FEMA Deceives Nation About Twin Towers Core

[Gamolon]

I just did, here. It is not solid. It is a tube with many hallways through it in both directions. Twice as many for WTC 2 as WTC 1.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1808615-post2928.html

How many hallways did WTC2 have?

Two in each direction. I assume this is the north face of WTC 2.

The thin blue lines indicate edges of hall openings. The heavy blue are entire openings. The photo seems to have been takns from the east face of WTC 1.

Let's look at your photo shall we? You seem to enjoy making false claims and presenting evidence that is CLEARLY incorrect. The red lines in your annotated photo represent what you claim to be the core corners. You just aren't very bright are you.

Answer me this. The length of the perimeter walls are 208' long. You claim that the long axis core wall (which would be the right side, or west side, of the supposed core wall in your photo, inside the tower) is 154' in length. I annotated the photo even further below. Look at the light blue lines I added. How is it that the distance between them for your supposed core corners, represented by red lines, is SMALLER than the distance between the light blue lines which I use to represent the outside perimeter columns?

Use right triangles viewed from the top of that photo and make the hypotenuse for each triangle west the face of your supposed core wall and the face of the west perimeter column wall. The distance between my blue lines represents the bottom leg if the triangle. If the hypotenuse is 154' for your core and 208' for the perimeter column wall, how come the distance between the light blue lines for your core dimension is SMALLER than the distance between the light blue lines of the perimeter wall?

 

[Gamolon]

The thin blue lines indicate edges of hall openings. The heavy blue are entire openings. The photo seems to have been takns from the east face of WTC 1.

you are a fucking idiot. there is no concrete core in that picture. the concrete core is placed first then the floors attached to the core.

In the freedom tower, but not WTC 7.

7 World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Once construction of the power substation was complete in October 2003, work proceeded on building the office tower. An unusual approach was used in constructing the building; erecting the steel frame before adding the concrete core. This approach allowed the construction schedule to be shortened by a few months

The freedom tower has the hydraulic climbing form.

WTC 2 was built entirely inside the steel like WTC 7. WCT 1 was built to the 3rd or 4th floor with free standing wood forms.

A usenet message after 9-11 where a new yorker writes about what they saw. I tis completely consistent with my memory and the fact there are no construction images of WTC 1 from the basment levels to the 3rd floor. Your masters took them all because they showed concrete, lots of it.

http://cosmicpenguin.com/911/chrisbrown/corerefs/ConcreteCore.002.txt

"Tony Jebson" <[email protected]> wrote:

>......Apparently, the WTC towers had no internal
>structural columns but relied on the exterior structure for
>support / strength. No doubt the impact of an airplane does
>this no end of harm.
I worked in downtown NY in the late 1960's when the towers were
built! At lunch time we went to the construction site to watch the
progress. And we saw them first buildt an internal thick walled
rectangular concrete core inside which later the elevators ran. The
steel work was erected around this core several floors behind!

-=tom=-

Hey Chris. See the bolded, enlarged text in the quote from Tony Jebson? The part that says "The steel work was erected around the core several floors behind"?

"ERECTED AROUND THE CORE SEVERAL FLOORS BEHIND"

You and your bullshit claim was that the steel was erected 4 or 6 (or whatever number you have chosen this month) OVER the concrete being poured which is why you don't have any photos of it. Because it was HIDDEN from view by the steel.

Your own witness debunks your claims.

 

[Gamolon]

Chris' claim that the towers, core wise, were radically different are completely insane. He says that WTC1 concrete core completely surrounded ALL elevators to make a layout like this:

No, you misrepresent the towers as having identical cores. The cores were not the same and this photo proves it.

No. YOU do not know what you are looking at. The photo above shows WTC2 on the left and WTC1 on the right, looking south. In WTC2 you see 6 column rows just like the blueprints and photos show. It has yet to be enclosed in the gypsum planking yet which is why the columns can be seen. Go count the columns rows Chris. There are six for the short axis, eight for the long axis.

Your BS interpretation of the visual difference is inconsistent with the photo.

You have sttoped to a level unequaled by photoshopping lobby photos of WTC 2. I've made a page about the photoshopping with all the evidence when gamit colluded with the admin of breackfornews.com

Breakfornews.com, Fintan Dunne

WTC 2 did have openings at the bottom of the core walls for express elevators. It had a central pedastal with short walls radiating out that were aligned with the interior box columns surrounding the core. The 1990 PBS documentary, "The Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers", now disappeared described how the structural concept was tested by using the basic configuration for a cape canaveral launch pad and base for the rocket gantry that simulated the towers load on the core base pedastal with its opening outwards used as rocket exhaust ports!

WTC 1 had a concrete shear wall from ground to top and all elevator access, except for a large frieght elevator from the basement entered through the hallways inside the core.

The angle for both towers is about the same. The different appearance of light from hallways below proves it. Despite the cores being perpendicular to each other, the same basic light would appear. Note that the light from WTC 1 on the left is not coming directly through the hallway, the angle viewed is slightly off alignmnt for that. IT is reflected off the inside of the concrete core that was formed with a breakdown steel form leaving a very smooth surface and capable of reflecting.

The photo above is taken after the first photo in this post. It is looking east. Notice the antenna on WTC1 to the left and the roof looks to be reached on WTC2 on the right. The core of WTC1 has been enclosed in the gypsum planking at this point. Here are some blueprints that I marked up as to why see the silhouettes you see.

This is the 83rd floor blueprint. Noticed that if you enclosed the areas I mark, you would get the same silhouettes you see in the photo in the upper portion of WTC1. A thicker silhouette on the right and a thinner one on the left.

Here is a blueprint of the 64th floor. Notice the open corridor has shifted. Now you should see a thicker silhouette on the left and a thinner silhouette on the right in the middle of WTC1. Just like you do.

 

[Gamolon]

You have sttoped to a level unequaled by photoshopping lobby photos of WTC 2. I've made a page about the photoshopping with all the evidence when gamit colluded with the admin of breackfornews.com

photoshop!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHaahahahaha!!!

when shown proof you simply deny it as being photoshopped

I show proof of photoshopping. The footbridge appearing to be outside to make this lobby photo of WTC 2 appear as WTC 1 bleeds through the periemter columns.

Photoshopping evidence prove, gamit is part of the same conspircy to deceive as you are. Your behavior proves it. Agents on the same team supporting each others frauds, ......... with nothing but lies, deception and manipulation.

Here is a photo of WTC1's lobby. Chris, why are there bunches of turnstiles in the small "wall" surrounding the core? To let people in to the "non-accessible walls"?

 

[Christophera]

photoshop!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHaahahahaha!!!

when shown proof you simply deny it as being photoshopped

I show proof of photoshopping. The footbridge appearing to be outside to make this lobby photo of WTC 2 appear as WTC 1 bleeds through the perimeter columns.

Photoshopping evidence prove, gamit is part of the same conspircy to deceive as you are. Your behavior proves it. Agents on the same team supporting each others frauds, ......... with nothing but lies, deception and manipulation.

Here is a photo of WTC1's lobby. Chris, why are there bunches of turnstiles in the small "wall" surrounding the core? To let people in to the "non-accessible walls"?

The fact is that the footbridge lobby bleeds through the perimeter columns, not possible with a real photo. So your point about turnstiles is meaningless, except that it shows you have no evidence from 9-11showing steel core columns so you have to fabricate something.

 

[Christophera]

How many hallways did WTC2 have?

Two in each direction. I assume this is the north face of WTC 2.

The thin blue lines indicate edges of hall openings. The heavy blue are entire openings. The photo seems to have been takns from the east face of WTC 1.

Let's look at your photo shall we? You seem to enjoy making false claims and presenting evidence that is CLEARLY incorrect. The red lines in your annotated photo represent what you claim to be the core corners. You just aren't very bright are you.

Answer me this. The length of the perimeter walls are 208' long. You claim that the long axis core wall (which would be the right side, or west side, of the supposed core wall in your photo, inside the tower) is 154' in length. I annotated the photo even further below. Look at the light blue lines I added. How is it that the distance between them for your supposed core corners, represented by red lines, is SMALLER than the distance between the light blue lines which I use to represent the outside perimeter columns?

I agree that the distances do not work, but that it only means that I've not analysed a difficult photo correctly relating to what is seen back inside the floors, which face it is on, if it is an opening, core corner, column or what. The fact is that the explanation of light is consistent between the two (1), (2) silhouette images generally.

The fact that the ex NYC mayor took the towers plans and hid them while the courts protect their hiding means the perpetrators empower your argument and the FEMA deception.

The photo above does not show steel core columns, that is certain. Just as this one below does not nor the silhouette images and the one below absolutely has to IF a core of steel core columns existed.

 

[Gamolon]

I agree that the distances do not work, but that it only means that I've not analysed a difficult photo correctly

You admit yet again that you do not know what you are looking at. You're just like Terral.

Priceless.

 

[Christophera]

I agree that the distances do not work, but that it only means that I've not analysed a difficult photo correctly

You admit yet again that you do not know what you are looking at. You're just like Terral.

Priceless.

The perpetrator of mass murder would appreciate that you've said that, because you have no evidence. Terrals information is useless.

The information of the FEMA deception,

FEMA misrepresented core structure of the Twin Towers.

invalidates the cause of death, meaning it is better than immediately useful. As soon as law enforcement of New York is informed, their duty is to determine if the deception actually happened, which is easily shown and has been shown hundreds of times here, then to see that a proper analysis of what has been presented as collapse is effected by the deception.

I know what I'm looking at and to say the core is concrete works far better that steel core columns. Just because the cutoffs of the concrete core corners are so hard to discern does not mean that my basic analysis is in error.

This image totally disproves steel core columns because they would have to be continuous and this shows an interuption.

 

[Gamolon]

This image totally disproves steel core columns because they would have to be continuous and this shows an interuption.

There's no interruption.

 

[candycorn]

I agree that the distances do not work, but that it only means that I've not analysed a difficult photo correctly

You admit yet again that you do not know what you are looking at. You're just like Terral.

Priceless.

 

[Gamolon]

"Tony Jebson" <[email protected]> wrote:

>......Apparently, the WTC towers had no internal
>structural columns but relied on the exterior structure for
>support / strength. No doubt the impact of an airplane does
>this no end of harm.
I worked in downtown NY in the late 1960's when the towers were
built! At lunch time we went to the construction site to watch the
progress. And we saw them first buildt an internal thick walled
rectangular concrete core inside which later the elevators ran. The
steel work was erected around this core several floors behind!

-=tom=-

Why does he debunk your claim that the concrete core was poured 6 floors BEHIND the steel being erected in the core?

He says the exact opposite!

Here is what you say from your own site.

The steel framework of perimeter columns, interior box columns and floors was built up to 7 floors over the top of the concrete core being constructed inside of the steel frame obscuring the core construction from view.

 

[Fizz]

this is a concrete core.

this is the STEEL core being built at the world trade center.

 

[Fizz]

this is a concrete core.

this is the STEEL core being built at the world trade center.

 

[Fizz]

hey. i just noticed something. a concrete core would need to be continuous, right?

well, in the bottom picture of the steel core being built they are already attaching the trusses for the next floor to the steel core. the floor below it already has the flooring continuing inside the core. that makes it IMPOSSIBLE for the concrete core to be a continuous structure and completely disproves your concrete core claim.

here it is again.

 

[Gamolon]

Hey Chris. From on old site of yours.

Both the WTC 1 & WTC 2 towers had a rectangular cast concrete core structure formed into rectangular cells that had elevators and stairways in them.

The Concrete Cores Of The WTC Towers

You now say that WTC2 had the elevators OUTSIDE the core and that WTC1 had the elevators inside the core.

Another contradiction. You keep changing your story to fit the current questions being asked and can't keep track of what you've said in the past.

Very telling.

 

[Gamolon]

Another contradiction by you Chris.

The twin towers had a rectangular cast concrete core structure formed by 4 rectangular cells. By watching a documentary in 1990 about the construction of the towers I learned the details needed to analyze what has happened and what photos show us.

I have met a civil engineer who remembers the documentary aired on another cable educational channel in 1995 and remembers the concrete core as they are shown above and labeled "ACTUAL CORE OF WTC TOWERS",

Demolition, the truth of 9-11

Here you claim that BOTH towers had the supposed "4 rectangular celled concrete core". No mention of the cores being "radically different" here. Could it be you changed your story to the cores being different because of the express elevator access issue I have brought up.

Hmmmm

 

[Christophera]

Another contradiction by you Chris.

The twin towers had a rectangular cast concrete core structure formed by 4 rectangular cells. By watching a documentary in 1990 about the construction of the towers I learned the details needed to analyze what has happened and what photos show us.

I have met a civil engineer who remembers the documentary aired on another cable educational channel in 1995 and remembers the concrete core as they are shown above and labeled "ACTUAL CORE OF WTC TOWERS",

Demolition, the truth of 9-11

Here you claim that BOTH towers had the supposed "4 rectangular celled concrete core". No mention of the cores being "radically different" here. Could it be you changed your story to the cores being different because of the express elevator access issue I have brought up.

Hmmmm

Yes, that is text dating back 5 years. I will revise it. Elsewhere it is clarified.

Descriptions of the differences are very difficult because I'm not exactly sure at which elevations the core changed. I'm working on getting some good depcitions done that show the structure while also noting the unknowns.

Defeating your photoshopping and the the elevator issue you had to rely on with no evidence did require some thought. I knew the differences basically but hadn't thought much on exactly how the central pedastal of WTC 2 connected to the core walls with adequate strength. It is no wonder they built a prototype as a rocket launch pad at cape canaveral to test the design.
It seems I remember that it was determined to be stronger than the base of WTC 1 core despite having the openings.

Finally the configuration was visible in the elevator entries of WTC 2 when observing video. The elevator car itself is about 8 feet back. There is about 4 feet alone just in the stainless doors

Your entire presentation is completely contradicted by independently verified evidence showing the concrete core. Someone working from memory, gathering up independent pieces of information in the vacuum created by the perpetrators with the post 9-11 psyops is bound to have some inconsistencies.

That Wiki picked up "Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992"

and Robertsons interview of September 13, 2001 by Newsweek indicates they checked them out, and got "undecieved".

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...s-undeceived-about-towers-core-structure.html

 

[Fizz]

Descriptions of the differences are very difficult because I'm not exactly sure at which elevations the core changed. I'm working on getting some good depcitions done that show the structure while also noting the unknowns.

well just feel free to make up anything you like. there is no concrete core so anything you say is fiction anyway. its not like it needs to be accurate. if it was accurate it would say its a steel core.

oh, and pay your child support you deadbeat dad. you walked out on your kids and failed to provide for your children.

 

[Christophera]

Descriptions of the differences are very difficult because I'm not exactly sure at which elevations the core changed. I'm working on getting some good depictions done that show the structure while also noting the unknowns.

well just feel free to make up anything you like. there is no concrete core so anything you say is fiction anyway.

The reverse of what you say is true, as usual.

If there were steel core columns, they would be seen in the core on 9-11, and they are never seen. The core area is always empty surrounded by concrete walls, or parts of them when seen.

The west concrete core walls of WTC 1 left of the spire, formed by an interior box column, one of 24 surrounding the core structure.

 

[Fizz]

If there were steel core columns, they would be seen in the core on 9-11, and they are never seen. The core area is always empty surrounded by concrete walls, or parts of them when seen.

The west concrete core walls of WTC 1 left of the spire, formed by an interior box column, one of 24 surrounding the core structure.

i love how you show pictures of the steel core and say its concrete!!

you really are a funny guy.....

tell me again how you need information on a piece of paper from 1876 before you can get medical treatment!! thats one of my favorites too!!