FEMA Deceives Nation About Twin Towers Core

[DiveCon]

Agent kaiser is typically misrepresenting the radio interview. It is Steven Jones that says "47 steel core columns" AND there is a big audio edit right when Robertson is ready to mention "concrete core", totally matching the September 13, 2001 Newsweek article, ........ if you listen very carefully.

http://algoxy.com/psych/audio/s.jones-l.e.Robertson.mp3

The reverse of what kaiser states is much closer to true.

HAHAHAHahahaha!!!!

an edit "right as he was about to say concrete core"!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHahahahahahaha!!!!!

holy shit, thats fucking hilarious!!! you think you know what he was about to say!!!

HAHAHAHahahahahahaa...

chris, if that doesnt convince you that you are delusional then nothing will. think of the logic behind that. you know what he was about to say.........

Whatever the edit covers we won't know, but images show concrete, Oxford identifies concrete, Domel identifies concrete and Steven Jones says, steel core columns. NOT Robertson.

You never ever did post an image of steel core columns clearly in the core area did you?

The concrete is very easy to see..

wrong again, dipshit
no concrete in the core above grade

 

[Fizz]

Whatever the edit covers we won't know, but images show concrete, Oxford identifies concrete, Domel identifies concrete and Steven Jones says, steel core columns. NOT Robertson.

You never ever did post an image of steel core columns clearly in the core area did you?

The concrete is very easy to see..

you got nothing. steven jones says steel core. oxford doesnt say the world trade center has a concrete core. it uses the WTC as an example of what a skyscraper is. then it says skyscrapers have steel and concrete cores. you have a reading comprehension problem, apparently.

all you have is pictures of smoke as a building collapses and you make delusional claims its concrete. lets see your concrete core under construction!!! just one picture. you cant show pictures of it because THERE WAS NO CONCRETE CORE!!

you are a jackass!!

steel core.

steel core.

steel core during cleanup efforts. notice the steel core is relatively intact at this point of the building and there is no concrete core.

no concrete core.

and then these pictures of the core under construction. no concrete. notice in the first one the floor above is already in place.

TV show that Robertson participates in on the collapse of the towers which states it was a STEEL CORE!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dB6xdCS9NJU]YouTube - 9/11: Why They Fell pt 2[/ame]

another video documentary with robertson that says it was a STEEL CORE.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqDTEZIdg7g&feature=PlayList&p=A6382FD1025BACE9&index=62]YouTube - WTC 1&2 UNIQUE DESIGN.[/ame]

New York Times says steel core. Comparing 2 Sets Of Twin Towers; Malaysian Buildings Offered as Model - NYTimes.com
Newsweek. steel core. High Time - Newsweek.com
Time Magazine. steel core. Twin Terrors - The Discovery Channel - TIME.com
engineering.com steel core. ENGINEERING.com > World Trade Center Disaster
skyscraper.org steel core. The World Trade Center: Statistics and History
University of Sydney steel core. World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects - Civil Engineering - The University of Sydney
Berkeley steel core. 04.17.2002 - World Trade Center remembered
and one of my favorites....
Time Magazine article from 1964!! Art: Onward & Upward - TIME

 

[KissMy]

Melted steel building collapsed from fire.

Steel is weaker than wood in a fire.

Fireman's rules to live by - "Never Trust the Truss" & "Don't Trust the Truss" because even wooden ones are fastened together with metal gang nailer plates. Steel looses up to 80% of its strength in an average fire.

Freeway overpass collapsed because steel girders gave way due to car fire. This was in open air which is not as hot as an enclosed fire. Here is the collapsed steel girder overpass from below and yet another view from below.

Wooden Beam supporting 2 melted steel beams.

 

[Christophera]

Whatever the edit covers we won't know, but images show concrete, Oxford identifies concrete, Domel identifies concrete and Steven Jones says, steel core columns. NOT Robertson.

You never ever did post an image of steel core columns clearly in the core area did you?

The concrete is very easy to see..

you got nothing.

Uhhhh, you only have erroneous SPAM9.

SPAM6
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1914220-post3527.html


FIZZ SPAM
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1860963-post3290.html


BERKLEY ERRORS
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1904734-post3480.html


TIME MAGAZINE ERRORS
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1904673-post3478.html


SPAM 4-POSTING UNKNOWN STRUCTURE CALLING IT WTC TWIN
http://www.usmessageboard.com/18978...//www.usmessageboard.com/conspiracy-theories/

 

[DiveCon]

Whatever the edit covers we won't know, but images show concrete, Oxford identifies concrete, Domel identifies concrete and Steven Jones says, steel core columns. NOT Robertson.

You never ever did post an image of steel core columns clearly in the core area did you?

The concrete is very easy to see..

you got nothing.

Uhhhh, you only have erroneous SPAM9.

SPAM6
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1914220-post3527.html


FIZZ SPAM
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1860963-post3290.html


BERKLEY ERRORS
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1904734-post3480.html


TIME MAGAZINE ERRORS
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1904673-post3478.html


SPAM 4-POSTING UNKNOWN STRUCTURE CALLING IT WTC TWIN
http://www.usmessageboard.com/18978...//www.usmessageboard.com/conspiracy-theories/

you are the only spammer here, fucktard

 

[Fizz]

got pictures of the concrete core?

didnt think so.

YOU GOT NOTHING!!

 

[Christophera]

got pictures of the concrete core?

Of course. I reasonably though you would never ask.

If it is not a concrete core, what, reasonably is it?

Before you try to say "gypsum", you need to be reminded that hundreds of thousands of tons of heavy structural steel crashed over that structure.

 

[DiveCon]

got pictures of the concrete core?

Of course. I reasonably though you would never ask.



If it is not a concrete core, what, reasonably is it?

Before you try to say "gypsum", you need to be reminded that hundreds of thousands of tons of heavy structural steel crashed over that structure.

failed again
no concrete shown

 

[Fizz]

got pictures of the concrete core?

Of course. I reasonably though you would never ask.

If it is not a concrete core, what, reasonably is it?

Before you try to say "gypsum", you need to be reminded that hundreds of thousands of tons of heavy structural steel crashed over that structure.

it's a really bad picture of this, you fucking moron. yours is taken looking towards the sun so all you see is the smoke and the shadows.....

 

[sboyle24]

 

[Christophera]

got pictures of the concrete core?

Of course. I reasonably though you would never ask.

If it is not a concrete core, what, reasonably is it?

Before you try to say "gypsum", you need to be reminded that hundreds of thousands of tons of heavy structural steel crashed over that structure.

it's a really bad picture of this, you fucking moron. yours is taken looking towards the sun so all you see is the smoke and the shadows.....

That is wrong because there are no ejections of sand and gravel in the image looking eastwards in the upper image where the rounded top is seen. And those would be seen on the right side.

The lower image is before the upper image and the particulate and dust has fallen some and none of the dense particulate is near the core.

 

[DiveCon]

Of course. I reasonably though you would never ask.

If it is not a concrete core, what, reasonably is it?

Before you try to say "gypsum", you need to be reminded that hundreds of thousands of tons of heavy structural steel crashed over that structure.

it's a really bad picture of this, you fucking moron. yours is taken looking towards the sun so all you see is the smoke and the shadows.....

That is wrong because there are no ejections of sand and gravel in the image looking eastwards in the upper image where the rounded top is seen. And those would be seen on the right side.

The lower image is before the upper image and the particulate and dust has fallen some and none of the dense particulate is near the core.

you dumbfuck, thats because YOUR image is nothing but a fucking dust cloud

 

[Fizz]

That is wrong because there are no ejections of sand and gravel in the image looking eastwards in the upper image where the rounded top is seen. And those would be seen on the right side.

The lower image is before the upper image and the particulate and dust has fallen some and none of the dense particulate is near the core.

no, jackass....

the whole building was gone in seconds. your picture and my picture are of the same object within seconds of each other. your image is looking through smoke towards the sun. you are looking at an unlit object covered in smoke. my image shows that the object in both images is made of steel.

there is no concrete core.

YOU GOT NOTHING.

 

[Christophera]

That is wrong because there are no ejections of sand and gravel in the image looking eastwards in the upper image where the rounded top is seen. And those would be seen on the right side.

The lower image is before the upper image and the particulate and dust has fallen some and none of the dense particulate is near the core.

no, jackass....

the whole building was gone in seconds. your picture and my picture are of the same object within seconds of each other. your image is looking through smoke towards the sun. you are looking at an unlit object covered in smoke. my image shows that the object in both images is made of steel.

there is no concrete core.

YOU GOT NOTHING.

Probably a little more than 3 seconds. As stated the debris waves from your photo are not seen in the later one and the rounded top IS NOT structural steel while in yours the top cannot be seen.

Then the fact that the lead engineer provides information to Newsweek on September 13, 2001 while the Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992 identifies a concrete core, AND August Domel, Ph.d SE. PE. identifies a conrete core AND, . . . the are many more images that show what can only be concrete means that the concrete core is proven by independently verified evidence.

 

[Fizz]

That is wrong because there are no ejections of sand and gravel in the image looking eastwards in the upper image where the rounded top is seen. And those would be seen on the right side.

The lower image is before the upper image and the particulate and dust has fallen some and none of the dense particulate is near the core.

no, jackass....

the whole building was gone in seconds. your picture and my picture are of the same object within seconds of each other. your image is looking through smoke towards the sun. you are looking at an unlit object covered in smoke. my image shows that the object in both images is made of steel.

there is no concrete core.

YOU GOT NOTHING.

Probably a little more than 3 seconds. As stated the debris waves from your photo are not seen in the later one and the rounded top IS NOT structural steel while in yours the top cannot be seen.

Then the fact that the lead engineer provides information to Newsweek on September 13, 2001 while the Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992 identifies a concrete core, AND August Domel, Ph.d SE. PE. identifies a conrete core AND, . . . the are many more images that show what can only be concrete means that the concrete core is proven by independently verified evidence.

debris waves? WTF?!!!

you simply make shit up!!!

clearly its the same structure. clearly its steel. clearly you are a moron!!

you lie and say robertson said something he did not. you lie and say the oxford article is talking specifically about the WTC when in reality (something you have little experience with) oxford is using the WTC as an example of what a skyscraper is. there are thousands and thousands of references to a steel core. you try to grasp at straws for anything that says concrete. clearly you are here to deceive everyone.

 

[Christophera]

no, jackass....

the whole building was gone in seconds. your picture and my picture are of the same object within seconds of each other. your image is looking through smoke towards the sun. you are looking at an unlit object covered in smoke. my image shows that the object in both images is made of steel.

there is no concrete core.

YOU GOT NOTHING.

Probably a little more than 3 seconds. As stated the debris waves from your photo are not seen in the later one and the rounded top IS NOT structural steel while in yours the top cannot be seen.

Then the fact that the lead engineer provides information to Newsweek on September 13, 2001 while the Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992 identifies a concrete core, AND August Domel, Ph.d SE. PE. identifies a conrete core AND, . . . the are many more images that show what can only be concrete means that the concrete core is proven by independently verified evidence.

debris waves? WTF?!!!

you simply make shit up!!!

clearly its the same structure. clearly its steel. clearly you are a moron!!

Wrong. This image of WTC 2 shows only the inner wall of the exterior steel structure easily identified by the rectangles formed by the floor beams and columns of that inner wall.

Here is it again except the core area is clearly seen and it is empty.

you lie and say robertson said something he did not.

You are saying that Newsweek is in error in an article covering what was thought to have been collapse interviewing the buildings engineer. That is illogical as hell, and you have no credibility anyway.

you lie and say the oxford article is talking specifically about the WTC when in reality (something you have little experience with) oxford is using the WTC as an example of what a skyscraper is. there are thousands and thousands of references to a steel core. you try to grasp at straws for anything that says concrete. clearly you are here to deceive everyone.

The Oxford article specifically identifies the World trade center skyscrapers.

Your credibility diminishes even more. All those references to the steel core go back to FEMA and this diagram showing something that is never seen on 9-11 when misrepresentations cannot be made.

 

[Fizz]

This is fucking hilarious!!!

here is a guy that was sentenced to jail time for owing more than $30,000 in child support he never paid, a guy that said in a lawsuit that a man blinked at him aggressively and was trying to hypnotize him, a guy that has been caught lying and changed his concrete core story more times than he has changed underwear, a guy that had to get pulled out of a business by police because he went there to complain that the truck in front of him blew a fuse in his own car and demanded to be paid $63 for the fuse......

and he is going to lecture me on "integrity"!!!

 

[Christophera]

Hmmmmm trying to change the subject agent. You must not have any evidence.

Here is the west concrete core wall of WTC 1.

You don't care for the US Constitution so lawless government means nothign to you. You have been shown that no legal action can be taken against me that is lawful because of estoppel. My children are well taken care of, always have been.

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

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

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

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

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

BTW, I won the case where the cement truck unloaded concrete with 1" aggregate in front of me on the highway at 55 mph. The toyota service manager gave me a declaration stating that the ignition fuse on that year and model could break driving over railroad tracks or rough roads.

Then the ten wheeler rolloff truck attacked my corolla, hit me twice, not an accident.

The driver rammed his right from wheel into the drivers door,

Then when I punched it to get away from him he chased me and clipped the left rear fender near the light bezel and the truck rim smeared the corner of the fender.

He had a green card, but didn't speak english and lied.

 

[Christophera]

It appears quite obvious that my opposition has no independently verified evidence of the steel core columns whereas I do have such evidence supporting the existence of the concrete core.

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

So all they can do is try and change the subject.

 

[DiveCon]

It appears quite obvious that my opposition has no independently verified evidence of the steel core columns whereas I do have such evidence supporting the existence of the concrete core.

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

So all they can do is try and change the subject.

^^^^ totally fucking DELUSIONAL