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

[Christophera]

How would you know what I believe or don't believe? Are you psychic? And why should I admit your government has been infiltrated? By whom? What is my responsibility?

You won't like the logic but, ......... you have seen no evidence for the steel core columns, and since you think of yourself as rational and swayed by evidence, you unconsciously know that there was a concrete core. However, since your fear is so great of the the infiltrated factions (which are now more real to you than ever), you will continue to deny that there was a concrete core even though your reasonable responsibility to your country is to seek justice fervently.

Simple. Of course I can't know this for sure but even you can't know your unconscious and what I've laid out is fairly reasonable so it could be true.

 

[firecoins]

Jesus Christ! CHristopefia, whatever the hell your screen name is. The existance of 2 steel core buildings on the tip of Manhattan until 9/11 is indisputable. There is only evidence of a steel core building. No evidence of a concrete core exists because they weren't. Its that simple.

 

[hellaeon]

perhaps a moderator could close this in the interest of sanity?

 

[Christophera]

Jesus Christ! CHristopefia, whatever the hell your screen name is. The existance of 2 steel core buildings on the tip of Manhattan until 9/11 is indisputable. There is only evidence of a steel core building. No evidence of a concrete core exists because they weren't. Its that simple.

If what you say is true, why have you not posted raw evidence of the steel core columns?

if you are saying what you are saying it can only be because you know nothing about steel and concrete construction. Realize, the below image shows steel 500 feet off the ground being held up by something white/gray in appearance. How many materials can you list that would be there doing that????

full size image

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3799&stc=1&d=1161930883

 

[Christophera]

perhaps a moderator could close this in the interest of sanity?

Perhaps you could source some raw evidence of the steel core columns to give them a reason.

 

[Powa]

Christophera, when you accuse ALL of us to be cowards you are being incredibly offensive. If I ever saw a concrete core in your blurry photos I would say so. What an insulting and arogant ass you are.

And please stop using the expression "raw evidence" when it's clear you have no idea what it means.

 

[Gravy]

Ahem

​

 

[Christophera]

Ahem
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/8790453c68cab4cea.jpg[/qimg]

That is an interesting image. If you could locate it you might have something. Personally I think it is the center stairway meaning the large vertical steel to the right is a major elevator guide rail support member.

ON EDIT:Realize it has no taper as do interior box columns.

 

[Gravy]

That is an interesting image. If you could locate it you might have something. Personally I think it is the center stairway meaning the large vertical steel to the right is a major elevator guide rail support member.

You are not well. Please get help.

 

[Christophera]

Christophera, when you accuse ALL of us to be cowards you are being incredibly offensive. If I ever saw a concrete core in your blurry photos I would say so. What an insulting and arogant ass you are.

And please stop using the expression "raw evidence" when it's clear you have no idea what it means.

So easy for one who has none to say. You are not cowards, you just do not know what you are doing. This is evidenced by the fact you do not know raw evidence when you look at it.

3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS​

 

[Christophera]

You are not well. Please get help.

Do you know what you celebrate when you celebrate Halloween?

 

[Powa]

So easy for one who has none to say.

Everything has been said already. You've been shown over and over and over again why you're wrong and you just don't want to see. You've decided that there was a concrete core and you will not be swayed by evidence. EVER. It's just the way you are.

You are not cowards, you just do not know what you are doing.

Really? Not one of us? No one on this planet except you? That's a bit arrogant, don't you think?

This is evidenced by the fact you do not know raw evidence when you look at it.

You don't know what "raw evidence" means.

 

[Christophera]

Everything has been said already. You've been shown over and over and over again why you're wrong and you just don't want to see. You've decided that there was a concrete core and you will not be swayed by evidence. EVER. It's just the way you are.

What you think is evidence for steel core columns just doesn't have the elements in it that it needs to. The ORIGINAL core IMAGE does have those elements even though there is a littel smoke, it still shows very clearly to any with experience with concrete and steel, concrete. Steel just will NOT ever have that appearance under those conditions.

The reason you don't post your "evidence" (sic) is because it does not have what it needs to be what you say it is.

Really? Not one of us? No one on this planet except you? That's a bit arrogant, don't you think?

Actually I think Truthseeker1234 is getting close to seeing the true event. I'm sure other lurkers are too. They just don't have the courage or surety to jump in and grind on the deniers.

You don't know what "raw evidence" means.

Like I said. So easy to say when you do ont have any raw evidence.

 

[Powa]

What you think is evidence for steel core columns just doesn't have the elements in it that it needs to.

That's what you say, because you can't misrepresent it.

The ORIGINAL core IMAGE does have those elements even though there is a littel smoke, it still shows very clearly to any with experience with concrete and steel, concrete.

Very clearly? What are you smoking? There's thick smoke with SOMETHING in it. You've just DECIDED it's concrete.

Steel just will NOT ever have that appearance under those conditions.

Oh, I think anything obscured by smoke would look about the same.

The reason you don't post your "evidence" (sic)...

Why the "(sic)"?

Actually I think Truthseeker1234 is getting close to seeing the true event. I'm sure other lurkers are too. They just don't have the courage or surety to jump in and grind on the deniers.

And here we are again with the accusations of cowardice.

Like I said. So easy to say when you do ont have any raw evidence.

Until you explain what you mean by "raw evidence" neither do you.

 

[Bell]

You won't like the logic but, .........

It's your logic I don't like.

you have seen no evidence for the steel core columns,

I've seen plenty. However, I've seen no evidence for the concrete core

and since you think of yourself as rational and swayed by evidence, you unconsciously know that there was a concrete core.

Once again, you are wrong in your assumptions.

However, since your fear is so great of the the infiltrated factions (which are now more real to you than ever), you will continue to deny that there was a concrete core even though your reasonable responsibility to your country is to seek justice fervently.

What am I afraid of and why does this involve a non-excisting concrete core?

Simple. Of course I can't know this for sure but even you can't know your unconscious and what I've laid out is fairly reasonable so it could be true.

If I can't know my unconscious, how do you know mine? And what you have laid out is delousional and wrong.

 

[Belz...]

It is called a conclusion and it is rational, logical and reasonable.

An oxymoron : "chrisophera is beign rational, logical or reasonable."

The murders of our fellow Americans demand that, at least.

I agree.

if it is not concrete, what is it.

Inconclusive. We'd need pictures from other angles, but then the most likely explanation, to me, is either core elements engulfed in dust, or just dust.

 

[Belz...]

By this time even you believe it and are in denial because you are too afraid to admit that our government has been infiltrated and you have a responsibility.

Bell's a netherlander, I think.

They would have to assume the government is truthful and correct.

Not necessarily truthful, but the investigation can be right, especially considering the experts involved, while the government can still go about its lying business.

I do not need detail on the core walls. I can tell by the sihouette which does have detail on the edge that it is steel reinforced concrete and that it ABSOLUTELY is not structural steel. By default it must be concrete.

Default ? Are you really saying that because you cannot see steel columns through the smoke, concrete wins ? I thought it was because you could SEE the concrete.

If the core had 47, 1300 foot steel columns in it they would be silhouetted in broken, bent, toppling tangles instead of a nice rounded top appearing as concrete erodes from impacts and abrasions which totally indicate a concrete core

Actually, they might also have fallen with the building or be hidden by smoke, which would make them extant but non-visible on that picture.

Tell me, chris: if a steel core was engulfed in a large amount of smoke and debris, could it produce the effect seen in that picture. Hypothetically ?

Here is the core wall at its base. Now, ......... rationally explain WHY no steel creo columns pentrate the stairwell or none are seen to teh left of the stair or in the foreground.

That one's easy: you do.

 

[Belz...]

since you think of yourself as rational and swayed by evidence, you unconsciously know that there was a concrete core.

That's not what "uncounscious" means.

Realize, the below image shows steel 500 feet off the ground being held up by something white/gray in appearance. How many materials can you list that would be there doing that????

Lots.

That is an interesting image. If you could locate it you might have something.

It's the remains of the core, the same you said shows a 17 foot thick concrete wall. Only in that much MORE detailed picture, there's no concrete to be seen. Only braced steel columns.

Do you know what you celebrate when you celebrate Halloween?

All Hallow's Eve. Why ?

3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS

I thought you said it was 6 inches ?

So easy to say when you do ont have any raw evidence.

Raw evidence doesn't look like your pictures.

Actually I think Truthseeker1234 is getting close to seeing the true event. I'm sure other lurkers are too. They just don't have the courage or surety to jump in and grind on the deniers.

Why ? You truthers are always yammering about the government beign murderous bastards, and yet non of you has died in mysterious circumstances. Perhaps the evil government is feeling remorse ?

it still shows very clearly to any with experience with concrete and steel, concrete. Steel just will NOT ever have that appearance under those conditions.

False dichotomy.

 

[realitybites]

August Domel, Jr., Ph.D., S.E., P.E. November 2001
http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf

Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation, published in 1992

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3793&stc=1&d=1161917435

Well thank you for answering the question. However, one guy and an obvious error in a book don't really cut it for something you claim the entire world has evidence to believe.

More please.

 

[Christophera]

Well thank you for answering the question. However, one guy and an obvious error in a book don't really cut it for something you claim the entire world has evidence to believe.

More please.

The only error in the below is the use of the term "bundled tube" construction". The correct term is "tube in a tube cubstruction".


http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/wtc/page3.html

The World Trade Center towers were an unusual design, at least at the time they were built. Their support structure is called a 'bundled tube', or in engineering terms, a glass curtain wall structure.
What this means is that the buildings are tubes, made rigid by a lattice of steel beams on the outside walls. These vertical columns are strengthened by horizontal beams, and this design is what helps support the building, and keep it stable in high winds. An inner concrete core houses the elevators, and provides additional vertical load support.

And to term the Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992 and "error" is ridiculous. Do you know how carefully their information is sourced and checked?

Even grade schoolers know that the towers had concrete cores. and they have done a fairly good job. The only vagary is something that would be used by a deep believer in the innocence of our infiltrated government where it says, "columns encased in concrete". Not core columns, just columns.

There is ample raw evidence of the concretre core from the demo here.

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