Correct me if I'm wrong but I think someone a while back said those cars were moved there temp in the cleanup.

An interesting question about the debris is: Where are the floor pans that held the concrete? They were huge solid sheets of metal and in total there is 200 acres of them. Ive never seen a picture of one.

The picutres of cars, are of cars that were at/around the trade center that day and where moved during the clean-up process.

1. If cars on the FDR caught on fire why didn't any of the buildings between ground zero and the FDR get affected?
2. What about the people bewteen ground zero and FDR, outside and in the buildings?
3. Why am I still alive when I was only 600 ft away, outside, when the frist tower collapsed?

Originally posted by pdoherty76
An interesting question about the debris is: Where are the floor pans that held the concrete? They were huge solid sheets of metal and in total there is 200 acres of them. Ive never seen a picture of one.

Thats because it was pulverized along with the tons and tons of concrete which were turned into fine dust by explosives of some sort

BeZerK

Originally posted by ANOK
Almost seems like the concrete itself exploded, taking out the columns with it and pushing the facade outwards?

Which is probably what would happen if something explosive was laid before the concrete during construction, like Christophera used to always say.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Which is probably what would happen if something explosive was laid before the concrete during construction, like Christophera used to always say.

Yes it would, but I didn't think that was possible because of shelf life? It does fit what we see happening though doesn't it?

Originally posted by ANOK
Yes it would, but I didn't think that was possible because of shelf life? It does fit what we see happening though doesn't it?

It depends on the kind of explosive. I don't think any conventional high explosives were used in large amounts, because they're too easy to hear. Maybe one went off every now and then before the collapses for whatever reason, but the actual collapses don't have these sounds popping out at all.

Here's a diagram Christophera put together:




I would just as soon ignore the suggestion of C4 being used in the floors. C4, btw, does have a shelf life, but from what I understand this shelf-life is greatly extended by sealing it off from the air. For any other given compound it would be hard to say. I don't think thermite has a shelf-life, for example.

If any compound was used in the floor, imo it would have to have a relatively low detonation velocity (maybe around 10,000 fps or so, instead of around 28,000 fps for RDX or C4), and might make use of some other form of energy, like heat (some thermate devices spray jets of molten iron at high velocity, as an example only, to cut metal more easily than with the pressure alone). But I don't think any high explosive or any form of aluminum/iron oxide thermite was used on a large scale. If any compound was in the floors, it would have to have been stable against a fair amount of heat/temperature and drilling, etc.,. too. But it could probably be done chemically. Even C4 has plasticizers added to allow it to be thrown directly into fire or etc. without detonating.

Some kind of stable, low-velocity explosive in the floors does fit the evidence, imo. Basically everything but the steel columns in the buildings were completely destroyed. No furniture, office equipment of any kind, even 1000 people are completely missing, and of course the vast majority of concrete was blown into dust, and you can hardly find a truss or floor pan at Ground Zero in any photographs. Also you wouldn't have to bring explosives into the building post-construction, obviously.

^Hmmmmmm thanx bsbray that's given me something to think about.

So, if that is the case then was 9-11 planned before the towers were even built?
How would it have been done without anyone knowing?
It's a hard one for me to come to terms with, but I'm not saying its not possible.

Interesting stuff bsbray thanx. I'll have to look into this. I do remember a discussion here awhile back about the core having concrete, and there were lots of pictures of rebar in the rubble.

The plot sickens...

about the corregated 'pans' that held the floor concrete.
they were pieced together, most likely 30" wide panels X 16' long, perhaps
spot welded at the overlap repeated every 12"...the pans weren't monolthic 1/4" steel pans as people seem to imagine.

my guess is that most every floor was actually a lightweight floor material
sometimes known as Gyp-crete, with only a thin guage 4" wire mesh reinforcement (as the floor trusses & metal pans formed the rigidity needed to support the floor load).
Only the required sectional floors (probably every 15 levels) were required to be aggregate concrete reinforced with heavy, 1" re-bar


in past offerings here at ATS, it was disclosed that the interior core
was essentially sheathed with 2 layers of 5/8" sheetrock,
also that the erect steel columns were protected with fire retardent foam, from a sprayed on application...

how?? does that jibe with the assertation that (100%?) of the center core steel was encased in aggregate concrete,
much as a bank vault is constructed - is the impression i'm led to believe
with the oft repeated 'concrete center core'



an interesting side issue, there were perhaps 2 movies from the 60s or later, which had scens shot that showed construction in progress of a WTC Tower...i think i recall Charles Bronson as a Star, but there were about 3 different sequences within the movie showing the construction components
in real time ...and it seems above the 50th storey & up
I didn't take note of the floors, but the staggered perimeter walls were
apparent, my guess is that a research into this historical evidence would
reveal some interesting items which might be eluding us right now...


thanks,
for being patient with my scattered presentations

Originally posted by St Udio
the pans weren't monolthic 1/4" steel pans as people seem to imagine.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Do you mean we shouldn't be seeing any at Ground Zero? Could a "pancake collapse" vaporize almost a whole 110 stories of them? And where are the stacks of at least the lower-most floors that supposedly fell at the base? I don't see a damned one.

how?? does that jibe with the assertation that (100%?) of the center core steel was encased in aggregate concrete,
much as a bank vault is constructed - is the impression i'm led to believe
with the oft repeated 'concrete center core'

I think you're thinking alone the lines of the BBC diagram.

The idea I presented above is not that the core columns were encased in concrete, but that a concrete wall existed around the outside of the core structure, and just outside of this wall were box columns. Inside of that wall were the columns relating to the many elevators, including large freight elevators.

I didn't take note of the floors, but the staggered perimeter walls were
apparent, my guess is that a research into this historical evidence would
reveal some interesting items which might be eluding us right now...

Haven't seen the movie, but I've seen a documentary released by the Port Authority on the construction of the towers, and it doesn't show anything that could confirm or deny what's suggested above. Especially considering this was the PA, you'd think they'd give at least a little attention to the construction of the core structures of their own buildings. From the sounds of it, your movie doesn't provide much, either.