Source It's got everything you asked for, it's actually debunking the article you are referring too. There are several links to sources that state exactly how the tower was built. There was no reinforced concrete in the core of the WTC. This information is wrong.
Amazingly news organizations get things wrong all the time. Isn't the current head of the BBC stepping down due to shoddy reporting?
True. But can you dispute the BBC article with something that says that there wasn't reinforced concrete? If you can disprove this, then please, set me straight. (*)(*)(*)(*) man, if there wasn't so much conflicting information, then I wouldn't be asking these questions. I wish I could go back, honestly.
I posted exactly what you're looking for above. It's actually in regards to the exact article you are referring too. It can't get clearer.
I honestly don't know if it was or not. The BBC article says it does. There is apparently a 1990 PBS documentary about the construction of the WTC, which talks about a concrete core. So I ask again: do you have something that can dispute the BBC article?
Sure. Every article written on the construction of the towers. Reinforced concrete is concrete with metal reinforcing bars (rebar) included to give the concrete additional strength. Yet we know the towers were held up by 47 steel columns in the core. We know how big they were. We know how thick they were. We know what shape they were. We know they weren't made out of concrete. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__gUjUv1vvw 2:00 mark. At 8:30 you can see the construction of the core. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRf5pCj2XS8 1:20 mark 2:15 mark 3:30 mark One of the guys talking is Leslie Robertson, the lead structural engineer who designed the WTC towers. Who are you going to believe? The BBC or the people who actually built the towers?
