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





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




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

It has been shown in my last thread,

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

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

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

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

philb makes a point about drywall.

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

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

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

seatnineb has sourced images that show more than most.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Nobody's been able to come up with a single piece of direct evidence of embedded explosives.

Hmmmm ......... I'm not trying to state there were embedded explosives. I think it's wiser to make threads and post that just show that there was a concrete core. But you know that I believe they were and try to ward off assertions that the explosives were built into the building before I make them. However, I also will not shy from providing an explanation for what happened. Again, you provide an inverse recognition of the importance of the concrete core, so I must congratulate you on your focus or clear perception of reality.

Two very unusual things dominate 9-11 at the WTC, free fall and total pulverization. They must be explained. Both were continous and very uniform.

RE; the above. I'm not instantly applying the below to your position on controlled demolition, just consider how much of this has gone on since Iran-Contra. I apply it only for the purposes of creating context and background to the consequences of avoiding difficult issues and 3,000 innocent Americans dying on 9-11.

I understand the psychological processes of a person considering/encountering something counter to what they've always believed. Cognitive dissonace is real and it is very powerful in altering perceptions. After a perception is altered into the most comfortable packaging, dissociation can occur. Forgetting.

Here is a page I've put together to show that the core is the center of what appears as a continous explosion. Forgive the page, it's crude but improving.

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

that explosives were built into the core.

If they were, WHY? I'm betting that embedding explosives in concrete wasn't standard practice in 1968. Why was it done to the WTC towers?

If it was done, I would suppose it was so that in case of hurricane
damage the building could be quickly brought down in its footprint
so it wouldn't risk toppling. (Of course in a hurricane the building
would be evacuated.)

Hmmm....

"Never documented" is easy. First off--they still haven't released the
friggin blueprints, so how do we know it was never documented?

Second, it would be a secret. Nobody would want to work in a building
known to be hard-wired for demolition. There's a real sense of being
trapped at the top of a high-rise. It takes a long time to reach the
ground--even in a high-speed elevator, which is not exactly most
people's favorite means of transportation. That's one of the reasons
the WTC drama was such an effective terrorist act. Everybody who worked
in a high rise building felt very vulnerable.

"Never done" is also easy. Few buildings present such a target to
hurrican winds that they risk getting bent. If it bent, it could
topple. Seems to me that planning for pre-emptive demolition under
those cicumstances could easily be part of the design process.

Encapsulating explosives in a building to deal with hurricanes is just a bizarre idea. Any other buildings you know of on the entire planet that were built this way?

Nobody wants to work in a giant bomb. Besides, it would invite
mischief.

We can speculate why and look at the result of 9-11 and say "that is why".

I understand how free fall and total pulverization MUST be effected. I understand that there are very limited ways in which they can be effected.

These are absolutes that must be accounted for in any fully competent analysis

people continue clinging onto is that the WTC fell at free fall speed with total pulverization.

TOTAL Horsepucky

and it's not exactly the most egregious myth they endorsed.

They were off on the collapse speed by five seconds; they were off on
the timing of the floght 93 crash by three minutes. Recent evidence
suggests they were off on the Pentagon explosion time as well.

FAA computers and a seismic sensor were off. The 9/11 Commission used the FAA computer time.

It's not their fault that the two times were 3 minutes apart.

(and no, I don't have an explanation for the discrepency)

three minutes?

Since seismic stations are used to determine the epicenters of
earthquakes by triangulation (which involves comparing precise
measurement of the time the s and p waves arrive with the precise
measurements of seismic stations in other locations) the notion that a
seismic station would have an erroneous time seems peculiar.

recorded in the area. It's assumed by some that the seismic event was the UAL93 crash.

(Chapter 1, note 168 --p. 463-4). It is their considered opinion that
the s/n ratio was too great. Just who their expert is who provides this
opinion, they don't say. Nor do they provide any data to support their
assertion of the 10:03 time.

I'll go along with it, though. I don't see a reason to doubt FAA computer times.

even though they don't identify their expert, provide no data, and you don't know who they are?

By "9CR" I meant the 9/11 Commission Report.

It's been my experience that it's one of the things we do relatively well.

of FAA timekeeping that's in doubt.

When a liar tells you a false time, you don't blame his Rolex.

(Sorry, the note was on page 161-2, not 163-4 as I reported.)

The 9/11 Commission provides no documentation for their time data,
cite no testimony. They just claim an impact time is "established by
FDR, CVR, ATC, radar, and impact site data sets."

"Trust us, we know," in other words. And what's this impact site data?

I think the report was meant to be a list of conclusions,not an in-depth paper containing all of the data used to reach those conclusions.

Yes, I would rather have more details, but I don't feel you can cite any one thing as suspicious because of lack of detail.

Exactly. It's a bunch of "trust us, we know" statements without
verifiable authority.

I can't cite any one thing as suspicious? I cite ALL OF IT as
suspicious.

Cite all of it as equally untrustworthy if you must, but that's how the report was presented.

I'd imagine that at least part of the reason for that is the reluctance to publish security-sensitive data.

The 9/11 Commission Report says 93 crashed at 10:03; the seismic station
said 10:06.

The 9/11 Commission says "trust us, the seismic station recanted" and
says "trust us, the FAA data says 10:03".

In post 16 you said the 9/11 Commission was NOT off by three minutes,
citing the authority of the FAA clock. But you have no way of knowing
the 9/11 Commission didn't lie about the FAA times.

I know the controller who was working the sector where UAL93 crashed.

so I stand corrected. You DO have a way of "knowing" or at least
"believing" that the 9/11 Commission did not lie.

But it appears that the basis for your belief is a personal
communication unavailable to the rest of us, and that neither you nor
the 9/11 Commission have public documentation to support your belief.

I and 300 million other Americans have no way of knowing that the 9/11
Commission did not lie. My epistemology does not allow me to take
comfort in the corroboration by unknown people of unattributed and
undocumented assertions made by apparently corrupted commissions.

My epistemology does not allow me to take comfort in the corroboration by unknown people of unattributed and undocumented assertions made by apparently corrupted commissions.

You must be kidding. The so called 9/11 truth movement is overflowing with unknown people with unattributed and undocumented assertation.

I was talking about my epistemology. I don't speak for any movement.

This super strong part of the WTC 2 structure is also absolutely documented in its strength.




petgoat makes a good point regarding the degree of certainty possible and credible.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=56852&mesg_id=57368

Considering the comission did not address free fall adequately, everything they produce must be scrutinized.

...it puts us in touch with a lot of different people.

Why eould the commission lie about the time, anyway?

Because the cockpit voice recorder ends at 10:02. A one-minute gap in
the tape is perhaps plausible; a four-minute gap is not.

Flight control transcripts were released for flights 11, 175, and 77
on 10/16/01, but not 93. (New Pearl Harbor, p.51) Was 93's ever
released?

What happened? Many of the phone ear-witnesses report wind sounds.
Ed Felt reported an explosion and white smoke.

We are free to speculate.

Some say the C-130H (the same one that saw 77 hit the Pentagon) had
electromagnetic weapons aboard and shot 93 down.

Some say and F-16 reported by cbs TV, by a flight controller, and by
Paul Wolfowitz to have been tailing 93 shot it down.

Some say a small unmarked white jet shot it down.

Some say the passengers regained control of the plane. There was a
professional pilot among the passengers. The transponder was turned
back on from 10:00 to 10:03.

Here's from an MSNBC report about the voice tape:

�In the final moments of this struggle, according to the families who
heard the tape, voices that seemed muffled and distant all of a sudden
became clearer,� says Longman. �They took that as some corroboration
that the passengers actually are in � perhaps crew � actually did
reach the cockpit.�...."Near the end you hear � in English � words,
�roll it up,� and �lift it up,� or �turn it up,� or �pull it up.� The
families have taken that as a sign that they were � the passengers and
perhaps crew � were trying to take control of the plane.�

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080117/

I have always been tough-minded enough to think that 93 might have
been shot down. It wasn't until tonight that I thought to question:
If so, why there? Why couldn't they wait a few minutes more?

They have a time of last radar contact. It's 10:03. It's assumed that the plane crashed almost immediately after, but the FAA has no way of ascertaining an actual impact time (at least ATC doesn't - the flight data recorder would have recorded the time).

10:03 is the time the FAA gave as its last radar contact with UAL93. It's an accurate time.

The 9CR reference is (for once and for all!) note #168 to chapter 1,
page 461-2. It disputes the seismic study, claiming that they have
established the time with "FDR, CVR, ATC, radar, and impact site data
sets."

(Now what they mean by impact site data, I have no idea. Do they claim
they had a seismograph in a gravel pit in Shanksville? I'll suppose FDR
is a flight data recorder. Is that the black box? Is this the same
information as the "flight control transcript" Dr. Griffin says was not
released for flight 93 when it was released for the other planes?)

OK, 10:03 is the last radar contact. What altitude would be "below the
radar" in hilly topography like central PA?

to get the page numbers in the cite correct.

Wouldn't be the first time that loss of radar contact equals the crash of a plane on 911?! (Or does anybody implpy that AA 77 actually crashed in Kentucky as it was reported on 911?)
So 10:03 means only loss of radar contact. Nothing more, nothing less.
The 10:06:05 seismic recording means a seismic event. No discussion possible. Which time is more accurate to you?
And btw explain if apparentlty the crash didn't cause a seismic spike (as officially implied) then what event DID cause a seismic recording at 10:06:05.
And btw if I recall correctly Glick's phone call discredits completely the official timeline of UA 93's last minutes.

At the Pentagon, witnesses and stopped clocks put the time very different than the official time; and inconsistent with the official story events. see the Pentagon Danish Foreign minister thread.
And the security camera videos would have clarified this and lots of things but are being denied to public and covered up
http://www.flcv.com/coverup.html

Likewise at WTC2 stopped clocks and witnesses suggest different times than the official time for the "collapse"

And there was more than just the seismic at the UA93 site that differed with the official time.
http://www.flcv.com/offcom93.html

Please share it. I know that they indicated 10 seconds (not free fall), but I don't recall anything about pulverization.

pictures of the carpets. Carpets should have been a real pain in the
ass in taking the rubble apart.

Oh right, there aren't any. Because people taking pictures were subject
to arrest.

Just wondering, because unless you're talking about some funky "carpet-dissolving" explosives, there would have been carpet in the debris regardless of what made the buildings collapse...

the ass because everything on top of a piece of carpet would have to be
removed before anything under the carpet could be reached. Unless you
want to cut it or burn through it which would also be a major pain.

in the debris?

I read accounts of firefighters over and over stating the shock that sunk in after a week or so of finding NOTHING intact, nothing.

We can see that in the pictures. Concrete snow. Is there a picture
showing shattered concrete in the rubble? I haven't seen it.

I'm talking about the dust they scooped up from the street.








"Six million sq ft of masonry, 5 million sq ft of painted surfaces, 7
million sq ft of flooring, 600,000 sq ft of window glass, 200 elevators,
and everything inside came down as dust, said Greg Meeker of USGS. The
only thing that didn't get pulverized was the WTC towers' 200,000 tons
of structural steel. That was just bent, Meeker said."

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/NCW/8142aerosols.html

I am not a medical doctor, but I don't believe someone would be able to talk if they were turned to dust.

:) Make7

Christophera now has the biggest thread ever as a result of this nonsense...'by default'?...LOL! He spends so much time of this, and repeats himself so often, that one is left to wonder how much he gets paid to push this theory. And, once again, he may be correct. But who cares?

The 9/11 truth movement rides on one principle before all others. That we have 'probable cause' to suspect that member of the U.S. government were complicit in the attack and/or covering for who did it. Probable cause is there. We don't need to determine the validity of a concrete core to advance any further. Its just fluff. Now from a research standpoint this may have some value. But Chistophera doesn't seem quite rational enough to make this look reputable. Sometimes its not the message, its the messenger.

So don't reply. Go read every last thing that's been said in all his other posts, and then see if you feel like saying something.

- I.C.

And because media is against us we need our own perceptions of what happened and the beginning of that is knowing what stood.

You might say, "Well you know it's a lie but I don't."

Forensic evaluation of our underlying political problem requires an understanding of what happened on 9-11 at the WTC. Within the official explanation of that, FEMA makes a lie then Guiliani takes the WTC documents and won't release them, evidence is destroyed etc.. Yes, there are a lot of issues with 9-11 and the concrete core seems obscure. Unfortunately people accept the "incompetence" or SOP corruption and very few know about the core structure.

Meaning the most important thing I can do is ask, "Who saw the 1990 documentary called "The Construction Of The Twin Towers?"

That would be legitimate but if you espouse an appreciation for our democracy, the notion of justice, freedom. liberty and peace, the proof I set forth about the concrete core, can be "The Peoples Question" about 9-11 that is totally separate from any authority. This gives the quality politicians something to act on that has public support intrinsic to gaining political support for doing what is right, but difficult and unpleasant.

"The Peoples Question" about 9-11

"Why that lie?".

What do you have to do to become a paid shill? :shrug:

be collecting something somewhere 'cause it's hell supporting a lie with no evidence.

The question that the shills won't answer is "Why Are You Here?" If there's an answer, there's no sincerity and they behave as tho they are ashamed of themselves or angry.

I kept reading that the World Trade Center was designed after the IBM building in Seattle, and I found this about the IBM building, FWIW:
Structurally, the IBM/Steelworkers Building was the forerunner of all tall buildings with concrete cores and load-bearing, external frames, including New York's World Trade Center. In fact, its Twin Towers and the IBM/Steelworkers Building were engineered by John Skilling and Leslie Robertson, then with the Seattle firm now known as Skilling, Ward, Magnusson and Barkshire.

http://www.post-gazette.com/ae/20020312lowry0312fnp5.asp

Very good information, I had not seen that before.

http://www.post-gazette.com/ae/20020312lowry0312fnp5.asp

The Twin Towers were of a genre of buildings with load bearing steel exterior and rigid concrete core.

Just because no-one on an online message board has been able to convince you that your theory is incorrect does not mean that it is valid. Your statement that "(b)y default, the cores must have been concrete because no photos of the steel core columns in the demolition can be found and no reasonable explanation of why is has been produced" is a fallacy. The existence of a particular kind of core is not determined by either the absence of photos of different kinds of cores or any "reasonable explanation" for different cores.


Edit: clarity (uncaffeinated)

The objective proof in the forum is established by default.

I can produce a photo absolutely consistent with what a concrete core would look like,



I've asked for a reasonable explanation from why the supposed steel core columns are and no good explanation has come forth.

This is no theory from my perspective. I remember the documentary clearly and with a large degree of detail.

Even if the cores WERE primarily concrete, what difference does that make???

Why dies FEMA show us the wrong core structure?

All of these 1000+ posts on this one issue have no more reason than "If they're misrepresenting this, what else are they representing?"????

You've gotta be kidding...

Not that you really want a good reason to show the fact is important.

3,000 innocent Americans were killed. No investigation was done according to due process. Evidence was desrtroyed and the defenses apparently totally failed. War was illegally declared on 2 nationa, what, 2,00 + US soldiers have been killed and countless civilians of Afghanistanis and Iraqis wasted all based on the impossible "collapse" of the towers, and the misrepresentation of the core of the world 2 most prominant towers is not important?

Perhaps you'll restate.

Everything in the body of your post DOES matter except the cores. Whether they were steel or concrete really doesn't prove anything.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Is this another way to say that justice does not matter?

You're saying that a concrete core building wouldn't have collapsed and since they did, there must have been explosives involved. Is that the gist of it?

Christophera's picture seems to show a concrete core standing after all
the steel has fallen. I don't see how that would come down without
explosives. If the picture is genuine, the explosives in the concrete
core must have been delayed.

Ground zero was mostly sand and gravel. The basement was about full of it.

If there were steel core columns there would be no sand and gravel (floors were lightweight concrete) and we would see very long steel columns bent and broken in the demo photos, falling. We do not. We do see sand and gravel.

looks like there is a lot of twisted steel to me. exactly what you would expect to see if the core was NOT concrete.

because I do not recognize the structure in the background as either of the twin towers.

What core do you think stood?

you think wrong. as a new yorker i can tell you that is the wreckage of the WTCs.

As a New Yorker discussion 9-11 I expect a lot more specific information.

Since you have not stated what kind of core you think the towers had and insist that steel in the background is from one of the twin towers, you should be able to describe what structural elements we are looking at and which tower it is.

You have evaded a direct question several times now.

at the wreckage of WTC 2.

and i told you repeatedly i will state my views once you have produced the documentary you refer to with your 'photographic memory'

the only one evading here is you and your failure to produce your evidence about a concrete core. the video mainly.

and if you knew anything about nyc and the WTC then you would know the wreckage is from the WTC. it is fairly obvious from your many posts you know nothing about NYC.

you didnt even know that wonderboard was invented in the 60's and could have been used in the WTC as it is in most modern construction.

show us the video man!

david

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

I agree, if information cannot be produced for verification, it should not be used.









What was that you were saying about using available information?

Make3�

e










or do you stand with sabatuer that there was no core? Ha, ha, ha, ha

Some people might think it next to impossible to determine the material behind all the dust and smoke. How can you tell it's concrete from that picture?



I don't recall seeing anyone say that the cores were air, but I think you may be on to something. By volume most of the area that made up the core was air - so maybe it is technically correct to call them air cores. Of course, if you go by mass, then they would be steel cores. (Since that was the material that comprised most of the mass of the cores.)

:) Make3�

fied.



Only steel reinforced concrete could survive the descent of material and have that appearance.



If it were steel there would be many stubs and bent columns protruding. Period, ............ end of realistic, logical analysis. The above photo does not show a steel structure.

EXAMPLE OF STEEL STRUCTURE:

Doesn't seem big enough for the core beams to me, but I haven't been following the details of the construction beam size, etc. carefully.

Apprently you are not familiar with the WTC tower constrcution at all if you post that photo with that statement.

What core do you think stood?

which steel that is?

i will answer your question once you produce this video you claimed to have seen.


david

Evasion again, 'fraid your credibility is disappearing.






I have a declaration from a structural engineer that saw it and also knew the core, but he wouldn't declare that, only that he saw the documentary. I would scan it and upload it somewhere but I know you disinfos don't use information. Basically any reasonable person has no problem with the realization that this must be a concrete core.

IS YOU!!

you have no credibility at all my friend. you make all these claims about proof, videos, signed documents, but fail to show them

where is your proof??!?!

show you proof already! that picture that you contiually show has been refuted by others to be a building in the background.

stop showing the same damn picture over and over and show your proof, the video, the signed documents.

if you have the proof then show it!

Here is the photo of the concrete core of WTC 2.



Here is another photo of it lower, proving it is not a building in the background.



Prove you not a disinfo and support what core you think stood.

this whole thread is not about what i believe, it is about WHAT YOU BELIEVE!!!

its not a hard concept to understand. you dont win your case by continually attacking others and showing the same photos over and over.

where is this statement that you say you have. was it sworn under oath?

i saw a documentary thanks to a link that was on PBS that shows exactly the opposite of your claim. that the only concrete used was in the bathtub, the foundation and for the floors not for the core. if you ask me that photo looks like it could be a corner of the bulding collapsing not the core.


david

you suggesting are the big central core beams?

I see facade aluminum and miscelaneous metal, but no clear pictures of huge beams.

but there are exceptions. The photo in question is not such a case.

As can be seen in the below, helicopter photo, the interior box columns, the larger vertical members ringing the core area, run with the long axis of their rectangle perpindicular to the core face.



The smaller vertical members inside the core area are elevator guide rails. Contractors depended on the elevators to go as far up as possible, usually, average 6 floors below the topmost floor. Steel was only allowed to go 7 floors past the top of the concrete core. Engineers were worried about the flex of the steel structure and the unequal loads that the cranes working off the heavily trussed crane platform could apply to the tower during construction.

The photo in qustion shows columns running with the long axis the other direction, parallel with the building face. I don't see how it could be a tower.

And there's not a trace of a "concrete core" in that or any other construction photo OR drawing, and there was no such core in either tower.

I'm not trying to burst your balloon but the nonsense tossed out in these threads is dishonest and very misleading.

Posted by pox americana


There are no construction plans other than preliminary, 1963, designs. I have a set of floor plans. They show nothing of the core. What I did learn is where all the floor depictions come from that show asymetrical hallways.

Here is the concrete core of WTC 2.



The concrete core, the inner tube of the tube in a tube construction, was hard to photograph as it was always shaded, except for in rare instances of a day or so where the concrete was near or at the top of the steel.

The above phot during demolition shows the concrete, and it is concrete because it can be nothing elese.







What core do you believe stood? Show me a photo os parts of it. I've shown you the concrete.

Without evidence your post is dishonest and very misleading.

And if you've got a set of plans, sit down and read them instead of oggling at a bunch of doctored photos all day.

Have you ever been within a thousand miles of Manhattan in your life?

or, take your meds.

You have a serious misunderstanding of the concept of "proof". Please spend some time (preferably off-forum) learning about this before committing another grievous misuse of language.

Is far closer to concrete in appearance than the supposed steel.



There, I just did it again.

I'm glad I've never had to work with you professionally if this is your understanding of "proof". Communication between various parties on a large project is difficult enough without the additional hurdles present when one party is using a completely different set of definitions for common terms. Please learn what the rest of us mean by "proof" so we can have a fruitful discussion.

een.





To be reasonable, you must support your assertion that steel core columns thus, ala' FEMA



were the core of the towers. Using these photos of the actual structures demise where a great variety of structural element is seen, explain why some, or parts of some are not seen bent and laying around.

If you are going to say some one blew them up. Explain why the explosion we see is focused upward and mostly concrete particulate.



Where are the flying pieces of steel after being severed by 35,000 FPS gasses?

You act as if this is some sort of "zero-sum game" where if nobody presents sufficient proof to support a competing theory then your theory is somehow more valid.

I am not interested in proving anything to you. I am not interested in discussing your theory with you. But I am not going to let you claim "establishment" of any theory because contradictory evidence doesn't satisfy you or because no-one has adequately explained the collapse to you.





Edit: clarity

You cannot discuss my theory because it is not a theory. I know the concrete core to be a fact and will not ever accept unsubstantiated theory in its place.

Consider supporting YOUR theory, or FEMA theory (lie).

Anybody who considers this to be a collapse wants to be lied to.

Therefore you must have no validity.

The below is a concrete core.



Since we see no steel core columns below where we should see them, it is clear there were none.

Not evidence. Most importantly, it is not what you claim it is.

You state "The below is a concrete core." It clearly is not - it is a photograph that you have interpreted to show a concrete core.

Your statement that "Since we see no steel core columns below where we should see them, it is clear there were none" is fallacious also. You claim that we should see them (why?), claim that we can't see them (are you sure of what you are seeing?) and then use the lack of evidence of the steel core columns in the photo (again based on your interpretation) as evidence of their absence, a classic logical fallacy.

You have no evidence, no argument, and (IMHO) no credibility.

The photograph is evidence. You can dispute its authenticity, but you
can't claim it's not evidence.

Having no photos would be having no evidence.
Having photos is evidence.

I misspoke - the photograph is indeed evidence, although not of what Christophera is claiming.

If Steel Columns, Where Are they?

Realize I saw the documentary and it focused on the concrete core for about 1 hour.

You explain what you think this is.



I have said that you have no evidence and you have posted none. This makes it appear true you have no evidence.

I don't have to have evidence in order to disprove your theory.
I don't have to explain what I think appears in the photo above.
I don't have to have a theory at all.

You, on the other hand, are proposing a theory and most definitely need evidence supporting that in order to claim any sort of credibility for said theory.

Why should I "realize" that you saw this alleged documentary? Because you claim you (and you alone, apparently) did?

And what about justice? What about the 3,000 innocent Americans killed?

Are you trying to tell to just give up on our rights and freedom by letting our infiltrated government create tyranny.

More evidence.

Tell me what those fine vertical elementa are?



I KNOW what they are.

I don't need evidence (how many times must I say this).
I don't need to prove anything.

You need to prove that your evidence is valid (that it is what you claim it is) in order to prove your theory. It does not depend on the theories of others, nor on the evidence of others (although that can certainly play a role).


"Elementa"? I'm sorry, but when you make up words I'm not going to know what they mean. You'll need to rephrase the question.

You can feel as confident as you want about "knowing" something, but that doesn't mean you are right. I have met a lot of people that are absolutely certain about something, and they are just as absolutely wrong as they are certain.

true fallacy, not the crappy, unreasonable labelling job you are attempting.

Oh. ................. I've interrupted your analysis of a typo, now that's important.

In order to remain reasonable you must support what you contend existed for a core.

It is not reasonable to allow lawless government and its removal of our rights and freedoms, and,......... saying "No" in your case protects, empowers and promotes lawless government.

My evidence to the concrete core is an absolute.



That structure must be explained by the truth or the explanation is not the truth, a fallacy.

It must be explained by the truth, as well as free fall and pulverization. Justice and the recovery of our democracy, our rights and our freedom depends on this.

Identifying it as a concrete core explains the image. You fail to even provide support of any kind for the 47, 1.300 foot steel core columns. Absent raw evidence, you are supporting a fallacy by say "no" to the concrete core.

What is your claim as to the cores design?

Substanciate your claim.

If you post incoherent messages, I'm not going to respond.

Fake.

And what am I faking?

Your post was incoherent. I couldn't understand it.

Bigtime

Please to explain this concept of "fake interest in the truth" to me?

And of course it would be nice to see on what exactly you are basing this claim (whatever it is).

od.

You don't care about the truth, you just work to stop the truth I can support.

I think you would be hard-pressed to find a physicist that would claim that it was not a legitimate pursuit of "truth".

I pay no attention whatsoever to media and show us what kind of core you think stood..

Are you referring to Michelson and Morley as "Clones of Academia", or are you referring to someone else?

Or, ......... are you champion of the "air core".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley

"Air core"? What a active imagination you have.

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

For all intents and purposes, an operating attitude of AZCAT is that it believes in no core.

Hence the fun term "air core". You are a champion, you've earned it, glory in your nothingness.

Still, hard evidence shows us rebar standing free.



along with this,



it can only be a tubular concrete core.

trying to provoke a response from me with childish tactics is going to advance your theory? Why don't you spend some time educating yourself, instead of resorting to such foolish behavior?


Besides, I can't be the champion. LARED has already been crowned "king", and this forum ain't big enough for two numero unos.

Refusing to define which core you think stood is failing as a tactic to advance the official "theory".

The towers did have a core.



You assume too much. I have said you are "a champion" not "the champion"

it is impossible to prove a negative. it is your job on the other hand to prove that the towers had concrete cores. just because you believe it is a concrete core doesnt mean it is the absolute end all of the discussion.

proof is something you can back up with facts, not an interpretation of a photo, but facts.

I don't just believe, I have good reason to beleive, I know. I saw it being built. Front row seat. 16 mm cameras wielded by camera people in the employ of the architects and contractors. PBS produced it, taking 3 years to edit it. There was a focus on the most difficualt aspect of the constrcution, the steel reinforced, cast concrete core.

Considering 3,000 Americans were murdered and there was no proper investigation, then evidence was removed and destroyed, free fall and total pulverization happened: We need explanations and they MUST be inclusive of the mentioned events.

Proportion.

The murders, then the evidence removal/destruction all creates another sense of proportion to evidence, what evidence can actually be used. If the evidence does not help explain major aspects of the event, it should not be used. A case of severe disproportion develops if you try.

Only evidence that helps explain the event is relevent.



The event of the image of WTC 2 shows a super strong element in the position of the core and of the physical proportion of the core.

Do you agree?

then find it. give us a link to it so we can all see it. i for one need proof to back up your memory

you keep talking about this documentary, and what you remember what was in it. well memory can be a tricky thing, can cause you to remember what you wanted to have seen. just ask any trial lawyer about witnesses whom this has happened to.

I understand about memory. That is not the case here.

I have a photographic memory and can recall many, many images of the video.

I work in construction, some cutting. fitting & welding, some concrete, lots of layout for both as a surveyor.

I was very interested in the documentary and watched both nights, 1 hour each. It took a year to remember, mostly because all the versions of the design I found were bogus so they wouldn't jog my memory.

Finally, using what I know about blasting (above ground blasting for roadway construction, studied demo some), I tried to design the loading of high explosives into the concrete core as I knew it existed. Supposing full access to the top and end of each concrete core wall, and a track mounted rock drill on the roof and cross drilling each wall to create a grid on say 3 foot centers, I realized my grid approximated the reinforcing bar grid.

At that point the memorys began returning, one of the first was the extra security surrounding the rebar that had a "special" plastic coating, the locked cargo container that had a security guard while it was open. The fact that the bar could only be welded by welders that had a security clearance, the coating was flammable is what the documentary stated.

We have been seriously deceived by a ruse on a scale that is immense. We are in deep shit.

your photographic memory is bull. anyone can claim they have photographic memory, but you need proof to back it up. you have yet to back up yours with this documentary.


explain to me why a building that was designed, built mainly in the 60's would be built with 'special' plastic coating.

You are falling into the same trap that folks who claim the Moon landing was staged in a government warehouse. You look at a photo with no context and claim to have some insight others lack.

take the photo that you state: " Explain why the explosion we see is focused upward and mostly concrete particulate."

When you look at that picture without context it does appear to the uninformed that there is an explosion forcing the dust upward.

HOWEVER. When you watch the video that from which the capture originates, it is clear that upward expulsion of matter is NOT happening. It is a downward movement of dust and debris in your red circle following the building as it collapses.

On 9-11 watching the towers fall, I knew it was a demolition for many reasons. The reasons just grow.

The dust from light weight concrete floors is the billowy cloud, try this one. Objects and heavy particulate with obvious velocity upwar and outward.



Here is another with 45 degree plumes reaching 400 feet.





Listening to unedited radio communications from the moon lander shows immediate reception after transmission by ground control. Transmission time to the moon takes 4 seconds. Nothing else really sways me with that issue.

Please show a source and/or calculations for how exactly you determined the time. That is, if you do indeed back up your assertions.

-Make7

I was told by an RF engineer.

No off topic BS.

I was kinda thinking you might post some calculations, links to sources, or something like that. But I guess that's difficult when you haven't done any calculations and you don't have any verifiable sources.

Here's an example of how to use information to back up something that has been posted:


But wait a minute. That didn't come out to be 4 seconds! Oh, you must have meant the time to go there and back. (Although you did say: "Transmission time to the moon takes 4 seconds.") Let's multiply by 2. Then we get 2.711852 seconds for a maximum theoretical time for a radio wave to go to the moon and back. But that is still far shorter than the 4 second time that you posted.

Perhaps you could show me how to do the calculations so the answer is 4 seconds. I would greatly appreciate it.
____________________

In light of your "No off topic BS" comment, if it is not too much trouble, could you please explain how the following statement was on topic:


Thank you in advance for your explanation.

-Make7

You state:

"Listening to unedited radio communications from the moon lander shows immediate reception after transmission by ground control. Transmission time to the moon takes 4 seconds. Nothing else really sways me with that issue."

Are you claiming that the moon landing was faked?

and are sooooooo happy to change the subject.

You and 7 have zero credibility, both busted attempting to support a lie with nothing.

You get carte blanche to make whatever unsupported statements you want about off-topic subjects, and the rest of us don't get to question them.

:eyes:

You have not even said you believe the FEMA core existed let alone provide support for it.

Let me provide you with your only evidence. Ala' FEMA.

Why do you insist that others must provide their opinions as to the structure of the WTC towers, when what is at issue is your opinion and unsupported claims about their structure.

We can discuss that quite well without including my beliefs.

evidence.

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


Whoa .................. stand aside, ................ no argument is here.

My argument is that you have not sufficiently supported your claims about the structure of the WTC towers.

I claim there was a concrete core and I have a good deal of evidence and argument to reasonably support the uses of the evidence to explain events.

You can't even say what you think stood as a core.

No you don't (see previous posts for particulars).

Its authenticity may be disputed; its existence can not.

we have discussed this previously, and I admitted error. The photograph is evidence, although it does not "reasonably support" the claims made by ChristopherA.



Edit: typo

Those 2 events MUST be explained. Evidence gains authenticity when it actually explains events within reasonable bounds.

that Make7 and AzCat have FAR more credibilty than you. you keep telling us what you 'remember' and that you have a photographic memory. that simply isnt proof. show us the documentary. show us hard evidence, not what you remember.


they dont have to prove anything. you do! and not with your memory with hard evidence. not a possible interpretation of a photo. sure you have worked in construction, and you interpret the picture you have one way. but they can easily be interpreted another.

State what you think the core was designed like or suffer a reduction to chafe, mostly confusion and distraction.

it is not up to me to prove anything. i am merely saying that their case is better than yours. most of your case is based on your interpretation of a photo, which can be interpreted in several ways and on your memory.

i do not trust your memory. you have yet to back up your memory with any proof. memory alone is not proof.

and i suffer nothing i am open minded willing to listen to solid proof. you have shown none of this. only your memory of documentaries.
that unfortunately does not make your case.


david

"Listening to unedited radio communications from the moon lander shows immediate reception after transmission by ground control. Transmission time to the moon takes 4 seconds. Nothing else really sways me with that issue."

Wrong - It takes 2.4 seconds round trip.

http://www.infoage.org/nyt-01-25-1946p1.html

The first man-made contact with the moon was achieved on Jan. 10 when the Army Signal Corps beamed a radar signal on it and 2.4 seconds later received an echo reflected by the celestial body, it was announced yesterday. The signal, covering a round-trip distance of an estimated 450,000 miles, was sent out from the Evans Signal Laboratories at Belmar, N.J.

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

Transmission issues

Claims and rebuttals

1. The lack of a more than 2 second delay in two way communications at a distance of a 250,000 miles (400,000 km).

* The round trip light travel time of more than 2 seconds is apparent in all the real-time recordings of the lunar audio, but this does not always appear as expected. There may be some documentary films where the delay has been edited out. Principal motivations for editing the audio would likely come in response to time constraints or in the interest of clarity. <3>

Assuming full quieting from amps actually transmitting and relay switching in the analog days, its probably closer to 4 seconds.

Hey, yer' changing the damm subject.

An you know what? I remember long delays live, in the early seventies watching the moon missions on TV. So wtf. Don't wonder why I don't spend a lot of time on the moon.

B.S.

The point is your "photographic memory", especially how it relates to a documentary you saw many years ago, that alleges there was a "concrete core". Many people have raised valid objections to your allegation of how the WTC 1 & 2 towers were built. You say concrete. Others, including myself, say steel. You start flinging verbage around that makes absolutely no sense, except that it reinforces your belief in this mystical concrete core. I've shown several documents that preceed 9/11 that discuss nothing but steel, including photos that show absolutely no evidence of concrete structures. But, you keep on going back to your photographic memory, that has been proven to be wrong on several instances.

BTW - It was about a two second delay round trip communications. You're just wrong saying it was four seconds.

in constructing the WTC the drywall material probably was wonderboard as it is fire and water resistant. it is a concrete based material (but not concrete). it is commonly used in construction (and being in construction you would know that).

that is probably as close as the WTC had to a concrete core.

do i have a link that says wonderboard was used in the WTC, no, but it is common in even low rise buildings.

david

This is the seconf time I've asked for that.


http://www.finpan.com/about.html

Fin Pan, Inc. was formed in 1975 by Ted and Mary Louise Clear to manufacture Wonderboard backer board for Modulars, Inc. Ted Clear's automated continuous manufacturing process enabled Wonderboard to be mass-produced. Fin Pan, Inc.

wonder board was indeed around in the 60's

http://forums.jlconline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=90d8d08e26ce6d4279352788c392366a&t=18844

and i have repeatedly asked you for the documentary that you keep recalling.


my views arent the ones in question here. yours are.

you cannot or willnot, you are absolutely insincere in your presence here.





Wonderboard may have been invented but it was not mass produced. The link I provided,

http://www.finpan.com/about.html

showed the first automation doing that in 1975 or so.

Ok - I'll take a swing at explaining why there WASN'T a concrete core.

First, a bio. I studied civil engineering for a few years. After leaving university, I got a job at a major Architectural Engineering firm. While working there, I did work that involved me with the engineering drawing and technical specifications for the projects. And these were big projects - Sherwin Williams paint plant in Chicago, Brown & Williamson cigarette plant in Macon, GA, and several jobs for the Army Corps of Engineers in Saudi Arabia and Iran. I know my way around drawings. When that firm let me go, they recommended me to a subcontractor, who was responsible for cost estimating of these large projects. Again, drawings and specifications were a major part of my work environment.

Remember that a building has to make money for the project owner. That usually drives the architect to design a building that can be built as inexpensively as possible. If the exterior of WTC 1 & 2 were steel, adding concrete to the construction mix will add costs. You have to coordinate the disparate material properties in such a way that costs shoot up tremendously. It would be much cheaper to use steel in both the exterior and interior, using one major set of trades for the construction work.

In addition, steel and concrete have different construction methods. Concrete requires forms to maintain the shape of the pour. These forms usually require substantial bracing to keep the forms in place. There is no indication in any of the pictures of concrete forms or bracing. Also, it's not simply concrete - for you need steel reinforcing bars to provide strength. Creating the re-bar cages is a major task and requires lots of work space and people. You would see signs of re-bar cages being put together. For steel, you simply crane the pieces into place, and then bolt or weld everything together. There are lots of pictures supporting this construction method for the towers.

Now, this doesn't disprove the use of concrete. To do that you need to either look at the drawings, or photos of construction. The drawings were stored in the towers and were lost during the collapse. However, there are images of the drawings that show steel and no concrete. The best images I've seen in these threads are:



and:



I contend that these drawings indicate there's no room for concrete walls of the dimensions that would be required to support the building.

Still, not enough proof. So lets go to pictures. But, only after exploring how the site was prepared. The WTC site was originally covered by the Hudson River, and was reclaimed over the years. Thus, during construction, water infiltration became a show stopper. The architects designed a concrete "bathtub" to keep the water out of the site. The walls were constructed using a fairly novel technique of digging a slurry wall - basically a vertical trench that was filled with re-bar and concrete slurry, and allowed to cure. The bathtub was deep, 70 feet to bedrock if I recall correctly. It was only after the bathtub was completed that the fill of the reclaim land could be excavated, and used as fill just west of the site. In addition, there were existing subway lines that had to be kept open during the construction work. These subway tubes were supported by steel construction, not concrete.

So - pictures. Go to
http://www.nae.edu/NAE/naehome.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NKUN?OpenDocument#spring and download the Spring 2002 PDF version of "The Bridge". Read the article starting on page 11 titled 'World Trade Center "Bathtub": From Genesis to Armageddon'. Pay attention to the pictures. The key picture is Figure 5 on page 15, which shows the bathtub while the towers are under construction. Notice WTC 1 (top right) is substantially started. And it's supported by steel columns from the bottom of the bathtub to the street level. Also notice that there is none of the stuff needed for concrete construction. No forms, no bracing, no concrete mixers, no piles of re-bar, no re-bar cages being assembled. Nothing for concrete work.

Notice that WTC 2 is just starting to come up from the bathtub floor. You can see the columns - in the layout shown in the two drawings above - just at ground level. You can also see two of the derrick supports being started. One is just above the crane in the lower left and the second is just to the left of the subway tube.

With a little mental gymnastics of rotating the picture, you can line easily line up the columns coming out of the ground to the columns show in this picture:



In looking at lots of web pages, I ran across http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/wtc/wtctragedy.html , which may have the mother load of links (both working and non-working). Some of the best are:
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/AISI/wtcaisicover.pdf
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/AISI/wtcaisi1.pdf
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/AISI/wtcaisi2.pdf
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/AISI/wtcaisi3.pdf
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/AISI/wtcaisi4.pdf
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/AISI/wtcaisi5.pdf

Read these - there's NO MENTION OF CONCRETE. Which is especially telling, because the documents describe how the towers WILL BE (future tense) constructed.

And http://www.graduatingengineer.com/articles/feature/01-11-02c.html has a few nuggets. Especially the highlights:
The concept of the fire-rated shaft wall partition system, which replaced masonry and plaster walls-at the time the standard enclosure for elevators, stairs, duct shafts, etc.

and
The conception and development of a computerized system to order structural steel, and to produce structural steel shop drawings from digital information developed and provided by the firm. The adjacent New York City streets were narrow and congested, and there was little storage space available to hold the steel. Each of the 200,000 pieces of steel had to arrive in the correct order and at the right time. The computerized system was one of the industry's earliest computer-programmed control systems, the first used for structural steel procurement. It took six months to write and set up.

There has been a lot of discussion of building codes and how they relate to the WTC towers designs. Remember that a revision of building codes don't just "spring into existence", they require years of preparation to put into place. The industry comments on how the codes need to change long before the code becomes "The Code". The building code of 1968 was a vast change - away from a "you must do it this way" to "this is what we want". Fire protection is an excellent example. The old code required masonry (brick, block, etc) to surround steel columns to provide fireproofing. The new code required that the steel should stand fire temperatures for certain periods of time. Thus, spray on fireproofing came into use.

A good discussion of how building codes and construction methods may have played a part in the collapse can be read here:

http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html



A couple of miscellaneous points:
1. Where did the 47 1,300 foot columns go? Simple - they broke apart just like the exterior wall spandrels did. All material had to be brought through the narrow streets of downtown Manhattan. There's no way a 1,300 foot column could be assembled, except through assembling many smaller columns. Also, you don't see 47 1,300 foot columns stick out of the top of this picture:



Those columns were assembled on site. Remember, the exterior wall was assembled in place, and so would the core columns.

2. There have been comments that the concrete floors couldn't break apart until they hit the ground. Nonsense. There was so much material (columns, elevators, desks, everything in a building) being jumbled up that there had to be impacts. Simple experiment. Take two rocks & throw them together in the air. I'll bet if you can get the rocks to hit hard enough, some material will break off.

3. Many comments have been made upon eye witnesses talking about concrete encased stairwells. I would expose that people under stress wouldn't remember what the stairwell walls were made of. However, there are several reports where someone used simple tools to claw their way through gypsum wallboards and to escape the stairwells. I believe the 1968 code started the use of firewall rated gypsum boards to enclose stairwells.

4. Explosions. I have no doubt that there were explosive sounding events as described. I've heard explosions also - as the car across the street burned to the ground. Lots of things make loud popping noises when they fail - car windows, car tires, batteries, etc. Just because an explosion was heard doesn't mean it was caused by explosives.

Finally, I referenced the spring 2002 article in "The Bridge" and the article on the bathtub construction. The article just prior to that is by Leslie Robinson - the structural engineer on WTC. Read that article - there is NO MENTION OF CONCRETE outside of the bathtub wall.


Finally, if this diagram is correct:

with a solid concrete core fitting inside the inner core columns, how could you be able to see through the building as seen in:


If anything, the central core would be a solid obstruction, with hallways every other floor. That's simply not what you're seeing in this picture.

Comments?

Please consider using it to start a new thread on the subject. It needs more attention than it's going to see buried on this one.

You have some really good sources in there that I haven't seen before. Nice work.

-Make7

And welcome to DU!

L-

I was just watching all of the 9/11 shows that I'd Tivo'd. One was called the destruction of the towers and they showed an architectural file cabinet (wide drawers for e size drawings) and they clearly have the WTC blueprints so a copy or the originals are around somewhere.
BTW, you'll never convince Chrisotphera's about his pet theory but where it really falls apart is where he postulates that they put C-4 in the floor pans and in the 'concrete' core, please!

It took about four attempts to put that reply together, and a good two hours on the final version.

Realistically, I doubt that the more "enthusiastic" believers of the concrete core theory are going to change their mind. I just want to bring forward another viewpoint, one which has had some limited experience in the architectural industry. I personally would put the likelihood of a concrete core in the far less than 1% probability range. My understanding of the core, is that it was structural steel, with gypsum boards providing fire protection and spacial definition. You can equate this to the sheetrock thats applied to the wood studs in a home to create the definition of a room.

Remembering the amount of paper that we generated on our large projects, and all of the many companies and places that the paper was shipped to, I'm surprised that a fairly complete set of WTC drawings hasn't been revealed. Sure, the project was built over 30 years ago, but it was a landmark project that any company would have been proud to be associated with. Maybe some day a clerk will be going through the warehouse and realize that the drawings they are going to destroy have some historical significance.

At one time, the lobby of our office had a drawing on display, treated like artwork. It was dated approximately 1870, and was of some sort of manufacturing facility. Wonderfully detailed drawings of wood wheels, belts, steam driven machinery. The attention to detail was amazing - wood grain was drawn on the wheels and spokes and furniture. Who knows where that 100 year old drawing was found, but it was in the records of the A/E firm.

Definitely on of the better arguments I've heard.

If you have experience with architectural drawings, what would you think of someone that was unable to interpret the simplicity of the orientation of these buildings.



I am aware there are reject design/plans/diagrams around that are now being pulled out. Check this.



Those folks in the UK think the stairways were outside a solid core. That core was mentioned in the beginning of the documentary I saw in 1990. It was supposed to be a pre stressed column. It would have worked well, but ......... nobody could figure out how to build it. For these reasons I'm not commenting on the floor plans and calls for core columns notated. There was at least one other competing design that did not get built.

Posted by sgsmith


My comment to the above is partially in reference to the above image. Steel flexes too much for use in a building that tall, with those proportions. Considering the above image, pre stressed concrete, was impossible to build, cast concrete is the only alternative and Yamasaki used it to create a rigid, torsion resistant tubular core.

Posted by sgsmith


Let me correct your terms before trying to explain.

with a tubular cast concrete core fitting inside the interior box columns, how could you be able to see through the building as seen in:



WTC 1 had 1 hallway per floor (lower floors) with halls perpendicular every other floor. This inconvenient layout was abandoned and WTC 2 had a wall across the short axis that was as heavy as the exterior walls with 2 hallways parallel to it and one down the long axis of the core crossing the other 2. It turned out stronger than Yamasakis original core.
Over time I'd heard reference to the difference in stairways and a couple to something like "super core" for WTC 2. Stairways weave in between interior walls or through holes in them.

Notice below the vertical members inside the core area are much smaller than the columns ringing the core. Those columns, called interior box columns were hand fabricated, trucked and set, then 100% welded to form a full length vertical, load bearing element. This is as close as it gets when it comes to 1,300 foot steel columns. They flex horribly, the concrete core kept the entire exterior frame work which formed the outer tube of the "tube in a tube" construction, aligned to its calculated load bearing value position.



Posted by sgsmith


Well steel bends before breaking unless hit by high explosives. So, what cut the interior box columns I know were there?

The oral histories of workers has trickled down to me along with confirmation of the strange forced evacuations of floors before the light weight concrete was poured. Ask Phil Jayhan about the forced evacuations, he's heard of it. I heard the workers returned to find green/gray goop in the corrugations of the freshly sandblasted floor ready to receive 6x6 10 GA before mud. One mentions continuous circuits and mounding around the interior box columns.
What we saw on 9-11 at the WTC is possible, we know that, but it can only be effected in a very limited set of ways. I thought about the mounding of green goop around the box columns and realized that it would form and very effective cutting type charge and made a diagram to help explain it. This only cuts three sides, the expanding concrete core 300 milliseconds later broke the back and heaved outward to break all the spandrel joints holding the perimeter columns together.



The extreme containment of the floor lowers the emitted sound pressure levels from that which would be heard if steel columns were simply cut with shaped charges on four sides. If shaped charges were not used the explosions would be immense. They were not, it was very well contained and uniform, considering it was not throwing big chunks of concrete.

Big chunks of steel were being tossed out some.



Good rebuttal but not comprehensive to obvious factors such as free fall and pulverization which logically must be accounted for.

Yes, I've heard the hurricane explanation, and I'm not buying. Since it obviously wasn't common practice to encapsulate explosives in structural supports, why was it done here?

Doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense, does it?

(on edit) I read your "explanation" in a post above this one and that's absoultely NOT an answer. I'm asking why anybody would build explosives into a construction project. I'm also asking why they did it this ONE time...never before and never after. Got a real answer?

evidence.

And it was done before. Missile silos and sub bases.

This is far beyond the thread topic.

In a non-military building?

It's actually not beyond the thread topic, because it's one of the cornerstones of your whole core issue (as I percieve it).

Again, just show me another civilian circa-1970 building that was built using encapsulated RDX.

Do you REALLY believe that they planned to use the future destruction of the WTC towers for political reasons in 1968????

have been systematically scrubbed from the public domain per Christopher. So following his line of thought this plan has been in progress for years.

Remember logic is not an option.

Such as a safe and economical demolition. Done in a rainstorm only the damage to nearby buildings would be a concern.

The documentary talked about the forced evacuations of the floors before concrete was poured. It showed a large rcew rubbibg through the core hallways from one floor panel to another. It talked about the locked container with the rebar in it and a security guard when open.

Those doing the deceiving planned to use the demolition as it has been used.

:eyes:

Please post the link to the "documentary" again (I must have missed it).

I've seen quite a few ridiculous "documentaries" (eg. VonKleist's video)....

ble. On 9-11 I knew it was gone. PBS is not responsive.

this documentary you keep talking about. your 'memory' of a documentary my friend is not evidence.

and post evidence to the core you believe stood.

to present your documentary. your so called photographic memory is not evidence. you are like the prosecution, you have to prove your case. i have nothing to prove.

you say a documentary exists then show it.


others have already shown your photographic memory to be flawed, so show us the hard evidence. show us the documentary

The documentary was produced in 1990 by PBS. I'm quite sure all traces of it have been removed.

Those others have not explained this photograph which supports what I remember.



They lost their credibility and you are losing yours. What core do you think stood?

you have lost your credibility. it is up to you to show the proof.

i have no claims one way or the other, but from what i have seen you have no credibility.

you want us to rely on your memory, which has been showed to be flawed. show us the documentary.

You've seen plenty of evidence woven into the only proof that exists on the tower structures.

I do not expect the video to be available. I realized that on 9-11.

You want folk to think that I want them to rely on my memory when you support no core whatsoever.

Ha, here's much good raw data.

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

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

You must not be familiar with shear.

When long elements are involved, the small amount of shear does not reduce the length of anything appreciably.

This is such an elementary issue that it is clear you don't know anything about the mechanics of materials. There are thousands of books on this topic out there that cater to all levels and I suggest strongly that you avail yourself of (at least) one. Please. Your ignorance is becoming painful to watch.

I am a welder/fabricator. I work with steel often.

Look at any sheared steel edge of any kind and it is deformed, bent.

I don't give much weight to this one, especially since I have enough personal experience to know what you say is incorrect.

You are wrong.

Your unsupported statements seem a talent.



Meanwhile, what stands can only be a tubular, steel reinforced cast concrete core.









All those people dead and you cannot even properly support a lie. You've not spoken a word about justice.


Why are you here?

to prove that your oft-posted image is of a "tubular, steel reinforced cast concrete core" not on me to prove some alternative.

Did Michelson and Morley have to provide a competing theory or was their experiment enough?

Why am I here? I don't think that's really any of your business.

Post your claim.

Prove yours.

One photo shows the core.

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

And no photos show the steel core columns.




Why are you here?

is that the photo of which you speak shows a concrete core.

I disagree.

You feel that this photo is enough to prove your theory.

I disagree.

You think it is your business why I am here.

I disagree.

Here are people who agree with the concrete core.

http://cosmicpenguin.com/911/chrisbrown/corerefs/index.html

http://algoxy.com/psych/supportfor9-11truth.html

Is truth now governed by majority rule?

Your evidence is poor, your argument weak, and no bizarre logical leaps or lists of supporters will change that.



Volume and repetition are powerful tools, but I wonder if anyone who relies on them for winning arguments is really that confident in the contended theories, otherwise why wouldn't that person use more rational means to win people over?

you have labelled as fake or unreasonable (and with questionable intents).


I am proud to be in such auspicious company.

Wait just a minute here. I thought stannrodd was one of the people who agreed with the "concrete core." Isn't that the stannrodd you quoted on your website? (http://algoxy.com/psych/supportfor9-11truth.html)

-Make7

from the critics, just like you, thus your assertion you are reasonable is bogus. you have no credibility as a truth seeker.

I back my assertions.

The fine vertical elements are 3" high tensile steel rebar standing after the concrete of the cast core was blown off the reinforcing grid.

There if that is not rebar, explain what it is. This is only reasonable.



Too bad if you don't like it. Something outrageous happened on 9-11 and it has an explanation.

If you don't like my explanation, that means you like the lie, its' okay that 3,000 Americans were murdered, due process violated and evidence destroyed.

There are many reasons you have no credibility as a reasonable person seeking truth.

Perhaps you could clear something up for me. In Post#113, after saying, "Here are people who agree with the concrete core", you posted a link to a page on your website where the following quote is found:


But later posts of stannrodd on LetsRoll911 seem to indicate that he disagrees with you. For example:


What I'm hoping you can clear up is this: you say there is "NO ACCOUNTABILITY from the critics" yet you use a post by someone that is highly critical of you on your website to claim support for your hypothesis. Is stannrodd accountable when he agrees with you, but suddenly not accountable if he then criticizes you? Is the determining factor of someone's accountability whether or not they agree with you?
____________________

I don't see how you can seriously say, "I back my assertions", and then post a picture claiming it to be "rebar" based on nothing but your own interpretation. Please explain how your own opinion backs up your own assertion.

As far as the picture is concerned, what you claim to be "rebar" is, in my opinion, actually a portion of the steel core collapsing. Here are two pictures that you seem fond of posting, cropped and resized for easy comparison:



And if you watch this video that LARED posted a while back, I think it shows that the "spire" and your "rebar" are the same structure at different times during its collapse.

Others seem to share that viewpoint:



You can claim that picture shows whatever you want to, but when there is reasonable disagreement of what exactly it shows, it is incorrect to say that it is proof of anything unless you are able to come up with supporting evidence for your claim that it is "rebar." Perhaps you would care to back up this particular assertion, as you seem to claim so often that you do back your assertions. (I, however, would disagree.)


I thought you were the one who was always complaining that "all or nothing thinking" was not needed. I believe the above statement is a good example of that. (Although I do find it highly entertaining all by itself.)


I would very much appreciate it if you could elaborate. Thanks.

-Make7