FEMA Deceives Nation About Twin Towers Core

[Christophera]

you are SO ******* stupid
it has already been explained to you he DID NOT request a retraction because it was TOO LONG AGO
damn you are an idiot

Bwaahahaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, but he would have requested the correction "long ago", if he did.

The core was a concrete tube. Here's a part of the the east wall of the WTC 1 concrete core toppling into the core.

as i have TOLD you bewfore, you ******* MORON, THAT is a FLOOR, not a wall

You can only SHOW me agent. SHOW me steel core columns in the core area on 9-11 where they would HAVE to be IF they existed.

I've SHOWN you what I know to be a wall, many times. I've SHOWN you independent statements of authority. I've SHOWN you digitally altered plans faked to appear as final drawings of the structure.

Stop supporting secret methods of mass murder and the demise of the US Constitution.

 

[Christophera]

I'm going to keep posting these until you answer all of them:

1. Not a question [the "question" is to ask Mr. Robertson if he agrees with you]
2. Not a question [the "question' is do you believe an independent source for 'no R/C walls'? Why would anyone lie about walls?? its just STUPID]
3. Not a question [question: what is your "secret method of mass murder"?]
4. Not a question [question: describe your ridiculous conspiracy, who & why & how?]
5. what difference would it make if there was a concrete core or not?

Concrete can be fractured instantly to fall freely, steel cannot.
[/b]very wrong. Reinforced concrete is a lot tougher than steel, especially to fire resistance. It is also a lot heavier. You did not answer the question which is if the jet liners did NOT impact the WTC towers, what difference would your conspiracy make? The towers were designed properly and would still be standing.[/b]

6. Not a question [question: ask your boss if he heard or read about the WTC design, and if it had concrete walls. If he's older he will tell you that there never were any concrete walls.
7. Not a question [question: do you want me to post mathematical deflection equations proving that the WTC towers could not have concrete walls? Do you understand structural deflection equations?
No one else believes your stupid conspiracy, because its so obviously wrong.

No one else has any evidence, their errors, supposition, speculation and outright lies do not matter.

The "see thru" photo and the various construction photos should be all the "evidence" a sane person needs to see that there were no concrete walls.

I'm going to keep posting these until you answer all of them:

1. I produced the design engineer for the WTC Towers, Mr. Robertson. There is no more credible source. Yet you keep dancing around the main issues instead of simply asking the engineer. Please just email him with your concerns. If he doesn't reply we can keep discussing. Leslie E Robertson e-mail: leslie.robertson@lera.com

2. Here is one more link, from "The Guardian" which should be a very neutral source of information.
World Trade Center Demolition.
No mention of concrete walls.
Then you need to define what possible gain the "conspiracy" could have from lying about the concrete walls:

3. if there was a "secret method of mass murder" what was it, and why wait around for jets to hit the towers, why not just knock them down in a wind storm and kill 250,000?
<the jet impacts caused the collapses, no sane persons dispute that>

4. You continually fail to describe the conspiracy. Who all was involved?
<do you still cling to the "concrete wall conspiracy" or do you accept that the jets caused the collapses, and no structural concrete walls were there>

5. what difference would it make if there was a concrete core or not? If the buildings stood for ~35-years, however they were built was fine. What knocked them down if it wasn't the jet impacts? <the towers were fine until the jets hit them>

6. If your boss was here when the original WTC Towers were designed & built ask him if he has any recollection for the design w/o concrete walls.

7. I can provide the equations (mathematical proof) for the deflection of the WTC tower if you have any way of verifying them.
Do you want me to post equations for the wind load and deflection with and w/o concrete walls? If I prove mathematically that the concrete couldn't possibly deflect 12' will you admit that there were no concrete walls, as everyone but you acknowledges?

No one else believes your stupid conspiracy, because its so obviously wrong.

Your photos have not shown steel core columns, in fact they show a concrete core. The silouettes in no way show steel core columns, they discount them. There is no visibility through the core except hallways.

Agent kaiser, you support secret methods of mass murder and the demise of the US Constitution. You have ZERO credibility.

 

[kyzr]

Concrete can be fractured instantly to fall freely, steel cannot.
[/b]very wrong. Reinforced concrete is a lot tougher than steel, especially to fire resistance. It is also a lot heavier. You did not answer the question which is if the jet liners did NOT impact the WTC towers, what difference would your conspiracy make? The towers were designed properly and would still be standing.[/b]

No one else has any evidence, their errors, supposition, speculation and outright lies do not matter.

The "see thru" photo and the various construction photos should be all the "evidence" a sane person needs to see that there were no concrete walls.

I'm going to keep posting these until you answer all of them:

1. I produced the design engineer for the WTC Towers, Mr. Robertson. There is no more credible source. Yet you keep dancing around the main issues instead of simply asking the engineer. Please just email him with your concerns. If he doesn't reply we can keep discussing. Leslie E Robertson e-mail: leslie.robertson@lera.com

2. Here is one more link, from "The Guardian" which should be a very neutral source of information.
World Trade Center Demolition.
No mention of concrete walls.
Then you need to define what possible gain the "conspiracy" could have from lying about the concrete walls:

3. if there was a "secret method of mass murder" what was it, and why wait around for jets to hit the towers, why not just knock them down in a wind storm and kill 250,000?
<the jet impacts caused the collapses, no sane persons dispute that>

4. You continually fail to describe the conspiracy. Who all was involved?
<do you still cling to the "concrete wall conspiracy" or do you accept that the jets caused the collapses, and no structural concrete walls were there>

5. what difference would it make if there was a concrete core or not? If the buildings stood for ~35-years, however they were built was fine. What knocked them down if it wasn't the jet impacts? <the towers were fine until the jets hit them>

6. If your boss was here when the original WTC Towers were designed & built ask him if he has any recollection for the design w/o concrete walls.

