FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Built To Demolish, Towers Were Engineered Containers
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps General Investigation
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Christophera



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

PostPosted: Sun May 20, 2007 9:21 pm    Post subject: Built To Demolish, Towers Were Engineered Containers Reply with quote

Two explosive circuits. One of the core, the other of the floors.

The core had high tensile steel rebar with a C4 explosive coating. The rebar standing below had been left exposed and the C4 did not detonate. Horizontal bar tied on in the spring thatw did go off which removed the concrete to leave the 3 inch vertical bar standing.



See,

http://algoxy.com/psych/spire-sequence.html

For the "Spire Sequence". The rebar above is the end of that sequence.

The core was separable into numerous detonations by 40 foot access through ports cast into the concrete shear walls (FEMA lied, no steel core columns).

The floor panels were separate explosive circuits, perhaps 20 x 60 (wide side) or maybe 40 x 60 (between floor beams 60 foot c to c).

The floors went off first leaving the detonation system for the core untouched because it was on the inside of the thick, steel reinforced cast concrete walls.

75 milliseconds between floors and 300 ms between 40 foot pieces of core gets it to the ground pulverized at a rate equal to free fall +-.

Cold war self destruct technology designed for missile silos and sub bases.

The basic engineering problem combines structural engineering with explosives engineering. After your rebar is big enough, the size can be increased to allow thicker C4 coating whic is calculated against the containment of the surrounding concrete.

Ultimately what is created is a container that allows absolute maximum pressure build up before breaching. The shock wave is amplified which reduces the concrete to sand and gravel.

http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg

The very high pressures make extremely fine dust, lots of it, and, ...... it is silica with iron bonded to it fromthe extreme temperatures associated with the very high pressures.

Here are the results of precision explosive planes detonating.



The red line indicates the corner of the cast concrete core. Rebar centered in the shear wall is farther from the corner of the concrete than it is from the face of the concrete wall, meaning that the blast will go in that direction. Alqways taking the path of least resistance. The perpendiculary opposing core walls have debris waves moving outward from each other with very little debris coming out from the corner at 45 degrees.

The yellow line indicates the approximate ridge formed by the debris wave beginning on the face of the shear wall plane.

Both towers exhibited this pattern exactly. The lower core walls were much thicker and the 40 foot delays below the 43rd floor were probably not used.

We are in much deeper trouble than we ever thought.

Our government has been infiltrated in 1950 and the only way we can hope to protect the US Constitution, our rights and freedoms, our futures is to get over the BS differences that corporate, media manipulaton has sought to create in the people for that last 35 years.

Ike warned us about the military industrial complex, JFK warned us about the secrecy of the cold war.

That secrecy was used to build the towers to demolish and that act was to create fear, to attempt to put our reptilian instincts in control.

Lizards do not work together and do not recognize each others purposes.

Which instincts will you allow to rule you, the higher mammalian or the lower reptilian?

There is an email link on my website.

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

Tell me which you will be, put MAMMAL in the subject line so I can discern your message in my spam blocker, those with the reptilian instinct in command, cannot respond.

_________________
"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
obeylittle



Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 442
Location: Middle o' Mitten, Michigan Corp. division of United States of America Corp. division of Global Corp.

PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2007 6:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Welcome Christophera,

I'm about an hour into your site now and I'm convinced that you are correct about the tower's cores. About the lack of a huge amount of large structural steel columns in them...

Do you have any plausible alternate explanations lying around in the back of your brain for the explosives used; besides your C-4 encased rebar (and light steel) hypothesis?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Christophera



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

PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2007 2:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

obeylittle wrote:
Welcome Christophera,

I'm about an hour into your site now and I'm convinced that you are correct about the tower's cores. About the lack of a huge amount of large structural steel columns in them...

Do you have any plausible alternate explanations lying around in the back of your brain for the explosives used; besides your C-4 encased rebar (and light steel) hypothesis?


The photos of the towers absolutely do not show the many explosions of the type needed and their results of cutting a supposed 47 steel core columns. Such has a very specific appearance.

What is seen is perfectly contained high speed detonations creating a continous wave of debris with amazing uniformity.

There is not a single alternative to perfectly placed and dsitributed explosives I can come up with obeylittle, which can have the appearance that 9-11 at the WTC does have. Of course it could be any explosive but whatever it is, IS properly centralized and well distributed throughout.

The is a fact that each 9-11 truth activist should be aware of and use in spreading the truth about the towers inner concrete structure.

Concrete can be easily fractured to fall freely by a small amount of explosives which are properly placed, steel cannot.

Imagine the question IF people knew there was a concrete core.

1. Ahhhhhhhh, what happenned to all the concrete?

2. Hey, concrete doesn't burn or melt under those conditions.

Such a good reason for the perpetrators, infiltrators of the US government, to purge the photos from constrcution that show concrete, the few there were of the grey mass 60 feet in a 12 foot high floor from the perimeter and infiltrate PBS to dispose of the documentary called,

The Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers

Then dredge up the obsolete plans from Leslie Robertsons original proposal which shows steel core columns and FAKE them after scanning them in an attempt to decieve Americans.

I show how they are faked here.

http://algoxy.com/psych/whatis9-11Disinfo_fakeplan.html

_________________
"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: Mon May 21, 2007 2:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oops, forgot to add to this,

"There is not a single alternative to perfectly placed and dsitributed explosives I can come up with obeylittle, which can have the appearance that 9-11 at the WTC does have. Of course it could be any explosive but whatever it is, IS properly centralized and well distributed throughout. "

THIS

And C4 would be the easiest to use.

_________________
"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
Hocus Locus



Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 847
Location: Lost in anamnesis, cannot forget my way out

PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2007 9:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Twin Towers.
NO VERTICAL POURED CONCRETE USED IN CONSTRUCTION ABOVE 1FL
THERE WAS NO "REBAR"


There was no vertical rebar component in the Towers' construction. Steel was used for all vertical load bearing. There was concrete in the core... poured just for the floors. No vertical concrete core shell. Sheetrock of varying thicknesses for (non) load bearing walls.

Lack of structural concrete was central to the towers' economy of construction, flexibility under wind streess. earthquake resistence and interior economy of space. Lack of concrete made them possible.

Christophera, I won't go on and give you the Nth degree about this... but I will ride you to some extent if you keep on. The folks at physorg were downright brutal to you -- I saw, and know. I sympathize with you, not them even -- they were so busy rejecting the message they didn't even take it into other directions, or go with the implications. Just debuk and run.

In fact I thank you kindly because it was your research which drove home to me the significance and importance of the spires.

But as for 'rebar', even visually, consider the distance from camera and the stress on the vertical steel column after the tower's cap fell onto and broke apart around it -- your photo shows a ~30 story section of free standing column. Even if there was a [b]shred of doubt in my mind as to whether vertical rebar was used -- and there is no doubt, none was used -- the scale is all wrong. To stand out in such stark relief at that distance, and to free-stand so long after surviving the extreme impaling of the building's 'cap', only solid steel vertical steel column fits what is observed here, in terms of thickness and apparent strength.

As to your theory about preplacement... I gave it some thought, so much so in fact that the night I first encountered your theory I dreamt about it! And it was a really creepy scenario... gave me the shivers.

But speaking respectfully as an individual I just don't buy it in the light of day. While I recognize that the buildings had what one might call 'dual use' features -- such as removable panels in the core area for inspection purposes which may serve as convenient access for placing charges, putting demolition charges into a building is just too foolish and expensive a risk to take. It crosses the line of Occam's razor by a very wide margin no matter how fascinating the plot.

The spires betray their nature and strength by their very survival over collapse-time. Both spires also (I believe) betray a low-in-the-building clean cut by their delayed but complete topple, immediately after the symmetrical pressure wave surrounding them subsided. Absence of a ~30 story tapered ruin... in fact post-collapse photos of North Tower show nothing in the core extending above ~8FL -- not ONE column! -- leads me to theorize strongly that core was cut in the mechanical room above ~5FL.

I believe plain shaped charges in enclosed space did the main job for the core. Just a couple of places, and the building's cap did the demolition. Hat truss kept intact to concentrate the weight of the cap in the collapse zone. Kick the core low and high, tap the perimeter (comparatively) lightly. The building's own weight and vertical impaling action of steel perimeter columns pulverizes floor concrete, cold dust cloud (full of material already burning not superheated by explosion) that humans can survive, at least on that day.

05-Oct-2006 Mission statement
08-Oct-2006 South Tower demolition

Creepy enough, following Occam's Razor and assuming (actual) materials used in construction.

___
And of course... welcome back to BFN!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
obeylittle



Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 442
Location: Middle o' Mitten, Michigan Corp. division of United States of America Corp. division of Global Corp.

PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2007 11:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thats all I wanted to know Christophera.

I'll side with Occam though... and common sense for now. You see, explaining the destruction of the towers in a practical process, meeting several minim procedural criteria is the dominant requisite when presenting a theory of demolition on 9/11. You have met none of the standard requisites of a thorough, exploratory, professional evaluation that even the ignorant such as i, do sense. Your presentation reflects that your hypothesis was placed while your "facts" made to fit. Deliberate.

Claiming that military C-4 explosives were distributed about the buildings, amazingly as part of the engineered design and construction of those two buildings, suggests to me that you may be someone whom you are accusing your critics to be. You failed to produce here.

Also catching my eye on the way out was your deliberate accusation that the government was infiltrated in 1950 and that those are the perps... along with your totally differing style and personality presenting that, lacking anything congruent this time, again brought a rouser to my senses. This accusation seems to be your purpose; judging by its overdone promotion. This what is really important to you... placing blame on those 50s patsies whom have "infiltrated our government"; isn't it.

Strikes me as excise of the mere elementary, determined you are on all accounts in your heady first-shooter offense. You can do better than that can't you?

No more questions. Thanks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Christophera



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

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2007 12:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hocus Locus wrote:
Twin Towers.
NO VERTICAL POURED CONCRETE USED IN CONSTRUCTION ABOVE 1FL
THERE WAS NO "REBAR"


So do you believe the information of the infiltrating perpetrators despite what you note below.

Hocus Locus wrote:
in fact post-collapse photos of North Tower show nothing in the core extending above ~8FL -- not ONE column! -- leads me to theorize strongly that core was cut in the mechanical room above ~5FL.


You assert this at "mission statement" but there is no evidence of standard cutting charges or concussion charges. I calculate there would be over 1300 cuts needed to reduce 47, 1300 foot stel columns to the sizes present. We did not hear or see that. What was heard and seen was very well contained high speed delayed blasts.

Hocus Locus wrote:
~ Standard cutting and concussion charges ONLY -- NO thermite or exotics.


What I've just done is shown that your hypothesis for removal of the columns, a very important thing to provide logically, to your credit, is not supported by any evidence of 9-11. Also, you have not provided and scenario for installation. I know there were cutting charges but they were built in to the floors at construction and were very well contained by the cast concrete of the floors. Nad there were only 24 box columns which surrounded the cast concrete core.

Hocus Locus wrote:
your photo shows a ~30 story section of free standing column.


Above you say it was 30 stories of free standing column.



in the image above we cannot see that the lower part is not supported. We do not know it is free standing. AND it is not "column" as can be seen below a "column" is MUCH larger.



Hocus Locus wrote:
No vertical concrete core shell. Sheetrock of varying thicknesses for (non) load bearing walls.


Below is an end view of a concrete shear wall.


_________________
"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: Tue May 22, 2007 12:27 am    Post subject: Why does the board software truncate posts????? Reply with quote

Hocus Locus wrote:
Lack of structural concrete was central to the towers' economy of construction, flexibility under wind streess. earthquake resistence and interior economy of space. Lack of concrete made them possible.


You are believing the lie of the perpetrators propagated with their faked plans and ignoring images of hard evidence.

Hocus Locus wrote:
But as for 'rebar', even visually, consider the distance from camera and the stress on the vertical steel column after the tower's cap fell onto and broke apart around it. To stand out in such stark relief at that distance, and to free-stand so long after surviving the extreme impaling of the building's 'cap', only solid steel vertical steel column fits what is observed here, in terms of thickness and apparent strength.


Typically a doubter of concrete not posting images of steel core columns, asserts by default that we cannot see, ......... what we are seeing. I've already established that what we are seeing is far smaller than a column. It is so small it is almost not resolving, but it is, and note the slight curve of ALL of the fine vertical elements.

Hocus Locus wrote:
As to your theory about preplacement... I gave it some thought, so much so in fact that the night I first encountered your theory I dreamt about it! And it was a really creepy scenario... gave me the shivers.


The above is the most common sense thing you've said. We would all be creeped out if we knew the truth and rightfully so. We are in much more serious trouble than we think we are.

Hocus Locus wrote:
the buildings had what one might call 'dual use' features -- such as removable panels in the core area for inspection purposes which may serve as convenient access for placing charges, putting demolition charges into a building is just too foolish and expensive a risk to take. It crosses the line of Occam's razor by a very wide margin no matter how fascinating the plot.


Consider Gohrings razor as in "herman". The bigger the lie the easier it is to support because people cannot believe such a large deception would be attempted. Risk, yes. But minimal as the plastic explosive is protected by many feet of concrete.

Hocus Locus wrote:
The spires betray their nature and strength by their very survival over collapse-time. Both spires also (I believe) betray a low-in-the-building clean cut by their delayed but complete topple, immediately after the symmetrical pressure wave surrounding them subsided. Absence of a ~30 story tapered ruin...


At least you recognize the difference in appearance between the heavy steel column and the rebar. However you ignore the fine vertical elements with the slight curve to the right of the taller part.

Hocus Locus wrote:
I believe plain shaped charges in enclosed space did the main job for the core.


As I've said, there would have to be over 1300 of them and there is no sonic evidence of such an event. Also, you will find that there are no shaped charges that will take out the thicknesses of column wall at lower elevations. Also, again, you have not explained how the needed intimate contact with the column walls was achieved and this is an absolute necessity.

Hocus Locus wrote:
Just a couple of places, and the building's cap did the demolition. Hat truss kept intact to concentrate the weight of the cap in the collapse zone.


You need to show photographic evidence of the above.

Hocus Locus wrote:
And of course... welcome back to BFN![/i]


I appreciate that, and your sincere attempt at supporting the FEMA lie. However, evidence must be used.

_________________
"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: Tue May 22, 2007 12:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

obeylittle wrote:
Thats all I wanted to know Christophera.

I'll side with Occam though... and common sense for now.


Very wise to ad that caveat. Emphasis is mine.

obeylittle wrote:
You see, explaining the destruction of the towers in a practical process, meeting several minimum procedural criteria is the dominant requisite when presenting a theory of demolition on 9/11.


Again, very logical. That is why my first criteria is explaining free fall and pulverization, which cannot be done with the FEMA core. I forgot to point that out in my response to hocus locus, he didn't get close to explaining pulverization and failed to explain free fall.

The below exemplifies a very well contained explosion. It also shows the precision exploding planes of the core. The red line indicates the valley between the 2 perpendicular opposing core walls and the resultant expanding debris wave. Needles to say hocus locus did not even approach an explanation for this evidence of engineered, precision explosive containers which also perfectly explain pulverization and the sonic event seen and heard.

Concrete can be fractured instantly to fall freely by small amount of properly placed high explosive, steel cannot.



obeylittle wrote:
You have met none of the standard requisites of a thorough, exploratory, professional evaluation that even the ignorant such as i, do sense. Your presentation reflects that your hypothesis was placed while your "facts" made to fit. Deliberate.


You are far from ignorant with such careful choices of words to open with in your post. I do notice that you have used no facts, no images, no evidence, whereas I always do. This is because I KNOW FOR CERTAIN there was a cast concrete core. I also understand high explosives and structural steel.

obeylittle wrote:
Claiming that military C-4 explosives were distributed about the buildings, amazingly as part of the engineered design and construction of those two buildings, suggests to me that you may be someone whom you are accusing your critics to be.


Yes it is outrageous to suggest that the towers were also engineered explosive containers, but the event of free fall and pulverization speaks for itself and MUST be explained. I noticed you did not do that.

obeylittle wrote:
You failed to produce here.


Do you mean this thread? This thread is but a sample. My web site uses hard evidence extensively. It is the only site which provides a feasible explanation for events. Sorry you do not understand the potentials for secrecy that exist.

obeylittle wrote:
Also catching my eye on the way out was your deliberate accusation that the government was infiltrated in 1950 and that those are the perps... along with your totally differing style and personality presenting that, lacking anything congruent this time, again brought a rouser to my senses. This accusation seems to be your purpose; judging by its overdone promotion. This what is really important to you... placing blame on those 50s patsies whom have "infiltrated our government"; isn't it.


They are not patsies, their puppets are. Were the warnings of Ike and JFK in vain? Does the presence of the "mutually assured destruct policy" seem insane? It is from the same infiltration as is Iran Contra, the savings and loan rip off, BCCI, Enron. Do you not see the pattern? America has a psychological problem based in denial. denial of the potentials of secrecy.

obeylittle wrote:
Strikes me as excise of the mere elementary, determined you are on all accounts in your heady first-shooter offense. You can do better than that can't you?

No more questions. Thanks.


I can't even be sure what you mean with the last. If you think you are going to use this thread and its basic topic as evidence, my first sentence explaining the criteria I use dismisses your attempts to typify the radical aspects of this thread as something less than logical. The assertions I make ARE supported by evidence, evidence none happen to be able to explain.

_________________
"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
Don Smith



Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 248
Location: Erehwon

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2007 1:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Christophera-
My knowledge of physics dates from the time of Newton. It has been so long since I used math beyond my check book that I am overwhelmed by my grandchildren's Elementary Functions.
I have been looking at your web site and I am no expert, however tou do raise some points in a way that I have not yet seen.
You seem to avoid the combat mode in dealing with crutics, that goes a long way with me in credibility.
If you feel you are correct, stick to it.
I am going to work my way through this information, and thanks.

_________________
"A bayonet is a tool with a worker on both ends."- V.I.Lenin
Patriotism is a manifestation of the Stockholm Syndrome.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Christophera



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

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2007 1:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Don Smith wrote:
Christophera-
My knowledge of physics dates from the time of Newton. It has been so long since I used math beyond my check book that I am overwhelmed by my grandchildren's Elementary Functions.
I have been looking at your web site and I am no expert, however you do raise some points in a way that I have not yet seen.
You seem to avoid the combat mode in dealing with crutics, that goes a long way with me in credibility.
If you feel you are correct, stick to it.
I am going to work my way through this information, and thanks.


You are so welcome, thanks for your comment.

Viewing that documentary in 1990 gave me information that few others have, if any. Or those that do are too afraid to use it.

I've been involved with my struggle to impose logic on critics for a long time. I estimate at least 15,000 posts in 5 years. If I was an airplane taking flak I'd be invisible now. Maybe that is what you are seeing.

I actually have considerable experience in fields intrinsic to understanding what happened at the WTC, on top of the information mentioned. A welder for 35 years, I was a driller for a blaster on a very difficult job requiring that charges be set exactly in the center of the hardest rock to get anything done. Equipment operator having done a fair bit of demo. I work as a surveyor/draftsman now and do so closely with structural engineers and concrete contractors.

My understanding of human psychology and the potential for secrecy by uses of the unconscious mind actually makes devout Baptists pale and run. I would be your quintessential heretic if such definitions meant anything today.

I actually know how the secrecy worked that had the towers built to demolish, but such knowledge is so controversial that using it to explain that secrecy just compromises my efforts to get critics to use logic, so I'm saving that for after the truth is out about the towers. Then people will NEED to know how the government was infiltrated. Now they don't WANT to know, which is actually one of the bigger problems with 9-11 truth. People intuitively know something is VERY wrong and so run the other way like our beloved Babtists.

_________________
"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: Tue May 22, 2007 2:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I generally adverse to getting into debate about the fine details of 9/11; a cross between ignorance and laziness to some extent at least. But here goes with a couple of thoughts.

[size=18]If/size] concrete was used as a structural material, in a way I understand is being suggested, how can the building be flexible enough to sway in gales?

Are there other existing high rises with the type of construction that is being proposed?

Lastly and this is not an original, it has been suggested elsewhere that the design may have included facility for a planned demolition at the end of the buildings useful life. This is conceivable without there being the contemplation (at the time) of a false flag murder of thousands of people?

As an aside I think 1950 is a rather late date for the initial corruption of US government; there are plenty of indications of this well before that date.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps General Investigation All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 1 of 10

 
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.