Quote from Bitstream:
lmao, give it more thought.
u are in the same position i am, u can search for a photo of the interior spaces that shows the core columns, were surrounded by mere tiny walls. and the offices, as u say, are extended to the core.
[/B]
MIT i think is a more reliable source than wiki and mentions reinforced concrete walls.
[/B]
sure, engineer haroki has spoken and drawn conclusion from a map that may or may not be true representation, and i bet it is not. photo... lmao. see below.
[/B]
of course there are sites that don't mention the core; in the algoxy site there are countless links describing the core, some mention the concrete others not. those that don't are likely wrong since photographic evidence points at that. i said in my previous posts is that it was much stronger than nist made it to be, as mit and algoxy both concur. and i think i could trust the mit link that the core was there and was made of reinforced concrete. also many photos from 911 indicate its existence:
in this photo u can clearly see the core standing after the collapse and even make up the grey color of the cement walls, dont u think that if it was plywood or even normal cement panels they would have completely disintegrated?
and look at this: the pink arrow points at the core itself and the brown/grey walls the reinforced concrete walls. it's definetly the core since u can see the clear cubic shape and the perimeter walls descending on it. and by looking at the base and they definitely look extremely thick, not like mere panels.
here u can see what remains of the concrete walls attached to the bottom left of the core.
and article from oxford university published in 1992:
and here's a link to claims from many people that studied and saw the concrete core:
http://cosmicpenguin.com/911/chrisbrown/corerefs/index.html
[/B]
i backed my claim, there's evidence a core was there.
[/B]
that was a wrong link i gave u from the algoxy site.
[/B]
lol, no. only your twisted and biased logic says so. hey, no prob, even i admit i am biased.
[/B]
the page i posted makes no mention whatsoever to conspiracies and that's the case. i wasn't aware of any other links to algoxy. i might have been wrong but i wasn't lying. u better be careful before making wild assertion and accusations.
[/B]
that's a lie and told on purpose to hide the impact of his words: he mentions he believes the towers could withstand multiple jet crashes, infact he says that the planes impact would have done very little damage to the towers.
really? and what about this: -"u are a disgusting piece of filth"-
note that i never attacked u before u posted that.
mit clearly refers to a reinforced concrete core, and u have multiple witnesses describing it. of course like the firemen testimonies about bombs and explosions, u can feel free to down play it. and i also gave u 2 reference that the towers could withstand multiple jet crashes. if that's not enough for u, well too bad.
in the end any one here can make up his own mind about mine and yours credibility. u calling me a liar doesn't certainly make it so. what i said certainly doesn't qualifies as lying.. infact i can accuse u of the very same thing about the statement u just made about de martini not mentioning multiple jet crashes. one thing is for sure though, u are very nasty and intolerant as proven over and over by unprovoked attacked u launched against many skeptics posting here.
-"u are a disgusting piece of filth"-
-"wrong dipshit"-
both were unprovoked attacks to two diff posters, and i am doing u a favor leaving ratty out the picture.
i am done here with u, u can take the stand and talk to yourself as much as u want, but i certainly welcome u to continue to discuss old and new evidence in the future, if u are really committed to keep it civil. i bet u wont last more than a couple of posts, but let's see....i still want to try and believe the govt was not involved. [/B]