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

[cloudshipsrule]

Christophera,

How many levels/floors of the towers were constructed between each pouring of the concrete core? In other words, did the concrete for the core get poured as each level was built, or did the concrete get poured for the core after every 5 or 10 or 15 stories of building were constructed?

 

[Christophera]

Yep I sure have. You've just ignored it because it did not agree with your belief.

I debunked your evidence.

I showed that What you interpret as a 17 foot concrete wall was nothing more that debris obscured by dust and smoke.

Right you found an alternative photo that had debris in front of the concrete. rather than using mine which had litttle debris,

I showed you the core structure from several diffreent angle. And you did not reply to it.
I showed how the mesurments you noted on the picture did not match up or coincide.
Other people here have posted pictures of the steel column core (so did jakx in the other forum) but you ignore all that. You've already admitted that you would never accept any other explination other than your own.

I debunked it, you showed nothing to change the dimensions I provided. Remember, it was all cocered with debris. Can't have it both ways.

There have been numerous misinterpretations of construction photos. jackx did the most imcompetent.

I will accept raw evidence that is presented correctly.

 

[Arus808]

I debunked your evidence.

YOU. DEBUNKED. NOTHING.

Chris, have you bothered to contact anyone who was reponsible in the design and construction of the twin tower? YOu've now had 51 hours to do so.

Dont reply until you have. And dont make up excuses as to why you haven't or make others do it for you.

 

[Christophera]

Christophera,

How many levels/floors of the towers were constructed between each pouring of the concrete core? In other words, did the concrete for the core get poured as each level was built, or did the concrete get poured for the core after every 5 or 10 or 15 stories of building were constructed?

The standing rule for WTC 1 was no more thatn 7 floors od steel over the core.

The core required that 4 floors minimum of steel be constructed so that the crane platform was above the new segment of cast concrete core but still had a place to be fastened and that the interior box columns were in position to support the outer core forms. By special arrangement with the engineers in charge of steel and restricted operation, steel went higher on a few occasions. WTC 2 may have had more of that as experience gained on WTC 1 was used to evaluate risks.

 

[Christophera]

YOU. DEBUNKED. NOTHING.

Chris, have you bothered to contact anyone who was reponsible in the design and construction of the twin tower? YOu've now had 51 hours to do so.

Dont reply until you have. And dont make up excuses as to why you haven't or make others do it for you.

Hey, you shouldn't be replying until you have an image of some of the 47 steel columns at reasonable elevation of the ground, and you should not reply because th eimage that shows what can only be concrete ALSO shows NO steel core columns.

You suffer from delusions of "entitlement" in light of available raw evidence.

 

[Arus808]

What part of "its your responsibility to prove to us your theory" do you not understand?

The only way you're going to prove to use your theory is correct, is to contact someone who was involved in the design and construction of said towers.

Until you do so, we dont have to show you anything, since evidence supports OUR FACTS (not theories).

 

[Arus808]

Hey, you shouldn't be replying until you have an image of some of the 47 steel columns at reasonable elevation of the ground

why? the buildings collapse, so those "steel" columns would no longer be standing at a reasonable elevation off the ground.

The fact that there are NO pictures proves that there was no concrete core.

You contradict yourself constantly, Chris.

You suffer from delusions of "entitlement" in light of available raw evidence.

You suffer from voluntary ingnorance.

 

[Christophera]

So you're documenting your own hypothesis and using it as a basis for your argument ? Has there ever been a more circular form of reasoning ?

It is a known fact to me that there was a concrete core. It is documented with evidence. What is wrong with me using what I know to show what was there to you who do not and consider my propositions as hypothesis, what else would I use?

Still, you have not one image of the steel core columns.

So you're objecting to my using evidence it as a basis for my argument ? Has there ever been a more unfair proposition of so called "reasoning"?

 

[Arus808]

It is a known fact to me that there was a concrete core.

Bolding done by me.

Yes, its ONLY known to you. Because you made it up.

It is documented with evidence.

Which you have not provided.
So, whom did you speak with as to the design and construction of the twin towers. They'd be the ones that can provide evidence.

What is wrong with me using what I know to show what was there to you who do not and consider my propositions as hypothesis, what else would I use?

Because you are trying to show something that is not there.

Still, you have not one image of the steel core columns.

So, I guess all those while being constructed images are just figments of our imaginations. Those same in-construction images that show the many steel columns that go through the center of both buildings?

So you're objecting to my using evidence it as a basis for my argument ? Has there ever been a more unfair proposition of so called "reasoning"?

If that is evidence, then you need to read the dictionary under its definition.

 

[uruk]

A strange and alien concept for you. Raw evidence.

"Raw" evidence. You mean looking at a photograph and guessing at what's going on?
There is a lot of information lost in a compressed 2 dimentional photo.

A picture may be worth a thousand words but all of them can be wrong.

The special effects industry makes a lot money on that fact that 2d pictures
can decieve.

 

[Hellbound]

100 bottles of beer on the wall, 100 bottles of beer...

Take one down, pass it around, 99 bottles of beer on the wall...

Next verse! Someobody take it!

 

[Bell]

Raw evidence is something that is not contrivable. It really is of the scene.

Yes, a picture of the scene. But where is your RAW evidence of the concrete core? Show me a clear picture that shows this core, not within a cloud of dust, not from a sketch, but a clear picture.

Also, you failed to answer two of my other questions:

I've answered this question maybe 3 times in the last 6 pages.

There was 2 delays systems, one for the floors and one for the core. The lower core had a slower or less predictable fuse system and took a number of seconds to intitate. It was also safer and would not be inadvertantly detonated by a stray radio signal.

<snip> redundant links

What is the point of detonating it later?

Why did the corresponding part of the outside of the building collapse if it did not explode?

<snip>
<snap>
<snip>

If this is not concrete what is it. Drywall is not logical.

<snip>redundant link

Why is it not logical?

 

[Christophera]

Quote:
So you're objecting to my using evidence it as a basis for my argument ? Has there ever been a more unfair proposition of so called "reasoning"?
If that is evidence, then you need to read the dictionary under its definition.

If that is evidence, then you need to read the dictionary under its definition.

By what you've written in response to what I wrote. Some reading comprehension courses are in order for you.

 

[Architect]

No, the one in Architects avatar isn't built yet.

The Beetham Tower just opened this week. It actually does have two concrete cores! They were really very prominent during construction.

http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/gallery/d/3397-1/beetham9995.jpg
http://static.flickr.com/25/37328670_72c305de82_o.jpg

Actually, the whole construction is concrete; Mancman will be able to testify to the in-situ formwork that crawled up floor, after floor, over the last year and a half or so.

One of the reasons we used concrete was cost, however I have to say that it does make issues such as fireproofing a lot easier.

Mancman; I know you're itching to mention the fins but they were the boss' idea.

 

[Christophera]

Yes, a picture of the scene. But where is your RAW evidence of the concrete core? Show me a clear picture that shows this core, not within a cloud of dust, not from a sketch, but a clear picture.

Also, you failed to answer two of my other questions:
What is the point of detonating it later?

Why did the corresponding part of the outside of the building collapse if it did not explode?

Why is it not logical?

The image showing the Concrete shear wall to left of interior box column, the "spire" is quite clear.

If you do not have the experience required to recognize that only concrete would have that appearance and could only be concrete under those conditions then your requirements exceed the availability of evidence.

A person with the correct expereince will realize that what is seen may not be easily identifiable visusally as concete, but because of its appearance in that location adjacent to bvious steel columns shown out side the core, they will know the image shows concrete.

The delayed detonation allowed the steel to fall away after the floors and columnn cutting charges had disassembled it before the thermite took out many of the perimeter and interio box column bases. If the core was detonated with the steel around it the steel would be thrown outwards damaging surrounding buildings.

Note the insurance lawsuit. Double payment to a recipient who had private liability and there are not excessive claims from the adjoining buildings.

 

[uruk]

I debunked your evidence.

You never addressed even half of what I posted. There are questions that I put forth that you never answered. You just keep pointing back to pictures on your site that have already been shown to be inconclusive, mistakenly annoted, and blured and obscured. Your just running around in circles.

Right you found an alternative photo that had debris in front of the concrete. rather than using mine which had litttle debris,

I debunked it, you showed nothing to change the dimensions I provided. Remember, it was all cocered with debris. Can't have it both ways.

I posted five photos. The I posted were clearer than the one that you have posted on your website and one was even of the same angle and view as the one you have on your site. (And not to mention that the sizes you were pointing out on that picture were completely wrong. The structure you pointed out could not possibly be 3 inches when compared next to the 4.3 foot wide box collumn.) and those different angles showed NO CONCRETE! That's why you ignored them.

There have been numerous misinterpretations of construction photos. jackx did the most imcompetent.

Jackx made one missinterpretation and corrected it. And even with the missinterpretation he still showed how completely wrong you are.

I will accept raw evidence that is presented correctly.

No you don't. It has been presented to you by many people in many ways. You willfully choose not to accept it.
Your mind is closed.

 

[Arus808]

By what you've written in response to what I wrote. Some reading comprehension courses are in order for you.

Im not the one with reading comprehension problems. YOU DO NOT HAVE any evidence. That's why I said you should look the definition up in a dictionary.

So have you contacted those who were involved in the construction and design of the twin towers?

 

[Christophera]

why? the buildings collapse, so those "steel" columns would no longer be standing at a reasonable elevation off the ground.

Steel columns don't just collapse. They topple which is highly visible. We do not see them. Meaning they must have been cut.

How many cuts are required and what does that look like when it is done with high explosives?

 

[Christophera]

Im not the one with reading comprehension problems. YOU DO NOT HAVE any evidence. That's why I said you should look the definition up in a dictionary.

So have you contacted those who were involved in the construction and design of the twin towers?

I have lots of evidence for the concrete core.

You just don't want to use it,

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

You want me to waste time making phones calls that have already been made and I know the outcome which you've been told.

 

[Arus808]

Steel columns don't just collapse.[/qyite]

YES they do. They weaken and with weight, they collapse; like they did on 9/11.

They topple which is highly visible. We do not see them. Meaning they must have been cut.

This shows exactly why you have no clue what you are talking about.

How many cuts are required and what does that look like when it is done with high explosives?

There are photos out there of exactly what goes into prepping a building for demolitions. None of that were evident in the WTC towers.


SO , have you contacted those who were involved in the design and construction of the Twin towers?


Stop ignoring that question.