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

[hellaeon]

Your images will not show concrete because the concrete was inside the steel framework. So the farmes were also. I'e said this many times but there are many that chose to ignore this fact.

Only images of the towers demise are permitted as evidence for steel core columns.

Why? The construction photos can be misreprsented and the DEMO photos cannot.

Actually the sunrise photo does show the silhouette of concrete and light reflects off the inside concrete walls from the smooth steel forms.

wow

Lost me mate. I think your trying to understand something the way you want it rather then understanding it the way it actually is.

 

[Hellbound]

We've got a explosively sheared columns on the left and a torch cut on the right. Here is a series of columns sheared level the green arrows are interior box columns and the yellow are elevator landing supports or guide rail supports.

If there were steel core columns we would seem them here, 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS and we do not, because they did not exist.

Intellectual dishonesty would reside where there is no reasoning for not accepting evidence that is obvious. The images of construction posted in attempts to show "core columns" have been disqualified because my knowledge of the actual construction.

Conversly I have many pictures where the supposed steel core columns should be seen and are not. There is no reason for these images to be disqualified for use in this way but you are trying to without a reason.

Let us check the "intentionally dishonesty" meter.

Yes, lets.

Do you have anything to show that your pictures are explosive shear? You've asserted it, but I'm sorry, it isn't.

Now, you can make relatively clean cuts with explosives, but they won't look that clean without a bit of work afterwards. In any case, making a clean cut would require direct access to the steel beam itself, something that in the WTC would have required removal of large pieces of the drywall (or, removal of the concrete if we accept your "reinforced core" nonsense).

You've yet to post anything showing explosive shear. The WTC picture is showing the columns that were torch cut earlier in the process, not explosive shear. They were cut when the rubble around them was close to the level of the tops of the columns. Your picture os from quite some time after the collapse.

Unless you have evidence of explosive shear, you're just blowing smoke. Unless you can support your claim that this is shear, you have no evidence. You're either ignorant, too lazy to check the facts, or dishonest. Possibly some combination of these. I'd simply like to ascertain which.

So, can you support your contention that these pictures are explosive shear, or do you expect us to just take your word for it?

There are better battles than wars for rights. Battles to defeat deceptions that warmongers create and perpetuate qualify.

Yes, they do, but so far you've only perpetuated deception. You've shown amazingly shallow research, biased arguments, invalid logic, and a lot of assertions with no evidence. You have one picture of a supposed concrete core (that doesn't appear in any other pictures), you keep claiming a piece of corner column and facade is part of the "core wall", you've asserted explosives and thermite (of which the evidence is less than zero), cut steel you've claimed is explosive shear, and you've shown a complete lack of knowledge about the effects of explosives and incendiaries, as well as structural engineering and failure analysis.

You've fought nothing. You hide behind your wall throwing stones over the top, laughing to yourself about the bulls-eyes you imagine scoring, not realizing that the battle is no longer in the same zip code. You're like the people who "fight" by writing letters to the editor, instead of actually getting out and making a difference. You can't even be bothered to do the basic research to identify facts and support your arguments, and don't seem to be able to understand what logical argument or reasoned thought is, let alone implement it. You're fighting shadows in a mirror, while some of us are doing much more. You don't know what it means to fight, in a war or otherwise.

You may very well work for a civil engineering firm; they need secretaries and janitors just like any other business.

 

[gumboot]

A quick comment. I have been impressed here, and elsewhere, at the impressive photo interpretation skills of CTers everywhere. I work professionally in the film industry, and part of my training involved photographic interpretation.

This doesn't mean I'm brilliant, but it does mean I know just how difficult it is to interpret photos. I also am aware of the extensive additional training in photographic interpretation that experts such as work for military intelligence, the FBI, or CIA go through.

I have yet to see a single claim of "clearly seen in this picture" presented by CTers that is even remotely plausible given my level of photographic interpretation skill. Bare in mind I'm used to interpreting much more difficult photos, often with very high key lighting that cast very misleading shadows. The photos presented of the collapse are extremely easy to interpret, comparatively. The "core collapsing" appears to be a variation in the density of the dust cloud. The "spire" of the core (never mind it's in a completely different place to the so-called "core behind the smoke") is fairly obviously an outside corner of the building (I like how they call pillars designed to hold much of the building's weight a "facade").

As with the videos apparantly proving Osama isn't Osama in the Dec 2001 video, I am stounded at the expert video interpretation skills these people apparantly have.

Skills that clearly outstrip my own meagre skills picked up over only 3 years of study, and even outstripping the CIA experts whose SOLE JOB is to interpret videos.

Edited: Typo

 

[rwguinn]

everyone who believes that continuous steel collumns, 1300 feet long, plus, do or have existed in the world, stand up and be counted.
Each I-beam (or box) collumn was likely no longer than 60 feet, with 30 more likely.
They are NOT welded continuously--the warpage would be outrageous. They were and are riveted and/or bolted.
That means each end was cleanly cut, upon extruding, so that everything could be fit together.
The one beam from WTC II have seen had a web which was about 1 inch thick, and was used as a Gong in the premier performance of "Beyond Courage". It was about 6 feet long, and cut from a bigger chunk.
On-site welding of that size steel requires QC of unbelievable scope--especially at the strength required.
Bolted jopints are much easier to analyze, and are far more consistent in performance than welded joints--and you don't have the heat-affected zone to guess about.

 

[Christophera]

The "spire" of the core (never mind it's in a completely different place to the so-called "core behind the smoke") is fairly obviously an outside corner of the building (I like how they call pillars designed to hold much of the building's weight a "facade").

The spire is not a perimeter box column spire. The perimter box columns had 22 inches between them. The spire has below it rectangles formed by interior box columns and floor beams easily visible in this image.

BTW, check gravys post, "Clearly seen" is a popular phrase with him.

You do not know enough about the towers to critique the structural analysis I provide. Use evidence and reason to get things done.

 

[Christophera]

wow

Lost me mate. I think your trying to understand something the way you want it rather then understanding it the way it actually is.

Look else where for that problem.

Here is what actually is, or isn't. It is not an image that shows the steel core columns. It is an image showing something that could be concrete. In that situation, there is nothing else it could be but concrete.

Always use evidence when trying to reason.

 

[Christophera]

everyone who believes that continuous steel collumns, 1300 feet long, plus, do or have existed in the world, stand up and be counted.

By virtue of a 100% but weld, the columns become virtually continuos, 1,300 foot long. They would not stand anywhere except for in place. They will buckle and fall unsupported, but they are continuos.

There were no extruded columns until the 80th floor. Everything hand fabbed and trucked in 40 foot pieces.

 

[rwguinn]

The spire is not a perimeter box column spire. The perimter box columns had 22 inches between them. The spire has below it rectangles formed by interior box columns and floor beams easily visible in this image.

BTW, check gravys post, "Clearly seen" is a popular phrase with him.

You do not know enough about the towers to critique the structural analysis I provide. Use evidence and reason to get things done.

And you, whatever you are, have less Structural Analysis ability than a first-year music major. You have even less knowlege of physics than you do stress/strain, and certainly no knowlege of construction techniques.
In other words, you are an ignoramous spouting off about things you know less than nothing about.

 

[twinstead]

In other words, you are an ignoramous spouting off about things you know less than nothing about.

That is an understatement. Can anybody tell me if there is any sane person who hasn't come to that conclusion after reading this entire thread?

 

[Christophera]

On-site welding of that size steel requires QC of unbelievable scope--especially at the strength required.
Bolted jopints are much easier to analyze, and are far more consistent in performance than welded joints--and you don't have the heat-affected zone to guess about.

the columns were hand fabbed at the mill. Trucked to the site and butt welded. X-rays weren't possible in position. Experienced welders were counterd on to do it right. Butt welds in the high tensile steel rebar of the concrete core were x-rayed. Bolted and plated joints were only used when floor beams joined with columns, not column extension.

You know your stuff with fabrication and steel. See any steel columns here? Or here here?

 

[TheFeds]

By virtue of a 100% but weld, the columns become virtually continuos, 1,300 foot long. They would not stand anywhere except for in place. They will buckle and fall unsupported, but they are continuos.

Continuous, but not homogeneous and not isotropic. There's a heat-affected zone surrounding every weld, where the heat of the torch and the flow of the molten metal have changed the properties. Frequently, in structural steel, these areas are effectively annealed, and therefore weaker than the rest of the steel (which is usually formed by hot-rolling, a process that imparts additional strength by controlling grain size and direction).

Without having read the rest of the thread I'll hold off on further comment—but from a structural perspective, assumptions like the preceding are dangerous. I'll also point out that rwguinn is completely correct with respect to the nature of standard practice for joining steel structural shapes; especially when those structures were built, welding was avoided because of the difficulties in predicting the strength of a joint (though somewhat more common now, it's still far from standard). For bolts, calculating loading is trivial; for a weld, it depends on many factors, several of which are rather difficult to control at 1000' in the air.

 

[gumboot]

In other words, you are an ignoramous spouting off about things you know less than nothing about.

That is an understatement. Can anybody tell me if there is any sane person who hasn't come to that conclusion after reading this entire thread?

Just of note, while looking for evidence of this "BBC" documentary I found someone called "Christophera" arguing the same claims on another site (sorry I can't put in links yet). When I say "the same" I mean "identical". As in the same exact phrases, void of evidence. The same photographic links.

The only exception was the documentary. This "Christophera" claimed it was "produced by PBS".

I still can't find any reference to it on the net aside from these threads. I did however, find a much shorter film on the WTC made in the 70's about the construction. It didn't mention a concrete core.

 

[hellaeon]

Christophera,
Sorry but you can say what you like, but its pretty evident your just rambling your own interpretations of things while clearly ignoring what contradicts it.
You pick and choose things and even then distort and twist what you choose to fit your own supposed facts. You have been shown to be wrong time and time again. You cant just run along in the world thinking your some self endowered expert. Your not, is that so hard to accept? Im not, so I turn to the experts who are on these matters.

