Please Don't Water The Weeds In The Garden Of Truth.

[Christophera]

Discussing unimportant, irrelevant information in the 9-11 truth search is like watering weeds in the garden of truth.

Another factor is that there are many seeds in the 9-11 garden of truth. Many weeds have been planted and the dark gardeners of secrecy beg for water for their crop of distraction, so their prodigy may grow and over shadow the truth.

To NOT know the difference between what is productive discussion and what is not, is a sin of omission in the garden of truth, and fantastic indulgence in the sensational.

There are 2 major areas of unimportant irrelevant information.

1. Issues that depend on accountability of government.

2. Issues that lack established feasibility/credibility within raw evidence.

Issues that depend on accountable government are important, but not now, because we have not yet created an accountable government. Those issues need to be preserved but not discussed. We, are not yet a we, as in "we the people". We are an it. "It, the public". An apology is due to newbies that have become interested in 9-11 by the repeated lawless behaviors of government. If experienced and sincere truth gardeners heed this message and provide this perspective to the public along with the best information they can present with discussion, it'll be good.

Issues that lack established feasibility/credibility within raw evidence are "MISINFORMATION" and are a great distracter/divider of the 9-11 truth seeking movement. They can be systematically be intentionally debunked making the entire search for 9-11 truth marginalized, repeatedly.

[MercutioATC]

1. You've just eliminated 90% of the 9/11 Forum.

Not that it's necessarily a BAD thing....

[Christophera]

2. Thank You, That Maybe My Point: A Gauge Of Sincerity.

So when posters of the forum post here, their sincerity is tested because the logic of the thread is not questioned, it is recognized by the presence and what it brings, or, by the lack of it.

So glad you are here to point that out. Welcome.

[hack89]

3. What standard of evidence do you propose for this forum?

In support of number 2? You must admit that there is no consensus on what constitutes "proof" in this forum. If you are serious then you could do a lot by defining a fair and even handed standard that we could all agree to.

[Christophera]

4. Standard Of Evidence (Qualification of information)

The standard is that all proposals of events effecting materials be consistent within all other raw evidence of the same proposed materials of the event. Sequence of an event is raw evidence. Qualification of a proposal of information/evidence is tested by common knowledge appraisal and comparison of the consistent performance of the proposed event/material in sequence.

Aside from that your suggestion distorts "Qualification of information" into "proof". Your comment leads people to expect more from a single issue than it can deliver. A failure that might promote "all or nothing thinking." Within the current framework of "Weeds in the garden" none such "proof" can be feasily seen over the tall weeds, but the yield of information pound by pound is overwhelming proof, if the garden is carefully weeded.

Posted by hack89

"What standard of evidence do you propose for this forum?" In support of number 2? You must admit that there is no consensus on what constitutes "proof" in this forum. If you are serious then you could do a lot by defining a fair and even handed standard that we could all agree to.

Posted by Christophera

Please Don't Water The Weeds In The Garden Of Truth.

Discussing unimportant, irrelevant information in the 9-11 truth search is like watering weeds in the garden of truth.
Another factor is that there are many seeds in the 9-11 garden of truth. Many weeds have been planted and the dark gardeners of secrecy beg for water for their crop of distraction, so their prodigy may grow and over shadow the truth.
To NOT know the difference between what is productive discussion and what is not, is a sin of omission in the garden of truth, and fantastic indulgence in the sensational.

There are 2 major areas of unimportant irrelevant information.

1. Issues that depend on accountability of government.

2. Issues that lack established feasibility/credibility within raw evidence.

Issues that depend on accountable government are important, but not now, because we have not yet created an accountable government. Those issues need to be preserved but not discussed. We, are not yet a we, as in "we the people". We are an it. "It, the public". An apology is due to newbies that have become interested in 9-11 by the repeated lawless behaviors of government. If experienced and sincere truth gardeners heed this message and provide this perspective to the public along with the best information they can present with discussion, it'll be good.

Issues that lack established feasibility/credibility within raw evidence are "MISINFORMATION" and are a great distracter/divider of the 9-11 truth seeking movement. They can be systematically be intentionally debunked making the entire search for 9-11 truth marginalized, repeatedly.

[LARED]

5. If I understand your proposal

Qualification of information that meets this standard

The standard is that all proposals of events effecting materials be consistent within all other raw evidence of the same proposed materials of the event. Sequence of an event is raw evidence. Qualification of a proposal of information/evidence is tested by common knowledge appraisal and comparison of the consistent performance of the proposed event/material in sequence.

is "good", or credible information? And information that that does not meet this standard is lacking feasibility/credibility within raw evidence.

Yes, no something else?

[Christophera]

11. Yes, Standard Of Analysis Based On Qualification Of Information

Analysis gets the same criteria as raw evidence. After the raw evidence meets the standard then it can be used in analysis.

[LARED]

17. Based on these criteria

do you believe your concrete core information is usable as raw evidence

[Christophera]

40. I Saw The Concrete Core Being Built: Evidence Supports It

Knowing exactly how the core was constructed makes it easy to read the structural demise, element by element shown in the demo photos. And, processes of logic show great consistency with standard knowledge of construction materials in the analysis of the demo photos based on a concrete core.

One thing is for certain, the steel core columns cannot be supported by the revealing evidence gathered by camera shutters capturing the demise of massive structures.

[LARED]

47. You're a weed in your own garden

As it seems your standard is for everyone except you.

[Christophera]

55. You Fail To Show How The Concrete Core Does Not Meet The Standard

Over and over again I contend with this inability to back assertions with logic and reason, let alone evidence that qualifies.

Sure, you've showed me the picture of the ground zero basement bottom and the interior box columns there with elevator guide rails popping up out of the elevator pits. You and other supporters of the official story cry, "steel crore columns, FEMA is right, you are wrong."

Of course you all missed the slag hanging from the torch cut off box column, one of a few that were spared the thermite at the last phase of the exterior steel falling.
No one had a an answer for my question. "How come your steel core columns have square ends?" Meaning they were not cores because cores are continous structural elements of the highest strength.

Then I proposed: "If the steel core columns existed, how were they severed into enough pieces, early enough, for them to NOT show in this photo where they would be if they existed intact?" Apparently none of the pro secrecy crowd knows enough about high explosives to realize how high explosives work with steel, what it looks like. Or ,......... they know that saying defeats their purpose of supporting the official story, the lie, the multiple steel creo columns.

The 1,000 + cuts required to make the supposed steel core columns disapear from this photo,



or NOT protrude from the top of the core would have created a totally different series of explosions.

I even made a thread about it to test the whole forum full of passionate truth seekers to see who had some fundamental knowledge about high explosives.. Hardly anyone would say anything about what high explosives do to different building materials.

[LARED]

60. You are confused

it is not my job to show how the "concrete core" does not meet the your standard, it is your job to show how it DOES meet your standard.

Here's a clue. Showing me a picture of something you believe is a concrete core does not qualify as consistent raw evidence. Spell out how your evidence meets your standard.

The vast majority of evidence is not consistent with your beliefs. So you have two choices; either ignore all the evidence because the two differing evidential paths are inconsistent, or adapt to the path with the highest level of consistency. Your path is not that path.

[Christophera]

62. Your Lack Of Experience In Construction Cannot Create Confusion

Firstly all that need be done is prove the FEMA steel core columns did not exist. Since the building was constructed with a "tube in a tube" design, the steel reinforced concrete core meets the standard because all of the photos support the appearance of typical concrete structures while they fail to support the FEMA lie.

And, .......... of course what is seen in the photos looks like steel reinforced cast concrete, it acts like steel reinforced concrete under the conditions of the event and common sense/knowledge says that 47 full hieght, heavy steel core columns would DEFINATELY show up in the photos if they existed. They do not and they do not explain the excessive volumes of sand and gravel inthe basement which MUST be accounted for.

Here are photos and logical points in a post in this thread, that support he core and not the FEMA lie.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=50621&mesg_id=51046

[petgoat]

65. I'm Just Playing Devil's Advocate Here, Christopher

but I can see two potential weaknesses of your core theory:

1. the authenticity of your photo. Who took it, and how do we know it
wasn't photoshopped?

2. Is it possible that what appears to be a concrete core is in fact another highrise building east of the WTC site?



All the construction photos I've seen (this one for instance)




http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

show a steel core with 47 36" X 14" columns.

If you could find some of the construction workers who would attest
that they built the concrete core, that would help your case.

[Christophera]

67. Second Photo & FEMA Lied Inconsist W/Common Sense

Here is a second photo in the series with the core lower.



I've done some blow up studies on the photos looking for tampering and seen none. I know the concrete core was there from the documentary and the photos I use bear out witness to it..

Most importantly, the process of elimination is going to deliver us to the point where we can show the multiple steel columns did not exist because they never appear in any photos..

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

The primary core columns were steel box-columns measuring 36 inches by 16 inches. These columns were continuous for their entire height, going from their bedrock anchors in the sub-basement to near the towers' tops,

36" x 16" columns are definitely going to be showing in all the photos if they existed.

Below is a description of a steel structure that should have been visible in all the demo photos. Instead we see plumes of sand and gravel and end up with a basement full of the same.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

The cores were rectangular pillars with numerous large columns and girders, measuring 87 feet by 133 feet. The core structures housed the elevators, stairs, and other services. The cores had their own flooring systems, which were structurally independent from the floor diaphragms that spanned the space between the cores and the perimeter walls. The core structures, like the perimeter wall structures, were 100 percent steel-framed.

[LARED]

66. I have extensive experience in construction

enough to know that this statement

Since the building was constructed with a "tube in a tube" design, the steel reinforced concrete core meets the standard because all of the photos support the appearance of typical concrete structures while they fail to support the FEMA lie.

is full of baloney. No amount of you repeating your opinion about a concrete core will make one a reality.

[Christophera]

68. Again, No Evidence & You Won't Use What You Say You know

Explain why the photos I use DO NOT support the presence of a rectangular, tubular, steel reinforced concrete core in the center of the towers.

Show us your extensive "construction experience" and explain why the steel core columns are not in the photos.

[LARED]

73. Because it does meet your standard

Your images are not consistent with all other raw evidence. This is your standard, not mine.

This image is not even consistent with accepted standards of evidence. You insist the image shows a concrete core. The problem is the image is shot from a great distance, is filled with smoke that makes it very hard to see any details, and you cannot produce a single solitary image outside of the one you relentlessly cling to that shows a concrete core. In fact the image of WTC 1 collapsing shows a steel core (the spire).

Are you now trying to sell a story that only one tower had a concrete core?

As for my experience, I can tell you anything I want, and you will discount it. So why bother. For the record I am a mechanical engineer that has worked in the petro/chemical industry for over 25 years. Everything from a piping engineer on a 350 million dollar refinery refurbishing to managing the facility works.

[Christophera]

74. Empty Words: Again No Evidence-You Offer Confusion, Distraction, Errors

How about posting your raw evidence instaed of talking about it?

You are in Error, I've already posted 2 images and the rebar.

WTC 2 core


The WTC 1 core wall


The rebar of WTC 1


Post your evidence. Prove your contention that the concrete core is not consistent with this raw evidence.

[MrSammo1]

85. You're knocking your head against the wall for nothing

You should realize by now that this forum, along with all the rest, are full of government Truth Ministers. They will continue to put forth their pseudo science misdirection no matter what you do or say. Do your best to ignore their nonsense and don't feed into their lies!

[Christophera]

87. OMG, Government Truth Ministers, Humor Will Save The World

So appropriate.


Posted by MrSammo1

government Truth Ministers

It has the same flavor as my label for the first few months after 9-11 for what happened to America with "Flag Abuse".

[demodewd]

6. waaaahhh

You make me wanna cwy.. boohoohoohoo.

[janedoe]

7. Oh... so that''s what happened.

You were crying. That's why it's so wet in here. I thought someone left the water running in the garden hose.

[demodewd]

bloom on!

I want to make sure all those weeds got a good soaking. Some of them grow pretty little flowers. :)

[unschooler]

8. I'm mostly a curiosity-seeker here, but, just out of curiosity,

what specific issues or "information" do you consider to be credible and which do you not?

My preliminary understanding puts these three major topics in this order (from most credible to least):

1. Where were the fighters? Government must have turned a blind eye. This one really gets me.
2. Why did the towers fall? Controlled demolition just seems pretty tough to do, although I agree it's weird that the towers would have fallen otherwise. Maybe when I get my engineering degree (that would be in my next lifetime), I'll be able to sift through this one.
3. What really hit the Pentagon? I don't even understand why this is important or why on earth the perpetrators would have used something other than Flight 77 to hit it.

When we get to the UBL-works-for-the-CIA level, I'm ready to change channels.

Of course, I could be pretty much out to lunch.

[staticstopper]

9. ??????

when we get to the UBL-works-for-the-CIA level, I'm ready to change channels.

BUT that's just when it gets good.

Please read Juan Cole's latest articles. He is a U of M professor, mainstream scholar, researcher and expert on the Middle East. He is not LIHOP or MIHOP.
He just thinks the US/UK have played the wrong game and that it was immoral. And has facts out the kazoo that prove OBL worked/works for the CIA.

----

I understand why people will want to confuse us.

Many of these sites go overboard with all the "Definitive Proof!" or "look at this cool smoking gun I have"...they have done all this grunt work and want some kudos - very understandable.

So how can we trust these 911 discussions?
Because they are just that - "discussions"

The way I wade through all the levels of;
1)BS
2)DISINFO
3)WRONG
4)MIGHT BE ONTO SOMETHING

...is to realize that #4 is the only level we really have right now, until there are more whistelblowers and people with subpoena power willing to use it.

That is going to happen and indeed, might be happening right now.

Keep looking into opinions about this and hold tight.

Ignore all the ego crap going on with all the different popular CT sites - they are just acting human, wanting to be on top when this thing blows up.

[funflower]

10. Does Juan Cole have a website? Are there any engineers or pilots who

are coming out publicly against the government story on 9/11? I've seen material from people such as Griffin (theologian) and Morgan (Is that his name? The ex-Bush admin economist?), but I'd be more convinced if I saw these people's arguments supported by a structural engineer or a retired military or commercial pilot.

[petgoat]

23. "Are there any engineers or pilots?"

Check out Lt. Col. Dr. Robert Bowman, Ret.

http://www.snowshoefilms.com/911coverup.html
http://www.rmbowman.com/ssn/

There was that pilot with a south asian name that escapes me who
organized a convention of 9/11 skeptic pilots in Spain. Maybe someone
can remember his name?

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Christophera]

12. Photos Are Credible, Timelines Are Too

Multiple eywitness accounts from the WTC are credible (not the pentagon), firefighter accounts are generally okay (not leadership). In the beginning of the search for truth, only the most solid of evidence is used and the most clear issues addressed. If issues with weak evidence are used, those preferring secrecy will attack the information.

The most incredible thing is the fall of the towers. Since that has happened as it did, the event must be explained for us to know the truth.

# 1. depends on accountable government and so is not a fruitful direction. # 2 was a demolition, however difficult it was to effect, and so must be explained and there is lots of raw evidence in photos that provide absolute information.

#3, the pentagon, is too filled with contradiction to discuss at this point. Focus on the towers.

[funflower]

13. I'm just not knowledgeable enough about skyscraper construction to

evaluate the various theories as to why the towers fell. It sure looks like somebody blew them up, but the sheer magnitude of such a plot just boggles my mind.

As to #1, if I can find a military pilot who is not such a rabid republican that he is unable to talk about this issue in an objective fashion, I'd like to understand exactly what he thinks SOP is, whether it was followed on 9/11 and, if not, why not. I don't believe military fighters routinely "intercept" civilian aircraft. I think they used to "scramble" to intercept Soviet fighters testing the borders of our airspace, but I don't know how much that happens these days. WRT suspected drug planes, I think the military planes usually just serve a reconnaisance function (not an intercept) and let the police know where the suspected smuggler has landed.

[Christophera]

16. Big Problem Getting Construction People Involved In Analysis.

My 9-11 page,

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

identifies a lie told by FEMA regarding the tower design. FEMA misrepresents it. If the true design was known, the official cause of collapse would not be credible in any way.

Construction people could look at the photos and confirm this, but I cannot get the leaders of the 9-11 truth movement to disseminate this information or even to ask the public to find those amongst it that saw the same documentary in the tower construction that I saw in 1990.

The issue of the air defense standdown requires an accountable government to be meaningful information. There were war games created to confuse the issue and create excuses.

[MercutioATC]

14. That post was a joke, correct?

"Multiple eywitness accounts from the WTC are credible (not the pentagon)"

Why are eyewitnesses to believed in NYC and not at the Pentagon? I'm assuming you have a reason...

[Christophera]

15. Yes I Have A Reason. Unfortunately It Causes Dissociation So I'm Not ...

going to tell you that part.

The part I will tell you is that the pentagon witnesses are totally inconsistent by comparison to those of the WTC. Seeing as there are no photos of the event itself, whereas the WTC has many and they often support the witnesses info, the pentagon is not the place to start

[hack89]

18. So it has nothing to do with the fact that the Pentagon witnesses..

when taken as a whole, undermine most conspiracy theories? Very self serving criteria don't you think?

[Christophera]

19. Not Self Serving-Serving The Truth-Pentagon Witnesses Not Neutral.

The witnesses that are gov employees with security clearance have a special interest whether they know it or not. WTC witnesses do not have that status, if they do, they are under a gag order which shows us. overall that official = complicit.

It is not a theory that 3,000 Americans were murdered and no investigation was conducted. That is a fact, and with your post you support it as "proper" conduct.

[hack89]

20. So you have conveniently eliminated most witnesses that could counter..

your CT theories - that is very definition of self serving. Do you think the American public shares your views about government workers? If not, how will you ever make your case to the public without being dismissed as biased?

[Christophera]

27. This Is Not About The Public, It's About The Truth

We must have neutral witnesses

[hack89]

32. You are speaking nonsense..

what does neutral mean?

For there to be justice you must prove your case to the American public and you must answer their questions in a honest and forthright manner. It would be the height of arrogance on your part to tell them what questions they may or may not ask or what witnesses they may or may not believe.

[Christophera]

39. When Authority Is Lawless The Points You Make Fall Flat

Remember, I've said that only WTC evidence qualifies for an intitial peoples investigation.

The fact that guliani has taken the WTC records and the courts will not release them.

http://www.nyclu.org/g_archive020602.html

and that evidence was removed from the scene is plenty in the absence of credible explanations from experts regarding free fall and pulverization.

Our Constitutional government is at stake and authority appears complicit. People are ready for functional limit to get their investigation started.

[hack89]

41. More nonsense

You are presuming to tell the "people" what and who they must believe - it has nothing to do with authority.

[Christophera]

48. Has White Been Turned Into Black & Authority Has No Duty?

The people need to know the truth, they want to know, at least part of it. Certain evidence and witness will not lead to that. This is proven.

Americans have a choice, they can believe what they want to believe, or what they need to believe. What they want to believe will bring temporary happiness, what they need to believe will protect their childrens lives.

If they want to know what they need to know, they must use reason becuase authority will not. That is all I'm saying.

Well there is a littel more common sense to justify what I'm doing, ........... when people do not want what they need, they have a problem with function.

You post completely unsupported statements based in "all or nothing" statements that are basically, erroneous clearly supporting a secret government.

Why are you here?

[hack89]

51. And you are the Messiah granted special knowledge to guide the sheep?

you sir are extremely arrogant!

[Christophera]

56. Trying To Change The Subject Won't Improve Your Evidence

Or improve your half of the witnesses recall of pentagon events.

The deception era is over. The people are tired of some passing themselves off as Americans then supporting secrecy in government by bashing and ridiculing the few that will come forward and openly discuss the murders of our country people.

If lives are lost and authority fails to explain events and laws are violated, it is totally reasonable to demand that Americans be cognizant of the damage that discussion of irrelevant or useless information does to our efforts to unify in our democracy.

To sharpen peoples understanding of the manipulations that can be exerted over groups by a deceptive few is a good thing if it's done reasonably, is a good thing.

[hack89]

63. You are babbling n/t

[Christophera]

64. If You Think So It Explains Why You Are Doing Such A Bad Thing

Suddenly typos are more imporatant than the murder of thousands of Americans. That is bad.

[MercutioATC]

22. Two points:

1) There were many Pentagon witnesses who were not government employees.

2) Dream on about your "gag orders". They simply don't exist. I remember people insisting that air traffic controllers were subject to a gag order after 9/11 even AFTER a bunch of them were interviewed by Tom Brokaw for TV. It's just more ridiculous CT misinformation.

[petgoat]

25. "air traffic controllers...were interviewed by Tom Brokaw"

A gag order doesn't mean you can't talk. It means you can't talk about
certain things.

Sibel Edmonds travels around speaking frequently but not at all freely
under the terms of her federal gag order.

[hack89]

26. Edmonds' gag order is a matter of public record..

issued by a court. Show me another such gag order - you know you won't be able to.

[MercutioATC]

43. Did you watch the friggin' interview?

YOU tell ME what "certain things" they couldn't talk about, because it seemed to me they just said what they felt...nothing was cut due to content..

[MercutioATC]

75. Did you see the interview?

There's nothing that they didn't talk about.

That aside, the FAA gave authorization for the controllers to talk to the media in an official capacity. Do you think they would have done that if there was something that could have slipped out?

(I know one of the interviewed ATCs personally. She was not issued any special instructions by the FAA prior to the interview)

[Christophera]

28. Shall We Have Witness Soup? | FEAR: Unofficial Gag Order

Maybe you would like it harder to find the truth by mixing in those with special interest? Personally, in this situation, I'll avoid the whole issue for initial analysis if there are too many red herrings. The Pentagon is full of them.

Oh, excuse me, Its Sibel Edmonds who is under a gag order. Here are some other court actions limiting access to information from emergency services sources.

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2004/2004_00091.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/24/sept11.tapes/index.html

Then there is the unofficial, social gag order, fear. You comply to the social type and promote secrecy, I do not. That fear is unreasonable and I love my children far too much.

Most of our society is obiedient to the "unofficlal gag order".

[LARED]

36. A social gag order is a fascinating idea

Is this something akin to the German populous doing nothing about the NAZI atrocities? Like a corporate diversionary schema or lacuna.

[MercutioATC]

76. You don't know many air traffic controllers, do you?

With a very rare exception, your proposal wouldn't apply to us. We're protected eight ways from Sunday from frivolous attacks and we really aren't afraid of saying what we think unless we're under specific orders not to (which we weren't).

We're nothing like the private sector...a lot of "normal" rules don't apply to us.

[stickdog]

86. You are so full of it on this one.

Any of you can speak about military traffic whenever you please, right?

[MercutioATC]

21. O.K., an arbitrary rating system for evidence, ordered around your

personal views.

Does that about sum it up?

:eyes:

[Christophera]

29. Nothing Arbitrary Here, Logical and Flexible Standard

We've been discussing witnesses where this standard also applies in conjunction with photographic or other evidence.

Standards Posted by Christophera

The standard is that all proposals of events effecting materials be consistent within all other raw evidence of the same proposed materials of the event. Sequence of an event is raw evidence. Qualification of a proposal of information/evidence is tested by common knowledge appraisal and comparison of the consistent performance of the proposed event/material in sequence.

[LARED]

34. This Logical and Flexible Standard;

How does your concrete core evidence hold up under this standard?

[Christophera]

37. "This Logical and Flexible Standard;" Is Appropriate

and the core evidence holds up just fine. In fact, after arguing againt the FEMA core of steel core columns, I realized what is the basis of the standard, because the steel core argument does not hold up.

[LARED]

46. Ok, you beleive it holds up.

Chrisphera's Standard

The standard is that all proposals of events effecting materials be consistent within all other raw evidence of the same proposed materials of the event. Sequence of an event is raw evidence. Qualification of a proposal of information/evidence is tested by common knowledge appraisal and comparison of the consistent performance of the proposed event/material in sequence.

But in my view your position fails the very first criteria, as a concrete core is not consistent with all other raw evidence. In fact based on the first criteria the concrete core evidence should be viewed as unreliable.

How do you explain your position?

[Christophera]

49. Again, No Evidence Posted Or Referred: Here Is Evidence NOT Addressed.

Here is the concrete core.



There are NO steel core columns protruding as they should be if they existed. All the exterior steel has fallen away revealing the rectangular, tubular, steel reinforced cast concrete core.

And no, ............... the picture is not too filled with dust to see a silouetted steel core column of the dimensions that must have existed if the cores existed as FEMA says, as you say. This photo demonstrates what steel of that size looks like at that distance.

<[br />
The above vertical steel of WTC 1 is interior box column which is shown by the horizontal floor beams. Behind it is the concrete core wall blocking the light

[LARED]

52. But this is not consistent with all other raw evidence

So it does not meet your standard.

[Christophera]

57. Where Is Your Evidence?: Empty Post There.

Bring your evidence for qualification.

Notice I'm posting evidence and qualifying it while talking about your evidence, which my evidence and explanation logically disqualifies as being what what you present it as.

Here is what I present as the tubular concrete core of WTC 2.



Why are the 47 steel core columns, full height structural elements, not protruding in some way from the top of the core area?

[LARED]

59. You're avoiding the question

The first crtieria of your standard states;

that all proposals of events effecting materials be consistent within all other raw evidence of the same proposed materials of the event.

My question was;

How does your concrete core evidence hold up under this standard?

All other raw evidence regarding the core structure is NOT consistent with your evidence of a concrete core. In fact your evidence is the most suspect as it you are just about the only source for it, (I'll not mention the image is hardly evidence of a concrete structure to begin with). While vast amounts of other evidence indicating there is no concrete core structure is consistent.

So, unless you can provide an answer to how your evidence meets your own standard then the way I view this, is that per your standard, your evidence is MISINFORMATION.

[Christophera]

61. The Concrete Core As The Core Material Design Excels W/Standard

posted by LARED
How does your concrete core evidence hold up under this standard?

1. The core is seen in this photo



and the multiple steel core columns are not. The rounded top of the core can only be shaped from concrete. Steel structure will not erode in that way.

2. The steel reinforcing bar is clearly seen here,



but the multiple steel columns are not. The photo below shows us what a 14 inch square interior box column looks like at 7500 feet. In the above photo what we see is too small to be ANY heavy structrual steel.

3. The photo below shows the interior box column joined with one core wall in an end view.



The above photo does not show the multiple steel core columns. Although the photo is not particuarly clear, it is sufficiently clear for a person with construction/engineering experience to identify the thick concrete wall.

Here is a zoomed detail of the spire/wall element with arrows.



It is not reasonable rebuttal to say you cannot see these things in the photos. If you cannot identify them it simply means you do not have enough experience in construction and engineering to conduct this discussion. Now you must produce raw evidence showing the multiple steel core columns to establish that they existed and not the concrete core, to remain credible with your assertion.

You cannot do this and you know it. We've been through this many times and all you've ever done is produce a photo on interior box columns and elevator guide rails from the basement at ground zero near the end of the clean up.

The steel reinforced concrete core as a material is completely consistent with ALL the photos and it is consistent with thte fact that the basement was full of sand and gravel, pulverized concrete. Steel core columns are not supported by ANY raw evidence whatsoever.

[MercutioATC]

44. Yeah, right. I'll just opt out...

Have fun....good luck with this...

:eyes:

[petgoat]

24. "Controlled demolition just seems pretty tough to do"

Charges could easily have been planted in the elevator shafts, using the
tops of the cars as movable staging. With radio control there'd be no
muss no fuss.

"What really hit the Pentagon? I don't even understand why this is
important."

Some regard the proposition that the Pentagon was hit by a missile as
proof of official complicity in the attack. Dr. David Ray Griffin says
that if John Judge's assertion that the Pentagon's SAM defense system
stood down on 9/11 is true, then we have evidence of complicity right
there, so the 757/missile point is moot.

"When we get to the UBL-works-for-the-CIA level, I'm ready to change
channels."

Clinton ordered the CIA to kill Osama. Apparently they hired the same
gang (functionally equivalent anyway) that let Osama go at Tora Bora.
And then there's Osama's meeting with the CIA agent Larry Mitchell at
the American Hospital in Dubai in 7/01, as reported by Le Figaro.
Allegedly Osama was also met by Prince Turki al Faisal, then head of
Saudi Intelligence, and soon to replace "Bandar Bush" as ambassador to
the USA.

[unschooler]

30. OMG, petgoat. The light is starting to dawn. What a mess.

The more I get up to speed on the whole 9/11 tragedy, the more I get really scared for my country.

[Christophera]

31. Free Fall Within Appearance And Total Pulverization UNIQUE

Those 2 events are the primary events of 9-11. There is nothing that compares in magnitude nor in level of documentation in all history.

There is only one explanation, if you know how the building was constructed, you'll realize the only possible way it could happen after reading the page. They had tubular, rectangular, steel reinforced concrete cores.

My page details that fact with diagrams derived from FEMA deception then altered to show what the real structure was. That structure is consistent with demoltion photos of the towers at various times in the demolition. Free fall and pulverization are explained in a fully feasable scenario.

I derived a great deal of information from a 1990 documentary about the construction of WTC 1.

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

[philb]

35. Only complicity of officials is proven; & that official story not accurate

http://www.flcv.com/warnings.html
http://www.flcv.com/offcom77.html
http://www.flcv.com/offcom93.html
http://www.flcv.com/offcom11.html


and that there has been massive evidence destruction, cover-up by authorities and the 9/11 Commission

Dr. D.R. Griffin, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions & Distortions
http://www.flcv.com/coverup.html

But I don't understand why that isn't enough to have started a real
investigation and indicted some people by now.

[Christophera]

38. Complicity Clear But Media Not Letting The Public Know

and what is fairly clear to the public, ........ is just not outrageous enough to get them moving.

That is why I think asking the public about WHO saw the same documentary as I saw. When we've found a number of them, we've proved the concrete core. Next the fire/impact collapse lie disintegrates and then we've got enough to get people moving because demolition is obvious.

[lady lib]

42. I'm standing in your garden, Christophera

and it smells like weed fertilizer. Let's look at what happens whenever the earth is disturbed (9/11 event). The first plants on the scene are weeds with indigenous seeds in the ground or soon to arrive on the scene (this is the evidence - some quickly determined to be factual and relevant, some needing time to be found factual and relevant - mixed in with much that is neither). The weeds sprout up everywhere and for a time appear to have made a new home for themselves (all the while open discussion and examination are occurring). Over time, if the area is left undisturbed (that is, if the examination of evidence is allowed to progress unimpeded by arbitrary rules), the weeds are slowly and naturally replaced by indigenous plants (that is, the truth will come out if you allow it to). Gardening class is dismissed.

Don't be afraid to talk and share your ideas...we're in this lovely padded, extra soundproofed sub-basement room of DU so that our information and misinformation can freely mingle in metaphor hell.

[Christophera]

45. Fertilizer, Or Feces And Seeds With Water, Do Not A Garden Make

I think I get the metaphor of an analogy returning to the reality biology of plants in nature as it might relate to our discussion and what positive might come from it.

I'm a veteran of message boards and 9-11. (started in October of 2002) I also have done much public speaking on 9-11, politics, spirituality, philosophy and law, as well as massive discussion in smaller groups. I've searched for parallels between face to face discussion and BB posting, there are few. It seems like a free place, it's not. It's not free fair or even intelligent in any way we can interface with it. It's controlled by a number of factions for their interests and everyone else is an interloper in a carefree blurry world overlapping with commercial media

Perceptions are controlled by attitudes and emotional thinking is rampant. It has totally overtaken reason in our western world. We suffer a cognitive distortion and don't even know it.

We've really had enough time to decide what is good information and what is not. The only reason we haven't is that there are a bunch of people sabotaging discussion and encouraging others to partake in more complete, deeper cognitive distortion. Some are paid to sabotage, or compelled in some other way to come here and introduce garbage information that has been promoted on another level and they just "appear" to be catching on and spreading the news.

There's no fear from where I come from, unless it is of not being understood. If the operators of a bb can't see the weeds and mow them, then we grow over them and speak to each other clearly stating our purposes, sharing them openly, something our opposition cannot do. In that environment, all are invited to judge for themselves who stands for what.

Here is what I stand for.........

The purpose of life is love and love protects life. Knowledge is power and power must serve love or it is perverse, unnatural, dying.

I confess to painting a "rosey" picture with my anology. Here's an update.

"My garden" feels invaded by pigs turning it into pen of lies and deception that's been watered in the dark with an orgy of boar until it's blossoming hideous theories and croaking absurdities from every corner in cadence.

I have a page to share the ideas I think a group of 9-11 researchers should be able to deal with sensibly. It focuses on mostly "raw information" that has all "qualified" itself, between itself, to different degrees, and explains free fall as well as pulverization with a completely feasible scenario of towers built to demolish.

My request: ASK EVERYONE YOU KNOW TO ASK EVERYONE THEY KNOW IF THEY SAW THE 1990 DOCUMENTARY ON THE WTC TOWER CONSTRUCTION.

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

Posted by lady lib

"I'm standing in your garden, Christophera" and it smells like weed fertilizer. Let's look at what happens whenever the earth is disturbed (9/11 event). The first plants on the scene are weeds with indigenous seeds in the ground or soon to arrive on the scene (this is the evidence - some quickly determined to be factual and relevant, some needing time to be found factual and relevant - mixed in with much that is neither). The weeds sprout up everywhere and for a time appear to have made a new home for themselves (all the while open discussion and examination are occurring). Over time, if the area is left undisturbed (that is, if the examination of evidence is allowed to progress unimpeded by arbitrary rules), the weeds are slowly and naturally replaced by indigenous plants (that is, the truth will come out if you allow it to). Gardening class is dismissed.

Don't be afraid to talk and share your ideas...we're in this lovely padded, extra soundproofed sub-basement room of DU so that our information and misinformation can freely mingle in metaphor hell.

[lady lib]

50. Looks like you've done a lot of work

and put in a lot of thought about this. I commend you for that, and I am extremely grateful for everyone who has taken the time and used their technical and research skills to uncover the truth about this horrible and, very likely, treasonous event.

A few random thoughts:
The process of scientific discovery is not linear, obviously. If you can't tolerate detours (either honest ones or acts of "sabotage"), then there's always theology where you can have complete confidence in your beliefs and in your personal road to enlightenment.

Your own signature line says it best, "If you always do what you've always done you'll always get what you've always got." This is how science get stuck in a rut. The major developments occur when someone with a completely fresh perspective comes in with a new way of looking at the problem. Tolerate those people - they're not all "pigs" (your word) or saboteurs.

Trust the intelligence and the intellectual honesty of the majority of people examining the evidence, please. Such people do not require a set of (your) rules to protect them from "garbage."

[hack89]

54. Very well said. n/t

[Christophera]

58. A Tremendous Amount Of Missing Knowledge Creates Problems

There really is a huge amount of missing knowledge on top of the dumbing down of America. This is always a problem in 9-11 discussion because the ability to accept that secret factions of our government would build 2 world class strcutures just to blow them up full of it's own people just to justify war, is not a part of what we can understand.

We don't know the secrets or how they are kept, and in reality, we do not want to know. This is the peoples major failure.

This creates a huge problem because it is an absolute need that we eventually use that knowledge to intervene in compulsive, destructive behaviors. When people do not want what they need, massive problems develop.

Yes, tolerence, but not ignorance. If behaviors are identified and condemed for keeping secrets with distraction and confusion, that is a good thing because it can only be done in this arena with reason creating understanding.

The missing knowledge issue makes the cutting edge of 9-11 research one of reason rather than rules. Well somebody asked that I define a standard. So I did. Reason has it's own rules and I do follow them and fully expect others to do the same or bear the label "unreasonable". The dissociations most of the public entertains is profound, they do not know they are even doing it for the most part, so incredulity is often easily displaced once they are reminded of what they forgot by some one with a strong stand of certainty that actually explains some mystery in fully credible and historically relevant ways.

They might not require it from their perspective, but considering they haven't reduced the high incidence of garbage that less intellectually capable people must flounder in, I think it's a good idea to have the qualification of information be understood.

What qualifies as functional discussion is the discussion we want and NEED to be creating.

People have a social compulsion to conduct gossip type discussion on sensation subjects (occasionally planted weeds) which can become a problem at times where focus is critical.

You are right with your perspective of tolerence but there must be a degree of dissent to the "warm happy", isolated 9-11 research community because the community is not functioning and most of it actually has a very strong sense that accountability is an absolute NEED in the matter of 9-11.

No, they're not all pigs and the pigs know who they are. Those watering know who they are, actually there are many that have stopped watering the fertilized weeds. I commend them for not posting in threads milling useless, distractive information over and over.

Some realize that only certain information is secure and truly in our possesion to use to communicate with one another. They are starting to realize that we must ignore media and focus on our communities so constituencies can vote in ways that truly work towrds solutions. My best advice on that subject. Buy a CB radio and encourage your friends in your town or city to do the same thing. Talk alot and be political. Talk about 9-11 and secret government. Get a solar charger for a 12vdc radio and then if anything happens to power, phone and tv, you can organize.

Loose your fear of each other and begin to know one another. Know each others purposes as humans, you will find they are much the same after the corporate media manipulation mask is worn away.

Posted by lady lib

The process of scientific discovery is not linear, obviously. If you can't tolerate detours (either honest ones or acts of "sabotage"), then there's always theology where you can have complete confidence in your beliefs and in your personal road to enlightenment.
Your own signature line says it best, "If you always do what you've always done you'll always get what you've always got." This is how science gets stuck in a rut. The major developments occur when someone with a completely fresh perspective comes in with a new way of looking at the problem. Tolerate those people - they're not all "pigs" (your word) or saboteurs.
Trust the intelligence and the intellectual honesty of the majority of people examining the evidence, please. Such people do not require a set of (your) rules to protect them from "garbag

[MrSammo1]

53. So true!

[Informed Citizen]

69. Good Stuff!!!

Hey there,

I've tried to push this issue before, but the misinformants keep pushing back. Most of the discussion in here is irrelevant anyway. I come here mostly to see if there is any new factual information, and not to talk about it with people who are either sophomoric, conservative, or unlikely to act on their knowledge. There is new info at times. But the opinions of DU9/11 addicts do little to expand the relevance of these new facts.
A challenge. You are the 'C4 coated rebar' person. While I do believe that the buildings were demolished, and that your theories are interesting, I think that you also have delved into the realm speculation that distracts us from the more important issues, and may promote the debunking of 9/11 truth. What do you think about that?

- I.C.

[Christophera]

70. Holy Cow! On Topic!! Worthy Challenge.

Totally on topic, how cool.

I absolutely agree with your first pargraph.

A few have treated the C4 coated rebar information that way but many more see that it brings valuable perspective in explanation. Here are some comments I've collected in the last year.

http://algoxy.com/psych/supportfor9-11truth.html

If you thought that the C4 coated rebar scenario promoted the debunking of the search for 9-11 truth, why would the scenario do that?

[Informed Citizen]

71. To clarify...

Christophera,

I have read much of what you have presented in the past, and as I said, it find it interesting, and potentially beneficial for those seeking to fill in the details of the alternate theory as to what actually happened. However, your recent message is talking about those things that need not be discussed because they may have a tendency to distract us from what is central to the issue at hand: exposing the crime and cover-up in a manner that does not allow this effort to be easily undermined. So for instance, while the potential demolition of WTC 1 and 2 is not irrelevant, it is far more effective, and focused to direct people's attention to the demoltion of WTC 7, which implies the demolition of the other buildings.

Why? Because, and I hate to say so, it just sound nutty. Of course a lot of the evidence about 9/11 sounds hard to believe. But I know from experience that people, even the intiated, have a certain tolerance level. At a certain point they turn off. And I know very few people, outside of this forum, who would take seriously the idea that the buildings were built to demolish. I couldn't even get them to look at your evidence. I have since found evidence that supports your theory, but I also recognize that there was opportunity to plant explosives before the attack; a more simple explanation. You just might be wrong.

Now I know that this is a rarified space in which we are able to talk about things that we may not discuss with the uninitiated. But we should still keep a certain focus on what convinces. I have this attitude because I spend time trying to convince people to question the official theory. I never discuss the destruction of WTC 1 and 2 because I don't need to. The whole case can be made with other, more convincing evidence. And this brings me to my final point.

One of my biggest frustrations with DU9/11 is that people in here spend so much time talking about the physical evidence, most of which has been destroyed. In my opinion, and that of Michael Ruppert, among others, none of this information is as important to consider and discuss with others as are the issues of documented facts, chain of command responsibilities, unprecedented occurrances, official statements, and contradictions to the Commission Report. We have a mountain of evidence in official documents and mainstream news reports that are fully adequate to make the case against the official coincidence theory. In other words, the case has already been made, and it didn't include 'C4 coated rebar'.

Now as I said before, this may be a significant line of inquiry in the future, as more people begin to accept that the official account is bogus. Your evidence may encourage others to investigate this matter further, and something juicy may turn up. But the time has passed for us to talk more about things that support a case that has already been made. The time has come to share what we know with those who do not. In DU9/11 all these things have a welcome home. But in your life, away from the internet, I hope that your discussions with others about 9/11 are more focused upon the most startling and irrefutable facts of the case, and not those issues that draw people into thinking that the the whole issue rests on speculative matters. Am I missing something? Let me know.

- I.C.

[Christophera]

72. I See Your Points And Have For Awhile. Proportion:Time & Function

Great post.

Hmmm, I see we are uncovering a priority/function difference. Let me show you here in what you say.

Posted by Informed Citizen

We have a mountain of evidence in official documents and mainstream news reports that are fully adequate to make the case against the official coincidence theory. In other words, the case has already been made, and it didn't include 'C4 coated rebar'.

Below "exposing the crime" is an issue, presumably the case that is already made above, which didn't have the needed effect, is not providing the needed function. Herein is my point. If a case has been made to authority that rightfully and lawfully should have corrected the problem, and it hasn't there is a bigger problem than accountability on the first level of law enforcement. As soon as access was blocked to the WTC steel and removal began, the case was made.
Remember the fight between firefighters and city, PA, NY cops etc when the hauling of steel first started and private engineers were not allowed to examine the steel etc.? That was the point where a bunch of Americans in the street could have really made a big difference. Alas, ........... hindsight. My point, ...... no information which depends on accountable government has initial function, therefore the initial information needed is for the people.

Posted by Informed Citizen

However, your recent message is talking about those things that need not be discussed because they may have a tendency to distract us from what is central to the issue at hand: exposing the crime and cover-up in a manner that does not allow this effort to be easily undermined. So for instance, while the potential demolition of WTC 1 and 2 is not irrelevant, it is far more effective, and focused to direct people's attention to the demolition of WTC 7, which implies the demolition of the other buildings.
Why? Because, and I hate to say so, it just sound nutty. Of course a lot of the evidence about 9/11 sounds hard to believe. But I know from experience that people, even the initiated, have a certain tolerance level. At a certain point they turn off. And I know very few people, outside of this forum, who would take seriously the idea that the buildings were built to demolish. I couldn't even get them to look at your evidence. I have since found evidence that supports your theory, but I also recognize that there was opportunity to plant explosives before the attack; a more simple explanation. You just might be wrong.

WIth the understanding of high explosives and concrete and what happened in just over 10 seconds leaving sand and gravel in the basement added to what the documentary told me, I feel the ducks are in a row in the arena of reason.

We the people, if we exist as any kind of functional unit, have to do something. To initiate that action, reason must be found. MIHOP and a FEMA lie that makes the fire collapse more credible is the beginning to a series of realizations that have great impetus. Ending with the realization of what it took to turn the concrete into sand and gravel and exactly HOW that MUST be effected. There is really only one way with the technologies we have. That MIHOP is enough to move the nation.

Tolerance has 2 sides. If we can't tolerate the usurpation of the Constitution then information that might protect it has value. They can't have the Constitution and lies too. Which way shall it be? To them I say, "Tell me how free fall was attained and the concrete core was turned into sand and gravel."
If they say back, "What concrete core?"
I answer, "What steel core columns? Where are they here where they should be?"

But in your life, away from the internet, I hope that your discussions with others about 9/11 are more focused upon the most startling and irrefutable facts of the case, and not those issues that draw people into thinking that the whole issue rests on speculative matters. Am I missing something? Let me know.

Again great post, if you are missing anything it is an understanding of high explosives and their effects on various materials under conditions. The relationship of that to free fall and total pulverization make them possible on the scale we saw. My friends (one has a deep physics background) and I have stopped discussing 9-11 after deciding that the scenario I've put together is probably very close to what happened.

From my perspective developed from radical analysis of our social system and government, or human psychology and technology which started in earnest some where around 1965, I can only indicate that as long as media is allowed to conduct themselves as they are, little can be done.

Here is where I've suggested the people use the courts to stop media, but in order to help the people to create consensus I conceived of a message board that uses psychology and agreement to refine consensus and information/opinion of it. Sincere, aggressive posters with integrity will rule the propose forum environment in a short period of time and evolve perceptions/ideas quickly.

http://algoxy.com/poly/polltopost.html

the other pages of the site detail a process that can work from a grass roots beginning.

I've found a developer who can build such a php software as the "poll to post" message board would require. I've been trying for years to get one of the 9-11 non profits or those for peace etc. to prototype the idea and work to forge unity amongst many people, particularly in the difficult areas.

[DemonFighterLives]

77. Kind of late to the topic

I was following along pretty well, and agree that there are elements, even here, that are trying to distort and erase what really happened.
One question that comes to my mind is how is the sway factor of tall buildings built into a solid core building. I understand smaller buildings well, but am not real up on the core structure.

I did not know until Informed Citizen brought it up that this was about C4 coated rebar. I find that pretty hard to believe, but anything could be possible with the thugs we have in charge. The theory that Marvin b*sh's security team was in charge of planting the explosives is what I lean to.
Also, I think it was a lucky stroke that the buildings came down with explosives that well and find it impossible to believe that they could be erased with a couple planes hitting them.
The whole mess when taken with the larger picture of a phony pres and a terrible war that goes against everything American leaves us with the knowledge that it benefited some.

[MercutioATC]

78. One comment:

"I did not know until Informed Citizen brought it up that this was about C4 coated rebar. I find that pretty hard to believe, but anything could be possible with the thugs we have in charge."

The WTC towers were completed in 1972-73.

For "C-4 coated rebar" to be used, Nixon would have been the "thug" to blame. I have a hard time believing that Nixon had anything to do with the WTC collapses.

[DemonFighterLives]

81. If Nixon was on the scene

Then it is more believable.
:9

[Christophera]

79. Still, On Topic Inversely. After The Weeds Are Removed, What's Left?

In the world of 9-11, free fall and pulverization.

Two incredible mystery's. The more you know about the buildings, the bigger the mystery gets. The more you know about explosives and the materials of the building, the bigger the mystery gets.

The buildings fell at near free fall, and as far as I'm concerned, it's near an act of treason to assert they did not. There was near pulverization of all the concrete in or around the towers. Not many know that, or less realize that about twice as much sand and gravel rested in the basement mixed with heavy steel than should have been there. And, ......... there should NO gravel at all, at least not from above ground sources.

All the weeds in the garden cannot shadow those truths. Free fall and pulverization. Whatever the truth of 9-11 is, it will explain those 2 things. After all the weeds are gone, then we can share information on the 2 most astounding facts we have, and, ...... do it very meaningfully.

Posted by DemonFighterLives

One question that comes to my mind is how is the sway factor of tall buildings built into a solid core building. I understand smaller buildings well, but am not real up on the core structure.

The rectangular, tubular, steel reinforced, cast concrete core was specifically to reduce and limit sway and twist of the towers. It was absolutely vital to their survival in the regular 60-70 mph winds of Manhattan. Yamasakis design prevailed because of that.

In the documentary about the construction of WTC 1 there was repeated focus on the construction of the cast concrete core and the difficulties it presented. It noted that the engineers required that concrete pours and the related butt welding of the steel reinforcing bar be done on a slope and the slopes were to be in opposite directions on opposite sides of the building. The videographer then showed a black and white still snapped at a are moment when the top of the pour was visible in side the lapping of the exterior form boards from the new, empty forms above, onto the finished cast core below. I recall the rebar standing next to the wood exterior forms protruding from the very rough aggregate profile desired in concrete joints of that type.

One such comment in the documentary mentioned that freezing weather had prevented a concrete pour and the special thick plastic coating on the exposed rebar had been found to have deteriorated and was no longer viable in its protection against corrosion and vibration, but before that was learned, the next tier of concrete had been poured. It was decided that the time delay and expense of removing them was too great and the construction continued.

Some find it ludicrous that I assert that this photo is THAT rebar standing freely in space on their 4 foot centers and that does so because it failed to it failed to detonate. What removed the concrete was the C4 on the horizontal rebar that was tied to it after the weather allowed the concrete pour to continue.



The distance is about 7500 feet, the rebar is 3 inches in diameter.

Below is a photo of interior box columns at the same distance. Identifiable by the floor beams showing they are a part of the outer tube of the "tube in a tube" construction, They are 14 inches wide with varying depth depending on elevation.

[DemonFighterLives]

82. Thanks for explaining your point

So, I guess my question was, did the solid core run all the way up or did it stop midway or somewhere.
The rebar pictures and outer column pictures appear to be the same.
Interesting last night, there was a show about Peter Jennings when he covered the event. There was great video,slow motion where it looked like a building being imploded. You could see rings of explosions going on level after level and at one point there was a very tall spire standing till all at once it sort of disappeared.
The news must not have been flowing in too good because in the blink of an eye the second one had fallen and Jenning was kind of in shock.
No way did these buildings go like that by planes hitting them, NO WAY. Total destruction ready to be hauled. No Asbestos in the air either, yeah right EPA.

[Christophera]

83. Tubular Concrete Core Ran To Top Of Tower: Clarifications

Posted by DemonFighterLives

So, I guess my question was, did the solid core run all the way up or did it stop midway or somewhere.
The rebar pictures and outer column pictures appear to be the same.

The rectangualr, tubular concrete steel reinforced concrete core ran all the way to the top.

There was a floor or 2 devoted to the elevators and other mechanical at the 49th floor.

Did you say these photos appear the same?

The interior box columns of WTC 1 at 7500 feet



and the rebar at the same distance.



If you look closley you'll notice the top of the elements in the rebar photo is lower and is comprised of very fine elements lacking the rectangular openings. What has happened is tha thte interior box columns which were against the core wall, have fallen away. In the process the concrete was blown off the rebar and the rebar still stands.

The interior box columns forming the spire stands vertical and the rebar has a curve or lean to it.

[Make7]

80. h2o

[Christophera]

84. Watering The Fruits Of the Garden

It is sooooooo wonderful when people know the difference and water the fruits of the garden.

Selective watering is the most efficient way in time.