# 47 vertical support columns in core of each Twin Tower from bedrock to top floor



## creativedreams (Jan 6, 2010)

Let's talk about the 47 vertical steel support columns in the core of each Twin Tower that somehow cut themselves and blew out of the way fast enough all the way down for the top floor in each building to hit the ground almost as fast as a ball would hit the ground if dropped right beside them.

Perhaps we can also discuss how everything but the steel was exploded into a huge cloud of dust before it even hit the ground and settled over the city....

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA"]YouTube- 9/11: South Tower "Collapse" video compilation[/ame]


----------



## creativedreams (Jan 6, 2010)

While we're at it perhaps we can discuss the many vertical support columns in Building 7 that somehow cut themselves and blew out of the way fast enough all the way down for the top floor of the building to hit the ground almost as fast as a ball would hit the ground if dropped right beside it...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atbrn4k55lA"]YouTube- 9/11: WTC Building 7 "Collapse" video compilation[/ame]


----------



## Fizz (Jan 6, 2010)

ok. you start. show evidence of a cut column or an explosive charge on 9/11.


----------



## candycorn (Jan 6, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> While we're at it perhaps we can discuss the many vertical support columns in Building 7 that somehow cut themselves and blew out of the way fast enough all the way down for the top floor of the building to hit the ground almost as fast as a ball would hit the ground if dropped right beside it...
> 
> YouTube- 9/11: WTC Building 7 "Collapse" video compilation



See, you found it.


----------



## manu1959 (Jan 6, 2010)

see other thread....the truthers believe the cores were concrete not steel....


----------



## creativedreams (Jan 6, 2010)

Fizz said:


> ok. you start. show evidence of a cut column or an explosive charge on 9/11.



Actually if you watch the Twin Tower footage you can see many flashes of explosives....

Here is more....

These two new videos show absolute proof of explosives used to bring down the World Trade Center Buildings.

This footage came right from the history channel itself....

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_B_Azbg0go"]YouTube- South Tower Smoking Guns[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBVhxnkK6s8"]YouTube- South Tower Smoking Guns (Follow-up)[/ame]


----------



## creativedreams (Jan 6, 2010)

candycorn said:


> creativedreams said:
> 
> 
> > While we're at it perhaps we can discuss the many vertical support columns in Building 7 that somehow cut themselves and blew out of the way fast enough all the way down for the top floor of the building to hit the ground almost as fast as a ball would hit the ground if dropped right beside it...
> ...



Found what?

Is that you in your avatar?


----------



## Big Black Dog (Jan 6, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> Let's talk about the 47 vertical steel support columns in the core of each Twin Tower that somehow cut themselves and blew out of the way fast enough all the way down for the top floor in each building to hit the ground almost as fast as a ball would hit the ground if dropped right beside them.
> 
> Perhaps we can also discuss how everything but the steel was exploded into a huge cloud of dust before it even hit the ground and settled over the city....
> 
> YouTube- 9/11: South Tower "Collapse" video compilation



Bad shit just happens is the only explanation I can come up with.  I believe that's just as good of an explanation as what I've heard here...


----------



## Fizz (Jan 6, 2010)

this is what a REAL building demolition looks and sounds like.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ[/ame]

this is what the WTC towers collapse sounded like.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOGI33HsiCc[/ame]

and in this video you can see the columns buckle WITHOUT ANY EXPLOSIONS!!
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBYnUyx4kw8[/ame]


----------



## creativedreams (Jan 6, 2010)

Fizz said:


> this is what a REAL building demolition looks and sounds like.



Yes those are some forms.....there are many types of explosives and technology available...


----------



## creativedreams (Jan 6, 2010)

Big Black Dog said:


> creativedreams said:
> 
> 
> > Let's talk about the 47 vertical steel support columns in the core of each Twin Tower that somehow cut themselves and blew out of the way fast enough all the way down for the top floor in each building to hit the ground almost as fast as a ball would hit the ground if dropped right beside them.
> ...



Yes it does all the time anywhere anyplace....that's why I don't get too excited about it and just feel lucky every time my eyes open in the morning...and then I think to myself..."well I guess the world is going to have to put up with me for another day".


----------



## Big Black Dog (Jan 6, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> > creativedreams said:
> ...



You're right on the bean with that though and with that said, I think it's time for the Big Black Dog to go crawl into his doggie bed.  Good night all!  ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ


----------



## creativedreams (Jan 6, 2010)

Big Black Dog said:


> creativedreams said:
> 
> 
> > Big Black Dog said:
> ...



Don't let the bedbugs bite!...LOL


----------



## eots (Jan 7, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > creativedreams said:
> ...



lol..in her dreams ..if she looked like that she would not be spending 14 hours a day trolling every messageboard in the nation..I mean really


----------



## creativedreams (Jan 8, 2010)

Here is more on the 47 vertical core columns that somehow cut themselves and moved out of the way fast enough all the way down  to not provide resistance so the top floor of each building could hit the ground almost as fast as a ball would hit the ground if dropped right beside them.

Propaganda debunkers intentionally try and mislead by focusing on the perimeter floor trusses and NOT the central core columns that should have easily stood........unless of course explosives were used to blow them completely out of the way all the way down and in doing so pulverizing everything but the steel before it even hits the ground.







[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gohc5lMO5Q8"]YouTube- WTCCS Scenario - WTC 1 Collapse Arrest[/ame]


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 9, 2010)

eots said:


> creativedreams said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



you got everything right there in that post,especially the part of HIS trolling every message board in the nation like he does 14 hours a day.Thats the one part you got wrong is calling him a SHE though.Cornboy troll is a HE.


----------



## creativedreams (Jan 15, 2010)

Here is some information on the Twin Towers actually being designed to withstand a possible plane impact during foggy conditions....

9-11 Research: Towers' Design Parameters

Contrary to widely promoted misconceptions, the Boeing 767-200s used on 9/11/01 were only slightly larger than 707s and DC 8s, the types of jetliners whose impacts the World Trade Center's designers anticipated






The above graphic from Chapter 1 of FEMA's Report shows the sizes of a 707 and a 767 relative to the footprint of a WTC tower. 1   Flight 11 and Flight 175 were Boeing 767-200s. Although a 767-200 has a slightly wider body than a 707, the two models are very similar in overall size, weight and fuel capacity. 


*property Boeing 707-320.............Boeing 767-200 
fuel capacity 23,000 gallons..........23,980 gallons 
max takeoff weight 328,060 lbs.....395,000 lbs 
empty weight 137,562 lbs............179,080 lbs 
wingspan 145.75 ft.....................156.08 ft 
wing area 3010 ft^.....................2 3050 ft^2 
length 152.92 ft.........................159.17 ft 
cruise speed 607 mph..................530 mph *

Given the differences in cruise speeds, a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size. Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft. The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707. 

*Statements by Engineers*
Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2   Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires. 

*John Skilling*
John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8. 
"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there."

A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01. 

"The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."

*The Richard Roth Telegram*
On Feburary 13, 1965, real estate baron Lawrence Wien called reporters to his office to charge that the design of the Twin Towers was structurally unsound. Many suspected that his allegation was motivated by a desire to derail the planned World Trade Center skyscrapers to protect the value of his extensive holdings, which included the Empire State Building. In response to the charge, Richard Roth, partner at Emery Roth & Sons, the architectural firm that was designing the Twin Towers, fired back with a three-page telegram containing the following details. 

"THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS."

" BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209' DEEP, THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WHERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT." 

" THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE."

At the time the Twin Towers were built, the design approach of moving the support columns to the perimeter and the core, thereby creating large expanses of unobstructed floor space, was relatively new, and unique for a skyscraper. However, that approach is commonplace in contemporary skyscrapers.

*Frank Demartini's Statement*
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001. 

"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

 Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation. 6   Demartini had first worked at World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the truck bombing in 1993. 

*Like All Skyscrapers, the Twin Towers Were Over-Engineered*
One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds. Given that September 11th was not a windy day, and that there were not throngs of people in the upper floors, the critical load ratio was probably well over 10, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns. 

There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the 1964 white paper cited above, a Tower would still be able to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind after all the perimeter columns on one face and some of the columns on each adjacent face had been cut.   Also, John Skilling is cited by the Engineering News Record for the claim that "live loads on these perimeter columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs."


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 15, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> Here is some information on the Twin Towers actually being designed to withstand a possible plane impact during foggy conditions....
> 
> 9-11 Research: Towers' Design Parameters
> 
> ...



Creativedreams,

Do you understand what the word "impact" means? An impact does not last over a period of time. According to the facts, the towers DID survive the impact of the planes. The south tower stood for 56 minutes AFTER the initial impact and the North tower stood for 1 hour and 44 minutes AFTER the initial impact. You use quotes out of context to try and prove your point. 

Let's say someone was in a car. While driving, this person slammed into the side of another car. This person survives the IMPACT and is able to call 911 on their cell phone. 15 minutes later, the car bursts into flames and the ensuing fire kills the person inside as they were still trapped in the car. Now, is the cause if death the impact or the fire?

I looked through your posting above and 99% of what everyone said was that the towers were able to survive an IMPACT. Which, like I said, they did. You show me one quote from those people that says they did a study on the what affects of a "HORRENDOUS FIRE" would be on the steel structure?

Can you show me the study they did that shows the calculations for the exact scenario where the planes penetrated the perimeter columns, possibley severed a couple of core columns, and then the ensuing office fires WEAKENED the steel at different temperatures? 

You are making grand assumptions based on quotes that don't even suggest that offices fires IN ADDITION to structural damage were taken into consideration.

The only thing they talk about is the initial impact. That's why they use terms like "kinetic energy" and take into account the "weight" of the planes hitting the towers. 

Why don't you email Leslie Robertson or his firm and ask them exactly what was meant by "they were built to survive the impact"? Ask him is they did a study where they looked at the STRUCTURAL DAMAGE caused by a jet impact coupled with the ensuing "HORRENDOUS FIRES".

So basically you want all the quotes above to mean that the word "IMPACT", by definition, is an effect that lasts over time.

Is that correct creativedreams?


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 15, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> creativedreams said:
> 
> 
> > Here is some information on the Twin Towers actually being designed to withstand a possible plane impact during foggy conditions....
> ...


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 15, 2010)

Here's a quote from Robertson that shows your interpretation all the quotes you posted quite incorrect. Here is the link to Robertson's musings about the towers he helped design.

National Academy of Engineering (NAE) - Reflections on the World Trade Center



			
				Leslie Robertson said:
			
		

> It appears that about 25,000 people safely exited the buildings, almost all of them from below the impact floors; almost everyone above the impact floors perished, either from the impact and fire or from the subsequent collapse. The structures of the buildings were heroic in some ways but less so in others. *The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field).* Therefore, the robustness of the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable happened . . . wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed.



So they did designed the towers to withstand the IMPACT, which they did. They DIDN'T consider the DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE IMPACT in addition to the RESULTANT FIRES that weakened the already WOUNDED structure.


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 15, 2010)

Creativedreams,

Another quote from Robertson taken from the site above. Looks like your ASSUMPTIONS are baseless.

National Academy of Engineering (NAE) - Reflections on the World Trade Center



			
				Leslie Robertson said:
			
		

> *To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.*



Sorry, but you're just wrong.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 15, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> Here is more on the 47 vertical core columns that somehow cut themselves and moved out of the way fast enough all the way down  to not provide resistance so the top floor of each building could hit the ground almost as fast as a ball would hit the ground if dropped right beside them.
> 
> Propaganda debunkers intentionally try and mislead by focusing on the perimeter floor trusses and NOT the central core columns that should have easily stood........unless of course explosives were used to blow them completely out of the way all the way down and in doing so pulverizing everything but the steel before it even hits the ground.
> 
> ...



Is that video a good representation of how the towers collapsed?  No tilt or twist to the top, red portion? Column on column?


----------



## creativedreams (Jan 17, 2010)

*James Peter Leritz*, B.Arch, M.Arch  Licensed Architect, State of California. 30 years experience as an Architect and Urban Designer in San Francisco and Denver. Former Assistant Professor, Department of Architecture, University of Illinois, Champaign. Former Assistant Professor, College of Environmental Design, University of Colorado, Boulder. 

"At 1.8 million square feet, WTC 7 was possibly larger than any building on the West Coast. Bank of America (1.4 million sf) and the Transamerica Pyramid (.5 million sf), the two highest buildings in San Francisco, are together only slightly greater in area. 

Few Americans know that WTC 7 collapsed, even fewer know how big it was. I have read that its collapse was shown only one time on television; in its documentaries about the WTC collapse, PBS not only didn't explain the collapse of WTC7 but never even mentioned the collapse of a third building, because doing so would have undermined their conclusion that planes and jet fuel were responsible for the collapses. 

Much evidence exists of explosions throughout the WTC buildings. Persistent pools of 2000 degree metal can only be explained by the presence of thermite/thermate, used in planned demolitions. Squibs, puffs of smoke characteristic of planned demolitions, can be clearly seen in advance of the collapses. 

The official story does not explain the collapse of WTC7 *or the collapse of the cores of WTC 1 and 2. *There is just one explanation for the evidence associated with these collapses: demolition by expertly planned and placed explosives." 


*Kerry Lewis McCarthy*, B.Arch  Licensed Architect, State of Oregon. Experienced with high-rise steel frame structures, including building-forensic, some steel frame but mostly concrete. Studied WTC's design, structure and construction at university. Over 30 years experience. 

"Very hard to understand the 'complete' lack of concrete rubble in the debris field. Even had the basements filled with concrete topping slab debris. There should have been a stack of jumbled building elements about 9 more stories above grade. *The core columns were fully welded yet none were longer than 40 ft* (max trucking length). This event as portrayed by the NIST Report totally messes with my understanding of how buildings behave. I haven't been able to reconcile the promoted theory of collapse with the way I know buildings to behave."


----------



## Christophera (Jan 18, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> Let's talk about the 47 vertical steel support columns in the core of each Twin Tower that somehow cut themselves and blew out of the way fast enough all the way down for the top floor in each building to hit the ground almost as fast as a ball would hit the ground if dropped right beside them.
> 
> Perhaps we can also discuss how everything but the steel was exploded into a huge cloud of dust before it even hit the ground and settled over the city....
> 
> YouTube- 9/11: South Tower "Collapse" video compilation




Hmmmmm, we've seen fizzrodd and divot talk about steel core columns, but they've never shown them.  I know what was really there was elevator guide rail support steel (see butt plate connections left and right of the central crane) barely fastened together because they were supported by the concrete core (WTC 1 east core wall) that can be shown on 9-11 and the lead engineer described on September 13, 2001.  They were very weak so fell immediately and by the time the sand and gravel fell they were gone from the core area in all 9-11 images.

The dust was mostly concrete as can be seen in the dust analysis, however, there were large amounts of chromium which is present in high tensile steel.  From my knolwedge the concrete core walls had huge rebar  made with high tensile steel.

Only a few engineers in the truth movement have actually tried to explain how the charged might have been set on the steel core columns that were supposed to be in the core.  Gordon Ross was the one who gave it the best shot.  A box column must have explosives with intimate contact all the way around them AND tamping to reflect the high pressure gasses back to the very dense steel.  Meaning that there really wasn't room although access could be gained and work done unseen.

When it came to the 24 massive box columns that actually did exist, he gave up trying to explain how charges could be set there.

From my experience the FEMA deception basically creates a situation which is impossible.  A straw man that obscures the possible.  Concrete can be instantly fractured to fall freely by a small amount of high explosives that are properly placed explaining free fall feasibly.

That same concrete with its hard stone aggregate is fractured by the potent shockwave created by the proper placement,  Suddenly you have mineral shrapnel traveling outwards from the blast center at perhaps 10k FPS for maybe 40 feet.  Pulverization of teh buildings contents is well explained there.

That same shockwave will reduce the concrete in close proximity to very fine dust and heat it extremely which explains the pyroclastic type clouds feasibly,  BTW, if that "properly placed explosive" happens to be very close to the high tensile rebar, it will have lots of iron and chromium in it as well.


----------



## eots (Jan 18, 2010)

ccurs."[/quote]



> Creativedreams,
> 
> Do you understand what the word "impact" means? An impact does not last over a period of time. According to the facts, the towers DID survive the impact of the planes. The south tower stood for 56 minutes AFTER the initial impact and the North tower stood for 1 hour and 44 minutes AFTER the initial impact. You use quotes out of context to try and prove your point.



LOL that's one of the stupidest things I have ever heard...survive the impact means the building remains standing ..period...not it does not collapse at the moment of impact

" the NIST conclusion about the cause of the collapses of the Twin Towers. &#8220;It says that the core columns, uninsulated due to the fact that the aircraft stripped off that insulation; they softened in the heat of the fire and shortened and that led to the collapse. They pulled in the external columns and it caused it to buckle. They went on further to say that there would be no collapse if the insulation remained in place.&#8221;


*"A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings"*


OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation






> Let's say someone was in a car. While driving, this person slammed into the side of another car. This person survives the IMPACT and is able to call 911 on their cell phone. 15 minutes later, the car bursts into flames and the ensuing fire kills the person inside as they were still trapped in the car. Now, is the cause if death the impact or the fire?



did the fire create molten metal ?? did it cause the car to collapse..lol




> I looked through your posting above and 99% of what everyone said was that the towers were able to survive an IMPACT. Which, like I said, they did. You show me one quote from those people that says they did a study on the what affects of a "HORRENDOUS FIRE" would be on the steel structure?



no buildings in history ever collapsed due to fire until 9/11

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Qg_-89Zr8[/ame]




> Can you show me the study they did that shows the calculations for the exact scenario where the planes penetrated the perimeter columns, possibley severed a couple of core columns, and then the ensuing office fires WEAKENED the steel at different temperatures?



the only role the impact played according to NIST is initiating the fires and dislodging the fire proofing although there is no evidence of the temperatures required to cause failure or that the impact dislodged fire proofing


Dr. Quintiere summarized the NIST conclusion about the cause of the collapses of the Twin Towers. &#8220;It says that the core columns, uninsulated due to the fact that the aircraft stripped off that insulation; they softened in the heat of the fire and shortened and that led to the collapse. They pulled in the external columns and it caused it to buckle. They went on further to say that there would be no collapse if the insulation remained in place.&#8221;
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070820_former_chief_of_nist.htm



> You are making grand assumptions based on quotes that don't even suggest that offices fires IN ADDITION to structural damage were taken into consideration.
> 
> The only thing they talk about is the initial impact. That's why they use terms like "kinetic energy" and take into account the "weight" of the planes hitting the towers.
> 
> ...



of course that is what it means


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 18, 2010)

A quote from the man himself. Go peddle your bullshit elsewhere. Robertson, the man who helped design the towers, even says that they survived the impact. 

National Academy of Engineering (NAE) - Reflections on the World Trade Center



			
				Leslie Robertson said:
			
		

> It appears that about 25,000 people safely exited the buildings, almost all of them from below the impact floors; almost everyone above the impact floors perished, either from the impact and fire or from the subsequent collapse. The structures of the buildings were heroic in some ways but less so in others. *The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field).* Therefore, the robustness of the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable happened . . . wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed.


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 18, 2010)

eots said:


> LOL that's one of the stupidest things I have ever heard...survive the impact means the building remains standing ..period...not it does not collapse at the moment of impact



According to the man who helped design the towers, they DID survive the impact.



			
				Leslie Robertson said:
			
		

> It appears that about 25,000 people safely exited the buildings, almost all of them from below the impact floors; almost everyone above the impact floors perished, either from the impact and fire or from the subsequent collapse. The structures of the buildings were heroic in some ways but less so in others. *The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field).* Therefore, the robustness of the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable happened . . . wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed.


----------



## Fizz (Jan 18, 2010)

eots said:


> > Can you show me the study they did that shows the calculations for the exact scenario where the planes penetrated the perimeter columns, possibley severed a couple of core columns, and then the ensuing office fires WEAKENED the steel at different temperatures?
> 
> 
> 
> the only role the impact played according to NIST is initiating the fires and dislodging the fire proofing although there is no evidence of the temperatures required to cause failure or that the impact dislodged fire proofing




you are a fucking LIAR. did you even bother to read the report before making such a stupid statement? the vertical columns were severed transferring weight to the remaining columns. its all there in black and white, jackass.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1-6D.pdf


----------



## candycorn (Jan 18, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > LOL that's one of the stupidest things I have ever heard...survive the impact means the building remains standing ..period...not it does not collapse at the moment of impact
> ...



If they didn't survive the impact, why would they still have remained standing?  The impact is over once the planes hit.


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 18, 2010)

candycorn said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Well, according to eots' and creativedreams' understanding of reality, "impact" means an event that can last 1 minute, 2 hours, or days.


----------



## Fizz (Jan 18, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



i guess if the empire state buildings fall down it will be from the impact of the B25 in 1945.


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 18, 2010)

Fizz said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Jan 18, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



no according to NIST if the fire proofing remained intact the building would of remained standing....oh wait a minute...did he mean standing for one  sec.. one minute..all of eternity ??..


----------



## creativedreams (Jan 18, 2010)

These two new videos show absolute proof of explosives used to bring down the World Trade Center Buildings.

This footage came right from the history channel itself....

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_B_Azbg0go"]YouTube- South Tower Smoking Guns[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBVhxnkK6s8"]YouTube- South Tower Smoking Guns (Follow-up)[/ame]


----------



## candycorn (Jan 18, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> These two new videos show absolute proof of explosives used to bring down the World Trade Center Buildings.
> 
> This footage came right from the history channel itself....
> 
> ...



Wow, you should do something about that.


----------



## creativedreams (Jan 18, 2010)

candycorn said:


> creativedreams said:
> 
> 
> > These two new videos show absolute proof of explosives used to bring down the World Trade Center Buildings.
> ...



I already am by spreading the information for all to see.

If I had an offer for a full time decent paying job with benefits then perhaps I would post for your side..


----------



## Fizz (Jan 18, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > creativedreams said:
> ...



sorry, we dont let moronic assholes on our side. you need to stay on the muslim apologist side.


----------



## candycorn (Jan 19, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > creativedreams said:
> ...



How's that working out for you?  Nobody believes you or gives a flying fuck about you.  Nobody cares about you.  So apparently you're making a total ass of yourself.  

Maybe get some skill and you could get a full time job someday; I hear Wal Mart is hiring but you probably don't meet their standards; go back to school and maybe between you and Curvelight you can get one GED


----------



## eots (Jan 19, 2010)

candycorn said:


> creativedreams said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



You must be a very ugly and insecure person cornycunt


----------



## candycorn (Jan 19, 2010)

eots said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > creativedreams said:
> ...



Financially secure, mentally secure, emotionally sound.  It comes from working hard and expecting others to do the same.  Whatever free ride you're getting will end soon enough and you too will have to actually do something or perish.  

As for 9/11--you know--the subject that you've been destroyed on 1,000,000 times already; are we going to see any results from your belly-aching this year?  Because for the past 8 years and 10,000 posts, you've accomplished zero.  

How's that make you feel?


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 19, 2010)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Right. This PROVES your claim that the towers collapsed from the "impact" as being wrong. 

The "impact" caused damage to the towers. The ensuing fires (along with the damage caused by the impact) weakened the towers to a point of collapse.

If it was the impact alone that made the towers collapse, then they would have fallen the instant the towers were struck.

Even Leslie Robertson himself states that the towers survived the impact and he is FAR more educated in the field of structural engineering than you are.


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 19, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> These two new videos show absolute proof of explosives used to bring down the World Trade Center Buildings.
> 
> This footage came right from the history channel itself....
> 
> ...





I suppose it COULDN'T have been the perimeter columns falling away from the tower, streaming dust/debris behind it right? It HAD to be explosives that propelled it "rocket-like"...


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 19, 2010)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Hey eots. GO back and read what you just posted. REAL SLOW.

Are you saying that NIST is implying the insulation, if it stayed intact, would have protected the towers from a jet impact?



Tell me something genius. When an engineer designs something to withstand the force of an impact, will his calculations include considerations for possible fires that may be a result of the impact? When engineers design crumple zones for cars to withstand an impact, do they add design parameters for possible fires to the calculations?

I dare you to ask any engineer that when asked to design something to withstand an impact, if he would include calculations for a possible fire.

The fact is, the impact and the resultant fires, are two different entities and are designed for in two different ways. Hence this quote from Robertson:


			
				Leslie Robertson said:
			
		

> *To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.*



You have a much to learn about engineering and design and that apparent lack of knowledge about either makes you look like a fool every time you post.

The bottom line is, the towers did withstand the force of the jet impacts. Let me repeat that. The towers did not collapse from the FORCE of the IMPACTS of the jets.

Get it yet?


----------



## Fizz (Jan 19, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> creativedreams said:
> 
> 
> > These two new videos show absolute proof of explosives used to bring down the World Trade Center Buildings.
> ...



i love how all these moronic twoofers that are supposedly seeking "truth" immediately jump to conclusions and label things as "smoking gun" and "indisputable" whenever they encounter something they feel supports their preconceived conclusions. 

how about using logic for a second?? 

you have a building collapsing from the top down... when all the energy from the collapsing material above hits the still standing structure below what exactly do they expect the material and energy to do? just sit there balanced on if the still standing structure and defy all laws of physics?

what a bunch of fucking morons!!!


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 19, 2010)

eots said:


> the *only role* the impact played *according to NIST* is *initiating the fires* and *dislodging the fire proofing*



So now you're resorting to lies in order to make your claims look like the truth? How come I can pull quotes from NIST's documents that say you are a liar for making that claim?



			
				NCSTAR 1-6D said:
			
		

> In WTC 1, the aircraft impact caused damage to the north and south walls, floors, some core columns, and insulation.



and...



			
				NCSTAR 1-6D said:
			
		

> In WTC 2, the aircraft impact caused damage to the south and north exterior walls, floors, and columns in the southeast corner of the core.



That's pretty low. Even for you.


----------



## Fizz (Jan 19, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > the *only role* the impact played *according to NIST* is *initiating the fires* and *dislodging the fire proofing*
> ...



it also talks about vertical loads getting shifted to the remaining columns, damage to the core (steel core, by the way) and how the shifted weight affected the collapse sequence.

unfortunately the pdf file is copy protected and i cant cut and paste.


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 19, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> *Kerry Lewis McCarthy**The core columns were fully welded yet none were longer than 40 ft* (max trucking length).



No columns more that 40'? Are you serious?











Look at the columns in this next photo. Look at all the burn marks, slag, and rough edges from the thermite/explosives...

Oh wait...


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 19, 2010)

Fizz said:


> ok. you start. show evidence of a cut column or an explosive charge on 9/11.



A cut column?

To verify the truthers theory, you would need 37 cut columns on 100 floors......thats the only way to fall at "freefall speeds"

That makes 3700 cuts syncronized within seconds to create the desired effect


----------



## Christophera (Jan 19, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > ok. you start. show evidence of a cut column or an explosive charge on 9/11.
> ...


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 19, 2010)

Christophera said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 19, 2010)

More proof that Chris is full of shit.

Look at the area I circled in red on the column. See the faint outline of a rounded triangle shape? That's the end of the groove weld with the weld material still there.





Further proof is this next image of a drawing detail that shows what a groove weld looks like with weld material in it. Look at the detail in the middle of the three named "OTHER-SIDE U-GROOVE WELDING SYMBOL".





The weld material looks exactly the same as the shape on the column circled in red. A triangle with rounded corners.

Shape charges created those ends?!


----------



## Christophera (Jan 19, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > Examine the edges of the very thick walled box column in the below photo.  No way that is a salvage cut, way too uniform.  Examine that uniform bevel.  This is what linear shape charges do.  So, no matter how they got there, this is what is seen.
> ...



One big problem with everything you state photoshopping agent gumjobn.

*You assume that a broken weld would always be the same*.  So your point absolutely *cannot be correct* or applicable in dismissing the information.

BTW, the top image is an interior box column whereas the stacked box columns image might be elevator guide rail support steel.  The proportionate thickness of the 2 changes the beveling of cutting charges, and yes, from what I've seen, linear shape charges do leave a uniform bevel and they are grooved, sharply and deeply, with uniformity.

BTW, there are images from GZ of broken welds.  Typically weldment will transfer unequally between the 2 sections.  Those breaks signify elevator guide rails support steel.

The interior box columns, true full length 100% welded columns, outside the concrete core were the largest of all the vertical steel on the project.

That top photo is one of those, below the 43rd floor where maximum strength was required.


----------



## Fizz (Jan 19, 2010)

Christophera said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...



you dumb moron..... the problem with your logic is that its YOURS. you are one of the most fucked up lunatics on here. you wouldnt know logic if someone shoved it your ass and exploded it.


----------



## Christophera (Jan 20, 2010)

gumjobn won't answer 'cause he's busted as a wanna'be disinfo and reality is the opposite of what you write.


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 20, 2010)

Christophera said:


> BTW, there are images from GZ of broken welds.  Typically weldment will transfer unequally between the 2 sections.  Those breaks signify elevator guide rails support steel.



I thought the elevator guide rail support steel was joined by "butt plates"????

What a fucking moron!!! You just admitted that the guide rail support steel was welded together!


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 20, 2010)

Christophera said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...



From what "you've seen"? Are we supposed to believe what you say without any proof? Given the amount of lies, contradictions, incorrect photo analysis, and admitted mistakes you've made/told, I don't think ANYONE can take your word for it. Your word means nothing at this point. Provide a photo of a metal plate that was cut with a shape charge and show us the "quarter round" groove that it left behind, halfway through the plate.

You're full of shit.


----------



## Christophera (Jan 20, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



The fact that no one can explain how all the supposed steel core columns were cut is a bigger issue.  

I've just shown a cut in one of the largest columns surrounding the core.  It is impossibly uniform for any cutting method in those conditions except a specialized cutting charge.

And I've shown an empty core area with each and every image showing http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg


----------



## Christophera (Jan 20, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



The fact that no one can explain how all the supposed steel core columns were cut is a bigger issue.  

I've just shown a cut in one of the largest columns surrounding the core.  It is impossibly uniform for any cutting method in those conditions except a specialized cutting charge.

And I've shown an empty core area with each and every image showing concrete surrounding the empty core area.


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 20, 2010)

Christophera said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...



The fact is, you just admitted that the "elevator guide rail support steel" was welded.


----------



## Christophera (Jan 21, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



The bigger fact is that you cannot show I ever said they were not welded.  I've said that sometimes butt plates are used instead of a weld so the elevator guide rail support can be shifted.

The biggest fact is you *have absolutely no independently verified evidence of steel core columns inthe core area AND not one image from 9-11 showing anything except for an empty core.*

AND, the fact that this video unmistakably shows a concrete wall falling into the core area.


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 21, 2010)

Christophera said:


> The biggest fact is you *have absolutely no independently verified evidence of steel core columns inthe core area AND not one image from 9-11 showing anything except for an empty core.*

















All the photos above show columns INSIDE your supposed concrete core. That's INSIDE THE CORE.

You are wrong once again.


----------



## Christophera (Jan 21, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > The biggest fact is you *have absolutely no independently verified evidence of steel core columns inthe core area AND not one image from 9-11 showing anything except for an empty core.*
> ...



It only takes one image to prove that the reverse of what the agent says is true.






Since the agent uses a zoomed image of the spire, which is out side the core above, with the concrete to the left, another will show the entire spire.






Then, the core wall at its base shows the concrete core inside the interior box column which is at the opposite end of the top image showing elevator guide rail on the left, circled, and the interior box column on the right.


----------



## Christophera (Jan 21, 2010)

You still have not shown steel core columns in the core area.  This is the concrete core of WTC 2.


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 21, 2010)

Christophera said:


> You still have not shown steel core columns in the core area.  This is the concrete core of WTC 2.



Three pictures right here show columns in the core area. No butt plates anywhere. Strong, steel columns. 

Proven wrong yet again.


----------



## Fizz (Jan 21, 2010)

the criminal is unable to admit defeat because then he would have wasted money paying to get his book published.

money that should have gone to his children through the child support he never paid.


----------



## Christophera (Jan 21, 2010)

Fizz said:


> the criminal is unable to admit defeat because then he would have wasted money paying to get his book published.
> 
> money that should have gone to his children through the child support he never paid.



You think it is okay that guiliani steals the towers plans from NYC offices, and a NYS court lets him do it, AND fail to note deprivations of equal protection of law for a citizen?

*That is exactly what the perps would want you to try and do.*

WELFARE FRAUD CREATES CHILD SUPPORT
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1802693-post2845.html

CITIZENS OF 9th CIRCUIT DEPRIVED OF DUE PROCESS, PETITION FOR ENBANC HEARING
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1802123-post2829.html

MOTION QUASH CONTEMPT, ESTOPPLE
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1802288-post2836.html

STOP PAYMENT ON CHECK
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1802771-post742.html

SUPREME COURT TRICKERY
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1826942-post3076.html


----------



## Christophera (Jan 21, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > The biggest fact is you *have absolutely no independently verified evidence of steel core columns inthe core area AND not one image from 9-11 showing anything except for an empty core.*



You did not show steel core columns inside the core area.  That one was fastened to the concrete that was between the heavy interior box column on the right.  The other end of the same remnant shows mass concrete.








Gamolon said:


>



The above image shows the remnant of the WTC 1 north core wall before segment separators were removed to show the concrete and the utility hallway in the 2nd image up of this post.



Gamolon said:


> All the photos above show columns INSIDE your supposed concrete core. That's INSIDE THE CORE.
> 
> You are wrong once again.



Thanks! Your image shows the area AFTER the concrete was pulverized as shown below.


----------



## Fizz (Jan 21, 2010)

19 muslim hijackers flew planes into buildings. it makes no difference where the plans are or arent.


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 22, 2010)

Christophera said:


> You did not show steel core columns inside the core area.  That one was fastened to the concrete that was *between* the heavy interior box column on the right.  The other end of the same remnant shows mass concrete.





WTF?!



If the concrete core was BETWEEN (I highlighted the word for you) the heavy interior box column on the right (which, according to you RINGED THE OUTSIDE OF YOUR CORE), then that means the column on the left was INSIDE THE CONCRETE CORE.

Your theory is all but dead now (if it was EVER alive). Your request that someone provide photos of columns inside the core has been going on for years and you have clung to it like a lifeline. 

Your above admittance has just severed that lifeline.

Thanks Chris. I shall put this post of yours to good use along with all the other lies. contradictions, and admitted mistakes you have made.


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 22, 2010)

Christophera said:


> That one was fastened to the concrete



How was that done Chris?

Are you going to dazzle us once again with your "construction knowledge"?



I can't WAIT for this explanation.


----------



## Christophera (Jan 22, 2010)

Fizz said:


> 19 muslim hijackers flew planes into buildings.



_2. Over generalization:  Single event is viewed as continuous._



Fizz said:


> it makes no difference where the plans are or arent.



_1. All or nothing thinking:  Things are placed in black or white categories._

Weak post agent.


----------



## Christophera (Jan 22, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > You did not show steel core columns inside the core area.  That one was fastened to the concrete that was *between* the heavy interior box column on the right.  The other end of the same remnant shows mass concrete.
> ...



And falling from the concrete wall with concrete attached to the lower portion as seen here with the tapering shape of the steel,






Here is the video.  At 13-14 second the elevator guide rail support with concrete still attached is seen flopping around as it fall from the plane of the wall.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIZp6aOibiM]YouTube - 9/11: North Tower "Collapse" (new video)[/ame]



Gamolon said:


> Your theory is all but dead now (if it was EVER alive). Your request that someone provide photos of columns inside the core has been going on for years and you have clung to it like a lifeline.
> 
> Your above admittance has just severed that lifeline.



I've been showing you elevator guide rail support steel with its butt plates joining it inside the core for years.  That piece was the first one and attached to the concrete core wall.  My point has been for those years is that you cannot show the steel inside the core area, meaning near the center.  And you cannot.  Not even at ground zero.  Only outside the core, which were box columns that had a true foundation ringing the concrete walls of the core.



Gamolon said:


> Thanks Chris. I shall put this post of yours to good use along with all the other lies. contradictions, and admitted mistakes you have made.



Clearly, a known photoshopper misrepresenting images cannot credibily make such a statement.

Breakfornews.com, Fintan Dunne


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 22, 2010)

Christophera said:


> You did not show steel core columns inside the core area.  That one was fastened to the concrete that was between the heavy interior box column on the right.  The other end of the same remnant shows mass concrete.



Thanks for confirming that the columns to the left or your core were INSIDE the core.

BTW. How were they fastened to the concrete?


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 22, 2010)

Christophera said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...



Hmmm. Let's see. Chris says that the columns shown in that picture sandwiched his supposed concrete core wall between them. That must mean that:

1. Heavy Interior Box Column = Outside the core 

Which then means

2. The Column To The Left = Inside the core

Thanks for confirming that for me Chris. You have answered your own request for proof of columns INSIDE the core area.


----------



## Christophera (Jan 22, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Typical for you to try and misrepresent one of a few pieces of vertical steel remaining as "core columns".  They were not, they were elevator guide rail support steel and they were inside the core.

The core is typically empty in ALL 9-11 images.






In your images it's only standing because it is fastened to the interior box columns which does have a footing.  It is not a "core column".  It is elevator guide rail support steel and the butt plates seen left and right of the central crane prove it because they are too weak to be used to join sections of "core column.


----------



## Fizz (Jan 22, 2010)

Christophera said:


> ]elevator guide rail support steel and the butt plates seen left and right of the central crane prove it because they are too weak to be used to join sections of "core column.



you already admitted they were welded.


----------



## Christophera (Jan 22, 2010)

Fizz said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > ]elevator guide rail support steel and the butt plates seen left and right of the central crane prove it because they are too weak to be used to join sections of "core column.
> ...



The perps would like that you are trying to induce "all or nothing thinking" a cognitive distortion.

_1. All or nothing thinking:  Things are placed in black or white categories._

There are many kinds of welds.  Anything short of a 100% deep fillet weld will not work for "core columns".  The elevator guide rail support steel also used "butt plates" to shift, plumb and generally align the steel so guide rails could be more easily set perfectly.

Left and right of the central crane are the "butt plates".






  No real lateral strength so they all fell as soon as the concrete core walls went down.


----------



## Fizz (Jan 23, 2010)

Christophera said:


> The perps would like that you are trying to induce "all or nothing thinking" a cognitive distortion.
> 
> _1. All or nothing thinking:  Things are placed in black or white categories._
> 
> ...



fucking moron!!!

now you are saying that SOME of the columns were welded and some werent?!!


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 23, 2010)

Christophera said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...



Sorry Chris. Those are core columns. I see no buttplates on that columns in my photos.

You lose again.


----------



## Christophera (Jan 23, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Wrong.  Below is a column, and it is not in the core as the superimposition shows.


----------



## Fizz (Jan 23, 2010)

Christophera said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...



that picture is photoshopped!!


----------



## Christophera (Jan 23, 2010)

Fizz said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Duh  

But only to show the location of the structural steel, not to decieve as agent gamoloon does.

Here is the image of the interior box column which is OUTSIDE the core area.


----------



## Christophera (Jan 24, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



It is astounding that gamoloon attempts the distortion it does reagarding what is shown in the photo of rebar as the distortion relates to this photo showing the butt plates on top of elevator guide rail support steel.  The only vertical steel inside the core.  Why ALL 9-11 images show an empty core area.


----------



## Fizz (Jan 24, 2010)

Christophera said:


> It is astounding that gamoloon attempts the distortion it does reagarding what is shown in the photo of rebar as the distortion relates to this photo showing the butt plates on top of elevator guide rail support steel.  The only vertical steel inside the core.  Why ALL 9-11 images show an empty core area.



whats really astounding is that you defy all laws of physics by claiming you can see something 3 inches wide from over a mile away.

there is no rebar in your picture!!


----------



## Christophera (Jan 24, 2010)

Fizz said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > It is astounding that gamoloon attempts the distortion it does reagarding what is shown in the photo of rebar as the distortion relates to this photo showing the butt plates on top of elevator guide rail support steel.  The only vertical steel inside the core.  Why ALL 9-11 images show an empty core area.
> ...



Agent tactic, intentionally acting confused and commenting upon another image other than the one that shows rebar.


----------



## Fizz (Jan 24, 2010)

Christophera said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...



doesnt matter which one i show. there is no rebar in any of them!!


----------



## Christophera (Jan 25, 2010)

Fizz said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



Of course you have never provided a reasonable explanation for what those fine vertical elements are if NOT rebar.  Nor have you provided one for the WTC 2 core being anything but concrete.


----------



## sboyle24 (Jan 25, 2010)

Gosh all this back and forth conspiracy talk is getting annoying. Lets just blame the French and move on.


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 25, 2010)

Christophera said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...



Hmmm.

Why does the column end I circled in red below have the "buttplate" then? I thought the CORE COLUMNS SURROUNDING your core were all 100% "deep fillet welds"?





Those aren't "buttplates" dumbass.


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 25, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Chris, you admitted that the columns above were INSIDE your supposed concrete core, hence the word "between" that you use.


----------



## sboyle24 (Jan 25, 2010)

You know what is far more interesting that 9/11 and structures??
This guy!!!


----------



## candycorn (Jan 25, 2010)

sboyle24 said:


> You know what is far more interesting that 9/11 and structures??
> This guy!!!


----------



## creativedreams (Jan 25, 2010)

sboyle24 said:


> You know what is far more interesting that 9/11 and structures??
> This guy!!!



That's just wrong......why'd you have to make me look at that gross crap?


----------



## creativedreams (Jan 25, 2010)

Hmmm, I wonder what happened to this piece of steel in the upper left?


----------



## Fizz (Jan 25, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> Hmmm, I wonder what happened to this piece of steel in the upper left?



it became part of this.


----------



## Christophera (Jan 25, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> Hmmm, I wonder what happened to this piece of steel in the upper left?



Odd tear of bolts from a plate.  Could have been a sliding, scraping action.  I first thought of the molten steel pouring out of WTC 2 on the east side but the edges of the torn bolt holes and tears are square.

This end of this one gets me.






But a really telling piece is this.  Look at that billow in the web of the "I" beam.


----------



## Christophera (Jan 25, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



You appear to be ignorant of the fact that steel erectors will grab any sick of straight steel and tack it into place to use as an alignment reference.  That piece of steel does not even match the steel in the inner wall of the exterior steel framwork.  Obviously.

Also, pieces are stuck in various positions to use in guiding other pieces into place


----------



## Fizz (Jan 25, 2010)

christophera said:


> gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > christophera said:
> ...



bullshit!!


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 26, 2010)

Christophera said:


> You appear to be ignorant of the fact that steel erectors will grab any sick of straight steel and tack it into place to use as an alignment reference.  That piece of steel does not even match the steel in the inner wall of the exterior steel framwork.  Obviously.
> 
> Also, pieces are stuck in various positions to use in guiding other pieces into place





HOLY SHIT!!!



I gotta pass this on to some of my buddies! That's what I call pulling something out of your ass. What a complete moron.

Chris, I've worked more construction jobs as a supervisor than you EVER will. I've worked in steel mills, government facilities, breweries, chemical plants, etc. I have NEVER seen a construction crew tack weld a steel column to use as a reference for ANYTHING.

Your explanation above is the WORST case of "I've gotta make shit up to sound like I know what I'm talking about" that I have ever seen!

Please Chris. I have to laugh some more. Please make yourself look like more of an asshole than you already do and explain HOW they would use that as a reference piece...


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 26, 2010)

Those aren't buttplates Chris.






I've circled in the above photo what they are.


----------



## Fizz (Jan 26, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> Please Chris. I have to laugh some more. Please make yourself look like more of an asshole than you already do and explain HOW they would use that as a reference piece...



i'm not sure we should encourage him. if he becomes more of an asshole i am worried about him developing his own gravitational field and collapsing in upon himself to create a balck hole which would eventually suck us all into his ass.

not a pretty picture. i doubt he showers much.


----------



## Christophera (Jan 26, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> Those aren't buttplates Chris.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The furthest is a butt plate.  Just as these are.






Butt plates were not used reguarly, in fact they would be avoided as they are more expensive and not as strong as welds.  However they are needed to realign guide rail support steel that is out of plumb or position.


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 26, 2010)

Christophera said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Those aren't buttplates Chris.
> ...



They are? How in the world did they BOLT those plates together with the matching column on top through holes when the "plates" in those photos are aligned VERTICALLY, on the SIDES of the columns?

Also, show me proof that, in addition to the "buttplates" being bolted, they didn't also WELD the columns together.


----------



## Fizz (Jan 26, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> They are? How in the world did they BOLT those plates together with the matching column on top through holes when the "plates" in those photos are aligned VERTICALLY, on the SIDES of the columns?
> 
> Also, show me proof that, in addition to the "buttplates" being bolted, they didn't also WELD the columns together.



they are clearly shown in your photo to not be "butt plates".

chris needs to show where he gets his evidence that they are butt plates. he needs to show evidence of a concrete core. he needs to show construction photos and plans that show a concrete core.

HE'S GOT NOTHING.


----------



## Christophera (Jan 26, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



The plates on top of the sidewalk photo are obviously a larger horizontal dimension than the section of the vertical steel below it.  You would be the first one to atempt to say it was not.



