The WTC cores

[Unfit4Command]

Lately I've been trying to find some info about the WTC cores since I've been hearing a lot of stuff from the Truth Movement about how they should have remained standing, and even should have possibly held the rest of the building up.

I need to know more about the construction of them. I've found some stuff like these diagrams:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/WTC/3sectorsWTC.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/WTC/wtc_graphic.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/WTC/wtc_fire.gif

And this one that shows the collapse sequence but doesn't really explain the collapse of the core:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/WTC/collapsesim.jpg

I've also noticed a few things after watching several videos about the collapses and seeing several pictures. It almost looks like the core of the building doesn't collapse until the building passes the stronger areas of the building(I can't remember what they're called, but the 2 areas on the building that are stronger than the rest). Is that area required to hold the core up?

Like look at these photos:
South Tower core;
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/WTC/core2-1.jpg
sn taken from this video-http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778&q=Dramatic+video+evidence&hl=en

In the beginning of the collapse of the North Tower I saw this:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/WTC/possiblyTheCore.jpg
It seems a little too small, and moveable to be a part of the core, but I'm pretty sure it isn't just smoke and debris moving around.
Here's a slow motion version where you can see it really well:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/wtc-1_version-view-1.gif

This is another photo I found which appears to possibly be the core of the South Tower still standing after the collapse:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/WTC/southCorestandingafterCollapse.jpg
The only problem is that I've never found any other photos like it, and haven't been able to find any videos that show it either.

And the core of the North Tower still standing is a pretty common picture:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/WTC/corelows.jpg

And this is what's left of one of the cores, I'm not sure which it is yet:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/WTC/core.jpg

So far I haven't been able to find anything dedicated to the collapse of the core, or giving any major explainations for it. AHHH!! I just don't have a lot of info about the core right now, so if anyone can tell me, or show me anything about them, please do.

[firecoins]

Read the NIST report.

[defaultdotxbe]

isnt christophera our resident core expert? lol

[Gravy]

Hi, Unfit. Where have you looked for information about the tower cores?

[Unfit4Command]

Hi, Unfit. Where have you looked for information about the tower cores?

hmmm...several places. I'm looking through some of the NIST report right now, but I HATE pdf files, they work so horribly on my computer. Oh well guess I'll have to deal with it unless someone knows of somewhere I can download the report and read it in Word or something.

Anyways, I've mostly just seen various videos on youtube and google video, read a few things from CT and debunking websites, various threads on forums(both CT and debunking sites).
The reason I made this thread is just to see what other people have found, I've barely found anything because I don't really know where to look aside from the NIST report now. Anything else? debunking911.com talks about the core a little, but not enough for me to actually argue a point with my several CT friends, or at least prepare for a possible argument at school which looks more and more likely of happening everyday.

I need it all! haha. If that helps...I plan on putting what I find about the core together into a paper once I finish my one about the Pentagon.

[stateofgrace]

Ok I'll have a stab at this. I'm sure if I am wrong I will be quickly corrected.

From my understanding of the construction of the building of the Towers there were three main elements or parts which ever way you want to call them.
There was the central steel support cores, the external steel superstructure and the floors that were braced between the two of them.

When they constructed the Towers they built up part of the core, built up part of the steel super structure and then added a floor that braced the two together. They then continued, core, external super structure, floor. This continued all the way up.

The floors simply braced the core and the external steel super structure together. They were reinforced with concrete. I could be wrong on this one but I am also led to believe that the floors weighted the same, i.e. floor 10 weighted the same as floor 100. They were simply strapped to the core, which took the weight and in turn to the external steel superstructure.

So finally you have a massive steel building. The core and the external steel superstructure are literally taking the weight of the floors but the floors are also acting to brace it al together. So would it not make perfect sense that if the floors are suddenly and violent removed then the entire building is compromised?

Again this is simply how I see things unfolding as the massive weights above the damaged sections suddenly start to drop. It would drop initially on the core, the floors and the external superstructure. Obviously the core will offer up the most resistance and the weight, which is not solid but be deflected onto the floor spaces. It will to a point be contained within the external steel superstructures and continues falling on the floor spaces. They floors are not designed to take this and simply collapse. This collapse literally rips the floors from the core and the steel super structure.

It continues down through the floors spaces, ripping each floor from the core and the steel superstructure. The steel super structure is made up of many pieces and simply gets blown away by the violent destruction of the floors. This continues right down each Tower, floor after floor is simply ripped away.

Until the floors and the superstructure are no more. Parts of the core go with it and some parts remain standing momentarily until it finally collapses under the now unsupported weight.

Hey this is just my opinion, I’m sure I could well be wrong but it makes more sense than bombs missiles and secret death squads.

[beachnut]

I need to know more about the construction of them. I've found some stuff like these diagrams:


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/WTC/wtc_fire.gif




This information is wrong on a few facts, you have to sort out the misinformation from CT sites and other sites who have it wrong.

There is no concrete core. I have see this diagram and it misleads a lot of people. Poor research by a journalist or other source.

Like spelling a name wrong, they defined the WTC wrong!

[Unfit4Command]

This information is wrong on a few facts, you have to sort out the misinformation from CT sites and other sites who have it wrong.

There is no concrete core. I have see this diagram and it misleads a lot of people. Poor research by a journalist or other source.

Like spelling a name wrong, they defined the WTC wrong!

So the core is just made out of steel? ah, that's good to know.

[beachnut]

An expert in structures said this about the core:


You are correct that the twin towers did not have a concrete core. However, they, did have a well-defined core consisting of conventional steel framing supported by steel columns. Generally, horizontal framing in the core was not moment-resisting framing, though semi-rigid (type PR) connections were used for some of this framing. Thus, the statement that the core structure was not designed for lateral resistance.

The core framing did play a significant role in resisting collapse, however, after the aircraft impacts and initial damage sustained by these impacts. The core, ultimately, also played a significant role in the collapse. If you would like more information, you may obtain detailed reports at www.nist.gov/wtc (http://www.nist.gov/wtc)


The technical guys would say the load carrying system was designed so that the steel facade would resist lateral and gravity forces and the interior core would carry only gravity loads.

The core does not handle lateral loads very well.

[Gravy]

hmmm...several places. I'm looking through some of the NIST report right now, but I HATE pdf files, they work so horribly on my computer. Oh well guess I'll have to deal with it unless someone knows of somewhere I can download the report and read it in Word or something.

Anyways, I've mostly just seen various videos on youtube and google video, read a few things from CT and debunking websites, various threads on forums(both CT and debunking sites).
The reason I made this thread is just to see what other people have found, I've barely found anything because I don't really know where to look aside from the NIST report now. Anything else? debunking911.com talks about the core a little, but not enough for me to actually argue a point with my several CT friends, or at least prepare for a possible argument at school which looks more and more likely of happening everyday.

I need it all! haha. If that helps...I plan on putting what I find about the core together into a paper once I finish my one about the Pentagon.Well, you come across as a complete ass. But since you don't like words, but like pictures, here are some that I hope will be helpful.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790452c0ed9a19b0.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790452c0ed9d1efb.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790452c0ef8e8610.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790452c11e07a3ea.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879045481bf19ceb7.jpg

[Unfit4Command]

Well, you come across as a complete ass. But since you don't like words, but like pictures, here are some that I hope will be helpful.

How do I "come across as a complete ass"? I like both words and pictures, just the NIST report doesn't work well on my computer so it might take a while to read. And I'm pretty sure I like words considering the fact that I read through your whole WTC 7 paper, and the Loose Change guide more than once.

So...sorry for asking a few questions? Sorry for pdf files not working well on my computer? Sorry for wanting as much info about the cores as I can get? Sorry for wanting to be prepared for any possible arguments with CTs? Sorry for planning on writing a paper about the cores? Sorry for writting one about the Pentagon? There are just about apologized for everything I said in my previous post and I don't really know I did to be called a "complete ass" or come across as one, but oh well. Think whatever you want, either way, I'm on your side on the 9/11 issue.

And thanks for the pictures, I have never seen some of them before, they're greatly appreciated :)

[Brainster]

The floors simply braced the core and the external steel super structure together. They were reinforced with concrete.

I believe that the floors were essentially steel pans which were filled with concrete. The purpose of the concrete is not to reinforce the steel, but to deaden sound. It is correct that there was no concrete core surrounding the steel columns; in fact that is one of the improvements that Silverstein has added to the new WTC-7 building (in addition to extra-wide staircases and extraordinary fireproofing of the structural steel).

[Pardalis]

Unfit4Command, you said you were doing "papers" on the Pentagon and the WTC disasters, so what are your credentials? Or is it just a school paper?

[stateofgrace]

I believe that the floors were essentially steel pans which were filled with concrete. The purpose of the concrete is not to reinforce the steel, but to deaden sound. It is correct that there was no concrete core surrounding the steel columns; in fact that is one of the improvements that Silverstein has added to the new WTC-7 building (in addition to extra-wide staircases and extraordinary fireproofing of the structural steel).

Thanks for that, I had assumed the concrete was there for reinforcement.:)

[hellaeon]

Goodaye unfit,

stick to your research, its good for the mind, but be careful of accepting any information from CT sites on face value. These sites and there calculations have been shown to be consistantly wrong or misrepresented and according to the scientific community, completely wrong. You probably already know this anyway.

You have met a bit of hostility due to the opening post, lots of big pictures and questions which is pretty much how a lot of the CT'ists work. Take it as a grain of salt and for whatever questions you have, search the forums rather then just post a question as you will find that very much every physical arguement in favour of the conspiracy has been shown to be completely wrong.

The only thing left is to find vague coincidences in speeches or quotes from articles as evidence which is sadly a waste of time.

This is why you may be met with hostility as its like a broken record!

Be vigilant in the research and as I said, be careful on your sources. Most of the CT can be debunked by primary school science.

Welcome to the forums

[Pardalis]

I agree with Hellaeon. I might have been myself a little blunt in my last post.

But if you are doing papers that are intended for the net, please use extreme caution and be sure to do a thorough and proper research. This is an extremely important issue, that should be dealt with respect and seriousness.

:)

[TruthSeeker1234]

Nice little study, Unfit. You are correct, the cores survived, then fell. What could explain this? If all of the floors and perimeter sections "fell" down past the core, why would the core then disintegrate a few seconds later? It makes no sense.

[hellaeon]

I should add, the arguements have not only been shown to be completely wrong, but in numerous ways, numerous times!

[Pardalis]

It makes no sense.

Yeah, like if the controlled demolitions theory made sense...:rolleyes:

[Unfit4Command]

Goodaye unfit,

stick to your research, its good for the mind, but be careful of accepting any information from CT sites on face value. These sites and there calculations have been shown to be consistantly wrong or misrepresented and according to the scientific community, completely wrong. You probably already know this anyway.

You have met a bit of hostility due to the opening post, lots of big pictures and questions which is pretty much how a lot of the CT'ists work. Take it as a grain of salt and for whatever questions you have, search the forums rather then just post a question as you will find that very much every physical arguement in favour of the conspiracy has been shown to be completely wrong.

The only thing left is to find vague coincidences in speeches or quotes from articles as evidence which is sadly a waste of time.

This is why you may be met with hostility as its like a broken record!

Be vigilant in the research and as I said, be careful on your sources. Most of the CT can be debunked by primary school science.

Welcome to the forums

Thanks for the info, and yeah I'm always careful of accepting research from any site, whether it's from a CT site or not.

Yeah, I guess a lot of pictures and questions do seem CTish...Oh well. I still have a little getting used to this forum.

And Truth Seeker, I never have thought explosivers or another other CT ideas were used to bring down the cores, I just wanted some info on the subject so I must have come across as thinking otherwise.

[beachnut]

Nice little study, Unfit. You are correct, the cores survived, then fell. What could explain this? If all of the floors and perimeter sections "fell" down past the core, why would the core then disintegrate a few seconds later? It makes no sense.

It will make sense if you were to read and understand all of NIST and use real experts to help you understand the structure of the WTC towers.

Take a few years to study and you will start to understand.

Some of the previous post already have supplied information that can help.

[Alt+F4]

You are correct, the cores survived, then fell. What could explain this?

You've already told us TS, on many threads...it was the Star Wars beam/ray.

[TruthSeeker1234]

And Truth Seeker, I never have thought explosivers or another other CT ideas were used to bring down the cores, I just wanted some info on the subject so I must have come across as thinking otherwise.

If not some kind of explosives, what would explain the behavior of the cores? If all the floor assemblies and perimeter sections "fell" down past the core, and there were huge 700 ft sections of the core still intact and standing, what scenario explains the fact that after standing alone for several seconds, these massively cross-braced steel lattices appeared to turn to dust and fall straight down?

Keep going with your study, Unfit. Next imagine the core falling down into a "pile", then compare what you imagine to the actual pictures at ground zero. Hunt the cores, Unfit. Hunt them down. So far we've found a stub of WTC1's core, and nothing of WTC2's.

[TruthSeeker1234]

You've already told us TS, on many threads...it was the Star Wars beam/ray.

The beam weapon idea is a hypothesis to be tested.

[stateofgrace]

If not some kind of explosives, what would explain the behavior of the cores? If all the floor assemblies and perimeter sections "fell" down past the core, and there were huge 700 ft sections of the core still intact and standing, what scenario explains the fact that after standing alone for several seconds, these massively cross-braced steel lattices appeared to turn to dust and fall straight down?

Keep going with your study, Unfit. Next imagine the core falling down into a "pile", then compare what you imagine to the actual pictures at ground zero. Hunt the cores, Unfit. Hunt them down. So far we've found a stub of WTC1's core, and nothing of WTC2's.

So can you please explain a scenario where all the floors are ripped out of the core, the core stands for a few seconds and somebody decides to set off some preplanted explosives just to finish off the job?

What do you mean appears to turn to dust? Explain this in full detail please.

How do you know the remaining core fell straight down? Please explain.

I am all ears BS.

[Unfit4Command]

If not some kind of explosives, what would explain the behavior of the cores? If all the floor assemblies and perimeter sections "fell" down past the core, and there were huge 700 ft sections of the core still intact and standing, what scenario explains the fact that after standing alone for several seconds, these massively cross-braced steel lattices appeared to turn to dust and fall straight down?

Keep going with your study, Unfit. Next imagine the core falling down into a "pile", then compare what you imagine to the actual pictures at ground zero. Hunt the cores, Unfit. Hunt them down. So far we've found a stub of WTC1's core, and nothing of WTC2's.

I am going to keep reading about the cores and the WTC's construction. There's still a lot to find, what I haven't found so far is evidence of a "star wars beam weapon", and explosives(not that you said explosives brought them down).

You keep hunting for those star wars beam weapons, Truthseeker. Hunt them down.
I have a question, what exactly do you think a "star wars beam weapon" does? Shoots up the core and destroys it? I haven't seen any of your other threads, or posts talking about the weapons.

[WildCat]

If not some kind of explosives, what would explain the behavior of the cores? If all the floor assemblies and perimeter sections "fell" down past the core, and there were huge 700 ft sections of the core still intact and standing, what scenario explains the fact that after standing alone for several seconds, these massively cross-braced steel lattices appeared to turn to dust and fall straight down?
They were not "cross braced" by anything but the floor trusses. Once the trusses failed, the cores could not stand for more than a few seconds.

[Pardalis]

Next imagine the core falling down into a "pile", then compare what you imagine to the actual pictures at ground zero. Hunt the cores, Unfit. Hunt them down. So far we've found a stub of WTC1's core, and nothing of WTC2's.

Don't imagine anything, ask professional engeneers.

[Horatius]

The beam weapon idea is a hypothesis to be tested.

It's been tested (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2080456#post2080456) and found (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2081582#post2081582) wanting (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2081784#post2081784).

Not that you'll ever admit it.

Unfit4, expect a lot of these sorts of posts in your future, if you decide to stand against the tide of CT ignorance.

[TruthSeeker1234]

They were not "cross braced" by anything but the floor trusses. Once the trusses failed, the cores could not stand for more than a few seconds.

This is silly.

1. The cores were massively cross-braced. You can look at the pictures up thread.

2. Even if they weren't, and only had lateral support from the floor assemblies, they would topple over like trees. The notion that they would just give up vertical strength and fall apart when they were no longer supporting any weight, is just ludicrous.

[Unfit4Command]

Unfit4Command, you said you were doing "papers" on the Pentagon and the WTC disasters, so what are your credentials? Or is it just a school paper?

ah, didn't see this post till now. It's not for, I'm not really doing them for anything, I just like being organized with my ideas so I put them into papers on my computer for possible later use. They're not professional papers or anything, but it's not like I'm going to use a bunch of BS, unreliable sources in them.

[WildCat]

This is silly.

1. The cores were massively cross-braced. You can look at the pictures up thread.
No, they weren't, and the pictures show no such thing. You're wrong again Ace.

[Horatius]

2. Even if they weren't, and only had lateral support from the floor assemblies, they would topple over like trees. The notion that they would just give up vertical strength and fall apart when they were no longer supporting any weight, is just ludicrous.

Okay, time to do some math again. Start with a thin tower about 500-1000 feet high, perpendicular to the earth. Calculate the downward force of gravity on said tower, and draw a free body diagram of all the forces on the tower. Now, angle said tower to, say, 5 degrees, and re-draw the free body diagram, resolving all forces into components along the length and across the width of the tower.

Now notice the large lateral forces being applied to a tower not designed to support lateral forces. Now explain to us why said tower would not be expected to start buckling under this load.

Not too hard to do if you're as smart as you think. Of course, this requires you to know what a free body diagram is.

[beachnut]

This is silly.

1. The cores were massively cross-braced. You can look at the pictures up thread.

2. Even if they weren't, and only had lateral support from the floor assemblies, they would topple over like trees. The notion that they would just give up vertical strength and fall apart when they were no longer supporting any weight, is just ludicrous.

wild cat is an order of magnitude more correct than you are TS

the core was not for lateral support, that was the sole responsibility of the exterior siding

You forgot to study for years before you reviled your level of knowledge on the core

If you had studied the NIST reports you may have some information

the core structure was not designed for lateral resistance

;you can find this from multiple sources

the core structure was not designed for lateral resistance (but you have to find a structrual expert, not a ct source to find out the truth)

[Axiom_Blade]

ah, didn't see this post till now. It's not for, I'm not really doing them for anything, I just like being organized with my ideas so I put them into papers on my computer for possible later use. They're not professional papers or anything, but it's not like I'm going to use a bunch of BS, unreliable sources in them.

I used to do the same thing, when I had more free time. It's great, it improves and clarifies your thinking and your writing. I really admire your respect for research and sourcing... many people just use any old crap that appears to support whatever their position is.

However, I would request that you consider posting your paper(s) on the Internet somewhere when you're done. It seems like a shame to do all that work and then not share it with anyone.

[Unfit4Command]

So with your beam theory TS I have a few questions for you.

-Where were the beams located?
-How exactly do you think they would work? I have a picture in my head of a big laser beam destroyed the core and I'm pretty sure some people would have seen or reported such a thing.
-Who do you think put the beams in place to destroy the core? And how did no one notice something like that?
-Why were remains of these weapons/beams never found in the rubble of the WTC's?
-Was the same thing used to bring down WTC 7? Or were the new silent explosives used in that CD?

Also, did the Towers floors actually fall the correct way because of the impact of the planes followed by the fires? Or did the US government destroy the floors through a normal controlled demolition, then leave the core to the all mighty star wars beam?

[beachnut]

I am going to keep reading about the cores and the WTC's construction. There's still a lot to find, what I haven't found so far is evidence of a "star wars beam weapon", and explosives(not that you said explosives brought them down).

You keep hunting for those star wars beam weapons, Truthseeker. Hunt them down.
I have a question, what exactly do you think a "star wars beam weapon" does? Shoots up the core and destroys it? I haven't seen any of your other threads, or posts talking about the weapons.

I had a question on the WTC here is what an expert said


chief structural engineer and senior vice president of ABS Consulting Inc. in Oakland, Calif., Hamburger is a member of an engineering team commissioned by the Structural Engineers Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) to assess the performance of the WTC and surrounding buildings in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks.


here is the letter he sent me


Keith-

NCSEA forwarded your question to me. I was the author of the document you are questioning.
You are correct that the twin towers did not have a concrete core. However, they, did have a well-defined core consisting of conventional steel framing supported by steel columns. Generally, horizontal framing in the core was not moment-resisting framing, though semi-rigid (type PR) connections were used for some of this framing. Thus, the statement that the core structure was not designed for lateral resistance.

The core framing did play a significant role in resisting collapse, however, after the aircraft impacts and initial damage sustained by these impacts. The core, ultimately, also played a significant role in the collapse. If you would like more information, you may obtain detailed reports at www.nist.gov/wtc (http://www.nist.gov/wtc)

Regards,
Ron Hamburger


look up this guy on the internet to find possilbe source if you are allowed internet sources

else off to the library

maybe you can use info and source this guy

[TruthSeeker1234]

The cores not only had cross bracing, they had their own floor system.

[Pardalis]

After almost two hundred pages of Christophera, I'm tired of hearing about the "cores".

Could we talk about these for a change?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_88864553cdd86d5aa.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2515)

[Unfit4Command]

I used to do the same thing, when I had more free time. It's great, it improves and clarifies your thinking and your writing. I really admire your respect for research and sourcing... many people just use any old crap that appears to support whatever their position is.

However, I would request that you consider posting your paper(s) on the Internet somewhere when you're done. It seems like a shame to do all that work and then not share it with anyone.

Yeah, it's annoying when people only show sources that support their views, I usually show a source I'm against, then show other sources that prove it wrong, or at least tell both sides and let whoever reading deside which to choose.

hmm...I could post some online eventually, not sure where though. Maybe a livejournal or something.

[WildCat]

The cores not only had cross bracing, they had their own floor system.
How does it feel to be wrong 100% of the time?

[Pardalis]

Hunt the Corrs Truthseeker, hunt them down.

[Axiom_Blade]

The WTC had a creamy nougat core. It melted because of the intense heat from the fires.

[Alt+F4]

So with your beam theory TS I have a few questions for you.

TS will send you to this website, which is beam theory central:
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html

I can sum it up for you. The beam was created by the Death Star and it destroyed Alderaan and the World Trade Center.

[TruthSeeker1234]

So with your beam theory TS I have a few questions for you.

-Where were the beams located?
-How exactly do you think they would work? I have a picture in my head of a big laser beam destroyed the core and I'm pretty sure some people would have seen or reported such a thing.
-Who do you think put the beams in place to destroy the core? And how did no one notice something like that?
-Why were remains of these weapons/beams never found in the rubble of the WTC's?
-Was the same thing used to bring down WTC 7? Or were the new silent explosives used in that CD?

Also, did the Towers floors actually fall the correct way because of the impact of the planes followed by the fires? Or did the US government destroy the floors through a normal controlled demolition, then leave the core to the all mighty star wars beam?

It's not my beam theory, credit goes to Wood/Reynolds. I think their idea is that it is a space-based weapon system.

As for "floors falling", I don't know what you mean. What we observe is that the floor assemblies appear to turn into dust and get expelled outwards in all directions with great force. The permiter section appear to become shredded and also thrown outwards with great force.

It is nice to imagine that "floors actually fall the correct way", but in the end, after the dust clears, we don't see any evidence of fallen floors. Anywhere. No floor assemblies. None. Can't find 'em.

We see evidence of a stump of WTC1 core. And no evidence of WTC2 core.

So, you put that together with the round holes, the melted cars, the vehicles that exploded from the inside, the tiny seismic readings, the disappearing tires (the ones that leave their steel belts behind), and all the other very strange stuff, and I'm just waiting for some answers to appear.

[Unfit4Command]

TS will send you to this website, which is beam theory central:
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html

I can sum it up for you. The beam was created by the Death Star and it destroyed Alderaan and the World Trade Center.

awww...the website is under construction. I'll go back later.

I remember someone posting something about the Star Wars beam weapon on the SLCF. Is this what TS is talking about?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/starwarsbeam.jpg

[WildCat]

So, you put that together with the round holes, the melted cars, the vehicles that exploded from the inside, the tiny seismic readings, the disappearing tires (the ones that leave their steel belts behind), and all the other very strange stuff, and I'm just waiting for some answers to appear.
Good luck with that.

[WildCat]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/starwarsbeam.jpg
:dl:

Great one!

[Axiom_Blade]

TS will send you to this website, which is beam theory central:
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html

I can sum it up for you. The beam was created by the Death Star and it destroyed Alderaan and the World Trade Center.

Apparently, the WTC was built in a bathtub, too.
Huh!

[Alt+F4]

awww...the website is under construction. I'll go back later.

It will be under construction forever. The basic information is there now and won't change.

[twinstead]

I

It is nice to imagine that "floors actually fall the correct way", but in the end, after the dust clears, we don't see any evidence of fallen floors. Anywhere. No floor assemblies. None. Can't find 'em.


Yea, but that's only suspicious if there SHOULD be evidence of fallen floors.

Hell, I can say I think the WTC was an inside job because I don't see any evidence of huge plastic rainbows throwing shadows on the moon during the explosions.

See how that works? The answer to my argument is, like the answer to yours is, "well, nobody who has studied the collapse and who knows what they are talking about expects to see shadows of huge plastic rainbows on the moon".

[Pardalis]

Great one!

Honestly, we shouldn't make fun of this.

[stateofgrace]

It's not my beam theory, credit goes to Wood/Reynolds. I think their idea is that it is a space-based weapon system.


Credit?

What the hell are you talking about? It is the most stupid theory in the history of stupid theories

[beachnut]

It's not my beam theory, credit goes to Wood/Reynolds. I think their idea is that it is a space-based weapon system.

As for "floors falling", I don't know what you mean. What we observe is that the floor assemblies appear to turn into dust and get expelled outwards in all directions with great force. The permiter section appear to become shredded and also thrown outwards with great force.

It is nice to imagine that "floors actually fall the correct way", but in the end, after the dust clears, we don't see any evidence of fallen floors. Anywhere. No floor assemblies. None. Can't find 'em.

We see evidence of a stump of WTC1 core. And no evidence of WTC2 core.

So, you put that together with the round holes, the melted cars, the vehicles that exploded from the inside, the tiny seismic readings, the disappearing tires (the ones that leave their steel belts behind), and all the other very strange stuff, and I'm just waiting for some answers to appear.

Has your family started to commit you?

I can see parts of floor assemblies, you are not doing a very good job.

[maccy]

awww...the website is under construction. I'll go back later.

You'll get the gist of it pretty well if you go there now. But, honestly, the theory is so crazy that you have to be deluded to give it any credence.

In my opinion arguing with Truthseeker on this issue is pretty much an academic exercise as he is not amenable to reasoned argument or evidence; has no understanding of even the most basic principles of physics; and considers it possible that a high powered star-wars orbital laser could have been developed in secret by the US government and the only used to demolish the WTC (and not used, for example, against North Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Venezuala or the Eiffel Tower).

Anyway, if you want to follow a long and sometimes very amusing debate:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66444

[beachnut]

:dl:

Great one!


wow, someone had an anti cloaking camera.

Where did you get it? (do not tell TS you have a anti-cloaking camera)

that is like those secret night vision goggles, you can only keep a secret so long

[Trigood]

Hi U4C,

(BTW, I hope your name doesn't refer to that awful book about John Kerry, but if it does, I'll forgive you if you're truly seeking 9/11 truth, not "troof." :) )

About your request, StateOfGrace has given you the basics pretty well.

