Real Conspiracy..

[gslack]

lotta credibility there............

I'm sorry but the pre-teen, pimple-popping, momma's boy, home schooled, socially inept, juvenile douchebag thread is elsewhere.... Until you have a point to make, or an apology for me, or something valid to say you do not qualify for recognition any longer...

So go troll all you wish douchebag, I will ignore you and when the forum has had enough they will rid themselves of you. Or enough people will ignore you and you will go off crying. Thats what this is all about anyway isn't it junior... Attention....

 

[candycorn]

He'll be the only one at his funeral....guaranteed.

I'm sorry but the pre-teen, pimple-popping, momma's boy, home schooled, socially inept, juvenile douchebag thread is elsewhere.... Until you have a point to make, or an apology for me, or something valid to say you do not qualify for recognition any longer...

So go troll all you wish douchebag, I will ignore you and when the forum has had enough they will rid themselves of you. Or enough people will ignore you and you will go off crying. Thats what this is all about anyway isn't it junior... Attention....

I'm sorry...who are you again?


























all too easy.

 

[candycorn]

lotta credibility there............

He'll be the only one at his funeral....guaranteed.

I'm sorry but the pre-teen, pimple-popping, momma's boy, home schooled, socially inept, juvenile douchebag thread is elsewhere.... Until you have a point to make, or an apology for me, or something valid to say you do not qualify for recognition any longer...

So go troll all you wish douchebag, I will ignore you and when the forum has had enough they will rid themselves of you. Or enough people will ignore you and you will go off crying. Thats what this is all about anyway isn't it junior... Attention....[/QUOTE]

While scrolling down through your tripe..I saw the following:

4. The Twin towers were a real estate failure of epic proportions and they wanted to get out of it. To do so and not raise suspicion they had to do something so shocking no one would ask questions. The cost to rent or lease there was astronomical and only a select few could afford it. Which brought their costs up even greater.

How occupied were the twin towers on 9/11/2001? Do you know?

Please show your math.

Thanks.

 

[Christophera]

This same concept and principles should be applied in 9/11 quests for truth as well. How did they fall?

How is very important, because only certain characters could achieve what was done, no matter what it was.

Now, there is an assumption there, or a minimization there because they did not fall, they went down.

Within an investigation there are 3 basic steps or questions.

1) What happened?
2) How did it happen?
3) Who did it?

Accordingly, it is well established that almost no one can say for sure what happened because they cannot say how it was done.

There are those that say because within what the false groups of peers know, definition of how it could happen is not feasible. So the perps agents try and conclude for the movement that it happened as the officials say it did.

In the case of 9-11 at the WTC there is another aspect that is neglected.

What did it happen to?

Ot what kind of structure went down?

From this we have to realize we cannot build a case based solely on the "how". No matter how much evidence,

Since nearly no one could describe how, that seems accurate but might not be because what happened has not been established, nor how it happened, nor what it happened to. Evidence is being excluded by the agents of the perps to disable explanation.

2. The asbestos in the building since construction, foam flame/fire resistant and retardant materials which encased the cores and subsequent steel mainframes and supports made fire reaching and or effecting those steel beams highly improbable if not virtually impossible.

Here is the crux of my comment. There were no steel core columns in the core area.

Check the thread,

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...a-deceives-nation-about-twin-towers-core.html

You will find that there is not one image of steel core columns on 9-11 standing in the core area. I'm not sure of how much you know about structural steel, or structures but the core that was supposed to have stood would be seen in the core area after the exterior steel fell. It is not ever seen. I learned of the true core by viewing a 1990 PBS documentary that is now gone. There is evidence of it that has been found.

Update on search for missing PBS video by Dr. Ron Larsen.

From this we can plainly see that although important, the "how" must be considered irrelevant now. The fact is with every bit of evidence we can find, there will be an opposition and counter theory or reason for it.

There is only one theory for demo that is feasible. Of course the perps oppose it the concrete core, they must. They must work to promote the deception of steel core columns because then no one can describe HOW it was done.

