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

[uruk]

Oh yes, your subject change.

The below image show WTC 1 on the right and the space between the interior box column can be seen. The interior box columns can be seen intermitently. They are plumb and the core face is not meaning there is a wider space between them and the core face and that is seen.

I never said anything about the Columns tapering. I haven't even refrenced that picture.
This is your typical attempt at a red herring.

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

The The sunrise silhouette looks through the corners enough to obscure that quality.

WTC 2 was different in that it did not have the strict shear wall design or taper that WTC 1 had. From the ground to the 43rd floor there was a stepping of the outer dimensions and narrowing as it went up. At the 43rd I believe it went to a constant dimension.

Chris, Chris, Chris. backtracking and making stuff up as you go along are we?

Don't think your fooling anyone here Chris.

You have been telling us that the concrete core wall tapers from 12 & 17 feet at the bottom to 2 feet at the top.
You told JennieC that the interior area of the core remained the same from bottom to top so the tapered side is the exterior side of the core.
You even said that you could see the exterior wall of the core taper in the picture taken at the mezzanine.
So, If you can see the taper in the photograph of the mezzanine level, you should be able to see the taper of the core in the sunrise photo.

So where's the taper?

Why are the plans not available?

Trying to change the subject again?
Anyhoo the plans were available to NIST. All you have to do is look at the reports. The two PDFs I posted has some detailed images from the plans including construction breakdowns and supply reports. (I pointed out a couple of pages)

 

[uruk]

You're not trying to pretend you can legitmately, within reason, ask these questions when you cannot support the steel core columns you assert exist with images from the towers demise are you?

hey your the one claiming Concrete core. We'er just asking you to prove it. Every website that mentions the cores of the tower all say "a core of 47 steel columns".
Well except yours. But then your site is the only one. And sofar you have no proof.

You have no memory of anything at all yet you pretend you can question mine when it fits what is seen in images?

So far none of the images you have shown us shows a concrete core.

I say there was a difference between the 2 towers cores and we see one.

So you say. But you haven't shown us the difference.
There's a difference between "what you say" and "what is". Since your the one saying there is a difference, it is your burden to prove it to us.

The documentay I viewed was not about WTC 2 it was about WTC 1. It did have a few minutes at the end where images showed WTC 2 ascending and the narration described a few things about it. One was that WTC one was difficult to rent because there was only one hallway per floor on the lower 75 floors crossing the core. That hallway was perpindicuarly opposed with adjacent floors and the light in the silhouette images bleeds across that floor and making the hall look like every floor. Becuase WTC was so difficult to rent, WTC 2 was made with 2 hallways in each direction on every floor.

Before we can believe that, we are going to have to see proof that it actually existed. Hey what about showing us floor plans, how about pictures of the office space or core area that shows the difference.

If it is easier for you to imagine 2 planes slamming into towers and having their fuel soften steel columns to the degree that both, ENTIRE towers fall to the ground at free fall almost identically to leave molten steel inthe basement, you have a mental problem and are in no position to question a persons memory that happens to fit images of hard evidence.

Only the picture do not fit what you have been telling us. the picture of the falling panel sections proves that. You see a concrete where ther e is only dust and debris.
You have not provided any hard evidence whatsoever. Just conjecture supported by badly misinterpreted pictures.

And we know that FEMA didn't ever get the plans.

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

According to the information Golomon posted:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2316412&postcount=10754
Your wrong.

and we know the mayor of NYC took the plans and hid them in his private warehouse.

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

Quit lieing Chris. It doesn't say "WTC plans" were in the archive. It said "documents relating to the WTC" were in the archive. That could be anything.
Besides, Just look at the NIST reports. The diagrams and plans are very detailed. Where else could they have obtained that info. If they had faked it, the designers and engineers would have spoken up by now.

and, as far a BPAT getting them in January of 2002, where are they???? How do we know this is true. What reason do they have for not making them available.

We know that due process was violated in 3,000 capital crimes when evidence was disturbed, removed and destroyed before private investigations could be made. Too many live were lost in a supposed collapse to NOT allow full, independent investigations in order to be sure future constrcution will not fail in the same way.

***Mindless ranting.****

Considering all said above, reasonably, you really must produce images of the supposed steel core columns from the towers demise BECAUSE you have no plans and the below shows concrete and not steel structure, and,............... steel cannot be cut to fall instantly within what was seen on 9-11.

Concrete Core Of WTC 2​

Your the one making the claim for a concrete core when all other sources say it was a steel core. The burden of proof is on you Chris. And can't show us one clear photo of a concrete core.

The tactic of shifting the burden of proof means that you are getting more and more desparate as that little corner you're in keeps getting smaller and smaller.

 

[Christophera]

I never said anything about the Columns tapering. I haven't even refrenced that picture.
This is your typical attempt at a red herring.

I also never said anything about the columns tapering. I said the core of WTC 1 tapers. Are feigning confusion to change the subject now?

The picture reference deals with the tapering core. I explained the sunrise image you used was not lined up witht he building faces and the slight diagnoal view won't show the taper. So I used an image that would show taper the taper between the plumb interior box columns and the core face.

mid day silouette

What is your game?

 

[Big Al]

You're not trying to pretend you can legitmately, within reason, ask these questions when you cannot support the steel core columns you assert exist with images from the towers demise are you?

You have no memory of anything at all yet you pretend you can question mine when it fits what is seen in images?

Where is the tapering core of WTC1 and the non-tapering core of WTC2 shown in any picture you have posted?

I say there was a difference between the 2 towers cores and we see one.

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

I don't. Please don't include me in this mythical "we".

The documentay I viewed was not about WTC 2 it was about WTC 1. It did have a few minutes at the end where images showed WTC 2 ascending and the narration described a few things about it. One was that WTC one was difficult to rent because there was only one hallway per floor on the lower 75 floors crossing the core. That hallway was perpindicuarly opposed with adjacent floors and the light in the silhouette images bleeds across that floor and making the hall look like every floor. Becuase WTC was so difficult to rent, WTC 2 was made with 2 hallways in each direction on every floor.

And this came in a few minutes at the end of a two-hour documentary in... what was it, 1993? And you can remember it in this much detail? Chris, you really, really need to apply for Randi's million. A memory such as yours transcends all normality. What I find even more remarkable is that you remember all these tiny little details only when someone challenges you. I asked you god knows how many pages back to put down everything you remember about this documentary that nobody believes in, so you couldn't magically bring out new "revelations" as the mood took you. However, you ignored that request, as I expected.

If it is easier for you to imagine 2 planes slamming into towers and having their fuel soften steel columns to the degree that both, ENTIRE towers fall to the ground at free fall almost identically to leave molten steel inthe basement, you have a mental problem and are in no position to question a persons memory that happens to fit images of hard evidence.

Two almost identical towers, hit by two almost identical planes in two almost identical crashes reacting the SAME WAY? My God, how preposterous!

And we know that FEMA didn't ever get the plans.

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

To quote from 911research's website:

The core columns were steel box-columns that were continuous for their entire height, going from their bedrock anchors in the sub-basements to near the towers' tops, where they transitioned to H-beams.

So they. too, must be wilful liars like all the rest of us non-concrete-core believers, mustn't they? So why believe them on anything else?

and we know the mayor of NYC took the plans and hid them in his private warehouse.

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

No, we don't. We are told that the plaintiffs believe he secreted WTC documents. That could imply anything.

and, as far a BPAT getting them in January of 2002, where are they???? How do we know this is true. What reason do they have for not making them available.

Why don't you ask, Chris?

We know that due process was violated in 3,000 capital crimes when evidence was disturbed, removed and destroyed before private investigations could be made. Too many live were lost in a supposed collapse to NOT allow full, independent investigations in order to be sure future constrcution will not fail in the same way.

As it is, if they did collapse as officially stated, there is no good reson why so no improvements can be made.

The WTC buildings stood for over 30 years, supposedly laced with overheated, sweaty, unstable C-4 in their very hearts. They did pretty well, considering. WTC1 even withstood a major bomb blast in the basement without buckling. The fact that the buildings collapsed after being hit by 300-400 mph airliners is hardly a major indictment about their design, is it?

 

[Christophera]

The Blind Following the Blind (as good as it gets for ZD)

You have no memory of anything at all yet you pretend you can question mine when it fits what is seen in images?

To stick with the subject, the core tapers. Below, the top left image of the 4.

"A" on right of right tower, #1; NOTE, at about 8, 8:30 o'clock from "A" the space between the outer, vertical dark bar inside the tower and the core face, is narrower lower.

(http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2166475#post2166475
The post that image is from is about WTC 2 and how some walls of the core were cast ahead of the rest of the core to allow the steel to go more than the limit of 7 floors on WTC 1. Concrete serves to make the steel structure more stable.)

hey your the one claiming Concrete core. We'er just asking you to prove it.

I prove the concrete core.

Concrete Core Of WTC 2​

but you are not familiar enough with the design subjects of steel framed construction or concrete constrcution and their appearances or applications.

Here is proof from page 231 that you do not know what you are talking about here.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2155211#post2155211

And you are the one ZD was following with the "spandrel sections" or whatever you were using to describe the perimeter box columns. Your last blunder. The above link is probably the 3rd or 4th time in this thread I've shown that you don't have a clue.

Your the one making the claim for a concrete core when all other sources say it was a steel core. The burden of proof is on you Chris. And can't show us one clear photo of a concrete core.

Firstly, above I've shown you will not recognize concrete if you saw it. You certainly don't know the difference between a moment frame and the trussed crane platform. Add to this factor and, ........

If that burden is on me then the burden of showing the steel core columns in a situation that cannot be misinterpreted. ......... like from the 9-11 images, is upon you.

No one has ever shown that[/b]

REASON AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF:
Recall, I'm saying that everything you've been told about the towers core is a lie. Remember, you have no plans to show describing the steel core columns and if they existed, you would. The very fact that I assert the towers were built to demolish logically precludes your asking me for plans, or photos of construction because those that plotted to do this also intended to get away with it and removed the plans (proven) and concealed the plans (proven).

As increased reason for you to produce proof of the core that cannot be misrepresented, we have the fact that that evidence of steel was WAS removed from the scene managed by the sources of your information, throwing them into question again.

All the above says to remain reasonable with integrity to the purpose of reason , says that your simply repeating "NO" is, ........... not, ......... reasonable, NOW lets add to the burden of proof that is logically upon you a fact, ........

The core you (fail) to assert existed CANNOT be made to perform as was seen as heard on 9-11. Concrete can.

Accordingly, ........... you or any who attempt to assert that there were steel core columns in the cores of those towers MUST have images of raw from 9-11 evidence that cannot be misinterpreted as can construction images.

If the steel you've presented as "core columns" if it was core columns, would also be present in the 9-11 images BECAUSE the "core columns" would (if they existed in the core area) be so strong they would ABSOLUTELY be seen in the images of the towers demise, and they are not.

The tactic of shifting the burden of proof means that you are getting more and more desparate as that little corner you're in keeps getting smaller and smaller.

I have proof of the concrete core many ways (25' wide lobby! = [url=http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg]17' thick base core wall.)[/url], you don't have the competence to recognize it or the integrity to admit it.

Instead you distract or confuse with nonsense or the behavior of feigning confusion and try to pretend that because a government agency produced your theroretical free falling core made of invisisteel, is the correct one, erroneously, that the burden of proof therefore is with me. You cannot use your sources to establish their veracity while we are questioning those very sources.

Your assertions of the towers structure is without substance. Your ability to discern what design structural elements of steel and concrete are comprised of or their basic identity is not even marginal. It is bad.

Give up homer!

 

[Christophera]

The Blind Following the Blind (as good as it gets for ZD)

You have no memory of anything at all yet you pretend you can question mine when it fits what is seen in images?

To stick with the subject, the core tapers. Below, the top left image of the 4.

"A" on right of right tower, #1; NOTE, at about 8, 8:30 o'clock from "A" the space between the outer, vertical dark bar inside the tower and the core face, is narrower lower.

(http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2166475#post2166475
The post that image is from is about WTC 2 and how some walls of the core were cast ahead of the rest of the core to allow the steel to go more than the limit of 7 floors on WTC 1. Concrete serves to make the steel structure more stable.)

hey your the one claiming Concrete core. We'er just asking you to prove it.

I prove the concrete core.

Concrete Core Of WTC 2​

but you are not familiar enough with the design subjects of steel framed construction or concrete constrcution and their appearances or applications.

Here is proof from page 231 that you do not know what you are talking about here.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2155211#post2155211

And you are the one ZD was following with the "spandrel sections" or whatever you were using to describe the perimeter box columns. Your last blunder. The above link is probably the 3rd or 4th time in this thread I've shown that you don't have a clue.

Your the one making the claim for a concrete core when all other sources say it was a steel core. The burden of proof is on you Chris. And can't show us one clear photo of a concrete core.

Firstly, above I've shown you will not recognize concrete if you saw it. You certainly don't know the difference between a moment frame and the trussed crane platform. Add to this factor and, ........

If that burden is on me then the burden of showing the steel core columns in a situation that cannot be misinterpreted. ......... like from the 9-11 images, is upon you.

No one has ever shown that[/b]

REASON AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF:
Recall, I'm saying that everything you've been told about the towers core is a lie. Remember, you have no plans to show describing the steel core columns and if they existed, you would. The very fact that I assert the towers were built to demolish logically precludes your asking me for plans, or photos of construction because those that plotted to do this also intended to get away with it and removed the plans (proven) and concealed the plans (proven). Then, as increased reason for you to produce proof of the croe that cannot be misrepresented, we have the fact that that evidence WAS removed from the scene.

All the above says to remain reasonable with integrity to the purpose of reason , says that your simply repeating "NO" is not reasonable, NOW lets add to the burden of proof that is logically upon you, ........

The core you fail to assert existed CANNOT be made to perform as was seen as heard on 9-11. Concrete can.

Accordingly, ........... you or any who attempt to assert that there were steel core columns in the cores of those towers MUST have images of raw from 9-11 evidence that cannot be misinterpreted as can construction images.

If the steel you've presented as "core columns" if it was core columns, would also be present in the 9-11 images BECAUSE the "core columns" would (if they existed in the core area) be so strong they would ABSOLUTELY be seen in the images of the towers demise, and they are not.

The tactic of shifting the burden of proof means that you are getting more and more desparate as that little corner you're in keeps getting smaller and smaller.

I have proof of the concrete core many ways (25' wide lobby! = [url=http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg]17' thick base core wall.)[/url], you don't have the competence to recognize it or the integrity to admit it.

Instead you distract or confuse with nonsense or the behavior of feigning confusion and try to pretend that because a government agency produced your theroretical free falling core made of invisisteel, is the correct one and the burden of proof therefore is with me. You cannot use your sources to establish their veracity while we are questioning those very sources.

Your assertions of the towers structure is without substance. Your ability to discern what design structural elements of steel and concrete are comprised of or their basic identity is not even marginal. It is bad.

Give up homer!

 

[uruk]

I also never said anything about the columns tapering. I said the core of WTC 1 tapers. Are feigning confusion to change the subject now?

The picture reference deals with the tapering core. I explained the sunrise image you used was not lined up witht he building faces and the slight diagnoal view won't show the taper. So I used an image that would show taper the taper between the plumb interior box columns and the core face.

mid day silouette

What is your game?

You said all the walls were tapered Chris. Remember the long section of the core had 12 foot base tapering down to 2 feet at the top. The short section of the core wall section had 17 foot base that tapered down to 3 feet at the top. If the Interior area remained 80 X 120 feet all the way from bottom to top, the outside of the core walls taper. That include the corners of the Core wall. The taper would be observable from any angle Chris.

You avoided the issue of your poor interpretation of the falling panels now your trying to avoid the issue of the non tapering core.

Stop avoiding the issue Chris. The point of the post is; where is the taper of the core in the sunrise picture?

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

 

[Christophera]

I don't. Please don't include me in this mythical "we".

Only the reasonable need worry about inclusion.

And this came in a few minutes at the end of a two-hour documentary in... what was it, 1993? And you can remember it in this much detail?

Is that supposed to supplant your reasonable need for evidence to support the tower core you think stood? Evidence that logically and consistently cannot be misinterpreted by virtue of comparison to with other images?

