• 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.
Christophera said:
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.
Click to expand...

The author of that paper has already admitted to being in error about the core. You really do ignore things that don't agree with your hypothesis don't you?
 
Or he'll say that until you show him "raw images of the supposed steel core columns from the demo at some elevation off the ground" he won't answer your question.
 
Yea, it's a great big circle. He gets cornered on some issue and then he does the christopher dance.
Here's how it goes.:
He get pinned down on a point.
Then he says:"show me "raw images of the supposed steel core columns from the demo at some elevation off the ground".
He get shown pictures.
Then he says "no those are elevator guides".
Then he post links to his site and post that picture of phalic symbol.
ad infinitum.
 
Christopher,

I have a question for you regarding the PBS documentary that you base a substantial part of your concrete core theory on. My question is what would it take for you to believe that there never was a PBS documentary on the construction of the WTC Towers that described a concrete core? This is purely hypothetical and your response in no way suggests any lapse in your current beliefs. I just wonder if there is any amount of evidence that could sway your point of view on this matter. Thanks for your time.

Would you change your mind if …
  • You performed an internet search of past PBS specials that turned up no such documentary during the timeframe you describe
  • You reviewed several privately held collections of TV Guides from the appropriate timeframe for your documentary that show no such documentary was broadcast.
  • You interviewed the management/staff of PBS from the relevant timeframe and they have no recollection/records of such a documentary being created.
  • You found a copy of the documentary that you remember watching on the construction of the WTC towers but on further review, you realize that there really was no mention of a concrete core in it.
These next ones are not really possible but please consider them anyway as if they were
  • You went back in time to the point when you originally watched the documentary (prior to any possible government tampering) and on reviewing it, you realize there was no mention of the concrete core.
  • You went back in time to the point when the towers were built and after being given full access to the construction site, you find no concrete core.
 
The Almond said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, your analysis is too thick, and thin to be useful.

It is absurd to think of a wall 1,300 feet tall that is the same thickness at the top than the bottom. Your inability to use this fact immediately indicates you are not competent to provide analysis.
 
gmarshall said:
Christopher,

I have a question for you regarding the PBS documentary that you base a substantial part of your concrete core theory on. My question is what would it take for you to believe that there never was a PBS documentary on the construction of the WTC Towers that described a concrete core? This is purely hypothetical and your response in no way suggests any lapse in your current beliefs. I just wonder if there is any amount of evidence that could sway your point of view on this matter. Thanks for your time.

Would you change your mind if …
  • You performed an internet search of past PBS specials that turned up no such documentary during the timeframe you describe
  • You reviewed several privately held collections of TV Guides from the appropriate timeframe for your documentary that show no such documentary was broadcast.
  • You interviewed the management/staff of PBS from the relevant timeframe and they have no recollection/records of such a documentary being created.
  • You found a copy of the documentary that you remember watching on the construction of the WTC towers but on further review, you realize that there really was no mention of a concrete core in it.
These next ones are not really possible but please consider them anyway as if they were
  • You went back in time to the point when you originally watched the documentary (prior to any possible government tampering) and on reviewing it, you realize there was no mention of the concrete core.
  • You went back in time to the point when the towers were built and after being given full access to the construction site, you find no concrete core.
Click to expand...

You waste bandwidth, space and time.

Try explaining what this material is of the WTC 2 core is if it is not concrete.

Gypsum or drywall do not make sense..
 
Christophera said:
Yes, your analysis is too thick, and thin to be useful.

It is absurd to think of a wall 1,300 feet tall that is the same thickness at the top than the bottom. Your inability to use this fact immediately indicates you are not competent to provide analysis.
Click to expand...

Don't just say he's wrong, That's just being contrarian. Show where his calculations are mistaken or incorrect. Explain why you think he's wrong and show the proof.
 
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.
Click to expand...
We've been over this, but once again, this particular structural engineer disagrees with you. You've claimed numerous times that the concrete core was a shear wall. Shear loads are not gravity loads. Notice how nowhere in the document does it list:
1) A concrete shear wall with a thickness of 17' at the base and 2' thick at the top
2) Reinforcing steel 3 inches thick

Yes, it does mention a concrete core, but it's a far cry from mentioning or describing one you've claimed to show. The document does nothing to support your case.

Christophera said:
Yes, your analysis is too thick, and thin to be useful.
Click to expand...
I'm glad that you admit that I've proved the wall you've described is structurally unnecessary. You're learning!
It is absurd to think of a wall 1,300 feet tall that is the same thickness at the top than the bottom.
Click to expand...
If it's a gravity load wall, then yes, but not if it's a shear wall.
Your inability to use this fact immediately indicates you are not competent to provide analysis.
Click to expand...
Oh? By whose opinion? Don't appeal to common sense here, I've got an entire thread on common sense. Clearly the states of South Carolina and Maryland think I'm quite competent to provide analyses on structural mechanics, but hey, what do they know?
 
Last edited:
Christophera said:
You waste bandwidth, space and time.

Try explaining what this material is of the WTC 2 core is if it is not concrete.

Gypsum or drywall do not make sense..
Click to expand...

yet your fantasy concrete core makes sense? NOT, no concrete core

That is a still photo of the WTC falling, and it is made of steel core, steel sides with aluminum covering, concrete floors, wall board, and spray-on fireproofing, people, desks, carpet, tile floors, paper, bathrooms, buckets, pails, brooms, computers, monitors, projectors, file cabinets, wooden floors, wooden desks, oak desk, chairs, nice computer chairs, glass, room dividers, work stations, furniture, TVs, keyboards, mice, printers, servers, routers, switches, transformers, pictures, clocks, bottles, cokes, pepsi, coke machines, clothes racks, power cords, electrical outlets, pillows, drapes, cushions, BUT NO CONCRETE CORE!
 
beachnut said:
yet your fantasy concrete core makes sense? NOT, no concrete core

That is a still photo of the WTC falling, and it is made of steel core, steel sides with aluminum covering, concrete floors, wall board, and spray-on fireproofing, people, desks, carpet, tile floors, paper, bathrooms, buckets, pails, brooms, computers, monitors, projectors, file cabinets, wooden floors, wooden desks, oak desk, chairs, nice computer chairs, glass, room dividers, work stations, furniture, TVs, keyboards, mice, printers, servers, routers, switches, transformers, pictures, clocks, bottles, cokes, pepsi, coke machines, clothes racks, power cords, electrical outlets, pillows, drapes, cushions, BUT NO CONCRETE CORE!
Click to expand...

Hah.

Sorry, I was looking for something specific and what we see is not falling. If you wish to see it slightly lower, after another chunk has blown off the top off the concrete tube look here.
 
What about the author of that piece ADMITTING that he got it wrong about the concrete core? What do you say to that?

BTW Bonavada, looks like the NWO got to your site before it got to Chris' - the choco-core site's down.
 
The Almond said:
Clearly the states of South Carolina and Maryland think I'm quite competent to provide analyses on structural mechanics, but hey, what do they know?
Click to expand...

Save your breath mate. I'm a chartered architect and he just accused me of bullsh**ing when I dared to throw professional expertise into the ring.

Incidentally, Gravy has enough of my registration details to confirm that I am indeed a qualified architect however I think he has better things to do with his time than help feed Chris' insanity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom