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

[Gravy]

"interior box columns" (not core columns)

Just a quick correction. The columns in the towers were either part of the outer wall, or part of the service core, hence "core columns." Just wanted to clear that up, since your documentary apparently didn't mention it. I hope you'll address my question above.

 

[kevin]

columns must be a single piece? that's a pretty silly assertion. Can you point to any definition of column that says it must be a continuous piece.

In reality the columns changed as they went up. For the non reality challenged here's the plan that shows the floors they changed at.

And here are the column types

 

[Christophera]

You think that dark section is only 17 feet wide? How big does that make the buildings in the foreground?

Intentional errors, .......... do not a genius make.

One side of that at the base on the short axis is 17 feet thick.

 

[Architect]

Chris, if you're that sure it's concrete then you'll have no problem providing evidence rather than ambiguous (I'm being kind) photographs and the odd dubious text on a CT site. Go and find articles written when it was built, people who worked on the site. Check the building warrant (permit, or whatever you call them in America) drawings. Go and speak to retired members of the design team and ask.

Not wanting to respond to this, Chris?

 

[Architect]

Are you under the impression that columns that are assembled as segments can resist torsion? Are you under the impression that a 1300 foot steel member that is "assembled" can resist torsion. Are you under the impression that a 1300 foot piece of steel called a column can resist torsion better than 4 steel perimeter shear walls in a box shape?

Chris

You clearly don't understand basic structures, so stop making yourself look silly.

The outer structure, inner structure, and floors all act together.

Tell you what, go and look up "Why Buildings Fall Down" on Amazon. You'll find it an entertaining and educational read. I have one on my shelf at the office.....you know, the office where I actually work on the design of tall buildings......

 

[Christophera]

Maybe you don't have the experince to know that the word "column" implies one piece. The word "core" goes further with that assertion.

Uh-huh. One piece core. Was it prefab ?

You must think Americans are stupid. In the same post you have shown that you are selective with information of all types. Above you question what I explain below.

In the documentary it was stated that the "interior box columns" (not core columns) were butt welded with 100% weld making them virtually "one piece".

I assume you're again referring to that non-existent documentary.

This structural engineer not only remembers the documentary but also the concrete core. We talked about it for 30 minutes then I told him what FEMA said it was. Later he would not include the concrete core in his declaration. People like you make good Americans afraid.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2934&stc=1&d=1157305577

 

[Christophera]

Are you under the impression that columns that are assembled as segments can resist torsion? Are you under the impression that a 1300 foot steel member that is "assembled" can resist torsion. Are you under the impression that a 1300 foot piece of steel called a column can resist torsion better than 4 steel perimeter shear walls in a box shape?

Chris

You clearly don't understand basic structures, so stop making yourself look silly.

The outer structure, inner structure, and floors all act together.

Tell you what, go and look up "Why Buildings Fall Down" on Amazon. You'll find it an entertaining and educational read. I have one on my shelf at the office.....you know, the office where I actually work on the design of tall buildings......

Yea they act together, with their individual attributes, which is what I've asked about and no one has answered, but you work to obfuscate.

Insincere and intellectually dishonest.

 

[R.Mackey]

This structural engineer not only remembers the documentary but also the concrete core. We talked about it for 30 minutes then I told him what FEMA said it was. Later he would not include the concrete core in his declaration. People like you make good Americans afraid.

[Link to signed statement mentioning neither (a) the name of the documentary nor (b) anything at all about concrete deleted]

We have only your say-so that this "structural engineer," assuming you didn't write that note for the teacher yourself, said either of those things. "Well I can't because he got scared." Sure.

You are a liar of the first order. Own up to your own delusions and stop bringing OTHER people into your intellectual wasteland.

 

[Architect]

Yea they act together, with their individual attributes, which is what I've asked about and no one has answered, but you work to obfuscate.

Insincere and intellectually dishonest.

Tell you what, summarise your question in a couple of sentences and I'll do my best to answer it.

 

[Gravy]

Chris, that engineer's comment was in 2004. I had seen several documentaries that detailed the construction of the Twin Towers by then, including the Ric Burns doc that I keep telling you to watch. Why won't you?

ETA: There is such an engineer, but since the note isn't notarized, we don't know that he wrote it, nor, as I mention above, does it mean a thing if he did. http://www2.dca.ca.gov/pls/wllpub/WLLQRYNA$LCEV2.ActionQuery

For the third time:
Where in relation to the structure in my photo do you believe the concrete core and rebar were?

 

[Christophera]

Chris, if you're that sure it's concrete then you'll have no problem providing evidence rather than ambiguous (I'm being kind) photographs and the odd dubious text on a CT site. Go and find articles written when it was built, people who worked on the site. Check the building warrant (permit, or whatever you call them in America) drawings. Go and speak to retired members of the design team and ask.

Not wanting to respond to this, Chris?

These are links to engineering site that are not CT sites and they know about the concrete core. This site is not a CT site.

http://concretecore.741.com




You will notice some inconsistencies in the links below, but when looking at sites that talk about the supposed "steel core columns" you will se much more, and no images of the demolition show the steel core columns.


http://www.unc.edu/courses/2001fall/plan/006e/001/engineering/index.html

http://www.ussartf.org/world_trade_center_disaster.htm

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/trusstheory.html

http://www.salwen.com/wtc/

http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/wtc/page3.html

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3069641/

http://www.didyouknow.org/terrorism.htm

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:..."&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=117&client=firefox-a

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:..."&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=130&client=firefox-a

http://www.downingjcr.co.uk/forum/t...71&PHPSESSID=7939780fe0b4d1e28139abdc619ae367

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0512/S00082.htm

http://membres.lycos.fr/jcviel/BTS/sujets/2002batiment.htm

http://www.delta.tudelft.nl/archief/j33/n27/3664



Below is a link to a page with usenet comments from people that know, one again there will be some inconsistencies but far less than those associated with people who think they know there were steel columns in the core area.

http://cosmicpenguin.com/911/chrisbrown/corerefs/index.html


How about a straight answer to these questions Mr. Fake Architect?

Are you under the impression that columns that are assembled as segments can resist torsion? Are you under the impression that a 1300 foot steel member that is "assembled" can resist torsion. Are you under the impression that a 1300 foot piece of steel called a column can resist torsion better than 4 steel perimeter shear walls in a box shape?

 

[Christophera]

Chris, that engineer's comment was in 2004. I had seen several documentaries that detailed the construction of the Twin Towers by then, including the Ric Burns doc that I keep telling you to watch. Why won't you?

ETA: There is such an engineer, but since the note isn't notarized, we don't know that he wrote it, nor, as I mention above, does it mean a thing if he did. http://www2.dca.ca.gov/pls/wllpub/WLLQRYNA$LCEV2.ActionQuery

For the third time:
Where in relation to the structure in my photo do you believe the concrete core and rebar were?

I notice you don't have a Declaraton from a civil engineer saying there were steel core columns.

What photo?

 

[Architect]

How about a straight answer to these questions Mr. Fake Architect?

Sorry to dissapoint, Chris, but I'm a fully qualified architect and on the ARB register in the UK. I also work for one of a handful of UK practices who regularly undertake tall buildings work.

Now, I sense some sarcasm in your "question", so I'll give you another chance. Summarise into a cogent paragraph or so these structural questions which no-one has answered for you, and I'll give it a shot.

 

[Pardalis]

I think a psychologist would also be needed in this thread, for Christophera's sake.

 

[Gravy]

I notice you don't have a Declaraton from a civil engineer saying there were steel core columns.

I do. It's called the NIST report. You really should read it.

What photo?

You're pulling my leg, right? This photo, of course. Where are you claiming the concrete and rebar was in relation to this structure?

 

[Woody-]

I wonder if he even reads all of the things he links to.

These are links to engineering site that are not CT sites and they know about the concrete core. This site is not a CT site.

http://concretecore.741.com




You will notice some inconsistencies in the links below, but when looking at sites that talk about the supposed "steel core columns" you will se much more, and no images of the demolition show the steel core columns.


http://www.unc.edu/courses/2001fall/plan/006e/001/engineering/index.html

The internal columns formed a core that took care of the weight.

95% of the building's frame was steel. Yamasaki discovered that steel was much stronger than it had been in the past. He knew it would be able to support the building for a longer period of time. By using steel, the tower floors were free of interior columns (With the exception of the core)

The engineers of Otis Elevators came up with a solution to this problem. By using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core, the shafts were strengthened enough that air pressure was not an issue.

http://www.ussartf.org/world_trade_center_disaster.htm

Also unique to the engineering design were its core and elevator system. The twin towers were the first super tall buildings designed without any masonry. Worried that the intense air pressure created by the buildings’ high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core.

http://www.ussartf.org/images/wtc_plan.jpg

Once one story collapsed all floors above would have begun to fall. The huge mass of falling structure would gain momentum, crushing the structurally intact floors below, resulting in catastrophic failure of the entire structure.

http://www.ussartf.org/images/wtc_collapse3.gif

The central steel core carried gravity loads only.

But the towers' ultimate collapse was inevitable, as the steel cores inside them reached temperatures of 800C - raising questions why hundreds of rescue workers were sent into the doomed buildings to their deaths.

But as fires raged in the towers, driven by aviation fuel, the steel core in each building would have eventually reached melting point - 800C.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/trusstheory.html

The core was designed to support the entire weight of the buildings several times over.Far more than a mere "service core", it comprised of 47 steel box columns tied together at each floor by steel plates, similar to the 52" deep spandrel plates that tied the perimeter columns together. The largest of these core columns were 18"x36", with steel walls 4" thick near the base and tapering in thickness toward the top, and was anchored directly to the bedrock.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0512/S00082.htm

The FDNY chief of safety says in his oral history that he thought the towers were made of block construction, with a solid concrete core, so that fire crews would have at least three hours to work. In fact, the cores of the towers were sheetrock over steel.

http://membres.lycos.fr/jcviel/BTS/sujets/2002batiment.htm

The design of the World Trade Center saved thousands of lives by standing for well over an hour after the planes crashed into its twin towers, say structural engineers. But the towers’ ultimate collapse was inevitable, as the steel cores inside them reached temperatures of 800°C – raising questions as to why hundreds of rescue workers were sent into the doomed buildings to their deaths.

Seems to me that some of your links done really support your concrete core theory entirely.

 

[T.A.M.]

Christophera:

I mean no offense, but I see you now similar to an animal backed into a corner, lashing out with "links", and insults. These guys are tired of your stuff, Architect has offered you a chance to put your questions together in a coherent summarizing format and sumbit it here. If you do that, perhaps then he and others can answer them in a point by point form. If you choose not to take the offer, than you can't complain about the treatment here.

 

[sleahead]

Is not this site:

http://concretecore.741.com

your site, Chis?

 

[WildCat]

This structural engineer not only remembers the documentary but also the concrete core. We talked about it for 30 minutes then I told him what FEMA said it was. Later he would not include the concrete core in his declaration. People like you make good Americans afraid.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2934&stc=1&d=1157305577

That is just too funny!

 

[Belz...]

You must think Americans are stupid. In the same post you have shown that you are selective with information of all types. Above you question what I explain below.

I don't think Americans are stupid. I think some people, of all nationalities, are stupid.

Now that this is out of the way, will you retract your claim that the columns were all "one piece" ?

This structural engineer not only remembers the documentary but also the concrete core. We talked about it for 30 minutes then I told him what FEMA said it was. Later he would not include the concrete core in his declaration. People like you make good Americans afraid.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2934&stc=1&d=1157305577[/QUOTE]

He says civil engineer.

Is there any way to contact him and confirm his story ?