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

[Liability]

If you think Newsweek would print an error relating to the structural design of buildings that supposedly collapsed and killed 3,000 people, your head is not working.

Because no reporter has ever made an error in a national publication which the fact-checkers and/or the editors failed to catch.

Good point.

Stupid lying pussy Troofer scumbag.

Uhmmmm:

 

[Fizz]

If you think Newsweek would print an error relating to the structural design of buildings that supposedly collapsed and killed 3,000 people, your head is not working.

great. so now you agree that the WTC towers had a steel core.

thanks. we are done here. steel core. no concrete.

High Time - Newsweek.com
(notice my link actually goes to newsweek. yours does not.)
But the point is that it was unique, utilizing closely spaced columns connected to a steel core by relatively lightweight floor trusses. Tall buildings today are more commonly designed with cores of high-strength concrete, linked by big girders to massive perimeter columns. Whether or not such a building would stand up longer in a crash and fire, one would hope that its thick concrete core would better protect the exit stairs and elevators than the Twin Towers' gypsum board.

 

[Christophera]

The Newsweek article identifies a concrete core. Your brains are fried.

Leslie Robertson, Architect Of The World Trade Center Towers

Still, Robertson, whose firm is responsible for three of the six tallest buildings in the world, feels a sense of pride that the massive towers, supported by a steel-tube exoskeleton and a reinforced concrete core, held up as well as they did—managing to stand for over an hour despite direct hits from two massive commercial jetliners.

 

[Liability]

The Newsweek article identifies a concrete core. Your brains are fried.

Leslie Robertson, Architect Of The World Trade Center Towers

Still, Robertson, whose firm is responsible for three of the six tallest buildings in the world, feels a sense of pride that the massive towers, supported by a steel-tube exoskeleton and a reinforced concrete core, held up as well as they did—managing to stand for over an hour despite direct hits from two massive commercial jetliners.

The one you try to cite to does. The other one, cited by Fizz, corrects that earlier mistake.

Were you too fucking stupid to read the link provided or just too dishonest to admit it, scumbag?

Go support your own flesh and blood, you useless unmanly shithead.

 

[Fizz]

The Newsweek article identifies a concrete core. Your brains are fried.

Leslie Robertson, Architect Of The World Trade Center Towers

Still, Robertson, whose firm is responsible for three of the six tallest buildings in the world, feels a sense of pride that the massive towers, supported by a steel-tube exoskeleton and a reinforced concrete core, held up as well as they did—managing to stand for over an hour despite direct hits from two massive commercial jetliners.

where is your link to newsweek? you are linking to a third party.

here is newsweek claiming its a STEEL CORE and its STILL on their website. it wasnt pulled because of errors. it wasnt an article rushed to print on the day after the towers fell and is much better researched.

High Time - Newsweek.com
But the point is that it was unique, utilizing closely spaced columns connected to a steel core by relatively lightweight floor trusses. Tall buildings today are more commonly designed with cores of high-strength concrete, linked by big girders to massive perimeter columns. Whether or not such a building would stand up longer in a crash and fire, one would hope that its thick concrete core would better protect the exit stairs and elevators than the Twin Towers' gypsum board.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

The top rebar is lower than the spire. Since the concrete was fastened to the structural steel of the spire, the rebar was very close. In the top pic the rebar is in the corner behind the spire, which is the corner box column of the inner steel frame.


The rest of it was inside the concrete wall behind the interio box columns. Either of the west side or the north wall.

Best guess on these pictures is that they were taken from 1/2 mile away or better. Any commercial grade rebar would be too small to be photographed from this distance. What you are seeing is steel columns and beams. If you had a camera that COULD show rebar at this this distance, you would also see lighting wires & cobwebs.

 

[Christophera]

web.archive.org faithfully copies web pages and they carry the original url in their url.

Newsweek National News - Newsweek.com

 

[Liability]

web.archive.org faithfully copies web pages and they carry the original url in their url.

Newsweek National News - Newsweek.com

So what? That just means they faithfully saved and you have reproduced an erroneous article. But you had just expressed mocking DOUBT that a national publication would print a mistake regarding a "fact" like that involving the death of 3000 souls. And yet, the LATER article, asshole, disputes the FORMER article. So ONE of those articles does exactly what you suggest is ridiculous to believe.

So, your mocking little premise is destroyed.

And the fact that the reporter in your favored article made the mistake isn't even open to serious doubt.

It is beyond retarded and ridiculous, it is completely dishonest of you to even suggest that the Twin Towers had a concrete core.

You are a flat out intentional lying sack of shit.

All troofers are.

 

[Christophera]

Best guess on these pictures is that they were taken from 1/2 mile away or better. Any commercial grade rebar would be too small to be photographed from this distance. What you are seeing is steel columns and beams. If you had a camera that COULD show rebar at this this distance, you would also see lighting wires & cobwebs.

It was not commercial. It was specially produced by a DOD steel mill at 3" diameter HIGH TENSILE STEEL.

Which is why it stands like that. No ordinary rebar could do that.

 

[Fizz]

It was not commercial. It was specially produced by a DOD steel mill at 3" diameter HIGH TENSILE STEEL.

HAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahaha!!!!!

proof please!!

HAHAHAHAHahahahahahahahahaha

more shit you just pulled right out of your ass!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahahahahahaa!!!!!!!

 

[Christophera]

So what? That just means they faithfully saved and you have reproduced an erroneous article. But you had just expressed mocking DOUBT that a national publication would print a mistake regarding a "fact" like that involving the death of 3000 souls. And yet, the LATER article, asshole, disputes the FORMER article. So ONE of those articles does exactly what you suggest is ridiculous to believe.

The later article parrots FEMA. The September 13, 2001 uses info direct from the engineer of record.

 

[Liability]

Best guess on these pictures is that they were taken from 1/2 mile away or better. Any commercial grade rebar would be too small to be photographed from this distance. What you are seeing is steel columns and beams. If you had a camera that COULD show rebar at this this distance, you would also see lighting wires & cobwebs.

It was not commercial. It was specially produced by a DOD steel mill at 3" diameter HIGH TENSILE STEEL.

Which is why it stands like that. No ordinary rebar could do that.

From maybe a 1/2 mile away you think that you could make out even a 3 inch diameter thickness of rebar?

Yes. The HUBBLE TELESCOPE LENS just happened to be parked there that day in the event that a terrorist attack might strike at NYC.

You remain a laughingstock asshole lying pussy troofer, CriscoFEARa.

 

[Fizz]

So what? That just means they faithfully saved and you have reproduced an erroneous article. But you had just expressed mocking DOUBT that a national publication would print a mistake regarding a "fact" like that involving the death of 3000 souls. And yet, the LATER article, asshole, disputes the FORMER article. So ONE of those articles does exactly what you suggest is ridiculous to believe.

The later article parrots FEMA. The September 13, 2001 uses info direct from the engineer of record.

you lie and keep claiming that robertson said something he didnt. it shows what a lying piece of shit you really are and how fucking dumb your concrete core hoax is.

 

[Christophera]

fuz,

Since you cannot produce ONE image from 9-11 showing the supposed steel core columns AND refuse to acknowledge a violation of law depriving the public of plans of public buildings, you have no standing with your argument.

These people are not happy with you.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Best guess on these pictures is that they were taken from 1/2 mile away or better. Any commercial grade rebar would be too small to be photographed from this distance. What you are seeing is steel columns and beams. If you had a camera that COULD show rebar at this this distance, you would also see lighting wires & cobwebs.

It was not commercial. It was specially produced by a DOD steel mill at 3" diameter HIGH TENSILE STEEL.

Which is why it stands like that. No ordinary rebar could do that.

You can make out 3 inch rebar at a 1/2 mile distance in a photograph??

Who the fuck are you, Kal-El of Krypton??

 

[Fizz]

fuz,

Since you cannot produce ONE image from 9-11 showing the supposed steel core columns AND refuse to acknowledge a violation of law depriving the public of plans of public buildings, you have no standing with your argument.

These people are not happy with you.

you post images of the steel core columns all the time. they are in every single picture you claim to show your amazing invisicrete core.

what law was violated??

i would think those people are not happy with you. thats why you keep stalking them and trying t oget in touch with them and they never acknowledge your pitiful existence. dont pretend to be speaking for the victims of 9/11. they want absolutely nothing to do with your concrete core hoax. you are disgusting for showing grieving people and trying to say they support your invisicrete hoax.

 

[Christophera]

What is seen is too small for structural steel.

and if there were only 1 or 2 it would not be seen, but there are many and they overlap. When they do it becomes visible.

I'm a surveyor. A 3" pole is visible under the right conditions at that distance with the naked eye, just barely.

 

[Christophera]

you post images of the steel core columns all the time.

A lie. I post images of the concrete core and sometimes there is structural steel showing also. Not int his one which proves the core was concrete.

 

[Fizz]

What is seen is too small for structural steel.

and if there were only 1 or 2 it would not be seen, but there are many and they overlap. When they do it becomes visible.

I'm a surveyor. A 3" pole is visible under the right conditions at that distance with the naked eye, just barely.

HAHAHAHahahahahahahahah!!! steel structure is too small to see but 3 inch rebar isnt!!!

HAHAHAHahahahahahahahahaahahaha!!!!!!

 

[Fizz]

where's your fucking rebar, chris?!!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goGGQhhTcDY&feature=related]YouTube - 9/11 "spire" Live on CNN[/ame]