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

[uruk]

I tell you exactly what I think they do and that agrees with;

August Domel, Jr., Ph.D., S.E., P.E. November 2001
http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf

http://www.delta.tudelft.nl/archief/j33/n27/3664

Berenbak is now amazed that the two WTC towers didn't collapse immediately after the collisions. ''Apparently, the WTC had an enormous redundancy. Which other building could survive such a crash?'' The fireproof concrete core, hard as rock, probably prevented the building from coming down at once. Every Dutch building would have collapsed, he says, ''because we work with bearing outer walls.''

But you do not tell me what you think the images represent, or at least not in a reasonable, logical fashion



You have no web site and no evidence and no reasonable explanation for the evidence I have which agrees with the statements of many uninterested parties.

You are wrong, ........ and you loose.

The Domel paper was already adimtted to be in error. And if Someone like Domel can be in error, so can some dutch guy.
NIST has a very plausable explination. Pitty you refuse to read it.
Other people here and myself have post many, many websites that specifcally mention the steel core.
So quit lying

Enough stalling and evading Chris.
Show me proof that the interior core columns are elevator guides
And show me Tony Jebson's core being built ahead of the steel.

Your constant evading just makes you look worse.

 

[uruk]

You are supposed to SHOW how they came down not refer to the same old tired lies that explain nothing.

One image shows a h@ll of a lot more than Tony Jebson says should be there.

The Concrete Core of WTC 2​

People far smarter that I have already done the hard work, research and investigation. I can't explain it any better than they can. You have never shown anything in the NIST report to be a lie. In fact you admitted to never having read it, so how can you say it's a lie if you haven't even read it? Your typical dishonesty.
What have you done? Cut and past text and pictures, mislable pictures. Cherry pick and quote out of context. make up evidence.


Quit running scared Chris. Tony Jebson said he saw the concrete core during construction. Show me a picture of the core during construction. If Jebson is right You shouldn't have a problem. After all I showed you a picture during construction. Why can't you?

 

[Bell]

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

Perhaps you do not know how to search.

There, how hard was that?

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

Anyway, blowing up an alleged concrete core with 3" rebar on 4' centers would not produce noice and shrapnell?

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.

We showed you pleny. That your brain can't comprehend that, is your problem. Also, I don't think Otis would agree. The elevators ran for some 30 years, without them crashing down.

No. you are trying to say that is what I am saying.

Correct, you said:

We saw nice big billowy well contained blasts.

But now you are weasling your way out and saying:

I am saying these nice billowy debris cloudes/waves can only be created by optimally contained, uniformly distributed high explosives. Doing so respects the truth of those innocent peoples lives and endeavors to use the truth to protect more lives.

No, it respects nothing. When you say the billowy blast, or billowy debris clouds (which is it, Chris?) are nice, you are saying that looking at the blast, or debris (which is it, Chris?) is nice. These clouds are part of the collapse that killed hundreds of innocent people. How is the look of that nice? Don't you respect the victims?

 

[Bell]

Also, you lying, delusional [rule8], what explosives caused the side of the building to buckle inwards? Why don't I hear explosives going off? Why don't I hear explosives going of in the alleged concrete core after the rest of the building came down?

Remember, hundreds of people were killed when this happened...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546

More video's of the South Tower's collapse...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8564772103237441151

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Your brain is failing. This image shows an interior box columns standing. The rest wer all cut like this.

You've been claiming that the proof of a concrete core was that no columns were visible. Now you're claiming that columns were visible (which they were). So which do you actually believe?

Again, your brain is failing cognition. The interior box columns were cut with built in demolition charges. The concrete core, at completion was designed to take only 20% percent of the active load. The interior box columns were cut with Cutting charges built into the floors and so were cut without major visible action associated with cutting steel without very well contained charges.

You have no evidence for cutting charges other than your speculation involving a non-existent documentary.

What is the evidence for the 20% figure? What that in your "documentary" also?

The spire "IS" a column (interior box column) and it is attached to floor beams.

Maybe a core column?

 

[Christophera]

Concrete
​

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4462&stc=1&d=1165814495

In the left silhouette "A" is the entire center piece, in the right "A" is only the forms of the actual wall running perpendicular to the long axis core wall face we view. The outer forms of the core are not in place yet so we can see light along where the concrete will be.

"D" on the right is the right side of the center piece formed and "C" is the partially formed left side of the center piece.

In the left image "B "is the total left side of the core.

In the left image you can see that the center piece is missing which shows that the core was cast in pieces.

NOW,

Explain how these images show steel core columns.

 

[Christophera]

You've been claiming that the proof of a concrete core was that no columns were visible. Now you're claiming that columns were visible (which they were). So which do you actually believe?

You feign confusion trying to induce confusion in the reader. Shame on you.

Interior box columns were the only columns visible.

You have no evidence for cutting charges other than your speculation involving a non-existent documentary.

I do have evidence and you have failed to address it. You have not explained how these cuts were done at ground zero if they are NOT cuts from high explosive shear inthe demolition.

Sheared Columns

 

[Christophera]

Also, you lying, delusional [rule8], what explosives caused the side of the building to buckle inwards? Why don't I hear explosives going off? Why don't I hear explosives going of in the alleged concrete core after the rest of the building came down?

Remember, hundreds of people were killed when this happened...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546

More video's of the South Tower's collapse...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8564772103237441151

You don't hear explosions because the audio was turned down at some point. Also the rapid delays sound like a rumble rather than distinct explosions. The second 2 are so far away that the more proximal sounds overpower the rumbling.


These emergency professional heard plenty of detonations.


http://algoxy.com/psych/images/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg

 

[Christophera]

Anyway, blowing up an alleged concrete core with 3" rebar on 4' centers would not produce noice and shrapnell?

No, it is all contained. Changes the character of high explosive totally.

No, it respects nothing. When you say the billowy blast, or billowy debris clouds (which is it, Chris?) are nice, you are saying that looking at the blast, or debris (which is it, Chris?) is nice. These clouds are part of the collapse that killed hundreds of innocent people. How is the look of that nice? Don't you respect the victims?

Get real, my choice of words has nothing to do with my action of trying to gain reasonable recognition of evidence from you. Your distortion of my words actually shows disrespect for the loss of life because you seek to justify a BS lie covering for murderers, whereas my use of words simply shows that I'm searching for words to carry meaning over and over because YOU ARE NOT RECOGNIZING the meaning of the words I first used, like "uniform".

You are sick.

 

[Christophera]

People far smarter that I have already done the hard work, research and investigation. I can't explain it any better than they can. You have never shown anything in the NIST report to be a lie. In fact you admitted to never having read it, so how can you say it's a lie if you haven't even read it? Your typical dishonesty.
What have you done? Cut and past text and pictures, mislable pictures. Cherry pick and quote out of context. make up evidence.


Quit running scared Chris. Tony Jebson said he saw the concrete core during construction. Show me a picture of the core during construction. If Jebson is right You shouldn't have a problem. After all I showed you a picture during construction. Why can't you?

More bogus evasion. The evidence I have is selected because it shows distinct structural elements. Are you suggesting I should try to show the existence of the concrete core with images that I know do not show it. GET REAL!

The NIST product explains nothing, that is why I don't read it. Besides. I have you monkeys to chatter all that nonsense to me.

Your selectivity shows you are simply acting to disinform when you do not use available information.

This is 500 feet tall of steel reinforced concrete core. If it is not steel reinforced concrete, what is it?

What is it?​

That is the question NO ONE HERE has ever answered reasonably.

 

[Z]

That is the question NO ONE HERE has ever answered reasonably.

Edited by tim: 

Please remain courteous.

BTW - the ex says hi.

 

[Christophera]

This is 500 feet tall of steel reinforced concrete core. If it is not steel reinforced concrete, what is it?

What is it?​

That is the question NO ONE HERE has ever answered reasonably.

Correction: it's been answered plenty of times, quite correctly.

Noticed BIGTIME that you did not provide a few words describing the answer. Do that please.

ON EDIT:So you cannot pretend confusion I've edited and added the question you claim has been answeed "plenty of times".

 

[Z]

Later, Chris. Whenever you stop pissing in the wind and promoting your whack-job website, and start actually doing something about these alleged beliefs you're espousing, I'll start paying attention. However, your lies and hand-waving have become tiresome. You are no longer amusing; just boring and dull.

Do the world a favor - either get off your lazy ass and do something about this 'evidence', or take a short trip to the Hunting Grounds.

 

[hcmom]

If it is not steel reinforced concrete, what is it?

A building collapsing.

That is the question NO ONE HERE has ever answered reasonably.

I doubt you're going to get anyone here to answer you more reasonably than I am...

 

[bonavada]

These emergency professional heard plenty of detonations.
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg

what about this one?



BV

 

[Garb]

You don't hear explosions because the audio was turned down at some point. Also the rapid delays sound like a rumble rather than distinct explosions. The second 2 are so far away that the more proximal sounds overpower the rumbling.


These emergency professional heard plenty of detonations.


http://algoxy.com/psych/images/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg

Loose Change 2nd cut. 10 minutes in, they have a clip of a reporter at the base of the tower just as it collapses. No explosions. Where in that does the audio get turned down?

 

[Big Al]

Once more, Chris: How would the Oxford University Press, a British academic publishing house, get involved with U.S. Government skulduggery to remove allevidence of a book, just because it mentioned in one tiny section a concrete core?

Also, you haven't answered why such anomalies as this book and the supposed PBS documentary were ever alowed to go out in the first place with the "non-sanctioned" info. If the guilty parties made sure from Day 1 that the only official story was that the Twin Towers had steel cores, how come they told OUP and PBS the wrong story?

If so many well-known records from before 9/11 mention the steel core (even I knew that), how come the OUP compilers and the PBS documentary crew didn't hear of them? The book and the documentary don't seem to have caused so many waves that anyone but you has heard of them,. so why did the authorities suddenly feel the need to yank them? I would have thought they'd have been famous for going against the party line.

 

[Architect]

Just as an aside, and to confirm the above, I checked Abebooks.co.uk (it's an excellent second hand book site) and they have no record of it either; my oh my are these Yank government agents good!!

 

[Bell]

Concrete
​

<spam>

In the left silhouette "A" is the entire center piece, in the right "A" is only the forms of the actual wall running perpendicular to the long axis core wall face we view. The outer forms of the core are not in place yet so we can see light along where the concrete will be.

"D" on the right is the right side of the center piece formed and "C" is the partially formed left side of the center piece.

In the left image "B "is the total left side of the core.

In the <spam> left image you can see that the center piece is missing which shows that the core was cast in pieces.

NOW,

Explain how these images show steel core columns.

Bolding mine.

You explained quite nicely yourself, thank you. You say the concrete was not yet in place. Which makes me wonder, since you stated it was cast 7 floors behind (or above, which is it, Chris?) the rest of the building. You say the concrete core was needed to give the building stability. So in your view the south tower, where the concrete core has yet to be cast, could not have stand.

 

[Bell]

You don't hear explosions because the audio was turned down at some point. Also the rapid delays sound like a rumble rather than distinct explosions.

Where was the audio turned down exactly? Also, how do you make explosions sound like rumble?