More inconsistencies in your links.... From http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html#anchor1149808 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. All steel structures with the proportions of the WTC towers have inherent problems with flex and torsion. Distribution of gravity loads was; perimeter walls 50%, interior core columns 30% core 20%. Steel, no matter what temper, no matter what bracing is used, ends up with an overall flexation that exceeds design parameters for defining when deformations and failures occur. These were facts I learned from a documentary in 1990 about the construction of the north tower. Yamsaki's decision making process was outlined and rejected core designs identified. 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. And from http://www.ussartf.org/world_trade_center_disaster.htm The structural system,derived from the I.B.M.building in Seattle, is impressively simple.The 208 ft facade is, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice, with columns on 39 inch centers acting as wind braces to act on all overturning forces; the central core takes only gravity forces. A very light, economical structure results by keeping the wind bracing in the most efficient place, the outside of the building, thus not transferring the forces through the floor membrane to the core, as in most curtain-wall construction. Do you see the contradiction here? algoxy says that the core provides the resistance to flex and torsion - from wind load, and ussartf says the exterior walls give the resistance to wind load..... It can't be both...... To me it looks like algoxy is making shit up in order to advance the theory that the core was concrete. And then there are numerous references in numerous docs that mention how office space was extended into the core wherever the elevator shaft was shorter. Numerous counter evidence to your claim that the core was concrete.... Time to put that to rest unless you can come up with some building plans.....
see... they have to put this warning on every pack of cancer sticks... what u are peddling is more dangerous. it would be a lot easier if you would just embed this warning in your signature please. that would save me a lot of time and effort. thanks ... cheers!!!
funny that u talk about inconsistencies since there are so many in the nist/fema reports that all the fingers and toes from all the regular posters here are still not enough to count them. the inconsistency here is of mechanical nature and i cant see how that in itself can refute the existence of a concrete core. on the contrary. all the sources agree that the walls were there. MIT research: "the exterior walls [columns+outer skin] ensured load bearing capacity of the outer skin for gravity load, lateral load, and torsional effects. the core comprises of steel beams and columns with reinforced infill panels designed to share part of the gravity loads. the core was designed to to resist vertical loads and was not assumed to transfer any lateral loads. the perimeter columns were tied to the core inly by the truss-slab system and the horizontal forces were assumed to be resisted by the perimeter columns and their connecting spandrel beams". i think the massachusetts institute of technology is a very reliable source u can see it describes the presence of concrete walls. i never argued the design and its bearing capabilities, i just said that there was a concrete core, so, it was not a facade of my imagination and neither a lie; now u better think again before making wild accusations and trowing despicable insults without any provocation and for no reason other than to assassinate my character. http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cach...pdf+wtc+1/2+concrete+core&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=17 that's your opinion, people can make honest mistakes and since algoxy is not a conspiratorial website i don think u have the right to accuse the writers of lying, but i see that this is a pattern of behavior typical of u. what matters in the end is that we have good evidence from various sources for the presence of a concrete core. the mit has put that to rest. mind u also fema/nist describe the presence of panels surrounding the core. so the core was not naked for sure. if u can find a more credible source than MIT proving that the concrete core was not there, go ahead and post it. u can also see the concrete walls from a good photograph of one of the towers core still standing for some time after the collapse. there's a lot of smoke but u can make up the grey walls. and for what concerns the multiple jet impacts, the very same architect of the towers, mr yamasaki himself stated before he died that he designed the towers to withstand multiple jet impacts. when i said that myself i had in mind that i read his quote some time ago but i cannot find it anymore other than in a link. i looked inside the domain but i am not able to find it, maybe is there somewhere. so again, not my imagination and surely not a lie. it's here, 3rd from the top: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...+withstands+multiple+jets+crashes&btnG=Search
and to give u an idea of the strenght of the towers here's a statement from richard roth, from the 1965 richard roth telegram: "the structural analysis by the firm of worthington, skilling, helle and jackson is the most complete and detailed of any ever made for any building structure. the preliminary calculations alone cover 1200 pages and involve over 100 detailed drawings" "because of its configuration, which is essentialty that of a steel beam 209inch deep, the towers are actually far less daring structurally than a conventional building such as the empire state building where the spine or braced area of the building is far smaller in relation to its height". "the building as designed is SIXTEEN TIMES stiffer than a conventional structure. the design concept is SO SOUND that the structural engineer has been able to be ultra-conservative in his design wihout adversely affecting the economics of the structure.[...]"
________________________________________ And then there are numerous references in numerous docs that mention how office space was extended into the core wherever the elevator shaft was shorter. ________________________________________ the mit has put that to rest. mind u also fema/nist describe the presence of panels surrounding the core. so the core was not naked for sure. if u can find a more credible source than MIT proving that the concrete core was not there, go ahead and post it. u can also see the concrete walls from a good photograph of one of the towers core still standing for some time after the collapse. there's a lot of smoke but u can make up the grey walls. LOL, explain how one can prove that something DOESNâT exist. Thatâs a logical fallacy, I believeâ¦. Who said the core columns were naked? The columns were covered, sure, but by gypsum board. Drywall=wallboard=gypsum board. It does NOT equal concrete⦠http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallboard And hereâs a photo â from 9-11 research, of all places - that shows how the office floors were extended to cover the shorter elevator shafts, just like I said. No concrete CORE as described in algoxy. No way that the floors could be extended to cover the short elevator shafts and have the core as they described it. No freakinâ way. It is not possible to build a tube with that feature.. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/plan.html [And hereâs a description of the core, no mention at all of concrete core⦠http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html So they donât back your claims at all. Hmmmm Another of your links donât mention it.. Although the cores of the World Trade Center towers were built of closely spaced, massive steel columns and beams, the fire stairs themselves were encased only by gypsum wallboard attached to metal studs: two 5/8-inch-thick layers of wallboard on the exterior and one on the interior. http://www.discover.com/issues/oct-02/features/featbuildings/ Even your MIT link has inconsistencies. They mention reinforced concrete inlaid PANELS surrounding the core. Not âmassive and thickâ concrete But read on in the article â there is no mention of the drywall fire proofing. Do you think this means they have concrete panels and wallboard panels mixed up? Logic would say soâ¦. From algoxy home page: The United States Government has been infiltrated by secret factions that have conspired through a "Pearl Harbor" type event to further corporate goals globally with an immense ruse. So your previous claim that it isn't a conspiracy site is a lie...... As far as this: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...+withstands+multiple+jets+crashes&btnG=Search You're kidding, right? That page has like 500 posts on it. Find a date stamp and I'll look at it. Otherwise, from 9-11 Research....again !!!!http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." ---- no mention of multiple hits.... John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or McDonald Douglas DC-8. ----- no mention of multiple hits..... Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center......The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it .... no mention of multiple hits..... Really, I could go on if I wanted to and expose some of your hypocrisy and more lies, so don't accuse me of character assassaination, or I'll do it. believe it or not, I'd like to keep it civil.....
The MIT paper that's been cited doesn't give a specific reference to any source for the claim about inlaid reinforced concrete panels in the core, and the end of chapter bibliography lists references that could be, at best, secondary sources for such information. Primary sources would be original design and as constructed drawings, or photographic evidence. There's no real reason to think that the MIT professors are right in what they said. Design and construction drawings are spread all over the world, some having been kept with various ex-engineers, architects and architectural firms. Obvious places to try would be the NIST and the PANYNJ, followed possibly by requests to architectural and engineering firms. http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-1.pdf The NIST sub-report on the structural system - finding number 4 on p. 184/246 is illuminating: `State and local jurisdictions do not require retention of documents related to the design, construction, operation, maintenance and modifications of buildings, with few exceptions. These documents are in the possession of building owners, contractors, architects, engineers, and consultants. Such documents are not archived for more than about 6 to 7 years, and there are no requirements that they be kept in safe custody physically remote from the building throughout its service life. In the case of the WTC towers, the PANYNJ and its contractors and consultants maintained an unusually comprehensive set of documents, a significant portion of which had not been destroyed in the collapse of the buildings but could be assembled and provided to the investigation. In the case of WTC 7, several key documents could not be reviewed since they were lost in the collapse of the building.' So NIST seems to be the best source for now, since they had access to many original drawings. They clearly report that customized gypsum wall-boarding (sheetrock), 2-inch thick, was employed in the upper tower for protection of the core columns. http://obits.mlive.com/Sept11/Story.aspx?Page=Story&PersonID=103328 DeMartini was an architect. He died in the towers at the young age of 49 in 2001. That means that he was born in 1952, and would have been 16 years old in 1968 when the construction of the towers was getting under way. Design work began in about 1962, so it's clear that DeMartini had no direct knowledge of what the towers had been designed to survive. What is attributed to him certainly doesn't suggest any more than that he thought the perimeter wall could likely survive more than one aircraft impact without failing. That could well be true. But there is nothing in the quote about damage to the core and nothing about fire. Here's a quote from Leslie Robertson, assistant structural engineer on the WTC design team at Worthington-Skilling. Robertson was interviewed in the New Yorker, shortly after 9/11, Skilling died in 1998. So we can't know what he might have said. http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/011119fa_FACT "I'm sort of a methodical person, so I listed all the bad things that could happen to a building and tried to design for them. I thought of the B-25 bomber, lost in the fog, that hit the Empire State Building in 1945. The 707 was the state-of-the-art airplane then, and the Port Authority was quite amenable to considering the effect of an airplane as a design criterion. We studied it, and designed for the impact of such an aircraft. The next step would have been to think about the fuel load, and I've been searching my brain, but I don't know what happened there, whether in all our testing we thought about it. Now we know what happens -- it explodes. I don't know if we considered the fire damage that would cause. Anyway, the architect, not the engineer, is the one who specifies the fire system." It would have been pretty much impossible to simulate either building fires or realistic impact damage from an airplane in the early 60's. They would have been going on experience and guesswork at best.
lmao, give it more thought. u are in the same position i am, u can search for a photo of the interior spaces that shows the core columns, were surrounded by mere tiny walls. and the offices, as u say, are extended to the core. MIT i think is a more reliable source than wiki and mentions reinforced concrete walls. sure, engineer haroki has spoken and drawn conclusion from a map that may or may not be true representation, and i bet it is not. photo... lmao. see below. of course there are sites that don't mention the core; in the algoxy site there are countless links describing the core, some mention the concrete others not. those that don't are likely wrong since photographic evidence points at that. i said in my previous posts is that it was much stronger than nist made it to be, as mit and algoxy both concur. and i think i could trust the mit link that the core was there and was made of reinforced concrete. also many photos from 911 indicate its existence: in this photo u can clearly see the core standing after the collapse and even make up the grey color of the cement walls, dont u think that if it was plywood or even normal cement panels they would have completely disintegrated? and look at this: the pink arrow points at the core itself and the brown/grey walls the reinforced concrete walls. it's definetly the core since u can see the clear cubic shape and the perimeter walls descending on it. and by looking at the base and they definitely look extremely thick, not like mere panels. here u can see what remains of the concrete walls attached to the bottom left of the core. and article from oxford university published in 1992: and here's a link to claims from many people that studied and saw the concrete core: http://cosmicpenguin.com/911/chrisbrown/corerefs/index.html i backed my claim, there's evidence a core was there. that was a wrong link i gave u from the algoxy site. lol, no. only your twisted and biased logic says so. hey, no prob, even i admit i am biased. the page i posted makes no mention whatsoever to conspiracies and that's the case. i wasn't aware of any other links to algoxy. i might have been wrong but i wasn't lying. u better be careful before making wild assertion and accusations. that's a lie and told on purpose to hide the impact of his words: he mentions he believes the towers could withstand multiple jet crashes, infact he says that the planes impact would have done very little damage to the towers. really? and what about this: -"u are a disgusting piece of filth"- note that i never attacked u before u posted that. mit clearly refers to a reinforced concrete core, and u have multiple witnesses describing it. of course like the firemen testimonies about bombs and explosions, u can feel free to down play it. and i also gave u 2 reference that the towers could withstand multiple jet crashes. if that's not enough for u, well too bad. in the end any one here can make up his own mind about mine and yours credibility. u calling me a liar doesn't certainly make it so. what i said certainly doesn't qualifies as lying.. infact i can accuse u of the very same thing about the statement u just made about de martini not mentioning multiple jet crashes. one thing is for sure though, u are very nasty and intolerant as proven over and over by unprovoked attacked u launched against many skeptics posting here. -"u are a disgusting piece of filth"- -"wrong dipshit"- both were unprovoked attacks to two diff posters, and i am doing u a favor leaving ratty out the picture. i am done here with u, u can take the stand and talk to yourself as much as u want, but i certainly welcome u to continue to discuss old and new evidence in the future, if u are really committed to keep it civil. i bet u wont last more than a couple of posts, but let's see....i still want to try and believe the govt was not involved.
yamasaki associates is appareantly refusing to release the original designs. dunno what they got to hide. it seems such a straightforward matter that would settle the scores once and for all. that's your opinion mit professors were not telling as it is. and for what concern demartini since he was an architect he probably knew what he's talking about even if he worked there when 16.
Most skyscrapers will have the concrete core or shear walls. It actually gives the structure a stiffness to resist lateral loads, typically wind and/or earthquake. Concrete does have a good fire rating. A 14" square concrete column will typically have a fire rating of about 3 to 4 hours. However, fire will damage concrete and there are many studies on that. This will give you a starting point. http://www.civenv.unimelb.edu.au/aptes/publications/Fire-HSC_walls.pdf Going back to the subject of this discussion, I am not sure what to believe. I tend to support the govt's line, but have doubts creeping up in my mind when I read articles like this. http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html There is some information here that may or may not be tainted. http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/structure.php