Core still Intact??

If this has been posted before I apologize. There is a small part where they clai m that the core it still intact, initially, then it falls. What you you all think of this? I personally dont think that this much of the core would be remaining then just disappear. They also try to debunk the freefall speed. i just want thoughts.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Jeff Riff
If this has been posted before I apologize. There is a small part where they clai m that the core it still intact, initially, then it falls. What you you all think of this? I personally dont think that this much of the core would be remaining then just disappear. They also try to debunk the freefall speed. i just want thoughts.

www.youtube.com...

If the cores had still been intact before, during and after the collapse, people could have seen 1300'+ feet of core still standing in the air. Each core support was one continuous unit from lowest sub-level to the top.

en.wikipedia.org...

"The core of each tower was a rectangular area 87 by 135 feet (27 by 41 m), and contained 47 steel columns running from the bedrock to the top of the tower.[48]"

In order for the buildings to fall the way they did, at the speed they did, all significant resistance has to be symmetrically cut at the center. Otherwise, cut any other way, the buildings fall in the direction of the unevenly cut supports and can topple. Free fall is falling with the least air and material resistance.

Taking Rosie's example, if a ball was dropped from the top of a twin tower, it has only air resistance and swiftly hits the ground in less than 10 seconds. If there are something, such as hortizontal cantilevers protruding from the side of the building, and the ball hits those along the way, it has material resistance and takes much longer to reach the ground.

It takes minutes when there is support resistance on every floor, and the time depends on how many floors are going to fall toward the ground. The floors would have peeled from the center core surrounding the core supports. Leaving the core supports intact and still standing and very little if any compromise to the other three walls.

When support is resisting the force of mass and weight, kaboom.....kaboom.....kaboom etc will be heard and each floor dropping will be easily seen. That is because it takes time for the upper section dropping to break through the supports on the lower sections, regardless of mass and weight. Mass and weight amount can cut down the time it takes to break down the support resistance, depending on the amount of the upper mass and weight.

There would have been no mammoth clouds of concrete dust debris, because there would not have been enough force to pulverize the concrete floors or any other concrete in the twin towers. Resistance always slows momentum, particularly vertical support resistance, regardless of weight and mass. Free fall allows weight and mass to gain the most momentum and gravitational velocity force pull, without any significant resistance to encumber the fall.

To fall symmetrically, the building supports had to be cut symmetrically at the center.

wow that is an absolutely fantastic explanation! It makes a lot of sense to me and I really appreciate you taking the time.

The core of WTC 2 standing breifly before it collapses:



The core of WTC 1 standing breifly before it too collapses:

reply to post by Jeff Riff


The cores standing for a few seconds after global collapse and then collapsing themselves is another set of bizarre anomalies to add to a long list of 9/11 anomalies.

Some simple questions will take you a long way: Even accepting that the towers could have collapsed explosively from their tops to the ground in 11-15 seconds each, leaving the core spires standing, by some as-yet-to-be-identified "natural" mechanism, how is it that the cores should give way at their bases as well, given that exactly this area was the most re-enforced parts of the towers, with a tightly packed grid of 47 5-8 inch thick steel box columns, in section as big as a coffee table? What force took out the cores? Can you really believe it was falling debris, none of it neither as structurally solid nor as massive as the cores themselves?

Ponder the energies needed to uproot those sub-structures so that they slump and fall like a collection of burnt matchsticks.

[edit on 22-12-2007 by gottago]

in my mind it would have to be an explosive engergy that was planted within the building that took out the cores of those buildings, not the weight from above. It just doesnt make any sense that fires and weakened steel caused the cores to be destroyed.

Especially when you consider the fires covered only 4 floors or so, near the top. Obviously the lower (and stronger) part of the building wouldn't be weakened.

I would expect at least the lower 50% of the building to remain standing, with the top half having toppled and fallen off the top.

reply to post by gottago


What is identified for WTC 1 do not look like core supports. The core supports were 54" x 22" x 5". Even from a distance, what is standing does not look to be that large for individual core supports, and do not look like core supports. The core supports had no other metal between them on each floor other but were attached at each horizontal floor frame supports. The core sas 87' x 135' (some have reported 133'). 47 columns were not spaced that closely together, because the cores had elevator shafts, stairwells, restrooms, maintenance storage areas and some other designated areas. The towers were each something like 204' x 204' at the perimeter.

It is not clear what the object, standing and labeled as WTC 2, is. I see a hulk, but cannot actually identify as the center core from that picture.

reply to post by Jeff Riff


Actually, all it takes is to cut the center core supports with cutter charges, planted inside the beams at 45 degrees, so the top of the supports slide off the bottoms. Done strategically at various levels, and cut symmetrically to evenly remove all primary support of the core supports.

Nature will take care of the rest, by creating a vacuum with decompression (implosion), as the weight and mass of the top receives increasing energy gravity much more easily uses to pull straight down. That is considered free fall (least resistance from cutter charging the supports) using gravity, weight and mass to take care of it very rapidly.

In NYC, high rises can legally be pre-wired for the day they legally are removed by controlled demolition implosion. Nothing for explosives is set, but the holes can already be pre-drilled. Most of the cost in time and money, of controlled demolitions in high rises, is stripping the buildings and running the wiring. It is much easier and less costly to pre-wire during construction. The wires are capped off and not attached to any charger. Then all they have to do is attach the wiring and a charge, and plant them in the beams when they are ready to legally demolish the buildings.

Implosion is used to literally pull buildings in on themselves and into their own footprints. Industry slang for that - pulling a building. All buildings are not necessarily brought straight down. It depends on what is surrounding the building to be demolished. However, controlled demolistions means they can drop a building in any direction they need to drop it.

If viewing WTC 7, it fell differently and not straight down. That is because it was rectagular building. However, all 4 walls were pulled into the building. Whereby, it, too, fell into its own footprint. The footprint is the area inside the foundations walls. There will still be debris on the outside due to decompression of the building blowing the exterior walls outward. Along wiith pushing out air and other debris from inside the building due to decompression.

reply to post by OrionStars

I didn't post those photos, but I'll reply anyway. I agree the pic of the wtc1 core is worthless; it could be anything in that dust cloud. wtc2 though is a pretty good pic of the core 'spire' before it fell.

When I said tightly packed, this is relative to the building as a whole, since you had literally acre's worth of open floor area between the cores and the perimeter of the towers. The core is a very interesting structure in and of itself, and was a large rectangle inset in the square footprint of the towers, so there was a long and a short side, the long side set against the prevailing winds to stiffen the buildings.

The outer rows of columns along the long sides were composed of parallel lines of the largest-sized and thickest box columns. Inbetween were a grid of square-section box columns, which were doubled up along the center line of each face, making a re-enforcing cross in plan that added extra rigidity to the scheme.

Now, how this structure managed to drop like a tower of cinders after collapse is a key to how the towers fell. Gravity-driven collapse would not knock out such massive structures.

reply to post by gottago


I am no lover of high rises, because I think they can be death traps under any circumstances. However, the WTC towers were incredibly impressive for structure design. I agree with you as far as the towers falling. They never should have done what they did for the "official" report reasons given. There is no way any planes symmetrically cut those core columns nor any kerosene fire symmetrically compromising them, particularly the center core supports.

WTC 1 had already gone through a blowtorch type fire in 1975. Starting on the 11th floor, going up to the 14th and down to the 9th, through the center core. Not one iota of structural damage was done to any of the steel, including the trusses. It lasted for at least 3 hours.

Then there were the bombs set off in 1993 in WTC 1 base garage. No structural damage.

If one strategic center core would have been compromised, I seriously doubt the other supports would not have been able to maintain by shifting load weight. If the building was going to lose support from one core, the top of the building would have started to collapse in the direction of the compromised support. And that means toppling, and not symmetrically dropping.