FEMA Deceives Nation About Twin Towers Core

[Christophera]

FEMA decieved NIST about the structural design of the Twin Towers core. Accordingly, the "cause of death" in 3,000 murders is invalidated.[/url]

there is also a MASSIVE difference in size from a 707 to a 757 or 767
and he is incorrect that it was meant to take MULTIPLE hits

Not a massive increase, not enough. Logically if that was the case then the towers would have fallen at impact according to your own structural design, totally unproven or unsupported by independent source.

The concrete core information has uniform support when you leave the government information. Download the .pdf report, see chapter 2.1, identifying a concrete core by August Domel, Ph.d SE. PE.

Examine the thick concrete wall of WTC 1 east core wall toppling into the empty core area.

Examine the north towers concrete core wall at its base, north side, or lond side of the core

Notice the daylight shining down a tiny hallway cast along the length of the core wall to facilitate a large plumbing connection that connected pipes cast into the core wall to supply or drain outside.

none of your images support the crap you claim

Your text is meaningless. You support the secret methods of mass murder and the demise of the US Constitution.

 

[DiveCon]

Not a massive increase, not enough. Logically if that was the case then the towers would have fallen at impact according to your own structural design, totally unproven or unsupported by independent source.

The concrete core information has uniform support when you leave the government information. Download the .pdf report, see chapter 2.1, identifying a concrete core by August Domel, Ph.d SE. PE.

Examine the thick concrete wall of WTC 1 east core wall toppling into the empty core area.



Examine the north towers concrete core wall at its base, north side, or lond side of the core

Notice the daylight shining down a tiny hallway cast along the length of the core wall to facilitate a large plumbing connection that connected pipes cast into the core wall to supply or drain outside.

none of your images support the crap you claim

Your text is meaningless. You support the secret methods of mass murder and the demise of the US Constitution.

everything you post is meaningless

 

[kyzr]

FEMA decieved NIST about the structural design of the Twin Towers core. Accordingly, the "cause of death" in 3,000 murders is invalidated.[/url]

SNs hijacked massive jet liners and drove them into the WTC towers at about 450 mph. That massive energy, and the subsequent fire caused the towers to collapse murdering the 3,000 innocents. The towers were not designed to withstand an impact of that magnitude. The towers were designed and constructed correctly. They stood for about 40-years and should have stood for another 40.

Only clueless morons who don't understand anything about engineering try to point to other causes. It was terrorism, not FEMA or NIST. The truth is the truth.

Your 38-second video says nothing to prove your point. The 707 impact is magnitudes less energy than the 9/11 impact. He even talks about the WTCs being like a very flexible "screen door netting", which disproves your rigid concrete core bullshit. Study structural dynamics before proving you know absolutely zero. [concrete walls are very rigid moron]

You still have ZERO proof of a concrete core. The SNs impacting the WTC towers caused the collapse.

there is also a MASSIVE difference in size from a 707 to a 757 or 767
and he is incorrect that it was meant to take MULTIPLE hits

Not a massive increase, not enough. Logically if that was the case then the towers would have fallen at impact according to your own structural design, totally unproven or unsupported by independent source.

This was by far your most intelligent post point. Congrats for making occasional sense.
However, If you studied structural dynamics you'd understand that "impact" and the force generated by an impact is affected tremendously by the "dt" of the impact (the time duration of the impact). The more flexible a structure the longer the dt and the less net force. Take a hammer and hit a yardstick on the skinny side, you see it bends and absorbs the impact. Take the same yardstick and hit it on edge and you'll probably break it.

OBL must have researched the WTC because he estimated that the towers would collapse immediately killing about 50,000. The fact that the towers withstood the attack was a tribute to what engineers call "redundancy", or in essence the safety factors built into the structures.

However, there were no concrete walls around the core. They weren't designed, or built. We studied the WTC design for 40+ years and know how they were designed.

The concrete core information has uniform support when you leave the government information. Download the .pdf report, see chapter 2.1, identifying a concrete core by...Examine the thick concrete wall of WTC 1 east core wall toppling into the empty core area....Examine the north towers concrete

Wrong. All of the engineering studies done by the ASCE over the last 40 or so years supports the steel core, and not the concrete core. You have never shown a photo of the original construction showing the walls, formwork, or the steel reinforcing bars being installed.....BECAUSE THEY AREN'T THERE.

Notice the daylight shining down a tiny hallway cast along the length of the core wall to facilitate a large plumbing connection that connected pipes cast into the core wall to supply or drain outside.

This s one of your lamest attempts. There are no concrete walls because they weren't designed or built. The WTC fell because the SNs hit them with massive jet liners.

 

[Christophera]

FEMA decieved NIST about the structural design of the Twin Towers core. Accordingly, the "cause of death" in 3,000 murders is invalidated.[/url]

This s one of your lamest attempts. There are no concrete walls because they weren't designed or built. The WTC fell because the SNs hit them with massive jet liners.

I've shown evidence of concrete from independent sources, you have shown no evidence of steel core columns in the core area from independentl sources.

The only core that can be proven with evidence is a concrete core and I've proven it.

Here, I'll do it again by posting an image of rebar standing 400 feet off the ground partially surrounding the empty core area. You lose.

 

[kyzr]

Not a massive increase, not enough. Logically if that was the case then the towers would have fallen at impact according to your own structural design, totally unproven or unsupported by independent source.

The concrete core information has uniform support when you leave the government information. Download the .pdf report, see chapter 2.1, identifying a concrete core by August Domel, Ph.d SE. PE.

Examine the thick concrete wall of WTC 1 east core wall toppling into the empty core area.

Examine the north towers concrete

Notice the daylight shining down a tiny hallway cast along the length of the core wall to facilitate a large plumbing connection that connected pipes cast into the core wall to supply or drain outside.

none of your images support the crap you claim

Your text is meaningless. You support the secret methods of mass murder and the demise of the US Constitution.

It took me a while to research your link "www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf"
which is a "Structural Engineering Emergency Response Plan" which has absolutely nothing to do with the design, construction, or collapse of the WTC towers. Its basically a recommendation for handling future mega-disasters where large structures have been damaged, such as by an earthquake, and how to manage the response. You are correct that it says The load carrying system was designed so that the steel facade would resist lateral and gravity forces and the interior concrete core would carry only gravity loads.
However, it doesn't provide any details, so its simply a misprint. It was written by one guy "August Domel, Jr., Ph.D., S.E., P.E." so he's wrong, he's and emergency response expert, not a WTC design expert.

HERE IS "THE ANSWER" FROM THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER WHO DESIGNED THE WTC TOWERS, at the company site from the company that designed the WTC towers:
LERA | World Trade Center
• The development of the concept for "Shaftwall", a lightweight fire-rated wall system that now dominates the construction industry.

This is from the company AND the structural engineer who actually designed the WTC towers. People are mis-interpreting the "shaftwall" as a reinforced concrete wall. Its not concrete, but it is a fire-resistant wall. It may even look something like concrete, some fireproofing does look like concrete encasement.

There was no "secret" mass murder". The SNs piloted massive jet liners into the WTC towers which made them collapse. it was a terror attack, not a "conspiracy". You failed to offer any substantiation of a conspiracy, just half-baked ideas about the collapse.

You should focus your energy on a better conspiracy. The WTC did not have concrete walls around the core, it was a new fire-resistant "shaftwall" system. Not a structural wall, it provides safe egress for occupants in case of a fire.

 

[DiveCon]

and that right there proves no massive concrete core

 

[Christophera]

none of your images support the crap you claim

Your text is meaningless. You support the secret methods of mass murder and the demise of the US Constitution.

It took me a while to research your link "www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf"
which is a "Structural Engineering Emergency Response Plan" which has absolutely nothing to do with the design, construction, or collapse of the WTC towers.

Correct, it identifies a concrete core only.

Your other data from LERA is subterfuge, years after the fact;

because it omits facts stated 2 days after 9-11 by the namesake. Leslie E. Robertson on September 13, 2001,

because you have not posted the official plans showing the supposed steel core columns of the Twins in the core area OR "firewall".

because you have not posted an image of the supposed steel core columns in the core area on 9-11.

Because this cannot be the "firewall" as it depended on steel core columns for support, if any of it existed, which it did not. The core of WTC 2.

If there were any steel core columns there, the firewall would be broken down by the 100's of thousands of tons of heavy steel wreakage crashing down and over it making the core columns visible.

No photo from 9-11 shows any steel core columns in the core area. The core is always empty. That is a massive concrete tube.

 

[DiveCon]

Your text is meaningless. You support the secret methods of mass murder and the demise of the US Constitution.

It took me a while to research your link "www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf"
which is a "Structural Engineering Emergency Response Plan" which has absolutely nothing to do with the design, construction, or collapse of the WTC towers.

Correct, it identifies a concrete core only.

Your other data from LERA is subterfuge, years after the fact;

because it omits facts stated 2 days after 9-11 by the namesake. Leslie E. Robertson on September 13, 2001,

because you have not posted the official plans showing the supposed steel core columns of the Twins in the core area OR "firewall".

because you have not posted an image of the supposed steel core columns in the core area on 9-11.

Because this cannot be the "firewall" as it depended on steel core columns for support, if any of it existed, which it did not. The core of WTC 2.



If there were any steel core columns there, the firewall would be broken down by the 100's of thousands of tons of heavy steel wreakage crashing down and over it making the core columns visible.

No photo from 9-11 shows any steel core columns in the core area. The core is always empty. That is a massive concrete tube.

and here you are LYING again
RObertson never said that

 

[Christophera]

and that right there proves no massive concrete core

It proves concrete before it proves steel core columns. If this is not true, explain how it shows steel core columns.

I can explain how it shows concrete and do here where that image and others are explained reasonably.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11towersilhouettes.html

 

[Christophera]

It took me a while to research your link "www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf"
which is a "Structural Engineering Emergency Response Plan" which has absolutely nothing to do with the design, construction, or collapse of the WTC towers.

Correct, it identifies a concrete core only.

Your other data from LERA is subterfuge, years after the fact;

because it omits facts stated 2 days after 9-11 by the namesake. Leslie E. Robertson on September 13, 2001,

because you have not posted the official plans showing the supposed steel core columns of the Twins in the core area OR "firewall".

because you have not posted an image of the supposed steel core columns in the core area on 9-11.

Because this cannot be the "firewall" as it depended on steel core columns for support, if any of it existed, which it did not. The core of WTC 2.



If there were any steel core columns there, the firewall would be broken down by the 100's of thousands of tons of heavy steel wreakage crashing down and over it making the core columns visible.

No photo from 9-11 shows any steel core columns in the core area. The core is always empty. That is a massive concrete tube.

and here you are LYING again
RObertson never said that

The article implies and only reasonably can be taking information from him and he would absolutely correct it if it were wrong after 3,000 were killed in the buildings that supposedly collapsed when his company were the engineers.

 

[DiveCon]

Correct, it identifies a concrete core only.

Your other data from LERA is subterfuge, years after the fact;

because it omits facts stated 2 days after 9-11 by the namesake. Leslie E. Robertson on September 13, 2001,

because you have not posted the official plans showing the supposed steel core columns of the Twins in the core area OR "firewall".

because you have not posted an image of the supposed steel core columns in the core area on 9-11.

Because this cannot be the "firewall" as it depended on steel core columns for support, if any of it existed, which it did not. The core of WTC 2.



If there were any steel core columns there, the firewall would be broken down by the 100's of thousands of tons of heavy steel wreakage crashing down and over it making the core columns visible.

No photo from 9-11 shows any steel core columns in the core area. The core is always empty. That is a massive concrete tube.

and here you are LYING again
RObertson never said that

The article implies and only reasonably can be taking information from him and he would absolutely correct it if it were wrong after 3,000 were killed in the buildings that supposedly collapsed when his company were the engineers.

no, it shows that the report said something that wasnt true

 

[DiveCon]

and that right there proves no massive concrete core

It proves concrete before it proves steel core columns. If this is not true, explain how it shows steel core columns.

I can explain how it shows concrete and do here where that image and others are explained reasonably.

World Trade Center Tower Silhouettes

wrong again, moron

 

[Christophera]

and here you are LYING again
RObertson never said that

The article implies and only reasonably can be taking information from him and he would absolutely correct it if it were wrong after 3,000 were killed in the buildings that supposedly collapsed when his company were the engineers.

no, it shows that the report said something that wasnt true

The images of 9-11 show that the report of August Domel, Ph.d SE. PE. is true, that Robertsons info to Newsweek on September 13, 2001 is true and all togther they show you are a trying to keep the means of mass murder secret.

A portion of the east wall of WTC 1 core toppling into the core area.

 

[DiveCon]

The article implies and only reasonably can be taking information from him and he would absolutely correct it if it were wrong after 3,000 were killed in the buildings that supposedly collapsed when his company were the engineers.

no, it shows that the report said something that wasnt true

The images of 9-11 show that the report of August Domel, Ph.d SE. PE. is true, that Robertsons info to Newsweek on September 13, 2001 is true and all togther they show you are a trying to keep the means of mass murder secret.

A portion of the east wall of WTC 1 core toppling into the core area.

as i have told you MANY times before, that is a section of FLOOR

 

[Christophera]

no, it shows that the report said something that wasnt true

The images of 9-11 show that the report of August Domel, Ph.d SE. PE. is true, that Robertsons info to Newsweek on September 13, 2001 is true and all togther they show you are a trying to keep the means of mass murder secret.

A portion of the east wall of WTC 1 core toppling into the core area.

as i have told you MANY times before, that is a section of FLOOR

You write many things and prove nothing. Mr. "Text assertion", or vacuous statement is your act.

I have told you many times before, and shown you, and shown you the statements of others telling you, NIST was deceived by FEMA, the Twins had a concrete core.

Oxford will tell you now, again.

Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992

 

[elvis]

The images of 9-11 show that the report of August Domel, Ph.d SE. PE. is true, that Robertsons info to Newsweek on September 13, 2001 is true and all togther they show you are a trying to keep the means of mass murder secret.

A portion of the east wall of WTC 1 core toppling into the core area.

as i have told you MANY times before, that is a section of FLOOR

You write many things and prove nothing. Mr. "Text assertion", or vacuous statement is your act.

I have told you many times before, and shown you, and shown you the statements of others telling you, NIST was deceived by FEMA, the Twins had a concrete core.

Oxford will tell you now, again.

Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992

fuck off, cumstain.

 

[DiveCon]

The images of 9-11 show that the report of August Domel, Ph.d SE. PE. is true, that Robertsons info to Newsweek on September 13, 2001 is true and all togther they show you are a trying to keep the means of mass murder secret.

A portion of the east wall of WTC 1 core toppling into the core area.

as i have told you MANY times before, that is a section of FLOOR

You write many things and prove nothing. Mr. "Text assertion", or vacuous statement is your act.

I have told you many times before, and shown you, and shown you the statements of others telling you, NIST was deceived by FEMA, the Twins had a concrete core.

Oxford will tell you now, again.

Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992

you have only proved that Oxford had it WRONG
not that there was actual concrete in the core above grade
because there WASN'T ANY
and i dont need to prove there wasn't any, you MUST prove there was by showing construction photos showing it
i have already posted several(if not DOZENS) that showed NO CONCRETE IN THE CORE ABOVE GRADE

 

[Christophera]

as i have told you MANY times before, that is a section of FLOOR

You write many things and prove nothing. Mr. "Text assertion", or vacuous statement is your act.

I have told you many times before, and shown you, and shown you the statements of others telling you, NIST was deceived by FEMA, the Twins had a concrete core.

Oxford will tell you now, again.

Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992

you have only proved that Oxford had it WRONG

Bwaaaahaaaaaaaa try to be serious. Your empty assertion fails against multiple, independent verifications by other competent sources.

August Domel, Ph.d SE. PE.



Leslie Robertson on September 13, 2001


Even Bazant who tries to analyze freefall, failing again to explain it, identifies a concrete core in their 2007 revision.

What Did and Did Not Cause It?
Zdenek P. Bazant
1
, Hon.M. ASCE, Jia-Liang Le
2
, Frank R. Greening
3
, and David B. Benson
4
Abstract: Previous analysis of progressive collapse showed that gravity alone suffices to explain the overall collapse of the World Trade Center towers. However, it has not been checked whether the allegations of controlled demolition by planted explosives have any scientific merit. The present analysis proves that they do not. The video record available for the first few seconds of collapse agrees with the motion history calculated from the differential equation of progressive collapse but disproves the free fall hypothesis (on which the aforementioned allegations rest). Although, due to absence of experimental crushing data for the lightweight concrete used, the theory of comminution cannot predict the size range of pulverized concrete particles, it is shown that the observed size range (0.01 mm – 0.1 mm) is fully consistent with this theory and is achievable by collapse driven gravity alone, and that only about 7% of the total gravitational energy converted to kinetic energy of impacts would have sufficed to pulverize all the concrete slabs and core walls (while at least 158 tons of TNT per tower, installed into many small holes drilled into each concrete floor slab and core wall, would have been needed to produce the same degree of pulverization). The exit speed of air ejected from the building by the crushing front of gravitational collapse must have attained, near the ground, 465 mph (208 m/s) on the average, and fluctuations must have reached the speed of sound. This explains loud booms and wide spreading of pulverized concrete and glass fragments, and shows that the lower margin of dust cloud could not have coincided with the crushing front. The resisting upward forces due to pulverization and air ejection, neglected in previous studies, are found to be negligible during the first few seconds of collapse but not insignificant near the end of crush-down (these forces extended the crush-down duration by about 4%; they augmented, by about 25%, the resisting force due to column buckling at the end of crush-down, and doubled that force at the beginning of crush-up). The calculated crush down duration is found to match a logical interpretation of seismic record, while the free fall duration is found to be in conflict.


http://72.14.205.104/search q=cache:H5djFQBfSzsJ:www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/b...ant&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a

This is the latest paper by Bazant et al, the first one was included in the NIST report

Note that northwestern.edu has removed that revison from their server, probably because the concrete core is refered to.

Got evidence from 9-11 of steel core columns?

Got official plans?

 

[DiveCon]

skyscraper Facts, information, pictures | Encyclopedia.com articles about skyscraper

 

[DiveCon]

You write many things and prove nothing. Mr. "Text assertion", or vacuous statement is your act.

I have told you many times before, and shown you, and shown you the statements of others telling you, NIST was deceived by FEMA, the Twins had a concrete core.

Oxford will tell you now, again.

Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992

you have only proved that Oxford had it WRONG

Bwaaaahaaaaaaaa try to be serious. Your empty assertion fails against multiple, independent verifications by other competent sources.

August Domel, Ph.d SE. PE.



Leslie Robertson on September 13, 2001


Even Bazant who tries to analyze freefall, failing again to explain it, identifies a concrete core in their 2007 revision.

What Did and Did Not Cause It?
Zdenek P. Bazant
1
, Hon.M. ASCE, Jia-Liang Le
2
, Frank R. Greening
3
, and David B. Benson
4
Abstract: Previous analysis of progressive collapse showed that gravity alone suffices to explain the overall collapse of the World Trade Center towers. However, it has not been checked whether the allegations of controlled demolition by planted explosives have any scientific merit. The present analysis proves that they do not. The video record available for the first few seconds of collapse agrees with the motion history calculated from the differential equation of progressive collapse but disproves the free fall hypothesis (on which the aforementioned allegations rest). Although, due to absence of experimental crushing data for the lightweight concrete used, the theory of comminution cannot predict the size range of pulverized concrete particles, it is shown that the observed size range (0.01 mm – 0.1 mm) is fully consistent with this theory and is achievable by collapse driven gravity alone, and that only about 7% of the total gravitational energy converted to kinetic energy of impacts would have sufficed to pulverize all the concrete slabs and core walls (while at least 158 tons of TNT per tower, installed into many small holes drilled into each concrete floor slab and core wall, would have been needed to produce the same degree of pulverization). The exit speed of air ejected from the building by the crushing front of gravitational collapse must have attained, near the ground, 465 mph (208 m/s) on the average, and fluctuations must have reached the speed of sound. This explains loud booms and wide spreading of pulverized concrete and glass fragments, and shows that the lower margin of dust cloud could not have coincided with the crushing front. The resisting upward forces due to pulverization and air ejection, neglected in previous studies, are found to be negligible during the first few seconds of collapse but not insignificant near the end of crush-down (these forces extended the crush-down duration by about 4%; they augmented, by about 25%, the resisting force due to column buckling at the end of crush-down, and doubled that force at the beginning of crush-up). The calculated crush down duration is found to match a logical interpretation of seismic record, while the free fall duration is found to be in conflict.


http://72.14.205.104/search q=cache:H5djFQBfSzsJ:www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%2520WTC%2520Collapse%2520-%2520What%2520did%2520%26%2520Did%2520Not%2520Cause%2520It%2520-%2520Revised%25206-22-07.pdf+Bazant&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a

This is the latest paper by Bazant et al, the first one was included in the NIST report

Note that northwestern.edu has removed that revison from their server, probably because the concrete core is refered to.

Got evidence from 9-11 of steel core columns?

Got official plans?

you notice he didnt say "concrete floors and concrete core walls" right?

and yes, i posted you a link to the OFFICIAL PLANS
you are too fucking stupid to understand you are WRONG