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

page: 10
1
share:

posted on May, 26 2006 @ 08:10 AM
Oh, goodie...first time I've been called a misinfo agent. Now, I understand how Howard and AgentSmith feel.

First, I'm not totally discounting the concrete in the core theory. What I am discounting is the 17 foot and 15 foot concrete walls at the lobby core. Here is another drawing I've done. It shows the 17' and 15' concrete walls at the outside of the core structure. The elevators have been schetched in by me not to scale.

What I'm trying to get at is, if these walls were there, then when going to the elevator, you would have to have walked through these walls somehow. You can see in my drawing that the elevators would be flush with the outside of the core (this is easy to imagine because most all elevators are like this...i.e. the door of the elevators opens flush with the elevator shaft). Now, if these walls were there, you have to get through them somehow.

If anyone has been to the towers, did you have to go through 17' and 15' walls before getting to the elevator door?

Here's my drawing to visually say what I'm trying to communicate.

files.abovetopsecret.com...(3).pdf

[edit on 5/26/2006 by Griff]

[edit on 5/26/2006 by Griff]

[edit on 5/26/2006 by Griff]

posted on May, 26 2006 @ 10:57 AM

Originally posted by Griff
Oh, goodie...first time I've been called a misinfo agent. Now, I understand how Howard and AgentSmith feel.

First, I'm not totally discounting the concrete in the core theory. What I am discounting is the 17 foot and 15 foot concrete walls at the lobbie core. Here is another drawing I've done. It shows the 17' and 15' concrete walls at the outside of the core structure. The elevators have been schetched in by me not to scale.

What I'm trying to get at is, if these walls were there, then when going to the elevator, you would have to have walked through these walls somehow. You can see in my drawing that the elevators would be flush with the outside of the core (this is easy to imagine because most all elevators are like this...i.e. the door of the elevators opens flush with the elevator shaft). Now, if these walls were there, you have to get through them somehow.

If anyone has been to the towers, did you have to go through 17' and 15' walls before getting to the elevator door?

Here's my drawing to visually say what I'm trying to communicate.

files.abovetopsecret.com...(3).pdf

This shows how close the core wall was to the perimeter.

[edit on 26-5-2006 by Christophera]

posted on May, 26 2006 @ 11:04 AM
I see where you are coming from in that picture. I'd like to see something showing more of the lobby if you have it. It appears that there is a railing there in the lower right. That means that it is blocking people from falling into something. What is that something? And, it's not entirely clear what portion of the lobby that picture is from.

Anyone have a picture of the lobby where you can see the elevator doors?

Edit: It would be nice if I could learn how to spell lobby.

[edit on 5/26/2006 by Griff]

posted on May, 26 2006 @ 11:12 AM

Originally posted by EugeneAxeman
This is my first post to the group, so please be gentle.

Originally posted by eagle eye
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).

This is one of the reasons which prevents me from accepting the official explanation for the towers' sudden collapse. They claim that the top floors broke away from the outer support columns, falling on the floors below in avalanche fashion.

Much of the video evidence suggests otherwise. Prior to the floors above the impact point of wtc 1 falling, the antenna mast is seen falling several feet into the center of the roof. This could only happen if the center column gave way first, so we have a chicken/egg issue here. If the upper floors fell due to their support columns failing, then the mast should have remained at roof level. The mast falling first indicates that the center column (which the 9/11 Commission claims did not exist) began falling first. This is coincidentally how a building demolition begins.

Another weakness in the official explanation has to do with the amount of time it took for the towers to fall. If the fall was due to the "pancake effect", then the time for the total building failure could be calculated, based on gravity and the time required to sheer all the floor supports from the vertical supports. This does not take place quickly, or evenly; but ignoring that, if it only took 1/8 second for a floor to give way, and you ignored the upper burning 20 floors, then you have a fall time in the area of 90 seconds (time = sqrrt(2 * distance * acceleration of gravity) + .125 seconds to sheer the floor free: approximately 1 second per floor). Additionally, it would be a very jerky fall, as each accumulation of floors pounded the next. The fall time for each floor should be the same. Mass does not influence velocity.

In other words, the collapse of the building would be the total of several smaller falls. Each floor temporarily stopping the descent until it broke from its supports.
Watching the video shows no resistance whatsoever from the time the mast drops into the tower. The physics of free fall has the complete building falling in about 8.3 seconds, from the 90th floor it's somewhere around 7.5 seconds. This is about how much time it took for wtc 1 to fall.

So to bust the pancake theory (or myth), you need only apply the physics of the pancake theory to the video evidence. It does not hold up.

I won't even go into the other physical evidence found in the rubble which contradicts the official position.

L8r

Eugene

You definitly have a handle on the inconsistencies. The concrete core changes the situation radically.

posted on May, 26 2006 @ 11:43 AM
Let's analyze that picture a little more. I forget off the top of my head how far the exterior columns were spaced at the lobby levels. I can see three Y columns at the far exterior wall. Without digging, I seem to remember that each Y column seperated to 3 columns at the 10th floor or something like that. If you take 3 Y columns and seperate them into 3 exterior columns (for lack of better terminology) then you have the space of 9 exterior columns. Now, being spaced about 3.5 feet on center, this gives around 33 feet from the corner. I checked on my drawing and what do you know.....it comes to about 3 feet offset of the core structure. Note that the core structure had 2 foot thick gypsum board. That gives a foot.....which includes my human error.

Sorry, but I don't see 15 and 17 foot thick concrete walls.

Edit: Howard has pointed out to me that the gypsum boards were 2 inches not feet. My bad....there I go again spreading disinfo.

[edit on 5/26/2006 by Griff]

[edit on 5/26/2006 by Griff]

[edit on 5/26/2006 by Griff]

posted on May, 26 2006 @ 12:48 PM
A couple of quick things.

This is the short side of the core to exterior wall distance. There are 9 perimeter columns, thus three Y columns between the corner fillet (or bevel, if you want) and the plane of the core wall.

This is the large side of the core to the exterior space. There are 15 exterior columns, thus 5 Y columns between the core and the exterior corner fillet.

You can count them form this image

Edit: Thast's fillet, not filet.

[edit on 26-5-2006 by HowardRoark]

posted on May, 26 2006 @ 12:59 PM
Howard.

Good job showing what I was trying to say. If you count over 9 columns from the fillet on the short side and 15 columns from the fillet on the long side, you come within very close to the core structure. Very close as in NOT 15 and 17 feet away from the core structure. That right there puts this whole 15 and 17 foot thick concrete walls to rest IMO.

posted on May, 26 2006 @ 01:24 PM

Originally posted by HowardRoark
A couple of quick things.

You need to identify which tower, which face in the photos before attempting what you are doing. The tower cores were slightly different. Wtc 2 had core walls about 5 feet thinner at the base. Also, you are using a floor plan that is from NIST and so cannot be used.

What really matters is showing the steel core columns in photos where they absolutely must show. If you cannot do that you cannot say there was no concrete core because the steel core columns must be seen during the towers fall. They were some of the strongest structural elements in the towers.

[edit on 26-5-2006 by Christophera]

posted on May, 26 2006 @ 02:29 PM
Even if WTC2 was 5 feet thinner, that's still 10 to 12 foot thick concrete walls. Which even by the picture you supplied could not be.

posted on May, 26 2006 @ 04:19 PM
Why don't we keep looking at the evidence of there being any concrete in the cores at all before trying to establish how much was there, which seems trivial and distracting.

It ultimately is not going to matter much how thick they were, compared to showing that they existed at all and NIST and FEMA have lied.

LoneGunMan brought up an interesting point on the last page about problems with mere drywall/gypsum in the core between and around columns, and no one has offered any explanation yet on what all that gray stuff is that we're seeing in pictures of the cores still standing.

And no one is trying to explain how the standing of those cores fits in with pancake theory, either, or why exactly the cores fell straight down, or what was happening to WTC1's spire as it fell.

These all seem like much more important issues to me.

posted on May, 26 2006 @ 04:23 PM

and no one has offered any explanation yet on what all that gray stuff is that we're seeing in pictures of the cores still standing.

Just a thought, rockwool insulation. Its grayish in color (especially when coated in dust) and used quite often in core board walls (The type of walls claimed to be there by NIST/FEMA).

posted on May, 26 2006 @ 04:42 PM

Originally posted by Griff
Even if WTC2 was 5 feet thinner, that's still 10 to 12 foot thick concrete walls. Which even by the picture you supplied could not be.

Here is a picture of the base of core wall. Perhaps if you can determine which tower it is from, which side, we can learn more. I think, south tower north side of core.

The fact that none of the FEMA steel core columns exist in the center shows the FEMA lie about the core. The stairwell and the foreground would have heavy column stubs and non are there. Considering all the other evidence.

concretecore.com...

it is conclusive that there was a concrete core. The concrete was turned to SAND & GRAVEL, except for that one piece seen above. The only steel seen above is outside the core wall.

I did hear that a number of people survived in a stairwell and that only happened in one place. That must be the one. I think I remember it being tower 2.

posted on May, 26 2006 @ 04:46 PM

Originally posted by HowardRoark
A couple of quick things.

This is the short side of the core to exterior wall distance. There are 9 perimeter columns, thus three Y columns between the corner fillet (or bevel, if you want) and the plane of the core wall.

This is the large side of the core to the exterior space. There are 15 exterior columns, thus 5 Y columns between the core and the exterior corner fillet.

You can count them form this image

files.abovetopsecret.com...

Edit: Thast's fillet, not filet.

This data does not provide the answer you have never provided which is "Why are no steel core columns seen in the demolition photos at upper elevations protruding from the core area?"

[edit on 26-5-2006 by Christophera]

[edit on 26-5-2006 by Christophera]

posted on May, 28 2006 @ 06:01 PM
the spire which is so much talk about, is an outside wall element, of which you see the corner of the perimeter wall head on.
This means that the pancake theory (btw already a long time ago abandoned by any sane researcher, including NIST) is not applicable at all.
It means that the total INNER core fell faster than the rest of the surrounding structure, and dragged all floors down with it.

The core portion to be seen in other pictures can just as well be another outside wall portion. You have to measure out the position of the photographers, compared to the original position of still standing towers, and then overlay the scaled to the same measurements pictures they took from the spires and core.

I'm contemplating at the moment that you will not find that remaining core in the right position to really be part of, or in fact the real core. But it will probably fit with an outside wall portion.

I once posted a highres picture in one of these forum threads, taken from a helicopter with a lot of sparks and glowing trails coming off falling steel spikes of a collapsing WTC tower.
That picture turned out to be enhanced a bit for contrast where I found it, because the owner of the picture saw a brownish teint on the original picture, which he said could be a result of a nuclear reaction.

At that time I mentioned also in that post, that a strange dark wall was actually visible in the right part of that photo.
That was also a huge partial outside wall clearly visible, while the rest of the interior parts were not connected to it anymore.

As I said before, the towers were unzipped at the 4 corners, after the core collumns were demolished at the 8th floors (above the atriums) and at the 3 reinforced double service floor areas higher up.
Just observe the debris fall-pattern of the outside walls of BOTH towers. And nearly all debris lays in that cross-shaped debris field of each tower.
Just have a look f.ex. at the damage to the Winter Garden building, both buildings to the right and left had only minor damage.
Another strong indication of planned demolition.

These towers were due to have a far too expensive renovation, to remove a huge asbestos problem, and a few other construction problems, so a combined political and economical "perfect" solution was proposed by a thinktank in Washington, thus all sensitive backup files, very unwanted by a big part of the power-elite, from the Secret Service, CIA, NSA, Army, Navy and Airforce, tax investigations etc, were placed in WTC 1, 2 and 7, and in the Pentagon, and the rest is black-op'd history.

The history stomped through your and our throaths by all propaganda outlets in the USA during the last years.

posted on May, 29 2006 @ 12:51 PM
hi.

Im still a bit puzzled by all of this. What are you exactly saying? That the core was concrete? Well, a concrete core is very different from Steel cores. And i still think that this picture: www.terrorize.dk... puts this theory to rest. You see, concrete cores are monolithic. What i see in that picture is a high strenght steel layout. Reenforced by, yup, steel. Pouring "mega"columns of concrete to the centre wouldn't be a solution, as just columns wouldn't be strong enough.
Observe the construction of the to-become Worlds tallest building Burj Dubai. Its using a concrete core and concrete wing until floor 150 something, and the core is definitely monolithic. And as some said that they used steel because its lighter and or stronger more windresistant etc, well, i beg to differ... Steel was and is used because it doesnt need time to cure, so you can build something much faster. We can never achieve, with concrete buildings, the speeds at which the empire state building went up at....

Though, those pics which clearly show a core or whatever part of the building standing, they definitely lay to rest the pancake theory, it just doesnt make any sence.

posted on May, 29 2006 @ 04:25 PM
Have you seen the picture of WTC2's core standing? You probably have, but I'm wondering what you see in it. I also wonder if you've ever seen video of it. I can't find a single one.

Originally posted by ch1le
Observe the construction of the to-become Worlds tallest building Burj Dubai. Its using a concrete core and concrete wing until floor 150 something, and the core is definitely monolithic.

I'm willing to consider that the concrete cores didn't go all the way up. In fact, that would make more sense to me. According to NIST, the topmost floors didn't even have the large box columns in the core, but I-beams (or so Howard has posted at least). The upper third or so of the building may have been steel-only.

And as some said that they used steel because its lighter and or stronger more windresistant etc, well, i beg to differ... Steel was and is used because it doesnt need time to cure, so you can build something much faster. We can never achieve, with concrete buildings, the speeds at which the empire state building went up at....

This corroborates the obvious explanation of why the concrete wouldn't have gone up at the same time as the box columns. Certain members love posting pictures of the towers during construction, showing the topmost floors yet built with box columns protruding only, as if we should see concrete walls sticking up in the air. This just doesn't add up as a legitimate concern.

Though, those pics which clearly show a core or whatever part of the building standing, they definitely lay to rest the pancake theory, it just doesnt make any sence.

Funny that no one else brings this up but me and you, eh.

posted on May, 29 2006 @ 04:30 PM

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Er Ok, whatever you say, Chris. BTW, have you stopped beating your wife yet?

ugly cheap shot

Don’t take this the wrong way, but is English your native language? Seriously, I have a hard time understanding what you are trying to say sometimes.

cheap shot

You know better Howard.

posted on May, 30 2006 @ 10:18 AM

Originally posted by seattlelaw

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Er Ok, whatever you say, Chris. BTW, have you stopped beating your wife yet?

ugly cheap shot

Is it a cheap shot to post that quote out of context?

Is it as cheap a shot as making a blatant attack on the perceived motivations of someone with whom you are debating?

Since you apparently don’t have anything to contribute to the nominal subject of this debate, please explain the difference between the following leading question:

Originally posted by Christophera
Your inabilty to address the compromises to our rights and freedoms does far more damage to you than anything I've said. Show how your refusal to deal rationally with available information protects our Constitution.

And the classic example of a leading question: “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?”

What about this statement from Chistophera? Is it a cheap shot also?

Why are you trying to hide the way Americans were murdered? Do the rights and freedoms of Americans mean anything to you? Only truth will protect them.

Originally posted by seattlelaw

Don’t take this the wrong way, but is English your native language? Seriously, I have a hard time understanding what you are trying to say sometimes.

cheap shot

You know better Howard.

