Fema Lied About The Towers Core - Demolition, The Towers were built to demolish Options

[Factfinder Gener...]

That image does not look directly down the hallways of WTC 1 and what we see is reflected light off the inside of the concrete core.  The inner forms were steel breakdown forms left a very smooth surface that will reflect obique light.

From the evidence submitted, and I am most persuaded by the contempory reports of a concrete and steel core found within various journals, I am convinced there was a concrete aspect to the cores. This does seem to have been covered up.

I believe this to be of huge significance, though Christophera and I may have some difference of opinion as to the nature of this significance. (As I said before, I intend to fully discuss the theory of WTC self destructing concrete as things proceed here.)

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/salute.gif)

Good thinking and uses of reasons and evidence.

We will find that all of the steel inside the core area was elevator guide rail support steel and had no strcutural qualities.

The key aspect is gaining more corroboraton of this so we can escalate our uses of the information to stop what is happening in and to our nation.

The video documentary "The Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers" is critical to find. I'm quite certain that there are hundreds if not over a thousnad copies of the 2 hour video in Americas closets and on the shelves of video collections. For 5 years I've been trying to get the truth movement to mount a search for it via its many websites and whatever publicity can be gained. What has happened is I have met with endless ridicule, message board bannings meaning that the movement has now been psychologically turned against this information.

This is the largest problem we confront.

I have found no less that 6 people who saw a video having images of the concrete core being constructed. At least 2 other productions used video clips in them. The problem is that NONE of those people was a part of the truth movement. And none knew that FEMA presents a tower with steel core columns. As soon as I tell them they are afraid to use what they know to help. It sucks.

Christophera, I have to sign off for a bit now, but I will continue with this issue. Thank you once again; it seems you have stuck with this matter against some powerful obstacles and this has obviously taken some courage. There appears to have been a deep and profound cover up going on regarding the business of concrete and the core. I intend to research and investigate this matter thoroughly.

Later, FfG. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Nov 16 2007, 07:51 PM

[Christophera]

RELOCATED POST

Hello Carl Bank,

Thanks for jumping in with your comment and input. Let me share with you some disturbing information.

Yesterday I had posted a thread in the North Tower forum here.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...php?showforum=3

After a reply this morning I tried to answer and got this error message.

The error returned was:

Sorry, this topic has been locked


Post Data Saved!

The following post data has been saved. In some cases, using your browser's back button will empty out form fields which results in the loss of any typed and unsaved material. You may select all of the text area below and copy before hitting back.

I emailed painter, the moderator after finding a PM from them. Now the entire thread I posted is gone. I've not gotten a response. Now I realize that "painter" is the same usename of a mod at loose change where I was banned over a year ago for posting images of concrete, saying it was concrete and asking for images of steel in the core area. Here is the PM I received there before being banned.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=14889&st=30
painter
Posted: Oct 1 2006, 03:16 AM
Group: Admin

Thank you IVXX for your contributions to this thread.

Christophera, I and other Administrators have become weary of you using our forum to advance a position that appears to have little basis in verifiable fact. You have persisted in this now for just over a month and we have been overly tollerant. Your persistence in this borders on spamming.

As of now I am removing your posting privileges indefinitely, moving your threads to the "alt theories" section where they will be locked, pending further Administrative review. We strongly encourage you to find another forum to promulgate your largely unsubstantiated hypothesis.

Further disturbing information

I was banned from ae911truth.org for
calling Janice Matthews of Truthaction.org and talking to her about the concrete
core issue. She admitted that she did not know much about structural stuff and
asked what Richard Gage thought of it. I explained that I was a member of the ae911truth.org
message board and had posted threads there about the concrete core and that Gage
had never commented upon the concrete core or my assertions that FEMA had misrepresented
the core structure.

I explained to her that in searching for comments about my video, "Twin Towers,
Deception and Demolition" I had run across a post from someone who was familiar
with my contentions of a steel reinforced cast concrete core and had gotten a response
from Gage by email. I read the email to her. Here is the beginning of the post and email.





Just for the heck of it, I e-mailed Richard Gage yesterday, to get his opinion of the core issue. Here is his response:

From: "Richard Gage" <rgage@ae911truth.org> Add to Address Book
Add Mobile Alert
To: marklookingup@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: Core columns
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 06:10:46 -0700

Mark,

Very few people in the 9/11 Truth movement, if any,
agree with Christopher
Brown. I believe his thesis is a dead end. The
construction photos are
clear that the core columns are steel all the way up.

Richard



Janice then called Richard Gage and asked him about the email message. I do not know
what was said between them but I received this email from Gage a day or 2 later.

From:rgage@ae911truth.org
Subject:Christopher Brown representing an AE911Truth.org "board" member
Date: September 23, 2007 9:25:51 PM PDT
To: Chris Brown, argus1@earthlink.net
Cc: janice.matthews@gmail.com, bgood@ae911truth.org, bdonxxxx@xxxxxx,
dplumb@ae911truth.org, groberts@ae911truth.org, johnpmarin@yahoo.com, jparkin@fastmail.us,
and 3 more?

Christopher,

We have removed you as a member of AE911Truth.org for having attempted to represent
yourself as an AE911Truth.org "board" member to Janice Mathews of 911Truth.org

Please let me know if you have any questions about this action.

Sincerely,

Richard Gage



I responded and explained that I told Janice that I was a "message board member".
No reply was received. I also searched the ae911truth.org site for the word "board'
and found that the only mention of it was "Board certified" as in board
certified architect and engineer.

Richard Gage never posted in that thread at ae911truth.org with "clear photos of steel core columns all the way up".

Perhaps this message will convey to you and others the size and scope of the problem
the truth movement has.
Let me add that Gage nor any of his associates have any
feasible explanation for these phenomena at the WTC on 9-11.

free fall
total pulverization
superfine, heated particulate
smooth, square cut column ends x the 1,000's
heavy steel assemblies heaved hundreds of feet


RELOCATED POST

I moved your threads to Alternative Theories where they belong, and they are not locked.

Please do not post those theories in other forums until you can provide solid evidence..

Thank you.

Is it "solid evidence" that the engineer of the Twin Towers identifies a concrete core 2 days after 9-11?

I have always cited this ultimate authority. Is this "solid evidence"?

http://web.archive.org/web/20040807085840/http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3069641/
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.

I have always cited this report by a structural engineer certified in 12 states. Is this "solid evidence"?


http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf
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.

Bazant et al have revised their report as of May 27, 2007, again revised June 22, 2007. It now indicates concrete core walls in 2 places.

It is now shown that the default authority referred to by NIST to substantiate collapse has now changed their report to make it accurate and reflect the true structure while still (fearfully) confirming nothing but collapse. BTW, giving us a quantity of explosives needed to cause pulverization. Is this "solid evidence"?

What Did and Did Not Cause It?
Zdenek P. Bazant
1
, Hon.M. ASCE, Jia-Liang Le
2
, Frank R. Greening
3
, and David B. Benson
4
Abstract: Previous analysis of progressive collapse showed that gravity alone suffices to explain the overall collapse of the World Trade Center towers. However, it has not been checked whether the allegations of controlled demolition by planted explosives have any scientific merit. The present analysis proves that they do not. The video record available for the first few seconds of collapse agrees with the motion history calculated from the differential equation of progressive collapse but disproves the free fall hypothesis (on which the aforementioned allegations rest). Although, due to absence of experimental crushing data for the lightweight concrete used, the theory of comminution cannot predict the size range of pulverized concrete particles, it is shown that the observed size range (0.01 mm – 0.1 mm) is fully consistent with this theory and is achievable by collapse driven gravity alone, and that only about 7% of the total gravitational energy converted to kinetic energy of impacts would have sufficed to pulverize all the concrete slabs and core walls (while at least 158 tons of TNT per tower, installed into many small holes drilled into each concrete floor slab and core wall, would have been needed to produce the same degree of pulverization). The exit speed of air ejected from the building by the crushing front of gravitational collapse must have attained, near the ground, 465 mph (208 m/s) on the average, and fluctuations must have reached the speed of sound. This explains loud booms and wide spreading of pulverized concrete and glass fragments, and shows that the lower margin of dust cloud could not have coincided with the crushing front. The resisting upward forces due to pulverization and air ejection, neglected in previous studies, are found to be negligible during the first few seconds of collapse but not insignificant near the end of crush-down (these forces extended the crush-down duration by about 4%; they augmented, by about 25%, the resisting force due to column buckling at the end of crush-down, and doubled that force at the beginning of crush-up). The calculated crush down duration is found to match a logical interpretation of seismic record, while the free fall duration is found to be in conflict.


http://72.14.205.104/search q=cache:H5djFQBfSzsJ:www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%2520WTC%2520Collapse%2520-%2520What%2520did%2520%26%2520Did%2520Not%2520Cause%2520It%2520-%2520Revised%25206-22-07.pdf+Bazant&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a

This is the latest paper by Bazant et al, the first one was included in the NIST report

How solid do you need? This is a 400 foot tall steel reinforced cast concrete tube and it IS THE CORE. I have always posted this image.

(IMG:http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)

Is this "solid evidence"?

The concrete core has never been a theory for me. I have always known with absolute certainty of it. It has been the focus of a deception by the perpetrators. Stop enabling them and disabling the truth movement, please.

[Christophera]

RELOCATED POST

If the core was concrete and not steel, then where did all the girders in the rubble come from?

Would a concrete core be flexible enough to maintain the structural integrity of such a tall building?

The blueprints show girders, not concrete.  What about the steel-framed core that we see in construction photos?

The towers were 2 systems. The exterior steel framework was the primary load bearing structure.

The steel reinforced cast concrete tubular core kep the exterior steel aligned so that it could bear maximum loads.

The Tacoma narrows bridge was a leeson in the flex of steel. The 6000 foot long span 40 feet wide began oscillating in a 42 MPH wind whic took it out. A bridge is fastened at both ends. the towers, with their dimensions werefastened at one end with 208 foot wide faces and winds of 120 MPH were what was designed for.

The documentary, "The Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers" showed film of Yamasaki's scale model, tempered steel and everything, in a wind tunnel and made statements that Yamasaki's calculations showed the tower would not take the wind without oscillating torsions, the same thing that took out the bridge. The wind tunel test bore out the calc's and deformations that were excessive of tolerances began to show at 85 MPH wind.

Concrete gains some flexe when reinforceing steel is added. High tensile steel rebar was Robertsons contribution after his preliminary design was shot down by Yamasaki. The high tensile steel reduced the thickness of the walls at the base to make the loss of floor space at lobby level acceptable.

The preliminary plans are what Silversteins employee "leaked".

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/wt...istleblower.htm

And they were digitally altered after scanning by te addition of revision tables from another, unknown set. Here is a zoom of the revision table from AA.141.tiff. Note, the character seen are not of the alphbet and that the pixilations for the distnaces seen are not possible from a pencil scanned drawing.

(IMG:http://algoxy.com/psych/planimages/gwtc1rev.tab141.anoma.DBL.gif)

They also had the resolution destroyed so that dimensions could not be read. This PROVES a conspriracy to decieve the truth movement.

[Christophera]

RELOCATED POST

Cristpher, Oceans Flow's request not to post
your theory all over the place but to put it in the
appropriate section on this board - the "Alternate Theories Forum" -
wasn't just a 'suggestion'.

It was a call to follow the board's rules!

As you ignored it, I'd split it up here now and I also
altered your warning level for not following administrators advice
and for repeatedly breaking the board rules.

Do yourself and us the favour and ask yourself (or them)
why you have been banned from ae911truth.org.

If you don't have the patience to wait until someone finds
the time to look into your theory, try to rethink and maybe
make it more plausible and/or simple to understand and to
debate about it. Continued posting of long articles noone
response to is called "spam" here. And if you don't follow
my advise, the reson why you have been banned from here
will read this label as well.

Don't get me wrong: We appreciate your search for the truth,
but we don't apreciate complete anarchy on this board.

fair warning by: Carl

What about the evidence?

Per the rules I posted the video information in the video thread and the information specific to the north tower in the north tower thread.

The concrete core IS NOT a theory and it is a MAJOR disservice to the world to put the word "theory" in the title of this thread. History will show this to be true. The terming of it as a theory is being done by those not using evidence. I have always known it to be a fact, and many other Americans do as well, BUT, they are not in the truth movement and I cannot get them to take part. FEAR.

As far as being banned from ae, that was completely unjustified, as it was everywhere else.

Now, what about the evidence?

[Christophera]

What are you saying, when you describe the WTC as having a concrete core?  Are you denying that there were 47 steel box columns that ran the vertical length of the building?  Are you saying those steel columns didn't exist?

Correct, there were 24 columns that surrounded the steel reinforced cast concrete tubular core shown here. Note: No steel core columns protruding from the core.

(IMG:http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)

Which resembles in no way what FEMA said existed in the core. BTW, the below diagram is the ONLY official depiction of the core.

(IMG:http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/femacore.gif)

Guiliani took the publically owned WTC documents from the city offices in December of 2001 and the NYCLU has used toe FOIA to compell the reutrn of the documents but hte courts will not uphold federal laws and see them returned to the public.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020224015919/...hive020602.html

Here is the west wall of the WTC 1 core (narrow end) standing to the left of the spire. Note: No stel core columns to the left inthe core area.

(IMG:http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg)


Below is an image which shows a piece of the very top of WTC 2 falling onto WTC 3. Inside the perimeter walls is a brownish cube. That is one corner of the top of the cast concrete core of WTC 2.

(IMG:http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg)

There was a pre disinformation operation which removed images fromteh construction photos from public access as well as the 2 hour documentary from PBS also wiping out all record of it.

Two statements regarding the concrete core. The architect himself and an engineer certified in 12 states.

http://www.mywire.com/pubs/Newsweek/2001/09/13/316095">article</a>
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://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf
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.

Hard to believe huh? Is it easier to believe that this nation actually embraced the MAD (mutually assured destruction) policy for a decade or so?

Cold war secrecy has gotten it all accomplished and we are in VERY deep trouble.

[Christophera]

RELOCATED POST

There may be evidence of a concrete core and there may be a cover up of this fact; I intend to look into this - but the "theory" part of your presentation kicks in when you claim this concrete was mixed with C4 and this is largely the mechanism that caused the destruction of the Towers. This part is purely theoretical; am I correct?

The concrete core is not a theory.

The built to demolish is a theory.

Apparently, I am correct in my understanding. This avowedly theoretical aspect of Christophera's presentation thus supports its placement in the Alt. Theory forum, IMO.

BTW: Dang but this multiple thread business is confusing. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)

The only thing that makes my information alternative is that it is not embraced by the truth movement. I've shown that in 5 years they have failed to produce one image of steel core columns in the core area at an elevation above the ground.
this theory of built to demolish actually provides a fully feasible explanation in all respects for these phenomena.

free fall
total pulverization
superfine, heated particulate
smooth, square cut column ends x the 1,000's
heavy steel assemblies heaved hundreds of feet

Such information as I bring, even though is only supported by photos from 9-11, statements of the architect and engineers widely certified SHOULD be mainstream and not "alternative" instead of the "quasi leadership" of the truth movement.

Consider the "quasi leadership" does not have explanations for the above phenomena associated with the Twin Towers demise and also promotes the uses of the leaked <a href="http://algoxy.com/psych/whatis9-11Disinfo_fakeplan.html">FAKE PLANS</a> from Silverstein while ALSO rejecting the verified information of the concrete core; now do we have a reason for the truth movements failure to get anywhere? Does the word "infiltration" mean much? How about the word "psyops".

By all means see if a mod can do the job of consolidating all these threads.

This post has been edited by Christophera: Nov 16 2007, 11:05 PM

[Christophera]

RELOCATED POST

What are you saying, when you describe the WTC as having a concrete core?  Are you denying that there were 47 steel box columns that ran the vertical length of the building?  Are you saying those steel columns didn't exist?

Correct, there were 24 columns that surrounded the steel reinforced cast concrete tubular core shown here. Note: No steel core columns protruding from the core.

Which resembles in no way what FEMA said existed in the core. BTW, the below diagram is the ONLY official depiction of the core.

(IMG:http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/femacore.gif)

I don't buy any of it.

I'll believe the photo, thanks.

(IMG:http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/1319/coreve2.jpg)

Tha image is too far away to tell what the steel inside the core really is. One thing is sure. Steel core columns are 100% deep fillet welded and of the strongest elements of the towers. If the exterio steel framework falls away, the inner core of columns withtheir associated diagonal and horizontal brazing will be plan to see,

It is never seen

Here is an image of WTC 2 much closer and the steel in the core area can be seen in some detail. Observe on top of the 2 vertical pieces of steel to the left of the middle crane and to the right. What is called a "butt plate" is welded to the top of the elevator guide rail support steel. That plate facilitates rapid connection and alignment of the support steel but does not have adequate strength to stand on its own. It is supported by horizontal connection which connect to a row of heavier supprt steel that in turn has other horizontal connections that are cast into the core walls then welded to the interior box columns outside the core which support the inside floorbeams carrying the truss panels of the floors.

(IMG:http://algoxy.com/psych/images/elev_guide.rail.supp.jpg)

that elevator guide rail support steel fell imediately as soon as the concrete core walls detonated and so NOTHING is ever seen in the core area from images of 9-11.

[Christophera]

RELOCATED POST

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/welcome.gif) Your theory is compelling.

Do you know anything about the rumored Reader's Digest article from the construction era that mentions explosives being built into the towers?

The concrete core is not a theory.

The built to demolish is a theory.

In 1974 I read an article in a mens magazine with information from a crew of Navy seal divers that detailed how they were building sub bases with C4 coated rebar as a self destruct measure. The article went on to describe how the DOD began building missile silos with the same self destruct technology.

Since 1999 the DOD has demoed 4000 silos built since 1965. The detailed from the demo contractors DO NOT MAKE sense. The contractors account of how many holes had to be drilled and how much explosive was used are way to little.

What is going on is that the DOD is getting rid of the evidence. Since the action is taken to conform to treaty agreements with the USSR, it shows complicity. I feel that the cold war was essentially a conspiracy to create maximum secrecy so that stuff like the WTC and other global actions could be undertaken. Other silos built before 1965 are being sold into private ownership.

[Christophera]

RELOCATED POST

This theory has been repeatedly refuted for years yet Christopher A () continues to spread it far and wide.

Go away.

So you say and you are wrong. If you are not wrong then post where this has happened and how it was refuted.

Never has an image of the supposed steel core columns in the core area, at some elevation over the ground, from 9-11, been posted. In 5 years, not one.

All ofthe images of the concrete core should show steel core columns if they existed but do not, because the steel core columns did not exist.

[amazed!]

If this is true--that there was a vertical concrete element, what does it really prove? That it was an inside job and the government has manipulated information? I already know that.

FFG seems to think it bolsters the NPT, but I fail to see that.

[Carl Bank]

If this is true--that there was a vertical concrete element, what does it really prove?  That it was an inside job and the government has manipulated information?  I already know that.

FFG seems to think it bolsters the NPT, but I fail to see that.

Looks like after NPT and NBBT we yet need to create
another acronym for that "No steal beams as we were told but concrete core instead therory"
Any ideas?

NSBAWWTBCCIT too long for: Carl

[Carl Bank]

If this is true--that there was a vertical concrete element, what does it really prove?  That it was an inside job and the government has manipulated information?  I already know that.

FFG seems to think it bolsters the NPT, but I fail to see that.

Looks like after NPT and NBBT we yet need to create
another acronym for that "No steal beams as we were told but concrete core instead therory"
Any ideas?

NSBAWWTBCCIT too long for: Carl

Got one!
What about "BST"?

if it's telling, it's: Carl

[Sanders]

Christophera, I remember you (by another handle) from LC. You acted surprised that an administrator named "painter" here was the same "painter" that banned you at LC. Bullsh#t - you were not so ignorant or daft to not know that painter from here is painter from there when you decided to join P4T.

I'm willing to entertain (although I highly doubt) the theory that explosives were pre-planted in the WTC when it was built. The towers were nicknamed, after all, the Nelson and David (Rockefeller) towers. But, what's the shelf-life of C4 or other explosives? Do they really work after 30 years? How could this be tested, and why would they assume it would still work (assuming they pre-laid the tower when they built it - not to mention other red-flags that would probably have gone up while the tower was being built?) after 30-odd years? And, where is the proof? Where is the evidence that explosives were actually incorporated in the original building of the towers? Is it here in this thread somewhere, and I missed it? If it is, please post it and I'll take it all back - (evidence).

There are all kinds of theories - some of them, while being by their nature unprovable, have a lot of evidence backing them up. Some have none -they are no more than an idea. This is which?

But over and above all that, why are you still harping on this "concrete core" business? There were 47 steel columns that made up the supporting structure of each core - that's a fact. If some of them were enveloped in concrete, does that make them part of a "steel-reinforced concrete tubular core"?? Steel reinforced concrete normally pertains to concrete structures that are reinforced with steel re-bar. That's not the case here - is this a semantics game? Am I missing something???

It seems to me you are obsessed with this notion - my advice, for what it's worth(?), it's fine and noble to hold beliefs, but not good to get obsessed about one interpretation or another - it generally closes the mind to other interpretations, and good advice and opinions from others ...

After typing this, I think to myself, "nahhh, don't post this, it'll just piss him off". But that's not my intention - I'm just suggesting that you loosen up - try to take in the big picture a bit more.

Cheers.

[Factfinder Gener...]

If this is true--that there was a vertical concrete element, what does it really prove?  That it was an inside job and the government has manipulated information?  I already know that.

FFG seems to think it bolsters the NPT, but I fail to see that.

There does seem to have been a concrete aspect to the WTC Towers' core: the documentary evidence provided here in this thread and elsewhere, supports that. This fact does seem to have been covered up in a concerted manner. The only conclusion one can draw from this, IMO, is that the perps have something to hide regarding this matter. This degree of cover up is always highly significant and obviously relevant to any investigation.

The theory of planes slicing into the towers, "in one side and out the other", "like a bad special effect", and releasing their payloads internally, relies on there having been no concrete aspect to the cores, with the cores being made up of widely spaced vertical beams, instead of them being steel and concrete tubes as they actually appear to have been.

Christophera may or may not be right about his assignment of motive: i.e. that the perps laced the concrete of the cores with C4 during the construction and used this in the demolition process somehow, there is no way to really prove it at this point IMO, but this would provide a need for cover up.

On the other hand, the presence of these vertical tubes of steel and reinforced concrete that are documented as having existed, completely and utterly disallows the alleged Boeing planes from behaving as depicted in accordance with the evidence and thus this it is proved conclusively that the evidence was thoroughly falsified.

Lets take the impact of the alleged Boeing upon the North Tower for example, which resulted in a near simultaneous four way explosion, i.e. blasts from out of all four walls. This is only consistent with the explosive force being released centrally and we now know that the center of the buildings was occupied by a massive steel and concrete core. A plane is totally excluded from being able to deliver an explosive force in this manner and under these circumstances. The ONLY object that can behave this way, that we know of, is a penetrator missile. There can be no credible argument to this position as far as I see it.

This fact provides ample motive for cover up with or without the issue of concrete having been laced with C4.

The Official Position states: Real Planes and No Concrete Core.

This is a grand deception; the actuality is Real Concrete Core and No Planes.

In my opinion, Christophera is to be applauded for almost single handedly holding on to an important 9/11 truth against powerful opposition.

I think it is important to clarify one last thing here:

Looks like after NPT and NBBT we yet need to create
another acronym for that "No steal beams as we were told but concrete core instead therory"
Any ideas?

NSBAWWTBCCIT too long for: Carl

Christophera is not saying No Internally Placed Vertical Steel Beams (NIPVSB) but rather that the core was not entirely and solely made up of vertical steel beams. This is an important distinction!

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Nov 17 2007, 04:55 PM

[grizz]

Building the WTC ~ Part 1



Building the WTC ~ Part 2

[Factfinder Gener...]

These vids demonstrate powerfully that No Planes would have been able to slice through those towers.

With regards to the topic in question: This is informative viewing, Oceans Flow, and thank you, but I would love to be able to see the full uncensored withheld documentary that mentions the steel and concrete core. However, given the resourcefulness of the perps, I guess that there is precious little chance of that.

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Nov 17 2007, 07:47 PM

[grizz]

These vids demonstrate powerfully that No Planes would have been able to slice through those towers.

You're like a dog with a bone. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

This documentary was made in 1983.

[Factfinder Gener...]

These vids demonstrate powerfully that No Planes would have been able to slice through those towers.

You're like a dog with a bone. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

And the bone has real substance, Oceans Flow. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

There's meat on it too! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

(IMG:http://farm1.static.flickr.com/21/88734827_6da0740f8c.jpg)

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Nov 17 2007, 08:23 PM

[Christophera]

If this is true--that there was a vertical concrete element, what does it really prove?  That it was an inside job and the government has manipulated information?  I already know that.

FFG seems to think it bolsters the NPT, but I fail to see that.

The concrete core shows that planes had nothing to do with the towers coming down as it makes possible the needed location of high explosives in the needed quantities with the needed distribution.

For you it doesn't matter, but for many out there, particulary those who cannot beleive that the US government ahs been infiltrated for decades, they will ask, "How was it done". It is a fact there IS NO WAY to get enough explosives placed inthe towers to create the effect seen. People do know about the excessive security sometimes imposed on governmet projects. That one fctor makes it possible for the Twins to be built with explosives in them. The concrete core becomes a perfect place to encapsulate and preserve explosives, and, ..... concrete can be fractured instantly to fall freely by a small amount of explosives.

So it might not matter to you, but it matters to the rest of the world a great deal. If the truth of 9-11 was all up to you, I wouldn't worry about the core. But it's not up to you. So, .... when people figure our FEMA misrepresented the core and Guiliani helped by taking the plans from the city offices, they will be much more ready to work for truth.

Also it is a simple deception, not a massive conspiracy to demolish. It is something an elected representative can ask to have corrected without suffering slings and arrows.

If one thinks that producing video fakery proves that video fakery was used to show no planes hit the Towers, well, they should think again. The planes were an important part of the ruse.

This post has been edited by Christophera: Nov 18 2007, 01:41 AM

[amazed!]

Christopher

We essentially agree that Boeings had precious little to do with the collapse of the towers. As far as I'm concerned, controlled demolition brought down the towers.

For some, the question is whether there were any Boeings at all.

I think the towers were rigged in the months preceding the event, maybe as much as a year or two. But that is speculation. I doubt the reliability of explosives placed more than 30 years earlier.