As a person having what is perhaps better in some ways than first hand experience relating to the construction of the Towers, via my viewing and remembering the 1990 documentary titled, "The Construction Of The Twin Towers", I can say that the issue of the concrete core of the towers remains the most contentious and puzzling issue I've ever seen.

I'm to the point where I view acceptance or rejection of the concrete core upon presentation, as a type of litmus test of every 9-11 activists true position on the actual demolition of the towers whether they say they believe in demolition or not.

Let me state that this site about the demolition of the Twin Towers is essentially the only web site that actually has a comprehensive explanation for near free fall and total pulverization which is feasible and realistic. There are many sites that decry the inadequacy of the official story and suggest explosives were used but none actually has an explanation of how the explosives were set. The fact is that they could not have been set within the situation that existed to give the appearance that was seen. With steel core columns, never. Steel looks completely different when it is cut with explosives and 47 steel columns would have to be cut 1300 + times to disappear completely from the images which do not show steel columns in the demolition ever, anywhere

Considering the uniformity of the near free fall descent to the ground, with both towers, has never been seen before, even in controlled demolition with no large pieces lying around, this is something that is very unusual. Something unique beyond our experience

Allow me to explain the meaning of this position:

If a person says they believe in demolition they are also saying they do not believe the official story/explanation for what happened on that Tuesday morning? If they say they do not believe the official story they don't trust the government, right? Meaning any and all parts of the official lie are suspect. Why then is the core description of FEMA believable? Recall, FEMA was within a mile or so, in force, a couple of days BEFORE 9-11!

Basically the official core cannot have existed because steel flexes too much when in the proportions of the towers as they did. And if they existed that way they couldn't have been removed as it was and if it was, we would see at least some of the 47, 1,300 foot steel columns. We do not see any ever.

In simply working to spread, on bulletin boards, the knowledge about the towers core I have, I've been banned from;

Loose_Change_Forum

Let's Roll 9-11.org (now returned since they were hacked)

democraticunderground,com.org

above Secret.com

I consider above Secret.com to be an intelligence operation having very high tech offensive capacity. Two macs were shut down just trying to load their pages after being banned. One lost 2 256mb ram chips, the other I'm not sure. Perhaps the same.

Let's Roll banned me for not coming up with more proof of the concrete core when my opposition had none and I cried "disinfo.". The same with Loose_Change_Forum, but they said that it was for cross posting. Meaning that their rules are more important than the truth, because the video Loose Change does not explain free fall and total pulverization, my site does. My explanation depends on the concrete core being the containment vessal for high explosives built in at construction and the mods their never produced any proof of the steel core meaning that my assertions of a concrete core were accepted. However, the rules in the debate forum were not fairly enforced against my debate opponents and pure BS was allowed when the forum rules state such is not allowed.

How many explosions would be required to cut 47 1300 foot columns and cut them into 40 foot pieces?

How much high explosive is required to cut thick tempered steel without linear shape charges?

Does the explosive have to be in direct contact with the steel?

Do linear shape charges have to be in direct contact to perform?

What was acesss/clearance like around the supposed steel core columns in the core?

What do unconstrained high explosive detonations sound like and does that compare to what was heard on 9-11? What does it look like when cutting steel with high explosives?

Then:

If the steel core columns existed and they were taken out with explosives, why is that thing still standing which would have to be AROUND the steel core columns while no steel core columns are seen protruding from the core?

.

Comprehensively, if a person says they cannot believe that the towers were demolished then I assert, "FEMA lied about the design and construction of the buildings." I show evidence which absolutely discounts the structure that FEMA said existed. At this point they must agree or disagree that the towers had a concrete core. If they disagree, they should show evidence if they are going to be reasonable. When they do not and continue to say "No, the tower had steel core columns as FEMA said, why are they doing that if they actually want the truth?

In the case of a person arguing FOR demolition but who argues against the concrete core if they are continuing to argue and they have an interest and say they believe in demolition, they must be still arguing against demolition if they cannot accept that there was a concrete core because the concrete core enables instant free fall.