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

Status
Not open for further replies.
The image of the smooth sheared burnt red column ends (left) kept coming back. One day I remembered that in the 1990 documentary, as that image was playing the narrator was talking about the floor assemblies and how they never found any stills or film footage of the last metal assemblies to fill the truncated corners of the floor panel. A month or so later I remembered the details you can find here about the super close tolerances of double tempered steel plates around the interior box columns at every intersection with the floors.
 
Is this the same photographic memory that told you that KCET was channel 10?

Since you have this marvelous memory, why don't you tell us who the producer or director of this program was? Or the day and time it aired? Or who narrated the piece?

The same memory, I suppose, that had you interviewing a worker who apparently (by your account) worked on the towers in 1966 or earlier, but who was somewhat familiar with the core?

Chris, babe - your lies just keep on coming, don't they?
 
Just out of curiosity...does anyone here have experience of the way US construction is handled with regard to building codes?

By this I mean, over here a project has to be submitted (in most cases) to an approved Building Control Inspector for approval before the work commences and then is inspected by the Building Control during the course of construction. That makes it rather difficult for major changes to be made to the structural design of a building without a record of those changes being kept (and approved) by Building Control.

So if the towers were constructed with a RC core as seems to be christophera's claim, then would an equivalent new york building inspection/approval body not have records of such a change?
 
uk_dave said:
Just out of curiosity...does anyone here have experience of the way US construction is handled with regard to building codes?

By this I mean, over here a project has to be submitted (in most cases) to an approved Building Control Inspector for approval before the work commences and then is inspected by the Building Control during the course of construction. That makes it rather difficult for major changes to be made to the structural design of a building without a record of those changes being kept (and approved) by Building Control.

So if the towers were constructed with a RC core as seems to be Christophera's claim, then would an equivalent new york building inspection/approval body not have records of such a change?
Click to expand...
If you ask Christophera, then no, there won't be any record. All Americans (and everyone else on the planet, for that matter) have been hypnotized so as to be incapable of seeing anything that "they" don't want seen.

You obviously missed the pages where Chris explained the Celt/Stonehenge/WTC/911 connection to us.

Stuff from Mr. Brown.
More stuff from Mr. Brown.

Follow some of the links on Truthasaur.
 
Last edited:
uk_dave said:
...The core of a building normally (at least in the uk) acheives that designation by being the location of services for that building, such as elevators, toilets and stairwells...

...You also seem to be failing to take into account (amongst other things) that it was the connections between the floor trusses and the outer and inner columns which failed. The floor trusses depended on the columns for support, but the columns depended on the floor trusses for restraint, otherwise vertical loading is inclined to make them spread outwards. And outwards they did indeed spread AFTER the physical connection with the floor trusses failed...
Click to expand...

1. In the case of the WTC the Core is referred to as such because it is a fundamental part of the structural design concept and not just a service corridor. Many believe that FEMA deliberately under played the strength of the core to make the progressive collapse theory seem viable.

2. The primary connection between the outer and inner structures was via the substantial roof trusses. Although the floor trusses added bracing strength between the structures it was not their primary purpose.
 
William Rea said:
1. In the case of the WTC the Core is referred to as such because it is a fundamental part of the structural design concept and not just a service corridor. Many believe that FEMA deliberately under played the strength of the core to make the progressive collapse theory seem viable.

2. The primary connection between the outer and inner structures was via the substantial roof trusses. Although the floor trusses added bracing strength between the structures it was not their primary purpose.
Click to expand...

So the towers were completely unstable until the roof was put on? Seriously?
 
William Rea said:
I didn't say or propose that.
Click to expand...

But if the roof is the primary means of lateral restraint, surely the building must be unstable until the roof is put on?

The taller the building is constructed the greater the vertical loading on the outer columns and the greater the forces wanting to push them outwards.

Obviously the primary role of the floor trusses is to support the floor deck. But their restraint of the external columns must also be important, or was there some other form of lateral restraint used?

It would seem to me that the roof trusses, while their primary function was to support the roof, could only provide restraint to the tops of the external columns, whereas lower levels would also need to be restrained to prevent the bowing out that would occur as the loads are transfered down the structure. It was my understanding that the floor trusses served this purpose also.
 
R.Mackey said:
Hi einsteen, welcome to the forum.

I just wanted to clarify the NIST's position on "pancaking," since I've already seen this misinterpreted in four different places.

When the NIST uses the term "pancaking," you have to understand that the word has a very precise meaning for them, a meaning different than the general public understands. NIST concludes that WTC 1 and 2 did not experience "pancake collapse," but did experience "progressive collapse."

What is the difference? To NIST, "pancake collapse" means that the weight of one or more floors came loose, landed on a lower floor, the combined stress tore that floor loose, it fell on the floor below, etc. This is NOT what WTC 1 and 2 experienced.

Instead, what NIST is claiming is that, instead of each floor tearing loose, it sagged, pulling inward on the outer columns until they were twisted to the point of failure. The weight then fell on a lower floor, causing it to sag, buckling the outer columns, etc. This is their "progressive collapse."

To any but a structural engineer, the difference is subtle.

The next time you see anyone baldly claim "NIST admits no pancake collapse!!" without attempting to understand what they actually say, you may immediately sense their true agenda. This claim is being used out of context, as well as out of ignorance.
Click to expand...
Thanks! What pages in the NIST report have the relevant texts for this progressive collapse? A Finnish engineer is spreading this falsehood around in a certain newspaper.
 
Christophera said:
Hah!

goose bumps were nothing compared to the initial crawly chicken skin when I remembered the "special plastic coating" on the rebar and the security measures around completing the butt weld in the 3" high tensile steel rebar.

Finally in around spring 2005 memories of the last few minutes of the documentary started to pop up. I have a photographic memory that surprises me often so when visual recall is triggered I know I've got something. That 18 minute celebratory film on the towers that is still around actually brought an image back from those last few minutes. In the 18 minute piece its a shot that lasts about 4 seconds looking out across one wide side floor with the core corner to the right of the camera. Two floors below, trussed floor panels are being swung into position from the foreground and background very quickly. When I saw it I remembered it immediately and the visual memory returned for me later easily.

The image of the smooth sheared burnt red column ends (left)
Click to expand...

When you can download your photographic memory into a hard drive.
 
Christophera said:
You are going to have to restate your questions because as far as I remember i answered them or made them superflous with the point about the walls being gone.

It is also possiblel that the "glitch" that cuts my posts off cut off the answer.
Click to expand...

i've quoted the original message and questions below. it seems your very convenient "glitch" also prevents you from using the numerous links i've provided to that.

for others interested who may have lost the thread of this interminable discussion.....my whole point is that i think christophera used highly selective quotes from mike pecararo's story on his site in a cynical attempt to fabricate evidence that the walls were exploded down there by a controlled demolition. (see more background HERE and HERE) that being so, i believe he CANNOT answer the questions without invalidating his own false versions of events in the sub-levels.
i can't wait to see how he squirms his way out of this one.

BV

bonavada said:
hey christophera.
did you read this post:-

HERE


firstly i believe mike pecararo's story to be honest and truthful (and evidently so must you) however the quotes you use are carefully and cynically cherry-picked..
a study of the WHOLE story of what mike witnessed on 9/11 makes it obvious to me that your claim that there was a controlled explosion in the basement is just no more than total, utter bolloxology.

please address the questions below:-

firstly, how in the name of hell did mike pecararo and his mate find a firedoor, lying "wrinkled" on the floor 1 LEVEL ABOVE level C (1 level below the lobby) blasted INWARDS and TOWARD the area BELOW? mike pecararo encountered the door then WALKED THROUGH THE OPEN DOORWAY to continue the ascent to the lobby. was this door SUCKED off it's hinges by your C4rebar explosions BELOW in level C? don't forget, on the whole journey upwards from the sub-levels to the lobby mike's account refers to no explosions (except the one his boss reported on the phone shortly after the flickering lights) this is extremely relevant. the obvious reasoning is to conclude that the only explosion happened ABOVE the level mike first saw the rubble and smoke. how does this conclusion fit in with your "explosions in the basement" theory?

also, why did you not include quotes about the smell of kerosene mike talks about? this might have blunted the arrowhead of your daft theory right? isn't kerosene that funny stuff they pump into jetliners? the stuff that many people reported exploded down the elevator shafts? burning and blasting everything in it's path? you sorta missed that one chris. or is it that you can't let that get in the way of yet another of your potty fantasies huh?

lastly, where in that story does mike mention "floating pulverised concrete dust air particles"? i only notice he saw a "perfect line of SMOKE streaming through the air" only if he raised his head high enough was he unable to breathe. he says nothing about DUST. how did you deduce from his recollections that that SMOKE was the result of anything other than something burning?

these are just a few of the glaring discrepancies on your site. your version of events in the WTC1 basement are based on highly flawed logic. in fact i'd go as far as to say they are dowright lies. i think your abuse of the testament of this brave man is crass and offensive. it shows a cynical malicious disregard of plain, simple facts about what happened there.
either that or you are just insane. either way you need to sit back and think about your motives for trying to propagate these wacked-out exhausted theories that seem so dear to you.

get some help before the men in the white coats come and knock your door.

BV
Click to expand...
 
zaayrdragon said:
The same memory, I suppose, that had you interviewing a worker who apparently (by your account) worked on the towers in 1966 or earlier, but who was somewhat familiar with the core?

Chris, babe - your lies just keep on coming, don't they?
Click to expand...

yes the hilarious pow-wow with the selectively amnesic time-shifting mohawks.
did you dance around the tee-pee fire and smoke-um-peace pipe as well chris?
white man speak with forked tongue methinketh..........

BV
 
bonavada said:
i've quoted the original message and questions below. it seems your very convenient "glitch" also prevents you from using the numerous links i've provided to that.

for others interested who may have lost the thread of this interminable discussion.....my whole point is that i think christophera used highly selective quotes from mike pecararo's story on his site in a cynical attempt to fabricate evidence that the walls were exploded down there by a controlled demolition. (see more background HERE and HERE) that being so, i believe he CANNOT answer the questions without invalidating his own false versions of events in the sub-levels.
i can't wait to see how he squirms his way out of this one.

BV
Click to expand...

Thanks for restating the query,

As I had thought, the questions were made moot by my point of the walls being gone. Those workrs did not know why the walls were gone, but I do.

Consider i added 2 accounts relating to explosions. I also added them to my web site here,

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1205439

Meaning the issue of exploding walls underground is basically a substantiated fact.
 
zaayrdragon said:
Is this the same photographic memory that told you that KCET was channel 10?

Since you have this marvelous memory, why don't you tell us who the producer or director of this program was? Or the day and time it aired? Or who narrated the piece?

The same memory, I suppose, that had you interviewing a worker who apparently (by your account) worked on the towers in 1966 or earlier, but who was somewhat familiar with the core?

Chris, babe - your lies just keep on coming, don't they?
Click to expand...

can't see why the fact i saw the PBS produced DOC. "The Construction of the Twin Towers" on channel 10 KCET, is an issue.

It aired at 8:00 PM in 1990.

The worker was a steel worker who did not remember the core material but rememberd that they were only allowed to build steel 7 floors over it.

What i say is consistent with all the images of the towers demise here,

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

Meaning that those here who rarely even mention the core of the tower they ostensibly support, are indeed the ones conduction decepetive communications.

They have never even posted a picture from the demo of a steel core column sticking out the top of the tower.
 
Christophera said:
They have never even posted a picture from the demo of a steel core column sticking out the top of the tower.
Click to expand...

Pouring concrete requires specialised equipment of its own. Why do we not see this equipment in those photos at the top of the under-construction Towers?
 
defaultdotxbe said:
its an issue because PBS never produced a documentary called the construction of the twin towers
Click to expand...

And unless you were living in Las Vegas in 1990, or receiving PBS stations from Las Vegas, KCET was broadcast on channel 28 in California.

However, everything you've told us so far (IIRC) is that you've lived in California your whole life. In California, PBS KCET is Channel 28.
 
zaayrdragon said:
And unless you were living in Las Vegas in 1990, or receiving PBS stations from Las Vegas, KCET was broadcast on channel 28 in California.

However, everything you've told us so far (IIRC) is that you've lived in California your whole life. In California, PBS KCET is Channel 28.
Click to expand...

You must be mistaken (or, more likely, hypnotized), because Chris has a perfect photographic memory.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom