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

[Christophera]

Thank you for your answer.

According to Wikipedia, WTC 1 was hit between the 93rd and 99th floors and WTC 2 between the 77th and 85th floors. While your answer does not correspond exactly, there is a non-conflicting overlap, so all's fine so far.

Now, let's take your figures and divide them down the center for argument's sake and simplicity of calculation. That is, WTC 1's main floor hit will be the 95th floor. WTC 2 will be 76th floor. With me so far?

Furthermore, again at Wiki, "Flight 11 was traveling roughly 490 mph (790 km/h) when it crashed into the north tower, Flight 175 hit the south tower at about 590 mph (950 km/h)."

Now then, on your website, you have this to say:

Bolding mine.

Aside from your error that that WTC 1 was "hit hardest" (and the corresponding mistake that it was the more damaged) do you see the error in your logic regarding the sequence of the collapses, or do I have to point it out to you?

You better explain it.

 

[Christophera]

What, didn't you see the low-res pic taken from a mile away showing a shadowy something obscured by smoke? Proooooooof!!!!!!!!!111

So far I've proven that there were no steel core columns, meaing that shadowy thing is the concrete core.

PROOF:
If there were steel core columns we would see them here.

NOTE:The poster I responded to has never produced any proof of anything.

 

[Christophera]

Ahh, I see the government is out to fool the people of the world and you're too busy to repeat some calculations that prove it. Nice fighting for justice attitude you have there. I'd like to try my own calculations, what did you use for the volume of the concrete core? What did you subtract out for floor pentrations?

That picture proves absolutely nothing. I have picture of a cloud that looks like a horse, doesn't mean I believe in flying horses.

Here is the concrete shear wall with box columns silhouetted on it. Another of the concrete shear wall zoomed, the same element from another angle.

Realize, not one person here has produced an image of ANY part of ANY of the supposed 47, 1300 foot tempered steel core columns, and these are not core columns. They are interior box columns and they are OUTSIDE the core wall

 

[Shrinker]

Realize, not one person here has produced an image of ANY part of ANY of the supposed 47, 1300 foot tempered steel core columns, and these are not core columns. They are interior box columns and they are OUTSIDE the core wall

I posted a picture which shows nine core column segments. You have posted many others. You then complain that they're not core columns, but box columns. You have yet to explain this distinction, and how you have made it. Perhaps if you would EXPLAIN why my column photos aren't satisfactory we could make some progress.

 

[chipmunk stew]

I posted a picture which shows nine core column segments. You have posted many others. You then complain that they're not core columns, but box columns. You have yet to explain this distinction, and how you have made it. Perhaps if you would EXPLAIN why my column photos aren't satisfactory we could make some progress.

No progress can ever be made with this lunatic. He wins the tin foil hat of the year award. His last dying breath will carry the words: 3" rebar on 4' centers....

[ignore=on]

 

[Johnny Pixels]

I'm impressed that the WTC construction company managed to hide those 3" rebars on 4' centres on every single photo of the building of the towers. Probably hid them behind some invisicrete walls or something.

Reminds me of people who talk about the Second World War, but the only plane they know the name of is the Spitfire, and so all you get is Spitfires this, and Spitfires that. Man, those Spitfires were a great plane. I remember the time Spitfires bombed Berlin. And Tokyo. All on the same tank of fuel. And you could go to the cinema, buy dinner and get a taxi home and still have change from tuppence ha'penny. All thanks to Spitfires. They were built from 3" rebar on 4' centres too you know.

 

[kevin]

Here is the concrete shear wall with box columns silhouetted on it. Another of the concrete shear wall zoomed, the same element from another angle.

Realize, not one person here has produced an image of ANY part of ANY of the supposed 47, 1300 foot tempered steel core columns, and these are not core columns. They are interior box columns and they are OUTSIDE the core wall

You haven't produced one image that backs up your claims. Most are dust filled, 5 mile away photographs with no detail. Some contain text labels with no proof that the labels are accurate. In one of them somebody claims conduit as rebar (hint, conduit is shiny aluminum, rebar isn't)

btw, just out of curiosity, the site these images are hosted on contains an article claiming Hepatitus C is caused by an oxygen crisis. It was written by a Christopher A. Is that you?

 

[Gravy]

Why ask questions if you're going to ignore the answers?

Please respond to my post with the video stills above. Do you agree that there's no concrete core there as you describe?

Please try to stop being a child and be a man for once. Buck up, Christophera. A couple of incorrect theories about 9/11 shouldn't shatter your world. Just do a little homework and you can avoid these problems.

I'll post them again, since you haven't answered me once. Christophera, Do you agree that the Twin Towers did not have concrete cores? If not, please explain these video stills.

Christophera's Invisicrete Core

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Please do not feed the troll.

 

[Apollyon]

Realize, not one person here has produced an image of ANY part of ANY of the supposed 47, 1300 foot tempered steel core columns, and these are not core columns. They are interior box columns and they are OUTSIDE the core wall

This old documentary from 1983 on the building of the towers doesn't show or speak of any sort of "concrete core."

If you want your proof, here it is:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3135892053682639810&q=WTC,+building&hl=en

 

[Gravy]

Realize, not one person here has produced an image of ANY part of ANY of the supposed 47, 1300 foot tempered steel core columns

<Troll Feed Mode>Yes, we have. Several times.</Troll Feed Mode>

 

[Gravy]

This old documentary from 1983 on the building of the towers doesn't show or speak of any sort of "concrete core."
If you want your proof, here it is:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3135892053682639810&q=WTC,+building&hl=en

Well done. The photos I showed are screen grabs from the Ric Burns series "New York." There are 2 hours on the WTC, including lots of film of the construction that clearly shows the core as it was designed, constructed, and as we describe it.

There are also interviews with Leslie Robertson, who designed the structure, talking about what its capabilities were. I've suggested this to Christophera before, but perhaps he should contact the Robertson firm. Maybe he can do his own exposé of the core coverup.

Leslie E. Robertson Associates, R.L.L.P.
30 Broad Street, 47-48th Floor
New York, NY 10004-2304
tel 212 750 9000
fax 212 750 9002

Eta: Address

 

[Apollyon]

They couldn't talk to Leslie Robertson, Gravy. He is likely involved in the massive coverup, or would be afraid to talk for fear of having a hit put on him by the government, or some other unsubstantiated claim that is equally ridiculous.

It's better to rely on some schlep with a Costa Rican diploma claiming a degree in forensic aquaculture because we all know how tightly intertwined forensic aquaculture and structural/architectural engineering are. Like the Chertoff's, they are practically related.

 

[Christophera]

Nobody Has Any "Clear" Information

Well done. The photos I showed are screen grabs from the Ric Burns series "New York." There are 2 hours on the WTC, including lots of film of the construction that clearly shows the core as it was designed, constructed, and as we describe it.

There are also interviews with Leslie Robertson, who designed the structure, talking about what its capabilities were. I've suggested this to Christophera before, but perhaps he should contact the Robertson firm. Maybe he can do his own exposé of the core coverup.

Leslie E. Robertson Associates, R.L.L.P.
30 Broad Street, 47-48th Floor
New York, NY 10004-2304
tel 212 750 9000
fax 212 750 9002

Eta: Address

Your construction photos do not show the steel core columns. So far all I've seen is the interior box columns which have been misrepresented as "core columns". The documentary I saw which documented intimately construction stated something like this. "the core was hard to photograph. It was always in the dark in the center of the tower a few floors below the top." They introduced several shots that they had found that actually showed the rebar sticking out of the aggregate and stated they were the best they had found. The images you posted do not clearly show the core.

The architect posted his feelings on the towers personally on a forum I was posting on that is dominated by disinformation agents who refuse to use photographic evidence and reason.

Leslie E. Robertson
Posted: Apr 1 2006, 06:33 PM
Unregistered

Christophera is correct in stating that the Twin Towers were constructed with a concrete core. Although in my original design the core was to be a steel framed one that decision was overridden by Minoru Yamasaki the architect.

That core should have resisted the airplane impacts AND the fires. I have said nothing for four and a half years but can remain silent no longer. My belief is that only explosives could have caused WTC 1 & WTC 2 to collapse the way they did on September 11, 2001.

Leslie E. Robertson
Director Leslie E. Robertson Associates, R.L.L.P. and lead engineer of the World Trade Center


http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3108&st=9390

Also.

Still, Robertson, whose firm is responsible for three of the six tallest buildings in the world, feels a sense of pride that the massive towers, supported by a steel-tube exoskeleton and a reinforced concrete core, held up as well as they did—managing to stand for over an hour despite direct hits from two massive commercial jetliners.

Says engineer Robertson, “If they had fallen down immediately, the death counts would have been unimaginable,” he says. “The World Trade Center has performed admirably, and everyone involved in the project should be proud.” The buildings were designed specifically to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, the largest plane flying in 1966, the year they broke ground on the project.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3069641/

Your evidence appears as lies in the face of historical proof from Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992

Oh, Robertson does not answer emails or phone calls, so your suggestion is a waste of time.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Thank you for your answer.

According to Wikipedia, WTC 1 was hit between the 93rd and 99th floors and WTC 2 between the 77th and 85th floors. While your answer does not correspond exactly, there is a non-conflicting overlap, so all's fine so far.

Now, let's take your figures and divide them down the center for argument's sake and simplicity of calculation. That is, WTC 1's main floor hit will be the 95th floor. WTC 2 will be 76th floor. With me so far?

Furthermore, again at Wiki, "Flight 11 was traveling roughly 490 mph (790 km/h) when it crashed into the north tower, Flight 175 hit the south tower at about 590 mph (950 km/h)."

Now then, on your website, you have this to say:

Bolding mine.

Aside from your error that that WTC 1 was "hit hardest" (and the corresponding mistake that it was the more damaged) do you see the error in your logic regarding the sequence of the collapses, or do I have to point it out to you?

You better explain it.

How many stories were above the impacted floor(s) in WTC 1? How many stories were above the impacted floor(s) in WTC 2?

 

[Pardalis]

Geat footage Apollyon.

I'm sorry to interfere in this debate, but what exactly does the existence or not of a "concrete core" (even thought I think the evidence shows that there weren't) have anything to do with the collapse?

What exactly are you leading to Christophera?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

...The architect posted his feelings on the towers personally on a forum I was posting on that is dominated by disinformation agents who refuse to use photographic evidence and reason.

Leslie E. Robertson
Posted: Apr 1 2006, 06:33 PM
Unregistered

Christophera is correct in stating that the Twin Towers were constructed with a concrete core. Although in my original design the core was to be a steel framed one that decision was overridden by Minoru Yamasaki the architect.

That core should have resisted the airplane impacts AND the fires. I have said nothing for four and a half years but can remain silent no longer. My belief is that only explosives could have caused WTC 1 & WTC 2 to collapse the way they did on September 11, 2001.

Leslie E. Robertson
Director Leslie E. Robertson Associates, R.L.L.P. and lead engineer of the World Trade Center

< snip >

Says engineer Robertson, “If they had fallen down immediately, the death counts would have been unimaginable,” he says. “The World Trade Center has performed admirably, and everyone involved in the project should be proud.” The buildings were designed specifically to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, the largest plane flying in 1966, the year they broke ground on the project.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3069641/

The towers were designed to withstand a low speed impact of a much smaller airplane.

Oh, Robertson does not answer emails or phone calls...

But he posts to Internet message boards? So how does anyone know the above so-called quoted words are his?

 

[Lamuella]

How disingenuine

you know, I don't think that's a word.

 

[Christophera]

Notice: Gravy Got Not Link!

<Troll Feed Mode>Yes, we have. Several times.</Troll Feed Mode>

Everyone notices that you provide no link nor post no images. Here is the concrete FEMA core of WTC 2. Notice, no steel columns are seen protruding from the center of the core area.

Again. Here is the spire which is formed from interior box columns. Note that the rectangle formed by the floor beams in the construction photo is the same proportions as the rectangles formed below the spire. the spire is outside the core area.

Get some proof from the demolition images which bare the entire structure. If the steel core columns existed they would show in the spire photo.

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

 

[Johnny Pixels]

Leslie E. Robertson
Posted: Apr 1 2006, 06:33 PM
Unregistered

Christophera is correct in stating that the Twin Towers were constructed with a concrete core. Although in my original design the core was to be a steel framed one that decision was overridden by Minoru Yamasaki the architect.

That core should have resisted the airplane impacts AND the fires. I have said nothing for four and a half years but can remain silent no longer. My belief is that only explosives could have caused WTC 1 & WTC 2 to collapse the way they did on September 11, 2001.

Leslie E. Robertson
Director Leslie E. Robertson Associates, R.L.L.P. and lead engineer of the World Trade Center

Bolding mine.