You present not anything scientific or evident, just a belief system, the way you interpret it. Thats an opinion, and when you try to make it a fact, its not supported remotely by anything real, yet you continue to differ. You may as well say the WTC was built by koalas and the explosives *shakes head yet again* were planted by monkeys and the whole thing conspired by Jim Jones.


Cheers

 

[gumboot]

You know your stuff with fabrication and steel. See any steel columns here? Or here?

Excuse me for point out the obvious... but no, there's no steel columns in either of those photos. Because they're taken about a mile from the buildings or so, and they are taken after the building has collapsed. The steel structural columns (which, incidently, you yourself have claimed exist) are, at the time of these photos, lying in a pile of wreckage behind a cloud of dust and several buildings.

-Andrew

 

[hellaeon]

You know your stuff with fabrication and steel. See any steel columns here? Or here here?

hahahaha is that meant to be stupid?

 

[Christophera]

Do you have anything to show that your pictures are explosive shear? You've asserted it, but I'm sorry, it isn't.

Now, you can make relatively clean cuts with explosives, but they won't look that clean without a bit of work afterwards.

Explosive shear on the left, torch cut on the right sheared columns.

In any case, making a clean cut would require direct access to the steel beam itself, something that in the WTC would have required removal of large pieces of the drywall (or, removal of the concrete if we accept your "reinforced core" nonsense).

wtf, I wish people read before they post. My site deals with most of what you say, which is correct, except fo the denial. There were extreme shape charges built into the floors around the columns. After a few years of looking at thsoe square cut ends. Too clean, as you say, for any previously known salvage operation, I realized that the documentary in 1990 had a few relative words.

Here is an approximate diagram of the cutting charges built into every other floor. Based on the last 10 minutes of the 1990 documentary and their details on the floor finishing details on behalf of the public OVER expenditure on the tower construction. PBS producers trying to show that the coasts were justified. The videographers found that tempered steel plates had a 0.035 inch clearance to the interior box columns that surrounded the concrete core. The PA was upset and said the documents they had sourced from a sub contractor 20 years after the construction was still considered confidential.

Steven Jones refers to them as cutting charges and they will perform leaving an edge as smooth as that which guides the plane of high presure gasses.

You've yet to post anything showing explosive shear. The WTC picture is showing the columns that were torch cut earlier in the process, not explosive shear. They were cut when the rubble around them was close to the level of the tops of the columns. Your picture os from quite some time after the collapse.

These columns sheared level were not done so by men cutting off the tops of piles of tangles steel. The green arrows are a level, square cut row of interior box column tops. The yellow are the salvage cuts you describe. Not core columns. Elevator landing supports or other mechanical equipment, yes.

You can't even be bothered to do the basic research to identify facts and support your arguments, and don't seem to be able to understand what logical argument or reasoned thought is, let alone implement it. You're fighting shadows in a mirror, while some of us are doing much more. You don't know what it means to fight, in a war or otherwise.

Whatta' mean? I'm kicking your ass in this intellectual battle and you DO know what you are talking about with high explosives, but you don't know the WTC and cannot explain any of what happened without the exact same logic I use. Tell rummy to send some one not afraid of the truth.

You may very well work for a civil engineering firm; they need secretaries and janitors just like any other business.

I notice you did not use any evidence, your post used reasonable knowledge, but was inadequate to provide criticism. READ.

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

 

[Christophera]

hahahaha is that meant to be stupid?

I think your response is very appropriate. Thank you.

 

[Christophera]

The steel structural columns (which, incidently, you yourself have claimed exist) are, at the time of these photos, lying in a pile of wreckage behind a cloud of dust and several buildings.

-Andrew

You misrepresent my statements or simplify and blur them. I insist that 47 steel columns, 1,300 foot in length SURROUNDED the outside of the concrete core wall. I insist that no steel columns were inside the core.

Produce the image of the 1,300 foot columns in the wreakage or explain why they are not seen buckled and lying around ground zero as you say.

 

[Christophera]

Just of note, while looking for evidence of this "BBC" documentary I found someone called "Christophera" arguing the same claims on another site (sorry I can't put in links yet). When I say "the same" I mean "identical". As in the same exact phrases, void of evidence. The same photographic links.

The only exception was the documentary. This "Christophera" claimed it was "produced by PBS".

I still can't find any reference to it on the net aside from these threads. I did however, find a much shorter film on the WTC made in the 70's about the construction. It didn't mention a concrete core.

So you've found me arguing for the truth elsewhere. Good. I've claimed it was the 2 hour documentary that aired on PBS in 1190 on this forum too, in this very thread. it was called "The Constrcution Of The Twin Towers." You will have to read to find it though, and well the diaper on this forum is full and all I can do is apply more disinfectant (truth) so it is swollen and messy. Sorry about that, but the major flow comes form the other posters here.

 

[DavidJames]

You misrepresent my statements or simplify and blur them. I insist that 47 steel columns, 1,300 foot in length SURROUNDED the outside of the concrete core wall. I insist that no steel columns were inside the core.

Produce the image of the 1,300 foot columns in the wreakage or explain why they are not seen buckled and lying around ground zero as you say.

What do you think happend to the 47 1300' steel columns?