FEMA Deceives Nation About Twin Towers Core

[DiveCon]

but hey, thanks for that link

9-11 Research: The Core Structures

ROFLMAO
there is your core

NO CONCRETE

here is your proof moron

 

[Christophera]

but hey, thanks for that link

9-11 Research: The Core Structures

ROFLMAO
there is your core

NO CONCRETE

here is your proof moron

The vertical steel left and right of the center crane has butt plates on their tops. A butt plate is not strong enough to join what will be a "core column". A butt plate has no lateral strength.

The only reason for that steel being there is the elevators. Those are guide rail support steel. The reason the towers were divided into three elevator zones is because of the maximum length of vertical steel without requiring braces that were so extensive they interfered with the elevator doors and hallways.

Research what those columns rested on. You will see they are a "grillage".

Not an adequate foundation for a core column. No lateral support. No resistance to tipping and sway. Unacceptable.

Because the true design has been hidden, plans for the core structure, perhaps only ever in the posession of the builder, the port authority of New York. Details on the foundations of the only full length steel columns near the core, what comprised the spire.

are non existent. This is a photo that has been annotated in debate, but does show where the core footing and the footings for the "interior box columns"
(NOTE: the slurry wall annotation is not correct)

The interior box columns surrounded the core and their footing went a good distance below the core foundation into solid limestone, pinning the core foundation to the same.

 

[DiveCon]

but hey, thanks for that link

9-11 Research: The Core Structures

ROFLMAO
there is your core

NO CONCRETE

here is your proof moron

The vertical steel left and right of the center crane has butt plates on their tops. A butt plate is not strong enough to join what will be a "core column". A butt plate has no lateral strength.



The only reason for that steel being there is the elevators. Those are guide rail support steel. The reason the towers were divided into three elevator zones is because of the maximum length of vertical steel without requiring braces that were so extensive they interfered with the elevator doors and hallways.

Research what those columns rested on. You will see they are a "grillage".



Not an adequate foundation for a core column.

of course you are a fucking moron and are WRONG once again

 

[Christophera]

here is your proof moron

The vertical steel left and right of the center crane has butt plates on their tops. A butt plate is not strong enough to join what will be a "core column". A butt plate has no lateral strength.

The only reason for that steel being there is the elevators. Those are guide rail support steel. The reason the towers were divided into three elevator zones is because of the maximum length of vertical steel without requiring braces that were so extensive they interfered with the elevator doors and hallways.

Research what those columns rested on. You will see they are a "grillage". Not latereal strength.

Not an adequate foundation for a core column.

of course you are a fucking moron and are WRONG once again

You can say that all you want but it brings you no evidence or credibility.

 

[DiveCon]

The vertical steel left and right of the center crane has butt plates on their tops. A butt plate is not strong enough to join what will be a "core column". A butt plate has no lateral strength.



The only reason for that steel being there is the elevators. Those are guide rail support steel. The reason the towers were divided into three elevator zones is because of the maximum length of vertical steel without requiring braces that were so extensive they interfered with the elevator doors and hallways.

Research what those columns rested on. You will see they are a "grillage". Not latereal strength.



Not an adequate foundation for a core column.

of course you are a fucking moron and are WRONG once again

You can say that all you want but it brings you no evidence or credibility.

i already did, but you in your massive ignorance, chose to ignore it

 

[Christophera]

of course you are a fucking moron and are WRONG once again

You can say that all you want but it brings you no evidence or credibility.

i already did, but you in your massive ignorance, chose to ignore it

It must have been all those garbage posts by gamit that covered up your evidence. It better be independently verified, or you are just obsfucating again ad people need to know that in advance.

 

[DiveCon]

You can say that all you want but it brings you no evidence or credibility.

i already did, but you in your massive ignorance, chose to ignore it

It must have been all those garbage posts by gamit that covered up your evidence. It better be independently verified, or you are just obsfucating again ad people need to know that in advance.

got it from a site YOU linked to
the same one that proved that falling concrete was part of a floor

 

[Mister T]

So... if the officials say something the truthers can use, then that's the truth, Everything else- anything that doesn't work for the truthers- is lies, though?

Gotta love that.

 

[Christophera]

i already did, but you in your massive ignorance, chose to ignore it

It must have been all those garbage posts by gamit that covered up your evidence. It better be independently verified, or you are just obsfucating again ad people need to know that in advance.

got it from a site YOU linked to
the same one that proved that falling concrete was part of a floor

All that data comes from FEMA and is not valid here. Independent verification is needed.

Such looks like this. I say, "The Twins had a concrete, steel reinforced, reactangular, tubular, cast concrete core".

Then I post a picture of part of it falling into the core area to substanciate what I've said.

then, to verify that the image actually shows concrete I refer to the chief engineer Robertson of the September 13, Newsweek article (not reasonable to suggest that when 3,000 are murdered, Newsweek would NOT make sure the information was good or that the engineering firm designing the building that collapsed would NOT demand, and recieve a correction)

If you have a hard time pretending you don't understand, consider that supporting secret means of mass murder is basically inhuman.

 

[DiveCon]

It must have been all those garbage posts by gamit that covered up your evidence. It better be independently verified, or you are just obsfucating again ad people need to know that in advance.

got it from a site YOU linked to
the same one that proved that falling concrete was part of a floor

All that data comes from FEMA and is not valid here. Independent verification is needed.

Such looks like this. I say, "The Twins had a concrete, steel reinforced, reactangular, tubular, cast concrete core".

Thein I post a picture of part of it falling into the core area to substanciate what I've said.

then, to verify that the image actually shows concrete I refer to the chief engineer Robertson of the September 13, Newsweek article (not reasonable to suggest that when 3,000 are murdered, Newsweek would NOT make sure the information was good or that the engineering firm designing the building that collapsed would NOT demend, and recieve a correction)

If you have a hard time pretending you don't understand, consider that supporting secret means of mass murder is basically inhuman.

except that image is clearly a FLOOR
not a wall

and in that newsweek story those are the reporters words, not robertsons
the reporter got it WRONG
sheeesh, why is it you will trust reporters when they are wrong, but when they correct themselves they are lying?

 

[Christophera]

got it from a site YOU linked to
the same one that proved that falling concrete was part of a floor

All that data comes from FEMA and is not valid here. Independent verification is needed.

Such looks like this. I say, "The Twins had a concrete, steel reinforced, reactangular, tubular, cast concrete core".

Thein I post a picture of part of it falling into the core area to substanciate what I've said.

then, to verify that the image actually shows concrete I refer to the chief engineer Robertson of the September 13, Newsweek article (not reasonable to suggest that when 3,000 are murdered, Newsweek would NOT make sure the information was good or that the engineering firm designing the building that collapsed would NOT demend, and recieve a correction)

If you have a hard time pretending you don't understand, consider that supporting secret means of mass murder is basically inhuman.

except that image is clearly a FLOOR
not a wall

and in that newsweek story those are the reporters words, not robertsons
the reporter got it WRONG
sheeesh, why is it you will trust reporters when they are wrong, but when they correct themselves they are lying?

You can say that, but it is not logical. There is no place for the floor to fall from and get vertical as it appears. There is no place for it to fall from at all.

Robertson would read the article very carefully as soon as it came out and IF there was an error he would immediately demand a correction BECAUSE, logically, 3,000 people were killed in what was being termed a collapse and the company he worked for designed the building.

Of course the perpetrators of mass murder would not wnat you to use logic.

 

[Christophera]

So... if the officials say something the truthers can use, then that's the truth, Everything else- anything that doesn't work for the truthers- is lies, though?

Gotta love that.

If an official provides information that is consistent with images from 9-11, it has to be taken as a possible truth. If anybody provides information that is consistent with images from the crime scene, it can be taken as a possible truth. This is logic.

What FEMA provides is not consistent with images from 9-11.

The core of WTC 2 on 9-11 is obviously not structural steel.

The information from Robertson from the September 13, 2001 is consistent with the images, so it is taken as confirming and corroborating to a greater degree, possible truths and discounts others perhaps.

Your point really says that mainstream media has created or cultivated a tendencey to accept and use generalizations which are cognitive distortions.

 

[DiveCon]

you have NOTHING
lol

 

[DiveCon]

All that data comes from FEMA and is not valid here. Independent verification is needed.

Such looks like this. I say, "The Twins had a concrete, steel reinforced, reactangular, tubular, cast concrete core".

Thein I post a picture of part of it falling into the core area to substanciate what I've said.

then, to verify that the image actually shows concrete I refer to the chief engineer Robertson of the September 13, Newsweek article (not reasonable to suggest that when 3,000 are murdered, Newsweek would NOT make sure the information was good or that the engineering firm designing the building that collapsed would NOT demend, and recieve a correction)

If you have a hard time pretending you don't understand, consider that supporting secret means of mass murder is basically inhuman.

except that image is clearly a FLOOR
not a wall

and in that newsweek story those are the reporters words, not robertsons
the reporter got it WRONG
sheeesh, why is it you will trust reporters when they are wrong, but when they correct themselves they are lying?

You can say that, but it is not logical. There is no place for the floor to fall from and get vertical as it appears. There is no place for it to fall from at all.

Robertson would read the article very carefully as soon as it came out and IF there was an error he would immediately demand a correction BECAUSE, logically, 3,000 people were killed in what was being termed a collapse and the company he worked for designed the building.

Of course the perpetrators of mass murder would not wnat you to use logic.

no, how do you KNOW he read it when it came out
prove that claim

 

[Christophera]

except that image is clearly a FLOOR
not a wall

and in that newsweek story those are the reporters words, not robertsons
the reporter got it WRONG
sheeesh, why is it you will trust reporters when they are wrong, but when they correct themselves they are lying?

You can say that, but it is not logical. There is no place for the floor to fall from and get vertical as it appears. There is no place for it to fall from at all.

Robertson would read the article very carefully as soon as it came out and IF there was an error he would immediately demand a correction BECAUSE, logically, 3,000 people were killed in what was being termed a collapse and the company he worked for designed the building.

