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

[JonnyFive]

Christopher:

Oh look, massive box columns.

I'm sure he's got some BS reason why no one can find any concrete core in any construction photos. I mean, he did see a documentary. And by "documentary" I mean "coma fantasy".

I kid, I kid. Really though, love to see some pictures of construction to support the ever-more-ridiculous assertion that there was a concrete core somewhere.

 

[Belz...]

You can't explode C-4 without a detonator, but it burns quite easily - GIs in Vietnam used it as fuel for camp fires. Also, I've read that, once lit, it just won't go out.

I'm working on the assumption that the explosives weren't C4. Otherwise they'd have been useless after 30 years. Contra chris' contention, concrete actually lets air through.

 

[Big Al]

I'm working on the assumption that the explosives weren't C4. Otherwise they'd have been useless after 30 years. Contra chris' contention, concrete actually lets air through.

But Chris said it was C-4, Belz! And he knows! Semtex and RDX wouldn't be much different anyway.

The next thing you know, he'll suddenly remember how the documentary mentioned a special, non-wet, impermeable concrete.

 

[JonnyFive]

But Chris said it was C-4, Belz! And he knows! Semtex and RDX wouldn't be much different anyway.

The next thing you know, he'll suddenly remember how the documentary mentioned a special, non-wet, impermeable concrete.

This all ties so nicely in the with very simple explanation of "magic", doesn't it?

 

[hcmom]

this thread is like a novel already, and yes, every single one of his objections has been answered multiple times, usually in picture AND text w/sources sited. its not worth discussing anymore.

Several of us haven't actually "discussed" it in quite some time, we're just addicted.

 

[uruk]

Below is a usenet comment which descibes what I saw in the 1990 documentary called "Construction of the Twin Towers". The WTC 1 core was constructed ahead of the steel erection. After thinking about it I realized I would have built the steel frame first and used it to align the elevator guide rails.

The docuemntary explained that there was much construction politics around the beginning as the elevator crews basically controlled the process as contracts stated that "elevators were to be given a priority and other trades were to work to get elevators as far up as possible", or some such language.

Constructon politics, being what they are could definitely lead to what was seen by some passer by below and what I saw in the 1990 documentary. Which was a mistake. The wrong way to start, very time consuming.

Thanks to Bell we have just shown the correct way to start your tower. Pour the core inside AFTER the exterior steel is in position so you can use it to form with and be support for the elevator guide rail supports too.

"Tony Jebson" <jebbo@texas.net> wrote:

>......Apparently, the WTC towers had no internal
>structural columns but relied on the exterior structure for
>support / strength. No doubt the impact of an airplane does
>this no end of harm.
I worked in downtown NY in the late 1960's when the towers were
built! At lunch time we went to the construction site to watch the
progress. And we saw them first buildt an internal thick walled
rectangular concrete core inside which later the elevators ran. The
steel work was erected around this core several floors behind!

-=tom=-

Hey Chris, You do know that the usenet comment goes against what your claiming. "Tony Jebson" doesn't say which tower he's refering to. He claims that the steel was erected several floors behind the core. Except in the picture there is no concrete core ahead of the steel work. Look again:

 

[hcmom]

Chris you have more humor than I thought.

I've been trying to point that out to you people!

 

[JonnyFive]

Several of us haven't actually "discussed" it in quite some time, we're just addicted.

It is quite addictive. Especially since you get these great gems of insane humor. It's more than worth sifting through the tons of crap and concrete dust for, at least for me (and apparently several other people as well).

 

[uruk]

How can an inner bunch of steel vertical elements begin to provide more resistence to twisting than 4 perimeter shear walls that are as dense as the 22 inch center to center spacing of the towers when the outer dimensions of the inner bunch of columns is around 1/2 the dimensions of the square walls????.


Particuarly when there is NO plan available showing how they are connected and braced. Notice NONE of BV's nor Farseitects images show any diagonal bracing of the supposed columns they attempt to evidence with misrepresented images.

You mean these diagnal cross connecting bracings in these photographs?

 

[uruk]

Originally Posted by Christophera
The issue of torsion and the square tower shear wals is actually obvious to most people once they think about it.

How can an inner bunch of steel vertical elements begin to provide more resistence to twisting than 4 perimeter shear walls that are as dense as the 22 inch center to center spacing of the towers when the outer dimensions of the inner bunch of columns is around 1/2 the dimensions of the square walls????.

Read here!
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter I History.pdf

Go to page 6 of the PDF file and start reading from the 2nd paragraph.

In case your to lazy to read the PDF:
"The World Trade Center Towers used a type of perimeter tube structure along with an interior steel frame to resist the lateral shear and moment imposed on it by the accumulated wind pressure. Both the frame and the perimiter tube also contributed to transferring the internal loads of the building down to the foundations."

Explination:
It was the whole system of the perimiter tube and the core frame being connected by the floor structure that provided resistance to twisting and torsion.

From the linked PDF:
"The floors tied together the exterior perimeter columns and the interior steel frame to resist twisting, or torsion, of the tower."

I wanted to remind Chris about this. he seems to be ignoring certain posts.

And this one too:

Originally Posted by Christophera
That is an image of the framework of the interior box columns extended up ove rthe concret ecore being cast below. False floors are installed for the elevator guide rail installation crews to work on while guide rail support steel is lowered into position and aligned.

The elevator crews had priority, or, whatever would get the elevators up another few floors sooner was what the rest of the crews were working on. Every 80 feet or so, the concrete core HAD TO CATCH UP by the engineers specifications but until that point was reached the guide rail supports were installed and aligned and temporarily braced to the interior box columns.

After that the false floors were removed and the breakdown steel inner forms were set and outer form wood was placed against the inside of the interior box columns, (the building floors and perimeter columns would be in place by this time) and another 40 feet of concrete core was cast.

Those aren't elevator guide rails. They are too big. Look at the floor plans, the elevators are nowhere near those columns. If you really are in construction you'd know that the guide rails go up after the shaft has been built because the rails go inside the shaft.
Tell you what. prove to me that those are elevator rail guides. show me "raw evidence" that there are elevator rail guides that big.

 

[hcmom]

It is quite addictive. Especially since you get these great gems of insane humor. It's more than worth sifting through the tons of crap and concrete dust for, at least for me (and apparently several other people as well).

Plus, as a bonus, people other than Chris post pictures and links that are sometimes interesting. When I got here, (and I have absolutely no recollection of how that happened!) I had very little CT knowledge, or really any of the facts that they have spun off of. Now I've learned about architecture, explosives, mental illnesses...

 

[uruk]

Originaly posted by Christophera:
"Tony Jebson" <jebbo@texas.net> wrote:

>......Apparently, the WTC towers had no internal
>structural columns but relied on the exterior structure for
>support / strength. No doubt the impact of an airplane does
>this no end of harm.
I worked in downtown NY in the late 1960's when the towers were
built! At lunch time we went to the construction site to watch the
progress. And we saw them first buildt an internal thick walled
rectangular concrete core inside which later the elevators ran. The
steel work was erected around this core several floors behind!

-=tom=-

Seems like "Tony Jebson" is a liar or seriously mistaken.

Where is the concrete core several floors ahead of the steel work in these pictures?

 

[Christophera]

"Security clearance"? I can think of more plausible reasons why there would be a "shortage of welders" if they were trying to weld rebar coated with C4! Delays? I'm surprised they got the towers finished before they exhausted all the welders in the country.

Sarcasm aside, the idea was that they had to have welders that they could tell that the rebar was coated with C4 or othrewise a welder might try and cut corners and not remove enough of the coating or not shield the coating properly, ......then ... BOOM, and BOOM, and BOOM, big problem.

Anyway, and I apologize if this has come up before (no way I'm reading this whole thread!) but... 3" rebar at 48" on center? That just doesn't make any sense to me. First, that would be a #24 bar (24 eighth-inches), which is a non-standard size so it would be very expensive; and second, spacing bars that far apart doesn't sound like a good idea -- you'd have big gaps of concrete between the bars where the steel was essentially having no effect, and it would require extra steel just to hold that concrete together. Using a #18 bar (the largest standard size) at 24" OC would be the same steel area, but cheaper, and it would distribute the steel better. (And actually, using a smaller bar, closer, say #12 at 12" OC, would be better still.)

So, can you imagine some reason why the engineers came up with that bizarre design? Why build a wall that was so unnecessarily expensive, yet less efficient than a cheaper wall? Umm... maybe to reduce the number of C4-coated rebar welders they'd go through?

The idea was as a torsion resistant wall rather than a lead bearing wall. That was why the high tensile steel rebar. I'm unsure, but the wide c to c on the vertical bar has to do with a wall designed primarily for torsion rather than load. The horizontal bar was closer to what you say.

 

[JonnyFive]

Plus, as a bonus, people other than Chris post pictures and links that are sometimes interesting. When I got here, (and I have absolutely no recollection of how that happened!) I had very little CT knowledge, or really any of the facts that they have spun off of. Now I've learned about architecture, explosives, mental illnesses...

Totally. It's like there's a whole side thread (or five) going alongside the main one. Christophera just kind of ignores everything not related to his quest and whoever is in his sights at a given time, leaving the rest of us free to talk about whatever. It's fun.

I've learned a lot too. Especially about mental illness. You could call it first hand experience, I suppose.

I just starting reading this as a lurker, and got sucked in. Once I joined, I just had to post here... I couldn't help it.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Above you have just unsuccessfully tried to say 2 things.

ONE, this image of the fine vertical elements does not show fine vertical elements.

TWO That this image shows the same fine vertical elements.

Any rational person can see you are wrong twice.

This is ABSOLUTELY NOT what I said. I said that rebar is too small to show up on a photo taken from that distance. PERIOD. I claim that NEITHER image shows rebar. Even 3-inch rebar (if there is such a thing) would be smaller than an adult's arm.

The depth of the highest piece in the first photo appears to be of the same magnitude as the width, so your explanation that it is hundreds of separate pieces of rebar doesn't fit.

 

[Roger_Harris]

Sarcasm aside, the idea was that they had to have welders that they could tell that the rebar was coated with C4 or othrewise a welder might try and cut corners and not remove enough of the coating or not shield the coating properly, ......then ... BOOM, and BOOM, and BOOM, big problem.

Wow, the welders knew they were putting up a building loaded with C4? That's... incredible.

The idea was as a torsion resistant wall rather than a lead bearing wall. That was why the high tensile steel rebar. I'm unsure, but the wide c to c on the vertical bar has to do with a wall designed primarily for torsion rather than load. The horizontal bar was closer to what you say.

Really? Where would all this torsion be coming from?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Anyway, and I apologize if this has come up before (no way I'm reading this whole thread!) but... 3" rebar at 48" on center? That just doesn't make any sense to me. First, that would be a #24 bar (24 eighth-inches), which is a non-standard size so it would be very expensive; and second, spacing bars that far apart doesn't sound like a good idea -- you'd have big gaps of concrete between the bars where the steel was essentially having no effect, and it would require extra steel just to hold that concrete together. Using a #18 bar (the largest standard size) at 24" OC would be the same steel area, but cheaper, and it would distribute the steel better. (And actually, using a smaller bar, closer, say #12 at 12" OC, would be better still.)

48 inches = 4 feet. In post #8919, Christophera said "over a hundred of them are in a line or nearly so". 100 x 4 feet = 400 feet. What was the width of the towers?

 

[Big Al]

Sarcasm aside, the idea was that they had to have welders that they could tell that the rebar was coated with C4 or othrewise a welder might try and cut corners and not remove enough of the coating or not shield the coating properly, ......then ... BOOM, and BOOM, and BOOM, big problem.

C-4 doesn't explode from heat alone, Chris, as has been pointed out several times. It burns. And it keeps burning.

And are you saying that a whole gang of now-retired welders knew about the C-4? And not one of them felt the slightest twinge of shock and conscience when the buildings fell flat? Not one of them ever questioned why they'd been building a structure loaded with tons of high explosive?

My, weren't they trustworthy? Or did "The Organisation" have them rubbed out after they'd done their work?

 

[Big Al]

48 inches = 4 feet. In post #8919, Christophera said "over a hundred of them are in a line or nearly so". 100 x 4 feet = 400 feet. What was the width of the towers?

218 feet for both WTC 1 and 2, and they were square in cross-section. Must have been tight on space in there!

 

[Big Al]

Chris, did your marvellous 1-hour documentary say anything about the outside walls, the floors, the lifts/elevators, the plumbing, the electric supply, rerouting of traffic during the construction or anything?

Seems there wouldn't have been a whole lot of time for anything else after thrashing out every last, little, mind-numbing detail about bloody core concrete and rebar. I guess they just skimmed everything but the CONCRETE CORE WITH THE SUPER-SPECIAL REBAR.

I think I'd have been asleep after quarter of an hour, and I am interested in construction documentaries.

No wonder your ex-wife can't remember anything about it. She was probably pumping out z's by the first commercial break.