Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers?
- Thread starter Christophera
- Start date
- Status
se7ensnakes
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2006
- Messages
- 263
beachnut thanks for the approval......i am going to patent my jetfuel welder..........once again
thanks
thanks
Yuengling lager is pretty good.
Yuengling Traditional Lager
so how good is it
can it dissolve the concrete core and stop people from being CT dolts?
Christophera
Banned
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 2,760
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.
The view is partly blocked on the right side as if concrete forms are being built or the core, which was divided in 2 on the long axis by a central shear wall made into part of the cells by the floors, meaning the core could be built 1 side at a time.
The documentary was about WTC 1 so explaining what is going on in the right image of WTC 2 is not inherently easy. WTC core was very different having 2 hallways in each direction and from the other images of it under construction, I get the impression that the process of casting the combined cell/shearwall core was also quite different. Often, it appears, allowing more floors before requiring the core catch up. Certainly that would add speed to construction and we know WTC went faster. So that is probably what we are seeing
Since you have no reasonable explanation for the image of the WTC core, it is not like my inability to completely explain your image actually says there was no concrete core.
Certainly there is no proof for the steel core columns in anything you have posted.
Below is an explanation of the hallways of WTC 2 looking to the south which matches the southward view you've posted.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4437&stc=1&d=1165549280
Attachments
Last edited:
No concrete core ever! You have zero proof. And you are the only concrete core guy around. You are one in over 3 billion people. You are so unique, we think you need glasses. That is me and my mouse opinion.
Glasses, get some soon!
Glasses, get some soon!
Christophera
Banned
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 2,760
Horizontal plates AND perimeter box columns resisted torosion to a degree, but over the height of the tower there was too much flex. Most importantly steel core columns added no resistence to torsion.
As far as concrete in th floors I found posted on a message board a copy of the concrete schedule. All but 10 floors are lightweight concrete.
The core was also but the engineers for the rest of the building were not in charge of the concrete core. The image of WTC 2 core, at the top, I think shows perhaps the 43 floor level in the core.
Floors 41, 42, & 43 are stone concrete and the core was very heavily reinforced with inner wall for part of it as the largest lift motors for the elevators were housed there.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4439&stc=1&d=1165552757
Attachments
mortimer
NWO Janitor
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2004
- Messages
- 3,517
Chris,
Please stop and read back to yourself what you just wrote. Imagine one of us saying the same thing. Since you have no reasonable explanation for our images of the core, it is not like our inability to completely explain your one image actually says there was a concrete core. Agreed?
SezMe
post-pre-born
Both fora and forums are acceptable but using fora makes me sound oh so much more sophisticated, doncha think?
SezMe
post-pre-born
I think se7ensnakes is DeBunks sock.
Christophera
Banned
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 2,760
I don't have to imagine, you've said it all, but you also have no raw evidence.
If the steel core columns are never seen as the towers come apart but what can only be concrete is seen, your inability to explain what appears as concrete in any reasonable fashion indicates that the steel columns never existed.
Christophera
Banned
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 2,760
I not only have proof, it is from raw evidence and there is an entire website built from it. You cannot say so much for the supposed steel core core columns.
http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html
Hundreds of photos of the steel core! you are just blind, get glasses soon
You've got that back to front there. The burden of proof is on you to make your case, not us.
You are going to require more than just speculation and pictures to make your case too. To try a different tact here, I'm going to do a little demonstration:
What is happening in this picture?
Just by looking at this photo, can you give a full account of the race that preceded it? And what happened after?
Christophera
Banned
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 2,760
I noticed you didn't post one.
Here is what can only be concrete, 500 feet off teh ground. A concrete shear wall.
You have hundreds of construction photos to attempt misinterpretations of, and that is IT.
Nothing you have explains how these Sheared Columns
Christophera
Banned
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 2,760
The offical story would explainthe photo as a sculpture, static and frozen in whatever way they would want you to believe.
You are a joke.
The official story explains nothing and has no proof. I have raw evidence and I do explain near free fall and pulverization.
An explanation IS the whole story.
Christophera
Banned
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 2,760
se7ensnakes,
You've got it!
That is why they all think alike and pay no attention to raw evidence, they are all tuned to the same channel with their silvery cranial antennas.
I have used your photos to show everyone the steel Core
I use you photos of the WTC to prove the core is steel!
Your photos prove the core is only steel!
I USE you photos at your web site!
Thank you for proving to everyone the core is made of steel.
I have seen hundreds of photos and we have shown you many times, but you are too blind to see. Get some glasses and look at the tons of photos in the thousands of posts we have made.
I knew you were not looking at our photos we posted; we posted many!!!
You do not like to look at our photos. I use you photo to prove there is no concrete core. THANKS again for showing me there is no concrete core.
Sorry that photo is the one I use to prove the core is not concrete!
I use you photos to prove a steel core. THank you
You have made a big error. Better get your eyes checked.
Thanks again but your web site proves there is just a steel core.
A W Smith
Philosopher
from a url I cant post yet
civil.usvd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
I saw that here too;
Also unique to the engineering design were its core and elevator system. The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry. Worried that the intense air pressure created by the buildingsâ high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core. For the elevators, to serve 110 stories with a traditional configuration would have required half the area of the lower stories be used for shaftways. Otis Elevators developed an express and local system, whereby passengers would change at "sky lobbies" on the 44th and 78th floors, halving the number of shaftways.
http://www.skyscraper.org/TALLEST_TOWERS/t_wtc.htm
http://alanjones.us/pages/wtc_pic.htm
http://www.ipwea.org.au/papers/download/galea.pdf
and the last one talks in regular language about why, in real terms, the towers fell
Worried that the intense air pressure created by the buildings’ high speed
elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution
using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core
• The structural system is impressively simple.
• The 60m wide facade is, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice
o columns on 1m centres acting as wind bracing to resist all
overturning forces;
o the central core takes only the gravity loads of the building.
o The floors tie the system together to stop the outer walls from
buckling
Why Did It Collapse?
• Initial plane impacts - structures had been severely damaged, but not
necessarily fatally.
• Impact of the plane crash destroyed a significant number of perimeter
columns on several floors of the building, severely weakening the entire
system. Initially this was not enough to cause collapse.
• The heat from the fire raging in the upper floors, gradually affecting the
behaviour of the remaining material.
• The fire would have been initially fuelled by large volumes of jet fuel,
which then ignited the combustible material in the building
• The fire would not have been hot enough to melt any of the steel, the
strength of the steel drops markedly with prolonged exposure to fire, while
the elastic modulus of the steel reduces (stiffness drops), and increasing
deflections.
• Normally safety features such as fire retarding materials and sprinkler
systems help to contain fires, and prevent steel from being exposed to
excessively high temperatures.
• This gives occupants time to escape and allow fire fighters to extinguish
blazes, before the building is catastrophically damaged.
• The unusual circumstances – i.e. large volumes of jet fuel, fire retarding
coatings blown off during impact, water supply to fire sprinklers severed
were conditions which hugely accelerated the buckling of the outer wall
columns
• The storey at impact level would have collapsed. Remember that the
collapsing floor was supporting 20 or more floors above
• The huge mass of falling structure would gain momentum, crushing the
structurally intact floors below, resulting in catastrophic failure of the entire
structure.
• The dynamic load of 20 storeys above is very much greater than the static
system, and the columns were almost instantly destroyed as each floor
progressively "pancaked" to the ground.
elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution
using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core
• The structural system is impressively simple.
• The 60m wide facade is, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice
o columns on 1m centres acting as wind bracing to resist all
overturning forces;
o the central core takes only the gravity loads of the building.
o The floors tie the system together to stop the outer walls from
buckling
Why Did It Collapse?
• Initial plane impacts - structures had been severely damaged, but not
necessarily fatally.
• Impact of the plane crash destroyed a significant number of perimeter
columns on several floors of the building, severely weakening the entire
system. Initially this was not enough to cause collapse.
• The heat from the fire raging in the upper floors, gradually affecting the
behaviour of the remaining material.
• The fire would have been initially fuelled by large volumes of jet fuel,
which then ignited the combustible material in the building
• The fire would not have been hot enough to melt any of the steel, the
strength of the steel drops markedly with prolonged exposure to fire, while
the elastic modulus of the steel reduces (stiffness drops), and increasing
deflections.
• Normally safety features such as fire retarding materials and sprinkler
systems help to contain fires, and prevent steel from being exposed to
excessively high temperatures.
• This gives occupants time to escape and allow fire fighters to extinguish
blazes, before the building is catastrophically damaged.
• The unusual circumstances – i.e. large volumes of jet fuel, fire retarding
coatings blown off during impact, water supply to fire sprinklers severed
were conditions which hugely accelerated the buckling of the outer wall
columns
• The storey at impact level would have collapsed. Remember that the
collapsing floor was supporting 20 or more floors above
• The huge mass of falling structure would gain momentum, crushing the
structurally intact floors below, resulting in catastrophic failure of the entire
structure.
• The dynamic load of 20 storeys above is very much greater than the static
system, and the columns were almost instantly destroyed as each floor
progressively "pancaked" to the ground.
But you can use the only concrete core guy's own web pages and photos to show a steel only core!
- Status