Why Is It So Important To Some That There Was NOT A Concrete Core?

[Christophera]

Notice how certain posters make a big deal out of the fact I claim that FEMA lied about the structure of the towers?

Why is it so important to them that the core was not concrete? I mean we know there were lots of deceptions and ommisions so why is the fact that someone works to demonstrate with raw evidence that the Twin Towers had a tubular, steel reinforced cast concrete core so important?

http://concretecore.741.com


Because concrete can be fractured to fall instantly with a small amount of high explosive at the center.


Which explains free fall. In other words those saying "no concrete core" are saying, "Believe FEMA and NIST because the core they present for the towers cannot fall at free fall within the event we saw." Or, the entire event was impossible and far too much to confront anyway, shape or form, just believe the official story.

Why impossible?

Steel columns require many, many times more high explosive to be cut cleanly and fall hidden inside a debris field. At the same time the heavy loading causes significant shrapnel steel to fly a much longer distance. This completely changes the character of the visual event at the WTC as well as the auditory. Shape charges which do not have the need for massive loading make a very sharp crack and must be very carefully installed. Up to 1500 would be needed to achieve the uniform descent.

What we see below is mostly concrete. When high explosives are well contained and detonated, releasing in something close to equalibrium, where no jets of high pressure gas escape without being slowed/mixed with particulate, the event changes from a sharp crack to a rumble, a thump, a thud sound. Precision digital delays can remove all resistence right to the ground at a speed slightly exceeding terminal velocity.



Below, the concrete core of WTC 2. No steel core columns protrude where they should.



Realize that those trying to assert that the cores were not concrete do so without any evidence of what they believe the core was. They just say no. They never have an image of the supposed steel core columns a few hundred feet off the ground. They show an image of an interior box column laying on the ground (not inside the core) and call it a core column. Or pictures of ground zero where some heavy support structures for elevator landings and equipment are seen inside the core. Ask one for a link to the site that uses raw evidence to document the steel core columns, there is none.

Our rights, freedoms, Constitution and futures depend on you, and your ability to discern attempts to decieve you and conceal by confusion, a trully feasible method to create exactly what we saw on 9-11.

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

[Make7]

1. Farewell.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=146836

- Make7

[ryan_cats]

74. What a shock, NOT.

What a shock, NOT. I've been avoiding the 9/11 forum because every time I saw one of his ridiculous threads, I usually had to comment and he went whining to the mods more than once to have one of my posts removed so since I valued my DU membership more than debunking his B.S., I stayed away.

[ryan_cats]

75. 500 posts!!!!!!

Actually, now it's 501.

[sabbat hunter]

76. congrats

on 500. may you make it to 1000!

[Make7]

77. Like moths to a flame.

There was something about his posting that seemed compelling to quite a few of us around here. It will certainly be different around here without him.

How oddly coincidental that your milestone 500th post was in one of Christophera's threads. I only kicked this one because his farewell thread was deleted and only LARED and I had replied - I don't know if he ever even saw our responses.

- Make7

[Bushwick Bill]

2. Quick question.

I have only followed this issue in passing, but where is the concrete core?

[dailykoff]

3. There is no concrete core.

The engineers who designed the structural system (Leslie Robertson et al.) have repeatedly said that they chose the lightest possible materials and therefore used sprayed-on fireproofing instead of concrete cladding on the core columns.

And the core columns were most certainly steel.

[DoYouEverWonder]

7. Don't you think

that making a steel building fail is even worse then making a concrete core (is there such a thing) fail?

Because of the way these buildings were designed, you had to have a weapon or explosives to bring them down the way they came down.

Every picture I've looked at during the collapse, looks like a volcano went off. That had to take a lot of energy from something deep within the building. What I don't know? I wasted my youth playing with Barbi dolls. But something major went off in those buildings.

[Bolo Boffin]

8. You need severe structural damage and a massive, constant fire

Which all three WTC buildings had in spades.

Once the fire weakens the supported steel into the "plastic" stage, the steel bends, the weight transfers to other supports which are already weakened by heat. Sooner or later the structure can't hold the weight any longer, and it crashes down.

[DoYouEverWonder]

9. No, you need catastrophic structural damage

which obviously was not the case, since the towers withstood the impact from the planes.

Second where's the massive constant fire? There was not enough fire for long enough to have much effect on the steel structure of the center part of the building to cause the total failures that we saw that morning.

If you have data to back your claims I'd love to see it.

[Bolo Boffin]

10. wtc.nist.gov

And around and around we go.

[petgoat]

13. Got a link or a page cite or something?

Keep in mind that the NIST report invents the data that its assertions require.

[petgoat]

12. Do you have any picture of this massive fire?

the weight transfers to other supports which are already weakened by heat.

So it is your position that all the supports were weakened by heat?

Keep in mind that NIST has not one piece of core steel showing heating above
250 degrees C. How much is the steel weakened at 250 degrees C?

[Bolo Boffin]

14. Let's compare your two answers.

On the one hand you say that NIST invents the data it needed.

On the other hand, you say that NIST is putting out information that doesn't meet its needs.

I think you need to pick a position and stick with it.

[petgoat]

15. In other words, you don't have a picture of a massive fire.

In one post I said NIST invents the data. I was talking about the tweaking of
the computer models, and about the temperature chart below that looks like
empirical data but is in fact made up and is insulting in its specious
specificity.



The other post was talking about samples. I said NIST invented the data;
I didn't say they invented samples.

[Bolo Boffin]

16. You've got to be kidding me.

Everyone on earth knows that there were large fires in the WTC.

[petgoat]

17. "Everybody on earth knows...."

there were large fires in the WTC.

Nope. Everyone extrapolates from this picture



And supposes that's what the WTC was like.








Where's the blazing inferno? It looks like smoldering rugs. Would you have any
hesitation about climbing to the 90th floor if your wife or daughter was up there?

[Bolo Boffin]

25. Enjoy your picture show.

There's no need for us to discuss anything more, Ms. Goat.

[petgoat]

27. "no need for us to discuss"

Right. You don't have any pictures and you don't like mine.

Some are reality-based and some are not.

[Americus]

79. boloboffin can't discuss because there's no large raging fire TO discuss

Methinks you got his goat, pet!

[Bolo Boffin]

85. You're very wrong, sweet Americus n/t

[mrgerbik]

33. Massive fires ? lol

I dont want to keep repeating myself but what do you suppose caused molten iron to pour out of the corner of WTC2? The fires?

[Bolo Boffin]

35. Who says it was iron?

What if it was aluminum from the plane?

[petgoat]

36. Aluminum is silver. This was orange. It was steel. nt

[Bolo Boffin]

37. Let's compare your two answers.

First, you want proof that the fires were large enough to affect steel.

Then, you say that molten steel was pouring out of the WTC before it collapsed.

Perhaps you should pick a position and stick with it.

[mrgerbik]

38. maybe YOU should pick...

because the NIST report says that the steel didn't melt in the fires, it was "weakened" by them. The offical line says steel didn't melt, but there is molten iron or steel pouring out of WTC2. So I say if NIST wishes to change their postion to the fires MELTING the steel, they'd be in more of a pickle, because it has been proven that the fires couldn't possibly become hot enough under those circumstances to melt reinforced structural steel.. that is a fact.

So again, maybe you should pick.

I say the molten iron/steel (metal) was a thermite reaction taking place.

[Bolo Boffin]

39. I was pointing out the contradiction in Ms. Goat's posts

My position is pretty clear: aluminum, and weakened steel.

[petgoat]

40. There is no contradiction between the claim that the fires were

not hot enough to melt steel, and the claim that the molten metal pouring from
WTC2 was steel.

[Bolo Boffin]

41. You keep on thinking that. n/t

[mrgerbik]

42. It is NOT aluminum

This is molten aluminum:



Molten aluminum appears silvery/grey in daylight. It was molten metal.

So what was this molten metal pouring out of WTC2?

Maybe thermite? It seems much more plausible to me.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7231843493488769585&q=thermite&pl=true
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3907685983684800102&q=thermite

[Bolo Boffin]

45. From my Google search, I see plenty of orangish molten aluminum

And I found your pictures too, so that make me think, "Hey, you did a Google image search, too!" Did you?

Anyway, go Google "molten aluminum". You'll find the pictures too.

Now, aluminum gets that orangy color only when it's hot enough. The volume of the final gush of molten metal led NIST to conclude (on page 39 of Appendix 5) that the aluminum had pooled on a floor slab. When the slab fell, that's when that aluminum gushed out. And all that time it spent pooled in that inferno, it was taking in the heat.

So saying that was molten aluminum is perfectly reasonable.

[mrgerbik]

49. For aluminum to be glowing yellow

it would require much hotter fires then was occuring in the building.

[Bolo Boffin]

51. How do you know the temperature of the fires there?

Curious.

[petgoat]

55. Saying that's molten aluminium is unreasonable.

The google images show salmon-colored aluminum when it's in vats.

When it pours, it's silver.

The metal pouring out the the WTC was hot, and fell in sparks.

[Bolo Boffin]

59. Somebody didn't click enough pages....

Compare this photo to the WTC footage

[mrgerbik]

66. Compare...

Your post seems to imply that people here that are against the "authorized" version of history just blindly pick and choose his or her facts at leisure. Like some tin-hat loonies with a personal agenda, pointing and clicking away until they come up with some grandiose scheme as to what happened. I hope I can speak for everyone that is interested in the truth here when I say that this simply is not true.

Your picture of the molten metal pouring from a kettle is aluminum that is heated to something like 1800-2000 degrees Fahrenheit.
The melting point of Aluminum is 1220 degrees Fahrenheit, where it would appear silver/grey in daylight because of its high reflectivity.

Refer to this chart:

Faint Red 950-1050º F
Dark Red 1150-1250º F
Dark Cherry 1175-1275º F
Cherry Red 1300-1400º F
Bright Cherry 1475-1575º F
Dark Orange 1650-1750º F
Orange 1750-1850º F
Yellow 1800-1900º F
Yellow/white Over 2000º F

Your claim that the metal pouring out (which actually resembles the by-product of a thermite reaction more then anything) could be this hot would fly in the face of some reports stating "it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C {1292F - 1472F}range". (http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html). I don't know if the official report actually claims any knowledge of the temperatures - please correct me if I am wrong.

Some observed facts showing a "cool" fire in WTC2:
- Video evidence shows that the fire was slowed and oxygen starved after the initial explosion.
- Flames diminished rapidly and were not visible at the time of collapse.
- People were photographed standing in the impact holes.
- At least 18 people are known to have escaped from above the South Tower's impact zone.
- In the WTC tape of the firemen fighting the fires were recorded saying "I'm still in boy stair 74th floor. No smoke or fire problems, walls are breached, so be careful" and "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones"
- No visible heat could be seen radiating from the impact holes. Steel at high temperatures would be extremely visible.

I don't think even most "official liners" will try and debunk that is was a somewhat "cool" fire.

So in light of these facts, you should really clarify your statement as to the molten metal being aluminum. Because if this IS molten aluminum pouring out of the corner of WTC2, where is the source of this intense heat? Either there was an extremely hot fire, or there wasn't. You can't have it both ways.

[Bolo Boffin]

67. That's coming from the very intensive fire in the northeast corner of WTC2

From the NIST study, Appendix 5, page 34:

Just before 9:52 a.m., puffs of smoke and/or dust were expelled from multiple locations on the north face near the east edge. Almost immediately a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor four windows removed from the east edge, and a glowing liquid began to pour from this location. This flow lasted approximately 4 s before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location prior to the collapse of the tower. Several were accompanied by puffs of dust and smoke that were now occuring frequently. The composition of the flowing material can only be hypothesized, but it is considered likely that it was molten aluminum that came from airplane debris localed immediately above on the 81st floor, and had been heated by the fire burning on that floor.

...At 9:58:59 a.m. WTC 2 began to collapse.

Page 45:

The hot gases from a fire rise and form a hot layer across the top of a room. The temperatures in this layer could have exceeded 1,000 °C, well above the threshold temperature at which the strength of structural steels diminishes.

The melting point of aluminum is 660 °C, just so we're on the same page.

So the hypothesis runs this way:

The intense fires that were burning in the northeast corner released an amazing amount of heat, which rose and formed a layer underneath the floor that airplane debris was on. This turned that area into a double boiler, and as the heat grew, it reached and eventually passed the melting point of aluminum. In fact, 1000 °C is 1832 °F, which is right at the necessary range for the color we're looking at, correct?

How they got info about upper layer temps - it's from the workstation test fires they conducted. Page 78 has the run of temps taken from four different locations in the upper layer during those tests.

Yes, it's a hypothesis - but so is your thermite. And the NIST hypothesis on the glowing liquids is based on scientific tests and knowledge of materials actually provable to be in the area. You have a couple of videos that looks similiar.

I'm sticking with NIST.

[mrgerbik]

68. Still don't see it

How would so much aluminum be pooled in one corner of the building?

Was it molten aluminum found in the rubble weeks after?

This flow lasts alot longer then 4 seconds.

How does this double boiler effect only occur here? Why didn't we see any molten aluminum pouring out of any other spots?

How does a workstation fire conduct the 1000 proposed degrees of heat energy through an entire floor into the aluminum debris. Just because the fire MAY have reached 1000 degrees at the ceiling, certainly does not mean that the floor above was also 1000 degrees - let alone the debris sitting there. Most of the heat would be dispersed into the surrounding steel, concrete structure and air volume. Plus there was an open hole where much of the heat could escape. This is very basic science, but try heating a pot of water with a blowtorch. The heat of the blowtorch is much, much hotter then the water, but the energy output required to get the water to the same temperature as the flame takes a considerable amount of time. The energy output of that fire was not great enough for this hypothesis in the time allotted.

I feel thermite is a much more elegant hypothesis as it would easily explain all of these anomaly's and more. It seems more and more that the "official liners" are the ones making it hard on themselves and others, not the "conspiracy theorists". They have to propose such elaborate scenarios to try and explain what and why it happened.

[Bolo Boffin]

71. Then open your eyes.

First off - elaborate vs. elegant hypotheses. Your thermite hypothesis is manifestly elaborate, because you have yet to explain:

1. How the thermite got there - who set it up, when, how was such a volatile substance kept safe in the towers...
2. How the thermite was set to not go off in the middle of a blazing inferno for forty entire minutes.

The aluminum hypothesis has all necessary materials right there, and scientifically conducted tests that demonstrate the necessary temperatures could easily be reached under the circumstances present.

In the future, you would do well to grab Occam's Razor by the handle.

Re: Molten metal found later - That's immaterial here. That could easily be pockets of steel. When a couple of hundred story buildings collapse into their extensive basements, it provides a lot of thermal insulation for the incredible amounts of energy released thereby. I'm not surprised by stories of molten steel in the basement.

Re: length of flow - yes, the flow you mention is longer than 4 seconds. The one you're describing is different from the one NIST is describing. You are talking (I believe) about the last one. NIST is talking about the first one. What's your point?

Re: why only there - This is associated with the incredibly intense fire in the NE corner of WTC 2. If you heap your charcoal into one corner of your grill, do you wonder why only the food in that corner gets cooked? Also, it's possible that this event is associated with a floor collapse. In that case, you might as well question why all that rainwater from all those different states flows through the Mississippi to get to the ocean.

Re: the open hole - now wait a minute. All I ever hear on these forums from you honorable ladies and gentlemen on the alternate conspiracy side of the table is how oxygen-starved the fires are in the South Tower. "Oh, my God - look at that black smoke. There either isn't a Pope or those fires are barely burning because of the lack of oxygen." And now, all the sudden, you found this great big HOLE that all the heat is escaping from? Occam's Razor demands that you explain the development of the invisible permeable field that let all the heat out but couldn't let in a lick of oxygen, or that you pick a position and stick with it - unless of course, you find facts that change your mind.

And now, the double boiler question - any protection that the ceiling tiles might have afforded the floor above was negliable. Tests showed that 5 g of force were enough to severely damage the tile framework. The plane delivered at least 100 g. NIST's studies focused on the heat's effect on the floor trusses and joints, and didn't delve into how quickly the heat could have dispersed through floors. Why? Because they were concerned about how the building actually fell. The glowing liquid is a side note. It really is. So we are both on our own here...

...but as the NIST study makes clear, there's some kind of structural event connected with these flows (the puffs of smoke/dust). If sections of floor are breaking apart under structural stress, then we could have sudden jets of intense heat shooting into the floor above, and melting aluminum as it goes. As enough melts to pour out, out it pours. As more floor breaks up, more aluminum debris is introduced to the intense heat. And so on and so on.

[petgoat]

72. open your eyes.

1. That great big hole is called a window.
2. You're supposing that the aluminum reached a molten state at 660 degrees,
and just stayed there in liquid form until it heated to 1000 degrees?
3. NIST deserves no respect whatsoever. Its failure to comment on the fact that
it has no core steel samples showing heating above 250 degreees C, its failure to
complain about the lack of site access for reasearchers, its assumption that collapse
initiation=total progressive collapse are all shameful.

[mrgerbik]

73. I guess my eyes are faulty - maybe I should have them checked

Molten metal found later - That's immaterial here. That could easily be pockets of steel. When a couple of hundred story buildings collapse into their extensive basements, it provides a lot of thermal insulation for the incredible amounts of energy released thereby. I'm not surprised by stories of molten steel in the basement.

You weren't surprised? I was surprised that dousing the heat with large amounts of water had little effect to cool the intense heat generated by these buried fires. I was surprised that the temperature at the core of "the pile" was nearly 500° F hotter than the maximum burning temperature of jet fuel a full seven days after the collapses. I was surprised that there was no oxygen source to sustain the fires for weeks.


length of flow - yes, the flow you mention is longer than 4 seconds. The one you're describing is different from the one NIST is describing. You are talking (I believe) about the last one. NIST is talking about the first one. What's your point?

Well why did you paste this into your reply then as it had nothing to do with the original post? I was talking about the video of the molten metal pouring from WTC2. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet%2B9/11 If there was a misunderstanding as to what I was referring to, my apologies.


Re: why only there - This is associated with the incredibly intense fire in the NE corner of WTC 2. If you heap your charcoal into one corner of your grill, do you wonder why only the food in that corner gets cooked? Also, it's possible that this event is associated with a floor collapse. In that case, you might as well question why all that rainwater from all those different states flows through the Mississippi to get to the ocean.

Dutifully noted. A questions still remains thou (as petgoat pointed out): Why would the molten aluminum remain pooled, like it were being held in a kettle, only to fall out when the temperature had finally reached 1000C? Most, if not all of it should have escaped at a cooler temperature, as much more time elapsed during this temperature range then the proposed 1000C+ temperature range. No eyewitness reports or videos exist showing silver colored molten aluminum falling from the tower.


the open hole - now wait a minute. All I ever hear on these forums from you honorable ladies and gentlemen on the alternate conspiracy side of the table is how oxygen-starved the fires are in the South Tower. "Oh, my God - look at that black smoke. There either isn't a Pope or those fires are barely burning because of the lack of oxygen." And now, all the sudden, you found this great big HOLE that all the heat is escaping from? Occam's Razor demands that you explain the development of the invisible permeable field that let all the heat out but couldn't let in a lick of oxygen, or that you pick a position and stick with it - unless of course, you find facts that change your mind.

The smoke was sooty and colored dark to almost black. Period. I don't need to defend that the fire was NOT as intense as some people like to claim.
The hole is a window. Now let me postulate: The smoke coming from the window shows no signs of sucked back in, as would be expected if there was "amazing amount of heat" and an "intense" fire inside. Wouldn't there be any kind of thermodynamics involved here if this were true? Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't a 1000c inferno suck in alot of air? Also the idea of a raging inferno flies in the face of the recorded firemen who were heard saying that the fires were containable.
This window (hole), and others next to it, would allow heat to escape.


And now, the double boiler question - any protection that the ceiling tiles might have afforded the floor above was negligible. Tests showed that 5 g of force were enough to severely damage the tile framework. The plane delivered at least 100 g.

Now why on Earth would governments and construction companies waste so much time and money adhering to pesky building codes if concrete provided little or no fire resistance? Those floors were constructed with reinforced concrete and steel. Concrete provides the best fire resistance of any building materials, bar none. The tiles may have been negligible but not concrete. You seem to claim that the floors were constructed entirely of floor tiles.


NIST's studies focused on the heat's effect on the floor trusses and joints, and didn't delve into how quickly the heat could have dispersed through floors. Why? Because they were concerned about how the building actually fell. The glowing liquid is a side note. It really is. So we are both on our own here...
This is exactly why we need a re-investigation. You have pointed out one of the many thoughtful omissions that NIST has deemed "unnecessary". This side note could explain alot. Maybe too much.
Its also interesting to note that the NIST report only goes so far as to explaining the pre-conditions that initiated the "global collapse". No models were presented that show the actual collapse event.

[Bolo Boffin]

84. More

You completely avoided the topic of elegant vs. elaborate hypotheses. Naughty, naughty.

Re: molten steel in basement. I don't think fires are necessary to explain the steel being molten, and so oxygen is immaterial. The core of the earth is molten, and there's no oxygen down there. It's a macro explanation of what I'm saying about the WTC buildings. Massive amounts of energy released in the collapse. It has no place to disappate. So there the energy remains. It keeps the steel molten or glowing orange (which to be fair, that's the only pictures I've seen, of glowing orange metal in the plastic stage, but still solid).

Re: liquid flow. I quoted the NIST report to talk about the flows in general. You grabbed that one statement and contextualized it into a contradiction. It's immaterial about the first flow or the last - the important thing is that they happened. I have to believe that they all happened from the same basic cause - I have no info that leads me to suspect otherwise. Solving one flow is solving them all.

Re: molten aluminum waiting until 1000 °C to flow out. NIST points to other physical evidence that something strange was going on inside the building associated with the flow (the puffs of dust/smoke). I assume that something finally collapsed (a floor, part of a floor) and allowed the pooling aluminum to flow out.

Re: escaping heat. We've already talked about the ceiling tiles being shaken loose. If the upper layer of heat had that much additional area to gather, it would be in a place where the windows couldn't have allowed release of the heat. Do the windows stretch up past the ceiling tiles in your office building? Or any office building you're familiar with?

Sidenote: The statement of the fireman you're referring to is being taken completely out of context. It was made about a single moment of time about one single floor. It can't be used as a blanket statement to refer to all the fires on every floor in both buildings. You have been lied to.

Re: floor vs. ceiling tiles. You're completely mangling what I said. The tiles were negliable because they were gone. The airplane impact dislodged them. I don't try to claim that the floor was made up of ceiling tiles at all.

The glowing liquid has nothing to do with explaining the collapse of the building. The NIST study notes them only as trivia, which is all they are. NIST was able to reconstruct the collapse of the buildings again and again via computer modeling, based on the facts available - the airplane strike and its likely damage, the ensuing fire and its likely damage, and the final collapse. All tests were done to serve the computer modelling - to help it reproduce what is being seen in the pictorial record. At no point was it necessary to examine the cause of the glowing liquid to provide any further data for the modelling. That, at least, is my understanding of the NIST project at this point in their study.

There's a lot of other things NIST was doing, because it was concerned with: a) building better buildings, and b) organizing better emergency response to disasters. This is why it was important to know just how the building collapsed. Building codes are being re-written, and emergency procedures overhauled, based on this study. The scientists conducting this study understood the stakes far better than most people at this forum.

[quickesst]

60. Your position...

is absolutely clear. Just happens to be wrong. Petgoat, you're making it look too easy.
So, we have from the debunkers, steel that melted, steel that softened, steel that softened, then cooled, thereby becoming brittle and weak, aluminum that miraculously shows the exact same characteristics as molten steel, and on it goes. Like electricity, if they hit a wall, they just change course and take the easiest path. Trouble is, those walls (petgoat,etc)keep popping up, and the paths keep changing. Thanks.
quickesst

[DoYouEverWonder]

81. Those are the same tactics

that rapture ready xians use when you try to discuss the Bible with them. Whenever you defeat them with facts and logics, they just throw out another red herring instead.

[dailykoff]

11. Yes, absolutely.

At no point did gravity "take over" and finish the job, as the OCTers like to pretend, probably because it would have risked too much damage to surrounding structures. These two buildings were literally blown to pieces with high-powered explosives.

[sabbat hunter]

18. in case you didnt notice

the surrounding buildings were damaged. the world financial center/winter garden. WTC 7, the deustchbank building

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:September_17_2001_Ground_Zero_04.jpg

[dailykoff]

21. Yes, there was a lot of rubble blown out.

but the structures themselves, or intact sections of them, didn't strike any buildings outside the WTC perimeter, at least that I know of.

[petgoat]

23. The evidence that WTC7 was damaged is contradictory and,

apparently, not real impressive. FEMA didn't seem to take it seriously. They said fire
brought WTC7 down, though they sure couldn't explain how.

Well, I guess explosives are a variation on "fire," so they didn't lie.

[sabbat hunter]

24. damage to wtc 7

well the entire southwest corner was heavily damaged








in the second pic you can see the damage to the SW corner, plus the fire/smoke on a great number of floors

[Bolo Boffin]

26. Also there are credible reports of severe damage to the south side

No pictures show this because the south side is engulfed in smoke in any picture I've seen after the collapse of the towers.

[petgoat]

30. The reports of damage to the south side are contradictory.

FEMA apparently did not regard them as credible because it did not cite them.

Here's Dr. David Ray Griffin on the subject:

Chief Frank Fellini said: “When fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing” (NYT, Fellini, p. 3)....

One problem with the accounts of the structural damage is that they vary greatly. According to Fellini’s testimony, there was a four-floor hole between the third and sixth floors. In the telling of Captain Chris Boyle, however, the hole was “20 stories tall” (2002). It would appear that Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator for NIST, settled on somewhat of a compromise between these two views, telling Popular Mechanics that, “On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out” (Popular Mechanics, March 2005).

The different accounts of the problem on the building’s south side are not, moreover, limited to the issue of the size of the hole. According to Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, the problem was not a hole at all but a “bulge,” and it was “between floors 10 and 13" (Hayden, 2002).

The second problem with these accounts of the damage is if there was a hole that was 10 or 20 floors high, or even a hole (or a budge) that was 4 floors high, why was this fact not captured on film by any of the photographers or videographers in the area that day?

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html

[Americus]

80. CREDIBLE reports? NOT from a Gov't sponsor? Link, please.

What so-called credible reports are you talking about? SEVERE damage to the south side? of what, Chicago?

[dailykoff]

28. Corner damage isn't core damage

and it obviously wasn't catastrophic.

p.s. that top photo looks phonier than a three-dollar bill but that's another story.

[petgoat]

32. It looks really odd. I didn't know how to put it. nt

[DoYouEverWonder]

82. The image is odd because it has been manipulated

The color balance is out of wack. Looks like they pulled all the greens out.

The areas around the building that are filled with smoke are faked. The smoke is too dense. Real smoke will vary. There will be parts you can see through and parts that you can't.

After looking at this image in Photoshop, the building looks more like a painting of a photograph, rather then a real photograph. It's too consistant.

[petgoat]

29. Are those fires? Pretty piddly ones if they are.

Also, since when are fires blue?

And how come one picture is all blue and the other one is all pink?

How come nobody took any other pictures of the damage?

How come the pink picture didn't surface until years after 9/11?

How come the FEMA report didn't even mention this damage?

[dailykoff]

31. LOL!

Good questions. Can't wait to hear the answers.

[sabbat hunter]

50. fema report

the fema report just like the NIST report is loaded with errors. lets face it would you trust a report put out by
"good job brownie" ?

[mrgerbik]

43. Those pictures are fishy. n/t

[sabbat hunter]

48. the pictures

the second of the two pictures comes from wtc7.batcave.net/7.html, which oddly enough is a conspiracy theory site. but that picture actually helps proof my point about damage and fires.

i forget where the first picture came from, but i do see how it does a look a bit weird. but (and sorry for posting the same picture again) here is the same picture, just not as close up, which maybe where the distortion came from. this pic came from cooperative research.org
hope that clears things up a bit.


peace

[mrgerbik]

44. ??

Wheres the structural fires and subsequent "expected" collapse of these buildings?

[LARED]

4. Bye Christopera

I have to admit you were a fun guy to debate.

[HamdenRice]

5. Maybe because it is conclusively proven there was no concrete core?

And because this issue is kinda irrelevant?

[DoYouEverWonder]

6. I'm sorry

The WTC was basically a steel skyscraper with an unusual wrap around porch.

BTW: Why did they make him go bye-bye? Did he break some sort of taboo?

[mirandapriestly]

19. What did he do?

will someone please tell me?

[dailykoff]

20. I think

he got a warning and posted it in a thread OP.

[Grateful for Hope]

22. That's correct

It was here for a while today. I think he left DU because of it.

[petgoat]

56. Christophera's dead. Long live Christophera.

Google {{{Christophera "concrete core"}}}} and you'll get 25,000 hits.

[mrgerbik]

34. is it possible

that Christophera is here to discredit any true skepticism? (sorry if its not true)

[mirandapriestly]

46. You mean to set up misinformation that could be

discredited thereby discrediting all skeptics? I considered that. OTOH, I do think he may have seen a video that shows a concrete core and there is some information out there saying the core was concrete. Also it is very difficult to find information (especially pre911) on the way the core was made and there is secrecy with the blueprints, so who knows? His single mindedness about it didn't really make sense, though.

[HamdenRice]

47. This is how I understood Christophera

I realize it's not fair to talk about the guy when he can't respond, but since you raise the question of whether he was a disinfo type, I figured I'd add my 2 cents.

When I first started posting in this forum I would argue with him about that silly concrete core fixation. Then one day, I followed a link in his profile to his own website.

Christophera's web site, if memory serves, was a similarly strange and single minded rant about some stream in California drying up. Sort of over and over how this stream drying up was evidence of some kind of environmental crime. It was a lot like his concrete core fixation.

After reading that site, I realized that this guy was ... well I'm not sure how to put it politely, but let's just say he doesn't think like most of us, and there's little point arguing with him.

So I don't think he was a disinfo type, just very, very eccentric.

[Grateful for Hope]

52. I find this very sad. n/t

[mirandapriestly]

57. I think this is his site

He's an environmentalist, I don't see anything wrong with this, he's a smart guy.
http://algoxy.com/

[sgsmith]

53. Sound of my head hitting the desk. Repeatedly.

Sorry - I've got to disagree about finding information pre-911 about the WTC tower construction. It's like looking for the needle in a haystack, but information is out there.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=69364

If you look through this thread, you'll find movies showing the build process from site demolition, through excavation, construction and open for business. The PBS documentary stresses the use of structural steel construction for the exterior perimeter wall, the interior service core and the floor pans. There is an amazing lack of concrete shown in the movie - from what I remember the main use of concrete was in the bathtub wall, the foundations used for the support columns and the floor pans. Substantial emphasis is put on the use of steel - the construction of the exterior spandrels, core columns, floor trusses, etc.

There's also an article by the architect with several good photos of construction of the towers and an excellent narrative. Again, concrete is hardly mentioned.
http://www.graingerchallenge.org/nae/bridgecom.nsf/0754c87f163f599e85256cca00588f49/85256e8d00838af385256f2a004578e3/$FILE/Bridge-v32n1.pdf

I disagreed with Christophera's instance that there was a concrete core. It seemed to me that he had a fixation on a documentary that he claimed to have seen, but could never produce any references to, except for his own. He dismissed the PBS documentary as a "feel good" publicity piece, even though he couldn't produce his documentary. Why he had this fixation I don't know, but he seemed to dismiss every bit of evidence contrary to his theory as being inadequate. Frankly, I found his insistence on posting the same photos over and over to be horribly overbearing.

Regardless, I hate to see anyone banned from the forum, as it appears to have occurred.

[mirandapriestly]

54. I'm not talking about internet

I'm talking about library books, including the architecture library at the Univ of Washington. I think it is weird that the Seattle Public Library didn't have any books with technical/architectural information on the construction of the towers. Maybe it just reflects what there is a demand for.
There have also been several lawsuits where people tried to get the blueprints for the wtc and for some reason those don't seem to be available. I doubt it's because of the core.
I am not arguing for a concrete core, I am just saying that he did have some points.

I've seen everything you are talking about.

Maybe you ought to stop repeatedly hitting your head on the desk.

[seatnineb]

58. Good points Miranda.......

Here is a scan from a source that does not exist on the Internet:

It is from the October 2001 Edition of Architectural Record:

I obtained it after a couple of trips to the London National Library:

http://www.bl.uk/

I live in Cambridge which is a 40 minute trip by train:





Dedicated to Christophera:

Peace and respect:

[mirandapriestly]

62. Wow, fabulous find

Homeland Security must not have been able to get access to England's libraries.:yoiks:
There was also rebar, isn't that pretty much for use with concerete?

[seatnineb]

65. Thanks Miranda..........but there is more....

I have been getting hold of a bucketload of Archival material from the National Library in London aswell as my local Library here in Cambridge.....

Check this out.........

In WTC architect Minoru Yamasaki's book that was published in 1979......

He described the infrastructure of the IBM building that he designed and completed in 1964........

A Life in Architecture(1979)
Page 104.



Notice the reference to that building's concrete core......

Now let us travel back in time again from 1979 to 1965 when Architectural Record did a review of the then New IBM building..........



Now I am not saying that proves that the WTC had a concrete core.....but every piece of primary material evidence that I have come across that refers to the WTC's core before 9/11 either refers to it as a concrete core.....or a service/utilities core.....

And if you look at the IBM building.....it almost seems like the bottom half of the WTC:

[mirandapriestly]

69. Yes,the IBM building is in my town!

NOTHING on it in the seattle public library or the database for the University architecture library. wtf? Nor is there anything on Yamasaki, I spent a long time searching the catalog. I got a few books, but they were obscure. I had read before that they both had concrete cores, but then could find nothing on IBM building. I was also thinking there might be other clues because of similarities between the buildings. Good find.

[DoYouEverWonder]

61. I didn't get that feeling from him

I think he was really hung up on his version of how things happen that he couldn't see beyond that.

[mirandapriestly]

63. He had a pretty convincing scenario

although it entailed a prerigged demolition, and I'm not sure where he got the evidence for that, but it sure makes a seamless theory.

[DoYouEverWonder]

64. I don't think they needed to go through so much trouble

There were easier ways to do it but then it had to be an inside job.

Ollie North and Pat Robertson are pros at recruiting for this sort of thing. I think they used rapture ready Bushbots and that it probably had been 'in the works' for about 5 years.

[Jazz2006]

70. I don't think he was a disinfo agent.

My take on him was that he believed what he was saying, but he was rather overzealously single minded about it, and took it to such extremes that it clouded his judgement and led him to post all manner of nasty things to others who didn't see the "concrete core" that he insisted was self evident in the photos he posted over and over and over and over and over again, sometimes dozens of times within the same thread.

Eccentric, obsessive, and rude? Yes. But a disinfo agent? No, I don't think so.

[SidDithers]

78. He certainly did like those photos, didn't he...

I often found his posts entertaining, but unfortunately based in some alternate version of reality.

Sid

[DoYouEverWonder]

83. Pic of the WTC during construction

This pic clearly shows a large section of the center, the steel trusses and the steel frame of the outer wall. The pans the workers are standing on are also made of steel in which concrete was poured into for the floors. The rest of the building was mostly drywall. No masonry was used in the WTC towers.

[Bolo Boffin]

86. My opinion of Christophera

1. He was a sockpuppet.

2. He was specifically created to hawk some outlandish theory for the amusement of the puppeteer.

3. He DID NOT care about what he was talking about. His amusement derived from hacking off the people he was "discussing" things with. (I don't see any way else to understand his incredible assertion about the cardinal directions on maps.)

4. He lurks still.

That's my opinion, since we're throwing out opinions of the recently tombstoned.

[Lithos]

87. Locking

I apologize for not stopping this earlier, but speculative conversation about a user, active or not, is not appropriate.

Lithos
DU Moderator