The only feasible explanation for free fall and total pulverization, because of the absolute need for optimum placement and distribution of a very large quantity of high explosives, is that the concrete core was constructed with steel reinforcing bar coated with C4 high explosives. This is cold war technology for self destruct sub bases and missle silos.

I can only say this because I saw a documentary called "The Construction Of The Twin Towers" that aired in 1990 on PBS. The 2 hour documentary utilized 16mm film shot by photographers in the employ of the architects and contractors.

If you want to confirm this, ask everyone you know if they saw the documentary. I've found at least 3, one was a civil engineer.

FEMA has deceived us into believing that the core was comprised of multiple steel core columns. Unfortunately, this cannot be true because the core elements would be of the strongest structures in the towers and would definitely be protruding from the top of what is seen here which is the concrete core of WTC 2 standing without the exterior steel.



The multiple steel core columns FEMA claims were there are never seen in any photos. Beware of claims that elevator guide rails seen in construction photos (much smaller) are the core columns.

911research.com has uncovered inconsistencies with the FEMA structure that has been released.

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html

"The blueprints to the Twin Towers and Building 7 remain off-limits to the public three years after the attack, despite the fact that the buildings were built with public money and that the engineering drawings of public buildings are supposed to be public information.
.....
It is clear that the FEMA plan is misleading because of the far too small dimensions of the core column cross-sections. If the first drawing can be believed -- and unfortunately it cannot be verified because accurate building drawings have not been made public -- then one can surmise that the FEMA plan has the following misleading characteristics.

* The core columns (red boxes in the turquoise region) are neither shown to scale nor in their correct positions. They are drawn far smaller than their actual dimensions.
* It fails to show the structures connecting the core columns to each other, implying the core is entirely dependent on the floor diaphragms for bracing. "


Here is the full story.

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

Where is the concrete core, and where did all those columns come from?

Architectural record seems to believe there was concrete core.

(1) The steel columns running along the perimeter of the twin towers gave the buildings its rigidity and provided much of its strength. However, steel melts at around 1600 degrees - the estimated temperature of the fire within the buildings was much greater than that


(2) The concrete core acted as the building's vertebrate. But it only carried the dead load of the elevators and stairwells within. In both towers, the planes came very close to crashing directly into the core. Any closer, and the buildings would have collapsed in no time.
http://www.ncusd203.org/central/html/what/torsbergweb/2002/1st/hour8/wtc/graphic.html.

"Any closer, and the buildings would have collapsed in no time."

Is an aluminum aircraft wing strong enough to slice through concrete and steel? for that matter concrete or steel?

Those wings that bounce as you get in line to take off. In the case of 911 are seen slicing like a hot knife through butter right through the towers!

I think pulverized concrete is what the dust is that is coming off the skeleton structure. These particular columns may not have been wired to explode or or had missing C-4 or the C-4 was defective.

Overall, I think it is highly feasible the towers were rigged with stable explosives when they were built -- to provide a relatively easy way to bring them down either in case of emergency or when the towers had outlived their lifespan or usefulness.

By the way, LARED, did you ask any of your engineer or physicist friends to look at those web pages I gave you describing CD of the WTC?

The image that LARED provided is good to look at, but is obviously taken after the core, seen in other images, had fallen, and is in fact a picture of the so called 'last spire' before it fell. Its difficult to determine what part of the tower is represented by these last few standing elements without video of the event. Although I frequently rely upon my ability to examine evidence and look for logical conclusions, I will count myself unqualified to determine the nature of what this picture demonstrates.

Also, I would argue with the supposition that these buildings could have been legally demolished by dropping them with explosives. In fact I believe that the reason they were demolished on 9/11 is because of the absolutely prohibitive expense of deconstructing the towers. As we all know, the destruction of the towers released dozens of toxic elements into the air that should have had downtown evacuated for weeks. Instead the EPA conveniently ruled that the air was safe. In fact, demolishing the buildings would never have been legal. The towers would have had to have been removed piece by piece in order to prevent the contamination of the environment that occured and was then denied. This would have cost a billion dollars, and was hardly preferrable to the terrorist attack. To propose that explosives were built into the buildings would be to surmise that the architect or owners assumed that they would bring them down with a terrorist attack. - R.C.

The rules were very different when construction of the WTC began.

I don't know one way or the other about Chris's hypothesis. I would like it to be explained with more reference to photos of the WTC under construction, and there are many such photos.

Sad to say, the cover-up at ground zero eliminated most the evidence that would be directly helpful in identifying particular explosives. What evidence I have seen, would seem to more support sulfuric explosives as cutting-charges, and tactical nukes deep in the sub-basements. These all could have been installed by the Bush-family related company in charge of WTC "security" right up to 9/11. But my specific hypothesis about particular explosives may still not be exactly correct. I think some more evidence on this is likely to emerge soon. The cover-up is breaking down.

Original Message
"This supposition has big holes"
Posted by Rob Conn


I do remember in the documentary that the butt weld on the 3" high tensile rebar, standing unsupported here;



as very fine elements viewed at 7500 feet, were recoated with the "special plastic, anti corrosion/vibration coating" after the butt weld was completed.

Since the tower didn't explode all at once the coating was removed and a delay inserted so the descent of detonation could match free fall. Every 40 feet vertical there was an inspection port into the rebar. In the beginning I don't think they had plans, at least not the builders and designers. The ones proposing it, perhaps yes, we may never know that part.

The rectangular steel shapes are formed by interior box columns that are joined by floor beams.

The concrete core has detonated at that level and below for part of the core walls. (From the documentary) The north tower was the first constructed and for a portion of it the C4 coated rebar was left in the weather during the winter. The exposure had caused the C4 to loose it viability. In the documentary it was noted that the rebar had lost its corrosion and vibration resistency. Ironic.

The spire has part of the core behind it. Here is another photo that shows the concrete core wall.



Here is a zoomed clipping with arrows and notation identifying the spire, the core wall and interior walls.



Here is a FEMA structural diagram I've alted to make a crude depiction of the core, its interior walls and hallways.



I'm unsure of the hallway scheme above the 48th floor but the lower 48 have the alternating perpindicular halls I show.

First of all, I would caution you to not speak in such absolute terms. "The only feasable..."? Let me demonstrate. It is entirely feasable that the during a security stand-down, and power down due to 'technical upgrade', in the weeks prior to 9/11, that a series of charges were placed throughout the buildings by operatives entering through the basement. I really like the possibility that thermite was built into the basement after '93. It nicely puts that bombing in the present context. Of course it is equally plausable that vans were parked in key locations the night before. We can't, at this point, say for certain. Now, the law provides that a resonable doubt be the measure of proof required to make the ultimate judgement of another. The reasonable doubt is as important today in exploring this conjecture. Do you reasonably doubt that there are other rational explanations of the events that fit the evidence?

Second, the source you refer to has some insight to offer but very little credibility. I can reasonably doubt about half of what he says, although I happen to initially agree with more than that. I strongly suggest reading "The New Pearl Harbor", relating directly to information about the attack. Or if you are ready for the 'red pill', "Crossing The Rubicon", by Michael Ruppert, which puts the attack in its geopolitical context. These texts refer almost entirely to mainstream sources of information that are quite enough to peg all the bad guys without the need for the 'built-in C4' or 'plane pods'. In fact it is quite evident to me and others that there are those, even in here, who might intend to direct people's perceptions of the parameters of the debate. Those who might like to create divisions between those who are simply at different levels of the same path toward understanding. These informants and provacateurs are to be recognized and ignored. And only ignored because they intend not to educate but confuse. And it is these very people who say such things as "The only feasable..." Thankfully, you can spot an agent a mile away. Their logic is circular, internally referential, and contradictory. They want to get you talking about what is not important so that you won't talk about all the things that are. They want to upset you socially, to distract you from the logical. They want us all to think about the physical evidence of 9/11, when the most important book on the subject, sidesteps that consideration as functionally irrelevant. We don't need another smoking gun. The case is made, and now comes the time for action. But know that many will slow that progress

Third, I'm a little baffled by the architectural debate regarding the Twin Towers. I've reviewed many construction pictures that clearly indicate the structure of the building from core to exterior and nullify this debate. Check it out.

And finally, you can most likely get a copy of that PBS special. And if not, the reason they offer for not making it available would be more fun anyway. By the way, you didn't really mention what was in the special, but I'm interested to know. And if its important, we should all spread the word. - R.C.

Posted by Rob Conn


Normally your caution would be fully acceptable.

I happen to have some experinece with "above ground blasting".

In a grading operation that encounters a rock formation termed "well cemented chirt" by geologists certifying 70 degre cut slopes, you have to blast. We used low density high explosives in a technique called "cushion blasting" and our biggest problem was creating breakage. The strata varyied a great deal, sof next to hard with a near vertical orientaion. I was the driller and if a charge was NOT placed in the center of the hardest formation, the high pressure gasses would jet harmlessly out and the machines would bounce off the rocks still intact inside.

In my study of blasting I spent some time looking at demolition techniques. The centering of charges is absolutely needed if you expect to pulverize concrete and remove its strength bringing the loaad over it down. Distrubution was absolutely needed if an overall structural failure was to be expected.

THe WTC towers concrete core was reduced to sand and gravel and NO large chunks are to be found.

this is basically a miracle.

and cannot be done without total optimum placement, centralized charges, and totally distributed charges.

Examine any photo of a controlled demolition after the building is n the ground. You will see mostly large chunks of concrete.

They do not expect to turn the building into its particualte components, they just want to get it ALL on the ground where hydralic breakers can reduce the rest of the chunks to small enough pieces to load into trucks.

Posted by Rob Conn


You have not identified that source but it seems it must be me because I authored the page;

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

Griffen knows nothing about structures, engineering and demolition so does not attempt an analysis.

I can understand your doubt if you didn't see the documentary that I saw or do not have experince in blasting or construction. You will find that the scenario I create actually uses ALL of the available information in complete consistency while also explain freefall and total pulverization.

Since free fall and total pulverization DID happen, I consider them proof of the accuracy of the scenario I've assembled. I've seen a number of theories on how the demolition was effected and NONE gets even close to describing the cause of a free fall event that we witness in images. NONE gets close to defining HOW total pulverization was effected.

Sorry to question your authority. It would seem that we have someone in our midst who actually knows what they are talking about. Keep in mind that I haven't questioned demolition, only that it had to be built in. And you didn't exclude the possibility. Might it not have been possible to achieve the dispersal and coverage of explosives necessary in a demo setup operation before the attack? And as much as I hesitate to refer to one of our resident agents(I kid), Hack89 asks a good question. How could C4 have been built into the structure when there were thousands of people involved in the construction? Installation could have occured during the night. Might there be some witnesses who recall any changes that occured overnight, or remember unfamiliar structural elements? We could try to find them. We could find out who hired the contractor, and who were the foremen. Who poured the concrete might be significant. What do you propose? Its a hypothesis. HYPOTHESIS. You sound more qualified than most to confirm what so many of us know about the demolition of the whole WTC site. But where that fact lies in the big picture is less certain. I am working toward factually based THEORY. There are many hypotheses regarding 9/11, but only a few solid theories. And the theories in themselves should impell one to act. There is no factual 'smoking gun' to prove what has already been demostrated within the public record. Your expertise plays a significant role in the demonstration of a lie that has been perpetrated by those with secret plans. Plans that must be exposed. You recognize one of the big lies. And we must focus on the lies. You must strive to place that expertise precisely where is must be applied. It is important in this circle of thinkers that you share the facts that would guide people away from falacy. And then the role of an educator demands a certian humility that would have you take great care to introduce your information as factual and not a matter of your opinion. Think about it. But then overall, I'm excited about these new facts that I have not yet well examined. I'll be reading your site. Keep it movin'. - R.C.

Posted by Rob Conn


The documentary actually showed heightened security relating to the installation. Floors were unexpectedly evacuated after they were prepped for the pour of lightweight concrete. The first time this happened, around the 4th floor, the contractors were outraged. Later they accomodated this by having multiple floor panels ready to pour or prep. Welding contractors had bid welding exterior framework based on the assumption their welders could do the butt welds of the rebar in the cast concrete core. After the core got off the ground and the contracts for the tower above ground were engaged, the port authority informed them that ONLY welders with security clearances could perform the weld.

The videograpers dug quite deeply and actually tracked down a welding contractor and asked why only welders with a security clearance could do the butt weld. The contractor said that the port authority told them the special plastic coating was flammable and that liability of procedure could only be covered by personnel having a security clearance.

Yess!!! O.K., so its all in the documentary, which you have not proven exists. I want to believe you. So now I want a copy. Someone must have one. Have you not tried to find one? I can't find it doing a search on Google. Of course, anything so damning of the official story would have been squashed before or soon after the event. However, I really would have expected to find SOMEONE else talking about the show somewhere. The name doesn't even link to any 9/11 sites. Is this really new info? Why is it so hidden? Can we contact PBS and at least confirm that it aired? And if this piece of evidence is so significant that you would base your arguments on it, why haven't you done so? How is it possible that such an important document does not readily show up on the net, when such a thing would have generated huge discussion, at least among the 9/11 croud? Help me out here. - R.C.

Posted by Rob Coon


I should have tried right after 9-11 to get a copy but I was pretty overwhelmed with other, remotely related issues. I also didn't remember the name. I believe I've remembered it now, "The Construction of The Twin Towers".

I have a little experience with the public broadcast system and they are not at all responsive, just like any corporation. Knowing what I know now, they would not have admitted the thing existed.

Posted by Rob Conn


I'll tell you a story of how it goes, how it is.

After Fahrenhiet 9-11 moveon.org called for local meetings of activists. I went to one. While we were all waiting for M. Moore to come on to the mass cell phone interview, I asked the group assembled if anyone had seen the documentary. One had.
I asked him if he remembered the concrete core. He did and explained that he was a civil engineer, structural.

I explained to him that FEMA was claiming that the core was comprised of multiple steel core columns. He was shocked, he didn't know that FEMA was lying. The other 2 people were the same way. One remembered the concrete core the other didn't, or at least not very well. The engineer is too afraid to provide a declaration under penalty of perjury about the concrete core and the other will but I'm not to sure it would matter.
The engineer did provide a declaration about the documentary we saw. Since you are interested I'll locate it and get it scanned then put it on the web. I don't have a scanner working yet though so that is still a problem. I'll get past it.

Basically the people that saw it are not 9-11 activists and they do not know FEMA is claiming there were steel core columns. When they discover it, they become afraid. This is one of the reasons I'm so active with the concrete core information. I hope to reduce peoples fear and to get people asking around to find others that saw the documentary and hopefully remember the concrete core.

You don't need any explosives to pulverize something with that much kinetic energy. As a matter of fact, explosives would be completely insiginficant by comparison unless they were nukes.

that would be all that would happen. The fires were insignificant and fire could never have caused ANY structural failure.

The recent tower in Spain (was it?) that burned for a day, nearly, had no significant effect on the structure. No steel building has collapsed from fire ever.

Here is the concrete core of WTC 2 standing with nothing over it



What kenetic energy took this rectangular, tubular, steel reinforced, cast concrete structure to the ground? There is nothing above it in the photo.

You have no evidence and you are altogether failing to use reason.

In light of that, and the murders of 3,000 Americans, uninvestigated, WHY do you support the story of the secret government?

No doubt you have experience with controlled demolition, but I think your opinions are based on your past experience, which do not include a structure of the scale and construction like the World Trade Center Towers.

I think you vastly underestimate the potential energy in the towers that became kinetic energy when the towers begain to collapse.

I also think you are mistaken in your analysis of the use of concrete in the buildings. By far the majority was lightweight type found in the 4" thick floors, 5" thick in the core area.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf

The core consisted simply of box girders. Only the stairwells were reinforced with concrete.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-1ExecutiveSummary.pdf#search='wtc%20core%20construction'

Tell me something Vince.........because you wrote...

Only the stairwells were reinforced with concrete.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-1ExecutiveSummary....


If the steel trusses were bolted to horizontal beams that ran across the face of the interior columns.......as the official reports from FEMA and the NIST would have us believe......

Then how did the trusses bypass these interior columns to reach the concrete core which encased the stairwells?

The World Trade Center towers were designed as tube structures. A tube structure building gains its strength from tightly spaced perimeter columns which provide wind resistance. The perimeter steel columns are braced laterally by 40,000 square foot diaphragms of concrete and 60 foot horizontal steel trusses that extend from the concrete core <3>.
http://www.pitt.edu/~sjf13/event.html

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf

Take a look. The trusses were welded directly to core columns.

According to Leslie Roberts Associates(who constructed the WTC)........

The trusses were bolted (using 5/8 inch) to the beams.

These beams were then welded to ledges which acted as extra support.

Most of us have seen the photo of the clean up worker kneeling with a scrapping torch (extra long) cutting beams from a square column. That is an interior box column with 3 "I" beams (1'x3') coming off it. There is a 100% butt weld visable above the beam joint and cletes welded to the box column to support the beams that are also welded to the box column.

I do not have experience with controlled demolitions. I do have experience with "above ground blasting" and I know what it takes to achieve the breakage, pulverization seen on 9-11 and cleanup photos. Ihave studied controlled demolition and the techniques used to place explosives to get the best breakage possible.

That breakage is nothing short of miracleous and has never been seen before in a demolition. One reason no one can figure out what happened or how.

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

The suppression about the existence of the concrete core starts to make sense when you see stuff like this......

The lead investigator in the case, Gene Corley of the American Society of Civil Engineers, said the Port Authority refused to hand over blueprints for the twin towers - crucial for evaluating the wreckage - until he signed a waiver saying his team would not use the plans in a lawsuit against the agency.

"This is the first time I have signed something like that," Corley said, setting off a wave of angry comments from members of Congress and outcries from an audience made up mostly of relatives of victims of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

Corley leads a team of engineering experts empaneled by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, but his team lacks the power to subpoena witnesses or order the preservation of evidence.

http://www.questionsquestions.net/documents2/wtc_obstru... .

existing blueprints were in the towers and destroyed along with them.

That link doesn't work, btw.

Or maybe the Port Authority had a copy....even though the originals may have been destroyed when the Towers collapsed....?

Here try this link.....it contains this statement....

The lead investigator in the case, Gene Corley of the American Society of Civil Engineers, said the Port Authority refused to hand over blueprints for the twin towers

Aswell as this......

The lack of significant amounts of steel for examination will make it difficult, if not impossible, to make a definitive statement as to the specific cause and chronology of the collapse," said Glenn Corbett

http://www.questionsquestions.net/documents2/wtc_obstruction.html

The mayor illegally took all the WTC documents and put them into his warehouse and the courts will not force a release, a violation of freedom of information laws.

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

Here is the blueprint link again, maybe too long for this BB software.

http://www.questionsquestions.net/documents2/wtc_obstruction.htm

If that won't work copy and paste the this on the tail after the last slash.

wtc_obstruction.html

what with the tens of thousands of workers involved in the construction. Looking forward to seeing their eye witness accounts.

.....that quite a few articles contadict FEMA's vertical steel core that was said to be at the heart of the towers.

Like this one.

At the heart of the structure was a vertical
steel and concrete core, housing lift shafts and stairwells. Steel beams radiate outwards and connect with steel uprights, forming the building's outer wall. All the steel was covered in concrete to guarantee firefighters a minimum period of one or two hours in which they could operate - although aviation fuel would have driven the fire to higher-than-normal temperatures.

http://www.blythe.org/nytransfer-subs/2001-Environment/Gallon_Environ.Letter:_Engineers_on_WTC_Collapse

please connect the dots for me.

You know the old saying, "where there's smoke there's fire."

....there is a collapse....

........you know.....like people at the scene reported.......

Fox 5 News:

“There is an explosion at the base of the building….white smoke from the bottom …something has happened at the base of the building… then, another explosion. Another building in the World Trade Center complex….”

The issue of free fall cannot reasonably be questioned. What we saw was SO far from a collapse that it is a travesty of language to refer to it as such.

Pulverization of everything but heavy steel is also an absolute.

These 2 issues make OPTIMALLY placed and DISTRIBUTED

EXPLOSIVES

mandatory to have a realistic, logical explanation.

Placement and distribution is virtually impossible under the conditions we KNOW existed prior to 9-11. Meaning, .......... they were built in.

Since FEMA lies about the towers core, that is where they were.

All of the above is additional logic that supports my information from the 1990 documentary on the construction of WTC 1.

Anyone with an engineering construction background will not be able to make sense of the FEMA structural configuration as related to this image. What they say existed for the core is not seen and the only thing that could have this appearance and be strong enough to survive the fall of thousands of tons of steel around it is steel reinforced, case concrete.

The quantity of sand and gravel also must be explained and the FEMA core does not do that.

but I followed the link where you got the quote about a concrete core, and then followed the link that the author referenced his comments from. There is no mention of concrete cores in the original source. apparently the author is adding his own comments.

As I recall it the elevators and stairways were fireproofed with 2-1/2 inches of wall board, not concrete.

It would appear that the author seems to have added this.....

At the heart of the structure was a vertical steel and concrete core

.....at his own discretion.....

Problem is......he ain't the only author who has done this.....

Each of the towers, in other words, was held up by
its reinforced concrete core and the world's strongest curtain walls.

http://www.salwen.com/wtc/

How do you find these links?

This is the best yet.

http://www.salwen.com/wtc/

An inner concrete core houses the elevators, and provides additional vertical load support.

The above statement is featured in an article that has been cached........and can be found here......

http://216.109.124.98/search/cache?p=concrete+core+world+trade+center&ei=UTF-8&fl=0&meta=vc%3D&pstart=1&b=21&u=www.wcsscience.com/wtc/page3.html&w=concrete+core+world+trade+center&d=7A03018A35&icp=1&.intl=uk

Unfortunately ....the current page is down.....Here is what it says:

Site Temporarily Disabled
This site has been temporarily disabled. If you are the owner of the site, please contact customer care.

http://www.wcsscience.com/wtc/page3.html

I wonder why!?

As for finding stuff......you have started a fire( a very important/intriguing one) ....I'm just doin' my little bit to keep it a burnin'!


I am using advanced yahoo searches entering "concrete core" as my search parameter.....and reaping the results!

Great work! THX.

I'll be changing my search techniques.

Posted by LARED

Effects Of Maximum Pressures With High Explosives - Containment.

The C4 coated rebar in the cast concrete core allowed a situation where explosives engineers could design a cast concrete container that allowed maximum pressures to build up. This optimization of the detonations changes the entire character of high explosives going off, as compared to what is usually seen on TV or film.

What is usually seen on TV is a bomb or open uncontained charge placed in a building or vehicle. Rarely is a sense of the speed that things are travelling communicated well. Nothing is seen at all near the center of the blast. Things are not seen until they get hundreds of feet away and slow down, they are just moving too fast near the event.

The speed of the explosive can be converted to pressure by containment. When the container is breached high speeds can be attained but they can be greatly minimized by engineering the fracture point of the container. This is how the C4 coated rebar in the concrete container was developed to completely pulverize the concrete and anything near it.

The very high pressures cause cement, concrete, rock and sand to be rendered to very near their smallest particualte size. This was the case with the dust of the WTC demolition. The quantities of this exceeded any such blast ever in reducing concrete to its essense.

There is simply no other way to distribute and place explosives to get the effects we saw on 9-11 than to coat rebar with a precise layer of plastic explosive.

that describes the towers structural configuration and loading scheme. Thank you very much!! Great find.

The one aspect the engineer did not mention was that the core resisted twisting which was the weak point of the steel exterior tube framework. The cast concrete core was selected in the design competition because it was a VERY adequate anti torsion memeber and also utilized a standard construction technique with a very estimable cost.

Posted by seatnineb

the construction lesson is very interesting but what is the point?

cast in concrete, which is probably why some people (agents) argue so hard against the existence of the concrete core.

and he didn't remember the core. He was real nervous about speaking out when I told him FEMA claimed there were steel core columns so I didn't press him to remember the concrete core. He and 3 of his friends are the only members of their Mohawk steel crew left. He was 24 when he worked on the towers.

I did ask him to talk about the elevator trips with his friends because that was the only time they would actually see the core since they were in the advancing steel above the core. He asked me if the core was where the concrete was pumped up, I confirmed this for him. He must have been referring to the floor concrete.

There may have been a plywood entrance that was reused for the elevator so the concrete wasn't obvious.

I've been trying to remember it. They put up about 7 foot wooden walls surrounding the pit. There were peepholes every few feet so you could observe the construction. I remember the concrete foundation being laid, but I can't remember seeing any of the steel being put up. At some point in time, they put up a different barricade which didn't have the peepholes. I don't remember at what point they did this.

and there was certainly heightened security for that.

Had you ever been in the towers after they were built?

Had dinner at Wine Cellar in the Sky in late 70s. We took our kids when they were little in the mid 80s to the observation deck.

We had friends visiting us from out of town the end of August 2001. We took them to the Empire State Building and we going to go to the Towers, but we didn't go. I can't explain why, but I just didn't want to go there. After 9/11, our friends called me and commented on the fact that one week before it I said not to go. Gives me the creeps thinking about it.

As an aside, we were going to take them to the Statute of Liberty, but it was closed. They told us it was for security reasons and wouldn't say why. I have always found that very strange given it was so close to 9/11.

I'm trying to determine how the hallways ran above the 48th floor.
Below is what the hallways through the core looked like up to the 48th and I remember that the documentary talked about a different hallway scheme above the 48th.

One was basically for the office floors and the other was an express just up to Windows on the World and the Observation Deck. We took the Express to the top which put us right at the restaurant and the decks.

I never went on the other elevators, so I don't know.

Was the observation deck at the top? Did both towers have them?

The top of the North Tower was Windows on the World and the top of the South Tower was the Observation Decks.

It's been a very long time and I am trying to remember all this. There were a lot of elevators in both buildings. Many high rise office buildings in Manhattan have express elevators to just the upper floors to ease passenger congestion. If I can remember correctly, there were a lot of groupings of elevators, to say, for floors 2-20, 21-40, etc., and then other elevators to just 80 and above. Don't quote me on the exact floor numbers, but that was the gist of it. We did take an express elevator up to the top. Now that I recall, it was to the Observation Deck in the South Tower. Makes sense when you think about it since the tourists could take their own elevator and not have to add to the congestion of the office workers. There were two floors of observation decks - one was indoor and the upper one was outdoors. My husband and kids went to the outdoor deck, but I didn't - too chicken. The indoor observation deck was all glass, ceiling to floor so it appeared that you were walking outside.

I think the elevator to we took to Windows may have stopped on other floors (80 and up?), but we didn't get out, so I have no idea what the layout of the corridors were. It's been a very long time, so I am sorry I cannot be more of a help.

That there was an elevator that went all the way to the top helps.

From others I learned that it was actually faster, sometimes, to take one to the 48th then another to the top. The reason being that the shorter elevators were much faster as the guide rails were much more precise. However, at the wrong time of day, workers would be stopping those elevators to get on and off.

started a new thread on it here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x41308

Explosive Evidence. The FEMA report titled World Trade Center Building Performance Study, Appendix C (Available at http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm ) “Limited Metallurgical Examination”, shows evidence of explosives used, by way of photographs, microscopic, and chemical examination.
“Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure.”... “The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.”...“The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel by grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both iron and copper.”...“A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.”... “The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.



Are there other likely sources of sulfur that could have been involved here? If they couldn't conceive of another source other than explosives, why would they assume it was caused by something other than explosives? Is explosives the most logical and likely source?

but I think someone may be trying to give us a tip without overtly saying it was explosives.

Sulfide compounds are quite common.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfide

There was little detonating high explosive in contact with steel, except floor panels.

Someone with chemistry basckground should look into thermite residuals and conversions.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/explosives-compositions.htm

C-4 is primarily RDX, which does not contain sulphur

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/explosives-nitramines.htm

I know thermite is primarily iron oxide and aluminum oxide but it needs something to get it lit and to stabilize or help spread the burn.

http://www.textfiles.com/humor/thermite.ana

NOTE: Thermites are generally very safe to mix and store. They are not shock
or friction sensitive and ignite at about 2000 degrees F.

A first fire mix is a mixture that ignites easier than thermite and burns
hot enough to light the thermite reliably. A very good one is :
Potassium Nitrate 5 parts
Fine ground Aluminum 3 parts
Sulfur 2 parts


http://www.iki.org.uk/index.php/Thermite_things

Mix the above thoroughly and combine 2 parts of it with 1 part of finely powdered ferro-thermite. The resulting mixture can be light by safety fuse and burns intensely. One problem with thermites is the difference in weight between the aluminum and the oxide. This causes them to separate out rendering the thermite useless. One way to fix this is to use a binder to hold the chemicals to eachother. Sulfur is good for this. Called Diasite, this formula uses sulfur to bind all the chemicals together. It's drawback is the thermite must be heated to melt the sulfur. Iron Oxide 70% Aluminum 23% Sulfur 7%

Not true...

Have you ever broken up a concrete slab reinforced with rebar or some other metal running through it?

If you did and hit the metal with a sledgehammer you might have noticed the effect that it had. When the hammer made contact to the metal it passed it's energy into the metal, but then where did it go?

If you were watching closely you might have noticed that the concrete surrounding the metal was more affected by the pounding then other areas.

The steal throughout each tower was connected; either welded, bolted, or both. In addition an extreme release of energy was detected in the basement level just prior to the collapse of each structure. The steal is a pathway for the energy release; like a tuning fork...

If the intention was to remove the lower structure to knock the buildings off their foundations why give up the goose and have it measurable 23 miles away?

and I understand what you are saying but I never put the breaker point on the rebar I put it over it and use the bar as a line to fracture to.

Posted by libertypirate


On my page here;

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1205439

you will see that there were explosions in the basement at plane impact. The purpose of this was to limit the seismic signature 23 miles away. The USGS will not release raw digital data of the seismic record or other wise a "fast fourier transform analysis" would show that the beginning of the collapse had the unique frequency domain signature of high explosives.

You are on the right track.

Only very low resolution data was released and requests for better data was met with answers that the data could not be provided for technical reasons.

ftp://ftp.ldeo.columbia.edu/

and there I found some interesting public data that I copied

old hack habit, from when I used to back door into peoples home computers looking for music and software.

I even tried to get my hands on the application to read it but I was unable to get it working.

ftp://ftp.ldeo.columbia.edu/pub/LCSN/WTC/

or slice sections instead of blast them?

Although I know explosions were heard and the results likely seen I think the eye whiteness descriptions might be an accurate indicator to how many charges and what types were in the building.

When the fire fighters were talking about the building falling and hearing the bombs go off. They described them in a way that would indicate there was a specific pattern to them. They clearly indicated each explosion as a unique event. I am not sure explosions where used throughout the buildings. Thoughts?

For those that don't know a Thermite reaction would vaporize a steel beam in less then a second; it would leave a slag type residue and a semi-rough cut surface... These reactants are extremely effective because they achieve a high output of heat instantly.

What would untraditional be?

I did see a photo of a box column back in 2002 that was melted off with a rounded end. I've not seen the photo since. It was taken at fresh kills on an unauthorized investigation.

The video of the firefighters describing the floors blowing up "boom, boom, boom, all the way dawn" describes very well a 75 millisecond delay. The premature explosions that appear on single faces indicates the wrong delays were installed. Most were visable on lower floors.

After leasing the buildings elevators underwent major maintenance from the 48th floor down. Another intiation system might have been used there that was more stable than ordinary electric blasting caps. There is a gas linked system that uses a cap similar to an old fire cap which might have been rigged improperly.

Use of thermite as heat source to cut the steal instead of blast it.

There is some evidence in video that does support this possibility.

and the installation of thermite layers at the base of perimeter box columns and interior box columns. That must be what took the bottom out and assisted in dropping the steel away from the core in this photo.



As well as the floors detonating which disassembled the framework. Then the core detonated and it went to the ground.

My site employs a thermite description because the molten steel requires explanation.

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

I like how the artist made it look like there was a column left standing when there really wasn't. whoever started this thread is accomplishing nothin but spreading disinfo.

Here is a second image that shows the concrete core lower



Supporting the secret government is pretty sick when 3,000 Americans have been murdered and war illegally waged on 2 soveriegn nations.

You really should provide evidence of photo tampering when alleging such.

It is quite clear who is attempting disinfo.

yes, it is an assumption, and I'm entitle to my opinion. butI think you've proven who is spreading disinfo. IMO C4 being placed during the construction is the craziest thing I've heard. More likely a controlled demolition. I read somewhere, which I will try to find that the buildings were closed the two weekends before 9/11 for electrical work. Then would have been the time to plant explosives.

Keep spreading the lies!

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

Early 70's during construction.



9/11/2001.

Just like Christophera has been saying......

You wrote:

The core consisted simply of box girders. Only the stairwells were reinforced with concrete.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-1ExecutiveSummary....

Did you write this.......or has it been cut and pasted from the NIST report?

Not sure of your point.

The core consisted simply of box girders. Only the stairwells were reinforced with concrete.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-1ExecutiveSummary ....

I've searched the usenet for posts about the concrete core and found quite a few.

We have a government agency involved with producing deception, and, in that case, it is not reasonable for me to reproduce the erroneous parts of the posts I found. Naturally and reasonably I have selected posts that talk about the concrete core in the terms I know it existed.

This first one I like best because it is a first hand observation not gained by study of literature documenting the rectangular, tubular, steel reinforced cast concrete core.
NOTE: Tony Jebson describes accurately the core rising up out of the basement area. The core was constructed first as it started, and this really slowed the project down which was noted in the 1990 documentary.
After the core was 4 floors up, the core was cast inside the outer steel tube framework by forming with wood against the interior box columns and break down steel fabricated inner set of forms that were used all the way up the building.
After the 4th floor, Tony Jebson could not see what was going on with the ongoing core construction from the ground.

Tony Jebson wrote:
I worked in downtown NY in the late 1960's when the towers were
built! At lunch time we went to the construction site to watch the
progress. And we saw them first buildt an internal thick walled
rectangular concrete core inside which later the elevators ran. The
steel work was erected around this core several floors behind!


Doug Julien, AIA wrote:
Possibly - I haven't done the calculations - if the stairwells had walls of
concrete, say 12 or 16 inches, forming part of a reinforced concrete core, and the plane had struck a bit diagonally, allowing the force of the wreckage to be diverted around the stair, and the stair doors were on the side away from the impact - the stairs might have survived.
The stair walls in the WTC were "shaftwall" - gypsum board and metal studs. The only lateral load they were designed to support was the piston-effect air pressure in the elevator shafts - about 5psf.


Jeff Henjes wrote:
Looking at new footage of the plane hitting the second tower, I think that the energy of the plane would have done far more than just damage the outside skeletton. There is stuff which comes out of the other end of the tower,m as well as from the sides, so it would be fair bet that the plane would have seriously damaged the concrete core.

Consider also the folks on the upper floors. A damaged core would mean damaged staircases and probably a serious amount of fire/smoke going up those elevator and stairway shafts, as well as ruptured gas and electric main lines etc. Makes the movie "Towering Inferno" looks like a walk in the park.


never_was wrote:
September 17, 2001
Dear Mom and Dad,

I had just started a letter to you folks when I checked my voice mail
and had a message from Dad to call him back. I enjoyed our brief call, and thanks for the stock update. I am still shaken over what has happened. I keep replaying that day over and over in my head. We studied the Trade Towers extensively when I was in school. They were one of the first examples of an innovative and efficient structural concept called "tube" restraint. The Sears Towers are a variation called "bundled tube construction" and the idea is based
on a minimum of interior columns, with the exterior facade having more numerous exterior perimeter columns. In the case of the WTC, there are no interior columns. Only a central concrete core roughly 60-80 feet square comprised of several vertical voids that house exit stairs, hoistways for the elevators, utility raceways and mechanical chases; and also, significantly, the sprinkler system main lines. The floors were prefabricated broad cellular panels of parallel trusses and main decking that had a light weight concrete topping applied after they were installed. They spanned a distance of roughly 60 feet
from the concrete core to the exterior gridwork of columns and horizontal beams.

To continue to assert there was NOT a concrete core, since we know the gov has lied about MANY things and the WTC towers 9-11 event remains COMPLETELY unexplained from any official source. The absence, in WTC demolition photos, of the multiple steel core columns MUST be explained, in order to have integrity to the purpose of reason. (yes it has a purpose)

I know absolutely for certain that the overhead helicopter photos document the interior box columns around the outside of the concrete core and the ELEVATOR GUIDE RAILS on the inside of the core. Not steel core columns as FEMA and a questionable others associated with government assert. The elevators always had to be in service as high as possible to meet the contractors needs. These were high speed elevators.
After each pour of concrete, the elevator guide rails were lowered and connected to the lower pieces and aligned while the exterior steel tube framework was advanced a minimum of 4 floors and a maximum of 7. After that forms were set and another 40 feet was poured, over and over all the way up.

NO STEEL CORE COLUMNS ARE SEEN ANYWHERE!!!
these were of the strongest elements of the building, if they existed. They did not.

:toast:

The "government" is lying about the structure of the building now.

Thats just pure paranoia.

Here's more "government" lies.

http://bg.concreteproducts.com/ar/concrete_codes_standards_key/

The ASCE/FEMA team cited E 119 in relation to the failure of structural steel assemblies — open web floor trusses bearing on perimeter and core columns — found in the World Trade Center twin towers. NCMA raised the matter in the release of findings from a test it had conducted to demonstrate how an E 119 loophole enables gypsum board assemblies to qualify for two-hour fire ratings. The association sought to clarify potential pitfalls of a wall construction method sold as an alternative to concrete block. Given the test's April 2002 timing, and the BPS document's release the following month, another E 119 aspect surfaced from the World Trade Center disaster: the ability of gypsum board to meet two-hour fire ratings factored into the acceptance of such product for the twin towers' core and inner-core walls enclosing elevator and mechanical shafts, stairwells, and restrooms.

The 1,360-ft. New York City landmarks were among the first buildings to use gypsum board in what for multi-story construction is known as partition or cavity shaft walls — replacing concrete or masonry construction with wall sections as thin as 1.25 inches. Reports from eyewitnesses on upper World Trade Center levels have confirmed that the crash of the 767 aircraft obliterated large sections of the cores, including five of six stairwells (three per tower), while littering areas in floors below the impact zones with large quantities of drywall debris. Addressing the twin towers' core specifications, the BPS observes that the “use of impact-resistant enclosures around egress paths” should be subjected to more detailed evaluation.

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

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

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

Vince will probably display another link to a PDF !

Seems to be the standard reaction from the official conspiracy theorists at the moment.

Or he will probably say that civillian workers in the WTC could not make the distinction between drywall and concrete....

Or some other bullshit excuse.........

It should be. The fireproofing around the stairwell and elevators was 2-1/2" of sheetrock

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

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

Vince wrote this

Tue Jun-07-05 08:38 PM
The core consisted simply of box girders. Only the stairwells were reinforced with concrete.

And just below that statement ,Vince then gave a link to this PDF.......

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-1ExecutiveSummary ....

But that PDF says......

In the case of the WTC towers, the core had 2 h fire-rated partition walls with little structural integrity and the
core framing was required to carry only gravity loads.

It then goes on to hypothesize what difference re-inforced concrete would have made on the structure.

Alternatively, stairway/elevator cores built with concrete or reinforced concrete block, which are not part of the lateral load carrying system, may be able to provide sufficient structural integrity if they meet, for example, ASTM E1996-03, or other more appropriate test for impact resistance.

Page 18.

It is up to Vince to explain himself.

There is soooooooo much inconsistency in the structural descriptions that originate with official sources that it is safer to ignore them all and redefine what stands.

There are only 2 basic, materials that can be employed. A steel core requires no concrete; this is what FEMA describes. A steel reinforced cast concrete core is mostly concrete with some steel for reinforcement. The fine elements having a slight curve are 3" rebar seen at the same distance as the bottom photo, a 14 inch intrior box column. No other structural element couls have this appearance. (wtc 1)



The exterior box columns are obvious and the spire shows what can only be the inside of the exterior "tube in a tube construction" as the spire has a floor system connected to it. The floors of 12 feet can be seen with 20 feet between interior box columns. (wtc 1)



(wtc 2 without exterior steel)

no concrete behind it?

The steel cores were amongst the strongest elements of the towers construction if they existed. The are not seen in ANY demolition photos.

You must, if you are to remain reasonable, credible, explain where these 47 massive steel core columns went

BECAUSE they are not seen in the photos.

All knowledge has become politcally based.

If you don't know that, your failure to recognize that NO demolition photos shows multiple steel core columns is fully understood.

The information presented in this document was obtained from two sources. Much of the information was obtained from discussions with structural engineering teams that worked at Ground Zero. The other source was the author’s own opinions based on working at Ground
Zero.


Groundbreaking for construction of the World Trade Center took place on August 5, 1966.Tower One, standing 1368 feet high, was completed in 1970, and Tower Two, at 1362 feet high,was completed in 1972. The structural design for the World Trade Center Towers was done by Skilling, Helle, Christiansen and Robertson. It was designed as a tube building that included a perimeter moment-resisting frame consisting of steel columns spaced on 39-inch centers. The
load carrying system was designed so that the steel facade would resist lateral and gravity forces and the interior concrete core would carry only gravity loads.

http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf

The South tower had a rectangular, tubular, steel reinforced concrete core oriented North and South (interior 80 x 120). The distance across the core was 80 feet and the vertical line of lights in the lower segment are the brightly lit core/hallway interiors catching light from the western doorways.
Very faint breaks of observable floor height show where floors do not have East/West hallways, alternating.

The line of light on the left side of the upper segment is the same view diagonally through the south doorways to the light entering into the west doorways. The dark band between them are the elevator drive floors and engineering floors.
Why the lower line of light is not repeated and aligned with the upper I cannot say. Probably hallway construction sequence. On the right the uninterrupted dark vertical would have to be the express elevator going to the top.
I've been trying to find folks who were familiar with the hallway scheme in the towers and their info would probably refine this description.

Why can't we see the floors in the middle sections of the towers?

And to be a devil's advocate, I would expect that light wouldn't go through the core no matter whether it was made of concrete or not.

All we can really tell in the brightly lit silouette is that the curtain walls are not up, nor are the interior walls.

The photo has an unusual quality that makes the narrow members like floors viewed on edge, disapear. Note; we know the perimeter box columns are there but we can't see those either. As we look to higher floors, they have slightly more visability when we look at the bottoms with trusses. Lower ones reflect light off the concrete and so are harder to see.

The light would pass between the supposed steel core columns until the drywall of the stairwells and elevator shafts was installed. If the core columns were there without the drywall, the light would do the same thing to them as it does to the floors and the perimeter box columns, making them almost disapear.

why do you say "supposed steel core columns"?

light would leak through and around them. The supposed columns gain that status mostly from other photos where they are never seen.

Here is the BEST rendition of the supposed cores.



If they existed as the high strength full length structural elements shown/implied, they absolutely would show in this picture.



Because a single interior box column is easily seen in this picture taken from about the same distance.



or be seen falling as very long pieces in others, or if cut by explosives, being thrown farther than any other material because steel is very hard to cut with detonating explosives without severe overloading or large, heavy shape charges. Or some of the uncut 47 cores would be seen in ground zero photos as very long uncut elements.

It also would be completely, utterly unnecessary to drop the building like that.

Zynx wrote:



You are not sorry.



No, its logic, although physics will support it.



It uses evidence and so is factual, not garbage.



It does the opposite by explaining the WTC tower structure and provides evidence to back it up.



It is the ONLY way to drop the building like that and how would YOU know the needs of the perpetrators?

and why you think the official collapse scenario is more probable than this explanation.

The Center of the World

The Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers

Although little appreciated at the time, the design and construction of the twin towers of the World Trade Center marked a dramatic break with nearly a century of skyscraper tradition.

Interior Skeleton
Since they had first risen in the 1880s, skyscrapers had been supported by an interior skeleton of steel columns placed every 20 feet or so. The exterior walls of the building, which were hung from the steel frame (and thus known as "curtain walls"), served only to enclose the structure and provide protection from the elements.

The Wind Challenge
The unprecedented height and size of the twin towers, however, posed a new kind of structural challenge. The structures needed not only to support the sheer weight of the 1,360-foot-tall buildings, but to overcome the even greater loads caused by the high winds of New York Harbor pushing against the wide, flat sides of the buildings, especially along their uppermost floors.

Exterior Steel Columns
The solution, developed by the structural engineers John Skilling and Leslie Robertson in the mid-1960s, was to re-conceive the basic structure of tall buildings. At the World Trade Center, a super-strong lattice of exterior steel columns, placed less than two feet apart and locked tightly together at every floor, would transform each tower into a giant "tube." The remarkably stiff outer structure could readily resist the force of 150-mile-per-hour winds -- far higher than any ever recorded in the region. For almost the first time in the century-long history of skyscrapers, the exterior wall was returned to structural duty.

more@link

Then through the tower and core foundation. The struggle to get the tower more than 3 floors up because of the difficulty and importance of the elevator guide rail alignment and cast concrete core base joining to the foundation with the hand fabricated interior box columns.

The design part of the documentary was about 20 minutes alone in the 2 hour video.

It was covered up probably years before 9-11.

It's virtually impossible that the rebar was coated in C4. The start of construction for the World Trade Center towers began in 1966 and was completed in 1972. It did not officially open until 1975.

C4 was first developed in the mid 60's even though it's main component RDX was invented during WWII. Even though c4 was known in 1966 it is incredibly unlikely that it could be used on such a massive scale especially since it was developed to be used in Vietnam. I'd think it would also be pretty difficult to produce enough c4 to coat all of that rebar and supply our troops in Vietnam.

Someone would also have to notice c4 covered rebar, the massive amount of c4 coated rebar needed for TWO 110 story buildings. Someone would notice the amount of money needed to coat that much rebar in a military high explosive. You would also think that the buildings would have come down with entire sections of the rebar exploding at once instead of the building falling steadily from the top down.

Why would the owner of these buildings consent to this? How would he get this kind of thing approved? Especially for two of the tallest buildings in the world in the middle of NY city. Lots and lots of people approved the plans and worked on site for the 6 years it took to build. And nobody is supposed to notice?

Was it the feds without the owner or anyone elses knowledge? Not unless they could produce all that c4 for 220 stories worth of rebar without anyone noticing the cost or it being approved by inspectors or noticed by anyone working on the building for 6 years.

and I've invited a number of doubters to explain how to do it without the C4 coated rebar. Not one even tried a reasonable explanation. Optimum placement and distribution are ABSOLUTELY required to create sand and gravel from high strength concrete.

On my page there is to a picture of ground zero and it is mostly all sand and gravel.

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

You too are invited to exlplain how the towers concrete core was reduced to sand and gravel.

The cold war budget paid for the C4.

There was a great deal of extra security during construction and the documentary showed it. People were seriously wondering. There was a plan change just before the core got off the ground and only people with security clearances were allowed to butt weld the bar. The bar was kept in limited quantities (BTAF explosive regulations, in a locked, guarded storage steel container.

The owner of the buildings was a government agency, the New York Port Authority, they can do what they want.

See my page for details on the installation and setting of detonators as well as the methods to simulate freefall and quasi credible plane impact/collapse sequence/directions.

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

Government building, government inspectors and 14 tons of explosive for each building minimum. I think more. At 14, that is about 250 LB 's per floor with allowance for the foundation.

Now explain how you optimally place and dsitribute enough explosives to do what we saw, DEFINATELY not a collapse SGT.

From the NIST site:

The specific factors in the collapse sequences relevant to both towers (the sequences vary in detail for WTC 1 and WTC 2) are:

* Each aircraft severed perimeter columns, damaged interior core columns and knocked off fireproofing from steel as the planes penetrated the buildings. The weight carried by the severed columns was distributed to other columns.
* Subsequently, fires began that were initiated by the aircraft’s jet fuel but were fed for the most part by the building contents and the air supply resulting from breached walls and fire-induced window breakage.
* These fires, in combination with the dislodged fireproofing, were responsible for a chain of events in which the building core weakened and began losing its ability to carry loads.
* The floors weakened and sagged from the fires, pulling inward on the perimeter columns.
* Floor sagging and exposure to high temperatures caused the perimeter columns to bow inward and buckle—a process that spread across the faces of the buildings.
* Collapse then ensued.

The sequences are supported by extensive computer modeling and the evidence held by NIST, including photographs and videos, recovered steel, eyewitness accounts and emergency communication records. Additionally, this information was used to document a variety of factors affecting the performance of the buildings, the efforts of emergency responders and the ability of occupants to escape prior to the collapses. In turn, NIST has identified a number of future practices and technologies that potentially could have enhanced building performance and life safety capabilities on 9-11 had they been available for implementation. All are being considered for NIST’s upcoming recommendations.

The WTC report, NIST, eager, all of them are a joke because they believe FEMA.

The FEMA core didn't exist because it's not seen here or in any other photos.



If the multiple steel core comumns existed, they would be seen here. They didn't exist.

Meaning your entire post is a waste of space. All of the official studies are a waste of time.

Address the issues. The basement has way too much pullverized concrete in it, and the official structure has no aggregate rock in it above the gound.

Now explain where the official core went and since you have no evidence except official lies, Just accept the concrete core and explain how it was turned into sand and gravel.

You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. This concrete core nonsense is you trying to claim your own facts. That is not how the WTC was built.

You dismiss NIST at the peril of your own credibility.

Yes, thanks to your image and common sense evaluation.

Now use the same skills and knowledge of heavy steel structures to explain where the central steel core columns have gone from every photo of the towers coing down.

These were MAJOR strcutural elements, 47 of them, 1300 feet long and we NEVER see them.

Explain This

It is at a CORNER, not inside the core area.

They were built up, piece by piece, and that's how they came down - piece by piece.

The north tower, the last one to fall, the one that produced that tragic spire, began to fall from the center. We know this because we can see the antenna slip into the building before the rest of the building fell. The core collapsed inside the WTC and brought down the perimeter behind it. So it's only natural that you didn't see the core after the perimeter fell.

Show us the pieces that came down after they become a "core" by undergoing 100% deep fillet welds making them stronger than the "tragic spire" (emotional thinking or what?). Explain how they became the 1000 or so pieces we do not see.

.



Is this a classic case of "all or nothing thinking or what?
1. All or nothing thinking: Things are placed in black or white categories.

with emotional reasoning behind it. It reeks of the flag abuse symptoms after 9-11
8. Emotional reasoning: One feels as though emotional state IS reality of situation.



The above is a beautifully structured cognitive distortion, a simple but elegant "over generalization.
2. Over generalization: Single event is viewed as continuous.

