Christophera's core

[smiley]

Let me start by saying that i don't post a whole lot here and I'm not much of a researcher. But I am intrigued by these discussions of the core. It seems to me that everyone here agrees with the theory of a controlled demolition.

And there are those who state that the center of the towers where built with 47 steel columns reinforced by steel. I may be wrong on this but is Christophera stating that these are lies that only serve to reinforce the official story of the pancake theory. If so, how?

The pancake theory defies gravity and jet fuel bringing the towers down doesn't seem plausible either, considering if wouldn't be hot enough to melt steel. How does a solid concrete core support a controlled demolition? How does 47 steel columns support the pancake theory?

As far as there being no evidence of 47 steel columns in christophera's pics - well, in my professional opinion as a graphic designer, the column in those photos looks photo-shopped. In his photos the column is visible through a haze of dust, yet the floors surrounding it are gone. How does this happen? Am I missing something?

If the towers were a controlled demolition wouldn't the steel columns break up and fall to the ground for the most part? So you wouldn't see them in a photo of the buildings as they fell. If in the end the supposed concrete core was demolished how did this happen after the floors surrounding it fell to the ground? Is he saying that the c4 was built right into the concrete core? That would seem the most unbelievable. If so then why weren't they detonated simultaneously with the outer floors? that would be a whole lot more believable.

Christophera continues to say that those who support the 47 steel columns are only supporting the lie that is the official story. How is this so? I just don't understand his argument and I'm just about ready to start ignoring his posts. He seems to be the one spreading the disinformation. Even if the towers where built with a solid core he certainly isn't making a very sound argument.

I was always under the impression the center had elevators in it. I could be wrong. I'm obviously not as informed about the structure as some. However I was recently sent a compilation dvd about 9/11 partially narrated by Dave Vonkleist. This movie showed how the towers were built. They did this to disprove the pancake theory and they showed the 47 steel columns. I tend to want to believe this very informative dvd.

One other question. What the hell does MIHOP and LIHOP mean?

[AZCat]

1. Don't mistake the absence of competing arguments...

to mean acquiescence of certain theories. Some of us are just not willing to engage in discussion with others on this board about particular topics. There are a number of us here that do not support controlled demolition theories, and I am one.



MIHOP = Make It Happen On Purpose
LIHOP = Let It Happen On Purpose

[philb]

3. What do you support and why not demonstrate why alternative theories

were ruled out or unlikely?

Are you of the opinion of MIHOP and LIHOP are essentially equivalent from a practical stand point, so all that needs to be discussed is whether LIHOP occured?

I agree with that premise essentially and think its clear and well documented by credible evidence that at least LIHOP happened.

[AZCat]

4. I'm just not willing to discuss that sort of thing.

Previous attempts have been fruitless (and frustrating) and I have decided it's not worth it.

There are technical aspects of both the events of September 11 and the aftermath that interest me and that I am willing to discuss, but that's about as far as I am willing to go.

Besides, who says I have anything to contribute to the particular discussion? Maybe I just don't know anything... :shrug: That certainly doesn't prevent me from having an opinion, does it?

[smiley]

5. understandably....

The evidence of controlled demolitions are hard to pinpoint. I support the theory because of the collapse of WTC 7 and also because of the video evidence of the other two towers. That theory seems the most plausible IMO.....

Thanks for the definitions.

[MercutioATC]

8. Count me as a non-subscriber to controlled demolition, too.

Hi AZCat!

[AZCat]

9. Hey MercutioATC...

Nice to see that you're popping back in here more frequently again.

How's life treating you these days?

[MercutioATC]

12. Doing well (despite the contract negotiations)

You?

[AZCat]

22. Pretty busy at work

I've been putting in 60+ hour weeks for a while, but it looks like I might have a couple of "normal" weeks ahead of me. Business has slowed a bit, although there are a few big projects on the horizon.

It's cooling off here thankfully. I can start running again during the day (now the asphalt won't be melted).

[philb]

2. It appears to me you didn't fully read Christophera's main post.

I thought he covered those issues pretty well. Whether he's being disingenious is another issue.
I suggest you go back and read his main web site on this. It covers a lot of your questions.

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

Regarding elevators:
LIEUTENANT JAMES WALSH FDNY
WTC1 elevators
WHAT ELSE I OBSERVED IN THE LOBBY WAS THAT THERES BASICALLY TWO AREAS OF ELEVATORS. THERES ELEVATORS OFF TO THE LEFT HAND SIDE WHICH ARE REALLY THE EXPRESS ELEVATORS THAT WOULD BE THE ELEVATORS THATS FACING NORTH. THEN ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE THERES ALSO ELEVATORS THAT ARE EXPRESS ELEVATORS AND THAT WOULD BE FACING SOUTH. AND YOU COULD SEE THE SHAFTS of THE ELEVATORS ON THE EXTREME NORTH SIDE AND THE OTHER EXPRESS ELEVATOR ON THE EXTREME SOUTH SIDE. THEY LOOKED INTACT TO ME FROM WHAT COULD SEE THE DOORS ANYWAY.

IN THE CENTER OF THESE TWO ELEVATOR SHAFTS WOULD BE ELEVATORS THAT GO TO THE LOWER FLOORS. THEY WERE BLOWN OFF THE HINGES. THAT’S WHERE THE SERVICE ELEVATOR WAS ALSO. Q. WERE THESE ELEVATORS THAT WENT TO THE UPPER FLOORS? THEY WERENT SIDE LOBBY ELEVATORS.
NO ID SAY THAT THEY WENT THROUGH FLOORS 30 AND BELOW, AND THEY WERE BLOWN OFF THE HINGES.

(the most damaged area and elevator area seems to have been the Port Authority/FBI area. What could have caused this damage?)
I can't imagion how the plane or jet fuel could be involved?

[smiley]

6. I've been reading his posts for months

They are confusing and seem to jump back in forth on what he is trying to say. Up until this evening I had never looked at his site. I have now and even though it is more cohesive I still think he is deliberately misleading in his posts. My skepticism mainly comes from the pictures of the core he continually posts. Sort of that saying if you show it enough it will become true. I think the photos are fakes. Can I prove it... no.

He is arguing the structural design of the building. Who cares? I just don't know what he is trying to prove. The towers came down because of something other than melting beams from burning jet fuel.

His photos are the first i have ever seen of this standing column. Most everybody he argues with seems to agree with the CD scenario but disagree with his explanation.

Like i said in my original post, I'm not a researcher but support the 9/11 movement. I enjoy reading these discussion threads and I'm just looking for a bit more clarity.

thanks for the elevator info anyway.

[Kevin Fenton]

7. Not faked

"As far as there being no evidence of 47 steel columns in christophera's pics - well, in my professional opinion as a graphic designer, the column in those photos looks photo-shopped."

I thought it was a fake too. I checked, it isn't. See here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x54766#54873
The other photos he uses are real too.

[philb]

16. Lead on FEMA study commented on the still standing WTC2 core

but it appears what is seen is inconsistent with the FEMA report core description:

DR GENE CORLEY (American Society of Civil Engineers): Large pictures like this and stop them, we…
NARRATOR: Since that day, investigators have poured over hundreds of hours of video images trying to find out exactly why the South Tower failed. The man in charge of the official inquiry is structural engineer Gene Corley. He noticed something in pictures taken by a nearby firm of architects. It shows that much of the core, which supported most of the downward weight of the building, was intact when the tower fell.
GENE CORLEY: It comes down. Looks like part of the core still showing there and the size and the spacing of the columns it looks like it must have been the core.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/worldtradecentertrans.shtml



For more details see:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=54766&mesg_id=54766

[Christophera]

10. A Detail You Missed And Explanation Explaining More Than Demolition

smiley,

First I have to say that I have written the word "tubular" about half the times i refer to the concrete core. Fairly often I describe it fully - tubular, steel reinforced, cast concrete core. Not solid.

posted by smiley
Even if the towers where built with a solid core he certainly isn't making a very sound argument.

My question to those who support the 47 steel core columns regarding the fact they do not show in the demolition photos, has NEVER been answered meaning that they cannot support their argument at all without referring to FEMA or other officially complicit sources. Is it "sound argument" to imply I say the core was solid? No, it is an error.

see next, posting problem

[rman]

15. "steel reinforced"

Wouldn't a steel reinforced core involve a lot of steel?

To mirror one of your often repeated quentions: "where is it?"

- the steel that is, all that reinforcement - should it not show up in the photos of the collapse, just like any steel from a core made of steel columns and concrete walls should show up (according to you)?

[philb]

18. rebar is reinforcement for concrete, but not massive beams

I think Christophera also talked of box columns and reinforcement to connect the core to the floor trusses; but this isn't massive beams.

Anyone seen any rebar in debris, and evidence of box columns.

I suspect there was some, though not sure where all rebar would have been used.
The WTC1 spire was rebar according to Christophera.

[Christophera]

19. Spire IS Box Column-After It Falls, The Rebar Of The Concrete Core Wall ..

stands.

Here is the spire. It is formed by an interior box column which was a massive, hand fabricated, tempeed steel tube. It was fastened to the outer wall of the core. Near the corners the interior box columns were spaced closer as the torsion resistance of the core depended on the core corners. The rebar is just behind the interior box columns. The rebar is inside and behind the spire elements within a foot or 2 of the inside face of the interior box column.



The height can be estimated of the spire and the rebar by comparision to the domed building. The rebar is shorter meaning that the top of the spire was fastened to the corner of the concrete. The blast that dropped the spire removed the last of the concrete sticking to the rebar and exposed it for the camera.

[Christophera]

20. Yes, For Example: A Study Of Lies Disproving The Steel Cores.

How can this,



or this,



not leave some visible elements protruding from the remnants as the building supposedly "collapses". Where are the remnants of the steel structures of the core that failed?



Posted by rman

- the steel that is, all that reinforcement - should it not show up in the photos of the collapse, just like any steel from a core made of steel columns and concrete walls should show up (according to you)?

Yes and well stated. Here it is in one case only because of a flaw. We see rebar not heavy columns as in the photo below which is part of a series taken from perhaps a vehicle at a slightly different angle. You can see the sag in the thinner, high temper steel bars. Not hte same structural elements as the spire formed from a tube of high tempered



The spire is an interior box column as is seen by the floor beams connected to it, not a part of the core. DIrectly connected to the concrete core but not a part of it.



In all we see no steel core but we do see reinforcing bar as rman points out.

And why are there 2 different designs for 2 of the worlds most prominant structures, public buildings?

People are even displaying a model that doesn't fit the FEMA diagram, how embarassing. The world might think the US is run by a secret government that murders its people to justify war.

[philb]

21. Are you saying this model is like the British Engineers/BBC version on

your web site; and also on other web sites; and as in your picture.
Steel beams covered by concrete?
Which is different than what you say the towers actual structure was?
Based on the video of construction you saw?

And neither of these are like the FEMA model?
Where did the British version come from? This model?
Isn't this supposedly the original version?

[Christophera]

11. continued post

board software is glitching out. Can't post properly

[vincent_vega_lives]

13. Welcome to the discussion

care to explain this?:

The pancake theory defies gravityexactly how?


and jet fuel bringing the towers down doesn't seem plausible either, considering if wouldn't be hot enough to melt steel.

No one has suggested the steel beams had to melt, so this is a moot point.

[Christophera]

14. Molten Steel In Basement Implies Fuel Provided Heat To Melt-Not Enough

heat to even cause bending over more than very short spans.

The pancake theory assumes enough energy from gravitational origin of the the first portion falling to cause the next to fall and assumes there is not enough resistence there to slow the upper falling portion in order to make gravity appear as ruling, un impeded, the descent of materials.

[philb]

17. Molten steel in WTC basement residue and implications

What caused the molten steel in the residue at WTC towers and what does this imply?
http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf
http://www.thenewliberator.com/wethepeople.htm
http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/wtc.htm
http://la.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/08/letter_of_concerns.pdf

Christophera and others with some background in explosives argue this is most consistent with thermite high explosives, along with the evidence from statement of the WTC1 buidling engineer and other witnesses.

More
New York Sanitation Workers had to haul off molten steel beams
http://www.wasteage.com/mag/waste_dday_ny_sanitation/

Hot spots in WTC residue too hot for gasoline fires
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html

Other witnesses to molten metal:
Allison Geyh, Ph.D. was one of a team of public health investigators from Johns Hopkins who visited the WTC site after 9-11. She states in the Late Fall 2001 issue of Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, "In some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel." http://iws1.jhsph.edu/magazineSpED/Welch.htm

Dr. Keith Eaton toured the site much later in the company of George Tarnaro, principal engineer, and stated in the September 3, 2002 issue of The Structural Engineer, "They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event." http://www.istructe.org.uk/about/files/president/Tour-2002-NewYork.pdf

Sarah Atlas, deployed by New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue, with her canine partner Anna said in the Summer 2002 issue of Penn Arts and Sciences, "'Nobody's going to be alive.' Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet." http://www.sas.upenn.edu/sasalum/newsltr/summer2002/k911.html

Vance Deisingnore, OSHA Officer at WTC, reported the following to Jim McKay, Post-Gazette Staff Writer, on September 11, 2002; "He remembers a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel. http://www.thenewliberator.com/wethepeople.htm

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

23. A simple question about the core.

If there were 47 core columns in each building, each being more than 1,000 feet long, this would imply that there was nearly 20 miles of these supposedly huge beams (47*1000*2=94000feet/17.80miles). Where are all the core column beam pieces?

I have several thousand pictures and hundreds of video clips related to 9/11 and I can find very few pieces of these mythical core column beams.

According to Occams razor, which is the more likely scenario; that the core column beams just 'disintegrated' during the collapse or if the beam pieces were not in the rubble, then they most likely were never in the towers either?

P.S. Is there a possible energy source that is capable of making those 18+ miles of thick steel beams vanish during the collapse?

No, then the beams didn't exist in the form that they are said to have existed.