• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Domel says WTC had a concrete core..

911kongen

Critical Thinker
911kongen
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
363
Hope to get some help on this one. Domel says WTC has a concrete core in his report on WTC November 2001.
"The load carrying system was designed so that the steel facade would resist lateral and gravity forces and the interior concrete core would carry only gravity loads."

http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf

I have heard about this one before, but whats is the reason for him to make this mistake? To early after 911? So he did not have the time he "needed" to make a good report? Thats not a explenation that will convince a truther. So is there something else I can use?
 
So, what sources proves the best that WTC did NOT have a concrete core?
 
911kongen said:
Hope to get some help on this one. Domel says WTC has a concrete core in his report on WTC November 2001.
"The load carrying system was designed so that the steel facade would resist lateral and gravity forces and the interior concrete core would carry only gravity loads."

http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf

I have heard about this one before, but whats is the reason for him to make this mistake? To early after 911? So he did not have the time he "needed" to make a good report? Thats not a explenation that will convince a truther. So is there something else I can use?
Click to expand...

It may have just been a typo, I don't know. I'm a member of SEA, I'll get his email on Monday and ask him about it.
 
After reading the whole paper (interesting BTW) I have to believe it was a typo or a simple "slip of the tongue". The comment is in the "general" section of the paper that was not addressing any specific item, just laying out a general description of the day and giving a brief background to base a paper that had nothing to do with the structure of the buildings. I can't see given the purpose of the paper he would have spent much time researching the construction details of the building considering the papers intent was to show how an engineering response should be done in the future.
 
911kongen said:
So, what sources proves the best that WTC did NOT have a concrete core?
Click to expand...

The book City In The Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center by James Glanz published in 2003 covers in exhaustive detail the design and construction of the twin towers.

For those that don't like to read, these videos have details of the tower's design:

http://911vids.blogspot.com/2008/02/pbs-nova-why-towers-fell.html

http://911vids.blogspot.com/2008/02/world-trade-center-anatomy-of-collapse.html

Edit:

The WCT 1 and 2 cores were traditional steel frame construction. The problem was that these steel core columns were encased in drywall not concrete. The video below is an excerpt from the PBS Nova program Why The Towers Fell. Beginning at about the 2:20 mark, Matthys Levy, author of Why Building Fall Down, essays the opinion that if concrete was used to fireproof the core not only would more people above the impact zones been able to escape but the buildings themselves might not have collapsed.

 
Last edited:
911kongen said:
Hope to get some help on this one. Domel says WTC has a concrete core in his report on WTC November 2001.
"The load carrying system was designed so that the steel facade would resist lateral and gravity forces and the interior concrete core would carry only gravity loads."

http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf

I have heard about this one before, but whats is the reason for him to make this mistake? To early after 911? So he did not have the time he "needed" to make a good report? Thats not a explenation that will convince a truther. So is there something else I can use?
Click to expand...

I ignored much of the whole 'Realistice' thread, but Christophera has joined a forum where I post, and he's rehashing the whole thing from what I can see.

He basically says he saw a PBS video from 1992 (?) which he says said the towers had a concrete core.

He also quotes this, found here:

1.Finniston, Monty; Williams, Trevor; Bissell, Christopher, eds (1992). "Skyscraper". Oxford Illustrated Encyclopedia of Invention and Technology. Oxford University Press. p. 322. ISBN 0-19-869138-6. "Modern skyscrapers such as the World Trade Center, New York, have steel and concrete hull-and-core structures. The central core-a reinforced concrete tower-contains lift shafts, staircases, and vertical ducts. From this core, the concrete and steel composite floors span on to a steel perimeter structure; a lightweight aluminium and glass curtain wall encloses the building. This type of construction is the most efficient so far designed against wind forces."
Click to expand...

The towers had concrete floors. Perhaps this is where such misunderstandings arose. Also what Walter says about the drywall.


Walter Ego said:
The book City In The Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center by James Glanz published in 2003 covers in exhaustive detail the design and construction of the twin towers.

For those that don't like to read, these videos have details of the tower's design:

http://911vids.blogspot.com/2008/02/pbs-nova-why-towers-fell.html

http://911vids.blogspot.com/2008/02/world-trade-center-anatomy-of-collapse.html

Edit:

The WCT 1 and 2 cores were traditional steel frame construction. The problem was that these steel core columns were encased in drywall not concrete. The video below is an excerpt from the PBS Nova program Why The Towers Fell. Beginning at about the 2:20 mark, Matthys Levy, author of Why Building Fall Down, essays the opinion that if concrete was used to fireproof the core not only would more people above the impact zones been able to escape but the buildings themselves might not have collapsed.

Click to expand...

Thanks for all that.
 
911kongen said:
Hope to get some help on this one. Domel says WTC has a concrete core in his report on WTC November 2001.
"The load carrying system was designed so that the steel facade would resist lateral and gravity forces and the interior concrete core would carry only gravity loads."

http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf

I have heard about this one before, but whats is the reason for him to make this mistake? To early after 911? So he did not have the time he "needed" to make a good report? Thats not a explenation that will convince a truther. So is there something else I can use?
Click to expand...

1.1 Purpose
This document was written as a resource for the preparation of an emergency response plan for mobilizing structural engineers for a search and rescue operation under extreme emergency conditions. More specifically, it was developed for preparing a response plan that uses structural engineers after a major collapse or failure.
This document alone is not an emergency response plan. Instead it should be used for the purpose of stimulating discussion and for presenting ideas as the first step in preparation of a comprehensive Structural Engineering Emergency Response Plan (SEERP). The SEERP would need to be prepared so that it can be implemented in conjunction with an overall state or federal government emergency response plan.
Click to expand...
The error of a concrete core does not impact the goal of the paper. The paper is not a source on how the WTC towers were built except for those who lack knowledge and believe in the delusions of 911 truth.
 
Remember the window washer guy who was able to escape from the stalled elevator by smashing through drywall with his squeegee?
 
Mangoose said:
Remember the window washer guy who was able to escape from the stalled elevator by smashing through drywall with his squeegee?
Click to expand...

I remember! Very good point! What video was that in and/or what was his name?

ETA: Found this:

http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=35

Window washer’s squeegee handle
Description: Jan Demczur, a window washer at the World Trade Center, used this brass Ettore Corp. squeegee handle (now missing its brass channel and rubber blade) to escape from an elevator on September 11.

Context: When a hijacked airplane struck the north tower of the World Trade Center, six men, including Polish immigrant window washer Jan Demczur, found themselves trapped in an express elevator at the 50th floor. Thinking quickly, Demczur and the others pried open the elevator doors and used this squeegee handle to cut their way through the drywall of the elevator shaft. They squeezed through the hole in the wall, fleeing from the building just minutes before the tower fell.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
orphia nay said:
I ignored much of the whole 'Realistice' thread, but Christophera has joined a forum where I post, and he's rehashing the whole thing from what I can see.
Click to expand...

Are you involved in a thread with Christophera, Orphia? I've always wanted to ask him something (I know, I know, he's deranged, I can't help it).
 
I don't remember much of the train wreck that was the 'Realistice' thread. Did Christophera ever present any evidence that his documentary ever existed?
 
Here is a good graphic of the drywall used to fireproof the core. It came from this flash site:

http://www.lohud.com/graphics/911/flash/Whythetowersfell.html

To view the flash animation, open the link and click on menu (lower right) and choose "fireproofing and drywall" then "visual details."

358s1zp.jpg
 
Last edited:
twinstead said:
I don't remember much of the train wreck that was the 'Realistice' thread. Did Christophera ever present any evidence that his documentary ever existed?
Click to expand...

No, he couldn't because the NWO erased all copies, public and private, and all evidence that it existed, remember? :D
 
But fortunately he, and he alone, remembered the documentary.

Wait, now, was there not some American Indian / Native American bloke too?
 
Architect said:
But fortunately he, and he alone, remembered the documentary.

Wait, now, was there not some American Indian / Native American bloke too?
Click to expand...

I think he was referring to a native American iron worker who claimed to have worked the site during construction. Describing a concrete core. if i recall he eventually drank himself to death.

Chris is paranoid delusional. He attempted to claim the core was pyramid like with walls tens of feet thick at the lobby level. When I countered that I had been in the towers and took those elevators that were only a few feet from the outer walls he claimed I was lying. When shown images with the sunrise showing through the core during construction he devised a crude floor plan of his own making aligning hallways with the sunlight. Chris is hopeless and the only reason to engage him would be for the study or curiosity of a debilitating mental illness.
 
sylvan8798 said:
Are you involved in a thread with Christophera, Orphia? I've always wanted to ask him something (I know, I know, he's deranged, I can't help it).
Click to expand...

Here's the first thread he started about the "FEMA Deception":

http://www.freedomcrowsnest.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=82947
(Ron Wieck has been posting to it to. :D)

Then Christophera started this thread to try and poison the well in his own favour:

http://www.freedomcrowsnest.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=82961

And seeing things weren't going his way, he started this one accusing everyone who's responded to him, even the truthers, of being "agents":

http://www.freedomcrowsnest.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=82986

He's been replying to all three of his threads like an Energiser Bunny.
 
I would suggest that as a response, you just link the REALSTICE thread here and advise anyone that wants to deal with Chris Brown, to read that thread instead. Beceause he is only rehashing the same crap he was peddling here, and being countered on over and over and over and over and over and over again.
 
Alareth said:
I fondly remember the day Chris nearly filled an entire page arguing with HIMSELF.

It was beautiful to watch
Click to expand...


yes i remember that. it was a time when just about every single member here (except myself) put him on ignore. His Realstice thread began dropping to the second and then the third page. When he alone kept bumping it by arguing with himself, and got suspended, he ignored mod warnings and continued to bump it (or start a new one when mods closed it?) which if i recall was what got him banned.
 
"That boy ain't right, I tell you whut"

I did about 5 pages of that thread orphia linked before I got sick of seeing the same photo montage every other post. CT-OCD, very rare, very annoying.
 
911kongen said:
Hope to get some help on this one. Domel says WTC has a concrete core in his report on WTC November 2001.
"The load carrying system was designed so that the steel facade would resist lateral and gravity forces and the interior concrete core would carry only gravity loads."

http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf

I have heard about this one before, but whats is the reason for him to make this mistake? To early after 911? So he did not have the time he "needed" to make a good report? Thats not a explenation that will convince a truther. So is there something else I can use?
Click to expand...


How about this from a most authoritative source, Leslie E. Robertson, February 2, 2010 (posted with permission):


My response to your query comes with the preamble I am the Engineer-of-Record for the structure of the two towers of the World Trade Center. That is, I was the Chief Engineer for the design of both of the towers, and all of the drawings carry my professional seal and signature. Further, I was in responsible charge of our quality assurance operations for the construction work and, subsequent to the construction, of our on-going designs for structural alterations.

From time to time persons have written to me stating that the two towers were constructed with reinforced concrete cores. Without reservation I am able to state that, for the both of the two towers:

- From the very earliest inception of structural design, concrete cores were not considered as a viable option.

- The architects (including Mr. Minoru Yamasaki) and our client, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, never asked that concrete cores be incorporated into the design or the construction of the toweres.

- From the lowest basement to the roof, concrete cores were never shown in the drawings for the design or for the construction of the two towers.

- Concrete cores were not constructed.

- Evidence of concrete cores cannot be found in construction photographs.

- Following the tragic events of September 11, debris from concrete cores was not found in the field.

Irresponsible persons have generated material, even a letter falsely purported to have been signed by me, indicating that concrete cores were a part of the World Trade Center. The motives for such assertions is beyond my ken.

Of course, responsible persons, perhaps without a proper choice of words, may state or may have stated that concrete cores were a part of the design and/or construction of the two towers. Such statements are not based on fact. Where by responsible persons, I can only believe that such statements were or are made incidental to the discussion and without the intention of certifying in any way that concrete cores were in any way a part of the design or the construction of either of the two towers.


Regards,

Leslie Earl Robertson, P.E., S.E., Chartered Engineer (U.K. and Ireland)

First Class Architect and Engineer (Japan)
Click to expand...
 
Thank you Lash.

I have the utmost respect for Leslie Robertson, and a great deal of sympathy for him. It is amazing how twoofs have gone out of their way to datamine his statements and the fact that nearly a decade after that horrible day he still has to provide direct refutations of the LIES out there.
 
People;

discussing anything with Christophera is like encouraging the village idiot to run for president...do you also enjoy beating dead puppies?

TAM
 
Hey, the structural engineer/architect we hired to make the blueprints of our last porch job thought a single-layer brick facade was actually load bearing and 3 layers thick, and showed an existing shingle pitched roof draining towards the back when it's actually a flat tar roof draining towards the center. Not to mention the parts of his drawing that resemble the neverending staircase illusion where it looks good on paper but can't actually be built in real life.

We won't be using that guy again.

Sometimes people half-ass it.
 
DGM said:
Total lack of research on his part. It's as simple as that.
Click to expand...



Research?
Do truthers even know the meaning of the word? They just see conspiracies on Youtube or an Truther sites, and accept them as gospel...
 
Titanic Explorer said:
Research?
Do truthers even know the meaning of the word? They just see conspiracies on Youtube or an Truther sites, and accept them as gospel...
Click to expand...
Actually in the case of Domel I believe it was more of a case of typo or misunderstanding by someone writing (transcribing) the article for him. I believe I stated it earlier (after reading his work) that this was clearly a misunderstanding that the "truthers" were trying to sway as evidence. He does not in anyway support their conclusions.

As far as "truthers" go. If it ain't on youtube it doesn't exist.
 
Wtc concrete core - domel

Newtons Bit said:
It may have just been a typo, I don't know. I'm a member of SEA, I'll get his email on Monday and ask him about it.
Click to expand...

Did Mr. Domel answer your email about his statement that the WTC towers contained concrete cores ?
If yes would you share his reply here ?
Thanks
 
Fonebone said:
Did Mr. Domel answer your email about his statement that the WTC towers contained concrete cores ?
If yes would you share his reply here ?
Thanks
Click to expand...

It's already known that WTC 1 & 2 had no concrete in their core. Why would anyone else need to answer that question? It's been demonstrated to be wrong in this very thread alone.
 
Ah yes

plague311 said:
It's already known that WTC 1 & 2 had no concrete in their core.
Why would anyone else need to answer that question?
It's been demonstrated to be wrong in this very thread alone.
Click to expand...


Ah Yes - this post ?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5475358#post5475358

as compared to this post-
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7569825#post7569825

Do you think the fact that the WTC towers cores were constructed with
"steel columns encased in dense concrete" would prompt some, if not all ,
of those structural engineers that don't question the the official narrative
into rethinking their opinions ?
 
Fonebone said:
Ah Yes - this post ?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5475358#post5475358

as compared to this post-
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7569825#post7569825

Do you think the fact that the WTC towers cores were constructed with
"steel columns encased in dense concrete" would prompt some, if not all ,
of those structural engineers that don't question the the official narrative
into rethinking their opinions ?
Click to expand...

No, I was referring to this one, actually. There was no concrete core.
 
plague311 said:
No, I was referring to this one, actually. There was no concrete core.
Click to expand...

You agree with Thunder and offer an unsigned statement featuring Leslie Robertson's
name as iron clad evidence of "no concrete core"

Strange !
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7568954#post7568954
Mr. Robertson is cited here in a Newsweek-MSNBC news article dated 09-13-2001
as follows:
"Still, Robertson, whose firm is responsible for three of the six tallest buildings in the world,
feels a sense of pride that the massive towers,
supported by a steel-tube exoskeleton and a reinforced concrete core,
held up as well as they did"

http://web.archive.org/web/20070306020115/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3069641/

OH YEAH You forgot to address the second link I posted mentioning the
WTC 1 & 2 concrete cores

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7569825#post7569825
 
Fonebone said:
You agree with Thunder and offer an unsigned statement featuring Leslie Robertson's
name as iron clad evidence of "no concrete core"

Strange !
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7568954#post7568954
Mr. Robertson is cited here in a Newsweek-MSNBC news article dated 09-13-2001
as follows:
"Still, Robertson, whose firm is responsible for three of the six tallest buildings in the world,
feels a sense of pride that the massive towers,
supported by a steel-tube exoskeleton and a reinforced concrete core,
held up as well as they did"

http://web.archive.org/web/20070306020115/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3069641/

OH YEAH You forgot to address the second link I posted mentioning the
WTC 1 & 2 concrete cores

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7569825#post7569825
Click to expand...

I'll disregard your posts and stick with the facts and evidence available. I didn't forget, I just had no intention. Good day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom