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

[JonnyFive]

I asked for that pages back, Jonny. Totally ignored, of course. As for Chris' physics and maths experience... OK, Chris, what physical property of a material is defined as stress over strain?

Yeah, I know. I figured I'd ask again in case it slipped past his filter that apparently allows him to only see 2% of what we say, and respond to .05%. ::Le Sigh::

I know the answer (because I'm a freaking genius and can do simple research when I hear something unfamiliar), but I'd love to hear him give it a shot. It should be easy, as he is apparently more qualified to evaluate the collapse than every other engineer, architect, and demolitions expert in the world.

But wait, he "worked with demolitions" in some vague way. EXPERT!

 

[Christophera]

FIRSTLY........excellent piece of draughtsmanship on the below chris. is this the high standard that makes you the preferred option above those over-qualified elite professionals?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4462&d=1165814495[/qimg]

those images do not show steel core columns chris because the pics are taken at a goodly distance. is it too hard for you to comprehend that? what the images do show are lift shafts.

not the only thing that's in peices. your concrete core theory is shattered by your own words........

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/8748457c7ea70c448.jpg[/qimg]

BV

Do you have some other way to show steel core columns in the towers? Images from the towers demise are the best because the core area is totally exposed in many shots.

Construction photos showing steel in the core area simply show the steel support for lift shafts or they would still be there in the images of the towers demise because the supposed steel core columns would be very strong and survive to be seen in some way.

 

[Big Al]

Construction photos showing steel in the core area simply show the steel support for lift shafts or they would still be there in the images of the towers demise because the supposed steel core columns would be very strong and survive to be seen in some way.

And you know this from experience of the collapse of what other steel-cored skyscraper hit by a fully-fuelled airliner at 400mph?

The whole idea is that the fire WEAKENED the steel, so it could no longer support the weight above.

 

[Christophera]

Tell me why on earth would they build only one side of the concrete core going up all those floors before starting on the next wall?
Wouldn't you logicaly build all four walls of the core on one floor before you start on the next floor?
Your explinations are becoming more and rediculous as you try to fit your clearly incorrect hypothesis with evidence that clearly shows you to be wrong.
Your dishonesty is staggering.

WTC 2 had a very different concrete core design from WTC 1. It was comprised of shear wall cells divided by a full height wall cutting the long axis of the core in half and could have been constructed in portions rather than the entire footprint, which would explain why they could erect more steel before the core had to catch up.

The reason they would do it is that they could get more height quicker which would make the exterior tower ridgid and safe to erect more steel faster.

 

[Christophera]

And you know this from experience of the collapse of what other steel-cored skyscraper hit by a fully-fuelled airliner at 400mph?

The whole idea is that the fire WEAKENED the steel, so it could no longer support the weight above.

Heat goes up and your explanation does nothing to illuminate why both towers collapsed all the way to the ground almost identically. The strcuture below was undamaged and was designed to support the loads above.

 

[JonnyFive]

Do you have some other way to show steel core columns in the towers? Images from the towers demise are the best because the core area is totally exposed in many shots.

Construction photos showing steel in the core area simply show the steel support for lift shafts or they would still be there in the images of the towers demise because the supposed steel core columns would be very strong and survive to be seen in some way.

Images from the tower demise with the dust, debris, smoke, chaos, and confusion in a highly dynamic situation involving the massive failure and collapse of enormous skyscrapers are best?

Wait, I thought they were elevator guides rails. Or was it MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS?

What makes you qualified to say that steel supports would have survived a collapse of this sort? Is this the part where you tell me your engineering, mathematics, and physics knowledge with specific details?

Let me remind you that you are the one contradicting all the other structural engineers, so you really need to bring some meat to this table, rather than the straw you've brought so far.

 

[beachnut]

Heat goes up and your explanation does nothing to illuminate why both towers collapsed all the way to the ground almost identically. The strcuture below was undamaged and was designed to support the loads above.

No the building below could not handle over 50,000 tons moving, wrong again.

Your web site is still the best way to debunk the concrete core.

Glad you do not design buildings; sad you do not understand physics.

 

[jhunter1163]

Heat goes up and your explanation does nothing to illuminate why both towers collapsed all the way to the ground almost identically. The strcuture below was undamaged and was designed to support the loads above.

Ooooh! Oooooh! Let me answer this one!

The structure was designed to support a STATIC (or nearly so) load. STATIC in this context means not moving in relation to the rest of the tower. Once the supports started failing, the load became DYNAMIC. DYNAMIC, in this context, means the load was moving relative to the rest of the tower. A DYNAMIC load of the mass of, say, 20 floors of WTC will have WAY more kinetic energy than a STATIC load of the same mass (I know a static load has zero kinetic energy, but work with me here) and thus will WAY exceed the tolerances built into the floors below, thus causing global structural failure.

Am I right, Architect? Do I win a cookie?

 

[Bell]

WTC 2 had a very different concrete core design from WTC 1. It was comprised of shear wall cells divided by a full height wall cutting the long axis of the core in half and could have been constructed in portions rather than the entire footprint, which would explain why they could erect more steel before the core had to catch up.

The reason they would do it is that they could get more height quicker which would make the exterior tower ridgid and safe to erect more steel faster.

And where is your evidence of all of this?

We will be sticking with the AVAILABLE evidence.

 

[uruk]

Chris. I'm not going to let you go on this one.

Here's what you posted on post #5607

"this guy saw the very beginning where the core was formed standing free and the steel went up around it. After 5 or 6 floors a person on the street wouldn't be able to see so his account of the process is not correct.

Here's the full post #8960

Excellent. I knew we could find a picture of the WTC 2 steel being built ahead of the core. The mistakes of WTC 1 processes were not repeated.

Below is a usenet comment which descibes what I saw in the 1990 documentary called "Construction of the Twin Towers". The WTC 1 core was constructed ahead of the steel erection. After thinking about it I realized I would have built the steel frame first and used it to align the elevator guide rails.

The docuemntary explained that there was much construction politics around the beginning as the elevator crews basically controlled the process as contracts stated that "elevators were to be given a priority and other trades were to work to get elevators as far up as possible", or some such language.

Constructon politics, being what they are could definitely lead to what was seen by some passer by below and what I saw in the 1990 documentary. Which was a mistake. The wrong way to start, very time consuming.

Thanks to Bell we have just shown the correct way to start your tower. Pour the core inside AFTER the exterior steel is in position so you can use it to form with and be support for the elevator guide rail supports too.

"Tony Jebson" <jebbo@texas.net> wrote:

>......Apparently, the WTC towers had no internal
>structural columns but relied on the exterior structure for
>support / strength. No doubt the impact of an airplane does
>this no end of harm.
I worked in downtown NY in the late 1960's when the towers were
built! At lunch time we went to the construction site to watch the
progress. And we saw them first buildt an internal thick walled
rectangular concrete core inside which later the elevators ran. The
steel work was erected around this core several floors behind!

-=tom=-

Notice the statements that I bolded.
It's unmistakable Chris. In post 5607 you clearly stated that Jebson was wrong. In post# 8960 you said his account was correct and therefore we should see a concrete core being built ahead of the steel on WTC1.
You can't weasle out of this one Chris.

 

[JonnyFive]

Heat goes up

No, it doesn't.

I think you're thinking of the fact that cold gases, being denser, will sink towards the dominant source of gravity (Earth), while hotter, less dense gases will be pushed up.

"Heat" simply refers to the movement of molecules, atoms, and whatnot that make up all matter.

Also, could you please tell me (because I'm not sure of the answer) which weighs more:
-2.5 steel bars with a diameter of 3" and a length of 4'
-1.1 steel bars with a diameter of 3" and a length of 4'

 

[uruk]

WTC 2 had a very different concrete core design from WTC 1. It was comprised of shear wall cells divided by a full height wall cutting the long axis of the core in half and could have been constructed in portions rather than the entire footprint, which would explain why they could erect more steel before the core had to catch up.

