FEMA Deceives Nation About Twin Towers Core

[kyzr]

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>

 

[kyzr]

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>

 

[kyzr]

A few more questions:
1. If your boss was here when the original WTC Towers were designed & built ask him if he has any recollection for the design w/o concrete walls.
2. I can provide the equations (mathematical proof) for the deflection of the WTC tower if you have any way of verifying them.
Do you want me to post equations for the wind load and deflection with and w/o concrete walls? If I prove that the concrete couldn't possibly deflect 12' will you admit that there were no concrete walls, as everyone but you acknowledges?

Here is one more design link, from "The Guardian" which should be a very neutral source of information. OMG No structural concrete Walls!!
World Trade Center Demolition.

 

[Christophera]

the part in that story where it claims a concrete core was NOT in quotes, thus it was NOT Mr Robertson's words

Again, you have not stated if you believe Robertson would not request a correction IF 3,000 died in what was supposed to be a collapse that he was the lead engineer of construction, OR, ......... if you believe he requested a correction of the Newsweek article and Newsweek refused.

why dont you ask Mr Robertson why he didnt ask for it to be retracted YEARS later when it was brought to his attention

The fact there was no correction, says on its own he never asked. When 3,000 are killed in what is supposed to be a collapse, it is very obvious he will demand the article be correct for professional considerations alone. You do realize he is a structural engineer and the one largely responsible for the Twins.

Does the term, common sense mean anything to you?

 

[Christophera]

A few more questions:

Wrong, 3,000 died and you need to demonstrate some accountability.

A few more questions:
1. If your boss was here when the original WTC Towers were designed & built ask him if he has any recollection for the design w/o concrete walls.
2. I can provide the equations (mathematical proof) for the deflection of the WTC tower if you have any way of verifying them.
Do you want me to post equations for the wind load and deflection with and w/o concrete walls? If I prove that the concrete couldn't possibly deflect 12' will you admit that there were no concrete walls, as everyone but you acknowledges?

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

You must produce documentation if that is the case. The only official diagram I can find of the core is this.

You have stated the designs of the towers are well documented. I'm still waiting for ANY documentation from you. I'm quite certain that the diagram above is the only official depiction. If not, provide some of the documentation you state exists. Perhaps LERA will help you. I know that office is manned by those impeding truthseeking, so will not bother.

I will rely on Leslie Robertsons statement from September 13, 2001 when the world was scrutinizing his words.

You are a fake and will not answer, or will not answer reasonably.

 

[DiveCon]

ristophera, do you ever wonder why YOU are the ONLY person on the face of the earth that believes there was a concrete core above grade in the TWC?

 

[Christophera]

The perpetrators of mass murder would want you to say that because it might help to keep the methods of killing secret.

It's not true tho. Those who wonder, can ask a family member of friend who is not inthe truth movement but informed on advanced structural techniques employed in high rise construction, they know. I've found perhaps 6 people that had seen one or another documentary describing the concrete core. None knew that FEMA lied, and became very afraid when learning it.

 

[DiveCon]

The perpetrators of mass murder would want you to say that because it might help to keep the methods of killing secret.

It's not true tho. Those who wonder, can ask a family member of friend who is not inthe truth movement but informed on advanced structural techniques employed in high rise construction, they know. I've found perhaps 6 people that had seen one or another documentary describing the concrete core. None knew that FEMA lied, and became very afraid when learning it.

yeah, thats why i saw those SAME documentaries telling how it DIDNT have concrete in the core because it would have been too heavy for the concrete at that time to handle and how innovative the sheath wall concept was

 

[Christophera]

The perpetrators of mass murder would want you to say that because it might help to keep the methods of killing secret.

It's not true tho. Those who wonder, can ask a family member of friend who is not inthe truth movement but informed on advanced structural techniques employed in high rise construction, they know. I've found perhaps 6 people that had seen one or another documentary describing the concrete core. None knew that FEMA lied, and became very afraid when learning it.

yeah, thats why i saw those SAME documentaries telling how it DIDNT have concrete in the core because it would have been too heavy for the concrete at that time to handle and how innovative the sheath wall concept was

Any documentaries you saw saying there were steel core columns were made AFTER 9-11. Such a statement is verified with the Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992 which has this to say about the core.

Matching what stands here, heavy enough to withstand the crash of thousands of tons of structural steel. A concrete tube.

 

[DiveCon]

The perpetrators of mass murder would want you to say that because it might help to keep the methods of killing secret.

It's not true tho. Those who wonder, can ask a family member of friend who is not inthe truth movement but informed on advanced structural techniques employed in high rise construction, they know. I've found perhaps 6 people that had seen one or another documentary describing the concrete core. None knew that FEMA lied, and became very afraid when learning it.

yeah, thats why i saw those SAME documentaries telling how it DIDNT have concrete in the core because it would have been too heavy for the concrete at that time to handle and how innovative the sheath wall concept was

Any documentaries you saw saying there were steel core columns were made AFTER 9-11. Such a statement is verified with the Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992 which has this to say about the core.



Matching what stands here, heavy enough to withstand the crash of thousands of tons of structural steel. A concrete tube.

wrong again, asswipe
they were BEFORE 9/11


there was NO CONCRETE IN THE CORE ABOVE GRADE

it was a SELLING POINT For the fucking buildings

because of the added floor space
you are too fucking stupid

 

[Christophera]

yeah, thats why i saw those SAME documentaries telling how it DIDNT have concrete in the core because it would have been too heavy for the concrete at that time to handle and how innovative the sheath wall concept was

Any documentaries you saw saying there were steel core columns were made AFTER 9-11. Such a statement is verified with the Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992 which has this to say about the core.



Matching what stands here, heavy enough to withstand the crash of thousands of tons of structural steel. A concrete tube.

wrong again, asswipe
they were BEFORE 9/11


there was NO CONCRETE IN THE CORE ABOVE GRADE

it was a SELLING POINT For the fucking buildings

because of the added floor space
you are too fucking stupid

Is that why WTC 1 was 30% vacant on 9-11?

This can only be a piece of concrete wall toppling into the empty core area.

Where are the official plans? NIST disclaimer indicates they had none.

 

[DiveCon]

Any documentaries you saw saying there were steel core columns were made AFTER 9-11. Such a statement is verified with the Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992 which has this to say about the core.



Matching what stands here, heavy enough to withstand the crash of thousands of tons of structural steel. A concrete tube.

wrong again, asswipe
they were BEFORE 9/11


there was NO CONCRETE IN THE CORE ABOVE GRADE

it was a SELLING POINT For the fucking buildings

because of the added floor space
you are too fucking stupid

Is that why WTC 1 was 30% vacant on 9-11?

This can only be a piece of concrete wall toppling into the empty core area.



Where are the official plans? NIST disclaimer indicates they had none.

it being vacant in 2001 has NOTHING to do with what the selling point of the building was in the 1970's
moron

 

[Christophera]

wrong again, asswipe
they were BEFORE 9/11


there was NO CONCRETE IN THE CORE ABOVE GRADE

it was a SELLING POINT For the fucking buildings

because of the added floor space
you are too fucking stupid

Is that why WTC 1 was 30% vacant on 9-11?

This can only be a piece of concrete wall toppling into the empty core area.



Where are the official plans? NIST disclaimer indicates they had none.

it being vacant in 2001 has NOTHING to do with what the selling point of the building was in the 1970's
moron

Just like the selling point in the 70's had nothing to do with what kind of a structure it was. Only that there were no columns inthe rented floor space.

Because there was a concrete core.

And you have never adequately explained what it is if not concrete.

Gypsum, ............ will not do. Steel columns would be protruding.

 

[DiveCon]

Is that why WTC 1 was 30% vacant on 9-11?

This can only be a piece of concrete wall toppling into the empty core area.



Where are the official plans? NIST disclaimer indicates they had none.

it being vacant in 2001 has NOTHING to do with what the selling point of the building was in the 1970's
moron

Just like the selling point in the 70's had nothing to do with what kind of a structure it was. Only that there were no columns inthe rented floor space.

Because there was a concrete core.

And you have never adequately explained what it is if not concrete.

Gypsum, ............ will not do. Steel columns would be protruding.

you show that same photo of a DUST CLOUD and claim its concrete when you can not produce a single construction photo showing concrete in the core
yet i have produced SEVERAL photos of the core without concrete

yeah, you are fucking delusional

even the designer has said no concrete in the core

 

[Christophera]

it being vacant in 2001 has NOTHING to do with what the selling point of the building was in the 1970's
moron

Just like the selling point in the 70's had nothing to do with what kind of a structure it was. Only that there were no columns inthe rented floor space.

Because there was a concrete core.

And you have never adequately explained what it is if not concrete.

Gypsum, ............ will not do. Steel columns would be protruding.

you show that same photo of a DUST CLOUD and claim its concrete when you can not produce a single construction photo showing concrete in the core
yet i have produced SEVERAL photos of the core without concrete

yeah, you are fucking delusional

even the designer has said no concrete in the core

You showed pictures that didn't show any core columns either. It was easy for the infiltrators to remove all the construction photos that showed concrete. The concrete core was in the dark, 60 feet in from the perimeter walls and often below a false floor put in for the elevator guide rail support steel installation.

What you are calling "core columns" have no diagonal bracing so cannot be core columns, which is why they are never seen on 9-11. They are elevator guide rail support steel.

Left and right of the central crane are elevator guide rail support steel with butt plates on their tops. Butt plates are weak, but make alinment of the guide rial supports quick. An the guide rails had to be perfect for the those 65mph elevators.

Because the guide rail supports were so weak they all fell when the demise of the towers went down. So you will NEVER produce an image of steel core columns in the core area.

The core was concrete just like Robertson said on September 13, 2001

 

[DiveCon]

Just like the selling point in the 70's had nothing to do with what kind of a structure it was. Only that there were no columns inthe rented floor space.

Because there was a concrete core.



And you have never adequately explained what it is if not concrete.

Gypsum, ............ will not do. Steel columns would be protruding.

you show that same photo of a DUST CLOUD and claim its concrete when you can not produce a single construction photo showing concrete in the core
yet i have produced SEVERAL photos of the core without concrete

yeah, you are fucking delusional

even the designer has said no concrete in the core

You showed pictures that didn't show any core columns either. It was easy for the infiltrators to remove all the construction photos that showed concrete. The concrete core was in the dark, 60 feet in from the perimeter walls and often below a false floor put in for the elevator guide rail support steel installation.

What you are calling "core columns" have no diagonal bracing so cannot be core columns, which is why they are never seen on 9-11. They are elevator guide rail support steel.

Left and right of the central crane are elevator guide rail support steel with butt plates on their tops. Butt plates are weak, but make alinment of the guide rial supports quick. An the guide rails had to be perfect for the those 65mph elevators.

Because the guide rail supports were so weak they all fell when the demise of the towers went down. So you will NEVER produce an image of steel core columns in the core area.



The core was concrete just like Robertson said on September 13, 2001

yeah, no columns there

you are a fucking IDIOT

 

[kyzr]

Again, you have not stated if you believe Robertson would not request a correction IF 3,000 died in what was supposed to be a collapse that he was the lead engineer of construction, OR, ......... if you believe he requested a correction of the Newsweek article and Newsweek refused.

why dont you ask Mr Robertson why he didnt ask for it to be retracted YEARS later when it was brought to his attention

The fact there was no correction, says on its own he never asked. When 3,000 are killed in what is supposed to be a collapse, it is very obvious he will demand the article be correct for professional considerations alone. You do realize he is a structural engineer and the one largely responsible for the Twins.

Does the term, common sense mean anything to you?

How is it common sense if we don't read Newsweek? I don't read it. Tell me that you know for a fact that Robertson reads it, or that IT WAS BROUGHT TO HIS ATTENTION? Tell me that you know for a fact that there was never a retraction or correction. Corrections are usually tucked away where no one sees them. Its stupid to base your entire "conspiracy" on a mis-quote, and mis-information. Especially when even Terral doesn't agree with you. Do you have any idea how ridiculous your conspiracy is? You can't even answer my 6 simple questions.

 

[kyzr]

A few more questions:
1. If your boss was here when the original WTC Towers were designed & built ask him if he has any recollection for the design w/o concrete walls.
2. I can provide the equations (mathematical proof) for the deflection of the WTC tower if you have any way of verifying them.
Do you want me to post equations for the wind load and deflection with and w/o concrete walls? If I prove that the concrete couldn't possibly deflect 12' will you admit that there were no concrete walls, as everyone but you acknowledges?

Here is one more design link, from "The Guardian" which should be a very neutral source of information. OMG No structural concrete Walls!!
World Trade Center Demolition.

 

[kyzr]

1. 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. Leslie E Robertson e-mail: [email protected]

2. Here is one more link, from "The Guardian" which should be a very neutral source of information.
World Trade Center Demolition.
No mention of concrete walls.

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>

6. If your boss was here when the original WTC Towers were designed & built ask him if he has any recollection for the design w/o concrete walls.
7. I can provide the equations (mathematical proof) for the deflection of the WTC tower if you have any way of verifying them.
Do you want me to post equations for the wind load and deflection with and w/o concrete walls? If I prove mathematically that the concrete couldn't possibly deflect 12' will you admit that there were no concrete walls, as everyone but you acknowledges?

No one else believes your stupid conspiracy, because its so obviously wrong.

 

[kyzr]

I'm going to keep posting these until you answer all of them:

1. 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. Leslie E Robertson e-mail: [email protected]

2. Here is one more link, from "The Guardian" which should be a very neutral source of information.
World Trade Center Demolition.
No mention of concrete walls.

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>

6. If your boss was here when the original WTC Towers were designed & built ask him if he has any recollection for the design w/o concrete walls.

7. I can provide the equations (mathematical proof) for the deflection of the WTC tower if you have any way of verifying them.
Do you want me to post equations for the wind load and deflection with and w/o concrete walls? If I prove mathematically that the concrete couldn't possibly deflect 12' will you admit that there were no concrete walls, as everyone but you acknowledges?

No one else believes your stupid conspiracy, because its so obviously wrong.