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

[alexg]

Your core/cloud picture has one other problem; If you look over at the face of the North tower, approx. level with the core/cloud you'll see smoke - a similar thickness of smoke, probably less thick actually, but the same quality - this smoke has rendered the wall of the tower behind it into an amorphous gray, yet we know it is steel divided by glass. Thus your cloud/core object could easily be likewise obscured. What is under could well be steel structure, smoothed over much as the face of the North tower. So even if the drywall has ripped off we have yet another common sense explanation for the seeming solidity of the object. That's thick smoke, the picture is grainy, what's behind the smoke could be anything, steel, drywall, even concrete. The point is this THE PICTURE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE CONCRETE.

 

[Christophera]

Your core/cloud picture has one other problem; If you look over at the face of the North tower, approx. level with the core/cloud you'll see smoke - a similar thickness of smoke, probably less thick actually, but the same quality - this smoke has rendered the wall of the tower behind it into an amorphous gray, yet we know it is steel divided by glass. Thus your cloud/core object could easily be likewise obscured. What is under could well be steel structure, smoothed over much as the face of the North tower. So even if the drywall has ripped off we have yet another common sense explanation for the seeming solidity of the object. That's thick smoke, the picture is grainy, what's behind the smoke could be anything, steel, drywall, even concrete. The point is this THE PICTURE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE CONCRETE.

Even if we had a clear view of the faces of the core it wouldn't matter. the important aspect is the silhouetted top edge. No steel protruding and the smooth eroded edge is absolutely characteristic of concrete. Combined with other photographic evidence and the total lack of steel core columns and the suppor tof the many websites listed here at the "Concrete Core Page",

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

There is literally no evidence for steel core and massive evidence for concrete.

Where is the steel core page?

 

[Christophera]

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?

For an overall view of how the tower worked structurally, imagine this analogy using ordinary scaffolding to help show how they were built and worked which really went hand in hand. It was like building a scaffold to use as an outer form for a concrete tube, then leaving the scaffold inplace afterwards to act as floor space on a tower.

Imagine you take 4 pieces of scaffolding and go up 4 levels. Then you take rebar and run it vertically up the wall of space formed in the center of the scaffold offset 1/2 the wall thickness from the inside vertical supports of the scaffold. Then lower a steel rectangular tube down the inside of that rebar which comes apart later to be removed up and out the empty center area of the core. Then wood is used to fasten against the inner side vertical suppports of the scaffolding outside the rebar. The space betwen the steel inner form and the outer wood form is filled with concrete encapsulating the rebar completely.

You disassemble the inner form, remove wood from the outside of the concrete when cured then fasten the inner ring of the scaffolds vertical supports to the concrete core wall and stack up 4 more sets of four sides of scaffold and do it again to 8 levels.

The inner ring of vertical supports of the scaffold in the analogous model represent the ONLY columns associated with the core. Called "interior box columns" referring to the inner wall of the scaffold, a tube shaped framework outside the cast concrete wall of the rectangular concrete tube but fastened to it.

The 47 steel columns of FEMA are ONLY supported by crude diagrams, unrelated with no overview except text. Not construction plans by any means and none of it is consistent with the images of the actual buildings coming down. There are at least 3 different layouts for columns and stairways etc, core floor plans.

 

[Architect]

For an overall view of how the tower worked structurally, imagine this analogy using ordinary scaffolding to help show how they were built and worked which really went hand in hand. It was like building a scaffold to use as an outer form for a concrete tube, then leaving the scaffold inplace afterwards to act as floor space on a tower.

Imagine you take 4 pieces of scaffolding and go up 4 levels. Then you take rebar and run it vertically up the wall of space formed in the center of the scaffold offset 1/2 the wall thickness from the inside vertical supports of the scaffold. Then lower a steel rectangular tube down the inside of that rebar which comes apart later to be removed up and out the empty center area of the core. Then wood is used to fasten against the inner side vertical suppports of the scaffolding outside the rebar. The space betwen the steel inner form and the outer wood form is filled with concrete encapsulating the rebar completely.

You disassemble the inner form, remove wood from the outside of the concrete when cured then fasten the inner ring of the scaffolds vertical supports to the concrete core wall and stack up 4 more sets of four sides of scaffold and do it again to 8 levels.

The inner ring of vertical supports of the scaffold in the analogous model represent the ONLY columns associated with the core. Called "interior box columns" referring to the inner wall of the scaffold, a tube shaped framework outside the cast concrete wall of the rectangular concrete tube but fastened to it.

The 47 steel columns of FEMA are ONLY supported by crude diagrams, unrelated with no overview except text. Not construction plans by any means and none of it is consistent with the images of the actual buildings coming down. There are at least 3 different layouts for columns and stairways etc, core floor plans.

Professionally speaking, that's a load of bollocks.

You're saying that the steel was to support permanent shuttering and to take the floors, in which case what the heck is youy mythical concrete core doing? Torsion? No need. The columns act as a box girder and deal with tranverse loadings.

And the steel columns are supported by a wealth of photgraphic evidence. All that YOU have are badly interpreted photgraphs and distant shots. You can't find any credible evidence.

Really, I don't know why I bother. You're certifiable. As you've proven already on this thread.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Where'd you get it? I don't think I've ever seen one before.

I forget where we bought it, but it's made by Lixit. We have it mounted on the door of her crate, and we just leave the crate door open when we're home so she has access to the bottle.

 

[Hellbound]

I forget where we bought it, but it's made by Lixit. We have it mounted on the door of her crate, and we just leave the crate door open when we're home so she has access to the bottle.

I'll have to look around. I bet I could find something similar at Petco or Petsmart or a similar store around here.

Thanks for the tip

 

[alexg]

Even if we had a clear view of the faces of the core it wouldn't matter. the important aspect is the silhouetted top edge. No steel protruding and the smooth eroded edge is absolutely characteristic of concrete. Combined with other photographic evidence and the total lack of steel core columns and the suppor tof the many websites listed here at the "Concrete Core Page",

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

There is literally no evidence for steel core and massive evidence for concrete.

Where is the steel core page?

Steel core pages abound and you know it. But forget that for a moment.

Do you then agree the bulk of the cloud pic is inconclusive and rely instead on the 'silhouetted top edge"?


eta And where/when does this cloud/core explode? You missed that one!

 

[uruk]

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.

Well, that was lame and predictable. I knew you were going to claim the the two buildings were built differently. Where's your proof? Oh, wait! it's on the non existant video that was never shown on PBS.

The diffusing light does wash out the floor slabs because the floor slabs are relatively thin. But according to your diagram the hallways alternate between the entire height floor (I.e. from floor to ceiling.) The light would not diffuse through that much distance. Notice in the tower on the left the areas where light is blocked for the entire hight of the floor. The light does not seem to be "bleeding" around those areas. Chris, how does your post above explain those areas?
The thread your clinging to is getting thinner Chris.

 

[Belz...]

Common sense, a notion wasted here.

Common sense ? You mean, the thing that tells you the earth is flat, that the sun "rises" in the morning and that traveling near the speed of light doesn't alter how time passes for you ?

Common sense hasn't worked for you, chris. Time to change to a more useful tool.

If it was not, then there would be a common sense explanation for this is if it is not concrete.

Again, since it's impossible de determine what this thing is made of, your assertion that it is concrete is, at best, speculation.

I also see you've ignored my other points. Very courageous of you.

 

[Arus808]

Chris,

Have you bothered to make contact with the design firm, the construction companies and the Port Authority about the plans for WTC towers?

 

[Belz...]

We cannot establish exactly what they layout is. There is no point discussing it.

And yet you claim to know what it was ?

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.

Dust, man. Dust.

Thought it may actually be the steel core, as we've seen in other videos. All that smoke makes it look pretty opaque, anyway.

 

[alexg]

Look how a relatively small amount of smoke from the collapse of the south tower has obscured the detail from the wall of the north tower.

The picture is grainy to start with, all that steel and glass detail on the north tower is barely visible even away from the smoke, but add the smoke and all detail vanishes. THERE IS NONE.

Now look back at the object in the cloud. (Assuming there is an object in the cloud at all, which is generous but I lean toward giving you that much.) The even larger quantity of smoke CLEARLY erases any detail from whatever is behind the smoke. Impossible to say it is not a steel frame! Look back at the north tower again, behind the smoke. NO DETAIL! NONE!

So. I think even Chris sees this much. And moves to the top of the photo. Whatever that darker blob is at the top it is certainly safe to say doesn't look like a concrete wall any more than it does anything else.

THIS PICTURE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE ANYTHING ABOUT THE CORE! Nothing! Not even in conjunction with other photos provided.
And it is Chris's bedrock.


ETA and when does the cloud explode again, from the encased c4? Third time for this question.

 

[Belz...]

The steel was only allowed to go 7 floors over the top of the concrete before casting more concrete core.

Except that's not how you make a concrete core. And you say you know this stuff ?

The core NEEDS to be standing BEFORE the construction of the rest of the building can catch up to it. Can you tell me why ?

I sort of remember

We can agree on that.

No steel protruding and the smooth eroded edge

Again, something you can't tell from that photograph.

The 47 steel columns of FEMA are ONLY supported by crude diagrams, unrelated with no overview except text.

Except in all those pictures we've shown you. According to you, those were 47 box columns...

 

[Oliver]

Chris,

Have you bothered to make contact with the design firm, the construction companies and the Port Authority about the plans for WTC towers?

*Bump*

 

[Arus808]

Chris,

Have you bothered to make contact with the design firm, the construction companies and the Port Authority about the plans for WTC towers?

and dont answer with some bullcrap story about how you tried, but no one was willing to talk with you or that they are now under a "code of silence".

 

[Christophera]

Look how a relatively small amount of smoke from the collapse of the south tower has obscured the detail from the wall of the north tower.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/11835452bc52f3e976.gif[/qimg]


The picture is grainy to start with, all that steel and glass detail on the north tower is barely visible even away from the smoke, but add the smoke and all detail vanishes. THERE IS NONE.

Now look back at the object in the cloud. (Assuming there is an object in the cloud at all, which is generous but I lean toward giving you that much.) The even larger quantity of smoke CLEARLY erases any detail from whatever is behind the smoke. Impossible to say it is not a steel frame! Look back at the north tower again, behind the smoke. NO DETAIL! NONE!

So. I think even Chris sees this much. And moves to the top of the photo. Whatever that darker blob is at the top it is certainly safe to say doesn't look like a concrete wall any more than it does anything else.

THIS PICTURE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE ANYTHING ABOUT THE CORE! Nothing! Not even in conjunction with other photos provided.
And it is Chris's bedrock.


ETA and when does the cloud explode again, from the encased c4? Third time for this question.

My point about the silhouetted top is still valid and the fact no core columns protrude is valid, meaning the image will be interpreted by those that know concrete and steel as showing concrete before it will be interpreted to show steel.

The steel core columns do not show. By default the concrete core is the only reasonable option based on that one photo. If you can produce alternate images that show steel core columns protruding from the core area at some elevation over the ground, then you have evidence for steel core columns.

Saying 'no" to the evidence for concrete when it is reasonably shown that ther was concrete, does not make evidence for steel columns.

 

[Architect]

My point about the silhouetted top is still valid and the fact no core columns protrude is valid, meaning the image will be interpreted by those that know concrete and steel as showing concrete before it will be interpreted to show steel.

I know steel and concrete, far better than you Chris, and it's steel. Stop wasting out time.

 

[Christophera]

I know steel and concrete, far better than you Chris, and it's steel. Stop wasting out time.

No. And you haven't shown you are accountable to back up your claim of being an arch.

You didn't answer the question about multiple steel core columns and torsion.

You have no credibility, out of the picture.

 

[Architect]

No. And you haven't shown you are accountable to back up your claim of being an arch.

<snip>

You have no credibility, out of the picture.

Chris, I don't think that accountable means what you think it means. If you're asking for evidence that I am indeed qualified, then do tell me what information would suffice? RIBA number? ARB? RIAS? Details of education?

Or would they all be part of the Government disinfo plot too?


As for credibility, mate, there's not ONE person on this site who agrees with you regarding the concrete core theory. Tell me why you think this might be?!

 

[Belz...]

My point about the silhouetted top is still valid and the fact no core columns protrude is valid,

None of those points are valid, because they ASSUME that what you see in that picture isn't just dust. You haven't shown this to be true.

meaning the image will be interpreted by those that know concrete and steel as showing concrete before it will be interpreted to show steel.

And that would be... only you ?

The steel core columns do not show. By default the concrete core is the only reasonable option based on that one photo.

You have a very strange notion of evidence.

If you can produce alternate images that show steel core columns protruding from the core area at some elevation over the ground, then you have evidence for steel core columns.

You mean you HAVEN'T seen the video where we see the core still standing, briefly, after the collapse ?