Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ North Tower _ Wtc Core Design

Posted by: elreb Feb 28 2010, 05:00 PM

"WTC core design"

You could sure have fun reading all these pages.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/table.html

But start at Sub level 5



Posted by: Christophera Feb 28 2010, 11:03 PM

The environment of evidence determining core design:

This is why I asked for independently verified evidence for steel core columns, which naturally would exclude such info from very interested parties if not verifiable by other independent sources.

Logically sources that do not identify their source cannot be termed independent authority if it comes from a time after 9-11.

A major controversy is primary if a steel columned core is asserted to have existed.

FIRST it is known the http://web.archive.org/web/20020224015919/http://www.nyclu.org/g_archive020602.html.

Then . . . NIST never states they had the plans. Only the http://algoxy.com/psych/images/nist.disclaimer3_4.jpg identifies their sources for structural design. Grossly inadequate.


All of the above is absolutely true and cannot be disproven showing the environment of evidence is tainted. Such a fact cannot be dismissed. This logically must change normal and reasonable referals to authority because authority is in question, laws have been violated
by government related to mass murder. The fact that concrete can be easily fractured by a small amount of explosives to fall instantly and freely while steel cannot must be considered if proposals for feasible demo of steel cannot be reasonably detailed in given conditions of the building occupancy.

In this environment I will show that the plans posted are hopelessy obsolete and to show such a thing in light of the images from 9-11 that only show concrete surrounding the core area. Never a steel core column in the core.

The plans from silverstein and associates are altered, obsolete drawings used to misrepresent the core structure. The port authority film, "The building of the worked trade center", 18 minutes long is erroneous. The supposed stel core columns are never seen ONCE in all 9-11 images. Only the steel framework surrounding the concrete core is seen. The core itself is always empty.

I will evidence and prove that the plans from silverstein do not represent what was built.
This image shows the core wall at its base of WTC 1.



The http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/doc/pac1TowerA/A-A-24_1.png and http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/doc/pac1TowerA/A-A-22_1.png (911research.wtc7.net/ plans from silverstein) shows elevators, an airshaft, steam shaft or janitor closet where the 12 foot thick concrete base wall is seen. The smooth curved dark elements on top are very stressed 6 inch rebar used in the foundation that extended up into the core base wall and the bottom of the WTC 2 tapering concrete core.

The APROX. 3x7' hallway running the length of the base wall segment has daylight shining through it. The only steel box columns that were full length structural elements having 100% deep fillet welds on all faces were the interior box columns of the inner framed wall supporting the floor panels on the inside. They were bolted to the concrete core wall face with a 10 floor compression surcharge before the steel could be fastened to the outside of the concrete core walls. That was 10 floors of concreted floors.

A very good end view of the http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg shows the interior box column of the NW corner to the right of the concrete core wall, ouside the wall. The north concrete shear wall near the corner has fallen already allowing this view left, past the end of the west wall, a narrow end of the core, into the empty core beyond.

Posted by: SanderO Mar 1 2010, 12:35 AM

That is not true. The film made of the construction, "Building the World Trade Center", Directed by Pilowski and Winestine, 1970 clearly shows some of the core and several of the core steel girders being hoisted. At one point there is a worker sitting or standing on a perimeter CORE girder and you can clearly see it is constructed of steel.

This film shows not evidence of a concrete core or forms on the upper floors.

You are wrong about this. I worked for the architect at the time in 1970. But it was my first job out of school and I wish I could say I remember the drawings. But I can't. I do believe there was no concrete shell for the core.

Posted by: Christophera Mar 1 2010, 01:10 AM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Feb 27 2010, 02:35 AM) *
That is not true. The film made of the construction, "Building the World Trade Center", Directed by Pilowski and Winestine, 1970 clearly shows some of the core and several of the core steel girders being hoisted. At one point there is a worker sitting or standing on a perimeter CORE girder and you can clearly see it is constructed of steel.

This film shows not evidence of a concrete core or forms on the upper floors.

You are wrong about this. I worked for the architect at the time in 1970. But it was my first job out of school and I wish I could say I remember the drawings. But I can't. I do believe there was no concrete shell for the core.


The film "Building the World Trade Center" misrepresents the towers core and the fact no one has ever posted an image of steel core columns in the core area from 9-11 proves it. The fact I can post this image of the http://i716.photobucket.com/albums/ww168/S_N_A_F_U/core_animation_75.gif toppling into the core proves the concrete core surrounding the core area. Here is a second photo from another direction showing the http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc.1core.fall.jpg falling into the empty core.

All information from the port authority, FEMA and silverstein is completely suspect in the environment of http://web.archive.org/web/20020224015919/http://www.nyclu.org/g_archive020602.html This fact CANNOT be reasonably overlooked for one moment.

Posted by: SanderO Mar 1 2010, 01:17 AM

What do you mean it misrepresents the core?

The core was constructed exactly the way cores were done back then. In fact, in the beginning of the film they show a typical steel framed tower being built.

I don't see the concrete in the images you cite.

Posted by: Christophera Mar 1 2010, 04:31 AM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Feb 27 2010, 04:17 AM) *
What do you mean it misrepresents the core?

The core was constructed exactly the way cores were done back then. In fact, in the beginning of the film they show a typical steel framed tower being built.

I don't see the concrete in the images you cite.


I only see a concrete wall toppling back into the core area and nothing in the core area. I do see the spire on the opposite side of the core, but the spire is outside the core.



Another, from another angle of the same pale, massive triangular object.



What do you see?

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Mar 1 2010, 07:48 AM

QUOTE (Christophera @ Mar 1 2010, 03:31 AM) *
What do you see?

Pyroclastic clouds from the explosive demolition that cover everything else up.

Drive down a dirt road on a dry day and see how much dust comes up and how it obscures your vision. Since all the floor were made of concrete poured into steel pans, there was plenty of concrete dust to stir up.

-----

If the Towers had concrete cores, this is what you would see -





Despite the fact that I have shown Chris these pictures before and he refuses to acknowledge that all the Towers had a structural steel core and that there is no visual evidence of a concrete core, I'm posting these images for others reading this thread to SEE for themselves.


Pics of the WTC during construction -










Posted by: SanderO Mar 1 2010, 09:39 AM

Case closed.

Thank you!

Posted by: BADBURD Mar 1 2010, 10:52 AM

The lobby photo is hard to deny. I was also wondering about the elevator door entrance. If the core was 12' thick at the bottom. That means there would be a 12' hallway to all the elevator doors. I have still insisted that it doesn't matter what the core is made of. It's not going to free fall do to fire. That I think we can all agree on!

Posted by: elreb Mar 1 2010, 12:58 PM

My first thought after going thru the blueprints is someone did a good job of faking them. If ground breaking began on 8-5-1966 and Sub-level 5 print shows a 7-31-1967 date and last revision 1-30-1970, then these would be working drawings.

What a beautiful structure. The way the core is tied together leaves me dumb stuck that any amount of airplanes could bring it down.

My next thought was to look for 1993 bombing pictures and see if they can tell us anything.

Posted by: Christophera Mar 1 2010, 02:55 PM

QUOTE (BADBURD @ Feb 27 2010, 12:52 PM) *
The lobby photo is hard to deny. I was also wondering about the elevator door entrance. If the core was 12' thick at the bottom. That means there would be a 12' hallway to all the elevator doors. I have still insisted that it doesn't matter what the core is made of. It's not going to free fall do to fire. That I think we can all agree on!


It is a fact it won't free fall.

WTC 1 core structure and WTC 2 core strucutre were both concrete but very different. WTC 1 had no elevators opening intot he lobby. All elevator acces was through the core hallways. This image proves how different they were.



WTC 2 had twice as many hallways.

Steel core columns can't free fall without being cut. Cutting steel box columns with high explosives requires direct contact on all 4 sides. If there were 47 steel box columns and the average length at GZ was 40 feet, that means around 1,300 such cuts would have to be made. Access for even a few of those probably cannt be shown to exist with contact all the way around. ANother fact is that steel box columns cut in such away are all but non existent at GZ.

On the other hand, concrete can be instantly fractured to fall freely by a small amount of properly placed high explosives.

Posted by: Christophera Mar 1 2010, 03:03 PM

QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ Feb 27 2010, 09:48 AM) *
Pyroclastic clouds from the explosive demolition that cover everything else up.

Drive down a dirt road on a dry day and see how much dust comes up and how it obscures your vision. Since all the floor were made of concrete poured into steel pans, there was plenty of concrete dust to stir up.

-----

If the Towers had concrete cores, this is what you would see -



Perhaps true except for the fact that http://web.archive.org/web/20020224015919/http://www.nyclu.org/g_archive020602.html. So there is a reason we do not have the photos.

The other reason is that the concrete core of WTC 1 & 2 was cast inside the exterior steel so photos of it were almost impossible to get except for from inside the structure.

I noticed that not one image from 9-11 showing steel core columns int he core area was posted. Such an image MUST exist. If it does not, then steel core columns did not exist.

This is an image showing butt plates on the tops of the steel inside the core area.



Butt plates do not have adequate strength to join sections of steel core columns. That is around the 5th floor so 105 stories of core column would be bearing on that with its associated lateral loads.

Notice the plans have NO DIAGONAL braces shown. No details for them. Notice that GZ has no column, beam intersections with heavy gusset plats joing diagonal and horizontal braces. This is because there were none. Such diagonals are absolutely needed for resistence to torsion and sway AND will totally block elevator openings and hallways.

Posted by: Christophera Mar 1 2010, 03:06 PM

QUOTE (elreb @ Feb 27 2010, 02:58 PM) *
My first thought after going thru the blueprints is someone did a good job of faking them. If ground breaking began on 8-5-1966 and Sub-level 5 print shows a 7-31-1967 date and last revision 1-30-1970, then these would be working drawings.

What a beautiful structure. The way the core is tied together leaves me dumb stuck that any amount of airplanes could bring it down.

My next thought was to look for 1993 bombing pictures and see if they can tell us anything.


Did you notice that the drawings have freehand lettering in the title block. This is not possible for finish drawings of 2 of the worlds tallest buildings. Then the revision tables have anomalies such as this in about 20% of them.



Not characters of the alphabet. Not even possible to have 1 pixel wide spaces and lines in a scan of a pencil drawing at that scale.

Here is the original on the server of that.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/doc/pac1TowerA/A-A-159_1.png

Posted by: elreb Mar 1 2010, 04:23 PM

Can ony one ID this photo?

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Mar 1 2010, 04:50 PM

QUOTE (elreb @ Mar 1 2010, 03:23 PM) *
Can ony one ID this photo?

You're looking at the core of WTC 1, with WTC 6 behind it and WTC 7 behind that.

This was taken from the south side looking north.

Posted by: elreb Mar 1 2010, 06:15 PM

So, I guess the upper right hand corner of the photo shows parts of the core of WTC-7!

Fuel oil is some pretty awesome stuff to cause all this much destruction.

laughing1.gif

Posted by: Christophera Mar 1 2010, 07:42 PM

It looks from the south onto a remnant of the WTC 1 core, then to the inside of the north perimeter wall then to a hole in WTC 6, then to WTC 7 on the top right.

Posted by: Christophera Mar 1 2010, 07:54 PM

QUOTE (elreb @ Feb 27 2010, 09:15 PM) *
So, I guess the upper right hand corner of the photo shows parts of the core of WTC-7!

Fuel oil is some pretty awesome stuff to cause all this much destruction.

laughing1.gif


The OCT joke.

WTC 7 had a steel braced core which went down with the rest of it. I would imagine that it would leave a lump in the wreakage.

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Mar 1 2010, 09:10 PM

QUOTE (Christophera @ Mar 1 2010, 06:54 PM) *
The OCT joke.

WTC 7 had a steel braced core which went down with the rest of it. I would imagine that it would leave a lump in the wreakage.

It was also about half the height of the Towers and was built on top of cantilevered girders, so it was easier to do a more traditional type of CD, where you drop the building from the bottom first. WTC 7 was actually two buildings. There was an existing ConEd Substation on the site, which they built WTC 7 over.

Posted by: elreb Mar 1 2010, 09:38 PM

What is a OCT joke? Something like this?

A plumbing contractor was speaking with a woman about her bathroom. In the first bath she said she would like a blue sink. The contractor wrote this down and went to the window, opened it, and yelled out...

"Green side up!"

In the second bath she told the plumber she would like a yellow bidet. He wrote this on his pad, walked to the window, opened it, and yelled...

"Green side up!"

The lady was somewhat curious but she said nothing.

In the third bath she said she would like my toilet in a warm rose color. The plumber wrote this down, walked to the window, opened it and yelled...

"Green side up!"

The lady then asked him, "Why do you keep yelling 'Green side up'?"

"He said “I'm sorry," came the reply. "But I have a crew of welders laying a lawn across the street.

Posted by: albertchampion Mar 1 2010, 09:49 PM

perhaps i misunderstood wtc 7. wasn't it actually two buildings?

by that i mean that when salomon brothers became the primary tenet, and wanted an open and atrium like trading floor, to support that another structural steel was constructed within the exterior structural steel of the original 7.

so when 7 went down at virtual free fall speeds, everything falling into its foundation[which had to have been blown out as well] there was much more structural steel subjected to controlled demolition than the building's original structural steel components.

yes? or no?

Posted by: elreb Mar 1 2010, 10:54 PM

"WTC core design" …should include all “WTC” buildings

What was so bad about WTC-7 core design to cause it to just fall down?

After WTC-1 and WTC-2 took a dump…why pick on WTC-7?

WTC-7 was at least 3 buildings if you include the Edison sub-station, Rudy’s bunker, HQ for about every important government group in NYC and oh yes Solomon Brothers.

We all remember that the Solomon building fell down on BBC before it...”Arggghhh”…fell down!

The good news is that NYC buildings only fall down when Earth passes thru the “Bush Galaxy” and the “Cheney Black Hole”.

I think that Christophera’s best point is…how did they do it? One column with a sharp angle does not bring down “Iron clad” engineering.

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Mar 1 2010, 10:56 PM

QUOTE (albertchampion @ Mar 1 2010, 08:49 PM) *
perhaps i misunderstood wtc 7. wasn't it actually two buildings?

by that i mean that when salomon brothers became the primary tenet, and wanted an open and atrium like trading floor, to support that another structural steel was constructed within the exterior structural steel of the original 7.

so when 7 went down at virtual free fall speeds, everything falling into its foundation[which had to have been blown out as well] there was much more structural steel subjected to controlled demolition than the building's original structural steel components.

yes? or no?

Before there was a WTC 7, there was a building on the site that housed the ConEd Substation for lower Manhattan. They designed WTC 7 to go over the existing substation, which is something you wouldn't normally do when you build a hi rise. They had to set some of the columns through the existing building, which is a major pain in the ass to say the least and in order to reduce the number of penetrations through the existing structure, they used cantilevered transfer girders, which were installed between the 5th and 7th floors of the new building. The girders literally transferred load to the perimeter wall which, like the Towers, was made of structural steel and was load bearing. That's why it's floors 5-7 that would be key to bringing the building down. The 5th floor where Jerome Hauer installed lots of fuel storage tanks and a system of pressurized fuel pipes that ran the length of the building. WTC 7 was a sprinklered building, except for the 5th floor. Hauer didn't want to bother with putting a fuel suppression system there and he got away with it.

Posted by: amazed! Mar 2 2010, 11:20 AM

Good joke, Elreb. thumbsup.gif

I am totally unqualified to comment on all the construction techniques, but this is a fascinating conversation to me.

The pictures that DYEW present do seem to show no concrete center column, but Christophera's point is somehow compelling, ESPECIALLY considering that (if true) Rudy and the court have successfully hidden away so much evidence.

Keep up the good work guys! blink.gif

Posted by: BADBURD Mar 2 2010, 02:01 PM

This is a interesting picture. Is that hallway about 12 foot deep?


Posted by: kawika Mar 2 2010, 03:22 PM

My next thought was to look for 1993 bombing pictures and see if they can tell us anything.

[/quote]

Gentlemen,

The 1993 bombing was under WTC3, not under either Tower. This 1993 bombing photo tells us nothing about the Tower core.

The Towers had a steel core. If they had a concrete core, you'd see massive quantities of formworks being set and replaced. Show us some forms!

I suggest that concrete core construction would slow the progress down while they wait for it to cure properly. Minimum seven days before they could remove the forms. Perhaps longer.

Posted by: BADBURD Mar 2 2010, 03:55 PM

QUOTE (kawika @ Mar 2 2010, 01:22 PM) *
My next thought was to look for 1993 bombing pictures and see if they can tell us anything.



Gentlemen,

The 1993 bombing was under WTC3, not under either Tower. This 1993 bombing photo tells us nothing about the Tower core.

The Towers had a steel core. If they had a concrete core, you'd see massive quantities of formworks being set and replaced. Show us some forms!

I suggest that concrete core construction would slow the progress down while they wait for it to cure properly. Minimum seven days before they could remove the forms. Perhaps longer.


How does this photo have anything to do with the core? You totally lost me here.

Posted by: elreb Mar 2 2010, 06:02 PM

My bad…you folks are correct.

It was the Vista/Marriott Hotel that was bombed in 1993.

Most news accounts and Wikipedia, don’t make this distinction.

I have learned something new…thanks.

handsdown.gif handsdown.gif

Posted by: Paul Mar 2 2010, 07:17 PM

Here is a copy of the original NY times article, wtc 7 was a building within a building and yet we are supposed to believe it
came down due to structural failure my ass it did.

COMMERCIAL PROPERTY: The Salomon Solution; A Building Within a Building, at a Cost of $200 Million

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/19/realestate/commercial-property-salomon-solution-building-within-building-cost-200-million.html?pagewanted=1

whistle.gif whistle.gif thumbsup.gif thumbsup.gif

Posted by: elreb Mar 2 2010, 10:01 PM

Personally, we have no reason to believe that there was any hanky-panky going on with WTC-1, WTC-2 and WTC-7. It is obvious that “Fuel Oil” can do anything.

''And the whole world is watching.''

''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity…”

MORE than 375 tons of steel - requiring 12 miles of welding - will be installed to reinforce floors for Salomon's extra equipment. Sections of the existing stone facade and steel bracing will be temporarily removed so that workers using a roof crane can hoist

“…Nine diesel generators onto the tower's fifth floor, where they will become the core of a back-up power station”.

''This only reinforces that reputation.''

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/17/nyregion/world-trade-center-deal-remains-in-doubt.html?pagewanted=1

Lewis M. Eisenberg:

1. a partner of Goldman Sachs & Co.,
2. from 1995 to 2001 served as Chairman of the Board of Commissioners of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey,
3. Board of Directors of UJA/United Jewish Federation,
4. Finance Chairman of the Republican National Committee.

Larry “Pull it” Silverstein:

1. Silverstein was born in Bedford-Stuyvesant, in Brooklyn in 1931 into a Jewish family,
2. In 1980, Silverstein won a bid from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to construct 7 World Trade Center.
3. In January 2001, Silverstein, via Silverstein Properties and Westfield America, made a $3.2 billion bid for the lease to the World Trade Center. Silverstein was outbid by $50 million by Vornado Realty, with Boston Properties and Brookfield Properties also competing for the lease. However, Vornado withdrew and Silverstein's bid for the lease to the World Trade Center was accepted on July 24, 2001.

Frank Lowy & family:

1. Australian-Israeli businessman,
2. fought during the Israeli War of Independence,
3. His company Westfield paid $127 million for a 99-year lease on the retail area beneath the WTC towers in May 2001.

The absurdity…it is hilarious…it is ludicrous…to think that these three outstanding American patriots would ever conspire with Israeli Demolitions Experts to kill over 3000 US citizens just to simply make money by starting a fake war with their historical enemy.

GIVE ME A BREAK!
doh1.gif

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Mar 2 2010, 10:44 PM

QUOTE
“…Nine diesel generators onto the tower's fifth floor, where they will become the core of a back-up power station”.


An array of fuels typically associated with offices was distributed throughout much of the building. In addition, WTC 7 contained 10 transformers at street level, 12 transformers on the 5th floor, and 2 dry transformers on the 7th floor. The Con Ed substation contained (outside the building footprint) eight 30-foot-wide transformers that supplied 13-kilovolt ampere (kVA) power to the 6th floor of the building. Fuel oil (ranging from diesel to #4) was provided for the generators serving OEM, SSB, Silverstein Properties, and the U.S. Secret Service. Table 5.2 shows where the generators, fuel tanks, pumps, and risers were located for the various occupants. There was also a Con Ed 4-inch-diameter gas line with 0.25 pounds per square inch (psi) (low) pressure going into WTC 7 for cooking purposes.

http://www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm

-------

NYC supplied steam for heat and hot water to the WTC. There was little need for fuel on the property. The Towers had relatively little fuel. Some for the Top of the World, which they carted up and a couple of generators. While WTC 7 was loaded with fuel, which FDNY would normally never have allowed, except they had no authority there. They did manage to get Hauer to give up his plans to run a natural gas line up the elevator shafts for some restaurant that was moving in on one of the top floors of the building.

There were also natural gas lines that ran all around the complex underground. So if you wanted to blow out the sublevels, which would require major explosives, then here's another fuel source.

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Mar 2 2010, 10:47 PM

QUOTE (BADBURD @ Mar 2 2010, 01:01 PM) *
This is a interesting picture. Is that hallway about 12 foot deep?


dunno.gif

From where to where?

Posted by: BADBURD Mar 3 2010, 10:28 AM

QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ Mar 2 2010, 08:47 PM) *
dunno.gif

From where to where?


From the columns to the elevator doors. Hey I might not be seeing what I think I'm seeing. That's why I posted this picture. For everyone to disect.

Posted by: kawika Mar 3 2010, 10:40 AM

QUOTE (BADBURD @ Mar 1 2010, 01:28 PM) *
From the columns to the elevator doors. Hey I might not be seeing what I think I'm seeing. That's why I posted this picture. For everyone to disect.


That cavern is way more than 12 feet deep. More like 30 or 40.

Cosmetics. This is esthetics, not evidence of a thick concrete core. Look above the cavern. Can you see lights inside the slats? The core disappears the more you scrutinize. The strength is in the columns and the beams buried in the cosmetics.

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Mar 3 2010, 03:35 PM

QUOTE (kawika @ Mar 3 2010, 09:40 AM) *
That cavern is way more than 12 feet deep. More like 30 or 40.

Cosmetics. This is esthetics, not evidence of a thick concrete core. Look above the cavern. Can you see lights inside the slats? The core disappears the more you scrutinize. The strength is in the columns and the beams buried in the cosmetics.

A couple of years ago, I did a major remodel job, which involved building a steel frame. Once everything was closed in, there's no way to know there's a steel frame underneath. Not until the next owner tries to hang up a picture and ends up banging into a steel beam. laugh.gif

Posted by: elreb Mar 5 2010, 10:38 PM

http://kawika%20Dec%2027%202009,%2001:11%20AM%20Post%20#14


Ref = KAWIKA: I must weigh in on the WTC6 crater, damaged before WTC2 collapse debate

Look carefully at this photo. It purports to show that WTC6 is on fire and that this is before WTC2 has gone down. I say it is after both towers are down.

WTC6 on FIRE

Look at the sun gleaming off the west face of the Verizon telephone building. This is after noon. Look at the south face of WTC7. It is on fire. This shot is after both towers are down.


Check out these videos to see evidence of WTC6 remaining intact at least until WTC1 is down.


See this @ 5:00.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6qm7hMyoNo...feature=related

I have heard the WTC6 crater story over and over. I have yet to see any definitive proof of any WTC6 explosion before WTC2 went down. I haven't seen any proof of damage before WTC1 went down either. I believe WTC6 was "nuked" when the North Tower went down. And I think that WTC6's detonation/crater was one reason WTC7 had so many fires on the south face. How could the NT collapse initiate fires in WTC7? We know 7 was demolished. I am absolutely convinced WTC7 was supposed to be CD'd while WTC1 fell. Just as I am convinced that the DB (Deutsche Bank) was supposed to be CD'd when WTC2 went down. I think the fires in WTC7 were the result of WTC6's demo and/or the demo of WTC7 that went badly producing only partial collapse on the south face and a lot of fires.

In this clip, if WTC6 were ablaze you'd see evidence of it as WTC2 collapses. There's nothing, You can clealy see WTC7 and there is nothing going on behind it where WTC6 stood.


Here's a video taken from the east as WTC2 is struck. It shows WTC2 ablaze for at least two minutes and there is no indication of activity near WTC6.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fta4cgmDPZw

FROM THE WEST and NORTH

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?d...52903&hl=en

See this video, taken from north and west of the site. It starts just after the first plane.

You see the aftermath of the second plane, about 11:50 in. You see various views of WTC6, still no fires there. Two minutes later @ 13:50 (tape counter) you see WTC6 again--- still fine. Just before WTC2 collapses you see WTC6 still intact. Firetrucks were parked right next to it. As WTC2 collapses you can see WTC6 and it appears the same and you can see the smoke rising near WTC7 that is the same as in White's analysis and the same as on the CNN view. These plumes come from WTC2 collapsing, not WTC6.

Look carefully at 14:05, you can see white smoke on the south side, ground level of WTC1 and 3. This is probably fires from burning cars, but why wouldn't the firefighters have put this out after so much time gone by?

Posted by: Paul Mar 6 2010, 12:07 PM

QUOTE (elreb @ Mar 6 2010, 01:08 PM) *
http://kawika%20Dec%2027%202009,%2001:11%20AM%20Post%20#14


Ref = KAWIKA: I must weigh in on the WTC6 crater, damaged before WTC2 collapse debate

Look carefully at this photo. It purports to show that WTC6 is on fire and that this is before WTC2 has gone down. I say it is after both towers are down.

WTC6 on FIRE

Look at the sun gleaming off the west face of the Verizon telephone building. This is after noon. Look at the south face of WTC7. It is on fire. This shot is after both towers are down.


Check out these videos to see evidence of WTC6 remaining intact at least until WTC1 is down.


See this @ 5:00.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6qm7hMyoNo...feature=related

I have heard the WTC6 crater story over and over. I have yet to see any definitive proof of any WTC6 explosion before WTC2 went down. I haven't seen any proof of damage before WTC1 went down either. I believe WTC6 was "nuked" when the North Tower went down. And I think that WTC6's detonation/crater was one reason WTC7 had so many fires on the south face. How could the NT collapse initiate fires in WTC7? We know 7 was demolished. I am absolutely convinced WTC7 was supposed to be CD'd while WTC1 fell. Just as I am convinced that the DB (Deutsche Bank) was supposed to be CD'd when WTC2 went down. I think the fires in WTC7 were the result of WTC6's demo and/or the demo of WTC7 that went badly producing only partial collapse on the south face and a lot of fires.

In this clip, if WTC6 were ablaze you'd see evidence of it as WTC2 collapses. There's nothing, You can clealy see WTC7 and there is nothing going on behind it where WTC6 stood.


Here's a video taken from the east as WTC2 is struck. It shows WTC2 ablaze for at least two minutes and there is no indication of activity near WTC6.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fta4cgmDPZw

FROM THE WEST and NORTH

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?d...52903&hl=en

See this video, taken from north and west of the site. It starts just after the first plane.

You see the aftermath of the second plane, about 11:50 in. You see various views of WTC6, still no fires there. Two minutes later @ 13:50 (tape counter) you see WTC6 again--- still fine. Just before WTC2 collapses you see WTC6 still intact. Firetrucks were parked right next to it. As WTC2 collapses you can see WTC6 and it appears the same and you can see the smoke rising near WTC7 that is the same as in White's analysis and the same as on the CNN view. These plumes come from WTC2 collapsing, not WTC6.

Look carefully at 14:05, you can see white smoke on the south side, ground level of WTC1 and 3. This is probably fires from burning cars, but why wouldn't the firefighters have put this out after so much time gone by?


Yeah thanks mate cheers just ignore everything the Randi's and other skeptics
say about you i think you are great bloke, lets stand together and let the truth
set us free and all shall see through their lie's for thee all seeing eye knows
the truth, and is watching the watchers, and god shall cast his wrath upon
them when the time is right, and for forty days and for forty night they shall
suffer, and in the end thy shall be damned and condemned to an eternal death
for all of eternity for their time of reckoning has come. and all their heathen lies
shall be know to all for when the time is right, for the day of reckoning is near.

I made that up pretty good huh?

I think we should give them a fair trial when the time has come
and then, send them to the gallows to hang from their lying necks.

Time to prepare the lynch mob i reckon don't you?

Now for our favorite song and time to crank up the volume

Linkin Park - "New Divide"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysSxxIqKNN0

pilotfly.gif pilotfly.gif salute.gif salute.gif thumbsup.gif thumbsup.gif

Posted by: elreb Mar 7 2010, 10:45 PM

Paul or is it Mate?

I take it that you are responding to Kawika and not to Elreb.

Bring me up to speed as to Randi…is he the “Amazing Randi” the Canadian American stage magician and scientific skeptic?

We…I thought were talking about WTC core design and what force could bring it down. The “Randi’s” do not know who I am.

STOP…ranting and raving about religious history…I re-wrote the book.

Google = Elreb or suneagle1…

Get back on subject…Mate

Posted by: Paul Mar 9 2010, 03:49 AM

QUOTE (elreb @ Mar 8 2010, 12:15 PM) *
Paul or is it Mate?

I take it that you are responding to Kawika and not to Elreb.

Bring me up to speed as to Randi…is he the “Amazing Randi” the Canadian American stage magician and scientific skeptic?

We…I thought were talking about WTC core design and what force could bring it down. The “Randi’s” do not know who I am.

STOP…ranting and raving about religious history…I re-wrote the book.

Google = Elreb or suneagle1…

Get back on subject…Mate


What the hell this must be some mistake or something, this was meant to be a private
message reply to rob balsamo telling him ignore everything the JREFS say about him
etc, after he sent me this message after i requested he move a topic that i accidentally
double posted

here is the message he sent me:

your post moved
rob balsamo
View Member Profile Add as Friend Send Message Add to PM block list Forward PM Find Member's Topics Find Member's Posts your post moved, Mar 6 2010, 04:59 AM





Group: Admin
Posts: 7,728
Member No.: 1
Joined: 14-August 06



http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19704

And here is the topic i accidentally double posted and one has been removed

Entitled:

David Chandler Vs the govt loyalist site, Showdown at the govt loyalist site they are at it again

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19704

I dont really know whats going on here and would like to know, maybe i was too tired and accidentally
posted it here instead i am sorry if this is the case.

Also i would like to ask rob balsamo to check his messages and see if i actually did send a copy of the
message to him and if so post it here for all too see because if thats the case then something really fishy is going on here.

rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif

Posted by: elreb Mar 9 2010, 10:57 PM

Ok…I feel better now.

Be it WTC-1 or WTC-2 the core recovery documentation has been removed from public view. As far as I can tell…when an aircraft crashes into a large building…most if not all the information and the remains of that craft are easy to come by.

Proof is not opinion. The hijackers must have had bodies like king Tut? Skulls and titanium do not vaporize into thin air.

There is no reason for WTC-7 to have collapsed according to every law of physics. Most likely the Shanksville Pennsylvania hole in the ground was the cover story for the WTC-7 event that never occurred.

WTC-6 has an unusual hole in its center…hum…I wonder why? Reality check!

Persistence is a key to discovery.

Keep up the good work ladies and gentlemen.
cheers.gif

Posted by: SanderO Mar 11 2010, 04:31 PM

So they found iron micro spheres in 4 dust samples. That means high heat events and explosive disbursement.

Did all 4 samples have the same ratio of iron micro spheres to the total mass of the sample?

If so do we assume all dust was uniform and can compute the amount of iron that was disbursed... ir was inside the structures when the were destroyed?

If so, how would the dust be so uniform?

If it wasn't uniform how can we conclude how much iron was in the structures or explosives in the case of the red gray chips?

It appears that in all three towers the high energy high heat events were localized ... somewhat. That is... most of the structures were destroyed by gravitational collapse... after parts of the supporting structures were removed. That would seem to indicate that the dust would have different characteristics depending on what it was created from...

What does the dust tell us?

Why didn't the paper burn?

Any thoughts?

Posted by: elreb Mar 11 2010, 11:06 PM

“Beautiful works of art are made to last”

Thus said, I must wonder about words like localized “High Energy”…”High Heat” and events of “Gravitational” collapse.

On my personal trip thru life to becoming a “Master Plumber” I had two years in Mechanical Engineering at the University of Missouri (Kansas City).

In 35 years I have only once witnessed where water became so hot that it turned to a class “D” type chemical fire.

My father was a Major (GS-14) “Certified Safety Engineer” working for the federal government and it was his job to investigate structural failures on government buildings.

He taught me that if the story does not add up…you do not have all the information.

Any person, regardless of their education who supports the “Official” report is either “Stupid” or on their payroll.

Very bad people made this happen.

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Mar 11 2010, 11:36 PM

QUOTE (elreb @ Mar 11 2010, 10:06 PM) *
“Beautiful works of art are made to last”

Thus said, I must wonder about words like localized “High Energy”…”High Heat” and events of “Gravitational” collapse.

On my personal trip thru life to becoming a “Master Plumber” I had two years in Mechanical Engineering at the University of Missouri (Kansas City).

In 35 years I have only once witnessed where water became so hot that it turned to a class “D” type chemical fire.

My father was a Major (GS-14) “Certified Safety Engineer” working for the federal government and it was his job to investigate structural failures on government buildings.

He taught me that if the story does not add up…you do not have all the information.

Any person, regardless of their education who supports the “Official” report is either “Stupid” or on their payroll.

Very bad people made this happen.
Just a technical note - The Twin Towers did have steam heat and hot water, which ConEd provides for most of Manhattan. I've seen old radiators blow their regulators in my old apartment and it's a pretty scary thing. It's like have Old Faithful go off in your living room.

Posted by: Christophera Mar 16 2010, 02:46 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Mar 9 2010, 07:31 PM) *
So they found iron micro spheres in 4 dust samples. That means high heat events and explosive disbursement.

Did all 4 samples have the same ratio of iron micro spheres to the total mass of the sample?
Why didn't the paper burn?

Any thoughts?


I was intrigued to learn that the samples had the highest concentrations of metals ever found on the planet. I was particularly interested in the high amounts of iron and chromium. The reason for my interest was my knowledge of the concrete rectangular core structure and the rebar which was very special and strong having high amounts of chromium. High tensile steel.

This photo shows the only full length box columns of the towers. The north side inner framed wall of the exterior steel structure that was fastened to the concrete core walls. The sloping/curved top edge of the concrete can be seen behind the interior box columns, silhouetting the columns.



Then this image of WTC 2 at a very different phase of particulate emission. I suspect that the very dark particulate clouds over the south wall, the narrow end of the WTC 2 core are the steel from cutting charges detonating at 300 ms intervals, which equals free fall in 40 foot pieces.



Conforming to that hypothesis, are faint vertical striations in the dark particulate as if the particulate were being ejected at high speed from separate tubular ducts. The south interior box columns, outside the concrete core with their wide axis perpindicular to the cores long axis.

Perhaps filing cabinets were shredded by shrapnel comprised of hard stone aggregate and in the process some large bundles of paper made it mostly intact to the window exits.

BTW I have a copy of an extensive dust analysis that was around some years ago if anyone is interested. Here is a list of authors/sources of it.

1Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute of New Jersey, UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School and Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA;
2Department of Environmental and Community Medicine, UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA;
3MVA, Norcross, Georgia;
4Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA;
5National Exposure Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA;
6Nelson Institute of Environmental Medicine, NYU School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA;
7Department of Environmental Sciences, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester, Virginia, USA

* Introduction
* Methods
* Results
* Discussion
* Conclusions
Abstract

Posted by: elreb Mar 16 2010, 08:10 PM

DoYouEverWonder,

Do you realize that you have made a great point?

“The Twin Towers did have steam heat and hot water”

Water boils at 212 degree & has a critical point of around 705.2 degrees Fahrenheit

Aluminum has a critical point of 13,670 degrees Fahrenheit

Iron has a critical point of 14,840 degrees Fahrenheit

My BBQ grill can get as hot as 500 degrees Fahrenheit without melting or vaporizing.

Can steam cause wood or paper to burn?

Posted by: woodbourne Mar 18 2010, 01:51 PM

Niels Harrit was quoted as saying that "likely tens of tons of "nano thermite was in the buildings based on the samples which were consistent in content despite being taken at different times and locations in lower manhattan accouding to stephen jones.

Posted by: woodbourne Mar 18 2010, 01:55 PM

The core columns were not reinforced with concrete at the WTC towers. The Pentagon is a different matter. All the columns at the WTC towers were steel - box columns in the core - with insulation put on them.

Posted by: elreb Mar 19 2010, 08:41 PM

The tallest concrete core building I have worked on was 32 stories. Depending where you live, concrete is used due to connections with the local concrete company and Union agreements.

Buildings that are 12 stories or less sometimes use flying “French Forms” with propane enhanced heating tents to speed drying times. This type of construction cannot be hidden.

I’m not saying that “white envelopes” didn’t float around in NYC but the building code is pretty strict there.

The towers had asbestos issues and aluminum to steel (bolt/rivet) problems.

EPA would not allow WTC destruction and now we have 10,000 firemen, police and rescue workers with lung problems.

Guess who get the bill? Not Dick Cheney. thumbdown.gif

Posted by: Obwon Apr 19 2011, 08:20 PM



Regarding helicopter photos referred to as pictures of core columns at upper phases:
What you see in the photos of tower construction within the official story are the kangaroo cranes used to move material, the interior forms, and elevator guide rails, or to position the rebar hanging into the concrete pour. The steel framework was built up to 7 floors over the top of the concrete core being constructed inside of the steel frame obscuring the core construction from view. Other photos when the construction is lower show elevator guide rails. These are being mis identified as "core columns" on some web sites.
Photos and the tower construction.
Before another core tier could be formed, the elevator guide rails had to be lowered and set in place to a level 2 floors lower than the top of the present concrete pour. They are what is shown in the diagram at the top of this page, the FEMA core. The guide rails are presented as multiple, narrow rectangular tubes that supposedly ran full length for the tower.



Photos at ground zero.
There is a photo showing the bottom basement foundation level where various columns, cut off, protrude from the concrete bottom. There is a workman near center in the photo wearing brown coveralls, firefighters are in the foreground. These columns are often referred to as "core columns". The columns that rise up from inside the concrete channels forming the interior base of the concrete core are mostly elevator guide rails. To the right of the workman in the background is an interior box column that has a fresh torch cut, at an angle, with slag hanging from the cut. Its dimensions, proportions and thickness are different. The photo is looking north through the line of the north perimeter wall of WTC 1 from just west or perhaps still inside the tower core footprint.

WTC 2 CONCRETE CORE STANDING



What follows are the statements of various architects and engineers regarding the concrete core.
Leslie Robertson, Architect Of The World Trade Center Towers
Still, Robertson, whose firm is responsible for three of the six tallest buildings in the world, feels a sense of pride that the massive towers, supported by a steel-tube exoskeleton and a reinforced concrete core, held up as well as they did—managing to stand for over an hour despite direct hits from two massive commercial jetliners.
Says engineer Robertson, “If they had fallen down immediately, the death counts would have been unimaginable,” he says. “The World Trade Center has performed admirably, and everyone involved in the project should be proud.” The buildings were designed specifically to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, the largest plane flying in 1966, the year they broke ground on the project.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3069641/

A Description of the World Trade Center
The twin towers of the World Trade Center were essentially two tubes, with the north tower (1,368 feet) six feet taller than the south tower (1,362 feet), and each were 110 stories tall. Each tube contained a concrete core, which supported only the load of the central bank of elevators and stairwells (Snoonian and Czarnecki 23).
http://www.unc.edu/courses/2001fall/plan/006e/001/engineering/

NOTE: This page has some confusion about the construction sequence of steel and concrete.

Each of the towers, in other words, was held up by its reinforced concrete core and the world's strongest curtain walls. Without the usual steel skeleton, the open floors allowed unprecedented space and flexibility. Between them, the two 1,350-foot-high towers provided 7.9 million square feet of rentable floor space, roughly the equivalent of fifty city blocks.
http://salwen.com/wtc
This Page Has A Concise, Accurate Structural Description
http://www.blythe.org/nytransfer-subs/2001-Environment/Gallon_Environ.Letter:_Engineers_on_WTC_Collapse

At the heart of the structure was a vertical steel and concrete core, housing lift shafts and stairwells. Steel beams radiate outwards and connect with steel
uprights, forming the building's outer wall.
August Domel, Jr., Ph.D., S.E., P.E. November 2001
Groundbreaking for construction of the World Trade Center took place on August 5, 1966.Tower One, standing 1368 feet high, was completed in 1970, and Tower Two, at 1362 feet high, was completed in 1972. The structural design for the World Trade Center Towers was done by Skilling, Helle, Christiansen and Robertson. It was designed as a tube building that included a perimeter moment-resisting frame consisting of steel columns spaced on 39-inch centers. The load carrying system was designed so that the steel facade would resist lateral and gravity forces and the interior concrete core would carry only gravity loads.
Dr. Domel received a Ph.D. from the University of Illinois at Chicago in 1988 and a Law Degree from Loyola University in 1992. He is a licensed Structural Engineer and Attorney at Law in the .State of Illinois and a Professional Engineer in twelve states, including the State of New York. Dr. Domel is authorized by the Department of Labor (OSHA) as a 10 and 30 hour construction safety trainer.
http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf

NOTE: The link for the following does not respond. 2/06/06

Building Design

The World Trade Center towers were an unusual design, at least at the time they were built. Their support structure is called a 'bundled tube', or in engineering terms, a glass curtain wall structure. What this means is that the buildings are tubes, made rigid by a lattice of steel beams on the outside walls. These vertical columns are strengthened by horizontal beams, and this design is what helps support the building, and keep it stable in high winds. An inner concrete core houses the elevators, and provides additional vertical load support
http://www.ncusd203.org/central/html/what/torsbergweb/2002/1st/hour8/wtc/graphic.html


The usenet has been searched and messages by people found that describe the concrete core who saw it being constructed or knew for other reasons, the true tower core design.

http://cosmicpenguin.com/911/chrisbrown/corerefs/index.html

Original URL...
http://concretecore.741.com

Enjoy

Obwon

Posted by: SanderO Apr 19 2011, 08:32 PM

The cores of the twin towers were not made of concrete... there were concrete floors of course and there are specs and correspondence about this. The only concrete walls were perhaps in the sub basements. All the above grade structure of the twin towers was steel.

Those cartoons are rubbish.

Posted by: Obwon Apr 19 2011, 08:50 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Apr 19 2011, 07:32 PM) *
The cores of the twin towers were not made of concrete... there were concrete floors of course and there are specs and correspondence about this. The only concrete walls were perhaps in the sub basements. All the above grade structure of the twin towers was steel.

Those cartoons are rubbish.


You know, I've been in the WTC several times, and I remember that
they had this elevator scheme that I found annoying. They had
banks of elevators that only served even floors and another bank
that only served odd floors.

What was even more annoying about it was, if you were on an even
floor, you had to either go up to the sky lobby, or down to the main
lobby, to get an elevator to go back up, or down, to an odd floor.

So if you were on floor 17 and wanted to go to floor 18, you had
a long trip and two elevators to wait for. Many people who were
"sometimes" visitors to the towers, didn't realize the reason for this.
Which the arrangement of the corridor schemes explains.

People who worked in the towers will confirm it.

Enjoy

Obwon thumbsup.gif

Posted by: SanderO Apr 19 2011, 09:24 PM

No it doesn't... the only possibility for even and odd floors is with cars that open two floors at the same time. But this was not the case. You're memory is playing tricks with you. I'd like to hear from several workers who can support this claim.

The geometry you describe makes no sense. Look at the floor plans.

Posted by: Obwon Apr 20 2011, 07:26 AM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Apr 19 2011, 08:24 PM) *
No it doesn't... the only possibility for even and odd floors is with cars that open two floors at the same time. But this was not the case. You're memory is playing tricks with you. I'd like to hear from several workers who can support this claim.

The geometry you describe makes no sense. Look at the floor plans.


Calm down, I haven't been in the towers for well over 12 years or so. I used
to stop on the lower concourse, but just to catch the PATH to Journal Square/Newark.
But, the few times I had occasion to visit the upper floors, (btw, I never went up
to Windows on the World or the Observation deck), I found it vexing that I had to
go through the sky lobby, or down the main concourse, to switch from an odd to
even floor elevator. Nor did the elevators go all the way to the top from the ground floor.
If memory serves, you had to switch at the sky lobby, to get another elevator to the top.

Hey, if my mind is playing tricks on me, this wouldn't be the first time, so I'm very
aware that I could very well be wrong about this, maybe confusing WTC with some other
tall building I happened to have visited, but I would tend to doubt it. I seem to remember
how the elevator situation, made me feel very adverse to doing any kind of business in
the towers. A stop in an 80 something floor bar/restaurant, with a stool at the bar
near the window, gave me such vertigo, I don't really remember feeling good about the
towers, except for their skyline profile and the main concourse, I, for one was otherwise
unimpressed.

If you look at the diagram of how the core was arranged, the odd even elevator
plan makes sense, that I wasn't aware of then. I just thought that this was some kind
of logistical/traffic moving scheme, and it was annoying. Because, at certain times of
day, like lunch hour, the elevators would become so crowded that you might have to
let some go by, making for even longer waits. Although the elevators moved fast, and
in reality, waits probably weren't as long as they felt. It still was never-the-less annoying
to realize, you'd have to keep switching cars, odd to even, sky lobby etc., to visit the floors.

This was because the hall ways on each alternate floor traveled one way, while on the
other floors the hallways traveled the other way. Since the elevators didn't have front and
side doors, they had to be limited to the floors, where the hallways ran in front of them.
That's what actually resulted in the odd, even elevator arrangement.

Now, let's wait for people who have worked in the towers to sound off.
Hopefully, I haven't been losing my mind! laughing1.gif
Obwon

Posted by: Obwon Apr 20 2011, 08:51 AM

Ah, here I found it, so in a sense I was miss remembering things, but I was right about
the annoying way the set up was, for anyone who had to travel multiple floors.

The World Trade Center Elevators:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/wtc2.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


I clearly don't remember each elevator having two sets of doors.
But then, I don't remember ever focusing on the designs, past
being annoyed by how much trouble it would be to go from floor
to floor. But this was because there was no overlap, you only
had one elevator per floor, so if you wanted to go to a floor,
served by the next elevator, you had no choice but to travel to
a lobby to catch it, and which lobby, depended on what set
of floors you were on.

Now, it would not have been a problem for a person with a single
destination. But, when you're some one like me, looking for
trading companies with merchandise to sell, you sort of want to
browse a building when you get there. So, you'd look at the
building directory and find the various trading co's there, note their
locations then try to travel to them. Now, say you've collected
five or six trading co's located on various floors. When you look
at the elevator arrangement, it's like, "hey, forget this!"

I'm not surprised I got it wrong, since I rarely used the towers
past the shopping and food concourse. And I've long since learned
not to become invested in any theory, even my own, until I have
verified evidence that I can rely on, and/or peer review.
I'm sure we've all had our share of getting things wrong at times.

Enjoy
Obwon rolleyes.gif

Posted by: BADBURD Apr 25 2011, 11:32 AM

Obwon
I'm with you on the NPT but the core issue being concrete is wrong. I posted these from a 1971 civil engineering magazine on another post. I can't find it so I will post them here. You might want to save them and blow them up if you can't read them. But it clearly states how they were built.








This is from an original book that I own. I didn't get these from the internet. These are scanned from the book that I still have. I bought this book to find out if there was any truth to the concrete core. I have seen all this stuff you posted and it looks very possible. I trust this book more than any pics on the internet.
I hope this will put the concrete core to rest!!! cleanup.gif

Posted by: Obwon Apr 26 2011, 09:37 AM

QUOTE (BADBURD @ Apr 25 2011, 10:32 AM) *
Obwon
I'm with you on the NPT but the core issue being concrete is wrong. I posted these from a 1971 civil engineering magazine on another post. I can't find it so I will post them here. You might want to save them and blow them up if you can't read them. But it clearly states how they were built.

<images snipped>

This is from an original book that I own. I didn't get these from the internet. These are scanned from the book that I still have. I bought this book to find out if there was any truth to the concrete core. I have seen all this stuff you posted and it looks very possible. I trust this book more than any pics on the internet.
I hope this will put the concrete core to rest!!! cleanup.gif


Yeah, I'm finding no corroboration for a concrete core, at least not anything credible enough
to post, save the "demo" I posted to add to the discussion, while I continued to search.
You've posted what I was hoping to find, something from the past, that credibly dispels
false notions. 1971 is a really good place to come from.

I also note that the WTC did not do a good enough job, of letting people know how the
buildings transportation system worked. There should have been notice placards in the lobby,
and aboard each elevator, letting people know that to reach higher zone lobbies, they simply
needed to go to the upper most floor in the zone they were in, and take the escalator from
there, up one floor to the upper zone lobby. I guess they didn't, because of the mouthful,
it would have been. Not that it would have mattered much, since it still represented more
tedium than the average New Yorker, interested in "browsing" would put up with, on a whim.
I'd planned to go through the directory and locate as many trading co's as I could, then
devise a plan to visit them, but I never got around to it. Even though I suspected that
the increased difficulties, might yield better results, there are way too many trading
companies in NYC that are way to easy to reach. So it wasn't like there was any pressure
to find treasures.

There was another building, I can't remember which, in the downtown area that had an
odd, even floor elevator system. It could have been 19 Broadway, oh well. Such is the
state of 911 information, it's nice to get something "locked down", now and again.

Okay then, once more into the breech!

Thanks
Obwon

Posted by: rosewhite Nov 21 2012, 03:17 PM

[quote name='SanderO'

You are wrong about this. I worked for the architect at the time in 1970. But it was my first job out of school and I wish I could say I remember the drawings. But I can't. I do believe there was no concrete shell for the core.
[/quote]

the core seemed to be nothing but concrete stair pieces bolted tot he steel columns with drywall panelling all round?

Posted by: elreb Nov 21 2012, 03:35 PM

Rosewhite = Welcome,

Please repeat your statement more clearly.

If you wish to have a direct reply…then click reply.

If you have a new statement…then click add reply…

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)