Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers?

[tsig]

I will make one last post in this thread and let it die as requested.

I was a construction supervisor and industrial piping designer. I supervised construction projects for steel mills. I was an on site piping designer for the Toole Utah facility I mentioned above. I was part of a damage assessment team for two sites. One was for a company called IMC/Angus in Louisiana and the other was for Shell Chemical in Belpre, Ohio. All I can say is that I've seen some pretty amazing stuff. I've seen steel beams twisted like spaghetti.

I would just like to know a few things.

1. Where is he getting the 3" diameter on 4' centers from?

2. How can he tell that the spire picture, which was taken at 7500 feet away, contained 3" rebar? That's like telling me that he can recognize one of his friends from that distance.

3. I have not seen one picture showing the plywood structure, concrete pouring mechanisms, or the 3" rebar used in construction of the supposed concrete core.

4. It has been stated numerous times that the architect wanted to keep the core light in weight which is why he had the steel beam core encased in Sheetrock, not concrete.

5. In my experience in construction, I've never seen 3" diamater rebar used (not to say that it hasn't, just that I've never seen it). Even the 4' thick walls of the Toole facility, built to contain a possible explosion, didn't use 3" rebar. It used vary closely spaced, smaller diameter rebar. There was so much rebar that I remember standing in front of it before the concrete was poured, and I couldn't see through it.

6. Lastly, I have yet to see a clear picture that shows a piece of the concrete with 3" rebar sticking out of it. You can refer me to the picture taken of what was left of the core with the supposed 3" rebar sticking out of the concrete, but I just don't see it. Those could be pipes. That picture proves nothing. Come to think of it, I have never seen a picture of 3" rebar anywhere. You would think that there would have been a huge pile of it somewhere.

7. How was the concrete poured in place for the core if it was always below the current floor being constructed (a convenient explanation I might add).

Only when the blueprints are produced will we know the truth and can put Christopher's claims to rest. All of his "raw" images that he says proves his claims are all subject to interpretation. What I mean is that there is not one photo that he provides which distinctly proves that the core was concrete with 3" diameter rebar. The spire picture looks like part of the exterior facade to me. The other picture he uses shows what he claims to be 3" rebar. I could be piping. I see no pictures of a plywood structure used to form the core. I see no 3" rebar lying around waiting to be used. I see no pictures of the 3" rebar set in place before the supposed concrete was poured. I see no pictures of a piece of concrete with 3" rebar sticking out of it. I see no account of 3" rebar being scrapped.

All I see are pictures to back up what NIST describes in their paper.

Again, the only way that Chistophera can prove the concrete core existed is with pictures of the blueprints that show it.

I will not post again in this thread as I fear the wrath of the "elder posters". My they have mercy on my soul.

We have no mercy

 

[Christophera]

bv is justifiably filled with erroneous advice.

welcome to the forum Gamalon.
no doubt christophera will be along to "answer" your questions. when you read his response please bear this in mind, all the questions you have asked have already been addressed numerous times in this thread. chris will just regurgitate those answers he has already given, no matter what your knowledge in any field you bring forth to refute his assertions.

True, no amount of experience supplants evidence. If you bring evidence of the supposed steel core columns from the demise of the towers, where all is exposed, refutation is difficult. Now, keep in mind that many have done what Gene Coreley took the lead on which was to imply that a the wall of interior box columns actually represented the interior core, or "lattice core" as was invented to describe. Here is is seen that it is just a wall and that the interior is empty.

christophera will gainsay you by one of many methods:
he may accuse you of being unable to accept the "truth" because you are hypnotised

it is well known that secret societies use occult methods to keep secrets. If you are trying to gatekeep and refuse to acknowledge evidence, you may be hypnotized.

he will quote untraceable tv documentaries and magazine articles and time-warping mohican ironworkers

bv refers to a minor discrepancy or confusion between the Mohawks beginning employment, my meeting him and then my later interview. bv distorts and exaggerates a non issue. Lacking evidence, this is common with deniers of the concrete core.

he may accuse you of being complicit in the murder of thousands of americans

That I do not do. I accuse people of working to support the LIE which the murderers of thousands of Americans hide behind.

he will use blatantly cherry-picked quotes from first-responders and other 9/11 victims

Actually the deniers of concrete do this far more than I do. For example: The guy that used a squeegee to cut through drywall to find a stairway. There was another account, perhaps the same guy where they cut through drywall to find concrete. I do use a video of firefighters in the firehouse discussing detonations.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg

he will point you to badly compressed jpgs as "raw evidence"

A blatant error/lie. This image of the WTC 2 concrete core is not compressed at all. You have to scroll left an entire screen to see the 500 foot tall concrete core.

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

he may accuse you of being a fraud

True. For example. bv, you are a fraud and this post proves it.

Above all he has stated that "NOTHING will convince me" that the towers were built any other way.[/LIST]during nearly 11,000 posts he has staged a lonesome one-man battle against all irrefutable evidence that there was no concrete core in wtc 1 + 2.
i do believe he's unique, he is the only man in the world that truly believes in his invisible core.

True, nothing will convince me. This is because I KNOW the towers had a concrete core and all of the raw evidence of images from the demolition supports that contention. Misinterpreted construction images are not presentable unless they are logically consistent.

It is a total exaggeration, error and lie, that I am the only man in the world that knows of the conrete core, and bv knows it.

For example: August Domel, Jr., Ph.D., S.E., P.E. November 2001

http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf

Or a poster on physorg.com who ambiguously posts on April fools day and identifies themselves as Leslie Robertson lead engineer of the World Trade Center.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3108&view=findpost&p=78752

Apr 1 2006, 06:33 PM

Unregistered

Christophera is correct in stating that the Twin Towers were constructed with a concrete core. Although in my original design the core was to be a steel framed one that decision was overridden by Minoru Yamasaki the architect.

That core should have resisted the airplane impacts AND the fires. I have said nothing for four and a half years but can remain silent no longer. My belief is that only explosives could have caused WTC 1 & WTC 2 to collapse the way they did on September 11, 2001.

Leslie E. Robertson
Director Leslie E. Robertson Associates, R.L.L.P. and lead engineer of the World Trade Center

Then there is MSNBC that identifies the concrete core in conjunction with an interview with Robertson.

Leslie Robertson, Architect Of The World Trade Center Towers
Still, Robertson, whose firm is responsible for three of the six tallest buildings in the world, feels a sense of pride that the massive towers, supported by a steel-tube exoskeleton and a reinforced concrete core, held up as well as they did—managing to stand for over an hour despite direct hits from two massive commercial jetliners.
Says engineer Robertson, “If they had fallen down immediately, the death counts would have been unimaginable,” he says. “The World Trade Center has performed admirably, and everyone involved in the project should be proud.” The buildings were designed specifically to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, the largest plane flying in 1966, the year they broke ground on the project.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3069641[/b]

i cannot blame you for asking your questions but if you're hoping that christophera will accept your arguments you will have a long wait.
Good luck

My last post here (i mean it this time :-} )

BV

Sure.

 

[Arus808]

Chris, this thread is dead. So dead that you have to dredge up old posts just to keep it alive.

stop. please.


EVERYONE ELSE, JUST STOP REPLYING. LET CHRIS HAVE THE LAST WORD AND LEAVE IT.

 

[Gamolon]

I lied. Sorry guys.

Christophera, I found this video footage of the construction of the towers.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/sf_building_pop_01_qt.html

I saw no mention or footage about 3" rebar used in the interior core, no mention or footage of a plywood structure to be used to form the concrete core, and no mention or footage of concrete being poured into the inner core. They happen to touch on all other facets of construction except your concrete core. They even showed the pouring/smoothing of the concrete for the floors.

So far you have provided me with a picture taken at 7500' away showing supposed 3" diameter rebar. You sir must have eyesight like that of GI Joe with the eagle eye. You have provided a documentary which conveniently doesn't exist. You have provided another picture showing what you claim to be 3" rebar sticking out of concrete. I say it's pipe.

Everything I have seen so far shows without a doubt that the core was constructed of steel and not concrete reinforced with 3" diameter rebar.

How come you cannot come up with any photos or footage during the construction that show anything you claim yet I can find tons of stuff pertaining to the steel core? Which, I may add, also lack mention of anything resembling your claimed concrete inner core.

So far you have provided obscure pictures that are taken from long distances and a non-existent video. Nice.

Your proof, for lack of a better term, sucks.

 

[maccy]

Gamolon, I guarantee anything you find will already have been mentioned several times on this thread. Chris will now present you with his deluded explanation for the PBS documentary once more.

Really, there's nothing that hasn't already been said. You can check by searching the thread if you want.

It's pointless and he won't listen. Nobody is in danger of being persuaded by his theory as it is self-evidently ludicrous.

Please leave it.

-------------------------

Edited to Add: because the posts asking people to stop posting are also bumping the thread, A W Smith has suggested we PM anybody who posts an argument with Chris on this thread. I think this is a good idea. So if someone other than Chris posts, please PM them to explain the situation and then post that you've done it on this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71851

That way they shouldn't be inundated with PMs and the warning thread will also be bumped above this one.

 

[A W Smith]

I lied. Sorry guys.

Christophera, I found this video footage of the construction of the towers.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/sf_building_pop_01_qt.html

I saw no mention or footage about 3" rebar used in the interior core, no <snip>

Gamolon; I see you are new here. trust us even that documentary has been brought to his attention about every five pages of this thread. he just will not believe there was no concrete core in the towers. let this thread go ok? he is the lone CTer who thinks there is a concrete core. He simply is not well.

No more posts below this line OK?
__________________________

 

[Christophera]

I will make one last post in this thread and let it die as requested.

I was a construction supervisor and industrial piping designer. I supervised construction projects for steel mills. I was an on site piping designer for the Toole Utah facility I mentioned above. I was part of a damage assessment team for two sites. One was for a company called IMC/Angus in Louisiana and the other was for Shell Chemical in Belpre, Ohio. All I can say is that I've seen some pretty amazing stuff. I've seen steel beams twisted like spaghetti.

Sounds as though you have some experience. I've been a welder for 35 years off and on. Also heavy equipment operation with some demo on steel buildings. In 1984 I did a road building project in some highly varied strata with lots of very tricky blasting. Following that I studied for my blasters license. Currently I work as a surveyor and draftsman for a small engineering company.

I would just like to know a few things.

1. Where is he getting the 3" diameter on 4' centers from?

This comes from a very detailed documentary that aired in 1990 called "The Construction of the Twin Towers" on PBS in souther California. It was 2 hours in length and got very intimate with many details of WTC 1 as it was built.

2. How can he tell that the spire picture, which was taken at 7500 feet away, contained 3" rebar? That's like telling me that he can recognize one of his friends from that distance.

As a surveyor I use 2.5 inch PVC as a long distance target/reference and if it is silhouetted it is very easy to see with the naked eye. It can even be picked out if there is contrast with the background.

3. I have not seen one picture showing the plywood structure, concrete pouring mechanisms, or the 3" rebar used in construction of the supposed concrete core.

The interior box columns, called "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" in the linked imaged ringed the core and were used to support the exterior form wood. The core was ALWAYS cast inside the exterior framework except for the first 4 floors of WTC 1. The inner form was a breakdown steel form which left very shiny/reflective surfaces. I explain how those work to create the appearance of the towers in silhouette here. The third image down.

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

The concrete was pumped up pipe inside the core by a series of mud pumps from a small onsite batch plant. It may have been the first large scale concrete pumping operation ever,

4. It has been stated numerous times that the architect wanted to keep the core light in weight which is why he had the steel beam core encased in Sheetrock, not concrete.

Does it seem reasonable that the 500 foot tall core standing in this high RES image is sheet rock?

Concrete Core Of WTC 2​

I cannot imagine that such a uniform silhouette would be provided by sheetrock after hundreds of thousands of tones of steel wreakage fell past and over the core.

5. In my experience in construction, I've never seen 3" diamater rebar used (not to say that it hasn't, just that I've never seen it). Even the 4' thick walls of the Toole facility, built to contain a possible explosion, didn't use 3" rebar. It used vary closely spaced, smaller diameter rebar. There was so much rebar that I remember standing in front of it before the concrete was poured, and I couldn't see through it.

You describe what is essentially "ferrocement" which is mostly steel. The towers were very custom, only 2 made ever and the exterior steel was tempered while the rebar used in the core was high tensile steel. Liability called for serious measures to insure high strength. The concrete core was designed to resist torsion and lateral loads primarily. The twisting action created by high winds (110 MPH recorded) would cause the tower faces to "fly" and the loading of the steel would then cause deformations leading to failures. It was a tapered shear wall (WTC 1) 17 foot thick walls (narrow axis) at the base and 2 foot at the top. I suspect the unusual size bar and spacing was to accommodate that it was to resist twisting and lateral load rather than being a load bearing element.

6. Lastly, I have yet to see a clear picture that shows a piece of the concrete with 3" rebar sticking out of it. You can refer me to the picture taken of what was left of the core with the supposed 3" rebar sticking out of the concrete, but I just don't see it. Those could be pipes. That picture proves nothing. Come to think of it, I have never seen a picture of 3" rebar anywhere. You would think that there would have been a huge pile of it somewhere.

Firstly cameras were being confiscated at ground zero, so our evidence is minimal. The image of the core wall at its base has an error in its annotation. the constant criticism of the evaluation of size at 3 inch bothered me so much I began thinking about the potentials for larger sizes. After some time I realized that the foundation segment of the documentary had mentioned that the rebar was so large in the foundations that it could not be bent, it had to be welded. This was a big slowdown in the construction because there were a limited number of welders with security clearances available. A security clearance was required because of a special "corrosion resistant/, vibration resistant" coating on ALL of the rebar, even basement walls. The foundation rebar was 6 inch diameter in the core foundations and it extended up into the lower core walls. The tight coils in the annotated rebar of the above linked images are typical of high tensile steel exposed to extreme stresses. Pipe will kink and fold rather than making nice round coils under those conditions.

. How was the concrete poured in place for the core if it was always below the current floor being constructed (a convenient explanation I might add).

Above I've explained that the interior box columns supported the conventional outer wood forms. Currently WTC 7, I believe, is being made the same way. large concrete cores are done this way as it saves greatly on form structures. The concrete is needed for strength so the steel is not allowed to extend far above the concrete. In the case of WTC 2 which had a slightly different design in that it was no a strict shear wall as was WTC 1. It was a combined shear wall in stacked cells. This accommodated 2 hallways in each direction which WTC 1 only had 1 hallway going 1 direction that was perpendicularly opposing every other floor. WTC 1, with its cell design could have part of the core built upwards which would reduce the flex of the tower enough so that steel erection could sometimes go perhaps 10 floors over the top of the completed core.

Only when the blueprints are produced will we know the truth and can put Christopher's claims to rest. All of his "raw" images that he says proves his claims are all subject to interpretation.

The other side of that is how do you justify interpretation of this as anything but concrete.

Concrete Core Of WTC 2

Concrete shear wall to left of interior box column, the "spire"

concrete shear wall

What I mean is that there is not one photo that he provides which distinctly proves that the core was concrete with 3" diameter rebar. The spire picture looks like part of the exterior facade to me.

the exterior had 14 inch box columns on 22 inch centers. Clearly there are 20 foot centers which match the interior box columns annotated as "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS". The floor beams and columns form rectangles which match that of those shown in the spire image

The other picture he uses shows what he claims to be 3" rebar. I could be piping. I see no pictures of a plywood structure used to form the core. I see no 3" rebar lying around waiting to be used. I see no pictures of the 3" rebar set in place before the supposed concrete was poured. I see no pictures of a piece of concrete with 3" rebar sticking out of it. I see no account of 3" rebar being scrapped.

All I see are pictures to back up what NIST describes in their paper.

Again, the only way that Chistophera can prove the concrete core existed is with pictures of the blueprints that show it.

I will not post again in this thread as I fear the wrath of the "elder posters". My they have mercy on my soul.

FEMA nor NIST had access to the blueprints.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html

The ex NYC mayor took the WTC documents and the courts will not force a return.

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

At least you can admit to the "fear" of other posters which shows how they gatekeep the truth.

 

[Christophera]

Gamolon; I see you are new here. trust us even that documentary has been brought to his attention about every five pages of this thread. he just will not believe there was no concrete core in the towers. let this thread go ok? he is the lone CTer who thinks there is a concrete core. He simply is not well.

No more posts below this line OK?
__________________________

Trying to use fear to control the truth huh?

GATEKEEPER

You have no proof of anything.

 

[Christophera]

Christophera, I'm just curious, what does "raw" evidence mean?

This, maybe?

That is raw evidence of the interior box columns, which were outside the core area. That image does not even look into the core.

Hey, 1/06/07

 

[Christophera]

The liar haveth not evidence, but I have much evidence, all compiled logically explaining near free fall and total pulverization.

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

Do you have such an explanation based on evidence of the structure that actually stood?

Why ask? You either don't care or you are to thick to understand our evidence.

I not only understand your evidence I logically account for the errors you've made when presenting it as "evidence". To call it evidence you must misrepresent whatever you put forth.

For example, the post before this one. You've presented Jones's error that he used to try and support "core columns" bu the image he uses, that you use, does not look into the core.

Other images that show vertical steel in the core area actually show elevator guide rail support steel and the concrete core denial crew tries to present it as "core columns". However, the fact that the steel you call "core columns" is not seen during the demolition shows that the steel does not have the strength to stand, which "core columns" would have, if they existed, which they did not.

Of course you have presented no evidence whatsoever for explanation of free fall. That, of course. cannot be done until the actual strcuture is ascertained.

 

[Bell]

Hey, 1/06/07

Hey, you know, I really didn't want to post in your thread anymore. But for this I'll make an exception.

Thanks Christopher

 

[Christophera]

Hey, you know, I really didn't want to post in your thread anymore. But for this I'll make an exception.

Thanks Christopher

You're welcome,

We all have to suffer birthdays, hope yours is graceful and full of warmth.

 

[Christophera]

CORRECTED VERSIONS (diagram of hallways and interior wall of the WTC 1 steel reinforced concrete core)

So, why in your "corrected" version have numerous columns been edited out? You didn't like the fact that the diagram showed columns in places totally inconsistent with your concrete hypothesis, so you just hand-waved and removed them? Brilliant stuff. I wish real engineers could conduct business like that.

You will see that images which are totally unedited show NO STEEL CORE COLUMNS.

Concrete Core Of WTC 2

The spire

3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS

And all of those images SHOULD show the steel core columns IF they existed.

So, if the BBC image is inconsistent with this image, that you edited*, and they're both inconsistent with this image, how do you explain it?

The images I posted above show that the image you post with the steel core columns did not exist.

In fact, the two images that you reference are mutally inconsistent. One core is hollow, with supporting webs intersected on every other floor.

Those are not webs those are hallways.

The other core is solid, with steel beams running vertically inside it. And the real core? Steel, like this explains, and NIST, the WTC report and others corroborate.

That link corroborates nothing.

By the way, there's a link that you missed the first time around. I defy you to rebut all 78 instances of "core" and reconcile them with the copious descriptions of steel products, and zero description of concrete (in conjunction with the core).

*Or maybe, someone else edited, but you certainly seem to believe it.

The fact that no steel core columns are ever seen in the images of the demolition makes it conclusive that diagrams and drawings used to misrepresent the core are frauds.

Concrete Core Of WTC 2​

 

[Loss Leader]

That is raw evidence of the interior box columns, which were outside the core area. That image does not even look into the core.

By "interior box columns," do you mean the cross-braces that supported the cranes during construction and then were removed because otherwise they'd be blocking the elevator shaft?

 

[Christophera]

That is raw evidence of the interior box columns, which were outside the core area. That image does not even look into the core.

By "interior box columns," do you mean the cross-braces that supported the cranes during construction and then were removed because otherwise they'd be blocking the elevator shaft?

The image which has been misinterpreted so much as showing "core columns, really

http://images.wisconsinhistory.org/whi_images_new/700099990250/9999004225-l.jpg]

shows the heavily trussed crane towers which are a part of the crane platform. That image is unusual because it shows a crane tower NOT in the corner of the core, The crane platform accommodated the crane towers in a number of ways and allowed the cranes to be positioned vertically and horizontally wherever was needed. The towers could be inserted into the platform wherever.

Between the cranes and their towers in that image, at the 3rd floor below the top you will see 2 diagonals meeting at the top in the center between the crane towers. Those are diagonal braces of the crane platform which is not on the same plane as the interior box columns which are the outer row of columns that surround the core and are connected by floor beams. The platform, the diagonal of it, are not a part of the tower. They moved up it fastened to the inside of the core.

In the below image we see a row of interior box columns with a moment frame having heavy diagonal braces and cross braces. The moment frame and interior box columns ARE the inner wall of the outer tube of the "tube in a tube" construction and are permanent. The concrete core is the inner tube.

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

The image I use showing the interior box columns annotated as "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" shows the crane towers set in the corners which was more or less the normal configuration. In different photos the crane towers can be seen at different heights as they could easily be jacked up and down depending on what was happening in construction. In that image the interior columns are all set with 3 floors exposed. They were delivered in 40 foot pieces so 10 foot is below the top floor. A temporary floor is set for personel to move around on while the cranes, jacked up high on their towers are setting elevator guide rail support for extension and alignment while a 40 foot tall tier of concrete core is curing below the crane platform which was at least 30 feet tall inside the core, fastened to the interior box columns and floor beams as we see here.

http://images.wisconsinhistory.org/whi_images_new/700099990250/9999004225-l.jpg

The crane platform is in exactly the same plane as the concrete core walls but above them. The elevator shafts were beyond that actually inside the core area where the elevator guide rail support steel is seen being stood up and aligned.

 

[beachnut]

That is raw evidence of the interior box columns, which were outside the core area. That image does not even look into the core.

Hey, 1/06/07

you know you are showing the core and there is no concrete in the core!

no concrete, you have zero proof of a concrete core.

are you a modern person who understands zero?

Sorry Chris but you only show proof of a steel core! Why?

Where is your photos of the C-4?

Happy new year

 

[Christophera]

you know you are showing the core and there is no concrete in the core!

no concrete, you have zero proof of a concrete core.

are you a modern person who understands zero?

Sorry Chris but you only show proof of a steel core! Why?

Where is your photos of the C-4?

Happy new year

Please, understand that picture has the purpose of showing it does not show steel core columns? That image does not even look into the core AT ALL. It does show interior box columns, but not core columns

Now. Here is a 500 foot tall piece of concrete, a steel reinforced concrete tube. This picture is for the purpose of showing the concrete core.

If you do not like that explanation, then you logically explain what it is.

Concrete Core Of WTC 2​

One thing is for certain. It does not show steel core columns. No picture does, they did not exist.

 

[Christophera]

GateKeeping Against The Concrete Core-"Why So Important No Concrete?

This is a whole issue on its own after 162,929 views and 10,535 posts spread over 264 pages on a thread about realistic explanatons for free fall.

I've posted a description of what gatekeeping against the concrete core is all about and how it works. What I refer to is a psyop campaign designed to make the information about the concrete core disappear from peoples minds, I believe is one of the primary purpose of the disinformation, gatekeeping campaign of 9-11.

HERE

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2226416#post2226416​

If gatekeeping in the way described in the above post IS NOT what the deniers of concrete are doing. Then they will post what they ARE doing here in this thread.

This thread is specifically for the deniers of the concrete core to say WHY they work so hard to dismiss all information about the concrete core or what rational purpose they expect that denial to serve.

REQUIREMENTS OF CREDIBILITY:We know there was a core, if one core didn't exist, then the other did.

For anybody posting who presents a purpose or reason for saying "no concrete", in order for them to be credible, the post must also explain HOW the supposed 47 steel core columns were cut to create near free fall which ALSO explains why they are NEVER seen in images of the demolition.

Confirm, on this site below where many images of the concrete core are seen, or pieces of it at least, that NO STEEL COLUMNS ARE SEEN INSIDE THE CORE AREA.

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

If it is asserted the steel core columns were not cut then it must be explained why they are unseen in demolition images. Otherwise the post is just more disinformation.

Discussion on disinformation is also welcome here.

For instance, why won't the scholars for 9-11 truth allow me to join? Why don't they embrace the concrete core which CAN be fractured by a small amount of explosive to fall instantly while steel cannot?

Why did LC forums ban me for posting evidence and logic supporting the concrete core?

 

[Woody-]

"I'm only paranoid because everyone's against me"
- Frank Burns

 

[Dog Town]

Why did LC forums ban me for posting evidence and logic supporting the concrete core?

Same reason this place should of, I guess. Got Spamming?