The term "box columns" is correct but not complete. Those columns are"interior box columns" and you can see that whoever annotated them definately saw that the steel in the core was much smaller and not deserving of annotation.
Their evidence consisted of misinterpreted construction drawings which showed vertical stel in the core area that was much smaller than the interio rbox columns surrounding the core area. That steel is elevator guide rail support steel and distinct with plates on top of it to bolt the sections together. It has no real strength or it would still be seen in the image of the WTC 2 core protruding from the core area. The interior box columns were the only columns associated with the core and thery were outside of it nad were truly "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS".
Can you please present evidence specifically for comment? I always get nasty when confronted with the inadequacy like the below.
Referring to the below. You have not been reading and have not discerned where I'm at with this. I believe that the US government is infiltrated.
It is not smart to attempt to conduct discussion without actual raw evidence when authority is in question. Period.
My site documenting the concrete core is all about raw evidence.
No, your site is about photographs. As has been pointed out, this is not raw evidence. Raw evidence would be the actual twisted wreckage of the towers. All else is subject to proper interpretation.
By the way, your first photo looks like dust, and your second photo looks like big steel columns. Neither looks like a concrete core, sorry.
Got any better photos? Got any blueprints? Come on, man, you're making the positive claims here! Why should I have to prove that there wasn't C4 coated rebar, when you and a couple other people are the only ones claiming there even was?
You have no reason to "get nasty", this is not an attack. This is a debate.
You have already posted plans which do not show a concrete core, which you dismissed as being drawn up without showing the core for reasons no one could possibly fathom. You have been presented with video of the building of the towers that did not show a conrete core. Several posters have pointed out that the images you show do not appear to show a concrete core. You labelled elements from different parts of the tower side as "rebar".
If you want to convince us, you'll need to provide better evidence.
-Do you have official blueprints showing a core?
-Do you have photos from construction that conclusively show a core?
-Do you have testimony from architects or engineers that worked on the project?
-Do you have the name or airing date of that PBS documentary you claim mentions the core?
If I ask you to prove you aren't an Al Qaeda disinformation agent sent to blame our government for something your operatives did, but ignore all evidence presented and keep claiming the same thing, am I debating honestly or dishonestly?
So, just for kicks, prove you aren't an Al Qaeda operative. I saw a photo once of some terrorist training camp with some people whose faces I couldn't see in it. Prove you're not one of them. By the way, I can't provide you with the photo because I only remember it.
Why I am even bothering? Because I like pain, obviously.
So, just for kicks, prove you aren't an Al Qaeda operative. I saw a photo once of some terrorist training camp with some people whose faces I couldn't see in it. Prove you're not one of them. By the way, I can't provide you with the photo because I only remember it.
[/SIZE]
You know, you many be on to something here. Maybe Chris really is an al Qaeda disinfo agent. That's the assumption I'm now going to go under unless he proves otherwise.
This thread was getting tedious, but maybe this'll liven it up a bit.
You know, you many be on to something here. Maybe Chris really is an al Qaeda disinfo agent. That's the assumption I'm now going to go under unless he proves otherwise.
This thread was getting tedious, but maybe this'll liven it up a bit.
1) A video in 1990 - one that no one else (except, allegedly, his ex-wife) has ever seen, one that does not exist in the archive records at PBS or at KCET, one that does not even exist in the entire catalogue of TV-Guide for the Santa Barbara area for the year of 1990.
2) An encyclopedia entry written by a person who had, at that point, never even been to the towers, and was writing on assumption, not fact.
3) A fuzzy photograph that shows nothing definite - only an indistinct, rounded shape in the dust cloud that could be concrete, or collapsing debris, or what was left of the steel-core and bedrock-walled core, partially covered with debris from above (explaining the apparent rounded shape)...
4) Deductive reasoning (since no 1300-ft long steel sections were visible during the collapse, they must not have existed). --Which is faulty, considering no 1300-ft long 'MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS' or elevator guide rails were visible, either.
On the other hand, numerous video and photographic evidence shows steel structural columns at the worksite; debris fields show clear evidence of steel support columns, but an insufficient amount of concrete; the most accurate construction plans that are available mention steel, not concrete; and a video documentary from 1983 clearly indicates steel, not concrete.
Why does concrete matter? Because Chris erroneously believes that the steel-reinforced concrete included one additional element: plastic explosives, applied directly to the rebar.
His evidence:
1) the violent collapse pictures showing the ejection of powdery-grey matter at the initiation of collapse - which can be equally accounted for by the presence of drywall, sheetrock, the concrete in the floors themselves, the ash from all that burned office equipment, etc.
2) the apparenty excessive speed of collapse -- which he cannot prove is excessive, nor can he come up with a quantification of what is 'acceptable' versus what is not.
3) 'Total Pulverisation' of the towers - which debris evidence proves is wrong... He equivocates by claiming that observed debris came from the mall, not the towers themselves. But this, too, is wrong.
4) A magazine article in the late 70s which he claims explains the process of returning C4 to slurry state for underwater use - yet he won't divulge what magazine it was, or when he read the article.
Evidence against:
1) Shelf life of plastic explosives under OPTIMAL conditions is only between 15-20 years. He tries to get around this by claiming concrete acted as a better protectant; yet concrete during curing emits heat, is moist, and results in a material which allows more air exchange than cellophane. Further, any such material on the rebar would largely negate one of the purposes of rebar, and such a structure likely would have collapsed under natural stresses long before 2001.
2) Insufficient chemical residue to indicate the existence of plastic explosives, nor of det cord, wiring, or other apparatus.
3) No eyewitnesses over the lifespan of the towers noticed anything odd - considering that wiring for the detonators would have to extend beyond the concrete, and no one ever noticed such wiring.
The only evidence he ever offers in support comes from his own website - owned, operated, and administered by himself from his Isley St. home - and photos which lack clarity and definition, which he also hosts. For all we know, he's doctored those photos. I don't think he has, but he's never offered them in context of the locations he's gotten them from. Meanwhile, he's in flat and open denial of any contraverting evidence, including statements by construction and engineering personnel, photographs of construction, photographs of debris fields, etc. He expounds upon his own 'photographic' memory, but gets details wrong enough to really embarrass himself - if he had any shame, which he doesn't. Why should we trust his memory about concrete cores and magazine articles, when he can't remember the show's name was Ally McBeal, or the age of the mohawk he interviewed, or the station number of KCET, or anything else, really?
His memory is shot - and things he recalls from memory are suspect.
My suggestion to Chris is this: go back to worrying about the available algae contents of your local lakes and rivers. This, at least, is a real problem, with real solutions, and could benefit people. Raving for years on websites has gotten you no where at all, and never will. You're wasting your time here, while the oxygen levels of your home continue to diminish.
My suggestion to all the other participants on this thread: When you feel like replying to Chris, here, just copy and paste this or another of the good summations available, and walk away.
I don't care. The fact that you annotated it or not doesn't change the fact that those columns are structural steel.
Those columns are"interior box columns" and you can see that whoever annotated them definately saw that the steel in the core was much smaller and not deserving of annotation.
JonnyFive, with each post that you make wihtout raw evidence of the supposed 47, 1300 foot steel core columns you become less and less competent.
The blueprints have no core details what so ever. There are little dots which indicate where the original engineers thought the interior box columns might be.
Interior box columns existed, core columns did not. Farsetect proves my point not his.
All I have is raw evidence and a few sites with testimonials that provide corroboration from uninterested parties showing a consistency to the words "concret core" despite the confusion caused by the fact that no final construction blueprints have ever been provided to any one.
"The World Trade Center's tube-style construction, with steel columns found only along the exterior wall and within a central core, freed up nearly an acre of space on each floor for offices."
All right, I submit your own blueprints without any hint of a core as evidence that there was no core.
I also submit the earlier posted video of the tower construction, and all the construction photos as proof. And you own blurry picture that appears to show steel supports, not a CONCRETE CORE or MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS.
Do you have additional photos? Do you have the documentary? Testimony? Blueprints?
You're being evasive. You have made a positive claim (there is a concrete core), I have made a negative counter-claim (you have not shown me the core). I did not say it was impossible for there to be a concrete core, only that you have not shown good evidence.
I also see that a quick Google image search for "WTC concrete core" yields the now-discredited BBC graphic, your web site, and some forum postings by... you.
Never mind. Rock on, Christophera, rock on.
By the way, are you going to prove you're not an Al Qaeda operative?
What! He hasn't accused you of having some sort of cognitive disfunction, or told you that you have mental problems, just because you don't accept his world view. Never mind, if you carry on disagreeing with him he probably will.
I don't find any images of raw evidence of steel core columns there. You need images of the columns in the core area at some elevation above the ground to qualify as showing "core columns".
"The World Trade Center's tube-style construction, with steel columns found only along the exterior wall and within a central core, freed up nearly an acre of space on each floor for offices."
No raw evidence of columns inside the core at the above site.
This image does not look into the core and only shows an interior box column on the left.
No raw evidence of steel core columns at the above site. You did however come up with yet one more floor plan for the core layout. That makes FOUR plans now, all different.
If you are looking for an aerial of the top of the tower showing interior box columns mine is the best. "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" You can even see the small vertical steel of the ELEVATOR GUIDE RAIL SUPPORTS in the core area. No core columns seen.
Now you are being dumb again. I've already said those are not accurate and useless except for site information such as which way the towers are aligned.
I also submit the earlier posted video of the tower construction, and all the construction photos as proof. And you own blurry picture that appears to show steel supports, not a CONCRETE CORE or MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS.
Do insist on using crap information to make your point instead of raw evidence?
Do you have additional photos? Do you have the documentary? Testimony? Blueprints?
If you do not think it is concrete ,then tell me what you think it is based on its appearance and your experience with construction materials. If you do not do this immediately,then you WILL be truly evasive.
You could also say, "I do not have any experience in evaluating building materials by their appearances." This would mean that you cannot use my raw evidence.
I have made a negative counter-claim (you have not shown me the core). I did not say it was impossible for there to be a concrete core, only that you have not shown good evidence.
I also see that a quick Google image search for "WTC concrete core" yields the now-discredited BBC graphic, your web site, and some forum postings by... you.
Never mind. Rock on, Christophera, rock on.
By the way, are you going to prove you're not an Al Qaeda operative?
I talk about preserving the principles of the US Constitution, our rights and freedoms. Al Qaeda will not do that and I've noticed you have not either.
So, .... you might not be abel to evaluate building materials by their appearances, but at least you could avoid being perceived as some kind of agent subversive to to the sacred principles of our great nation.
Or, ....... you could say you are Canadian or Australian or from Germany and have no reason whatsoever to give a crap. I which case you are probably an agent of some sort.
What! He hasn't accused you of having some sort of cognitive disfunction, or told you that you have mental problems, just because you don't accept his world view. Never mind, if you carry on disagreeing with him he probably will.
that is "Cognitive Distortion and jonny isn't seriously guilty of it, ...yet, but your post constitutes a "mental filter" with its various attempts at labeling.
3. Mental filter - Focusing exclusively on certain, usually negative or upsetting, aspects of something while ignoring the rest, like a tiny imperfection in a piece of clothing.
So to balence out your ig nor ance. I will post upsetting evidence of a concrete core.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
