Clearly when the base of the towers cannot be seen determining the exact rate of fall is not possible. I'm satisfied that 20 seconds gets all the debris on the ground.
The engineers believe FEMAs description of the structure and I know it was different so what the engineers have defined is in error.
So you should post the url's to raw images supporting the structure NIST says stood. I've asked others to do this. Why has no one done it?
No. I derive nothing from any of those productions. All of my evidence is gained from raw images and common sense analysis of construction materials and their physical properties.
Just trying to determine if the basic structure that NIST says stood shows up during the fall of the towers.
You are guessing while not providing links to the sites or images of the basic tower structures that NIST says stood.
I am not reffering to any NIST material, you are. If it is raw images i consider it raw evidence. Post the link.
You shall have to find relevant information in that fallacious document. I know better. I've seen raw data showing exactly what kind of structure stood and NIST doesn't use it.
No. I am aware from other sources exactly how the towers were designed and NIST is a waste of time.
We do not need credentials to identify structural elements in a falling building. Do you have any links that show the structure that NIST says stood using raw images?
Try and find some raw images from the fall of the structure that NIST says stood and spam this thread hard with it okay guys? I'll be back.
Physics is meaningless if you are analysing the wrong structure.
Considering no one here has posted even one image or link that uses raw evidence to substanciate the FEMA core as anything more than a lie, the free fall issue is very minor which ever way you want it.
Yes, I need assistance. Just go ahead and post your evidence supporting the tower design FEMA presents.
Classic, I post a link to many images of the structure. You say "no", and post no proof. Typical, this is the only performance I've seen.
Now here is a picture of the one piece of the core that wasn't blown into SAND & GRAVEL. There is actually an image of 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS and another htat showsconcrete shear wall. There are other angles on that too.
Perhaps you have some evidence that FEMA has described the structure properly, others here seem to be unable to come up with any evidence whatsoever.
Well, ................ I asked for images showing the structure that NIST states existed and you didn't post any and neither did whathistext. Here is 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS that is not supposed to be there, ......... and the steel core columns that you should be able to support are not shown.
It does not show steel core columns and that is what NIST says stood which is what i say so you are wrong. It shows exactly what I say.
You see nothing that NIST says should be there. Thank you for confirming this.
That provide no proof for the tower that FEMA states existed.
This photo shows the core FEMA says existed was not there.
The inability to produce a raw image of the supposed core columns is underlined by the irrational insistence that the free fall rate must be determined exactly. I'm saying the concrete core is what enabled the fast fall rate and you have no raw evidence to counter that assertion.
Free fall depends on the strcutural qualities of the towers. That is what I'm posting. An image of the concrete core.
If someone here could post raw evidence of the tower that NIST says stood it would bring great credence to your assertions that the towers did not fall at close to free fall rates, but you cannot post that evidence because it doesn't exist.
The real idea here is to see if anyone can support the tower strcutures that NIST says existed. Seems no one can, nor can they understand that is what I'm trying to do.
The use of math is a waste of time (that is what you are trying to cause) and I've shown that the towers have a concrete core. I've even shown the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS but it seems as no one here has any structural knowledge and just believe everything they are told.
The first image shows a concrete core and no steel core columns where they should show. The second one shows dust.
You have posted no evidence of any kind. I post evidence of the towers that stood and their concrete core. I even show the inner reinforcing bar of the concrete core as evidence and no counter evidence is provided.
By default, I have proven the concrete core. Meaning that the continued efforts to get the impossible, the exact fall time, are but subterfuge and you all are working together to cover the murders of 3000 Americans.
You can see through the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS, how could it be the exterior?
Actually Tim, you are doing the childish thing just fine and you also are not providing any evidence whereas I've documented the core quite well. Even to the point where I show the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS as well as the concrete shear wall.
Please show that the structure NIST depicts is correct by using raw images of the towers during the fall. I show that the NIST structure never appears.
I've shown that the core of the tower is concrete by default at the least, because you cannot show the steel core columns NIST calls for. They did not exist.
So are you trying to dimiss the information of the concrete core so that the NIST analysis is more credible?
It is an interior box column. The interior box columns were attached but outside the concrete shear wall. This image shows it outside the core area.
Yes, that is a section of the concrete shear wall which WAS the concrete core. The steel is clearly flexing and the end of the broken concrete wall can be seen. Most importantly, no steel core columns are seen insied the core and they would dominate that image IF they existed, they did not.
This is the face of the wall where interior box columns are sihouetted against the concrete wall.
I've already shown that the official theory (lie) is invalid. The structure that NIST says was there cannot be supported by raw images.
How about someone from this forum PROOV that the NIST strcuture actually existed by finding some pieces of it as it is falling in the demolition photos.
Okay, I'm making it up that you can see through 3 inch rebar on 4 foot centers. Then, ....why can you see through so easy?
You got it figured out, the core issue. Right on! Reminds me of one of my favorite thread titles "Why is it so important there is NOT a concrete core".
Sorry, you are wrong. Here is the same core lower, nothing behind.
Yes that is the antenna from WTC 1, but it has nothing to do with WTC 2's core here,
Which is slightly lower than the same core here in the shot just prior.
proving that we are looking at the WTC 2 core and not a building behind it.
encircled the core up to 7 floors over the top of the concrete core. Meaning the concrete was almost never visible by helicopter. Even the documentary noted a couple of times that the core was hard to find good pictures of.
Inside the core area are elevator guide rail support structures. One of the reasons the elevators in the WTC were so fast is that the concrete core provided constant rigid alignment.
The core was very thick at the base and getting detonators to the rebar would be a big job, but the holes made to get to the bar could be refilled with parafin.
I took the original FEMA drawing and added the core and hallways. WTC 1 only.
This is the steel reinforced tubular cast concrete core. No steel core columns are seen ever in pictures of the towers falling.
The floors were set to go off about 40 feet ahead of the core. Somewhere around 40 floors, the core stopped momentarily and the thermite in the basement went off, severing the bases of many columns. The floors continued down, this took the steel to the ground, then the core went off in 40 foot sections every 300 milliseconds.
Not one person has come up with a credible explnation for WHY the supposed steel core columns of the WTC report are not seen in this image and others.
Here is rebar. No core columns tho.
I could say this is the top of WTC 2 getting ready to slam WTC 3 and you can see the brown/gray concrete core inside.
Still, ................ no raw images of the strcutural elements that NIST/FEMA say existed for the cores of the towers. Meaning that the only images of the towers core show concrete or air.
Are you guys trying to say there was no core. Are you supporting the "AIR CORE".
I'm still waiting for someone to post a raw image of the steel core columns that FEMA says existed.
Got Core?
Only concrete here.
I have experience with these materials. I know what they look like under given conditions of failure. When they fail, how. It is not rocket science. A core made of multiple steel columns would never have this appearance.
No bogus questions until someone here finds away to support the NIST structure with raw images
NIST is the one that has made outrageous claims. To think what we saw was a collapse is inane and utterly unacceptable. You believe them and I can show the structure they use for analysis is wrong. The core was concrete.
Your turn to come up with evidence supporting the tower core you think stood. That is the place to start.
Your friend Mike would be amazed at what I know about the towers construction and look at images of the demolition and he would would know it was true.
Now, if someone would just post one image of the structure NIST states existed, you all wouldn't be so guilty of disinformation.
Absolutely. There was an interior box column on each face very near the corner. They geometrically matched the truncation of the tower corners.
The towers were not built with a "corner spire". The lattice plane of interior box columns and floor beams, with some shear wall bracing it near the top, could be demolished in a way, intentionally or inadvertantly, to leave one corner interior box column stand exactly as we see.
No, I have provided the only realistic and feasible explantion for rates of fall near free fall and the total pulverization of the contents of the tower.
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
No one has ever produced a single image, raw evidence, of a steel core column. We start there. Back up what you believe stood. C'mon!
Have you ever examined the reinforcing grid and form system for a concrete wall, cast in place?
Do you know how flexible steel is when in long pieces, even when trussed heavily? The proportions of the towers made them unstable made with all steel. The steel reinforced concrete tube made a wonderful partnering of materials. The steel had fantastic load bearing capacity but would deform with weight. Also winds and weight together can really move it around. Deformations of the shear planes occur and failures happen. The concrete core takes a lot of lateral loads from the steel, torsion, deformations. The concrete keeps the steel aligned in it's maximum loadbearing form. The concrete tube is relatively light considering the performance in stiffining the tower.
Why do ya' think the new tower has a concrete core, cause the old one worked so good. We have been scammed, our nation hijacked.
