Photo of WTC Construction Phase: Steel Beams Are Mounted Together

[Bolo Boffin]

http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=197717

On that page you can clearly see the core being constructed. There is no concrete core whatsoever. There are steel beams being mounted together. It's clearly the WTC because a section of the perimeter with its distinctive lattice pattern is also visible.

Not satisfied with this picture? How about another?

http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=197713

It's further along in the construction, but the core is still quite clearly being made of steel beams, not concrete.

Want another one?

http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=197704

That's both of them there. And once again, it's steel beams, not concrete.

You know, I've heard it takes seven bits of information to counter a firmly held belief in your mind. Do you think I could find four more?

http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=197707

http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=197708





Well, they can't all be photoshopped, can they?

[demodewd]

1. and they couldn't put humpty dumpty together again

And all those steel beams collapse simultaneously floor by floor meeting no resistance whatsoever as the building collapsed in near free fall time. Right!

[Bolo Boffin]

2. simultaneously floor by floor? Isn't that an oxymoron?

Yes, there was resistance. It's the resistance that ground all those concrete slabs to dust.

Define "near free fall". What would be free fall time? What was the exact time that it took either of the buildings to fall?

[demodewd]

3. near free fall

Near free fall...within a five second frame beyond free fall...

And would not the core columns work as a giant radiator conducting the heat away from the fire center?

[Bolo Boffin]

4. Well, yes it would

In fact, that's taken into account when designing the buildings. In normal office fires, that's what keeps steel structure buildings up. With fireproofing and heat transfers, a structure can remain standing as the fire moves along the building.

But with the towers, you get massive structural damage and fires started over wide swaths of multiple buildings. Instead of a campfire, you got an instant bonfire that produces too much heat to transfer. Result? The damaged structure is finally overwhelmed, and the towers fell.

Check out that new PDF I posted from NIST. They take heat transfer into account.

Inside a five second window? That's what makes it suspicious to you? How long do you think it should have taken to fall naturally?

[demodewd]

9. re:instant bonfire

An instant bonfire that lasts a short time. Even if a small section would have been severely compromised for a short period it doesn't follow that every support structure on one floor would collapse simultaneously.There should have been noticable sagging in the compromised areas. There wasn't.

"1991 FEMA report on Philadelphia’s Meridian Plaza fire said that the fire was so energetic that "beams and girders sagged and twisted," but "despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage" (quoted by Griffin, p. 15). Such an intense fire with consequent sagging and twisting steel beams bears no resemblance to what we observed at the WTC.

Severe structural damage to the WTC towers would have required fires that were not only large but growing throughout the buildings and burning for a considerable period of time. None of these conditions were present. "The lack of flames is an indication that the fires were small, and the dark smoke is an indication that the fires were suffocating," points out Hufschmid (p. 35). Eyewitnesses in the towers, as well as police and firefighters, reported (pp. 199–200) the same thing.

Photos show people walking around in the hole in the North Tower "where 10,000 gallons of jet fuel were supposedly burning. The women (p. 27) seem to (sic) looking down to the ground" (the NIST "Response" pdf, p. 62, also shows a similar photo of the same blond woman with light-colored slacks looking over the edge of the 94th floor).

FDNY fire fighters remain under a gag order (Rodriguezvs-1.Bush.pdf, p. 10) to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a 9/11 gag order."




http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

[Bolo Boffin]

10. Meridian Plaza didn't have the structural damage

The fires in WTC towers are documented in the NIST report, along with countless computer modeling.

The towers were...very big. That's how you can have people walking around in one spot, and fires raging in another spot.

So you like hanging around Lew Rockwell's site?

[demodewd]

14. you don't hang around intense infernos

The structural damage in the towers was essentially minimal and as I said before there was no indication of sagging which would necessarily precede collapse.

People would not be hanging around on floors where such an intense heat accompanying possible structural failure would have occured.The fires were dying down and there was never any indication that they ever reached the crisis point by their coloration.

Lew Rockwell has some interesting contributors. Libertarian but dead set against the Bush neocon machine and its foreign engagements. I don't agree with the Libertarian economic philosophy. I haven't gone into the Rockwell site for a long time. I picked up the Reynolds article through another site.

[Bolo Boffin]

15. The evidence disagrees with you

You should at least read the NIST reports before you dismiss them.

[demodewd]

16. NIST=criminal cover-up

I dismiss the NIST report because it is undemocratic and government dictated and controlled. It begins by committing the fatal fallacy of ASSUMING that Arab hijackers committed the crime and that the content of the event directly bears upon their participation and what they allegedly did. Sorry...but no..

If you have a legitimate rebuttal as to why the buildings did not sag let's hear it. Especially the South Tower where there was appreciable damage to the perimeter columns on the one side.

[hack89]

18. Then why did so many jump?

Perhaps they were "hanging around" because they were trapped? Why couldn't they escape your minimal fires?

[hack89]

5. How do explosives accelerate a collapse?

Isn't the principle behind controlled demolition that cutting charges cut the steel supports horizontally and gravity brings the building down? Where is the vertical force needed to accelerated the collapse coming from?

[demodewd]

13. re: free- fall

"Free-fall would require "pulling" or removing obstacles below before they could impede (slow) the acceleration of falling objects from above. Sequenced explosions, on the other hand, explain why the lower floors did not interfere with the progress of the falling objects above. The pancake theory fails this test."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

[hack89]

17. How fast did the towers fall?

How big a discrepancy are you talking about?

[DoYouEverWonder]

6. This may be a stupid question

but don't they normally pour concrete towards the end, after they put up the steel framework?

I have no idea whether or not this was done at the WTC. My point is that these pics don't prove anything either way.

[Bolo Boffin]

7. Do you think they poured 110 floors worth of concrete walls

in both buildings?

How did they get the liquid concrete that high?

Building the WTC quickly became a floor-by-floor construction - building their way into the sky. There was no going back. And they didn't pour eight 110-story concrete walls at the end of the process - the logistics are impossible.

There was no concrete core.

[Bolo Boffin]

8. Scratch my "getting the concrete that high" comment.

http://people.howstuffworks.com/wtc5.htm

According to this page, they poured concrete on every floor, but it was for the floor, not the core.

[DoYouEverWonder]

11. I didn't claim that there was a concrete core

but it was apparent that they had to have poured concrete even on the upper floors at some point.

Maybe you shouldn't be so condescending before you jump the gun? Obviously my question wasn't so stupid after all, but you have proved that your own 'evidence' doesn't prove anything.

[Bolo Boffin]

12. No but there's a prolific poster here who does

And that's who this thread was intended for.

I asked a question, and then I went and found the answer. Perhaps you should be a little less hasty to judge my words condescending.

[JackRiddler]

19. Big deal

Okay, so you've refuted Christophera's ridiculous and insistent claims about the core being made of concrete.

This was always obviously wrong, always a snap to refute. What have you proven? Nothing.

I see you arguing with christophera, demodewd, pod people, etc. and ad infinitum.

I don't see you scoring shit for points against Paul Thompson, 911Truth.org, 911citizenswatch.org, oilempire.us, septembereleventh.org etc.

But just as some people have made it their full-time occupation to bring down the official 9/11 conspiracy theory, you devote your life to defending it. If 9/11 skepticism is so ridiculous, why do you bother? And what do you prove when you knock around a bunch of strawmen?

Take on the best evidence that 9/11 was an event engineered from within the U.S. military-intel complex. I'd like to see you try.

[Bolo Boffin]

23. Because of people like me, people like Paul Thompson have it easier

Pointing out how wrong pod people are enhances the work of Paul Thompson, in my opinion. Why would I want to argue with him? He's got real facts on his side, and he's quite careful to never state anything that's not borne out by the facts. What I say is, more power to Paul.

Why do you care how I spend my time?

[seatnineb]

20. People in the WTC saw concrete.............

From: j_montev@...
Date: Mon Sep 17, 2001 5:25 pm
Subject: Personal Account

This is a personal account of a friend of a friend's... very detailed... I take no responsibility for anything said in it or the authenticity of it.


"Apparently no one else knew where the stairs were either. Luckily, we found them quickly, entered the solid concrete stairwell, and began our descent. It wasn't quite as smoky in there, but there was a slight haze. The square plastic sign on the wall read "28th Floor".
This is going to be a long, long walk... The first
four floors seemed to go by very quickly, but we hit a
major bottleneck as we got close to the 24th. In fact,
we came to a total standstill. I could see that the
holdup was due to the fact that people from the 24th
were trying to make their escape into the stairwell
too. White smoke seeped in slowly through the open
door, and it was getting harder to breathe in there by
the minute. I looked around at the pure concrete
surrounding us. God, we've got to get the hell out of
here... if this place caves, we're in big trouble. I
was counting the minutes.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PASCDiscuss/message/7

[DoYouEverWonder]

28. So you are admitting that your response to me

Do you think they poured 110 floors worth of concrete walls in both buildings?

How did they get the liquid concrete that high?

Building the WTC quickly became a floor-by-floor construction - building their way into the sky. There was no going back. And they didn't pour eight 110-story concrete walls at the end of the process - the logistics are impossible.

is incorrect and that you just discredited your own theory?

The logistics are impossible? LOL

You really do like to throw around your theories as if they were facts and then belittle and discredit others who you disagree with. What other incorrect 'facts' have you spread around here, that are based on your version of events, that you so ardently promote?

[Bolo Boffin]

29. No.

Just getting concrete that high. But I'll maintain that pouring 8 110-story walls is impossible.

Stop putting an emotional element into my words.

[seatnineb]

21. This people certainly think there was a concrete core.

The World Trade Center towers were designed as tube structures. A tube structure building gains its strength from tightly spaced perimeter columns which provide wind resistance. The perimeter steel columns are braced laterally by 40,000 square foot diaphragms of concrete and 60 foot horizontal steel trusses that extend from the concrete core.
http://www.pitt.edu/~sjf13/event.html

The twin towers of the World Trade Center were essentially two tubes, with the north tower (1,368 feet) six feet taller than the south tower (1,362 feet), and each were 110 stories tall. Each tube contained a concrete core, which supported only the load of the central bank of elevators and stairwells (Snoonian and Czarnecki 23).
http://www.unc.edu/courses/2001fall/plan/006e/001/engineering

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.
http://salwen.com/wtc.

There ain't shit you can do to refute it.

[JackRiddler]

24. So what?

They say concrete core, I guess it must be true. Duh.

[seatnineb]

26. Tell that to people who were there..........

A large burly man grabbed a waist-high steel fire extinguisher and started ramming it repeatedly against the door. With all his might, he slammed the steel canister into the door in an attempt to break it down. Foam from the extinguisher sprayed all the people behind him. The door was so robust that he couldn't even make a dent in it. Then, he tried to smash in the wall next to the door so that we could crawl through a hole in the wall, but after a few attempts, it was clear that the concrete wall wasn't going to give either
http://www.mjbarkl.com/locked.htm

[JackRiddler]

27. concrete wall is not the same as concrete core columns

Was this a steel frame skyscraper or not? (Whatever the concrete then applied...)

[seatnineb]

22. Architectural record descibe a concrete core.

(2) The concrete core acted as the building's vertebrate. But it only carried the dead load of the elevators and stairwells within. In both towers, the planes came very close to crashing directly into the core. Any closer, and the buildings would have collapsed in no time.
http://www.ncusd203.org/central/html/what/torsbergweb/2... .

[Old and In the Way]

25. Interesting pics.

Not sure if the core had concrete walls poured before the next floor was poured, but it would seem to make sense. I would think that the core would be incapsulated for the elevators and as a firebreak to keep fires from spreading from one floor to the next via the core columns.

If we all agree the collapse event was about 15-17 seconds from beginning to end, that'd be only about 8 or 9 seconds from a theoretical fastest freefall of the top floor to the bottom.

If the floors were attached to the core and a floor collapsed....why would that affect the core? In fact, if they were going to eventually dismantle the WTC at end of life, wouldn't the core have been designed to be a guide to facilitate the floor collapses?

Seems to me (admittedly no structural engineer) that the 1st floor to collapse would add weight to the next floor, but would maintain integrity for a few seconds...until it gave way to the next. {Anyone know what the safety factor was for each floor? Seems that the design would have allowed for the weight of added floors} That would then drop to the next floor which would last for a certain amount of time (less than the first) and so on until the weight was rather instantaneous. But I don't see that kind of time sequence in the collapse...the rate seems constant from start to finish. But if you add up the total time in such a scenario...it'd be a lot longer for the overall event to occur.

I keep looking at the siesmic chart. Those huge initial spikes that proceeds the 6 or 7 large spikes in a decaying pattern. If that spike was taking out the footing and the subsequent 8 or 9 spikes were timed demolitions of the cores , say every 15 floors, then that would explain why no core remained after all the floors collapsed.