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

[alexg]

"C"hris. This picture does not show any concrete at all in the core.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.....arrow.col.jpg

And there is no way that the metal you are pointing out as being 3 inches could possibly be three inches. compare the size to other things in the picture. "

Yes, true. Since I annotated that I remember that the base of the tower used some 6 rebar that extended from the foundation. I remember because the documentary talked about how slow the constrcution of the core foundation and the base were because the rebar could not be bent. It had to be cut and welded.

LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!

 

[Christophera]

"C"hris. This picture does not show any concrete at all in the core.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.....arrow.col.jpg

And there is no way that the metal you are pointing out as being 3 inches could possibly be three inches. compare the size to other things in the picture. "


LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!

If that is not concrete with a width like 17 feet, what is it? And, where are the steel core columns that are supposed to be penetrating the stairwell?

The 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS was further up in the concrete core. Probably starting on top of that level on to of the concrete.

The documentary spent a proportionate amount of time on the foundation for the core and the first 3 floors because those structural elements took that much time and there were many issues that needed addressing.

So yes, I made a mistake not a lie. The rebar is bigger than 3 inch, it is 6 inch. The charcteristics of the tensile steel are TOTALLY demonstrated by the tightly curled steel. There is no other material used in the towers that could do that, just like the link to the 3" rebar on 4' centers. There is no other material that would have that appearance under those conditions.

The fact of the contractors not being able to get plans they could take home was talked about at that time in the documentary.

 

[Arus808]

If that is not concrete with a width like 17 feet, what is it? And, where are the steel core columns that are supposed to be penetrating the stairwell?

Definitely not something you are claiming them to be.

The 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS was further up in the concrete core. Probably starting on top of that level on to of the concrete.

again, with that pic. what part of "that pic shows nothing conclusive" do you not understand?

The documentary spent a proportionate amount of time on the foundation for the core and the first 3 floors because those structural elements took that much time and there were many issues that needed addressing.

what documentary? Teh one you imagined you saw?

So yes, I made a mistake not a lie. The rebar is bigger than 3 inch, it is 6 inch. The charcteristics of the tensile steel are TOTALLY demonstrated by the tightly curled steel. There is no other material used in the towers that could do that, just like the link to the 3" rebar on 4' centers. There is no other material that would have that appearance under those conditions.

More speculation on your part, not backed by anything remotely close to as evidence.

What wont you contact the construction company, and designers for answers?

The fact of the contractors not being able to get plans they could take home was talked about at that time in the documentary.

Again, what documentary? The one you imagined seeing?

 

[alexg]

If that is not concrete with a width like 17 feet, what is it? And, where are the steel core columns that are supposed to be penetrating the stairwell?

The 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS was further up in the concrete core. Probably starting on top of that level on to of the concrete.

The documentary spent a proportionate amount of time on the foundation for the core and the first 3 floors because those structural elements took that much time and there were many issues that needed addressing.

So yes, I made a mistake not a lie. The rebar is bigger than 3 inch, it is 6 inch. The charcteristics of the tensile steel are TOTALLY demonstrated by the tightly curled steel. There is no other material used in the towers that could do that, just like the link to the 3" rebar on 4' centers. There is no other material that would have that appearance under those conditions.

The fact of the contractors not being able to get plans they could take home was talked about at that time in the documentary.

Chris, puhleeze, you know there was concrete all over the place right? That's what the floors were made of. How can you be sure that isn't a piece of floor hanging on? And 17 feet? INSANITY! ETA or dry wall? drywall walled in the core and that's a fact!

And obviously that remaining stand of core is filled with debris. Nothing much can be made of that pic. But having seen a better ver of that piece of core with some fireman ascending it I'd say not even 6 inches comes close to size of those curled bars.

 

[Christophera]

Chris, puhleeze, you know there was concrete all over the place right? That's what the floors were made of. How can you be sure that isn't a piece of floor hanging on? And 17 feet? INSANITY! ETA or dry wall? drywall walled in the core and that's a fact!

The image at bottom shows an interior box column on the left. Immediately to the right is the core wall base. Notice that the angle of the interior box column is duplicated for the core wall base to the right.
And, no floors, I MEAN, NO FLOORS SURVIVED THE COLLAPSE. Odd huh? The interior box columns were 52 inches wide at the bottom so the thickness of what must be the concrete base looks correct at 17 feet.

And obviously that remaining stand of core is filled with debris. Nothing much can be made of that pic. But having seen a better ver of that piece of core with some fireman ascending it I'd say not even 6 inches comes close to size of those curled bars.

"remaining stand of core is filled with debris" This statement is not clear with regard to the image below. The core area is in the foreground of the stairwell and to the right. So when you say "firemen ascending" it does not make sense. The core is hollow.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3395&stc=1&d=1160182445

 

[Christophera]

Arus808 NOT BEING REASONABLE

If that is not concrete with a width like 17 feet, what is it? And, where are the steel core columns that are supposed to be penetrating the stairwell?

Definitely not something you are claiming them to be.

To be reasonable you now have to explain what it is if it is not concrete and that needs to be logical within knowledge of constrcution materials.

 

[Arus808]

To be reasonable you now have to explain what it is if it is not concrete and that needs to be logical within knowledge of constrcution materials.

Here for your slow comprehension:

There is nothing in that pic that is evidence of a concrete core. and for all we know, it could be the STEEL core still standing, since that is basically part of what kep the buildings standing.

IN that pic, you cannot determine anything other than a building collapsed and it created a plume of dust and debris.
If you see anything other than that in that pic, you are far better than superman to see through that, at that distance that the picture was taken.

Christophera, have you bothered to contact anyone who worked for the construction companies who built the two towers and the design company?

 

[Christophera]

To be reasonable you now have to explain what it is if it is not concrete and that needs to be logical within knowledge of constrcution materials.

Here for your slow comprehension:

There is nothing in that pic that is evidence of a concrete core. and for all we know, it could be the STEEL core still standing, since that is basically part of what kep the buildings standing.

Wrong. The image of the core wall at its base shows rounded corners of the concrete core wall remnant. Steel will not do that. About half way down a bright area of freshly borken concrete is visable next tot he interio box column.

Apparently your knowledge of the lie you support is not very in depth. The lie states there were multiple steel columns in the core area. We see none but we do see 17 feet of wasted space if steel columns are supposed to be in use and we also do not see any steel columns penetrating the stairwell.

IN that pic, you cannot determine anything other than a building collapsed and it created a plume of dust and debris.
If you see anything other than that in that pic, you are far better than superman to see through that, at that distance that the picture was taken.

Wrong again. Each building material has its unique characteristics during demolition, collapse or failure. There is no building material that can attain that appearance except concrete. You are not in construction so you don't know this.

Christophera, have you bothered to contact anyone who worked for the construction companies who built the two towers and the design company?

No. I know exactly how the core was constructed.

You should contact them and ask them because you support the steel core columns (barely) and get them to tell you that the towers had steel columns in the core.

They will not. Because later, the truth will be known and they do not want to be seen as liars supporting a lie that murderers hide behind.

 

[uruk]

If that is not concrete with a width like 17 feet, what is it? And, where are the steel core columns that are supposed to be penetrating the stairwell?

If you look carefully at the picture youll see vertical lines in the area that you call the 17 foot slab. Those are the columns.
That area is being obscured by the cloud of dust rising up in the foreground and heavy JPEG artifacting.
That area is also abit longer than 17 feet. Look at the cranes in the foreground.

 

[Christophera]

If you look carefully at the picture youll see vertical lines in the area that you call the 17 foot slab. Those are the columns.
That area is being obscured by the cloud of dust rising up in the foreground and heavy JPEG artifacting.
That area is also abit longer than 17 feet. Look at the cranes in the foreground.

The machines are called EXCAVATORS. The 52 inch wide column is at exactly the same distance, far better to use for scale than an excavator with unknown dimensions.

No clean vertical lines are visible in that 17 foot and the columns would protrude from the top area, they do not. The rounded corners of the object show it must be concrete.


Now, explain why no steel core columns penetrate the stiarwell where the official diagrams say they were. Why are no columns seen anywhere insde what is the core area?

 

[uruk]

I enhanced the contrast and tried to remove as much JPEG artifacting as I could. I also added a few notes myself. Look at what happens to the "wall."
The so called wall is debris mixed with a dust cloud and JPEG artifacting.

Here is another link concerning the core which notes that there was no concrete core. It even suggest that the WTC might have faired better if there was a concrete core.
http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh...C-WTC Paper 2003.pdf#search="wtc box columns"

 

[alexg]

"And, no floors, I MEAN, NO FLOORS SURVIVED THE COLLAPSE. Odd huh? "

No floors and NO CORES either. So it's a tie. And I got drywall too so I win!

 

[alexg]

I enhanced the contrast and tried to remove as much JPEG artifacting as I could. I also added a few notes myself. Look at what happens to the "wall."
The so called wall is debris mixed with a dust cloud and JPEG artifacting.

Here is another link concerning the core which notes that there was no concrete core. It even suggest that the WTC might have faired better if there was a concrete core.
http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh...C-WTC Paper 2003.pdf#search="wtc box columns"

Youi still think that's 17 feet of concrtete? The 'firemen ascending ' - I was referring to apic of that same hunk of core but the firemen were on the exterior of it going up in some kind of bucket - that picture is in this thread, prolly back in one of the early chapters. You must have seen it.

And that remaining hunk is all torn to shreds, you can't tell what steel members may have been torn away. What I do see is steel but no concrete. There was no concrete Chris, strat getting used to that idea. It won't kill you. I hope . .

 

[Christophera]

I enhanced the contrast and tried to remove as much JPEG artifacting as I could. I also added a few notes myself. Look at what happens to the "wall."
The so called wall is debris mixed with a dust cloud and JPEG artifacting.

Here is another link concerning the core which notes that there was no concrete core. It even suggest that the WTC might have faired better if there was a concrete core.
http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh...C-WTC Paper 2003.pdf#search="wtc box columns"

Well, ................. you did not explain WHY the supposed steel core columns are not seen in the images. If you are going to support the 47, 1,300 foot steel columns as having existed in the core area of the towers, you must explain WHY they are not seen in the photos.

There was no artifacting that was problematic in the image.

All you have succeeded in doing is damaging the image and you rannotations are unreadable.

Yes, I have seen the BS reverse logic speculation attempted as a way of supporting the steel core columns by saying that IF the tower had a concrete core it wouldn't have fallen. Here is the worst of that. "The Freedom Tower will have a concrete core so it will not collapse."

You are gullible and failng to use hard evidence and instead using "whatever" which also has no support in hard evidence.

 

[Christophera]

Youi still think that's 17 feet of concrtete? The 'firemen ascending ' - I was referring to apic of that same hunk of core but the firemen were on the exterior of it going up in some kind of bucket - that picture is in this thread, prolly back in one of the early chapters. You must have seen it.

And that remaining hunk is all torn to shreds, you can't tell what steel members may have been torn away. What I do see is steel but no concrete. There was no concrete Chris, strat getting used to that idea. It won't kill you. I hope . .

The supposed steel core columns were of the strongest elements of the towers. They would not have been torn away. Look at the interior box columns, the ONLY columns that were full length structural elements.

columns cut level

 

[Big Les]

What.
F*cking.
Doc.
U.
Mentary.
?

 

[Belz...]

So you say, but you have not said why. This not competent or reasonable.

Nor is it generous, frolicking, mesmerising or fruitcake. Stop it with the attacks and try to FOCUS.

Actually you can see the thickness here could be 17 feet.

Could you alter the image to show your measurements, please ?

Here you can see the concrete shear wall is perhaps 4 feet thick.

Idem.

Do you have an aversion to evidence?

I feel asphixiated by irony.

The concrete did explode, most of it. Some of the C4 sat out in the weather on the 4 inch rebar and didn't detonate. The smaller horizontal rebar tied to the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS did detonate nad removed the concrete from the 3 inch. All the rebar was high tensile steel so the 3 inch was undamaged and stands free.

So you're saying that all that C4, placed directly onto the rebar, did NOT damage the rebar significantly ?

Okay, be here for me now. With logic. The north tower was hit on the north side. Why is the top falling south when all of the load bearing capacity of the north perimeter wall was removed?

Simple logic. The south side was further damaged than you suspect.

 

[Belz...]

What you propose, not only goes AGAINST everything that was planned for the two towers, if you bothered to ASK the designers and planners of the WTC towers, and the many PUBLISHED books and artciles concerning their construction, even average joe schmoe knows that there wasn't any concrete core within the buildings.

Heck. Even the truthers know.

 

[Belz...]

If that is not concrete with a width like 17 feet, what is it?

Just because you can't determine what it is doesn't mean it's what you THINK it is. Ever thought of that ?

And, where are the steel core columns that are supposed to be penetrating the stairwell?

The picture's a mess, chris. We can't make out anything.

The 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS was further up in the concrete core. Probably starting on top of that level on to of the concrete.

So, what ? How many floors had free-standing, non-reinforced concrete ?

The rebar is bigger than 3 inch, it is 6 inch. The charcteristics of the tensile steel are TOTALLY demonstrated by the tightly curled steel. There is no other material used in the towers that could do that

Cable.

Wrong. The image of the core wall at its base shows rounded corners of the concrete core wall remnant. Steel will not do that.

Steel doesn't bend ?

Wrong again. Each building material has its unique characteristics during demolition, collapse or failure. There is no building material that can attain that appearance except concrete. You are not in construction so you don't know this.

I don't think he cares. YOU'RE in construction and you don't know this.

Well, ................. you did not explain WHY the supposed steel core columns are not seen in the images.

But he DID explain that there's no concrete in there.

Even if you DID see concrete in the images, don't forget that the floors were made of reinforced concrete, so chances are you'll see that in the aftermath pictures.

The supposed steel core columns were of the strongest elements of the towers. They would not have been torn away.

Just like flight recorders are made from the most resilient material known to man ?? Come on. Just because they were the strongest element doesn't mean they can't be torn away.

 

[Powa]

Belz..., I wasn't going to say anything but that space you put before each question mark is bugging me enormously. I can't stand it any more. Do it one more time and I'm reporting you.