9/11 Audio: Twin Towers Built for Demo

[obeylittle]

Clarifications and Questions for Christopher --

As I understood from the audio presentation, the claim is made that the "tubular core", rectangular in overall shape, of both WTC1 and WTC2 were fashioned from high tensile steel rebar reinforced, high-strength (containing rock aggregate) concrete -- rather than a steel beam or column reinforced cast concrete design.

I understood that the claim is made that high tensile strength "3 inch diameter steel rebar" was used as the primary (and only) reinforcement material for the high-strength concrete tubular core. That the cores of each tower were surrounded by attached, thick steel box columns (or other hollow shape) of a tapered wall thickness, but these columns were not cast as integral to the concrete core.

The claim was made that the floors of each tower consisted of lightweight concrete reinforced by (extruded?) steel mesh of some thickness and shape. That the floors rest upon, or was cast onto, horizontal interconnecting support steel (I-Beam, Box, L, or other shape?) that held the lightweight concrete on corrugated sheetmetal. That the floors were attached and supported by the core at their central points through connection to the attached vertical core columns surrounding the core. And attached to and supported by perimeter box columns (also hollow in shape) making up the exterior wall supporting structure.

So we have a steel rebar reinforced concrete tube constructed at the central area of each building. A configuration of vertical hollow box columns attached to and directly touching or up against (not cast integral to) the central, reinforced concrete core -- with this tubular reinforced concrete core and surrounding attached vertical box columns being considered the "inner tube" of the "tube-within-a-tube" design. A perimeter configuration of vertical box columns making up the walls of the building with this being considered the "outer tube" of the tube-within-a-tube design.

This so far is a logical, sound, very stiff, engineering design for a tall building. Please review the above and make any corrections to my observations before we continue.

Now then, given that the concrete core was reinforced by high tensile strength rebar I have some observations and questions for you. As you know, high tensile strength steel rebar is formulated from a selection of steel alloys to provide optimum strength characteristics for its intended application. The rebar is also carefully heat treated to increase its tensile strength and directional (longitudinal and torsional) stiffness. This heat treating process optimizes the properties of the alloys selection by increasing its molecular density and optimizing its "grain" structure. I'm no engineer or metallurgist but I'm sure you understand my description of a basic design for a high tensile steel reinforcement device designed to be cast into high strength concrete.

For this engineered reinforcement device to function in its intended purpose; which is to provide great additional strength in every direction to cast concrete -- the device must be in direct contact with the concrete when it is cast and remain integral and adhesive contact throughout its design lifetime. If at any time during its intended application lifetime the reinforcement steel loses its adhesion contact with the concrete its embedded into, the structure becomes separate and distinct. The structure can no longer function as one very strong peice, but as two separate pieces acting separate to one another under inevitably varying stress and force loads. When this happens concrete becomes weak and can easily crack and break apart with very little (as compared to a functional reinforced structure) stress or force applied. Concrete is somewhat elastic, though very brittle without stiffening support structures cast in, no matter what grade or materials it is made of.

By coating a reinforcement structure such as high tensile strength rebar engineered for that specific purpose with a plastic-like, flexible, compressible, easily bendable and easily displaced material; C4 explosive! the reinforcing device is rendered worthless in its intended application and purpose. Can you explain to me how these reinforced structures can function while coated with a flexible putty like C4 explosive? Why in sam-hell engineer in steel reinforcement bar if you are going to coat it with a flexible material? Why the more expensive high tensile strength steel rebar if the reinforcing material will not make adhesive contact with the concrete? Are you claiming that the reinforcement structure (a putty coated skeleton of high strength, very stiff steel) was designed to act separately from the concrete it was cast into?

A minor point to add here is that carbide tipped drilling bits will cut through high tensile steel rebar. Carbide is very hard and durable, second only to Diamond in natural hardness. Other exotic materials have been developed to cut hard materials as well. This renders your argument that you can't drill through HT rebar encassed in concrete null. You can drill it, its very common to drill into it to attach anchor devices for attaching other things to concrete. I'm mentioning it because you made a point to minimize that possibility in the audio. And no, you don't have to drill 1/4 mile long holes from the top to accomplish drilling. Drill short holes only where needed and at the desired depth and angle.

You also made a point in the audio to minimize a fact about cutting steel while leaving clean, square, sharp edges using cutting torches. I mentioned this earlier... Plasma Cutting equipment does that job admirably. Plasma Cutters will cut very thick steel too, much better than the old Oxy/Acetylene outfits we are all familiar with. Plasma Cutters have been around for a long time and are mainstream technology and very affordable too. I own a pretty good one myself, its an awesome tool to have around for making precision cuts in nearly any shape you want. In the field, contractors use Plasma Cutting auto-feed machines that attach to the steel being cut and the clean, sharp cuts from them look eactly like those cuts in the box columns in your pictures. Im claiming your argument here about the clean appearrance of the cuts is weak.

Further, on the same subject of cutting the thick box columns, if you were to use shaped explosive charges to cut those hollow box columns, the "cut" made by the high temperature, high pressure gases would not leave a sharp, square, inner edge to the cuts. The "cut" wouldn't look at all like your picture. The pressure exerted on the hollow steel box would compress the side walls inward where there is only atmospheric pressure in the interior walls of the hollow container, as the cut approached the depths of the interior.

Cutting steel is a material removal process and when the remaining material is a decreasing thickness steel wall subjected to very high pressure and melting temperature, the last few millimeters of material to be cut are going to be pushed inward. This would leave a bent or arced, ragged interior (pushed inward under very high and expanding heat pressure) sidewall edge to the cut no matter how narrow the "beam" of flame front was used for cutting. A slag appearance, ragged and compressed. Not at all possible to cut cleanly using explosive temperature and pressure.

I think your picture of the cut box columns were of cuts performed by a contractor's Auto-feed Plasma Cutter Machine during the aftermath cleanup operations. Explosive shaped charges or human beings didn't make that "cut", it was done by an ordinary and very common, inexpensive piece of equipment.

I have more observations and questions but for later... it's time for a fresh pot of coffee. Lets have a drink and talk about this first.

I'm not intending to piss you off or marginalize you I assure you that Christopher. Just have a direct way about me when I question others and make statements. Bear with me please and Thanks for sharing!

[PatrickSMcNally]

[Fintan]

Make sure you get the right version of The Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers.

[obeylittle]

Yes, interesting coincidences Fintan. Even though the documentary in question is irrelevant to us, compared to actual construction blueprints or other documentation that IS available somewhere... The documentary in question can be a powerful visual tool of reference to coax the couch potatoes into looking more seriously and rationally at this.

So it must be very important to the perps to keep the documentary in question under wraps, else deal with an angry mob of a few hundred million enlightened, uncontrollable plebes.

Lets find both the blueprints AND the documentary. And why not purchase Malgoxy.com domain and forward it to Algoxy.com, just to rub a little salt into someones wounds, huh?

It is still available and NEVER been registered yet as of this posting. I'll reimburse your cost Christopher, if you decide to purchase and forward that domain for a year. Simply PM me and we'll get it done.

[jirons]

Craig W said

[obeylittle]

[jirons]

obeylittle

[urbanspaceman]

[DrewTerry]

[urbanspaceman]

Excellent questions, Obeylittle....well worth repeating for Christopher to answer:

1) Does putting plastic coating between the steel and concrete weaken the structure? Would it defeat the purpose of a steel reenforced concrete wall if the steel and concrete aren't touching?

2) Is drilling through the rebar impossible with carbide, or just very difficult? So difficult that placing conventional charges would have been impossible to go set up in an occupied building?

3) Could the clean edge of the cut steel be from a plasma torch, cut during clean up?

[jirons]

urbanspaceman

[Hugh Manatee]

The idea that anyone would associate themselves during construction with a prominent landmark filled with thousands of working people that is rigged to blow up is...nope.

This would've had to be totally covert in a very open and scrutinized work environment.

Controlled demolition, yes.
Built to explode, no.

[urbanspaceman]

[Christophera]

[Christophera]