no concrete core

[sabbat hunter]

proof? right now on A&E. core contains elevators, steel columns, mechanical equipment. but no concrete core.

sorry christophera. hope you are watching this show.

WTC rise and fall.

[libertypirate]

1. WOW do you believe everything you see on TV?

Sorry dude it's like your doing this out the side of your mouth....

[killtown]

2. Funny, seems to contradict this...

How the World Trade Center fell

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1540044.stm



The steel and concrete structures performed amazingly well, said John Knapton, professor in structural engineering at Newcastle University, UK.

Steel-core design

The building's design was standard in the 1960s, when construction began on what was then the world's tallest building. At the heart of the structure was a vertical steel and concrete core, housing lift shafts and stairwells.

Steel beams radiate outwards and connect with steel uprights, forming the building's outer wall.

All the steel was covered in concrete to guarantee firefighters a minimum period of one or two hours in which they could operate - although aviation fuel would have driven the fire to higher-than-normal temperatures. The floors were also concrete.

But to me it's not important that they fell as much as HOW they fell. They both PERFECTLY imploded just like the WTC 7 did.

[Christophera]

21. Yes, HOW They Fell, but UK Concrete Core Wrong. No Elevators & Stairs

The UK core was not the core that was built. Obviously, no room for elevators and stairs inside, and we all know the elevators were inside.



How they fell. Implosion? no, not quite, but close. This is an explosion.



High velocity jets with considerable size are exploding up and out. This continued all the way to the bottom.

A typical demolition implosion leaves large, but manageable chunks, particuarly
with steel reinforced shear wall construction. The idea is to pull support from
key lower positions, controlling fall, and using upper portions to break lower portions.

You cannot get steel reinforced concrete to turn to sand and gravel. NOOOOOOO way. Not with any standard placement technique and distribution of explosives we know of in the demolition world. However, what happened, did happen. Meaning there is a way and whichever way can be thought of that is practical and actually will create sand and gravel, must be fairly close to THE WAY it was done, because, there are very limited ways to do such. Sorry for the size of this image and making you scroll across it, but is the only way to show the consistency of the mineral base material on site sitting in the basement.

I wonder if anyone can find an image of a concrete breaker at ground zero? I looked and think I might have found one but I couldn't be sure.

[killtown]

3. Notice how one of CDI's previous implosion's

is a lot like how the South Tower fell...

The basic idea of explosive demolition is quite simple: If you remove the support structure of a building at a certain point, the section of the building above that point will fall down on the part of the building below that point. If this upper section is heavy enough, it will collide with the lower part with sufficient force to cause significant damage. The explosives are just the trigger for the demolition. It's gravity that brings the building down.


The Reading Grain Facility in Philadelphia, PA, was blasted by Controlled Demolition Group, Ltd., in the winter of 1999.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion1.htm

[seatnineb]

4. Did they say explicitly that the WTC had no concrete core?......

....or is it because they made no mention of a concrete core that you have deduced that there was no concrete core in the WTC?

[sabbat hunter]

6. yes

they talked about the steel interior columns

[seatnineb]

15. Yamasaki had used concrete cores in his buildings.....

Apparently the IBM building in Seattle is very similar to the WTC:

As a result of the different materials, the IBM Building "has a different look and feel and texture to it, but otherwise is very similar" to the World Trade Center towers, said Skilling's Hooper, who is working on a repair project at the IBM Building.
http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2001/11/26/focus4.html?page=2


But the IMB building had....you guessed it


From the words of WTC architect Minoru Yamasaki himself:

A Life In Architecture.(1979)

[mirandapriestly]

5. Most media says that there is not a concrete core.

I think the point is that you can't necessarily trust their sources.

[sabbat hunter]

7. in this show

they actually showed the construction of the towers. no concrete to be seen. talked openly about steel core.

[jschurchin]

8. The only way we......

will know for sure is if we can get access to the "as built" blueprints.
There are ALWAYS two set's of print's, the working set, these give the construction company's the architects instructions. And the "as built" set, provided to the owner upon completion with any changes or additions made to the structure.
Until we can see these, everything else is just guess's.

[libertypirate]

10. Which is an amazing point.... Since no other buildings in the world

were built like the towers why the secrecy about the plans? What value is there to keeping these plans secret? Who would benift the most from withholding outdated building plans?

Why do we need to keep outdated building plans secret?

So many guns smoking so little time...

[petgoat]

12. According to Peter Lance, a known associate of the Blind Shiekh

fished the WTC blueprints out of the FDNY's trash in the early '90's.

"Woods then said that in the early 90s (prior to the bombing) the capital budget unit where she and Refai were located was being renovated. They had some old green filing cabinets where the blueprints of a number of buildings were kept from when the inspection department was in that area. They were throwing them out. She had two dumpsters and they were just tossing these old blueprints. She went to lunch one day and came back to find Refai digging through the dumpsters. She said he had found the blueprints to the Trade Center. (Another Marshal also told me Refai also had the blueprints to the bridges and tunnels.) But in any event Kay Woods specifically remembered the World Trade Center blueprints and Refai asking, "Can I have these?" At the time she thought nothing of it."

http://www.writerswrite.com/journal/oct03/lance4.htm

[AZCat]

13. Government entities generally hold blueprints for a set period.

Then they discard them. I think here in Tucson it is five years, but in special cases they might hold them longer.

[AZCat]

14. Intellectual property. n/t

[jschurchin]

16. Agreed, there is no reason....

for them to be withheld. I read somewhere, sorry I can't provide the link, that the FBI had a set but they were being withheld for "National Security".
I have no idea why 30 year old prints for a building that is no longer standing is a National Security issue, unless they know we could back engineer the structure, calculate building loads and stress's and determine if the reason's given for collapse are valid or not.

[adolfo]

32. Maybe this video can be helpful

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000065Q9C/104-2842171-7815101?v=glance&n=130

[TomClash]

9. There was a helluva lot of concrete dust after 1 collapsed nt

[sabbat hunter]

11. the floors

the floors of the buildings were made of lightweight concrete. 110 floors of concrete floors would produce a hella lot of dust.

plus how do you know all that dust was only concrete? wallboard pulverizes nicely too.

[Christophera]

47. Too Much Gravel In The Basement, No Rock In Light Weight Concrete

Look at the percentage of hard rock aggregate. It can be estimated by the quantity of rock on the surface and base of the pile.



There is far too much for the official structure. Only one mechanical floor and a dozen floor pans had aggregate concrete. The rest was all vermiculite, fly ash and pumice,and oh yes, wallboard too, which is seen as the lumpy top edge of the graded ramp. The basement is basically full of sand and gravel.

And yes, the lightweight concrete makes lots of dust, but the expansion of the cloud is far too fast and goes far too high for a collapse. Primarily, the pulverization does not occur in a collapse UNTIL the pieces hit the ground.

[ryan_cats]

24. You missed the part

You missed the part where they got everyone out and applied C4 to the rebar and then they poured the core. That's the story in a nutshell. Then 30 years later they fired off the C4 that was already attached to the rebar. Yeah, that makes sense...

I've seen rise and fall several times, no where does it mention or show a concrete core. But we're supposed to ignore that but a hearsay video someone supposedly saw is the gospel, right.

[adolfo]

31. Bush-Linked Company Handled Security for the WTC, Dulles and United

Bush-Linked Company Handled Security for the WTC, Dulles and United

George W. Bush's brother was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, according to public records. The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for years to the Bush family.

The security company, formerly named Securacom and now named Stratesec, is in Sterling, Va.. Its CEO, Barry McDaniel, said the company had a ``completion contract" to handle some of the security at the World Trade Center ``up to the day the buildings fell down."

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm

[ryan_cats]

33. That's not what I'm talking about.

That's not what I'm talking about (good point though). The leading concrete core pusher also says that the C4 was applied to the rebar during construction 30 years ago.

Do you believe that, too?

[adolfo]

35. That theory is ridiculous

No. I believe thermite was used to cut the thick steel columns and a high explosive (most likely C-4 due to its properties) was for blasting it down.

Based on the evidence provided from various reliable sources I think they (security co. & engineers) had ample opportunity to access the areas (WTC 1,2 & 7) to place charges.

If you are interested in the facts behind my reasoning I can mail you a free DVD with more information. The DVD is called "loose change 2".

Please IM me if interested.

[ryan_cats]

36. Well, that is the theory certain posters have wedded themselves to.

Well, that is the theory certain posters have wedded themselves to. That is the sole purpose of the concrete core posters. They swear they saw a video that shows a concrete core and part of the video showed workers being escorted out so mysterious workers could apply this mysterious coating to the rebar. This mysterious coating is supposed to be C4. Note, this was supposed to be applied during construction. Why, who knows? This theory also conveniently sidesteps the fact that the documentaries we know about show a steel core not a concrete one. Why do they only show a steel core? Because the workers were escorted out and the C4 and the concrete were applied a few floors below the one being topped out, that's why you don't see concrete.

You say this theory is ridiculous but the C4 theory is the sole reason certain posters are forever harping on the concrete core theory. We've all been waiting with baited breath for this poster to produce this video but he always sidesteps the issue and posts the same picture over and over and over and over and over again.

[adolfo]

39. With or without a concrete core

Three buildings displayed signs typical of high explosives that day and there has been no real investigation.

WTC7 in particular wasn't hit directly yet fell straight down just like 1 & 2.

What difference does it make if there was a concrete core? Either engineering method cannot adequately justify how all three buildings collapsed uniformly from all sides.

[ryan_cats]

44. You get no argument from me about that.

You get no argument from me about that. I agree, all three WTC buildings had to have explosives added, especially WTC #7. The security company and its ties to * are extremely suspicious.

[Christophera]

42. If There Was A Steel Core There Would Be Images Of It. There Are None

meaning your claim of a steel core has no evidence whereas the claim of a concrete core has redundant evidence.

For example, here is a section of the base of the core wall.

[ryan_cats]

45. People have posted a lot of those exact images

People have posted a lot of those exact images. you dismissed them because the concrete core (and the C4 coated rebar) was applied after the floor was topped out. You know, when you say they booted out everyone and applied this mysterious coating?










From:
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
Yamasaki and engineers John Skilling and Les Robertson worked closely, and the relationship between the towers' design and structure is clear. Faced with the difficulties of building to unprecedented heights, the engineers employed an innovative structural model: a rigid "hollow tube" of closely spaced steel columns with floor trusses extending across to a central core. The columns, finished with a silver-colored aluminum alloy, were 18 3/4" wide and set only 22" apart, making the towers appear from afar to have no windows at all.

Also unique to the engineering design were its core and elevator system. The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry. Worried that the intense air pressure created by the buildings' high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core. For the elevators, to serve 110 stories with a traditional configuration would have required half the area of the lower stories be used for shaftways. Otis Elevators developed an express and local system, whereby passengers would change at "sky lobbies" on the 44th and 78th floors, halving the number of shaftways.

On top of all this, there is the video, Rise and Fall of an American Icon,

[Christophera]

54. You Have No Evidence to Support Your Position-You Cannot Dismiss Forensic

And if they've posted them I've seen them. You are probably posting construction images from

www.911research.com

I'd bet that you try to show the BW overhead of the lower elevator rail setup or the miday shot of the exterior box columns and spandrels.

They've been blocking access to images recently. WTF is up with that.

The below is one. Look at the cute little question mark, Is that another way to say WTF, you're not paying to use our image?

[Christophera]

46. The Worst Part For ryan Is That The Concrete Core Explains Free Fall

and of course ryan has no explanation for anything. He doesn't like them, prefers confusion.

The fact remains, the only way to turn the concrete into sand and gravel is to put the explosive in the center of the concrete. Off to the side won't work nearly as well. Centralized. Forget bombs, they just blow holes in things.

[ryan_cats]

48. Gee, maybe I should whine to the mods for a personal attack from you like

Gee, maybe I should whine to the mods for a personal attack from you like you did to me and get the post pulled but it doesn't bother me, my agenda isn't to discredit the 9/11 researchers like you do.

Confusion is your game, yes game. You have no proof, poorly marked up photos that don't show anything like you think they show and a whacked out theory that NO ONE believes.

C4 put in the construction of the WTC 30 years ago for some unknown reason and you and you alone know the truth because of a nebulous video you can't even find mention of let alone the actual video.

Yeah, and I'm the one who prefers confusion? I want facts. I don't want out there theories that discredit the very real possibility that explosives WERE placed in the three WTC buildings before 9/11.

People read your bilge and they think everyone who believes that 9/11 was manufactured is a kook, sorry but I'm not buying what you're selling.

[Christophera]

55. Fact Is, You Have No Explanations That Are Logical-Free fall Must Be Expla

ined.

The concrete core with explosives inside will look exactly like what happened. Free fall is certain and everthing on all floors will be pulverized.

Yes, there are people who remember hearing that there were forced evacuations of the floors just prior to pouring concrete. Phil Jayhan remembers.

[ryan_cats]

57. Free fall easily explained.

Free fall easily explained. Someone had access to the WTC complex before 9/11. There are reports that some major work was going on on weekends. The security company is linked to scrub-ya.

Besides all of that, 110 stories of building is potential energy. All of the energy put into creating the buildings and raising all that steel sat there until it was released by the plane crash, fire and explosions that are still unexplained to us. There are reports of a machine shop in the lower levels disappearing after the plane crashed and before the building collapsed. I don't think they even needed a lot of explosives, just ones in the right places.

I used to believe the entire story but always wondered why WTC #7 fell when it wasn't even hit. After posts here and other places on the web opened my eyes to what had to have really happened. If it convinced me, it had to have convinced scores of other people so it has to be stopped. What better way to stop it but to have people post ridiculous theories that are easily discredited so ALL theories are discredited leaving the official account. Do you have an idea who I'm talking about????

Post the video, a link, a mention from somewhere besides yourself. Show us, prove us all wrong. Produce the video!!!!

[Christophera]

58. You Have Not Explained Free Fall-Plane Crashes Do Not Release Energy In

that way. They only release what they carry and that wasn't enough to cause pulverization on the way down at the rate of free fall.

Either the energy of the fall goes into pulverization, which slows it down, or it just falls and breaks up some when it hits the ground. You can't have both.

[ryan_cats]

70. Physics not your strong suite eh?

Physics not your strong suite eh? The energy used in building the WTC is stored up as potential energy. All of the work required to raise all that steel is held in check by the structure itself. When the planes crashed into the building they created weaknesses that affected the building loads plus the fire weakened the structural steel as well. The thing that brought about their destruction appears to be some well placed explosives. Once weakened by the crash and fire, these unaccounted for explosions released ALL of the potential energy and the structure collapsed. Now, I have no idea whether they had explosions on every floor, I suspect they did not because once the collapse started, there was no stopping it. All they needed was an engineer to evaluate the structure and figure out the best place to put the explosives.

Once again, Where is the video, produce it? You don't get to play both sides against the middle like you've been doing all along. You can't on one hand say the video is your evidence (your only evidence BTW) yet when asked to produce it (and that is not an unreasonable request) you then say the video is unimportant, we don't need to see it and if we have the nerve to ask for it, we must not be interested in the truth. The truth is ALL I'm interested in.

Why, why are you pushing such a ridiculous theory which makes reasonable people think ALL of the 9/11 truth people are out there and have no case and are a bunch of whacked out conspiracy nut jobs? I think there IS a method to your madness and your entire purpose is to discredit the 9/11 truth movement. Especially, when it's rapidly gaining momentum.

[Christophera]

77. Physics Requires Logic-You Missed Your Chance To Apply It-Distortions

There are cognitive distortions fatal to your attempt at logic. You've implied that the entire building was weakened by crashes and fire. This is "overgeneralizing". You also "maximize"

2. Over generalization: Single event is viewed as continuous.

4. Minimizing: Perceiving one or opposite experiences (positive or negative) as absolute and maintaining singularity of belief to one or the other.

The energy used in building the WTC is stored up as potential energy. All of the work required to raise all that steel is held in check by the structure itself. When the planes crashed into the building they created weaknesses that affected the building loads plus the fire weakened the structural steel as well.

Again below you engage in a cognitive distortion, "all or nothing" thinking, a form of genralization.

1. All or nothing thinking: Things are placed in black or white categories.

The thing that brought about their destruction appears to be some well placed explosives.

Again, below "all or nothing" thinking.

Once weakened by the crash and fire, these unaccounted for explosions released ALL of the potential energy and the structure collapsed.

Below you logically recognize the need for the explosions on every floor but fail to acknowledge that this activity would logically be noticed in order to get the placement and distribution needed with the explosives to get the effect we saw.

Now, I have no idea whether they had explosions on every floor, I suspect they did not because once the collapse started, there was no stopping it. All they needed was an engineer to evaluate the structure and figure out the best place to put the explosives.

[ryan_cats]

78. Add reading comprehension to the things you're not good at like physics.

Add reading comprehension to the things you're not good at like physics.

The whole building was weakened, is it still standing?

Once again, you claim I am the one who is distorting things but I'm not the one whose whole case hinges on a video no one else has heard of let alone seen. Please spare me your dime store attempts at psychology, you're not good at it.

Where is the video. You must produce it before they disappear you and all is lost. You and you alone hold the key to the C4 coated rebar during destruction. You well being is paramount to the 9/11 truth movement. Let us in on the secret, show the video!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Christophera]

79. Forensic Evidence Shows Concrete Core-Check Your Basic Comprehension Skill

s.

Because I've been showing you this image of the core for awhile now, in fact, you complain about it. You are not consistent or logical.



You are distorting again.

1. All or nothing thinking: Things are placed in black or white categories.

2. Over generalization: Single event is viewed as continuous.

ryan wrote

but I'm not the one whose whole case hinges on a video

[Christophera]

28. Not Gullible Are You? "Talked Openly About The Steel Core." That Won't Do

"Talked Openly About The Steel Core."

OMG, ..................................... i can't believe you exposed yourself so completely.

Meaning, you saw no steel core columns you saw interior box columns erected in advance of the concrete pours to hold the exterior core wall face concrete forms in position.

In the documetnary I saw, the producers said the concrete core was hard to see, elusive, mysterious. When opportunity to get light on it was present, the cameras mostely were not. The best was the rebar sticking out tof the concrete wall of the core looknig across the rive to the ocean, but it wasn' t particuarly close. They found amongst the stills, a black and white of a shot up the rough. exposed aggregate top of the pour with the rebar sticking out of it. The first rebar was only perhapas 6 feet from the camera. The outer form was still in and the inner removed.

Yes, PBS produced an amazing 2 hour special in 1990 and the producers dug into the construction process very carefully after they had all the original 16mm shot by camera people employed by the architects and contractors. The producers talked about how they had to watch the video copies over and over after talking to contractors and their employees trying to piece the unlogged, unlabelled footage, together in order to produce the documentary. The first 20 minutes was about the planning process.

Which is how I know that this design,



was examined by Yamasaki and rejected after contractors he consulted couldn't figure out how to build a prestressed concrete column 1300 feet tall. Someone with the BBC probably new someone involved with the company doing design development for that core, not used, but, because it was concrete they assumed it was correct because they had heard it was a concrete core. Too bad they didn't check to see where the stiars and elevators were because the design will not support them inside the core as we know they were.

This is how a lie is exposed.

[spooked911]

17. It doesn't matter.

The buildings came down too fast for a pancaking cascading collapse.

They were blown up.

End of story.

[sabbat hunter]

18. end of story?

i think not since i dont believe and many many others dont believe that they were blown up.

[seatnineb]

19. CNN themselves believed there was a concrete core on 9/12/01

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.html

[ryan_cats]

74. Hey, I can play the link game too!

Hey, I can play the link game too!

My link can beat up your link!!!!

From:
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
Yamasaki and engineers John Skilling and Les Robertson worked closely, and the relationship between the towers' design and structure is clear. Faced with the difficulties of building to unprecedented heights, the engineers employed an innovative structural model: a rigid "hollow tube" of closely spaced steel columns with floor trusses extending across to a central core. The columns, finished with a silver-colored aluminum alloy, were 18 3/4" wide and set only 22" apart, making the towers appear from afar to have no windows at all.

Also unique to the engineering design were its core and elevator system. The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry. Worried that the intense air pressure created by the buildings' high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core. For the elevators, to serve 110 stories with a traditional configuration would have required half the area of the lower stories be used for shaftways. Otis Elevators developed an express and local system, whereby passengers would change at "sky lobbies" on the 44th and 78th floors, halving the number of shaftways.

[Christophera]

80. It's Not A Game-Your Link Says Nothing-Has No Evidence

The words "reinforced steel core" are too close to "steel reinforced" (concrete) to suggest that the authors have actually described something, let alone something different than all the comments on the usenet that do not have a special interest.

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

[seatnineb]

114. Can you up with a link that pre-dates 9/11 that says that.Did not think so

[spooked911]

40. sorry, but you and many many others are in denial

It's a fact that the towers were blown up along with wtc7.

It's not worth arguing about anymore.

How it was done and who did it is more important.

[AZCat]

51. You don't get to decide what are "facts"

The circumstances of the September 11th attacks are undeniably cloudy, but for you to state that "it's a fact that the towers were blown up along with wtc7" makes the word "fact" seem more trivial than it is. You have failed to sufficiently prove your allegations. Whether or not you are convinced of them is not the determining factor - science doesn't work that way.

[Christophera]

23. They Were Blown Up-but NOT End Of Story ..... Bombs Cannot Do What We saw

Meaning there is far more potential complicity by elements of government and exactly how must be understood, or, not the end of the story.

[Christophera]

20. Sorry For You-Being Lied To. I Saw A Detailed Documentary On The Towers

construction and it was 2/3 about the concrete core.


I have no worry about you ever producing photos of the steel columns inside the core. They did not exist. That is why there is no structural steel showing at the top of the core.

[sabbat hunter]

22. amazing isnt it

that you still cannot produce this "video" after all these months. yet one that was on TV just the other night said just the opposite of what you claimed to have "seen". more likely you "remember" what you want to. you want to believe there was a concrete core so you "remember" seeing on a TV special, when you probably never did.

[Christophera]

26. Subject Concrete Core, Not Video-No Steel Core Columns Are Ever Seen

in your video. They are never seen in demolition photos. You have posted NO evidence. Here is mine again, and again.

First, this is not a photo of an steel core column. It is a steel interior box column, one of 47 that ringed the core in the "tube in a tube" construction, connecting to the steel reinforced concrete core. Yes, the liars used the 47 number in their steel column lie. Each interior box column had a 3x1 "I" beam running out to the perimeter walls. Floor beams connecting interior box columns are seen silouetted. The spire is a box column near the corner.



I've already removed the possibility of misinterpreting that photo at least once, I'll just do a little more toward that end again.

Here is the spire from another angle.

in a zoomed view of the interior box column and the sectional of the steel reinforced concrete shear wall.



Here is the image that was taken from.

[ryan_cats]

25. How many times have numerous people asked you to produce this documentary?

How many times have numerous people asked you to produce this documentary?

You always ignore it. Produce it. I don't think it exists.

[Christophera]

27. Image Of Concrete Core-Those Wishing The Truth To Go Away, Always Ask

and try to change the subject.

Here is a photo of the WTC 2 concrete core.





Life is about love, and we love our children, their lives, their potential. To protect their lives we seek truth for use in making decisions. Are you one of us?

[ryan_cats]

29. The video, where is it?

The video, where is it? Don't change the subject, answer the question and don't post that same picture of the steel core yet again.

Where is the video, answer now!!!!!!

No more pictures no more obfuscation, where is the video?

[Christophera]

30. Video Gone. All That Is Left Is Information That Fits The Photo Evidence

with logic.

There is no steel shown in this image of the core.



If I say it was a concrete core that had 3 inch diameter high tensile steel rebar and we see a photo showing many fine elements flexing, but standing vertically momentarily. My statement fits the evidence. Raw evidence that is absolute in its accuracy.

[ryan_cats]

34. So, the men in black in conjunction with the saucer people disapeared...

So, the men in black in conjunction with the saucer people disappeared the video? Is that your stance? Well then, aren't you worried for your own safety? I mean, they need to erase it from everyone who saw this mysterious video so why haven't they disappeared you? Maybe they already did and you're the doppleganger, hmmm.

That picture you post every post, it shows a steel core with debris on top giving it that mounded look.


Free the video, we demand you show it to us, or at least show us a link, do it now before they disappear you and all evidence is lost!!!

[seatnineb]

37. They don't erase evidence.They ignore it ...which is a more powerful tool.

[ryan_cats]

38. Show me the evidence, I won't ignore it.

Show me the evidence, I won't ignore it.

So, do you believe that C4 was applied to rebar during construction?

[Christophera]

52. This Is All The Evidence A Knowledgable, Honest & Courageous Person Needs

This is the concrete core of WTC 2.




Below is the exposed rebar of the steel reinforced concrete core.




The core blowing up.



After if blows, the rebar coated w/high explosive (whats left) is coiled like pretzels. The thick core base is easily distinguished between the interior box columns on the outside (left) and the remanants of the strairwell (right).




The analysis of dust below shows large amounts of iron bonded to particles. How did that happen within a collapse?

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2002/110p703-714lioy/abstract.html

We used SEM and TEM to examine chrysotile asbestos fibers, lead paint fragments, iron-chromium particles, and soot particles found in the < 75-µm fraction. The soot particles were in the submicron size range (Figure 6). No particles containing cadmium (detected by ICP/MS) or mercury were found at less than minimum detection limits in the 1,000 particles analyzed from this sample.
In addition to the elements quantified by ICP/MS analyses, the SEM dispersive X-ray analyses showed large signals for iron and calcium, which are major components of construction materials. Similar observations were found for silicon, which is consistent with the glass fragments and fiberglass found in each sample. FTIR functional group analysis detected a signal that is indicative of calcium sulfate dihydrate, a component of gypsum board, and calcium carbonate, which is extensively used as filler for many materials. Other SEM analyses found signals of trace elements, which are indicative of fiberglass and other nonorganic fibers, especially asbestos fiber.

[seatnineb]

60. Concrete cores were WTC architect Yamasaki's speciality.

Take the the Bank Of Oklahoma building in Tulsa as an example.
A building that was constructed towards the end of the same time period as the WTC.

First allow the Wall Street journal to give us a brief description of The Bank Of Oklahoma Building:

As New Yorkers come to terms with an absence in their skyline, people in Tulsa, Okla., are focusing on a presence in theirs: a mini-World Trade Center. Tulsa possesses one of about 100 buildings designed by Minoru Yamasaki, the chief architect of the World Trade Center. In this case, the resemblance is particularly striking: the 52-story high-rise tower has SIMILAR design elements and dominates the Tulsa skyline as completely as the World Trade Center towers did New York's.
http://tulsatvmemories.com/gb093001.html


Now let us read the long forgotten words of WTC architect himself.....Minoru Yamasaki

(regarding the construction of the Bank Of Oklahoma Building)



A Life In Architecture
1979
By Minoru Yamasaki
Page 159

That is how evidence is ignored!

[AZCat]

61. Please explain to me how you...

interpret the phrase "concrete-encased steel core" to mean "concrete core".

[Make7]

63. It has the word CONCRETE in the same sentence as the word CORE.

Isn't that enough? [/sarcasm]

- Make7

[AZCat]

64. I understand that technical topics can be difficult to understand.

I've just spent the last week trying to get a grip on a poorly-written section of the International Building Code and can sympathize with those whose heads hurt when reading technical jargon, but I wish people would take a little more time to parse these things before getting excited.

[Make7]

65. The very issue that you have raised...

... has been previously brought to his attention on more than one occasion.

I've read quite a few technical papers that were so poorly written as to be almost counter-productive to the further understanding of the matter at hand. I remember one manufacturers proprietary programming language tutorial in particular - the actual code was easy enough to understand, but they didn't explain it well at all. I actually had to think to figure out what they were trying to say. An entire page would be filled up to say what could be explained easily with two sentences. Most of what was written only served to further confuse the issue. That one made my head hurt.

- Make7

[seatnineb]

67. Is that fuckin' so?!...keep going! your reactions to Yamasaki's statement

.....are way too predictable.

[Make7]

94. Yeah, that IS fucking so.

Here is an example of someone pointing out one of your misinterpretations of a quote:

Posted by seatnineb Sep-05-05:

The core surrounding each building's 99 elevators also consisted of a lattice of steel covered by concrete that connected the interior columns to the exterior. Staircases in the buildings were designed to be evacuated in an hour, according to published reports. Each tower also had five underground parking levels.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3737/is_200111/ai_n8980888

Strange......for such a famouse building like the WTC that (supposedly) pioneered the "steel core" structure.......

Why is it so many people believe it had a "concrete core"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=53560&mesg_id=54672

Response by LARED Sep-05-05:

steel covered by concrete is also known as fire proofing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=53560&mesg_id=54675

And in your response to him is a perfect example of another misinterpretation on your part:

Reply by seatnineb Sep-05-05:

No shit!

So I guess these are refering to fire proofing aswell!

Yeah.....right!

<snip>

The core in concrete might have actually stood for a much longer period of time, allowing many, many more occupants to leave the building. It would certainly have allowed the occupants on the upper floors to have a safe passage through at least one of the vertical stairwells. The core in concrete might have actually stood through the fire and survived.
http://www.poshpic.com/wtcscript.htm

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=53560&mesg_id=54684

I think the quote above is obviously saying that the towers would have stood longer, or perhaps not collapsed at all, if the towers would have had concrete cores. It is not saying that they did have concrete cores.

Which brings me to this:

Posted by Make7 Oct-13-05:

You endlessly post quotes if they contain the words "concrete" and "core" in the same sentence, thinking it proves something. (I assume.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=53560&mesg_id=57400

Some things never change.

:P Make7

[seatnineb]

95. Fuckin' try this 1992 RE-INFORCED concrete core for size.

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

Sure looks like a RE-INFORCED concrete tower to me that is still standin'!



See ya later pal!

[Make7]

97. Since the objection was to the other quote you posted....

...why don't you explain that one before moving on to yet another of your endless quotes that prove little, if anything.

Posted by seatnineb:

Concrete cores were WTC architect Yamasaki's speciality.

<snip>

Now let us read the long forgotten words of WTC architect himself.....Minoru Yamasaki

(regarding the construction of the Bank Of Oklahoma Building)

A Life In Architecture
1979
By Minoru Yamasaki
Page 159

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=68190&mesg_id=69010

And here is AZCat's reply:

Posted by AZCat:

Please explain to me how you interpret the phrase "concrete-encased steel core" to mean "concrete core".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=68190&mesg_id=69023

I feel that AZCat's request is a reasonable one regarding the quote that you have posted. Yet, you have not even attempted to explain your interpretation. Perhaps we should look at it again:

Do you feel that the structural frame of the building does not, for some reason, include the core? The first part of your quotes states that "above the eighth floor, the structural frame is of steel...". If the the structural frame of the building includes the core then the very opening of that quote contradicts your conclusion that the building had a reinforced concrete core.

The next sentence begins with: "At that level, the forces are horizontally translated into the concrete-encased steel core...". If the Bank of Oklahoma's core was indeed a reinforced concrete core, why would someone familiar with the proper terminology not simply say that the core was reinforced concrete? Concrete can be used for fireproofing, or for stiffening parts of a steel framed structure, but that is far different than what is meant by reinforced concrete.

So, why do you believe that the words "concrete-encased steel core" mean that the core was a reinforced concrete core?

Why not simply defend what you have posted, or agree that you may not have interpreted it properly?

- Make7

[seatnineb]

100. I will let Yamsaki do the talking

Here is his description regarding the composition of the core of the IBM building in Seattle that was completed in 1964.


A Life In Architecture(1979)
By Minoru Yamasaki.
Page 104.

As you can see......the distinction between fire-proofing and concrete cores are quite distinct.

Do try harder!

[Make7]

101. How does that show the Bank of Oklahoma building has a concrete core?

You still haven't addressed the issues raised by your first quote regarding the Bank of Oklahoma building.

This reply has nothing to do with the Bank of Oklahoma building, which is what I was discussing. Did you not understand my last post?

Do you have access to A Life In Architecture by Minoru Yamasaki?

- Make7

[seatnineb]

102. The IBM building has a concrete core!

Say it Make7

Come on!

It ain't that difficult!

Repeat after me:

"The IBM building has a concrete core".

I wanna see you write it.

Yes I have access to Yamasaki's book.

I know what you want to ask.....what does he say about the WTC core.

Answer.

He does not say it had a concrete core.
He does not say it had a steel "only" core.

[Make7]

106. Have I said somewhere that it did not?

My objection is to you saying that the Bank of Oklahoma building has a reinforced concrete core based on the quote you provided from A Life In Architecture. Why can't you just address the issue raised by that quote?

- Make7

[seatnineb]

107. Boy .....you are sounding desperate.

The Oklahoma building has a concrete encased steel core.

Big deal?

[Make7]

108. You said it had a reinforced concrete core.

That is different than a concrete-encased steel core.

The IBM Building had a concrete core.

Big deal....

How does your little exercise in trying to point out the structure of buildings other than the WTC towers prove anything about how the WTC was built?

- Make7

[seatnineb]

109. You could not be more wrong.

This time I'll let John T.O' Hagan do the talking.
The Fire Commissioner for New York who EXAMINED the WTC fire of 1975.

He knew those WTC cores like the back of his hand.........



High Rise/Fire And Safety
By John T. O' Hagan.
Pubished by The Fire Engineering Library
(1977)
Page 23-28.

[Make7]

110. What am I wrong about?

Your post does not refute anything I said in my previous post. In fact, your response has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the post that you replied to at all.

- Make7

[seatnineb]

113. Everything......deal with it....The WTC had a re-inforced concrete core.

High Rise/Fire And Safety
By John T. O' Hagan.
Pubished by The Fire Engineering Library
(1977)
Page 23-28.

You have no way of refuting this....so all you can do is ignore it

Ignorance is bliss after all.

[Make7]

117. Everything? That is certainly disappointing news.

Tell me, am I wrong even when I agree with you? Would that not make you wrong in that instance as well. For instance, I said that the IBM Building in Seattle has a concrete core. Was I wrong about that? Were you wrong about that too? :)

How about the following exchange?

Posted by seatnineb on Feb-04-06 03:18 PM:

The Oklahoma building has a concrete encased steel core.

Post #107

Posted by Make7 on Feb-04-06 03:28 PM:

You said it (the Bank of Oklahoma building) had a reinforced concrete core.

Post #108

Now for your review, one of your previous posts:

Posted by seatnineb on Feb-04-06 01:18 AM:

IBM building in Seattle and Bank of Oklahoma have re-i-concrete cores.

Post #91

Was I wrong there? I must have been, because according to you I am wrong about everything. So, just to help me understand, could you please point out my error?

Posted by seatnineb:

You have no way of refuting this....so all you can do is ignore it

That's rather amusing. How long did you dance around the issue AZCat raised about the quote you posted regarding the "concrete core" of the Bank of Oklahoma building? Also, more than once in this thread your replies to me have completely ignored the content of my posts. Do you really feel that you are in any position to complain about me ignoring something you have posted?

Often I wonder if I should just ignore you altogether, but I must admit that I would miss you telling me I am wrong all the time.

Posted by seatnineb:

High Rise/Fire And Safety
By John T. O' Hagan.
Pubished by The Fire Engineering Library
(1977)
Page 23-28.

From the appearance of this picture, it seems highly unlikely that those two paragraphs consecutively follow each other on the same page. From your citation, it looks like the first paragraph is from page 23 and the second would be from page 28. Should I just take your word for it that you are not taking this out of context, and are also not misinterpreting it? Your abilities regarding those two things are somewhat suspect, in my opinion.

So - since you have used a source that doesn't appear to be available on the web, should I buy a copy of this book, or drive the two and a half hours to the library closest to me that has an available copy, just to see if you are accurately representing the books contents? I really can't see myself caring enough to do either.

We've been through this before - there are quotes saying that the core was concrete and there are quotes that say it was steel. Obviously they were one or the other. Some people believe they were concrete, some people believe they were steel. Why do you think that posting one more quote from someone that believes they were concrete will somehow prove something? If I post yet another quote from someone that thinks they were steel, would that prove they were steel?

- Make7

[seatnineb]

118. Sorry to dissapoint you!.......but this guy knows what he is talking about

Perhaps you missed the part about re-inforced concrete cores being THE PRIMARY component of these 2 high rises.



It must be so deceptive of me to actually cite the 2 different pages!

The stuff in between merely rounds out other factors such as floors,girders,drywall partitions.... ect ect.

BUT THEY REFER TO ONE IN THE SAME!

Don't believe me......or too scared to believe me?

In the meantime.....


High Rise/Fire And Safety
Page 143

Enjoy!

[AZCat]

120. Considering your track record so far...

It wouldn't be fear that prevents me from believing you - it's a history of errors on your part.

[seatnineb]

121. Shall I increase your pain?

The below statement refering to a masonary core:


High Rise/Fire And Safety
By John T. O'Hagan
Page 143
1977

...relates to the fire at 1 New York Plaza in 1970.

The same 1 New York Plaza that John T. O' Hagan says had a re-inforced concrete core:


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

Get hold of the book........you will not like what you find...I guarantee it!

[Make7]

124. This is a perfect example of what I am talking about.

Added post links.

Posted by seatnineb:

In the meantime.....

High Rise/Fire And Safety
Page 143

Post #118

You provide no context at all in your post for the paragraph above, not even the building to which it refers. Are you being deceptive? Or did you just happen to unintentionally leave out pertinent information?

This is precisely why I find it difficult to believe you when you say that the previous quoted material from High Rise/Fire And Safety is not missing anything relevant between the first paragraph from page 23 and the second paragraph from page 28. In my last post, I questioned your ability to correctly interpret and/or provide the proper context for quoted material. And here - in your very next post - you are not providing the context required for your latest quote.

Why should I take your word for it concerning the page23/page28 quotes when you say that the "stuff in between merely rounds out other factors such as floors,girders,drywall partitions.... ect ect."?

Posted by seatnineb:

Perhaps you missed the part about re-inforced concrete cores being THE PRIMARY component of these 2 high rises.

Post #118

Perhaps in the future you could somehow emphasize the passages that you feel are the most significant. (e.g. highlighting or underlining them. Or both.)

- Make7

[seatnineb]

125. Do not take my word for it!.....Find/get the book!

The following statement from you implied that O'Hagan believes that the cores were re-inforced concrete.

In the words of Make7:
Sun Feb-05-06 07:37 PM
Why do you think that posting one more quote from someone that believes they were concrete will somehow prove something?

To which I responded:

In the words of Seatnineb:
Sun Feb-05-06 07:54 PM
this guy knows what he is talking about

I then presented proof that he did not just believe they were reinforced concrete cores........he knew that they were



because he was actually inside them!

I purposefully left out which building he was refering to...to gage your reaction.

The point being that it has taken you over 24 hours to muster a response.

And even then....it is was only after I informed Azcat that it was the masonary core of 1 New York Plaza that O' Hagan refered to...that you with an obviouse sigh of relief have responded back.

I do not want you take my word for anything I say or in this case...expose....especially in a medium that allows as much anonymity as the internet.

Get the book.

Here are it's details....

# Hardcover
# Publisher: Pennwell Pub (November 1, 1977)
# ISBN: 9998773741

If you want...I can scan all 5 pages in sequential order and PM them to you...aswell as put them up on DU.

As for being deceptive........

I will show you some real deception.......

O' Hagan's book is sighted by the New Yorker:

In 1976, the New York City Fire Commissioner, John O'Hagan, published a book entitled "High Rise/Fire and Life Safety," in which he called attention to the serious fire-safety issues in most high-rise buildings constructed since 1970, referring to such buildings as "semi-combustible." Unlike the earlier generation of skyscrapers, which used concrete and masonry to protect the structural steel, many of the newer buildings employed sheetrock and spray-on fire protection. The spray-on protection generally consisted of either a cementlike material that resembles plaster or a mineral-fibre spray, such as the one used to protect the floor joists in the World Trade Center. O'Hagan pointed out that, even when these spray-ons are properly mixed and applied to the steel (which must be clean), they are much less dense than concrete and can be easily knocked off.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/011119fa_FACT

You can see how the above author of the article conveniently forgot to mention the re-inforced concrete cores that O'Hagan mentioned.

However ,O'Hagan describes how the return and elevator shafts in the cores of both 1 New York Plaza and the WTC were composed of Gypsum drywall.
I will get that scanned too at some point.

O' Hagan also says how the drywall partitions that encase the cores from the outside cause problems for fire-fighters in terms of extending the distances they have to cover in order to operate efficiently.

If you still don't believe me...get the book.

[Make7]

126. Are you serious?

After pointing out how you repeatedly take things out of context or misinterpret them, I questioned whether or not that was the case for your claim that the existence of concrete cores in the WTC were "proven" by this quote:

I see that you have now posted more of the book here.

Maybe you failed to read the sentence immediately preceding the quoted material you based your "concrete core" claim upon, here it is for your review:



Do you understand what the word "hypothetical" means?

Surely this must be some kind of bad joke on your part.

- Make7

[seatnineb]

127. Dead seriouse.

<snip>

And which 2 buildings conform to the characteristics of that "hypothetical" model.



You were saying?

[Make7]

129. Clearly, you do not understand

...what is meant by the sentence: "There is a great variety of high-rise buildings in this generation but a hypothetical model that portrays their general characteristics can be developed."

Maybe you don't intentionally take things out of context, or misinterpret things on purpose - perhaps you just don't know any better.

- Make7

[seatnineb]

130. In fact that you know that I do understand..........

<SNIP>



Tell me something Make7.........

When O ' Hagan says that we should :

"Look at 2 classic fires in this type of building"

............what type of building was he refering to?

Was O' Hagan refering to a building with a "steel only" core.?

Funny......but I don't see a "steel only core" as being the primary component that is mentioned as being part of the general characteristics of the "hypothetical" model that O' Hagan refers to.

But I do see a reference to a re-inforced concrete core that is one of the general characteristics of the latest high rise building.

And a primary component at that!

And you know this.

You cannot refute what O' Hagan says.

But do keep trying......I am enjoying the spectacle.

[Make7]

131. I don't think you do.

Posted by seatnineb:

Funny......but I don't see a "steel only core" as being the primary component that is mentioned as being part of the general characteristics of the "hypothetical" model that O' Hagan refers to.

But I do see a reference to a re-inforced concrete core that is one of the general characteristics of the latest high rise building.

And a primary component at that!

I reiterate, I do not think you understand the meaning of what has been written by Mr. O'Hagan.

Posted by seatnineb:

Tell me something Make7.........

When O ' Hagan says that we should :

"Look at 2 classic fires in this type of building"

............what type of building was he refering to?

Was O' Hagan refering to a building with a "steel only" core.?

He is referring to the "tube within a tube" type of structural system often used in tall buildings. It was developed in the early 60's (according to some sources) and started the "new generation" of skyscrapers. I would think that the chapter title, Today's High-rise - central core, thin skin, might have been a clue.

There are some buildings of this type with concrete cores, and some with steel cores. I believe the majority of them have concrete cores - which is why O'Hagan probably chose to describe, in his hypothetical model, a building with a concrete core.

Before outlining his model he writes: "There is a great variety of high-rise builings in this generation..." And somehow you believe that the hypothetical model that follows, using a concrete core, is indicative of the actual structures employed in every building of that type. You must think he meant the "central-core-of-reinforced-concrete" type of building.

Nothing in what you have quoted from the book specifically indicates that the cores in the WTC towers were actually made of concrete. Or steel.

1 and 2 World Trade Center used the so-called tube within a tube architecture, in which closely-spaced external columns form the building's perimeter walls, and a dense bundle of columns forms its core. Tall buildings have to resist primarily two kinds of forces: lateral loading (horizontal force) due mainly to the wind, and gravity loading (downward force) due to the building's weight. The tube within a tube design uses a specially reinforced perimeter wall to resist all lateral loading and some of the gravity loading, and a heavily reinforced central core to resist the bulk of the gravity loading.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/index.html

The structural engineering group of Skidmore, Owings and Merrill was one of the the principal developers of the tubular concept in the early 1960's. Tubular framing was originally developed to help make feasible the construction of reinforced concrete buildings taller than 40 stories, and has since been extended to steel framing and to composite concrete and steel framing. Today four of the world's tallest buildings employ the tubular concept: the John Hancock Center in Chicago (1105 ft.), the Standard Oil of Indiana Building in Chicago (1125 ft.), the World Trade Center in New York (1350 Et.), and the Sears Tower in Chicago (1450 ft.).

http://guardian.150m.com/sixty-state-street/60-32str.html

The issue regarding what exactly Mr. O'Hagan meant by the quotes from his book that you have posted comes down to how one interprets it - I think you are simply reading into it what you want. And I can see that trying to convince you otherwise is most likely not a constructive use of time.

Good day,
Make7

[seatnineb]

132. O' Hagan says That the WTC conforms to his hypothetical model.

O' Hagan put forth a "hypothetical model":



And then analysed 2 buildings which conformed to that "hypothetical model"



You cannot break the link:

Between this:

"The latest high rise building has as it's primary component a central core of re-inforced concrete"

And this:

"Let us look at 2 classic fires in this type of building"

But keep trying.

[Make7]

133. "I said Good Day!" - Fez ( n/t )

[seatnineb]

134. Which is proof that you cannot break the link!

I guess this one statement from O Hagan really hurts you and your ilk:

"Let us look at 2 classic fires in this type of building"

We know that one of those 2 buildings......1 New York Plaza..... conformed to the type of building that O Hagan describes in his "hypothetical model".....i.e ....that it had a re-inforced concrete core:


Because here is O Hagan describing the re-inforced concrete core of 1 New York Plaza:



And as for the other building that O' Hagan refers to....the WTC:

Every source that I have come across that either pre-dates 9/11 or from the day of 9/11 itself .....that describe a summary of the structural composition of the core of the WTC ..........conforms to that famouse 1977 O' Hagan "hypothetical model":



........as you can see.......


Oxford Encylopedia of Innovation and Technology.
Published in 1992.




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

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 ...

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

All you can do in response is to post a series of documents that pre-date 9/11:

http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/AISI/wtcaisicover.pdf
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/AISI/wtcaisi1.pdf
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/AISI/wtcaisi2.pdf
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/AISI/wtcaisi3.pdf
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/AISI/wtcaisi4.pdf
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/AISI/wtcaisi5.pdf


...amongst others ....that do nothing more than mention that the core of the WTC contained steel columns.........something that a re-inforced concrete core would have contained anyway.

But do keep trying!

[Make7]

135. "I said Good Day." ( n/t )

[seatnineb]

136. Oh yeah......don't forget the carpenter who worked in the WTC......

....who says that it had a re-inforced 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 ...

[Christophera]

99. You Are Right! Steel Structure Wouldn't Have Laminar Dust Flow Down Side

That sheet of dust following the mass downward on the vertical plane wouldn't be there if there was steel structure behind it. No way drywall would survive the passage of debris to provide a smooth surface for the layered flow.

[seatnineb]

68. Your illusion is livin' on borrowed time pal....enjoy it whilst it lasts.

[AZCat]

86. What illusion - that the english language can survive the 'net?

I know - it's naive to believe that people would care about skills like reading comprehension and writing when there are more important things to do. :eyes:




Edit: spelling.

[seatnineb]

92. Your "steel core" bullshit is yesterday's news.

[seatnineb]

66. Wow!....you do sound fuckin' desperate!

[ryan_cats]

73. Do you believe that they put C4 in the WTC as it was built?

Do you believe that they put C4 in the WTC as it was built?

[seatnineb]

82. I believe that the WTC had a re-inforced concrete core.

Period.

[ryan_cats]

104. Nice way to ignore the question.

Nice way to ignore the question.

Do YOU believe the C4 coated rebar theory?

I would like to see a bigger scan of the article you keep posting so I can read it.

[seatnineb]

105. Who is ignoring what question?

Oh...the c-4 question!

Who cares?

What matters is that I believe that the WTC had a concrete core.

Something you seem to be hostile to.

Which article would you like to see a bigger scan of?

[ryan_cats]

122. The C4 coated rebar question.

You know, the theory certain poster here quote ad-nausium.

I want to see the article you keep posting where it say, "The mountain has come to Manhattan".

[seatnineb]

123. I took that image from another forum web page.

Unfortunetly that is the largest scan that exists of that article.

I would like to read it to.

It is an early 70's New York Times article.

It is an amazingly striking image when seen in a post 9/11 context.

I gave the link to Killtown a 2 months or so back.

You could PM him and ask if he still has it.

[Christophera]

85. Using Fear Of The Possible To Obscure Certainty-What Intent Can It Be?

To ask people if they believe C4 was built into towers is to distort their fear of the secret government spying on their free speech, into reason to acknowledge what evidence defies, that there was a steel core.

The evidence shows a concrete core.

Here is the WTC 2 concrete core.



Here is the rebar from its steel reinforced shear wall construction.



Here is the spire, an interior box column, not inside the core, and a section of the concrete core wall stading with it.



Something that cannot be seen in this shot, the wall is behind it. This shot does provide scale for the above shot of the rebar. The spire is 14 inches thick and this photo is taken from the same distance just before the rebar.



What is ryan trying to acomplish? He says that he thinks I'm trying to discredit the 9-11 truth movement. How is that possible when my scenario for the WTC explains freefall, total pulverization and the fact that the building hit first, burned worst fell last? And it is all very practical, supported by all the qualified raw evidence.

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

[ryan_cats]

103. Why? I'll tell you why

Why? I'll tell you why. The concrete core theory isn't that far out there. I happen to believe it was a steel core like the excerpt I posted but a concrete core isn't that loopy.

What discredits you and your theory is the ridiculous idea that someone applied C4 to the rebar before the concrete was poured. I don't think anyone buys that theory, it is way out there. Your proof? A video you and only you saw. In said video, the regular construction crews were ushered out and a 'special' crew came in to apply this 'special' C4 coating. The reason the 100's of construction photos only show a steel core is that after a floor was topped out, only then was the mysterious coating applied. That's your theory in a nutshell and frankly, it is nuts.

I demand to see the video!!! The web existed well before 9/11, this video had to be mentioned somewhere, where is it? Go to the way back machine and see if they have it. Since you and only you have seen this video, it is incumbent upon YOU to produce it. I don't think you can. Does Donald Rumsfeld pay you well for your work?

[Christophera]

Read My Page, You've Got It Wrong-How Do Built In Explosives Make Concrete

impossible?

We have 2 phenomena that MUST be explained, free fall and total pulverization. I accept concepts that include explanations for that which are logical.

So, ........... start explaining how those things happened.

[Make7]

112. RE: Free Fall and Total Pulverization

First, you must establish that free fall and total pulverization occurred before insisting that someone else explain how their theory supports those "facts".

Free fall times would be 9.22 seconds for WTC1 and 9.20 seconds for WTC2. Perhaps you could establish the fact that when they fell, the times were indeed "free fall" times.

Would total pulverization include people that were inside the core of WTC1 at the time of the collapse? People in one of the stairwells survived the collapse. "Total pulverization" implies that these people would have been crushed to death - yet they lived to tell about it.

So, please establish that your facts are accurate before requesting that someone else explain them.

- Make7

[Christophera]

111. Read My Page, You've Got It Wrong-How Do Built In Explosives Make Concrete

impossible?

You have the application of explosive wrong. Read.

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

We have 2 phenomena those things MUST be explained, free fall and total pulverization. I accept concepts that include explanations for that which are logical.

So, ........... start explaining how those things happened.

[ryan_cats]

76. Who sounds desperate?

Who sounds desperate? Just read your post titles on this thread, you're becoming increasingly shrill. Perhaps a chill pill is in order?

[seatnineb]

83. I mentioned that OKC building had a reinforced concrete core!

....and you have seen the reaction of 2 posters who subscribe to the Official story try to ridicule/marginalize that FACT.

Why?

Is there any harm is exposing the fact that Yamasaki designed 2 buildings that were built in the 60's and 70's that had concrete/re-inforced concrete cores.

[AZCat]

89. Yes, if the "fact" isn't actually true there is "harm" done.

You're perpetrating a falsehood.

[seatnineb]

91. IBM building in Seattle and Bank of Oklahoma have re-i-concrete cores.

That is FACT.

Deal with it.

[AZCat]

87. Hmmm...

I have no idea where you got that idea. Heaven forbid you try to answer the question.

[seatnineb]

93. You know it all too well!

[ryan_cats]

72. Hmm, is the Bank of Oklahoma 110 stories tall?

Hmm, is the Bank of Oklahoma 110 stories tall? no, it's less than half its size. No doubt there's different wind loading on the building as well. Different buildings require different construction methods. Did they also use the same structural engineer as well ( I couldn't find who it was)?

Since you seem to buy into the concrete core theory, do you also believe that C4 was planted in the building as it was built?


This is the building:

A website that shows various views of the Oklahoma city Bank building:

http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/okla/tulsa/yamasaki/banktower.html

[seatnineb]

81. The wind load is absorbed by the shock absorbing dampening system.

....aswell as the perimeter/exterior of the WTC.

The concrete/re-inforced concrete core carries the "dead load".

As the reputable Architectural Record told us before their web site was yanked:


(2) The concrete core acted as the building's vertebrate. But it only carried the dead load of the elevators and stairwells within
http://www.ncusd203.org/central/html/what/torsbergweb/2 ... .

[Christophera]

41. Ridicule Misplaced: Video Not Subject, Concrete Core Is. Here Is Core Base

This image is a sectional photograph through one side of the core. From the left we have interior box columns, outside the core, to the right is the core, up to 17 feet thick concrete at the base, the taper on the outside of the concrete core can be seen. To the right of that we have part of a stairwell.



Trying to change the subject is an identified tactic. I knew on 9-11 that a search for the video would be futile. I am not so stupid as to think that the perpetrators would not know of and remove the video from the publics reach. Nor am I stupid enough to think that the internet is NOT a immensly manipulated place and developed as such by intelligence funding because an environment of non accountable confusion could be so easily created. Your behavior is very telling.

The core shown cannot be topped with debris from a steel skyscraper because there is no protruding structural steel debris.



It is the top of a steel reinforced concrete tube that which made the tower rigid, resisting torsion or flex also housing the elevators and stairwells. The concrete tube is uniformly eroded, ground down by the fall of hundreds of thousands of tons of steel debris from the tower above it.

[ryan_cats]

43. BZZZZZT, wrong!

BZZZZZT, wrong!

So, now the video is not important? Are you kidding me? It's the foundation for your whole C4 coated rebar during construction shtick.

Have you ever seen rebar? That's not rebar, no way and I think you know that.

There's no way your arrow points to a concrete core. Are we supposed to believe that the concrete that supposedly enclosing those steel columns turned to dust, oh yeah, it's because they were coated with C4 during construction. Does that even pass the smell test?
Can we get a poll of who believes this?
1) Who believes there was a concrete core?
2) Who believes the rebar was coated with C4 thirty years ago?

Trying to change the subject is an identified tactic. I knew on 9-11 that a search for the video would be futile. I am not so stupid as to think that the perpetrators would not know of and remove the video from the publics reach. Nor am I stupid enough to think that the internet is NOT a immensely manipulated place and developed as such by intelligence funding because an environment of non accountable confusion could be so easily created. Your behavior is very telling.

I'm the one manipulating info? How convenient. Yes my behavior is very telling, I'm calling B.S. to your entire theory-period! You're the one running around accusing others of spreading 'disinfo' when you're the one pushing a totally B.S. theory. The only way to prove your theory is to produce the video which now, according to you, has conveniently been disappeared. Have they killed everyone that was involved with the video, did they use a neurolizer?

My stance, there was no concrete core, no ridiculous C4 coated rebar during construction. If there was any explosives added to the building and I believe there were in ALL three WTC buildings, it was due to the easy and documented access certain 'connected' security companies had to the building in the months before 9/11. What I don't understand is your Quixotic quest to continue to push the C4 coated rebar/concrete core issue.

[Christophera]

49. Video My Education, Images The Proof W/Logical Explanation-No Steel Core

The evidence must be explanable logically with the event creating it. You offer no explanation and no evidence for free fall and pulveriztion. They must be accounted for FIRST.

the concrete core is seen here,



The rebar is also seen here as the many fine elements standing vertical.



To create scale, here is the interior wall of the exterior of the "tube in a tube" tower construction. The interior box columns (floor stubs show they are of the exterior tube) are 14 inches thick. The above and below photos are at the same distance with the below photo being a few seconds before the above.



Polls are crap. Everybody is too afraid.

[ryan_cats]

50. We'll see who's afraid, certainly not DUers!!

We'll see who's afraid, certainly not DUers!! Have you even looked at the rest of DU or even the rest of the 9/11 forum? There's no fear here, sorry. Certainly not to participate in a poll. I'd set up a separate poll but I'm afraid that I would be accused of flame baiting which is probably true.

Gee, once again, you mention the video you just said didn't matter to bolster your case, now it matters again? Is the truth some nebulous thing you twist and turn to fit your reality?


Once again, the video, produce it or stop mentioning it!

There is no way that what you say is rebar in those pictures that I've seen for the first time today.

That is not rebar because it was a steel core. Those are:
1) Elevator guide rails.
2) Electrical conduit.
3) Plumbing.
. a) Fire plumbing (large diameter)
. b) Waste plumbing (larger diameter)
. c) Cold water which I believe is heated to hot water on each floor.
. d) Chilled cold water for building A/C, computer room A/C.
. e) I'm sure there's more.
4) Structural steel.
5) Stairway banisters.
6) Rebar, HA, just kidding, that's the one thing it isn't.

Free the PBS video, we want to see it!! Find a link to a mention of it that isn't self sourced. I am becoming most tired of continuous mention of this video without seeing it. In one post it's unimportant and in others, you use it to bolster your flawed argument. Who are you working for and don't say the truth, why are you trying to discredit the fine work of thousands of 9/11 truth seekers????

[Christophera]

53. Get Real. Interior Box Columns Too Large For Elevator Guide Rails

Elevator guide rails are shown inside the core from the helicopter photos. The large box columns ringing the core at the top turn into massive members at the ground.



Do you really think that plumbing can survive what came down without kinking up? Shows what you know. Those tight curls are high tensile steel. The only thing besides concrete and heavy steel that can survive proximal explosions of concrete.

[ryan_cats]

56. You're kidding right?

You're kidding right? The resolution is not good enough to see kinks in pipe or conduit, shows what you know. So, that shiny pipe is really rebar; I don't think so. Someone posted a picture of rebar and guess what? There's usually other rebar attached. Do you see other rebar? Of course not, that's either conduit, pipe or guide rails, the one thing it isn't is rebar.

Where is the video? Produce it! Don't post the same photos over and over and over and over again. Produce the video and prove us all wrong. Of course you can't produce it, it does not exist. Who is paying you to come on here and post again and again some ridiculous theory that C4 was applied to the WTC while it was built? How much are you getting paid to discredit the 9/11 truth movement?

Show us the video!!!


The video, show it to us, prove everyone wrong, do it now!!!

[Christophera]

59. Coiled Rebar Silouetted Over Concrete Core, Pipe Would Be Flattened

The tightly coiled rebar stand up and away, remaining visible. Pipe and conduit would not be standing free. Other rebar is tied to the large vertical bar with wire and that will not survive the explosion. Actually a piece of larger pipe light in color is visible dangling across the front of the dark stairwell. 90 degree elbows shape it



It cost me $100 a year to keep my site up,

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

and I'm self employed as a surveyor and heavy equipment operator in Santa Barbara California.

Here I'm coming off the top of a 2:1 fill in the JD 120C excavator. I'm sliding the bucket, pushing down, driving forward, track 5 ft off the ground in front, hanging out, still on the level fill in the rear, ready to lower the track onto the slope and descend.



People pay me to work, not come here and counter your moronic attempts to support the lie hiding the truth of the murders of 3,000 Americans by dismissing real information incorporated into logical explanations for what has happened. Since you have no evidence, and trying to make a non sensical argument with no evidence cannot be fun, what do you get paid to come here and attempt to compromise my information?

If that is not what you are doing, show us what you are doing.

I'm here because I know the truth is the only thing that will protect my childrens futures.

[ryan_cats]

71. Wrong again, once again, wrong again

Wrong again, once again, wrong again. So, we're supposed to believe that two pieces of rebar are standing by themselves, unconnected to anything else. No way, wrong. Rebar always is bundled together like this photo posted by sabatt hunter on another thread:

What exactly are photos of someone running some construction equipment supposed to prove? I'll even accept that you are the one running the equipment. That proves nothing. I think you're trying to say that because you run one small piece of the puzzle that is construction that you're equal to the Architect and engineers? No way. That's like saying the guy who washes windows is equal to the engineer who designed the glazing on a building, quite a stretch.

Produce the video and prove us all wrong!!!! Your whole case is based on this video. It is not unreasonable to ask for you to produce it. I don't think this video exists, your whole purpose is to posit ridiculous theories that make anyone who questions the official 9/11 story as whack jobs and people here are tired of it; I know I am!

Where is the video? Produce it now! Show us a link to it's mention somewhere!

[Christophera]

84. Not Reading-No Comprehension-No Integrity-It Appears This Is Your Job.

Lucky us, trying to define truth with your nonsense littering threads

ryan_cats

Wrong again, once again, wrong again. So, we're supposed to believe that two pieces of rebar are standing by themselves, unconnected to anything else. No way, wrong. Rebar always is bundled together like this photo posted by sabatt hunter on another thread:

.

I stated in the post you responded to, here.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=68190&mesg_id=69003

Other rebar is tied to the large vertical bar with wire and that will not survive the explosion.

I've said the rebar is tied together with wire and the wire will not survive the explosion. Can you understand this? That you've posted what you have indicates you are not reading or you do not comprehend what you are reading

Your term "bundle" is rarely used in running of steel for concrete reinforcing. Never relating to shear walls, generally.

ryan_cats

What exactly are photos of someone running some construction equipment supposed to prove?

.

I'm proving I work for a living. I work where I need to, I'm self employed. I don't do construction stakeout all the time, nor does it involve structural steel all the time.

You've shown us you are unreasonable, that you distort with out knowing it. That you have no familiarity with construction materials and techniques. You've shown us you like cats.

I've worked in the construction industry for 25 years.

Here is a survey instrument I had for a while on a residentual contruction site in the hills.



Here's some boundary geometry showing an overlap in property lines.



Show us what you do. At this point you could just tell us what you do besides try to make logical information about the murders of 3,000 Americans disappear.

[sabbat hunter]

69. i posted

pictures of rebar and he dismissed them

he cant show us something that never existed in the first place.
:P

[Make7]

62. DU poll results: 79% of votes were for the WTC having a steel core.

Only 4% (1 vote) for a "reinforced concrete core".

Multiple Choice - The cores of the Twin Towers were:

- Make7

[ryan_cats]

75. Help me here

Help me here, I wonder who that one vote was, hmmm thinking, thinking. Nope, drawing a blank.

Thanks for the poll, it answers the question I posed quite nicely. It appears that 24 weren't scared enough to take the poll.

[Christophera]

88. Poll Not Taking Freefall & Pulverization Into Account-Not Scary To Agree

with the liar when your afraid of the liar. You distort the issue, but that is your job.

No one ever described how the 47 1300 foot columns were cut so they don't show in photos and why those explosions enabling free fall are not seen.

Meaning every person responding that the core was steel was ignoring facts. Nothing unusual about that, 200 million are doing it all day long every day which is how we got to where we are.

[sgsmith]

90. Here we go again

For the last freaking time. The 47 1,300 ft columns were assembled onsite from 30 ft sections. The damn things broke apart during the collapse.

[rawfooddan]

96. proving the pancake theory false

for one second lets just forget about any steel in the building whatsoever. the only thing in the towers is a bunch of 4 inch thick concrete slabs for each of the 110 floors. (actually 109 because the 1st floor is on the ground). all the slabs just hover in air 12 feet apart until they are contacted by the floor above and they start to fall. Since each floor has the same mass, when one floor hits the next, we can calculate the change in velocity that occurs as a simple fraction of the number of floors hitting the stationary floor divided by the same number plus one. Its all very basic phyics. then we calculate the pre-impact and post impact speed for each floor with the formula

final velocity = (initial velocity^2 +768)^0.5 . Then based on all those numbers we can calculate how much time was spent on each floor by subtracting the initial floor velocity from the final floor velocity and dividing that by 32.1.


using the formulas:

Vf^2 = Vo^2 + D * 64

Vf = final velocity
Vo = initial velocity
D is always equal to 12 thus 12*64 always equals 768

so Vf = (Vo^2 + 12*64)^0.5

the time per floor in seconds is (Vf-Vo)/32.1

when a falling mass of 10 floors hits the next floor its velocity becomes 10/11ths of what it was.

this models the time a true pancake collapse would take, and while taking out the effects of all resistance other than the inertia of each floor. A gravity collapse can't come down any faster than these numbers. And guess what, study the video of the collapses that day and see how long they took to fall down. they both appear to have fallen faster than any of the numbers i got.


http://www.usd.edu/~dstrong/collapse%20time.htm

http://www.usd.edu/~dstrong/collapse%20time.xls

this shows that with the only resistance to a pancake collapse being the mass of the stationary floor being impacted, it is impossible for a top down collapse to occur faster than 14.5 seconds, a 93rd floor collapse to occur faster than 12.05 seconds, and a 75th floor collapse to occur faster than 11.04 seconds.

And get this, in real life on september 11th, the tower came down the fastest was the one that was hit higher. It came down about a second faster. This would seem to contradict the pancake theory.

go open up the spread sheet and mess around. see what numbers you get. pick your floor strength and see how it affects the time.

In reality each floor would resist far greater than its own weight considering it is redundantly bolted to the support structure. The figure i've heard is that each floor was made to handle up to 6 times its own weight. This seems to prove that the falling mass in the towers weren't encountering stationary objects but objects that had already started falling, meaning a demolition wave preceded the callapse.

[Make7]

98. What are the actual collapse times that you are using?

Welcome to DU. :hi:

- Make7

[rawfooddan]

115. actual collapse times

make7

i assumed that both collapse times were under 11 seconds. I think a reasonable collapse time is 10.5 and 9.5 seconds. do you know what the actual collapse times were, and where a good verifiable figure is?

my point is the towers came down faster than what should have occured simply if the stationary inertia of each floor being hit was the only thing to slow down the collapse.

dan

[Make7]

119. There is quite a bit of debate about the collapse times around here.

For the North Tower, I think the best footage I have seen to determine a collapse time is from 911 Eyewitness. You can get it here:

    http://www.question911.com/links.php

Start watching at about 6 minutes and 45 seconds in part two, there is no way the collapse shown is less than 10 seconds. I'd say it's at least 16 seconds, probably closer to 17.

For the South Tower, I can't think of something with good footage off the top of my head, but I don't recall seeing anything that I believe someone could reasonable interpret as less than 12 seconds. Although I personally think it is around 14 seconds.

A good verifiable figure? I don't know that people around here would agree to a source that would be considered verifiable. This page about the collapse times has been posted by a few people:

    http://911review.com/errors/wtc/times.html

Make of that what you will.

I wish I had more time to get into this right now, perhaps you should look at this previous discussion about the collapse times:

    http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=64808&mesg_id=64808

- Make7

[Christophera]

116. Good Method Of Structuring Basic Calc's-Actual Times Beside The Point

The point is that the tower cannot fall that fast, even if it took 20 seconds. The tower cannot fall all the way to the ground as it did. The reason why is that is was pulverized, then it fell.



If that pulverization were caused by gravity, if the gravitational forces could be horizontally contained, which they cannot, the collapse would take a couple of hours to get the sand and gravel that came to rest in the basement.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

128. Why not maximum carnage?

If explosives caused the collapse, why didn't they just blow them initially so that they had 5 figure death tolls? Wouldn't that have given them even more reason to go to war.

Not to mention, * was only in office for a year and a half by the time Sept 11 happened. How long would it have taken for them to find the people to do it, get access to TONS of regulated explosives, get access to all of the right areas? Not to mention, how long would it have taken to plant such a number of explosives in the right place?

With all of the theories thrown around here, not one person has even offered an explanation of how the logistics all came together.

[rman]

137. explanation has been offered

36 hr power down on the weekend of 9/8, 9/9
4000 pounds of explosives required,
10 trips by 10 men,
a dozen "in the know", the rest following orders

Also, the Bush gang didn't just pop up over night. Just look at PNAC, Iran Contra.