Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers?

[Christophera]

They can wonder all they want.

So you do not believe they should have a realistic explanaton for rates of fall near free fall available without digging through hundreds of threads. Then they do this to find that the one explanation which exists has been purposefully hidden by colluding people who cannot logically, reasonably counter the realistic explanation and so work together to obscure what is logical?

You think this is okay?

 

[Andúril]

So far no explanation in existence explains free fall and total pulverization of the towers appears to exist. Has anyone seen one?

I didn't bother to read through all 260+ pages to see if this idea has already been seen here.

Just think where the collapse of the towers started. Did it start from the top of the WTC towers? No. It started from the areas that were damaged by the airplanes, reducing the distance to the ground from 417 meters to roughly 300 (WTC 2) and 350 (WTC 1) meters. During those 300+ meters of collapsing the upper floors of the towers were either crushed to smithereens, or they smashed to the ground, being crushed to smithereens by the impact.

BTW, a video of the collapse of WTC 1 quite clearly shows that, after 10 seconds from starting, the process has advanced roughly halfway down the building. So much for "free fall".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmBL2oYdXWQ

 

[Christophera]

BTW, a video of the collapse of WTC 1 quite clearly shows that, after 10 seconds from starting, the process has advanced roughly halfway down the building. So much for "free fall".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmBL2oYdXWQ

I'm satisfied with 16 seconds, near free fall. What is astounding is that it is clean to the ground.

I didn't bother to read through all 260+ pages to see if this idea has already been seen here.

Well, no wonder you're not happy, you missed a lot of cat pictures.

Just think where the collapse of the towers started. Did it start from the top of the WTC towers? No. It started from the areas that were damaged by the airplanes, reducing the distance to the ground from 417 meters to roughly 300 (WTC 2) and 350 (WTC 1) meters. During those 300+ meters of collapsing the upper floors of the towers were either crushed to smithereens, or they smashed to the ground, being crushed to smithereens by the impact.

Smithereens, ............. okay, whatever. Just seems like a label to me that accepts what is not explained.

There was a strcuture of a finite composition that came down. Its structural elements were critical to its ability to fall, what it looked like on the way down and what was left on the ground.

Way too many people (irrationally) believe there were 47, 1300 foot steel core columns in the core area. If what you say is true then many heavily bent, long core columns would be seen at ground zero. Or they would be seen bent and snapped.

Aerial photos show many straight steel column segments with square cut ends all the same length. That, ..................... will need an explanation.

Steel does not crush. Concrete does, but not easily, particulary steel reiforced, high strength concrete and the below imge shows the core of WTC 2 standing at 500 feet with NO heavy steel columns protruding.

Concrete Core Of WTC 2​

Which means, logically, that there were no steel core columns and the columns seen at ground zero were from the exterior framework.

But around here, ............... logic?????, this amounts to counting beer bottles on the wall downward. Maybe that is what you missed.

 

[firecoins]

The only inside job on 9/11 was the airline jets into WTC 1, 2, the Pentagon and a Penn. field. And WTC 1 & 2 into near by buildings.

 

[Gamolon]

Ok, I'm doing some math here, so follow along and see if there are mistakes and or variables I am missing.

One of the tower's estimated total weight was 500,000 tons. 200,000 tons of it was structural steel leaving 300,000 tons for other materials. I have some dimensions given to me from Christphera saying that the inner core's two smaller walls were 17ft thick at the base, 2ft thick at the top and about 87ft long

I calculated one of these walls (wedge shaped) to be 1,130,652 cubic ft in volume. I took out the space that the 3" diameter rebar from top to bottom would have taken up. I used his 4' on center measurements for the rebar. I used a rectangle of 17ft x 87ft x 1368 ft to calculate the area taken up by rebar instead of the proposed wedge shape of Christophera's wall just to make it easier on me. The volume of the wall is actually more than what I propose.

I then used 148lbs per cubic ft for concrete (limestone/Portland mix) and came up with 167,336,496 lbs. or 83,668 tons of concrete for one wall. For two walls I get 167,336 tons.

So, what we have so far is 500,000 tons total for one tower minus 200,000 tons of steel, leaving 300,000 to play with. Now, subtract 167,336 tons to get 132,664 tons left.

I then came up with about 740 tons per concrete floor. I used 208ft x 208ft x .333ft (4 "). I then subtracted out the center taken up by the core. I got 10,002.69 cubic ft. Multiply that by 148 lbs. per cubic ft and you get 1,480,438.08 lbs. or 740.21 tons. I'm not sure about rebar displacement so I will use 700 tons per floor. 700 tons x 110 floors equals 77,000 tons.

132,664 tons from above minus 77,000 tons for the floors and we get 55,664 tons left.

We haven't even calculated the the other two, longer walls he is proposing nor are we yet calculating the two interior walls of the core he shows on his website.

Am I calculating this right? I've also seen totals of concrete used ranging from 90,000 tons to 110,000 tons.

Also, why would architects use a continuous wall of concrete of that thickness when the building would sway 3 ft.? Wouldn't this subject the concrete core stress fractures? I have also read that the towers were built to be lightweight because of their height. Why would an architect use the concrete structure proposed by Chrisophera?

Thoughts?

 

[Darat]

I am surprised that I have had to again to intervene in this thread despite my numerous previous warnings.

Let me make it clear if I judge this thread has been bumped for entertainment by anyone then they will be at least suspended or even banned.

And also note discussions or comments about Forum Management issues should be in the appropriate section of the Forum.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[William Rea]

Also, why would architects use a continuous wall of concrete of that thickness when the building would sway 3 ft.? Wouldn't this subject the concrete core stress fractures? I have also read that the towers were built to be lightweight because of their height. Why would an architect use the concrete structure proposed by Chrisophera?

I think that the fatigue that the concrete would endure from constant cycling by the winds around New York would also have an effect.

The "top hat" structure is the key to this building.

 

[Big Al]

Why would an architect use the concrete structure proposed by Chrisophera?

In an attempt to synthesise what has been said over the last zillion posts, as far as I understand it, Christophera's theory runs as follows:

• The archtects and engineers soon realised that their proposed steel-cored buildings were physically impossible, and that only a concrete core would be strong enough.
• For obscure reasons as yet unrevealed, they then recognised that this was an ideal opportunity to cover the now-necessary concrete's reinforcing rebar with C-4 plastique, in case on some future occasion they wanted to blow it up.
• A documentary Chris saw in 1983 gave tantalising proof of this theory. However, immediately after 9/11, the authorities deleted every single record that the documentary ever existed.
• However, at the same time they recognised that the resultant explosion would pulverise all the concrete, and that people would then wonder where it had all gone. They therefore stuck with the story that the WTC towers were braced steel structures.
• When the airliners hit, the grey eminences on NYC clapped their hands and knew that, after a long wait of nearly forty years, at last they were free to blow up their pride and joy. They knew the airliner impacts were nowhere near bad enough to topple the WTC, so they detonated the C-4 via the phone network.
• The lack of concrete found in the ruins and the large clouds emitted from the buildings as they fell proves the concrete cores existed, as does the apparent lack of thousand-foot box section girders from the core. The C-4 vaporised every trace of concrete.
• It is now a matter of political urgency that the authorities deny the concrete core, as this will prove they blew up the WTC.

I don't believe this is an exaggeration or a misstatement, but Chris' actual belief.

 

[Christophera]

Ok, I'm doing some math here, so follow along and see if there are mistakes and or variables I am missing.

One of the tower's estimated total weight was 500,000 tons. 200,000 tons of it was structural steel leaving 300,000 tons for other materials. I have some dimensions given to me from Christphera saying that the inner core's two smaller walls were 17ft thick at the base, 2ft thick at the top and about 87ft long

I calculated one of these walls (wedge shaped) to be 1,130,652 cubic ft in volume. I took out the space that the 3" diameter rebar from top to bottom would have taken up. I used his 4' on center measurements for the rebar. I used a rectangle of 17ft x 87ft x 1368 ft to calculate the area taken up by rebar instead of the proposed wedge shape of Christophera's wall just to make it easier on me. The volume of the wall is actually more than what I propose.

I then used 148lbs per cubic ft for concrete (limestone/Portland mix) and came up with 167,336,496 lbs. or 83,668 tons of concrete for one wall. For two walls I get 167,336 tons.

So, what we have so far is 500,000 tons total for one tower minus 200,000 tons of steel, leaving 300,000 to play with. Now, subtract 167,336 tons to get 132,664 tons left.

I then came up with about 740 tons per concrete floor. I used 208ft x 208ft x .333ft (4 "). I then subtracted out the center taken up by the core. I got 10,002.69 cubic ft. Multiply that by 148 lbs. per cubic ft and you get 1,480,438.08 lbs. or 740.21 tons. I'm not sure about rebar displacement so I will use 700 tons per floor. 700 tons x 110 floors equals 77,000 tons.

132,664 tons from above minus 77,000 tons for the floors and we get 55,664 tons left.

We haven't even calculated the the other two, longer walls he is proposing nor are we yet calculating the two interior walls of the core he shows on his website.

Am I calculating this right? I've also seen totals of concrete used ranging from 90,000 tons to 110,000 tons.

Also, why would architects use a continuous wall of concrete of that thickness when the building would sway 3 ft.? Wouldn't this subject the concrete core stress fractures? I have also read that the towers were built to be lightweight because of their height. Why would an architect use the concrete structure proposed by Chrisophera?

Thoughts?

The high tensile steel rebar was there for that purpose. Also, the concreete was poured mounded up in opposing corners to make a sawtooth joint and reduce the chance of a fracture across the concrete tube.

I could post more but an entire page disappeared, page 268. A really good answer to Willeam Reas question was in there too.

 

[Christophera]

In an attempt to synthesise what has been said over the last zillion posts, as far as I understand it, Christophera's theory runs as follows:

The archtects and engineers soon realised that their proposed steel-cored buildings were physically impossible, and that only a concrete core would be strong enough.

Correct, steel in the proportions of the towers flexes too much.

For obscure reasons as yet unrevealed, they then recognised that this was an ideal opportunity to cover the now-necessary concrete's reinforcing rebar with C-4 plastique, in case on some future occasion they wanted to blow it up.

Error and mistatement:
They, the designers had nothing to do with the use of the towerrs for those purposes. The owners (infiltrators of the government), hired an outside engineering firm that specialized in self destruct missile silos and sub bases for the DOD and they redesigned the core with C4 coated rebar.

A documentary Chris saw in 1983 gave tantalising proof of this theory. However, immediately after 9/11, the authorities deleted every single record that the documentary ever existed.

Error and mistatement:
The documentary titled, "The Construction of the Twin Towers" was aired on PBS channel 28 in southern California. I speculate it was removed from the archives at least a year, probably more, of PS and all other records of it deleted.

However, at the same time they recognised that the resultant explosion would pulverise all the concrete, and that people would then wonder where it had all gone. They therefore stuck with the story that the WTC towers were braced steel structures.

Error and mistatement:
It was decided that the preliminary plans,

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/masterplan/index.html

Robertson gave to Yamasaki to analyze loads with was, by default (infiltrators of the truth movement) put in place of "plans not available to FEMA"

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html

When the airliners hit, the grey eminences on NYC clapped their hands and knew that, after a long wait of nearly forty years, at last they were free to blow up their pride and joy. They knew the airliner impacts were nowhere near bad enough to topple the WTC, so they detonated the C-4 via the phone network.

Simplistic distortions, generalizing not accounting for needed anonymity and planning. Attempts at propositional mental flitering.

The lack of concrete found in the ruins and the large clouds emitted from the buildings as they fell proves the concrete cores existed, as does the apparent lack of thousand-foot box section girders from the core. The C-4 vaporised every trace of concrete.

Here we see mostly sand and gravel.

http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg

And her we see no structural steel core, steel core columns.

http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG

It is now a matter of political urgency that the authorities deny the concrete core, as this will prove they blew up the WTC.[/LIST]I don't believe this is an exaggeration or a misstatement, but Chris' actual belief.

You at least got that part right.

but, ........

GOT EVIDENCE for the first distorted, erroneous mistatements?

 

[Big Al]

Correct, steel in the proportions of the towers flexes too much.

And concrete weighs too much.

Error and mistatement:
They, the designers had nothing to do with the use of the towerrs for those purposes. The owners (infiltrators of the government), hired an outside engineering firm that specialized in self destruct missile silos and sub bases for the DOD and they redesigned the core with C4 coated rebar.

This was mentioned in the documentary, was it? Or are you just saying this for the sake of sounding likeonly you are on the inside track? Why on earth have a self-destruct missile silo? If you want to wreck it, you just detonate the missile inside the silo. Where are these mythical James Bond self-destruct bases?

Error and mistatement:
The documentary titled, "The Construction of the Twin Towers" was aired on PBS channel 28 in southern California. I speculate it was removed from the archives at least a year, probably more, of PS and all other records of it deleted.

So you're speculating now, but all the rest about specialist build-for-demolition construction companies was absolute undeniable truth? Source?

Error and mistatement:
It was decided that the preliminary plans,

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/masterplan/index.html

Robertson gave to Yamasaki to analyze loads with was, by default (infiltrators of the truth movement) put in place of "plans not available to FEMA"

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html



Simplistic distortions, generalizing not accounting for needed anonymity and planning. Attempts at propositional mental flitering.

Is this also speculation?

Here we see mostly sand and gravel.

http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg

And her we see no structural steel core, steel core columns.

http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG

Or mighty 3" rebar. What with all this structural concrete, filled with enough explosive to utterly,totally pulverise it into dust, it's a wonder the Towers didn't just sink into the ground years before.

You at least got that part right.

but, ........

GOT EVIDENCE for the first distorted, erroneous mistatements?

Christophera, I just posted the gist of what you've said, although I admit to some speculation, since you never answered simple questions like "WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU SPEND BILLIONS ON A MIGHTY PUBLIC STRUCTURE, BUT WIRE IT UP WITH EXPLOSIVES? WHY, IN THE 1960S, WOULD YOU THINK THAT WAS A DESIRABLE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE? WHY DID THEY NOT SAY THEY WERE BUILDING THE TWIN TOWERS WITH CONCRETE CORES?"

Still, you'll just ignore that, won't you? So I'll have to contimue to speculate on your behalf.

 

[Christophera]

Correct, steel in the proportions of the towers flexes too much.

And concrete weighs too much.

It weighs more than invisisteel. And concrete shows up in photos. The supposed steel core columns never do and I've been asking for an image of them from 9-11 in the core area above ground since the beginning of this thread.

He is what can only be concrete.

http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif

Error and mistatement:
They, the designers had nothing to do with the use of the towers for those purposes. The owners (infiltrators of the government), hired an outside engineering firm that specialized in self destruct missile silos and sub bases for the DOD and they redesigned the core with C4 coated rebar.

This was mentioned in the documentary, was it?

No. You've just made another error and mistatement. It was mentioned in the documentary that the plans for the core were not available from the Port Authority until 2 days before the construction on the core was to start.

And, while making errors and mistatemnts, you've presented no evidence for the core, FEMA and you say existed.

Or are you just saying this for the sake of sounding like only you are on the inside track?

Inside track?? The documentary explained about the PA taking over the final core designs after Yamasaki created the initial concrete, shear wall, steel reinforced core. I have a web site which explains what is very nearly free fall and the total pulverization of the towers. Logical conclusions are a part of expected analysis. What do you expect, some half a$$ed speculation? No way .... I go the distance to a full conclusion that fits the event using what I know.

Why on earth have a self-destruct missile silo? If you want to wreck it, you just detonate the missile inside the silo. Where are these mythical James Bond self-destruct bases?

Wow, .......... good thing you've not in a position of power in the DOD, you would irradiate a large piece of the United States. Conventional explosives are used because then the only radiation is the core of the nuke which just might survive meaning no radiation escapes. The trigger, external to the bomb core, the sensitive technology, is the technology which is to be protected by self destruction.

Error and mistatement:
The documentary titled, "The Construction of the Twin Towers" was aired on PBS channel 28 in southern California. I speculate it was removed from the archives at least a year, probably more, of PBS and all other records of it deleted.

So you're speculating now, but all the rest about specialist build-for-demolition construction companies was absolute undeniable truth? Source?

Just try and get a building to do what the towers did without building it to do that.

See this,

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg

That is high explosives at work. You do not have the experience to know that but I do. I also know that only high explosives which are optimally contained and distributed will do that to concrete. Since the documentary told me there was a "special plastic coating" on the rebar, and also that the coating was flammable, it is a reasonable conclusion because of the image above, that the towers were built to demolish. You are the one using the words "build-for-demolition construction companies", I am saying there were welders with a security clearance working directly under the government agency that built the towers.

Error and mistatement:
It was decided that the preliminary plans,

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/masterplan/index.html

Robertson gave those to Yamasaki to analyze loads with. By default (infiltrators of the truth movement) put them in place of "plans not available to FEMA"

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html

Not speculation Al. The documentary had that information about Robertsons preliminary plans as a part of the introduction to it.

When the airliners hit, the grey eminences on NYC clapped their hands and knew that, after a long wait of nearly forty years, at last they were free to blow up their pride and joy. They knew the airliner impacts were nowhere near bad enough to topple the WTC, so they detonated the C-4 via the phone network.

Simplistic distortions, generalizing not accounting for needed anonymity and planning. Attempts at propositional mental flitering.

Is this also speculation?

No Al, your "Simplistic distortions and generalizing" is absolutely for sure. And, you are intentionally trying to misapply my comments to your reply.

Or mighty 3" rebar. What with all this structural concrete, filled with enough explosive to utterly, totally pulverise it into dust, it's a wonder the Towers didn't just sink into the ground years before.

Your capacity for cognitive distortions is robust.

2. Over generalization: Single event is viewed as continuous.

4. Minimizing: Perceiving one or opposite experiences (positive or negative) as absolute and maintaining singularity of belief to one or the other.

[/QUOTE]Christophera, I just posted the gist of what you've said,[/QUOTE]

No, you have intentionally misstated, misapplied, rearranged and distorted what I said, and I've proven it.

although I admit to some speculation, since you never answered simple questions like "WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU SPEND BILLIONS ON A MIGHTY PUBLIC STRUCTURE, BUT WIRE IT UP WITH EXPLOSIVES? WHY, IN THE 1960S, WOULD YOU THINK THAT WAS A DESIRABLE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE? WHY DID THEY NOT SAY THEY WERE BUILDING THE TWIN TOWERS WITH CONCRETE CORES?"

Still, you'll just ignore that, won't you? So I'll have to contimue to speculate on your behalf.

Duh, the documentary was about the twin towers being built with concrete cores. It was stated everywhere that had that type of information on the core composition.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/oxfordarchcore.jpg

No, I don't ignore that. I use what you've posted to expose you.

I insist that you show you can work with facts and be intellectually honest before I address "WHY". You cannot, so you will remain in the dark about "WHY", because you are not showing you have the integrity to deal with facts showing "HOW".

 

[chippy]

Christophera, judging from the fact that you have now taken more than 10,000 posts to make your point, I can say with a great degree of confidence that you really suck at making a point.

Sorry if that offends you, but it's true.

 

[Christophera]

The Irony Of Chippy's Error

Christophera, judging from the fact that you have now taken more than 10,000 posts to make your point, I can say with a great degree of confidence that you really suck at making a point.

Sorry if that offends you, but it's true.

Dear chippy,

The irony of your post is astounding.

The fact is that there are 10,000 plus posts in this thread is not because of my lack of ability to make a point, it is because of the other posters ability to observe, utilize, respect or appreciate facts.

Your post proves my point. Thank you for making it so clear. I have made perhaps only 2570 posts in this thread.

If the other posters would observe, utilize, respect or appreciate facts, this thread would only be 500 posts.

Perhaps you should go back and observe the fact os the abusive posts in the thread. Count some beer bottles. Try some recipes, or enjoy the many kitty pictures as they post to obscure the valid evidence I provide.

The Twin Towers had a steel reinforced cast concrete core.

Concrete Core Of WTC 2​

and, it was built to demolish.

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

 

[hcmom]

The fact is that there are 10,000 plus posts in this thread is not because of my lack of ability to make a point, it is because of the other posters ability to observe, utilize, respect or appreciate facts.

I've tried really hard to not make any more posts to this thread, but I just can't resist.

I know what Chris thinks he said, but what he actually wrote is amazingly factual...

 

[A W Smith]

Dear chippy,

The irony of your post is astounding.

The fact is that there are 10,000 plus posts in this thread is not because of my lack of ability to make a point, it is because of the other posters ability to observe, utilize, respect or appreciate facts.

Your post proves my point. Thank you for making it so clear. I have made perhaps only 2570 posts in this thread.

This means you have only 22 posts total in all other threads combined? Do you see any problem with that? Chris can you even name one other person that now believes that there were concrete cores in the towers? in a thread containing over 10655 posts what have you accomplished?​

 

[Gamolon]

Dear chippy,

The irony of your post is astounding.

The fact is that there are 10,000 plus posts in this thread is not because of my lack of ability to make a point, it is because of the other posters ability to observe, utilize, respect or appreciate facts.

Your post proves my point. Thank you for making it so clear. I have made perhaps only 2570 posts in this thread.

If the other posters would observe, utilize, respect or appreciate facts, this thread would only be 500 posts.

Perhaps you should go back and observe the fact os the abusive posts in the thread. Count some beer bottles. Try some recipes, or enjoy the many kitty pictures as they post to obscure the valid evidence I provide.

The Twin Towers had a steel reinforced cast concrete core.

Concrete Core Of WTC 2​

and, it was built to demolish.

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

Christophera,

I could easily post that same picture and claim it was a steel core covered in paper mache. That picture alone proves nothing. You need corresponding evidence to back up what you claim is in that picture.

How come there are no pictures, movies, drawings, or eyewitness testimony from the folks on the site to corroborate what you are claiming?

1. I have yet to see pictures of a wooden frame for the concrete core anywhere?
2. I have yet to see the availability or existence of 3" diameter rebar.
3. I have yet to see a clear picture of the core you claim existed.
4. Nowhere, in any footage taken of the construction of the towers, do I see or hear mention of a concrete core.
5. Your picture of the two towers showing the sun shining through from a distance shows no solid core. THE SUN SHINES THROUGH the building. You can see separations between what could be the elevator shafts.
6. You claim to see 3" diameter rebar from a picture taken from 7500' away. Impossible! There is no way that a human being can identify an object 3" in diameter from 7500'. What your telling me is that I could take that picture of the "spire", walk up to any structural field engineer, ask him what he sees, and he would definitely say "3" diameter rebar"? No way. As a matter of fact, I'm going to do just that. I'll see what answers I get. You must be GI Joe with the Eagle Eye.
7. I have not seen any drawings showing concrete core.

Am I correct in saying that the only evidence you have to back up your pictures is the supposed PBS documentary you claim you saw? Is that how you supposedly know that they used 3" diameter rebar and constructed a concrete core? Or do you have other proof that backs up what your saying? I looked all over the web for some hint of that documentary. You know what I found? Posts from you asking if anyone had also seen it. That's it. Are you telling me that the government wiped any mention of this documentary from the entire internet?

In summation, the only proof you have are a few distant, blurry pictures and a ghostumentary you claim you saw? Are you asking us to take your word that this PBS show actually aired/existed? Wow. That's pretty ballsy of you.

BTW, I saw a documentary on the twin towers also. They used balsa wood and staples. Funny though. The government must have gotten rid of it.

Stupid NWO.

 

[Gamolon]

Tell you what Christophera.

Here's a link to blueprint of the towers showing the lobbies and the elevators. Please show me or explain where your supposed 17' thick concrete core walls would fit?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/masterplan/docs/page07.jpg

 

[firecoins]

Here is a picutr of the lobby.
http://www.dwestudios.com/fwis_store/11x17print/lobby1.JPG

I am now totally convinced there was a concrete core. Chris was right the whole time. I don't know why I didn't see it. I guess because all the pictures showed a steel core but other than that... Chris is right. The only expainationwas C-4 was planted in the building during construction.

 

[Christophera]

Here is a picutr of the lobby.
http://www.dwestudios.com/fwis_store/11x17print/lobby1.JPG

I am now totally convinced there was a concrete core. Chris was right the whole time. I don't know why I didn't see it. I guess because all the pictures showed a steel core but other than that... Chris is right. The only expainationwas C-4 was planted in the building during construction.

Yes, it is clear to see how little space there was between the thick core walls and the perimeter columns.

http://misheli.image.pbase.com/o2/78/583378/1/52419073.wtclobby.jpg
http://www.newyork-net.de/images/WorldTradeCenter_Lobby.jpg

I've seen no images of steel core columns, so I'm unsure of what you are talking about there unless it is the constrcution images which are misrepresented. They show elevator guide rail supports protruding from the core area. If that guide rail was actually core column it would still be standing here.

Concrete Core Of WTC 2​

and here

http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg

Post number 67 has a good explanation of the guide rail supports here,

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72941&page=2