Wonder Why It’s So Important That Towers Did NOT Have Concrete Cores? [View All]

[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.