Christophera often posts this photo:


He claims it is proof of the concrete core.
First things first. Who took it?
The website http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/index.htm claims they were
taken by a person called Aman Zafar from his apartment in Jersey City,
which would be slightly north of due west from the towers. The website
contains a series of the photos.

This is the picture available at the amanzafar website:

We can see that Christophera’s version is altered, but only by having
the edges trimmed.

This is the previous picture in the series, apparently taken 10
seconds before:


And this is the subsequent one, apparently taken 10 seconds after:


Now we’ve established the picture appears to be genuine, let’s think
about what it is.
This is a picture of the twin towers from a few minutes before the
collapse, taken by the same man, from the same place:


When we compare this to Christophera’s photo, we can see that the
northern edge of the “core” is inside the northern edge of the
building, meaning that the standing object visible in the original
photo is probably not the northwest corner, and that the southern edge
of the core is inside the southern edge of the building, meaning that
the standing object visible in the original photo is probably not the
southeast corner.

How big is it?
The domed building in front of the north tower is 2 World Financial
Center, which was 51 floors and 196.5 m (645 feet) high. The building
with the cut pyramid roof in front of and to the left of the south
tower is 1 World Financial Center, which was 40 floors high. My
estimate of the height of the standing south tower element is 800
feet, over half of the height of the south tower. Approximately 400
feet of it is visible. No other parts of the south tower are visible.
Each side of the north tower was 208 feet long. However, it is hard to
tell the dimensions and orientation of the two sides of the standing
element we can see. I think the short side is facing us and is
approximately 60 feet long. I think the long side is facing south and
is approximately 150 feet long. The core was 80 x 130 feet. However,
the core should have been turned the other way, as you can see in this
photo of the construction process:

So either I’m misinterpreting the picture (for example due to the dust
that partially obscures it), it’s not the core or it’s the core
falling and rotating as it falls.

Appearance:
(1) It appears to be straight up, not leaning to one side, although
it’s hard to tell.
(2) It appears to be largely intact. There is no visible damage to it,
although this may not be the case – remember the photo was taken from
a long way away and may not accurately represent the standing element.
(3) As this is a still photo, we cannot tell whether it is in motion
or not.
(4) When I zoom right in on the photo, columns appear to be visible.
(5) The top part is not the right shape.

If I had to come off the fence and say what I think it is, I’d say it
was the top of the southwest corner, falling down and slightly
northeast, although I wouldn’t care to bet on it.

I think it presents problems for both camps. If the WTC was destroyed
with explosives, what happened to this bit? Did they just forget to
blow up a chunk of it? If the WTC pancaked, how come the rest of it
pancaked before this chunk?

help.

try www.terrorize.dk

they have a large slection of south tower collapse videos.

It looks to me as though this piece is slightly asymmetric from the exact center of the building, it could be a portion of the core left. Something very similar happened when the north tower collapsed-- a section of core remained standing briefly then disintegrated.

I don't think this is a problem for saying explosives were used-- there is no reaon to think that they wired every part of the building up.

There's lots of interesting stuff there.

Do you have a specific link to a photo or video of the piece of the north tower that remained standing?

Why is there no reason to think that they wired up every part of the building? Surely, this is what should have been done. There is some anecdotal evidence to suggest that some of the explosives didn't fire "right", perhaps this is just another example of it. Whatever the reason, this chunk appears to be 400 feet (say 5-6 seconds) behind the rest of the tower.

mostly.

I use the images together to make a point. That the core was concrete AND the multiple steel core columns did not exist. If they didn't exist, the process of elimination as well as other evidence says the core was concrete.



As far as I know. WTC 2 was better built than WTC 1 was where experience was gained.

Below is the spire left by WTC 1. It is comprised of an interior box column, one of 47 that ringed the outside of the concrete core wall. Yes, they are using the same number as the columns that existed but claiming they were inside the core. You can tell it is a part of the outer tube of the "tube in a tube" construction by noting the floor beams off the side of the spire. Floor beams are not inside the core. NOTE: No multiple steel columns seen in any state.

The below photo is rather profound for me, irony of a sort. Only because I have very good reason to believe I know why those fine elements are still standing.

(All the below information comes directly from the 2 hour documentary I saw in 1990 on PBS. Others saw the same thing, or derived from it on A&E in perhaps 1995).

The elements are 3" high tensile steel rebar butt welded together from 40 foot pieces. What they still stand is because weather interrupted the forming of a 40 foot vertical pour just before the concrete was poured. Concrete will not cure properly when frozen so the pour was postponed for about 3 months.
The narration noted that the forms were finished quickly and the concrete poured once the weather broke, then, after that the supervising engineers tested the special, thick, "vibration resistant, anti corrosion" plastic coating. (The special plastic coating on the rebar came up multiple times in the documentary) The tests determined that the coating had lost its viability but the difficulty/delay/expense of removing the cured concrete from the bar and replacing it was too great and construction continued.

The plastic coating was C4 and it did not detonate. The horizontal bar tied with wire to it did detonate and was sufficient to remove the concrete and expose the 3 inch rebar which was strong enough to stand momentarily.

The very reason the spire stood is because of the single 40 foot section that didn't detonate.

Then finally, 2/3 of a second later, the 40 foot section of core below it did detonate (the documentary mentioned that there were inspection holes left in the concrete on all the bars once every 40 feet) and the spire fell.



I realize you are trying to analyze one photo with this thread but I've seen over and over that the dynamics of a 15 second event, frozen with stills, needs to have continuity with what stood seconds before or after. Then, consistency in the various propositions of what stood, has the potential for verifying the proposed description of what stands. By comparing seconds before and seconds after and then thinking about the transition, how it might be accomplished with what materials, one gets a sense of reality of what MUST have existed.

With my knowledge of steel and concrete, I can say that steel cored tower cannot free fall within the visual event we saw but a concrete core can.



What I've just done is taken the most major event of 9-11 (beside the deaths of our American brothers and sisters) and shown how it can practically happen.

Such events always have explanations. We do not always have the explanation, but never the less, it still exists. In this case,

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

I've woven all the events of the WTC together, every major detail and some evidence to means and opportunity to show how likely it is that the the buildings were built to demolish

Meaning that we've got a far bigger problem than we think we do and we've had it a lot longer than we thought. So ........... it's pretty overwhelming, I understand.

The most important thing is that the 9-11 truth movement ask it self,

Who saw the documentary?

There are a large number of people who are aware of the construction of the core. The firemen statements appear to imply that some of the firemen officers knew how it was constructed. Some building security people would know. Obviously the building engineers, and likely even some janitors and building occupants should know something about this. The insuring companies should know. People involved in the design and even some from their company should know, and likewise those involved in construction. There should be records. And those who saw the video Christopher describes.

Is the problem that this forum has so few people following this thread, that none of the above have seen this discussion. And no one has bothered to contact any of those who know. That there's a preference here for debate rather than research. Such as contacting the firemen who know and whose names we know.

Or how big a conspiracy is being suggested here.
Are almost all who know involved in a conspiracy?
Are those who worked on the FEMA and NIST reports all deliberate
participants in a conspiracy?

The firemen mostly described witnessing what they thought were explosions, and some indicated they know details about the core.
Surely some of them have read the Gov't reports. Why haven't they
come forward if the reports are fraudulent?
http://www.flcv.com/firemen.html

Can someone explain whats wrong with Christopher's info and inferences?

The action of disinformation within the unaccountable autonomy of the web and the fear people have of our secret government, makes it difficult for people who do have the experience to agree on these material issues and work reguarly against the organized disinformation that renders the education of Joe public a farce in the message board environment. This is a default unless some those who understand construction engineering and blasting actually are consulted by the message board owners to use as criteria determining potential veracity of proposals. Then they censor everything that doesn't make sense and work with the evidence.

Most 9-11 activists have little practical experience with any the critical areas needed to forensically analyze the photos and other facts that ARE in our possesion, so this is a real tough issue.

Here's the rallying cry,

Who saw the documentary?

yours
http://jfk2wtc.tripod.com/

another:
http://www.chiefengineer.org/article.cfm?seqnum1=1029

But the top fell West, on top of WTC3. I think you agree on that.
See firefighters description of what happened to top of WTC2:

CHIEF STEVE GRABHER-FDNY WTC2 poof,poof, windows pop out, explosion

Just as I go out of the building, one of my men says hey Captain, the building is coming down. I looked over my shoulder and you could see the whole top of south tower leaning towards us. It looked like coming over. You could see the windows pop out just like in the picture, looked like a movie. I saw one floor of windows pop out, like poof, poof. I saw one and a half floors pop out. It looked almost like an explosion. The whole top was teetering, and I really thought just the top of the building was falling off. I didn't think there was any way we were going to make it out because just being this close, it looked
like it's leaning right on top of us. So we ran. It wasn't that far. I guess You could see over the top of the building from where we were standing, the whole building was coming on top of us this other building. At this time I thought just the top of the building fell down. I really wasn't sure that the whole tower was going to come down. It turns out I was looking at the Vista, what was left of the Vista, and, of course, the tower on the street.

FIREFIGHTER ROBERT NORRIS
WTC2
I HEARD WHAT SOUNDED LIKE A THIRD PLANE COMING IN. I HEARD THE PROPULSION OF AN ENGINE AND THEN AN EXPLOSION. WE LOOKED UP AND SAW THESE HUGE CHUNKS THERES ONE PARTICULAR PIECE OF THIS BUILDING THAT FELL IN ITS ENTIRETY THAT ILL NEVER FORGE.T IT WAS AS IF IT WAS A SCHWARTZENAGER MOVIE TAKING PLACE

SUPERVISING FIRE MARSHAL ROBERT BYRNES loud noise before collapse
WTC2
As I'm looking up at the building, I hear a loud noise and I see the south side of the building collapse. I see the south upper third of the tower start to pitch in my direction. At that point I yelled to Mike Kane, Mike, it's coming down. I turned around and I ran south on West Street. My perception was it was toppling southward. The cloud of smoke and the debris was coming around me.

EMS CAPTAIN FRANK DAMATO
WTC2 falls
WHEN THAT FIRST BUILDING STARTED TO COME DOWN ALL WE HEARD WAS JUST LIKE LOUD THUNDER THAT DIDNT STOP. WHEN YOU LOOKED UP YOU SAW THE DEBRIS STARTING TO FALL FROM THE TOP AND CLOUD OF SMOKE ON TOP AND IT WAS HARD TO JUDGE WHERE THE DEBRIS WAS GOING TO FALL BECAUSE IT WAS SO HIGH.

LIEUTENANT RENE DAVILA EMS top of WTC2 gone

All of a sudden you heard the rumble and people yelling and screaming. You look and I didn't see the top of the building. I didn't see the top of tower two. The collapse started. You felt like the ground -- it was like a deep sound, rumble; like you're laying on the platform and the D train is coming. You look and you see what -- I best describe it as a wave coming.


RONALD COYNE EMT WTC2 thunderous sound, then sway, then collapse; and debris set him on fire

At that point I just heard a THUNDEROUS SOUND AND LOOKED up AND SAW THE BUILDING START TO TOPPLE START TO SWAY, AND IT WAS SWAYING OUR WAY AND WE JUST YELLED RUN AND TRIED TO RUN AS FAST AS COULD AND SAW AN SUV PARKED AND FIGURED THAT THAT WOULD TAKE SOME YOU KNOW SOME OF THE HIT BECAUSE I KNEW COULDNT OUT RUN THE BUILDING AND BY THE TIME IT TOOK ME TO BREAK THE BACK WINDOW OF THE SUV.
MY SAFETY COAT WAS ALREADY ON FIRE. MY SOCKS WERE ON FIRE
I was already covered with soot and all sorts of particles that were coming out of the building. I dived into the truck, and that’s when pieces of the BUILDING LIFTED THE TRUCK AND CAME THROUGH THE FRONT WINDOW AND FLIPPED THE TRUCK OVER AND I WAS TRAPPED IN THERE FOR APPROXIMATELY 25 MINUTES TO HALF HOUR. I was just covered with burns and bruises and I could hardly breathe.
Several blanked out paragraphs

http://www.letsroll911.org/articles/controlleddemolition.html
As he left the building, (Ronald DiFrancesco) saw a fireball rolling toward him. He put his arms in front of his face. He woke up three days later at St. Vincent's hospital. His arms were burned. Some bones were broken. His lungs were singed. But he was alive – the last person out of the south tower. "

The Account of Two Photographers of 911
Don Halasy: " As I turned to run, a wall of warm air came barrelling toward me. I tried to outrace it, but it swept me up and literally blew me into the wall of a building. By the time I regained my footing, a hailstorm of debris was falling from the sky."
(Notice how the “hailstorm of debris” fell from the sky moments AFTER Halasay was thrown to the ground. This is a crucial detail!)

David Handschuh: " Instinctively I lifted the camera up, and something took over that probably saved my life. And that was to run rather than take pictures. I got down to the end of the block and turned the corner when a wave – a hot, solid, black wave of heat threw me down the block. It literally picked me up off my feet, and I wound up about a block away. "

What each of these witnesses are describing is known as the “shockwave effect”. When an explosion goes off, extremely high temperatures are generated in a small amount of time and space. This abrupt shift in temperature causes the air to push outwards with violent force, seeking to stabilize itself. The result is a blast of hot air radiating in all directions.

For more evidence of this effect, check out the following video footage of a Czech helicopter crew who was filming the events of 911…

WMV video of Helicopter Crew experiencing severe shockwave (180K)
http://thewebfairy.com/911/shockwave.wmv

Henrik Melvang's video also has pictures of this

Here's what I had to say to Chris, after finally getting frustrated with the whole line of reasoning, or lack there of. His response was simply to claim that he was right again, and post the pictures again. I am not impressed.

- I.C.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=53560&mesg_id=54788

It is a fact that this photo is the tubular, steel reinforced concrete core.

It is a fact that IF no steel core columns are seen, and no explanation is provided from their absence, then they did not exist and a concrete core existed.

I have proven from several directions with raw evidence that the core was concrete and no one has ever proven from any direction with raw evidence that the official lie, steel core columns did exist. Meaning that when my question, "Where are the 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns?" is not answered, it cannot be answered resaonably. It is a fact, the towers had concrete cores.

wtf is "Russian Missle Silo"?

Why should there by only one way to promote 9/11 truth? If he wants to do it his way, let him. It's no skin off your nose.

How about if I guess.

It sounds as though you are asking Informed Citizen why my way of creating an understanding of how the WTC event happened is not acceptable. You are wondering WHY my particualar information is so offensive and warrents such attacks.

Good Man! If this is the case, thanks for noticing.

If you are not asking informed citizen and you are asking me, I would say, I'm promoting a logical series of conclusions based upon raw evidence of the falling structure. I'm doing this while I know for certain of the towers core. This is not a theory in any way, shape or form when it comes to the concrete. The raw evidence adds up while the lie cannot be supported.

Ultimately the C4 coated rebar must be a theory from one perspective. The other perspective is the forensic determination of the cause of the event that DID happen. This is why some here deny the concrete core. Within the forensic engineering analysis, the steel core, 1) cannot have stood because of flex. 2)Steel cannot be caused to free fall without being severed. 3)The severing will have a very distinct, large blast for 47, 1300 foot columns to disapear.
No, I'm not an engineer. I happen to have the right experience AND saw the documentary. I have sat down with: engineers (one did see the same DOC. I did), scientists and physicists and explained the whole thing. They nod their heads, then go into shock because the information all fits the events.



I've started a thread about high explosive on steel and nobody here knows anything about it, so I'm not surprised at the lack of support for the fact that the above photo does not look anything like what cutting steel columns would look like.

No one has ever provided a logically adequate explanation of what happened to the 47, 1,300 foot tempered steel rectangular tube columns. No one has ever provided a logically adequate explanation for free fall. It happened but they work for it to remain perceived as "impossible" so the possible will not be considered.

I dunno, good thread, perspective etc., talking about what we think we are doing.

I'm not sure about the concrete core, but there seems to be some basis for the idea - I haven't made my mind up yet. There was certainly some support for it on/before 9/11, but there appears to have been some support for a steel-only core as well.

You say that "the steel core, 1) cannot have stood because of flex." Aren't there similar buildings with a steel-only core? (I know the Petronas towers have a concrete core, what about the Sears tower, say?)

Basically, I don't think the "9/11 truth movement" should have some sort of overall plan or direction. Everybody's going to make his own arguments anyway, so why bother people?

So I don't bother people about their fixations on bad or inconsequential information.

I do post on it generally as a subject in the community on a semi regular basis to try and evolve our discourse with awareness of our act.

There are many all steel skyscrapers, but they are much shorter. I don't know how many concrete cored towers there are. Designs competing with Yamasakis concrete core had multiple core columns with trussed columns, and it would only survive a 75 MPH wind due to twisting. The faces of the building start to fly, deformations occur, then a buckle and a topple and it's on the ground.

This image,



shows a slope to the top of the fine free standing elements above the smoke. That slope was actually mentioned in the documentary. The concrete joints and the rebar joints were to have a slope to them to maximize torsion resistance. Opposing slopes on opposing sides of the towers.

"concrete tubular core of WTC 2 standing momentarily, half fallen, without the outer steel framework?"

Was the standing concrete core actually holey but it doesn't show?

What caused the collapse of the perimeter steel collumns in the area where the "concrete core" was standing?

Were they cut by squibs? What type of explosives and where planced?
Were these tall steel columns from bottom to top or sectioned?
If sectioned, how tall were sections? Doesn't seem this would have much horizontal strength if sectioned?

How could a pancake failure leave such a core mass standing?
Then what caused it to fall later?


How do what the firemen saw fit into this picture???

FIREFIGHTER JOSEPH SULLIVAN
WTC2
Now, when it did collapse, I saw a chunk come down. I thought it was a partial collapse, like maybe part of the fascia coming down. It came down, and we were looking, and all of a sudden the cloud rushed. It was like whoa, but then a couple of seconds it overtook us.


FIREFIGHTER LIEUTENANT ANTHONY MANCUSO
WTC
From what we could see, we couldn't see the whole tower that was coming down. We could just see the facade coming off, and we backed up.


FIREFIGHTER MICHAEL HAZEL
WTC2
the tower started to come down. At first it looked to me like just the top of the tower, like maybe the top 15 floors, like the skin of the building was just peeling off and coming down.

FIREFIGHTER FRANK SWEENEY
WTC2
I hear what sounded like firecrackers and a low rumble. I look up, and the south tower – I could see the top part of the siding overlapping the bottom side of the siding. The siding actually was like this. Then I saw the dirt above that. I ran. I was right behind Scott. Scott ran into the Winter Garden and got against a concrete pillar

Peter Constantine EMS
WTC2
And then all of a sudden, when you looked up, you froze for a couple of seconds, you saw these little pieces falling off. Then all of a sudden, everyone started to run. Then, you started to run,



The firemen also described WTC2 falling in to phases. the outside stuff first, then the inside dirty part later.
http://www.flcv.com/firemen.html WTC2

Kevin,

While I agree that there is not only one way to promote 9/11, there definately are good and bad ways. The worst way is to present speculative evidence with solid evidence in such a way that clouds the validity and significance of the solic evidence. To think this doesn't happen is naive. There are many trying to undermine the 9/11 truth movement by associating speculative and bigotted evidence with that which is valid. And as of this point, despite Chris' certainty, suggestion that towers had concrete cores is nothing more than a compelling area for further investigation. And as I said, I think its probably true, but that doesn't mean that it should be used to 'make the case'.

- I.C.

was speculative and what was solid then you would have a point. However, the speculative/solid nature of the various pieces of evidence is one of the many topics in dispute here.

I am agnostic on whether the core was concrete to the extent Christophera claims, but I'm happy to read his posts. If you want to attack people who you think are discrediting the movement, I can think of lots of more worthy targets.

Kevin,

I could quite easily define which evidence is solid vs. speculative. I can do this because I'm a 9/11 educator, and know which evidence 'makes the case', and which confuses the issue. You and Chris are into the research side of 9/11, while I am on the education side of things. These are equally important, but very different projects in the interest of exposing what really happened. When I tell people about 9/11, I tell them about Dick Cheney's having been in command of the military and simultaneous training exercises. I tell them that there were up to 23 warnings before the attack. I tell them that some of the hijackers are still alive. I tell them that Donald Rumsfeld sat in his office for 40 minutes while Cheney knew that Flight 77 was headed right at him. On the other hand, I do not tell people about 'plane pods', or 'remote controlled planes', or 'C4 coated rebar'. These are speculative issues that while interesting and possibly productive from a research standpoint, do not lend themselves to convincing new people that this is a serious issue, and distract people from recognizing that the case has already been made using solid evidence. Here are my initial comments. I'm not sure that you read them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=53560&mesg_id=54788

Christophera's claim that I'm attacking anyone, is innacurate, anti-intellectual, and distracting. I'm telling him that he must be clear about any claims that he makes about the validity and significance of his data. He has a tendency to make graniose claims about having proved something, or that this issue is already primary evidence that helps make the case. I'm telling him that he is wrong. I'm not attacking his evidence, or most of his hypotheses becuase I think he's probably right, and I think that this inquiry is important for the research community. But not yet for the educational community. Please don't oversimplify my intentions.

- I.C.

I realize that many of the aspects I bring forward are not researched and therefore not fit for educators within the standards wev'e been led to believe apply.

I come from a certain amount of direct experience with all the materials involved and their typical performance structurally and when exposed to high explosives, also I saw the documentary so I know exactly what the core was and a great deal of odd details about the towers construction.

We have a situaton where the highest authority has failed in its duty. In America, we haven't learned how to deal with this and instead, by default, manipulated into ways of thinking that put our thoughts into the control of others, we flail about in familiar patterns trying to get authority to be accountable. What we don't see is that only a solid majority can do this at this point, with these conditions politically.

My point with all of the above is that conditions justify a relaxation or modification of research standards in order to possibly overcome the abcense of academic authority on this subject that is credible in addressing the causes of what appears impossible. This achieved, the educator may have advanced and competent material.

What I've done is created a matrix of absolute factors that must all be satisfied for analysis to have a role in the real event. It is a filtering method that centers on simple, hard evidence and absolutes for the purpose of coming up with an adequate explanation.The public needs this in order to become involved The filtering method makes a lot of reference material uneeded as well as verification of aspects by authrority of academia. The fact that the WTC tower events appear impossible actually narrows greatly, the means by which the demolition was achieved.

We have an emergency.

"plane pods" is crap.
"remote controlled planes" is not something I believe in, but some otherwise reasonable people do.
"C4 coated rebar" is something I haven't made my mind up about yet.

"I tell them about Dick Cheney's having been in command of the military and simultaneous training exercises."
Why do you think this is true?

"I tell them that there were up to 23 warnings before the attack."
Nice soundbite. Is it actually relevant?

"I tell them that some of the hijackers are still alive."
Very good point. Agree completely.

"I tell them that Donald Rumsfeld sat in his office for 40 minutes"
Actually, he may have been participating in the video conference which coordinated the response to the attacks. Although there is the question of why he was not doing this from the NMCC.

"while Cheney knew that Flight 77 was headed right at him."
American 77 was not headed "right at" the Pentagon until the very last minute and the claim is they lost it from radar, only picking it up again around 9:30. Why do you think Cheney knew for 40 minutes?

All statements based on review of data in found in mainstream sources of news journalism and books based on the same.

Please read, "Crossing The Rubicon" by Michael Ruppert, "9/11 Synthetic Terror" by Webster Tarpley, "The Terror Timeline" by Paul Thompson, "Against All Enemies" by Richard Clarke, "The New Pearl Harbor", and "Omission And Distortions" by David Ray Griffin.

What do you have to say about the public 9/11 inquiry being considered to have two fields of activity, the research and educational. Don't you recognize the importance of this? I stand by the significance of these issues as primary evidence. Primary specifically in relations to the goal of exposing the fact that the offical version of events, as best represented by the Kean Commission Report, is not satisfactory. This may not be your goal, but that may not matter. If you are just a researcher, then you don't have the added responsibility to figure out how to introduce this subject to others. I do. We may have different goals, but each is important to the larger movement.

- I.C.

The below is the kind of perspective more Americans could hold, if we hope to ever have a democracy.

I agree on the pods and remote, ....... the C4 coated rebar.

Try this thought that, .................... well, it is what closed it for me. The realization that there was no other imaginable way to create free fall and total pulverization. Seeing as I knew about the concrete core, it was only a matter of time as long as I focused on all the factors of containing explosives in the center of the concrete, the optimum pressures = better fracturing, finer dust, etc. The effective placement and distribution of the rebar grid matched my thoughts of terrorists somehow getting a track drill on top of the tower to line drill the walls, then drill from the floors across and make a distribution grid, before I realized the role of the rebar. It thought of the drilling in order to create conditions where I could get the concrete to break up completely. AT that point I recalled the "special plastic, anti vibration, anti corrosion" coating. Oh baby! Irony, "ANTI VIBRATION!"

I've done a good bit of above ground blasting and we struggled to break up rock formation that the engineering geologist had described as "well cemented chirt". If our charges weren't exactly centered, we'd only blow a hole in it and do almost no reduction of the hard rock to sand and gravel as desired. We actually couldn't distribute effectively through the center as the strata varied and the hard stuff was between 2 and 10 foot thick. So this disitribution issue for me is really potent proof of the rebar grid being the distribution method/medium. If C4 is placed optimally and distributed the same way, it will reduce the concrete to its component parts and a lot of very small particulate as the reduction goes past pulverization by fracturing, and a significant amount of material is involved in the actual expanding gas cloud that the explosion is. All of that enables free fall and muffles the explosions changing them quite a bit from what "bombs" would sound like. Disguising the event to a degree where we actually tolerate argument about whether there were explosions or not.

The other stuff, you know hijackers, rummy & cheneys antics bush, the planes all of it; how do you use the information? It's good information but not useful. People know there's something wrong, they need to know actually what happened in order to consider taking action. The core lie is a big lie. "Why that lie?" Is the first thing that will come to peoples minds. "Why that lie?" "Why that lie?"

Who saw the documentary?

Posted by Kevin Fenton

the spire in the picture of the standing spire?


How was the spire connected to the box columns?

Why would a box column continue to stand but a steel column would not?

What finally brought the spire down?

The interior box columns were supported by floor beams and bolted to the concrete core wall. They will stand because they are supported

The fictional steel core columns have no defined: dimensions (other than those stolen from the interior box columns), or locations,
or relationshipd to each other,
or defined strcutures connecting them to the tower and each other.

