The Big FEMA Lie, The Towers Had A Concrete Core: PROOF

Of what significance is that if it was posted on April Fool's?

I think the towers did have concrete around the box columns in the core, but I don't understand the logic behind a lot of what you use to back it up, like this April Fool's thing.

Why hasn't Christorphera or anyone contacted the Deisgners, builders and Engineers YET?

why all this speculatin when only ONE phone call could get you an answer?

Because, Im sure that CHristophera's little "theory" would be shot to hell and back.

Why doesn't Wizy do the same thing? Are you afraid you'll get the answer that YOU don't want?

BTW, I've tried contacting the structural engineer with a few questions. Guess what....I haven't heard a single word from them on anything. I don't think they like talking about it at all. So, just some Joe Shmoe isn't really going to get an answer in my opinion. I used my company e-mail showing that I work for an architectural firm and have a degree in civil engineering and they still won't talk with me. I guess I'm not asking the right questions?

Originally posted by bsbray11
Of what significance is that if it was posted on April Fool's?

I think the towers did have concrete around the box columns in the core, but I don't understand the logic behind a lot of what you use to back it up, like this April Fool's thing.

That would be a day when Robertson could post, tell the truth, and it wouldn't come back to him.

In the below image, if there were steel core columns inside the core area, we would see the remnants of them protruding from the stairwell at right and right of that and inthe fore ground a little, to the right of that. We might be seeing 15 columns, if they existed, but they didn't so we don't.

Originally posted by Griff
Why doesn't Wizy do the same thing? Are you afraid you'll get the answer that YOU don't want?

BTW, I've tried contacting the structural engineer with a few questions. Guess what....I haven't heard a single word from them on anything. I don't think they like talking about it at all. So, just some Joe Shmoe isn't really going to get an answer in my opinion. I used my company e-mail showing that I work for an architectural firm and have a degree in civil engineering and they still won't talk with me. I guess I'm not asking the right questions?

Right on Griff!

Very good move. I would be the last person they'd talk to, but Robertson is probably really disturbed about the collapse lie.

I would have gone after the PBS documentary I saw in 1990 but I've dealt with PBS in 1999 and got zero response no matter what I tried. Watching the towers fall I knew the documentary could nto be still available.


I would imagine that Robertson lurks on these forums trying to find out what Americans really think. I would if I was him and been made afraid to speak out. I would be looking for ways to help where I couldn't be identified.

Originally posted by Christophera
That would be a day when Robertson could post, tell the truth, and it wouldn't come back to him.

Could anyone trace the IP?

I would sooner think someone was messing with you.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Christophera
That would be a day when Robertson could post, tell the truth, and it wouldn't come back to him.

Could anyone trace the IP?

I would sooner think someone was messing with you.

I would be surprised if physorg.com had not traced it. They might tell you, probably not me. I have the feeling they support the lie, I could be wrong tho.

Something about the message. Very serious. The post url is at the bottom.

Leslie E. Robertson
Posted: Apr 1 2006, 06:33 PM
Unregistered

Christophera is correct in stating that the Twin Towers were constructed with a concrete core. Although in my original design the core was to be a steel framed one that decision was overridden by Minoru Yamasaki the architect.

That core should have resisted the airplane impacts AND the fires. I have said nothing for four and a half years but can remain silent no longer. My belief is that only explosives could have caused WTC 1 & WTC 2 to collapse the way they did on September 11, 2001.

Leslie E. Robertson
Director Leslie E. Robertson Associates, R.L.L.P. and lead engineer of the World Trade Center


forum.physorg.com...

Originally posted by Griff
Why doesn't Wizy do the same thing? Are you afraid you'll get the answer that YOU don't want?

because those who are in the know have stated that there is not concret core. but of course, Christophera wont do so much as pick up a phone to confirm this.

BTW, I've tried contacting the structural engineer with a few questions. Guess what....I haven't heard a single word from them on anything. I don't think they like talking about it at all.

Why would they? Its the most horrible act of terrorism to happen on our soil. Who'd want to talk about it?

So, just some Joe Shmoe isn't really going to get an answer in my opinion. I used my company e-mail showing that I work for an architectural firm and have a degree in civil engineering and they still won't talk with me. I guess I'm not asking the right questions?

probably. Why not file an FOIA and force the company to reveal?

Originally posted by Wizy


probably. Why not file an FOIA and force the company to reveal?

FOIAs only work for Government Agencies.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Wizy


probably. Why not file an FOIA and force the company to reveal?

FOIAs only work for Government Agencies.

Im sure the government has the "structural" engineer and designs that were used in their reports.

And again, WHY can't anyone call them up? If they dont want to answer, then keep on callig until they do.

Originally posted by seattlelaw
I have yet to hear you or agentsmith discuss how the columns all managed to get sawed off at level 90 degree angles in a catostrophic failure like this?

They weren't "sawed off" Those looked like the original ends of the columns. The columns connections were all bolted up.

Originally posted by Wizy

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Wizy


probably. Why not file an FOIA and force the company to reveal?

FOIAs only work for Government Agencies.

Im sure the government has the "structural" engineer and designs that were used in their reports.

And again, WHY can't anyone call them up? If they dont want to answer, then keep on callig until they do.

And most of the data is actually in the NIST reports, if you bother to read it.

Chistopher has already told us he will stick his fingers in his ears and sing "NA NA NA" when he is shown the original drawings from the Port Authority.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
And most of the data is actually in the NIST reports, if you bother to read it.

What a joke.

You're just saying that because you know most people here haven't read it. It says very little, and repeats itself over and over and over.

You can't even come close to reconstructing an entire tower from the information they give. Otherwise people wouldn't be complaining about how they won't release the construction drawings!

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Wizy

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Wizy


probably. Why not file an FOIA and force the company to reveal?

FOIAs only work for Government Agencies.

Im sure the government has the "structural" engineer and designs that were used in their reports.

And again, WHY can't anyone call them up? If they dont want to answer, then keep on callig until they do.

And most of the data is actually in the NIST reports, if you bother to read it.

Chistopher has already told us he will stick his fingers in his ears and sing "NA NA NA" when he is shown the original drawings from the Port Authority.

The NY mayor has the plans.

www.nyclu.org...

How ie. The F.O.I.L. laws have already been tried. We are getting nothing unless we agree that we know what concrete or steel looks like in silhouette; unless we realize that fine vertical elements all with a slight curve are rebar. Or that if no image show multiple steel columns in the core area. Then we get more than the plans.

You're just saying that because you know most people here haven't read it. It says very little, and repeats itself over and over and over.

I have read the NIST report, from back to front.

And it was rathre disappointing, honestly. I would of thought they would a done a better job of covering up the whole thing. I mean they miss out so many things in their report it's just not funny. I mean why don't they explain how a building collapse sends steel beams flying into other buildings so they stick out like arrows.

You can clearly see parts of the buildings being blown upwards during the collapse.

Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae

You're just saying that because you know most people here haven't read it. It says very little, and repeats itself over and over and over.

I have read the NIST report, from back to front.

And it was rathre disappointing, honestly. I would of thought they would a done a better job of covering up the whole thing. I mean they miss out so many things in their report it's just not funny. I mean why don't they explain how a building collapse sends steel beams flying into other buildings so they stick out like arrows.

You can clearly see parts of the buildings being blown upwards during the collapse.

THX for making that clear after actually reading the misrepresentation.

After I saw what FEMA was presenting this as the core,



I knew there was no point in reading the NIST report because the actual core was well known to me. Further, I knew that anyone pushing the NIST report without using raw images to support their assertions, was basically an agent working psyops or a die hard political/religious nut.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The movement of an individual item in the collapse in unpredictable. The movement of the whole is predictable and definable.

But resistance in any particular direction by a few box columns at any point in collapse would have effectively lopsided the falling of everything above (which would've already been extremely unstable). Ask any demolition engineer the importance of knocking out all columns to ensure against lopsiding, especially with taller buildings.

Absolutely. The same logic applies to the impact locations and the fact the tops of the towers did not fall towards the damage. Absolutely inconsistent with logic to term the events a collapse.

Originally posted by Christophera
I knew there was no point in reading the NIST report because the actual core was well known to me.

It is well known to you, huh?

How did you come by this intimate knowledge of the core construction?


Oh, yeah, I remember:

Originally posted by Christophera
My knowledge of the towers design and construction came from viewing a 2 hour documentary seen on PBS in 1990 called, "The Construction Of The Twin Towers".

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by seattlelaw
I have yet to hear you or agentsmith discuss how the columns all managed to get sawed off at level 90 degree angles in a catostrophic failure like this?

They weren't "sawed off" Those looked like the original ends of the columns. The columns connections were all bolted up.

I am the one that talks about how those columns got cut square.

Only the perimeter columns were bolted. Interior box columns were not.

A saw is never used in steel demolition for anything over 1/8 inch thick.

Explosive shear on the left (no saw marks), torch cut on right.



And of course when you see it off the ground over a row of interior box columns it cannot be a saw. Green arrows are interior box columns yellow re elevator landing, guide rail and mechanical support. Not cut level.

Look really closely at the image on the left

You can see that that is the original bearing end which was milled smooth at the mill.

The columns were spliced together with splice plates. You can see the edge of the splice plate on the top and especially on the bottom of the column where the debris has caught on it.