It Appears Established, By Default, That The Towers Had Concrete Cores. [View All]

The reason for this is that no one who asserts there was no concrete core, can or will try to explain why the 47, 1,300 foot steel columns do not appear in these photos. By default, the cores must have been concrete because no photos of the steel core columns in the demolition can be found and no reasonable explanation of why is has been produced.





The above small structural elements are rebar, not 14 inch x 30 inch plus steel tube columns as below.




That standing column in the above photo is not a core column. It is a part of the exterior steel tube of the "tube in a tube" construction, note the stubs of floor beams and horizontal beams supporting lower portions.

It has been shown in my last thread,

So Is It Established The Towers Had Steel Reinforced Cast Concrete Cores?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=53560&mesg_id=53560

that none will explain why the structures they assert existed do not appear in demo photos. All the posts by those who are trying to assert that there was no concrete core and . They will not provide reason from the raw data to believe the 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns existed, but they constantly try to assert the concrete core did not exist.

There are reasonable people using logic and information competently to make solid points about general aspects of construction here that must be observed as they are common knowledge.

philb makes a point about drywall.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=54766&mesg_id=55178

Kevin Fenton started a thread to analyze the base photos I've been using. Analysis shows the demo photos to be genuine.

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

seatnineb has sourced images that show more than most.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=53560&mesg_id=55522

and fundamental logic relating to images of the core is often used to make simple statements that define absolutes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=53560&mesg_id=56193

Once before I think seatnineb mentioned the fact that if the image of the WTC 2 core was steel, what is seen blocking the silhouetted "steel core columns" "lattice", must be drywall; and to think that dry wall, inside or outside the core could survive the adjacent free fall descent of hundreds of thousands of tons is not reasonable.

Of those who posted against the concrete core, only once quite long ago, one tried to explain why the 47, 1,300 foot columns are not seen in photos. Since that time a series of cognitive distortions creatively used to dismiss the raw information of photos have been employed. Things such as "minimizing", "labeling", "over generalizing and "should" statements. Admin here do not allow exposure of this behavior, empowering un reasonable opposition.

I became aware of overt disregard for the fact that deniers of the concrete core conduct totally obvious continuous evasion of explaining why the steel columns core columns are unseen. Meaning that my thread asking the forum about the effects of high explosives on steel,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=53209&mesg_id=53451

did make a point. The needed explosions to sever the 47 steel columns a total of 1,000 times to make the steel short enough to not be seen in DEMO photos did not occur and none are reasonably going to try assert they were. That explosion would be much bigger than what we saw with many, very sharp, loud cracks rather than rumbling from a more omidirectional, uniformly contained expression of energy.

So, ........ most meaningfully is that those who do not accept controlled demolition, concrete core vs. steel core columns, but also do not argue "no concrete core", get to see how well those who choose to try to dismiss the concrete core perform, and additionally see how they cannot support the existence of the core FEMA says existed. They get to see again how authority won't use it's power or knowledge to protect life by insisting on reasonable posting, here where Americans might share meaningfully. I mean 9-11 is a tough enough subject anyway without empowering overt disinformation in the only practical cyber environment for discussion. Perhaps consider if the democracy is to be preserved, if it exists to any degree, it is time to dissolve differences and resolve to work together to get answers.

Unreasonable dismissers of information have lost credibility and I hope some notice this and share the fact with information that comes from raw data, supported my numerous other sources on the towers design and construction which is logical or consistent with the way the towers came down and the remains on the ground.

One dismisser of information posted images of the silhouetted towers and points out that I had them backwards. It is not a sunset as I mistakenly assumed, it is a sunrise



Once I had them correctly identified I was able to make solid sense from the photo.

The north tower on the left has light reflecting down its hallways off the interior walls as the perspective is not directly down the hallway. On the right, the south tower, with a concrete core oriented north and south, has light reflected off the inside wall on the south side but the interior wall crossing the short axis of the core is the wrong distance from the hallway opening to reflect light on the left side.

Typically attempts to prove what is truth as a lie that use real information will eventually improve the presentation of the truth. The concrete core in this case. This is not the first time this has happened. Here one dismisser of information actually does it again by trying to use real information, photos of the towers, to prove they did not have concrete cores.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=53560&mesg_id=54931

The point where deniers loose all credibility to anyone tracking the exchange and become simple dismissers of information. One here parrots my type of inquiry mode with a thread titled thus,

"You must explain why light shines through the South Tower's core."


The south tower on the left shows 2 vertical columns of light, the 2 halls crossing the short axis of the core, and the tower on the right shows a single vertical column of light.
The south tower had more, different hallways to accommodate better access

This dismisser continued asking about the patterns of the light shining through WTC 2's core.

Eventually my memory of the documentary met up with something from an email from Scott Forbes who reported the power down on the south tower on the weekend before,

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1212053

In his email I recall he described each floor having 2 hallways, he may have indicated that a third hallway ran the long axis of the core as others have. Another description of WTC 2 from a survivor describes "crossed hallways". That statement indicates multiple hallways crossed

The dismisser never responded to an explanation that the light is reflected off the core just as it reflects off the buildings to the left which is a justified perspective because of the bright areas about 9 floors down on the right side of WTC 2 core in the photo above. Often dismisser produce mass criticism then never follow through with reasonable responses to the criticism. They get to leave a confusing trail and keep people busy producing reasonable responses. In this case Something on the outside of the building is reflecting light in those areas. Until we know what that is, the above image is not fully explained. Other sources indicate that the hallways schemes for the towers differed.