9/11 Audio: Twin Towers Built for Demo

[Hombre]

Well now lookie lookie what the cat dragged in.

These freaking photos are deceptive as hell, especially to someone who's unfamiliar with the " ACTUAL " layout of all things WTC and Ground Zero~ " Love that phrase " related.

Yes Fintan's pic is nice, complete with the building on the right which " due to camera angle I'm sure " is about to topple over.

Isn't my pic nice as well, especially since Mine has the Flag blowing in the gale!




You see my point in all of this is simple. IF I COULD GET MY HANDS AROUND THE ASSHOLE'S NECK WHO PHOTOSHOPPED SOME OF THE 9-11 PHOTOS I'D BREAK THE PHUCKING THING IN LESS THAN 1 SECOND

Please challenge me on that ability.

a very mo fo mad son of a bitch at present.

Hombre

[Christophera]

[Hombre]

Here is a photo that in my opinion explains the collapse of the spire, not the vaporizing of the steel via a beam, or something along those lines

You see those steel columns scattered about, the BIG ones, the really really big ones. Look at the workers in the foreground standing next to the smaller one for scale. That big hole the fronts the core of WTC 1 is deep, so deep they had to use tons of fill before they could get to the core with equipment from this side of said core.

Something other than the collapse caused that hole, like a bomb detonated during collapse. JMHO, Yet it would go far to explain the lack of core still visible on that end of the long axis. Further the video clip most used was shot from behind building 7 from the north which means the right side of the core is/was the location of the spire in question. Pretty easy to see, what's not so easy is just how big are those columns, and how in the hell did they get tossed so far by a pancake thingy dingy/ gravitational collapse!

NOTE: Pretty close to the pic Fintan posted just from a slightly different angle and it looks to be a bit earlier in the clean up phase. Maybe they dropped those guys in by crane to survey the scene from above.



Something to consider. Is it possible that for the first few floors from basement to say floor 10, that the actual core was bigger, stronger, thicker. Judging by the locations of these 30 ton columns one might get wild ideas now!

Oh~~what's that stuff behind that upper brace beam Gam circled in red?

Hombre'

[Fintan]

[Hombre]

[Hombre]

Here later on in clean up,
is a pic of the same core
same approx: angle only
much of the debris seen in
Fintans pic is now gone, removed.

I'm drawn to the lower left side of the core
and the grayish concrete looking material.
I ask myself how can it be that I see what
Chris says is 3 inch rebar at top, bent over
yet on enlargement this area I refer to becomes
cloudy, almost air brushed away!



Same angle, the only one other than a shot from
the plaza that I've ever seen.

It bothers me that the clean-up crews were so intent on
getting at that core with all the unstable perimeter columns
left to flap in the wind. Something smells about that!

Hombre

[Christophera]

[S.N.A.F.U.]

I found this image of the WTC1 spire in a local library book. I attempted to scan the image using 4800 DPI resolution, but it just doesn't look as nice as it does in the book. I am hoping this will give some of the finer detail that may be of use. The book is "New York September 11" by Magnum Photographers and should be easy enough to locate if you want to see it for yourself.

[Christophera]

[Christophera]

[Fintan]

I'd like to address the question of
what constitutes substantial evidence?

And I think that the basis is different now, than when we started.

Back then, any sign whatsoever of a concrete core was valuable.
After all, it might indicate an unexplored and valuable line of inquiry.

So, for example, a comment which might be from Leslie Robertson,
or an article which mentions a concrete core, are indications that
this is an area worth investigating. And so we investigate....

But at this point the criteria have tightened.

Now, we are looking for unequivocal proof.

And so, a lot of stuff goes to the wall.

For example, the Leslie Robertson 'post' which was interesting as a
possible pointer, is now useless as substantial evidence. There's
absolutely no proof it was Robertson.

The same applies to the MSNBC article by a journalist, which mentions a
concrete core. The concrete core is not a direct quote from Robertson.
It is quite likely to simply be a padding sentence added by the journalist.
And journalists get things wrong.

In fact, all sorts of people get things wrong. About.com or other reference
websites get things wrong. Urban legends or mistaken 'facts' abound.
Articles or reference sites by non-professionals which mention a concrete
core, may simply be wrong, confounded by a shift from concrete to steel
in buildings.

Even semi-professionals like Deborah Snoonian(who has an engineering
degree), writing in Architectural Record can legitimately get it wrong --
especially with wrong information already out on the internet. Such
mistakes are not substantive evidence.

Neither is the report by the National Council of Structural Engineers
Associations -which also mentions a concrete core. That report was
not a structural engineering report about the WTC collapses.

It was a report about the preparedness of structural engineers to respond
to future disasters and to work with federal and other agencies --based
on their experience of such issues on 9/11 . It mentioned the structure of
the Twin Towers in passing in a preamble to the report. Those paragraphs
could well have been copied from online sources. Despite the fact that
professionals prepared the report, because the main thrust was entriely
peripheral to the issue of the structure of the core, that 'error' is yet again
an insubstantial issue when looking for hard evidence.

Then there's the question of the TV documentary from which Chris draws
much of the impetus for his investigation. We have no TV Times pages
listing such a feature for transmission. We have no documentary.

We have only an -as yet- unverified statement from one other person
who saw the documentary. And so the entire issue is no good as evidence
to reach a firm conclusion.

Similar problems affect the pictorial indications of a concrete core.

The photo of core remains at Ground Zero may well show a piece of
rebar, but that could easily be a utility pipe. One grey-shaded area may
be remains of concrete, but the photo could have been retouched to give
that impression. Even if it is 100% legitimate, the gray-shaded area is
insubstantial and too vague to prove anything.

Again, the photo seeming to show a crumbling core area during the
collapse of one Tower could just be a thick pall of dust which soon
dissipated -as seen in subsequent photos in that series. Admittedly,
if a rigorous analysis of that photo sequence was able to conclusively
show that the dark area was definitely a concrete core, then that
might carry some weight --but no such analysis has yet been done.

In conclusion, all the issues I have mentioned were in the early stages
all possible indications of there perhaps being a concrete core, but these
issues not only fail the test of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but
also fail as proof on the balance of probability.

The final determination of this issue must rest mainly on conclusive
analysis of the structure of the buildings to determine if there was room
for a concrete core, and on analysis of the highest-quality available
photo and video records, etc..

[S.N.A.F.U.]

[S.N.A.F.U.]

[Christophera]

[Christophera]