FEMA Deceives Nation About Twin Towers Core

[DiveCon]

there is no such fucking thing as "elevator guide rail steel support"
you fucking moron

 

[Liability]

You just posted a video that has 900 likes, and 1100 dislikes, first of all.

Oh NOZIES!!! The Horror! Not that. The dislikes outweigh the likes. (For a guy with "physics" in your handle, stupid, you sure focus on inconsequential shit.)

Secondly, you use this video as your source for WTC7. This video was posted in 2007. If you're into using youtube videos as a source, Im assuming you've visted youtube.com/ae911truth. If not, take a look, considering you look at the 'debunking videos', you must watch the videos they are trying to debunk.

No, asswipe., I merely threw in a you boob video I had come across for unrelated reasons, I thought it was pretty good. SO, I shared it.

Do us all a huge favor. Try to say something -- anything really -- that makes the first bit of sense, m'kay?

Good. Now, go busy yourself with that assignment for a few months. Come back only after you're properly prepared.

Scat.

 

[Liability]

STEEL Core columns are misrepresented as "elevator guide rails [sic]" by CriscoFEARa, the treasonous null poster disinformation bot, and the absolutely nobody WITH a functioning brain accepts the deliberate disinfo.

 

[Christophera]

STEEL Core columns are misrepresented as "elevator guide rails [sic]" by CriscoFEARa

Lulubell, if that were true, then you could show the supposed steel core columns in the core area on 9-11. I show elevator guide rail steel fastened to the inside of the concrete core wall which provided anchoring for all the rest in the core which all fell as soon as the demo progressed.

The core area is left of the spire in the below and there is NOTHING inside there. Only the wall surrounding the core show steel and that is OUTSIDE the core wall.

Stop supporting secret methods of mass murder.

 

[PhysicsExist]

You just posted a video that has 900 likes, and 1100 dislikes, first of all.

Oh NOZIES!!! The Horror! Not that. The dislikes outweigh the likes. (For a guy with "physics" in your handle, stupid, you sure focus on inconsequential shit.)

Secondly, you use this video as your source for WTC7. This video was posted in 2007. If you're into using youtube videos as a source, Im assuming you've visted youtube.com/ae911truth. If not, take a look, considering you look at the 'debunking videos', you must watch the videos they are trying to debunk.

No, asswipe., I merely threw in a you boob video I had come across for unrelated reasons, I thought it was pretty good. SO, I shared it.

Do us all a huge favor. Try to say something -- anything really -- that makes the first bit of sense, m'kay?

Good. Now, go busy yourself with that assignment for a few months. Come back only after you're properly prepared.

Scat.

I posted simple facts. That video is a fraud and everyone on youtube voted it as so. Why would you want to cite a video from a random youtuber, that is actually hated by the majority of the viewers who've seen it?

Also, what is with the personal attacks? I simply stated you posted a video from 2007. Surely you've researched yourself into the Architects & Engineers 911 truth website. If not, how could you be having an discussion about things you are unaware of? I suggest watching a couple www.youtube.com/ae911truth videos, maybe start with this:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1f_hPtS7Lu4[/ame]

To continue, it looks as if you havent even taken the time to look into the other possible scenarios regarding 9/11, and are too stubborn to. If that is the case, then so be it, it's your choice to be ignorant. After all, it is America, we are free to choose, I just wish you actually used that freedom instead of mocking us.

 

[DiveCon]

gage is a fraud

 

[PhysicsExist]

gage is a fraud

Where is your evidence? And if so, how could he be lying about Newtonian Physics? You cannot make a fraud out of 'reality' and 'physics'.

These responses are all you have. Just watch the video, but you refuse to. You only state things you wish are true, with no evidence to support such claims. And in turn, you look very immature.

 

[DiveCon]

gage is a fraud

Where is your evidence? And if so, how could he be lying about Newtonian Physics? You cannot make a fraud out of 'reality' and 'physics'.

These responses are all you have. Just watch the video, but you refuse to. You only state things you wish are true, with no evidence to support such claims. And in turn, you look very immature.

your videos are old and debunked
nothing you morons ever post is ever new

 

[Christophera]

Meaning you've never been able to show the core you assert existed in the core area on 9-11, and in service to the perpetrators you will misrepresent anything.

This is a concrete core on 9-11. No vertical steel is visible in the core area.

 

[DiveCon]

Meaning you've never been able to show the core you assert existed in the core area on 9-11, and in service to the perpetrators you will misrepresent anything.

This is a concrete core on 9-11. No vertical steel is visible in the core area.

holy shit
you are too fucking stupid
the steel core has been shown to you too fucking many times
there was not EVER a concrete core in the towers
and you have never shown a photo that clearly shows one

 

[Christophera]

Meaning you've never been able to show the core you assert existed in the core area on 9-11, and in service to the perpetrators you will misrepresent anything.

This is a concrete core on 9-11. No vertical steel is visible in the core area.

holy shit
you are too fucking stupid
the steel core has been shown to you too fucking many times
there was not EVER a concrete core in the towers
and you have never shown a photo that clearly shows one

Hmmmm, outright lies, the opposite of the truth, as agents usually do. The photo you refer to IS THE WTC 2 CONCRETE CORE and NO structural steel is seen at all.

Here is a photo from 9-11 with the structural steel elements visible. None are in the core.

The spire is outside the core.

 

[stannrodd]

This is a concrete core on 9-11. No vertical steel is visible in the core area.

Bullshit Chris. There is no detail showing concrete. You are simply a delusional imbecile.

Nothing of any significance is seen in the blurry area of the photo.

You are as madd, if not madder, .. than the idiots who show a series of still photos of the "spire" in collapse, and then claim that it is being vaporized by a directed energy weapon.

Then they refer you to the acid head, Judy Woods website where she dreams up stuff too stupid for words.

Mr Brown you are less than a clown .. your time is over mate. You must have bored yourself insane.

Where did you see the documentary Chri$$y .. in a dream ?? OK I'll ask again but you can answer honestly .. without my prompting.

Which local channel was it on Chris ?? Can't remember?

How about the library which held 3 copies of the video. Name it ..

How do you know the videos were intercepted as you claim, during their delivery. Did you get some kind of notice from the courier ..

Ron Larson is an impostor !! And an idiot !!

Garrd !! .. the list of stupidity in your postings and "theory" are mind bogglingly daft.

Here's some music for you to walk in circles to.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9MszVE7aR4[/ame]

Merry Christmas Chris.

Stann

 

[stannrodd]

BUMP

Chris .. it's your turn ..

 

[stannrodd]

Moron must be catching a turkey in his Bat Cave !!

 

[DiveCon]

Meaning you've never been able to show the core you assert existed in the core area on 9-11, and in service to the perpetrators you will misrepresent anything.

This is a concrete core on 9-11. No vertical steel is visible in the core area.

holy shit
you are too fucking stupid
the steel core has been shown to you too fucking many times
there was not EVER a concrete core in the towers
and you have never shown a photo that clearly shows one

Hmmmm, outright lies, the opposite of the truth, as agents usually do. The photo you refer to IS THE WTC 2 CONCRETE CORE and NO structural steel is seen at all.

Here is a photo from 9-11 with the structural steel elements visible. None are in the core.

The spire is outside the core.

dipshit, there is NO CONCRETE IN ANY OF THOSE PHOTOS
NONE

 

[eots]

The reality – that fire causes steel structures to collapse, is illustrated clearly by post-fire photos of the Windsor Tower such as this one:

-- griffin25 - 911guide

The Burfield piece (which responds to a 9/11 Troofer Conspiracy claim that no steel structures have ever collapsed due to fire) also notes that the Madrid Tower had CONCRETE elements in its design, unlike the World Trade Towers (sorry Christophera, but you are beyond retarded so your Twin Towers "concrete core" theory is stupid beyond repair):

Dr Griffin’s primary contention is that fire has not caused steel-framed buildings to collapse. However the Windsor Tower was not a steel framed building.



The building totalled 32 storeys, with 29 floors above ground and three below. A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors. Above that was a central support system of concrete columns, supporting concrete floors with steel perimeter columns. An additional feature was the presence of two 'technical floors' - concrete floors designed to give the building more strength. One was just above the ground level and the other at the 17th floor.

Id.

he post a picture of a standing building and claims it is collapsed.in total contradiction with NIST statement that 9/11 was the first known instance of a skyscraper that collapsed primarily due to fire

 

[eots]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0R6qGVZLT8&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

 

[Gamolon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0R6qGVZLT8&feature=player_embedded

Eots,

Do you agree with Dr. Quintiere's following hypothesis as to what he thinks happened? Here is the quote from his paper.

An alternative hypothesis with the insulated trusses at the root cause
appears to have more support. Heat transfer analyses, a scale model, and
the UL furnace tests all indicate that the steel trusses can attain temperatures
corresponding to failure based on structural analyses. This hypothesis puts
the blame on the insufficiency of the truss insulation. Something NIST says
was not an issue.

 

[eots]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0R6qGVZLT8&feature=player_embedded

Eots,

Do you agree with Dr. Quintiere's following hypothesis as to what he thinks happened? Here is the quote from his paper.

[quote]An alternative hypothesis with the insulated trusses at the root cause
appears to have more support. Heat transfer analyses, a scale model, and
the UL furnace tests all indicate that the steel trusses can attain temperatures
corresponding to failure based on structural analyses. This hypothesis puts
the blame on the insufficiency of the truss insulation. Something NIST says
was not an issue.

It is a theory ,one alternative hypothesis..it would need to be fully examined
which is why he also said this..


“I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”

“I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” explained Dr. Quintiere. “Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another.”

Dr. Quintiere, one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. “I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way

OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

 

[Gamolon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0R6qGVZLT8&feature=player_embedded

Eots,

Do you agree with Dr. Quintiere's following hypothesis as to what he thinks happened? Here is the quote from his paper.

[quote]An alternative hypothesis with the insulated trusses at the root cause
appears to have more support. Heat transfer analyses, a scale model, and
the UL furnace tests all indicate that the steel trusses can attain temperatures
corresponding to failure based on structural analyses. This hypothesis puts
the blame on the insufficiency of the truss insulation. Something NIST says
was not an issue.

It is a theory ,one alternative hypothesis..it would need to be fully examined
which is why he also said this..


“I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”

“I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” explained Dr. Quintiere. “Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another.”

Dr. Quintiere, one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. “I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way

OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

Do you think his hypothesis, based on the data he saw, is incorrect? Yes or no. I can see why you want to avoid answering this. Very telling.

An alternative hypothesis with the insulated trusses at the root cause
appears to have more support. Heat transfer analyses, a scale model, and
the UL furnace tests all indicate that the steel trusses can attain temperatures
corresponding to failure based on structural analyses. This hypothesis puts
the blame on the insufficiency of the truss insulation. Something NIST says
was not an issue.