New Evidence: Struggle For Reason And Logic Showing Concrete Core

[Christophera]

Apparently my opposition in this struggle to use reason and logic is getting help by my task being made more difficult than it already is. My newest thread was locked before I even read the replies to my post, let alone send an alert and answer the unsupported nonsense.

The posters here who will not accept that there was no concrete core have no real evidence to support the core they believe stood. They rarely talk about the core identified by FEMA as having steel core columns. They have no forensic evidence whatsoever from the scene and zero configuration documentation. In some ways they support an “air core” by default.

Whereas I just keep finding more and more support for the concrete core. One has to know construction materials, steel and concrete well, to easily identify structural elements here.



The rest of the last locked thread is below. Lithos gives “duplicate” as a reason for locking. The first image, the image above, has never been posted or presented before at du. wtf?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=62437&mesg_id=62437

Sure I have to re post these images a million times. My issues with what they show are not addressed. Steel core columns are NEVER seen. What do people expect? media production of evidence because they are bored with the old evidence? Some here think all they have to do is say “no” 25 times along with 3 others and new evidence is justified. The demise of the towers is the ultimate ruse, and when we fail to focus on that effectively as investigators, we loose.

I will continue posting these images until people start to realize that indeed, there is no forensic evidence whatsoever for the steel core columns. There is only one document, uncertified, which contains minimum indication of columns in the core. So minimum that it would be very easy to alter a bonafied document with a pencil, then scan to create what is seen. There perhaps is one other floor plan that has is not of the tower that was built. The only other document of ANY kind is this image from FEMA diagramming the core.

[spooked911]

1. There are better ways of showing the WTC was blown up

than this strange quest you're on to prove a concrete core.

"there is no forensic evidence whatsoever for the steel core columns"

The picture you posted shows steel box core columns. So WTF are you talking about?

[Christophera]

7. Picture Shows "INTERIOR BOX COLUMNS" Ringing The Concrete Core

The columns are not core columns as FEMA says they are.

Steel is too flexible in a building of those proportions to use as a core. Concrete is required and the concrete tube in the steel framed tube has exactly the right qualities.

[Christophera]

27. But I Wasn't Trying To Show It Was Blown Up

Although the only way for that high tensile steel rebar (the only thing that could survive) to get coiled up like that is for it to subjected to extreme pressure and heat, such as high explosives, very proximal.



The left side, to the right of the interior box column is the concrete base of the core. It connected the core to the towers foundation and there was a joint at the top, the connection where the core began its taper. I believe that intact concrete saved the lives of people trapped in stairways.

[Lithos]

2. I locked it

Because it was a dupe to the other one concerning Concrete cores. However, because it looks like you want a new thread, I have locked the origional thread as it duplicates this.

In the future, if you have an issue with a thread being locked, please PM myself, or Undergroudnrailroad.

Lithos
9/11 Forum Moderator.

[screembloodymurder]

31. It's bad enough our threads get kicked down here to 9 la-la land.

Why don't you just forbid any discussion of 911?

[sabbat hunter]

3. rebar and pics

i see no 17 foot thick concrete there. all that is there is steel. you basically just disproved your own case.


here is a picture of rebar. not what is pointed out in the pic you posted
note even close to being the same.

being that you were supposedly in construction you should know the difference.


"

[philb]

4. Rebar is used with concrete; not with steel beams

Rebar is reinforcement for concrete.

[sabbat hunter]

5. my point is

there is no rebar there. what is pointed out im not sure have to study the pic more, but it defiantely isnt rebar as Christopher claims.

[janedoe]

10. It looks like electrical conduit, not rebar.

[Christophera]

15. Consider That Light Tubing Would Not Have That Tight Coil. Tempered Steel

The metal is coiled too tightly, too consistently to be tubing. In fact that shape in steel can only be created a few ways, with tubing, only one way and that is not going to happen under those conditions.



The 3" rebar was high tensile steel, high stress is going to cause it to bend but not break. Certain stresses will cause smooth curves and to have it coiled like a spring is shows very high but fairly uniform forces were applied. We have 3 of them coiled identically, very rigid in appearance. The chances of tubing not getting completely flattened are about zero.

[philb]

33. thin tubing wouldn't have held up well in the crash either

but I'm not sure what type of pipes,tubes, might have been used as electrical conduit in such a building
I've done residential construction but only used conduit in underground applications
anyone know?

[Christophera]

35. On The Scale Of the Towers Conduit Would Be Larger, Or Larger More Visable

Standard 6 inch steel electrical conduit has about a 1/4 wall, there was certainly a lot of that. Probably 8 inch as well. Communications might have 3 or 4 inch steel conduit with around a 3/16 wall.

The characteristic bends of thinwall tubing do not look like the steel coils sprouting from the center of the concrete in the original post of this thread.

[Christophera]

28. Concrete Shearwall W/High Tensile steel Rebar Helps Hold up Spire

The coiled rebar over the core wall base in the corner of the core (1st image of thread) can only be high tensile steel rebar. The strength characteristics of it are phenomenal when combined with high strength aggregate concrete. Here the rebar stands, only slightly deformed from the mild detonation of oxidized plastic explosive, sufficient enough to remove the concrete. http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1151751

Here is the remaining rebar from the corner of WTC 1 core



Here is the spire, moments before the above image from the opposite side, showing a section of shearwall behind the interior box columns.

?pic

[Christophera]

6. Clearly You Require Simplified Presentation;Familiarity W/materials Is Pre

requisite for reasonable responses.

All of your concerns of appearances are addressed in my post. You do not know enough about steel to recognize the performance of high temper steel subjected to massive stresses.


Reasonably, please refrain from commenting any further. I would rather not have this thread be a clutter of unsupported nonsense.

The answers to your issues are contained in the linked thread. Read there

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=62437&mesg_id=62437

[sabbat hunter]

9. you are clearly

showing a lack of construction knowledge despite your claims. what you show in the first picture in this thread is clearly NOT rebar. there clearly is NO concrete core shown.
in that thread you refer to the mythical PBS video to support your claims. where is this video. produce it!

clearly you are NOT familiar with construction. clearly you are NOT familiar with materials. for what you show in show in the first picture is NOT rebar.

this is high temper steel rebar

""

big difference than what you claim.

and i will continue to post until you actually back up your "memory"

[Christophera]

16. Your Rebar Is Standard Mild Steel. Tempered Is ONLY Special Order-Reason

Tempered Is only special order and has a totally different pattern on it. Let us get more specific.

With actual pictures of the towers and structural elements that can only be rebar,



your pic of tied bar is a waste of space.



Posted by sabbat hunter

there clearly is NO concrete core shown.

List the structural elements you see and the postions they have in the structure. Your denial is a way too general.



Do you know about tempered steel, what it looks like after extreme stressing?

[sabbat hunter]

17. one by one

the red arrow points to interior steel column

green arrow is certainly not pointing at concrete. certainly not 17 foot thick concrete.
yellow arrow is pointing to electrical piping. not high temper rebar.

so much for your "construction expertise"

[Christophera]

19. ERRORS:One Out Of 3 Correct. Process Of Elimination & Remaining Structures

We can tell by the term "electrical piping" that your construction expertise is about non existant. The proper term is "electrical conduit".

Read post #15. It deals with the appearance of what you erroneously label conduit.

Conduit won't survive with that appearance and won't have multiple elements having identical curves. Zero chance.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=62533&mesg_id=62899

Do you recognize that the interior box column is outside the core area? That the core area is to the right of the interior box column?

[sabbat hunter]

18. this pic

of what high temper rebar actually looks like




is no more of a waste of space than the pictures you keep posting over and over again.

[Christophera]

20. Your Terminology Is Juvenile And Incorrect-You Don't Know What Kind It Is

Sorry, ............ you can't have credibility in this discussion,

[sabbat hunter]

21. you obviously

have no real construction background. the picture you showed with the arrows shows NO i repeat NO rebar. shows NO i repeat NO concrete. you are disproving your own case.


congratulations on that. its the first time i have ever seen someone disprove their own case.

[Christophera]

23. Saying "No" Won't Make The Truth Go Away. Concrete, Consistent Evidence

The forensic photographic evidence is consistent within itself. Below the rebar is a large rectangular cube, note the rebar comes out close to plumb from the center of the cube shape then coils into a rigid coil. Note the top right corner of the cube, note how it is eroded, rounded off. Does steel round off?



Below is a silouette of the rebar, after the spire falls.





Consider also that the basement has far too much sand and gravel in it for a building with multiple steel core columns.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Rich Hunt]

12. one great DVD

One great DVD that should help clear things up for people who are confused about the construction and collapse is World Trade Center : Anatomy of a Collapse by Time / Life video. I just watched this DVD - the images are clear and detailed and they use computer animation a lot. This DVD has any image you might want of the WTC from the first impact to the pieces being hauled away for scrap.

I've been making some screen shots from it - they are turning out beautifully, but I'm still working on it. Perhaps this weekend I'll post a set of them.

[Christophera]

14. Familiarity With Materials; High Explosives, Concrete & Tempered Steel Is

something I have.

What we see here,



defies collapse completely.

Free fall, total pulverization, utterly impossible within a collapse. The collapse lie has been proven wrong, forever, with the last sentence.






I would like to see the DVD however, maybe I can find more evidence for the concrete core.

[rman]

25. computer animation can be made to show anything.

I've seen the wings of the plane that supposedly hit the pentagon fold against the body of the plane so the whole thing supposedly fits in the hole that was punched in the facade of the pentagon.

[Christophera]

29. Will Officiallites Make "Enhanced" 9-11 Images To Show Collapse (sic)?

Will those who can only see the official story use animation to create new 9-11 videos that more properly show collapse? Will this new entertainment/ therapy end the disturbing cognitive dissonance plaguing believers that non believers keep alive by posting images like this?

[Snivi Yllom]

13. There was no concrete core, only a steel 'core'

You are using incorrect terminology to describe the core. You are 100% wrong about the construction of the building. There is no concrete core, it's a steel framed skeleton. What you are referring to as 3" rebar is likely electrical riser piping, more than 6" in diameter. 3" rebar is heavy duty stuff used in nuclear reactors and dams, not buildings.

A building 'core' is typically used to describe the inner grouping of program within a tall building that is composed of elevators, stairs, toilet rooms, air shafts, MEP risers, columns and often specialized column and/or sheer walls.
The WTC towers were purely steel framed buildings. The exterior perimeter columns were designed as a tube. highly efficient to carry the wight of the building, but more importantly, they were designed to resist the powerful wind loads acting on the immense 200'+ sides of the towers.

In the case of the WTC the core structural system is a typical steel frame beam and girder type construction, a three dimensional grid of steel. Vertical partitions spanning between floor slabs were not concrete, but gypsum board. The floor slabs themselves were longspan lightweight joists with a typical composite concrete/steel deck. the long spans enabled the towers to have no columns between the core and the perimeter to maximize office planning. The floor slabs served to support the floors but also to add as horizontal bracing to the perimeter columns to resist wind forces, Imagine the cells inside bamboo, the cell 'floors' give a tremendous amount of strength and rigidity to the outter layer of the bamboo.

Here is a construction photo CLEARLY showing the inner 'core' structural columns under construction.

[Christophera]

22. If It Is A Steel Skeleton, What Is This? You Misinterpret The Overhead Pho

to.

What is this, where is the steel skeleton. That IS the core of WTC 2.



I've zoomed the overhead to make the structures there more visable. The photo does not "CLEARLY" show structural core columns under constrcution. It does show interior box columns ringing the core area and it shows elevator guide rails.



The elevators were critical to the contractors delivery of materials and followed very closely, the advancing steel. One reason the elevators were so fast is that the steel rails were fastened to the concrete core interior and so maintained perfect alignment.

Thinwall conduit will not coil with that consistency. It will be smashed flat under those conditions.

Here is another photo of the rebar.

[sgsmith]

24. Distance to tower / resolution of photograph

You know the Hudson River is over 1/2 mile wide between NJ and NY at the area of the WTC. Just how can film resolve 3 inch rebar at over 2600 feet distance? I don't think that film would be able to resolve that, much less a digital camera. Much better chance of resolving a nice wide support column.

[Christophera]

26. Previous Photo In Series Gives Scale. 2 Layers Of Silouetted Rebar

The spire is the interior box column at the core corner. 14" x perhaps 24" (taller = narrower).



We are looking diagonal through 2 layers of rebar on the left which is a corner of the core. The concrete shear walls were standing with the steel. How the concrete was removed from the steel, here http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1152901



3 inch diameter silouetted under those conditions (optimum) is just visable to the naked eye at that distance. I work as a surveyor these days and have encountered this often with numerous targets.

[Christophera]

123. Since Snivi Has Not Posted Real Evidence Of Steel Cores Again, By Default,

the core must have been concrete. There is NO forensic evidence whatsoever for the multiple steel core columns.

Helicopter photos clearly show that only the outside of the core had heavy steel structure. They show the crane platform and much smaller steel inside the core, elevator guide rails.

[AZCat]

126. Bullshit.

How many times must I post this? You have to prove the core is concrete before you get to claim it is so - regardless of any other theories about the core.

There is no "default" theory, especially yours.

[Christophera]

128. This Thread & Links Are Proof. Core Existed: By Default It Was Concrete

because you cannot prove it was steel. This looks like concrete, not like steel.



See the proof in the original post of this thread for more, conclusive forensic, photographic evidence.

You have no solid proof at all of the steel core, especially forensic. Major events at 9-11, free fall and pulverization must be explained.

To NOT use evidence is to support the lie.

[AZCat]

131. This thread, the previous thread, and...

whatever threads also exist on this topic contain my arguments about this.

Apparently your memory isn't very good, so perhaps you could reread those threads so I don't have to rehash the arguments for you?

[Christophera]

134. Your Posts Prove You Have No Evidence. Empty Arguments = Unreasonable

You do not even have reasonable alternative explanations for the images of the concrete core.



Above is the concrete shearwall of the rectangular, tubular, steel reinforced core that holds up the spire formed of one interior box column.

[oblivious]

30. The FDNY chief of safety thought there was a solid concrete core.

I would like to know why he thought that. One supposes that he wouldn't have just been guessing.

Village Voice - 10 Unanswered Questions
Wednesday, 7 December 2005

4. Did anyone think the towers would collapse?

Reports on the FDNY response to 9-11 generally agree that, as the FDNY-commissioned McKinsey study put it, "Chief officers considered a limited, localized collapse of the towers possible, but did not think that they would collapse entirely." For some of the fire officers, that confidence might have been based on a misconception about how the towers were built: The FDNY chief of safety says in his oral history that he thought the towers were made of block construction, with a solid concrete core, so that fire crews would have at least three hours to work. In fact, the cores of the towers were sheetrock over steel.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0512/S00082.htm

[Christophera]

32. Concrete Core Common Knowledge Amongst Engineers, ...... Now Silent

Which I imagine is not easy to manage. The psychological environment of fear that the intuitive sense of truth brings to us when something as chilling as the WTC demolition is undertaken, finalized, prevents people who have no knowledge, no authority, no desire to see any political end, afraid to simply speak the truth of what they think happened. Many seem to know that the truth is the strangest, worst thing of all, but won't make it an issue that is a vocal part of their lives.

A number of engineering statements can be found that casually show that people knew the cores were concrete.


"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."


Here is an interesting note;
I asked attintermsson of Robert Hall, a demoliton expert who was on the 2004 9-11 panel assembled in Santa Barbara, if he remembered the concrete core of the towers. He had seen the core interior at one time and had no problem with talking about them. I informed him that FEMA identified the core as multiple steel columns, he became silent.
At the end where the public was allowed the panelists questions, I reminded him (informed everyone) that we had talked of the concrete core, which he remembered, and the asked how much energy it would require to reduce that concrete to sand and gravel in relation to what was released by the fall of the towers mass. He refused to answer.

[philb]

34. Firemen survived in both tower collapses because they were in the stairwel

in the core when the collapse occurred, on the lower floors. The individual elevators and stairwells apparently had steel beams
and double layer sheetrock; but its not clear about the outer section of the core; there was masonry involved in the lower level elevators that went up to the 24th floor. the ones that were blown up- apparently by explosives? any other alternatives?

http://www.flcv.com/firemen.html

[Christophera]

36. Massive Concrete Protects Stairwell - Which Tower Do You Think This Is?

The massive piece of concrete between the stairwells and the interior box columns protected the stair

[seatnineb]

37. This web page says PBS is source for info regarding concrete core.

Hi Christophera....

Long time no speak......

Check this out....

In the center of each tower is the vertical steel and concrete core that supports the 104 passenger elevators serving the 110 stories. Each tower was designed to have over 21,000 windows with as much as 40,000 square feet of rentable space in a single floor.

The construction cost was estimated at $400 million. (Info thanks to PBS)


http://heaven.beautyscastle.com/news/in_memory/two.html

Looks like the above info was gleaned from a PBS source that existed before 9/11/01.....

Notice how it is phrasing everything in the present tense:
In the center of each tower IS the vertical steel and concrete core

No doubt in my mind that this info came from before 9/11....

[sabbat hunter]

38. to me

it seems like he is only thanking PBS for the cost info.
and where is his proof of all of those statements? anybody can post a couple of sentences and say "thanks PBS" just like Chris says he "remembers" this or that. that certainly isnt any proof of anything. now if it was to a link of the video that played on PBS itself that would be proof. otherwise it is just continued hearsay and therefore is moot and garbage evidence.

[seatnineb]

39. It is a statement about the concrete core that predates 9/11.....

As I said...that statement is in the present tense.

Why is it that there are absolutely no references that mention drywall encasing the perimeter of the core that predate 9/11...

Yet there are several references that mention a concrete core that do predate 9/11.....

[sabbat hunter]

40. once again

anyone can write something on a webpage and make it present tense. it matters not if it is not backed up proof where the quote came from. i can just as easily say on a webpage
"the core of the WTC are constructed from a unique tube within a tube design that is the first among its kind that are being constructed from steel" thanks to xxx

that doenst make it true or false. i cannot back up my sentence with any proof. it is hearsay.


where are these references? are they just statements or are they backed up with evidence?

[seatnineb]

41. Try this MIT professor who says that the WTC had a concrete core.

Ahmed F. Ghoniem
Professor of Mechanical Engineering
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

The exterior of each tower was made of a dense lattice of prefabricated steel columns, while the 24m ´ 42m interior core consisted of 48 steel columns fireproofed in concrete.
<snip>

Thus, the initial area of damage is estimated to be about 2000 m2, or about half of the floor space of the building between the external lattice and the concrete core, and fuel spillage must have occurred over a fraction of this area.

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20V%20Fi...

[sabbat hunter]

42. details are important

you left out a HUGE detail.
"fire resitance of the was a sprayed on concrete about 5cm thick (less than 2 inches).
if that is true it isnt a concrete core, merely fireproofing.

however the WTC had asbestos as fireproofing not concrete, some of which was removed over the years so even this point by this MIT professor is incorrect.

after reading the WHOLE article he actually says there WASNT a concrete core.(note how he talks in page 21 about if a concrete core would have prevented a collapse)

[seatnineb]

51. Wrong.

In the words of Sabbat Hunter:
Thu Dec-15-05 01:09 AM
after reading the WHOLE article he actually says there WASNT a concrete core.(note how he talks in page 21 about if a concrete core would have prevented a collapse)

You are talkin' pure bullshit and you know it.

First

The report is only 18 pages in length.

Second.

He makes absolutely no reference about how a concrete core would have made a difference.

Try again.

[LARED]

43. columns fireproofed in concrete.

Assuming Mr. Ghoniem is correct, (something I doubt) columns fireproofed in concrete is very different than a concrete core. Concrete used for fireproofing is not structural, it is a covering on the steel to protect the steel from heat.

[seatnineb]

53. The difference between structural concrete and fireproofed concrete.

Considering the MIT proffessor has done far more elaborate calculations regarding the dynamics in what he believes was the cause for the collapse.....

...then I think it is fair to assume that he would have known the difference between fire proofed (sprayed on) concrete......and a structural concrete core.

And he does write that the WTC had a concrete core.

Period.

[Christophera]

47. Sincere Analysis Seems Based In Misinformation-Confusion, Lies & Logic

The analysis of Ahmed F. Ghoniem seems sincere, & based in some knowledge of the concrete core. This notion of a steel lattice

Liars, if they can avoid a public confrontation, can rely on confusion and it seems that there was an attempt to fit history and logic without giving away the fact that the core was a massive steel reinforced cast concrete structure, in the beginning. It is very logical from an engineering standpoint to expect a concrete core of some kind to counter the flex of steel.

In the uk they still think this was the core.

[AZCat]

50. Are you an engineer?

Do you have a stamp?

If not then I'd rather you avoid claiming what is logical from an engineering standpoint.

[seatnineb]

54. The core is still standin' after the collapse of the external perimeter.

It bears a remarkable resembalance to this:



Which in turn looks more similar to Christophera's depiction of the core:



Than anything FEMA or the NIST or the ASCE have come up with so far:

[Christophera]

56. No, You Avoid Supporting Lies-Logic Existed Before, And Begat Engineering

I work for a R.C.E., he reviews and stamps my work on a weekly basis. HE WOULD BE VERY UPSET IF I CEASED CLAIMING WHAT WAS LOGICAL FROM AN ENGINEERING STANDPOINT.

The engineer of discussion was working from a faulty informational basis. I can't tell you how many times I've seen this with 9-11.


It is kind of pitiful and sad. Let me try to approximate what these poor engineers go through.

Here you have a perfectly qualified engineer, he basically knows from what he saw that the towers were demolished. He doesn't want to believe it though and assumes the official story MUST be correct and begins to try and duplicate the needed calculations. He accepts whatever description he finds first (because he can't imagine that anybody would supply deceptive structural descriptions) and does his best with the calculations then publishes, a protracted error.

[AZCat]

57. While you may be qualified to do surveying...

I have yet to see anything that qualifies you for structural analysis. Perhaps your PE would be kind enough to explain the difference between civil and structural engineering?

[Christophera]

58. Correct: Still, You Have No Evidence And Are Failing To Use Logic

I use logic and have hands on experience with the materials from the engineering side, dimensioning etc, of cast concrete and structural steel.


Notice, there are no engineers arguing for a steel core, sure they put up a web page, but they don't explain free fall and pulverization.

Mine does.

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

[AZCat]

59. Based on your posts here...

I don't think very highly of either your logic or your application of whatever "hands on experience" you claim to have acquired.

You seem to think volume and shrillness can substitute for evidence and understanding of the fundamentals of building engineering. Since you have been posting the same crap (and getting the same responses) since last spring I no longer hold out hope that you might be made aware and correct your behavior.

[Christophera]

60. Have You Shown Your Understanding Of Building Enginering?-No Credibility

When you fail to recognize the problems with flex that a steel structure, with the proportions of the Twin towers has, your credibility with structures disapears.

When you do this and 3,000 Americans were murdered in the event in question, you loose credibility as a person interested in the truth.

[AZCat]

61. Here is where we part ways.

I think you are wrong. In fact, I'm sure you are wrong. You simply have no understanding of structures, regardless of whatever "experience" you claim to have. Since you aren't going to correct this deficiency, I guess I'll just have to continue disagreeing with you.

And then you go and pull a Frum-ism. :eyes:

[Christophera]

63. My Point:Your Knowledge Of Structures Doesn't Include Flex Of Steel

And your post didn't address it. That is how your credibility as a person seeking truth disapeared, and your credibility as a person knowledgeable of structures went with it.


This is at least the second time with this issue, of the flex and proportions of the tower, that you have failed to be reasonable.

[AZCat]

64. We have discussed it before.

You don't know what you are talking about, and don't seem interested in learning.

I am quite comfortable with both my knowledge and my credibility, thank you.

[Christophera]

65. Or Perhaps I tried To But You Wouldn't Respond To Logic And Reason-Typical

and I asked everyone to explain what these structural elements are,



you, and a few others were not responding with reason, just saying "no".

[AZCat]

67. Chris - while I am tempted to place the blame for our disagreement...

on miscommunication (which is entirely possible given your inability to use spellcheck), the knowledge that you are missing is pretty elementary - it isn't complicated stuff. How materials respond under loading and why concrete isn't very good in certain situations is something that I learned as a freshman in school and in my first summer on a job (ah - good old manual labor - how I miss it). If you haven't picked it up by now and aren't willing to accept that you lack this understanding I just don't think we have anything to talk about. It's like arguing with a four-year-old about monetary policy - the four-year-old doesn't have a foundation of economics that allows such a discussion.

[Christophera]

68. Vague Generalities: Flex Of Steel Unaddressed Still. Weak Anology=Evasion

Posted by AZCa

Chris - while I am tempted to place the blame for our disagreement on miscommunication (which is entirely possible given your inability to use spellcheck), the knowledge that you are missing is pretty elementary - IT isn't complicated stuff. How materials respond under loading and why concrete isn't very good in certain situations is something that I learned as a freshman in school and in my first summer on a job (ah - good old manual labor - how I miss it). If you haven't picked IT up by now and aren't willing to accept that you lack this understanding I just don't think we have anything to talk about. It's like arguing with a four-year-old about monetary policy - the four-year-old doesn't have a foundation of economics that allows such a discussion.

Exactly what is "IT"?

Outside of your anology; seems to me, that if you could conduct such a discussion, the discussion would be part of what you are saying..

And, once again, my question with its associated image you love so much, Why are no steel core columns seen?

[AZCat]

69. Sorry if I was unclear.

"It" is the knowledge you are missing and don't seem to be willing to acquire.

This discussion is not part of our dialogue because you (for all your caterwauling about "truth" and "justice") don't strike me as receptive. I think you have wedded yourself to your pet theory to such an extent that you would only engage in such a discussion in order to cherry-pick support for your theory rather than earnestly seek the truth. I'm not willing to waste time chasing a moving target.

As for your image, I think your expectations are incorrect.

[Christophera]

70. Not Receptive??I'm Asking For Your Position-Still No EXPL On Steel Columns

or why they are unseen in this photo.



Why are none of the 47, 1,300 foot steel columns not seen in this photo of the core of WTC 2?

What is your position on this inconsistency w/official structural design, reasonably supported, on this forensic evidence?

For reference as to exactly what structural steel looks like as it falls apart. This is an interior box column of WTC 1.



The floor beams and stubs of beams show this is part of the outer tube of the "tube in a tube" construction.

[AZCat]

71. That's correct - not receptive.

That's exactly why I'm not interested in continuing this discussion with you.

However, I'm not going to let your misinformation pass without comment. So if you decide to start yet ANOTHER thread espousing the same theories, I'm going to post in it.

[seatnineb]

72. Christophera is not alone.

We all know the BBC diagram which was published on:

Thursday, 13 September, 2001, 12:59 GMT 13:59 UK



Post 9/11 many other web sites duplicated this BBC report about the WTC's concrete core......

BUT

Even before 9/13/01....other internet users were getting information about the WTC....


09-11-2001, 08:18 PM
Cyberpunk


I've been doing some checking, the building had a central loadbearing steel and concrete core which took almost the full gravitational load of the building, this is where the exit stairs would have been. It's my thinking that even the impact of the plane should not have fully penetrated this, so it's my hope that most of the people in the upper floors had a clear exit route, shielded from the fires

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=20875&page=16


Before 9/11/01...

How come such a world famouse buildin' like the WTC was believed to have had a concrete core......

[AZCat]

73. I don't know.

But there is no discounting the foolishness of people - look at how many voted for Bush in 2004.

[seatnineb]

74. Oh come on!...Here is another concrete core researcher ....from 1998.

ID# 18.1
From: P.R.GOTTHARDT ([e-mail]) - 10 Mar 1998
CAN ANYBODY HELP ME!
I AM A FIRE SAFETY STUDENT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL LANCASHIRE, ENGLAND. I AM CURRENTLY PARTAKING IN A PROJECT ON THE WORLDS SKYSCRAPERS, AND HAVE CHOSEN THE NY WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS. THE PROBLEM IS THAT I AM SHORT ON CERTAIN INFORMATION, NAMELY:-
1.ERECTION METHODS OF THE STRUCTURE
2.EXTERNAL CLADDING
3.METHOD OF FIRE PROTECTION TO COLUMNS, BEAMS AND FLOORS.
IF ANYONE CAN 'E' MAIL ANY INFORMATION I WILL BE FOREVER THANKFULL
PAUL GOTTHARDT


ID# 18.2 (reply to #18.1) - 10 Mar 1998
1) Prefabricated steel elements erected with the help of over-structure cranes, at the same time casting the concrete core and slabs floor-by-floor.
2) Aluminium-clad external steel tube frames.
3) No info. Steel columns probably rely on protective cladding panels, whereas the concrete core colums, beams and floor slabs have the protective concrete layer... ED.

http://www.greatgridlock.net/NYC/nythr-18.html

Now you can't blame poor Christophera here....

The above web page was written 3 years before 9/11.......

And the WTC's concrete core is openly talked about.

[AZCat]

75. Again - I am not responsible for the beliefs of others.

People have been believing the wrong thing for years about plenty of stuff. How many Americans still believe Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11?

[seatnineb]

77. Architectural Record says WTC had a concrete core.

(2) The concrete core acted as the building's vertebrate. But it only carried the dead load of the elevators and stairwells within



http://www.ncusd203.org/central/html/what/torsbergweb/2 ... .

So if they are wrong about the WTC's concrete core.....then why and how could they be wrong.

[AZCat]

78. I don't know.

Let me repeat this one more time - I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT OTHER PEOPLE THINK.

Oh yeah - your link doesn't work.

[seatnineb]

80. This carpenter who worked in the WTC says it had a concrete core.

Those were the high dollar floors, the executive floors, the choicest commercial office real estate in pre September 11th Manhattan. The top floors had an awesome view, that was truly breathtaking - I had a chance to experience it myself - I've worked installing furniture and office partitions(in the WTC) on some of those floors - for those of you who are never going to get the chance to see it - you missed an unbelivable panorama.<snip>

The old WTC was built out of structural steel.

But, it wasn't a regular steel building.

They used trusses rather than solid beams for the joists that support the floor. The floors were not supported by colums..instead, the trusses carried the weight to the steel exterior, and the reinforced concrete core. This allowed large open floors where you could cram in the maximum number of desks, without big colums getting in the way.

http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/gangbox/message/6 ...

[AZCat]

81. I don't care.

Have you actually been reading my previous responses, or are you just regurgitating posts from previous threads?

[seatnineb]

82. Like Make7 before you.....you fail to convice.....

Here .....

...eat another concrete core reference from 9/11 itself....


posted on 09/11/2001 5:10:45 PM PDT by calebcar
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies >


To: Looking for Diogenes
I'm an architect in NYC and am familiar with hi rise construction. The WTC towers were designed with a structural system of exterior columns formed in 2-story panelized sections(you probably saw those falling to the streets in the footage today). The exterior columns form a continuous tube structure that provides rigidity against wind forces. The second means of structure was a rigid internal concrete core that encloses elevator shafts, exit stairs and mechanical shafts. This core also has solid concrete sheer wallsto resist wind forces. The combination of this original sturcure was desined to resist tremendous forces, including the impact of a fully fueled 707.


38 posted on 09/11/2001 5:10:46 PM PDT by finnman69
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies >

[AZCat]

83. Who said anything about trying to convince?

It is Christophera and you that seem to be anxious to convince people to believe your theories.

[seatnineb]

86. I'm givin' the concrete core a chance......got a problem with that?

[AZCat]

87. Why then are you providing evidence...

that doesn't really say anything?

If you have something that genuinely raises questions about the structure of the WTC towers, then by all means post it - I am happy to discuss it with posters who are interested in pursuing truth for the sake of truth rather than pushing some sort of agenda. But don't you think that your standards for evidence ought to be a little more stringent?

[seatnineb]

89. I have cited 5 different sources which cite a reference to a concrete core

Have another........

This time from somebody inside the core of the towers.............

Then, he tried to smash in the wall next to the door so that we could crawl through a hole in the wall, but after a few attempts, it was clear that the CONCRETE WALL wasn't going to give either.

http://www.mjbarkl.com/locked.htm

[AZCat]

91. Are you interested in having a productive discussion...

or are you just looking for validation?

I don't care that you've found half-a-dozen sources that refer to a concrete core. If that's all it takes for you to give something credence, then how do you feel about WMD in Iraq? I can certainly pull up at least six sources supporting that claim.

[Christophera]

93. STATEMENT OF: Leslie E. Robertson:- Concrete Core LINKED

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/innovation/transcript_episode1.html

Leslie E. Robertson: The 101st floor is here so you're a rather long ways up in the air. This is 492 meters above the ground. There's the central core -- it's the white part on the inside. It's constructed of reinforced concrete. There are outrigger trusses at three levels that link the core to the structure on the outside ... and then a mega-structure which is the bracing and the large columns on the façade. The three work together to resist wind and earthquake loads on the building.

[Make7]

95. WOW! Is he talking about the World Trade Center towers? ( n/t )

[AZCat]

96. Why don't you try reading the context?

He's talking about the Shanghai World Financial Center, not the WTC towers.

[Christophera]

97. Oop's: I Had seen One About The WTC About Concrete Core And Thought

this was the same. I'll look for the other.

AZ ........ Why are no steel core columns seen?

[philb]

106. that seems to be about the Financial Center in Shanghai

[seatnineb]

98. Everyone who did research on the WTC pre-9/11 mention concrete core.

Oddly enough, many years ago i carried out a
structural analysis of the world trade centre and drew
the conclusion that an impact from a large object,
such as a jet airliner would bring it down... and
here's why...



The thing is, the world trade centre, like most
skyscrapers, was designed around a central concrete
core (which houses lifts, stairs, plumbing, heating,
ventilation and lighting services) and the floors are
"hung" off this central core. pivotal to the design is
the columns which ran the height of the building at
the extremities (ie just inside the wall) as they have
to be held in high (extremely high) tension to prevent
the building collapsing into itself under it's own
weight. you see, they secure the floors from
effectively "falling out" of the central core. and
once on falls onto another, so the load on that floor
doubles, which it is nigh on impossible for it to
support, collapsing it onto the floor below, tripling
the load on that floor to excruciating levels, and so
on... a domino effect.


http://www.splfever.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=8654
a

Before 9/11.....there are NO sources that mention drywall being used to encase or cover the perimeter of the steel core of the WTC.

The only references prior to 9/11 are to a concrete core.

I wonder why?

P.S.....your Saddam WMD aurgument is fuckin' piss poor .

[AZCat]

99. Your link doesn't work.

And the WMD argument seems appropriate to me. Perhaps you are just upset at being compared to Bush regime apologists?

[seatnineb]

102. I wonder why?!.......Still it is a clear reference to a concrete core.

So let's put it all together shall we.....

09-11-2001, 08:18 PM
Cyberpunk
I've been doing some checking, the building had a central loadbearing steel and concrete core
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=20875&pa...


ID# 18.2 (reply to #18.1) - 10 Mar 1998
1) Prefabricated steel elements erected with the help of over-structure cranes, at the same time casting the concrete core and slabs floor-by-floor.
http://www.greatgridlock.net/NYC/nythr-18.html


Oddly enough, many years ago i carried out a
structural analysis of the world trade centre <snip> the world trade centre, like most skyscrapers, was designed around a central concrete
core (which houses lifts, stairs, plumbing, heating,
ventilation and lighting services)
http://www.splfever.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=8654

I've worked installing furniture and office partitions(in the WTC) on some of those floors - <snip> The floors were not supported by colums..instead, the trusses carried the weight to the steel exterior, and the reinforced concrete core.
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/gangbox/message/6 ...


posted on 09/11/2001 5:10:45 PM PDT by calebcar
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies >

To: Looking for Diogenes
I'm an architect in NYC and am familiar with hi rise construction.
The second means of structure was a rigid internal concrete core that encloses elevator shafts
(Cleaved from the Freerepublic)


Ahmed F. Ghoniem
Professor of Mechanical Engineering
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Thus, the initial area of damage is estimated to be about 2000 m2, or about half of the floor space of the building between the external lattice and the concrete core
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20V%20Fi ...

So have you got even one fuckin' reference that pre-dates 9/11 that says drywall was used to cover the perimeter of the steel core?

Did not fuckin think so.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seatnineb]

107. Journalist interviewed Robertson...and says WTC had a Concrete core

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.

http://groups.google.com.au/group/talk.politics.misc/browse_thread/thread/fd9436d194d09f55/5a46a4a33a2b72b5?hl=en

BTW......your analogy is wrong.

If I "make up" testimony about something that did happen(a plane hitting the WTC).......then that is different to making up testimony about something that did not happen(WTC having a concrete core).

The point is why so many believed that the WTC had a concrete core.

Where did Architectural record,the BBC, and host of anonymouse internet sleuths get information that the WTC had a concrete core.

The drywall encasing the perimeter of the WTC's steel core seems to have been born AFTER 9/11.

[Christophera]

108. That's The Statement Of Architect Robertson, RE: Concrete Core, I Recall

The "steel-tube exoskeleton" term is a unique reference I recall, and the date of the statement a few days after 9-11.

http://groups.google.com.au/group/talk.politics.misc/browse_thread/thread/fd9436d194d09f55/5a46a4a33a2b72b5?hl=en

Here's what happened when civil engineers tried to get the plans from the PA.


http://www.questionsquestions.net/documents2/wtc_obstruction.html

The lead investigator in the case, Gene Corley of the American Society of Civil Engineers, said the Port Authority refused to hand over blueprints for the twin towers - crucial for evaluating the wreckage - until he signed a waiver saying his team would not use the plans in a lawsuit against the agency.
"This is the first time I have signed something like that," Corley said, setting off a wave of angry comments from members of Congress and outcries from an audience made up mostly of relatives of victims of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
Corley leads a team of engineering experts empaneled by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, but his team lacks the power to subpoena witnesses or order the preservation of evidence.

[Christophera]

110. Confusion, Deception, Changing the Subject: Clear Reference??? Ironic Err

This post appears inaccurate in all ways and creates confusion. There is no value added to the discussion. Any reader encountering it will become lost trying to track its references.

Because this can only be a concrete core in the middle of WTC 2, not multiple steel core columns,



testimony of a concrete core must be compiled and corelated to determine veracity.

You are utterly in error about seatnineb's posts of testimonials. The links mostly work and are quite interesting. Here is a link that originates in a seatnineb post.

http://www.salwen.com/wtc/

Each of the towers, in other words, was held up by its reinforced concrete core and the world's strongest curtain walls. Without the usual steel skeleton, the open floors allowed unprecedented space and flexibility. Between them, the two 1,350-foot-high towers provided 7.9 million square feet of rentable floor space, roughly the equivalent of fifty city blocks.

After the attacks, the fierce heat of burning jet fuel, plus direct damage from the planes' impact, would have weakened the support for the upper floors to the point of failure. The reinforced concrete core helped keep the buildings standing for more than an hour after the impact, undoubtedly saving thousands of lives. Once the upper section fell, however, the impact produced the rapid, top-down progressive collapse we all witnessed.

[Christophera]

100. Ph.D & Concrete Core-Licensed Structural ENG.

Groundbreaking for construction of the World Trade Center took place on August 5, 1966.Tower One, standing 1368 feet high, was completed in 1970, and Tower Two, at 1362 feet high,was completed in 1972. The structural design for the World Trade Center Towers was done by Skilling, Helle, Christiansen and Robertson. It was designed as a tube building that included a perimeter moment-resisting frame consisting of steel columns spaced on 39-inch centers. 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.

Dr. Domel received a Ph.D. from the University of Illinois at Chicago in 1988 and a Law Degree from Loyola University in 1992. He is a licensed Structural Engineer and Attorney at Law in the .State of Illinois and a Professional Engineer in twelve states, including the State of New York.Dr. Domel is authorized by the Department of Labor (OSHA) as a 10 and 30 hour construction safety trainer

[AZCat]

101. What is the point of this?

Do you have a reference, or are you just going to post random bits without any source?

[Christophera]

104. We Have So Much Proof Of The Concrete Core It Is Hard To Keep Organized

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.


Dr. Domel received a Ph.D. from the University of Illinois at Chicago in 1988 and a Law Degree from Loyola University in 1992. He is a licensed Structural Engineer and Attorney at Law in the .State of Illinois and a Professional Engineer in twelve states, including the State of New York.Dr. Domel is authorized by the Department of Labor (OSHA) as a 10 and 30 hour construction safety trainer

http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdfhttp://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf

[philb]

105. solid concrete stairwell- same URL

"Realizing that the smoky hallway was the only way to the stairwell and to safety, we followed the arrows on the red exit sign that was glowing in the haze like headlights in a fog bank. Apparently no one else knew where the stairs were either. Luckily, we found them quickly, entered the solid concrete stairwell, and began our descent. It wasn't quite as smoky in there, but there was a slight haze. The square plastic sign on the wall read "28th Floor". This is going to be a long, long walk... The first four floors seemed to go by very quickly, but we hit a major bottleneck as we got close to the 24th. In fact, we came to a total standstill. I could see that the holdup was due to the fact that people from the 24th were trying to make their escape into the stairwell too. White smoke seeped in slowly through the open door, and it was getting harder to breathe in there by the minute. I looked around at the pure concrete surrounding us.

in the debris of WTC2
"Miraculously, Guzman was alive but she was in serious trouble. Her head was pinned between two concrete pillars and her legs were trapped in the staircase. The colleagues who had been with her were all gone. Her thoughts turned to her 12-year-old daughter, Kimberly. She drifted in and out of consciousness until the light peeking through the concrete eventually gave way to darkness.

[Christophera]

109. We Can Tell Which Tower This Concrete Core Is Part Of By Stairway Survivor

s. If they survived that massive piece of concrete is why.

[Christophera]

122. Not Responsible For Recognizing Reason - You Can't Get Off The Hook

for accounting for what you think as it relates to what they think and remain reasonable.

[AZCat]

127. Fortunately I can.

However I am not responsible for your inability to understand that.

[Christophera]

135. Understand Fine. I Don't Accept That You Can Pretend To Seek The Truth

while you are not responsible for recognizing reason.

For example.

Why is no structural steel core columns are seen in this photo showing the core of WTC 2 after the exterior steel framework has fallen away?



I have reasonably formed a question. You will recognize reason by explaining why the core design you think stood is not seen.

[Christophera]

112. Could AZCat Be A Master Of Distortion?

Again - I am not responsible for the beliefs of others.
Posted by AZCat

People have been believing the wrong thing for years about plenty of stuff. How many Americans still believe Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11

What an amazing mental filter AZ constructs above with types of information having sociological relevance, with implication, to nearly every one of the below cognitive distortions. All of it ending with an irelevant distraction; and generally, depending on the reader, having the potential for interpretation of being something positive with regard to the first and second sentence. What skill.

2. Over generalization: Single event is viewed as continuous.
3. Mental filter: Details in life (positive or negative) are amplified in importance while opposite is rejected.
4. Minimizing: Perceiving one or opposite experiences (positive or negative) as absolute and maintaining singularity of belief to one or the other.
5. Mind reading: One absolutely concludes that others are reacting positively or negatively without investigating reality.
6. Fortune Telling: Based on previous 5 distortions, anticipation of negative or positive outcome of situations is established fact.
7. Catastrophizing: Exaggerated importance of specific failures of others and successes of self.
8. Emotional reasoning: One feels as though emotional state IS reality of situation.
9. "Should" statements: Self imposed rules about behavior creating guilt at self inability to adhere and anger at others in their inability to conform to self's rules.
10. Labeling: Instead of understanding errors over generalization is applied.
12. Entitlement: Believing that you deserve things you have not earned.

[seatnineb]

113. Christophera!....you need to see the 1976 Kong film .....core is shown!

Christophera...

Seeing as King Kong is back in vogue....I decided to check out the 1976 version...when Kong climbs the WTC.

Jeff Bridges chases Kong by taking a lift in the south tower to one of the very highest floors.


He then runs out of the core area and....still being in 1976....the entire floor is still free of office partitions!....giving us a clear view of the shape of the core!(at least on this floor)



Bridges then proceeds to run around the perimeter of the core as he searches for a door that will allow him to re-enter the core and get to the roof....



He then finds a door and tries to open it.....but forget about the door....notice the smooth surface of the wall of the core!.....could this be....concrete.



One thing is for sure........

Looking at the film....it appears that the core......at least on this high floor... resembles exactly the same shape that is depicted by Architectural record....who say that the core was made of concrete....




(2) The concrete core acted as the building's vertebrate. But it only carried the dead load of the elevators and stairwells within

http://www.ncusd203.org/central/html/what/torsbergweb/2 ... .

[Christophera]

114. 1976 Kong Film-Holiday Truth Quest, Accepted-Great Find

I had a feeling stuff like this would be showing up.

And you are correct. The layout of the Architectural Record matches the wall faces and openings of the film.



Not only is the truth the strangest thing of all, often it is found in the strangest places.

[seatnineb]

115. Happy Christmas Christophera!

And thanks for the compliment......

Architectural Records' concrete core of the WTC........



......looks exactly like the core of the WTC that is shown in the 1976 Kong film....







Compare that to the truly wrong(in terms of shape) depiction of the bullshittin' "drywall" core as shown in the Anatomy Of A Collapse DVD.

[sgsmith]

116. This shows drywall

Sure looks like drywall taping to me. By which, I mean the vertical lines about 2 feet apart towards the top of the picture.

[Christophera]

117. Expect Drywall For a Finish Surface For Concrete Core. Smooth For Paint

Furring would be applied to the concrete, conduits for switches, signs, lights run, then drywall nailed, taped and painted.

You miss an important point. We have agreement between the architectural record and photographic accounts inside the open tower.

[LARED]

119. You are most likely incorrect

If furring strips were used with drywall nailed to them, then you would see the drywall only going up as high as needed.

The ceiling starts where the painting stops, so would the drywall if it was nailed over concrete.

[Christophera]

120. Evidence Shows In Cieling Ducts & Drywall Extends Above-Standard CONST.

The primer stops below the ductwork showing where the drop ceiling will hang.



The drywallers don't always know where the cieling will be located so they drywall up the full height of the sheets they use, 10 footers in this case. The painters have been told what height to paint to.

[seatnineb]

118. Are you sure?

I would say that this:



.....looks more like drywall:

Notice the panelized partitions.....

The above still is when Jeff Bridges (who is inside the core at this point)exits the express elevator and then runs up a ramp so that he exits one floor above where the lift stopped.

It is certainly feasable that some (if not all) the interior partitions within the core were boarded up with drywall.

Those partitions are not visible on the perimeter of the core as Bridges tries to open the door......

[AZCat]

125. Nice list.

Except that I can't really see how it applies to me - it seems more appropriate for your posts - although the list is written in such wonk-speak that I have trouble understanding what the point of it is anyway.



Edit: grammar?

[Christophera]

129. Lie; Minimizing And Labelling, Mock Ignorance

Come on Wiz, master of distortion, you can do better than mock ignorance.

[AZCat]

130. It's always fun...

when an argument devolves into name-calling.

And so productive, too.

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Christophera]

121. Not Responsible For Recognizing Reasonable Beliefs = Unreasonable

If a Ph.D and engineer, or architect has stated they believe there was a concrete core and evidence supports a concrete core, it is unreasonable to not recognize the beliefs of those specific others with specialized qualifications.

Here is the evidence that supports the concrete core.

[AZCat]

124. No.

That is not evidence that supports a concrete core.

[Christophera]

133. You Have NO Evidence to Support Your Position-You Cannot Dismiss Forensic

evidence without more substancial evidence. You have NO evidence showing this is not a concrete core.

[Christophera]

76. Your Denial: Intentional Error. STATEMENTS OF ARCH. & ENGINEERS

site malfunction prevents completing post

[AZCat]

79. This site or the one you were trying to link to?

I saw the pdf you linked to from NCSEA. Is that what you wanted to reference?

[Christophera]

84. REPOST:STATEMENTS OF ARCH. & ENGINEERS-This site appears malfunctioning

Your Denial: Intentional Error. STATEMENTS OF ARCH. & ENGINEERS

Building to Extremes

[LARED]

85. Thanks for clearing that up (N/T)

[Christophera]

88. REPOST #2 STATEMENTS OF ARCH. & ENGINEERS

Forum software still fails to post.

[oblivious]

62. Wow! Fine work at that link. I applaud your search for the truth.

Thank goodness a few people care enough to do research like this.

[Christophera]

92. Not Much Searching, Mostly Analysis-Evaluation Of Evidence & Logical Elimi

nation of evidence or events that just won't fit or can't be used.


Once I disposed of the presently obviously useless information/evidence, which there is a ton of, I continued to eliminate aspects or information that cannot be used.

By remaining focused on free fall and pulverization, absolutes of the event (the truth WILL explain them) from the beginning, the process of elimination was streamlined. Simply put, If information or evidence did not help explain free fall and pulverization it was not intrinsically useful. Perhaps later gaps can be filled by some of that data.

What you might find interesting is that those who do not believe in demolition or the concrete core have done a great deal of research to try and discredit these explanations, and, fairly often, their raw evidence, poorly understood or identified, was actually providing me with potentially relevant data to analyze.

These images were posted here on du and led to a more complete understanding of the differences in the 2 towers cores.

[Christophera]

44. Redundant Evidence From People Who Have No Reason To Lie-Usenet Comments

http://cosmicpenguin.com/911/chrisbrown/corerefs/index.html

How can evidence that is redundant AND helps explain events be termed "garbage".

Consider that you are applying a cognitive distortion called "labeling" and "overgeneralizing".

[sabbat hunter]

45. WTF

what the F does this mean?
snip
"that you are applying a cognitive distortion called "labeling" and "overgeneralizing"

do you use a thesauras to use big words to sound smart? because that sentence makes no sense.

testimony is useless and easily distorted with out any evidence to back it up. all that link shows is what people think and 'remember' and we all know how good your so called photograpic memory is. you cannot even produce a simple PBS video. others have and shown exactly the opposite of what you like to claim.

for once show real evidence. the first photo you show in this post shows no concrete core or rebar. many here have stated that.

[Christophera]

46. Cognitive Distortions & Dissociation-COG. Dissonance 1st Step To Forgettin

g.

Some just want to forget 9-11, make it all go away. Business as usual.

Behavioral psychologist developed "Cognitive Therapy", and the the first step for them was to identify the "cognitive distortions" individiuals sunconsciously applied to their thinking. You go a little further and say indirectly with your posting, "I don't want anyone thinking those towers had concrete cores." Then you use cognitive distortions to attemp to frame the discussion in an aura of dismissal.

Here are the definitions the psychologists have created that apply to your behavior.

2. Over generalization: Single event is viewed as continuous.

10. Labeling: Instead of understanding errors over generalization is applied.

[sabbat hunter]

55. are you

are you a psychologist now too?

where did you get your definitions? or did you just make it up like you did your "memory" of a video showing a concrete core?

[Christophera]

66. I Challenge Psychology To Use What It Knows-Dissociation Immense

I communicated some of my understandings of human behavior to the American Psychological Association.



Apparently I reminded them of what they wanted to forget. Here, ................. let me remind you of what you want to forget.

You wanted to forget that an element of our secret government killed 3,000 on 9-11 in the most sophisticated demolition of all time.

[Christophera]

111. QUOTE:sabbat hunter “moot and garbage evidence”

sabbat hunter, you implied with the post I respond to that I was providing analysis of your behavior outside of my area of experience. I answered with post 66. Dec-16-05 08:17 PM  "I Challenge Psychology To Use What It Knows-Dissociation Immense"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=62533&mesg_id=63647

Clearly, distortions are numerous and blatent.

#45. WTF

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=62533&mesg_id=63507

“you cannot even produce a simple PBS video.”

is another example of a cognitive distortion, minimizing.

4. Minimizing: Perceiving one or opposite experiences (positive or negative) as absolute and maintaining singularity of belief to one or the other.

[oblivious]

48. The BBC said it was a steel and concrete core 2 days after 911.

Thursday, 13 September, 2001, 12:59 GMT 13:59 UK
How the World Trade Center fell

The building's design was standard in the 1960s, when construction began on what was then the world's tallest building. At the heart of the structure was a vertical steel and concrete core, housing lift shafts and stairwells.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1540044.stm
Edit: wrong reference

[oblivious]

49. In UNC's tribute to the WTC they call it a reinforced concrete core.

The Univ of N Carolina Engineering Dept calls it a reinforced concrete core and has a drawing of it:

http://www.unc.edu/courses/2001fall/plan/006e/001/engineering/index.html

Fourth picture down. Could someone paste it in the thread? I don't know how.

[oblivious]

52. Never mind, it's the same drawing in post 47 above.

[Make7]

90. To post a picture:

You just have to type the web address of the picture into your message. For example, to post the picture you are referring to, you just need to type:

    http://www.unc.edu/courses/2001fall/plan/006e/001/images/schema.gif

You can just copy and paste that address into your message and it will automatically become a picture. Feel free to try it! Hit the preview button before posting to make sure it works.

(To find the actual web address of a picture, right-click on the image and select Properties. In the window that opens up you should find an entry that gives a web address like the one seen above. Just copy and paste that into your message and you're done.)

-Make7

[philb]

94. good picture of debris at WTC1; what does the debris say about this?

http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/viewtopic.php?p=13390#13390


what's the building standing in the background with debris on it?
WTC6?