47 vertical support columns in core of each Twin Tower from bedrock to top floor
- Thread starter creativedreams
- Start date
Christophera
Evidence & Reason Rule
CLEARLY not "thick butt plates", but some type of "lug". Look at the top red circle. These are welded to the SIDE of the column. I see two of them on the left side.
It's obvious you're making shit up as usual.
The furthest is definitely a "butt plate", the closer ones are a variation of "tab & slot" alignment aids used for box columns. Other images show them. They were used on the interior box columns as well.
You are making things up, not I.
Recall, the buildings engineer, another engineer and Oxford University all identify a concrete core and I show one on 9-11.
you lieCLEARLY not "thick butt plates", but some type of "lug". Look at the top red circle. These are welded to the SIDE of the column. I see two of them on the left side.
It's obvious you're making shit up as usual.
The furthest is definitely a "butt plate", the closer ones are a variation of "tab & slot" alignment aids used for box columns. Other images show them. They were used on the interior box columns as well.
You are making things up, not I.
Recall, the buildings engineer, another engineer and Oxford University all identify a concrete core and I show one on 9-11.
Christophera
Evidence & Reason Rule
you lieCLEARLY not "thick butt plates", but some type of "lug". Look at the top red circle. These are welded to the SIDE of the column. I see two of them on the left side.
It's obvious you're making shit up as usual.
The furthest is definitely a "butt plate", the closer ones are a variation of "tab & slot" alignment aids used for box columns. Other images show them. They were used on the interior box columns as well.
You are making things up, not I.
Recall, the buildings engineer, another engineer and Oxford University all identify a concrete core and I show one on 9-11.
Don't you mean, Robertson, Domel and Oxford lie?
Does this lie too? We see no core columns behind the east concrete core wall of WTC 2 falling into the core.
We do see the spire in the background which is on the opposite side of the core.
The party that found that video made one of their own to substantiate with EVIDENCE the concrete core.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2MStxGeRdE[/ame]
Last edited:
did you notice, that concrete in your video is BELOW GRADE??????
no, of course a DUMBFUCK like you wouldnt
CLEARLY not "thick butt plates", but some type of "lug". Look at the top red circle. These are welded to the SIDE of the column. I see two of them on the left side.
It's obvious you're making shit up as usual.
The furthest is definitely a "butt plate", the closer ones are a variation of "tab & slot" alignment aids used for box columns. Other images show them. They were used on the interior box columns as well.
You are making things up, not I.
Recall, the buildings engineer, another engineer and Oxford University all identify a concrete core and I show one on 9-11.
You won't own up to your lies eh? What a coward.
I'll keep asking this then.
You're just trying to get out of the fact that you LIE at every turn when you get caught presenting some bogus information.
You claim the "elevator guide rail steel" (which are actually core columns) could NOT have been core columns because they were to weak based on the supposed BOLTED butt plate connections. Then you were presented with closeup photos of those supposed "butt plate" connections that show they are in fact lug type pieces welded to the side of the columns.
Then you are asked to present proof that those connections were only BOLTED (as you claimed) and then you turn around and say that they were welded also.
You have been proven to be a liar who can't keep all his lies straight. You been lying so much over the years, it's easy to go back and see how you've changed your story according to the mistakes people find in your bullshit.
You have been asked for proof as to why you've made these claims/changes and you can come up with none.
So here's a simple question. Why did you lie and first say the "butt plate" connections were bolted and then turn around and say they were welded? I mean your reasoning as to why they are "guide rails" and not core columns is based solely on your claim that they had bolted connections and those connections are weak compared to welded connections.
Now you ADMIT that they were welded in addition to being bolted, which totally debunks your "weak connection" argument. Not to mention the fact that those are NOT "butt plates" as has been proven.
B, b, wa, haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaa, you have been shown lying.
A "butt plate" is very thick because it has to have resistence against flex. Your "base plate" shows almost no thickness. It is for keeping the base of a column fastened to the floor and foundation from "kicking out".
Below they are very thick.
In your image they are very thick. The furthest one.
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/nobuttplates.jpg
As usual, the opposite of what the agent says is true.
Your other pic won't show the fastener locations if they existed as low as the base wall. The core itself up 4 floors was bolted at each interior box column.
You're just trying to get out of the fact that you LIE at every turn when you get caught presenting some bogus information.
You claim the "elevator guide rail steel" (which are actually core columns) could NOT have been core columns because they were to weak based on the supposed BOLTED butt plate connections. Then you were presented with closeup photos of those supposed "butt plate" connections that show they are in fact lug type pieces welded to the side of the columns.
Then you are asked to present proof that those connections were only BOLTED (as you claimed) and then you turn around and say that they were welded also.
You have been proven to be a liar who can't keep all his lies straight. You been lying so much over the years, it's easy to go back and see how you've changed your story according to the mistakes people find in your bullshit.
You have been asked for proof as to why you've made these claims/changes and you can come up with none.
So here's a simple question. Why did you lie and first say the "butt plate" connections were bolted and then turn around and say they were welded? I mean your reasoning as to why they are "guide rails" and not core columns is based solely on your claim that they had bolted connections and those connections are weak compared to welded connections.
Now you ADMIT that they were welded in addition to being bolted, which totally debunks your "weak connection" argument. Not to mention the fact that those are NOT "butt plates" as has been proven.
High school level Physics calculations show Gravity on the World Trade Center Towers was 0.1 KiloTons of TNT-equivalent energy in "action".
The debris and dust erupted over 8.5 KiloTons of 'TNT' energy in "reaction".
FACT: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction
0.1 KT ACTION does not equal 8.5 KT REACTION
http://Newton's_laws_of_motion
When the top chunk of Mt. St. Helens turned into a cloud of dust, thrown on the landscape, the TV and newspapers said the mountain expended the energy equivalent of 30,000 K Tons of TNT.
How did they know that number?
Were there conflicting opinions?
Was it a debateable issue whether it was 40,000 KT or 10,000 KT of TNT equivalent energy?
No, it was 30,000 KT, no argument, no debate....the number is not an opinion, it's a calculation of a fact.
Like an Example problem in Physics homework, multiply the massive weight of the rock times how far it flew against gravity's energy forcing it down to the ground. Weight x distance x gravity, is the energy number......the math is done......easy as pie.
The same calculation makes a fact that 8.5 KT of energy force expanded the dust cloud of pulverized concrete which came out of each Twin Tower on 9/11 and spread across Manhattan's buildings and streets an inch thick, or more.
8.5 KT of expended energy, is the number which American Corporate Media does NOT say, because it's censored, prohibited, since there's a mystery about where that energy came from. Since 0.1 KT, is all the energy that gravity had, forcing down on each building.
Gravity smacking the floors together, one-by-one flattening them like pancakes....or 110 floors pushed down into a stack on ground level, where gravity can't push any farther.
Multiply all the weight that came down the distance to the ground, and the fact is 0.1 KT of TNT equivalent energy was expended. That's all there possibly was. If a Tower weighed twice as much, there was 0.2 KT of energy in it. If it weighed twice as much being twice as tall, then 0.4 KT of energy was in it at all times.
Whether the building is on fire or not, it weighs the same and stands as tall, until gravity, not fire, starts into action.
Same as if you have a book on the table, and you push it off the edge so it drops on a weight scale. When it hits the scale, it scores the same (energy) force of gravity pushing its fall, every time, whether or not the book is on fire. Instead of a book, if you use a balloon full of water, the force measured when it falls down on the scale is the same, every time, whether the water is liquid or solid ice. And, if you know how tall the table is, and you know the weight of the book or water balloon, you can calculate the pounds of force the scale is going to show under the falling object and have that answer before you push the weight off the table.
It's not an "opinion," it's a calculation, it's a fact.
Each Twin Tower dust cloud measured 8.5 KT of (energy) force spreading out of the building. But only 0.1 KT of gravity pushed each building, straight down. This Action is NOT equal Reaction and was as if you dropped a 1 Ton book off the table and the scale measured 85 Tons hit it.
The mystery of where the extra energy force came from, measured on 9/11, is an unsolved mystery.
American Corporate News has the factual calculation of the explosive equivalent energy number, the same place they got it for Mt. St. Helens.....so what is the difference with our Media Today?
Interesting. Any reason you didn't quote the entire article or give credit to the person who wrote it? Anyways, I have few question.
Let's look at two quotes from this article.
and
Are you (or the original author) trying to say that the "massive weight of the rock" and "dust" are the same things? I fail to see how "dust clouds" are similar to "massive rocks" or "books".
Christophera
Evidence & Reason Rule
B, b, wa, haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaa, you have been shown lying.
A "butt plate" is very thick because it has to have resistence against flex. Your "base plate" shows almost no thickness. It is for keeping the base of a column fastened to the floor and foundation from "kicking out".
Below they are very thick.
In your image they are very thick. The furthest one.
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/nobuttplates.jpg
As usual, the opposite of what the agent says is true.
Your other pic won't show the fastener locations if they existed as low as the base wall. The core itself up 4 floors was bolted at each interior box column.
You're just trying to get out of the fact that you LIE at every turn when you get caught presenting some bogus information.
You claim the "elevator guide rail steel" (which are actually core columns) could NOT have been core columns because they were to weak based on the supposed BOLTED butt plate connections.
Agent gumjob, you continue to conduct generalizations and all or nothing thinking from your role in the psyops. These are cognitive distortions used because you have no evidence.
I've stated many times that butt plates were only used when the elevator guide rail support steel needed to be re aligned. The butt plates allow that, welds do not.
I've stated a few times that welds are less expensive and stronger than butt plates.
All this is evasion, working to change the subject because you have no evidence from 9-11 showing the supposed steel core columns in the core area. If such a structure with steel core columns existed it would be seen on 9-11 in the core area, it is not, . . . ever.
What is seen is concrete or its remnants surrounding the empty core area. Here is rebar, . . . and you have never produced a reasonable alternative description.
There are extinsive, independent verifications. The concret core is redundantly verified. Beginning with the building engineer Robertson is verified by Oxford, verifying Domel verified by the image of WTC 2 core, verifying the top of WTC 2 core falling onto WTC 3, the WTC 1 rebar, just after the WTC 1 west core wall is seen in an end view, then, the WTC 1 east shear wall toppling, consistent with interior box columns silhouetted on WTC 1 north core wall, consistent with ground zero showing the WTC 1 north concrete core base wall, 12 foot thick, all supported as clarification of the many confused statements that do mention concrete in the core including the latest revised NIST contracted analysis of free fall by Bazant et. al 6/21/2007, which actually provides an equivalent amount of high explosives needed to create the rate of fall they are attempting to justify with physics. It doesn't work, but at least they won't go down in history as totally supporting the deceptions.
Last edited:
And I've asked you to provide me proof that the "butt plates" you say were "bolted", were NOT also welded.
If they were "bolted" after alignment and then welded, your "weak connection" argument is nothing but bullshit.
So were is your proof that those connections were not welded in addition to being bolted?
Christophera
Evidence & Reason Rule
I've asked for images from 9-11 showing the supposed steel core columns in the core area for about 6 years, they have neve been provided.
Common sense dictates that there will be no butt plate if a weld is to be used. To have a joint with uneqal flex weakens a structural member. The elevator guide rail support steel were not structural to the building, but they were to the alignment of the elevators.
You however work for the perpetrators to conceal the secret methods of mass murder and have no reason to use common sense.
The verifications of the concrete core are massive, and independent. Clearly, Robertson is verified by Oxford, verifying Domel verified by the image of WTC 2 core, verifying the top of WTC 2 core falling onto WTC 3, the WTC 1 rebar, just after the WTC 1 west core wall is seen in an end view, then, the WTC 1 east shear wall toppling, consistent with interior box columns silhouetted on WTC 1 north core wall, consistent with ground zero showing the WTC 1 north concrete core base wall, 12 foot thick, all supported as clarification of the many confused statements that do mention concrete in the core including the latest revised NIST contracted analysis of free fall by Bazant et. al 6/21/2007, which actually provides an equivalent amount of high explosives needed to create the rate of fall they are attempting to justify with physics. It doesn't work, but at least they won't go down in history as totally supporting the deceptions.
Common sense dictates that after the elevator guide rail support steel was aligned and bolted, they would weld the joints to keep them that way.
You lose.
and thats conceding that core columns were elevator guide rail supports and not core columns
Christophera
Evidence & Reason Rule
Wrong. You suggest that more unneeded work was done and such a suggestion is not logical. Recall, the elevator guide rail supports are in compression only except for minimal lateral loads from elevators. The bolts were probably tightened with a wrench of a specific length to be sure that torques were adequate.
What is logical is that you are working for the perpetrators interests of keeping the methods of mass murder secret.
Especially since you refuse to acknowledge a violation of law that enables the deception I evidence.
AND you have no independently verified evidence of steel core columns in the core area on 9-11 where they absolutely would be seen.
i have seen and posted TONS of evidence
you're just too fucking delusional to admit it
Fizz
Rookie
- Nov 20, 2009
- 4,391
- 350
- 0
- Banned
- #137
you are a fucking moron.
you believe that the government has secretly stolen every picture of a concrete core that ever existed. this includes all pictures from every magazine, all pictures from every newspaper.... and here comes the impossible part.... all personal pictures that ever existed both on the internet and privately.
and you want to bring logic into the conversation? you are a deadbeat moronic idiot!!
Christophera
Evidence & Reason Rule
I can prove the plans were taken by guiliani . And the plans are a part of all civic center documents. Dr. Ron Larsen found that the documentary, "The Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers" once existed in the PBS records. Here is an update to his search. An excerpt from his web radio show.
http://algoxy.com/psych/audio/rl-cb6-27-07pbs.doc_1-2.mp3
You are the one using the word government. I've just proven the courts helped guiliani.
Fizz
Rookie
- Nov 20, 2009
- 4,391
- 350
- 0
- Banned
- #140
i didnt say anything about the plans. you are trying to change the subject again. explain to us how "the perpetrators" (sorry, i said goverment.) removed every single picture of your concrete core from the internet, every book and every persons home that has ever taken a picture of the constructions of the world trade center. explain how that is even possible. how do "the perpetrators" even know who was in new york with a camera during the time the WTC was being constructed?
Last edited:
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Zone1 From now on I will no longer be tyroneweaver, but the Most Reverend tyrone- Started by tyroneweaver
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
-