A lot of what I've learned was from several books. One was 102 Minutes: The Untold Story of the Fight to Survive Inside the Twin Towers, by Jim Dwyer and Kevin Flynn. I don't have the book in front of me, but there's a lot of good diagrams, as well as a lot of good discussion about the collapses, fire codes and how they were/were not carried out, etc. etc. It's scattered thruout the book, however, because it's mainly a chronological retelling of the morning from survivors' viewpoints. But the book carries you along so I think it's a pretty easy read.

Another good reference is City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center, by James Glanz and Eric Lipton, two NYT reporters. They discuss the construction of the building, as well as its collapse. I haven't read it all, so I can't say how thorough it is, but it looks pretty interesting from dipping into it.

Both of these books should be available at your public library. You can even reserve books online at most libraries now, so you can just go pick it up at the branch nearest to you. Thanks for your interest.

[Unfit4Command]

It's not my beam theory, credit goes to Wood/Reynolds. I think their idea is that it is a space-based weapon system.

Oh, I'll have to read up more on that.

As for "floors falling", I don't know what you mean. What we observe is that the floor assemblies appear to turn into dust and get expelled outwards in all directions with great force.
So what are you suggesting turned the floors to dust? The beam weapon?:eek:
It's not like there's nothing inside of a building that can't be turned into dust, and small objects
-Ceiling Tiles
-Some concrete as it falls at great speeds(keep in mind, the buildings fell nearly 1/4th of a mile in 15-20 seconds depending on what you believe) smashing into the floors below. This wasn't just concrete slabs hitting concrete slabs, this was steel crashing through concrete at great speeds. Who would win in a fight, steel or concrete?
-Plaster, and other materials in the walls and floors.
-And more...

The permiter section appear to become shredded and also thrown outwards with great force.
I usually just observe that the permiter sections fell away from the building normally, some of the aluminum siding may have been pushed away since it's much much more light weight and actually able to be pushed away.
Like this picture shows how the permiter columns fell away from the building as the floors pancaked and pushed them away:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/columnd.jpg

It is nice to imagine that "floors actually fall the correct way", but in the end, after the dust clears, we don't see any evidence of fallen floors. Anywhere. No floor assemblies. None. Can't find 'em.
You do know that when the dust cleared a majority of the debris you saw just fell 1/4th of a mile, right? As Fire fighters and relief workers dug deeper into the debris you can clearly see visible floor sections.
Like here:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/WTC7/fireman.jpg

We see evidence of a stump of WTC1 core. And no evidence of WTC2 core.
Based on assumption.

So, you put that together with the round holes, the melted cars, the vehicles that exploded from the inside, the tiny seismic readings, the disappearing tires (the ones that leave their steel belts behind), and all the other very strange stuff, and I'm just waiting for some answers to appear.

The holes have been proven to not be round on this forum already, I don't understand why you continue to make that claim. Besides, it's not like debris weren't flying through the air and couldn't have caused the holes. Have you ever checked what room(s) were destroyed in the buildings by the debris falling through the ceiling?
You know the big hole in the corner of building 7?! Maybe a bomb of the star wars beam did that too!:eek:

The melted cars, yeah, you probably wouldn't expect those with the car fires and all.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/burningcars.jpg
Have you ever heard of cars being caught on fire in a Controlled demo(not that the WTC's were destroyed this way) because of the collapse? Or anything melting because of the collapse? Or a massive heat wave coming off the buildings? If a massive heat wave did come off of the building strong enough to melt cars and tires, then how did some people survive inside the building after it collapsed? Did the wave hot enough to melt cars miss them?

Tiny seismic readings as in readings that show internal failures inside the building or electrical explosions.

Yeah...I'm in the same boat as you, I want some answers to appear from the CT side, especially about this Star Wars beam weapon, but I have yet to really get any...:(

[Christophera]

So the core is just made out of steel? ah, that's good to know.

I detect a healthy note of doubt. Nice thread. This page will clear up some issues.

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

Combined with this page.

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

It should be fairly obvious that not only was there a concrete core, but what we saw could only happen with a concrete core.


This information is wrong on a few facts, you have to sort out the misinformation from CT sites and other sites who have it wrong.

There is no concrete core. I have see this diagram and it misleads a lot of people. Poor research by a journalist or other source.

Like spelling a name wrong, they defined the WTC wrong!

I'm amazed you haven't figured out why that image from the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1540000/images/_1540044_world_trade_structure300.gif)exists yet.

It was not poor journalism. Sort of the reverse in some ways. That core design was one that Yamasaki had investigated and rejected because no concrete contractor would state it could be built. That is a post stressed design.

The BBC faithfully took a design, albeit rejected, and reproduced it. It is far close than what FEMA produced.

[Trigood]

Hunt the cores, Unfit. Hunt them down.
Oooo, now I've got my signature! Thanks PooperScooper!

That just cracks me up, like something out of an old, bad detective movie. B movie version of Bogart....:)

Thanks for brightening my night, PS!

Now if I could only get the .sig page to work, grrrr....

Fudged .sig:
_______________

"Hunt the cores, Unfit. Hunt them down. -TruthSeeker1234

[DarkMagician]

It's not my beam theory, credit goes to Wood/Reynolds. I think their idea is that it is a space-based weapon system.And the one the US has can't effectively set off a missle. Any smart person would drop this theory like a ch-- bad habit.

[hellaeon]

TS1234, I cant take you seriously. Nobody could seriously lend reality to the star wars beam theory. What the hell is a star wars beam. Why not a battlestar galactica beam. How about the beams on star ship troopers.

Personally my view is your either pulling my leg or doing this for attention. I doubt you believe any of this.

[defaultdotxbe]

That core design was one that Yamasaki had investigated and rejected because no concrete contractor would state it could be built.
you do know what "rejected" means right? it means the WTC didnt have a concrete core

[Christophera]

you do know what "rejected" means right? it means the WTC didnt have a concrete core

It means Yamasaki rejected the post stressed and adopted a coventional steel reinforced cast concrete tubular core.

[maccy]

I suggest that as Christophera and TruthSeeker1234 already have threads discussing their points of view that we don't respond to them here - as we will only be repeating ourselves.

If anybody does want to join the fray elsewhere:

Christophera's concrete core thread:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57426

Truthseeker1234's:
Beam weapon thread:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66444
Frank Greening thread:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67920
squib thread:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67373
momentum transfer thread:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63535
blown to kingdom come thread:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66756

[Christophera]

I suggest that as Christophera and TruthSeeker1234 already have threads discussing their points of view that we don't respond to them here - as we will only be repeating ourselves.

If anybody does want to join the fray elsewhere:

Christophera's concrete core thread:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57426

Truthseeker1234's:
Beam weapon thread:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66444
Frank Greening thread:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67920
squib thread:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67373
momentum transfer thread:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63535
blown to kingdom come thread:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66756

Whta'sa matter with that. The massive deletrious of denial without substance in the Realistic Explanation thread makes it so I have to repeat myself over and over.

[Horatius]

You do know that when the dust cleared a majority of the debris you saw just fell 1/4th of a mile, right? As Fire fighters and relief workers dug deeper into the debris you can clearly see visible floor sections.
Like here:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/WTC7/fireman.jpg



I know you'll find this hard to believe, but TS1234 actually looks at pictures like that, and claims there's "no macroscopic debris". I fact, I think he's said it about that exact picture, or at least one very similar.




The holes have been proven to not be round on this forum already, I don't understand why you continue to make that claim.


Neither do the rest of us, but he still does it. Take a look around for some of our discussions of how much dust was produced, and laid down in the dust layer sometime.


The melted cars, yeah, you probably wouldn't expect those with the car fires and all.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/burningcars.jpg



He probably wouldn't expect it, no. Everybody else does, though!


Yeah...I'm in the same boat as you, I want some answers to appear from the CT side, especially about this Star Wars beam weapon, but I have yet to really get any...:(

And history suggests you never will. Welcome to JREF, the line for people with headaches starts on the right.....

Based on this post, I think you'll fit in pretty well here. Just try not to let the CTists bite your hand when you rattle their cages.

[CurtC]

As Fire fighters and relief workers dug deeper into the debris you can clearly see visible floor sections.
Like here:
Unfit, your opening post was worded in a way similar to what we've seen multiple times from insane CT people who do a just-asking-questions kind of post while asking everyone else to do their research for them, before quickly diving into sheer nuttiness.

Some of us here misjudged you, and let me apologize on behalf of everyone and welcome you.

[TruthSeeker1234]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/WTC7/fireman.jpg

Anybody know which building this is?

[maccy]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/WTC7/fireman.jpg

Anybody know which building this is?

As TruthSeeker1234 is back, I'll say it one last time:

I suggest that as Christophera and TruthSeeker1234 already have threads discussing their points of view that we don't respond to them here - as we will only be repeating ourselves and duplicating information that's on those threads

If anybody does want to join the fray elsewhere:

Christophera's concrete core thread:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57426

Truthseeker1234's:
Beam weapon thread:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66444
Frank Greening thread:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67920
squib thread:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67373
momentum transfer thread:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63535
blown to kingdom come thread:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66756

[gumboot]

Unfit,

Hi, a useful video might be one taken from (I think) across the river from the WTC. You will find it posted on Google Video etc. as a video showing "Evidence of explosions". Ignore that silliness, but it does have some use. You can clearly see large sections of the building cores standing a significant time after the rest of the building collapsed.

As we know from NIST, the collapse was triggered by an exterior column failure, not a floor failure. As the exterior columns stripped away from the building the floors naturally failed with them, thus the building was "Stripped" to the core, which in turn failed, not capable of standing on its own after having experienced such massive forces.

-Gumboot

[DarkMagician]

It means Yamasaki rejected the post stressed and adopted a coventional steel reinforced cast concrete tubular core.

Huh? Making an inverted ouroboros circle out of your body, aren't we?

[Horatius]

Unfit,

Hi, a useful video might be one taken from (I think) across the river from the WTC. You will find it posted on Google Video etc. as a video showing "Evidence of explosions". Ignore that silliness, but it does have some use. You can clearly see large sections of the building cores standing a significant time after the rest of the building collapsed.



Another good video that shows the core of at least the second collapse is the "What We Saw" video that was released not too lang ago. It's the clearest one I've seen, at least.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Hunt the Corrs Truthseeker, hunt them down.

You mean these?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/55/The_Corrs.jpg

I'd hunt that. ;)

Well... the three in front, at least.

[beachnut]

send them over, and then i just need 4 more for the vacancies in the hot tub

[mcMike]

I can sum it up for you. The beam was created by the Death Star and it destroyed Alderaan and the World Trade Center.

Oh Wait. You're' saying it was the very SAME "magic"-beam that was used to destroy Alderaan? Does this mean that we can now calculate the distance back to Alderaan and to the galaxy "far far away" ?

It was shot 1974 and arrived to earth 2001 so that means Alderaan is only 25 light years away? Damnit. Thats scary. So how long does it take for a DS to travel here and take a better shot? Is that what the markings on cropfields are? Targets? :eek:

[Unfit4Command]

I detect a healthy note of doubt. Nice thread. This page will clear up some issues.

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

Combined with this page.

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

It should be fairly obvious that not only was there a concrete core, but what we saw could only happen with a concrete core.

Actually I wasn't doubtful at all, I just have never really asked questions about the core before and it is good to know that they didn't have a concrete covering.
____________

About the websites you posted...
I read through them, and neither one of them have convinced me.
This picture here seems like more and more BS each time I see it:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/WTC/southCorestandingafterCollapse.jpg
How is that obviously a concrete core? It's taken from the side, there could easily be other debris a parts of the building stuck in the cracks of the core after the collapse just making it appear that way. No other pictures I've seen show a concrete core.

Look here, this is the South Tower core standing at the beginning of the collapse:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/WTC/core2-1.jpg
It looks nothing like the hump that appeared at the base of the collapse with a rounded top. It's obvious that falling debris distorted the core and made it appear differently.

These are pictures of the cores:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/WTC/corelows.jpg

This is an interesting picture, it shows how the core could appear to be a completely solid object with no holes or cracks in it, especially from hundreds of feet away, yet there's no concrete visible even from only a few feet away:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/WTC/core.jpg

This picture says a lot, where's the concrete? You can pretty much look right through the building:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/WTC/core6.jpg

Where's the concrete in these:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/WTC/wtc-core1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/WTC/core3.jpg

__________________

So...you have one picture from hundreds of feet away from the collapse that makes the core appear to be concrete, and that somehow proves all of these pictures false, and proves that the buildings had concrete coverings on their cores?

[maccy]

Actually I wasn't doubtful at all, I just have never really asked questions about the core before and it is good to know that they didn't have a concrete covering.

<snip>

So...you have one picture from hundreds of feet away from the collapse that makes the core appear to be concrete, and that somehow proves all of these pictures false, and proves that the buildings had concrete coverings on their cores?


Obviously you can do what you like in this thread but you won't get Christopera to change his mind. The thread he started about the concrete core is at 179 pages and counting. Christophera's main response is to repeatedly post the same photos and links from his own website and continually assert that nobody has provided "raw evidence" of a concrete core.

Over the course of his long thread it has become apparent that Christophera will never change his mind and is almost certinly suffering from a mental illness. He believes that the concrete core was built with C4 coated rebar that could be detonated at a later date. Apparently, encasing C4 in concrete preserved it past its usual shelf life (10 years, if I remeber correctly).

[Pardalis]

You mean these?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/55/The_Corrs.jpg

I'd hunt that. ;)

Well... the three in front, at least.

This needs further investigation.

;)

[Christophera]

These are pictures of the cores:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/WTC/corelows.jpg

So...you have one picture from hundreds of feet away from the collapse that makes the core appear to be concrete, and that somehow proves all of these pictures false, and proves that the buildings had concrete coverings on their cores?

That picture shows the interior box columns which surrounded the core and on the page lnked below (also with the image of your post) there is a picture of the concrete blowing up which is why the image you post shos not concrete.

The website documenting the concrete core has many images showing concrete.


I detect a healthy note of doubt. Nice thread. This page will clear up some issues.

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

Combined with this page.

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

It should be fairly obvious that not only was there a concrete core, but what we saw could only happen with a concrete core.

[chipmunk stew]

Actually I wasn't doubtful at all, I just have never really asked questions about the core before and it is good to know that they didn't have a concrete covering.
____________

About the websites you posted...
I read through them, and neither one of them have convinced me.
This picture here seems like more and more BS each time I see it:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/WTC/southCorestandingafterCollapse.jpg
How is that obviously a concrete core? It's taken from the side, there could easily be other debris a parts of the building stuck in the cracks of the core after the collapse just making it appear that way. No other pictures I've seen show a concrete core.

Look here, this is the South Tower core standing at the beginning of the collapse:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/WTC/core2-1.jpg
It looks nothing like the hump that appeared at the base of the collapse with a rounded top. It's obvious that falling debris distorted the core and made it appear differently.

These are pictures of the cores:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/WTC/corelows.jpg

This is an interesting picture, it shows how the core could appear to be a completely solid object with no holes or cracks in it, especially from hundreds of feet away, yet there's no concrete visible even from only a few feet away:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/WTC/core.jpg

This picture says a lot, where's the concrete? You can pretty much look right through the building:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/WTC/core6.jpg

Where's the concrete in these:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/WTC/wtc-core1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/WTC/core3.jpg

__________________

So...you have one picture from hundreds of feet away from the collapse that makes the core appear to be concrete, and that somehow proves all of these pictures false, and proves that the buildings had concrete coverings on their cores?
The pages Christophera linked to are his own creation. Yes, he's using himself as a source. Your discussion with him, should you choose to continue it, will be entirely fruitless (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57426).

WARNING: CHRISTOPHERA CROSSING

:hb:

[Unfit4Command]

That picture shows the interior box columns which surrounded the core and on the page lnked below (also with the image of your post) there is a picture of the concrete blowing up which is why the image you post shos not concrete.

So...every single tiny piece of concrete was destroyed leaving only visible the steel structure of the core? Wow, that must have been a serious waste of time to set that many explosives. Can you imagine how many explosives that would take? How powerful they would have to be? How long it would take to set up? And how impossible it would be to hide?

Do you really believe that the core was coated in C4 during the construction? If so, why did all of the construction workers keep quiet for so many years? What did they have to gain for coating the building with c4? Considering the fact that construction workers usually aren't explosive experts, how did they know how to put it on, and how to not blow themselves up? Seems like an accident would have happened at least once during the construction.

Also, since you say that all of the concrete was destroyed in that one picture of the core, why isn't the concrete visible in these pictures?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/WTC/wtc-core1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/WTC/core6.jpg

Did they destroy the concrete on accident with the C4 during the construction? Or did it just never exist?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/WTC/core2-1.jpg


The website documenting the concrete core has many images showing concrete.

Funny how I don't really see any concrete in those pictures along with most other people who go there probably.
There is a single false, rejected diagram that shows the columns being surrounded by concrete. And a picture from hundreds of feet away showing part of the core of the South Tower still standing, the picture is shortly after the collapse so debris and dust greatly cover the core, and it's from hundreds of feet away. You can THAT your evidence? But yet ignore every othe picture of the core that show no concrete what so ever? Both during construction, and during the collapse?

I'm just asking questions here.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/WTC7/askquestions.gif
I think both sides can do so, yet after reading threads like this it seems like only those opposing CTs are the ones giving scientific and reliable answers aside from a few rare occurances.

[TruthSeeker1234]

So where are we on cross bracing and independent floor systems? Sure seems like the cores had them, according to all the pictures.

[LashL]

So where are we on cross bracing and independent floor systems? Sure seems like the cores had them, according to all the pictures.

TS1+2=4: You're boring. And your mother dresses you funny.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

This needs further investigation.

;)

Agreed, it's time for a thread-jacking. This is now a "hot chicks with musical talent" thread (does Abby play an instrument?).

I'll see your scantily clad irish violinists and raise you one canadian jazz singer from the Chrysler Sebring commercials:
http://perso.orange.fr/fabeen/Photos/Diana%20Krall%2037%20GQ.jpg

[jhunter1163]

Ever wish you were a floral-print kimono? I know I do.

[WildCat]

So where are we on cross bracing and independent floor systems? Sure seems like the cores had them, according to all the pictures.
You keep referring to these pictures, but haven't produced any...

[Christophera]

Also, since you say that all of the concrete was destroyed in that one picture of the core, why isn't the concrete visible in these pictures?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/WTC/wtc-core1.jpg


The concrete was up to 80 feet below the top floor. The "MASSIVE" interior box columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) ringing the outside of the core were the support for the outer forms so they had to be erected first.

[Garb]

The concrete was up to 80 feet below the top floor. The "MASSIVE" interior box columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) ringing the outside of the core were the support for the outer forms so they had to be erected first.

Proof of those who built the towers that the concrete core (if it even existed) was 80 feet below?

[twinstead]

Proof of those who built the towers that the concrete core (if it even existed) was 80 feet below?

To date, Chris has failed to provide ANY eye-witness accounts of a concrete core during construction by those who were involved.

[Horatius]

The concrete was up to 80 feet below the top floor. The "MASSIVE" interior box columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) ringing the outside of the core were the support for the outer forms so they had to be erected first.

So, who didn't know Chris would post this?

Seriously, Unfit4, you'll regret this eventually.....

[WildCat]

The concrete was up to 80 feet below the top floor. The "MASSIVE" interior box columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) ringing the outside of the core were the support for the outer forms so they had to be erected first.
No, those are the crane supports (http://www.sustainability-east.com/assets/crane%20and%20site.jpg). They are part of the crane system, not the building and as such are removed along w/ the cranes after construction.

[Horatius]

No, those are the crane supports (http://www.sustainability-east.com/assets/crane%20and%20site.jpg). They are part of the crane system, not the building and as such are removed along w/ the cranes after construction.

You know, I've always wanted to see how they put up one of those cranes. I had a perfect opportunity to watch one once, but I missed it. I leave for work one day, and when I get home, right across the street out of my window, I see a whole new crane there. They did the whole thing while I was at work, and I missed it all!

[WildCat]

You know, I've always wanted to see how they put up one of those cranes.
It involves a Star Wars tractor beam. If I told you any more, I'd have to kill you.

It's true. :)

[Horatius]

It involves a Star Wars tractor beam. If I told you any more, I'd have to kill you.

It's true. :)

You know, I think it'd almost be worth it, just to have scratched that itch......

[maccy]

So, who didn't know Chris would post this?

Seriously, Unfit4, you'll regret this eventually.....

To see the arguments go around and around forever, go to this thread

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57426

Read a few pages and then skip ten or so, read a few more and repeat. You'll see that Chris's arguments don't change - he's just been repeating himself for the best part of six months.

To get some insight into Chris' mental state:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=68391

Really, we're all best off ignoring Christophera.

[Unfit4Command]

So, who didn't know Chris would post this?

Seriously, Unfit4, you'll regret this eventually.....

I'm just waiting for TS and Chris to answer my questions, they seem to be ignoring them pretty well.

[Pardalis]

Agreed, it's time for a thread-jacking. This is now a "hot chicks with musical talent" thread.

I'll see your scantily clad irish violinists and raise you one canadian jazz singer from the Chrysler Sebring commercials:

:D

OK, that was a tough one. What about this French Canadian cutie?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8886454f8e293c495.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2470)

[firecoins]

How many threads are needed on non-existant concrete cores?

[Horatius]

I'm just waiting for TS and Chris to answer my questions, they seem to be ignoring them pretty well.

Yes, they are quite adept at that by now. On the plus side, waiting for them to answer is almost zen-like in it's meditative value :)

[Peephole]

You know, I've always wanted to see how they put up one of those cranes.
Why, with a bigger crane of course!

[chipmunk stew]

:D

OK, that was a tough one. What about this French Canadian cutie?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8886454f8e293c495.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2470)
I nominate Norah Jones:

http://artguru.info/img/Norah-Jones-500x524.jpg

[chipmunk stew]

I nominate Norah Jones:

http://artguru.info/img/Norah-Jones-500x524.jpg
Close runner-up, Joss Stone:

http://www.joss-stone-pictures.com/joss-stone-bikini7.jpg

[Pardalis]

I raise you Nina Persson (literally)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_88864558c28fd17f2.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2585)

[uk_dave]

The floors simply braced the core and the external steel super structure together. They were reinforced with concrete. I could be wrong on this one but I am also led to believe that the floors weighted the same, i.e. floor 10 weighted the same as floor 100. They were simply strapped to the core, which took the weight and in turn to the external steel superstructure.



I would hesitate to use the word 'reinforced', in reference to the floors.

My understanding is that the floor construction was of lattice beams or trusses spanning between the vertical members (the internal and external columns) and supporting corrugated steel decking. As with a corrugated steel roof covering on an industrial building (or even corrugated cardboard) the corruges (yes I just made that word up!) in the steel make it much more rigid than simple flat steel plate and so it's ability to span from one floor truss to another allows for greater spacing of the floor trusses and a saving in materials, time and money.

But corrugated steel aint much fun to walk on and if you don't get the legs of you chair in the right position, you fall over very easily.

After many years of scientific study. the Royal Society for the Study of Wonky Chairs concluded in their 1823 report that it would be more beneficial to cast a simple concrete slab over the corrugated steel deck, thus providing a level surface upon which to place a chair. They then went down the pub at 1827.

But apart from that, I think Stateofgrace was spot on, if slightly scottish.

Apologies if this was picked up in any subsequent posts, but once I saw truthy and christo posting on this thread I just scrolled through to the pictures of the hot chicks (apologies to any hot chicks reading this etc etc)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

The beam weapon idea is a hypothesis to be tested.

Will you also be testing out the IPU sabotage hypothesis?

[chipmunk stew]

The beam weapon idea is a hypothesis to be tested.
Just for laughs, please outline a test protocol for this investigation. (If BullSquatter1+2=4 does not wish to participate, I'd be happy to hear anyone else's ideas.)

[maccy]

Just for laughs, please outline a test protocol for this investigation. (If BullSquatter1+2=4 does not wish to participate, I'd be happy to hear anyone else's ideas.)

I never tire of linking to this post:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2086102#post2086102

Bear in mind that TS1234's latest contention that the steel is evaporating (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2091558#post2091558) on the way down, so the energy requirement needs upping a little.

[stateofgrace]

But corrugated steel aint much fun to walk on and if you don't get the legs of you chair in the right position, you fall over very easily.

After many years of scientific study. the Royal Society for the Study of Wonky Chairs concluded in their 1823 report that it would be more beneficial to cast a simple concrete slab over the corrugated steel deck, thus providing a level surface upon which to place a chair. They then went down the pub at 1827.

But apart from that, I think Stateofgrace was spot on, if slightly scottish.

Apologies if this was picked up in any subsequent posts, but once I saw truthy and christo posting on this thread I just scrolled through to the pictures of the hot chicks (apologies to any hot chicks reading this etc etc)
Haha, Thanks for the correction Uk Dave, yeah I can imagine wonky chairs syndrome, mind it normally happens after I've been down the pub. They just become wonky all of a sudden.

BTW we don't all live in caves up here, we do have some culture:)


http://www.facemaker.ca/bagpipesweb.jpg

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

The concrete was up to 80 feet below the top floor. The "MASSIVE" interior box columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) ringing the outside of the core were the support for the outer forms so they had to be erected first.

Keep your psychotic drivel on your own thread.

[eeyore1954]

Originally Posted by Horatius
You know, I've always wanted to see how they put up one of those cranes


Why, with a bigger crane of course!

And you know how they put up that bigger crane don't you.
Why, with a bigger crane of course!!

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by Horatius

And you know how they put up that bigger crane don't you.
Why, with a bigger crane of course!!

Okay, I get it now - It's cranes all the way up, right?


:D

[Horatius]

Just for laughs, please outline a test protocol for this investigation. (If BullSquatter1+2=4 does not wish to participate, I'd be happy to hear anyone else's ideas.)

We build an exact, full-scale replica of one Tower (two would just be extravagant). TS1234 camps out on the roof for a year, periodically shouting "Nyah Nyah NWO! Bet ya can't blow this one to Kingdom Come!"

Having been mocked into outrage, the NWO BWoD will then blow the tower to Kingdom Come, if said BWoD actually exists.

And on 364 days (out of 365), if it lasts that long, we smack the tower with a (drone ;)) 767, just to see what happens.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Okay, I get it now - It's cranes all the way up, right?


:D

Could be an excellent replacement for 'turtles all the way down'.

[Horatius]

Okay, I get it now - It's cranes all the way up, right?


:D

Could be an excellent replacement for 'turtles all the way down'.

A man can dream...;)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

A man can dream...;)

It's monkeys, all the way in the middle.

[Horatius]

It's monkeys, all the way in the middle.

Well now that's just confusing. Wouldn't the monkeys just climb the cranes? They do look like monkey bars.

Although this could explain why NASA used monkeys in the first space shots - they expected to find a bunch of them already up there!

[firecoins]

Could be an excellent replacement for 'turtles all the way down'.
where is that from? The reference to turtles all the way up. I read it somewhere.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

where is that from? The reference to turtles all the way up. I read it somewhere.

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

[Horatius]

where is that from? The reference to turtles all the way up. I read it somewhere.

Turtles all the way down (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down).

ETA: Damn slow fingers!

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Turtles all the way down (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down).

ETA: Damn slow fingers!

When you can snatch the Google results from my browser cache, and post them first; only then will you become a master.

[Canadian Malcontent]

Nice little study, Unfit. You are correct, the cores survived, then fell. What could explain this? If all of the floors and perimeter sections "fell" down past the core, why would the core then disintegrate a few seconds later? It makes no sense.
No core dude steel building fire was probably hotter than 800 defrees, Which doesnt matter cuz the steel didnt have to melt just get hot.
Towers fell straight down because of.......................GRAVITY!!!