You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Accolades to the moderator at pilotsfor911truth.org who has made seeking the truth more important than covering FEMA's, the Port Authority's and Silverstein's position regarding the towers structure as they align with the official story, by making the difficult and sobering admission and apology to me seen at bottom--a first in the realm of public debate forums on the 9/11 investigation. The moderator took the time to reinforce the forum's excellent rules defining "disinformation".
painter-MOD.-pilotsfor911truth.org Alternative Theories Forum Rules
One further note: I define DISINFORMATION as any information which makes claims of fact that cannot be reasonably drawn from the evidence provided. I base this definition on the observation that most of the claims of fact by our government concerning the events of 9/11 are not substantiated by their evidence (when they bother to provide any at all). You may very well "believe" that your "theory" is correct based on your research and your evidence -- as, indeed, most people "believe" that the 'official conspiracy theory', or the 'official narrative' of 9/11 is accurate. However, it is one thing to state "such and so MAY be true" and back that up with information and evidence that reasonably substantiates your contention, evidence which can be evaluated by others. It is quite another matter to state unequivocally that "such and so IS true," when the evidence provided is not sufficient to reasonably draw that conclusion. The former is a statement to be evaluated, the latter is stated as fact not warranted by the evidence and is, therefore, disinformation.
I showed, using the above rules, how the movement is accepting something which could easily be misinformation, eventually causing disinformation, while refusing to consider a preponderence of real evidence with high veracity.
Most of the truth seekers of 9/11 are honorable and reasonable. We are all having a difficult time with the reality of the poor investigation and lack of official evidence. As a united people in an open exchange of ideas and insights, truth will be self-evident. Real progress can be made more expeditiously when we evaluate without prejudice, until the real evidence is known, the truth cannot reveal culpability.
To that end, please consider the following outline of evidence gathered so far, which indicates that FEMA has misrepresented the core structure to the 9/11 investigation committees and to the public at large,
FOR THE CONCRETE CORE 1) Images of 9-11 which show the core area also show what can only be described as concrete. 2) Images from ground zero show what can only be described as concrete. 3) An article about Leslie Robertson and the Twins from 9-13-01 by Newsweek describes a concrete core. 4) A published PDF by a structural engineer certified in 12 states describes a concrete core. 5) Usenet comments describe a concrete core 6) A number of other pre 9-11 sources describe a concrete core
AGAINST THE STEEL CORE COLUMNS 1) Images from 9-11 never show the steel core columns 2) Images from ground zero are in direct conflict with the plans provided by the lessee of the WTC. 3) FEMA did not provide plans for the Twin Towers to NIST for their analysis. 4) Circumstance of guiliani, NYC mayor taking the city plans with 2) and 3) bears signs of conspiracy to mislead and deceive
I see no evidence for steel core columns aside from misrepresentations of elevator guide rail steel in the core and a set of plans that is missing either that, or, ......... all of the interconnecting structure of the steel core columns.
Evidence for steel columns, equal to an image showing the [url=WTC 2 steel reinforced cast concrete rectangular, tubular core;[/url] is adequate when it shows the steel core columns and their needed interconnections, from 9-11, in the core area at appreciable height.
I want to publicly apologize for a variety of slights, insults and injuries against you and your research that have accumulated over a long period of years. 1. A complete inability on my part to grasp the significance of your WTC concrete core hypotheses and the evidence you provided for it dating back to the 9/11 forum at Democratic Underground and elsewhere. 2. The development within myself of a prejudice toward you and the information you presented as being disinformation that, at best, had little significant grounds for genuine consideration. 3. The carrying of this prejudice into my role as an Administrator of the Loose Change Forum where I banned you in October 2006. 4. The further threat of banning you from the Pilots for 9/11 Truth Forum based on this long established prejudice as expressed in this thread and this one..
I hope that you will accept my sincere apology. I've spent much of the day reading through information on your web site: http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html where I have watched your two videos and listened to a good portion of your 2007 interview with Fintan Dunne, which I make available to the members of this forum below:
I can not at this moment say that I fully embrace your concrete core hypothesis, however, I can say that I am strongly persuaded to accept it and that I at a point where I am willing to take it seriously, including contemplating the significance it may have for the 9/11 Truth movement as a whole.
Again I offer my sincerest apology in hopes that we can continue to pursue this question of the WTC construction openly and without further animosity between us.
I hope we are not going the "explosive rebar" route again.
Quote:
FOR THE CONCRETE CORE 1) Images of 9-11 which show the core area also show what can only be described as concrete. 2) Images from ground zero show what can only be described as concrete. 3) An article about Leslie Robertson and the Twins from 9-13-01 by Newsweek describes a concrete core. 4) A published PDF by a structural engineer certified in 12 states describes a concrete core. 5) Usenet comments describe a concrete core 6) A number of other pre 9-11 sources describe a concrete core
So, have you found these yet ? If so why not just post the links ?
Yeah, that's it.... Don't you see the invisible concrete with the invisible explosive rebar embedded within it ?
Christophera - P4T
The inner tube of the "Tube in a tube design" core was a single, giant (80x120),steel reinforced cast concrete rectangular tube1,350 feet tall(wtc1 only)). Like a smokestack or silo or cooling tower, but only built to be strong, resisting sway and torsion in up to 120 MPH winds.
The outer tube was a steel framework supporting floors. The spire is one of the columns of the inner wall of the outer steel framed tube.
I think I misunderstood Christophera. But I still don't see any sign of a concrete core within the steel core in the photos and videos above. Also if this south tower core photo he posted is supposed to be the concrete core with the buried explosives, then why isn't it shattered into dust? Did a large percentage of buried in concrete explosives fail to go off?
This theory of Christopher A Brown has received quite a bit of respect over at P4T and numerous apologies for past treatment.
Christophera - P4T
I met a Mohawk who worked on both towers. He said didn't remember the concrete core because he was always on a floor over it erecting big steel. The elevators were probably lined with plywood as well as entrances to them and forms were probably often on the exterior as he ascended temporay stairs to get to work before elevators reached further up.
He did remember that concrete was pumped up through part of the core. Pour days were very noisy. An 8-73 detroit diesel was at full throttle for about 14 hours every forth floor powering concrete pumps pushing concrete up.
All of the crane operators have died. They are generally older, very experienced individuals. Welders and laborers are all that is left and they are near their 70's and probably not too interested in 9-11 truth. Laborers tend to not pay attention to much and just work. Probably sick of the whole thing because of the implication that he towers were substandard in any way. They were not. The things were AMAZINGLY STRONG.
painter - Admin - P4T
I appreciate the vote of confidence several have given me in this thread for my apology. I want to say, however, that although I'm willing to give interest and credit to the evidence Chris is providing, I'm still not quite ready to embrace the full theory. There are many unanswered questions and problems that need to be discussed. I do agree now that the evidence for a steel core as described in the blue prints is slight -- that part of the real question is, WHY were the blueprints with held not only from the public but, as I understand it, initially from the engineers first tasked with the question of what had happened at the WTC? How can we be certain, given what we know from the alleged Flt 77 FDR (for example) that these blue prints are the actual diagrams of what was built -- especially in light of other evidence Chris has so diligently and persistently provided.
Then there is the whole 'pre wired for demolition' hypothesis which has to be discussed and, if possible, verified. Like others have expressed, early on I wondered out loud and in forums whether such a scuttling feature might be built into a sky-scraper of such proportions. Lord knows that if for some reason it was thought that the thing might topple sideways, there would be need for some method to bring it down least the consequence be even more devastating to a large segment of lower Manhattan. However, as is so easily done, I was persuaded by some that this was highly unlikely and that, in any case, the explosives would likely loose potency over time. Moreover, just because something might be feasibly or technically possible doesn't mean that it happened or, even if it did, that it can be substantially proven by available evidence. That is the problem with the whole concrete core hypothesis. Not that there isn't any evidence for it but that, at least at present, is NOT widely accepted and what evidence there is seems so 'relative' to the substantial steel-core documentation that it is easily dismissed, even if true.
This has been a question all along -- regardless of the truth of the matter, does the adoption of a concrete core make it easier or more difficult for people to wrap their heads around 9/11 as a false-flag operation? If it can not be clearly and easily established to such a degree that even members of the truth community, such as members of ae911t, can embrace it as, at the very least, an alternative possibility worthy of consideration, then I have no idea where to go with this.
So, have you found these yet ? If so why not just post the links ?
I'd be especially interested in the PDF.
I made the list links. They are not as nicely presented as I would like to see them. I have to revise my concrete core link, #6 goes to it. I need to revise my pages. I've been thinking about how to do it for sometime now. It's not easy to package.
The deception of the core structure is one issue, why the deception exists is another.
Was this documentary video of the building of the Towers showing a massive steel column core faked somehow?
Building the World Trade Center and Twin Towers - 1 of 2
Building the World Trade Center and Twin Towers - 2 of 2
In some ways the video was faked, a matter of ommision tho, because it was 1983 and does not show the concrete core and talk about it, AND it was produced by the PA, YES. It was intended to not represent the true structure.
The 1990 documentary, "the Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers" was very intimate with the design and construction process and separated itself fro the video you link to. It actually showed a few minutes of the 1983 celebratory film.
Your questions about the steel structure are answered here in the 2nd audio interview with Fintan Dunne.
The below image shows the elevator guide rail support steel inside the core. Note the butt plates on top of the pieces left and right of the center crane. That method of joining has no lateral strength and cannot be applied to what is going to act as a "core column". Only a 100% deep fillet weld will work.
Yeah, that's it.... Don't you see the invisible concrete with the invisible explosive rebar embedded within it ?
There is a 3x7 foot hallway running inside the length of the heavy concrete wall where the fake plans show an elevator, or an air shaft or something, depending on which sheet you are on.
Yeah, that's it.... Don't you see the invisible concrete with the invisible explosive rebar embedded within it ?
Christophera - P4T
The inner tube of the "Tube in a tube design" core was a single, giant (80x120),steel reinforced cast concrete rectangular tube1,350 feet tall(wtc1 only)). Like a smokestack or silo or cooling tower, but only built to be strong, resisting sway and torsion in up to 120 MPH winds.
The outer tube was a steel framework supporting floors. The spire is one of the columns of the inner wall of the outer steel framed tube.
I think I misunderstood Christophera. But I still don't see any sign of a concrete core within the steel core in the photos and videos above. Also if this south tower core photo he posted is supposed to be the concrete core with the buried explosives, then why isn't it shattered into dust? Did a large percentage of buried in concrete explosives fail to go off?
This theory of Christopher A Brown has received quite a bit of respect over at P4T and numerous apologies for past treatment.
Christophera - P4T
I met a Mohawk who worked on both towers. He said didn't remember the concrete core because he was always on a floor over it erecting big steel. The elevators were probably lined with plywood as well as entrances to them and forms were probably often on the exterior as he ascended temporay stairs to get to work before elevators reached further up.
He did remember that concrete was pumped up through part of the core. Pour days were very noisy. An 8-73 detroit diesel was at full throttle for about 14 hours every forth floor powering concrete pumps pushing concrete up.
All of the crane operators have died. They are generally older, very experienced individuals. Welders and laborers are all that is left and they are near their 70's and probably not too interested in 9-11 truth. Laborers tend to not pay attention to much and just work. Probably sick of the whole thing because of the implication that he towers were substandard in any way. They were not. The things were AMAZINGLY STRONG.
painter - Admin - P4T
I appreciate the vote of confidence several have given me in this thread for my apology. I want to say, however, that although I'm willing to give interest and credit to the evidence Chris is providing, I'm still not quite ready to embrace the full theory. There are many unanswered questions and problems that need to be discussed. I do agree now that the evidence for a steel core as described in the blue prints is slight -- that part of the real question is, WHY were the blueprints with held not only from the public but, as I understand it, initially from the engineers first tasked with the question of what had happened at the WTC? How can we be certain, given what we know from the alleged Flt 77 FDR (for example) that these blue prints are the actual diagrams of what was built -- especially in light of other evidence Chris has so diligently and persistently provided.
Then there is the whole 'pre wired for demolition' hypothesis which has to be discussed and, if possible, verified. Like others have expressed, early on I wondered out loud and in forums whether such a scuttling feature might be built into a sky-scraper of such proportions. Lord knows that if for some reason it was thought that the thing might topple sideways, there would be need for some method to bring it down least the consequence be even more devastating to a large segment of lower Manhattan. However, as is so easily done, I was persuaded by some that this was highly unlikely and that, in any case, the explosives would likely loose potency over time. Moreover, just because something might be feasibly or technically possible doesn't mean that it happened or, even if it did, that it can be substantially proven by available evidence. That is the problem with the whole concrete core hypothesis. Not that there isn't any evidence for it but that, at least at present, is NOT widely accepted and what evidence there is seems so 'relative' to the substantial steel-core documentation that it is easily dismissed, even if true.
This has been a question all along -- regardless of the truth of the matter, does the adoption of a concrete core make it easier or more difficult for people to wrap their heads around 9/11 as a false-flag operation? If it can not be clearly and easily established to such a degree that even members of the truth community, such as members of ae911t, can embrace it as, at the very least, an alternative possibility worthy of consideration, then I have no idea where to go with this.
Mind boggled: painter
JFK
May 3 2008, 09:51 AM
I think I misunderstood Christophera. But I still don't see any sign of a concrete core within the steel core in the photos and videos above. Also if this south tower core photo he posted is supposed to be the concrete core with the buried explosives, then why isn't it shattered into dust? Did a large percentage of buried in concrete explosives fail to go off?
the towers swayed and bent quite a lot in the wind, didn't they?
wouldn't a concrete core have at least cracked under 30 years of this stress?
The steel reinforcing changes the flex of steel radically. Very large structures do flex and its not a problem within design limits. The rebar in the core was high tensile steel increased the resistence to flex which was why it was used.
The Tacoma narrows bridge was a big lesson for engineers. It hit the river bottom because of 42 MPH wind. It was 600 feet long, 80 feet wide and fastened at both ends. The towers were fastened at one end, 1,350 feet tall and 208 feet wide loaded with hundreds of thousands of tons and had to survive a 120 MPH wind. A steel core would not have survived. Resonance killed the bridge and would have done the towers too if they had a steel core. Yamasaki knew it and refused to certify the initial steel core design Robertson presented. The plans silverstein leaked to S. Jones are that design, ............. less the interconnectind strcutre details.
If that was included we would know there was no steel core columns because 9-11 images would show the heavily braced core of structural steel.
In some ways the video was faked, a matter of ommision tho, because it was 1983 and does not show the concrete core and talk about it, AND it was produced by the PA, YES. It was intended to not represent the true structure.
1) Why would they omit this concrete core?
2) Can you point to any construction video that was not faked?
Laborers tend to not pay attention to much and just work.
Resonance killed the bridge and would have done the towers too if they had a steel core.
Based on this quote, I would like to take a guess and say you don't work in construction? My labourers pay a hell of a lot of attention to whats going on on my site. Otherwise I'd have tons of problems. My foreman know the drawings back to front and keep an eye on quality constantly. So the notion that labourers don't pay any attention on site is misleading. Labourers have to pay attention to whats going on otherwise your job will never reach fruition! They are the cogs on the wheel of construction!
Can you provide a link that details the calculations to prove this claim? Intuitively I find this difficult to believe as the two structures are remarkeably different, yet I am more than willing to review evidence of this claim. The remarkeable difference in the two structures would therefore cause the two structures to behave completely different under wind loading situations. The very geography of the surrounding areas is vastly different in each case, which effects the wind loading factors. The very nature of the support structure for the core makes an analogy with the mechanics of the TN Bridge failure rather poor and inadequate.
I think I misunderstood Christophera. But I still don't see any sign of a concrete core within the steel core in the photos and videos above. Also if this south tower core photo he posted is supposed to be the concrete core with the buried explosives, then why isn't it shattered into dust? Did a large percentage of buried in concrete explosives fail to go off?
Ever hear of delay systems?
I never said that. I wish you could get your quotes right because it makes for an extremely confusing thread.
I will now look for the original picture of your "concrete core"....
It does appear that the PBS documentary 'The Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers' has been censored and removed from access to the public.
The Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers
PBS began selling these videos in 1987 and sold them through 1991. However, PBS no longer has copies of this video for sale, and we have been unable to find or obtain any copies of this video for sale anywhere on the Internet, which we find to be remarkable, so we are turning to our readers now for assistance.
Some of you may actually have copies of this video stashed away in your TV hutches, in your bedroom closets or even in your basements or garages. Please take a look now in those places copies of that video, which you may have purchased over a decade ago but had forgotten about entirely until now.
Please be aware that there may be several video titles similar to the one we need circulating in the marketplace or put away for safekeeping somewhere in your homes. However, only the PBS video The Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers, which was shown initially as a 2-hour PBS television special in 1987 and which was sold by PBS from 1987 through 1991, contains footage we need to review for a research project.
It is our understanding that this video shows that contrary to the now official story, which states that the core of each WTC Tower consisted of 47 structural steel box columns plus multiple elevator shafts, the core was actually made of steel-reinforced cast concrete suitably designed to accommodate crossway passages for the building’s inhabitants and elevator shafts, with its exterior surrounded by a ring of steel box columns.
Of the two designs, the concrete core structure has considerably more ability to withstand impacts and elevated air temperatures produced by fires burning within the towers. This suggests that only through the use of pre-installed high explosives fired off roughly 1 hour after each jetliner impact on the buildings would it have been possible for these buildings to collapse on 9/11.
However, all analyses of the collapsing of the towers by structural engineers and the science and engineering professionals in the 9/11-truth community have been based upon the belief that the steel-only core design had been followed in constructing the towers. Therefore, if indeed each tower instead had a steel rebar strengthened, poured concrete core, we believe that the results and conclusions of these analyses may be partially or totally invalid.
This is especially true of those analyses that have concluded that each tower collapsed under gravitational loading because the all steel core of each tower was inherently incapable withstanding the impacts of the jet airliners and the softening of the steel under heating provided by jet aviation fuel and flammable building contents burning within each tower after the plane impacts.
There exists right now very persuasive photographic evidence of the use of rebar in constructing the core of each tower. To view this evidence, LC readers are directed to the following web site, Demolition: The Truth of 9/11 and the World Trade Center, clicking on the link there titled CORE STRUCTURE OF THE WTC TOWERS, and viewing the photographs there which were taken during and after the collapsing of the towers.
Notice particularly two long views of one tower with the spire in place and then the one showing that the spire has collapsed, exposing a column of 3-inch rebar. You will be able to differentiate the rebar from the spire because the former has a slight bend in it and also because it has a very fuzzy appearance, which is just what rebar of this size should look like at the same approximate distance from the tower.
However, we believe that only through viewing the actual construction of the towers as presented in the PBS video The Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers produced in the 1987-1991 time frame will it be possible to prove –- or disprove -- that each tower contained a rebar strengthened, poured concrete core rather than an all-steel multiple column core. Videos describing the construction of the Twin Towers that were produced several years later reportedly have omitted the sections contained in the 1987-1991 video that showed the rebar concrete core construction of each of the Twin Towers.
If you can assist us by directing us to someone willing to provide us with a copy of this video, please email Dr. Ron Larsen at ron@libertycalling.com. We will acknowledge by return email each email you send to us telling us how we may obtain a copy of this video. http://www.libertycalling.com/calltoaction-video.htm
In some ways the video was faked, a matter of ommision tho, because it was 1983 and does not show the concrete core and talk about it, AND it was produced by the PA, YES. It was intended to not represent the true structure.
