Seeing as how you've just avoided the points of three or four posts in a row now, excluding my last one, I'll take that as a "no, I can't."

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The NIST reports actually contain copies of and refer to the actual design criteria documents,

But where are the scans of the actual construction drawings? That's what else we would need.

Originally posted by bsbray11

But where are the scans of the actual construction drawings? That's what else we would need.

Not just the drawings but the specs also. Specs have alot more information than the drawings do. Like what kind of concrete, etc. Still waiting to get a peak at those. And waiting, and waiting, and waiting.

Originally posted by SKMDC1
This is just me spit-balling, but is it possible that both sides of the WTC argument are inherently correct?

Could it be that the plane crashes did cause enough damage that there would be SOME kind of collapse and that collapse would not be a nice pristine pancake action, but a tree falling in the forest, taking out many other trees so to speak. And to avoid the WTC falling over sideways and wiping out entire blocks with fire and debris they had a "self destruct" built in that allowed the powers-that-be the option to take them down before they fell down. This would mean that a) there was no conspiracy for a staged attack on America, and b) there was indeed a cover up on the details of how the towers collapsed.

That seems to fit the evidence, but like I say, I'm just thinking out loud here.

Sounds good until you look at the following: the inactions of all the alphabet agencies and the military on that day, the dancing Israeli movers, the whisked away steel, the WTC workers that just happened to not show up that day, the stock market trades the day before, the ensuing Iraq war, the incompetent Arab pilots, Larry the greedy property developer, the massive insurance payout, and most of all the initial setup of the port authority by none other than MR. NWO himself: David Rockefeller.

Too damn many coincidences in my opinion.

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.

40/60 concrete to steel for the WTC is correct. The loading was 20% on the core 30% on the interior box columns and 50 % on the perimeter box columns. It was anticipated that time would transfer another 20% load to the core. Much less concrete than earlier high rise structures while the tubular, steel reinforced concrete core gave rigidity to the steel so its maximum load could be taken from a consistently non deformed position.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Can you see the ribbing in this electrical conduit?

The "shinyness" is a non issue since everything was covered with dust, caked on by subsequent rains,

how ie,

What is an issue is your producing SOME image from the demo showing the steel core columns at some elevation above ground.

There were supposed to be 47 of those things and they were 1300 feet long. Where are they?

Why are they not showing in this and many other images that show the core area?

[edit on 21-6-2006 by Christophera]

I saw the WTC movie yesterday and I caught one of Oliver Stone's subtle hints to the viewers. When they're trying to dig Nicholas Cage out of the rubble one of the rescuers mentions his location as the main elevator shaft and that he's having to move concrete out of the way, then the camera strangely focuses on a piece of concrete being cleared out of the way by said rescuer.

Did anyone else notice that?

Peace

i saw wtc last nite. im not sure but i think they found shelter in the elevator shaft of building #5. im probably wrong. i thought the movie was decent and im glad i didnt have nitemares of being buried alive last nite. those men went through hell.