core was peppered with holes that allowed the rebar inside to wiggle. IN other words, the rebar would provide ZERO structural support, and the holes left would weaken the concrete.

The C4 was solvented and the bar was dipped leaving a light coating. The documentary actually mentioned the thickness issue of the special "anti vibration/corrosion" coating and that engineers had no problem with it.

What solvent was used? Why did it not affect the properties of the C4?

pchams

22nd June 2006, 10:35 AM

Just to summarize the thread:

The evil Mohawk Canadians, led on by the Methanex corporation, colluded to coat the 3" rebar with C4 explosive.
Their reasons for doing this was to eventually reduce algae production in streams in California.
Reduced algae clouded the minds of all Americans, and along with the chemtrails allowed the Bilderburgers to ensconce agents into the inner government.
The results are clear to everyone, except those that are blind to the obvious truth at www.concretecore.611.org.

Christophera

22nd June 2006, 10:35 AM

3. 17 feet of concrete? No, not going to do it with a sheet. It takes a 1/2" sheet large enough to wrap completely around an I-beam (following the contours of the beam) to cut it. 4 lbs. of C-4 are needed to breach a reinforced concrete wall enough to make a man-sized hole. I'll double-check my figures (I keep forgetting to dig out my old engineer books at home) tonight, but no, it would take a lot more than a thin-coating on rebar every 4 feet.

Recalculate using engineering methods and you'll find that a much smaller amount will totally fracture the concrete wall if the explosive is centralized in the wall.

I insist on this because you are talking about placing the explosive on the outside.

RandFan

22nd June 2006, 10:36 AM

Ahh. Gotcha. Alles klar.Herr Kommissar?

Arkan_Wolfshade

22nd June 2006, 10:38 AM

Recalculate using engineering methods and you'll find that a much smaller amount will totally fracture the concrete wall if the explosive is centralized in the wall.

I insist on this because you are talking about placing the explosive on the outside.

Since you've obviously used these methods, could you post your work for us non-engineering types?

Christophera

22nd June 2006, 10:40 AM

You are trying to have an impossibly-high standard of evidence for one while hand-wavingly dismissing the other as a given. That simply will not wash, especially on this board.

Either both can be accepted as given, or both need specific post-demo photographic evidence to be accepted.
You can't have it both ways.

I prove the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) and at the same time disprove the steel core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) columns.

Pardalis

22nd June 2006, 10:42 AM

I can't believe this is still going on. And Christophera is STILL posting the same inconclusive picture. This is insane guys.

Christophera

22nd June 2006, 10:42 AM

Since you've obviously used these methods, could you post your work for us non-engineering types?

I'm not an explosives engineer. I just understand the concepts well and can apply factors that engineers provide for a given blast.

Apollyon

22nd June 2006, 10:43 AM

I'm just wondering what would possess him to falsify a document that doesn't even advance his argument. Nobody cares about floors—that's not a matter of contention. So why tell us all about the floor material? (Incidentally, I can't really see where you're perceiving trickery. It looks to me as if the sans-serif font used in some of the table cells is part of the stationery, and the serif monospace font retains its vertical alignment, as it should. The typewriter I remember playing with—I think it was a late-70s IBM—could accommodate stops easily, just by sliding a pair of levers for right and left margins; tabs were preset widths, and would take you to the next stop for every press of the button.)
I'll be a bit more explicit in my description of the problem.

First, the text demonstrates font kerning and proportional spacing. This is easily verified by looking at certain letters and words. For a monospaced font on a typewriter two consecutive letters will always have identical spacing. I draw your attention to paragraph # 5. Look at the words "lightweight" in the first and second sentences. Notice how the e and i are spaced differently in those two identical words? That's what kerning does.

For a normal monospaced font they would appear as shown in the following:

weight lightweight

Notice how the "i" is seperated both fore and aft identically in a monspaced font?

I agree that the sans-serif font and blank title blocks could have been a basic pre-printed form document. However, within those title blocks is typing. Look how the typing is set. It is exactly centered. I don't care how good of a typist you are, it's virtually impossible to know where to begin typing a word in a title block and have it perfectly centered. The typing in Project, Title, and Date are all perfectly centered. Impossible on a typewriter, easily done on a computer.

Now look at the headings that are underlined. You don't get underlined fonts on a typewriter. You have to manually go back again and use the underscore key ( ________ ). The underlines are perfectly centered under the words. That's virtually impossible on a typewriter.

Yes, typewriters began improving for easier typesetting in the 70s. However, they still weren't that easy to use to create complex layouts, and look at the dates on that document. The last revision date is 1970. Unless that document was retyped at a later date on a computer, it's just not right.

Sword_Of_Truth

22nd June 2006, 10:44 AM

The C4 was solvented and the bar was dipped leaving a light coating. The documentary actually mentioned the thickness issue (of the special "anti vibration/corrosion" coating) and that engineers had no problem with it.

So now it's a light coating of C4?

How would a coating of C4 light enough to leave no wiggle room for the rebar survive thirty years of decay and still have enough punch to completely destroy concrete it's encased in?

Christophera

22nd June 2006, 10:45 AM

eYou are trying to have an impossibly-high standard of evidence for one while hand-wavingly dismissing the other as a given. That simply will not wash, especially on this board.
[/I]

Sorry, if I can prove the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg) with images of the demo, which bare the entire core area, then you can show the stel core columns if they existed.

It works on all boards.

Arkan_Wolfshade

22nd June 2006, 10:47 AM

I'm not an explosives engineer. I just understand the concepts well and can apply factors that engineers provide for a given blast.

Please show your work.

pchams

22nd June 2006, 10:48 AM

Christophera.
Was it 'solvented' with methanol from the evil Methanex corp.?

It's called epoxy.

Christophera

22nd June 2006, 10:49 AM

I can't believe this is still going on. And Christophera is STILL posting the same inconclusive picture. This is insane guys.

And all deniers of the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) have totally failed to support the steel core columns from images of the demise.

Sword_Of_Truth

22nd June 2006, 10:49 AM

I can't believe this is still going on. And Christophera is STILL posting the same inconclusive picture. This is insane guys.

It's a public service. As long as Chrissy keeps compulsively posting to this thread, he has less opportunity to play with sharp objects.

Meffy

22nd June 2006, 10:50 AM

You deal with PBS.
How many times must you be reminded that YOU are the one making extraordinary claims, so YOU must come up with evidence to back up those claims? Consider this one more reminder.

I'd rather continue looking for people who've seen it. So far I've found 3.
I once convinced five of my college friends that they'd seen a concert with me the previous year. We reminisced about the performance for some time before I admitted I'd made it all up. The musical group in question had never even visited the city. A couple of the friends got angry, the others had a good laugh at their own expense.

That's five out of a very small circle of acquaintances. Out of the many globe-spanning forums you've infested^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hposted on, you've just been able to convince three other people that they've seen this documentary, for the existence of which there is no evidence? *tsk*

Anyway, it doesn't matter how many people you can get to claim they've seen this documentary. If you can't provide evidence, you might as well be quoting Shrek. So far you've provided no credible, reliable evidence to back up your claims, just spammed the same meaningless photos and impugned the patriotism or goodness of anyone who doesn't buy into your confection of supposition and imagination.

You do realize that you're not convincing anyone with these tactics, don't you? And you're not going to, either.

Christophera

22nd June 2006, 10:51 AM

Then why are they invisible on every picture anyone, including you, has ever shown ?

Incorrect. The concrete core is very visible.

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

Sword_Of_Truth

22nd June 2006, 10:52 AM

Incorrect. The concrete core is very visible.

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

That's the shadow of another building behind the dust cloud.

Orb

22nd June 2006, 10:52 AM

This has probably been posted before but

Also unique to the engineering design were its core and elevator system. The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry. Worried that the intense air pressure created by the buildingsâ high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core. For the elevators, to serve 110 stories with a traditional configuration would have required half the area of the lower stories be used for shaftways. Otis Elevators developed an express and local system, whereby passengers would change at "sky lobbies" on the 44th and 78th floors, halving the number of shaftways.

source:
http://www.skyscraper.org/TALLEST_TOWERS/t_wtc.htm

Christophera

22nd June 2006, 10:53 AM

You wouldn't happen to have a picture of the WTC during construction that would show the concrete beign poured, would you ? Or a contract showing the company that was responsible for pouring it ? Or what ?

You wouldn't happen to have a picture of the WTC during demolition that shows even one of the 47, 1,300 foot steel columns would you? I have images of the demo that show what can only be concrete shear wall (zoomed) (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif)

Belz...

22nd June 2006, 10:54 AM

Yes I remember things that far back.

So do I, but with enough certainty to take it to court ?

Laws are made under the Constitution and government has violated laws which are going to compromise the Constitution.

So far all you have is speculation, so you have nothing to base this conclusion upon.

Christophera

22nd June 2006, 10:55 AM

Belz...

22nd June 2006, 10:55 AM

Apollyon

22nd June 2006, 10:57 AM

You wouldn't happen to have a picture of the WTC during demolition that shows even one of the 47, 1,300 foot steel columns would you? I have images of the demo that show what can only be concrete shear wall (zoomed) (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif)
We've shown you pictures of the core columns. You deny they exist by lamely trying to rename them "interior box columns."

And the picture you show could be any number of things, but doesn't support it being a "concrete shear wall" by any stretch of the imagination except your own.

I'm still waiting to hear where you got that alleged document from concerning the WTC concrete too.

Arkan_Wolfshade

22nd June 2006, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by Christophera View Original:
I'm not an explosives engineer. I just understand the concepts well and can apply factors that engineers provide for a given blast.

Please show your work substantiating your claim that a "thin coating" of c4 on the rebar would "totally fracture a concrete wall", or retract your claim.

Belz...

22nd June 2006, 10:58 AM

e

Sorry, if I can prove the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg) with images of the demo, which bare the entire core area, then you can show the stel core columns if they existed.

It works on all boards.

Key word highlighted.

Christophera

22nd June 2006, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by me

Another day has gone by, Christophera. Where's the diagram of the many moving hallways that you promised?

Christophera, what is the recipe for invisible concrete?

I've not promised this. It has been requested and I've said that I only know about WTC 1's core with any certainty regarding the hallway layout and no diagram of 2 will be provided.

I've been asking for weeks for an image of the multiple steel core columns from the demo images and no one has produced a picture of even 1 of the supposed 47, 1,300 foot steel columns.

Apollyon

22nd June 2006, 10:58 AM

Talk to the folks in government about the missing WTC documents and film footage of the core foundation. I show the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).
You show nothing but smoke obscuring something that's unidentifiable.

For all we know it's the damn Sta-Puff marshmallow man.

Belz...

22nd June 2006, 10:59 AM

Belz...

22nd June 2006, 11:00 AM

Incorrect. The concrete core is very visible.

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

No one, not even you, can conclusively identify that as the core.

Sword says it's a shadow, some say it's a building. I say it could just be smoke and dust.

Show me how you can conclusively say that it's concrete.

Belz...

22nd June 2006, 11:01 AM

Christophera

22nd June 2006, 11:02 AM

I ask again. Do you have a clearer, bigger picture of this same angle ?

No. I found it on this site http://www.toad.com/****nyccensors/.

RandFan

22nd June 2006, 11:03 AM

And all deniers of the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) have totally failed to support the steel core columns from images of the demise.

:s2:

It is YOUR claim. This is a skeptics forum. It is not up to us to disprove your claim. It is up to you to prove your claim. However I believe we have disproved your claim to a significant degree.

You are still arguing ad nauseam.

Christophera

22nd June 2006, 11:04 AM

No one, not even you, can conclusively identify that as the core.

Sword says it's a shadow, some say it's a building. I say it could just be smoke and dust.

Show me how you can conclusively say that it's concrete.

It agrees with other images (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) that show the core walls and other parts.

Pardalis

22nd June 2006, 11:04 AM

Chris, do you have any video, or any engeneering studies, witnesses, testimony (not testemoney) from people who worked on the construction of the towers to support your claims? Do you have any evidence other than this http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif ?

Christophera

22nd June 2006, 11:06 AM

:s2:

It is YOUR claim. This is a skeptics forum. It is not up to us to disprove your claim. It is up to you to prove your claim. However I believe we have disproved your claim to a significant degree.

You are still arguing ad nauseam.

I am a skeptic of the official story which you support and I have proven my version redundantly. You can only disprove my claim by proving yours, which you seem to not be able to even try without reverting to misinterpretation of construction images which is exactly as I said it would be.

Christophera

22nd June 2006, 11:07 AM

You show nothing but smoke obscuring something that's unidentifiable.

For all we know it's the damn Sta-Puff marshmallow man.

If it was that easy to come up with images of the steel core columns you would have made your point.

Arkan_Wolfshade

22nd June 2006, 11:08 AM

I am a skeptic of the official story which you support and I have proven my version redundantly. You can only disprove my claim by proving yours, which you seem to not be able to even try without reverting to misinterpretation of construction images which is exactly as I said it would be.

Please provide evidence supporting your claim other than the interpretation of pictures post-collapse.

Christophera

22nd June 2006, 11:09 AM

Key word highlighted.

concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg)

Arkan_Wolfshade

22nd June 2006, 11:09 AM

If it was that easy to come up with images of the steel core columns you would have made your point.

He is not arguing in defense of steel core columns, he is requested evidence backing your claim of a concrete core. The burden of proof is on you.

Please provide evidence supporting your claim other than the interpretation of pictures post-collapse.

Sword_Of_Truth

22nd June 2006, 11:09 AM

I am a skeptic of the official story which you support and I have proven my version redundantly. You can only disprove my claim by proving yours, which you seem to not be able to even try without reverting to misinterpretation of construction images which is exactly as I said it would be.

"English, mother[Rule8]er... do you speak it?"

/score 10 points for clever Samuel L. Jackson reference.

Arkan_Wolfshade

22nd June 2006, 11:10 AM

concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg)

Please provide evidence supporting your claim other than the interpretation of pictures post-collapse.

Pardalis

22nd June 2006, 11:11 AM

It think "redundant" is the right word for it.

Christophera

22nd June 2006, 11:12 AM

We've shown you pictures of the core columns. You deny they exist by lamely trying to rename them "interior box columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg)."

And the picture you show could be any number of things, but doesn't support it being a "concrete shear wall" by any stretch of the imagination except your own.

I'm still waiting to hear where you got that alleged document from concerning the WTC concrete too.

That document was posted by someone at democratic underground.

FEMA renamed the interior box columns "core columns" and tried to improve their ruse by using the same number of them, 47. You images from constrcution show no "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" inside the core area. If they were there the steel columns would show in this image (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg), and they do not.

Dcdrac

22nd June 2006, 11:13 AM

i think two planes full of fuel flown into the buildings is very realistic explanation for what happpened to the twin towers.

Arkan_Wolfshade

22nd June 2006, 11:13 AM

That document was posted by someone at democratic underground.

FEMA renamed the interior box columns "core columns" and tried to improve their ruse by using the same number of them, 47. You images from constrcution show no "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" inside the core area. If they were there the steel columns would show in this image (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg), and they do not.

Please provide evidence supporting your claim other than the interpretation of pictures post-collapse.

Christophera

22nd June 2006, 11:14 AM

Please provide evidence supporting your claim other than the interpretation of pictures post-collapse.

Please provide evidence supporting your claim other than the interpretation of pictures misrepresented from the construction. My images of the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) during the demolition qualify.

Meffy

22nd June 2006, 11:14 AM

I have proven my version redundantly.
You've done nothing of the sort.

You can only disprove my claim by proving yours
Yet again you try to shift the burden of proof away from yourself. You cannot do that. It is up to YOU to support your claim.

Arkan_Wolfshade

22nd June 2006, 11:16 AM

Please provide evidence supporting your claim other than the interpretation of pictures misrepresented from the construction. My images of the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) during the demolition qualify.

I am not making any claim.

Please provide evidence supporting your claim other than the interpretation of pictures post-collapse.

Christophera

22nd June 2006, 11:17 AM

He is not arguing in defense of steel core columns, he is requested evidence backing your claim of a concrete core. The burden of proof is on you.

Please provide evidence supporting your claim other than the interpretation of pictures post-collapse.

Due to the filtering of images of the contruction of the WTC, the images that showed the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) are gone. We only have the conclusivity of the fact you cannot show any steel core columns in ANY image whatsoever.

RandFan

22nd June 2006, 11:18 AM

It agrees with other images (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) that show the core walls and other parts.No it doesn't. Again, you are only asserting that it does. Assertions are not proof.

Arkan_Wolfshade

22nd June 2006, 11:18 AM

Due to the filtering of images of the contruction of the WTC, the images that showed the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) are gone. We only have the conclusivity of the fact you cannot show any steel core columns in ANY image whatsoever.

You are the one making the claim there was a concrete core in the tower.

Please provide evidence supporting your claim other than the interpretation of pictures post-collapse.

NobbyNobbs

22nd June 2006, 11:19 AM

Here is a picture of an alien spaceship.

http://www.giantfoo.org/~johan/Images/Trips/Netherlands-2001/Autos/small-car-01.jpeg.html

It is obvious from examining the photo that it is an alien spaceship. No other explanation exists. Anyone who disputes this will be referred back to the same photo, since it is self-evident. Anyone with another theory is required to prove it, but that proof is worthless since this photo obviously shows an alien spaceship.

Pardalis

22nd June 2006, 11:19 AM

Due to the filtering of images of the contruction of the WTC, the images that showed the concrete core are gone. We only have the conclusivity of the fact you cannot show any steel core columns in ANY image whatsoever.

What the hell are you babbling about?

Apollyon

22nd June 2006, 11:19 AM

If it was that easy to come up with images of the steel core columns you would have made your point.
We already did show the core columns, but during construction, which doesn't show any evidence whatsoever of a concrete core, and post-collapse. In fact the core columns are visible in the very photo you claim to show a "concrete shear wall."

And you keep dodging all my points and questions.

Provide proof there was a footer poured for the concrete core.

Provide proof that "3'' high tensile" rebar was used.

Prove the document you posted about the concrete notes is real and not a fake. If it is real, why does it make no mention of concrete for the core?

Christophera

22nd June 2006, 11:20 AM

How many times must you be reminded that YOU are the one making extraordinary claims, so YOU must come up with evidence to back up those claims? Consider this one more reminder.

Your statment needs correction. The claims of steel core columns is the extraordinary claim because near free fall rates of fall cannot be explained by steel core columns, neither can the pulverizaion be explained. he concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) explains these things.

Arkan_Wolfshade

22nd June 2006, 11:21 AM

Christophera

22nd June 2006, 11:21 AM

We already did show the core columns, but during construction, which doesn't show any evidence whatsoever of a concrete core, and post-collapse. In fact the core columns are visible in the very photo you claim to show a "concrete shear wall."

And you keep dodging all my points and questions.

Provide proof there was a footer poured for the concrete core.

Provide proof that "3'' high tensile" rebar was used.

Prove the document you posted about the concrete notes is real and not a fake. If it is real, why does it make no mention of concrete for the core?

Actually I've answered all these questions. You just don't like the answers.

Find an image of 1 of the supposed 47, steel core columns from the towers demise to support your claims.

RandFan

22nd June 2006, 11:22 AM

I am a skeptic of the official story which you support and I have proven my version... No you haven't. You only claim that you have. Assertions are not proof.

...redundantly. AKA Argument ad nauseam. QED. A good and logical reason for you not to be taken seriously.

You can only disprove my claim by proving yours... More fallacy. More reason for you not to be taken seriously.

...which you seem to not be able to even try without reverting to misinterpretation of construction images which is exactly as I said it would be. I've not misinterpreted anything. I have stated in response to your ad nauseam argument that it doesn't show what you claim it to show.

Christophera

22nd June 2006, 11:24 AM

On this forum, in this thread, you are the one making the claim.

Please provide evidence supporting your claim other than the interpretation of pictures post-collapse.

Two claims are made. One by your side and one by me. I've assembled an entire web page of proof (http://concretecore.741.com). You haven't even produce on image of the steel core columns from the demise of the towers which bares the core totally.

Apollyon

22nd June 2006, 11:25 AM

Your statment needs correction. The claims of steel core columns is the extraordinary claim because near free fall rates of fall cannot be explained by steel core columns, neither can the pulverizaion be explained. he concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) explains these things.
No, a concrete core cannot explain that either. In fact, it's more likely that near free fall was acheived from a steel core because a concrete core would have been steel reinforced and, according to you, buttressed by "interior box columns". Even if the concrete was "pulverized" (another claim you also haven't proven) there would still be a massive tangle of rebar. You have produced zero evidence of the remains of that rebar. There would be copious amounts of it and not just a piece or two here or there.

Christophera

22nd June 2006, 11:26 AM

I've not misinterpreted anything. I have stated in response to your ad nauseam argument that it doesn't show what you claim it to show.

Easy to say. Produce an image of the towers coming down where a 1,300 foot steel column is falling, toppling, buckling, folding or standing, then you've done something.

Arkan_Wolfshade

22nd June 2006, 11:26 AM

Two claims are made. One by your side and one by me. I've assembled an entire web page of proof (http://concretecore.741.com). You haven't even produce on image of the steel core columns from the demise of the towers which bares the core totally.

I am not asking people who support the steel core claim for information. I am asking you for information on the concrete core claim.

Please provide evidence supporting your claim other than the interpretation of pictures post-collapse.

Apollyon

22nd June 2006, 11:27 AM

Two claims are made. One by your side and one by me. I've assembled an entire web page of proof (http://concretecore.741.com). You haven't even produce on image of the steel core columns from the demise of the towers which bares the core totally.
No, your web page does not exist.

It does not exist because I refuse to recognize it, therefore it isn't really there. In fact, it is NOT a web page but merely a linked HTML object filled with text and images. Therefore you have no web page because it can be called something else.

And that's how stupid your arguments sound.

Christophera

22nd June 2006, 11:27 AM

No, a concrete core cannot explain that either. In fact, it's more likely that near free fall was acheived from a steel core because a concrete core would have been steel reinforced and, according to you, buttressed by "interior box columns". Even if the concrete was "pulverized" (another claim you also haven't proven) there would still be a massive tangle of rebar. You have produced zero evidence of the remains of that rebar. There would be copious amounts of it and not just a piece or two here or there.

You've seen many images of rebar at ground zero. Theres quite a bit visible in the SAND & GRAVEL (http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg).

Arkan_Wolfshade

22nd June 2006, 11:28 AM

Easy to say. Produce an image of the towers coming down where a 1,300 foot steel column is falling, toppling, buckling, folding or standing, then you've done something.

Stop trying to shift the burden of proof(1)

Please provide evidence supporting your claim other than the interpretation of pictures post-collapse.

(1)

Includes: Appeal to Ignorance ("Ad Ignorantiam")
Description of Burden of Proof

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

1. Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
2. Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).
Examples of Burden of Proof

1. Bill: "I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system."
Jill: "I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury."
Bill: "How can anyone be against highway improvements?"

2. Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."

3. "You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false. For example, someone might argue that global warming is certainly occurring because nobody has demonstrated conclusively that it is not. But failing to prove the global warming theory false is not the same as proving it true.

Whether or not an argumentum ad ignorantiam is really fallacious depends crucially upon the burden of proof. In an American courtroom, where the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, it would be fallacious for the prosecution to argue, "The defendant has no alibi, therefore he must have committed the crime." But it would be perfectly valid for the defense to argue, "The prosecution has not proven the defendant committed the crime, therefore you should declare him not guilty." Both statements have the form of an argumentum ad ignorantiam; the difference is the burden of proof.

In debate, the proposing team in a debate round is usually (but not always) assumed to have the burden of proof, which means that if the team fails to prove the proposition to the satisfaction of the judge, the opposition wins. In a sense, the opposition team's case is assumed true until proven false. But the burden of proof can sometimes be shifted; for example, in some forms of debate, the proposing team can shift the burden of proof to the opposing team by presenting a prima facie case that would, in the absence of refutation, be sufficient to affirm the proposition. Still, the higher burden generally rests with the proposing team, which means that only the opposition is in a position to make an accusation of argumentum ad ignorantiam with respect to proving the proposition.

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

rwguinn

22nd June 2006, 11:29 AM

here's what rebar looks like after a destructive event:

Christophera

22nd June 2006, 11:29 AM

No, your web page does not exist.

It does not exist because I refuse to recognize it, therefore it isn't really there. In fact, it is NOT a web page but merely a linked HTML object filled with text and images. Therefore you have no web page because it can be called something else.

And that's how stupid your arguments sound.

How intelligent.

Arkan_Wolfshade

22nd June 2006, 11:30 AM

You've seen many images of rebar at ground zero. Theres quite a bit visible in the SAND & GRAVEL (http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg).

Please provide information showing that it is sand and gravel, and not other particulate matter.

Please provide evidence supporting your claim other than the interpretation of pictures post-collapse.

Pardalis

22nd June 2006, 11:30 AM

Chris, how come you are the only one who has a web page about it, in the world? And that the only images you submit as "evidence" come from that very same site? Do you have any other evidence, from other people? There are 6 billion other people to choose from.

ETA: some of them are REAL engeneers

Meffy

22nd June 2006, 11:31 AM

How intelligent.
I repeat, from the post you quoted: "And that's how stupid your posts sound."

If you post intelligent arguments, you will get intelligent discussion in return.* You haven't done so and frankly I don't expect you to. Go ahead -- surprise me.
______________
* [edit] Not necessarily from me. I can spot the bull but it takes these others to identify it and herd it where it belongs.

Beleth

22nd June 2006, 11:33 AM

I prove the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) and at the same time disprove the steel core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) columns. That's the same picture, and it proves or disproves nothing. It's a gray opaque blob behind a gray translucent dust cloud. If that disproves steel cores then it also disproves dead bodies.

Sorry, if I can prove the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg) with images of the demo, which bare the entire core area, then you can show the stel core columns if they existed. If lack of pictures of the steel core columns is proof that they didn't exist, then lack of dead bodies in those same pictures is proof that no one died in the collapses.

I am countering your argumentum ad nauseam with a reductio ad absurdum. Successfully, too, I might add, although I'm sure you don't see it yet. Maybe if I repeat it for another 30 pages or so, you will.