The core below detonated and the spire came down.

collumn?

Is the spire the same as the antenna on top of WTC1?

And the antenna is a completely different accessory to the building.

Attached to the spire are floor beams making the squares we see silouetted.



Part of the building falls and causes the parallelogram shape as some perimeter and interior box columns do not fall, with the floor beams bent at the box column on the left, breaking them off leaving a spire. This photo is not in that sequence, I've put it here to show how the spire could be formed from box column. Notice the bumps on the spire in the photo at top, broken off floor beam joints.

DR GENE CORLEY (American Society of Civil Engineers): Large pictures like this and stop them, we…
NARRATOR: Since that day, investigators have poured over hundreds of hours of video images trying to find out exactly why the South Tower failed. The man in charge of the official inquiry is structural engineer Gene Corley. He noticed something in pictures taken by a nearby firm of architects. It shows that much of the core, which supported most of the downward weight of the building, was intact when the tower fell.
GENE CORLEY: It comes down. Looks like part of the core still showing there and the size and the spacing of the columns it looks like it must have been the core.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/worldtradecentertrans.shtml

they would have been anchored strongly in the huge basement foundation infrastructure.

would they be splintered? If so, by what force?
would they be bent? If so, by what force?

where are there pictures of these splintered or bent huge and tall steel beams?
(I've searched but not found them-anyone got a URL)
there are lots of pictures of perimeter beams.

apparently, the basement foundation was destroyed by explosions- see previous posts, even those in charge of cleanup wondered what happened to the foundations.

If the core was metal, why does the still standing core of WTC2 (which even FEMA admits remained standing for awhile) look like concrete?

Why did the FBI not allow people to take pictures of the debris, and why did they not allow release of pictures taken and other evidence from WTC to the public?

When I read the transcript before, I thought (for some stupid reason) that he was talking about photos of rubble. I went back and it does seem he's talking about a video. It'd certainly be interesting to see the programme.

of a steel core

Note the merging "spire" I think there is no argument that this is a part of the core



Note that in this close up (center and top) taken moments later you can clearly see steel column and beams. I see nothing that looks like concrete structure to me



An even clearer picture (center and top) taken moments later



One more Center and top, and note you can see the structure starting to tilt to the left as it starts collapsing)



This seem to be clear evidence for a steel core. It is clearly not rebar as suggested by Christopher, nor is any concrete core structure evident.

The WTC 1 spire that I post often



is forming below in the first of the series from another angle.

We will establish the location of the spire within the towers footprint.

Back in the series 2 images below we clearly see that the left side of WTC 1, the south east corner lines up just right of the center of the domed building.



Later in this series you see the spire and it is on the left side of the tower right around where the core corner would be (top photo). The center of the core would be the vertical height distance of the square top below the dome to the next horizontal line below taken to the right further from that smooth top right square corner, plus a little. Notice this aligns the explosions to the right of the spire. That is the core blowing up.



Later yet you see floor beams, that is a part of the outside tube not the core.



The photo below shows as close as I've seen to any that depicting what core columns would look like after the exterior fell away. The protruding, bending, toppling elements.

Unfortunately for LARED, the angle does not distinguish that the structural elements are of the center area of the building, and there is one, the leftmost, that is in a corner position. I know the columns to be interior box columns not core columns. They are on the far side wall of interior box columns. The photo at top shows the spire as being on a corner and how easily interior box columns from the further side might appear to be centered in the core.



The angle of this photo below would show the same columns in WTC 2 as LARED maintains the photos hes posted show. There are none.





The image above shows a corner clearly, the same spire from a better angle to discern that it is a corner outside the core and not a part of the core.

you seem to have dropped your rebar theory regarding the "spire". Congrats.

What I've done is explained the spire as an interior box column, those structural elements that are intentionaly confused as "core columns"

Below is the rebar.



You can deny that this is rebar but my last post shows that you still have not shown any of the 47, 1,300 foot steel tube columns that supposedly existed. The spire has been shown to be an element outside the core. If the steel core columns did not exist and plumes of sand, gravel, disaggregated from the cement are flying outward and upward, then a concrete core did.



It has been shown from the peoples perspective, not an elite bunch supporting a lie, that the core was concrete. Concrete has rebar and concrete has structurally accepted configurations that are logical.

Since the 67 steel columns are no where to be seen, the usenet has candid, impartial comments about the steel core, engineers working from memory have made web pages about the towers that include the concrete core, and there is a picture of the WTC 2 core, it is clear once all of this data is assembled that the core was concrete.



It is clear that when the above photo does not have the protruding steel columns that the sources describing the steel core columns are false information that doesn't get close to explaining free fall and other factors.

image are the exact same image shot moments apart. The "rebar" image is simply the box column collapsing. You know this, but refuse to accept the validity.

But enjoy your world.

Posted by LARED


My world? What are you on some kind of fantasy planet? You've just said that the images were the same but one was taken moments later. A 1,300 foot building was a pile 60 feet high in -15 seconds. It seems you are refusing to accept that the tops of the rebar, the first image below, are lower than the top of the spire. Error filled nonsense.

The below photo I know to be 3 inch rebar, is taken at the same distance as the bottom photo showing the spire which is an interior box column taken a second before. Note how much larger the box column is than the rebar. Note the dense number of vertical elements, the interior box columns are not spaced like that they are 20 feet apart.



The spire below formed by an interior box column is connected to floor beams making it a part of the exterior tube of the "tube in a tube" construction, the occupied floors of the building.

and SW corner to right of 2WF and SE corner well to right of 2WF?

I'm talking about first picture in post 13,
where you are lining up things.
Seems to me you have the directions backwards.

Aren't we looking from the West across the Hudson on the West face of WTC1 with NW on left and SW on right and SE offset on the other dimension, the fartherest to the right?

not my erroneous direction calls. THX philb!

Getting used to reading skyline photos of New York has been daunting, and I have a touch of dyslexia that dogs me with certain operations. Not to mention I spend way too much time defending something fundamental to WTC knowledge which was that the cores and towers were aligned to cardinal directions.

I'm out 180 degrees with the BLDG. corner calls across the river. Not the first time, it does not matter.

The alignment shown with,



and the combination of the above and below images locates and shows the center or core of WTC 1 below as an explosion with a vertical focus and the interior box column to the lef, the spire. In fact that blast could be what brought it down in the animated .gif I can't post here.

LIEUTENANT JAMES WALSH FDNY WTC1 elevators

WHAT ELSE I OBSERVED IN THE LOBBY WAS THAT THERES BASICALLY TWO AREAS OF ELEVATORS. THERES ELEVATORS OFF TO THE LEFT HAND SIDE WHICH ARE REALLY THE EXPRESS ELEVATORS THAT WOULD BE THE ELEVATORS THATS FACING NORTH. THEN ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE THERES ALSO ELEVATORS THAT ARE EXPRESS ELEVATORS AND THAT WOULD BE FACING SOUTH. AND YOU COULD SEE THE SHAFTS of THE ELEVATORS ON THE EXTREME NORTH SIDE AND THE OTHER EXPRESS ELEVATOR ON THE EXTREME SOUTH SIDE. THEY LOOKED INTACT TO ME FROM WHAT COULD SEE THE DOORS ANYWAY.

IN THE CENTER OF THESE TWO ELEVATOR SHAFTS WOULD BE ELEVATORS THAT GO TO THE LOWER FLOORS. THEY WERE BLOWN OFF THE HINGES. THAT’S WHERE THE SERVICE ELEVATOR WAS ALSO. Q. WERE THESE ELEVATORS THAT WENT TO THE UPPER FLOORS? THEY WERENT SIDE LOBBY ELEVATORS.
NO ID SAY THAT THEY WENT THROUGH FLOORS 30 AND BELOW, AND THEY WERE BLOWN OFF THE HINGES.
*******************************
How do these 3 sets of elevators fit into Christophera's 4 boxes?

How would they fit into the FEMA version with metal core?

How do Stairwells A, B, and C fit into these cores?
Note that Stairwell B is where firefighters in WTC1 survived the collapse.

There are other fireman discriptions as well.

What was the purpose of the 3rd set only going up to 24th floor and what happened there?

I notice there was also a SkyLobby on a higher floor like 78 in the south tower where elevators from above came down to the SkyLobby and you catch the Express Elevators there.
Why this pattern?

Apparently neither the Express Elevators nor the lower level elevators went up to the level the plane hit.
http://www.flcv.com/wtc2surv.html

Was WTC1 similar in this regard?

I'm unsure of the elevator layout but heard there was only one that went all the way to the top and it was in one end of the core. "Express" elevators mean something different in the case of the WTC. The complexity of the firefighters description gives one an idea.

In the animated .gif you can see lines crossing the core that form a narrow bar. That represents the interior walls of the core that were vertically interupted every other floor.



It seems that stairway B was the stair that would get you to each floor. Survivor accounts definitly talk about people on each floor who were trained to know the stairways for emergencies. Apparently certain elevators only went to certain floors and if you took the wrong stairway you would not find a working elevator as quickly as the right stair.



The above modified FEMA drawing shows the hallway scheme for the lower floors. This changed at the top to accomodate better access while loads were less.

The mass of the towers broke the paradigm of how elevators were normally installed in buildings, with a bank of them allowing you to go to any other floor.
Instead, the idea of sky lobbies had to be created, so that all the elevators would stop at an arbitrary floors in the middle of the towers (the 44th and 78th), and then allow you to access the upper floors.

Please see our main World Trade Center and World Trade Center - More Images pages for building information, commentary, references, details, photos, and drawings. This is an additional article page for the World Trade Center, telling a little-known story of the planning and politics behind the original WTC, from the perspective of one of the planning professionals participating in the process.

Photos and information on construction
World Trade Center - More Images, by Minoru Yamasaki, at New York, New York.
http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center_Images.html

http://www.greatbuildings.com/cgi-bin/gbi.cgi/World_Trade_Center_Images.html/cid_wtc_mya_WTC_const.1.gbi
http://www.greatbuildings.com/cgi-bin/gbi.cgi/World_Trade_Center_Images.html/cid_wtc_mya_WTC_const.3.gbi
Core construction photo
http://www.greatbuildings.com/cgi-bin/gbi.cgi/World_Trade_Center_Images.html/cid_wtc_mya_WTC_const.3.gbi

Find out in this eighteen-minute film, Building the World Trade Center, produced by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in 1983 with original footage of the towers under construction.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/sf_building.html

this web site talks about. My computer won't access the pictures.

Lets examine Mr. Robertsons handiwork a bit more and take a look at how these towers were made…

Those 4 cranes you see in the photo, are perched atop the central support core of the tower. This core is built of sheer concrete reinforced by 44 beams of construction grade steel which were sealed in asbestos. As you can see, it takes up the majority of the towers footprint.

Here is a more accurate sketch of the floorplan…
http://www.letsroll911.org/articles/controlleddemolition.html

....that comes after the phrase: "Lets examine Mr. Robertsons handiwork a bit more and take a look at how these towers were made..."

picture

Although all the image links on that LetsRoll911.org page seem to be broken, that image filename is identical to the one in the link above.

I do not, however, agree with the description of the picture given in the article.
____________________

And this is probably the picture that comes after "Here is a more accurate sketch of the floorplan..."

sketch

-Make7

Find out in this eighteen-minute film, Building the World Trade Center, produced by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in 1983 with original footage of the towers under construction.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/sf_building.html

To learn more about the engineering behind the World Trade Center, read an illustrated essay, Towers of Innovation, on the PBS companion site to NOVA's Why The Towers Fell.
The original Yamasaki World Trade Center Model on loan at The Skyscraper Museum through 2006.

The presentation of the model at The Skyscraper Museum has been made possible with the support of the Museum Loan Network, the New York State Council on the Arts, a State agency, and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.
http://www.skyscraper.org/EXHIBITIONS/WTC_MODEL/wtcmodel.htm


The Center of the World - New York: A Documentary Film
The eighth episode of filmmaker Ric Burns' award-winning series New York: A Documentary Film examines the rise and fall of the World Trade Center -- from its conception in the post-World War II economic boom, through its controversial construction in the 1960s and 1970s, to its tragic demise in the fall of 2001 and extraordinary response of the city in its aftermath. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/

I'm still having trouble wrapping my brain around this. Is it possible for you to superimpose the outline of the building around those photos so we can see the relationship between what is left briefly standing and where that is within the building(s)?

One more thing, I was looking through your site and you link to physics911.org but when I go there, I only see what looks like a search portal, are there new links? Specifically, I wanted to see the molten puddles in the basement. It just makes no sense, an oxygen starved environment has molten steel?

What caused the molten steel in the residue at WTC towers?

http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/radio/youreyesdontlie/index.html
http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/wtc.htm

New York Sanitation Workers had to haul off molten steel beams
http://www.wasteage.com/mag/waste_dday_ny_sanitation/

Hot spots in WTC residue too hot for gasoline fires
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html

Regarding physics911
try:
http://physics911.ca/org/
http://physics911.ca/

Witnesses to molten steel at WTC

Allison Geyh, Ph.D. was one of a team of public health investigators from Johns Hopkins who visited the WTC site after 9-11. She states in the Late Fall 2001 issue of Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, "In some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel." http://iws1.jhsph.edu/magazineSpED/Welch.htm
Dr. Keith Eaton toured the site much later in the company of George Tarnaro, principal engineer, and stated in the September 3, 2002 issue of The Structural Engineer, "They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event." http://www.istructe.org.uk/about/files/president/Tour-2002-NewYork.pdf
Sarah Atlas, deployed by New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue, with her canine partner Anna said in the Summer 2002 issue of Penn Arts and Sciences, "'Nobody's going to be alive.' Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet." http://www.sas.upenn.edu/sasalum/newsltr/summer2002/k911.html
Vance Deisingnore, OSHA Officer at WTC, reported the following to Jim McKay, Post-Gazette Staff Writer, on September 11, 2002; "He remembers a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel. http://www.thenewliberator.com/wethepeople.htm

Later yet you see floor beams, that is a part of the outside tube not the core.

There are NO "floor beams" outside the core area. Only trusses. Surprised you didn't know that.

"Floor trusses are supported between perimeter columns and the central core"

Although they probably didn't want to say how substancial that support was.

It was a 60 foot long 1/2 inch thick 1x3 foot "I" beam. About 6 months after 9-11 the Mohawk steel workers were pissed off when Eagers analysis came out implying the steel was not adequate. They had many pictures of the beams. The site was only up for a few months. After that the FEMA statement diagram and statement changed to accomodate the truth.

And yes, it is fully acceptable to know the difference between garbage information and good information and only use the good. In other words the multiple steel core columns shown in the diagram are garbage but the notation touches on the truth.

perhaps on other floors as well; I've read how they floors are constructed but don't remember details of floor construction.

The 22? gauge (seems too light) corrugated sheet metal (2'x1.5") had 10 GA, 6x6 steel mesh laid down with the 5 inch AVE. lightweight concrete pour.

The max. 60 foot I beam connected the interior box columns at the outside core face to the perimeter box columns. Edges of truss panels rested on " I " beam.

Beware of photos that only show a trussed panel. A panel was often put in place to facilitate the welders position who attached the cletes to the spandrel plate and the interior box column for the beam to be rested upon, then welded it.

The available photos have been filtered, taking out the ones that showed the beams. Some web sites do intricate studies of aerials and find them then outline them to demonstrate their existence.

Filtered by whom? And why?

More specifically, elements of secret government and corporations.

Why do you ask?

filtering out all images of the WTC's concrete core since the towers were built?

Done you think you are engaging some rationalization to help you avoid cognitive dissonance?

I've seen other information critical to keeping secrets disappear. How do you think the dumbing down of America was achieved? All information is processed and some disappears.

in WTC failure analysis and wrote an article in his association publication. And lots of other such. Its a matter of record that all of the evidence was suppressed and screened, both at Pentagon and WTC.
Dr. Griffin's book and

http://www.flcv.com/coverup.html

Clowning around as if you think it didn't happen doesn't help your credibility.

photos of the WTC construction showing a concrete core have been systematically filtered from the public domain since the 1970's?

And you are questioning my credibility? Ha!

and the pentagon were filtered and all evidence at both sites suppressed, filtered, and covered up. And I'm not aware of anything you've said that hurts my credibility. I never intentionally seek to mislead and have a general understanding of most things I look into.

Are you denying that the evidence was filtered, suppressed, and covered up??

If so I do question your credibility and think you aren't being serious.

But I'd rather we stick to discussing facts and evidence than getting personal. I don't know all the answers but I'm trying to figure it out.

believe all photos and evidence of concrete cores has been filtered from the public domain. The towers were built in the 70's. I find it difficult to believe every photo showing a concrete core has been scrubbed.

Do you believe this.

Meaning there were not that many photos of the core.

In the documenatry that fact was mentioned at least once. I think the second time was as they showed a black and white photo of the top of the aggregate concrete of the cast core. Rebar was sticking out of it. I think it was a rare photo where the inside disassembleable steel forms were not set first letting light in. The narration noted the slope of the concrete going upward, away from the camera in the photo, was requirement of the engineers to increase the torsion resistance and make a stronger tube. Perhaps it was after the 48th floor was finished. The crane platform and the inner form all had to be removed to cast those mechanical floors.

Only the P.A., the architect and the contractors could have photos in any quantity. Those could be bought after 15 - 20 years for big $ and copies of the core photos would not be considered valuable to the contractors and architects. Perhaps engineers but all those as far as I know outside of the architectural firm were P.A. employees. There was very good control over the photographic inmagery of the towers.

Those who work with secrets such as this are planning WAY ahead. Think of it.

Apparently British experts and BBC and an original model.

this whole thing is very strange to me. It should be easy to settle this, but it seems its not.

Christo is refering to in the photo are clearly NOT what you are refering to.

you said in original post:
"I think the short side is facing us and is
approximately 60 feet long. I think the long side is facing south and
is approximately 150 feet long. The core was 80 x 130 feet. However,
the core should have been turned the other way, as you can see in this photo of the construction process:"


Why should the core be facing the other way? it seems correct to me?
Am I the one who has problems with directions in this case?

In your construction picture isn't WTC2 on the left and WTC1 on right
and we're looking west across the river. Or is the water body something other than the Hudson? If river, WTC2 short side is facing west and long side south.

But I'm not sure I can see that detail in the obsured picture of the standing mass.

The view is to the east and that is the East River. As additional confirmation, remember that WTC1 was completed first.

It's much easier to tell when they're both completed and the antenna is up on WTC1. :)

-Make7

and size. Do you have a method for this other than direct visual?

There's clearly a mass there, but dimensions I can't discern other than generally compared to other structures.

I think it is clear how the cores are aligned within the buildings in that particular picture. That agrees with many other sources about the buildings construction.

If you are now asking about the dust-obscured-core photo, I don't think any dimension other than height can be determined because there is only a very small portion of the core that is not obscured by the dust and smoke.

-Make7

I think the construction photo was taken from the west. The large tower is the north one, whereas the small tower is the south one. The long sides of the south tower core are on the west and east sides. I think the long side of the element we see in the "falling" photo is to the south. As you say, it's hard to tell in the photo, because the resolution isn't great and because of the dust.

is facing west in both the preconstruction picture and the post collapse "core" picture. But as I said, the dimensions aren't clear from the picture, so its only my impression at this point.

I base my impression of dimensions by the width of the mass I see compared to the width of 1WF.

The original 7 WTC stood 47 stories tall, between West Broadway and Washington Street. The new building is 52 stories (750 feet) tall and is narrower, to allow for the reopening of Greenwich Street through the main Trade Center site -- under which the 1 and 9 subway lines run. While both the original and the new tower accommodate the Con Edison substation in their lower 11 floors, the new building has many new safety and environmental features. For instance, the new building is built with two-foot-thick, fireproofed concrete walls in its core structure, which houses stairwells, utilities, and emergency features like back-up phones and lighting. It also is built partly with recycled materials and is engineered to conserve water and energy.
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/construction/project_updates/7_world_trade_center_75464.asp

in attacks by planes. They thought that the steel reinforced concrete cores would be much safer and definetly employed in future structures.

OMG! ......... the lie is multiplying? Anything to support the ruse and keep the people confused.

......concrete core(with concrete staircases)on CNN!

I wonder what level of certification they are persuing? "Platinum" is pretty difficult to achieve (read expensive). It says that the collected rainwater will help with cooling and irrigation. Perhaps it will be a make-up water source for the cooling towers? :shrug:

The original Yamasaki World Trade Center Model on loan at The Skyscraper Museum through 2006.

The presentation of the model at The Skyscraper Museum has been made possible with the support of the Museum Loan Network, the New York State Council on the Arts, a State agency, and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.
http://www.skyscraper.org/EXHIBITIONS/WTC_MODEL/wtcmodel.htm

Highlights include an 18-minute film "Building the World Trade Center" made by the Port Authority in 1983 from original footage.
http://www.skyscraper.org/EXHIBITIONS/WTC_MODEL/wtcmodel.htm

I remember from the documentary that Yamasaki studied that design and trashed it because nobody could figure out how to build it. Think about the configuration below.

I think those of us that believe the photographic evidence supports a concrete core should email these folks.

info@skyscraper.org






Here's all the evidence you need to justify their changing their model.





I'm serious. They are going to be adding very damaging misinformation to the already burgeoning pile of crap we've got to contend with.

If they insist they've got it right demand they explain where their concrete clad pre stressed steel core went from the above photos, and, where did the elevators run and why is their core different from FEMA'S.

I can just about guarantee they will do no better than LARED or Make 7.

your web site; and also on other web sites; and as in your picture.
Steel beams covered by concrete?
Which is different than what you say the towers actual structure was?
Based on the video of construction you saw?

And neither of these are like the FEMA model?
Where did the British version come from? This model?
Isn't this supposedly the original version?

That design I remember from the documentary.



It was presented then as a prestressed concrete core Yamasaki evaluated and rejected. The steel rods facilitated the prestressing. Real strong but no one could figure out how to build it.

The actual core was standard cast concrete with high tensile steel rebar looking like this



The lower floors had core hallways as pictured but near the top it changed to accomodate better access.

But then you have to wrestle with the paradox:

People were terrified. Those who knew the building's construction well — the Port Authority engineers — were able to dig their way through the flimsy gypsum board with keys and nail files and escape from a stopped elevator.
http://www.skyscrapersafety.org/html/speaking_11192003mg.html

So if people could perforate the "drywall" core of the towers with keys and nailfiles.....

Why does WTC constructor...Leslie E. Robertson insist that the towers could.........

"Take this jet aeroplane, run it into the building, destroy a lot of structure AND STILL HAVE IT STAND UP."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/worldtradecen ...

You never really answered the question.
____________________

I don't see any contradiction in the statements you posted. Let's look at what Leslie Robertson said:


And the structural engineer Charles Thornton's statements following that in the documentary are rather interesting:


I believe they are saying their calculations were based on how much structure was calculated (estimated) to be destroyed and/or damaged by an airplane impact to see if the buildings loads would be redistributed effectively enough to prevent the building from immediately collapsing.

And if I am not mistaken, that is what happened on 9/11/01 - the buildings did not immediately fall down from the initial structural damage caused by the impact of the plane.

You are free to interpret what he said however you would like, but I think you are reading too much into his statement.

-Make7

Robertson did not say:

"We had designed the project for the impact of the largest airplane of its time, the Boeing 707, that is, to take this jet airplane, run it into the building, destroy a lot of structure AND STILL HAVE IT STAND UP FOR A WHILE..."

Robertson did say:

"We had designed the project for the impact of the largest airplane of its time, the Boeing 707, that is, to take this jet airplane, run it into the building, destroy a lot of structure and still have IT STAND UP"

And you just gotta love this statement from Robertson:

With the 707, to the best of my knowledge, the fuel load was not considered in the design.

No fuckin' shit!

What did they think were contained in those 707 fuel tanks.....water!

And the structural engineer Charles Thornton's statements following that in the documentary are rather interesting:


I believe they are saying their calculations were based on how much structure was calculated (estimated) to be destroyed and/or damaged by an airplane impact to see if the buildings loads would be redistributed effectively enough to prevent the building from immediately collapsing.

And if I am not mistaken, that is what happened on 9/11/01 - the buildings did not immediately fall down from the initial structural damage caused by the impact of the plane.

You are free to interpret what he said however you would like, but I think you are reading too much into his statement.

-Make7

However........I did find a photo of these vertical columns still upright at ground zero.........

Is that picture more evidence that the cores were reinforced concrete?

-Make7

From this angle it is difficult to see........but it would appear that this is indeed the base of the "bathtub".....i.e the lowest floor in what would have been the basement(car park) of the towers.



But the columns in the basement were reported to have been forged from concrete............


Their location could not have been in doubt: the B4 wall sign, for the fourth basement level, was still attached to a CONCRETE COLUMN

http://www.wardgriffin.com/searchforbodies.htm

So these are probably concrete columns at the base.........

Notice how they run a rectangular perimeter. The interior box columns. 2-3 floors into the basement located around the outside of the core. Columns on the far side seem gone or maybe so deep in shadow they are unseen.



Some were removed by thermite and that is where the molten steel came from. I remember the news casts after the remodel in 1993 and noting that there was a "speclial fireproof coating" on structural members to protect from future terrorism but that only some were accessable.

Any way to tell which tower that was?

as the core wall; all of the elevators and stairwells were within the core walls. The type of wall covering the stair case has no relevance to the question of the type of core walls.

Hi Christophera, been away awhile, but anywho, I found a video that you may want to check out. It is only about 3 minutes long but it has some interesting information.

From the 1:30 into the video:

"Closely spaced vertical columns provide the load bearing strength, instead of the customary interior steel skeleton."

Video is here: http://www.archive.org/details/wtc_construction

Thank you for the welcome back seatnineb. Just trying to do my little bit to help 'paint' the whole picture. I notice LARED is his usual argumentative self. Hi LARED, long time, no debate, hope this makes up for it, one free virtual :beer:, cheers.

I think that says it,


"instead of the customary steel skeleton".


Sure a lot of information quick.

I caught a one second or so image of a huge concrete mixer.

In the documentary I saw in 1990, the concrete core definitely had an aura of mystery.

had just perimeter beams and central core, with more open space

They are both reinforced concrete cores. And both different from the FEMA steel core.
Does the original model have the type core shown in the British version of the concrete core?

catch them.

How can the 2 most prominent towers on the planet have 2 different designs?

Have to be careful when using the word "original" when referring to WTC tower models.

How about, "model built to actual design".

The model we've seen the image of is not what stood. The steel rods in the British core would show bigtime in the demo photos.