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

[Bell]

Also Chris, Mr. Kcin would like to know:

Which is heavier:

- 11 stories of WTC tower
- 25 stories of WTC tower

 

[JonnyFive]

Also Chris, Mr. Kcin would like to know:

Yeah, that'll happen. Perhaps...

Which is heavier, Chris:

-25 Loose Change DVDs
-11 Loose Change DVDs

 

[Christophera]

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

Here's what you posted on post #5607



Here's the full post #8960



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.

The fact remains that what I said is that he was right about the bottom of the core but not about the core after 5 floors because there is no way he could see it.

Cease with efforts of distortion and produce raw images of the steel core columns in the core area from some elevation over the ground during the demoliton.

Here is one that shows rebar, but no steel core columns where they should be if they existed.

 

[Christophera]

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?

Locating evidence has nothing to do with what you are attempting with discussion. Or, ....... if you had any evidence you would use it.

Here is the top of WTC 2, with the concrete core inside the perimeter walls falling on WTC 3

 

[Bell]

The fact remains that what I said is that he was right about the bottom of the core but not about the core after 5 floors because there is no way he could see it.

Where is the concrete, Chris?

edit: webpage here
7th picture from the top.

 

[Bell]

Here is <spam> the top of WTC 2, with the concrete core inside the perimeter walls falling on WTC 3

We have been through this before Chris (congrats on your photographic memory). The top op the South Tower fell to the EAST, the Marriott hotel was on the WEST side. Stop lying.

 

[uruk]

The fact remains that what I said is that he was right about the bottom of the core but not about the core after 5 floors because there is no way he could see it.

Nope, What you said:

"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."

you then later used his account to corroberate your "documentary".:

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.

At any rate, the core of WTC1 should have been visible in the aerial photographs. But they are not.

Cease with efforts of distortion and produce raw images of the steel core columns in the core area from some elevation over the ground during the demoliton.

I'm not distorting. I'm showing the truth. If you can't handle it or unwilling to admit the truth, that's not my fault. But i'm not going to let you brush it away and pretend it didn't happen.
How about you show a picture of the WTC1 concrete core under construction. I'll even accept an areial view. According to you, Jebson and your documentary, you should have no trouble at this.

Here is one that shows rebar, but no steel core columns where they should be if they existed.

Why should I believe your interpretation when you can't honestly admit to a mistake and a lie?

 

[hcmom]

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

Chris, did you never build a house with playing cards?

 

[uruk]

Where is the concrete, Chris?

edit: webpage here
7th picture from the top.

Excellent website. It even explains how the steel core, floor connections and the outer steel structure resisted wind loads.

Try reading the website Chris. Or are you scared?

 

[Bell]

And by the way, Chris, you STILL didn't address the buckling...

what explosives caused the side of the building to buckle inwards?

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

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

The fact remains that what I said is that he was right about the bottom of the core but not about the core after 5 floors because there is no way he could see it.

That isn't what you said.

Cease with efforts of distortion and produce raw images of the steel core columns in the core area from some elevation over the ground during the demoliton.

Here is one that shows rebar, but no steel core columns where they should be if they existed.

The 30 inch rebar again. And how many were in a line?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Locating evidence has nothing to do with what you are attempting with discussion. Or, ....... if you had any evidence you would use it.

Here is the top of WTC 2, with the concrete core inside the perimeter walls falling on WTC 3

How can you tell that it's concrete and from the core. Oh, that's right. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Technology and Innovation says that if it's gray then it has to be concrete from the core.

 

[Christophera]

How can you tell that it's concrete and from the core. Oh, that's right. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Technology and Innovation says that if it's gray then it has to be concrete from the core.

Reasonably, by default, when not offering a more reasonable explanation, the explanation provided is the one that stands if it is congruent with conditions.

The scale etablished from an image of an interior box column, another image from the same camera a second later, shows the large steel columns gone and 3"many fine vertical elements in place, slightly lower, must be rebar because there is an image from the opposite direction which shows a concrete shear wall when the large steel column steel stands.

 

[Christophera]

That isn't what you said.



The 30 inch rebar again. And how many were in a line?

You do support the steel core columns do you not?

