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

[uruk]

.

No it is not odd.

What is odd is that you have not come up with a rational explanation for what this rounded top sihouette is of the WTC 2 core and still insist on providing interpretations of construction photos that prove nothing.

Why would the rail guides need to be attached to steel that big? the elevators were cable lift type. the guide rails are there for stability not support.
http://www.titanmachine.com/downloads/titanCatalog_full.pdf

You would need the steel columns to support the floor containing the lift machinery. That's why the stairwells had to be re-routed every so many floors to accommodate the elevator machinery.

The base of the core is down there inside the interior box columns. With WTC 1 they built 3 floors of core before installing the elevator guide rail support steel. WTC 2 had a very different process using what they learned on WTC 1.

They learned from their mistakes, you don't.

Can you show ne a source other than you web site that states this?

 

[Christophera]

Why would the rail guides need to be attached to steel that big? the elevators were cable lift type. the guide rails are there for stability not support.
http://www.titanmachine.com/downloads/titanCatalog_full.pdf

You would need the steel columns to support the floor containing the lift machinery. That's why the stairwells had to be re-routed every so many floors to accommodate the elevator machinery.

What do you think it takes to hold up 600 feet or 1300 feet of steel? Even if the steel is bolted to the concrete the concrete is not going to hold the weight. The concrete just keeps it aligned straight so it takes the weight without bowing under it. Just like the concrete cores role in keeping the perimeter walls aligned in the maximum load bearing dimensions.

The floor with the big reels and lift motors was the 43rd floor. It was basically solid concrete that also had a role structurally with the moment members and hat truss but there was a lot of structural steel that was cast in the concrete as well as free running steel. The reason it was the 43rd was because towers loose stability when too much weight is over halfway up. Pulley systems distributed cable throughout the core area to service elevators. There was one other lift motor and reel that operated the tourists elevator to the observation deck if I remember correctly. It was very fast but a smaller elevator.

Can you show ne a source other than you web site that states this?

No.

My web site doesn't get into the elevator info. I was interested in the elevators when I saw the documentary so paid attention and I remember a fair amount. We've been ripped off for our information. These were public buildings.

You will discover the fear present when you try to gain information from Otis.

 

[beachnut]

Your evidence is misrepresented.

The below image has the only full length columns annotated. The vertical steel in the core is elevator guide rail support.

"MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS"

do not look now but you posted core of just steel again

"MASSIVE STEEL ONLY COLUMNS WTC CORE"

another good site proves there is no concrete core

"no cocrete core just steel COLUMNS"

look here too

"just steel columns"

and here it is again

"no concrete here either, but we have steel columns"

this is another site here

"columns of steel in the core of WTC"

darn and look no concrete at this site also

"could not find concrete in the core of WTC"

proof of steel only core in most of the WTC towers!

thanks for helping me find the proof I needed of the steel only core of the WTC towers finally real facts

they were right steel only core, no wonder wtc failed under the heat of the raging fires

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5370762387415552903&q=bob+and+bri

 

[Belz...]

Yes, all 3 DIFFERENT plans. Recall how liars are caught.

I'd rather have 3 slightly different plans than a non-existant concrete core.

All thos images show elevator guide rail support steel. Here is what the "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" looked like and there is no comparison.

How many elevators were there, chris ?

What is odd is that you have not come up with a rational explanation for what this rounded top sihouette is of the WTC 2 core and still insist on providing interpretations of construction photos that prove nothing.

Hint: concrete doesn't bend very well.

So, .......... supporting liars against my explanatory evidence is sort of ridiculous when you are up against and event which is patently not a collapse.

There's that picture again. You don't think that a collapse of that size would send lots of debris flying sideways ?

You've posted images of the guide rail not its support steel.

They're not "box columns" anymore ?

There were 2 freight elevators if I remember correctly, they were very big, one like 20x20 feet or something with a capacity of 10 tons perhaps.

I think you should check your opinions before you state them as fact.

I was interested in the elevators when I saw the documentary so paid attention and I remember a fair amount.

Any luck finding that documentary, chris ?

 

[Skibum]

I was interested in the elevators when I saw the documentary so paid attention and I remember a fair amount.

Why so interested in elevators, were you trying to figure out why yours stopped short of the top floor?

 

[Z]

. Recall how liars are caught.

...starting with KCET being channel 10, perhaps? When they've been channel 28 since the 1960s, and their logo (for a long time) even had a huge 28 as the background for the KCET letters?

Yes, you have been caught in your own lies.

And if you can't remember something as basic as the station number for PBS in Southern California, why should anyone believe you can remember details about the construction of the towers?

You can't.

You're not even remembering the right video. You may have watched a video on the construction of a building with a concrete core - but it wasn't in 1990 on PBS at 8:00 PM, and it wasn't about the Twin Towers.

You've been caught lying, very badly in fact.

And let's consider the case of the remarkable time-travelling Mohawk you interviewed. He was 64 when you talked to him (some time ago) and 24 when he was working on the towers. If we are generous and assume that 'some time ago' still meant this year, he would have been working on the towers in 1966. So tell me, Chris - when were the foundations laid? When would the core even have started going up?

Yes, a liar has been caught.

YOU.

 

[bonavada]

And let's consider the case of the remarkable time-travelling Mohawk you interviewed. He was 64 when you talked to him (some time ago) and 24 when he was working on the towers. If we are generous and assume that 'some time ago' still meant this year, he would have been working on the towers in 1966. So tell me, Chris - when were the foundations laid? When would the core even have started going up?

Yes, a liar has been caught.

YOU.

Q.E.D.
his track record shows he won't answer this beauty. which only leads me to suspect you are correct. he's lying. the mohawk is more than likely a fignemt of his fevered, polluted imagination.
similarly he refuses to answer specific questions about the twisted conclusions he draws from the mike pecararo story.

BV

 

[uruk]

What do you think it takes to hold up 600 feet or 1300 feet of steel? Even if the steel is bolted to the concrete the concrete is not going to hold the weight. The concrete just keeps it aligned straight so it takes the weight without bowing under it. Just like the concrete cores role in keeping the perimeter walls aligned in the maximum load bearing dimensions.

Unfortunatly for you, That is not the case. The WTC was designed so that concrete would not be used for support. That what Yamasaki got accolades for. The exterior walls in combination with the floor trusses and the central core columns supported the wieght of the building without the use of concrete which would have been cost prohibited in terms of wieght for a building that high. I believe someone here was trying to get you to realize this by trying to calculate how heavy the building would be if there was a concrete core.

http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html
"In terms of structural system the twin towers departed completely from other high-rise buildings. Conventional skyscrapers since the 19th century have been built with a skeleton of interior supporting columns that supports the structure. Exterior walls of glass steel or synthetic material do not carry any load. The Twin towers are radically different in structural design as the exterior wall is used as the load-bearing wall. (A load bearing wall supports the weight of the floors.) The only interior columns are located in the core area, which contains the elevators. The outer wall carries the building vertical loads and provides the entire resistance to wind."

http://www.ussartf.org/world_trade_center_disaster.htm
read the 6th and 7th paragraphs. Particularly this one:
"Worried that the intense air pressure created by the building high speed elevators might buckle conventional elevator shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core"
And:
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=131020
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
http://architecture.about.com/library/blworldtrade.htm
.....

The floor with the big reels and lift motors was the 43rd floor. It was basically solid concrete that also had a role structurally with the moment members and hat truss but there was a lot of structural steel that was cast in the concrete as well as free running steel. The reason it was the 43rd was because towers loose stability when too much weight is over halfway up. Pulley systems distributed cable throughout the core area to service elevators. There was one other lift motor and reel that operated the tourists elevator to the observation deck if I remember correctly. It was very fast but a smaller elevator.

Wrong. according to the "miracle 81st floor stairwell" article I posted above. elevator equipment was located on the 81st floor that serviced the elevators that went up to the floors below it. That's why stairwell A & B had to be relocated to the outer corners of the core area.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...7/stairway.htm
"The elevator equipment room covered more than half the width of the 81st floor. Its size forced the tower's designers to route Stairway A around the machines. The detour moved Stairway A from the center of the building toward the northwest corner"
also from this site:
http://www.ussartf.org/world_trade_center_disaster.htm
"Otis Elevators developed an express and local system, whereby passengers wuld change at "sky lobbies" on the 44th and 78th floors, halving the number of shaftways."


[/quote]No.

My web site doesn't get into the elevator info. I was interested in the elevators when I saw the documentary so paid attention and I remember a fair amount. We've been ripped off for our information. These were public buildings.

You will discover the fear present when you try to gain information from Otis.[/QUOTE]

Already looked. No fear present.
http://www.otis.com/
http://www.otisworldwide.com/pdf/Otis_Fact_Sheet_2006.pdf
http://www.scripophily.net/otelcom.html
"1967 Install 255 elevators and 71 escalators in the World Trade Center in New York City"
http://www.sterlingelevatorcons.com/history.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otis_Elevator_Company
http://www.otis.com/corp/pdf/AboutElevators.pdf
http://www.otis.com/otis150/section/1,2344,ARC3066_CLI1_RES1_SEC5,00.html

I shot an e-mail request to Otis for info on the model and system used in the WTC. Well see what happens.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

You will discover the fear present when you try to gain information from Otis.

Which one? The singer or the drunk?

 

[Arus808]

To the contrary. Your post has no evidence whatsoever. With one link I proved many times more raw evidence than what you have,

YOUR SITE HAS NO RAW EVIDENCE. IT never has, and by your standards, it will never have raw evidence.

We already explained to you waht raw evidence was.

I've provided 10 times more raw evidence than you have

 

[Christophera]

do not look now but you posted core of just steel again

"MASSIVE STEEL ONLY COLUMNS WTC CORE"

another good site proves there is no concrete core

"no cocrete core just steel COLUMNS"

look here too

"just steel columns"

and here it is again

"no concrete here either, but we have steel columns"

this is another site here

"columns of steel in the core of WTC"

darn and look no concrete at this site also

"could not find concrete in the core of WTC"

proof of steel only core in most of the WTC towers!

thanks for helping me find the proof I needed of the steel only core of the WTC towers finally real facts

they were right steel only core, no wonder wtc failed under the heat of the raging fires

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5370762387415552903&q=bob+and+bri

Now there's a liar. Link to my own image multiple tine and pretend it is numerous sites calling out stel core columns. You now have the liars cake.

 

[Christophera]

...starting with KCET being channel 10, perhaps? When they've been channel 28 since the 1960s, and their logo (for a long time) even had a huge 28 as the background for the KCET letters?

Yes, you have been caught in your own lies.

And if you can't remember something as basic as the station number for PBS in Southern California, why should anyone believe you can remember details about the construction of the towers?

You can't.

You're not even remembering the right video. You may have watched a video on the construction of a building with a concrete core - but it wasn't in 1990 on PBS at 8:00 PM, and it wasn't about the Twin Towers.

You've been caught lying, very badly in fact.

And let's consider the case of the remarkable time-travelling Mohawk you interviewed. He was 64 when you talked to him (some time ago) and 24 when he was working on the towers. If we are generous and assume that 'some time ago' still meant this year, he would have been working on the towers in 1966. So tell me, Chris - when were the foundations laid? When would the core even have started going up?

Yes, a liar has been caught.

YOU.

Another who doesn't read and follow the thread. Who distorts to protect the lie.

Channel 28 has always been viewed on channel 10 in Santa Barbara and here is a link to my post that proves it.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2031515#post2031515

 

[Christophera]

Unfortunatly for you, That is not the case. The WTC was designed so that concrete would not be used for support. That what Yamasaki got accolades for. The exterior walls in combination with the floor trusses and the central core columns supported the wieght of the building without the use of concrete which would have been cost prohibited in terms of wieght for a building that high. I believe someone here was trying to get you to realize this by trying to calculate how heavy the building would be if there was a concrete core.

http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html
"In terms of structural system the twin towers departed completely from other high-rise buildings. Conventional skyscrapers since the 19th century have been built with a skeleton of interior supporting columns that supports the structure. Exterior walls of glass steel or synthetic material do not carry any load. The Twin towers are radically different in structural design as the exterior wall is used as the load-bearing wall. (A load bearing wall supports the weight of the floors.) The only interior columns are located in the core area, which contains the elevators. The outer wall carries the building vertical loads and provides the entire resistance to wind."

http://www.ussartf.org/world_trade_center_disaster.htm
read the 6th and 7th paragraphs. Particularly this one:
"Worried that the intense air pressure created by the building high speed elevators might buckle conventional elevator shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core"
And:
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=131020
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
http://architecture.about.com/library/blworldtrade.htm
.....


Wrong. according to the "miracle 81st floor stairwell" article I posted above. elevator equipment was located on the 81st floor that serviced the elevators that went up to the floors below it. That's why stairwell A & B had to be relocated to the outer corners of the core area.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...7/stairway.htm
"The elevator equipment room covered more than half the width of the 81st floor. Its size forced the tower's designers to route Stairway A around the machines. The detour moved Stairway A from the center of the building toward the northwest corner"
also from this site:
http://www.ussartf.org/world_trade_center_disaster.htm
"Otis Elevators developed an express and local system, whereby passengers wuld change at "sky lobbies" on the 44th and 78th floors, halving the number of shaftways."

No.

My web site doesn't get into the elevator info. I was interested in the elevators when I saw the documentary so paid attention and I remember a fair amount. We've been ripped off for our information. These were public buildings.

You will discover the fear present when you try to gain information from Otis.

Already looked. No fear present.
http://www.otis.com/
http://www.otisworldwide.com/pdf/Otis_Fact_Sheet_2006.pdf
http://www.scripophily.net/otelcom.html
"1967 Install 255 elevators and 71 escalators in the World Trade Center in New York City"
http://www.sterlingelevatorcons.com/history.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otis_Elevator_Company
http://www.otis.com/corp/pdf/AboutElevators.pdf
http://www.otis.com/otis150/section/1,2344,ARC3066_CLI1_RES1_SEC5,00.html

I shot an e-mail request to Otis for info on the model and system used in the WTC. Well see what happens.

But you didn't ask about the core.

You get a drawing titled "system design concept".

Vincent Dunns statement conflicts with that of other fire officials. You appear to have uncovered a group that is complicit with the FEMA lie, to a degree.

Does this mean that you are going to try and say this is drywall over steel core columns.

core​

 

[Christophera]

YOUR SITE HAS NO RAW EVIDENCE. IT never has, and by your standards, it will never have raw evidence.

We already explained to you waht raw evidence was.

I've provided 10 times more raw evidence than you have

Empty words without your evidence.

When I say concrete core, I have a link to an image that can only be a concrete core.

Evidence, if you posses it, is easy to present on the web.


If you do not posses it, well, you just have to lie and obfuscate.

 

[Christophera]

Q.E.D.
his track record shows he won't answer this beauty. which only leads me to suspect you are correct. he's lying. the mohawk is more than likely a fignemt of his fevered, polluted imagination.
similarly he refuses to answer specific questions about the twisted conclusions he draws from the mike pecararo story.

BV

When Mike Pecararo says, "no walls", your entire premise has evaporated.

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

 

[realitybites]

Christophera, do any of the other One-Fourthers buy into your concrete core theory. I think I remember you having to fervently defend this idea over on LC too.

Is there anyone else on this globe who sides with you on this?

 

[uruk]

But you didn't ask about the core.

You get a drawing titled "system design concept".

Vincent Dunns statement conflicts with that of other fire officials. You appear to have uncovered a group that is complicit with the FEMA lie, to a degree.

Vincent Dunn is a retired FDNY fire chief.
http://vincentdunn.com/

Does this mean that you are going to try and say this is drywall over steel core columns.

core​

Nope, It is probably steel, sheetrock, and alot of dust and smoke.

 

[Stankeye]

Another who doesn't read and follow the thread. Who distorts to protect the lie.

Channel 28 has always been viewed on channel 10 in Santa Barbara and here is a link to my post that proves it.

Ahh he lives near me!

He is correct in that channel 10 in SB is KCET.

 

[uruk]

Ya know, The more I look into this thing, the more I realize how much sense the FEMA and NIST reports make. When you look at all the photos and videos and witness reports. It all fits into place.

 

[Z]

Another who doesn't read and follow the thread. Who distorts to protect the lie.

Channel 28 has always been viewed on channel 10 in Santa Barbara and here is a link to my post that proves it.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2031515#post2031515

Ah, so you finally clarify this chesnut.

I'm more than willing to concede this point, Chris - provided there is some actual proof involved. Your posts are not proof of anything, since you have no credibility.

But I did the research and discovered the truth. Yes, in Santa Barbara on limited cable, KCET is broadcast on Channel 10. In most of the rest of California, channel 10 is an ABC affiliate.

And I have no reason to insist on proof that you lived in Santa Barbara in 1990 - I have that much data already.

However, it is appropriate to call it KCET Channel 28, because being shown on channel 10 locally doesn't make the station channel 10.

But let's be generous - there is no reason to go overboard because you misrepresented what channel you watch PBS on.

(BTW - there is no listing for any such documentary at 8:00 PM in 1990 for KCET, period. But that's another story.)

Now - please likewise address the issue of the time-travelling Mohawk?