Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ Research _ Site Claims Concrete Core Columns In Towers

Posted by: maturin42 May 17 2007, 02:17 PM

QUOTE
From: xxx <xxxx>
Date: May 17, 2007 10:18:41 AM EDT
To: <maturin42@comcast.net>
...
Subject: RE: Request comment

Shelton - Thanks for this info. There is some very interesting analysis here about the controlled demolition. Very different. I have never seen a credible story about concrete cores in the WTC. It contradicts everything I have seen so far - including the WTC drawings that we have. But I will take a closer look at the 23 pages here.

xxx - have you seen this web site http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
and the claim that the cores were actually concrete at east in parts?

Thanks guys,

xxx

-----Original Message-----
From: maturin42@comcast.net [mailto:maturin42@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 6:38 AM
To:xxx
Subject: Request comment

Name:   Shelton Lankford

Comment: A new site http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
presents a far different version of the central core columns of the towers than my understanding to date. I would appreciate an evaluation of this version of the tower construction and its validity. I have viewed (your) presentation more than once and think it is a powerful contribution to the discussion.

Thanks,

SFL


This is an email exchange between me and xxxxxx. I received the link for the site in question from xxx. Comments are solicited. I removed the names because I have not received permission to post the exchange.
Thanks,
SFL pilotfly.gif

Posted by: chucksheen May 17 2007, 07:49 PM

I'd love to see what Richard Gage and members of http://ae911truth.org thinks about this.

Posted by: maturin42 May 18 2007, 03:13 PM

I sent the link to Richard Gage at AE911T, who consulted with Jim Hoffman. Here is Jim Hoffman's take on it:

QUOTE
From: jim hoffman [mailto:james.t.hoffman@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 10:42 AM
To: Richard Gage
Subject: Re: Request comment

Richard,

I think the point of the 'concrete core guy' is to waste our time.  He posts as 'christophera'
on the STJ forum, and has been banned from the scientific analysis section because of
his abuse of the guidlines.

-Jim


Richard said he would look into it further.

Posted by: painter May 18 2007, 03:39 PM

QUOTE (maturin42 @ May 18 2007, 11:13 AM)
I sent the link to Richard Gage at AE911T, who consulted with Jim Hoffman. Here is Jim Hoffman's take on it:

QUOTE
From: jim hoffman [mailto:james.t.hoffman@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 10:42 AM
To: Richard Gage
Subject: Re: Request comment

Richard,

I think the point of the 'concrete core guy' is to waste our time. He posts as 'christophera'
on the STJ forum, and has been banned from the scientific analysis section because of
his abuse of the guidlines.

-Jim


Richard said he would look into it further.

christophera has been at this 'concrete core' crap for years -- I mean literally, years! I had the pleasure of banning him at the LCF1. I think he is totally bat sh*t buggy.



I guess they poured the "concrete core" after the built the structure. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Sanders May 18 2007, 04:43 PM

In a way, it was a steel-reinforced concrete core. --- Concrete reinforced with 47 foot and a half wide steel box columns spanning the length of the towers, honey-combed with elevator shafts and stairwells, that is doh1.gif.

(disclaimer - don't know for sure how wide they all were, or even if all 47 in each tower were box columns or if some were I-beams... not an expert on this.)

Posted by: Christophera Mar 12 2014, 08:31 PM

QUOTE (Sanders @ May 16 2007, 07:43 PM) *
In a way, it was a steel-reinforced concrete core. --- Concrete reinforced with 47 foot and a half wide steel box columns spanning the length of the towers, honey-combed with elevator shafts and stairwells, that is doh1.gif.

(disclaimer - don't know for sure how wide they all were, or even if all 47 in each tower were box columns or if some were I-beams... not an expert on this.)


All claims of steel core columns fail to produce images from 9-11 of steel columns in the core. All columns seen are surrounding the core. Steel in the core has no diagonals, no beams, no gusset plates. It is elevator guide rail support steel.

FEMA is not created under the constitution and they misrepresented the structure to NIST who had no plans because guiliani took them illegally. See my site for documentation which you all know exists but omit from your posts. This is a report by an structural engineer certified in 12 states hired by FEMA 2 weeks after 9-11. He saw the plans before guiliani took them. He describes a concrete core.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images3/domel-www.ncsea.down%2327D39A.pdf

This page has the full deception of; gage, hoffman etc. working in concert with the FEMA misinformation.

http://algoxy.com/conc/fema_deception.html

Posted by: MikeR Mar 13 2014, 11:48 AM

QUOTE (Christophera @ Mar 13 2014, 12:31 PM) *
All claims of steel core columns fail to produce images from 9-11 of steel columns in the core. All columns seen are surrounding the core. Steel in the core has no diagonals, no beams, no gusset plates. It is elevator guide rail support steel.

FEMA is not created under the constitution and they misrepresented the structure to NIST who had no plans because guiliani took them illegally. See my site for documentation which you all know exists but omit from your posts. This is a report by an structural engineer certified in 12 states hired by FEMA 2 weeks after 9-11. He saw the plans before guiliani took them. He describes a concrete core.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images3/domel-www.ncsea.down%2327D39A.pdf

This page has the full deception of; gage, hoffman etc. working in concert with the FEMA misinformation.

http://algoxy.com/conc/fema_deception.html


Dunno if http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/cons/site1099.jpg shows enough steel
to dispel doubts about concrete being any culprit (of whatever misdemeanor this thread envisaged) ...
and I'm only a mere architect so don't expect me to say too much about airplane-resistant engineering
as it might apply to any of the 3 Twin Towers.

I would absolutely insist on one (hopefully ON-topic) point: THE most significant 9/11 fact which so many of US
completely fail to understand.... is (NOT) seen in this http://www.september11news.com/JamesNachtweyTime_search2.jpg

The photo was taken before any steel got forensically stolen from a crime scene:
the photo clearly shows there is NO TOWER on the ground.

Is that really what we would have expected?

No NO NO.... and when the perpeTRAITOR saw the building had vanished into thin air ...
the 9/11 Scriptwriter was forced to improvise an apocryphal chapter on shipping steel to China.

This is the problem with conducting a military DEW ballistics WMD weapons test in public.

It's not just schoolboy plane spotters with black note books and batphones that
HQ has to answer to.

We the People demand to know why the rubble pile was so small...
we still need to know Where Did the Towers Go?

The longer the powers that be ignore the question, the harder it is for them
to deny the Depleted Energy Weapon ... or whatever in hades Hit US all that day

Mike

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Mar 13 2014, 06:36 PM

QUOTE (Christophera @ Mar 12 2014, 01:31 PM) *
All claims of steel core columns fail to produce images from 9-11 of steel columns in the core. All columns seen are surrounding the core. Steel in the core has no diagonals, no beams, no gusset plates. It is elevator guide rail support steel.

I recommend you to watch this video:


And this 1983 documentary quite explicitely talking about and showing the steel core:

(2nd part https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCbu3CvD3h8 - the documentary is also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6rwcJCDoFM and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XcwIlrGv0c)

From the videos (showing the complicated vertical/horizontal steel core structure in-construction on multiple instances) it looks to me like a firm conclusion that the WTC towers indeed had the steel cores consistent with the http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/table.html seems quite inevitable.
So I really wonder for what reason somebody invests so much time and effort to claim otherwise. Does somebody pay for such apparently persistent delusional perseveration or does it somebody even for free?dunno.gif

Posted by: amazed! Mar 14 2014, 08:47 AM

QUOTE (MikeR @ Mar 13 2014, 11:48 AM) *
Dunno if http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/cons/site1099.jpg shows enough steel
to dispel doubts about concrete being any culprit (of whatever misdemeanor this thread envisaged) ...
and I'm only a mere architect so don't expect me to say too much about airplane-resistant engineering
as it might apply to any of the 3 Twin Towers.

I would absolutely insist on one (hopefully ON-topic) point: THE most significant 9/11 fact which so many of US
completely fail to understand.... is (NOT) seen in this http://www.september11news.com/JamesNachtweyTime_search2.jpg

The photo was taken before any steel got forensically stolen from a crime scene:
the photo clearly shows there is NO TOWER on the ground.

Is that really what we would have expected?

No NO NO.... and when the perpeTRAITOR saw the building had vanished into thin air ...
the 9/11 Scriptwriter was forced to improvise an apocryphal chapter on shipping steel to China.

This is the problem with conducting a military DEW ballistics WMD weapons test in public.

It's not just schoolboy plane spotters with black note books and batphones that
HQ has to answer to.

We the People demand to know why the rubble pile was so small...
we still need to know Where Did the Towers Go?

The longer the powers that be ignore the question, the harder it is for them
to deny the Depleted Energy Weapon ... or whatever in hades Hit US all that day

Mike


All these years later, after having read Prager's ebook "America Nuked" (I think that's the proper title), I am convinced that nuclear devices were employed at WTC that day. The nuclear theory is the only one that explains everything that was observed there.

Posted by: Omega892R09 Apr 6 2014, 07:37 AM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Mar 12 2014, 10:47 AM) *
I am convinced that nuclear devices were employed at WTC that day.

Colour me stupid but I tend to agree, probably in the basements along with a few other types of devices such as shaped thermite etc. for cutting members higher up.

I also think that maybe the earlier incident was a test run to see how well some devices performed.

Posted by: NP1Mike Apr 6 2014, 02:00 PM

QUOTE (MikeR @ Mar 13 2014, 10:48 AM) *
The photo was taken before any steel got forensically stolen from a crime scene:
the photo clearly shows there is NO TOWER on the ground.

Is that really what we would have expected?

No NO NO.... and when the perpeTRAITOR saw the building had vanished into thin air ...
the 9/11 Scriptwriter was forced to improvise an apocryphal chapter on shipping steel to China.



Are you trying to say that a collapsing 110 story skyscraper isn't supposed to disintegrate into dust before it 'hits' the ground?

I thought it was just common sense that it would.

The fact that there wasn't public outcry denouncing the lack of a debris pile surely means they also feel the same way.


Posted by: amazed! Apr 6 2014, 04:20 PM

QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Apr 6 2014, 07:37 AM) *
Colour me stupid but I tend to agree, probably in the basements along with a few other types of devices such as shaped thermite etc. for cutting members higher up.

I also think that maybe the earlier incident was a test run to see how well some devices performed.



I think it's the only possible explanation so far. And it explains all the highly irregular things we saw--burnt vehicles and far more.

But the final straw is the later developing epidemiology regarding those who worked at Ground Zero. Ain't it cute they would use that name? Almost rubbing our face in it.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)