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: 11
1
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2006 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark


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?


That's a pretty outrageous claim if true Howard, but why even focus on that, put your focus on arguments that make sense by people who've been posting in this thread making substantial claims.




posted on May, 30 2006 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
but why even focus on that,


Since Cristopherea is the primary proponent of the concrete core theory, it makes sense to look at the context of all his claims.

The 17’ thick wall, the preplanted explosives, etc.


Originally posted by Christophera
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.


If it was on PBS, It should be available somewhere in their archives.


Originally posted by Masisoar
put your focus on arguments that make sense by people who've been posting in this thread making substantial claims.


What claim is that, base on the dust shrouded pictures of the collapse?

That is the essence of the concrete core claim. That one building had a concrete core and the other did not, or something like that.



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
. And even then, we hear from unique individuals like Mr. Roark that only structural engineers matter. Ignore the fact that SE's don't specialize in building collapses, by any means.


Forensic engineering is a major branch within the field of structural engineering.

Failure analysis is at the heart of all the engineering disciplines.

www.burkett-wong.com...

www.expertlaw.com...



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Christophera
Also, you are using a floor plan that is from NIST and so cannot be used.


Uh, actually it is based on the original designs from the Port Authority

You can find some nice details here, including scans of the original design criteria documents.

In any case, why can’t it be used?


(I can' wait to see the Circulus in Probando* that will be presented in answer to that last question.
)








* Made you click the link, didn't it.



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 12:55 PM
link   
So because of that steel column sticking up after the whole building initially collapsed --> the pancake theory is dispelled? I can see reasonability in that because of the large mass that "should of brought down everything".. is it fool proof however?



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Since Cristopherea is the primary proponent of the concrete core theory, it makes sense to look at the context of all his claims.


So you appoint Cristopherea as the figurehead of the information being presented on this thread and focus solely on addressing his posts, ignoring everyone else?

Why does this strike me as dishonest?


Originally posted by HowardRoark
Forensic engineering is a major branch within the field of structural engineering.

Failure analysis is at the heart of all the engineering disciplines.


Studying what makes buildings fail is not the same as studying the way they're supposed to fall according to physics. Sorry, old man.

We have two or three structural engineers here. Any of you guys/gals study how buildings are supposed to collapse via physics?



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 03:20 AM
link   
Did someone say "concrete core?" Christophera tried pulling this bunk at the JREF forum, but he hasn't been back to answer my challenge.

The photos below show that:
1) There was no concrete core in WTC 1 and 2.
2) The north tower "spire" that Christophera calls part of a concrete core, is actually part of the outer wall corner.

Please go find another crackpot theory, Christophera, and stop spamming internet forums with your foolishness.












Photos don't do it for you? Then contact the firm that designed the core, but please be polite. They aren't happy that terrorists destroyed their building with all those people in them.

Leslie E. Robertson Associates, R.L.L.P.
30 Broad Street, 47-48th Floor
New York, NY 10004-2304
Email: info@lera.com
tel 212 750 9000



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Bsbray, It was my impression that Christophera is the author of the page that I claimed to be a hoax.

If I am wrong, then I will be happy to apologize. Christophera, what do you say? Is it your web site or not?


Gravy, this is, by far, the best picture of the bunch.

www.flickr.com...

However, I have to correct you on the following..


2) The north tower "spire" that Christophera calls part of a concrete core, is actually part of the outer wall corner.


I don’t think so. It is the corner box column. The key is that there are short beams attached to it, not wide spandrel plates. The beams were bolted on and, as such, most of them were easily sheared off in the collapse. The spandrel plates were welded to the exterior columns in sets of three (the column trees). The column trees were then bolted to each other.

In any case, the presence of a transitory “spire” in one collapse and not the other proves exactly nothing.

A building collapse is much like a chaotic system mathematically. It exhibits a degree of sensitive dependence and as such the pathways of identical components in two separate, but slightly different systems will never be the same. Ultimately, however, all of the dynamic motions regardless of the particular pathway, culminate in the same result, the collapse of the structure.

On the other hand, this picture, which was posted by Jack Tripper in support of this theory, is clearly one of the corners of the building at one of the basement levels.




posted on May, 31 2006 @ 12:04 PM
link   
www.flickr.com...


One thing I noticed about this picture. It appears that the core columns were braced with diagonal bracing in that photo. At least every other "floor" of the core. It doesn't appear to be just the cranes' bracing. So, was there diagonal bracing? If so, then FEMA and NIST have some 'splainin to do because according to them, they didn't have any at all.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Good catch.

I believe that there was bracing around the mechanical floors. It's in one of the NIST reports, I just don't remember where, off hand.

There was also some diagonal bracing in the basement levels as well as the hat truss.

[edit on 31-5-2006 by HowardRoark]

[edit on 31-5-2006 by HowardRoark]

found it



Core columns were typically spliced at three-story intervals. Diagonal bracing was used at the mechanical floors and in the area of the hat truss.


NISTNCSTAR1-1.pdf Page 11 of the report (73 of 280)


[edit on 31-5-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Bsbray, It was my impression that Christophera is the author of the page that I claimed to be a hoax.

If I am wrong, then I will be happy to apologize.


What does that have to do with ignoring everyone else's posts on this thread? We're on ATS, are we not? A discussion forum? Not his personal website.


In any case, the presence of a transitory “spire” in one collapse and not the other proves exactly nothing.


The spire was WTC1's. For WTC2, you had a whole freaking block of solid gray sticking up in the air after the rest fell.


A building collapse is much like a chaotic system mathematically.


Which is why they shouldn't have fallen symmetrically (all three of them did) and straight down, all the way down, without slowing down.


On the other hand, this picture, which was posted by Jack Tripper in support of this theory, is clearly one of the corners of the building at one of the basement levels.


Can you show that all of the other images were also building corners? There is rebar in all of them, and in more.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

A building collapse is much like a chaotic system mathematically.


Which is why they shouldn't have fallen symmetrically (all three of them did) and straight down, all the way down, without slowing down.


The movement of an individual item in the collapse in unpredictable. The movement of the whole is predictable and definable.





On the other hand, this picture, which was posted by Jack Tripper in support of this theory, is clearly one of the corners of the building at one of the basement levels.

Can you show that all of the other images were also building corners? There is rebar in all of them, and in more.

As far as I can tell, those other shots were taken contemporaneously as the building corner shot. In which case they are all shots of the basement building levels which have nothing to do with this discussion. Yes, I will concede that there quite likely was substantial amounts of concrete and rebar on those levels, especially in the parking levels.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark


Originally posted by Christophera
Also, you are using a floor plan that is from NIST and so cannot be used.


Uh, actually it is based on the original designs from the Port Authority

In any case, why can’t it be used?


Because NIST didn't explain free fall and pulverization. To even consider the sources we would have to know exactly why the NY mayor took the plans and court won't make him return them.

www.nyclu.org...



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The movement of an individual item in the collapse in unpredictable. The movement of the whole is predictable and definable.


But resistance in any particular direction by a few box columns at any point in collapse would have effectively lopsided the falling of everything above (which would've already been extremely unstable). Ask any demolition engineer the importance of knocking out all columns to ensure against lopsiding, especially with taller buildings.

Chaos theory doesn't hold that the end result is predictable regardless of all the little things. It holds that all of the little things cause massive changes in the overall outcome.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize what would've had to happened for WTC1 to start falling as it did. It didn't lean or lopside to start, despite the obvious bias in structural damage towards one side. It just started falling straight down, all columns failing at pretty much the exact same instant.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize that means all of the columns across that floor would've had to have been compromised within a very, very small amount of time, and the same for each floor after that. And the collapse stayed symmetrical all the way down, with all of the columns across each floor all being blown out in a period of time of about 0.1 seconds per floor.

That's not chaos, Howard. That's controlled.



As far as I can tell, those other shots were taken contemporaneously as the building corner shot.


That's not what I asked.


Yes, I will concede that there quite likely was substantial amounts of concrete and rebar on those levels, especially in the parking levels.


And neither is that.

[edit on 31-5-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 04:03 PM
link   
There was a cool History Channel show on the history of dynamite last night.

It began with images of the imploding of some 20 or thirty buildings and structures of various sizes and shapes. It was amazing how similar those implosions appeared to the towers going down with the pyroclastic expansion and flow of pulverized concrete dust and all billowing out in rolling clouds.

In fact, I cannot recall ever in my life seeing any video of any building turning to dust and rubble by self-collapse or fatigue collapse. I witnessed a five story grain silo get knocked down in South Dakota ten years back and it just pretty much crunched down to the ground. Of course, that's apples and oranges, I know. But are there any videos out there showing a building collapse due to stress and fatigue?

Hasn't some firm done a scale model tower fire to an identical scale structure with similar properties as far as heat and fuel over similar time frames to see if collapse would occur? I'd contribute some cash to that experiement by an independent firm with independent oversight.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 04:10 PM
link   








Remember, we're not comparing building types. We're comparing specific features of the collapses, shared by both all of these demolitions and the WTC Tower collapses.


Do any buildings other than demolitions ever fall like that? Besides the WTCs, of course, because that's what we're debating, and to point those out as examples of your case is begging the question and asinine.

[edit on 31-5-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff


www.flickr.com...


One thing I noticed about this picture. It appears that the core columns were braced with diagonal bracing in that photo. At least every other "floor" of the core. It doesn't appear to be just the cranes' bracing. So, was there diagonal bracing? If so, then FEMA and NIST have some 'splainin to do because according to them, they didn't have any at all.


The entire core presented by FEMA/NIST lacks photographic support. The demolition photos don't lie and are the very best look at the entire structure.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The movement of an individual item in the collapse in unpredictable. The movement of the whole is predictable and definable.


But resistance in any particular direction by a few box columns at any point in collapse would have effectively lopsided the falling of everything above (which would've already been extremely unstable). Ask any demolition engineer the importance of knocking out all columns to ensure against lopsiding, especially with taller buildings.

Chaos theory doesn't hold that the end result is predictable regardless of all the little things. It holds that all of the little things cause massive changes in the overall outcome.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize what would've had to happened for WTC1 to start falling as it did. It didn't lean or lopside to start, despite the obvious bias in structural damage towards one side. It just started falling straight down, all columns failing at pretty much the exact same instant.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize that means all of the columns across that floor would've had to have been compromised within a very, very small amount of time, and the same for each floor after that. And the collapse stayed symmetrical all the way down, with all of the columns across each floor all being blown out in a period of time of about 0.1 seconds per floor.

That's not chaos, Howard. That's controlled.



As far as I can tell, those other shots were taken contemporaneously as the building corner shot.


That's not what I asked.


Yes, I will concede that there quite likely was substantial amounts of concrete and rebar on those levels, especially in the parking levels.


And neither is that.


How ie said he would answer my questions if I answered his. I did but he hasn't answered mine, "Why are no steel core columns seen at elevation in images of the core area?"

Actually WTC 1 did something very odd, backwards (lots of that happening). The top fell south and the body fell north. With structure compromised on the north side the top should have fell north. The top of WTC 2 fell west and the body east.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gravy
Did someone say "concrete core?" Christophera tried pulling this bunk at the JREF forum, but he hasn't been back to answer my challenge.


Convienently you do not repeat your challenge. WHY? 'cause i answered every question reasonably.


Originally posted by Gravy
The photos below show that:
1) There was no concrete core in WTC 1 and 2.
2) The north tower "spire" that Christophera calls part of a concrete core, is actually part of the outer wall corner.


My picture is better and the stub of floor beams are visible.



The rectangles of columns and floor beam are the same as the interior box columns shown here.




Originally posted by Gravy
Please go find another crackpot theory, Christophera, and stop spamming internet forums with your foolishness.


JREF forum is filled with disinfos. The obfuscations they create must be countered with direct visual evidence each and every time. Those viewers experiencing cognitive dissonance can be moved to unreasonable denial by a number of disinfos working together making "black into white" by posting cheap BS text, ridicule, baking recipes ETC. Direct images are absolutely needed. Mods there support the disinfos and limit images to assure those bringing truth waste much of their time.


Originally posted disinfo spam by gravey











Your image links show nothing. Here is rebar standing after horizontal rebar detonated fracturing the concrete leaving the vertical bar to stand.




Originally posted by Gravy
Photos don't do it for you? Then contact the firm that designed the core, but please be polite. They aren't happy that terrorists destroyed their building with all those people in them.

Leslie E. Robertson Associates, R.L.L.P.
30 Broad Street, 47-48th Floor
New York, NY 10004-2304
Email: info@lera.com
tel 212 750 9000


The above images I post keep coming back because they are the evidence of the core. There will be no new evidence until we get the plans, which won't happen unless the people catch on to the "core Lie", which you are trying to impede, supporting a lie hiding murder.

Many have tried and we get nothing from Robertson Associates.

The following was posted on a forum on April fools day.

Leslie E. Robertson
Posted: Apr 1 2006, 06:33 PM
Unregistered

Christophera is correct in stating that the Twin Towers were constructed with a concrete core. Although in my original design the core w

[edit on 31-5-2006 by Christophera]



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Damm text limit


Leslie E. Robertson
Posted: Apr 1 2006, 06:33 PM
Unregistered

Christophera is correct in stating that the Twin Towers were constructed with a concrete core. Although in my original design the core was to be a steel framed one that decision was overridden by Minoru Yamasaki the architect.

That core should have resisted the airplane impacts AND the fires. I have said nothing for four and a half years but can remain silent no longer. My belief is that only explosives could have caused WTC 1 & WTC 2 to collapse the way they did on September 11, 2001.

Leslie E. Robertson
Director Leslie E. Robertson Associates, R.L.L.P. and lead engineer of the World Trade Center


forum.physorg.com...




top topics



 
1
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join