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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Christophera said:
I spoke to a 64 year old steel worker that worked on both towers. He didn't remember the concrete core, but the elevators entrances and exits were sheathed in plywood for safety. After awhile of talking about it, he said, "Okay, that must have been where the concrete was pumped up." probably referring to the mud for the floors. Also, there was only a very short period of time when the exterior of the core was exposed for him and he was passing by it between the advancing floors and the forming or stripping of forms. Probably only one floor. And, because he was working always on the top he would exit the elevators sheathed in plywood from the concrete core, walk around to the stairs going up through the floors at various stages of completion, passing either an open space in the core, no forms in place yet, or, an inner steel form in place, or the exterior form wood in place. So he didn't have much opportunity to see the concrete walls.
Click to expand...

Except of course the core would have to be built FIRST and would be clearly visible above the rest of the superstructure. If you build a building with a concrete core you have to pour the core first so you have something to attach the floors too, and the concrete needs time to dry appropriately to be capable of supporting things attached to it.
 
I'm going to laugh my butt off when christophera realizes there is another set of Twin Towers that really does have a concrete core and the documentary he probably remembers is from that.
 
Blue Mountain said:
Sorry, couldn't have. He says he saw it in 1990. The Petronas Twin Towers were build between 1992 and 1998.

Of course, given his rather tenious grip on other facts, he could well be mistaken about when he saw the documentary.
Click to expand...

that was my thought too, he seems to have a very selective memory, it wouldnt surprise me if date was one he glazed out on
 
Christophera said:
Correct, the edge of the concrete in your image is the perpindicuarly opposite wall which was, I believe, a max of 12 feet thick on WTC 2.
Click to expand...

How would you know this ?

Also, for the fifth time:

Would you care to post your own diagram of the hallway configuration for all to see ? This would surely help me understand, as well as others, how this whole thing works.
 
Christophera said:
I use the word "feel" because I realize that that in the image I post of the base, that the coiled bar over the concrete wall does look larger than 3".
Click to expand...

By your logic, this would mean that it IS larger than 3".

There was a part of the documentary which slowed down as the construction process slowed around all the prep for getting the core off the gronud properly, mostly the elevator alignment process but also the start of myriad conduit/plumbing inside the core.
Click to expand...

Gosh, I'd like to see that documentary...

That part showed a network of very heavy reinforcing bar and mentioned that the bar couldn't be bent because it was so large and had to be welded to go around corners. That was right at ground level and I had not remembered until now. Meaning the coiled bar on top of the concrete core wall could be transitionary bar with a size approaching 6 inch.
Click to expand...

Next up : 18" rebar.
 
Christophera said:
What do you think I am? Can I expect you to remember that kind of details from a documentary you saw 16 years ago?
Click to expand...

If you can't remember the documentary properly, isn't it possible that you're mistaken about the core ?

I remember the concrete core from the documentary. Others remember it from documentaries made from the same film footage.
Click to expand...

"Others" ?

I spoke to a 64 year old steel worker that worked on both towers. He didn't remember the concrete core,
Click to expand...

And what does that tell you ?

but the elevators entrances and exits were sheathed in plywood for safety. After awhile of talking about it, he said, "Okay, that must have been where the concrete was pumped up." probably referring to the mud for the floors.
Click to expand...

So far, so good.

Also, there was only a very short period of time when the exterior of the core was exposed for him and he was passing by it between the advancing floors and the forming or stripping of forms. Probably only one floor. And, because he was working always on the top he would exit the elevators sheathed in plywood from the concrete core, walk around to the stairs going up through the floors at various stages of completion, passing either an open space in the core, no forms in place yet, or, an inner steel form in place, or the exterior form wood in place. So he didn't have much opportunity to see the concrete walls.
Click to expand...

Why ? Did they HIDE the concrete core ?
 
KingMerv00 said:
How do you know it is 3 inch diameter anyway?
Click to expand...

It's not 3 inches. Chris has forgotten these pictures

WTC2working.jpg


WTC1working.jpg


As shown in post 1294
and in post 1397

The 3 inch rebar is not rebar nor is it 3 inches, closer to 9 inches or so from the looks of things. The sad thing is, to get Chris to see this requires us to destroy a 17-foot thick wall of ignorance.
 
azazal said:
The 3 inch rebar is not rebar nor is it 3 inches, closer to 9 inches or so from the looks of things. The sad thing is, to get Chris to see this requires us to destroy a 17-foot thick wall of ignorance.
Click to expand...
Indeed, Chris's "rebar" is much wider than the handrail in the exposed stairwell, which is about 4" wide.
North Tower Stairwell
879044f4499c31301.jpg

Chris also needs to explain what a huge steel column with attached floors is doing right in the middle of the area that he says was surrounded by a concrete core. And why not make the shaft walls out of concrete, instead of the crumbly panels in these photos? So many questions, and not a single sensible answer from our friend Mr. Brown.
879044f36de34ddfb.jpg


879044f3725edcfbc.jpg

​
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
Where the hell did you get that picture, Gravy ? Why, months of "discussion" with chris, and never was a CLEAR picture of that ruin shown until now!
Click to expand...
We don't want to bring young Chris along too quickly. Remember that each of our posts is quite a shock to his frangible core.
 
Misinterpretations & Selectivity + Errors

Gravy said:
Indeed, Chris's "rebar" is much wider than the handrail in the exposed stairwell, which is about 4" wide.
North Tower Stairwell
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879044f4499c31301.jpg[/qimg]​

Chris also needs to explain what a huge steel column with attached floors is doing right in the middle of the area that he says was surrounded by a concrete core. And why not make the shaft walls out of concrete, instead of the crumbly panels in these photos? So many questions, and not a single sensible answer from our friend Mr. Brown.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879044f36de34ddfb.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879044f3725edcfbc.jpg[/qimg]
​
Click to expand...

Your first image does not represent known scale in the same image that you refer to.

Your second image shows a vertical member holding up the right side of a stairwell but only one where many should be shown.

In that same image there is a space between the stairwell and the interior box column which looks like concrete.

The selectivity here is immense because I have shown a number of photos where the supposed steel core columns should show but they do not.

And, ............ I've not only made sense but I've backed it with evidence so your implying that I have not is an error.

For example. This image evidences what can only be rebar, and it should show the supposed steel core columns but does not.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2852&stc=1&d=1156873291

So your efforts are weak and there is no body of evidence to support it as there is with the concrete core.

http://concretecore.741.com

Maybe if a few more posters with peanut gallery type comments could help you your credibility would increase.
 

Attachments

  • spire_dust-3.jpg
    spire_dust-3.jpg
    28.5 KB · Views: 7
In my opinion, very little can be gleaned from these photographs. They are pictures of rubble and dustclouds after all. I don't know how either side could make profound statements about the WTC's construction.

Chris, are you sure of that documentary title? Can you find it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom