The Core Comprises Steel Beams And Columns With Reinforced Concrete Infill Panels.

Originally posted by ANOK
Nonsense, have you ever dropped a plate on the ground, what happens to the pieces, do they stay in a pile where it was dropped?

I know that when I drop a concrete slab of 60 by 60 feet from 10 meters high, by far the majority of the rubble will end up in a square of 60 by 60 directly below the place I dropped the concrete slab. Do you disagree? If not, how did most of the rubble end up outside the square in case of the WTC?

But you misunderstand as usual, when we say mass should still be in the footprints we don't mean rubble, we mean whole floors, slabs of concrete, steel floor pans. There was no mechanism to cause the collapses to be complete, according to the OS. In fact we all know the OS didn't explain the collapses at all. The collapse should not have happened in the first place, let alone continue until it could collapse no more. Anyone with any experience in mechanics knows a sagging anything, from being heated up, can not put a pulling force on what it's connected to. And no, catenary action does not explain it. If the steel can not maintain its own shape due to malleability, it can not put any force on what it's attached to. The steel sags due to expansion, as has been explained to you many time by me and Bsbray, remember? Having said that though, it's highly doubtful they would have sagged in the first place.

Did you know that the tops of the trusses were connected to the steel pans the concrete sat in? How did the trusses sag when they were attached to the steel pans? What happened to the steel pans? There were also transverse trusses connected at right angles to the main trusses. How does a truss failure lead to complete failure of the whole floor so fast that it drops at such speed and force to overcome another floors of the same structure and strength?



The proof is in the post collapse pics, please show pics of all this debris still in the footprints. No excuses, just evidence for your claims, mr electrical engineer.

Still in denial about sagging trusses and other things I see.

Instead of repeating nonsense, why don't you come with an estimate of how much of the debris fell outside the perimeter, support this with evidence, and if you can explain how this happened. (Ok, I just wasted some bandwidth, time and keyboard wear on this, this post will probably be ignored all together.)

Originally posted by -PLB-

So you don't have anything to back up what you said, and your believe is faith based. A bit odd you call others ignorant and in denial, while you yourself don't have a clue.

My interest is in the official explanation and how this relates to the evidence. This thread brings attention to the reinforced concrete infill panels in the core. These panels are not acknowledged by the vast majority of researchers. The clues are the words of Lloyds adviser, photographic and video evidence, some eyewitness accounts and other relevant opinions. The lack of photographic documentation during construction applies to the drywall as well as the panels. The physical evidence on the Fresh Kills Landfill is an obvious lead for those interested in the nature of the building components.

Your comment seems to be about me, belief, faith, ignorance, denial, 'not having a clue'. My answer is calculated to bring the readers attention back to evidence.

Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing. Please use your freedom constructively.

reply to post by Kester


My post is more about the value of the claims you make. Which is next to nothing as long as it is based on faith instead of evidence. The logical order is that you first get the evidence, then come with a theory. What you are doing is making up a theory, then say well, I need evidence to show my theory is correct, but I am not going to make any effort to get the evidence. And you somehow seem displeased by the fact nobody cares.

The most important people in this debate are the readers in the audience.

I ask all of you to consider this, do the 'debunkers' have valuable information to impart?

reply to post by Kester


Just a questions, why should readers only consider if "debunkers" have valuable information to impart, and not hold the same standard for "truthers"?

Does the comment above demonstrate the lack of substance in the debunker department?
Can anyone see in my two short sentences the message that different standards should apply?
The point of this thread is to encourage research into the nature of the building components. We can't say how the towers were destroyed if we don't know how they were built.

I expect this will be followed by another ridiculous, petty comment. If they have something substantial to say what's preventing them from saying it?

I'll ask the readers some more questions. How do you personally feel about some of the deaths and serious injuries inflicted in the post 9/11 world? How about the invasions of privacy and the behaviour of clowns like the TSA?

Always remember in the years to come that those who interfere with this investigation carry their share of responsibility for these abuses.

reply to post by Kester


Its ironic that you complain about substance while coming with a post like this. Yes that post of your shows bias. People are often blind of it.

reply to post by -PLB-

TextI know that when I drop a concrete slab of 60 by 60 feet from 10 meters high, by far the majority of the rubble will end up in a square of 60 by 60 directly below the place I dropped the concrete slab. Do you disagree? If not, how did most of the rubble end up outside the square in case of the WTC?

Yes, but it isn't just a case of WHERE the mass is, it is also far more crucially a question of what the coefficient of restitution is.

Originally posted by -PLB-
I know that when I drop a concrete slab of 60 by 60 feet from 10 meters high, by far the majority of the rubble will end up in a square of 60 by 60 directly below the place I dropped the concrete slab. Do you disagree?

Yes I disagree. In fact if you really think that is true you are more clueless than I thought.

Anyway you keep forgetting, there were no floors stacked up in the footprints. They did what we see them doing during the collapse, they turned to dust. If they broke into pieces they would still be ejected horizontally, .



If the concrete didn't break up then that means there wasn't enough force to break the connections either, can't have it both ways mate.

You must get your physics from cartoons or something?

Originally posted by ANOK
You must get your physics from cartoons or something?

Thats just as good as drawing conclusions about skyscrapers from youtubes of dishes, to be quite frank.

reply to post by ANOK


Thanks you are a funny truther. As usual totally confused about anything that has to do with physics. One correction though, the WTC was ~60x60 meter not feet, my bad. But it does not matter that much for understanding this simple concept, which of course you completely failed at as usual. Darkwing does seem to understand it and is using a tactic called shifting the goalposts. Darkwing, maybe you can explain Anok? That would be amusing to watch. I will remind you that simply writing "the electromagnetic force" isn't an explanation, nor is rambling about a normal force.

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer


Cartoons aren't that bad. In fact, a patent was rejected because of prior art in Donald Duck:www.iusmentis.com...

The main difference between cartoons and Youtube it that with cartoons people know it is fiction. With Youtube it is a lot harder to separate nonsense from fact. You actually need to some education for that. On the bad side, Youtube is mostly filled with nonsense, as most people who do actual good science do not publish on Youtube.

reply to post by Kester


WELL were do we begin well how about your prof is wrong

There was no CONCRETE in the core walls or these people would have had problems.

Brian Clark was one of the only four survivors from both towers to escape from above where the planes hit. He describess clambering over the shattered walls to break through a smoke-filled stairwell to get out. "Drywall had been blown off and was lying up against the stair railing." he says, "We had to shovel it aside." Another survivor, window cleaner Jan Demczur, found the drywall so soft that he was able to dig through it with a squeegee to break out of a lift he was trapped in

Now since standard 30n concrete weighs 2.4 tons/m3 your secret teams would have their work cut out getting the materials and pouring without anyone seeing it done.

Lets do some quick calcs core perimeter was 136 mtr, floor height (12ft) 3.66 mtr say wall (4") 0.1mtr thick volume of concrete would be 49.7 m3 per floor at 2.4 tons/m3 =119 tons of concrete x100 floors = 11900 tons of concrete

Sorry but your theory doesn't stack up

Oh and a 911 truther site has a link to the tower blue prints NO concrete walls!!!!!

911research.wtc7.net...

Originally posted by ANOK


Anyway you keep forgetting, there were no floors stacked up in the footprints. They did what we see them doing during the collapse, they turned to dust. If they broke into pieces they would still be ejected horizontally, .

Are you so sure



I see a very large pile of CONCRETE in centre of the image with machinery on top.

Again you try to make out that ALL the dust was concrete, no doubt some was but what about the smoke.soot,sheetrock,sprayed on fire protection and of course dust the had built up in internal areas over the years.

Or do you think ANOK the sheet rock etc stacked itself up in neat piles

reply to post by wmd_2008


This is Brian Clark telling his story. He says a doorframe was blown out and he squeezed past it.


I've repeated this many times now. The elevator shafts were lined with specially developed fibreglass reinforced drywall. It wasn't known at the time how air pressure would affect such long, high speed elevator shafts, that was the solution. 'Debunkers' often mention escapes from elevators as proof of absence of concrete panels between the beams and columns. It doesn't make sense.

Have you remembered to allow for the width of the steel beams and columns in your calculations? Infill panels only have to take up the space between the beams and columns in the spaces in which they are used.

Some electronic data became available claiming to represent some of the blueprints. Is this a genuine claim? If so what does it prove? That the buildings where built this way or that those blueprints suggested they should be built this way? What proportion of the engineering drawings does that electronic data claim to represent? There are far too many questions about these claimed blueprints, I consider them irrelevant.

This is a tragic example of failure to follow the engineering drawings.



What is on paper is no guarantee of what is built. I know of a building in London that isn't built according to the plans. They found something awkward while preparing the foundations and simply worked around it rather than face the delays. Failure to follow the plans is common and often undetectable. Blueprints mean next to nothing in the WTC investigation.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Are you so sure



I see a very large pile of CONCRETE in centre of the image with machinery on top.

You see a stack of rubble, that is not a stack of floors, I already explained this. Where are the steel floor pans? If the floor pans stayed in one piece then the concrete would have stayed in the pans, right? But something caused the steel pans to turn into rubble.

Did you even read my post? I said there is not enough energy to both break connections, and crush floors (Yes 'floors' includes steel pans, steel trusses, and the concrete) into rubble. Where is the energy coming from to do that? Please don't say gravity lol unless you want to look like a complete idiot.

You are also contradicting what the government said...

Originally posted by ANOK
Where is the energy coming from to do that

It came from gravity. Anyone with a basic understanding of physics would be able to tell.

Where do you think that energy came from? Please don't say explosives lol unless you want to look like a complete idiot.

Originally posted by Kester

What is on paper is no guarantee of what is built. I know of a building in London that isn't built according to the plans. They found something awkward while preparing the foundations and simply worked around it rather than face the delays. Failure to follow the plans is common and often undetectable. Blueprints mean next to nothing in the WTC investigation.

So what building is that that and what was the problem I wont hold my breath!

Originally posted by Kester
reply to post by wmd_2008
Failure to follow the plans is common and often undetectable. Blueprints mean next to nothing in the WTC investigation.

Not true, but you're still just speculating based on the uninformed statement of one engineer from another country in the few hours after the collapses.

You still haven't provided evidence that Concrete infill panels are used as part of the structural system of any steel-framed buildings at all.

a reply to: Kester

Yet we are told the core walls were drywall only.

That story was just another spin to obfuscate facts, as the core-issue debunks every pankacke-theory.
Anyway, just wanted to add some pics and this comment regarding the concrete:

The below image shows the interior box columns and a stair well sandwiching the thick base of the core. High tensile steel rebar protrudes from the top of the cast concrete.

www.911review.org...
www.911review.org...

The fire from 1975:

Seldom mentioned in the literature about the September 11th attack is the fact that the North Tower experienced a serious fire in 1975, when it was only sparsely occupied. On February 13, 1975, a fire, set by a custodian turned arsonist, started on the 11th floor and spread to limited portions of six other floors, burning for three hours

911research.wtc7.net...

But yet... fires officially brought the buildings down. Through the point of maximum resistance into their own footprint, mocking about Newtons Law.

Planted devices since it's construction? You still may have a point there, I'm Not Sure and Nist is Idiocracy.
But after knowing that M. Bush was in charge of the Security at the WTC, I can easily imagine a later hush-hush rigging with explosive devices. Doesn't really matter how exactly they "pulled" it, does it?

Thanks for the links to this topic earlier and have a great week!