There is no counter theory to the feasible explanation because the basis for what might be presented is false. Of course the perps agent will try and create substance with false peer groups, but there is never any material evidence supporting any aspect except of selected aspects that cannot be generally supported.

 

[candycorn]

lotta credibility there............

He'll be the only one at his funeral....guaranteed.

I'm sorry but the pre-teen, pimple-popping, momma's boy, home schooled, socially inept, juvenile douchebag thread is elsewhere.... Until you have a point to make, or an apology for me, or something valid to say you do not qualify for recognition any longer...

So go troll all you wish douchebag, I will ignore you and when the forum has had enough they will rid themselves of you. Or enough people will ignore you and you will go off crying. Thats what this is all about anyway isn't it junior... Attention....

While scrolling down through your tripe..I saw the following:

4. The Twin towers were a real estate failure of epic proportions and they wanted to get out of it. To do so and not raise suspicion they had to do something so shocking no one would ask questions. The cost to rent or lease there was astronomical and only a select few could afford it. Which brought their costs up even greater.

How occupied were the twin towers on 9/11/2001? Do you know?

Please show your math.

Thanks.[/QUOTE]

This is one of the reasons I take twoofers so lightly...none of them know the data.

 

[gslack]

While scrolling down through your tripe..I saw the following:

4. The Twin towers were a real estate failure of epic proportions and they wanted to get out of it. To do so and not raise suspicion they had to do something so shocking no one would ask questions. The cost to rent or lease there was astronomical and only a select few could afford it. Which brought their costs up even greater.

How occupied were the twin towers on 9/11/2001? Do you know?

Please show your math.

Thanks.

Why are you misquoting me?

You left the important part of that quote like a weasel juvenile delinquent.

my words http://www.usmessageboard.com/2227911-post3.html

Again we have our brief list of possible reasons why...

1. Money. Insurance money, stock market money, investment money, war money, you name it its all effected.

2. Control through fear. Oldest trick in the book of modern government. Used in every way imaginable to do nearly anything you can think of.

3. Support for a war. Another classic and old stand by since the first governments and leaders.

4. The Twin towers were a real estate failure of epic proportions and they wanted to get out of it. To do so and not raise suspicion they had to do something so shocking no one would ask questions. The cost to rent or lease there was astronomical and only a select few could afford it. Which brought their costs up even greater.

5. Asbestos removal costs were more than the real world value of the towers, and adding the costs to update them to current safety standards put the thing beyond any possible gain. So they again had to do something shocking to get out of it and recover some of their losses.

You want to quote me than do so correctly douchebag... You came in here and embarrassed yourself by not not reading the OP and making conclusions. And then to try and cover it up you resorted to trolling, and now you try and pretend you want to debate a real point of contention but you deliberately misrepresent what I said....

Just more nonsense and trolling from you..... Grow up punk we are not impressed..

 

[creativedreams]

Just more nonsense and trolling from you..... Grow up punk we are not impressed..

What is sad is that many great Americans are trying to keep America great and POS's like candycorn who troll many 9/11 forums across the net would still get to enjoy the rewards...

 

[candycorn]

While scrolling down through your tripe..I saw the following:

4. The Twin towers were a real estate failure of epic proportions and they wanted to get out of it. To do so and not raise suspicion they had to do something so shocking no one would ask questions. The cost to rent or lease there was astronomical and only a select few could afford it. Which brought their costs up even greater.

How occupied were the twin towers on 9/11/2001? Do you know?

Please show your math.

Thanks.

Why are you misquoting me?

You left the important part of that quote like a weasel juvenile delinquent.

my words http://www.usmessageboard.com/2227911-post3.html

Again we have our brief list of possible reasons why...

1. Money. Insurance money, stock market money, investment money, war money, you name it its all effected.

2. Control through fear. Oldest trick in the book of modern government. Used in every way imaginable to do nearly anything you can think of.

3. Support for a war. Another classic and old stand by since the first governments and leaders.

4. The Twin towers were a real estate failure of epic proportions and they wanted to get out of it. To do so and not raise suspicion they had to do something so shocking no one would ask questions. The cost to rent or lease there was astronomical and only a select few could afford it. Which brought their costs up even greater.

5. Asbestos removal costs were more than the real world value of the towers, and adding the costs to update them to current safety standards put the thing beyond any possible gain. So they again had to do something shocking to get out of it and recover some of their losses.

You want to quote me than do so correctly douchebag... You came in here and embarrassed yourself by not not reading the OP and making conclusions. And then to try and cover it up you resorted to trolling, and now you try and pretend you want to debate a real point of contention but you deliberately misrepresent what I said....

Just more nonsense and trolling from you..... Grow up punk we are not impressed..

So, 25-50,000 people worked in the towers. Fact.
Where are all of the law-suits about these office workers being exposed to the supposed asbestos for the last 35 years? Hmm?

Nice dodge by the way to try to walk away from the fact that you don't know anything about how occupied or not occupied they were...otherwise you'd bring it out and post it. Too bad for you dick lips.

Anyway...here is what you said:

4. The Twin towers were a real estate failure of epic proportions and they wanted to get out of it. To do so and not raise suspicion they had to do something so shocking no one would ask questions. The cost to rent or lease there was astronomical and only a select few could afford it. Which brought their costs up even greater.

Well...again, how occupied were the twin towers? Do you know? I'm guessing not.

Talk about unimpressive....you define it loser.

 

[gslack]

This same concept and principles should be applied in 9/11 quests for truth as well. How did they fall?

How is very important, because only certain characters could achieve what was done, no matter what it was.

Now, there is an assumption there, or a minimization there because they did not fall, they went down.

Within an investigation there are 3 basic steps or questions.

1) What happened?
2) How did it happen?
3) Who did it?

Accordingly, it is well established that almost no one can say for sure what happened because they cannot say how it was done.

There are those that say because within what the false groups of peers know, definition of how it could happen is not feasible. So the perps agents try and conclude for the movement that it happened as the officials say it did.

In the case of 9-11 at the WTC there is another aspect that is neglected.

What did it happen to?

Ot what kind of structure went down?

okay I know you were trying to be quick and all and your intentions were to have sound debate, but in all fairness cutting the statement short is not accurate..

That aside, the how is only important IF it can lead to who and why. Which is what I said in the OP and follow-ups. Since we cannot reliably establish how, no matter the reasons, we must leave the "how" aside and move on to who and why. That was the entire point really...

As far as "fell" or "went down" thats a silly semantic point really. My choice of word there was not to make any implications regarding a specific "how" or manner. They fell, or came down, or were brought down by plotters or planes, how ever you wish to characterize it makes no difference to the point I was making...

The last part of your statement nearly mirrors what my point was so I am not sure what your point of contention is here...

From this we have to realize we cannot build a case based solely on the "how". No matter how much evidence,

Since nearly no one could describe how, that seems accurate but might not be because what happened has not been established, nor how it happened, nor what it happened to. Evidence is being excluded by the agents of the perps to disable explanation.

Again this as well mirrors the point in the OP regarding "how"....

2. The asbestos in the building since construction, foam flame/fire resistant and retardant materials which encased the cores and subsequent steel mainframes and supports made fire reaching and or effecting those steel beams highly improbable if not virtually impossible.

Here is the crux of my comment. There were no steel core columns in the core area.

Check the thread,

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...a-deceives-nation-about-twin-towers-core.html

You will find that there is not one image of steel core columns on 9-11 standing in the core area. I'm not sure of how much you know about structural steel, or structures but the core that was supposed to have stood would be seen in the core area after the exterior steel fell. It is not ever seen. I learned of the true core by viewing a 1990 PBS documentary that is now gone. There is evidence of it that has been found.

Update on search for missing PBS video by Dr. Ron Larsen.

Dude if you are about to tell me they built the entire core structure out of concrete, and packed them with C4 or Thermite during construction, I am sorry but you will have completely lost my support on this....

Even if the cores were not steel ( a first in skyscrapper construction to my knowledge) it is still just as you yourself pointed out earlier, "Accordingly, it is well established that almost no one can say for sure what happened because they cannot say how it was done." The how cannot be established at this time so arguing over core materials or the lack of them is trying to establish the "how" again...

From this we can plainly see that although important, the "how" must be considered irrelevant now. The fact is with every bit of evidence we can find, there will be an opposition and counter theory or reason for it.

There is only one theory for demo that is feasible. Of course the perps oppose it the concrete core, they must. They must work to promote the deception of steel core columns because then no one can describe HOW it was done.

There is no counter theory to the feasible explanation because the basis for what might be presented is false. Of course the perps agent will try and create substance with false peer groups, but there is never any material evidence supporting any aspect except of selected aspects that cannot be generally supported.

Again this points to and tries to establish "how", when you yourself said this was not possible at the current time. I really do believe you had more to say and most likely will..

 

[gslack]

While scrolling down through your tripe..I saw the following:



How occupied were the twin towers on 9/11/2001? Do you know?

Please show your math.

Thanks.

Why are you misquoting me?

You left the important part of that quote like a weasel juvenile delinquent.

my words http://www.usmessageboard.com/2227911-post3.html

Again we have our brief list of possible reasons why...

1. Money. Insurance money, stock market money, investment money, war money, you name it its all effected.

2. Control through fear. Oldest trick in the book of modern government. Used in every way imaginable to do nearly anything you can think of.

3. Support for a war. Another classic and old stand by since the first governments and leaders.

4. The Twin towers were a real estate failure of epic proportions and they wanted to get out of it. To do so and not raise suspicion they had to do something so shocking no one would ask questions. The cost to rent or lease there was astronomical and only a select few could afford it. Which brought their costs up even greater.

5. Asbestos removal costs were more than the real world value of the towers, and adding the costs to update them to current safety standards put the thing beyond any possible gain. So they again had to do something shocking to get out of it and recover some of their losses.

You want to quote me than do so correctly douchebag... You came in here and embarrassed yourself by not not reading the OP and making conclusions. And then to try and cover it up you resorted to trolling, and now you try and pretend you want to debate a real point of contention but you deliberately misrepresent what I said....

Just more nonsense and trolling from you..... Grow up punk we are not impressed..

So, 25-50,000 people worked in the towers. Fact.
Where are all of the law-suits about these office workers being exposed to the supposed asbestos for the last 35 years? Hmm?

Nice dodge by the way to try to walk away from the fact that you don't know anything about how occupied or not occupied they were...otherwise you'd bring it out and post it. Too bad for you dick lips.

Anyway...here is what you said:

4. The Twin towers were a real estate failure of epic proportions and they wanted to get out of it. To do so and not raise suspicion they had to do something so shocking no one would ask questions. The cost to rent or lease there was astronomical and only a select few could afford it. Which brought their costs up even greater.

Well...again, how occupied were the twin towers? Do you know? I'm guessing not.

Talk about unimpressive....you define it loser.

Well retard until you can address me with respect, and quote me accurately instead of trolling like a juvenile, I have no intentions of addressing you with anything other than contempt.

You can't just come in and pretend the OP or points mean what you say, despite the truth showing differently, and expect anyone to take you seriously or evenbother with your stupid ass.... Grow up punk...

 

[gslack]

This will be the very last chance I give you candycorn

So make the most of it....

First, The use of asbestos in the towers is common knowledge.... They all used it back then as an insulation and fire retardant.

9/11 Asbestos Exposure, Ground Zero Mesothelioma & Dangers of Asbestos, 9/11 Buildings & Twin Towers Asbestos

Asbestos and the World Trade Center

The threat of asbestos | Science and Technology | BBC World Service

As far as lawsuits for exposure, who knows why there weren't or even if there were? Perhaps they didn't get direct exposure because the asbestos was in the cores and structure beams and the rest was removed once the news of its hazardous properties was released? Maybe they were settled out of court for money. or maybe the effects of asbestos, when not inhaled directly like the safety workers went through, were over stated... Who knows and more importantly what difference does it make?

It makes no difference at all, the fact is there was asbestos used in its construction, and the fact it was on the core structure and support beams made removing it very difficult and costly. In fact the costs could have been more than the value of the building when it was all said and done, we just don't know.

And the fact we just don't know was the entire point I was making when I said "possible reasons why""....

Now if you are done being a child and want to discuss my OP or debate its points logically, cite and quote me correctly without misrepresenting it..

 

[candycorn]

This will be the very last chance I give you candycorn

So make the most of it....

Wow, you're not going to post to me anymore? Gee, I wouldn't want that to happen gasleak. LOL.

First, The use of asbestos in the towers is common knowledge.... They all used it back then as an insulation and fire retardant.

9/11 Asbestos Exposure, Ground Zero Mesothelioma & Dangers of Asbestos, 9/11 Buildings & Twin Towers Asbestos

Asbestos and the World Trade Center

The threat of asbestos | Science and Technology | BBC World Service

As far as lawsuits for exposure, who knows why there weren't or even if there were? Perhaps they didn't get direct exposure because the asbestos was in the cores and structure beams and the rest was removed once the news of its hazardous properties was released? Maybe they were settled out of court for money. or maybe the effects of asbestos, when not inhaled directly like the safety workers went through, were over stated... Who knows and more importantly what difference does it make?

The remediation of immediate concerns is much more expensive than the remediation of less urgent matters. Theres this thing in business called "cost". Look it up. If there are no pending lawsuits which you pretty much agree...if there are no huge backlog of cases as you pretty much agree...the remediation issue (if any) was not apparently urgent.

It makes no difference at all, the fact is there was asbestos used in its construction, and the fact it was on the core structure and support beams made removing it very difficult and costly.

Gee, to hear every other conspiracy whackjob here, the core was easily accessed and held a jillion tons of thermite. Asbestos too? Wow!

In fact the costs could have been more than the value of the building when it was all said and done, we just don't know.

And it could have been very low...you just don't know. Way to drive home a point there.

And the fact we just don't know was the entire point I was making when I said "possible reasons why""....

Yawn!

Now if you are done being a child and want to discuss my OP or debate its points logically, cite and quote me correctly without misrepresenting it..

Why discuss shit with you...its all "we don't know" Take a stand beeotch and let us destroy you like a "man" that you hope to someday be.

 

[gslack]

This will be the very last chance I give you candycorn

So make the most of it....

Wow, you're not going to post to me anymore? Gee, I wouldn't want that to happen gasleak. LOL.

First, The use of asbestos in the towers is common knowledge.... They all used it back then as an insulation and fire retardant.

9/11 Asbestos Exposure, Ground Zero Mesothelioma & Dangers of Asbestos, 9/11 Buildings & Twin Towers Asbestos

Asbestos and the World Trade Center

The threat of asbestos | Science and Technology | BBC World Service

As far as lawsuits for exposure, who knows why there weren't or even if there were? Perhaps they didn't get direct exposure because the asbestos was in the cores and structure beams and the rest was removed once the news of its hazardous properties was released? Maybe they were settled out of court for money. or maybe the effects of asbestos, when not inhaled directly like the safety workers went through, were over stated... Who knows and more importantly what difference does it make?

The remediation of immediate concerns is much more expensive than the remediation of less urgent matters. Theres this thing in business called "cost". Look it up. If there are no pending lawsuits which you pretty much agree...if there are no huge backlog of cases as you pretty much agree...the remediation issue (if any) was not apparently urgent.



Gee, to hear every other conspiracy whackjob here, the core was easily accessed and held a jillion tons of thermite. Asbestos too? Wow!


And it could have been very low...you just don't know. Way to drive home a point there.

And the fact we just don't know was the entire point I was making when I said "possible reasons why""....

Yawn!

Now if you are done being a child and want to discuss my OP or debate its points logically, cite and quote me correctly without misrepresenting it..

Why discuss shit with you...its all "we don't know" Take a stand beeotch and let us destroy you like a "man" that you hope to someday be.

OK douchebag you just wasted your last chance with me.... You have no point, you lack the ability to discuss this logically, and you lack the maturity to shut the fuck up and just go away....

We are done now.... Post all you want and you will get no response from me. I do not respond to spoiled children with no manners, and I do not empower trolls....

Everyone gets chances with me to a point. Once that is reached I am done with them....

Good by troll boy...

 

[gslack]

Candycorn has earned the distinction of being the first person I have ignored here.... My reason is, he has shown himself to be without character and useless in every sense. I would suggest the rest of you who wish to have debate without the ramblings of a child pent on being disruptive destroying all possibility of that, do the same....

 

[Christophera]

Concrete can be easily fractured by a small amount of properly placed high explosives and it will fall freely.

What do you see? All concrete.

Never on 9-11 do you see steel core columns in the core area. Those using official information without question have no explanation for anything.

FEMA deception​

 

[candycorn]

This will be the very last chance I give you candycorn

So make the most of it....

Wow, you're not going to post to me anymore? Gee, I wouldn't want that to happen gasleak. LOL.



The remediation of immediate concerns is much more expensive than the remediation of less urgent matters. Theres this thing in business called "cost". Look it up. If there are no pending lawsuits which you pretty much agree...if there are no huge backlog of cases as you pretty much agree...the remediation issue (if any) was not apparently urgent.



Gee, to hear every other conspiracy whackjob here, the core was easily accessed and held a jillion tons of thermite. Asbestos too? Wow!


And it could have been very low...you just don't know. Way to drive home a point there.



Yawn!

Now if you are done being a child and want to discuss my OP or debate its points logically, cite and quote me correctly without misrepresenting it..

Why discuss shit with you...its all "we don't know" Take a stand beeotch and let us destroy you like a "man" that you hope to someday be.

OK douchebag you just wasted your last chance with me.... You have no point, you lack the ability to discuss this logically, and you lack the maturity to shut the fuck up and just go away....

We are done now.... Post all you want and you will get no response from me. I do not respond to spoiled children with no manners, and I do not empower trolls....

Everyone gets chances with me to a point. Once that is reached I am done with them....

Good by troll boy...

It's spelled "good bye" dipshit.

You don't have to answer me.....

You do have to eventually answer the questions though if you want your whack job movement to get off of the starting point where it has rested comfortably for the last 8+ years.

Thats fine.

Oh by the way, why did you respond to tell me you were not going to be responding? LOL I'd miss you wisdom...if only you had some.

 

[eots]

cornywhores

 

[gslack]

Concrete can be easily fractured by a small amount of properly placed high explosives and it will fall freely.

What do you see? All concrete.

Never on 9-11 do you see steel core columns in the core area. Those using official information without question have no explanation for anything.

FEMA deception​

The entire structure was made of concrete and steel. So to take a picture like that and try to make any claim regarding core steel or the lack of it is futile.

Also I believe you are working under some assumptions made a few of the more zealous groups out there. Groups who have no greater idea in mind than to sell their theory on it.

1. The "cores" are spoken of as large steel beams. The fact is, the actual core beams were made up of several connected beams, then filled and wrapped in concrete. As seen in this picture from the construction...

Carefully looking at the center, you can see it is solid and not hollow. That is because, as they built a certain number of floors up, they would then pour the concrete up to that point. This was the process, and and at the time a pretty radical departure from the classic skyscraper construction. Remember the twin towers were a new concept and not all of its constructions methods would become the modern standard or even be used beyond the towers.

You can plainly see in the picture that the "giant" steel cores, are in reality a lattice work of steel girders and supports thatched together to form a caged chamber that was then filled with concrete.

The problems with some of the theories out there are the way they are scrapped together from bits of knowledge from all over. They take of a fact and then they make assumptions to fill in the blanks. Then they may make sweeping statements or claims based on that patchy knowledge.

They ask "where are the giant steel core?". When in reality there weren't "giant steel cores" but rather a lattice work of steel supports filled with concrete. And thats why you don't see giant steel beams so many feet across or high at ground zero. The actual steel was big, but it wasn't an unheard of size for the time and type of structure. The cores they helped form however, were another matter. But those being a lattice work they came apart at their seams just like anything else would in such situation.

And then you have your extreme cases who take those errors already discussed and try to add to it, or make their theory unique and stand out. They will ask questions about the same already assumed steel cores and then add things like claims of concrete construction instead steel. They are technically right, but then so are the giant steel core theorists as well. The real truth is something in the middle, but the either way there is no giant steel core and the cores were not actually concrete either.

Then we have the real problem... People who for some reason have to take the embellishments and logical fallacies of the first two we mentioned, and add extreme conjecture to it all. Like claims the concrete cores were packed with explosives during construction, or the concrete itself was not really concrete but some kind of explosive material. Or the fantastical one about thermite added to the joints and support connections during construction.... This kind of thing helps no one and does an immeasurable amount of harm to everyone. I wish these people would stop and realize their ill-conceived and fantastical theories and flights of science -fiction casts an air of doubt on all who wish to understand this better. And keeps support at bay from many who may have otherwise been shown the real problems.

 

[candycorn]

Concrete can be easily fractured by a small amount of properly placed high explosives and it will fall freely.

What do you see? All concrete.

Never on 9-11 do you see steel core columns in the core area. Those using official information without question have no explanation for anything.

FEMA deception​

The entire structure was made of concrete and steel. So to take a picture like that and try to make any claim regarding core steel or the lack of it is futile.

Also I believe you are working under some assumptions made a few of the more zealous groups out there. Groups who have no greater idea in mind than to sell their theory on it.

1. The "cores" are spoken of as large steel beams. The fact is, the actual core beams were made up of several connected beams, then filled and wrapped in concrete. As seen in this picture from the construction...

Carefully looking at the center, you can see it is solid and not hollow. That is because, as they built a certain number of floors up, they would then pour the concrete up to that point. This was the process, and and at the time a pretty radical departure from the classic skyscraper construction. Remember the twin towers were a new concept and not all of its constructions methods would become the modern standard or even be used beyond the towers.

You can plainly see in the picture that the "giant" steel cores, are in reality a lattice work of steel girders and supports thatched together to form a caged chamber that was then filled with concrete.

The problems with some of the theories out there are the way they are scrapped together from bits of knowledge from all over. They take of a fact and then they make assumptions to fill in the blanks. Then they may make sweeping statements or claims based on that patchy knowledge.

They ask "where are the giant steel core?". When in reality there weren't "giant steel cores" but rather a lattice work of steel supports filled with concrete. And thats why you don't see giant steel beams so many feet across or high at ground zero. The actual steel was big, but it wasn't an unheard of size for the time and type of structure. The cores they helped form however, were another matter. But those being a lattice work they came apart at their seams just like anything else would in such situation.

And then you have your extreme cases who take those errors already discussed and try to add to it, or make their theory unique and stand out. They will ask questions about the same already assumed steel cores and then add things like claims of concrete construction instead steel. They are technically right, but then so are the giant steel core theorists as well. The real truth is something in the middle, but the either way there is no giant steel core and the cores were not actually concrete either.

Then we have the real problem... People who for some reason have to take the embellishments and logical fallacies of the first two we mentioned, and add extreme conjecture to it all. Like claims the concrete cores were packed with explosives during construction, or the concrete itself was not really concrete but some kind of explosive material. Or the fantastical one about thermite added to the joints and support connections during construction.... This kind of thing helps no one and does an immeasurable amount of harm to everyone. I wish these people would stop and realize their ill-conceived and fantastical theories and flights of science -fiction casts an air of doubt on all who wish to understand this better. And keeps support at bay from many who may have otherwise been shown the real problems.

Doesn't hurt me,

I love every looney claim you crackpots make about stuff like this.
Phone calls from passengers on the flights are another matter of course.

 

[gslack]

This message is hidden because candycorn is on your ignore list.

Unruly spoiled children who cannot nor will not take the time to first, read what they are going to complain about, or even understand what thee OP or subsequent posts say or mean; are not tolerated.....