The Movement, Social Fears, Economy, The Future, (IOW- concrete & WTC ), merged Options

[Christophera]

Thanks dmole,

"6.4.4 Conclusions
The calculated mass of 288,100 metric tons (317,500 short tons) is found to correspond with two other comparable structures (in terms of mass per unit floor area), data from NIST’s SAP2000 model, and the reported amount of recovered debris. The calculated mass refutes the popular notion that the building weighed 500,000 tons. Further studymay be warranted to examine other contemporaneous structures, validate the SAP2000 model values, and establish a more reliable estimation of the distribution between sources of removed debris."

I'm still trying to figure out if there was any difference in the amount of steel used in the construction of the WTC (including building 7) and the amount of steel recovered, from those sites.

There is a material that logically would have been used to create such weight; the worlds most common building material, that IF it was actually used as a steel reinforced mineral based tubular core structure, instead of what FEMA states, perfectly matching photographic evidence of 9-11, but it is an alternative not allowed to be discussed here, as FEMA and the Port Authority have not endorsed that it was utilized in the buildings.

This post has been edited by Christophera: Aug 23 2008, 11:59 PM

[Christophera]

Here are links for them:

http://www.studyof911.com/gallery/albums/u...BoxColumn02.JPG
archive

http://www.studyof911.com/gallery/albums/u...BoxColumn03.JPG
archive

Can't say what the white stuff is. But I made a screen shot and zoomed the tube end to confirm what I suspected. They are fractured welds about 1/3 the thickness of the tube wall. It appears as though there is a shim material that was placed in the joint to plumb the piece, which means it is an elevator guide rail support member. On the bottom some scaled fracture marks show some twist involved in the separation near the middle.

When the elevator guide rail support steel was more out of plumb another more radically adjustable method of joining them was applied.

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

To the right and left of the central crane are elevator guide rail support members with butt plates on top of them. In the next step another vertical piece of guide rail support steel with a butt plate is mated to the lower butt plate. The plates have holes around the outside edge of them that bolts go through to tighten the pieces together. Shims can be placed between them to tilt them plumb and the holes can be elongated to shift them over.

Here is where this entire thing gets weird. I can't even tell you here why you think it is a core column. I've been told to only talk about that in "Alternative theories".

This post has been edited by Christophera: Sep 14 2008, 04:55 AM

[Christophera]

These crawl spaces must have been accessible from the service areas of the central cores.

I don't think access from the central core into floor crawl spaces is shown by the one image of the core of WTC 2 that we have.

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

If it existed for one floor it would exist for all and we would be seeing some light through the core at the top at least.

This post has been edited by Christophera: Sep 14 2008, 02:24 PM

[Christophera]

It is overwhelming, but with a comprehensive view, it can be described. Knowing where we are and how we got here can make a difference.

First we have to realize that the imposition of .com pushing the usenet off into the nethers was the method to eliminate free speech where it would be most effective on a continent with 3 billion people. D ARP A did it with our tax dollars and corporate America jumped at the opportunity for profit. That was where the manipulation of technology sabotaged our existence.

9-11 truth seeking in the .com is a joke without free speech. I've been banned from every board in existence that has enough traffic to be effective. All of the quasi authority seriously appears to be planted. Whether they are genuine agents or mind controlled moles, it doesn't matter. The truth movement is hijacked either by quasi, false authority, fraudulent 9-11 message boards seeking to suppress truth rather than refine it and share it, or the general social fears that media has promoted from 9-12-01 onwards in lock step with the administration.

Accordingly, there is NO WHERE for a person who actually has a feasible, comprehensive explanation for the phenomena of the WTC on 9-11. I do have a web site that explains these unique aspects.

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

Apparently the truth is just too much, or J. Edgar Hoover was correct in that people are confronted with a conspiracy so vast they cannot believe it exists. Part and parcel ofhitlers "big lie"

So, ......... I don't know what they think has happened to our economy. I don't know if they can comprehend that 9-11 served multiple purposes within that conspiracy. Or maybe they think that Americans are so stupid they just cannot do anything right.

First 9-11 served to justify war. Then the patriot act and homeland security. It served as a diversionary weapon on the American people, too inflamed and divided to oppose fundamental economic strategy disempowering us such as nafta and gatt. Those inclined to turn their head from 9-11 were induced to turn them about completely and decide that Mexicans were the problem with the economy, or that gays were the problem.

The pre 9-11 psyops promoted fears of "men in black" and spawned a bumper sticker that said "I love my county but fear my government", which acts as a barrier for couch potatoes and internet warriors to anything except what they were doing that was so comfortable and entertaining. Afraid of discussing these issues in private, they are terrified of even listening to comprehensive reasoning in public relating to them in public. "More beer & turn up the football game, I still have a job." echos through the nations living rooms.

The radical peace movement seems dominated by leadership that can only promote sensational protests and demonstrations that creates attitudes against them in the general public, will not discuss fundamental strategy let alone support it (2003). Compassionate veterans that should know better set up crosses on the beach for each soldier lost,, but will not allow me to read the soldiers names, age and city over a PA, calmly with taps playing in the background. "Too disturbing for the public they say" (2004).

This is not a pessimistic view, this is the truth. Just as my words to my ex army colonel father in law in 1999. "There is going to be severe terrorism that leads to unstoppable war in the middle east." He said, "I think the US government is smarter than that". I was seeking his help in finding an attorney that would uphold equal protection of law in civil actions directed at getting the truth about mind control that I knew was going to be used in ALL of the above social events/issues. I had begun with that in 1997 by filing a lawsuit seeking records proving over 1,000 US district insanity actions were missing from the public record. Consider for a moment; if every word I say is factual and true, what obligation do you have to yourself and family now.

Here on this board a threshold of 9-11 truth was nearly ascended, but J. Edgar Hoovers maxim was too true and one of the most courageous and truth impassioned self sacrificing acts I've seen in a message board thread was closed. The movements functionality did not ascend that threshold. R. gage has never addressed the evidence and information of the concrete core and has never provided evidence of the steel core columns FEMA describes nor provided the apology promised for banning me from ae911truth.org/ forums.

Now, a few days ago my final test of what should be a fairly functional message board, after , attempting to ascend that threshold again eliminating another which presents itself as a functional truth seeking board, but is really cointelpro as it so loudly pronounces itself to oppose,, proved to be on the same level as my defenses against extensive ad hominum applied by a team of internet roving/searching/stalking disinformationalists attempting to disprove the concrete core and leave the public with a structure that cannot be evidenced and cannot be used to explain anything; targets me once again, disallows my truthful and substantiated description of their purposes of maintaining the secret methods of mass murder of those that target my information by enabling them, and disabling me, threatening a ban with a warning to me.

This empowers the NPT, the DEW, the nuke promoters, all useless information and those who promote were given the opportunity to actually describe how their information could be used to gain more truth, but none could define such a use. While I regularly described that for the use of my information. My conclusion is now that ANY adherence to those issues as "viable" indicates a disinformation agent or a tampered mind as a tool for the post 9-11 psyops disinformation, however it may have been done.

Just a heads up report on the work that has not yet been done, and may never be done, if we do not get down with eliminating our differences and defining what sacrifices are acceptable now to prevent unacceptable ones later. Maybe even then, the nation and society cannot be rescued, but have you given up and resigned yourself to a plunge into anarchical chaos and eventual slavery as a people? Are your fears, doubt and confusion to great? If they are, but you cannot admit it, or that they prevent you from using heart and mind to understans and extent trust and confidence, can you even say that? If so, this is the place to do it.

Or, on the remote possibility that these words actually cross the gulf, and comprehensive understanding is attained, is the inspiration and courage there to express that with a concise willingness to participate?

[painter]

First, Chris, I'm moving this thread to debate.

My problem with a lot of what you're saying is how you say it. Being someone who is often rightly accused of being overly verbose when not down right obscure in my writing, I'm hardly the right person to offer constructive criticism. However, what I see is that too many things get "glued together" making it very difficult to sort things out. Look how many different subjects are in the subject line of this thread!

So far as I understand it your position is that we don't really know the architectural construction of the Twin Towers. Now that is a very simple idea I've just put forward in one sentence. The question then is, is it true or false, and how can we be certain of it one way or the other? In my mind, it would be better for us to just stick with this one proposition rather than moving beyond it right from the beginning to attribute any sort of intention to anyone who held a contrary view. I'd recommend just forgetting all that. Make the case for the simple point: We do not know what the actual structure of the towers were: True or False. Once that is established to a reasonable degree, then we can move forward to the next level of questions.

I'm a reasonably intelligent person. Not an "expert," not an architect or building engineer or someone who has special knowledge related to the design and construction of the WTC. I have to rely upon my "common sense" and on what other more knowledgeable people tell me.

To me this whole "concrete core" question is on about the same level with the "cooky cutter cut out" in the steel frame building facade question. That is to say, I can see BOTH SIDES of the question.

There are some issues which I can see clearly and unequivocally. For example:

Clearly the eyewitnesses interviewed by CIT put the plane they saw north of the Citgo -- and that flight path is in direct contradiction with the downed light poles and the damage path indicated within the Pentagon itself. It doesn't matter whether the witnesses "believe" the plane they saw hit the Pentagon. Logic indicates that it couldn't have -- or, if it did, it would have crated a damage path very different from the one observed. Logical conclusion: The plane seen flying NOC did not hit the Pentagon

This is something I can easily understand, just as I can easily understand that a sky scraper can not "collapse" at near free-fall solely due to fire or even a combination of fire and plane impact. This, to me, is obvious.

However, there are things that are not "obvious". I can understand why "NPT"ers question the cooky cutter cut-outs of Boeings penetrating structural steel -- all the way out to the wing tips. I don't know, it just "looks odd," unbelievable, in fact. But, then, if I accept that then I have even bigger problems to contend with.

Similarly, when I watch video of the Twin Towers going down, I agree -- the fountain of debris that is being observed looks more like something made out of concrete decomposing right before our eyes than something primarily steel being blown to bits. I can see that but I still don't know. I can't even imagine the use of concrete in buildings of that height. I don't have any architectural plans that clearly indicate that your hypothesis should be accepted over any other hypothesis regarding WTC tower construction. Like the question of the "cut outs" -- it just becomes yet another of the hundreds of things that, so far as I'm concerned, can never be answered satisfactorily.

I don't know where to go with this. I've said to the NPTers for years: Prove it! Stop whining and complaining because some Truthers reject your claims and simply provide us with evidence that is so compelling we have to agree with you. I feel much the same way in regard to the concrete core. Do we really know that explosives can be put on rebar and that these explosives can be kept viable for decades buried in concrete, ready to be ignited when the time comes? Do you have ANY documented evidence that the cores were concrete and not steel as most researchers believe?

I guess what I'm trying to say is, to my mind, your arguments would be much better received if they would just stick with proving themselves without going astray into casting aspersions on anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with them. Again, I'm not a specialist in these fields but neither am I stupid. I am and have been willing to entertain a variety of hypotheses but what are we supposed to do when there is either insufficient evidence to arrive at a conclusion or, worse, contradictory evidence?

Finally, on a certain level, all this just gets wearing. I'm tired of these arguments. I begin to think that I don't CARE whether the Towers had steel cores or concrete cores or were made out of green cheese, whether they were hit by planes, flying spaghetti monsters or NOTHING. My impatience cries WHO CARES?! The fact is that none of it makes any sense -- and the '19 arab hijacker scenario' least of all -- and therefore WE DO NOT KNOW the truth and that in and of itself is the most important problem. It isn't what the truth IS that is the concern, it is the fact that whatever it may be we do not know it.

[Christophera]

It comes down to separating the useless information from the useful, or what is most useful and using it first.

First, Chris, I'm moving this thread to debate.

Okay.

But, I really felt like I was venting, ranting and blowing off steam about the infiltration of the movement rather than prepping for debate.

What would be a worthy debate is defining HOW to determine when you are trading posts with an infiltrator of the truth movement or not.

Make the case for the simple point: We do not know what the actual structure of the towers were: True or False. Once that is established to a reasonable degree, then we can move forward to the next level of questions.

Correct, FEMA , the port authority and guiliani have deceived the agency conducting the analysis of collapse and now the compulsory due process determination of cause of death is shown incompetent. NYC law enforcement MUST, in accord with state and federal laws, accurately as possible determine the cause of death in 3,000 capital crimes.

I have to rely upon my "common sense" and on what other more knowledgeable people tell me.

Does that mean if stan and accomplice gam show up here posting music videos and photoshopping images, you take action?

Yes, you are an intelligent person, and it doesn't take a construction expert to identify what is and what is not in the core area on 9-11. I have a thread about it in "ALT theories"

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=15855

To me this whole "concrete core" question is on about the same level with the "cooky cutter cut out" in the steel frame building facade question. That is to say, I can see BOTH SIDES of the question.

Technically yes, but practically no. I've outlined above exactly how to use the information of the concrete core to at least gain an inquiry into a deception by FEMA and the likelihood of a flawed analysis of collapse.

There are some issues which I can see clearly and unequivocally. For example:

Clearly the eyewitnesses interviewed by CIT put the plane they saw north of the Citgo -- and that flight path is in direct contradiction with the downed light poles and the damage path indicated within the Pentagon itself.

True, but there is no way to verify the allegations with an un accountable government. Therefore a cry of "conspiracy" goes out with the very effort and we all know how far that gets. The concrete core is a simple deception that cannot be construed as a flawed interpretation of the crime scene. There are many 9-11 issues that are very similar to that one in that way.

However, there are things that are not "obvious". I can understand why "NPT"ers question the cooky cutter cut-outs of Boeings penetrating structural steel -- all the way out to the wing tips. I don't know, it just "looks odd," unbelievable, in fact. But, then, if I accept that then I have even bigger problems to contend with.

True on the scale of problem. Knowing that the towers face were only 39% steel and the width of the wings and length of the fuselage and projectile characteristics of the engines, I hove no problem with it and the bends of the perimeter box tubes is exactly what I would expect. The engines that did not exit the towers are consistent in every way. There were planes, but we don't know how many high jackers, They could have boarded through another door of the plane than the one monitored by security cameras. This is supported in that some of those supposed to have been flying and dying are alive.

This post has been edited by Christophera: Feb 16 2009, 11:26 PM

[Christophera]

I can't even imagine the use of concrete in buildings of that height. I don't have any architectural plans that clearly indicate that your hypothesis should be accepted over any other hypothesis regarding WTC tower construction. .

The Tacoma narrows bridge settles that well for us. It was less than 1/2 the width of the towers, less than 1/2 as long as the towers were tall and supported at both ends.

Steel Bridge flexes and collapses in 42 MPH wind

And the Twins were loaded with tens of thousands of tons of stuff and were expected to survive 120 mph winds.

I blame r. gage directly for the above problem. He's the guy that is supposed to be the expert and he will not comment on the images from 9-11 showing the concrete core, the GZ images inconsistent with the plans he links to from his site nor will he produce a single image from 9-11 showing the supposed steel core columns in the core area.
We have absolutely NO idea of who is a truther and who is an agent UNTIL we test them with reason and evidence. If they are not capable of backing up what they think of as evidence with reason and alternate verifying evidence, or there are inconsistencies with other evidence, or their assertions can explain nothing. Then we are safe to reject them as "truther" if they continue to push the information. This medium makes it that way IF the quasi authority will not be accountable.

I don't know where to go with this. I've said to the NPTers for years: Prove it! Stop whining and complaining because some Truthers reject your claims and simply provide us with evidence that is so compelling we have to agree with you. I feel much the same way in regard to the concrete core. Do we really know that explosives can be put on rebar and that these explosives can be kept viable for decades buried in concrete, ready to be ignited when the time comes?

Wait a minute. Let's just stick with "Whether we know how the towers were constructed, what design they had. For know just consider that the suggested placement and distribution is perfectly adequate and exactly what is required to do what we saw and heard. Alternatively, consider what it takes to cut 47 steel box columns enough times to make them disappear on 9-11. I estimate about 1,500 cuts. And above as well as below I deal with "truther" and whether or not we know who they are or not. Sheep consider other sheep to be credible and just because they have some information they obsessively post does not mean they are a truther.

I would like to think that truthers use evidence and reason. We have no idea who those people are who refuse to do that.

Do you have ANY documented evidence that the cores were concrete and not steel as most researchers believe?

No, and US freedom of information laws were violated in order to deprive us of the plans for the towers. That is powerful circumstantial evidence of a deception. The fact that gage will not evidence what he believes from official sources and instead uses plans from a very interested party is circumstantial BEFORE I show that the revision tables are digitally altered and that GZ images show that the plans do not represent what was on the ground, while showing what can only be concrete. Some knowledge of steel and concrete is required to know this, but not a great deal.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, to my mind, your arguments would be much better received if they would just stick with proving themselves without going astray into casting aspersions on anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with them. Again, I'm not a specialist in these fields but neither am I stupid. I am and have been willing to entertain a variety of hypotheses but what are we supposed to do when there is either insufficient evidence to arrive at a conclusion or, worse, contradictory evidence?

I know for certain, there was a steel reinforced cast concrete core, so leave me out of we. I use my knowledge to interpret 9-11 images showing the core and they are totally consistent in all ways. If you don't know that, we need to collectively DEMAND that r. gage do his job, be accountable in this movement for the information he shares. I am and my site is comprised ONLY of actual evidence for the most part. He has no site detailing the structures with actual evidence. He never addresses the image of WTC 2 core which happens to be the ONLY image of either towers core. WHY? Not one 9-11 web site does except for mine.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

Finally, on a certain level, all this just gets wearing. I'm tired of these arguments. I begin to think that I don't CARE whether the Towers had steel cores or concrete cores or were made out of green cheese, whether they were hit by planes, flying spaghetti monsters or NOTHING. My impatience cries WHO CARES?! The fact is that none of it makes any sense

"The fact is that none of it makes any sense" Nope, not so, some does make sense, and generalizations are not a good things to practice as investigators.

I'm tired of it too but understand VERY well that it is an imposed and artificial difficulty that is caused by a domestic destabilization program which is a psychological operation.

I left out most of the links to evidence because it is all on my site over various pages. I assume I can just refer to the evidence I have substanciating what I post and you will recognize it from examining my site.

This post has been edited by Christophera: Feb 16 2009, 11:28 PM

[lunk]

I was asleep, and walking unknowingly into a nightmare.
Now, I am awake, and trying to awaken others,
before they drag us into something much more real,
than any nightmare imaginable,
anyway I can, using what I know,
have done, and researched;
discovered, and have experienced.

I would be limiting myself if
I only showed one entrance to the rabbit hole.
...please excuse the metaphor.

imo, lunk

[dMz]

I know for certain, there was a steel reinforced cast concrete core, so leave me out of we. I use my knowledge to interpret 9-11 images showing the core and they are totally consistent in all ways. If you don't know that, we need to collectively DEMAND that r. gage do his job, be accountable in this movement for the information he shares. I am and my site is comprised ONLY of actual evidence for the most part. He has no site detailing the structures with actual evidence. He never addresses the image of WTC 2 core which happens to be the ONLY image of either towers core. WHY? Not one 9-11 web site does except for mine.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

Although I have avoided this "concrete core" business for months, at some point one must address "burden of proof." As it is Christopher making the claim of "concrete core," that would place the burden of proof in that direction. I just tried the link above, and 3 of the first 3 "concrete core" supporting links were 404/broken at that page. Frankly, this doesn't re-assure or convince me of much. Then there are references to a PBS show years ago that no one can seem to locate. While I'm still open minded on the possibility of a concrete core in the WTC towers, I am far from convinced that they had such.

From one of the links on Christopher's page:
http://membres.lycos.fr/jcviel/BTS/sujets/2002batiment.htm

"But as fires raged in the towers, driven by aviation fuel, the steel cores in each building would have eventually reached 800°C – hot enough to start buckling and collapsing."

I also disagree with the "eventually reached 800°C" part, as the fuel fires mostly burned out (and even NIST admitted this much).

I did find a forum post attributed to a "Leslie Robertson" a while back that I hadn't seen before from one of Christopher's links, and that was very interesting (from 2006 IIRC). It was one single source, and it was a forum post at that however.

A long time ago, an anonymous person PM'ed me at another forum with a link to a WTC photo collection. They seemed quite insistent that I download the full collection of photos right away (I think this person made 3 requests that I do so). Some of these would have needed to be taken from a helicopter, and others would presumably have been taken by NYC fire/police or rescue workers. I am no longer in contact with this anonymous person (or another who did some ironworker work at Ground Zero before FEMA debriefed and ejected him), but I can locate several of those photos.

I'm still looking for some photos of steel column debris being hauled away on semi-truck low-boy trailers- perhaps someone else has seen these same photos. I believe that I still have this collection on an external hard disk, but I have posted links to a few of these more interesting photos here.

From this post #25:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10741880

http://www.orbitfiles.com/download/id2863391745.html

http://www.orbitfiles.com/download/id2863392938.html

http://www.orbitfiles.com/download/id2863393882.html

That certainly looks like one of those 47 steel core columns that we've been told about to me. I think I have posted other photos here on other threads, too.

[albertchampion]

i don't pretend to know the construction techniques of these towers. but i do know this, if you go to the tishman-speyer site for the replacement for wtc7[virtually secretly constructed - almost as if the intention was to put up a building so fast that the demolition of 7 could be ignored] the usage of a concrete core is touted.

just something to muse upon. and i mentioned this some months ago. as a matter of skyscraper construction history, how long has this technique been used? prior to the construction of the towers?

anyone have some architectural/constructional history?

[Sanders]

I remember reading somewhere that the towers were one of the first, if not the first, skyscrapers using the "tube within a tube" design.

Building a tall skyscraper with reinforced concrete is not impossible, the Petronas towers in Malaysia were done that way for economic reasons. The concrete used however was specially formulated and its composition strictly controlled.

To me, the most significant point regarding all this is that an independent investigation was never to be allowed, and the public is denied access to the information which might answer any of these questions.

Apart from that,

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

[GroundPounder]

First off, I don't buy the concrete core theory. Have heard it several times over the years, with nothing truly compelling. And for what it is worth, the airplane that impacted WTC1 didn't have enough energy to do anything to core anyway.

I must agree w/ dMole, the burden of proof is on you Chris.

[Christophera]

Although I have avoided this "concrete core" business for months, at some point one must address "burden of proof." As it is Christopher making the claim of "concrete core," that would place the burden of proof in that direction. I just tried the link above, and 3 of the first 3 "concrete core" supporting links were 404/broken at that page. Frankly, this doesn't re-assure or convince me of much. Then there are references to a PBS show years ago that no one can seem to locate. While I'm still open minded on the possibility of a concrete core in the WTC towers, I am far from convinced that they had such.

From this post #25:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10741880

http://www.orbitfiles.com/download/id2863391745.html

http://www.orbitfiles.com/download/id2863392938.html

http://www.orbitfiles.com/download/id2863393882.html

That certainly looks like one of those 47 steel core columns that we've been told about to me. I think I have posted other photos here on other threads, too.

Photos of box columns at ground are common. What is conclusive is images from 9-11 that show steel columns in the core area itself. Thiis the only known image of either towers core standing clearly without any exterior steel. It can only be concrete. Not one stick of structural steel is visible, there was none.

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

Here is an answer to a query of painters regarding the use of concrete cores in tall towers.

ABSTRACTTwin 451.9 m (1482 ft) tall towers just completed in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, presented a variety of design challenges related to tall buildings and slender members under wind load, and to construction methods in the Far East. Cast-in-place high-strength concrete for the core, perimeter columns and ring beams provides economical vertical load-carrying ability, stiff lateral load resistance, and inherent damping for occupant comfort. Steel beams on metal deck slabs provide efficient, economical and quickly-erected long-span floors which are easily adaptable to future changes in openings and loadings. The unusual tower plan has alternating cantilevered points and arcs, only 16 main tower columns, haunched wind frame ring beams ...
Reinforced concrete walls are commonly used as the primary lateral force-resisting system for tall buildings. As the tools for conducting nonlinear response history analysis have improved and with the advent of performance-based seismic design, reinforced concrete walls and core walls are often employed as the only lateral force-resisting system. Proper modelling of the load versus deformation behaviour of reinforced concrete walls and link beams is essential to accurately predict important response quantities. Given this critical need, an overview of modelling approaches appropriate to capture the lateral load responses of both slender and stout reinforced concrete walls, as well as link beams, is presented. Modelling of both flexural and shear responses is addressed, as well as the potential impact of coupled flexure-shear behaviour. Model results are compared with experimental results to assess the ability of common modelling approaches to accurately predict both global and local experimental responses. Based on the findings, specific recommendations are made for general modelling issues, limiting material strains for combined bending and axial load, and shear backbone relations. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This is a portion the east wall of WTC 1 concrete core toppling into the core area, note it is completely empty.

(IMG:http://i716.photobucket.com/albums/ww168/S_N_A_F_U/core_animation_75.gif)

Every single image you can find of the twers cores on 9-11 shows them empty. GZ images show the elevator guide rail support steel, what's left of it, standing int he core. Very few pieces. They had no foundation. No lateral strength to the base. They rested on grillage cribs.

[Christophera]

just something to muse upon. and i mentioned this some months ago. as a matter of skyscraper construction history, how long has this technique been used? prior to the construction of the towers?

anyone have some architectural/constructional history?

The Twins were the first very large steel reinforced cast concrete tubular cores for towers. WTC 1 was essentially a prototype for construction methods and engineering standards of concrete tubular cores.

[Christophera]

First off, I don't buy the concrete core theory. Have heard it several times over the years, with nothing truly compelling. And for what it is worth, the airplane that impacted WTC1 didn't have enough energy to do anything to core anyway.

I must agree w/ dMole, the burden of proof is on you Chris.

Here it is. Can you understand it? Examine it completely and return with specific issues.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

The lead engineer identified a concrete core 2 days after 9-11 for an interview with Newsweek magazine.


September 13, 2001
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.

This post has been edited by Christophera: Feb 17 2009, 05:44 AM

[amazed!]

Chris

I agree with Painter. It's nothing personal at all, but you present alot of material for a person to swallow at one sitting. Now I happen to believe your theory about the secret concrete tube, for the simple reason that in my mind it is the only thing that I know of that would even begin to explain the pulverized concrete throughout Manhattan.

That said, I'm finding that maybe the best approach in public fora to broach the subject is just to note that the official story is a goddamn lie. I challenge people, in a friendly fashion, to provide any sort of proof to back up the official story.

[Christophera]

Chris

I agree with Painter. It's nothing personal at all, but you present alot of material for a person to swallow at one sitting.

What I had originally posted was a rant about the last 12 years of my activism and much of the evidence as well as the reasoning has been posted here for over a year. The recent work on message boards was posted so a review of my oppositions failures to EVER produce anything that competently backed up the official description of the design of the tower core could be done as well as observance of those boards admin actions.

The oppositions efforts at fraudulent image production can be seen. The image below was presented as the lobby of WTC 1 with the intent of disproving the concrete core with the logic that the concrete walls prevented elevator access direct to the lobby. They put a poorly selected image of the pedestrian bridge out side of WTC 1 on a layer below the WTC 2 lobby image and tried to call it a photo looking west out of the WTC 1 lobby.
However, they were pretty incompetent with that because logically the acute angle of view foreshortens the horizontal width of the bridge windows. What we see is widened and it is also way too large.

(IMG:http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/NTlobbyfirecommand-full.jpg)
And, the background bleeds through when the image is zoomed. Below is an earlier image posted than the one above which was created after I pointed out the bleeding background. They used another image and repeated the background the same because they had to to remain consistent.
(IMG:http://algoxy.com/psych/images/photoshoppedwtc2lobby.jpg)

Below is a screen shot of the bridge as it actually appears from a video from the WYC 1 lobby. BTW, it appears all of the video have been re edited to make the WTC 2 lobby appear as WTC 1 in order to assert that WTC 1 had elevators opening on the lobby. In 4 years of asking w. Roderiguez to clarify any of this, no response.

(IMG:http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/8682/footbridgewtc1nwcorfs8.png)

WTC 2 had a completely re designed concrete core feom WTC 1 because renting WTC 1 proved to be a problem because people had to enter the core hallways to board elevators and there was only one hallway per floor crossing the core. This mid day silhoette. image shows WTC 2 on the left with 2 halls along the narrow axis and 1 hall penetrating the long access of WTC 1 on the right

I showed all this and the admin had no comment and they continued the agenda of support for the stalking disinfos. This happened in BOTH forums I liink to from the original post.

Also what can be seen is the illogical repetition of the inability to examine evidence for the concrete core and comment on it reasonably. What becomes an indictment for a very high level pysops is when massive insult is applied to me by internet stalkers with no evidence, and my complaints are ignored, then, their complaints are heeded. They erroneously complained that I was calling them mass murderers. I never do that and never have. I tell them they are supporting the secret methods of mass murder which is logically accurate. Their failure to present evidence or use reason to address evidence then try to dismiss the concrete core does exactly that.
Essentially what I created was a situation where NPT'ists were joining in with obvious disinfo agents to diminish my credibility and the admins supported the action. What this shows is that the NPT'ists are part of the same operation, but a different division and the concrete core is so important to discredit that they are willing to compromise their position.

That said, I'm finding that maybe the best approach in public fora to broach the subject is just to note that the official story is a goddamn lie. I challenge people, in a friendly fashion, to provide any sort of proof to back up the official story.

I've done that for 7 years and NEVER has anyone shown an image that showed a steel core column inthe core are on 9-11. That fact is convienently ignored and many calling them selves "truther" say, "more proof". Basically creating a situation where the lurking viewer is induced to reject the evidence and justify believing the official story because everyone else appears to. Social fears dominating behaviors instead of reason.

This post has been edited by Christophera: Feb 17 2009, 04:09 PM

[Sanders]

Maybe I haven't read enough of your posts, Christophera. Maybe I don't get what you are saying. Can you spell out in a sentence or two what you mean by concrete core? When I think of concrete buildings, I think of concrete poured into molds around rebar. The core of the WTC was obviously not poured just around rebar, there are photos of the columns, no?

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/8791/99794740eh0.jpg

[Christophera]

Maybe I haven't read enough of your posts, Christophera. Maybe I don't get what you are saying. Can you spell out in a sentence or two what you mean by concrete core? When I think of concrete buildings, I think of concrete poured into molds around rebar.

The issue is that steel flexes too much and the perimeter shear walls deform to a point where there are failures. The towers had the inner tube of the "tube in a tube" construction that was a steel reinforced cast concrete tube which provided major resistance against sway and lateral loads.
WTC 1 was strict shear wall construction. Basically a standard cast concrete set of 4 shear walls, but on steriods because of many layers of high tensile steel rebar. Hence the "window screen" anology by that port authority engineer that said the towers could sustain multiple plane impacts. I feel he was directed to find an anology to describe the structure rather than name the concrete core.
Als, as time passes I realize that Leslie Robertson was probably set up to think that steel core columns could somehow work although the world of engineering knew very well of the problems with towers over 800 foot because of lessons learned with the Tacoma narrows bridge.

The tower core was cast inside of "forms" (molds) but with a reverse procedure gained through the experience of construction sequence. WTC 1 was much slower than WTC 2 because traditional method of aligning perimeter walls off of elevator guide rail support steel, the most precisely plumbed and positioned vertical pieces of a tower, was usually in position before the perimeter. With WTC 1 the concrete core was cast with free standing forms, which were them removed and the steel exterior structure built up around it using the guide rail support steel that had been installed inside the core as an reference.

The core of the WTC was obviously not poured just around rebar, there are photos of the columns, no?

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/8791/99794740eh0.jpg

The vertical steel inside the core area was elevator guide rail support steel. It is seen in a much closer image with WTC 2 about 5 floors up. To the left and right of the central crane the guide rail support steel is seen with butt plates on their tops. Butt plates are not very strong at all. No real lateral strength, only good for compression loads.

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

The reason the towers elevator system was divided into thirds was to reduce the compression load on guide rail support steel so that the amount of bracing could be limited. Such structure is very expensive to build and since towers over 800 feet of steel flex too much, there was no way such bracing could serve any purpose except keeping the elevator guide rails straight and plumb for their entire height. It was calculated that they would stay straight with the very minimal horizontal bracing seen in construction photos taken inside the core because the outer guide rails supports were braced with heavy horizontal beams cast into and through the concrete core walls and fastened to the interior box columns which surrounded the outside of the core.

This image was annotated by opposition at BFN, note the bad spelling, it matches the bad photoshopping on the earlier posted WTC 2/WTC 1 exterior image frauds.

(IMG:http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/crossbracingannotation.jpg)

Note the concrete stains on the inside of the interior box column and first layer guide rail support steel.

Here is a shot from GZ of the WTC 1 north core wall at its base. The base wall was 12 foot thick inside the line of the interior box column inside face with 5 more feet encasing the very heavy box columns which were 100% fillet welded and had deep footings surrounding the core footing. The base wall was so massive it had a utility hallway running the length of it that was used to connect plumbing that ran up the inside of the cast concrete core wall.

This post has been edited by Christophera: Feb 18 2009, 03:23 AM

[Sanders]

Where's the rebar in the photo? I don't see any.