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

[Dave_46]

A rose by any other name...

Folks, I have been scanning back over the thread, and something struck me which doesn't seem to have been explicitly stated. If I have missed this then sorry.

Christophera says that there are no steel core columns. He does however refer to "Interior box columns". It seems to me that this is simply a matter of terminology. What he calls interior box columns just about everybody else calls steel core columns. Is it this simple? Please correct me if I am wrong.

Dave

 

[Belz...]

1. 3000 murders un investigated on 9-11. Violations of due process laws.
2. Predetermined identity of attacker issued and political thrust to attack manifests.
3. War declared on 1 false premise.
4. War declared on 2 false premises.

Numbers 3 and 4 only happened because of 1. and that was illegal = illegal wars. Duh.

PFah! Ridiculous. If something happens because of an illegal cause, that effect is automatically illegal ? Damn! You don't know about the law either!! Do you know ANYTHING ?

You believe a lie.

Well, that should convince him.

 

[kevin]

I'm not a structural engineer, so I don't know if these images show anything of importance.

I'm not going to jump the gun based on pictures taken from so far away (like some, cough, cough). But this one:
http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/7wtc/images/7wtc_6sept03.jpg

and this one:
http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/7wtc/images/7wtc_6nov03.jpg

clearly show the wooden forms for some sort of concrete structure. The core? dunno. The first one is from before the crane is there so it's possible that is more the top of the foundation. Second one they have the forms almost immediately below the crane.

 

[Belz...]

A rose by any other name...

Folks, I have been scanning back over the thread, and something struck me which doesn't seem to have been explicitly stated. If I have missed this then sorry.

Christophera says that there are no steel core columns. He does however refer to "Interior box columns". It seems to me that this is simply a matter of terminology. What he calls interior box columns just about everybody else calls steel core columns. Is it this simple? Please correct me if I am wrong.

Dave

I believe chris claims that these were only used to support the elevator shafts or something.

Of course, he ignores the fact that there should have been litterally a colossal amount of concrete there, by claiming it was pulverised totally. Of course, then he goes on contradicting himself by saying he can spot concrete on a photo, which itself is blurry and crappy at best.

 

[Dave_46]

Christophera.

You have posted this image,

3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS

under that name or another, or as an image in a post over twenty times now.

I think that it safe to assume the following.

1. Most of us have now seen the picture.

2. Most of us (possibly all except you) are unconvinced by it.

Therefore it will serve no useful purpose to continue posting it, please stop.

Dave

 

[Apollyon]

I ain't going for it. Joists are joists (lighter, more frequent support), trusses are trusses, (fabricated braced web) and beams are beams (wider spaced, heavy support). I would be interested to see what you come up with for these definitions, since you are so into petty stuff.

You aren't going for it, huh?

I'm sorry, but I missed the news of your appointment as National Construction Nomenclature Czar. Could you provide a link?

You have no evidence of the steel core columns from the demolition images with core columns at, 200, 400, 600, 700 feet (since the term, "at elevation" has been shown as "beyond" some of you pencil pushers).

You have shown no clear evidence of a concrete core at any elevation either in before or after photos, so you really don't have any point to make whatsoever. Your refusal to recognize core columns or trying to rename them as something else simply to avoid calling them core columns is utterly ridiculous.

 

[Pardalis]

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

Very interesting gumboot. Thanks.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I ain't going for it. Joists are joists (lighter, more frequent support), trusses are trusses, (fabricated braced web) and beams are beams (wider spaced, heavy support). I would be interested to see what you come up with for these definitions, since you are so into petty stuff.

You have no evidence of the steel core columns from the demolition images with core columns at, 200, 400, 600, 700 feet (since the term, "at elevation" has been shown as "beyond" some of you pencil pushers).

Just because I'm a firm believer that "words mean things"

Joist- Wooden 2 X 8's, 10's, or 12's that run parallel to one another and support a floor or ceiling, and supported in turn by larger beams, girders, or bearing walls.

Truss- An engineered and manufactured roof support member with "zig-zag" framing members. Does the same job as a rafter but is designed to have a longer span than a rafter.

Beam- A structural member transversely supporting a load. A structural member carrying building loads (weight) from one support to another. Sometimes called a "girder".

All from http://www.homebuildingmanual.com/Glossary.htm#Backfill


m-w.com says
joist
One entry found for joist.
Main Entry: joist
Pronunciation: 'joist
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English joiste, from Middle French giste, from (assumed) Vulgar Latin jacitum, from Latin jacEre to lie -- more at ADJACENT
: any of the small timbers or metal beams ranged parallel from wall to wall in a structure to support a floor or ceiling

truss
3 entries found for truss.
Main Entry: 2truss
Function: noun
...
2 a : BRACKET 1 b : an assemblage of members (as beams) forming a rigid framework
...

Main Entry: 1beam
Pronunciation: 'bEm
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English beem, from Old English bEam tree, beam; akin to Old High German boum tree
1 a : a long piece of heavy often squared timber suitable for use in construction

http://contractorsglossary.com/index.php?limit_index=270&letter=M says
Metal Joist. Horizontal cold formed metal framing member of floor, ceiling or flat roof to transmit loads to bearing points; often refers to a Bar Joist. (Bar Joist. A truss-like floor joist or rafter fabricated from steel bars. )

Truss. 1. A triangular arrangement of structural members that rces nonaxial forces on the truss to a set of axial forces in the members. 2. Structural framework of triangular units for supporting loads over long spans.

Beam - http://contractorsglossary.com/index.php?s=beam

 

[Gravy]

Christophera,

It's been a couple of days now, so you can't say you haven't had time to work on your diagram of the multiple MOVING hallways that penetrate your Invisicrete core at all sorts of odd angles.

Please show us.

 

[Stellafane]

Hey, you've all got real deep social fears that are unreasonable. Not being able to deal with obvious information. Failing to produce any support for arguments in a group like this, what's with that? Sick stuff.

Chris, with this post, you've now moved up to #2 on my list of "Unintentionally Hilarious 9/11 CT'ers." This post is funny on so many levels I'd need a supercomputer to count them all. Keep it up; I'm confident you'll soon be giving our mutual pal geggy a run for the coveted top spot.

 

[Dave_46]

Just because I'm a firm believer that "words mean things"

snip

Truss- An engineered and manufactured roof support member with "zig-zag" framing members. Does the same job as a rafter but is designed to have a longer span than a rafter.

snip

I think that a truss is not restricted to roofs. Trusses (in the sense that you describe) can also be used for floor support.

Dave

 

[Belz...]

Christophera,

It's been a couple of days now, so you can't say you haven't had time to work on your diagram of the multiple MOVING hallways that penetrate your Invisicrete core at all sorts of odd angles.

Please show us.

Don't forget mirrorcrete.

Also: have you kept your "summary" of our loose change thread up to date and, if so, have you thought of including THIS thread in it ?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I think that a truss is not restricted to roofs. Trusses (in the sense that you describe) can also be used for floor support.

Dave

Last def'n in my post is most in line with that usage. It is also the one from the construction glossary website.

 

[Christophera]

A rose by any other name...

Folks, I have been scanning back over the thread, and something struck me which doesn't seem to have been explicitly stated. If I have missed this then sorry.

Christophera says that there are no steel core columns. He does however refer to "Interior box columns". It seems to me that this is simply a matter of terminology. What he calls interior box columns just about everybody else calls steel core columns. Is it this simple? Please correct me if I am wrong.

Dave

No, not that simple.

These are interior box columns and they are outside the concrete core shear walland there are no steel columns inside the core walls.. All but the first link should show steel creo columns if they existed.

 

[Belz...]

No, not that simple.

These are interior box columns and they are outside the concrete core shear walland there are no steel columns inside the core walls.. All but the first link should show steel creo columns if they existed.

Perhaps you've forgotten the pictures that were shown to you, proving that the "shear wall" is actually part of the outer wall ?

 

[Christophera]

You have shown no clear evidence of a concrete core at any elevation either in before or after photos, so you really don't have any point to make whatsoever. Your refusal to recognize core columns or trying to rename them as something else simply to avoid calling them core columns is utterly ridiculous.

What is utterly ridiculous is that your position is so pitiful and void of evidence that I have just linked the key words of your post to proof of the concrete core that also disproves the notion of "steel core columns".

 

[Christophera]

Christophera.

You have posted this image, 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS



under that name or another, or as an image in a post over twenty times now.

I think that it safe to assume the following.

1. Most of us have now seen the picture.

2. Most of us (possibly all except you) are unconvinced by it.

Therefore it will serve no useful purpose to continue posting it, please stop.

Dave

Do not forget that none have produced an alternative explanation for what it is other than rebar.

 

[Christophera]

I believe chris claims that these were only used to support the elevator shafts or something.

Of course, he ignores the fact that there should have been litterally a colossal amount of concrete there, by claiming it was pulverised totally. Of course, then he goes on contradicting himself by saying he can spot concrete on a photo, which itself is blurry and crappy at best.

I do not ignore "the fact that there should have been litterally a colossal amount of concrete there, by claiming it was pulverised totally." I show it was pulverised totally except for one piece of the thick base of the core, where I actually show it.

Here is the original higher res image of the core.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Do not forget that none have produced an alternative explanation for what it is other than rebar.

Includes: Appeal to Ignorance ("Ad Ignorantiam")
Description of Burden of Proof

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

1. Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
2. Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).
Examples of Burden of Proof

1. Bill: "I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system."
Jill: "I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury."
Bill: "How can anyone be against highway improvements?"

2. Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."

3. "You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

 

[Apollyon]

What is utterly ridiculous is that your position is so pitiful and void of evidence that I have just linked the key words of your post to proof of the concrete core that also disproves the notion of "steel core columns".

We've already seen numerous pictures of the steel core columns in the construction photos and no evidence whatsoever of your concrete core. You are not Captain Picard and your mere words claiming it exists does not "make it so".