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

[Christophera]

They appear quite a bit smaller as those in the distance on the perimeter appear about the same size but are perhaps 3 times the distance away. Still, if they were the same, why do they not stand as does the interior box column or the "spire" and why are none seen inside the core area within the interior box columns standing. Or protruding from the intact core of the WTC 2 .

pure waffle and conjecture.

Notice Farseitect has not answered the query about the added resistence to torsion of steel core columns to a square tower comprised of perimeter shear walls.

chris, again it must be pointed out to you the old adage that "absence of evidence is not evidence"
the collapse of the towers was a catastrophic, chaotic, unbelievably complex event lasting perhaps 30 seconds combined.

The demolition provided views of the primary structural elements that were impossible to see during construction. If core columns existed they were there for a reason and that reason would be that they added to the strength of the towers. I asked the fake Architect to explain that reason and he has not. What does this tell a reasonable person?

you irrationally judge definite structural elements of the towers from one or two cherry-picked, highly pixellated, obscured and distant images.

I notice you have not produced one image from the demo which show the supposed steel core columns. So your labeling of the images which show concrete as cherry picked for the purpose of NOT SHOWING STEEL CORE COLUMNS is strictly a distortion.

hundreds of other pictures that have accumulated over the years from many independent sources tell a story entirely opposing your concrete core. there is only one conclusion any person with a modicum of intelligence could come to and that is that is that YOU ARE WRONG!

these columns are not "elevator guide rails" chris.
those guys there are walking and working on a solid floor.
there is no way i can see that a concrete core could be poured under these circumstances...............

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/87484572af421edc7.jpg[/qimg]

Hundred of pictures huh? All misrepresented as the demo images do not show even ONE of the supposed "core columns".

The contractors found out very quickly that access across the core was so vital that a temporary floor system was designed wchi was removed and advanced as soon as the concrete core was completed to a level just below it.

A more serious use of intelligence is to apply to hte common sense conclusion that IF steel core columns eisted, THEN they would be of the strongest elements in the towere and they WOULD be visible in the images of the towers coning down. THEY ARE NOT.

Sincr they are not and images such as the WTC 2 core do exist and that structure can only be interpreted and concrete, THEN the towers had a concrete core and FEMA lied to enable a massive ruse.

not only was your intial concrete core fantasy incorrect chris but you have woven a web of convoluted cynical fallacy around it. you have shamelessly lied about the PBS documentary, the mohawks, the magazine article etc etc. you even brought your poor long-suffering wife into it at one stage FFS. you have also demeaned the testement of brave people like mike pecararo, accused honest posters here of faking their credentials.......the list goes on......the worst though is when you have accused people of supporting the murder of "3000 americans"
it's time you packed up and left this thread to the tumbleweed. the only credit you could gain now is if you did so.
please listen mate, you're not doing yourself any good here.
leave now with a bit of dignity.

BV

Convoluted fallacy and support for a lie that murders hide behing belong to you as you attempt to twist information to support a structure that did not exist and cannot be shown where it must appear.

How did I demean the testimony of Mike Pecararo here?

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

He said there were "no walls" where there had been concrete walls and I simply commented on the bizarre fac tthat within a plane impacts effect 100 stories over him that it was a sign of high explosives at work. Since the walls blew up autonomously, completely, C4 coated rebar fits the event well.

I've produced a declaration from a structural engineer that he saw a similar docementary which Gravy challenged and I asked him to find ONE declaration anywhere in the NIST report and he never did. In fact he pretty much gave up the argument after that.

That civil which signed the delaration could declare about the concrete too but is afraid to do so. He's afraid of people like you nad your baseless ridicule.

I was introduced by a local Indigenous person to a Mohawk steel worker back in 2002. Later I interviewed him on the phone and truthfully said he doesn't remember the core but remembered that that was where they brought the concrete up?

But worst is yo state I accuse posters here of supporting the murders of 3000 innocent people when actually I accuse them, you, of unreasonably supporting the lie the murderers hide behind.

 

[Christophera]

Still waiting for your reply, Chris

Please, hold your breath.

I've been waiting for over a month for a competent explanation of how steel core columns add resistence to torsion to a square tower of th Twin Towers protportions with steel perimeter shear walls, and have not gotten one

 

[Big Al]

Please, hold your breath.

I've been waiting for over a month for a competent explanation of how steel core columns add resistence to torsion to a square tower of th Twin Towers protportions with steel perimeter shear walls, and have not gotten one

I'm still holding my breath to hear why on Earth they might come up with this lunatic plan to blow up the WTC over 30 years before it happened. Still, you're never, ever going to answer that, are you?

 

[bonavada]

The demolition provided views of the primary structural elements that were impossible to see during construction. If core columns existed they were there for a reason and that reason would be that they added to the strength of the towers. I asked the fake Architect to explain that reason and he has not. What does this tell a reasonable person?

impossible to see? weren't they shown in your documentary?

I notice you have not produced one image from the demo which show the supposed steel core columns. So your labeling of the images which show concrete as cherry picked for the purpose of NOT SHOWING STEEL CORE COLUMNS is strictly a distortion.

i believe there are quite a few shots of the columns during the collapses. i cannot be absolutely certain as they are obstructed by smoke and dust and taken from a distance. many of those images have been posted here. unlike you though, i am able to realise the uncertainty in the circumstance. your inability to do the same is your downfall here.
how would any reasonable person be able to assert that anything could be seen with any real clarity during the collapses? oh i forgot your not a reasonable person.

The contractors found out very quickly that access across the core was so vital that a temporary floor system was designed wchi was removed and advanced as soon as the concrete core was completed to a level just below it.

let me guess you learned this in the documentary right? <sigh>

A more serious use of intelligence is to apply to hte common sense conclusion that IF steel core columns eisted, THEN they would be of the strongest elements in the towere and they WOULD be visible in the images of the towers coning down. THEY ARE NOT.

i refer the (dis) honourable gentleman to my earlier reply

Sincr they are not and images such as the WTC 2 core do exist and that structure can only be interpreted and concrete, THEN the towers had a concrete core and FEMA lied to enable a massive ruse.

i find this amusing. earlier you were harping on about FEMA-funded investigators being blocked from a building either FEMA are in on it or they are not. make you mind up.

How did I demean the testimony of Mike Pecararo here?

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

He said there were "no walls" where there had been concrete walls and I simply commented on the bizarre fac tthat within a plane impacts effect 100 stories over him that it was a sign of high explosives at work. Since the walls blew up autonomously, completely, C4 coated rebar fits the event well.

you demeaned it in many ways. mainly what got my goat was your cherry picking of the man's quotes. you didn't seem to notice that he says he smelt kerosene, or that he doesn't mention dust or particulate. and you still cannot explain how an explosion in the sub-levels can suck a fire door off it's hinges TOWARD an explosion below. also where is the information that the walls down there were exclusively reinforced concrete? are you sure there were no drywall composed walls down there?

done and dusted here

I've produced a declaration from a structural engineer that he saw a similar docementary which Gravy challenged and I asked him to find ONE declaration anywhere in the NIST report and he never did. In fact he pretty much gave up the argument after that.

similar documentary? i don't know whether to laugh or friggin cry.....

I was introduced by a local Indigenous person to a Mohawk steel worker back in 2002. Later I interviewed him on the phone and truthfully said he doesn't remember the core but remembered that that was where they brought the concrete up?

ahh the famous mohawk.

dissected here

let's get this straight you interviewed an ironworker in 2002 (you have stated peviously that he was 64 years old at that time) and that he was 24 when he worked at the WTC. there's a 40 year gap there. so are you stating that the man was working at the WTC in 1962?

i'm offline tonight so please do take your time with your lies...i mean answers

toodle pip

BV

 

[The Almond]

Notice Farseitect has not answered the query about the added resistence to torsion of steel core columns to a square tower comprised of perimeter shear walls.

Would you like me to produce the mathematics proving you're wrong? Would you understand them if I did?

 

[Big Les]

and remind me how it was poured here:-

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/87484572af421edc7.jpg[/qimg]

ETA and here:-

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/87484569f60feb777.jpg[/qimg]

ETA ooops and here:-



OMG there's more:-

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/874845733f92527cf.jpg[/qimg]

BV

Ahem, Chris.

 

[Architect]

Please, hold your breath.

I've been waiting for over a month for a competent explanation of how steel core columns add resistence to torsion to a square tower of th Twin Towers protportions with steel perimeter shear walls, and have not gotten one

That's because your question doesn't make sense, Chris

 

[Architect]

Chris

THIS IS A STEEL FRAMED CORE

 

[Architect]

Chris

THESE ARE ALL STEEL COLUMNS.

THERE IS NO CONCRETE

THIS IS RAW EVIDENCE

 

[Architect]

Chris

Look. No Concrete Here Either.

Lots of Steel, though, eh?

WHERE'S THE CONCRETE THEN, EH?

 

[Architect]

Chris

For the avoidance of doubt:

WE HAVE LOTS OF PHOTOS OF STEEL. YOU HAVE NO - REPEAT NO - CLEAR PHOTOGRAPHS OF CONCRETE.

GIVE UP!

 

[Bell]

 

[NickUK]

Collude with a delusion = reinforce it
Argue against a delusion = reinforce it (and quite often become part of it)

10 years in mental health have taught me this.

It doesn't matter what any of us bring up or say, Chris isn't well at all. It's a damn shame.

 

[Bell]

Christopher, follow this link:

link

 

[Christophera]

Please, hold your breath.

I've been waiting for over a month for a competent explanation of how steel core columns add resistence to torsion to a square tower of the Twin Towers proportions with steel perimeter shear walls, ........ and have not gotten one

That's because your question doesn't make sense, Chris

Not just a farse as an architect, a farce as a human being. A farse with respect to the integrity of the purpose of reason.

Your aerial images of the tower with large font cannot get past the fact that my question makes perfect sense and core columns inside the tower can add NO resistence to torsion when a tower has a square set of perimeter shear walls. Your assertion that the question does not make sense only shows your evasion.

DUH!

Check out what wind does to the Tacoma narrows bridge.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4037354776795422979&q=tacoma+narrows+bridge&hl=en

The image I use is the best yet of the steel which is in the core area and it clearly is so small whoever annotated it didn't even bother to try to label them "core columns". Instead they annotated the only real heavy columns, the interior box columns which encircle to core as "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS".

 

[Christophera]

OMG there's more:-

BV

That photo shows the second section of exterior framework to be built around the core area before the core forming inside the framework was began. The cranes are atop the rectangle of interior box columns that surround the core. The floor beams and interior box columns can be seen below the top and the interior box columns protrude above.
Behind them are the much smaller elevator guide rail steel.

Alignment of the elevator guide rail supports was critical at the bottom of the tower and it was felt that a better job could be done before the core was cast.

Uh huh, the documentary said that. These were the largest tubular cast concrete cored towers ever built and the processes were not at all worked out. This was why WTC 2 went so much smoother.

I believe that perspective was reversed by the time WTC 2 was built.

Also, the difficulty in renting WTC 1 with its single hallway per floor was apparent so WTC 2 was altered to have 2 hallways in each direction with a third shear wall in the center making it actually stronger that WTC 1. WTC 2 employed a combined shear wall/cell design that was termed the "super core".

Here WTC 2 stands with its center shear wall forming the high point of the core structure which stand momentarily.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

That photo shows the second section of exterior framework to be built around the core area before the core forming inside the framework was began. The cranes are atop the rectangle of interior box columns that surround the core. The floor beams and interior box columns can be seen below the top and the interior box columns protrude above.

Let me guess. You can't show an actual picture of concrete being poured because the govt. confiscated all of them. Am I right?

 

[Christophera]

Collude with a delusion = reinforce it
Argue against a delusion = reinforce it (and quite often become part of it)

10 years in mental health have taught me this.

It doesn't matter what any of us bring up or say, Chris isn't well at all. It's a damn shame.

Here is a damm shame. Malpractice in psychiatry.

http://www.cchr.org/files/14552/Violence White Paper.pdf

Here is a damm shame, The American Psychological Association cannot even answer questions in a striaght forward question AFTER the director of the ethics department leaves when I send a letter.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/aparesponse.jpg

Here is the eventual response and it is NOT EVEN ON APA stationary. We need competent, responsible people in psychology not this crap.
Do you support this lack of accountability?

1. I had referred to "ABUSES" Barabasz distorts "minimizing" the issue. A cognitive distortion.

2. Ihad not asked if the person mentioned was a member of the A.P.A. I know they are not.

3. If the 30 year old paper is "out dated" what is the new reference comprehensive to my issues? Without that information this is a another cognitive distortion of "minimumization"

4. The source is Blacks Law Dictionary, named and attached, is linked in my letter below.5. Barabasz does not know that it is absolutely legal to hypnotise a person wthout their awareness in California so licensure is not competent if it does not include investigation of abuses.

 

[Bell]

Christopher, what the hell was the use for a concrete core anyway? The pictures posted by Uruk, Bonavada and others show the towers could stand without a concrete core. So why cast such as a core... 7 floors behind the rest of the building?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

As a mere Student, I'm not able to post links. But someone who appears to be a CT'er has a PBS documentary made in 1983 online. It was the 10th entry when I did a google search on "building the World Trade Center". Ironically, this guy captioned the film with the statement "Watch the construction of the World Trade Center, including the 47 steel core columns that the true perpetrators of 9/11 claim do not exist."