| Welcome! 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. Join our community! |
| Threshold of Reason & Evidence For Truth; A Public Apology @ P4T | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: May 3 2008, 04:44 AM (1,936 Views) | |
| SPreston | May 5 2008, 07:36 PM Post #51 |
Patriotic American
|
  
|
 |
 
|
| JFK | May 5 2008, 07:52 PM Post #52 |
|
This one is obvious...  This one I am not so sure about... It *could* be 4, 5 or 6...  BTW, a good image host can be found here... http://load.imageshack.us/ |
|
|
|
| Christophera | May 5 2008, 07:58 PM Post #53 |
|
You must not have read, http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html Because it explains that WTC 1 was allowed 7 floors of steel over the top of the last concrete pour. Tiers of concrete have a 40 foot max because of hydrostaic pressure. The outer wooden forms for the core were supported by the interior box columns and as soon as a pour was cured, fasten it to the interior box columns. The documentary, "The Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers" detailed the shimming of the finished core surface to the inside face of the interior box columns. This was only allowed after 10 floors of steel were erected. This caused a compression of the steel and amounted to a surcharge on the core which was designed to take 20% of the load initially then up to 50% after settling over years. The most efficient schedule had another pour reinforced and formed inside and out after about 5 floors over the concrete. Here is a good image from 9-11 showing an end view of the west core wall of WTC 1 looking south along it having the spire on the right.  The shear wall was at least 4 feet thick at that elevation. And, ......... that completely works with the size of the spire. Larger, annotated. 
Edited by Christophera, May 5 2008, 08:04 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Christophera | May 5 2008, 08:02 PM Post #54 |
|
In the top one you show butt plates like I do here, and have for years; which are not of acceptable strength for core columns. They are elevator guide rail support steel The other image I recognize also and does not show steel core columns inside the core. it shows concrete walls behind the interior box columns. You are totally disproving your own point and you don't even know it. Do you even know which towers you post images of? Can you explain how you know? |
|
|
|
| Christophera | May 5 2008, 08:05 PM Post #55 |
|
Preston, Do you think you can describe exactly what this shows about the core and its surroundings? Edited by Christophera, May 5 2008, 08:06 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Christophera | May 6 2008, 01:39 PM Post #56 |
|
It is fairly typical that people just believe what they are told about construction images. The fact that NIST did not make a detailed accounting and description of such images gives an indication of how much integrity they have towards the purpose of their investigation and the associated information. Prestons image show WTC 1 with interior box columns surrounding the core. The trussed crane towers in each corner are part of the crane platform.  The crane towers could be relocated in a variety of positions according to construction needs as can be seen with the crane located in the center of the core area. The platform fit inside the interior box columns and was temporarily fastened to it then jacked up as construction progressed. The long diagonals at the bottom of the image can be seen to be behind the interior box columns and are a part of the crane platform. |
|
|
|
| Christophera | May 15 2008, 11:29 AM Post #57 |
|
Did you ever go to breakfornews.com and listen to the audio interview? http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=25223#25223 It has a full explanation of the image you post. The concrete was poured between the outside column and the next vertical steel inside of it, the main elevator guide rail support steel. Do you know which tower that is even? Edited by Christophera, May 15 2008, 11:30 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Grit1645 | Aug 15 2008, 02:19 AM Post #58 |
|
This is a very interesting thread. I have heard of the "no truss theory" but I never heard of the "no steel core" theory before. It would be interesting to know just where this one got started. |
|
|
|
| JFK | Aug 15 2008, 10:04 AM Post #59 |
|
It began with Christopher on July 9, 2004 here - http://letsrollforums.com/wtc-demo-c4-coated-t985.html?t=985 
Edited by JFK, Aug 15 2008, 10:05 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Grit1645 | Aug 15 2008, 12:26 PM Post #60 |
|
Well he certainly is creative, I'll give him that. It's a pretty bizarre scenario. And no, they don't incorporate explosives into skyscrapers so they can be demolished easily later on. The structural engineers and the construction crews get them up. It's someone else's problem to get them back down. |
|
|
|
| JFK | Aug 15 2008, 12:32 PM Post #61 |
|
Actually that is not entirely correct.... There are "pockets" incorporated into modern skyscrapers structures which are designed to acomodate explosives for when the structure has exceeded it's life expectancy. I do not know if the WTC was one of those. And no, I don't have a link handy. 
|
|
|
|
| Grit1645 | Aug 15 2008, 01:50 PM Post #62 |
|
Please post a link if you happen to find one. |
|
|
|
| stannrodd | Oct 7 2008, 01:29 AM Post #63 |
|
For those here who are interested in the WTC tower construction, specifically the core in terms of whether it was as in the blueprints or according to Christophera's imaginary concrete core.. please feel free to look at this site.. Click here http://www.skyscraper.org/WEB_PROJECTS/VIVA2/viva2_intro.htm# Click on the blue "Launch Viva2" link and you will be taken to an interactive site which deals with the WTC towers and the Empire State Building. There is plenty of Photographic evidence to support the steel core and none to support any other concept. Stann |
|
|
|
| stannrodd | Oct 7 2008, 02:53 AM Post #64 |
|
   
|
|
|
|
| Grit1645 | Oct 7 2008, 03:09 PM Post #65 |
|
As an aside, reinforced concrete wasn't used for the superstructure in very many high-rises or skyscrapers until the mid 70's, since the concrete strength available before that would have required too much concrete to achieve the needed capacity. It was more efficient and cheaper to use steel, which takes less space. Also, there are issues of pumping the concrete to the pour site, which is one reason the WTC slabs were precast and lifted, rather than poured-in-place. |
|
|
|
| JFK | Oct 7 2008, 03:48 PM Post #66 |
|
Not according to the Port Authority's video, Grit. In particular....  and 
|
|
|
|
| Grit1645 | Oct 8 2008, 12:26 AM Post #67 |
|
You're right, I was thinking of a different job. Nonetheless, getting the concrete to the pour properly is always an issue. Regardless, it is ridiculous to suggest that the core structure was somehow secretly a reinforced concrete shear wall which the designers somehow didn't want to tell us about, and the workers (different specialties for steel and concrete) didn't realize they were building, and any engineers who went there and looked at it didn't recognize. |
|
|
|
| Miragememories | Oct 8 2008, 06:50 AM Post #68 |
|
You might slow down and read carefully before you attribute quotes Grit1645. People might get the impression you are sloppy in your work. MM |
|
|
|
| JFK | Oct 8 2008, 08:10 AM Post #69 |
|
Agreed MM The preview feature does work Grit. 
|
|
|
|
| Phil Jayhan | Dec 22 2008, 10:04 AM Post #70 |
|
Christopher, While I have always believed in your cause and done everything in my own power to help you substantiate your theory, I want to make one thing clear; It is not our job to disprove your theory. It is your job to prove it. Your claim, that in 6 years, no one has disproven it, is an empty hollow cry. In 6 years you have not proven it beyond reasonable doubt, and having said that will gladly say that I believe you are probably correct, as I have done for many years now. But lets cut to the chase. In 6 years, you have not given a solid sound set of evidence or proofs proving your theory, and since it is your theory, it is yours to either prove or not. And in 6 years you have not proven your theory. e.g. I cannot prove that the WTC wasn't attacked by Venesian Motherships, rented out by the Mars space authority and piloted by Alpha Centaurian's. But this doesn't mean it was. I probably have many better arguments than even you on why there was a concrete core. But this isn't my hill to die on. It's yours. So quit with the rhetoric, and provide people the proofs. Also, I often wonder why this is so important to you. You often say how important it is to see and understand why the WTC had a concrete core, but in 6 years, have never once seen you provide a single reason why this is so important. Not a SINGLE time. So break the silence, and tell us all why you think this is so important, and all of the reasons why. cheers- phil 
|
|
|
|
| BoneZ | Dec 22 2008, 12:16 PM Post #71 |
|
You're the last person that should be telling others to quit with the rhetoric when you and your ilk still peddle the long-time debunked fake "pod" theory. Do you see any of the organizations in my sig supporting that "theory"? Nope, and you won't. And the main evidence lies here. But that's another hill of beans. For Christophera (if he even still views this forum), take a look at the following photos: IMAGE "A"  IMAGE "B"  In the image you posted, "Image B", the wind is blowing towards the camera and all the dust/smoke is covering that side of the core. "Image A" shows the backside of the core where you can see the core columns and see on the other side that it's all dust/smoke. Yes, the pictures are from two different cores, but the same logic applies. I've read this entire thread and you have not shown one piece of evidence to show a concrete core. There's plenty of evidence disproving your theory. So, I would say that until you get this video you say you saw that allegedly shows the concrete core being built, there's really nothing more to say on this subject, is there? *EDIT* I never noticed before, but I can see a stairwell in "Image B" that Christophera posted. Could just be an illusion with the smoke, light and shadows (sound familiar?), but that's what it looks like. Edited by BoneZ, Dec 22 2008, 12:33 PM.
|
|
|
| DoYouEverWonder | Dec 22 2008, 04:24 PM Post #72 |
|
I've been in the WTC and use to go up to the 92nd floor, which at the time was mostly unfinished space. The building definitely had trusses. It was surprisingly dark and had a closed in feeling, because the ceilings were so low. I seriously doubt they would clandestinely add any more concrete then was absolutely necessary. They even skimped on the floor slabs and went with a light weight aggregate and the slabs were 4" thick, instead of the usual 6". Edited by DoYouEverWonder, Dec 22 2008, 04:25 PM.
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · World Trade Center · Next Topic » |
1:37 PM Nov 29
