Then you have no basis or standing to make any claims relative to the contents or the author(s) of the videos, letters and articles within the thread. As already explained, there are many points of criticism with regard to NIST's "investigation" of the tower "collapses" within the thread. Read it or don't, it's your prerogative. For me, although many articles, experiments and videos by experts regarding the twin towers are quite revealing, I only need common sense to tell me the twin towers did not globally "collapse" in seconds as a result of planes and ensuing damage and fires, they were deliberately destroyed. How exactly they were destroyed is the subject of speculation and not as important as the fact that they were deliberately destroyed and did not collapse (as in a natural collapse due to circumstances). Ok, far be it for me to try to convince you to do the research, especially when you've already stated you particularly don't want to "sift" through videos. Videos are nothing more than a medium, a messenger if you will, just like a piece of paper with written material on it.
Building the World Trade Center and Twin Towers - 1 of 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__gUjUv1vvw Building the World Trade Center and Twin Towers - 2 of 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCbu3CvD3h8 At 4:25 in the second video you can see the core surrounded by the floor panels and the perimeter. 9/11 WTC North Tower Core, HAVE YOU SEEN IT? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dWBBEtA5bI I have not encountered anyone denying the existence of the cores before. Maybe the cores were removed after construction was completed but before 9/11. I presume you have documentation on the Chinese climate change hoax. psik
To be fair, it isn't very clear in the video what the core is made of, it's too grainy. I personally don't doubt the core was an interconnected steel structure. Also to be fair, he's not saying there's no core, just that the cores were made of concrete. But I do agree I know of no one else who makes that claim. IMO the argument is irrelevant to what happened on 9/11 or the fact that the OCT claim is a bald faced lie. The 3 towers did not naturally "collapse" from the effects of the planes, damage, fire or any combination no matter what the cores were made of. They were deliberately and perfectly destroyed (just like what happens with every planned and perfectly executed CD of a steel frame high rise) and that is clearly visible in all the videos. Also, when a CD is incorrectly planned or incorrectly executed, a steel frame high rise will not be globally destroyed in seconds. This is a fact as seen on many videos. So why anyone would believe planes, fire, damage, earthquakes, and in one known case (the Usci Tower) multiple missiles, damage and fire, or anything other than a planned CD could possibly globally destroy such structures in seconds makes no sense. CDs have many precedents and can always be reproduced, the OCT fairy tale has not one single precedent in the history of steel frame high rises, not even with all the other fire/damaged WTC buildings (3, 4, 5 and 6) and can never be reproduced, not by experiment or computer simulation.
I have no problem accepting the engineering aspects of the collapse. I figured the fix was in when Bush tried to appoint Kissinger to head the investigation AND when the investigation turned out to be so narrow in scope that it's only purpose was to prevent a 9/11 event "from happening again". What a total crock o' mierde. The Bush Administration (maybe not Bush himself) was behind the whole damn thing.
I watched those in about 2005. Elevator guide rail support is misrepresented as "core columns", or perhaps interior box columns which surrounded the concrete core. The exterior steel was erected ahead of the concrete making the core hard to see in construction photos. Guiliani took 15,000 photos and videos from the WTC civic room at the NYC dept. of buildings. He did it so this controversy could exist. http://algoxy.com/psych/guiliani.wtc.documents.html Where are the steel core columns? They did not exist. The only vertical steel in the core was elevator guide rail supports. I am a virtual witness to the construction of WTC 1 by viewing the 1990 documentary titled, "The Engineering and Construction of the World Trade Center." This structural engineer is certified in 12 states and probably saw some plans BEFORE Guiliani took them from the city. http://algoxy.com/psych/images3/domel_safety_report.ncsea.down.pdf The truth movement was started by the perps to assure misleading. AE is a part of that. If that was not true gage wouldn't be using plans with pixelated, photoshopped revision tables. I personally pointed this out to him in 2008 in the San Luis Obispo public library where he was giving a presentation. He said there was video of the steel framed core, but never produced it. Only structural engineers or people well versed in steel and concrete construction can deal with this issue.
No, nukes are not needed. Conventional explosives very well distributed during construction will be the most contained explosive placement possible. Inside the concrete engineered as a container, breeching at maximum pressures assures concrete will be reduced to particulate matter. Also, in that process the entire contents of the building are subjected to hard stone aggregate traveling at 20kfps to 5kfps. Which PERFECTLY explains why the buildings contents were totally shredded. The radioactivity of nukes probably would have triggered and in depth investigation. By simply concealing the fact of the concrete core, the event becomes so difficult to understand that a relatively small group of agents or MKultra victims could provide a false front appearing to "know" the OCT steel framed core existed. However, they can explain NOTHING with that core. They cannot show it on 9/11, they cannot explain how it was demoed if it existed. The detonation characteristics of cutting charges are completely different from what was seen and heard.
And what exactly are they misleading? That the OCT is false? That's what YOU're preaching all day long every day. The only difference is you're obsessed with the core column issue and not much else about 9/11. That most people want the truth about 9/11? Why is that misleading exactly? I posted an entire thread exposing the NIST scam and most of it is about WTC7, a subject you basically admit you're not interested in. It's loaded with technical detail by the same people you believe are misleading others. And what are they saying generally speaking? That the OCT is a scam, exactly what you're saying. That's some "misleading". The stated purpose and agenda of AE911T is to get a petition signed by as many experts as possible and others and present it to Congress in order to get a real investigation into 9/11 conducted (which will never happen anyway). What is misleading about that? I'm sorry but your obsession is just that, even if it's 100% true and even if you manage to convince everyone, it doesn't change a thing, the OCT is still a scam and your obsession (if true) only adds to that scam, it isn't a central issue. If anything, you're the one who's being misleading by attacking those who have spent years exposing the OCT for what it is, in technical detail. What is your personal agenda exactly, is it to get at the truth about 9/11 or is it just about the core columns?
No, AE states the OCT is 100% true regarding the structure, and refuses to use any evidence proving otherwise while also having none from 9/11 to show it is true. With that they render what happened to the towers impossible to understand while chanting "Conspiracy " "inside job", which are cognitive distortions of all or nothing thinking and over generalizations to marginalize the entire effort socially. They are embarrassing and totally ineffective at revealing any truth in helping the public to understand exactly what happened. Which is what their agenda is. Very sophisticated covert operation of disinformation through misinformation through their "peer" agreement .
Sorry, that's your personal opinion. I don't share it of course. These people were/are instrumental in exposing the scam and have been for years now. They're not going away and they are expanding awareness daily. If not for them it would have been extremely difficult to gather experts to research and describe the OCT scam in full technical detail. Without AE911T, others in many scientific and other relevant disciplines would not have formed esteemed panels such as: http://www.consensus911.org/ If you feel they're ineffective and they "embarrass" you personally then you have to deal with that, it's your problem. This is how "ineffective" these people are: New 9/11 truth documentary among 'most watched' on PBS this week By Victoria N. Alexander Sep 3, 2012 in Politics "9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out" is getting public attention and casting doubt on the scientific validity of the U.S. government's investigation into the WTC tragedy. PBS is the first major network to air the program. Just days away from the 11th anniversary of the World Trade Center tragedy and months away from the U.S. presidential election, a game-changing 9/11 documentary is ranking number three among "most watched" documentaries on PBS and number one among "most shared." Available for free online August 18th - September 4th, the documentary could have a significant effect on public opinion. [Update: PBS has extended viewing indefinitely.] Both the Republicans and Democrats, as equally staunch defenders of the official story, stand to be affected if the public's suspicion of government corruption grows deeper. An earlier report on Digital Journal found that the claims made in the documentary can be verified by reading the government reports themselves. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the government agency charged with the investigation, did not provide any data -- no measurements or estimates -- of the mass or energy that would be required to bring down the buildings in about ten seconds. Normally a scientific report would present all the data that is used to construct a theory. The omission of data is a red flag to anyone familiar with scientific procedure. It appears that the investigators may have intentionally produced reports that the scientific community would reject. According to the experts appearing in Explosive Evidence, the scientific community did reject the reports immediately, but it has taken a very long time for this message to reach the public. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, the producers of the documentary, have been trying to educate the public for a number of years. The PBS broadcast of their work represents a major step forward for them. While most people have probably heard that a scientific investigation has been conducted and that the building collapses were explained, few have probably looked at the NIST reports themselves. Links to the NIST reports can be found in the above mentioned Digital Journal article. NIST provides no data whatsoever on the actual collapse sequence itself. http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/332051 [video=youtube;1l-8PFk8j5I]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1l-8PFk8j5I[/video] The publication below was allegedly viewed 300,000 times. I would imagine many of those views by professionals in various scientific disciplines. I haven't heard anyone who doesn't believe the OCT make claims that these people are ineffective and embarrassing. Congratulations, you're the first one. But given that you're not interested in anything other than the twin towers' cores vis a vis 9/11, I would say we have very little in common when it comes to 9/11, other than neither of us believes the OCT. http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf Anyway, thanks for your opinion, it is unique to say the least.
Then you are saying that the NIST is lying. They describe the core as having 47 columns and that there were 200,000 tons of steel in the towers. psik
Hah, they will say they were deceived. That is what guilianis act is about here. http://algoxy.com/psych/guiliani.wtc.documents.html That is why it took so long to assemble an engineering analysis. They had to get engineers together that would work without plans and use anecdotal evidence of the supposed steel framed core. It's about confusing the blame.
Thanks, that pretty much settles that, not that I ever doubted the twins' cores were an interlaced steel structure. Not to mention as I have said quite often, it's irrelevant in the scheme of things, it doesn't make the OCT true either way or change the fact that the 3 towers could not possibly have been completely destroyed in seconds as a result of planes/damage/fire or a combination. Chris' obsession is an exercise in futility, no one else I'm aware of believes the concrete cores theory and more importantly, that the issue is significant to what happened on 9/11 or the fake official "investigations".
NIST's disclaimers are all about trying to absolve them of any wrongdoing because they knew their "investigation" and published reports were a scam. I can't imagine those at NIST with their level of expertise being that collectively incompetent and going through all sorts of pretentious shenanigans to avoid performing a legitimate investigation unless they knew exactly the nature of their scam. They may be expert engineers but they are amateurs at the racketeering business. They were easily exposed by their peers.
And what is that "something" psikey? Do you even know? What structural components, at each level, were designed to hold up the rest of the structure above said level? Correct. So back to my first question above. Floors at each level had nothing to do with supporting any weight of the levels above. So what structural components are left at each level that are designed to support the remaining structure above? Columns? Where the interlaced, horizontal beam connections to the core columns designed for the same gravity loads as the vertical columns? Were those horizontal members subjected to the same gravity loads as the 47 core columns or 240 perimeter columns of a particular level?
So explain to us how you differentiate between elevator guide rail steel and core columns using pictures Chris. What component properties are visible in photos you have that tells you it's elevator guide rail support steel and not core support steel. As it stands now, you're making this up.
Which YOU say talked about your tapered concrete core, which started at it's base as a rectangle with 17' thick concrete short axis walls and 12' thick concrete long axis walls and tapered to 2' thick at it's 1300' height. Isn't that right Chris? And you can't find this documentary ANYWHERE nor can you find any mention of it? All removed from history so certain people can perpetuate the conspiracy. Convenient that you can't find it. Admit it Chris. You made all this up.
The horizontal beams keep the vertical columns from buckling. Pinning the columns every 12 feet is necessary for them to support the weight. I will continue to say a LEVEL had to support the weight. If I said a man picked up a pencil from the floor, we know he did not use his ears or nose to do it. He may have used his mouth but that is quite unlikely. So I am not going to specify exactly what supported the weight in a level. I anyone is not smart enough to figure it out that is their problem. Even if we are sure a man used his hand to pick up a pencil that does not tell us if he bent his knees or only bent at the waist. I see no point in excess detail. But the distribution of mass down the building would have to affect collapse time because of the Conservation of Momentum therefore it is ridiculous that we do not have it. If the physics would not allow the building to come down in less than 30 seconds then arguing about floors is superfluous. Why can't experts point out the obvious importance of distribution of mass? psik
The difference is seen in what is connected to the vertical steel. Now, to show your fundamental structural knowledge, you tell me what is connected to the vertical elements that is also seen with a steel core.
And what resists lateral loads of wind eliminating sway and torsion? A term I've not heard. "Pinning"? To what?
The perimeter took the impact of the wind but the floors transferred that lateral force to the core. It was the 3-D steel grid of the core that actually gave the building its rigidity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23A4SsMIezI The columns of the were pinned to and braced each other so the effective length of each section was the distance between one horizontal set of beams and the next. The average distance between columns in the core of the WTC was about 17 feet. In a normal grid skyscraper like the Empire State Building the columns were 30 feet apart. In the 1920s they did not have computers to do the thousands or millions of calculations to compute the stress on every column and beam. psik
Agent gam prefers a fantasy so secret methods of mass murder can be perpetuated in the future. The hallway running the long axis wall is SEEN here. And I am certain now that 6" not 3" rebar is seen coiled tightly on the top if the basewall, the only part not destroyed. The people who survived in a stair well inside were on the far side right of the base wall. The foundation was 4" and 6" rebar that strengthened the transition from core basewall to shear wall core. The 6" ran from inside the foundation of the basewall up into the shear wall over it. Other 3" rebar also had their base connected to the steel of the base wall.
Not the right answer. And the added stuff doesn't explain how sway and torsion are controlled. Diagonal braces and gusset plates are the correct answer along with beams. Your use of the term "pinned" indicates you know nothing of how structural steel works. It's clear you do not have the fundamental knowledge to analyse the evidence I present.
