Fema Lied About The Towers Core - Demolition, The Towers were built to demolish Options

[behind]

What is interesting to me is, that first after 9/11, then there were some reports saying that the core was steel and concrete... or at least that some concrete was in the core. Forexample here:

"The 24mX42m core was composed
of 44 box columns. The core comprises steel beams and columns with reinforced concrete
infill panels designed to share part of the gravity loads..." (page 90)
web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20VI%20Materials%20&%20Structures.pdf

But then Fema and Nist: Nothing. Not one pound.

But what about to try to contact the construction workers who were working in wtc ? They must know it.

[Factfinder Gener...]

What is interesting to me is, that first after 9/11, then there were some reports saying that the core was steel and concrete... or at least that some concrete was in the core. Forexample here:

"The 24mX42m core was composed
of 44 box columns. The core comprises steel beams and columns with reinforced concrete
infill panels designed to share part of the gravity loads..." (page 90)
web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20VI%20Materials%20&%20Structures.pdf

But then Fema and Nist: Nothing. Not one pound.

But what about to try to contact the construction workers who were working in wtc ? They must know it.

I "know" it. It seems totally obvious to me that FEMA and NIST are lying and covering up again! It is also obvious to me what motivated the lie. The real core gets in the way of the lie about the planes!

Likw amazed, I find the 30 year old C4 scenario a little too unlikely.

[Christophera]

Christophera, I remember you (by another handle) from LC.

If you believe you remember me by another username at LC you are mistaken. I only use Christophera no matter where I register.

You acted surprised that an administrator named "painter" here was the same "painter" that banned you at LC.

I did not even know there was a painter here until after my thread was locked and I found I had PM from painter stating that it thought it had banned me some months earlier ad then said "Go Away". I would post that message but all of my PM's have been erased.

Bullsh#t - you were not so ignorant or daft to not know that painter from here is painter from there when you decided to join P4T.

I pay not attention to who is registered or moderating a forum until they are a problem. I do structural and demolition issues with the Twin Towers and that is all I do. I often don't even read the rules at forums. If a forum is into 9-11 truth, great, if they are into (over) controlling the membership, environment and discussion, it sucks. I did read them here here and I also read the mission statement which I though was very much aligned with my own intents. I didn't really decide to join this forum. I found a link that lead here and impulsively joined. I had forgotten all about this place.
It was not until I posted the comment here with the error message stating the thread was locked that I even remembered that painter was the mod at LC who banned me.

I'm willing to entertain (although I highly doubt) the theory that explosives were pre-planted in the WTC when it was built.

If you knew what I knew about the towers and high explosives you would know that an engineered concrete explosive container is the only way to get this effect.

(IMG:http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1plumecascade.jpg)

I sat and watched a 2 hour documentary about the design and construction of WTC 1 and about 1/2 of it was about the difficulty of building the steel reinforced tubular cast concrete core. There is massive concrete shown in the above image, far more than just floors would provide. There is also NO WAY to install explosive charges that would cut the supposed steel core columns. Do you realize that with the supposed steel core columns in the core there would be over 1,300 separate charges required? There is no evidence such charges were detonated on that day and there are no images of steel columns at ground zero showing that they were subjected to such impromptu explosive charges.
The events seen and heard on 9-11 were very- VERY - well contained explosions.

The towers were nicknamed, after all, the Nelson and David (Rockefeller) towers.  But, what's the shelf-life of C4 or other explosives?

The shelf life of C4/RDX is ten years in the mylar package the manufacturer provides. Evaporation and oxidization are the only things that cause it's non viability. Do you think 2 feet of concrete provides a better, more long lasting barrier to evaporation?
There were failures along the floor edges I think. Some of the built in cutting charges which surrounded the columns which did exist surrounding the core failed to detonate. Some of those were exposed to freezing conditions during construction which I have learned causes the quickest deterioration.

This row of high tensile rebar, about 50 of them were exposed to an early freezing winter and the C4 failed to detonate. Fresh horizontal rebar tied to it in the springtime detonated caused the concrete to be removed but the 3 inch high tensile rebar remain standing. Note, no steel core columns in the core area.

Do they really work after 30 years?  How could this be tested, and why would they assume it would still work (assuming they pre-laid the tower when they built it - not to mention other red-flags that would probably have gone up while the tower was being built?) after 30-odd years?  And, where is the proof?  Where is the evidence that explosives were actually incorporated in the original building of the towers?  Is it here in this thread somewhere, and I missed it?  If it is, please post it and I'll take it all back - (evidence).

The documentary, "The Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers" shows there was massive security. The original contractor for the concrete core left because they wouldn't let him take the plans home. I'm not sure of this but I think the documentary stated that a Saudi concrete contractor took over, or the general contractor, the port authority did the work. Maybe both at different periods or towers.
Ask Phil Jayhan about his hearing of forced evacuations of the floors by workers. He remembers hearing that, but doesn't remember where he heard it. there were threatened lawsuits by the concrete contractor for those evacuations of workers from floors after the floors were sandblasted, before concrete was to be poured.
All this was part of the documentary.
As far as I can tell all of the opposition to the concrete core is about keeping the core from becoming an issue and the search for the documentary taking on a scope which will actually find it. It is called gatekeeping.
Concrete is, after all, the most common building material in the world, and after all, the Tacoma narrows bridge showed us how steel flexes in very long members and can be made to ocsillate destructively by high winds which completely justifies the use of concrete in a structure with twice the length (height) of the brige and 5 times the width, self supporting and load bearing while subjected to 120 MPH winds.

There are all kinds of theories - some of them, while being by their nature unprovable, have a lot of evidence backing them up.  Some have none -they are no more than an idea.  This is which?

No theory has much detail relating to feasibility, and none explain anything really. Comprehensive explanation consistent with all evidence is the most important thing and all I need to do it is secrecy. These 5 factors which TOTALLY lack explanation within the rest of the non specific theories can be explained completely with the concrete core and the built to demolish scenario.

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

But over and above all that, why are you still harping on this "concrete core" business?

I said in 2002 that the movement would not get the truth without knowing the actual structure that stood. That is true so far. It is also true that if you decided that truth movement needed to know the actual structure and decided upon reading this message to make it part of your purpose to see that all of the mainstream truth movement was informed of the fact and was directed to seeking a copy of the video, that within 6 months the truth movement would have that video and the true design configuration of the towers and that the political leadership we have which DOES have integrity would have an issue they could take forward into Congress and the House to justifiably demand and receive authority for a new, limited investigation.
Any politician who takes a demolition conspiracy forwards is shut down before they start.

This fact is why the psychological operation which has infiltrated the truth movement focuses on destroying any credibility of the concrete core.

There were 47 steel columns that made up the supporting structure of each core - that's a fact.

If it is a fact then you will be able to show images from 9-11 with the supposed steel core columns in the core area at some elevation above the ground. My insistence on that logical fact got me banned from Loose Change, meaning they refuse to use evidence and believe without question the word of FEMA. AN agency NOt created under the Constitution which cheney was appointed to be director of 1 week after gwb was selected in 2000. An agency that was in place in NYC 2 days before 9-11 for a massive exercise 2.5 miles from the WTC.

I can prove with one image that their was a concrete core and that there were no steel core columns with one image from 9-11 which shows the core without the steel exterior framework.

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

If you do not have the experience or integrity to admit the fact of what is shown there, then you are not an effective researcher into the structural issues supposedly surrounding collapse (sic), and, ....... we all have a problem.

If some of them were enveloped in concrete, does that make them part of a "steel-reinforced concrete tubular core"??  Steel reinforced concrete normally pertains to concrete structures that are reinforced with steel re-bar.  That's not the case here - is this a semantics game?  Am I missing something???

Steel reinforced cast concrete IS rebar encapsulated in concrete where the rebar is centralized in the creation of a shear wall, generally speaking. The interior box columns, which were by virtue of 100% fillet welds butting the columns together, one continuous piece 1,350 feet tall, surrounded the concrete core and were fastened to it. Horizontal pieces went through the core walls, cast into the core walls that connected to the elevator guide rail support steel inside the core providing lateral support for the elevator guide rail systems.
The interior box columns were partially surrounded by concrete above ground and probably completely surrounded below ground.
The elevator guide rail support steel was heavy steel, but only designed for vertical loads which is why no photo from 9-11 shows any vertical steel in the core area. The elevators in the towers were the fastest in the world because of the perfect alignment and rigidity provided by the concrete core.

It seems to me you are obsessed with this notion - my advice, for what it's worth(?), it's fine and noble to hold beliefs, but not good to get obsessed about one interpretation or another - it generally closes the mind to other interpretations, and good advice and opinions from others ...

After typing this, I think to myself, "nahhh, don't post this, it'll just piss him off".  But that's not my intention - I'm just suggesting that you loosen up - try to take in the big picture a bit more. 

Cheers.

My information is not an interpretation. I am a virtual witness to the construction of WTC 1 as a person who viewed the documentary, "The Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers" and my written testimony here with my presentation of evidence which exposes the core of the Twins on 9-11 are completely consistent with each other and feasible explanations for the phenomena associated with the demise of the Twin Towers.

If I know for certain that there was a concrete core is it an obsession? No, I am obsessed with informing the truth movement with the fact of the concrete core, and I am justifiably obsessed because I NEED to protect my children's futures, I NEED to to preserve the integrity of the US Constitution, I NEED to have the rights and freedoms I am accustomed to.

The only thing that pisses me off is this.

There were 47 steel columns that made up the supporting structure of each core - that's a fact.

Justifiable because not one image of the steel core columnns from 9-11 in the core area at some elevation has been produced in the last 5 years on 20 different forums, hundreds of posters trying to oppose the concrete core over probably 30,000 posts.
To ask me to loosen up is to say "FORGET ABOUT 9-11 TUTH", because there is NO WAY, we will get it unless we can explain HOW, those towers did what they did and that explanation is not possible with steel core columns that no one can produce any evidence for their existence.

There is no bigger picture unless it is creating a limited investigation by congress into the deception by FEMA of the core structure.

This post has been edited by Christophera: Nov 18 2007, 04:37 PM

[Christophera]

Christopher

We essentially agree that Boeings had precious little to do with the collapse of the towers. As far as I'm concerned, controlled demolition brought down the towers.

For some, the question is whether there were any Boeings at all.

I think the towers were rigged in the months preceding the event, maybe as much as a year or two. But that is speculation. I doubt the reliability of explosives placed more than 30 years earlier.

If you knew what I know about high explosives you would realize there is no way to position enough explosives with the needed distrubtion to produce what is seen and heard.

If you don't believe me just try finding somebody describing a feasible method to place charges surrounding the supposed steel core columns that will actually cut them. Then try finding ONE image that shows a steel box column cut that way.

Then try to find an audio recording that shows such charges going off on 9-11.

See my video.

Twin Tower Deception and Demolition I

Twin Tower Deception and Demolition II

[amazed!]

Christopher

You make a very persuasive argument. It's weird, that thought--that the buildings were "pre-wired" went through my mind maybe a year ago or so, after I fully accepted the idea that the government did it. Or whoever controls the government, did it.

Which is a fearful insight into how long these creeps have been around and in control.

[Christophera]

Christopher

You make a very persuasive argument. It's weird, that thought--that the buildings were "pre-wired" went through my mind maybe a year ago or so, after I fully accepted the idea that the government did it. Or whoever controls the government, did it.

Which is a fearful insight into how long these creeps have been around and in control.

The building had security phone lines and here is the connection which provided schematics for the detonations sytem distribution.

WTC Security Breach and airports.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm

Washington, D.C. WASHINGTON, Jan 19, 2003 -- A company that provided security at New York City's World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport in Washington, D.C., and to United Airlines between 1995 and 2001, was backed by a private Kuwaiti-American investment firm with ties to a brother of President Bush and the Bush family, according to records obtained by the American Reporter.

Marvin P. Bush, a younger brother of George W. Bush, was a principal in the company from 1993 to 2000, when most of the work on the big projects was done. But White House responses to 9/11 have not publicly disclosed the company's part in providing security to any of the named facilities, and many of the public records revealing the relationships are not public.

Nonetheless, public records reveal that the firm, formerly named Securacom, listed Bush on its board of directors and as a significant shareholder. The firm, now named Stratesec, Inc., is located in Sterling, Va., a suburb of Washington, D.C., and emphasizes federal clients. Bush is no longer on the board.

Marvin Bush has not responded to repeated telephoned and emailed requests for comment on this story.

Aside from the explosives were built in. This is literally the only way to achieve optimum placement and distribution, something absolutely required to gain the uniformity seen here and the Sand and gravel.

(IMG:http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg)

[amazed!]

Frank Rich wrote today about Rudi's current problems, but reminded of the incident in which Rudi INSISTED that the NYC Emergency Operations Center be put in WTC 7.

I have felt all along that the big reason 7 was taken down was because it contained apparatus critical to the CD at the towers. :ph43r:

[Christophera]

Frank Rich wrote today about Rudi's current problems, but reminded of the incident in which Rudi INSISTED that the NYC Emergency Operations Center be put in WTC 7.

I have felt all along that the big reason 7 was taken down was because it contained apparatus critical to the CD at the towers. :ph43r:

It is possible, but certainly not logical. The explosions in the basement at plane impact evidence systems in the towers that were there to distribute detonations in time that would reduce the over all seismic signature of the final dropping.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1205439

The folowing indicates exploding walls.

The two made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. ‘There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can't see anything’ he said

Rodrigiuz's story as well as that of Phillip Morelli indicate the same thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlEXoY1HCWI

This eyewitness testimony indicate major detonations throughout the trade center coincident with airplane mpacts. Simple vibration detectors in the towers would create perfectly located and timed explosions which would have a built in distraction confusing the true nature of the event..

[amazed!]

According to the video of Willie that I have seen, the subterranean explosions in the north tower happened moments, maybe as few as 2 or 3, prior to the airplane impact.

My theory, that cannot be proved, is that the "command detonated" portions of the action that day were commanded from Rudi's lair inside WTC 7. Maybe by Bernie Kerick. Who knows, I don't.

But it is interesting that Judith Regan and Bernie had their trysts as some location overlooking ground zero.

[Christophera]

Christopher

You make a very persuasive argument.  It's weird, that thought--that the buildings were "pre-wired" went through my mind maybe a year ago or so, after I fully accepted the idea that the government did it.  Or whoever controls the government, did it.

Which is a fearful insight into how long these creeps have been around and in control.

About the time the "Mutually Assured Destruction" policy became accepted, it was already a done deal. As far as I can tell the greatest purpose the cold war had for the infiltrators was to create a reason for a veil of secrecy. Then, behind that, ................................


JFK was really down with awarness and trying for us all. He probably did not know anything about this 911 conspiracy, but knew something very bad was brewing when he confronted a wall of secrecy and therein he could not penetrate and learn anything about long term intelligence plans.

Meanwile, and since, media has been treating us like mushrooms. Do you think P4T is serious about truth and using it?

[Christophera]

According to the video of Willie that I have seen, the subterranean explosions in the north tower happened moments, maybe as few as 2 or 3, prior to the airplane impact.

My theory, that cannot be proved, is that the "command detonated" portions of the action that day were commanded from Rudi's lair inside WTC 7.  Maybe by Bernie Kerick.  Who knows, I don't.

But it is interesting that Judith Regan and Bernie had their trysts as some location overlooking ground zero.

It maybe that the explosions happened first. All that would mean is that there was an RF proximity detector in the building and a transmitter on the plane.

I stick with the seqence of the workers at 5 levels down. It seems that their debriefing would iron out that their superior had indicated after plane impact. RF proximity sensitve triggers have the uncertainties of remotes, and I think they were avoided for other reasons, or because of the backwards fall sequence. Also the plane might miss the building but the transmitter still trigger the explosions.

A vibration detector is very secure and the timing is perfect.

This post has been edited by Christophera: Nov 19 2007, 08:41 PM

[amazed!]

There are many ways to skin a cat Christopher. The view from the outside looking in is usally quite restricted.

I know PFT is serious about truth. Are you familiar with their analysis of the FDR from the Pentagon?

How much more truth must one group reveal to suit you?

[Christophera]

There are many ways to skin a cat Christopher. The view from the outside looking in is usally quite restricted.

I know PFT is serious about truth. Are you familiar with their analysis of the FDR from the Pentagon?

How much more truth must one group reveal to suit you?

I don't even know what "FDR" is. If it is from the pentagon on 9-11 that is why. I find so much contradiction between evidence at the pentagon and eyewitness testimony I don't even try the pentagon.

The WTC is at least consistent in that respect in most ways.

[amazed!]

I know what you mean.

FDR is Flight Data Recorder and the government supplied one for public consumption, claiming it was aboard the Boeing that supposedly crashed into the Pentagon.

The gentlemen here at Pilots For Truth spend their own money and time to have the FDR analyzed, and it turns out that whatever aircraft that FDR was on did not strike the Pentagon.

Your earlier post made it sound like you were looking for somebody to proclaim the truth. I'm explaining to you how PFT did just that.

[Christophera]

I know what you mean.

FDR is Flight Data Recorder and the government supplied one for public consumption, claiming it was aboard the Boeing that supposedly crashed into the Pentagon.

The gentlemen here at Pilots For Truth spend their own money and time to have the FDR analyzed, and it turns out that whatever aircraft that FDR was on did not strike the Pentagon.

Your earlier post made it sound like you were looking for somebody to proclaim the truth. I'm explaining to you how PFT did just that.

What was done is that "what wasn't the truth" was identified.

Or, that it is the truth that the FDR was not from the pentagon plane. We pretty much know how things "were not". We need to know "how they were". And know that with a consistency or veracity that compels the public to unify in some action that can gain more truth.

The fact of FEMA misrepresenting the towers structure is closer that kind of truth because NIST based their analysis on what FEMA provided. No determinative studies were based on the FDR data.

[amazed!]

Yeah, well if one believes the NIST report, one is pretty damn gullible.

[Christophera]

Yeah, well if one believes the NIST report, one is pretty damn gullible.

Let's examine the whole structure of gullibility and belief related to NIST.

If one believes there was no reason for the prohibition of cameras at ground zero, or for guiliani to take the WTC documents, or no reason for the only plans to become available to the truth movement being leaked from Silverstein, or that there is no reason for NIST being told there are no plans, or, .................... for that matter, no one of authority at STj911 and ae911truth deciding that this image,

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

IS NOT a depiction of this,

(IMG:http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/femacore.gif)

after hearing this .mp3 at 17:50 minutes, and they STILL can't explain those 5 phenomenal aspects of 9-11 at the WTC,

http://www.mediafire.com/?dogzudruzem

then deciding to say, "Hey, lets cooperate with other non profit 9-11 .orgs and publicize a search for the that 1990 documentary."

Now, ............ are we gullible enough to believe they are gullible enough to think that the gov will "do an inside job" but at the same time NOT deceive the inquisitive public about the true structures of the towers IF it might serve the needed deception in the disguise of the inside job?

[WetBlanket]

That sure does look to be rebar standing after the tower "collapsed" . That rebar is concrete (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif) proof of a vertical cement structure.

And that rebar seems to magically crumble into dust before the cameras too.

[Christophera]

That sure does look to be rebar standing after the tower "collapsed" . That rebar is concrete (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif)   proof of a vertical cement structure.

And that rebar seems to magically crumble into dust before the cameras too.

And what remarkable material that 3 inch high tensile steel bar is. It contributed tremendous strength to the walls. The fact that 3 sticks or so butt welded together can stand like that attests to what it is. Nothing else of those dimensions could do it.

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

I would use stronger terms than "crumble".

(IMG:http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8232/wtcsl8.jpg)
(IMG:http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc341coreblast.jpg)
Although it was a slightly later blast that brought it down, it was probably similar in appearance.
May the bird of abundance land on your table. Happiness!

(IMG:http://midstate.wild-turkey.org/flying_turkey.gif)

This post has been edited by Christophera: Nov 22 2007, 02:08 PM

[amazed!]

Well, my bet is that if there was a DEW, it was located and/or controlled from Rudy's little EOC in building 7.