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

[bonavada]

a quick sum-up of this thread. feel free to add any other relevant points i've missed, i'm sure there are many more. i'll then update the list and remind chris now and then :-]

btw chris. the points below are not up for discussion. they have all been established in this thread. it's all there mate, go and take a look :-]

christopheras photographic memory..............
he forgets that the PA painted the C4 on the rebar
he forgets how long he's been a welder
he forgets the mohawks age
he forgets when he saw the documentary
he forgets that other nationalities besides american died at the WTC on 9/11

christopheras theory hinges on information from:-
a non-existent documentary
a non-existent book
a non-existent magazine article
and the use of:-
badly compressed altered and inconclusive images
erroneous and crude diagrams
highly selective quotes from mike pecararo
highly selective quotes from willy rodriguez
highly selective quotes from phillip morelli
highly dubious quotes from tony jebson
wrongly defined raw-evidence
plagarised prof steven jones theories

christophera has been shown to be wrong about :-
his "total pulverisation of the towers"
his "free-fall of the towers"
his "mohawk saboteur"
his "c4 coated rebar"
his "erroneous bbc diagram"
his "reinforced concrete walls in basement"
his "the wrong tower fell first"
his "the tops of the towers fell the wrong way"
his "firefighters discussing controlled demolition"
his "powerdown of the WTC"
his "april fool robertson message"
his "molten metal in the basements"

christophera cannot adequately explain (if his theories are correct):-
why there is no sound of thousands of explosions during WTC collapses
why there are no pictures of the concrete core during construction
the lack of whistle-blowers (mohawks, welders, concreters, carpenters, PA employees, union officials, architects, US government employees etc etc.....)
or even why the US government would plan 30 years ahead to destroy the WTC

finally, christophera says:-
that he HAS NOT and WILL NOT read the NIST report
that the "official core" cannot have existed because steel flexes too much when in the proportions of the towers.....
that anyone who disagrees with him must be "disinfo" and support the murders of "3000 americans"
that NOTHING will convince him that the towers did not have a concrete core

BV

 

[Christophera]

Why not? With that much mass falling that quickly, the stress on the columns would have been enormous.

You cannot have it both ways, those stresses take time and space to accumulate, and you have yet to show a shattered column end.

What is your justification for claiming that all the columns could not have broken? We know that there were steel columns, the ones that you call "interior box columns" but seem to believe were in themselves not the core. Were these removed before 9/11? If not, they must have broken into small pieces right?

They were cut as part of the demolition into aproximate 40 foot pieces.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1233383

The interior box columns surrounded the concrete core walls and were fastened to it. This was where lateral and torsion load were transferred to the concrete from the steel framework.

spire

Concrete shear wall to left of interior box column, the "spire"

concrete shear wall

Evidence for this? Can you point out where the "cutting charges" are visible on this column?

salvage cuts on the far ends explosive shear on the near ends.

Sheared Columns

 

[beachnut]

You cannot have it both ways, those stresses take time and space to accumulate, and you have yet to show a shattered column end.



They were cut as part of the demolition into aproximate 40 foot pieces.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1233383

The interior box columns surrounded the concrete core walls and were fastened to it. This was where lateral and torsion load were transferred to the concrete from the steel framework.

spire

Concrete shear wall to left of interior box column, the "spire"

concrete shear wall



salvage cuts onth efar ends explosive shear on the near ends.

Sheared Columns

notice there is no concrete on your core columns of steel

just steel, no concrete

you are the best at proving a steel core I have seen

 

[Architect]

Heheheh. What a loser. He's stopped talking to me......what's wrong Chris, questions too tough?

Doubtless you'll dress this up in some endless "fraud" accusation, despite bona fides being proven already, rather than actually go for a substantive response. Heheheheh.

 

[Christophera]

a quick sum-up of this thread. feel free to add any other relevant points i've missed, i'm sure there are many more . i'll then update the list and remind chris now and then :-]

btw chris. the points below are not up discussion. they have all been established in this thread. it's all there mate, go and take a look :-]

christopheras photographic memory..............
he forgets that the PA painted the C4 on the rebar
he forgets how long he's been a welder
he forgets the mohawks age
he forgets when he saw the documentary
he forgets that other nationalities besides american died at the WTC on 9/11

christopheras theory hinges on information from:-
a non-existent documentary
a non-existent book
a non-existent magazine article
and the use of:-
badly compressed altered and inconclusive images
erroneous and crude diagrams
highly selective quotes from mike pecararo
highly selective quotes from willy rodriguez
highly selective quotes from phillip morelli
highly dubious quotes from tony jebson
wrongly defined raw-evidence
plagarised prof steven jones theories

christophera has been shown to be wrong about :-
his "total pulverisation of the towers"
his "free-fall of the towers"
his "mohawk saboteur"
his "c4 coated rebar"
his "erroneous bbc diagram"
his "reinforced concrete walls in basement"
his "the wrong tower fell first"
his "the tops of the towers fell the wrong way"
his "firefighters discussing controlled demolition"
his "powerdown of the WTC"
his "april fool robertson message"
his "molten metal in the basements"

christophera cannot adequately explain (if his theories are correct):-
why there is no sound of thousands of explosions during WTC collapses
why there are no pictures of the concrete core during construction
the lack of whistle-blowers (mohawks, welders, concreters, carpenters, PA employees, union officials, architects, US government employees etc etc.....)
or even why the US government would plan 30 years ahead to destroy the WTC

finally, christophera says:-
that he HAS NOT and WILL NOT read the NIST report
that the "official core" cannot have existed because steel flexes too much when in the proportions of the towers.....
that anyone who disagrees with him must be "disinfo" and support the murders of "3000 americans"
that NOTHING will convince him that the towers did not have a concrete core