The reason they would do it is that they could get more height quicker which would make the exterior tower ridgid and safe to erect more steel faster.

How does one side of a four sided wall make a structure more rigid? It would sound like the single wall would need the support of the steel structre more than the steel structure needed the support of the concrete wall.

Also can you provide proof that that is way it happened? Because this just sounds like you're making stuff up again.

 

[Belz...]

Belz i am trying to bend a 1/4 inch sheet metal using jet fuel......still no successes.........

And I'm trying real hard to understand your toddler-level english.

can you tell me again how this works?

Easy: NO MELTING.

i dont get it...........why can i bend this 1/4 carbon steel........a minute fraction of the 5inch steel column beams in the world trade center. why is this not working. help me out here.....CAN ANY OF YOU DENIALS PLEASE TELL ME HOW I CAN USE JET FUEL TO BEND THIS 1/4" PLATE STEEL???

Are you sure this relates to 9/11 ?

Lets be clear...........you are saying that it was
1) the impact of the plane the subsequent damage
2) and the heat from the jet fuel that caused its collapse
right?

No. The impact and the fires CAUSED by the jet fuel, that burned thousands of pieces of furniture and other office supplies. You know, the really annoying petroleum-based stuff.

 

[Belz...]

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

Ridiculous. The planes were one of the contributing factors.

Haven't you ever seen something topple several minutes after you clipped it ?

Besides, you know very well the towers had a cast concrete core.

Telling me what you think I know will not help your cause. What you have demonstrated is that low-resolution pictures are worth squat, and that there was a lot of dust during the collapse of the towers. You've also conclusively demonstrated both that : A) calling core columns "box columns" and "elevator guide rails" is a convenient but unconvincing dodge strategy and B) You know next to nothing about building construction and demolition, contra your claims.

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

Because you ignore damage to OTHER walls during the crash. Another convenient AND unconvincing strategy of yours.

Steel reinforced concrete flexes to a degree.

Thanks. TO A DEGREE. But not nearly as much as stell. Am I correct ?

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

We have an image of the top of one of two towers falling the wrong way.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1tiltingfromsouth.jpg

We have the top of the other tower falling the opposite diection of the body. Impossible without explosives.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg

We have an image of plumes of sand and gravel, concrete particulate cascading up and out hundreds of feet.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1plumecascade.jpg

Here is an image of a uniform mushroom shape of puverized concrete from the core and floors extending perhaps 150 feet out from the tower faces.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg

Clearly, you are intentionally making an error by stating I am using one image to prove demolition.

That's because your're confused: that's NOT what I said. You're still doing it, in fact: taking SNAPSHOTS and trying to make them look like they represent the whole, complex collapse event.

 

[Christophera]

Yeah, I know. I figured I'd ask again in case it slipped past his filter that apparently allows him to only see 2% of what we say, and respond to .05%. ::Le Sigh::

I know the answer (because I'm a freaking genius and can do simple research when I hear something unfamiliar), but I'd love to hear him give it a shot. It should be easy, as he is apparently more qualified to evaluate the collapse than every other engineer, architect, and demolitions expert in the world.

But wait, he "worked with demolitions" in some vague way. EXPERT!

Our discussion is about explanations for near free fall and the filter is actually garbage posts by deniers of the truth as substanciated here,

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

regarding the concrete core

 

[Christophera]

Ridiculous. The planes were one of the contributing factors.

Haven't you ever seen something topple several minutes after you clipped it ?

Sure, and the topple stopped at the bottom of the clip. To suggest it would continue down into undamaged areas IS ridiculous.

Telling me what you think I know will not help your cause. What you have demonstrated is that low-resolution pictures are worth squat, and that there was a lot of dust during the collapse of the towers. You've also conclusively demonstrated both that : A) calling core columns "box columns" and "elevator guide rails" is a convenient but unconvincing dodge strategy and B) You know next to nothing about building construction and demolition, contra your claims.

Since you cannot explain your own thoughts about what happened of what is seen where dust is not present in the images, some thing is needed to explain your inanity.

The misrepresentations of the construction images is proven by the lack of core columns in the demolition images so "guide rails" fits way better than "core columns" because those were supposedly very strong.

Because you ignore damage to OTHER walls during the crash. Another convenient AND unconvincing strategy of yours.

You haven't shown that such damage actaully occured. You assume, or generalize, a distortion, that such ocurred. In your presentation this damge extends all the way to the ground, which is absolutely unsupported.

That's because your're confused: that's NOT what I said. You're still doing it, in fact: taking SNAPSHOTS and trying to make them look like they represent the whole, complex collapse event.

Seeing as you have no pictures at all, your assertion simply serves your profound lack of evidence.

The concrete core is well documented from the demolition images.

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

 

[Bell]

Our discussion is about explanations for near free fall and the filter is actually garbage posts by deniers of the truth as substanciated here,

<spam>

regarding the concrete core

No, it is not. Everytime we bring it up, and try to determine how long it took for the towers to collapse, you weasel your way out, by saying the time doesn't matter. But if it doesn't matter, you can't determine if the towers fell near free fall or not. Therefor your discussion is useless.

 

[JonnyFive]

Our discussion is about explanations for near free fall and the filter is actually garbage posts by deniers of the truth as substanciated here,

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

regarding the concrete core

Substantiated, you really need to run this stuff through a spell checker.

You're quick to dismiss questions as garbage, even when they relate directly to your credibility as a source (as you don't cite any others).

So, you're not going to tell me your math, physics, or engineering expertise?

You've already shown you don't appear to understand even basic high school physics, so why should I trust your opinion about the speed of the towers falling, the order they fell in, or anything else related to science?

 

[Bell]

The misrepresentations of the construction images is proven by the lack of core columns in the demolition images so "guide rails" fits way better than "core columns" because those were supposedly very strong.

Yet here you say...

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.

 

[uruk]

I'm not letting you run away from this one Chris.

Here's what you posted on post #5607

Quote:
"this guy saw the very beginning where the core was formed standing free and the steel went up around it. After 5 or 6 floors a person on the street wouldn't be able to see so his account of the process is not correct.

Here's the full post #8960

Quote:
Excellent. I knew we could find a picture of the WTC 2 steel being built ahead of the core. The mistakes of WTC 1 processes were not repeated.

Below is a usenet comment which descibes what I saw in the 1990 documentary called "Construction of the Twin Towers". The WTC 1 core was constructed ahead of the steel erection. After thinking about it I realized I would have built the steel frame first and used it to align the elevator guide rails.

The docuemntary explained that there was much construction politics around the beginning as the elevator crews basically controlled the process as contracts stated that "elevators were to be given a priority and other trades were to work to get elevators as far up as possible", or some such language.

Constructon politics, being what they are could definitely lead to what was seen by some passer by below and what I saw in the 1990 documentary. Which was a mistake. The wrong way to start, very time consuming.

Thanks to Bell we have just shown the correct way to start your tower. Pour the core inside AFTER the exterior steel is in position so you can use it to form with and be support for the elevator guide rail supports too.

"Tony Jebson" <jebbo@texas.net> wrote:

>......Apparently, the WTC towers had no internal
>structural columns but relied on the exterior structure for
>support / strength. No doubt the impact of an airplane does
>this no end of harm.
I worked in downtown NY in the late 1960's when the towers were
built! At lunch time we went to the construction site to watch the
progress. And we saw them first buildt an internal thick walled
rectangular concrete core inside which later the elevators ran. The
steel work was erected around this core several floors behind!

-=tom=-

Notice the statements that I bolded.
It's unmistakable Chris. In post 5607 you clearly stated that Jebson was wrong. In post# 8960 you said his account was correct and therefore we should see a concrete core being built ahead of the steel on WTC1.
You can't weasle out of this one Chris.