• 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.
Christophera said:
The documentary I saw mentioned the one you link to as celebrating the WTC completion but described itself as an intimate examination of the construction process of TWC 1. It was called "The Construction Of The Twin Towers" and was 2 hours in length.

No, not the same doc.
Click to expand...
Why don't you come on back after you find it, m'kay?
 
Christophera said:
The documentary I saw mentioned the one you link to as celebrating the WTC completion but described itself as an intimate examination of the construction process of TWC 1. It was called "The Construction Of The Twin Towers" and was 2 hours in length.

No, not the same doc.
Click to expand...

Christophera, nobody ever saw that freaking documentary. If you can't provide us with a link or any hint as to who made it, if it ever was made, then it's IRRELEVANT.
 
kevin said:
The design of the WTC is frequently called a tube construction. A large number of exterior columns formed the outer skin of the tube. An inner core filled the center. Most of the volume between the outer skin and the core is air.

Some people have called the core a "tube in a tube" design but this is a mistake. This has led to beliefs like you mention that the core was another tube, but the column plan I posted earlier shows the columns were (somewhat) evenly distributed.
Click to expand...

"Tube in a tube" construction was the term used in the documentary I saw in 1990 and the WTC core shown here does not reflect the columns of the various , poorly detailed column plans.
 
Many People Saw The Documentary

Pardalis said:
Christophera, nobody ever saw that freaking documentary. If you can't provide us with a link or any hint as to who made it, if it ever was made, then it's IRRELEVANT.
Click to expand...

It was made by PBS, production went from 1987 to 1990.

It cannot be irrelevant if it helps to explain the facts. You have no explanation for what this is and why steel core columns do not appear in the core area of any of the demoliton images. My informatoin from the documentary does, so therefore it is relevant.
 
kevin said:
Ah yes, when you don't understand the question insult the questioner. Fortunately your insulting abilities are right up there with your researching abilities.

So you admit you have no idea why 3" rebar on 4' centers is structurally unsound. You should really look into that. It shoots down your theory without even doing research. No engineer would design anything with those specs.
Click to expand...


Proof is so much better than theory.

 
Christophera said:
It was made by PBS, production went from 1987 to 1990.

It cannot be irrelevant if it helps to explain the facts. You have no explanation for what this is and why steel core columns do not appear in the core area of any of the demoliton images. My informatoin from the documentary does, so therefore it is relevant.
Click to expand...

Have you considered the fact that it would be near impossible to pick out columns in that photo as it a) taken from a mile away; and b) the core is veiled in dust?

How about the columns(along with lateral bracing) you see in this video footage? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778&q=nist+fema
 
Christophera said:
Proof is so much better than theory.

Click to expand...

I was waiting for the 3 inch rebar to come back.

From http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/boom24.shtml

But the thickness and amount of rebar uncovered opened the eyes of Loizeaux. The last time he had seen such reinforced concrete was at a nuclear reactor.
Click to expand...

AND

Mark Loizeaux points out the reinforcing rods used in Kingdome columns. He said he has only seen rebar that thick in nuclear power plants.
Click to expand...

And there is a nice picture of said rebar, looks to be about 2 to 2.5 inches thick. Guess the WTC was some sort of super-duper rebar
 
Woody- said:
According to his infamous site http://concretecore.741.com/ , this picture shows "a long row of 3" rebar on 4 foot centers"

996744f636ddc5213.jpg


The three most interesting to the " 3" rebar on 4 foot centers" claim are

996744f636c6ccc66.jpg


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/996744f636c74d8b9.jpg[/qimg]

996744f636c7b3cf9.jpg


(I had to crop them slightly to fit here)

So what Christophera calls " 3" rebar on 4 foot centers are actually whole floors and large columns.

So my question to Christophera, are you sure about those 3" rebar on 4 foot centers.
Click to expand...

Not whole floors and not columns of the core. What amanzafar's images show that you've posted are interior box columns and floor beams connecting them. Those columns are not inside the core.
 
Christophera said:
The documentary I saw mentioned the one you link to as celebrating the WTC completion but described itself as an intimate examination of the construction process of TWC 1. It was called "The Construction Of The Twin Towers" and was 2 hours in length.

No, not the same doc.
Click to expand...

It doesn't seem to exist, Christophera. Are you sure you didn't dream it?
 
Christophera said:
It was made by PBS, production went from 1987 to 1990.

It cannot be irrelevant if it helps to explain the facts. You have no explanation for what this is...
Click to expand...

Where? You mean behind that giant plume of opaque smoke?

You are right, I have no explanation for what that is and neither do you. It is a dark thing inside a slightly less dark thing.
 
Christophera said:
"Tube in a tube" construction was the term used in the documentary I saw in 1990 and the WTC core shown here does not reflect the columns of the various , poorly detailed column plans.
Click to expand...

Your memory is wrong. Tube in a tube construction is your invention, it has never been used in a documentary.

and your picture is dust and shadow. And you call this plan poorly detailed?

578944f501a762853.png
 
Last edited:
Tube In A Tube Constrcution Is Well Known At The WTC

So trying to change the past won't work there.

kevin said:
Your memory is wrong. Tube in a tube construction is your invention, it has never been used in a documentary.

and your picture is dust and shadow. And you call this plan poorly detailed?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/578944f501a762853.png[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Easy for you to attempt dissmissal of a picture of the concrete core with a few unreasonable words convienent to your weak argument, but you have not explained why the supposed steel core columns of your poorly detailed diagram, not a plan are unseen in this and the other images.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom