Christophera said:
According to someones calculations here the smallest thing that can be seen is 2-3 feet across at the distance the images are taken from.
2 foot wide spire
3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS
Okay, it is impossible to see them, then any interpretation is in error, then they aren't the same picture, then it shows more detail so we can see it better.
Ergo, it is impossible to see them, individually, and any interpretation of those pictures is bound to be in error. Thanks.
That's not the same picture, you dork. Obviously, since it shows more detail, we can see better.
Unfortunately, although it is a different picture than the previous one, it was taken mere moments apart, so it is showing the same structure. How can you possibly, with a straight face, tell me that one shows box columns and the other shows rebar ?
What ? You claim they don't even show the same thing. How can one be proof of the other, then ?
It seems at this point I should say something like, "make up your mind" "or you can't have it both ways" or "either you can see them or you cannot see them".
Whoever attempted to calculate what a pixel was at that distance was obviously wrong because obviously we see the 2 foot wide column and then a second later we can also see what is almost not captured by the resolution of the camera.
How can the latter, lower structure be the "same structure" they are obviously different. One is large and well defined the other sketchy and part (lower right) is pixelated out altogether.
I may be inclined to agree, IF Belz... made ANY analysis of those images, which he didn't.
I realize that. It was HCR I think.
Are you sure you remember all those details ? It seems as you're making that documentary up as you go.
Do you have a photographic memory ? I find it highly dubious that you can remember specific sentences and information but took MONTHS to remember about the documentary itself.
Yes it could seem as if i was making it up as I go and it took over a year to remember anything at all. Memory is a tricky thing, we all know this.
The last significant recall I had was about the 6 inch rebar. I remember marvelling at the amount of work in tight difficult spaces in order to weld 6 inch think deep fillets that were round. A night mare. A zillion passes and chipping runs. No wonder the core foundation took so long went through my mind. The constant objection to my call of 3 inches of the rebar coiled up on top of the
core wall at its base bothered me because the thickness really did look larger. then some images of tight intersections of huge rebar popped into my brain from my memory adn the words followed describing the fact that the 6 inch rebar of the foundation had to be welded because it was too thick to bend.
Prior to that was the built in
cutting charges of the floors that cut the interior box columns so perfectly people who should know better say they sheared at the site or cut at the mill. Demo clean up shear offs, if such thick, tempered steel could be sheared, is ugly. The notion they were cut at the mill is absurd if one insists they were core columns. "Core" implies all one piece. The interior box columns were hand welded at the mill in 40 foot pieces and then 100% welded in position to form virtual one piece columns. My photographic memory kept calling back an image that matched one in that 18 minute celebratory video that everybody posts a link to thinking it might be the one I saw which showed floor panels being lowered into position a couple floors below the top and I remembered that the documentary had what was probably exactly the same shot, then I remembered the narration mentioning the 2 tempered steel plates that were placed around the interior box column to fill in the truncated corner of the floor panel. I remembered that te PA objected to the videographers sourcing the independent engineering contractore drawing details, then relenting when the filmakers asked "why?".
My study of linear shape charges in my 9-11 research had educated me as to what was required to explosively shear steel, suddenly I knew how the
box columns were cut (explsive shear on left) into neat 40 foot pieces.
I'm still waiting for your explanation as to why someone would construct a building in this way. Concrete core buildings are built with the core standing way above the rest of the building. Why would the WTC be built any other way ?
I've explained this before but perhaps it was lost in the copius spam.
Towers with smaller cores are constructed, as you say, by building the core first, above the steel framework. The reason is that the steel reinforced concrete core absorbs the lateral loading and the amount of steel used can be reduced making the tower lighter and therefore taller.
With larger cores the steel is expended in order to create a framework to support the outer formwork for the core. Erecting that formwork free standing is quite tricky and requires extensive, braced scaffolding which must be erected and taken down over and over. very expensive. By building the outer steel framework and using it as scaffold the expense of the temporary scaffold is eliminated as the floors provide work space and interior box columns support the outer core forms.
Now can you reasonably accept that
this is the steel reinforced core of WTC 2?
