• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
delphi_ote said:
Chris, please stop posting here and watch that video. It will show you footage of the steel core columns. Lots of it. Nothing more quickly and easily refutes everything you've said here. You're wrong. So wrong. The video shows you're wrong. The core columns were steel. Steel steel steel. Go see for yourself. Watch the cranes on top of the steel columns lifting steel columns into place.
Click to expand...

There were no "steel core columns" and you cannot produce an image from the demolition that shows any of the supposed 47, 1300 foot columns. Which, ... ABSOLUTELY would be very visible..

There were "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" which encircled the concrete core walls. The interior box columns provided the support for the outer forms of the concrete shear walls.

Here is the core of the towers. It was a steel reinforced cast concrete tube.
 
Christophera said:
Consider I spent 1 hour per night for 2 consecutive night watching "The Construction Of The Twin Towers." It mentioned the 18 minuite video and referred to it as a "Clelebratory Video" and differentiated itself as an "Intimat look at the construction process", and it was. Very detailed. No comparison to the 18 minute show.
Click to expand...
Watch. The. Footage. You. Are. Wrong.

You're arguing with your own eyes now. Those are steel core columns. Watch them get put into place. If you can't face that level proof against your claim, there's really no hope for you. No low resolution blurred images of the collapse here. This is high quality video of steel columns. Watch it. Stop reading this and go watch it.
 
This video has the :socks:

Seriously. Readily available footage of the steel columns through the entire construction of the towers. What more could we possibly ask? Short of constructing a time machine, nothing more readily shows how utterly wrong Chris is. He now has to argue with his own eyes. No other point or question could possibly make him look more foolish than video evidence against his claim.

We're done here, Chris. You're wrong. Totally wrong. No concrete core. Watch the video. It's really that simple.
 
delphi_ote said:
This video has the :socks:

Seriously. Readily available footage of the steel columns through the entire construction of the towers. What more could we possibly ask? Short of constructing a time machine, nothing more readily shows how utterly wrong Chris is. He now has to argue with his own eyes. No other point or question could possibly make him look more foolish than video evidence against his claim.

We're done here, Chris. You're wrong. Totally wrong. No concrete core. Watch the video. It's really that simple.
Click to expand...

I noticed you did not post any evidence.

I've seen the 18 minute video and it alread served its purpose to remind me of the documentary and certain details regarding the tempered steel plates put into the floors which had extremely tight tolerences that I realized were there to make custom cutting charges to cut the interior box columns.

 
Christophera said:
What I'm doing is provin your subject is bogus and that you do not know wnough about it ti apply substancial questions.

If this is not true then produce images of the supposed 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns.

I have no problem producing images of the concrete core so therefore my disqualifying your question is only logical.

Besides, logically the notion that 47, 1300 foot steel columns could actually be cut as many times as needed or fail within what we saw is strictly incredible.
Click to expand...
What!?!?!? you want to see a 1300 foot steel column? You can't show me a 1300 foot concrete column. Just a hugh dark indistiguishable dark area in a hugh cloud of dust and debris.

The columns were built in sections, of course they're going to break apart during the collapse.
 
Christophera said:
Collapses have bodies intact afterwards. There were very few. Nothing short of heavy steel and bent, buckled and blackened floor pan was left. No desks, file cabinets, no chairs no computers were found.

This essentially, for all intents and purposes IS "total pulverization".
Click to expand...

So how is this evidence the United States government used explosives to bring down the World Trade Center? I don't think there are many 100-plus story occupied building collapses to compare with to see just how much devastation should be expected from a structural failure caused by burning jet fuel and other consumables versus collapse caused by demolition.

jbs
 
Christophera said:
As I watched WTC 1 fall on 9-11 I KNEW the documentary would be gone as well as all reference to it.

Logically anybody that can build a 1,300 foot tower to demolish and do it secretly can easily remove an 11 year old video tape and record of it.
Click to expand...

How about changing a multitude of TV Guides?
 
maccy said:
Why doesn't the documentary mention a concrete core? Or show it being poured?
Click to expand...

Probably because they didn't want to celebrate concrete, just a completed tower. Besides, the concrete was 60 to 35 feet from the perimeter walls and very dar. Hard to get good images of it and teh docementary I saw made note of that and had a few minutes where carefully selected stills that had better light were shown of the concrete because the rest of the 16mm film only had about 15 seconds of good, well lit images of the concrete core.

I remember one in particular that teh narrator identified as the only film they had where the concrete was actaully at the top floor. I think it was after the 43rd floor was done, which was basically all solid concrete walls as it was mostly heavy elevator equipment
 
uruk said:
What!?!?!? you want to see a 1300 foot steel column? You can't show me a 1300 foot concrete column. Just a hugh dark indistiguishable dark area in a hugh cloud of dust and debris.
Click to expand...

Said dark area is another building. See NIST NCSTAR1 Figure 1-2 on page 4 of the report. I figured someone else posted this so I didn't bother to address the claim.
 
Peter S. said:
I did find this:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/sf_building.html

Christophera, look at the clip and tell us if that is the video you remember.
Click to expand...

Some people, including myself, posted this video a while back. He said that that was not it.
I'm relativly positive that it is but his "unique" memory probably distorted it into what ever he needs it to be. It pretty funny to follow this thread where he mentions the information he remembers about the documentary. It keeps changing with whatever argument he's engaged in. Kind of a deus ex machina.
 
delphi_ote said:
AHA! I got it.

I bet Chris actually did see this documentary and is confusing the concrete retaining wall with core columns. The documentary makes a big deal out of both. Let years pass in a head full of muddled memories and POOF. Concrete core columns!

ETA The documentary mentions that the concrete retaining walls were steel reenforced. I really think I can explain what's happening in his addled brain.
Click to expand...

Nail hit on head. But hold your breath for Chris to admit that.
 
Christophera said:
There were no "steel core columns" and you cannot produce an image from the demolition that shows any of the supposed 47, 1300 foot columns. Which, ... ABSOLUTELY would be very visible..

There were "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" which encircled the concrete core walls. The interior box columns provided the support for the outer forms of the concrete shear walls.

Here is the core of the towers. It was a steel reinforced cast concrete tube.
Click to expand...

Your being silly asking to see a 1300 foot steel column standing or lieing on the ground. The columns were built in sections and would come apart in sections.
 
Christophera said:
Probably because they didn't want to celebrate concrete, just a completed tower. Besides, the concrete was 60 to 35 feet from the perimeter walls and very dar. Hard to get good images of it and teh docementary I saw made note of that and had a few minutes where carefully selected stills that had better light were shown of the concrete because the rest of the 16mm film only had about 15 seconds of good, well lit images of the concrete core.

I remember one in particular that teh narrator identified as the only film they had where the concrete was actaully at the top floor. I think it was after the 43rd floor was done, which was basically all solid concrete walls as it was mostly heavy elevator equipment
Click to expand...

They mentioned the "bathtub" retaining wall, they mentioned and showed the steel column support system, they mention the floor assembly. You'd think they would mention a concrete core especially since it would have been the tallest concrete wall in the world.
 
uruk said:
They mentioned the "bathtub" retaining wall, they mentioned and showed the steel column support system, they mention the floor assembly. You'd think they would mention a concrete core especially since it would have been the tallest concrete wall in the world.
Click to expand...

There were a lot of firsts with the Twin Towers. Why mention something in a celebratory video if you can't show it.

The videographers of the "Construction Of The Twin Towers" said they combed thousands of still images to find about 4 or 5 that really showed the concrete core. I remember them identifying what they considered the best that they had found besides that 15 seconds of film at the top floor.

It was a black and white that was taken after the interior, "breakdown" steel form was removed but only a few sheets of plywood were taken off of the outside forms. The camera was positioned at a core corner and almost looking right along the top of one core wall. The heavy exposed aggregate of the core concrete with the huge 3" rebar protruding was sticking out. The shot was also used to emphasize that the concrete pours were not made level. The concrete was mounded inside the forms upward from one corner to a peak near another corner then back down agan. This was to gain a sawtooth joint and strengthen the connection between the lower and upper casting. The rebar was welded on the same slope which is why the tops of the rebar in the THIS image are shown with a slope.
 
uruk said:
Your being silly asking to see a 1300 foot steel column standing or lieing on the ground. The columns were built in sections and would come apart in sections.
Click to expand...

The 40 foot max length was delivered and put inplace to be 100% welded.

Here is one connected to floor beams being salvaged,


Just to the right and above the joint with the floor beams is an area with a different texture/color/reflectivity. That is a butt weld which has been ground so that it will not interfere with the joint if the joint were to fall at that position and you can see it is close. The butt welds were staggered so there was no line of welds horizontally across the building.

That is an interior box column from very far up in the tower. There are several things that tell us this. One, it is square, two it is extruded rather than hand fabbed. Three, there are floor beams intersecting in four directions meaning that the core had tapered up and away from the interior box column which had to remain plumb.

In the mid day silhouette we can see from the right to the left near the top of the tower; the outside face, the floor space, the interior box columns, then a narrow bright space which is, elevationwise, about where that box column was located as determined by the longer floor beams keeping it away from the core wall face.
 
Last edited:
Christophera said:
The heavy exposed aggregate of the core concrete with the huge 3" rebar protruding was sticking out.
Click to expand...

There's that 3 inch rebar again. Aside from the fact that it doesn't need to exist, it's too heavy to weld into place and it's not in any of the specifications, what else to you have to prove that it's three inches in diameter?
 
delphi_ote said:
The video. Of the steel core columns. Being put into the tower. They are there through the entire construction. There is no concrete.
Click to expand...

That video doesn't show concrete because it is up to 80 feet below the top of the tower. The elevator guide rail support steel was fairly good sized even though it was fastened to the inside of the concrete core because the core could not take the weight of the guide rail support and was only used to keep it aligned.

This image is properly annotated even though it came from a site that believed in the steel core columns. They were honest and labeled the only "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" that could eb seen and they were OUTSIDE the core area.

To the contrary, there were no steel core columns and this is proven because NO steel is seen protruding from the top of the core area.

HERE​

If you believe they existed, why are they not seen in that image? Heavy steel columns would absolutely be silhouetted there.

Then, what is that standing there if it is not concrete? What material could stand 500 feet off the ground and appear as that does?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom