To confuse lemmings...

And of COURSE you're not a "lemming". That's why you don't just accept information written by internet authors who rarely source their information and often do absolutely no physical investigation of the things they write about. Surely you would try to do some objective RESEARCH of your own before coming to a conclusion.

Nice try NeoNietzsche, but your BBC source is plain wrong, and Your MSNBC quote is used out of context.

The BBC source is correct as to the existence of a concrete core, and incorrect only in detail as to the cladding of the vertical beams, which surrounded, rather than were encased in, the concrete reinforced by rebar.

The MSNBC quote is self-contained as to meaning, and a concrete core to the Towers is affirmed by Robertson.

The concrete in the core was used as a decking material, not as a structural element. The BBC's claim of the core columns being encased in concrete is also wrong.

Do we take it that you now grant that there was, in fact, a vertical, concrete core which sensibly would have contained rebar? The case for demolition does not require that the core concrete be structural material.

Also, as explained, the concrete core was inside the core beams.

According to what you've been claiming, a collapse of the WTC towers, caused by a jet fuel feed fire, is all a big ZOG lie. Why would ZOG tells lies, and the truth in the same propaganda piece?

Because the piece is not propaganda but rather an innocent attempt to relate basic elements of the tragedy. The reporter evidently confused information and current misinformation.

The MSNBC piece, which correctly characterizes the core, was the product of an interview with Robertson and to which you merely respond nonsensically.

1) First FEMA depiction, still used in the UK:

2) Second FEMA depiction, absent core concrete:

3) Actual structure of the Towers:

4) Structure of Tower exposed momentarily by demolition:

"The towers were believed to have been the first to rely on "shaft-wall" interior cores, made of gypsum-based wallboard instead of harder materials, masonry or reinforced concrete. The shaft-wall design was considered a breakthrough at the time, favored for its fire resistance and air-tight qualities. A question today is whether abandoning shaft-wall construction is worth the additional weight and cost."

Like I said before, the BBC is wrong about the WTC core having been constructed of reinforced concrete.

http://interactive.wsj.com/fr/emailthis/retrieve.cgi?id=SB1002665330656783520.djm

Like I said before, the BBC is wrong about the WTC core having been constructed of reinforced concrete.

No, your report leads to a misimpression for failure to be specific, in that the core stairwells were wallboarded rather than concrete-walled as usual. Thus the new wallboarding only partially displaced concrete in the core. Concrete remained as the perimeter of the core.

And you conveniently ignore the authoritative report by MSNBC based upon an interview with Robertson:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3069641/

o Newsweek

`Painful and Horrible'

The engineer behind the World Trade Center speaks about the structures

The south tower, built with its twin in 1973, collapses on Tuesday

By Katherine Stroup
Newsweek Web Exclusive

Sept. 13 - Leslie Robertson, one of two engineers who designed the World Trade Center, was in Hong Kong when he first learned of Tuesday's terrorist attacks. Before the second plane even hit, he was on his way to the airport.

FORTY-EIGHT HOURS LATER, Robertson, founder and owner of Leslie E. Robertson Associates in New York, has only gotten as far as Tokyo. He's still struggling to get home to his family in Manhattan, and the project he spent 10 years designing and perfecting.

"Beyond the reaction that any citizen has--the sadness that we all feel--you have to understand, I worked long hours, seven days a week on this project back when I was young and energetic," says the 73-year-old, his voice breaking with emotion. "It was just terrible to watch, painful and horrible."

Still, Robertson, whose firm is responsible for three of the six tallest buildings in the world, feels a sense of pride that the massive towers, supported by a steel-tube exoskeleton and a reinforced concrete core, held up as well as they did--managing to stand for over an hour despite direct hits from two massive commercial jetliners.

"If they had fallen down immediately, the death counts would have been unimaginable," he says. "The World Trade Center has performed admirably, and everyone involved in the project should be proud."

NN, your pal Robertson still didn't seem surprised that they collapsed. Strange.

NN, your pal Robertson still didn't seem surprised that they collapsed. Strange.

Not at all.

If Robertson, here speaking in PR mode, had expressed himself to the effect that the Towers shouldn't have collapsed - after they had just collapsed - he would have sounded like an incompetent and a lame apologist.

He was in no position, at that point in the immediate aftermath, to make such an inward sentiment seem reasonable, since that would require extraordinary, well-considered allegations such as are being made now about demolition, conspiracy, coverup, etc.

No, your report leads to a misimpression for failure to be specific, in that the core stairwells were wallboarded rather than concrete-walled as usual. Thus the new wallboarding only partially displaced concrete in the core. Concrete remained as the perimeter of the core.

And you conveniently ignore the authoritative report by MSNBC based upon an interview with Robertson:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3069641/

The MSNBC report, that you've posted, actually helps my case.

Read the MSNBC report carefully, nowhere does Roberson claim that the WTC core was constructed of reinforced concrete. Robertson's own words are enclosed in quotation marks, the statement about the core are the words of the article's author, and not Robertson.

The MSNBC report, that you've posted, actually helps my case.

Read the MSNBC report carefully, nowhere does Roberson claim that the WTC core was constructed of reinforced concrete. Robertson's own words are enclosed in quotation marks, the statement about the core are the words of the article's author, and not Robertson.

I think you are herniating yourself in an attempt to get that rationalization off the ground:

******************************************

Still, Robertson, whose firm is responsible for three of the six tallest buildings in the world, feels a sense of pride that the massive towers, supported by a steel-tube exoskeleton and a reinforced concrete core, held up as well as they did--managing to stand for over an hour despite direct hits from two massive commercial jetliners.

"If they had fallen down immediately, the death counts would have been unimaginable," he says. "The World Trade Center has performed admirably, and everyone involved in the project should be proud."

******************************************

'Forty-eight hours later" has the reporter previously gotten the structural details from a lesser source which you merely assume was mistaken, or has the reporter ventured to merely presume as to the structure of the Towers, or did the reporter wait to get and relate the details from the horse's mouth? I take it that the reporter consolidated several points, wherein the structure was discussed, Robertson's pride was discussed, but that Robertson did not pedantically phrase his sentiments as "I feel a sense of pride that the massive towers, supported by a steel-tube exoskeleton and a reinforced concrete core, held up as well as they did--managing to stand..."

You will continue your research in hopes of finding a correction of this report by Robertson.

"The towers were believed to have been the first to rely on "shaft-wall" interior cores, made of gypsum-based wallboard instead of harder materials, masonry or reinforced concrete."

Does this mean that the core was made of nothing but gypsum?

What about the core vertical steel beams which you concede were there?

Obviously, then, the reference to wallboarding as the core is not meant to exclude other elements - the concrete perimeter and the steel columnar perimeter of the core. QED

If I may make a suggestion for F. and JP:

Go ahead and concede that, as obviously is the case, there was a rebar-reinforced concrete core perimeter - and go back to the point about no such thing as the imagined explosive-coated rebar, which, we are assured by the affiliates of the common person, Fissile, has no counterpart in reality.

Not at all.

If Robertson, here speaking in PR mode, had expressed himself to the effect that the Towers shouldn't have collapsed - after they had just collapsed - he would have sounded like an incompetent and a lame apologist.

He was in no position, at that point in the immediate aftermath, to make such an inward sentiment seem reasonable, since that would require extraordinary, well-considered allegations such as are being made now about demolition, conspiracy, coverup, etc.

Did he not say that he was surprised the buildings stayed up as long as they did? I guess he's only a credible witness to support your argument. Other than that he has no authority in the conspiracy world.

Did he not say that he was surprised the buildings stayed up as long as they did?

No, he said he was proud, and I suppose he was trying to cast the incident in the best possible light from the standpoint of the reputation of his firm and himself. Again, for him to say, in the immediate aftermath, that the Towers shouldn't have collapsed would not have served that purpose.

I guess he's only a credible witness to support your argument. Other than that he has no authority in the conspiracy world.

I suppose these statements make sense to you, if no one else.

No, he said he was proud, and I suppose he was trying to cast the incident in the best possible light from the standpoint of the reputation of his firm and himself. Again, for him to say, in the immediate aftermath, that the Towers shouldn't have collapsed would not have served that purpose.

Ah the MIND READING technique!! Yes, when evidence doesn't materialize or the people involved say things that don't fit the conspiracy theory, just claim they are lying. Unless, like Silverstein, they say something that allegedly blows the cover on the whole thing on television. Then that's real!

The omnipotent ZOG/Illuminati/Alien/Corporate Fascist Oil Company(pick one based on your stated political ideology) conspirators- super geniuses and blithering idiots at the same time!