Safe Mode: On
Footage From 9/11 That Shows the Core Still Standing(Multiple Angles)

Footage from 9/11 thats shows the core was still standing after collapse. Pretty much debunks the use of any type of CD, as if it wasnt before



Loading the player ...
Embed CodeSwitch Player
Plays: 1750 (Embed: 0)


Added: Apr-10-2012 Occurred On: Apr-10-2012
By: barogers619
In:
Conspiracy
Tags: Core, Columns, standing, WTC, 911
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, United States (load item map)
Views: 2480 | Comments: 20 | Votes: 1 | Favorites: 0 | Shared: 0 | Updates: 0 | Times used in channels: 1
You need to be registered in order to add comments! Register HERE
Sort by: Newest first | Oldest first | Highest score first
Liveleak opposes racial slurs - if you do spot comments that fall into this category, please report them for us to review.
  • @barogers619

    I'm afraid I have to object to this. I am certainly not a truther. I believe in simple explanations and engineering facts.

    The whole thing about the WTC towers is they didn't have cores. The majority structural weight was carried by the outer steelwork. Internally the floors were supported by steel beams connected to the outer shell.

    There may have been some form of core for the lifts but it certainly didn't hold the building up.

    Posted Apr-10-2012 By 

    (3) | Report

    • @DEADBEEF You are partially right.

      The exterior walls were made to hold most of the weight of the towers. The floors were also joined to the outer walls which is what explains the "peeling" effect of the walls when the towers collapsed.

      However there was a core which was made of 42 steel beams with NO concrete supports, just the floors were concrete.


      Here is a good documentary on the WTC being built. It is very interesting but it is an old video, the kind they used to show in schoo More..

      Posted Apr-10-2012 By 

      (1) | Report

  • somewhat interesting.. first time seeing it

    Posted Apr-10-2012 By 

    (2) | Report

  • That's not the core of the building, you dolt, it's the exterior support. The reporter even says so and all he does is read for a living.

    Posted Apr-10-2012 By 

    (1) | Report

  • Bld 7 ?

    Posted Apr-10-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

    • Comment of user 'Salt' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
  • People will still find ways to disprove the attacks, no matter if the evidence is clear is day. They simply refuse to deny that people truly can hate America, and will go to lengths to prove how much they hate are ideals.

    To me it's just a date where innocent people were lost, and America became paranoid. I can understand better security at Airports, but do we really need to take off our shoes? That and they're are commercials selling stuff from the site, fake or not, honestly I cannot believe More..

    Posted Apr-10-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

    • Comment of user 'dakine' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
  • therefore aliens, right ?

    Posted Apr-10-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

  • sad shit

    Posted Apr-10-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

  • yes

    Posted Apr-10-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

  • So Jewish android robots DIDN'T bring it down in a Zionist conspiracy to make Islam look evil?

    Posted Apr-10-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

  • http://i53.tinypic.com/ehsmr.jpg

    Posted Apr-10-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

  • Cheers, the last outer panels failing explains that then. It explains NOT JUST that the 47X2 continuously welded tensile steel core columns collapsed but that all 94 didn't deform into the path of lest resistance, didn't break at 1 point for each column but that ever single 1 in both buildings broke into lengths at near free-fall speeds.

    Posted Apr-10-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

  • Logically, it is still possible that it's a controlled demolition. One in which the perimeter is either meant to fall first, or does so accidentally. It is entirely possible that the collapses were initiated by explosives or thermite in the higher levels and gravity did the rest. Structural weakening and gravity is the official story, so the only objection is the trigger. A plane, or a plane plus explosives, who could tell the difference? At any rate, that is the least interesting thing about 9/ More..

    Posted Apr-10-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

  • I can not believe this controlled explosion malarky...if there was a controlled explosion why was it not set off soon after the plane hit the building after all it could be explained away easier by saying unburnt fuel excetera.
    I am amazed in the strength of the buildings as they were hit by 80,000 Kgs travelling at 800+Kmph ( 500 MPH.) and they took the stress of this force.

    Posted Apr-15-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

  • "explosions in the basement" from more than on source.

    Posted Apr-27-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

  • at 01:45 how does tons of STEEL just instantly turn to vapor

    Posted Jun-16-2012 By 

    (0) | Report