IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
The Hollow Twins Theory

MrSmokestoomuch
post Jul 1 2011, 12:34 AM
Post #1





Group: Newbie
Posts: 5
Joined: 16-April 08
Member No.: 3,167



LetsRollForums.com promotes the idea that both twin towers were largely floorless hulls. Evidence to support this comes from the now famous photographs of the sun shinning directly though the buildings (without the effect of looking through window blinds, as would be expected if floors were present). The lack of resulting debris after the collapse also suggests the towers lacked the substance of completed towers.

I've never found the "hollow towers" theory discussed on any other forum. Does this theory have legs? If not, how would you explain the see-through photographs. If they were mostly floorless, how could that possibly be built like that and kept secret? If you floors were ripped out later, again, how could someone do that without it being noticed?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Jul 1 2011, 04:41 AM
Post #2





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



The photo date needs to be considered. I suspect it will show that it was taken after topping off of the second tower before any tenant build out too place. At that time they were likely "hollow" ir missing demising partitions which would make then appear "solid". This includes the enclosure of the elevator shafts.... that came after the frame was erected.

One needs to understand how these huge building were erected and them fitted out for occupancy. I suspect further that no tenant build out was occurring in low down in the towers because of the type of construction with the huge cranes hoisting up heavy material. The build outs in commercial office spaces don't take but a few months and there would be no need for tenants to even try to fit out offices when occupancy was hardly possible. Also one needs to consider that the build outs would likely involve a significant portion of the passenger elevators for freight use and this would hardly be the kind of environment that a company would put themselves in.

I doubt the towers were hollow, with no concrete slabs and facade standing with a core a few completed floors such as the observation deck and the restaurant and little else. I've been there and it didn't appear hollow to me.

There is a similar looking photo of 1 Liberty Plaza just one block to the East or the WTC site. You can see right through the tall frame because the photo was taken at the same stage of completion as the LR posted image... completion of frame before "finishes" were put in place... including spandrels and glass and of course interior build out.

Anyone who has seen even a wood frame structure erected know that until the sheathing is in place all they can see is the frame defining the volume of the building and it looks like a "hollow" shell.

The hollow towers concept is a childlike understanding of a single photo with no merit whatsoever.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jul 1 2011, 09:19 AM
Post #3





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



"Hollow" is probably the wrong word.

I'm just a layman, but find it hard to believe there were no floors inside.

Because of its unique construction with the exoskeleton, and with all those windows running basically floor to ceiling, it amounted to a translucent structure with apparently minimal internal structure.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Jul 1 2011, 12:53 PM
Post #4





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



The skin of the building was in a sense structural with 52" tall spandrels and 82" tall opening for windows on all tenant floors. until the cladding and windows were in place the columns were 14" in width with 26" spaces between them. The final solid corners were filed in with panels..but before they had openings which were 82" tall x 86" wide with a vertical strut ever other floor.

So before cladding and finishes the facade was 42% open and 58% solid. I think that would look fairly "transparent" to a sunlight as shown in the photo.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MrSmokestoomuch
post Jul 1 2011, 07:43 PM
Post #5





Group: Newbie
Posts: 5
Joined: 16-April 08
Member No.: 3,167



I think you fellers might be missing what those photographs must imply...

Find some horizontal blinds and turn the louvers until they are parallel with the floor. Now look outside. What do you see? You should see clean through the blinds that are at eye level and less and less as your eye moves away from the blinds which are eye level. If the twins had floors, they should transmit the scene behind them exactly like horizontal blinds, with the floors progressively darker as you move away from the eye-level point of the camera.

So, that's what you SHOULD see if the twins had floors but the photos don't show that. The see through tower photos show the sun shining through exactly as if there were no floors at all. I cannot imagine that the concrete flooring, in any skyscraper, would ever be added piecemeal, after the towers were completed. Ergo, it seems the towers were built without most of it's floors. This also helps explain the small ruble pile on 911.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Jul 2 2011, 04:55 AM
Post #6





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



That would depend on how close the camera was to the towers. In the photo in question the distance is so far that the angle is so small that there is little to no eclipsing... if that is a word... taking place. Try you venetian blind experiment from 3 feet from the blinds and from 300 feet and see who different what you see when you look down, straight and up at the bottom, middle and the top. From 3 feet you will only see through them looking straight ahead... no eclipsing taking place. But up and down the slats block your vision of that outside. From 300 feet there is not change whether you look at the bottom, middle or top of the blinds... you will still see right through ALL the slats.

How can we tell the distance of the camera from the towers? If the perspective "distortion" is very small and the vertical lines are NOT converging toward the top.. the camera is very distant. And the towers in the image show no vertical convergence and so the camera was far enough distant that the eclipsing would not take place in a noticeable amount and the light would pass through the tower.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MrSmokestoomuch
post Jul 2 2011, 09:10 PM
Post #7





Group: Newbie
Posts: 5
Joined: 16-April 08
Member No.: 3,167



@Sander I don't need a pencil and paper to know your explanation is not even a remote possibility. You totally ignored the width of each "louvers" on the "blind", which I think in this case is about 100'. Think about blinds that are 100' on each side. How far out do you think you would have to stand to negate 100' deep blinds? There is no way those floors would not eclipse the light as the floors progressed each way from eye-level.

I really have no idea whether the towers where hollow, that's why I posted this in the debate section. There is compelling reasons to reject or confirm. Such as:

FOR HOLLOW TWINS

Deep Political forces probably built the twins specifically as an icon to be destroyed at a latter date. They have been dropping hints of this for decades (look up 911 in the media).

I've heard that putting that much office space in lower Manhattan would have destroyed the commercial real estate market. Therefore, it is possible that they never intended to lease out the whole building.

There was not near enough rubble from the collapse to account for two intact and completed towers.

At the beginning of the collapse, a big plume was sent out that looked like sacks of dry concrete mix. Obviously, they were hiding the actual collapse beneath the cloud. Collapse of the floorless towers might be hard to miss.

The elevators were designed with keys for each floor. You could not visit a floor unless it was made public or you had a key.


ARGUMENTS AGAINST HOLLOW TOWERS


If the towers were built hollow, how would you keep that a secret? Wouldn't it be pretty obvious to construction workers that they were building big a hollow tube with no floors?

Possibly the "see through towers" photos were photo-shopped red-herrings.

If the towers were hollow, that means there were many (if not most) floors that never had tenants. Could this be the case? It seems that people working in Lower Manhattan might find that a bit odd.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ricochet
post Jul 3 2011, 02:44 AM
Post #8





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 746
Joined: 25-April 08
From: Canada
Member No.: 3,225



There should have been more workers/employees there. Most offices start at or before 08:00. Do you recall a video of mass evacuation?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Jul 3 2011, 07:06 AM
Post #9





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Most bank and trading back office operations don't start work at 8 am/. State offices don' open until 9 am. They did evacuate thousands of people in the hour... I would think.

There blind effect is hardly valid considering the distance of the camera... several miles away in New Jersey. Plus there was likely an optical distortion refraction taking place.

The image was taken around topping up. In order to study the image you need the location and the date.

Real Estate Values

I lived about 1.5 miles north of the towers for 20 years and rented a floor for a business on Leonard Street a few blocks north of them and they were occupied and not empty with no tenants.

The Mass

The towers were 96+% air. Virtually all the steel was recovered most sold for scrap. The floors slabs if stacked up would be 35" high x 208x208. (i acre) A fair amount of the concrete etc was reduced to dust and carried aloft and disbursed to any area of several blocks around the tower... perhaps a few hundred acres If the disbursal was uniform and complete, which it was not.. and the area was 100 acres then the pile of floor "dust" would be 4" high. The pile size is what one would expect from such a completely destructive collapse... as hard as that is to conceptualize. Do the math. And study optics:

http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weather/elements/mirage1.htm.. refraction, diffraction, reflection and mirage associated with atmospheric layers.

Initiation

Whatever cause the top section of tower 1 to be destroyed.. it appears to "come down" like a conventional CD... at about the level of the plane crash flrs 93-99 which mean about 15 floors collapsed onto floor 93 or so and this sent out a cloud of dust as does a CD from the ground when it collapses... the "ground" here being floor 93 or so. Only the heavier debris obscured the collapse because we did get to see the crush front race down at 65 mph or so for several seconds.

All commercial buildings have access control for elevators. This proves nothing. Do you have a single witness who will say:

They worked to remove the floors
They worked there and no floors were built (the structure would not stand WITHOUT the floors for bracing)
They saw hundreds of yards of dust brought up
That all the tenants were in name only and had no employees
first responders found no floors there

All the engineering drawings and documents are faked in the late 60s. I worked for the Emery Roth in 70 and I recall a huge set of drawings and scores of draftsmen working on that project... for a hollow tower to blow up 40 years later... for what purpose?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jul 4 2011, 03:31 PM
Post #10





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



I spent about an hour talking to a guy who happened to be in the 2nd tower when the first was hit.

And because men dressed as some sort of security officer/cop, he saw them as being cops, kept him and his coworkers from exiting the building, he was also there when the 2nd tower was hit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KP50
post Jul 4 2011, 08:28 PM
Post #11



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 843
Joined: 14-May 07
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 1,044



I think it is important not to make too many assumptions about the state of the towers prior to 9/11. We assume there were packed offices, thousands of people but we don't actually know it - and is there any footage of the masses of people that should have been fleeing from the towers? I can't remember seeing any.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jul 5 2011, 04:47 PM
Post #12





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



I think there are pictures of some people jumping out, isn't there?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ricochet
post Jul 10 2011, 03:23 PM
Post #13





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 746
Joined: 25-April 08
From: Canada
Member No.: 3,225



I have photos of various places I have worked, co-workers, etc. I can't find any photos of office workers at the WTC. anywhere. There are some of empty floors and empty offices but no actual people working at their desks. If anyone has any please post.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Jul 10 2011, 04:26 PM
Post #14





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



I'm not sure, but shouldn't this be immediately moved either to Alternative theories or to the Trash can? This site is about finding a truth about the extremely serious crime and it's consequences and implications, not a disinfotainment webzine.

After more than 10 posts nobody still produced here even any of the alleged photographs of the "hollow twins", not speaking about that the floors were quite crucial construction element without the towers (or then merely unuseful landmarks with only advantage no asbestos would be surely needed there) would fall even without any perps trying to destruct them, or that if there wouldn't be the floors, there couldn't be the people - and people are the ones a terrorist attack is usually aimed on to kill them indiscriminately to instigate fear for better manipulate the society.

If I wouldn't know that the perps are able to invent and promote all possible nonsenses to distract the people from finding the truth (about the crime perpetrated against them) I could not believe my eyes this debate is even taking place here now - we had here the no-planers, hologramers, nukers, DEWers and now we have no-floorers and steping in the realm of the largest blueprint (video, photo and wittness accounts) fakery in the history of Universe?...

If this goes like this here shouldn't I also smokesomething and find out the Pentagon not just doesn't have any floors and walls but in fact it is not there and never was, and we see it there - so to paraphrase Douglas Adams and put his famous SEP field on the head - just because someone placed there in Arlington a big and costly generator of very our problems including 9/11? tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jul 10 2011, 08:31 PM
Post #15



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Jul 10 2011, 12:26 PM) *
I'm not sure, but shouldn't this be immediately moved either to Alternative theories or to the Trash can? This site is about finding a truth about the extremely serious crime and it's consequences and implications, not a disinfotainment webzine.

After more than 10 posts nobody still produced here even any of the alleged photographs of the "hollow twins", not speaking about that the floors were quite crucial construction element without the towers (or then merely unuseful landmarks with only advantage no asbestos would be surely needed there) would fall even without any perps trying to destruct them, or that if there wouldn't be the floors, there couldn't be the people - and people are the ones a terrorist attack is usually aimed on to kill them indiscriminately to instigate fear for better manipulate the society.

If I wouldn't know that the perps are able to invent and promote all possible nonsenses to distract the people from finding the truth (about the crime perpetrated against them) I could not believe my eyes this debate is even taking place here now - we had here the no-planers, hologramers, nukers, DEWers and now we have no-floorers and steping in the realm of the largest blueprint (video, photo and wittness accounts) fakery in the history of Universe?...

If this goes like this here shouldn't I also smokesomething and find out the Pentagon not just doesn't have any floors and walls but in fact it is not there and never was, and we see it there - so to paraphrase Douglas Adams and put his famous SEP field on the head - just because someone placed there in Arlington a big and costly generator of very our problems including 9/11? tongue.gif


Yes, there is a picture of the sun shining through the twin towers, that i have seen, probably in a Christopherbrown thread, from a way back.

From what i understand, the towers were supported by an inner core, but that had elevators and hallways going through it, so the sun might shine, or reflect through it, at certain angles.

i guess this makes it, up for debate still.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jul 10 2011, 09:27 PM
Post #16



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (Tume)
and now we have no-floorers


laughing1.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Jul 11 2011, 12:20 PM
Post #17





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (lunk @ Jul 10 2011, 01:31 PM) *
Yes, there is a picture of the sun shining through the twin towers, that i have seen, probably in a Christopherbrown thread, from a way back.

From what i understand, the towers were supported by an inner core, but that had elevators and hallways going through it, so the sun might shine, or reflect through it, at certain angles.

i guess this makes it, up for debate still.

I've seen this picture:

Does it somehow show or imply there aren't any floors in there? I don't really think so. nonono.gif

The photograph even hasn't a resolution which would allow to say something like that. rolleyes.gif

What we still see on the WTC2 is the Kangaroo crane, so if it is indeed an unretouched photo (the photo is quite blurred of an "artistical" nature and we barely see the structure of the perimeter walls) it would be made somehow when the WTC2 was still under construction so the photo was likely taken before 1972, when the buildings were still empty so the office equipment and posible partitioning wouldn't obscure there anything - not being there.

What we see through the North tower is the core with the right dimensions with the corridor through it - as it is clearly present at the blueprints, for example here is the 66th floor, where the sun shines through:

Everything seems to be OK including the orientation of the corridor, which is on the other side above the service floor - like here the 80th floor where the corridor is on other northern side:


Partially we see the core also in the South tower.

That's what I see at the picture. It took me ~10 minutes to find the photo, compare it with the blueprints and find out there's nothing particularly suspicious and in every case I don't see there anything "hollow".

I wonder what kind of people "promote the idea" of the "largely floorless hulls" at LRF, although I don't completely wonder somebody with a nick MrSmokestoomuch with post count 5 spreads it here... doh1.gif rolleyes.gif

What a bit scares me is that this "still up for debate" heavysmokestuff lasted here like 10 days ohmy.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Jul 11 2011, 12:50 PM
Post #18





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 951
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Jul 9 2011, 03:20 PM) *
I've seen this picture:

Does it somehow show or imply there aren't any floors in there? I don't really think so. nonono.gif

The photograph even hasn't a resolution which would allow to say something like that. rolleyes.gif

What we still see on the WTC2 is the Kangaroo crane, so if it is indeed an unretouched photo (the photo is quite blurred of an "artistical" nature and we barely see the structure of the perimeter walls) it would be made somehow when the WTC2 was still under construction so the photo was likely taken before 1972, when the buildings were still empty so the office equipment and posible partitioning wouldn't obscure there anything - not being there.

What we see through the North tower is the core with the right dimensions with the corridor through it - as it is clearly present at the blueprints, for example here is the 66th floor, where the sun shines through:

Everything seems to be OK including the orientation of the corridor, which is on the other side above the service floor - like here the 80th floor where the corridor is on other northern side:


Partially we see the core also in the South tower.

That's what I see at the picture. It took me ~10 minutes to find the photo, compare it with the blueprints and find out there's nothing particularly suspicious and in every case I don't see there anything "hollow".

I wonder what kind of people "promote the idea" of the "largely floorless hulls" at LRF, although I don't completely wonder somebody with a nick MrSmokestoomuch with post count 5 spreads it here... doh1.gif rolleyes.gif

What a bit scares me is that this "still up for debate" heavysmokestuff lasted here like 10 days ohmy.gif



Tume, it is not about whether the floors were floorless, but rather whether some of the floors were unoccupied.

There is mounting evidence that this could be the case.

Hold your horses. Calm dawn. Let us see how this develop.

I personally think they are up to something!!

Cheers




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Jul 11 2011, 03:48 PM
Post #19





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



QUOTE
Tume, it is not about whether the floors were floorless, but rather whether some of the floors were unoccupied.



There's a big difference between the 'hollow towers' theory and how much of the WTC was occupied space.



First of all the Towers were designed that some of the floors or sections of floors could be removed. They did this in a couple of places for the 'day trading' floors for some of the big finance companies.

However, there was LOT'S of empty space and whole floors were never built out. Even the Empire State Building has unfinished floors. This is not unusual in large buildings, that are never rented to their full capacity.

In the mid 70's, I had been to the 92nd(?) floor, I think it was in the south tower, and that floor was completely unfinished. It looked like a parking garage.

I compiled a list years ago of all the unfinished and unrented space in the Towers. Add that to the space that was 'rented' but unoccupied and I would say at least half of the comples empty unfinished space.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Jul 11 2011, 04:20 PM
Post #20





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Hollow is not the same thing as low occupancy. Their theory is that many floors were not even poured and that the towers was literally hollow with a few floors left and they brought up tons of dust to explode out the side to create the illusion of the pulverized concrete. I kid you not.

When you see night shots with lots of dark floors it's possible that there were no tenants on those floors at that time.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 10th December 2019 - 01:49 AM