FEMA Deceives Nation About Twin Towers Core

[Liability]

What the heck is a Federal Emergency Management Agency, anyway?

Who the devil wants to "manage" an emergency?

The entity known as FEMA didn't "deceive" the nation nor did they attempt to. It didn't happen negligently and it didn't happen consciously because it didn't happen at all.

As always, it is the scumbag Troofers who have attempted to deceive the Nation.

Troofers suck shit.

 

[Christophera]

Here is deception. FEMA presents this as the core of the Towers, BTW, this is the only official depiction of the Towers core of any kind.

 

[Fizz]

Here is deception. FEMA presents this as the core of the Towers, BTW, this is the only official depiction of the Towers core of any kind.

its not a deception. its s simple drawing of how the towers were actually constructed. got any proof otherwise?

 

[Christophera]

Here is deception. FEMA presents this as the core of the Towers, BTW, this is the only official depiction of the Towers core of any kind.

its not a deception. its s simple drawing of how the towers were actually constructed. got any proof otherwise?

This proves there were no steel core columns because under conditions they will protrude from the top.

I know you cannot show an image from 9-11 with the columns shown in the FEMA diagram standing in the core. They never existed.

 

[Fizz]

Here is deception. FEMA presents this as the core of the Towers, BTW, this is the only official depiction of the Towers core of any kind.

its not a deception. its s simple drawing of how the towers were actually constructed. got any proof otherwise?

This proves there were no steel core columns because under conditions they will protrude from the top.

no it doesnt and no they wouldnt.

thats it? thats the best evidence you have that drawing is wrong?

 

[DiveCon]

its not a deception. its s simple drawing of how the towers were actually constructed. got any proof otherwise?

This proves there were no steel core columns because under conditions they will protrude from the top.

no it doesnt and no they wouldnt.

thats it? thats the best evidence you have that drawing is wrong?

i've asked him several times to provide a link to the source for that drawing so it can be seen in context of how it was used, but he never has

 

[Christophera]

its not a deception. its s simple drawing of how the towers were actually constructed. got any proof otherwise?

This proves there were no steel core columns because under conditions they will protrude from the top.

no it doesnt and no they wouldnt.

thats it? thats the best evidence you have that drawing is wrong?

Your words are meaningless because you've posted no evidence while I did and it was logically and reasonably used.

 

[DiveCon]

This proves there were no steel core columns because under conditions they will protrude from the top.

no it doesnt and no they wouldnt.

thats it? thats the best evidence you have that drawing is wrong?

i've asked him several times to provide a link to the source for that drawing so it can be seen in context of how it was used, but he never has

i did a tineye search for it and the pnly places it shows up are forums, and specifically, ones HE has posted it on

 

[Fizz]

This proves there were no steel core columns because under conditions they will protrude from the top.

no it doesnt and no they wouldnt.

thats it? thats the best evidence you have that drawing is wrong?

i've asked him several times to provide a link to the source for that drawing so it can be seen in context of how it was used, but he never has

it doesnt really matter where it comes from if its correct. he needs to prove it isnt. just because he says its wrong doesnt mean it is.

so far all he has shown is a picture of smoke.

 

[DiveCon]

This proves there were no steel core columns because under conditions they will protrude from the top.

no it doesnt and no they wouldnt.

thats it? thats the best evidence you have that drawing is wrong?

Your words are meaningless because you've posted no evidence while I did and it was logically and reasonably used.

you havent posted any evidence either

 

[DiveCon]

no it doesnt and no they wouldnt.

thats it? thats the best evidence you have that drawing is wrong?

i've asked him several times to provide a link to the source for that drawing so it can be seen in context of how it was used, but he never has

it doesnt really matter where it comes from if its correct. he needs to prove it isnt. just because he says its wrong doesnt mean it is.

so far all he has shown is a picture of smoke.

well, i guess he thinks that was the ONLY representation of the core found

 

[Christophera]

Here is deception. FEMA presents this as the core of the Towers, BTW, this is the only official depiction of the Towers core of any kind.

its not a deception. its s simple drawing of how the towers were actually constructed. got any proof otherwise?

This proves there were no steel core columns because under conditions they will protrude from the top.

I know you cannot show an image from 9-11 with the columns shown in the FEMA diagram standing in the core. They never existed.

no it doesnt and no they wouldnt.

thats it? thats the best evidence you have that drawing is wrong?

Your text is meaningless because you've posted no evidence. Null post.

You have no evidence that the FEMA drawing is correct and there is much more proof it is fallacious.

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.

 

[Fizz]

Your words are meaningless because you've posted no evidence while I did and it was logically and reasonably used.

no jackass. thats not how it works. you posted the FEMA drawing and claimed it was wrong. its YOU that needs to prove it.

saying its "logical and reasonable" that it is wrong is neither logical nor reasonable.

 

[DiveCon]

This proves there were no steel core columns because under conditions they will protrude from the top.



I know you cannot show an image from 9-11 with the columns shown in the FEMA diagram standing in the core. They never existed.

no it doesnt and no they wouldnt.

thats it? thats the best evidence you have that drawing is wrong?

Your text is meaningless because you've posted no evidence. Null post.

You have no evidence that the FEMA drawing is correct and there is much more proof it is fallacious.

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.

why do you continue to LIE
you have already been shown that everything you have posted is WRONG

 

[Christophera]

Your words are meaningless because you've posted no evidence while I did and it was logically and reasonably used.

no jackass. thats not how it works. you posted the FEMA drawing and claimed it was wrong. its YOU that needs to prove it.

I did prove it but you serve the infiltrating perpetrators so logically refuse to use evidence. You are exposed.

 

[Fizz]

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.

your "verified" shit has already been debunked and its been proven you are lying about what your links contain.

dont get ahead of yourself with the stupid fucking concrete shit you cant prove either.

prove that FEMA drawing is wrong.

 

[Fizz]

Your words are meaningless because you've posted no evidence while I did and it was logically and reasonably used.

no jackass. thats not how it works. you posted the FEMA drawing and claimed it was wrong. its YOU that needs to prove it.

I did prove it but you serve the infiltrating perpetrators so logically refuse to use evidence. You are exposed.

you didnt prove anything. you showed us a picture of smoke that proved nothing and then you rambled on incoherently with shit that has already been proven to be a lie.

when asked to provide evidence you get defense and paranoid and claim anyone asking for evidence is a super secret government agent.

 

[Christophera]

no jackass. thats not how it works. you posted the FEMA drawing and claimed it was wrong. its YOU that needs to prove it.

I did prove it but you serve the infiltrating perpetrators so logically refuse to use evidence. You are exposed.

you didnt prove anything. you showed us a picture of smoke that proved nothing and then you rambled on incoherently with shit that has already been proven to be a lie.

That is what the perpetrators of secret methods of mass murder would want people to think. But the fact is that all you've proven is that you are working to support treason by protecting the secret methods of mass murder.

There was no fire, so there was no smoke. A little dust but the WTC 2 core clearly has NO STEEL protruding.

when asked to provide evidence you get defense and paranoid and claim anyone asking for evidence is a super secret government agent.

No, you misrepresent your role. I claim anyone refusing to use evidence is working to keep the methods of mass murder secret.

Only an agent would continue with no evidence and constantly fail to recognize violations of law empowering secrecy.

 

[Fizz]

I did prove it but you serve the infiltrating perpetrators so logically refuse to use evidence. You are exposed.

you didnt prove anything. you showed us a picture of smoke that proved nothing and then you rambled on incoherently with shit that has already been proven to be a lie.

That is what the perpetrators of secret methods of mass murder would want people to think. But the fact is that all you've proven is that you are working to support treason by protecting the secret methods of mass murder.

There was no fire, so there was no smoke. A little dust but the WTC 2 core clearly has NO STEEL protruding.

when asked to provide evidence you get defense and paranoid and claim anyone asking for evidence is a super secret government agent.

No, you misrepresent your role. I claim anyone refusing to use evidence is working to keep the methods of mass murder secret.

Only an agent would continue with no evidence and constantly fail to recognize violations of law empowering secrecy.

you are shown evidence all the time. you cant refute it so you call it spam like a fucking moron.

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


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqDTEZIdg7g&feature=PlayList&p=A6382FD1025BACE9&index=62]YouTube - WTC 1&2 UNIQUE DESIGN.[/ame]


"For a combination of historical, cultural and economic reasons, tall, concrete-core buildings dedicated to office use are unusual in New York, where builders prefer the wallboard-enclosed cores with steel frames that Mr. Robertson pioneered in the trade center."
New York Timeshere


"Engineers are still debating whether the Twin Towers' unique structure should be credited for surviving the initial crashes, or blamed for collapsing in the subsequent fires, or both. But the point is that it was unique, utilizing closely spaced columns connected to a steel core by relatively lightweight floor trusses. "
Newsweek. Newsweek.com


"Each of the towers, more than 200 ft. wide on each side, contained a central steel core surrounded by open office space. Eighteen-inch steel tubes ran vertically along the outside, providing much of the support for the building"
Time Magazine.TIME.com


"The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry. Worried that the intense air pressure created by the building's high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core. "
engineering.comENGINEERING.com


"Like many high-rises built in the 1960s, the Twin Towers were constructed with their weight distributed between a hollow steel core (containing services like elevators) and steel columns around the perimeter, maximizing open floor space. Many believe the older high-rise design, in which steel columns are often encased in concrete, is more fire resistant.

“A lot of people have told me, ‘You should have used more concrete in the structure,’” said Robertson. However, his chart plotting the strength of steel vs. concrete at various temperatures showed that at the incendiary levels that raged in the towers, the two materials become similarly weak."
Berkeley 04.17.2002 - World Trade Center remembered


"Yamasaki has switched from concrete, his favorite medium, to steel because of the sheer height of the towers, and instead of having the weight of the structure carried by the frame and the elevator core, the great steel columns of the exterior walls will support it."
Time Magazine article from 1964!! Art: Onward & Upward - TIME

 

[Fizz]

where is your proof the NIST drawing is not correct?