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

[Christophera]

Christopher, be a doll would you and have a look at this picture of the core right after the collapse: http://aboutfacts.net/LargePictures/Else21/Ground Zero.jpg

I'm afraid I'm having a devil of a time making out the concrete core. Would you be kind enough to point it out to me? Maybe some nice arrows or something?

Thanks so very much.

Not much to see. Most of the concrete has been blown up. And the interior box columns have all been cut. Of course the supposed steel core columns are not to be seen int he core area.

The left core structure has a large segment of perimeter column leaning against it. Near the center of it is a gap which is lower having a 3 pieces of perimeter box columns on the left bent back to the left being near vertical. There also are 3 perimeter box columns on the right which are striaght and part of the leaning wall.

Between them is a horizontal edge that has vertical line on it which could easily be the top of the joint between the base of the concrete core and the major shear wall extending upward.

For more images of the concrete core see,

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

 

[Belz...]

Do you do logic? Can you accept logic?

Yes, and logic trumps common sense.

 

[Belz...]

Hey listen forks, adherents of this anti-conspiracy forum, you guys really got to think.

We do. That's why we reject your crap theory.

When i stated obvious facts

A pre-conceived conclusion cannot be used as evidence to support itself.

, i stated it in regards to the many buildings that have burned around the world, I have yet to see a total collapse of three buildings due to fire.

You might have missed the giant airplanes that crashed into them, first.

You guys are not thinking, you are just posting without any regards to somekind of intelligent conversation.

Argument from disagreement. Does such a fallacy exist ? It should.

 

[Belz...]

The twin towers moved slightly in the wind, 3 to 7 feet at the top was acceptable and within design.

How did the concrete flex ?

and so accuse me of lying in order to protect the lie you want to believe instead of the truth because you do not want to know the truth?

No.

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.

No, you're the one who's trying to take a snapshot and making it the whole event.

 

[Belz...]

wow jet fuel........that sounds so terrifying.....
jet-fuel.. pure concentrated jet fuel spilled all over the building causing a massive inferno that poverised anyone near it. This fierce inferno of jet fuel within the tower........wow.......no one made it out alive.........
Bell help me here.......

Help you with your grammar, you mean ?

if jet fuel could twist and bend 5 inch high tensile steel columns .......why am i using an oxyacetylene rosebud to try and bend steel. All i need is to get a spray bottle and flood some jet fuel on the plates, ignite it, then i could simply bend it.

The idiocy of this man amazes me.

Do you hold a world record, or something ?

Darn Bell you are so brilliant........let me see..........
Hey I lit my kerosene lamp last night and guess what??? IT MELTED.......**** IT MELTED RIGHT BEFORE MY EYES.... and well................
OH NOOOO THE IRON GRATING ON MY FIREPLACE IS MELTING..........OH **** YOU GUYS ARE SO RIGHT ..........I 'VE GOT TO GO.........I GOT TO PUT OUT THE INFERNO BEFORE IT COLLAPSES MY HOUSEEE

And exactly how would your demolition MELT the same things ?

people were never able to get out alive because the fire was so intense ......it just pulverise everything.

No one ever said that. How's that army of strawmen you're building ?

LISTEN YOU GUYS CHIEF ORIO PALMER NEVER MADE IT TO THE 78TH FLOOR......HE COULD NOT HAVE HE WOULD BEEN PULVERIZED LIKE THE MARTIAN DEATH RAY!!!

78th... so he was UNDER the main pocket of fire ? What does that tell YOU ?

where the hell is my tin foil cap!!!!

Still on your head, methinks.

I dont argue with denials on the facts.........because no matter what you say.....it wont sink in......

Isn't it frustrating when the other kids won't play make-believe with you ?

 

[Belz...]

Not much to see. Most of the concrete has been blown up. And the interior box columns have all been cut. Of course the supposed steel core columns are not to be seen int he core area.

And yet, somehow, you expect the cross-bracing the survive that ?

 

[jhunter1163]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16109274/

Just some food for thought.

 

[Christophera]

You might have missed the giant airplanes that crashed into them, first.

If the planes were going to take them down it would have happened immediately.

The fires will not burn hot enough to cause continued failures adequate. Besides, you know very well the towers had a cast concrete core. A tructure not effected by fire like steel, if the fires could burn hot enough which they cannot. HERE is the only plausible explanaton for the Demolition event.

When the towers did fall, the tops of the towers fell the wrong directions compared to the aircraft damage you cite.

Below is the top of WTC 1 falling to the south. All the damage, around 1/2 the perimeter columns were severed on the NORTH side. Only demolition could cause this toppling to the south.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4448&stc=1&d=1165600923

 

[JonnyFive]

I've said numerous times. The twin towers were narrow and very tall.

Yeah, I know that. I lived in New York before they were destroyed, I lived in New York while they were destroyed, and I'm quite familiar with the shape of the towers.

However, the Sears Tower, an even taller building which is just as narrow, does not have a concrete core. You are dodging my question (and also answering it with lies, which is just as bad): Why does the Sears Tower not require a concrete core but the Twin Towers absolutely must have one?

You can't say it's because it isn't as tall as the towers, because that isn't true. You also can't say it isn't as proportionally narrow, because that isn't true either. It's not like the Sears tower is a two mile wide monolith that requires no structural support.

I think that you, as always, don't have a real answer. The fact that the Sears Tower is a steel tube construction proves that it is possible to build a very tall, narrow building without a concrete core. That means that it was possible to build the WTC Towers without a concrete core, and you're left with the same few images you have had all along.

No construction photos.

No documentary.

No workers to back you up.

No engineers to back you up.

None of the designers to back up your claim.

No verified sources stating there was a concrete core.


All you have are some pictures from a dynamic situation that you claim obviously show controlled demolition and concrete core.

Why are you so obsessed with pictures from the collapse? By definition, that is an extremely volatile situation where one would not expect to find intact materials. It is not an optimal situation to see things, but I think that works to your advantage. Anytime anyone points out a flaw in your "obvious" interpretation of these pictures, you insult them and ignore their questions.

Also, you seem to like avoiding questions requiring real proof.

So, how about those "non-union workers"? Know what a project labor agreement is? Know any more about security clearance procedures or purposes? I guess the conspiracy sites don't cover that.

If I have to explain that to you, ................ clearly you are not capable of logical discussion on the matter.

And again with the personal stuff. You can't leave that alone, can you? Anyone that disagrees isn't just wrong, they're stupid too? Your position is so obvious that only an idiot wouldn't get it, right? Whatever, it's not hurting me any, but it makes you look like you're backed into a corner.

 

[Christophera]

How did the concrete flex ?

Steel reinforced concrete flexes to a degree. Examine the Tacoma narrows bridge video. With loads and wind forces, the steel reinforced concrete tube will flex slightly. This is not rocket science.

 

[Christophera]

[qimg]http://www.columbia.edu/cu/gsapp/BT/BSI/MOMENT_F/sears-2.jpg[/qimg]

However, the Sears Tower, an even taller building which is just as narrow, does not have a concrete core.

You are destroying your credibility with repeated erroneous statements. Not only is it not the same dimensions it has wing extensions that brace it.

 

[uruk]

If the planes were going to take them down it would have happened immediately.

Please explain how that would have happened

The fires will not burn hot enough to cause continued failures adequate. Besides, you know very well the towers had a cast concrete core. A tructure not effected by fire like steel, if the fires could burn hot enough which they cannot.

Your whole line of reasoning here depends on the there being a concrete core of which you are only assuming. You have not, in any way, proven there was a concrete core. Your website is just conjecture, mistaken accounts, and bad photography. In fact it is the ONLY source that claims a concrete core. That means that it's premise is UNSUPPORTED.
And if you are construction guru that you claim to be you would know that steel looses half it strength at 600 degrees. That would mean the that the steel would no longer be able to support the wieght it was to designed to carry.

When the towers did fall, the tops of the towers fell the wrong directions compared to the aircraft damage you cite.

Below is the top of WTC 1 falling to the south. All the damage, around 1/2 the perimeter columns were severed on the NORTH side. Only demolition could cause this toppling to the south.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4448&stc=1&d=1165600923

Are you sure you got your directions right? You were confused a few posts back.

 

[uruk]

Chris your still ignoring these two little items.
What's the matter? They scare you?

Chris still hasen't been able to reconcile the the age discrepancy of the Mohawk story or been able to show the concrete core being built ahead of the steel work as described by Tony Jebson.

Show me a picture of the thw WTC1 concrete core being built ahead of the steel structure just like Tony Jebson said he saw.

Come on now. I showed you a picture taken from street level of the WTC1 tower steel structure going up without a concrete core.
Come on prove me wrong. Show me that Tony Jebson was right.

 

[uruk]

[qimg]http://www.columbia.edu/cu/gsapp/BT/BSI/MOMENT_F/sears-2.jpg[/qimg]



You are destroying your credibility with repeated erroneous statements. Not only is it not the same dimensions it has wing extensions that brace it.

And yet it does not have a concrete core. Your evading chris.

Oh why won't Chris be a man and fess up? He's making the Virgin Mary cry blood with his lies.

 

[A W Smith]

Oh so the Tacoma narrows bridge was made of concrete now? That my friend is a suspension bridge with a plate girder framed deck. Maybe I can make this clear to you by calling my ex father in law who is a retired staff civil engineer for the Port Of New York Authority. He lost co-workers in that tragedy. I am reluctant to call him as he is in ill health. But you would only spout such disrespect for him as he was 'paid by the government" and I wont heap that upon him. Even though it is text that he will never have to read. Have you even been to WTC when it existed? Are you even old enough to have been around when they were constructed? I was. I watched them grow. Your outrageous claims can only convince me that you are simply a disinformation agent for info wars. just to keep pumping enough bull**** out into the web to obfuscate the truth. You know yourself that it is all lies. Its only purpose is to flood out common sense in a "pyroclastic flow" of hot fecal matter nonsense. In this thread you have been proved wrong time and time again. You ignore that you have obviously lost. All the work you have put into your web site is wrong and you know it. but you cant admit that you are a fool so you must always have the last post in a thread just to reiterate your nonsense hoping no one reads the previous posts.

 

[JonnyFive]

If the planes were going to take them down it would have happened immediately.

The fires will not burn hot enough to cause continued failures adequate. Besides, you know very well the towers had a cast concrete core. A tructure not effected by fire like steel, if the fires could burn hot enough which they cannot.

Wow, we're almost getting somewhere with the "what do you think should have happened thing"...

So, you think, assuming it was just a plane crash, that the towers should have immediately collapsed. What else? Which direction should they have fallen? What would the rubble look like?

 

[JonnyFive]

You are destroying your credibility with repeated erroneous statements. Not only is it not the same dimensions it has wing extensions that brace it.

What erroneous statements have I made? Please correct them with cited sources and not your own word, which carries no weight here. Unless you are a structural engineer with experience in skyscraper design, but you have already stated that you are not.

But it is considerably taller than the towers, and it is still a very narrow building.

I suppose your argument is that the towers crossed some key threshhold where they must have a concrete core.

Prove it. Cite sources other than yourself and "common sense". Link us to some engineering web sites or articles discussing the need for a concrete core in a building of those dimensions.

If this is such common knowledge, then how come you're the only one who believes it? Why don't any engineers or architects agree with you?

 

[tsig]

I've said numerous times. The twin towers were narrow and very tall. If I have to explain that to you, ................ clearly you are not capable of logical discussion on the matter.

The towers were narrow and tall sounds like a bomb.

Logical thought left the building at the sounds of the bombs.

Did you not get the memo?

 

[tsig]

Curious, I just noticed again you did not post any images of the supposed steel core columns. If you continue to try to assert with text that you have images available which show the steel core columns but do not use them, you loose credibility.

Use images from the demolition showing some of the supposed 47, 1300 foot steel columns inthe creo area at an elevation above the ground.

I have a number of images which show what can only bee concrete. There is, for example, a quality image of the top of WTC 2 showing the concrete core inside the perimeter columns about to crash into the top of WTC 3.

Do you always cry when you lie?

 

[Dave_46]

If the planes were going to take them down it would have happened immediately.

The fires will not burn hot enough to cause continued failures adequate.
<snip>

Folks. This shows us that he knows **** all about the action of fire.

(I think I've interpreted that sentence of his correctly)