7. I can provide the equations (mathematical proof) for the deflection of the WTC tower if you have any way of verifying them.
Do you want me to post equations for the wind load and deflection with and w/o concrete walls? If I prove mathematically that the concrete couldn't possibly deflect 12' will you admit that there were no concrete walls, as everyone but you acknowledges?

No one else believes your stupid conspiracy, because its so obviously wrong.

Your photos have not shown steel core columns, in fact they show a concrete core. The silouettes in no way show steel core columns, they discount them. There is no visibility through the core except hallways. Agent kaiser, you support secret methods of mass murder and the demise of the US Constitution. You have ZERO credibility.

1. USE YOUR EYES AND TELL ME YOU DON'T SEE THE COLUMNS HERE OR IN ANY OF THE CONSTRUCTION PHOTOS. THEN TELL ME WHERE YOU THINK YOU SEE A PHOTO OF CONCRETE WALLS.

You must produce documentation if that is the case. The only official diagram I can find of the core is this.

HERE IS YOUR FLOORPLAN PHOTO - LOOK NO CONCRETE WALLS

Here is a screen shot of the 3rd floor core plan. LOOK NO CONCRETE WALLS. dO YOU SEE THE STEEL COLUMNS, OR DON'T YOU KNOW HOW TO READ STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS?

LOOK AT THIS PHOTO AND TELL ME THAT YOU SEE A WALL AND NOT COLUMNS. LOOK HOW THICK THE COLUMNS STEEL IS

LOOK NO WALLS....

"...AND THAT RIGHT THERE PROVES, NO CONCRETE WALLS" <DIVER>

IF THE BUILDING HAD NO CONCRETE WALLS, ONLY "FIREPROOFING SHAFT-WALLS" THEN YOUR CONSPIRACY IS REALLY STUPID.

 

[kyzr]

I'M GOING TO KEEP POSTING THESE UNTIL YOU ANSWER ALL OF THEM

1. Not a question [the "question" is to ask Mr. Robertson if he agrees with you]
2. Not a question [the "question' is do you believe an independent source for 'no R/C walls'? Why would anyone lie about walls?? its just STUPID]
3. Not a question [question: what is your "secret method of mass murder"?]
4. Not a question [question: describe your ridiculous conspiracy, who & why & how?]
5. what difference would it make if there was a concrete core or not?[/quote]

Concrete can be fractured instantly to fall freely, steel cannot.
[/b]very wrong. Reinforced concrete is a lot tougher than steel, especially to fire resistance. It is also a lot heavier. You did not answer the question which is if the jet liners did NOT impact the WTC towers, what difference would your conspiracy make? The towers were designed properly and would still be standing.[/b]

6. Not a question [question: ask your boss if he heard or read about the WTC design, and if it had concrete walls. If he's older he will tell you that there never were any concrete walls.
7. Not a question [question: do you want me to post mathematical deflection equations proving that the WTC towers could not have concrete walls? Do you understand structural deflection equations?
No one else believes your stupid conspiracy, because its so obviously wrong.

No one else has any evidence, their errors, supposition, speculation and outright lies do not matter.[/QUOTE]
The "see thru" photo and the various construction photos should be all the "evidence" a sane person needs to see that there were no concrete walls.

I'm going to keep posting these until you answer all of them:

1. I produced the design engineer for the WTC Towers, Mr. Robertson. There is no more credible source. Yet you keep dancing around the main issues instead of simply asking the engineer. Please just email him with your concerns. If he doesn't reply we can keep discussing. Leslie E Robertson e-mail: leslie.robertson@lera.com

2. Here is one more link, from "The Guardian" which should be a very neutral source of information.
World Trade Center Demolition.
No mention of concrete walls.
Then you need to define what possible gain the "conspiracy" could have from lying about the concrete walls:

3. if there was a "secret method of mass murder" what was it, and why wait around for jets to hit the towers, why not just knock them down in a wind storm and kill 250,000?
<the jet impacts caused the collapses, no sane persons dispute that>

4. You continually fail to describe the conspiracy. Who all was involved?
<do you still cling to the "concrete wall conspiracy" or do you accept that the jets caused the collapses, and no structural concrete walls were there>

5. what difference would it make if there was a concrete core or not? If the buildings stood for ~35-years, however they were built was fine. What knocked them down if it wasn't the jet impacts? <the towers were fine until the jets hit them>

6. If your boss was here when the original WTC Towers were designed & built ask him if he has any recollection for the design w/o concrete walls.

7. I can provide the equations (mathematical proof) for the deflection of the WTC tower if you have any way of verifying them.
Do you want me to post equations for the wind load and deflection with and w/o concrete walls? If I prove mathematically that the concrete couldn't possibly deflect 12' will you admit that there were no concrete walls, as everyone but you acknowledges?

No one else believes your stupid conspiracy, because its so obviously wrong.

