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

[Arus808]

why doesn't chris realize that that "thin" of a concrete core wouldn't be able to last/survive the immense wind speeds for a building that tall? That there would have been no way to install the hundreds of elevators in the buildings because the center would needed to be "concrete" through and through?

that is why what he claims is pure fantasy.

 

[Belz...]

If I watched the concrete core being constructed for an hour on TV in 1990 while the narattor described it. Should I think it is illogical to say there was a concrete core now because you believe the official story?

Actually, the fact that reality seems to disagree with your memories should make you doubt the MEMORIES, not reality.

BTW, the wiki definition is not correct. Welded beams are welded, whatever shape they have

Funny how we can see bolts in the pictures.

I notice you have not produced one image from the demo which show the supposed steel core columns.

The buildings were DESTROYED, so not much is standing during that period. We have plenty of CONSTRUCTION photos showing them, though. Clearly, since they are standing with several floors of core without concrete, they must have some structural utility, as opposed to your claim.

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.

Non sequitur. Also, you've admitted that "only be interpreted as concrete" was wrong.

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?

Ah, yes. They brought the concrete UP using pumps. Something never done before or since.

They should've just built the damn core out of steel and be done with it, eh ?

 

[JonnyFive]

Come on. You know it's like dominoes or bowling pins. Something hits it near the top, it goes falling over. See there! irrefutable logic! The rawest of raw evidence! It's dripping with the red jucies of truth! Incorruptable by the salmonella of denial! And like totaly hungered by the wombats of the truth starved.

They're seriously saying that because it was hit on the top but didn't topple over, it had to be demolitions, aren't they?

I love how the official (i.e. true) explanation of how the towers collapsed keeps being supported, but the TRUTH (i.e. insane) explanation relies on a constantly moving, changing, and mutating definition of what actually happened, propped up by a series of lies, misconceptions, ignorance, and assertions that the evidence is indeed coming. Someday.

Of course, I'm just a stupid, hateful, evil, government-paid, ignorant, incompetent shill for not agreeing. You haven't really made it in the world until some conspiracy theorist calls you an idiot for not agreeing with him.

I wonder if, in their minds, we are no longer neutral parties to be convinced, but enemies to be destroyed? It seems that the transition from one to the other is a quick one, consisting primarily of disagreeing with the CT position.

Actually, I'm pretty sure many of us made that transition with the first breath of "I don't agree with you, could you provide some proof?"

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Mr. Brown:

Which of the below is heavier?

- 11 stories of WTC tower
- 25 stories of WTC tower

Thanks in advance!

 

[Belz...]

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.

Says the guy who just evaded "raw" evidence of steel columns.

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.

How does it stand, then ?

Uh huh, the documentary said that.

Non-existent.

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

You believe ?

Also, the difficulty in renting WTC 1 with its single hallway per floor was apparent so WTC 2 was altered

They were built at the same time chris. Boy, you're not getting any better.

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?

I'd like an answer to that, too, chris.

This IS the core of WTC 2. I know it is concrete.

Little Billy also "knows" that he has been abducted by aliens. It doesn't make it so.

Yes it is concrete.

Or dust.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Yes it is concrete. Inside the perimeter walls is the concrete core of WTC 2. It is about to smash ALL THE WAY to the ground through WTC3.

What in that image proves that it can only be concrete? What is it that I'm not seeing?

Yes it is concrete and here is one more image. This is the core wall at its base. the annotation of 3 inch rebar is not correct. Since annotation I have recalled that the foundations hat 6 inch bar that extended up for a distance into the shear wall base.

The "rebar" in the image is NOT close to the base.

 

[uruk]

They're seriously saying that because it was hit on the top but didn't topple over, it had to be demolitions, aren't they?

I love how the official (i.e. true) explanation of how the towers collapsed keeps being supported, but the TRUTH (i.e. insane) explanation relies on a constantly moving, changing, and mutating definition of what actually happened, propped up by a series of lies, misconceptions, ignorance, and assertions that the evidence is indeed coming. Someday.

Of course, I'm just a stupid, hateful, evil, government-paid, ignorant, incompetent shill for not agreeing. You haven't really made it in the world until some conspiracy theorist calls you an idiot for not agreeing with him.

I wonder if, in their minds, we are no longer neutral parties to be convinced, but enemies to be destroyed? It seems that the transition from one to the other is a quick one, consisting primarily of disagreeing with the CT position.

Actually, I'm pretty sure many of us made that transition with the first breath of "I don't agree with you, could you provide some proof?"

I don't think actually came out and said it, but he did mention that "if the collpase was caused by the planes, it would have fallen differently. Also some other things he said gave me the impression that "toppeling" is what he meant.

 

[tsig]

No. I am aware from other sources exactly how the towers were designed and NIST is a waste of time. They do not explain free fall. They do not explain free fall to the ground of the entire structure. They do not explain how this happened twice and why the impact/fall sequence is backwards/ The wrong tower fell first if itwas a collapse.

They don't explain why the tops of the towers fell the wrong directions according top the sides damaged.

They don't explain it 'cause it didn't happen.

 

[JonnyFive]

I don't think actually came out and said it, but he did mention that "if the collpase was caused by the planes, it would have fallen differently. Also some other things he said gave me the impression that "toppeling" is what he meant.

Okay, I wasn't sure if that was what he was saying, or if it was something about the speed of the collapse... or something. He keeps talking about the collapse being wrong, etc. etc. but I don't think he's actually come out and said how he thinks it should have happened if two planes hit the towers and nothing else, despite repeated requests that he do so.

 

[tsig]

This IS the core of WTC 2. I know it is concrete. If you do not know as much as me you will not know what it is. If you think it is noy concrete explain what material you think it is.

Also, explain why none of the supposed 47, 1300 foot the steel core columns are not seen.

The image is clear enough. Stop evading.

I do not know concrete as an invisible component. I have seen rebar, that is not rebar.

Steel is in 20' I beams.

 

[bonavada]

once again chris................


..........you interviewed an ironworker/windwalker in 2002 (you have stated previously 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?


BV

 

[Arus808]

once again chris................


..........you interviewed an ironworker/windwalker in 2002 (you have stated previously 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?


BV

shh... remember facts gets in the way of his fantasies.

he still has to explain how he thought it was C4 when the term c4 wasn't commonly used in the late 60's, not until 69-70 when it was used in Vietnam. or how 'plastic coating to protect from fire' equates to plastic explosives.

 

[JonnyFive]

shh... remember facts gets in the way of his fantasies.

he still has to explain how he thought it was C4 when the term c4 wasn't commonly used in the late 60's, not until 69-70 when it was used in Vietnam. or how 'plastic coating to protect from fire' equates to plastic explosives.

Oh, that's easy. The C4, like the concrete and everything else, was magical.

 

[hcmom]

Of course, I'm just a stupid, hateful, evil, government-paid, ignorant, incompetent shill for not agreeing.

You left out hypnotized.

 

[bonavada]

shh... remember facts gets in the way of his fantasies.
he still has to explain how he thought it was C4 when the term c4 wasn't commonly used in the late 60's, not until 69-70 when it was used in Vietnam. or how 'plastic coating to protect from fire' equates to plastic explosives.

yep.......
i also read somewhere an account of a vietnam grunt warming rations with burning C4. also this story related that, once burning, it was rather difficult to extinguish, in fact one soldier was injured trying to stomp it out and it exploded. so a combination of heat AND pressure was liable to detonate the stuff.

makes you think huh?

BV

 

[jsfisher]

shh... remember facts gets in the way of his fantasies....
...or how 'plastic coating to protect from fire' equates to plastic explosives.

More likely what Chris saw in some documentary (or newspaper article, or comic book, or lucid dream) as a fire-retardant coating on the steel core members, not the rebar.

But then again, since he knows it was C-4 on the rebar, then all the evidence must agree it was C-4 on the rebar in a tight little circle, as has all the other examples of "logical reasoning" Chris has offered.

 

[JonnyFive]

You left out hypnotized.

Yes, and "evasive" too, how forgetful of me.

 

[Architect]

Chris

I've got to hand it to you. You're creating a work of fantasy, possibly even some sort of performance art.

1. Why do the elevator guide rails have to extend beyond the working platform?

2. Why did the "concrete core" have to catch up evey 80ft or so and what proof do you have?

3. Perhaps you can tell me why, then, we can't see 80ft of formwork or rebar?

4. A propos of which, can you tell me how they join 3" rebar; how do the lateral junctions work?

5. How much do you need to resist torsion, and where does it go in the core?

6. If we take standard cover depths for Rebar, what thickness does the concrete have to be to accommodate all the reinforcement required?

7. Why can't steel resist torsion (not that we call it that)? Why does it have to be concrete?

 

[Architect]

oh, yeah, one more thing.

WHERE'S THE CONCRETE IN THESE PHOTGRAPHS THEN?

DID YOU FORGET TO REPLY?

 

[tsig]

oh, yeah, one more thing.

WHERE'S THE CONCRETE IN THESE PHOTGRAPHS THEN?

DID YOU FORGET TO REPLY?

Stay in this thread and you will believe that you hvave instsalled the rebar.

It was simple I just swilled the rebar in the hot ecplosive mixture, then planted it.

Confession is good.