It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The 'WTC Had a Concrete Core' Hoax

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2006 @ 09:08 PM
link   
They do look like electrical conduits, though.

Let's look for rebar in Ground Zero clean-up pics, guys. If we can spot rebar laying around above ground anywhere around the tower bases, there'll be some explaining to do.


Look at this, right between two core columns!:



Looks like rebar to me.


And right where it should be if we're looking at a reinforced concrete core.

Hell, you can see the ribs on the steel in this one!!:



Again -- between two core columns!

For comparison:





You can find more yourself, just go to these source images.

Edit: I found more, over a pile of pulverized concrete:



So, what were they reinforcing again between the core columns? And over that pile of pulverized concrete?


[edit on 20-5-2006 by bsbray11]




posted on May, 20 2006 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Check and mate.

Excellent job bsbray!


Howard is done. Finished. He now MUST admit he was wrong and that the "hoax" claim was hasty, out of line, and incorrect.


But for good measure here is a more detailed description of what the concrete core website author saw in that documentary:


The documentary focused on the concrete core because the construction of the core was a big slowdown factor. The steel contractors, mostly the indigenous tribes of the area, Onandaga, Iroquois, Mohawk, the best high steel erectors in the world, experiences slowdowns in the perimeter and interior column’s construction, not a part of their bids. They had to lay off crew while the concrete limited to 40 feet vert per pour was completed. Later, after complaints the engineers calculated that 7 floors of steel could be built, instead of just 4, while the concrete caught up. Unfortunately the aerial photos cannot see the steel after maybe the 14 floor or so. What you see in the photos are various cranes and equipment used to move material and support the rebar hanging into the concrete pour.
The actual slowdown was when it was revealed by the government agency constructing, that there was a special anti corrosion, anti vibration resistant coating on the rebar of the concrete core structure. The coating was flammable and special precautions were to be taken, meaning the government would handle the butt welding of the 3 inch vertical bar prior to regular crews running the horizontal minor steel.
entire blog here



The fact that we have established definitively that it was a steel reinforced concrete core heightens the entire debate over the physics of the collapse.

Thanks for bringing so much attention to such an important issue howard!



In fact this thread comes up on the first page of a simple google search for "wtc cores" or "wtc core construction"!




posted on May, 20 2006 @ 10:07 PM
link   
It's pretty obviouse in that first pic that there was concrete. You can still see it up against the column verticaly, and you can see where there was concrete that got pulverised.

I'm sure that's not all from the floors?



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by spacedoubt
"Reinforced Steel" does not mean there was concrete invloved.
And in my opinion, goes further to prove that concrete was NOT involved.
Otherwise they would have said reinforced concrete.


Are you referring to this quote, mate?:


By using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core, the shafts were strengthened enough that air pressure was not an issue.


Because if you are, the exact same page later says this:


The twin towers of the World Trade Center were essentially two tubes [...] Each tube contained a concrete core


I think that's pretty clear, unless you're referring to another article.

[edit on 20-5-2006 by bsbray11]


No, it was a different article. the one that stated the towers were constructed without masonry. Late in that article they used the term reinforced steel. Which, like I said doesn't have to mean concrete.

And Mr. Tripper..You busted my chops for quoting a documentary!
Now you are linking to a blog about a guy that saw a documentary.
I probably should have started a blog, told my story there, and linked to it huh? LOL

And sure, there would be plenty of rebar in the wreckage..the floors were made of reinforced concrete.

Rather than CHECK MATE.

I believe this is a STALE MATE..
Not enough proof either way.

It comes down to what you believe.
And which agenda is reinforced with concrete!



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 12:36 AM
link   
I never busted your chops for quoting a documentary.

What a strange thing to lie about.



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt
And sure, there would be plenty of rebar in the wreckage..the floors were made of reinforced concrete.


No, there was no rebar in the floor slabs.

The 4" floor slabs would need no vertical strength from rebar considering they were laying flat on the trusses (not to mention only 4 inches high), which gave them all the support they needed and then some.

Any rebar would have been from concrete that was set vertically. An image of an original document appears to have been posted in another thread. Look at it as an example. The only rebar provided was for upright concrete that needed it, as needed.

Btw, I have an 18-minute documentary saved on my computer on how the WTC Towers were constructed. The documentary leaves out specifics on the core, but it shows workers laying down the floor slabs. If you'd like to watch them do it and see there's no rebar, only trusses underneath, maybe I can find some way to send it to you. It's about 50mb though, so it might be a tricky send.

And a diagram of a truss/slab from FEMA:



No rebar in there.

[edit on 21-5-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
I never busted your chops for quoting a documentary.

What a strange thing to lie about.


HEHE,
sure you did.
a couple of pages back.

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

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.




BSBray11

I'd like to see the documentary.
Is it something you recorded from TV yourself?
Or maybe I can download it somewhere.

[edit on 21-5-2006 by spacedoubt]



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt
No, it was a different article. the one that stated the towers were constructed without masonry.


You know 'no masonary' does not mean concrete wasn't used right?
Masonry is a method of construction not the substance used...


Masonry is the building of structures from individual units laid in and bound together by mortar


en.wikipedia.org...

The core was poured concrete not indiviual units bound together by mortar...



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 01:09 AM
link   
oh no, were not going to argue about what masons do now, are we?

Here are the mason codes for Delaware:
www.delcode.state.de.us...

I worked with masons for 2 summers while in college.
we sure laid a lot of patios!

Masonry, is the work of masons, using different mineral combinations, including concrete.



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt
]

HEHE,
sure you did.
a couple of pages back.



Oh right. Well when you are debating in an internet forum you have to back up your claims.

The author of that blog was the author of the article we were discussing and he didn't merely quote the documentary from memory like you did....he cited numerous other sources to back up his claim as well.....like you didn't.

Understand the difference now?



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt

Masonry, is the work of masons, using different mineral combinations, including concrete.


Given it up! You haven't made a valid point yet.

"The core was poured concrete not indiviual units bound together by mortar..."

Therefore it was not masonry.

The non-existence of masonry does not equal the non-existence of concrete.



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 01:35 AM
link   
I wonder if in the article you cited that said the towers "were constructed without masonry" they meant that no masons worked on it.

If so then no wonder they used it as a target for their plot!



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt
I'd like to see the documentary.
Is it something you recorded from TV yourself?
Or maybe I can download it somewhere.


What? A FEMA diagram of the trusses and common sense weren't enough?

The documentary is called "Building the World Trade Center."

I found it on Google video here.



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by spacedoubt
I'd like to see the documentary.
Is it something you recorded from TV yourself?
Or maybe I can download it somewhere.


What? A FEMA diagram of the trusses and common sense weren't enough?

The documentary is called "Building the World Trade Center."

I found it on Google video here.


LOL,

You offered the video, I asked to see it. I hope that wasn't outta line or something..



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt
LOL,

You offered the video, I asked to see it. I hope that wasn't outta line or something..


No, but I thought the FEMA diagram would be enough. I found it after I had already posted the offer to the video, and to be honest I didn't feel like uploading a 50mb file. Lucky for me it was on Google video. XD

But do you see that there was no rebar between the trusses and concrete slabs? The trusses were made to hold the slabs. The concrete was just laid on top of them.



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 02:30 AM
link   
A still from the vid...Pouring the concrete floors. No rebar....




posted on May, 21 2006 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

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.


Whatever. As the world's most-relied upon source of general information, Britannica is held to the same standard as the Oxford English Dictionary, which is used only for the definition and etymology of words. As such it is a perfectly legitimate example of the same category of book, much less an analogy. If Britannica get it wrong, why not Oxford?

Perhaps you had better find out how Oxford source their entries.

If any other irrelevent points come up that you can declare moot, just let us know. Any time you can ignore even a question mark...Or is it just that your blinkers need a little Windex?



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by spacedoubt
And sure, there would be plenty of rebar in the wreckage..the floors were made of reinforced concrete.


No, there was no rebar in the floor slabs.

The 4" floor slabs would need no vertical strength from rebar considering they were laying flat on the trusses (not to mention only 4 inches high), which gave them all the support they needed and then some.


Not discounting the diagram, or the documentary, just wondering.

How many concrete slabs have you poured? Every one I've ever poured either held up a house or a dormitory, all either made of wood or brick. Every one of those slabs, all but one of which rested on a rolled, compacted base, was reinforced with either mesh or 10mm rod.

Two of those slabs, lying flat on the ground, were 120mm (4") thick. Surely terra firma would give them all the support they needed.

Reinforcing mesh and rod are used to control the shrinkage of the concrete, not give it strength. That was the word as given to me by my late Uncle, a civil engineer. Surprised the hell out of me after spending a lifetime assuming it was for strength.

I assume that the nails in the FEMA diagram are there to control the shrinkage.



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by spacedoubt
LOL,

You offered the video, I asked to see it. I hope that wasn't outta line or something..


No, but I thought the FEMA diagram would be enough. I found it after I had already posted the offer to the video, and to be honest I didn't feel like uploading a 50mb file. Lucky for me it was on Google video. XD

But do you see that there was no rebar between the trusses and concrete slabs? The trusses were made to hold the slabs. The concrete was just laid on top of them.


Thats cool..It was just a diagram though.
I'll check out the video a bit later. I'm taking a break from Roto-tilling a half acre of
Hardpan soil..It's...well..It's like concrete, to be honest!
I already broke one of the tines on the tiller, and I just bought it yesterday.



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
I assume that the nails in the FEMA diagram are there to control the shrinkage.


Makes sense. So then they wouldn't need the rebar in them, right? At least going by what you just said, that the rebar is to control shrinkage.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join