 

[kyzr]

I'M GOING TO KEEP POSTING THESE UNTIL YOU ANSWER ALL OF THEM

1. Not a question [the "question" is to ask Mr. Robertson if he agrees with you]
2. Not a question [the "question' is do you believe an independent source for 'no R/C walls'? Why would anyone lie about walls?? its just STUPID]
3. Not a question [question: what is your "secret method of mass murder"?]
4. Not a question [question: describe your ridiculous conspiracy, who & why & how?]
5. what difference would it make if there was a concrete core or not?[/quote]

Concrete can be fractured instantly to fall freely, steel cannot.
[/b]very wrong. Reinforced concrete is a lot tougher than steel, especially to fire resistance. It is also a lot heavier. You did not answer the question which is if the jet liners did NOT impact the WTC towers, what difference would your conspiracy make? The towers were designed properly and would still be standing.[/b]

6. Not a question [question: ask your boss if he heard or read about the WTC design, and if it had concrete walls. If he's older he will tell you that there never were any concrete walls.
7. Not a question [question: do you want me to post mathematical deflection equations proving that the WTC towers could not have concrete walls? Do you understand structural deflection equations?
No one else believes your stupid conspiracy, because its so obviously wrong.

No one else has any evidence, their errors, supposition, speculation and outright lies do not matter.[/QUOTE]
The "see thru" photo and the various construction photos should be all the "evidence" a sane person needs to see that there were no concrete walls.

I'm going to keep posting these until you answer all of them:

1. I produced the design engineer for the WTC Towers, Mr. Robertson. There is no more credible source. Yet you keep dancing around the main issues instead of simply asking the engineer. Please just email him with your concerns. If he doesn't reply we can keep discussing. Leslie E Robertson e-mail: leslie.robertson@lera.com

2. Here is one more link, from "The Guardian" which should be a very neutral source of information.
World Trade Center Demolition.
No mention of concrete walls.
Then you need to define what possible gain the "conspiracy" could have from lying about the concrete walls:

3. if there was a "secret method of mass murder" what was it, and why wait around for jets to hit the towers, why not just knock them down in a wind storm and kill 250,000?
<the jet impacts caused the collapses, no sane persons dispute that>

4. You continually fail to describe the conspiracy. Who all was involved?
<do you still cling to the "concrete wall conspiracy" or do you accept that the jets caused the collapses, and no structural concrete walls were there>

5. what difference would it make if there was a concrete core or not? If the buildings stood for ~35-years, however they were built was fine. What knocked them down if it wasn't the jet impacts? <the towers were fine until the jets hit them>

6. If your boss was here when the original WTC Towers were designed & built ask him if he has any recollection for the design w/o concrete walls.

7. I can provide the equations (mathematical proof) for the deflection of the WTC tower if you have any way of verifying them.
Do you want me to post equations for the wind load and deflection with and w/o concrete walls? If I prove mathematically that the concrete couldn't possibly deflect 12' will you admit that there were no concrete walls, as everyone but you acknowledges?

No one else believes your stupid conspiracy, because its so obviously wrong.

 

[Christophera]

why dont you ask Mr Robertson why he didnt ask for it to be retracted YEARS later when it was brought to his attention

The fact there was no correction, says on its own he never asked. When 3,000 are killed in what is supposed to be a collapse, it is very obvious he will demand the article be correct for professional considerations alone. You do realize he is a structural engineer and the one largely responsible for the Twins.

Does the term, common sense mean anything to you?

Your photos have not shown steel core columns, in fact they show a concrete core. The silouettes in no way show steel core columns, they discount them. There is no visibility through the core except hallways. Agent kaiser, you support secret methods of mass murder and the demise of the US Constitution. You have ZERO credibility.

You must produce documentation if that is the case. The only official diagram I can find of the core is this.

You are lying about "The plans were well documented over 35 years". Such a statement does not even make sense. If it does, identify who documented them? Show the documentation.

A concrete wall with an average thickness of 3 foot can flex 12 over 1,350 feet. I've personally flexed a 8 inch gas station slab in a demo with a 977 cat loader 3.5 feet over a 60 foot length. And that is a slab with mild steel rebar. We had to drive a dozer between the loader bucket under the slab, on top of the slab and the ground contact point to get it to break. Time for you to produce evidence.

1. You may not know engineering, but the WTC Tower designs were well documented,

So you fail to answer reasonable questions and show accountability, then post nonsense as you have

1. USE YOUR EYES AND TELL ME YOU DON'T SEE THE COLUMNS HERE OR IN ANY OF THE CONSTRUCTION PHOTOS. THEN TELL ME WHERE YOU THINK YOU SEE A PHOTO OF CONCRETE WALLS.

HERE IS YOUR FLOORPLAN PHOTO - LOOK NO CONCRETE WALLS

OMG, yer an idiot. That is from a page that questions WHY, we have so many different floor plans.

http://algoxy.com/psych/whatis9-11disinfo-florplan.html

I know they do not show a concrete core because all those sites are controlled by the infiltrations. The infiltration sifted all of the construction photos that show concrete, because they had the access and power to do so. Not so with 9-11 images. They show mass concrete surrounding the core. WTC 1's east core wall toppling into the core.

Here is a screen shot of the 3rd floor core plan. LOOK NO CONCRETE WALLS. dO YOU SEE THE STEEL COLUMNS, OR DON'T YOU KNOW HOW TO READ STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS?

One look at the actual concrete core wall at its base and comparison to the plan screen shot, and anyone with a little experience can see that the plans shows an airshaft, a steam shaft and a janitor closet with an elevator where the 12 foot thick concrete wall is in the GZ photo. It is easily located as the north core wall of WTC 1 here in an aerial photo.

LOOK AT THIS PHOTO AND TELL ME THAT YOU SEE A WALL AND NOT COLUMNS. LOOK HOW THICK THE COLUMNS STEEL IS

Those are perimeter columns. The bottoms of the triple base pieces. Have some accountability agent, locate the objects in the photos you post. People were murdered and families ripped apart.

You will go down in history as the sickest of the sick.

LOOK NO WALLS....

You are an idiot because that shows solid structure in the core where we should see thin vertical lines between the supposed steel core columns. What the image shows is that WTC 1 and WTC 2 had quite different cores. WTC had twice as many hallways.

"...AND THAT RIGHT THERE PROVES, NO CONCRETE WALLS" <DIVER>

IF THE BUILDING HAD NO CONCRETE WALLS, ONLY "FIREPROOFING SHAFT-WALLS" THEN YOUR CONSPIRACY IS REALLY STUPID.

Uhhhh, you cannot be more of an idiot than you already are, but you are trying.

Where are the thin vertical lines of light that would be shining between the supposed steel core columns? The photo shows core columns were not continuous, IF there were steel core columns, which is absurd. What is shown is light reflecting off the inside of the concrete core walls. The inner steel forms left very smooth shiny concrete surfaces that reflect light particuarly at the low oblique of the photo to the sun and tower halls. The camera is not directly lined up with the sunrise through WTC 1's hallways and the light is not shining directly down the hallways. WTC 2 should show the thin vertical lines between supposed core columns but does not.

Nobody believes you because you are so obviously stupid and against due process, lawful government and the Constitution.

 

[kyzr]

The fact there was no correction, says on its own he never asked. When 3,000 are killed in what is supposed to be a collapse, it is very obvious he will demand the article be correct for professional considerations alone. You do realize he is a structural engineer and the one largely responsible for the Twins. Does the term, common sense mean anything to you?

The fact that you are unqualified to do what you're whining about says it all. The fact that you refuse to simply email Mr. Robertson and ask him if his towers had concrete walls, or if he thinks you're a moron would solve your "conspiracy". Newsweek is NOT a competent magazine, you might as well quote "MAD" magazine, I bet Alfred E. Neuman is a friend of yours.

So you fail to answer reasonable questions and show accountability, then post nonsense as you have OMG, yer an idiot. That is from a page that questions WHY, we have so many different floor plans.

Do ANY of the various floor plans show concrete walls?? <NO>

World trade center tower core floor/column plan

I know they do not show a concrete core because all those sites are controlled by the infiltrations. The infiltration sifted all of the construction photos that show concrete, because they had the access and power to do so. Not so with 9-11 images. They show mass concrete surrounding the core. WTC 1's east core wall toppling into the core.

The only "infiltrations" is the breeze you feel going in one ear and out the other. You never could disprove all of the construction photos and floor plans that do not show R/C walls.

One look at the actual concrete core wall at its base and comparison to the plan screen shot, and anyone with a little experience can see that the plans shows an airshaft, a steam shaft and a janitor closet with an elevator where the 12 foot thick concrete wall is in the GZ photo. It is easily located as the north core wall of WTC 1 here in an aerial photo.

A little experience?? How high does your keen mind say that the 12' wall should be showing above grade if it existed? Its not showing above grade, because it never existed.

Those are perimeter columns. The bottoms of the triple base pieces. Have some accountability agent, locate the objects in the photos you post. People were murdered and families ripped apart. You will go down in history as the sickest of the sick.

You don't know where those photos were taken. Besides, you can't describe who killed those people except that you admit that large jet liners impacted the towers. Only an idiot wouldn't admit that the jets knocked down the towers. You have no conspiracy because you can't describe it. Who, what, why, etc.
{did faeries remove the walls when we weren't looking??}

You are an idiot because that shows solid structure in the core where we should see thin vertical lines between the supposed steel core columns. What the image shows is that WTC 1 and WTC 2 had quite different cores. WTC had twice as many hallways.

WRONG. Look thru your asylum photos and you'll see that the towers were built rotated 90-degrees different. If you look at the floor plans, those photos make perfect sense.

"...AND THAT RIGHT THERE PROVES, NO CONCRETE WALLS" <DIVER>

IF THE BUILDING HAD NO CONCRETE WALLS, ONLY "FIREPROOFING SHAFT-WALLS" THEN YOUR CONSPIRACY IS REALLY STUPID.

Uhhhh, you cannot be more of an idiot than you already are, but you are trying. Where are the thin vertical lines of light that would be shining between the supposed steel core columns? The photo shows core columns were not continuous, IF there were steel core columns, which is absurd. What is shown is light reflecting off the inside of the concrete core walls. The inner steel forms left very smooth shiny concrete surfaces that reflect light particuarly at the low oblique of the photo to the sun and tower halls. The camera is not directly lined up with the sunrise through WTC 1's hallways and the light is not shining directly down the hallways. WTC 2 should show the thin vertical lines between supposed core columns but does not.

Nobody believes you because you are so obviously stupid and against due process, lawful government and the Constitution.

You need to learn how to read drawings. There always were "walls", just like the links to Robertson's company describe. They are "shaftwalls", fireproofing for the stairways and elevator shafts, just like they show in the floorplans. You can't picture drawings from different sets can you? If you could, you'd see the buildings were built just like the plans.

 

[kyzr]

I'M GOING TO KEEP POSTING THESE UNTIL YOU ANSWER ALL OF THEM

1. Not a question [the "question" is to ask Mr. Robertson if he agrees with you]
2. Not a question [the "question' is do you believe an independent source for 'no R/C walls'? Why would anyone lie about walls?? its just STUPID]
3. Not a question [question: what is your "secret method of mass murder"?]
4. Not a question [question: describe your ridiculous conspiracy, who & why & how?]
5. what difference would it make if there was a concrete core or not?[/quote]

Concrete can be fractured instantly to fall freely, steel cannot.
[/b]very wrong. Reinforced concrete is a lot tougher than steel, especially to fire resistance. It is also a lot heavier. You did not answer the question which is if the jet liners did NOT impact the WTC towers, what difference would your conspiracy make? The towers were designed properly and would still be standing.[/b]

6. Not a question [question: ask your boss if he heard or read about the WTC design, and if it had concrete walls. If he's older he will tell you that there never were any concrete walls.
7. Not a question [question: do you want me to post mathematical deflection equations proving that the WTC towers could not have concrete walls? Do you understand structural deflection equations?
No one else believes your stupid conspiracy, because its so obviously wrong.

No one else has any evidence, their errors, supposition, speculation and outright lies do not matter.[/QUOTE]
The "see thru" photo and the various construction photos should be all the "evidence" a sane person needs to see that there were no concrete walls.

I'm going to keep posting these until you answer all of them:

1. I produced the design engineer for the WTC Towers, Mr. Robertson. There is no more credible source. Yet you keep dancing around the main issues instead of simply asking the engineer. Please just email him with your concerns. If he doesn't reply we can keep discussing. Leslie E Robertson e-mail: leslie.robertson@lera.com

2. Here is one more link, from "The Guardian" which should be a very neutral source of information.
World Trade Center Demolition.
No mention of concrete walls.
Then you need to define what possible gain the "conspiracy" could have from lying about the concrete walls:

3. if there was a "secret method of mass murder" what was it, and why wait around for jets to hit the towers, why not just knock them down in a wind storm and kill 250,000?
<the jet impacts caused the collapses, no sane persons dispute that>

4. You continually fail to describe the conspiracy. Who all was involved?
<do you still cling to the "concrete wall conspiracy" or do you accept that the jets caused the collapses, and no structural concrete walls were there>

5. what difference would it make if there was a concrete core or not? If the buildings stood for ~35-years, however they were built was fine. What knocked them down if it wasn't the jet impacts? <the towers were fine until the jets hit them>

6. If your boss was here when the original WTC Towers were designed & built ask him if he has any recollection for the design w/o concrete walls.

7. I can provide the equations (mathematical proof) for the deflection of the WTC tower if you have any way of verifying them.
Do you want me to post equations for the wind load and deflection with and w/o concrete walls? If I prove mathematically that the concrete couldn't possibly deflect 12' will you admit that there were no concrete walls, as everyone but you acknowledges?

No one else believes your stupid conspiracy, because its so obviously wrong.

 

[kyzr]

I'M GOING TO KEEP POSTING THESE UNTIL YOU ANSWER ALL OF THEM

1. Not a question [the "question" is to ask Mr. Robertson if he agrees with you]
2. Not a question [the "question' is do you believe an independent source for 'no R/C walls'? Why would anyone lie about walls?? its just STUPID]
3. Not a question [question: what is your "secret method of mass murder"?]
4. Not a question [question: describe your ridiculous conspiracy, who & why & how?]
5. what difference would it make if there was a concrete core or not?[/quote]

Concrete can be fractured instantly to fall freely, steel cannot.
very wrong. Reinforced concrete is a lot tougher than steel, especially to fire resistance. It is also a lot heavier. You did not answer the question which is if the jet liners did NOT impact the WTC towers, what difference would your conspiracy make? The towers were designed properly and would still be standing.

6. Not a question [question: ask your boss if he heard or read about the WTC design, and if it had concrete walls. If he's older he will tell you that there never were any concrete walls.
7. Not a question [question: do you want me to post mathematical deflection equations proving that the WTC towers could not have concrete walls? Do you understand structural deflection equations?
No one else believes your stupid conspiracy, because its so obviously wrong.

No one else has any evidence, their errors, supposition, speculation and outright lies do not matter.[/QUOTE]
The "see thru" photo and the various construction photos should be all the "evidence" a sane person needs to see that there were no concrete walls.

I'm going to keep posting these until you answer all of them:

1. I produced the design engineer for the WTC Towers, Mr. Robertson. There is no more credible source. Yet you keep dancing around the main issues instead of simply asking the engineer. Please just email him with your concerns. If he doesn't reply we can keep discussing. Leslie E Robertson e-mail: leslie.robertson@lera.com

2. Here is one more link, from "The Guardian" which should be a very neutral source of information.
World Trade Center Demolition.
No mention of concrete walls.
Then you need to define what possible gain the "conspiracy" could have from lying about the concrete walls:

3. if there was a "secret method of mass murder" what was it, and why wait around for jets to hit the towers, why not just knock them down in a wind storm and kill 250,000?
<the jet impacts caused the collapses, no sane persons dispute that>

4. You continually fail to describe the conspiracy. Who all was involved?
<do you still cling to the "concrete wall conspiracy" or do you accept that the jets caused the collapses, and no structural concrete walls were there>

5. what difference would it make if there was a concrete core or not? If the buildings stood for ~35-years, however they were built was fine. What knocked them down if it wasn't the jet impacts? <the towers were fine until the jets hit them>

6. If your boss was here when the original WTC Towers were designed & built ask him if he has any recollection for the design w/o concrete walls.

7. I can provide the equations (mathematical proof) for the deflection of the WTC tower if you have any way of verifying them.
Do you want me to post equations for the wind load and deflection with and w/o concrete walls? If I prove mathematically that the concrete couldn't possibly deflect 12' will you admit that there were no concrete walls, as everyone but you acknowledges?

No one else believes your stupid conspiracy, because its so obviously wrong.

 

[Christophera]

The fact there was no correction, says on its own he never asked. When 3,000 are killed in what is supposed to be a collapse, it is very obvious he will demand the article be correct for professional considerations alone. You do realize he is a structural engineer and the one largely responsible for the Twins. Does the term, common sense mean anything to you?

The fact that you are unqualified to do what you're whining about says it all. The fact that you refuse to simply email Mr. Robertson and ask him if his towers had concrete walls, or if he thinks you're a moron would solve your "conspiracy". Newsweek is NOT a competent magazine, you might as well quote "MAD" magazine, I bet Alfred E. Neuman is a friend of yours.

So you fail to answer reasonable questions and show accountability, then post nonsense as you have OMG, yer an idiot. That is from a page that questions WHY, we have so many different floor plans.

Do ANY of the various floor plans show concrete walls?? <NO>

World trade center tower core floor/column plan


The only "infiltrations" is the breeze you feel going in one ear and out the other. You never could disprove all of the construction photos and floor plans that do not show R/C walls.



A little experience?? How high does your keen mind say that the 12' wall should be showing above grade if it existed? Its not showing above grade, because it never existed.




You don't know where those photos were taken. Besides, you can't describe who killed those people except that you admit that large jet liners impacted the towers. Only an idiot wouldn't admit that the jets knocked down the towers. You have no conspiracy because you can't describe it. Who, what, why, etc.
{did faeries remove the walls when we weren't looking??}

WRONG. Look thru your asylum photos and you'll see that the towers were built rotated 90-degrees different. If you look at the floor plans, those photos make perfect sense.

If you are too stupId to indicate what was rotated 90 degrees, don't expect me to be stupid enough to guess. Such will not matter anyway when examining supposed "core columns" for their extension from foundation to top. Idiot! At least divot doesn't try to pretend he knows structural.

"...AND THAT RIGHT THERE PROVES, NO CONCRETE WALLS" <DIVER>

IF THE BUILDING HAD NO CONCRETE WALLS, ONLY "FIREPROOFING SHAFT-WALLS" THEN YOUR CONSPIRACY IS REALLY STUPID.

Uhhhh, you cannot be more of an idiot than you already are, but you are trying. Where are the thin vertical lines of light that would be shining between the supposed steel core columns? The photo shows core columns were not continuous, IF there were steel core columns, which is absurd. What is shown is light reflecting off the inside of the concrete core walls. The inner steel forms left very smooth shiny concrete surfaces that reflect light particuarly at the low oblique of the photo to the sun and tower halls. The camera is not directly lined up with the sunrise through WTC 1's hallways and the light is not shining directly down the hallways. WTC 2 should show the thin vertical lines between supposed core columns but does not.

Nobody believes you because you are so obviously stupid and against due process, lawful government and the Constitution.

You need to learn how to read drawings.[/QUOTE]

What drawings, your "well documented" towers have no drawings that represents what was on the ground, ........... traitor kaiser.

 

[kyzr]

You need to learn how to read drawings.

What drawings, your "well documented" towers have no drawings that represents what was on the ground, ........... traitor kaiser.

You're not qualified to analyze collapse photos, or "what was on the ground".
The floor plans and the partial plan you provided, do not show structural walls, if you knew how to read drawings. The floor plans and the "see-thru" photos all agree what was built. Throw in the structural steel drawings, and thats all an engineer needs. Plus, I can compute the deflections with and w/o concrete walls, and that proves to an engineer that there were no R/C walls, only fireproof "shaftwalls".

You're the only one who can't understand what was built. No one else is that stupid.

 

[kyzr]

I'M GOING TO KEEP POSTING THESE UNTIL YOU ANSWER ALL OF THEM

1. Not a question [the "question" is to ask Mr. Robertson if he agrees with you]
2. Not a question [the "question' is do you believe an independent source for 'no R/C walls'? Why would anyone lie about walls?? its just STUPID]
3. Not a question [question: what is your "secret method of mass murder"?]
4. Not a question [question: describe your ridiculous conspiracy, who & why & how?]
5. what difference would it make if there was a concrete core or not?[/quote]

Concrete can be fractured instantly to fall freely, steel cannot.
very wrong. Reinforced concrete is a lot tougher than steel, especially to fire resistance. It is also a lot heavier. You did not answer the question which is if the jet liners did NOT impact the WTC towers, what difference would your conspiracy make? The towers were designed properly and would still be standing.

6. Not a question [question: ask your boss if he heard or read about the WTC design, and if it had concrete walls. If he's older he will tell you that there never were any concrete walls.
7. Not a question [question: do you want me to post mathematical deflection equations proving that the WTC towers could not have concrete walls? Do you understand structural deflection equations?
No one else believes your stupid conspiracy, because its so obviously wrong.

No one else has any evidence, their errors, supposition, speculation and outright lies do not matter.[/QUOTE]
The "see thru" photo and the various construction photos should be all the "evidence" a sane person needs to see that there were no concrete walls.

I'm going to keep posting these until you answer all of them:

1. I produced the design engineer for the WTC Towers, Mr. Robertson. There is no more credible source. Yet you keep dancing around the main issues instead of simply asking the engineer. Please just email him with your concerns. If he doesn't reply we can keep discussing. Leslie E Robertson e-mail: leslie.robertson@lera.com

2. Here is one more link, from "The Guardian" which should be a very neutral source of information.
World Trade Center Demolition.
No mention of concrete walls.
Then you need to define what possible gain the "conspiracy" could have from lying about the concrete walls:

3. if there was a "secret method of mass murder" what was it, and why wait around for jets to hit the towers, why not just knock them down in a wind storm and kill 250,000?
<the jet impacts caused the collapses, no sane persons dispute that>

4. You continually fail to describe the conspiracy. Who all was involved?
<do you still cling to the "concrete wall conspiracy" or do you accept that the jets caused the collapses, and no structural concrete walls were there>

5. what difference would it make if there was a concrete core or not? If the buildings stood for ~35-years, however they were built was fine. What knocked them down if it wasn't the jet impacts? <the towers were fine until the jets hit them>

6. If your boss was here when the original WTC Towers were designed & built ask him if he has any recollection for the design w/o concrete walls.

7. I can provide the equations (mathematical proof) for the deflection of the WTC tower if you have any way of verifying them.
Do you want me to post equations for the wind load and deflection with and w/o concrete walls? If I prove mathematically that the concrete couldn't possibly deflect 12' will you admit that there were no concrete walls, as everyone but you acknowledges?

No one else believes your stupid conspiracy, because its so obviously wrong.

 

[Christophera]

I found a radio discussion between S. Jones and Leslie Robertson. I edited the original of 25 minutes or so to get the real details of structure consolidated.

At 03:12;18 there is an edit where S. Jones inserts, "and the steel core columns"

http://algoxy.com/psych/audio/s.jones-l.e.Robertson.mp3

Here is the original. The edit in the above is here, 20:30;19 in the original.

http://www.imploded.org/BOMBED/s_jones_robertson_061026.mp3

The Twins had a concrete tubular core.

 

[DiveCon]

I found a radio discussion between S. Jones and Leslie Robertson. I edited the original of 25 minutes or so to get the real details of structure consolidated.

At 03:12;18 there is an edit where S. Jones inserts, "and the steel core columns"

http://algoxy.com/psych/audio/s.jones-l.e.Robertson.mp3

Here is the original. The edit in the above is here, 20:30;19 in the original.

http://www.imploded.org/BOMBED/s_jones_robertson_061026.mp3

The Twins had a concrete tubular core.

nothing in that clip supports a concrete core you dumbfuck
in fact it says just the opposite
wake the **** up

he maintains the 47 STEEL COLUMNS and never said any concrete in the core

 

[Christophera]

I found a radio discussion between S. Jones and Leslie Robertson. I edited the original of 25 minutes or so to get the real details of structure consolidated.

At 03:12;18 there is an edit where S. Jones inserts, "and the steel core columns"

http://algoxy.com/psych/audio/s.jones-l.e.Robertson.mp3

Here is the original. The edit in the above is here, 20:30;19 in the original.

http://www.imploded.org/BOMBED/s_jones_robertson_061026.mp3

The Twins had a concrete tubular core.

nothing in that clip supports a concrete core you dumbfuck
in fact it says just the opposite
wake the **** up

he maintains the 47 STEEL COLUMNS and never said any concrete in the core

No, S. Jones says "Steel core columns", not Robertson. Meaning the September 13, 2001 article is correct which we knew, because it was never corrrected. When 3,000 die, and thhe articles info is related, it is certain a publication such as Newsweek will make sure the information is good.

 

[DiveCon]

I found a radio discussion between S. Jones and Leslie Robertson. I edited the original of 25 minutes or so to get the real details of structure consolidated.

At 03:12;18 there is an edit where S. Jones inserts, "and the steel core columns"

http://algoxy.com/psych/audio/s.jones-l.e.Robertson.mp3

Here is the original. The edit in the above is here, 20:30;19 in the original.

http://www.imploded.org/BOMBED/s_jones_robertson_061026.mp3

The Twins had a concrete tubular core.

nothing in that clip supports a concrete core you dumbfuck
in fact it says just the opposite
wake the **** up

he maintains the 47 STEEL COLUMNS and never said any concrete in the core

No, S. Jones says "Steel core columns", not Robertson. Meaning the September 13, 2001 article is correct which we knew, because it was never corrrected. When 3,000 die, and thhe articles info is related, it is certain a publication such as Newsweek will make sure the information is good.

wrong again asswipe
he never said concrete in the core
you LIE

 

[kyzr]

Robertson said that he agrees with the NIST report that supports the conclusion that the terror attack with massive jet liners at 500+mph caused the collapse of the towers.
NIST is correct
At ~18:00 to ~19:00 Jones describes the "structure" as "core columns and perimeter columns", there is no mention of concrete walls, because there were none.

This conspiracy is over, it was "dumber" in "dumb and dumber" of 9/11 conspiracies. Professor Jones hangs his conspiracy hat on "speed of collapse" which Robertson said was normal, and some "molten metal" found in the rubble. The molten metal needs to be confirmed, who saw it and exactly what did they see. Robertson also pee'd on the "demolition conspiracy" saying it was crazy.

You claim to be a video expert. Did the towers collapse from the bottom such as in a demolition, or did it collapse from the "top down" like I saw? There was no domestic conspiracy. it was Islamic terrorism.

Christo,
Thanks for posting that discussion. It was interesting to hear a conspiracy professor talking with Robertson.

 

[creativedreams]

Robertson said that he agrees with the NIST report that supports the conclusion that the terror attack with massive jet liners at 500+mph caused the collapse of the towers.
NIST is correct
At ~18:00 to ~19:00 Jones describes the "structure" as "core columns and perimeter columns", there is no mention of concrete walls, because there were none.

This conspiracy is over, it was "dumber" in "dumb and dumber" of 9/11 conspiracies. Professor Jones hangs his conspiracy hat on "speed of collapse" which Robertson said was normal, and some "molten metal" found in the rubble. The molten metal needs to be confirmed, who saw it and exactly what did they see. Robertson also pee'd on the "demolition conspiracy" saying it was crazy.

You claim to be a video expert. Did the towers collapse from the bottom such as in a demolition, or did it collapse from the "top down" like I saw? There was no domestic conspiracy. it was Islamic terrorism.

Christo,
Thanks for posting that discussion. It was interesting to hear a conspiracy professor talking with Robertson.

I can bring up MANY well documented statements of Physicists, Engineers, Architects, Etc that have reviewed the 3 building collapses, designs, damage, fire and have all concluded the NIST Report Re-writes physics.

The NIST investigation was appointed to be headed by Bush's personal friend. The Administration specifically instructed NIST to come up with a reason for the 3 World Trade Center collapses without factoring in the possibility of explosives.

This is why NIST itself could not get the computer simulations to work when plugging in the Collapse speeds vs Structural Resistance.

This is why NIST had to revise it's collapse theory a couple of times when other Engineers called them out on that.

To this day Physicists and Engineers around the World are saying the NIST Report re-writes physics.

Oh and by the way......people involved in the NIST investigation have told Frank Gayle (Bush's personal friend appointed to head it)......... "The NIST Report is WRONG and that the TOWERS SHOULD HAVE EASILY STOOD"......direct quote.

 

[kyzr]

I'M GOING TO KEEP POSTING THESE UNTIL YOU ANSWER ALL OF THEM


1. Robertson/Jones audio states clearly that the structure was "core columns and perimeter columns" (~18:00-19:00). Thanks!

2. Here is one more link, from "The Guardian" which should be a very neutral source of information.
World Trade Center Demolition.
No mention of concrete walls. Then you need to define what possible gain the "conspiracy" could have from lying about the concrete walls:

3. if there was a "secret method of mass murder" what was it, and why wait around for jets to hit the towers, why not just knock them down in a wind storm and kill 250,000?
<the jet impacts caused the collapses, Robertson agrees with NIST>

4. You continually fail to describe the conspiracy. Who all was supposedly involved?
<do you still cling to the "concrete wall conspiracy" or do you accept that the jets caused the collapses, and no structural concrete walls were there>

5. what difference would it make if there was a concrete core or not? If the buildings stood for ~35-years, however they were built was fine. What knocked them down if it wasn't the jet impacts? <the towers were fine until the jets hit them>

6. I can provide the equations (mathematical proof) for the deflection of the WTC tower if you have any way of verifying them.
Do you want me to post equations for the wind load and deflection with and w/o concrete walls? If I prove mathematically that the concrete couldn't possibly deflect 12' will you admit that there were no concrete walls, as everyone but you acknowledges?

No one else believes this crazy "concrete wall" conspiracy, because its so obviously wrong.

 

[kyzr]

I can bring up MANY well documented statements of Physicists, Engineers, Architects, Etc that have reviewed the 3 building collapses, designs, damage, fire and have all concluded the NIST Report Re-writes physics.

Lets stick to one at a time. What do you think you have that trumps the building designer, Mr. Robertson? Physics can't predict demolition collapse speed, there are WAY too many variables. I can disprove any physics calculations you can post just by looking at the variables and assumptions.

The NIST investigation was appointed to be headed by Bush's personal friend. The Administration specifically instructed NIST to come up with a reason for the 3 World Trade Center collapses without factoring in the possibility of explosives.

Got a credible link? Otherwise its bullshit. Don't forget that the NIST report was reviewed by MANY engineering companies, not just a few lawyers like the 9/11 Commission Report.

This is why NIST itself could not get the computer simulations to work when plugging in the Collapse speeds vs Structural Resistance. This is why NIST had to revise it's collapse theory a couple of times when other Engineers called them out on that. To this day Physicists and Engineers around the World are saying the NIST Report re-writes physics.

I'm calling this a lie based on the Robertson audio, who said that the NIST report was only charged to review the design, and the impacts and determine if the structures should have survived. NIST concluded that the structures were designed properly, and that they could not have survived the jet impacts.

Oh and by the way......people involved in the NIST investigation have told Frank Gayle (Bush's personal friend appointed to head it)......... "The NIST Report is WRONG and that the TOWERS SHOULD HAVE EASILY STOOD"......direct quote.

Got a link? Robertson himself said that the towers were only designed for a slow flying 707. The towers were visibly leaning. You must be lying again.

Thanks for playing.