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

[Apollyon]

The core is unseen in the construction photos because it is inside the steel framework up to 7 floors below the top floor.

I don't see any concrete core in the link I provided. I see core columns.

Edit: Here's the photo. This is the thrid time I've linked this for you:

http://tinyurl.com/n849l

 

[gumboot]

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.

So this documentary was produced by PBS, yes? So the above statement by you is false? Yes?

Incidently, I have now checked "Twin Towers" on IMDB. The earliest entry is a short film entitled "Twin Towers" from 1911. I'm going to take a wild stab and assume it wasn't about the building of the WTC.

The next earliest entry is "Without Warning: Terror In The Towers" (1993, produced by Stephen Downing and Robert M Rolsky) It's a feature length film about the 1993 bombing, made for Television.

There are no entries for any production about the building of the WTC.

To give you an idea of the IMDB's scope, for 1990 it lists "Linda's Body" a short film made in New Zealand, and only ever released in New Zealand. In 1990 New Zealand only had a population of 3.4 million.

The documentary appears to be your only actual piece of evidence (misinterpreting a photograph is not evidence) therefore I think it important that the existence of this documentary is verified.

-Andrew

 

[RandFan]

The core is unseen in the construction photos because it is inside the steel framework up to 7 floors below the top floor.

That sounds like a claim to me. Can you prove that claim?

 

[Christophera]

Dedicated To Denial

Your left pic is not explosive shear (or not just explosive shear). Have any proof that it is?

I've posted a link recently here that shows the same quare cut end on many columns in all kinds of positions.

Examples of a cutting charge:
Shaped charges placed on steel plate--Very rough edges, as is expected. Also, blast marks clearly visible.

Industrial explosive cutting set up, using shaped explosives and a "cuting frame"--again, notice roughness of edges and blast pattern.

You'll see this in explosive cuts, not the nice smooth edges you showed. If that was cut with explosives, it was ground and finished afterwards.

Again, you are blatantly misrepresenting these images to further your agenda...you aren't interested in truth.

As far as I can tell, you've just done exactly what you claim I'm doing. The link with the holed plate does not represent a Linear Shaped Charge which is really wht we are talking about here. The other link won't work

Do you have any evidence, or is this more speculation?

Explosive built into the building would have become highly unreliable by 2001 (modern C-4 has a shelf life of 10 years under good conditions).

Hey,

Enough of this. I address this on my site. READ.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1154643

C4's life is 10 years in the manufacturers wrapping. Encapsulation in concrete is much better protection from evaporation and oxidization.

Not to mention that trying to get charges, on a sequenced timer, and set it so you cut the steel and demolish the concrete core, along with everything else, is just plain idiotic. There's no way to hide the wires or tubes you'd have to have installed for the system, or the switches, junctions, and other equipment. It'd run throughout the building. The first time electricians go to rewire an office (or the first time network cabling was run through the building), they'd find these wires.

Enough of this. I address this on my site. READ.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1154643

Provide a source for that? "A PBS documentary" is not a source. Dates, show name, air times, anything?

"The Construction Of The Twin Towers". Aired in 1990 on PBS, 2 hours in length.

Enough of this. I address this on my site. READ.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1154643

I'll speak slowly, with small words...

HOW DO YOU KNOW WHICH ONES WERE EXPLOSIVE SHEAR AND WHICH WERE NOT?

None of them appear to be explosive shear, sorry. There's no blast patterns, and the edges are too smooth.

Concentrate the high pressure cutting plane of gasses and the ragged edge disapears, that's what an LSC does.

Um, which intellectual battle are you watching?

You've provided baseless speculation and false photographs.

You provided no evidence that any of the photographs you presented are examples of explosive shear (beyond your opinion).

You provided no evidence of high explosives used at WTC (residue, detonators, etc), again except for your opinion.

You provided no evidence of explosively cut columns, except your opinion.

You provided no evidence of a concrete core, except your interpretation of a very unclear photo that is directly contradicted by other video and photographic evidence (i.e.-tapes of the collapse that do NOT show your "concrete core" standing).

And I can explain what happened without your logic. Your logic is nothing of the sort, it's your opinion and a lot of speculation and conjecture.

No. Your site is, I'm afraid, not an unbiased source. I;ve asked specific questions, you should be able to point me to reliable sources to support your assertions.

Of course, you're more interested in the attention you recieve by spreading your slander, and get to feel good because you can pretend to be doing more than others who actually do have the intestinal fortitude to get up off the couch and do something about what they believe in.

