• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The WTC cores

Unfit4Command said:
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:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/WTC/southCorestandingafterCollapse.jpg
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:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/WTC/core2-1.jpg
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:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/WTC/corelows.jpg

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:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/WTC/core.jpg

This picture says a lot, where's the concrete? You can pretty much look right through the building:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/WTC/core6.jpg

Where's the concrete in these:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/WTC/wtc-core1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/WTC/core3.jpg

__________________

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?
Click to expand...
The pages Christophera linked to are his own creation. Yes, he's using himself as a source. Your discussion with him, should you choose to continue it, will be entirely fruitless.

WARNING: CHRISTOPHERA CROSSING

:hb:​
 
Christophera said:
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.
Click to expand...

So...every single tiny piece of concrete was destroyed leaving only visible the steel structure of the core? Wow, that must have been a serious waste of time to set that many explosives. Can you imagine how many explosives that would take? How powerful they would have to be? How long it would take to set up? And how impossible it would be to hide?

Do you really believe that the core was coated in C4 during the construction? If so, why did all of the construction workers keep quiet for so many years? What did they have to gain for coating the building with c4? Considering the fact that construction workers usually aren't explosive experts, how did they know how to put it on, and how to not blow themselves up? Seems like an accident would have happened at least once during the construction.

Also, since you say that all of the concrete was destroyed in that one picture of the core, why isn't the concrete visible in these pictures?
wtc-core1.jpg


core6.jpg


Did they destroy the concrete on accident with the C4 during the construction? Or did it just never exist?

core2-1.jpg



Christophera said:
The website documenting the concrete core has many images showing concrete.
Click to expand...

Funny how I don't really see any concrete in those pictures along with most other people who go there probably.
There is a single false, rejected diagram that shows the columns being surrounded by concrete. And a picture from hundreds of feet away showing part of the core of the South Tower still standing, the picture is shortly after the collapse so debris and dust greatly cover the core, and it's from hundreds of feet away. You can THAT your evidence? But yet ignore every othe picture of the core that show no concrete what so ever? Both during construction, and during the collapse?

I'm just asking questions here.
askquestions.gif

I think both sides can do so, yet after reading threads like this it seems like only those opposing CTs are the ones giving scientific and reliable answers aside from a few rare occurances.
 
So where are we on cross bracing and independent floor systems? Sure seems like the cores had them, according to all the pictures.
 
Pardalis said:
This needs further investigation.

;)
Click to expand...

Agreed, it's time for a thread-jacking. This is now a "hot chicks with musical talent" thread (does Abby play an instrument?).

I'll see your scantily clad irish violinists and raise you one canadian jazz singer from the Chrysler Sebring commercials:
Diana%20Krall%2037%20GQ.jpg
 
Garb said:
Proof of those who built the towers that the concrete core (if it even existed) was 80 feet below?
Click to expand...

To date, Chris has failed to provide ANY eye-witness accounts of a concrete core during construction by those who were involved.
 
WildCat said:
No, those are the crane supports. They are part of the crane system, not the building and as such are removed along w/ the cranes after construction.
Click to expand...

You know, I've always wanted to see how they put up one of those cranes. I had a perfect opportunity to watch one once, but I missed it. I leave for work one day, and when I get home, right across the street out of my window, I see a whole new crane there. They did the whole thing while I was at work, and I missed it all!
 
Horatius said:
So, who didn't know Chris would post this?

Seriously, Unfit4, you'll regret this eventually.....
Click to expand...

To see the arguments go around and around forever, go to this thread

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57426

Read a few pages and then skip ten or so, read a few more and repeat. You'll see that Chris's arguments don't change - he's just been repeating himself for the best part of six months.

To get some insight into Chris' mental state:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68391

Really, we're all best off ignoring Christophera.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
Agreed, it's time for a thread-jacking. This is now a "hot chicks with musical talent" thread.

I'll see your scantily clad irish violinists and raise you one canadian jazz singer from the Chrysler Sebring commercials:
Click to expand...

:D

OK, that was a tough one. What about this French Canadian cutie?

 
Last edited:
Unfit4Command said:
I'm just waiting for TS and Chris to answer my questions, they seem to be ignoring them pretty well.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are quite adept at that by now. On the plus side, waiting for them to answer is almost zen-like in it's meditative value :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom