FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
9/11 Audio: Twin Towers Built for Demo
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 19, 20, 21 ... 549, 550, 551  Next
 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
carcdr



Joined: 05 Jul 2007
Posts: 355

PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 11:19 pm    Post subject: Clarification needed Reply with quote

atm wrote:
The balls in your court, carcdr.


Sorry, I don't follow, please clarify. What am I defending?

From my perspective, I'm in the bleachers, not on the court (so, the ball can't be in my court, by definition :-).

I think that I"ve thrown out some non-connected observations, with no underlying theory. Some of these obervations have been bothering me and I'm interested to see if the main theory of this thread addresses them better than anything else I've heard thus far.

Tell me which observation(s)/statement(s) of mine you find exception with, so that I might try to explain (or retract) them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DrewTerry
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 11:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pardon me, please - but

What fucking difference does it make exactly HOW they came down?

WE WILL NEVER KNOW EXACTLY HOW!!

The time spent debating topics which can never be resolved is simply mental master debating - and you will all go blind if you keep doing it!

Does it really matter? Does everyone at least agree beyond a reasonable doubt that - regardless of how - there is no possible way without explosives?

Christophera - thank you for your infinite patience in your work.

(AND PLEASE - no one should take this personally because I am not directing this at any one person - thanks)
Back to top
Christophera



Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 1851
Location: Santa Barbara

PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 2:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

DrewTerry wrote:
Pardon me, please - but

What fucking difference does it make exactly HOW they came down?

WE WILL NEVER KNOW EXACTLY HOW!!



It only makes a difference to the Americans that do not know explosives were used. They need to be convinced and they will always ask "how" such was done. So if we think it necessary to convince them, then it makes a lot of difference how they came down because they WILL need a reasonable explanation.

I think we need their help to regain our democracy and Constitutional government.

Therefore________________ I state, ...........

Actually we do know something very critical about how they came down.

Only people who have spent time trying to place a charge of high explosives exactly in the center of a mineral material for the express purpose of turning it, if possible, into sand and gravel, and then failing because of one reason or more, usually the hole not parallel to the rock strike/dip/face; then having to deal with the consequences of that failure; perhaps days in the saddle of a dozer building funny piles of dirt to get the ass end of the dozer, rippers up over the rock, dropping them, trying to hook and break the rock to make a cut slope, beating the crap out of yourself and the machine (this was before hydraulic breakers were around); will have an acute appreciation of BREAKAGE seen below. You get the idea.

Turning concrete into sand and gravel withOUT PERFECT placement and distribution is impossible. That placement and distribution is only possible during construction.

So quite basically, such people can know exactly how. And there really are quite a few of them around, just not here on this board. Just me for now.

You get the idea, probably. BTW, thanks for making the statement the way you did because it provided an opportunity for me to voice some things that are really quite important that we all take for granted or at least don't exactly describe.


_________________
"If you always do what you've always done you'll always get what you've always got"

Info specific to WTC 1 via the documentary, "The Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers". WTC 2 had differences in its concrete core.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
jirons



Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 172

PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 2:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

DT
Quote:

WE WILL NEVER KNOW EXACTLY HOW!!

The time spent debating topics which can never be resolved is simply mental master debating - and you will all go blind if you keep doing it!


Hmm. I have said something similar myself. I think Chrisa believes that 9/11 truth will receive a huge fillip if people realize that fema lied about the construction.[/quote]

I'm not sure.

And yes indeed, if its difficult for steel core people to explain how demolition was accomplished, how much more difficult for gravity-led collapse people to explain how it happened without demolition.

I guess a coherent account of the structure and the MO of its demolition can't do any harm. IMO we have run our course here unless/until the fabled PBS video is produced.[/b]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Christophera



Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 1851
Location: Santa Barbara

PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 10:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jirons wrote:
DT
Quote:

WE WILL NEVER KNOW EXACTLY HOW!!

The time spent debating topics which can never be resolved is simply mental master debating - and you will all go blind if you keep doing it!


Hmm. I have said something similar myself. I think Chrisa believes that 9/11 truth will receive a huge fillip if people realize that fema lied about the construction.

I'm not sure.

And yes indeed, if its difficult for steel core people to explain how demolition was accomplished, how much more difficult for gravity-led collapse people to explain how it happened without demolition.

I guess a coherent account of the structure and the MO of its demolition can't do any harm. IMO we have run our course here unless/until the fabled PBS video is produced.


I was on another board and a poster reminded me that pages which were yanked because I linked to them from my 9-11 site and their web master did not want association with demolition asssertion could be re found.

The concrete core, or the FEMA core lie alone is one of the best things possible to secure as public information. Those who cannot or will not believe in conspiracy will suddenly have to.

Ron wrote:
Christopher,

FYI, The "wayback machine" on the web archive (http://archive.org) can be used to source the UNC page that was taken down. Here is a link to one of the archived versions of the page:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040218164240/http://www.unc.edu/courses/2001fall/plan/006e/001/engineering/index.html


Thanks Ron,

I found the old text they had which was quite standard in description of the concrete core.

A Description of the World Trade Center

The twin towers of the World Trade Center were essentially two tubes, with the north tower (1,368 feet) six feet taller than the south tower (1,362 feet), and each were 110 stories tall. Each tube contained a concrete core, which supported only the load of the central bank of elevators and stairwells (Snoonian and Czarnecki 23).


It is not quite accurate in that it took a little more weight than just the elevators (20%) and was designed to take more over time with settling of the perimeter.

_________________
"If you always do what you've always done you'll always get what you've always got"

Info specific to WTC 1 via the documentary, "The Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers". WTC 2 had differences in its concrete core.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8481

PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:54 pm    Post subject: 9/11 3i Audio: Twin Towers - Built for Demo PART 2 Reply with quote




Twin Towers - Built for Demo PART 2

Special Guest: Christopher A. Brown

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

We continue our analysis of the collapse of the WTC Twin Towers,
based on the work of our guest Christopher Brown. Presenting the
case for demo build; exploring the structure of the Towers; and responding
to review of his ideas in the forum after his previous appearance in Part 1.


The 9/11 3i Investigation
The Next Level Show - 12th July, 2007

LISTEN:
Broadband Mp3 Audio
http://www.BreakForNews.com/audio/NextLevel070712a.mp3
Click to Play or Right-Click to 'Save As' and Download.

Dialup Mp3 Audio
http://www.BreakForNews.com/audio/NextLevel070712.mp3
Click to Play or Right-Click to 'Save As' and Download.

More 9/11 Without Tinfoil Audios Here

Quote:
SHOW LINKS & GRAPHICS

Quote:
From Physorg Forum
Leslie E. Robertson Unregistered
Posted: Apr 1 2006, 06:33 PM

Christophera is correct in stating that the Twin Towers were constructed
with a concrete core. Although in my original design the core was to be a
steel framed one that decision was overridden by Minoru Yamasaki the
architect.

That core should have resisted the airplane impacts AND the fires.
I have said nothing for four and a half years but can remain silent no
longer. My belief is that only explosives could have caused WTC 1
& WTC 2 to collapse the way they did on September 11, 2001.

Leslie E. Robertson
Director Leslie E. Robertson Associates, R.L.L.P. and lead engineer of the World Trade Center
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3108&st=9390&#entry78752


Figure A


Figure B



Figure C



Figure D



Figure E



Figure F



Figure G



Figure H



Figure I



Figure J



Figure K



Figure L



Figure M



Figure N



Figure O



Figure P



Figure Q




MORE LINKS SOON...

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
hdog



Joined: 12 Dec 2006
Posts: 77

PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 5:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very interesting stuff. I'm open to the idea of a concrete core however I absolutely disagree with the hijacker scenario. There is no way you let the operation hinge on these guys hitting the Towers and in the location you want them to. "Ok guys we want you to fly a plane into a building and could you hit it right about here (points to location) if you don't mind. Otherwise our cover is blown."

And I don't think they were too concerned with them falling the same way being too obvious because there is no such thing as too obvious for the majority of Americans. They might have even wanted that to happen ("mistakes" ala Nick Berg). They knew some people were gonna figure out they were demo'd regardless.

I don't think Flight 93 was shot down and you don't need it as a back-up if you bring the planes in yourself. I think it was meandering around to give the appearance that it had been hijacked.

And then there's "The Coup" album cover.

Nope I think those planes, whatever type they were, hit right about where they were supposed to.


Last edited by hdog on Thu Jul 12, 2007 5:04 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
duane



Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 554
Location: western pennsylvania

PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 5:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fintan, excellent interview, i loved the way you and chris agree to disagree with certain things (pilots vrs auto control, etc) but do not allow yourselves to get hung up on them. following along with pictures and the interview help greatly.

maybe a video of the pictures with enough explanation to cause reasonable doubt could eventually be put up on u-tube for the general audience. (some people referred to BFN have been frightened away with too much-too fast)

i loved the lyric of the one song you played "America is a drunk, spoiled 15 year old with a gun to you face"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
john de herrera



Joined: 19 Jun 2007
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 6:07 pm    Post subject: hi Reply with quote

i was alerted to this post, so here's my reply: there are many websites, but for those who want to look at a solution to having elements private and/or undercover do what was done 9/11, then you'd be talking article v convention.

if you are a citizen and are not happy with the way things look, please do check out the information at http://www.foavc.org

if we get a tipping point majority of americans signed on, the congress will get out of the way.

also, there is the dailykos gathering in chicago august 1-4. presidential candidates will be there. this may be a chance for the idea to breach: time for america's first national convention of state delegates.

a national convention has been characterized for over forty years as some sort of huge monstrosity whereby discussion might somehow accidentally turn into unwanted law. bogus. it's simply a civic ceremony where the country comes together to see if 3/4 of the states agree on anything. the convention clause is part of the constitution for a reason.

the important distinction to make is betweeen pre-convention america, and post-convention america. the delegates having gathered, proposed amendments, gone home, would provide the balance of power that's sorely lacking. it's just a wa to propose what congress will not otherwise.

besides all that, chris brown, hr11 is moving closer to becoming law, i.e. what happened to the twin towers is about to happen to the public commons and institution of voting. we're about to institute a brand-new voting machine lobby.

so, do what you are so moved to do. but if you can take two minutes to sign on to foavc, and mention a national convention in discussion--great.

http://www.foavc.org

http://www.articlev.org
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
stallion4



Joined: 26 May 2006
Posts: 692

PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:42 pm    Post subject: Re: 9/11 3i Audio: Twin Towers - Built for Demo PART 2 Reply with quote

Fintan wrote:
From Physorg Forum
Leslie E. Robertson Unregistered
Posted: Apr 1 2006, 06:33 PM

Christophera is correct in stating that the Twin Towers were constructed
with a concrete core. Although in my original design the core was to be a
steel framed one that decision was overridden by Minoru Yamasaki the
architect.

That core should have resisted the airplane impacts AND the fires.
I have said nothing for four and a half years but can remain silent no
longer. My belief is that only explosives could have caused WTC 1
& WTC 2 to collapse the way they did on September 11, 2001.

Leslie E. Robertson
Director Leslie E. Robertson Associates, R.L.L.P. and lead engineer of the World Trade Center
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3108&st=9390&#entry78752

My initial reaction to this is to say that it was a joke that was posted on April Fool's Day.

I haven't listened to your latest interview with Chris, so I'm not sure if you discussed the likelihood that this was a joke posted on that forum.

When I have a chance I'll listen to find out if you or Chris were able to establish whether or not the comment was genuine.

Also, I haven't had time (or the desire frankly) to comment further on this thread. I'm pretty much with Drew Terry on this whole issue.

Another reason why I've not wanted to debate this further is that I'm convinced that there was not a concrete core in the Twins, based on the information I've seen presented in this thread and elsewhere.

However, there were a few things that I wanted to suggest to Fintan before he conducted his most recent interview with Chris (which is my fault, since I'm responding after it has already taken place, but is still worth mentioning now).

What I wanted to suggest to you, Fintan, was that you should interview a qualified person regarding your questions such as the ones you presented in this post:
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=24890#24890

(Chris, whether he's qualified or not, holds a biased opinion and should not be the only person you interview regarding the construction of the Twin Towers. You should interview someone who has participated in the construction of both steel core and concrete core high-rise buildings. And if possible, interview someone who actually worked on the Twin Towers).

Back to your question about this photo:
http://breakfornews.com/bfn1/wtc01.jpg

Fintan wrote: "can you guess what is the partially completed white layer inside the Tower in this pic"

To me it looks like a tarp of some kind. Possibly insulation.

If you look at the original high res scan of the photo, you can see what looks like material of some sort that's being affected by the wind blowing onto it (there's a 'rippling' seen in multiple locations on the high res photo. This could also just be folds in the material that weren't caused by wind)
http://911mysteries.yweb.sk/download/images/wtc-construction-hires-photos/wtc01.jpg

As for your comment about the "horizontal steel beams"... there was a parking garage located below the Twins as well as mechanical rooms, so perhaps those beams were installed to support the weight of heavy machinery and/or automobiles.

And regarding you counting "only 24 major columns in the core... Not 47 as so routinely touted by the official reports. They are in four rows of six columns, with four more in the center area where the elevators go."

If you look at this pic:
http://breakfornews.com/bfn1/WTCconstruction.jpg

...you can see the steel columns go 6 deep and 8 wide.

Your initial observation was based on this photo:
http://breakfornews.com/bfn1/wtc02-small.jpg

...and in it it's difficult to see how many rows of columns are actually present due to the location of the camera when the picture was taken. I also believe there are several more columns that aren't visible in that photograph that extend out passed the right edge of the photo.

_________________
"Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets." ~Travis Bickle


Last edited by stallion4 on Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:48 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Christophera



Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 1851
Location: Santa Barbara

PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:46 pm    Post subject: Re: hi Reply with quote

john de herrera wrote:
i was alerted to this post, so here's my reply: there are many websites, but for those who want to look at a solution to having elements private and/or undercover do what was done 9/11, then you'd be talking article v convention.

if you are a citizen and are not happy with the way things look, please do check out the information at http://www.foavc.org

if we get a tipping point majority of americans signed on, the congress will get out of the way.

also, there is the dailykos gathering in chicago august 1-4. presidential candidates will be there. this may be a chance for the idea to breach: time for america's first national convention of state delegates.

a national convention has been characterized for over forty years as some sort of huge monstrosity whereby discussion might somehow accidentally turn into unwanted law. bogus. it's simply a civic ceremony where the country comes together to see if 3/4 of the states agree on anything. the convention clause is part of the constitution for a reason.

the important distinction to make is betweeen pre-convention america, and post-convention america. the delegates having gathered, proposed amendments, gone home, would provide the balance of power that's sorely lacking. it's just a wa to propose what congress will not otherwise.

besides all that, chris brown, hr11 is moving closer to becoming law, i.e. what happened to the twin towers is about to happen to the public commons and institution of voting. we're about to institute a brand-new voting machine lobby.

so, do what you are so moved to do. but if you can take two minutes to sign on to foavc, and mention a national convention in discussion--great.

http://www.foavc.org

http://www.articlev.org


Hello john de herrera,

Thanks for your post. I've joined foavc and look forward to interacting with folks there. I registered at their forum but was disappointed to find that the forum doesn't have the quoting function. This makes discussion difficult.
I have some relevant perspective on the PADD notion which of course is an important aspect for foavc as it seeks to get people involved.

An article v convention is a great idea. Unfortunately people have widely varying agendas, which I believe is no accident. As far as I can tell media and academia have been working to divide the public in their perceptions of what is important and a priority. So that is the first challenge.

What is hr11 and how it is it related to the voting machine lobby?

_________________
"If you always do what you've always done you'll always get what you've always got"

Info specific to WTC 1 via the documentary, "The Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers". WTC 2 had differences in its concrete core.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Christophera



Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 1851
Location: Santa Barbara

PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 12:59 am    Post subject: Re: 9/11 3i Audio: Twin Towers - Built for Demo PART 2 Reply with quote

stallion4 wrote:
Fintan wrote:
From Physorg Forum
Leslie E. Robertson Unregistered
Posted: Apr 1 2006, 06:33 PM

Christophera is correct in stating that the Twin Towers were constructed
with a concrete core. Although in my original design the core was to be a
steel framed one that decision was overridden by Minoru Yamasaki the
architect.

That core should have resisted the airplane impacts AND the fires.
I have said nothing for four and a half years but can remain silent no
longer. My belief is that only explosives could have caused WTC 1
& WTC 2 to collapse the way they did on September 11, 2001.

Leslie E. Robertson
Director Leslie E. Robertson Associates, R.L.L.P. and lead engineer of the World Trade Center
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3108&st=9390&#entry78752

My initial reaction to this is to say that it was a joke that was posted on April Fool's Day.

I haven't listened to your latest interview with Chris, so I'm not sure if you discussed the likelihood that this was a joke posted on that forum.

When I have a chance I'll listen to find out if you or Chris were able to establish whether or not the comment was genuine.


Clearly there is no way to establish whether the comment is genuine or not.
We can only look at the overall environment of evidence relating to the issue. WTC documents taken by ex mayor, hidden illegally in his warehouse. One Ph.D, August Domel Jr. writes a paper on the towers based on information from engineers at ground zero. He identifies a concrete core.

http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf
The load carrying system was designed so that the steel facade would resist lateral and gravity forces and the interior concrete core would carry only gravity loads.


Leslie Robertson gave information to Newsweek identifying a concrete core.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3069641/
the massive towers, supported by a steel-tube exoskeleton and a reinforced concrete core,

The University of North Carolina had this description of the World Trade Center, then removed it one I made an active link from my web site to the page. It was refound via the wayback machine.

http://www.unc.edu/courses/2001fall/plan/006e/001/engineering/
The twin towers of the World Trade Center were essentially two tubes, with the north tower (1,368 feet) six feet taller than the south tower (1,362 feet), and each were 110 stories tall. Each tube contained a concrete core, which supported only the load of the central bank of elevators and stairwells (Snoonian and Czarnecki 23).


We have this article from a disappeared Oxford encyclopedia.



We have these images showing what can ony be concrete or related structure.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif
http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg

We have the fact that the controlling agencies basically violated due process in 3000 capitol crimes relating to the destrcution of the crime scene, blocked investigations and confiscated cameras then shipped the steel to China and India.

Do you recognize this damages their credibility?

While comparitively, the evidence which exists for steel core columns amount to this diagram.

http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/femacore.gif

And the below picture or others similar, that show vertical steel in the core area. However in this image butt plates are obviously used to extend the steel upward. Not strong enough for core columns. AND, the above images which show the concrete, would show the steel core columns if they existed but apparently do not as they are unseen in all of them.

http://BreakForNews.com/3i/algoxy_files/elev_guide.jpg

stallion4 wrote:
Also, I haven't had time (or the desire frankly) to comment further on this thread. I'm pretty much with Drew Terry on this whole issue.

Another reason why I've not wanted to debate this further is that I'm convinced that there was not a concrete core in the Twins, based on the information I've seen presented in this thread and elsewhere.


Curiously I feel the same way about how many interior box columns there were. They were not in the core and so they are not core columns and that is what matters to me because I know there were no columns in the core. I actually just did a recount and came up with 22. Eight on each side and 3 between the ends of the sides at each end. Somebody else actually counted them originally and I, sloppily, was able to repeat that.

The information of "this thread and elsewhere" would be the information above short a few construction photos. When the steel core columns are not seen in 9-11 images, it is shown they do not have the strength to be core columns.

stallion4 wrote:
However, there were a few things that I wanted to suggest to Fintan before he conducted his most recent interview with Chris (which is my fault, since I'm responding after it has already taken place, but is still worth mentioning now).

What I wanted to suggest to you, Fintan, was that you should interview a qualified person regarding your questions such as the ones you presented in this post:
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=24890#24890

(Chris, whether he's qualified or not, holds a biased opinion and should not be the only person you interview regarding the construction of the Twin Towers. You should interview someone who has participated in the construction of both steel core and concrete core high-rise buildings. And if possible, interview someone who actually worked on the Twin Towers).


Not to speak for Fintan here, but I should think that if such construction personnel were available, they would have already been interviewed and you would have their information available.

Viewing that 1990 documentary made me qualified to identify materials used in the towers. And the documentary has been located and identified as extant.

My information is more than biased. It is an explanation for critical factors that MUST be explained because they DID happen. Perhaps Fintan is also looking for that explanation.

Ron Larsen states that an former Marine corp major confirmed the documentary was listed with the title "The Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers" in a major library and also located a copy in private possession wherepon copies of that were intercepted 3 times.

6/20/07 interview, listen at about 17:50 minutes for that information.

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

Consider that construction personnel have a great deal of integrity regarding their knowledge of what they built, the materials they used and the standards they built to. I have a hard time imagining any of them altering their information to fit a situation which did not exist. Also, it is hard to imagine them going against the infiltrators of the US government with the situation that did exist. Most are elderly now, as is Leslie Robertson.
Perhaps your preferences for sources are just not realistic given the situation and so cannot materialize. In which case the preponderence of evidence must prevail and simple rational statements such as, "concrete can be easily fractured by a small amount of properly placed high explosives to fall freely while steel cannot" given the credence they actually carry in explanation of the phenomena of free fall for example.

_________________
"If you always do what you've always done you'll always get what you've always got"

Info specific to WTC 1 via the documentary, "The Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers". WTC 2 had differences in its concrete core.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 19, 20, 21 ... 549, 550, 551  Next
Page 20 of 551

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.