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

[Christophera]

These photos have all been posted here before, as Chris well knows. I won't be participating in this, er, discussion, but I've decided to post the photos monthly for newcomers.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/8790452c11e07a3ea.jpg[/qimg]
​

That is the north face of the South tower. You do not know what you are looking at. I do. Light reflecting off the concrete core.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3472&stc=1&d=1160522839
​

 

[Christophera]

"That concrete there is why that stairwell was not crushed and a number of people survived."

Hogwash! The planes ripped through all but one stairwell - one survived because the plane cut across the South Tower on an angle. See the docu. "why the towers fell" featuring Leslie Roberston, lead structural engineer for the WTC. If they had used concrete in the core more stairwells might have made it.

And (6x) the explosion of the cloud?

The planes were at least 800 feet over that scene.

Some one here earlier mentioned the firefighters and others rescued from a stairwell. That would have to be the one.

 

[Christophera]

Photos Removed From Record

The photo record of the tower constrcution was pilfered, just like the documentary. The infiltrators of the US governmetn are not stupid. Ar you going to help them?

Chris, how in hell can you look at the construction photos and construction videos presented here and conclude that the core is anything but STEEL COLUMNS?? It's so damn plain to see that the core was made out of STEEL it boggles my mind that you are blind to it.

I've worked in construction, and when concrete is going to be poured around a steel structure, FORMS ARE PUT IN PLACE around said steel so the concrete doesn't just fall away due to gravity. Makes sense, huh??

When have you EVER seen a single, damn form around one of the steel members in ANY photo taken during the construction of WTC 1 or 2??

You do believe that there was steel in the core, don't you?? Please tell me you aren't starting to believe that there were no steel columns in the core as implied by your last post.

Can you provide ONE SINGLE PHOTO taken during construction that would lead us to believe the core might have been steel reinforced concrete, or do you think that every construction photo has been either deleted if it showed concrete, or altered to make it 'look like' there really never was concrete?

Was there steel in the core of the WTC's or not Chris???? Just answer that.

Easily answered and this will be the second time in a page or so.

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 are 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" ("MASSIVE 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.

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

 

[Dog Town]

Is it just me, or is it painfuly obvious when christo is off his meds?
Maybe it's just a polar swing? I would call it a strike, over the plate, or not.

 

[Arus808]

With consideration of the fact that your proposal of steel core columns is only supported by fraudulent documents or misrepresentations of construction photos and the raw evidence of images of the demolition show things that are completely unexplained by the steel core sheep that believe lies.

Its your claim, YOU have to prove it.
<delete link to your site, which proves nothing>
Fraudulent documents? THESE are the documents that have to be seen by SEVERAL safety experts and designers in order for them to accept the design in order to BUILD these buildings. If they were fraudulent, tEH towers WOULD have never been built.

So, DID YOU contact those involved in the construction of these two towers/


YOu have had now, 14 hours to do so.

 

[Arus808]

Light reflecting off the concrete core.

Since WHEN does light REFLECT OFF OF CONCRETE you boob?

MY god, you are totally a lunatic.
You are totally being INTENTIONALLY obtuse about this.

So, when are you going to contact those involved in the construction?

 

[Christophera]

here's a very short (12 sec) scene i cut from the Nova production "Why The Towers Fell":-

BEHIND THE SHADOW?


this plainly shows the core momentarily standing during the collapse of WTC2. i suggest this may be what (obviously from a different distance/camera/angle) is seen as the "clouded shadow" in christopheras pic which he seems fixated upon insisting as evidence/proof that the core was made of concrete.

during the scene, a graphic of the structure in question is superimposed by Nova over the core to illustrate the WTC design architects point. sadly it's not that plain to see in my compressed cut/edit. i recommend christophera to watch the original film and try to find convincing evidence (besides several grainy inconclusive jpgs and a doctored diagram) to refute all the acknowledged expert professional opinions the movie shows.

Perhaps then he might be able to come to a more convincing conclusion as to how the WTC towers were constructed and therefore also more plausible mechanics of their eventual destruction.

the whole film is replete with illustrations, explanations and expert testament of/to the construction of the WTC. in fact the film particularly emphasises the true core fabrication.

LOOK and Learn...........

BV

It's bogus. They don't even show the deception in the little clip you linked to. I saved the bold attempt at deception. If it were not bogus we would see that same structure here here ad we do not.

http://www.randi.org/forumlive/images/attach/jpg.gif

 

[Christophera]

Since WHEN does light REFLECT OFF OF CONCRETE you boob?

I guess you have never been around cast concrete structures. It can be blinding if metal forms are used. Even plywood formed surfaces can get shiney.

 

[Arus808]

It's bogus. If it were not we would see that same structure here here ad we do not.

I propose to the mods that the url as spammed to this forum by Chris, now and a foever be, censored.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

It's bogus. If it were not we would see that same structure here here ad we do not.

maybe your picture is the bogus one

 

[Arus808]

I guess you have never been around cast concrete structures. It can be blinding if metal forms are used. Even plywood formed surfaces can get shiney.

Plywood shiny? Since when? ONly when it has a laminate on it. I have plywood at my home right now, They are direct sunlight, and they do squat in reflecting anything.

 

[Arus808]

My only reply to Christophera will be this from now on, since he is only basing his opnions on a faulty memory:

So, when are you going to contact those involved in the construction of the Twin Towers?

 

[Christophera]

I propose to the mods that the url as spammed to this forum by Chris, now and a foever be, censored.

Because you cannot explain it and I have to keep bringing back as you won't accept what it shows and does not show while you have no evidence. Wow, that's fair.

 

[Arus808]

Because you cannot explain it and I have to keep bringing back as you won't accept what it shows and does not show while you have no evidence. Wow, that's fair.

Why should I explain it? Your site has be debunked more than a thousand times in this thread alone. Me repeating ad nauseum whas has been stated in this thread does no one else any good. So, now, your site is nothing more than spam. You have no proof on your website; no expert testimony; all it has is downloaded images from the net, in poor quality, with your crap analysis, not backed by any facts whatsoever, based upon a fictional documentary you made up in your head.


So, when are you going to contact those involved in the construction of the twin towers? You've now had 15 hours to do so.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Because you cannot explain it and I have to keep bringing back as you won't accept what it shows and does not show while you have no evidence. Wow, that's fair.

why cant you provide one person (actual PERSON, not a grade school science paper, not a fluff article from a newspaper) who can corroborate your concrete core story? why not? someone must have poured that concrete, in fact, id say many workers must have been involved in the construction of the WTC, find me some of them

 

[Blue Mountain]

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.

What he said.

BTW, Architect, the building in your avatar: I can't identify it, so I'm wondering -
1) Is it real or an artistic rendering?
2) Were you involved in its creation?

 

[alexg]

The planes were at least 800 feet over that scene.

Some one here earlier mentioned the firefighters and others rescued from a stairwell. That would have to be the one.

I see what you mean. Sorry, I snapped that post off too quick.

 

[alexg]

7x, the explosion? As I understood you the core encased c4, the top portion already blown and the bottom part set on a delay. So when does it blow?

 

[Blue Mountain]

Hi Christopera, can I get your take on this statement I made earlier? You started to reply, but then we got sidetracked on a discussion on the placement of the mechanical equipment and the overall stability of the tower.

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

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)

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 , 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]

Oh, and I just noticed you haven't addressed this one either:

One of your earlier posts said:

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.[/b] (bolding mine)

(one paragraph snipped)

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.

Please demonstrate you have grasped elementary research skills and post here for all to see (and state your source while you're at it):
1) Which floors had the skylobbies
2) Which floors had mechanical equipment