• 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.

Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Christophera said:
You have therefore proved that you support the lie that murderers hide behind and nothing else.
Click to expand...
Christophera, your concrete core is invisible. Please show what kind of mix makes invisible concrete. I haven't seen that on the market. Was that something they experimented with in the late sixties but abandoned because people kept bumping into it accidentally?
 
Gravy said:
That's 1 Liberty Plaza, east of what was the south tower across Church St. It's partly obscured by the debris cloud. That cloud is deceptive: it looks translucent due to the strong side-and back light, but it's actually completely opaque.
Click to expand...
Wow, who'd a thunk it. A picture that appears to show one thing, but actually shows something else. I'm surprised the loosers aren't already using it - OMG they used the attacks as a smokescreen to steal half of 1 Liberty Plaza, then replace it with a fake building!
 
Last edited:
Christophera said:
Your construction photos show interior box columns not core columns. Interior box columns ring the concrete core walls. This is very clear when you see the core wall at the base and there are no columns to the right of the stairwell (right side) and none penetrate it, and what is the massive grey block right of the interior box column? That is the concrete core.

You have therefore proved that you support the lie that murderers hide behind and nothing else.
Click to expand...

Oh my. How naughty of me.
Your photo just shows a mess of stuff. The only thing I can identify for sure is steel. Concrete & Rebar? I'm not convinced. It could be anything. Also could you explain in layman's terms how you have determined that the steel in the construction photos is inadequate for the task of holding up the building?
 
Christophera,

OK. It's all an extremely weird conspiracy. So what?

Each morning the sun is still there, as are death and taxes.

Send me a really good recipe for tuna casserole and I might give you the time of day.

M.
 
Christophera said:
...You have therefore proved that you support the lie that murderers hide behind and nothing else.
Click to expand...

And you and your fellow CT'ers continue to give aid and comfort to the murdering terrorist enemies of freedom everywhere.

The problem is, your statement is a meaningless rant written by an immature, malajusted little boy who thinks name calling is the essential ingrediant of effective debate. My statement, on the other hand, is quite likely true. And the more I dwell on it, the harder it is to maintain even the veneer of civility when conversing with you.
 
Misrepresenting Constrcution Photos

Gravy said:
That's 1 Liberty Plaza, east of what was the south tower across Church St. It's partly obscured by the debris cloud. That cloud is deceptive: it looks translucent due to the strong side-and back light, but it's actually completely opaque.
Click to expand...

I so appreciate your reposting of the link to the concrete core. And I'm glad that you can identify concrete shear wall.

Do you have any images at all of the steel core columns during the demolition? All anyone here has been able to post is that constrcution image where the interior box columns are misrepresented as "core columns."
 
Silliness Instead Of Respect For The Dead, Justice & Freedom

Gravy said:
Christophera, your concrete core is invisible. Please show what kind of mix makes invisible concrete. I haven't seen that on the market. Was that something they experimented with in the late sixties but abandoned because people kept bumping into it accidentally?
Click to expand...

In the face of our 3000 dead Americans, you have silliness. Typical. Do you have a good explanation for near free fall yet (no pancakes on my plate please)?

I have the only explanation on the web for rates of fall near that speed.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

Pulverization is explain while the timing mimicked by those firefighters during that discussion in the firehouse is also detailed in the section called Delays and Paths.
 
Dave_46 said:
Come on Christophera, two nice easy questions.

1. Do you know the difference between a column and a beam? If so please explain

2. Do you know that 800 C is nowhere near hot enough to melt steel?

Dave
Click to expand...

Yes and yes. Do you know what rebar looks like?

Oh, .............. you need to explain why the steel core columns are unseen in all photos of the demolition. Please, no construction photos. The demolition bares the entire struture at one point or another.
 
steve s said:
That "rebar" is probably elevator cable. There were miles of the stuff in the WTC.

Steve S.
Click to expand...

The image of the core wall at base shows those very rigid coils near the center of the concrete core wall.

Elevator cable is not nearly that rigid. Think about it, The cable has to roll up on a reel.

High tensile bar when subected to extreme heat and pressure (always unequally) will coil up as one side gets longer than the other. Think of how a ribbon coils.
 
Stellafane said:
And you and your fellow CT'ers continue to give aid and comfort to the murdering terrorist enemies of freedom everywhere.
Click to expand...

There were terrorists flying the planes, but that had nothing to do with the Twin Towers falling at near free fall, identically into a pile of SAND & GRAVEL and steel.

Those terrorists were used in a big ruse and your failure to recognize evidence or produce reasonable evidence to refute it, not to mention the fact that you are not considering the blocking of investigations and the export of all the WTC steel, show that you support the lie that the perpetrators hide behind.
 
Shrinker said:
Oh my. How naughty of me.
Your photo just shows a mess of stuff. The only thing I can identify for sure is steel. Concrete & Rebar? I'm not convinced. It could be anything. Also could you explain in layman's terms how you have determined that the steel in the construction photos is inadequate for the task of holding up the building?
Click to expand...

Explain what else it can be besides 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS. It is most definitely not heavy steel columns.

The 1990 documentary explained that very well. Robertson had originally proposed a core of steel columns but Yamasaki discovered it simply flexed too much and so investigated concrete in varying forms. A reject design for a pre stressed concrete core was rejected because no one could build it. It still hangs around helping to expose the lie. The BBC core, by it's simple existence, shows the inconsistency of the information on the structural design of 2 of the worlds most prominant towers.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, are we arguing that the WTC core was made of concrete and not steel? Based on a picture of some dust, and a BBC diagram?

So how come none of the construction photos show the shuttering around the core columns that would be necessary to pour the concrete around them?

ETA: Sorry, you snuck in there While I was typing Shrinker.
 
Christophera said:
Explain what else it can be besides 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS. It is most definitely not heavy steel columns.

The 1990 documentary explained that very well. Robertson had originally proposed a core of steel columns but Yamasaki discovered it simply flexed too much and so investigated concrete in varying forms. A reject design for a pre stressed concrete core was rejected because no one could build it. It still hangs around helping to expose the lie. The BBC core, by it's simple existence, shows the inconsistency of the information on the structural design of 2 of the worlds most prominant towers.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I'm still not understanding, because 3" rebar on 4' centers isn't in layman's terms, but I'll reply anway. You're saying there were no heavy steel beams. I see an abundance of heavy steel in this photo, which appears to be at or near one of the cores.

http://www.truck2bcfd.com/WTC-9.jpg

I count 9 similar columns, clearly hollow, one of them still standing upright. By their orange colour I'd say they were steel. The ladder on one of the columns shows the scale. They look a lot like the columns shown in the construction photo, and seem to match the description of hollow steel columns which apparently appears in the official report. I don't see much concrete.

I'm expecting you will claim this photo supports your claims. Please explain carefully how these steel columns differ from those decribed in the reports. No jargon please, but links to engineering info on the web are okay. Write carefully - if you explain this clearly you might win me round.
 
Johnny Pixels said:
Sorry, are we arguing that the WTC core was made of concrete and not steel? Based on a picture of some dust, and a BBC diagram?

So how come none of the construction photos show the shuttering around the core columns that would be necessary to pour the concrete around them?

ETA: Sorry, you snuck in there While I was typing Shrinker.
Click to expand...

The outer forms of the core were supported by the interior box columns which ringed the outside of the core. The inner form was steel and could be dismantled and raised for the next 40 foot tier.

The BBC diagram simply shows that concrete was a consideration. It also shows that there is deep confusion about the core which should not exist as being of 2 of the most prominent towers on the globe. that confusion should not exist.

Couple all of that with the fact that the FEMA core is only detailed by this diagram regarding comprehensively. There are plan views but the one picture of the core wall at the base belies all of those because if they existed their would be many in our view to the right of the stairwell (on right), protruding out of the stairwell, where the solid grey block of the core wall is and in the foreground; would be steel core columns, there are none. We do see interior box columns sheared level[/url, and it is easy to see that they are in 2 rows on either side of the core area. Of course the concrete has all 9except for the core corner linked above) been fractured by high explosives encapsulated inside of it and in the photos exists only as [url=http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg]SAND & GRAVEL.
 
Christophera said:
Yes and yes. Do you know what rebar looks like?

Oh, .............. you need to explain why the steel core columns are unseen in all photos of the demolition. Please, no construction photos. The demolition bares the entire struture at one point or another.
Click to expand...

As the answer to my two questions are yes and yes, you need to correct the errors you have just acknowledged in the graphic on your website.

The picture you reference in post 650 shows has no reinforcing bar visible that can be distinguished at that distance.

Nothing to do with core columns in photographs will affect your acknowledged errors.

Dave

Edited to correct plural
 
Last edited:
Documentary Shows Intimate Details Of Tower Construction

Apollyon said:
What else can it be? How about conduit for carrying wiring?

The construction of the WTC was pretty well documentated. The photos available of that process makes it very clear that the construction was steel column and not concrete core.

http://www.greatbuildings.com/cgi-b...enter_Images.html/cid_wtc_mya_WTC_const.1.gbi
Click to expand...

That link shows interior box columns and they are not seen very clearly. Also, it should be well known that the NY mayor took the WTC documents and courts will not make him return them. So whatever documentaion exists is being kept secret by authority.

In 1990 I saw the best documentation besides the construction plans. A very intimate video documentary produced by BBC called "The Construction Of the twin Towers". It was 2 hours in length and mostly about the concrete core because it was the most difficult aspect of the construction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom