The Movement, Social Fears, Economy, The Future, (IOW- concrete & WTC ), merged Options

[Christophera]

Where's the rebar in the photo? I don't see any.

Correct. I feel the C4 coating and optimized pressures were enough to badly erode the bar and break it into smallish pieces. I have no idea of how big but small enough to be carried away with the concrete particulate.

Coming out of the top of the core base wall there is the huge 6 inch rebar that was used in the foundation and it is coiled up on top of the core wall at its base. That bar extended through the core base wall with a few pieces into the bottom of the core wall a short ways to strengthen the cold joint between the two pieces.

When the core walls did not detonate the huge rebar was left standing. WTC 1 had a wall where vertical rebar was exposed to bad winter weather and lost viability (The Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers mentioned a work stoppage determining that the "special anti corrosion, vibration resistant" plastic coating had deteriorated) immediately after the spire fell. Fresh horizontal bar installed in spring detonated removing the concrete to expose the bar we see. That deterioration led to the formation of the spire generally.

(IMG:http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)

This post has been edited by Christophera: Feb 18 2009, 03:36 AM

[Sanders]

I was talking about the top photo, during construction. I've seen reinforced concrete buildings going up, I watched one next door to me from my 11th story window for a year ... it's all rebar - they create, floor by floor, an intricate skeleton of rebar, build the plywood frames, pour, raise the cranes and start again. It looks nothing like the photos of WTC under construction.

I'm not saying concrete wasn't poured in around those steel column structures, or that there wasn't any concrete used in the core ... I don't know, but I don't see any rebar in any of the construction photos I've seen.

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif)

[Christophera]

I was talking about the top photo, during construction. I've seen reinforced concrete buildings going up, I watched one next door to me from my 11th story window for a year ... it's all rebar - they create, floor by floor, an intricate skeleton of rebar, build the plywood frames, pour, raise the cranes and start again. It looks nothing like the photos of WTC under construction.

I'm not saying concrete wasn't poured in around those steel column structures, or that there wasn't any concrete used in the core ... I don't know, but I don't see any rebar in any of the construction photos I've seen.

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif)

Yes, both towers had the concrete core being built inside the steel exoskeleton. WTC 2 started that way and WTC 1 was that way after the 4th floor. The perps have a great situation to conduct this deception, particulary with all the concrete turned into sand and gravel.

Contemplating the concrete from the completely filtered image base of construction photos is a designed loser. This, is an area where 9-11 is not addressed structurally in anything the truth movement uses. In fact, this is the only image of either towers core from 9-11, and my web site is the ONLY one to use it. Ask yourself this, why is that?

(IMG:http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)

Why is that none talk about guliani taking the WTC documents, or L. Robertsons statement on September 13, 2001? Consistent huh?

[Christophera]

This thread is the type of thread that should be auxiliary to every 9-11 forum, if, those discussing how to get 9-11 truth actually want it. Inversely, how much time should we spend debating useless information and is the discussion of the exact uses one that that should be mandatory after it is determined that the information is indeed valid before allowing it to continue to dominate forums?

This thread is like an operation manual for a given piece of information in order to make it serve the purpose it is supposed to have.

Accordingly, after a given issue is shown to have substance, the question becomes How useful is it to gaining more truth, and how is it used.

I of course have my own information that I believe is useful and can easily define how and why it would be used by the appropriate authorities.

Realistically, all information presented in a forum that is dedicated to creating more truth relating to 9-11 must be useful or it is a waste of time. Also, functionally, the horse is placed in front of the cart, so much information that is well verified might not be information that can be used by officials today who might be willing to address issues of 9-11 because they are not compelled to to do so.

With that in mind, information and issue that has a compulsory nature with regard to official action is the most functional and this thread is to identify ANY of that which exists with the members here and exactly how it might be used to gain more truth.

[Christophera]

Whoever controls your perception of reality controls you. The operational decisions you make in your life will be based upon what you believe to be true whether it is true or not.

The above is true in the moment but there the exception of using a reason based testing of perceptions to determine if they are correct and consistent with other related perceptions of reality. If they are correct then projections can be made and investigated for accuracy and consistency over yet a greater array of related perceptions of reality over a longer time period. At that point there is strong likelihood that those specific perceptions of reality are accurate and that operational decisions based in those beliefs reasonably established by the aforementioned, defined processing of perceptions will be well made and in long term service to our purposes.

The process defined is how liars are apprehended and how we avoid being constantly exploited by them. The failures adhere to the axiom, "you can fool some of the people some of time but not all of the people all of the time."

Given that James Randi is/was a master magician who knew well the slight-of-hand tricks of directed attention, it is beyond ironic that those associated with his name spend so much time trying to prove that those of us who question the 9/11 narrative are a bunch of loony-toon idiots. WAY beyond ironic.

In accord with the exception I point out, the members of randi.org were utterly unable to be sure they were anywhere near having full control of the objective readers perceptions and this resulted in such incongruity with their self delusions that they had to produce a major ad hominum targeting me. It really is a strange honor in a way because there are some very sharp people there with technical engineering experience in construction and I defeated them soundly, then, later, because of a very long term test I saw that I could apply and did, I defeated them spiritually and they banned me before I could post on the board and point out the new and in some ways very relevant and important to them, establish dominant defeat.

They, or at least one member, have made me famous in an inverted fashion by producing a massive ad hominum video and uploading it to youtube in an effort to compensate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYPco_Pr5Sw

What is very curious is that prior to that they were calling me an idiot at the rate of about 20 per page, finally I asked them if any actually knew the true and original meaning of idiot. They did not. After 5 pages or so I explained to them that "idiot" comes from the greek word "Id" and that ideas and idiots came from the same place but an idiot is completely controlled like a robot and unable to use the cognitive process of the ego to understand things as they really are. So the video is a sign of a double shame for them in that they could not use reason and had no evidence, to defeat the information of the concrete core, then they had to make the video to downplay their failure or inability to know the meaning of the word idiot they used most often to use in there ad hominum generally, collectively against anything that defeats their beliefs.

I'm reminded of the old Jedi Mind trick: "These Aren't The Droid's You're Looking For." A) Do no research of your own, accept fully and unquestioningly proclamations from media and government sources as truthful and factual; B) Denigrate any research that questions accepted opinion as "foolish"; C) Keep all questions mired in endless debate, the more detailed the better, such that nothing can be determined as factual, only a matter of "opinion,"; and D) When all else fails, lie your ass off, obfuscate and endlessly move the goal posts of "what determines fact".

SWEEET!

Yes, that is a completely appropriate description of what they try to do at randi.org.

I noticed a very strange reaction when I made a powerfully correct point and defeated them on an important issue, they collectively reacted by posting pictures of cats, beer bottle counting songs and baking recipes. Once the postings were so weird, almost alien to our way of life, I posted something that I've suspected for some time that asserted they had confirmed with their cat posts,which appeared as sort of strange stress relief for them, the fact that they lived in underground cave/cities and the closest thing they knew to the real world on the surface was kittens.

A profound silence ensued. Absolutely out of character as a reaction to anything I had ever said previously.

[dMz]

I'm reminded of the old Jedi Mind trick: "These Aren't The Droid's You're Looking For."

Neuro Linguistic Programming, and I would expect that the CSICOP's (often rumored to be CIA affiliated) such as Mr. Randi would be versed in it. Does the $2500 per phone call Mr. Randi even post at his namesake forum?

http://www.isgp.eu/dutroux/Belgian_X_dossi...roux_affair.htm

"Critical thinking" indeed...

[dMz]

The lead engineer identified a concrete core 2 days after 9-11 for an interview with Newsweek magazine.


September 13, 2001
Leslie Robertson, Architect Of The World Trade Center Towers

Still, Robertson, whose firm is responsible for three of the six tallest buildings in the world, feels a sense of pride that the massive towers, supported by a steel-tube exoskeleton and a reinforced concrete core, held up as well as they did—managing to stand for over an hour despite direct hits from two massive commercial jetliners.

Says engineer Robertson, "If they had fallen down immediately, the death counts would have been unimaginable," he says. "The World Trade Center has performed admirably, and everyone involved in the project should be proud." The buildings were designed specifically to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, the largest plane flying in 1966, the year they broke ground on the project.

The MSNBC bit above appears to be incorrect. According to this page, the architect of the World Trade Center was Minoru Yamasaki:

http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Wo...ade_Center.html

This page would suggest that Robertson was a junior structural engineer at the firm, as his name was not listed in the title of "Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson"

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

I don't think one will find the name "Robertson" on the North Tower prints here (I didn't on the ones that I reviewed):

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/table.html

[Christophera]

The MSNBC bit above appears to be incorrect. According to this page, the architect of the World Trade Center was Minoru Yamasaki:

http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Wo...ade_Center.html

This page would suggest that Robertson was a junior structural engineer at the firm, as his name was not listed in the title of "Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson"

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

I don't think one will find the name "Robertson" on the North Tower prints here (I didn't on the ones that I reviewed):

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/table.html

Yes, he was a relatively junior partner throughout. It was his design that went to Yamaski, that exact design is what the silvertein plans show. It had steel box columns in the core. I think the exact structure of his status was inadequately and erronously conveyed in the article, but otherwise the information of the towers structure is good.

[dMz]

Here is an answer to a query of painters regarding the use of concrete cores in tall towers.

[i]ABSTRACTTwin 451.9 m (1482 ft) tall towers just completed in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ...

This link is broken, and I didn't see a (late 1960s-early 1970s) date listed.

If you mean the Petronas Towers, they were completed in 1998. I would call them an anachronistic reference and not WTC-pertinent. 30 years can change a lot of technology- look at composites and nanotechnology, for example.

http://www.allaboutskyscrapers.com/sp.petronastowers.htm

This part was interesting though:

"...recognition for the unprecedented achievement of reaching these heights in a mostly reinforced concrete building..." [Re: the Petronas Towers and bold emphasis mine]

[Christophera]

Neuro Linguistic Programming, and I would expect that the CSICOP's (often rumored to be CIA affiliated) such as Mr. Randi would be versed in it. Does the $2500 per phone call Mr. Randi even post at his namesake forum?

I doubt it. If he does it is under another name.

post='10765007']http://www.isgp.eu/dutroux/Belgian_X_dossi...roux_affair.htm

"Critical thinking" indeed...

Unfortunately dark forces know how to structure the mind at an early age to be somewhat compliant, and ultimately allow usage that reinforces the secrecy of others with blackmail if they don't continue to enjoy what they were taught to.

MKultra here has almost the exact atrributes in the US if many of its more questionable, bizarre aspects can be believed.

This post has been edited by Christophera: Feb 20 2009, 10:08 AM

[Christophera]

This link is broken, and I didn't see a (late 1960s-early 1970s) date listed.

If you mean the Petronas Towers, they were completed in 1998. I would call them an anachronistic reference and not WTC-pertinent. 30 years can change a lot of technology- look at composites and nanotechnology, for example.

http://www.allaboutskyscrapers.com/sp.petronastowers.htm

This part was interesting though:

"...recognition for the unprecedented achievement of reaching these heights in a mostly reinforced concrete building..." [Re: the Petronas Towers and bold emphasis mine]

I see quite a bit of collusion in placing spin on the advent and advantage of the concrete core all to suggest that they are newer. For example the freedom tower, "If only the old twins had a concrete core". What bullshit.
Frank De Martini was one that used the "window" screen anology that certainly doesn't refer to the structural steel exterior steel columns. It refers to the rebar grid inside the concrete walls. Just like a window screen, but he stopped short of the full description. Why? Spin, and he died in the towers. I think he was a straight shooter and they wanted him gone because he wouldn't have gone along with the deception.

Each corrupt agency needs a front man like that they can use then sacrifice when it becomes too critical and their personal integrity, well known, can be counted to NOT go along with the scam.

This post has been edited by Christophera: Feb 20 2009, 10:12 AM

[dMz]

MKultra here has almost the exact atrributes here in the US if many of its more questionable, bizarre aspects can be believed.

If even a small percentage of the reports about the Franklin Coverup, the Presidio affair, etc. is accurate, then monsters like Lt. Col. Michael Aquino are truly psychopaths. His essay MindWar is sometimes available on the net and would be applicable here, but I don't like to read it very often.

I highly recommend John de Camp's book The Franklin Coverup, but it isn't a very cheery story. I thought there was a link around here somewhere, but my search just now kept finding Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Dave McGowan has a similar (if extremely dark) book that I have recommended here before.

Some of the rumors about "shadow men" and Operation Phoenix in Vietnam are eerily similar (from my conversations with veterans who were "in country").

[dMz]

Photos of box columns at ground are common. What is conclusive is images from 9-11 that show steel columns in the core area itself. Thiis the only known image of either towers core standing clearly without any exterior steel. It can only be concrete. Not one stick of structural steel is visible, there was none.

(IMG:http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)

I don't really think that is a conclusive photo (with all the dust/smoke). Various militaries do use smoke grenades, exhaust fuel injection, and other "obscurants" for good reason after all. Perhaps one of the Aman Zafar very-high res photos has something. I've posted a rough chronological list at post #12:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10742206

Also, the link to the Leslie E. Roberson quoted post is here:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...amp;#entry78752

I think it was Swing Dangler who posted these WTC construction photos on the AT thread:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...s/wtccons2.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...news-record.htm

It looks like steel going in to me (and I've worked with steel for 20+ years), and I've posted my photos of the heavy steel column lying at Ground Zero. With all those thousands of employees, I would think there would be dozens of maintenance workers who had access to the core areas of WTC1 & 2, but I'm not a New Yorker and don't know any personally. I did meet a welder a while back who did some cleanup work, and he was running cutting torches until FEMA booted him out (complete with Non Disclosure Agreements that he didn't ask for). I lost contact with this metalworker though.

A shattered concrete core would certainly explain some of the copious dust. I am fairly convinced that (4 inches IIRC of) low-density concrete was used on top of the steel floor pans, and I think NIST handwaved the effect this concrete would have on an aircraft fuselage when coming up with their "core damage" computer models.

[Sanders]

Regarding concrete's use as a primary structural material (in a building that tall) before the Petronas Towers having been unprecedented, it's not 'bullshit'. As I alluded to earlier in the thread, the concrete used in the construction of those towers in the late 90s was specially formulated. Concrete was readily available in Malaysia and steel was not - they did it for economic reasons. They spent a lot of time and money in order to create a formulae that would stand up to the stress levels required, and a lot of care went in controlling the production of the concrete to those exact specifications - otherwise it wouldn't have been safe.

[Christophera]

I don't really think that is a conclusive photo (with all the dust/smoke). Various militaries do use smoke grenades, exhaust fuel injection, and other "obscurants" for good reason after all. Perhaps one of the Aman Zafar very-high res photos has something. I've posted a rough chronological list at post #12:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10742206

Also, the link to the Leslie E. Roberson quoted post is here:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...amp;#entry78752

I think it was Swing Dangler who posted these WTC construction photos on the AT thread:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...s/wtccons2.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...news-record.htm

It looks like steel going in to me (and I've worked with steel for 20+ years), and I've posted my photos of the heavy steel column lying at Ground Zero. With all those thousands of employees, I would think there would be dozens of maintenance workers who had access to the core areas of WTC1 & 2, but I'm not a New Yorker and don't know any personally. I did meet a welder a while back who did some cleanup work, and he was running cutting torches until FEMA booted him out (complete with Non Disclosure Agreements that he didn't ask for). I lost contact with this metalworker though.

A shattered concrete core would certainly explain some of the copious dust. I am fairly convinced that (4 inches IIRC of) low-density concrete was used on top of the steel floor pans, and I think NIST handwaved the effect this concrete would have on an aircraft fuselage when coming up with their "core damage" computer models.

Yes, there was steel in the core, but not core columns, it is elevator guide rail support steel. Of the Zafar photos, only one can be mistaken as showing steel in the core area.

http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc-73.jpg

I finally found a video that shows more from the north west. At about 13-14 seconds those same pieces can be seen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIZp6aOibiM

It took some thought but what I came up with is completely consistent with all other evidence. The elevator guide rail support steel had a heavy horizontal brace penetrating the concrete shear wall of the core connecting to the interior box column of the inner steel wall inside the floors with floor beams connecting them. This image shows the interior box column at ground zero with that brace and the void where the concrete core was. When the video shows a vertical piece of steel with no floor beam connecting it to an adjacent column, it is a elevator guide rail inside the plane of the core wall and the core wall at that position either detonated or a piece fell out. One guide rail support can be seen rolling out of position with a large chuck of concrete still connected at it base. One of those heavy horizontal braces hanging onto the concrete. It causes the base weighted piece to topple crazily and it dangles still connected for a fraction of a second before falling.
The "Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers" had a description of a sudden onset of winter that caught construction with an early, severe storm and the "special plastic" coating on the rebar was determined, too late, to have lost its "protective properties". Construction halted while the decision was made to not try and remove the concrete cast hastily by the concrete contractor in the spring and to instead just continue.
That slot of missing core wall is one vertical 3 inch rebar that did detonate causing the guide rail support behind it to loose support and fall out.

[Sanders]

It took some thought but what I came up with is completely consistent with all other evidence. ...

I have an ongoing thread here about the roots of the elite, going back 5000 years, titled the Dragon Blood-line. It is all speculation, and it is advertised as such. I simply present information and connect various dots and forward my opinion and state every step of the way that it is opinion and that no one really knows, and here's the information and judge for yourself.

You should take the same tact, IMO. I have seen no proof - more, a lot of posts that are way too frikken long. No one will read it, the length belies the lack of evidence IMO.

I don't see any rebar in the construction photos, hence, I don't believe your central premise that the core was built using reinforced concrete. If you have real evidence to support your claim, you should consolidate it in a SHORT and TO THE POINT post. I'm sure everyone would happily read it.

[Sanders]

Gosh, I'd love to know the true inside story of NPT. The whole "buildings in the wrong place" in photos and footage - which I and others here worked very hard to debunk - was obviously an attempt to fracture the various camps.

At every turn I and others here tried to attack nonsense with logic - but ironically, the whole point was to get "truthers" to attack one another - and in that sense, we all failed.

Well, not really. Yes, we have failed, so far, but we haven't been fooled.

[painter]

I don't see any rebar in the construction photos, hence, I don't believe your central premise that the core was built using reinforced concrete. If you have real evidence to support your claim, you should consolidate it in a SHORT and TO THE POINT post. I'm sure everyone would happily read it.

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/handsdown.gif)

[Christophera]

Gosh, I'd love to know the true inside story of NPT. The whole "buildings in the wrong place" in photos and footage - which I and others here worked very hard to debunk - was obviously an attempt to fracture the various camps.

At every turn I and others here tried to attack nonsense with logic - but ironically, the whole point was to get "truthers" to attack one another - and in that sense, we all failed.

Well, not really. Yes, we have failed, so far, but we haven't been fooled.

Yes, but I don't know that we've failed overall. Within the perps plan perhaps but there plan is not absolute.

I see one great weakness and that is the backwards impact fall sequence, which, if you will recall was downplayed by much of what we would think of as quasi leadership in hindsight.

That sequence, within NPT, which absolutely calls for remotes somewhere within the operation, means the perps chose to create the backwards sequence. Remotes exist for the purpose of executing last minute contingency that makes such an operation more credible, the exact opposit of what happened. Until the NPT'ists can come up with a logical reason for that, the proposition is absurd.

The only alternative is that there were planes and the towers were on timers. This was chosen by the perps because they valued anonymity more than a perfect execution and had great confidence in their post 9-11 psyops disinformation campaign to compensate for inconsistencies with social controls supporting BS.

Supporting the timers is flight 93, a back up in a random holding pattern in case one of the other planes missed the its tower. Only shot down after both towers were hit. Having one of the twins go to the ground without being hit at all is an obvious disaster. This theory would mean that at least flight 11 would have to have a fanatical muslim flying it and he chose to disobey orders. The radical turn of flight 175, showing up to find its target ablaze and changing its approach also support the timers. The initial direction of the towers tilt at the onset of the demo also supports that the planes were supposed to impact different faces than they did.

The planned imapct sequence and faces were; WTC 2 hit on the west face first, WTC 1 hit on the south face second. That is completely consistent with everything known. With vibration detectors in each tower connected to detonators in the basement mall and parking garages, a blending of confusion and distraction muddies the ground event.

Strategically, NPT needs to be vigourously opposed and exposed.

Such is the basis of my thread here,

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=16369

When presented at the icke board, where NPT seems to be supported, even protected, I posted a similar thread and not one NPT'ist could produce a use for their information. In my book that is a damm good reason to ride them out of town on a rail, and anybody that lets them sleep on the couch while I'm yelling at them to produce a reason for the backwards impact/fall sequence. ESPECIALLY when the concrete core deception by FEMA completely invalidates the NIST analysis, the supposed cause of death in mass murder of 3,000, meaning that a limited inquiry into the deception is COMPULSORY by NYC law enforcement. Period.

Ask, why the 9-11 truth movement is not jumping on that and you will realize that perhaps 70% of it is not at all real. Now the populations of underground cities have something to do in their time off. To keep us nasty polluters destroying the beautiful natural world from continuing with our neglect and destructive tendancies.

I noticed at the govt loyalist site, when I pointed out obvious violations of the Constitution and the systems neglect to upholding the clean air and water acts as are well documented at my sites index page,

http://algoxy.com

The posters became silent for a time. If any of this is true, their perceptions are altered by an attitude about us surface folk based in an intentionally structured situation/deception used to divide them psychologically from us with credible consistency. They are told we must be defeated or we will destroy the natural world and that we don't care about it.

This post has been edited by Christophera: Feb 21 2009, 12:35 AM

[Christophera]

I don't see any rebar in the construction photos, hence, I don't believe your central premise that the core was built using reinforced concrete. If you have real evidence to support your claim, you should consolidate it in a SHORT and TO THE POINT post. I'm sure everyone would happily read it.

It is all inside the exterior steel structure. On 9-11 it is seen,

(IMG:http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)

but no steel core columns are ever seen. Construction photos can be easily misrepresented and are. They also been picked clean of all the images of concrete that were in the "Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers". Elevators need precise guide rails and big steel needs to be there to create strong alignment.

With steel core columns you permantly relinquish a feasible explanation fo these unique factors,

free fall
total pulverization
superfine, heated particulate
smooth, square cut column ends x the 1,000's
heavy steel assemblies heaved hundreds of feet

and that should not be done, particuarly in the absence of official structural plans, the circumstance of guiliani taking the NYC WTC documents, Robertsons statement of September 13, 2001, and teh PDF of August Domel, Ph.d SE. PE. coupled with the fact that no steel is seen in the empty core area ever.

This post has been edited by Christophera: Feb 21 2009, 04:07 AM