FEMA Deceives Nation About Twin Towers Core

[Rat in the Hat]

In order to be qualified as rational and sincere you need to indicate by some description where the supposed steel core columns are.

OK Chris, here's my description.

The steel core columns are to the left of center in this photo, roughly halfway between the top and bottom margins of the picture. The left most steel core column is lined up with the lift arm on the red bucket loader, and the right most steel core column is just to the left of the man wearing the white shirt near the remaining core structure. There are also free standing steel core columns approximately 12 feet to the left of the bucket loader, and 10 feet to the right of the man in the white shirt near the core structure. Additionally, there are 3 fallen steel core columns approximately 60 to 100 feet to the right of the man in the white shirt near the core structure.

For clarification, my description of the man in the white shirt near the core structure pertains to the figure in the left, lower center of the photograph, not the gentleman in the foreground wearing the yellow hardhat.

Additionally, there are 2 steel core columns above and to the right of the blue sawhorse in the mid-range foreground, and 1 steel core column just to the left of the same blue sawhorse.

And now it is your turn, Mr. Christopher A. Brown of Santa Barbara, California. Using this same photograph, please provide your description of where the concrete core structure is.

 

[Christophera]

And now it is your turn, Mr. Christopher A. Brown of Santa Barbara, California. Using this same photograph, please provide your description of where the concrete core structure is.

What you call a "core column" in front of a "bucketloader" shows your level of knowledge on the topic.

The machine is called an excavator and the steel structure behind it is called an "interior box column" and is immediately outside the concrete core wall to the right of it. You have not located those structural elements within the building footprint. You have not even said which tower that is.

Any steel leaning, is not a core column, it is elevator guide rail support steel.

 

[DiveCon]

And now it is your turn, Mr. Christopher A. Brown of Santa Barbara, California. Using this same photograph, please provide your description of where the concrete core structure is.

What you call a "core column" in front of a "bucketloader" shows your level of knowledge on the topic.

The machine is called an excavator and the steel structure behind it is called an "interior box column" and is immediately outside the concrete core wall to the right of it. You have not located those structural elements within the building footprint. You have not even said which tower that is.

Any steel leaning, is not a core column, it is elevator guide rail support steel.

there is no concrete wall in that photo

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Ok, I'll admit I don't know the proper name for that machine, and made an error. I've never driven one, so I didn't know what it was called. I should have just said "the red machine".

How can you say there is a concrete core to the right of that beam when you can see straight through the core to the objects behind it. There are at least 5 areas where you can see the perimeter columns through it.

Finally, are you really trying to make the claim that your "elevator guide rail support steel" jumped out of the core and embedded itself vertically into the ground? Do you realize how that sounds to the everyday man on the street? They're not going to believe it any more than I do.

 

[DiveCon]

Ok, I'll admit I don't know the proper name for that machine, and made an error. I've never driven one, so I didn't know what it was called. I should have just said "the red machine".

How can you say there is a concrete core to the right of that beam when you can see straight through the core to the objects behind it. There are at least 5 areas where you can see the perimeter columns through it.

Finally, are you really trying to make the claim that your "elevator guide rail support steel" jumped out of the core and embedded itself vertically into the ground? Do you realize how that sounds to the everyday man on the street? They're not going to believe it any more than I do.

maybe he doesnt understand he can see the full size image if he clicks on the yellow bar at the top

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Ok, I'll admit I don't know the proper name for that machine, and made an error. I've never driven one, so I didn't know what it was called. I should have just said "the red machine".

How can you say there is a concrete core to the right of that beam when you can see straight through the core to the objects behind it. There are at least 5 areas where you can see the perimeter columns through it.

Finally, are you really trying to make the claim that your "elevator guide rail support steel" jumped out of the core and embedded itself vertically into the ground? Do you realize how that sounds to the everyday man on the street? They're not going to believe it any more than I do.

maybe he doesnt understand he can see the full size image if he clicks on the yellow bar at the top

Are you kidding? He doesn't even know that the material made from refined iron ore is called steel. He thinks it's concrete.

 

[PhysicsExist]

How does a building completely collapse from fires that do not melt steel? And if it weakened the steel instead, how did it weaken the steel on all 100+ floors of each building? And if the fire did weaken the steel on all the floors, how? How does a building made of steel collapse completely straight down into its own foot print, where are the Newtonian Physics?

 

[Rat in the Hat]

How does a building completely collapse from fires that do not melt steel? And if it weakened the steel instead, how did it weaken the steel on all 100+ floors of each building? And if the fire did weaken the steel on all the floors, how? How does a building made of steel collapse completely straight down into its own foot print, where are the Newtonian Physics?

All very good points, and I have asked the same questions elsewhere. But that is not the issue in this thread.

Mr Brown is claiming that the cores were not steel, but concrete. Not only that, he states as fact that these cores were built with re-bar coated in C-4 during construction, and also that the floor trusses were coated in C-4 before the concrete was poured. Do you believe his theory is correct?

 

[PhysicsExist]

How does a building completely collapse from fires that do not melt steel? And if it weakened the steel instead, how did it weaken the steel on all 100+ floors of each building? And if the fire did weaken the steel on all the floors, how? How does a building made of steel collapse completely straight down into its own foot print, where are the Newtonian Physics?

All very good points, and I have asked the same questions elsewhere. But that is not the issue in this thread.

Mr Brown is claiming that the cores were not steel, but concrete. Not only that, he states as fact that these cores were built with re-bar coated in C-4 during construction, and also that the floor trusses were coated in C-4 before the concrete was poured. Do you believe his theory is correct?

C-4, as in the explosive? because if someone is saying the rebar made in the WTCs were coated in C-4, we really need to help him.

I've been wondering how Steel/Concrete support columns in the middle COULD EVEN burn....There is no fuel in the center of the building, its a core filled with elevators.....concrete and steel only, how did the fires engulf the core and melt/weaken it?

 

[DiveCon]

How does a building completely collapse from fires that do not melt steel? And if it weakened the steel instead, how did it weaken the steel on all 100+ floors of each building? And if the fire did weaken the steel on all the floors, how? How does a building made of steel collapse completely straight down into its own foot print, where are the Newtonian Physics?

All very good points, and I have asked the same questions elsewhere. But that is not the issue in this thread.

Mr Brown is claiming that the cores were not steel, but concrete. Not only that, he states as fact that these cores were built with re-bar coated in C-4 during construction, and also that the floor trusses were coated in C-4 before the concrete was poured. Do you believe his theory is correct?

C-4, as in the explosive? because if someone is saying the rebar made in the WTCs were coated in C-4, we really need to help him.

I've been wondering how Steel/Concrete support columns in the middle COULD EVEN burn....There is no fuel in the center of the building, its a core filled with elevators.....concrete and steel only, how did the fires engulf the core and melt/weaken it?

there was NO CONCRETE in the cores above grade
none at all
only in the floor slabs

 

[Rat in the Hat]

How does a building completely collapse from fires that do not melt steel? And if it weakened the steel instead, how did it weaken the steel on all 100+ floors of each building? And if the fire did weaken the steel on all the floors, how? How does a building made of steel collapse completely straight down into its own foot print, where are the Newtonian Physics?

All very good points, and I have asked the same questions elsewhere. But that is not the issue in this thread.

Mr Brown is claiming that the cores were not steel, but concrete. Not only that, he states as fact that these cores were built with re-bar coated in C-4 during construction, and also that the floor trusses were coated in C-4 before the concrete was poured. Do you believe his theory is correct?

C-4, as in the explosive? because if someone is saying the rebar made in the WTCs were coated in C-4, we really need to help him.

I've been wondering how Steel/Concrete support columns in the middle COULD EVEN burn....There is no fuel in the center of the building, its a core filled with elevators.....concrete and steel only, how did the fires engulf the core and melt/weaken it?

Yep, that's it. He also claims the re-bar was either 3 inch or 6 inch thick, and was manufactured and coated by the Dept. of Defense. When pressed on it, he couldn't explain how the C-4 stayed active 30 years later, and why it didn't burn from the jet fuel. I wish there was a better search program on here. I tried to find a post for it to show you. You would get a hoot out of reading his replies.

The fact that the core (and even the building below the impact point) collapsed has always bothered me since day 1. I remember telling the wife that they were going to have a hell of a time fixing the buildings after they put the fires out. Next thing I knew, both of them were gone, and I'm asking her "Where the hell did the lower part of the buildings go?"

I could understand the portions above the blaze falling apart, but the lower portions have always left me confused. But I think this was due to sloppy designs and construction, rather than being an inside job. In my opinion, the open floor plan truss design just didn't give enough support to the vertical structures.

I have a hard time with the inside job theory for 2 reasons. First, I don't think they could have brought in enough explosives to drop the buildings without somebody noticing. Second, I don't think anyone we had in any government agency would have been smart enough to pull this off while making sure everyone involved kept quiet. Add to that the fact that there are people high enough in the current government that would love to use the evidence of a conspiracy to humiliate Bush & Cheney, yet are not doing it.

But I'll tell you one thing. I will never believe that this was due to C-4 laden concrete cores, and that it was planned back in 70's when the towers were built.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

All very good points, and I have asked the same questions elsewhere. But that is not the issue in this thread.

Mr Brown is claiming that the cores were not steel, but concrete. Not only that, he states as fact that these cores were built with re-bar coated in C-4 during construction, and also that the floor trusses were coated in C-4 before the concrete was poured. Do you believe his theory is correct?

C-4, as in the explosive? because if someone is saying the rebar made in the WTCs were coated in C-4, we really need to help him.

I've been wondering how Steel/Concrete support columns in the middle COULD EVEN burn....There is no fuel in the center of the building, its a core filled with elevators.....concrete and steel only, how did the fires engulf the core and melt/weaken it?

there was NO CONCRETE in the cores above grade
none at all
only in the floor slabs

Good evening Dive, how's it going?

Maybe you can help me out here. Could you locate a post of Chri$$y's about the C-4 coated re-bar so PE can see what I'm referring to? I couldn't find any, but you have much better skillz at this than I do.

 

[DiveCon]

C-4, as in the explosive? because if someone is saying the rebar made in the WTCs were coated in C-4, we really need to help him.

I've been wondering how Steel/Concrete support columns in the middle COULD EVEN burn....There is no fuel in the center of the building, its a core filled with elevators.....concrete and steel only, how did the fires engulf the core and melt/weaken it?

there was NO CONCRETE in the cores above grade
none at all
only in the floor slabs

Good evening Dive, how's it going?

Maybe you can help me out here. Could you locate a post of Chri$$y's about the C-4 coated re-bar so PE can see what I'm referring to? I couldn't find any, but you have much better skillz at this than I do.

all he has to do is read through this whole thread
LOL

 

[bucs90]

Has anyone thought about this?

Lets say the buildings other than #1 and #2 were in fact bombed from below.

Didn't the terrorists put a car bomb in WTC in 1993? Is it crazy to fathom that maybe they also placed bombs in #7, etc, on 9-11, and the gov't doesnt want to admit that their security dept's screwed up so bad that Al Qaida was able to place car bombs as well as fly planes into WTC?

Remember, these are the same people who run the DMV, the Iraq and Vietnam wars, border control and Social Security. And you think they can pull this off? Apparantly the ONLY thing the government is good at is running global conspiracies against it's own people. The easy stuff they just cant get right.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

there was NO CONCRETE in the cores above grade
none at all
only in the floor slabs

Good evening Dive, how's it going?

Maybe you can help me out here. Could you locate a post of Chri$$y's about the C-4 coated re-bar so PE can see what I'm referring to? I couldn't find any, but you have much better skillz at this than I do.

all he has to do is read through this whole thread
LOL

That's true, but I was trying to save him from having to look at 800 copies of every one of Chri$$y's dusty, fuzzy, blurry pictures of steel.

 

[PhysicsExist]

]I have a hard time with the inside job theory for 2 reasons. First, I don't think they could have brought in enough explosives to drop the buildings without somebody noticing. Second, I don't think anyone we had in any government agency would have been smart enough to pull this off while making sure everyone involved kept quiet. Add to that the fact that there are people high enough in the current government that would love to use the evidence of a conspiracy to humiliate Bush & Cheney, yet are not doing it.

This is where I stop. This is where you CANNOT lead yourself. These exact thoughts are the last things you have to bypass in order to see the whole picture. Yes, I agree, I dont think they could keep it hidden, I dont think it would of been easy in any way to bring all those explosives in there. BUT we have no evidence to support either side of these thoughts, and theres no need to bring them up. All we need to look at are the things that we KNOW FOR SURE. 100%. Without a doubt. And those things are as follows:

WTC7 was not hit by a plane, yet collapsed at freefall speeds. This is impossible according to Newtonian Physics. (unless explosives or other factors were used, instead "offices fires"-NIST)

No steel highrise building has collapsed in the history of the world.

There was renovation to the entire elevator shafts of the towers 9 months prior to 9/11.

When the first tower collapses, and the top tilts severely, how does it STOP tipping, and how does it SMASH the other floors if its not above them since its tilting? Newtonian Physics state that the object goes through the path of least resistance, and if the top is tilting, it could only stop tilting if it fell off the side, or nothing was under it.......causing no resistance.

Building 7’s collapse was not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.

There's countless other facts that we know for 100% certainty that I could post, but im assuming you know them considering you are highly suspicious of this event and probably have researched.

All I can say is that thinking about whether or not our government could 'pull it off' or if they were 'smart enough to' or if they could 'keep it a secret' is not a scientific way to debunk evidence.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Has anyone thought about this?

Lets say the buildings other than #1 and #2 were in fact bombed from below.

Didn't the terrorists put a car bomb in WTC in 1993? Is it crazy to fathom that maybe they also placed bombs in #7, etc, on 9-11, and the gov't doesnt want to admit that their security dept's screwed up so bad that Al Qaida was able to place car bombs as well as fly planes into WTC?

Remember, these are the same people who run the DMV, the Iraq and Vietnam wars, border control and Social Security. And you think they can pull this off? Apparantly the ONLY thing the government is good at is running global conspiracies against it's own people. The easy stuff they just cant get right.

That's a very good point about Building 7, and one I really never though of. The only question that comes to mind is why did they wait so long in the day, and after the NYFD pulled out of the building, to detonate the bombs? It would have had a much more powerful effect had they set them off just after the second plane hit. And it would have at least doubled the death count.

 

[DiveCon]

]I have a hard time with the inside job theory for 2 reasons. First, I don't think they could have brought in enough explosives to drop the buildings without somebody noticing. Second, I don't think anyone we had in any government agency would have been smart enough to pull this off while making sure everyone involved kept quiet. Add to that the fact that there are people high enough in the current government that would love to use the evidence of a conspiracy to humiliate Bush & Cheney, yet are not doing it.

This is where I stop. This is where you CANNOT lead yourself. These exact thoughts are the last things you have to bypass in order to see the whole picture. Yes, I agree, I dont think they could keep it hidden, I dont think it would of been easy in any way to bring all those explosives in there. BUT we have no evidence to support either side of these thoughts, and theres no need to bring them up. All we need to look at are the things that we KNOW FOR SURE. 100%. Without a doubt. And those things are as follows:

WTC7 was not hit by a plane, yet collapsed at freefall speeds. This is impossible according to Newtonian Physics. (unless explosives or other factors were used, instead "offices fires"-NIST)

No steel highrise building has collapsed in the history of the world.

There was renovation to the entire elevator shafts of the towers 9 months prior to 9/11.

When the first tower collapses, and the top tilts severely, how does it STOP tipping, and how does it SMASH the other floors if its not above them since its tilting? Newtonian Physics state that the object goes through the path of least resistance, and if the top is tilting, it could only stop tilting if it fell off the side, or nothing was under it.......causing no resistance.

Building 7’s collapse was not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.

There's countless other facts that we know for 100% certainty that I could post, but im assuming you know them considering you are highly suspicious of this event and probably have researched.

All I can say is that thinking about whether or not our government could 'pull it off' or if they were 'smart enough to' or if they could 'keep it a secret' is not a scientific way to debunk evidence.

the "no steel highrise has ever collapsed" is a lie
there have been several

 

[Rat in the Hat]

]I have a hard time with the inside job theory for 2 reasons. First, I don't think they could have brought in enough explosives to drop the buildings without somebody noticing. Second, I don't think anyone we had in any government agency would have been smart enough to pull this off while making sure everyone involved kept quiet. Add to that the fact that there are people high enough in the current government that would love to use the evidence of a conspiracy to humiliate Bush & Cheney, yet are not doing it.

This is where I stop. This is where you CANNOT lead yourself. These exact thoughts are the last things you have to bypass in order to see the whole picture. Yes, I agree, I dont think they could keep it hidden, I dont think it would of been easy in any way to bring all those explosives in there. BUT we have no evidence to support either side of these thoughts, and theres no need to bring them up. All we need to look at are the things that we KNOW FOR SURE. 100%. Without a doubt. And those things are as follows:

WTC7 was not hit by a plane, yet collapsed at freefall speeds. This is impossible according to Newtonian Physics. (unless explosives or other factors were used, instead "offices fires"-NIST)

No steel highrise building has collapsed in the history of the world.

There was renovation to the entire elevator shafts of the towers 9 months prior to 9/11.

When the first tower collapses, and the top tilts severely, how does it STOP tipping, and how does it SMASH the other floors if its not above them since its tilting? Newtonian Physics state that the object goes through the path of least resistance, and if the top is tilting, it could only stop tilting if it fell off the side, or nothing was under it.......causing no resistance.

Building 7’s collapse was not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.

There's countless other facts that we know for 100% certainty that I could post, but im assuming you know them considering you are highly suspicious of this event and probably have researched.

All I can say is that thinking about whether or not our government could 'pull it off' or if they were 'smart enough to' or if they could 'keep it a secret' is not a scientific way to debunk evidence.

The only thing I am currently trying to debunk is Mr. Brown's concrete theory. It is so far from reality that it disgusts me. For him to say that 3,000 of our citizens died because some nebulous agency decided over 40 years ago to load explosives in buildings for the purpose of blowing them up with people inside makes me sick. And the families of the dead don't need to hear that kind of sick theory.

The fall of the top section of the South Tower never made sense to me. When I saw that section rotate off, I expected it to fall to the ground in a single piece. It surprised me when it fell apart, but I think that again it was due to poor construction methods.

 

[PhysicsExist]

]I have a hard time with the inside job theory for 2 reasons. First, I don't think they could have brought in enough explosives to drop the buildings without somebody noticing. Second, I don't think anyone we had in any government agency would have been smart enough to pull this off while making sure everyone involved kept quiet. Add to that the fact that there are people high enough in the current government that would love to use the evidence of a conspiracy to humiliate Bush & Cheney, yet are not doing it.

This is where I stop. This is where you CANNOT lead yourself. These exact thoughts are the last things you have to bypass in order to see the whole picture. Yes, I agree, I dont think they could keep it hidden, I dont think it would of been easy in any way to bring all those explosives in there. BUT we have no evidence to support either side of these thoughts, and theres no need to bring them up. All we need to look at are the things that we KNOW FOR SURE. 100%. Without a doubt. And those things are as follows:

WTC7 was not hit by a plane, yet collapsed at freefall speeds. This is impossible according to Newtonian Physics. (unless explosives or other factors were used, instead "offices fires"-NIST)

No steel highrise building has collapsed in the history of the world.

There was renovation to the entire elevator shafts of the towers 9 months prior to 9/11.

When the first tower collapses, and the top tilts severely, how does it STOP tipping, and how does it SMASH the other floors if its not above them since its tilting? Newtonian Physics state that the object goes through the path of least resistance, and if the top is tilting, it could only stop tilting if it fell off the side, or nothing was under it.......causing no resistance.

Building 7’s collapse was not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.

There's countless other facts that we know for 100% certainty that I could post, but im assuming you know them considering you are highly suspicious of this event and probably have researched.

All I can say is that thinking about whether or not our government could 'pull it off' or if they were 'smart enough to' or if they could 'keep it a secret' is not a scientific way to debunk evidence.

the "no steel highrise has ever collapsed" is a lie
there have been several

No it isnt. Show me where a steel highrise has collapsed.

I asked simple questions, or stated verified facts, you don't need to detract from the point by posting false rebuttals that ignore the other points. This tactic is a distraction, you are merely trying to make me prove the point that no steel high rise has collapsed, wasting our time, instead of letting us have a discussion about the facts at hand. Stop please.