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

First the cap is scattered all over the place and then it proceeds to crush the tower, one floor after the other, pulverizing it to fine dust and a bit of metal.

OoooH - Kaaye

Originally posted by MMC
Here are photos of the WTC's core:

Yes, that photo shows the core area, but it is too distant to identify the steel core columns that were supposed to exist. Here is another image which I found that someone has annotated correctly. "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" are shown out side the core. No columns of consequence are seen inside the core. What is seen is elevator guide rail supports or the rail ends.



Those columns are "interior box columns", they are not inside the core. They are against the outside of the concrete shear wall as shown here. This is the only remaining piece of the concrete core walls. People survived in that stairwell because of the concrete.



In the above image, if the steel core columns existed we would see them penetrating the stairwell on the right, we would see them right of that, we would see them in the foreground we would see them in the area labeled "cast concrete core wall". The walls were 2 feet thick at the top and 17 foot thick (narrow axis) at the base. WTC 2 was not a totally shear wall core, It had shear wall within cells that were stacked with heavy hallway floors, more hallways.

Originally posted by Vushta
Thats your claim..wheres your evidence?

You again avoided answering the questions.
But anyway..
What erroneous premise are you referring to?

You keep posting a picture of the structural failure I'm referring to. Will that one do?

The firefighters describe a 75 millisecond delay in detonation in their video testimony. Not directly but by mimickery. www.letsroll911.org...

Well.no they don't. Do you mean that carefully edited interview that cuts off before they say.."but that must have been the building collapsing"? (not a direct quote)
Anyway, I don't remember them using the word detonation? Did they?

The scientists did not explain the event in the image and with your statement you asked no question, The application of a question mark doesn't make a question.

Im sorry but this sentence makes no sense. Could you clarify it a little?

It has been shown that scientists will alter their analysis when pressured.

Thats your claim. Wheres your evidence?

Can you produce any evidence of the multiple steel core columns from the demise of the towers showing the columns protruding from the top of the towers as they descend? Here is what mustbe a concrete core.

Sorry but THAT is a Red Herring/false premise/straw man all rolled into one.
Thats all you have to prove a concrete core?

But we're getting off track here. This thread you started stated that the rebar was coated with C4. Do you really believe that? Whats your evidence?

One firefighter mentions "detonations" and the others agree.

There were no structural failures at all on 9-11 at the WTC. If you insist on trying to pass off explosions as structural failures with no evidence whatsoever, you will loose credibility. You have already lost much.

Structural failures look like what MMC posted, not a cloud of expanding concrete debris.

Get the fish out of your scarecrow costume and pay attention.

The event here,



Is evidence of very well contained high explosives that are also very well distributed. If you cannot recognize this, you have no buisness trying to argue against it because the world needs an explanation for near free fall and pulverization relating to the murders of 3000 Americans.

It appears you do not want the world to have a feasible, realistic explanation of that event. You have no evidence of anything else happening (no one does), so give up.

[edit on 17-6-2006 by Christophera]

You again avoided answering the questions.

Heres another one you avoided.

But we're getting off track here. This thread you started stated that the rebar was coated with C4. Do you really believe that? Whats your evidence?

There were no structural failures at all on 9-11 at the WTC. If you insist on trying to pass off explosions as structural failures with no evidence whatsoever,

You're starting to worry me. YOU have provided zero evidence to support your claim. Zero, except YOUR interpretaion of a couple of pictures.

Heres another question I asked and you repeatedly refused to answer.

What makes your visual interpretation of a few selected pictures more credible than the conclusions of hundreds of trained people working in state of the art facilities using state of the art equipment and time tested and developed methods?

You have no qualifications whatsoever. You've provided not one bit of evidence to support ANY explosive events--other than your guess.

Heres another question you avoid.

Do you really think the the TWC was built with C4 coated rebar? Why in the world would you think that? Wheres you evidence? Please don't say you saw something on PBS 10+ yrs ago. Are you the ONLY person who saw the program and concluded it was telling the world that the WTC was built with C4 coated rebar? Don't you find that kinda odd??

Structural failures look like what MMC posted, not a cloud of expanding concrete debris.

Some do. But you're showing your convoluted reasoning here--You're saying that ALL failures look like that. Surely you're joking.

