They really do poorly. I mean BAD. The only thing they have they can call evidence are misinterpreted images of the construction. They all say, "There are the steel core columns right there."

This image is one of the better they rely on.



Notice that whoever notated it (I fond it on a site that thought the steel core columns existed) was honest. There are no other "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" other than the ones that ring the core.

The concrete core documented with images of the demolition

http://concretecore.741.com

This is a very serious matter. Ask yourself, "What if the core of the towers was steel reinforced cast concrete, and FEMA lied about it?"

For one thing, concrete can be fractured and will fall instantly. Steel will not fracture like that.

Another aspect. What if FEMA had told the truth about the concrete core?

Well, ........ seeing as ground zero had NO big chunks of concrete and everything was turned to Sand and gravel, telling the truth about the core design would have created immediate questions.

Then, ...... lying about the core design actually improved the credibility of the official story some. Why? Because steel does melt and bend with heat. Never mind that jet fuel or other flammables in the tower could never burn hot enough to even get the supposed steel columns hot enough to bend. The fact that no one actually knows how hot it was makes a more credible story for collapse than a concrete, steel reinforced cast, rectangular, tubular core .

Below are link to the best arguments that could be brought forth to argue against the concrete core or for the steel core columns

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...showtopic=11658

The opposition literally relies on emoticons or leaves the debate!

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...opic=12935&st=0

So ask yourself, Why is this issue of the concrete core not discussed or supported by more people? I hthink there is a very potent and disturbing fear at the root of it. The truth about OUR secret societies and how their secrets are kept, and, the concrete core secrete threatens to make it something we have to contend with when, ........ we don't WANT to.

Consider:
The concrete could be a containment vessal for high explosives if the towers were built with the explosives inside them. But, ....... believing that the towers were built to demolish requires that you can accept that the US government has been infiltrated for the last 50 years +.

Operation paperclip was a point where an occult infiltration could actually begin on a large and effective scale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip

http://artificialtelepathy.blogspot.com/20...gy-of-mind.html

http://planetquo.com/George-Bush-The-CIA-M...And-Child-Abuse

http://www.deepblacklies.co.uk/some_aspect...pem_weapons.htm

Here is the only feasible and realistic explanation for this,



that exists on the web.

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

The concrete was actually BLAZESHIELD. Ordinary concrete is cement and sand. Blazeshield is cement and asbestos. It's a thermal insulator, and a bit lighter than ordinary concrete. But they look and can be worked with in much the same way.

The reason for the cover-up and confusion seems to have been that asbestos was soon after banned because it kills you with cancer. BUT HOW COULD THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY REMOVE THIS ASBESTOS RIGHT IN THE CORE OF THE BUILDING?

When the WTC started loosing big money, there's was no legal way out of the Port Authorities financial and environmental trap. They had to hide demolition under some cover-story, so they wouldn't be legally repsponsible for the environmental and public health disaster sure to follow.

A number of people who saw the WTC being built have said the core steal columns seemed to have something like concrete applied. The BLAZESHIELD issues seem to explain why there has been some cover-up and confusion about the materials in the core.

After a little searching, it seems that there's also another variety of Blazeshield where the asbestos is replaced by mineral wool. There is controversy over which type of Blazeshield were used in various parts of the towers. No doubt, legal issues are fueling this controversy!

The WTC dust contained some mineral wool and some asbestos, all mixed in with the cement...and pulverized into extremely microscopic bits.

I lost interest in you once I saw how easy it is to get you to tell such obvious lies. Lately, I haven't even been viewing your posts, until you created this thread, which is about the exact same thing as the others. You just keep cross-posting the same old thread over and over again.

If what you refer to are so obvious, why did you not prove them so with your post?

You did pretty poorly in the debate thread about the core. That is the way it is when you try to argue with no evidence.

Hello Dave,

This is not insulation.



Hundreds of thousands of tons of steel have crashed around/over it and it still stands.

This is unexplained,



and, no core columns are seen to the left. The supposed steel core columns would have been some of the strongest elements of the towers, they would be standing in both of these images if they existed.

Not one image of the demoliton shows them.. I know exactly how the towers were constructed, basically, and all the raw evidence totally supports what i assert.

Here's the problem,

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

The author of this page is completely unaccountable. I've emailed him several times over the years, no response. He supports FEMA 100% and does not have images on the site that do not support FEMA. But I do and they support what I say 100%.

Flat out, what we see below is impossible with steel core columns.



The event would have a completely different appearance if it were to achieve near free fall. Steel does not fracture and fall or cut easily. Concrete is easily fractured to fall instantly.

Notice the questions at the top of my thread in the debate forum about what it takes to cut steel columns as well as the question about the core if it is not concrete, what is it?

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...ic=11658&st=120

Those questions have never been ansewered ever by those arguing "no concrete core"..

Why would I need to prove what is obvious?

Remember these quotes from Leslie Robertson?

Try not to lie this time and answer both quotes, since you are so honest.

Your excuse for not posting what is obvious is patently bogus.



Service core implies its usage not construction. The quotes intentionally avoid the "core " issue.

IF there were steel core columns they would be seen here, they are not.





If there were steel core columns, why are they not seen? If they were cut by explosives why is that structure still there because cutting the supposed steel columns would have setroyed that structure.

Answer the Q's or be disinfo.

I did post what is obvious.

The quotes don't intentionally avoid the core issue. YOU intentionally avoid the core issue. See how easy it is to get you to lie? Same old quotes and you still lie. Even after I said try not to lie this time. Go on and tell me what he meant by columns of the services core. Define it. And don't give me any of that crap about implied usage, not construction. Just tell me what he meant by columns of the services core.

Also, I did ask you to answer both quotes, since you are so honest. This is not the first time you've avoided that second quote. You avoided it twice before.

Remember when we were arguing about that spire at the North Tower? Remember when you said this?

Then I said this.

Then, you said this.

Ok, your turn. Please define columns of the services core. And please tell me what Mr Robertson meant by this quote.

Please answer the Q's TRUTHFULLY or be disinfo.

You haven't identified what is an "obvious lie" let alone demonstrate what the truth is. You are generalizing, a cognitive distortion, conducting an evasive manipulation.

While I've been exposing another gvernment lie with a web site using images of the demolition.

http://concretecore.741.com

You are a touch more competent than jackx because you know better than try and analyse
photos. Look at his last booger. Perimeter core!!!!!!

All this means is you don't use evidence but instead obviously insincere, unsupported remarks.. You don't give a damm about the truth and have no integrity in trying to dispell it.

You lied when you said Robertson's comments had nothing to do with the core.

You have now avoided that quote a fourth time. Will you now avoid it five times straight? Please explain what Mr Robertson meant by this quote.

Please answer the Q's truthfully or be disinfo.

Robertson used the word columns once and did not define the relatonships. He avoided the issue just as most web sites that have integrity, or they identify the ambiguity that FEMA info has to show there may be a problem. Even they are not accountable to the images of the concrete that are absent the steel core columns, at least they admit that the official source is deeply deficient.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

Column Arrangement

The exact arrangement of the columns and how they were cross-braced is not apparent from public documents such as FEMA's World Trade Center Building Performance Study. The arrangement of box columns depicted in Figure 2-10 of Chapter 2 (pictured to the right) seems plausible, even though it contradicts other illustrations in the report showing a more random arrangement. It depicts the top floors of a tower and does not indicate the widths of the columns on a typical floor.

One mention of columns is nothing compared to this which was from before fear made everyone clam up and avoid the core.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3069641/
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.


You are almost certainly a disinformation agent.

If you are not the questions below would be answered and they are not, and they have to be for you to assert that the core was comprised of steel columns. You can't just say no concrete you need to come up with poisitve evidence.

How many explosions would be required to cut 47 1300 foot steel columns and cut them into 40 foot pieces?

How much high explosive is required to cut thick tempered steel without linear shape charges?

Does the explosive have to be in direct contact with the steel?

Do linear shape charges have to be in direct contact to perform?

What was acesss/clearance like around the supposed steel core columns in the core?

What do unconstrained high explosive detonations sound like and does that compare to what as heard on 9-11? What does that look like when cutting steel?

Then:

If the steel core columns existed and they were taken out with explosives, why is that thing still standing which would have to be AROUND the steel core columns while no steel core columns are seen protruding from the core?

Corrected the TEXT. (In a hasty posted remark, I typed in core instead of column. My bad.)

Nevertheless: My research has proven beyond any doubt that there never were, and never was intended to be, any concete core of the type Christopher claims.

He has NEVER investigated this throughly.

In a good academic spirit, both pros and cons are to be reviewed and presented. Christopher has said he has seen the movie Building the World Trade Center. From that movie, if you are to call yourself an investigator, you will easily find more than ample proof there never was a concrete core. The image on top of this post, combined with this one, would tell you the idea of concrete core is not correct.



[yawn]

You lie so much! He used the word columns three times in that one little four line paragraph. Once in reference to the outside wall and twice in reference to the services core. Columns of the services core. You don't know what he means by columns of the services core? Core columns.

And by the way, you did lie when you said his comments had nothing to do with the core. He mentioned the core three times. You just flat out lied. Then you lied and said he mentioned the word columns once. You couldn't even admit that he used the word core. He mentioned both words.

You trust msnbc? The article I posted actually quotes Robertson talking about the columns of the services core. I think that trumps yours.

You're the one who keeps telling obvious lies about what Leslie Robertson said in one simple quote. Try posting without lying.

If I'm not a cd expert that means I'm a disinfo agent? Are you a cd expert? If you are, you could save us some trouble and answer your own questions.

I can assert whatever I want to assert. I told you something along those lines once before. You seem to have a thing about trying to control people. You don't run things around here. This is not your site.

I think Leslie Robertson's own words make for positive evidence.

You asked that same basic question already. Already answered you.

You haven't answered me, though. Please explain what Robertson meant by this quote.

You have avoided answering 5 times straight. Will you know make it 6? Please answer truthfully or be disinfo.

I do believe you are engaging in the invocation of emotonal reasoning by your manipulative and false use the word lie. A technique of cognitive distortion. You are disinfo.

Yes I made an error, I didn't count the words. His mention of columns is vague.

No real structural information is contained in Robertsons statement. Columns are mentioned, that is all. He refers to interior box columns ringing the core.
and the partitions separating them see the image at bottom.

If you could show your steel columns like I can show the concrete core what you post might have credibility.

Now that's a lie.

At times you produce so much nonsense it is hard to determine if you have an actual question. Besides, you must realize that you are communicating with someone who has no doubt whatsover about there being a concrete. I am absolutely certain you will be proven 100% wrong, probably fairly soon. You will disappear then.

here is your answer: The columns Robertson refers to are the ones ringing the core notated "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS". The interior steel in the below image are not core columns. They are elevator guide rail supports. The partition system was installed between those elevator guide rail supports to isolate the air movements from the high speed elevators and the smoke proofing etc as mentioned..

And you may, but if you are incapable defining what you are doing as serving justice, peace and the protection of the principles of this nation, if you are incapable of saying WHY YOU ARE HERE, you are working for disinformation.

Floorplan.

With the elevators, stairs, toilets.
And the 17' concrete core.

steel core....

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1dem6/911.w...re.close.up.avi

As long as I have images that show the concrete,



I have no need of a floor plan, particuarly showing where toilets are. If the FEMA core existed, you should be able to come up with a plan that shows the diagonal bracing of the steel core columns.

You cannot. Basically the steel you think were core columns was not, it was elevator guide rail and its supports, which is why there are no details on "core columns". The lie uses construction photos and misrepresents the steel shown in the core as core columns.

Logic says that the "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" shown ringing the core must be duplicated inside the core with the "core columns" you attempt to assert existed there.

Can't play that video.

You didn't make any error. You lied. His mention of columns is vague? Columns of the services core. Ok, yeah, that's real vague.

Still lying.[smoke]

Still lying.[smoke] That is not all. He refers to the services core on three occasions. I'll put the words in bold for you.

I'll add the link this time so you can see for yourself, since you keep making these convenient "errors" over and over again. Seventh paragraph.
http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/webli...CB?OpenDocument

Still lying. I keep asking the same simple questions about the same two quotes. After all this time I still can't get a sincere response from you. You quote me asking you about Robertson's SECOND QUOTE and you respond with some lame attempt to explain the FIRST QUOTE. So, now, you've avoided the same quote six times. Care to go for seven? Here you go.

And why can't you play sober_dutchman's video? You don't have RealPlayer? Because it works just fine for me.

Sorry dude, he justs relates the columns to the vertical tube of the core that was for services. Easliy translated as the columns SURROUNDING the services core SINCE there is no way you can show them anywhere else.

When you talk about things every day like "interior box columns" the terms tend to be shortened and the term core column is justifiably used because the columns surround the core, they are a part of the core but they are not inside the core, they are outside the core and there is never a photo ofthe towers coming down where any columns of that size are seen in the center of the core area, nor any of ground zero. Mentioning ground zero we have to account for misinterpretions which are completely related to other misinterpretations of construction photos regarding what are really the elevator guide rail support structures.

"MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS"

Is exactly that, surrounding the core area. In side much smaller vertical steel is positioned to fasten elevator guide rails to. Elevators at the highest possible floor were actually THE process priority during construction. that crew could interfere with any other operations to get the elevator support steel in position and ready to be fastened to the concrete core as soon as it was up to and around and cured enough to fasten to.

Wrong quote. Don't pretend you don't know you're trying to answer the wrong quote. You are so dishonest. Care to go for eight?

Thanks for showing us how you present the wrong quote and acuse me of quoting wrong.

Disinfo

People who seek truth seek the source, raw images, reasonable, logical explanation, relationships, using accepted understanding of engineering and construction. You have no evidence, only denial.

http://concretecore.741,com

Dude, you are making this way too easy! I knew it wouldn't take much to get you to lie, but this is amazing! :D Come through for me at least one more time. Care to go for nine?

The quote you present doesn't have the word column in it. The other part did but you present the wrong one.

You misrepresent Robertsons statement to say that it relates to the term "core columns" but produce no evidence showing the 47, 1300 foot steel columns from the demo images or construction, unless you misrepresent again.

Here are many images and proof

entire web page of proof

A single excerpt of it is more concerned with the actual design than anything Robertson has said.

August Domel, Jr., Ph.D., S.E., P.E. November 2001

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

yer a fraud

I know, Christophera.;) It was in the first quote that he talked about the core (and the columns of the core).

Well, right now, I present the one you have avoided nine times straight. I just want you to explain what he means by it. Can you do that?

Thanks, but, I think I'll still put my money on Robertson. He was more directly involved in the design than almost anybody else.

That is exactly what I said. "Thanks for showing us how you present the wrong quote and acuse me of quoting wrong."

Okay, you finally admit you lied. This may save your soul.

There are many links with testimony besides Robertson. He is controlled and will not go past a point with what he says.

I've made a new site about the core. New links to engineering pages that recognize the concrete core. NOT GOVERNMENT INFO.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

when you say concrete core, are you meaning concrete poured into collumns ? Or concrete core as in the core was concrete ?

thanks

ps I went to your site and it looks like you think the concrete was poured around the collumns, I think you're mistaken, the concrete /asbestoes mixture was poured inside some collumns from all the documentation I've read. Can you point out a floor plan that is official that states otherwise ? Thanks again.

how many of these 'concrete core' threads are there now? Isn't this considered spamming? It's kind of tiring to keep hearing this concrete core mantra over and over again.

Ditto.

What difference does it make, anyway?

Just doing a little bit of research on this so called concrete core business and come across this short video done in 1983 with original footage on the construction of the WTC.And nowhere does it mention or show evidence of a concrete core,well worth a watch.


Building the World Trade Center

Yes. He even does this stuff in other people's threads. He will use any excuse to try to hi-jack threads with this concrete core stuff and add that link to his site. He knows he's breakin rules. He doesn't care. He's a troll.

Brain-washing technique. He knows what he's doin.

He's trying to discredit us by suckering us into making fools of ourselves with this concrete core business.

You did quote wrong. In my last post, did I ask you to explain the first quote or the second quote? I asked you to explain the second quote. I'm asking you again to EXPLAIN THE SECOND QUOTE!

I want you to explain what he means by "the fire-rated shaft-wall partition system, which is now used in place of masonry and plaster walls". Care to go for 11?

And the 1990 documentary 2 hours in length mentioned that one in its beginning as a "celebratory video" ahving NO indepth examination of the construction.

The concrete core was not easy to see and the videographers said so and specifically went through a series of film clips and stills to show the best they could find of hundreds.

If this is not concrete, what is it?

The image of the core says it all and none of what you think I'm saying makes sense when compared to the image.

There was one tubular, steel reinforced, shear wall constructed, cast concrete core per tower. Ant that is what the above linked image shows.

Nothing official can be trusted, Only raw images are used on this site,

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

and there is a complete absence of any steel columns in the core area. So, ... all the flor plans that show stel core columns in the core area, are fake. No image of the demolition can corroborate them.

Then get some raw evidence of the steel core columns. I've seen all the misinterpreted construction photos which only show "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" encircling the core area with much smaller steel inside.

First, steel cannot fall instanly without being cut. Concrete can be fractured to fall instantly with a relatively small amount of high explosives IF it is optimally placed and distributed.

Second, cutting steel requires linear shaped charges or severly overloaded charges in direct contact with the steel all the way around, or the cuts will not be complete. That takes a lot of time and to cut 47 1300 foot columns into 40 foot pieces requires 1300+ charges!! (see bottom) Both of those things changes completely the nature of the demolition. It gets louder with sharp bangs for explosions and it throws steel shrapnel for a very long ways at high speed.

What we see here is mostly concrete particulate and the sounds it made were relative booms or rumblings. Sounds of well contained explosions.



The reason that no one has answered these questions is because the issue of cutting the supposed core columns completely changes the character of the demo.

How many explosions would be required to cut 47 1300 foot steel columns and cut them into 40 foot pieces?

How much high explosive is required to cut thick tempered steel without linear shape charges?

Does the explosive have to be in direct contact with the steel?

Do linear shape charges have to be in direct contact to perform?

What was acesss/clearance like around the supposed steel core columns in the core?

What do unconstrained high explosive detonations sound like and does that compare to what as heard on 9-11? What does that look like when cutting steel?

Then:

If the steel core columns existed and they were taken out with explosives, why is that thing still standing which would have to be AROUND the steel core columns while no steel core columns are seen protruding from the core?

NOW, look at the links at the bottom of this page to sites that have NO interest one way or the other and you will see that they all support a concrete core with much more consistency than the sites suppoortig steel core columns.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

No, as long as no one is providing competent evidence to support the steel core columns, it is called "continued support" of a possibility slowly being verified by default.

No other core can be verified with raw images. The effort to verify concrete, also completely discounts steel core columns. So really, continued effrots to verify steel core columns with evidence that can be shown to be incompetent, is ACTUALLY the spam.

Efforts to use the spam, always countered with reasonable raw images in support for the concrete core along with links to sites NOT having an interest, to term those efforts as spam, can correctly be called ATTEMPTS at disinformation.

The point is you have been cross-posting and spamming your "continued support". You know it's against the rules to cross-post. Everybody knows that.

Incompetent? You are the one who is not competent enough to explain one simple quote. If you are so competent, then explain the quote. The second quote. I know you won't, though, because you are incompetent and dishonest. Care to go for 12?

Look at that bottom row of box columns on the left-hand side. You will notice that they cast shadows across the floor. How does a concrete core run through that floor? Seems to me, you would have to knock out the floors to build the core. Kinda counter-productive.

So the "rules" are more important than the truth, the US Constitution and our collective futures.

If that was the case you and jackx would've been banned 2 weeks back.

Quick question here. This diagram is from your site..........



This is also a picture from your site...........



The question is, where is the concrete core in the second picture???

Also I noticed that you ask everyone who says the core was 47 steel beams to provide a source yet the only source you provide for the concrete core is your own site. Is there any other site that supports the concrete core??

I also have to ask where did you get the picture below and who took it?? Not for nothing but pictures are easily doctored in this day and age.



I have not seen another picture or video of the WTC collapse that matches this or supports the concrete core. Like wise I haven't seen anything about the construction of the WTC that supports a concrete core.

The 47 steel beam core was one of the hallmarks of tower 1 & 2 so you want us to believe they started lying to us in the 70's to prepare for 9/11/2001??