Wonder Why It’s So Important That Towers Did NOT Have Concrete Cores?

[Christophera]

I mean really. Have you ever seen a few argue so hard with so little trying to get rid of information? This information is not anything radical by any evaluation. Sure, a concrete core varies from the official structure, which happens to all but lack definition from official sources, and there is a great deal more information in the entire 9-11 event that is inconsistent with the official version, but the core issue dominates. why. Concrete is the most common building material building in the world but still some people argue against it like it was utterly ridiculous to doubt the official souce of what the towers core was. All the time presenting themselves as serious in questioning the official story.

I mean the argument against nukes is not as heated as the concrete core issue. The nuke theory is totally unsupported and the last member who tried to sell it here was very reasonable, using simple logic after a time to withdraw their position. Not so with the concrete core even though concrete is a common building material in skyscrapers. Why the problem with a steel reinforced concrete tube up the center of the towers?

That is what a documentary showed me in 1990 as the tower core, and I watched very closely.

The plane pods w/missiles were dismissed easily, not much logic or evidence there. But concrete in a skyscraper, that’s unthinkable. “The official story must be right” is what comes from the nameless shadows endlessly. Everything else is worthy of discussion in a realm of logic but not concrete in a skyscraper and what concrete vs. steel looks like on the way down. “Nobody except an expert can know that” and other such statements litter this forum making a confusing mess of any effort to meaningfully compile evidence and logic.

Knowing the difference between a block of concrete 17 feet thick, creating a nebulous space in the core, undefined by official sources is easy, and what official sources show us, is not rocket science.



Seeing the rounded top of the core here tells you that the structure is not steel.



why the controversy? Why the heated debate. Why is it so important that the world think the tower cores were “steel core columns”?

What is so important about the cores?

The core was a primary structural component that determined what free fall looks like and how it was to be accomplished.

Most Importantly

A mineral based, concrete structure can fracture and fall instantly enabling free fall, a steel structure cannot. Also, concrete does not melt and bend, steel does, making the official explanation more credible.

Altogether meaning that what we saw on 9-11 is impossible with a steel core. So, ............. for those trying to support the deception, the impossible must be supported at all costs because it causes confusion. The other side of the same effort of this is to denounce the possible Hence the unreasonable opposition against the concrete core despite the utter lack of credible evidence of any kind for a steel core; as if it could be, “if it wasn’t steel, there was no core at all”, an argument indirectly being made because no evidence for the steel is seen.

There are misinterpretations of other steel elements as core columns, but logic shows they are not core columns.

So, when you see arguments against the concrete core that employ no raw evidence showing the core the poster believes existed, wonder. When you see posters who will only utilize or demand certain evidence and will not reasonably discuss available evidence, wonder.

[gbwarming]

1. I sure would like to see that 1990 video.

Maybe you could check your public library for archived local newspapers with the TV guide to find us the title, date and channel on which it was shown. Or tell us where you lived at the time so we could look.

[Christophera]

18. It Was AIred On PBS Nationally-Somebody Taped It-We Need To Ask

everyone. The 9-11 Truth movement needs to be aware of this issue so that people think about those old VHS tapes they recorded years ago.

There has been a systematic removal of information from public sources on 9-11, and other subjects related to the secrecy that enabled it.

[satya]

44. I don't know if this was made in 1990, but here's link to a PBS video:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=69600&mesg_id=69600

[Christophera]

55. I Just Noticed Your Post. There's So Much Baseless Denial Trash On This T

hread I didn't see it.

I've watched it and it is a different video from the PBS special on the construction that I saw in 1990.


In the 2nd part there is a shot of the floor beams that eager of MIT convienently left out of his pancake theory. Oops!

[LARED]

2. I wonder how

so much convoluted logic can be stuffed into so small a thread.

All you have a one image that you (and seemingly only you) believes show a concrete core, and a video that you and only you seems to have seen. On the other hand there are literally hundreds of images showing the twin towers under construction and none show anything even remotely different from a steel core.

So perhaps a better question is why is having a concrete core so important to you. Outside of your new irrational argument that a concrete core supports the official story better than a steel core, why spend so much time and effort promoting the obvious falseness of a concrete core except to create confusion.

I wonder why you do this.

[jeannicot]

3. Oh my god, you are being rational

and demanding the right burden of proof question. What are you, sane?

[LARED]

4. Sorry, I'll stop immediately (n/t)

[seatnineb]

8. Tell that to CNN who on 9/12/01 said WTC had a concrete core.

Shortly before 10:00 Eastern Time, the first of the
towers collapsed. It created a fog of dust and smoke
and showering lowering Manhattan with glass and other
debris. Half an hour later, the second tower then gave
way. Its steel and concrete core melted by tons upon
tons of burning aviation fuel. A tornado of dust and
debris sent people literally running for their lives.
The buildings that had so much defined the New York
skyline for a generation and taken six years to build
were gone in less than two hours.


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/12/se.03.ht...

[LARED]

9. Yes, it is a dilemma. CNN is always 100% correct

all the time. :sarcasm:

I'm sure as well the CNN checked this little snippet with the Towers builder or Architect prior to putting it on the air.

Sorry I'll trust my eyes looking at photographs taken during construction.

[seatnineb]

10. This journalist interviewed WTC master Leslie Robertson himself.....

....and came away believing that the WTC had a re-inforced concrete core....

Still, Robertson, whose firm is responsible for three of the six
tallest buildings in the world, feels a sense of pride that the
massive towers, supported by a steel-tube exoskeleton and a reinforced concrete core, held up as well as they did—managing to stand for over an hour despite direct hits from two massive commercial jetliners.

http://groups.google.com.au/group/talk.politics.misc/br...

I wonder why!

[LARED]

11. A few comments

I find it less than compelling that the journalist believed there was a concrete core. My skeptical mind says so what? Journalist get or relay information wrong all the time.

Also I believe it is quite possible the lower section of the tower had some concrete reinforced columns. It would makes no sense to have a concrete core in the upper structure.

[seatnineb]

13. I could apply that theory to those who believe in a "steel core".

In the words of LARED
Sat Feb-04-06 03:31 PM

Journalist get or relay information wrong all the time

[LARED]

19. You might have a point except

for the hundreds of eyewitnesses to construction and photographs showing the construction of the towers. None of which show a concrete core.

[seatnineb]

31. New WTC7 has a concrete core but you would not know it from the outside

You find me one direct statement from WTC masters ,Yamasaki and Robertson,or the myriad of construction workers who were involved in the project that say the WTC had a "steel only core"

Good luck!

[LARED]

32. WTC 7 has a concrete core?

Do you have information on it? Are you talking about concrete panels or reinforced concrete columns? Or something else?

[seatnineb]

33. The new WTC7 has a re-inforced concrete core.

The green method of construction is, according to Silverstein, "something we all should be very proud of." He also pointed out that 7 WTC will be "the safest high-rise office building in America," with a reinforced concrete core rising through its center that is expected to influence future high-rise building codes.
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/news/_topping_out__22590.asp

[LARED]

34. You mean this

Some of these enhancements will include reinforced concrete walls protecting the building's core, fireproofing material twice as durable as currently required, and wider stairs for quicker evacuation.

http://www.lowermanhattan.info/news/plans_unveiled_for_new_73580.asp

Sounds like they are referring to walls protecting the core from fire. Assuming this is true, It a very different than what you propose was the construction of the WTC1&2.

[seatnineb]

35. Silverstein :" the building will have a concrete core rather than a ..."

In the words of Larry Silverstein(with regards to the new WTC 7):
"Most fundamentally, the building will have a concrete core rather than a steel-frame core with drywall partitions.”
http://concreteproducts.com/mag/concrete_safety_integrity_key/index.html

No different to sources that pre-date 9/11 that say that the original WTC had a concrete core.

[LARED]

36. Yes, it does appear that the new WTC 7 has a concrete core

http://concreteproducts.com/mag/concrete_safety_integrity_key/index.html


From the foundation through the first 80 ft., the structure is 100 percent cast-in-place reinforced concrete. Above, the structure consists of a cast-in-place concrete core and steel framing around the perimeter.

That seems pretty clear to me.

Now the part that I find interesting is this;

Built atop an existing Con Edison electrical substation that supplied power to lower Manhattan, the original WTC 7, completed in 1985, stood just over 620 ft. tall and featured a core made up of multiple layers of gypsum wallboard. That design detail was borrowed from the Twin Towers (WTC 1 and 2), whose construction 15 years prior marked the debut of such “cavity shaft wall”-type systems. WTC 7's two main exit stairways discharged to the exterior at ground level; were approximately 4 ft. 10 in. wide; and, like the core, built of fire-rated gypsum wallboard.

So for some reason you skip over the part you didn't like. Interesting, very interesting

[seatnineb]

38. And that "Source" was written after 9/11!

Unlike the sources that predate 9/11 which tell a different story!



Oxford Encyclopedia Of Innovation And Technology
Page 322.
1992


Find me a source that pre-dates 9/11 that says that the WTC does not have a re-inforced concrete core.

As I said...good luck!

[Christophera]

40. Excellent Point: Post 9-11 Structural Statement Must Qualify

Many authorities jumped on the strange bandwagon of deception.

[Christophera]

50. There Is That Ugly Selectivity Again - Demo Only Pic's That Show Core

And of course that is not good enough for you. You have to have a picture that is not available, then rely on those sifted of all the core photos.

This is plenty clear and nicely silhouetted so it can be unequivocally stated, "there is no structural steel in the core", if there was steel, particuarly some of the supposed, huge, 47 1300 foot columns, it would be showing.

[Christophera]

65. WONDER? Denial Continues after L. Robertson "a reinforced concrete core"

It is amazing how the denial is tolerated after such statements are presented. We should wonder why, WHY is such nonsense as we see; regarding the concrete core, when the WTC architect himself say this, more than once actually, and demolition photos support it; tolerated????

Why?

[Make7]

68. RE: Leslie Robertson

 

"Another structural innovation was the outrigger space frame, which structurally linked the outside wall to the services core. This system performed several functions. First, gravity-induced vertical deformations between the columns of the services core and the columns of the outside wall were made equal at the top of the building; at other levels, the differential deformations were ameliorated. Second, wind-induced overturning moments were resisted in part by the columns of the services core, thus providing additional lateral stiffness. Finally, the weight of, and the wind-induced overturning moment from the rooftop antenna (440 feet tall) was distributed to all columns in the building . . . adding additional redundancy and toughness to the design."

Leslie E. Robertson. "Reflections on the World Trade Center". The Bridge Volume 32, Number 1

http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB

Were there concrete columns in the core?

- Make7

[Christophera]

69. Robertson Talks About The Interior Box Columns 30 Years After

He does not say there were steel columns in the core, he says "columns of the services core". Box columns were steel on ringed the service core. Another way to term the structural core.

I'll add to his statement to show how the correct term works.

First, gravity-induced vertical deformations between the interior box columns of the services core and the columns of the outside wall were made equal at the top of the building; at other levels, the differential deformations were ameliorated. Second, wind-induced overturning moments were resisted in part by the interior box columns of the services core, thus providing additional lateral stiffness.

[Make7]

71. He said nothing about your "interior box columns".

Mr. Robertson quite clearly said "columns of the services core". So if he is talking about columns that were in the core, what are the columns to which he is referring?

Posted by Christophera:

There Were No Steel Columns In The Core. "Tube In Tube"

The configuration of the towers was "tube in a tube" construction.

The interior box columns were not a part of the inner tube, the core. They were a part of the outer tube which was a heavy steel framework having the floors.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=53560&mesg_id=53649

If the "interior box columns" were not part of the core, what columns could Leslie Robertson possibly be talking about? Were there concrete columns in the core?

Or should we now believe that the phrase "the interior box columns of the services core" from your last post is correct?

Were the "interior box columns" part of the core or were they not part of the core?

- Make7

[Christophera]

72. Interior Box Columns Ring Core Area. ASSOC. W/Service core

If an error in evaluation might be made, it could reasonably be avoided by using corroborating evidence to establish if the "columns of the service core" were inside or outside. If they were inside they will be seen occupying the core area. If they were outside they will be seen outside the core.

Here is a photo where columns inside the core would show.



Here is a column, but it can bee seen that it has floor beams and the stubs of beams on it making it apart of the outside tube of the "tube in a tube construction".



For example: "the studs" of the house are outside the inner house space.

The 2 images corroborate the notion that Robertson referred to the interior box column with his term.

[Make7]

73. If an error in evaluation has be made, I believe it has been made by you.

 

Posted by Christophera:

If an error in evaluation might be made, it could reasonably be avoided by using corroborating evidence to establish if the "columns of the service core" were inside or outside. If they were inside they will be seen occupying the core area. If they were outside they will be seen outside the core.

Are you saying that when Leslie Robertson wrote the phrase "columns of the services core", he might have been referring to columns outside the core? That seems highly unlikely.

My point has nothing to do with pictures. (Besides, I have already disagreed with your "interior box columns" interpretation of those two pictures on numerous occasions.) You have repeatedly stated that there are no columns in the core, yet Leslie Robertson wrote about "columns of the services core". Either there are columns in the core, or there are not.

Why would one of the main engineers involved with the design of the WTC refer to columns in the core if they did not exist?

- Make7

[Christophera]

74. Robertson Identifies The Concrete Core Here. You've Seen This Before

meaning we should wonder at why you are pretending to be seeking the truth here.

Still, Robertson, whose firm is responsible for three of the six tallest buildings in the world, feels a sense of pride that the massive towers, supported by a steel-tube exoskeleton and a reinforced concrete core, held up as well as they did—managing to stand for over an hour despite direct hits from two massive commercial jetliners.

“If they had fallen down immediately, the death counts would have been unimaginable,” he says. “The World Trade Center has performed admirably, and everyone involved in the project should be proud.”

Says engineer Robertson, 'If they had fallen down immediately, the death counts would have been unimaginable. The buildings were designed specifically to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, the largest plane flying in 1966, the year they broke ground on the project.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3069641/

[Make7]

75. My objection to your interpretation of that article is still the same.

The part of the article that mentions the "reinforced concrete core" is not directly attributed to Leslie Robertson. There is no way of knowing, from what was written in the article, what the source was for that information.

However, if you are correct in your interpretation that this article does show that he believes the cores were concrete, then why would he write about columns of the core in his article that I quoted from in my previous post? What columns of the core is he referring to?

I am trying to see if you can resolve this contradiction between what has been written by one of the lead engineers involved with the design and construction of the buildings under discussion, and what you have written.

I am inclined to believe that Leslie Robertson's statements are correct in this instance - there were columns in the core.

- Make7

[Christophera]

78. Context Of Article: Concrete Core INFO Came From Leslie Robertson

It is a breach of journalistic ethics to attribute a fact generic to the material of an article and purpose of an interview that is NOT from the source.

Leslie Robertson did not believe there was a concrete core, he knew. Like I do.

[Make7]

79. Your argument is based on adherence to journalistic ethics?

Well, at least that's something I haven't seen before. Perhaps you could find some reference to corroborate your claim that it would constitute a breach of ethics to use background information from a source other than the person being interviewed.

Posted by Christophera:

Leslie Robertson did not believe there was a concrete core, he knew. Like I do.

Then why did he write about columns being in the core? Were they concrete columns?

So - he knew there was a concrete core. Really? Here is an excerpt of an interview where he is talking about the WTC (emphasis added):

The issues of wind loading were enormous because, it being an entirely new kind of building with just a structure and not all that masonry, we had to rethink the entire process. How much can a building move in the wind? Well, when it moves downwind (leans with the wind, if you will), the way older buildings did (and still do), not so important. I mean, you have to design for that motion, but that's just something to do. But how much would they oscillate? No one had ever found out. No one had ever tried to find out, even, or even thought there was an issue to find out about. Not only how much does it move; how much can it move?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/sf_int_pop_05_05_tr_qry.html

- Make7

[Christophera]

80. At Least My Argument Has A Basis With Evidence Corroborating It.

Robertson never used the word "in" he used the word "of".

Here is the column,



of the core.



and the core cannot be anything but concrete with that appearance.

[Make7]

82. You are correct when you say that Robertson used the word "of".

Let's look at what he said one more time:

"Another structural innovation was the outrigger space frame, which structurally linked the outside wall to the services core. This system performed several functions. First, gravity-induced vertical deformations between the columns of the services core and the columns of the outside wall were made equal at the top of the building; at other levels, the differential deformations were ameliorated. Second, wind-induced overturning moments were resisted in part by the columns of the services core, thus providing additional lateral stiffness. Finally, the weight of, and the wind-induced overturning moment from the rooftop antenna (440 feet tall) was distributed to all columns in the building . . . adding additional redundancy and toughness to the design."

Leslie E. Robertson. "Reflections on the World Trade Center". The Bridge Volume 32, Number 1

http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB

So you are correct in that he did say "columns of the services core" - which you believe are columns that are not actually located in the core. (If I am understanding you correctly.) So when he writes about the "columns of the outside wall", I can't help but wonder where they are located. If your interpretation is correct, perhaps they are not in the wall, but located outside the building somewhere.

Allow me to return to something you had posted earlier in this discussion:

Christophera wrote:

For example: "the studs" of the house are outside the inner house space.

But they are still within the space that would be defined as the house. Just as the "columns of the services core" would be within the space that the core occupies.

It depends on what the meaning of the word 'of' is.

Christophera wrote:

Here is the column,



of the core.

Christophera previously wrote:

That standing column in the above photo is not a core column.

It's not a core column - it's a column of the core. (That's a bit of a stretch, even for you.)

:popcorn: Make7

[Christophera]

86. How Can Columns Inside The Core Be Linked To Outside Walls?

Posted by Make7
Let's look at what he said one more time:

"Another structural innovation was the outrigger space frame, which structurally linked the outside wall to the services core. This system performed several functions. First, gravity-induced vertical deformations between the columns of the services core and the columns of the outside wall were made equal at the top of the building; at other levels, the differential deformations were ameliorated. Second, wind-induced overturning moments were resisted in part by the columns of the services core, thus providing additional lateral stiffness. Finally, the weight of, and the wind-induced overturning moment from the rooftop antenna (440 feet tall) was distributed to all columns in the building . . . adding additional redundancy and toughness to the design."

Leslie E. Robertson. "Reflections on the World Trade Center". The Bridge Volume 32, Number 1

http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB

This sentence.

"Another structural innovation was the outrigger space frame, which structurally linked the outside wall to the services core. This system performed several functions. First, gravity-induced vertical deformations between the columns of the services core and the columns of the outside wall were made equal at the top of the building;"

How can columns inside the core be used to link to the outside wall? The supposed steel core columns were inside the core. How can they be connected to the outrigger space frame which was the boxed out trussed floors and floor "I" beams?

[Make7]

91. The Outrigger Space Frame

 

Posted by Christophera:

How can columns inside the core be used to link to the outside wall? The supposed steel core columns were inside the core. How can they be connected to the outrigger space frame which was the boxed out trussed floors and floor "I" beams?

Perhaps a picture will help you to better visualize what the outrigger space frame was, and also help you to understand some of the connections between it and the rest of the building structure.

The fourth major structural subsystem was located from the 107th floor to the roof of each tower. It was a set of steel braces, collectively referred to as the "hat truss" (Figure 1–7). Its primary purpose had been to support a tall antenna atop each tower, although only WTC 1 had one installed. The hat truss provided additional connections among the core columns and between the core and perimeter columns, providing additional means for load redistribution.




Source: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1Draft.pdf (15.8 megabytes)

A brief introduction to this subject can be found at: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/hattruss.html

- Make7

[Christophera]

100. Hat Truss Could Have Existed, But Does Not Prove Steel Core Columns

And I can recall some of the documentary perhaps mentioning the truss work at the top. Fastening it to the top of the interior box columns (outside the core) would accomplish the purpose of the trusses in exactly the same fashion.

[Make7]

101. I was simply answering your question.

You asked about the connections regarding the outrigger space frame, so I posted some information showing how the hat truss linked the perimeter columns and the columns of the core.

This particular discussion concerns your insistence that "Leslie Robertson did not believe there was a concrete core, he knew."

Here he is again commenting on the World Trade Center (emphasis added):

Driven by the wind, a tall building drifts more-or-less downwind, oscillating about its principal axes. At and prior to the time of The World Trade Center, architects and engineers were not concerned with the level of oscillation of their buildings; this follows because the block or the brick walls and partitions of that time added significantly to both the lateral stiffness and to the structural damping. This trace (Fig 5), taken from the Empire State Building, depicts a highly-damped structural system oscillating in the wind. Calculations, compared to field measurements, show that one part of the stiffness of the Empire State Building comes from the steel frame and about four parts from the effects of the in-filled masonry. Engineers did not have the tools for determining the effects of that masonry; instead, they had learned from experience that the system performed well. With the introduction of Shaftwall, the structural systems of the past were no longer acceptable. Compare the trace taken from the Empire State Building, Fig 5, with the trace taken from the World Trade Center, Fig 6.

How to deal with all of the absence of the masonry? We knew that our building would oscillate in the wind – but we had no idea of the magnitude of that oscillation.

   <snip>

While these various studies provided us with essential information, the need to limit oscillation to acceptable levels now fell squarely into the field of structural engineering. We then developed a viscoelastic damping system which successfully limited structural oscillation to acceptable values; we were fortunate in convincing 3M Company to fabricate the dampers. The damping units, forming a structural system perpendicular to the primary system, consumed a portion of the wind-induced energy of oscillation of the towers.

http://www.lera.com/files/Gold Medal 05 Brochure LER.pdf

I thought one of your arguments for the use of a concrete core was that it was necessary to provide adequate resistance to the wind loads. But, as quoted above, Leslie Robertson is saying that they came up with the solution of using viscoelastic dampeners to overcome the "absence of the masonry".

It doesn't sound to me like "he knew" that the WTC had reinforced concrete cores at all. Overall his statements seem very odd if the buildings had actually been built with concrete cores.

- Make7

[Christophera]

102. Trust Statements Early Over Late In The Deception Parade-

It is fairly easy to see, he sold out. Most have. The core was an anti torsion element of the structure. The original fact in the debate remains. The many steel core columns, if they existed, would show in this image of THE core.



His statement will seem odd if he is obtusely trying to support the official structure.

[LARED]

104. He sold out?

"It is fairly easy to see." Huh???????

Care to explain how you know this if it's so easy to see? Somehow I missed that part.

[Christophera]

106. Paid Off With Award. No Mention Of Core, Critical Structural Element

To discuss the towers demise without mentioning the core is not competent, He is very competent but very afraid and would rather get an award than make any sacrifices for his country that would foul his image.

[LARED]

107. You may chose to believe that, but it is hardly

easy to see or obvious.

[Christophera]

114. You Must Not Be Looking-Early Statements Okay, Late No, Not W/Robertson

Yes, it's pretty obvious.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=69224&mesg_id=70567

[Make7]

110. How about some sources from the '60's and '70's?

Leslie Robertson is co-holder of U.S. Patent #3,605,953 for the viscoelastic damper that was used in the World Trade Center towers. Information about it can be found here:

http://64.132.7.41/pcgi-bin/patents/us/pdfcache/3605953.pdf

VARIETY OF STEELS-Another very interesting design feature in this structure is the employment of various grades of steel. All steel used in the core columns will be ASTM Designation A36. However, the steel plate to be used in the columns of the Vierendeel truss walls will include 12 different grades having yield points between 42,00 psi and 100,000 psi, with allowable working stresses as high as 45,000 psi.

the world trade center, Robert E. Rapp, P.E., contemporary steel design, VOL. 1,NO. 4

http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/AISI/wtcaisi5.pdf

All the core columns will be made of A36 steel (36,000-psi yield point). As a result, corner columns at the base of the core may be solid steel as large as 2 x 8 ft in section.

HOW COLUMNS WILL BE DESIGNED FOR 110-STORY BUILDINGS, Engineering News Record April 2, 1964

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/eng-news-record.htm

6.3.2 Box Core Columns and Built-up Beams

The contract between the Stanray Pacific Corporation and the Port Authority (PONYA 1967b) contains the specifications for the box core columns and built-up beams from the 9th story to the penthouse roof. Requirements for fabrication and welding of structural steel are in Chapters 3 and 4 of the specifications, respectively, and inspection and quality control requirements are in Sec. 105 of the contract. These requirements can be found in Appendix E of this report, starting on page 276.

PONYA (Port of New York Authority). 1967b. Fabricated Steel Box Core Columns and Built-Up Beams From the 9th Story Splice to the Penthouse Roof for North and South Towers. World Trade Center Contract WTC-217.00. (WTCI-244-L).

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-1A.pdf   (8.5 Megabytes)

How early must I go to avoid the "Deception Parade"?

- Make7

[Christophera]

113. Old CONST. Photos Can Be Used To Make A Fake Look More Real, Not Related

The image on one site.



and the text, really has no relation to the core. Of course all of it cannot be utilized for the purposes you propose be cause IT is the information in question. You cannot use it to confirm it. In the image above, only the interior box columns are seen, they ring the core. No others are seen in the inside. That trussed structure is the crane platform.

The pages did not detail the core well enough and text can be really easily altered where as the evidence seatnineb found



can be seen as near to genuine as the photos of the links you post.

[Make7]

118. I don't recall even posting photos in my last reply.

What does the picture that you posted have to do with what I had written?

The point to my post was that there are early sources that say the WTC had steel core columns - which is contrary to your position on what design was used for the cores. Frankly, I find it much easier to believe the Engineering News Record articles and the American Iron and Steel Institute document than your "reinforced concrete core" hypothesis.

Posted by Christophera:

Of course all of it cannot be utilized for the purposes you propose be cause IT is the information in question. You cannot use it to confirm it.

The debate is whether the cores of the WTC towers were steel columns or reinforced concrete. Please explain why posting sources saying that the cores were concrete is a valid form of confirmation, yet a source that claims the cores were steel columns cannot be used for confirmation.

Posted by Christophera:

The pages did not detail the core well enough and text can be really easily altered where as the evidence seatnineb found



can be seen as near to genuine as the photos of the links you post.

For you to dismiss a source because the cores were not detailed well enough is rather ironic considering the lack of verifiable details in your own core description.

I did not realize that if I had posted a picture of text, it would be considered genuine. I would like to post the following for your consideration:



So I guess there were steel core columns after all.

Regarding the other issue raised previously in this discussion: I'd really like to know what purpose was served by the viscoelastic dampers in the WTC if a "concrete core" was used to solve the problem of flex inherent in a steel core design.

- Make7

[Christophera]

120. Picture Did Not Show Steel Core Columns. We Cannot Confirm Text As Early

We have no way to confirm that the text of the page this image is from is early. Personally, I know it is not. It is deception, subterfuge, false. The image ONLY shows interior box columns that ringed the concrete core.



Here is scanned text. I accept the scanned text you have posted as genuine, however it does not confirm there were steel core columns.

This scanned text confirms there was a steel reinforced concrete core.

[Make7]

127. Confirming Information

Posted by Christophera:

We have no way to confirm that the text of the page this image is from is early. Personally, I know it is not. It is deception, subterfuge, false. The image ONLY shows interior box columns that ringed the concrete core.

There is no way to confirm that the text is actually from the articles cited in Engineering News Record? Physical copies of the issues that those articles are from could be compared to the text reproduced on that webpage. Is that not a way to confirm the information? Sounds a little crazy, but it just might work.
       -
How do you know that the text on that webpage is not from the dates referenced?
       -
And once again, you are the one claiming that those are "interior box columns" - everyone that believes the core was comprised of steel columns would call them "core columns".

Posted by Christophera:

Here is scanned text. I accept the scanned text you have posted as genuine, however it does not confirm there were steel core columns.

This scanned text confirms there was a steel reinforced concrete core.

scanned text

How does that scanned text referring to a concrete core confirm anything? There is no reference as to what the source was of the information in question. Do you believe it is correct simply because it fits in with your hypothesis?

I am still wondering why they used thousands and thousands of viscoelastic dampers in a building with a concrete core. Are there any other known examples of a similar thing being done?

- Make7

[Christophera]

131. "viscoelastic dampers" Perhaps Not In Use In The Late 1970's

I had not heard of them until later than that and they were considered new. The plastics weren't really developed that worked well.

I belive the scan to be from the Oxford dictionary.

[Make7]

136. Did you mean the late 1960's?

Because it looks like Patent #3,605,953 for the viscoelastic damper used in the WTC was applied for in 1969 and granted in 1971. It was also a continuation-in-part of an application filed in 1968 according to the documents.

Be that as it may, you have not really addressed the question. What would be the purpose of using viscoelastic dampers if there was a concrete core? My understanding is that the dampers helped reduce the amount of flex of the steel core in the wind to acceptable levels. This would not appear to have been necessary if a concrete core was used specifically because a steel core design would have flexed too much.

Posted by Christophera:

I belive the scan to be from the Oxford dictionary.

My question was really more concerning what the original source was that they used for the information contained in that entry. Without knowing where the information came from, and whether the source was in a position to actually have specific knowledge regarding the issue in question, I don't really think it can be considered confirmation of a concrete core.

It is just one more quote to counter balance the quotes referring to a steel core.

- Make7

[Christophera]

138. Viscoelastics Probably Not In Towers. Oxford Dictionary Sources

I heard of viscoelastics being installed in the early 1980's and remember that some installations were done before that but they were smaller buildings. The successes of those lead to to the installations in larger structures.


Oxford dictionary basically had a common knowledge situation to work out of when the dictionary was published.

[Make7]

149. Unidentified Flying Sources

Posted by Christophera:

Viscoelastics Probably Not In Towers.

I heard of viscoelastics being installed in the early 1980's and remember that some installations were done before that but they were smaller buildings. The successes of those lead to to the installations in larger structures.

The fact that Leslie Robertson is the co-holder of a Patent for a viscoelastic damper applied for and granted at the time the WTC was being designed and built coupled with the fact that he has said and written numerous times that they used the damper in the WTC leads me to believe that they were used in the WTC. Other sources also contain information regarding their use in the towers. (e.g. Multi-Storey Buildings in Steel, Godfrey, GB, 1985 - page 163)

Posted by Christophera:

Oxford Dictionary Sources

Oxford dictionary basically had a common knowledge situation to work out of when the dictionary was published.

Common knowledge is not a source. Most people were not involved with the design and construction of the Towers, so where did this "common knowledge" originate? How did people in Oxford, England come to possess "common knowledge" about buildings in New York, NY, USA?

- Make7

[Christophera]

161. Since Dumbing Down, Respect For Common Knowledge Getting Scarce

Are you trying tell me that 70 feet down, the loads of the 1300 foot tower were resting on viscoelastics that had not yet been tested, tried and true?

The British are very interested in architecture and would have common knowledege at Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation, published in 1992, to use for reference to competently document the towers.

[Make7]

169. What the hell are you even talking about?

Posted by Christophera:

Are you trying tell me that 70 feet down, the loads of the 1300 foot tower were resting on viscoelastics that had not yet been tested, tried and true?

No, that is not what I am saying at all. The viscoelastic dampers were installed between the lower chord of the floor trusses and the perimeter columns to help reduce the horizontal oscillations of the building due to winds. They had nothing to do with the foundation of the building.

Posted by Christophera:

Since Dumbing Down, Respect For Common Knowledge Getting Scarce

The British are very interested in architecture and would have common knowledege at Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation, published in 1992, to use for reference to competently document the towers.

Technical information, like the design of the WTC towers, does not just appear out of a void. Either the reference for that encyclopedia entry can be documented or it can't. If the source of that information cannot be verified, it can hardly be considered evidence of anything.

I do find it surprising that this information, which you claim is based on common knowledge, is believed to be incorrect by so many people.

- Make7

[sabbat hunter]

111. ah once again

that mysterious documentary that you cannot produce.

[Christophera]

117. No Need For DOC. Demo Photos Have Proof, Learn To Use AVAIL. Evidence

A photo of the concrete core that was never available during construction.



And of course concrete must have rebar and the fine elements standing here can be nothing else.



Just so there's no confusion as to scale. The interior box columns (not inside the core) are 14 inches thick. Photo from same distance.



And then there is the thick base of the tower core.

[sabbat hunter]

151. no photos during construction

there are no photos of a concrete core during construction because there WASNT ONE!

[Christophera]

155. So Wrong! There Were Photos But The Core Was Inside Of The Steel Framework

and so was very hard to see.

Here is a better photo than was ever possible during construction.

[sabbat hunter]

156. thats what you think

since you cannot produce your mythical video nor any construction photos showing concrete they are just that a myth

all of the photos you do show are fuzzy, many of which actually show STEEL, which you claim the concrete has peeled away from. yet at the same time you show the above photo and say the concrete is still attached to the core. which is it?

[Christophera]

134. Repetitive Errors: I Post Proof Of The Concrete Core, Corroborated Dynamic

ally.

Here is a sectional photo of an interior box column adjacent to the shear wall forming the spire.



The rebar of the concrete core shear wall.



The scale of the above photo is established by the below taken just a second or so before the above. The spire is formde by an interior box column having a 14 inch thickness.



Here we have the core itself





We don't need no stinking video.

[Christophera]

139. WONDER, WONDER How Sabbat Can Pretend He Seeks Truth-EVID. & Concrete

The truth is supposed to be important but sabbat only cares about a video long covered up.

There is absolutely NO material evidence for the steel core columns. Photos of constrcution steel DO NOT show core columns. They show interior box columns which were adjacent to the core. Here is one forming the spire.



Interior box columns were 14 inches thick. Immediately after that photo was taken, the below photo was taken, from the same camera, after the structural steel had fallen away. That is rebar free standing, 3 inch diameter high tensile steel. OBSERVE the slight bend. No heavy steel will do that and we already know what size that is.



Here is the spire from another angle where the concrete shear wall can be seen left of the steel interior box column.



Here is a zoom of it with notation showing the section of the wall.



Here is a scan of the Oxford dictionarys listing for skyscraper.



Here is a statement from a structural engineer.

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

Dr. Domel received a Ph.D. from the University of Illinois at Chicago in 1988 and a Law Degree from Loyola University in 1992. He is a licensed Structural Engineer and Attorney at Law in the .State of Illinois and a Professional Engineer in twelve states, including the State of New York.Dr. Domel is authorized by the Department of Labor (OSHA) as a 10 and 30 hour construction safety trainer

[sabbat hunter]

154. again with the

again you post the same tired photos which prove nothing.

if anything many of them show a STEEL core not a concrete one

find the Video you saw.

although i think it is more a product of your mind than anything else

but IF it ever existed then it still is out there somewhere.

[Christophera]

49. Selective Acceptance Of Evidence-Trust Construction Photos, Not Demo Pic's

You know what that kind of selectivity means, don't you?


You seek a specific outcome, not the truth. It's almost like you know that the construction photos have been sifted to remove any sign of the core so they are safe to use in focusing on the specific outcome.

[LARED]

51. The irony of you asking if I know what selectivity means

is just too much. Thanks for the laugh.

[Christophera]

54. Why, You Never Produce Real Evidence For Me To Select From.

A questionable construction drawing with no date, or a fake analysis that ignores major facts like free fall.


You have no evidence and you will use no evidence. You work to dismiss evidence.

[LARED]

57. Again with the free fall nonsense

I have posted many images in the past of the WTC under constrution. None indicated there is a reinforced concrete core. I am not inclinded to continue posting the same images over, and over, and over. I know it works for you, but it's not going to happen by me.

[Christophera]

63. The Major Event Becomes "Nonsense"-Your Images Have No Corroboration

that bears scrutiny.

Free fall, the major event, was actually exceeded because so much material was thrown upward. That up ward motion has to be added to the tower height. So what you are suggesting IS nonsense.



You don't use evidence, so ............ you'll need some help to understand what "corroborating evidence" is.

First, the definition.

cor·rob·o·rate

To strengthen or support with other evidence; make more certain.


I assert that this is the concrete core of WTC 2



Then I post this image showing what can only be rebar.



In order to give scale to the fine vertical elements in the above photo, to show their small dimension and qualify that it is rebar, I post another image taken from the same location and give a dimension for at least part of the interior box column, not inside the core, of 14 inches wide.

[dchill]

121. OK then, how 'bout FOX News?

" The 425,000 cubic yards of concrete used in building the World Trade Center is enough to build a five-foot wide sidewalk from New York City to Washington, D.C. "

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34255,00.html

I'm kinda new at this. Is this "research?" ;)

[sabbat hunter]

152. concrete in WTC

all of the floors were concrete, as was the "bathtub" and the footing.

[Make7]

158. Umm...kinda.

Looking up information is research, but for the information to be useful in this case, there are further steps that need to be taken.

Reasonable estimates for the amount of concrete needed to construct the WTC as outlined by the "official story" and the amount necessary for the "concrete core" scenario should be done. The actual amount of concrete used can then be compared to these theoretical values to hopefully suggest which one is more likely to be what was actually built.

Although, since the only difference between the two scenarios is essentially the concrete used for the cores themselves, it might be instructive to only calculate the amount needed for that to see if it is still within reason before attempting to do a very complicated estimate of what was used for the entire WTC site.

- Make7

[seatnineb]

7. Looks like those guys in Oxford saw the same 1990 video!

Oxford Illustrated Encyclopedia Of Technology And Innovation
Page 322.
Published in 1992

Christophera IS NOT ALONE.

[Jose Diablo]

15. LOL

:D

[Christophera]

20. ERRORS: Many Images Exist. Many Know Of Concrete Core-You Confusor

Below you state the opposite of my real position and argument. Intentionally trying to create confusion while supporting misinterpretation of images.

LARED wrote
Outside of your new irrational argument that a concrete core supports the official story better than a steel core, why spend so much time and effort promoting the obvious falseness of a concrete core except to create confusion.

[LARED]

22. Your words

A mineral based, concrete structure can fracture and fall instantly enabling free fall, a steel structure cannot. Also, concrete does not melt and bend, steel does, making the official explanation more credible.

Perhaps I am not understanding your statement correctly, but it sure seems you are saying having a concrete core better explains the official story.

[Christophera]

24. Feign Confusion Intentionally, Maybe Reader Will Be Confused

Pretty lame ploy. You must really think Americans are stupid or have contempt for them.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[Christophera]

28. Try Using Evidence And Logic Instead Of Deceptive Manipulation

EXAMPLE: (of evidence and logic so you cannot pretend you do not know what that is.)

Because there is no structural steel seen at the top of WTC 2 core, there was no structural steel in the core.

[LARED]

29. Many Images Exist???

Outside of the one image you relentlessly post are there any other images that SHOWS a concrete core.

Is there even one image where you can see anything that looks like it might be a concrete core?

Anything?

[Christophera]

37. Here Are 2 More-But You Don't Use Information, So You Won't See The Core

CORE CORNER

The thick concrete base is fully visible.




REINFORCED CONCRETE CORE

[LARED]

39. So you have no images showing a concrete core?

The information in those images is hardly convincing to anyone there is a concrete core.

[Christophera]

41. Like I Said. You Do Not Use Information That Helps Explain Free Fall-Photo

Here is the spire and a sectional photo of the concrete core wall.



With a zoomed area for those who can't see so well.

[LARED]

42. Stop trying to blame me for your inability to provide an image

of the WTC that shows a concrete core. The images you have shown are of such low quality them prove nothing.

[Christophera]

43. Here Is An Image That Can Only Be A Concrete Core-Oh, You Don't Use Eviden

ce.

If it is not concrete, why is there no structural steel protruding fro the top of it?

[LARED]

45. Good Lord, it's a simple request.

Either you have an reasonably clear image showing a concrete core or you don't.

At this point I can only surmise there is NO clear visual evidence for a concrete core.

[Christophera]

48. You Prove You Will Not Use Evidence By Not Accepting Good Evidence.

This photo is plenty clear, but you don't use evidence so you complain "it is not clear enough".



The above is actually far better visual evidence than ever existed at any time inthe towers existence. The core was VERY hard to photograph well with an intact structure. The above image catches a unique moment, the only one ever, when the core stood uncovered.

[LARED]

52. That does not qualify as evidence for a concrete core

And it clearly is not good evidence

[Christophera]

53. It Is The Core, And You Haven't Explained Why The Core Columns R Not Seen

And if you won't explain why, then you are not supporting what you assert stood by explaining its absence.



I've got a number of other photos showing the core area, nice clear sky with no core columns that need the same explanation.



Oh, ........................ I forgot, you don't use evidence, even to support what you assert..

[Christophera]

66. Clearly You Pretend To Be Interested In The Truth - Images Corroborated

The images I've posted are corroborating each other with the consistency of their application to identifying the concrete core.


Mabe you don't know what corroboration means. This was, and is for you.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=69224&mesg_id=69878

[Christophera]

67. EUREKA! The Most Convoluted Distortion Intended To Confuse. Check It Out

The bolded statement below is pure atifice and deception intended to create confusion. Concrete does not melt and bend like steel. Pure fraud. No wonder our efforts to use free speech to protect life are so pitifully dysfunctional here while this insincere manipulation is allowed.

Ive' corroborated my information.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=69224&mesg_id=69878

I wonder how
Posted by LARED

so much convoluted logic can be stuffed into so small a thread.

All you have a one image that you (and seemingly only you) believes show a concrete core, and a video that you and only you seems to have seen. On the other hand there are literally hundreds of images showing the twin towers under construction and none show anything even remotely different from a steel core.

So perhaps a better question is why is having a concrete core so important to you. Outside of your new irrational argument that a concrete core supports the official story better than a steel core, why spend so much time and effort promoting the obvious falseness of a concrete core except to create confusion.

I wonder why you do this.

[ryan_cats]

83. You've tried, others have tried and I've tried.

You've tried, others have tried and I've tried. You will never get them to even entertain the idea that there wasn't a steel core.

As for this mysterious video, who are we to demand that it be produced? Mr. C4 coated rebar during construction, continue to harp on this concrete core. I fail to see why there would be a concrete core in a 110 story steel building but hey, who am I?

I'm even willing to at least entertain the thought that there was a complete or partial concrete core but you will never get that kind of concession from the concrete core FUD'ers.

I'm really tempted to call Leslie Robertson's company and ask him but even if we get a signed affidavit from him, they'll say he's engaged in a cover up.

I too wonder why the continuous drum beat for a concrete core. Perhaps to push a ridiculous theory to discredit the whole 9/11 truth movement that is gaining momentum everyday?

[Christophera]

89. Proper Investigation Requires Structural Knowledge-Meaning You Sabotage

by talking about C4 here, but your post is appreciated because it helps explain why you are here. Remember, you never explained what you do for a living to substanciate that you do not come here to say "no concrete" for a living.

Sure, I know c4 was the source of the force that brought the towers down. I have a website about it.

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

But this thread is not about that. It is about the concrete core and the wonderment people must have at confronting the endless, unreasonable denial that it existed and is seen in photos.

Clearly, you wish to inflame opinion by bringing that information in and blind folks to the simple logic, which explains the images of the concrete core in its demise, by creating attitudes.

RE: your reference to L. Robertson

The authority has already spoken.

Leslie Robertson

Still, Robertson, whose firm is responsible for three of the six

[seatnineb]

99. Leslie Robertson thinks bombs in the WTC is a "crazy thought!"

Ryan_Cats..........you claim to be sceptical of the official story.......

In the words of Ryan_Cat
Thu Feb-02-06 08:28 PM

I agree, all three WTC buildings had to have explosives added, especially WTC #7. The security company and its ties to * are extremely suspicious.

Now let's see how sceptical you really are.

Take it away Leslie!

They(theWTC) got run into by an airplane, with the throttle down, laden with fuel,...they took an enormouse physical hit...and then following that a fire, both from...initially from the fuel...and then that fed everything that would burn that was inside the building...and that combination brought down the buildings...

There is no evidence that there was any bomb inside....IN MY VIEW....THAT IS A KIND OF CRAZY THOUGHT(that there could be bombs in the WTC)!

Leslie Robertson(WTC lead engineer)
9/11 Conspiracy Theories
T.V documentary
Channel 4
U.K
(9/9/2004)


So Ryan _Cats.....do you think Leslie Robertson is part of the cover up?

[HamdenRice]

5. Christophera can you answer this?

I have read this forum for a long time and tend to keep an open mind about all arguments and theories. But I think your posts get a hostile reaction here for two reasons.

First, for the life of me I have never understood the point of your concrete core theory. I have read and re-read your posts and I do not have the slightest clue about the bigger point you are trying to make. Really, as far as I can tell you have never once explained the significance of your theory or how it is connected to either the official or alternative theories of 9/11. Your writing style is incredibly indirect. Even the OP in this thread is all about why people argue so vehemently over the core theory; but you never come out and say why it is you think people argue vehemently over the core theory. Again, I have absolutely no idea what point you are trying to make either about the core theory or about the controversy over the core theory. Can't you just come out and directly say what you mean? I think a lot of people feel the same way. Because you post a vast amount of words, and yet few of us can decipher what you are talking about, you tend to generate a certain amount of frustration in your readers, which leads to hostility.

Could you explain in one sentence and no more than one sentence exactly what your thesis is?

Second, your evidence just doesn't seem to relate to your claim. Every New Yorker over a certain age remembers the towers being constructed and the image of vertical steel columns sticking out of the center of the tower. We've seen those images endlessly on television, on programs like Ken Burns documentary history of New York, which was broadcast before 9/11. Everyone knows that the core of the twin towers consists of a series of vertical steel columns. We don't need photo evidence; we've seen it ourselves. There are a lot of weird 9/11 theories that require us to believe that what we saw wasn't what happened -- like the "no planes hit the towers, they were holograms" theories. Well, sadly, your theory is in that category. It's hard for most of us to understand why you spend so much time basically trying to convince us of something as unbelievable as saying that the Empire State Building is actually on 110th Street, rather than 34th St. So again, that generates a certain amount of incredulity and derision.

Hope that helps.

[seatnineb]

6. This carpenter who worked in the WTC believed it had a concrete core.

Those were the high dollar floors, the executive floors, the choicest commercial office real estate in pre September 11th Manhattan. The top floors had an awesome view, that was truly breathtaking - I had a chance to experience it myself - I've worked installing furniture and office partitions(in the WTC) on some of those floors - for those of you who are never going to get the chance to see it - you missed an unbelivable panorama.<snip>

The old WTC was built out of structural steel.

But, it wasn't a regular steel building.

They used trusses rather than solid beams for the joists that support the floor. The floors were not supported by colums..instead, the trusses carried the weight to the steel exterior, and the reinforced concrete core. This allowed large open floors where you could cram in the maximum number of desks, without big colums getting in the way.

http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/gangbox/message/6 ...

By no means is Christophera the only one who believes that the WTC had re-inforced concrete cores.

[HamdenRice]

12. So what's the point? nt

[seatnineb]

14. Why is it that before and on 9/11 many believed WTC had concrete cores

09-11-2001, 08:18 PM
Cyberpunk
I've been doing some checking, the building had a central loadbearing steel and concrete core
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=20875&pa ...


ID# 18.2 (reply to #18.1) - 10 Mar 1998
1) Prefabricated steel elements erected with the help of over-structure cranes, at the same time casting the concrete core and slabs floor-by-floor.
http://www.greatgridlock.net/NYC/nythr-18.html


Oddly enough, many years ago i carried out a
structural analysis of the world trade centre <snip> the world trade centre, like most skyscrapers, was designed around a central concrete
core (which houses lifts, stairs, plumbing, heating,
ventilation and lighting services)
http://www.splfever.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=8654

[HamdenRice]

16. Can't you concrete core people answer a question with a declaration???????

Why are you answering a question with a question? My post at the top of this thread asked Christopera to state in one sentence what they theory is, and none of you core people can. WTF??? Is this just distracting disinformation?

Let me make it easy for you by starting the sentence I'm trying to get out of you:

The WTC had a concrete core AND THEREFORE ...

I've never heard that sentence completed except some really far out stuff about the concrete core being filled with explosive so the building could self destruct. Is that your point???????

[seatnineb]

30. You already know the fuckin' answer.

The WTC had a concrete core AND THEREFORE ...the official story is bullshit because:

The official story is that the WTC NEVER had a concrete core.

[HamdenRice]

56. The official story is bull because ...

the administration was involved in either allowing or facilitating 9/11. The concrete core issue is incredibly peripheral and obviously disprovable. And I don't need to use profanity to make my point.

[seatnineb]

58. There is more chance of there being a concrete core than Pakistan......

......having facilitated 9/11 with the aid of the U.S goverment.

[HamdenRice]

60. Now I know you are either ...

(1) a disinformation source, (2) deluded or (3) terribly, terribly misinformed.

Pakistan ISI's relationship to 9/11 is completely documented by both mainstream and alternative media. The concrete core story is documented only in a few feverish minds.

[seatnineb]

61. I am on your side.

I am in the interested in the Pakistani 9/11 mongering angle just like you.

Have you read :

Who Killed Daniel Pearl?
By Bernard-Henri Levi
Published By Duckworth.
(2004)



I think also of another story ,strange and unexplained story:a plane ticket for Pakistan Airlines flight PK757,London to Islamabad,file number EEEFQH was purchased in the name of Daniel Pearl on Febuary 8th, 8 days after his death,by someone who had to present his passport and a valid visa.
Page 233

Now there is something worth looking into!

[Christophera]

62. Unreasonable Denial Frustrating, Cussing Normal, Concrete Core Existed

and that is why NO structural steel is seen protruding from the top of WTC 2's core.



The fine vertical elements can only be rebar.



Below, a photo taken a second or so before from the same location as that above, provides scale for the above. The interior box column, outside the core near the corner is 14 inches thick.

[rman]

77. official story has it the towers had 110 floors - therefore...

?

[seatnineb]

88. ...the towers had 110 floors!

The official story also tells us that the WTC was built with a steel "only" core.

Only every source I have seen that pre-dates 9/11 says the exact opposite!........that it had a concrete core.

And that is a point of interest which deserves close attention.

[rman]

93. every pre 9-11 source i've seen says steel core

[seatnineb]

98. Do they explicitly say a steel "only " core....or do they just imply it?

There is not an internet source that you can show me that I have not already seen.

And NONE that pre-date 9/11 say that the towers explicitly had a steel "only" core.

And you know this.

[rman]

103. drywall etc

but the load bearing structure consists of steel. that's all i've ever heard until christophera showed up in this forum.

[seatnineb]

105. Carpenter who installed drywall in WTC says WTC had concrete core!

Those were the high dollar floors, the executive floors, the choicest commercial office real estate in pre September 11th Manhattan. The top floors had an awesome view, that was truly breathtaking - I had a chance to experience it myself - I've worked installing furniture and office partitions(in the WTC) on some of those floors - for those of you who are never going to get the chance to see it - you missed an unbelivable panorama.<snip>

The old WTC was built out of structural steel.

But, it wasn't a regular steel building.

They used trusses rather than solid beams for the joists that support the floor. The floors were not supported by colums..instead, the trusses carried the weight to the steel exterior, and the reinforced concrete core. This allowed large open floors where you could cram in the maximum number of desks, without big colums getting in the way.

http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/gangbox/message/6 ...

[rman]

108. Your source is a post on a forum?

Is that the best you've got?

Besides, what you quote is not on the page that you linked to.

[seatnineb]

109. His name is :Gregory A. Butler.........a local 608 carpenter.

Hardly an anonymouse source (like me or you) on a forum.

The web page has been cached here:

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:GKdXzHybzpkJ:finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/gangbox/message/6599+WTC+%22I%27ve+worked+installing+furniture+and+office+partitions%22&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=3

Got any construction worker who worked in/on the WTC who says that it did not have any masonary.

Did not think so.

[rman]

115. Every media report on the towers

since they were build talks of a steel core.

Are you saying a conspiracy to cover up its supposed concrete core started in 1966?

[seatnineb]

119. The only cover up is post - 9/11.

Every article or source that I have seen that pre-dates 9/11 either mentions a re-inforced concrete core or mentions that the towers had a core(without defining it's composition).

Take this 1964 article which focuses on the steel columns of the core and exterior wall.:

Assume that A36 steel is used for core columns and high-strength steel for wall columns and that these columns are not loaded until the entire structure is completed, a situation clearly not possible to achieve in practice. Assume further that each floor is constructed level. Then, after application of the load, at the top of the building the core columns will compress 8 inches and the wall columns 24 inches. Hence, the top floor will slope downward 16 inches.

But in practice, this extreme can't happen, because the loads go on the columns as the floors are completed. With each floor constructed level, there will be no differential shortening of columns and hence no floor slope at the top. The largest differential shortening will occur about 0.6 of the way up the building and be about 6 inches. Even this smaller floor slope, however, is objectionable.

To eliminate the undesirable floor warpage, WSHJ decided to design all the columns in each story for the same unit stress under gravity loads. The excess capacity of the exterior columns, then, can be used to resist moments and shears due to hurricane winds.


http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/eng-news-record.htm

Yes.....it proves that the core of the WTC had(or was going to have) steel columns in the core.

But it does not prove that the WTC had steel columns and ONLY steel columns in it's core.

[rman]

124. nor does it prove it had a concrete core

[seatnineb]

129. Sure......but something in that building had to support the dead load.....

.......in the center of the WTC.

Step forward the concrete core as defined by Architectural Record in their October 2001 issue.

[rman]

130. that's post 9-11

[seatnineb]

133. Except that Architectural Record's description of the shape of the core:

......matches the shape of the core as shown in the King Kong movie of 1976.
This is long before the office partitions were installed.
Jeff Bridges runs around the perimeter of the core area







Computer simulations shown post 9/11 by the media juggernaught on the hand have the shape of the core completely wrong:

[rman]

135. does the 1976 movie prove there's a concrete core?

[Christophera]

143. This Image Proves There Was A Concrete Core

Below IS the core of WTC 2 The simple realization that there is NO structural steel is proof of a tubular, steel reinforced concrete core. No other material could stand like that.

[seatnineb]

144. No the movie does not.......but this 1977 book effectively does!

The following was written in 1976 by the then Chief Fire Commissioner of New York, John T. O Hagan.
He was reponsible for looking into the cause and effects of the 1975 fire in the WTC.
He knew the WTC cores like the back of his hand.How?
Because he was inside them!







<SNIP>



High Rise/Fire And Safety
1977
By John T.O Hagan
Pages 23,24,25 and 28

[gbwarming]

145. One New York Plaza has a concrete core

I think he's describing that building, which was a later design than wtc 1&2. A little more context (ie more of page 23 and 28) might help.

What does the rest of the book focus on? I'm surprised he only spends 4 pages on two important fires.

[seatnineb]

146. O' Hagan refers to both the WTC and 1 New York Plaza.

As you can see he is refering to buildings which conform to the characteristics that he defined.

The WTC and 1 New York Plaza!



















High Rise/Fire And Safety.
By John T. O' Hagan.
1977.
Pages 23-28.

Also..........

I guess that 1 New York Plaza began construction at roughly the same time as the WTC.

1 New York Plaza:
125 Broad Street, Google Local Map
Architects: William Lescaze & Assocs. and Kahn & Jacobs
Floors: 50, height: 631 ft (192 m), erected: 1969
http://www.wirednewyork.com/1_ny_plaza.htm

[gbwarming]

147. "a hypothetical model that portrays their general characteristics"

Thanks for posting those pages seat9b. It appears that the description isn't specific to either WTC or One NY Plaza. I wonder if the actual core material matters much to firefighters as long as it isn't breached.

You may be right about the dates - WTC design goes back to 1964? and the project took a long time to finish but I don't know when the other was started.

[seatnineb]

150. WTC and 1 New York Plaza conformed to that "hypothetical" model!

Try again.

[Christophera]

168. O'Hagen Defined A General Structural Configuration W/Concrete Core

and he did it as a study or review of the structures related to fire.

A hypothetically accepted design configuration for modern skyscrapers as they existed W/superior structures.

[Christophera]

122. We Need To See Some Evidence-Talk Of Talk Might Have No Substance

I've only seen one media piece on the WTC pre 9-11. It spent about 80 minutes on mostly the concrete core. Because of it, I can explain these images which prove the concrete core.

I've had the below image for perhaps 2 years knowing I was looking at the thick base of the concrete core. Only in the last six months have I been able to pick out the features that show us what it is.



I wouls also note the top right corner of the concrete. It is worn in a rounded fashion as only concrete can be.

There is no doubt that is the core. No steel core columns are seen. No steel what so ever is seen. Only concrete can stand like that.

[rman]

125. how about you show some pre 9-11 evidence proving

the core was concrete.

[Christophera]

128. searnineb Came Up With Best. Extra EVI., Photos Show Concrete Conclusively

When the evidence is presented from a scan of an old text, it is much more difficult to fake than when old photos are included with text on a web page.



The fact is that this image shows what can only be concrete.



And if you cannnot see that, you just haven't the experience needed to discuss the differences between in apprearance steel and concrete.

The below image can only show rebar and the image below it provides scale.



The spire is formed by an interior box column that is 14 inches thick.



And here is the thick core base. Look at that top right corner of the core wall. Look at how it is eroded. No steel component can have that appearance.



We don't need experts or pre 9-11 statements if we have, and can use a little common sense construction knowledge.

[Christophera]

112. 1/2 True (+-).Perimeter Steel Took 50%. Interior Box COL's 30%, CONC. Core

took 20% gravity load. The steel was expected to settle onto the rigid concrete core and change the load up to 50% on the concrete eventually.

seatnineb has found some extraordinary statements supporting the concrete core. This is PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE from an authority of academia, prior to 9-11.



Add that to sites that agree, post 9-11, and statements from usenet comments at bottom.

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

Each of the towers, in other words, was held up by its reinforced concrete core and the world's strongest curtain walls. Without the usual steel skeleton, the open floors allowed unprecedented space and flexibility. Between them, the two 1,350-foot-high towers provided 7.9 million square feet of rentable floor space, roughly the equivalent of fifty city blocks.

After the attacks, the fierce heat of burning jet fuel, plus direct damage from the planes' impact, would have weakened the support for the upper floors to the point of failure. The reinforced concrete core helped keep the buildings standing for more than an hour after the impact, undoubtedly saving thousands of lives. Once the upper section fell, however, the impact produced the rapid, top-down progressive collapse we all witnessed.


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

Excerpt that mentions the reinforced-concrete core of each WTC tower:

"The WTC towers weren't built of massive I-beams and other large
steel; they used a lot of smaller beams around the perimiter
and a reinforced concrete core. The floors were also reinforced
concrete, contributing to ridgidity."

************************************************************

From: [email protected] (Gary Heston)
Newsgroups: talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: You gotta love engineers, sometimes...
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 03:16:03 -0000
Organization: HiWAAY Internet Services
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test75 (Feb 13, 2001)
Originator: [email protected] (Gary Heston)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
Lines: 42


According to Thom Rounds <[email protected]>:
< ... >
> One of the prime ingredients in concrete is water. Without a
>suspension of water in the mix, concrete would turn right back into powder
>again. What happens to water when you heat it up to about 180 degrees or
>so? And if it's in the middle of a chunk of conrete, what will the result
>be?

> Hint: where I spilled about a pint of molten metal, the concrete
>exploded and left a crater about two feet across and several inches deep.

> Softened steel? I don't think it ever got to that.

No, it didn't.

In these situations, the differing expansion rates of steel and concrete
are what causes the structural failure--rebar expands a lot faster than
the concrete around it, causing the concrete to start fracturing; once it
breaks into enough small pieces, it all comes down.

The WTC towers weren't built of massive I-beams and other large steel;
they used a lot of smaller beams around the perimiter and a reinforced
concrete core. The floors were also reinforced concrete, contributing to
ridgidity.

Once enough of the concrete crumbles away from the rebar, it folds. Once
one floor collapses, the rest will go from the impact stress.

In your case, you created a steam explosion in a relatively damp slab.
Floor slabs pick up a lot of moisture from the ground they're resting
on, and you superheated it in a fraction of a second to an extremely
high temperature. No suprise that it popped out a chunk of the surface;
hope you didn't get splashed.


Gary

--
Gary Heston [email protected]

[sabbat hunter]

153. the special on A&E

clearly says a steel core. showed construction showing steel core. no concrete core.

[Christophera]

170. How About At Least A Description Of What They Showed-I Show Concrete

[rman]

76. 1st time i ever heard of concrete core was from Christophera

got any less obscure sources for claims of concrete core?

[Christophera]

81. Description Of Concrete Core By P.E. Structrual ENG. In 12 States

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

Dr. Domel received a Ph.D. from the University of Illinois at Chicago in 1988 and a Law Degree from Loyola University in 1992. He is a licensed Structural Engineer and Attorney at Law in the .State of Illinois and a Professional Engineer in twelve states, including the State of New York.Dr. Domel is authorized by the Department of Labor (OSHA) as a 10 and 30 hour construction safety trainer

[seatnineb]

87. Sure.....this MIT proffessor believed there was a concrete core.

Ahmed F. Ghoniem
Professor of Mechanical Engineering
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

The exterior of each tower was made of a dense lattice of prefabricated steel columns, while the 24m ´ 42m interior core consisted of 48 steel columns fireproofed in concrete.
<snip>

Thus, the initial area of damage is estimated to be about 2000 m2, or about half of the floor space of the building between the external lattice and the concrete core, and fuel spillage must have occurred over a fraction of this area.

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20V%20Fi...

[rman]

92. "fireproofed in concrete" does not make for a concrete core

"interior core consisted of 48 steel columns"

the concrete core theory has it that the load bearing structure of the core was concrete (supposedly reinforced with steel beams as opposed to the more commonly used steel bar lattice). "fire proofing" doesn't sound as though it was even supposed to carry any weight.

[seatnineb]

94. What you say is true....but you applying it in the wrong context.

The professor does NOT say:

"between the external lattice and the the steel columns in the core which are fire-proofed in concrete"


The professor says:

"between the external lattice and the concrete core"

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20V%20Fi ...

An MIT professor knows how to make the distinction between fire-proofed concrete and concrete that is used as a structural element.

[rman]

95. "the 24m ´ 42m interior core consisted of 48 steel columns fireproofed in

"the 24m ´ 42m interior core consisted of 48 steel columns fireproofed in concrete."

[Make7]

96. Ghoniem: "steel columns that constituted the core"

 

Calculations show that steel may reach temperature close to 550° C in 15-17 minutes following the start of a fire, when exposed to a standard fire source. More significantly, a steel girder exposed to a fire of 100 MJ/m2 and an opening factor of 0.08 reaches 650° C during the first 15 minutes, and remains at temperatures higher than the fire from then on, because steel loses heat slowly by convection while the fire runs out of fuel and its temperature decays fast. Given the current lack of data describing in sufficient detail the conditions inside the Towers, it is not possible to apply similar analysis to them, e.g., the interior steel columns that constituted the core structure of the Towers, or the structural elements of the upper floors. - Ahmed F. Ghoniem

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20V%20Fire.pdf

I didn't want that one to be overlooked.

- Make7

[seatnineb]

97. Gee.....were all 48 columns on or around the perimeter of the core?

You can still have a re-inforced concrete core with all the 47/48 steel columns that comprise the core.

It is the steel columns on or around the perimeter that will be encased in concrete.

If my supposition is correct...then this perimeter of the core:




.......is waiting to be encased in concrete.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[Christophera]

23. You Have No Evidence-Here I Answer The Way You Want. Read Original Post

The towers had concrete cores AND THEREFORE free fall as we saw was possible.

[HamdenRice]

25. Free fall was possible ...

Does that mean that planes alone could bring down the tower???

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[Christophera]

70. Planes Cannot Bring Towers Down - Collapse Cannot Make Sand And Gravel

But concrete can fracture and fall freely.

[rman]

46. "Have you ever seen a few argue so hard" - Yes, you

I still wonder why it's so important to you to convince us that the towers DID have concrete cores.

Even your demolition scenario allows for breaking apart of the steel core columns. (basically: demo charges at every floor level, right?)
Also it looks like a significant amount of steel was melted: pools of molten steel in the basements, heat remaining for many weeks.

[Christophera]

47. Against Concrete, No. I Argue For It When Evidence Says It Was Concrete

It is important because;

People think it was comprised of steel cores.

As long as they think that, no investigation will be forthcoming.

Without an investigation our republic and democracy are doomed.

Without our republic and democracy my children will suffer. All life suffers.



Also, I KNOW the core was steel reinforced concrete. Why should I allow perceptions that are dangerous to prolificate when I have all the information and knowledge to intervene?

The demolition scenario has an explanation that fits with the raw evidence. This photo shows a horizontal series of detonations along a floor.



Here I show how the interior box columns could be cut with floors that have been built to be heavy duty cutting charges. There were no steel core columns. Any mention of them is an error or a deception.



Simple charges won't get the job done when it comes to cutting a series of heavy steel columns. You need concentrated high pressure gasses at EACH column to cut them. Which is why thermite was used for the perimeter box columns and some of the interior box columns at the first floor level and below. The thermite created the pools of molten steel. Realistically, there is NO other way to get that much steel to melt that fast. Forget any notion that fires caused the steel to melt, it is impossible. Twenty years ago I experimented with a forge, coal and forced air. I could barely get a small chunk of steel cherry red. Coke must be added to areate the coal mix so the forced air can get to the coal and create higher temperatures. The mixing of the coke into the coal must be done just right to get temp's high enough to melt steel.

[sabbat hunter]

59. where did you get that sketch from

the ones with the so called "C4" pointed out.


also why 30 years ago would they build the WTC with C4 already in it?
additionally if it had a concrete core as you claim how did they set off the charges? how did they know they would actually go off after 30 years?

[Christophera]

64. I Created The Sketch

Why? For ease of demolition, or so engineeers were probably told. Opening were left tin the core. The concrete prevented oxidization and evaporation and preserved the plastic.

[ryan_cats]

84. That is a completely and utterly ridiculous theory.

That is a completely and utterly ridiculous theory.

Where is this mysterious video? Produce it and prove us all wrong. Oh you can't, why? Because it never existed.

[Christophera]

90. I Notice You Have No Alternative EXPL. For Free Fall & No Other Evidence

at all to support the argument you have never really presented.

Tell us what kind of core you think stood and produce the evidence you have to support your reasoning.


The only way you are going to see the video is to ask others if they've seen it. That is what I do and I've found people that do remember. If enough of us do this, someone will produce a copy.

[rman]

116. thermite cut up the steel beams,

causing free fall

[Christophera]

123. Absolutely, But NOT Above The First Floor-No Molten Steel Found In streets

If thermite had been used high in the tower, molten steel would have been splashing onto the streets. Instead of that, sand, gravel and dust.

[rman]

126. The top section disintegrated as it fell straight down

Since thermite doesn't exactly "explode" i don't see why the molten steel could not have fallen straight down.

[Christophera]

132. Intact Top Of WTC 2 Onto #3. Molten Steel Would Throw By Other EXPL. Video

The top of #2 hit #3 and was mostly intact. The brown material inside is the top of the concrete core. Notice no hat truss. Perhaps it was only for the antenna loads.



Below is shown a violent explosion perhaps 20 floors up. Molten steel at that level would be thrown out to start fires.



Here is a slow mo video. After the top starts to drop the event is clearly an explosion.

http://thunderbay.indymedia.org/uploads/north-demolition-pops.avi

[DemInDistress]

157. I did see molten metal dripping from above the crash floors

in wt2..


more 911.wtc.2.demolition.north.01.wmv and more 911.wtc.2.demolition.north.02.wmv

If you hadn't seen these clips they are courtesy of Make-7
I watched in disbelief. What could that be? Molten dripping steel? sure looks like.

good site here,.. http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem2/

[ryan_cats]

85. Good question, now you know why we question and want to see the video.

Good question, now you know why we question and want to see the video.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

137. Wouldn't someone (more than 1) have talked by now?

If explosives were placed into the columns during the construction phase "for ease of demolition," how many people would have to be complicit in this to keep it quiet? You think it would be a small operation to put enough C4 or any other explosives into the columns to bring the towers down?

Wouldn't the steel beam manufacturers have wondered why the beams were being manufactured differently?

Wouldn't one of the hundreds of steel workers, not to mention the general laborers, have seen something weird or seen an unexplained crew adding something not normally added to asteel construction building?

Wouldn't at least one engineer have come forward and say that C4 was put in for ease of demolition at the time of construction?

If the explosives were put in afterwards, again, how big an operation was it? Wouldn't a janitor, night watchman, someone working late, someone have seen a strange crew working between the walls and come forward to say something?

And the crew themselves, how many people do you think it would take to place enough explosives in the towers under covert conditions in the year and a half of * presidency? And do you think they would have started right off, or would have had to find the true loyalist, whomever, to do the job and keep it quiet?

Too bad the Luazo Bros don't post here, maybe they could enlighten us as to how mamy explosives would be needed to bring the towers down.

This theory just involves too many people to keep quiet.

[Christophera]

140. Off Topic-The Concrete Core Is Not A Theory-No Steel Core Columns Seen

This can only be a steel reinforced concrete core.



Wouldn't someone (more than 1) have talked by now?
Posted by Show_Me _The_Truth

You need to read a page that deals specifically with these issues.

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

I will point out some of the errors you’ve made.

Posted by Show_Me _The_Truth

If explosives were placed into the columns during the construction phase "for ease of demolition," how many people would have to be complicit in this to keep it quiet? You think it would be a small operation to put enough C4 or any other explosives into the columns to bring the towers down?

RE: the above.
Steel columns did not exist in the core. The core was built with steel reinforced concrete, shear wall construction. C4 was placed, encapsulated and preserved from the construction. Paraffin plugs provided easy access to set detonators. Special security was present and forced evacuations were conducted on floors before concrete was poured. People wondered what was happening.

Posted by Show_Me _The_Truth

Wouldn't one of the hundreds of steel workers, not to mention the general laborers, have seen something weird or seen an unexplained crew adding something not normally added to a steel construction building?

RE: the above
They did see stuff. Ask Phil Jayhan of Let’s Roll 9-11 about the forced evacuations.

Posted by Show_Me _The_Truth

Wouldn't at least one engineer have come forward and say that C4 was put in for ease of demolition at the time of construction?

RE: the above
The plans for the core were changed at the last minute. I guess you don’t have a clue about secrets are kept in the intelligence community and military.

Posted by Show_Me _The_Truth

If the explosives were put in afterwards, again, how big an operation was it? Wouldn't a janitor, night watchman, someone working late, someone have seen a strange crew working between the walls and come forward to say something?

RE: the above and setting detonators
Powerdown

----------------

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2004/04/108539.php

According to Scott Forbes, a senior database administrator for Fiduciary Trust, Inc. – a high-net investment bank which was later acquired by Franklin Templeton – this is precisely what took place. Forbes, who was hired by Fiduciary in 1999 and is now stationed at a U.K. branch office, was working on the weekend of September 8-9, 2001, and said that his company was given three weeks advance notice that New York’s Port Authority would take out power in the South Tower from the 48th floor up. The reason: the Port Authority was performing a cabling upgrade to increase the WTC’s computer bandwidth.

Forbes stated that Fiduciary Trust was one of the WTC’s first occupants after it was erected, and that a “power-down” had never been initiated prior to this occasion. He also stated that his company put forth a huge investment in time and resources to take down their computer systems due to the deliberate power outage. This process, Forbes recalled, began early Saturday morning (September 8th) and continued until mid-Sunday afternoon (September 9th) – approximately 30 hours. As a result of having its electricity cut, the WTC’s security cameras were rendered inoperative, as were its I.D. systems, and elevators to the upper floors.

And the crew themselves, how many people do you think it would take to place enough explosives in the towers under covert conditions in the year and a half of * presidency? And do you think they would have started right off, or would have had to find the true loyalist, whomever, to do the job and keep it quiet?

RE: the above
The detonators could be placed in a matter of days. When the ownership changed there were reports of people not being able to use lower elevators. Consider that foreign nationals with military training were used disguised as elevator service and cable upgrade technicians.

Posted by Show_Me _The_Truth

Too bad the Luazo Bros don't post here, maybe they could enlighten us as to how many explosives would be needed to bring the towers down.

RE: the above
A calculation has been done. 14 tons of C4 would be a minimum. The expansion was great. More than that was used.

Posted by Show_Me _The_Truth

This theory just involves too many people to keep quiet.

If security personel was used exclusively to do the critical work, everybody else is looking at an obscure plastic coating. A large part of the men working on the towers, has died.

[mirandapriestly]

141. Christophera, on Frontline or Nova (I know-grain of salt)

they described a drywall (or similar)as enclosing the core. They interviewed someone who had kicked his way out after being trapped in an elevator through the stuff- could what you are seeing possibly be that material? (I 'm not saying it is) Are you familiar with that story? Would it have been possible if there was concrete for him to have done that? The story would have had to been invented and I'm not putting it past these guys, but it's kind of hard to imagine.

[Christophera]

142. Stairwells Had Drywall Separating From Elevator Shaft On At Least One SIde

Meaning that the story is fully legitimate.

Most structures have a drywall lining and certainly some of the dust we see is from drywall. However, the quantities of drywall are miniscule compared to the volumes of concrete in the core or the floors. Drywall has very little strength and cannot stand during any kind of structural failure.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

148. Allot of Heresay and Supposition There

World Trade Center tower construction
In terms of structural system the twin towers departed completely from other high-rise buildings. Conventional skyscrapers since the 19th century have been built with a skeleton of interior supporting columns that supports the structure. Exterior walls of glass steel or synthetic material do not carry any load. The Twin towers are radically different in structural design as the exterior wall is used as the load-bearing wall. (A load bearing wall supports the weight of the floors.) The only interior columns are located in the core area, which contains the elevators. The outer wall carries the building vertical loads and provides the entire resistance to wind. The wall consists of closely spaced vertical columns (21 columns 10 feet apart) tied together by horizontal spandrel beams that girdle the tower at every floor. On the inside of the structure the floor sections consist of trusses spanning from the core to the outer wall.

Concrete removal
Since the end of WWII builders designed most of the concrete from the modern high-rise constriction. First concrete they eliminated was the stone exterior wall. They replace them with the “curtain walls of glass, sheet steel, or plastics. This curtain wall acted as a lightweight skin to enclose the structure from the outside elements. Next the 8-inch thick concrete floors went. They were replaced with a combination of 2 or 3 inches of concrete on top of thin corrugated steel sheets. Next the masonry enclosure for stairs and elevators were replaced with several layers of sheet rock. Then the masonry smoke proof tower was eliminated in the 1968 building code. It contained too much concrete weight and took up valuable floor space. Then the solid steel beam was replace by the steel truss. And finally the concrete and brick encasement of steel columns girders and floor supports was eliminated. A lightweight spray-on coating of asbestos or mineral fiber was sprayed over the steel. This coating provided fireproofing. After asbestos was discovered hazardous vermiculite or volcanic rock ash substance was used as a spray-on coating for steel. Outside of the foundation walls and a thin 2 or 3 inches of floors surface, concrete has almost been eliminated from high-rise office building construction. If you look at the WTC rubble at ground zero you see very little concrete and lots of twisted steel.

http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

The towers were designed and built in the mid-1960s through the early 1970s. They represented a new approach to skyscrapers in that they were to be very lightweight and involved modular construction methods in order to accelerate the schedule and to reduce the costs.

To a structural engineer, a skyscraper is modeled as a large cantilever vertical column. Each tower was 64 m square, standing 411 m above street level and 21 m below grade. This produces a height-to-width ratio of 6.8. The total weight of the structure was roughly 500,000 t, but wind load, rather than the gravity load, dominated the design. The building is a huge sail that must resist a 225 km/h hurricane. It was designed to resist a wind load of 2 kPa—a total of lateral load of 5,000 t.

In order to make each tower capable of withstanding this wind load, the architects selected a lightweight “perimeter tube” design consisting of 244 exterior columns of 36 cm square steel box section on 100 cm centers (see Figure 3). This permitted windows more than one-half meter wide. Inside this outer tube there was a 27 m × 40 m core, which was designed to support the weight of the tower. It also housed the elevators, the stairwells, and the mechanical risers and utilities. Web joists 80 cm tall connected the core to the perimeter at each story. Concrete slabs were poured over these joists to form the floors. In essence, the building is an egg-crate construction that is about 95 percent air, explaining why the rubble after the collapse was only a few stories high.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

Where do you see that the core was steel reinforced concrete? What is your source for this? I'm not talking about someone who talkd to someone who might remember but won't give a statement, I am talking about building plans. Oh wait, they must be secret.

I would have given your explosives planting theory a little more credence if you would have said they used the ongoing (since the mid-90's) program to update the fire retardant system on the core to get access without arousing suspicion.

Where is your information coming from on the placement of C4? Above you stated that the drawings you made were your own and only estimations, but now you jump to pretty specific statements about parafin caps, etc, etc

Forced evacuations? For how long, minutes, hours, days? How long do you think it would take to place at least 14 tons of C4?

Again, if the plans for the core were changed at the last minute, again, wouldn't one enigneer at least come forward and say so? By the way, how do you change the plans for 2 x 100 story buildings at the last minute without comment, not to mention the public and code enforcement scrutiny that would have been going on at the time of construction. What does last minute mean?

30 hours to set 14 tons of C4 (or much more as you stated)? All I have to say is, HAH! Tell that to skilled demolitions experts that take weeks with an unoccupied building to set their charges.

I'm not asking about detonators, I'm asking about the actual explosives.

"A large part of the men working on the towers have since died?" Come on, there were over 10,000 workers that worked on the WTC in 1968. Assuming (like you do allot of) that they were in their mid-20's to early 40's, that would place ALLOT of them in their 60's right now. So how can you say that a large part have since died? There must have been allot of bad luck in that crew. Where is your source?

I see allot of assumptions and unverified statements from you and your "sources" but no proof. I don't have to prove that this didn't happen, you have to prove that it did.

[Christophera]

159. Only One Large Error There. I Only Need Raw Evidence For Source. ?? Proof

I noticed you posted no proof. And web site by bought off engineers or captive agencies are useless until the informatin has been tested agains raw evidence. The first being, "Does the site explain fee fall and total pulverization in a way consistent with logic and the known performance of materials".

Allot of Heresay and Supposition There
Posted by Show_Me _The_Truth

The only interior columns are located in the core area, which contains the elevators.

The below is a photo of the partially demolished WTC 2, or its tubular, steel reinforced concrete core.



The image is absolute proof. YES absolute, but only to someone that knows the properties of steel and concrete construction.

Here is why it is absolute.

Steel structures undergoing collapse or demolition leave elements protruding. The above image has no steel showing, meaning there was no steel in the core because THAT IS the core. The steel has all fallen away.

Below is an image of the north tower spire. It is formed by an interior box column. It is easily seen that the box column is near the corner of a rectangular structure and that there are floor beams off to the sides, making it apart of the outside tube of the "tube in a tube" construction. The outer tube was a steel framework with floors and the inner a concrete tube with elevators and stairs. Stubs of floor beams can be seen protruding on the standing spire. The interior box columns were 14 inches thick.



Interior box columns ringed the core and were fastened to the concrete shear walls with very close tolerences.

If there was steel reinforced concrete, there was rebar. Here is a picture of the 3 inch rebar on 4 foot centers, it was taken a second after the above image. Notice the series of curves in the fine vertical elements. Heavy structural steel won't be bent that uniformly under the conditions present.





Yes, the building plans are secret. The mayor of new york took them and hid them and won't return them. All against the law and judges won't recognize, uphold and follow the law.

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

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

160. I don't need to show proof

I am not trying to prove anything. You have the burden of proof, not me.

But oh wait, you have show proof, but only to those smart enogh to understand it.

Once again with your famous picture. With ALL of the footage, photographs, etc of the collapse, you come up with only 1 that "shows" the core. And two others, one a second after the other one (how you know that I have no idea), that show dust hidden images of a chotic scene that ou tout as absolute proof.

Well you know what, I have proof that they are digging swimming pools in the middle of the London sidewalks.



Or do I?



The point is that one picture taken from one angle is not proof.

[Christophera]

162. You Are The Master Of Tricky Pictures, I Simply Reason W/Evidence

You will have to come up with a specific issue with each photo.



Is our freedom worth this effort? Is justice worth this?

[jschurchin]

163. Hello, sorry to intrude.....

but I have a couple questions, If you don't mind.

1) Do you know how much concrete, total, was used in the towers?

2) How big, in area, was the floor space?

p.s. I think we can prove your theory with the available data.

[Christophera]

164. Volumes Are Good Proof. Floors Were ONLY Official Concrete

I work as a surveyor and draftsman for a civil engineer. I calculate about 205,000 cubic yards of concrete, above the ground, total.

the buildings were 204 x 204 feet, floors average 5 inches thick

The core interior was 80x120 feet. Core walls 2 feet thick at the top and up to 17 feet thick at the base. Basement areas are in addition.

The basement appears full of sand and gravel. Oh, there were only supposed to be about 10 floors that were poured with structural aggregate concrete. Where did all that big rock come from and where are the big chunks of concrete???

[jschurchin]

165. Yes they are.......

I started a new thread dealing in just that, although our figures are a little different the jist is the same. I am hoping it will make some of our fellow DUers use their noggin's for something besides hat rack's.

Prove us wrong, show us we miscalculated by between 240,000 and 300,000 cubic yards. I don't think they can do it, do you?

[Christophera]

166. The Basement Was Larger Than Tower Footprints-More Damage Below

than can be caused by a collapse so the consolidation of material was extensive. Still the basement was full, "how much volume would it hold?". I'd like to get an idea of how much subterranean wall/ceiling failure there was, and the dimensions of the basement so the available volume of it can be more closely compared to the volume of the towers.

At the heart of the concrete core issue and demolition are these factors.

1.Free fall

2.Total pulverization

3.Resistance to fire

Another inference is that IF it was concrete, how did it all turn into sand and gravel?

In the lght of the above, the perps MUST send out agents onto the web and elsewhere to distract, confuse, marginalize, diminish, dismiss ANY effort to prove the concrete core; or, the simple, verifiable truth WILL be known.


Did you notice how all the particulate was automatically sifted to the bottom of the steel? A event that can only happen when pulverization is in mid air.

[Christophera]

167. You Answer Your Question To Me And Ignore My Answer, ---- Whoa!

You should not be taken seriously. Replying to your own post like that. Shame on you.