FEMA Deceives Nation About Twin Towers Core

[kyzr]

Personally ask the engineer who designed the WTC towers yourself. OMG, do you have any idea how cool it would be to get an answer from the Man himself? Or are you too sick in the head to admit you're simply a dupe?
Leslie E Robertson e-mail: [email protected]
just ask him if there were any concrete walls in the core above ground level. Then respect his answer, and thank him for the reply.

1. Here is the design page LERA | World Trade Center
LERA | World Trade Center
there is no mention of any concrete walls. only viscoelastic dampers. Why would they need to add dampers if the core was concrete?

2. Do you or don't you agree that the hijacked planes hitting the towers caused the WTC towers' collapse?

3. if there was a "secret method of mass murder" what was it, and why wait around for jets to hit the towers, why not just knock them down in a wind storm and kill 250,000?

4. You continually fail to describe the conspiracy. Who all was involved?

5. what difference would it make if there was a concrete core or not? If the buildings stood for ~35-years, however they were built was fine. What knocked them down?

Well, it appears you've revised your statement to actually reflect actual questions.

1) The dampers went between the corrugated steel floor pans at the connection to the perimeter walls spandrel plates and floorbeams connecting interior box columns on the core end. Concrete does flex over distances and the dampers made the floor diaphrams quiet with the tiny dimensional changes with flex that did exist in the towers with the concrete tubular core. The towers were reported to have flexed a maximum of 12 feet off plumb at the top, 8 foot was the design average, and 4 foot was common in higher winds.

They survived 100 mph winds 3 times and were designed for 120. A survivor of WTC 1's attack said he felt a horizontal displacement of up to 7 feet on the 73rd floor. He almost fell off his chair.

2) Yes, planes hit the towers and yes there were hijacker psycho/suicidal muslims flying them. The rest are off topic. The proper order of questions within investigation are;
1) What happened? <jet liners hit the towers, engineers analyzed the design & collapse>
2) How did it happen? <we say the jet liner caused the collapse, do you agree yet?>
3) Who did it? <we both agree muslim terrorists did it>

The truth movement has not even gotten through 1) because of the FEMA deception. They don't even know what it happened to, ....... let alone HOW it happened.

0. you refuse to email the WTC design engineer, Mr. Robertson, if there was a concrete core, or if FEMA mis-represented his tower structure. We both know the answer, the WTC plans were well documented for over 35-years, with no concrete core.

1. The dampers were added because the light steel tower swayed too much. Concrete doesn't flex significantly without cracking. I'll gladly review any calculations on how much a concrete core would flex in a 120 mph wind. No way concrete core walls could flex 12' w/o collapsing. There is no FEMA deception, or engineers would have noticed.

2. Sanity. Ok. This is good. Jet liners hit the towers. One more baby-step now. Did the planes made the towers fall down. <yes they did>

3. if there was a "secret method of mass murder" what was it, and why wait around for jets to hit the towers, why not just knock them down in a wind storm and kill 250,000?
<we agree massive jet liners hit the towers at 450mph>

4. You continually fail to describe the conspiracy. Who all was involved? <there was no conspiracy, or Mr. Robertson would have noticed>

5. what difference would it make if there was a concrete core or not? If the buildings stood for ~35-years, however they were built was fine. What was the conspiracy about, imaginary concrete walls? <I was in the WTC towers, and there were no concrete walls, we would have seen them. The see-thru photos show clearly that the floor plans are accurate, even in the partial plan you posted thick walls would be visible>

Questions 3, 4, and 5 are very much on-topic. They actually define the "conspiracy" you are trying to promote.

 

[Christophera]

so says the delusional one


Mr Brown fails AGAIN

Either I'm delusional, ........ or you are lying. You imply you have posted an image of a steel core column in the core area on 9-11.

I say, ............ you lie.

If that is NOT true, you will post an image of a steel core column in the core area on 9-11.

then YOU show a SINGLE photo of concrete in the core above grade during constrution


you cant, and that because there was NONE
long before 9/11 it was touted that it didnt have concrete in the core above grade

You've just been exposed lying again in th e"Useful Information" thread,

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1712950-post121.html

and you are lying here too. You have never posted an image of a steel core column in the core area on 9-11.

 

[DiveCon]

Either I'm delusional, ........ or you are lying. You imply you have posted an image of a steel core column in the core area on 9-11.

I say, ............ you lie.

If that is NOT true, you will post an image of a steel core column in the core area on 9-11.

then YOU show a SINGLE photo of concrete in the core above grade during constrution


you cant, and that because there was NONE
long before 9/11 it was touted that it didnt have concrete in the core above grade

You've just been exposed lying again in th e"Useful Information" thread,

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1712950-post121.html

and you are lying here too. You have never posted an image of a steel core column in the core area on 9-11.

there was NO lie there by ME asshole

you are the one exposed as the fucking moronic liar

 

[Christophera]

then YOU show a SINGLE photo of concrete in the core above grade during constrution


you cant, and that because there was NONE
long before 9/11 it was touted that it didnt have concrete in the core above grade

You've just been exposed lying again in the "Useful Information" thread,

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1712950-post121.html

and you are lying here too. You have never posted an image of a steel core column in the core area on 9-11.

there was NO lie there by ME asshole

you are the one exposed as the fucking moronic liar

You've been asked to provide an image of the supposed steel core columns and you have continually failed. You've said you have posted such an image and you have not. This is called lying and you are called a liar.

Reasonably, I can assert the construction photos of the towers construction could be filtered by the perpetrating infiltrators of all images showing concrete being poured, just like the PBS documentary was removed from the archives of PBS. Dr. Ron Larsen Ph.d mentions that he found traces of mention of the "Engineering and Construction of the Twin towers" video documentary in his search for it. Here is a download of the .mp3 audio file of his readio show where he discusses the search.

6/20/07 interview (documentary search update 17:50 minutes)
LCB-062007-16kb-Chris.mp3 - www.libertycalling.com

It is not reasonable to assert that the supposed images showing steel core columns in the core area on 9-11 have been removed from the many different public sources of 9-11 images. Such images of steel core column on 9-11 never existed because the steel core columns did not exist.

The concrete core is very visible.

 

[Christophera]

Personally ask the engineer who designed the WTC towers yourself. OMG, do you have any idea how cool it would be to get an answer from the Man himself? Or are you too sick in the head to admit you're simply a dupe?
Leslie E Robertson e-mail: [email protected]
just ask him if there were any concrete walls in the core above ground level. Then respect his answer, and thank him for the reply.

1. Here is the design page LERA | World Trade Center
LERA | World Trade Center
there is no mention of any concrete walls. only viscoelastic dampers. Why would they need to add dampers if the core was concrete?

2. Do you or don't you agree that the hijacked planes hitting the towers caused the WTC towers' collapse?

3. if there was a "secret method of mass murder" what was it, and why wait around for jets to hit the towers, why not just knock them down in a wind storm and kill 250,000?

4. You continually fail to describe the conspiracy. Who all was involved?

5. what difference would it make if there was a concrete core or not? If the buildings stood for ~35-years, however they were built was fine. What knocked them down?

Well, it appears you've revised your statement to actually reflect actual questions.

1) The dampers went between the corrugated steel floor pans at the connection to the perimeter walls spandrel plates and floorbeams connecting interior box columns on the core end. Concrete does flex over distances and the dampers made the floor diaphrams quiet with the tiny dimensional changes with flex that did exist in the towers with the concrete tubular core. The towers were reported to have flexed a maximum of 12 feet off plumb at the top, 8 foot was the design average, and 4 foot was common in higher winds.

They survived 100 mph winds 3 times and were designed for 120. A survivor of WTC 1's attack said he felt a horizontal displacement of up to 7 feet on the 73rd floor. He almost fell off his chair.

2) Yes, planes hit the towers and yes there were hijacker psycho/suicidal muslims flying them. The rest are off topic. The proper order of questions within investigation are;
1) What happened? <jet liners hit the towers, engineers analyzed the design & collapse>
2) How did it happen? <we say the jet liner caused the collapse, do you agree yet?>
3) Who did it? <we both agree muslim terrorists did it>

The truth movement has not even gotten through 1) because of the FEMA deception. They don't even know what it happened to, ....... let alone HOW it happened.

0. you refuse to email the WTC design engineer, Mr. Robertson, if there was a concrete core, or if FEMA mis-represented his tower structure. We both know the answer, the WTC plans were well documented for over 35-years, with no concrete core.

1. The dampers were added because the light steel tower swayed too much. Concrete doesn't flex significantly without cracking. I'll gladly review any calculations on how much a concrete core would flex in a 120 mph wind. No way concrete core walls could flex 12' w/o collapsing. There is no FEMA deception, or engineers would have noticed.

2. Sanity. Ok. This is good. Jet liners hit the towers. One more baby-step now. Did the planes made the towers fall down. <yes they did>

3. if there was a "secret method of mass murder" what was it, and why wait around for jets to hit the towers, why not just knock them down in a wind storm and kill 250,000?
<we agree massive jet liners hit the towers at 450mph>

4. You continually fail to describe the conspiracy. Who all was involved? <there was no conspiracy, or Mr. Robertson would have noticed>

5. what difference would it make if there was a concrete core or not? If the buildings stood for ~35-years, however they were built was fine. What was the conspiracy about, imaginary concrete walls? <I was in the WTC towers, and there were no concrete walls, we would have seen them. The see-thru photos show clearly that the floor plans are accurate, even in the partial plan you posted thick walls would be visible>

Questions 3, 4, and 5 are very much on-topic. They actually define the "conspiracy" you are trying to promote.

You are lying about "The plans were well documented over 35 years". Such a statement does not even make sense. If it does, identify who documented them? Show the documentation.

A concrete wall with an average thickness of 3 foot can flex 12 over 1,350 feet. I've personally flexed a 8 inch gas station slab in a demo with a 977 cat loader 3.5 feet over a 60 foot length. And that is a slab with mild steel rebar. We had to drive a dozer between the loader bucket under the slab, on top of the slab and the ground contact point to get it to break.

Time for you to produce evidence.

 

[kyzr]

You are lying about "The plans were well documented over 35 years". Such a statement does not even make sense. If it does, identify who documented them? Show the documentation.

A concrete wall with an average thickness of 3 foot can flex 12 over 1,350 feet. I've personally flexed a 8 inch gas station slab in a demo with a 977 cat loader 3.5 feet over a 60 foot length. And that is a slab with mild steel rebar. We had to drive a dozer between the loader bucket under the slab, on top of the slab and the ground contact point to get it to break. Time for you to produce evidence.

1. You may not know engineering, but the WTC Tower designs were well documented, it does make sense to sane people. Mr. Robertson was the engineer of record for the WTC Towers. Personally ask the engineer who designed the WTC towers yourself if there were concrete walls around the core. He will tell you that the walls are just fireproofing, not structural walls. He will also advise how the design was documented and reviewed.
Leslie E Robertson e-mail: [email protected]
Here is some documentation. Robertson can provide others:
NIST Determines Actual Wind Loads Used to Design World Trade Center Towers
NIST and the World Trade Center
Archives - World Trade Center - News and Events
About.com: http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/aibs_2002_wtc.pdf

2. Here is the design companies' page LERA | World Trade Center
LERA | World Trade Center
there is no mention of any concrete walls. only viscoelastic dampers. Why would they need to add dampers if the core was concrete? <They wouldn't, concrete is very stiff.> If it makes you feel any better NIST and FEMA disagree on the collapse mechanism of the towers
Collapse of the World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
However, BOTH studies blame the jet liner impacts and fire for the collapse.

3. if there was a "secret method of mass murder" what was it, and why wait around for jets to hit the towers, why not just knock them down in a wind storm and kill 250,000?
<the jet impacts caused the collapses, no sane persons dispute that>

4. You continually fail to describe the conspiracy. Who all was involved?
<do you still cling to the "concrete wall conspiracy" or do you accept that the jets caused the collapses, and no structural concrete walls were there>

5. what difference would it make if there was a concrete core or not? If the buildings stood for ~35-years, however they were built was fine. What knocked them down if it wasn't the jet impacts? <the towers were fine until the jets hit them>

The question isn't whether or not a concrete slab 3' thick can flex 12' over 1350'. The concrete walls would need to be a rectangle around the core, 138' x 88'
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wikicorefloorplan.jpg
That configuration could not flex 12' over 1350'. There were no concrete walls, or we would have noticed them at some point, either during design, or construction, or operation. The "evidence" is the math that the concrete walls could NOT exist and be that flexible.
There were only steel columns, just ask Mr. Robertson.

 

[Christophera]

You are lying about "The plans were well documented over 35 years". Such a statement does not even make sense. If it does, identify who documented them? Show the documentation.

A concrete wall with an average thickness of 3 foot can flex 12 over 1,350 feet. I've personally flexed a 8 inch gas station slab in a demo with a 977 cat loader 3.5 feet over a 60 foot length. And that is a slab with mild steel rebar. We had to drive a dozer between the loader bucket under the slab, on top of the slab and the ground contact point to get it to break. Time for you to produce evidence.

1. You may not know engineering, but the WTC Tower designs were well documented,

I work as a designer for a civil engineer.

If that is true, .......... then you will easily find another diagram of the core from an offical source for these public buildings. This is the only depiction I can find from officlal sources.

Time for you to produce evidence and substantiate your words.

 

[kyzr]

You are lying about "The plans were well documented over 35 years". Such a statement does not even make sense. If it does, identify who documented them? Show the documentation.

A concrete wall with an average thickness of 3 foot can flex 12 over 1,350 feet. I've personally flexed a 8 inch gas station slab in a demo with a 977 cat loader 3.5 feet over a 60 foot length. And that is a slab with mild steel rebar. We had to drive a dozer between the loader bucket under the slab, on top of the slab and the ground contact point to get it to break. Time for you to produce evidence.

1. You may not know engineering, but the WTC Tower designs were well documented,

I work as a designer for a civil engineer.

If that is true, .......... then you will easily find another diagram of the core from an offical source for these public buildings. This is the only depiction I can find from officlal sources.

Time for you to produce evidence and substantiate your words.

I produced the design engineer for the WTC Towers, Mr. Robertson. There is no more credible source. Yet you keep dancing around the main issues instead of simply asking the engineer. Please just email him with your concerns. If he doesn't reply we can keep discussing.
Here is one more link, from "The Guardian" which should be a very neutral source of information.
World Trade Center Demolition.

Then you need to define what possible gain the "conspiracy" could have from lying about the concrete walls:
3. if there was a "secret method of mass murder" what was it, and why wait around for jets to hit the towers, why not just knock them down in a wind storm and kill 250,000?
<the jet impacts caused the collapses, no sane persons dispute that>

4. You continually fail to describe the conspiracy. Who all was involved?
<do you still cling to the "concrete wall conspiracy" or do you accept that the jets caused the collapses, and no structural concrete walls were there>

5. what difference would it make if there was a concrete core or not? If the buildings stood for ~35-years, however they were built was fine. What knocked them down if it wasn't the jet impacts? <the towers were fine until the jets hit them>

 

[DiveCon]

1. You may not know engineering, but the WTC Tower designs were well documented,

I work as a designer for a civil engineer.

If that is true, .......... then you will easily find another diagram of the core from an offical source for these public buildings. This is the only depiction I can find from officlal sources.



Time for you to produce evidence and substantiate your words.

I produced the design engineer for the WTC Towers, Mr. Robertson. There is no more credible source. Yet you keep dancing around the main issues instead of simply asking the engineer. Please just email him with your concerns. If he doesn't reply we can keep discussing.
Here is one more link, from "The Guardian" which should be a very neutral source of information.
World Trade Center Demolition.

Then you need to define what possible gain the "conspiracy" could have from lying about the concrete walls:
3. if there was a "secret method of mass murder" what was it, and why wait around for jets to hit the towers, why not just knock them down in a wind storm and kill 250,000?
<the jet impacts caused the collapses, no sane persons dispute that>

4. You continually fail to describe the conspiracy. Who all was involved?
<do you still cling to the "concrete wall conspiracy" or do you accept that the jets caused the collapses, and no structural concrete walls were there>

5. what difference would it make if there was a concrete core or not? If the buildings stood for ~35-years, however they were built was fine. What knocked them down if it wasn't the jet impacts? <the towers were fine until the jets hit them>

this guy is completely delusional
logic and reason are wasted on him

 

[Christophera]

1. You may not know engineering, but the WTC Tower designs were well documented,

I work as a designer for a civil engineer.

If that is true, .......... then you will easily find another diagram of the core from an offical source for these public buildings. This is the only depiction I can find from officlal sources.

Time for you to produce evidence and substantiate your words.

I produced the design engineer for the WTC Towers, Mr. Robertson.

No, you produced text from his office. This from September 13, 2001 has much more credibility because the words are from Newsweek and they are more credibile than an office taken over by planted people paid to say, ........... whatever.

You said the towers are well documented. Produce another depiction of the core from official sources.

 

[Christophera]

Does this sound like the caller is describing multiple steel columns?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eSVsid7eKE]YouTube - WTC victim, Jim Gartenberg, core blown out, WABC,09:32, 9/11[/ame]

No. Twice, he refers to the "the core".

 

[DiveCon]

Does this sound like the caller is describing multiple steel columns?

YouTube - WTC victim, Jim Gartenberg, core blown out, WABC,09:32, 9/11

No. Twice, he refers to the "the core".

yeah, moron, the "sheath wall core"
it was an inovation and was well documented
and only a fucking moron would continue to claim it wasnt

you dumbfuck

 

[Christophera]

Does this sound like the caller is describing multiple steel columns?

YouTube - WTC victim, Jim Gartenberg, core blown out, WABC,09:32, 9/11

No. Twice, he refers to the "the core".

yeah, moron, the "sheath wall core"
it was an inovation and was well documented
and only a fucking moron would continue to claim it wasnt

you dumbfuck

Provide some documentation that it was referred to as the "core" rather than the "sheath wall" or "fire wall" or "elevator shaft".

 

[DiveCon]

Does this sound like the caller is describing multiple steel columns?

YouTube - WTC victim, Jim Gartenberg, core blown out, WABC,09:32, 9/11

No. Twice, he refers to the "the core".

yeah, moron, the "sheath wall core"
it was an inovation and was well documented
and only a fucking moron would continue to claim it wasnt

you dumbfuck

Provide some documentation that it was referred to as the "core" rather than the "sheath wall" or "fire wall" or "elevator shaft".

no, proof is wasted on you
you have had tons of it given and nothing ever gets into that fucking moronic mind of yours

 

[Christophera]

yeah, moron, the "sheath wall core"
it was an inovation and was well documented
and only a fucking moron would continue to claim it wasnt

you dumbfuck

Provide some documentation that it was referred to as the "core" rather than the "sheath wall" or "fire wall" or "elevator shaft".

no, proof is wasted on you
you have had tons of it given and nothing ever gets into that fucking moronic mind of yours

If you cannot link to that "proof" or re-post it, then you are lying.

 

[DiveCon]

Provide some documentation that it was referred to as the "core" rather than the "sheath wall" or "fire wall" or "elevator shaft".

no, proof is wasted on you
you have had tons of it given and nothing ever gets into that fucking moronic mind of yours

If you cannot link to that "proof" or re-post it, then you are lying.

yeah, like i'm going to waste the time to look for them all over again
if you didnt get it the first 100 times it has been posted, you wont get it NOW
so STFU and give up your bullshit
you are WRONG and it has been demonstrated ad infinitum

 

[Christophera]

no, proof is wasted on you
you have had tons of it given and nothing ever gets into that fucking moronic mind of yours

If you cannot link to that "proof" or re-post it, then you are lying.

yeah, like i'm going to waste the time to look for them all over again
if you didnt get it the first 100 times it has been posted, you wont get it NOW
so STFU and give up your bullshit
you are WRONG and it has been demonstrated ad infinitum

Curious how the truth is basically the opposite of everything you say. All I have to do is tell the lgical and reasonable truth, and you have perfect opposition. No creativity needed, just relative un truth. Are sure your post doesn't belong here?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...ion-psyops-and-infiltration-of-us-gov-49.html

How will you protect the Constitution by working for the deprivation of due process of, 3,000 dead and their familes? I've shown the deception to be true. "No" from you, will not suffice. Support for secret methods of mass murder cannot be reasonable.

 

[DiveCon]

If you cannot link to that "proof" or re-post it, then you are lying.

yeah, like i'm going to waste the time to look for them all over again
if you didnt get it the first 100 times it has been posted, you wont get it NOW
so STFU and give up your bullshit
you are WRONG and it has been demonstrated ad infinitum

Curious how the truth is basically the opposite of everything you say. All I have to do is tell the lgical and reasonable truth, and you have perfect opposition. No creativity needed, just relative un truth. Are sure your post doesn't belong here?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...ion-psyops-and-infiltration-of-us-gov-49.html

How will you protect the Constitution by working for the deprivation of due process of, 3,000 dead and their familes? I've shown the deception to be true. "No" from you, will not suffice. Support for secret methods of mass murder cannot be reasonable.

i HAVE told logical and reasonable TRUTH
you are too fucking STUPID to get it

 

[Christophera]

yeah, like i'm going to waste the time to look for them all over again
if you didnt get it the first 100 times it has been posted, you wont get it NOW
so STFU and give up your bullshit
you are WRONG and it has been demonstrated ad infinitum

Curious how the truth is basically the opposite of everything you say. All I have to do is tell the lgical and reasonable truth, and you have perfect opposition. No creativity needed, just relative un truth. Are sure your post doesn't belong here?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...ion-psyops-and-infiltration-of-us-gov-49.html

How will you protect the Constitution by working for the deprivation of due process of, 3,000 dead and their familes? I've shown the deception to be true. "No" from you, will not suffice. Support for secret methods of mass murder cannot be reasonable.

i HAVE told logical and reasonable TRUTH
you are too fucking STUPID to get it

You HAVE told a logically opposite and unreasonable LIE
I am too SMART to believe it.

Many others are too. They realize that Leslie E. Robertson would demand a correction from Newsweek IF Newsweek had made an error defining the towers structure, BECAUSE 3,000 people died in the building he was the lead engineer for and COLLAPSE was alleged. And that if Roberston requested correction, Neweek would immdiately do so, for the same reasons.

Two days after 9-11.

September 13, 2001

 

[DiveCon]

Curious how the truth is basically the opposite of everything you say. All I have to do is tell the lgical and reasonable truth, and you have perfect opposition. No creativity needed, just relative un truth. Are sure your post doesn't belong here?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...ion-psyops-and-infiltration-of-us-gov-49.html

How will you protect the Constitution by working for the deprivation of due process of, 3,000 dead and their familes? I've shown the deception to be true. "No" from you, will not suffice. Support for secret methods of mass murder cannot be reasonable.

i HAVE told logical and reasonable TRUTH
you are too fucking STUPID to get it

You HAVE told a logically opposite and unreasonable LIE
I am too SMART to believe it.

Many others are too. They realize that Leslie E. Robertson would demand a correction from Newsweek IF Newsweek had made an error defining the towers structure, BECAUSE 3,000 people died in the building he was the lead engineer for and COLLAPSE was alleged. And that if Roberston requested correction, Neweek would immdiately do so, for the same reasons.

Two days after 9-11.

September 13, 2001

no you fucking MORON
he didnt even read the fucking thing
when told about it years later he said they were WRONG and that it was really too late to ask for a retraction
you just dont fucking get it