Is evidence of very well contained high explosives that are also very well distributed. If you cannot recognize this, you have no buisness trying to argue against it

I'm not argueing anything. I'm simply pointing out the the facts bear no resemblence to what you're trying to spew.

It appears you do not want the world to have a feasible, realistic explanation of that event.

C4 coated rebar installed at the time of construction and detonated in 2001 is a "feasible" and "realistic" explanation? Please.

Why do you suppose they didn't detonate them during the attack in '93?]

Originally posted by Long Lance
First the cap is scattered all over the place and then it proceeds to crush the tower, one floor after the other, pulverizing it to fine dust and a bit of metal.

OoooH - Kaaye

What are you talking about?
What do you mean by "First the cap is shattered all over the place and then it proceeds to crush the tower"?

You MUST have seen videos of the collapse. They show NOTHING like what you describe. If you have a video that shows the "cap" exploding and then the collapse, I sure everyone would like to see it.

Originally posted by Vushta

You again avoided answering the questions.

Heres another one you avoided.

But we're getting off track here. This thread you started stated that the rebar was coated with C4. Do you really believe that? Whats your evidence?

I have my evidence on a web page.

algoxy.com...

Apparently you have no evidence and only ask misleading questions. I doubt if you are American as this issue protects their lives to address sincerely.

[edit on 17-6-2006 by Christophera]

vushta,

I believe Long Lance was being somewhat sarcastic in the response you quoted.

As in, if the cap was "scattered all over the place", How could it have possibly Then proceeded/continued to Crush the remainder of the building. Floor by floor, pulverizing it into dust.

Most likely in response to this or one of the posts shortly thereafter.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

If I'm wrong in that assumption, LL, please correct me?

[edit on 6/17/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by Vushta
Thanks. But that doesn't support the claim. The claim was that FEMA stated that the ONLY concrete was in the floor slabs. You simple referred to the section ON the conctruction of the slabs.

Because that's the only place the FEMA Report says there's concrete, genius. What else do you want me to show you? Look through the rest of the FEMA Report and prove me wrong if you want.

Right. The Straw man is his generalization of collapses. Right?

How about this: show me any natural skyscraper collapse that doesn't fit his description of a natural building collapse.

Because no one has ever seen a natural collapse of that magnitude the claim that "It didn't look natural" is totally fallicious and an intuitive deduction.

Falling at a constant speed and not slowing down the whole way down is not just something that only looks wrong when you're talking about a massive skyscraper falling straight down. And when WTC7 began global collapse, it fell at free fall. That's not right, either. It's not so much intuitive as it is the fact that when resistance is offered, a falling mass is going to slow down. And hundreds of thousands of tons of steel is probably going to resist a falling mass, don't you think? Just a little? Especially when the falling masses are much smaller than what they're crushing? And before you argue that the mass was increasing all the way down in the towers, it wasn't, because most of the debris was "falling" outside of the footprints as it was being ejected. Look at pictures of Ground Zero after the collapses and you'll see steel sprayed all over the site in large amounts.

If you didn't notice the graphic you posted shows the demo starting at the bottom and working up.

And you apparently ignored the rest of this response. Read it again.

You must really be dense if you don't understand how you can trigger charges in a different order.

Say you have charges A, B, and C. You wire them up so they go off in alphabetical order. Now you place A higher up in a building, B in the middle, and C on the bottom. Then you blow them in set intervals. Guess what's going to happen? Top-down. It isn't done for conventional demolitions because its messier because the spray is higher up in the air rather than closer to the ground. That's all.

Again, email a freaking demolition engineer if you somehow think that this is impossible to do.

The graphic is also laughably simplistic in its information. Did you get it from a CT website?

It came from www.howstuffworks.com... .

science.howstuffworks.com...

Imploding a building is incredibly complex and only a handfull of companies in the world are qualified to do it. Your comment about it not being "brain surgery" shows you really know nothing of the process. Neither do I, but a little research would show you the complication of an implosion.

I said it isn't brain surgery to set charges off in a different order. I wasn't talking about the whole process in general.

And what was the outcome of those allegations?

Whitehurst was never found guilty of perjury, if that's what you mean. He was under oath and pretty much ratting out his co-workers, which cost him his job (demoted from special agent to paint analyst). Are you suggesting he was making it all up? Why not just keep it in mind until you actually have some solid reason to believe he was lying, instead of jumping to conclusions to support what you already believe?

[edit on 17-6-2006 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by Vushta

Originally posted by Long Lance
First the cap is scattered all over the place and then it proceeds to crush the tower, one floor after the other, pulverizing it to fine dust and a bit of metal.

OoooH - Kaaye

What are you talking about?
What do you mean by "First the cap is shattered all over the place and then it proceeds to crush the tower"?

You MUST have seen videos of the collapse. They show NOTHING like what you describe. If you have a video that shows the "cap" exploding and then the collapse, I sure everyone would like to see it.

Vushta,

You have seen at least one image showing what is a very well contained explosion causing maximum breakage. If you cannot recognize these events you really have no buisiness trying to argue here. Return with a demolitions expert who can reason these issues.

We all saw the image of the earthquake collapse. It bears no resemblence to the destruction of the towers.

The top of the towers explode from the point upward where they first break to the top as it descends. The delay sequence was set to cover the telltale events of demolition.

Support for the lies that murderers hide behind is a heinous crime against humanity and life on earth at this point. Just want you to know what you are doing.

Originally posted by Vushta

Heres another one you avoided.

But we're getting off track here. This thread you started stated that the rebar was coated with C4. Do you really believe that? Whats your evidence?

You ignore evidence. Here are image url's that have conclusive information and urls' to sites with many images and solid reasoning. If you are unable to use that information because of your agenda, this is your failing in the realm of reason, not ours. We have reasoned that the official story is a massive deception. Apparently you fully support that.

IMAGES
i18.photobucket.com...
algoxy.com...

SITES
algoxy.com...
concretecore.741.com...

Post your evidence supporting the structure you believe stood and your links to explanations for free fall and pulverization.

[edit: fixed quote tags]

[edit on 6/17/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

[edit on 17-6-2006 by Christophera]

Originally posted by Vushta
C4 coated rebar installed at the time of construction and detonated in 2001 is a "feasible" and "realistic" explanation? Please

Why do you suppose they didn't detonate them during the attack in '93?]

You are not an demolitions or blasting expert. I may qualify in some areas of expertise, not in others. You have seen images that can only be created by very well contained detonations of high explosive. If you do not know this from looking at the image you cannot reasonably make the argument you are making. You are not reasonable.

THE 1993 BOMB IN THE BASEMENT:

From what I can discern by reading into the defendants discovery processes in the bombing trial, it was shown that the FBI actually lead the bomber to the target in a mock bombing then actually supplanted the fake explosives for real ones. For the actual bombing instructions were given by the FBI to the bomber to park the van away from the core. This could only be to prevent the C4 coated rebar in the core wall from being detonated.
The 1993 event was instead used as a reason for a massive remodel wherein thermite was layered onto available faces of the perimeter columns and interior box columns to be sure as many as possible were removed as support before the mass of debri from above settled to the ground, making room for the pile.

Originally posted by Vushta
What makes your visual interpretation of a few selected pictures more credible than the conclusions of hundreds of trained people working in state of the art facilities using state of the art equipment and time tested and developed methods?

Those hundreds of trained people have utterly failed to define HOW the towers could possible, under any conditions fall at free fall. When they failed they lost their credibility.

By the use of the image I've found on the web, I can show the structure that the "hundreds of trained people" were analysing the WRONG structure. the towers had a tubular, steel reinforced concrete shear wall core.

Originally posted by Vushta
Heres another question you avoid.

Do you really think the the TWC was built with C4 coated rebar? Why in the world would you think that? Wheres you evidence? Please don't say you saw something on PBS 10+ yrs ago. Are you the ONLY person who saw the program and concluded it was telling the world that the WTC was built with C4 coated rebar? Don't you find that kinda odd??

Actually, I think it is the first time you've asked that one.

At what point will you begin to answer my questions?

If you cannot recognize a high speed series of very well contained and distributed high explosives. then perhaps this discussion is over your head.

Originally posted by Vushta
C4 coated rebar installed at the time of construction and detonated in 2001 is a "feasible" and "realistic" explanation? Please.

Vushta,

Still, no evidence from you and, no alternative for fall at the rates of free fall, or a feasible explanation for pulverization. The explanation need to be comprehensive to what myself and many others see as a High speed series of very well contained and distributed high explosives..

Notice the vertical valley in the expanding debri cloud. We view the corner of the building, the core corner is almost rigt behind it. I contend 2 vertical planes (not airplanes) are exploding at 90 degress from one another and that the valley formed is because the expanding debris moving outward is moving away from the opposing side.

Please come up with some evidence soon or people who sincerely seek the truth will get a sick kind of feeling about you and your activities here. Like you are actually here to assist in our confusion, extended ignorance and descent into tyranny.

Originally posted by Vushta
I'm not argueing anything. I'm simply pointing out the the facts bear no resemblence to what you're trying to spew.

Okay, you are arguing that the images, the facts in this case as there is nothing else of credibile origin, bear no resembelence to the assertion that one particular image of a high speed series of very well contained and distributed high explosives. is indeed that, rather than a collaspe which you verbally assert but never support with evidence.

That is your entire argument, in case you were unable to state it.

Originally posted by Christophera

Originally posted by Vushta

Originally posted by Long Lance
First the cap is scattered all over the place and then it proceeds to crush the tower, one floor after the other, pulverizing it to fine dust and a bit of metal.

OoooH - Kaaye

What are you talking about?
What do you mean by "First the cap is shattered all over the place and then it proceeds to crush the tower"?

You MUST have seen videos of the collapse. They show NOTHING like what you describe. If you have a video that shows the "cap" exploding and then the collapse, I sure everyone would like to see it.

Vushta,

You have seen at least one image showing what is a very well contained explosion causing maximum breakage. If you cannot recognize these events you really have no buisiness trying to argue here. Return with a demolitions expert who can reason these issues.

We all saw the image of the earthquake collapse. It bears no resemblence to the destruction of the towers.

The top of the towers explode from the point upward where they first break to the top as it descends. The delay sequence was set to cover the telltale events of demolition.

Support for the lies that murderers hide behind is a heinous crime against humanity and life on earth at this point. Just want you to know what you are doing.

Christo.
You're not answering ANY questions just repeating claims with no evidence to back it up.

But maybe I'm jumping the gun here.
What IS your evidence of C4 coated rebar?

Originally posted by Vushta

Christo.
You're not answering ANY questions just repeating claims with no evidence to back it up.

But maybe I'm jumping the gun here.
What IS your evidence of C4 coated rebar?

I've answered all of your questions, but you are not noticing those as well as evidence. Here is the answer to your repeated question.

(post id: 2282162)

Can you produce any evidence of the structure that FEMA says stood? How about a feasible, realistic explanation for rates of fall near free fall?

[edit on 17-6-2006 by Christophera]

Here is some fuel for this fire:

A variation of a "V" shaped linear...




Photo from Department of Homeland security...



Now look at the "V" shaped cuts on the column leaning against the wall, to the left-hand side of the picture...

Originally posted by Vushta
What do you mean by "symmetrically"?

I mean it fell straight down with no part of the building falling to one side, other than debris blasted out and away from the building.
No building EVER has fallen straight down from anything but controlled explosives.
Accidental destruction (i.e. not controlled) are never neat and symmetrical, they are chaotic and unpredictable. Yet we have THREE, say that again THREE buildings in one day do exactly that. What are the odds for a physically impossible act to do that?

There was nothing "natural" about huge frickin' planes with full loads of fuel flying at full speed directly into the buildings. What are you talking about?

You're missing the point, a natural collpase as aposed to a controlled one.
And why so angry? What do you care that much what I frickin think?

As opposed to what?

Huh? A none controlled demo, i.e. random bombs, fires, plane impacts...You get it yet

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Vushta
There was nothing "natural" about huge frickin' planes with full loads of fuel flying at full speed directly into the buildings. What are you talking about?

You're missing the point, a natural collpase as aposed to a controlled one.
And why so angry? What do you care that much what I frickin think?

Huh? A none controlled demo, i.e. random bombs, fires, plane impacts...You get it yet

Vushta is engaging in psychological acrobatics to complete a distortion, "miniimization", "all or nothing" thinking is facilitated by this. Vushta has concocted a collision that is quite a bit more devastating to the towers than the real thing.

Frank Demartini's Statement

Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation.