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

[Regnad Kcin]

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?

I'll answer, and hope I'm corrected if I'm not getting it. Christophera's position seems to be summed up in this alleged quote by Leslie Robertson:

"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."

In other words, concrete-core towers would have withstood the airplane impacts. Since they didn't, the towers must've been brought down by other means.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

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

Everyone notices that you ignore every piece of evidence presented to you. The extent of your knowledge appears to come from staring at photos and managing to infer from them conclusions which run counter to every piece of evidence from every other source. You have managed only to demonstrate an utter lack of understanding of the scientific process, critical thinking, or debate. Go pound sand.

 

[Christophera]

Structural Potentials Of Collapse

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?

Collapse as we saw is impossible with the core that existed. FEMA lied to cover the true demise. Many here support the lie the murderers hide behind. Notice they cannot produce images of the steel core columns from the demolition which hase exposed the core to the light of day for the first time. The construction images you see are misrepresented.

 

[Christophera]

Everyone notices that you ignore every piece of evidence presented to you. The extent of your knowledge appears to come from staring at photos and managing to infer from them conclusions which run counter to every piece of evidence from every other source. You have managed only to demonstrate an utter lack of understanding of the scientific process, critical thinking, or debate. Go pound sand.

I know exactly what kind of core stood and that is why I'm here. Can you explain why the steel core columns are never seen in images. (Forget the construction photos, they are misrepresented.)

 

[Pardalis]

Does Leslie E. Robertson have any evidence that demolition charges have ever been installed in this "concrete core"? What was his level of involvement exactly in the construction?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I know exactly what kind of core stood and that is why I'm here. Can you explain why the steel core columns are never seen in images. (Forget the construction photos, they are misrepresented.)

Can you explain why you ignore every piece of evidence presented previously in this thread?

 

[Christophera]

Whoa,...... Apprentice Of Distortion

I'll answer, and hope I'm corrected if I'm not getting it. Christophera's position seems to be summed up in this alleged quote by Leslie Robertson:

"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."

In other words, concrete-core towers would have withstood the airplane impacts. Since they didn't, the towers must've been brought down by other means.

Now we know you aspire to be a master of distortion. Pick another subject 'cause you just lose credibility by trying to twist words like that. Particuarly when we have data of historical origin from Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992 to support the concrete corecore

 

[Pardalis]

Collapse as we saw is impossible with the core that existed. FEMA lied to cover the true demise. Many here support the lie the murderers hide behind. Notice they cannot produce images of the steel core columns from the demolition which hase exposed the core to the light of day for the first time. The construction images you see are misrepresented.

Do you only have these few pictures to show us? Do you have any real evidence, from the people who actually made these towers, of such a concrete core?

Could "your" interpretation of these images be misrepresented?

 

[Christophera]

same article:
Second, Yamasaki had to make sure the air pressure generated by the express elevators would not buckle the elevator shafts. The engineers of Otis Elevators came up with a solution to this problem. By using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core, the shafts were strengthened enough that air pressure was not an issue.

Out of curiosity, a few questions. Since you cited the University of North Carolina course work as authorative, do you also stand by the findings published in that article that the buildings fell because of fire? If not, how did they get this one fact right and all others wrong?

Since the concrete core cited in the UNC article only supported elevators and stairwells, and not the building, what does the construction of the core have to do with how the buildings did or did not fall?

This part of the page actually calls itself a description.

A Description of the World Trade Center

The twin towers of the World Trade Center were essentially two tubes, with the north tower (1,368 feet) six feet taller than the south tower (1,362 feet), and each were 110 stories tall. Each tube contained a concrete core, which supported only the load of the central bank of elevators and stairwells (Snoonian and Czarnecki 23).

http://www.unc.edu/courses/2001fall/plan/006e/001/engineering/

Then there is the very competent report of August Domel.

August Domel, Jr., Ph.D., S.E., P.E. November 2001

Groundbreaking for construction of the World Trade Center took place on August 5, 1966.Tower One, standing 1368 feet high, was completed in 1970, and Tower Two, at 1362 feet high, was completed in 1972. The structural design for the World Trade Center Towers was done by Skilling, Helle, Christiansen and Robertson. It was designed as a tube building that included a perimeter moment-resisting frame consisting of steel columns spaced on 39-inch centers. The load carrying system was designed so that the steel facade would resist lateral and gravity forces and the interior concrete core would carry only gravity loads.

Dr. Domel received a Ph.D. from the University of Illinois at Chicago in 1988 and a Law Degree from Loyola University in 1992. He is a licensed Structural Engineer and Attorney at Law in the .State of Illinois and a Professional Engineer in twelve states, including the State of New York. Dr. Domel is authorized by the Department of Labor (OSHA) as a 10 and 30 hour construction safety trainer.

http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf

 

[Apollyon]

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 video I posted clearly shows the core and repeated refers to the box columns as core columns. Disingeniusly trying to assign a different nomenclature to those columns does not change their function.

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.

Yeah. Right. He doesn't answer phones or e-mail, but somehow he located that forum and posted as an unregistered participant.

Here's a real article by Leslie Robertson. Notice he talks about the lack of masonry on the central shaft as a new design feature.

http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument

Another structural innovation was the outrigger space frame, which structurally linked the outside wall to the services core. This system performed several functions. First, gravity-induced vertical deformations between the columns of the services core and the columns of the outside wall were made equal at the top of the building; at other levels, the differential deformations were ameliorated. Second, wind-induced overturning moments were resisted in part by the columns of the services core, thus providing additional lateral stiffness.

We developed the concept of and made use of the fire-rated shaft-wall partition system, which is now widely used in place of masonry and plaster walls. At that time, masonry was the standard enclosure for elevators, stairs, duct shafts, and other internal structures. The partition system eliminates the need for within-the-shaft scaffolding, which was the common practice, provides more smoke-proof stairs and shafts, and improves safety on the job site. The shaft-wall completely changed the nature of the structural system for the two towers, making them the first of a new kind of high-rise building.

His own words state that the partition system was used "in place of masonry."

That seems to conflict with the post by an unregistered person at PhysOrg claiming to be Leslie Robertson. In fact, Leslie Robertson speaks with some technical eloquence, as his article demonstrates. The post at PhysOrg sounds more like someone using his name as a sock puppet to dupe people.

 

[Pardalis]

Now we know you aspire to be a master of distortion. Pick another subject 'cause you just lose credibility by trying to twist words like that. Particuarly when we have data of historical origin from Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992 to support the concrete corecore

I'm no engeneer, but does the term "concrete core" necessarilly means one single concrete block? Or does it have a more general meaning?

 

[bob_kark]

544

 

[Christophera]

Do you only have these few pictures to show us? Do you have any real evidence, from the people who actually made these towers, of such a concrete core?

Could "your" interpretation of these images be misrepresented?

No steel core columns are ever seen in the demolition photos. Behind these concrete shear wall should be some part of 1 of the 47, 1300 foot steel columns. There are none. To the left of the spire and box columns silhouettedconcrete shear wall should be seen steel columns. None are seen.

Can the non appearance of major structural elements be misrepresented when they are not presented at all?

 

[Pardalis]

No steel core columns are ever seen in the demolition photos. Behind these concrete shear wall should be some part of 1 of the 47, 1300 foot steel columns. There are none. To the left of the spire and box columns silhouettedconcrete shear wall should be seen steel columns. None are seen.

Can the non appearance of major structural elements be misrepresented when they are not presented at all?

Again, same images. No proof. Do you have any evidence from the architects and engeneers and other people who built the towers?

ETA: You know, first-hand evidence.

 

[Christophera]

FROM post #544

Ok, so you believe the concrete core was packed with C4, I understand that. However, if that was the case, why is the core still standing in your picture after the WTC was demolished?

the delay sequence has not yet gotten to detonating the core.

Ok, I understand that you believe that thermite was used in the basement. How can you time a thermite reaction in a basement to weaken the supports at exactly the right time to coincide with the C4 explosions you claim? Thermite doesn't just switch on and off. It takes time to react and cut through the steel.

The delay system initiated the thermite which burns nearly as fast as high explosives expand.

So the initial C4 packed concrete core was just a prank gone wild? If they hadn't planned a massive ruse, why did they pack the concrete core with C4?

You distort my words from this page.

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

I state the rebar of the concrete core was coated with C4.

Ok, so you looked at 1 picture from the FEMA report and saw a documentary 15 years ago. Do you not think it might be important to read the NIST report to make sure you aren't missing something? What would it hurt exactly?

Absolutely a waste of time under these conditions. I know exactly what core stood and have redundant proof. See,

http://concretecore.741.com

Meanwhile produce ONE image from the demolition that shows the supposed steel core columns.

 

[Pardalis]

FROM post #544
the delay sequence has not yet gotten to detonating the core.

The delay system initiated the thermite which burns nearly as fast as high explosives expand.

I state the rebar of the concrete core was coated with C4.

Proof?

 

[Christophera]

Again, same images. No proof. Do you have any evidence from the architects and engeneers and other people who built the towers?

ETA: You know, first-hand evidence.

Okay, .......... so you admit you cannot use evidence. My viewing of the documentary is actually as good as it gets short of someone who actually worked on the core. Most of them are dead and gone. I've spoken to an ex steel worker who worked on WTC 1 & 2, a Mohawk and he couldn't remember the core.

Try and produce one image of the supposed steel core columns from the demoliton photos.

 

[Christophera]

Proof?

You cannot use proof. If you could you would use this. Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation, published in 1992

 

[Gravy]

Your construction photos do not show the steel core columns.

You are incorrect.

 

[Christophera]

Typical Article Hardly Mentions Core

Here's a real article by Leslie Robertson. Notice he talks about the lack of masonry on the central shaft as a new design feature.

http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument

His own words state that the partition system was used "in place of masonry."

That seems to conflict with the post by an unregistered person at PhysOrg claiming to be Leslie Robertson. In fact, Leslie Robertson speaks with some technical eloquence, as his article demonstrates. The post at PhysOrg sounds more like someone using his name as a sock puppet to dupe people.

That is a very typical post 9-11 article which does not elaborate on the core enough to consider it actually mentioned.

You really need to come up with images of the demolition that show the steel core columns inside the core area to have credibility here. There are many images of the concrete core from the demolition at,

http://concretecore.741.com

Maybe you can come up with a link to a page about the steel core columns that uses demoliton photos.