HERE'S ONE! (image of WTC1 during construction)
curiously, i can see no evidence at all of anything that resembles a "concrete" core in this image. CAN YOU?
BV
Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers?
- Thread starter Christophera
- Start date
- Status
HERE'S ONE! (image of WTC1 during construction)
curiously, i can see no evidence at all of anything that resembles a "concrete" core in this image. CAN YOU?
BV
uruk
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
It's called selective reasoning. And selective sight.
Chris has been mass hypmotized by ancient druids to only be able to see the tower on the right. He also has no concept of what periodelia is.
He's probably going to say that the two towers were built differently. And his proof is a video for which he cannot prove to exists.
Maybe he was hypmotized into thinking that he watched this video.
An 18 minute film which ballooned out to a 4 hour film about a concrete core.
He also completely ignores the black and white picture of the two towers taken from a angle that was perpendicular to one side of the towers and from a distance that the view is practically orthognal.
He also avoids the fact that there is no alternating areas of light and dark between the floors.
He has backed himself into a corner and he is closing his eyes tightly, clicking his heels twice and repeating "there is a concrete core, there is a concrete core, there's no place like a concrete core."
Give it up Chris
Your done son!
Chris has been mass hypmotized by ancient druids to only be able to see the tower on the right. He also has no concept of what periodelia is.
He's probably going to say that the two towers were built differently. And his proof is a video for which he cannot prove to exists.
Maybe he was hypmotized into thinking that he watched this video.
An 18 minute film which ballooned out to a 4 hour film about a concrete core.
He also completely ignores the black and white picture of the two towers taken from a angle that was perpendicular to one side of the towers and from a distance that the view is practically orthognal.
He also avoids the fact that there is no alternating areas of light and dark between the floors.
He has backed himself into a corner and he is closing his eyes tightly, clicking his heels twice and repeating "there is a concrete core, there is a concrete core, there's no place like a concrete core."
Give it up Chris
Your done son!
Attachments
Last edited:
You think that picture is sufficient to prove concrete? Correct?
Then, sticking with that photo, what is your proof that the thing in the picture is not core enclosed in drywall?
You'll need to stick pretty close to the photo I believe, to avoid circular reasoning.
Christophera
Banned
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 2,760
Your question is not really complete. WTC 1 has a dark line between bright spots. The nature of these type photos is for adjacent light spots to bleed throughout the dark spaces between them. The sunrise silhouette shows the better than the midday shot to the south at bottom.
The sunrise silhouette
mid day silouette
That WTC 1 had 2 halls crossing on the top 10+ floors, that is the only addition I would make.
Again, WTC 2 had 2 halls across the core on each floor. There was only a thick slab, like 18" or something as a floor/cieling between vertically adjacent halls.
Below, from my site RE; WTC 1, Not sure on final details on these matters which is odd because this should be easy information to confirm.
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
"the hallway/door scheme was changed higher up."
Most importantly. The concrete core is completely consistent with images of the towers demise.
By golly, I think he is cracking. The absurdities must be obvious even to him at this point. Chris, you are resourcefull, I'll give you that, bleeding light over dark, eh? But no. It's all too sharp, the details in the steelwork are too clear, to be any bleeding in the B & W shots. You wearing your reading glasses. I'm so nearsighted my nearpoint vision is crazy good.
Christophera
Banned
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 2,760
Without providing a link I would have to guess that you mean the core of WTC 2. By default it must be concrete. Steel support strucutre alone will not appear as is seen.
Again, you are not linking to a photo so I guess that you refer to the core WTC 2. Hundreds of thousands of tons of steel and concrete have crashed over that structure. Do you really think that something you can cut trough with a squeegee is going to survive that?
If drywall will not survive that then the drywall will be ripped off to expose the supposed steel core columns. Common sense says drywall will not survive.
Nothing circular about the reasoning I've provided.
That is a 500 foot tall structure and all the exterior steel is gone. It is the core position. Realistically, ........... done deal. Steel reinforced oncrete can be the only material that will survive and appear as that does. Add to that the end view of the concrete shear wall, double done deal.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3449&stc=1&d=1160444694
Attachments
I quoted you and the quote linked to the 'box in the cloud' pic.
I admit I don't know what is in the cloud but you want a common sense explanation and I give one - if the core has managed to stand on it's own then then it seems the trussess must have snapped away from it rather easily, else it would have been dragged down with the rest, so yes, the drywall might still be at least partially in tact, enough to give the steel core a solid appearance in a smoke filled cloud.
I do not think you have given sufficient reason to eliminate drywall and thus the picture is not sufficient proof of concrete core.
ETA This thing in the cloud appears to be the lower part of the building, well below the fire and airplane damage, area pristine still until the collapse goes past it in a heartbeat, even more reason to believe drywall may still be attached.
eta your other picture (the spire) is so vague it could be anything, I do not believe you believe you can see what you claim to see, impossible to distinguish between steel core and anything else. You are too smart for that.
I admit I don't know what is in the cloud but you want a common sense explanation and I give one - if the core has managed to stand on it's own then then it seems the trussess must have snapped away from it rather easily, else it would have been dragged down with the rest, so yes, the drywall might still be at least partially in tact, enough to give the steel core a solid appearance in a smoke filled cloud.
I do not think you have given sufficient reason to eliminate drywall and thus the picture is not sufficient proof of concrete core.
ETA This thing in the cloud appears to be the lower part of the building, well below the fire and airplane damage, area pristine still until the collapse goes past it in a heartbeat, even more reason to believe drywall may still be attached.
eta your other picture (the spire) is so vague it could be anything, I do not believe you believe you can see what you claim to see, impossible to distinguish between steel core and anything else. You are too smart for that.
Last edited:
Each pic by itself is inconclusive, it's understanding resting on it's place in a pattern, the pattern resting on other pics, which are themselves inconclusive - the whole argument is indeed circular.
eta I believe YOUR confidence rests upon the documentary you cannot produce - I think this colors your perception of the evidence at hand. If you cannot produce the documentary you will never convince anyone.
eta I believe YOUR confidence rests upon the documentary you cannot produce - I think this colors your perception of the evidence at hand. If you cannot produce the documentary you will never convince anyone.
Last edited:
much more importantly where is the concrete core in the scenes in this clip?
CONCLUSIVE PROOF THERE WAS NO CORE?
(cut from "American Experience: Center of the World"
done and dusted.
BV
If ONLY that video showed the lower elevations, I think Chris has claimed that the concrete stops at a certain floor level, forgotten which. No doubt he will inform us shortly.
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
Again, I'm ignoring the algoxy links. I've seen that picture lots of times and it shows no concrete core. That picture is so grainy it's difficult to determine just what it shows.
Christophera, you keep getting the FLOOR NUMBERS wrong when talking about the sky lobby and mechanical floors--even after Bell posted the correct ones here in this thread! If you can't even get that basic information right, how can we trust anything else you say?
Well, one of your earlier posts said:
The comment about stability implied to me you were concerned about the tower's stability and thus, by extension, the damping system. Since you say you don't know anything about the damping system, I withdraw my suggestion that you believe the elevators and mechanical rooms were put where they were to aid in that.
You did, however, imply that the mechanical rooms were located "halfway up" (see bolding above) to keep their weight in the lower half of the building. But a little research turned up a couple of facts:
1. There were no mechanical rooms on 54, 55, or 56, which would have been "halfway";
2. There were not one but two sets of floors dedicated to mechanical equipment above the halfway mark. So that kinda blows your theory about them needing to be in the lower half of the building to maintain stability.
The reason I'm "switching topics" is to show that you have such a poor grasp of even basic facts such as of the layout of WTC 1 and 2 that you're nuking any credibility you may have on other stuff. It's like a kid trying to show me he knows advanced topographical geometry when he can't even accurately describe a square vs a rectangle vs a parallelogram.
Christophera
Banned
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 2,760
I cannot imagine any drywall at all surviving it is very weak and will be torn from its fasteners and broken with far far less than what happened.. Meaning we'd be looking at columns if they existed. We would have to see some protruding. It is completely unreasonable to consider that drywall would not erode.
The notion of drywall surviving at all is just too far from common sense with consideration of the magnitude of what crashed overt he core.
Again the logical analysis consistent with everything seen is that the spire leans on a concrete shear wall. Process of elimination will get you to the same place.
Concrete shear wall to left of interior box column, the "spire"
Add to that the many descriptions of the core. Here is one.
Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992
Christophera
Banned
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 2,760
We cannot establish exactly what they layout is. There is no point discussing it. Just like elevators. It is immaterial. Oops, ....... I forget you like that, focus on that, etc.
Fundaments are what matter. I post an image of the core of WTC 2 which, after reasonable attempts to explain it, can only be explained reasonably as concrete given the natural properties of all building materials pssibly existent in the structure.
Christophera
Banned
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 2,760
The steel was only allowed to go 7 floors over the top of the concrete before casting more concrete core. I sort of remember one instance where a little more was allowed by specific request to the engineers monitoring the steel erection but the cranes were not working off the crane platform after that. Or if they did it was only holding, positioning rebar, elevator supports and the inner concrete forms inside the core.
Not reaching out over the side of the tower reduces lateral load greatly.
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
While the precise layout of what went where in WTC 1 and 2 may not be material to discussion of the materials that made up the core, the fact that you get the floor allocations wrong when they are well documented casts an unfavourable light on your research abilities.
Ah, that old canard. There have been many attempts to explain it, but your conviction that it shows a concrete core (which apparently had been blown into powder seconds before) has made you happily immune to the alternatives.
"The notion of drywall surviving at all is just too far from common sense with consideration".
Not IF the core for some reason has let go of the trusses - which, if that be core we see, it would have likely done. The floor would simply have been ripped away from the core structure in a flash. The drywall would have been attached above the concrtete floors. The concrete on concrete pancaking may have whisked it all away in a flash. The common sense alternative still stands.
Not IF the core for some reason has let go of the trusses - which, if that be core we see, it would have likely done. The floor would simply have been ripped away from the core structure in a flash. The drywall would have been attached above the concrtete floors. The concrete on concrete pancaking may have whisked it all away in a flash. The common sense alternative still stands.
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
Christophera: what was the purpose of pouring the core after the steel went up? That process appears to be rather counter-intuitive ... what would they attach the floors to?
- Status