• 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.
NobbyNobbs said:
And? What of it? You have produced a building that has a concrete core, that everyone knows has a concrete core, that is advertised to have a concrete core. And this proves....what?
Click to expand...

Concrete cores have proved themselves through the Twin Towers as being the best for very tall narrow towers.
 
NobbyNobbs said:
And? What of it? You have produced a building that has a concrete core, that everyone knows has a concrete core, that is advertised to have a concrete core. And this proves....what?
Click to expand...

A core of concrete?

Christophera said:
I’ve argued this fact of the Twin towers concrete core on every board that has a 9-11 forum, and always, there is a die hard group that works together to try and make sure the concept is smeared and ridiculed into oblivion.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5637&st=0
Click to expand...

Why wont this thread just die?:boggled:
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
It isn't clear that there is a wall there. The color in between what you are calling the end of the wall and what your are calling hallways is the about the same as the color of the debris cloud to the outside of this area. And where is the top of the wall? There is no clear vertical boundary.

And even if it is a wall, it is no thicker than your "interior box column". This would make it about 2-3 feet wide, right?
Click to expand...

I see it thicker than that, about 4 feet.
 
Christophera said:
Concrete cores have proved themselves through the Twin Towers as being the best for very tall narrow towers.
Click to expand...

Actually, all this shows is that concrete cores have proven themselves as being the best for buildings in the configuration and environment that the Petronas towers are in. The fact that they have concrete cores does not prove that the Twin Towers have concrete cores.

My neighbor's car has a hybrid engine. Does that mean that all cars have hybrid engines? Same argument.
 
NobbyNobbs said:
Actually, all this shows is that concrete cores have proven themselves as being the best for buildings in the configuration and environment that the Petronas towers are in. The fact that they have concrete cores does not prove that the Twin Towers have concrete cores.

My neighbor's car has a hybrid engine. Does that mean that all cars have hybrid engines? Same argument.
Click to expand...

An engine doesn't have a safety factor and a tower does. Not an appropriate anology.
 
A perfect analogy. You brought up the Petronas towers, presumably to show that they have a concrete core, in order to bolster your argument that the Twin Towers have a concrete core. I'm bringing up my neighbor's hybrid to bolster my argument that my car is a hybrid, despite all other evidence to the contrary.
 
Christophera said:
Your history is correct. The documentary mentioned that they had multiple pumps on a number of levels to keep the pressures divided down to managable levels to gain the elevation needed.
Click to expand...
hey guys, notice how christophera conveniently adds to his "memory" of the documentary once things are pointed out to be impossible then when its shown later that its indeed possible but with limitations, he "suddenly" remembers that it was also stated in the documentary?

first he states that a pump was built on site, then now he claims each level had pumps....(which is not possible btw).

wow, this "hour" long documentary seems to be getting a lot of information put into it. heck, with commercials interspersed between each section, all of this crap had to be put into 40 minutes of workable footage.



High pressure mud pumps were developed by Gardner Denver and a few other companies for pumping drilling mud and they were adapted to concrete.
Click to expand...

cool, now we can call the company to see if they had such machines back in 1967.
 
I have a top-secret security clearance. If I saw something I thought was a hazard to life, limb, or eyesight, I could certainly report it. Ever hear of the Whistleblower Act?

Granted, it doesn't always work the best. But if 3000 American citizens died due to explosives built into the building, no security clearance in the U.S. could prevent some of those guys from talking. And they would be protected by the law, too.
 
Christophera said:
The info on the pumping system was in the documentary. It was a huge expense and the documentary was all about explaining the costs for the public buildings to the public.
Click to expand...

As I said twice earlier, this must have been one hell of a tedious documentary! Core, core, core, 3" rebar on 48" centres, rebar, rebar coating, rebar security, rebar butt welding, core, core concrete pumping schedules, core concrete pumping system, core build schedule, core, core, core. Nothing about the rest of the buildings.

And yet, before 9/11, if you'd asked me what I knew (or THOUGHT I knew) about the Twin Towers, I'd have been able to say only that they were in Manhattan and they had an innovative steel core to maximise internal space.

I'm no architect or expert, but even I remember hearing about the steel core. From what you're saying, it was a lie fostered by whoever (or is that wooever?) to cover up the C-4-laden concrete core - a fact that must NEVER be revealed! A conspiracy requiring top secret clearance even for welders. A conspiracy that has lasted for thirty-five or forty years. A conspiracy that involves the deliberate murder of 3,000 innocent souls.

And yet, when a PBS documentary crew come along, the authorities gleefully tell them all about the concrete core, the top-secret rebar coating, the strange movements of workers, the security requirements both for the stored rebar and the welders . . . semingly nothing else.

The steel core was a FAMOUS aspect of the Twin Towers - even I knew about it. Are you saying that not one architect or structural engineer watched the documentary and furrowed his brow in perplexity? This would have been a major issue!

And yet, ELEVEN YEARS after the documentary was broadcast, they had SUDDENLY to pull the documentary and all records it ever existed?

Why the hell wasn't it stifled at birth? Why did they even give those documentary-makers all that DANGEROUS info? Other documentaries I have seen were given the old "Innovative Steel Core" line, and the makers seemed to swallow it. Whywere these PBS guys treated so differently?

If I may add my contribution to the testicular fest: BOLLOCKS!
 
Arus808 said:
hey guys, notice how christophera conveniently adds to his "memory" of the documentary once things are pointed out to be impossible then when its shown later that its indeed possible but with limitations, he "suddenly" remembers that it was also stated in the documentary?

first he states that a pump was built on site, then now he claims each level had pumps....(which is not possible btw).

wow, this "hour" long documentary seems to be getting a lot of information put into it. heck, with commercials interspersed between each section, all of this crap had to be put into 40 minutes of workable footage.





cool, now we can call the company to see if they had such machines back in 1967.
Click to expand...

Yeh the documentary becomes more detailed the more Chris rembers.
 
Big Al said:
As I said twice earlier, this must have been one hell of a tedious documentary! Core, core, core, 3" rebar on 48" centres, rebar, rebar coating, rebar security, rebar butt welding, core, core concrete pumping schedules, core concrete pumping system, core build schedule, core, core, core. Nothing about the rest of the buildings.

And yet, before 9/11, if you'd asked me what I knew (or THOUGHT I knew) about the Twin Towers, I'd have been able to say only that they were in Manhattan and they had an innovative steel core to maximise internal space.

I'm no architect or expert, but even I remember hearing about the steel core. From what you're saying, it was a lie fostered by whoever (or is that wooever?) to cover up the C-4-laden concrete core - a fact that must NEVER be revealed! A conspiracy requiring top secret clearance even for welders. A conspiracy that has lasted for thirty-five or forty years. A conspiracy that involves the deliberate murder of 3,000 innocent souls.

And yet, when a PBS documentary crew come along, the authorities gleefully tell them all about the concrete core, the top-secret rebar coating, the strange movements of workers, the security requirements both for the stored rebar and the welders . . . semingly nothing else.

The steel core was a FAMOUS aspect of the Twin Towers - even I knew about it. Are you saying that not one architect or structural engineer watched the documentary and furrowed his brow in perplexity? This would have been a major issue!

And yet, ELEVEN YEARS after the documentary was broadcast, they had SUDDENLY to pull the documentary and all records it ever existed?

Why the hell wasn't it stifled at birth? Why did they even give those documentary-makers all that DANGEROUS info? Other documentaries I have seen were given the old "Innovative Steel Core" line, and the makers seemed to swallow it. Whywere these PBS guys treated so differently?

If I may add my contribution to the testicular fest: BOLLOCKS!
Click to expand...

The evil guys always tip thier hands so the good guys can catch them. It's in the script.
 
DHR said:
The evil guys always tip thier hands so the good guys can catch them. It's in the script.
Click to expand...

Yes, and there's always a self-destruct button, and the bad guy always shows 007 just where it is . . .

Hey, DHR, you don't think Chris has been watching just a little too much James Bond, do you?

I do notice he's not answered a single question about the motivation for wiring the towers for demolition, or about the "documentary's" absolute and total obsession with every last tiny little detail on the core. Or why the makers never queried the famous steel core.

Coming soon: How Chris now remembers that the documentary mentioned:

  • All the welders had to be qualified explosives experts
  • The potting compound for the detonator channel holes was specified to be a non-exothermic resin to avoid axcess heat
  • The phone contractors also had to have top secret clearance
  • The office furniture was specified to be manufactured from a special napalm-containing material
As I said earlier, about the time Chris was watching his gripping documentary on concrete and rebar, I saw a documentary on an accident at a nuclear reactor called SL-1. For years, I couldn't find any confirmatory details, and I wondered if it was a realistic dramatisation. I've managed to refresh my memory with online references since, but before then I could hardly have told you anything about it, apart from the fact that the dead were buried piecemeal in small lead-lined coffins.

However, even before my memory was refreshed, I remembered the name, "SL-1", and that fact. If a thread had started, claiming "The SL-1 reactor is the safest in the history of the nuclear industry," I'd have sounded off. I wouldn't have posited this, suggested that and trickled in little dribs and drabs I remembered about the documentary from time to time: I'd have dumped the totality of my memory in one go, meagre as it was.

This drip-by-drip revelation of the documentary's shattering contents is very convenient and wholly unconvincing. So, Chris, how about a challenge?

Why don't you dedicate a post to telling us each fact you can remember from this 1990 documentary? A post without speculation, personal comment or pictures. Nobody here believes there was such a documentary, as you know. They think you just make up new revelations when the arguments are going against you.

So, why not give us all a full run-down on what you remember of it?

No? Ah, ain't that a shame? :D
 
PS, proof of my remembered documentary:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0323857/

And you can get it on DVD now. I wonder why the powerful nuclear lobby didn't pull the plug on that one, erasing it from the world? Or films like "Silkwood", "The China Syndrome" and countless others.
 
Christophera said:
The first shows what might be interior box columns and an empty core area. The dimensions on center or column dimensions do not look right for the Twin Towers though.

The second shows elevator guide rail support steel and diagonally braced crane platforms inside the line of interior box columns and floor beams.

This image explains the last image, the tower on the right and the light coming through.
Click to expand...

Below are two pictures, looking at the core. The left is taken from the north, looking south. The right is taken from the west, looking east. You can pretty much look through the south tower in both pictures. And that is somewhere halfway up. There is NOTHING that suggest a concrete core is in there somewhere. A concrete core would have BLOCKED the view.

Ergo,

NO. CONCRETE. CORE.
 

Attachments

  • wotnocore.jpg
    wotnocore.jpg
    36.5 KB · Views: 253
Don't worry, Chris will have an explanation. Like....maybe those aren't the real twin towers, but the fake ones they constructed for puposes of fooling the public into thinking they had steel cores. The real ones took their place in 1971, while the fake ones were shipped out and now on display next door to a trailer park outside Topeka, Kansas. They use them as grain storage bins. I saw it in a documentary.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom