LOL, nothing can be proven using obsolete misrepresentations except your intent to support secret methods of mass murder and treason.
Let's dissect your explanation below shall we. This whole "the larger, lower portion having more mass than the upper, smaller portion should have resisted the upper portion as it descended and thus should have stopped the collapse" is pure idiocy. Ok. Wrong. That would mean that a PORTION of that level would need to support the 99,000 tons above, not the whole level. That portion being the vertical steel columns. The concrete floors between the outer facade and core columns had nothing to do with supporting the vertical loads of anything above them. Let me ask you something psikey. When the 10 story upper block in your example above descends and then impacts level 90, the top level of the still intact lower section, what percent of that 90th level were VERTICAL components that were DESIGNED to bear the weight of VERTICAL LOADS and transfer those loads down to the grillages/earth below? Let's use a simplified version of your example above. A 4 story version. Look at the diagram below. Your "levels" are designed from components and assemblies with DIFFERENT load designs. In your example, your "levels" are each comprised of floors and vertical columns. The floors have NOTHING to do with supporting any loads from anything above them. They support their own weight and anything placed upon them. So each level is 100 tons. Level 1's vertical columns (in blue) are designed to support the weight of the three levels above totaling 300 tons. THE COLUMNS ONLY. Now let's say for example that the floors BETWEEN the columns are design to support 25 tons. What happens to the part of the 100 tons of level 4 that DOESN'T impact the vertical columns on it's way down, bypasses them, and continues to the floor which was designed to hold only 25 tons? That force of impact upon the floor is going to be greater than 100 tons yes? What does that mean psikey. FLOOR FAILURE!
I used your dimensions and descriptions Chris! Are you saying that your information is "obsolete misrepresentations"?!
The above matches YOUR STATED dimensions Chris. You agree with the dimensions used for the column spacing in the drawing above. I have your dimensions for your fake core at the base. It is public knowledge how many elevators and stairwells were in the core area. I have the number of hallways you seem to think were in your fake concrete core. So now what Chris? Are you saying your information is not real Chris?
[MENTION][/MENTION]Hah, got no pics of the steel framed core on 9/11? Well then, gam figures posting obsolete misrepresented plans ought to do for proving a steel framed core structure. Go figure again. The concrete core is easy to prove with pics from 9/11. Mods, is it really okay to promote secret methods of mass murder and treason on this forum? What about trying to hijack threads about fact with no facts?
Fixed your question for accuracy, whether he's right or wrong about the WTC core structure. IMO of course. I find the core argument irrelevant, it doesn't change what happened on 9/11 or make the OCT true either way. But that's just me.
Again. Your core has been proven to be a physical impossibility using YOUR agreed upon dimensions. Nothing more than a made up fantasy and perpetuated by you. Funny how your story and accompanying website keep evolving as you create more and more garbage every time someone brings up something that shows your concrete core to be nothing but fantasy. You even tried posting a picture of the NEW tower in it's infancy to try and pass it off as being one of the old towers with its concrete core protruding out the top. What a joke! You didn't even know that until I pointed it out to you and then blamed someone else for giving you that information. Yeah, we should trust your explanations about what pictures show after that debacle. All this coming from a guy who couldn't tell the difference between construction photos of the new tower and the old towers.
What you are not recognizing is that the official story of fire damage causing collapse will never fly. Which is why the post 9/11 psyops focused on gatekeeping the facts. In light of that, the concrete core is hyper relevant.
FACTS? Like you trying to pass off a photo of the new tower construction as a photo of the old tower as being FACT?! https://web.archive.org/web/20120415185835/http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html How ironic!
Still no pic of the supposed steel framed core. But I have no problem finding images of the concrete core. Mistakes are made, and laws are violated. Two different things. You are violating laws. Currently you are in violation of Title 18, part I, chapter 115, §2382 Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both. AND 18 U.S. Code § 3 - Accessory after the fact Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact. Except as otherwise expressly provided by any Act of Congress, an accessory after the fact shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the principal, or both; or if the principal is punishable by life imprisonment or death, the accessory shall be imprisoned not more than 15 years.
That's what I don't recognize? Did you just celebrate the legalization of weed in your state? Last I checked I believe I started this thread: http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/458597-nist-9-11-scam-exposed-all-its-glory.html I don't believe one could say I don't recognize anything of the sort. Unfortunately, the OCT fire damage collapse already flies quite high for some. Many of them hang out in this section of the forum. What are you smoking anyway? Send me some. For you maybe, for the rest it's insignificant whether the story flies for them or it doesn't. I don't know of anyone making an issue of it other than you. There was so much fakery with the OCT that it's difficult to keep track of all the lies. If that's one more lie, it needs to wait in line with all the lies.
If the world new the twins had a concrete tubular core no one would believe fire was responsible like you say is believed here. At least that's what I think you are saying. What are you smoking ? You are not recognizing that if they knew the core was concrete they would not believe fire was responsible. After everyone realizes fire cannot cause concrete to disintegrate, they will begin asking, "What happened to all of the concrete in the core." Game over. Nothing. California just got hijacked by corporate weed production and the compassionate use act (prop 215) will not control business anymore.
From what I understand, less than half believe fire was responsible without knowing anything about the core. Perhaps you should have worded your prior post more clearly then. As I said, see above. There's more than enough evidence, history and science regardless of the core that makes the fire/plane/damaged caused collapse a story believable to the ignorant/gullible. Or it got hijacked by their own citizens who are sick and tired of government controlling their recreation time and dictating to them what's bad for them when it's obvious it's just another profit/control motivated LIE.
Then that's a sizeable group that can then stand up and say, "What happened to the concrete core." If they knew there was a concrete core, which they don't. If they did, game over, because those that believe fire was a cause would change their beliefs.
Look, I know the 3 towers did not "collapse" as a result of fire/planes/damage or a combination. It's not just a belief, for me it's a fact. I don't care if the WTC cores were made of steel, concrete or pick up sticks, there's not one iota of a chance that it happened as claimed by the US government's OCT. It's not just the science/physics, it's plain old common sense as well. 3 high rise towers were not totally destroyed in a matter of seconds just like 3 perfectly planned and executed controlled demolitions, all on the same day. Those who believe the OCT will not change their beliefs no matter what they learn about the core. Don't forget, some still believe there were WMDs in Iraq.
Yeah, why don't you turn yourself in? He's right about one thing though, you are an enabler and there's nothing I find genuine with your posts about 9/11. I've never read one post from you that questions anything about the OCT but I've read many where you insult/ridicule those who question/contradict the OCT. Can you honestly tell me the OCT has not one significant thing wrong with it that raises a question for you? And that every single issue raised that contradicts/questions the OCT is 100% wrong? For the 2nd question, I have noted that on occasion, you failed to respond to my response, I take that as an agreement or concession (via your silence) although I don't believe you would ever admit it.
Okay, assume everyone knew the twins had a rectangular concrete, tubular core. What happened to the cast concrete?
That makes no sense. Why do I need to make assumptions and answer a question based on such an assumption? It does nothing for me or has any relevance to what happened on and after 9/11. The concrete core issue is an obsession with you but not for me or anyone else I know of. Again the OCT doesn't stand on its own merit no matter the structure or components of the core.
You need it to apprehend the truth . You will find the question cannot be answered without involving high explosives. Currently you assume the OCT is correct about the core being a steel framed structure. The OCT is correct in stating heat will allow steel to bend.
Maybe, only if it's true of course. There is a lot more important truth that I'm interested in besides the core. Such as who was really directly involved in 9/11. I already know some of the ones who were indirectly involved and they're not Arabs. Of course it's quite possible and highly likely they were also directly involved but I don't know for sure. Either way they're responsible for mass murder and crimes against humanity. The core issue is insignificant in comparison and is not something I care about. Of course but that still has nothing to do with the core. Explosives are used to demolish buildings, regardless of the makeup of the core. I don't make any assumptions about the OCT other than everything about it is either a lie or a deception, because of the sheer number of known obvious lies and coverups. Partial truth is a deception, which might as well be a lie. Physics and chemistry are correct as to the above, the OCT has to be compatible with physics on some things. Like I said partial truth is a lie or a deception. Steel sags at certain high temperatures even in office fires. The Cardington and Broadgate office fire experiments showed that steel sagged in an exaggerated fire which produced high temperatures. But by the same token showed that there was no collapse even with a sagging steel frame. It doesn't mean that a steel frame building can't ever collapse in an inferno as happened with the Windsor Tower's partial collapse. But "collapse" globally in seconds just like a CD? Not on this planet, ever.
But concrete can be fractured to fall instantly with HE. Steel can too, but has the audio signature of un contained detonation, which was not present. The audio signature of well contained blasts WAS present. Apprehending the truth.
Looks like you missed my first inquiry Chris so I'll ask again. Are you actually accusing me of a crime?