Gamolon said:


> Also, show me proof that, in addition to the "buttplates" being bolted, they didn't also WELD the columns together.



Clearly you need to read more often, that is exactly what I've said.  Or perhaps your using "confuser" statements manipulatively on behalf of the perpetrators interests as does fizzit. 

Welds are cheaper, faster and stronger but once it is joined there is very little adjustment.  When that goes past a certain tolerence a butt plates is needed to shift to the postion or tilt to plumb.


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 27, 2010)

Christophera said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Also, show me proof that, in addition to the "buttplates" being bolted, they didn't also WELD the columns together.
> ...



Really? Exactly what you said? You have said all along that the buttplate connections were welded? Then please explain this next quote from you?



Christophera said:


> Butt plates were not used reguarly, in fact they would be avoided as they are more expensive *and not as strong as welds*.



Look at the bolded, enlarged text. See where you say the buttplate connections weren't as strong as welds? If they weren't as strong as welds, then what were they? Bolted? 

Here's a quote from your site:


			
				Christophera said:
			
		

> ...butt plates are a valuable joining method. However, such joints are not strong enough for "core columns".
> Core columns must be butt welded with 100% welds deep filet welds as were the interior box columns which surround the core of the twins. This diagram shows a typical fillet weld detail on an "I" beam.



What type of connections were the "buttplates" Chris if not welded?

Let's see a quick diagram of how you think the "elevator guide rail support steel" columns were connected at the "buttplates". Let's put your VAST construction and design knowledge to the test. So far you've balked and any detailed challange to explain yourself.


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 27, 2010)

More about yourbuttplate connection bullshit. Below is another quout from you:



Christophera said:


> Hmmmmm, we've seen fizzrodd and divot talk about steel core columns, but they've never shown them.  I know what was really there was elevator guide rail support steel (see butt plate connections left and right of the central crane) *barely fastened together*...



Please explain what you meant by "barely fastened together".


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 27, 2010)

Another quote from you Chris:


Christophera said:


> The bigger fact is that you cannot show I ever said they were not welded.  I've said that *sometimes butt plates are used instead of a weld *so the elevator guide rail support can be shifted.



Instead of a weld? What type of connection are you refering to other than a weld?


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 27, 2010)

And here you have it folks!!! Chris caught lying once again. Chris has always implied that the supposed buttplate connections were bolted together. Now, being shown we was sadly mistaken, he tries to lie his way out of yet another mistake by saying he never said the columns WEREN'T welded together.

Well here is a quote of his:


Christophera said:


> *Because the butt plates were welded to their indivdual sections does nothing to reduce the meaning of the fact that the butt plates facilitated bolting the sections together forming a weak joint.*



So the plates were welded to the INDIVIDUAL columns section themselves, but the joints between THE COLUMNS were bolted, forming a weak joint.

BOLTED TOGETHER.

What a freaking moron. You've told so many lies that you can't keep them straight anymore.


----------



## sboyle24 (Jan 27, 2010)

*This Thread says*


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 27, 2010)

Chris, is this what you think existed as butt plates???


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 27, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> Chris, is this what you think existed as butt plates???



I guess that is what you meant given your quote here:


			
				christophera at Break for News said:
			
		

> The vertical steel in the core area has a small plate welded to the top of it. It can be termed a "butt plate" and mates with another having identical bolt holes where the 2 are joined together. Totally inadequate for creating a core column as it has no ability to resist lateral loads.



Another question Chris. Can you explain this quote:


			
				christophera at Break for News said:
			
		

> Because the support steel was kept straight by being bolted to the inner concrete core walls,...



Really? 

Can you show me the where the "bolted connections to the inner concrete core walls" occur in this picture:





Bolted to the walls?!


----------



## Christophera (Jan 27, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Chris, is this what you think existed as butt plates???
> ...



Gumjob doesn't know the difference between a base plate and a butt plate!

OMG!

The perpetrators of mass murder would prefer that you obscure the fact that you cannot source ONE image from 9-11 that shows steel core columns int he core area.

I can show only an empty core with images showing concrete or the remants of it.


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 27, 2010)

Christophera said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Sorry joker, that image shows exactly what you are implying existed. A plate on the end of a column that is bolted to one exactly the same on the other.

You have been caught lying once again.


----------



## Christophera (Jan 27, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



B, b, wa, haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaa, you have been shown lying.

*
A "butt plate" is very thick because it has to have resistence against flex.  Your "base plate" shows almost no thickness.  It is for keeping the base of a column fastened to the floor and foundation from "kicking out".*

Below they are very thick.






In your image they are very thick.  The furthest one.

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/nobuttplates.jpg

As usual, the opposite of what the agent says is true.

Your other pic won't show the fastener locations if they existed as low as the base wall.  The core itself up 4 floors was bolted at each interior box column.


----------



## Fizz (Jan 28, 2010)

Christophera said:


> Your other pic won't show the fastener locations if they existed as low as the base wall.  The core itself up 4 floors was bolted at each interior box column.



of course you have building plans and pictures of your concrete core during construction to back up your claims...... right?


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 28, 2010)

Christophera said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...



It doesn't matter in the least. My drawing I presented was a graphic representation of what you THINK existed and had no scale whatsoever. You're just trying to get out of the fact that you LIE at every turn when you get caught presenting some bogus information.

You claim the "elevator guide rail steel" (which are actually core columns) could NOT have been core columns because they were to weak based on the supposed BOLTED butt plate connections. Then you were presented with closeup photos of those supposed "butt plate" connections that show they are in fact lug type pieces welded to the side of the columns. 

Then you are asked to present proof that those connections were only BOLTED (as you claimed) and then you turn around and say that they were welded also.

You have been proven to be a liar who can't keep all his lies straight. You been lying so much over the years, it's easy to go back and see how you've changed your story according to the mistakes people find in your bullshit.

You have been asked for proof as to why you've made these claims/changes and you can come up with none. 

So here's a simple question. Why did you lie and first say the "butt plate" connections were bolted and then turn around and say they were welded? I mean your reasoning as to why they are "guide rails" and not core columns is based solely on your claim that they had bolted connections and those connections are weak compared to welded connections.

Now you ADMIT that they were welded in addition to being bolted, which totally debunks your "weak connection" argument. Not to mention the fact that those are NOT "butt plates" as has been proven.


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 28, 2010)

CLEARLY not "thick butt plates", but some type of "lug". Look at the top red circle. These are welded to the SIDE of the column. I see two of them on the left side.

It's obvious you're making shit up as usual.


----------



## creativedreams (Jan 28, 2010)

High school level Physics calculations show Gravity on the World Trade Center Towers was 0.1 KiloTons of TNT-equivalent energy in *"action".*

The debris and dust erupted over 8.5 KiloTons of 'TNT' energy in *"reaction".*











 FACT: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction
0.1 KT *ACTION* does not equal 8.5 KT *REACTION*
http://Newton's_laws_of_motion

When the top chunk of Mt. St. Helens turned into a cloud of dust, thrown on the landscape, the TV and newspapers said the mountain expended the energy equivalent of 30,000 K Tons of TNT. 

How did they know that number?
Were there conflicting opinions?  
Was it a debateable issue whether it was 40,000 KT or 10,000 KT of TNT equivalent energy?

No, it was 30,000 KT, no argument, no debate....the number is not an opinion, it's a calculation of a fact. 

Like an Example problem in Physics homework, multiply the massive weight of the rock times how far it flew against gravity's energy forcing it down to the ground. Weight x distance x gravity, is the energy number......the math is done......easy as pie.

The same calculation makes a fact that 8.5 KT of energy force expanded the dust cloud of pulverized concrete which came out of each Twin Tower on 9/11 and spread across Manhattan's buildings and streets an inch thick, or more.

8.5 KT of expended energy, is the number which American Corporate Media does *NOT *say, because it's censored, prohibited, since there's a mystery about where that energy came from. Since 0.1 KT, is all the energy that gravity had, forcing down on each building.

Gravity smacking the floors together, one-by-one flattening them like pancakes....or 110 floors pushed down into a stack on ground level, where gravity can't push any farther.

Multiply all the weight that came down the distance to the ground, and the fact is 0.1 KT of TNT equivalent energy was expended. That's all there possibly was.  If a Tower weighed twice as much, there was 0.2 KT of energy in it. If it weighed twice as much being twice as tall, then 0.4 KT of energy was in it at all times.

 Whether the building is on fire or not, it weighs the same and stands as tall, until gravity, not fire, starts into action.

Same as if you have a book on the table, and you push it off the edge so it drops on a weight scale. When it hits the scale, it scores the same (energy) force of gravity pushing its fall, every time, whether or not the book is on fire. Instead of a book, if you use a balloon full of water, the force measured when it falls down on the scale is the same, every time, whether the water is liquid or solid ice. And, if you know how tall the table is, and you know the weight of the book or water balloon, you can calculate the pounds of force the scale is going to show under the falling object and have that answer before you push the weight off the table.

It's not an "opinion," it's a calculation, it's a fact.

Each Twin Tower dust cloud measured 8.5 KT of (energy) force spreading out of the building. But only 0.1 KT of gravity pushed each building, straight down. This *Action* is NOT equal *Reaction* and was as if you dropped a 1 Ton book off the table and the scale measured 85 Tons hit it. 

The mystery of where the extra energy force came from, measured on 9/11, is an unsolved mystery.

American Corporate News has the factual calculation of the explosive equivalent energy number, the same place they got it for Mt. St. Helens.....so what is the difference with our Media Today?


----------



## Fizz (Jan 28, 2010)

is there any reason you posted this here AND started a new thread with the same post or are you just a fucking moron?


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 28, 2010)

Fizz said:


> is there any reason you posted this here AND started a new thread with the same post or are you just a fucking moron?


i will go with the later


----------



## Christophera (Jan 29, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CLEARLY not "thick butt plates", but some type of "lug". Look at the top red circle. These are welded to the SIDE of the column. I see two of them on the left side.
> 
> It's obvious you're making shit up as usual.



The furthest is definitely a "butt plate", the closer ones are a variation of "tab & slot" alignment aids used for box columns.  Other images show them.  They were used on the interior box columns as well.

You are making things up, not I.

Recall, the buildings engineer, another engineer and Oxford University all identify a concrete core and I show one on 9-11.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 29, 2010)

Christophera said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CLEARLY not "thick butt plates", but some type of "lug". Look at the top red circle. These are welded to the SIDE of the column. I see two of them on the left side.
> ...


you lie


----------



## Christophera (Jan 29, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Don't you mean, Robertson, Domel and Oxford lie?

Does this lie too?  We see no core columns behind the east concrete core wall of WTC 2 falling into the core.






We do see the spire in the background which is on the opposite side of the core.

The party that found that video made one of their own to substantiate with EVIDENCE the concrete core.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2MStxGeRdE[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 29, 2010)

Christophera said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...


did you notice, that concrete in your video is BELOW GRADE??????


no, of course a DUMBFUCK like you wouldnt


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 29, 2010)

it, just when i'm thinking chris has found someone that thinks as fucked up as he does, i find this video was made BY HIM


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 29, 2010)

Christophera said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CLEARLY not "thick butt plates", but some type of "lug". Look at the top red circle. These are welded to the SIDE of the column. I see two of them on the left side.
> ...



You won't own up to your lies eh? What a coward.

I'll keep asking this then.

You're just trying to get out of the fact that you LIE at every turn when you get caught presenting some bogus information.

You claim the "elevator guide rail steel" (which are actually core columns) could NOT have been core columns because they were to weak based on the supposed BOLTED butt plate connections. Then you were presented with closeup photos of those supposed "butt plate" connections that show they are in fact lug type pieces welded to the side of the columns. 

Then you are asked to present proof that those connections were only BOLTED (as you claimed) and then you turn around and say that they were welded also.

You have been proven to be a liar who can't keep all his lies straight. You been lying so much over the years, it's easy to go back and see how you've changed your story according to the mistakes people find in your bullshit.

You have been asked for proof as to why you've made these claims/changes and you can come up with none. 

So here's a simple question. Why did you lie and first say the "butt plate" connections were bolted and then turn around and say they were welded? I mean your reasoning as to why they are "guide rails" and not core columns is based solely on your claim that they had bolted connections and those connections are weak compared to welded connections.

Now you ADMIT that they were welded in addition to being bolted, which totally debunks your "weak connection" argument. Not to mention the fact that those are NOT "butt plates" as has been proven.


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 29, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 29, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> High school level Physics calculations show Gravity on the World Trade Center Towers was 0.1 KiloTons of TNT-equivalent energy in *"action".*
> 
> The debris and dust erupted over 8.5 KiloTons of 'TNT' energy in *"reaction".*
> 
> ...



Interesting. Any reason you didn't quote the entire article or give credit to the person who wrote it? Anyways, I have few question.

Let's look at two quotes from this article.



creativedreams said:


> When the top chunk of Mt. St. Helens turned into a cloud of dust, thrown on the landscape,



and 



creativedreams said:


> Like an Example problem in Physics homework, multiply the massive weight of the rock times how far it flew against gravity's energy forcing it down to the ground.



Are you (or the original author) trying to say that the "massive weight of the rock" and "dust" are the same things? I fail to see how "dust clouds" are similar to "massive rocks" or "books".


----------



## Christophera (Jan 29, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 29, 2010)

Christophera said:


> I've stated many times that butt plates were only used when the elevator guide rail support steel needed to be re aligned.  The butt plates allow that, welds do not.



And I've asked you to provide me proof that the "butt plates" you say were "bolted", were NOT also welded.

If they were "bolted" after alignment and then welded, your "weak connection" argument is nothing but bullshit.

So were is your proof that those connections were not welded in addition to being bolted?


----------



## Christophera (Jan 29, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > I've stated many times that butt plates were only used when the elevator guide rail support steel needed to be re aligned.  The butt plates allow that, welds do not.
> ...



I've asked for images from 9-11 showing the supposed steel core columns in the core area for about 6 years, they have neve been provided.

Common sense dictates that there will be no butt plate if a weld is to be used.  To have a joint with uneqal flex weakens a structural member.  The elevator guide rail support steel were not structural to the building, but they were to the alignment of the elevators.  

You however work for the perpetrators to conceal the secret methods of mass murder and have no reason to use common sense.

The verifications of the concrete core are massive, and independent.  Clearly, Robertson is verified by Oxford, verifying Domel verified by the image of WTC 2 core, verifying the top of WTC 2 core falling onto WTC 3, the WTC 1 rebar, just after the WTC 1 west core wall is seen in an end view, then, the WTC 1 east shear wall toppling, consistent with interior box columns silhouetted on WTC 1 north core wall, consistent with ground zero showing the WTC 1 north concrete core base wall, 12 foot thick, all supported as clarification of the many confused statements that do mention concrete in the core including the latest revised NIST contracted analysis of free fall by Bazant et. al 6/21/2007,  which actually provides an equivalent amount of high explosives needed to create the rate of fall they are attempting to justify with physics.  It doesn't work, but at least they won't go down in history as totally supporting the deceptions.


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 29, 2010)

Christophera said:


> Common sense dictates that there will be no butt plate if a weld is to be used.  To have a joint with uneqal flex weakens a structural member.  The elevator guide rail support steel were not structural to the building, but they were to the alignment of the elevators.



Common sense dictates that after the elevator guide rail support steel was aligned and bolted, they would weld the joints to keep them that way. 

You lose.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 29, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > Common sense dictates that there will be no butt plate if a weld is to be used.  To have a joint with uneqal flex weakens a structural member.  The elevator guide rail support steel were not structural to the building, but they were to the alignment of the elevators.
> ...


and thats conceding that core columns were elevator guide rail supports and not core columns


----------



## Christophera (Jan 29, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...



Wrong.  You suggest that more unneeded work was done and such a suggestion is not logical.  Recall, the elevator guide rail supports are in compression only except for minimal lateral loads from elevators.  The bolts were probably tightened with a wrench of a specific length to be sure that torques were adequate.

What is logical is that you are working for the perpetrators interests of keeping the methods of mass murder secret.

Especially since you refuse to acknowledge a violation of law that enables the deception I evidence.

AND you have no independently verified evidence of steel core columns in the core area on 9-11 where they absolutely would be seen.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 29, 2010)

Christophera said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


i have seen and posted TONS of evidence
you're just too fucking delusional to admit it


----------



## Fizz (Jan 29, 2010)

Christophera said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



you are a fucking moron.

you believe that the government has secretly stolen every picture of a concrete core that ever existed. this includes all pictures from every magazine, all pictures from every newspaper.... and here comes the impossible part.... all personal pictures that ever existed both on the internet and privately.

and you want to bring logic into the conversation? you are a deadbeat moronic idiot!!


----------



## Christophera (Jan 30, 2010)

Fizz said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



I can prove the plans were taken by guiliani .  And the plans are a part of all civic center documents.  Dr. Ron Larsen found that the documentary, "The Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers" once existed in the PBS records.  Here is an update to his search.  An excerpt from his web radio show.

http://algoxy.com/psych/audio/rl-cb6-27-07pbs.doc_1-2.mp3

You are the one using the word government.  I've just proven the courts helped guiliani.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 30, 2010)

Christophera said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...


now prove that was the ONLY set of plans available


dipshit


----------



## Fizz (Jan 30, 2010)

Christophera said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



i didnt say anything about the plans. you are trying to change the subject again. explain to us how "the perpetrators" (sorry, i said goverment.) removed every single picture of your concrete core from the internet, every book and every persons home that has ever taken a picture of the constructions of the world trade center. explain how that is even possible. how do "the perpetrators" even know who was in new york with a camera during the time the WTC was being constructed?


----------



## Christophera (Jan 30, 2010)

Fizz said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



I've found lots of private pictures of the Twins from construction, but the core was up to  60 foot back from the perimeter walls and so dark that usually only silhouettes of objects are seen.

The best were in the WTC documents that guiliani took. 

*The records are said to include appointment books, cabinet meeting audiotapes, e-mails, telephone logs, advance and briefing memos, correspondence, transition materials, and private schedules, as well as Mr. Giuliani&#8217;s departmental, travel, event, subject, and Gracie Mansion files. Giuliani's "World Trade Center files" and "Millennium Project files," together with 6000 files of photographs, 1000 audiotapes, and 15,000 videotapes, are also reported to be a part of the records covered by the contract.*

How would you contact every single person that took pictures of the WTC during construction?  I can't seem to figure out how to do that when you apparently think such is possible?

Which means you should be able to come up with a construction photo showing diagonal bracing in the core and gusset plates that are absolutely needed for a steel core structure never seen on 9-11.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 30, 2010)

Christophera said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...


and NO WHERE does that say "Plans to the WTC"


----------



## Christophera (Jan 30, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



All civic center documents contain the plans, logically.  Otherwise, if there is an emergency in the building the plans might not be accessable.  Which is exactly why guiliani took them.  The article originally had the plans listed when I first found it, but then I started linking to it and that disappeared, then it was archived.

Why don't you have access to the official plans?


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 30, 2010)

Christophera said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...


we do, you dipshit
you have been given a link to them SEVERAL times


----------



## Christophera (Jan 30, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



That is a lie.  If any link was given it was to the fake plan (silverstein plans shown inaccurate).  Logically if what you say was true, you would link again.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 30, 2010)

Christophera said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...


its not a lie, dipshit, you are just fucking delusional


----------



## Christophera (Jan 30, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



That is what the perpetrators of mass murder would want people to believe.  However, it *is logical that IF* you had a link to official plans you would post it.  You don't, so you lie.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 30, 2010)

Christophera said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...


why would i post yet another link for you to totally deny
you are a delusional piece of shit


----------



## Christophera (Jan 30, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



You would if you could but you can't because you have lied.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 30, 2010)

Christophera said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...


sure you have


----------



## Fizz (Jan 30, 2010)

Christophera said:


> That is what the perpetrators of mass murder would want people to believe.  However, it *is logical that IF* you had a link to official plans you would post it.  You don't, so you lie.



you are mental. your logic is flawed. you claiming "its logical" means that you cant prove it. your logic doesnt work here. according to you, logically, people cant blink at you aggressively and hypnotize you. your logic claims that "the perpetrators" can steal every picture out of the homes, libraries and businesses all over the world and completely cleanse the world of images of your concrete core. your logic makes no sense.


----------



## Christophera (Jan 31, 2010)

Fizz said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > That is what the perpetrators of mass murder would want people to believe.  However, it *is logical that IF* you had a link to official plans you would post it.  You don't, so you lie.
> ...



A distortion and misrepresentation.  You are trying to present that because you cannot produce a link to the official plans that somehow I can't prove something.

Two separate issues.

I prove the concrete core.







and you prove you lie by failing to repost the link you said was posted that led to official building plans.


----------



## Fizz (Jan 31, 2010)

Christophera said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...



no distortion. your logic is flawed. you are nuts. you are crazy. you are a deadbeat. you were sentenced to jail time for abandoning your children. you claim people blink at you aggressively to try to hypnotize you.

these are all facts. not distortions.

you have never proven a concrete core. the reason for this is because the core was steel. you have never refuted all the pics i post which show the steel core.

no idea what link you are talking about.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 31, 2010)

Fizz said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...


the dipshit is confusing you with me now
LOL
he has had the link posted for him serveral times
and he has denied it every time
to post it once again would be insane
to expect a different results from posting it


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Jan 31, 2010)

You have asserted repeatedly that the WTC buildings fell at the same rate as free fall.  Accelerating at 1 foot per second per second.  At the end of the collapse, 300kph. Can you verify that somehow?

The number I have seen is very different.:
Engineer on the collapse


> Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.
> 
> The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak pointsthe limiting factors on design allowableswere the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.
> 
> As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.



One goofy troofer site did an "experiment" that proved the WTC7 fell faster than it would have in free fall in a VACUUM.  If your experiment shows that kind of "proof" something is wrong with the experiment and needs to be re examined.

All the movies of WTC 7 are from its intact side.  There was no other view available.   But the damage WTC7 received from the collapse of its neighbor was substantial 

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics

WTC burned for 5 hours with a huge hole in the south side and there was no firefighting done on the structure at all.



> "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom  approximately 10 stories  about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.


----------



## Fizz (Feb 1, 2010)

Baruch Menachem said:


> You have asserted repeatedly that the WTC buildings fell at the same rate as free fall.  Accelerating at 1 foot per second per second.  At the end of the collapse, 300kph. Can you verify that somehow?



i've seen a bunch of calculations but the easiest way to see that the buildings did NOT fall at free fall is that the debris from the collapse out paces the collapse itself.


----------



## candycorn (Feb 1, 2010)

Fizz said:


> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> > You have asserted repeatedly that the WTC buildings fell at the same rate as free fall.  Accelerating at 1 foot per second per second.  At the end of the collapse, 300kph. Can you verify that somehow?
> ...



Dude who started this thread needs a support group.


----------



## Christophera (Feb 2, 2010)

Fizz said:


> no idea what link you are talking about.



You lie again.  

You never posted the link to the official plans.

Here is the west core wall of WTC 2 on the left with the spirre on the right.  Empty core far left.


----------



## Christophera (Feb 2, 2010)

Fizz said:


> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> > You have asserted repeatedly that the WTC buildings fell at the same rate as free fall.  Accelerating at 1 foot per second per second.  At the end of the collapse, 300kph. Can you verify that somehow?
> ...



Not by much.


----------



## Fizz (Feb 2, 2010)

Christophera said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > no idea what link you are talking about.
> ...



i never said i would post a link to the official plans. i said that robertson has them. he has shared them with several organizations. i've emailed LERA (his company) and received a reply from robertson himself stating that the WTC had a steel core and anyone saying otherwise is in error. i'm sure you have emailed him too and got the same reply. if you havent you are a moron. if you have you refuse to admit it. if you received no reply its because you are an insane moron and that must have been obvious in your email.

your picture shows the steel core. no concrete in your picture. thanks for posting it.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 2, 2010)

candycorn said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > Baruch Menachem said:
> ...


and a straight jacket


----------



## Christophera (Feb 2, 2010)

Fizz said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...





DiveCon said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Seeing you and divot behave identically and are probably the same individual, you might have.  Technically I am in error, as I show with the quoted post of divot who is a proven liar as well.

However, my point is made.  There are no official plans for the Twin Towers


----------



## Fizz (Feb 2, 2010)

Christophera said:


> Seeing you and divot behave identically and are probably the same individual, you might have.  Technically I am in error, as I show with the quoted post of divot who is a proven liar as well.
> 
> However, my point is made.  There are no official plans for the Twin Towers



you and a Slug behave identically. you have the same intelligence and you both abandon your young.


your point isnt valid. robertson has the official plans and shares them with government agencies that want them for investigations. in robertson's email to me he also stated that any questions about the fact the world trade center had a steel core can also be directed to the port authority so apparently they have them to. because neither published them online (as far as i know) does not mean they dont exist. they obviously do.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 2, 2010)

Christophera said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...


LOL you are a PROVEN delusional liar and you are a convict
LOL


----------



## Christophera (Feb 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



This is fact.  The west wall of WTC 1 concrete core.






You have no images of steel core columns in the core area on 9-11.  No one does.  They did not exist.  This is a lie.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 3, 2010)

Christophera said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...



yes, i know it is


----------



## Fizz (Feb 3, 2010)

Christophera said:


> This is fact.  The west wall of WTC 1 concrete core.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



nothing but steel and smoke in your photo. no concrete core. 

but thanks for showing the steel core columns on 9/11 and then making the stupid claim that there are no pictures of it.


----------



## Christophera (Feb 3, 2010)

Fizz said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > This is fact.  The west wall of WTC 1 concrete core.
> ...



An empty core is what is seen.

If you had an image with steel core columns clearly in the core area with dust and smoke, you would have shown it, but you do not.  

The steel core columns did not exist.

A tubular concrete core of shear walls did.  The east wall of the WTC 1 concrete core.


----------



## Fizz (Feb 3, 2010)

Christophera said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...



this picture is a picture of the columns of the steel core on 9/11





you apparently think they are concrete.


----------



## Christophera (Feb 3, 2010)

Fizz said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



Event the other agents do not attempt that as a misrepresentation.  The lower image shows the inside of the core area EMPTY.  We see opposite ends of the WTC 1 concrete core.

Here is the a part of the top of the WTC 2 concrete core about to impact WTC 3.






The buildings engineer on September 13, 2001 identified a concrete core.

*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&#8212;managing to stand for over an hour despite direct hits from two massive commercial jetliners.
*


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 3, 2010)

Christophera said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...


THAT is a section of FLOOR
you can even see the trusses


dipshit


----------



## Fizz (Feb 3, 2010)

Christophera said:


> The buildings engineer on September 13, 2001 identified a concrete core.
> 
> *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.
> *



no, you fucking lying moron, robertson NEVER said it was a concrete core. it wasnt. your article shows the REPORTER saying it was a concrete core. you keep lying and saying robertson said something he didnt.

you are a liar. you are a criminal. you are trying to make money off 9/11 by selling a book with your concrete core hoax. you refuse to support your own children even after being ordered to do it by the courts. you are scum.


----------



## Christophera (Feb 4, 2010)

Fizz said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > The buildings engineer on September 13, 2001 identified a concrete core.
> ...



Robertson of the September 13, Newsweek article (It is not reasonable to suggest that when 3,000 are murdered, Newsweek would NOT make sure the information was good or that the engineering firm designing the building that collapsed would NOT demand, and recieve a correction)

August Domel,  Ph.d SE. PE ground zero safety report. (He saw FEMA plans 2 weeks after 9-11 at ground zero)

Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992



Fizz said:


> you are a liar. you are a criminal. you are trying to make money off 9/11 by selling a book with your concrete core hoax.



Bwahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, you don't even know what the book is about.

About the book, "After the Event"



Fizz said:


> you refuse to support your own children even after being ordered to do it by the courts. you are scum.



The reverse of what agents say is true.

My children have always been well taken care of.  The ex wife needed extra money for pharmacuetical drugs.

You support the secret methods of mass murder and the demise of the US Constitution and refuse to recognize violations of law that enable the FEMA deception.

There are children that will wonder why you hated their rights and freedom so much then worked so hard to destroy their futures.


----------



## Fizz (Feb 4, 2010)

Christophera said:


> Robertson of the September 13, Newsweek article (It is not reasonable to suggest that when 3,000 are murdered, Newsweek would NOT make sure the information was good or that the engineering firm designing the building that collapsed would NOT demand, and recieve a correction)


the article was wrong. newsweek later reported that it was a steel core. your article was removed from their website which is why you need to use a web archive link. you lie and say robertson said something he never did. the funny part is you try to say its "reasonable" and this come froms the same guy that tries to introduce records from 1876 in his failure to pay child support case!! 




Christophera said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > you are a liar. you are a criminal. you are trying to make money off 9/11 by selling a book with your concrete core hoax.
> ...


dont care what the book is about. i'm sure its just as rambling and incoherent as your posts here and it probably makes even less sense (if that is at all possible). i do know your book isnt doing well as you claim to make only $9000 a year and depend on your sister to support you. hopefully someday your income will break the 5 figure barrier. 



Christophera said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > you refuse to support your own children even after being ordered to do it by the courts. you are scum.
> ...



YOU didnt support your children. you made someone else do it because you are too much of a scumbag. you abandoned them. you spent money on paying to get your book published instead of paying your child support.

there is no secret method of mass murder. 19 hijackers flew planes into buildings. there is no fema deception. there is no destruction of the constitution and there is no concrete core.

its all in your head.


----------



## Christophera (Feb 4, 2010)

It seems that you've proven that things are the opposite of what you say if you are trying to say this,






Looks like this,


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 4, 2010)

Christophera said:


> It seems that you've proven that things are the opposite of what you say if you are trying to say this,
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like this,


only a fucking moron like you would keep posting this bullshit


----------



## Christophera (Feb 4, 2010)

They finally sent someone out to describe you.  Except the disinof psyop has been happening for years.

Patterico&#039;s Pontifications  An Explanation for the Trolls?
*Sunstein advocates that the Governments stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups. He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called independent credible voices to bolster the Governments messaging (on the ground that those who dont believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government).*


----------



## Fizz (Feb 4, 2010)

Christophera said:


> It seems that you've proven that things are the opposite of what you say if you are trying to say this,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



exactly. you finally got it right. the fema description of the steel core is the picture you keep showing.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 4, 2010)

Christophera said:


> They finally sent someone out to describe you.  Except the disinof psyop has been happening for years.
> 
> Patterico&#039;s Pontifications  An Explanation for the Trolls?
> *Sunstein advocates that the Governments stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups. He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called independent credible voices to bolster the Governments messaging (on the ground that those who dont believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government).*


gee, i'm getting paid to call you a fucking moron?
when does the first check come?


----------



## creativedreams (Feb 4, 2010)

Anyone with a lick of common sense can see that this is not just a collapsing building and that everything but the steel was exploded into dust before it even hits the gound.....unless of course they are a full time propaganda pusher on a constant "debunking" mission......

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_B_Azbg0go"]YouTube- South Tower Smoking Guns[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBVhxnkK6s8"]YouTube- South Tower Smoking Guns (Follow-up)[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 4, 2010)

god damn, how many times are you going to spam the exact same moronic bullshit?


----------



## candycorn (Feb 4, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> god damn, how many times are you going to spam the exact same moronic bullshit?



The really sad thing is that he's been posting the same exact photos for about a year now...the same exact phrases that people long ago have decided were rubbish; yet here they go again. 

WTC Buildings Linked to Controlled Demolition: Solid Sources - Page 4 - Political Forum

He used to have at least five socks each on two different message boards; at least, so far, he's kept it to only one idiot on this board.  I guess he's getting lazy.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 4, 2010)

candycorn said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > god damn, how many times are you going to spam the exact same moronic bullshit?
> ...


so then, a better name for this one would be "repetitive delusions"


----------



## candycorn (Feb 4, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Nice!.  

I say this with a sincere amount of respect but dude, unless you had been on Argue with Everyone and Political Forum, you have no idea of the amount of pure garbage this guy has produced over the last year or so.  He claimed that other countries were going to invade the US over 9/11.  He claimed that a Russian General (who had retired for 12 years) was plotting--with the Chinese of course--to invade us.  He claimed that the thermite was actually put into microchips and that a guy could walk around with a bag of them just sticking them on to the wall to get this "controlled demolition" except that on the lower levels these master technicians "forgot" to plant explosives there.  Whoops!  

Those were some of the brain farts of his/hers that got some attention.  I'm sure I'm missing the really bizarre ones that nobody payed any attention to.


----------



## Fizz (Feb 4, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> Anyone with a lick of common sense can see that this is not just a collapsing building and that everything but the steel was exploded into dust before it even hits the gound.....unless of course they are a full time propaganda pusher on a constant "debunking" mission......



or they arent a completely paranoid, delusional fucktard.

so when are you going to start calling for Khaled Sheik Mohammad to be set free?!!


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 5, 2010)

candycorn said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


LOL holy shit


----------



## candycorn (Feb 5, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



*Its sort of like a worst-case scenario of what happens when a fanatic is actually stupid.  Not only do you get the incessant bickering of a broken record, but you also get the incessant bickering of someone who doesn't have the remotest clue of what they are talking about yet claim to be experts in the field.  

*


----------



## Christophera (Feb 5, 2010)

The FEMA deception was enabled by

guiliani took the WTC document while the courts protect their hiding and NIST did not have the buildings plans.

The truth movement is deceived by quasi leaders that use Fake plans or obsolete plans altered digitally after being scanned and presnt construction photos showing what are elevator guide rail support steel and claiming they are 'core columns"

This is proven by close up photos showing "butt plates: on top of the guide rail support steel which are too weak of a method for joining "steel core columns".






Which can only be joined by a 100% deep fillet weld as is shown on this "I" beam.






And the core area is ALWAYS empty on 9-11






No steel core columns are ever seen.


----------



## Fizz (Feb 5, 2010)

Christophera said:


> The FEMA deception was enabled by
> 
> guiliani took the WTC document while the courts protect their hiding and NIST did not have the buildings plans.
> 
> ...



there is no concrete core. if there is then show a picture of it under construction and building plans and all the other documentation we have for a STEEL CORE.

you are simply a paranoid and delusional lunatic.


----------



## Christophera (Feb 5, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> god damn, how many times are you going to spam the exact same moronic bullshit?



Since I have evidence, I must use it.  You are free to tell all the lies you can dream up traitor.

The Twin towers had a concrete rectangular, tubular core.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 5, 2010)

Christophera said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > god damn, how many times are you going to spam the exact same moronic bullshit?
> ...


i wasn't even referring to you, dip[shit


----------



## Christophera (Feb 5, 2010)

Fizz said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > The FEMA deception was enabled by
> ...



Your masters stole the plans

guiliani took them while the courts protect their hiding

They stole the 2 hour documentary titled "The Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers."  The search for it found record in the PBS files.  Dr, Ron Larsen, Ph.D and a former Marine major conducted a search.  Here is an update from a 2007 web radio show you can listen to.

http://algoxy.com/psych/audio/rl-cb6-27-07pbs.doc_1-2.mp3


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 5, 2010)

Christophera said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...


you are a delusional fucktard
there were more than ONE SET OF PLANS for the WTC
hell, just to build a HOUSE you need 7 sets minimum


----------



## Fizz (Feb 5, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



all anyone needs to do is go to the website of robertson's company and see they shared the plans with several agencies.

chris is simply delusional.

and a criminal.

and a deadbeat dad.


----------



## creativedreams (Feb 5, 2010)

*All us so called "Truthers" can do is sit back and watch our country fall apart and become hated by the world......because the likes of you have it in your twisted thoughts that you stand for what's right by swaying people against wanting a new official investigation.*


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 5, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> *All us so called "Truthers" can do is sit back and watch our country fall apart and become hated by the world......because the likes of you have it in your twisted thoughts that you stand for what's right by swaying people against wanting a new official investigation.*


you fucktards do not "search for the truth" because searching for the truth wouldnt require you to LIE as much as you assholes do


----------



## Fizz (Feb 5, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> *All us so called "Truthers" can do is sit back and watch our country fall apart and become hated by the world......because the likes of you have it in your twisted thoughts that you stand for what's right by swaying people against wanting a new official investigation.*



CVS Pharmacy just called. your prescription is ready for pickup.


----------



## Christophera (Feb 5, 2010)

Rebar of the north and west concrete core walls of WTC 1.  The empty core area is on the right.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 5, 2010)

Christophera said:


> Rebar of the north and west concrete core walls of WTC 1.  The empty core area is on the right.


not rebar, because none was used
please show rebar cages during construction


----------



## Christophera (Feb 5, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > Rebar of the north and west concrete core walls of WTC 1.  The empty core area is on the right.
> ...



You masters took all he construction photos 3 months after 9-11guiliani took the WTC documents from NYC offices while the courts protect their hiding

*Our concern is based on the following facts, as we understand them. On or about December 24, 2001, Commissioner George Rios, on behalf of the City of New York and/or the Department of Records and Information Services of the City of New York, entered into a contract with the Rudolph W. Giuliani Center for Urban Affairs Inc., signed by Saul Cohen, President, concerning the records of the mayoralty of Rudolph Giuliani. The records are said to include appointment books, cabinet meeting audiotapes, e-mails, telephone logs, advance and briefing memos, correspondence, transition materials, and private schedules, as well as Mr. Giuliani&#8217;s departmental, travel, event, subject, and Gracie Mansion files. Giuliani's "World Trade Center files" and "Millennium Project files," together with 6000 files of photographs, 1000 audiotapes, and 15,000 videotapes,*

Building plans are always part of civic center documents.

The perps, your masters also took the 1990 PBS documentary from the PBS archives as well as libraries across the nation.  Dr. ron Larsen Ph.D and a former marine major conducted a search.  Here is an update from his 2007 web radio show.

http://algoxy.com/psych/audio/rl-cb6-27-07pbs.doc_1-2.mp3

I can say to you.  "If the steel core columns existed, then show them in the core area on 9-11 when the building were coming part in front of hundreds of cameras."

I can show concrete.  A portion of the top of the WTC concrete core falling, surrounded by pieces of perimeter columns.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 5, 2010)

Christophera said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...


that photo(removed) is of a FLOOR section(hint: you can see the floor trusses in it) and not any part of the core
since there was ZERO concrete in the core above grade


----------



## Christophera (Feb 5, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > I can show concrete.  A portion of the top of the WTC concrete core falling, surrounded by pieces of perimeter columns.
> ...



No trusses are seen.  Null post


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 5, 2010)

Christophera said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...


thus proving you are nothing but a delusional fucktard


----------



## Fizz (Feb 5, 2010)

Christophera said:


> You masters took all he construction photos 3 months after 9-11http://web.archive.org/web/20020224015919/http://www.nyclu.org/g_archive020602.html




explain how it is possible to remove every picture of a concrete core from every home, every library and every picture from every server from every country around the world.

please explain how the impossible task of even finding every picture of a concrete core could even be accomplished.

your statement that "masters removed all the pictures" is one of the most delusional and idiotic statements i have ever heard in my entire life.


----------



## Christophera (Feb 5, 2010)

Fizz said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > Your masters took all he construction photos 3 months after 9-11http://web.archive.org/web/20020224015919/http://www.nyclu.org/g_archive020602.html
> ...




Explain how you think I could check each place you name and obtain the images or video.  I have evidenced that guiliani took the WTC documents containing the photos and the plans.

NIST did not have the plans and the cause of death is not valid.

9-11 images of the core cannot be misrepresented, only misinterpreted and my interpretations are consistent with independent verifications.

 Clearly, [url=http://web.archive.org/web/20040807085840/http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3069641/]Robertson is verified by Oxford, verifying Domel verified by the image of WTC 2 core, verifying the top of WTC 2 core falling onto WTC 3, the WTC 1 rebar, just after the WTC 1 west core wall is seen in an end view, then, the WTC 1 east shear wall toppling, consistent with interior box columns silhouetted on WTC 1 north core wall, consistent with ground zero showing the WTC 1 north concrete core base wall, 12 foot thick, all supported as clarification of the many confused statements that do mention concrete in the core including the latest revised NIST contracted analysis of free fall by Bazant et. al 6/21/2007,  which actually provides an equivalent amount of high explosives needed to create the rate of fall they are attempting to justify with physics.  It doesn't work, but at least they won't go down in history as totally supporting the deceptions.


----------



## Fizz (Feb 5, 2010)

Christophera said:


> Explain how you think I could check each place you name and obtain the images or video.  I have evidenced that guiliani took the WTC documents containing the photos and the plans.


there are photos of the steel core on the internet. gulliani cant take pictures off the internet. there are no pictures of a concrete core ANYWHERE because there was no concrete core.



Christophera said:


> NIST did not have the plans and the cause of death is not valid.


robertson gave the NIST the plans. go  to his website and read all about it. the cause of death is "homicide" and is valid.



Christophera said:


> 9-11 images of the core cannot be misrepresented, only misinterpreted and my interpretations are consistent with independent verifications.


exactly. and thats why you cant show any images of of the concrete core. they dont exist. you cant misrepresent them.



Christophera said:


> Clearly, Robertson is verified by Oxford, verifying Domel verified by the image of WTC 2 core, verifying the top of WTC 2 core falling onto WTC 3, the WTC 1 rebar, just after the WTC 1 west core wall is seen in an end view, then, the WTC 1 east shear wall toppling, consistent with interior box columns silhouetted on WTC 1 north core wall, consistent with ground zero showing the WTC 1 north concrete core base wall, 12 foot thick, all supported as clarification of the many confused statements that do mention concrete in the core including the latest revised NIST contracted analysis of free fall by Bazant et. al 6/21/2007,  which actually provides an equivalent amount of high explosives needed to create the rate of fall they are attempting to justify with physics.  It doesn't work, but at least they won't go down in history as totally supporting the deceptions.



you are simply crazy. anyone checking your links can see your delusions that you claim robertson said things he didnt say, oxford isnt saying what you claim it is saying.

here is your missing PBS documentary. it says.........

(wait for it....... )





STEEL CORE!!!! 
American Experience | The Center of the World - New York: A Documentary Film


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 5, 2010)

Fizz said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > Explain how you think I could check each place you name and obtain the images or video.  I have evidenced that guiliani took the WTC documents containing the photos and the plans.
> ...


nice find


----------



## Christophera (Feb 6, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...



Uh huh.  That is what happened to the footage, it got re edited in 2003 into a mass deception.  The proof of this is that NO image from 9-11 can be found showing the supposed steel core columns in the core area.

What is seen is an empty core,






As in "surrounded with rebar" on the left in the above image.  Or a concrete tubular core like below when ALL of the exterior stel has fallen away with absolutely NO steel protruding from the core area.






So you can attempt to make Robertson, Domel, and Oxford, wrong, but all you are doing is exposing yourselfs as agents of treason supporting secret methods of mass murder.


----------



## Fizz (Feb 6, 2010)

you just showed us two pictures of the steel core on 9/11, jackass.


----------



## Christophera (Feb 6, 2010)

Fizz said:


> you just showed us two pictures of the steel core on 9/11, jackass.



You've just impeached yourself as a person having any technical ability to identify building material, . . . or confirmed you are an agent working to conceal the methods of mass murder.

The psyops, working to make day into night.


----------



## Fizz (Feb 6, 2010)

Christophera said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > you just showed us two pictures of the steel core on 9/11, jackass.
> ...



there's no concrete in your pictures. you have proof otherwise?


----------



## Christophera (Feb 7, 2010)

Fizz said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



By your account this would be steel turned to dust.






And you have totally failed to explain what this is if not concrete.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 7, 2010)

no, dipshit
there was concrete in the FLOORS
not in the core


----------



## Fizz (Feb 7, 2010)

Christophera said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...



no jackass, thats not how it works out here in the real world. YOU are the one claiming it is concrete so it is up to YOU to PROVE IT. it could be made of marshmellows for all we know. if you are going to claim you know what it is then PROVE IT!!!


----------



## Christophera (Feb 7, 2010)

Fizz said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



DONE!

*Clearly, Robertson is verified by Oxford, verifying Domel verified by the image of WTC 2 core, verifying the top of WTC 2 core falling onto WTC 3, the WTC 1 rebar, just after the WTC 1 west core wall is seen in an end view, then, the WTC 1 east shear wall toppling, consistent with interior box columns silhouetted on WTC 1 north core wall, consistent with ground zero showing the WTC 1 north concrete core base wall, 12 foot thick, all supported as clarification of the many confused statements that do mention concrete in the core including the latest revised NIST contracted analysis of free fall by Bazant et. al 6/21/2007,  which actually provides an equivalent amount of high explosives needed to create the rate of fall they are attempting to justify with physics.  It doesn't work, but at least they won't go down in history as totally supporting the deceptions.*


----------



## Fizz (Feb 7, 2010)

your "done" is full of lies...... robertson never said what you claim he did. oxford was using the world trade center as an example of what a skyscraper is, etc...

you keep showing pictures and claiming they show concrete. PROVE THEY SHOW CONCRETE. they dont. there was no concrete core. you have no proof. no construction photos. no building plans. no construction worker interviews. 

you simply make shit up. where is your documentation that the core columns shown here are really "elevator guide rail supports"???!!


----------

