• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hutch said:
Christophera, I want to be very sure I understand all the ramifications of your supposition, so please correct me if I am wrong in any of the particulars below.

1. The World Trade Centers were built with Concrete Cores, despite there being no record of that much concrete being ordered, no sign of the massive molds (wrong word but I've pulled a blank) that would have had to hold the settling concrete and no record of any of the hundreds of workers who would have been repsonsible for the building of the Core.

2. Inside the Concrete core was 3" rebar at 48" diameter, which is a unique and possibly one-of-a-kind rebar at distances that engineers (at least those on this site) believe are not practical.

3. On that unique rebar was a coat of C4-type explosive that was covered by the concrete during the pour, but retained it's explosive potential. This despite there being no record of the hypothetical Rebar being diverted to a location for application of the C4-type explosives.

4. At the same time the builders were welding 1300-ft steel columns on the outside of the Concrete core, while also planting explosive charges in such precise locations as to sever the steel whenever necessary.

5. Let sit for approximately 30 years.

6. Sometime prior to but near 9-11, the entire two buildings are primed and wired for detonation without the thousands of workers and scores of security being aware in the slightest of the massive work and wiring necessary.

7. Detonations are made that are powerful enough not only to sever steel but to pulverize the entire concrete core and lead to collapse of the building.

Is this accurate, Chris? I want to be sure I am following you here.
Click to expand...

Well, when you say it like that, it all makes perfect sense.
 
Christophera said:
Did eager say "FLOOR BEAMS"? Look at his model.
Click to expand...
No, he doesn't say "floor beams."

Eagar correctly calls them "floor joists." They are also properly referred to in other studies as "floor trusses."

So what straw man are you going to come up with next to avoid providing proof of your claim that the columns were butt-welded?

Please stop with your hand-waving and answer.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
The war in Afghanistan was not illegal. The one in Iraq might well be, but BPSCG would disagree.
Click to expand...

The war in Iraq was technically legal, Saddam Hussein and his regime was in breach of UN resolution 1441, wich allowed the use of military force.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/

The resolution was passed with a 15 to 0 vote by the United Nations members. Only a few nations decided to implement it.
 
I've mostly stayed on the sidelines of this thread, especially since I'm increasingly suspecting Christophera is seriously deluded, perhaps even mentally ill, and thus further discussion with him is not only pointless, it may actually be dangerous in some ways. But I must say this: Chris, you questioning Huntsman's guts, even indirectly (as you did with your "engineers are often not very brave" comment), is like Bozo the Clown questioning Einstein's intelligence.

Beyond that, I can only echo what others have already suggested: seriously dude, please consider seeking help.
 
@Arkan: Could be. My brain's well past its bedtime, and it's just afternoon. Must... find... something else to do besides read this thread...
 
BTW, i just finished watching the building the WTC documentary I linked to earlier (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/sf_building.html) it's pretty entertaining how many of christophera's "ideas" get shot down.

Lots of film of steel being flown in (with bolt holes clearly shown), couple of scenes of core columns being flown in. They show them pouring concrete for the floors (looks like that rebar was on 12" centers maybe?) but nothing on a concrete core. Guess in 1983 when they made the film they were already in on the secret that the buildings would be exploded and they weren't to show that part.

Here's a clip of one of the core columns being raised.
578944987b4f05c6f.png
 
Christophera said:
I've answered with 2 entire web sites, one completely devoted to the concrete core. You, basically have not looked. That is the intellectual dishonesty thing you do.

http://concretecore.741.com/

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
Click to expand...
And a one anna 2 anna 3 anna one more time:
Still photos take from 5 miles away will show no object smaller than 12 feet on a side in any sensible, analyzable way. Saying that such a picture clearly shows 3"rebar on 48" centers is ludicrous-and, if you knew anything about construction, you'd know that rebar is buried in the concrete, and not visible, anyway...
I suggest that you actually look at the pictures of numerous posts, showing a cluster of steel beams in the center of the pile of rubble--with no concrete anywhere near.
Then get youself an engineering construction book, and look at the pretty pictures-because there is no way you can read and comprehend anything more complex than "Horton Hatches an Egg"
 
Evidence

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Inigo Montoya
 
One thing that has me puzzled about this concrete core theory is how he claims they poured it. If I get the gist of it correct they poured the core seven stories or more below the uppermost level of construction after they have poured the concrete for the floorspace of each of those stories.


From a construction viewpoint that would be downright silly. Since you have to move the forms for each story why would you want to have to move them around in a limited space after the floor concrete has been poured. You would need to have some of the interior columns in place before you poured a core but then pouring the floors before you did the core would make no sense, particularly if as he claims the core is a structural element they would need it in place before pouring the floors.

I am not saying it would be impossible to pour a core after completing several stories of floors above it but it would sure be easier and cheaper to pour the core first.
 
Woody- said:
I am not saying it would be impossible to pour a core after completing several stories of floors above it but it would sure be easier and cheaper to pour the core first.
Click to expand...

more than cheaper and easier, i think it would be mandatory, otherwise the core would be sitting on the floor trusses. I believe for this to work the floor trusses have to be attached to the core.

BTW the replacement building for WTC 7 DOES have a concrete core now. I'd be curious to see some build pics from that.
 
Woody- said:
I am not saying it would be impossible to pour a core after completing several stories of floors above it but it would sure be easier and cheaper to pour the core first.
Click to expand...
It makes no sense. It would stand to reason, I believe, that it would make the job much more difficult.

Christophera, I'm curious, is there an example of anyone doing it the way you suggest? Do you understand the problems inherent with your explanation?

If I were doing it I would want to take advantage of an exposed area to pour my core. Why would I enclose an area and then pour?

Good point Woody.
 
Christophera said:
I've built forges and used them. You can barely get steel orange with it using wood fuel. I had to use coal and coke to get it cherry and really workable. As you can see, even a charcoal fire with forced air, none of which was possible on 9-11, is absolutely needed to get steel red hot. Not that it has to bee that hot to cause a failure but those failure temperatures are not going to be spread over enough area to cause anythign like what happened.
Click to expand...


I worked with an armourer for about three years. He made the steel originals for "The Last Samurai" amongst others.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

The dynamics of the air through the floors of a building on which opposite walls have been smashed open would create a pretty decent air-blast furnace.

-Andrew
 
Christophera said:
I've built forges and used them. You can barely get steel orange with it using wood fuel. I had to use coal and coke to get it cherry and really workable. As you can see, even a charcoal fire with forced air, none of which was possible on 9-11, is absolutely needed to get steel red hot. Not that it has to bee that hot to cause a failure but those failure temperatures are not going to be spread over enough area to cause anythign like what happened.
Click to expand...

I just had a conversation a few minutes ago with a member of the Edmonton Fire Department.

He told me that an average house fire can reach temperatures as high as 1700 degrees.

That's just a an average house. An office building with a HUGE chimney (elevator shafts) feeding fresh oxygen into the blaze would have NO problem reaching those temperatures.

Why don't you go test your faith, Chris? Ask a firefighter.

Or are you chicken?
 
Christophera said:
No steel tower has ever collapsed from fire and jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to do what happened, let alone TWICE to the ground.

You got a nice safe fantasy to live with until you become a prisoner of your own government.
Click to expand...

If you have a fire pit BBQ fireplace try this little experiment, Fill it with plastics, dire wall, rodents, and wood, Build a small steal stricter in side of it, then take watermelons filled with gasoline and toss them in and ignite. I suggest using a short match, Oh be sure the balloons are traveling at 500mpg, just to get maxim effect.

I would like to have him report back his results, but I will suffice to send flowers to his pit.
 
Pardalis said:
The war in Iraq was technically legal, Saddam Hussein and his regime was in breach of UN resolution 1441, wich allowed the use of military force.
Click to expand...



I just want to point out that under international law there is no such thing as an "illegal" war. The UN Charter and UN Resolutions are not law. Even international laws are not binding unless they have been ratified by the signatory nation and included in their own legislation. For example some aspects of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are in direct contradiction to Privacy Acts in New Zealand. While New Zealand is signatory to the universal declaration, we have not ratified all parts of it. If New Zealand breaches those parts of the declaration that have not been ratified, no laws has been broken.

The international laws of armed conflict (ILAC) dictate *how* war can be fought, but it is the sovereign right of every state to use military force at any time they consider appropriate.

Violation of any UN resolutions or Charters *are* breaking the rules of that particular organisation, of course, and in theory could result in expolsion from the organisation (Hah! Like that would ever happen) but it is not "illegal" any more than it is "illegal" for a student at a school to wear items that violate the uniform regulations for that school.

In addition individual states may have domestic laws dictating when and how they are allowed to go to war, and breaking these would make the act of war illegal domestically.

However, in an international setting, "illegal law" refers to the way in which war is fought (i.e. in breach of the ILAC), NOT the status of the war itself.

Just thought I would clear that common misconception up.

-Andrew
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom