The 'WTC Had a Concrete Core' Hoax

Jack Tripper

I am claiming it was a steel reinforced cast concrete tublar core as cited by the team of structural engineers above and compiled by this professor:

I am so on board with you on that Jack. My question now is how it all went down when it was all constructed. When you look at the towers, where you can see the sunlght coming through, it's obvious that this 'core' was a very squished rectangle. It's obvious that all those "inner" box collumns where all "wrapped up" with something and I believe that something was concrete, cast and poured in sections during construction just like many sources said it was.




[edit on 17-5-2006 by TxSecret]

What about this howard?



Oxford University in 1992 published this on the WTC concrete cores.



More compltely incorrect researchers or part of the hoax?

Or this?





Please explain what he is pointing to if you think he is incorrect.

This has become a joke really and you look ridiculous.

For ALL of these sources to be incorrect and for you to continue to deny that concrete was a part of the core is insanely absurd at this point.

You and your "concrete core hoax"!

Maybe if you try hard enough this can become the new "project serpo" and ATS will kick you down some paybacks for the increased traffic!

I'm with you, Jack. There's no way so many educated people, people with relevant expertise, that know the differences, could refer to the WTC core as having concrete elements, without any explanation.



And what is that all over the steel in the spire, there? That gray stuff, that is across all of the steel thaht's sticking out? Cobwebs?

If I were Howard I'm sure that I would be desperately trying to convince people the WTC had no concrete other than the floor slabs, too. This would blow the NIST Report out of the water without even having to take a second thought. They analyzed a straw-man building. What they said was still without both precedent and any conclusive evidence, but I suppose it's a lot more believable than it would've been if they had tried to address the real structures of the buildings.

BSBray11

And what is that all over the steel in the spire, there? That gray stuff, that is across all of the steel thaht's sticking out? Cobwebs?

It's gypsum and spray on fire protection....... KIDDING.



All in all... the whole thing really scares the you know what out of me. I firmly believe that thermite with sulphur was used to bring these towers down. (Possibly some high yield explosives were used in the basement as well) Was just watching some video which shows to be what looks like yellow "slag" coming out of one corner of one tower as it collapses.. but I'll save that for another thread.

[edit on 17-5-2006 by TxSecret]

Okay folks nice to see that hundreds of pages later some agreement of something...

now what about the two reinforced levels eg. the elevator transfer floors... one was not much below the impact zone. These were strongly reinforced floors etc. Everyone just glosses over the implication of those areas on the falling down of the Towers.

Originally posted by esdad71
It was a disaster waiting to happen, and it was exploited. We were attacked on 9/11. Why is this so hard to believe?

Fire departments inspect buldings and we get a pre-incident report so we know in advance what we are facing in case of fire. It is very hard for me to believe that any incident commander would allow over 343 men inside an unsafe building while it is on fire.

It is really simple stuff people. It takes a lot more heat that was prodused on 9/11 to heat that much steel, that is bolted to the rest of the building to the point of failure. The rest of the building will constantly absorb the heat and it will not heat to the point of failure. NST tried to say the floor pan expanded to the point of pushing out the walls and then the floor falls onto the one below it.

I cant believe the fantastical stretches people will make to explain what happened on 9/11.

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
What about this howard?



Oxford University in 1992 published this on the WTC concrete cores.

More compltely incorrect researchers or part of the hoax?

The information is incorrect.

That happens a lot more than OED would care to admit, butt hat is why they revise their dictioaries on a regular basis.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The information is incorrect.

Anything to support this, or are we just supposed to take your word for it?

I'm sure Oxford had reliable sources to back that up when they published it.

Originally posted by TxSecret

BSBray11

And what is that all over the steel in the spire, there? That gray stuff, that is across all of the steel thaht's sticking out? Cobwebs?

It's gypsum and spray on fire protection....... KIDDING.

When I read that originally I thought to myself, please God no.....don't ask him that question! I was afraid of what the answer might be. Balsa wood painted gray? Flubber?

Peace

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The information is incorrect.

Anything to support this, or are we just supposed to take your word for it?

I'm sure Oxford had reliable sources to back that up when they published it.

Of course he has nothing to support it!

That's howards whole ball game with this ridiculous thread.

He was proven wrong and there are many sources to back this up but to howard they are ALL incorrect or a hoax!!

He obviously will NEVER admit when he is wrong.

This thread completely exposes him for what he is.

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
What about this howard?

Oxford University in 1992 published this on the WTC concrete cores.

More compltely incorrect researchers or part of the hoax?

Perhaps you had better check out how often Britannica is wrong(There was a thread on it) and that's the holy grail of info...

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

Perhaps you had better check out how often Britannica is wrong(There was a thread on it

) and that's the holy grail of info...

Whatever! It's right a lot more often than it's wrong and since nobody even sourced britannica your irrelevant point is completely moot.

A detailed analysis published by Oxford University pre-9/11 holds MUCH more weight in regards to this simple claim.

Besides; it is corroborated by many other qualified sources that also make this claim.

Howard clearly loses because he has utterly failed to provide ONE source or detailed study/analysis of the core construction that DOESN'T reference concrete!

In fact he simply referenced this tiny obviously not very detailed blurb...

www.skyscraper.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">
www.skyscraper.org...

But check out what it says!

Worried that the intense air pressure created by the buildingsâ high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core.

So what is it "reinforced" with Howard? Another layer of gypsum?


Howard is suggesting that the notion of a reinforced steel & concrete core is a "hoax" and I am suggesting that the fact that the core was reinforced steel & concrete is downplayed or even completely left out of studies trying to explain the collapses on 9/11. In fact the FEMA study uses a diagram that leaves out the core all together to push the debunked "pancake" theory! Source
Diagram here:



So the only fair way to debate this is with pre-9/11 studies of the core construction.

I have provided many. He has provided none.

Surely not every single pre-9/11 analysis, study, or discussion of the wtc core construction could have been incorrect! Right?

So why can't howard source one that backs up his claim?

This has to be a joke.....

I have very much enjoyed reading the contents of this thread Jack.
You presented a good case.

Thanks for posting One of the best load of posts I have seen in a while. Wonder where WCIP has gone.

- Chris Morganti
911physics.co.nr...

From a documentary a few years ago.

I always remembered the phrase " If you want to go higher, you have to eliminate as much concrete as possible". They then showed an animation of the stacking up of layers, as the core rose slightly faster than the outer skin, they mentioned that no concrete was used.
I remember the description "this was a NEW KIND of construction, steel support all the way through"



Just few few simple google searches later, reading from a variety of sources.

I have to vote for the NO CONCRETE CORE scenario.
Only the floors were concrete, not the core.


I just wanted to also add, that I think the Newspaper clipping, being from a newspaper, is correct enough for the 8th grade reading level it's written for.
But wrong in it's specifics. THE WTC description is inaccurate!






[edit on 19-5-2006 by spacedoubt]

it wouldn't make sense to have a complete concrete core in a high rise of that size. remember, the higher you go on a building, you have to account for the 'sway' as well. A buidling with a total concret core wouldn't be able to stand up to the force that would be exerted on it, when the building sways.

Have any of you actually been to the WTC? I have, and it was #ing scary.

More on skyscrapers and sway:
library.thinkquest.org...
www.newton.dep.anl.gov...
science.howstuffworks.com...
some buildings have concrete cores, but its based on their design. today and those that were built around the time of the WTC towers, steel trusses and beams were used to help with the "sway". Now, dampers are used to control the sway. The chrysler building, empire state building were built with concret cores, as that was the only available technology back then to handle sway.

[edit on 19-5-2006 by Wizy]

[edit on 19-5-2006 by Wizy]

Concrete core or not, we're all convinced explosives brought the tower down, right?

Has anyone NOT seen 9-11 Revisited? I can't imagine anyone could watch the video in its entirety and still think jet fuel fires brought the towers down.

911revisited.com...

Originally posted by spacedoubt
From a documentary a few years ago.

I always remembered the phrase " If you want to go higher, you have to eliminate as much concrete as possible". They then showed an animation of the stacking up of layers, as the core rose slightly faster than the outer skin, they mentioned that no concrete was used.
I remember the description "this was a NEW KIND of construction, steel support all the way through"

Riiiiight. If you can't source it...don't claim it.

Just few few simple google searches later, reading from a variety of sources.

I have to vote for the NO CONCRETE CORE scenario.
Only the floors were concrete, not the core.

Sure buddy. If you googled it...you can source it. But you didn't. Why?

Remember....we are talking about the WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS that were in New York.

We are looking for pre-9/11 reports, analyses, or discussions of the CORE construction. So far they all have referrenced concrete as being an element included. Why do you and Howard think you know better even though you don't have a source?

I just wanted to also add, that I think the Newspaper clipping, being from a newspaper, is correct enough for the 8th grade reading level it's written for.
But wrong in it's specifics. THE WTC description is inaccurate!

Take this up with Oxford University who published the article. Last time I heard they have a good reputation. Funny that this issue would compell you to feel the need to slander them so bad without providng a source to back up your claim!