Not only do efforts to change the subject fail, no one in nearly 11,000 posts has ever provided a logical explanation for what this is, if it is NOT concrete.
Of course they have. It's the remnants of the steel framed core, choked with debris and dust, momentarily suspended in mid-collapse. Since the core columns were pressed upon by thousands of tons of falling buildings, all exposed core beams snapped and fell away, probably at their welds - known to any in construction as the weakes part of such a structure. What remains in this picture is, most likely, a portion of the steel framed support, as shown in all construction photos, with probably 20-40 feet of debris piled atop it - resulting in a rounded-edged flat shape at the top - and smoke and debris filling the spaces within; indeed, and with heavy smoke/dust all around it, washing out all observable details, further determination of what this is becomes nearly impossible. What it cannot be is, it cannot be concrete. Why? Because there are no photographs, videos, or other references detailing the use of concrete as a core construction material in existence anywhere. Because concrete on rebar, when the rebar is mounted on some kind of plastic coating, defeats the purpose of the rebar. Because a concrete core would have to be so thick at the base, it would take up enormous amounts of office space - which visitors to the towers have never seen. Instead, they describe open space, and a smaller core area, than Chris needs to have existed.
And it certainly cannot be C-4-coated rebar in side of concrete. Why not? C-4 could not have been used, as it has a shelf life, in sealed containers at optimal temperatures, of just 10 years. Inside of curing concrete, the combination of heat, moisture, and air would drastically reduce that lifespan - DRASTICALLY. C-4 in slurry form is non-explosive. C-4 coating the rebar would defeat the purpose of the rebar. A building experiencing swaying of even a few feet, with rebar coated in some sort of plastic/rubber substance, would flex far too much, allowing the concrete to crack and split. The concrete would have to be poured over the rebar directly, for the rebar to have the necessary reinforcing capacity. Otherwise, all you've done is created flaws in the concrete; flaws which, in any stress, would result in the total failure of the concrete.
This description - of the building core with mounds of debris atop it, choked with dust, smoke, and debris - momentarily standing during the total structural collapse, is completely logical and rational, and further, is consistant with the observable evidence which shows the building to be constructed with a steel core, rather than with concrete.
Sorry, Chris, but it IS a logical explanation. It is COMPLETELY logical, rational, and reasonable. It is also supported by the evidence at hand.
What is NOT logical is that this mound is concrete with C-4 coated rebar, which somehow failed to detonate during the initial demolition. What is NOT logical is C-4 surviving for more than twice its optimal shelf life while being exposed to air, moisture, and temperature ranges beyond its capacity to maintain its chemical consistancy. What is NOT logical is attempting to determined what happened, using low-resolution pictures taken a significant distance from the event, during the event, and making claims which are in direct conflict with all available evidence. What is NOT logical is clinging to a documentary which never existed, a book which never existed, a magazine article which never existed, and some speculative ponderings on construction and architecture based upon a layman/ditch-digger's level of knowledge. That's an awful lot like a local mechanic speculating about how the engines on the Mars Rover work. Worse... like the guy next door who's tinkering with his engine - but has no mechanics training whatsoever - speculating about the Mars Rover. At least the mechanic finished some kind of school.
I have tried hard not posting in this thread, because I do agree that it accomplishes nothing; but this repeated claim that 'no one...has ever provided a logical explanation for what this is, if it is NOT concrete' is simply a lie. A lie.
This statement is a LIE, Christopher.
It's time for the lies to stop, Christopher. If you cannot back your statements with clear, actual, real, tangible evidence, you should retract them.
Shall we start with this one? Obviously, a logical explanation for what that is has been provided - repeated.
Or shall we start with your lie about the PBS documentary? The one that doesn't exist in archives of TV Guide, of PBS's video records, or anywhere else?
Or the lie about C-4? Or the lie about the Oxford publication that Oxford never published?
When do the lies end, Chris?
Ignorance can be forgiven. Stupidity can be looked beyond. But this is simply lying.
Either back your apparent lies with actual evidence, or retract them. It's that simple.
