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

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Exactly, that is why I use reason with images to make them evidence. Try it sometime.

No, that is pulling factoids out of your ass; which, though it does appear to be your forte, is useless in the real world.

 

[Christophera]

Closed Mind, Open Case

Thank you.

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

Case closed.

-Andrew

I've explained what that image showing columns sheared level is qualified for. Only showing the interior box columns sheared off level. Why? Because there were no steel core columns. What is in the center are supports for frieght elevators and heavy mechanical equipment as well as elevator guide rail supports.

You problem is you have no evidence showing steel columns in the core are at some elevation over ground. No way I'm going to let you MISREPRESENT that image as showing core columns. Since I've shown an image that should show steel core columns if they existed and it does not, reasonably you must produce an explanation for why or another image of the demo showing steel core columns at elevation.

I SAY, if they existed there at ground level, then they existed higher up, therefore show me a demolition image that has steel core columns at some elevation. To continue to MISREPRESENT evidence shows intellectual dishonesty. Let me assist with an image that SHOULD have the core columns, 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS

Sorry, no columns inside the core there. The only columns obviously standing are around the core area as seen outside the core wall here.

 

[RandFan]

Let me assist with an image that SHOULD have the core columns, 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS

Please explain how this shows what you claim it shows?

 

[Christophera]

One Image Of Many Showing Core & Parts

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.

We have another frame of the core lower. From another perspective, after eliminating the impossible, it is conclusive.

 

[RandFan]

We have another frame of the core lower. From another perspective, after eliminating the impossible, it is conclusive.

No, it is not conclusive. Stating that it is such does not make it so. You are simply engaging in rhetoric, demanding that people accept what you say the photos represent. When I ask you for explanations you ignore me. Please respond with more than rhetoric?

 

[Christophera]

Core Area Fully Visible, Free Of Smoke

Please explain how this shows what you claim it shows?

That image can only be 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS because this image of the SPIRE taken a second before from the same camera shows 14 inch thick interior box columns providing scale. NOTE: The slight curve to the fine vertical elements. There is actually nothing else it can be except rebar.

 

[Christophera]

No, it is not conclusive. Stating that it is such does not make it so. You are simply engaging in rhetoric, demanding that people accept what you say the photos represent. When I ask you for explanations you ignore me. Please respond with more than rhetoric?

Okay, let us try. Suggest some other structural design element which this might be other than a cast concrete core.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Okay, let us try. Suggest some other structural design element which this might be other than a cast concrete core.

It's the shadow of a building behind the dust cloud.

 

[gumboot]

I've explained what that image showing columns sheared level is qualified for. Only showing the interior box columns sheared off level. Why? Because there were no steel core columns.

Let me get this straight. You're saying that photo can't be showing core columns because there are not steel core columns? This is your response to our evidence? Why bother asking for it then? Your application of evidence is backwards. One must find evidence, then make a conclusion from it. You cannot make a conclusion, then look for evidence you think supports it.

We claim that photo depicts the core columns - which according to your graphics are in exactly the same location as your "interior box columns". The only difference is the concrete core. The photo of the columns quite clearly shows no concrete whatsoever. Therefore it must just be "interior box columns" without a core. Which is the NIST structure.

You problem is you have no evidence showing steel columns in the core are at some elevation over ground.

What does "some elevation over ground" mean, exactly? I've seen several photos of these core columns that reach at least 3 storeys above the rubble pile, which I understand was several floors high itself. That puts the top of the remaining core columns well above street level. We quite obviously cannot provide photos of the core columns any higher than that. Why? The building collapsed. In case you didn't notice.

No way I'm going to let you MISREPRESENT that image as showing core columns.

If they are interior box columns, as you claim, where is the concrete core inside them?

Since I've shown an image that should show steel core columns if they existed and it does not, reasonably you must produce an explanation for why

As has been, many times. The photo depicts the building after collapse. We maintain the core columns collapsed with the rest of the building. Ergo, in a photo where the building is collapsed, there will be no core columns.

To continue to MISREPRESENT evidence shows intellectual dishonesty.

Indeed it does.

-Andrew

 

[gumboot]

That image can only be 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS because this image of the SPIRE taken a second before from the same camera shows 14 inch thick interior box columns providing scale. NOTE: The slight curve to the fine vertical elements. There is actually nothing else it can be except rebar.

Um... in spite of what you might claim...

Your own photo is simply a cropped segment of the other photo. A child could see this. You claim it is a second before? Um...no, it's not. It's really just...not.

In addition, if it is from the concrete core, explain why it is positioned at the outside edge of the building. It is quite clear (given your photo of "core in dust cloud") that this spire is nowhere near the location of the structural core.

-Andrew

 

[Johnny Pixels]

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?

Why weren't X-rays possible in position? I ask because I have done on-site radiography. In my experience welders are never counted on to do it right.

 

[Anders W. Bonde]

Uhmm, Christophera...Rebar is meant to work in tension, as concrete only excells in compression. That's the whole point of using rebar in the first place. The "spire" in your picture is a section of corner outer steel column, which will support its own weight in compression up to acertain height, the more remaining lateral support, the higher. The corner is the most stable section of the outer steel columns - floors would esily have sheared off from the mass pancaking upon them, leaving a portion of the corner less disturbed for a while. We can also see almost intact sections of outer columns near the base of the building in other post-collapse pictures. Rebar weave to that height with the concrete matrix removed would collapse under its own weight - except it would have been crumpled by the shattered concrete matrix collapse. This is all assuming that the pictures are genuine, of course.

IOW your theory is wrong in all respects.

IAW I'm a structural engineer - admittedly not in buildings but in aircraft. Rebar reinforced concrete is in principle similar to fiber reinforced composites - the rebar being the fiber.

 

[Belz...]

Check the delays and paths section of my page,

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1232703

i understand delay systems for demolition and how to control the descent of a structure, generally. Using videos, still and eyewitness testimony from firefighters and others I am able to fit the WTC event together with great consistency.

No, no and no. You said that the core was detonated. How did the rest of the tower fall if the core wasn't yet detonated ?

 

[Belz...]

You don't explAin my own points to me, you counter them with evidence SUPPORTING YOUR POINT that you qualify by some means. You have not provided an image of any steel core columns from the demolition images which is above ground. You cannot because the demo exposes the entire structure, particuarly the concrete (SAND & GRAVEL) and steel core columns are never seen.

You haven't answered my point about those large pieces of concrete on that very picture.

The greater meaning of free speech is found in the understanding that can come from it. That understanding can create; foregiveness, tolerence, acceptance, respect, trust, freindship and love; protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

No, that's not what SPEECH is about.

No diagram. I'm too busy. I only know specifics about WTC 1 as that was the tower shown in the 1990 documentary.

Too busy ? You're constantly posting here. Surely you have some time to verify your assertions and stop sounding like a fool ?

 

[pchams]

I have been following this thread in its entirety, and since the first link I clicked on that Christophera posted had spam popups for antispyware, I have to conclude that the OP is just having you all on to get clicks on his webpage.
I mean, come on. The exact same nonsense and links are posted in each post.
He has presented no evidence that is conclusive, and he refuses to accept the mountain of evidence that has been produced for him.
You've been had by a click-miner.
He did a great job too.

 

[Belz...]

The technolgy of engineered explosive charges has an interesting exercise with getting the right amount of high density explosive distributed well enough to attain, "maximum containment" with a vessal that can fracture such as concrete. You would have to see above ground blasting in highly stratified terrain and compare blast that were centered in hard formations as to blasts not centered and closer to softer adjacent rock to know what well contained really means.

To the observer it means quieter, or muffled, it means really fine breakage, it means you see a relatively gentle heaving of materials rather than a blast of a gas jet leaking out. The delay systems took care of the rest and had a minimal amount of explosives detonating at any time.

You're just making things up here. Do you have any EVIDENCE for that ??

 

[Apollyon]

What does above ground blasting have to do with anything being discussed, Christophera? Above ground blasting typically uses dynamite, nitroglycerin, black powder, or some other type of Class A explosive. Are you now claiming a Class A explosive was used to bring down the towers?

 

[Hellbound]

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



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

Corrected second link, which is a linear shaped charge with a special frame to further focus the blast.

And no, I haven't done what you're doing. You can follow those links, see that they come from actual demolition sites. Your picture of a supposed "explosive cut column" could be from anywhere.

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.



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

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



"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

Sorry, but I'm not reading your site. Show me the evidence, link me to the source. I don't want your speculation, I want evidence. Surely you researched these topics before you decided to accuse so many people of being mass murderers? I just want to see that research. The original sources. Not more baseless speculation.

And I'm sorry, but encasement in concrete is not better protection. Concrete is porous, allowing both air and water through. It "sweats" with temperature changes, as well as thermal expansion and contraction. You'd be grasping to get ten years.

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

Yes, but it doesn't make a perfectly smooth, level cut. See my example above.

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.

Yes, false photos. At the least, misleading photos. And here's a question you still have avoided since the beginning of the thread:

WHAT NEAR FREEFALL SPEEDS?

You have no evidence of this, primarily because it did not fall at near freefall.

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.

You're an idiot. Quit arguing aginst something I never stated and argue against my actual statements.

Yes, there are square cut column, becuase the picture you posted was of dayas and weeks after the attack, when those columns had been cut, with torches, during the clean-up operation.

YOU have to show something more than "square-cut columns", you have to prove "explosive-cut columns" to support your theory. So far, you've failed to do that. You've posted pics that you've misrepresented as explosive cut (like the first pic, with the two girders, that you originally claimed was evidence of explosive cuts, but have YET to show that the left pic is an actual explosive cut (i.e.-you haven't provided your source), and the right is obviously torch cut).

So, again, do you have evidence, or speculation?

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.[/QUOTE]

 

[Hutch]

I could be wrong here, but I do have some knowledge on shelf-life items and it seems to me that the "useful" life of an explosive is less than the shelf life--in other words, once you pull that item from the shelf and install it, your time to use it decreases. I am not sure if that applies to C-4 type explosives, but I do know that it applies to other types of high explosives.

 

[Stellafane]

I have been following this thread in its entirety, and since the first link I clicked on that Christophera posted had spam popups for antispyware, I have to conclude that the OP is just having you all on to get clicks on his webpage.
I mean, come on. The exact same nonsense and links are posted in each post.
He has presented no evidence that is conclusive, and he refuses to accept the mountain of evidence that has been produced for him.
You've been had by a click-miner.
He did a great job too.

Hmm, interesting theory. It would explain a lot. I mean, no one can really be that stubbornly, mind-numbingly stupid, right? (Right??)

On the other hand, I'm not so sure. I suspect Christophera might indeed be the real deal. Hard to decide which is the more reprehensible form of low-life -- a spammer, or a slime merchant.