Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Big FEMA Lie, The Towers Had A Concrete Core: PROOF

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 20 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Any who try to say the core was as FEMA describes, multiple steel core columns, and does so without raw images of the demolition, is supporting the impossible to obscure the possible.

WONDER, why it is so important that there was no concrete core, WONDER why the poster does not link to the following sites but instead refers and uses no image to counter the images at the sites.

A simple group of absolute maxims.

Free fall did happen.

The truth of 9-11 WILL explain free fall.

Any theory which does not explain free fall cannot be true.

The page which documents the concrete core is here,

concretecore.741.com...

The page which documents how free fall was created.

algoxy.com...


My knowledge of the towers design and construction came from viewing a 2 hour documentary seen on PBS in 1990 called, "The Construction Of The Twin Towers". It is important to understand that the core was concrete and that we need to ask our relatives and freinds, others, if they had seen the same documentary. It was a detailed accounting with 16mm film and still photos that became quite intimate with; the design process, the material involved and the construction sequence. I mention it on both pages below.

I have worked in construction as a surveyor for 20 year, a welder for the last 30 years, and must analyse plans for structural steel and concrete occasionally. I understood every word of the documentary and after 9-11 I looked for data on the towers and basically found nothing to jog my memory, there was very little I recognized.


Here are some links to images of the concrete core of the towers and explanations of the differences steel core columns would present if they existed. No central, heavy steel core columns are seen in these images where they would. The core is concrete when it is seen in these images.

Below, the concrete core of WTC 2.

algoxy.com...

Below a view of the core shear wall, WTC 1, where the steel columns that did exist are silhouetted agains the concrete behind it.

algoxy.com...

Below is a zoom of an image taken from the left of the above photo.

algoxy.com...

The concrete is not visible in the below image as it is in the well lit above image. What is seen is one interior box column which is a ring of massive hand fabricated, near the corner of the concrete core.

home.comcast.net...

Below is an image taken just a second after the above from the same camera. The many fine vertical elements are 3 inch rebar on 4 foot centers. There are maybe 100 or so. Scale is created by the above image as the spire, an INTERIOR BOX COLUMN which was at least 14 inches. Some accounts say 24 inches.

home.comcast.net...

Explosives on horizontal rebar detonated whereas that of the vertical bar did not. Concrete was fractured and fell leaving the vertical only.

Below is the one surviving piece of concrete core wall. At the base between the interior box columns and a stairwell. The concrete core wall was 2 feet thick at the top of the tower.

algoxy.com...

[edit on 20-5-2006 by Christophera]




posted on May, 20 2006 @ 02:07 PM
link   
I honestly don't see any concrete in any of those photos. Even the last one which is supposed to be "the one surviving piece of concrete core wall", I don't see diddly squat.

Seems to be a red herring, IMO.



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 02:40 PM
link   
It does take a cetain amount of familiarity with the particular types of construction. Hint. The below image link is the diagram FEMA prodced depicting the core.

algoxy.com...

The dark vertical lines represent the core columns. In collapse and demolition, those structural elements would appear as the same vertical dark lines protruding from the core area in the center. It is fairly simple, I've seen children grasp the concept. Mostly it is in what you expect. We have to use the information we posess. The process of elimination by those with simple construction knowledge will show that only concrete can appear as it does here.

algoxy.com...


Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
I honestly don't see any concrete in any of those photos. Even the last one which is supposed to be "the one surviving piece of concrete core wall", I don't see diddly squat.

Seems to be a red herring, IMO.



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 02:48 PM
link   
From one page that I read, the WTC was 60/40 concrete to steel ratio, but with the WTC it was estimated to be 40/60 concrete to steel. So from what they're saying there WAS concrete, but it was MUCH less than in previous and most high rise buildings.


The most noticeable change in the modern high-rise construction is a trend to using more steel and shaping lightweight steel into tubes, curves, and angles to increase its load bearing capability. The WTC has tubular steel bearing walls, fluted corrugated steel flooring and bent bar steel truss floor supports. To a modern high rise building designer steel framing is economical and concrete is a costly material. For a high-rise structural frame: columns, girders, floors and walls, steel provides greater strength per pound than concrete. Concrete is heavy. Concrete creates excessive weight in the structure of a building. Architects, designers , and builders all know if you remove concrete from a structure you have a building that weights less. So if you create a lighter building you can use columns, girders and beams of smaller dimensions, or better yet you can use the same size steel framing and build a taller structure. In News York City where space is limited you must build high. The trend over the past half-century is to create lightweight high buildings. To do this you use thin steel bent bar truss construction instead of solid steel beams. To do this you use hollow tube steel bearing walls, and curved sheet steel (corrugated) under floors. To do this you eliminate as much concrete from the structure as you can and replace it with steel. Lightweight construction means economy. It means building more with less. If you reduce the structure’s mass you can build cheaper and builder higher. Unfortunately unprotected steel warps, melts, sags and collapses when heated to normal fire temperatures about 1100 to 1200 degrees F.

The fire service believes there is a direct relation of fire resistance to mass of structure. The more mass the more fire resistance. The best fire resistive building in America is a concrete structure. The structures that limit and confine fires best, and suffer fewer collapses are reinforced concrete pre WWII buildings such as housing projects and older high rise buildings like the empire state building, The more concrete, the more fire resistance; and the more concrete the less probability of total collapse. The evolution of high- rise construction can be seen, by comparing the empire state building to the WTC. My estimate is the ratio of concrete to steel in the empire state building is 60/40. The ratio of concrete to steel in the WTC is 40/60. The tallest building in the world, the Petronas Towers, in Kula Lumpur, Malaysia, is more like the concrete to steel ratio of the empire state building than concrete to steel ratio of the WTC. Donald Trump in New York City has constructed the tallest reinforced concrete high-rise residence building.

vincentdunn.com...



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 02:56 PM
link   
I love these images:






posted on May, 20 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   
That is correct. Dunne supports the FEMA lie as far as I remember when seeing his page a year or so back. At least his proportions are correct. A big problem with lying is, where to stop.

The newly developed high strength concretes were getting quite good. The high tensile steel rebar and rigorous testing from the onsite batch plant created a refined concrete product that did not need the mass of earlier skyscrapers. The concrete was vital in limiting sway, flex and torsion of the towers. In the design process Yamasaki totally eliminated steel core structures as no matter how you configured them the flex was too great.

The erroneous BBC core,

news.bbc.co.uk...

Was a prestressed design that promised very high strength, but no contractor could figure out how to build it. Yamasaki settled on more traditional steel reinforced concrete core utilizing developed material technology.



Originally posted by Zaphod58
From one page that I read, the WTC was 60/40 concrete to steel ratio, but with the WTC it was estimated to be 40/60 concrete to steel. So from what they're saying there WAS concrete, but it was MUCH less than in previous and most high rise buildings.


The most noticeable change in the modern high-rise construction is a trend to using more steel and shaping lightweight steel into tubes, curves, and angles to increase its load bearing capability. The WTC has tubular steel bearing walls, fluted corrugated steel flooring and bent bar steel truss floor supports. To a modern high rise building designer steel framing is economical and concrete is a costly material. For a high-rise structural frame: columns, girders, floors and walls, steel provides greater strength per pound than concrete. Concrete is heavy. Concrete creates excessive weight in the structure of a building. Architects, designers , and builders all know if you remove concrete from a structure you have a building that weights less. So if you create a lighter building you can use columns, girders and beams of smaller dimensions, or better yet you can use the same size steel framing and build a taller structure. In News York City where space is limited you must build high. The trend over the past half-century is to create lightweight high buildings. To do this you use thin steel bent bar truss construction instead of solid steel beams. To do this you use hollow tube steel bearing walls, and curved sheet steel (corrugated) under floors. To do this you eliminate as much concrete from the structure as you can and replace it with steel. Lightweight construction means economy. It means building more with less. If you reduce the structure’s mass you can build cheaper and builder higher. Unfortunately unprotected steel warps, melts, sags and collapses when heated to normal fire temperatures about 1100 to 1200 degrees F.

The fire service believes there is a direct relation of fire resistance to mass of structure. The more mass the more fire resistance. The best fire resistive building in America is a concrete structure. The structures that limit and confine fires best, and suffer fewer collapses are reinforced concrete pre WWII buildings such as housing projects and older high rise buildings like the empire state building, The more concrete, the more fire resistance; and the more concrete the less probability of total collapse. The evolution of high- rise construction can be seen, by comparing the empire state building to the WTC. My estimate is the ratio of concrete to steel in the empire state building is 60/40. The ratio of concrete to steel in the WTC is 40/60. The tallest building in the world, the Petronas Towers, in Kula Lumpur, Malaysia, is more like the concrete to steel ratio of the empire state building than concrete to steel ratio of the WTC. Donald Trump in New York City has constructed the tallest reinforced concrete high-rise residence building.



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
I love these images:


I'll just add the text from,

concretecore.741.com...

where the same images are use, to the images you've so thoughtfully provided.


The Concrete Core And Its Hallways

Below on the left is WTC 1 at sunrise. The view is not looking down the hallways, we look nearly along the long axis of the towers core. The vertical line of light in the lower segment is created by sunlight reflecting off the inner core walls then shining out the core hallway.

The North Tower had a core oriented east and west. The camera perspective is not aligned with the hallway as can be seen by the orientation of the south towers roof indicating an oblique view. The light is reflected off the inner south shear wall at a hallway level where there is no doorway interrupting. Notice the very slight interruptions, dark streaks, whole dark floors. The nature of light under these conditions is to blend, blur and obscure solid areas between the light.

We see no light on the left side because the doorways on the north face do not align with the doors on the east. Above that, or the top sky lobby floor, the top floors had a different scheme with some halls on one floor crossing both directions.




The core of the south tower above is oriented north south with its long axis and had 2 halls crossing the short axis. We see no light through it because the doors on our face only reveal a shadowed inner concrete wall corner. See the 2 vertical, central lines in the image below.

Below: Tower on right, the north tower. The interior box columns followed the slight taper of the concrete core to a point then had to continue vertically plumb to the roof as the interior wall of the outside tube of the steel framework. The purpose of this section and photo is to show the space between the interior box columns and the tapering core face at the upper floors. The north tower had hallways crossing perpendicularly every other floor (diagram below). This picture of the towers is looking due south through the towers.




Above: The north tower core was oriented east west, so we are looking at the wide side. On the right tower fr then project that dddistance down to a cross section. We see, from right to left; a light space from the out side to a dark column which represents the floor space to the interior box column, then there is another narrow light space left of that. That is the space between the interior box column and the concrete core face. Going leftward we see the facing concrete shear wall, then the hallway crossing the narrow axis, then the core face again, then the space between the east core face, then interior box column, then floor space to the east side of the building.


[Mod Edit: fixed quote tags]

[edit on 5/21/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
From one page that I read, the WTC was 60/40 concrete to steel ratio, but with the WTC it was estimated to be 40/60 concrete to steel. So from what they're saying there WAS concrete, but it was MUCH less than in previous and most high rise buildings.


That would still indicate a lie on FEMA's part. The buildings they and NIST offered were totally different than a building with a concrete core.

And what really gets me, is that if you look at all these past articles on the WTC, all pre-9/11 and even some post-9/11 articles suggest that the towers had concrete cores, reinforced with steel. Here are a few:

A post-9/11 (Sept. 13 -- before FEMA) MSNBC interview with WTC Tower engineer Leslie Robertson, emphasis mine:


“Beyond the reaction that any citizen has—the sadness that we all feel—you have to understand, I worked long hours, seven days a week on this project back when I was young and energetic,” [...]

Still, Robertson, whose firm is responsible for three of the six tallest buildings in the world, feels a sense of pride that the massive towers, supported by a steel-tube exoskeleton and a reinforced concrete core, held up as well as they did—managing to stand for over an hour despite direct hits from two massive commercial jetliners.


From UNC:


Each tube contained a concrete core, which supported only the load of the central bank of elevators and stairwells (Snoonian and Czarnecki 23).


From the New York Transfer:


At the heart of the structure was a vertical steel and concrete core, housing lift shafts and stairwells. Steel beams radiate outwards and connect with steel
uprights, forming the building's outer wall.


From licensed structural engineer August Domel, Jr., Ph. D., November 2001:


The structural design for the World Trade Center Towers was done by Skilling, Helle, Christiansen and Robertson. It was designed as a tube building that included a perimeter moment-resisting frame consisting of steel columns spaced on 39-inch centers. The load carrying system was designed so that the steel facade would resist lateral and gravity forces and the interior concrete core would carry only gravity loads.

Dr. Domel received a Ph.D. from the University of Illinois at Chicago in 1988 and a Law Degree from Loyola University in 1992. He is a licensed Structural Engineer and Attorney at Law in the .State of Illinois and a Professional Engineer in twelve states, including the State of New York. Dr. Domel is authorized by the Department of Labor (OSHA) as a 10 and 30 hour construction safety trainer.


I'd be interested to see any pre-9/11 articles describing a steel-only core in detail. I'm trying to find documentaries that explain the structure in detail, as well. I've heard there was one aired in 1995 that did, but I'm having no luck finding it.

But at any rate, this is most definitely not just a bunch of core columns sticking up into the air:




posted on May, 20 2006 @ 04:14 PM
link   
[Mod Edit: removed unnecessary quote of Entire preceeding post]


Absolutely, and there is not one image showing steel core columns inside the core area at elevations . A poster from DU came up with this scan from Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992.









Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 5/20/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Maybe the hardest evidence yet.

Ok, for everyone who doesn't know: concrete is often reinforced with steel reinforcement bars, called "rebar" (very original, yes). They look like this:



If there were reinforced concrete cores, we would probably see rebar left around the core columns.

And we do!






Look! All between core columns! Except for the last pic, that is, which shows rebar over a pile of pulverized concrete.

Do we still have to wonder why we can't see through this strange, gray, blocky structure?



[edit on 20-5-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 10:13 PM
link   
In this image we can see that the SAND & GRAVEL is filling the basement basically full. In various calculations it has been shown that the official account showing only floors would not even fill the basement half.

At any rate, only 20 of the floors had hard rock aggregate, (stone concrete) the rest was lightweight concrete (pumice, fly ash and vermiculite).

algoxy.com...

The proportions we see in the, SAND & GRAVEL show far too much aggregate. Lightweight concrete turns to dust with high explosives. All that chunk concrete rubble in the ground zero pictures is fractured aggregate concrete.

Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 21/5/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 12:05 AM
link   
Excellent research Christophera!

I wonder why HowardRoark is notably absent in this thread?


It says a lot that the true nature of the construction of the WTC core has been covered up and even lied about.

This is a pivotal piece of info in the 9/11 debate imo.



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 12:46 AM
link   
Howard's "hoax" thread comes up on the first page of a google search for:

"wtc cores" or "wtc core construction" but this thread on the same subject doesn't come up even though they have some of the same language.

In fact if I take language directly from Christohphera's thread, "towers had a concrete core", Howard's thread comes up as the 1st link but Christopera's thread doesn't come up at all!

Seems to me there is manipulation of search engines done with certain threads on this site.



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 05:36 AM
link   
Nicely done Christophera and bsbray11.



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Interesting work, guys. I've always been extremely puzzled by this picture:



I saw the concrete core theory ages ago here and posted some of it in Roark's WTC Challenge thread, but without any real corroborating evidence, I let it go. Also the C4 (or similar) on the rebar theory expressed in that article has always intrigued me, because it seems to be the only viable explanation for the complete pulverization of the concrete into micro-dust. Cutting charges, thermite, and most of all gravitational collapse cannot seem to explain this.

However, I'm still stuck and a little perplexed by the apparent incongruity between the picture above, and these two:




The explanation for this here concretecore.741.com..., simply doesn't make a lot of sense and reads like a load of gobbledeegook, desperately trying to fit a preconceived conclusion.

So there needs to be a logical explanation for the light showing through the towers seeming to disprove a colid core. And likewise, if there was no concrete in the core, there needs to be a concrete explanation (punny) for that bizarre standing core photo.

Concerning the pictures of what may be rebar at ground zero, the bars seem to be a little too thick. All the steel rebar I've seen has been at most an inch in diameter. This needs to be explored in more depth.

Could it be that the basements and floors 1-7 were concrete reinforced and the structure above wasn't? The first 7 floors had different construction to the floors above, with diagaonal bracing, as well as thicker perimeter columns. Or could the rebar be just from the basement? I remember watching the video of the construction of the towers and there was mention of concrete in the basement. The four-level parking facilities in the basement would also be made from much thicker concrete (and necessarily steel-reinforced) than the floor pans in the office levels.

A few things need to be ironed out before this concrete core can be considered fact.



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   
[Mod Edit: removed unnecessary quote of Entire preceeding post]


post id: 2219178 above has an explanation. It is complex verbage to describe a 2 images that are worth a thousand words apiece. I would suggest copying the text and pasting it into word processor and enlarging it next to the image described. That is how I had to write it and I did it twice before I was happy with it.

I account for the light shining through absolutely consistent with both photos and the hallway layout diagram. Keep in mind that the light shining through WTC 1 is a reflection off the inside wall of the concrete core. The steel, breakdown inner form left a very smooth, reflective surface.

If you have a specific question after that I can clarify.

Quoting – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 5/21/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

Concerning the pictures of what may be rebar at ground zero, the bars seem to be a little too thick. All the steel rebar I've seen has been at most an inch in diameter. This needs to be explored in more depth.

I don't agree. There is no real scale to tell how thick it is and it looks exactly like the comparison pic that he posted.



Could it be that the basements and floors 1-7 were concrete reinforced and the structure above wasn't?


That wouldn't explain this pic where the core is still taller than all of the other surrounding buildings and is probably about 50 stories high.


If you buy into the "hoax" concept you may chose not to believe this but otherwise this is a compelling and seemingly corroboratable description:


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




I remember watching the video of the construction of the towers and there was mention of concrete in the basement. The four-level parking facilities in the basement would also be made from much thicker concrete (and necessarily steel-reinforced) than the floor pans in the office levels.


This fact only leads to the possibility that it was throughout the core as the other evidence and historical references have shown.



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 02:51 PM
link   
How come the mini-nukes didn't destroy the core? Why was some left standing?



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Do you know what it reminds me of? The Windsor Tower:


The fire eventually finished 26 hours later, leaving a complete burn-out above the fifth floor. The steel-glass façade was completely destroyed, exposing the concrete perimeter columns. The steel columns above the 17th floor suffered complete collapse, partially coming to rest on the upper technical floor.




Of course the Windsor Tower only had a few floors of Steel/Glass construction compared to the WTC..



I know it took a while, but it was started by either a spark or a Molotov cocktail, not a jetliner of fuel.



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   
I dont know why ppl bug so much on the core. WTC was a state of the art building, a great realisation of engeneering and architecture. Ever herd someone saying "They just dont built it like the WTC(anymore)" as a reference of thier sturdy architecture. Having to stand tall agaisnt wind at this altitude needs heck of engeneering.

What i like about the photo in the sunset is how the pancake thoery doesnt stand up from the 9/11 (ommision. If in theory the floor above cause the collapsing of the floor below when going down the core will still stand up as we clearly see in the photo, the skelet of the building will remain tall in the air way above what we see when all the dust is down on the last photo (about 40/50 floor).






top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join