BV

Nothing but cognitive distortions. Mostly generalizations. They are applied by BV conversely rather than as direct perceptions of self as cognitive therapy originally applies them.

A large proportion of them are "Should statements" falsely justified with "Disqualifying the positive" regarding the evidence which DOES exist for the concrete core while none, from the demo images. exists for the steel core columns. There is a large degree of expectation for the reader to "Jump to conclusions" based on the aspects of ridicule applied.

In all, BV attempts to construct a "mental filter" forthe reader. If the reader has preconceptions, "attitude", the mental filter works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_distortion

All-or-nothing thinking - Thinking of things in absolute terms, like "always", "every" or "never". Few aspects of human behavior are so absolute. (See false dilemma.)

Overgeneralization - Taking isolated cases and using them to make wide generalizations. (See hasty generalization.)

Mental filter - Focusing exclusively on certain, usually negative or upsetting, aspects of something while ignoring the rest, like a tiny imperfection in a piece of clothing. (See misleading vividness.)

Disqualifying the positive - Continually "shooting down" positive experiences for arbitrary, ad hoc reasons. (See special pleading.)

Jumping to conclusions - Assuming something negative where there is no evidence to support it. Two specific subtypes are also identified:
Mind reading - Assuming the intentions of others.
Fortune telling - Predicting that things will turn out badly. (See slippery slope.)

Magnification and Minimization - Exaggerating negatives and understating positives. Often the positive characteristics of other people are exaggerated and negatives understated. There is one subtype of magnification:

Catastrophizing - Focusing on the worst possible outcome, however unlikely, or thinking that a situation is unbearable or impossible when it is really just uncomfortable.

Emotional reasoning - Making decisions and arguments based on how you feel rather than objective reality. (See appeal to consequences.)

Making should statements - Concentrating on what you think "should" or ought to be rather than the actual situation you are faced with, or having rigid rules which you think should always apply no matter what the circumstances are. (See wishful thinking.)

Labelling - Related to overgeneralization, explaining by naming. Rather than describing the specific behavior, you assign a label to someone or yourself that puts them in absolute and unalterable terms.

Personalization (or attribution) - Assuming you or others directly caused things when that may not have been the case. (See illusion of control.) When applied to others this is an example of blame.

 

[Christophera]

Heheheh. What a loser. He's stoped talking to me......what's wrong Chris, questions too tough?

Doubtless you'll dress this up in some endless "fraud" accusation, despite bona fides being proven already, rather than actually go for a substantive response. Heheheheh.

Rodger Harris answered the question about torsion with common sense, and he doesn't claim to be an architect. So you are either a very bad one, a fake or avoiding an issue fatal to your illogically held position.

From my perspective, an utter waste of time.

Sorry about your knee tho, I know they hurt like hell when that happens.

 

[Architect]

And once again Chris fails to answer points put to him!

On you go, mate - give us all a laugh.

 

[Christophera]

notice there is no concrete on your core columns of steel

just steel, no concrete

you are the best at proving a steel core I have seen

You are by the best wriggler on JREF. BV take note. That is true wriggling.

Those columns were not in the core. They were outside the core and I showed images of them.

the spire

Concrete shear wall to left of interior box column, the "spire"

Concrete wall face behind interio box columns

After the concrete exploded leaving interior box columns standing. Note the floor beams forming the rectangles seen in the constrcuton photo of the "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS"

 

[Christophera]

And once again Chris fails to answer points put to him!

On you go, mate - give us all a laugh.

You confirm you are a fake and a bad architect both.

 

[Architect]

Sorry for not posting much, but I knackered my knee falling down a temp. access tower inside the Beetham Tower on Friday and have only just got a wireless connection sorted out in the house in order that I can post from the old sickbed.

ie on a building site of a (near complete) tall building. Hmmm. And just ask Gravy if I'm real or not, he has all my ARB and RIBA details.

Anyway back to the questions at hand:

Chris has a number of clear problems with his argument:

1. No photographs of the concrete core during construction; given the size and scale of the buildings, it's simply untenable to suggest that they would never exist.

2. His missing (i.e. never existed) BBC and PBS documentary. Given that BBC documentaries tend to get wide coverage, for example in Oz or Canada, this too is quite untenable.

3. His quote from a book which doesn't exist, but even more damning his failure to recognise that this undermines his case.

4. A comprehensive failure to prove that there is or was such a thing as C4 coated reinforcement, which is quite incredible given the number of people involved in the construction of the tower.

5. The acceptance of the steel core and collapse failure mechanism by the worldwide engineering and architectural communities. Again this is dealt with by hand-waving, specifically a suggestion that all of us - even in countries opposed to the US - have been silenced.

6. A failure to address the structural issues around a steel or concrete core, notably some weird unsubstantiated arguments about "torsion",

Any real answers?

 

[Architect]

Sorry about your knee tho, I know they hurt like hell when that happens.

Ta.

 

[bonavada]

You confirm you are a fake and a bad architect both.

chris, where do you get off calling someone a fake? if he is as you say it should be easy for you to refute his allegations and answer his questions huh? your unwillingness seems to indicate your inability and the venomous way you treat his questions shows an odd fear of his postings here. what are you afraid of?

architect has already stated many times that he has provided evidence of his qualifications here. i have no reason to doubt that. how about you do the same? please provide, as architect has done, evidence of your qualifications as a surveyor, welder, and in the use of demolition explosives.................

BV

 

[Architect]

The sig alone will confirm to anyone else in the UK construction industry a working knowledge of construction contracts (JCT, if anyone is interested).

The only reason I gave the details to Gravy for verification, rather than posting, was to avoid getting spammed at work.

 

[beachnut]

You are by the best wriggler on JREF. BV take note. That is true wriggling.

Those columns were not in the core. They were outside the core and I showed images of them.

the spire

Concrete shear wall to left of interior box column, the "spire"

Concrete wall face behind interio box columns

After the concrete exploded leaving interior box columns standing. Note the floor beams forming the rectangles seen in the constrcuton photo of the "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS"

As I said you web site proves there is no concrete core.

I use it to help other see there is just a steel core.

Your web site proves there is not a concrete core. This is a very simple fact. Check it out.

C4 was never built into the WTC, the union would not let it happen, nor did Robertson, the stuctual engineer.

 

[bonavada]

You are by the best wriggler on JREF. BV take note. That is true wriggling.

no, sorry chris you win by a fkn mile

BV

 

[Christophera]

chris, where do you get off calling someone a fake? if he is as you say it should be easy for you to refute his allegations and answer his questions huh? your unwillingness seems to indicate your inability and the venomous way you treat his questions shows an odd fear of his postings here. what are you afraid of?

architect has already stated many times that he has provided evidence of his qualifications here. i have no reason to doubt that. how about you do the same? please provide, as architect has done, evidence of your qualifications as a surveyor, welder, and in the use of demolition explosives.................

BV

His questions have all been answered. All he has to do is read the thread.

When he evaded, refused, to answer the questions about how much resitence to torsion core columns add to a square tower with comprised of perimeter box columns as were the twin towers, his insincerity was emphasized.

It is absurd to think that columns made of steel can add any resistence to torsion when steel perimeter walls twice as wide already exist. Rodger Harris stated that matter of factly with simple logic.

I am unlicensed in everything I do, so I can't provide evidence of qualifications that you would find acceptable other than images of my equipment while I work. What 9-11 is going to do is show the world that our dependence on "government" verification of ability is a serious mistake and a symptom of our dumbed down state.

All professional status will be subject to public review of performance and nothing will be taken for granted again. That is IF we can continue as a society from our present position of deep ignorance and gullibility.

 

[Christophera]

As I said you web site proves there is no concrete core.

I use it to help other see there is just a steel core.

Your web site proves there is not a concrete core. This is a very simple fact. Check it out.

C4 was never built into the WTC, the union would not let it happen, nor did Robertson, the stuctual engineer.

The original text monger. No evidence of anything.

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

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

 

[Architect]

It is absurd to think that columns made of steel can add any resistence to torsion when steel perimeter walls twice as wide already exist. Rodger Harris stated that matter of factly with simple logic.

Very funny.

It all acts together like a box girder. Material is pretty much imaterial, as long as the steel sections have the right strength.

 

[uruk]

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3108&st=9390

Perhaps you do not know how to search.

A one time, unregistered post on April 1st. Yep That's an April fools joke if i ever saw one.

Or, ......... the steel core columns did not exist, then they do not have to get cut up.

One thig is D@mm sure, 47, 1300 foot steel columns are never seen in ANY of the demo images. Only interior box columns. The elevator guide rail suppport steel is so flimsy it fell to the bottom of the core immediately.

99% of the steel fell immediatly to the bottom of one tower and 100% in the other. How fast the steel fell has no bearing on wether the core columns were elevator rail guides or not Chris. This is a meaningless point of argument. You have to show me proof, such as diagrams and photos of other installations of elevators that show elevator rail guides that big.

 

[Big Les]

I went to the same school as Kirsty Wark, which isn't the one she says she went to, for what it's worth.......but I'd rather have gone to school with Terry. Less shrill on the ear drums, I would imagine.

Well I went to university with Will Young, AND I've met the Chuckle Brothers. Beat that.