Multiple Choice - The cores of the Twin Towers were:

I'm just looking for a vote based on opinions. (I think there might already be a thread here somewhere to discuss the issue, if someone should desire to do such a thing.)

...after all of the posts about this (and I STILL can't figure out what friggin' difference it really makes) I was tempted.


However, from what I've seen it was steel columns.

was my response. No I don't want the answer.

Nobody wants the responsibility of dealing with vital but disturbing knowledge before it is needed, but if one waits, the value and use of the knowlege can disapear and serious problems arise that everyone wants less than just about anything.

Only those with wisdom and courage will embrace that knowledge because they know it will protect themselves and those they love.

...I thought that would be pretty dumb since I'm the one that started the poll. (And I've also made a post or two on the subject.)

-Make7

I selected other.
On balance at the moment I would go for the 47 core columns Robertson et al. claim, because I can see that Robertson and the other designers have done something (or acquiesced in something) which turned out really bad, but I don't think they're complete liars. Also the stubs in the "bathtub" seem to be steel columns, and the construction photos also show columns placed more or less the way they are in most steel core diagrams.

However, various sources indicate that there was more concrete in the core than usually supposed and I think in the basement and perhaps on the lower above-ground levels there may have been either concrete infill panels and/or cast concrete around the columns. Maybe there was even more concrete than this in the upper floors, but I think it's a long way from proven.

As for Christophera's claims, (a) I haven't seen the documentary, so I don't know how accurate his recollection of it is, (b) I haven't looked at the spire photos in detail, (c) the South Tower core photo is weird - he is right that it is the core, but I think it might be the upper section falling rather than the lower section still standing; my gut feeling is it shouldn't look like that whether it was a natural fall or whether it was CD, but I can't really explain it fully yet, (d) IMHO he's right that the amount of explosives used in the demo were much more than needed for a steel-core tower and about right for a concrete-core tower, but I think there might be another way to explain this. Lots of other people unrelated to Christophera think it had a concrete core as well (one day I'll make a list of them) and it's quite hard explaining how all of them could be wrong. However, it would be even harder to explain how all the people who think it was a steel core were wrong.

One thing bugs me: some of the columns could be checked during inspections of the towers (for fireproofing, etc.), but some never were because they were inaccessible. How come some of the core columns were inaccessible?

I neglected to do that previously - I apologize.

(c) I'm still somewhat puzzled by that South Tower core picture too. Have you by any chance ever seen video footage of the collapse from a similar viewpoint? Might help to figure it out more easily than just a couple of pictures.

- Make7

"The steel used in the core column was the strongest steel in the world. A very dense material, it weighed 3,080 pounds per linear foot. There were 47 core columns in each building of the World Trade Center."

http://www.engr.ncsu.edu/news/news_articles/wtc.html

And steel is stronger than structural concrete, which has always been a substitute of one kind or another for steel.

Anyway steel is what all the WTC construction documents and photos show. The mythical concrete core is an internet rumor based on shoddy journalism that should have been laid to rest about three years ago.

Even when comparing compressive strengths (where concrete is strongest), the ultimate strength of steel is ~20 times that of concrete.

The point of open discussion in a free society is not that somebody arrives with the right opinion, but that everybody contributes a little to the discussion, the correct course of action/view gradually takes shape and the parties to the discussion recognise this. I don't agree with most of what Christophera says (i.e. I don't think that the towers had a cast concrete core), but I'm happy that he's contributing to the discussion about what really happened (or didn't happen) on 9/11. Certainly more than anybody peddling holograms, missiles and God knows what else. Specifically, following up on his concrete core posts I found that the WTC didn't comply with the NYC building code at the time it was built and, if it had done so, according to conventional wisdom it would not have collapsed (because it would have had to have tougher fireproofing under the old code - according to the NIST report the fireproofing was knocked of 82 of the 94 core columns and floor trusses covering 140,000 feet of floor space by the impact). So I'll continue to take him seriously. If you don't want to read his posts, don't read them. But if you want to combat him, why don't you offer alternative explanations for the photos he posts.

As far as concerns disinformation, I doubt anybody here is a paid (or unpaid) disinfo agent. I would expect disinfo in the form of snippets released to leading members of the media or "9/11 truth movement". Might I direct your attention to the video stills of the "missile hitting the Pentagon" released just after that lunatic Meyssan published his foul book.

Listen,

The photos that Chris posts explicitly contradict his conclusions. He writes in a totally incoherent fashion, and very few agree with him. And finally, what difference does it make. He won't answer that question. I'm thrilled that no one has been convinced by his illogical approach to evidence. He contributes distracting crap to the discussion, and my calling it crap is just as much a part of the discussion. I didn't say that he was a disinfo agent, but now that you mention it...

- I.C.

"The photos that Chris posts explicitly contradict his conclusions."
If you think the South Tower core photo contradicts his conclusions, I'd love to hear why.

"He writes in a totally incoherent fashion,"
At least he's not pompous.

"and very few agree with him."
Measured against the opinions of the general population of the US, the most popular ideas here are those advanced by LARED, Hack, Mercutio and Make7. Might I express my surprise that you think this is a criterion against which to judge a poster?

"And finally, what difference does it make."
The reason I'm interested in the concrete core argument is that it explains why too much explosives were used in the WTC. Christophera has recognised all the problems presented by the WTC collapse and resolved them in an internally coherent way. I don't agree with his solution, but I recognise it's internally coherent.

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

Every time somebody on this forum posts that the planes were holograms that rocketed the towers on approach or whatever, the other posters fall over themselves saying what a good idea that is. I can't see why the concrete core bothers you so much, when you evidently don't mind the holograms.

You said the photos contradicted his conclusions, but that the south tower core is just a blob. I fail to see how a blob could contradict his conclusions. It definitely is the core. The FEMA investigation also reached the conclusion that the south tower core was falling free of the trusses based on other photos.

You say that you are correct but what are you correct about? The only thing you post about here is why Christophera's opinions are all wrong. How am I supposed to divine your opinions through the vitriol?

Few people agree with you that 9-11 was an inside job, few people agree with me that the towers were brought down by explosives. Does that mean we should stop saying they were?
LARED, Hack, Mercutio and Make7 - do you object to being put in the same group? - the group whose opinions are closest to those of the general population of the US?

I think his solution is internally coherent, so he must have put a deal of time and energy to come up with it. His solution involves the concrete core, C4, timed explosives and lots more. He has at least recognised the problem that "the wrong tower fell first" and made an attempt to deal with it. Given his efforts, I'm happy to take him seriously and be polite to him. That doesn't mean I agree with him. Lots of arguments here are worse than the concrete core: no-757 at the Pentagon, plane swapping, holograms, WTC couldn't have fallen down without columns melting, cellphones don't work in the air, remote control (best of all from 7 WTC), live-fly hijack exercises, plane in Pentagon lagoon, standdown order, the Cleveland Airport Mystery, you name it. Therefore, when I try to debunk a theory which I regard as false, I have plenty to go at before I get to the concrete core.

"you are going up against people with much stronger intellects than yours."
What was it I called you? Oh yes "pompous"...

Let's not go there. :)

It is just that the answer is too easy making it hard to grasp if one is expecting complexity.

Please, specifically point out what aspect of which photo explicitly contradict my conclusions.





Labeling is only useful or part of the discussion if it is verified by substancial and verifying evidence.

The concrete core enables prebuilt explosives and that is scary for many, so they don't support it, associate with it even though they realize that all of the evidence shows concrete rather than multiple steel core columns.

They realize that the uniformity of the freefalling building elements/particles was something very sophisiticated, unreal almost because of that. This increases the fear factor involved withi people standing up for wha they believe.

William Rodriguez will be able to clear this up.

... but I don't know if demolition charges would necessarily be considered a structural element of the buildings. :)

Glad I included an option for "Other" to get some different perspectives.

- Make7