The WTC cores

[DarkMagician]

It's not my beam theory, credit goes to Wood/Reynolds. I think their idea is that it is a space-based weapon system.

And the one the US has can't effectively set off a missle. Any smart person would drop this theory like a ch-- bad habit.

 

[hellaeon]

TS1234, I cant take you seriously. Nobody could seriously lend reality to the star wars beam theory. What the hell is a star wars beam. Why not a battlestar galactica beam. How about the beams on star ship troopers.

Personally my view is your either pulling my leg or doing this for attention. I doubt you believe any of this.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

That core design was one that Yamasaki had investigated and rejected because no concrete contractor would state it could be built.

you do know what "rejected" means right? it means the WTC didnt have a concrete core

 

[Christophera]

you do know what "rejected" means right? it means the WTC didnt have a concrete core

It means Yamasaki rejected the post stressed and adopted a coventional steel reinforced cast concrete tubular core.

 

[maccy]

I suggest that as Christophera and TruthSeeker1234 already have threads discussing their points of view that we don't respond to them here - as we will only be repeating ourselves.

If anybody does want to join the fray elsewhere:

Christophera's concrete core thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57426

Truthseeker1234's:
Beam weapon thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66444
Frank Greening thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67920
squib thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67373
momentum transfer thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63535
blown to kingdom come thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66756

 

[Christophera]

I suggest that as Christophera and TruthSeeker1234 already have threads discussing their points of view that we don't respond to them here - as we will only be repeating ourselves.

If anybody does want to join the fray elsewhere:

Christophera's concrete core thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57426

Truthseeker1234's:
Beam weapon thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66444
Frank Greening thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67920
squib thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67373
momentum transfer thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63535
blown to kingdom come thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66756

Whta'sa matter with that. The massive deletrious of denial without substance in the Realistic Explanation thread makes it so I have to repeat myself over and over.

 

[Horatius]

You do know that when the dust cleared a majority of the debris you saw just fell 1/4th of a mile, right? As Fire fighters and relief workers dug deeper into the debris you can clearly see visible floor sections.
Like here:

I know you'll find this hard to believe, but TS1234 actually looks at pictures like that, and claims there's "no macroscopic debris". I fact, I think he's said it about that exact picture, or at least one very similar.

The holes have been proven to not be round on this forum already, I don't understand why you continue to make that claim.

Neither do the rest of us, but he still does it. Take a look around for some of our discussions of how much dust was produced, and laid down in the dust layer sometime.

The melted cars, yeah, you probably wouldn't expect those with the car fires and all.
[qimg]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/burningcars.jpg[/qimg]

He probably wouldn't expect it, no. Everybody else does, though!

Yeah...I'm in the same boat as you, I want some answers to appear from the CT side, especially about this Star Wars beam weapon, but I have yet to really get any...

And history suggests you never will. Welcome to JREF, the line for people with headaches starts on the right.....

Based on this post, I think you'll fit in pretty well here. Just try not to let the CTists bite your hand when you rattle their cages.

 

[CurtC]

As Fire fighters and relief workers dug deeper into the debris you can clearly see visible floor sections.
Like here:

Unfit, your opening post was worded in a way similar to what we've seen multiple times from insane CT people who do a just-asking-questions kind of post while asking everyone else to do their research for them, before quickly diving into sheer nuttiness.

Some of us here misjudged you, and let me apologize on behalf of everyone and welcome you.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Anybody know which building this is?

 

[maccy]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/WTC7/fireman.jpg

Anybody know which building this is?

As TruthSeeker1234 is back, I'll say it one last time:

I suggest that as Christophera and TruthSeeker1234 already have threads discussing their points of view that we don't respond to them here - as we will only be repeating ourselves and duplicating information that's on those threads

If anybody does want to join the fray elsewhere:

Christophera's concrete core thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57426

Truthseeker1234's:
Beam weapon thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66444
Frank Greening thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67920
squib thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67373
momentum transfer thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63535
blown to kingdom come thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66756

 

[gumboot]

Unfit,

Hi, a useful video might be one taken from (I think) across the river from the WTC. You will find it posted on Google Video etc. as a video showing "Evidence of explosions". Ignore that silliness, but it does have some use. You can clearly see large sections of the building cores standing a significant time after the rest of the building collapsed.

As we know from NIST, the collapse was triggered by an exterior column failure, not a floor failure. As the exterior columns stripped away from the building the floors naturally failed with them, thus the building was "Stripped" to the core, which in turn failed, not capable of standing on its own after having experienced such massive forces.

-Gumboot

 

[DarkMagician]

It means Yamasaki rejected the post stressed and adopted a coventional steel reinforced cast concrete tubular core.

Huh? Making an inverted ouroboros circle out of your body, aren't we?

 

[Horatius]

Unfit,

Hi, a useful video might be one taken from (I think) across the river from the WTC. You will find it posted on Google Video etc. as a video showing "Evidence of explosions". Ignore that silliness, but it does have some use. You can clearly see large sections of the building cores standing a significant time after the rest of the building collapsed.

Another good video that shows the core of at least the second collapse is the "What We Saw" video that was released not too lang ago. It's the clearest one I've seen, at least.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Hunt the Corrs Truthseeker, hunt them down.

You mean these?

I'd hunt that.

Well... the three in front, at least.

 

[beachnut]

send them over, and then i just need 4 more for the vacancies in the hot tub

 

[mcMike]

I can sum it up for you. The beam was created by the Death Star and it destroyed Alderaan and the World Trade Center.

Oh Wait. You're' saying it was the very SAME "magic"-beam that was used to destroy Alderaan? Does this mean that we can now calculate the distance back to Alderaan and to the galaxy "far far away" ?

It was shot 1974 and arrived to earth 2001 so that means Alderaan is only 25 light years away? Damnit. Thats scary. So how long does it take for a DS to travel here and take a better shot? Is that what the markings on cropfields are? Targets?

 

[Unfit4Command]

I detect a healthy note of doubt. Nice thread. This page will clear up some issues.

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

Combined with this page.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

It should be fairly obvious that not only was there a concrete core, but what we saw could only happen with a concrete core.

Actually I wasn't doubtful at all, I just have never really asked questions about the core before and it is good to know that they didn't have a concrete covering.
____________

About the websites you posted...
I read through them, and neither one of them have convinced me.
This picture here seems like more and more BS each time I see it:

How is that obviously a concrete core? It's taken from the side, there could easily be other debris a parts of the building stuck in the cracks of the core after the collapse just making it appear that way. No other pictures I've seen show a concrete core.

Look here, this is the South Tower core standing at the beginning of the collapse:

It looks nothing like the hump that appeared at the base of the collapse with a rounded top. It's obvious that falling debris distorted the core and made it appear differently.

These are pictures of the cores:

This is an interesting picture, it shows how the core could appear to be a completely solid object with no holes or cracks in it, especially from hundreds of feet away, yet there's no concrete visible even from only a few feet away:

This picture says a lot, where's the concrete? You can pretty much look right through the building:

Where's the concrete in these:

__________________

So...you have one picture from hundreds of feet away from the collapse that makes the core appear to be concrete, and that somehow proves all of these pictures false, and proves that the buildings had concrete coverings on their cores?

 

[maccy]

Actually I wasn't doubtful at all, I just have never really asked questions about the core before and it is good to know that they didn't have a concrete covering.

<snip>

So...you have one picture from hundreds of feet away from the collapse that makes the core appear to be concrete, and that somehow proves all of these pictures false, and proves that the buildings had concrete coverings on their cores?

Obviously you can do what you like in this thread but you won't get Christopera to change his mind. The thread he started about the concrete core is at 179 pages and counting. Christophera's main response is to repeatedly post the same photos and links from his own website and continually assert that nobody has provided "raw evidence" of a concrete core.

Over the course of his long thread it has become apparent that Christophera will never change his mind and is almost certinly suffering from a mental illness. He believes that the concrete core was built with C4 coated rebar that could be detonated at a later date. Apparently, encasing C4 in concrete preserved it past its usual shelf life (10 years, if I remeber correctly).

 

[Pardalis]

You mean these?

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/55/The_Corrs.jpg[/qimg]

I'd hunt that.

Well... the three in front, at least.

This needs further investigation.

 

[Christophera]

These are pictures of the cores:

So...you have one picture from hundreds of feet away from the collapse that makes the core appear to be concrete, and that somehow proves all of these pictures false, and proves that the buildings had concrete coverings on their cores?

That picture shows the interior box columns which surrounded the core and on the page lnked below (also with the image of your post) there is a picture of the concrete blowing up which is why the image you post shos not concrete.

The website documenting the concrete core has many images showing concrete.

I detect a healthy note of doubt. Nice thread. This page will clear up some issues.

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

Combined with this page.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

It should be fairly obvious that not only was there a concrete core, but what we saw could only happen with a concrete core.