WTC 1&2. How Were The Cores Really Constructed.

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 01:25 AM
link   
There's been some debate on 'core integrity' concerning WTC 1 and 2 versus the cores of other buildings that have burned (Madrid) and not collapsed. Fema has their "version" but what is the truth really? I have a bunch of older books from the library of the WTC construction that I'm currently sifting through and I must say some things I have found out are startling. I want to do more research before I start posting alot of references but I want to start with this.


algoxy.com...

I want to know what all you guys think about this. I know some of it may seem way out there but consider this: Remember after north tower collapsed? There was this -small- section of what I thought was the outer wall still standing. (I think this -remnant- was about 30 to 40 maybe more floors high) But according to this source this remnant that stands briefly before falling is actually part of what was a 'vertical' CONCRETE core! I've always been suspicious of this because I have numerous other sources that I've found online that state the opposite of what FEMA says about how the core was really constructed. Think this is crazy? Watch the animated gif at the bottom of the page again of this "remnant spire" collapsing and you will notice it looks like it just disintigrates into powder and THEN falls to the ground.

Quoted from the site:

"Here is the final seconds of the South spire shown in the earlier photo. A violent shock wave from below knocks the remnants of concrete from an area of core wall next to the steel dropping the spire as seen here in an animated gif. (This .gif looses the last frames at times and the last drop is not seen.)"


I also have some cnn covereage of this incident, will post it later if I have to.

Anothe reference to the spire"

source


That "powder" around the spire as it collapsed was not steel disintegrating like some idiots would like us to believe. It was concrete!

[edit on 29-6-2005 by TxSecret]

[edit on 29-6-2005 by John bull 1]

ed to shorten link

[edit on 29-6-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]




posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 03:27 AM
link   
That makes sense actually. I completely disagree with his thinking that having a concrete core would have kept the towers from falling unless it was a demo, but it makes sense that it DID have a concrete core. That does explain the density of the dust quite nicely too. I'm sure the core took quite a bit of damage when the plane hit, even if it didn't the floor coming down around it would still cause it to collapse.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 03:58 AM
link   
I think something else that no one ever mentions is the fact that regardless of the original construction of these towers a great deal of interior construction had occurred over time to accomodate the needs of the individual tenants. In the case of larger tenants using multiple floors there were frequently what seemed like buildings within the buildings.

By this I mean that construction between multiple floors was common to provide for a self contained section that once entered had it's own systems of stairways and or escalators added within it so that using the main systems of travel between floors, or leaving the tenants space was no longer necesarry to get around within the tenant space. It provided both additional security within the building for the tenant as well as convenience for the people in that space. I do not imagine the building codes allowed for impairing the internal core of the building, but beyond that there must of been a great deal of additional holes and passages created over time and reconfiguring of passages and open areas to provide for the different tenant's needs. It would be interesting to see just how much the buildings changed over time from it's original construction and layout by the time they were hit.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Relentless
I think something else that no one ever mentions is the fact that regardless of the original construction of these towers a great deal of interior construction had occurred over time to accomodate the needs of the individual tenants. In the case of larger tenants using multiple floors there were frequently what seemed like buildings within the buildings.

[....................]

I do not imagine the building codes allowed for impairing the internal core of the building, but beyond that there must of been a great deal of additional holes and passages created over time and reconfiguring of passages and open areas to provide for the different tenant's needs. [..................]


Your quite correct,
Neither the Ports Authority &-or the Building Code Inspectors & Fire Marshall
should permit any structural modifications for a tennant to 'customize'
their floor area, be it 1 or several levels/floors.

on this webpage,
you may see several typical floor-to-ceiling systems
generally accepted to be used for customizing, specializing floor layouts
to include secure areas, private offices, common cubicle areas.
Which still must be configured in such a way to be acceptable to emergency fire & evacuation requirements & inspection/approval.

The retrofits suggested are only 'incidential' at best...
but would be of keen interest to a 'Oceans 12' kinda clientel,
or a 'Die Hard' series blackmailer-terrorist ...

interesting....



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 05:16 PM
link   
The structural design and construction of the towers was well known and studied among architects and engineers around the world.

No masonry or concrete (other than the floor slabs) was used in the construction.

This is clearly obvious in the many photographs of the towers during the construction.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 06:45 PM
link   
i know something strage happened w/ the towers...looks like a governemtn job.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 07:00 PM
link   
This is an interesting read on the WTC construction...

ptpi.net...

So, we have enough steel to replace the double trusses by H-beams (or I-beams, depending on how you view them) that are 24 inches deep, 10 inches wide and fabricated from one inch thick steel. These would be very, very strong beams, and would be much, much stronger than necessary to span the 35 and 60 foot spans from the central core to the perimeter wall.

It is worth emphasizing that these beams, plus the thicker stronger perimeter columns, would mean that WTC One and Two were actually traditional steel-framed buildings, that also incorporated extra thinner perimeter columns, to attain the rigidity necessary to resist wind loading.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 08:15 PM
link   
This thread is absolutely hilarious.

Unable to counter the reality that the structural design of the WTC towers was unable to withstand both the airplane impacts and the subsequent fires, these people are trying a whole new attack of historical revisionism.

They are attempting to claim that the construction of the buildings was somehow totally different from the extremely well documented reality.

Through the miracle of modern technology (i.e. the internet), they actually manage to draw a few suckers into their delusions.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 10:03 PM
link   
What an informative response Howard.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 10:09 PM
link   
The last post is absolutely hilarious.

Unable to comprehend the reality that there is no possible way two towers that were built to withstand the impact of a similarly sized plane would implode on themselves and a third tower would do the same without being hit, these people are trying a whole new attack of historical revisionism.

They are attempting to claim that the construction of the buildings was somehow totally different from the extremely well documented reality.

Read the link provided by ANOK. Its extremely detailed and well researched and shows exactly how the actual construction of the towers differs from the claimed method of construction with photographs taken while they were being built.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Howard.


"Through the miracle of modern technology (i.e. the internet), they actually manage to draw a few suckers into their delusions"

Funny.. and I guess that "steel" spire that magically turned to "dust" is a delusion? Back at ya' dude.

Looking for more references to information concerning core construction.

Anyone?

Anok, that was a cool link.. deffinitely saved that one.



[edit on 29-6-2005 by TxSecret]



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 11:28 PM
link   
That spire is an exterior column. The photos in the link above show it bending before collapsing.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 11:53 PM
link   
Sure about that Howard? From my viewpoint it's part of the core. EVEN if it was part of the perimiter collumn that still does not explain the "disintegration" and dust flying 'almost before/while' it was collapsing.

ALSO, does anyone here have any other references concerning the large core "remnant" also standing momentarily after the south tower went down?


Good thing they don't charge for editing.

[edit on 30-6-2005 by TxSecret]



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 12:05 AM
link   
I'm trying to "judge" for myself how the spire lines up with where the 'center' of the building should be after the collapse. The second link I mentioned in start has this to say:

"We can use the left-hand edge of WTC-7 as a reference to mark the position of the spire relative to the original tower. The framing of the picture changes and the view pulls back to a wider angle as we go through the sequence, making WTC-7 get smaller and move a little to the right. Despite this shift we can see that the top of the spire as seen in the last picture just matches the midline of the intact tower in the first frame, indicating that it was part of the core. "



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 12:29 AM
link   
Well...

Don't know how much this has to do with the core, but on Feb 13, 1975 a fire did happen on the 9th floor, and progresed to the 19th floor of the north tower, causing considerable damage to the trusses ( no damage to the core from what I can find was done here )...


The confusion continued in 1975, several years after the towers had opened, when a sizable fire spread from the 9th to the 19th floor of the north tower. The fire caused buckling of some parts of the trusses on those floors. An engineering firm called in to assess the fire damage concluded that only fire testing and analysis by fire experts could determine if the floor systems were safe.

But again, there is no indication the tests were ever done.



www.skyscrapersafety.org...

This would also lead me to belive that the fires from 9/11 would also cause the same type of buckling...

And I'm also conserned why in 1975 there is no indication that the P.A. didn't conduct the tests; did they do the test's ?

Also I read somewhare else, that it was said that the P.A. changed the amount of fire proofing that was applied during construction, and how to apply it ( I'll see if I can find the link )...


So if you are going to blame anyone, blame the P.A. ...



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
This thread is absolutely hilarious.

Unable to counter the reality


Dude the reality you are peddling is a sham. Do you ever really think things through? Or do you just ignore what doesn't fit with what your government is telling you?

Did you go through high school twice or something? You seem to have gotten twice the conditioning the rest of us got

The government must be very proud of it's work with this one.

Don't mean to be rude, but c'mon man wake up!

There is still hope Howard. I know questioning your government and stepping out of the box they built for you is a scary proposition, but I got faith in ya Howard. I know you can do it. You won't go to hell for it Howard.





top topics
 
0

log in

join