The 'WTC Had a Concrete Core' Hoax

Originally posted by TxSecret
Howard, you do understand the difference between vertical shafts surrounding stairs, mechanical shafts, elevator hoistways, utility shafts, yadda yadda blah blah blah and the actual "core" itself?

Please explicate on your understanding of this..

I understand it perfectly, Don’t you?

It's quite simple, really, the vertical shafts and their associated framing ARE the core. The elevator lobbies, toilets, and clossets within that area are also part of the core by virtue of being within the core framing.

Oh, and btw, you doon't normally surround a stair with a vertical shaft, as that makes it hard to use the stairs.

I'm pretty sure they didn't use the middle of a box collumn as an elevator shaft..

Where did I state that?

Reinforced steel core??? reinforced with what.. whaa.. huh??? wha wha wha?

[edit on 17-5-2006 by TxSecret]

More steel.

Howard Roark.

It's quite simple, really, the vertical shafts and their associated framing ARE the core.

Oh really Howard? In that context, yes.. but in the context of what part of the "core" was load bearing? NO. The vertical shafts that you mention and their associated framing are not all there is to the "core".

Elevator shafts are not part of the LOAD bearing structure in the core, these shafts had nothing to do with bearing the vertical load of WTC 1 and 2. Obviously you missed my prior point completely.

so come again?

AGAIN I ask, how was concrete used in relation to the LOAD BEARING part of the core? I know for sure that there was a "concrete curtain" around the box collumns at the base of WTC 1 and 2 but what about the upper floors??


More steel is what reinforced the steel that the masonry was attached to? I don't think thats what they meant Howard but the onus is on you since you started this thread.




[edit on 17-5-2006 by TxSecret]

It was over simplication to try to show how easy it is to accept how they fell if you researched the 'towers' themselves, and not the quotes from others stating how they were designed or should have performed. Sorry about that. This is a road I have travelled before, and I have really tried to inform myself on every aspect of the towers themselves.

Bottom line is they should have tried to evacuate everyone and should have never allowed anyone back into those buildings after the first impact. There was no way to fight what happened. Minutes before the first collapse, the NYPD helicopters reported the buckling of the floors. The towers were designed for maximum wind resistance(side to side) , not to suddenly lose the support of itself 3/4's of the way up and have to attempt to support it.

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
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

1) Wrong. The building exterior (perimeter) walls were not self supporting, they relied on the floors to provide stability and rigidity.

2) Also wrong. Glaringly, obviously wrong. The floor loads were evenly distributed between the building exterior (perimeter) columns and the interior core columns.



edited to correct confusion



[edit on 17-5-2006 by HowardRoark]

Howard, I notice you are differentiating between perimeter collumns and interior collumns. What is your criteria for this differentiation? The correct context is that ALL box collumns are part of the "core", No? Which "perimeter collumns" are you referring to?



[edit on 17-5-2006 by TxSecret]

Originally posted by TxSecret

Howard Roark.

It's quite simple, really, the vertical shafts and their associated framing ARE the core.

Oh really Howard? In that context, yes.. but in the context of what part of the "core" was load bearing? NO. The vertical shafts that you mention and their associated framing are not all there is to the "core".

Elevator shafts are not part of the LOAD bearing structure in the core, these shafts had nothing to do with bearing the vertical load of WTC 1 and 2. Obviously you missed my prior point completely.

I got your point, now that you actually made it. howevr, I must point out that all of the framing in the core was load bearing.



In that picture, you can see a box column in the corner of the elevator shaft. (missing the fireproofing)

AGAIN I ask, how was concrete used in relation to the LOAD BEARING part of the core? I know for sure that there was a "concrete curtain" around the box collumns at the base of WTC 1 and 2 but what about the upper floors??

Concrete was only used in the decking.



[edit on 17-5-2006 by HowardRoark]

Howard Roark

Concrete was only used in the decking.

Somehow I don't think everyone is going to agree with you on that and you have failed to disprove otherwise as far as I'm concerned.

I'm sorry, by perimeter, I meant exterior columns.

quote: Originally posted by denythestatusquo
The inner core supports all the floor weight and is a substantial rigid mass that should not easily collapse

Howard, I think he meant ALL of the box collumns when he said "inner core".

The exterior columns as well?

Let's wait for DTSQ to tell us what he meant.

This thread has shown me that my ignore list (Howard Roark, El Tiante) works great for posts, but if they author a thread I can still see their silly trash. Kind of funny that the first time I read through it all I could see were Howards quoted remarks since I refuse to listen to his babble.

One of my favorite parts of the fabled "hoax" that Howard is referring to is this:

concretecore.741.com...

The spire, a composite of an interior box column and a sliver of intact steel reinforced concrete shear wall of the core, fell all at once.

Would someone explain to me how to insert images here? There is the animated gif I believe showing the "spire" standing right before it collapses. My question is this:

What is all that debris/dust that comes off the spire as it collapses? Looks like concrete to me..


I mean the "spire" sways back and forth momentarily then collapses with a resultant dust cloud made out of something. It's not so rigid that it can sway yet produces a HUGE dust cloud because of something attached to it.


"A composite of an interior box collumn and a sliver of intact steel reinforced concrete shear wall of the "core". "


Hmm.. there is that pesky picture of the box collumn at the base of the tower which CLEARLY has a concrete curtain attached to it. Go figure.

So concrete was only used on floor slabs? Not buying it.

What caused that dust cloud that came off the "spire" as it collapsed? Anyone care to try and answer that? And Howard, before you do I'm sure you will say it was gypsum or some of that all purpose spray on fire protection stuff..





[edit on 17-5-2006 by TxSecret]

Originally posted by TxSecret
What caused that dust cloud that came off the "spire" as it collapsed? Anyone care to try and answer that? And Howard, before you do I'm sure you will say it was gypsum or some of that all purpose spray on fire protection stuff..

Do you have proof that it wasn't?

Originally posted by Violent
I refuse to listen to his babble.

Since you refuse to listen to what I post for people to read, then you won't know the hand gesture that I am making at your post right now.

One more time:

Does anyone think that the methods and sequencing of the construction of the core and the elevator shafts as presented here make sense?

Howard, I don't agree with Violent but you really shouldn't agg people on other. I've done it before and it doesn't make you look good.

Can I prove it was concrete? At the moment not scientifically but I think it's pretty obvious. You can't prove that it wasn't concrete so I guess it makes this debate even the more interesting.

I guess we could erect something similar to the spire and attach concrete to one, gypsum to the other (in like fashion), and spray on goodness on the other, collapse it and see what happens.



But honestly, concrete makes the most sense.

Howard, do you honestly think that gypsum or spray on would cause a dust cloud like that? Gypsum could come close but I would assume you would see bigger pieces because of how it is made. (Backing holding the innards in place) Concrete on the other hand would disintegrate just like that and create a voluminous dust cloud as seen on the video.

Howard Roark

Does anyone think that the methods and sequencing of the construction of the core and the elevator shafts as presented here make sense?

Why don't YOU explain why they wouldn't make sense?

Originally posted by TxSecret


Would someone explain to me how to insert images here? There is the animated gif I believe showing the "spire" standing right before it collapses. My question is this:

What is all that debris/dust that comes off the spire as it collapses? Looks like concrete to me..

You have to copy and paste the URL of the image into the image posting button (the one with the monitor and paint thingy) but this site won't let you hotlink so you have to upload the image to photobucket first.

Unfortunately that gif is too large for photobuket but here it is....





And here is a still from it.....

Thanks Jack.

Apparently I didn't know Jack until now..

What's so funny about this thread is the fact that the moment a source shows howard's belief to be incorrect he has to call it out as a "hoax"!

Although you'll never admit it howard you are not right about everything and to create a fake hoax to save face is quite lame.

Howard's defense is that the multitude of referrences to a steel reinforced concrete core including those from structural engineers are all wrong simply because he says so and doesn't want to believe it!

LeftBehind calling out the newsweek article as "fake" was the best!


The concrete core article is quite specific and NOT A SINGLE SENTENCE has been quoted by howard or refuted.

Very telling indeed.