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

Status
Not open for further replies.
stateofgrace said:
Chris, here is a documentary for you. It is called “Building the WTCs"

I have watched it,so should you. There is no, repeat no mention whatsoever of concrete cores.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfGc5tM_oa4
Click to expand...

I have watched it. There is no, repeat no structural information whatsoever.

What is the matter with raw images?

core

Oh, ........ I guess you don't know anything about construction.
 
alexg said:
This has no doubt been covered before but I think this picture is proof of no concrete core.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1183545299e080f50d.jpg[/qimg]

I'm no expert in building construction so please correct me if I am missing something but it seems to me that the tower on the left could not have a concrete core of any significance, you can see right through the core section of the building. Let me repeat, you can see right through the building! The only kind of concrete core it could have would be on two sides only, and a very thin one at that. What we see is PERFECTLY consistent with the steel core everyone, save Chris, knows to have existed. I know Chris has some vague explanation for this on his website but I couldn't make much sense of it. Perhaps you could spell it out for me again Chris?

The tower to the right, seemingly further along in construction, clearly has something in the core area which at least appears to be more solid. I'm thinking they may have already hung the drywall to the core in that building.

ETA I know you say on your site Chris that there were holes in the core for hallways and doorways, which there surely would have to be for access, but this picture is far too full of holes. The core would have to be some kind of netting around a thousand openings. As it is the non-transparent areas are clearly what would need to be there for the steel core, elevator shafts etc. or in your model, the box columns and elevator shafts. There's not nearly enough dark area for any core walls.
Click to expand...

WTC 2 had 2 hallways crossing the core in each direction. WTC 1 had 1.

The image you post is explained here as well as more.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11corexplosions.html
 
alexg said:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/118354529a780cbbc8.gif[/qimg]

Here is the core pic from your site for reference. ETA I hope you are not going to claim that that tinyslice of dark in the center of the photograph is the view of the short side of the core because it would not be nearly large enough.
Click to expand...

That is the WTC 1 core with only one hallway per floor. Explained here.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11corexplosions.html
 
Bell said:
You say that the concrete core was packed with C4 and blew up the towers, but obviuos it did not blew up the concrete core. So the concrete core exploded but it did not explode?

Kind of like Schrodinger's cat, bot alive and death, allthough only one state can be true.
Click to expand...

You are distorting.

The rebar was coated with C4 and the concrete cast around it preserving it and making a containment vessal that is engineered to have just the right amount to get maximum pressures out of the detonation making http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg
Sand and gravel and dust.
 
mortimer said:
Christopher,

Are you claiming that http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1984077#post1984077 reinforces your claims? I thought you said the hallways alternated each floor. That picture makes it quite clear that they are not alternating each floor. How can you have a solid concrete core when its divided in 3 from top to bottom? That would be three separate cores....
Click to expand...
Indeed. And any way you slice it there is no concrete core of any significancance in that photo. It's all air and steel Chris. Give it up man!
 
Weblink: "The 'WTC Had a Concrete Core' Hoax"
Source: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread208023/pg1

Reading the quote from the book in blue, it is impossible to see how anyone could draw the conclusion: “Each of the towers, in other words, was held up by its reinforced concrete core and the world's strongest curtain walls.” Nowhere in that excerpt are concrete walls mentioned. This appears to be a common mistake in descriptions of the towers. The tower structure was radically different and unique. People who were not intimately familiar with the details often have made this error. Unfortunately, through the miracle of the internet age, mistakes never go away.

Source:
http://www.salwen.com/wtc/
Click to expand...

All the steel was covered in concrete to guarantee firefighters a minimum period of one or two hours in which they could operate - although aviation fuel would have driven the fire to higher-than-normal temperatures. The floors were also concrete.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1540044.stm
Click to expand...
 
All the steel was covered in concrete to guarantee firefighters a minimum period of one or two hours in which they could operate - although aviation fuel would have driven the fire to higher-than-normal temperatures. The floors were also concrete.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's been pretty well established that the spray-on concrete was a fiasco. Many steel surfaces were not well coated or coated at all. There were gaps at construction. Over the years, expansion and cntraction of the steel could have caused more deterioration in the concrete. At least one reason was that the spray-on technology just wasn't a very good idea. Also, that part of the construction seems to have been handled by the mafia and they were not as interested in fireproofing as they were in doing a shoddy job and pocketing the money.
 
alexg said:
Indeed. And any way you slice it there is no concrete core of any significancance in that photo. It's all air and steel Chris. Give it up man!
Click to expand...

You simply do not know what you are looking at.

Here is the WTC 2 core ALL BY ITSELF.

WTC 2 was very carefully designed to have the best access across the core possible. WTC 1 was very hard to rent because it only had one hallway
per floor across the core.

So, WTC 2 (on left) had a completely redisigned core. The image of the mid day silouette shows 2 hallways. Since the core of WTC 2 ran north south, we view the narrow end, meaning that there was not much wall visible even though you are looking at the first of three full height structural walls (crossing our line of sight) that are heavily connected with floors and a wall down the middle between the 2 hallways we see.

It was termed the supercore. It was actually stronger than the WTC 1 core even though it used more concrete (weight detracts from very tall structures). The configuration utilized a combined shear wall/cell construction that was super rigid. The The sunrise silhouette shows no light through it because we are not looking directly down the halls.

So it looks as though there is hardly any core, but that is deceptive because of the 2 hallways in the narrow end.
 
Last edited:
alexg said:
The tower to the right, seemingly further along in construction, clearly has something in the core area which at least appears to be more solid. I'm thinking they may have already hung the drywall to the core in that building.
Click to expand...

The tower on the right is WTC 1 which had a core oriented east and west with only one hallway through the core. We view the wide side.
 
Christophera said:
You simply do not know what you are looking at.

Here is the WTC 2 core ALL BY ITSELF.

WTC 2 was very carefully designed to have the best access across the core possible. WTC 1 was very hard to rent because it only had one hallway
per floor across the core.

So, WTC 2 (on left) had a completely redisigned core. The image of the mid day silouette shows 2 hallways. Since the core of WTC 2 ran north south, we view the narrow end, meaning that there was not much wall visible even though you are looking at the first of three full height structural walls (crossing our line of sight) that are heavily connected with floors and a wall down the middle between the 2 hallways we see.

It was termed the supercore. It was actually stronger than the WTC 1 core even though it used more concrete (weight detracts from very tall structures). The configuration utilized a combined shear wall/cell construction that was super rigid. The The sunrise silhouette shows no light through it because we are not looking directly down the halls.

So it looks as though there is hardly any core, but that is deceptive because of the 2 hallways in the narrow end.
Click to expand...
No way. That's steel and air. You are convincing no one Chris. If that tells you nothing and you insist that you against the world are correct, then ask yourself what use is your theory if it can only live in your mind. I do admire your heroic persistence, sincerly, I do, but find a better outlet for it. A connection with the real world is ultimately vital to one's happiness.
 
Christophera said:
So much for your knowledge on the WTC towers. Yamasaki was the engineer that designed the actual structure that stood.

http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html
Click to expand...
So how could the floor plan presented in the NIST report have been pre-Yamasaki, since he was involved with the design from the very beginning?

Besides, wouldn't it have been Leslie Robertson who either put in or removed a concrete core from the design? He was the structural engineer who put Yamasaki's bold concept into practice. Since you appear to tbe the only person on Earth (certainly on this forum) that believes the towers had such a core, I suspect neither had such a thing in mind during design and construction.

And there's no indication in the NIST report of a concrete core, either:

NIST Report said:
Those core columns located in rentable and public spaces, closets, and mechanical shafts were enclosed in boxes of gypsum wallboard (and thus were inaccessible for inspection). The amount of gypsum enclosure in contact with the column varied depending on the location of the column within the core. (Page 73)
Click to expand...
Indeed, all through the report is the assumption all the core columns were "exposed" and not encased in anything more substantial than gypsum wallboard. Considerable attention is paid to which columns were damaged and even severed by the impact of the aircraft. Such discussion would have been moot had there been a concrete core, and would have concentrated instead on how the aircraft damage would have affected the concrete walls.

In fact, had there been a concrete core, especially one 17' thick :eek:, would it not have served to protect the stairwells and elevators? If that were so, why did everyone above the impact zone in the north tower perish, and only a handful in the south tower escape?
 
Blue Mountain said:
So how could the floor plan presented in the NIST report have been pre-Yamasaki, since he was involved with the design from the very beginning?

Besides, wouldn't it have been Leslie Robertson who either put in or removed a concrete core from the design?
Click to expand...

No. Robertson was not qualified to the degree Yamasaki was with design engineering and basically employed Yamasaki to certify the greater structural/safety value of the entire project in some ways.

Hence the sacrifice in floor space at the ground floor because of the core walls base wall thickness. The steel cored tower could not certify past basic calculation and wind tunnel tests of models showed that calc's were correct. Steel flexes too much in those proportions.

The weight of a tower needs to be below the middle for greater stability. Putting the heavy elevator motors and AC machinery on the 43rd was that principle. That floor had structural cast concrete walls and floors out to the perimeter walls holding the shear panels of the walls in dimension, no flex, while mounting all the heavy elevator machinery, in postion in the core. That is the reason that some elevators only went halfway.

I have a partial set of Robertsons plans that show the site and some elevations. No core floor plan.
 
Your a complete and total liar Chris.
you completely ignore the facts that don't suit you. even on your own website you ignore fact and focus only what you think you see
 

Attachments

  • corehallsdoors.jpg
    corehallsdoors.jpg
    35.2 KB · Views: 6
  • wtcsunriseshilouette.jpg
    wtcsunriseshilouette.jpg
    25.5 KB · Views: 7
  • silhouettenoontosouth.jpg
    silhouettenoontosouth.jpg
    36.8 KB · Views: 7
Christophera said:
I do not think that Olivers image is better than mine, in fact it is worse.
Click to expand...

I can understand why: we see a whole lot better in his image, so you can't try to bamboozle us with your lies.

I there were any steel croe columns at an elevation over the ground in demo images, I'm sure you would have posted them.
Click to expand...

We have posted them. You have seen them. You have ignored them.

I've said this numerous times. The image showing 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS onlky shows that rebar because the C4 coating on the vertical bar did not detonate.
Click to expand...

Then why did the concrete explode there ?

The C4 on the much smaller horizontal bar did detonate as it was fresh when concrete was poured wheras the vertical bar sat through bad weather in the winter and lost it's viability.
Click to expand...

Speculation.

Criticize my critical thinking huh?
Click to expand...

Oxymoron.

What is that light colored surface behind the interior box columns?
Click to expand...

Teflon, obviously.

What is hilarious is that you actually think this nation has courts of law. So far, I've not seen that in many years of failing lawsuits.
Click to expand...

Oh! So christophera can't possibly lose, otherwise someone's cheating.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom