The 'WTC Had a Concrete Core' Hoax

Nobody claimed it was a "solid" concrete core.

I am claiming it was a steel reinforced cast concrete tublar core as cited by the team of structural engineers above and compiled by this professor:

This document was prepared by Dr. August Domel, Jr. He is a Principal Engineer with the consulting firm of Engineering Systems Inc. headquartered in Aurora, Illinois and is also an Adjunct Associate Professor for the Civil Engineering Department at the Illinois Institute of Technology and the Architectural Department of Judson College. His seventeen years of experience includes over five years with the Bridge Division of the City of Chicago and over five years with the Buildings and Codes Department of the Portland Cement Association (PCA). He is the author of many books and articles on the design, analysis and construction of a variety of structures and construction related issues. 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.

Why HowardRoark thinks he is more qualified or knowledgable than Professor Domel I do not know.

Why he feels compelled to call out all of these structural engineers as being complicit in a "hoax" is beyond me.

It's actually slander and he owes them a public apology in this thread.

I will wager that he will either slither away quietly or continue to slander them with further obfuscation techniques instead.

Any takers on that bet?

How did people cut their way out of the core with a squegee if it was all concrete?

Howard makes a very convincing argument and provides nearly as much information as the pro-concrete core site.

Considering that this was a typical floor plan:

Floor Plan


I don't see how their is room for more than a foot or two of concrete anywhere in the core.

The construction methods talked about on the core site, make no sense as howard has pointed out. Neither is the sites talk of a conspiracy to hide the concrete core very convincing.

What sold you on this, the gallery of usenet comments?

Ted Bundy was a lawyer who raped women with tree trunks. Jsut because someone has experience or lots of "letters" behind there name does not make them god. Einsiten was a patent clerk. Your 'expert' states opinion, and that is all.

Fact is that The WTC was designed for maximum space, not safety. I feel the true reason that the truth has not come out is that the property owners needed to show no negligence as to how it was built for insurance purposes. It was a disaster waiting to happen, and it was exploited. We were attacked on 9/11. Why is this so hard to believe?

Originally posted by LeftBehind
How did people cut their way out of the core with a squegee if it was all concrete?

Nobody said the core was ALL concrete!! That was just Howard lying about what was claimed in the article. The core was steel reinforced concrete with elevators and stairwells. Did you even read the article?

Both the WTC 1 & WTC 2 towers had a rectangular cast concrete core structure formed into rectangular cells that had elevators and stairways in them.....

The design was a "tube in a tube" construction where the steel reinforced, cast concrete interior tube, was surrounded with a structural steel framework configured as another tube with the load bearing capacity bias towards the perimeter wall with the core acting to reduce deformation of the steel structure maximizing its load bearing capacity.

Howard makes a very convincing argument and provides nearly as much information as the pro-concrete core site.

Considering that this was a typical floor plan:
Floor Plan

I don't see how their is room for more than a foot or two of concrete anywhere in the core.

Convincing for you because apparently you didn't even read the article!

Your "typical floor plan" shows absolutely nothing whatsoever.

The construction methods talked about on the core site, make no sense as howard has pointed out. Neither is the sites talk of a conspiracy to hide the concrete core very convincing.

You have no idea what you are talking about because if you did you would state why it makes no sense instead of blindly agreeing with your god howard even though he has been shown to be incorrect.

Originally posted by esdad71
Ted Bundy was a lawyer who raped women with tree trunks. Jsut because someone has experience or lots of "letters" behind there name does not make them god. Einsiten was a patent clerk. Your 'expert' states opinion, and that is all.

Look how they come out of the woodworks to blindly defend their fallen master!

What kind of irrelevant nonsense are you babbling? The structure of the core is not an "opinion"! Either it was concrete reinforced or it wasn't! Dr. Domel is a professor and a STRUCTURAL ENGINEER yet for no reason you choose to believe howard even though the good doctor is clearly more researched and knowledgeable on the issue.

Why am I not surprised?

Fact is that The WTC was designed for maximum space, not safety. I feel the true reason that the truth has not come out is that the property owners needed to show no negligence as to how it was built for insurance purposes. It was a disaster waiting to happen, and it was exploited.

No that is not "fact" which is why you didn't source that absurd claim. The towers were incredible architectural marvels. It utterly cracks me up when official story swallowers try to insinuate they were built on the cheap or flimsy!

Larry Silverstein got the insurance payout and he had only leased the towers for a couple MONTHS! He didn't have a damn thing to do with the construction and that would have had nothing to do with his insurance payout.

Originally posted by Jack Tripper


Nobody said the core was ALL concrete!! That was just Howard lying about what was claimed in the article. The core was steel reinforced concrete with elevators and stairwells. Did you even read the article?

Actually that's exactly what you were trying to prove until that got shot down. That is also what that site is trying to prove. What else do MSpaint pics like this mean?



So let me guess, the part they cut with a squeegee was a covered up door?

None of that site makes any sense.

Why doesn't it make sense?

1. The quotes have been taken out of context, with the original authors sometimes even admitting they were wrong about the concrete.

2. Read the first couple of posts again. It is clearly shown how the towers were constucted with gypsum walls around the core. It's amazing how all those diagrams links can be wrong, but the one page that shows what you want to believe is somehow true.

3. The typical floor plan shows no evidence of the spacing required by the ludicrous drawing on the concrete site. Where is there room for offseting the hallways and doors. It is absurd on the face of it.

4. People cut through this supposed concrete core WITH A SQUEEGEE.

It's great that your backtracking and saying that not "all" of the core was concrete. Which parts were drywall and which parts are concrete buddy? Your site would have us believe that the whole thing was reinforced concrete, not some hybrid half drywall half concrete thing.

Since the rest of your post consisted of "nu-uh, your wrong" with no reasons to back it up like you expect from others, it doesn't bear response.

You know howard....

I'm actually glad you posted this thread because it really exposes the typical tactic you use in virtually every other thread.

It proves that you only care about winning the argument....truth be damned.

It's inexcusable and the fact that you would stoop so low as to pick and choose information to try and create a fake "hoax" is reprehenisble.

Why did you ignore all these other accounts he linked? Hmmmmmmmm?

In the case of the WTC, there are no interior columns. Only a
central concrete core roughly 60-80 feet square comprised of
several vertical voids that house exit stairs, hoistways for
the elevators, utility raceways and mechanical chases; and also,
significantly, the sprinkler system main lines.

"I worked in downtown NY in the late 1960's when the towers were
built! At lunch time we went to the construction site to watch the
progress. And we saw them first buildt an internal thick walled
rectangular concrete core inside which later the elevators ran. The
steel work was erected around this core several floors behind!"

"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. All the steel was covered in concrete to guarantee
firefighters a minimum period of one or two hours in which they
could operate - although aviation fuel would have driven the
fire to higher-than-normal temperatures."

"The steel reinforced concrete core was also becoming weaker and
weaker from the fire."

"The WTC towers weren't built of massive I-beams and other large
steel; they used a lot of smaller beams around the perimiter
and a reinforced concrete core. The floors were also reinforced
concrete, contributing to ridgidity."

"...the WTC towers WERE designed to handle a wayward 707 jet.
Much of the structural strength of the towers is in a central
concrete core, protected by a large mass of concrete flooring
and structural steel."

The building's design was standard in the 1960s, when construction
began on what was then the world's tallest building. At the heart
of the structure was a vertical steel and concrete core, housing
lift shafts and stairwells.

source


So are all of these people part of some big "hoax" to make the towers seem stronger than they really are howard?

I knew this forum had a lot of paranoid conspiracy theorists but you win the crown of tin foil hat extraordinair with this ridiculous claim!

It's funny that you mention the sources.

The first few seem to be comments from usenet forums. Not sure how those prove anything.


I clicked on one of them and found what appears to be a fake MSNBC article.

Here is the link given in the "source"

msnbc.msn.com...

Notice how at the end it says it was updated in 2006.

When you do a search on MSNBC for the first words in the article "leslie robertson" you recieve two returns and this article does not show up.

Leslie Robertson Search

Also notice that archived articles appear like this one:

www.msnbc.msn.com...

and aricles from the newsweek section look like this:

www.msnbc.msn.com...

not like this

msnbc.msn.com...

Notice the missing www? Notice the missing /newsweek?

I could be wrong, but even the layout of the pages do not match. There is a lame attempt on the hoax article to show the most recent articles on the bottom. This feature is missing from the real thing.

If this is the best that the site can provide than it most certainly a hoax. Even if the information provided was true, why would it rely on reprinted fake article and usenet discussions to provide evidence?

The sources provided are unreliable at best. And I've only looked at the top half.

Edit: to add newsweek link

[edit on 17-5-2006 by LeftBehind]

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Originally posted by Jack Tripper


Nobody said the core was ALL concrete!! That was just Howard lying about what was claimed in the article. The core was steel reinforced concrete with elevators and stairwells. Did you even read the article?

Actually that's exactly what you were trying to prove until that got shot down. That is also what that site is trying to prove. What else do MSpaint pics like this mean?

Wrong. I never claimed that and NEITHER DOES THE ARTICLE. Quote where either of us did you liar.

It can't be SOLID concrete if there are elevators, stariways, utility raceways and mechanical chases, and the sprinkler system main lines! So where all of that stuff is....there is no concrete. Does that mean the core isn't comprised of steel reinforced concrete in general? NOPE!

So let me guess, the part they cut with a squeegee was a covered up door?

None of that site makes any sense.

It doesn't make sense to you because you choose to obfuscate instead of see the truth. The existence of gypsuml does not prove the non-existance of concrete. You don't know how that elevator was fashioned in relation to the core and when those people got out.

1. The quotes have been taken out of context, with the original authors sometimes even admitting they were wrong about the concrete.

Nonsense. The quote "steel reinforced concrete core" speaks plenty! There are a lot of people that make that claim so you better start getting a lot more "admissions".

2. Read the first couple of posts again. It is clearly shown how the towers were constucted with gypsum walls around the core. It's amazing how all those diagrams links can be wrong, but the one page that shows what you want to believe is somehow true.

Nobody said any of them are wrong! Quit lying about what I claimed. I really hate that. The existence of gypsum does not prove that there wasn't a steel reinforced concrete core.

3. The typical floor plan shows no evidence of the spacing required by the ludicrous drawing on the concrete site. Where is there room for offseting the hallways and doors. It is absurd on the face of it.

You are making stuff up and contradicting structural engineers and many others more qualified to speak on this than yourself based on NOTHING.

4. People cut through this supposed concrete core WITH A SQUEEGEE.

Nope. They cut through the gypsum. That doesn't mean the core wasn't steel reinforced concrete as is factually known by so many others more qualified and researched on this topic than yourself. Where is your structural engineer/Professor refuting this? It's so funny that you think you can blow off all of these accounts of the structural nature of the core by researched individuals solely on this one squeegee story that proves NOTHING!

It's great that your backtracking and saying that not "all" of the core was concrete. Which parts were drywall and which parts are concrete buddy? Your site would have us believe that the whole thing was reinforced concrete, not some hybrid half drywall half concrete thing.

I did no such thing. Quit lying you liar. Neither the article nor myself ever made that claim. Either quote us or apologize for lying.

Originally posted by LeftBehind

The sources provided are unreliable at best. And I've only looked at the top half.

Once again you have shown NOTHING WHATSOEVER.

Either prove the sources incorrect or you LOSE.

The sources show multiple references to the claim and the fact that you have the tenacity to back howard up on this ridiculous "hoax" claim really shows what paranoid conspiracy nutters you guys really are!

Debunk this qualified structural engineer/professor or your master howard is shown to be an obfuscating liar and you merely his pathetic sidekick.

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.
www.ncsea.com...

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

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. 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.
www.ncsea.com...

What I had sourced before which tells the world two things and I'm repeating myself here:

1. The outer perimeter is self supporting and almost seperate from the inner areas of the building
2. The inner core supports all the floor weight and is a substantial rigid mass that should not easily collapse

so how do you collapse an outercore of high grade steel that would resist the falling floors and how do you collapse an internal core of steel and concrete where the same falling floors would shear away from...?

anyways we are on agreement that this can only happen with some help and some believe that there was about an hour of time to plant what was needed in both towers to assist this demo before the people were picked up off the roof.

Notice how Howard has enough time on his hands to create an opus to say very little...

By the way....

Look what happens when you add the www:

www.msnbc.msn.com...


Fake article!



You guys are reaching haaaaaard for this thread!

This might have to be one for the signature.

Like I said I might be wrong.

Show us how to get there from the actual MSNBC site to get bonus points.

However, you still have yet to explain how much of the core was concrete. So far you have said its not solid concrete, and it's not all concrete.

The site says that the whole core was reinforced concrete.

The pictures posted by howard and the story of people cutting through drywall from an elavator show that the core was not surrounded by reinforced concrete like the site would have us believe.

Usenet posts are about as reliable as ATS posts for sources. You might as well link to yourself saying something as proof.

News articles can be wrong about things. As in the samples provided by previous posts, the people writing the article talk about the concrete core, not the interviewee.

Edit: heres a source contradicting the concrete core claims.

www.greatbuildings.com...

Construction system: steel frame, glass, concrete slabs on steel truss joists

And another

vincentdunn.com...

The most noticeable change in the modern high-rise construction is a trend to using more steel and shaping lightweight steel into tubes, curves, and angles to increase its load bearing capability. The WTC has tubular steel bearing walls, fluted corrugated steel flooring and bent bar steel truss floor supports. To a modern high rise building designer steel framing is economical and concrete is a costly material. For a high-rise structural frame: columns, girders, floors and walls, steel provides greater strength per pound than concrete. Concrete is heavy. Concrete creates excessive weight in the structure of a building. Architects, designers , and builders all know if you remove concrete from a structure you have a building that weights less. So if you create a lighter building you can use columns, girders and beams of smaller dimensions, or better yet you can use the same size steel framing and build a taller structure. In News York City where space is limited you must build high. The trend over the past half-century is to create lightweight high buildings. To do this you use thin steel bent bar truss construction instead of solid steel beams. To do this you use hollow tube steel bearing walls, and curved sheet steel (corrugated) under floors. To do this you eliminate as much concrete from the structure as you can and replace it with steel. Lightweight construction means economy. It means building more with less. If you reduce the structure’s mass you can build cheaper and builder higher. Unfortunately unprotected steel warps, melts, sags and collapses when heated to normal fire temperatures about 1100 to 1200 degrees F.

BTW calling people liars and saying "nu-uh, your wrong" really, REALLY helps your argument.



[edit on 17-5-2006 by LeftBehind]

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Nobody claimed it was a "solid" concrete core.

I am claiming it was a steel reinforced cast concrete tublar core as cited by the team of structural engineers above and compiled by this professor:

This document was prepared by Dr. August Domel, Jr. He is a Principal Engineer with the consulting firm of Engineering Systems Inc. headquartered in Aurora, Illinois and is also an Adjunct Associate Professor for the Civil Engineering Department at the Illinois Institute of Technology and the Architectural Department of Judson College. His seventeen years of experience includes over five years with the Bridge Division of the City of Chicago and over five years with the Buildings and Codes Department of the Portland Cement Association (PCA). He is the author of many books and articles on the design, analysis and construction of a variety of structures and construction related issues. 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.

Why HowardRoark thinks he is more qualified or knowledgable than Professor Domel I do not know.

Why he feels compelled to call out all of these structural engineers as being complicit in a "hoax" is beyond me.

It's actually slander and he owes them a public apology in this thread.

I will wager that he will either slither away quietly or continue to slander them with further obfuscation techniques instead.

Any takers on that bet?

I just recieved this e-mail from the SEERP Commitee:

Following is the response I received to your question, from Ron Hamburger:

The core was not concrete. It was also structural steel. The SEERP report is in error, if it says “concrete”

The core was not concrete. It was also structural steel. The SEERP report is in error, if it says “concrete”

It's all in the wording. It's intentionally misleading IMO and does not go against what Jack Tripper has been saying.

More "obfuscation" as the man with the bad mustache likes to say. Keep up the good work Jack Tripper. I don't have the fight in me anymore.

Peace

Hahahaha!

Thanks Dr. Love!

Howard,

Thanks for proving me correct!

In fact please post the question you asked as I'm sure it was phrased to get the response you wanted.

Email him again and phrase the question properly:

"Would it be correct to call the core structure of the World Trade Center towers a steel reinforced, cast concrete, tubular core?"

Or why don't you link the website that sources their report and ask him if he would call it it an elaborate "hoax"!

Surely if it was he would know that.

Nice job Jack Tripper.

Howard, why don't you rehash a thread on building 7? I wish you would so we can all watch you get ripped there too. You have been shot down over this before yet you keep coming back on it.. Why?

Just like Jack, I'm more interested in the newly released Pentagon "footage". (Nothing more than a Psy-Op and a joke if you ask me.)

Building 7 is the foundation of my conviction of what 911 was all about and no one will be able to debunk that one for me.

If something was wrong with building 7 then there is something wrong with ALL of it.

Personally? I don't care if the core of WTC 1 and 2 were steel reinforced concrete or not, they simply would not have fallen the way they did without some assistance.

Don't forget the fire that occured at the WTC North Tower on Feb 13th, 1975.. It burned for more than 3 hours.. Glass busted out because of the heat, that didn't happen on 911 save what glass was broken by the actual impact of the aircraft. Amazing how all the "controlled demolition debunkers" don't like to talk about that one.

www.indybay.org...


Where will it all end?

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

Why HowardRoark thinks he is more qualified or knowledgable than Professor Domel I do not know.

Why he feels compelled to call out all of these structural engineers as being complicit in a "hoax" is beyond me.

It's actually slander and he owes them a public apology in this thread.


Any takers on that bet?

Where did I claim that the sources referenced by the concrete core page as being part of the hoax? I didn’t, as you well know. I think that the sources are wrong, but there is no slander in pointing out errors in technical documents.

Feel free to e-mail Dr. Domel regarding this so-called “slander” if you want.



I would also like to point out that I have not attacked any one in this thread, yet Jack feels compelled to imply that I did.

Nice ad hominem attack, Jack.









[edit on 17-5-2006 by HowardRoark]

Howard Roark

Where did I claim that the sources referenced by the concrete core page as being part of the hoax?

You titled this thread right? If I remember correctly it states:

"The 'WTC Had a Concrete Core' HOAX'"

(Emphasis added)

Take the time to research the construction of the building and the history. The 'core' as you state are the sairwells, and the elevators, that did not go from the ground to the top. The reason that they were able to build the WTC was the 'bathtub' that was constructed underneath. It was a giant erector set, that was cut in half, where multiple floors buckled under the heat and from the initial impact.

It is OK to deny ignorance, but it is another thing to deny truth.