Of course the perpetrators of mass murder would not wnat you to use logic.

no, how do you KNOW he read it when it came out
prove that claim

I understand that the perpetrators would want you to pretend that you think Robertson would perhaps not read the published article of Newsweek. Since it is not logical, it is not a valid position. Too much liability on the engineer in 3,000 murders taking 20 seconds when it is being called a collapse.

Not reasonable to suggest that he would not be aware of exactly what was being published from the interview.

The official casue of death on 9-11 is invalid.

 

[DiveCon]

You can say that, but it is not logical. There is no place for the floor to fall from and get vertical as it appears. There is no place for it to fall from at all.

Robertson would read the article very carefully as soon as it came out and IF there was an error he would immediately demand a correction BECAUSE, logically, 3,000 people were killed in what was being termed a collapse and the company he worked for designed the building.

Of course the perpetrators of mass murder would not wnat you to use logic.

no, how do you KNOW he read it when it came out
prove that claim

I understand that the perpetrators would want you to pretend that you think Robertson would perhaps not read the published article of Newsweek. Since it is not logical, it is not a valid position. Too much liability on the engineer in 3,000 murders taking 20 seconds when it is being called a collapse.

Not reasonable to suggest that he would not be aware of exactly what was being published from the interview.

The official casue of death on 9-11 is invalid.

i asked you how you KNOW he read it
and you come back with an assumption
PROVE he read it
do not ASSUME

 

[Christophera]

no, how do you KNOW he read it when it came out
prove that claim

I understand that the perpetrators would want you to pretend that you think Robertson would perhaps not read the published article of Newsweek. Since it is not logical, it is not a valid position. Too much liability on the engineer in 3,000 murders taking 20 seconds when it is being called a collapse.

Not reasonable to suggest that he would not be aware of exactly what was being published from the interview.

The official casue of death on 9-11 is invalid.

i asked you how you KNOW he read it
and you come back with an assumption
PROVE he read it
do not ASSUME

You seek that people ASSUME that this is steel columns with gypsum board attached to it, when such is illogical.

And that people ASSUME Robertsons information published September 13, 2001 would be unchecked by him and is in error when 3,000 people died and his information in the article is critical to their deaths.

You assume too much and it is not logical to make such assumptions, while the assumptions I ask for are reasonable and logical.

 

[DiveCon]

I understand that the perpetrators would want you to pretend that you think Robertson would perhaps not read the published article of Newsweek. Since it is not logical, it is not a valid position. Too much liability on the engineer in 3,000 murders taking 20 seconds when it is being called a collapse.

Not reasonable to suggest that he would not be aware of exactly what was being published from the interview.

The official casue of death on 9-11 is invalid.

i asked you how you KNOW he read it
and you come back with an assumption
PROVE he read it
do not ASSUME

You seek that people ASSUME that this is steel columns with gypsum board attached to it, when such is illogical.



And that people ASSUME Robertsons information published September 13, 2001 would be unchecked by him and is in error when 3,000 people died and his information in the article is critical to their deaths.

You assume too much and it is not logical to make such assumptions, while the assumptions I ask for are reasonable and logical.

wrong again
it is VERY logical to say that when the PLANS for the building dont show a concrete core

and since the reporter did not put quotation marks around that part of the story, the reporter is not even making the claim you are

 

[Christophera]

i asked you how you KNOW he read it
and you come back with an assumption
PROVE he read it
do not ASSUME

You seek that people ASSUME that this is steel columns with gypsum board attached to it, when such is illogical.



And that people ASSUME Robertsons information published September 13, 2001 would be unchecked by him and is in error when 3,000 people died and his information in the article is critical to their deaths.

You assume too much and it is not logical to make such assumptions, while the assumptions I ask for are reasonable and logical.

wrong again
it is VERY logical to say that when the PLANS for the building dont show a concrete core

and since the reporter did not put quotation marks around that part of the story, the reporter is not even making the claim you are

It is not logical to believe that because the information is not a direct quote that it is automatically erroneous. The perpetrators would want you to encourage distortions in people minds.

The building plans were taken with the NYC WTC documents, so your wrong. There are no official building plans.

 

[DiveCon]

You seek that people ASSUME that this is steel columns with gypsum board attached to it, when such is illogical.



And that people ASSUME Robertsons information published September 13, 2001 would be unchecked by him and is in error when 3,000 people died and his information in the article is critical to their deaths.

You assume too much and it is not logical to make such assumptions, while the assumptions I ask for are reasonable and logical.

wrong again
it is VERY logical to say that when the PLANS for the building dont show a concrete core

and since the reporter did not put quotation marks around that part of the story, the reporter is not even making the claim you are

It is not logical to believe that because the information is not a direct quote that it is automatically erroneous. The perpetrators would want you to encourage distortions in people minds.

The building plans were taken with the NYC WTC documents, so your wrong. There are no official building plans.

no, it is not logical to assume he would have read it
and the plans for that complex were not just in ONE place
you would have to be fucking stupid to think they were