Two almost identical towers, hit by two almost identical planes in two almost identical crashes reacting the SAME WAY? My God, how preposterous!

Good job of a cognitive distortion. Al's version (attempted) of "correct by association" by relating insubstancial and inconsequential simularities of the event as if they were explanations for the event. Generalizations maximizing the "all or nothing" thinking he seeks to promote.

No, we don't. We are told that the plaintiffs believe he secreted WTC documents. That could imply anything.

Normally, Americans, .............. they like to think that their leadership is lawful, you know, in a way that protects ther lives. Public documents cannot be taken by any indivdual, EVER, under conditions such as these.

You are condoning lawless courts which are not working for the welfare of American familes and the preservation of the US Constitution.

The WTC buildings stood for over 30 years, supposedly laced with overheated, sweaty, unstable C-4 in their very hearts. They did pretty well, considering. WTC1 even withstood a major bomb blast in the basement without buckling. The fact that the buildings collapsed after being hit by 300-400 mph airliners is hardly a major indictment about their design, is it?

To answer your earlier assertions about problems with C4 curing inside concrete and the 50C temperatures. The sustainment of the 50C is not long enough and occurs in a sealed environment. The concrete ends up shrinking and ends up gripping the coated bar. The problem is evaporation and oxidization, exposure to oxygen and other atmospheric gasses and warmer temperatures. In a sealed(ing) environment (concrete) with the fairly uniform temperatures, the air entrained in the plastique may even be squeezed out.

The van with the bomb in the 1993 bombing was moved away from the core as a revision of the bombers original plan.

 

[uruk]

To stick with the subject, the core tapers. Below, the top left image of the 4.

"A" on right of right tower, #1; NOTE, at about 8, 8:30 o'clock from "A" the space between the outer, vertical dark bar inside the tower and the core face, is narrower lower.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4462&d=1165814495[/qimg]

Chris, There is no taper there. The lines are parallel. You said the concrete walls were tapered. Or are you changing your argument again? Or are you saying the steel columns were angled narrower at the top? Do you just make stuff up on the fly Chris?

8:30 o'clock?!?!?! Do you even know what you are talking about?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2166475#post2166475
The post that image is from is about WTC 2 and how some walls of the core were cast ahead of the rest of the core to allow the steel to go more than the limit of 7 floors on WTC 1. Concrete serves to make the steel structure more stable.)

Chris, we're not talking about the steel core columns. We're talking about your so called tapering concrete core. Quit trying to obfuscate and show us the tapering core.

I prove the concrete core.

Concrete Core Of WTC 2​

but you are not familiar enough with the design subjects of steel framed construction or concrete constrcution and their appearances or applications.

Here is proof from page 231 that you do not know what you are talking about here.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2155211#post2155211

I believe you were the one who was mistaken about there being no cross connected support beams between the core columns. You couldn't even tell the difference between the core columns and the crane towers.

And you are the one ZD was following with the "spandrel sections" or whatever you were using to describe the perimeter box columns. Your last blunder. The above link is probably the 3rd or 4th time in this thread I've shown that you don't have a clue.

Hey I human. I make mistakes and I admit to them when I make them.
How about you?
But my confusion concerning the name of the panel sections does not lessen the truth of my argument.

Firstly, above I've shown you will not recognize concrete if you saw it. You certainly don't know the difference between a moment frame and the trussed crane platform. Add to this factor and, ........

You havent even shown a concrete core yet.
And you can't tell the differencve between A dust cloud and concrete.

If that burden is on me then the burden of showing the steel core columns in a situation that cannot be misinterpreted. ......... like from the 9-11 images, is upon you.

I repeat, You have never, ever shown a picture of a concrete core. And since your the one making the claim you're the one who needs to provide the proof.

No one has ever shown that[/b]

REASON AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF:
Recall, I'm saying that everything you've been told about the towers core is a lie. Remember, you have no plans to show describing the steel core columns and if they existed, you would. The very fact that I assert the towers were built to demolish logically precludes your asking me for plans, or photos of construction because those that plotted to do this also intended to get away with it and removed the plans (proven) and concealed the plans (proven).

You haven't proven anything. All you have been doing is making unsubstantiated claims. The NIST reports show very detailed plans and information that can have only come from the original construction documents. I have even givin you page numbers of the PDFs so you can see them for yourself.

Do you know what the word "assert" means? Assert just simply means to state something. It does not mean you have proof or that what you assert is a fact. You have to back it up wth evidence. Which you have not yet done.

The link you provided only states that WTC related documents were in the archives. It did not specificaly say the WTC plans were in there.

As increased reason for you to produce proof of the core that cannot be misrepresented, we have the fact that that evidence of steel was WAS removed from the scene managed by the sources of your information, throwing them into question again.

I have no idea what your saying here. You need to calm down and construct sentances coherently inorder to be understood.

All the above says to remain reasonable with integrity to the purpose of reason , says that your simply repeating "NO" is, ........... not, ......... reasonable, NOW lets add to the burden of proof that is logically upon you a fact, ........

You need to start making sense Chris. Calm down and try again

The core you (fail) to assert existed CANNOT be made to perform as was seen as heard on 9-11. Concrete can.

You just simply made a statment here. You need to back it up with some facts Chris.

Accordingly, ........... you or any who attempt to assert that there were steel core columns in the cores of those towers MUST have images of raw from 9-11 evidence that cannot be misinterpreted as can construction images.

Every website that mentions the construction of the of the WTC tower clearly state that the core consisted of 47 Steel columns Chris. Every picture of the construction of the tower only show steel columns in the core Chris. Every picture of the destruction and aftermath of the Towers show steel Chris. The amount of concrete seen in the ground zero picture are consistant with the amount of concrete used in the floors.

If the steel you've presented as "core columns" if it was core columns, would also be present in the 9-11 images BECAUSE the "core columns" would (if they existed in the core area) be so strong they would ABSOLUTELY be seen in the images of the towers demise, and they are not.

They are seen in the pictures of the collapse.

I have proof of the concrete core many ways (25' wide lobby! = [url=http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg]17' thick base core wall.)[/url], you don't have the competence to recognize it or the integrity to admit it.

You don't have the competence to properly interpret pictures Chris. The lobby pictures, the videos. Anyone can see that you've been lieing in your interpretations. The recent posts with the falling panel section show that.

Instead you distract or confuse with nonsense or the behavior of feigning confusion and try to pretend that because a government agency produced your theroretical free falling core made of invisisteel, is the correct one, erroneously, that the burden of proof therefore is with me. You cannot use your sources to establish their veracity while we are questioning those very sources.

You are the one who has been jumping around from subject to subject when your lies get exposed or you get trapped in a corner. Just recently we've been jumping from the lobby to the elevators to the falling panel sections to the tapering core walls to the plans etc. You are the one that is jumping around like a caged rabbit.
You are the one who is trying to confuse the issue.

You are the one who came to this forum claimimg that there was a concrete core Chris. The burnden of proof in upon you to prove it.
Trying to shift the burden of proof is the tatic of someone in a weak position. And so far all your arguments have been very weak.

Your assertions of the towers structure is without substance. Your ability to discern what design structural elements of steel and concrete are comprised of or their basic identity is not even marginal. It is bad.

Give up homer!

I've backed up my arguments with facts. I have made mistakes. I'm human. But I admit to them. How about you Chris?

You haven't been able to properly interpret photos yet. This thread is filled with plenty of examples. That is because I am not trying to prove anything. You are the one who is trying to prove something. It clouds your judgement and it is not letting you judge the evidence clearly.
You are seeing only the things you want to see and seeing things that are not there.

 

[firecoins]

Chis has a concrete case. I don't know why your arguing with him. We all know he is right. Our Jewish/neo-con/alien overlords tell us what to do.

 

[uruk]

Chis has a concrete case. I don't know why your arguing with him. We all know he is right. Our Jewish/neo-con/alien overlords tell us what to do.

And I, for one, welcome our Jewish/neo-con/alien overlords.

 

[SezMe]

As for me, I refuse to quit until Chris can provide one of the following:

1) Clear evidence blah, blah, blah;
2) Clear evidence blah, blah, blah; AND/OR
3) Clear evidence of blah, blah, blah.

You expect "Clear evidence" out of Chris??? Really? In face of the evidence that this thread itself provides? You're no skeptic, then.

 

[Z]

Until you can produce photographic evidence of the concrete core during construction, Chris, YOU'VE LOST. PERIOD.

 

[Christophera]

Chris, There is no taper there. The lines are parallel. You said the concrete walls were tapered. Or are you changing your argument again? Or are you saying the steel columns were angled narrower at the top? Do you just make stuff up on the fly Chris?

Okay, it is good to see you have given up. The above has the opposite relation to what is discussed, and if that is not clear at this point your statement is obfuscation, intentional confusion, ...... or you have given up on reason and are now using that tactic, which of course you try to accuse me of below.

Chris, we're not talking about the steel core columns. We're talking about your so called tapering concrete core. Quit trying to obfuscate and show us the tapering core.

Below you state the exact opposite of what happened. Here is the post that proves it.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2155211#post2155211

I believe you were the one who was mistaken about there being no cross connected support beams between the core columns. You couldn't even tell the difference between the core columns and the crane towers.

But my confusion concerning the name of the panel sections does not lessen the truth of my argument.

Good, you admit that you had assimilated an erroneous term and applied it. So we can see that ZD was following your lead.

I make errors too but generally only with new photos, not ones I've been studying.

You havent even shown a concrete core yet.
And you can't tell the differencve between A dust cloud and concrete.

Concrete Core Of WTC 2​

You want to call the above a dust cloud because it disproves your invisisteel did not exist, and since there was a core, it proves it was concrete.

I repeat, You have never, ever shown a picture of a concrete core. And since your the one making the claim you're the one who needs to provide the proof.

Of course you repeat your erroneous assertion. That is the only possible way it can exist in any form and you agenda is "no concrete", not the truth.

You haven't proven anything. All you have been doing is making unsubstantiated claims. The NIST reports show very detailed plans

But NIST does not explain what this is nor do they explain free fall.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif

And I've shown there is only 25 feet between the narrow end core wall and the perimeter columns.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/images/wtc_19aug2000_lobby.jpg

meaning that the 17 foot thick core wall base is real.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg

btw, you forgot to post your evidence for the invisisteel core columns.

 

[uruk]

Okay, it is good to see you have given up. The above has the opposite relation to what is discussed, and if that is not clear at this point your statement is obfuscation, intentional confusion, ...... or you have given up on reason and are now using that tactic, which of course you try to accuse me of below.

I see your doing more tapdancing. You are not fooling anybody Chris.

You claimed there was a tapering concrete core. The sunrise picture shows that the core does not taper.

Now you started spouting something about the cores of the towers not being identical. So are you now saying that the core in one of the towers did not taper? What does that say about your concrete core theory if one core tapers and the other one doesn't?

The pictures of the construction you posted show only the steel columns. Which, by the way, goes against your claim that the concrete was being poured eight floors behind the steel columns.

Oops! Now youv'e gone and exposed another one of your lies.

Below you state the exact opposite of what happened. Here is the post that proves it.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2155211#post2155211

[uruk;2343801]I believe you were the one who was mistaken about there being no cross connected support beams between the core columns. You couldn't even tell the difference between the core columns and the crane towers.

More redirection and obfuscation. still trying to change the subject again Chris?

Good, you admit that you had assimilated an erroneous term and applied it. So we can see that ZD was following your lead.

I make errors too but generally only with new photos, not ones I've been studying.

Hey I try to correct my errors. How about you?

Concrete Core Of WTC 2​

You want to call the above a dust cloud because it disproves your invisisteel did not exist, and since there was a core, it proves it was concrete.

That picture does not prove a concrete core. The object is too obscured by dust and smoke to make any kind of positive identification. One can assume that it is the core structure, but there is no detail.
And I 've explained before; I have shown you pictures (in this thread) of the core reminant where the sheetrock was still attached to the steel columns.

If there were no explosives, large quantities of sheetrock could still remain attached to the core area. And sheet rock can have the rounded appearance you keep pointing out.
If you want I can post those pictures again.

Of course you repeat your erroneous assertion. That is the only possible way it can exist in any form and you agenda is "no concrete", not the truth.

I have no agenda Chris. I'm just going by what I've read in the NIST report and what I've reasearched on the web in the process of debating with you.
You are the one with the agenda. You are the one who came to this forum claiming that the WTC Towers had a concrete core and that the government is lieing. You are the one with the websites and the court cases. You are the one who is actively promoting an agenda. I do not have websites. I'm just pointing out your errors and misconceptions and debating with you.
Do see the difference Chris?

But NIST does not explain what this is nor do they explain free fall.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif

You have not provided proof of this. The official or reasearched times show that the towers did not fall at free fall speeds.

And I've shown there is only 25 feet between the narrow end core wall and the perimeter columns.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/images/wtc_19aug2000_lobby.jpg
meaning that the 17 foot thick core wall base is real.

Show me how that is 25 feet Chris. By what scale did you make that determination? Look at the escalator. Look at the planters. Look at the entrance door. That distance looks alot more that 25 feet Chris

And at any rate, the wall with the decorative hanging could just as well be a a marble facade, and that could have been built at any distance from the core area.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg

btw, you forgot to post your evidence for the invisisteel core columns.

Chris it pretty obvious to anyone looking at the picture that there is no concrete in that photo. I have even shown you higher resolution pictures of that particular core reminant that shows nothing but steel, cable, and sheetrock.
Do you want me to post them again here?

I have posted links to architectural and engineering sites in this thread that say the core was composed of steel columns. I have posted links to the NIST reports that say the same thing. I have posted picture of the towers construction that show the stell comuns of the core being erected. I have posted pictures of ground zero that show the steel columns scattered upon the ground. So stop lieing.

What have you shown to prove the existance of a concrete core?

That corner is getting a bit tighter isn't Chris?

BTW, isn't time you tried to change the subject again?

 

[Big Al]

Chris: you said:

The documentay I viewed was not about WTC 2 it was about WTC 1. It did have a few minutes at the end where images showed WTC 2 ascending and the narration described a few things about it. One was that WTC one was difficult to rent because there was only one hallway per floor on the lower 75 floors crossing the core. That hallway was perpindicuarly opposed with adjacent floors and the light in the silhouette images bleeds across that floor and making the hall look like every floor. Becuase WTC was so difficult to rent, WTC 2 was made with 2 hallways in each direction on every floor.

My disbelieving response was

And this came in a few minutes at the end of a two-hour documentary in... what was it, 1993? And you can remember it in this much detail?

Your non-response was:

Is that supposed to supplant your reasonable need for evidence to support the tower core you think stood? Evidence that logically and consistently cannot be misinterpreted by virtue of comparison to with other images?

Having done a quick search, I see you actually claimed to see this non-existent documentary in 1990 - seventeen years ago and 11 years before 9/11. And yet you don't seem to think it an appropriate question to ask how you can remember the 75 floors - not "somewhere in the seventies" even, but a definite "76 floors". Also, you said: Becuase WTC was so difficult to rent, WTC 2 was made with 2 hallways in each direction on every floor. Another very definite snippet that you just suddenly remember from the last few minutes of a documentary seen seventeen years ago.

We all know you're making up this documentary, but you don't have to make it so obvious.

 

[uruk]

What I wonder is how did they determin that WTC1 was more difficult to rent out that WTC2 because of the core layout and then make changes when WTC 1 And 2 were started and completed within weeks of each other.

He truly is making it up as he goes along.

 

[Overman]

[Thread moved to trashcan]

 

[Christophera]

I see your doing more tapdancing. You are not fooling anybody Chris.

You claimed there was a tapering concrete core. The sunrise picture shows that the core does not taper.

So typical that you refuse to acknowledge the image that does show the taper on the right side of WTC 1 in the image of the below linked post and only choose to acknowledge which does not show the taper.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2343673#post2343673

 

[Christophera]

The pictures of the construction you posted show only the steel columns. Which, by the way, goes against your claim that the concrete was being poured eight floors behind the steel columns.

This is a very curious post because besides the silhouette image I've not posted any construction image. You should define exactly which image you refer to.