The Big FEMA Lie, The Towers Had A Concrete Core: PROOF

Look at the adjacent WTC 1. Can you make out the individual columns?

Given the dust and smoke obscuring the image, I can't say one way oth the other that there are columns present or not.

Why should there be columns visible anyway?

There is no way to predict how a column will buckle or snap during a collapse. To state that, based on that picture, because you can't see them, that they must not be there is just plain stupid.

Why are we looking at a big gray block Howard?

It's completely solid. You can't see through it. And it's gray, and you can see no box columns protruding from it as you can with WTC1's core (even though you can also see gray material clinging to the columns seen in WTC1's spire).

What color is concrete, Howard?

Just a quick question; this 'thing' we see sticking up here in the image below, how long did that remain standing for after the picture was taken? Did it fall down straight away, or stay up for some period of time?

Originally posted by Christophera

Originally posted by Communication_Monster
Just a quick question; this 'thing' we see sticking up here in the image below, how long did that remain standing for after the picture was taken? Did it fall down straight away, or stay up for some period of time?

It stood for no longer than 2 seconds, less perhaps. The next image in the series.



[edit on 24-5-2006 by Christophera]

Thanks, Christophera. I can't see what else that could be if it's not concrete. I saw some pictures and read an analysis by bsbray11 on some previous pages a minute ago, whilst looking back through the thread. I think he has clearly shown what he is claiming is accurate, and certainly not unfounded as some seem to be saying. You too, Christophera. Nice work, Guys.

Originally posted by Communication_Monster
Thanks, Christophera. I can't see what else that could be if it's not concrete. I saw some pictures and read an analysis by bsbray11 on some previous pages a minute ago, whilst looking back through the thread. I think he has clearly shown what he is claiming is accurate, and certainly not unfounded as some seem to be saying. You too, Christophera. Nice work, Guys.

The spire, an interior box column. One of 47 ringing the core.



A second later from the same camera, the 3 inch rebar of the core. The above interior box column is 14 inches thick.



Notice howie hasn't provided a reasonable answer.

Originally posted by Christophera
A second later from the same camera, the 3 inch rebar of the core. The above interior box column is 14 inches thick.

You can see a 3 inch rebar in that shot?


Try these two:

www.amanzafar.com...


www.amanzafar.com...

Correct me If I am wrong Howard but that picture you are showing is from the North Tower?

Which doesn't really prove anything...although yes with the North Tower I can't seem to see any concrete.

This may be a really stupid question, but what is the major issue,What arguments is this core issue trying to solve? There was obviously an outer metal steel lattice, and an internal steel frame, why is it such a big issue whether there was a solid concrete core or not?

Surely someone can just ask one of the construction crew what the core is made of?

What are the architects saying about the centre core?

And with over 100 floors each having 4" of concrete that is 34 feet of concrete when piled staight up, that is alot of concrete to create a lot of dust and debris.

Surely no building is not going to have reinforced concrete foundations, even a building built totally of steel is most likely to be sitting on a very large reinforced concrete base.

This would surely explain all the rebar in the pics?

Has anyone got an answers as to what all the flashes are as the building colapses?

Originally posted by ringyramjet
This may be a really stupid question, but what is the major issue, what argument is this core issue trying to solve? Why is it such a big issue whether there was a solid concrete core or not?

Notice that non of the 9-11 sites even try to present a solid explanation for free fall. Check this one




Free fall is the BIG issue. There is only one feasible, realistic explanation and comes with a concrete core. Concrete can be fractured to fall instantly with a small amount of explosive placed in the center.

There was obviously an outer metal steel lattice, and an internal steel frame,

Here we see no internal steel frame. I've asked howie a number of times now WHY the internal steel frame is not visible and he has not answered. He should be banned for evading reason.



Now he claims he cannot percieve the proportionate differences in size between the spire,



and the image showing the rebar of the concrete shear wall of WTC 1



He should be banned for evading reason, twice.

Everything we know, have, including reason has ONE purpose, protecting life. howies only motive for doing what he is doing, if howie is sincere, is to protect his nation, constitution, rights and freedoms somehow. But, .. he doesn't talk about those things and, how can this be done by protecting the deceptions used to obscure the guilty in the murders of 3000 Americans? How can this be done without reasonable evidence to support a position that is presented as if it is espoused that all Americans should hold it? how ie is supporting death and destruction via the interests of the guilty. He is here for other purposes and is empowered by those wanting a nice happy place for people to discuss what they feel is important.

They cannot quite believe that this discussion is targeted for mass disinformation and they certainly do not know what to do about it IF they could detect it. That is what I'm trying to help with, to show them who the disinfos are by getting them to work together to dismiss the critical information they are targeting because it IS the explanation for what happened, and only because it is. Not because its basis is weak, questionable or blurry. Those are distortions used in the act of disinformation.

Surely someone can just ask one of the construction crew what the core is made of?

What are the architects saying about the centre core?

I've met a steelworker, a Mohawk who was 67 when I met him. He worked on 1 and 2. he couldn't remember the core, only walking up stairs as far as 7 floors from the top of the elevators completed in the core.

Those 2 links how ie has posted only show what were called "interior box columns". In this image they are notated as "massive box columns. Note also the proportions of the rectangle formed by floor beams with the box columns. That is what is shown in one of how ies 2 links.



They were the inner wall of the outer tube of the "tube ina tube" construction. The concrete core was the inner tube and is being formed and cast below.

This page near the bottom has a number of quotes and link data from architects and engineers that know the true design.

concretecore.741.com...

[edit on 25-5-2006 by Christophera]

Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae
Which doesn't really prove anything...although yes with the North Tower I can't seem to see any concrete.

Look closely at the box columns:



Follow them downward. See all that gray stuff? Notice how, lower down, you can't see through the box columns like you can higher up?

It's because there isn't just steel there, no matter how you look at it.

Originally posted by ringyramjet
why is it such a big issue whether there was a solid concrete core or not?

A few reasons.

For one, it means FEMA and NIST lied about the construction of the towers, and analyzed straw-man buildings. They refuse to release the construction plans, so we have no way of knowing whether or not they make anything up anyway.

For another, the fires would've had even less of an impact on the WTC Towers that they would have if the buildings were all steel-supported. The Windsor Tower had a concrete core, and it's the building that burned absolutely ferociously for so much longer than the WTC without falling down.

And a third reason, the pancake collapse theory would be even more of an obvious failure. In fact, the very fact that you can see the cores of the towers still standing at all after the rest of the collapses disproves pancake collapse theory. The cores just didn't pancake. End of story. They fell by another means.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by ringyramjet
why is it such a big issue whether there was a solid concrete core or not?

A few reasons.

For one, it means FEMA and NIST lied about the construction of the towers, and analyzed straw-man buildings. They refuse to release the construction plans, so we have no way of knowing whether or not they make anything up anyway.

For another, the fires would've had even less of an impact on the WTC Towers that they would have if the buildings were all steel-supported. The Windsor Tower had a concrete core, and it's the building that burned absolutely ferociously for so much longer than the WTC without falling down.

And a third reason, the pancake collapse theory would be even more of an obvious failure. In fact, the very fact that you can see the cores of the towers still standing at all after the rest of the collapses disproves pancake collapse theory. The cores just didn't pancake. End of story. They fell by another means.

Quality summary based on raw evidence. Cannot be denied. All valid.

Oh, it can and will be denied. It doesn't matter what you post here.

But pancake theory should be considered dead by the fact that those cores continued standing. The theory just doesn't explain the collapses. NIST didn't even look at the core collapses. Didn't even acknowledge they existed. Neither did FEMA or the commission (which didn't even mention WTC7).

Time for yet another revision to official theory, I guess. I just wonder how many revisions it'll take before engineers start thinking and questioning the basic assumptions of NIST theory.

Originally posted by bsbray11
They refuse to release the construction plans, so we have no way of knowing whether or not they make anything up anyway.

I find it amazing that people ( I am on of them) here on ATS are unable to obtain the information as to whether the core was only steel or if it had concrete also. I have never seen a stairway shaft that was not made of concrete, the way Ive heard Howard describe it if some schmow trip over his feet and tumble dwn a flight of steps he could hit the gypsum/drywall and bust down 109 floors of nothingness.

I dont think any contractors have ever built a high-rise and not have the elevator shafts and stairwells made of concrete and rebar. I dont remember but I am pretty sure it has to be that way by fire-code. I would ask the fire marshall but I'm affraid he will think I am an idiot.

Why in the world would they need to keep that informtion from the public after all this time?

Originally posted by bsbray11
Oh, it can and will be denied. It doesn't matter what you post here.

But pancake theory should be considered dead by the fact that those cores continued standing. The theory just doesn't explain the collapses. NIST didn't even look at the core collapses. Didn't even acknowledge they existed. Neither did FEMA or the commission (which didn't even mention WTC7).

Time for yet another revision to official theory, I guess. I just wonder how many revisions it'll take before engineers start thinking and questioning the basic assumptions of NIST theory.

Okay,

That sounds realistic. And your point about the pancake theory is an absolute. NIST has xero credibility on that alone.

As for the engineers, fear is the problem. When about 100 million people start screaming on the phone to their representatives, the engineers will come forward en masse. The core lie is a good place to start because it doesn't have any CT aspects. Just a lie, at first, then.

LoneGunMan
I have never seen a stairway shaft that was not made of concrete, the way Ive heard Howard describe it if some schmow trip over his feet and tumble dwn a flight of steps he could hit the gypsum/drywall and bust down 109 floors of nothingness.

Awesome point man (emphasis mine). I never considered that, but it makes total sense. There is no way that those buildings would have been built where anything remotely like that could happen. There would have to be something in those cores besides steel box columns spaced so widely apart.



So if there was no concrete in cores, what would keep someone from bursting through the stairwell wall and falling onto the floor below, or into a long, thin shaft?

Originally posted by Christophera
As for the engineers, fear is the problem.

I'd say fear is the problem for the small number of them that actually read the NIST Report and then also think critically. And even then, we hear from unique individuals like Mr. Roark that only structural engineers matter. Ignore the fact that SE's don't specialize in building collapses, by any means. Yet they still somehow take precedence over physicists when it comes to physical oddities with falling buildings.

Honestly, I wouldn't have much faith in the scientific community anyway. Only when one can demonstrate one's results consistently and in a manner that can be easily observed and verified is one conducting science. How often does this happen today?

Instead, you have NIST publishing information that it tried to support with tests but could not, and then this same publication is nonetheless taken as holy scripture not to be questioned. The scientific community is just as off-track and dominated by interest groups as every other major institution today.

The core lie is a good place to start because it doesn't have any CT aspects. Just a lie, at first, then.

Yeah, it is a good introduction. I'm beginning to use it whenever I happen to bring up 9/11 and want to get people thinking. No serious investigation would just leave major stuff like that out, and yet it's painfully obvious that the cores were not subject to the government's collapse theory, and that the theory is therefore incomplete.

I think most people would be baffled enough just to realize that the cores didn't immediately collapse with the rest of the buildings. I even thought the images were photoshopped until I saw multiple angles of them both and WTC1's spire on video. Seeing the cores is just so surreal, let alone seeing solid gray matter all over the box columns, or watching them sink straight down upon themselves and blatantly in the face of everything the government has said thus far.

Originally posted by bsbray11

The core lie is a good place to start because it doesn't have any CT aspects. Just a lie, at first, then.

Yeah, it is a good introduction. I'm beginning to use it whenever I happen to bring up 9/11 and want to get people thinking. No serious investigation would just leave major stuff like that out, and yet it's painfully obvious that the cores were not subject to the government's collapse theory, and that the theory is therefore incomplete.

I think most people would be baffled enough just to realize that the cores didn't immediately collapse with the rest of the buildings. I even thought the images were photoshopped until I saw multiple angles of them both and WTC1's spire on video. Seeing the cores is just so surreal, let alone seeing solid gray matter all over the box columns, or watching them sink straight down upon themselves and blatantly in the face of everything the government has said thus far.

For years now the first thing I bring up is the core. Even people who have looked into it do not about the core. A few times I've had people look at me like they didn't hear me right when I said FEMA shows multiple steel core columns, then they looked afraid. After F 9-11 came out Move-on had a national meeting on the web with a simualtaneous phone interview. While the group was waiting I asked if any one there had seen the 1990 PBS documentary I had seen. One fellow had.
He said, "Yes I saw it."
I asked, "Do you remember the concrete core?"
He answered,"Yes."
We talked about the core and how it presented such a slowdown in the construction that the documentary was more about the core than anything else. Then I told him about the FEMA core and he didn't want to talk about it anymore. He did give me a declaration about the documentary but wouldn't include the concrete core.

I feel lots of people in constrcution know but they are not into 9-11 research so they don't know what FEMA presents.

I've tried to get every major 9-11 web site to acknowledge the discrepencies and they won't even mention it. Except one, john Kaminski.

We should wonder about the leadership in this movement.

This is my first post to the group, so please be gentle.

Originally posted by eagle eye
What i like about the photo in the sunset is how the pancake thoery doesnt stand up from the 9/11 (ommision. If in theory the floor above cause the collapsing of the floor below when going down the core will still stand up as we clearly see in the photo, the skelet of the building will remain tall in the air way above what we see when all the dust is down on the last photo (about 40/50 floor).

This is one of the reasons which prevents me from accepting the official explanation for the towers' sudden collapse. They claim that the top floors broke away from the outer support columns, falling on the floors below in avalanche fashion.

Much of the video evidence suggests otherwise. Prior to the floors above the impact point of wtc 1 falling, the antenna mast is seen falling several feet into the center of the roof. This could only happen if the center column gave way first, so we have a chicken/egg issue here. If the upper floors fell due to their support columns failing, then the mast should have remained at roof level. The mast falling first indicates that the center column (which the 9/11 Commission claims did not exist) began falling first. This is coincidentally how a building demolition begins.

Another weakness in the official explanation has to do with the amount of time it took for the towers to fall. If the fall was due to the "pancake effect", then the time for the total building failure could be calculated, based on gravity and the time required to sheer all the floor supports from the vertical supports. This does not take place quickly, or evenly; but ignoring that, if it only took 1/8 second for a floor to give way, and you ignored the upper burning 20 floors, then you have a fall time in the area of 90 seconds (time = sqrrt(2 * distance * acceleration of gravity) + .125 seconds to sheer the floor free: approximately 1 second per floor). Additionally, it would be a very jerky fall, as each accumulation of floors pounded the next. The fall time for each floor should be the same. Mass does not influence velocity.

In other words, the collapse of the building would be the total of several smaller falls. Each floor temporarily stopping the descent until it broke from its supports.
Watching the video shows no resistance whatsoever from the time the mast drops into the tower. The physics of free fall has the complete building falling in about 8.3 seconds, from the 90th floor it's somewhere around 7.5 seconds. This is about how much time it took for wtc 1 to fall.

So to bust the pancake theory (or myth), you need only apply the physics of the pancake theory to the video evidence. It does not hold up.

I won't even go into the other physical evidence found in the rubble which contradicts the official position.


L8r

Eugene

Cheer Christophera & Bsbray,

That makes things a lot clearer. It is very strange that none of the plans have been seen. Is the official report online anywhere?

Also just one more question, anyone notice all the flashes as the building was falling? Saw it on a video the other day.