Please produce some evidence to support their existence beside misrepresented constrcuton images which are show to depict vertical steel in the core area far too insubstancial to be core columns as they ar never seen after the demoliton begins.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Reasonably, by default, when not offering a more reasonable explanation, the explanation provided is the one that stands if it is congruent with conditions.

It could be concrete from the floor. It might not even be concrete. In any event, it doesn't look thick enough to be a building core.

The scale etablished from an image of an interior box column, another image from the same camera a second later, shows the large steel columns gone and 3"many fine vertical elements in place, slightly lower, must be rebar because there is an image from the opposite direction which shows a concrete shear wall when the large steel column steel stands.

The second image was taken from a longer distance than the first image, so of course the columns LOOK smaller. The buildings look smaller, too.

 

[Christophera]

Nope, What you said:

you then later used his account to corroberate your "documentary".:

At any rate, the core of WTC1 should have been visible in the aerial photographs. But they are not.

I'm not distorting. I'm showing the truth. If you can't handle it or unwilling to admit the truth, that's not my fault. But i'm not going to let you brush it away and pretend it didn't happen.
How about you show a picture of the WTC1 concrete core under construction. I'll even accept an areial view. According to you, Jebson and your documentary, you should have no trouble at this.

Why should I believe your interpretation when you can't honestly admit to a mistake and a lie?

If you can't find raw evidence to support the steel core columns, just say so.

you are doing you best to twist what has been said and it is not working because I do have raw evidence to support the concrete core. Here is and image which shows the base of the core wall between the interior box columns and a stariwell.. If steel core columns existed, some would be seen around the stairs.

Then there is the area where the core wall footing went between the elevator pits and the footings for the interior box columns.

 

[Christophera]

It could be concrete from the floor. It might not even be concrete. In any event, it doesn't look thick enough to be a building core.

Proportionately it looks about 4 feet thick, which is about right for that elevation in the core wall.

The scale etablished from an image of an interior box column, another image from the same camera a second later, shows the large steel columns gone and 3"many fine vertical elements in place, slightly lower, must be rebar because there is an image from the opposite direction which shows a concrete shear wall when the large steel column steel stands.

The second image was taken from a longer distance than the first image, so of course the columns LOOK smaller. The buildings look smaller, too.

"another image from the same camera a second later"

the second image was taken from the same distance without the zoom and proportionately the fine vertical elements are much smaller. Then this other shot taken from the opposite side at about the same time as the first showing the large column from the opposite side, which also shows the column, shows a lighter colored wall behind the interior box columns. That image is matched by one taken 90 degrees to the left showing an end view of the same concrete wall.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

You do support the steel core columns do you not?

Please produce some evidence to support their existence beside misrepresented constrcuton images which are show to depict vertical steel in the core area far too insubstancial to be core columns as they ar never seen after the demoliton begins.

You said that the concrete core only supported 20% of the load. Therefore, the "interior box columns" must have supported 80% of the load (100 - 20 = 80). This means that the "interior box columns" would have had to be pretty "substantial".

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Proportionately it looks about 4 feet thick, which is about right for that elevation in the core wall.

It doesn't look anywhere close to 4 feet thick to me.

"another image from the same camera a second later"

the second image was taken from the same distance without the zoom and proportionately the fine vertical elements are much smaller. Then this other shot taken from the opposite side at about the same time as the first showing the large column from the opposite side, which also shows the column, shows a lighter colored wall behind the interior box columns. That image is matched by one taken 90 degrees to the left showing an end view of the same concrete wall.

That was a mighty fast cameraman if he could have moved that far and lined up another photo in a second (note the position of the man in shorts and white shirt in the 2 images). Regardless, the width of the columns relative to the width of features in the buildings in the foreground seems to be about the same, so I think that it is reasonable that they are both images of the same type of object.

 

[Christophera]

It doesn't look anywhere close to 4 feet thick to me.

Well, .. the interior box columns were 2 feet. It looks twice as thick to me.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg

That was a mighty fast cameraman if he could have moved that far and lined up another photo in a second (note the position of the man in shorts and white shirt in the 2 images). Regardless, the width of the columns relative to the width of features in the buildings in the foreground seems to be about the same, so I think that it is reasonable that they are both images of the same type of object.

There are many objects to the right of the tallest element in the lower elevation, second image. The first image is very plumns with no arc as well.

http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg]and below the spire

http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg