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: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2006 @ 07:18 PM
link   
As I posted in the other thread.



I'm surprised none of you have figured this out yet.

Look at that picture again. Is it the corner of the core or the outside corner of the building?

It's the outside corner of the building. You can tell by the spacing of the columns and the orientation of the two corners columns.

Based on the fact that there is a slab outside the building footprint, I would guess that those columns were originally below grade.


How does that relate to the core in the high-rise portion?




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

I assume so. I am not, as I have previously said, an engineer. But you clearly also did not know the purpose of reo rod, or you would not have spoken about support.

I find the constuction interesting. One rumour that hit Oz immediately after the attack was that there was very little concrete used in the construction, as compared with comparable buildings, because La Cosa Nostra controlled the concrete in NY and the owners wanted nothing to do with them.

If this rumour is true it would support the "not concrete core" theory. Personally, I'm still watching the debate.

edit: Howard beat me here.

[edit on 21-5-2006 by HowlrunnerIV]



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 02:54 AM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Afaics, this revelation means tough times for the official version defenders, reinforced concrete is more fireproof than all steel construction. the lie casts another huge shadow of doubt over the entire ordeal, why lie if you don't have to ?



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
As I posted in the other thread.



Based on the fact that there is a slab outside the building footprint, I would guess that those columns were originally below grade.


How does that relate to the core in the high-rise portion?



From the Documentary that bsbray provided. That makes a lot of sense.
There were retaining walls below grade that used reinforced concrete.

Also, something the Documentary was lacking, was any mention of a concrete core.
Something that WAS mentioned, and shown in the video were "massive steel beams for the core columns" about 9:40 into the video.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt
Also, something the Documentary was lacking, was any mention of a concrete core.
Something that WAS mentioned, and shown in the video were "massive steel beams for the core columns" about 9:40 into the video.


And that's about all that was mentioned. That documentary doesn't go into detail with the core, or any specific parts of the structures really.

And yet we still have this:



But since Howard is now apparently agreeing that that is rebar, then finding pictures that we can prove are of core columns with rebar around should solve the problem.

I'm still looking for pics that are close up to obvious core columns at Ground Zero. If anyone can help, it'd be appreciated.



But check that out.

Without trying to identify what the rest of all of that is hanging around those core columns, does that not look like electrical conduit circled in red?



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   
So what?

Again, there is no evidence that proves that the core was made with concrete (other than the floor slabs, of course).

You keep presenting that picture as if it prove that the core was concrete, it doesn't. What it does prove, however, is that the collapse of the building was substantially longer than free fall.



BTW, bsbray, what is your opinion on Christophera's theory that the walls were 17' thick at the base?



[edit on 24-5-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 03:20 PM
link   
There are a number of other issues to be considered here. Firstly we have only Chistophera’s assertion that the walls were 17’ thick to go by. Where is he getting that number from? What calculations has he done to determine exactly how thick a tapered, 1000 foot high, concrete columns would be at the base.

Besides the elaborate and heavy duty formwork that such a thick wall would require is the issue of temperature control. Concrete heats up when it sets. Thick slabs and blocks have to be kept cool, or the heat will cause the concrete to expand and crack during the critical setting period. When they built the Hoover Dam, they added grids of cooling pipes that were encased in the concrete sections and had cool water pumped through them to avoid this issue. What did they do here?

If there was an opening, or a doorway into this 17’ thick concrete wall, How was that opening framed? Was a lintel used? If so, what size lintel was required over the opening?



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Again, there is no evidence that proves that the core was made with concrete (other than the floor slabs, of course).


If that's true, then there's no evidence that they were made of only steel box columns, either.


You keep presenting that picture as if it prove that the core was concrete, it doesn't.


It proves that the cores weren't just a bunch of box columns linked together with more steel. The picture clearly shows a gray block for the core structure. Concrete is gray. Steel alone would obviously not look like that.

I'll admit that it isn't conclusive proof of concrete, but by process of elimination, there's not too many others things that it could be.


What it does prove, however, is that the collapse of the building was substantially longer than free fall.


Only the core collapses. The trusses and perimeter columns came down at just a little under free-fall, and collapse initiations showed that, while free-falling material was still accelerating, the collapse was already ahead of that.

The truss/perimeter collapses were just under the speed of free-fall, and steady. Didn't slow down, all the way down, despite all the resistance, and the lack of driving mass.


BTW, bsbray, what is your opinion on Christophera's theory that the walls were 17' thick at the base?


I wouldn't know. Seventeen feet sounds a bit much though.


Btw, Howard, what was the collapse mechanism for the core structures? They didn't pancake, and they seem to have fallen from the base, straight down. If they fell straight down floor by floor, that would be one argument you could try to bolster, but these didn't. They just fell straight down from the base. How exactly did that happen?

[edit on 24-5-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Concrete is gray. Steel alone would obviously not look like that.




So, those box columns are all really concrete?



[edit on 24-5-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link   
They're covered in concrete dust, Howard.


Why don't you post some pics of the box columns removed from Ground Zero and carried away?



Edit: I should have quoted you. You changed your post, you sneaky rat!


Those are box columns, yes. But they're gray because of the concrete dust, lol.

Note that Howard's post was originally about the color of those columns, which is in line with the text of mine that he quoted.

[edit on 24-5-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Not sure if anyone put this on this thread already I stole it from another thread on this forum, An Interesting WTC Video (non Conspiracy) and it is just that very interesting its old footage of The WTC's being built. www.pbs.org... if you enjoyed it thank HowardRoark (a member of this site) for posting it



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 10:27 PM
link   
That video doesn't back demolition because, (a) it was produced back in the early 1980's, and (b) it was from the Port Authority.

And Howard posted it after I had posted a Google video link to it to refer someone to the laying of floor slabs, to show that they lacked rebar.

So if Howard's going to play follow-the-leader with me, as I've noticed he often does with members here, he can follow up on this for us:


The War Department is planning to insert itself into every area of the Internet from blogs to chat rooms, from leftist web sites to editorial commentary. Their rapid response team will be on hair-trigger alert to dispute any tidbit of information that challenges the official storyline.

We can expect to encounter, as the BBC notes, “psychological operations (that) try to manipulate the thoughts and the beliefs of the enemy (as well as) computer network specialists who seek to destroy enemy networks.”


Source. Emphasis mine. Professional disinfo agents, you could say.

After all, this rapes our first amendment right to free speech, and Howard's apparently all for the Constitution, because I've seen him post (pretending to be, imo) outraged that the Constitution was being sold on Amazon or some such site for a fee. So he would certainly care about the first amendment, which is being overridden by this internet disinfo campaign from the Pentagon.

Go get 'em, Howie? Or just edit embarrassing posts after they've been responded to? :-/

[edit on 24-5-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
That video doesn't back demolition because, (a) it was produced back in the early 1980's, and (b) it was from the Port Authority.



Come on, bsbray, you can come up with a better argument than that.




And Howard posted it after I had posted a Google video link to it to refer someone to the laying of floor slabs, to show that they lacked rebar.

So if Howard's going to play follow-the-leader with me, as I've noticed he often does with members here, he can follow up on this for us:


Sorry about that, I missed your post with it.



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by bsbray11
That video doesn't back demolition because, (a) it was produced back in the early 1980's, and (b) it was from the Port Authority.



Come on, bsbray, you can come up with a better argument than that.


Geez, Howard!

I mean, considering it was released in the 1980's, how could they NOT have agreed with NIST's 2005 Report?

Man, I'm glad you pointed out how weak my argument was!






Sorry about that, I missed your post with it.


But you haven't missed this, right?:



The War Department is planning to insert itself into every area of the Internet from blogs to chat rooms, from leftist web sites to editorial commentary. Their rapid response team will be on hair-trigger alert to dispute any tidbit of information that challenges the official storyline.

We can expect to encounter, as the BBC notes, “psychological operations (that) try to manipulate the thoughts and the beliefs of the enemy (as well as) computer network specialists who seek to destroy enemy networks.”


Source.

That's what you should make your next thread on.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 01:08 AM
link   
This picture is incorrect I worked for years as an Elevator mechanic and where it is marked with yellow arrows is wrong those are not elevator rails there to freaking large there bigger that the crane frame. An elevator rail is about 6 inches across the flat back and 4 to 5 inch for the rail it's self. and where are the counter weight rails, They could be the frame that supports the rail mounting brackets, you don't expose rails to the elements they have a machined edge that would pit and rust






[edit on 3/6/2006 by Sauron]



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
There are a number of other issues to be considered here. Firstly we have only Chistophera’s assertion that the walls were 17’ thick to go by. Where is he getting that number from?


If you know the width of the interior box columns you can estimate the thickness of the concrete wall between the stairwell and the box column. Interior box columns were 5 foot wide at ground level. Clearly no steel columns are inside the core or protruding from the stairwell where the crude FEMA diagram shows they would be.




posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sauron
This picture is incorrect I worked for years as an Elevator mechanic and where it is marked with yellow arrows is wrong those are not elevator rails there to freaking large there bigger that the crane frame. An elevator rail is about 6 inches across the flat back and 4 to 5 inch for the rail it's self. and where are the counter weight rails, They could be the frame that supports the rail mounting brackets, you don't expose rails to the elements they have a machined edge that would pit and rust






I've replaced the image you were using with another I did not notate because it has better resolution. The guide rail supports are larger than the guide rails. There will be no time for significant pitting and rusting. During bad weather they would probably cover the core area.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
So what?

Again, there is no evidence that proves that the core was made with concrete (other than the floor slabs, of course).




There you go with your selective uses of evidence again. The above evidence shows no steel core columns. The below evidence shows 3 inch rebar on 4 foot centers.



And, ............. you have not yet produced an image of a steel core column above ground from the demolition photos where the core is the most visible.


Originally posted by HowardRoark
You keep presenting that picture as if it prove that the core was concrete, it doesn't. What it does prove, however, is that the collapse of the building was substantially longer than free fall.


The 2 photos above prove it was a concrete core, and they prove there were no steel core columns. One must have experience with concrete and steel. Your posts make it clear you do not have that experience. The still photo cannot prove what you say it does.


Originally posted by HowardRoark
BTW, bsbray, what is your opinion on Christophera's theory that the walls were 17' thick at the base?


The core wall is easily seen and the thickness can be estimated by the width of the interior box column out side the [url=http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg]core wall at base[/url.

how ie, you have no evidence.

[edit on 6-6-2006 by Christophera]



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Jack,
Please change your name from Jack Tripper to Jack the Howard Ripper. Oh and keep the mustache. You may need a disguise someday, you slick sherlock you!!



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Wouldn't it make more sense for Howard to embrace the concrete core theory? I mean, if the core columns were exposed/spray-on fire proofed/gypsum planked, it'd mean that it would be considerably easier for perpatrators to place cutter charges on the steel.

It the columns were encased in cast concrete, how would cutter charges be able to reach the steel?

So Howard, I think you should re-think your argument, and actually try to prove that concrete WAS part of the core structure...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join