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

[Apollyon]

btw, I've sent the following e-mail to Lera.com, which is Leslie E. Robertson Associates, R.L.L.P.

------

Dear Sirs,

I would like to bring an issue to your attention. As you probably know, there are a number of theories discussed on the internet as to the fall of the World Trade Center Towers. Some of these theories involve the design methodologies used in the construction of the towers. One of the alternate theories of construction, which goes against the prevailing wisdom and the statements made by design engineers and structural engineers, including Mr. Robertson, is that 1 WTC and 2 WTC were constructed with a concrete core.

People in various online forums are debating the design issues, but in one particular forum a comment was posted and attributed to Leslie E. Robertson, claiming that the design was indeed a concrete core.

Following is a link to the forum and the content of the comment:

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

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

My impression is that someone impersonated Mr. Robertson in this forum in order to spread false information. While this may seem insignificant, it has had an impact on quite a few people involved in the debates over the fall of the towers, not to mention they seem to be falsely proliferating a viewpoint that does not jibe with past statements by Mr. Robertson.

I thought I would bring this to your attention to make you aware of the situation in case you felt the need to take any action.

Thank you for your time.

 

[Christophera]

You're systematically ignoring Gravy's posts on the matter.

Even assuming that you're right about the core, Chris, it still doesn't change anything about 9/11.

Gravy has not addressed the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS nor has it produced an image of the steel core columns from demo photos of steel columns. NOTE: the above image link should show some of the supposed 47, steel core columns IF they existed, which they didn't.

 

[bob_kark]

FROM post #544



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

So, they botched the demolition? This certainly seems like a fairly large problem. How did the rest of the building collapse if the core was still standing? Why wasn't there a huge explosion when the C4 in the standing core detonated? Also, if thermite explosives had been detonated in the basement, what was the core standing on?

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

Thermite burns quickly, however it doesn't melt steel nearly as fast as high explosives expand.

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.

You are still avoiding this discrepancy. If they had planned out this attack at the time the building was erected, why would they leave out the most important part of the plan, i.e. the explosives in the basement?

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.

How many do you need? There have been at least 10 in this thread.

 

[Tricky]

btw, I've sent the following e-mail to Lera.com, which is Leslie E. Robertson Associates, R.L.L.P.

------

Dear Sirs,

I would like to bring an issue to your attention. As you probably know, there are a number of theories discussed on the internet as to the fall of the World Trade Center Towers. Some of these theories involve the design methodologies used in the construction of the towers. One of the alternate theories of construction, which goes against the prevailing wisdom and the statements made by design engineers and structural engineers, including Mr. Robertson, is that 1 WTC and 2 WTC were constructed with a concrete core.

People in various online forums are debating the design issues, but in one particular forum a comment was posted and attributed to Leslie E. Robertson, claiming that the design was indeed a concrete core.

Following is a link to the forum and the content of the comment:

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

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

My impression is that someone impersonated Mr. Robertson in this forum in order to spread false information. While this may seem insignificant, it has had an impact on quite a few people involved in the debates over the fall of the towers, not to mention they seem to be falsely proliferating a viewpoint that does not jibe with past statements by Mr. Robertson.

I thought I would bring this to your attention to make you aware of the situation in case you felt the need to take any action.

Thank you for your time.

Um... Take a look at the date on that message.

 

[Christophera]

Can't Produce Proof? Try Disinformation

btw, I've sent the following e-mail to Lera.com, which is Leslie E. Robertson Associates, R.L.L.P.

------

Dear Sirs,

I would like to bring an issue to your attention. As you probably know, there are a number of theories discussed on the internet as to the fall of the World Trade Center Towers. Some of these theories involve the design methodologies used in the construction of the towers. One of the alternate theories of construction, which goes against the prevailing wisdom and the statements made by design engineers and structural engineers, including Mr. Robertson, is that 1 WTC and 2 WTC were constructed with a concrete core.

People in various online forums are debating the design issues, but in one particular forum a comment was posted and attributed to Leslie E. Robertson, claiming that the design was indeed a concrete core.

Following is a link to the forum and the content of the comment:

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

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

My impression is that someone impersonated Mr. Robertson in this forum in order to spread false information. While this may seem insignificant, it has had an impact on quite a few people involved in the debates over the fall of the towers, not to mention they seem to be falsely proliferating a viewpoint that does not jibe with past statements by Mr. Robertson.

I thought I would bring this to your attention to make you aware of the situation in case you felt the need to take any action.

Thank you for your time.

Good luck!

He won't deny it as he won't confirm it. He is afraid. I would be too. But I shall not berate him for not coming forward. I will thank him for posting as he did, with his conscience.

 

[Tricky]

Good luck!

He won't deny it as he won't confirm it. He is afraid. I would be too. But I shall not berate him for not coming forward. I will thank him for posting as he did, with his conscience.

It's an April Fools day joke, you great oaf.

 

[Johnny Pixels]

Um... Take a look at the date on that message.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1712526#post1712526

 

[Belz...]

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

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).

More proof that nothing exists beyond fall of 2001 for these guys.

What is important is that we have images showing what can only be a concrete core.

Why do I get the impression that this is your wallpaper ?

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

Again, completely ignoring Gravy, I see.

 

[Apollyon]

I realize it was posted on April Fools. Regardless, Christophera seems bent on using a fake impersonation of Leslie E. Robertson as proof positive.

Maybe they won't care, maybe they will? It doesn't hurt to give them a heads up.

 

[Belz...]

544

Interesting that you posted this again, number 43 :

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.)

Chris, if explosives were used to blow up the CONCRETE core and only sand and gravel remained from the collapse, why can we see the thing still standing after the collapse ?

 

[twinstead]

Your image proves nothing. This image of the core proves that there was a concrete core because nothing else could survive and have that appearance. The image also proves there were not steel core columns.

Dude. Your image proves nothing, because all the construction photos posted in the last few pages show light shining through the building. How do you explain that? How does that fit your concrete core theory? Your concrete core would have to be invisible, therefore, your beloved SINGLE image must have some other explanation.

Honestly, you actually could claim the core was invisible, and it would only be slightly more kooky then the theory you currently have. And if it was invisible, it would explain why no workers saw it, or no pictures taken during construction show it. A perfect theory.

You're welcome in advance for the advice.

 

[Christophera]

Read My Page

So, they botched the demolition? This certainly seems like a fairly large problem. How did the rest of the building collapse if the core was still standing? Why wasn't there a huge explosion when the C4 in the standing core detonated? Also, if thermite explosives had been detonated in the basement, what was the core standing on?

Read my page,

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

It will save lots of space.

Thermite burns quickly, however it doesn't melt steel nearly as fast as high explosives expand.

True enough. However, the structural value of a steel column is gone quickly.

You are still avoiding this discrepancy. If they had planned out this attack at the time the building was erected, why would they leave out the most important part of the plan, i.e. the explosives in the basement?

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/underground/underground_explosions.htm

How many do you need? There have been at least 10 in this thread.

Mr. Kark,

There are no images of the steel core columns because they did not exist. What is being posted are misrepresentations. If the steel core columns existed they would be seen HER. Instead what is seen is the spire, formed by an interio box column and an end view of the concrete core shear wall.

 

[Gravy]

The Core Was Often 7 Stories Below The Top OF The Tower

How about 25 stories? Look at the angle the photo is taken from, Christophera. Are you telling me those are HALLWAYS? Please provide a schematic diagram of hallways that go inthe indicated directions.

ETA; Christophera, I really recommend you get the video "New York." Remember that these are video images, and the moving helicopter shows the light between the columns from many angles.

 

[Pardalis]

You had better leave the discussion after asking that lame question.

Come again?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tube

 

[Tricky]

I realize it was posted on April Fools. Regardless, Christophera seems bent on using a fake impersonation of Leslie E. Robertson as proof positive.

Maybe they won't care, maybe they will? It doesn't hurt to give them a heads up.

Yeah, Johnny Pixels got there first too. I confess, I don't have the stomach to read through this whole thread.

I suppose though that this proves the old adage, "Nothing can be made foolproof because of the great energy and determination of fools."

 

[Gravy]

Um... Take a look at the date on that message.

No one knows tricks like Pixie and Tricky!

 

[Belz...]

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

Ooohh... so they also mixed C4 with the steel of the outer walls during construction ?

Also:

corecorecorecorecorecorecorecorecorecorecorecorecorecorecorecorecore

 

[Belz...]

Hey, in those pictures you can actually see through the building being built. How can that be possible if there was a solid concrete core?

Invisicrete, of course.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Apparently, Christophera needs reminded why pictures are not, in and of themselves, evidence http://www.internationalskeptics.co...hp?p=1664253&highlight=challenger#post1664253

Here, let me provide an example of why pictures, by themselves, are not evidence.

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9610/10/feyn...plosion.lg.jpg
Here we can see the after-effects of Christophera's laser attack on the space shuttle Challenger.
...

 

[Christophera]

Dude. Your image proves nothing, because all the construction photos posted in the last few pages show light shining through the building. How do you explain that?

The hallways allow light to show through, particuarly with WTC 2.

How does that fit your concrete core theory? Your concrete core would have to be invisible, therefore, your beloved SINGLE image must have some other explanation..

There are many images that show the concrete core. This is the one piece of core left, not fractured by high explosive. It is the core wall at the base. If the steel core columns existed they would be seen here.

Honestly, you actually could claim the core was invisible, and it would only be slightly less kooky then the theory you currently have. And if it was invisible, it would explain why no workers saw it, or no pictures taken during construction show it. A perfect theory.

You're welcome in advance for the advice.

Workers saw it, we just cannot find the ones that are alive still that saw it. The core was not easy to see, but the steel core columns NEVER appear in the demo images where they should if they existed.