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: 9
0
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by cryingindian
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...


their argument is rather inconsistent isn’t it?




posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by cryingindian
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...


their argument is rather inconsistent isn’t it?




Not all of this theory is inconsistant with the explosives theory. Actually it goes along with it....i.e. explosives would definately be needed if concrete was used IMO. Obviously by the photo that you keep posting Howard (the one in the shaft were you can see the corner column) there was access to at least one column....I'm going to assume more.

I'm in the thinking that when they state "reinforced steel" they mean some of the columns up to a point in the structure had concrete poured into the box column to "reinforce the steel". That's just my opinion and comes from photos I've seen of what appears to be concrete inside the box columns.

Has anyone tried to contact Robertson & Associates or a construction company that worked on the tower to get behind this? Or is it funner to just argue on the internet? I've been looking for an e-mail address to Robertson to ask if there was concrete used in the core. If anyone knows his or his firms e-mail address, could you pass it along to me? Thanks in advance. I'm not going to word it that he thinks it's for a conspiracy theory. If anyone would like to help me word the e-mail...U2U me with suggestions and then we can e-mail the question to the source. I think that's the only way to get to the bottom of this.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
I'm in the thinking that when they state "reinforced steel" they mean some of the columns up to a point in the structure had concrete poured into the box column to "reinforce the steel". That's just my opinion and comes from photos I've seen of what appears to be concrete inside the box columns.


Yeah, I think the same. I wouldn't at all be surprised if there was concrete in between or around the perimeter of the core up until a certain floor, probably a mechanical floor (where there were reinforced I-beams in the floors themselves, and there are photos of these from GZ), as the WTC2 core photo appears to show.


As far as contacting Robertson, I'm interested in how that would go. I tried contacting CDI to ask some simple questions about the different ways structures can be properly demolished by their company (besides the conventional methods), and they requested personal information for reasons akin to national security, and then refused to tell me anything anyway. So pretty much they just collected personal info on me when I emailed them. It was false, but I'm sure whoever uses that stuff can get it anyway.

msnbc.msn.com...

In that interview with Leslie Robertson, MSNBC reports that the towers had "a steel-tube exoskeleton and a reinforced concrete core". I wonder if they were getting this information directly from Robertson while interviewing him, or going off some other source of information, of which there are several mentioning concrete in the core beyond simple floor slabs.

[edit on 19-9-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 01:39 PM
link   
I would start off by saying that I'm a structural engineer working towards my professional license...which is true. Then say I'm looking into the design of the trade center towers and go into the conflicting reports of "reinforced concrete', "reinforced steel" and just steel/gypsum cores.

I think he'd be willing to share more information to a fellow structural engineer than anyone else (no offense to anyone). Kinda like mano-amano if you will. I just can't find out anyway to contact him. If anyone wants to help, please let me know.

I think until we get it from the horses mouth, this speculation will last forever.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Hello Guys. This is first and probably last post to this site (depending on how leniant the Mods are here) I am making.

You are all welcome to join us over the James Randi forum where we are debating with "christophera". the gentelman who claims to be the owner of the Concrete core website. the thread is quite long and very illuminating.

To avoid any membership agreement issues I wont post the URL but if you google James Randi or JREF you'll easily find the forum.

The Mods ar quite leniant there just so long as you don't post profanity,spam, or copywritten material.

ta ta



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

Why are you "dubunking" a diagram that he himself debunks in the very beginning of the article??


Because he was too excited and couldn't wait to debunk something to look smart so he didn't read what he was debunking.


just kidding.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   
this thread seemed to have died an untimely death,
a pity since a concrete and steel core is crucial
in that, its presence should have made a spontaneous
collapse nigh impossible.
I have looked at the website that the author of this thread
has attempted to debunk and in one video,
(the falling core column/spire)
it quite clearly shows a massive piece of light coloured material,(concrete?) falling down.
There is a lot of confusion all over the 'net,
and even mainstream TV channels about a concrete
or no concrete core.
A Channel 4 piece about the collapse
infers there was no concrete in the core,
by just not mentioning it at all...if you know what I mean.
Here's a link to a well informed article
written it seems in 2001,
and explains very well why the towers fell
..except for one thing
a concrete and steel core is not in the equation.

www.tms.org...


[edit on 15-3-2009 by smurfy]



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Did you even read the article Howard?????

He says RIGHT OF THE BAT that the original diagram is INCORRECT!


Some in the UK still think the WTC tower core was built as shown below. Basically a pre-stressed concrete design. Yamasaki had reviewed the design, and found no contractor that could build a 1,300 foot column of that design. We all know the towers had their stairwells and elevators inside the core. There is no room for that in the core below.


Why are you "dubunking" a diagram that he himself debunks in the very beginning of the article??

I suspect this yutz has trouble doing simple math. 2 aluminum planes and 3 steel reinforced skyscrapers go into free fall.
I think we should be saving some tax payer money and make anti tank shells out of aluminum. One shot two tanks...
works for me!





posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



new topics




 
0
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join