FEMA Deceives Nation About Twin Towers Core

[Christophera]

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. And 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

Correct, the butt plates are of inadequate strength for joining "core columns". They join elevator guide rail support steel. If they were "core columns" you could show an image of them on 9-11 standing in the core area. You cannot.

I have shown many images of the concrete core walls. This one is confirming. The structural steel on the right, the spire, and the concrete core in an end view on the left. An empty core left of it. No core columns.

 

[Christophera]

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?

If you were an engineer and worked on a building that supposedly collapsed killing 3,000 and were interviewed about the building you would read it.

But that is logical, ......... and ther perpetrators won't do that, so you won't. They would want you to be totaly selective and work to dismiss evidence.

 

[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?
3. 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]

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.

 

[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.

 

[DiveCon]

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?

If you were an engineer and worked on a building that supposedly collapsed killing 3,000 and were interviewed about the building you would read it.

But that is logical, ......... and ther perpetrators won't do that, so you won't. They would want you to be totaly selective and work to dismiss evidence.

so L Robertson is a liar

 

[Christophera]

How is it common sense if we don't read Newsweek?

If you were an engineer and worked on a building that supposedly collapsed killing 3,000 and were interviewed about the building you would read it.

But that is logical, ......... and ther perpetrators won't do that, so you won't. They would want you to be totaly selective and work to dismiss evidence.

so L Robertson is a liar

No, this is the truth,

September 13, 2001

and it is verified, over and over again that there was a concrete core in the Twins.

August Domel, Ph.d SE. PE.

You are a liar and the people in his office.

 

[DiveCon]

If you were an engineer and worked on a building that supposedly collapsed killing 3,000 and were interviewed about the building you would read it.

But that is logical, ......... and ther perpetrators won't do that, so you won't. They would want you to be totaly selective and work to dismiss evidence.

so L Robertson is a liar

No, this is the truth,

September 13, 2001

and it is verified, over and over again that there was a concrete core in the Twins.

August Domel, Ph.d SE. PE.

You are a liar and the people in his office.

and HE says he never said that and it is incorrect

so you are calling him a liar

 

[Christophera]

so L Robertson is a liar

No, this is the truth,

September 13, 2001

and it is verified, over and over again that there was a concrete core in the Twins.

August Domel, Ph.d SE. PE.

You are a liar and the people in his office.

and HE says he never said that and it is incorrect

so you are calling him a liar

No, Newsweek doesn't print errors of that magnitude and your say so about anything is not worth anything.

Stop protecting the secret methods of mass murder. Stop working to disable citizens protection of the Constitution.

 

[DiveCon]

No, this is the truth,

September 13, 2001

and it is verified, over and over again that there was a concrete core in the Twins.

August Domel, Ph.d SE. PE.

You are a liar and the people in his office.

and HE says he never said that and it is incorrect

so you are calling him a liar

No, Newsweek doesn't print errors of that magnitude and your say so about anything is not worth anything.

Stop protecting the secret methods of mass murder. Stop working to disable citizens protection of the Constitution.

stop calling Robertson a liar
you fucking MORON

 

[kyzr]

I still say its a mis-interpretation of the term "shaftwalls". Shaftwalls are simply fireproofing with no structural value. Someone mis-interpreted them as structural concrete walls.

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?
3. 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]

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.

 

[Christophera]

and HE says he never said that and it is incorrect

so you are calling him a liar

No, Newsweek doesn't print errors of that magnitude and your say so about anything is not worth anything.

Stop protecting the secret methods of mass murder. Stop working to disable citizens protection of the Constitution.

stop calling Robertson a liar
you fucking MORON

Robertson tells the truth on September 13, 2001
and you + his office lie from there on out and the evidence proves it.

 

[Christophera]

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

1. Not a question
2. Not a question
3. Not a question
4. Not a question
5. what difference would it make if there was a concrete core or not?

Concrete can be fractured instantly to fall freely, steel cannot.

6. Not a question
7. Not a question
No one else believes your stupid conspiracy, because its so obviously wrong.

No one else has any evidence, their errors, supposition, speculation and outright lies do not matter.

 

[DiveCon]

No, Newsweek doesn't print errors of that magnitude and your say so about anything is not worth anything.

Stop protecting the secret methods of mass murder. Stop working to disable citizens protection of the Constitution.

stop calling Robertson a liar
you fucking MORON

Robertson tells the truth on September 13, 2001
and you + his office lie from there on out and the evidence proves it.

no, you are lying and you think he said that when not even the reporter made the claim he said it by not putting it in QUOTES
and when it was pointed out to him he DENIED it and said it was not true
fucking idiot

 

[Christophera]

stop calling Robertson a liar
you fucking MORON

Robertson tells the truth on September 13, 2001
and you + his office lie from there on out and the evidence proves it.

no, you are lying and you think he said that when not even the reporter made the claim he said it by not putting it in QUOTES
and when it was pointed out to him he DENIED it and said it was not true
fucking idiot

Since you refuse to answer if you believe Robertson requested a correction if the September 13, 2001
story, or if Newseek refused to correct it, you expose that you cannot reasonably answer in support of your agenda.

You are fake and support secret methods of mass murder

 

[DiveCon]

Robertson tells the truth on September 13, 2001
and you + his office lie from there on out and the evidence proves it.

no, you are lying and you think he said that when not even the reporter made the claim he said it by not putting it in QUOTES
and when it was pointed out to him he DENIED it and said it was not true
fucking idiot

Since you refuse to answer if you believe Robertson requested a correction if the September 13, 2001
story, or if Newseek refused to correct it, you expose that you cannot reasonably answer in support of your agenda.

You are fake and support secret methods of mass murder

you are SO fucking stupid
it has already been explained to you he DID NOT request a retraction because it was TOO LONG AGO
damn you are an idiot

 

[Christophera]

no, you are lying and you think he said that when not even the reporter made the claim he said it by not putting it in QUOTES
and when it was pointed out to him he DENIED it and said it was not true
fucking idiot

Since you refuse to answer if you believe Robertson requested a correction if the September 13, 2001
story, or if Newseek refused to correct it, you expose that you cannot reasonably answer in support of your agenda.

You are fake and support secret methods of mass murder

you are SO fucking stupid
it has already been explained to you he DID NOT request a retraction because it was TOO LONG AGO
damn you are an idiot

Bwaahahaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, but he would have requested the correction "long ago", if he did.

The core was a concrete tube. Here's a part of the the east wall of the WTC 1 concrete core toppling into the core.

 

[DiveCon]

Since you refuse to answer if you believe Robertson requested a correction if the September 13, 2001
story, or if Newseek refused to correct it, you expose that you cannot reasonably answer in support of your agenda.

You are fake and support secret methods of mass murder

you are SO fucking stupid
it has already been explained to you he DID NOT request a retraction because it was TOO LONG AGO
damn you are an idiot

Bwaahahaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, but he would have requested the correction "long ago", if he did.

The core was a concrete tube. Here's a part of the the east wall of the WTC 1 concrete core toppling into the core.

as i have TOLD you before, you fucking MORON, THAT is a FLOOR, not a wall

 

[kyzr]

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

1. Not a question [the "question" is to ask Mr. Robertson if he agrees with you]
2. Not a question [the "question' is do you believe an independent source for 'no R/C walls'? Why would anyone lie about walls?? its just STUPID]
3. Not a question [question: what is your "secret method of mass murder"?]
4. Not a question [question: describe your ridiculous conspiracy, who & why & how?]
5. what difference would it make if there was a concrete core or not?

Concrete can be fractured instantly to fall freely, steel cannot.
[/b]very wrong. Reinforced concrete is a lot tougher than steel, especially to fire resistance. It is also a lot heavier. You did not answer the question which is if the jet liners did NOT impact the WTC towers, what difference would your conspiracy make? The towers were designed properly and would still be standing.[/b]

6. Not a question [question: ask your boss if he heard or read about the WTC design, and if it had concrete walls. If he's older he will tell you that there never were any concrete walls.
7. Not a question [question: do you want me to post mathematical deflection equations proving that the WTC towers could not have concrete walls? Do you understand structural deflection equations?
No one else believes your stupid conspiracy, because its so obviously wrong.

No one else has any evidence, their errors, supposition, speculation and outright lies do not matter.

The "see thru" photo and the various construction photos should be all the "evidence" a sane person needs to see that there were no concrete walls.

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.