How is that a cheap shot?

It is a legitimate question. There are several posts made by Chistophera where I have a hard time understanding what he is trying to say or ask.

I’m not talking about typos here. I make typos all the time. I’m not even trying to be a grammar nazi. I just want him to be as clear as possible so that I understand him correctly.

We both know that there are a number of jailhouse lawyers on these boards who have nothing better to do then to pick on every single word of a post.

posted on May, 30 2006 @ 10:24 AM
I would like to go back to this post by Chistophera, earlier in this thread.

Originally posted by Christophera
The image below shows the 2 type cuts in the steel found at ground zero. Explosive shear on left, torch cut on right.

Or it could be that the end of column on the left was ground flat and smooth in the mill before it ever showed up at the WTC construction site.

The first time I saw one of those square cut columns I got a weird feeling. After seeing the below I realized that the square cut columns were only part of the mystery. The other part is that the interior box columns were sheared on level lines!!!!! Green arrow indicates a row of interior box columns and yellow are various support structure for elevator landings, and mechanical equipment inside the core. Note the support structures inside the core are not square cut. The core was to the right of the interior box columns on left, and left of row on right. It detonated leaving only the interior box columns.

About a year ago I realized that near the end of the documentary a set of plates were mentioned that were located where the floor panels joined with the interior box columns. the videographers had been trying to piece together the exact assembly method, parts etc, for the floors. They had reels of 16mm and thousands of stills but not quite enough data to get the full picture. From some sub contactor providing parts they found a detail of the plates that surrounded the columns at each floor/column intersection. They were astounded to find that the plates were spec'd with tolerences of like 0.035 inches clearance from the finished columns. The videographers were experienced in construction and went to the PA and asked about the precision as related to the cost to the public. They were definitely trying to show the public where the money went. The PA was actually upset momentarily that the videographers had went around them to a contractor and gotten information the PA considered sensitive at the time of construction. When pressed for why the tolerences were so tight the PA said that the plates were intended to "index the columns to the floors more perfectly". There were reasons the narrative put forth to question this and the expense, then the matter was left alone.

About a year ago I made this graphic to describe what I had remembered as it could relate to a method to create explosive shear of the columns. An extreme cutting charge built into the floors. The perspective is looking at the core face, or the steel in front of it.

After a year I added a second plate because with only one plate, 1 edge of 2, from the cut edges remaining, would be very ragged. In a year of looking at column ends I never found one. Both edges were clean, square cut tempered steel. So I added a plate that sandwiches C4 and is cast in concrete, around the column. The containment and resulting collapsing plane of high pressure gasses would leave a cut exactly like we see. Examine the edge left by modern LS charges and you'll see the column end above is very similar.

[edit on 21-5-2006 by Christophera]

[edit on 21-5-2006 by Christophera]

In other words, Christophera is making the case that the explosives were planted in the building when it was built.

Do I have that right, Chris? Is that your claim?

posted on May, 30 2006 @ 10:36 AM
Talk about your mental gymnastics...

Alright, back on thread. Did you concede the rebar issue yet? It is rebar. Before my life as a jailhouse lawyer I worked construction and poured concrete over rebar many times. It is not conduit. Rebar begins to rust almost as soon as it is placed. Also, once it takes on a shape it is not coming out of that shape without a lot of effort. Conduit is meant to bend easily and without much pressure.

Also, as pointed out previously, the conduit sheathing will not rust. Finally, that rust colored substance on the rebar is rust, not dust. The dust from the demolition of the towers was not rust colored. Besides, with as much water as they poured on the site to take down the temperatures caused by the C4 and thermite, the dust would have washed off. On the other hand, when it dried the rebar would turn rust colored due to the oxidation of the metal. And it did.

Lastly, I have yet to hear you or agentsmith discuss how the columns all managed to get sawed off at level 90 degree angles in a catostrophic failure like this?

new topics

top topics

1