Analysis of WTC1 Scanned Prints And Downloaded Files.

[Christophera]

Unfortunately the WTC plans released appear to be fakes.

We knew that the 9-11 movement was infiltrated and beset with massive disinformation, psyops efforts. Exactly what that looks like we did not know. Now we have a picture.

There is a downloadable set of digital files consisting of this name at the top level

LERA - PLANS-022102

Inside that directory, listed below are the sub directories of files and a single .txt file on the first level.

1.)weidlingerAssoc_WTCtowerCollapseFlexPOVfiles178 0msTO1880ms
2.)tvmast
3.)subLevels
4.)PAC1 TOWER A
5.)FoundationPlans
6.)floor_heights.txt (single text file)
7.)Dxf's


The below are the "1.)weidlingerAssoc" and drawing file formats w/file extension from the subdirectoy file names of of the above.

flxpov.TowerB.MV.1790.gz
flxpov.TowerB.MV.1780.gz
flxpov.TowerB.MV.1850.gz
flxpov.TowerB.MV.1880.gz
flxpov.TowerB.MV.1860.gz
flxpov.TowerB.MV.1840.gz
flxpov.TowerB.MV.1820.gz
flxpov.TowerB.MV.1810.gz
flxpov.TowerB.MV.1800.gz
flxpov.TowerB.MV.1830.gz
flxpov.TowerB.MV.1870.gz
flxpov.TowerB.MV.1820

The below are the "2.)tvmast" and drawing file formats w/file extension from the subdirectoy file names at the top.

CD_14_PAC1
CD_8_MK9_2of2
WTC - Roof Truss.xls
CD_ARCH
DIAGONAL.TXT
CD_8_BK9_1of2

The below are the "3.)subLevels" and drawing file formats w/file extension from the subdirectoy file names at the top.

SKA10-84.tif
SKA12-84.tif
SKA11-84.tif

The below are the "4.)PAC1 TOWER A" and drawing file formats w/file extension from the subdirectoy file names at the top.

A-A-148.tif
A-A-146.tif
A-A-45.tif
A-A-44.tif
A-A-43.tif
A-A-42.tif
A-A-41.tif
A-A-40.tif
A-A-4.tif
A-A-69.tif
A-A-126.tif
A-A-71.tif
A-A-147.tif
A-A-144.tif
A-A-143.tif
A-A-103.tif
A-A-25.tif
A-A-24.tif
A-A-23.tif
A-A-176a.tif
A-A-112.tif
A-A-124.tif
A-A-49.tif
A-A-154.tif
A-A-153.tif
A-A-172.tif
A-A-171.tif
A-A-170.tif
A-A-134.tif
A-A-156.tif
A-A-155.tif
A-A-176.tif
A-A139.tif
A-A-99.tif
A-A-98.tif
A-A-97.tif
A-A-96.tif
A-A-95.tif
A-A-94.tif
A-A-93.tif
TITTLE SHEET.tif
T-A-AB-MD-1.tif
T-A-A-110.tif
NO NAME1.tif
LA9.tif
LA8.tif
LA7.tif
LA6.tif
LA5.tif
LA4.tif
LA3.tif
LA26.tif
LA25.tif
LA24.tif
LA23.tif
LA22.tif
LA21.tif
LA20.tif
LA2.tif
LA19.tif
LA18.tif
LA17.tif
LA16.tif
LA15.tif
LA14.tif
LA13.tif
LA12.tif
LA11.tif
LA10.tif
LA1.tif
A-A-53.tif
A-A-110.tif
A-A-152.tif
A-A-151.tif
A-A-180.tif
A-A-18.tif
A-A-179.tif
A-A-101.tif
A-A-138.tif
A-A-137.tif
A-A-15.tif
A-A-128.tif
A-A-14.tif
A-A-131.tif
A-A-102.tif
A-A-162.tif
A-A-161.tif
A-A-63.tif
A-A-60.tif
A-A-6.tif
A-A-56.tif
A-A-10.tif
A-A-48.tif
A-A-107.tif
A-A-106.tif
A-A-122.tif
A-A-132.tif
A-A-135.tif
A-A-92.tif
A-A-91.tif
A-A-90.tif
A-A-9.tif
A-A-89.tif
A-A-88.tif
A-A-87.tif
A-A-86.tif
A-A-105.tif
A-A-178.tif
A-A-145.tif
A-A-129.tif
A-A-50.tif
A-A-51.tif
A-A-47.tif
A-A-46.tif
A-A-121.tif
A-A-100.tif
A-A-113.tif
A-A-11.tif
A-A-130.tif
A-A-65.tif
A-A-73.tif
A-A-81.tif
A-A-80.tif
A-A-8.tif
A-A-79.tif
A-A-39.tif
A-A-38.tif
A-A-37.tif
A-A-34.tif
A-A-33.tif
A-A-31.tif
A-A-165.tif
A-A-164.tif
A-A-163.tif
A-A-174.tif
A-A-140.tif
A-A-149.tif
A-A-159.tif
A-A-158.tif
A-A-157.tif
A-A-160.tif
A-A-16.tif
A-A-64.tif
A-A-175.tif
A-A-74.tif
A-A-72.tif
A-A-127.tif
A-A-123.tif
A-A-177.tif
A-A-70.tif
A-A-173a.tif
A-A-173.tif
A-A-30.tif
A-A-32.tif
A-A-3.tif
A-A-29.tif
A-A-28.tif
A-A-27.tif
A-A-26.tif
A-A-108.tif
A-A-118.tif
A-A-57.tif
A-A-55.tif
A-A-54.tif
A-A-52.tif
A-A-125.tif
A-A-141.tif
A-A-150.tif
A-A-136.tif
A-A-12.tif
A-A-133.tif
A-A-114.tif
A-A-1.tif
A-A-109.tif
A-A-10a.TIF
A-A-13.tif
A-A-5.tif
A-A-66.tif
A-A-20.tif
A-A-2.tif
A-A-19.tif
A-A-58.tif
A-A-116.tif
A-A-17.tif
A-A-169.tif
A-A-166.tif
A-A-111.tif
A-A-78.tif
A-A-77.tif
A-A-76.tif
A-A-75.tif
A-A-115.tif
A-A-85.tif
A-A-84.tif
A-A-83.tif
A-A-82.tif
A-A-142.tif
A-A-117.tif
A-A-104.tif
A-A-59.tif
A-A-22.tif
A-A-21.tif
A-A-20a.tif
A-A-67.tif
A-A-68.ti

The below are the "5.)FoundationPlans" and drawing file formats w/file extension from the subdirectoy file names at the top.

FILE0008.TIF
FILE0017.TIF
FILE0016.TIF
FILE0010.TIF
FILE0015.TIF
FILE0014.TIF
FILE0019.TIF
FILE0018.TIF
FILE0013.TIF
FILE0020.TIF
FILE0011.TIF
FILE0012.TIF
FILE0009.TIF
FILE0006.TIF
FILE0007.TIF

The single file "6.)floor_heights.txt"

The below are the "7.)Dxf's" and drawing file formats from the subdirectory file names of of the above.

wtc2s.dxf
wtc2.dwg
wtc1_2000.dxf
wtc1.dwg
topprints.dxf
HPLASER.ctb
save.ac$
save.$$$
footprints.dxf



The following is an anaylsis of random samples of the revisions table from the graphics files of the above WTC 1 plans "4.)PAC1 TOWER A". The analysis of graphic appearances and text from the "4.)PAC1 TOWER A" subdirectory above.

Most of the dimensions are not legible at any zoom level on any of the scans. The title block shows 1967 on most sets, some are not legible.

Below is a portion of the title block of A-A-13.TIFF
http://algoxy.com/psych/planimages/wtc1A-A-13.cert.block.jpeg

PROBLEMS WITH AUTHENTICITY OF THE ABOVE.
Note the lack of clouding (dots and trash) in the background of the actual dated "REVISIONS" table. An area ususally really smudged creating major clouding in a scanned plan. NOTE the clean, sharp edged cutoff of the dot cloud to the right of the word "REVISIONS". Something VERY typical of photoshopping documents.

NONE OF THE SHEETS ARE ACCEPTED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL OF THE PLANNING DIVISION. You can count on every sheet being signed with approval on a job for a building with this prominance.

These are not construction drawings. If they were from LERA they would be from scanned from vellumns and these are from beat up blue lines judging by the clouding trash on them. Some of the digital files were created on 10/15/02 at 4:44 AM

Below is a portion of the title block revisions table of A-A-99.TIFF Notice the anomalie in the initial columns of the left side table, 3rd cell from the bottom.

http://algoxy.com/psych/planimages/gWTC1rev.tabAA-99.jpg

Below is a zoom of that cell. Not much to be said about it except it definitely does not belong there and it is some sort of digital, graphic artifact. Not a hand lettered initial. far too straight for too many pixels

http://algoxy.com/psych/planimages/gwtc1rev.tab99.anoma.gif

Below is a portion of the title block revisions table of A-A-139.TIFF

http://algoxy.com/psych/planimages/wtc1rev.tabAA-139.jpg

Following is a zoom of that cell. Again, it is some sort of digital, graphic artifact. Not a hand lettered initial and far too straight for too many pixels

http://algoxy.com/psych/planimages/gwtc1rev.tab139.anoma.gif

The title block revisions of the table on A-A-140.TIFF also has the same anomalie with its characteristics.

http://algoxy.com/psych/planimages/gwtc1rev.tab140.anoma.gif

Sheet A-A-141.TIFF has the same anomalie but twice. The normal pixelaton of hand written characters is visible on the right.

http://algoxy.com/psych/planimages/gwtc1rev.tab141.anoma.DBL.gif

Comparison of the initials of 99 and 139 show the same initials circled in blue are suspicious and could be the same numbers copied and pasted perhaps after being separated from their accompanying triangular detail numbers an being altered by scaling. blurring or distorting. The date appears as the same quite often in the "REVISIONS" tables.

CONCLUSION
The plans are actually 1964 plans that have had their date altered to appear as 1967 or during construction. Since there is no approval by the chief of the palnning division it is certain the plans are not actual construction drawings.
Clearly the anomalie in the revisions table should not be there and the table is free of most clouding where there should be more than usual. Slice lines of grahphic manipulations appear in A-A-13.TIFF.
It seem very likely that a revisons table was scanned and disected then reassembled into a graphic which matched the title block of the WTC 1 preliminary set then pasted in. The entire file could then had been rescaled or saved at another resolution to hide the splices.

The .dxf files are useless and mostly nonsense. One file "wtc1_2000.dxf" is a product of the "LZA Technology A Division of The Thornton Tomasetti Group" and appears to be the beginning of an effort to analyse the plane impacts as the impact area of flight 11 is shown.

The false plans are an extenson of the FEMA lie devised to help prevent Americans from becoming suspicious and unraveling the official story. Had American known the true design of the towers, or the core of the tower, which was a steel reinforced cast concrete tube the full ehight of the tower, the questions which arose would have compelled a proper investigation immediately instead of the farse conducted.

The steel reinforced concrete core is documented at the below site with images of raw evidence from 9-11 which also show no steel core columns where they should be seen.

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

[ktesibios]

Two observations:

The only thing which is certain about the provenance of these documents is that they have been in the possession of a troother source.

It wouldn't be the first time that PCTers have uncritically passed on faked documents.

Remember Lauro Chavez?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64837

[Oliver]

Welcome back, Christopher. :)
( I already thought Jackchit visited you! :eek:)


I also looked into these documents but I didn't find any
conspirative Data - or locations for your C4. Could you sum
up your conclusions?

Cheers,
Oliver

[defaultdotxbe]

Two observations:

The only thing which is certain about the provenance of these documents is that they have been in the possession of a troother source.

It wouldn't be the first time that PCTers have uncritically passed on faked documents.

Remember Lauro Chavez?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64837
the main reason chrisa thinks theyre fake is because if they arent he is wrong about the WTC having a concrete core

[A W Smith]

Oh jeeze!! was this thread unexpected?

:dl:

[Freddy]

???

[Pardalis]

???

You've entered Christopheraland.

(cue Twighlight Zone theme)

:hypnotize

[hellaeon]

No. No. NO.

Dont start again, you owe it to reason and logic to change your ideas. Trust me its a great place to live.

Cheers

[GwionX]

First thing I thought of when looking at the "Unusual Initials" was..On 7-1-1971 a person from either China or Japan was initialing the revision.

[AZCat]

On the list of revisions, it appears that the last two (both on 6-18-71) were initialed by a "OBL".

I guess he was planning ahead... wayyyyyy ahead.

[David Wong]

I hearby predict that one year from now, this thread will still be on the front page. With 50,000 replies.

[T.A.M.]

Of course they are fakes. The real ones, OBVIOUSLY, would contain details of the concrete core...these do not.

TAM;)

[Hokulele]

Very clever detective work, finding clues in the Revision Table of all places. :rolleyes:

[Christophera]

Welcome back, Christopher. :)
( I already thought Jackchit visited you! :eek:)


I also looked into these documents but I didn't find any
conspirative Data - or locations for your C4. Could you sum
up your conclusions?

Cheers,
Oliver

Clearly in the absence of any image showing the supposed steel core columns in the core area and at some elevation above the ground, they had to come up with something to support the steel core columns.

As the plans have no source and the dimensions are not readable we can be certain that they did not come from LERA. I do not believe there are any details of the supposed bracing for the supposed core columns as well.

Which would be typical of a preliminary set sent to an engineer/architect for a final design evaluation/change. These are the structural set that accompanied the conceptual set we've been seeing for the last year or so from December 1964. The dates were very carefully altered and the alterations are not detectable as far as I've seen.

[Christophera]

Very clever detective work, finding clues in the Revision Table of all places. :rolleyes:

Seeing as the bullets, dimensions and notes are not really readable, that's all there really is to work with.

[Arus808]

omg...when is christophera ever going to learn about compression and artifacts in image formats? wasn't he shown that compression and artifacts always show up in scanned documents due to the type of image format they are scanned to?

[WildCat]

But does it show the 3" rebar on 4' centers?


:runaway

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Below is a portion of the title block of A-A-13.TIFF
http://algoxy.com/psych/planimages/wtc1A-A-13.cert.block.jpeg

PROBLEMS WITH AUTHENTICITY OF THE ABOVE.
Note the lack of clouding (dots and trash) in the background of the actual dated "REVISIONS" table. An area ususally really smudged creating major clouding in a scanned plan. NOTE the clean, sharp edged cutoff of the dot cloud to the right of the word "REVISIONS". Something VERY typical of photoshopping documents.
Take your blinders off. The "lack of clouding" also exists around the Registered Architect seal, as well as the signature. You can't claim that the same lack of clouding around the Revisions table is suspicious.

Below is a portion of the title block revisions table of A-A-99.TIFF Notice the anomalie in the initial columns of the left side table, 3rd cell from the bottom.

http://algoxy.com/psych/planimages/gWTC1rev.tabAA-99.jpg
:eek: I quite clearly see the initials "OBL" in that table. Who do we know with those initials? :tinfoil

[Christophera]

Take your blinders off. The "lack of clouding" also exists around the Registered Architect seal, as well as the signature. You can't claim that the same lack of clouding around the Revisions table is suspicious.


:eek: I quite clearly see the initials "OBL" in that table. Who do we know with those initials? :tinfoil

I've worked with quite a few scanned plan sets and the revisions table is usually the most clouded with dots' and smudge.

[David Wong]

But does it show the 3" rebar on 4' centers?




I'm not familiar with that. Is there anyone with more information on that topic?

[David Wong]

:eek: I quite clearly see the initials "OBL" in that table. Who do we know with those initials? :tinfoil

There must be a realistice explanation for all this.

[Oliver]

Clearly in the absence of any image showing the supposed steel core columns in the core area and at some elevation above the ground, they had to come up with something to support the steel core columns.

As the plans have no source and the dimensions are not readable we can be certain that they did not come from LERA. I do not believe there are any details of the supposed bracing for the supposed core columns as well.

Which would be typical of a preliminary set sent to an engineer/architect for a final design evaluation/change. These are the structural set that accompanied the conceptual set we've been seeing for the last year or so from December 1964. The dates were very carefully altered and the alterations are not detectable as far as I've seen.


So you think that these plans were not the final plans
for the towers because the missing steel columns and
the bracing - and the dates were manipulated.

The question is: Why should someone release altered
documents to the Truthmovement at all - if not for a
disinfo campaign to confuse everyone and distract
from the real truth?

So you think these plans are worthless, right? The
other people within the Movement still think they
are important - did you inform them about it or
what are their conclusions about the missing data?

(I have to admit that I didn't follow the discussions)

[Christophera]

So you think that these plans were not the final plans
for the towers because the missing steel columns and
the bracing - and the dates were manipulated.


Not to mention the signoff by the building officials. Buildings of this prominance and inherent liability are redundant with that sort of stuff.

The question is: Why should someone release altered documents to the Truthmovement at all - if not for a
disinfo campaign to confuse everyone and distract
from the real truth?

To try and support the steel core columns because the lie is dependent on the FEMA core. What you say.

So you think these plans are worthless, right? The
other people within the Movement still think they
are important - did you inform them about it or
what are their conclusions about the missing data?

The disinformation has been very effective. I do not think there is a coherent movement any longer. I'm the only one that has provided any anaylsis of the "leaked" plans as far as I can tell.

The leadership of the movement is all a part of the infitration of the government as far as I can tell. It is all about exposing useless information to cover or distract from useful information.

[Oliver]

Not to mention the signoff by the building officials. Buildings of this prominance and inherent liability are redundant with that sort of stuff.

To try and support the steel core columns because the lie is dependent on the FEMA core. What you say.

The disinformation has been very effective. I do not think there is a coherent movement any longer. I'm the only one that has provided any anaylsis of the "leaked" plans as far as I can tell.

The leadership of the movement is all a part of the infitration of the government as far as I can tell. It is all about exposing useless information to cover or distract from useful information.


But did you try to discuss this with other engaged truthers
that are studying this issue? I mean it's a pure waste of
time to study faked documents.

By the way and because you mentioned it: Do you believe
in the "No-Plane/TV-Fakery"-theories at the WTC or is this
disinfo, too - in your opinion?

[StoneWT]

The dates were very carefully altered and the alterations are not detectable as far as I've seen.


How do you know there were 'alterations' in the first place if you can't detect any? Is this a case of drawing a conclusion first and desperately looking for evidence later?


Do not modify quote box contents (or the names of the individuals referenced) when you quote someone. Also, keep in mind that your membership agreement calls for civility; don't personalize discussions with insults.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

How do you know there were 'alterations' in the first place if you can't detect any? Is this a case of drawing a conclusion first and desperately looking for evidence later?
The good ol' "lack of evidence for X proves X" argument.

[ferd burfle]

Cue Father Guido Sarducci

And, going along with this Papal mania, I've kind of designed a contest about the Popes. [holds up a large photo showing a close-up of the surface of a pizza] It's called "Find the Popes in the Pizza" ... All two hundred and fifty-four Popes, they're in here. ... And, what we're gonna do in about one minute, we're gonna put a close-up of this on your screen and, you at home, all you have to do is get some, like, wax paper, any kind of paper you can see through and paste it to your screen -- or tape it, whatever you want -- and all you gotta do is get a pencil and draw a circle around every place you see a picture of a Pope. And, while we're doing this--

[Big Les]

I don't think my sanity can survive another round of this old trousers.

[Foolmewunz]

In the words of the great Aislin ( aka Terry Mosher... ask Pardalis).....

"Okay, everybody... Take a Darvan."

This is the 29th post in this thread. The last "documented" thread the Mr. Brown started ran to 11,018 posts! (Probably 10,000 by Chris)
He's been off line for about two weeks, no doubt digging and digging and digging.

This could be a long one.
:popcorn2


This will also be my last post here, while it still seems slightly amusing. In case any newbies are reading, there are serious doubts as to Christopher A. Brown's mental health. By about the twentieth day and five hundredth post, you'll realize that no amount of refuting is going to get through. Chris marches to the beat of a quite different drummer.

FMW

[Gamolon]

I've worked with quite a few scanned plan sets and the revisions table is usually the most clouded with dots' and smudge.

Really? Why would the revision table be the most "clouded with dots and smudge"?

[Gamolon]

Also Chris, have you ever revised construction drawings before? I have. I've done a crapload. Pencil/linen drawings of steel mill blast furnaces from the 1940s, mylars that used ink/pencil/grease pencils, sepias. You name it, I used it.

Also, as a draftsman, one thing I learned is that if the area I worked on was "dirty", I was to clean it up. I ALWAYS cleaned the revision block of smudge and dots with my eraser shield before I wrote in it.

Take a look at the Notes portion of that same drawing. See how much more clean it is around that area? Same idea.

Your contention that these are fakes based on one of your facts being that the "revision block area" is too clean is a bunch of hogwash and just proves to me that you have no clue what you are talking about.

[Mobyseven]

People, we learnt our lesson the first time. We don't have to go through this madness again. We know the outcome.

[Rich M]

Someone prod me in about 100 pages time, cheers.

[Christophera]

Also Chris, have you ever revised construction drawings before? I have. I've done a crapload. Pencil/linen drawings of steel mill blast furnaces from the 1940s, mylars that used ink/pencil/grease pencils, sepias. You name it, I used it.

Also, as a draftsman, one thing I learned is that if the area I worked on was "dirty", I was to clean it up. I ALWAYS cleaned the revision block of smudge and dots with my eraser shield before I wrote in it.

Take a look at the Notes portion of that same drawing. See how much more clean it is around that area? Same idea.

Your contention that these are fakes based on one of your facts being that the "revision block area" is too clean is a bunch of hogwash and just proves to me that you have no clue what you are talking about.

Are you trying to say there were that many revisions done on a set of plans that were not actually used in construction as they are no approved by the building official?

And, BTW, you can't clean up around text effectively so your point is NOT made.

What about the anomalie that appears on so many sheets that is not from a pencil?

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=6294&stc=1&d=1175796667

[Gamolon]

Are you trying to say there were that many revisions done on a set of plans that were not actually used in construction as they are no approved by the building official?

Read my post again. All I was commenting on was your reason beneath the "PROBLEMS WITH AUTHENTICITY OF THE ABOVE". That there was a lack of "dots and smudges" within the revision block and that this is typical of photoshopping. That's totally untrue as I explained what I and many other draftsman used to do when revising a drawing. That's why it looks clean.

And, BTW, you can't clean up around text effectively so your point is NOT made.

Wrong. I have done it. Ever use an eraser shield? Do you even know what one is. Again I ask you. Have you ever revised a construction drawing? It's obvious, to me at least, that you haven't because you wouldn't make this kind of statement.

What about the anomalie that appears on so many sheets that is not from a pencil?

Can you prove that was done in pencil and not ink?

[Christophera]

Read my post again. All I was commenting on was your reason beneath the "PROBLEMS WITH AUTHENTICITY OF THE ABOVE". That there was a lack of "dots and smudges" within the revision block and that this is typical of photoshopping. That's totally untrue as I explained what I and many other draftsman used to do when revising a drawing. That's why it looks clean.

I think I've worn out 3 erasure shields in my days of drawing on paper. Cleaning up around text on a revision block is possible, but basically too time consuming. I've noticed that the cell will be cleaned of smudge before initialing and dating, but that is about the extent of it.

Wrong. I have done it. Ever use an eraser shield? Do you even know what one is. Again I ask you. Have you ever revised a construction drawing? It's obvious, to me at least, that you haven't because you wouldn't make this kind of statement.

Can you prove that was done in pencil and not ink?

I believe the image itself proves that fact. Ink has a high res clean edge, which is why it is used. When it messes up it is distinct as an ink "bleed" or "run". I've actually done more work in ink than pencil. That is why my shields wore out.

The lack of resolution bespeaks of fraud. Most of the dimensioning is not readable.

If a person took the time to use ink on the revision table, do yo not think they would take the time to create readable text instead of the anomalie we have? Can we remain consistent with reason here?

[Gamolon]

I think I've worn out 3 erasure shields in my days of drawing on paper

Paper huh? Now I KNOW you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to revising drawings.

Based on your lack of expertise in this subject, I'll take my leave.

Have fun.

:D

[Hokulele]

The .dxf files are useless and mostly nonsense. One file "wtc1_2000.dxf" is a product of the "LZA Technology A Division of The Thornton Tomasetti Group" and appears to be the beginning of an effort to analyse the plane impacts as the impact area of flight 11 is shown.


I think this section of the OP pretty much says it all. The two main DXF files, including the one referenced here, are part of the investigation for insurance purposes. They show the elevations of the towers with impact areas highlighted. Since they do not show anything Christophera is interested in, they are "useless and mostly nonsense". This completely disregards the fact that they were both useful and informative when examined in light of the purpose for which they were created.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled "hunt for irregularities in Revision Tables" (the only part of the document set Christophera seems to understand).

[A W Smith]

Worn out three erasing shields (http://www.draftingdog.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=6941)? How the hell did you do that? If I looked in one of my old desk drawers I bet i could find one of mine that I have had for almost 30 years thats still usable. another one I have I only replaced because It got a kink in it. haven't used them for over 12 years. When and if i do draw I use chief architect (http://www.chiefarchitect.com/builders/)and an old version of autocad LT (http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?siteID=123112&id=2498418) .

Do you mean you wore out a cleaning pad (http://www.draftingdog.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=7232)maybe?

[Christophera]

omg...when is christophera ever going to learn about compression and artifacts in image formats? wasn't he shown that compression and artifacts always show up in scanned documents due to the type of image format they are scanned to?

It appears to me as though somebody purposefully caused the compression fo the files.

In all the scans I've done or had done I've never seen anything like this.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=6298&stc=1&d=1175810214

[Christophera]

Worn out three erasing shields (http://www.draftingdog.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=6941)? How the hell did you do that? If I looked in one of my old desk drawers I bet i could find one of mine that I have had for almost 30 years thats still usable. another one I have I only replaced because It got a kink in it. haven't used them for over 12 years. When and if i do draw I use chief architect (http://www.chiefarchitect.com/builders/)and an old version of autocad LT (http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?siteID=123112&id=2498418) .

Do you mean you wore out a cleaning pad (http://www.draftingdog.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=7232)maybe?

When you work in ink the erasures are abrasive and you use a electric erasure on mylar. The same spot in the shield ends up getting used over and over and wears out.

[Christophera]

I think this section of the OP pretty much says it all. The two main DXF files, including the one referenced here, are part of the investigation for insurance purposes. They show the elevations of the towers with impact areas highlighted. Since they do not show anything Christophera is interested in, they are "useless and mostly nonsense". This completely disregards the fact that they were both useful and informative when examined in light of the purpose for which they were created.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled "hunt for irregularities in Revision Tables" (the only part of the document set Christophera seems to understand).

The only part that is "readable" the compresson is so bad.

[Arus808]

It appears to me as though somebody purposefully caused the compression fo the files.

or simply when it was scanned so many damn years ago, the person who was scanning it didn't care what compression was used, or how to scan it in correctly?

You are jumping to conclusions based on what you have pulled out of your @#!@$@ like, how you have been caught lying on everything you have posted here

In all the scans I've done or had done I've never seen anything like this.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=6298&stc=1&d=1175810214
[/quote]

its called compression artifacts and over-scan . It happens with LINE drawings and images; and when copies of copies of copies are scanned instead of the ORIGINAL drawings. It could have been caused when they were originally scanned (a large scanner might misinterpret the image in some sections and blurp out crap) - and the person, noticing that the scan was "too dark" over scanned the image to get the lines to show up more clearly (anyone familiar with line drawing can attest to this).

I've been working with computer graphics for more than 20 years (beginning with vector graphics on an APPLE IIe), Christophera. And none of what you are claiming has anything that is "suspicious" behind it.

Before you start arguing with a professional (and IM a professional since IM paid daily to do this kind of work), make sure you know wtf you are talking about.

[Hokulele]

Worn out three erasing shields (http://www.draftingdog.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=6941)? How the hell did you do that? If I looked in one of my old desk drawers I bet i could find one of mine that I have had for almost 30 years thats still usable. another one I have I only replaced because It got a kink in it. haven't used them for over 12 years. When and if i do draw I use chief architect (http://www.chiefarchitect.com/builders/)and an old version of autocad LT (http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?siteID=123112&id=2498418) .

Do you mean you wore out a cleaning pad (http://www.draftingdog.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=7232)maybe?


He must have spent more time erasing than drawing. ;)

[Arus808]

When you work in ink the erasures are abrasive and you use a electric erasure on mylar. The same spot in the shield ends up getting used over and over and wears out.


OMG.


how


clueless

of

you.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

When you work in ink the erasures are abrasive and you use a electric erasure on mylar. The same spot in the shield ends up getting used over and over and wears out.
How can an eraser destroy metal?!?!11 It's a conspiracy!

[pomeroo]

Sorry to interrupt. I just wanted to remind everyone that the number of actual disinfo agents infiltrating the 9/11 fantasy movement remains zero.

Yup, it's crackpots arguing with other crackpots.

[AZCat]

Sorry to interrupt. I just wanted to remind everyone that the number of actual disinfo agents infiltrating the 9/11 fantasy movement remains zero.

Yup, it's crackpots arguing with other crackpots.


I won't believe you until you provide a YouTube video demonstrating that there are positively no disinfo agents within the ranks of the 9/11 truth movement. I suggest chickenwire and lighter fluid. A catchy soundtrack helps, too.

[JimBenArm]

I won't believe you until you provide a YouTube video demonstrating that there are positively no disinfo agents within the ranks of the 9/11 truth movement. I suggest chickenwire and lighter fluid. A catchy soundtrack helps, too.

No, no no! He needs to stack two dozen eggs on his head, then have his wife smack it with a baseball bat! His head, that is! Then, he'll be in the right frame of mind to spot the disinfo agents.
Worked for me! I spotted 2 in this post alone!

[A W Smith]

I cant find the youtube video of a rubber eraser destroying a stainless steel erasing shield.. a little help please?

Chris maybe you can dedicate a page on algoxy to the erasing shield with photos and subtext before and after, the sales receipt and all that.

[Christophera]

or simply when it was scanned so many damn years ago, the person who was scanning it didn't care what compression was used, or how to scan it in correctly?

You are jumping to conclusions based on what you have pulled out of your @#!@$@ like, how you have been caught lying on everything you have posted here




its called compression artifacts and over-scan . It happens with LINE drawings and images; and when copies of copies of copies are scanned instead of the ORIGINAL drawings. It could have been caused when they were originally scanned (a large scanner might misinterpret the image in some sections and blurp out crap) - and the person, noticing that the scan was "too dark" over scanned the image to get the lines to show up more clearly (anyone familiar with line drawing can attest to this).

I've been working with computer graphics for more than 20 years (beginning with vector graphics on an APPLE IIe), Christophera. And none of what you are claiming has anything that is "suspicious" behind it.

Before you start arguing with a professional (and IM a professional since IM paid daily to do this kind of work), make sure you know wtf you are talking about.[/QUOTE]

The scans were made on September 16, 2002.

Nothing you have said has exlained the huge artifacts aligned with the cells nor the straight lines throught dot clouds to the right of "REVISIONS". Nor have you made competent comment on the fact the drawings are not signed by the building official.

You have stated the obvious, repeating my words, that the plans were scanned not from vellum originals but from blue lines. If they were from LERA, and the actual construction drawings, they would be from vellum originals and be quite legible.

I can guess at a few dimensions but generally no dimensions are ledgible.

In all, the data is a fraud.

[Christophera]

How can an eraser destroy metal?!?!11 It's a conspiracy!

OMG.


how


clueless

of

you.

Correct, stainless steel is relatively soft. Erasures for ink must grind off the ink and the mylar under it so they must be quite abrasive. First they heat up and warp, then they crack.
I agree, I made too many mistakes and do far better with digital drafting.

Thanks Arus for lending your expertise to put that imbecile Cl1mh4224rd in his place. Well said.