So, do you have any evidence? Or just more conjecture?

No false photos. We have near free fall speeds to explain, and it has not been. My site explains near free fall and pulverization better than anything you've produced.

Evidence of high explosivesD

There have been numerous images of many square cut columns posted by myself and others. If you are not interested and do not notice them, I'm not surprised.

I've shown a picture of the WTC 2 concrete core AND shown that the steel core columns are NEVER seen in the DEMO photos. I know you are afraid of the truth so I expect you to ignore everything that supports the reality of near free fall and pulverization.

I've provided specific answers, many more than the questions you've asked.

The photos of the DEMO are unbiased, logical integration of them into an explanaton of free fall has been reasonably executed.

Show me your site where you use pictures of the towers demise to pove the official structure.

 

[Christophera]

Logic and Proof Always Ride Together.

That sounds like a claim to me. Can you prove that claim?

The concrete core of WTC 2 does this well, as long as one is willing to use logic.

 

[Christophera]

I don't see any concrete core in the link I provided. I see core columns.

Edit: Here's the photo. This is the thrid time I've linked this for you:

http://tinyurl.com/n849l

Sorry if I missed it before. My image shows the concrete of the core base and the interior box column much better.

 

[Christophera]

Columns Cut By High Explosives

Ah so you agree. The core consisted of concrete with 47 columns of steel on the outside? So in your photo of the concrete core standing, are we expected to believe the 47 steel columns around the outside of it magically peeled away? But the concrete is still there?

Yes, the exploding core pushed them outward after cutting charges severed them. There have been a number of images posted showing many square cut column ends.

Okay, interesting. Please produce an image of ground zero showing the 1,300 foot columns that flanked the outside of the solid concrete core. The ones that somehow fell before the concrete core itself did. While you're at it, please provide photographic evidence of these 47 steel columns outside the core as the building collapses. Presumably, since there is clear evidence of the concrete core during collapse, it should be no trouble finding evidence of these columns that were OUTSIDE it.

-Andrew

Sorry, I've explained that the columns were cut as the building fell.

 

[gumboot]

Sorry if I missed it before. My image shows the concrete of the core base and the interior box column much better.

No it doesn't. Because your photo is enlarged so it looks blurry and hard to see.

The other photo, of exactly the same piece of debris, confirms there is no concrete wall on that chunk of building.

This is a big part of photo interpretation that you seem to have missed. Interpretation is achieved by cross-referencing multiple photos of the same thing.

-Andrew

 

[Christophera]

No it doesn't. Because your photo is enlarged so it looks blurry and hard to see.

The other photo, of exactly the same piece of debris, confirms there is no concrete wall on that chunk of building.

This is a big part of photo interpretation that you seem to have missed. Interpretation is achieved by cross-referencing multiple photos of the same thing.

-Andrew

Your image is a bad angle, bad light, mine shows everything much clearer. And I've already looked at all I could find, including the one you post and chose mine for the aforementioned reasons.

 

[Christophera]

Okay, interesting. Please produce an image of ground zero showing the 1,300 foot columns that flanked the outside of the solid concrete core.
-Andrew

This would qualify for that. Green arrows are the interior box columns, yellow are elevator landing supports or mechanical equipment supports.

 

[RandFan]

The concrete core of WTC 2 does this well, as long as one is willing to use logic.

Please explain. How does it do what you claim that it does? When you say "the concrete core does this what do you mean by the "concrete core" and what does the photo have to do with it? Are you alleging that the concrete core is in the photo? If so why is not in the other photo that I asked you about, the one where you said it had been "been turned into SAND & GRAVEL?"

When I use logic and I look at the two photos it doesn't seem that what you are saying makes sense. Are you saying:

1.) The concrete core was blown up after the building was first destroyed?

Or

2.) The concrete core disintegrated after the building fell down around it?

Also, could you address these other posts of mine?

Non sequitur. Perhaps that is true for "an explosion". What of a collapsing building?

That's a picture that you proclaim shows what you say it shows. Do you have any proof that it does show what you say it shows?

Do you have any evidence that states that the concrete core would be so eviscerated?

 

[gumboot]

Your image is a bad angle, bad light, mine shows everything much clearer. And I've already looked at all I could find, including the one you post and chose mine for the aforementioned reasons.

I didn't link any photos at all. That was someone else entirely.

And you are wrong. The light conditions in the two photos are identical.

The other photo is not front on, thus making it fairly easy to see that there is no enormous concrete wall there. In fact the other photo is a *better* angle.

 

[gumboot]

This would qualify for that. Green arrows are the interior box columns, yellow are elevator landing supports or mechanical equipment supports.

Thank you.

You asked for photos of the core NIST claims existed. The photo you posted is such evidence.

Case closed.

-Andrew

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Christophera--

I am doing my best to find out about this documentary, because I would love to see it. In order to query PBS about it, I need to know where it aired. What is the nearest large city to you, or what is your zip code? PBS airs programs locally, not nationally, so a search for it has to be done this way. Thanks!



Edited: because I evidently can't type correctly this late at night.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

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

Ignoring your unnecessary snarkiness, why did you cite and quote the alleged post by Leslie Robertson, if not to bolster your position?

If I was mistaken in my deduction, I have no problem refining, amending, or dropping it entirely. You know, the things people should do when presented with corrective info.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

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?

Still waiting for your definition of my error Regnad Kcin.

I took the next step in my examining your error here.

As I requested there, please tell how many stories (that is, undamaged by the airplane collisions) were above each impact in both WTC 1 and WTC 2. (A reminder: I took the range of impacted floors you provided and chose the middle number.)

 

[Regnad Kcin]

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.

I'd like to remind you, as I have before, that this seemingly favorite image of yours is a still frame of a demolition in progress. It, by itself, is inconclusive. Surely you understand as much.

 

[TheFeds]

Is this the documentary in question (PBS's NOVA "Why the Towers Fell")?

If so, here is the transcript.

Also, regarding the use and structural properties of welded joints (from here):

Thanks for a great program. I was very interested in the analysis of the connection between the trusses and the columns and the bolt sizes used, and I have a follow-up question for Dr. Eagar or one of the people on the program. From the beginning, I noticed one thing I have not yet seen addressed: There is no bending or damage evident at the connections between the three-story high columns and the ones above which rest on them. I am referring to the four holes visible in the horizontal plate forming the base of each column in the groups of three.

If these columns had been fully welded to the one above, or used significantly stronger bolts, would the outside columns been more able to resist the penetration of the plane, and would they also have not "unzipped" as fast during the collapse? I expected to see some distortion or damage to the holes if the connection had been as strong as the column itself, which appears to have enormous resistance to shear and bending. Instead, these preassemblies of columns appeared to be almost intact when found, at least with regard to bending away from vertical. The bases and holes look intact. Could they also have used relatively weak bolts? I assume bolts were used since there are openings in each column just above the top and bottom of the column, maybe to allow wrenches.

[SIZE=-1]Anonymous
[/SIZE]

Dr. Eagar responds:

This is a very perceptive question. One of my faculty colleagues pointed this out to me a few days after Sept. 11. It turns out that the connection between the column sections was only tack welded; well, maybe a bit bigger than a tack weld, but they were not continuously welded. These joints are in compression, so the weld is not load-bearing—unless the floor joist connections give way, which is what happened during the fire. The welds were only needed to hold the pieces together during steel erection. In service these welds were not really needed.

It is true that a continuously welded piece of structural steel should bend before it breaks. The column sections were not continuously welded, so they did not have the weld strength to bend the steel before the partial welds broke. That is why you do not see the sections twisted and distorted as much as if they had been welded.

Does this mean the building was defectively designed? I do not think so, because once continuous welds started to bend, the building would have been done for anyway. Even with the weaker partial welds, the primary loads in the columns were still compressive, and the distortions that popped these partial welds represented a building in a serious state of distress. Maybe the buliding might have survived a few more minutes with continuous welds, but there is no reason to conclude that the building would have withstood the entire fire without collapse if continuous welds had been present.

Apparently welds were used for non-structural reasons during the positioning of the members. They weren't holding the building up, probably because of the aforementioned difficulties in reliably creating load-bearing welds in these conditions. According to this source, therefore, the columns "were not continuously welded". This is in opposition to Christophera's statement:

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.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

What Matters More, 3,000 Americans Dead Or An Immaterial Use Of An Internet Image?

You do realize, Mr. Brown, that there were numerous other nationalities represented among the killed that day, don't you?

 

[SezMe]

Christophera--

I am doing my best to find out about this documentary, because I would love to see it. In order to query PBS about it, I need to know where it aired. What is the nearest large city to you, or what is your zip code? PBS airs programs locally, not nationally, so a search for it has to be done this way. Thanks!

Based on publically available information, Christophera's home zip is 93101, which is Santa Barbara, California. The nearest large city is Los Angeles (depending on how you define "large") which is the location of the nearest PBS outlet. PBS in LA is KCET.

Go Nobby.