Well, you'll be happy to know that I've found seven different picture of the WTC being built that shows that there was never ever any concrete core. All steel beams. All steel beams.

Seven different pictures. Go check them out.

Here is somebody who was.....

Tony Jebson wrote:
I worked in downtown NY in the late 1960's when the towers were
built! At lunch time we went to the construction site to watch the
progress. And we saw them first buildt an internal thick walled
rectangular concrete core inside which later the elevators ran. The
steel work was erected around this core several floors behind!

Thanks Christophera for finding this.

these pictures.








Looks like the steel beams came before any concrete in the core.

the concrete. He said the concrete went up before the steel beams. The picture shows that the steel was up before the concrete.

Even though people with direct experience of working at the site of the rubble said different......

The information presented in this document was obtained from two sources. Much of the information was obtained from discussions with structural engineering teams that worked at Ground Zero. The other source was the author’s own opinions based on working at Ground
Zero.


Groundbreaking for construction of the World Trade Center took place on August 5, 1966.Tower One, standing 1368 feet high, was completed in 1970, and Tower Two, at 1362 feet high,was completed in 1972. The structural design for the World Trade Center Towers was done by Skilling, Helle, Christiansen and Robertson. It was designed as a tube building that included a perimeter moment-resisting frame consisting of steel columns spaced on 39-inch centers. The
load carrying system was designed so that the steel facade would resist lateral and gravity forces and the interior concrete core would carry only gravity loads.

http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf

Probably explains why the blueprints were withheld from those conducting the investigation.....



The lead investigator in the case, Gene Corley of the American Society of Civil Engineers, said the Port Authority refused to hand over blueprints for the twin towers - crucial for evaluating the wreckage - until he signed a waiver saying his team would not use the plans in a lawsuit against the agency.

"This is the first time I have signed something like that," Corley said, setting off a wave of angry comments from members of Congress and outcries from an audience made up mostly of relatives of victims of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

Corley leads a team of engineering experts empaneled by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, but his team lacks the power to subpoena witnesses or order the preservation of evidence.

http://www.questionsquestions.net/documents2/wtc_obstru ... .

The theft of records, enabled by courts. It is illegal and enables a lie.

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

The lie.



Proof of a lie. If the multiple columns existed, they would be seen in the photo below as mangled steel columns prortuding from what IS the concrete core.

the NIST since at least Dec 2002

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/chapter2.pdf See page 2

The inspection requirements were listed in the contract documents. However, the records of inspections for both the WTC 1 and WTC 2 and the WTC 7 projects were not available to the investigation. The records for WTC 1 and WTC 2, which were kept in WTC 1 were destroyed, and the records for WTC 7 were discarded by the general contractor after retaining them for 7 years.

According to the PANYNJ, all of the construction records on repairs following the inspections were lost on September 11, 2001. Thus, it
cannot be determined whether all of the recommended repairs were performed.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-1ExecutiveSummary.pdf#search=\'wtc%20core%20construction\'

does this mean you believe the NIST has the design drawing?

Also unless you believe there was substandard construction, why does the missing inspection records bother you.

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

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

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

So far we have not seen that you can.

You are still promoting the official story which has more real evidence against it than it has anything else.

Ludicrous!

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

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

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

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

The information presented in this document was obtained from two sources. Much of the information was obtained from discussions with structural engineering teams that worked at Ground Zero. The other source was the author’s own opinions based on working at Ground
Zero.


Groundbreaking for construction of the World Trade Center took place on August 5, 1966.Tower One, standing 1368 feet high, was completed in 1970, and Tower Two, at 1362 feet high,was completed in 1972. The structural design for the World Trade Center Towers was done by Skilling, Helle, Christiansen and Robertson. It was designed as a tube building that included a perimeter moment-resisting frame consisting of steel columns spaced on 39-inch centers. The load carrying system was designed so that the steel facade would resist lateral and gravity forces and the interior concrete core would carry only gravity loads.

http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf

....and there ain't shit you can do to refute it.

They made a mistake about the walls being concrete.

(2) The concrete core acted as the building's vertebrate. But it only carried the dead load of the elevators and stairwells within.
http://www.ncusd203.org/central/html/what/torsbergweb/2... .

as well as the concrete stairwells of the core.

The description of the tower swaying shows how much it absorbed.

Good spot with the damage to the basement!

Also interesting from that article is the smoke that was observed on the 28th floor(or about there)......

"Realizing that the smoky hallway was the only way to the
stairwell and to safety, we followed the arrows on the red exit sign that was glowing in the haze like headlights in a fog bank."
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PASCDiscuss/message/7

You have a plane crash into the side of the building igniting massive jet fuel fires and basically destroying a couple floors. Some of the supports are weakened to the point of collapse on the most badly damaged floors. You have 20-30 floors that fall straight down all at once onto the remaining structure of the building. I can't tell you how much energy that would transfer into the central supports of the building but it would be significant and definately enough to bring it down.

Here's a quote from a seismologist from Columbia University about the siesmic activity of the towers falling.

Lerner-Lam said, "During the collapse, most of the energy of the falling debris was absorbed by the towers and the neighboring structures, converting them into rubble and dust or causing other damage -- but not causing significant ground shaking,"

You also have to question the idea that our government planned to carry out a fake terrorist attack with airplanes on these two buildings almost 40 years in advance. If it was to instigate war at an appropriate time why wasn't it used during the cold war as an excuse to attack Cuba or Russia? Why didn't George senior use it? There are pictures of the rubble where you can see rebar sticking out. Wouldn't it at least have had some type of damage from the c4 that had coated it?

Can you weld c4 coated rebar? How does that work? I know c4 is resilient but a welding torch is much hotter than a bic lighter.

Sounds nice but the structure you are using is not the one that stood. Study the structure FEMA shows you existed then look at the photos on my page of the buildings being demoed.

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



Again, it sounds nice but the structure I know stood wouldn't be phased by one plane and cold, rich fuel fire. Not enough heat will be concentrated to significantly weaken any steel. This is why no steel structure has ever collapsed from fire.



I can tell by the perspective of the question above that you do not have experience with welding and high explosives. Personally I've nver seen C4. I have worked closly with 90% nitro dynamite and ammonium nitrate, I have studied high density high explosives and their applications whereevr I see them. I am also a welder, not certified but basically performing welds and techniques that would certify.

You can weld C4 rebar if you really know what your are doing. The arc can detonate C4, it does burn also. The documentary explained that the "special corrosion resistent/vibration resistent coating was flamable and that was why only welders with a security clearacen could be used. Floors were evacuated before lightweight concrete was allowed to be poured. The docuemtary showed workers running from floor to floor through the core hallways so contractors could keep crews working while security "did something". Yes, the documentary definately had an air of mystery about the floors and the rebar.

plan for doing it when the time came?
Would it be fairly easy to rig a controled Dem later if not done up front?

If so, could this have been done during the down time at the WTC buildings for extensive renovation the last month before 9/11?

Something caused the huge explosions that reduced most of the solid materials in the WTC buildings to a fine powder.

I've never heard or seen comparable done by a building simply falling. Has anyone heard of such? and is it plausible that
the NIST scenario could cause this to happen?
Doesn't seem plausible to me.

And the NIST report, similar to the 9/11 report seems to have disregarded much of the evidence not compatible with their findings.

The huge amount of evidence and reports supporting explosions before and during the collapse.
The report of firefighters at the level of the fires that the fires were relatively small and subsiding, especially that in WTC2.
Other evidence of the same- small fires and dimenishing. No prolonged major fire.

The molten steel in the basement- hot for months after 9/11.
The splintering(not bending or buckling) of the huge steel beams and expulsion outward with much force.
The pictures of explosions and explosive exhaust of the building materials outward.

It would take months to rig up the detonators for this after the fact.

A large airplane caused a massive explosion. and read my other post on this.

No building nearly as large as these have ever fallen before. It was a first, who knows what normal is for buildings this big.

The firefighters made it to the lowest level of where the plane impact caused damage. Not many fires there but what was on the upper levels where the plane actually entered the building? They also reported that walls of lower floors in the stairwell were showing signs of buckling. People heard explosions. What do you think a falling 110 story building sounds like?

Simple c4 charges would not cause molten steel in the basement. C4 uses a shockwave to do the majority of it's damage. The chemical reaction causes a sudden release of gas at really high pressure. Jet fuel on the other hand can burn pretty hot and would find the lowest point possible since it is liquid.

Splintered steel beams. 110 stories of concrete and steel pack quite a punch.

I can pull out almost any photo and say that dust cloud was an explosion. Doesn't make me right.

and be expelled with great force outward?
And it appears that you haven't looked at the videos regarding clear evidence of explosions clearly having nothing to do with falling building; or the huge amount of reports and evidence.

and you didn't answer my question about where all the molton steel came from? do you really think a gas fire caused it?

produced.

About the molten steel: I've seen only one report of molten steel. It came from a very questionable source, and the source they quoted would never have spoken to them - in fact, that source had refused any other interview requests. So the stories of molten steel may just be an urban legend.

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

American Free Press, in case you haven't gone to see, is a rabid, reactionary right wing site. They publish articles that blame Hillary Clinton for the OJ murders. And the Bollyn in the url you used is Christopher Bollyn, a friggin' Holocaust denier!

Peter Tully is the only source ever given for this story about "molten steel in the WTC basement". He's I-T. And Peter Tully would never have spoken to the American Free Press. Why?

https://enr.construction.com/features/bizlabor/archives/030217.asp

For months, Peter Tully, the scion of one of New York City's most durable but low-profile contracting families, was dogged by a writer stalking participants in the post-9/11 World Trade Center cleanup for an account of the project that later appeared in Atlantic Monthly magazine and as a book. Despite the firm's pivotal role in site cleanup and renovation, Peter Tully characteristically refused to talk to him.

So Peter wouldn't talk to the guy writing for the Atlantic Monthly but he found some time for the Nazis at AFP???? When he characteristically doesn't speak to anyone like that?

Bogus. Didn't happen. Try again.

I remember at least 2 news anchors over a period of a week talking about the fires, the heat and the difficulty exinguishing them as being attributed to molten steel in the basement seen by Engineers and Inspectors lead underground by rescuers to determine safety of underground passages.

No? Hmmmmmm....

and their intense persistence.

Tully himself has not come forward to retract his statements, neither has Louzoix.

Monitored temperatures from multiple sources are far too high for ordinary fires.

First the secret government pawns hide data about the structure,

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

then those in denial accepting the secret government try to make other conclusive factors go away because their memory wants to be vague and they think others should have the same lapses

Yes, I'm saying that the American Free Press is lying about the quote they attribute to him. Tully never talked to them. They are full of it.

Fires kept burning under the pile, and that's what the NASA data records. But if the Tully quote from AFP is the only source you have for molten steel, you can file that next to the missile pod crapola.

Once it gets to that level without censorship in a disaster of this scale, and it explains fires of unusual intensity while NASA documents temperatures as high as 1370 F, its safe to assume Tully does not want to be quoted.

All information must be vetted for consistency with all other information. When FEMA says, "multiple steel core columns" and no photos of the collapse where they cannot be misinterpreted, show them, and they do not support free fall which basically did happen, we have to say the steel cores did not exist.

Notice that national news has not detailed the supposed core of the towers but did talk about the molten steel. The continued intensity of the fires must have an explanation and molten steel provides it in a fully credible fashion.

Realize you are trying to make information that works with the facts of the overall event, disappear.

No? How about that.

You are continuing to try and make corroborated, explanatory information disappear.

This isn't Vietnam - there are rules.

The thermite was an after thought as it was realized that the steel could be somewhat centralized, as it descended around the core, by taking out the bases of the perimeter box columns and interior box columns while only floors were detonating.

In the trial of the bobmber terrorist it came out that the FBI knew and allowed, even empowered the bombing. Because of that the remodel allowed thermite to be installed.

Would you prefer they keep the secret, if there is a secret?

After most of the pile was removed, experts found that there were pools of what appearedto have been molten metal which had congealed on foundations of the buildings manylevels underground. Some steel appeared to have partially melted, other steel hadundergone alternations to its crystalline structure, and still other steel was full of holes,like a Swiss cheese

http://64.233.161.104/custom?q=cache:c4SKNriFRpIJ:www.reopen911.org/Tarpley_ch_6.pdf+Webster+Tarpley+9/11&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

of planes that hit WTC

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/GER312A.html

The person who refered me to this site said this is one of the best documented web sites on WTC

http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/defaulte.htm

Here we see plumes of pulverized concrete cascading upwards hunderds of feet. Explain this.

Does that really need an answer?

And momentum must build up to do that. It hasn't, or not the kind you imply exists at that location.

What is falling onto it to make it go up?

...the building is falling out from under all that dust, leaving it behind to expand out.

You are looking at a still shot. There isn't that much "up" to it, but a lot of out.

Have you gone and looked at my pictures?

You cannot have it both ways.

Either the buiding has such momentum it crushes what it impacts or something unseen is causing pulverization of concrete to make particulate arc with velocit upwards.

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

In both cases, a large chunk of building is falling down into the rest of the building.

It pushes air out of the way (momentum), and slams into the next floor (concrete). The shock grinds what's in the middle into the slurry while the chunk continues down, pushing air filled with slurry out of the way. Repeat for 78-90 floors.

It's called the pancaking theory.

and if there is enough resistence to crush, the mass will be slowed down whereupon the crushing stops.

Alternative explanation;

After this happens for a few floors, provided you have something heavy enough falling, which is not seen in this case, the crushing action stops.

Seriously?

That material is traveling with velocity and powder WILL NOT DO THAT.

Explain why the heavy particualte is arcing upwards hundreds of feet.

If you watch the video of the collapse nothing gets ejected upward. What you see in the picture is material that has been forced outward because of the collapsing structure. The downwad velocity of the main structure will increase faster than the smaller less dense ejected particles. What looks like particles ejected up is just particles that were left behind from the falling structure. Third time now. I can take almost any picture from the collapse and say it's an explosion. Doesn't make it right. I wonder why your site concentrates solely on still pictures instead of the actual collapse video?

Plus, if the rebar that was placed vertically inside the core was coated in the C4 wouldn't it have only ejected stuff outward and not up?

to be what you suggest.

This is supposed to be a structural failure. They happen along fracture lines and leave big chunks of concrete not continous production of particulate.

of falling concrete will produce tons of particulate and dust. Not to mention all the wall board, ceiling tiles and furniture.

Go watch a building demolition. The charges don't throw much dust around. You just see a quick puff when they go off. However the building falling produces a boatload of dust. Where would all that dust come from if it wasn't the explosives? Do they prefill the buildings with dust to make it a more spectacular collapse?

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

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

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

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

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

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

What makes you think it's concrete?

Powders do not have the mass to travel for that distance at that speed.

It is sand and aggregate rock. Why is it travelling hundreds of feet upward.

Powders do not have the mass to travel for that distance at that speed

Huh? As a general rule small particles travel faster and longer than larger particles if provided with the same energy.

It is sand and aggregate rock.

Also know as concrete if you mix in some cement.

Why is it travelling hundreds of feet upward.

Again how do you know it is pulverized concrete?

You are in error. Once is enough.

Bullets are made to travel as far as possible because lead has the highest practical mass. Perhaps you should refrain from attempting logic here if this issue is not resolved now.

I know it is concrete with heavy rock in it because that is the only material present that will do what is seen.

Remember the photo of ground zero with the 1 and 2 inch rock lying everywhere amongst the smaller gravel.

Believe what you want about bullets and particle velocity, but let me ask you a question.

What about the other friable materials in the WTC?

100's of tons of wallboard
80 tons of vermiculite used for fireproofing / insulation
Tons of fiberglass used for fire proofing / insulation
Tons of carpet fiber
The three or four million square feet of ceiling tiles
Not to mention countless windows made of glass

All of these materials are very friable and will created small particles as the towers collapse. The dust is easily explained.

If pressure is behind it it can move fast. If it has mass it will go far.

Wall board can't hold pressure so it won't move fast unless pushed by something else or in a contained area. As soon as it's in free space it stops when the expanding air moving it stops. Same with the vermiculite, fiberglass, carpet, cieling tile and glass.

Observe the 2 plumes shooting upward and outward in opposite directions.



Those originate from the core area and have travelled hundreds of feet to finally loose their velocity and begin to billow.

The upper plume to the left, below, has not begun to billow and may not as it looks as though it is comprised of more and heavier aggregate and is really rocketing. Near the center is a billowy dust cloud of what probably was floors and the drywall vertically between them.

Where do you think the air inside the towers went to during the collapse?

If it were a collapse when the inside pressure reached abot 20 psi the windows and curtain walls blew out. By the time the floor overhead reached the floor below, there was no more air.

What happened was that 4 floors blew, 75 miliiseconds each, then 40 foot of core, again and again making freefall.

the air blew out the windows dust free???????????

And if there was dust, it would have to be from the core, but it's not collapsing (sic) within the theory (official) because it doesn't exist. 47 steel core columns that are never seen have been severed invisibly, 1,000 time to make them to small to show in photos.