[Arus808]

I told you chris, to not argue about image compression. You're dealing with someone who does this on a daily basis, of scanning line drawings in of various types.


The scans were made on September 16, 2002.

so what?

Nothing you have said has exlained the huge artifacts aligned with the cells nor the straight lines throught dot clouds to the right of "REVISIONS". Nor have you made competent comment on the fact the drawings are not signed by the building official.

I have explained it quite well, and gave various reasons why artifacts happen to LINE DRAWINGS when they are scanned in and handled by someone who OVERSCANNED it (the overscanning is to get the LINES to appear). Any line that would appear normally on the paper, would end being "over exposed" (darker and more jagged) than the rest of the lines that were faint to begin with.

Especially drawings done on the type of paper that blueprints are done on.

Having SCANNED NUMEROUS documents, including drawings done on RICE paper for heavens' sake, YOU"D have to do some over=scanning to get even the slightest lines to show up. That also means that any "variants' in the paper threads the lines are drawn on can AFFECT how the type on the paper is read by the SCANNER.

Where you think there is a "problem" is the hiccup done by a scanner to interpret the Paper, and the LINE (handwriting messes up scanners beyond help).

The person who scanned it, was only concerned with getting the drawing in. HE/she probably didn't care that someone's initials got messed up on a scan.

And we dont know what "generation" of image compression that you are dealing with, in those downloaded files, since we can't even confirm the source or how the source got those images in the first place.

when you do compression on compression, even the simplest lines (handwriting again!) are affected and come out MORE JAGGED and distorted


again, YOU are ARGUING with someone who DOES this for a LIVING

[Hokulele]

What I don't understand is why you are coming here telling people the scans are fakes. Regardless of whether or not they have been tampered with, most of the people on this board had already determined they didn't mean anything as far as the truth movement was concerned. So what if they are fakes.

[Arus808]

Correct, stainless steel is relatively soft. Erasures for ink must grind off the ink and the mylar under it so they must be quite abrasive. First they heat up and warp, then they crack.
I agree, I made too many mistakes and do far better with digital drafting.


OMG

I have 5 different eraser shields , all received when i was 8 years old. I've been drawing religiously since I was 12. Those eraser shields lasted through the 30 years of my dad's life (when he was in mechanical drawing) and they've lasted 20 years of my life.

THEY HAVE NOT been damaged in all the CONSTANT useage and abuse they've gone through over the years

Thanks Arus for lending your expertise to put that imbecile Cl1mh4224rd in his place. Well said.Nice of you to pull my quote out of context. that was a reply to you!

this is the quote in its entirety:

Originally Posted by Arus808 http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2494343#post2494343)

Originally Posted by Christophera http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2494322#post2494322)
When you work in ink the erasures are abrasive and you use a electric erasure on mylar. The same spot in the shield ends up getting used over and over and wears out. OMG.


how


clueless

of

you.

the next time you attribute MY quote reply to YOU to someone else, whom I wasn't commenting on, YOU will be reported to the mods.

[Christophera]

OMG

I have 5 different eraser shields , all received when i was 8 years old. I've been drawing religiously since I was 12. Those eraser shields lasted through the 30 years of my dad's life (when he was in mechanical drawing) and they've lasted 20 years of my life.

THEY HAVE NOT been damaged in all the CONSTANT useage and abuse they've gone through over the years

Nice of you to pull my quote out of context. that was a reply to you!

this is the quote in its entirety:



the next time you attribute MY quote reply to YOU to someone else, whom I wasn't commenting on, YOU will be reported to the mods.

But you haven't said that you were working with india ink. That is what wore out my shields. BTW, is that even against the rules? Seems more like "message board" judo than anything that could be a violation.

Whoa, pretty touchy about my uses of your garbage posts to fend off more denier cr*p are'nt you. That sensitivity is a sign that you know how petty the issues are that you are focusing upon.

Keep it civil.

Ho hum, ............ still no coherent explanations from arus404 about the ANOMALIES. What letters would those "overscanned" intials be 404?



http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=6301&stc=1&d=1175839760

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=6302&stc=1&d=1175839793

[Arus808]

But you haven't said that you were working with india ink.

OMG...
NO amount of ink.
NO matter wHAT type of ink
NO amount of lies you spout about eraser shields are remotely true.

They
do
not
degrade
after
constant
50 year
abuse!


Whoa, pretty touchy about my uses of your garbage posts to fend off more denier cr*p are'nt you.

excuse me, but a reply to YOU in reference to YOUR lies, should not be edited so that YOU can attribute that reply to someone else.

YOU
DId
JUST
THAT

That's it, you're reported for abuse.

End of discussion

I will no longer entertain a proven liar.

[Christophera]

OMG...
NO amount of ink.
NO matter wHAT type of ink
NO amount of lies you spout about eraser shields are remotely true.

They
do
not
degrade
after
constant
50 year
abuse!




excuse me, but a reply to YOU in reference to YOUR lies, should not be edited so that YOU can attribute that reply to someone else.

YOU
DId
JUST
THAT

That's it, you're reported for abuse.

End of discussion

I will no longer entertain a proven liar.

Your lack of knowledge regarding metals is not surprising, considering you still believe that 47 steel columns can somehow be cut within this,

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

to fall instantly and contribute to near free fall rates of decent.

Perhaps your professional expertise in graphic and digital documents can find some function in proving the steel core columns existed by examining actual files which show the supposed things from the download.

I've placed 5 of them where anyone can get to them. If they are upside down I've not opened them. The ones I've opened may be at various scales.


A-A-1.tif (2.1 MB)

http://www.mediafire.com/?bftdugvzmzq

A-A-11.tif (2.13 MB)

http://www.mediafire.com/?5mwuzdw4yjd

A-A-20a.tif (2.13 MB)

http://www.mediafire.com/?2zmdxzqzdn4

A-A-39.tif (649.22 KB)

http://www.mediafire.com/?0mtymuwzi2m

A-A-41.tif (649.2 KB)

http://www.mediafire.com/?fzzgowmtwdm

[AZCat]

No, no no! He needs to stack two dozen eggs on his head, then have his wife smack it with a baseball bat! His head, that is! Then, he'll be in the right frame of mind to spot the disinfo agents.
Worked for me! I spotted 2 in this post alone!

No, you've only spotted one (you're seeing double because of the "treatment"). You've got to count the agents and then divide by two.

[HawksFan]

Somehow I knew that worn out picture would show up sooner or later. It was only a matter of time.

[Hokulele]

Perhaps your professional expertise in graphic and digital documents can find some function in proving the steel core columns existed by examining actual files which show the supposed things from the download.

Two questions:

1) These are architectural floor plans, and would not show the structural elements unless they impacted the layout of the spaces shown. What you are looking for would be in the structural package. Do you know that you would need more than the layout drawings? You would also have to request the structural detail sheets, specification sheets, and material lists to accurately reproduce the construction.

2) What is the purpose in proving these are fakes? To discredit the "whistle-blower"?

[Christophera]

Two questions:

1) These are architectural floor plans, and would not show the structural elements unless they impacted the layout of the spaces shown. What you are looking for would be in the structural package. Do you know that you would need more than the layout drawings? You would also have to request the structural detail sheets, specification sheets, and material lists to accurately reproduce the construction.

2) What is the purpose in proving these are fakes? To discredit the "whistle-blower"?

The purpose is to show there is a conspiracy to mislead the public as to the design of the Twin Towers.

Yes, I am aware that the plans are incomplete.

I suspect that there is no structural package because these plans are preliminary and just for the purposes of communicating the basic design to Yamasaki so he could evaluate the proposed structure, or the core columns shown in this case. They also served to gther initial estimates for everything but the core. Economic projections could be made regarding real estate potentials and insurance/safety requirements could be evaluated with those drawings.

Also, note that WTC 2 is totally absent except for inthe .dxf's which are nonsense. WTC 2 is absent because there were NO PLANS showing steel core columns for #2. There was only a concrete core planned for WTC 2.

A structural package is a massive undertaking in a tower of this size and so would not be done until constrcution was actually funded based on these drawings and preliminary plans for the actual core used. In this case, a concrete core.

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

The concrete core documented with images of 9-11.

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

[Z]

Oh god, he's starting to spam links to his website again.

Hey Chris - prove the documentary ever existed, or admit you were wrong.

That's the only evidence you could ever provide that would make anyone change their minds.

As to the rest of you: if you continue to engage him, all he'll do is keep repeating the same old tired trash, over and over, and use any and every excuse to spam links to his website. He's not here to discuss; he's here to promote his website, on the last forum that lets him post. And, no, reporting him won't do any good, because Darat has decided that it's perfectly acceptable to advertise for your websites this way.

OTOH, if everyone stops replying, he'll be forced eventually to abandon this thread too. The only reason his other thread was stopped was that because no one replied to it eventually.

Now, as to these plans - they prove nothing, one way or another. They might be fake; they might be real. But they are irrelevant until they're verified and shown to be real.

[Christophera]

Oh god, he's starting to spam links to his website again.

Wow! Big day for errors for you. Exactly how many links does it take to qualify as spam?

Hey Chris - prove the documentary ever existed, or admit you were wrong.

I can prove the concrete core existed (to any with intellectual honesty as well as some experience with concrete and steel contruction.

Here's the proof.

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

Before saying no, post an image of the supposed steel core columns from 9-11 showing columns in the core area at some elevation above the ground. If you say no before doing that you are rendered unreasonable.

That's the only evidence you could ever provide that would make anyone change their minds.

Wishful thinking. Just how sure of yourself are you on that point and, how would you know?

As to the rest of you: if you continue to engage him, all he'll do is keep repeating the same old tired trash, over and over, and use any and every excuse to spam links to his website. He's not here to discuss; he's here to promote his website, on the last forum that lets him post. And, no, reporting him won't do any good, because Darat has decided that it's perfectly acceptable to advertise for your websites this way.

Commercial advertising is not okay. There is nothing commercial on my site. Publicizing information sources is quite different.

OTOH, if everyone stops replying, he'll be forced eventually to abandon this thread too. The only reason his other thread was stopped was that because no one replied to it eventually.

I quite because my posts were being moved to the dump.

Now, as to these plans - they prove nothing, one way or another. They might be fake; they might be real. But they are irrelevant until they're verified and shown to be real.

What I've posted in this thread is enough to show they are a fraud and subterfuge to try and maintain the confuse to the public already caused.

Wow, you can be nothing but errors sometimes.

[Hokulele]

The purpose is to show there is a conspiracy to mislead the public as to the design of the Twin Towers.


That's just silly. This set wasn't released to the public.

Yes, I am aware that the plans are incomplete.

I suspect that there is no structural package because these plans are preliminary and just for the purposes of communicating the basic design to Yamasaki so he could evaluate the proposed structure, or the core columns shown in this case. They also served to gther initial estimates for everything but the core. Economic projections could be made regarding real estate potentials and insurance/safety requirements could be evaluated with those drawings.

Also, note that WTC 2 is totally absent except for inthe .dxf's which are nonsense. WTC 2 is absent because there were NO PLANS showing steel core columns for #2. There was only a concrete core planned for WTC 2.

A structural package is a massive undertaking in a tower of this size and so would not be done until constrcution was actually funded based on these drawings and preliminary plans for the actual core used. In this case, a concrete core.

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

The concrete core documented with images of 9-11.

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


That's even sillier.

[Mince]

I'll give $1* to everyone who does not respond to this thread beyond this post.





















*payable $0.01 a year for the next 100 years. Offer not valid with any other offer. Offer also not valid in Al,AK,AS,AZ,AR,CA,CO,CT,DE,DC,FL,GA,HI,ID,IL,IN,IA ,KS,KY,LA,ME,MD,MA,MI,MN,MS,MO,MT,NE,NV,NH,NJ,NM,N Y,NC,ND,OH,OK,OR,PA,RI,SC,SD,TN,TX,UT,VT,VI,VA,WA, WV,WI,WY, Canada, Mexico, The U.K., Australia or any other territory on the planet Earth or any of the eight other recognized planets in the Milky Way galaxy or any of their moons. I reserve the right to never pay you if I do not wish to. Cash value of this post is 1/200 of a cent.

[Z]

I took a vow of poverty once, so I have to decline, Mince.

Chris, here's the real situation: YOU have made a claim, and offered what you consider evidence. ALL of the evidence you offered was summarily rejected, with full and proper explanations offered as to why. The only evidence (and here I will correct my earlier statement) that anyone would accept now from you is a) images from the CONSTRUCTION showing the concrete core at some stage of construction; or b) hard evidence that there did, in fact, exist a documentary detailing the construction of the concrete core.

ALL of your other evidence was torn to shreds. Nothing you offer via yon website is accepted by ANYONE as evidence of a concrete core.

Of course, even if you DO come up with this evidence, you'll have one final challenge - to explain, properly, the chemical attributes of an explosive that can remain stable and active for as long as you've claimed it did.

And all that only if you can overcome the stigma of being proven a known liar.

[Christophera]

I took a vow of poverty once, so I have to decline, Mince.

Chris, here's the real situation: YOU have made a claim, and offered what you consider evidence. ALL of the evidence you offered was summarily rejected, with full and proper explanations offered as to why. The only evidence (and here I will correct my earlier statement) that anyone would accept now from you is a) images from the CONSTRUCTION showing the concrete core at some stage of construction; or b) hard evidence that there did, in fact, exist a documentary detailing the construction of the concrete core.

ALL of your other evidence was torn to shreds. Nothing you offer via yon website is accepted by ANYONE as evidence of a concrete core.

Of course, even if you DO come up with this evidence, you'll have one final challenge - to explain, properly, the chemical attributes of an explosive that can remain stable and active for as long as you've claimed it did.

And all that only if you can overcome the stigma of being proven a known liar.

Since you have no evidence for your contentions, all you can do is SAY what you say.

I, on the other hand have a great deal of evidence, enough to build a web site documenting the concrete core.

Your contentions explain nothing, in fact they attempt to remove feasible and realistic explanation for near free fal and total pulverization from the board. Of course, without substance, they are ineffectual.

[Z]

Since you have no evidence for your contentions, all you can do is SAY what you say.

I, on the other hand have a great deal of evidence, enough to build a web site documenting the concrete core.

Your contentions explain nothing, in fact they attempt to remove feasible and realistic explanation for near free fal and total pulverization from the board. Of course, without substance, they are ineffectual.

You still quote those old canards, Chris?

By "near free fall", ladies and gentlemen, he means anything under 10 minutes; by "total pulverisation" he refers to the huge debris fields consisting of many large chunks of debris. Of course, pointing out the physics of building collapse does nothing to him, since he has never even passed high school physics. And showing him the many large pieces of debris never phases him either, since by 'pulverize' he means breaks apart.

Don't be fooled by Chris' silly buzzwords.

And by 'evidence' he means 'grainy, indistinct photos which can be interpreted numerous ways' as well as 'stuff sent to me by other CTers that I never questioned' and 'stuff I made up whole cloth out of my own imagination'.

A giant thread was wasted attempting to get Chris to realize what everyone else who ever interacts with him realizes - that none of Chris' so-called 'evidence' shows what he wants it to. That his phallic photos of dust clouds show no concrete. That his long-distance pics of bits of facade still standing for a moment are too low-resolution to make out such a thing as 3" rebar. That 3" rebar doesn't exist and has never existed. That explosives with concrete poured around them would rapidly degrade and be useless in far less than 20 years. That rebar with a soft paste of explosives coated on it would cause the concrete to be less structurally sound than normal. That the available space as accounted by office workers, realtors, etc. was far too much if his enourmous concrete core did exist. That survivor stories tell of digging holes right through the walls -right where he claims concrete should be. That the only evidence he has ever offered that MIGHT do what he claims it would do comes from other CT sources or his own fevered imagination - to whit, a PBS documentary that a thorough and exhaustive check through private archives of TV Guide - and now of two local newspaper TV listings for the years in question - reveals no sign of ever having aired when he says it did, and which no one in the industry has ANY recollection of; a clip from a book purportedly published by Oxford, which Oxford never, in fact, published, and which exists in no library system anywhere; and an April Fool's letter sent to Chris as a joke which he took seriously.

None of this - not ONE BIT of this - has ever sunk into that thick skull of his.

The closest to concession that he's ever offered was to change 'free fall' to 'near free fall', though he since defined that as anything under 10 minutes, and to admit that when he says total pulverization he just means severe destruction. And that's as close as he'll likely ever get.

So what he's offered as 'evidence' turns out to be extremely poor and easily debunked, while he actually cannot offer any evidence at all. And since it's his claim, it's his job to support it.

OK, Chris, this is how you can support your claim: provide pictures or videos from the construction that show the concrete core. Otherwise, you have nothing.

That's all, folks - any other response from Chris should be considered hot air. PLEASE - only reply when he brings pictures or videos from the construction that shows the concrete core. Treat all other replies by Chris as attempts to obfuscate and obliviate.

Thank you.

[Christophera]

You still quote those old canards, Chris?

By "near free fall", ladies and gentlemen, he means anything under 10 minutes; by "total pulverisation" he refers to the huge debris fields consisting of many large chunks of debris. Of course, pointing out the physics of building collapse does nothing to him, since he has never even passed high school physics. And showing him the many large pieces of debris never phases him either, since by 'pulverize' he means breaks apart.

Don't be fooled by Chris' silly buzzwords.

Perhaps it should be,

Don't be fooled by Z' silly distortions.

Particuarly when clear, sharp images such as this are available which show an obvious explosion, not a tower collapsing.

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

[Christophera]

Of course they are fakes. The real ones, OBVIOUSLY, would contain details of the concrete core...these do not.

TAM

Thank you TAM, that is a fact.

The reason the package LERA - PLANS-022102 (http://truthasaur.com/misc/world-trade-center.html) does not contain plans for WTC2 is because WTC2 only had plans for a concrete core, whereas WTC1 had been originally proposed with steel core columns and so the scanned plans are of that only.

[pomeroo]

Thank you TAM, that is a fact.

The reason the package LERA - PLANS-022102 (http://truthasaur.com/misc/world-trade-center.html) does not contain plans for WTC2 is because WTC2 only had plans for a concrete core, whereas WTC1 had been originally proposed with steel core columns and so the scanned plans are of that only.



Now, here is a loon's loon. He claims that a building had a concrete core, although it didn't. The building no longer exists, so he can never be refuted conclusively. No matter what architects or engineers say, he will never budge. As I said, a loon's loon.

[T.A.M.]

sorry Mince, I dont need the dollar. Christophera is so far gone beyond reality that he was oblivious to my sarcasm.

TAM:)

[Christophera]

Now, here is a loon's loon. He claims that a building had a concrete core, although it didn't. The building no longer exists, so he can never be refuted conclusively. No matter what architects or engineers say, he will never budge. As I said, a loon's loon.

Talk about "all or nothing" thinking "minimalizations" and "generalizations".

You are the champ of Cognitive Distortions. Good job! Here is your badge.
http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=6341&stc=1&d=1175990657

[Christophera]

sorry Mince, I dont need the dollar. Christophera is so far gone beyond reality that he was oblivious to my sarcasm.

TAM:)

Thank you so much TAM!

The truth is the strangest thing of all and, .... you obviously know it.

[pomeroo]

Talk about "all or nothing" thinking "minimalizations" and "generalizations".

You are the champ of Cognitive Distortions. Good job! Here is your badge.
http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=6341&stc=1&d=1175990657



Thank you, thank you very much.

[Christophera]

Thank you, thank you very much.

Does that mean you are ready to support the US Constitution by recognition of the violations of due process rights in capital crimes?

[A W Smith]

Its all about anti cementism chris. We are all anti Cementites! Hollow Cast deniers! :D

[peteweaver]

Just bear in mind how many people would have been involved in the construction of the twin towers, how many people who would have seen the original plans, how many people there would be who would know, immediately, if something untoward had been done like rigging the building with explosives.

[A_C_C]

Is this guy really claiming that the Twin Towers were rigged with explosives at construction? :confused:

[A W Smith]

Is this guy really claiming that the Twin Towers were rigged with explosives at construction? :confused:

Oh where does one begin. Not only were they rigged with c4 coated rebar back in the day before rebar was even epoxy coated. They supposedly had a cast concrete core that tapered at the top like a Mayan temple, reinforced with with 3 inch diameter rebar on four foot centers. Theres this documentary that showed the concrete core that no longer exists and there is no record of such documentary airing or being recorded because the records were destroyed to hide this factoid. The core went off and destroyed the towers even though they were the last part of the structure to collapse. All the steel you imagine you are seeing in the cores is simply elevator guide rails. the sunlight you see piercing the cores in the construction photographs is because of some central hallway. I am apparently a lying Disinfo agent because back when the towers existed I entered the elevators of the north tower from outside the core facing south below the mezzanine level. not from a central hallway which according to Chris is the only means access possible because of the fourteen or ten or eight (pick a number) foot thick cast concrete wall.

Am I leaving any of your theories out Chris?

[geni]

eh just looks like stuff scanned at slightly too low a resolution with the scaner set to black and white only.

[Arus808]

eh just looks like stuff scanned at slightly too low a resolution with the scaner set to black and white only.

yup.
and in chris' world, that means something 'dubious'.

[pomeroo]

Does that mean you are ready to support the US Constitution by recognition of the violations of due process rights in capital crimes?



You must be reading my mind. That's almost exactly what I meant. To be slightly more precise, I was trying to convey the idea that subtle fish extolling cans of creamed corn to furiously sleeping ballparks should be open to the heavy instigation of marriages of cattle in porcelain interiors.

But you were close enough.

[Christophera]

Oh where does one begin. Not only were they rigged with c4 coated rebar back in the day before rebar was even epoxy coated. They supposedly had a cast concrete core that tapered at the top like a Mayan temple, reinforced with with 3 inch diameter rebar on four foot centers. Theres this documentary that showed the concrete core that no longer exists and there is no record of such documentary airing or being recorded because the records were destroyed to hide this factoid. The core went off and destroyed the towers even though they were the last part of the structure to collapse. All the steel you imagine you are seeing in the cores is simply elevator guide rails. the sunlight you see piercing the cores in the construction photographs is because of some central hallway. I am apparently a lying Disinfo agent because back when the towers existed I entered the elevators of the north tower from outside the core facing south below the mezzanine level. not from a central hallway which according to Chris is the only means access possible because of the fourteen or ten or eight (pick a number) foot thick cast concrete wall.

Am I leaving any of your theories out Chris?


That kark is all yours, but you are now contender for the champ of Cognitive Distortions. Good job! Here is your badge.
http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=6341&stc=1&d=1175990657

[Christophera]

More scans of WTC 1 plans have been uploaded.

A-A-99.tif (2.13 MB)

http://www.mediafire.com/?ddvyjntzzcn

A-A-139.tif (2.12 MB)

http://www.mediafire.com/?bjdwgrtmrn4

A-A-141.tif (16.98 MB)

http://www.mediafire.com/?0nr1mmmyang

[bonavada]

Its all about anti cementism chris. We are all anti Cementites! Hollow Cast deniers! :D

:-)

BV

[Metullus]

Oh where does one begin. Not only were they rigged with c4 coated rebar back in the day before rebar was even epoxy coated. They supposedly had a cast concrete core that tapered at the top like a Mayan temple, reinforced with with 3 inch diameter rebar on four foot centers. Theres this documentary that showed the concrete core that no longer exists and there is no record of such documentary airing or being recorded because the records were destroyed to hide this factoid. The core went off and destroyed the towers even though they were the last part of the structure to collapse. All the steel you imagine you are seeing in the cores is simply elevator guide rails. the sunlight you see piercing the cores in the construction photographs is because of some central hallway. I am apparently a lying Disinfo agent because back when the towers existed I entered the elevators of the north tower from outside the core facing south below the mezzanine level. not from a central hallway which according to Chris is the only means access possible because of the fourteen or ten or eight (pick a number) foot thick cast concrete wall.

Am I leaving any of your theories out Chris?You forgot the part about all of us having been hypnotized into not remembering the PBS documentary showing the concrete cores. And yes, A_C_C, he is dead serious.

[Christophera]

You must be reading my mind. That's almost exactly what I meant. To be slightly more precise, I was trying to convey the idea that subtle fish extolling cans of creamed corn to furiously sleeping ballparks should be open to the heavy instigation of marriages of cattle in porcelain interiors.

But you were close enough.

Okay, I thought you might be concerned about your rights and freedoms as guaranteed by the US Constitution. Sorry, guess I was wrong.

[Z]

Okay, I thought you might be concerned about your rights and freedoms as guaranteed by the US Constitution. Sorry, guess I was wrong.

Heh. You usually are. Besides, it's also possible that a) none of HIS rights or freedoms have been compromised, or b) he's not in the U.S.

Or c) Flendarb mandible zorg whinflipple marconi calliope waistcoat.

[pomeroo]

Heh. You usually are. Besides, it's also possible that a) none of HIS rights or freedoms have been compromised, or b) he's not in the U.S.

Or c) Flendarb mandible zorg whinflipple marconi calliope waistcoat.



The correct answer is (c).

[A_C_C]

You forgot the part about all of us having been hypnotized into not remembering the PBS documentary showing the concrete cores. And yes, A_C_C, he is dead serious.

I had heard that some people was advancing this idea, but I couldn't think that somebody could say that with an straight face.

[NoZed Avenger]

Is this guy really claiming that the Twin Towers were rigged with explosives at construction? :confused:

FLEE!

If you have not been exposed to this madness, you might still have a chance: Run now, before it's too late.

Run as if the very hounds of hell were following, panting for your blood.

Run as if your very sanity depended on it. It does.


It's too late for most of us, but you might still get away.


For the love of all that's holy, get moving!

[Metullus]

I had heard that some people was advancing this idea, but I couldn't think that somebody could say that with an straight face.There is a place here where even the bravest will not go. We will not point it out to you; pray do not seek it out yourself. There is no good there; there is only despair. Like Nozed said: flee while you can.

[Z]

You've been hypnotized into thinking that what you are doing is okay to do. It is not, it is sociopathic behavior.

You are supporting lies and murder and have no evidence otherwise.

See? I'm tellin' ya, you can't write this kind of comedy!

[Christophera]

You've been hypnotized into thinking that what you are doing is okay to do. It is not, it is sociopathic behavior.

You are supporting lies and murder and have no evidence otherwise.


See? I'm tellin' ya, you can't write this kind of comedy!

As I stated, you have no evidence otherwise, you have actually provide me with evidence supporting what I contend.

The assretions you do make are in complete error.

What I've said is not funny nor is it comedy.

People have been hypnotized by media, TV specifically and their morals, principles and values have been slowly altered to enable then to conduct pretend rationalization that allow them to support murder and the lies that the murderers hide behind.

[pomeroo]

As I stated, you have no evidence otherwise, you have actually provide me with evidence supporting what I contend.

The assretions you do make are in complete error.

What I've said is not funny nor is it comedy.

People have been hypnotized by media, TV specifically and their morals, principles and values have been slowly altered to enable then to conduct pretend rationalization that allow them to support murder and the lies that the murderers hide behind.
The evidence contradicting your fantasies is overwhelming. Those fantasies are many things--horrifying, pernicious, absurd--but they are not "funny."

Jihadists murdered three thousand people on September 11, 2001. The efforts of those who invent preposterous "theories" and fabricate "evidence" to shift the blame for that heinous crime to innocent members of the U.S. government are terribly wrongheaded and misguided, at best. At worst, they are something else.


Edited to remove civility issue, and infracted under the current stricter interpretation of the rules in this forum. Pomeroo - attack the argument, and not the person making the argument. The comment removed is irrelevant and constitutes a personal attack.

[Z]

All we ask, Chris, is either images showing the concrete core during construction, or evidence of the existence of the 1990 documentary you claim to have seen. Unless you can provide either or both, you have nothing.

[qarnos]

There is a place here where even the bravest will not go. We will not point it out to you; pray do not seek it out yourself. There is no good there; there is only despair. Like Nozed said: flee while you can.

What has transpired here is, indeed, grim. Anyone can see that. And, of course, it has been seen by many. Some tried, and failed, to find a way out. Others were more realistice about the situation and accepted their fate.

Many have tried to offer an explanation for these events but, for all their efforts, the discussion usually went into free fall.
The moral of the story, of course, is that in the end, fact towers over fiction.

[Christophera]

The evidence contradicting your fantasies is overwhelming.

Your wordy post contained no evidence. Patently unsubstantial.

Below is evidence of a concrete core in the twin towers, built to demolish towers and fraudulent plans leaked as part of a conspiracy to disinform Americans seeking truth. All pages have great substance.

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

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

http://algoxy.com/psych/whatis9-11Disinfo_fakeplan.html

[Z]

Below is [shoddy and inconsistent] evidence of a concrete core in the twin towers, built to demolish towers and fraudulent plans leaked as part of a conspiracy to disinform Americans seeking truth. All pages have great substance [volume].

Edited that a bit for you Chris.

Your evidence is poor quality, and has been debunked in other threads, where such evidence required debunking at all. Of greatest significance is the fact that you have failed to address the effects of concrete curing on plastic explosives. Your pages have great volume, but are flimsy on substance.

The only substance at this point that matters with regards to your theory would be evidence of the concrete core during construction, or evidence of the existence of the 1990 documentary. Nothing else that you have is convincing, in any way.

[pomeroo]

Your wordy post contained no evidence. Patently unsubstantial.

Below is evidence of a concrete core in the twin towers, built to demolish towers and fraudulent plans leaked as part of a conspiracy to disinform Americans seeking truth. All pages have great substance.

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

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

http://algoxy.com/psych/whatis9-11Disinfo_fakeplan.html



Your fantasy sites do not constitute evidence. I don't doubt that there are similar sites proving that George Bush is a Nazi or a werewolf. Your falsehoods and fabrications are absurd and pernicious.

[Christophera]

All we ask, Chris, is either images showing the concrete core during construction, or evidence of the existence of the 1990 documentary you claim to have seen. Unless you can provide either or both, you have nothing.

Are you proposing that with your 218 characters and 37 words you are going to confront this documentation?

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



Someday, after the shock wears off, you may be able to face reality.

[Metullus]

What has transpired here is, indeed, grim. Anyone can see that. And, of course, it has been seen by many. Some tried, and failed, to find a way out. Others were more realistice about the situation and accepted their fate.

Many have tried to offer an explanation for these events but, for all their efforts, the discussion usually went into free fall.
The moral of the story, of course, is that in the end, fact towers over fiction.For the love of all that is good and decent STOP THAT RIGHT NOW!

[pomeroo]

Are you proposing that with your 218 characters and 37 words you are going to confront this documentation?

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



Someday, after the shock wears off, you may be able to face reality.



Reality is more simple: people who built the twin towers do not believe that the buildings had concrete cores. A crank site pretends otherwise, based on nothing. For you, the shock of reality has never set in, so it can't wear off.

[Christophera]

Reality is more simple: people who built the twin towers do not believe that the buildings had concrete cores. A crank site pretends otherwise, based on nothing. For you, the shock of reality has never set in, so it can't wear off.

To "believe" is a mere 7 letter word. Lies are weak.

My words are so much more powerful than yours I shall convey FIVE THOUSAND times more meaning than you could convey if you tried to use that word. The T (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg)R (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)U (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/shearspirewall.jpg)T (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg)H (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) (The core was concrete) = strong.

[pomeroo]

To "believe" is a mere 7 letter word. Lies are weak.

My words are so much more powerful than yours I shall convey FIVE THOUSAND times more meaning than you could convey if you tried to use that word. The T (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg)R (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)U (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/shearspirewall.jpg)T (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg)H (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) (The core was concrete) = strong.



Your words are very strong because you are a manly man.

Yawn.

Your words are also untrue and are based on nothing.

[Z]

Chris, ten million words can't change the truth. The truth is that unless you can provide evidence of the concrete core during construction, or evidence of the existence of this 1990 documentary, you have nothing. All your meaningless words on your fantasy website are irrelevant, debunked garbage. Post it ten thousand times, it still won't change the content.

So blah blah blah all you want on your little website; it doesn't matter if it's one word or one trillion. Without facts to back it up, your website is NOTHING.

[Christophera]

Your words are very strong because you are a manly man.

Yawn.

Your words are also untrue and are based on nothing.

Integrity is a great thing. Got any? How about evidence? Show it and post it if so.

I've put my time in assembling the evidence of substance.

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

Time for you to do the same if your integrity has value to you.

[Z]

Yawn.

Evidence, Chris. Construction images showing the concrete core, or evidence that this 1990 documentary ever existed.

That's all.

You can babble all you want - adding psychoanalysis to your long list of qualifications you wish you had but clearly don't. Should I swallow some laughing gas and let someone 'hypnotise' me?

It wouldn't change a thing, Chris. There's only two ways you can dig yourself out of this hole, pal. Evidence of the concrete core during construction, or evidence of the existence of the 1990 documentary.

[Christophera]

Yawn.

Evidence, Chris. Construction images showing the concrete core, or evidence that this 1990 documentary ever existed.

That's all.

You can babble all you want - adding psychoanalysis to your long list of qualifications you wish you had but clearly don't. Should I swallow some laughing gas and let someone 'hypnotise' me?

It wouldn't change a thing, Chris. There's only two ways you can dig yourself out of this hole, pal. Evidence of the concrete core during construction, or evidence of the existence of the 1990 documentary.

You are pretending you have not been here. Or do you assert your mind was vacant of the information that is a few posts up the page?

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

We have been ripped off for construction photos that show the concrete. You don't want to recognize that but it is true. So, we have demo photos. You can only use the evidence you do have. Of course you don't wnat to recognize the evidence, because you do ont have any of your own. Well, ........ you're a freakin' socipath seeking to enable murderers to escape, then kill more while the Constiitution is destroyed.

Now post your steel core column link that shows super strong steel columns unmistakenly in the core area. Super strong means something that can survive what you call a collapse and fall last as would be normal in a collapse.

[Z]

You are pretending you have not been here. Or do you assert your mind was vacant of the information that is a few posts up the page?

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

We have been ripped off for construction photos that show the concrete. You don't want to recognize that but it is true. So, we have demo photos. You can only use the evidence you do have. Of course you don't wnat to recognize the evidence, because you do ont have any of your own. Well, ........ you're a freakin' socipath seeking to enable murderers to escape, then kill more while the Constiitution is destroyed.

Now post your steel core column link that shows super strong steel columns unmistakenly in the core area. Super strong means something that can survive what you call a collapse and fall last as would be normal in a collapse.

Your demo photos have either been proven inconclusive, or outright debunked.

So here's where it stands (according to a combination of your 'opinions' and general consensus): photographic evidence of concrete core during construction: stolen.
photographic evidence of concrete core during demolitions: inconclusive and/or debunked.

That leaves us unable to use any photographic evidence.

Forensic evidence of steel core columns: extensive and well-catalogued.
Forensic evidence of concrete core: None.

Doesn't look good so far, Chris.

Design plans showing steel core columns: several, though some of questionable authenticity.
Design plans showing concrete core: None.

Interior photographic evidence of spacious areas allowed by minimal core design: two or three, but not very clear to someone who hasn't been there.
Interior photographic evidence showing most of the floor taken up by the core structure: None.

Literary references to steel core columns in WTC construction: several, verifiable, backed by research.
Literary references to concrete core in WTC construction: one, unverified, possibly a hoax, from a book which does not exist.

Media references to steel core columns in WTC construction: Many video clips, and a documentary from 1993 clearly showing the steel core columns during construction.
Media referecnes to concrete core in WTC construction: One, according to one person, from 1989 or 1990, which, according to the same person, was erased from all archives, and reference removed from ALL public and private archives worldwide.

In short, your evidence is all but nonexistent, and what you HAVE shown has been either proven to be inconclusive, or debunked. Meanwhile evidence of the steel core columns is extensive, and since 'steel core columns' is the default position, the evidence is sufficient to support the claim. 'Concrete core' is the extraordinary position, so extraordinary evidence is required - and as of yet, we don't even have ordinary evidence.

Even if you somehow managed to support there being a 'concrete core' - and along with that contention, the existence of 3" rebar (which has never been made as it's useless), you'd have one final problem - one you have ASTUTELY and DELIBERATELY avoided since day one: the fact that plastic explosives could not last long enough after being put inside curing concrete to be viable by the 21st century.

Not only do you have insufficient evidence to back your claim, you have at least one claim that goes directly against known scientific facts.

Face it, Chris - for all the babbling on your website, you still have nothing.

Have you ever gone through the Algoxy site and made appropriate changes based on actual information you've been provided? Or does your website still claim 'total pulverisation' and 'free fall' and such? Have you evern investigated the Oklahoma City bank building, which is a half-sized version of the Towers, and which uses.... steel core column construction?

Have you ever actually learned anything, Chris, and modified your site accordingly?

So babble all you want, but the only thing that will change ANYONE'S mind about your fairy concrete core is a) images of the concrete core during construction, or b) evidence that your 1990 documentary ever existed.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You are pretending you have not been here. Or do you assert your mind was vacant of the information that is a few posts up the page?

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

We have been ripped off for construction photos that show the concrete. You don't want to recognize that but it is true. So, we have demo photos. You can only use the evidence you do have. Of course you don't wnat to recognize the evidence, because you do ont have any of your own. Well, ........ you're a freakin' socipath seeking to enable murderers to escape, then kill more while the Constiitution is destroyed.

Now post your steel core column link that shows super strong steel columns unmistakenly in the core area. Super strong means something that can survive what you call a collapse and fall last as would be normal in a collapse.

Chris, over the last 1000's of post, one thing has been made abundantly clear; the members of this forum do not find your website sufficiently convincing to give provisional agreement to your claims. Reposting links to your website is not going to change that. Please present new evidence.

[Christophera]

Chris, over the last 1000's of post, one thing has been made abundantly clear; the members of this forum do not find your website sufficiently convincing to give provisional agreement to your claims. Reposting links to your website is not going to change that. Please present new evidence.


Arkan_Wolfshade, over the last 10,000's of posts, one thing has been made abundantly clear; the members of this forum have shown no evidence whatsoever to give provisional agreement to the FEMA claims, their claims. Refusing to utilize evidence of a website is not going to change that. Please present some evidence.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Arkan_Wolfshade, over the last 10,000's of posts, one thing has been made abundantly clear; the members of this forum have shown no evidence whatsoever to give provisional agreement to the FEMA claims, their claims. Refusing to utilize evidence of a website is not going to change that. Please present some evidence.
Chris, I don't think anyone on this forum is under any illusions that they can convince you of anything and I highly doubt anyone is interested in trying anymore. YOU are the one trying to convince people. You've been told what you need to do to achieve this. If you are unable or unwilling to do so, and insist on continuing to hawk your website I will begin reporting such posts as spam.

[Christophera]

eh just looks like stuff scanned at slightly too low a resolution with the scaner set to black and white only.

Did you notice the other scans of the foundation I've made available which are higher res? They were scanned on the same day as the WTC1 plans. Why are they readable and the WTC1 plans not readable?

A-A-99.tif (2.13 MB)

http://www.mediafire.com/?ddvyjntzzcn

A-A-139.tif (2.12 MB)

http://www.mediafire.com/?bjdwgrtmrn4

A-A-141.tif (16.98 MB)

http://www.mediafire.com/?0nr1mmmyang[/QUOTE]

[Christophera]

Even if you somehow managed to support there being a 'concrete core' - and along with that contention, the existence of 3" rebar (which has never been made as it's useless), you'd have one final problem - one you have ASTUTELY and DELIBERATELY avoided since day one: the fact that plastic explosives could not last long enough after being put inside curing concrete to be viable by the 21st century.

My link states, "At least ten years under good conditions".

http://www.ribbands.co.uk/prdpages/C4.htm

Personally, if evaporation and oxidization are what renders the matieral non viable, it is safe to assume that being encapsulated in concrete is far better "conditons" than a mylar package. Which implies that C4 will "at least" last longer than 10 years and considering how much more durable concrete is than mylar, perhaps nearly indefinitely.

So that issue has not been avoided. That link has always been available on my website. What is true is that you neglect to read and then jump to conclusions which are inaccurate.

[Newtons Bit]

The largest size rebar that is currently produced is a #18, which is 18/8" in diameter (roughly). Or 2.25" in diameter.

[Z]

My link states, "At least ten years under good conditions".

http://www.ribbands.co.uk/prdpages/C4.htm

Personally, if evaporation and oxidization are what renders the matieral non viable, it is safe to assume that being encapsulated in concrete is far better "conditons" than a mylar package. Which implies that C4 will "at least" last longer than 10 years and considering how much more durable concrete is than mylar, perhaps nearly indefinitely.

So that issue has not been avoided. That link has always been available on my website. What is true is that you neglect to read and then jump to conclusions which are inaccurate.


You are incorrect. Concrete generates heat while curing. It also is moist. Moisture and heat are two conditions that shorten the lifespan of C-4.

You're confusing physical durability of the packaging with chemical viability. Concrete - curing concrete, no less - is a far less than optimal storage method for plastic explosives.

Consider, would you rather keep bread in concrete or in plastic? The bread in the plastic will stay fresher longer, Chris. It's just not as well protected from kinetic impact.

Kinetic impact is of little concern when we discuss shelf-life, Chris. Chemical erosion is - and heat and moisture are very bad for chemicals. Curing concrete has both. Mylar has neither.

You've been nothing but wrong all along.

Anyway, no further posts will be addressed to you until you provide the evidence requested. All further posts from me are addressed to the viewing audience.

[Christophera]

You are incorrect. Concrete generates heat while curing. It also is moist. Moisture and heat are two conditions that shorten the lifespan of C-4.

My link doesn't say that. Do you have a link to support that?

MilSpec: MIL-C-45010A
UK HSE Serial number: 32-A-68450
RDX content: 91 ± 1%
Polyisobutylene plasticiser: 9 ± 1%
Moisture: 0.1% max
Velocity of Detonation: 8092 ± 26 m/s
Density: 1.63 g/cm3
Colour: Nominally white
TNT equivalence: 118%
Chemical marking for detection: Marked
Shelf life: At least 10 years under good conditions

You're confusing physical durability of the packaging with chemical viability. Concrete - curing concrete, no less - is a far less than optimal storage method for plastic explosives.

Consider, would you rather keep bread in concrete or in plastic? The bread in the plastic will stay fresher longer, Chris. It's just not as well protected from kinetic impact.

From the discusson I had with Ex Navy Seals, C4 was actually well preserved in water for a long time, much longer than being exposed to air.

I prefer concrete packaging, as plastic has many leaks at corners and lap joints.

Kinetic impact is of little concern when we discuss shelf-life, Chris. Chemical erosion is - and heat and moisture are very bad for chemicals. Curing concrete has both. Mylar has neither.

You've been nothing but wrong all along.

You have certainly rpovided no links to support your contentions. My contention that concrete is a better package than mylar is correct and the short raise in temperature in curing concrete will have no effect. It is just not enough.

Anyway, no further posts will be addressed to you until you provide the evidence requested. All further posts from me are addressed to the viewing audience.

When a poster has no evidence such as you, that is the most comfortable strategy.

[Z]

I am going to make one small adjustment to my statements here: regarding the shelf life of plastic explosives, there are some plastic explosives which have a longer shelf-life than C4. However, as with any chemical reaction, increases of heat also increase the natural chemical breakdown. Some plastic explosives are very stable under varied conditions, however, and could be suitable for an application such as Chris has mentioned. Unfortunately for Chris, most of those explosives were discovered in the late 70s to early 80s... not in the 60s.

C4 would degrade too quickly to be useful for his concept.

Of course, all this assumes there was a concrete core at all - which he shows no valid evidence of. In a steel core building, packets of C4 could have been hidden all over the place. They might have been stable long enough to detonate in.... 1980 or so? maybe.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

My link doesn't say that. Do you have a link to support that?
Also, the amount of heat generated by the exothermic chemical process of hydration can be problematic for very large placements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete#Curing

http://concrete.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/en/demos/ducom/brieftheory/consec3.html

Edit: Actually, on second thought, it looks like you might be referring to "heat and moisture shortens lifespan", not "concrete generates heat as it cures". If that's the case, just ignore this post.

[Newtons Bit]

Christophera:

Cement, prior to curing, is exceptionally caustic. It will burn your hands. I doubt C4 would survive if placed inside of a poured wall. In addition, any compression forces would bear on that C4 until it deformed slightly, and then the concrete in that area would have large cracks.

Second, where is this evidence that there's a concrete core? The links from the last page you supplied are all architectural plans, not structural. They don't show anything resembling a concrete core.

Third, it's against code to build a building that tall using concrete shear-walls for a very good reason.

Fourth, buildings that are tall (though shorter than 200feet) that use concrete shear walls in the core do not have exterior moment frames, this is a wasteful design as those moment frames are useless as almost all of the load from lateral forces will be carried by the shear wall as it is so much stiffer.

Fifth, why use interior columns at all? If there's an interior shear-wall to resist lateral forces, why not use it as a bearing wall as well? If you know anything about shear wall design, compressive forces lower the amount of tensile reinforcement needed in the wall. The interior steel columns would actually make the project more expensive.

Sixth, there was a large known displacement in wind at the top floors of the WTC. If the lateral system was concrete shear walls, there would be no perceptible movements due to wind forces.

[Z]

Christophera:

Cement, prior to curing, is exceptionally caustic. It will burn your hands. I doubt C4 would survive if placed inside of a poured wall. In addition, any compression forces would bear on that C4 until it deformed slightly, and then the concrete in that area would have large cracks.

Second, where is this evidence that there's a concrete core? The links from the last page you supplied are all architectural plans, not structural. They don't show anything resembling a concrete core.

Third, it's against code to build a building that tall using concrete shear-walls for a very good reason.

Fourth, buildings that are tall (though shorter than 200feet) that use concrete shear walls in the core do not have exterior moment frames, this is a wasteful design as those moment frames are useless as almost all of the load from lateral forces will be carried by the shear wall as it is so much stiffer.

Fifth, why use interior columns at all? If there's an interior shear-wall to resist lateral forces, why not use it as a bearing wall as well? If you know anything about shear wall design, compressive forces lower the amount of tensile reinforcement needed in the wall. The interior steel columns would actually make the project more expensive.

Sixth, there was a large known displacement in wind at the top floors of the WTC. If the lateral system was concrete shear walls, there would be no perceptible movements due to wind forces.

Welcome, Newton, but I'm afraid you'll just be wasting your breath with Chris. See, his day-labor construction experience far outweighs any actual education or experience anyone else in the world might have. Most if not all of this has been brought up before, but he continues to insist that the core HAD to be concrete, poured on 3" (or larger!!) rebar, coated with an RDX slurry mixture (the rebar, not the concrete), sometime in the late 1960s, and surviving until THEY needed to detonate it on 9/11.

Still, for the sake of onlookers, good post.

[Christophera]

Christophera:

Cement, prior to curing, is exceptionally caustic. It will burn your hands. I doubt C4 would survive if placed inside of a poured wall. In addition, any compression forces would bear on that C4 until it deformed slightly, and then the concrete in that area would have large cracks.

You are overstating the chemical composition of concrete. It will not burn your hands per se. The lime it it, if left on, will seriously dry them out as it draws out the natural oils. Simple hand lotion facilitates an almost complete recovery.

The concrete will shrink when it cures, which simply causes it to grip the rebar and its coating. No cracks will form because of this. If you wish to continue to assert these things, please provide a link. These factors are common knowledge in the construction industry.

Second, where is this evidence that there's a concrete core? The links from the last page you supplied are all architectural plans, not structural. They don't show anything resembling a concrete core.

The below image shows the approximately 500 foot tall tubular core of WTC 2

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

It is concrete because no structural steel is seen protruding and structural steel will always look like structural steel with columns and beams forming lines and rectangles.

Third, it's against code to build a building that tall using concrete shear-walls for a very good reason.

Please provide the code and the reason.

Fourth, buildings that are tall (though shorter than 200feet) that use concrete shear walls in the core do not have exterior moment frames, this is a wasteful design as those moment frames are useless as almost all of the load from lateral forces will be carried by the shear wall as it is so much stiffer.

We could not term these moment frames "exterior" they are outside the steel reinforced cast concrete tube but are a part of the inside wall of the exterior steel framework.

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

BTW, that image does not look into the core as so many think it does. It looks along one face of the core into space over a floor. The columns on the left are the interior box columns and the moment frame is the heavily trussed/joined pair.

Fifth, why use interior columns at all? If there's an interior shear-wall to resist lateral forces, why not use it as a bearing wall as well? If you know anything about shear wall design, compressive forces lower the amount of tensile reinforcement needed in the wall. The interior steel columns would actually make the project more expensive.

Concrete construction was becoming very advanced about that time. The concrete core had a certain amount of flex overall. The 3 inch high tensile steel rebar resisted this similarly to the basic, normal nature of non flexible concrete structures and worked with it to resist primarily lateral loads and torsion. Cast concrete members over long distances can and do flex considerably.

The compressive forces actually compressed the steel about 18 inches over the full tower height which was correctly pointed out by a member her in the thread located here,

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57426&page=277

Good luck finding that in amongst the subterfuge of baking recipes and multiple drunken verses of "beer on the all".

I do recall from the 1990 documentary called "The Construction of the Twin Towers" mention of the procedure that was prescribed by the engineers related to the fastening of the interior box columns to the concrete core walls. It was specified that the interior box columns could only be fastened after 10 floors of steel was constructed above the floor where fasteners were applied. This gradually accumulated the surcharge and distributed it to the concrete while loading it with its 20% bearing capacity per the design.

Sixth, there was a large known displacement in wind at the top floors of the WTC. If the lateral system was concrete shear walls, there would be no perceptible movements due to wind forces.

As stated, concrete does flex. I personally have demoed large commercial slabs at a gas station with a 977L cat loader (35 tons) and been unable to break them as the slabs flexed enough within the lifting capacity of the machine where no crack could be formed, even after repeatedly picking up the slab and dropping it. Even after placing a large piece of concrete footing under it and dropping the slab on the footing! I had to get the loader on top of the 8 inch thick steel reinforced concrete slab at just the right point offset from the big footing placed underneath, then it broke. That procedure was required for the entire slab area.

The concrete was required for the towers to be structurally certified as safe. The flex of steel in very long members is well known and documented. Here is the tacoma Narrows bridge and the resonance of a 40 MPH wind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5j20NSFNcg

[Darat]

To avoid confusion and discrepancies I deleted two posts from Christophera that had breached his Membership Agreement and previous warnings I had issued him, these breaches were the breaches that triggered his banning. (In this thread the posts were originally #116 & #117).

[Newtons Bit]

Christophera, I am sorry to see that you got banned. I wish I could provide the proper erudition to convince you that at the bare minimum you don't know what you're talking about, and perhaps even convince you that the WTC was in fact a steel core structure.

One of the reasons why I don't provide many links or sources, is because I myself am a source. I practice structural engineering and do alot of work in cast-in-place concrete. I'm the guy who tells your boss what to do in the field.

As someone who performs concrete work, I am sure you know of the phasing of seperate specialities in concrete construction of buildings. The concrete is poured first, and then the steel is put into place weeks later. This is due to the nature of concrete not developing it's full strength for 28 days (sometimes less or more depending on special mixes). If the WTC was indeed a concrete shear wall construction, the shear-wall construction would be many floors ahead of the steel framing due to this.

A couple more points to make, concrete has practically zero tensile capacity, it will not flex without rebar. The reason why rebar is placed into concrete is because steel can be pulled without immediately breaking. The deformed edges on rebar are there to grip the concrete and pull on it. However with large bars, it requires a longer length of these deformed edges to catch and pull (compress) the concrete to balance the forces.

The reason why no buildings were that tall using concrete shear walls (and why the IBC currently limits their height) is that they do not perform well under quickly reversible loads. Today, there is a building going up in Washington State that is taller than what IBC limits, but they had to meet several additional seismic review processes. In the end, their design was acceptable because of how the structure develops plastic hinges at the base and yield various concrete transfer girders to dampen seismic loads. I'll get the name of the structure tomorrow. This technology and method of analysis did not exist in the 60's (probably due to a lack of computer power).

As far as the stiffness of the structure, there are a great deal many of steel structure of similar height to what the WTC soared to. Let's take the Empire State Building for example. It's not nearly as tall, but it likewise uses a moment frame system to transfer lateral loads to the foundations. Alot of people know this. What they don't know, is that if you were to gut the structure of all it's interior architectural partition walls, the building would tip over in a stiff breeze. This is due to one of the assumptions of how moment frames work that had to be reworked. Rivetted connections don't work. The Taipei 101 is a moment frame building as well. As is the Sears Tower.

Galloping Gurdy collapsed because the natural frequency of the structure was similar to wind in that area. This is a subject that is far beyond the comphrension of the people here and I really don't want to get into it. Suffice to say, the building collapses because it was too light. I know of no reason why dynamics played a large role in the collapse of the WTC.

[pomeroo]

I wonder how Christophera would have dismissed this:

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/whistleblower-wtc-blueprints.html

[Z]

Well, we'll never know now.

I hope he eventually gets the help he so desperately needs.

Newton, thank you for coming to the forum - it's nice to see someone who apparently knows what he's talking about around here.