1) Why would they omit this concrete core?
2) Can you point to any construction video that was not faked?
They knew that later there was going to be a deception regarding it, that it would be misrepresented.
There were 2 others beside the "Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers". They both had some of the same footsge but were only 1 hour in length. Not sure of the titles. All pre 9-11.
Laborers tend to not pay attention to much and just work.
Resonance killed the bridge and would have done the towers too if they had a steel core.
Based on this quote, I would like to take a guess and say you don't work in construction? My labourers pay a hell of a lot of attention to whats going on on my site. Otherwise I'd have tons of problems. My foreman know the drawings back to front and keep an eye on quality constantly. So the notion that labourers don't pay any attention on site is misleading. Labourers have to pay attention to whats going on otherwise your job will never reach fruition! They are the cogs on the wheel of construction!
Can you provide a link that details the calculations to prove this claim? Intuitively I find this difficult to believe as the two structures are remarkeably different, yet I am more than willing to review evidence of this claim. The remarkeable difference in the two structures would therefore cause the two structures to behave completely different under wind loading situations. The very geography of the surrounding areas is vastly different in each case, which effects the wind loading factors. The very nature of the support structure for the core makes an analogy with the mechanics of the TN Bridge failure rather poor and inadequate.
I've only worked on 2 very large projects and the laborers on them didn't have a clue of anything. Foremen yes, laborers no.
The anology with the Tacoma Naroows bridge is about oscillation and seems very appropriate. The bridge had the advantage but it fell.
the towers swayed and bent quite a lot in the wind, didn't they?
wouldn't a concrete core have at least cracked under 30 years of this stress?
The steel reinforcing changes the flex of steel radically.
you mean the steel reinforcing changes the flex of concrete radically ??
Quote:
Very large structures do flex and its not a problem within design limits. The rebar in the core was high tensile steel increased the resistence to flex which was why it was used.
The Tacoma narrows bridge was a big lesson for engineers. It hit the river bottom because of 42 MPH wind. Ti was 600 feet long, 80 feet wide and fastened at both ends. The towers were fastened at one end, 1,350 feet tall and 208 feet wide loaded with hundreds of thousands of tons and had to survive a 120 MPH wind. A steel core would not have survived.
You seem to be saying here that the twin towers with a steel core would be more likely to collapse through natural swaying than the Tacoma bridge because the wind against the twin towers would be stronger than 42mph, you talk as if there is a threshold of 42mph which would destory any structure built of steel i beams, this is a logical fallacy.
Quote:
Resonance killed the bridge and would have done the towers too if they had a steel core.
This is a logical fallacy. things do not resonate in a positive feedback loop to the point of destruction because they are made of steel, it depends on a number of factors, not least the structure's natural frequency which will vary from structure to structure. It does not follow that the twin towers with a steel core would have been destroyed in the same way as the Tacoma bridge. get an array of different tuning forks, give them a flick - they are all made of steel, but they all vibrate differently.
Ummm Christopher, you may want to tell Willie Rodriguez about your concrete core....
@ 1 hour 32 minutes of this 1 hour 51 minute movie.
How did he hear the screams of people trapped in the elevators through all that concrete? Rodriguez did not see a concrete core in the damaged areas, but sheetrock and offices through the cracks in the walls.
Ummm Christopher, you may want to tell Willie Rodriguez about your concrete core....
@ 1 hour 32 minutes of this 1 hour 51 minute movie.
How did he hear the screams of people trapped in the elevators through all that concrete? Rodriguez did not see a concrete core in the damaged areas, but sheetrock and offices through the cracks in the walls.
What is important is whether actual evidence for steel core columns exists not how Willie heard screams.
Can you or anyone produce evidence of steel core columns? So far in 6 years no one has.
10:32 AM Nov 30
