Also Established! There Were No Mutliple Steel Core Columns per FEMA desc

[Christophera]

ription. The below, the official core diagram,



did not exist as the core of the twin towers. As can be seen from this thread,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=56852&mesg_id=56852

and the threads it is linked to, there is no tangible evidence to support the existence of steel core columns.

Perhaps it is time to talk about why people continue support the lie the secret government presents (sic) and work to prevent an environment where an understanding of facts surrounding the truth is possible.

[sabbat hunter]

1. that picture

does not show any concrete core. if anything it shows a steel core

[Christophera]

5. Yes, That Is Your Only Evidence. It Does Not Fit The Actual Structural

Elements seen standing as the towers come down.

[MercutioATC]

2. You're using that diagram as evidence, yet it doesn't show a concrete core

Well, which is it?

[Christophera]

4. Reading Comprehension Means A Great Deal = Diagram A Lie!

I can hardly believe I had to say that.

[MercutioATC]

9. O.K., it's a "lie"...but it sure doesn't show a concrete core.

If you believe the diagram, then yes...there is no central steel core as you seem to believe there should be.

That makes the official report in error (or, if you prefer, a "lie").



However, it ALSO does not show a concrete core.

That makes your concrete core contention in error (or, if you prefer, a "lie").


As I asked, which is it?

[LARED]

3. Good Lord

Not again. Its become pathological.

[LARED]

6. OK, I'm curious

In these pictures, what do you think are the steel columns sticking up in the same place all the NIST drawings indicate them to be?



and this orginal drawing?



If they are not steel core columns what are they?

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Informed Citizen]

11. I agree

Sheer idiocy. And did you catch the total flub at the bottom where he actually says the opposite of what he means. He may not be the leading purveyor of disinfo, but he's my favorite. Tragically, it may not be intentional.

- I.C.

[sgsmith]

8. Proof of no concrete core.

You know, I just noticed something about the above photograph of WTC 1 construction. And I think it seriously demolishes any possibility of a concrete core as postulated by others. (note - I accept the NIST description of the structural steel)

Shadows. That's right, shadows. If you look at the steel columns stretching between the upper left and lower right kangaroo derricks, you'll notice a strong shadow from the steel columns. That shadow stretches for a distance over the darker material of the floor deck within the boundary of the columns.

If there was a concrete core, the proposal is that it sits within the boundary of the columns. Obviously, this can no be true, because otherwise the shadows would be interrupted.

[Christophera]

10. Misinterpretation & Preliminary Plan, Not Used For Construction

Notice the small vertical steel inside the core. Those are elevator guide rails. Ringing the core are interior box columns,



Here is an interior box column. Identified by the stubs of floor beams protruding.



Your plan was never used to build the towers. If it was, the steel core columns would be seen in this, and the above photo.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LARED]

15. Can you explain the difference between

interior box columns and core columns?

[Informed Citizen]

13. No hope

Lared,

I'm still confused about why you do this, but at least I have come to assume that you aren't payed for it. You have actually been quite forthcoming about your views and employment. This guy on the other hand doesn't really ever respond to what people say. There is a disconnect in every response that demostrates that he is only operating to support his theory, and not to engage with others. His motives are unclear. I ignore no one in here, but I'm considering pushing the botton on this guy. He's like a fly buzzing in the room.

- I.C.

[Christophera]

16. Your Error: Concrete Core Is Not A Theory That Is Why I Don't Respond To

disitractive, confusing attempts to dissmiss my information on the concrete core.

Everything else would have to be a theory, but this thread is not about those other things. This thread is about how there is no solid support for a core comprised of multiple steel core columns.


My information is absolutely congruent with all the major events, photographed or otherwise, whether theory or certainty.

[sabbat hunter]

17. not proven

it is not proven that there was a concrete core. therefore it is a theory nothing more.


no matter what you might state it is not 'proven'


your 'proof' is the same photos over and over and over again. the one piece of evidence that might actually sway people, the legendary PBS video, you refuse to search for and produce. if it actually exists then find it and show it. do your homework and show your 'proof' show us this video.

[Christophera]

19. I Witnessed Construction Of Concrete Core In Documentary-Evidence Supports

The documentary was as close as one could get, inside the construction and it focused on the concrete core. wtf, you want me to give up what I know because you label it theory?

How about using tangible, first hand evidence from the scene to test what I know?

This photo supports a tubular cast concrete core and not multiple steel columns. No photo does.



Now, lets use tangibles to test what you think you know. Where are some 1,368 foot columns? Find some for us please. Use available information.

[sabbat hunter]

22. its simple

you cannot keep refering to a video without producing it. otherwise anyoen could say they saw a video or movie about something. you must present your video evidence for it to be relevant.

and why do you keep saying that the 47 columns must be visible in one of the photos? why should they be visible?

[Christophera]

23. If You Have To Ask That Question You Don't Know Enough To Discuss Issue

The video is my guide to understanding the demolition photos. The below photo reveals what can only be the concrete core of WTC 2.

[sabbat hunter]

35. i dont think

this mythical video ever existed. you refuse to attempt to show it to us. where is the video. i saw a PBS video and it showed exactly the opposite of what you claim to have seen. therefore it is now proven that there was a steel core. the video exists, it has been linked on other posts. so it seems you are the disinfo agent trying to get everyone off the search for the truth behind 9/11 with your continued assine concrete core assertions with no proof to back it up.

[sabbat hunter]

26. its not what you know

its what you think. until you produce the mythical video, anything you say about it is moot. anyone can say they saw a documentary about the building of the WTC, but until they show us the video, what ever is said about it is merely heresay and therefore cannot be admitted into evidence. it is garbage.


so do your homework, research and find the mythical video. i dont care if it takes you weeks. part of proving a theory, and that all your opinion is a theory, it to get facts to back it up.

instead you show the same picture over and over. insisting it is a concrete core. that is your opinion. not a fact.

and who says the steel core would have to be visible. stop trying to shift the responsibility to others. you started the thread. it is up to you to back up your theory.


david

[Christophera]

27. Events Need Explanation: Recall, 3,000 Dead. Steel Core Theory You Support

has no raw evidence whatsoever.


Realize, the photo I post is supported by the information of the concrete core.



You have no evidence so all you can do is claim mine is not good.

[MercutioATC]

18. How is it not a theory?

It's not a decided fact.


Obviously it either was or it wasn't and SOMEBODY knows which but for our purposes here it IS just a theory EITHER way.

[Christophera]

20. How Can You "Decide" WIthout Using Information?-Power Of Inference

We have raw evidence and quite a bit of common knowledge. Here are usenet comments regarding the concrete core.

http://cosmicpenguin.com/911/chrisbrown/corerefs/index.html

No, it's not all perfectly consistent. You have to think about what is consistent and therein you'll see that people are definitely identifying a concrete core.

These are just everyday people and are not "specialists" hired to give reports. They are jsut talking about what they know.

[MercutioATC]

21. It is either a theory or a fact. It's not a fact.

Therefore, it's a theory.

To be a fact, the evidence would have to be irrefutable. Yours isn't (obviously).

[Christophera]

24. Limited Cognitive Distortion. You Haven't Explained Photo. No One Has

Consider that it is also a POSSIBILITY. Given supporting evidence it becomes a fact. Particuarly if the core that was supposed to stand is never seen.

Meanwhile the photo remains unexplained as well as the absence of 1,300 foot steel columns.

[sabbat hunter]

25. why do you

why do you think there would HAVE to be steel columns visible?

[Christophera]

28. Steel Cores Would Stand 'Till The End, Or Be Seen Toppling, Buckling.

,that is, if they existed, and we do not see anything like that at all, Nowhere.

[sabbat hunter]

29. why would they

why would they stand until the end?

the roof came crashing down, thus taking the steel core with it. duh

[Kevin Fenton]

30. Roof

The roof did not come crashing down, taking the steel core with it. There's no evidence to suggest that one whole floor pancaked, then, when it had "finished pancaking", another floor starting pancaking. If there was progressive collapse (and I don't think there was), then it wasn't floor by floor - some parts of a floor went before others did. This is shown for the south tower by Christophera's "concrete core" photo and a FEMA analysis based on another photo which said the flooring fell before the core on the other side of the tower; it is shown for the North Tower by the mast starting to fall before the outer walls (i.e. the core must have gone first).

It is odd that the core section in the "Concrete Core" photo does not appear to be more damaged by the flooring falling away, however (1) it's not a great photo and it's hard to tell - we don't even know whether it is the bottom of the core, as Christophera claims, or the top part of the core, (2) even if it were possible to deduce that the core is concrete from the photo, there's no way to rule out concrete-encased steel columns and/or concrete infill panels, (3) I think I can see the box columns on the core section in the photo and I think they're spaced the way the official theory says.

[pox americana]

31. That "concrete core" is a well-known downtown office building

and it's clearly recognizable in the photo. Why on earth, and I'm serious, would you contribute to this nonsensical story?

I mean it, I'm perplexed. Why?

[Kevin Fenton]

32. I don't understand you

What do you think is clearly recognisable in the photo? I think it is the core, but that doesn't prove the core was cast concrete (or any type of concrete).

I post on the concrete core threads because I think it might lead somewhere (although probably not to a cast concrete core spanning the entire 117 floors of each building). I don't believe either the official conspiracy theory or the unofficial one, which leaves me casting about for a third option. Perhaps, if I follow the "oddities" in the WTC demolition it might lead me there. Perhaps I'll get bored and spend more time at www.cricinfo.com or even, God forbid, interacting with real people.

[pox americana]

33. Then visit Jersey City, stand behind the Colgate clock, and look east.

You'll understand.

[Christophera]

36. What Photo? Here are 2 That Show The Core At Different Levels Of DEMO

Here is the one I've been posting.



Here is one taken 1/2 second later or so.



How about designatiing which photo you refer to?

[Christophera]

34. Imagine The Center Falling First-Only Buckling Or Cutting Core Could Allow

the Roof to fall and photos do not show this. Photos show a concrete type explosion with light and dark particulate, masses of it blowing out ward from the core.



The roof is the lightest but strongest part. So, explain how "the roof came crashing down, thus taking the steel core with it. duh" when the cores are designed to support it and too few cores (sic) are severed to cause a structural failure.

The buiding was built to take 707 hit, and, ....... no steel building has collapsed from fire. If that doesn't make sense, consider 2 identical collapses (sic) from 2 very different plane collisions and fires .................. Now that really doesn't make sense.

[AZCat]

14. Perhaps it is time to talk about why...

you insist on beginning new threads to make the same tired points you have already.

We have seen your arguments. Clearly there is strong disagreement with your conclusions, so therefore they are NOT established (as you claim in the thread title) unless the only poster you consulted was yourself.

[pox americana]

37. Unfortunately

that's not a discussion that the forum rules permit. But I think the answer is pretty clear.

[philb]

38. I've seen no more evidence the cores were steel than concrete

Its strange that there isn't more definitive evidence to settle this issue.

I haven't seen a credible explanation of what could have happened to massive steel beams in a core structure to make them splinter or buckle, other than perhaps explosions.

What could cause such huge steel beams to buckle or be splintered into sections? Are you suggesting they were splintered, or buckled?
And why haven't we seen pictures of such?

Were these supposed to be huge long beams, or sectioned?
What was the beam section length? Are we talking about a series of beams of a certain number of stories high, and if so how many such?

If the beams were 10 stories high, pictures of construction would have shown them projecting high into the air when the first story was built around them. But how would such sections be braced to resist verticle and horizontal forces? How much space would that take. Is it suggested these were just like large steel studs?


Are you suggesting that connections to the beams were stronger than the beams, and somehow buckled the beams?
I can't imagion how they could be cut by anything other than explosives? Could you explain how?

[pox americana]

39. Then you haven't been looking.

Quite a few publicly available construction documents and photos have been posted here. They are as definitive as evidence gets. The issue is settled.

p.s. they're called columns, not beams, and the reason there aren't any photos of buckled columns is because they didn't buckle. They were blown apart.

:)

[Christophera]

40. IF You Know What High Explosives Looks Like When Cutting Steel, THEN

You will post your knowledge here,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=53209&mesg_id=53451

on a thread specific to that critical issue.

[pox americana]

41. Maybe you should have stuck with it :)

:)

[Christophera]

42. Does This Mean There Will Be No Accountability, No Reasonable Explanation?

You have said the steel core columns were blown up and that is why they are unseen in photos.

High explosives would be the way to do that and we have pictures of the event where they were supposedly exploded. If anyone knows what steel looks like when it is being severed with high explosives, we have what we need to know if the columns were severed with explosives.

[Christophera]

43. What About Accountability To Reason? Tell Us How Core Columns Were Blown

You assert the columns were blown apart. Do you know what kind of energy it takes to sever steel with high explosives?

We do not see the kind of explosions required to sever steel.



47 1,300 foot columns would have to be cut near 50 times to make small enough pieces to not show in photos.

[Christophera]

44. Good Qustions About the Supposed Steel Core Columns.

If they existed they would have to be 100% welded from short pieces in order to have enough strength. That weld would make them very much like solid pieces. Steel tends to bend before it breaks, so, in a collapse very long pieces would be draped all over the place from the buckling and toppling columns.

[MercutioATC]

45. Depends on the steel...

"Steel tends to bend before it breaks" is a GROSSLY general statement.

I'm no structural engineer, but I DO know that the malleability of steel ranges between taffy and glass (well, not quite, but you get my point).