Title 18, "Misprision of treason" filed in District Court

[Christophera]

Case Sunstein: Feds should "cognitively infiltrate" online conspiracy groups - Boing Boing

 

[Christophera]

the government didnt kill anyone. 19 muslim hijackers did.

That is what the perpetrating infiltrators of the US government want people to believe.

They want people to believe this was the core,

while this was seen on 9-11 as the core of WTC 2,

matching the engineers information from September 13, 2001.

there is no concrete in your picture and you LIE and say the engineer says concrete when it actually is the reporter saying it. newsweek pulled the article. they later published it was a steel core.

YOU GOT NOTHING!! you are mental. you are delusional. you are schizophrenic. you are a criminal and a liar. there is no huge government plot by "perpetrators" trying to get anyone to think anything. its all in your deranged mind.

Look how long I've been asking for your picture of the supposed steel core columns shown in that lame FEMA diagram. Never once has anyone posted an image of that core on 9-11. Here you are lying about it.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...on-filed-in-district-court-6.html#post2044688

 

[slackjawed]

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc56/poseidon888/FugaziPromotedChristophera.png

 

[Rat in the Hat]

And G00f-0 quotes Fizz in order to post his FEMA drawing again!

Isn't it so nice that G00f-0 is so predictable?

He didn't put in an algoxy link, but he'll do it on his next post.

 

[DiveCon]

fix0red

 

[slackjawed]

from;
The 'WTC Had a Concrete Core' Hoax, page 1


The 'WTC Had a Concrete Core' Hoax, page 1

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
Topic started on 16-5-2006 @ 12:41 PM by HowardRoark
In another thread, JackTripper posted a link to a page claiming that he cores of the WTC towers were actually constructed of reinforced concrete. This page is so blatantly wrong that it deserves a special debunking all its own. For clarity, I will refer to the above referenced site as the &#8220;Concrete Core&#8221; site.


First let&#8217;s look at the evidence presented to support this theory.

The page is primarily based on a couple of erroneous media articles about the towers, firstly is the infamous BBC graphic that was hurriedly published immediately after 9/11.



There is not much anyone can say about that picture except that it is wrong. Not just plain wrong, either, but spectacularly and stupidly wrong.

If you look at the depiction of the core, the entire core is shown as one giant concrete column surrounding four &#8220;steel beams.&#8221;

That alone is enough for any rational person to dismiss the graphic as being non-credible.

Next the page quotes the following: "

more debunking of the concrete core hoax here:
The 'WTC Had a Concrete Core' Hoax, page 1

 

[Christophera]

from;
The 'WTC Had a Concrete Core' Hoax, page 1

Hmmmmmm, no independent verification. text, just like you agents. BIG ERROR too.

www.skyscraper.org...

From : wtc.nist.gov...

Vertical shafts surrounding stairs, mechanical shafts (carrying supply and return air), elevator hoistways, and utility shafts were all contained within the building core, and were enclosed by gypsum planking similar to fire separations commonly used today in single-family attached housing. While similar to other gypsum shaft wall systems and firewalls, this system was unique and innovative in that it eliminated the need for any framing. The gypsum planks were solid 2 in. thick (2½ in. on floors with 16 ft ceiling heights) and 16 in. wide, with metal tongue or groove channels attached to the long sides that served as wall studs (see Fig. 10–3). Where planks were cut to a narrower width, the cut edge was covered with a 2 in. by 2 in. metal C channel fastened with drywall screws
at the top and bottom. Each plank had a mesh layer at its mid thickness and were likely custom fabricated for this job as NIST found no mention of similar products in gypsum industry literature of the time or since. Planks were provided in 12 ft, 14 ft, and 16 ft lengths to run full height. The planks were placed into metal L channels at the bottom and into metal top channels of various shapes depending on the construction element with which it needed to interface


Bwhahhhhhhhaaaa. Drywall screws were not even invented when the Twins were being built.

I didn't see a drywall screw until about 1982, they said then they had been around for maybe 5 years. IT was the screw drivers that made the popular and they didn't get popular until NiCad batteries were common. Notice not one image from 9-11 showing the steel core columns.

Independently verified evidence of the concrete core.

Robertson is verified by Oxford, verifying Domel who describes a concrete core 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 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 for justifying explanation for collapse, but at least they won't go down in history as totally supporting the deceptions.

 

[DiveCon]

WTF?
drywall screws were used back in the 60's you moron

 

[Christophera]

Prove it.

The entire structure method wasn't used until later. All subterfuge because there is no evidence from 9-11 showing the steel core columns. On 9-11 we see the concrete core.

What agents try to misrepresent is "elevator guide rail" support steel and the butt plates on the tops of the steel in the core proves it.

No wonder the core is empty on 9-11, all the elevator guide rail support steel fell even before the concrete. Thes annotated images show elevator guide rail support steel immediately inside the concrete core wall.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11towersilhouettes.html
http://algoxy.com/conc/wtc1_spire_location.html
http://algoxy.com/psych/spire-sequence.html

 

[DiveCon]

holy shit
you post photos that prove it and claim there is no proof
you are fucking NUTZ

 

[Christophera]

That nonsense link that did not have even one image of the supposed steel core columns from 9-11

The 'WTC Had a Concrete Core' Hoax, page 1

Actually posted this erroneous core first.

as if people could not figure out for themselves that the BBC was way off. The Twin towers had stirways and elevators INSIDE the core, then the site doesn't even point that out.

I have put together an absolutely consistent site about the structures of the Twins.

The Concrete Core Of The WTC Towers

 

[DiveCon]

That nonsense link that did not have even one image of the supposed steel core columns from 9-11

The 'WTC Had a Concrete Core' Hoax, page 1

Actually posted this erroneous core first.

as if people could not figure out for themselves that the BBC was way off. The Twin towers had stirways and elevators INSIDE the core, then the site doesn't even point that out.

I have put together an absolutely consistent site about the structures of the Twins.

dipshit, they used that image as proof of ERRONEOUS info that came out in the early aftermath
you are just too fucking pathetic for words

 

[Rat in the Hat]

That nonsense link that did not have even one image of the supposed steel core columns from 9-11

The 'WTC Had a Concrete Core' Hoax, page 1

Actually posted this erroneous core first.

as if people could not figure out for themselves that the BBC was way off. The Twin towers had stirways and elevators INSIDE the core, then the site doesn't even point that out.

I have put together an absolutely consistent site about the structures of the Twins.

The Concrete Core Of The WTC Towers

Different drawing, but same old algoxy link.

Just another typical Goof-0-phera post.

 

[Christophera]

Another typical agent misrepresentation. Same drawing as the erroneous debunker post at,

The 'WTC Had a Concrete Core' Hoax, page 1

New link at algoxy. The fact that the debunker post starts with that image rather than proof that the FEMA lie is anything but a lie.

 

[DiveCon]

Another typical agent misrepresentation. Same drawing as the erroneous debunker post at,

The 'WTC Had a Concrete Core' Hoax, page 1

New link at algoxy. The fact that the debunker post starts with that image rather than proof that the FEMA lie is anything but a lie.

that was not used in the way you seem to think
but you have shown you lack critical thinking skills

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Another typical agent misrepresentation. Same drawing as the erroneous debunker post at,

The 'WTC Had a Concrete Core' Hoax, page 1

New link at algoxy. The fact that the debunker post starts with that image rather than proof that the FEMA lie is anything but a lie.

 

[Christophera]

Agents frequently try to dictate logic that is illogical.

To start in an effort of proving an assertion is wrong, by producing yet another error, is not logical. I proves that there is serious question about the composistion of the core because the error is from BBC who should have quality and consistent info. The error illogically used in an opening point trying to assert there was no concrete, evidences that there was concrete.

Logical opening for such an effort to discount what is proven with independently verified evidence is an image of the core on 9-11 that is asserted to have existed. This core FEMA defined with the first WTC report.

Accordingly I debunk the fake debunker of "abovetopsecret.com" by showing the concrete core of WTC 2 on 9-11 standing with no structural steel surrounding it and none protruding from the top of it.

 

[Fizz]

Agents frequently try to dictate logic that is illogical.

says who? source please.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Agents frequently try to dictate logic that is illogical.

To start in an effort of proving an assertion is wrong, by producing yet another error, is not logical. I proves that there is serious question about the composistion of the core because the error is from BBC who should have quality and consistent info. The error illogically used in an opening point trying to assert there was no concrete, evidences that there was concrete.

Logical opening for such an effort to discount what is proven with independently verified evidence is an image of the core on 9-11 that is asserted to have existed. This core FEMA defined with the first WTC report.

Accordingly I debunk the fake debunker of "abovetopsecret.com" by showing the concrete core of WTC 2 on 9-11 standing with no structural steel surrounding it and none protruding from the top of it.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Prove it.

The entire structure method wasn't used until later. All subterfuge because there is no evidence from 9-11 showing the steel core columns. On 9-11 we see the concrete core.

What agents try to misrepresent is "elevator guide rail" support steel and the butt plates on the tops of the steel in the core proves it.

No wonder the core is empty on 9-11, all the elevator guide rail support steel fell even before the concrete. Thes annotated images show elevator guide rail support steel immediately inside the concrete core wall.

World Trade Center Tower Silhouettes
The WTC 1 spire is located outside the core area.
WTC 1 spire sequence