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

[uruk]

concrete is doing.[/url] in a BIG way Leaving interior box columns standing because the box columns cutting charges failed on that side of WTC 1.

If the box column cutting charges failed then they would have still been there. That would have been red hot raw irrefutable evidence. The workers would have found them and have called a bomb squad for removal. Any record of that?

 

[Z]

What is Chris' evidence of a concrete core?

1) A video in 1990 - one that no one else (except, allegedly, his ex-wife) has ever seen, one that does not exist in the archive records at PBS or at KCET, one that does not even exist in the entire catalogue of TV-Guide for the Santa Barbara area for the year of 1990.

2) An encyclopedia entry written by a person who had, at that point, never even been to the towers, and was writing on assumption, not fact.

3) A fuzzy photograph that shows nothing definite - only an indistinct, rounded shape in the dust cloud that could be concrete, or collapsing debris, or what was left of the steel-core and bedrock-walled core, partially covered with debris from above (explaining the apparent rounded shape)...

4) Deductive reasoning (since no 1300-ft long steel sections were visible during the collapse, they must not have existed). --Which is faulty, considering no 1300-ft long 'MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS' or elevator guide rails were visible, either.

On the other hand, numerous video and photographic evidence shows steel structural columns at the worksite; debris fields show clear evidence of steel support columns, but an insufficient amount of concrete; the most accurate construction plans that are available mention steel, not concrete; and a video documentary from 1983 clearly indicates steel, not concrete.

Why does concrete matter? Because Chris erroneously believes that the steel-reinforced concrete included one additional element: plastic explosives, applied directly to the rebar.

His evidence:

1) the violent collapse pictures showing the ejection of powdery-grey matter at the initiation of collapse - which can be equally accounted for by the presence of drywall, sheetrock, the concrete in the floors themselves, the ash from all that burned office equipment, etc.

2) the apparenty excessive speed of collapse -- which he cannot prove is excessive, nor can he come up with a quantification of what is 'acceptable' versus what is not.

3) 'Total Pulverisation' of the towers - which debris evidence proves is wrong... He equivocates by claiming that observed debris came from the mall, not the towers themselves. But this, too, is wrong.

4) A magazine article in the late 70s which he claims explains the process of returning C4 to slurry state for underwater use - yet he won't divulge what magazine it was, or when he read the article.

Evidence against:

1) Shelf life of plastic explosives under OPTIMAL conditions is only between 15-20 years. He tries to get around this by claiming concrete acted as a better protectant; yet concrete during curing emits heat, is moist, and results in a material which allows more air exchange than cellophane. Further, any such material on the rebar would largely negate one of the purposes of rebar, and such a structure likely would have collapsed under natural stresses long before 2001.

2) Insufficient chemical residue to indicate the existence of plastic explosives, nor of det cord, wiring, or other apparatus.

3) No eyewitnesses over the lifespan of the towers noticed anything odd - considering that wiring for the detonators would have to extend beyond the concrete, and no one ever noticed such wiring.

The only evidence he ever offers in support comes from his own website - owned, operated, and administered by himself from his Isley St. home - and photos which lack clarity and definition, which he also hosts. For all we know, he's doctored those photos. I don't think he has, but he's never offered them in context of the locations he's gotten them from. Meanwhile, he's in flat and open denial of any contraverting evidence, including statements by construction and engineering personnel, photographs of construction, photographs of debris fields, etc. He expounds upon his own 'photographic' memory, but gets details wrong enough to really embarrass himself - if he had any shame, which he doesn't. Why should we trust his memory about concrete cores and magazine articles, when he can't remember the show's name was Ally McBeal, or the age of the mohawk he interviewed, or the station number of KCET, or anything else, really?

His memory is shot - and things he recalls from memory are suspect.

My suggestion to Chris is this: go back to worrying about the available algae contents of your local lakes and rivers. This, at least, is a real problem, with real solutions, and could benefit people. Raving for years on websites has gotten you no where at all, and never will. You're wasting your time here, while the oxygen levels of your home continue to diminish.

My suggestion to all the other participants on this thread: When you feel like replying to Chris, here, just copy and paste this or another of the good summations available, and walk away.

 

[Arus808]

There is no other way top explain this than the use of high explosives optimally contained through perfect placement and distribution.

Please, when you start reusing claims you've used before, make sure you ad "To me" to the sentence. You are surely not speaking for all of us, and so fare YOU are the only one that can't accept the explanations that have been given to you.

Seeing that you have no understanding of physics, explaining to you why what you see in your repeatedly posted image ad nauseum wont help us and it certainly hasn't helped you.

You haven't explained the event and the official account does not. I do and it fits the images of the demo.

What looks like a demo, doesn't mean it is.
Shall i show you images of buyildings that were burnt down to the ground and they looked like it was a demo, when none occured.

You need to learn the difference, something you havent done so in that last 2 years.

 

[Belz...]

You've made a flash presentation of the same misrepresentations and never explained the core of WTC 2 which can obviously only be concrete.

Or dust.

They have been reasonably explained by a person who witness the WTC 1 constrcution and knows the structural elements of the towers.

You did not "witness" the construction of the towers. You think you remember a documentary that no one else in the universe has seen.

Typically you misrepresent my statement. There is also dust in the photos and I acknowledge that.

You said it was concrete because it was the only thing in the towers that could have that colour. I asked you if dust could have that colour and you said "dust can have many colors".

So it COULD be merely dust.

in a BIG way Leaving interior box columns standing because the box columns cutting charges failed on that side of WTC 1.

And why wouldn't they fail once the concrete right NEXT to them blows up ?

There is no other way top explain this than the use of high explosives optimally contained through perfect placement and distribution.

Oh, but there is another explanation : collapse. Your still misrepresents how the collapse occured. Watch a video. In fact, your other pictures show that it wasn't an explosion.

 

[The Almond]

They have been reasonably explained by a person who witness the WTC 1 constrcution and knows the structural elements of the towers.

Yet, the structural analysis I provided to you proving that the concrete core you claim exists is too thick at the bottom and too thin at the top to be useful. The analysis of the structural elements of the tower disprove your thesis.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

i'd like to add:

• the involvement of scores of official/independent agencies with hundreds of employees yet not one whistleblower after 5+ years

• 
  
  Actually, no whistleblowers ater 35+ years. Remember, not one of the construction workers has mentioned putting explosives in the concrete.
  
  

  They have been reasonably explained by a person who witness the WTC 1 constrcution and knows the structural elements of the towers.

  
  So now you were there when the towers were constructed? You say you've witnessed the construction. Watching a documentary, whether it exists or not, is not witnessing construction. Either tell me how I'm misrepresenting this statement, or else tell me how you are misrepresenting yourself. It's either one or the other.

 

[Christophera]

If the box column cutting charges failed then they would have still been there. That would have been red hot raw irrefutable evidence. The workers would have found them and have called a bomb squad for removal. Any record of that?

It was the south west corener really and it appears the floors detonated okay so it was ll swept away in the descent of debri from above.

 

[Christophera]

And why wouldn't they fail once the concrete right NEXT to them blows up ?=

Your appreciation for the strength of a tempered steel column as thick as those were is equal to your understanding of the control potential for an engineered blast with well contained explosive. If the columns are intact to any degree the walls blowing will not phase them. As we see.

 

[Bell]

Christophera, do you actuallty have REAL evidence, beside your assumptions and 'logical conclusions'?

 

[Christophera]

Yet, the structural analysis I provided to you proving that the concrete core you claim exists is too thick at the bottom and too thin at the top to be useful. The analysis of the structural elements of the tower disprove your thesis.

We have a very competent engineer here identifying a concrete core. And, it agrees with the images of the demo.

WORLD TRADE CENTER DISASTER:
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS AT GROUND ZERO
Prepared for:
National Council of Structural Engineers Associations -
Structural Engineering Emergency Response Plan
(SEERP) Committee
By:
August Domel, Jr., Ph.D., S.E., P.E.
November 2001


CHAPTER 2: GROUND ZERO OPERATIONS AT THE WORLD
TRADE CENTER
2.1 General
Groundbreaking for construction of the World Trade Center took place on August 5, 1966. Tower One, standing 1368 feet high, was completed in 1970, and Tower Two, at 1362 feet high, was completed in 1972. The structural design for the World Trade Center Towers was done by Skilling, Helle, Christiansen and Robertson. It was designed as a tube building that included a perimeter moment-resisting frame consisting of steel columns spaced on 39-inch centers. The load carrying system was designed so that the steel facade would resist lateral and gravity forces and the interior concrete core would carry only gravity loads.


Dr. Domel received a Ph.D. from the University of Illinois at Chicago in 1988 and a Law Degree
from Loyola University in 1992. He is a licensed Structural Engineer and Attorney at Law in the
State of Illinois and a Professional Engineer in twelve states, including the State of New York.
Dr. Domel is authorized by the Department of Labor (OSHA) as a 10 and 30 hour construction
safety trainer.

 

[Garb]

We have a very competent engineer here identifying a concrete core. And, it agrees with the images of the demo.

WORLD TRADE CENTER DISASTER:
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS AT GROUND ZERO
Prepared for:
National Council of Structural Engineers Associations -
Structural Engineering Emergency Response Plan
(SEERP) Committee
By:
August Domel, Jr., Ph.D., S.E., P.E.
November 2001


CHAPTER 2: GROUND ZERO OPERATIONS AT THE WORLD
TRADE CENTER
2.1 General
Groundbreaking for construction of the World Trade Center took place on August 5, 1966. Tower One, standing 1368 feet high, was completed in 1970, and Tower Two, at 1362 feet high, was completed in 1972. The structural design for the World Trade Center Towers was done by Skilling, Helle, Christiansen and Robertson. It was designed as a tube building that included a perimeter moment-resisting frame consisting of steel columns spaced on 39-inch centers. The load carrying system was designed so that the steel facade would resist lateral and gravity forces and the interior concrete core would carry only gravity loads.


Dr. Domel received a Ph.D. from the University of Illinois at Chicago in 1988 and a Law Degree
from Loyola University in 1992. He is a licensed Structural Engineer and Attorney at Law in the
State of Illinois and a Professional Engineer in twelve states, including the State of New York.
Dr. Domel is authorized by the Department of Labor (OSHA) as a 10 and 30 hour construction
safety trainer.

I wouldn't go so far as to say he identified there being a concrete core.

What evidence brought him to believe there was a concrete core?

 

[jsfisher]

I wouldn't go so far as to say he identified there being a concrete core.

What evidence brought him to believe there was a concrete core?

The document, itself, provides some clarification:

1.4 Source Material
The information presented in this document was obtained from two sources. Much of the information was obtained from discussions with structural engineering teams that worked at Ground Zero. The other source was the author’s own opinions based on working at Ground Zero.

http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf

It is also worth noting that the purpose of the document, researched and produced in just two months, was also described:

1.1 Purpose
This document was written as a resource for the preparation of an emergency response plan for mobilizing structural engineers for a search and rescue operation under extreme emergency conditions. More specifically, it was developed for preparing a response plan that uses structural engineers after a major collapse or failure.

It seems fairly clear, then, that the author was not all that focused on the exact construction of the World Trade Center and its collapse, per se, but on emergency response planning.

ETA:
The document contains other factual errors as well:

The collapse of the structures, along with the collateral damage, produced a pile of debris weighing more than two billion pounds, over 5,000 fatalities and thousands of injured civilians and rescue workers.

Emphasis mine.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

It was the south west corener really and it appears the floors detonated okay so it was ll swept away in the descent of debri from above.

Swept away to where?

 

[Christophera]

The document, itself, provides some clarification:

http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf

1.4 Source Material
The information presented in this document was obtained from two sources. Much of the information was obtained from discussions with structural engineering teams that worked at Ground Zero. The other source was the author’s own opinions based on working at Ground Zero.

It is also worth noting that the purpose of the document, researched and produced in just two months, was also described:

It seems fairly clear, then, that the author was not all that focused on the exact construction of the World Trade Center and its collapse, per se, but on emergency response planning.

ETA:
The document contains other factual errors as well:

Emphasis mine.

That the number of victims is off means nothing to my point. What is important is that Domel simply states the towes had a concrete core..

That information is absolutely consistent with images of the demo which show materials in positions with appearances that can only be concrete.

 

[jsfisher]

That the number of victims is off means nothing to my point. What is important is that Domel simply states the towes had a concrete core.

The number of victims being wrong means quite a lot. It shows he wasn't very thorough fact-checking details oblique to his main interest (emergency preparedness).

He was wrong as to the number of victims, and he was misinformed as to the existence of a concrete core.

By the way, Chris, since his account of the collapses differs from yours, should we accept his "expert" testimony over yours? No controlled demolition; no explosives? You can't have it both ways.

 

[chippy]

I have never seen a post with more than 8,000 responses. Wow. I guess this means that someone has seen a realistic(e) explanation of the free fall of the towers, eh?

 

[Christophera]

The number of victims being wrong means quite a lot. It shows he wasn't very thorough fact-checking details oblique to his main interest (emergency preparedness).

Wrong. It means that the actual numbers of victims was not known yet or was over looked at the time of publishing.

 

[jsfisher]

Wrong. It means that the actual numbers of victims was not known yet or was over looked at the time of publishing.

Nice bit of truth spin. Dismiss the discrepancies you dislike, but worship any thread of what seems to be support. Excellent. You do realize, though, that the general number of victims was no big mystery by November, 2001 -- the time of publishing.

By the way, you ignored the other half of my post. Another discrepancy-coping mechanism?

 

[Big Al]

By the way, you ignored the other half of my post. Another discrepancy-coping mechanism?

I'm still waiting to hear why the WTC builders thought it'd be a great idea to fill their masterpiece with explosives on the off-chance that, some day (hopefully within the life of the C-4), it might come in handy to blow them up.

The only answer I got was "various reasons".

And can rebar coated in squishy plastique really reinforce concrete? I don't think so!

 

[uruk]

It was the south west corener really and it appears the floors detonated okay so it was ll swept away in the descent of debri from above.

Nice try to dodge but it doesn't matter what corner. And we were talking about the alleged "cutting charges" that were supposedly attached to the columns.

All the debris was removed from the site. If there were unexploded charges they would have been found and a bomb squad called for removal.